止觀輔行傳弘決 4.4

4.4

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.