梵網經菩薩戒本疏 3

English (machine translation) 3

Language: English

3.1

Composed by the Śramaṇa Fazang of the Western Monastery of the State of Wei

3.2

First Section: The Precept Against Sexual Misconduct, Third

3.3

In about to explain this precept, the ten sections are the same as before.

First, regarding the intention behind the proscription, there are briefly ten meanings: First, because the karmic path is heavy. If it is illicit, it is subsumed under the ten unwholesome karmas; bearing this heavy offense, one is incapable of entering the path, and so it must be proscribed. Second, because the bondage is deep. Within the prison of saṃsāra, lust is the cangue and lock. The Dazhidulun says: "Although the mind of sexual desire does not torment sentient beings, because it binds the mind, it is a great offense." Third, because it is the root of saṃsāra. Driven by greedy attachment to sexual indulgence, one drifts in the transmigration of saṃsāra; in the ocean of desire and the river of lust, one drowns without shore. Fourth, because it ruins wholesome qualities. The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya states: "Nothing is more terrifying than women. There is nothing through which righteousness is ruined and virtue destroyed that does not stem from them." Looking with a defiled mind is a transgression of the vinaya. If it is so even for the Hīnayāna, how much more so for the bodhisattvas and others. The Bodhisattvabhūmi states that a bodhisattva fears saṃsāra hundreds of thousands of millions of times more than a śrāvaka. Fifth, because it ruins the world. The Saddharmasmṛtyupasthāna Sūtra states: "The suffering obtained by men in the world is all due to wives and women; whether young or middle-aged, all stems from this cause. Women ruin the world, causing all good to be utterly destroyed. Among the devas, there is no greater bondage than female form. Women bind the devas and lead them to the three evil destinies." Sixth, because it disturbs the calm mind. The fire of desire agitates the mind, causing one to lose dhyāna and lose mindfulness. The waves of the ocean of desire shatter the water of samādhi. Seventh, because one enters the net of Māra. Licking the honey on a blade's edge and coveting the color of a poisonous flower harms sentient beings, which is Māra's wish. A sūtra states: "These five desires are the realm of the Māras." Eighth, because one loses supernatural powers. Just as an ṛṣi saw a woman, gave rise to defilement, and lost his powers and fell; or just as the unicorn ṛṣi soared through the air among the cliff peaks, and was later ridden on the neck by a courtesan and brought into the human world. Ninth, because it obstructs nirvāṇa. Hence in the vinaya, sexual misconduct is the first precept; if a monk violates this, he cannot attain nirvāṇa in this life. Tenth, because it obstructs bodhi. Hence a sūtra states: "The five desires are dharmas that obstruct the path; they can obstruct rebirth in heaven, how much more so the unsurpassed path!" Because of such limitless faults, it must be proscribed.

3.5

Second, regarding the explanation of the name: when defiled feelings run wild and one is indulgently fixated and rigidly attached, it is called sexual misconduct (yín). In mundane books, this character has two forms: that with the water radical signifies excess and fault; that with the female radical signifies illicit and improper lust. Therefore, when lingering rain is excessive, it is called "torrential rain" (yínyǔ); when lingering over books is excessive, it is called "excessive reading" (yínshū). Thus Huangfu Shi'an read books for three years, and during that time did not know the seasons of spring and autumn, and rode a horse without knowing whether it was male or female. Now, when emotion lingers over sensual desire, it is called "sexual desire," also called "lustful form," and also called "lewd dissipation." Thus the Book of Documents states: "Inwardly making a dissipation of women, outwardly making a dissipation of hunting." According to Buddhist texts, it is called "impure conduct"; defiling the mind with lustful attachment is called impure conduct. Unlawful objects defile the quality of the pure precepts, hence it is called "conduct" (xíng), conduct being karma. It is also called the "precept against unchaste conduct" (abrahmacarya); the sages, countering this fault, established the proscription to prevent and ward it off, hence it is called a precept, taking its name from what is proscribed. Furthermore, in this sūtra, whether lay or monastic bodhisattvas, both cut off sexual desire; therefore, the text makes no distinction between illicit and legitimate [sex], cutting off all entirely. Question: If so, why do lay bodhisattvas have wives and children? Answer: There are two kinds of laypersons: for those of initial aspiration, they already have wives and children before taking the precepts; for those who have attained ranks onward, appearing to have wives and children to transform sentient beings is through the power of expedient means. Thus, in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, when the bodhisattvas of the ten practices uphold the pure precepts, countless māra daughters come to harass and agitate the bodhisattvas, yet they do not give rise to a single thought of desire, being as pure as a Buddha; except for the expedient means of teaching and transforming sentient beings, they would rather give up body and life than inflict evil upon others. Reasoning by this, one knows that these are all expedient means and there is truly no thought of desire. Moreover, as the Śīlapaṭala of the Yogācārabhūmi allows lay bodhisattvas to follow desire through expedient means to transform sentient beings, this refers to having a mind as pure as a Buddha while practicing expedient means; yet it still does not permit monastic bodhisattvas to do so, how much less those whose minds are not pure like a Buddha?

