四分律行事鈔資持記 1.64

1.64

別列中。初例。準《業疏》中明受捨漸頓，先五次十後具名漸；徑受具足，三戒俱得名頓。捨具戒作沙彌，捨具十作優婆塞，名漸；直作白衣名頓。（此古記解，未見制教輕重意。）今約〈持犯篇〉中不學無知漸頓釋之。《戒疏》云：行違本受，厭而不學，故名止犯。不學具漸頓，起心有通局；無知唯局漸，緣境不了，犯不學罪；漸中隨境結故輕，頓則一切犯故重。（不學出受戒說相，無知出不攝耳戒。）二結正業科。即篇聚之罪，各從種類；並約七支業理輕重以分上下。如〈篇聚〉云正結罪科，止樹六法是也。三報果不同者。此明人類報有差別。謂男女黃門二形之類，四夷俱重；摩觸麁語媒嫁等則有輕降。如律廣解具列其相，可尋注戒。（舊約僧尼別制釋，或引《母論》犯報四句釋，於義似疎。）四攝趣優劣者。律明趣有三種，人及非畜。非人一種，通含四趣，天、修、鬼、獄；又非畜中，各有男女黃形，並如戒本所列。人趣為優，畜則為劣，非人通優劣。且約四重以示其相：初人趣四戒俱重；二非人婬重餘蘭，畜生婬重盜吉；殺有智蘭，無智提。（餘篇自尋。）五起情虛實者。此有多釋。一如謗妄等戒，情虛故重，情實皆開。（諸戒不犯文中，並標實爾無心等是也。）又諸戒境想，初句情虛故重，疑想情實俱輕。（除婬酒戒。）又諸戒中或標知故字者，即顯情虛。（如故斷畜命，知水有虫等。）非故不知，即是情實；即如本律犯必問心，無心不犯；制教重輕，尋之可見。六開制互立者。一切諸戒，若止若作，有制未始不開，有開未嘗不制；二教相待，義無獨立。且如婬戒，乃至畜生毛頭即犯，仍開怨逼，此即制中開也；雖許境合，三時無樂，開中制也。又如本制三衣，次開百一，復制加持；後開畜長，仍制說淨；時緣不暇，復開十日，不說則犯。又如本制安居，緣開受日，復制限內須還，又開難緣不返等。但制即是重，開並為輕；如是類求，方體教意。七中。喧即聚落中下兩根，靜即蘭若頭陀上行。四依教重，四開教輕。（此明如來制教重輕，又云在文自顯，須就本律詳而求之；故今所釋，頗與昔異。）

Under the specific enumeration, the first example: according to the explanation of gradual and sudden reception and relinquishment in the Karma Commentary, first receiving five, then ten, and subsequently full ordination is called gradual; directly receiving full ordination, thereby obtaining all three sets of precepts at once, is called sudden. Relinquishing the full precepts to become a śrāmaṇera, or relinquishing the full ten to become an upāsaka, is called gradual; directly becoming a layperson is called sudden. (This was the ancient records' explanation, which failed to see the intent behind the gravity of the instituted teaching.) Now, following the chapter "Maintenance and Violation," it is explained in terms of the gradual and sudden forms of lack of study and ignorance. The Precept Commentary says: "When practice contravenes the original reception, out of aversion one does not study; this is called an offense of omission. Lack of study has both gradual and sudden aspects, and the arising of the mind has universal and restricted applications; ignorance is restricted solely to the gradual: not clearly understanding the objective conditions, one commits the offense of failing to study; in the gradual, because offenses are determined according to individual conditions, they are light, whereas in the sudden, because all conditions are violated at once, it is heavy." (Lack of study is found in the exposition of marks at ordination; ignorance is found in the precept against not restraining the ears.) Second, determining the categories of primary karma: that is, the offenses of the classes and categories, each following its kind; they are arranged hierarchically according to the weight of the principles of karma concerning the seven paths of action. This is like what the chapter "Categories and Classes of Offenses" says regarding the establishment of the categories of offenses, which solely institute the six dharmas. Third, the differences in fruition-retribution: this clarifies that there are distinctions among human retributions. Namely, among males, females, paṇḍakas, and two-formed beings, the four pārājikas are equally grave; while touching, vulgar speech, matchmaking, and so forth have reductions in severity. As the Vinaya's extensive explanation lists their marks in detail, one may consult the annotated precepts. (Old commentaries explained this in terms of distinct regulations for monks and nuns, or cited the four propositions of offense and retribution from the Mother Commentary, which seem rather distant from the meaning.) Fourth, the superiority and inferiority of the included destinies: the Vinaya explains that destinies are of three kinds: human, non-human, and animal. The single kind of non-human universally encompasses four destinies: deva, asura, preta, and hell; furthermore, among non-humans and animals, each has male, female, and paṇḍaka forms, all as listed in the Prātimokṣa. The human destiny is superior, animals are inferior, and non-humans span both superiority and inferiority. We may briefly show their marks in terms of the four grave offenses: first, in the human destiny, all four precepts are grave; second, for non-humans, sexual misconduct is grave while the rest are thullaccayas; for animals, sexual misconduct is grave, theft is a duṣkṛta, killing an animal with intelligence is a thullaccaya, and killing one without intelligence is a pācittika. (For the remaining chapters, search them oneself.) Fifth, the delusion or reality of the arising mind: there are several explanations for this. First, as in the precepts against slander and false speech, when the mind is deluded it is grave, and when the mind is true an exception is granted. (In the texts detailing non-offenses across the precepts, they all state "if it was truly so without malicious intention," and so forth.) Also, among the conditions and perceptions of the precepts, under the first proposition, if the mind is deluded it is grave, while in doubt or true perception it is light (except for the precepts on sexual misconduct and alcohol). Furthermore, when the precepts specify the words "knowingly and intentionally," this demonstrates a deluded state of mind. (Such as intentionally taking an animal's life, or knowing water has insects.) If not intentional or not knowing, it is a true state of mind; thus, as in our Vinaya, an offense must involve inquiring into the mind, and without intention there is no offense; the gravity of the instituted teaching can be seen by examining this. Sixth, the mutual establishment of exceptions and prohibitions: among all the precepts, whether of omission or commission, when there is a prohibition, an exception is never absent; when there is an exception, a prohibition is never absent; the two teachings rely on each other, and in principle neither stands alone. Take, for instance, the precept on sexual misconduct: even contact with the tip of an animal's hair constitutes an offense, yet an exception is granted when coerced by an enemy; this is an exception within a prohibition. Though the contact of conditions is permitted, experiencing no pleasure at the three times is a prohibition within an exception. Again, as originally instituted, there are three robes; next, an extra robe is permitted as an exception, but empowerment is instituted as a prohibition; subsequently, keeping extra robes is permitted as an exception, but purification through speech is instituted as a prohibition; when circumstances do not allow time, ten days are further permitted as an exception, and failure to speak [for purification] constitutes an offense. Again, as originally instituted, there is the rains retreat; an exception allows accepting days of leave due to conditions, yet a prohibition requires returning within the limit; another exception permits not returning due to dangerous conditions, and so on. A prohibition is always grave, while an exception is always light; seeking by such analogies, one will grasp the intent of the teaching. In the seventh: turmoil refers to middle and lower faculties in settlements; tranquility refers to the superior practice of dhūta in an araṇya. The four reliances are grave teachings, while the four exceptions are light teachings. (This clarifies the gravity of the Tathāgata's instituted teaching, and as it says that it naturally becomes clear in the text, one must seek it in detail within our Vinaya; therefore, what is explained now differs considerably from the past.)