Sāgata and the Dragon
Fascicle 123 works through the four kinds of cultivation and restraint-class, explains why the seven Buddhist communities are defined by prātimokṣa restraint alone, and asks why the upāsaka precepts single out adultery, false speech, and alcohol — closing with the stories of a layman who broke all five precepts in one afternoon and the monk Sāgata who once tamed a dragon. This page carries Ru-Yi's complete translation.
Translation Method
The Chinese source is Xuánzàng's seventh-century translation of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (阿毘達磨大毘婆沙論), preserved in the Taishō canon (T1545, vol. 27) via the CBETA digital edition — public domain text, translated directly from the Chinese. The English wording throughout is Ru-Yi's own, and the reading notes are original, grounded in standard Sarvāstivāda scholarship rather than a specific named commentator's lecture transcript.
Fascicle 123 continues the Manifest-and-Unmanifest Nyāsa (表無表納息第四之二), moving from technical questions of cultivation and restraint-class into a rich, narrative-driven account of the upāsaka's five precepts. Terms established across fascicles 93–122 recur here and are not re-explained at each occurrence.
Classical text is set in the left-hand column below, our English in the right.
1. Karma Bound by Defilement and Its Fruit: Two Schools, One Verdict
Fascicle 123 continues the Manifest-and-Unmanifest Nyāsa with a technical dispute between the Kashmiri masters (who read the question "does contaminated karma have contaminated fruit?" as one cause yielding multiple fruits) and the Western masters (who read it as multiple causes yielding one fruit) — the two readings producing subtly different tetralemma answers throughout. The verdict sides with Kashmir, since the base treatise's own wording consistently proceeds question by question with reference to a single, unified karma rather than a single, unified fruit.
頗有業有漏有漏果耶。乃至廣說。應知此中依三果作論。除士用果及增上果。以士用果多雜亂故。多法為因得一法故。以增上果不決定故。極寬漫故如前已說。迦濕彌羅國諸論師言。此中依一因多果作論。若依此說頗有業有漏有漏果耶。答有。謂等流異熟果。頗有業有漏無漏果耶。答有。謂離繫果。頗有業有漏有漏無漏果耶。答有。謂等流異熟離繫果。頗有業無漏無漏果耶。答有。謂等流離繫果。頗有業無漏有漏果耶。答無。頗有業無漏有漏無漏果耶。答無。頗有業有漏無漏有漏無漏果耶。答無。所以者何。此中依一因多果而作論。故無如是因體是有漏亦是無漏。如無此因。亦無此果。故答言無。頗有業有漏無漏有漏果耶。答無。頗有業有漏無漏無漏果耶。答無。西方諸師作如是說。此中依多因一果而作論。若依此說頗有業有漏有漏果耶。答有。謂等流異熟果。頗有業有漏無漏果耶。答有。謂離繫果。頗有業有漏有漏無漏果耶。答無。所以者何。此中依多因一果而作論。故無如是果體是有漏亦是無漏。如無此果。亦無此因。故答言無。頗有業無漏無漏果耶。答有。謂等流離繫果。頗有業無漏有漏果耶。答無。頗有業無漏有漏無漏果耶。答無。頗有業有漏無漏有漏無漏果耶。答無。頗有業有漏無漏有漏果耶。答無。頗有業有漏無漏無漏果耶。答有。謂離繫果評曰。應知此中前說為善。以本論文多同前故。依一體業為問答故。
Is there karma that is contaminated whose fruit is likewise contaminated? And so on in full. One should know that this discussion proceeds with reference to three of the fruits, excluding the fruit of exertion and the fruit of predominance — the fruit of exertion being excluded because it is too often mixed and confused, since many dharmas serving as cause may yield a single fruit, and the fruit of predominance being excluded because it is indeterminate and exceedingly broad in scope, as already explained before. The treatise-masters of Kashmir say that this discussion proceeds with reference to a single cause yielding multiple fruits. According to this account: is there karma that is contaminated whose fruit is likewise contaminated? Answer: there is — namely, the outflow-fruit and the ripening-fruit. Is there karma that is contaminated whose fruit is undefiled? Answer: there is — namely, the fruit of freedom from bondage. Is there karma that is contaminated whose fruit is both contaminated and undefiled? Answer: there is — namely, the outflow-fruit, the ripening-fruit, and the fruit of freedom from bondage together. Is there karma that is undefiled whose fruit is likewise undefiled? Answer: there is — namely, the outflow-fruit and the fruit of freedom from bondage. Is there karma that is undefiled whose fruit is contaminated? Answer: there is not. Is there karma that is undefiled whose fruit is both contaminated and undefiled? Answer: there is not. Is there karma that is both contaminated and undefiled whose fruit is both contaminated and undefiled? Answer: there is not, for why is this? This discussion proceeds with reference to a single cause yielding multiple fruits, and hence there is no such thing as a single cause whose own-substance is both contaminated and undefiled at once — and since there is no such cause, there is likewise no such fruit, and hence the answer is that there is not. Is there karma that is both contaminated and undefiled whose fruit is contaminated? Answer: there is not. Is there karma that is both contaminated and undefiled whose fruit is undefiled? Answer: there is not. The masters of the Western regions say the following: this discussion proceeds with reference to multiple causes yielding a single fruit. According to this account: is there karma that is contaminated whose fruit is likewise contaminated? Answer: there is — namely, the outflow-fruit and the ripening-fruit. Is there karma that is contaminated whose fruit is undefiled? Answer: there is — namely, the fruit of freedom from bondage. Is there karma that is contaminated whose fruit is both contaminated and undefiled? Answer: there is not, for why is this? This discussion proceeds with reference to multiple causes yielding a single fruit, and hence there is no such thing as a single fruit whose own-substance is both contaminated and undefiled at once — and since there is no such fruit, there is likewise no such cause, and hence the answer is that there is not. Is there karma that is undefiled whose fruit is likewise undefiled? Answer: there is — namely, the outflow-fruit and the fruit of freedom from bondage. Is there karma that is undefiled whose fruit is contaminated? Answer: there is not. Is there karma that is undefiled whose fruit is both contaminated and undefiled? Answer: there is not. Is there karma that is both contaminated and undefiled whose fruit is both contaminated and undefiled? Answer: there is not. Is there karma that is both contaminated and undefiled whose fruit is contaminated? Answer: there is not. Is there karma that is both contaminated and undefiled whose fruit is undefiled? Answer: there is — namely, the fruit of freedom from bondage. The verdict: one should know that the first account given is the better one, since the base treatise's own wording more often agrees with it, proceeding as a question and answer with reference to a single, unified karma.
無一業體通染淨故。
— since there is no single karma whose own-substance spans both the contaminated and the pure.
That two equally rigorous schools can extract genuinely different tetralemma answers from the identical base-text question, purely by deciding whether "cause" or "fruit" is the fixed, singular term being interrogated, is a quiet demonstration of how much interpretive weight a single grammatical choice can carry — the treatise itself never states which reading is intended, leaving centuries of commentators to infer it from patterns of phrasing elsewhere in the text.
2. The Four Kinds of Cultivation, and What It Means Not to Cultivate the Body
A precise account of "not cultivating the body, precepts, mind, or wisdom" distinguishes two of the four kinds of cultivation at work — antidote-cultivation (the relevant antidote path not yet having arisen) and elimination-cultivation (the afflictions taking that object not yet cut off) — before working out, term by term, exactly what it means to be "not free from craving, moistness, joy, and thirst" with respect to the body, and for the uninterrupted path capable of exhausting form-realm craving to remain "not yet cultivated or pacified."
頗有業學學果耶。答有。謂等流果。頗有業學無學果耶。答有。謂等流果。頗有業學非學非無學果耶。答有。謂離繫果。頗有業無學果耶。答有。謂等流果。頗有業無學無學學果耶。答無。頗有業無學非學非無學果耶。答無。問時解脫阿羅漢練根作不動。第九無間道頓證三界見修所斷一切結斷。彼諸結斷是此道果應答言有。何故言無。答雖是此道士用果。而非離繫果。前已說此中除士用增上果。故答言無。頗有業非學非無學非學非無學果耶。答有。謂等流異熟離繫果。頗有業非學非無學學果耶。答無。問世第一法無間引生苦法智忍。此忍應是世第一法所引生果應答言有。何故言無。答彼雖是士用果。而非三果所攝。前已說此中依三果作論。故答言無。頗有業非學非無學無學果耶。答無。如世尊說。不修身不修戒。不修心。不修慧。乃至廣說。修有四種。謂得修習修對治修除遣修。如智蘊等廣說。此中依二修作論。謂對治修除遣修。若於身戒心慧對治道。未生名不修身。乃至不修慧。此依對治修說。又緣身戒心慧所有煩惱。未斷未遍知名不修身。乃至不修慧。此依除遣修說。若於身戒心慧對治道已生。名為修身。乃至修慧。此依對治修說。又緣身戒心慧所有煩惱。已斷已遍知。名為修身。乃至修慧。此依除遣修說。是謂此處略毘婆沙。
Is there karma of the trainee whose fruit is likewise of the trainee? Answer: there is — namely, the outflow-fruit. Is there karma of the trainee whose fruit is of the adept? Answer: there is — namely, the outflow-fruit. Is there karma of the trainee whose fruit is of neither trainee nor adept? Answer: there is — namely, the fruit of freedom from bondage. Is there karma of the adept? Answer: there is — namely, the outflow-fruit. Is there karma of the adept whose fruit is of the adept and of the trainee? Answer: there is not. Is there karma of the adept whose fruit is of neither trainee nor adept? Answer: there is not. Question: when a time-liberated arhat sharpens his faculties to become unshakeable, his ninth uninterrupted path instantly realizes the cutting-off of every fetter of the three realms abandoned by both seeing and cultivation — that cutting-off ought to be called the fruit of this path, and the answer should be that there is such a case; why then is it said there is not? Answer: although it is indeed this path's own fruit of exertion, it is not the fruit of freedom from bondage, and it has already been explained before that this discussion excludes the fruit of exertion and the fruit of predominance — hence the answer is that there is not. Is there karma of neither trainee nor adept whose fruit is likewise of neither trainee nor adept? Answer: there is — namely, the outflow-fruit, the ripening-fruit, and the fruit of freedom from bondage. Is there karma of neither trainee nor adept whose fruit is of the trainee? Answer: there is not. Question: mundane supreme dharma, without interval, gives rise to the forbearance of dharma-knowledge of suffering — this forbearance ought to be called the fruit given rise to by mundane supreme dharma, and the answer should be that there is such a case; why then is it said there is not? Answer: although it is indeed a fruit of exertion, it is not included among the three fruits under discussion, and it has already been explained before that this discussion proceeds with reference to three of the fruits — hence the answer is that there is not. Is there karma of neither trainee nor adept whose fruit is of the adept? Answer: there is not. As the World-Honored One has said: not cultivating the body, not cultivating the precepts, not cultivating the mind, not cultivating wisdom, and so on in full — cultivation is of four kinds: attainment-cultivation, practice-cultivation, antidote-cultivation, and elimination-cultivation, as explained in full in the Aggregate of Knowledge and elsewhere. This discussion here proceeds with reference to two of these — namely, antidote-cultivation and elimination-cultivation. If the antidote path with respect to body, precepts, mind, or wisdom has not yet arisen, this is called not cultivating the body, and so on up to not cultivating wisdom — this is spoken of with reference to antidote-cultivation. And if the afflictions taking body, precepts, mind, or wisdom as their object have not yet been cut off and thoroughly understood, this too is called not cultivating the body, and so on up to not cultivating wisdom — this is spoken of with reference to elimination-cultivation. If the antidote path with respect to body, precepts, mind, or wisdom has already arisen, this is called cultivating the body, and so on up to cultivating wisdom — this is spoken of with reference to antidote-cultivation. And if the afflictions taking body, precepts, mind, or wisdom as their object have already been cut off and thoroughly understood, this too is called cultivating the body, and so on up to cultivating wisdom — this is spoken of with reference to elimination-cultivation. This is called the brief exposition of the Vibhāṣā at this point.
