四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 2.63

2.63

次成犯相，有二緣：一自有淫心向前境，縱有裏隔互障，但入如毛頭，結成大重。具四緣成：一是正境（男則二道，女則三處），二興染心（謂非餘睡眠等），三起方便，四與境合便犯。二者若為怨偪，或將至前境，或就其身，佛開身會，制令不染。亦具四緣：一是正境（不問自他），二為怨偪，三與境合，四受樂便犯。《善見》云：淫不受樂者，如以男根內毒蛇口中及以火中，是不染之相。問：此淫戒結犯，通戲突不？如以小兒根，內口中弄，故無淫心。答：淫心難識，準律云：愛染汙心，是淫欲意，並犯重罪。《五分》：若刺者是戲，偷蘭；非戲者，重。受刺者亦爾。《十誦》云：口中要過齒成犯，餘二道無開。《四分》云：若為怨家彊持男根，令入三犯境，於三時心無有樂，皆不成犯；隨始入、入已、出時，一一時中有淫意，皆重。若為怨家強捉比丘，二處行不淨，初入覺樂，犯重；乃至裹隔四句亦爾。脫有其事，內指口中齧之，唯覺指痛，則免重罪。如前論說，蛇口火中可也。律云：死尸半壞、多分壞，及骨間行不淨，偷蘭。此淫戒結犯，不待出精，但使骨肉間行者，皆偷蘭；若元作出精意，精出犯僧殘。如《戒本疏》說，由元非僧殘意故，但是正道，皆犯。故《善見》：縱使斫頭斷，及死人口中頸中行淫，亦重。律云：若僧尼互相教作者，能教犯偷蘭，不作犯吉羅；下三眾相教，作不作俱犯吉羅；作者滅擯、吉羅為異（乃至下篇，同犯吉羅）。

Next, regarding the characteristics constituting a transgression, there are two conditions. First, one inherently has a lustful mind toward the object before one: even if there are coverings and mutual obstructions, so long as entry is as small as the tip of a hair, it constitutes a major grave offense. It is constituted by possessing four conditions: first, it is a proper object (two passages for a male, three places for a female); second, giving rise to a defiled mind (meaning not being otherwise asleep, etc.); third, undertaking an expedient action; fourth, union with the object, whereupon it becomes a transgression. Second, if one is coerced by an enemy, who either brings one to the object before one or approaches one's body: the Buddha permitted bodily contact, but prohibited being defiled. This also possesses four conditions: first, it is a proper object (without asking whether oneself or another); second, being coerced by an enemy; third, union with the object; fourth, experiencing pleasure, whereupon it becomes a transgression. The *Samantapāsādikā* states: "For sexual intercourse without experiencing pleasure, it is like placing the male organ into the mouth of a poisonous snake or into fire; this is the characteristic of not being defiled." Question: Does this formulation of transgression for the precept against sexual misconduct apply to playing tricks or teasing? As when placing a young boy's organ into one's mouth in play, and thus lacking lustful intent. Answer: A lustful mind is difficult to discern. According to the Vinaya: "A mind stained by affectionate defilement is an intent of sexual desire; both incur grave offenses." The *Pañcavargika-vinaya* states: "If piercing is in play, it is a sthūlāccaya; if not in play, it is grave. The one who receives the piercing is also like this." The *Daśādhyāya-vinaya* states: "In the mouth, it must pass the teeth to constitute an offense; the other two passages have no allowance." The *Dharmaguptaka Vinaya* states: "If one is forcibly compelled by an enemy who inserts the male organ into the three objects of transgression, and at three times the mind feels no pleasure, none constitutes a transgression; if at the initial entry, after entering, or at withdrawal, at any one time there is a lustful intent, it is in all cases grave. If an enemy forcibly seizes a bhikṣu to perform impurity in the two places, and upon initial entry he feels pleasure, it is a grave offense; this applies even down to the four propositions concerning coverings and wrappings. If such an event occurs, insert a finger into one's mouth and bite it; feeling only the pain of the finger, one then avoids the grave offense. As the aforementioned treatise says, the snake's mouth and the fire are fitting." The Vinaya states: "If one performs impurity on a corpse that is half-decayed, mostly decayed, or between the bones, it is a sthūlāccaya." This formulation of transgression for the sexual precept does not depend on emitting semen; so long as one acts between bone and flesh, it is in all cases a sthūlāccaya; if one originally had the intention to emit semen, when semen is emitted it constitutes a saṃghāvaśeṣa. As the *Commentary on the Prātimokṣa* states, because it was originally not an intention for saṃghāvaśeṣa, as long as it is a proper passage, it is in all cases a transgression. Therefore the *Samantapāsādikā* states: "Even if the head is severed, performing sexual intercourse in the mouth or throat of a corpse is also grave." The Vinaya states: "If monks and nuns instruct each other to do it, the instructor incurs a sthūlāccaya; if they do not do it, they incur a duṣkṛta. If members of the lower three assemblies instruct one another, whether they do it or not, they both incur a duṣkṛta; for the doer, expulsion or a duṣkṛta is the difference (down to the lower classes of offenses, they equally incur a duṣkṛta)."