四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 1.1.4

1.1.4

雖有諸惡性不容受故名戒。 又名清涼。 遮熱煩惱令不入故。 又名為上。 能上天堂至無上道。 又名學。 調伏心智故名戒。 此之五咸是義用釋名。 是故從用立名。 稱之為戒。 然於五中迮隘清涼是義名。 餘三用名　問。 何故得知有作無作　答。 諸論廣明二種戒體。 一如心論。 第三羯磨剎那作及無作根本業道。 又云。 身口作前二有對。 身口無作俱不可見無對。 二多論云。 初念戒有身口教及無教。 第二念唯有無教無有有教。 十住毘婆娑云。 律義善根有其二種。 一者有作。 二者無作。 作者是色無作非色非心。 以斯文故明知戒有二種　問。 何須作無作者　答。 若無其作無作無所從生。 若無無作不可一形防非。 故須兩戒　此位言耳。 如上法得戒。 以道力故得無作戒　次辨戒體。 若依多論。 作無作戒並是色法為體。 此義可謂六種分別。 一有為無為分別。 二戒俱是有為法聚非三無為故。 第二有為中三聚分別。 作無作戒並色法為體。 心及四相不相應法。 是其戒因故。 論云作及無作假色。 是分別色陰。 第三色聚中三色分別。 一可見有對色。 謂五根四坐。 三不可見無對色。 謂法入中無作。 若言作戒前二色收。 無作戒者第三色攝故。 伽心二論云。 身作可見有對。 口作不可見有對。 身口無作俱不可見無對。 論其身作前二色中唯色入攝。 口作戒者是聲入收。 非餘八色其二無作並法入攝。 此作無作俱是色陰。 第四就色聲中報方便分別。 色雖通報及方便。 然身作是方便非報。 故心論云。 作者身動身方便。 口作唯方便。 以聲非報法故。 身口二無作非報非方便。 第五三性分別。 身口色聲是善非餘兩。 故心論云。 以清淨心動身口名善作等。 即向初色有二十種。 前十二唯無記。 後八高下長短方圓正不正。 通三性局取善邊。 身作戒體。 三聲之中謂除第二因。 不受四大聲如風零等。 唯無記故。 就初因受四大聲。 第三因俱聲。 此二通三性中亦取善聲邊為口作體。 汎論身口無作通於二性。 今論戒故是善性攝。 第六始終分別。 此善作中通於終始不取始。 謂始從請師終至羯磨。 未竟要心。 未熟善而非戒。 第三羯磨一剎那。 須要其心滿思願成就善。 而是戒故局取終。 然依得宗無作之戒。 定用非色非心為體。 作戒者取文不定。 或有取文色心為體。 故論文言。 業者非直音聲。 要以心力助成。 故知身業亦名以心力助成。 明知二業色入為體。 又引論文以心為體。 是故論言。 離心無思無身口業。 故知二業用心為體。 又假色為身口業體。 故論云。 身口業依止。 四大意業依心。 若身口業非四大為體。 性者意業依心亦不應。 以心為體　然意業依心故。 即說意業用心為體。 故知身業以四大動為業。 業無別體。 即用四大作體。 口業者四大相繫於中出聲。 聲成音曲有所表彰。 以為字句為口作業。 業無別體。 用聲作體。 是以論云。 是法名聲性。 法入所攝。 故以遠從四大即聲成。 故用聲為體。 身業近依四大故。 即用所依止為體。 次明二戒先後。 依心論說。 似一時得故　文言。 第三一念作無作根本業道。 又多云。 初念戒者教無教後次第生。 第二念戒但有無教無有有教。 故知一時然無作。 三時有非戒者。 一者因時無作。 但是作俱是非全戒體。 二身是果時無作。 無作有二。 一是作俱。 二是形俱。 形俱一種方是戒體。 三謂果後唯局形俱。 此是戒體。 以其果時有形俱故明一時得。 若依此宗。 以先後發。 故實云。 問。 齊何名為無作。 答。 第二念須名為無作。 以作戒為初念故。 名無作為第二念。 唯羯磨竟所有無作是茲戒體。 前二時中位是能俱所攝。 又善生經方便心異作時心異眾緣和合得名為作。

Although various evil natures exist, it does not tolerate or receive them, hence it is called "precept." It is also called "coolness," because it blocks the burning defilements, preventing them from entering. It is also called "superior," because it is able to ascend to heavenly realms and reach the unsurpassable Path. It is also called "training," because it tames and subdues the mind and wisdom, hence it is called "precept." These five are all explanations of the name based on its meaning and function. Therefore, the name is established from its function, and it is called "precept." However, among the five, narrowness and coolness are names based on meaning, while the remaining three are names based on function. Question: How is it known that there are manifest and non-manifest [precepts]? Answer: The treatises extensively clarify two kinds of precept-essence. First, as the Hṛdaya says: In the instant of the third karmavācanā, the manifest and non-manifest fundamental paths of action [arise]. It also says: Manifest physical and vocal actions are the former two and are impinging; non-manifest physical and vocal actions are both invisible and non-impinging. Second, the Vibhāṣā says: In the first thought-moment of the precept, there are physical and vocal informing and non-informing [actions]; in the second thought-moment, there is only non-informing and no informing. The Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā says: The wholesome roots in the sense of the Vinaya are of two kinds: first, manifest; second, non-manifest. The manifest is form, while the non-manifest is neither form nor mind. Based on these texts, it is clearly known that precepts are of two kinds. Question: Why are both manifest and non-manifest required? Answer: If there were no manifest, the non-manifest would have nothing from which to arise; if there were no non-manifest, one could not guard against wrongdoing throughout one's lifetime. Therefore, both precepts are needed. This is spoken from this perspective. As in attaining the precepts through the superior dharma, by the power of the Path one attains the non-manifest precept. Next, to distinguish the precept-essence: if relying on the Vibhāṣā, the manifest and non-manifest precepts both take physical form (rūpa) as their essence. This meaning may be said to