四分律行事鈔資持記 1.782

1.782

料簡中，初科為二，前示本律言通。依下，次引《僧祇》決正，初明偷法。彼云沙彌潛身床下，盜聽初中後語者，即攝羯磨言相始終，俱記成障，不具不成。文雖約記，義須明解。（古記云：作白為初，五篇為中，略教為後，此釋甚謬，說戒可爾；若單作羯磨，約何分耶？）若凡下，明偷形。反之謂經布薩也。問：不聞羯磨，但聽戒相，為成障否？答：此有二別。若身在眾，妄同僧列，但聽即成，不必羯磨；若論潛聽，必約羯磨；若但聞戒，義應非障；即前文云：不秉羯磨，皆不成難。又如《疏》云：偷和合者，應在羯磨。若爾，何以《僧祇》云：說戒時，論何事耶？答：以說戒時，必作羯磨故。若爾，何以說戒遣未具者？答：恐生輕易，不論障戒。如《戒疏》云：下眾無知，多生慢習；制令耳目不屬，則重法尊人，生其欽仰；準知簡出，意令尊重；且如大尼亦遣，豈慮障戒耶。問：私習秉唱，未具忽聞，及未受前曾披經律；因讀羯磨，了知言義，成障戒不？答：準前後文，並論僧中正作，詐竊成障，安有讀文而成障戒？如前《善見》，偷僧和合；屏唱私讀，僧和安在？以義斟酌，定非成障；前云此非羯磨，不犯賊住。意如上解，不可專執。（古記並云成難，古來高僧，多有在俗先披大藏，今時信士，多亦如之；若皆障戒，無乃太急，學者詳之。）

Under "detailed analysis": The first section has two parts: first, he shows that the wording of the root Vinaya is general. From "Relying on" onward, next he cites the *Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya* to determine the correct view. First, he explains stealing the Dharma. It says that a śrāmaṇera hides beneath a bed to steal and listen to the beginning, middle, and end words; that is, it encompasses the words and marks of the karma from beginning to end: remembering them all constitutes an obstacle; if incomplete, it does not constitute it. Although the text specifies remembering, by principle one must clearly understand. (An old record says: "Making the motion (jñapti) is the beginning, the five categories are the middle, and the abbreviated instruction is the end." This explanation is quite absurd: for reciting the precepts it might be so, but if performing a bare karma, by what would one divide it?) From "If an ordinary" onward, he explains stealing the appearance. "The reverse" refers to having undergone the poṣadha. Question: If one does not hear the karma, but only listens to the precept-marks, does it constitute an obstacle or not? Answer: There are two distinctions here. If one's person is within the assembly, falsely assimilating to the ranks of the Saṃgha, merely listening constitutes it; it does not require a karma. If speaking of secretly listening, it must be regarding a karma; if one merely hears the precepts, by principle it should not be an obstacle. This is precisely what the previous text says: "If a karma is not being conducted, none constitute an obstacle." Furthermore, as the *Commentary* says: "Stealing concord should consist in the karma." If so, why does the *Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya* say: "At the time of reciting the precepts, what matters are discussed?" Answer: Because at the time of reciting the precepts, a karma must be performed. If so, why are those not fully ordained sent away during the recitation of the precepts? Answer: Fearing that they might develop slighting disregard, it does not concern an obstacle to the precepts. As the *Precept Commentary* says: "The lower assembly lacks understanding and frequently develops habits of arrogance. Prohibiting them so that their ears and eyes do not have access causes them to value the Dharma and honor persons, giving rise to their admiration." Following this, we know that screening them out is intended to engender reverence; moreover, just as the senior nuns are also sent away, could it be feared that it would obstruct the precepts? Question: If someone secretly practices reciting and chanting, and one not fully ordained suddenly overhears it, or before receiving the precepts one previously read the sūtras and Vinaya, and by reading the karma thoroughly understood the words and meaning, does it constitute an obstacle to the precepts or not? Answer: Based on the preceding and subsequent texts, all discuss an actual performance in the midst of the Saṃgha, where fraudulent theft constitutes an obstacle; how could reading a text constitute an obstacle to the precepts? As in the *Samantapāsādikā* above, stealing the Saṃgha's concord: in secluded chanting and private reading, where is the Saṃgha's concord? Deliberating on it by principle, it definitely does not constitute an obstacle; earlier it was said, "This is not a karma; one does not commit living as a thief." The meaning is as explained above; one should not stubbornly adhere to [the contrary]. (Old records all say it constitutes an obstacle. Since ancient times, eminent monks have often opened the Tripiṭaka while still laypersons, and faithful laymen today mostly do the same. If all this obstructed the precepts, would it not be too stringent? Learners should examine this.)