大乘法苑義林章 3.29.3

3.29.3

若無此德可對發露，應淨意樂起自誓心，我當決定防護當來，終不重犯。 如是於犯還出還淨。 其不犯者，狂亂、苦逼作重罪者，不名為犯。 」準此，近事、近住二類犯戒不捨，應對有德能開受者，或自誓言，發露自誓，還出其罪還淨其戒。 四他勝處及隨順法，如新所譯彌勒所造菩薩戒等中說。 無形、二形不遮受戒，攝受廣故，亦不說捨。 準此等理，菩薩戒中苾芻等戒，命終、二形、日出等時皆不捨也。 心寬漫故，別受不得。 靜慮律儀，四緣故捨：一止息捨，謂出彼定，起異分心，隨心戒故。 二不行捨，謂易地捨，從下上地生上下地時。 三失用捨。 四永無捨，入無餘涅槃，一切皆捨永不成就，退靜慮等更不成故。 無漏律儀，有五緣捨：一止息捨，謂出彼心，起異分心，隨心轉故。 二暫無捨，謂退故捨。 慧解脫及身證者，退現法樂住、滅盡定等，生下地等時，非退聖果起諸煩惱。 上二名暫捨，今身還引現前。 三得果捨，《對法》第十四說「於諸現觀位，證得後勝品道時，捨前所得下劣品道。 如證得此果所攝道時，即捨此向所攝道，以不復現前故。 」四練根捨，〈決擇〉五十七說「幾補特伽羅有練根耶？ 答：一切有學，及無學五，退、思、護、住、堪達種姓，非諸獨覺亦非菩薩，性利根故。 」《對法》第十四云「若諸菩薩性是利根，云何復令修練根耶？ 謂令依利耎根引利中根，依利中根復引上利根故。 」彼自會云「前說菩薩性是利根，而後復說於時時中應修練根者，由於自種類復有耎等三品，後後相引，說名練根。 不爾，利根應唯一品。 」五十七說不動、獨覺不練根者，不進自乘。 菩薩不練者，不進他乘。 非不動法及獨覺不進他乘，亦非菩薩不進自乘。 五十七云「預流練根亦得一來，一來練根不得不還，對治難得，所得大故。 不還練根，但進離欲，不得無學，如前應知。 有五義故須練：一少善不具、二為引勝定、三為植多聞力、四為植論議決擇力、五為植觀察甚深法忍力，故須練根。 」故除得果，亦有練根捨道共戒。 五入無餘涅槃，一切永捨。 下之三捨種更不成就。 雖知四緣說靜慮捨，雖復五緣說無漏捨，總類一緣，謂起異心一切皆捨。 由現行思是無表故，故於諸緣前方便中已說捨故，今說種類於現續生，故說四緣五緣故捨。 不律儀戒，雖無正文，由四緣捨：一誓願捨，於佛等處，自邀期願永不復作，如捨律儀，捨彼思故。 二受戒捨，若受出家及近事戒，一切永捨。 若受近住戒，作永捨思，亦復永捨。 若心勢捨，過於明旦捨近住戒已，還復相續，由彼惡思不永捨故。 三得定捨，諸定、道戒，性違惡故。 四命終捨，邀期息故。 有說：形沒、二形生亦捨，所依變故。 有說：不然。 許此二種不捨律儀受得律儀。 況不律儀唯惡意樂，彼器亦爾，故無此捨。 五十三云「當知此人乃至不律儀思未捨已來，常得說名不律儀者。 於日日分，彼不善思廣積集故，彼不善業多現行故，當知非福運運增長。 」故知如前四捨為善。 有說：無有誓願捨，如不服藥病終難愈，故要受戒、得定、命終。 此亦不然，其思捨故，如捨律儀。 故前說善。 處中無表若立有者，此無正文，依《俱舍論》第十五說，六緣故捨：一受心斷壞故捨，謂捨所受，作是念言：「我從今時棄先所受。 」二勢力斷壞，謂由淨信，煩惱勢力限勢斷壞。 如所放箭、陶家輪等，勢盡便斷。 三作業斷壞，謂如所受，後更不作。 四事物斷壞，謂所捨施四事什物、罝網等事。 五壽命斷壞，謂所依止有轉易故。 六善根斷壞，謂起加行斷善根時，便捨善根所引無表。 十善業道，表與無表支類雖殊，多分說與近事戒同。 然於捨中，加期限滿，或一日夜等。 時分長短，期限滿故，即便棄捨。

‘If there is no such virtuous person before whom one may confess, one should purify one's intention, generate a resolve in one's own mind, [vowing:] “I shall definitively guard against it in the future and never commit it again.” In this way, one emerges from the offense and is restored to purity. As for those who do not commit an offense: those who are insane or oppressed by suffering when committing a grave offense are not called offenders.’ In accordance with this, for both classes—upāsakas and upavāsathas—violating a precept does not constitute relinquishment. One should go before a virtuous person capable of granting [reception], or make a vow by oneself, confessing and vowing so as to emerge from one's transgression and restore the purity of one's precepts. The four pārājika dharmas and the ancillary dharmas are as explained in the newly translated Bodhisattva Precepts composed by Maitreya and other texts. Those without gender or with dual gender are not barred from receiving the precepts, because [the bodhisattva precepts] gather and embrace broadly; nor is it said that they relinquish them. According to these principles, the precepts of bhikṣus and others within the bodhisattva precepts are not relinquished at death, with dual gender, at sunrise, or the like. Because the [bodhisattva's] mind is broad and vast, they cannot be received separately. Dhyāna discipline is relinquished through four conditions: First, relinquishment through cessation; that is, emerging from that concentration and giving rise to a mind of a different category, because [this] precept accords with the mind. Second, relinquishment through non-functioning; that is, relinquishment through changing planes, when being born from a lower or higher plane into a higher or lower plane. Third, relinquishment through loss of function. Fourth, relinquishment through permanent absence; upon entering nirvāṇa without remainder, everything is relinquished and never again accomplished, because once one falls away from dhyāna and the like, it is never accomplished again. Anāsrava discipline is relinquished through five conditions: First, relinquishment through cessation; that is, emerging from that mind and giving rise to a mind of a different category, because it conforms to the mind. Second, relinquishment through temporary absence; that is, relinquishment through falling away. For