---
title: "靈峰蕅益大師宗論 · 荅菩薩戒九問"
description: "靈峰蕅益大師宗論是明末高僧智旭的著作。明末佛教面臨內部僵化與外部挑戰，智旭大師立足天台宗，主張禪教律淨融合，回應時代弊病。該書匯集其書信、註疏與開示，系統闡述性相融通、淨土為歸的佛學思想，強調解行並進與實踐修行。作為中國佛教史上承先啟後的巨著，它深刻影響了後世漢傳佛教的發展，尤其對淨土宗的推廣貢獻卓著，被尊為淨土宗第九祖的智旭，其思想透過此論成為明清佛教的重要指南。"
url: "https://rushiwowen.co/en/r/cmgn46dbc0n55k1043fc21iq9"
---
### 荅菩薩戒九問原問附
> Answering Nine Questions on the Bodhisattva Precepts (Original Questions Appended)
問：《梵網》云「於未受戒人前，說七佛教戒者，犯輕垢罪。」謂但遮誦時，不遮講時。何意？
> Question: The Brahma Net Sutra says, "Speaking of the precepts of the Seven Buddhas before those who have not yet received the precepts commits a minor offense." It states that this prohibition applies only to recitation, not to explanation. What is the reason for this?
荅：比丘戒法，關係僧輪，為防賊住，一切俱遮。菩薩戒法，普收五道，解義發心，事非所禁。但誦時恐有發露，不合令未受者知，故云不得說也。
> Answer: The regulations for bhikkhu precepts concern the continuation of the monastic community, and are intended to prevent "thief-like residence" (infiltration by those unqualified). Therefore, everything regarding them is withheld. The bodhisattva precepts, on the other hand, universally embrace beings of all five realms; if someone understands the meaning and generates the aspiration, there is no reason to forbid them from participating. However, during recitation, there is a risk of confessing transgressions, making it unsuitable for those who have not received the precepts to know about this. That is why it is said, "Do not speak of it."
問：戒本四重，《梵網》十重，詳略不同。《梵網》犯重，見相更受，戒本但云更受。寬嚴有異，何也？
> 问：戒律的根本重戒，有的经典提到四条（如《戒本》），而《梵網經》却说了十条，详略不同。若违犯重戒，《梵網经》提到需看到瑞相才能重新受戒，而《戒本》只说可以重受。为何在宽严尺度上有这样的差异？
荅：戒本出《地持》，《地持》合殺、盜、婬、妄，名出家八重。《善生經》列殺、盜、婬、妄、酤酒、說過，名優婆塞六重。《梵網》備二經之義，總為十重，《纓絡》亦同，由被機不等故也。今戒本四重，復有三義：一者，在家、出家欲受此戒，必已先受五戒、十戒、具戒，是則殺、盜、婬、妄根本性重，不須更列，惟列增上戒也。二者，菩薩戒法，逆順無方，為眾生故，容少分現行性罪，此四理無開許，故獨列之。三者，根本四罪，一犯永墮，大乘雖通懺悔，亦必期于見相，今此四法，設有犯者，猶堪更受，恐濫前四，故獨列之。然《梵網》犯重，必見好相者，釋迦和尚，一往法嚴，彌勒闍梨，輕重開遮理須詳悉。今准經論，參合發明，殺、盜等四，隨犯一種，諸戒並失，得見好相，大可重受。而比丘法中，仍無僧用酤酒等六，隨犯一種，失菩薩戒，具戒以下不名為失，故殷勤悔過，許其重受。二經互相影略，非相違也。
> Answer: The precept text derives from the \*Yogācārabhūmi\* (Dichili). The \*Dichili\* combines killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, and lying into eight major precepts for monastics. The \*Śrīgāla Sūtra\* (Shànshēng jīng) lists killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, selling alcohol, and speaking of others' faults as six major precepts for laypeople. The \*Brahma Net Sūtra\* (Fànwǎng) incorporates the meaning of both texts, totaling ten major precepts, and the \*Sūtra of the Queen Śrīmālā\* (Yīngluò) is the same. This variation is due to the differing capacities of those receiving the precepts. Now, a precept text containing four major precepts has three meanings: \*First\*: Whether lay or monastic, before receiving these precepts one must have already received the five, ten, and full precepts. Since killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, and lying are the fundamental grave offenses, there is no need to list them again; only the additional precepts are listed. \*Second\*: The bodhisattva precepts are adaptable and unconventional. For the sake of sentient beings, a minor indulgence in the basic nature of