大乘義章 10.33

10.33

次辨受捨不同之義。先就受戒以明不同。受中有二：一就初受以明不同、二就重受以明不同。初受云何？小乘法中，得戒有二：一者自得、二從他得。自得有三：一自然得、二上法得、三自誓得。言自然者，謂佛一人，於最後身初出家時，自然發得別解脫戒，不從師受，故曰自然。言上法者，或有沙彌及與俗人，修道證得無學聖果，證得如是增上法時，發得出家具足禁戒。從其所依，名上法得。言自誓者，如大迦葉聞佛出世，自誓要期：「佛為我師，我為弟子。」於此言下得發具足，名為自誓。從他得中，差別有四：一者善來。有諸眾生上品利根，佛命善來，於我法中快修梵行得盡苦源，即發具戒。二者三語。所以一切沙彌俗人及佛初出諸比丘等，師教三遍歸依三寶即便得戒。三者八敬，如大愛道比丘尼等，諸比丘僧遙宣敬儀令其奉行，彼聞頂受即發具足。四羯磨得。僧數具足和合作法與受具戒，有五人、十人、二十人等。大乘法中亦有二種：一從他受。唯對一師不藉多人，因力強故。二善淨心受。無如法人可從受時，於佛像前自受而得，此即是其自誓得也。問曰：大乘何故不說自然得戒？釋言：大乘說佛過去為菩薩時，先已成就別解脫戒，非最後身初出家時方始得故。何故不說上法得戒？義同自然。佛先成就，非最後身證上法時方得戒故。何故不說善來得戒？大乘戒廣，具緣三聚無盡之法，要期領納方始得戒。直稱善來，攝戒不具，故闕不論。何故不說三語得戒？義同善來。何故不說八敬得戒？菩薩尊勝，不如尼眾常敬他故。何故不說羯磨得戒？菩薩受戒，唯從一師，不藉多人，不假和合作法與故。亦可菩薩從他受者，即是菩薩羯磨受矣。初受如是。次就重受以明不同。如《地持》說，小乘法中，犯重禁已，遇緣捨戒。後若重受，終不得戒，邊罪難故。菩薩不爾，犯重禁已捨菩薩戒，後若重受，還復得戒。何故如是？菩薩法中有二緣故，重受得戒。一多身求果，微善亦去，所以得戒。故《地持》中若有善心搆牛乳頃，亦得受戒。二菩提心是廣大意，能滅重罪，是以得戒。小乘法中，有二種義不得重受：一現世求果純善方得，若曾犯重，障難深極，為是不得。二小乘心劣不滅重罪，故不得戒。次就捨戒以明不同。聲聞法中，別解脫戒有四種捨：一不用道捨；二命終捨；三斷善根捨，謂邪見人起大邪見，斷善根時失律儀戒；四二形生捨，所謂男女二形生時失律儀戒。菩薩法中，別解脫戒有二種捨，如《地持》說：一退菩提心，壞本故捨；二增上煩惱犯波羅夷，過重故捨，此同聲聞斷善根捨。何故菩薩無不用道捨？釋言：聲聞受形俱法，是故不用道失出家戒。菩薩通受七眾法故，不用道不捨。何故菩薩無命終捨？此如前釋，聲聞受戒要期一形，故命終捨。菩薩要期盡未來際，故不失戒。何故菩薩二形生時不失禁戒？釋言：聲聞別受七眾隨形法故，二形生時七眾不分，是以失戒。菩薩通受一切戒法，不隨形別，故不失戒。何故菩薩退心失戒，聲聞不爾？釋言：菩薩行業微細，受捨持犯多隨心本，是故退失菩提心時失菩薩戒。小乘法中行業浮麁，受捨持犯多皆約相不隨心本，是故退心不失禁戒。問曰：若言小乘法中受者約相直爾退心不失戒者，斷善根時內心邪見何故失戒？釋言：邪見極違正法，能滅善根，是故失戒。退出世心，不壞世善，是故不類。何故菩薩增上煩惱犯波羅夷失菩薩戒，聲聞不爾？釋言：大乘多隨心制，故上煩惱犯波羅夷失菩薩戒。小乘法中約相而制，不隨心故，輕重煩惱犯波羅夷齊不失戒。不同如是。

Next is to explain the difference in receiving and abandoning. First, we explain the difference with regard to receiving precepts. Within receiving there are two aspects: first, explaining the difference with regard to initial reception; second, explaining the difference with regard to repeated reception. What is initial reception? In the Hīnayāna teaching, obtaining precepts is of two kinds: first, self-obtained; second, obtained from another. Self-obtained has three kinds: first, spontaneous attainment; second, attainment through higher dharma; third, attainment through self-vow. Spontaneous refers solely to the one Buddha: in his final birth, when first going forth, he spontaneously produced the prātimokṣa precepts without receiving them from a master; hence it is called spontaneous. Attainment through higher dharma means: there may be a śrāmaṇera or a layperson who, cultivating the path, realizes the noble fruit of an aśaikha; upon realizing such an exalted dharma, he produces the complete monastic precepts. Derived from its basis, it is called attainment through higher dharma. Attainment through self-vow is like Mahākāśyapa hearing of the Buddha's appearance in the world and making a self-vow: "The Buddha is my master, and I am his disciple." Under these words, he obtained the full precepts; this is called self-vow. Within obtaining from another, there are four distinctions: First, "Come, monk!" (ehibhikṣu). There are sentient beings of superior, sharp faculties; the Buddha summons them: "Come, monk! Cultivate the holy life well in my Dharma so as to exhaust the source of suffering," whereupon they produce the full precepts. Second, the three declarations. For all śrāmaṇeras, laypeople, and the monks at the Buddha's initial appearance, the teacher instructs them to take refuge in the Three Jewels three times, and they immediately obtain the precepts. Third, the eight respect dharmas (gurudharma), as with Mahāprajāpatī Gautamī bhikṣuṇī and others; the bhikṣu saṅgha proclaimed the respectful rules from afar and had her practice them; upon hearing and reverently accepting them, she produced the full precepts. Fourth, attainment through karmavācanā. The required number of the saṅgha gathers in concord to perform the ritual and