五戒の細則
Chapter 5: Questions Concerning the Precept on Sexual Desire
1. Did Ānanda Actually Commit a Precept Violation?
Question: The Śūraṅgama Sūtra says that Ānanda had attained the first fruit, yet was seduced by Mātaṅgī and nearly violated the precepts. If he had not been rescued by the Śūraṅgama Mantra, would he have fallen into the three evil destinies because of breaking the precepts?
Answer: Ānanda was lured into the prostitute's house by Mātaṅgī's mother using a heterodox evil mantra; he did not walk into the prostitute's house of his own accord. Ānanda's meditative concentration power of the first fruit was clearly insufficient to withstand the powerful evil mantra of the heterodox practitioners; the evil mantra had a binding effect on Ānanda and would cause him to lose his power of resistance. But Ānanda would absolutely never voluntarily violate any precept, and therefore he would not fall into the three evil destinies. It is like a person whose meditative concentration power is insufficient and who cannot withstand the bewitching power of alcohol; once alcohol enters the mind, one becomes dazed and unclear. This alcohol may not have been drunk voluntarily by oneself, but was forcibly poured in by others, or poured in through a scheme, and therefore it does not count as violating the precept against drinking alcohol.
Ānanda's situation was one of having an evil mantra forcibly applied by heterodox practitioners; because his power was insufficient, he could not withstand the force of the evil mantra. It was not that Ānanda was willing to accept the evil mantra; once the evil mantra entered his mind, Ānanda had no way to remain clear-headed. When a person is under the bewitching effect of a hallucinogenic drug, they lose awareness; this is not a matter of personal volition, not a voluntary willingness to lose oneself, so it does not belong to the category of deliberate precept-breaking driven by mental afflictions, and one would not fall into the three evil destinies. If, while being bewitched, Ānanda did not give rise to a mind of craving and desire, then no matter what, Ānanda had no precept-violating behavior. To be completely unmoved without any craving and desire requires cultivation to the third fruit or above, with craving and desire fully eradicated. Ordinary people need the control of the mind consciousness, but the mind consciousness is easily controlled by external forces. Therefore, if one only cultivates the mind consciousness and engages in extensive learning and hearing, the power of the Path cannot become sound and complete, and the result is exactly what happened to Ānanda.
If there is an extremely strong external force at work, and a practitioner's power of the Path is insufficient, then it is inevitable that they will be affected, because if the aggregate of form among the five aggregates is not exhausted, one will be affected by the aggregate of form; if the aggregate of feeling among the five aggregates is not exhausted, one will be affected by the aggregate of feeling; if the aggregate of perception is not exhausted, one will be affected by the aggregate of perception. There is no way around this.
When can one become unaffected by the five aggregates and attain the exhaustion of the aggregate of form, the aggregate of feeling, and the aggregate of perception? At the very minimum, this is only possible when one has cultivated the fourth dhyāna; only within the fourth dhyāna can the aggregate of form, the aggregate of feeling, and the aggregate of perception be fully severed. Otherwise, anyone will be affected by the five aggregates. With a body, there is this great calamity; without a body, there is no calamity. This is precisely why one must cultivate the Path, must cultivate meditative concentration, and must cultivate all the way to the manas, in order to sever the five aggregates subject to grasping and attain liberation of the mind.
Hīnayāna practitioners judge whether a person has violated or broken the precepts solely by outward behavior; as long as the behavior conforms to the five precepts, the bhikṣu precepts, or the bhikṣuṇī precepts, they say the precepts are not broken. Mahāyāna, however, judges whether a bodhisattva has violated or broken the precepts mainly by looking at whether the bodhisattva's mind has violated the precepts, whether there has been any stirring of the mind in their behavior. If the mind has not been stirred, then it is pure. But ordinary people can only see outward behavior and cannot see a person's true mental conduct, so the probability of misjudgment is very high. If a person appears to be doing good deeds on the surface, appears to be benefiting others, while their mental conduct is entirely for personal gain, and their behavior is a cover-up and a false appearance—the mind's purpose being inconsistent with the behavior—then this person is not doing good deeds, not benefiting others, but benefiting themselves, or even harming others. Such deception using behavior as a false appearance brings not only no merit but also transgression.
