俱舍論記 15.44

15.44

「論曰至便發惡戒」者，諸不律儀由二因得：一者生在不律儀家，由初現行殺等加行作打縛等，當於爾時便發惡戒。二者雖復生在餘家，由初要期誓受殺等事，謂我當作殺等事業以求財物養活自身，當於爾時便發惡戒。問：何故生在不律儀家不說誓受，生在餘家不言作業？解云：生不律儀家，自少至長家業常見殺等惡事，不須誓受。設自誓受，其心輕慢不發惡戒，要行殺等方得惡戒，不言誓受。生在餘家，將欲作彼不律儀人，必先誓受。自少至長家業不見殺等惡事，初誓心重故發惡戒，後行殺等不重發故，不言作業。問：如《婆沙》一百一十七云「問：如諸律儀要受方得，此不律儀亦如是耶？或有說者，亦由受得。謂手執殺具，誓從今日乃至命終常作此業以自活命，爾時便得此不律儀。復有說者，雖執殺具自立誓言，然彼不得此不律儀，由二緣得：一由作業、二由受事。由作業者，謂生不律儀家，最初作彼殺生等業，爾時便得此不律儀。由受事者，謂生餘家，為活命故懷殺害心，往屠羊等不律儀所作是誓言：我從今者乃至命終，常作汝等所作事業以自活命。爾時便得此不律儀。復有說者，此亦最初作彼業時方乃獲得此不律儀。彼說不律儀，唯一緣得。」《婆沙》三說，初說由誓受，後說由作業，第二說由二種。何者為正？解云：雖無評家，且以第二師為正，諸論皆說由二緣得。問：准《婆沙》誓受往不律儀所，此論何故不說？解云：此論略而不說，或可論意各別。二緣雖同，誓受意別。《正理》文同此論。

Regarding the passage from the treatise stating "...then bad morality arises": non-restraints are obtained through two causes. First, by being born into a family of non-restraint, from the initial actualization of the preparatory application of killing and so forth—performing beating, binding, and so forth—at that very time bad morality arises. Second, even if born into another family, through initially resolving and vowing to undertake matters such as killing—saying, "I shall perform deeds such as killing to seek wealth and sustain my body"—at that very time bad morality arises. Question: Why is it that for one born into a family of non-restraint a vow is not mentioned, and for one born into another family the performance of deeds is not mentioned? The explanation says: For one born into a family of non-restraint, from youth to adulthood they constantly observe evil deeds such as killing as the family trade, so they need not make a vow. Even if they were to vow on their own, their mind being negligent would not produce bad morality; only when they perform killing and so forth do they obtain bad morality, so a vow is not mentioned. For one born into another family, when intending to become a person of non-restraint, they must first make a vow. From youth to adulthood they did not observe evil deeds such as killing as the family trade; because the initial resolving mind is intense, bad morality arises, and since subsequent performance of killing and so forth does not produce it again, the performance of deeds is not mentioned. Question: In the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 117, it says: "Question: Just as restraints are obtained only through undertaking, is this non-restraint also like that? Some say: It is also obtained through undertaking. That is, holding the weapon of slaughter in hand, one vows: 'From this day until the end of my life, I shall constantly perform this work to sustain my life'; at that time one obtains this non-restraint. Others say: Although holding the weapon of slaughter and making a vow oneself, one does not obtain this non-restraint; it is obtained through two conditions: first, by performing deeds; second, by undertaking the matter. By performing deeds means: born into a family of non-restraint, one initially performs that deed of killing and so forth; at that time one obtains this non-restraint. By undertaking the matter means: born into another family, in order to sustain life, harboring an intent to kill, one goes to a person of non-restraint such as a sheep-butcher and makes this vow: 'From now until the end of my life, I shall constantly perform the deeds you perform to sustain my life'; at that time one obtains this non-restraint. Still others say: Only when one initially performs that deed does one obtain this non-restraint. That position holds that non-restraint is obtained through only a single condition." The Mahāvibhāṣā has three positions: the first says through vows; the last says through deeds; the second says through both. Which is correct? The explanation says: Although there is no critical evaluation, the second master's view is taken as correct for now, as all treatises say it is obtained through two conditions. Question: According to the Mahāvibhāṣā, one vows to undertake it by going to a person of non-restraint; why does this treatise not mention that? The explanation says: This treatise abbreviates and does not state it; or perhaps the intents of the treatises differ. Although the two conditions are the same, the intention behind the vow is distinct. The text of the Nyāyānusāra is the same as this treatise.