3.6

Third, regarding the sequential order: according to the Sūtra on the Ten Good Precepts, sexual misconduct only guards against the improper [partners], whereas killing and stealing do not allow exceptions; hence it comes after them. This follows that sequence, yet differs in that it proscribes [all sexual activity] entirely. Another explanation: among transgressions of bodily action, killing causes the most extreme harm and distress toward the object; therefore it comes first. Stealing causes the next most harm, while sexual misconduct causes the least harm [to others] or merely accords with a greedy mind; thus it is placed third. Question: If so, why is this precept placed first among the śrāvaka precepts? Answer: Sexual desire is the root of saṃsāra, and the śrāvakas precisely seek to revile and abandon saṃsāra and swiftly proceed toward nirvāṇa; therefore this was instituted first [for them]. For bodhisattvas it is not so; thus it is third. Another explanation: their precepts were instituted only after an offense occurred, and sexual activity was the first offense committed, so the institution could not have been placed later. These [bodhisattva] precepts do not wait for an offense to be committed before being instituted; hence they rely on the ancient precepts and accord with the ten good actions, differing from those.

3.7

Fourth, regarding the fulfillment of conditions to constitute an offense: the general conditions should be understood as previously explained. The specific conditions, based on the treatises, also comprise seven: 1. It is a sentient being, because with wood and the like there is no major offense, while an undecayed corpse and the like are subsumed under sentient beings. Question: Why is this precept different from the preceding two precepts in not distinguishing one's own body to establish [only] external objects? Answer: Because stealing from oneself does not constitute theft, whereas sexually engaging with oneself does constitute sexual misconduct. As in the Vinaya, where one with a flexible spine sexually engages with oneself and commits a major offense, and so on; therefore it is not the same. 2. It is an appropriate locus, namely the three [orifices] of a woman, the two of a man, and so on, because other places do not constitute a major offense. 3. Arising the perception thereof, because mistaking a sentient being for wood or mistaking a proper orifice for an improper place both do not constitute a major offense. 4. Having a lustful mind, because during sleep and the like there is no offense. 5. Having the three poisons, because when a householder bodhisattva uses correct wisdom to govern the mind and employ skillful means to transform sentient beings, an exception is permitted and it is not an offense. If considered for the monastic, for whom no exception is permitted, then this condition does not apply. 6. Making an approach, because without moving the bodily posture a major offense is not constituted. 7. Uniting with the locus, namely entering as little as the tip of a hair. If coerced by an enemy, uniting with the locus is permitted as an exception, but one is prohibited from experiencing pleasure.

3.8

Fifth, regarding the meaning of lacking conditions: the lack of general conditions is understandable. Regarding specific conditions, if the first condition is lacking, there are two offenses; if the second is lacking, there are six offenses, the same as before. That is, whether the perception of a different proper orifice is determinate or indeterminate, both are major offenses. If it is an entirely different non-orifice and is utterly indeterminate, according to the mind it is a heavy preparatory offense; if one later recognizes it was a non-orifice, it becomes a light preparatory offense. Furthermore, if two proper orifices are mutually confused and doubt arises regarding them, both remain major offenses regardless of determination. If one is mistaken about a non-orifice and doubt arises regarding it, if indeterminate it is a medium preparatory offense; if determinate, a light preparatory offense. Next, lacking the third condition also has the distinction between perception and doubt. Perception has four alternatives: 1. Fundamental delusion: having no intention to commit a major offense, originally aiming at a non-orifice, one mistakenly invades a proper orifice, and later does not realize the mistake; this should be adjudicated as a preparatory offense. 2. Later realizing one entered a proper orifice, this is adjudicated as a heavy preparatory offense, differing from the Hīnayāna, because among the five conditions in the Abhidharmasamuccaya there is 'arising the perception thereof.' Moreover, because the Mahāyāna evaluates the mental volition of karma primarily according to the mind, it differs. 3. The original intention aimed at a major offense, but on approaching the proper orifice one suddenly alters perception and mistakenly considers it a non-orifice; having committed the act, one realizes it and fulfills one's original wish; although the middle [condition] was lacking, in principle it should also be a major offense, because the mind was abundant and the locus was complete; the Hīnayāna ought to speak on the basis of this meaning. 4. Utterly never knowing: lacking the middle and later two mental moments, one incurs a heavy preparatory offense. Second, under doubt there are two alternatives: 1. Doubting that a proper orifice is a non-orifice, if the subsequent mind realizes it is a proper orifice, it should also be adjudicated as a major offense. 2. If afterwards one never realizes it, one should incur a heavy preparatory offense. Other perceptions and doubts regarding different orifices are all major offenses, because they are all loci of offense. Next, lacking the fourth condition has three alternatives: 1. When an enemy holds the bodhisattva's male organ and inserts it into a female organ, if by biting one's fingers and so forth one restrains the mind and does not experience pleasure, then entirely no offense is committed; the contrary constitutes an offense. 2. When a bodhisattva is sleeping and sexually violated by another, if completely unaware throughout, in principle there is also no offense. 3. If upon awakening one does not experience pleasure, there is no offense; if one experiences pleasure, an offense is constituted. Next, lacking the fifth condition has two alternatives: 1. According to status: for a householder bodhisattva, lacking this entails no offense, whereas for a monastic it constitutes an offense. 2. According to the minds of the three periods: if two mental moments possess clear wisdom and one mental moment is dark delusion, it should be a heavy preparatory offense; if two are delusion and one is wisdom, in principle it should constitute a major offense. Next, lacking the sixth condition has two alternatives: 1. If one does not move the body, there is no offense, because it is an offense of bodily karma. 2. If one merely moves the body, one incurs a preparatory offense, because having not yet reached the body, it is not a major offense. Next, lacking the seventh condition has two alternatives: 1. Even if one moves the bodily posture and reaches the locus, but stops before engagement, one incurs a preparatory offense. 2. If one reaches the locus and is about to enter, but stops before invading even a hair's breadth, one incurs a heavy preparatory offense.