2. Mental Lust Drawing Forth Bodily and Verbal Lust
What does the Buddha mean by saying that lay practitioners should not give rise to desire-thoughts and desire-reflections? This refers to the mental action among the three actions of body, speech, and mind—mental thoughts, mental cogitations, and mental reflections—which is also called mental lust. When a person cannot subdue craving and desire, their mind will frequently give rise to deluded thoughts, notions, and feelings of craving and desire, immersed in mental lust, indulging in wild fantasies. Some people even have explicit objects of mental lust; images of the other person or scenes of lust will surface in their minds, uncontrollable—this is already violating the precept against lust. Some bold people, when indulging in mental lust, make no attempt to conceal it and openly declare it, telling everyone that they had so many consorts in a past life, some of whom were born into this life, and that when the karmic conditions manifested they gathered together, naming who they are, followed by a whole pile of annotations—truly unbearable to see and hear. This is mental desire and verbal desire; bodily action has not yet appeared.
As long as a person has not severed desire, their mental thoughts will not cease. Because there is the manas, as long as the conditions are complete, bodily desire-actions and verbal desire-actions will appear. Bodily and verbal actions are drawn forth and led out by mental action, so cutting off lust lies in cutting off mental lust, and cultivation must be the cultivation of the mind. When bodily and verbal actions appear, the mark of precept violation manifests—this is the precept with marks. Before bodily and verbal actions appear, it is mental action, which is without marks—this is violating the markless precept. If the markless mental action cannot be guarded, the marked bodily and verbal actions cannot be guarded either.
Some people, because they cannot guard the marked precepts and cannot control their body and speech from frequently violating the precepts, have no choice but to find excuses to cover up, saying: the marked precepts are for beginners to keep; bodhisattvas of long cultivation who have the spiritual faculties (indriya) should abandon the marked precepts and hold the markless precept of the mind-ground. Look at how inverted this line of thinking and this claim are: if one cannot even keep the beginner's marked precepts, how could one possibly keep the profound markless precept? Is the body and speech easier to control, or is the mind-ground easier to control and subdue?
When the mind's thoughts cannot be subdued, the body and speech can at least pretend—pretending to be pure, pretending to have cultivation. Is that not the most basic, beginner-level method of practice? If one cannot even pretend, is not the mind's mentation even more impossible to control? Some people even openly advocate going along with afflictions—that is to say, when the mind of lust arises, do not control it, just go and indulge in lust directly; do not pretend, do not pretend to have cultivation; studying Buddhism should not make one increasingly fake. This person, unable to subdue their own mind, simply gave up resistance and smashed the broken pot to pieces, and moreover called on their followers to smash the broken pot to pieces as well, without any regard for the Buddha's precepts and earnest teachings. What is the result of such behavior? Does one think that just because one knows there is a tathāgatagarbha, the tathāgatagarbha, for the sake of face, will let you off the hook? Truly foolish.
To what degree a person has cultivated, whether they have genuine practice—all of this is fully revealed in their words and actions. They cannot deceive those with clear eyes; they can only deceive some beginner novices. These people foolishly prefer to be deceived, willingly allow themselves to be deceived—if they are not deceived, they feel uncomfortable and do not know what to do. But not everyone in this world is foolish; there are always awakened people, always vigilant people, who can see through everyone's tricks and disguises and see through everyone's human nature.
Cultivation is the process of breaking through ignorance and eradicating afflictions; bodily, verbal, and mental actions are the manifestation of ignorance and afflictions. Where there is ignorance, there are afflictions; where there are afflictions, there is ignorance and no wisdom. With ignorance and no wisdom, there is no cultivation, no virtue—one is an ordinary being, subject to birth-and-death and saṃsāra.
3. Criteria for Judging Whether One Has Violated the Precept Against Sexual Misconduct
The mind is the chief culprit of transgression; if there is no mind of desire but there is sexual conduct, the precept is not violated. At the very least, Mahāyāna takes the mental precept as primary, mainly observing the wholesome or unwholesome attributes of one's mental conduct and mental nature. Bhūmi-bodhisattvas who have already attained meditative concentration of the first dhyāna or above have severed the fundamental mind of lust. In order to attract and embrace sentient beings, they sometimes have no choice but to engage in sexual conduct, yet within it their minds have no fluctuation and no craving—there is no physiological reaction whatsoever during the act, and no stirring of mental activity—so they fundamentally cannot violate the precept. The Śūraṅgama Sūtra also says that a person who has severed lust, when engaging in sexual conduct, feels it to be like chewing wax—tasteless and flavorless, with no pleasure whatsoever and no mind craving enjoyment. Only such a mind does not violate the precept.
