止觀輔行傳弘決 4.6

4.6

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?