四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 2.54

2.54

《俱舍》云：戒從一切眾生得定，分因不定。何以故？不得從一種眾生得故。分不定者，有人從一切分得戒，謂受比丘戒；有人從四分得，謂受所餘諸戒，即五八十戒也。因不定者，有二義：若立無貪瞋癡，為戒生因，從一切得，以不相離故；若立上中下品意，為戒生因，則不從一切得。若不從一切眾生得，戒則無也。何以故？由遍眾生起善，方得，異此不得。云何如此？惡意不死故。若人不作五種分別，得木叉戒：一於某眾生我離殺等，二於某分我持，三於某處能持，四某時能持，五某緣不持，除鬪戰事；如此受者，得善，不得戒。於非所能境，云何得戒？由不害一切眾生命故，方得。若從所能境得戒，此則有損減過；能非能，互轉生故。若爾，則離得捨因緣；得戒捨戒，此義自成。縱離得捨因緣，此有何過？惡心不死故，不成溥用。《毘婆沙》問云：若爾，草木等，未有有時生滅，豈非增減？眾生入般，豈非減耶？義解作四句：一心謝境不謝，聖無煩惱，以境不盡故，戒在不失。二境謝心不謝，入般草死，戒不失，由心過罪在故。三心境俱不謝，可知。四心境俱謝，根轉之時，不同戒失。

The *Kośa* states: 'The precepts are determined from all sentient beings, but the divisions and causes are not determined. Why is this? Because they cannot be obtained from a single kind of sentient being. That the divisions are not determined means: some obtain the precepts from all divisions, which refers to receiving the bhikṣu precepts; some obtain them from four divisions, which refers to receiving the remaining precepts, namely the five, eight, and ten precepts. That the causes are not determined has two meanings: if one posits non-attachment, non-hatred, and non-delusion as the cause generating the precepts, they are obtained from all, because they are inseparable; if one posits superior, middling, or inferior intent as the cause generating the precepts, then they are not obtained from all. If they are not obtained from all sentient beings, then the precepts do not exist. Why is this? Because it is only by giving rise to goodness universally toward sentient beings that they are obtained; otherwise, they are not obtained. Why is it like this? Because the evil intention has not died. If a person does not make five kinds of distinctions, they obtain the prātimokṣa precepts: [not thinking,] first, toward a certain sentient being I refrain from killing and so forth; second, regarding a certain division I observe them; third, in a certain place I am able to observe them; fourth, at a certain time I am able to observe them; fifth, under a certain condition I do not observe them, excepting matters of combat. If one receives them in such [a discriminatory] manner, one obtains goodness, but does not obtain the precepts. How does one obtain the precepts toward objects beyond one's capability? It is only through not harming the lives of all sentient beings that one obtains them. If one obtained the precepts only from objects within one's capability, this would incur the fault of diminution; because capability and non-capability arise by mutual transformation. If that were so, then one would be separated from the causes and conditions of obtaining and relinquishing; the obtaining and relinquishing of the precepts would self-evidently hold this meaning. Even if one were separated from the causes and conditions of obtaining and relinquishing, what fault would there be in this? Because the evil mind has not died, universal application would not be accomplished.' The *Vibhāṣā* asks: 'If so, when vegetation and the like arise and perish when they were not previously existing, does this not entail increase and decrease? And when sentient beings enter parinirvāṇa, does this not entail decrease?' The doctrinal explanation makes four propositions: First, the mind ceases but the object does not cease: the noble ones are free of defilements, but because the objects are not exhausted, the precepts remain and are not lost. Second, the object ceases but the mind does not cease: when [a being] enters parinirvāṇa or grass dies, the precepts are not lost, because the transgression and offense of the mind remain. Third, both mind and object do not cease: this is understandable. Fourth, both mind and object cease: at the time when the faculties transform, this is not the same as losing the precepts.