俱舍論疏 15.78

15.78

論「由律自釋至是了義說」，經部答也。言「名想」者，身是俗人，名號苾芻，故言名想苾芻。言「自稱」者，是具戒比丘犯重之人，實非苾芻，而自稱言我是苾芻，故言自稱苾芻。言「乞匃」者，出家之人以乞自活，故名乞匃苾芻。言「破惑」者，謂諸聖者，得無漏道真破惑故，故名破惑苾芻。破惑苾芻即勝義苾芻。律既自釋，犯重之人實非苾芻自稱苾芻，明知犯重無有戒體。此義中言非苾芻者，謂非白四羯磨苾芻，非約勝義言非苾芻。若犯重人先是勝義，後由犯重成非勝義，可得說言依勝義說言非苾芻。非犯重人先是勝義，後由犯重成非勝義，何得釋言依勝義苾芻言非苾芻？經言犯重非苾芻者，謂非白四羯磨受具足戒苾芻。勝義苾芻謂得見道已上，此無退故，非為勝義苾芻故敘五偏七聚。五偏七聚者，是白四羯磨苾芻犯重之人。既先是白四羯磨受具足戒，今破此戒名非苾芻，故是非白四羯磨苾芻。非先是勝義今非勝義，如何言就勝義苾芻言非苾芻？故知此經是了義說。

On the text "Because the Vinaya itself explains … it is an explicit teaching": the Sautrāntika answers. "Bhikṣu by nominal designation" means that the person is physically a layperson but has the name and title of a bhikṣu; hence he is called a bhikṣu by nominal designation. "Bhikṣu by self-designation" means a fully ordained monk who has committed a grave offense, who in reality is not a bhikṣu, yet calls himself, saying, "I am a bhikṣu"; hence he is called a bhikṣu by self-designation. "Mendicant bhikṣu" means a renunciant who maintains his livelihood by begging; hence he is named a mendicant bhikṣu. "Affliction-destroying bhikṣu" refers to the noble ones, because having attained the uncontaminated path, they genuinely destroy afflictions; hence they are named affliction-destroying bhikṣus. An affliction-destroying bhikṣu is precisely an ultimate bhikṣu. Since the Vinaya itself explains that one who has committed a grave offense is in reality not a bhikṣu but merely calls himself a bhikṣu, it is clear that one who commits a grave offense has no precept-substance. In this context, "not a bhikṣu" means not a bhikṣu ordained by a motion and three announcements (jñapti-caturtha-karman); it is not spoken with reference to the ultimate sense. If a person who committed a grave offense had previously been an ultimate [bhikṣu] and then, through committing a grave offense, became not an ultimate [bhikṣu], one could say that it was spoken relying on the ultimate sense when saying "he is not a bhikṣu." But a person who commits a grave offense was not previously an ultimate [bhikṣu] and did not become not an ultimate [bhikṣu] through committing a grave offense; how could one interpret that it was spoken relying on the ultimate bhikṣu? When the sūtra states that one who commits a grave offense is not a bhikṣu, it means he is not a bhikṣu who received full ordination through a motion and three announcements. The ultimate bhikṣu refers to those who have attained the path of seeing and above; because these never retrogress, the five divisions and seven classes of offenses were not laid out for the sake of the ultimate bhikṣu. The five divisions and seven classes belong to those who committed a grave offense among bhikṣus ordained through a motion and three announcements. Since he previously received full ordination through a motion and three announcements, and now breaks these precepts and is called "not a bhikṣu," he is therefore not a bhikṣu of motion and three announcements. It is not that he was previously ultimate and is now not ultimate; how could one say it was spoken in reference to an ultimate bhikṣu? Therefore, we know that this sūtra is an explicit teaching.