四分律行事鈔資持記 1.643

1.643

默擯中，初引示。梵壇者，有云：梵王宮前立一壇，天眾不如法者，令立壇上，餘天不與往來交言。《五分》：因闡陀惱僧，故用此治。次《智論》中，強獷，謂性麁惡。以下，出所以。語地，以語為樂故。通色有者，梵天行故。言故違者，謂特意也。此下，勸行。亦有等者，即《僧祇．二十四卷》；因摩訶羅犯眾罪，雖懺猶作；乃作不共語羯磨；今云尋本未得者，示有遺忘故。雜下，引證。柔軟謂勸喻，剛強即謫罰（通收七法）；殺之即默擯。謂下，顯相。有三種。不與語即常所言論，教授約學業，教誡約過失。（昔以柔軟配四羯磨，剛強配三舉，詳之。）問：後之二法，既不出過，何時用之？答：此謂強狠再犯重加。前羯磨云更增罪治，及《雜含》中猶不調者。驗此二法，必無單作，以不足數中無此人故。問：同異云何？答：前須出界，不制他言；後在本住，眾不與語。若論犯過，即同前七。問：輕重云何？答：前輕後重。前但如棄，後喻殺故。問：二法為次第用耶？答：惡馬治是律所加，默擯他宗所出。斟量情過，隨用一治。問：此二何無奪行？答：既是增罰，奪行在前故也。

In [the section on] silent excommunication (brahmadāṇḍa), first, citations are shown. Regarding the Brahma altar (brahmadāṇḍa), some say: an altar was erected before the palace of the Brahma King; when members of the heavenly host acted improperly, they were made to stand upon the altar, and the other devas would not interact or converse with them. The Pañcavargika-vinaya states: because Chanda troubled the Saṃgha, this discipline was employed. Next, in the Mahāprajñāpāramitōpadeśa, "fierce and intractable" refers to a nature that is coarse and wicked. From "by means of" onward, the reason is brought forth. "Realm of speech" means taking speech as pleasure. "Penetrating to the form realm" is because it is the practice of the Brahmā heavens. Saying "intentionally violating" refers to acting with deliberate purpose. From "this" onward, practice is urged. "There is also," etc., refers to the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya, fascicle 24; because Mahāra committed various offenses and, though repenting, still did them, a karmavācanā of non-communication was performed; now stating that "the original source has not yet been found" indicates that there was an oversight. From "Za" onward, proof is cited. "Gentle" means exhorting and advising; "harsh" means reprimands and punishments (comprehensively encompassing the seven procedures); "killing him" is silent excommunication. From "meaning" onward, the characteristics are manifested; there are three kinds. "Not speaking with him" refers to ordinary conversation; "instruction" pertains to studies; "admonition" pertains to faults. (Formerly, the gentle was matched to the four karmavācanās, and the harsh to the three suspensions; examine this.) Question: Since the latter two methods do not point out specific faults, when are they used? Answer: This refers to stubbornly repeating offenses, whereupon [punishments] are heavily added. The previous karmavācanā says "further augmenting the disciplinary penalty for offenses," and the Saṃyuktāgama speaks of "one who is still untamed." Verifying with these two methods, they certainly are never performed alone, because this person is not found among those who are insufficient in number. Question: What are their similarities and differences? Answer: The former requires going outside the boundary without restricting others from speaking [with him]; the latter remains in the original dwelling, and the community does not speak with him. If discussing the commission of offenses, it is the same as the previous seven. Question: What about their relative severity? Answer: The former is light and the latter is heavy, because the former is merely like being cast out, while the latter is compared to killing. Question: Are the two methods used successively? Answer: The discipline of the vicious horse is imposed by this Vinaya; silent excommunication is derived from other schools. Gauging the emotional disposition and offense, one applies either discipline accordingly. Question: Why do these two have no deprivation of privileges? Answer: Since they are augmented punishments, the deprivation of privileges has already taken place beforehand.