involve six kinds of distinctions. First, the distinction between conditioned and unconditioned: both precepts are aggregations of conditioned dharmas, not the three unconditioned dharmas. Second, among conditioned dharmas, the distinction among the three aggregates: both the manifest and non-manifest precepts take physical form as their essence. Mind and the non-associated dharmas of the four characteristics are the causes of the precept; hence the treatise says that manifest and non-manifest are nominal form, which is distinguished within the form aggregate. Third, within the aggregation of form, the distinction among the three kinds of form: first, visible and impinging form, namely the five sense faculties and the four [elements]; third, invisible and non-impinging form, namely the non-manifest in the sphere of mental objects (dharmāyatana). If speaking of the manifest precept, it is subsumed under the first two kinds of form; the non-manifest precept is subsumed under the third kind of form. Hence the Mātṛkā and Hṛdaya treatises say: Physical manifest action is visible and impinging; vocal manifest action is invisible and impinging; physical and vocal non-manifest actions are both invisible and non-impinging. Discussing physical manifest action, among the former two kinds of form, it is subsumed exclusively under the form sphere (rūpāyatana); the vocal manifest precept is subsumed under the sound sphere (śabdāyatana), not the other eight forms; both non-manifest [precepts] are subsumed under the mental objects sphere. Both this manifest and non-manifest are of the form aggregate. Fourth, distinguishing between fruition and preparatory effort within form and sound: although form extends through both fruition and preparatory effort, physical manifest action is preparatory effort, not fruition. Thus the Hṛdaya says: Manifest action is physical movement and physical preparatory effort; vocal manifest action is solely preparatory effort, because sound is not a fruition dharma. Both physical and vocal non-manifest actions are neither fruition nor preparatory effort. Fifth, distinction among the three moral natures: physical and vocal form and sound are wholesome, not the other two. Thus the Hṛdaya says: Moving body and speech with a pure mind is called wholesome manifest action, and so forth. In the aforementioned initial form, there are twenty varieties: the first twelve are exclusively indeterminate; the latter eight—high, low, long, short, square, round, upright, and non-upright—extend through the three moral natures, but one restricts and takes only the wholesome side as the essence of the physical manifest precept. Among the three kinds of sound, excluding the second, sound caused by unappropriated four great elements, such as wind or bells, which is exclusively indeterminate, within the first, sound caused by appropriated four great elements, and the third, sound caused by both, these two extend through the three moral natures, and one likewise takes the wholesome sound side as the essence of vocal manifest action. Speaking generally, physical and vocal non-manifest actions extend through two moral natures; now, discussing the precepts, they are subsumed under the wholesome nature. Sixth, distinction between the beginning and the end: within this wholesome manifest action, it extends to both the end and the beginning, but one does not take the beginning. That is, from the beginning of requesting the masters up to the karmavācanā, before it is completed, the decisive resolve is not yet matured; it is wholesome, yet it is not the precept. In the single instant of the third karmavācanā, the resolve must be fulfilled, and volitional intent is accomplished; it is wholesome and it is the precept, so one restricts and takes only the end. However, relying on this tradition's non-manifest precept, it determinately uses neither form nor