四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 1.1.5

1.1.5

以作因緣發生無作。 作已過去唯有無作。 其心雖在惡無記中。 本所作業不名漏失授。 斯次辨明先後發。 第二受隨同異昔解受隨義一。 譬如一楯能擇眾敵為破斯義。 故立此受隨二法並作無作。 先解無作有其七種。 一道共無作。 二定共無作。 三形俱。 四要期。 如日夜及處中要期等。 五隨業無作。 如隨戒無作及處中隨作業發者。 是六事無作如塔寺橋船等。 事在時念念發無作等。 七隨用無作。 即前事在有人用時復發無作者。 是就此七中形俱定受要期通二。 餘五定隨　次辨同異。 受隨無作同義有三。 謂名體義。 異便有六。 第一受中無作義均一品。 隨中無作乃有優劣。 言受中無作一品者。 若本上品心受所發無作心增上故。 戒亦上品。 或容犯罪。 或終至羅漢更無增減。 以其酬本一品心故。 中下心受義亦同然。 三品各定故。 言義均一品。 隨中無作多品不定故優劣。 對五篇辨此優劣者。 若就根條初勝乃至五劣。 若自分勝進五勝乃初劣。 即應五篇次第之義。 又可一一篇一一戒心有增微。 事別不等即有九品之持。 故隨無作有斯階降。 第二總別受中無作發心。 總斷一切惡意。 於生非數頓得律儀。 故稱為總。 隨行無作次第漸成不可頓起。 故名為別。 第三懸對受中無作懸有防非。 未即有行。 隨中無作對事防非。 行成晈潔　問。 懸未有非對即隨行受有何用　答。 若無其受隨不成。 隨以共成一治故。 第四長短。 受是形俱。 說以為長。 隨行無作從修行發非形俱。 故目之為短。 第五有無者受中無作通三體唯善。 隨無作者體非二性亦不通兩。 此據尅性分別。 受隨俱善。 餘二並狹。 今約有無通不通。 受是形具。 通在餘二性中。 故說為寬。 隨是作俱。 等局善性中。 所以言狹。 此就一心自作為言。 若先後心及以教人。 餘二性中隨亦通有如教相所詮。 犯不犯中亦同此狹。 故犯行中無不犯行。 若通就先後心及教人。 犯行中亦有不犯行。 此即受隨俱寬。 作解者然須約以為三。 若局善性俱狹。 受隨同善性故。 若隨人等俱寬。 以分通三性故。 若以自作隨行對受分別。 方有寬狹。 此准多論有四五不同。 若實依論不別寬狹長短。 然後受中無作定是長寬。 隨無作者具於二種。 以道無作寬長爾。 第六受是根本隨是根條次解二作同異。 同義有五。 謂名體義。 寬狹長短等不同有四。 一一品多品。 二總別。 三亦懸對。 四根條。 比說可知。 既有此殊。 豈同昔解受隨義　第三辨發戒緣者。 若依薩婆多。 別解脫戒唯約見在。 以過未非眾生故。 若准得宗。 發戒之時不在過未心。 得戒以非眾生故。 現在相續心中發戒。 以是眾生然受戒時。 要須三世境上所有之惡皆作斷意方能發戒。 還防三世境上非。 所以然者。 過去之境能生惡心故。 論云。 如人供養過去所尊是亦得福。 律儀亦爾。 未來之境亦生惡心故。 須普緣總作斷意方能發戒。 又若過未不發戒者。 三世諸佛戒不齊等。 以其諸佛戒品齊等故。 三世以發戒也　問。 戒防未非。 毘尼殄已起。 何故得言緣三世境發。 還防三世非也　答。 境雖過去非非過去等。 以斯義故猶防未起非。 是以須爾　第四發戒多少。 諸戒雖眾不過二種。 謂作無作。 作已還去唯有無作。 一形相續。 此無作戒乃有多品。 以所防之惡既有無量。 戒寧是一。 故多論云。 於一切眾生數非眾生數而發律儀。 言於眾生數者。 上至非相下至阿鼻。 可殺可誑不可誑等。 一一眾生乃至如來。 就根本而言不過有身口七惡。 三因緣故。 一貪故起七。 二嗔故起七三癡故起七。 三七二十一惡。 對防此惡受戒之時。 謂從無貪等三善根心各得身口七枝。 合二十一種戒善。 乃至三千大千一一眾生皆亦如是。

Because manifest [action] serves as cause and condition, the non-manifest arises. Once the manifest has passed, there is solely the non-manifest. Even though one's mind may be in an evil or indeterminate state, the karma originally performed is not considered lost. Next is elucidated the order of their arising.

