Detail about the Pratimoksha Vow in Sautrantika

Vasubandhu, Autocommentary (Gretil 199.06-09, Derge 171B-172A), continues with the Sautrantika response:

(Sautrantika replies), “(That would) not (be so). There would be, in essence, a dam because of the revival of it (an urge that would be a vowed restraint) from remembrance (of it) at the time of acting by means of (there being) familiarity (with such urges) on it (on one’s mental continuum).” And “because of not acting with broken ethical self-discipline out of bashfulness [Tib.: sense of values], remembering and remembering the promise not to do so,” we (Sautrantikas) say, “It is only like that that the aim (of restraint) of those (vowed restraints) is achieved.” 

(Skt.) na / tadbhāvanayā kriyākāle smarataḥ tatpratyupasthānāt setubhāvo 'pi syādakriyāṃ pratijñāṃ saṃsmṛtya saṃsmṛtya lajjito dauḥśīlyākaraṇāt ityarthameva ca tasyāḥ samādānam / 

(Tib.)  ma yin te/ de la goms par byas pa'i dus su dran pa nye bar gnas pa'i phyir ro/ /chu lon gyi ngo bor yang 'gyur te/ ngo tsha shes pas mi bya bar dam bcas pa yang dag par dran zhing yang dag par dran nas 'chal pa'i tshul khrims mi byed pa'i phyir te/ de lta bu kho na'i don du de yang dag par len pa yang yin no/ 

Jinaputra Yashomitra, The Clarified Meaning (Gretil 358, Derge 13B), explains:

“(That would) not (be so. There would be, in essence, a dam) because of the revival of it (an urge that would be the vowed restraint)” needs to be elaborated upon. It would not be like that. With the mind concerning [Tib. adds: abandoning] taking a life having been revived at the time of acting by means of (there being) familiarity (with such an urge) on it – (meaning) by means of (there being) familiarity (with such an urge) on one’s mental continuum of (primary) minds [Tib. adds: and mental factors] – then because of remembrance that “I have abstained from taking a life and so on” having been revived, the body and speech are restrained by an urge from the revival of that (mind). 

“Because of the manifest presence of them (the vowed restraints)” means “it is only like that that the taking on of them (the taking on of vowed restraints fulfills) its purpose.” How is it that? (It is by means of) remembering the promise not to commit (it), “Let broken self-discipline not occur!” “Let some stolen mindfulness [Tib: a crack due to forgetfulness] not break the training!” 

(Skt.) na tadbhāvanayeti vistaraḥ. naitad evaṃ. tadbhāvanayā cittasaṃtānabhāvanayā kriyākāle prāṇātipātādicitte pratyupasthite smarataḥ ahaṃprāṇātipātādibhyaḥ prativirata iti pratyupasthitasmṛteḥ. tatpratyupasthānād yayā cetanayā kāyavācau saṃvṛṇoti. tasyāḥ sammukhībhāvāt. ityartham eva tasyāḥ samādānam iti. katham. ayam akriyāpratijñām anusmṛtya dauḥśīlyaṃ na kuryād iti. 

(Tib.) /ma yin te de la goms pas zhes bya ba rgyas par 'byung ba ni de ni de lta ma yin te de la goms shing sems dang sems las byung ba'i rgyun goms pas bya ba'i dus te sems pa la sogs pa'i sems nye bar gnas pa na dran pa la ste/ bdag ni srog gcod pa la sogs pa spangs pa yin no snyam pa'i dran pa nye bar gnas pa'i phyir te sems gang gis lus dang ngag dag sdom par byed de mngon du 'gyur ba'i phyir ro/ /de lta bu kho na'i don du de yang dag par len to zhes bya ba ni ci nas kyang mi bya bar dam bcas pa 'di rjes su dran nas 'chal ba'i tshul khrims mi bya'o zhes bya ba yin no/ 

