俱舍論疏 15.78

15.78

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.