梵網經古迹記 2.68

2.68

述曰：初制意者，眾生不喜見，無過瞋恚也。故唯不善，必招苦果。菩薩誓捨二乘涅槃，但以憐愍有情界故，瞋障大悲為根本重。「如世尊說：是諸菩薩多分應與瞋所起犯，非貪所起。」《論》釋此中所說密意，「謂諸菩薩愛諸有情增上力故，凡有所作，一切皆是菩薩所作，非作所作可得成犯。若諸菩薩憎諸有情、嫉諸有情，不能修行自他利行，作諸菩薩所不應作，作不應作可得成犯。」解云：貪實亦犯，故云密意。非謂犯瞋實破一切，勿菩薩有無餘犯故。但舉麁顯相，示深無餘義。上品邪見遍謗一切，爾時如何殘有餘戒？爾時唯犯一波羅夷，然必引生不同分心。第二釋文，犯相犯性如前應知。言「而菩薩」至「常生悲心」者，勸他令生無瞋善根，自亦應常生大悲心，謂對惡人便作三念：一、念彼人心性本淨，醉無明酒、著煩惱鬼，不獲己有，此所作耳；二、念本願我為眾生誓證菩提，生死大苦尚不生畏，況此小苦應不忍受；三、念彼恩必由惱害乃成忍行，彼即成滿我菩提因，何乃背恩反生瞋害？言「以惡口罵辱」至「猶瞋不解者」，如其次第，語、身、意業雖具三業，今取意罪以所等起，顯瞋重故。此意地罪決定時結，由此決定不受悔故，雖非眾生不來懺謝，瞋不應諫猶成重罪。有說：據實唯有情邊，以輕況重。言非眾生，百法何攝？即忿為體。如《瑜伽》云：「長養如是種類忿纏，不唯發起麁言便息，由瞋蔽故加以手打，懷忿意樂他來諫謝，不受、不忍、不捨怨結，名他勝處。」

The commentary states: Regarding the intention behind the original prohibition: among things that sentient beings dislike seeing, none exceeds anger and wrath. Hence it is exclusively non-virtuous and inevitably incurs bitter retribution. Bodhisattvas vow to abandon the nirvāṇa of the two vehicles solely out of pity for the realm of sentient beings; therefore, anger obstructs great compassion and is a fundamental major [offense]. "As the World-Honoured One said: 'These bodhisattvas are mostly liable to offenses arising from anger, not those arising from greed.'" The treatise explains the esoteric meaning spoken here: "Because of the superior power of bodhisattvas' love for sentient beings, whatever they do is entirely the deed of a bodhisattva; what is done as what ought to be done cannot constitute an offense. But if bodhisattvas hate sentient beings and are jealous of sentient beings, they cannot cultivate the practice of benefiting self and other; they do what bodhisattvas should not do, and doing what ought not to be done can constitute an offense." The explanation says: greed also actually constitutes an offense; hence it is called an esoteric meaning. It does not mean that committing anger actually destroys everything, lest the bodhisattva have an offense of the unpardonable class without remainder. It merely raises a coarse, evident characteristic to show the profound meaning of having no remainder. When top-grade wrong views comprehensively defame everything, how could there remain any remnant precepts at that time? At that time, only one pārājika is committed, yet it must give rise to a dissimilar-category mind. Second, explaining the text: the characteristics of the offense and the nature of the offense should be understood as before. As for the words "Yet a bodhisattva..." down to "...should constantly give rise to a mind of compassion": this encourages others to give rise to the wholesome root of non-anger, and oneself should also constantly give rise to a mind of great compassion, meaning that when facing an evil person, one should form three thoughts: First, reflect that the mental nature of that person is fundamentally pure; drunk on the wine of ignorance and possessed by the ghost of afflictions, they are not master of themselves, and this is merely what was done. Second, reflect on one's original vow: 'I have vowed to realize bodhi for the sake of sentient beings; if I do not even fear the great suffering of birth and death, how could I not endure such small suffering?' Third, reflect on their kindness: 'It is necessarily through their harassment and injury that the practice of patience is perfected; they are thus fulfilling the cause of my bodhi. How could I turn my back on their kindness and instead give rise to anger and harm?' As for the words "abusing with harsh speech..." down to "...yet remains angry and will not relent": in order, these are vocal, bodily, and mental karma; although all three karmas are present, here the mental offense is taken based on its equal rising, to reveal the gravity of anger. This offense of the mental ground is contracted when it is determined; because of this determination not to accept repentance, even if it is not that a sentient being does not come to confess and apologize, if one's anger cannot be advised against, it still constitutes a major offense. Some say: in reality, it is solely with respect to sentient beings; the light is used to illustrate the heavy. If it is said not to be a sentient being, under what among the hundred dharmas is it subsumed? It is resentment itself as its essence. As the Yogācārabhūmi states: "Nurturing such varieties of the entanglement of resentment, not only ceasing upon uttering coarse words, but being blinded by anger one adds blows with the hand; harboring an intention of resentment, when the other comes to advise and apologize, not accepting, not enduring, and not relinquishing the knot of enmity—this is called a defeat (pārājika)."