mind as its essence. Regarding the manifest precept, citations of texts are not uniform. Some cite texts taking form and mind as the essence; thus a treatise text says: Karma is not simply sound; it must be assisted and accomplished by the power of the mind. Hence we know that physical karma is also said to be assisted and accomplished by the power of the mind; this clearly shows that both karmas take the form sphere as their essence. Furthermore, citing a treatise text taking mind as the essence, the treatise therefore says: Apart from the mind, there is no volition, and no physical or vocal karma; hence we know that both karmas take the mind as their essence. Moreover, provisional form is the essence of physical and vocal karma; hence the treatise says: Physical and vocal karma rely upon the four great elements, while mental karma relies upon the mind. If physical and vocal karma did not take the four great elements as their essence, then because mental karma relies upon the mind, it also ought not to take mind as its essence. However, because mental karma relies upon the mind, it is therefore said that mental karma takes mind as its essence. Hence we know that physical karma takes the movement of the four great elements as karma; karma has no separate essence, and directly uses the four great elements as its essence. As for vocal karma, the four great elements are interconnected, and within them sound is emitted; sound forms melody and expresses meaning, serving as words and phrases to constitute vocal manifest karma. Karma has no separate essence, and uses sound as its essence. Therefore the treatise says: This dharma is named the nature of sound, subsumed under the sphere of mental objects. Hence, indirectly proceeding from the four great elements, sound is completed; therefore it uses sound as its essence. Because physical karma directly relies upon the four great elements, it directly takes that which is relied upon as its essence. Next, to clarify the sequence of the two precepts: relying on the exposition of the Hṛdaya, it seems they are attained simultaneously. Thus the text says: In the third single thought-moment, manifest and non-manifest fundamental paths of action [arise]. Moreover, the Vibhāṣā says: In the first thought-moment of the precept, informing and non-informing arise sequentially thereafter; in the second thought-moment of the precept, there is only non-informing and no informing. Hence we know they are simultaneous. However, among the non-manifest of the three periods, there are those that are not precepts: first, the non-manifest at the causal time, which merely accompanies manifest action and is not the complete precept-essence; second, the non-manifest at the time of the fruition, where the non-manifest is of two kinds: one accompanies manifest action, and the other accompanies the physical lifespan. Only the one that accompanies the physical lifespan is the precept-essence. Third, after the fruition, it is restricted solely to accompanying the physical lifespan, and this is the precept-essence. Because at the time of the fruition there is that which accompanies the physical lifespan, it is clear that they are attained simultaneously. If relying on this tradition, they are generated sequentially. Thus the Shi says: Question: Up to what point is it called non-manifest? Answer: It must be called non-manifest in the second thought-moment. Because the manifest precept is the first thought-moment, the non-manifest is called the second thought-moment. Only the non-manifest present when the karmavācanā is completed is this precept-essence; in the previous two periods, its status is subsumed under that which can accompany [the manifest]. Furthermore, the Sujāta Sūtra says: The preparatory mind is distinct, the mind at the time of action is distinct, and the combination of various conditions is called manifest.