四分律行事鈔資持記 2.488

2.488

第二別釋中，初文，前引《善見》。但示不覺相觸。下令作句者，一覺觸不覺（如下《四分》手捉髮殘），二不覺觸覺（《十誦》爪等，皆蘭；準鈔亦殘。），三俱覺（結殘可知），四俱不覺（犯蘭，即上《善見》。）。次引《十誦》，初明互壞。雖二俱覺境，而病壞樂輕，罪亦減降。身根者，對塵名根，即通身分。若以下，唯約能觸。文列五相，上三不覺，下二病壞。無肉骨者，世有病壞，或然手指，有餘骨者，即是其相。若下，即據本宗決上《十誦》。戒本，即律戒本；彼云：若捉手、若髮、一一身分，僧殘（《刪定戒本》除之）覺觸不覺，既結僧殘；不覺觸覺，義須同犯。故《戒疏》云：《善見》：髮髮相著，爪爪相觸，悉得偷蘭，俱無覺故；若互觸者，理結僧殘，同戒本也。則知不取《十誦》明矣。

In the second, specific explanation, the first text earlier cited the Samantapāsādikā. It only shows touching without awareness. Below, it has one form propositions: 1. aware touching unaware (as below in the Dharmaguptaka-vinaya, grasping hair with the hand is a saṃghāvaśeṣa); 2. unaware touching aware (in the Daśādhyāya-vinaya, nails and the like are all thullaccaya; based on the Transactions Manual, it is also a saṃghāvaśeṣa); 3. both aware (constituting a saṃghāvaśeṣa is obvious); 4. both unaware (committing a thullaccaya, which is the Samantapāsādikā above). Next, citing the Daśādhyāya-vinaya, it first clarifies mutual impairment. Although both are aware of the object, because of disease and impairment the pleasure is light, and the offense is also reduced. The 'body faculty' is named a faculty in contrast to sensory objects, which encompasses all bodily parts. From 'if by means of' downward, it relates solely to that which can touch. The text lists five marks: the upper three are unaware, and the lower two are diseased and impaired. 'Bones without flesh': in the world there are diseased impairments, or burning fingers leaving remaining bones, which are their marks. From 'if' downward, it judges the above Daśādhyāya-vinaya based on our own school. 'Prātimokṣa' refers to the Prātimokṣa of this Vinaya; it says: 'If grasping hands, hair, or any part of the body, it is a saṃghāvaśeṣa' (omitted in the Edited Prātimokṣa). Since aware touching unaware constitutes a saṃghāvaśeṣa, unaware touching aware must logically be the same offense. Therefore the Precept Commentary says: 'In the Samantapāsādikā: hair touching hair, nails touching nails, all incur a thullaccaya, because both lack awareness; if they touch mutually, logically it constitutes a saṃghāvaśeṣa, identical to the Prātimokṣa.' Then we know clearly that it does not follow the Daśādhyāya-vinaya.