四分律行事鈔資持記 1.625

1.625

遮不至中。佛在舍衛，舍利弗目連俱在伽尸國遊行；至摩梨園中住，質多居士請二尊者，具辨美饌；其園中舊住比丘名善法往看，嫉妬心生，便言居士所辨飲食最勝，唯無胡麻滓；質多言：善法懷如是多寶根力覺意禪定正受，作如是麁言；便說譬喻，如國土無雞，有賈客持雌雞至，雌無雄故，與烏共通，生子不作雞鳴，復不烏喚，即名烏雞；如是善法懷如是多寶等而作此麁言。善法言：居士罵我，我今捨去；乃至佛所，為佛所呵，故制治法。出過中。此亦對俗，加罵為異。上明餘過，罵是正過。須下，明立治。名相兩顯。言作法者，白云：大德僧聽！此善法比丘，質多居士信樂檀越常好布施供給眾僧，而以下賤惡罵罵之；若僧時到僧忍聽，今為善法作遮不至白衣家羯磨，白如是。（羯磨準作。）奪行並同。僧下，示別過。雖非罵謗，損惱同故。

In [the section on] barring from visiting [lay houses]: The Buddha was in Śrāvastī. Śāriputra and Maudgalyāyana were traveling together in the country of Kāśi. They arrived and stayed in the Āmra Grove. The householder Citta invited the two venerables and fully prepared delicious food. A long-resident bhikṣu in that grove named Sudharma went to look; jealousy arose in his mind, and he then said: 'The food prepared by the householder is supreme, only it lacks sesame dregs.' Citta said: 'Sudharma, possessing such vast treasures of the roots, powers, limbs of awakening, dhyānas, and attainments, utters such crude words!' He then spoke a parable: 'Just as in a country without chickens, a merchant brought a hen; because the hen had no cock, it mated with a crow, and the offspring it bore neither crowed like a cock nor called like a crow, and was named a crow-chicken. Thus is Sudharma: possessing such vast treasures and so forth, yet he utters these crude words.' Sudharma said: 'The householder insults me; I shall now leave.' He went all the way to the Buddha and was rebuked by the Buddha; therefore, this disciplinary procedure was instituted. In explaining the fault: this also concerns the laity, differing in that reviling is added. Above, the other faults were explained; reviling is the principal fault. 'Must...' below clarifies the institution of the disciplinary measure. Both the name and the characteristics are revealed. Regarding the performance of the act, the motion states: 'May the venerable Saṃgha listen! This bhikṣu Sudharma, toward the householder Citta—a donor of faith and joy who constantly delights in giving and providing for the Saṃgha of monks—has reviled him with base, malicious curses. If the time has arrived for the Saṃgha, may the Saṃgha give consent to now carry out the act of barring from visiting lay households (pratisāraṇīya-karman) for Sudharma. Such is the motion.' (The karmavācanā is performed by analogy.) The deprivations of practices are all identical. 'The Saṃgha...' below indicates distinct faults. Although they are not reviling or slandering, they are identical in causing harm and vexation.