戒體章
Chapter on the Nature of Precepts
熈寧三年。後安居日。釋元照於南山祖師羯磨疏錄出戒體章。𮨇眄先賢後進。議論遞作。得失互見故。直敘大略云。
夫戒體者。律部之樞要。持犯之基本。返流之源始。發行之先導。但由諸教沈隱。道理淵邃。是以九代傳教。間出英賢。雖各逞異途。而未聞旨決。逮于有唐。獨我祖師。窮幽盡性。反覆前古。貶黜浮偽。剖判宗旨。斟酌義理。鼎示三宗。誠所謂會一化之教源。發羣迷之慧日者也。然而聖師既往。文存理隱。故使任意私說殆六七家。各謂指南。寧知所適。既無是處。不益後來。例皆不引。此時子隆亦出章門。言依業疏三宗出體。甞考始末。得在破他。失於自解。今須破者。由名字相濫。諸宗義學。所惑當時故。略責四過。使是非區別。一大小混濫。二圓義偏乖。三妄分兩體。四輙隱聖文。初．大小混濫者。彼謂四分假宗種子為體(增暉亦然。但取種子上功能為別)。且種子者。尚非經論權淺所談。何況小乘律部耶。又。若謂假宗體是種子者。非色非心。又是何物耶。又。假宗既言種子。後立圓教。戒體何為耶。如此妄言。顛亂教旨。不可輕恕。二圓義偏乖者。圓者。融通貫攝。非異非偏義也。彼說圓教戒體。乃云。因作業種。熏本藏識。永為種子。此即戒體。不同假宗。外立種子也(假宗何曾言種子為體。又種子唯一。何言不同)。既曰不同。何名圓義。又云。自淺至深。三宗迭廢。既容相廢。可謂圓乎。今釋圓義。與彼天別。如下可見。三妄分兩體者。彼將圓教中文。自意強分作．無作二體。其妄又甚。且圓不分者。由融會假實。指破前二。即前之體是圓之體。故不可別分。彼不知此意。故多妄說。又自知不曉。乃云。然此戒體亦多議論。可以意通。不煩敘矣。用語驗心。心亦可見。四輙隱聖文者。祖師疏文之立宗詮體。文義廢立。靡不周備。而彼竊疏名目。少參自語。題為己立。匿聖之咎。何可勝言。其間妄說更多。且略提小耳。嗟呼。時變人浮。勤名惰學。欲其發暉教宗。規範來裔。百代無古者。吾不得見也。故使祖師遺訓。戒體極談。幾于熄矣。猶賴垂文不墜。明若星日。貞如金玉。故幸得而聞也。是以專依疏本錄出別行。猶痛未詳故。略言其大要。初．多宗。作．無作體二。俱是名可知。二成宗。作戒色心為體。亦可知。無作以非色非心為體者。然非色非心止是攝法之聚名。實非體狀。遂令歷世妄說非一。今依疏文。即名考體。直是密談善種。但以小宗未即徑示。故外立名非色非心也。故疏云。考其業體。本由心生。還熏本心。有能有用。乃至云不知何目。強號非二。細詳此文。未即言善種。而曰熏心有用。密談之意。灼然可見。應知此即考出非色非心之體耳。子隆不知。便言四分種子為體。紊亂宗緒。深為不可。
Now, the essence of precepts is the pivotal point of the Vinaya, the foundation for upholding and violating them, the source for reversing the flow of defilements, and the precursor for initiating practice. However, because the teachings in various texts are profound and hidden, and their principles are deep and subtle, throughout nine generations of transmitting the teachings, outstanding sages occasionally emerged. Although each displayed different approaches, none decisively clarified the essential meaning. It was not until the Tang Dynasty that our Patriarch alone exhaustively investigated the profound nature, re-examined the ancient teachings, refuted and discarded the superficial and false, analyzed and determined the essential tenets, carefully considered the principles, and clearly revealed the three schools. This can truly be called gathering the source of the entire teaching and issuing the sun of wisdom for the multitude of the deluded.