云何不修身。答若於身未離貪欲潤憙渴。又無間道能盡色貪。彼於此道未修未安。若於身未離貪者。謂未離愛未離欲者。謂於愛欲未斷未遍知。未離潤者。謂於愛潤未斷未遍知。未離憙者。謂於愛憙未斷未遍知。未離渴者。謂於愛渴未斷未遍知。又無間道能盡色貪者。謂無間道能盡色界愛。彼於此道未修未安者。謂未修習及未安息。修謂習修安謂得修。又起名修滅名安。又已生名修已滅名安。
What is it to not cultivate the body? Answer: it is when one has not become free, with respect to the body, from craving, moistness, joy, and thirst, and when the uninterrupted path capable of exhausting form-realm craving has not yet been cultivated or pacified with respect to this. As to not being free, with respect to the body, from craving: this means not yet cut off and thoroughly understood with respect to craving. As to not being free from desire: this means not yet cut off and thoroughly understood with respect to the desire of craving. As to not being free from moistness: this means not yet cut off and thoroughly understood with respect to the moistness of craving. As to not being free from joy: this means not yet cut off and thoroughly understood with respect to the joy of craving. As to not being free from thirst: this means not yet cut off and thoroughly understood with respect to the thirst of craving. As to the uninterrupted path capable of exhausting form-realm craving: this refers to the uninterrupted path capable of exhausting the craving of the form realm. As to not yet having cultivated or pacified this path: this means not yet having practiced it and not yet having settled it into rest — cultivation refers to practice-cultivation, and pacification refers to attainment-cultivation; further, arising is called cultivation and ceasing is called pacification; further, what has already arisen is called cultivation and what has already ceased is called pacification.
應知此中若於身未離貪欲潤憙渴。名不修身者。依除遣修說。又無間道能盡色貪。彼於此道未修未安名不修身者。依對治修說。有餘師說。若於身未離貪欲潤憙渴。名不修身者。謂於緣身愛未斷未遍知。又無間道能盡色貪。彼於此道未修未安。名不修身者。謂於緣身諸餘煩惱。未斷未遍知。有作是說。若於身未離貪等者。顯未斷繫得。又無間道能盡色貪等者。顯未證離繫得。如未斷繫得。未證離繫得。如是未損減過失。未修習功德。未棄下劣。未證勝妙。未捨無義。未得有義。未除有愛熱惱。未受無愛快樂。應知亦爾。或有說者。若於身未離貪等者。顯無間道未起作用。又無間道能盡色貪等者。顯解脫道未起作用。復有說者。若於身未離貪等者。顯未離欲界。乃至第三靜慮染。又無間道能盡色貪等者。顯未離第四靜慮染。此等差別如理應知。云何不修戒。答若於戒未離貪。廣說如身。云何不修心。答若於心未離貪欲潤憙渴。又無間道能盡無色貪。彼於此道未修未安。若於心未離貪等如前說。又無間道能盡無色貪者。謂無間道能盡無色界愛。未修未安如前說應知。此中若於心未離貪欲潤憙渴名不修心者。依除遣修說。又無間道能盡無色貪。彼於此道未修未安名不修心者。依對治修說。有餘師說。若於心未離貪等者。謂於緣心愛未斷未遍知。又無間道能盡無色貪等者。謂於緣心諸餘煩惱未斷未遍知。餘廣說如前。復有說者。若於心未離貪等者。顯未離欲界乃至無所有處染。又無間道能盡無色貪等者。顯未離非想非非想處染。此等差別如理應知。云何不修慧。
One should know that, here, being not free, with respect to the body, from craving, moistness, joy, and thirst is called not cultivating the body with reference to elimination-cultivation, while the uninterrupted path capable of exhausting form-realm craving not yet having been cultivated or pacified is called not cultivating the body with reference to antidote-cultivation. Other masters say: being not free, with respect to the body, from craving, moistness, joy, and thirst, called not cultivating the body, means that the craving taking the body as object has not yet been cut off and thoroughly understood; and the uninterrupted path capable of exhausting form-realm craving not yet being cultivated or pacified, called not cultivating the body, means that the remaining afflictions taking the body as object have not yet been cut off and thoroughly understood. Some say: being not free, with respect to the body, from craving and the rest shows that the bondage-attainment has not yet been cut off; and the uninterrupted path capable of exhausting form-realm craving and the rest shows that the freedom-from-bondage-attainment has not yet been realized and verified — and one should understand in the same way that the fault has not yet been diminished, the virtue not yet cultivated, the base not yet abandoned, the sublime not yet realized, the meaningless not yet given up, the meaningful not yet attained, the fevered torment of craving not yet removed, and the untroubled happiness of freedom from craving not yet received. Some further say: being not free, with respect to the body, from craving and the rest shows that the uninterrupted path has not yet exercised its function, and the uninterrupted path capable of exhausting form-realm craving and the rest shows that the liberation path has not yet exercised its function. Some further say: being not free, with respect to the body, from craving and the rest shows that one has not yet become free of the defilement of the desire realm up through the third dhyāna, and the uninterrupted path capable of exhausting form-realm craving and the rest shows that one has not yet become free of the defilement of the fourth dhyāna — these various distinctions should be reasoned through accordingly. What is it to not cultivate the precepts? Answer: it is being not free, with respect to the precepts, from craving, explained in full as with the body. What is it to not cultivate the mind? Answer: it is when one has not become free, with respect to the mind, from craving, moistness, joy, and thirst, and when the uninterrupted path capable of exhausting formless-realm craving has not yet been cultivated or pacified with respect to this. As to not being free, with respect to the mind, from craving and the rest, this is as explained before; and as to the uninterrupted path capable of exhausting formless-realm craving, this refers to the uninterrupted path capable of exhausting the craving of the formless realm, not yet cultivated or pacified, to be understood as explained before. Here, being not free, with respect to the mind, from craving, moistness, joy, and thirst, called not cultivating the mind, is with reference to elimination-cultivation, while the uninterrupted path capable of exhausting formless-realm craving not yet being cultivated or pacified, called not cultivating the mind, is with reference to antidote-cultivation. Other masters say: being not free, with respect to the mind, from craving and the rest means that the craving taking the mind as object has not yet been cut off and thoroughly understood, and the uninterrupted path capable of exhausting formless-realm craving and the rest means that the remaining afflictions taking the mind as object have not yet been cut off and thoroughly understood — the rest explained in full as before. Some further say: being not free, with respect to the mind, from craving and the rest shows that one has not yet become free of the defilement of the desire realm up through the sphere of nothingness, and the uninterrupted path capable of exhausting formless-realm craving and the rest shows that one has not yet become free of the defilement of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception — these various distinctions should be reasoned through accordingly. What is it to not cultivate wisdom?
答若於慧未離貪廣說如心已說。不修身等自性雜無雜相今當說。若不修身彼不修戒耶。答如是。設不修戒彼不修身耶。答如是。以身與戒俱於離第四靜慮染時方斷盡故。若不修身彼不修心耶。答諸不修身彼不修心。有不修心非不修身。謂已離色染。未離無色染。若不修身彼不修慧耶。答諸不修身彼不修慧。有不修慧非不修身如前說。若不修戒彼不修心耶。答諸不修戒彼不修心。有不修心非不修戒。如前說。若不修戒彼不修慧耶。答諸不修戒彼不修慧。有不修慧非不修戒如前說。此中諸如前說者。俱謂已離色染未離無色染。
Answer: it is being not free, with respect to wisdom, from craving, explained in full as with the mind, as already explained. Having explained the own-nature of not cultivating the body and the rest, we should now explain whether they mix with one another or not. If one does not cultivate the body, does one thereby not cultivate the precepts? Answer: yes. If one does not cultivate the precepts, does one thereby not cultivate the body? Answer: yes — since both the body and the precepts are cut off only together, at the moment of becoming free from the fourth dhyāna's defilement. If one does not cultivate the body, does one thereby not cultivate the mind? Answer: whoever does not cultivate the body does not cultivate the mind, but there is a case of not cultivating the mind without not cultivating the body — namely, one who has already become free of the form realm's defilement but not yet free of the formless realm's. If one does not cultivate the body, does one thereby not cultivate wisdom? Answer: whoever does not cultivate the body does not cultivate wisdom, but there is a case of not cultivating wisdom without not cultivating the body, as explained before. If one does not cultivate the precepts, does one thereby not cultivate the mind? Answer: whoever does not cultivate the precepts does not cultivate the mind, but there is a case of not cultivating the mind without not cultivating the precepts, as explained before. If one does not cultivate the precepts, does one thereby not cultivate wisdom? Answer: whoever does not cultivate the precepts does not cultivate wisdom, but there is a case of not cultivating wisdom without not cultivating the precepts, as explained before. Here, every case explained as before refers to one who has already become free of the form realm's defilement but not yet free of the formless realm's,
以對治處同故。若不修心彼不修慧耶。答如是。設不修慧彼不修心耶。答如是。以心與慧俱於離非想非非想處染時方斷盡故。
— since the place of their antidote is the same. If one does not cultivate the mind, does one thereby not cultivate wisdom? Answer: yes. If one does not cultivate wisdom, does one thereby not cultivate the mind? Answer: yes — since both the mind and wisdom are cut off only together, at the moment of becoming free from the defilement of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.
