仁王經疏 3.40

3.40

問：講讀此經，能護四重業不？若能護者，應非失戒；若已失戒，如何能護？解云：諸宗不同。若依小乘，自有兩說：如《俱舍》第十五敘三師釋。一薩婆多宗，別解脫戒五緣捨故。彼頌云「捨別解調伏，由所捨命終，及二形俱生，斷善根夜盡。」犯根本羅時，不捨出家戒。所以然者，非犯一邊，一切律儀應遍捨故。然有二名，謂持犯戒。如有財者，負他債時，名為富人及負債者。若於所犯發露悔除，名具尸羅，不名犯戒，如還債已但名富人。二經部師說，六緣捨勒策，及比丘別解脫戒，謂於前五更加犯重。三法密部說，七緣捨別解脫戒，謂於前六加正法滅。經部難薩婆多云：若爾，何緣薄伽梵說犯四重者不名比丘、不名沙門，非釋迦子，破比丘性、害沙門性，懷滅墮落、立他勝名。薩婆多答：依勝義比丘密意說。正法滅時不新得，非捨舊戒。廣說如彼。今依大乘，諸教不同。若依瑜伽，犯重失戒，不說護法故。第四十云「略由二緣，捨諸菩薩淨戒律儀。一者棄捨無上正等菩提大願，二者現行上品纏犯他勝處法。若諸菩薩雖復轉身遍十方界在在生處不捨菩薩淨戒律儀。由是菩薩不捨無上菩提大願，亦不現行上品纏犯他勝處法。」又五十三云「問：有幾因緣，苾芻律儀受已還捨？答：或由捨所學處故、或由犯根本罪故、或由形沒二形生故、或由善根斷故、或由棄捨眾同分故，苾芻律儀受已還捨。若正法毀壞、正法隱沒，雖無新受苾芻律儀，先已受得當知不捨。」若依《普賢觀經》云「若聲聞毀破三歸及五戒、八戒、比丘戒、比丘尼戒、沙彌戒、沙彌尼戒、式叉摩尼戒及諸威儀，愚痴不善、惡邪心故，多犯諸戒及諸威儀。若欲除滅令無過患，還為比丘、具沙門法，當懃修集讀方等經典，思第一義甚深空法，令此空慧與心相應。當知此人於念念頃，一切罪垢永盡無餘。是名具諸沙門法戒、具諸威儀。」依方等經及此經文，亦得還生。故《大方等陀羅尼經》第一卷云「若菩薩二十四戒、沙彌十戒、式叉沙彌尼戒、比丘戒、比丘尼戒，如是諸戒，若犯一一諸戒，當一心懺悔。若不還生，無有是處，除不至心；若犯五逆罪身有白癩，若不除差，無有是處。」又第四云「若有比丘毀四重禁，至心憶念此陀羅尼經，誦千四百遍。誦千四百遍已乃懺悔，請一比丘為作證人，自陳其罪向形像前。如是次第經八十七日懃懺悔已，是諸戒根若不還生，終無是處。彼人能於八十七日懃懺悔已，若不堅固阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，亦無是處。」若依《涅槃》，亦捨不捨，失其受力故名為捨、不失受經故名不捨，猶如燋一種有體無力。故《涅槃經》三十一云「善男子！我於經中作如是說：若有比丘犯四重已，不名比丘，名破比丘，已失比丘，不復能生善牙種子。譬如燋種不生菓實、如多羅樹頭壞則不生菓，犯重比丘亦復如是。我諸弟子聞是說已，不解我意，唱言：如來說諸比丘犯重禁已，失比丘戒。善男子！我於經中為純陀說四種比丘：一者畢竟到道、二者樂道、三受道、四者污道。犯四重者，即是污道。我諸弟子聞是說已，不解我意，唱言：如來說比丘犯四重已，不失禁戒。」如是諸宗，應作四句：一一向不捨，如薩婆多；二一向捨戒，如經部宗及《瑜伽》等；三亦捨亦不捨，如《涅槃經》等；四非捨非不捨，如方等經及《普賢觀經》等。若懺不捨、不懺便捨，成第二句及第四句。所以者何？汎論四句，有其二種：一者別體，如婆沙等，第三第四別法成句。二者問體，第三第四遮表一法。若表詮門，成第三句；若遮詮門，成第四句。由此《涅槃》方等法同而別。今依方等及此經文，四重五逆諸義得成。言五逆者，亦名無間業，謂殺父、殺母、破和合僧、殺阿羅漢及出佛身血。

Question: Can lecturing upon and reading this sūtra protect against the karmas of the four grave offenses or not? If it can protect against them, then one should not lose the precepts; if one has already lost the precepts, how can it protect them? Explanation: The various schools differ. If we rely on the Hīnayāna, it itself has two accounts, just as the fifteenth fascicle of the Kośa relates the explanations of three masters. First, in the Sarvāstivāda school, the prātimokṣa vows are relinquished due to five conditions. Its verse says: "One relinquishes the discipline of the prātimokṣa / through what has been relinquished, end of life, / and the simultaneous emergence of two genders, / cutting off roots of virtue, and the passing of a night." When one commits a fundamental pārājika, one does not relinquish the renunciant precepts. Why is this? It is not the case that because one commits [a transgression on] one side, the entire code of discipline must be relinquished everywhere. However, there are two designations: keeping and breaking the precepts. Just as someone with wealth, when in debt to another, is named both "a wealthy person" and "a debtor." If one discloses and repents of what was violated so as to eliminate it, one is called "possessing the śīla" and is not called "violating the precepts," just as once a debt is repaid, one is solely called "a wealthy person." Second, the Sautrāntika masters say that the discipline of renunciation and the bhikṣu prātimokṣa vows are relinquished due to six conditions, namely adding to the previous five the commission of a grave offense. Third, the Dharmaguptaka school says that the prātimokṣa vows are relinquished due to seven conditions, namely adding to the previous six the disappearance of the saddharma. The Sautrāntikas challenged the Sarvāstivādins: If so, on what grounds did the Bhagavān say that one who commits the four grave offenses is not called a bhikṣu, is not called a śramaṇa, is not a son of the Śākyan, destroys the bhikṣu nature, harms the śramaṇa nature, harbors destruction and falls, and established the name of parājaya (defeat)? The Sarvāstivādins