菩薩戒本疏 1.66

1.66

菩薩常應仁被一切，而反侵損不受悔謝，事乖誨化之甚，故制斷也。含毒損人謂之「瞋」，結恨不捨名「不受謝」，亦從所防為「戒」名也。具緣中事謂眾生，古說上中境重、下境犯輕，今謂文云「於一切眾生中乃至於非眾生中」，故知通結。若如是者，於木石等中瞋亦應結重。答：不也。下云「前人求悔善言懺謝」，故知不通木石。若爾，何故云於非眾生？今謂聖人名非眾生，非處處受生，故云非眾生。於不應瞋而瞋，非如凡人，故別云「乃至」。想者，謂於所瞋眾生稱境而想。欲樂者，謂欲結怨不捨之意樂也。煩惱者，以瞋為主，餘皆助成。方便究竟者，古云前人領解知彼不受，被身口罵打結重，隨身業口業多小結。今謂不論前人領不領，若決意結怨不受悔謝便結重也。所以知然？瞋即瞋恚業道，罵即麁惡業道，此二業道不以領解為究竟。故《決擇》云：麁惡語究竟者，謂呵罵彼；瞋恚業究竟者，謂損害等期心決定。故知不待前人領解。又《菩薩地》云：「若諸菩薩長養如是種類忿纏，由是因緣不唯發起麁言便息，由忿弊故加以手足塊石刀杖捶打傷害損惱有情，內懷猛利忿恨意樂，有所違犯他來諫謝，不受不忍不捨怨結，是名第三他勝處法。」結犯輕重者，瞋不受悔有二：一者前人來觸彼還悔謝，而瞋不受彼謝，此唯犯輕垢。一云亦重，彼屈意來而今瞋隔，乖慈心故。二者菩薩觸彼彼反悔謝，而怨結不受，正犯重也。學處同異者，菩薩本誓引攝故瞋隔犯重，聲聞無期自保不受悔謝唯犯吉也。依《善生經》，於俗菩薩不制為重。此經通制道俗。文中「乃至於非眾生」者，若非情名非眾生，是深防語。若聖人非眾多生死故名「非眾生」，即齊防制也。「以惡口罵辱」者，口業損惱。「加以手打及以刀杖」者，以身業損惱。「意猶不息」者，意忿不息。「前人求悔善言懺謝」者，謂被侵損人反求悔謝。猶瞋不解者，不受不忍不捨怨結。《菩薩地》云：「若諸菩薩安住菩薩淨戒律儀，於他有情有所侵犯，或自不為彼疑侵犯，由嫌嫉心，由慢所執，不如理謝而生輕捨，是名有犯有所違越，是染違犯。若由嬾惰懈怠放逸，不謝輕捨，是名有犯有所違越，非染違犯。無違犯者：若欲方便調伏彼，出不善處，安立善處；若是外道；若彼希望，要因現行非法有罪，方受悔謝；若彼有情，性好鬪諍，因悔謝時，倍增憤怒；若復知彼為性堪忍，體無嫌恨；若必了他因謝侵犯，深生羞恥，而不悔謝，皆無違犯。若諸菩薩安住菩薩淨戒律儀，他所侵犯，彼還如法平等悔謝，懷嫌恨心，欲損惱彼，不受其謝，是名有犯有所違越。雖復於彼無嫌恨心，不欲損惱，然由稟性不能忍故，不受謝，亦名有犯有所違越，是染違犯。無違犯者：若欲方便調彼伏彼；若不如法，不平等謝，不受彼謝，亦無違犯。若諸菩薩安住菩薩淨戒律儀，於他懷忿，相續堅持，生已不捨，是名有犯有所違越，是染違犯。無違犯者：為斷彼故，生起樂欲。」廣說如前。

