[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) › 2.18 # 菩薩戒本疏 2.18 菩薩戒本疏 2.18 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1814.2.18) 見犯不教懺則違相益義。聲聞護自尚所不許，況大士也。據顯似是利生戒中，於有過者內懷親眤，利益安樂增上意樂，調伏訶責治罰驅擯，為欲令其出不善處安置善處。然菩薩教化眾生，即是自成佛法，故攝善戒中亦制此戒也。即於自愆犯審諦了知，深見過失中亦蘊在也。自他雖殊，見過悔除同，故大小俱制。出家二眾全犯，餘三眾及在家理亦通之。「八戒、五戒」是在家戒也。「十戒」者，是沙彌十戒。「毀禁」者，即比丘、比丘尼戒。又十戒謂十重，毀禁謂四十八輕垢。「七逆」如下說。「八難」者，或云是八重，又云三塗等八難。由犯招八難，故因中說果也。今謂十三難中，除二形、黃門、畜生、非人及破二道，餘名八難。二形等四，既是報障，無懺除義。破二道者，以在異道，還入佛法，故無同住同利養義。是故此五不入教懺數中。四十四中第七戒云：「若諸菩薩於諸暴惡犯戒有情，懷嫌恨心，懷恚惱心，由彼暴惡犯戒為緣，方便棄捨，不作饒益，是名有犯有所違越，是染違犯。若由嬾惰懈怠棄捨，由忘念故，不作饒益，是名有犯有所違越，非染違犯。何以故？非諸菩薩於淨持戒身語意業寂靜現行諸有情所，起憐愍心，欲作饒益，如於暴惡犯戒有情，於諸苦因而現轉者。無違犯者，謂心狂亂，或欲方便調彼伏彼，廣說如前。或為將護多有情心，或護僧制，方便棄捨，不作饒益，皆無違犯。」 > Seeing a violation and not instructing them to repent violates the principle of mutual benefit. A śrāvaka protecting oneself is not even permitted to do so, how much less a great being? According to the literal wording, it seems to fall under the precepts of benefiting sentient beings: towards those with faults, harboring intimacy within, with an exalted resolve (adhyāśaya) for benefit and comfort, taming, reprimanding, punishing, and expelling them in order to make them emerge from unwholesome states and establish them in wholesome states. However, a bodhisattva teaching and transforming sentient beings is itself the fulfillment of the Buddha-dharmas; therefore, this precept is also proscribed under the precepts that gather wholesome dharmas. It is also contained within accurately and clearly knowing one's own transgressions and deeply perceiving faults. Although self and other are distinct, perceiving faults and repenting to eliminate them are the same, hence it is proscribed in both Mahāyāna and the Śrāvakayāna. The two monastic assemblies fully commit it, and logically it also extends to the remaining three assemblies and the householders. 'The eight precepts and the five precepts' are householder precepts. 'The ten precepts' are the ten precepts of a śrāmaṇera. 'Breaking the prohibitions' refers to the precepts of bhikṣus and bhikṣuṇīs. Alternatively, the ten precepts refer to the ten parājika offenses, and breaking the prohibitions refers to the forty-eight duṣkṛta offenses. 'The seven ānantarya sins' are as explained below. As for 'the eight difficulties': some say these are the eight parājika offenses, while others say they are the eight difficulties of the three destinies and so forth. Because offenses incur the eight difficulties, the effect is spoken of in terms of the cause. We now maintain that among the thirteen difficulties, excluding the dual-gendered, the neuter, animals, non-humans, and those who disrupted the two paths, the remainder are called the eight difficulties. The four including the dual-gendered are retribution obstacles (vipākāvaraṇa) and do not have the meaning of being eliminated through repentance. As for those who disrupted the two paths, because they were in a different path and then re-entered the Buddha-Dharma, they lack the condition of dwelling together and sharing requisites. Therefore, these five do not enter into the count of instructing repentance. The seventh precept among the forty-four states: 'If a bodhisattva, towards cruel, evil, and precept-violating sentient beings, harbors a mind of resentment, harbors a mind of anger and annoyance, and taking their cruelty, evil, and precept-violation as a condition, expedites abandoning them without benefiting them, this is called an offense and a transgression; it is a defiled transgression. If, out of laziness and negligence, one abandons them, or due to mindfulness being lost one does not benefit them, this is called an offense and a transgression; it is a non-defiled transgression. Why is this? Bodhisattvas do not generate compassion and the desire to benefit those sentient beings whose physical, verbal, and mental karma is pure, keeps the precepts, and functions in tranquility, in the same way they do towards cruel, evil, and precept-violating sentient beings who are presently operating in causes of suffering. Regarding non-offenses: if one's mind is deranged, or if one wishes skillfully to tame and subdue them—explained in full as before; or in order to safeguard the minds of many sentient beings, or to safeguard the regulations of the Saṃgha, one skillfully abandons them and does not benefit them—in all such cases there is no offense.'" > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1814.2.17) - [Next: 2.19](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1814.2.19) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1814.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1814~en-mt.2.18) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [瑜伽師地論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.yogacara.yogacarabhumi*zh-xuanzang.41.11) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1814.2.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1814.2.18) · Pramāṇa