俱舍論疏 14.97

14.97

論「如是所得至表業而發」，論主制上得戒非定依表發無表也。《婆沙》一百二十二云「若住別解脫律儀及住不律儀，現無身表。有二說。一云：第二剎那以後，彼初剎那必有表故。二云：彼初剎那亦是所說，有現無身表受不律儀故，滅定中得具戒故。」解云：現無身表受不律儀者，謂受事得不律儀。在滅定中得具戒者，謂那舍沙彌第三羯磨入滅定等。又亦容是上法見諦得戒等也。此兩說中，後說為正，入無心定時無表業故。《婆沙》云「若住別解脫律儀及不律儀現無身表」者，此據現無身表。依過去加行表發者，亦得是現無身表，不得定是欲界無表離表而發。《正理》四十二云「有餘師說：非於欲界一切無表悉依表生，如得果時五苾芻等。」准後師釋，前必應云欲界無表定從表生。《正理》通餘師引證云「然彼先時決定有表。」准此論文，《正理》斷取欲界無表定從表生，若無根本從加行生。然此兩說與《婆沙》不同。《婆沙》云「若住別解律儀現無身表」，一說據後剎那、一說初容無有，不說從加行生亦得是住律儀無身表業，即不得是離表而生。有人誤釋謂為同也。此論中云「如是所得別解脫律儀，非必定依表業而發。」又論云「七善業道若從受生，必皆具表、無表，受生尸羅必依表故。佛及五苾芻別解脫戒，不從受生，故不依表。」論主存也，故言非必定依表業而發。正理論師不許此義，故云：然彼五苾芻等，先時決定有表相續不斷，至得果時從彼而發。又論主亦言非欲界無表離表而生，故知論主說佛及五苾芻得別解脫時身亦有表。論師此釋前後自違，待重撿文會釋，不可一論同自相牟楯。

The treatise says: "The [prātimokṣa-saṃvara] thus obtained ... arises from bodily or vocal informative action (vijñapti-karman)." The author of the treatise restricts the above acquisition of precepts as not necessarily depending on informative action to produce non-informative action (avijñapti). The Vibhāṣā, fascicle 122, says: "If one abides in the prātimokṣa restraint or in non-restraint (asaṃvara), currently there is no bodily informative action. There are two theories. The first says: from the second moment onward [it is so], for that first moment must have informative action. The second says: that first moment is also what is spoken of, because there is the acquisition of non-restraint with currently no bodily informative action, and because the full precepts are obtained within the cessation attainment (nirodhasamāpatti)." The explanation says: acquiring non-restraint with currently no bodily informative action refers to obtaining non-restraint through committing to a business [of evil deeds]. Obtaining the full precepts within the cessation attainment refers to such cases as the novice monk Nāśa entering the cessation attainment during the third karmavācanā. It also admits such cases as the aforementioned seeing of the truths through dharma to obtain the precepts. Between these two theories, the latter is correct, because when entering mindless absorption there is no informative action. When the Vibhāṣā says, "If one abides in prātimokṣa restraint or non-restraint, currently there is no bodily informative action," this is based on there currently being no bodily informative action. If produced dependent on past preparatory informative action, it can also be currently without bodily informative action; it cannot definitively be that Desire-realm non-informative action arises dissociated from informative action. Fascicle 42 of the Nyāyānusāra says: "Other masters say: it is not the case that all non-informative actions in the Desire realm arise dependent on informative action, as when the five bhikṣus and others obtained the fruit." According to the later master's explanation, the former must say that Desire-realm non-informative action definitely arises from informative action. In resolving the citation of proof by the other master, the Nyāyānusāra says: "However, previously they definitely possessed informative action." According to this passage of the treatise, the Nyāyānusāra definitively holds that Desire-realm non-informative action definitely arises from informative action, and if there is no primary [informative action], it arises from the preparatory [informative action]. However, these two theories differ from the Vibhāṣā. The Vibhāṣā says, "If one abides in the prātimokṣa restraint, currently there is no bodily informative action"; one theory is based on subsequent moments, while the other admits that the initial [moment] may lack it—it does not say that arising from preparatory action can also be abiding in restraint without bodily informative action, meaning it cannot be that it arises dissociated from informative action. Someone mistakenly explained it as identical. In this treatise it says: "The prātimokṣa restraint thus obtained does not necessarily arise dependent on informative action." The treatise also says: "If the seven paths of wholesome action arise from receiving [the precepts], they must possess both informative and non-informative action, because morality arising from receiving [the precepts] must depend on informative action. The prātimokṣa precepts of the Buddha and the five bhikṣus do not arise from receiving [precepts], hence they do not depend on informative action." The author of the treatise preserves this, hence saying that it does not necessarily arise dependent on informative action. The masters of the Nyāyānusāra do not accept this doctrine, therefore saying: however, those five bhikṣus and others previously definitely had informative action continuing unbroken, and upon attaining the fruit it arose from that. Furthermore, the author of the treatise also says that Desire-realm non-informative action does not arise dissociated from informative action; thus we know that the author of the treatise maintains that the Buddha and the five bhikṣus also possessed bodily informative action when obtaining the prātimokṣa [precepts]. The commentator's explanations here contradict themselves before and after; we must re-examine the text and reconcile the explanation, for a single treatise cannot contradict itself.