A bodhisattva should constantly cover all beings with benevolence; yet to conversely harm them and refuse to accept their apology and repentance severely contradicts guiding and converting [them]; therefore, a prohibition was established to cut it off. Harboring malice to harm others is called 'anger'; nursing a grudge and not letting go is called 'refusing to accept an apology'; it is also named a 'precept' after what is guarded against. Among the necessary conditions, the 'matter' refers to sentient beings. An ancient commentary said that high- and medium-grade objects are parājika, while low-grade objects incur a light offense. Now I maintain that because the text states 'toward all sentient beings, or even toward non-sentient beings', we know it applies generally. If so, does anger toward wood and stone also incur a parājika? Answer: No. Below it says 'when the other person begs for forgiveness and repents with gentle words', hence we know it does not apply to wood and stone. If so, why does it say 'toward non-sentient beings'? Now I maintain that noble beings are named 'non-sentient beings', because they do not take birth in all places; therefore they are called 'non-sentient beings'. Being angry toward those whom one should not be angry with is not like toward ordinary people, so it specifically says 'even toward'. 'Perception' means having an accurate perception according to the object toward the sentient being one is angry with. 'Intention' refers to the mental intention to harbor enmity and not let go. 'Affliction': anger is primary, and the rest all assist. Regarding preparatory and consummate action: ancient scholars said that when the other person understands and knows that he does not accept it, and is insulted or struck with body and speech, a parājika is incurred, determined according to whether bodily and verbal karma are great or small. Now I maintain that regardless of whether the other person understands or not, if one resolutely harbors enmity and does not accept the apology, a parājika is incurred. Why is this known to be so? Anger is the path of karma of ill will; reviling is the path of karma of harsh speech; these two paths of karma do not take the other's understanding as their consummation. Therefore, the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī states: 'The consummation of harsh words refers to scolding them; the consummation of the karma of ill will refers to the determination of intent to cause harm and the like.' Hence we know it does not depend on the other person's understanding. Furthermore, the Bodhisattvabhūmi states: 'If any bodhisattva nurtures such varieties of anger-entanglement, and on account of this cause does not merely cease upon uttering harsh words, but because of being overcome by anger, further strikes, injures, harms, and afflicts sentient beings with hands, feet, clods, stones, knives, or sticks, internally harboring a fierce intention of anger and resentment, and when having transgressed, another comes to admonish and apologize, he does not accept, does not endure, and does not relinquish the knot of enmity, this is named the third defeat.' Regarding the gravity of the infraction: anger and refusing repentance has two types. First, the other person comes to offend him, yet repents and apologizes, but he is angry and does not accept the apology; this incurs only a duṣkṛta offense. One commentary says it is also parājika, because the other bowed their will to come, yet one now blocks them with anger, contradicting the compassionate mind. Second, the bodhisattva offends the other person, the other person conversely repents and apologizes, yet one holds a knot of enmity and does not accept it; this directly incurs a parājika. Regarding similarities and differences in the training rules: because of the bodhisattva's original vow to guide and gather beings, blocking them with anger incurs a parājika; a śrāvaka has no such commitment, seeking only to protect oneself, so refusing to accept an apology only incurs a duṣkṛta. According to the Sujāta-sūtra, for lay bodhisattvas this is not regulated as a parājika. This sūtra generally regulates both monastics and laity. In the text, 'or even toward non-sentient beings': if insentient objects are called 'non-sentient beings', this is an expression of deep prevention. If noble beings are called 'non-sentient beings' because they do not undergo multiple births and deaths, then it is an equal prevention and regulation. 'Abuses them with foul language' means verbal karma causing harm. 'Further strikes them with hands, and with knives and sticks' means bodily karma causing harm. 'His intent is still not appeased' means the mental anger does not cease. 'When the other person begs for forgiveness and repents with gentle words' refers to the harmed person conversely seeking forgiveness and apologizing. 'Still remains angry and unresolved' means not accepting, not enduring, and not relinquishing the knot of enmity. The Bodhisattvabhūmi says: 'If any bodhisattva abides in the bodhisattva's pure moral discipline, and transgresses against other sentient beings, or though he himself did not do so, the other suspects a transgression, yet due to a mind of resentment and jealousy, or held by arrogance, does not apologize in accordance with principle and generates contemptuous abandonment, this is called having an offense and having a transgression; it is a defiled transgression. If due to indolence, laziness, and negligence one does not apologize and contemptuously abandons them, this is called having an offense and having a transgression; it is an undefiled transgression. There is no transgression: if one wishes skillfully to tame and subdue them, removing them from an unwholesome state and establishing them in a wholesome state; if they are a non-Buddhist; if they hope to accept the apology only through an actual unlawful and guilty deed; if that sentient being by nature loves contention, and upon being apologized to, their anger doubles; if one further knows that their nature is capable of endurance and intrinsically without resentment; or if one certainly knows that because of being apologized to for the offense, the other will feel deep shame, and thus does not apologize, in all such cases there is no transgression. If any bodhisattva abides in the bodhisattva's pure moral discipline, and when transgressed against by another, that person comes back to apologize equitably and in accordance with the Dharma, yet harboring a mind of resentment and wishing to afflict them, he does not accept the apology, this is called having an offense and having a transgression. Although he has no mind of resentment toward them and does not wish to afflict them, yet because by nature he cannot endure it, he does not accept the apology, this is also called having an offense and having a transgression; it is a defiled transgression. There is no transgression: if one wishes skillfully to tame and subdue them; if they do not apologize in accordance with the Dharma and equitably, and thus one does not accept their apology, there is also no transgression. If any bodhisattva abides in the bodhisattva's pure moral discipline, harbors anger toward another, continually and persistently holds to it, and once arisen does not relinquish it, this is called having an offense and having a transgression; it is a defiled transgression. There is no transgression: if, in order to cut it off, one generates desire and aspiration.' The detailed explanation is as before.