俱舍論記 15.19

15.19

「或有一類至勤策戒」者，約人正顯，配釋可知。問：如《雜心》及《婆沙》一百一十七云「若於一切有情得律儀，由一切因非一切支者，此類無有。」此論與彼豈不相違？解云：《婆沙》偏據盡形，故言無也。此論通據晝夜，故說有也。又解：梵名烏波婆沙，義翻為齋，亦名近住。西方有人一日持齋亦名烏波婆沙，若受八齋戒亦名烏波婆沙。其齋名通，於律儀中不定。若盡壽戒，於律儀中決定，《婆沙》以不定故不說。此論通據近住戒，故說有也。故《婆沙》云「問：若以下、中、上心，如次受近住、近事、勤策戒時，即名於一切有情得律儀，亦一切因，非一切支，何以言無？答：此中但依盡壽作論，不依晝夜。所以者何？彼名為齋，於律儀中非決定故。」

"Or there is a certain class […] the śrāmaṇera precepts" directly demonstrates this in terms of persons, and the matching explanation can be understood. Question: As the Saṃyuktābhidharma-hṛdaya and the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 117, state: "If one obtains restraint with respect to all sentient beings, through all causes, and not through all factors, such a class does not exist"—is this treatise not in contradiction with them? Explanation: The Mahāvibhāṣā refers exclusively to [precepts observed for] the end of one's life, and therefore says there is none. This treatise refers comprehensively to [those observed for] a day and a night, and therefore says there is. Another explanation: The Sanskrit name is upavāsa, which is translated in meaning as "fasting" (zhai), and also called "abiding near" (upavāsa). In the Western regions, someone observing a one-day fast is also called upavāsa, and if one receives the eight fasting precepts, it is also called upavāsa. The name "fast" is general, and within restraint it is not determinate. As for the lifelong precepts, they are determinate within restraint; because it is not determinate, the Mahāvibhāṣā does not mention it. This treatise refers comprehensively to the upavāsa precepts, and therefore says there is. Hence the Mahāvibhāṣā states: "Question: If with an inferior, middling, or superior mind, one successively receives the upavāsa, upāsaka, and śrāmaṇera precepts, one is then said to obtain restraint with respect to all sentient beings and also through all causes, but not through all factors; why then is it said that there is none? Answer: Here it is argued solely based on the end of life, not based on a day and a night. Why is that? That is called fasting, which is not determinate within restraint."