緇門警訓 4.10

4.10

資持云。義淨三藏寄歸傳。廣斥世人燒身然指。意謂菩薩大士之行。非出家比丘所宜。古來章記相傳引誡。講者寡聞用為口實。此由不知機有淺深。教分化制律明自殺。方便偷蘭燒指然香。違制得吉。梵網所制。若不燒身臂指非出家菩薩。犯輕垢罪。此蓋小機急於自行。期盡報以超生。大士專在利他。歷塵劫而弘濟。是以小律結其大過。大教嘆其深功。況大小兩教俱是聖言。一抑一揚豈容乖異。且經明出家菩薩。那云不許比丘（彼云捨身非沙門所為等）傳列苦行遺身豈是專存通俗（彼云經中所明事存通俗）荊谿所謂依小不燒則易。依大燒之則難。保命貪生物情皆爾。今以義判且為三例。一若本白衣不在言限。或全不受戒。依此經中足指供養勝施國城。若依梵網直受大戒順體奉持。然之彌善。二若單受小戒位局比丘。不燒則順本成持。燒之則依篇結犯。三若兼受大戒名出家菩薩。燒則成持。不燒則成犯。若先小後大。或先大後小。並從大判不犯律儀。若此以明粗分進否。豈得雷同一概頓斥為非。然有勇暴之夫。情存矯誑邀人利養。規世聲名故。壞法門。乃佛教之大賊。自殘形體。實儒宗之逆人。直是惡因終無善報。今時頗盛聾俗。豈知則義淨之誡。亦有取矣。

The Zichi [ji] states: "The Record of the Inner Law Sent Home by the Tripiṭaka Master Yijing extensively rebukes worldly people for burning their bodies and igniting their fingers, considering these the practices of great bodhisattvas and not suitable for ordained bhikṣus. Since antiquity, commentaries have handed down and cited this admonition, and ill-informed lecturers have used it as a pretext. This stems from not understanding that spiritual capacities have depths and shallows, and that teachings are divided into transformative and disciplinary. The Vinaya explains that attempting suicide incurs a sthūlātyaya; burning fingers and igniting incense violates the regulation and incurs a duṣkṛta. But what the Brahmajāla prescribes is: 'If one does not burn one's body, arm, or finger, one is not an ordained bodhisattva,' incurring a minor defilement infraction. This is because those of lesser capacity are urgent about their own practice, aspiring to end their current retribution to transcend rebirth; while great beings are exclusively devoted to benefiting others, broadly delivering them across kalpas as numerous as dust motes. For this reason, the lesser Vinaya condemns it as a great fault, while the Great Teaching praises its profound merit. Moreover, both the Great and Lesser Teachings are the words of the sage: how could one be denigrated and the other extolled so as to introduce contradiction? Furthermore, the sūtra explicitly speaks of 'ordained bodhisattvas'—how can one say they are not permitted to bhikṣus? (He says that abandoning the body is not the deed of a śramaṇa, and so forth.) The biographies record austerities and giving up the body—can this be said to cater exclusively to worldly customs? (He says that what is explained in the sūtra caters to worldly customs.) As Jingxi said: 'Relying on the Lesser Vehicle and not burning is easy; relying on the Great Vehicle and burning is difficult.' Cherishing life and craving existence is the emotional nature of all beings. Now, resolving this by meaning, there are tentatively three cases. First, if one is originally a white-robed layperson, this is beyond the limitation of the discussion; or if one has not taken the precepts at all, according to this sūtra, offering a toe surpasses donating kingdoms and cities. If, according to the Brahmajāla, one directly receives the great precepts and upholds them in accordance with their essence, burning it is even better. Second, if one solely receives the lesser precepts and is strictly situated as a bhikṣu, not burning complies with the fundamental rules and constitutes upholding them; burning it incurs an infraction according to the chapters. Third, if one concurrently receives the great precepts, one is called an ordained bodhisattva: burning constitutes upholding them, and not burning constitutes an infraction. If one first takes the lesser and then the great, or first the great and then the lesser, in both cases one is judged according to the great, and does not violate the Vinaya rules. If one clarifies the matter in this way, roughly distinguishing between proceeding and refraining, how could one lump them together uniformly and condemn it all at once as wrong? However, there are violent and rash men whose minds harbor fraudulence and deception to solicit human gain and support, scheming for worldly reputation and thus ruining the Dharma doors. They are the great thieves of the Buddhist teaching, self-mutilating their physical bodies, truly the renegades of the Confucian tradition. These are simply evil causes that ultimately bear no good retribution. In current times, this is quite prevalent, deafening the vulgar world; how could they understand? Thus Yijing's admonition does indeed have its value."