The four-term breakdown of craving into desire, moistness, joy, and thirst is not mere synonym-piling but a genuine attempt to name craving's own internal structure — its wanting, its capacity to soften and prepare the ground for further attachment, its accompanying delight, and its restless, unsatisfied reaching — suggesting that even a single affliction as familiar as craving contains distinguishable moving parts once examined closely enough.
3. Cultivating Body, Precepts, Mind, and Wisdom — and Which Pairs Fall Together
The positive counterpart follows in exact mirror image — cultivating body, precepts, mind, and wisdom defined as becoming free of the same craving and completing the same antidote path — before a careful tetralemma maps which of the four always arrive together: body and precepts are cut off only simultaneously, at freedom from the fourth dhyāna's defilement, while mind and wisdom are likewise cut off only simultaneously, at freedom from the peak of existence's defilement, with body/precepts and mind/wisdom forming two separate matched pairs rather than one single fourfold bundle.
如世尊說。修身修戒修心修慧。云何修身。答若於身已離貪欲潤憙渴。又無間道能盡色貪。彼於此道已修已安。云何修戒。答若於戒已離貪。廣說如身。云何修心。答若於心已離貪欲潤憙渴。又無間道能盡無色貪。彼於此道已修已安。云何修慧。答若於慧已離貪。
As the World-Honored One has said: cultivating the body, cultivating the precepts, cultivating the mind, cultivating wisdom. What is it to cultivate the body? Answer: it is when one has already become free, with respect to the body, from craving, moistness, joy, and thirst, and when the uninterrupted path capable of exhausting form-realm craving has already been cultivated and pacified with respect to this. What is it to cultivate the precepts? Answer: it is being already free, with respect to the precepts, from craving, explained in full as with the body. What is it to cultivate the mind? Answer: it is when one has already become free, with respect to the mind, from craving, moistness, joy, and thirst, and when the uninterrupted path capable of exhausting formless-realm craving has already been cultivated and pacified with respect to this. What is it to cultivate wisdom? Answer: it is being already free, with respect to wisdom, from craving,
廣說如心。略毘婆沙及釋諸句翻前黑品如理應思。
— explained in full as with the mind. The brief exposition of the Vibhāṣā and the explanation of these phrases, being the reverse of the dark category explained before, should be reasoned through accordingly.
已分別修身等自性。雜無雜相今當說。若修身彼修戒耶。答如是。
Having explained the own-nature of cultivating the body and the rest, we should now explain whether they mix with one another or not. If one cultivates the body, does one thereby cultivate the precepts? Answer: yes.
設修戒彼修身耶。答如是。以身與戒俱。於離第四靜慮染。時方斷盡故。若修身彼修心耶。答諸修心彼修身。有修身非修心。謂已離色染未離無色染。若修身彼修慧耶。答諸修慧彼修身。有修身非修慧。如前說。若修戒彼修心耶。答諸修心彼修戒。有修戒非修心。
If one cultivates the precepts, does one thereby cultivate the body? Answer: yes — since both the body and the precepts are cut off only together, at the moment of becoming free from the fourth dhyāna's defilement. If one cultivates the body, does one thereby cultivate the mind? Answer: whoever cultivates the mind cultivates the body, but there is a case of cultivating the body without cultivating the mind — namely, one who has already become free of the form realm's defilement but not yet free of the formless realm's. If one cultivates the body, does one thereby cultivate wisdom? Answer: whoever cultivates wisdom cultivates the body, but there is a case of cultivating the body without cultivating wisdom, as explained before. If one cultivates the precepts, does one thereby cultivate the mind? Answer: whoever cultivates the mind cultivates the precepts, but there is a case of cultivating the precepts without cultivating the mind,
如前說。若修戒彼修慧耶。答諸修慧彼修戒。有修戒非修慧。如前說。此中諸句如前說者。俱謂已離色染未離無色染。以對治處同故。若修心彼修慧耶。答如是。設修慧彼修心耶。答如是。以心與慧俱於離非想非非想處染時。方斷盡故。
— as explained before. If one cultivates the precepts, does one thereby cultivate wisdom? Answer: whoever cultivates wisdom cultivates the precepts, but there is a case of cultivating the precepts without cultivating wisdom, as explained before. Here, every case explained as before refers to one who has already become free of the form realm's defilement but not yet free of the formless realm's, since the place of their antidote is the same. If one cultivates the mind, does one thereby cultivate wisdom? Answer: yes. If one cultivates wisdom, does one thereby cultivate the mind? Answer: yes — since both the mind and wisdom are cut off only together, at the moment of becoming free from the defilement of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.
The asymmetric pairing — body always implies mind (since form-realm freedom precedes formless-realm freedom) but never the reverse — quietly encodes the entire cosmological hierarchy into a grammar of implication: to have completed the coarser task is no guarantee of the subtler one, but completing the subtler task always presupposes having already completed the coarser.
4. Seven More Ways to Read the Same Four Terms
A cascade of alternative interpretive schemes remaps "not cultivating body, precepts, mind, wisdom" onto seven different frameworks already established elsewhere in the treatise — the four inverted views, the four nutriments, the five aggregates, the stations of consciousness, the four foundations of mindfulness, the seven factors of awakening, and finally a beautiful architectural image: the body not yet able to serve as the basis for precepts, precepts not yet able to serve as the basis for calming, calming not yet able to serve as the basis for insight, and insight not yet able to destroy the afflictions.
已隨本論文句差別。釋不修身戒心慧等。當復隨義釋此差別。有作是說。不修身者。謂於不淨。淨想顛倒未斷未遍知。不修戒者。謂於苦樂想顛倒。未斷未遍知。不修心者。謂於無常常想顛倒。未斷未遍知。不修慧者。謂於無我我想顛倒。未斷未遍知。有餘師說。
Having explained not cultivating the body, precepts, mind, and wisdom according to the base treatise's own distinct wording, we should now further explain these distinctions according to their meaning. Some say: not cultivating the body means not yet having cut off and thoroughly understood the inverted perception of the pure with respect to the impure; not cultivating the precepts means not yet having cut off and thoroughly understood the inverted perception of the pleasant with respect to the painful; not cultivating the mind means not yet having cut off and thoroughly understood the inverted perception of the permanent with respect to the impermanent; not cultivating wisdom means not yet having cut off and thoroughly understood the inverted perception of the self with respect to the non-self. Other masters say:
不修身者。謂於段食。未斷未遍知。不修戒者。謂於觸食。未斷未遍知。不修心者。謂於識食。未斷未遍知。不修慧者。謂於意思食。未斷未遍知。或有說者。不修身者。謂於色蘊。未斷未遍知。
— not cultivating the body means not yet having cut off and thoroughly understood morsel-food; not cultivating the precepts means not yet having cut off and thoroughly understood contact-food; not cultivating the mind means not yet having cut off and thoroughly understood consciousness-food; not cultivating wisdom means not yet having cut off and thoroughly understood volitional-food. Some say: not cultivating the body means not yet having cut off and thoroughly understood the aggregate of form,
不修戒者。謂於受蘊。未斷未遍知。不修心者。謂於識蘊。未斷未遍知。不修慧者。謂於想蘊行蘊未斷未遍知。復有說者。不修身者。謂於色隨識住。未斷未遍知。不修戒者。謂於受隨識住。未斷未遍知。不修心者。謂於能住識。未斷未遍知。不修慧者。謂於想隨識住行隨識住。未斷未遍知。有作是言。不修身者。謂未修身念住。不修戒者。謂未修受念住。不修心者。謂未修心念住。不修慧者。謂未修法念住。有餘師言。不修身者。謂未修身修。不修戒者。謂未修戒修。不修心者。謂未修心修。不修慧者。謂未修慧修。有餘復說。不修身者。謂身於覺支未能隨順。不修戒者。謂戒於覺支未能隨順。不修心者。謂心於覺支未能隨順。不修慧者。謂慧於覺支。未能隨順。或復有說。不修身者。謂身未能為戒所依。
— not cultivating the precepts means not yet having cut off and thoroughly understood the aggregate of feeling; not cultivating the mind means not yet having cut off and thoroughly understood the aggregate of consciousness; not cultivating wisdom means not yet having cut off and thoroughly understood the aggregates of perception and formations. Some further say: not cultivating the body means not yet having cut off and thoroughly understood the abiding of consciousness upon form; not cultivating the precepts means not yet having cut off and thoroughly understood the abiding of consciousness upon feeling; not cultivating the mind means not yet having cut off and thoroughly understood the very consciousness that abides; not cultivating wisdom means not yet having cut off and thoroughly understood the abiding of consciousness upon perception and upon formations. Some say: not cultivating the body means not yet having cultivated mindfulness of the body; not cultivating the precepts means not yet having cultivated mindfulness of feeling; not cultivating the mind means not yet having cultivated mindfulness of mind; not cultivating wisdom means not yet having cultivated mindfulness of dharmas. Other masters say: not cultivating the body means not yet having cultivated body-cultivation; not cultivating the precepts means not yet having cultivated precept-cultivation; not cultivating the mind means not yet having cultivated mind-cultivation; not cultivating wisdom means not yet having cultivated wisdom-cultivation. Others further say: not cultivating the body means the body has not yet been able to accord with the factors of awakening; not cultivating the precepts means the precepts have not yet been able to accord with the factors of awakening; not cultivating the mind means the mind has not yet been able to accord with the factors of awakening; not cultivating wisdom means wisdom has not yet been able to accord with the factors of awakening. Some further say: not cultivating the body means the body has not yet been able to serve as the basis for the precepts;
不修戒者。謂戒未能為奢摩他所依。不修心者。謂奢摩他未能為毘鉢舍那所依。不修慧者。謂毘鉢舍那未能害諸煩惱。如不修身等。
not cultivating the precepts means the precepts have not yet been able to serve as the basis for calming; not cultivating the mind means calming has not yet been able to serve as the basis for insight; not cultivating wisdom means insight has not yet been able to destroy the afflictions. Just as with not cultivating the body and the rest,
如是諸說差別。如是修身等翻此應知。
— so too these various distinctions are explained; and cultivating the body and the rest should be understood as the reverse of this.
