大乘法苑義林章 3.24.1

3.24.1

次羯磨得別解脫緣者，昔來相傳，《四分律》具四緣，八比丘中解。 一羯磨者，比丘若受大戒者，僧數滿足緣。 二白四羯磨如法成就，教法成就緣。 三得處所者，結界成就，界內不別眾緣。 四住比丘法中者，年歲滿足，身無遮難緣。 要具此四，是大比丘得成大戒。 亦即滅諍五法現前中，除其滅諍。 別所為者，具四現前：一能秉僧； 二所秉法； 三秉法處所，即界現前； 四所為事，謂人現前。 今此受戒，即別所為，故具此四即能發戒。 《僧祇律》六緣，即是釋八比丘文。 《毘尼母論》五緣：一和上如法、二闍梨如法、三七僧清淨、四羯磨稱文、五界內和合不別。 此之五緣，四中初三攝。 初三是第一緣，次一教法緣，次一不別眾緣。 今依《四分》四緣具足，於前四緣中第四身無遮難之中，《瑜伽》五十三云「由六因故，不應為授苾芻律儀。 」即是解彼遮難所以。 恐文繁廣，至後當釋。 於第一僧數滿足緣中，《瑜伽》又云「又除闕減能作羯磨、阿遮利耶、鄔波托耶、住清淨戒圓滿僧眾。 」此中義意，其上坐部及薩婆多師，犯重不捨戒。 故受戒時，闍梨、大眾必須清淨，和合與戒，發戒勝緣，故和上不定。 其受戒時除去和上外，彼受戒者名，及諸難名、三衣名等，若不牒標，有所虧闕則不得戒，大眾撿驗有所闕故、非和合故。 其和上名，牒與不牒，及在眾內不在眾內，若清淨不清淨，竝悉得戒。 大眾但知某為和上，令其攝錄所受戒者，非要發戒之勝緣故。 然具牒和上名，身在眾內，戒清淨即無罪。 若不牒名及不在眾，若知和上無戒破戒，與他受戒。 彼雖得戒，現前大眾得突吉羅。 羯磨但言「今從眾僧乞受具足戒」，不言從和上乞受戒故。 設復和上戒德清淨，大眾闍梨有所闕少，戒德有犯，即不得戒，無勝緣故。 制多山部等竝同此說。 又有諸部說：但和上清淨，大眾不淨，亦得大戒，和上勝緣發其心故。 大眾但是訪委受者，無遮難罪，和合與之令墮僧數。 故羯磨云「今從眾僧乞受具足戒」，非是發起彼勝心緣，何要清淨？ 其大眾部律，和上、大眾竝須清淨，然始得戒。 和上親教，最是勝緣，發彼勝心亦由和上。 又若持戒便是眾僧，犯戒非僧，何得教誨成師資道？ 又戒從僧乞，僧和合方得。 眾既戒行不清淨，先非墮入僧數，何得辨其法事輒說戒律之言？ 又僧亦是受者勝緣，僧既犯戒，不發彼心，豈是受者之勝緣也？ 故要和上及大眾清淨，受者方得大戒。 今者大乘，略有二說：一者三品心犯重皆失戒，二者中下品心犯重不失戒、上品心犯重即失戒。 若依後義，和上不清淨、但大眾清淨，即得戒，從彼乞故、法事辦故。 和上但是教授之緣，設知不清淨，不從彼乞戒，何故不得？ 若依初義，和上、眾僧必須清淨方可得戒。 和上是勝教授之緣，未體僧前已從和上乞大戒故。 且如邊方，僧眾滿四人法事故、與戒緣故，闕一、犯重俱為不可，無僧非僧與戒故。 《瑜伽》云「鄔波拕耶住清淨戒、圓滿僧眾住淨戒言，上屬和上、下屬僧眾，兩俱須故。 」上來所說，佛在及滅一切弟子，除獨覺果，餘受具戒，非謂一切。 上來所辨有差別緣。 無差別緣，有諸戒通緣，應說頌曰「苾芻非自受，從他簡擇故。 近住等諸戒，自受亦從他。 表業名從他，無表唯自受。 自受唯意表，無表示他故，是別解脫戒。 」《瑜伽》五十三云「此中或有由他由自而受律儀。 或復有一，唯自然受，除苾芻律儀。 何以故？ 由苾芻律儀非一切堪受故。 若苾芻律儀非要從他受者，若堪出家、若不堪出家，但欲出家者，便應一切隨其所欲自然出家。 如是聖教便無軌範，亦無善說法毘奈耶而可了知。 是故苾芻律儀無有自然受義。 以簡擇故，必從他受。 」此除自然及見諦二。 或可除信佛為大師，餘一切得別解脫戒，彼無簡擇故。 然彼亦由無遮難等事，方可自然見諦等得。

Next, regarding the conditions for obtaining the prātimokṣa through karmavācanā: according to traditional transmission, the Dharmaguptaka-vinaya possesses four conditions, explained in [the section on] the eight bhikṣus. First, the condition of a karmavācanā: when a bhikṣu is to receive the full ordination, the condition of the required number of saṃgha members being complete. Second, the condition of the teaching and Dharma being accomplished: the formal motion and three announcements (jñapti-caturtha-karman) are accomplished in accordance with the Dharma. Third, the condition of obtaining the place: establishing the boundary is accomplished, and within the boundary there is no factional division of the saṃgha. Fourth, the condition of abiding in the Dharma of a bhikṣu: the required age is reached, and the person is free from obstacles. Only when these four are complete does this great bhikṣu succeed in achieving the full precepts. These also correspond to the five things present in settling disputes, excluding settling disputes itself. As for what is specifically undertaken, it possesses four things present: first, the saṃgha that is able to administer; second, the Dharma that is administered; third, the place where the Dharma is administered, namely the presence of the boundary; fourth, the matter undertaken, namely the presence of the candidate. Now this ordination is precisely what is specifically undertaken; therefore, when these four are complete, one is able to produce the precepts. The six conditions of the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya are just an explanation of the text of the eight bhikṣus. The Vinayamātṛkā-śāstra has five conditions: 1. the upādhyāya is in accordance with the Dharma; 2. the ācārya is in accordance with the Dharma; 3. the seven saṃgha members are pure; 4. the karmavācanā conforms to the text; 5. harmony within the boundary without division. These five conditions are subsumed under the first three of the four [conditions]. The first three [of the Vinayamātṛkā] constitute the first condition [of the Dharmaguptaka]; the next one is the condition of the teaching and Dharma; the next one is the condition of no division of the saṃgha. Now, relying on the fulfillment of the four conditions of the Dharmaguptaka: regarding the fourth among the preceding