3.9

Sixth, regarding severity: it is briefly elucidated through six [categories]: 1. According to the object; 2. According to the mind; 3. Combined analysis; 4. According to frequency; 5. According to making an approach; 6. According to harm; 7. Types. First, the objects of offense are ten: 1. An undecayed corpse; 2. Engaging in intercourse with a ghost; 3. Animals; 4. Humans; 5. Relatives; 6. Daughters, sisters, and the like; 7. Householders of the two assemblies observing the five or eight precepts and the like; 8. Monastics of the two assemblies possessing the full precepts and the like; 9. Parents; 10. Noble ones, such as violating an arhatī and the like. These progress from lighter to heavier, as can be understood. Second, according to the mind, there are also ten kinds: 1. Having predominant greed, meaning greed is fierce and flourishing, without shame before parents and others; 2. Middling greed: although possessing shame, longing and attachment are extremely deep; 3. Lesser greed: possessing shame, and longing and attachment are not deep. Their severity is understandable. 4. According to hatred, meaning committing sexual misconduct out of hatred for that person; 5. According to ignorance, meaning deliberately committing it thinking, as some say, that desire does not obstruct the Path; 6. Possessing greed and hatred, meaning hatred is the preparatory means and greed is the culmination; 7. Possessing greed and ignorance, meaning ignorance is the preparatory means and greed is the culmination; 8. Hatred and ignorance are the preparatory means, and greed is the culmination. The above five categories progress from lighter to heavier, as can be understood. 9. Indeterminate state as preparatory means, and ignorance and greed as culmination; 10. Wholesome mind as preparatory means, and benevolence and greed as culmination. These also progress from heavier to lighter, as can be understood. Third, the combined analysis has ten kinds: 1. A heavy mind toward a previously mentioned heavy object; 2. A middling mind toward a heavy object; 3. A light mind toward a heavy object; 4. A heavy mind toward a middling object; 5. A middling mind toward a middling object; 6. A light mind toward a middling object; 7. A heavy mind toward a light object; 8. A middling mind toward a light object; 9. A light mind toward a light object; 10. A wholesome mind toward a middling or lower object. All have their degrees of severity, which can be understood in accordance with the facts. Fourth, according to frequency, there are five kinds: 1. Transgressing once and giving rise to dread, immediately repenting and abstaining forever; 2. Transgressing repeatedly, but afterwards repenting and abstaining; 3. Transgressing repeatedly, with repenting and transgressing continuing uninterrupted; 4. Having transgressed, continuing unceasingly throughout one's life without reforming; 5. Viewing transgression as beneficial, having no intention to uphold the precepts and no intention to repent, clinging to the transgression as right throughout one's entire life. These progress from lighter to heavier, as can be understood. Fifth, according to making an approach, there are three kinds: 1. Utterly secret and stealthy; 2. Slightly avoiding people; 3. Openly committing it. These progress from lighter to heavier. Sixth, according to harm, there are five kinds: 1. Such as the fire of desire burning a shrine to the devas and the like; 2. Destroying one's own and others' celibacy (brahmacarya) and the like; 3. The evil deed being made public, causing many to slander; 4. Evil reputation spreading, ruining the faith of others; 5. Not ruining the faith of others. These progress from heavier to lighter, as can be understood. Seventh, according to types: categories such as touching, emission, coarse language, and acting as a matchmaker should none of them be transgressed. The thirty-first fascicle of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'If there is a bodhisattva who claims that his precepts are pure, but although he does not unite with women, when seeing a woman he engages in teasing speech, joking, and laughing, such a bodhisattva accomplishes the dharmas of desire, destroys the pure precepts, defiles celibacy, and renders the precepts mixed and corrupt; he cannot be called one fully endowed with pure precepts.'

3.10

Seventh, regarding the resultant fruits: according to the Daśabhūmivyākhyāna, the Abhidharmasamuccaya, and so forth, there are also three kinds: 1. Vipāka fruit: falling into the three evil destinies and suffering acute torment, etc.; 2. Niṣyanda fruit: among humans, experiencing contention between two wives and an unchaste wife; 3. Adhipati fruit: among humans, one's external possessions frequently incur enmity and competition. Furthermore, according to the fourth fascicle of the Upāsakaśīla Sūtra: 'If a person delights in sexual misconduct, this person cannot protect his own or others' bodies; all sentient beings give rise to suspicion upon seeing him; in whatever he undertakes, lying comes first; at all times he constantly suffers distress; his mind is constantly distracted and unable to cultivate good; he loses wealth; his wives and children do not cherish him in their hearts; his lifespan is short. These are called the present evil fruits of sexual misconduct. After relinquishing this body, he dwells in hell, receives a wretched physical form, experiences hunger, thirst, and long life with immeasurable suffering. These are called the karmic retributions of evil karma in future lives. If he obtains a human body, he has an ugly complexion and poor strength, people do not delight in seeing him, and he cannot protect his wives, concubines, sons, and daughters; by the causal power of this one evil person, all external possessions cannot be controlled at will.' Furthermore, the tenth fascicle of the Mahābodhisattvapiṭaka Sūtra says: 'Śāriputra! I say that whenever one indulges in sexual desires, there is no small evil that is not committed. When those retributions ripen, there is no small suffering that is not received. Therefore, I say that among all sentient beings in the trichiliocosm, there is no greater enemy than wives, concubines, female forms, and various desires.' It also says: 'If there are sentient beings who relish male and female forms, wives, concubines, and various desires for female form, you should know that this is just like relishing the blade of a sharp knife; it is just like relishing a scorching hot iron ball; it is just like relishing sitting on a hot iron bed; it is just like relishing a hot iron ladder.' It also says: 'You should know that women extinguish the noble eye of wisdom,' and so on at length. Furthermore, the Saddharmasmṛtyupasthāna Sūtra says: 'Wondrous color is a poisonous flower; it is like touching a fierce blaze. Sexual pleasure is also like this; afterwards one suffers great anguish. Just as fire increases with more firewood and cannot be extinguished, burning both self and others, sexual pleasure is also like this. The moth flies into the fire, not foreseeing the pain of burning; sexual pleasure is also like this, yet the foolish person does not realize it.' It also says: 'The snare of female desire binds extremely tightly. It can cause all sentient beings to transmigrate in the prison of existence. Bodily bonds can still be loosened, but mental bonds cannot be escaped. When the mind is bound by desire, one constantly endures all sufferings.' Furthermore, the Sūtra on True and False Śramaṇas says: 'A bhikṣu falls into the cauldron of boiling water due to two things: first, constantly dwelling on lustful thoughts; second, delighting in forming intimate friendships.' The noble words state: even such thoughts cause one to fall into the cauldron of boiling water, how much more so the extremely grave faults of body and speech! The twelfth fascicle of the Dazhidulun says there are another ten offenses, which should be known as stated therein. Furthermore, the Vinaya says: 'Better to place one's male organ into the mouth of a venomous snake than ever approach a woman.' For a venomous snake harms only a single life, while a woman harms many lives; snake poison does not lead into hell, while harm from women leads into hell; snake harm only destroys the physical body, while harm from women destroys the dharmakāya. May the wise take this as a profound self-admonition.

