大方廣佛華嚴經疏 35.8

35.8

第二自體淨中明三聚淨戒，即分為三：初律儀淨，論云離淨，謂離殺等故，此約隨戒。亦名正受淨，此約初受。二攝善法戒。三攝眾生戒。此三聚戒攝前三位，初攝治地住；次攝饒益行，思彼眾生墮惡等故；後攝不壞迴向，謂有智願等，於法寶等皆不壞故。律儀通於止作，攝善唯約善行。前二通於自利，後一唯約益物。又初律儀中雖有善行，而施忍等不行非過，故攝善中無所不行。若爾，今經前二同離殺等，二相寧分？古釋有二義：一同體義分，約離過義邊說為律儀，順理能益判為攝善。二者隱顯相成，律儀中有止作，因離果離是其止行，對治離者是其作行，舉作助止說為律儀。攝善戒中亦有止作，以止助作說為攝善。今更一釋，此中唯約自修正行，下攝善中亦令他修，則攝二利之善及悲智之善。又此唯己分之善，下攝善中上修佛善，豈得同耶？今初律儀，分三：初標所依，謂離垢地，戒增上故、二「性自已」下正顯戒相、三「佛子至如是」下結成增上。二中有十善業道，即為十段。今初，離殺分二：初總明、後「不畜」下別顯。今初，性自遠離。文屬殺生，義該下九，謂自性成就十善業道，即自性戒。然離有三種：一要期離，謂諸凡夫；二方便離，所謂二乘；三自體離，謂諸菩薩，契窮實性自體無染。然諸菩薩同修自體，而復有四：一離現行，所謂地前；二除種子，即是初地；三除誤犯、四顯性淨，此二當於此地。然性淨難彰，寄除殺等以顯彼淨，此通餘教。若依此經，地體懸絕寄顯地勝，豈可地前位位皆深，今居地上方行十善？二別顯中，有三種離：一因離，謂離殺因緣。二「於一切」下對治離，謂離殺法。三「是菩薩」下果行離，即離殺業。今初因離，復有二種：一離受畜因，謂不畜刀杖。此雖是緣，從通名因，略舉此二，餘呪藥等皆是此因。二「不懷」下明離起因，此正是因，因即三毒。不懷怨恨明離瞋因，殺父害母亦不加報。次「有漸」下明離貪因。貪有二種：一為貪財利，故造諸惡業，乃至沒命心無恥悔；今有慚愧故能離之。二為貪眾生，捕養籠繫令生苦惱；今有愍傷之仁，恕己為喻，便能離之。然起殺之癡必是邪見，邪見難遣，非對治不離，是故論主就對治中明離於癡，此略不說。二對治離中亦有二種：一生利益心，是與眾生世出世間二種樂因；二生慈念心，謂念眾生得人天涅槃之果。既於如是因果不顛倒求，則離愚癡心起於殺因殺生祭祠等。此中慈益，約能對治即名為離，不同前後殺因殺果而為所離。若爾，前有仁恕故離起貪因，仁恕之心豈非能治？前約本有仁等不起貪等，非是發起仁恕之心；今約於物發生慈益之心以為能治，故不同也。三果行離者，攬因成殺名業為果，今不正殺故名果離。於中亦二：一微細，謂心念害；二麁重，謂身行害。今經以細況麁，麁中成殺有五因緣：一身，謂於他故。他是所殺之體，故名為身。此揀自身。二事，謂眾生故，此揀非情。三想，謂起眾生想，揀作瓦木等想。四行，謂故以重意。重意是思，故名為行，此揀錯誤。五體，謂身行加害斷命落究竟，正是殺業，故名為體，則揀前四以為方便。然《雜集》、《瑜伽》緣皆有五，而合初二為事，復加煩惱。今以煩惱是前起因，故不重明。又境想輕重等，非此全要，故略不明。