those liberated by wisdom and bodily witnesses, when falling away from pleasant abiding in the present life, the concentration of cessation, and the like, or when being born into a lower plane and the like, this is not falling away from the noble fruits to give rise to defilements. The above two are called temporary relinquishments; they are brought to presence again in the present life. Third, relinquishment through attaining a fruit; the fourteenth fascicle of the Abhidharmasamuccaya states: ‘At the stages of abhisamaya, when realizing the subsequent superior path, one relinquishes the previously attained inferior path. Just as when realizing the path subsumed by this fruit, one immediately relinquishes the path subsumed by this approach [to the fruit], because it will not become present again.’ Fourth, relinquishment through refining the faculties; the fifty-seventh fascicle of the ‘Decisions’ states: ‘How many pudgalas refine their faculties? Answer: All those in training (śaikṣa), and five among those beyond training (aśaikṣa)—the lineages of falling away, thought, guarding, abiding, and capable of penetration; not pratyekabuddhas, nor bodhisattvas, because their faculties are by nature sharp.’ The fourteenth fascicle of the Abhidharmasamuccaya states: ‘If bodhisattvas are by nature of sharp faculties, why are they instructed to cultivate the refining of faculties? It is to cause them, relying on sharp-inferior faculties, to induce sharp-medium faculties, and relying on sharp-medium faculties, further to induce sharp-superior faculties.’ That text itself harmonizes this: ‘Earlier it was said that bodhisattvas are by nature of sharp faculties, yet later it was said that from time to time they should cultivate the refining of faculties; this is because within their own category there are further three grades, inferior and so forth, which successively induce one another, which is called refining the faculties. Were it not so, sharp faculties would be of only a single grade.’ The fifty-seventh fascicle states that immovable [arhats] and pratyekabuddhas do not refine their faculties because they do not advance toward their own vehicle. Bodhisattvas do not refine them because they do not advance toward another vehicle. It is not that immovable ones and pratyekabuddhas do not advance toward another vehicle, nor that bodhisattvas do not advance toward their own vehicle. The fifty-seventh fascicle says: ‘A stream-enterer who refines faculties also attains [the fruit of] once-returner. A once-returner who refines faculties does not attain [the fruit of] non-returner, because the antidote is difficult to obtain and what is attained is vast. A non-returner who refines faculties only advances toward detachment from desire, but does not attain the stage beyond training; this should be understood as before. Faculties must be refined for five reasons: first, because slight wholesomeness is incomplete; second, to induce superior concentration; third, to plant the power of extensive learning; fourth, to plant the power of doctrinal debate and discernment; fifth, to plant the power of patience in observing the profound Dharma. Therefore, one must refine the faculties.’ Thus, apart from attaining the fruit, there is also relinquishing the path-concomitant discipline through refining the faculties. Fifth, upon entering nirvāṇa without remainder, everything is permanently relinquished. For the latter three relinquishments, the seeds are never again accomplished. Although it is known that dhyāna relinquishment is explained by four conditions, and anāsrava relinquishment by five conditions, subsuming their categories there is one condition: that is, when a different mind arises, all are relinquished. Because manifest intention is avijñapti, relinquishment has already been explained within the preliminary expedients of