菩薩戒本疏 2.141

2.141

內無深解，為利輒授，有誤人之過，故制之。大小俱制。七眾之中正在出家，兼通在家，在家亦有互作師故。文中「教化人起信心時」者，謂教化人令起欲受菩薩戒信。「菩薩與他人作教戒法師」者，謂與他人作受戒師，應正制和上，始終親教是和上故。「見欲受戒人應教而請二師」者，自未被請故教令請為和上也。又須一人作羯磨師，故更教令請一人為阿闍梨，即是羯磨阿闍梨也。義同聲聞沙彌受法，而法仍通五眾受戒，無簡別故。問：《菩薩地》受戒文中不云請二師文相似，唯請羯磨師，無請和上文，何故彼此說不同耶？答：理應具請二師，而彼文中不請和上者，當是預請為親教師，是故不須臨受方請。或即一人具兼兩事，謂作和上及阿闍梨，是故彼文不別請也。「二師應問言」下，明欲將受問其遮法。問：為二師並問，為一人問一人，誰應問？答：若請二人，阿闍梨應問，正作羯磨人故。若請一人為二師，則無所妨也。所問罪有三種：一、七逆，一向不得受；二、十重，若懺得相得受，不得相不得戒。今謂十重，若懺得相，不作受法，便得本戒；若不懺除，應更增受。三、四十八，唯須對悔，不須更受。「若無好相雖懺無益」者，謂無罪滅得戒之益。「是現身亦不得戒」者，舊說非但不得本戒，亦復不得更增戒也。今謂遮其由懺得，不遮由受得。「而得增受戒」者，舊作三解：一云：不得而強受，更增受戒罪，以違教故。二云：雖不得戒，而得增受戒之福。三云：直是驚跪不得之辭耳。今謂而得增受戒者，是許重受之言，謂犯十重懺不得相，雖現身中不得本戒，而得更增重受新戒。所以得知，《瓔珞經》云：「十重有犯無悔，得使重受戒。八萬威儀戒盡名輕，有犯得使悔過，對手悔滅。」《菩薩地》云：「若諸菩薩由此毀犯，棄捨菩薩淨戒律儀，於現法中堪任更受，非不堪任。如苾芻住別解脫戒，犯他勝處法，於現法中不任更受。」《決擇分》云：「由此因緣，當知棄捨菩薩律儀，若有還得清淨受心，復應還受。」由此諸文，知菩薩戒雖犯重捨而得更受。「若犯四十八輕者對手懺罪滅」者，謂對一人對手懺滅還得清淨。「手」者亦名「對首」，謂對一人合手懺謝，故云「對手」。面首相對陳罪悔滅，故云「對首」。《菩薩地》云：「又此菩薩一切違犯，當知皆是惡作所攝，應向有力於語表義能學能受小乘大乘補特伽羅發露悔滅。」若准此文，聲聞亦得受菩薩懺。又云：「若諸菩薩以上品纏違犯如上他勝處法，失戒律儀應當更受，若中品纏違犯如上他勝處法，失戒律儀應當更受。若中品纏違犯如上他勝處法，應對於三補特伽羅或過是數，應如發露除惡作法，先當稱述所犯事名，應作是說：『長老專志。』或云：『大德！我如是名，違越菩薩毘那耶法。如所稱事犯惡作罪。』餘如苾芻發露悔滅惡作罪法，應如是說。若下品纏，違犯如上。他勝處法及餘違犯，應對於一補特伽羅發露悔法，當知如前。若無隨順補特伽羅可對發露悔除所犯，爾時菩薩以淨意樂起自誓心：『我當決定防護當來終不重犯。』如是於犯還出還淨。」「不同七遮」者，十重悔得更受，四十八輕但悔得清，是故不同七遮一向不得現受。「而教戒師」下，制其教師令好解法。「不解大乘經律若輕若重是非之相」者，謂不解教法，於律知其輕重、於經知其是非，謂十戒為重、四十八為輕，又染犯為重、不染為輕，又故作為重、誤作為輕，是謂輕重之相。順理為是、違理為非，又大乘為是、小乘為非，所斷為非、所修為是，是為是非之相。「不解第一義諦」者，謂不解理法。《地論》所說四種真實等，名第一義。「若習種」下，謂不解行法。「習種姓」，謂十發趣。「長養姓」者，謂十長養。「不可壞姓」者，謂十金剛。此三即是地前三賢。「道姓」者，謂十地。「正性」，謂佛地。《本業經》中并六種姓，謂習種姓、性種姓、道種姓、聖種姓、等覺姓、妙覺姓。道性之中并攝等覺，故此唯五。又道性入彼道種姓中，正性攝彼十地等覺及妙覺性。不可壞性外別立道性者，十迴向後更修燸等四善根，是入聖道之近方便，故別立之。「其中多少觀行出入十禪支一切行法一一不得此法中意」者，謂於定門不得意趣。「十禪支」者，上卷經中云十心，第十心云八百三昧。十禪支而不別名，未詳是何。舊云：十八禪支中除同取異，故成十支。謂初禪有五：覺、觀、喜、樂、一心。二禪四中唯取內淨增前為六，餘三同初故不取之。三禪五中唯取捨、念、安、慧，增前為九，餘二同前故不取之。四禪四支唯取不苦不樂增前為十，餘三同前故不取之。「而菩薩」下辨無德作師成犯違也。與十八戒有何別者，一云前制為新受者必須有解，此制為重者必須具解。一云前制無解輒授多是掘尾者所行，此制為利妄授多是無羞者所為。今謂前於攝善門中制，今於利生門中制。

Lacking deep understanding inwardly and rashly conferring [the precepts] for the sake of profit involves the fault of misleading others; therefore it is prohibited. Both the Mahāyāna and the Hīnayāna prohibit it. Among the seven assemblies, it is primarily directed at the renunciants, but also applies to the laity, because laypeople also serve as masters to one another. In the text, "when converting people and giving rise to their faith" means converting people to cause them to give rise to faith in desiring to receive the bodhisattva precepts. "A bodhisattva acting as a teaching master for others" means acting as a precept master for others; it primarily prescribes the upādhyāya, because the one who personally instructs from beginning to end is the upādhyāya. "Seeing a person desiring to receive the precepts, should instruct [them] to invite two masters": because he himself has not yet been invited, he instructs [the candidate] to invite him as the upādhyāya. Moreover, another person is needed to act as the karmācārya, so he further instructs them to invite one more person as the ācārya, that is, the karmācārya. The meaning is identical to the method of receiving [precepts] for śrāvaka śrāmaṇeras, yet the method still applies generally to the five assemblies receiving precepts without distinction. Question: In the text on receiving precepts in the Bodhisattvabhūmi, it does not speak of inviting two masters; the text seems only to invite a karmācārya, with no mention of inviting an upādhyāya. Why do these texts differ? Answer: In principle, one should fully invite two masters; that the Bodhisattvabhūmi does not mention inviting an upādhyāya is