成唯識論了義燈 2.99

2.99

答有二解：一犯重不失戒，如《十輪經》等。若爾，何故律云：如斷人頭折石等？答：然准《瑜伽》解，菩薩戒增上品纏犯，方始捨戒，中、下不捨。《大論》前據上品，《十輪》據中、下。故《涅槃經》云：我諸弟子，言犯重捨戒，不解我意。又諸弟子，言犯重不失戒，亦不解我意。必若實捨言，捨解佛意，若實不捨言，不捨解佛意，既言並不解我意，故知言捨約上品心，不捨約下中犯，故一向言捨不捨者，不解佛意。

The answer is that there are two explanations. First, committing a grave offense does not cause the loss of the precepts, as in the Daśacakra-sūtra and others. If so, why does the Vinaya say: 'Like cutting off a person's head, breaking a stone,' and so on? Answer: According to the explanation in the Yogācārabhūmi, in the case of the bodhisattva precepts, only when an offense is committed through an intensified superior-grade entanglement (paryavasthāna) does one begin to relinquish the precepts; with intermediate or inferior [entanglement], they are not relinquished. The earlier [statement in] the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa was based on the superior grade, whereas the Daśacakra[-sūtra] was based on the intermediate and inferior. Therefore, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Those disciples of mine who say that committing a grave offense relinquishes the precepts do not understand my intention. And those disciples who say that committing a grave offense does not lose the precepts also do not understand my intention.' If it were indeed truly relinquished, stating that it is relinquished would understand the Buddha's intention; if it were truly not relinquished, stating that it is not relinquished would understand the Buddha's intention. Since it says that both do not understand my intention, we know that speaking of relinquishment refers to a mind of the superior grade, and not relinquishing refers to offenses of the inferior and intermediate grades. Therefore, those who unequivocally state that they are relinquished or not relinquished do not understand the Buddha's intention.