[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大乘法苑義林章](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861) › 3.29.2 # 大乘法苑義林章 3.29.2 大乘法苑義林章 3.29.2 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.29.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.3.29.2) 此說別受苾芻等戒，非菩薩戒之律儀戒。 五十三說「若正法毀壞、正法隱沒，雖無新受苾芻律儀，先已受得，當知不捨。 所以者何？ 由於爾時壞劫正起，無一有情不損意樂能受具戒，況當有證沙門果者，故受不得，先戒不失。 」近事律儀由三緣捨：一起不同分心。 此攝限勢、期限多少年歲受捨，許有少時、多時、盡形之近事故。 二善根斷。 三棄眾同分。 正法隱沒，如苾芻律儀，道理當知，無犯重捨，亦無形沒、二形生捨。 《對法》第八云「問：若唯修學鄔婆素迦一分學處，為說成就鄔婆素迦律儀？ 為說不成就耶？ 答：應說成就而名犯戒。 」故知犯重不失近事戒。 彼卷「又問：扇搋迦、半擇迦等，為遮彼受近事戒？ 為不遮耶？ 答：不遮彼受近事律儀。 然遮彼性，不堪承事二出家眾故。 」二形亦爾，男女煩惱恒俱現行，不堪親近承事二眾，故不別說。 五十三云「何故扇搋、半擇雖受歸依，亦能隨護諸近事男所有學處，而不得名近事男耶？ 答：近事男者，各能親近承事苾芻、苾芻尼眾。 彼雖能護所受律儀，而不應數親近承事出家二眾。 出家二眾亦復不應親近攝受若摩若觸如是種類，又亦不應如近事男而相親近，是故不得名近事男。 然其受護所有學處，當知福德等無差別。 」故知形沒二形生時，亦不失近事戒。 近住律儀亦三緣捨：一由日出已後，此但引接一類初根，無別一法遮礙戒故。 若心期滿，設期多日，何義不得？ 故知但是佛教施設化初根也。 二由發起不同分心。 三捨眾同分。 無犯重捨，及形沒、二形生，義如前說。 無斷善捨者，此有二說。 一云：理應四緣。 此中起不同分心，攝二種捨：一起棄捨心。 棄捨心者，起不持想，不同苾芻一向作法； 二斷善根，以近事戒無日出捨，近住即有故。 合二種俱名起不同分心，隱顯影彰亦無過失。 如先已起邪見方便，而猶未斷，今日受戒即便斷善。 故信應有四，而此說為三。 二云：但有三緣，以一日夜時極促故，不假別起斷善方便，故無此捨。 先起方便不能受戒，中下品心設受不得，必上品心方發戒故，上品邪見方斷善故。 其菩薩戒，第四十說「二緣故捨：一者棄捨無上正等菩提大願； 二者現行上品纏，犯他勝處法。 」〈決擇分〉第七十五說「又捨因緣，略有四緣，一決定發起不同分心作休捨意。 二於有識別丈夫前，故意發起棄捨語言，發言對捨。 三總別毀犯四種他勝處法，起根本罪。 四若以上品纏，總、別毀犯，隨順四種他勝處法，犯隨順罪。 」又云「此三種戒，由律儀戒之所攝持，令其和合。 若能於此精懃守護，亦能護餘。 若此不能，餘亦不能。 是故若有毀律儀戒，名毀一切菩薩律儀。 故犯四重及犯隨順即失戒者，皆犯律儀，律儀戒者是根本故。 若有不捨，當知餘生亦得隨轉。 」其菩薩地退菩提心，即攝〈決擇〉四中初二，上品纏犯即攝後二。 但上品纏犯四根本及隨順四，皆失戒也。 其斷善根，起不同分心中所攝，所以不論。 又退菩提心，前已失戒故，斷善時更不說捨。 〈決擇分〉云「此菩薩戒若有不捨，當知餘生亦得隨轉。 」第四十云「若諸菩薩雖復轉身遍十方世界，在在生處不捨菩薩淨戒律儀。 由是菩薩不捨菩提大願，亦不現行上纏犯故。 雖轉餘生忘失本念，值遇善友，還得覺悟菩薩戒念。 雖數重受，而非新受亦不新得，以受願心盡未來故，心寬漫故。 餘皆不得，心願狹故。 設作寬心，勢亦不得。 」準此，苾芻、近事、近住，今生未捨，重受亦得，非為新得。 四十一說「若上纏犯他勝處法失戒律儀，發露悔滅，應當更受。 發露之法，如中纏犯。 若中纏犯他勝處法，應對於三或過是數，於語表義能覺能受。 小乘大乘補特伽羅，發露悔滅除惡作法，乃至廣說。 若下品纏犯他勝處，及餘違犯，應對於一如前德者，發露除悔。 > These refer to individually receiving the monastic vows of a bhikṣu and so forth, not the discipline of the bodhisattva vows. Fascicle fifty-three states: 'If the True Dharma is destroyed or the True Dharma disappears, although one does not newly receive the bhikṣu discipline, what has already been received before, one should know, is not abandoned. Why is this? Because at that time the aeon of disintegration has actively arisen, and not a single sentient being, lacking impaired intention, is able to receive the full monastic precepts, much less are there any who realize the fruits of asceticism (śrāmaṇya). Therefore, one cannot receive them, \[yet\] previous precepts are not lost.' The discipline of an upāsaka is abandoned through three conditions: first, the arising of a discordant mind—this includes the force of a time limit, receiving and renouncing them for a set number of years, since an upāsaka is permitted for a short time, a long time, or for the rest of one's life; second, the severing of the roots of goodness; third, abandoning the shared bodily class (i.e. dying). When the True Dharma disappears, as with the bhikṣu discipline, one should know by reason that there is no abandonment through committing a major offense, nor is there abandonment through the loss of sexual organs or the arising of both sexual organs. Fascicle eight of the Abhidharmasamuccaya states: 'Question: If one only trains in one portion of the training rules of an upāsaka, is one said to possess the upāsaka discipline, or is one said not to possess it? Answer: One should say that one possesses it, yet it is called an infraction of the precepts.' Thus we know that committing a major offense does not cause the loss of the upāsaka precepts. That same fascicle further asks: 'Question: As for the ṣaṇḍha, paṇḍaka, and so forth, are they barred from receiving the upāsaka precepts, or are they not barred? Answer: They are not barred from receiving the upāsaka discipline. However, their nature is barred because they are incapable of serving the two monastic communities.' The case is the same for those with both sexual organs: the afflictions of both male and female constantly manifest together, making them incapable of approaching and serving the two