However, since the sage Patriarch has passed away, the texts remain but the principles are obscured. Consequently, about six or seven private interpretations have arisen arbitrarily, each claiming to be the guide. How could one know which direction to take? Since none are correct, they do not benefit later generations. I generally do not cite them. At this time, Zilong also produced a commentary, claiming to base the essence of the precepts on the three schools from the *Yishu*. Having examined it from beginning to end, its merit lies in refuting others, but it fails in its own explanation. Now, what must be refuted is due to the confusion of terms, which misled the scholars of various schools at that time. I will briefly point out four faults to distinguish right from wrong.
First, the confusion of Mahayana and Hinayana. He states that the "provisional school" of the Four-Part Vinaya takes seeds as the essence of the precepts. (The *Zenghui* commentary also holds this view, but it specifically takes the function on the seed as distinct.) Now, the theory of seeds is not even discussed in the provisional, shallow teachings of sutras and treatises, let alone in the Hinayana Vinaya! Furthermore, if one says the provisional school's essence is seeds, then what is this "neither-form-nor-mind"? Also, if the provisional school already speaks of seeds, then what is the purpose of establishing the "perfect school" for the essence of precepts? Such reckless statements disrupt the teachings and cannot be lightly forgiven.
Second, the deviation from the meaning of "perfect." "Perfect" means interpenetrating, all-encompassing, non-dual, and non-partial. His explanation of the perfect school's essence of precepts says: "Due to creating karmic actions, seeds are perfumed into the fundamental storehouse consciousness, eternally becoming seeds. This is the essence of the precepts. It is different from the provisional school which externally posits seeds." (When did the provisional school ever say seeds are the essence? Also, seeds are one; how can one speak of difference?) Since he says "different," how can it be called the "perfect" meaning? He also says: "From shallow to deep, the three schools successively negate each other." If they can negate each other, can this be called "perfect"? My explanation of the perfect meaning is vastly different from his, as will be seen below.
Third, the erroneous division into two essences. He forcibly divides the text of the perfect school, according to his own idea, into the essence of the "acting" and "non-acting" precepts. This error is even more severe. The reason the perfect school does not divide them is because it harmonizes the provisional and the real, pointing out and refuting the previous two schools. The essence of the previous schools *is* the essence of the perfect school; therefore, they cannot be separately divided. Not understanding this intention, he produces many erroneous statements. Furthermore, aware of his own lack of understanding, he says: "However, there is much discussion about this essence of precepts. One can grasp the meaning intuitively; there is no need for detailed explanation." Judging his words to discern his mind, his mind can also be seen.
Fourth, the concealment of the sage's text. The Patriarch's commentary in establishing the schools and elucidating the essence, its textual meaning and logical structure, is completely comprehensive. Yet he appropriates the titles and terms from the commentary, mixes in a little of his own words, presents it as his own establishment. The fault of hiding the sage's work is too great to describe. Among his writings, there are even more mistaken theories; I have only briefly mentioned a few here.
Alas! The times change, people become superficial, diligent in reputation but lazy in study. To hope for one who will illuminate the teachings and set a standard for future generations—a figure unmatched for a hundred generations—I fear I will not see it. Thus, the Patriarch's remaining instructions and the ultimate discourse on the essence of precepts are nearly extinguished. We still rely on the transmitted texts not being lost, clear as stars and sun, steadfast as gold and jade. Therefore, we are fortunate to hear of them.
Thus, I have specifically extracted and compiled a separate text based on the commentary, yet still grieve that it is not detailed enough. Therefore, I will briefly state its main points.
First, the *Multiple-Aspects School*: The essence of both the "acting" and "non-acting" precepts is "name," which is understandable.
Second, the *Establishment School*: The essence of the "acting" precept is "form and mind," which is also understandable. As for the "non-acting" precept having "neither-form-nor-mind" as its essence: However, "neither-form-nor-mind" is merely a collective name encompassing dharmas; it is not actually a description of the essence. This has consequently led to numerous erroneous explanations throughout the ages.
