俱舍論疏 14.19

14.19

論「然此三種至便非近事等」，前明緣別戒異，此明不相違故。受後不捨前，「勿捨苾芻戒便非近事等」，反難答也。《婆沙》一百二十四云「問：若先不受近事律儀便受勤策律儀，得勤策律儀不？有說：不得，以近事律儀與此律儀為門、為依、為加行故。有說：不定。若不了知先受近事律儀，後方受得勤策律儀，信戒師故受此律儀，彼得律儀，戒師得罪。若彼解了先受近事律儀，後受勤策律儀是正儀式，但憍慢故不欲受學近事律儀，作如是言：『何用受此近事劣戒？』彼憍慢纏心，雖受不得。如說不受近事律儀而受勤策，如是不受勤策而受苾芻律儀。廣說亦爾。」《正理論》云「若有勤策受近事律儀，或有苾芻受前二種戒，為受得不？有作是言：此不應責。若前已有，無更受得理，先已得故。若前未有，則非勤策亦非苾芻，以先不受近事律儀，必無受得勤策戒理。若先不受勤策律儀，亦無受得苾芻戒理，是則不可立彼二名。以此推尋，受應不得。有餘師說：不受前律儀，亦有即能受得後戒理。故持律者作是誦言：雖於先時不受勤策戒，而今但受具足律儀者，亦名善受具足律儀。由此勤策容有受得近事律儀，苾芻容有受得勤策、近事戒理。豈不勤策不應自稱：唯願證知，我是近事。苾芻亦爾，不應自稱：唯願證知，我是前二。非離如是自稱號言有得近事、勤策戒理。此難非理，俱可稱故。謂可稱言我是勤策亦是近事，唯願證知。苾芻亦應如是而說。然就勝戒顯彼二名，亦無有失。若爾，勤策及苾芻等，亦應受得近住律儀。如得近事，許亦何過？然由下劣無欣受者（解云：前說同婆沙前師，後說同婆沙後師。無評文。詳正理意，取後師義）。」

The treatise says: "Yet these three […] would then not be upāsakas and so forth." The preceding [passage] explained that due to differences in conditions, the moral disciplines differ; this [passage] explains that they are not contradictory. One receives a later [discipline] without renouncing an earlier one, so "lest renouncing the monk's precepts should mean one is no longer an upāsaka and so forth" is an answer framed as a reductio ad absurdum. Fascicle 124 of the Vibhāṣā says: "Question: If one who has not previously received the upāsaka-saṃvara directly receives the śrāmaṇera-saṃvara, does he obtain the śrāmaṇera-saṃvara or not? Some say: He does not obtain it, because the upāsaka-saṃvara serves as the gateway, the support, and the preparatory application (prayoga) for this [śrāmaṇera] saṃvara. Some say: It is not fixed. If he does not know that one must first receive the upāsaka-saṃvara and only afterwards receive and obtain the śrāmaṇera-saṃvara, and out of faith in the precept-master he receives this saṃvara, he obtains the saṃvara, while the precept-master incurs an offense. But if he clearly understands that first receiving the upāsaka-saṃvara and afterwards receiving the śrāmaṇera-saṃvara is the correct procedure, yet out of arrogance does not wish to receive and train in the upāsaka-saṃvara, saying: 'What use is receiving these inferior upāsaka precepts?'—then, with his mind bound by arrogance, even if he undergoes the ritual he does not obtain it. As it is said regarding receiving the śrāmaṇera [discipline] without receiving the upāsaka-saṃvara, so it is with receiving the bhikṣu-saṃvara without receiving the śrāmaṇera [discipline]. The detailed explanation is also like this." The Nyāyānusāra says: "If there is a śrāmaṇera who receives the upāsaka-saṃvara, or a bhikṣu who receives the preceding two sets of precepts, do they obtain them or not? Some make this statement: One should not question this. If they already possess them previously, there is no reason to obtain them again, because they were already obtained before. If they did not possess them previously, then they would be neither a śrāmaṇera nor a bhikṣu, because if one has not previously received the upāsaka-saṃvara, there is definitely no principle by which one can obtain the śrāmaṇera precepts; and if one has not previously received the śrāmaṇera-saṃvara, there is also no principle by which one can obtain the bhikṣu precepts; thus neither designation could be established. Inferring in this way, upon receiving [the earlier ones later] one would not obtain them. Other masters say: Even without receiving the preceding saṃvara, there is indeed a principle whereby one can immediately receive and obtain the subsequent precepts. Therefore, the Vinaya-holders recite: 'Although one did not previously receive the śrāmaṇera precepts, one who now simply receives the complete saṃvara (upasampadā) is also said to have properly received the complete saṃvara.' From this, it is possible for a śrāmaṇera to receive and obtain the upāsaka-saṃvara, and it is possible for a bhikṣu to receive and obtain the śrāmaṇera and upāsaka precepts. [Objection:] Is it not the case that a śrāmaṇera should not declare of himself: 'May you bear witness, I am an upāsaka'? The same holds for a bhikṣu: he should not declare of himself: 'May you bear witness, I am [either of] the preceding two.' For apart from such an act of declaring one's designation, there is no principle for obtaining the upāsaka or śrāmaṇera precepts. [Answer:] This objection is unreasonable, because both can be declared. That is, one may declare: 'I am a śrāmaṇera and also an upāsaka; may you bear witness.' A bhikṣu should also speak in this way. Nevertheless, manifesting those two designations in terms of the superior precepts is also without error. If so, a śrāmaṇera and a bhikṣu and so forth should also receive and obtain the upavāsa-saṃvara. Just as they obtain the upāsaka [discipline], what harm is there in admitting [this]? However, because it is inferior, none desire to receive it. (The commentary explains: The former statement agrees with the earlier master in the Vibhāṣā; the latter statement agrees with the later master in the Vibhāṣā. There is no critical verdict in the text. Examining the intent of the Nyāyānusāra, it adopts the position of the latter master.)"