3.11

Eighth, regarding permissions and prohibitions: First, as for permissions, this refers to bodhisattvas who have attained stages and dwell as householders, who, for the sake of transforming sentient beings, have permissions where there is no offense. As the Śīlapaṭala of the Yogācārabhūmi states: "Furthermore, if a bodhisattva dwelling in a household sees a woman who is currently unbound and unattached, practicing the way of sexual desire, who fixes her mind upon the bodhisattva seeking unchaste conduct; the bodhisattva, having seen this, reflects with attention: 'May her mind not become resentful and generate much non-merit. If I comply with her desire, I will gain freedom [to influence her], and by expedient means establish her so that she plants good roots. I should also cause her to abandon unwholesome karma.' Abiding in a mind of compassion, he engages in unchaste conduct. Although he practices such defiled acts, there is no offense, and much merit is generated. A renunciant bodhisattva, in order to guard the precepts taught by the śrāvaka nobles so that they are not destroyed, must never engage in unchaste conduct under any circumstances." Furthermore, the Viśuddhabhūmi-vinaya Sūtra states: "It asks: 'Is there any case where one violates a precept yet accomplishes the perfection of morality (śīlapāramitā)?' Mañjuśrī answers: 'There is.'" This refers to a bodhisattva teaching and transforming sentient beings without self-concern for his own precepts. Second, as for prohibitions, as the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, fascicle thirty-one, states: "Furthermore, there are bodhisattvas who claim for themselves that their precepts are pure: although they do not physically unite with a woman or engage in teasing, banter, and laughter, yet from beyond a wall or screen, hearing from afar the various sounds of a woman's necklaces, bracelets, and anklets, they give rise to attachment in their minds. Such a bodhisattva accomplishes the dharmas of desire, ruins pure precepts, defiles chaste conduct, and causes the precepts to become contaminated; he cannot be called one fully endowed with pure precepts. Furthermore, there are bodhisattvas who claim for themselves that their precepts are pure: although they do not unite with a woman, converse, banter, or listen to her voice, yet seeing a man pursuing a woman, or seeing a woman pursuing a man, they give rise to greedy attachment. Such a bodhisattva accomplishes the dharmas of desire, ruins pure precepts, defiles chaste conduct, and causes the precepts to become contaminated; he cannot be called one fully endowed with pure precepts. Furthermore, there are bodhisattvas who claim for themselves that their precepts are pure: although they do not unite with a woman, converse, banter, listen to her voice, or watch men and women pursuing each other, yet [they observe precepts] in order to be born in heaven and enjoy the pleasures of the five desires. Such a bodhisattva accomplishes the dharmas of desire, ruins pure precepts, defiles chaste conduct, and causes the precepts to become contaminated; he cannot be called one fully endowed with pure precepts. Good son! If there is a bodhisattva who purely upholds the precepts, neither for the sake of the precepts, nor for the sake of the śīlapāramitā, nor for the sake of retribution, nor for the sake of benefit, nor for the sake of bodhi, nor for the sake of nirvāṇa, nor for the sake of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, but guards and upholds the pure precepts solely for the sake of the supreme ultimate truth—good son, this is called a bodhisattva fully endowed with pure precepts." The explanation of the characteristics is readily understood.

