大乘義章 10.26

10.26

次就色心非色心等三聚分別。依薩婆多，作無作戒一切是色，以是身口色業性故。相狀如何？謂受戒時最後一念身口調善是其作色，此之作色為眼所行，眼見身口不作惡故，口之止業不可耳聞，以無聲故。於此作邊無作善生，名無作色。以此無作是其色業，從色法生防禁色過，故說為色。故《雜心》云「以作色故，無作亦色。其如樹動，影亦隨動。」此無作色為意所行，故論說言為不可見無對色也。依曇無德，作戒唯色，亦以身口色業性故。然此宗中是假名色，為意所行，非眼識見。正義如是。有人說言：依曇無德，作戒是其色心自性。若言作戒是色心性，何所依據？又若作戒是色心性，聲聞應受十善道戒，何故唯受七律儀戒？聲聞唯受七律儀故，明非心性。又若作戒是色心性，比丘二百五十戒中應有一戒獨防心過；無有一戒獨防心故，明非心性。問曰：若言聲聞戒法不防心過，何故律言「汝以何心？」釋言：彼遮成身口心，非謂制戒獨防心過。以如是義，當知作戒一向非心。無作戒者，於彼宗中非色非心，以非形礙所以非色，又非慮知所以非心。大乘法中，作戒是其色心自性，以大乘中作戒是其三業性故。問曰：若言大乘法中作戒是其色心性者，有人於彼受戒之時，最後一念心想異緣，是人云何得具作戒？釋言：是人心雖異緣，由前方便要期力故，身口意上離惡義成，說為作戒，故得具足。無作戒者，於大乘中是色心法，非色心事。以無作戒三業自性從三業生，防三業故，說為色心。是色心故，異曇無德。故《涅槃》云「我諸弟子不解我意，唱言：『如來說無作戒定非色心。』」彼無作戒雖復是其防色心法，不是其色心之事，是故說為非色非心。非色心故，異薩婆多。故《涅槃》云「我諸弟子不解我意，唱言：『如來說無作戒一向是色。』」是義云何？薩婆多中說無作戒性四大造，體是障礙故，欲色界有，無色則無。大乘法中說無作戒真是制法，如結界處所有界法，是制法故不為大造，非大造故非定隔礙，不定礙故身生四空亦常成就。是以不同。以小乘中情見未融，或有聞說是色心法，便即取之以為色事；或有聞說非色心事，便即取為非色心法，故成諍論。大乘通取，所以非諍。體性如是。

Next is distinguishing in terms of the three categories of material form (rūpa), mind (citta), and neither material form nor mind. According to the Sarvāstivāda, the action and non-action precepts are entirely material form, because their nature is the bodily and vocal material karma. What are their characteristics? At the time of receiving the precepts, the bodily and vocal rectitude in the very last moment is the material form of action; this material form of action is the domain of the eye, because the eye sees that body and speech do not perform evil. The cessation karma of speech cannot be heard by the ear, because it lacks sound. Alongside this action, wholesome non-action arises, which is called the material form of non-action. Because this non-action is a material karma, arises from material dharmas, and guards against material faults, it is called material form. Therefore the Za xin [lun] (Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya) states: 'Because action is material form, non-action is also material form. Just as when a tree moves, its shadow also moves along with it.' This material form of non-action is the domain of the mental faculty; hence the treatise says that it is invisible and non-resistant form. According to the Dharmaguptaka, the action-precept is solely material form, also because its nature is the bodily and vocal material karma. However, in this school, it is nominal form (prajñapti-rūpa); it is the domain of the mental faculty, not seen by the eye consciousness. Such is the correct doctrine. Some say: according to the Dharmaguptaka, the action-precept has the nature of both material form and mind. If one says that the action-precept is of the nature of material form and mind, what is this based on? Furthermore, if the action-precept were of the nature of form and mind, the śrāvaka should receive the precepts of the ten wholesome courses of action; why do they only receive the seven restraint precepts? Because the śrāvaka receives only the seven restraints, it is clear that it is not of mental nature. Furthermore, if the action-precept were of the nature of form and mind, among the two hundred and fifty precepts of a bhikṣu there should be one precept that solely guards against mental faults; since there is not a single precept that solely guards against the mind, it is clear that it is not of mental nature. Question: If you say that the śrāvaka precept-dharma does not guard against mental faults, why does the Vinaya say, 'With what mind did you [act]?' Explanation: That [question] blocks the completion of bodily and vocal mind, and does not mean that the established precepts solely guard against mental faults. From such meanings, one should know that the action-precept is definitely not mind. As for the non-action precept, in that school it is neither form nor mind: because it lacks physical resistance, it is not form; and because it lacks deliberate cognition, it is not mind. In the Mahāyāna teaching, the action-precept is of the nature of both form and mind, because in the Mahāyāna the action-precept has the nature of the three karmas [of body, speech, and mind]. Question: If one says that in the Mahāyāna teaching the action-precept is of the nature of form and mind, when someone receives the precepts, if their mind thinks of other conditions in the very last moment, how can this person attain the complete action-precept? Explanation: Although this person's mind is on other conditions, due to the power of the vow in the preceding skillful means, the meaning of desisting from evil upon body, speech, and mind is established, which is called the action-precept; therefore it is fully attained. As for the non-action precept, in the Mahāyāna it is a principle (dharma) of form and mind, not an actual concrete entity (vastu) of form and mind. Because the non-action precept has the intrinsic nature of the three karmas, arises from the three karmas, and guards against the three karmas, it is spoken of as form and mind. Because it is form and mind, it differs from the Dharmaguptaka. Therefore the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] states: 'My disciples do not understand my intention and proclaim: "The Tathāgata said that the non-action precept is definitely neither form nor mind."' Although that non-action precept is indeed a principle that guards against form and mind, it is not an actual entity of form and mind; therefore it is described as neither form nor mind. Because it is not form and mind, it differs from the Sarvāstivāda. Therefore the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] states: 'My disciples do not understand my intention and proclaim: "The Tathāgata said that the non-action precept is definitely material form."' What does this mean? In the Sarvāstivāda, the non-action precept is said to be created by the nature of the four great elements; because its essence is obstructive, it exists in the desire and form realms, but does not exist in the formless realm. In the Mahāyāna teaching, the non-action precept is said to be truly a regulative principle—like the boundary principles that exist in a consecrated boundary (sīmā). Because it is a regulative principle, it is not created by the great elements; because it is not created by the great elements, it is not definitively resistant; because it is not definitively resistant, even when one is born into the four formless [heavens], it is always accomplished. Hence they are not the same. Because the emotional views in the Hīnayāna are not yet integrated, some hear it said to be a principle of form and mind and immediately grasp it as a concrete material entity; or some hear it said not to be a concrete entity of form and mind and immediately grasp it as a principle that is neither form nor mind; hence disputes arose. The Mahāyāna takes both comprehensively, and therefore there is no dispute. Such is its essential nature.