梵網經菩薩戒本疏 3.48

3.48

第十、釋文者，三分同前。初、舉過正制中二：先自他二位說四位持戒人，謂初二持菩薩戒，後二持聲聞戒。以俱是自佛法內眾，為人天福田，故不合說過。經云：「占匐華雖萎，猶勝諸餘花；破戒諸比丘，猶勝諸外道。」又經云：「有犯名菩薩，無犯名外道。」是故彼犯猶不可輕。如牛雖死，牛黃益人。破戒比丘猶能生於人天十種功德，如《十輪經》說。又《大悲經》中，諸出家人左手携男，右手携女，從一酒家至一酒家，不出賢劫當般涅槃等。是故見有少許佛法所被之處，皆應讚嘆。二、罪用說法四門，釋同前。一、約能說者：一、三毒染心，為說過因；二、罪為所求等，為說過緣；三、方便施設，便他識過，為說過法；四、常以說過為業。二、約所說者：一、不正說其過，俱說彼罪過因，令此前人知彼有過，為罪過因也；二、亦不正說過，而說彼造過之所為，亦令前怨領知過狀，故為說過罪緣；三、說其違犯淨戒之法，不說其彼過，彼已知故；四、說其處犯罪過之業。三、合釋者：一、謂內有說心；二、外遇惡緣境；三、曾見過法；四、陳說成業。四、自他分，可知。二、辨應行中，先簡非，謂外道惡人通說佛法內人非住正法，非修律儀行。又二乘人不信大乘，故亦說行大乘人言非法律。又此約菩薩，前約僧尼，如有威儀比丘等云云。二、教正，謂菩薩聞此，則應起悲心，不得起嗔嫌等心，俱應方便教化，令止說過，而生淨信。此為作業，故云常生等也。三、違理結犯中，聞他說過，忍不教勸，已為非理，況復聞已，自更助說？佛法中過，違害至深，是故結示重罪。

Tenth, regarding the explanation of the text, the three parts are the same as before. First, in pointing out the fault and establishing the main regulation, there are two [aspects]: First, in terms of both oneself and others, it mentions four categories of precept-keepers—namely, the first two keep the bodhisattva precepts, and the latter two keep the śrāvaka precepts. Because all of them are members within the Buddha's Dharma and serve as fields of merit for humans and devas, it is not fitting to speak of their faults. A sūtra says: "Although the campaka flower is withered, it still surpasses all other flowers; although bhikṣus break the precepts, they still surpass all tīrthikas." Another sūtra says: "One who commits offenses is called a bodhisattva; one who commits no offense is called a tīrthika." Therefore, their offenses must not be treated lightly. Just as an ox may die, yet its bezoar benefits people, so a precept-breaking bhikṣu can still generate ten kinds of merits for humans and devas, as taught in the Shilun jing. Furthermore, in the Dabeijing, it is said that even if renunciants hold a boy in their left hand and a girl in their right hand, going from one wine shop to another, before the bhadrakalpa ends they will attain parinirvāṇa. Therefore, wherever one sees even a little of what is suffused by the Buddha's Dharma, one should praise it. Second, the four gates regarding speaking of offenses according to their application are explained as before: 1. In terms of the speaker: (1) an afflicted mind of the three poisons serves as the cause for speaking of offenses; (2) offenses being what one seeks, and so forth, serves as the condition for speaking of offenses; (3) employing expedients so that others recognize the faults serves as the method of speaking of offenses; (4) constantly engaging in speaking of offenses as an occupation. 2. In terms of what is spoken: (1) not speaking directly of their fault, but speaking fully of the causes of their offenses and faults so that the person addressed knows they have faults, which serves as the cause of the offense of fault-finding; (2) likewise not speaking directly of the fault, but speaking of the motives for committing the fault, also causing the prior adversary to comprehend the nature of the fault, which thus serves as the condition of the offense of speaking of faults; (3) speaking of the rules regarding their violations of pure precepts without speaking of their specific faults, because the other person already knows them; (4) speaking of their actions that incur offenses and faults. 3. Synthesizing the explanation: (1) internally there is the intention to speak; (2) externally one encounters a bad condition or object; (3) one previously witnessed the matter of the fault; (4) expressing it in speech completes the action. 4. The division between oneself and others can be known. Second, in discerning what should be practiced, first it excludes what is improper: namely, when evil tīrthikas generally say that people within the Buddha's Dharma do not abide in the true Dharma and do not cultivate the practice of restraining conduct; and moreover, people of the two vehicles do not believe in the Mahāyāna, and therefore also say that those who practice the Mahāyāna do not follow the vinaya. Furthermore, this applies to bodhisattvas, while the previous applied to monks and nuns, as with bhikṣus possessing deportment, and so forth. Second, instructing the correct conduct: namely, when a bodhisattva hears this, they should give rise to compassion and must not give rise to anger or resentment; rather, they should use expedients to teach and transform them, causing them to cease speaking of faults and to generate pure faith. This constitutes the undertaken activity, hence it says "constantly giving rise to," and so forth. Third, regarding adjudicating the offense for violating the principle: hearing another speak of faults and tolerating it without instructing and exhorting them is already contrary to principle; how much more so if, after hearing it, one further assists in speaking of it oneself? Faults within the Buddha's Dharma cause the deepest violation and harm; therefore, it is adjudicated and indicated as a major offense.