four conditions, 'the person is free from obstacles,' the Yogācārabhūmi says in fascicle fifty-three: 'Due to six causes, one should not bestow the bhikṣu prātimokṣa.' This is an explanation of the reasons for those obstacles. Fearing that the text would be excessively elaborate, this will be explained later. In the first condition, that the required number of saṃgha members is complete, the Yogācārabhūmi also says: 'Furthermore, excluding any deficiency in the saṃgha members who are able to perform the karmavācanā, the ācārya, the upādhyāya, and those abiding in pure precepts who are complete.' The meaning of this is: the Sthavira and Sarvāstivādin masters hold that if one commits a grave offense, one does not lose the precepts. Therefore, when receiving the precepts, the ācārya and the saṃgha assembly must be pure and united in conferring the precepts; they are the supreme conditions for generating the precepts, whereas the upādhyāya is not determinative. When receiving the precepts, apart from the upādhyāya, if the candidate's name, the names of the obstacles, the names of the three robes, and so forth are not read and specified, and there is a deficiency, then the precepts are not obtained, because the assembly's examination was deficient and was not in harmony. As for the upādhyāya's name, whether it is read or not read, whether he is present within the assembly or not present within the assembly, and whether he is pure or impure, in all cases one still obtains the precepts. The assembly merely knows that a certain person is the upādhyāya, having him take charge of the candidate; he is not an indispensable supreme condition for generating the precepts. However, if one fully reads the upādhyāya's name, his person is present within the assembly, and his precepts are pure, then there is no offense. If the name is not read, or if he is not present in the assembly, or if one knows that the upādhyāya lacks precepts or has broken precepts, and confers ordination on another: although that person obtains the precepts, the present assembly incurs a duṣkṛta. This is because the karmavācanā only says, 'Now I beg from the saṃgha of monks to receive the full precepts,' and does not say that one begs to receive the precepts from the upādhyāya. Even if the upādhyāya's precept-virtue is pure, if the assembly and the ācārya have deficiencies, or their precept-virtue has been violated, the candidate does not obtain the precepts, because the supreme condition is lacking. The Caitika school and others all share this view. Furthermore, some schools say: as long as the upādhyāya is pure, even if the assembly is not pure, one also obtains the full precepts, because the upādhyāya is the supreme condition that arouses their aspiration. The assembly merely inquires into and verifies that the candidate is free from offenses of obstacle, and in harmony confers [the precepts] to cause him to belong to the number of the saṃgha. Therefore, the karmavācanā says: 'Now I beg from the saṃgha of monks to receive the full precepts'; it is not the condition that arouses their supreme aspiration, so why must they be pure? In the Vinaya of the Mahāsāṃghika, both the upādhyāya and the assembly must be pure; only then are the precepts obtained. The upādhyāya is the primary instructor, being the most supreme condition; arousing that supreme aspiration is also due to the upādhyāya. Furthermore, if one maintains the precepts, one is indeed a saṃgha member; if one violates the precepts, one is not a saṃgha member—how could he instruct and form the master-disciple relationship? Moreover, the precepts are begged from the saṃgha, and are obtained only when the saṃgha is in harmony. Since the assembly's practice of the precepts is not pure, they previously did not fall within the number of the saṃgha; how could they conduct the legal ritual