Sautrantika explains that during a ceremony for receiving a pratimoksha vowed restraint, one makes a pledge (khas-blangs-pa, Skt. abhyupagama), or promise (dam-bcas-pa, Skt. pratijñā), to abstain from a set of prohibited types of behavior. At that ceremony, one initially restrains one’s body and speech from committing these prohibited actions with an urge and that urge to restrain one’s body and speech constitutes the pratimoksha vowed restraint and the mental factor of ethical self-discipline. After that ceremony, familiarity (goms-pa, Skt. bhāvanā) with such an urge builds up on one’s mental continuum. Because of that familiarity, then on occasions when one might think to transgress the vowed restraint, one is able to remember the pledge one has made because of that familiarity, and thus there is a revival (nye-bar gnas-pa, Skt. pratyupasthāna) of the ethical self-discipline to refrain from misbehavior. In other words, there will be another instance of the urge (the vowed restraint, the ethical self-discipline) to restrain the body and speech on that occasion This ethical self-discipline will then function as a dam preventing a breach in one’s conduct.

On the occasions when the urge (equivalent to ethical self-discipline) arises that engages the body or speech in refraining from committing one of the prohibited actions, the sensory cognition containing that urge and directed at the body or speech contains the mental factor of mindfulness (dran-pa, Skt. smṛti). Mindfulness, equivalent to remembering, is the mental factor that keeps hold of something so that it is not let go of and forgotten. That mindfulness is directed at an accompanying conceptual mental cognition of remembering the pledges one has made to abstain from this prohibited action. The sensory cognition also contains the mental factor of bashfulness (Skt. lajjita), translated into Tibetan as a “sense of values” (ngo-tsha shes-pa, Skt. hrī).

Sthiramati, in The Meaning of the Facts, An Annotated Subcommentary to (Vasubandhu’s) “Autocommentary to ‘A Treasure House of Special Topics of Knowledge’” (Chos mngon-pa mdzod-kyi bshad-pa'i rgya-cher ‘grel-pa don-gyi de-kho-na-nyid, Skt. Abhidharmakoṣa-bhāṣyā-ṭīkā-tattvārtha) (Derge Tengyur vol. 210, 17B-18A), elaborates further:

As for “(That would) not (be so. There would be, in essence, a dam) because of the revival of it (an urge that would be the vowed restraint),” when, in the future, there arises what we would call “a mind having a functional nature of (having a pratimoksha vowed restraint on it) through (that mind) being on a mental continuum by means of a (prior) mental urge to refrain (the body or speech),” (there would be the revival of the vowed restraint) by the familiarity (on that mental continuum), with the essential nature (of the vowed restraint) placed on it as a tendency (literally, as a seed).

As for “at the time of acting,” (it means) at the time of applying (a method for bringing about) the taking of a life and so on. Because of the revival in ones’ memory of the vowed restraint taken that, “I have turned away from taking a life and so on,” (meaning) because of the revival in one’s memory of the urge with which one pledged not to do (that), this indicates that there is (still) the vowed restraint that has continuity from the urge (with which one took on) the vowed restraint. 

As for saying that it is what has been said to be, in fact, a dam, this is saying that because of that, it (the vowed restraint) has come to be in the essential nature of a dam. In other words, this (analogy) has been applied to the urge (with which one took on) the vowed restraint. “It is only like that that the taking on of them (the vowed restraints fulfills) its purpose.” 

(Tib.) /ma yin te de la goms pas zhes bya ba ni/ sdom pa'i sems pa des sems kyi rgyud la de'i rang bzhin can gyi sems zhes pa ma 'ongs pa skyed la sa bon du gzhag pa gang yin pa de'i ngo bo'i goms pas so/ /bya ba'i dus su zhes bya ba ni srog gcod pa la sogs pa'i sbyor ba'i dus su ste/ bdag ni srog gcod pa la sogs pa las log pa yin na zhes bya bar sdom pa len pa dran pa la nye bar gnas pa'i phyir ro ste mi byed par khas len pa'i sems la nye bar gnas pa'i phyir ro/ /de ltar na sdom pa'i sems pa rgyun dang bcas pa sdom pa yin no zhes bstan pa yin no/ /gang yang chu lon du yang gsungs na zhes smras pa/ de'i phyir chu lon gyi ngo bo yang 'gyur te zhes bya ba smos te sdom pa'i sems pa zhes bya ba dang sbyar ro/ / de lta bu'i don du de yang dag par len pa yin no zhes bya ba ni/ ci nas kyang mi byed pa dam bcas pa dran pas 'tshal ba'i tshul khrims mi byed par bya ba'i phyir ro/ 

