大乘義章 10.30

10.30

次辨有無不同之義。大乘法中猶具三聚。小乘法中單受律儀，無餘二聚。以何義故無攝善戒？有人釋言：小乘之人意存息滅，故受律儀，無心起作，故無攝善。若爾，小乘三學之中，但應修戒，不習定慧。彼存息滅，三學俱修。雖存息滅三學俱修，雖存息滅何妨攝善？以有斯妨，更為異釋。夫為制戒流類均齊，故制律儀。云何均齊？莫問利鈍，同皆遠離五篇諸過，得聖果故。攝善不等，是故不制攝善法戒。云何不等？彼小乘中作善無量，無有一人具修諸善方得聖果，故曰不等。如八禪等，隨修一二亦得聖果，不要具修。問曰：何故離惡均齊、集善不等？以惡易離、善難成故。問：縱使攝善不等，制攝善戒竟有何過？釋言：不得。若小乘中制攝善戒，有人不能具修善法，便是犯戒，云何得聖？又不齊等，云何名制？為是義故，無攝善戒。問曰：若言小乘法中無攝善戒，亦應小乘無有止犯作持之義。釋言：小乘雖不制於攝善法戒，非全不修，故有止犯作持之義。雖有作持，量分而為，非制齊修，是故不名制攝善戒。又小乘中設有作持助止之作，非攝善戒。問曰：若言小乘作善是助止法，三聚戒中無攝善者，三學之中亦應不立定慧兩學。釋言：三學隨義分別，非制法故，不得齊等。為是義故，說有無過。以何義故無攝生戒？彼在獨度，不兼他故。有無如是（此二門竟）。

Next is to explain the difference in existence and nonexistence. In the Mahāyāna teaching, all three clusters are fully present. In the Hīnayāna teaching, one receives only the restraint [precepts], with no remaining two clusters. For what reason is there no precept of gathering good dharmas? Someone explained: practitioners of the Hīnayāna intend cessation, and therefore receive the restraint [precepts]; having no intention to actively generate [deeds], they thus lack the gathering of good. If so, then among the three trainings of the Hīnayāna, they should only cultivate precepts and not practice samādhi and prajñā. Yet while they intend cessation, they cultivate all three trainings. Although intending cessation they cultivate all three trainings; although intending cessation, what obstructs them from gathering good? Because there is this objection, another explanation is offered: precepts are established so that classes [of persons] are uniform; thus the restraint is established. Why uniform? Regardless of sharp or dull faculties, all equally abandon the faults of the five divisions to attain the noble fruits. Gathering good is not equal, and therefore the precept of gathering good dharmas is not established. Why unequal? In that Hīnayāna, good deeds are measureless, and no single person fully cultivates all goods before attaining the noble fruits; hence it is called unequal. As with the eight dhyānas and so forth, by cultivating one or two as one will, one also attains the noble fruit; full cultivation is not required. Question: Why is the abandonment of evil uniform, while the collection of good is unequal? Answer: Because evil is easy to abandon, while good is difficult to accomplish. Question: Even if gathering good is unequal, what fault would there be after all in establishing the precept of gathering good? Explanation: It cannot be done. If in the Hīnayāna the precept of gathering good were established, and someone were unable to cultivate good dharmas in full, they would violate the precepts; how could they attain the noble state? Furthermore, if it were not uniform, how could it be called an established regulation? For this reason, there is no precept of gathering good. Question: If you say that in the Hīnayāna teaching there is no precept of gathering good, then in the Hīnayāna there should also be no principle of cessation-offense and active observance. Explanation: Although the Hīnayāna does not establish the precept of gathering good dharmas, it does not completely fail to cultivate [good]; hence it has the principle of cessation-offense and active observance. Although there is active observance, it is done according to one's capacity, not established as a uniform cultivation for all; therefore it is not called establishing the precept of gathering good. Furthermore, if there is active observance in the Hīnayāna, it is an action that assists cessation, not the precept of gathering good. Question: If you say that doing good in the Hīnayāna is a method to assist cessation, and that among the three clusters of precepts there is no gathering of good, then among the three trainings the two trainings of samādhi and prajñā should also not be established. Explanation: The three trainings are distinguished according to their principles, not as established regulations; therefore they cannot be made equal. For this reason, we speak of the difference between existence and nonexistence. For what reason is there no precept of gathering sentient beings? Because they abide in self-deliverance and do not embrace others. Existence and nonexistence are like this (this concludes the second section).