五戒の細則
Chapter One: Commentary on the Sūtra Spoken by the Buddha on the Five Precepts for Upāsakas
Section One: The First Precept — Killing
Original text: 闻如是。一时佛在迦维罗卫国。尔时净饭王来诣佛所。头面礼足。合掌恭敬。而白佛言。欲所请求。以自济度。唯愿世尊哀酬我志。佛言。可得之愿。随王所求。
Explanation: Thus have I (Ānanda) heard. At one time, the Buddha was in the Kingdom of Kapilavastu. At that time, King Śuddhodana came to the Buddha's place, bowed with his head to the ground at the Buddha's feet, and with palms joined in reverence, said to the Buddha: "I wish to make a request for the sake of my own deliverance. I only hope the World-Honored One will compassionately grant my wish." The Buddha said: "The wish you seek can be granted; I shall accord with whatever the King requests."
Original text: 王白佛言。世尊已为比丘比丘尼。沙弥沙弥尼。制戒轻重。唯愿如来亦为我等优婆塞。分别五戒可悔不可悔者。令识戒相。使无疑惑。佛言。善哉善哉。憍昙。我本心念。久欲与优婆塞分别五戒。若有善男子受持不犯者。以是因缘当成佛道。若有犯而不悔。常在三涂故。
Explanation: King Śuddhodana said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, You have already established precepts, both light and heavy, for bhikṣus, bhikṣuṇīs, śrāmaṇeras, and śrāmaṇerikās. I only hope the Tathāgata will also, for us upāsakas, distinguish which of the five precepts, when violated, are repentable and which are unrepentable, so that we may recognize the characteristics of the precepts and be free of doubt and confusion." The Buddha said: "Excellent, excellent! Gautama, it has long been my intention, ever present in my mind, to distinguish the five precepts for upāsakas. If there are good men who receive and uphold them without violating them, by this cause and condition they shall in the future attain the path to buddhahood. If there are those who violate them and do not repent, they will constantly remain in the three evil destinies."
Original text: 尔时佛为净饭王种种说已。王闻法竟。前礼佛足。绕佛而去。佛以是因缘告诸比丘。我今欲为诸优婆塞说犯戒轻重。可悔不可悔者。诸比丘佥曰。唯然。愿乐欲闻。
Explanation: The Buddha then taught King Śuddhodana with various discourses. After the King had heard the Dharma, he approached and bowed at the Buddha's feet, circumambulated the Buddha, and departed. The Buddha, by this cause and condition, told the bhikṣus: "I now wish to expound to the upāsakas the degrees of severity in violating the precepts, and which violations are repentable and which are unrepentable." The bhikṣus all said together: "Indeed, we joyfully wish to hear it."
Original text: 佛告诸比丘。犯杀有三种夺人命。一者自作。二者教人。三者遣使。自作者。自身作夺他命。教人者。教语他人言。捉是人。系缚夺命。遣使者。语他人言。汝识某甲不。汝捉是人。系缚夺命。是使随语夺彼命时。优婆塞犯不可悔罪。
Explanation: The Buddha told the bhikṣus: There are three ways of violating the precept against killing and taking a human life: the first is killing by one's own action, the second is inciting others to kill, and the third is dispatching an emissary (to kill in one's stead). Killing by one's own action means the upāsaka personally takes another's life. Inciting others to kill means telling another person in words: "Seize that person, bind him, and take his life." Dispatching an emissary means saying to another person (usually a subordinate, someone under one's authority): "Do you know so-and-so? Seize him, bind him, and then kill him." When this emissary, following those instructions, takes that person's life, the upāsaka commits an unrepentable offense.
The key point here is the difference and the consequences between inciting others to kill and dispatching an emissary to kill. What is the difference between inciting someone to kill and dispatching an emissary to kill? "Inciting" means to instigate and urge on; in the end, it is the person who was incited who directly kills and violates the precept against killing. The inciter and the incited are in an equal relationship, but the inciter's offense is greater. Dispatching an emissary to kill means directing one's own emissary to kill according to one's instructions — it is killing in one's own stead. The principal killer is the upāsaka himself, while the person dispatched merely follows orders and completes the task. The dispatcher is the principal offender, and the dispatched person is an accessory who also bears guilt. Whether it is inciting others to kill or dispatching an emissary to kill, the principal offender and chief culprit is the upāsaka himself, and therefore the upāsaka commits an unrepentable violation of the precept against killing. This offense is even heavier than killing personally, because although the result is the same — a person has been killed — inciting and dispatching others to kill also induces others to create unwholesome karma, defiling their minds and karmic conduct, causing them to form unwholesome karmic bonds and planting seeds of unwholesome karma.