presumably because [the candidate] has already in advance invited [one] as personal preceptor, and thus there is no need to invite him only when approaching the reception. Or perhaps a single person combines both functions, acting as both upādhyāya and ācārya, and therefore that text does not separately invite [another]. From "The two masters should ask:" downward explains asking about the impeding conditions when about to receive [the precepts]. Question: Do both masters ask together, or does one person ask, and if one, who should ask? Answer: If two persons are invited, the ācārya should ask, because he is the one who properly performs the karman. If one person is invited to serve as both masters, then there is no problem. The offenses inquired about are of three kinds: first, the seven ānantarya sins, [for which] one definitively cannot receive [the precepts]; second, the ten parājika offenses: if one repents and obtains the sign, one may receive them; if one does not obtain the sign, one does not obtain the precepts. We now say: regarding the ten parājika offenses, if one repents and obtains the sign, without performing a reception ritual one recovers the original precepts; if one does not repent and eliminate [them], one should additionally receive them again. Third, the forty-eight [minor offenses]: one only needs to confess face-to-face; one does not need to receive them again. "If there is no auspicious sign, although one repents, there is no benefit" means that there is no benefit of eliminating the offense and obtaining the precepts. "This person in their present life will also not obtain the precepts": the old commentary says that not only do they not obtain the original precepts, they also cannot receive the precepts afresh. We now say: it precludes obtaining them by means of repentance, but does not preclude obtaining them by means of reception. "And yet may receive the precepts afresh": the old commentators made three interpretations. The first says: unable to obtain them yet forcefully receiving them, one further increases the offense of receiving the precepts, because of transgressing the teaching. The second says: although one does not obtain the precepts, one obtains the merit of further receiving the precepts. The third says: this is simply an expression of shock and lamentation that one cannot obtain them. We now say: "and yet may receive the precepts afresh" is a phrase permitting re-reception; it means that if one commits a parājika offense and fails to obtain the sign through repentance, although one does not recover the original precepts in one's present life, one is permitted to additionally receive new precepts afresh. How is this known? The Yingluo jing states: "If one commits the ten parājika offenses and does not repent, one is permitted to receive the precepts afresh. The eighty-thousand deportment precepts are all called minor; if one commits them, one is permitted to repent, and by confessing face-to-face [the offense] is eliminated." The Bodhisattvabhūmi states: "If bodhisattvas, through such transgression, abandon the bodhisattva's pure moral discipline, in the present life they are capable of receiving it again, not incapable. Unlike a bhikṣu dwelling in the prātimokṣa precepts who commits a parājika offense and is incapable of receiving them again in the present life." The Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī states: "By this reason, it should be known that if one abandons the bodhisattva's moral discipline, if one recovers a pure