止觀輔行傳弘決 4.4

4.4

「性戒」下，料簡三學無作有無。初戒無作者，性戒不受，故無無作。「若受戒」下，明受得戒即有無作，故性罪之上加違無作。出家等戒無作別生，是故持則功等虛空，破乃隨對一支一境，舉持勸受、加罪遮違。況犯已法除、復本清淨，故云薝蔔華雖萎猶勝於餘華，破戒諸比丘猶勝諸外道。「如伐草」下，略出遮性同異之相。如草畜俱有違制之罪，作單提悔二遮俱滅，然於害畜仍有性愆，故引論解償命猶在。問：性罪不滅，何須懺耶？答：免違制已持心相續，縱果位廣償，為利物因，豈同於違且沈三趣？償者，還也、復也。「故四分」下，引證。言「邊罪」者，謂性四重及曾受五十乃至比丘等戒，殺人，盜五，犯淫三趣男女正道，俗非己妻及非處等，妄對人趣稱過人法。犯此四已，五十進具比丘捨已，重來為難，佛法邊人，故名邊罪。重遮徒受，是故令問。此罪等者，釋邊遮意。若先未曾受，犯已尚障五八等戒，況具戒耶？況受五等犯四重耶？此準《方等陀羅尼經》及《虛空藏菩薩經》明邊罪義。《多論》亦明犯五八十中重障具足戒，故南山鈔主依之承用。相部對內雖異於此，其如南山有教可憑，智者大師依教承用。若有道俗犯已能悔，更欲進求清淨戒者，具如《方等占察》等經。《占察》上卷云「未來世中在家出家欲求淨戒，犯增上罪不得受者，當修懺法。」具在經文。是故當知性戒清淨為諸戒因，舊名「作無作」，《成論》云「教無教」，新名「表無表」。作謂為作，教謂教示，表謂表彰，名異意同，彼此無在。無作一發無捨失緣，終訖一形相續恒起，如初受時作白已後入餘心者尚名得戒。故《成論》云「若人入不善心、無記心、無心，亦名持戒。」律疏云「四心三性始末恒有，三性加無心為四（云云）。」廣辨作無作同異相狀等，非此可盡，具如疏鈔。

From "inherent precepts" onward, there is an analysis of the presence or absence of the unmanifest in the three trainings. First, regarding the unmanifest of the precepts: because inherent precepts are not received [in a ritual], they lack the unmanifest. From "if one receives the precepts" onward, it explains that once received, the precepts possess the unmanifest; hence, upon the inherent offense there is added the violation of the unmanifest. In precepts such as leaving home, the unmanifest is separately engendered; therefore, keeping them brings merit equal to empty space, while breaking them depends directly on each single branch and each single object. Adducing keeping [them] encourages receiving [them]; adding offense blocks violating [them]. How much more so, when after an infraction the Dharma purifies and one returns to the original purity! Thus it is said: "Though the campaka flower withers, it still excels other flowers; monks who have broken the precepts still excel the non-Buddhists." From "as in felling grass" onward, the characteristics of the similarities and differences between proscriptive and inherent [precepts] are briefly brought forth. For instance, harming grass and beasts both involve the offense of violating a prohibition; performing the prāyaścittika repentance extinguishes both proscriptions, but regarding harming a beast, the inherent fault still remains. Hence the treatise is cited to explain that the compensation of life still persists. Question: If the inherent offense is not extinguished, why must one repent? Answer: Having escaped violating the prohibition, the mind of keeping [precepts] continues uninterrupted; even if in the fruit position one broadly compensates, it becomes a cause for benefiting beings—how could it be the same as violating [the prohibition] and plunging straight into the three destinies? "Compensation" means to return, to pay back. From "therefore the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya" onward, it cites evidence. Regarding "boundary offenses": this refers to the four inherent pārājikas, and when one who previously received the five, ten, or even the bhikṣu precepts commits murder, steals five [māṣas], engages in sexual misconduct in the proper orifices of males and females across the three destinies (or, for a layperson, with someone not one's own wife or in an improper orifice, and so forth), or falsely claims superhuman dharmas to a human being. Once these four have been committed, if one who had the five or ten had proceeded to full ordination, or as a bhikṣu renounced [the precepts], returning again creates an obstruction; they are people on the outer boundary of the Buddha-Dharma, hence called "boundary offenses." It is a grave prohibition where reception is in vain; therefore, the question is ordered to be posed. The phrase "such offenses" explains the intention of the boundary prohibitions. If one who previously had never received [precepts] is, after committing [them], still obstructed from the five and eight precepts, how much more so the complete precepts? How much more so one who received the five [precepts] and so forth and committed the four pārājikas? This accords with the Fangdeng tuoluoni jing and the Xukongzang pusa jing in explaining the meaning of boundary offenses. The Dazhidulun also explains that committing [offenses] among the five, eight, or ten gravely obstructs the complete precepts; therefore, the master of the Nanshan commentary relied upon it and adopted it. Although the Xiangbu school's treatment of the internal differs from this, Nanshan has textual authority to rely upon, and the Great Master Zhizhe adopted it according to the teachings. If monastics or laypeople who have committed [offenses] can repent, and further desire to advance and seek the pure precepts, it is fully stated in scriptures such as the Fangdeng zhancha jing. The upper fascicle of the Zhancha jing says: "In future eras, householders and renunciants who wish to seek pure precepts but, having committed grave offenses, cannot receive them, should practice the repentance ritual." This is fully in the sutra text. Therefore, one should know that the purity of the inherent precepts is the cause for all precepts. Formerly it was called "manifest and unmanifest"; the Satyasiddhi-śāstra calls it "instruction and non-instruction"; newly it is called "informative and uninformative." "Manifest" refers to doing; "instruction" refers to instructing; "informative" refers to expressing. The terms differ but the meaning is the same; there is no contradiction between them. Once the unmanifest arises, lacking causes for abandonment or loss, it continuously arises without interruption to the end of one's physical form. Just as when first receiving, after the formal proclamation has been made, even if one enters other mental states, one is still said to have obtained the precepts. Thus the Satyasiddhi-śāstra says: "If a person enters an unwholesome mind, an indeterminate mind, or a state of no-mind, they are still called one who keeps the precepts." The Vinaya commentary says: "The four minds and three natures are constantly present from beginning to end; the three natures plus no-mind make four (and so forth)." A broad analysis of the similarities, differences, and characteristics of the manifest and unmanifest cannot be exhausted here; it is fully detailed in the subcommentaries and commentaries.