Original text: 复有三种夺人命。一者用内色。二者用非内色。三者用内非内色。内色者。优婆塞用手打他。若用足及余身分。作如是念。令彼因死。彼因死者。是犯不可悔罪。若不即死。后因是死。亦犯不可悔。若不即死。后不因死。是中罪可悔。
Explanation: There are three further ways of taking a human life: the first is using one's own internal form, that is, one's body, to kill; the second is using non-internal form, that is, killing with instruments outside the body; the third is using both internal and non-internal form together, that is, killing with the hand holding a lethal instrument. Internal form refers to the upāsaka's physical body, using some part of the body to strike and kill — such as striking with the hand, kicking with the foot, butting with the head, or striking with other parts of the body — while thinking: "I will beat him to death." If the person who was struck dies as a result, the upāsaka commits an unrepentable offense of killing. If that person does not die immediately but later dies from the beating, the upāsaka also commits an unrepentable offense of killing. If that person does not die immediately and later does not die from it, the upāsaka commits a moderate, repentable offense.
Original text: 用非内色者。若人以木瓦石。刀槊弓箭。白镴叚铅锡叚。遥掷彼人。作是念。令彼因死。彼因死者。犯不可悔罪。若不即死。后因是死。亦犯不可悔。若不即死。后不因死。是中罪可悔。
Explanation: As for killing with non-internal form: if the upāsaka uses wood, tiles, stones, knives, spears, bows and arrows, pieces of pewter, or pieces of lead-tin alloy, and hurls them at that person from a distance, while thinking of making that person die from being struck, and if that person truly dies as a result, the upāsaka commits an unrepentable offense of killing. If that person does not die immediately but later dies from the blows, the upāsaka also commits an unrepentable offense of killing. If that person does not die immediately and later does not die from the blows, the upāsaka commits a moderate, repentable offense.
Original text: 用内非内色者。若以手捉木瓦石。刀槊弓箭。白镴叚铅锡叚。木叚打他。作如是念。令彼因死。彼因死者。是罪不可悔。若不即死。后因是死。亦犯不可悔。若不即死。后不因死。是中罪可悔。
Explanation: As for killing with a combination of internal and non-internal form: if the upāsaka takes wood, tiles, stones, knives, spears, bows and arrows, pieces of pewter, or pieces of lead-tin alloy in his hand, or strikes with a piece of wood, while thinking of making that person die from it, and if that person truly dies from the blows, the upāsaka's offense of killing is unrepentable. If that person does not die immediately but later dies from the blows, the upāsaka also commits an unrepentable offense. If that person does not die immediately and later does not die from it, the upāsaka commits a moderate, repentable offense.
Original text: 复有不以内色。不以非内色。亦不以内非内色。为杀人故。合诸毒药。若着眼耳鼻身上疮中。若着诸食中。若被褥中。车舆中。作如是念。令彼因死。彼因死者。犯不可悔罪。若不即死。后因是死。亦犯不可悔罪。若不即死。后不因死。是中罪可悔。
Explanation: There is also the case of killing without using internal form, without using non-internal form, and without using a combination of both. For the purpose of killing, one compounds various poisons and applies them to the person's eyes, ears, nose, body, or sores on the body, or puts them in the person's food and drink, or in the bedding, or in a carriage, while thinking: "Let him die from this poison." If that person dies as a result, the upāsaka commits an unrepentable offense of killing. If that person does not die immediately but later dies from it, it is likewise an unrepentable offense of killing. If that person does not die immediately and later does not die from it, the upāsaka commits a moderate, repentable offense.
Original text: 复有作无烟火坑杀者。核杀弶杀。作阱杀触杀。毗陀罗杀。堕胎杀。按腹杀。推着火中水中。推着坑中杀。若遣令去就道中死。乃至胎中初受二根。身根命根。于中起方便杀。
Explanation: There are other methods of killing, such as setting a smokeless fire pit to kill, killing with pits (核杀), killing with animal traps, killing by digging a pit-trap, killing by contact with poison, killing by means of vetāla (corpse-raising) sorcery, killing by abortion, killing by pressing the abdomen, pushing someone into fire or water, pushing someone into a pit to kill, or dispatching someone to die along the road — even to the point of killing by various expedient means when the two faculties — the body faculty and the life faculty — have just been received in the womb. The body faculty refers to the fertilized egg, and the life faculty refers to the manas.
Original text: 无烟火坑杀者。若优婆塞知是人从此道来。于中先作无烟火坑。以沙土覆上。若口说。以是人从此道来。故我作此坑。若是人因是死者。是犯不可悔罪。若不即死。后因是死。犯不可悔罪。若不即死。后不因死。是中罪可悔。
Explanation: In the case of killing with a smokeless fire pit: if the upāsaka knows that the person to be killed will come along a certain road, he prepares a smokeless fire pit in advance in the road and covers it with sand and earth, and then says aloud: "Because this person will come along this road, I have set this pit." If that person dies by falling into the fire pit, the upāsaka commits an unrepentable offense of killing. If that person does not die immediately but later dies from it, the upāsaka likewise commits an unrepentable offense of killing. If that person does not die immediately and later does not die from it, the upāsaka commits a moderate, repentable offense of killing.
Original text: 为人作无烟火坑。人死者不可悔。非人死者。是中罪可悔。畜生死者。下罪可悔。
Explanation: If one makes a smokeless fire pit to kill people, and a human being dies by falling into the fire pit, it is an unrepentable offense of killing; if a non-human falls into the pit and dies, the upāsaka commits a moderate, repentable offense of killing; if an animal falls in and dies, the upāsaka commits a minor, repentable offense of killing.