intention to receive [it], one should receive it again." From these various passages, we know that although a bodhisattva transgresses a grave offense and abandons the precepts, they may receive them again. "If one commits the forty-eight minor [offenses], confessing face-to-face eliminates the offense" means that confessing face-to-face before one person eliminates [the offense] and one recovers purity. "To the hand" (duishou) is also called "face-to-face" (duishou): it means joining the hands before one person in repentance and apology, hence called "to the hand"; facing each other face-to-face to declare the offense and repent to eliminate it, hence called "face-to-face." The Bodhisattvabhūmi states: "Furthermore, all transgressions of this bodhisattva should be known to be included under duṣkṛta; one should disclose and eliminate them before an able pudgala of the Hīnayāna or Mahāyāna who understands the meaning of the spoken words and is capable of learning and receiving [them]." According to this text, a śrāvaka may also receive a bodhisattva's repentance. It also states: "If bodhisattvas transgress the above parājika offenses through high-grade entanglement, they lose the moral discipline and should receive it again. If they transgress the above parājika offenses through medium-grade entanglement, they lose the moral discipline and should receive it again. If they transgress the above parājika offenses through medium-grade entanglement, they should face three pudgalas or more, and according to the method of disclosing and removing duṣkṛta, they should first declare the name of the committed act, and say: 'Venerable ones, pay attention!' or say: 'Venerables! I, named so-and-so, have transgressed the bodhisattva's Vinaya rules. As stated, I have committed a duṣkṛta offense.' The rest is as in the method of a bhikṣu's disclosing and eliminating a duṣkṛta offense, and should be spoken in this manner. If through low-grade entanglement they transgress the above parājika offenses or other transgressions, they should disclose and repent before a single pudgala, as explained above. If there is no agreeable pudgala before whom they can disclose and repent to remove the transgression, at that time the bodhisattva, with pure aspiration, gives rise to a self-vow: 'I shall definitively guard against it in the future and never commit it again.' In this way, from the transgression one emerges and returns to purity." "Not like the seven impediments": for the ten parājika offenses, by repenting one may receive them again; for the forty-eight minor offenses, merely by repenting one obtains purity; therefore, they are not like the seven impediments, for which one definitively cannot receive [the precepts] in the present life. From "And the teaching master" downward, it regulates that the instructing master must understand the Dharma well. "Does not understand the Mahāyāna sūtras and Vinaya, whether light or heavy, right or wrong characteristics" means that he does not understand the teaching: regarding the Vinaya he understands its gravity and lightness, and regarding the sūtras he understands their right and wrong. That is, the ten precepts are heavy and the forty-eight are light; furthermore, defiled transgression is heavy and non-defiled is light; intentional action is heavy and mistaken action is light—these are called the characteristics of light and heavy. Conforming with principle is right and transgressing principle is wrong; furthermore, Mahāyāna is right and Hīnayāna is wrong; what is