大乘法苑義林章 3.20

3.20

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.'