Now, based on the commentary's text, we investigate the essence by examining the name. It is directly a veiled discussion of wholesome seeds. However, because the Hinayana schools did not reveal it directly, they externally established the name "neither-form-nor-mind." Therefore, the commentary states: "Investigating this karmic essence, it fundamentally arises from the mind. It perfumes the fundamental mind back, possessing capability and function." It further states, "...not knowing what to call it, forcibly named 'non-dual'." Examining this text carefully, it does not directly say "wholesome seeds," but says "perfumes the mind, possesses function." The intention of the veiled discussion is clearly evident. One should understand that this is precisely the investigation revealing the essence of "neither-form-nor-mind."
Zilong, not understanding this, simply stated that the Four-Part Vinaya takes seeds as the essence, confusing the lineage of the schools. This is deeply unacceptable.
問。此既密談。顯在何處。
Question: If this is a secret teaching, where is the open teaching found?
答。如下圓教。豈非顯也。
Now, this perfect teaching—how could it not be clear?
問。有人言四分戒體探入大乘。其義何耶。
Question: Some say the four-part precept essence penetrates into the Mahayana. What does this mean?
答。教宗既曰分通談體。何名探入。故知非也。三圓教者。略分四段。初．明圓義。謂融會前宗。的指實義。前宗兩體。即善種子(攬本從末)。此善種子。即前二體(攝末歸本)。是則約此圓談。任名無在。故疏云。於此一法。三宗分別。故知分別有三。體實不二。餘如下說。
Answer. Since the Patriarch taught that the two teachings are distinct yet interconnected, and each discusses its own essence, how could this be called a partial or probing entry? Therefore, it is clear this is not the case.
Third is the Perfect Teaching. This can be broadly divided into four sections.
First, clarifying the meaning of 'Perfect'. It means to harmoniously integrate the previous schools and directly point to the true meaning. The two essences discussed in the previous schools are the seeds of goodness. (This is viewing the fundamental through the phenomenal.) These very seeds of goodness are the two essences of the previous schools. (This is returning the phenomenal to the fundamental.) Therefore, from the perspective of this Perfect Teaching, any name can be applied without fixation. As the Commentary states, "Regarding this one Dharma, the three schools make distinctions." Thus, we know the distinctions are threefold, but the essence is truly not dual. The rest will be explained below.
問。若言體唯是一。分別有三者。則前二宗中但有虗名。竟無實體耶。
Question: If you say that the essence is one, yet it is distinguished into three, then does that mean the first two schools only have empty names and ultimately lack any real essence?
答。宗雖各計。體豈乖殊。由彼謂異。強搆他名。應知多宗計種為色。成宗計種為非色心。但後圓教指出前二耳。故疏云。愚人謂異。就之起著等。更以喻陳。如世美玉。或人無知。謂玉為石。或名非石。未能顯體。後人得實。指破前二。若無玉體。何有不識。喻今三宗相似法也。二正名者。已往諸師。或名思種。或名熏種。然思熏屬作。種是無作。今召無作。何得相濫。或名種子者。種通善惡。是亦不然。今正此名。善種為體。故疏云。成善種子。此戒體也(言善則簡惡。不言思熏則無濫也)。
Although each school holds its own view, the essence itself is not fundamentally different. It is because people perceive differences that they forcibly construct other names. It should be understood that the Sarvāstivāda school considers the seeds to be material, while the Sautrāntika school considers them to be non-material and non-mental. It is only the later Perfect Teaching that points out and clarifies the previous two. Therefore, the commentary says, "Foolish people perceive differences and become attached to them," and so on. Let me illustrate with an analogy: like a beautiful piece of jade in the world, some ignorant people call the jade a stone; others call it "not-a-stone," yet still fail to reveal its true substance. Later, someone who truly understands points out the errors of the previous two. If there were no actual jade, how could there be those who fail to recognize it? This analogy is similar to the three schools' teachings on conditioned dharmas.
