四分律行事鈔資持記 2.1656

2.1656

敘結中，初句牒章。謂下，釋義，先明學者開迷；若下，正敘不學結犯；初中，文為四節，初句示其從始。次句明其達教。於下二句，明隨行容迷。上句謂緣境心差，下句謂對治力弱。隨下一句，指開犯所據。律中諸戒之後，皆有境想句法；既開根本，故無枝條；不可學迷，據此而立，如第四門所辨，次正敘中亦四，初句同前，餘三翻上。由，從也。次句愚教。三謂行違。素既無知，故不論迷。佛下，引據。問：何名為學？答：凡學有二：一教，二行。教以照行，行以踐教。非但尋文，即名為學；故疏云：佛立教相，止為奉行；若但讀誦，非本意也；如戒名眾學，豈但讀文耶？又若徒行，復不名學；縱令持奉，猶不免過；疏云：若於二持，雖不違負；望非明決，不名為福。故知學者，止是稱教修行；教行相循，方名為學。至如顏淵好學，不遷怒，不貳過；楊雄談學，行之為上，言之為次；在儒尚然，況超世拔俗之教，而專以誦文為學耶！今時學律，解無所曉，行不可觀；放情造過，殊無慚恥；輒謂我是學人，免無知罪；此乃自欺，罪何可免！又復矜持，吾縱犯過，業亦非重；猶如鐵鉢，入水能浮；此又不聞《淨心誡觀》云：知而故違，重不知者。今欲曉下句法，必須準律分相。但取下壇已來，期心持戒；專依師範，咨稟法訓；競競守護，不敢妄違，則名為學。此分三種：一者，久學，解行成立，如文所敘。二者，初學，雖學未通，如漸頓說。（上二，依三學次第學。）三者，夫學，謂勤求道果，期後習律；如毀毘尼，不犯所開。（此開不次第學。）如上三人，一向不結不學無知。次明不學，亦分三種：一者，始下壇場，或迹混流俗，或越學餘宗，或禮誦等業，忽慢或律，都無知者，如文所敘。二者，雖復學習，不專持奉；目矚耳聽，心背行違；知而故犯，末世多然；準上流文，不名為學。三者，先曾乘持，守心不固，中道而廢，還為不學。此等三科，一切事法，隨有不了；若持若犯，皆結二罪。如此格量，粗分途徑矣。問：下開句法，為是學人，為不學人？答：此科正論不學無知，結犯分齊；學人十向無罪，何用句法揀之。古來章記，例以學不學人，相參而說；傳迷來久，見此好為一悟。

In narrating the imposition [of offenses], the first phrase restates the chapter. From "Meaning" below, he explains the sense: first he clarifies that exceptions are made for the confusion of those who learn; from "If" below, he formally narrates the imposition of offenses for non-learning. In the first part, the text has four segments: the first phrase shows starting from the beginning; the next phrase clarifies comprehending the teaching; the two phrases from "In" below clarify that subsequent practice permits confusion; the upper phrase means that the mind is mistaken in relation to the object, and the lower phrase means that the power of counteraction is weak; the phrase from "Following" below points to what the exceptions to offenses are based upon. In the Vinaya, after each precept, there are propositions on perception of the object; since the principal offense is exempted, there are no branch [offenses]; the unlearned confusion is established based on this, as distinguished in the fourth category. In the formal narration that follows, there are also four [segments]: the first phrase is the same as before, and the remaining three invert the above. Yóu means "from." The next phrase means foolishness regarding the teaching. The third means transgression in practice; since one is ignorant from the outset, confusion is not discussed. From "The Buddha" below, he cites textual evidence. Question: What is called "learning"? Answer: Generally, learning has two aspects: first, teaching; second, practice. Teaching illumines practice, and practice implements teaching. It is not merely searching through the text that is called learning. Hence the Commentary says: "The Buddha established the aspects of the teaching solely for practice; if one merely chants and recites, that is not the original intent." For instance, the precepts are called "training rules for all" (śikṣākaraṇīya); how could it mean merely reading the text? Furthermore, if there is practice alone, it is again not called learning; even if one maintains and observes it, one still does not escape fault. The Commentary says: "If regarding the two maintenances, although one does not transgress or fail, because it lacks clarity and determination it is not called merit." Therefore one knows that a learner is merely one who cultivates practice in accordance with the teaching; only when teaching and practice follow each other is it called learning. Even Yan Yuan loved learning: "He did not direct anger elsewhere; he did not repeat a mistake"; and Yang Xiong discussed learning: "Practicing it is supreme; speaking of it is secondary." If it is so even in Confucianism, how much more so in the teaching that transcends the world and stands out from the vulgar—should one take the mere recitation of texts as learning?! Nowadays those who study the Vinaya understand nothing in their comprehension, and their conduct is unsightly; giving free rein to their impulses they commit faults, completely without shame or conscience, yet hastily claim, "I am a student, exempt from the offense of ignorance." This is self-deception; how could the offense be avoided! Furthermore, they boast and assert, "Even if I commit a fault, the karma is not grave, just like an iron bowl that can float when entering water." Again, they have not heard the *Jingxin jiegaun* which says: "Knowing and deliberately violating is graver than not knowing." Now, to understand the propositions below, one must distinguish the marks in accordance with the Vinaya. One only takes those who, from descending the platform onward, set their minds to maintain the precepts, exclusively rely on their preceptors and models, inquire into and receive the rules of Dharma, and vigilantly guard them without daring to violate them rashly—such is called "learning." This is divided into three types: First, those of long learning, whose understanding and practice are established, as narrated in the text. Second, beginners, who, though learning, are not yet proficient, as described under the gradual and sudden. (The above two study sequentially according to the three learnings.) Third, those of broad learning, meaning those who diligently seek the fruits of the Path and intend to master the Vinaya later, as in the exemption of non-offense for ruining the Vinaya. (This is an exception for non-sequential learning.) For the three types of people above, the offense of non-learning and ignorance is never imposed. Next, non-learning is also divided into three types: First, upon descending the ordination platform, they either mingle with the vulgar world, or improperly study other traditions, or engage in practices such as homage and recitation, neglecting and despising the Vinaya and being entirely ignorant of it, as narrated in the text. Second, though they study, they do not exclusively maintain and observe it; their eyes see and their ears hear, yet their minds turn away and their actions transgress; they know yet deliberately violate—as is often the case in the final age; based on the preceding text, this is not called learning. Third, those who formerly observed and maintained, but did not guard their minds firmly, abandon it halfway and revert to non-learning. For these three categories, regarding any matter or rule, whenever there is anything not understood, whether maintaining or violating, both offenses are imposed. By evaluating in this manner, the paths are roughly delineated. Question: Are the propositions opened below for learners or for non-learners? Answer: This section strictly discusses non-learning and ignorance, and the parameters for imposing offenses; learners are categorically without offense, so why use propositions to distinguish them? The old commentaries generally spoke of learners and non-learners in an intermingled way; the transmission of confusion has lasted long, so seeing this, one would do well to awaken to it.