A tendency (sa-bon, Skt. bīja) – literally, a “seed” – is a noncongruent affecting variable (ldan-min ‘du-byed, Skt. viprayuktasaṃskāra), a nonstatic phenomenon that is neither a form of physical phenomenon nor a way of being aware of something. Tendencies are imputation phenomenon, “tied” to a basis – in this case, a mental continuum. 

The term “tendency” has both a specific meaning and a general meaning:

• The specific meaning includes only a tendency as an unspecified phenomenon (lung ma-bstan, Skt. avyākṛta) – a phenomenon not specified by Buddha to be either constructive or destructive.
• The general meaning includes both (1) a tendency as an unspecified phenomenon and (2) a positive or negative karmic force that has taken on the essential nature of a tendency (sa-bon-gyi ngo-bor gyur-ba), as a constructive or destructive phenomenon – in other words, a karmic force that has become a noncongruent affecting variable and therefore can be called a constructive or destructive “karmic potential.” 

In the case of the tendency for an urge that is equivalent to a pratimoksha vowed restraint and ethical self-discipline, the term “tendency” is used in its general meaning to refer to both an unspecified tendency and a positive karmic potential, or karmic force (bsod-nams, Skt. puṇya), that has taken on the essential nature of a tendency. 

• The unspecified tendency for such an urge functions as an obtaining cause (nyer-len-gyi rgyu, Skt upādānahetu) for a further arising of a similar urge. When, on occasions when one thinks to commit one of the prohibited actions, the tendency is activated by remembering the pledge one has made and the mental factor of bashfulness, the tendency gives rise to another arising of the urge that engages the body or speech in restraining from committing that action. 
• The constructive, positive karmic potential, or karmic force, functions as a ripening cause (rnam-smin-gyu rgyu, Skt. vipākahetu) for rebirth in one of the better rebirth states.  

Vasubandhu, Autocommentary (Gretil 199.09-10, Derge 172A), concludes his explanation of the Sautrantika critique of the Vaibhashika assertion:

If broken self-discipline were prevented just by a nonrevealing form, then even someone with mindfulness (of their vowed restraint) stolen away [Tib.: someone with forgetfulness blocking (their mindfulness of their vowed restraint)] would not break (their) ethical self-discipline.

(Skt.) yadi punaravijñaptereva dauḥsīlyaṃ pratibadhnīyāt na kaścitmuṣitasmṛtiḥ śikṣāṃ bhindyāt /

(Tib.) /gal te rnam par rig byed ma yin pa kho na 'chal ba'i tshul khrims kyi bgegs byed pa yin par gyur na ni brjed ngas pa 'gags kyang tshul khrims 'dral bar mi 'gyur ro/ 

Jinaputra Yashomitra, The Clarified Meaning (Gretil 358, Derge 13B), explains:

As for “someone with mindfulness (of their vowed restraint) stolen away [Tib.: someone with forgetfulness blocking (their mindfulness of their vowed restraint)] would not break (their) ethical self-discipline,” (that would be the case if) you say, “that is because the nonrevealing (form), which like the elements of a dam prevents the two (body and speech from having) broken self-discipline, would still be present at that time.” 

(Skt.) na kaścin muṣitasmṛtiḥ śikṣāṃ bhidyād iti. yāsāv avijñaptiḥ setubhūtā dauḥśīlyaṃ pratibadhnāti. sā tadānīṃ vidyata iti.