3.12

Ninth, regarding antidotes and practices: these are distinguished according to the three clusters [of pure precepts]. First, with respect to the precepts of restraining conduct, there are two: First, with respect to the object: that is, the contemplation of impurity, observing that this is truly feces, urine, and impurity, which is explained fully here. In addition, the five kinds of impurities and others in the Dazhidulun are recorded in detail. Second, with respect to the mind: that is, these thoughts of desire all arise from improper reflection (ayoniśomanaskāra); if one ceases this reflection, desire will not arise. As the verse says: "Desire, desire, I know your root: / you only arise from conceptual thinking; / now I will not think of you, / and you will no longer be able to arise." Furthermore, these forms and objects are all the false and deceptive manifestations of one's own mind, as the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: "Regarding the body of a single comely courtesan, / a renunciant, a lustful person, and a hungry dog, / view it respectively as a foul corpse, a charming beauty, and delicious food; / the three kinds of distinctions are all different." Therefore, know that greedy attachment grasps only one's own mind, like a dog gnawing on a dry bone, licking only its own saliva. Moreover, know that both the grasper and the grasped are this falsehood, empty and without existence; thus there is nothing that cannot be relinquished. Second, with respect to the precepts collecting good qualities: a bodhisattva should properly cultivate the right wisdom and right contemplation of the perfections and boundless good roots; how could one practice such an unchaste defilement? Third, with respect to the precepts benefiting sentient beings: a bodhisattva ought by principle to benefit sentient beings with countless mundane and supramundane wholesome dharmas; if sentient beings give rise to such afflictions, one should properly rescue them, so how could one personally inflict unchaste defilement upon them? Therefore, the sūtra says: "It is better to sacrifice one's life than to inflict evil upon others; that one should inflict evil upon others is impossible." The Saddharmasmṛtyupasthāna Sūtra states: "Even a painting of a woman, / the eyes do not wish to view; / destroying desire with firm and luminous wisdom, / one is therefore called liberated."

3.13

Tenth, in explaining the text: the three meanings are the same as before. Regarding the first, "adducing the fault and instituting the prohibition," there are two parts: first, marking the fault and the general prohibition; second, revealing the characteristics of the fault. In the first part, it first marks the fault, meaning "personally committing, having others commit," and so forth. Second, "must not intentionally engage in sexual misconduct" is the general prohibition. That is to say, lustful defilement and desire are not appropriate for chaste conduct, hence it says "must not engage in sexual misconduct with any woman." However, "intentionally" excludes mistakes, hence it says "must not intentionally." Based on this text and the Abhidharmasamuccaya, we know there is the perception of the object. In the second part, "revealing the characteristics of the fault," it first explains and clarifies the aforementioned status of personal and other-directed action as having four factors: causes, conditions, methods, and karmic actions, which are also identical to the previous four explanations. (1) In terms of the subjective agent: the cause is the internal arising of a defiled mind and improper reflection, the condition is externally keeping cosmetics and the like to adorn the body to cause defilement, the method is striking postures and the like as well as speaking seductive words and the like, or arranging the methods for sexual deeds, and the karmic action is taking sexual misconduct as one's profession. (2) In terms of the object: the cause is the proper orifice, the condition is touching and so forth, the method is mutual flirting in verse and the like, and the karmic action is causing the other to act so as to accomplish the karma, and so forth. (3) In terms of the general explanation: the cause is the internal arising of a greedy mind, the condition is the external object appearing before one, the method is the preparatory undertaking, and the karmic action is the actual transgression completing the karma. (4) In terms of personal action versus directing others: the cause is doing it oneself, the condition is assisting another to accomplish it, the method is speaking dharma to instruct another, and the karmic action is the accomplishment of the karma by oneself or another. These explain the previous "doing it oneself or instructing others." Next, explaining the previous "any woman," meaning exceeding humans down to animals, hence it says "down to animals." Extending to what follows, the treatise has ten kinds: 1. animals, 2. devas, 3. pretas, 4. spirits, 5. humans, 6. the six close relatives, 7. sisters, 8. one's own daughter, 9. mother, and 10. non-orifices. This means the lower orifices and the mouth are both objects of transgression. Second, from "whereas a bodhisattva" onward, on "instituting the cultivation of wholesome practice," there are two parts: first, generating the mind; next, accomplishing the benefit. In the former, respecting those of equal or higher status generates a mind of filial devotion, and pitying those of lower status generates a mind of loving-kindness and compassion; these minds are reciprocal, and although the text places them later, both are present here. "Accomplishing the benefit" means rescuing them to be free from suffering and delivering them into the Dharma. "Giving pure dharmas to others" means conferring the pure precepts and causing them to cultivate chaste conduct; this is what a bodhisattva ought to practice. Third, from "if instead" onward, on "violating the prohibition and adjudicating the offense," there are four degrees: 1. not producing the aforementioned benefit already departs from correct practice; 2. how much more so generating evil dharmas and inflicting them on others; 3. how much more so when greedy desire blazes fiercely, making no distinction even with birds and beasts; 4. how much more so regarding one's mother and the like. Although these four differ in severity, they all violate correct practice and are equally adjudicated as major offenses, hence it says "pārājika."

3.14

First Part: The Fourth Precept, on False Speech

3.15

About to explain this precept, the ten sections are the same as before.

