四部律并論要用抄 2.62

2.62

問。佛何故為諸弟子制此五部戒律。輕重不同使諸比丘互生是非　答。佛為諸比丘故制一部戒律。尚無二名。何況有五。佛涅槃後優波離共五百羅漢初結集律。時有八十誦。號曰大毘尼藏。一百年中依之而行。初無違諍。一百年後時人異見不同。各隨己見遂成五部。抄略前後隱顯異知。使名差相別五部名生。名相雖殊理通正一　問。僧祇云。燒壞色越毘尼　十誦偷蘭遮　四分云。犯重。云何言一　答。此三部正是戒　僧祇云。明其惡不論損物故曰毘尼　十誦云。噵其方便　四分論終處三部理同偏彰似別　問。僧祇明互用寶物犯重。四分偷蘭。此復云何　答。僧祇明守護人邊犯重　四分明佛法於物無我。所心無守護。故但得偷蘭。以四方僧物一人邊。計錢難滿故得偷蘭　四分若為守護亦犯重　僧祇云。若無人守護亦偷蘭。故知二部不別　問。何故惡心戒獨分為三。餘戒不去　答。此結集之處觀望戒相犯之者多。故偏列無闕。餘戒犯之希少故不分之。欲使智者尋文通旨。愚者偏執彼此有失　問。有人言。隨所受戒當部自行不得五部通用。此義云何　答。此說不然。何以故。本正一部。文義具足。輕重相順。但時人異見分為五典。致輕重相違。文義不具。若於一部不犯。於部犯者。故名破戒。若於五部盡無違犯。方名持戒。是以應當具行。不得偏執　問曰。人言持戒務急。斷事務緩。何者為是　答。二俱不然。何以故。若過分急人不能行。則斷聖種。若緩易行。必毀滅正法。若人能五部律文。隨修行不增不減。如此之人能護佛法。是真佛子　問。諸大乘經中莫問五逆。及謗方等皆有懺悔之法。何故律教獨言四重不可悔也　答。大乘諸經明罪無定性。世俗文字故。說有第一義中了無罪相可得。正以一切諸求其體性不可得故。罪性亦然。故有歸悔之理。小乘中不明諸法畢竟空寂。計有定之罪。初篇是彰道根本。說言不可悔　問曰。道理而言。罪無輕重皆可懺除。正可悔有難易。何故定言不可悔也　答。道理實可懺。今明不可懺者。以小乘情怖近果。若不犯根本重過容可一形即剋。今日毀犯業障既重。更不勝進。故言不可悔。非畢竟無悔法。律中亦有禪難提等。犯初重戒。無一念露藏心。佛聽盡形學悔。唯聽其悔。一形之中於聖道法能剋證也　問。大乘之中五逆四重豈可不障聖道。獨說小乘障　答。大乘亦是障。但大乘人遠求佛果。佛果然要多身積善方可得會。若聞有犯則於道法不進。如法悔以更起勝行。正可有遲病。非是永無進趣。小人無一念樂生死情。期自度不□在生死度眾生。故犯根本戒者則正違期所。是故偏障道。

