四部律并論要用抄 2.25

2.25

殺戒　十誦律。優波離問。若比丘呪術或藥力變身作畜生形。而斷人命。犯不。佛言。自憶念是比丘者犯。不憶念者偷蘭　問。有人棄胎一女人還。取內身中後生子殺。何母犯重并逆　答。殺前母得重并逆罪　若此子欲出家。當問何母　答。應問後母　又問。比丘若欲殺父母。作方便作殺因緣。竟持刀自殺。得重逆不　答。父母先死比丘後死者并逆。若比丘先死父母後得偷蘭。若比丘相殺亦如是。有人捉賊欲將殺。賊走得脫逐賊人。問比丘見賊不。是賊中有與比丘嫌。便言在某處。若捉得殺。非所嫌者偷蘭。若人壞畜胎之波逸提。畜生壞人胎。若墮犯重。有看病比丘自念。我不看者必當早死。此物眾僧共分。病人遂死。生疑問佛。佛言。偷蘭。不與亦爾　問。頗有比丘殺比丘。非父羅漢犯重并逆。佛言。有母出家轉根者是。父轉亦如是。比丘殺人。人死間還或狂者偷蘭　四分云。有比丘。與女墮胎藥母死。佛言。母死無犯。方便墮胎得偷蘭　僧祇云。有摩訶羅。不知戒相。見官欲殺。人恐其苦故。語膾子言。此人可矜。莫使苦痛。汝與利刀為作一瘡。膾子答言。爾。便以利刀為作一瘡。是比丘得波羅夷。若膾子言。大德王自有教。汝用知是事為。但自思惟。佛語。若爾者得越毘尼。若膾子復思惟。當用比丘語為作一瘡。以不即用比丘語故。是比丘得偷蘭。凡殺人方便皆越毘尼。若人受苦時得偷蘭。命斷犯重。欲殺此而殺彼。但越毘尼。盜亦如是。從何處來殺得波羅夷　四分云。從初識至後識而斷者皆犯重　五分云。若人若似人入母胎已後四十九日。若似人過此已後盡名為人。十誦人作人想人作非人想疑悉波羅夷。下殺畜生飲虫水亦如是。非人人想非人疑問　四分殺人越毘尼趣波羅夷。天龍鬼神偷蘭。殺畜生不能變化者偷蘭。盜亦如是。婬則不然。俱是重。境不簡其趣皆犯重也。

The precept against killing. In the Daśādhyāya-vinaya, Upāli asked: “If a monk, by sorcery or the power of medicine, transforms his body into the shape of a beast and terminates a person’s life, is it an offense or not?” The Buddha said: “If he himself remembered that he was a monk, it is an offense [of defeat]; if he did not remember, it is a sthūlātyaya.” Question: “Someone abandoned an embryo, another woman took it and placed it inside her own body, and later gave birth to the child. If [the child] kills, [killing] which mother constitutes a heavy offense along with an ānantarya?” Answer: “Killing the former mother incurs the heavy offense along with an ānantarya.” “If this child wishes to go forth, which mother should be asked?” Answer: “He should ask the latter mother.” Further question: “If a monk wishes to kill his parents, undertakes the expedient means and conditions for killing, but in the end takes a knife and kills himself, does he incur a heavy offense and an ānantarya, or not?” Answer: “If the parents die first and the monk dies afterward, he incurs both [a defeat and] an ānantarya. If the monk dies first and the parents afterward, he incurs a sthūlātyaya.” If monks kill each other, it is also like this. Someone caught a bandit and was about to kill him; the bandit ran and managed to escape. The pursuer asked a monk, “Have you seen the bandit?” Among the bandits was one toward whom the monk bore a grudge, and he immediately said, “He is at such-and-such place.” If [the pursuer] catches and kills him, and it was not the one he resented, it is a sthūlātyaya. If a human destroys an animal fetus, it is a prāyaścittika; if an animal destroys a human fetus, if it aborts, [for the human] it is a heavy offense. A monk caring for the sick thought to himself: “If I do not care for him, he will surely die early, and his property will be divided among the Saṃgha.” The patient subsequently died. Doubt arose, and he asked the Buddha. The Buddha said: “It is a sthūlātyaya.” If he did not give [medicine or food], it is also thus. Question: “Can a monk kill a monk who is not his father or an arhat, and incur a heavy offense along with an ānantarya?” The Buddha said: “There is: when a mother has gone forth and undergone a sex change, this is it. When a father changes sex, it is also like this.” If a monk strikes a person and the person dies, or in the interim recovers, or goes mad, it is a sthūlātyaya. The Caturvargika-vinaya states: “A monk gave an abortifacient to a woman, and the mother died.” The Buddha said: “For the mother’s death there is no offense; for the expedient means of causing abortion he incurs a sthūlātyaya.” The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya states: “There was a vṛddhānta monk who did not know the marks of the precepts. Seeing an executioner about to kill someone, and fearing the victim’s suffering, he said to the executioner: ‘This person is pitiable; do not cause him pain. Strike him with a sharp blade in a single wound.’ The executioner replied, ‘Yes,’ and immediately struck him with a sharp blade in a single wound. This monk incurred a pārājika. If the executioner had said, ‘Venerable, the king has his own orders; what business is this of yours to know? Just mind your own thoughts,’ the Buddha said: ‘If that had happened, he would have incurred a vinayātikrama.’ If the executioner considered, ‘I ought to follow the monk’s words and make a single wound,’ because he did not immediately follow the monk’s words, this monk incurred a sthūlātyaya.” In all cases of expedient means to kill someone, they are vinayātikrama; when the person experiences suffering, it is a sthūlātyaya; when life is terminated, it constitutes a heavy offense. If one wishes to kill this person but kills that person, it is only a vinayātikrama; theft is also like this. From what point does killing incur a pārājika? The Caturvargika-vinaya states: “From the first consciousness to the last consciousness, any termination constitutes a heavy offense.” The Mahīśāsaka-vinaya states: “A human or human-like [being], forty-nine days after entering the mother’s womb, if human-like, from this point on is wholly called a human.” In the Daśādhyāya-vinaya, perceiving a human as a human, perceiving a human as a non-human, or having doubts, all incur a pārājika. Below, killing animals or drinking water with insects is also like this. For non-humans, perceiving them as humans or having doubts about non-humans [involves lesser offenses]. The Caturvargika-vinaya states: killing a human is a vinayātikrama progressing to a pārājika; [killing] devas, nāgas, spirits, and deities is a sthūlātyaya; killing an animal that cannot undergo transformations is a sthūlātyaya. Theft is also like this. Sexual misconduct is not so: all are heavy offenses. Without distinguishing among destinies, all constitute heavy offenses.