3.16

First, regarding the intention behind the prohibition, it also has ten meanings as before: 1. Because the karmic path is grave: that is, it is among the ten unwholesome karmas, the cause and effect of the evil destinies; burdened with this heavy karma, how could one be fit to enter the Path? 2. Because it is inappropriate: that is, deceiving and misleading others is not even what good people in the world do, how much less so for a person who enters the Path, for whom honesty and truthfulness are supreme. 3. Because it closes the path of goodness: the Dazhidulun, fascicle fifteen, states: "A person of false speech first deceives his own body, and then deceives others. Taking the real as false and the false as real, with truth and falsehood inverted, he cannot receive wholesome dharmas, just like an inverted vase into which water cannot enter. A person of false speech has neither shame nor conscience in his mind, and blocks the gates to the heavenly paths and nirvāṇa. Observing and knowing this sin, one therefore does not commit it." 4. Because of the benefit of truthful speech: that treatise states: "Furthermore, observing and knowing truthful speech, its benefit is extremely vast; the benefit of truthful speech comes from oneself and is very easy to obtain, being the strength of all renunciants. Such merit is shared by householders and renunciants alike, being the mark of a good person." 5. Because it is easy to attain liberation: that treatise states: "Furthermore, a person of truthful speech has an upright mind and easily escapes suffering, just as dragging timber through a dense forest: that which is straight easily comes out." 6. Because the Dharma does not enter the mind: that treatise states: "Furthermore, the Buddha's son Rāhula, when young in years, did not yet know how to guard his speech. When people came and asked him, 'Is the World-Honoured One present?' he deceitfully said, 'He is not present.' When [the Buddha] was not present and people asked Rāhula, 'Is the World-Honoured One present?' he deceitfully said, 'The Buddha is present.' Someone reported this to the Buddha. The Buddha said to Rāhula, 'Take water in the basin and wash my feet.' Having washed his feet, he said to Rāhula, 'Invert this basin.' As instructed, he inverted it. The Buddha said, 'Pour water on it.' After pouring, the water ran off. [The Buddha] asked, 'Does the water enter inside?' He answered, 'It does not enter.' The Buddha told Rāhula, 'A person without shame or conscience has his mind covered by false speech. The Dharma of the Path does not enter, just like this.'" 7. Because it ruins the practice of the Dharma: that treatise states that the monk Hada, although practicing the gift of the Dharma, fell into hell upon death on account of false speech. 8. Because one is abandoned by spirits: the sūtra says that regarding a person of false speech, the devas, ghosts, and spirits all see him and abandon him without offering protection. 9. Because it opens the gate of faults: that is, faults such as killing and stealing are all assisted and accomplished by false speech. 10. Because it possesses both proscriptive and inherent nature: therefore, one would rather abandon bodily life than ever give rise to a transgression. As a verse in the Bodhisambhāra treatise states: "Though on account of truthful speech one dies / or forfeits [being a] cakravartin / or [a lord of] all the gods, / one should only speak truthful words." Explanation: because its nature is grave, whether for one's own harm or benefit, it is not permitted even at the cost of life.

3.17

Second, explaining the name: words not matching reality constitute "false" (mṛṣā), and causing another to understand constitutes "speech" (vāda). The precept guards against this lapse, taking its name from what it remedies. The Dazhidulun, fascicle fifteen, states: "False speech means that with an impure mind, wishing to deceive another, concealing the truth, one utters disparate words, generating vocal karma; this is called false speech." Explanation: this also subsumes the other three—harsh speech, divisive speech, and frivolous speech—taking its name from the foremost, because their faults arise mutually. The Dazhidulun states: "Among the four kinds of vocal karma, false speech is the gravest. Furthermore, merely mentioning false speech already subsumes the other three matters. Furthermore, among all dharmas, truth is the greatest. If speech is truthful, the four kinds of right speech are all subsumed."

3.18

Third, regarding the order: the sequence is bodily karma first, followed by vocal karma. Question: Why are the three of the body instituted separately, whereas the four of speech are prohibited together? Answer: Those do not mutually subsume each other, whereas these can generally encompass them. Another explanation: in the subsequent text, "speaking," "defaming," and "slandering" subsume the remaining three.

3.19

Fourth, regarding the fulfillment of conditions to constitute an offense: the specific conditions are also seven: 1. Facing a sentient being. 2. Conceiving the thought of that [being]. 3. Giving rise to a deceptive mind. 4. Concealing the true matter. 5. Being endowed with the three poisons. 6. The words being distinct and clear. 7. Causing the other to understand.

3.20

Fifth, the deficiency of conditions. In lacking the first condition, there are three senses: First, if there is a mistake between central [lands], peripheral [lands], or different destinies, if [the recipient] understands, both constitute a major [offense]; if that [recipient] does not understand, if one does not know [they do not understand], it is a major preparatory offense, and if one knows, it is a minor preparatory offense. Second, if there is a mistake regarding insentient objects, whether knowing or not knowing, these are also the two preparatory offenses of minor and major. Third, if it involves doubt, doubly lacking [the conditions], there are also three offenses; their minor or major [gravity] should be determined accordingly. Next, lacking the second condition also involves three offenses: that is, conceiving the idea of central, peripheral, or different destinies, if [the recipient] understands, it is major; if one does not know that they do not understand, it is a major preparatory offense; if one knows, it is a minor preparatory offense. Original delusion and shifted conception should be judged similarly to the previous precept. Next, lacking the third condition: either in all cases there is no offense, because there is no intention to deceive; or one incurs a minor offense, because of lack of careful examination and leading another astray. Next, lacking the fourth condition has two senses: First, regarding what exists, if one says what does not exist with the intent to deceive, although there is no concealing of the facts, it is major because of the intention to conceal. Second, original delusion, shifted conception, and doubt all incur offenses; their preparatory stages may be known accordingly. Next, lacking the fifth condition has two [cases]: either there is no offense, because of a wholesome intention; or merit is generated, because of benefiting [others], as it enters the permissive conditions according to the Yogācāra [precepts]. Next, lacking the sixth condition results in a major preparatory offense, because although one spoke rapidly, the other person nonetheless understood the meaning. Furthermore, as when a mute person uses gestures to deceive someone, causing the other to understand is equivalent to clear speech; both are major. Next, lacking the seventh condition has three [cases]: knowing the other does not understand is a minor preparatory offense; not knowing is a major preparatory offense; causing the other to doubt is also a major preparatory offense.

