成唯識論了義燈 1.81

1.81

前約剋性，出稽首體，但說是思。若義說者，凡論歸敬，有其二種：謂顯相，及不顯相。若就顯相，所謂身、語二業，由身敬禮，定發殷重，令他見故。《俱舍》據此，偏言身業，雖身不禮，但發語宣揚，由名句等，表詮內心，令他聽故。《無垢稱》頌中，說是偏取語業。若依不顯相，唯取意業，內發殷誠，雖極是重，他人不了，諸論不說。此論具以三業歸敬，通顯、不顯二種盡故。若就別者，三業有異。若其身業，實即慚等相應，動發勝思，通假即兼表色。語業亦用慚等相應，動發勝思，假亦通聲。若薩婆多有實善、惡色，即依報色，有業色生，即長短色，以此為體。復眾賢師，別有長等極微。正量部師，別有動色。譬喻論師，別有動色，非顯非形。竝如下說。今大乘中，若在佛果，身語色聲，可許是善，非歸依體。若就因中，即是無記。約表心邊，假通善惡，故身、語業，假、實為體。於意業中有二：一、就業；二、約勤治。就業有二：謂自性、助伴。言自性者，唯取遍行數中，緣三寶為境，慚等相應，思為體。思有三種，謂：審慮、決定、動發。論文雖說前二思唯在意地，後一思是身、語二業。今據道理，意亦得有動發勝思，云作動意故，發無貪等故。若約助伴，即此思俱四遍行、五別境、散地、善、十定、加輕安、心王、尋、伺二十三法。次約對治，復有二種：謂自性、相應。自性唯取緣於三寶，能治輕慢，慚愧為體。此有二義：一、體勝；二、義順。言體勝者，《顯揚論》云：慚者，謂依自增上法，增上羞恥過惡為體。愧者，《顯揚》云：謂依世間，增上羞恥過惡為體。《唯識》、《對法》，文引可知。第二義順者，《俱舍》云：無慚、無愧，差別云何？答：無慚、無愧乃至云於諸功德及有德者。無敬無崇，無所忌難，無所隨屬，說名無慚。准能治此故，正是慚。由斯理順故，約對治說，歸敬體即慚愧也。剋實即非。若直取慚，慚五識俱，豈五相應？亦是歸敬。說慚行相，崇重賢善，五識不能，別緣三寶。若云不取，行相何別？故正三業為歸敬體，不得約思。雖遍五識，業非五思，何妨慚通敬唯在意。何者？論辨業體，自簡擇訖，無處辨歸敬，說慚為體者，助伴准前。

Previously, identifying the intrinsic nature of bowing the head strictly according to its precise nature, it was only said to be volition. If explained conceptually, in general whenever taking refuge and revering are discussed, there are two kinds: the manifest and the non-manifest. In terms of the manifest, these are the two actions of body and speech: through bodily homage, earnestness is definitely produced and manifested for others to see. The Abhidharmakośa relies on this to speak exclusively of bodily action. Although the body does not bow, merely uttering words to praise—expressing internal thought through names, phrases, and so forth—causes others to hear. In the verse of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, it is said to exclusively take vocal action. If according to the non-manifest, it exclusively takes mental action: producing earnest sincerity internally, although it is extremely weighty, other people do not perceive it, so the treatises do not mention it. The present treatise fully employs the three actions to take refuge and revere, completely exhausting both the manifest and non-manifest kinds. In terms of their distinctions, the three actions differ. As for bodily action, in reality it is superior volition conjoined with shame and the like that moves and initiates, while metaphorically it also includes manifest form (rūpa). Vocal action also uses superior volition conjoined with shame and the like that moves and initiates, while metaphorically it also includes sound. For the Sarvāstivādins, who hold that there is real wholesome and unwholesome form, based on retribution-form, there arises action-form, which is form of long and short, and this serves as its intrinsic nature. Master Saṅghabhadra, moreover, posited separate atoms of long and so forth. The Sammatīya masters posited a separate form of motion. The Dārṣṭāntika masters posited a separate form of motion that is neither color nor shape. All are as explained below. Now in the Mahāyāna, when in the Buddha-fruition, bodily and vocal form and sound may be admitted to be wholesome, but they are not the intrinsic nature of taking refuge. When in the causal stage, they are indeterminate. From the perspective of expressing the mind, they metaphorically encompass the wholesome and unwholesome; hence bodily and vocal actions take both the metaphorical and the real as their intrinsic nature. In mental action, there are two [perspectives]: first, in terms of action; second, in terms of diligent counteraction. In terms of action, there are two: intrinsic nature and accompanying factors. As for intrinsic nature, it exclusively takes volition conjoined with shame and the like among the omnipresent mental factors, taking the Three Jewels as its object, as its intrinsic nature. There are three kinds of volition: deliberative, resolute, and motive-initiating. Although the treatise text says the first two volitions are exclusively in the mental plane, while the latter volition is the bodily and vocal actions, now according to the doctrine, the mind can also have superior motive-initiating volition, because it is said to activate the mind and produce non-greed and so forth. In terms of accompanying factors, it is the twenty-three dharmas: the four other omnipresent factors, the five object-determining factors, the ten wholesome factors of the dispersed plane (adding pliancy when in concentration), the king of mind, investigation (vitarka), and examination (vicāra), which are conjoined with this volition. Next, in terms of counteraction, there are again two: intrinsic nature and conjoined factors. Intrinsic nature exclusively takes shame and embarrassment, which take the Three Jewels as object and are able to counteract contempt and arrogance, as its intrinsic nature. This has two meanings: first, superiority of intrinsic nature; second, conformity of meaning. Regarding superiority of intrinsic nature, the Prakaraṇāryavācā says: "Shame takes feeling ashamed of faults and evil with self-dominance and Dharma-dominance as its intrinsic nature." Embarrassment, the Prakaraṇāryavācā says: "Takes feeling ashamed of faults and evil with worldly-dominance as its intrinsic nature." The passages cited in the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi and the Abhidharmasamuccaya can be known. Regarding the second, conformity of meaning, the Abhidharmakośa says: "What is the difference between shamelessness (ahrīkya) and non-embarrassment (anapatrāpya)? Answer: Shamelessness and non-embarrassment... up to: toward all virtues and the virtuous, having no reverence, no esteem, no apprehension, and no subservience is called shamelessness." Following what can counteract this, it is precisely shame. Because this principle is conforming, when spoken in terms of counteraction, the intrinsic nature of taking refuge and revering is precisely shame and embarrassment. But strictly speaking, it is not. If one directly takes shame, shame is conjoined with the five consciousnesses—could what is conjoined with the five also be taking refuge and revering? It is said that the mental mode of shame is esteeming and honoring the worthy and good; the five consciousnesses cannot separately take the Three Jewels as an object. If one says it is not taken [in the five consciousnesses], what difference is there in the mental mode? Therefore, the three actions are properly the intrinsic nature of taking refuge and revering; one cannot [object] based on volition. Although [volition] is omnipresent in the five consciousnesses, action is not the five [consciousnesses'] volitions; what prevents shame from being widespread while reverence is exclusively in the mental [consciousness]? Why? The treatises determine the intrinsic nature of action, having already distinguished it; nowhere in determining taking refuge and revering is shame said to be the intrinsic nature. Accompanying factors are as above.