replied: This was spoken with intentional meaning based on the bhikṣu in the ultimate sense. When the saddharma disappears, one does not newly obtain them, but does not relinquish the old precepts. These are explained extensively in that text. Now relying on the Mahāyāna, the various teachings differ. If we rely on the Yogācārabhūmi, one who commits a grave offense loses the precepts, because it does not speak of a method of protection. The fortieth fascicle says: "In brief, through two conditions one relinquishes the bodhisattva's pure precept discipline: first, abandoning the great vow for unexcelled, complete, and perfect enlightenment; second, actively engaging in the upper grade of entanglement and committing an offense of parājaya. If bodhisattvas, even when changing bodies and traversing realms across the ten directions, in each place of rebirth do not relinquish the bodhisattva's pure precept discipline, it is because these bodhisattvas do not abandon the great vow for unexcelled enlightenment, nor do they actively engage in the upper grade of entanglement and commit offenses of parājaya." Furthermore, the fifty-third fascicle says: "Question: Through how many causes and conditions, having taken the bhikṣu discipline, is it in turn relinquished? Answer: Either because of abandoning the training precepts, or because of committing a fundamental offense, or because of the loss of physical gender and the emergence of two genders, or because of the cutting off of roots of virtue, or because of relinquishing the group-congruence, having taken the bhikṣu discipline, it is in turn relinquished. If the saddharma is destroyed and the saddharma submerged, although there is no newly taking the bhikṣu discipline, one should know that what was previously taken and obtained is not relinquished." If we rely on the Meditation on Samantabhadra Sūtra, it says: "If a śrāvaka ruins and breaks the three refuges as well as the five precepts, eight precepts, bhikṣu precepts, bhikṣuṇī precepts, śrāmaṇera precepts, śrāmaṇerikā precepts, śikṣamāṇā precepts, and the various comportments, through foolishness, unwholesomeness, and evil and deviant minds, committing many offenses against the precepts and comportments; if he desires to eliminate them so that there is no fault, and become a bhikṣu again, possessing the qualities of a śramaṇa, he should diligently cultivate and recite the vaipulya scriptures, contemplating the most profound emptiness of the ultimate truth, causing this wisdom of emptiness to correspond with his mind. One should know that in thought-moment after thought-moment, all the defilements of this person's transgressions will be eliminated forever without remainder. This is called possessing all the qualities and precepts of a śramaṇa, possessing all the comportments." According to the vaipulya scriptures and this sūtra text, they can also be regenerated. Thus, the first fascicle of the Great Vaipulya Dhāraṇī Sūtra says: "If [one violates] the twenty-four precepts of a bodhisattva, the ten precepts of a śrāmaṇera, the śikṣamāṇā and śrāmaṇerikā precepts, the bhikṣu precepts, or the bhikṣuṇī precepts—if one violates each and every one of such precepts, one should single-mindedly repent. If they are not regenerated, there is no such possibility, except if one is not sincere; if one has committed the five heinous sins and one's body suffers from white leprosy, if it is not eliminated and cured, there is no such possibility." Furthermore, the fourth fascicle says: "If there is a bhikṣu who ruins the four grave prohibitions, who with utmost sincerity