[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [俱舍論記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821) › 15.61 # 俱舍論記 15.61 俱舍論記 15.61 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [15.61](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.15.61) 「迦濕彌羅國至但名富人」者，釋後兩句破經部師。犯彼根本四重罪時不捨出家戒。所以然者？以理而言，於四重中非犯一邊，一切律儀應遍捨故。此顯犯重非捨戒體，引犯餘罪非捨戒故。云非犯所餘僧殘等罪有斷戒體，以犯餘罪可悔除故還作好人，明知戒體犯時不捨。此既不捨戒，犯重亦應然。同犯戒故同名犯戒，一即失戒、一不失戒，理相違故。然犯重人有二種名：一名持戒、二名犯戒。喻況可知。若於所犯發露悔除無覆藏心，如禪難提，唯名持戒。喻亦可知。故《正理》云「非犯隨一根本罪時，一切律儀有皆捨義。然犯重者有二種名：一名具尸羅、二名犯戒者。若於所犯應可悔除，發露悔除唯名具戒，如有財者負他債時名為富人及負債者，若還債已但名富人。此亦應然，故非捨戒。」又《婆沙》一百十九云「迦濕彌羅國諸論師言：彼犯律儀時不捨律儀，而得非律儀非不律儀，是故爾時名住非律儀非不律儀，亦名住律儀者。若時發露無覆藏心如法悔除，便捨非律儀非不律儀，但名住律儀者。如有富者負他債時名負債者亦名富者，後還債已但名富者。若如是說便為善通發露悔過還住律儀，作法悔除亦非無用（解云：此論、《正理》唯約犯重不捨戒，《婆沙》通說但犯戒者皆不捨戒）。」 > "The masters of Kaśmīra \[hold that even when committing the four grave offenses\] up to \[he is only called a rich man\]": This explains the last two lines, refuting the Sautrāntika masters. When one commits those four fundamental grave offenses, one does not abandon the renounced vows. Why is this? Reasoned from logic, if one does not commit one part among the four graves, all vows should not be completely abandoned. This demonstrates that committing a grave offense does not mean abandoning the essence of the vows, citing that committing other offenses does not cause the abandonment of the vows. It means that committing the remaining saṃghāvaśeṣa and other offenses does not sever the essence of the vows; because other offenses can be removed through confession so that one becomes a good person again, one clearly knows that the essence of the vows is not abandoned at the time of the offense. Since these do not involve abandoning the vows, committing a grave offense should also be like this. Because both involve transgressing the precepts, both are equally called 'transgressors of precepts'; if one loses the vows while the other does not lose the vows, this would be logically contradictory. However, a person who commits a grave offense has two designations: first, he is called an observer of precepts; second, he is called a transgressor of precepts. The metaphor is self-evident. If one confesses and removes the offense committed without a concealed mind, like Śamatha-nandī, he is only called an observer of precepts. The metaphor is also self-evident. Therefore, the \*Nyāyānusāra\* says: 'It is not the case that upon committing any one fundamental offense, all vows are completely abandoned. However, one who commits a grave offense has two designations: first, he is called one possessed of śīla; second, he is called a transgressor of precepts. If regarding the offense committed that can be confessed, he confesses and removes it, he is only called one possessed of precepts. Just as a wealthy person who owes debts to others is called both a rich man and a debtor, but after paying off the debt is only called a rich man, this should also be like that; therefore, he does not abandon the vows.' Moreover, the \*Mahāvibhāṣā\*, fascicle 119, states: 'The masters of Kaśmīra say: When he violates the vows, he does not abandon the vows, but acquires neither-vows-nor-non-vows (naivasaṃvara-nāsaṃvara); therefore, at that time, he is said to abide in neither-vows-nor-non-vows, and is also called one who abides in vows. If at that time he confesses without a concealed mind and repents in accordance with the Dharma, he then abandons neither-vows-nor-non-vows and is called solely one who abides in vows. Just as when a rich man owes debts to others he is called a debtor and also called a rich man, but after paying off the debt is called solely a rich man. If it is explained in this way, then it resolves well how through open confession and repentance one returns to abiding in the vows, and performing the ritual confession is also not useless. (Commentary: This treatise and the \*Nyāyānusāra\* only address not abandoning the vows when committing a grave offense; the \*Mahāvibhāṣā\* speaks generally that anyone who violates precepts does not abandon the vows.)' > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 15.60](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.15.60) - [Next: 15.62](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.15.62) - [Up: 15](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.15) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821~en-mt.15.61) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [俱舍論頌疏論本](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1823.15.22) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.15.61](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.15.61) · Pramāṇa