仁王經疏 3.40

3.40

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.