將講不學無知漸頓略存四門
Four Gates of Gradual and Sudden Practice Without Learning and Ignorance (Brief Overview)
第一以不學無知相對解漸頓者一解不學無知是其止犯於一切法上息心不學是其止即得不學罪亦結無知罪兼犯二罪得有頓義不得犯一切戒此解大難當息不學之時正不學罪由不學故緣法不了始結無知此先後心起不得雙犯何言兼二罪名之為頓又解不學無知先後心起非一時故亦是其漸不得言頓其不學無知文證者律中云五歲不學羯磨不誦戒本得罪者以其行法若不誦持行難成立故遣令學問故今言不誦得罪此亦為難彼乃是汎論化儀法若有罪者後云汝當得四果若不得者亦應有罪何不見懺不得四果之罪又云制者對於可制學問可制四果不可制獨頭煩惱不可制安居自恣可制然就所學之教不過二教二教者何一制二聽故地持云有罪行者制無罪行者聽制有二種一制作作即無愆不順有罪二制止作即有過止即無違言聽教者作與不作皆無罪生此中止持作犯唯對二教中事以明作持止犯通對二教中事法兩種制門中事有二一不可學事如似人作非人想者二者可學事如似衣鉢體量等是聽門中事者唯可學如似房舍尺量長衣廣狹等是法謂造房乞處分等是第二別釋漸頓者不學之罪可有漸頓無知之罪唯漸非頓所以知者如要心於一切可學法上皆作不學之意於一一法上皆得頓犯不學之罪反爾所罪處本受戒時發爾所戒善以防不學之罪今總作不學之心寧不頓犯眾多罪耶云何為漸若要心雖不學經餘者悉學望不學經邊唯犯一罪名之為漸云何無知唯漸非頓然無知之罪要須緣而不了方結其罪一心之中不可備緣諸法便皆了知唯是別緣而犯故制為漸不言頓。
第三分齊者有三別謂就教對行從根言就教者論其學從始至終悉皆須學不學即結不學罪無知之罪五夏已後方結與前不同言對行者謂有淺深故少解之人實望上不足形下有餘若不制者謂恃少解與高勝齊等故律云五夏智慧比丘應從十夏比丘求依止故言從根者若利根易悟從始至終即結二罪以此人不學故無知非不能知鈍根難悟始終唯結不學無無知罪非此人力分律云愚癡比丘盡形依止故。
第四解不學無知可懺不可懺者問不學無知可懺以不答一解不學罪可懺無知罪不可懺所以然者不學之罪有斷相續義若要心還學即無不學罪即斷相續故可懺無知之罪雖作心欲知緣而不了猶是無知無斷相續故不可懺若後緣了即是解惑相除復不須懺問若爾發心欲知由未知故相續不斷不得懺者我作心欲學猶未學是不學相續亦不得懺答學據始修進趣為言知論終成了境為義始終不同何得相竝又解若息心不學後時緣而不了結無知罪若作心學一切而力分未知後時緣不了是無知聖不結無知罪如是解者有斷相續不學無知二俱可懺。
Question: Regarding the neglect of learning and willful ignorance — are these transgressions repented for or not? Can they be repented for?
Answer: In one interpretation, the transgression of neglecting learning can be repented for, but the transgression of willful ignorance cannot.
Why is this? Because the transgression of neglecting learning involves a break in the continuity of effort. If someone makes the decision to resume learning, the transgression of neglecting learning is effectively severed — its continuity is broken. Therefore, it can be repented for.
However, the transgression of willful ignorance is different. Even if one develops the desire to know, the process of encountering conditions and remaining unclear is still ignorance. There is no break in its continuity, so it cannot be repented for. Only later, when one truly understands through encountering conditions, does the confusion resolve and the ignorance clear away — at that point, repentance is no longer needed.
[Alternative interpretation:] You might ask: If that's the case — if simply resolving to learn, while still being ignorant, keeps the chain unbroken and makes repentance impossible — then when I make the decision to learn but have not yet learned, isn't my neglect of learning also an unbroken chain? How could that be repentable?
The answer: Learning is about beginning the practice and making progress toward a goal, while knowledge concerns fully comprehending the object of understanding. Their functions are fundamentally different — how can you compare them directly?
Another explanation: If someone stops putting in effort to learn, and later, when faced with conditions, remains unclear — this results in the transgression of willful ignorance. But if someone makes the effort to learn all things, yet due to limited capacity remains unclear — then later, when encountering conditions and failing to understand, the saints do not assign the transgression of willful ignorance.
From this perspective: When there is a break in continuity, both the neglect of learning and willful ignorance can be repented for.