Why is it that when different kinds of sentient beings fall into the same fire pit and die, the upāsaka incurs different offenses? First, it is because sentient beings differ in their category of identity, in their merit, and in their own value, and thus the loss incurred by their death differs; naturally the offense incurred by killing them differs accordingly. Humans are more noble and valuable than non-humans, and non-humans are more noble and valuable than animals; killing a human incurs the greatest offense, and killing an animal incurs the least. "Value" refers to the magnitude of the contribution one can make to the world, the magnitude of benefit to sentient beings, and the magnitude of worldly and transcendent attainments one can achieve. Second, it is because the upāsaka's purpose and intention differ; offenses committed with intent and without intent naturally differ. The upāsaka's intended target is a human being, and he has the intention to kill a human; when a human dies, the offense is heavy. His target is not non-humans or animals, and he has no intention to kill non-humans or animals; thus when non-humans or animals die, it counts as accidental killing, and the offense is light.
Original text: 为非人作坑。非人死者。是中罪可悔。人死是下罪可悔。畜生死者。犯下可悔罪。若为畜生作坑。畜生死者。是下罪可悔。若人堕死。若非人堕死。皆犯下罪可悔。
Explanation: If the smokeless fire pit was made for non-humans, and a non-human dies as a result, the upāsaka commits a moderate, repentable offense of killing. If a human falls in and dies, it is a minor, repentable offense of killing; if an animal dies as a result, it is likewise a minor, repentable offense of killing.
If the smokeless fire pit was made for animals, and an animal dies as a result, it is a minor, repentable offense of killing. If a human falls in and dies, or a non-human falls in and dies, both are minor, repentable offenses of killing.
Setting a fire pit for non-humans means one has the intention to kill non-humans, but because non-humans are not sufficiently noble and are not suitable vessels for the Path, killing a non-human incurs a moderate, repentable offense, not the gravest unrepentable offense. If a human accidentally falls into the fire pit and dies, it is a minor, repentable offense, because the upāsaka had no intention to kill a human; the person entered the fire pit by his own mistake, and the upāsaka merely provided the condition for falling into the pit. If an animal accidentally enters the fire pit and dies, it is even more a minor, repentable offense. If one has the intention to kill animals, then no matter which category of sentient being dies as a result, it is a minor, repentable offense, because animals are not noble and are not suitable vessels for the Path; killing them is a minor offense, and the death of humans or non-humans counts as accidental killing, which is also a minor offense.
Original text: 若优婆塞不定为一事作坑。诸有来者。皆令堕死。人死者。犯不可悔。非人死者。中罪可悔。畜生死者。下罪可悔。都无死者。犯三方便可悔罪。是名无烟火坑杀也。
Explanation: If the upāsaka did not set the fire pit for any particular category of sentient being, but hoped that all who came to it would fall in and die: if a human dies as a result, it is an unrepentable offense of killing; if a non-human dies as a result, it is a moderate, repentable offense of killing; if an animal dies as a result, it is a minor, repentable offense of killing. If none of them die, the upāsaka commits a repentable offense of three expedients. This describes the offense of killing by setting a smokeless fire pit.
Setting the fire pit with the intention to kill all sentient beings who pass by, including humans, means one has the intention to kill humans; if a human dies, it is the gravest unrepentable offense. If one intends to kill non-humans and animals, and non-humans and animals die, one commits moderate and minor repentable offenses respectively. The "three expedients" refers to having set the smokeless fire pit for the purpose of killing three categories of sentient beings.
Original text: 毗陀罗者。若优婆塞以二十九日。求全身死人。召鬼咒尸令起。水洗着衣。令手捉刀。若心念口说。我为某甲故。作此毗陀罗。即读咒术。若所欲害人死者。犯不可悔。若前人入诸三昧。或天神所护。或大咒师所救解。不成害。犯中可悔。是名毗陀罗杀也。
Explanation: As for killing by means of a corpse-raising ghost (vetāla): if the upāsaka, on the twenty-ninth day of the lunar month, seeks out a dead person whose body is intact, summons a ghost and chants spells over the corpse to make it rise, washes it with water, dresses it, and makes it hold a knife in its hand, and if the upāsaka mentally recites and verbally declares: "For the sake of so-and-so, I have made this vetāla," and then recites the spell, and if the person he wishes to harm dies, the upāsaka commits an unrepentable offense of killing. If that person enters meditative concentration (samādhi) to evade the evil spell, or is protected by heavenly beings, or is rescued and delivered by a great spell-master, so that the harm fails, the upāsaka commits a moderate, repentable offense. This is called killing by means of a vetāla.
Why can a corpse-raising ghost kill people? The corpse itself cannot kill, because it has no conscious mind within it and cannot be driven to act. But if a ghost possesses the corpse, the conscious mind unites with the body, and the ghost's consciousness can then drive the corpse to act, such as taking up a knife to kill. As long as one gives a ghost some benefits, such as food and drink, the ghost will obey one's command and summons and serve one. Some ghosts are also driven by the power of spells, that is, by the person who chants them. There is also a kind of killing by spells that uses neither corpse nor ghost — the spell alone can curse a person to death. What is the principle behind this? A spell represents a person's mind. If a person's mental power is strong, then whatever the mind intends for a person, that person will become. If the mental power is not strong, the power of the spell is weak.