is mindful of this Dhāraṇī Sūtra and recites it one thousand four hundred times; having recited it one thousand four hundred times, he then repents, requesting one bhikṣu to serve as a witness, and confesses his sins before the sacred image—having thus sequentially undergone eighty-seven days of diligent repentance, if these roots of the precepts are not regenerated, it is ultimately impossible. If that person can diligently repent for eighty-seven days, and does not become firm in anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, it is likewise impossible." If we rely on the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], it is both relinquished and not relinquished: because of losing the power of taking [the precepts], it is called relinquished, and because of not losing the scripture of taking [the precepts], it is called not relinquished, just like a scorched seed having substance but lacking power. Thus the thirty-first fascicle of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "Good son! In the scriptures I have spoken thus: 'If there is a bhikṣu who has committed the four grave offenses, he is not called a bhikṣu, he is called a ruined bhikṣu, he has already lost the bhikṣu status, and can no longer generate the sprout of roots of virtue. Just as a scorched seed does not produce fruit, and just as a tāla palm whose crown is broken does not produce fruit, a bhikṣu who commits a grave offense is likewise.' Hearing this teaching, my disciples failed to understand my meaning, and proclaimed: 'The Tathāgata says that when bhikṣus have committed the grave prohibitions, they lose the bhikṣu precepts.' Good son! In the scriptures, I explained to Cunda four kinds of bhikṣus: first, those who have ultimately reached the path; second, those who take pleasure in the path; third, those who receive the path; fourth, those who defile the path. Those who commit the four grave offenses are precisely those who defile the path. Hearing this teaching, my disciples failed to understand my meaning, and proclaimed: 'The Tathāgata says that when a bhikṣu has committed the four grave offenses, he does not lose the prohibitive precepts.'" Thus for the various schools, a tetralemma should be formulated: first, entirely not relinquished, like the Sarvāstivāda; second, entirely relinquished, like the Sautrāntika school and the Yogācāra and so forth; third, both relinquished and not relinquished, like the Nirvāṇa Sūtra and so forth; fourth, neither relinquished nor not relinquished, like the vaipulya scriptures and the Meditation on Samantabhadra Sūtra and so forth. If upon repenting they are not relinquished, and without repenting they are relinquished, this forms the second proposition and the fourth proposition. Why? Generally speaking of the tetralemma, there are two kinds: first, distinct substances, as in the Vibhāṣā and so forth, where the third and fourth form propositions from distinct phenomena; second, the questioned substance, where the third and fourth affirm and negate a single phenomenon. In terms of positive expression, it forms the third proposition; in terms of negative expression, it forms the fourth proposition. From this, the methods of the Nirvāṇa and the vaipulya are identical yet distinct. Now relying on the vaipulya and this sūtra text, the various meanings of the four grave offenses and five heinous sins can be established. As for the five heinous sins, they are also called anantarya karmas, namely: killing one's father, killing one's mother, causing a schism in the Sangha, killing an arhat, and shedding the blood of a Buddha.