止觀輔行傳弘決 4.6

4.6

○二明持相，先事、次理。初事中，文十義七，意在正修。言義七者，前四各一，後六成三，所謂三觀。亦可二義，四六異故。前四直爾論事，後六寄理義當於事，意在比決令知淺深。先釋不缺，即持四重。「若毀」下，以犯顯持。言「失比丘法」者，既犯重已，不任僧用。《大經》云「犯重比丘不能復生善芽種子，如斷多羅樹等。」「不破者」，名損為破，猶勝於缺，是故仍在生善僧數。「若毀」下，以犯顯持。「不穿者」，雖不破缺，如猶有穿，易可補治。「若有」下，以犯顯持。「不雜者」，即是事定。有事定者，任運持得。「雖持」下，以犯顯持。《大經》二十九云「若有菩薩，雖不與彼女人和合，而共言語嘲調戲笑。如是菩薩成就欲法，毀破淨戒、污辱梵行，令戒雜穢，不得名為淨戒具足。復有菩薩自言戒淨，雖不與彼女人身合，言語嘲調而於壁外聞鐶釧聲，是名菩薩成就欲法，乃至不名淨戒具足。復次自言戒淨，乃至不聞鐶釧聲等，若見男子隨逐女人、若見女人隨逐男子，如是菩薩乃至不名淨戒具足。乃至為天樂故，廣如初句。」如《四分》中持戒有四：一賊分齊，如諂媚勝他、邪命名利等。二罪分齊，畏三途等。三福分齊，欲天樂等。四道分齊，謂為解脫。除為解脫，前三種持及限爾許日，如是時處支等恐不發戒。「用中道」下，亦名開權。既得中已，以此中慧融一切法，故使一止一作無非法界，故云大乘式叉迦羅尼。此名為學，別在第五、通約諸篇，今並開之成摩訶衍，故《大經》及《十住婆沙》皆指篇聚云「菩薩摩訶薩持是禁戒，當知戒無大小，由受者心期。」是則中道遍入空假及事律儀，方得名為具足持戒。「涅槃五支」等者，彼聖行中先明自行五支、後列願他十戒。菩薩摩訶薩持一一支，皆願眾生當得禁戒等十。言五支者，一具足業清淨戒，謂四重。二前後眷屬餘清淨戒，謂偷蘭遮為前眷屬。此語因蘭，能為重罪前方便故；十三僧殘列在重後，為後眷屬。所言餘者，如後釋。三非諸惡覺覺清淨戒者，即是不雜定共戒也。四護持正念念清淨戒者，即四念處道共戒也。五迴向具足無上道戒者，佛菩薩持，非諸凡小所能持得。護他十戒者，一禁戒、二清淨戒、三善戒、四不缺戒、五不析戒、六大乘戒、七不退戒、八隨順戒、九畢竟戒、十具足諸波羅蜜戒。今亦以十願對行，故《大經》十戒與論意同，五支復與願他十戒開合異耳。是則還將自行以願於他，故《玄》文中具將論十以對經十及以五支，具如《釋籤》中和會同異。「束前」下判位。既約事釋以辨一心，故此十戒離對凡聖大小位別。不雜戒云凡夫入定能持得者，且約有宗；若據餘部，餘心亦得智所讚自在行向人持。據此以論，十住即持隨道無著，十信唯持律儀諸戒。隨定具足云非六度通教菩薩所持者，且一往簡云此具足是大根性人所持得，別人有分，故不簡之。據理亦非別人行向所能持得，唯是初地已去方能持得。「向判」下，約理觀論持戒。先結前生後，「先束」下正釋。此中文十義二，意在轉事以修正觀。言二義者，謂境及觀。四之與六如前事中，今之三觀三一不二。然前十戒非無理觀，即後六是，分張對位故屬事相。況律儀不雜當分未融，故今更約一念心中具明十戒，而不濫尊極、不離凡心。用前四戒通為觀境，以六觀之事理相即，當知篇聚一不可虧。世人蔑事而欲尚深理者，驗知此觀孤虛無本，既虧觀境觀亦無從。是故今文尚觀緣生一念心起為善惡因，由此亦能破於不缺乃至不雜，況復但觀身口重業及輕吉等耶？尚觀此心即是法性，豈直觀於善惡因耶？是故今文與他意別。次觀善惡下觀戒即空中，引《金剛》釋。「故知」下，略申經意。雖此略申，未知法與非法為是何等。「今云」下，釋法非法。即以破見名為皆空。何者？雖破我人眾生壽者，假無與實猶見是有，名之為法。若見為無乃至見是非有非無皆名非法，依此起見猶名為著，是故須捨。若不起四見，即無六十二見，故云「防止有無六十二見」。若《大品》中十六知見，此我人等四亦攝在彼十六見中，十六亦為此四攝盡。此四見者，無著論云「我以計內、人以計外、眾生以續前為義、壽者以趣後為能。」若依《大論》釋十六知見中云「我者，於陰界入計我我所若即若離。人者，謂於陰界入中謂我是行人，行通善惡無非行者。眾生者，於陰界入和合之中計有我生。壽者者，於陰界入中計一期報若長若短。」亦與無著大同。二論並以陰界入法而為所執，今文通以假實四句皆為所執，以能計有等為我人也，以此少異。是則近約隨道戒說，為順經文破我故也。經意既遠、所執亦通，法與非法豈唯假實？然能計者但成六十二見而已。若通論者，法謂衍也，非法小也。衍尚不著，何況於小？又法謂大小，非法謂假實。又法謂大乘是有，非法謂大乘是無，乃至非有非無，如是皆名我人等見，是故猶屬六十二也。故云大乘生著，猶須無常幻化等破。通義雖爾，今且從別。智所讚中云知心非心、法亦非法，此亦仍順般若近意，心謂能計假名之心，法謂所計五陰實法。乃至若計假實、非有非無，皆破入空，故云「知心非心、法亦非法」。知空非空，故云「而不永滯非心非法」。從空出假還是出此心法之假，故云「道種方便無所有中立心立法」。立於三界假實心法，即是入於愛見之假。假既立已，對病設藥，名為「拔出」。若約自行論拔出者，《大經》云「願作心師，不師於心。欲得不退菩提，當發此願。」《淨名》云「弟子眾塵勞，隨意之所轉。」化他亦然，以自在故為智為讚，故知兩戒一體無殊。「隨如是定」，結隨定名，「無不具足」，結具足名，故知二名亦非碩異。三觀及境一一文中，皆先釋、次以止觀結之。「故梵網」下，引證理觀持戒名為止觀。故知應以第一義光寂照相即，而為防止善順戒體。孝者畜也，事親之道宜恒畜在心；以在心故，能順顏色，故名為順。今亦如是，觀不思議理恒照在心、善順於理，順故觀於三諦、孝故止於三惑，如是持戒尚不與別教出假持戒義同，豈與天子庶民行孝為同年耶？臣軌云：「夫孝者先須安國，國安所以家安，家安所以行孝等。」如是尚不逮於人天，況大小乘防止善順？言本師及我皆誦者，背文曰誦。舍那、釋迦以證戒體，稟教義絕無說而說，故名為誦。「十住廣說」者，毘婆沙此云廣說。得人法二空名「離我我所」，及離諸法有所得想名「離戲論」，以如此法名「上尸羅」，故知亦是約理名戒。「淨名云」等者，《淨名疏》引：時二比丘疑犯婬殺二波羅夷，是二比丘共居蘭若，一人他行、一人露臥。婬女采薪盜行不淨，伴比丘來見而逐之，女人避走墮坑而死。臥者疑犯婬、逐者疑犯殺，不敢問佛，來白波離。波離為其準律解釋：若犯根本令其學悔，若犯方便令其懺蘭，若本無心令不須懺。大士訶曰：「我念聲聞不觀人根不應說法。此二比丘久發大心，如何以小而教導之？彼罪性者不在內外兩中間，如其心然，罪垢亦然。」此即無生悔之要觀也。如是是名「善解奉律」。今亦以此名上尸羅。上尸羅者，無持無犯。犯必無生，豈以無生而令必犯？故知應以四句推持無持犯性名真奉律，豈要推犯名善解耶？

Second, explaining the marks of maintaining [the precepts]: first phenomenally, and next in principle. In the first, phenomenal aspect, there are ten [precepts] in the text and seven meanings, the intention lying in authentic practice. As for the seven meanings, the first four are one each, and the latter six form three—namely, the three contemplations. Alternatively, there are two meanings, because the four and the six differ. The first four simply discuss phenomenal matters; the latter six rely on principle so that their meaning corresponds to phenomenal matters, the intention being to compare and decide so that one knows shallow and deep. First, explaining 'unbroken' (buque): this is maintaining the four major prohibitions (pārājikas). From 'If violated' downward, maintaining is shown by means of violation. As for 'losing the monk's Dharma,' having committed a major [violation], one is no longer