大乘法苑義林章 3.20

3.20

第二出體者，假身表業，以色處中表色為性。假語表業，以聲為體。《成業論》、《瑜伽》等說「有三種思：一審慮思，將發身、語，先審慮故。二決定思，起決定心，將欲作故。三動發勝思，正發身、語動作於事。」身、語二表業唯取現行，第三動發善不善思以為自體。意表以前二思為體。故《唯識》云「能動身思說名身業，能發語思說名語業。審決二思意相應故、作動意故，說名意業。」其不律儀唯是有漏。其處中業，有義：唯有漏，佛等所有無漏五蘊皆律儀攝，無漏善法皆可法則故。有義：處中亦通無漏，因餘無漏及佛餘善，通是彼故。前解為正，無漏善法皆可則故。不同小乘，若律儀業定通無漏，許佛等亦有無漏二表故。其別解脫律儀及處中一分無表，以善思種子上有防身語惡戒功能，及發身語善戒功能為體。其不律儀及處中一分無表，以不善思種子上有發身語不善功能，遮身語善戒功能為體。此上無表雖善惡殊，竝依思種別功能立。由願制思有分限故，取別功能。故《唯識》云「然依思、願善惡分限，假立無表。於理何違？」又云「謂此或依發勝身語，善．惡思種增長位立。」《瑜伽》、《成業》說竝同之。《涅槃經》云「菩薩有戒，雖非形色而可護持。雖無觸對，善修方便可得具足。」正與此同。又《涅槃》三十四云「往昔菩提王子作如是言：『若有比丘護持禁戒，若發惡心，當知是時失比丘戒。』我時語言：『菩提王子！戒有七種，從於身、口有無作色。以是無作色因緣故，其心雖在惡、無記中，不名失戒，猶名持戒。』以何因緣名無作色？非實色因，不作實色因果。我諸弟子聞是說已，不解我意，唱言佛說有無作色。」薩婆多依此說有實無作色。「我於餘經說如是言：『戒者即是遮制惡法。若不作惡，是名持戒。』我諸弟子聞是說已，不解我意，唱言如來決定宣說無無作色。」故經部等說無無作色。彼經意言：由發身、語業色之思，能防身、語惡戒色故，熏種成於無作戒色。由此思種防惡色用恒相續故，心雖設在惡、無記中不名失戒。此防惡身、語思種假名色故，不作實色因緣種子生於現色，亦非是實能造所造色之俱有、同類因果，非從彼生、不生彼故。故言有實無作色者，應不解意。此思種子所生現行，發身、語故假名為色，遮於惡法名之為戒。若言都無無作戒者，亦不解意。故知無實、有假色者、名為解意。正合此文。靜慮無表，以法爾一切上二界十七地中有漏定俱現行思上，有防欲界惡戒功能為體。此說道俱無漏戒外靜慮律儀。故《對法》云「以無色界麁色無故，略不建立色戒律儀。雖無色地實有定戒，不說有者，略不立故。」無漏律儀，以法爾一切上地所有無漏道俱現行思上，能斷欲界諸犯戒非功能為體，二界十地隨應有之，此二戒體俱現行思隨心轉故。《成唯識》云「或依定中止身、語惡現行思立，餘之無表皆不隨心，有心無心隨何性心定成就故。唯依種立，以能造作是思義故。業是造作，故唯取思不依餘法，由此一切表無表戒皆依思立。」