The closing architectural metaphor — body supporting precepts supporting calming supporting insight supporting liberation, each stage's whole purpose being to serve as scaffolding for the next — reframes the entire practice not as four parallel virtues to be separately achieved but as a single load-bearing structure, where a weakness anywhere in the foundation limits everything built on top of it.
5. Four Kinds of Class, and a Vinaya Story About Sorting Monks by Temperament
A new topic introduces four kinds of "class" governing how possessing a dharma at one time relates to possessing it at another — cultivation-class, restraint-class, realm-class, and resemblance-class — the last illustrated through a charming Vinaya story: the monk Vātsīputra, distributing the community's bedding, sorts monks by temperament rather than by arrival order, grouping sūtra-reciters with sūtra-reciters, forest-dwellers with forest-dwellers, so that like might reinforce like and wholesome dispositions might mutually strengthen one another.
若成就過去戒。彼成就未來現在此類戒耶。乃至廣說。類有四種。
If one possesses past precepts, does one thereby possess future and present precepts of this same class? And so on in full. Class is of four kinds:
一修類二律儀類三界類四相似類。修類者。如前智蘊說。謂未曾得道現在前時。能修未來自類諸道。此中有說。諸有漏道有漏為類。
— first, cultivation-class; second, restraint-class; third, realm-class; fourth, resemblance-class. Cultivation-class is as explained before in the Aggregate of Knowledge: when a path never before attained manifests before the mind, it is able to cultivate future paths of its own same class. Here some say: contaminated paths take the contaminated as their class,
諸無漏道無漏為類。復有說者。諸有漏道通以有漏無漏為類。諸無漏道通以無漏有漏為類。若有漏道現在前時。通修有漏及無漏道此由有漏道力修故俱名彼類。若無漏道現在前時。通修無漏及有漏道。此由無漏道力修故俱名彼類。律儀類者。如此業蘊說。謂有成就過去戒。非未來現在此類戒等。此中律儀律儀為類。謂別解脫律儀別解脫律儀為類。靜慮律儀靜慮律儀為類。無漏律儀無漏律儀為類。律儀加行律儀加行為類。律儀根本律儀根本為類。律儀後起律儀後起為類表戒表戒為類。無表戒無表戒為類。界類者如後根蘊說。謂有成就此類眼根。非此類身根等。此中若法於此界有。即說此為彼類。謂欲界法欲界為類。色界法色界為類。無色界法無色界為類。相似類者如毘奈耶說。謂物特子左手放光右手分僧臥具。與同類者。諸持經者持經者共。諸持律者持律者共。諸說法者說法者共。諸閑居者閑居者共。分配同類。非異類者。欲令展轉相隨順故。善法增進惡法損減。如說有情諸界各別。有同類者更相隨順惡勝解者惡勝解俱。善勝解者善勝解俱。更相隨順作所應作。今於此四類中。依律儀類而作論。
and undefiled paths take the undefiled as their class. Some further say: contaminated paths take both the contaminated and the undefiled as their class, and undefiled paths take both the undefiled and the contaminated as their class — for when a contaminated path manifests before the mind, it cultivates both contaminated and undefiled paths, and since this cultivation occurs through the power of the contaminated path, both are called that same class; and when an undefiled path manifests before the mind, it cultivates both the undefiled and the contaminated path, and since this cultivation occurs through the power of the undefiled path, both are called that same class. Restraint-class is as explained in this very Aggregate of Karma — that there is possessing past precepts without possessing future or present precepts of this same class, and so forth. Here, restraint takes restraint as its class — that is, prātimokṣa restraint takes prātimokṣa restraint as its class, dhyāna restraint takes dhyāna restraint as its class, undefiled restraint takes undefiled restraint as its class, the preparatory action of restraint takes the preparatory action of restraint as its class, the root of restraint takes the root of restraint as its class, the after-arising of restraint takes the after-arising of restraint as its class, manifest precept takes manifest precept as its class, and unmanifest precept takes unmanifest precept as its class. Realm-class is as explained further on in the Aggregate of Faculties — that there is possessing an eye faculty of this class without possessing a body faculty of this class, and so forth. Here, whatever dharma exists within a given realm is said to belong to that realm's class — that is, a dharma of the desire realm takes the desire realm as its class, a dharma of the form realm takes the form realm as its class, and a dharma of the formless realm takes the formless realm as its class. Resemblance-class is as explained in the Vinaya — that Vātsīputra, releasing light from his left hand and distributing the community's bedding with his right, assigned it according to like kind: those who upheld the sūtras were grouped together with those who upheld the sūtras, those who upheld the Vinaya were grouped together with those who upheld the Vinaya, those who taught the Dharma were grouped together with those who taught the Dharma, and those who dwelt in solitude were grouped together with those who dwelt in solitude — sorted by like kind, not by unlike kind, in order that they might mutually accord with and support one another, so that wholesome dharmas might increase and evil dharmas diminish, just as it is said that beings' respective dispositions differ, and that those of the same kind accord with one another, those of evil resolve joining with those of evil resolve, and those of good resolve joining with those of good resolve, mutually according with and doing what ought to be done. Now, among these four classes, this discussion proceeds with reference to restraint-class.
Vātsīputra's bedding assignment is a small but telling piece of practical monastic wisdom smuggled into a technical philosophical taxonomy: it treats spiritual companionship not as incidental but as actively formative, on the theory that placing beings of similar disposition together compounds their shared tendencies — for better or worse — making seating and sleeping arrangements themselves a quiet instrument of collective moral cultivation.
6. The Restraint-Class Matrix
An extensive combinatorial exercise works through every tetralemma governing whether possessing past, future, or present precepts of a given restraint-class implies possessing them at other times — carefully distinguishing manifest-precept-class from unmanifest-precept-class from dhyāna-and-undefiled-precept-class, and noting a genuine scholarly dispute over whether violating a precept cuts off only the present instance of that class or reaches back to sever the past as well.
若成就過去戒。彼成就未來現在此類戒耶。答有成就過去戒。非未來現在此類戒。謂表戒已滅不失。此類戒不現前。有及未來非現在。謂靜慮無漏戒已滅不失。此類戒不現前。有及現在非未來。謂表戒已滅不失。此類戒現前。有及未來現在。謂靜慮無漏戒已滅不失。此類戒現前。成就過去戒。非未來現在此類戒。謂表戒已滅不失。此類戒不現前者。此說表戒。表戒為類。如先已受近事戒。勤策表戒不現前。或先已受勤策戒。苾芻表戒不現前。近事女等說亦爾。若說無表戒即以無表戒為類。諸有欲令若犯戒時現在戒類斷。
If one possesses past precepts, does one thereby possess future and present precepts of this same class? Answer: there is possessing past precepts without possessing future or present precepts of this same class — namely, when manifest precept has already ceased without being lost, but precepts of this class do not presently manifest. There is possessing past and future but not present — namely, when the precepts of dhyāna or the undefiled have already ceased without being lost, but precepts of this class do not presently manifest. There is possessing past and present but not future — namely, when manifest precept has already ceased without being lost, and precepts of this class do presently manifest. There is possessing past, future, and present together — namely, when the precepts of dhyāna or the undefiled have already ceased without being lost, and precepts of this class do presently manifest. As to possessing past precepts without possessing future or present precepts of this class — namely, when manifest precept has already ceased without being lost, but precepts of this class do not presently manifest: this speaks of manifest precept taking manifest precept as its class — as when one who has previously received the upāsaka's precepts does not presently manifest the novice's manifest precept, or one who has previously received the novice's precepts does not presently manifest the bhikṣu's manifest precept, and the same is said for the upāsikā and the rest. If one speaks of unmanifest precept, it likewise takes unmanifest precept as its class. Those who wish to hold that, when a precept is violated, the present precept-class is cut off
過去不失者。彼說此中更應作是說。及無表戒已滅不失。此類戒不現前。如已受近事戒而毀犯。或已受勤策戒苾芻戒而毀犯。近事女等說亦爾。諸有欲令若犯戒時現在戒不斷。過去亦不失者。彼說此中更無餘說。無有唯成過去無表戒。而非現在此類無表故。及未來非現在。謂靜慮無漏戒已滅不失。此類戒不現前者。此說靜慮無漏律儀已起已滅。雖成就而不現前。及現在非未來。謂表戒已滅不失。此類戒現前此說表戒表戒為類。如先已受近事戒。勤策表戒現在前。或先已受勤策戒苾芻表戒現在前。此中復應作如是說。及無表戒已滅不失。此說無表戒無表戒為類。諸說犯戒時現在戒斷。過去不捨者。彼說受近事等戒已。乃至第二剎那無犯。彼成就現在無表。亦成就過去。諸說犯戒時現在戒不斷。過去亦不捨者。彼說近事等受戒已。至第二剎那即犯者亦成就現在何況無犯。近事女等說亦爾。及未來現在。謂靜慮無漏戒已滅不失。此類戒現前者。此說靜慮無漏律儀。已起已滅亦成就亦現前。
— but that the past is not lost, should further say: and when unmanifest precept has already ceased without being lost, precepts of this class do not presently manifest — as when one who has received the upāsaka's precepts violates them, or one who has received the novice's or bhikṣu's precepts violates them, and the same is said for the upāsikā and the rest. Those who wish to hold that, when a precept is violated, the present precept is not cut off, and the past is likewise not lost, have nothing further to say here, since there is no case of possessing only a past unmanifest precept without a present unmanifest precept of this same class. As to possessing past and future but not present — namely, when the precepts of dhyāna or the undefiled have already ceased without being lost, but precepts of this class do not presently manifest: this speaks of dhyāna or undefiled restraint having already arisen and already ceased, possessed yet not presently manifesting. As to possessing past and present but not future — namely, when manifest precept has already ceased without being lost, and precepts of this class do presently manifest: this speaks of manifest precept taking manifest precept as its class — as when one who has previously received the upāsaka's precepts presently manifests the novice's manifest precept, or one who has previously received the novice's precepts presently manifests the bhikṣu's manifest precept. Here one should further say: and when unmanifest precept has already ceased without being lost — this speaks of unmanifest precept taking unmanifest precept as its class. Those who hold that, when a precept is violated, the present precept is cut off but the past is not given up, hold that once one has received the upāsaka's precepts and the rest, up to the second moment without violation, one possesses both present and past unmanifest precept; those who hold that, when a precept is violated, the present precept is not cut off and the past is likewise not given up, hold that once one has received the upāsaka's precepts and the rest, even one who violates them at the very second moment still possesses the present precept, how much more so one who does not violate them — and the same is said for the upāsikā and the rest. As to possessing past, future, and present together — namely, when the precepts of dhyāna or the undefiled have already ceased without being lost, and precepts of this class do presently manifest: this speaks of dhyāna or undefiled restraint having already arisen and already ceased, both possessed and presently manifest.
