俱舍論記 15.91

15.91

「有餘師說至依表得故」者，答。前師意說：得不律儀惡阿世耶非永捨故，如停熱鐵，赤滅青生。善、惡二戒應知亦爾，善戒滅、惡戒生。後師意說：由得善戒，捨惡戒故，若不更作無緣令得，以不律儀依表生故，但是處中。准《婆沙》一百十七，前師是健馱邏國諸師，後師是迦濕彌羅國諸大論師。彼論雖無評家，且以後師為正。然《正理論》三十九取前師為正，故彼論云「前說應理。先受戒時，惡阿世耶非永捨故，依前表業惡戒還起。」俱舍師救云：諸師皆說得戒捨。此既得戒，寧容不捨？後不更作，如何更起？故知後說為正。《正理》意違《俱舍》，此乃反害本國諸師。問：此論惡戒捨有三緣，何故《婆沙》捨緣有四？故《婆沙》一百一十七云「諸不律儀由四緣捨：一受別解脫律儀、二得靜慮律儀、三二形生、四捨眾同分。」解云：別解、定戒俱名得戒故，此論合為一種；《婆沙》據定、散不同故分二，開合為異。問：別解與惡戒相翻以立，何故捨緣差別不同？解云：若以別解五緣對惡戒，別解是善，得難、捨易，作法即成，得有故捨。惡戒是惡，得易、捨難，作法不成，無有故捨。別解由求戒心得，以起邪見斷求戒心，不成彼心戒亦隨捨，有斷善捨。惡戒不爾，無斷善捨。問：於惡戒中何故無斷惡捨？解云？求惡戒心是不善惑，斷彼惑時必得定戒。得定戒已必捨惡戒，無有斷彼惑已不得定戒，故無斷惡捨。又解：得戒義當斷惡捨。得善戒時雖復猶成求惡戒心，以不成彼惡戒體故，名為斷惡。斷惡捨雖成求惡戒心，由得善戒故能捨惡戒，名為斷惡捨。斷善捨善，非由惡戒能捨善戒，但由邪見，故心與戒二俱不成。別解有日、夜分齊，故有夜盡捨。惡戒無有日、夜分齊，故無夜盡捨。命終、二形，善、惡俱同，此義可知。總而言之，別解對惡戒，三別二同。若以惡戒三緣對別解脫，惡戒得易捨難，有得戒捨。別解得難捨易，故捨即成，非由惡戒。將作不律儀人，必先捨故。若不先捨，行屠羊等但是處中。命終、二形，同故無妨。總而言之，惡戒對別解，一異二同。問：定戒與惡戒何故捨緣差別不同？解云：若以定戒三緣對惡戒，定戒有易地失，故有易地捨。惡戒命終定捨，非由易地捨，故無易地捨。定戒由退，起惑失彼定故戒亦隨捨，有退捨。惡戒煩惱具成，更無退處，故無退捨。唯命終捨，分同惡戒。若依《正理》，更有離染不同。定戒於離染位由捨退，分有離染捨。惡戒先得定時必已捨故，無離染捨。總而言之，定戒對惡戒，若依此論，二別一同；若依《正理》，一同三別。若以惡戒三緣對定戒，惡戒得善戒故，有得戒捨。定戒必無得惡戒故，得惡戒時定戒先退，退定戒時未得惡戒，故無得惡戒捨。惡戒身中容二形生，有二形捨。定戒身中無二形生，故無二形捨。惡戒命終全捨，定戒命終分捨，唯命終捨分同。總而言之，惡戒對定戒，二別一同。問：道戒與惡戒何故捨緣差別不同？解云：若以道戒三緣對惡戒，道戒有得果、練根及退失故，可有得果捨、練根捨、退失捨。惡戒三義俱無，故無三捨。若以惡戒三緣對道戒，惡戒死時必捨，有命終捨。道戒死已猶成，無命終捨。惡戒有得善戒，有得戒捨。道戒必無得惡戒理，無得惡戒捨。惡戒身中容二形生，有二形捨。道戒身中無二形生，故無二形捨。總而言之，道戒、惡戒展轉相望，三緣各別。

"Other masters say... because it is obtained depending on informative action [vijñapti]", this is the answer. The former master's intention is: when one possesses non-discipline, the evil intention (āśaya) is not permanently abandoned; it is like hot iron, when the red extinguishes the dark green arises. The two precepts, wholesome and unwholesome, should be known to be likewise: when the wholesome precept ceases, the unwholesome precept arises. The latter master's intention is: because by attaining wholesome precepts one abandons unwholesome precepts, if one does not act again, there are no conditions for obtaining it, since non-discipline arises depending on informative action; it is merely intermediate [karma]. According to the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 117, the former masters are the masters of Gandhāra, while the latter masters are the great masters of Kaśmīra. Although that treatise has no evaluator's verdict, for now the latter masters are taken as correct. However, Nyāyānusāra, fascicle 39, takes the former masters as correct, hence that treatise says: "The former explanation is reasonable. When the precept was previously undertaken, the evil intention was not permanently abandoned; therefore, based on the previous informative karma, the unwholesome precept arises again." The Kośa master defends: All masters say that by obtaining precepts one abandons [evil precepts]. Since this person has obtained the precepts, how could he not have abandoned them? If he does not act again later, how could they arise again? Therefore, we know that the latter explanation is correct. The intention of the Nyāyānusāra contradicts the Kośa; this in fact harms the masters of its own country. Question: This treatise has three conditions for abandoning unwholesome precepts; why does the Mahāvibhāṣā have four conditions for abandonment? For the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 117, says: "Non-discipline is abandoned through four conditions: first, receiving the prātimokṣa discipline; second, attaining the dhyāna discipline; third, the arising of two physical genders; fourth, abandoning the generic similarity (nikāya-sabhāga)." Explanation: Both the prātimokṣa and dhyāna precepts are called obtaining precepts; therefore, this treatise combines them into one. The Mahāvibhāṣā divides