fit for the Sangha's functions. The Great Sūtra says: 'A monk who commits a major [violation] can no longer sprout the seeds of good roots, like a felled tāla palm tree, and so forth.' As for 'unshattered' (bupo), impairment is called 'shattering'; it is still superior to 'broken,' and therefore one remains within the count of monks who can generate good. From 'If violated' downward, maintaining is shown by means of violation. As for 'unpierced' (buchuan), though not shattered or broken, it is as if pierced, which can easily be mended. From 'If there is' downward, maintaining is shown by means of violation. As for 'unmixed' (buzai), this is phenomenal concentration. One who has phenomenal concentration spontaneously maintains [the precepts]. From 'Though maintaining' downward, maintaining is shown by means of violation. Fascicle 29 of the Great Sūtra says: 'If there is a bodhisattva who, although not engaging in union with a woman, banters, jokes, and laughs with her, such a bodhisattva accomplishes the dharma of desire, shatters the pure precepts, defiles the brahma-conduct, and causes the precepts to become mixed and impure, and cannot be called endowed with pure precepts. Again, there is a bodhisattva who claims his precepts are pure, who, although not physically uniting with a woman or bantering with her, hears the tinkling of her bracelets outside the wall—this is called a bodhisattva accomplishing the dharma of desire, and up to cannot be called endowed with pure precepts. Furthermore, he claims his precepts are pure, and up to does not hear the tinkling of bracelets and so forth, yet if he sees a man following a woman or sees a woman following a man, such a bodhisattva up to cannot be called endowed with pure precepts. And up to: for the sake of heavenly pleasures, extensively explained as in the first phrase.' As in the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, there are four limits in maintaining precepts: First, the limit of thieves, such as flattery to surpass others, wrong livelihood for fame and profit, etc. Second, the limit of transgression, fearing the three bad paths, etc. Third, the limit of merit, desiring heavenly pleasures, etc. Fourth, the limit of the Path, meaning for the sake of liberation. Except for liberation, maintaining precepts in the first three ways and limiting them to a certain number of days—at such times, places, components, and so forth—it is feared will not arouse the [unmanifest] precept. From 'Applying the middle path' downward is also called opening the provisional. Having attained the middle, one uses this middle wisdom to fuse all dharmas, so that a single cessation and a single action are nothing other than the dharma-dhātu; hence it is called the Great Vehicle's śikṣākaraṇīya. This is called 'training'; specifically it lies in the fifth [category], and generally it relates to all categories [of precepts]. Now they are all opened to become the Mahāyāna; therefore, the Great Sūtra and the Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā both point to the categories of precepts, saying: 'Bodhisattva-mahāsattvas maintain these prohibitions; one should know that precepts have no great or small, but depend on the intention of the recipient.' Thus, when the middle path universally enters emptiness, provisionality, and phenomenal vinaya, only then can it be called complete maintenance of the precepts. As for 'the five limbs of the Nirvāṇa,' etc.: in its Holy Practice, it first explains the five limbs of one's own practice, and afterward lists the ten precepts of wishing for others. When the bodhisattva-mahāsattva maintains each limb, he