梵網經古迹記 2.44

2.44

述曰：第二、別誦。此初十戒各二門說：一、顯制意，二、釋經文。初制意者，世間所畏死苦為窮，損他之中無過奪命。如《智論》云：設滿世界寶，無有直身命。是則菩薩濟物為心而施極怖，便失其性。如《瑜伽》云：若問菩薩以何為體？應正答云：大悲為體。由此最初制斯戒也。猶如聲聞出苦為先，初制欲貪最為重戒。第二釋、文者，經有四門：一、違犯相門，二、違犯性門，三、境界事門，四、結成罪門。初者，如經「若自殺」至「呪殺」，此即違犯差別相故。違犯性者，如經「殺業」至「殺緣」故，謂具五支必成犯故。此中「殺業」即究竟也，「殺法」方便，「殺因」意樂及煩惱也，「殺緣」事也。依此有說，不成業道，不入犯重。如《瑜伽》說：「菩薩若見欲作重罪，發心思惟：我若斷彼惡眾生命，當墮地獄；如其不斷，彼罪業成，當受大苦。我寧殺彼墮那落迦，終不令其受無間苦。如是於彼，或以善心、或無記心，知此事已，為當來故深生慚愧，以憐愍心而斷彼命。由此因緣，於菩薩戒無所違犯，生多功德。此闕煩惱，故無違犯；意樂善故，生多功德。」今解不然，不成業道，亦成犯故。如諸有命皆犯重處，雖想顛倒而犯重故，況隨分戒隨位制別。如《文殊問經》說此戒云：「若受出世間菩薩戒，而不起慈悲心，是菩薩波羅夷罪。」於諸犯處，《論》除三人，謂心狂亂、重苦、無戒。傳說亦應除無憶念及有勝利。轉生不能憶，雖作無犯故。諸有勝利處，一切無犯故。言境界事門者，如經「乃至一切有命者不得故殺」。故聲聞戒中唯取殺人，今不簡趣，故言「乃至」。彼隨事重，今約理制。如《涅槃經》佛告阿闍世王言：大王！汝王宮中常勅屠羊，心初無懼，云何於父獨生懼心？雖復人獸尊卑差別，寶命重死二俱無異，若中彼壽盡剎那殺，如何得罪？《文殊問經》說得同罪，以加彼苦緣具足故，廣如彼說。違教之罪輕重雖同，隨心境等業有輕重，如論廣說。問：自品煩惱勢力應等，何故《善生》云貪殺生輕、瞋次、癡重？答：麁細雖等所違有異，違於出離大乘正理。如其次第貪等為重，經約相通且癡為重。結成罪門者，如經「是菩薩」至「波羅夷罪」，以對正行翻結罪故。「常住慈悲心」者，下緣群生傷愍心也。有情法爾種性繫屬，屬我之類由我沒故。「孝順心」者，上緣勝品慚愧心也。以諸菩薩為度於我無量劫受大苦行故，菩薩應起如是二心，而快恣心殺生犯重。律云：聲聞人作人想，得波羅夷；非人人想，但偷蘭遮。菩薩不爾，但於有命故意殺生，皆波羅夷。「波羅夷」者，此云他勝處。善自惡他，惡法所勝，戒是持犯，所依名處。此文略意，謂彼彼相差別犯中，以五緣犯，翻正得罪。餘諸戒文，準此應釋。此中諸戒，依主為名。