3.21

Sixth, relative gravity. This fault is difficult to guard against, and people easily violate it. In this, there are two parts: first general, and then specific. Broadly speaking, there are five: first, great false speech; second, minor false speech; third, giving rise to the thought of false speech—all being major before and minor after; fourth, lacking conditions and thus committing no offense; fifth, gaining merit through the expedient means. Second, discerning specifically, there are also five: first, in terms of the object; second, in terms of the matter; third, in terms of the motive; fourth, in terms of the mind; fifth, in terms of the words. Under the first, there are three: first, deceiving objects of gratitude such as venerable persons; second, many people such as a great assembly; third, causing extreme distress to others and the like—logically these should be even graver. Second, in terms of the matter, there are also three: first, in terms of supramundane dharmas, claiming to have attained sagehood and the like. The Mahāvibhāṣā states: Claiming oneself to be a Buddha does not constitute a major [offense], because the other person will not believe it. Second, in terms of pure dharmas, claiming to have attained dhyāna and the like. Third, in terms of mundane matters, not having seen yet saying one saw, and the like. All are major before and minor after. Third, in terms of the motive, there are four: first, obtaining fame and gain of a sage through false speech, seeing it as virtuous, and practicing it constantly without stopping; second, obtaining mundane fame and gain in immeasurable abundance; third, deceiving others on impulse without personal benefit; fourth, deceiving others in order to escape suffering. All are major before and minor after. Fourth, in terms of the mind, that is, the minds of the three natures, taken singly, doubly, or all combined; their relative gravity is determined as before. Within the unwholesome mind, there are also three single, three double, and one combined; their relative gravity should be judged accordingly. Fifth, in terms of words: the Daśabhāṇavāra states, someone might say, 'Today I did not enter mundane samādhi.' The other person asks, 'What about yesterday?' They answer, 'Neither did I then'—this incurs a sthūlātyaya, all because the words closely resemble [the claim of attainment]. Or someone might say, 'I am a trainee (śaikṣa).' The other person urgently asks, 'What do you mean by trainee?' They then answer, 'I am of extensive learning, sharp faculties, reciting dhyāna, and possessed of wisdom'—this incurs a sthūlātyaya. If one claims to be a trainee of the undefiled [path], it is major. Or one says, 'I am an aśaikṣa,' even answering, 'I am lazy and do not learn (śaikṣa)'—sthūlātyaya. If one claims to be a noble aśaikṣa, it is major. Explanation: according to this tradition, the minor and major [gravity] can be known by inference. Another explanation: according to the 'Chapter on Taming the Mind' in the eighth fascicle of the Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā, the gravity of false speech is distinguished by five kinds. That treatise states: 'Because of distinction of sentient beings, distinction of matters, distinction of time, distinction of the five assemblies, and distinction of dwelling place, there are minor and major [offenses]. Although it may be minor false speech, if practiced for a long time it becomes major, and when major it can cause the loss of bodhicitta. 1. Distinction of sentient beings: toward those who have severed roots of goodness, those with wrong views, and others with deep afflictions, it is major. 2. Distinction of matters: if speaking of dharmas exceeding human capacities and creating schism in the Sangha, it is [major]. 3. Distinction of time: false speech by a renunciant is major. 4. Distinction of the five assemblies: offenses such as pārājika and saṃghāvaśeṣa are major. 5. Distinction of dwelling place: false speech within the Sangha, if bearing witness, is major.' Explanation: this text is also clear and readily understood. The other precepts should also be known by reference to these five kinds.

3.22

Seventh, the karmic fruition. The retribution for the offense of prohibition is as discussed below. Showing its inherent offense, one obtains three kinds of fruition. The Daśabhūmika Sūtra says: 'The offense of false speech also causes sentient beings to fall into hell, the animal realm, and the hungry ghost realm. If born among humans, one obtains two kinds of retributions: first, being frequently slandered; second, constantly being deceived by many people.' In the Abhidharmasamuccaya, the predominant fruition (adhipati-phala) is further added: namely, the seeds do not bear fruit. Furthermore, the Dazhidulun, chapter 15, states: 'As the Buddha said, false speech has ten offenses: 1. Foul breath; 2. Good deities depart from one and non-humans find their opportunity; 3. Even when speaking true words, people do not believe or accept them; 4. When wise persons deliberate, one never participates; 5. One is constantly slandered, with an ugly and evil reputation spreading throughout the world; 6. One is not respected by others, and even if one issues instructions, people do not follow them; 7. One constantly has much worry and sorrow; 8. One plants the karmic causes and conditions for slander; 9. At the breakup of the body and the end of life, one will fall into hell; 10. If born as a human, one is constantly slandered.'

3.23

Eighth, scope and limits: first limits, then scope. Limits refers to the fact that merely giving rise to the thought for one's own sake incurs an offense. The Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā Sūtra states: merely giving rise to a single thought of false speech incurs a pārājika. Second, scope: when done for others' sake, there may be cases of no offense. As the Bodhisattvasaṃvara states: 'Furthermore, as when a bodhisattva acts for many sentient beings to liberate them from mortal danger, the danger of imprisonment and fetters, the danger of having hands and feet severed, the danger of noses being cut off, ears sliced, eyes gouged out, and so forth. Although bodhisattvas would not speak falsely with clear awareness even for their own mortal danger, yet in order to rescue and liberate those sentient beings, knowing and deliberating, they intentionally speak falsely. In brief, a bodhisattva only observes what is beneficial to sentient beings and not what is without benefit, being personally free of defiled thoughts. Solely to benefit sentient beings, with clear awareness of concealing conception, they speak words otherwise. When such words are spoken, there is no violation of the bodhisattva precepts, and much merit is generated.'

