大乘法苑義林章 3.29.2

3.29.2

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.'