Second, the correct naming: past masters have sometimes called it "the seed of volition" or "the seed of perfuming." However, volition and perfuming belong to conditioned action, while the seed itself is unconditioned. How can we refer to the unconditioned with terms that cause confusion? Some call it simply "seeds," but seeds can be good or evil—this is also not accurate. Now, the correct name for this is "the seed of goodness" as its essence. Therefore, the commentary states, "It is the seed of goodness that constitutes the essence of the precepts"(By saying 'good,' it excludes evil; by not mentioning volition or perfuming, it avoids confusion.).
問。何因緣故名為善種。
Question: What is the reason it is called the seed of goodness?
答。善則是法體。種是譬喻。謂塵沙戒法納本藏識。續起隨行。行能牽來果。猶如穀子投入田中。芽生苗長。結實成穗。相對無差。故得名也。三大小同異者。
Excellent. Goodness is the essence of the Dharma. 'Seed' is an analogy. It means that the precepts, as numerous as grains of sand, are absorbed into the foundational storehouse consciousness, giving rise to continuous practice. This practice has the power to bring about future results. It is like taking a grain of rice and planting it in a field. A sprout grows, then a seedling, which eventually bears fruit and forms a head of grain. The result corresponds perfectly to the cause. That is why it is called a 'seed'.
Third, regarding the similarities and differences between the great and the small...
問。此與菩薩戒體為同．為異。
Question: Is this the same as the Bodhisattva precept essence, or is it different?
答。體同緣異。言緣異者。大則三歸．四弘．請師．問遮．三番羯磨．諸餘法式。與今小宗兩途逈別。言體同者。以緣為旁助。心是正因。緣疎因親。體從因發。前既心發上品。故知今體即大乘。故涅槃中白四所受持。息世譏嫌。與性重無別。即同此意。
若爾。經論所說菩薩戒。心性為體。此則善種。何言體同。
答。彼經論中自分二體。一當體體。即是戒體。與今善種不殊。二所依體。如上所引。心性是也。然則心性但是戒體所依。實非戒體。故今不立也。
問。體若同者。持犯立懺諸餘行相。如何分別。
答。體雖約圓。行必依受。既受從當教。故行相無差。如疏云。出家菩薩形位同諸聲聞。又。釋迦佛無菩薩僧。諸大菩薩入聲聞僧。依夏次第。即其意也。
若爾。持犯既依教限。出體何必約圓。
答。體既多途。故須圓會。律儀不異。故得就宗。又。依教奉持。則受隨相應。約圓開解。使域心於處。既開顯大解。依小律儀即成大行。豈須棄捨。方曰大乎。故疏云。常思此行。即攝律儀等。深有意旨。不能繁述。
問。此與天台圓教。為同為異。
答。理同說異。何名理同。以下疏中。引法華文。用法華意。立此圓體。但彼教統攝。此局一事。將此入彼。即彼玅行之中戒聖行也。何名說異。今此為明戒體。直取佛意。融前二宗。自得此談。非謂取彼。但名相濫。是故異也。四立圓教本意者。多．成談體。并諸論師。各據教限。互計不同。考實求深。終非了義。然大聖示迹。專為一事。出家所懷。唯脩出離。若不了斯戒體。縱令持護瑩若明珠。不免輪迴。還沒生死。事既深大。是以吾祖大師。推佛本懷。窮出家意。跨入大乘位。立此圓教。直顯實體。極接時機。欲使懷道者。識知本體。發起大行。不論凡小。徑蹈大途。大慈深祕。於茲見矣。故下疏中。廣有勉勵。是故行人常思此行。即三聚戒。展轉修顯。果獲三佛等。又云。今識前緣。終歸大乘。故須域心於處矣。又云。何得不思。致虧發足。廣如下說。上來括下大要。序冠于首。俾智者觀序。則文無壅滯矣。存道同志。深須留意。誠謂出世要術。修行徑道。平生大事。此何自輕。自非吾祖聖智。誰能顯彰。而況祖師舉唱之後。漸流于今。滅絕斯致。故使學戒律者。罔然無所適。甚可悲痛。是則隳摧昔妄。重揚聖言。實用益於後來。匪規名於當世。知吾祖之道者。或一二人。則其心有所寄也。深願勇志研精。同謀荷贊。極深聖意。勿妄宣傳。
戒體章(終)