大乘法苑義林章 3.24.2

3.24.2

Therefore, the *Abhidharmakośa-śāstra*, having explained the ten ways of obtaining the precepts, says: "The prātimokṣa vows obtained in this way do not necessarily arise depending on manifest karma, let alone from another person." That is, it allows that, with the exception of the bhikṣu precepts, all other precepts can be received by oneself as well as from another. Therefore, the *Yogācārabhūmi* asks: "Question: If, excluding the bhikṣu prātimokṣa vows, the remaining prātimokṣa vows may be received spontaneously, for what reason are they also received from another? Answer: Because there are two limbs for receiving and guarding [the vows], which keep one away from bad morality: namely, conscience (hrī) and shame (apatrāpya). If one deeply feels shame when committing a sin in the presence of others and in the presence of oneself, one can thereby fully receive the limbs for receiving and guarding [the vows] to keep away from bad morality; hence they are received from another." The meaning expressed here is: because there is conscience, one deeply feels shame when committing a sin in the presence of oneself; because there is shame, one deeply feels shame when committing a sin in the presence of others. Or, because of conscience, when committing a sin in the presence of others or oneself, one feels shame out of regard for oneself, thereby venerating the virtuous; or, because of shame, when committing a sin in the presence of others or oneself, one feels shame out of regard for the world, thereby despising and rejecting violence and evil. Therefore, when shame is manifest, conscience is not necessarily present; but when conscience is present, shame is definitely present. Hence, the dharma of conscience is the most powerful. If one deeply protects and observes [the precepts] just as one has received them oneself, one should know that the merit generated thereby is equal without difference. Because conscience regards oneself, it necessarily entails shame regarding others; while having shame regarding others does not necessarily entail the arising of conscience regarding oneself, for although one protects one's worldly reputation, one may not regard oneself. This speaks of the precepts of the five assemblies of renunciants. The upasaka, upavāsa, and bodhisattva precepts all admit of both forms of reception. This is unlike other schools, where the upavāsa precepts must be received from a teacher. Therefore, the fortieth fascicle of the *Bodhisattvabhūmi* says: "If there is someone who wishes to diligently train in the three collections of precepts, whether householder or renunciant, after having first made the great vow toward unexcelled bodhi, they should carefully seek a fellow bodhisattva who has already made the great vow, possesses wisdom and ability, and is able to confer and explain through the express meaning of speech. In the presence of such an eminent bodhisattva endowed with virtues, they should first bow at their feet, up to the detailed explanation of the five aspects of receiving the precepts." The forty-first fascicle says: "If one does not encounter an individual endowed with such virtues, one should then receive the pure bodhisattva prātimokṣa vows oneself before an image of the Tathāgata." The fortieth fascicle also says: "Even if one is intelligent, if one lacks faith and understanding regarding the precepts, lacks proper reflection, possesses greed and stinginess, has great desires and is discontented, is lax in breaking the precepts, is resentful and intolerant, cannot endure others' offenses, is lazy, indolent, and addicted to reclining, enjoys gathering companions and engaging in idle chatter, and has a mind that is mostly distracted—down to being unable to abide and cultivate a wholesome mind focused on a single object for even the time it takes to milk a cow—or is dim, foolish, and slanders the bodhisattva collection with a base mind, one should not receive [the precepts] from them. These are called the conditions for a bodhisattva precept-master." The *Yingluo jing* says: "One is permitted to receive them oneself only when there is no precept-master within a thousand li." This is to make people revere the precepts and seek a master within a thousand li; it is not strictly required to be so. For example, if a woman lacks bodily independence, or is poor or sick and wishes to receive the bodhisattva precepts, how could she be required to travel a thousand li? Thus we know that this is merely a qualified statement. Because the *Yogācārabhūmi* does not consider whether the place is near or far, it simply permits receiving them oneself. Regarding all these precepts mentioned above, if they are received from another, there are necessarily manifest and unmanifest [actions], because one indicates to another. If they are received by