俱舍論記 14.19

14.19

「然此三種至便非近事等」者，釋不相違。然三不殺等，於一心中互不相違，同一剎那俱時而轉，非由受後勤策、苾芻律儀捨前近事、勤策律儀，非捨緣故。勿捨苾芻戒便非勤策，勿捨勤策戒便非近事。以雖捨後可名前故，故知身中具有三戒。雖一身中或具二戒、或具三戒，後戒勝故，從勝立名。問：不受前戒得後戒不？答：如《婆沙》一百二十四云「問：若先不受近事律儀便受勤策律儀，得勤策律儀不？有說不得，以近事律儀與此律儀為門、為依、為加行故。有說不定，若不了知先受近事律儀、後方得勤策律儀，信戒師故，受此律儀彼得律儀，戒師得罪。若彼解了先受近事律儀後受勤策律儀是正儀式，但憍慢故不欲受學近事律儀，作如是言：『何用受此近事劣戒。』彼憍慢纏心，雖受不得。如說不受近事律儀而受勤策律儀，如是不受勤策律儀而受苾芻律儀，廣說亦爾。」問：若從後戒却受前戒，為得戒不？答如《正理》三十六云「若有勤策受近事律儀，或有苾芻受前二種戒，為受得不？有作是言：此不應責。若先已有，無更受得理，先已得故。若先未有則非勤策亦非苾芻，以先不受近事律儀，必無受得勤策戒理。若先不受勤策律儀，亦無受得苾芻戒理，是即不可立彼二名。以此推尋，受應不得。有餘師說：不受前律儀，亦有即能受得後戒理。故持律者作是誦言：雖於先時不受勤策戒，而今但受具足律儀者，亦名善受具足律儀。由此勤策容有受得近事律儀，苾芻容有受得勤策、近事戒理。豈不勤策不應自稱唯願證知我是近事。苾芻亦爾，不應自稱唯願證知我是前二。非離如是自稱號言有得近事、勤策戒理。此難非理，俱可稱故。謂可稱言我是勤策亦是近事，唯願證知。苾芻亦應如應而說。然就勝戒顯彼二名，亦無有失。若爾，勤策及苾芻等亦應受得近住律儀。如得近事，許亦何過？然由下劣，無欣受者。

"However, these three kinds [...] does not thereby fail to be an upāsaka, and so forth" explains that they do not conflict. The three [disciplines of] non-killing and so forth do not conflict with one another in a single mental continuum; they operate simultaneously at the exact same moment. It is not because one receives the later śrāmaṇera or bhikṣu discipline that one abandons the earlier upāsaka or śrāmaṇera discipline, for that is not a condition for abandoning them. It is not the case that in abandoning the bhikṣu precepts one ceases to be a śrāmaṇera, nor that in abandoning the śrāmaṇera precepts one ceases to be an upāsaka. Since even when abandoning the later one can still be designated by the earlier, one knows that one possesses all three disciplines within one's person. Although two or three disciplines may be present in a single person, because the later discipline is superior, one receives one's designation from the superior one. Question: If one has not received the earlier precepts, does one obtain the later precepts? Answer: As the Vibhāṣā, fascicle 124, states: "Question: If one receives the śrāmaṇera discipline without having previously received the upāsaka discipline, does one obtain the śrāmaṇera discipline? Some say one does not, because the upāsaka discipline serves as the doorway, the basis, and the preparatory application for this [śrāmaṇera] discipline. Some say it is indefinite: if, out of ignorance that one must first receive the upāsaka discipline and only then can one obtain the śrāmaṇera discipline, one receives this discipline trusting the precept-master, he obtains the discipline, while the precept-master incurs an offence. If he understands that receiving the upāsaka discipline first and then the śrāmaṇera discipline is the proper ritual procedure, but out of arrogance does not wish to receive and train in the upāsaka discipline, saying: 'What use is receiving these inferior upāsaka precepts?,' his mind being bound by arrogance, he does not obtain them even though he undergoes the ritual. Just as it is said of receiving the śrāmaṇera discipline without receiving the upāsaka discipline, so too it is extensively explained for receiving the bhikṣu discipline without receiving the śrāmaṇera discipline." Question: If one has taken a later precept and turns back to receive an earlier precept, does one obtain the precept? Answer: As the Nyāyānusāra, fascicle 36, states: "If a śrāmaṇera receives the upāsaka discipline, or a bhikṣu receives the previous two kinds of precepts, do they obtain them upon receiving them? Some say: This should not be questioned. If one already possessed them previously, there is no principle by which one would obtain them anew, since they were already obtained before. If one did not possess them previously, then one would be neither a śrāmaṇera nor a bhikṣu, because if one has not previously received the upāsaka discipline, there is certainly no principle by which one could obtain the śrāmaṇera discipline; and if one has not previously received the śrāmaṇera discipline, there is likewise no principle by which one could obtain the bhikṣu discipline—thus neither designation could be established. Inferring in this way, one should not obtain them upon reception. Other masters say: Even without receiving the previous discipline, there is also the principle that one can immediately obtain the later discipline. Therefore, the vinaya-holders recite: 'Although he previously did not receive the śrāmaṇera precepts, now merely receiving the complete discipline, he is also called one who has well received the complete discipline.' Hence, it is possible for a śrāmaṇera to receive and obtain the upāsaka discipline, and there is the principle that a bhikṣu may receive and obtain the śrāmaṇera and upāsaka disciplines. [Objection:] Would not a śrāmaṇera be inappropriate to declare of himself: 'May you bear witness that I am an upāsaka'? A bhikṣu likewise would be inappropriate to declare of himself: 'May you bear witness that I am the preceding two.' For apart from such an self-declaration, there is no principle by which one obtains the upāsaka or śrāmaṇera discipline. [Response:] This objection is unreasonable, because both can be declared; that is, he can declare: 'I am a śrāmaṇera and also an upāsaka; may you bear witness.' The bhikṣu should likewise speak appropriately. However, it is also no fault to designate him with those two names with respect to the superior discipline. If so, a śrāmaṇera or a bhikṣu should also be able to receive and obtain the upavāsa discipline. If they obtain it as they would the upāsaka [discipline], what fault would there be in accepting this? Yet because it is inferior, no one aspires to receive it."