Second, concerning the identification of the essential nature: conventional bodily manifest action has manifest form within the form-source (rūpāyatana) as its nature. Conventional vocal manifest action has sound as its essential nature. The Karmasiddhiprakaraṇa, Yogācārabhūmi, and other texts state: 'There are three kinds of volition (cetanā): first, deliberative volition, because before initiating body or speech, one deliberates beforehand; second, decisive volition, because one generates a decisive mind, wishing to act; third, superior moving and initiating volition, which directly initiates bodily and vocal movements regarding the deed.' The two manifest actions of body and speech take only the active, third moving and initiating wholesome or unwholesome volition as their self-nature. Mental manifest action takes the former two volitions as its essential nature. Therefore, the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi says: 'Volition that can move the body is called bodily action; volition that can initiate speech is called vocal action. Because deliberative and decisive volitions are associated with the mind and act to move the mind, they are called mental action.' Non-restraint is exclusively sāsrava. As for intermediate action, one opinion holds that it is exclusively sāsrava, since all anāsrava five aggregates belonging to the Buddhas and others are subsumed under restraint, because all anāsrava wholesome phenomena can serve as models. Another opinion holds that the intermediate also includes the anāsrava, because other anāsrava causes and the other wholesome qualities of the Buddhas are universally of that kind. The former explanation is correct, because anāsrava wholesome phenomena can all serve as models. This differs from the Hīnayāna: if it were the case that restraint action necessarily encompassed the anāsrava, they would accept that the Buddhas and others also possess the two anāsrava manifest [actions]. As for the restraint of the prātimokṣa and a portion of intermediate unmanifest [action], their essential natures consist of the capacity to prevent bodily and vocal unwholesome discipline, as well as the capacity to initiate bodily and vocal wholesome discipline, residing upon the seeds of wholesome volition. As for non-restraint and another portion of intermediate unmanifest [action], their essential natures consist of the capacity to initiate bodily and vocal unwholesome deeds, and the capacity to obstruct bodily and vocal wholesome discipline, residing upon the seeds of unwholesome volition. Although these above unmanifest forms differ as wholesome or unwholesome, both are posited upon distinct capacities of the seeds of volition. Because volition is restricted and delineated by vows, distinct capacities are taken. Therefore, the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi says: 'However, based on the wholesome or unwholesome limits of volition and vow, unmanifest [form] is conventionally posited. How does this contradict reason?' It also says: 'That is to say, this is posited either on the basis of the augmented stage of wholesome or unwholesome seeds of volition that initiate superior bodily and vocal [actions].' The Yogācārabhūmi and Karmasiddhiprakaraṇa say the same. The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says: 'A bodhisattva possesses precepts which, though not bodily shape or color, can be upheld. Though without tangible contact, through the skillful cultivation of expedient means they can be perfected.' This precisely agrees with this. Furthermore, fascicle thirty-four of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra states: 'In the past, Prince Bodhi spoke thus: "If there is a monk who upholds the restrictive precepts, if he generates an unwholesome thought, one should know that at that moment he loses the monk's precepts." I then said to him: "Prince Bodhi! There are seven kinds of precepts, which constitute unmanifest form arising from body and speech. Due to the causal condition of this unmanifest form, even when his mind is in an unwholesome or indeterminate state, he is not said to have lost the precepts; he is still said to uphold the precepts." By what cause and condition is it called unmanifest form? It is not the cause of real form, nor does it act as the cause and effect of real form. My disciples, having heard this teaching, did not understand my intention and proclaimed that the Buddha taught that there is real unmanifest form.' The Sarvāstivādins, relying on this, taught that there is real unmanifest form. '[The Buddha said:] In other sūtras I have spoken thus: "Precepts are precisely the prevention and restraint of unwholesome phenomena. If one does not commit unwholesome deeds, this is called upholding the precepts." My disciples, having heard this teaching, did not understand my intention and proclaimed that the Tathāgata definitively taught that there is no unmanifest form.' Thus the Sautrāntikas and others teach that there is no unmanifest form. The intention of that sūtra is this: because the volition that initiates the form of bodily and vocal action is able to prevent the unwholesome forms of bodily and vocal bad discipline, it perfurmes the seeds to form the unmanifest precept-form. Because this function of preventing unwholesome form possessed by the seeds of volition continues constantly, even if the mind should happen to be in an unwholesome or indeterminate state, one is not said to lose the precepts. Because these seeds of volition preventing unwholesome body and speech are conventionally called form, they do not act as the seeds of causal condition for real form to produce active form, nor are they the co-present or similar-class causes and effects of real primary and secondary forms, for they neither arise from them nor produce them. Therefore, those who say that there is real unmanifest form must not understand the intention. The active [actions] produced by these seeds of volition are conventionally called form because they initiate body and speech, and are called precepts because they obstruct unwholesome phenomena. If one says that there is absolutely no unmanifest precept, one also fails to understand the intention. Thus one should know that asserting that it is not real but a conventional form is called understanding the intention. This accords precisely with this passage. As for the unmanifest [form] of dhyāna, its essential nature consists of the capacity to prevent unwholesome discipline of the desire realm, residing on the active volition concomitant with sāsrava concentration throughout all seventeen levels of the two higher realms by intrinsic nature. This speaks of the restraint of dhyāna apart from the path-concomitant anāsrava precepts. Therefore, the Abhidharmasamuccaya says: 'Because there is no gross form in the formless realm, the moral restraint of form is briefly omitted from establishment. Although concentration precepts truly exist in the formless stage, they are not stated to exist because they are summarily omitted from establishment.' As for anāsrava restraint, its essential nature consists of the capacity to eradicate all violations of precepts and offenses of the desire realm, residing on the active volition concomitant with the anāsrava path in all higher stages by intrinsic nature, existing accordingly across the ten levels of the two realms. The essence of both these two precepts is active volition, because they follow the mind. The Cheng weishi lun says: 'Or it is posited on the basis of active volition that halts bodily and vocal evils in concentration. The remaining unmanifest [forms] do not follow the mind, because whether one has mind, lacks mind, or whatever nature of mind one has, they are definitely achieved. They are posited solely on the basis of seeds, because the meaning of volition is the capacity to fabricate. Action is fabrication; therefore one takes solely volition and does not rely on other phenomena. Hence all manifest and unmanifest precepts are posited on the basis of volition.'