四分律行事鈔資持記 2.205

2.205

結示中。向引諸文，雖是雙證；正欲對破有部計色，所以文中，但結非色；非心之義，既無所對，何假證成，故不言也。（舊云文略者，未善此意。）上且依論而示，克論體相，未甚精詳；至於《業疏》，方陳正義，乃有三宗，今略引示。凡欲考體，須識三宗造義淺深，兩乘教相差別；纖毫無濫，始可論體。初明有宗，當分小教。彼謂小機力劣，不約心論；善惡二業，皆由色造；能造是色，所發亦色；故作無作，竝色為體。彼部宗師，雖多解判，未善權意；故至《業疏》，的指體相，方為盡理。故疏文云：如律明業，天眼所見；善色惡色，善趣惡趣，隨所造行，如實知之；以斯文證，正明業體是色法也。又云：然此色體，與中陰同，微細難知，唯天眼見；見有相貌，善惡歷然；豈約塵對，用通色性；諸師橫判分別所由，考其業量，意言如此。（故知彼論，但計無對法入假色。指為細色，獨出今疏。）二明本宗《成論》，過分小乘；教雖是小，義乖小道；雖通大乘，非全大教；比前為勝，望後還劣，是故立體兩楹之間。初明作戒，色心能造；色是本教，心即過分；及論所發非色非心，非色過分，非心本教。《大集》所謂曇無德師，覆隱法藏；《戒疏》亦云：包括權實，其義在茲。若論作戒，猶可循文；獨茲無作，歷代沈喪，故須顯示。非色非心，得名多別；二對作釋，如上成宗。二翻作釋，疏云：由作初起，必假色心；無作後發，異於前緣，故強目之非色心耳。三簡教釋，非色簡小，非心讓大。四迭廢釋，作戒，云身口是具，無作名非色，即對廢有宗二戒；又言：非心，自廢本宗作戒。五遣疑釋，初疑作既假具，必應是色，故言非色；及解無作，乃云心起；又疑是心，故云非心。若論其體，既是心成，體豈他物；但由教限，不可濫通；教既是權，體寧從實。且如《成論》，言色則無記頑色，談心則六識妄心；是以非色，則云非塵大所成；非心，乃謂體非緣慮；良由善性記業，比色全乖；業體無知，與心實異。究論體貌，實唯心業；但不談種子，故名非色；不說梨耶，故言非心。故《業疏》云：考其業體，本由心主（從作起故）；還熏本心（本心即六識，望作云還。），有能有用（能謂牽後，用即對防。）；心道冥昧，止可名通；故約色心，窮出體性（兼緣義也）；各以五義，求之不得（不相應也）；不知何目，強號非二（兩求不得，不可名而名，故云強號。若在彼宗，但計非二；纔云強號，即顯教權。須知強號之言，始見今疏。）。三圓教者，即大乘義。前之二釋，俱不了教；故《涅槃》中，或色非色，俱為諍論；如來明判，不解我意；是以祖師，深取大乘圓實了義；決開權教，顯示我等壇場受體；意使修持，投心有處。今分為二，初示圓體。即明梨耶隨緣變造，含藏種子。初明能造，還即六識；但依八起，即異小乘；縱有兼色，此色亦心，不同小宗心色體別。二明所發，即心所造；善根種子，藏識所持，隨心無絕。如《楞伽》中，識海識浪；浪從海起，還復海中；浪無別浪，還即海水；能造所發，全體是識，更無別法。當知此種，色相具足，故說為色；不同塵大，復無覺知，故說非二。隨宜方便，悟入為先；大小權實，極須精考。故《業疏》云：智知境緣，本是心作；不妄緣境，但唯一識；隨緣轉變，有彼有此；欲了妄情，須知妄業；故作法受還熏妄心，於本藏識，成善種子，此戒體也。二明圓修者。既知受體，當發心時，為成三聚；故於隨行，隨持一戒，禁惡不起，即攝律儀；用智觀察，即攝善法；無非將護，即攝眾生。因成三行，果獲三佛。由受起隨，從因至果；斯實行者出家學本，方契如來設教本懷。故《業疏》云：是故行人，常思此行，即三聚等。又云：終歸大乘，故須域心於處；又云：既知此意，當護如命如浮囊。略提大綱，餘廣如彼。咨爾後學，微細研詳。且五濁深纏，四蛇未脫；與鬼畜而同處，為苦惱之交煎；豈得不念清昇，坐守塗炭。縱有修奉，不得其門，徒務勤劬，終無所詣。若乃盡無窮之生死，截無邊之業非，破無始之昏惑，證無上之法身者；唯戒一門，最為要術。諸佛稱歎，遍在羣經；諸祖弘持，盛於前代；當須深信，勿自遲疑。固當以受體為雙眸，以隨行為兩足；受隨相副，雖萬行而可成。目足更資，雖千里而必至。自非同道，夫復何言。悲夫！

In concluding and pointing this out: the passages cited above, though providing dual proof, are specifically intended to refute the Sarvāstivāda school's assertion that it is form; therefore, the text only concludes with "non-form." As for the meaning of "non-mind," since there was no opposing view to confront, why would one need to verify it? Hence, it is not mentioned. (Those ancient commentators who said the text was merely abbreviated have failed to grasp this intention.) The above explanation was merely presented in reliance on the treatise; when examining the essence and characteristics strictly, it was not yet extremely detailed and thorough. It was not until the Karma Commentary that the orthodox meaning was set forth, wherein three schools were identified; I now briefly cite and indicate them. Whenever one wishes to investigate the essence, one must recognize the depth and shallowness of the meanings constructed by the three schools, as well as the differences in doctrinal characteristics between the two vehicles; only when there is not the slightest confusion can the essence be discussed. First, clarifying the Substantial [Dharma] School: this corresponds to the Hinayana teaching. They held that those of lesser capacity have weak faculties and thus do not discuss it in terms of the mind; both wholesome and unwholesome karma are created by form. That which creates is form, and that which is generated is also form; hence, both active and non-active have form as their essence. Although the masters of that school produced many explanations and judgments, they did not grasp the expedient intention; thus, when it came to the Karma Commentary, the essence and marks were precisely pointed out, which for the first time fully exhausted the principle. Therefore, the commentary states: "As the Vinaya clarifies karma as seen by the divine eye: wholesome form and unwholesome form, wholesome destinies and unwholesome destinies, known as they truly are according to the deeds performed—using this textual proof, it directly clarifies that the karmic essence is a physical phenomenon." It also says: "However, this physical essence is identical to the intermediate existence (antarābhava); being subtle and minute, it is difficult to perceive, visible only to the divine eye. One sees it having appearance and marks, with wholesome and unwholesome distinctly evident. How could it be considered form based on contact with sense data? The various masters have arbitrarily judged and distinguished its source; examining the scope of their karma, their meaning seems to be like this." (Thus we know that their treatise merely asserted non-resistant dharmāyatana imputed form. Identifying it as subtle form originated solely in the present commentary.) Second, clarifying our own school's Tattvasiddhi-śāstra, which exceeds the Hinayana: although its teaching is Hinayana, its meaning departs from the Hinayana path; although it accesses the Mahāyāna, it is