大毘盧遮那成佛經疏 18.4

18.4

次不淨行戒，云菩薩持不邪行戒（此中有重犯，云皆是持不犯意，不異故不注）。他所攝自妻、自種族護，自貪不發，況復交會非道，菩薩持不邪行戒。若他所攝自妻、自種族標相（謂尼等即是自種標相也），不發自貪（謂心中事），況復非道二身和合？有異方便色類事，准上也。及二形相向，餘色類事，此第三也。他所攝，謂他所有婦女姊妹之類，如律十種護等也。然菩薩有二種，若出家者，一切欲心尚不得生，何論他護及非時等。然亦謂解相，故律具言也。若在家菩薩，於自妻非時等，即名為邪行，如《智度》於尸波羅蜜中具說也。又非時非處者，如近塔尊、明現之處皆是也。以明中即是對天神等，故亦制也。自種族者，謂同姓不婚等也。又族者，楚音，亦是標幟義。如西方法，若女人衒賣女色，自官許已，有人與彼若干物，隨爾所時，即是彼所攝也。然彼有人時，即於門置標令他人知，異人見之即知彼已有所護。若固爾干犯，即同邪行也。自貪不發，謂尚不應與貪染之念相應，況非道行婬，及正境等而和合分劑耶？然有異方便，為成彼大菩提因，則有犯義，不同聲聞也。如大本菩薩戒說，有菩薩從生已來修童真行，未尚面覩女色著心，當於山林修道。後年十八，因入村乞食，有童女見其端嚴美妙，生欲心告言：「我於仁者深生欲心。仁者行妙行，正為利一切耳。若我願不遂，恐致絕命，即是違仁本願而害眾生也。」彼菩薩種種呵欲過失，彼終不捨。以不獲所願，因即悶絕。時彼親屬念言：「必是夜叉也。形貌異人，我女見而躄地，將不奪彼精氣耶？」共持刀杖執縛，將欲害之。女少蘇已見之，即具告父母因緣。彼言：「是女之過，非比丘罪也。」即便捨之。女又追隨不止，比丘念言：「若彼不得所求，必自喪命而入惡道。」遂從彼願，多時和合。伺彼欲少息時，以法勸導而說法利彼女。以深愛敬故，即順其命，共修梵行成大法利。然此菩薩但以大悲方便，能以下劣忍于斯事，而非欲貪所牽而作非法。若不由大悲，但以欲邪行心而作，即是犯戒此也。即是具智方便故爾。隨類者，即是指前義也。同盜戒，故不廣說，例可知也。如經說：群賊捉得緊那羅女施菩薩，受之，因此得財，無量時行施。又如美髮菩薩乞食，女人見悶絕，為護女故（上疑是藥叉之因，此念菩提心不捨眾生故），恐離菩提心，因受為妻。久後勸導，同發道心，眷屬亦發心生天（善巧方便滅罪行也）。

Next is the precept against impure conduct, which states that the bodhisattva maintains the precept against sexual misconduct. (Herein, where it speaks of grave offenses, they are all stated with the intention of maintaining non-offense; since they do not differ, no note is made.) With regard to another's ward, one's own wife, or those protected by one's own clan, one's own lust does not arise, how much less sexual union or unnatural intercourse; the bodhisattva maintains the precept against sexual misconduct. If, toward another's ward, one's own wife, or the marks of one's own clan (meaning that nuns and the like are the marks of one's own clan), one does not give rise to one's own lust (referring to the matter of the mind), how much less unnatural intercourse and the union of two bodies? As for matters regarding different categories of upāya and form, they follow the above. And facing each other with two gender marks, and the remaining matters of categories of form, this is the third. 'Another's ward' refers to another's women, sisters, and the like, as in the vinaya's ten kinds of protected women. However, there are two kinds of bodhisattvas: if one has left home, no thought of desire whatsoever may arise, not to mention those protected by others, improper times, and so forth. Yet it is also meant to explain the characteristics, so the vinaya speaks of it in full. If it is a lay bodhisattva, [intercourse] with one's own wife at improper times and the like is called sexual misconduct, as explained extensively in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa in the section on the śīlapāramitā. Furthermore, 'improper time and improper place' refers to places near stūpas and venerated figures, or brightly lit places; because in the light one faces deities and the like, it is also prohibited. 'One's own clan' refers to not marrying those of the same surname, and so forth. Furthermore, 'clan' (zu), in the dialect of Chu, also has the meaning of a mark or sign. According to the Western custom, if a woman sells female beauty, after official permission is granted, someone gives her a certain amount of goods, and for that duration of time she is under his custody. But when someone is with her, a sign is placed on the door to inform others; when another person sees it, they know she is already protected. If one willfully violates her, it is equivalent to sexual misconduct. 'One's own lust does not arise' means that one should not even correspond with thoughts of covetous defilement, how much less engage in unnatural intercourse, or sexual union with proper objects within prescribed limits? However, when there are extraordinary upāyas for the sake of accomplishing the causes of great bodhi for another, then there is a sense in which it may be breached, which is not the same as for śrāvakas. As the extensive version of the bodhisattva precepts says, there was a bodhisattva who from birth practiced celibacy (brahmacarya) and had never looked upon a woman's form with attachment in his mind, cultivating the Path in the mountain forests. Later, at the age of eighteen, when entering a village to beg for food, a maiden saw his dignified and handsome appearance, gave rise to a mind of desire, and said to him: 'I have given rise to deep desire for you, benevolent one. The benevolent one's practice of wondrous conduct is solely for the benefit of all beings. If my wish is not fulfilled, I fear it will lead to the end of my life, which would be contrary to your original vow and harm a sentient being.' That bodhisattva admonished her in various ways about the faults of desire, but she would not abandon it to the end. Because she could not obtain her wish, she thereupon fainted. At that time her relatives thought: 'This must be a yakṣa! His appearance is different from ordinary humans; our daughter fell to the ground upon seeing him—could he have stolen her vital energy?' Together, bearing knives and clubs, they bound him and were about to kill him. When the girl revived slightly and saw this, she explained the full cause and conditions to her parents. They said: 'This is the girl's fault, not the monk's crime.' They thereupon released him. The girl again pursued him relentlessly, and the monk thought: 'If she does not obtain what she seeks, she will certainly lose her life and enter the evil realms.' He then complied with her wish and had union for a long time. Waiting until her desire had somewhat abated, he exhorted her with the Dharma and spoke the Dharma to benefit her. Because of her deep love and respect, she complied with his instruction, and together they cultivated the pure life (brahmacarya) and accomplished great benefits of the Dharma. Yet this bodhisattva, solely through the upāya of mahākaruṇā, was able to endure this matter with lowliness, and was not drawn by lustful greed to commit unlawful acts. If it were not from mahākaruṇā, but done merely with a mind of lustful misconduct, that would be an infraction of the precepts. It is precisely because he was endowed with wisdom and upāya that it was so. 'According to the category' points to the previous meaning. Being the same as the precept against stealing, it is not explained extensively, and may be understood by analogy. As the sūtra says: a band of robbers captured a kiṃnara maiden and gave her to a bodhisattva; he accepted her, obtained wealth because of this, and practiced giving for an immeasurable time. Again, for instance, when the Bodhisattva of Fine Hair begged for food, a woman saw him and fainted; to protect the woman (above, it was the cause of suspecting a yakṣa; here, it was the thought of bodhicitta not abandoning sentient beings), fearing she would depart from bodhicitta, he accepted her as his wife. Much later, he exhorted her, they gave rise to the aspiration for the Path together, and her relatives also gave rise to the aspiration and were reborn in heaven (a skillful upāya that eradicates sinful conduct).