四分律行事鈔資持記 2.1122

2.1122

義決中。前注已破，由世盛傳，故此重示。初立義遮非。故律下，引決，初準《四分》。僧敬上座，尼敬大僧，二俱是制，違則有罪；由受頭陀，二皆不犯。取彼決此，非直明文，故云義也。何下，次指《僧祇》。彼云，足食有八種：一自恣足（檀越自恣與，比丘言，我已滿足，如是離坐，不作殘食法犯提，下皆例同。），二少欲足（檀越多與，而動手現少取相。），三穢污足（行食淨人手疥癩不淨，比丘惡之；言不用，過去。），四雜足（淨人持乳酪器盛[麩-夫+少]，比丘惡，言過去等。），五不便足（淨人行[麩-夫+少]，比丘問已，言此動我風，不便，過去，乃至與病不便等例說。），六自諂曲足（淨人行食，比丘現手作相，若搖頭若縮鉢作相。），七停住足（淨人行食時，比丘言莫先行飯，當先下菜等。），八自已足（比丘乞食，自有[麩-夫+少]囊，從檀越乞水；彼意謂須[麩-夫+少]，即問比丘須否？比丘意謂檀越至家中取水，答言須。彼捉比丘[麩-夫+少]囊授與，比丘言且置。）。彼但云八種，今以隨作一相，即名遮後，故云八遮。上明境足，猶是從寬，《僧祇》更急。故引比況，足顯彼非。

In "Deciding by Principle": The previous note has already refuted [this view], but because it is widely circulated in the world, it is presented again here. First, principles are established to preclude error. Under "Therefore the Vinaya...", passages are cited to settle [the issue]: first based on the Dharmaguptaka-vinaya. A bhikṣu respecting a senior elder and a bhikṣuṇī respecting a fully ordained monk are both prescribed rules; violating them entails an offense. Yet by taking up the dhūtas, neither [act] constitutes a violation. Taking that case to settle this one is not based on direct textual statement, hence it is called [settling by] "principle". Under "Why...", next points to the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya. It states that there are eight kinds of satiation with food: first, satiation by unhindered offer (a dānapati offers at will, and the bhikṣu says, "I am already satiated"; if he leaves his seat in this manner without performing the leftover-food rite, he commits a pāyattika; the cases below follow this model); second, satiation by few desires (the dānapati gives much, but [the monk] gestures with his hands to indicate taking little); third, satiation by impurity (the food-distributing pure attendant's hands are scabby and leprously unclean, and the bhikṣu is repulsed by it, saying, "No need, pass on"); fourth, satiation by mixture (the pure attendant holds a vessel of curds containing roasted flour, and the bhikṣu is repulsed, saying, "Pass on", and so forth); fifth, satiation by incompatibility (the pure attendant distributes roasted flour; after inquiring, the bhikṣu says, "This aggravates my wind disorder and does not suit me, pass on"; up to and including being unsuitable for an illness, and the like); sixth, satiation by self-pretension (the pure attendant distributes food, and the bhikṣu makes gestures with his hands, or shakes his head, or pulls back his bowl to make a sign); seventh, satiation by stopping (while the pure attendant distributes food, the bhikṣu says, "Do not serve rice first; you should bring the vegetables first", and so forth); eighth, satiation by self-sufficiency (the bhikṣu begs for food and already has a bag of roasted flour; he asks the dānapati for water, and the dānapati, thinking he needs roasted flour, asks the bhikṣu whether he needs any; the bhikṣu, thinking the dānapati is going into the house to fetch water, replies that he needs it; when the dānapati takes the bhikṣu's flour bag to hand it to him, the bhikṣu says, "Set it down for now"). That text merely speaks of eight kinds; now, because performing any one sign constitutes precluding what follows, they are termed the "eight preclusions". The above explanation of the object's satiation was still somewhat broad, whereas the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya is even more strict. Therefore, citing it for comparison sufficiently exposes their error.