大乘法苑義林章 3.21

3.21

第三假實分別者，若表、無表二業三業皆是假立，然有差別。身、語二業假表業體，實是表色，非是業性。《顯揚》等說「身語二業表善惡故，假名善惡、實是無記，故不能招當異熟果。從業為假，故《唯識》云或身語表，由思發故，假說為業。」五十三說「一切表業皆是假有。其發身語現行之思，實是業性招異熟故，而非身語，亦非是表、亦非是色，假名身語表色。所發是表，所防、所發俱是色故，思假名色。其無表色，實是無表，無所表示故。而體非色，亦從所發、所防假名為色。」故《顯揚》云「諸律儀色，依不現行法建立色性，此從所防故名為色，以決定故。不律儀色，依現行法建立色性，定發身語故。」然《唯識》云「謂此或依發勝身語善惡思種增長位立者，此有二義。一云：別解無表，能熏現思初位，亦有發身語故。《顯揚》據決定故，云依不現行法建立色性。二云：《顯揚》依一切律儀故，依不現行建立色性。《唯識》依別解脫亦有所發，故不相違。《唯識》又云然依思願善惡分限假立無表，故皆假有。《顯揚》十八說七事無實，第六律儀、第七不律儀，故表無表皆是假立。」《成業論》同。

Third, regarding the distinction between conventional and real: both manifest and unmanifest actions—the two actions or the three actions—are all conventionally established, yet there are differences. Bodily and vocal actions are conventionally the essence of manifest action; in reality they are manifest form and are not the nature of action. The Xianyang shengjiao lun and other texts state: 'Because bodily and vocal actions manifest good and evil, they are conventionally called good and evil; in reality they are indeterminate, and thus cannot incur future vipāka results. Following action, they are conventional.' Therefore, the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi says: 'Or bodily and vocal manifestations, because they are initiated by volition, are conventionally called action.' Fascicle fifty-three says: 'All manifest actions are conventionally existent. The active volition that initiates body and speech is really the nature of action because it incurs vipāka, yet it is neither body nor speech, nor is it manifest, nor is it form; it is conventionally designated as bodily and vocal manifest form. That which is initiated is manifest, and both that which is prevented and that which is initiated are form; therefore, volition is conventionally called form. As for unmanifest form, it is really unmanifest because it displays nothing; yet its essence is not form, and it is also conventionally called form after that which is initiated and that which is prevented.' Therefore, the Xianyang says: 'Forms of restraint establish the nature of form based on inactive phenomena; this is called form from that which is prevented, because it is determinate. Forms of non-restraint establish the nature of form based on active phenomena, because they definitely initiate body and speech.' However, the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi 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].' There are two explanations for this. One says: the initial stage of the active volition that can perfume the individual liberation (prātimokṣa) unmanifest also initiates body and speech; the Xianyang, taking this as determinate, says it establishes the nature of form based on inactive phenomena. The second says: the Xianyang relies on all restraints, and therefore establishes the nature of form based on the inactive; the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi relies on prātimokṣa as also having that which is initiated, and therefore they do not contradict each other. The Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi also says: 'However, based on the wholesome or unwholesome limits of volition and vow, unmanifest [form] is conventionally posited'; thus they are all conventionally existent. Fascicle eighteen of the Xianyang says that seven entities lack reality, the sixth being restraint and the seventh non-restraint; therefore, both manifest and unmanifest are conventionally established. The Karmasiddhiprakaraṇa is the same.