[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大乘法苑義林章](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861) › 3.30 # 大乘法苑義林章 3.30 大乘法苑義林章 3.30 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.30](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.3.30) 第六依地有無者，善身語律儀表，唯欲色二界。欲界初定有尋伺故，能發身語表，意表通三界。有義：身表通上三定，尋伺不是身之因故。出入二息，身之因故。業通四禪，何不許有？其無漏身、語表，或通四定。不爾，頓悟八地以去菩薩及佛，但居第四定，應無身語善。如鼻、舌識，有漏上地無，無漏即言有，身語業應爾。不善二表唯欲界。處中善表，身語通二界，意地表通九地。律儀無表中，別脫無表可依欲、色二界依身得。既許色界迴趣大乘，豈彼世尊無別脫戒？此別脫戒，若菩薩時雖復依彼，定是無漏，依色界身。準此，無有有漏別脫。盧舍那佛化十八梵天等，俱能解語，皆悉受持菩薩戒法，亦得別脫，不得別受別脫之戒。別受別脫，除諸聖者，上界依身心非極厭，由此不得。既許鬼畜得別脫戒，色天許得，於理何違？既許欲天有住梵行，亦有欲天得別脫戒。畜生鬼趣得受五八戒，但非彼性。如扇𢮎、半擇迦，故有別脫非菩薩戒。地獄無由得別脫戒，菩薩戒勝可攝於彼。或彼亦得五八等戒，地藏菩薩等與其受戒。《瑜伽》但遮意樂及俱形損受近事戒，不遮畜生等故。由此亦顯欲天色天得五八戒，於理無違。然非有漏出家之戒，於理無違。靜慮律儀，通色界九地、無色八地。唯初未至離欲界欲，或小分或全分是斷對治，損伏於彼發起犯戒煩惱種子故。第九解脫道入根本初定，可是持對治。已上皆是遠分對治。《瑜伽》第九云「律儀所攝業，或靜慮等至果，斷律儀所攝。」等至即是四無色定，不爾靜慮色定已周，何須等至？果斷即是此二律儀斷犯戒非，定生果故。《對法》第八及五十三唯說四靜慮，尚不說四等至，何況無色。《對法》第八卷會云「由無色界麁色無故，略不建立色戒律儀。」由此故知，無色亦有靜慮律儀。此但所防假名為色，何必要藉有所依身？故以根本及以方便中間，皆有能伏欲界犯戒非失。法爾靜慮皆能伏非，非唯色界有此律儀。由此不同，薩婆多義，無漏律儀通於十地，色六、無色四，有無漏道故。若見道斷對治，色界五地，中間靜慮無見道故，餘皆持、遠分。若修道斷對治，有義：唯色六地望欲界有斷對治，非無色地。無色地遠，不斷欲界非故，唯遠分性。有義：修道對治亦通下三無色，許超初果取第四果，何廢依彼？雖知論文引指端分別，於理依初未至得第四果，且據多分決定能故。不據容有，故亦無爽。非想地者，唯遠分非斷義，生三界身一切容起。其不律儀無表，唯依欲界身地所繫，唯不善故。三天下人，非北州有。六天鬼畜，一切亦無，無惡意樂養活命故。天及惡趣，可有善意樂持禁戒故。惡心非勝，善心勝故。處中，即通三界依身。及起身語色者，欲色界二地而有意表等。及無漏者，通三界依身。上地皆有，除律儀善外皆處中故。 > Sixth, regarding whether they exist according to the planes \[of existence\]: Wholesome physical and vocal unmanifested \[actions\] of moral discipline exist only in the desire and form realms. Because the desire realm and the first dhyāna have investigation and reflection (vitarka and vicāra), they can initiate physical and vocal manifestations; mental manifestations apply to all three realms. Another opinion states: Physical manifestation extends through the upper three dhyānas, because investigation and reflection are not the cause of the physical body. Inhalation and exhalation are the causes of the physical body, and actions apply through the four dhyānas, so why not allow it? As for unmanifested physical and vocal \[actions\] that are uncontaminated, they perhaps apply through the four dhyānas. Otherwise, bodhisattvas and Buddhas from the eighth ground onward who have achieved sudden enlightenment, dwelling only in the fourth dhyāna, would lack physical and vocal goodness. Just as nose and tongue consciousnesses, though absent in the upper planes when contaminated, are said to exist when uncontaminated, physical and vocal actions should be likewise. The two unwholesome manifestations exist only in the desire realm. Neutral-intermediate wholesome manifestations: physical and vocal apply to the two realms, while manifestations of the mental plane apply to all nine grounds. Among unmanifested actions of moral discipline, the unmanifested action of prātimokṣa can be obtained dependent upon the physical body of the desire and form realms. Since it is accepted that beings in the form realm can turn their aspiration toward the Mahāyāna, how could that World-Honoured One lack the prātimokṣa precepts? As for these prātimokṣa precepts, although when a bodhisattva they are based on that \[realm\], they are definitely uncontaminated, based on a form-realm body. Following this, there are no contaminated prātimokṣa precepts \[in the form realm\]. Rocana Buddha manifested transformations to teach eighteen Brahmā heavens and the like; all could understand speech, all received and upheld the bodhisattva precept Dharma, and they also obtained prātimokṣa, though they did not separately receive the prātimokṣa precepts. As for receiving the prātimokṣa precepts separately, except for the noble ones, bodies and minds based in the upper realms lack extreme revulsion, and for this reason they cannot obtain them. Since it is accepted that ghosts and animals can obtain prātimokṣa precepts, what contradiction in principle is there in accepting that form-realm gods can obtain them? Since it is accepted that desire-realm gods may abide in pure conduct (brahmacarya), there are also desire-realm gods who obtain the prātimokṣa precepts. Beings in the animal and ghost destinies can receive the five and eight precepts, but this is not their innate nature. Like the ṣaṇḍha and paṇḍaka, there are therefore prātimokṣa precepts that are not bodhisattva precepts. In the hells there is no means to obtain prātimokṣa precepts, yet the superiority of the bodhisattva precepts can encompass them. Alternatively, they might also obtain the five, eight, and other precepts, with Kṣitigarbha Bodhisattva and others administering the precepts to them. The Yogācārabhūmi merely bars those with impaired intent and those with both forms from receiving the upāsaka precepts, not barring animals and the like. This also shows that desire-realm and form-realm gods obtaining the five and eight precepts does not contradict principle. However, these are not contaminated renunciant precepts, so there