四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 1.1.4

1.1.4

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.