成唯識論述記 2.170

2.170

述曰：此中二無表，謂依定中止身、語惡現行，思上立定、道戒，不約種子，此名隨心轉，故現行思可爾，種子不爾故。止身語惡者，解名為色所由。問：定戒可爾：道共戒若現思者，即八道支正語、業、命以何為體？彼皆表故，以現思為體。豈一現思亦表、無表？彼非是表，但名無表。又雖發身、語，而非表、無表；如發身、語思。又望不同，通於二義，通表、無表不爾，八地已上菩薩及如來身，應無表業等。又此唯用念念增長，而體不增，非一剎那有二思並故，故知別脫用此解勝。問曰：別解脫種上立無表可爾，以無表示他故。何故定、道戒遂現行上立，仍名無表耶？此應是意表。答曰：不然，此亦不能表示他故。問曰：若爾，即散意識現行思應名無表，此亦不能表示他故。答曰：此定等中別有殊勝止身、語惡，先有祈願，別脫類故，不發善身語，於現思上假名定、道無表，隨心轉故；散意不然，既非殊勝止身、語惡，及無祈願等，故不名無表，散意殊勝祈願，即是別脫表戒，從他受得，緣外身、語，與此不同。此大乘一支、二支乃至多支，皆發無表，祈願勝故，盡形祈故，此意表業。現行者名表，然無無表，如《瑜伽》第五十三，并《樞要》及《別抄》等；然今應說，二種無表何大種造等，如五十四及六十六等解，及如下第七卷抄解。三業無表皆假所以，如《佛地》第四、《成業》等解。定共戒與道共戒應明寬狹，此中言定中通明道者，明無漏戒亦名定戒。

The Commentary states: Here, regarding the second uninformative [karma]: it means based on the actual manifestation of volition in concentration that halts the evils of body and speech, the precepts of concentration and the Path are established; it does not refer to seeds. This is called 'concomitant with the mind' (cittānuvartin); hence, an actual manifestation of volition can be such, whereas seeds cannot. Halting the evils of body and speech explains the reason why it is named 'matter.' Question: The precepts of concentration may be so; but if the precepts concomitant with the Path are an actual volition, what is the entity of the eight path-factors—right speech, right action, and right livelihood? Since they are all informative, they take actual volition as their entity. How could a single actual volition be both informative and uninformative? [Answer:] They are not informative; they are only named uninformative. Furthermore, although they produce body and speech, they are neither informative nor uninformative, like the volition that produces body and speech. Alternatively, viewed from different aspects, both meanings apply. If it were not the case that they admit of both informative and uninformative, then the bodies of bodhisattvas from the eighth ground upward and the Tathāgata would lack informative karma and so forth. Moreover, this is solely an increase of efficacy moment by moment while the substance does not increase, because two volitions cannot coexist in a single moment; hence, we know that for the prātimokṣa, applying this explanation is superior. Question: Establishing uninformative [karma] upon the seeds of the prātimokṣa is acceptable because it does not inform others. Why, then, are the precepts of concentration and the Path established upon actual manifestations and still called uninformative? This should be mental informative [karma]. Answer: Not so, because this also cannot inform others. Question: If so, then the actual volition of the diffuse mental consciousness should be called uninformative, since this too cannot inform others. Answer: In concentration and so forth, there is a distinct, superior halting of bodily and vocal evil based on prior resolution, which belongs to the category of the prātimokṣa; not producing good bodily and vocal [actions], uninformative [karma] of concentration and the Path is metaphorically designated upon the actual volition because it is concomitant with the mind. Diffuse mind is not so: since it is neither a superior halting of bodily and vocal evil nor does it have prior resolution and so forth, it is not called uninformative. A superior resolution of the diffuse mind is itself the informative precept of the prātimokṣa, received from another and directed toward external body and speech, which is different from this. In this Mahāyāna, whether one branch, two branches, or up to many branches, all produce uninformative [karma], because the resolution is superior and resolves for one's whole life. This is mental informative karma. Those that are actual manifestations are called informative, yet lack uninformative [karma], as stated in Yogācāra fascicle fifty-three, as well as the Shunyao, Biechao, and so forth. However, we should now explain which great elements create these two kinds of uninformative [matter] and so forth, as explained in fascicles fifty-four, sixty-six, and so forth, and as explained below in the commentary to the seventh fascicle. The reason why the uninformative [karma] of the three types of karma is completely conventional is explained in the Buddhabhūmi[-śāstra] fascicle four, the Karmasiddhiprakaraṇa, and so forth. The broader and narrower scopes of the precepts concomitant with concentration and the precepts concomitant with the Path should be clarified; here, speaking of 'in concentration' comprehensively includes the Path, clarifying that uncontaminated precepts are also called concentration precepts.