them into two based on the difference between concentrated and unconcentrated states; it is merely a difference of opening and combining. Question: Prātimokṣa and unwholesome precepts are established as inverses of each other; why are their conditions for abandonment differentiated and not the same? Explanation: If we compare the five conditions of prātimokṣa to unwholesome precepts, prātimokṣa is wholesome, difficult to obtain and easy to abandon, established merely by ritual performance, and abandoned by deliberate renunciation. Unwholesome precepts are evil, easy to obtain and difficult to abandon, not established by ritual performance, and there is no deliberate renunciation. Prātimokṣa is obtained by the mind seeking the precept; by giving rise to wrong views, the mind seeking the precept is severed; when that mind is no longer possessed, the precept is also abandoned accordingly; thus there is abandonment by severing roots of virtue. Unwholesome precepts are not like this; there is no abandonment by severing roots of virtue. Question: Why is there no abandonment by severing evil among unwholesome precepts? Explanation: The mind seeking unwholesome precepts is an unwholesome affliction; when severing that affliction, one necessarily attains dhyāna discipline. Having attained dhyāna discipline, one necessarily abandons unwholesome precepts; there is no case where one severs that affliction without attaining dhyāna discipline; therefore, there is no separate abandonment by severing evil. Another explanation: The meaning of obtaining precepts corresponds to abandonment by severing evil. When one obtains wholesome precepts, although one may still possess the mind seeking unwholesome precepts, because one does not possess the substantial entity of that unwholesome precept, it is called severing evil. Although during abandonment by severing evil one still possesses the mind seeking unwholesome precepts, by obtaining wholesome precepts one is able to abandon unwholesome precepts; this is called abandonment by severing evil. When abandoning virtue by severing roots of virtue, it is not by means of unwholesome precepts that one is able to abandon wholesome precepts, but solely by means of wrong views; thus neither the mind nor the precept is possessed. Prātimokṣa has day and night divisions; therefore, there is abandonment by the end of the night. Unwholesome precepts do not have day and night divisions; therefore, there is no abandonment by the end of the night. End of life and two genders are the same for both wholesome and unwholesome; this meaning is clear. In summary, comparing prātimokṣa to unwholesome precepts, three are different and two are the same. If we compare the three conditions of unwholesome precepts to prātimokṣa, unwholesome precepts are easy to obtain and difficult to abandon, having abandonment by obtaining precepts. Prātimokṣa is difficult to obtain and easy to abandon; therefore, abandonment is accomplished immediately, not by means of unwholesome precepts. A person who is about to become an undisciplined person must first abandon [virtuous precepts]. If he does not abandon them first, practicing sheep-slaughtering and the like is merely intermediate [karma]. End of life and two genders are identical, so there is no obstruction. In summary, unwholesome precepts compared to prātimokṣa have one difference and two similarities. Question: Why are the conditions of abandonment for dhyāna discipline and unwholesome precepts differentiated and not the same? Explanation: If we compare the three conditions of dhyāna discipline to unwholesome precepts, dhyāna discipline involves