四分律行事鈔資持記 2.218

2.218

八隨心者，此明定道二戒，文分為二，初依多宗。彼謂入定入道，有禪無漏律儀，出定則無故。次引《成論》，初二句對破彼宗。論中常有字下，更有常不為惡一句。善心者，示隨心故。若爾，定道無作，應非非心？答：但能隨心，而實非心；由彼業性，能起後習，故云善心轉勝耳。此下，示名。別下，簡異。唯隨身者，期盡形故。問：成宗別脫，亦由心造，何但隨身耶？答：教限義故。若爾，何以疏云：功由心生，隨心無絕耶？答：過分義故。即下，引證。道力，即道俱戒。又《智論》云：初果生殺羊家，寧死而不殺。此證定道隨生死心明矣。《業疏》問云：從用與作俱何異？答：業相虛通，不相障礙；間雜同時，隨義而別。且如持鞭，常擬加苦；既無時限，即不律儀，為形俱業；要誓常行，即名願業；口教打撲，即是異緣；前受行之，又是助業；隨動業起，即是作俱；鞭具不亡，即名事在；隨作感業，豈非從用；惡念未絕，又是心俱。故舉一緣，便通八業，餘則例準知有無也。準此以明，或單或具，間雜不定；精窮業理，在斯文矣。

Eighth, as for "concomitant with the mind": this explains the two precepts of dhyāna and the path. The text is divided into two. First, it relies on the Sarvāstivāda School. They hold that upon entering dhyāna or entering the path, there is the discipline of dhyāna or the uncontaminated discipline, but when emerging from dhyāna, they are absent. Next, it cites the *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra*, the first two lines directly refuting that school. In that treatise, following the word "constantly present," there is further the phrase "constantly does not perform evil." "Wholesome mind" is stated to indicate concomitance with the mind. If so, should unmanifest [karma] of dhyāna and the path not be "neither form nor mind"? Answer: It merely follows the mind, but in actuality it is not mind; because that karmic nature can generate subsequent habitual tendencies, it is said that the wholesome mind becomes increasingly superior. Below this, it explains the name. Below "Distinction," it draws distinctions. "Only following the physical form" is because the term of commitment is for the duration of one's life. Question: The prātimokṣa of the *Tattvasiddhi* School is also created by the mind; why does it only follow the physical form? Answer: Because of the principle of the limits of teaching. If so, why does the Commentary state: "Its efficacy is generated from the mind, following the mind without cessation"? Answer: Because of the principle of surpassing degrees. Below "Namely," it cites proofs. "Power of the path" refers to the precepts coexisting with the path. Moreover, the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra* states: "When a stream-enterer is born into a family of sheep-butchers, he would rather die than kill." This clearly proves that dhyāna and the path follow the mind through life and death. The *Karma Commentary* raises a question: "How does 'arising from application' differ from 'coexisting with manifest action'?" Answer: The marks of karma are subtle and pervasive, not obstructing one another; they intermingle at the same time and are differentiated according to meaning. For example, if someone holds a whip, constantly intending to inflict suffering: since there is no time limit, it is indiscipline, being karma coexisting with the physical form; resolving to constantly practice it is called karma of vow; verbally instructing another to beat someone is a divergent condition; another receiving the order and executing it is further auxiliary karma; karma arising along with movement is coexisting with manifest action; while the whip apparatus is not destroyed, it is called the matter remaining present; karmic retribution brought about according to actions—how is this not arising from application? And while the evil thought has not ceased, it is further coexisting with the mind. Therefore, by raising a single condition, it extends across the eight karmas, and the presence or absence of the rest may be known by analogy. Clarifying in accordance with this, they may be single or complete, intermingling indeterminately; the profound examination of the principles of karma lies in this passage.