瑜伽師地論略纂 11.103

11.103

論解遂求戒中，「此戒有八種」者，謂斷命一，不與取二，欲邪行三，即身三行；虛妄四，離間五，麁惡六，綺語七，即口四過也。以上合七，并以手塊等加害為第八。　問曰：此中何故不論意三業也？義曰：若取意三，參身口七，即為十。若言十者，不成增數門，是以不取。前一切種門有六種七種，後二世樂有九門，今此遂求乘上來合增為八，故不取後意三以成十種也。又前七所發身口，不離後三能發，能發身口必由後三，故不論也。　若爾，豈無別起後三種？義曰：雖有，隱不說，攝在能發前七中，故不說也。

In the Treatise, explaining the precept of complying with requests, [it says] 'this precept has eight kinds': namely, terminating life as one, taking what is not given as two, and sexual misconduct as three—which are the three actions of the body; false speech as four, divisive speech as five, harsh speech as six, and frivolous speech as seven—which are the four faults of speech. The above combine to seven, and inflicting harm with hands, clods of earth, and so forth is the eighth. Question: Why are the three karmas of mind not discussed here? The meaning is: if one were to take the three of mind and combine them with the seven of body and speech, there would be ten. If there were ten, it would not form an increasing numerical category, which is why they are not taken. The earlier 'all modes' heading had six kinds and seven kinds, the subsequent 'bliss of the two worlds' has nine headings, and now this 'complying with requests,' following on from what precedes, combines and increases to eight; therefore it does not take the subsequent three of mind to form ten kinds. Furthermore, the body and speech manifested by the first seven are not separate from the latter three that can manifest them; that which can manifest body and speech must depend on the latter three, and so they are not discussed. If so, how could there not be a separate arising of the latter three kinds? The meaning is: although they exist, they are hidden and not mentioned, being subsumed within that which can manifest the first seven, and are therefore not mentioned.