Original text: 半毗陀罗者。若优婆塞二十九日作铁车。作铁车已。作铁人。召鬼咒铁人令起。水洗着衣。令铁人手捉刀。若心念口说。我为某甲读是咒。若是人死者。犯不可悔罪。若前人入诸三昧。诸天神所护。若咒师所救解。不成死者。是中罪可悔。是名半毗陀罗杀。
Explanation: As for killing by means of a half-vetāla: if the upāsaka, on the twenty-ninth day of the lunar month, makes an iron cart, and after making the iron cart, makes an iron man, summons a ghost and chants spells over the iron man to make it rise, washes it with water, dresses it, and makes the iron man hold a knife in its hand; and if the upāsaka mentally recites and verbally declares: "For the sake of so-and-so I recite this spell," and after reciting it, if that person is cursed to death by the spell, the upāsaka commits an unrepentable offense of killing. If that person enters meditative concentration to evade the spell, or is protected by the heavenly beings, or is rescued and delivered by a spell-master and does not die, the upāsaka commits a moderate, repentable offense of killing. This is called killing by means of a half-vetāla.
Why can entering meditative concentration allow one to evade an evil spell being cast upon one? Because when a person is in samādhi, one's own energy field is extremely powerful and can block all external interference and harm; therefore evil spells and poisonous curses cannot penetrate.
Original text: 断命者。二十九日牛粪涂地。以酒食着中。然火已。寻便着水中。若心念口说。读咒术言。如火水中灭。若火灭时。彼命随灭。又复二十九日牛粪涂地。酒食着中。画作所欲杀人像。作像已。寻还拨灭。心念口说。读咒术言。如此像灭。彼命亦灭。若像灭时。彼命随灭。
Explanation: As for taking a life by means of spells: on the twenty-ninth day of the lunar month, one smears the ground with cow dung and places food and drink upon it; after lighting a fire, one immediately puts it into water, and if one mentally recites and verbally declares the spell, saying: "Just as the fire is extinguished in the water, so may that person's life be extinguished" — if the fire goes out, that person's life is extinguished along with it. Again, on the twenty-ninth day, one smears the ground with cow dung, places food and drink upon it, and draws an image of the person one wishes to kill; after drawing the image, one immediately erases it, and mentally recites and verbally declares the spell, saying: "Just as this image is erased, so may that person's life be extinguished" — if the image is erased, his life is extinguished along with it.
Original text: 又复二十九日。牛粪涂地。酒食着中。以针刺衣角头。寻还拔出。心念口说。读咒术言。如此针出。彼命随出。是名断命。若用种种咒死者。犯不可悔罪。若不死者。是中罪可悔。
Explanation: Again, on the twenty-ninth day, one smears the ground with cow dung, places food and drink upon it, pierces the corner of a garment with a needle, and immediately pulls it out, mentally reciting and verbally declaring the spell, saying: "Just as this needle is drawn out, so may his life be drawn out." This is called taking a life by spells. If one curses a person to death with various spells, one commits an unrepentable offense of killing; if the person does not die, one commits a moderate, repentable offense.
Original text: 又复堕胎者。与有胎女人吐下药。及灌一切处药。若针血脉。乃至出眼泪药。作是念。以是因缘令女人死。死者犯不可悔罪。若不即死。后因是死。亦犯不可悔罪。若不即死。后不因死。是中罪可悔。
Explanation: As for killing by abortion: if one gives a pregnant woman emetic and purgative drugs, and administers purgative medicine through every orifice, or needles her blood vessels and channels, or even gives her drugs that make her eyes tear, while thinking: "By these means let this woman die" — if the woman dies, the upāsaka commits an unrepentable offense. If the woman does not die immediately but later dies from these drugs, the upāsaka also commits an unrepentable offense. If the woman does not die immediately and later does not die from it, it is a moderate, repentable offense.
Original text: 若为杀母故堕胎。若母死者。犯不可悔。若胎死者。是罪可悔。若俱死者。是罪不可悔。若俱不死者。是中罪可悔。若为杀胎故。作堕胎法。若胎死者。犯不可悔。若胎不死者。是中罪可悔。若母死者。是中罪可悔。俱死者。是犯不可悔。是名堕胎杀法。
Explanation: If the upāsaka performs an abortion for the purpose of killing the pregnant mother: if the mother dies, it is an unrepentable offense; if the fetus dies, it is a repentable offense; if both die, it is an unrepentable offense; if neither dies, it is a moderate, repentable offense. If one performs the abortion for the purpose of killing the fetus: if the fetus dies, it is an unrepentable offense; if the fetus does not die, it is a moderate, repentable offense; if the mother dies, it is a moderate, repentable offense; if both die, it is an unrepentable offense. This is the method of killing by abortion.