is no contradiction in principle. Dhyāna moral discipline extends to the nine grounds of the form realm and the eight grounds of the formless realm. Only the preliminary access to the first dhyāna, which separates from the desires of the desire realm, is partly or fully an abandonment antidote, because it damages and subdues the seeds of afflictions that initiate violations of precepts. Entering the fundamental first dhyāna via the ninth path of liberation can be a retention antidote. Above this, all are distant antidotes. The ninth fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi says: 'Action subsumed under moral discipline, or the fruits of meditative attainments of dhyāna, are subsumed under the moral discipline of abandonment.' 'Meditative attainments' refers precisely to the four formless concentrations; otherwise, since dhyāna already encompasses the concentrations of the form realm, why would meditative attainments be needed? 'Fruit abandonment' is precisely these two moral disciplines abandoning the faults of violating precepts, because concentrations produce this fruit. The eighth and fifty-third fascicles of the Abhidharmasamuccaya speak only of the four dhyānas, not even mentioning the four meditative attainments, let alone the formless realm. The eighth fascicle of the Abhidharmasamuccaya resolves this: 'Because coarse form is absent in the formless realm, moral discipline of material precepts is omitted from being established.' From this we know that the formless realm also has dhyāna moral discipline. This merely designates 'form' nominally with respect to what is guarded against; why must it depend on having a supporting material body? Therefore, through the fundamental, the preliminary, and the intermediate states, there is always the capacity to subdue the faults and errors of violating precepts in the desire realm. Dhyāna by its very nature can subdue faults; it is not that only the form realm has this moral discipline. Due to this, differing from the Sarvāstivāda view, uncontaminated moral discipline extends across ten grounds—six of the form realm and four of the formless realm—because uncontaminated paths exist \[in them\]. If it is an abandonment antidote of the path of seeing, it exists in five grounds of the form realm, because the intermediate dhyāna lacks a path of seeing; the rest are all retention or distant antidotes. If it is an abandonment antidote of the path of cultivation, there is an opinion that only the six grounds of the form realm have an abandonment antidote with respect to the desire realm, not the formless grounds. The formless grounds are distant and do not abandon the faults of the desire realm, so their nature is solely that of a distant antidote. Another opinion states: The antidotes of the path of cultivation also extend to the lower three formless grounds; since jumping from the first fruit directly to the fourth fruit is permitted, how could relying on them be precluded? Although we know that the text quotes an analysis down to the fingertip, in principle, obtaining the fourth fruit based on the preliminary access of the first dhyāna merely relies on what is predominantly and definitely capable. It does not speak of what is permissible, so there is no discrepancy. As for the ground of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, it is only a distant antidote and not an abandonment antidote; it can occur in any body born in the three realms. Unmanifested actions of non-moral discipline are tied solely to bodies and grounds of the desire realm, because they are exclusively unwholesome. They exist among humans of the three continents, but not in the Northern Continent. Among the six desire heavens, ghosts, and animals, they are completely absent, because they do not have the evil intention to sustain their livelihood \[through non-moral discipline\]. Gods and those in evil destinies can have the wholesome intention to maintain the prohibitive precepts, because evil thoughts are not superior, whereas wholesome thoughts are superior. Neutral-intermediate \[unmanifested actions\] extend to the supporting bodies of all three realms. As for those that give rise to physical and vocal form, they exist in the two grounds of the desire and form realms, and there are mental manifestations and the like. As for uncontaminated ones, they extend to the supporting bodies of all three realms. They exist in all upper grounds, because apart from the wholesome \[actions\] of moral discipline, all are neutral-intermediate. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.29.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.3.29.3) - [Next: 3.31](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.3.31) - [Up: 3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861~en-mt.3.30) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.3.30](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.3.30) · Pramāṇa