大乘法苑義林章 3.31

3.31

第七何大所造者，準《顯揚論》云「律儀色依不現行法建立色性，不律儀色依現行法建立色性。」此意總說表與無表律儀，皆依所防身語以假名色，即顯三界別脫、定戒無漏色等，皆是能造，欲界所防造惡身語，四大所造。設佛身無漏無表無色定共，亦以過去欲界四大所造。既假疎遠名色，亦假疎遠名造，故不以所發名色，亦不以名造，以不定故，未必有所發身語故。其身語二表義亦通，以所發名色，即所發色大種所造。故《唯識》云「謂此或依發勝身語善惡思種增長位立。」雖知散無表現行亦發身語，《顯揚》簡別定道不以所發名色，故不相違。又彼唯約律儀，此通律、不律。又彼律儀決定所造，此說不定，亦有所發身語，故名色名造。彼唯無表，此通表、無表。彼依一切律儀，此唯別脫及不律儀故。其不律儀定有表故，從所發現行假名為色，假名彼大造，其仙人意嫌殺一國人。小乘必有表，鬼神知仙人身語相故為殺。大乘唯意表業，發殺生無表，如何說所發名色名造耶？若不爾者，《二十唯識》云「意罰為大罪，此復云何成。」此義相違。今解：雖不用身業，亦有能殺，具此為色故，亦有所發色，或彼論意：由先意業引大罪成，非行殺時無身語表，動身發語必有相故。前解為善，順論文故。又仙人意嫌殺，非不律儀，故無身語，亦不相違。處中無表，隨其善惡，準此二說。

Seventh, regarding what great elements they are created by: According to the Xianyang lun, 'The form of moral discipline establishes its material nature based on unmanifest states, while the form of non-moral discipline establishes its material nature based on manifest states.' The general meaning of this is that both manifested and unmanifested moral discipline are nominally designated as 'form' based on the physical and vocal actions they guard against. This reveals that the prātimokṣa, concentration-based precepts, and uncontaminated form of all three realms are all created by the four great elements that create the unwholesome physical and vocal actions of the desire realm that are guarded against. Even the Buddha's uncontaminated unmanifested actions and formless concentration-concomitant actions are created by the past four great elements of the desire realm. Since they are nominally designated as form in an indirect and distant manner, they are also nominally designated as created in an indirect and distant manner. Thus, they are not designated as form on the basis of what is initiated, nor are they designated as created on that basis, because this is indeterminate, as physical and vocal actions are not necessarily initiated. The meaning also applies to physical and vocal manifestations, which are designated as form based on what is initiated, being created by the great elements of the initiated form. Therefore the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi says: 'This is established either based on the stage of increase in the seeds of wholesome or unwholesome intention that initiate superior physical and vocal actions.' Although we know that manifest actions of scattered unmanifest states also initiate physical and vocal actions, the Xianyang lun distinguishes concentration and the path as not being designated as form based on what is initiated, so there is no contradiction. Furthermore, that treatise treats only moral discipline, whereas this applies to both moral discipline and non-moral discipline. Moreover, that treatise holds moral discipline to be definitely created [by those elements], while this explains it as indeterminate, also admitting what is initiated as physical and vocal actions, and hence designating it as form and as created. That treatise concerns only unmanifested actions, whereas this applies to both manifested and unmanifested. That treatise is based on all moral discipline, whereas this concerns only prātimokṣa and non-moral discipline. Because non-moral discipline definitely has manifestations, it is nominally designated as form and nominally designated as created by those great elements based on the manifest actions initiated. When a seer harboring mental resentment killed the people of an entire country, the Hīnayāna holds that there must have been manifestation, as ghosts and spirits discerned the seer's physical and vocal signs and thereby carried out the killing. In the Mahāyāna, there is only mental manifestation that initiates the unmanifested action of taking life; how then can it be said that it is designated as form and as created based on what is initiated? If it were not so, the Viṃśikā says: 'Mental punishment is the greatest offense; how again could this be established?' This would contradict that meaning. The current explanation is: Although not employing physical action, there was still the capacity to kill, and by possessing this it constitutes form; hence there was also form initiated. Alternatively, the intention of that treatise is: Because the prior mental action brought about the completion of the great offense, it does not mean that when carrying out the killing there were no physical or vocal manifestations, for moving the body and uttering words definitely involve outward signs. The former explanation is better, as it accords with the treatise's text. Furthermore, the seer's killing out of mental resentment is not non-moral discipline, so the absence of physical and vocal actions likewise poses no contradiction. Neutral-intermediate unmanifested actions, whether wholesome or unwholesome, follow these two explanations.