and presumptuously utter words of Vinaya? Furthermore, the saṃgha is also a supreme condition for the candidate; since the saṃgha has violated the precepts and does not arouse his aspiration, how could they be a supreme condition for the candidate? Therefore, the upādhyāya and the assembly must both be pure for the candidate to obtain the full precepts. Now in the Mahāyāna, there are generally two views: first, that committing a grave offense with any of the three grades of mind causes the loss of the precepts; second, that committing a grave offense with a middling or inferior grade of mind does not cause the loss of the precepts, but committing a grave offense with a superior grade of mind causes the loss of the precepts. If one relies on the latter meaning, when the upādhyāya is impure but the assembly is pure, one obtains the precepts, because one begs from them and the legal ritual is completed. The upādhyāya is merely a condition of instruction; even if known to be impure, since one does not beg the precepts from him, why should one not obtain them? If one relies on the former meaning, both the upādhyāya and the saṃgha must be pure before the precepts can be obtained. The upādhyāya is a supreme condition of instruction, because before approaching the saṃgha one has already begged the full precepts from the upādhyāya. Moreover, take for instance a border region where the saṃgha numbers four persons: because of the legal ritual and because of the condition of conferring the precepts, lacking one or having one commit a grave offense are both unacceptable, because there is no non-saṃgha that confers the precepts. The Yogācārabhūmi says: 'The phrase that the upādhyāya abides in pure precepts and the complete saṃgha abides in pure precepts applies above to the upādhyāya and below to the saṃgha, because both are required.' What has been explained above applies to all disciples during the Buddha's presence and after his demise, excluding the fruit of pratyekabuddhas, who receive the full precepts; it does not refer to all cases. What has been discussed above concerns the specific conditions. Regarding the general conditions, there are conditions common to all precepts; a verse should be spoken: 'A bhikṣu does not receive [precepts] by himself, / Because of selection by others. / For upavāsa and other precepts, / One receives them oneself or from others. / Expressive action is termed from others; / Non-expressive action is received only by oneself. / Self-reception is only mental expression; / Because non-expression indicates to another, / These are the prātimokṣa.' Fascicle fifty-three of the Yogācārabhūmi says: 'Here, some receive the discipline through others or by themselves. Or there are some who receive it solely spontaneously, with the exception of the bhikṣu discipline. Why? Because the bhikṣu discipline is not capable of being received by everyone. If the bhikṣu discipline did not have to be received from others, then whether one is capable of going forth or not capable of going forth, anyone who merely wished to go forth would all spontaneously go forth according to their wishes. In that case, the holy teaching would lack standards, and there would be no well-spoken Dharma and Vinaya that could be understood. Therefore, the bhikṣu discipline does not admit of being received spontaneously. Because of the need for selection, it must be received from others.' This excludes the two [modes of] spontaneous [reception] and [reception through] seeing the truths. Or it may exclude [reception through] having faith in the Buddha as the Great Master; all other [modes] obtain the prātimokṣa precepts, because they lack selection. However, those [cases] also require being free from obstacles and other matters before they can be obtained through spontaneous [awakening], seeing the truths, and so forth.