(Tib.) /brjed ngas pa 'gas kyang tshul khrims 'dral bar mi 'gyur ro zhes bya ba ni de'i tshe rnam par rig byed ma yin pa chu lon lta bu 'chal ba'i tshul khrims kyi gags byed pa de yod pas so/ 

Sautrantika argues that since the mental factor of mindfulness of one’s previous pledge is needed to activate the tendency for the urge to refrain from committing a prohibited action one has pledged to abstain from, if there is no mindfulness of that, the urge that engages the body or speech to refrain will not arise. Since it is such an urge, as a pratimoksha vowed restraint, that functions as a dam, there will be no dam at such a time to prevent the misconduct. If, however, the pratimoksha vowed restraint were a nonrevealing form as Vaibhashika asserts, then it should function at all times as a dam preventing a breach of one’s disciplined behavior, even when one forgets the pledge one has made to abstain from that type of behavior.

In A Discussion for the Establishment of Karma (Las-grub-pa’i rab-tu byed-pa, Skt. Karmasiddhiprakaraṇa) (Derge vol. 136, 144B-145A), Vasubandhu raises another objection the Vaibhashikas make:   

Suppose you (Vaibhashikas) ask, “If, we take only urges as being karmic impulses for actions of the body, then how can one have vowed restraints and avowed non-restraints when there are no urges (for keeping them, which is the case) when there is (one of) the two minds that have strayed and (one of) the two states without a mind?” 

(Tib.) /gal te sems pa kho na lus kyi las su 'gyur na/ sems rnam par g.yengs pa dag dang / sems med pa dag la sems pa de med na/ sdom pa dang sdom pa ma yin pa gnyis ji ltar yod ce na/ sems pa'i khyad par gyi bag chags ma bcom pa'i phyir sdom pa dang sdom pa ma yin pa gnyis yod do/

Sumatishila explains in Annotated Commentary on (Vasubandhu’s) “Establishment of Karma” (Las-grub-pa’i bshad-pa, Skt. Karmasiddhiṭīkā) (Derge Tengyur vol. 138, 100B):

As for “Suppose you ask” and so on, it is raised as a challenge by others (the Vaibhashikas). Here, as for “(one of) the two minds that have strayed,” it is (one of) the two minds that are other than the minds that took on the previous (vowed restraint or avowed non-restraint) and so on. As for “(one of) the two states without a mind,” it is when there is no mind. 

As for “when there are no urges (for keeping them),” when there are no urges that have the functional nature of being karmic impulses for (actions of) the body or mind. As for “how can one have vowed restraints and avowed non-restraints,” the meaning is “they could only be absent.” 

(Tib.) /gal te zhes bya ba la sogs pas ni gzhan dag rgol bar byed pa yin no/ /de la sems rnam par g.yengs pa dag ni sngon pa la sogs pa len pa'i sems las gzhan pa'i sems gang dag yin pa'o/ /sems med pa dag ni sems yod pa ma yin pa'o/ /sems de med na zhes bya ba ni lus dang ngag gi las kyi rang bzhin gyis sems pa med pa'o/ /sdom pa dang sdom pa ma yin pa gnyis ji ltar yod ce na zhes bya ba ni med pa kho na yin no zhes bya ba'i tha tshig go/

The two minds that have strayed, which are other than the two minds that took on a vowed restraint or an avowed non-restraint, are the states of mind in which one is violating the vowed restraint or the avowed non-restraint. An avowed nonrestraint (sdom-pa ma-yin-pa, Skt. asaṃvara) is a pledge not to refrain, for life, from committing a destructive action, such as pledging not to refrain from taking the life of fish by someone born into or joining the fishermen caste. 

The two states without a mind are the states of meditative attainment from a balanced absorption on non-distinguishing and on cessation. 

• A meditative attainment of a balanced absorption on non-distinguishing (‘du-shes med-pa’i snyoms-‘jug, Skt. saṃjñisamāpatti) is the temporary blockage of gross consciousness, gross feelings and gross distinguishing during the meditative state. 
• A meditative attainment of a balanced absorption on cessation (‘gog-pa’i snyoms-‘jug, Skt. nirodhasamāpatti) is, in addition to the above blockage, the temporary blockage of gross disturbing emotions. 

Vasubandhu, A Discussion (Derge 145A) goes on:

(Sautrantika replies), it is because the habits for the special kinds of urges (to keep the restraints or non-restraints) have not been destroyed (in these states) that there are (still) both the vowed restraints and avowed non-restraints. 

