大乘法苑義林章 3.19

3.19

第一辨名，於中有二：一列名、二釋名。列名者，一表色、二無表色，舊名作色、無作色。表色有二：一身表業、二語表業，此通三乘。若大乘說，有義表業亦有三種，更加意表。《瑜伽論》第五十三說「若有不欲表示於他，唯自起心，內意思擇不說語言，但發善、染污、無記法現行意表業，故有意表。」其此意表發無表者，唯是善性。菩薩亦成，唯有三支，依業道故，除染、無記。業增上者便發無表，餘則不然。有義：不善亦有無表，十惡業道極重方成。後三意表亦發無表，理有何失？百行所攝俱名律儀，翻此乃是不律儀性，故知意三亦發無表。何容發身、語思種名無表，獨意猛思不名無表？故知三表皆有無表，三罰業中意罰重故，仙人意嫌殺多生故。《二十唯識》頌云「末蹬伽等空，云何由仙忿，意罰為大罪，此復云何成。」意有無表，通善、不善，非二無記。然意無表非是色性，不發現行身、語色故，發身、語者即彼攝故。有義：意表總教雖然，不見別文說有無表。發身語思外彰最猛，熏種增上可發無表。意思內發唯自表知非最增猛，雖熏種子非用倍增，故唯身語方有無表。仙人意嫌說成意罰，縱成重罪豈有無表？此亦不是不律儀攝。若由律儀有百行故，意業亦立有不律儀無表，何故《百法》不別說耶？若依此義，雖受十善十善種，雖有十類功能名為律儀戒，但七支說有無表。律儀名通，無表局故，非由名律儀皆有無表，故律儀之與無表義各別。故《瑜伽》五十三云「若遠離思與不律儀相違，由遠離增上力故，與五根俱行說名律儀。」此說身、語遠前行思名為律儀，何必要是無表方名律儀？又彼卷說「律儀有八：一能起律儀、二攝受律儀、三防護律儀、四還引律儀、五下品律儀、六中品律儀、七上品律儀、八清淨律儀。若未正受，先作是心：我當定受如是遠離。名能起律儀。若正攝受遠離戒時，名攝受律儀。自後五根增上力故，與彼種子俱行，數生慚羞於罪不作，名防護律儀。失念有犯尋即悔除，說名還引律儀。若小分離、小時離，唯自離不勸他離，不讚嘆不慶慰，說名下品。若多分離、多時離，自離亦勸他，然不讚嘆亦不慶慰，說名中品。若一切離、盡壽離，自離亦勸他，亦讚歎慶慰，說名上品。靜慮無漏，說名清淨。」此初能起既名律儀，何必律儀必是無表？故雖百行皆名律儀，發無表者唯在前七。《俱舍》十四引經頌言「身律儀善哉，善哉語律儀，意律儀善哉，善哉遍律儀。」意根亦說律儀之言，豈成無表？若依前二解，身語律儀及不律儀，體是色性，無變礙故與色類異，故別處攝。此意俱思不同於彼，不發於色亦不遮色，不稱色名。既是緣慮現思所熏，但於思種義名無表，仍體是思，即行蘊攝。故於《百法》更不別說。如意邪見，後彰身、語。身、語後彰既名不律儀，初之二思何故不名？如律儀中初二思故，縱意無表，但是處中，亦有何失？此三說內，最後為正。外彰身語令他表知，有增猛故。無表色中略有三類：一律儀無表、二不律儀無表、三非律儀非不律儀無表。《對法》第八說「業有三：一律儀業、二不律儀業、三非律儀非不律儀業。非律儀非不律儀業者，謂彼所有善不善業，若布施等、若歐擊等，律儀、不律儀所不攝業，皆此所收。」〈決擇〉五十三說律儀不律儀已，云「謂除如先所說律儀、不律儀業，所有善不善等身、語、意業，當知一切皆是非律儀非不律儀所攝。」五十四云「色用差別者，謂有表、無表，律儀、不律儀、非律儀非不律儀所攝作用，說布施等為此業故，定知此業亦有無表。」何因初說有表、無表唯在律儀不律儀中，不在處中。此有何意？故《俱舍論》第十四說「無表三：律儀、不律儀、非二。」有義處中唯有表業，要上品思熏種勢勝方有無表。《顯揚》第一、五十四等，說法處色有三：一律儀、二不律儀、三定自在，不說非二有無表故。雖諸處言有處中業，亦不分明說有無表，故處中表無無表色。若依初義，何妨處中作誠勵意而有上思，律儀容容而有中思，何容熏種猛利義同成於無表，簡處中業？若以律儀及非律儀必具支故，思種熏勝得有無表，處中不然。即應百行非是律儀，亦有全分一分等故。許近事戒有小受故，諸處雖說法處無表，但有二類，其處中業，性亦唯二，攝屬於彼。即此二收更不別說，體非無也。若依後義，此亦不然。一切處中，望律儀等，思皆下品，非處中業可有無表。於二說中既無顯文，亦任取捨。次釋名者，諸根大種造色和合，積集差別說名為身。五根、四塵，能造、所造，俱得身稱。但由身根諸法集處獨依身名，又依止義說名為身。《唯識論》云「體、依、聚義，總說名身。」亦由身根為眾多法所依止故，獨標身號。故《瑜伽》云「諸根所隨周遍積集，故名為身。」雖標總稱，即是別名。表謂表示，表自內心示於他故。舊云身作，義不相應，無表亦有造作義故。表體即是色處表色，依身之表名為身表，依主釋也。業者造作義，若色處表色，名身表業。依身之表名身表，身表即業名身表業，持業釋名。今取動身表思名身表業。動身表之業，乃依主釋。語謂語言，音聲為體。表義、業義皆如前釋。此能表了所欲，宣說內心意樂，表示於他，故名為語表。或復語者，字等所依，由帶字等能詮表故，名之為語。語體即表，持業釋也。語表即業，業屬語聲。今取語表能發之思，名語表業。即發語表之業，名語表業，依士為釋。與意相應，作動於意，名為意表及名意業，皆隣近釋。若云意表即業，乃持業釋。身、語、意三之無表，皆依主釋。《成業》等論，文義皆顯，故不引之。律儀有三：一別解脫律儀；二靜慮律儀，先云定共戒，亦名禪律儀；三無漏律儀，亦名聖所愛戒，先名道共戒。別別防非名之為別，能防所防皆得別稱。戒即解脫，解脫惡故。別之解脫，別屬所防，依士釋也。別即解脫，別屬能防，持業釋也。律謂法式，儀謂軌範。古有釋言：律者類也，儀者式也。種類法式名為律儀，皆通善惡，故說惡戒名不律儀。今解唯彼善戒得名，可為法式、可為軌範，故名律儀。如說調伏，亦調亦伏。此亦如是，亦律亦儀。別解脫即律儀，皆持業釋。又解：別解脫者，此戒別名。律儀者，諸戒通稱。為簡他故，應言別解脫之律儀，即依士釋。《俱舍論》第十四云「初剎那時名別解脫，亦名律儀，亦名根本業道。從第二念乃至未捨，不名別解脫，名別解律儀；不名業道，名為後起。」今亦可然。靜慮等者，性離囂高、沈沒等障名靜，專思一慮籌度境門名慮。亦慮亦靜名靜慮，慮之靜名靜慮，二釋皆得。靜慮即是定之別名。《瑜伽》第十二，說定亦名等引、等持、等至、心一境性，亦名靜慮。故律儀是思，靜慮相應之律儀，隣近為釋。無漏者離過義，如無貪等，不可六釋。若無漏屬聖道，體即無漏相應律儀。若無漏即律儀，思體是無漏故，通隣近、持業兩釋。亦是聖者之所愛，聖所愛之戒，皆依士釋。不律儀者，不者非義、不義，非可法則、不可儀軌，名不律儀。如無明等，亦非六釋。不同於惡尸羅、惡他尸羅，以尸羅為所惡，名惡尸羅，即有財釋。尸羅梵語，此曰清涼。行惡之人惡於尸羅，名惡尸羅，非尸羅惡名惡尸羅。古人解云：尸羅戒義，惡尸羅者即是惡戒。由此難言：防非以解戒，有戒不防非。造作以解思，有思非造作。今釋不然。不善解名，故有此難。尸羅非熱惱，何得惡體是尸羅？若爾徵返，惡體非尸羅，惡於尸羅名惡尸羅，亦應惡體非是見，惡於見故名惡見。此難不齊。推求以解見，善惡竝推求。清涼是尸羅，尸羅非惡體。由此不律儀非可軌則，不是惡軌則也。非律儀非不律儀者，不可儀軌同於律儀名非律儀，非不可則如不律儀名非不律儀。既有雙非，亦非六釋。又可解言：亦非律儀亦非不律儀，即持業釋。律儀等即無表，皆持業釋。律儀之無表，皆依主釋也。其定、道無表，以別簡總，亦得依士。

First, explaining the names, which contains two parts: first, listing the names; second, explaining the meanings of the names. As for listing the names: first, manifest form; second, unmanifest form. Formerly these were named active form and inactive form. Manifest form has two kinds: first, bodily manifest karma; second, vocal manifest karma. This applies across the three vehicles. If explained according to the Mahāyāna, there is an opinion that manifest karma also has three kinds, with mental manifestation added. Fascicle 53 of the Yogācārabhūmi states: "If one has no desire to manifest to another, but merely gives rise to a thought on one's own, inwardly deliberating in mind without uttering speech, but merely producing active manifest mental karma