[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) › 1.449 # 四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 1.449 四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 1.449 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.449](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1804.1.449) 四明辭謝法。《十誦》云：比丘、沙彌得和尚，知不能增長善法者，應白師言：「持我付囑某甲比丘。」師應籌量，彼比丘教化弟子何似？其眾僧復何似？好者，應付之；知不具足，更付餘師。若和尚不好，當捨去。和尚有四種：與法不與食，應住；與食不與法，不應住；法食俱與，應住；法食俱不與，不應住，不問若晝若夜，應捨去。阿闍梨亦爾。《僧祇》大同，有苦樂住別。若師令作非法事：「喚汝來！取酒來！」應耎語云：「我聞佛言，如是非法事，不應作。」第二十八、九卷中，多有行法，須者看之。《五百問》事：若弟子師，命令販賣，作諸非法，得捨遠去。《四分》：若弟子被師訶責，令餘比丘為將順故，於和尚闍梨所調和，令早受懺。應知折伏柔和，知時而受。律云：應向二師，具修威儀，合掌云：「大德和尚！我今懺悔，更不復作（已外卑辭，自述事出當時）。」若不聽者，當更日三時懺悔如上。猶不許者，當下意隨順，求方便解其所犯。若下意無有違逆，求解其過，二師當受；不受者，如法治。若知不長益，令餘人誘將去。若弟子見和尚五種非法，應懺謝而去，白和尚言：「我如法，和尚不知；我不如法，和尚不知；我犯戒，和尚捨不教訶；若不犯，亦不知；若犯而懺者，亦不知。」問：前共行法，令弟子攝和尚；今諸律中，云何辭去？答：上言攝者，據初雖有過，弟子諫喻，有可從遂。今諫而不受，無同法義，故須去也。《僧祇》云：若師受諫者，言弟子：「汝須早語我，我無所知。」即承用之。若師言：「汝若諫我，我則是汝，汝則是我。」依前二師，方便而去。 > Fourth, explaining the method of taking leave and apologizing. The Daśādhyāya-vinaya states: 'If a bhikṣu or śrāmaṇera has acquired an upādhyāya and knows that he cannot increase wholesome dharmas, he should address the master, saying: "Take me and entrust me to bhikṣu so-and-so." The master should deliberate: what is that bhikṣu's guidance of disciples like? And what is his saṃgha like? If they are good, he should entrust him; if he knows they are inadequate, he entrusts him further to another master. If the upādhyāya is not good, one should abandon him and depart. There are four kinds of upādhyāyas: if he provides Dharma but does not provide food, one should stay; if he provides food but does not provide Dharma, one should not stay; if he provides both Dharma and food, one should stay; if he provides neither Dharma nor food, one should not stay, regardless of whether it is day or night, one should abandon him and depart. The ācārya is also like this.' The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya is largely the same, with distinctions of painful and pleasant dwelling. If the master orders one to do an improper deed: 'Come here! Bring wine!' one should speak softly: 'I have heard the Buddha say that such improper deeds should not be done.' In fascicles twenty-eight and twenty-nine, there are many practices; those who need them may look there. In the Matter of Five Hundred Inquiries: if a disciple's master orders him to trade and do various improper deeds, he may abandon him and go far away. The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya states: if a disciple is reprimanded by the master, other bhikṣus should mediate with the upādhyāya and ācārya to lead him along, so that he may receive repentance early. One should know subjugation and gentle compliance, and receive it knowing the proper time. The Vinaya states: one should face the two masters, fully cultivate the īryāpatha, join palms, and say: 'Venerable upādhyāya! I now repent and will not do it again.' (Aside from these humble words, one states the matter as it occurred at the time.) If he does not listen, one should repent as above three times a day. If he still does not permit it, one should lower one's mind, comply, and seek skillful means to resolve his offense. If with a humble mind he has no defiance and seeks to resolve his fault, the two masters should accept it; if they do not accept it, they are disciplined according to the Dharma. If one knows there is no further benefit, have others entice him away. If a disciple sees five kinds of impropriety in the upādhyāya, he should apologize and depart, addressing the upādhyāya: 'When I accord with the Dharma, the upādhyāya does not know; when I do not accord with the Dharma, the upādhyāya does not know; when I violate the precepts, the upādhyāya neglects and does not instruct or reprimand; if I do not violate them, he also does not know; if I violate and repent, he also does not know.' Question: Earlier, under the rules for co-practice, the disciple was ordered to sustain the upādhyāya; why do the various vinayas now say he should take leave and depart? Answer: The earlier statement on sustaining was based on the master having faults initially, but the disciple admonished him and he could comply and follow. Now, when he is admonished and does not accept it, there is no meaning of shared Dharma, so he must depart. The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya states: 'If the master accepts the admonishment, he says to the disciple: "You must tell me early, for I know nothing"; and he immediately adopts it. If the master says: "If you admonish me, I would be you, and you would be me!" then relying on the two masters, he skillfully departs.' > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.448](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1804.1.448) - [Next: 1.450](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1804.1.450) - [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.1.449) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [尼羯磨](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1810.1.182) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1804.1.449](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1804.1.449) · Pramāṇa