Second, within the purity of intrinsic nature, the three groups of pure precepts are clarified, which are divided into three: first, the purity of discipline (saṃvara-śīla)—the treatise calls it the purity of relinquishment, meaning relinquishing killing and so forth, which is explained in terms of the ongoing precepts, and is also called the purity of correct reception, which is explained in terms of the initial reception; second, the precepts of gathering wholesome dharmas; third, the precepts of gathering sentient beings. These three groups of precepts encompass the preceding three stations: the first encompasses the ground-remedying abode; the next encompasses the practice of beneficial action, because one contemplates those sentient beings falling into evil destinies and so forth; the last encompasses the indestructible pariṇāmanā, meaning having wisdom and vows, and being indestructible regarding the Dharma-jewel and so on. Discipline applies to both cessation and action; gathering wholesome dharmas is explained solely in terms of wholesome conduct. The first two apply to self-benefit; the latter is solely in terms of benefiting others. Furthermore, although there are wholesome actions within the first discipline, not practicing giving, patience, and so forth is not a fault; therefore, within gathering the wholesome, there is nothing that is not practiced. If so, since the first two in the present sūtra both involve abstaining from killing and so forth, how are their two characteristics distinguished? Ancient explanations have two meanings: 1. Distinguished by aspects of the same entity: explained from the aspect of abandoning faults, it is called discipline; conforming to principle and capable of benefiting, it is judged as gathering the wholesome. 2. Mutual completion through implicit and explicit aspects: within discipline there are cessation and action; relinquishing cause and relinquishing fruit are its practices of cessation, while relinquishing through antidotes is its practice of action—raising action to assist cessation is termed discipline. Within the precepts of gathering the wholesome there are also cessation and action; using cessation to assist action is termed gathering the wholesome. Now here is an additional explanation: here it refers solely to self-cultivated correct practice, whereas below in gathering the wholesome it also leads others to cultivate, thereby gathering the wholesomeness of dual benefit and the wholesomeness of compassion and wisdom. Moreover, this is solely the wholesomeness of one's own portion, whereas below in gathering the wholesome one cultivates the superior wholesomeness of the Buddha—how could they be the same? Now, the first, discipline, is divided into three: first, marking the basis, which refers to the Ground of Freedom from Defilement, because morality is predominant; second, from "In nature, of oneself..." onward, directly revealing the characteristics of the precepts; third, from "Disciples of the Buddha, in this manner..." onward, concluding its predominance. In the second, there are the ten wholesome courses of action, which make up ten sections. Now first, abstaining from killing is divided into two: first, a general explanation; second, from "Not keeping [weapons]" onward, a specific exposition. In the first part: in nature, of oneself, one is far removed. The text belongs to killing living beings, but its meaning covers the remaining nine below, meaning that by one's own nature one accomplishes the ten wholesome courses of action, which is innate morality. However, relinquishment has three kinds: 1. bound by vows, which refers to ordinary beings; 2. by skillful means, which refers to the two vehicles; 3. by intrinsic nature, which refers to bodhisattvas, who, deeply realizing the true nature, are intrinsically without defilement. Yet, although bodhisattvas together cultivate intrinsic nature, there are further four kinds: 1. abandoning manifest activity, which refers to before the grounds; 2. eradicating seeds, which is the first ground; 3. eradicating inadvertent infractions; and 4. revealing natural purity—these two correspond to this ground. However, natural purity is difficult to demonstrate, so it is lodged in the elimination of killing and so forth to reveal that purity; this is common to other teachings. If based on this sūtra, the essence of the ground is exalted and distinct, and lodging it reveals the superiority of the ground; how could each station prior to the grounds be deep, while only now upon reaching the grounds does one practice the ten wholesome actions? In the second part, the specific exposition, there are three kinds of relinquishment: 1. relinquishing the causes, meaning relinquishing the causes and conditions of killing; 2. from "Toward all [beings]" onward, relinquishing through antidotes, meaning relinquishing the methods of killing; 3. from "This bodhisattva..." onward, relinquishing in fruit and action, which is relinquishing the karma of killing. In the first, relinquishing causes, there are again two kinds: first, relinquishing the cause of receiving and keeping [weapons], meaning not keeping swords and staffs. Although this is a condition, following general usage it is called a cause; these two are briefly raised, and other mantras, poisons, and so forth are all this cause. Second, from "Not harboring [enmity]" onward clarifies relinquishing the cause of arousal; this is the direct cause, and the causes are the three poisons. Not harboring resentment clarifies relinquishing the cause of hatred—even if one's father is killed or mother harmed, one still does not retaliate. Next, from "Possessing shame" onward clarifies relinquishing the cause of greed. Greed has two kinds: first, greed for wealth and gain, for which one creates all kinds of evil karma, even to the loss of life without shame or remorse in one's mind; now having shame and remorse, one is able to relinquish it. Second, greed for sentient beings, capturing, rearing, and caging them, causing them to suffer afflictions; now possessing the benevolence of pity and taking oneself as an analogy, one is able to relinquish it. However, the delusion that gives rise to killing is necessarily wrong view; wrong view is difficult to dispel, and cannot be relinquished without an antidote, which is why the treatise master clarifies the relinquishment of delusion within the antidotes, so it is omitted here. In the second, relinquishing through antidotes, there are also two kinds: first, generating a mind of benefit, which is the cause of giving sentient beings the two kinds of happiness, mundane and supramundane; second, generating a mind of loving-kindness, meaning mindfully wishing sentient beings to obtain the fruits of human, heavenly, and nirvāṇa realms. Once one seeks without distortion regarding such causes and fruits, one is free from the foolish mind that gives rise to the causes of killing, such as killing living beings for sacrificial offerings. Here, loving-kindness and benefit, in terms of being capable of acting as antidotes, are termed relinquishment; they are not like the preceding and following causes of killing and fruits of killing, which are that which is relinquished. If so, previously there was benevolence and empathy which caused one to abandon the cause of giving rise to greed; how could the benevolent and empathetic mind not be an antidote? The former referred to inherently possessing benevolence and so forth so that greed and the like do not arise, not to generating a mind of benevolence and empathy; here it refers to generating a mind of loving-kindness and benefit toward beings as the antidote, so they are not the same. Third, relinquishing in fruit and action: gathering causes to accomplish killing is called karma, which is the fruit; now, not directly killing is called relinquishing the fruit. In this there are also two: 1. subtle, meaning the mental thought of harming; 2. coarse, meaning bodily actions of harming. The present sūtra uses the subtle to illustrate the coarse. In the coarse, the accomplishment of killing has five causes and conditions: 1. body, meaning toward another, for the other is the entity that is killed, hence called "body"; this excludes one's own body; 2. object/matter, meaning a sentient being; this excludes insentient things; 3. perception, meaning giving rise to the perception of a sentient being, which excludes perceiving it as tile, wood, and so forth; 4. mental action, meaning deliberately with grave intention; grave intention is volition (cetanā), hence called "action," which excludes inadvertent error; 5. entity/substance, meaning bodily action inflicting harm, terminating life, falling into the final culmination—this is the very karma of killing, hence called "entity," which excludes the prior four as preliminary expedients. In the Samuccaya and Yogācārabhūmi, the conditions all number five, but they combine the first two into object/matter and additionally add affliction. Here, because affliction is the aforementioned cause of arousal, it is not reiterated. Furthermore, the lightness or gravity of object and perception is not entirely essential here, so it is omitted without explanation.