四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 2.384

2.384

三就止犯別解。四句分之。一不學無知，相對解漸頓。不學之罪先起；無知之罪，緣而不了，後生故漸。文云：五歲不誦戒羯磨，方得罪故。二別解不學之罪，通有漸頓。如要心可學境上，作不學意，於一一法上，頓得不學罪。以初受時，皆發得故；今違願體，頓得多罪。云何為漸？若要心不學羯磨，於餘悉學；望羯磨邊，犯一止罪，名漸。若論無知唯漸者，謂緣不了，方結無知罪；一心不備緣，唯漸。問：此不學無知，二罪是何？答：有人言，並是吉羅。今解言，不學，吉羅。無知有二，若全根本無知，得重，故律云：重增無知波逸提；若疑者，得輕，是吉羅也。三分齊者。就教、對行、從根，三別。言就教者，學據始終，不學即結；無知之罪，五夏後結。對行者，恐心逸蕩，自恃少解，望齊賢聖；故學通一形，優劣相降。文云：五歲智慧比丘，從十歲智慧比丘受依止；乃至五分法身成立，方離依止。約根者。若利根易悟，始終二罪，以不學故有無知也。若鈍根難悟，始終不學，無無知罪，非力分故。律云：愚癡比丘，盡形依止。四可懺以不。二俱可懺。如息意不學，後緣不了，結無知。若作心學而未知，不結無知罪，已前不學無知，罪有斷義。皆可懺。

Third, specific explanation regarding non-action transgression. It is divided into four propositions. First, relative explanation of gradual and sudden in terms of non-study and ignorance. The offense of non-study arises first; the offense of ignorance arises subsequently when encountering circumstances without understanding, and thus is gradual. The text states: Only when one has not recited the precepts and karman for five years does one incur an offense. Second, specific explanation of the offense of non-study: it generally admits of gradual and sudden. If, with a resolved mind, one intends not to study regarding realms that should be studied, one suddenly incurs the offense of non-study with respect to every single teaching. Because when initially receiving [the precepts], they were all generated, now, by violating the essence of one's aspiration, one suddenly incurs many offenses. How is it gradual? If one resolves not to study karman while studying all the rest, from the viewpoint of karman one commits a single offense of non-action, which is termed gradual. If one maintains that ignorance is solely gradual, it means that only when an encounter is not understood is the offense of ignorance determined; a single mind cannot encompass all conditions simultaneously, so it is solely gradual. Question: What are these two offenses of non-study and ignorance? Answer: Some say they are both duṣkṛta. The present explanation holds that non-study is duṣkṛta. Ignorance has two aspects: if it is absolute fundamental ignorance, one incurs a grave offense, hence the Vinaya states, 'Heavily augmenting ignorance is a pāyattika'; if there is doubt, one incurs a light offense, which is duṣkṛta. Third, limits and demarcations. There are three distinctions: in terms of doctrine, in relation to practice, and according to faculty. Regarding doctrine: study pertains to the beginning and end; if one does not study, [the offense] is immediately determined; the offense of ignorance is determined after five varṣās. In relation to practice: fearing that the mind might become dissipated, relying on meager understanding, and expecting to equal the worthy and holy; hence study applies throughout one's entire life, with inferior and superior mutually yielding. The text states: A wise bhikṣu of five years takes dependence under a wise bhikṣu of ten years, and only when the fivefold dharmakāya is established may he leave dependence. In terms of faculty: If one of sharp faculties understands easily, there are two offenses from beginning to end, for owing to non-study there is ignorance. If one of dull faculties understands with difficulty and does not study from beginning to end, there is no offense of ignorance, because it exceeds his capacity. The Vinaya states: A foolish bhikṣu remains in dependence for his entire life. Fourth, whether it can be confessed or not. Both can be confessed. For example, if one desists from the intention not to study, and subsequently encounters conditions without understanding, ignorance is determined. If one resolves to study but does not yet know, one does not determine the offense of ignorance; for the prior non-study and ignorance, there is a sense in which the offenses are severed. All can be confessed.