[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [菩薩戒本疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1814) › 1.11 # 菩薩戒本疏 1.11 菩薩戒本疏 1.11 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1814.1.11) 違緣失受者，《菩薩地》云：「略由二緣捨諸菩薩淨戒律儀：一者棄捨無上正等菩提大願；二者現行上品纏犯他勝處法。」《決擇分》云：「又捨因緣略有四種：一者決定發起受心不同分心；二者若於有所識別大丈夫前，故意發起棄捨語言；三者總別毀犯四種他所勝法；四者若以增上品纏總別毀犯隨順四種他所勝法。由此因緣，當知棄捨菩薩律儀。若有還得清淨受心，復應還受。」問：二、四捨緣得相攝不？答：一云：得相攝。數有開合，體無別故。四中前二分二中初，後二類於二中第二，是故二四得互相攝。有云：不然。不同分心可得攝初緣發言棄捨。云何初緣收？對人棄捨時未必退願故。謂有先受苾芻等戒，復遇因緣捨作懃策等時，雖不棄捨菩提大願，而得棄捨先所受故。若不爾者，既捨願時已得捨戒，何須對人發棄捨言？設便退願時即發言棄捨，則不應別分為二緣。又四中第四，應攝二中後，同說增上纏，毀犯他勝故。四中第三不得增上，云何得攝二中後緣？又何者是他勝？何者順他勝？而言第二攝後二耶？若言第三犯他勝者，即本地說四種他勝。第四毀犯順他勝者，即十重中前六重者。《本地》中云：四種他勝，要上纏犯方得捨戒。云何第三緣，唯云總別犯？故知四中三，非二緣所收。若爾，何者是？謂犯殺等前四重時，不待上纏隨犯皆捨。若犯後四或後六時，要起上纏方得捨戒。後四或六非性重故，唯於菩薩名重非餘。前四反前，故於一切名重。後四或六雖非性重，順性重故，名隨他勝。問：如上所引《本業經》云：「菩薩戒有受法而無捨法，有犯不失盡未來際。」何故《論》云二、四緣捨？此說豈不達經言耶？答：約義各別，故不相違。是義云何？言失戒者，捨要期思所薰種上，運運增上防攝功能。若論種體，一薰永在；若言功能，或違緣失。以體從功，故《論》言捨戒；以能從體，故《經》云不失。故彼經云：「一切菩薩凡聖戒盡心為體，是故心盡戒亦盡，心無盡故戒亦無盡。」問：若爾，聲聞戒五緣應不失？答：據體實應然。但佛為彼聲聞教中，多就功能說戒是色，是故不說永在不失。聲聞所受五緣捨者：一、命終捨；二、二形捨；三、斷善根捨；四、作法捨；五、犯重捨。菩薩所受期盡未來際，是故無有命終時捨。二形亦許受菩薩戒，是故無有二形生捨。起不同心便失戒故，不待斷善方捨。辨受體訖。 > Regarding losing the reception \[of the precepts\] due to adverse conditions, the Bodhisattvabhūmi states: "Briefly, the pure moral discipline of the bodhisattva is renounced through two conditions: first, renouncing the great vow for anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi; second, actively committing parājika offenses with a predominant entanglement." The Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī states: "Furthermore, the causes and conditions for renunciation are briefly of four kinds: first, definitively giving rise to a mind of a discordant class with the mind that received \[the precepts\]; second, intentionally giving rise to words of renunciation before a great man endowed with discernment; third, committing all or any of the four parājika offenses; fourth, committing all or any of the four parājika offenses or those conforming to them with a heightened, predominant entanglement. Due to these causes and conditions, one should know that the bodhisattva discipline is renounced. If one regains a pure mind of reception, one should receive them again." Question: Can the two and the four conditions of renunciation subsume each other? Answer: One \[master\] says: They subsume each other. Because the numbers are merely expanded or condensed, while their essence has no difference. The first two of the four divide the first of the two, and the latter two belong to the same category as the second of the two; therefore, the two and the four mutually subsume each other. Another says: That is not so. The mind of a discordant class can indeed subsume renouncing by utterance in the first condition. But how could the first condition include \[the second of the four\]? When renouncing before another person, one does not necessarily regress from the vow. That is, if someone has previously received the bhikṣu precepts and, encountering circumstances, relinquishes them to become a śrāmaṇera, etc., although he does not renounce the great vow for bodhi, he can nevertheless renounce what was previously received. If that were not so, since relinquishing the vow would already renounce the precepts, why would one need to utter words of renunciation before another person? Even if one utters words of renunciation immediately upon regressing from the vow, they should not be differentiated into two conditions. Furthermore, the fourth of the four should subsume the latter of the two, because both speak of a predominant entanglement and committing a parājika offense. The third of the four does not mention "predominant"; how could it subsume the latter condition of the two? Moreover, what is a parājika, and what conforms to a parājika, such that one says the second \[of the two\] subsumes the latter two? If one says the third is committing a parājika, that refers to the four parājikas spoken of in the basic text \[of the Bodhisattvabhūmi\]. If the fourth is committing what conforms to a