Why is it that when one kills the mother and the fetus dies, the upāsaka commits only a repentable offense? Because the upāsaka had no intention to kill the fetus; the fetus died as a consequence of the mother's death. Why is it that when one kills the fetus and the mother dies, the upāsaka commits only a repentable offense? The principle is the same as above: the upāsaka had no intention to kill the mother; the mother died as a consequence of the fetus's death.
Original text: 按腹者。使怀妊女人重作。或担重物。教使车前走。若令上峻岸。作是念。令女人死。死者犯不可悔。若不即死。后因是死。是罪不可悔。若不因死者。是中罪可悔。若为胎者。如上说。是名按腹杀也。
Explanation: The method of killing by pressing the abdomen with external means is: making a pregnant woman do heavy labor, or having her carry heavy loads, making her walk in front of a cart, or making her climb a steep bank, while thinking: "Let this woman die." If the woman truly dies, the upāsaka commits an unrepentable offense. If the woman does not die immediately but later dies from it, it is also an unrepentable offense. If the woman does not die immediately and later does not die from it, the upāsaka commits a moderate, repentable offense.
If the upāsaca made her bear such burdens for the purpose of killing the fetus: if the fetus dies, the upāsaka commits an unrepentable offense; if the fetus does not die, it is a moderate, repentable offense; if the mother dies, it is a moderate, repentable offense; if both die, it is an unrepentable offense. This is the method of killing by pressing the abdomen.
Original text: 遣令道中死者。知是道中有恶兽饥饿。遣令往至恶道中。作如是念。令彼恶道中死。死者犯不可悔。余者亦犯。同如上说。是名恶道中杀。
Explanation: The method of dispatching someone to die along the road is: the upāsaka knows in advance that there are ferocious beasts hungry along that road, and dispatches the person he wishes to kill onto that perilous road, thinking: "Let him die on the perilous road." If that person dies, the upāsaka commits an unrepentable offense. If that person does not die immediately but later dies from it, the upāsaka also commits an unrepentable offense. If that person does not die immediately and later does not die from it, it is a moderate, repentable offense. This is the method of killing on a perilous road.
Although the person was killed and devoured by wild beasts and not killed by the upāsaka's own hand, because it resulted from the upāsaka's deliberate scheme, it is still equivalent to the upāsaka killing him — indeed more serious than killing with one's own hand, for it causes the innocent beasts to form an unwholesome karmic bond with that person; when the beasts repay the debt in the future, the suffering will be far more grievous than one life for one life.
Original text: 乃至母胎中。初得二根。身根命根。迦罗逻时。以杀心起。方便欲令死。死者犯不可悔。余犯同如上说。
Explanation: Even when the fetus in the mother's womb has just acquired the two faculties — the body faculty, the fertilized egg (kalala), and the life faculty — if one gives rise to the intention to kill from the very first week of the fertilized egg, and resorts to various means to make the fetus die: if the fetus truly dies, the upāsaka commits an unrepentable offense. If the fetus does not die immediately but later dies from it, it is also an unrepentable offense. If the fetus does not die immediately and later does not die from it, it is a moderate, repentable offense.
Original text: 赞叹杀有三种。一者恶戒人。二者善戒人。三者老病人。恶戒人者。杀牛羊。养鸡猪。放鹰捕鱼。猎师围兔。射獐鹿等。偷贼魁脍。咒龙守狱。若到是人所。作如是言。汝等恶戒人。何以久作罪。不如早死。是人因死者。是罪不可悔。若不因死者。是中罪可悔。若恶人作如是言。我不用是人语。不因是死。犯中可悔罪。
Explanation: There are three kinds of killing by exhortation (praising death): the first is exhorting persons of evil precepts to die; the second is exhorting persons of good precepts to die; the third is exhorting the old and sick to die. Persons of evil precepts are those who cannot keep the precepts and create unwholesome karma, such as those who slaughter cattle and sheep, those who raise chickens and pigs, those who release hawks to catch fish, hunters who snare rabbits, those who shoot deer and other such evil people, as well as thieves, executioners, and those who cast spells on dragons or guard prisons.
If the upāsaka goes to where these people dwell and says to them: "You people of evil precepts, why do you persist so long in committing sins? It would be better to die early" — if these people die by suicide because of these words, the upāsaka commits an unrepentable offense. If those people do not die because of these words, it is a moderate, repentable offense.
Original text: 若赞叹是人令死。便心悔。作是念。何以教是人死。还到语言。汝等恶人。或以善知识因缘故。亲近善人。得听善法。能正思惟。得离恶罪。汝勿自杀。若是人受其语不死者。是中罪可悔。
Explanation: If the upāsaka exhorts these people to die but afterwards regrets it, thinking: "Why did I induce these people to die?" and then returns to them and says: "You evildoers, perhaps through the cause and condition of meeting good spiritual friends, you may draw near to good people, hear good Dharma, be able to think correctly, and be freed from evil offenses. Do not kill yourselves." If those people accept his words and do not die, the upāsaka commits a moderate, repentable offense.
