四分律行事鈔資持記 3.990

3.990

十二。剃髮已，受歸戒者。據論五戒，本在家所受。今雖出家，形同體俗，故得受之；若不受者，失漸次故，此乃明文。世有不曉，輒欲廢者，便謂《母論》是他部耳。且前云：應以諸部會明，立出家儀式，何獨不用此文耶？豈非情之所蔽乎？問：剃髮披衣已，那名優婆塞耶？答：形同出家，體是婆塞；如〈足數〉中，本受不得者；雖復剃染，尚名白衣。今名婆塞，有何不可？疏云：以法分俗，方絕彼此。（謂受十戒已，方是出家。）豈以形服而為妨乎！應分二種：一者形同出家，體猶是俗，不妨俗戒；二者法同，既納十戒，已是出家，則不可受在家戒也。問：縱廢不受，為有戒否？答：縱不受十，直爾受具，亦獲三戒。以頓得故。則知五戒，無由廢之。若爾頓得，今廢不受，為有何過？答：失漸次故。疏引《婆論》云：染習佛法，必須次第；得佛法味，好樂堅固；難可退敗，不破威儀。一時受者，反上失次，又破威儀等。又準《尼鈔》，不受五戒，直受十戒，得戒，得罪。餘如《業疏》受法，廣為辨之。

Under [point] twelve: Regarding receiving the refuges and precepts after shaving the hair: According to the treatises, the five precepts are originally received as a layperson. Now, although he has left the household, in appearance he is the same [as a monk] but in substance he is worldly, so he is able to receive them. If he does not receive them, he loses the gradual sequence; this is a clear text. In the world there are those who do not understand and arbitrarily wish to abolish it, claiming that the *Mātṛkā-śāstra* belongs to another school. Furthermore, it was said earlier that one should harmonize various schools to establish the ordination ceremony—why alone omit this passage? Is this not a delusion born of prejudice? Question: After shaving his hair and putting on the robes, why is he still named an upāsaka? Answer: In appearance he is the same as one who has left the household, but in substance he is an upāsaka. Just as in the chapter 'Making up the Quorum', those who originally could not receive [ordination], even though they shave and dye [robes], are still called white-robed [laypersons]. Why can he not be called an upāsaka now? The *Commentary* says: 'Distinguishing the worldly through Dharma only then severs the distinction between this and that' (meaning that only after receiving the ten precepts is one truly a renunciant). How could the appearance and clothing be an impediment! One should distinguish two categories: First, appearance identical to a renunciant, yet substance still worldly, which does not impede lay precepts. Second, identical in Dharma: having received the ten precepts, one is already a renunciant, so one cannot receive lay precepts. Question: Even if one abolishes them and does not receive them, does one possess the precepts or not? Answer: Even if one does not receive the ten and directly receives full ordination, one still obtains the three sets of precepts, because they are obtained suddenly. Thus we know that there is no reason to abolish the five precepts. If they are obtained suddenly in this way, what fault is there in now abolishing them and not receiving them? Answer: One loses the gradual sequence. The *Commentary* cites the *Vibhāṣā*: 'In absorbing and practicing the Buddha-Dharma, one must proceed in sequence. Tasting the flavor of the Buddha-Dharma, one's fondness for it becomes firm; it is difficult to regress or fail, and one does not violate deportment. If received all at once, it runs counter to the above, losing the sequence and violating deportment, and so forth.' Furthermore, according to the *Bhikṣuṇī Manual*, if one does not receive the five precepts and directly receives the ten precepts, one obtains the precepts, but commits an offense. The rest is extensively discriminated in the reception ritual of the *Karma Commentary*.