若成就未來戒。彼成就過去現在此類戒耶。答有成就未來戒非過去現在此類戒。謂阿羅漢生無色界。有及過去非現在。謂靜慮無漏戒已滅不失。此類戒不現前。有及現在非過去。謂無漏戒初現前。有及過去現在。謂靜慮無漏戒已滅不失。此類戒現前。有成就未來戒。非過去現在此類戒。謂阿羅漢生無色界及過去非現在。謂靜慮無漏戒已滅不失。此類戒不現前者。此說靜慮無漏律儀已起已滅。
If one possesses future precepts, does one thereby possess past and present precepts of this same class? Answer: there is possessing future precepts without possessing past or present precepts of this same class — namely, an arhat born in the formless realm. There is possessing future and past but not present — namely, when the precepts of dhyāna or the undefiled have already ceased without being lost, but precepts of this class do not presently manifest. There is possessing future and present but not past — namely, when undefiled precept first manifests. There is possessing future, past, and present together — namely, when the precepts of dhyāna or the undefiled have already ceased without being lost, and precepts of this class do presently manifest. As to possessing future precepts without possessing past or present precepts of this class — namely, an arhat born in the formless realm — and past but not present — namely, when the precepts of dhyāna or the undefiled have already ceased without being lost, but precepts of this class do not presently manifest: this speaks of dhyāna or undefiled restraint having already arisen and already ceased,
雖成就不現前。及現在非過去。謂無漏戒初現前者。此說苦法智忍。及得果轉根初剎那現前位。及過去現在。謂靜慮無漏戒已滅不失。此類戒現前者皆如前說。
— possessed yet not presently manifesting. As to possessing present but not past — namely, when undefiled precept first manifests: this speaks of the very first moment when the forbearance of dharma-knowledge of suffering manifests, and the very first moment when one attains a fruit or sharpens one's faculties. As to possessing past and present together — namely, when the precepts of dhyāna or the undefiled have already ceased without being lost, and precepts of this class do presently manifest: this is all as explained before.
若成就現在戒。彼成就過去未來此類戒耶。答有。成就現在戒非過去未來此類戒。謂表戒初現前。有及過去非未來。謂表戒已滅不失。此類戒現前。有及未來非過去。謂無漏戒初現前。有及過去未來。謂靜慮無漏戒已滅不失。此類戒現前。成就現在戒。非過去未來此類戒。謂表戒初現前者。此說別解脫律儀初受得位。問此位亦成就過去加行戒。云何說非過去耶。答此中依根本律儀類而作論。
If one possesses present precepts, does one thereby possess past and future precepts of this same class? Answer: there is possessing present precepts without possessing past or future precepts of this same class — namely, when manifest precept first manifests. There is possessing present and past but not future — namely, when manifest precept has already ceased without being lost, and precepts of this class do presently manifest. There is possessing present and future but not past — namely, when undefiled precept first manifests. There is possessing present, past, and future together — namely, when the precepts of dhyāna or the undefiled have already ceased without being lost, and precepts of this class do presently manifest. As to possessing present precepts without possessing past or future precepts of this class — namely, when manifest precept first manifests: this speaks of the very first moment of receiving and obtaining prātimokṣa restraint. Question: at this very moment, one also possesses the past preparatory precept — why then is it said one does not possess the past? Answer: this discussion here proceeds with reference to the root-restraint class,
彼但是律儀加行。而非根本律儀是故不說。及過去非未來者。謂表戒已滅不失此類戒現前此說表戒表戒為類。如先已受近事戒勤策表戒現在前。或先已受勤策戒苾芻表戒現在前。近事女等說亦爾。若說無表戒無表戒為類。二說差別如前應知。及未來非過去。謂無漏戒初現前者。此說苦法智忍。及得果轉根初剎那現前位。及過去未來者。謂靜慮無漏戒已滅不失。此類戒現前者。此說靜慮無漏律儀。已起已滅亦成就亦現前。
— and that preparatory precept is merely the preparatory action of restraint, not the root restraint itself, and hence it is not spoken of here. As to possessing present and past but not future — namely, when manifest precept has already ceased without being lost, and precepts of this class do presently manifest: this speaks of manifest precept taking manifest precept as its class — as when one who has previously received the upāsaka's precepts presently manifests the novice's manifest precept, or one who has previously received the novice's precepts presently manifests the bhikṣu's manifest precept, and the same is said for the upāsikā and the rest. If one speaks of unmanifest precept taking unmanifest precept as its class, the two accounts and their distinction should be understood as before. As to possessing present and future but not past — namely, when undefiled precept first manifests: this speaks of the very first moment when the forbearance of dharma-knowledge of suffering manifests, and the very first moment when one attains a fruit or sharpens one's faculties. As to possessing present, past, and future together — namely, when the precepts of dhyāna or the undefiled have already ceased without being lost, and precepts of this class do presently manifest: this speaks of dhyāna or undefiled restraint having already arisen and already ceased, both possessed and presently manifest.
The unresolved dispute over whether a violated precept's past possession survives the violation is a genuinely consequential disagreement dressed in dry combinatorial language: it is really asking whether a broken vow retroactively unmakes everything one previously was under it, or whether the past remains simply the past, untouchable by what comes after — a question with real stakes for how completely a single lapse can undo a life's prior discipline.
7. Why the Seven Communities Are Defined by Prātimokṣa Alone
A rich institutional argument explains why the sevenfold Buddhist community — bhikṣu, bhikṣuṇī, probationary nun, novice, female novice, upāsaka, upāsikā — is defined exclusively through prātimokṣa restraint rather than dhyāna or undefiled restraint: prātimokṣa alone is obtained gradually (matching the community's own graded structure), remains continuously possessed through sleep, intoxication, and every mental state without exception (unlike dhyāna restraint, present only while actually in concentration), and applies uniquely to the desire realm, the human destiny, a buddha's own dispensation, and both ordinary beings and nobles alike.