Why can one not even urge evildoers who create unwholesome karma to commit suicide? Because the Buddha's Dharma does not abandon a single person; whether they are good or evil, all are universally delivered. If an evildoer has the opportunity to meet a good spiritual friend who teaches good Dharma, and believes, accepts, and practices it, he can eliminate his unwholesome karma, transform his own mind, and thereby change his destiny in the three evil destinies. Even if he does not meet a good spiritual friend or good Dharma, he may still reflect on his own evil deeds, repent little by little, turn his mind toward goodness, and thereby also change his destiny.
Original text: 善戒人者。如来四众是也。若到诸善人所。如是言。汝持善戒有福德人。若死便受天福。何不自夺命。是人因是自杀死者。犯不可悔罪。若不自杀者。中罪可悔。若善戒人作是念。我何以受他语自杀。若不死者。是罪可悔。若教他死已。心生悔言。我不是。何以教此善人死。还往语言。汝善戒人。随寿命住。福德益多故。受福益多。莫自夺命。若不因死者。是中罪可悔。
Explanation: Persons of good precepts are those with good minds who keep the precepts — the fourfold assembly of the Tathāgata. If the upāsaka goes to where these people dwell and says to them: "You are people of merit who keep good precepts; if you die, you will enjoy the blessings of the heavens. Why not take your own lives?" — if these people die by suicide because of this, the upāsaka commits an unrepentable offense; if they do not kill themselves, the upāsaka commits a moderate, repentable offense. If the persons of good precepts think: "Why should I listen to his words and kill myself?" and do not kill themselves, the upāsaka commits a repentable offense.
If the upāsaka, after inducing these people to kill themselves, regrets what he said and did, saying: "I was wrong; how could I induce these good people to kill themselves?" and then returns to their dwelling and says to them: "You good people of good precepts should live out your natural lifespans; in this way your merit will increase further, and the blessings you enjoy in future lives will be even greater. Do not take your own lives." If those people do not die because of this, the upāsaka commits a moderate, repentable offense.
Original text: 老病者。四大增减。受诸苦恼。往语是人言。汝云何久忍是苦。何不自夺命。因死者。是罪不可悔。若不因死者。是中罪可悔。若病人作是念。我何缘受是人语自夺命。若语病人已。心生悔。我不是。何以语此病人自杀。还往语言。汝等病人。或得良药。善看病人。随药饮食。病可得差。莫自夺命。若不因死者。是中罪可悔。
Explanation: Those who are old and sick, because of the imbalance of increase and decrease of the four great elements, suffer various afflictions. The upāsaka goes to the sick person and says: "Why do you endure such suffering for so long? Why not take your own life?" If the sick person dies because of this, the upāsaka commits an unrepentable offense; if the sick person does not die because of this, the upāsaka commits a moderate, repentable offense. If the sick person thinks: "Why should I listen to his words and take my own life?" — and if the upāsaka, after speaking those words to the sick person, feels remorse in his heart, saying: "I was wrong; why did I speak to the sick person that way, urging them to kill themselves?" and then returns to the sick person's dwelling and says to them: "You sick people, if you can obtain good medicine, or meet someone skilled in caring for the sick, take the medicine and regulate your diet, and your illness can be cured. Do not take your own lives." If the sick person does not die because of this, the upāsaka commits a moderate, repentable offense.
Original text: 余上七种杀。说犯与不犯。同如上火坑。若人作人想杀。是罪不可悔。人作非人想杀。人中生疑杀。皆犯不可悔。非人人想杀。非人中生疑杀。是中罪可悔。
Explanation: As for the remaining seven kinds of killing not yet discussed in detail above — killing with pits (核杀), killing with traps (弶杀), killing by digging pit-traps, killing by contact with poison, pushing into fire or water to kill, pushing into a pit to kill — in determining whether an offense has been committed and what kind of offense, the determination is the same as for the smokeless fire pit killing described above; one may compare and refer to it oneself.
If one kills a human being, and also takes the other to be a human being when killing, the offense is unrepentable. If one deliberately kills a human while taking him to be a non-human, or kills a human while being uncertain whether he is human or not, all are unrepentable offenses. If one deliberately kills a non-human while taking it to be a human, or kills a non-human while being uncertain whether it is non-human or not, all are moderate, repentable offenses.
Original text: 若居士作方便欲杀母。而杀非母。是中罪可悔。若居士欲杀非母。而自杀母。是犯中罪可悔。非逆。若居士方便欲杀人。而杀非人。是中罪可悔。若居士作方便欲杀非人。而杀人者。犯小可悔罪。若人怀畜生胎。堕此胎者。犯小可悔罪。若畜生怀人胎者。堕此胎死者。犯不可悔。
Explanation: If a householder resorts to certain means intending to kill his own mother, but actually kills someone who is not his mother, this is a moderate, repentable offense, because he had no intention to kill one who is not his mother — it was accidental killing. If the householder intends to kill someone who is not his mother, but ends up killing his own mother, he also commits a moderate, repentable offense; because he had no intention to kill his mother, he does not commit the five rebellious acts (ānantarya) of killing his mother.
