四分律行事鈔資持記 1.962

1.962

互治中二，前明師被治中復二，初定失法。《律》云：和尚闍梨，僧與作訶責擯出依止遮不至白衣家作舉，佛言不失依止（弟子亦同）。今以義約，即不失上二也。（舊云三舉失下二者，非也。）以師下，釋失所以。言得罪者，若輒教誡，則違行法，一一吉羅。以奪下，轉釋得罪。不得依止，即奪眷屬也。若下，次明弟子被治，三皆不失。開無隨順者，合眾同治，餘人隨順，並制吉羅，師獨開之。（不同隨舉，彼局惡見犯提故。）

Under mutual discipline, there are two parts. First, explaining the master being disciplined, which again has two parts. First, determining the loss of the dharma. The Vinaya says: When the saṃgha performs a karma-procedure of rebuke, banishment, dependence-revocation, suspension from visiting lay households, or formal censure against an upādhyāya or ācārya, the Buddha said he does not lose the niśraya (the same applies to a disciple). Now, defining it by principle, he does not lose the upper two. (The old view that the three formal censures cause the loss of the lower two is incorrect.) From "Because the master" downward, explaining the reason for the loss. The words "incurs an offense" mean that if he arbitrarily instructs and admonishes, he violates the active regulations, incurring a duṣkṛta for each. From "Because of seizing" downward, further explaining incurring an offense. Not obtaining the niśraya means seizing his retinue. From "If" downward, next, explaining that when the disciple is disciplined, none of the three are lost. "Allowing absence of compliance": when the whole assembly unites to discipline someone, if others comply with him, they are all prohibited under duṣkṛta; the master alone is exempted. (This is unlike complying with one under formal censure, where that is restricted to wrong views and incurs a pāyattika.)