此中三種律儀。謂別解脫律儀。靜慮律儀。無漏律儀。唯依別解脫律儀。安立七眾差別不依餘二。七眾者。一苾芻二苾芻尼三式叉摩那四室羅摩拏洛迦五室羅摩拏理迦六鄔波索迦七鄔波斯迦。問何故唯依別解脫律儀。安立七眾差別不依餘耶。答以別解脫律儀漸次而得漸次安立故。謂若能離四性罪一遮罪。名鄔波索迦。若復能離四性罪多遮罪。名室羅摩拏洛迦。若有能離一切性罪一切遮罪。名苾芻苾芻尼等。准此應知。靜慮無漏七支律儀。頓得頓起頓安立。若依靜慮無漏律儀安立七眾。是則七眾安立差別應頓非漸。有作是說。別解脫律儀。從初表業發得已後。於一切時現在成就。若眠若醉若狂若悶。若思不思。若染污心。若無記心。若無心等。一切位中。現在相續隨轉不斷故。可依之立七眾別。靜慮無漏律儀若正在定現在成就。現在隨轉出則不然。故不依之立七眾別。若依靜慮無漏律儀立七眾別者。則七眾安立應不決定。入出定時無期限故。有餘師說。別解脫律儀七眾差別。俱唯欲界可得安立。靜慮無漏律儀通上界得。若當依此立七眾者。則七眾安立應通上界。有餘復說。
Among these three restraints — prātimokṣa restraint, dhyāna restraint, and undefiled restraint — the distinctions among the seven communities are established solely with reference to prātimokṣa restraint, not the other two. The seven communities are: first, bhikṣus; second, bhikṣuṇīs; third, probationary nuns; fourth, male novices; fifth, female novices; sixth, upāsakas; seventh, upāsikās. Question: why are the distinctions among the seven communities established solely with reference to prātimokṣa restraint, not the others? Answer: because prātimokṣa restraint is obtained gradually and established gradually — that is, one who is able to abstain from the four natural offenses and one prohibited offense is called an upāsaka; one who is further able to abstain from the four natural offenses and many prohibited offenses is called a novice; one who is able to abstain from all natural offenses and all prohibited offenses is called a bhikṣu or bhikṣuṇī, and so forth accordingly. The sevenfold restraint of dhyāna or the undefiled, by contrast, is obtained all at once, arises all at once, and is established all at once — and were the seven communities established with reference to dhyāna or undefiled restraint, the distinctions among the seven communities would then have to be established all at once rather than gradually. Some say: prātimokṣa restraint, from the very first moment its manifest karma is obtained onward, is possessed in the present at every time — whether asleep, intoxicated, deranged, or fainted, whether deliberating or not, whether the mind is defiled, neutral, or absent, and so forth — in every state, it continues to function in the present without interruption, and hence the seven communities can be established with reference to it. Dhyāna or undefiled restraint, by contrast, is possessed in the present only while actually in concentration, and does not continue to function in the present once one emerges from concentration, and hence the seven communities cannot be established with reference to it — for were they established with reference to dhyāna or undefiled restraint, the distinctions among the seven communities would then be indeterminate, since there is no fixed limit to when one enters or emerges from concentration. Other masters say: the distinctions among the seven communities under prātimokṣa restraint can be established only within the desire realm, while dhyāna or undefiled restraint extends to the higher realms as well — and were the seven communities established with reference to this, the distinctions among the seven communities would then have to extend to the higher realms too. Others further say:
別解脫律儀七眾差別。俱唯人趣可得安立。靜慮無漏律儀亦通天趣。若當依此立七眾者。則七眾安立應通天趣。復有說者。別解脫律儀七眾差別。但由有佛出世可得安立。靜慮無漏律儀。若佛出世若不出世俱可安立。若當依此立七眾者。是則七眾安立差別。亦應通在無佛出世。有餘師說。何故不依靜慮律儀以立七眾。唯依別解脫者。以別解脫律儀七眾差別。但內道有外道則無。靜慮律儀通內外道有。若當依此立七眾者。則七眾安立應通外道。復何故不依無漏律儀以立七眾。但依別解脫者。以別解脫律儀七眾差別俱通凡聖。無漏律儀唯聖非凡。若當依此立七眾者。則七眾安立應唯在聖。由此所說諸因緣故。唯依別解脫律儀安立七眾不依餘二。
— the distinctions among the seven communities under prātimokṣa restraint can be established only within the human destiny, while dhyāna or undefiled restraint extends to the divine destiny as well — and were the seven communities established with reference to this, the distinctions among the seven communities would then have to extend to the divine destiny too. Some further say: the distinctions among the seven communities under prātimokṣa restraint can be established only where a buddha has appeared in the world, while dhyāna or undefiled restraint can be established whether or not a buddha has appeared — and were the seven communities established with reference to this, the distinctions among the seven communities would then have to extend even to a time when no buddha has appeared. Other masters say: as for why the seven communities are not established with reference to dhyāna restraint, but solely with reference to prātimokṣa restraint, it is because the distinctions among the seven communities under prātimokṣa restraint belong only to the inner path and not to the outside paths, while dhyāna restraint extends to both the inner and outside paths — and were the seven communities established with reference to this, the distinctions among the seven communities would then have to extend to the outside paths too. And as for why the seven communities are not established with reference to undefiled restraint either, but solely with reference to prātimokṣa restraint, it is because the distinctions among the seven communities under prātimokṣa restraint extend to both ordinary beings and noble ones, while undefiled restraint belongs only to noble ones, not ordinary beings — and were the seven communities established with reference to this, the distinctions among the seven communities would then have to belong solely to noble ones. It is for all these various causes and conditions that the seven communities are established solely with reference to prātimokṣa restraint, not the other two.
Each of these distinguishing features works by showing what would go wrong if the community were defined by dhyāna or undefiled restraint instead — membership would become indeterminate, would extend to gods and animals, would exist even without a buddha's teaching, would include outside-path ascetics, or would belong to nobles alone — meaning the sevenfold community's own boundaries are not arbitrary conventions but the specific consequence of choosing the one restraint stable and universal enough to draw a clean, permanent line.
8. Seven Names for Upāsaka, Seven Names for Training Rule
A delightful etymological cascade offers seven different explanations for why a lay follower is called an upāsaka — one who draws near to wholesome dharmas, to good and worthy persons, to diligent practice, or to the Buddha's own Dharma and Vinaya — before offering seven more names for the five precepts themselves: traces of training (quoting Aniruddha's famous image of precepts as a ladder to the palace of wisdom), the training that destroys evil conduct, the shortcut path through which all restraint flows, the vow that marks the noble community as outside paths' vows mark theirs, the root of all further learning, and the very foundation of the city of nirvāṇa.
如世尊說。鄔波索迦有五學處。謂離殺生。離不與取。離欲邪行。
As the World-Honored One has said: the upāsaka has five training rules — abstaining from taking life, abstaining from taking what is not given, abstaining from sexual misconduct,
離虛誑語。離飲諸酒。問何故名鄔波索迦。答親近修事諸善法故。
— abstaining from false speech, and abstaining from drinking any wine. Question: why is one called an upāsaka? Answer: because he draws near to and cultivates the various wholesome dharmas —
謂彼身心狎習善法。故名鄔波索迦。問若爾者。諸不斷善皆名鄔波索迦耶。以彼身心亦修善故。答不爾。此依律儀所攝妙行善法。以立名故。問若爾者。諸住律儀皆名鄔波索迦耶。以彼皆修律儀善故。答此以在初故得名。餘律儀更以餘緣建立。復次此是律儀初入加行為能近事。餘律儀與此相違故彼非難。有餘師說。親近承事諸善士故。謂彼恒時親承善士故名鄔波索迦。有作是說。親近修事精進行故。謂彼恒時愛樂修習。速捨生死。速證涅槃。精進之行。故名鄔波索迦。復有說者。親近承事諸佛法故。謂彼至誠受持守護諸佛法律。不惜身命故名鄔波索迦。問何故此五名為學處。答是近事者所應學故。有說此應名為學迹。若有遊此便升無上智慧殿故。如尊者阿奴律陀告諸苾芻。我依戒住戒戒為梯橙。已能升陟無上慧殿。汝等應學勿生放逸。有說此應名為學害。由學此五害惡戒故。
— that is, his body and mind are habituated to and practice wholesome dharmas, and hence he is called an upāsaka. Question: if so, then would everyone who has not cut off their wholesome roots be called an upāsaka, since their body and mind too cultivate what is wholesome? Answer: not so — this name is established with reference specifically to the good conduct comprised within restraint. Question: if so, then would everyone abiding in restraint be called an upāsaka, since they all cultivate the goodness of restraint? Answer: this name applies because it comes first — the other restraints are established through other, further conditions. Further, this restraint is the very first entry-point into practice, the one capable of "drawing near," while the other restraints, being contrary to this, are not subject to this same challenge. Other masters say: it is because he draws near to and serves the various good and worthy persons — that is, because he constantly draws near to and serves good and worthy persons, he is called an upāsaka. Some say: it is because he draws near to and cultivates the practice of diligent effort — that is, because he constantly delights in cultivating the practice of diligent effort, swiftly abandoning saṃsāra and swiftly realizing nirvāṇa, he is called an upāsaka. Some further say: it is because he draws near to and serves the Dharma of the buddhas — that is, because he sincerely upholds and guards the Dharma and Vinaya of the buddhas, not sparing even his own body and life, he is called an upāsaka. Question: why are these five called "training rules"? Answer: because they are what one who draws near ought to train in. Some say they should rather be called "the traces of training," since whoever walks upon them thereby ascends the palace of unsurpassed wisdom — as the Venerable Aniruddha told the assembly of bhikṣus: "I abide in precepts, resting upon precepts, precepts being the ladder by which I have already been able to ascend the palace of unsurpassed wisdom — you too should train in them, and give rise to no negligence." Some say these should rather be called "the training that destroys," since training in these five destroys evil moral conduct.
有說此應名為學路。此為徑路一切律儀。妙行善法皆得轉故。有說此應名為學禁。如諸外道所受禁法。種種差別以為幖幟。如是聖眾以此五種所學禁法為初幖幟。有說此應名為學本。諸所應學此為本故。有說此五應名學基。於涅槃城為基趾故。
Some say these should rather be called "the path of training," since it is the shortcut path through which every restraint, good conduct, and wholesome dharma is set in motion. Some say these should rather be called "the vows of training," for just as the various outside paths take their vows, with their various distinctions, as their mark of identity, so too does the noble assembly take these five training vows as its very first mark of identity. Some say these should rather be called "the root of training," since they are the very root of everything one ought to train in. Some say these five should be called "the foundation of training," since they serve as the foundation for the city of nirvāṇa.
Aniruddha's ladder image — precepts as the very rungs by which he himself climbed to the palace of unsurpassed wisdom — is a small masterpiece of embodied metaphor: it insists that moral discipline is not a static gate one passes through once but a structure one continues climbing, rung by rung, for as long as the ascent toward wisdom itself continues.
9. Why Only Adultery? Seven Theories, and the Buddha's Compassionate Restraint
A genuinely fascinating puzzle asks why the lay precept against sexual misconduct singles out only violating another's wife, never abstention from one's own — answered through seven competing theories, from the old masters' claim that only adultery counts as the foundational lay restraint, through Pārśva's gatekeeper simile (the Dharma-king watches precisely the one gate most likely to be breached), to the frankly pragmatic observation that demanding full chastity even in marriage would have driven away every king, minister, and elder who needed an heir. Most beautifully, one theory holds this restriction is itself a compassionate skillful means: having eliminated evil as vast as the four seas, the layperson will, in time, come to see for himself that even the dewdrop-sized fault remaining in his own marriage deserves to be given up as well.
問何故於非梵行中。唯依離犯他妻建立學處。而不依離犯自妻耶。
Question: why, among the various forms of unchaste conduct, is the training rule established solely with reference to abstaining from violating another's wife, and not with reference to abstaining from relations with one's own wife?