But if one does not have meditative concentration of the first dhyāna or above, has not severed the afflictions of craving and desire, and has no hold over the mind, one will inevitably cross the line and violate the precept. Therefore, a person who is not abiding in meditative concentration of the first dhyāna or above must never try to test their own attainment of the Path, must not imitate such behavior, and cannot claim "I too am unmoved in mind and will not violate the precepts." With insufficient wisdom, one cannot understand what "unmoved mind" means, and often cannot make an accurate and truthful judgment.
The Mahāyāna bodhisattva precepts in the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra are bodhisattva precepts taught specifically for bhūmi-bodhisattvas who possess the meditative concentration of the first dhyāna; bodhisattvas before the bhūmis cannot keep them and cannot manage to do so, let alone ordinary beings. Yet nowadays some groups confer the Yoga bodhisattva precepts on ordinary beings. The person conferring the precepts does not themselves even have the qualification to receive and keep such precepts—how could they have the qualification to confer such precepts on others? It is simply nonsense. Most sentient beings in the Sahā world are children of greater or lesser immaturity, willful and capricious, and difficult to teach and transform.
The sexual misconduct prohibited in the five precepts is the prohibition of the mark; one must distinguish clearly what is sexual misconduct and what is proper sexual conduct. "Proper" refers to conduct between husband and wife that conforms to legal regulations and accords with both parties' wishes; in terms of the precepts, it does not violate the five precepts, though it may occasionally violate the bodhisattva precepts. "Improper" is the opposite: it is illegitimate, infringing on citizens' rights, harming the interests of the parties involved or of related persons. Unmarried cohabitation does not violate the law, nor does it violate the precepts, but it contravenes modern public order and good customs. In ancient times there was no marriage system, no registration or certificates; by modern rules, couples were all in a state of unmarried cohabitation, but because this behavior was recognized by both families and by society at large, it did not violate the moral norms of that time, and so it also counted as "proper."
4. Why Is the Precept on Lust Related to Public Order and Good Customs?
The five precepts include the precept against sexual misconduct; non-misconduct is proper sexual conduct. The five precepts prohibit sexual misconduct but do not prohibit proper sexual conduct. What is proper sexual conduct? It is behavior permitted by national laws and regulations, conforming to folk customs and to the law—that is, the normal sexual behavior between married couples.
Then what counts as marriage, as being husband and wife? In modern society, marriage or a legal marriage generally means that the couple has been reviewed and approved by the national civil affairs bureau and issued a marriage certificate—only then are they formally married. The civil affairs bureau is equivalent to the marriage witness, and the man and woman who form a family unit count as husband and wife.
If a couple lives together without a marriage certificate, does it count as marriage, as being husband and wife? If the man and woman do not violate legal and moral norms, it counts as marriage and they count as husband and wife. If a man and woman fake a divorce, and after obtaining the divorce certificate still live together, are they still husband and wife? In principle, as long as it does not violate the law and moral norms, they are still counted as husband and wife, and others have no objection, though some related benefits may not be obtainable. From this we can see that with a marriage certificate, the relationship between the man and woman becomes public in society, like having a pass. But without a marriage certificate, there may still be a marriage in the practical sense. As long as it does not violate social moral norms, they can all be counted as husband and wife, and the sexual conduct between husband and wife counts as proper sexual conduct. Thus, in Jambudvīpa, proper and improper are defined by multiple factors: social recognition, the approval of parents and relatives, folk customs and habits, and moral norms.
Modern society also has marriage alliances; old society had arranged marriages and purchased marriages, as well as the phenomenon of child brides. Even though the two parties involved were unwilling, the elders in their respective families could make the decision, and people with power could also make the decision; afterward, the marital relationship was considered publicly recognized. In ancient society, there was no civil affairs bureau and no marriage certificate—how did one count as husband and wife, as married? Ancient society operated by the command of parents and the words of matchmakers; marriage required a grand ceremony, and these ceremonies had a certain function of public announcement. As long as the public knew of it, the marital relationship was established, regardless of the parties' own opinions.