that is wholesome, defiled, or indeterminate—therefore there is mental manifestation." That which this mental manifestation produces as the unmanifest is exclusively wholesome in nature. Bodhisattvas also attain it, and it has only three factors, being based on the paths of karma, excluding the defiled and indeterminate. When the karma is preponderant, it produces the unmanifest, but otherwise it does not. There is an opinion: the unwholesome also has the unmanifest, which is accomplished only when the paths of the ten unwholesome karmas are extremely grave. The latter three mental manifestations also produce the unmanifest; what flaw is there in this reasoning? Those subsumed within the hundred conducts are all named restraint; the converse of this is precisely the nature of non-restraint. Hence we know that the three mental [karmas] also produce the unmanifest. How could the volition seeds that produce bodily and vocal [actions] be named unmanifest, while intense mental volition alone is not named unmanifest? Thus we know that all three manifestations have the unmanifest, because among the three punitive karmas, mental punishment is the gravest, and because the sages' mental grudge killed many living beings. The verse in the Viṃśikā says: "The empty lands of the Mātangas and others—how were they [destroyed] through the wrath of the sages? Mental punishment is a great crime; how could this again be accomplished?" Mental unmanifest [karma] extends to the wholesome and unwholesome, but is not of the two indeterminate kinds. However, the mental unmanifest is not material in nature, because it does not produce active bodily or vocal form, and that which produces bodily and vocal [actions] is subsumed under those very [forms]. There is an opinion: although the general teachings mention mental manifestation, no specific passage is found stating that it has the unmanifest. The volition that produces bodily and vocal [actions] is manifested externally and is most intense; perfuming the seeds with preponderance, it can produce the unmanifest. Mental volition arises inwardly, manifesting and knowing only to oneself, and is not the most intensely forceful; though it perfumes seeds, its function is not redoubled; hence only body and speech have the unmanifest. As for the sages' mental grudge being described as constituting mental punishment, even if it constitutes a grave crime, how could there be an unmanifest? Nor is this subsumed under non-restraint. If, because restraint has a hundred conducts, mental karma were also established as possessing the unmanifest of non-restraint, why did the Baifa [lun] not state it separately? If relying on this view, although one receives the ten wholesome [precepts] and the seeds of the ten wholesome [deeds], and although there are ten classes of functional capacities termed the restraint morality, it is only for the seven factors that the unmanifest is posited. The name 'restraint' is broad, whereas the unmanifest is restricted; it is not the case that because something is termed restraint it must possess the unmanifest. Therefore, the meanings of restraint and the unmanifest are distinct from each other. Thus fascicle 53 of the Yogācārabūmi states: "If the volition of abstention is contrary to non-restraint, then by the preponderant force of abstention, operating conjoined with the five faculties, it is termed restraint." This states that the preceding volition of abstaining from bodily and vocal [misdeeds] is termed restraint; why must it be an unmanifest before it can be termed restraint? Moreover, that fascicle states: "There are eight kinds of restraint: first, restraint capable of initiating; second, restraint of undertaking; third, restraint of protection; fourth, restraint of