四分律行事鈔資持記 2.285

2.285

次料簡中，初科；問中，上申疑問。如下，示戲笑之相。然大小二道，難論戲笑，故但約口道明之。答中，初示婬心。即摩觸戒釋婬意文。並下，斷犯。如〈調部〉中：有乞食比丘，見小兒根起，遂著口中；生疑白佛，佛言：波羅夷，是也。《五分》下，引證，則通兩判。彼因比丘以根刺它口中，生疑白佛，佛斷如文。刺者，即毛頭，相同今宗也；非戲者，即有欲心，同上所判。受刺亦爾，約比丘言之。次《十誦》中，上論戲笑，皆約口道；觀其引意，似決上犯；復似顯別，學者詳之。口道同《伽論》，二道同四五二律。

In the subsequent discernment, in the first section, the question raises a doubt above. From "as in..." onward, it indicates the marks of jesting. However, in the two tracts (the anus and the vulva), it is difficult to speak of jesting; thus it is explained only in terms of the oral tract. In the answer, it first indicates the lustful mind, which is the text explaining lustful intent in the precept on touching. From "and all..." onward, it decides the violation. As in the "Vāra Section": there was an alms-begging bhikṣu who saw a boy's member erect and thereupon placed it in his mouth; giving rise to doubt, he reported it to the Buddha, and the Buddha said, "It is a pārājika"—this is it. From "The Five-Part [Vinaya]..." onward, citing proof then covers both determinations. That was due to a bhikṣu inserting his member into another's mouth; giving rise to doubt, he reported it to the Buddha, and the Buddha judged it as in the text. "Inserting" means the tip of the hair, whose mark is identical to our school; "not in jest" means having a lustful mind, identical to the determination above. Receiving insertion is also like this, spoken with respect to the bhikṣu. Next, in the Daśādhyāya-vinaya, the jesting discussed above is all with respect to the oral tract; observing the intention of its citation, it seems to decide the violation above, and it also seems to show a distinction; scholars should examine it in detail. The oral tract is the same as the Mātṛkā-śāstra; the two tracts are the same as the Four-Part and Five-Part Vinayas.