(Tib.) / sems pa'i khyad par gyi bag chags ma bcom pa'i phyir sdom pa dang sdom pa ma yin pa gnyis yod do/

Sumatishila, Annotated Commentary (Derge 100B-101A), explains:

(The Sautrantikas) saying of “special kinds of urges” is the answer they give. As for “special kinds of urges,” they are special urges. As for “the habits for them,” they are the habits for these special kinds of urges. As for “have not been destroyed,” the habits for these special kinds of urges have not been destroyed – it is because of that. Suppose you ask, “How is that?” It is because of this. “There are (still) the vowed restraints and avowed non-restraints” – they are still left. 

(Tib.) /sems pa’i khyad par gyi zhes bya ba la sogs pas ni lan'debs pa yin no/ /sems pa'i khyad par ni sems pa'i khyad par ro/ /de'i bag chags ni sems pa'i khyad par gyi bag chags so/ /de ma bcom pa ni sems pa'i khyad par gyi bag chags ma bcom pa ste de'i phyir ro// ci zhe na/ de'i phyir/ sdom pa dang sdom pa ma yin pa gnyis te/ yod par'gyur ro zhes bya ba lhag ma'o/

The term “habits” (bag-chags, Skt, vāsanā), here, is used as a synonym for the term “tendencies" mentioned by Sthiramati, The Meaning of the Facts (Derge 17B), cited above. 

Vasubandhu, A Discussion (Derge 145A), continues: 

As for saying “special types,” it is from their (these urges) being made into special types of urges that you (Vaibhashikas) have designated them as being (ones) that nonrevealing forms that are vowed restraints and avowed nonrestraints have given rise to. 

(Tib.) /khyad par smos pa ni gang las sdom pa dang sdom pa ma yin pa'i rnam par rig byed ma yin pa kun nas ldang bar brtags pa'i sems pa khyad par du bya ba'i phyir ro/

Sumatishila, Annotated Commentary (Derge 101A), explains:

Well then, if there is the phrase, “special types of urges” and so on, the (reason) why these urges are considered as ones that have been spoken of as “special” is because it has been said that they are called “special” and so on. As for “from their being,” (it means) from these special types of urges being. As for “being made into special types of urges that you (Vaibhashikas) have designated them as being (ones) that nonrevealing forms that are vowed restraints and avowed nonrestraints have given rise to,” the nonrevealing forms that are in the functional nature of vowed restraints and avowed nonrestraints are the nonrevealing (forms) that are vowed restraints and avowed non-restraints. The meaning is (it is) from (these urges being made into special types of urges that you Vaibhashikas) have designated them as being (ones) that nonrevealing forms that are vowed restraints and avowed nonrestraints have given rise to. 

(Tib.) /gal te na sems pa’i khyad par zhes bya ba la sogs pa’i tshig la ci’i phyir khyad par smos pa byas snyam du sems pas de’i phyir/ khyad par smos pa ni zhes bya ba la sogs pa gsungs te/ gang las zhes bya ba ni sems pa’i khyad par las so/ /sdom pa dang sdom pa ma yin pa’i rnam par rig byed ma yin pa kun nas ldang bar brtags pa’i zhes bya ba ni sdom pa dang sdom pa ma yin pa’i rang bzhin gyi rnam par rig byed ma yin pa gang yin pa de ni sdom pa dang sdom pa ma yin pa’i rnam par rig byed ma yin pa ste gang las de kun nas ldang zhing ‘byung bar brtags pa zhes bya ba’i tha tshig go/

This discussion arises from a passage in The Sutra on Repaying the Kindness of the Buddha, the Great Skillful One in Methods (Thabs-mkhas-pa chen-po sangs-rgyas drin-lan bsab-pa’i mdo) (Derge Kangyur vol. 76, 175A), where Buddha discusses the ethical self-discipline involved initially with requesting and acquiring a pratimoksha vowed restraint and, subsequently, with refraining from what one has pledged not to do or say:

The revealing form of the ethical self-discipline (that arises) from the first moment of the (initial) mental urge fully arises as an incited (karmic impulse). It is called “a pathway of an incited karmic impulse” by means of it (being in a pathway that) contains what has been incited. Because the revealing forms of subsequent ethical self-discipline, having been caused by the previous ethical self-discipline, automatically and spontaneously establish themselves, then although they are called “karmic impulses,” they are not pathways of karmic impulses. 