vows that sentient beings shall attain the ten, including prohibitions. As for the five limbs: First, the precept of complete and pure bodily and verbal actions, which means the four major prohibitions. Second, the remaining pure precepts of the preceding and succeeding attendants: thullaccayas are the preceding attendants. This refers to causal thullaccayas, as they serve as preliminary expedients to major offences; the thirteen saṅghāvaśeṣas are listed after the major [offences] as succeeding attendants. What is called 'remaining' is as explained later. Third, the pure precept of awareness free from evil thoughts: this is the concentration-concomitant precept, which is unmixed. Fourth, the pure precept of mindfulness that protects right mindfulness: this is the path-concomitant precept of the four stations of mindfulness. Fifth, the precept of dedicating toward complete unsurpassable awakening: maintained by buddhas and bodhisattvas, not something ordinary people or followers of the Hinayana can maintain. The ten precepts for protecting others are: 1. prohibitions; 2. pure precepts; 3. good precepts; 4. unbroken precepts; 5. unsevered precepts; 6. Mahāyāna precepts; 7. non-retrogressing precepts; 8. compliant precepts; 9. ultimate precepts; 10. precepts complete with all pāramitās. Here also, the ten vows correspond to practice; therefore, the ten precepts of the Great Sūtra accord in meaning with the treatise, and the five limbs merely differ from the ten precepts for wishing for others in terms of expansion and contraction. Thus, one simply turns one's own practice into vows for others; therefore, the text of the Profound Meaning comprehensively correlates the treatise's ten with the sūtra's ten and the five limbs, fully as harmonised between similarities and differences in the Notes on the Profound Meaning. From 'Bundling the preceding' downward determines the stages. Since they were explained in terms of phenomena to delineate the single mind, these ten precepts are differentiated and correlated with the distinct stages of ordinary and noble, Great and Small. When it is said that an ordinary person entering concentration can maintain the unmixed precept, this is tentatively based on the Sarvāstivāda school; according to other schools, with other minds it can also be maintained by those in the stages of practice and dedication praised by the wise and acting with autonomy. Based on this discussion, the ten abodes maintain [precepts] according with the path and free from attachment, while the ten faiths only maintain the various vinaya precepts. When it says that [the precepts] according with concentration and fully complete are not what bodhisattvas of the six pāramitās or the shared teaching can maintain, this is a provisional distinction stating that this completeness can only be maintained by people of great capacities; persons of the distinctive teaching have a share in it, so they are not excluded. In terms of principle, it is also not something people in the practice and dedication stages of the distinctive teaching can maintain; only from the first bhūmi onward can it be maintained. From 'The preceding determination' downward discusses maintaining precepts in terms of contemplation of principle. First concluding what came before to introduce what follows; from 'First bundling' downward is the direct explanation. In this text there are ten [precepts] and two meanings, the intention being to convert phenomena so as to practice correct contemplation. As for the two meanings, they refer to the object and the contemplation. The four and the six are as in the preceding phenomenal