Second, the similarities and differences between the reception [of the precepts] and subsequent practice. Past interpretations held that the meanings of reception and subsequent practice are identical, like a single shield able to fend off multiple enemies. To refute this doctrine, these two dharmas—reception and subsequent practice—are both established as having manifest and non-manifest [aspects].

First, non-manifest [karma] is explained as being of seven kinds: 1. path-concomitant non-manifest; 2. concentration-concomitant non-manifest; 3. life-long; 4. defined-period, such as day-and-night [precepts] or intermediate defined periods; 5. practice-concomitant non-manifest, such as the non-manifest of subsequent practice and that arising in intermediate states concomitant with practice; 6. non-manifest tied to material objects, such as stūpas, monasteries, bridges, and boats, which, as long as the object exists, generates non-manifest [merit] moment by moment; 7. non-manifest tied to use, which arises again from the aforesaid existing object when someone uses it. Among these seven, life-long is definitely reception; defined-period applies to both; the remaining five are definitely subsequent practice.

Next is elucidated their similarities and differences. The non-manifest of reception and subsequent practice share three similarities: name, essence, and meaning. Their differences are sixfold:

First, the non-manifest in reception is of an equivalent single grade, whereas the non-manifest in subsequent practice has superiority and inferiority. What is meant by the non-manifest in reception being of a single grade: if it is originally received with a superior mind, the non-manifest generated, owing to the predominance of the mind, is also of superior grade; whether offenses are committed, or whether one ultimately attains arhatship, it neither increases nor decreases, because it corresponds to the original single-grade mind. Reception with an intermediate or inferior mind is likewise; because each of the three grades is fixed, it is said that its meaning is of an equivalent single grade. The non-manifest in subsequent practice has multiple grades and is not fixed; hence there is superiority and inferiority. Distinguishing this superiority and inferiority with respect to the five categories [of offenses]: regarding the root and branches, the first is superior down to the fifth being inferior; regarding one's own sphere and progress, the fifth is superior while the first is inferior, corresponding to the sequential meaning of the five categories. Furthermore, within each category and each precept, the mind may increase or diminish; because the situations differ and are unequal, there are nine grades of observance. Therefore, the non-manifest of subsequent practice has such gradations.

Second, general versus specific: the non-manifest of reception arises from an initial intention that universally severs all evil intentions, suddenly obtaining the restraint over sentient and non-sentient objects; hence it is called general. The non-manifest of subsequent practice is gradually accomplished in sequence and cannot arise suddenly; hence it is named specific.

Third, prospective versus confrontation: the non-manifest of reception prospectively prevents wrongdoings before action has immediately occurred; the non-manifest of subsequent practice prevents wrongdoings when confronting situations, bringing conduct to pure perfection. Question: If prospectively there is no wrongdoing yet, and confronting [situations] immediately belongs to subsequent practice, what is the use of reception? Answer: Without reception, subsequent practice is not accomplished, for subsequent practice works together with it to form a single antidote.

Fourth, long versus short: reception lasts for one's whole life and is spoken of as long; the non-manifest of subsequent practice arises from actual cultivation and does not last for a whole life, hence it is designated as short.