oneself, there is only mental manifest action and no bodily or vocal manifest action, which can establish unmanifest [action]. Therefore, the *Yogācārabhūmi* says: "If they are received spontaneously, there is only mental manifest karma." Even if a bystander sees one receiving them oneself, since they are not a teacher or senior and are not the condition for conscience and shame, there is definitely no manifest karma. Or it may also have manifest karma: the treatise says that for one who receives them spontaneously when not even a single person is alongside, there is only unmanifest karma. As when today one confesses and receives the precepts before an assembly, making vows and setting periods, there is definitely manifest karma. The unmanifest karma of dhyāna and the path should be understood according to the *Abhidharmasamuccaya*. Among the five kinds of form belonging to the dharmāyatana, it is called "derived from reception"; regarding the distant preparatory expedient, it is also received from another, directly giving rise to the unmanifest. There is also the sense of receiving from another, as when the Buddha expounds the Dharma for someone, who enters the path of seeing, becomes free from dust and defilement, enters samādhi, and immediately obtains the precepts. If so, one should also say there is manifest karma. This is also not the case: because this volition does not issue in external bodily or vocal action and is anāsrava, there is no manifest karma; hence one can only say that there is unmanifest karma. However, at the very moment of directly obtaining the unmanifest karma of the path and dhyāna, when the mind has no external object, how can it be said to be received? The designation of "reception" is derived from the distant preparatory expedient. The fifty-third fascicle says: "If, relying on this very prātimokṣa vow that has been received without breach or offense, one cultivates remorse-free states and so forth, up to fully entering the first dhyāna, then by the power of śamatha to suppress, one suppresses all seeds of breaking the precepts—this is called the dhyāna vow. This means that when a bhikṣu or similar has received the prātimokṣa vow and is able to be without breach or offense, using this as a basis, because there is no offense there is no remorse; because there is no remorse the mind is joyful; because the mind is joyful the mind is blissful; because the mind is blissful the mind is tranquil; because the mind is tranquil one attains samādhi. If there is an offense, one will ultimately not attain samādhi." In the *Mahāsaṃnipāta-sūtra*, the Buddha said: "Countless kalpas ago, when I was an ordinary person, my name was Jātata. In the country of Kālura, I was a merchant engaging in trade, deceitful and untrue, committing all kinds of evil deeds beyond full description. At that time, in my folly, I killed my father and committed incest with my mother; the whole country knew of it, and I was no different from domestic animals. The king wished to execute me; in terror, I fled to another land and became a śramaṇa for thirty-seven years. Due to the obstacle of the five deadly sins, my mind could not attain samādhi. Later, when begging for food, I found an almsbowl, inside of which was this dhāraṇī named the 'Mantra of the Assembly of Dharmas for Abandoning Suffering and Calamity.' After chanting and upholding it continuously for over a year, I finally attained dhyāna. When bhikṣus and others have broken the grave prohibitions, their minds regret and therefore become sorrowful; because they are sorrowful they are not joyful; because they are not joyful they are not tranquil; because they are not tranquil they do not attain dhyāna. Hence, upholding the precepts and the like is the condition for obtaining the dhyāna vows. If, regarding the precepts one upholds, one has broken the grave prohibitions in this life, one will definitely not attain samādhi, because bad reflection is extensive and the damage and hindrance are profound. By the awe-inspiring power of the mantra, having previously committed the five deadly sins as a layperson, it could be attained in this life." The above discusses attaining dhyāna based on precepts. There are also instances where the initial dhyāna does not depend on precepts, such as the dhyāna attained by the very first person at the time of the destruction of the kalpa, because it is inherently the first. Therefore, the vows of dhyāna may have other conditions, and may also not depend on them. Regarding the vows concordant with the path, the *Yogācārabhūmi* also says: "If, without breach or offense in this very śīla vow, one furthermore relies on the dhyāna vow, enters into the direct realization of the truths, and attains the fruit of anāgāmin, at that time all seeds of bad morality are completely and permanently eliminated."