Abhidharmakosa-bhasya, Fascicle 13

近住餘亦有，不受三歸無。

Others can also undertake the one-day precepts; without taking the three refuges, they cannot.

論曰：諸有未受近事律儀，一晝夜中歸依三寶，說三歸已受近住戒，彼亦受得近住律儀。異此則無，除不知者。如契經說：佛告大名：諸有在家白衣男子男根成就，歸佛法僧起殷淨心，發誠諦語自稱我是鄔波索迦，願尊憶持慈悲護念，齊是名曰鄔波索迦。為但受三歸即成近事？外國諸師說：唯此即成。迦濕彌羅國諸論師言：離近事律儀則非近事。若爾，應與此經相違。此不相違，已發戒故。何時發戒？頌曰：

The treatise says: Those who have not yet undertaken the restraint of a lay follower, who take refuge in the Three Jewels for a day and a night and, having spoken the three refuges, undertake the one-day precepts, also obtain the restraint of the one-day precepts. Otherwise they do not, except for those who do not know. As a sutra says: The Buddha told Mahanama: When a layman, a man in white with the male organ complete, takes refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha with a deeply pure mind and speaks a sincere and truthful word, saying of himself, I am an upasaka (lay follower), may the Venerable remember and uphold me with compassion and care, up to this point he is called an upasaka. Does one become a lay follower simply by taking the three refuges? Foreign masters say: Just this makes one a lay follower. The masters of Kashmir say: Apart from the restraint of a lay follower, one is not a lay follower. If so, this would contradict the sutra. It does not contradict, because the precepts have already been generated. When are the precepts generated? The verse says:

稱近事發戒，說如苾芻等。

Calling oneself a lay follower generates the precepts, as with the bhikshu and others.

論曰：起殷淨心發誠諦語，自稱我是鄔波索迦，願尊憶持慈悲護念。爾時即發近事律儀。稱近事等言，便發律儀故。以經復說：我從今時乃至命終捨生言故。此經意說捨殺生等，略去殺等但說捨生，故於前時已得五戒。彼雖已得近事律儀，為令了知所應學處故，復為說離殺生等五種戒相令識堅持。如得苾芻具足戒已，說重學處令識堅持。勤策亦然。此亦應爾，是故近事必具律儀。頌曰：

The treatise says: One gives rise to a deeply pure mind, speaks a sincere and truthful word, and says of oneself, I am an upasaka, may the Venerable remember and uphold me with compassion and care. At that moment one generates the restraint of a lay follower, because the restraint is generated by the words calling oneself a lay follower and so on. For the sutra further says: From now until the end of my life I give up life; this sutra means giving up killing and the like, and merely omits killing and so on and speaks only of giving up life, so the five precepts were already obtained at the earlier time. Although the person has already obtained the restraint of a lay follower, in order to let him understand the trainings he should observe, the five kinds of precepts, abstaining from killing and so on, are explained again so that he recognizes and firmly keeps them. This is like a bhikshu who, after receiving full ordination, is taught the grave rules of training so that he recognizes and firmly keeps them. The same applies to the novice. This should be so here also, which is why a lay follower must have the restraint complete. The verse says:

若皆具律儀，何言一分等？

If all have the restraint complete, why speak of one part and so on?

謂約能持說。

It is said in reference to what one is able to keep.

論曰：若諸近事皆具律儀，何緣世尊言有四種：一能學一分、二能學少分、三能學多分、四能學滿分？謂約能持故作是說。能持先所受，故說能學言。不爾，應言受一分等。理實約受等具律儀，以具律儀故名近事。如是所執違越契經。如何違經？謂無經說自稱我是近事等言便發五戒，此經不說我從今者乃至命終捨生言故。經如何說？如《大名經》。唯此經中說近事相，餘經不爾，故違越經。然餘經說：我從今時乃至命終捨生歸淨，是歸三寶發誠信言。此中顯示以見諦者，由得證淨舉命自要，表於正法深懷愛重，乃至為救自生命緣，終不捨於如來正法。非彼為欲說近事相故說如是捨生等言，設說亦非分明理教。誰能准此不明瞭文，便信前時已發五戒？又約持犯戒說學一分等尚不應問，況應為答。誰有已解近事律儀必具五支，而不能解於所學處持一非餘，乃至具持名一分等？由彼未解近事律儀受量少多，故應請問：凡有幾種鄔波索迦能學學處？答言：有四鄔波索迦，謂能學一分等。猶未能了。復問何名能學一分？乃至廣說，若闕律儀得名近事。苾芻勤策，闕亦應成。彼既不成，此亦應爾。何緣近事乃至苾芻，所受律儀支量定爾？由佛教力施設故然。若爾，何緣不許由佛教力施設，雖闕律儀而名近事非苾芻等？迦濕彌羅國毘婆沙師，不許闕律儀得成近事。此近事等一切律儀，由何得成下中上品？頌曰：

The treatise says: If all lay followers have the restraint complete, for what reason did the World-Honored One speak of four kinds: those who can train in one part, those who can train in a few parts, those who can train in many parts, and those who can train in the full measure? It is said so in reference to what one is able to keep. One keeps what one earlier undertook, so he speaks of being able to train. If it were not so, he would say undertake one part and so on. In truth, one has the restraint complete in accordance with what one undertook, and it is because one has the restraint complete that one is called a lay follower. Holding it otherwise contradicts the sutra. How does it contradict the sutra? There is no sutra saying that by calling oneself a lay follower one immediately generates the five precepts, since that sutra does not say the words from now until the end of my life I give up life. What does the sutra say? It is like the sutra of Mahanama. Only in this sutra are the characteristics of a lay follower described; other sutras do not say so, so it would contradict the sutra. Other sutras say: From now until the end of my life I give up life and take refuge in purity, and this is speaking a word of faith in taking refuge in the Three Jewels. This shows that one who has seen the truths, having attained pure faith, pledges his life and holds the true Dharma deeply dear, and even to save his own life would never abandon the true Dharma of the Tathagata. It is not that these words about giving up life were said in order to describe the characteristics of a lay follower, and even if they had been said, the reasoning and teaching would not be clear. Who could rely on such an unclear passage and believe that the five precepts were already generated earlier? Moreover, when speaking of one part and so on in terms of keeping and breaking the precepts, the question should not even be asked, still less answered. Who, having understood that the restraint of a lay follower must have five limbs, would be unable to understand that regarding the trainings one may keep one and not the others, up to keeping all, which is called one part and so on? Because they had not yet understood how many or few the measures of the restraint of a lay follower are, they should have asked: How many kinds of upasaka are able to train in the trainings? The answer said: There are four kinds of upasaka, namely those who can train in one part and so on. They still could not understand and asked again what is meant by being able to train in one part, and so on at length. If one could be called a lay follower while lacking the restraint, then a bhikshu or a novice should likewise be accomplished while lacking it. Since they are not, this is also so here. For what reason is the measure of the limbs of restraint fixed in this way from the lay follower up to the bhikshu? Because it is established by the power of the Buddha's teaching. If so, why is it not allowed that, being established by the power of the Buddha's teaching, one may be called a lay follower while lacking the restraint, but not a bhikshu and so on? The Vibhasa masters of Kashmir do not allow that one can be a lay follower while lacking the restraint. By what are all the restraints of these lay followers and others accomplished as lower, middle or superior grade? The verse says:

下中上隨心。

Lower, middle and superior follow the mind.

