俱舍論記 15.41

15.41

「經部諸師至互相遮故」者，經部諸師作如是說：隨造惡人心所期限，或具七支、或不具七。就一支中，或於境全分、或於境一分，皆得不律儀。於俗戒中，近事律儀准惡亦然。唯除八戒，以時促故，支具境全。若不爾者，善心羸劣即不發戒。由隨彼人期心支量或少或多，於一身中善、惡尸羅性相違，互相遮故。謂一身中若受一支善戒正遮一支惡戒不起，兼遮餘支惡戒不起。若受一支惡戒，正遮一支善戒不起，兼遮餘支善戒不起。受二、三等，准此應釋。必無一人名不律儀亦名律儀，以善、惡戒互相違故。又解：經部既許有不具支及與一分，何妨一人名為律儀亦名不律儀，由隨彼量善、惡多少，性相相違互相遮故。真諦意作此釋，於二解中意謂前勝。

Regarding the passage "The Sautrāntika masters... because they mutually impede each other": the Sautrāntika masters say as follows: According to the limitation intended in the mind of the evildoer, it may possess the seven branches or not possess all seven. Within a single branch, whether regarding the entirety of an object or a fraction of an object, in all cases non-restraint is obtained. Among the lay precepts, the upasaka restraint is likewise understood by analogy with evil. Excepting only the eight precepts: because their duration is brief, the branches are complete and the objects are entire. Were it not so, the wholesome mind being feeble, morality would not arise. According to whether that person's intentional limit involves few or many branches, within a single body wholesome and unwholesome śīla, being opposed in nature, mutually impede each other. That is to say, within a single body, if one undertakes one branch of wholesome morality, it directly impedes one branch of unwholesome morality from arising, and concurrently impedes the remaining branches of unwholesome morality from arising. If one undertakes one branch of unwholesome morality, it directly impedes one branch of wholesome morality from arising, and concurrently impedes the remaining branches of wholesome morality from arising. Undertaking two, three, and so forth should be explained by analogy with this. Under no circumstances can a single person be named both "non-restraint" and "restraint", because wholesome and unwholesome morality are mutually opposed. Another explanation states: Since the Sautrāntika accepts that there are incomplete branches and single portions, what prevents a single person from being named "restraint" and also "non-restraint", because according to that amount of wholesome and unwholesome, being opposed in nature and mark, they mutually impede each other? Paramārtha intended this explanation. Between the two explanations, the former is considered superior.