四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 2.413

2.413

次對不可學事，以明止持九句。緣事、緣罪，各三心。初有三句：一識事識犯，二識事疑犯，三識事不識犯。二疑事識犯，疑事疑犯，疑事不識犯。三不識事識犯，不識事疑犯，不識事不識犯。此三三句中，各下二句，疑及不識句別；各有不學、無知二罪，合十二罪。亦望不犯根本名止持。但事是可學，以想疑妄生，雖緣不了，聖不制犯。問：如殺、盜等，人非人想，有主無主想，律結無罪；亦有制犯者何？答：或緣罪境，人非人故，便結心犯；或緣非罪境，無主物故。然彼迷心，不結正罪；莫非緣罪故，有無不同。又不同前段，以法、事俱識，故是可學；有疑、不識，皆制罪也。若爾，後緣法中，亦有想轉；如不處分，處分想、及疑，亦是不犯重，何為制罪？答：此且據止持中，約事為言。必如所引，對法有二九句；後作持中，更為辨也。

Next, with respect to unlearnable matters, we clarify the nine propositions of abstention observance. Regarding the matter and regarding the offense, there are three mental states each. Initially, there are three propositions: 1. knowing the matter and knowing the offense; 2. knowing the matter and doubting the offense; 3. knowing the matter and not knowing the offense. Second: doubting the matter and knowing the offense; doubting the matter and doubting the offense; doubting the matter and not knowing the offense. Third: not knowing the matter and knowing the offense; not knowing the matter and doubting the offense; not knowing the matter and not knowing the offense. Within these three triads of propositions, each of the lower two propositions distinguishes between doubt and ignorance; each possesses the two offenses of not studying and ignorance, totaling twelve offenses. These are also termed 'abstention observance' in view of not transgressing the primary [precept]. However, although the matter is learnable, because perception and doubt arise falsely, and though one does not clearly apprehend the object, the Sage did not formulate an offense. Question: As in killing, stealing, and so forth, where there is the perception of a human or a non-human, or the perception of owned or unowned property, the Vinaya concludes no offense; yet what of the cases where an offense is also formulated? Answer: Sometimes it is directed toward an offense-object, human or non-human, and so mental offense is established; sometimes it is directed toward a non-offense-object, such as unowned property. However, that confused mind does not establish the principal offense; but because it is directed toward an offense[-object], its existence or non-existence differs. Furthermore, this is not like the preceding section, where, because the rule and matter are both known, it is learnable; where there is doubt or ignorance, an offense is in all cases formulated. If so, later in the case of rule-objects, there is also the shift of perception; for example, not having obtained authorization, having the perception of authorization, or having doubt, also does not transgress the heavy [offense]; why is an offense formulated? Answer: This merely speaks based on the matter within abstention observance. If it is as you cite, there are two sets of nine propositions regarding the rule; this will be further distinguished later under performance observance.