論曰：八眾所受別解脫律儀，皆隨受心有下中上品。由如是理，諸阿羅漢或有成就下品律儀，然諸異生或成上品。為有但受近事律儀不受三歸成近事不？不成近事，除有不知。諸有歸依佛法僧者，為歸何等？頌曰：

The treatise says: The restraints of individual liberation undertaken by the eight assemblies all have lower, middle and superior grades according to the mind with which they were undertaken. By this reasoning, some arhats may possess a lower-grade restraint, while some ordinary beings may possess a superior-grade one. Can one who undertakes only the restraint of a lay follower and not the three refuges become a lay follower? He does not become one, except for one who does not know. Those who take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, what do they take refuge in? The verse says:

歸依成佛僧，無學二種法，

Refuge is in the accomplished Buddha and Sangha, in the two kinds of dharmas of the no-more-learning,

及涅槃擇滅，是說具三歸。

and in nirvana as cessation through discernment; this is said to be complete refuge in the three.

論曰：歸依佛者，謂但歸依能成佛無學法，由彼勝故身得佛名，或由得彼法佛能覺一切。何等名為佛無學法？謂盡智等及彼隨行。非色等身，前後等故。為歸一佛、一切佛耶？理實應言歸一切佛，以諸佛道相無異故。歸依僧者，謂通歸依諸能成僧學無學法，由得彼故僧成八種補特伽羅，不可破故。為歸一佛僧、一切佛僧耶？理實通歸一切佛僧，以諸僧道相無異故。然契經說，當來有僧汝應歸者，彼經但為顯示當來現見僧寶。歸依法者，謂歸涅槃。此涅槃言唯顯擇滅自他相續煩惱及苦，寂滅一相，故通歸依。若唯無學法即是佛者，如何於佛所惡心出血，但損生身成無間罪？毘婆沙者作是釋言：壞彼所依，彼隨壞故。然尋本論，不見有言唯無學法即名為佛，但言無學法能成於佛。既不遮佛體亦攝依身，故於此中不容前難。若異此者，應佛與僧住世俗心非僧非佛。又應唯執成苾芻戒即是苾芻。然如有欲供養苾芻者，彼唯供養成苾芻屍羅。如是有欲歸依佛者，亦應但歸成佛無學法。有餘師說：歸依佛者，總歸依如來十八不共法。此能歸依何法為體？語表為體。如是歸依以何為義？救濟為義。由彼為依，能永解脫一切苦故。如世尊言：

The treatise says: Those who take refuge in the Buddha take refuge only in the dharmas of the no-more-learning that accomplish a Buddha, because by their excellence the body is called Buddha, or because by attaining those dharmas the Buddha is able to awaken to all. What are called the Buddha's dharmas of the no-more-learning? Namely the knowledge of extinction and the like and what accompanies them, not the physical body, because the body is not constant before and after. Does one take refuge in one Buddha or in all Buddhas? In truth one should say one takes refuge in all Buddhas, because the characteristics of the path of all Buddhas are not different. Those who take refuge in the Sangha take refuge generally in the dharmas of learning and no-more-learning that accomplish the Sangha, because by attaining them the Sangha is made up of eight kinds of persons and cannot be broken. Does one take refuge in the Sangha of one Buddha or of all Buddhas? In truth one takes refuge generally in the Sangha of all Buddhas, because the characteristics of the path of all Sanghas are not different. As for the sutra saying that in the future there will be a Sangha in which you should take refuge, that sutra is only meant to show the Sangha Jewel that will be seen in the future. Those who take refuge in the Dharma take refuge in nirvana. This word nirvana here refers only to cessation through discernment, the one characteristic of the extinction of afflictions and suffering in oneself and others, so refuge is taken generally. If only the dharmas of the no-more-learning are the Buddha, then how can one who with malicious intent draws blood from the Buddha, wounding only his physical birth-body, commit an act of immediate retribution? The Vibhasa masters explain: Because when one destroys what the dharmas rely on, they are destroyed along with it. Yet looking into the root treatise, I do not find any statement that only the dharmas of the no-more-learning are called the Buddha, but only that the dharmas of the no-more-learning accomplish the Buddha. Since it does not exclude that the Buddha's essence also includes the body that supports them, the earlier objection has no place here. If it were otherwise, then a Buddha or Sangha abiding in a worldly mind would be neither Sangha nor Buddha. One should also hold that merely having the discipline of a bhikshu is being a bhikshu. Yet when someone wishes to make offerings to a bhikshu, he is only making offerings to one who has accomplished the bhikshu's moral discipline. In the same way, one who wishes to take refuge in the Buddha should only take refuge in the dharmas of the no-more-learning that accomplish a Buddha. Some other masters say: Taking refuge in the Buddha is taking refuge in all of the Tathagata's eighteen exclusive qualities. What dharma is the essence of this refuge? Verbal expression is its essence. What is the meaning of refuge in this way? Its meaning is rescue, because relying on it one can be forever freed from all suffering. As the World-Honored One said:

眾人怖所逼，多歸依諸山，

People driven by fear take refuge in many mountains,

園苑及叢林，孤樹制多等。

in gardens and groves, in solitary trees and caityas (shrines) and the like.

此歸依非勝，此歸依非尊，

This refuge is not supreme, this refuge is not honored;

不因此歸依，能解脫眾苦。

not through this refuge can one be freed from all suffering.

諸有歸依佛，及歸依法僧，

Those who take refuge in the Buddha, and take refuge in the Dharma and Sangha,

於四聖諦中，恆以慧觀察。

always observe with wisdom within the four noble truths.

知苦知苦集，知永超眾苦，

They know suffering, know the origin of suffering, know the forever overcoming of all suffering,

知八支聖道，趣安隱涅槃。

and know the eightfold noble path leading to peaceful nirvana.

此歸依最勝，此歸依最尊，

This refuge is supreme, this refuge is most honored;

必因此歸依，能解脫眾苦。

through this refuge one can surely be freed from all suffering.

