四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 3.444

3.444

覆藏他重罪戒。六緣成：一是大尼。二犯八重已。三知他犯重。四作覆藏心。五不發露。六明相出便犯。若獨住無人等，不成覆，如〈懺罪〉中。《十誦》：若尼被舉，狂亂心，覆者不犯；若狂止仍覆者，犯。《僧祇》：若尼，見尼犯重，應向人說。若犯罪人兇惡有勢力，恐有命梵難者，作念云：彼行業罪，報自當知；喻如失火燒舍，但自救身，焉知他事。得捨心相應。準此，無記心亦不犯；雖非捨心，無記不作覆心故。覆藏者，不善心中，藏匿前罪，恐人外聞，故成也。若欲發露，故不成者，謂非清淨者。若對先知不肯發者，二俱有過，各須發露，故不成。如向有犯者懺，不成故。又識人名、罪名、種相者，須發露；反上不合。若前人受竟，更不須說，恐有無窮之過。若彼犯者已發竟，餘人雖覆，不成，根本無過故。《十誦》：尼不得比丘前發露，還向尼前。若不識種相，至比丘所，汎問取解，還至尼邊悔。《四分》：若尼，知尼犯八重，食前知，食後時說，偷蘭；乃至初中後夜時分，不說，並偷蘭；明相出，犯重。不犯中，若不知；若無人可向說；意欲說而未說，明相出；若說時恐有命梵等難，不犯。

The precept against concealing another's grave offense. It is constituted by six conditions: first, being a fully ordained nun; second, another having already committed the eight grave [offenses]; third, knowing that the other has committed a grave [offense]; fourth, producing the intention to conceal; fifth, not disclosing it; sixth, at daybreak an offense is immediately committed. If one dwells alone without anyone [to inform], and so forth, it does not constitute concealment, as explained in "Repenting Offenses". The Daśādhyāya-vinaya states: If a nun is suspended or has a deranged mind, if she conceals it she does not commit an offense; if her derangement ceases and she still conceals it, she commits an offense. The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya states: If a nun sees another nun commit a grave offense, she should tell someone. If the person who committed the offense is fierce and powerful, and there is fear of danger to life or pure conduct, she should reflect thus: "The retributions of that person's karmic offenses are for her alone to know; just as when a house is burned by fire, one only saves oneself, how can one attend to the affairs of others?" This is concordant with an attitude of equanimity. Accordingly, an indeterminate mind also does not commit an offense; although it is not an attitude of equanimity, an indeterminate [state] does not produce an intention to conceal. Concealment means that within an unwholesome mind one hides the former offense, fearing that others outside will hear of it; hence it is constituted. If one wishes to disclose it, but it is not accomplished because [the person addressed] is not pure—if one refuses to disclose to one who already knew, both have faults and each must disclose, hence it is not accomplished; just as repenting before one who has committed an offense is not accomplished. Furthermore, one who knows the person's name, the name of the offense, and its specific characteristics must disclose it; contrary to the above, it does not apply. If the former person has already undergone [punishment], one need not speak of it further, fearing endless faults. If that offender has already disclosed it, even if others conceal it, it is not constituted, because fundamentally there is no fault. The Daśādhyāya-vinaya states: A nun must not disclose it before a monk; she must return and do so before a nun. If she does not recognize its specific characteristics, she goes to the place of a monk, makes a general inquiry to gain understanding, and returns to the side of a nun to repent. The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya states: If a nun knows that a nun has committed the eight grave [offenses], and knowing it before the meal, speaks of it after the meal, it is a thullaccaya; and so on up to the periods of the first, middle, and last watches of the night, if she does not speak of it, all are thullaccayas; when daybreak appears, she commits a grave offense. Among non-offenses: if she does not know; if there is no one to whom she can speak; if she intended to speak but had not yet spoken when daybreak appeared; or if at the time of speaking there is fear of danger to life, pure conduct, and so on—there is no offense.