Then, within such a relationship, sexual conduct was regarded as proper. Conversely, even if the man and woman were deeply fond of each other, if they had sexual relations together, it was regarded as sexual misconduct and they would be condemned by the public. The definition of proper and improper is framed by the public at large, by elders, and by those with power; the superficial proper and improper may not be consistent with the actual proper and improper. The Buddhist precepts must take both the superficial and the actual situations into account; if there is a conflict, ultimately the mental conduct of the man and woman is the standard. But if the parties have accepted an existing marriage and then have another relationship outside the marriage, regardless of the parties' feelings and wishes, it counts as sexual misconduct.
So-called marriage and the husband-wife relationship require social recognition and public witness; otherwise it does not count as a marital relationship. Marriage lies in social recognition; only when the relationship is public is it legal. The parties' own attitude is not the first consideration. Thus, what counts as dharma and what counts as non-dharma depends entirely on the public's ideas and concepts—this is conceptual proliferation (prapañca). What is recognized by society at large is "proper"; what is not recognized by society at large is "improper" or "evil"—this is called public order and good customs.
But such public order and good customs are actually unreasonable. Clearly a matter between two people, it becomes everyone's matter, society's matter. Sometimes the two people do not agree, but everyone else agrees, so they must reluctantly be counted as one family, and the sexual conduct is legal. Whereas two people who are fond of each other, if everyone disapproves, it is not legal, and the sexual conduct counts as sexual misconduct. Thus, social norms and customs and the like are unreasonable, and so the so-called proper and improper are not truly proper and improper. All dharmas, when analyzed carefully, are entirely conceptual proliferation (prapañca), false and illusory, forcibly labeled as "all dharmas"; therefore none should be clung to. Worldly dharma is just this uninteresting, without substantive meaning.
The public's commentary is called public opinion. If you value public opinion, you will be influenced and controlled by it, constrained by the masses. Some people, wanting to destroy a person, fully exploit public opinion as this murderous weapon. If you can withstand the verbal attacks and written denunciations of public opinion, you survive; if you cannot withstand the pressure of public opinion, it is a dead end. Whether one lives or dies depends entirely on one's own views: with correct views one lives; with incorrect views one dies. Life and death appear to be in the hands of the public, but in reality they are in one's own hands. What is the masses, anyway? What are other people, anyway? What am I, anyway? None of them is anything, yet within all this there is birth and death, suffering and distress, conflicts and disputes—how foolish!
5. The Sequence of Keeping the Precepts
The Buddhist sūtras often speak of the faults of afflictions, and cause and effect also frequently reveals the obstructions caused by afflictions. Yet there are still people who dare to openly despise the precepts, openly urge people to go along with their own afflictions of greed, hatred, and delusion, and publicly declare that the precepts are all superficial marks, marked precepts, that one need not care about them, need not attach to the marks of the precepts or cling to the marks of the precepts, and should directly hold the markless precepts. But the reality is that they cannot even keep the marked precepts—how could they keep the more refined and subtler markless precepts? If the marked body cannot be controlled and the marked mouth cannot be controlled, how can the markless mind be controlled? Bodily and verbal actions all arise from mental action; when mind and mouth are inconsistent, one can still cover up and pretend. But if one cannot even pretend, how agitated and inverted must that markless mind be—how could it ever be subdued?
Subduing afflictions has a sequence, all proceeding from coarse to subtle. If even the outermost layer of coarse skin cannot be washed clean, how can the deep-seated filth within be washed away? If one cannot even do simple things well, how can one do complex things? Therefore, the talk and practice of abandoning the marked precepts is practically māra-like conduct—deludedly attempting to negate the precepts altogether by negating the marked precepts, causing sentient beings to sink into deep and heavy afflictions, unable to extricate themselves, ultimately falling into the three evil destinies and the cycle of birth-and-death. The reason sentient beings can be deceived is that their ability to discern right from wrong is too poor and their logical thinking too weak. The root cause is still that their merit is too lacking and their experience of studying Buddhism too brief; they always want to take shortcuts and are unwilling to give anything, which is why they are so easily swayed by wrong view/false view (mithyā-dṛṣṭi) and provocation.