是故歸依，普於一切受律儀處為方便門。何緣世尊於餘律儀處立離非梵行為其所學？唯於近事一律儀中但制令其離欲邪行。頌曰：

For this reason taking refuge is the general gateway of means to every occasion of undertaking restraint. Why did the World-Honored One, for the other restraints, set abstaining from unchastity as the training, but for the single restraint of a lay follower only direct abstention from sexual misconduct? The verse says:

邪行最可訶，易離得不作。

Misconduct is most blameworthy and easy to refrain from, so one does not do it.

論曰：唯欲邪行世極訶責，以能侵毀他妻等故、感惡趣故非非梵行，又欲邪行易遠離故。諸在家者耽著欲故，離非梵行難可受持，觀彼不能長時修學，故不制彼離非梵行。又諸聖者於欲邪行一切定得不作律儀，經生聖者亦不行故。離非梵行則不如是，故於近事所受律儀，但為制立離欲邪行。勿經生聖者犯近事律儀。不作律儀謂定不作，諸有先受近事律儀後娶妻妾，於彼妻妾先受戒時得律儀不？理實應得。勿但於一分得別解律儀。若爾，云何後非犯戒？頌曰：

The treatise says: Only sexual misconduct is severely condemned by the world, because it violates another's wife and the like and brings about evil destinies, and is not unchastity in general, and also because sexual misconduct is easy to stay far from. Householders are attached to desire, so abstaining from unchastity is hard for them to undertake and keep; seeing that they cannot practise it for long, the Buddha did not require them to abstain from unchastity. Moreover, holy ones with regard to sexual misconduct all certainly have the restraint of not doing it, because even holy ones who still have another life to live do not commit it. Abstaining from unchastity is not like this, so for the restraint undertaken by a lay follower only abstaining from sexual misconduct was set up, lest a holy one with one more life to live should break the restraint of a lay follower. The restraint of not doing means definitely not doing. If someone who earlier undertook the restraint of a lay follower later takes wives and concubines, does he obtain the restraint with respect to these wives and concubines at the time of first undertaking the precepts? In truth he should obtain it, lest he obtain the restraint of individual liberation only in part. If so, how is it that he later does not break the precepts? The verse says:

得律儀如誓，非總於相續。

The restraint is obtained as vowed, not for the whole continuum.

論曰：如本受誓而得律儀。本受誓云何？謂離欲邪行。非於一切有情相續言我皆當離非梵行，由此普於有情相續唯得離欲邪行戒。非離非梵行律儀故，後納妻妾非毀犯前戒。何緣但制離虛誑語？非離間語等為近事律儀，亦由前說三種因故。謂虛誑語最可訶故，諸在家者易遠離故，一切聖者得不作故。復有別因，頌曰：

The treatise says: One obtains the restraint as the vow was originally undertaken. How was the original vow? Namely abstaining from sexual misconduct. It was not said that in the continuum of all sentient beings I shall abstain from unchastity, so one obtains the precept of abstaining from sexual misconduct universally in the continuum of sentient beings only. Because it is not the restraint of abstaining from unchastity, taking wives and concubines later does not destroy or break the earlier precept. For what reason is only false speech prohibited, and not divisive speech and so on, as part of the lay follower's restraint? It is also because of the three reasons given before: false speech is most blameworthy, householders can easily stay far from it, and all holy ones attain not doing it. There is also another reason. The verse says:

以開虛誑語，便越諸學處。

Because permitting false speech would lead one to transgress all the trainings.

論曰：越諸學處被檢問時，若開虛誑語，便言我不作，因斯於戒多所違越。故佛為欲令彼堅持，於一切律儀制離虛誑語。云何令彼若犯戒時便自發露能防後犯？復以何緣不於遠離遮罪建立近事律儀？誰言此中不離遮罪。離何遮罪？謂離飲酒。何緣於彼諸遮罪中不制離餘，唯遮飲酒？頌曰：

The treatise says: When one transgresses the trainings and is investigated and questioned, if false speech is permitted, one would say I did not do it, and as a result would transgress the precepts in many ways. Therefore the Buddha, wishing them to keep the precepts firmly, set abstaining from false speech in all the restraints. How is it that when they break a precept they confess it by themselves and so guard against later violations? And for what reason is the lay follower's restraint not established as abstaining from offenses that are wrong only by prohibition? Who says that abstention from such offenses is not included here? Which offenses by prohibition does one abstain from? Namely abstaining from drinking liquor. Why, among those offenses by prohibition, is no other abstention required, only the prohibition of liquor? The verse says:

遮中唯離酒，為護餘律儀。

Among prohibited acts only liquor is abstained from, in order to protect the other restraints.

論曰：諸飲酒者心多縱逸，不能守護諸餘律儀，故為護餘令離飲酒。寧知飲酒遮罪攝耶？由此中無性罪相故，以諸性罪唯染心行。為療病時雖飲諸酒，不為醉亂能無染心。豈不先知酒能醉亂，而故欲飲即是染心。此非染心由自知量，為療病故分限而飲，不令醉亂故非染心。諸持律者言：飲酒是性罪。如彼尊者鄔波離言：我當如何供給病者？世尊告曰：唯除性罪，餘隨所應皆可供給。然有染疾釋種須酒，世尊不開彼飲酒故。又契經說：諸有苾芻稱我為師不應飲酒，乃至極少如一茅端所霑酒量亦不應飲。故知飲酒是性罪攝。又諸聖者雖易多生亦不犯故，如殺生等。又經說是身惡行故。對法諸師言非性罪，然為病者總開遮戒。復於異時遮飲酒者，為防因此犯性罪故。又令醉亂量無定限，故遮乃至飲茅端所霑量。又一切聖皆不飲者，以諸聖者具慚羞故，飲酒能令失正念故。乃至少分亦不飲者，以如毒藥量無定故。又經說是身惡行者，酒是一切放逸處故。由是獨立放逸處名，餘不立此名，皆是性罪故。然說數習墮惡趣者，顯數飲酒能令身中諸不善法相續轉故，又能引發惡趣業故，或能令彼轉增盛故。如契經說：窣羅、迷麗耶、末陀放逸處。依何義說？醞食成酒名為窣羅，醞餘物所成名迷麗耶酒。即前二酒未熟已壞，不能令醉不名末陀，若令醉時名末陀酒。簡無用位重立此名。然以檳榔及稗子等亦能令醉，為簡彼故，須說窣羅、迷麗耶酒。雖是遮罪，而令放逸廣造眾惡，為令殷重遮斷故說。放逸處言，酒是放逸所依處故。

