俱舍論記 15.68

15.68

「由律自釋至是了義說」者，經部答。身是俗人，名號苾芻，故言名想苾芻。又解：由白四羯磨得名具足戒等，與此人立苾芻名，故云名想苾芻。名從想生或能生想，故言名想。犯重之人實非苾芻，而自稱言我是苾芻，故言自稱苾芻。又解：作法事時而自稱言苾芻某甲，故言自稱苾芻。前解為勝。出家之人以乞自活，名乞匃苾芻。又解：若道、若俗巡門乞求，皆名乞匃苾芻。諸阿羅漢破惑盡故，名破惑苾芻。又解：一切諸聖得無漏道，真破惑故，名破惑苾芻，即是勝義苾芻。律既自釋犯重之人實非苾芻自稱苾芻，明知犯重無有戒體。文雖引四，正取第二自稱為證，此即以教證也。此經義中言：或此犯重義中言非苾芻者，由失戒故，非是白四羯磨受具足戒苾芻，或非是白四羯磨受具足戒名想苾芻，非約勝義言非苾芻。餘解如前。若此犯重苾芻先是勝義苾芻，後由犯重成非勝義苾芻，可得說言依勝義苾芻言非苾芻。非此犯重苾芻先是勝義苾芻，後由犯重成非勝義苾芻，何得釋言依勝義苾芻言非苾芻？若勝義苾芻定不犯重，若世俗苾芻犯與不犯皆非勝義，何得說言彼犯重已名非勝義？此即以理證也。由斯教、理，故知經言非苾芻者，是了義說。

"Because the Vinaya itself explains [the four bhikṣus] up to [is of definitive meaning]": The Sautrāntika answers. One whose body is a layperson but whose title is bhikṣu is called a 'nominal bhikṣu' (saṃjñā-bhikṣu). Another explanation: By the formal motion and three announcements (jñapti-caturtha-karman) one receives the name of full ordination, etc., and the name bhikṣu is established for this person; hence he is called a nominal bhikṣu. A name arises from conception, or it can produce a conception; hence it is called 'nominal' (name-conception). A person who commits a grave offense is not truly a bhikṣu, yet self-declares 'I am a bhikṣu'; hence he is called a 'self-professed bhikṣu' (pratijñā-bhikṣu). Another explanation: When performing ritual acts, he self-declares 'I, bhikṣu so-and-so'; hence he is called a self-professed bhikṣu. The former explanation is superior. A renunciant sustains his livelihood by begging; this is called a 'begging bhikṣu' (bhikṣaṇa-bhikṣu). Another explanation: Whether monastic or lay, going from door to door begging is called a begging bhikṣu. Arhats, because they have destroyed all afflictions, are called 'affliction-destroying bhikṣus' (bhinna-kleśa-bhikṣu). Another explanation: All noble ones have attained the uncontaminated Path, and because they truly destroy afflictions, they are called affliction-destroying bhikṣus; that is, ultimate bhikṣus. Since the Vinaya itself explains that a person who commits a grave offense is not truly a bhikṣu but a self-professed bhikṣu, it is clear that one who commits a grave offense lacks the essence of the precepts. Although the text cites four types, it specifically takes the second, the self-professed one, as evidence; this is proof based on scripture. In the meaning of this sūtra, it states: Or, in the meaning of this grave offense, to say 'he is not a bhikṣu' means that due to losing the vows, he is not a bhikṣu who received full ordination through the formal motion and three announcements, or he is not a nominal bhikṣu who received full ordination through the formal motion and three announcements; it does not say 'he is not a bhikṣu' in reference to the ultimate sense. The remaining explanations are as before. If this bhikṣu who committed a grave offense had previously been an ultimate bhikṣu and later, by committing a grave offense, became not an ultimate bhikṣu, one could say that 'not a bhikṣu' was spoken based on the ultimate bhikṣu. But this bhikṣu who committed a grave offense was not previously an ultimate bhikṣu who later became not an ultimate bhikṣu by committing a grave offense; how could one interpret that it was spoken based on the ultimate bhikṣu? If an ultimate bhikṣu definitely does not commit a grave offense, and a conventional bhikṣu, whether violating or not violating, is not ultimate, how could one say that having committed a grave offense he is called not ultimate? This is proof based on reasoning. Based on these scriptures and reasons, we know that when the sūtra states 'he is not a bhikṣu', it is a statement of definitive meaning.