四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 2.405

2.405

八將制約報，以明輕重。如《母論》云：如媒房三戒，人之喜犯；律制情過，故制重名；既是遮惡，招報不重，故《論》云：結戒法異，輕制重名；得罪法異，因果相當。或犯輕報重，如打比丘等性罪；義希故，律制輕名；既是違理為業，心重招報亦重，故《論》云：結戒法異，重制輕名；得罪法異，因果相當。或犯報俱重，如漏失、二謗等；或犯報俱輕，如不憶念身口威儀，忘誤或慚愧心犯等。此後二句，結戒法不異得罪法，得罪法不異結戒法故。

Eighth, taking the formulation of the rule in relation to retribution to explain lightness and gravity. As the *Vinayamātṛkā* says: For instance, the three precepts of matchmaking and building huts are easily transgressed by people; the Vinaya formulated them because emotional indulgence was excessive, hence formulating a grave designation; but since these are prohibitory evils, the retribution they incur is not grave. Hence the *Treatise* says: 'The method of formulating the precept is different: a light [act] is formulated with a grave designation; the method of incurring an offense is different: cause and effect correspond to each other.' Or an offense is light but the retribution is grave, such as natural offenses like striking a bhikṣu; because the matter rarely occurs, the Vinaya formulated a light designation; but since acting contrary to principle constitutes the karma, the mind is grave and the retribution incurred is also grave. Hence the *Treatise* says: 'The method of formulating the precept is different: a grave [act] is formulated with a light designation; the method of incurring an offense is different: cause and effect correspond to each other.' Or the offense and retribution are both grave, such as seminal emission, the two slanders, and so forth; or the offense and retribution are both light, such as failing to be mindful of physical and vocal īryāpatha, transgressing through forgetfulness or inadvertence, or with a mind of shame. For these latter two propositions, the method of formulating the precept does not differ from the method of incurring the offense, and the method of incurring the offense does not differ from the method of formulating the precept.