大乘義章 10.39

10.39

次辨所防同異之義。於中有三：一遮性分別。依如《毘曇》，別解脫戒，防禁性惡及離遮罪。言性惡者，所謂身口七不善業。言遮罪者，所謂飲酒、殺草木等。禪無漏戒，唯離性惡，不防遮罪，以非所受威儀法故。若依《成實》，三種律儀同防遮性。二者根本方便分別。殺盜等罪名為根本，養猪羊等名為方便。依如《毘曇》，別解脫戒通防根本、方便之惡，禪無漏戒唯防根本。成實法中，三種律儀齊防根本、方便之罪。三約時分別。時謂三世。毘曇法中，別解脫戒唯防現在，不通過未。禪戒隨心，寬通三世，三世俱防。現起之者，防離現惡；過去未來性成就者，防過未惡。無漏戒中最初得者，唯防現在未來之惡，不通過去。彼現在者防離現惡，寬通成就。在未來者，防未來惡，以本未有過去世中不成就故，不防過去。經生聖人無漏律儀，通防三世。現起之者防於現惡，過去未來性成就者防於過未。若依《成實》，三禪律儀體皆現在，不說寬通過未之義。體雖現在，而能通防三世之惡。問曰：何故毘曇法中現在之戒唯防現惡，成實法中現在之戒通防三世？釋言：《毘曇》性相中求，故隨世別以論所防。《成實》立義務就寬通，故說現戒通防三世。通相云何？現戒起時，現惡不生，名防現在。現惡滅故，令過去惡因義不成，名防過去。現惡滅故，更不作因牽生後惡，名防未來。非謂過未有體可防。同異辨之麁爾（此三門竟）。

Next, distinguishing the identity and difference of what is guarded against. Herein there are three: 1. Distinction between prohibitive and natural [offences]. According to the Abhidharma, the prātimokṣa precepts guard against natural evil and departure from prohibitive offences. "Natural evil" refers to the seven unwholesome actions of body and speech. "Prohibitive offences" refer to drinking alcohol, damaging plants and trees, and so forth. Dhyāna and untainted precepts only depart from natural evil and do not guard against prohibitive offences, because they are not the rules of deportment that were received. If relying on the Tattvasiddhi, the three kinds of restraint equally guard against both prohibitive and natural offences. 2. Distinction between fundamental and preliminary [actions]. Sins such as killing and stealing are called fundamental; actions such as raising pigs and sheep are called preliminary. According to the Abhidharma, the prātimokṣa precepts guard generally against the evils of both fundamental and preliminary actions, whereas dhyāna and untainted precepts guard only against fundamental actions. In the system of the Tattvasiddhi, the three kinds of restraint equally guard against both fundamental and preliminary offences. 3. Distinction in terms of time. Time refers to the three times. In the Abhidharma system, the prātimokṣa precepts guard only against the present, not extending through past and future. Dhyāna precepts follow the mind and broadly extend through the three times, guarding against all three times. That which arises in the present guards against and departs from present evil; that which is endowed as a nature in the past and future guards against past and future evil. Among untainted precepts, those first obtained guard only against present and future evil, not extending to the past. What is present guards against and departs from present evil, and broadly extends in endowment. What is in the future guards against future evil; because it was originally nonexistent and not possessed in past lifetimes, it does not guard against the past. The untainted restraint of noble persons who have undergone rebirth broadly guards against all three times: what arises in the present guards against present evil, and what is endowed as a nature in the past and future guards against the past and future. If relying on the Tattvasiddhi, the essence of the three dhyāna restraints is entirely present, and it does not teach the meaning of broadly extending through the past and future. Although their essence is present, they can broadly guard against the evil of the three times. Question: Why is it that in the Abhidharma system the present precept guards only against present evil, whereas in the Tattvasiddhi system the present precept broadly guards against the three times? Explanation: The Abhidharma seeks among nature and characteristics, and therefore discusses what is guarded against according to the distinction of the times. The Tattvasiddhi in establishing doctrines always aims at broad pervasiveness, and therefore states that the present precept broadly guards against the three times. What is its general characteristic? When the present precept arises, present evil does not arise, which is called guarding against the present. Because present evil is extinguished, it causes past evil not to establish the function of a cause, which is called guarding against the past. Because present evil is extinguished, it no longer acts as a cause pulling forth subsequent evil, which is called guarding against the future. It does not mean that past and future have real essences that can be guarded against. Distinguishing identity and difference is roughly thus. (This completes the third section.)