四分律行事鈔資持記 2.2031

2.2031

列名有五。《戒疏》文廣，不可具錄；恐未見疏，且就四重，略撮名義，以示新學。初明剋漫，先釋名；剋，謂情專一境；漫，謂心涉多緣。漫復有二：一者大漫，如本標心，遍通三趣；俱是所期，隨作成犯。二者小漫，但該人道，不兼非畜。次配四戒，唯婬一戒，不問乖差；但使境交，無非大重；盜殺二戒，大漫則隨境成犯，小漫則異趣非犯；剋定一人，三趣非犯；妄語一戒，三境俱現，內知歷然；犯無剋心，通境隨犯；三趣不現，隨剋隨犯。二明錯誤，先示名；錯就現緣境差為義，誤就不現緣境差心謬忘為義。二對戒者，婬戒隨犯，不論錯誤；盜戒分三，大漫三趣齊犯，小漫非畜物不犯。剋心又二：若對異人以論，盜張得王不犯；若就一主，盜金得銀，即還不犯；殺戒，漫心同上；剋心以論，錯開不犯；現境歷然，心緣別故；誤則成重，緣王張解，人想不差故。妄語一戒，大漫同上；小漫錯犯，對現境故；誤不犯，不竝現故。剋心有二，對人誑他義一，錯誤俱重；對法為言，說聖稱凡，迷凡謂聖，錯誤皆開；若就聖法，如錯說三四禪皆重。三自他中，初通示三例：一自造他境，二他造自境，三自造自境。二別配四戒：婬戒，三句皆重；盜戒，初例重，餘二無罪；殺戒，初二例有無可解；自殺自犯俞蘭；造語，上二，易會；自誑，義準犯吉，非言說軌儀故。《四分》身口，通約四戒，前三身犯，後一口犯；別約互造，婬局身造，後三竝通互造。五教人自成，即是兩業；隨戒不同，故云各分。初明教人：婬戒，自作成重；教他，樂在前人，不得同犯。（教人作者犯蘭，不作犯吉。）盜殺，自作教人，損境暢思，彼我俱重。妄戒，教人，名利壅彼，故不同犯。次明遣人：教則利己義疎，遣則向己義親；如遣人婬己，遣人說聖，皆重；盜殺無遣，故非所論。多人通使，亦即教人，婬無此義。言多人者，謂重使及展轉使；重使者，謂隨續使人，乃至百千；展轉使者，謂所遣人不得自去，復轉使人乃至眾多也。文出殺戒，義必通三；成遣彼作，故云緣別；彼我齊犯，是業同。（有將口讚坑陷等釋之，非也。）上且略舉數名，非謂已盡。若彼疏文，義章極廣；如上引釋，略通名相；必欲窮盡，積學猶迷；故不繁引，順鈔意也。