If the householder devises certain expedient means intending to kill a human, but kills a non-human instead, it is a moderate, repentable offense, because the offense of killing a non-human is light. If the householder devises certain expedient means intending to kill a non-human, but kills a human instead, he commits a minor, repentable offense, because he had no intention to kill a human; the human was killed by accident, so the offense is light. If a human is pregnant with an animal fetus, aborting that fetus is a minor, repentable offense. If an animal is pregnant with a human fetus, aborting that fetus and causing death is an unrepentable offense, because this is equivalent to deliberately killing a human.
Original text: 若居士作杀人方便。居士先死。后若有死者。是罪犯可悔。若居士欲杀父母。心生疑。是父母非耶。若定知是父母杀者。是逆罪。不可悔。若居士生疑。是人非人。若心定知是人杀者。犯不可悔。
Explanation: If the householder devises expedient means to kill someone, but the householder himself dies first, and afterwards someone else dies because of the means he devised, the householder commits a repentable offense. If the householder intends to kill his father or mother but has doubts in his mind, uncertain whether they are his parents or not — if he knows for certain that they are his parents and kills them, it is a rebellious offense (ānantarya), unrepentable. If the householder has doubts, uncertain whether the other is human or non-human — if he knows for certain in his mind that the other is human and kills him, it is an unrepentable offense.
Original text: 又一人被截手足。置着城堑中。又众女人来入城中。闻是啼哭声。便往就观。共相谓言。若有能与是人药浆饮。使得时死。则不久受苦。中有愚直女人。便与药浆。即死。诸女言。汝犯戒。不可悔。即白。
Explanation: There was a person whose hands and feet had been cut off, and he was thrown into the moat within the city. Then a group of women came into the city, heard the sound of weeping, and went over to see what was happening. Upon seeing the person in the moat, they discussed among themselves: "If anyone could give this person some medicinal potion to drink so that he may die at once, he would not have to suffer much longer." Among them was a foolish, simple-minded woman who immediately brought the medicinal potion and fed it to the person in the moat, and he died after drinking it. Then the other women said: "You have violated the precepts — an unrepentable offense." The foolish woman immediately openly confessed her offense before the assembly.
Original text: 若人捉贼。欲将杀。贼得走去。若以官力。若聚落力。追逐是贼。若居士逆道来。追者问居士言。汝见贼不。是居士先于贼有恶心瞋恨。语言。我见在是处。以是因缘令贼失命者。犯不可悔。
Explanation: If someone catches a thief and wants to kill him, but the thief seizes the chance to flee; if the thief is pursued by the power of the officials or by the power of the village, and the householder comes along the road from the opposite direction, and the pursuers ask the householder: "Have you seen the thief?" — and because the householder had previously harbored ill will and hatred toward the thief, he replies: "I saw him over there." Because of the householder's disclosure, the thief is caught and loses his life; the householder commits an unrepentable offense.
Original text: 若人将众多贼欲杀。是贼得走者。若以官力。若聚落力追逐。是居士逆道来。追者问居士言。汝见贼不。是贼中或有一人。是居士所瞋者。言我见在是处。若杀非所瞋者。是罪可悔。余如上说。
Explanation: If someone catches many thieves and wants to kill them all, but the thieves seize the chance to flee; if they are pursued by the power of the officials or by the power of the village, and a householder comes along the pursuit road from the opposite direction, and the pursuers ask the householder: "Have you seen the thieves?" — because among those thieves there may be one whom the householder hates, the householder says: "I saw them over there." When those thieves are caught, if the officials kill those whom the householder does not hate, the householder commits a repentable offense. The rest is as stated above and may be referred to.
Why does the householder commit only a repentable offense? Because the householder's original intention did not include the wish for those people to die; the deaths of those thieves were unintentionally caused by him, so his offense is repentable. But if the person he hated is killed, the householder commits an unrepentable offense. One must never accord with any afflictions that violate the precepts; to accord with them is to violate the precepts, incur evil retribution, experience suffering, fail to accomplish the path, and remain in unending saṃsāra.
Original text: 若居士母想杀非母。犯不可悔。非逆罪。若戏笑打他。若死者。是罪可悔。若狂不自忆念杀者。无罪。
Explanation: If the householder intends to kill his mother but mistakenly kills someone who is not his mother, taking her to be his mother, he commits an unrepentable offense, but not a rebellious offense. What the householder intended to kill in his mind was his mother, but what he actually killed was not his mother; since he did not kill his mother, he does not commit the rebellious offense. If one strikes another in play and jest, and the person dies, it is accidental killing and a repentable offense. If one is insane and unaware of what one is doing and kills someone, there is no offense, because there is no intent — no intention to kill the other person.
Original text: 若优婆塞用有虫水及草木中杀虫。皆犯罪。若有虫无虫想用。亦犯。若无虫虫想用者。亦犯。
Explanation: If an upāsaka uses water containing living creatures — whether drinking it, pouring it out, or watering the land with it — causing the creatures to die, or directly kills insects among grass and trees, he commits an offense of killing. If he knows full well there are creatures in the water but deceives himself into thinking there are none, and drinks or uses the water, he also commits an offense of killing. If there are no creatures in the water but he deceives himself into thinking there are, and still drinks or uses the water, he also commits an offense of killing, because he has the intention to kill.
