大乘義章 7.58

7.58

次辨體性。先論身業之中有作、無作，先辨作業。宗別不同，所說各異。毘曇法中，說方便色為身作業。此方便色，是其色入，為眼所行。問曰：若此是色入者，於青黃等二十色中何色攝乎？所謂高下、正不正等。若依《成實》，是假名色，法入所收。是義云何？於色塵上，相續之中能有損益，是身作業。有人宣說：成實法中，身業用彼思為正體，身為業具。是義不然。業前方便思為正主，身口為具。正論成業，是則身業假色為體。故《成實論．業相品》云「色法相續餘處生時，能有損益，名為身業。」不言思是，明知不用思為正體。色法相續，後起異前，名餘處生。次辨無作。依如《毘曇》，亦是色性，法入所收。若依《成實》，非色心性，法入所攝。次論口業。於中亦有作無作別，先辨作業。依如《毘曇》，聲入為體，為耳所行。若依《成實》，是假名聲，法入所收。於實聲上，前後相續，能有損益，是口作業。次辨無作，與身業同。次論意業。依如《毘曇》，意但有作，無無作業，以心法中三性不並，善時無惡、惡時無善，故無無作。故論說言「以三種故，意無無作。」就作業中，思為正主，餘心心法相從名業。若依《成實》，通作無作，思為作業，隨此作邊，無作法生，名無作業。此無作業，亦非色心。業性如是（此二門竟）。

Next, distinguishing their essential nature. First, discussing manifest and unmanifest within bodily karma; first, distinguishing manifest karma. The different schools do not agree, and what they teach varies. In the Abhidharma doctrine, they say that preparatory form is manifest bodily karma. This preparatory form is the form sense-field (rūpāyatana), which is the domain of the eye. Question: If this is the form sense-field, which form among the twenty forms such as blue, yellow, and so forth subsumes it? Answer: The so-called high, low, straight, crooked, and so forth. If according to the *Tattvasiddhi*, it is nominal form (prajñapti-rūpa), subsumed under the dharma sense-field (dharmāyatana). What does this mean? Causing benefit or harm within the continuity upon form objects is manifest bodily karma. Some declare that in the *Tattvasiddhi* doctrine, bodily karma takes that volition as its primary essence, while the body is the instrument of karma. This doctrine is not correct. The volition prior to the karma is the primary agent, and body and speech are the instruments; when speaking strictly of completing karma, then bodily karma takes nominal form as its essence. Hence the 'Chapter on Karmic Characteristics' in the *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra* says: 'When the continuity of material dharmas arises in another place and is able to cause benefit or harm, it is called bodily karma.' It does not say that volition is it; clearly knowing this, it does not use volition as the primary essence. The continuity of material dharmas arising later distinct from the former is called 'arising in another place'. Next, distinguishing unmanifest [karma]. According to the Abhidharma, it is also of the nature of form, subsumed under the dharma sense-field. According to the *Tattvasiddhi*, it is of a nature that is neither form nor mind, subsumed under the dharma sense-field. Next, discussing vocal karma. Within this there is also the distinction of manifest and unmanifest; first, distinguishing manifest karma. According to the Abhidharma, it takes the sound sense-field (śabdāyatana) as its essence, which is the domain of the ear. According to the *Tattvasiddhi*, it is nominal sound, subsumed under the dharma sense-field: being able to cause benefit or harm in the temporal continuity upon actual sound is manifest vocal karma. Next, distinguishing unmanifest [karma]: it is the same as bodily karma. Next, discussing mental karma. According to the Abhidharma, mind has only manifest [karma] and no unmanifest karma; because among mental dharmas the three natures do not coexist—when wholesome, there is no unwholesome, and when unwholesome, there is no wholesome—therefore there is no unmanifest [karma]. Hence the treatise states: 'Because of three reasons, mind has no ununmanifest [karma].' Within manifest karma, volition is the primary agent, and the remaining mind and mental factors follow along and are called karma. If according to the *Tattvasiddhi*, it encompasses both manifest and unmanifest: volition is manifest karma, and following alongside this manifest [karma], an unmanifest dharma arises, called unmanifest karma. This unmanifest karma is also neither form nor mind. Such is the nature of karma. (This concludes the second section.)