大乘義章 7.38

7.38

次辨多少次第之義。言多少者，一人極多得造幾逆？若論佛在，得具造五，先作破僧，後造餘四。若佛去世，極多造三，謂殺父母及殺羅漢。問曰：前說一人不過起於二三，今云何言得具起五？釋言：義推得有具理，就人別論無過二三。言次第者，殺父、殺母、殺阿羅漢、出佛身血，此四相望無其次第，隨何在先皆得起之。若以破僧對殺父母殺羅漢等，破僧在先，久清淨人能破僧故。若先殺父殺母羅漢，人不信受，何能破僧。若以破僧對出佛血，次第不同。若依《雜心》，要先破僧，後出佛血，清淨之人能破僧故。《四分律》中，先明出血，後明破僧。彼說云何？提婆達多先教世王殺害其父，自欲殺佛，望為新王新佛化世，故先害佛。以害佛故惡名流布，利養斷絕，五人相將家家乞食，因即起於破僧之心，遂便破僧。故知破僧定在其後。二說云何？並是聖言，難定是非。若欲和會，律中所說，就最初者出血無犯，故得破僧。《雜心》所論，據彼後時所防者語，必先破僧後得出血，若先出血不得破僧（此四門竟）。

Next is discerning the meaning of quantity and sequence. As for quantity: at most, how many deadly sins can one person commit? If we speak of when the Buddha was in the world, one could commit all five: first creating schism, and afterward committing the other four. If the Buddha has passed into extinction, at most one can commit three: namely, killing father, mother, and arhat. Question: Previously it was said that one person generates no more than two or three; why do you now say that one can fully generate five? Explanation: By theoretical deduction there is the principle that one may have all; discussing individuals separately, they do not exceed two or three. As for sequence: killing father, killing mother, killing an arhat, and shedding a Buddha's blood—with respect to one another, these four have no fixed sequence; whichever comes first, any may be committed. If we compare schism to killing parents and killing an arhat, schism must come first, because someone who has long been pure is able to divide the Saṅgha. If one has first killed father, mother, or an arhat, people will not believe or accept him; how could he divide the Saṅgha? If we compare schism to shedding a Buddha's blood, their sequence differs [in the sources]. According to the *Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya*, one must first divide the Saṅgha and afterward shed a Buddha's blood, because a pure person is able to divide the Saṅgha. In the *Dharmaguptaka-vinaya*, it first explains shedding blood and afterward schism. What does it say there? Devadatta first instructed King Ajātaśatru to kill his father, while he himself wished to kill the Buddha, hoping to become the new king and new Buddha to convert the world; thus he first harmed the Buddha. Because he harmed the Buddha, his evil reputation spread abroad, his offerings and support were cut off, and the five of them together went from house to house begging for food; consequently he generated the intention to divide the Saṅgha and thereupon divided the Saṅgha. Thus we know that schism must come afterward. How are these two explanations [reconciled]? Both are holy words, and it is difficult to determine right from wrong. If one wishes to harmonize them: what is spoken in the Vinaya refers to the very first instance, where shedding blood did not incur an expulsion offence, and so he was able to divide the Saṅgha. What is discussed in the *Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya* speaks based on what was later guarded against: one must first divide the Saṅgha and only afterward can shed blood; if one has first shed blood, one cannot divide the Saṅgha. (This concludes the fourth section.)