大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 60.25

60.25

疏「餘有三品如上十善」者，上十善中釋三品竟，反例云為不善者，反此可知。《瑜伽》六十廣顯差別。今指「三品」者，彼略有四：一約三時，今已明竟；二約境有勝劣；三約心有輕重；四約自作教他。前十善中，勝境不殺善則為下，不傷蚊蚋是上品善；今即反此，如前已明。三約心有輕重者，初義約三時輕重，今約一時即有輕重。故經說言「重心殺蟻，過於輕心殺人」等，輕心中容重心以為三品，此心輕重亦約能起煩惱有上中下。故《瑜伽》第八云「軟謂不善者，為軟品貪瞋癡所起等三品，自作教他，輕重如前善中」故。《瑜伽》六十廣說者，正說於惡。論云「殺生所引惡業有其四句：一有作而非增長，為愚童及不思已悔等。二不作而增長，謂思欲殺等事。三俱、四俱非，可知。餘業亦爾。意三業中無第二句，於初句中無不思而作，他逼令作。」釋曰：即上四句，第一為中品，第二為下品，俱為上品，俱非或誤殺等並非三品，上皆瑜伽意。若準《如來祕密藏經》「大迦葉問佛：十惡何者最重？佛答言：殺及邪見。」釋曰：此即十惡互望。次又云「十惡等乃至小罪，堅執名犯。若不堅執，乃至無間，不名為犯。」釋曰：此即約心，意明邪見執著為重。言不犯者，意是輕微，故下文中初云「盜塔寺物不名為犯」，後言「此人因此墜墮，因此解脫。如人自天墜地，亦因地起。」次經又云「父得緣覺道，子斷父命，名殺中重。奪三寶物，名盜中重。母若出家得阿羅漢，共為不淨，是婬中重。若以不實語謗佛，是妄語中重。若兩舌語壞賢聖僧，是兩舌中重。若罵聖人，是惡口中重。言說壞亂求法之人，是綺語中重。若五逆初業，是瞋恚中重。欲劫奪持戒人物，是貪中重。邪見中重，謂之邊見。結云此為十惡中重。」釋曰：此即約境勝劣，但舉其重，中下可知。又云「迦葉！若有眾生具斯十惡，解知如來說因緣法，無我無人無法，本性常淨，不說此人趣向惡道。何以故？無積集故。」釋曰：此即《淨名》理觀懺意，亦是上來無執著心不名為犯。亦同如來為闍王說「無能殺等非今正要，義便故來令人解滅。」疏「依正法念經，三途之中各有邊正」者，可知。

Regarding the Commentary's phrase: "The remaining three grades are as explained above in the ten wholesome deeds": in the ten wholesome deeds above, the explanation of the three grades is finished; by inverse analogy, committing unwholesome deeds can be known by reversing this. The sixtieth fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi broadly reveals these distinctions. What is indicated here as the "three grades" briefly has four aspects there: first, in terms of the three periods of time, which has now been fully explained; second, in terms of the superior or inferior nature of the object; third, in terms of the light or heavy state of mind; fourth, in terms of committing it oneself versus instructing others. In the preceding ten wholesome deeds, not killing a superior object is an inferior wholesome deed, while not harming mosquitoes and gnats is a superior wholesome deed; here it is the reverse of this, as has been explained before. Regarding the third aspect, the light or heavy state of mind: the first meaning concerned the lightness or heaviness across the three periods of time, whereas here it concerns lightness or heaviness within a single moment. Thus the sūtra states, "Killing an ant with a heavy mind surpasses killing a person with a light mind," and so on; light mind, middling mind, and heavy mind are taken as the three grades. This lightness or heaviness of mind is also determined by whether the defilement that gives rise to it is superior, middling, or inferior. Hence the eighth fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi says: "'Mild' means unwholesome deeds arisen from mild greed, anger, or delusion, and so forth for the three grades; committing it oneself versus instructing others is light or heavy as in the preceding wholesome deeds." That which is broadly explained in the sixtieth fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi specifically speaks of evil. The Treatise says: "The evil karma generated by taking life has four propositions: first, there is that which is done but not accumulated, as in the case of young children, or acting without thinking and then regretting, and so forth. Second, that which is not done but accumulated, meaning thinking of and desiring to kill and so forth. Third, both; fourth, neither—both can be understood. The remaining karmas are also like this. Among the three mental karmas, the second proposition does not exist; in the first proposition, there is no acting without thinking, or being coerced by others to do it." The explanation states: of the above four propositions, the first is the middling grade, the second is the inferior grade, "both" is the superior grade, and "neither" or accidental killing and so forth are not among the three grades. All the above represents the intent of the Yogācārabhūmi. If we follow the Tathāgataguhyakośa-sūtra: "Mahākāśyapa asked the Buddha: 'Among the ten unwholesome deeds, which are the heaviest?' The Buddha replied: 'Killing and wrong views.'" The explanation states: this is the mutual comparison among the ten unwholesome deeds. Next it also says: "Even minor transgressions up to the ten unwholesome deeds are called violations if obstinately clung to; if not obstinately clung to, then even the [five deeds of] uninterrupted retribution are not called violations." The explanation states: this is in terms of the mind, intending to clarify that obstinate attachment to wrong views is heavy. Saying "not a violation" means it is slight, so in the text below it first says: "Stealing the property of a stūpa or monastery is not called a violation," and later says: "This person falls because of this and is liberated because of this, just as a person falls to the ground from the sky and also rises by relying on the ground." Next, the sūtra also says: "If a father has attained the pratyekabuddha path and the son terminates the father's life, this is called the heaviest among killing. Plundering the property of the Three Jewels is called the heaviest among stealing. If a mother has gone forth and attained arhatship, and one engages in impurity with her, this is the heaviest among sexual misconduct. If one slanders the Buddha with untrue words, this is the heaviest among false speech. If with divisive speech one divides the Saṅgha of noble sages, this is the heaviest among divisive speech. If one reviles a noble person, this is the heaviest among harsh speech. If one's words confuse and disorder a person seeking the Dharma, this is the heaviest among frivolous chatter. The initial undertaking of the five deeds of uninterrupted retribution is the heaviest among anger. Desiring to rob the belongings of a person who upholds the precepts is the heaviest among greed. The heaviest among wrong views is called extreme view. In conclusion, these are the heaviest among the ten unwholesome deeds." The explanation states: this is in terms of the superior or inferior nature of the object; it merely cites the heavy ones, and the middling and inferior can be understood from them. It also says: "Kāśyapa! If there are sentient beings endowed with these ten unwholesome deeds who understand and know the Dharma of causes and conditions spoken by the Tathāgata—without self, without person, and without phenomena, their fundamental nature being constantly pure—I do not say that this person is heading toward the evil destinies. Why? Because there is no accumulation." The explanation states: this is the intention of the repentance through contemplation of principle in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, and it is also the above idea that lacking a mind of obstinate attachment is not called a violation. It is also like the Tathāgata saying to King Ajātaśatru: "There is no one who can kill, and so forth—this is not what is currently essential, but is brought in by way of convenience to cause people to understand and extinguish [guilt]." Regarding the Commentary's phrase: "Relying on the Saddharmasmṛtyupasthāna-sūtra, within the three destinies each has peripheral and central [retribution]": this can be understood.