梵網經菩薩戒本疏 4.91

4.91

八、釋文中二：初、對緣正制，二、「而菩薩」下違制犯。前中亦二：初舉制戒。緣有七種：一、犯八戒有二：一、小乘八戒，如《成實論》；二、菩薩八戒，如《文殊問經》。二、犯五戒亦二：一、小乘五戒，如小論；二、菩薩五戒，如《善生經》。三、犯十戒亦二：一、沙彌十戒，如律。二、菩薩十戒復二：一、如此經十無盡戒，二、《文殊問經》亦以沙彌十戒為菩薩戒。四、毀禁亦二：一、大比丘戒，二、菩薩戒。五、七逆如下辨。六、八難者，一義十三難中除五逆，以彼入七逆中故，餘八是此。猶恐未然，以非人等不障得戒故。又有人釋是三塗等八難，此應非，以彼是報，非舉懺故。今正解取彼八難之因，即罪業也，以懺除故。七、一切通結。二、「應教」下正制戒行，謂以慈心教其懺洗。二、「而菩薩」下違制結。犯中亦二：先違制，後結犯。前中有三：一、不教悔而共住者，處同也。二、利同，亦是食同。三、法同。布薩者，梵語正音名補殺多，此云淨住。謂三業光潔名淨，即戒無毀缺也。與眾和合名住，即法理無二也。後「而不舉」下，結犯可知。依《瑜伽戒本》云：「若諸菩薩安住菩薩淨戒律儀，見諸有情應可呵嘖，應可治罰，應可驅擯，懷染污心而不呵嘖，或雖呵嘖而不治罰如法教誡，或雖治罰如法教誡而不驅擯，是名有犯，有所違越，是染污犯。若由懶墮、懈怠、放逸而不呵嘖乃至驅擯，非染違犯。無犯者：若了知彼不可療治，不可與語，喜出麁言，多生嫌恨，故應棄捨；若觀待時；若觀因此闕訟諍競；若觀因此令僧諠雜，令僧破壞；知彼有情不懷諂曲，成就增上猛利慚愧，疾疾還淨。不呵嘖乃至驅擯，皆無違犯。」解云：輕過但呵，中過須罰，重過須擯，皆以慈心不以瞋恚，利益不以損害，知時不以非時等也。

Eighth, in explaining the text, there are two parts: first, the explicit prohibition in response to conditions; second, from 'yet a bodhisattva' onward, the offense of violating the prohibition. In the former, there are also two parts: first, raising the conditions of the precept. There are seven kinds of conditions: 1. Breaking the eight precepts has two kinds: first, the Hīnayāna eight precepts, as in the *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra*; second, the bodhisattva eight precepts, as in the *Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā Sūtra*. 2. Breaking the five precepts also has two kinds: first, the Hīnayāna five precepts, as in the Hīnayāna treatises; second, the bodhisattva five precepts, as in the *Upāsakaśīla Sūtra*. 3. Breaking the ten precepts also has two kinds: first, the ten precepts of a śrāmaṇera, as in the Vinaya; second, the ten precepts of a bodhisattva, which again has two: first, the ten inexhaustible precepts as in this sūtra; second, the *Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā Sūtra* also taking the ten precepts of a śrāmaṇera as bodhisattva precepts. 4. Destroying prohibitions also has two: first, the precepts of a great bhikṣu; second, the bodhisattva precepts. 5. The seven rebellious acts, as distinguished below. 6. The eight difficulties: one interpretation is that among the thirteen difficulties, excluding the five rebellious acts because they are included within the seven rebellious acts, the remaining eight are these. Still, it is feared this might not be so, because [conditions such as being a] non-human and so forth do not obstruct one from receiving the precepts. Again, someone explains these as the eight difficulties such as the three bad destinies; this should be incorrect, because those are karmic retributions, not matters to be brought forth and repented. Now, the correct interpretation takes the causes of those eight difficulties, which are sinful karmas, because they are to be removed through repentance. 7. All [these offenses], universally concluded. Second, from 'ought to teach' onward is the explicit prohibition of precept practice, meaning instructing them to repent and cleanse [the offense] with a compassionate mind. Second, from 'yet a bodhisattva' onward is the adjudication of the offense for violating the prohibition. Within the offense there are also two parts: first, violating the prohibition; later, adjudicating the offense. In the former there are three: 1. Dwelling together without teaching them to repent is sameness of place. 2. Sameness of material benefit, which is also sameness of food. 3. Sameness of Dharma. Poṣadha (bùsà): the correct Sanskrit pronunciation is *poṣadha* (bǔshāduō), translated here as 'pure abiding'. That is to say, the three karmas being bright and clean is called 'pure', meaning the precepts are without destruction or defect. Being in harmony with the assembly is called 'abiding', meaning there is no duality in Dharma and principle. Later, from 'and does not bring forth' onward, the adjudication of the offense is understandable. Relying on the *Bodhisattvaprātimokṣa* [in the *Yogācārabhūmi*], it says: 'If any bodhisattva, abiding in the pure moral discipline of the bodhisattva, sees sentient beings who ought to be rebuked, ought to be punished, ought to be expelled, and harboring a defiled mind does not rebuke them, or although rebuking them does not punish and instruct them according to the Dharma, or although punishing and instructing them according to the Dharma does not expel them, this is called having an offense, having a violation, and is a defiled offense. If out of laziness, indolence, or negligence one does not rebuke up to expelling them, it is a non-defiled violation. As for non-offense: if one clearly knows that they cannot be cured, cannot be spoken to, are fond of uttering harsh words, and frequently generate resentment, hence they should be abandoned; or if one is waiting for the proper time; or if one observes that because of this, litigation and disputes would arise; or if one observes that because of this, it would cause the Saṅgha to become clamorous or cause the Saṅgha to break up; or knowing that that sentient being does not harbor deceit, has attained superior and intense shame and conscience, and will quickly return to purity—then not rebuking up to not expelling them are all without violation.' In explanation: for light faults merely rebuke; for medium faults one must punish; for heavy faults one must expel; all with a compassionate mind and not with anger, with benefit and not with harm, knowing the proper time and not at improper times, and so forth.