Five names are listed. The text of the Precept Commentary is extensive and cannot be fully recorded; fearing that one has not yet seen that commentary, I shall provisionally take the four major offenses, briefly gathering the names and principles to show them to beginning students. First, to clarify specific and general: first explaining the names; 'specific' means that the mind is focused exclusively on a single object; 'general' means that the mind extends across multiple conditions. The 'general' also has two types: first, 'greatly general,' as when the originally designated intention universally extends across the three destinies; all being what was intended, whatever is done constitutes an offense. Second, 'slightly general,' which only encompasses the human realm and does not include non-humans or animals. Next, matching them to the four precepts: only the single precept of sexual misconduct does not ask about discrepancy; as long as the objects interact, there is none that is not a major offense. In the two precepts of theft and killing, with a greatly general mind an offense is formed according to the object, whereas with a slightly general mind a different destiny does not constitute an offense; when specified to one individual, the three destinies do not constitute an offense. In the single precept of false speech, when all three objects are present and internally known distinctly: if the offense has no specific intention, an offense follows across all objects; if the three destinies are not present, an offense follows according to what was specified. Second, to clarify error and mistake: first indicating the names; 'error' takes discrepancy of the object under present conditions as its meaning, whereas 'mistake' takes discrepancy of the object under non-present conditions and mental confusion or forgetfulness as its meaning. Second, matching them to the precepts: the precept of sexual misconduct is violated in every case, without discussing error or mistake. The precept of theft is divided into three: with a greatly general mind, the three destinies are equally violated; with a slightly general mind, the property of non-humans and animals is not violated. A specific mind also has two types: if discussed in relation to a different person, stealing from Zhang and obtaining Wang's [goods] is not an offense; if in relation to a single owner, stealing gold and obtaining silver is also not an offense. In the killing precept, a general mind is the same as above; discussed in terms of a specific mind, an error is an exception that is not an offense; since the present object is distinct, the mind relates to a different one; a mistake constitutes a grave [offense], because in relating to Wang with the understanding of Zhang, the perception of a human is not mistaken. In the single precept of false speech, a greatly general mind is the same as above; in a slightly general mind, an error is an offense because it faces a present object; a mistake is not an offense because they are not present together. A specific mind has two types: in relation to a person, the principle of deceiving another is one and the same, so both error and mistake are grave; spoken in relation to dharmas, claiming to be ordinary while speaking of the noble, or being confused about the ordinary and calling it noble, both error and mistake are exceptions; if in relation to noble dharmas, such as mistakenly speaking of the third or fourth dhyāna, both are grave. Third, under oneself and others, it first generally indicates the three models: 1. Acting oneself upon another's object; 2. Another acting upon one's own object; 3. Acting oneself upon one's own object. Second, matching them individually to the four precepts: in the sexual misconduct precept, all three clauses are grave; in the theft precept, the first model is grave, and the remaining two incur no offense; in the killing precept, whether the first two models are offenses or not can be understood; killing oneself incurs a sthūlātyaya oneself; in making false speech, the upper two are easy to understand; deceiving oneself, by analogy of principle, incurs a duṣkṛta, because it is not the formal procedure of spoken words. Regarding body and speech in the Dharmaguptaka: generally applied to the four precepts, the first three are bodily offenses and the last one is a vocal offense; specifically applied to reciprocal commission, sexual misconduct is restricted to bodily commission, whereas the latter three universally allow reciprocal commission. Fifth, instructing another and doing it oneself are two distinct karmas; because they differ according to the precept, it says 'each is distinguished.' First, to clarify instructing another: in the sexual misconduct precept, doing it oneself constitutes a grave offense; instructing another, the pleasure lies in the other person, so one cannot incur the same offense. (Instructing another to do it incurs a sthūlātyaya; if they do not do it, one incurs a duṣkṛta.) In theft and killing, doing it oneself and instructing another harm the object and fulfill the intention, so both the other and oneself are equally grave. In the false speech precept, when instructing another, fame and profit are obstructed for that person, so they do not incur the same offense. Next, to clarify dispatching another: instructing has a remote connection to benefiting oneself, whereas dispatching has a close connection directed toward oneself; as when dispatching someone to engage in sexual misconduct with oneself, or dispatching someone to proclaim one's noble [attainments], both are grave; theft and killing have no dispatching [of this kind], so they are not discussed. Multiple persons universally dispatched is also instructing another; sexual misconduct lacks this meaning. Speaking of 'multiple persons' refers to repeatedly dispatching and sequentially dispatching; 'repeatedly dispatching' means dispatching persons in succession, up to a hundred or a thousand; 'sequentially dispatching' means that the dispatched person cannot go oneself and sequentially dispatches another person, up to a large number. The text appears under the killing precept, but the principle must universally apply to three; effecting the dispatch for that other to act is why it says 'conditions differ'; that oneself and the other are equally guilty is that the karma is identical. (Some explain this by praising with the mouth, trapping in pits, and so forth, which is incorrect.) The above merely lists several names provisionally, not that it is exhaustive. The text of that commentary contains extremely broad doctrinal chapters; as cited and explained above, the technical terminology is briefly made intelligible; if one definitely wishes to exhaust it, even after accumulated study one would still be confused; therefore, I do not cite extensively, in accordance with the intent of the Manual.