The treatise says: Those who drink liquor have minds that are often unrestrained and cannot guard the other restraints, so in order to protect the others one is made to abstain from liquor. How do we know that drinking liquor is included among offenses by prohibition? Because here there is no characteristic of a naturally evil act, since naturally evil acts are only those of a defiled mind. When one drinks liquor to cure illness, one need not be intoxicated and confused and one can have no defiled mind. Is it not that, knowing beforehand that liquor can intoxicate and confuse, one deliberately wants to drink, which is a defiled mind? This is not a defiled mind, because one knows one's measure and drinks within limits for the sake of curing illness, not letting oneself become drunk, and so it is not defiled. Those who keep the Vinaya say: Drinking liquor is a naturally evil act. As the Venerable Upali (foremost in keeping the Vinaya) said: How should I provide for the sick? The World-Honored One replied: Except for naturally evil acts, whatever is needed may be provided. Yet when a sick Sakya needed liquor, the World-Honored One did not permit him to drink it. The sutra also says: A bhikshu who claims me as his teacher should not drink liquor, not even as much as the amount clinging to the tip of a blade of grass. Therefore we know that drinking liquor is included among naturally evil acts. Moreover, holy ones, even if born many times, do not commit it, as with killing and the like. And the sutra says it is a bodily evil deed. The Abhidharma masters say it is not a naturally evil act, but the prohibition was generally relaxed for the sick. And at other times it was prohibited to guard against committing naturally evil acts because of it. Also, the degree of intoxication and confusion has no fixed limit, so even drinking what clings to the tip of a blade of grass was prohibited. Moreover, all holy ones never drink it, because holy ones have a sense of shame and conscience, and because liquor can make one lose right mindfulness. Even a small portion is not drunk, because, like poison, its effect has no fixed measure. And that the sutra says it is a bodily evil deed is because liquor is the basis of all negligence. Hence only it is given the name basis of negligence and others are not given this name, since all of those are naturally evil acts. That it is said that habitual use leads to falling into evil destinies shows that frequent drinking makes unwholesome dharmas continue in the body, brings about karma for evil destinies, or makes it grow stronger. As the sutra says: sura, maireya and madya are bases of negligence. In what sense is this said? Liquor made by fermenting grain is called sura, and that made by fermenting other things is called maireya. If the two previous kinds are not yet matured or have already spoiled and cannot intoxicate, they are not called madya; when they can intoxicate, they are called madya liquor. This name was set up again to exclude the stage in which they are useless. Yet betel nut, millet and the like can also intoxicate, so to exclude those it was necessary to speak of sura and maireya liquor. Although it is an offense only by prohibition, it makes one negligent and leads one to commit many evils, so in order to make the prohibition weighty and decisive the term basis of negligence was used, because liquor is the basis on which negligence rests.

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by the Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under imperial order

分別業品第四之三

Chapter Four on the Analysis of Karma, Part Three

此別解脫、靜慮、無漏三種律儀，從彼得一亦餘二不？不爾。云何？頌曰：

Of these three kinds of restraint, the restraint of individual liberation, the restraint of meditative absorption and the restraint without outflows, can one obtain one of them from the same source and not the other two? It is not so. How is it? The verse says:

從一切二現，得欲界律儀，

From all, from two, from the present, one obtains the restraint of the desire realm;

從根本恆時，得靜慮無漏。

from the root, at all times, one obtains the restraint of meditative absorption and the restraint without outflows.

論曰：欲界律儀謂別解脫，此從一切根本業道及從加行後起而得。從二得者，謂從二類，即情非情、性罪遮罪。從現得者，謂從現世蘊處界得，非從去來。由此律儀有情處轉，去來非是有情處故。若得靜慮無漏律儀，應知但從根本業道。尚不從彼加行後起得此律儀，況從遮罪。從恆時者，謂從過去現在未來蘊處界得。由此差別應作四句，有蘊處界從彼唯得別解律儀非餘二等。第一句者，謂從現世加行後起及諸遮罪。第二句者，謂從去來根本業道。第三句者，謂從現世根本業道。第四句者，謂從去來加行後起。非於正得善律儀時可有現世惡業道等，是故應言從現處得。理應但說防護未來，定不應言防護過現。諸有獲得律不律儀，從一切有情支因有異不？此定有異。相云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The restraint of the desire realm means the restraint of individual liberation, and it is obtained from all root courses of action and from the preparatory and subsequent acts. From two means from two kinds, namely sentient and non-sentient beings, and naturally evil acts and acts evil by prohibition. From the present means it is obtained from the aggregates, sense bases and elements of the present life, not from the past or future. This is because this restraint operates in the realm of sentient beings, and the past and future are not the realm of sentient beings. As for obtaining the restraint of meditative absorption and the restraint without outflows, one should know that it is only from the root course of action. It is not even obtained from the preparatory or subsequent acts, still less from acts evil by prohibition. From all times means from the aggregates, sense bases and elements of the past, present and future. According to these differences, four alternatives should be made: there are aggregates, sense bases and elements from which one obtains only the restraint of individual liberation and not the other two, and so on. The first alternative is the preparatory and subsequent acts of the present life and all acts evil by prohibition. The second is the root courses of action of the past and future. The third is the root courses of action of the present. The fourth is the preparatory and subsequent acts of the past and future. When one is actually obtaining a good restraint there cannot be present evil courses of action and the like, so it should be said that it is obtained from the present. In principle only the guarding of the future should be spoken of, and it should certainly not be said that one guards the past and present. Is the obtaining of restraint and non-restraint from all sentient beings different in terms of limbs and causes? It certainly is different. What are its characteristics? The verse says:

律從諸有情，支因說不定，

Restraint is from all sentient beings, but limbs and causes are said to be not fixed;

不律從一切，有情支非因。

non-restraint is from all, with sentient beings and limbs but not the causes.

論曰：律儀定從一切有情得。無少分理，支因說不定。支不定者，有從一切得，謂苾芻律儀。有從四支得，謂所餘律儀，唯根本業道名律儀支故。因不定者，謂或有義從一切因，或約餘義唯許從一。從一切者，謂從無貪瞋痴，必俱起故。唯從一者，謂從下中上心，不俱起故。此中且就後三因說。或有一類住律儀者，於一切有情得律儀，非一切支非一切因，謂以下心或中或上受近事勤策戒。或有一類住律儀者，於一切有情得律儀，由一切支非一切因，謂以下心或中或上受苾芻戒。或有一類住律儀者，於一切有情得律儀，由一切支及一切因，謂以三心受近事勤策苾芻戒。或有一類住律儀者，於一切有情得律儀，由一切因非一切支，謂以三心受近事近住勤策戒。無有不遍於諸有情得律儀者，以於一切諸有情所住善意樂方得律儀，異則不然，以惡意樂不全息故。若人不作五種定限，方可受得別解律儀，謂有情、支、處、時、緣定。有情定者，念我唯於某類有情當離殺等。言支定者，念我唯於某律儀支當持不犯。言處定者，念我唯住某類方域當離殺等。言時定者，念我唯於一月等時能離殺等。言緣定者，念我唯除鬪戰等緣能離殺等。如是受者不得律儀，但得律儀相似妙行。於非所能境，如何得律儀？由普於有情發起增上不損命意樂，故得律儀。毘婆沙師有作是說：若謂一向於所能境方可受得別解律儀，則此律儀應有增減，以所能境與非所能二類有情有轉易故，如是便有別解律儀離得捨緣有得捨過。彼說不然。如生草等先無後起或起已枯，於彼律儀無增無減。能不能境所得律儀，境轉易時例亦應爾。彼言不爾。所以者何？以諸有情前後性等、草等前後性不同故。若爾，有情般涅槃已，如前性類今時既無，於彼律儀如何無減？故如是釋，於理不然。前所說因於理為善。