(Tib.) sems kyi skad cig ma dang po las tshul khrims kyi rnam par rig byed kyi gzugs bsam pa yongs su rdzogs te/ bsam pa dang ldan pas bsam pa’i las kyi lam zhes bya’o/ /tshul khrims snga mas rgyu byas te/ tshul khrims lhag ma’i rnam par rig byed kyi gzugs lhun gyis grub pas de bas na de la las zhes bya’i las kyi lam ma yin no/

In this sutra, Buddha states that the revealing forms of initially requesting and acquiring a pratimoksha vowed restraint and of subsequently refraining from what one has pledged to abstain from are both karmic impulses. However, the revealing forms of subsequently refraining from what one has pledged to abstain from are special in the sense that they automatically and spontaneously establish themselves as the result of the previous ethical self-discipline of obtaining the vowed restraint. The special kinds of urges are the urges that are directed at the body and speech so that they automatically and spontaneously engage in refraining from what one has pledged to abstain from.

Vaibhashika, accepting this sutra as a source for asserting revealing forms as karmic impulses, asserts that the automatic and spontaneous establishment of these special kinds of urges and revealing forms is due to the nonrevealing forms that also constitute the vowed restraint. 

Sautrantika accepts revealing forms, but rejects that they are karmic impulses, and accepts as well that the urges that bring about these revealing forms when subsequently refraining from what one has pledged to abstain from are special in that they automatically and spontaneously establish themselves as the result of the previous ethical self-discipline of obtaining the vowed restraint. Sautrantika, however, explains that this occurs because of the habits – that is, the tendencies – cast by these special urges and is not because of a nonrevealing form.

Vasubandhu, A Discussion (Derge 145A) continues:

Suppose you (Vaibhashikas then) ask, “When the habits have been destroyed, what kind (of state is that)?” It is a state (in which they) no longer (function as) causes for urges (to arise) to abstain or not to abstain (from committing certain destructive actions) just as one has pledged. Suppose you then ask, “By what can they be destroyed?” The cause for relinquishing a vowed restraint or an avowed nonrestraint can be the urge that is designated as giving rise to (motivating) the revealing (form) or by means of a cause that is other than that.

(Tib.) /de'i bag chags bcom pa ci zhe na/ ji ltar khas blangs pa bzhin spong ba dang spong ba ma yin pa'i sems pa'i rgyu ma yin pa nyid do/ / gang gis de bcom zhe na/ sdom pa dang sdom pa ma yin pa gtong ba'i rgyu rnam par rig byed kun nas slong bar byed par brtags pa'i sems pa gang yin pa dang / de las gzhan pa'i gtong ba'i rgyus so/ 

Sumatishila, Annotated Commentary (Derge 101A-101B), explains:

As for “What is the (state in which these) habits have been destroyed?” by means of this (query), others have asked the significance of “(these habits) have been destroyed.” With “abstain” and so on, the masterful teacher (Vasubandhu) indicates (the answer). As for “just as one has pledged,” the pledge is like one for one day or for as long as one lives. As for “urges (to arise) to abstain or not to abstain,” the urge to take the vowed restraint is the urge to abstain. The urge not to abstain is the urge to take the avowed non-restraint. As for “the state (in which they) no longer (function as) causes,” just as the habits for them previously (functioned as) causes for urges (to arise) to engage (in abstaining or not abstaining, now) there is a state in which they no longer (function) as causes like that. When “what kind (of state is that)?” is asked, this is applied to “when (the habits) have been destroyed.”

As for “By what (can they be destroyed)” and so on, this is asked by others concerning the cause for their being destroyed. With “(The cause for relinquishing) the vowed restraint or the avowed nonrestraint,” the masterful teacher (Vasubandhu) indicates (the answer). As for “the vowed restraint or avowed nonrestraint,” (this means) both the vowed restraint and the avowed nonrestraint. As for “relinquishing the two,” (this means) relinquishing the vowed restraint or the avowed nonrestraint. As for “the cause for that,” (this means) the cause for relinquishing the vowed restraint or the avowed nonrestraint. (The cause) is by means of what is also a revealing (form) – the revealing (form) that is the cause for relinquishing the vowed restraint or the avowed nonrestraint. 