bestow the full precepts, with five, ten, twenty persons, and so forth. In the Mahāyāna teaching there are also two kinds: first, receiving from another. Facing only a single master without relying on many people, because the causal power is strong. Second, receiving with a pure, good mind. When there is no person conforming to the Dharma from whom to receive them, one obtains them by taking them oneself before an image of the Buddha; this is attainment through self-vow. Question: Why does the Mahāyāna not speak of spontaneous attainment of precepts? Explanation: The Mahāyāna teaches that when the Buddha was a bodhisattva in the past, he had already accomplished the prātimokṣa precepts, and did not obtain them only when first going forth in his final birth. Why does it not speak of attainment through higher dharma? Its meaning is identical to spontaneous: the Buddha had already accomplished them previously, and did not obtain the precepts only when realizing the higher dharma in his final birth. Why does it not speak of attainment through "Come, monk!"? The Mahāyāna precepts are broad, fully conditioned upon the inexhaustible dharmas of the three clusters, and one obtains the precepts only upon receiving them through a vow. Merely addressing them with "Come, monk!" does not fully encompass the precepts; therefore it is omitted and not discussed. Why does it not speak of attainment through the three declarations? Its meaning is identical to "Come, monk!". Why does it not speak of attainment through the eight respect dharmas? Bodhisattvas are noble and supreme, and are not like nuns who must constantly revere others. Why does it not speak of attainment through karmavācanā? When a bodhisattva receives precepts, he does so only from a single master, without relying on many people, and does not depend on an assembly gathered in concord to perform the ritual and bestow them. It may also be said that a bodhisattva receiving them from another is precisely the bodhisattva's karmavācanā reception. Such is initial reception. Next is to explain the difference with regard to repeated reception. As stated in the *Bodhisattvabhūmi*, in the Hīnayāna teaching, having violated a grave prohibition, one abandons the precepts when meeting with conditions. If one later receives them again, one will ultimately never obtain the precepts, because of the obstacle of the grave offense (pārājika). The bodhisattva is not like this: having violated a grave prohibition and abandoned the bodhisattva precepts, if one later receives them again, one will obtain the precepts once more. Why is it so? Because in the bodhisattva teaching there are two conditions whereby one obtains the precepts upon repeated reception: First, seeking the fruit over many lifetimes, even slight good can advance; therefore one obtains the precepts. Hence in the *Bodhisattvabhūmi*, if there is a good mind lasting the milking of a cow, one may also receive the precepts. Second, the bodhicitta is an expansive mindset, capable of extinguishing grave offenses; therefore one obtains the precepts. In the Hīnayāna teaching, there are two reasons why one cannot receive them again: First, seeking the fruit in the present life, it is obtained only through unmixed good; if one has committed a grave offense, the obstacle is extremely profound, and for this reason one cannot. Second, the Hīnayāna mind is inferior and cannot extinguish grave offenses; therefore one cannot obtain the precepts. Next is to explain the difference with regard to abandoning precepts. In the śrāvaka teaching, the prātimokṣa precepts have four kinds of abandonment: first, abandonment through rejecting the path; second, abandonment through the end of life; third, abandonment through severing the roots of good, meaning when a person of wrong views generates great wrong views and severs the roots of good, he loses the restraint precepts; fourth, abandonment through the emergence of dual physical characteristics, meaning when both male and female characteristics emerge, one loses the restraint precepts. In the bodhisattva teaching, the prātimokṣa precepts have two kinds of abandonment, as stated in the *Bodhisattvabhūmi*: first, abandoning through backsliding from the bodhicitta, because the root is destroyed; second, abandoning through violating a pārājika due to dominant defilements, because the fault is grave; this is the same as the śrāvaka's abandonment through severing roots of good. Why does the bodhisattva lack abandonment through rejecting the path? Explanation: Śrāvakas receive a dharma tied to physical form; therefore by rejecting the path they lose the monastic precepts. Bodhisattvas universally receive the dharmas of all seven assemblies; therefore they do not abandon them by rejecting the path. Why does the bodhisattva lack abandonment through the end of life? This is as explained before: the śrāvaka receives the precepts with a vow for a single physical existence; therefore they are abandoned at the end of life. The bodhisattva vows for the end of future time; therefore they are not lost. Why does the bodhisattva not lose the prohibitive precepts when dual physical characteristics emerge? Explanation: Śrāvakas specifically receive dharmas according to physical form for each of the seven assemblies; when dual characteristics emerge, the seven assemblies cannot be distinguished, and therefore they lose the precepts. Bodhisattvas universally receive all precept dharmas, which do not vary according to physical form; therefore they are not lost. Why does a bodhisattva lose the precepts by backsliding from the mind, whereas a śrāvaka does not? Explanation: The bodhisattva's practices and karmic actions are subtle; receiving, abandoning, maintaining, and violating mostly follow the root of the mind; therefore when backsliding from bodhicitta, one loses the bodhisattva precepts. In the Hīnayāna teaching, practices and karmic actions are superficial and coarse; receiving, abandoning, maintaining, and violating are mostly based on external signs and do not follow the root of the mind; therefore backsliding from the mind does not lose the prohibitive precepts. Question: If you say that in the Hīnayāna teaching reception is based on signs, and merely backsliding from the mind does not lose precepts, then when severing roots of good, why does the inner mental wrong view cause one to lose the precepts? Explanation: Wrong view is utterly contrary to the true Dharma and can destroy roots of good; therefore one loses the precepts. Backsliding from the supramundane mind does not destroy mundane good; therefore it is not comparable. Why is it that when a bodhisattva violates a pārājika due to dominant defilements he loses the bodhisattva precepts, whereas a śrāvaka does not? Explanation: The Mahāyāna mostly establishes [precepts] according to the mind; therefore violating a pārājika through dominant defilements loses the bodhisattva precepts. In the Hīnayāna teaching, they are established based on external signs and do not follow the mind; therefore whether defilements are light or heavy, violating a pārājika equally does not cause the loss of the [previously held] precepts [which are forfeited through other mechanisms]. The differences are like this.