There clearly are no creatures in the water, yet one insists on imagining creatures in it, and then drinks and uses this "creature-infested" water, thereby violating the precept. Why bring such trouble upon oneself? There were no creatures, and in fact no creatures were killed — why does drinking the water still count as violating the precept against killing? Because the mind is not pure and harbors the intention to kill. Some water does indeed contain creatures; if you do not know it and drink or use it, and the creatures do indeed die, it does not count as violating the precept against killing. Because there is no intention to kill, and the lives of the creatures are not precious; without the intention to kill, there is no violation of the precept.
Original text: 有居士起新舍。在屋上住。手中失梁。堕木师头上。即死。居士生疑。是罪为可悔不。问佛。佛言无罪。屋上梁。人力少不禁故。梁堕木师头上。杀木师。居士即生疑。佛言无罪。从今日作好用心。勿令杀人。
Explanation: There was a householder building a new house who was sitting on the roof, holding a roof beam in his hands; it slipped from his grasp, fell, and struck a carpenter on the head, killing him. The householder was uncertain whether this offense of killing was repentable, and so he asked the Buddha. The Buddha said: "You are without offense."
While building the new house, because the man's strength was insufficient to hold the beam, a roof beam fell from the roof and struck the carpenter on the head, and the carpenter died. The householder did not understand what offense he had committed, and the Buddha said to him: "You are without offense. But from now on, do things carefully and attentively; do not carelessly kill anyone again."
Original text: 又一居士屋上作。见泥中有蝎。怖畏跳下。堕木师上。即死。居士生疑。佛言无罪。从今日好用心作。勿令杀人。又一居士。日暮入险道值贼。贼欲取之。舍贼而走。堕岸下织衣人上。织师即死。居士即生疑。佛言无罪。
Explanation: Another householder was working on a roof when he saw a scorpion in the mud; frightened, he jumped down from the roof and landed right on a carpenter, who was crushed to death. The householder did not understand what offense he had committed, and the Buddha said to him: "You are without offense. From now on, work carefully and attentively; do not carelessly kill anyone again."
Another householder, after nightfall, entered a perilous road and encountered thieves. The thieves wanted to seize him; the householder fled from the thieves and accidentally fell down the bank onto a person who was weaving clothes below, and the weaver immediately died. The householder did not understand what offense he had committed, and the Buddha said to him: "You are without offense."
Original text: 又一居士山上推石。石下杀人。生疑。佛言无罪。若欲推石时。当先唱石下。令人知。
又一人病痈疮未熟。居士为破而死。即生疑。佛言。痈疮未熟。若破者人死。是中罪可悔。若破熟痈疮死者。无罪。
Explanation: Another householder pushed a rock down from a mountain, and the rock rolled down and crushed a person to death. The householder did not understand what offense he had committed, and the Buddha said to him: "You are without offense. But in the future, when you wish to push a rock down, you should first shout a warning that the rock is coming down, so that others will know."
There was a patient with an ulcerous sore on the skin that had not yet matured; the householder burst the sore, causing the patient to die. The householder did not understand what offense he had committed, and the Buddha said to him: "When an ulcerous sore has not yet matured, if it is burst and the person dies, it is a moderate, repentable offense. If a mature ulcerous sore is burst and the person dies, there is no offense."
Original text: 又一小儿喜笑。居士捉击攊。令大笑故。便死。居士生疑。佛言。戏笑故。不犯杀罪。从今不应复击攊人令笑。
又一人坐以衣自覆。居士唤言起。是人言。勿唤我起。便死。复唤言起。起便即死。居士生疑。佛言。犯中可悔罪。汝与药浆时死者。犯戒不可悔。
Explanation: There was a child who loved to laugh; the householder grabbed him and tickled him, and because the child laughed uncontrollably, he died. The householder did not understand what offense he had committed, and the Buddha said to him: "Because it was play and jest, there is no violation of the offense of killing. But from now on, you should not tickle people to make them laugh again."
There was a person sitting with his clothing covering his body. The householder called out to him to rise, and the person said: "Do not call me to rise — if I rise, I shall die." The householder called him to rise again, and the person rose and immediately died. The householder did not understand what offense he had committed, and the Buddha said to him: "You have committed a moderate, repentable offense. If you had given him a medicinal potion and he died, you would have committed an unrepentable violation of the precept."
A repentable offense is committed when one accidentally kills the other person without the intention to kill; an unrepentable offense is committed when one deliberately kills with the intention to kill. In a repentable offense, because there is no intention to kill, the mind's nature is not evil and is not defiled; the intrinsic offense (性罪) is light, and the karmic offense is also light. Through repentance, the intrinsic offense and its karma can be lightened or eliminated, thereby averting the karmic retribution of hell. In an unrepentable offense, because subjectively there is the intention to kill, the mind's nature is evil; the intrinsic offense is heavy, and the karmic offense is also heavy. Because of the obstruction of afflictions in the mind's nature, even repentance cannot eliminate the intrinsic offense, the karmic offense cannot be lightened, and the retribution of hell cannot be averted. The severity of all offenses is determined by the mind's nature.