the various conditions; now, explaining the categories as continuously arising in the present, it is said that they are relinquished through four conditions and five conditions. Although there is no direct canonical text for the discipline of non-restraint (asaṃvara), it is relinquished through four conditions: First, relinquishment by vow; making a binding vow before the Buddha or elsewhere never to do it again, like relinquishing discipline, because one relinquishes that intention. Second, relinquishment by receiving precepts; if one receives the precepts of monastic renunciation or of an upāsaka, all [non-restraint] is permanently relinquished. If one receives the upavāsatha precepts and forms the thought of permanent relinquishment, it is likewise permanently relinquished. If it is relinquished by momentum of intention, once dawn passes and the upavāsatha precepts are relinquished, it resumes again, because that evil intention was not permanently relinquished. Third, relinquishment by attaining concentration; because the various concentrations and path-precepts are by nature contrary to evil. Fourth, relinquishment at the end of life; because the binding period ceases. Some say: it is also relinquished when one's gender vanishes or dual gender arises, because the support has changed. Others say: this is not so. These two [conditions] are permitted not to relinquish discipline and [allow one] to receive discipline. How much more so for non-restraint, which is solely an evil intention; their vessel is also like that, so there is no such relinquishment. The fifty-third fascicle states: ‘One should know that as long as this person has not yet relinquished the intention of non-restraint, they may always be called one of non-restraint. Day by day, because their unwholesome intentions are broadly accumulated and their unwholesome karma is frequently manifested, one should know that non-merit steadily increases.’ Therefore, we know that the previous four relinquishments are correct. Some say: there is no relinquishment by vow; just as an illness will never heal without taking medicine, one must definitely receive precepts, attain concentration, or end one's life. This too is not so, because its intention is relinquished, just as in relinquishing discipline. Therefore, the earlier explanation is correct. If intermediate avijñapti is posited—though there is no direct canonical text—according to the fifteenth fascicle of the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya, it is relinquished through six conditions: First, relinquishment through the breaking of the receptive mind; that is, relinquishing what was received, forming the thought: ‘From this moment on, I abandon what was previously received.’ Second, breaking of momentum; that is, by pure faith, the momentum and prescribed limit of defilement are broken. Just as with a released arrow, a potter's wheel, and the like, when the momentum is exhausted, it stops. Third, breaking of action; that is, following what was received, one no longer acts thereafter. Fourth, breaking of the object; that is, the four requisites, utensils, nets, snares, and other matters given away. Fifth, breaking of life span; that is, because the basis of support undergoes transformation. Sixth, breaking of the wholesome roots; that is, when initiating the preparation to sever the wholesome roots, one immediately relinquishes the avijñapti induced by the wholesome roots. Although the branches and categories of manifest (vijñapti) and unmanifest (avijñapti) for the ten wholesome courses of action differ, for the most part they are said to be the same as the upāsaka precepts. However, in their relinquishment, expiration of the prescribed period is added—such as one day and night, or the like. Because of the length of the time period, once the term expires, it is abandoned.”