transgressions is permitted. However, these four principles (killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying) are never allowed, so they are listed separately. \*Third\*: For the four fundamental offenses, committing one means falling into the evil realms forever. Although the Mahayana tradition allows repentance, it requires seeing a sign of forgiveness. For these four rules, if someone violates them, they can still receive the precepts again. To avoid confusing them with the former four, they are listed separately. However, according to the \*Brahma Net Sūtra\*, breaking a major precept requires seeing a favorable sign. Shakyamuni, as the teacher, strictly enforces the precepts from the start, while Maitreya, as the teacher, profoundly understands the details of what is allowed and prohibited. Now, based on the scriptures and treatises, we harmonize and explain: for killing, stealing, and the other four violations, committing any one means losing all precepts. Only after seeing a favorable sign can one be re-ordained. For monastics, however, that status is still not restored for community use. For violations of the six rules like selling alcohol, committing any one means losing the bodhisattva precepts, but for those below full ordination, it is not considered losing them. Therefore, earnest repentance allows for re-receiving the precepts. The two sutras are mutually complementary in meaning; they are not contradictory.
問：比丘遮罪，難緣乃開。今性罪開，而遮罪無文，且逆行凡夫，安能利人邪？
> Question: For monks, the offense of breaking minor precepts (covering transgressions) can be exempted under difficult circumstances. Yet for major transgressions (inherently unwholesome acts), exemption is permitted, while no such provision exists for minor precepts, and moreover, how can ordinary beings who act contrary to the teachings possibly benefit others?
荅：遮罪為護眾生，大士皆應同學。難緣所開，已同聲聞，惟性罪一向遮，故須開也。不揀是凡是聖，果能悲心代苦，慚愧不為功，則戒身無恙。儻藉口任情，止成自欺，必虧戒體。莫貪大士虛名，而招長夜苦報也。
> Answer: The "offenses of propriety" are established to protect living beings, and all Bodhisattvas should equally study them. When special circumstances arise, the same allowances granted to Hearers are extended—except for "offenses of nature," which are always prohibited. Therefore, allowances must be explicitly stated. This applies regardless of whether one is ordinary or noble. If one genuinely takes on suffering with a compassionate heart, refrains from pride in one's efforts, and remains free from fault in the precepts, then the precept-body remains intact. But if one makes excuses for willful indulgence, this becomes self-deception alone, inevitably damaging the core of the precepts. Do not covet the empty title of "Great Being," only to reap the bitter retribution of endless darkness.
問：受戒羯磨文，若無授者，聽像前自受。《梵網》自誓受戒，必須要見好相，不見好相，不名得戒。何也？
> Question: The repentance rite for receiving precepts says that if there's no preceptor, one may receive them before a Buddha image. However, the \*Brahma Net Sutra\* states that when self-vowing to receive precepts, one must see auspicious signs; without seeing them, the precepts are not considered attained. Why is this so?