The treatise says: Restraint is definitely obtained from all sentient beings; there is no principle of partial scope. But the limbs and causes are said not to be fixed. Limbs are not fixed in that some are obtained from all, namely the restraint of a bhikshu, while some are obtained from four limbs, namely the other restraints, because only the root courses of action are called the limbs of restraint. Causes are not fixed in that in some sense they come from all causes, and in another sense it is allowed that they come from only one. Coming from all means from non-greed, non-hatred and non-delusion, because they must arise together. Coming from only one means from the lower, middle or superior mind, because these do not arise together. Here let us speak just of the latter three causes. Some persons abiding in restraint obtain restraint toward all sentient beings, but not with all limbs and not with all causes, namely those who undertake the precepts of a lay follower and a novice with a lower, middle or superior mind. Some persons abiding in restraint obtain restraint toward all sentient beings through all limbs but not through all causes, namely those who undertake the precepts of a bhikshu with a lower, middle or superior mind. Some persons abiding in restraint obtain restraint toward all sentient beings through all limbs and through all causes, namely those who undertake the precepts of a lay follower, novice and bhikshu with the three minds. Some persons abiding in restraint obtain restraint toward all sentient beings through all causes but not through all limbs, namely those who undertake the precepts of a lay follower, the one-day precepts and a novice with the three minds. There is no one who obtains restraint without pervading all sentient beings, because restraint is obtained only through a wholesome intention toward all sentient beings; otherwise it would not be so, because evil intention would not be entirely stilled. Restraint of individual liberation can be undertaken only if one does not make any of five kinds of limitations, namely limitation of beings, of limbs, of place, of time and of conditions. Limiting beings means thinking: I shall abstain from killing and so on only toward a certain kind of being. Limiting limbs means thinking: I shall keep and not break only a certain limb of the restraint. Limiting place means thinking: I shall abstain from killing and so on only while living in a certain region. Limiting time means thinking: I shall be able to abstain from killing and so on only for a period such as one month. Limiting conditions means thinking: I shall abstain from killing and so on except in conditions such as battle. One who undertakes in this way does not obtain restraint, but only obtains good conduct that resembles restraint. With regard to beings that one is not capable of harming, how does one obtain restraint? Because one has generated a superior intention not to harm life universally toward sentient beings, one obtains restraint. Some Vibhasa masters say: If one holds that restraint of individual liberation can be undertaken only with respect to beings one is able to harm, then this restraint would increase and decrease, since beings one can harm and beings one cannot harm may change into each other, and then the restraint of individual liberation would be obtained and lost through conditions. They say it is not so. Like fresh grass and the like that did not exist and then grows up, or grows up and then withers, the restraint neither increases nor decreases with respect to it. The restraint obtained toward beings one can and cannot harm is also like this when the beings change. That statement is not so. Why? Because the nature of sentient beings before and after, and of grass and the like before and after, is not the same. If so, when a sentient being has entered parinirvana, the kind of being that existed before no longer exists now, so how does the restraint not decrease with respect to that being? Hence this explanation is not correct in principle. The cause stated earlier is good in principle.

若爾，前佛及所度生已涅槃者，後佛於彼既不發得別解律儀，如何屍羅無減前過？以一切佛別解律儀，皆從一切有情處得。設彼有情今猶在者，後佛從彼亦得律儀，故後屍羅無減前過。已說從彼得諸律儀。得不律儀定從一切有情業道，無少分境及不具支不律儀者。此定無有，由一切因下品等心無俱起故。若有一類由下品心得不律儀，後於異時由上品心斷眾生命，彼但成就下不律儀，亦成殺生上品表等。中品上品例此應知。此中何名不律儀者，謂諸屠羊屠鷄屠豬捕鳥捕魚、獵獸劫盜魁膾典獄、縛龍煮狗及罝弶等。等言類顯王典刑罰及餘聽察斷罪等人，但恆有害心。名不律儀者，由彼一類住不律儀。或有不律儀名不律儀者，言屠羊者，謂為活命要期盡壽恆欲害羊。餘隨所應當知亦爾。遍於有情界得諸律儀，其理可爾，由普欲利樂勝阿世耶而受得故，非屠羊等不律儀人於己至親有損害意，乃至為救自身命緣亦不欲殺，如何可說普於一切得不律儀？由彼至親若為羊等，於彼亦可有損害心。既知至親現非羊等，如何於彼可有害心？又聖必無作羊等理，如何於彼得不律儀？若觀未來羊等自體，於現相續得不律儀。是則羊等於未來世，亦有至親及聖自體，於彼決定無損害心。是則應觀未來自體，不於現在得不律儀。於羊等現身既有害意，如何不於彼得不律儀？於母等現身既無害意，如何亦於彼得不律儀？於等事中應求異理。又屠羊等不律儀人，於一生中不與不取，於己妻妾住知足心，瘂不能言無語四過，如何彼亦得具支不律儀？彼遍損善阿世耶故。雖瘂不言，而身表語所欲說義，故得具支。若爾，彼人或時先受二三學處，後但受殺，於餘不損善阿世耶，如何具發七支惡戒？毘婆沙者作如是言：必無缺支及餘一分可得名住不律儀人。經部諸師作如是說：隨所期限支具不具及全分一分皆得不律儀。

