四分律行事鈔資持記 2.1135

2.1135

In the intention behind the prohibition: The first section is the passage on the fulfillment of time from the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa's explanation of the six fulfillments. That text clarifies that in India there are two ways of speaking of time: first, called kāla (translated as "real time", meaning years, months, days, hours, the four seasons, divisions of climatic energy, and so forth, because worldly conventions mistakenly grasp them as real); second, called samaya (translated as "provisional time", meaning depending on affairs and conditions, long or short without fixation, having no real existence). The Buddha, in accord with conventional truth, spoke of samaya and did not speak of kāla, in order to eliminate the wrong views of non-Buddhists and worldly people (worldly people cling to existence, and non-Buddhists grasp at permanence; if he spoke of real time, it would further increase their clinging. This is also spoken in broad terms, not that he completely never spoke of it). In the treatise, it first refutes their clinging that real time is entirely without reality. However, the Vinaya's instituted rules mostly rely on real time; this shows that the Tathāgata also spoke of real time, so how could there be no time? Therefore it raises this question, as cited in the Transactions Manual. In the reply, there are two parts: first, explaining and resolving it according to principle; under "The Buddha...", second, precluding subsequent objections. In the first part there are three points: first, explaining from provisionality. In the treatise, after refuting time through objections, it then says that seeing the arising and ceasing of the aggregates, realms, and sense-bases is provisionally designated as time, and there is no separate time. (This means that the Time Sūtra and other sūtras also speak of real time merely in accordance with worldly designations, hence called provisional designations; this has the same phrasing but a different meaning from the worldly notion of provisional designation. Furthermore, according to the Buddha's teaching, both of them are provisional designations; speaking in accord with them, he simply called it "real".) When the text says "I have already explained", it points to the text above. Because worldly phenomena exist, there is no contradiction in speaking of proper time and improper time; because they are not real, there is no contradiction in there being no time. The thesis having been clearly established, without careful consideration one questions it again, hence it rebukes him in return, saying one ought not raise this objection. (Below "exist", the character "time" is missing; below "real", the character "phenomena" has fallen out; the original treatise text has them.) Under "Also...", next explains according to the world. "The worldly real" is what the world grasps. (In the treatise text, below "real" there is the sentence "not the primary reality", and it also lacks the character "have".) "The rebuke of the multitude" points to the origin of the rule. (In the Vinaya, the woman rebuked Udāyin, saying: "Better to tear open your own belly than to eat at night.") Because they grasped it as real, they gave rise to slander; the Vinaya accommodates worldly appearances to avert slander, and hence instituted it. Under "Also wishing...", third explains through protecting the Dharma. This means that when receiving the precepts, the time divisions determine senior, middling, and junior, who respect and serve one another, causing the Dharma not to perish; hence it says "to cause it to endure long", and so forth. (The first point explains according to the provisional by following the path; the latter two explain according to the real by following worldly convention.) In precluding subsequent objections: Because the Vinaya's instituted teachings accord with conventional truth and are established provisionally, one must not arbitrarily use ultimate truth to raise objections against conventional affairs. Because teaching-doctrines focus on dissolving marks, whereas prohibitions focus on establishment, it says "one ought not seek", and so forth. The treatise states in full: When the Buddhas, the World-Honoured Ones, institute the precepts, herein one ought not seek what reality there is (the emptiness or reality of the essence), what name there is (the existence or nonexistence of names), what is concordant and what is discordant (the compliance or defiance of the meaning), what is dharma of such a characteristic, and what is dharma not of such a characteristic (the rightness or wrongness of marks); therefore, this matter ought not be objected to. (The teaching doctrines interpret principle, which must be sought through these four meanings.) In the next objection: The earlier treatise text says that to eliminate wrong views, the Tathāgata did not speak of kāla but spoke of samaya. This means that other sūtras mostly speak of provisional time, whereas the Vinaya cited above speaks of real time; the meanings are contradictory, hence it raises this objection. In the reply there are two parts: first, clarifying the intent behind the Vinaya speaking of the real, where the upper clause explicitly shows it. (The character "not" is an error; the treatise text properly reads "within".) Under "Because...", it reveals the intention: meaning that because the Vinaya does not allow white-robed laity and non-Buddhists to hear it, it can speak of real time; because the monastic community itself knows it is not real, they will not give rise to wrong attachments. (In the text, the lower character "hear" is written as "and" in the treatise.) Under "Speaking...", next clarifies the intent behind other sūtras speaking of the provisional: "pervading the majority" means that both monastics and laity can hear them. (The ancients mostly misunderstood this, arbitrarily altering the text; difficult for students to understand, it inevitably led to convoluted prose.)