成唯識論了義燈 2.71

2.71

《論》：然依思願善惡分限。下申正義，分之為三：初道、定俱，律、不律儀處中之總句，佛身無表之別句；次謂此或依下，是餘別解，處中之別句，　或依定中下，定、道之別句，以佛無增長故，除佛餘別解等增長故，定、道依現故。問：無表之色，依表種立，表有多念，依何念立？答：於初剎那正發身、語之思，或俱時發，或前後發，俱時同一種，前後各別種，皆於初上立。第二剎那已去，非因等起，但名剎那等起，非根本故。問：定中許起身、語二業，表依何立？若動發思即現在定，是定俱無表。答：既是假立，通二何妨？然薩婆多隨心轉者道、定二戒，有心即有，無心即無，捨此定取餘定，即捨此無表得彼無表，道亦同然。皆別有實色，名為無表，不取定、道二相應思，又定唯有漏、無漏即名道。若大乘師隨轉義同，然立有別，依定、道俱現行思立，定通無漏，雖是一思，望義有別。薩婆多八戒要從他具支，唯一日夜，大乘皆通，從不從師，支具不具，一日多日，俱亦不違。以依思願分限立故，佛隨轉門且言一日夜。令易學故，大乘五戒、十善，亦許少時闕支而受，唯出家眾依師具支，盡壽方得。然闕支者，皆據未說三歸已前，有祈願別故得闕也。若三聚十無盡等，及依《文殊所問波若經》：受十戒者，即同沙彌十戒，然亦盡未來受。又此得戒有四分別：一、有心得。謂發祈願增上善心者；二、有心不得。謂不發起祈願，設起祈願，受出家眾別脫戒者，但少時分限，缺支意願，皆不得戒；三、無心得。謂那含沙彌，起心求戒，作白已後，便入無心定，此無心時作羯摩竟，祈願滿故亦得具戒；四、無心不得。謂無祈心餘無心位。問：別脫無表，依於動發，思種上立，如入見道，得別脫戒，既不起身、語依何思立？答：入見道前，有祈願心動發身謂，後入見道依此種立，不爾即無。問：定、道無表，依審、決思，起身、語時，依何思上立身、語業？答：若在餘定，起身、語者，即是通果，亦定前加行有祈願心，欲起身、語，依定引通，雖不在散不正在定，亦動發思起於身、語。問：起加行時只審、決，思未起發動，如何依立？答：據實定中起動發思，如八地已上，常在定心，即義說之不同散位，意業之中十善、十惡發無表不？章中二解：然《要集》云：有釋三藏解云：五十三文唯約現行說意表業，准此無表依種子立，今尋三藏意，身、語表示他，故名為表業。思種不表示，是故說無表，意業唯自表，故得說為表。種子不表自，故亦名無表。云《法苑》二云：一云發無表；一云不發。云後說為正，三藏意存前解。此說不然，《法苑》二說云任意為用，不斷後說義為決定。今者意准定發無表，既菩薩戒具防三業，勝於二乘盡未來際，云何不發殊勝無表？前二說者據處中說，非約律儀。又《集》云：又能起律儀體，非律儀以生律儀，從果為名，說名律儀，故無無表何所相違？故今取不發無表。今者不然，既取不發，何故云能起律儀體非律儀？若設云能起身、語律儀非意律儀者，望二乘意無律儀，約大乘說，十善戒等亦是律儀，如何得云體非律儀？從果為名故無無表，故為不可。《要集》問：定、道意無表，依何法立？解云：表依現思，無表依種，故具二種，不同定道身、語無表。問：若爾出定心後，既有種子應立無表。解云：不例，是隨心戒出定用微，故不立無表，或於一現思有表、無表，於理無違。今謂：定、道意俱無表，決定取現，不得云惑，即定道戒是隨心故，種有心無非隨心故。