3.24

Ninth, counteractive practice: in truth, this broadly abstains from all four vocal faults, but because false speech is the primary one, it is singled out. In the Daśabhūmika Sūtra, bodhisattvas of the second ground are fully free from the four faults. Hence that sūtra states: 'Free from false speech, always speaking truthful words, factual words, timely words. This bodhisattva, even in dreams, does not give rise to concealed views or tolerant views, and has no intention to speak words deceiving others, much less deliberate false speech.' Furthermore: 'Free from divisive speech, having no intention to destroy, no intention to terrify, no intention to disturb. What is heard here is not spoken there to destroy this; what is heard there is not spoken here to destroy that. Not breaking up those who agree, and not causing further rift among those already broken up. Not delighting in separation, not enjoying separation, not fond of speaking words of separation, and not uttering words of separation, whether true or untrue.' Furthermore: 'Free from harsh speech, all words that are encroaching and disturbing, coarse and abusive, painful to others, arousing anger and hatred in others, spoken to their face, spoken behind their back, ceaseless words, base and evil words, unpleasant to hear, disagreeable, angry and vexing, words capable of burning like mental fire, words causing mental fever and distress, unlovely, joyless, unwholesome words that destroy oneself and also destroy others—all such words are completely abandoned. All words spoken are exquisite and pleasing to the ear, namely moistening and beneficial words, gentle words, wonderful words, delightful to hear, pleasing to hear, heart-penetrating words, reasonable words, words loved and cherished by many, words delightful to many, harmonious and pleasant words, words bringing joy throughout the mind, words capable of generating joy, reverence, and faith in one's own mind and others' minds—always speaking such various exquisite words.' Furthermore: 'Free from frivolous speech, always speaking well-considered words, timely words, truthful words, meaningful words, Dharma words, words conforming to reason, vinaya words, words weighed according to the time, words well knowing what the mind delights in. This bodhisattva does not speak frivolously even in jest, much less deliberately engage in frivolous speech.' Explanation: for a full explanation of this passage, one should consult the fourth fascicle of the Daśabhūmikasūtra-śāstra. Furthermore, regarding 'concealed views and tolerant views,' both are stated in terms of the mind and the object. In speech, there are eight kinds of offenses and non-offenses. The four offenses are: 1. It truly exists, yet one reports it as absent; 2. It is truly absent, yet one reports it as existing—these two run contrary to both mind and object. 3. It truly exists, but one thinks it is absent and reports it as existing; 4. It is truly absent, but one thinks it exists and reports it as absent—these two run contrary to the mind but not to the object. Both are based on contradicting one's own conceived view, hence called 'concealed views' and so forth. Contrary to these four kinds are the non-offenses. Among the four non-offenses, the first two correspond to both conception and fact, while the latter two correspond to conception but not fact; all can be known accordingly. Furthermore, one should examine the discussions under the four kinds of speech in the Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitopadeśa.

3.25

Tenth, explaining the text: the three divisions are the same as before. First, in pointing out the fault to establish the formal prohibition, there are three: 1. Capable of committing the offense, meaning that doing it oneself and instructing others are both major. 'Expedient means' refers to relying on a different matter to make another understand otherwise, as mentioned above: 'Today I did not enter mundane samādhi,' and so on. 2. From 'the causes of false speech' onward clarifies the methods of falsehood employed: doing it oneself is the cause, instructing another is the condition, the expedient means is called the method, and the completion of the act is the deed (karma). Another explanation: first, internally giving rise to the mind of deceit; second, externally taking it as what is intended; third, skillfully uttering the methods of falsehood; fourth, habitually practicing it as a deed. These four are distinct offenses. The explanation that these four combine into a single offense may also be known. 3. From 'even' onward refers to the resulting false speech, in which there are three karmas. First, in vocal karma, although the six consciousnesses regarding the six objects each have their own false speech, here only eye-seeing is discussed and the rest are omitted, hence saying 'even.' Bodily false speech: as in the Vinaya, someone asks, 'Who has attained arhatship?' and one gets up to put on or take off the saṃghāṭī robe; if one is not an arhat, responding by putting it on or taking it off constitutes bodily false speech, although no words are spoken. Furthermore, as the Sujāta Sūtra describes, the body performing the action of speech is of this type. Mental false speech refers to the deceptive mind, also like the concealed views mentioned above. Second, from 'yet a bodhisattva' onward distinguishes what should be practiced: a bodhisattva logically ought to personally perform the ten kinds of correct speech, that is, conforming to fact and conforming to conception, hence called 'correct speech and correct view.' Because it brings no harm and provides benefit, it is further called 'correct.' And one also encourages others to engage in this karma. Third, from 'yet on the contrary' onward, violating the prohibition constitutes the offense: although one ought logically to speak correct speech, on the contrary one gives rise to wrong views, speech, karma, and words; because the violation and harm are profound, it is adjudicated as a major offense. Furthermore, one also teaches others false speech, and they consider it correct; therefore it is called 'wrong views.' Constantly practicing this inverted conduct is why it is called 'the karma of wrong views.' The preceding four precepts are committed equally in Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, and are called common precepts (sādhāraṇa-śīla). The following six are not major offenses in Hīnayāna, and are called uncommon precepts (asādhāraṇa-śīla).

First 25 of 61 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

梵網經菩薩戒本疏 — Classical Chinese