Question: Why did the Buddha formulate these five schools of vinaya precepts for his disciples, differing in seriousness and causing the monks to give rise to disputes among themselves? Answer: For the sake of the monks, the Buddha formulated a single division of the vinaya precepts. There was not even a second title, how much less five! After the Buddha entered nirvāṇa, Upāli together with five hundred arhats held the first council to compile the vinaya. At that time there were eighty recitations, called the Great Vinayapiṭaka. For one hundred years people practiced in accordance with it, and at first there were no disagreements or disputes. After one hundred years, the people of the time had differing views, and following their own views, they eventually formed five schools. By abridging or rearranging what came before and after, and through differences in what was concealed or revealed, differences arose in names and characteristics, and the names of the five schools were born. Although names and characteristics differ, their underlying principle fundamentally converges as one. Question: The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya states that scorching or damaging the dyed robe is an atyaya-vinaya; the Daśādhyāya-vinaya says it is a sthūlātyaya; the Caturvargika-vinaya says it constitutes a heavy offense. Why do you say they are one? Answer: These three schools are indeed dealing with the same precept: The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya clarifies its unwholesome nature without discussing the damage to property, hence calling it a vinaya [infraction]. The Daśādhyāya-vinaya speaks of its preliminary expedient. The Caturvargika-vinaya discusses its final completion. The principle of the three schools is the same; it merely appears different because they highlight different aspects. Question: The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya clarifies that diverting precious objects to personal use is a heavy offense, while the Caturvargika-vinaya makes it a sthūlātyaya. How is this explained? Answer: The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya clarifies this in terms of property having a custodian, where it is a heavy offense. The Caturvargika-vinaya clarifies that within the Buddha's Dharma, with respect to property, there is no sense of "mine" and no custodial intention; therefore, one only incurs a sthūlātyaya. Because the property of the cāturdiśa-saṃgha belongs to no single person, it is difficult to calculate the full monetary value against one individual, so one incurs a sthūlātyaya. In the Caturvargika-vinaya, if there is a custodian, it is also a heavy offense. The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya says that if there is no custodian, it is likewise a sthūlātyaya. Thus we know the two schools do not differ. Question: Why is the precept against harboring malicious intent uniquely divided into three, while the remaining precepts are not separated? Answer: At the place of compilation, when surveying the characteristics of the precepts, those who violated this one were many; therefore it was separately listed without omission. Violations of the remaining precepts were rare, so they were not divided. The intention was to have the wise investigate the text and comprehend the meaning, while the foolish, clinging one-sidedly to one or the other, fall into error. Question: Some say that one should only practice according to the particular school from which one received the precepts, and not apply all five schools universally. What is the meaning of this? Answer: This statement is not correct. Why is that? Originally there was just one division, complete in text and meaning, with the light and heavy in harmony. But because people of later times had differing views, it was divided into five canonical traditions, resulting in conflicts between light and heavy and incompleteness in text and meaning. If one does not violate a precept according to one school but violates it according to another, it is still called breaking the precepts. Only if one is entirely free from violation across all five schools can one be called a keeper of the precepts. Therefore, one should practice all of them comprehensively and must not be one-sidedly attached. Question: People say that in upholding the precepts one should be strict, but in settling disputes one should be lenient. Which is correct? Answer: Neither is correct. Why is that? If one is excessively strict, people cannot practice, and thus the noble lineage will be severed. If one is too lenient and easy-going, the true Dharma will certainly be destroyed. If a person can follow and practice the texts of the five vinayas without adding or subtracting, such a person can protect the Buddha's Dharma and is a true child of the Buddha. Question: In all the Mahāyāna sūtras, whether regarding the five deadly sins or slandering the vaipulya sūtras, there are methods of repentance (deśanā). Why does the vinaya teaching uniquely state that the four heavy offenses cannot be repented? Answer: The various Mahāyāna sūtras clarify that offenses have no fixed intrinsic nature. It is only because of conventional worldly designations that they are said to exist; in the ultimate truth, no characteristic of an offense can be found at all. Precisely because when one seeks the substantial nature of all phenomena, none can be found, the nature of offenses is also like this. Therefore, there is the principle of repentance. The Hīnayāna does not clarify that all phenomena are ultimately empty and tranquil, but presumes that offenses have a fixed existence. The first class of offenses demonstrates the root of the path, so it is said that they cannot be repented. Question: In terms of principle, offenses—whether light or heavy—can all be eliminated through repentance; it is only that repentance has degrees of difficulty. Why does it state definitively that they cannot be repented? Answer: In principle, they can indeed be repented. Now, the reason it is clarified that they cannot be repented is that the temperament of the Hīnayāna aspires to proximate fruits. If one does not violate the fundamental heavy offenses, it is possible to attain realization within a single lifetime. But once one commits a violation today, the karmic obstruction is already heavy, and one cannot make superior progress; therefore it is said that they cannot be repented. It does not mean there is ultimately no method of repentance. In the vinaya there is also the case of Channandika and others who violated the first heavy precept without a single thought of concealment: the Buddha permitted them to train in repentance for the rest of their lives. He only permitted them to repent; within a single lifetime, could they attain realization in the noble Dharma? Question: In the Mahāyāna, how could the five deadly sins and four heavy offenses not obstruct the noble path? Why is it only said that they obstruct in the Hīnayāna? Answer: In the Mahāyāna they also constitute obstructions. However, Mahāyāna practitioners seek the distant fruit of Buddhahood. The fruit of Buddhahood inevitably requires accumulating merit over many lifetimes before it can be attained. If they hear that they have committed an offense, they do not advance in the Dharma; but having repented according to the Dharma, they can again give rise to superior practices. At most there may be a delay or setback, but it is not that they will never make progress. Hīnayāna practitioners do not have a single thought of delight in saṃsāra; they expect only to deliver themselves and do not [wish to] remain in saṃsāra to liberate sentient beings. Therefore, if they violate the fundamental precepts, it directly contradicts their aim. For this reason, it especially obstructs the path.