俱舍論頌疏論本 15.23

15.23

今略敘兩宗，經部宗所以言犯重捨戒者，以世尊言：「若犯重者，非釋迦子，害沙門性，破苾芻體，壞滅墮落，立他勝名（波羅陀夷，此云他勝，惡法名他，他來勝己也）。」世尊既言非釋迦子等，明知捨戒也。有宗通云：「此經中言非苾芻者，謂非勝義苾芻，勝義苾芻是諸聖人，由犯重故不成聖果，故言非苾芻。」又經部引律明四苾芻：一名相似苾芻（謂俗人假名苾芻也）、二自稱苾芻（謂犯重自稱苾芻也）、三乞丐苾芻（謂出家人以乞自活）、四破惑苾芻（謂聖人也）。律文既說犯重非是苾芻，名自稱苾芻，故知捨戒也。又有宗引經證不捨戒，如世尊說：「純陀當知，沙門有四，更無第五。所言四者：一勝道沙門（謂佛獨覺，自然覺故）、二示道沙門（謂舍利弗，說法示道故也）、三命道沙門（阿難以戒定慧為命故也）、四污道沙門（犯重比丘也。律云摩訶羅，謂老比丘喜盜他物也）。」此經既說犯重名污道，仍號沙門，明知有戒。經部通云：相似沙門，名為沙門，非有戒體名沙門也。詳論主意，經部為正。故論主調有宗言：「若如是人猶有苾芻性，應自歸敬禮如是類苾芻。」前法密宗，論主破云：「正法滅時，雖無一切結界羯磨及毘奈耶，未得律儀，無新得理，而先得者亦無捨義。」

Now briefly outlining the two schools: the reason the Sautrāntika school says committing a major offense relinquishes the vows is that the World-Honoured One said: 'If one commits a major offense, one is not a son of the Śākya, one destroys the state of a recluse (śramaṇatva), breaks the essence of a monk, is ruined and falls, and is termed defeated (pārājika: here translated as "defeat by another"; bad dharmas are called "other"; the other comes and defeats oneself).' Since the World-Honoured One said 'not a son of the Śākya' and so forth, it is clearly known that one relinquishes the vows. The Sarvāstivāda resolves this: 'In this sūtra, saying "not a monk" means not an ultimate-truth monk; ultimate-truth monks are the noble ones; because of committing a major offense, one does not accomplish the noble fruit, hence it is said "not a monk".' Furthermore, the Sautrāntika cites the Vinaya explaining four [types of] monks: first, a nominal monk (that is, a layperson conventionally called a monk); second, a self-proclaimed monk (that is, one who committed a major offense and proclaims oneself a monk); third, a mendicant monk (that is, a renunciant who sustains oneself by begging); fourth, a monk who has broken defilements (that is, a noble one). Since the Vinaya text says that one who commits a major offense is not a [real] monk and is called a self-proclaimed monk, it is known that one relinquishes the vows. Furthermore, the Sarvāstivāda cites a sūtra to prove that one does not relinquish the vows, as the World-Honoured One said: 'Cunda, you should know that there are four kinds of recluses and no fifth. The four are: 1. the recluse who has conquered the path (meaning the Buddha and pratyekabuddhas, because they are self-awakened); 2. the recluse who points out the path (meaning Śāriputra, because he teaches the Dharma and reveals the path); 3. the recluse who lives the path (Ānanda, because he takes śīla, samādhi, and prajñā as life); 4. the recluse who corrupts the path (a monk who has committed a major offense; the Vinaya calls them mahalla, meaning an old monk who likes to steal others' goods).' Since this sūtra states that one who commits a major offense is called corrupting the path yet still designated a recluse, it is clearly known that one possesses the vows. The Sautrāntika resolves this: a nominal recluse is called a recluse, not that possessing the essence of vows is called a recluse. Examining the intention of the author of the treatise, the Sautrāntika is correct. Therefore, the author of the treatise mocks the Sarvāstivāda, saying: 'If such a person still possessed the nature of a monk, one ought to take refuge in, revere, and pay homage to such a monk.' Against the earlier Dharmaguptaka school, the author of the treatise refutes: 'When the True Dharma disappears, although there are no boundaries, formal acts, and Vinaya at all, so that for those who have not yet obtained vows there is no reason for newly obtaining them, nonetheless for those who have previously obtained them, there is also no sense of relinquishment.'