大乘義章 7.4

7.4

第一釋名辨其體性。色形聚積，名之為身。起說之門，說之為口。伺緣名意，依斯起作，故名身業乃至意業。名字如是。體性云何？身業有二：一者作業、二無作業。言作業者，論釋不同。依如《毘曇》，三聚法中，色法所收。十二入中，色入所攝。彼說身作是礙性故，色聚所收。是實法色，眼所行故，色入所攝，所謂高下正不正等。若依《成實》，三聚法中，色聚所收。十二入中，法入所攝。色義同前。以何義故，十二入中法入所攝？彼宗之中實色非業，凡是業者要是假色，相續之中有損有益，方名為業。故《成實》言「餘處生時，能有損益，名之為業。」相續之中，後起異前，名餘處生。大乘法中，實有作業，相續乃成。義有兩兼，不得偏取。作業如是。無作業者，依如《毘曇》，三聚法中色法所收，十二入中法入所攝，是礙性故色法所收。此無作色，非眼所行，唯意識知，故法入攝。若依《成實》，三聚法中，是其非色非心所收，十二入中法入所攝。彼宗不說有無作色，良以無作不同形礙，故名非色；不同情慮，故曰非心。為意行故，法入所攝。大乘法中，義有兩兼，是身業故得名為色，無色心相名非色心。身業如是。口業亦二：一者作業、二無作業。言作業者，論釋不同。依如《毘曇》，三聚法中色法所收，十二入中聲入所攝。是礙性故，色法所收。是實法聲，耳所行故，聲入所攝。彼宗不說有假名聲以為業矣。若依《成實》，三聚法中色法所收，十二入中法入所攝。是礙性故，色法所收。是假名聲，意所行故，法入所攝。相續之中，方有損益，故名為假。無作業者，論釋亦異。依如《毘曇》，三聚法中色法所收，十二入中法入所攝。是色性故，色聚所收。是無作法，意所行故，法入所攝。若依《成實》，三聚法中非色心收，十二入中法入所攝。不同形礙，故名非色。不同情慮，故曰非心。意所行故，法入所攝。大乘法中，口業之相，類身可知。意業之中，諸論不同。依如《毘曇》，但有作業，無無作業。故彼論言「以三種故，意無無作。言三種者，謂善、惡、等三性法也。色法之中，三性並故，善身口邊有惡無作，惡身口邊有善無作。心法不爾，善惡不並，善心之中無惡無作，惡心之中無善無作。以是義故，但有作業。」然彼作業，三聚法中心法所收，十二入中法入所攝。是心數中思數為體，故心法收。是意所行，故法入攝。若依《成實》，意地具有作、無作業。故彼論言「無有因緣令使意地無無作業。」彼說作業，與《毘曇》同。所言異者，不說心外別有思體。故彼論言「思若非意，更復說何以為意業？意行緣中，說名為思。」無作業者，三聚法中非色心收，十二入中法入所攝。不同形礙，復非情慮，說非色心。意所行故，法入所攝。大乘法中，有作、無作。其中作業，思數為體，三聚法中心法所收，十二入中法入所攝。無作業者，是心業故，得言是心；非心相故，得言非心，十二入中法入所攝。意業如是（此一門竟）。