Suppose you ask, “Which (revealing form)?” It is the revealing form of relinquishing (the code of conduct of) the (ethical) trainings and the revealing form of observing it (an ethical code in the case of relinquishing an avowed nonrestraint). The urge that gives rise to the revealing form that serves as the cause for relinquishing it is that by which the habit is made to collapse. As for “by means of a cause that is other than that,” it is severing the roots of one’s constructive force and so on.

(Tib.) /de'i bag chags bcom pa ci zhe na zhes bya ba 'dis ni gzhan dag bcom pa'i don 'dri ba yin no/ /spong ba dang zhes bya ba la sogs pas ni slob dpon gyis ston pa yin no/ /ji ltar khas blangs pa zhes bya ba ni gang zhig nyin zhag gcig pa'am ji srid 'tsho ba de lta bu khas len pa'o/ /spong ba dang spong ba ma yin pa'i sems pa zhes bya ba de la sdom pa nod pa'i sems pa ni spong ba'i sems pa'o/ /spong ba ma yin pa'i sems pa ni sdom pa ma yin pa nod pa'i sems pa'o/ /rgyu ma yin pa nyid do zhes bya ba ni ji ltar sngon bag chags de sems pa 'jug pa'i rgyu yin pa de ltar rgyu ma yin pa nyid do/ /ci zhe na/ de bcom pa yin no zhes bya bar sbyar ro/ 

/gang gis zhes bya ba la sogs pa ni gzhan bcom pa'i rgyu 'di 'dri ba yin no/ /sdom pa dang sdom pa ma yin pa zhes bya ba la sogs pas ni slob dpon gyis de'i rgyu ston pa yin no/ /sdom pa dang sdom pa ma yin pa ni sdom pa dang sdom pa ma yin pa dag go/ /de gnyis gtong ba ni sdom pa dang sdom pa ma yin pa gtong ba'o/ /de'i rgyu ni sdom pa dang sdom pa ma yin pa gtong ba'i rgyu'o/ /de ni sdom pa dang sdom pa ma yin pa gtong ba'i rgyu yang yin la/ rnam bar rig byed kyang yin pas sdom pa dang sdom pa ma yin pa gtong ba'i rgyu rnam par rig byed do/ /de gang zhe na/ bslab pa gtong ba'i rnam par rig byed dang / de kun du spyod pa'i rnam par rig byed do/ /gtong ba'i rgyur gyur pa'i rnam par rig byed de kun nas slong bar byed pa'i sems pa gang yin pa ste/ des bag chags nyams par byas pas so/ /de las gzhan pa'i gtong ba'i rgyus so zhes bya ba ni dge ba'i rtsa ba chad pa la sogs pa'o/ 

The first means by which one relinquishes a vowed restraint is the revealing form of disavowing the ethical code of the vowed restraint – for instance, a monk joining the military and vowing to kill enemy soldiers. Likewise, one relinquishes an avowed nonrestraint by means of vowing to follow an ethical code – for instance, a fisherman becoming a monk. 

As for how the roots of one’s constructive force are severed, Vasubandhu, Treasure House (IV.79a) (Gretil ed., Derge 14A), explains:

Further, by means of a distorted view of nihilism, (there occurs) a severance of the root (of constructive force) among those who have obtained a birth gained on (the plane of sensory objects of) desire. Among humans, (it is severed) in all (nine) degrees by the repudiation of cause and effect.   

(Skt.) mūlacchedastvasaddṛṣṭayā kāmāptotpattilābhinām / phalahetvapavādinyā sarvathā kramaśaḥ nṛṣu // 

(Tib.) /med par lta bas rtsa ba gcod/ /'dod gtogs skyes nas thob pa rnams/ /rgyu dang 'bras la skur 'debs pas/ /kun gyis rim gyis mi'i nang du/