[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) › 1.447 # 四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 1.447 四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 1.447 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.447](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1804.1.447) 二明訶責法。凡欲責他，先自量己內心喜怒。若有嫌恨，但自抑忍；火從內發，先自焚身。若懷慈濟，又量過輕重，又依訶辭進退；前出其過，使知非法；依過順訶，心伏從順。若過淺重訶，罪深輕責；或隨憤怒，任縱醜辭；此乃隨心處斷，未準聖旨；本非相利，師訓不成。宜停俗鄙懷，依出道清過；內懷慈育，外現威嚴；苦言切勒，令其改革。依律五法次罪責之。《四分》云：弟子不承事和尚，佛令五事訶責：一我今訶責汝，汝去（由過極重，遣遠出去）。二莫入我房（得在寺住，在外供給）。三莫為我作使（容得參承入房）。四莫至我所（外事經營，不得來師左右。依止師訶改云，汝莫依止我）。五不與汝語（過最輕小，隨得侍奉）。自三世佛教，每諸治罰，但有折伏訶責，本無杖打人法。比見大德眾主，內無道分可承；不思無德攝他，專行考楚。或對大眾，或復房中；縛束懸首，非分治打。便引《涅槃》三子之喻。此未達聖教然。彼經由住一子地悲，故心無差降，得行此罰。即《涅槃》云：勿殺勿行杖等。此言何指，不知通解，輒妄引文。縱引嚴師，此乃引喻，不關正文。如《攝論》言：菩薩得淨心地，得無分別智，方便具行殺生等十事，無染濁過失等。今時杖治弟子者，咸起瞋毒，勇憤奮發，自重輕他，故加彼苦；若準《涅槃》恕己為喻，則針刺不能忍之。又有愚師，引《淨度經》三百福罰。此乃偽經人造，智者共非。縱如彼經，不起三毒者，得依而福罰；今順己煩惱，何得妄依？《律》中瞋心訶責，尚自犯罪；乃至畜生不得杖擬，何況杖人？《地持論》中：上犯罰黜，中犯折伏，下犯訶責。亦無杖治。《大集》云：若打罵破戒、無戒袈裟著身剃頭者，罪同出萬億佛身血。若作四重，不聽在寺，不同僧事；若謫罰者，於道退落，必入阿鼻。何以故？此人必速入涅槃，故不應打罵。準此以明，則自知位地；生報冥然，濫自欺枉，可悲之深。廣如彼經。《僧祇》：若師訶責，弟子不受者，當語知事人斷食。若凶惡者，師自遠去。若依止弟子，師應出界一宿還。若弟子有過，和尚為弟子懺謝諸人云：「乃至凡夫愚癡，何能無過？此小兒晚學，實有此罪，當教勅不作。」如是悅眾意。 > Second, explaining the method of reprimand. Whenever one wishes to reprimand another, one must first gauge one's own internal joy and anger. If there is resentment, one must simply restrain and bear it; when fire bursts forth from within, it first burns one's own body. If one harbors compassion and relief, one also gauges the gravity of the fault, and moreover proceeds or withdraws according to the words of reprimand: first point out his fault so that he knows what is unprincipled; reprimand in accordance with the fault so that his mind submits and complies. If the fault is slight but the reprimand is heavy, or the offense is grave but the chastisement is light; or if one follows anger and gives free rein to ugly words—this is deciding according to one's own mind, not conforming to the sage's intent; originally not mutually beneficial, the master's instruction is not accomplished. One should halt vulgar, base sentiments and rely on the path of renunciation to clarify faults; harbor compassionate nurturing within and display majesty externally; use biting words and earnest restraints to bring about his reformation. One reprimands him in accordance with the five Vinaya methods in sequence of his offense. The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya states: 'If a disciple does not serve the upādhyāya, the Buddha ordered five matters of reprimand: 1. "I now reprimand you, depart!" (Because the fault is extremely grave, he is sent far away.) 2. "Do not enter my room!" (He is permitted to dwell in the monastery, providing supplies externally.) 3. "Do not run errands for me!" (He is permitted to pay visits and enter the room.) 4. "Do not come to my place!" (He attends to external affairs, but is not permitted to approach the master's side. If a niśraya master reprimands, it is altered to say: "Do not rely on me!") 5. "I will not speak with you!" (The fault is the slightest; he may attend upon him as before.)' Ever since the Buddha's teachings of the three periods, in all punishments there has only been subjugation and reprimand; there has fundamentally never been a method of beating people with a staff. Recently I have seen venerable elders and leaders of the saṃgha who have no share of the path within to be relied upon; not considering their own lack of virtue to gather others, they exclusively carry out tortures and beatings. Either before the great assembly or again inside their rooms, they bind \[them\], suspend their heads, and administer unmeasured beatings. They then cite the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra's parable of the three sons. This is because they have not comprehended the sage's teachings. That sūtra is based on abiding in the compassion of the stage of an only child, where the mind has no gradation, and thus one may carry out such punishment. The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra itself says: 'Do not kill, do not use the staff,' and so forth. Not knowing how to interpret what these words refer to, they recklessly and falsely cite the text. Even if one cites a strict master, this is merely citing a metaphor, not the primary text. As the Mahāyānasaṃgraha states: 'When a bodhisattva attains the pure mind-ground and attains non-conceptual wisdom, he skillfully executes the ten matters such as taking life in full without the fault of defilement,' and so forth. Those nowadays who discipline disciples with staffs all give rise to the poison of anger, their wrath surging up; valuing themselves and scorning others, they inflict suffering on them. If one conforms to the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra's taking oneself as the metaphor, one cannot even bear the prick of a needle. Furthermore, there are foolish masters who cite the Jingdu jing's three hundred meritorious punishments. This is an apocryphal sūtra forged by humans, condemned jointly by the wise. Even according to that sūtra, only one who does not give rise to the three poisons may rely on it for meritorious punishment; nowadays people follow their own defilements, so how could they recklessly rely on it? In the Vinaya, reprimanding with an angry mind is itself an offense; one may not even aim a staff at an animal, let alone beat a human being! In the Bodhisattvabhūmi: the highest offense is punished by expulsion, the medium offense by subjugation, and the lowest offense by reprimand. There is also no disciplining with a staff. The Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra states: 'If one strikes or reviles a shaven-headed person wearing the kāṣāya who has broken the precepts or is without precepts, the sin is equal to shedding the blood of ten thousand koṭis of Buddhas.' If one commits the four pārājikas, one is not permitted to remain in the monastery or participate in saṃgha affairs; but if one punishes him, one regresses on the path and will surely enter Avīci. Why is that? This person will surely swiftly enter nirvāṇa, so one should not strike or revile him. Clarifying according to this, one will know one's own stage and position; the retribution in future lives will be dark and obscure, and deceitfully mistreating oneself is deeply lamentable. It is broadly explained in that sūtra. The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya states: 'If the master reprimands and the disciple does not accept it, one should tell the administrator to cut off his food. If he is ferocious, the master should depart far away himself. If he is a niśraya disciple, the master should leave the boundary, spend one night, and return. If the disciple has a fault, the upādhyāya confesses and apologizes on the disciple's behalf to everyone, saying: "Even ordinary mortals in their ignorance—how could they be without fault? This junior novice indeed committed this offense; I shall instruct and order him not to do it." In this way he gladdens the assembly's mind.' > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.446](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1804.1.446) - [Next: 1.448](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1804.1.448) - [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.1.447) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1804.1.447](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1804.1.447) · Pramāṇa