(The treatise continues:) If so, for the earlier Buddhas and those they liberated who have already entered nirvana, a later Buddha does not generate the restraint of individual liberation toward them; so how does moral discipline not suffer the fault of decrease relative to before? Because the restraint of individual liberation of all Buddhas is obtained from all sentient beings. Even if those beings are still present now, the later Buddha also obtains restraint from them, so later moral discipline does not suffer the fault of decrease relative to before. The obtaining of restraints from them has been explained. The obtaining of non-restraint is definitely from the courses of action toward all sentient beings; there is no non-restraint with a partial object or incomplete limbs. This certainly does not occur, because lower-grade minds and the like do not arise together with all causes. If someone obtains non-restraint with a lower-grade mind and later at another time takes life with a superior-grade mind, he is accomplished only in a lower non-restraint, but also accomplishes the superior expression of killing and so on. The middle and superior grades should be understood by analogy. Who are called people of non-restraint here? Namely butchers of sheep, chickens and pigs, bird-catchers, fishermen, hunters of wild animals, robbers, executioners, prison wardens, those who bind dragons or boil dogs, those who set snares, and so on. The word and so on includes those who carry out royal punishments and others who investigate and judge crimes, who always have harmful minds. They are called people of non-restraint because they abide in a kind of non-restraint. Some are also called non-restraint by the name non-restraint itself. In saying a butcher of sheep, it means one who, for the sake of livelihood, resolves to the end of his life always to want to harm sheep. The others should be understood in the same way. As for obtaining restraints universally toward the realm of sentient beings, this may be so in principle, because they are undertaken with a supreme intention to benefit and delight all. But butchers of sheep and the like, who have no harmful intent toward their closest kin and would not want to kill them even to save their own life, how can one say that they obtain non-restraint universally toward all? If their closest kin were sheep and the like, they might also have a harmful mind toward them. But knowing that their closest kin are not now sheep and the like, how could they have a harmful mind toward them? And holy ones certainly cannot become sheep and the like, so how could they obtain non-restraint toward them? If one looks to the future bodies of sheep and the like and obtains non-restraint in the present continuum, then in the future these sheep and the like will include their closest kin and the bodies of holy ones, toward which they certainly have no harmful mind. Then one should look to future bodies, and not obtain non-restraint toward the present. Since they have harmful intent toward the present bodies of sheep and the like, how do they not obtain non-restraint toward them? Since they have no harmful intent toward the present bodies of their mothers and the like, how can they obtain non-restraint toward them too? For such matters a different principle should be sought. Moreover, butchers of sheep and other people of non-restraint, throughout one life, do not take what is not given, keep contentment toward their own wives and concubines, and, being mute, do not have the four faults of speech, so how can they also obtain non-restraint with complete limbs? Because they generate a wholly harmful state of mind. Even if mute and not speaking, the bodily and verbal expression carry the meaning they wish to say, so the limbs are complete. If so, a person who first undertakes two or three trainings and later undertakes only killing, without harming the other wholesome states of mind, how does he generate the evil precepts of all seven limbs? The Vibhasa masters speak thus: There is certainly no case of lacking a limb or having only a part of the others and being called one who abides in non-restraint. The Sautrantika masters speak thus: According to the stated period, whether limbs are complete or incomplete, whether whole or partial, all obtain non-restraint.

律儀亦然，唯除八戒，由隨彼量善惡屍羅性相相違互相遮故。已說從彼得不律儀。得不律儀及餘無表，如何方便未說當說。頌曰：

Restraint is also like this, except for the eight-limbed precepts, because according to their measure, the natures and characteristics of good and evil moral discipline are contrary and block each other. The obtaining of non-restraint has been explained. How non-restraint and other non-manifest acts are obtained has not yet been explained and will now be explained. The verse says:

諸得不律儀，由作及誓受，

Non-restraint is obtained by doing and by vowing and undertaking,

得所餘無表，由田受重行。

other non-manifest acts are obtained by field, undertaking and intense practice.

論曰：諸不律儀，由二因得：一者生在不律儀家，由初現行殺等加行；二者雖復生在餘家，由初要期受殺等事，謂我當作如是事業，以求財物養活自身，當於爾時便發惡戒。得餘無表由三種因：一者由田，謂於如是諸福田所施園林等，彼善無表初施便生，如說有依諸福業事。二者由受，謂自誓言：若未禮佛不先食等。或作誓限：於齋日月半月及年常施食等。三由重行，謂起如是殷重作意行善行惡。由此三因起餘無表。如是已說得律儀等，捨律儀等未說當說。且云何捨別解律儀？頌曰：

The treatise says: Non-restraints are obtained through two causes. The first is being born into a household of non-restraint, through the first preparatory action of killing and the like. The second is being born in another household but, by first resolving to undertake the act of killing and the like, thinking I shall do this kind of work to earn wealth and support myself, at that moment one generates the evil precept. Other non-manifest acts are obtained through three causes. The first is the field, namely gifts such as gardens and groves given to fields of merit; the wholesome non-manifest act of these arises as soon as the gift is made, as in the saying about the bases of meritorious deeds that depend on something. The second is undertaking, namely one's own vow, such as not eating before one has paid homage to the Buddha, or making a limited vow, such as always giving food on fast days, on half-month days and in the course of the year. The third is intense practice, namely generating such a weighty intention in doing good or evil. By these three causes other non-manifest acts arise. Thus the obtaining of restraint and the like has been explained; the abandoning of restraint and the like has not yet been explained and will now be explained. First, how is the restraint of individual liberation abandoned? The verse says:

捨別解調伏，由故捨命終，

The restraint of individual liberation is abandoned by deliberately giving it up, by death,

及二形俱生，斷善根夜盡。

by two sexual organs arising at once, by cutting off wholesome roots, and by the night ending.

有說由犯重，餘說由法滅，

Some say it is by committing a grave offense, others say by the disappearance of the Dharma,

迦濕彌羅說，犯二如負財。

the masters of Kashmir say that committing two is like owing money.

論曰：言調伏者，意顯律儀，由此能令根調伏故。唯除近住，所餘七種別解律儀，由四緣捨：一由意樂對有解人發有表業捨學處故、二由棄捨眾同分故、三由二形俱時生故、四由所因善根斷故。捨近住戒由前四緣及由夜盡，是故總說別解律儀由五緣捨。何緣捨戒由此五緣？與受相違表業生故、所依捨故、所依變故、所因斷故、過期限故。有餘部說：於四極重感墮罪中若隨犯一，亦捨勤策苾芻律儀。有餘部言：由正法滅亦能令捨別解律儀，以法滅時一切學處結界羯磨皆止息故。迦濕彌羅國毘婆沙師言：犯根本罪時，不捨出家戒。所以然者，非犯一邊一切律儀應遍捨故，非犯餘罪有斷屍羅。然有二名，謂持犯戒。如有財者負他債時，名為富人及負債者。若於所犯發露悔除，名具屍羅不名犯戒，如還債已但名富人。若爾，何緣薄伽梵說犯四重者不名苾芻、不名沙門非釋迦子？破苾芻體、害沙門性，壞滅墮落立他勝名。依勝義苾芻，密意作是說。此言兇勃。兇勃者何？謂於世尊了義所說，以別義釋令成不了，與多煩惱者為犯重罪緣。寧知此言是了義說。由律自釋有四苾芻：一名想苾芻、二自稱苾芻、三乞匃苾芻、四破惑苾芻。此義中言非苾芻者，謂非白四羯磨受具足戒苾芻。非此苾芻先是勝義，後由犯重成非苾芻，故知此言是了義說。然彼所說，非犯一邊一切律儀應遍捨者，彼言便是徵詰大師。大師此中立如是喻，如多羅樹若被斷頭必不復能生長廣大，諸苾芻等犯重亦然。大師此中喻顯何義？意顯於戒隨犯一邊根本重罪，令餘所受必不復能生長廣大。謂彼毀犯諸重罪時，違越苾芻根本行故、與極猛利無慚無愧共相應故。行根既斷，理應遍捨一切律儀。又犯重人，世尊不許食僧祇食下至一摶、踐毘訶羅一足跟地，擯出一切苾芻事業。