communities; therefore, it is not separately stated. Fascicle fifty-three states: 'Why is it that although a ṣaṇḍha or a paṇḍaka receives the refuges and can also guard all the training rules of upāsakas, they do not obtain the name of upāsaka? Answer: An upāsaka is one who is able to personally approach and serve the communities of bhikṣus and bhikṣuṇīs. Although they can guard the discipline they have received, they should not frequently approach and serve the two monastic communities. Nor should the two monastic communities approach and look after such types with caressing or touching, nor should they approach them as they would an upāsaka; therefore, they do not obtain the name of upāsaka. However, in their receiving and guarding of all the training rules, one should know that the merit is equal and without difference.' Thus we know that when sexual organs are lost or both sexual organs arise, one also does not lose the upāsaka precepts. The discipline of fasting (upavāsa) is also abandoned through three conditions: first, by the passing of sunrise—this only accommodates a class of beginners, because there is no distinct dharma that obstructs the precepts. If one's mental vow is fulfilled, even if one resolves on many days, on what grounds would it not be obtained? Thus we know this is merely the Buddha's teaching expediently established to transform beginners; second, by the arising of a discordant mind; third, by abandoning the shared bodily class. There is no abandonment through committing a major offense, nor through the loss of sexual organs or the arising of both sexual organs, whose meanings are as explained above. Regarding the absence of abandonment through the severing of the roots of goodness, there are two explanations. One says: In principle there should be four conditions. Here, the arising of a discordant mind subsumes two kinds of abandonment: first, the arising of a mind of renunciation. A mind of renunciation means giving rise to the thought of not keeping them, which is unlike the bhikṣu who exclusively performs a formal act; second, the severing of the roots of goodness—because the upāsaka precepts lack abandonment at sunrise, whereas the upavāsa precepts have it. Combining these two under the name of 'arising of a discordant mind'—with one implicit and the other explicit, reflecting each other—incurs no fault. For example, if one had previously generated the preparatory stages of false view and had not yet severed \[the roots of goodness\], receiving the precepts today, one would thereupon sever the roots of goodness. Therefore, we believe there should be four, but here it is explained as three. The second says: There are only three conditions. Because the period of one day and night is extremely short, one does not need to separately generate the preparatory stages for severing the roots of goodness; hence there is no such abandonment. If one had previously generated the preparatory stages, one would be unable to receive the precepts; even if one were to receive them with a weak or middling mind, one could not obtain them, because only a superior mind can arouse the precepts, just as only superior false view severs the roots of goodness. As for the bodhisattva vows, fascicle forty states: 'They are abandoned through two conditions: first, renouncing the great vow of unexcelled complete bodhi; second, manifesting superior entanglement and committing an act of defeat (pārājika).' Fascicle seventy-five of the Section on Determination states: 'Furthermore, the causes and conditions for abandonment are, in brief, four: first, resolutely generating a discordant mind with the intent to cease and renounce; second, in the presence of a discerning person, deliberately uttering words of renunciation and speaking to renounce them; third, generally or individually violating the four defeat-offenses, generating the fundamental transgressions; fourth, if with superior entanglement, generally or individually violating what accords with the four