restoration; fifth, lower-grade restraint; sixth, middle-grade restraint; seventh, upper-grade restraint; eighth, pure restraint. If, before properly receiving it, one first forms this thought: 'I shall definitely receive such abstention'—this is named restraint capable of initiating. When one is properly undertaking the morality of abstention, this is named the restraint of undertaking. Thereafter, through the preponderant force of the five faculties, operating conjoined with those seeds, frequently giving rise to shame and remorse so as not to commit offenses, this is named the restraint of protection. If through loss of mindfulness an offense occurs and one promptly repents and eliminates it, this is named the restraint of restoration. If one abstains from a small portion for a short time, abstaining only oneself without urging others to abstain, without praising and without rejoicing, this is named lower-grade. If one abstains from a large portion for a long time, abstaining oneself and also urging others, yet without praising and without rejoicing, this is named middle-grade. If one abstains from all for the rest of one's life, abstaining oneself and also urging others, and also praising and rejoicing, this is named upper-grade. That of dhyāna and that which is anāsrava are named pure." Since this initial [restraint] capable of initiating is already named restraint, why must restraint necessarily be an unmanifest? Therefore, although the hundred conducts are all named restraint, that which produces the unmanifest lies only in the first seven. Fascicle 14 of the Kośa cites a scriptural verse: "Restraint of body is good; good is restraint of speech; restraint of mind is good; good is universal restraint." The word 'restraint' is also spoken of the mental faculty; how could it constitute an unmanifest? If relying on the former two explanations, bodily and vocal restraint and non-restraint are material in substance; because they lack physical resistance and obstruction, they differ from the class of matter, and are therefore subsumed under a separate category. This volition conjoined with mind is not like those: it neither produces matter nor obstructs matter, and is not designated with the name 'matter'. Since it is perfumed by active volition that cognizes and reflects, it is only nominally termed an unmanifest with respect to the volition seeds, yet its substance is volition, being subsumed under the aggregate of formations. Therefore, in the Baifa [lun] it is not separately stated. Just as mental wrong view subsequently manifests in body and speech—since the subsequent manifestation in body and speech is named non-restraint, why should the initial two volitions not be so named? Just as in the case of the initial two volitions within restraint, even if the mental unmanifest is merely intermediate, what flaw would there be? Among these three expositions, the last is the orthodox one. It is because manifesting externally in body and speech causes others to know it that there is preponderant intensity. Within unmanifest form, there are roughly three classes: first, the unmanifest of restraint; second, the unmanifest of non-restraint; third, the unmanifest of neither-restraint-nor-non-restraint. Fascicle 8 of the Abhidharmasamuccaya states: "Karma is threefold: first, restraint karma; second, non-restraint karma; third, neither-restraint-nor-non-restraint karma. Neither-restraint-nor-non-restraint karma refers to all wholesome and unwholesome karma of that kind, whether giving and the like, or striking and the like; karmas not subsumed under restraint or non-restraint are all included here." Fascicle 53 of the 'Viniścaya' [of the Yogācārabhūmi], having explained restraint and non-restraint, states: "Excepting