section; here the three contemplations and the threefold-in-one are non-dual. Yet the preceding ten precepts were not devoid of contemplation of principle; the latter six were precisely that, but because they were split and correlated with stages, they belonged to phenomenal marks. Furthermore, the vinaya and the unmixed [precepts] were not yet fused in their respective shares; hence, the ten precepts are now further fully explained within a single thought-moment of the mind, neither confounding them with the supreme peak nor departing from the ordinary mind. The preceding four precepts serve collectively as the object of contemplation; contemplating them with the six [contemplations], phenomenon and principle are mutually identical. One should know that not a single category of the precepts may be deficient. When worldly people disdain phenomena and wish to esteem deep principle, this proves that their contemplation is isolated, hollow, and rootless; once the object of contemplation is deficient, contemplation has nowhere to proceed. Therefore, the present text still contemplates the single thought arising through conditioned origination as the cause of good and evil; thereby it can also shatter [attachments to] unbroken up to unmixed—how much more so if one merely contemplates the heavy bodily and verbal karmas and the light duṣkṛtas? It even contemplates this mind as identical to the dharma-nature—how could it merely contemplate the causes of good and evil? Therefore, the intention of the present text is different from others. Next, under 'Contemplating good and evil,' in 'Contemplating the precepts as identical to emptiness,' the Vajracchedikā is cited for explanation. From 'Therefore we know' downward briefly sets forth the sūtra's meaning. Although this is briefly set forth, it is not yet known what dharma and non-dharma are. From 'Now it says' downward explains dharma and non-dharma. That is, shattering views is called 'all being empty.' Why? Although the views of a self, a person, a sentient being, and a life span are shattered, regarding provisional non-existence and real existence, one still views them as existent; this is called 'dharma.' If one views them as non-existent, and up to views them as neither existent nor non-existent, these are all called 'non-dharma.' Generating views based on these is still called attachment; therefore, they must be relinquished. If one does not generate the four views, there are no sixty-two views; hence it says 'preventing the sixty-two views of existence and non-existence.' As for the sixteen views and knowledge in the Dapin, these four—self, person, etc.—are also subsumed within those sixteen views, and the sixteen are also fully subsumed by these four. Regarding these four views, Asanga's treatise says: 'Self has the meaning of conceiving within; person has the meaning of conceiving without; sentient being has the meaning of continuing the past; life span has the function of proceeding toward the future.' If according to the Dazhidulun's explanation of the sixteen views and knowledge, it says: 'Self means conceiving a self and what belongs to a self, as either identical to or separate from the aggregates, realms, and bases. Person means supposing within the aggregates, realms, and bases: "I am an agent; actions encompass good and evil, and there is none who is not an agent." Sentient being means conceiving the arising of a self within the conjunction of the aggregates, realms, and bases. Life span means conceiving a single lifespan's retribution, whether long or short, within the aggregates, realms, and bases.' This is largely identical with