defeat-offenses, committing the offenses of concordance.' It further states: 'These three types of precepts are maintained and harmonized by the discipline precepts. If one is able to diligently guard these, one can also guard the rest. If one cannot do so here, one cannot with the rest. Therefore, if one violates the discipline precepts, it is called violating all bodhisattva disciplines. Hence, if one loses the precepts upon committing the four major offenses and committing the offenses of concordance, it is because in both cases one violates the discipline, for the discipline precepts are the root. If one does not abandon them, one should know that they continue along in subsequent lives as well.' In the Bodhisattvabhūmi, regressing from the bodhi mind subsumes the first two of the four in the Determination, while committing offenses with superior entanglement subsumes the latter two. Committing the four fundamentals and the four concordant offenses with superior entanglement all result in losing the precepts. Severing the roots of goodness is subsumed within the arising of a discordant mind, and so it is not discussed. Furthermore, upon regressing from the bodhi mind, one has already lost the precepts previously; therefore, when severing the roots of goodness, abandonment is not mentioned again. The Section on Determination states: 'If one does not abandon these bodhisattva precepts, one should know that they continue along in subsequent lives as well.' Fascicle forty states: 'Even though bodhisattvas take rebirth throughout the worlds of the ten directions, wherever they are born, they do not abandon the pure discipline of the bodhisattva vows. This is because these bodhisattvas do not abandon the great vow of bodhi, nor do they manifest offenses with superior entanglement. Even though they forget their original mindfulness upon taking rebirth in another life, when they encounter a good friend, they once again regain awareness and mindfulness of the bodhisattva vows. Although they receive them repeatedly, it is neither a new reception nor a new acquisition, because the mind of the received vow extends to the end of the future, and because the mind is broad and vast. The others cannot do so, because their mental vows are narrow. Even if they generate a broad mind, its force cannot achieve this.' By this standard, if bhikṣus, upāsakas, or upavāsakas have not abandoned them in this life, they can also receive them again without it being a new acquisition. Fascicle forty-one states: 'If one loses the discipline precepts by committing an act of defeat with superior entanglement, after disclosing and repenting to eliminate it, one should receive them again. The procedure for disclosure is as with middling entanglement. If one commits an act of defeat with middling entanglement, one should, in the presence of three or more persons who are able to understand and receive the meaning expressed in speech—persons of the Hīnayāna or Mahāyāna—disclose and repent to eliminate the wrong deeds (duṣkṛta), up to the detailed explanation. If one commits an act of defeat with weak entanglement or other violations, one should disclose and repent before a single person endowed with the virtues described above.' > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.29.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.3.29.1) - [Next: 3.29.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.3.29.3) - [Up: 3.29](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.3.29) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861~en-mt.3.29.2) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (2) - [菩薩戒本](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.vinaya.sastra.bodhisattvapratimoksa*zh-xuanzang.1.69) — Classical Chinese - [菩薩戒羯磨文](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.vinaya.sastra.bodhisattvasilakarmavacana*zh-xuanzang.1.18) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.3.29.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.3.29.2) · Pramāṇa