the restraint and non-restraint karmas as previously explained, all wholesome and unwholesome bodily, vocal, and mental karmas should be known as entirely subsumed under neither-restraint-nor-non-restraint." Fascicle 54 states: "As for the distinctions in the functions of matter, they refer to manifest and unmanifest, and the functions subsumed under restraint, non-restraint, and neither-restraint-nor-non-restraint. Since giving and the like are stated to be this karma, one definitely knows that this karma also has an unmanifest." For what reason was it initially stated that manifest and unmanifest are only within restraint and non-restraint, and not in the intermediate? What is the intention behind this? Thus fascicle 14 of the Abhidharmakośa states: "The unmanifest is threefold: restraint, non-restraint, and neither." There is an opinion that the intermediate possesses only manifest karma, and only when upper-grade volition perfumes seeds with superior force is there an unmanifest. Fascicle 1, 54, etc., of the Xianyang [shengjiao lun] state that form belonging to the dharmāyatana has three kinds: first, restraint; second, non-restraint; third, mastery in concentration; they do not state that the neither[-restraint-nor-non-restraint] has an unmanifest. Although various passages say there is intermediate karma, they do not clearly state that it has an unmanifest; hence intermediate manifestation lacks unmanifest form. If relying on the first view, what prevents the intermediate from arousing earnest and vigorous intention and possessing upper-grade volition, while restraint may be lax and possess middle-grade volition? How could the intensity of seed-perfuming be identical in meaning in establishing an unmanifest, yet intermediate karma be excluded? If one holds that because restraint and non-restraint must possess complete factors, their volition seeds perfume with superior strength so as to have an unmanifest, whereas the intermediate is not so—then the hundred conducts would also not be restraint, since there are also complete and partial divisions, etc. For it is accepted that the upāsaka precepts allow a minor reception. Although various passages speak of the unmanifest belonging to the dharmāyatana as having only two classes, the nature of intermediate karma is also only twofold, being subsumed under those two. Being included in these two, it is not separately stated, but its substance is not non-existent. If relying on the latter view, this is also not so. In all intermediate states, compared to restraint and the like, volition is entirely of the lower grade; it is not that intermediate karma can possess an unmanifest. Since there is no explicit text between the two explanations, one may adopt or reject either. Next, explaining the meanings of the names: The aggregate and collection of the faculties, great elements, and derived matter are called the 'body'. The five faculties and four sense-objects, both the primary producers and the derived products, all obtain the designation 'body'. But because the bodily faculty is the gathering place of all dharmas, it uniquely relies on the name 'body'. Furthermore, it is called 'body' in the sense of being a support. The Weishi lun states: "In the sense of substance, support, and aggregation, it is collectively called 'body'." It is also because the bodily faculty is that upon which numerous dharmas rely that it is uniquely labeled with the name 'body'. Thus the Yogācāra states: "That which is attended by all faculties and is comprehensively accumulated is called 'body'." Although it bears a collective designation, it is specifically a particular name. 