Asanga. Both treatises take the dharmas of aggregates, realms, and bases as what is grasped; the present text universally takes the four propositions of provisional and real as what is grasped, taking the ability to conceive existence and so forth as self and person; herein lies the slight difference. Thus, it is explained closely in terms of the precept according with the path, in order to accord with the sūtra's text refuting the self. Since the sūtra's intention is far-reaching, what is grasped is also general; how could dharma and non-dharma merely be provisional and real? However, the conceiver merely forms the sixty-two views and nothing more. If discussed generally, dharma means the Mahāyāna, and non-dharma means the Hīnayāna. Even to the Mahāyāna one should not be attached, how much less to the Hīnayāna? Moreover, dharma means Great and Small, and non-dharma means provisional and real. Again, dharma means the Mahāyāna is existent, and non-dharma means the Mahāyāna is non-existent, and up to neither existent nor non-existent; all such are called views of a self, a person, etc., and therefore still belong to the sixty-two. Thus it is said that generating attachment to the Great Vehicle still requires refutation by impermanence, illusory transformation, and so forth. Although the general meaning is like this, for now we follow the specific. In 'praised by the wise,' it says that one knows the mind to be non-mind and dharmas to be non-dharmas; this also accords with the immediate intention of the Prajñā: 'mind' refers to the mind of provisional designation that is able to conceive, and 'dharmas' refers to the real dharmas of the five aggregates that are conceived. And up to: if one conceives provisional and real, neither existent nor non-existent, all are shattered to enter emptiness; hence it says 'knowing mind to be non-mind, and dharmas to be non-dharmas.' Knowing that emptiness is not empty, hence it says 'and not lingering forever in non-mind and non-dharmas.' Emerging from emptiness into provisionality is still emerging into the provisionality of this mind and dharmas; hence it says 'establishing mind and establishing dharmas within the non-existent through the expedients of the path-species [wisdom].' Establishing the provisional and real mind and dharmas of the three realms is precisely entering the provisionality of craving and views. Once the provisional is established, one prescribes medicine according to the sickness, which is called 'uprooting.' If discussed in terms of one's own practice, 'uprooting' is as the Great Sūtra says: 'Vow to be a master of the mind, not to make the mind one's master. If you wish to attain non-retrogressing bodhi, you should make this vow.' Vimalakīrti says: 'The disciples' afflictions are turned according to one's will.' Transforming others is also like this; because of autonomy, it is wise and praised; therefore we know the two precepts are one substance without difference. 'According with such concentration' concludes the name 'according with concentration'; 'there is none not complete' concludes the name 'complete'; therefore we know the two names are also not vastly different. In the texts for each of the three contemplations and objects, there is first an explanation, followed by a conclusion in terms of calming and contemplation. From 'Therefore the Brahmā Net' downward cites evidence that maintaining precepts through the contemplation of principle is called calming and contemplation. Therefore, we should know that using the simultaneous mutual identity of the light of the ultimate truth and quiet illumination serves as the precept-essence of