藥師經疏 1.11

1.11

Sūtra: “Furthermore […] up to: breaking right view.” / Second: curing the breaking of precepts. The text is divided into eight: first, constantly deficient in pure prohibitions; second, not desiring broad learning; third, relying on oneself and disparaging others; fourth, encountering disasters due to this; fifth, suffering distress for long eons; sixth, having heard the name formerly; seventh, wishes fulfilled in due time; eighth, diligently cultivating superior karma. This comes to the first. / That is, previously having received the prātimokṣa precepts within the Tathāgata's teaching through the motion and three proclamations (jñapti-caturtha-karman) is called ‘upholding the trainings’. ‘Breaking the precepts’: The new translation renders this śīla, while the old translation called it ‘coolness’. When physical or verbal karma is deficient or breached, this is called breaking the precepts. / ‘Breaking conduct’: According to the twenty-second fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, it means: “Regarding deportment, precepts, duties performed, or the locus of preparation for wholesome qualities, one does not accomplish the rules of deportment, does not accord with the world but transgresses against the world, does not accord with the Vinaya but transgresses against the Vinaya. / What is called failing to accomplish the rules of deportment, up to transgressing against the Vinaya? That which should not be done is done just so, becoming mocked and disparaged by worldly people, and also reproved by virtuous and good persons—namely, vinaya-holders. As it is with walking, so it is with standing, sitting, and lying down. / What is called failing to accomplish the rules regarding duties performed, up to transgressing against the Vinaya? Regarding duties performed, whether matters of robes or washing bowls, doing that which should not be done, becoming mocked and disparaged by worldly people, and also reproved by virtuous and good persons—namely, vinaya-holders. / What is called failing to accomplish the rules regarding the locus of preparation for wholesome qualities, up to transgressing against the Vinaya? Regarding receiving, upholding, reciting, practicing respect toward teachers and elders, announcing, inquiring, fastening mindfulness, and contemplating various wholesome qualities—doing that which should not be done in non-preparations, becoming mocked and disparaged by worldly people, and also reproved by virtuous and good persons—namely, vinaya-holders. Such is called ‘breaking conduct’.” / ‘Breaking right view’: Hearing the Mahāyāna sūtras associated with emptiness, not understanding their meaning well, one wrongly grasps emptiness. According to the seventy-fifth fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra: “Within the Mahāyāna, there may be a class of people who, because of wrongly grasping emptiness, speak thus: ‘From [the standpoint of] conventional truth, all exists; from [the standpoint of] ultimate truth, all exists and does not exist.’ One should say to them: ‘Venerable one, what is conventional and what is ultimate?’ After asking this, if they answer: ‘If all dharmas are devoid of intrinsic nature, this is called ultimate. If within the lack of intrinsic nature of all dharmas, intrinsic nature is apprehensible, this is called conventional. Why? Because within non-existence, one establishes convention and sets up conventional designations to give rise to discourse.’ One should say to them: ‘What do you hold: does conventional designation exist from a cause with an apprehensible intrinsic nature, or is it stated to exist merely as conventional designation? If conventional designation exists from a cause, that conventional designation is born from a cause yet is not existent—this does not stand to reason. If it is stated to exist merely as conventional designation, that conventional designation exists without any real basis—this does not stand to reason.’ Furthermore, one should say to them: ‘Venerable one, due to what condition are those things that are apprehensible devoid of intrinsic nature?’ After asking this, if they answer: ‘Because of inverted matters,’ one should again say to them: ‘What do you hold: does this inverted matter exist or not exist? If you say it exists, stating that all dharmas are devoid of intrinsic nature from [the standpoint of] ultimate truth does not stand to reason. If you say it does not exist, then stating that because of inverted matters, those things that are apprehensible are devoid of intrinsic nature does not stand to reason.’ The Ratnakūṭa Sūtra states: ‘If one says that all dharmas are devoid of nature, I say that person is incurable.’ Such is called ‘breaking right view’.”