The Śāstra states: "Yet, based on the limits of volition and vow, whether wholesome or unwholesome..." Below, in setting forth the correct tenet, it divides into three: first, a general sentence covering the morality associated with the path and absorption, the disciplinary and non-disciplinary codes, and intermediate morality, along with a distinct sentence regarding the non-revelatory [form] of the Buddha's body; next, the passage beginning "This is either based on..." is a distinct sentence regarding the remaining prātimokṣa and intermediate morality; [the passage beginning] "Or based on what is in absorption..." is a distinct sentence regarding absorption and the path, because in the Buddha there is no increase, because in all other prātimokṣa [codes] and the like there is increase, and because absorption and the path are based on actual manifestation. Question: Non-revelatory form is posited based on the seeds of revelation; revelation spans many moments—based on which moment is it posited? Answer: It is posited on the volition that precisely initiates bodily and vocal [actions] at the initial moment. Whether initiated simultaneously or sequentially, if simultaneous they are of the same seed, and if sequential each has a distinct seed; in all cases, it is posited upon the first. From the second moment onward, these are not causal origins (hetusamutthāna) but are merely called momentary origins (kṣaṇasamutthāna), as they are not fundamental. Question: When bodily and vocal actions are admitted to arise within absorption, based on what is the revelation posited? If it is the initiating volition, it is present in absorption and is non-revelation associated with absorption. Answer: Since it is designated nominally, what is the fault in applying to both? However, for the Sarvāstivādins, the two moralities of path and absorption that accompany the mind exist when mind exists and do not exist when mind is absent; abandoning this absorption to take up another absorption entails abandoning this non-revelation and acquiring that non-revelation, and the same holds for the path. All of these possess distinct real forms named non-revelation, which do not take the volition associated with absorption and the path [as their essence]; moreover, absorption is solely with-outflows, whereas being outflow-free is termed the path. For the Mahāyāna master, while the meaning of accompanying [the mind] is the same, the manner of establishing them differs: they are established based on the actively manifested volition accompanying absorption and the path; absorption also extends to being outflow-free, so although it is a single volition, in terms of meaning there is a difference. In the Sarvāstivāda, the eight precepts must be received from another with full branches and for only one day and night; in the Mahāyāna, all are permissible—whether following a master or not, whether possessing all branches or not, whether for one day or multiple days, none are in conflict. Because they are established based on the limits of volition and vow, the Buddha's provision of expedient teachings temporarily spoke of one day and night to make them easy to practice; Mahāyāna's five precepts and ten wholesome paths of action are also permitted to be received for a brief time and with incomplete branches; only for the monastic saṃgha is it required to rely on a master, possess all branches, and last for one's whole life. However, receiving with incomplete branches is in all cases explained on the basis of having distinct prayers prior to reciting the three refuges, which permits deficiency. As for the three clusters of precepts, the ten inexhaustibles, and so forth, as well as receiving the ten precepts based on the *Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā-prajñāpāramitā Sūtra*, these are identical to the novice's ten precepts, yet are received until the end of the future. Furthermore, this acquisition of precepts has four distinctions: first, acquisition with mind, meaning one who arouses an intense wholesome mind of prayer; second, non-acquisition with mind, meaning not arousing a prayer, or even if a prayer is aroused to receive the prātimokṣa precepts of the monastic saṃgha, if it is for a short time or with deficient branches, none acquire the precepts; third, acquisition without mind, meaning a non-returner (anāgāmin) novice who arouses the mind to seek precepts, and after the motion (jñapti) has been performed, immediately enters a mindless absorption; when the karmavācanā is completed during this mindless state, because the prayer is fulfilled, he also acquires the complete precepts; fourth, non-acquisition without mind, referring to other mindless states without a prayerful mind. Question: Prātimokṣa non-revelation is established on the seeds of the initiating volition; if, when entering the path of seeing, one acquires the prātimokṣa precepts without initiating bodily or vocal [actions], based on what volition is it established? Answer: Prior to entering the path of seeing, there was a prayerful mind that would initiate bodily and vocal actions, and subsequently upon entering the path of seeing, it is established on these seeds; otherwise, it would not exist. Question: Non-revelation of absorption and the path is based on deliberate and decisive volition; when bodily and vocal actions arise, based on which volition are bodily and vocal karma established? Answer: If bodily and vocal actions arise while in another absorption, this is the fruition of supernormal power (abhijñāphala); also, in the preparatory practice prior to absorption, there was a prayerful mind intending to initiate bodily and vocal actions, and relying on absorption to induce supernormal power, although not in the distracted state and not directly in absorption, it also initiates bodily and vocal actions through the initiating volition. Question: When preparatory practice is aroused, there are only deliberate and decisive volitions without initiating action yet aroused; how can it be established based on them? Answer: In truth, initiating volition is aroused within absorption; just as above the eighth bhūmi one is constantly in the meditative mind, this is stated conventionally and differs from the distracted state. Within mental karma, do the ten wholesome and ten unwholesome actions initiate non-revelation? In the essay there are two explanations. However, the *Yaoji* says: A certain Tripiṭaka master explained that the passage in the fifty-third [fascicle of the *Yogācārabhūmi*] only speaks of mental revelatory karma in terms of active manifestation; according to this, non-revelation is established based on seeds. Now inquiring into the Tripiṭaka master's intention: bodily and vocal actions reveal to others, so they are named revelatory karma; seeds of volition do not reveal, hence they are called non-revelatory; mental karma reveals only to oneself, so it can be called revelatory; seeds do not reveal to oneself, hence they are also named non-revelatory. It says that in the *Fayuan* there are two views: one says it initiates non-revelation; one says it does not. It says the latter explanation is correct, but the Tripiṭaka master favored the former explanation. This statement is incorrect; the two views in the *Fayuan* say that one may adopt either at will, without determining that the latter explanation is definitive. My current view relies on the fact that it definitely initiates non-revelation: since the bodhisattva precepts fully guard against the three types of karma, surpassing the two vehicles until the end of the future, how could they not initiate superior non-revelation? The previous two explanations were made in reference to the intermediate [morality], not to the disciplinary code. Furthermore, the *Yaoji* says: Moreover, that which can give rise to the disciplinary code is not itself the disciplinary code; because it generates the disciplinary code, it is named after the fruit and called a disciplinary code; hence there is no non-revelation, so what contradiction is there? Therefore, we now accept that it does not initiate non-revelation. This is not correct now: having accepted that it does not initiate it, why say that what can give rise to the disciplinary code is not itself the disciplinary code? If one supposed that what can give rise to bodily and vocal disciplinary codes is not mental discipline, then with respect to the two vehicles mind has no discipline, whereas according to Mahāyāna, the ten wholesome precepts and so forth are also disciplinary codes; how could one say that the essence is not a disciplinary code? Claiming that it is named after the fruit and therefore lacks non-revelation is untenable. The *Yaoji* asks: On what phenomenon is mental non-revelation of absorption and the path established? The explanation says: Revelation is based on active volition, while non-revelation is based on seeds; hence both kinds are present, unlike bodily and vocal non-revelation of absorption and the path. Question: If so, after exiting the mind of absorption, since seeds still exist, non-revelation should be established. The explanation says: That is not parallel; as it is a morality accompanying the mind, its function upon emerging from absorption is faint, so non-revelation is not established; or, within a single active volition both revelation and non-revelation exist, which does not contradict reason. I now say: For the mental non-revelation accompanying absorption and the path, one must definitely take the active manifestation, and it cannot be considered deluded; for the morality of absorption and the path accompanies the mind, whereas seeds exist when mind is absent, which would not be accompanying the mind.