preventing [evil] and skillfully complying [with the good]. Filial compliance (xiao) means preserving (xu): the way of serving parents should always be preserved in the mind; because it is in the mind, one can comply with their facial expressions, hence it is called compliance (shun). Here it is also like this: contemplating the inconceivable principle, it is constantly illuminating the mind and skillfully compliant with principle; because of compliance, one contemplates the three truths; because of filiality, one stops the three delusions. Maintaining precepts like this is not even equivalent to maintaining precepts when emerging into provisionality in the distinctive teaching—how could it be mentioned in the same breath as the practice of filiality by the Son of Heaven or the common people? The Chengui says: 'Now, filiality must first pacify the state; when the state is pacified, the family is pacified; when the family is pacified, filiality can be practiced, etc.' Such things do not even reach human and heavenly [goodness], how much less the prevention [of evil] and skillful compliance in the Great and Small Vehicles? As for 'the root master and I both recite': reciting from memory without a text is called recitation. Vairocana and Śākyamuni, having realised the precept-essence, receive the teaching with principles transcended, preaching without preaching; hence it is called 'recitation.' As for 'extensively explained in the Daśabhūmika,' vibhāṣā is translated here as 'extensive explanation.' Attaining the two emptinesses of persons and dharmas is called 'free from self and what belongs to a self'; and being free from the ideation of obtaining anything among dharmas is called 'free from conceptual proliferation' (niṣprapañca). Designating such dharmas as the 'supreme śīla,' we know it also designates precepts in terms of principle. As for 'Vimalakīrti says,' etc., the Commentary on the Vimalakīrti cites: At that time, two monks suspected they had committed the two pārājikas of sexual misconduct and killing. These two monks lived together in an araṇya; one went elsewhere, and one slept in the open. A courtesan gathering firewood stealthily engaged in impurity [with him]; the companion monk returned, saw it, and pursued her; the woman fled, fell into a pit, and died. The sleeping one suspected he had committed sexual misconduct; the pursuing one suspected he had committed killing. Not daring to ask the Buddha, they went to speak to Upāli. Upāli explained according to the Vinaya: if they committed a root offence, he told them to train and repent; if they committed an expedient offence, he told them to repent a thullaccaya; if originally without mind, he told them no repentance was needed. The Great Being (Vimalakīrti) rebuked him, saying: 'I consider that śrāvakas should not preach the Dharma without examining people's capacities. These two monks aroused the great aspiration long ago; why instruct them with the small? The nature of that sin is neither inside, outside, nor in between; just as their mind is so, so is the defilement of sin.' This is the essential contemplation of the repentance of non-arising. Such a one is called 'skillfully understanding and upholding the Vinaya.' Now this is also called the supreme śīla. In the supreme śīla, there is neither maintaining nor violating. Violation is necessarily unarisen; how could unarising necessitate violation? Therefore, we should know that examining through the four propositions the nature of neither maintaining nor violating is called truly upholding the Vinaya; why must one examine violation alone to be called skillfully understanding?