6. What Is the Retribution for Committing an Unrepentable Offense?
Question: Does an unrepentable offense mean that if a person commits an unrepentable offense, the karmic offense cannot be eliminated through confession, and can only be eliminated after undergoing the karmic retribution? But if this person successfully attains rebirth in the land of bliss (sukhāvatī) through the practice of recollection of the Buddha (buddhānusmṛti), and if they keep cultivating in the land of bliss until reaching the stage of one lifetime remaining before buddhahood, would they then have no opportunity to undergo the retribution? In that case, would the karmic seed of the unrepentable offense wither away?
Answer: After a person commits an unrepentable offense, the obstruction of the mind becomes very great; the resistance to cultivation is extraordinarily large. For such a person to attain rebirth in the land of bliss (sukhāvatī) through recollection of the Buddha (buddhānusmṛti), and to keep cultivating in the land of bliss all the way to the fruit of an equal-enlightenment or wondrous-enlightenment bodhisattva—all such claims are hypothetical; the possibility is extremely small, and there is no evidence proving that such things exist.
Since it is called an unrepentable offense, it shows that the karmic offense is very great and very serious—so serious that even confession cannot eliminate it. Such a karmic offense then presents a great obstruction to cultivating the Path, obstructing practice, and of course obstructing recollection of the Buddha (buddhānusmṛti) and rebirth in the Pure Land. Most of all, it obstructs the arising of meditative concentration and wisdom, obstructs the eradication of the view of self (satkāya-dṛṣṭi), and obstructs seeing the mind and seeing one's nature. Of course, if the offense is not one of slandering the Three Jewels, or killing one's father or mother, or the other of the five heinous crimes, rebirth in the land of bliss (sukhāvatī) is still possible.
Rebirth in the land of bliss (sukhāvatī)—the so-called stage of one lifetime remaining before buddhahood—does not mean that once you go to the land of bliss you never leave again; cultivation is not practiced that way. For a person to achieve great accomplishment, they never follow only one Buddha in cultivation; rather, they form karmic connections with all the Buddhas and bodhisattvas of the ten directions and cultivate following all the Buddhas and bodhisattvas of the ten directions. Moreover, they must also form karmic connections with sentient beings throughout the worlds of the ten directions, make great vows and strive to deliver sentient beings, strive to accumulate the greatest and most abundant merit, and continuously advance their career of the Path. If one stays in the land of bliss (sukhāvatī) forever, how would one deliver sentient beings?
The accomplishment of a great bodhisattva requires every kind of experience, mundane and supramundane: visiting every kind of land, forming every kind of karmic connection, delivering every kind of sentient being, experiencing every kind of hardship, and also enjoying every kind of wealth and honor. Only through tempering amid all favorable and adverse circumstances can a bodhisattva perfect in every aspect be forged. How rich must a great bodhisattva's experience be, how vast their virtue and capabilities! Having seen everything, possessing every kind of wisdom, able to handle every kind of state—only through a thousand hammerings and a hundred temperings does steel become steel. Having served as a king, as a wheel-turning sage king, as a lord of the heavens, as a king of ghosts, having transformed demons—neither favorable nor adverse circumstances can become obstacles to the career of the Path. Only then is the bodhisattva's character complete and perfect, only then are their abilities and virtue first-rate, only then can they become the guide and exemplar of all sentient beings, leading the multitude ever onward toward the Buddha Way.
Why is it so difficult for sentient beings to study Buddhism and cultivate? Is it not the obstruction of karmic obstructions? What karmic obstructions? All karmic obstructions—most of them being unrepentable offenses committed in the past. If sentient beings did not have the obstruction of the grave karmic obstructions of unrepentable offenses, seeing the mind and seeing one's nature would be quite easy, and the subsequent barriers, one after another, would hardly count as barriers at all—one could stride over them with a lift of the leg. Would becoming a Buddha be so difficult? But clearly the reality is not so. Therefore, as for the matter of using the wisdom of ultimate reality to confess through seeing the mind and seeing one's nature—such things do exist, but the vast majority of people should not even think about it. Even in the Buddha's lifetime, only extremely rare individuals could accomplish the confession of ultimate reality. In the present age and in ages to come, such things will be extremely unlikely to occur, because sentient beings are ever farther removed from the Buddha's era, their spiritual faculties (indriya) are ever more disappointing, and their merit and wisdom are ever poorer. How could they accomplish the confession of ultimate reality and step in a single leap into the ranks of true bodhisattvas?