荅：受戒一事，須論因緣。因是內心殷重，緣是授受分明。修證貴因深，教道藉緣具。是以比丘律藏，嚴住持僧寶之體，專重眾緣。《瓔珞》、《地持》開趨向菩提之路，但觀因地。《梵網》最初結戒，理須二法並扶，故雖許自受，必見相為期也。又復應知，如《起信》所明，或有眾生，以大悲故，能自發心；或正法欲滅，以護法因緣故，能自發心；復有見佛色相，而發其心。今《梵網》求相，所以使發菩提。《地持》像前得受，但指已發心者。《梵網》嚴立法，《地持》嚴擇人，互表裏也。復次《瓔珞經》云「諸佛菩薩，現在前受，名上品戒，法師相授，名中品，千里無師，像前自受，名下品。」亦無求見好相之言。然猶約外緣分別。復有論云「發增上心，得增上戒。」又「心無盡者，戒亦無盡。」是約內因分上中下也。今人大須自審，果念念與悲智相應，上荷正法，下憫含生，便遵《瓔珞》、《地持》。如雖希佛道，悲智未深，則須秉持《梵網》。或現有明師，心存憍慢，不從求受，別向像求，斯則兩經咸不聽，五悔終不成。既欲遠趨極果，豈容因地不真？豪傑士斷不宜自誑矣。
> The matter of receiving the precepts depends entirely on causes and conditions. The internal cause is a sincere and reverent mind, while the external condition is a clear and proper transmission from the precept-giver. Cultivation and realization rely on profound causes; teaching and guiding depend on complete conditions. Thus, the Vinaya Pitaka for monks strictly upholds the community of the Sangha Treasure, with a special emphasis on the assembly conditions. The \*Garland Sutra\* and the \*Bodhisattva Stages Sutra\* open the path toward enlightenment but focus only on the stage of initial resolve (the "cause-ground"). The \*Brahma Net Sutra\*, when first establishing its precepts, logically requires the support of both factors; therefore, although it allows self-receiving, it insists on seeing a sign from the Buddha as a condition. Furthermore, one should understand, as the \*Awakening of Faith\* explains, that some beings, because of great compassion, can generate the mind of enlightenment on their own; or when the True Dharma is about to perish, for the sake of protecting the Dharma, they can generate the mind on their own; or upon seeing the Buddha's form and marks, they generate the mind. Now, the \*Brahma Net Sutra\* requires seeking signs in order to inspire the generation of the Bodhi mind. The \*Bodhisattva Stages Sutra\* allows receiving the precepts before an image, but only refers to those who have already generated the mind. The \*Brahma Net Sutra\* strictly establishes the Dharma, while the \*Bodhisattva Stages Sutra\* strictly selects the practitioner—they complement each other, one being the outer form and the other the inner essence. Moreover, the \*Garland Sutra\* states: "Receiving the precepts directly from Buddhas and Bodhisattvas present is the highest grade. Receiving from a Dharma Master is the middle grade. If there is no master within a thousand miles, receiving reverently before an image is the lowest grade." It does not mention the need to seek a vision of a sign. This classification is based on external conditions. There is also a treatise that says: "One who generates a supreme mind receives the supreme precepts." And: "Those with a mind that is inexhaustible have precepts that are also inexhaustible." This differentiates the grades based on the internal cause. People today must seriously examine themselves. If they are truly constantly in accord with compassion and wisdom, bearing the True Dharma above and pitying all living beings below, they should follow the \*Garland Sutra\* and the \*Bodhisattva Stages Sutra\*. If, while yearning for Buddhahood, their compassion and wisdom are not yet deep, they must uphold the methods of the \*Brahma Net Sutra\*. Or, if a wise master is available, but one harbors pride and arrogance, refusing to receive the precepts from him and instead seeking them from an image, then both scriptures would forbid this, and even the five types of repentance would ultimately be ineffective. Since one wishes to ultimately attain the supreme fruit, how could the initial cause be false? A true hero must never deceive himself.
問：大乘重內因，今時律師，可知人內因真否？如不真，得戒否？如不得戒，設犯，還定罪否？
> Question: The Mahayana tradition emphasizes the inner cause (sincerity of intention). In the present age, do precept masters truly know whether a person's inner cause is genuine? If it is not genuine, does the person still receive the precepts? If the precepts are not received, should offenses still be considered as violations of precepts?
荅：羯磨文有觀察當機之法，不知內因而妄授，不免無解作師之過。受者不善無記心，雖不發戒，然濫膺菩薩名，自當依法判罪，非比丘戒中，竟以賊住論也。
> Answer: The Karma Text outlines a method for observing whether a person is ready to receive the precepts. Granting instructions without understanding their internal causes is like presuming to teach without comprehension—an error in itself. If the recipient possesses an unwholesome or neutral mind and does not truly generate the precepts, they merely take on the title of "Bodhisattva" in vain. Such a case should be judged according to the Dharma as an offense, but it is not the same as the rule in the Bhikshu precepts, where one would be considered an "intruder monk" (one who falsely claims ordination).
