大乘義章 10.23

10.23

次就有作無作分別。先就受行明作無作，後就持行明作無作。受行云何？受中之作，汎有二種：一因中作，求戒方便，禮師乞戒，如是等也。二果中，所謂最後一剎那頃，與法相應身等業。因中之作，是作戒因，非作戒體。果中之作，是作戒體。作戒如是。次辨無作。准依《毘曇》，文中無作略有三分：一因時無作，謂前因中有作善邊無作隨生。二果時無作，謂彼最後一剎那項有作善邊無作隨生，是中即有二種無作同時俱起：一作俱無作、二要期無作。隨彼作戒，無作善生，名為作俱。由前要期，無作法生，名為要期。問曰：此二同在一時，何故偏名一為作俱？釋言：作俱親從作生，故名作俱。要期無作，由前方便要期力起，為是義故不名作俱。此是第二果時無作。三果後無作，於作戒後無作續生，名為果後。此三時中，因時無作一向非是無作戒體，果時果後有是有非，作俱則非、要期則是。准依《成實》，亦有三分：一者因時、二者果時、三者果後。因時果後與前相似，果時無作大況同前。所言異者，毘曇法中，作俱要期二種並生。此宗果時唯有作俱，要期未有，以未有故唯名作俱。此云何知？如《成實》說。彼論問曰：齊何當名無作？論自釋言「第二念項名為無作。」彼名作戒以為初念，故名無作為第二念。此三時中，因及果時一向非是無作戒體，果後所發要期無作是無作戒。大乘戒中亦有三分：一者因時、二者果時、三者果後。因及果後與小乘同。果時無作，文無定判，或同《毘曇》、或同《成實》。此三時中，因時無作非無作戒。果時不定，若說果時單有作俱，非無作戒；若說果時二種並生，是則分取要期無作為無作戒，作俱則非。果後亦爾，作俱則非、要期則是。受戒如是。次就持戒明作無作。義釋有四：一就行業明作無作。對緣防護，名為作持。依作則有無作善生，名無作持。二據行修始終分別。學戒之始作意防護，名為作持。修心純熟，任運離過不假作意，名無作持。如杖轉輪，與杖相應名為作轉，去杖自動名無作轉，此亦如是。三就行位明作無作。一切凡夫習戒未成，通名作持。一切賢聖戒行成就，名無作持。故《涅槃》云「戒不具者，是人但有作戒，無無作戒。」謂凡夫人但有方便始作之戒，無其終成無作戒也。四約境界明作無作。從凡至佛隨事離過，通名作持；證實捨過，名無作義，辨之麁爾（此二門竟）。

Next is distinguishing in terms of action (vijñapti) and non-action (avijñapti). First, action and non-action are explained regarding the practice of receiving [the precepts]; next, action and non-action are explained regarding the practice of maintaining [them]. What is the practice of receiving? Action within receiving generally has two types: First, action in the causal stage: the skillful means of seeking the precepts, bowing to the teacher and requesting the precepts, and so forth. Second, [action] in the fruition stage: the bodily and other karmas concomitant with the Dharma in the very last single moment (kṣaṇa). Action in the causal stage is the cause of the action-precept, not the essence of the action-precept. Action in the fruition stage is the essence of the action-precept. Such is the action-precept. Next is distinguishing non-action. According to the Abhidharma, non-action in the texts has roughly three divisions: First, non-action at the causal time: namely, alongside the wholesome action in the preceding causal [stage], non-action arises accordingly. Second, non-action at the fruition time: namely, alongside the wholesome action in that very last single moment, non-action arises accordingly; within this, two types of non-action arise simultaneously together: 1. non-action concurrent with action, and 2. non-action of the vow. Following that action-precept, wholesome non-action arises, which is called 'concurrent with action.' Due to the preceding vow, the dharma of non-action arises, which is called 'of the vow.' Question: Since these two are in the same single moment, why is only one specifically named 'concurrent with action'? Explanation: That which is concurrent with action directly arises from action, and is therefore called 'concurrent with action.' Non-action of the vow arises by the power of the vow in the preceding skillful means; for this reason, it is not called 'concurrent with action.' This is the second: non-action at the fruition time. Third, non-action after the fruition: non-action that continuously arises after the action-precept is called 'after the fruition.' Among these three times, non-action at the causal time is definitely not the essence of the non-action precept; at the fruition time and after the fruition, some are and some are not: that which is concurrent with action is not, while that of the vow is. According to the Tattvasiddhi, there are also three divisions: first, the causal time; second, the fruition time; third, after the fruition. The causal time and after the fruition are similar to the previous [account]; non-action at the fruition time is broadly the same as before. What is said to differ is that in the Abhidharma system, both the [non-action] concurrent with action and that of the vow arise together. In this school [of the Tattvasiddhi], at the fruition time there is only that which is concurrent with action, and that of the vow does not yet exist; because it does not yet exist, it is only called 'concurrent with action.' How is this known? As the Tattvasiddhi states: that treatise asks, 'At what point is it called non-action?' The treatise itself explains: 'In the second mind-moment, it is called non-action.' It terms the action-precept as the first moment; hence it terms non-action as the second moment. Among these three times, the causal and fruition times are definitely not the essence of the non-action precept; the non-action of the vow generated after the fruition is the non-action precept. Within the Mahāyāna precepts, there are also three divisions: first, the causal time; second, the fruition time; third, after the fruition. The causal [time] and after the fruition are the same as in the Hīnayāna. Regarding non-action at the fruition time, there is no fixed determination in the texts; it either accords with the Abhidharma or with the Tattvasiddhi. Among these three times, non-action at the causal time is not the non-action precept. At the fruition time it is indeterminate: if one says that at the fruition time there is solely that which is concurrent with action, it is not the non-action precept; if one says that at the fruition time both arise together, then one takes specifically the non-action of the vow as the non-action precept, and that concurrent with action is not. After the fruition it is also like this: that concurrent with action is not, while that of the vow is. Such is receiving the precepts. Next is explaining action and non-action regarding maintaining the precepts. The doctrinal explanation has four [aspects]: First, explaining action and non-action in terms of practice and karmic activity. Guarding against objects is called 'maintaining through action.' In reliance on action, wholesome non-action arises, which is called 'maintaining through non-action.' Second, distinguishing based on the beginning and culmination of cultivation and practice. At the beginning of studying the precepts, intentionally guarding [against faults] is called 'maintaining through action.' When mental cultivation matures and one spontaneously desists from faults without needing deliberate intention, it is called 'maintaining through non-action.' Just as when a stick turns a wheel, while it is connected to the stick it is called 'turning through action,' but when the stick is removed and it rotates on its own, it is called 'turning through non-action'; this is also like that. Third, explaining action and non-action in terms of the stages of practice. For all ordinary beings whose training in the precepts is not yet perfected, it is collectively called 'maintaining through action.' For all worthy ones and noble ones whose precept practice is accomplished, it is called 'maintaining through non-action.' Therefore the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: 'One whose precepts are not complete has only the action-precept and lacks the non-action precept.' This means that an ordinary person has only the precept of beginning action by skillful means, and lacks the precept of non-action that is ultimately accomplished. Fourth, explaining action and non-action in reference to the cognitive object. From an ordinary being up to a Buddha, desisting from faults according to phenomenal things is collectively called 'maintaining through action'; realising the real and letting go of faults is the meaning of 'non-action.' Thus it is broadly distinguished (here ends the second section).