菩薩戒本疏 1.60

1.60

Explaining the intent of the regulation and the name: A bodhisattva should attribute what is upright to others and take what is crooked upon himself; yet now to turn instead to promoting oneself and humiliating others goes extremely contrary to one's fundamental resolve, hence it is regulated and prohibited. Praising one's own virtues and disparaging others' shortcomings are the faults to be guarded against; taking its name from what is guarded against, it is called the 'precept against praising and disparaging'. Concerning the objective factors in the fulfillment of the offense among the requisite conditions, there are two: first, the person disparaged; second, the matter disparaged. Regarding the person disparaged: one says that if one disparages persons of superior or middling status, it is a grave offense, and disparaging an inferior status is light; this precept concurrently regulates both. Another says: only if persons of superior or middling status possess the bodhisattva precepts is it grave, because the affliction and hindrance are profound; if they lack precepts, and whether an inferior status has precepts or lacks precepts, all are light, because the affliction and hindrance are shallow. The latter explanation should be based on the vinaya division: the vinaya states that only disparaging a senior bhikṣu constitutes a prāyaścittika offense; therefore, one knows that in the Mahāyāna, only disparaging a bodhisattva of the same Dharma constitutes a grave offense. Now I state: the previous precept on speaking of faults specifically designated the four assemblies, whereas this precept on disparaging others generally says 'disparaging others' without specific designation. To make distinctions based on the vinaya is, in principle, likely not so. Regarding the matters disparaged, according to the vinaya there are seven: first, clan of birth; second, lowliness of trade or livelihood; third, lowliness of arts and craftsmanship; fourth, 'you have committed offenses'; fifth, many fetters; sixth, blind person; seventh, bald or one-eyed. Disparaging using any one among these seven matters constitutes a grave offense. Concerning perception: inverted, non-inverted, or doubtful, explained in accordance with the preceding. Concerning desire and pleasure: the wish and pleasure of exalting oneself and depressing the other, desiring to seek gain and respect. Concerning afflictions: among the three poisons, either single, two, or possessing all three. However, the achievement of culmination must depend upon a mind of greed. Thus the Bodhisattvabhūmi says: 'Desiring and coveting gain, offerings, and respect, praising oneself and disparaging others—this is called the first defeat.' Concerning the preparatory stage and culmination: whether doing it oneself or teaching another, when the other person understands the words of praise and disparagement, the offense is thereupon constituted. The vinaya says: there are three kinds of disparagement: first, reviling to the face; second, reviling by metaphor; third, reviling by self-comparison. Reviling to the face means saying, 'You are born into a caṇḍāla family,' and so forth. Reviling by metaphor means, 'You are like the caṇḍāla caste,' and so forth. Reviling by self-comparison means, 'I am not of the caṇḍāla caste,' and so forth. For these three kinds of revilement, if clearly understood, all are prāyaścittika; if not understood, all are duṣkṛta. Based on this, for a bodhisattva, if clearly understood, all are grave; if not understood, all are light. Furthermore, both praise and disparagement must be present before a grave offense is constituted. If disparaging without praising, or praising without disparaging, one commits only a light duṣkṛta offense. Or if one first praises and then disparages, or first disparages and then praises, in both cases one exercises the mind of praise and disparagement, and fulfilling both constitutes the grave offense. If one first praises and then disparages, at the time of praising the preparatory stage is light (sthūlātyaya), and at the time of disparaging the fundamental grave offense is completed. The same applies to first disparaging and then praising. Like the eight matters of a nun: while committing each one, the preparatory stage is a sthūlātyaya; only when the eight matters are complete is the parājika offense constituted. If one solely intends to praise, or solely intends to disparage, although possessing both before and after, they are separately judged as two light offenses and do not constitute a grave offense. Just as taking four coins with discontinuous intention does not constitute a grave offense. Concerning the judgment of gravity: if discussed in terms of the objective sphere, disparaging a noble one, disparaging an ordinary person, disparaging the monastic life, disparaging the secular life, disparaging humans, or disparaging animals—karma follows the preceding objective spheres and is not without differences in gravity. If spoken of in terms of the mind: manifesting it repeatedly, with no shame or remorse at all, deeply delighting in it, and regarding it as a merit—this is the highest grade, which immediately causes the loss of the precepts. Not possessing all four is of the middling or lowest grade; one commits an offense but does not lose [the precepts]. Concerning similarities and differences among the śikṣāpadas: the śrāvaka commits a prāyaścittika, whereas the bodhisattva commits a parājika. According to the Sujātasūtra, for a lay bodhisattva it is not regulated as grave. According to this sūtra, because there is no specific distinction, it is grave for all seven assemblies. In the text, 'himself praising and disparaging others with his mouth' means uttering speech from his own mouth, praising his own virtues and disparaging others' shortcomings. 'Also teaching others to praise themselves and disparage others' has two aspects: first, teaching the other person to praise his own achievements and disparage another person's shortcomings; second, teaching the other person to praise my own achievements and disparage another person's shortcomings. Both should constitute an offense. 'Karma of disparaging others' strictly refers only to verbal karma. The text says 'himself praising and disparaging'; therefore bodily indications and mental conditions, being obscure in their aspects of disparagement and praise, are not grave offenses. 'Constantly suffering added insult in place of sentient beings': the bodhisattva forms the mindset of containing defilements like the ocean and enduring humiliation like the earth. However, when the Bodhisattvabhūmi states that not clearing away an evil reputation constitutes an offense, it is to avoid the other person incurring the fault of slander, not meaning that the bodhisattva shifts faults onto others. Question: The bodhisattva himself has no bad deeds, and the other person truly has no good deeds; how can he take on the bad and attribute the good? Answer: This has two meanings: first, when the other person lacks virtue and reviles the bodhisattva, the bodhisattva reflects: 'Just as an arrow hits where there is a target, where there is none, there is nothing hit. Because my body exists, sentient beings give rise to evil; if my body did not exist, it would have no cause to arise. The arising of evil is due to me; the evil lies with me.' This is 'turning bad things toward oneself'. Furthermore, he reflects: 'Because the other person reviles me, I am able to cultivate precepts and guard myself. If not for the other person, by what condition would my goodness arise? The arising of goodness is due to him; the goodness lies with him.' This is 'giving good things to others'. Second, 'that is evil and I am good' is merely my own view. If we speak of the true principle, he and I share the same essence. The bodhisattva should follow the true principle and not follow delusive views. Therefore, he is able to take the bad upon himself and attribute the good to others. 'Causing others to suffer disparagement and insult is a bodhisattva parājika offense' is the statement assigning the name of the offense. The Bodhisattvabhūmi says: 'If bodhisattvas abiding in the pure moral discipline of the bodhisattva, possessing a mind of tainted attachment or a mind of anger toward others, praise themselves and disparage others, this is called an offense, an infringement, a tainted transgression. As for those without transgression: if it is to subdue evil non-Buddhists, or to uphold the noble teaching of the Tathāgata, or if desiring skillfully to tame and subdue them, or desiring to cause those without pure faith to generate pure faith, and those who already have pure faith to redouble and increase it.'