問：懺罪羯磨，許向小乘悔過。《梵網經》不得向未受菩薩戒者說。尚不向說，可向悔邪？
> Question: The repentance ritual allows confession to practitioners of the Lesser Vehicle. However, according to the Brahma Net Sutra, one must not speak of it to those who haven't received the Bodhisattva precepts. Since you shouldn't even discuss it with them, how can you confess to them?
荅：住持僧寶，堪受懺悔。又聲聞人，雖未識長者是父，實是真子，非餘一切未受戒者比也。至半月說戒，遣之令出，是布薩常規，亦彈斥微旨，然當必有菩薩比丘主之，仍是攝取於僧矣。
> Answer: The monk who upholds the precepts is worthy of receiving repentance. As for the Sravakas (voice-hearers), although they do not yet recognize the elder as their father, they are truly his children—unlike those who have not yet received the precepts. When the precepts are recited on the full and new moons and they are told to leave, this is the standard practice of Posadha (confession ceremony), and also contains a subtle warning. However, there must certainly be Bodhisattva monks presiding over it, which is still an act of gathering them into the Sangha.
問：《梵網》有見上座和尚阿闍梨，及請二師之文。又五逆，加弒二師，成七。今授戒，何止一師？
> Question: In the Brahma Net Sutra, there are passages about meeting senior monks and requesting teachings from two masters. Additionally, the five heinous offenses become seven when killing the two masters is added. In today's initiation rituals, why is there only one master?
荅：《瓔珞》、《地持》，並止一師。又《梵網》受法，傳自什師，載於義疏，亦止一師。其請二師，是請佛菩薩，所云應如法供養二師，及弒二師成逆，則遍指比丘戒等二師。
> Answer: The \*Yingluo\* and \*Dichis\*utras both describe the method of receiving precepts from a single teacher. Similarly, the precept transmission method in the \*Fanwang Sutra\* was passed down from Master Kumarajiva and recorded in the commentary—also involving only one teacher. When the texts mention "inviting two teachers," they refer to inviting the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas as teachers. Expressions like "should properly make offerings to the two teachers" or "killing the two teachers constitutes an unforgivable offense" refer comprehensively to the two teachers involved in the full monastic precepts (the preceptor and the instructor).
問：重定受戒法，初已發菩提願，何後復令發四弘，招重繁過？
> Question: In the re-established precept ordination procedure, one has already generated the Bodhi vow at the beginning. Why later require one to generate the Four Great Vows again? Doesn't this create the fault of redundancy?
荅：前審因，後秉法；前發心向道，後誓鎧莊嚴；前總，後別；前覺悟始因，後要期極果；前一心思惟，知識開示，後三寶加持，道場剋證。由前故有後，由後以成前，豈云重複？如先請師，像前復請。又如授比丘戒，屏問遮難，僧中復問，亦重繁邪？
> Answer: The former examines the initial causes, the latter upholds the Dharma. The former resolves to embark on the path, the latter takes vows as armor to adorn practice. The former is general, the latter is specific. The former awakens the starting conditions, the latter aims for the ultimate fruit. The former engages the mind in contemplation, guided by knowledge and teachings; the latter invokes the blessings of the Three Jewels, with realization attained on the practice-ground. The former gives rise to the latter, and the latter completes the former. How can this be called repetition? For example, one first requests a teacher, then makes the request again before an image. Or again, when conferring the bhikshu precepts, hindrances are examined in private, and then examined again in the assembly—is this actually superfluous or repetitive?
問：既謂機感有殊，授法不一，若簡若繁，俱無乖舛，則直宗一轍，何必會三家成一式？
> Question: Since it's said that people's capacities differ and thus teachings vary—whether simple or complex, none is wrong—shouldn't we just follow a single path? Why combine three schools into one system?
荅：始予獨遵慈氏羯磨，往往有嫌太略者，乃敢折衷，會三為一。但用經論成言，更不別加文飾。三典並現流通，想是機宜有在，聊順一時之機，匪敢執今非古。可用與否，一任後賢。
> Answer: At first, I followed Maitreya’s rituals alone, but some found them too brief. So I dared to compromise, merging three into one. I used only established scriptures and commentaries, adding no extra ornament. These three texts are now circulating together, likely suited to the needs of the time. I merely accommodate current circumstances, not daring to declare the present superior to the past. Whether they are useful or not, I leave entirely to future practitioners.