'Manifest' (biao) means to manifest and display, manifesting one's own inner mind to indicate it to others. Formerly it was called 'bodily action' (shenzuo), but the meaning is not congruent, since the unmanifest also has the meaning of action and creation. The substance of the manifest is precisely the manifest form of the rūpāyatana. The manifestation relying on the body is called 'bodily manifestation'—this is a tatpuruṣa compound. 'Karma' means action and creation; if it is the manifest form of the rūpāyatana, it is called 'bodily manifest karma'. The manifestation relying on the body is called 'bodily manifestation', and bodily manifestation being identical with karma is called 'bodily manifest karma'—this is an explanation as a karmadhāraya compound. Now, taking the volition that moves the body and manifests as bodily manifest karma: the karma of moving the bodily manifestation is a tatpuruṣa compound. 'Speech' refers to spoken language, having sound as its substance. The meanings of 'manifest' and 'karma' are both explained as above. This can manifest what is desired, expressing the intention of the inner mind and manifesting it to others; therefore it is named 'vocal manifestation'. Alternatively, speech is that upon which syllables and the like rely; because it conveys syllables and the like and can signify and express, it is named 'speech'. The substance of speech is itself the manifestation—this is a karmadhāraya compound. Vocal manifestation is itself karma, karma belonging to vocal sound. Now, taking the volition capable of producing vocal manifestation as vocal manifest karma: the karma that produces vocal manifestation is named vocal manifest karma—this is explained as a tatpuruṣa compound. Conjoined with the mind and activating the mind, it is named 'mental manifestation' and named 'mental karma'—both are explanations by proximity (upacāra). If one says that mental manifestation is itself karma, it is a karmadhāraya compound. The unmanifest of the three—body, speech, and mind—are all tatpuruṣa compounds. In treatises such as the Karmasiddhi, the text and meaning are both clear, hence they are not cited. Restraint is threefold: first, prātimokṣa restraint; second, dhyāna restraint, formerly called the precept concurrent with concentration, also called dhyāna restraint; third, anāsrava restraint, also called the morality loved by the noble ones, formerly called the precept concurrent with the path. Preventing offenses separately is called 'separate' (prati-); both that which can prevent and that which is prevented obtain the designation 'separate'. Precept is itself liberation, because it liberates from evil. The liberation from the separate—'separate' belongs to that which is prevented—is an explanation as a tatpuruṣa compound. The separate is itself liberation—'separate' belongs to that which can prevent—is an explanation as a karmadhāraya compound. 'Lü' means rules and methods, and 'yi' means standard and deportment. Ancients had an explanation stating: 'lü' means class, and 'yi' means pattern. The pattern of classes is called restraint (saṃvara); this applies to both good and evil, so an evil precept is called non-restraint. Now we explain: only that wholesome precept obtains the name, as it can serve as a rule and method, and can serve as a standard and deportment; hence it is named restraint. Just as when speaking of 'subduing' (vinaya), it is both regulating and subduing. This is also like that: it is both rule and deportment. Prātimokṣa being identical with restraint is an explanation as a karmadhāraya compound. Another explanation: prātimokṣa is the specific name of this precept, while restraint is the general designation of all precepts. To differentiate it from others, one should say 'the restraint of prātimokṣa'—which is an explanation as a tatpuruṣa compound. Fascicle 14 of the Abhidharmakośa