俱舍論疏 14.165

14.165

論「又約持犯至乃至廣說」，破有部通經也。《正理論》敘廣牒破已，乃至且經所說我從今時乃至命終捨生等者，何理唯說得證淨人，非諸異生亦立此誓？諸異生類將受律儀？亦有如斯堅固意樂？乃至為救自生命緣？終不虧違所受學處。如斯誓受世現可得。然此文句《大名經》中現有受持，不違正理，故不應捨所誦正文（准此，經部《大名經》無此文，有部大名經有此文）。設《大名經》無此文句，於我宗義亦無所違。非我宗言說此文句究竟方發近事律儀，由說自稱我是近事，憶持護念便發律儀。以自發言表為弟子，如大迦葉得具足戒。世尊既說鄔波索迦應具受持五種學處，彼說我是鄔波索迦，必具律儀，何勞致惑？如稱我是國大軍師，彼必具閑兵將事業。依如是喻，智者應思。又經主言約持犯戒說，乃至具牒《俱舍論》文，此全無理。唯對法宗所說理中應問答故。雖知近事必具律儀，而未了知隨犯一種為越一切？為一非餘？由有此疑，故應請問。諸部若有未見此文，於此義中迄今猶諍（諸部有諍，為犯一時捨一切、為犯一時捨一也）。若異此者，佛經數言鄔波索迦具五學處，誰有於此已善了知，而復懷疑問受多少；設許爾者，疑問相違。謂彼本疑受量多少，而問有幾能學學處。答學一分等，豈除本所疑，故彼義中不應問答。經主於此不正尋思，於諍理中懷朋黨執，翻言對法所說義中問不應問，況應為答。

On the Śāstra's phrase: "Furthermore, it is spoken in terms of observing and violating ... up to ... and so on in detail:" This refutes the Sarvāstivāda's harmonizing of the sūtras. The Nyāyānusāra, having quoted extensively and refuted it, states up to: "Furthermore, regarding what the sūtra says about 'I, from this time forth, until the end of life, relinquishing life, etc.,' by what principle would this be spoken only of one who has attained confirmed clarity, and not of worldlings making this vow as well? When worldlings are about to receive the saṃvara, do they not also have such firm resolve? Even under conditions of saving their own life, they would ultimately not breach or violate the training rules they have received. Receiving such a vow is indeed observable in the world. Moreover, these sentences are presently received and upheld in the Mahānāma-sūtra, and they do not contradict correct reasoning; therefore, one should not discard the correct text that is recited. (According to this, the Sautrāntika's Mahānāma-sūtra lacks this passage, while the Sarvāstivāda's Mahānāma-sūtra possesses this passage.) Even if the Mahānāma-sūtra lacked these sentences, there would still be no contradiction with our school's tenets. Our school does not claim that the upāsaka-saṃvara is generated only upon concluding the recitation of these sentences; rather, by declaring oneself 'I am an upāsaka,' mindful and protective thought immediately generates the saṃvara. Because by uttering words oneself, one expresses being a disciple, just as Mahākāśyapa obtained the full precepts. Since the World-Honoured One said that an upāsaka should fully receive and observe the five training rules, when that person says 'I am an upāsaka,' he must possess the saṃvara; why labor to produce doubt? Just as when someone says 'I am the great military commander of the state,' he must be fully versed in the duties of generals and soldiers. Relying on such an analogy, the wise should contemplate. Furthermore, when the author of the Śāstra says that it is spoken in terms of observing and violating the precepts, and so forth, citing the text of the Abhidharmakośa in full, this is entirely without reason. It is precisely within the reasoning stated by the Abhidharma school that question and answer are warranted. Although one knows that an upāsaka must possess the saṃvara, one does not yet understand whether, in violating any single rule, one breaches all of them, or breaches one and not the others. Because of this doubt, it was appropriate to ask. If various schools have not seen this text, they still dispute over this meaning to this day (the various schools have disputes over whether violating one forfeits all, or violating one forfeits one). If it were otherwise, since the Buddha's sūtras state repeatedly that an upāsaka possesses five training rules, who, having already thoroughly understood this, would still harbor doubt and ask how many one receives? Even if this were conceded, the question and doubt would conflict. That is, they originally doubted the quantity of what is received, yet asked how many training rules one is able to train in; and the answer of 'training in one part, etc.,' how could it dispel the original doubt? Therefore, in that doctrine, question and answer would be inappropriate. The author of the Śāstra did not examine this properly here, but harbored partisan bias in the midst of disputing principles, claiming conversely that in the doctrine stated by the Abhidharma, the question should not have been asked, much less should an answer have been given."