答舊對法諸師。及迦濕彌羅國諸論師說。離欲邪行是近事者所受律儀。家族本地離非梵行則不如是。故此唯立離犯他妻。脇尊者曰。
Answer: the old Ābhidharmikas and the treatise-masters of Kashmir say that abstaining from sexual misconduct is the restraint proper to what a lay follower undertakes at the foundational level of household life, whereas abstaining from unchaste conduct altogether is not so — hence the training rule is established solely with reference to abstaining from violating another's wife. The Venerable Pārśva says:
法王法主知此律儀。有法能為障礙遮止。有法不為障礙遮止。謂欲邪行於此律儀最極能為障礙遮止。如守門者禁門不開。餘非梵行則不如是。故此唯立離犯他妻。有作是說。犯欲邪行性罪所攝世所譏嫌。餘非梵行雖性罪攝。非世譏嫌故此不制。有作是說。於他妻等遠離則易非於自妻。謂處居家妻子圍遶。晝夜習近恩愛纏心。不能受持遠離習近。內真不淨外假莊嚴。如畫糞車自妻骸骨。離欲邪行易防護者。謂求他妻難遂心故。有餘師說。若犯他妻即是根本惡業道攝。非於自妻是故不說。有餘師言。於自妻室生喜足者。亦得名為純一圓滿清白梵行故此不立。有說此是諸佛方便令他入法。謂佛先觀若作如是立近事戒者。彼於惡行能離幾許即如實知。彼所離者如四海水。餘未離者如草端露。彼既能見犯他是罪能遠離之。不久亦見犯自有罪亦當遠離故。此唯立離犯他妻。復有說者。此是諸佛善權方便。若佛為其制自妻者。則諸國王宰官長者。不能棄捨自妻室故。便白佛言。我不能受如來禁戒。復求請除離自妻室我等由斯得有繼嗣。故佛唯立離犯他妻。有餘師言。若諸聖者經生不犯立近事戒於自妻不爾。所以者何。犯自妻有三。謂從貪瞋癡生。經生聖者雖不犯從癡所生。癡見品攝故聖者已斷。而犯貪瞋所生是故不立。
The Dharma-king, the master of the Dharma, knows precisely which dharmas can obstruct and hinder this restraint and which cannot — sexual misconduct is the one thing most capable of obstructing and hindering this restraint, like a gatekeeper who watches precisely the one gate that might be breached — while other forms of unchaste conduct are not so — hence the training rule is established solely with reference to abstaining from violating another's wife. Some say: committing sexual misconduct is a natural offense that carries the world's own censure, while other forms of unchaste conduct, though likewise natural offenses, do not carry the world's censure, and hence are not so prohibited. Some say: it is easier to abstain from another's wife than from one's own — for one dwelling at home, surrounded by wife and children, day and night grows habituated to and intimate with the entanglements of affectionate love, and is unable to uphold complete abstention from such intimacy — inwardly truly impure, outwardly falsely adorned, like a dung-cart painted over, or one's own wife nothing more than a skeleton — while abstaining from sexual misconduct with another is easier to guard, since it is difficult to satisfy one's mind by seeking another's wife. Other masters say: violating another's wife is included within the root path of evil karma properly speaking, whereas relations with one's own wife are not, and hence this is not spoken of. Other masters say: one who finds contentment with his own wife's household may still be called one of pure, complete, and undefiled chaste conduct, and hence this is not established as a prohibition. Some say this is itself one of the buddhas' own skillful means for drawing others into the Dharma — that is, the Buddha, foreseeing that if the upāsaka precepts were established in this way, that person, knowing exactly how much evil conduct he was thereby able to abstain from — what he abstains from being like the waters of the four seas, what he has not yet abstained from being like a dewdrop on a blade of grass — having already come to see that violating another is a fault and abstained from it, would not long afterward also come to see that relations with his own wife likewise carry some fault, and would in time abstain from that too — and hence the training rule is established solely with reference to abstaining from violating another's wife. Some further say: this is one of the buddhas' own skillful, expedient devices — for had the Buddha prohibited relations with one's own wife, then kings, ministers, and elders, unable to give up their own household wives, would have said to the Buddha, "We cannot undertake the Tathāgata's own prohibitions," and would have further requested to be excused from abstaining from their own wives, since it is by this means alone that they can have heirs — and hence the Buddha established the training rule solely with reference to abstaining from violating another's wife. Other masters say: it is because noble ones, throughout their subsequent births, do not violate this precept, whereas the same is not true of one's own wife, for why is this? Violating another's wife is of three kinds — arising from greed, from hatred, or from delusion — and noble ones, throughout their subsequent births, though they do not commit the kind arisen from delusion (since it is included within the category of view, already cut off by the noble one), may still commit the kind arisen from greed or hatred — and hence this is not established as a prohibition.
The dewdrop-and-four-seas image for the Buddha's own compassionate restraint is a genuinely moving piece of pedagogical wisdom: rather than demanding the whole of moral perfection at once and risking total refusal, the precept deliberately leaves a visible remainder of imperfection, trusting that a person who has already crossed an ocean of moral progress will, unprompted, notice and want to close the small remaining gap on their own — treating voluntary further growth as more durable than compliance extracted by an impossible initial demand.
10. Why Only False Speech? And Why Noble Ones Never Lie
An almost identical structure of seven reasons explains why, among the four unwholesome paths of speech, only false speech is singled out as a lay precept, never divisive speech, harsh speech, or idle chatter — including the striking claim that noble ones, across every subsequent rebirth before final liberation, definitely never lie again, since false speech's delusion-based variety depends on wrong view (already permanently cut off by anyone destined for the path), even though they may still occasionally slip into harsh or divisive speech arisen from mere greed or hatred.
問鄔波索迦。若更受持遠離非梵行等五種學處。彼為別得異先所受諸律儀不。答更不別得。然名最勝鄔波索迦。以別受持遠離禁故。
Question: if an upāsaka further undertakes and upholds five further training rules including abstention from unchaste conduct altogether, does he thereby obtain a separate restraint distinct from what he previously received? Answer: he does not obtain any separate restraint, but is called a most excellent upāsaka, since he separately undertakes and upholds this further prohibition of abstention.
如苾芻等若更受持十二杜多功德。更不別得異先所受苾芻等戒。然名最勝大苾芻等。以別受持遠離行故。彼亦如是。問何故語四善業道中。離虛誑語。獨立學處而非餘耶。答舊對法諸師。及迦濕彌羅國諸論師說。離虛誑語是近事者所受律儀家族本地。離離間等則不如是。故此唯立離虛誑語。脇尊者曰。法王法主知此律儀。有法能為障礙遮止。有法不為障礙遮止。謂虛誑語於此律儀最極能為障礙遮止。如守門者禁門不開。離間語等則不如是。有作是說。虛誑語性罪所攝譏嫌最重。離間語等雖性罪攝譏嫌少輕。故不立為近事學處。有作是說。離虛誑語易可防護非離餘三。謂處居家御僮僕等。
Just as bhikṣus who further undertake and uphold the twelve ascetic virtues do not thereby obtain any separate precept distinct from what they previously received as bhikṣus, but are called most excellent great bhikṣus, since they separately undertake and uphold this further conduct of abstention — it is just the same here. Question: why, among the four wholesome verbal paths of karma, is abstaining from false speech alone established as a training rule, and not the others? Answer: the old Ābhidharmikas and the treatise-masters of Kashmir say that abstaining from false speech is the restraint proper to what a lay follower undertakes at the foundational level of household life, whereas abstaining from divisive speech and the rest is not so — hence the training rule is established solely with reference to abstaining from false speech. The Venerable Pārśva says: the Dharma-king, the master of the Dharma, knows precisely which dharmas can obstruct and hinder this restraint and which cannot — false speech is the one thing most capable of obstructing and hindering this restraint, like a gatekeeper who watches precisely the one gate that might be breached — while divisive speech and the rest are not so. Some say: false speech is a natural offense that carries the very heaviest censure, while divisive speech and the rest, though likewise natural offenses, carry a somewhat lighter censure, and hence are not established as training rules for the upāsaka. Some say: it is easier to guard against false speech than against the other three — for one dwelling at home, managing servants and the like,
難可遠離離間等三。及身業中捶撻等事。復有說者。作虛誑語業道最重。餘三少輕故不立為近事學處。有餘師說。唯虛誑語能破壞僧。故立學處餘三不爾。有餘復說。若諸聖者經生不犯立近事戒。
— finds it difficult to entirely avoid divisive speech, harsh speech, and idle chatter, along with such bodily deeds as striking and beating. Other masters say: the path of karma of false speech is the very heaviest, while the other three are somewhat lighter, and hence only false speech is established as a training rule for the upāsaka. Other masters say: only false speech is able to cause a schism in the saṅgha, and hence it alone is established as a training rule, unlike the other three. Others further say: it is because noble ones, throughout their subsequent births, do not violate the training rule established for the upāsaka in this way,
聖者經生必定遠離虛誑語業。非餘語業。所以者何。餘語有三。謂從貪瞋癡生。經生聖者。雖不犯從癡所生癡見品攝故。聖者已斷而犯貪瞋所生是故不立。問世尊何故於遮罪中。唯離飲酒立為學處。
— that is, noble ones, throughout their subsequent births, definitely abstain from false speech, but not necessarily from the other kinds of speech, for why is this? The other kinds of speech are of three kinds, arising from greed, from hatred, or from delusion, and noble ones, throughout their subsequent births, though they do not commit the kind arisen from delusion (since it is included within the category of view, already cut off by the noble one), may still commit the kind arisen from greed or hatred — and hence these are not established as training rules. Question: why, among the prohibited offenses, does the World-Honored One establish abstaining from drinking wine alone as a training rule?
The claim that noble ones can still speak harshly or divisively but never falsely draws a precise line through the four verbal faults that a casual reading might have expected to fall together: it turns out that lying alone requires a specific cognitive distortion about reality itself, while the other three verbal faults require only ordinary emotional excess — meaning the path's own progress cuts unevenly across superficially similar categories of wrongdoing, eliminating the one rooted in confusion long before it eliminates the ones rooted merely in feeling.
11. Why Only Alcohol? And the Layman Who Broke All Five Precepts in One Afternoon
The same sevenfold structure explains why abstaining from alcohol alone, among all merely conventional prohibitions, earns a place among the five precepts — capped by an unforgettable cautionary tale: a virtuous, precept-keeping layman, made thirsty by salty food at a family gathering, mistakes a jar of wine for water and drinks it; now drunk, he steals and cooks a neighbor's wandering chicken, rapes the neighbor's daughter who comes looking for it, and, hauled before the magistrate, denies everything — a single lapse into drink cascading, within a single afternoon, into breaking all five precepts at once.
