四分律行事鈔資持記 2.22

2.22

Regarding "combining proof": this is because having precepts and committing repeated violations are conceptually inseparable. In citing the text, it first recounts the school's doctrinal intention: The code conforms to objects, so it is called "individual liberation" (prātimokṣa); the path and concentration conform to the mind, so they are "general liberation." As below, it cites the treatise to explain thoroughly; first, it adduces the text. Reception is a prospective projection, so it can be universally generated; violation is confronting the specific object, so it is only violated individually. Following "Now," it illustrates them one by one; first, it clarifies universal generation. According to the chapter "Explaining the Marks," that treatise only applies the three poisons across the seven paths of action; that the three become seven is a deduction made by our present interpretation, fully explained below. In the text, it specifically cites the path of sexual misconduct to clarify, and the rest can be understood by analogy. The objects of sexual intercourse are classified by path: three for female, two for male; the mind of sexual desire has the three poisons: three single, three compounded, and one fully combined; arising intermittently according to conditions, traversing objects with the mind, many precepts are generated, as listed in the text. Following "Now," it clarifies individual violations. Question: If other acts of sex are not violated, there is a repeated violation; but if, with a mind of greed, one again engages in sex with the former woman via the original path, does it constitute a repeated violation or not? Question: The Daśādhyāya-vinaya does not establish repeated violations; why take its treatise to substantiate our own school? Question: If one cannot violate various precepts at the same time, how can the offense of non-learning be violated simultaneously? Reflect upon it like this.