abandoned is wrong and what is cultivated is right—these are the characteristics of right and wrong. "Does not understand the ultimate truth" means that he does not understand the principle. The four kinds of reality and so forth spoken of in the Daśabhūmikā-śāstra are called the ultimate truth. From "Whether the gotra of practice" downward means not understanding the practices. "Gotra of practice" refers to the ten stages of setting forth. "Gotra of nourishment" refers to the ten nourishings. "Indestructible gotra" refers to the ten adamantine [minds]. These three are precisely the three stages of worthiness before the bhūmis. "Gotra of the path" refers to the ten bhūmis. "Gotra of the correct Dharma" refers to the Buddha stage. In the Benye jing, six gotras are combined: the gotra of practice, the gotra of innate nature, the gotra of the path, the gotra of the noble ones, the gotra of equal enlightenment, and the gotra of wondrous enlightenment. The gotra of the path subsumes equal enlightenment, and therefore here there are only five. Furthermore, the gotra of the path is subsumed into that gotra of the path, while the correct gotra subsumes those ten bhūmis, equal enlightenment, and the gotra of wondrous enlightenment. Establishing the gotra of the path separately outside the indestructible gotra is because after the ten dedications of merit, one further cultivates the four wholesome roots such as heat, which are the immediate expedients for entering the noble path; hence it is established separately. "Lacking, more or less, the contemplative practices of entering and exiting the ten dhyāna factors, and all methods of practice, not grasping the meaning of these methods one by one" means failing to grasp the intent regarding the doors of concentration. As for "the ten dhyāna factors," the upper fascicle of the sūtra speaks of the ten minds, and the tenth mind speaks of the eight hundred samādhis. The ten dhyāna factors are not individually named, and it is not clear what they are. The old [commentators] said: among the eighteen dhyāna factors, excluding the shared ones and taking the distinct ones makes ten factors. That is, the first dhyāna has five: vitarka, vicāra, prīti, sukha, and ekāgratā. Among the four of the second dhyāna, only inner purity is taken, adding to the previous to make six, while the other three are identical to the first and therefore not taken. Among the five of the third dhyāna, only upekṣā, smṛti, praśrabdhi, and prajñā are taken, adding to the previous to make nine, while the other two are identical to the previous and therefore not taken. Among the four factors of the fourth dhyāna, only neither-pain-nor-pleasure is taken, adding to the previous to make ten, while the other three are identical to the previous and therefore not taken. From "Yet a bodhisattva..." downward explains that acting as a master without virtue constitutes a transgression. How does this differ from the eighteenth precept? One says: the former precept regulates that for newly receiving [candidates], one must have understanding; this precept regulates that for [those receiving] the grave [precepts], one must fully have understanding. Another says: the former regulates that rashly conferring without understanding is mostly done by the base; this regulates that falsely conferring for profit is mostly done by the shameless. We now say: the former is regulated within the category of gathering wholesome dharmas, while this is regulated within the category of benefiting sentient beings.