四分律行事鈔資持記 2.209

2.209

次科。由立前後，違上論文初念俱有，故須釋之。初牒妨。此下，釋通，初明作俱齊起。不下，示形俱後生。上云仍後，在言未顯，猶恐濫同初念之時；故重遣之，云亦是等。已前二解，竝是古義。若準《業疏》，即取初解；但不明三時，義未盡耳。（舊記將不妨下作今義，非也。）疏出今義云：今解一時，非前後起；豈有作絕，無作方生？（此斥次師。）由本壇場，願心形限，即因成也（二戒因生）；至後剎那，二戒俱滿（二戒果滿）；故云作時具無作也（結示論文。故知此文非明作俱無作。）。又約一受，明三時無作：一因時無作（從始登壇，作俱隨作生，形俱因成未現。）；二果時無作，有二（三法竟時，一即同上作俱，二是形俱果滿。）；三果後無作（第二剎那，通於形終。）。

The second section. Because establishing an antecedent and subsequent contradicts the treatise passage above about their coexistence in the initial thought-moment, it must be explained. First, the objection is cited. "This..." below resolves it: first, it clarifies that it arises simultaneously with the active. "Not..." below indicates that it is born subsequently, coexisting with the physical form. The statement above that it is "still subsequent" was not yet explicit in phrasing, and there was still fear that it might be conflated with the initial thought-moment; therefore, it dispels this again, saying "it is also..." and so forth. The previous two explanations are both ancient interpretations. If judged according to the Karma Commentary, the first explanation is adopted, but because it does not clarify the three periods, the meaning was not yet exhaustive. (The old commentary took the passage from "without hindering" onward as the current interpretation, which is incorrect.) The commentary sets forth the present interpretation, stating: "The present interpretation is that it is at one time, not arising before or after; how could it be that only after the active has ceased does the non-active come to be born?" (This refutes the second master.) "Due to the original resolution and bodily limit on the ordination platform, the cause is accomplished (the cause of the two precepts arises); arriving at the subsequent kṣaṇa, both precepts are fully completed (the fruit of the two precepts is perfected); hence it is said that at the time of the active, it is fully endowed with the non-active" (concluding and indicating the text of the treatise. Therefore we know that this text does not explain the non-active coexisting with the active). Furthermore, in terms of a single reception, it clarifies the non-active of three periods: first, the non-active at the time of the cause (from the time one first ascends the platform, the non-active coexisting with the active arises following the active, while that coexisting with the physical form is causally formed but not yet manifest); second, the non-active at the time of the fruit, of which there are two (when the three karmavācanās are completed, one is the same as the non-active coexisting with the active above, and the second is the fruit of that coexisting with the physical form being perfected); third, the non-active after the fruit (in the second kṣaṇa, extending to the end of the physical form).