The treatise says: The word discipline here means restraint, because it can tame the faculties. Except for the one-day precepts, the other seven kinds of restraint of individual liberation are abandoned by four conditions: first, by an intention to give up the training, expressed in manifest action before one who understands; second, by abandoning the community of beings of the same class; third, by two sexual organs arising at the same time; fourth, by the cutting off of the wholesome roots on which it depends. The one-day precepts are abandoned by the four conditions above and also by the ending of the night. Therefore the restraint of individual liberation is said in general to be abandoned by five conditions. Why are the precepts abandoned through these five conditions? Because a manifest action contrary to the undertaking arises, because the basis is abandoned, because the basis changes, because the cause is cut off, and because the time limit has passed. Some other schools say: If one commits any one of the four extremely grave offenses involving defeat, one also abandons the restraint of a novice and of a bhikshu. Some other schools say: The disappearance of the true Dharma also causes the abandoning of the restraint of individual liberation, because when the Dharma has disappeared, all training rules, boundary settings and karma procedures (the formal acts of the Sangha) cease. The Vibhasa masters of Kashmir say: When one commits a root offense, one does not abandon the precepts of going forth. They say so because it is not the case that committing one extreme means that all the restraints should be entirely abandoned, nor that committing other offenses cuts off moral discipline. Rather there are two names, one for keeping and one for breaking the precepts. For example, a wealthy man who owes a debt to another is called both a rich man and a debtor. If one confesses and repents of what one has committed, one is called possessing moral discipline and is not called a breaker of precepts, just as one who has repaid the debt is called only a rich man. If so, why did the Blessed One say that one who commits the four grave offenses is not a bhikshu, not a shramana, and not a son of the Sakya? The nature of a bhikshu is destroyed and the quality of a shramana is harmed, and one is said to fall into defeat, the name for the offense that defeats one. This was spoken with a hidden intention in terms of the bhikshu in the ultimate sense. Such words are violent and harsh. What is violent and harsh? It is to take what the World-Honored One said in definitive meaning and explain it with another meaning so as to make it indefinitive, becoming a cause for the grave offenses of those with many afflictions. How do we know that these words are a definitive statement? Because the Vinaya itself explains that there are four kinds of bhikshu: the bhikshu in name, the bhikshu by self-claim, the bhikshu who begs, and the bhikshu who breaks delusion. In this meaning, not being a bhikshu means not being a bhikshu who has received full ordination by the formal act of a motion and three announcements. It is not that this bhikshu was first one in the ultimate sense and later ceased to be a bhikshu by committing a grave offense, so we know these words are a definitive statement. Yet as for what they say, that committing one extreme does not mean all the restraints should be entirely abandoned, those words amount to questioning the Master. The Master here set up this simile: Like a palm tree whose head has been cut off, which certainly cannot grow tall and wide again, so it is with bhikshus who commit a grave offense. What meaning does the Master show by this simile? The intention is to show that with regard to the precepts, if one commits any one root grave offense, all the others undertaken certainly can no longer grow and expand. For when one violates the grave offenses, one goes against the root practice of a bhikshu and is accompanied by extremely fierce shamelessness and lack of conscience. Since the root of practice has been cut, in principle all the restraints should be abandoned entirely. Also, the World-Honored One did not allow a person who has committed a grave offense to eat the Sangha's food even by a single mouthful, or to tread even a heel's width of the vihara (monastery) ground, and expelled him from all the affairs of the bhikshus.

大師依彼說如是言：應速拔除稻禾稗莠，應速簡棄腐朽棟梁，應速簸颺種中穅秕，如是應速驅擯眾中實非苾芻稱苾芻者。彼苾芻體其相如何，隨相是何體必應有。以世尊說，準陀當知有四沙門，更無第五。所言四者：一勝道沙門、二示道沙門、三命道沙門、四汙道沙門。雖有此說，而彼唯有餘沙門相，故名沙門。如被燒材假鸚鵡𭪿涸池敗種火輪死人。若犯重人非苾芻者，則應無有授學苾芻。不說犯重人，皆成他勝罪；但成他勝罪，定說非苾芻。謂或有人相續殊勝，雖犯極重戒而非他勝罪，由彼無有一念覆心。法主世尊制立如是，若犯他勝便非苾芻。何不重令出家受戒？由彼相續已為極重無慚愧懷，無力能發出家律儀，如焦種故；非觀彼有苾芻律儀，故不重令出家受戒。所以然者，設彼後時謂是苾芻更捨所學，亦不許彼重出家故。於此無義，苦救何為？若如是人猶有苾芻性，應自歸禮如是類苾芻。正法滅時雖無一切結界羯磨及毘奈耶，未得律儀無新得理，而先得者無有捨義。靜慮、無漏二律儀等，云何當捨？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) The Master, relying on this, spoke these words: One should swiftly pull out the rice weeds and darnel, one should swiftly discard rotten beams and pillars, one should swiftly winnow out the chaff from the seed; in the same way one should swiftly drive out of the assembly those who are not truly bhikshus but call themselves bhikshus. What is the characteristic of the bhikshu's essence? Whatever the characteristic follows must have an essence. For the World-Honored One said, Cunda, you should know there are four kinds of shramanas and no fifth. The four are: the shramana who is victorious in the path, the shramana who teaches the path, the shramana who lives by the path, and the shramana who defiles the path. Although this is said, those persons have only the other characteristics of a shramana and so are called shramanas, like a burnt log, a counterfeit parrot's beak, a dried-up pond, a spoiled seed, a firebrand wheel, or a dead man. If a person who has committed a grave offense is not a bhikshu, then there would be no one to give instruction to a bhikshu in training. It is not said that all who commit grave offenses incur the offense of defeat; only those who incur the offense of defeat are definitely said not to be bhikshus. Some persons have an especially excellent continuum, and although they violate a most grave precept it is not an offense of defeat, because they have not a single moment of concealing it in the mind. The Lord of the Dharma, the World-Honored One, established that if one commits defeat one is not a bhikshu. Why not make them go forth and receive the precepts again? Because their continuum already harbors extreme shamelessness and lack of conscience and has no power to generate the restraint of going forth, like a scorched seed; it is not that they are seen as having the restraint of a bhikshu, so they are not made to go forth and receive the precepts again. Why is it so? Even if later they thought themselves bhikshus and gave up the training again, it is not permitted that they go forth again. In this case there is no point; what use is it to be anxious to rescue them? If such a person still had the nature of a bhikshu, he should bow in respect to such bhikshus himself. When the true Dharma has disappeared, although all boundary settings, karma procedures and the Vinaya are gone, there is no principle by which restraint not yet obtained could be newly obtained, yet what was obtained earlier has no cause to be abandoned. How are the restraints of meditative absorption and the restraint without outflows and so on abandoned? The verse says:

捨定生善法，由易地退等，

Wholesome dharmas born of meditative absorption are abandoned by changing realm, by decline and the like,

捨聖由得果，練根及退失。

the holy are abandoned by attaining a fruit, by refining the faculties, and by falling away.