The commentary states: Second, the individual recitation. These first ten precepts are each explained through two headings: first, clarifying the intention behind the enactment; second, explaining the text of the sūtra. Regarding the first, the intention behind the enactment: among what worldly beings fear, the suffering of death is the ultimate; among harms to others, none exceeds taking life. As the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa states: "Even if the world were filled with jewels, none would match the value of a physical life." This being so, for a bodhisattva whose fundamental intention is to rescue sentient beings to inflict the ultimate terror would cause them to lose their very nature. As the Yogācārabhūmi states: "If one asks what constitutes the essence of a bodhisattva, the correct reply should be: great compassion is the essence." It is for this reason that this precept was enacted first. Just as for the śrāvaka escaping suffering comes first and thus sensual desire was first enacted as the gravest precept. Regarding the second, explaining the text: the sūtra has four headings: 1. the heading of aspects of violation, 2. the heading of the nature of the violation, 3. the heading of the objective basis, and 4. the heading of determining the offense. As for the first: the text from "if a disciple of the Buddha kills by himself" up to "kills by incantation" constitutes the distinct aspects of violation. As for the nature of the violation: it is indicated by the text from "the karma of killing" up to "the conditions for killing," meaning that having all five limbs necessarily constitutes a violation. Herein, "the karma of killing" is the culmination; "the method of killing" is the preparatory effort; "the cause of killing" is the motivation and affliction; "the conditions for killing" is the objective matter. Relying on this, some say that if it does not constitute a karmic path, it does not enter into a major offense. As the Yogācārabhūmi states: "If a bodhisattva sees [someone] about to commit a grave crime, he generates the thought and reflects: 'If I sever the life of that evil sentient being, I will fall into hell; but if I do not sever it, his sinful karma will be completed and he will undergo great suffering. I would rather kill him and fall into Naraka than ever let him undergo uninterrupted suffering.' Thus toward him, either with a wholesome mind or with an indeterminate mind, having understood this matter, for the sake of the future he deeply engenders shame and conscience, and with a mind of pity severs his life. Because of this cause and condition, regarding the bodhisattva precepts there is no violation, and much merit is produced. Because this lacks affliction, there is no violation; because the motivation is wholesome, much merit is produced." I now explain that this is not so; even if it does not constitute a karmic path, it still constitutes a violation. Just as in cases where killing any living being constitutes a major offense, even with inverted perception it constitutes a major offense; how much more so since precepts of specific portions have different enactments according to spiritual stage! As the Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā-sūtra says regarding this precept: "If one has received the supramundane bodhisattva precepts and fails to give rise to a mind of loving-kindness and compassion, this is a bodhisattva pārājika offense." In matters of violation, the treatise excepts three persons: namely, the mentally deranged, those in severe pain, and those without precepts. Tradition says that one should also except those without recollection and those with superior benefit. In a subsequent rebirth, one cannot recollect; hence even if committed, there is no violation. Wherever there is superior benefit, in all such cases there is no violation. Regarding the heading of the objective basis: as the sūtra says, "up to and including all living beings, one must not intentionally kill." Thus, while in the śrāvaka precepts only killing human beings is included, here there is no distinction of destiny, hence it says "up to and including." While the former follows the gravity of the matter, the present [ruling] is enacted according to principle. As the Nirvāṇa-sūtra relates, the Buddha told King Ajātaśatru: "Great King! In your royal palace you constantly ordered the slaughter of sheep and initially felt no fear in your mind; why do you now give rise to fear only toward your father? Although there is a distinction of noble and base between humans and beasts, in treasuring life and dreading death both are no different. If, at the moment when his lifespan was exhausted, he was killed, how could that incur an offense?" The Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā-sūtra states that one incurs an equal offense because the conditions for inflicting suffering on him are fully present, as explained there at length. Although the offenses of transgressing the teaching are identical in gravity, the karma varies in lightness and gravity according to mind, object, and so on, as explained at length in the treatises. Question: The strength of the afflictions in their own categories should be equal; why then does the Upāsakaśīla-sūtra say that killing out of greed is light, out of anger is intermediate, and out of delusion is heavy? Answer: Although coarse and subtle are equal, that which is transgressed differs: it is a transgression against the correct principle of the Great Vehicle of departure [from saṃsāra]. Respectively, greed and the others are heavy; the sūtra speaks in terms of general characteristics and temporarily considers delusion to be heavy. Regarding the heading of determining the offense: the text from "this bodhisattva" up to "pārājika offense" determines the offense in contrast to correct practice. "Constantly abiding in a mind of loving-kindness and compassion" refers to a sympathetic mind directed downward toward sentient beings. By the nature of things, sentient beings are bound by lineage; because those belonging to my class perish on account of me. "A mind of filial compliance" refers to a mind of shame and conscience directed upward toward superior classes. Because bodhisattvas undergo great austerities for immeasurable kalpas in order to save me, a bodhisattva should give rise to these two minds; but by killing living beings with a self-indulgent mind, one commits a major offense. The vinaya states: "If a śrāvaka has the perception of a human being [and kills], he incurs a pārājika; if he has the perception of a non-human, it is only a sthūlātyaya." The bodhisattva is not like this: merely intentionally killing any living being is in all cases a pārājika. "Pārājika" is translated here as "basis of defeat by others." Wholesomeness is the self, evil is the other; being conquered by evil dharmas, the precept being upholding and violation, the basis is called "basis." The general meaning of this text is that, among the violations of those various differing aspects, through the five conditions of violation, one incurs an offense by reversing the correct. The rest of the texts on the precepts should be explained in accordance with this. Herein, these precepts take their names through the relation of dependent determinative compound.