Fifth, presence versus absence: the non-manifest of reception runs through all three [mental] natures, yet its essence is exclusively wholesome; the non-manifest of subsequent practice does not have the essence of the other two natures, nor does it run through both. This is an analysis based on intrinsic nature: both reception and subsequent practice are wholesome, while the other two are narrow. Now, in terms of presence and absence, whether it runs through or not: reception is life-long and continues while in the other two natures, hence it is described as broad; subsequent practice is concomitant with manifest action and is strictly confined to the wholesome nature, which is why it is called narrow. This is said regarding a single mind performing an action oneself. If one speaks of earlier and later minds or commanding others, subsequent practice also runs through the other two natures, as explained in the scriptural teachings. In terms of offending and non-offending, it is also narrow in this same way, so that within offensive conduct there is no non-offensive conduct; but if taking into account earlier and later minds and commanding others, offensive conduct also contains non-offensive conduct. In this case, both reception and subsequent practice are broad. Those who analyze this must restrict it to three cases: if confined to the wholesome nature, both are narrow, because reception and subsequent practice share the wholesome nature; if according to [commanding] others, etc., both are broad, because they partly run through the three natures; only when contrasting one's own subsequent practice with reception is there a distinction between broad and narrow. According to the *Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā*, there are four or five differences here. If strictly based on that treatise, it does not distinguish broad, narrow, long, and short; however, the non-manifest of reception is definitely long and broad, while the non-manifest of subsequent practice possesses both kinds, because the non-manifest of the path is broad and long.

Sixth, reception is the root, while subsequent practice is the branches. Next is explained the similarities and differences between the two manifest [actions]. They share five similarities: name, essence, meaning, breadth/narrowness, and length/shortness. There are four differences: 1. single grade versus multiple grades; 2. general versus specific; 3. prospective versus confrontation; 4. root versus branches. This can be understood by analogy with the above discussion. Since there are these distinctions, how could it be identical to past interpretations of the meaning of reception and subsequent practice?

Third, identifying the conditions for generating the precepts. According to the Sarvāstivāda, the prātimokṣa precepts concern only the present, because the past and future are not [currently] sentient beings. If based on the established doctrine: at the time of generating the precepts, it is not within past or future minds that one attains the precepts, because these are not [present] sentient beings; rather, one generates the precepts within the continuum of the present mind, because it is a sentient being. However, when receiving the precepts, one must form the intention to sever all evils across the objects of the three periods of time before one can generate the precepts, which in turn prevent wrongdoings with respect to objects of the three periods of time. Why is this so? Because past objects can give rise to an evil mind. As the treatise says, "Just as a person makes offerings to a venerated one of the past and thereby obtains merit, the same is true of restraint." Future objects also give rise to an evil mind; therefore, one must universally orient toward them and form the intention to sever them completely before one can generate the precepts. Furthermore, if the precepts were not generated regarding the past and future, the precepts of the Buddhas of the three periods of time would not be equal; because the precept-grades of the Buddhas are equal, the precepts are generated with respect to the three periods of time. Question: Precepts prevent future wrongdoings, while Vinaya extinguishes those that have already arisen; why then can one say that they are generated in relation to objects of the three periods of time and in turn prevent wrongdoings of the three periods of time? Answer: Although the object is past, the wrongdoing is not past, and so forth; by this meaning, they still prevent wrongdoings that have not yet arisen. Therefore, it must be so.

Fourth, the quantity of generated precepts. Although the various precepts are numerous, they do not exceed two kinds: manifest and non-manifest. Once the manifest has ceased, there is solely the non-manifest, continuing throughout one's life. This non-manifest precept has many grades. Since the evils to be prevented are limitless, how could the precepts be single? Hence the *Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā* says: "Restraint is generated toward all that are counted as sentient beings and not counted as sentient beings." Regarding those counted as sentient beings: from the Peak of Existence above down to Avīci below; those that can be killed, can be deceived, cannot be deceived, and so forth—each and every sentient being up to the Tathāgatas. In terms of root [transgressions], they do not exceed the seven evils of body and speech, which arise from three conditions: 1. arising of the seven through greed; 2. arising of the seven through anger; 3. arising of the seven through delusion. Three times seven makes twenty-one evils. To counter and prevent these evils, at the time of receiving the precepts, from minds rooted in the three wholesome roots such as non-greed, one obtains the seven limbs of body and speech for each, totaling twenty-one kinds of precept-wholesomeness. This is likewise for each and every sentient being throughout the trichiliocosm.