論曰：諸靜慮地所繫善法，由二緣捨：一由易地，謂從下地生上地時，或上地沒來生下地；二由得退，謂從已獲勝定功德還退失時。等言為顯捨眾同分亦捨少分殊勝善根，如色界中所有善法由易地退捨，無色界亦然，唯無律儀與色界異。無漏善法由三緣捨：一由得果，謂得果時捨前向道及果道故；二由練根，謂練根位由得利道捨鈍道故；三由退失，謂得退時退失果道勝果道故。如是已說捨諸律儀。不律儀云何捨？頌曰：

The treatise says: Wholesome dharmas bound to the meditative realms are abandoned through two conditions: first, by changing realm, namely when one is born from a lower realm into a higher one, or when one dies from a higher realm and is born in a lower one; second, by decline, namely when one falls back from the excellent meditative merits one had obtained. The word and the like also shows that when one abandons a community of beings of the same class, one abandons some excellent wholesome roots. As with wholesome dharmas in the form realm, which are abandoned by changing realm or decline, so it is in the formless realm too, except that there is no restraint there, which differs from the form realm. Wholesome dharmas without outflows are abandoned through three conditions: first, by attaining a fruit, namely when one attains the fruit one abandons the path of the preceding stage and the path of the fruit; second, by refining the faculties, namely at the stage of refining the faculties one abandons the dull path by obtaining the sharp path; third, by falling away, namely when one falls back one loses the path of the fruit and the path of the superior fruit. Thus the abandoning of all the restraints has been explained. How is non-restraint abandoned? The verse says:

捨惡戒由死，得戒二形生。

The evil precept is abandoned by death, by obtaining a precept, and by two sexual organs arising.

論曰：諸不律儀，由三緣捨：一者由死捨所依故。二由得戒，謂若受得別解律儀，或由獲得靜慮律儀，惡戒便捨。由因緣力得律儀時，諸不律儀一切皆斷，以善惡戒其性相違，善戒於中勢力強故。三由相續二形俱生，以於爾時所依變故。住惡戒者，雖或有時起不作思捨刀網等，若不受得諸善律儀，諸不律儀無容棄捨。譬如雖避發病因緣，不服良藥病終難愈。不律儀者受近住戒，至夜盡位捨律儀時，為得不律儀、為名處中者？有餘師說：得不律儀，惡阿世耶非永捨故，如停熱鐵赤滅青生。有餘師言：若不更作，無緣令彼得不律儀，以不律儀依表得故。處中無表捨復云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Non-restraints are abandoned through three conditions. First, by death, since the basis is abandoned. Second, by obtaining a precept, namely if one undertakes the restraint of individual liberation or obtains the restraint of meditative absorption, the evil precept is abandoned. When one obtains restraint through the power of causes and conditions, all non-restraints are cut off, because wholesome and evil precepts are contrary in nature and the wholesome precept is stronger in power. Third, by two sexual organs arising together in the continuum, because at that moment the basis changes. For one abiding in the evil precept, even if at times he gives rise to the intention of not doing it and abandons knives, nets and the like, if he does not undertake the wholesome restraints, the non-restraints cannot be cast off. It is like avoiding the causes of illness without taking good medicine, so the illness can hardly be cured. When a person of non-restraint undertakes the one-day precepts and at the end of the night abandons the restraint, does he obtain non-restraint, or is he called intermediate? Some other masters say: He obtains non-restraint, because the evil intention was not abandoned for good, as a piece of hot iron, when set aside, loses its redness and turns blue. Some other masters say: If he does not do anything again, there is no condition by which he could obtain non-restraint, because non-restraint is obtained in reliance on manifest action. How is the intermediate non-manifest act abandoned? The verse says:

捨中由受勢，作事壽根斷。

The intermediate one is abandoned by the power of undertaking, the act, the thing, and the cutting of the life faculty.

論曰：處中無表，捨由六緣：一由受心斷壞故捨，謂捨所受，作是念言：我從今時棄先所受。二由勢力斷壞故捨，謂由淨信煩惱勢力所引無表，彼二限勢若斷壞時無表便捨，如所放箭及陶家輪，弦等勢力盡時便止。三由作業斷壞故捨，謂如所受後更不作。四由事物斷壞故捨。事物者何？謂所捨施寺舍敷具制多園林，及所施為罝網等事。五由壽命斷壞故捨，謂所依止有轉易故。六由善根斷壞故捨，謂起加行斷善根時，便捨善根所引無表欲非色善，及餘一切非色染法。捨復云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The intermediate non-manifest act is abandoned by six conditions. First, it is abandoned through the destruction of the mind of undertaking, namely abandoning what one undertook, thinking: From now on I give up what I undertook before. Second, it is abandoned through the destruction of power, namely the non-manifest act drawn forth by the power of pure faith or of afflictions; when the limit of the power of those two is cut off, the non-manifest act is abandoned, like an arrow that has been shot or a potter's wheel, which stops when the power of the bowstring or the like is exhausted. Third, it is abandoned through the destruction of the act, as when one does not do again what one undertook. Fourth, it is abandoned through the destruction of the thing. What is the thing? It is what one gave away, such as a donated monastery, bedding, shrine or grove, and things given to be used for nets and the like. Fifth, it is abandoned through the destruction of the life faculty, namely because the basis on which it rests changes. Sixth, it is abandoned through the destruction of the wholesome roots, namely when one undertakes the preparation for cutting the wholesome roots, one abandons the non-manifest acts drawn forth by the wholesome roots in the desire realm, which are non-material wholesome dharmas, and all other non-material defiled dharmas. And how are they abandoned? The verse says:

捨欲非色善，由根斷上生，

Non-material wholesome dharmas of the desire realm are abandoned by cutting the roots or by birth in a higher realm,

由對治道生，捨諸非色染。

and non-material defiled dharmas are abandoned by the arising of the counteracting path.