states: "At the first moment it is named prātimokṣa, also named restraint, and also named the fundamental path of karma. From the second thought-moment onward until it is abandoned, it is not named prātimokṣa, but named the restraint of prātimokṣa; it is not named the path of karma, but named the subsequent arising." Now this may also be accepted. As for dhyāna and the like: being inherently free from obstacles such as agitation, pride, and depression is called 'quietude' (dhyā-); intently thinking on a single deliberation and examining the objective sphere is called 'contemplation' (na). Being both contemplating and quiet is called dhyāna; the quietude of contemplation is called dhyāna; both explanations are acceptable. Dhyāna is a different name for concentration (samādhi). Fascicle 12 of the Yogācāra states that concentration is also named samāhita, samādhi, samāpatti, one-pointedness of mind, and also named dhyāna. Therefore, restraint is volition; the restraint conjoined with dhyāna is explained by proximity. 'Anāsrava' has the meaning of being free from faults, like non-greed and the like; it cannot be explained by the six compound types. If anāsrava belongs to the noble path, its substance is the restraint conjoined with the anāsrava. If anāsrava is itself the restraint, because the substance of volition is anāsrava, it admits both explanations: proximity and karmadhāraya. It is also that which is loved by the noble ones; the precept loved by the noble ones is an explanation as a tatpuruṣa compound. As for non-restraint: 'non' (a-) means non-being or negation; that which cannot be taken as a rule and cannot be a standard deportment is called non-restraint. Like ignorance (avidyā) and the like, it is also not among the six compound types. It is not like bad śīla (duḥśīla) or the śīla of another's evil: taking śīla as that which is detested is called bad śīla, which is a bahuvrīhi compound. Śīla is a Sanskrit word, translated here as 'coolness'. An evil-doing person detests śīla, hence it is called bad śīla; it is not that śīla is evil that it is called bad śīla. Ancients explained: śīla means precept; bad śīla is precisely an evil precept. Thereby they raised the objection: if precept is explained as preventing offenses, then there are precepts that do not prevent offenses; if volition is explained as action, then there are volitions that do not act. Now we explain that this is not so. It was because they did not skillfully explain the name that they had this difficulty. Śīla is not fever and torment; how could an evil substance be śīla? If challenged in reverse: if an evil substance is not śīla, and detesting śīla is called bad śīla, then an evil substance should also not be a view, and detesting a view would be called a bad view. This objection is not parallel. 'View' is explained by investigation and seeking; both good and evil equally investigate and seek. 'Coolness' is śīla, and śīla is not an evil substance. Because of this, non-restraint is that which cannot be taken as a standard, not that it is an evil standard. As for neither-restraint-nor-non-restraint: that which cannot be a standard deportment like restraint is called non-restraint; that which is not impossible to follow as a rule like non-restraint is called non-non-restraint. Since there is a double negation, it is also not among the six compound types. Alternatively, it can be explained: being neither restraint nor non-restraint is a karmadhāraya compound. Restraint and the like being identical with the unmanifest are all karmadhāraya compounds. The unmanifest of restraint is an explanation as a tatpuruṣa compound. The unmanifest of concentration and the path, distinguishing the specific from the general, can also be tatpuruṣa compounds.