parājika, that refers to the first six of the ten grave precepts. The basic text says: The four parājikas require committing them with a predominant entanglement before the precepts are lost. Why does the third condition merely speak of "committing all or any"? Hence we know that the third of the four is not included in the two conditions. If so, what are they? That is, when committing the first four grave offenses such as killing, one does not wait for a predominant entanglement; one renounces \[the precepts\] immediately upon committing them. When committing the latter four or the latter six, one must give rise to a predominant entanglement before renouncing the precepts. Because the latter four or six are not offenses grave by nature, they are called grave only for bodhisattvas and not for others. The former four are the reverse of the former; hence they are called grave for all. Although the latter four or six are not grave by nature, because they conform to what is grave by nature, they are called "conforming to parājika." Question: As quoted above, the Benye jing states: "The bodhisattva precepts have a method of reception but no method of relinquishment; even if violated, they are not lost, \[lasting\] to the end of future time." Why does the treatise say they are renounced through two or four conditions? Does this statement not fail to comprehend the words of the sūtra? Answer: They refer to different meanings, and therefore do not contradict each other. What does this mean? Speaking of losing the precepts refers to renouncing the function of guarding and collecting that continuously intensifies upon the seeds perfumed by the volition of the commitment. If discussing the essence of the seed, once perfumed, it exists forever; if discussing the function, it may be lost due to adverse conditions. Viewing the essence through its function, the treatise therefore speaks of renouncing the precepts; viewing the function through its essence, the sūtra therefore says they are not lost. Thus that sūtra states: "All pure precepts of bodhisattvas, ordinary and noble, take the mind entirely as their essence; therefore, when the mind is exhausted the precepts are also exhausted, and because the mind is inexhaustible the precepts are also inexhaustible." Question: If so, should the śrāvaka precepts also not be lost through the five conditions? Answer: In terms of the essence, that indeed should be so. But in the teachings for those śrāvakas, the Buddha mostly spoke of the precepts as form in terms of their function; therefore, he did not say they exist forever without being lost. What the śrāvakas receive is renounced through five conditions: first, renunciation at the end of life; second, renunciation through the emergence of two genders; third, renunciation through severing the roots of goodness; fourth, renunciation through a formal act; fifth, renunciation through committing a grave offense. What the bodhisattva receives has an aspiration extending to the end of future time; therefore, there is no renunciation at the end of life. Those with two genders are also permitted to receive the bodhisattva precepts; therefore, there is no renunciation upon the emergence of two genders. Because giving rise to a discordant mind immediately loses the precepts, one does not wait for the severing of the roots of goodness to renounce them. The examination of the essence of the reception is concluded. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1814.1.10) - [Next: 1.12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1814.1.12) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1814.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1814~en-mt.1.11) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (2) - [梵網經古迹記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1815.2.8) — Classical Chinese - [勸發菩提心集](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1862.3.44) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1814.1.11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1814.1.11) · Pramāṇa