loss by changing planes; therefore, there is abandonment by changing planes. Unwholesome precepts are definitely abandoned at the end of life, not abandoned by changing planes; therefore, there is no abandonment by changing planes. Through retrogression, dhyāna discipline gives rise to afflictions and loses that concentration, so the precepts are also abandoned accordingly; thus there is abandonment by retrogression. For unwholesome precepts, afflictions are fully present, and there is no further place of retrogression; therefore, there is no abandonment by retrogression. Only abandonment at the end of life is partly identical with unwholesome precepts. If according to the Nyāyānusāra, there is further the difference of detachment: for dhyāna discipline, at the stage of detachment, by abandoning the retrogression portion, there is abandonment by detachment. Since unwholesome precepts must have already been abandoned when concentration was previously obtained, there is no abandonment by detachment. In summary, comparing dhyāna discipline to unwholesome precepts, if according to this treatise, two are different and one is the same; if according to the Nyāyānusāra, one is the same and three are different. If we compare the three conditions of unwholesome precepts to dhyāna discipline: because unwholesome precepts obtain wholesome precepts, there is abandonment by obtaining precepts. For dhyāna discipline, there is definitely no obtaining of unwholesome precepts; when unwholesome precepts are obtained, dhyāna discipline has already retrogressed; when dhyāna discipline retrogresses, unwholesome precepts have not yet been obtained; therefore, there is no abandonment by obtaining unwholesome precepts. In the body with unwholesome precepts, two physical genders may arise; thus there is abandonment by two genders. In the body with dhyāna discipline, two physical genders do not arise; therefore, there is no abandonment by two genders. Unwholesome precepts are completely abandoned at the end of life; dhyāna discipline is partially abandoned at the end of life; only abandonment at the end of life is partly identical. In summary, comparing unwholesome precepts to dhyāna discipline, two are different and one is the same. Question: Why are the conditions of abandonment for pure discipline [anāsrava-saṃvara] and unwholesome precepts differentiated and not the same? Explanation: If we compare the three conditions of pure discipline to unwholesome precepts: because pure discipline has attainment of fruition, training the faculties, and retrogression, it can have abandonment by attaining fruition, abandonment by training faculties, and abandonment by retrogression. Unwholesome precepts lack all three meanings; therefore, they do not have these three abandonments. If we compare the three conditions of unwholesome precepts to pure discipline: unwholesome precepts are definitely abandoned at death; there is abandonment by the end of life. Pure discipline is still possessed after death; there is no abandonment by the end of life. Unwholesome precepts involve obtaining wholesome precepts, so there is abandonment by obtaining precepts. Pure discipline definitely has no principle of obtaining unwholesome precepts, so there is no abandonment by obtaining unwholesome precepts. In the body with unwholesome precepts, two physical genders may arise, so there is abandonment by two genders. In the body with pure discipline, two physical genders do not arise, so there is no abandonment by two genders. In summary, mutually comparing pure discipline and unwholesome precepts, all three conditions are distinct from each other.