答舊對法諸師。及迦濕彌羅國諸論師說。唯離飲酒是近事者。所受律儀家族本地。離餘遮罪則不如是。故此唯立離飲諸酒。脇尊者曰。法王法主知此律儀有法能為障礙遮止。有法不為障礙遮止。謂飲諸酒於此律儀。最極能為障礙遮止。如守門者禁門不開。離餘遮罪則不如是。故此唯立離飲諸酒。有作是說。離飲諸酒易可防護非餘遮罪。謂酪清漿沙糖水等足能止渴何用酒為。有餘師言。離飲酒戒能總防護諸餘律儀。如塹垣城能總防護。復有說者。若不防護離飲酒戒。則總毀犯諸餘律儀餘則不爾。曾聞有一鄔波索迦。稟性仁賢受持五戒專精不犯。後於一時家屬大小當為賓客。彼獨不往留食供之時至取食。醎味多故須臾增渴。見一器中有酒如水。為渴所逼遂取飲之。爾時便犯離飲酒戒。時有隣雞來入其舍。盜心捕殺烹煮而噉。於此復犯離殺盜戒。隣女尋雞來入其室。復以威力強逼交通。緣此更犯離邪行戒。隣家憤怒將至官司。時斷事者訊問所以。
Answer: the old Ābhidharmikas and the treatise-masters of Kashmir say that abstaining from drinking wine alone is the restraint proper to what a lay follower undertakes at the foundational level of household life, whereas abstaining from the other prohibited offenses is not so — hence the training rule is established solely with reference to abstaining from drinking any wine. The Venerable Pārśva says: the Dharma-king, the master of the Dharma, knows precisely which dharmas can obstruct and hinder this restraint and which cannot — drinking wine is the one thing most capable of obstructing and hindering this restraint, like a gatekeeper who watches precisely the one gate that might be breached — while the other prohibited offenses are not so, hence the training rule is established solely with reference to abstaining from drinking any wine. Some say: it is easier to guard against drinking wine than against the other prohibited offenses — for clarified whey, congee, sugared water, and the like are entirely sufficient to quench thirst, so what need is there for wine at all? Other masters say: the precept of abstaining from wine, as a whole, guards and protects every other restraint, just as a moat and rampart together guard and protect an entire city. Others further say: if one fails to guard the precept of abstaining from wine, one thereby violates every other restraint entirely, unlike the failure of any other single precept. It has been heard that there was once an upāsaka of a naturally kind and virtuous disposition, who upheld the five precepts single-mindedly without ever violating them. Later, on one occasion, when his whole household, young and old, were to receive guests, he alone did not go out but stayed behind to attend to the food; when the time came to eat, the food being heavily salted, he grew thirsty within a short while, and, seeing what looked like water in a vessel — which was in fact wine — driven by his thirst, took and drank it. At that moment he violated the precept of abstaining from wine. A neighbor's chicken then wandered into his house, and, with a thieving intent, he caught, killed, cooked, and ate it — thereby further violating the precepts against killing and stealing. The neighbor's daughter, coming in search of the chicken, entered his house, and he, by force, violated her — thereby further violating the precept against sexual misconduct. The neighbors, enraged, hauled him before the authorities, and when the magistrate questioned him as to what had happened,
彼皆拒諱。因斯又犯離虛誑語。如是五戒皆因酒犯。故遮罪中獨制飲酒。有餘師說。酒令失念增無慚愧。其過深重故偏制立。如律中說。制地國中有一毒龍。性極暴惡為稼穡害。其所居池水陸空飛無敢近者。時有尊者名曰善來。以巧方便令其調伏。因此名稱流布八方。於是信心競興供養。漸次遊化至室羅筏。值彼城中請僧設會。
— he denied everything, and thereby further violated the precept against false speech as well. Thus all five precepts were violated on account of wine, and this is why abstaining from wine alone is prohibited among the prohibited offenses. Other masters say: wine causes one to lose mindfulness and increases shamelessness and lack of dread of blame, its fault being especially grave, and hence it alone is singled out and prohibited. As the Vinaya says: in the kingdom of Kaśmīra there was once a poisonous dragon of an extremely violent and evil nature, who harmed the crops of the fields, and whose ponds, land, and skies no one dared approach. At that time there was a venerable one named Sāgata, who, through skillful means, subdued him — and, on account of this, his fame spread in every direction, so that the faithful competed with one another to make offerings to him. Traveling gradually onward to teach, he came in time to Śrāvastī, where, on that occasion, the saṅgha was invited to a gathering held within that city.
The drunk layman's story performs, in miniature narrative form, exactly the argument the surrounding philosophical reasons make abstractly: that alcohol is prohibited not because drinking is itself the gravest sin but because it dissolves the very faculty of mindfulness that keeps every other precept intact, making it less a sixth vice among equals than the single structural weak point through which all the others can collapse at once.
12. Sāgata and the Dragon: Can He Subdue Even a Toad?
The fascicle closes with one of the tradition's most beloved cautionary narratives: the monk Sāgata, famed for skillfully subduing a ferocious poisonous dragon that had terrorized a kingdom's crops and waters, is later, on alms-round, given wine mistaken for water by a well-meaning but naive laywoman, and collapses drunk and exposed in the road, his robe and bowl scattered. The Buddha, finding him there, gathers the assembly and asks with devastating understatement whether the very monk who once subdued a mighty dragon could now subdue so much as a toad — met only by the monks' ashamed silence — before declaring that none of his followers should ever again drink so much as a dewdrop of wine clinging to a blade of grass.
有近事女家不豐饒。獨請善來奉上飲食。食多鹽味須臾增渴。為渴所逼現相求飲。時近事女作是思惟。尊者所食極為肥膩。若飲冷水或當致疾。遂設方便授以清酒。彼不審察便取飲之。讚慰收衣趣勝林寺。將至醉悶䤄眩便倒。衣鉢錫杖狼藉在地。露體而臥無所覺知。佛將阿難經行遇見。知而故問此臥者誰。何為此間醉酒而臥。
There was an upāsikā of an impoverished household, who alone invited Sāgata and offered him food and drink. The food being heavily salted, he grew thirsty within a short while, and, driven by thirst, made a sign asking for something to drink. The upāsikā thought to herself, "The venerable one's food was extremely rich and oily — should he drink cold water now, he might well fall ill," and so, by some skillful device, gave him clear wine instead. He, without examining it closely, took and drank it, and, after offering his thanks and blessing, gathered up his robe and set off toward the Jetavana monastery; but before he arrived, he grew drunk, dizzy, and disoriented, and collapsed — his robe, bowl, and staff scattered in disarray upon the ground, his body exposed as he lay there, aware of nothing at all. The Buddha, walking with Ānanda on his alms-round, came upon him, and, though he already knew, deliberately asked, "Who is this lying here? Why does he lie here drunk?"
阿難白佛此是善來。佛告阿難可集僧眾。僧眾集已佛在眾中。敷如常座結加趺坐。爾時世尊告苾芻眾。汝等聞見苾芻善來曾以巧便伏毒龍不。諸苾芻眾隨已見聞。各白佛言。我曾聞見。佛言。汝等於意云何。善來今能伏蝦蟆不。苾芻皆曰。不也世尊。爾時如來種種方便呵毀酒過告諸苾芻。汝等若稱佛為師者。自今已往下至茅端所沾酒渧亦不得飲。故遮罪中獨制飲酒。有作是說。飲酒能令智慧衰退。如說長者智慧衰退。是第六失故遮罪中獨制飲酒。有餘師說。
Ānanda replied to the Buddha, "This is Sāgata." The Buddha told Ānanda to gather the assembly of monks. Once the assembly had gathered, the Buddha, seated among them upon his usual seat, cross-legged, then addressed the assembly of bhikṣus: "Have you all heard or seen how the bhikṣu Sāgata once subdued a poisonous dragon through skillful means?" The bhikṣus, according to what each had heard or seen, all replied to the Buddha, "We have indeed heard and seen this." The Buddha said, "What do you think — could Sāgata now subdue so much as a toad?" The bhikṣus all replied, "No, World-Honored One." The Tathāgata then, through various skillful means, censured the fault of drinking wine, and told the bhikṣus, "If you call the Buddha your teacher, then from this day forward, you must not drink so much as a dewdrop of wine clinging to the tip of a blade of grass" — and this is why abstaining from wine alone is prohibited among the prohibited offenses. Some say: drinking wine causes wisdom to decline — as it is said that the decline of wisdom is the sixth of the elder's own faults — and hence abstaining from wine alone is prohibited among the prohibited offenses. Other masters say:
聖者經生必不飲酒。雖嬰孩位養母以指。強渧口中不自在故而無有失。纔有識別設遇強緣。為護身命亦終不飲。故遮罪。中獨立酒戒。
— noble ones, throughout their subsequent births, definitely do not drink wine; even at the stage of infancy, though a nurse might forcibly place a drop upon their lips against their own will, there is no fault in this, since as soon as they gain discernment, even should they encounter some overwhelming circumstance, they would still never drink even to save their own body and life — and this is why abstaining from wine alone is established as a prohibited-offense precept.
The Buddha's toad question is a masterclass in rhetorical restraint: rather than lecture Sāgata on the dangers of alcohol directly, he simply holds up the monk's own greatest triumph against his present degradation and lets the assembly's own stunned silence supply the entire moral — a single, deceptively simple public question accomplishing what a lengthy sermon on the perils of drink never could.
Fascicle 123 Complete
This closes fascicle 123 of Ru-Yi's translation, drawn from the treatise's true CBETA boundary. Fascicle 123 continued the Manifest-and-Unmanifest Nyāsa (表無表納息第四之二): a technical dispute over karma and its fruit, the four kinds of cultivation and what it means not to cultivate body, precepts, mind, or wisdom mapped onto seven different frameworks, the four kinds of class governing restraint across time, why the seven Buddhist communities are defined by prātimokṣa restraint alone, and a rich account of the upāsaka's five precepts — why only adultery, only false speech, and only alcohol are singled out, capped by the unforgettable stories of the layman who broke all five precepts in a single afternoon and the monk Sāgata who once tamed a dragon but could not, drunk, subdue a toad. Fascicle 124 continues within this same nyāsa.