俱舍論記 14.80

14.80

「又此所說至為半月等」者，此下第二明時節分齊。就中，一明別解脫分齊、二明不律儀分齊。此即第一明別解脫分齊。總有二種，如文可知。靜慮、無漏及處中等時節不定，非如別解二時定故，所以不說。因明戒時顯時非實，非如外道執時實有。會釋經言重說晝、夜，所以經中說半月等無別有體。真諦師云：「解云此通伏難。伏難云：若戒時，邊際但有二種，何故經中說半月等受八戒耶？為通此難，故今釋言：經中雖說半月等戒日日須受戒，以受八戒唯有日夜邊際，重說晝、夜為半月等。非是一受八戒經半月等，故不違經。」

"Furthermore, what is taught here [up to:] as a half-month and so forth": from here below is the second part, clarifying the limit of duration. In this, first, the limit of prātimokṣa is clarified; second, the limit of non-discipline is clarified. This is the first, clarifying the limit of prātimokṣa. In general there are two kinds, as can be known from the text. The durations of dhyāna, anāsrava, intermediate [discipline], and so forth are indefinite, not being fixed to two times like prātimokṣa; hence they are not discussed. In the course of clarifying the time of precepts, it reveals that time is not substantial, unlike the heterodox who cling to time as substantially existent. It reconciles and explains the scripture's repeated mention of day and night, showing that the half-month and so forth spoken of in the scripture have no separate substance. Master Paramārtha says: "Explanation: This resolves a latent objection. The latent objection says: If the limit of the time for precepts has only two kinds, why does the scripture speak of receiving the eight precepts for a half-month and so forth? In order to resolve this objection, it is now explained: Although the scripture speaks of the precepts for a half-month and so forth, one must receive the precepts day by day; because receiving the eight precepts has only the limit of a day and night, the repeated mention of day and night constitutes a half-month and so forth. It is not that a single reception of the eight precepts lasts for a half-month and so forth; hence it does not contradict the scripture."