First, explaining the names and distinguishing their essential natures. The aggregation of physical form and shape is named "body." The portal through which speech is produced is named "speech." Investigating conditions is named "mind." Actions initiated relying upon these are therefore named bodily karma up to mental karma. Such are the names. What are their essential natures? Bodily karma is twofold: first, manifest karma (vijñapti-karman); second, non-manifest karma (avijñapti-karman). Regarding manifest karma, the treatises explain it differently. According to the Abhidharma, within the three groups of dharmas, it is included in physical dharmas. Within the twelve sense bases, it is subsumed under the visible-form base. That school explains that because bodily manifestation has the nature of obstruction, it is included in the physical group. It is real form (dravyasat-rūpa), and because it is the domain of the eye, it is subsumed under the visible-form base—specifically, high, low, upright, not upright, and so on. According to the Tattvasiddhi, within the three groups of dharmas, it is included in the physical group. Within the twelve sense bases, it is subsumed under the mental-object base (dharmāyatana). The meaning of "form" is the same as before. For what reason is it subsumed under the mental-object base among the twelve sense bases? In that tradition, real form is not karma; whatever is karma must be nominal form (prajñaptisat-rūpa), and only when there is harm or benefit within a continuum is it named karma. Therefore the Tattvasiddhi says: "When arising in another locus it is capable of harm or benefit, it is named karma." Within a continuum, a subsequent arising differing from the prior is named "arising in another locus." In the Mahāyāna Dharma, there is both real manifest karma, and it is completed through a continuum; its meaning encompasses both, and one must not hold bias toward either. Such is manifest karma. Regarding non-manifest karma, according to the Abhidharma, within the three groups of dharmas it is included in physical dharmas, and within the twelve sense bases it is subsumed under the mental-object base; because it has the nature of obstruction, it is included in physical dharmas. This non-manifest form is not the domain of the eye, but is known only by mental consciousness, and is therefore subsumed under the mental-object base. According to the Tattvasiddhi, within the three groups of dharmas it is included in neither-form-nor-mind (citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra), and within the twelve sense bases it is subsumed under the mental-object base. That tradition does not speak of a non-manifest form; precisely because non-manifest [action] is unlike physical obstruction, it is named non-form, and because it is unlike sentience and thought, it is called non-mind. Because it is the domain of the mind, it is subsumed under the mental-object base. In the Mahāyāna Dharma, the meaning encompasses both: because it is bodily karma, it may be named form; because it lacks the marks of form and mind, it is named neither form nor mind. Such is bodily karma. Verbal karma is also twofold: first, manifest karma; second, non-manifest karma. Regarding manifest karma, the treatises explain it differently. According to the Abhidharma, within the three groups of dharmas it is included in physical dharmas, and within the twelve sense bases it is subsumed under the sound base. Because it has the nature of obstruction, it is included in physical dharmas. It is real sound, and because it is the domain of the ear, it is subsumed under the sound base. That tradition does not accept nominal sound as constituting karma. According to the Tattvasiddhi, within the three groups of dharmas it is included in physical dharmas, and within the twelve sense bases it is subsumed under the mental-object base. Because it has the nature of obstruction, it is included in physical dharmas. It is nominal sound, and because it is the domain of the mind, it is subsumed under the mental-object base. Only within a continuum is there harm or benefit, hence it is named nominal. Regarding non-manifest karma, the treatises' explanations also differ. According to the Abhidharma, within the three groups of dharmas it is included in physical dharmas, and within the twelve sense bases it is subsumed under the mental-object base. Because it has the nature of form, it is included in the physical group. Being a non-manifest dharma and the domain of the mind, it is subsumed under the mental-object base. According to the Tattvasiddhi, within the three groups of dharmas it is included in neither-form-nor-mind, and within the twelve sense bases it is subsumed under the mental-object base. Because it is unlike physical obstruction, it is named non-form. Because it is unlike sentience and thought, it is called non-mind. Because it is the domain of the mind, it is subsumed under the mental-object base. In the Mahāyāna Dharma, the characteristics of verbal karma can be understood by analogy with the body. Within mental karma, the various treatises differ. According to the Abhidharma, there is only manifest karma, and no non-manifest karma. Therefore that treatise states: "Due to three reasons, the mind has no non-manifest [karma]. The three reasons refer to the dharmas of the three natures: wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral. In physical dharmas, the three natures can coexist, so that beside a wholesome body and speech there can be unwholesome non-manifest [karma], and beside an unwholesome body and speech there can be wholesome non-manifest [karma]. Mental dharmas are not like this: wholesome and unwholesome cannot coexist; within a wholesome mind there is no unwholesome non-manifest [karma], and within an unwholesome mind there is no wholesome non-manifest [karma]. For this reason, there is only manifest karma." Yet that manifest karma, within the three groups of dharmas, is included in mental dharmas, and within the twelve sense bases, is subsumed under the mental-object base. Because its essence is volition (cetanā) among the mental factors, it is included in mental dharmas. Because it is the domain of the mind, it is subsumed under the mental-object base. According to the Tattvasiddhi, the mental ground possesses both manifest and non-manifest karma. Therefore that treatise states: "There is no causal condition that would cause the mental ground to lack non-manifest karma." Its explanation of manifest karma is the same as the Abhidharma. Where it differs is that it does not assert a separate essence of volition outside of the mind. Therefore that treatise states: "If volition were not mind, what else would be spoken of as mental karma? When the mind acts upon an object, it is named volition." Regarding non-manifest karma, within the three groups of dharmas it is included in neither-form-nor-mind, and within the twelve sense bases it is subsumed under the mental-object base. Being unlike physical obstruction and further not being sentience or thought, it is said to be neither form nor mind. Because it is the domain of the mind, it is subsumed under the mental-object base. In the Mahāyāna Dharma, there are both manifest and non-manifest [karma]. Among them, manifest karma takes volition as its essence; within the three groups of dharmas it is included in mental dharmas, and within the twelve sense bases it is subsumed under the mental-object base. Non-manifest karma, because it is mental karma, may be called mind; because it lacks the marks of mind, it may be called non-mind; and within the twelve sense bases it is subsumed under the mental-object base. Such is mental karma (this completes the first section).