not completely the Great Teaching. Compared to the former, it is superior; looking forward to the latter, it is inferior; therefore, its establishment of the essence stands between the two pillars. First, clarifying the active precept: form and mind are able to create it. Form belongs to the basic teaching, whereas mind represents that which exceeds it. As for discussing that which is generated as neither form nor mind: non-form exceeds it, while non-mind belongs to the basic teaching. This is what the Mahāsaṃnipāta-sūtra refers to when saying that the master Dharmaguptaka veiled and concealed the treasury of dharmas. The Precept Commentary also states: "Encompassing both the expedient and the real, its meaning lies herein." As for the active precept, one can still follow the text; but as for this non-active alone, it has been lost and submerged through successive generations, so it must be revealed. "Neither form nor mind" acquires many different names: 2. Explaining it in contrast to the active, as in the Tattvasiddhi School above. 2. Explaining it by inverting the active: the commentary states, "Because the active initially arises, it must rely on form and mind; the non-active arises subsequently, differing from the preceding conditions, and thus is forcibly designated as neither form nor mind." 3. Explaining it by discriminating the teachings: non-form discriminates it from the Small [Vehicle], while non-mind yields to the Great [Vehicle]. 4. Explaining it through successive elimination: regarding the active precept, it says body and speech are the instruments; the non-active being named non-form eliminates both precepts of the Sarvāstivāda school in contrast; furthermore, saying "non-mind" spontaneously eliminates the active precept of its own school. 5. Explaining it by dispelling doubt: initially doubting that since the active relies on instruments, it must be form, it is therefore called non-form; when explaining the non-active, it is said to arise from the mind; then doubting that it is mind, it is therefore called non-mind. In discussing its essence, since it is accomplished by mind, how could its essence be anything else? It is only due to the limits of the teaching that it must not be promiscuously conflated; since the teaching is expedient, how could its essence follow the ultimate? Take the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra, for example: when speaking of form, it refers to indeterminate inert form; when discussing mind, it refers to the deluded mind of the six consciousnesses. Therefore, by non-form, it means it is not composed of sensory elements and great elements; by non-mind, it means its essence is not cognitive deliberation. Because the karmic record of wholesome nature entirely contradicts form, and the unthinking nature of the karmic essence genuinely differs from mind. When deeply examining its essence and marks, it is truly nothing but mental karma; but because it does not speak of seeds, it is called non-form; because it does not speak of the ālaya-vijñāna, it is called non-mind. Therefore, the Karma Commentary states: "Investigating its karmic essence, it is originally governed by the mind (because it arises from the active); it then perfumes the original mind (the original mind refers to the six consciousnesses; in reference to the active, it is said to 'return'), possessing capacity and function (capacity means leading to future results; function means confronting and preventing [faults]); the path of the mind is obscure and dark, and can only be accessed through names; therefore, in terms of form and mind, its essential nature is thoroughly brought out (also encompassing the meaning of conditions); seeking it through the five meanings in each, it cannot be found (being non-associated); not knowing what to call it, it is forcibly termed 'neither of the two' (seeking in both yields nothing, and being unnamable yet named, it is called 'forcibly termed'. If in that school, they merely assert that it is neither of the two; as soon as it is called 'forcibly termed', it reveals the expedience of the teaching. One must know that the words 'forcibly termed' first appear in the present commentary)." Third, the Perfect Teaching represents the meaning of the Mahāyāna. The previous two explanations are both uncompleted teachings; therefore, in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, whether it is form or non-form are both matters of dispute. The Tathāgata clearly judged that they did not understand his intention. Therefore, the Patriarchal Master deeply drew upon the definitive meaning of the Mahāyāna's perfect and real [teaching]; he definitively opened up the expedient teachings and revealed the reception-essence of our ordination platform, intending to provide practitioners with a place to commit their minds during their cultivation and maintenance. Now this is divided into two: first, showing the perfect essence. This clarifies that the ālaya transforms and creates in accordance with conditions, harboring seeds. First, clarifying that which is able to create: this is again the six consciousnesses; but arising in dependence on the eighth, it differs from the Hinayana; even if form is also included, this form is also mind, unlike the lesser school where mind and form have separate essences. Second, clarifying that which is generated: it is created by the mind; the seeds of wholesome roots are held by the storehouse consciousness and continue without interruption following the mind. Just as in the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra, where there is the ocean of consciousness and the waves of consciousness: the waves arise from the ocean and return back into the ocean; the waves are not separate waves, but are the ocean water itself; both that which creates and that which is generated are entirely consciousness in their whole essence, without any separate dharma. One should know that this seed is fully endowed with physical marks, and is therefore called form; differing from sensory elements and great elements, and furthermore lacking conscious awareness, it is therefore called neither of the two. With expedient means according to suitability, awakening and entering are foremost; between large and small, expedient and real, one must investigate with utmost precision. Therefore, the Karma Commentary states: "Wisdom knows that objective conditions are originally made by mind; not falsely cognizing objects, there is only one consciousness; transforming according to conditions, there are that and this; wishing to understand false passions, one must know false karma; therefore, receiving through ritual performance perfumes the deluded mind in turn, forming wholesome seeds in the root storehouse consciousness; this is the precept-essence." Second, clarifying the perfect cultivation: having understood the reception-essence, when giving rise to the mind, it is for the purpose of fulfilling the three clusters [of pure precepts]; therefore, in subsequent practice, whenever maintaining a single precept, suppressing evil from arising constitutes the precepts of restraint; observing with wisdom constitutes the precepts embracing wholesome dharmas; there being nothing that is not protecting others constitutes the precepts embracing sentient beings. As causes, they accomplish the three practices; as fruits, they obtain the three Buddhas. Arising from reception to subsequent [practice], moving from cause to fruit: this is truly the root of study for one who leaves home, directly tallying with the Tathāgata's original intent in establishing the teachings. Therefore, the Karma Commentary states: "For this reason, practitioners constantly contemplate this practice, namely the three clusters and so forth." It also says: "Ultimately returning to the Mahāyāna, one must settle the mind in its place." It also says: "Having understood this meaning, one should protect it like one's life or a floating buoy." Briefly outlining the main framework, the rest is extensive as found there. Oh, you later students, examine and investigate it with minute detail! Entangled deeply in the five turbidities, not yet escaped from the four serpents; dwelling together with ghosts and beasts, tormented by mutual afflictions; how could one not contemplate ascending to purity and instead sit keeping company with destitution and disaster? Even if there is cultivation and veneration, if one does not gain its gateway, one will toil in vain and ultimately achieve nothing. If one is to exhaust boundless birth and death, sever endless karmic wrongs, shatter beginningless delusion, and realize the unsurpassable Dharma-body: the single gateway of precepts alone is the most essential technique. Praised by all Buddhas, it fills the various sūtras; propagated and maintained by all patriarchs, it flourished in former generations; one must have deep faith and not hesitate. One should firmly take the reception-essence as two eyes and subsequent practice as two feet; with reception and subsequent practice matching each other, even the ten thousand practices can be accomplished. With eyes and feet mutually assisting, even a thousand miles will surely be reached. Unless one walks the same path, what more is there to say? How sorrowful!