[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1804) › 1.385 # 四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 1.385 四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 1.385 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.385](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1804.1.385) 二犯比丘尼。《四分》等律並云汙尼，不明淨穢。故世行事者云：「汝不犯清淨尼不？」此依《僧祇》而問。彼律云：若須、斯二果及凡夫持戒尼，被人污者，初人受樂，是壞尼淨行；中後人犯，不名壞尼難。若那含、羅漢，初後人俱名難也。故知唯是淨境，方成難攝。《十誦》云：若摩觸八尼，污尼八事；若一人以八事犯尼，令犯重者，俗人不成難也。《善見》云：若壞尼下二眾，不障出家；若壞大尼，三處行淫，皆名難也。若以白衣俗服強與尼著而行淫者，成難；若尼自樂著白衣服就上淫者，不障出家。必以義求，若知受具戒緣事，著於俗服亦應成難。但壞淨境，不論知淨不淨。廣有廢立，如《疏》、《義鈔》。問：何不言壞比丘耶？答：亦成難也。尼受戒中反問便是，由事希。故《善生經》：受五戒者，問遮難云：「汝不犯比丘、比丘尼不？」故知同是難攝。皆謂俗人時犯；若受戒已，犯者，止名邊罪所收。 > Second, violating a bhikṣuṇī. The Dharmaguptaka and other Vinayas all say 'defiling a nun,' without clarifying whether pure or impure. Therefore contemporary practitioners say, 'Have you not violated a pure nun?' This question is based on the Mahāsāṃghika. That Vinaya states: If a nun who has attained the first two fruits (srotāpanna or sakṛdāgāmin) or an ordinary nun who maintains the precepts is defiled by someone, if the first person takes pleasure, this is ruining the nun's pure conduct; if intermediate or subsequent persons violate her, it is not called the impediment of ruining a nun. In the case of an anāgāmin or arhat, both the first and subsequent persons are called impediments. Thus we know that only when it is a pure object does it constitute being included in the impediment. The Daśādhyāya\[-vinaya\] states: Touching eight nuns, or defiling a nun with eight matters; if one person violates a nun with eight matters, causing her to commit a grave offense, for a layperson it does not constitute an impediment. The Samantapāsādikā states: If one ruins the lower two assemblies of nuns, it does not obstruct going forth; if one ruins a fully ordained nun, engaging in sexual intercourse in any of the three orifices is called an impediment. If one forcibly dresses a nun in lay clothing and has sexual intercourse with her, it constitutes an impediment; if the nun herself takes pleasure in wearing white lay clothing and engages in intercourse, it does not obstruct going forth. If sought strictly by principle: if one knows the conditions of her receiving the full upasampadā, having her wear lay clothing should also constitute an impediment. It is simply ruining a pure object, regardless of whether one knows it is pure or impure. There are extensive adoptions and rejections, as in the Commentary and the Conceptual Notes. Question: Why not speak of ruining a bhikṣu? Answer: It also constitutes an impediment. In the ordination of nuns, one simply asks the reverse; it is because the occurrence is rare. Therefore the Sujātā-sūtra, for one receiving the five precepts, asks about the obstacles and impediments: 'Have you not violated a bhikṣu or bhikṣuṇī?' Thus we know it is equally included in the impediment. These all refer to offenses committed while a layperson; if committed after having received the precepts, it is only classified under the antima-vatthu. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.384](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1804.1.384) - [Next: 1.386](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1804.1.386) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1804.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1804~en-mt.1.385) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1804.1.385](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1804.1.385) · Pramāṇa