[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [華嚴經探玄記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733) › 6.115 # 華嚴經探玄記 6.115 華嚴經探玄記 6.115 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [6.115](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.6.115) 第二戒藏中三，謂標、釋、結。釋內二：先開十章、後一一牒章廣釋。光統云：初一攝眾生戒、次八攝善法戒、後一律儀戒。又第二中不受外道烏鷄鹿狗戒等，第四中以先不犯故後無疑悔。准此文，似故犯一切戒人，往昔曾作五逆罪來，是彼惡習也。又《涅槃經》云「何故持戒？為不悔故。何故不悔？為歡喜故。何故歡喜？為悅樂故，乃至為得大涅槃故。」第五中不食蘇鹽等，為更造立。又斷穀服氣等，法外立制等。第七中若以斷常見持戒，即是雜無明，故名犯戒。第八中邪命或四種：一方口食、二仰口食、三維口食、四下口食。又《十住論》第二云「誰名五邪命法？一矯異、二自親、三激動、四抑揚、五因利求利。矯異者，有人貪求利養故，若作阿練、若著衲衣、若常乞食、若一坐食、若常坐、若中後不飲漿，受如是等頭陀行，作是念：作是行得供養恭敬，我作是行或亦得之。為利養故，改易威儀，名為矯異。二自親者，有人貪利養，至檀越家語言：『如我父母兄弟姊妹親戚無異，若有所須，我能相與。若有所作，我為作。我不計遠近，能來問訊。我住此者，正相為耳。』為求供養，貪著檀越，能以口辭牽引人心，如是等名自親。三激動者，有人不計貪罪，欲得財物，作得物想，如是言：『是鉢好，若衣好、若戶鉤好、若尼師檀好，若我得者即能受用。』又言：『隨意能施，此人難得。』又至檀越家作是言：『汝家羹飯餅肉香美，衣服復好，當供養我。我以親舊，必當見與。』如是示現貪相，是名激動。四抑揚者，有人貪利養故，語檀越言：『汝極慳惜，尚不能與父母兄弟姊妹妻子親戚，誰能得汝物者？』檀越愧恥俛仰施與。又至餘家作是言：『汝有福德，受人身不空，阿羅漢常入出汝家，汝與坐起語言，作是念相。』檀越或生是心：更無餘人入出我家，必謂我是。是名抑揚。五因利求利者，有人以衣、若鉢、僧伽梨、若尼師檀等資生之物持示人言：『若王王等及餘貴人與我是物。』作是念：檀越或能生心，彼諸王貴人尚能供養，況我不與是人。因以此利，更求餘利，故名因利求利。」第九中，《諸法無行經》云「若見破戒人，不說其過惡。應當念彼人，久久亦得道。」問：《涅槃》云「見破戒者，應當擯默，呵嘖舉處。當知是人得福無量。」此文何故將護不呵，豈為攝生？答：彼據慈心呵令悔過，以根熟故；此約護彼，恐更增惡心，根未熟故。餘文可知。 > In the second, the storehouse of moral discipline, there are three \[parts\]: the statement of the topic, the explanation, and the conclusion. Within the explanation there are two: first, setting forth the ten sections; and second, taking up each section one by one and explaining them in detail. Master Guangtong states: the first is the discipline of gathering sentient beings; the next eight are the discipline of gathering wholesome qualities; and the last is the discipline of moral restraint. Furthermore, regarding the second \[section\], one does not adopt the heterodox disciplines of the crow, the rooster, the deer, the dog, and so forth; in the fourth, because one previously has not transgressed, subsequently one has no doubt or regret. According to this text, it seems that someone who intentionally transgresses all precepts has in the past committed the five heinous transgressions—it is that evil habituation. Moreover, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: “Why uphold moral discipline? So as not to regret. Why not regret? To have joy. Why have joy? To have delight, up to attaining great nirvāṇa.” In the fifth, not eating butter, salt, and so forth, refers to freshly inventing \[practices\]; furthermore, abstaining from grains, consuming qi, and the like, are fabricating rules outside the Dharma. In the seventh, if one upholds moral discipline based on views of annihilationism or eternalism, it is mingled with ignorance, and thus called a transgression of moral discipline. In the eighth, wrong livelihood may be of four kinds: 1. livelihood with mouth facing down; 2. livelihood with mouth facing up; 3. livelihood with mouth facing the four intermediate directions; and 4. livelihood with mouth facing down. Furthermore, the Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā, fascicle two, says: “What are the five practices of wrong livelihood? First, feigning abnormalities; second, ingratiating intimacy; third, instigating hints; fourth, alternately belittling and praising; fifth, seeking gain out of gain. ‘Feigning abnormalities’: someone, out of craving for material gains, may stay in an araṇya, wear rag-robes, constantly beg for food, eat at one sitting, constantly sit \[without lying down\], or abstain from drinks after midday—undertaking such dhūta practices with the thought: ‘By doing such practices one obtains offerings and respect; if I do such practices, I might obtain them too.’ Altering one’s deportment for the sake of material gain is called feigning abnormalities. Second, ‘ingratiating intimacy’: someone, greedy for gain, goes to a donor’s house and says: ‘You are no different from my parents, brothers, sisters, and relatives. If you need anything, I can give it to you. If you have work to do, I will do it for you. Regardless of distance, I can come to pay my respects. The only reason I stay here is for your sake.’ Seeking offerings out of attachment to donors, being able to sway people’s hearts with verbal eloquence—such things are called ingratiating intimacy. Third, ‘instigating hints’: someone, indifferent to the fault of greed, wishes to acquire possessions and forms the idea of obtaining things, speaking thus: ‘This bowl is fine; or this robe is fine, or this door-hook is fine, or this niṣīdāna is fine; if I obtained it, I could make good use of it.’ Or saying: ‘One who gives freely as one wishes is hard to find.’ Or going to a donor’s house and speaking thus: ‘Your household’s soup, rice, cakes, and meat are fragrant and delicious, and your clothes are fine; you ought to make offerings to me. Because we are old acquaintances, you will certainly give them to me.’ Thus displaying signs of greed is called instigating hints. Fourth, ‘alternately belittling and praising’: someone, greedy for gain, says to a donor: ‘You are extremely stingy; you cannot even give to your parents, brothers, sisters, wife, children, and relatives—who could ever obtain anything from you?’ The donor, shamed and humiliated, hesitantly gives. Or going to another’s house and speaking thus: ‘You have merit, your human life has not been in vain; arhats constantly enter and leave your house, and you sit, rise, and converse with them,’ fashioning such indicative ideas. The donor may give rise to this thought: ‘No one else enters and leaves my house; he surely means me.’ This is called alternately belittling and praising. Fifth, ‘seeking gain out of gain’: someone takes robes, bowls, saṃghāṭīs, niṣīdānas, or other requisites for living and displays them to people, saying: ‘Kings, royal figures, and other eminent people gave me these items.’ Thinking: ‘The donor may form the thought: Even those kings and eminent people could make offerings, how much more should I give to this person.’ Using this gain to seek further gain—hence it is called seeking gain out of gain.” In the ninth, the Sarvadharmāpravṛtti-nirdeśa says: “If one sees a person who has broken the precepts, do not speak of his faults and evils. One should reflect that that person will also attain the Path after a long time.” Question: The Nirvāṇa \[Sūtra\] says: “Seeing one who breaks the precepts, one should ostracize him in silence, rebuke him, and expose his wrongdoing. Know that this person obtains immeasurable merit.” Why does this text protect \[such a person\] and not rebuke him? Could this be for the sake of gathering sentient beings? Answer: That \[passage\] refers to rebuking out of a compassionate mind to make them repent their wrongdoing, because their faculties are mature; this \[passage\] refers to protecting them out of fear of further increasing their evil mind, because their faculties are not yet mature. The rest of the text is easy to understand. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 6.114](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.6.114) - [Next: 6.116](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.6.116) - [Up: 6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.6) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733~en-mt.6.115) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.44.61) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.6.115](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.6.115) · Pramāṇa