四分比丘戒本疏 1.33

1.33

第六結罪、第七永驅儐，如前應知。自下第三結已審持。「諸大德！我已說四夷」者，結已也。「若比丘犯一一法」已下，因便略釋治儐法也。「不得與諸比丘其住如前」者，昔已共同財法二義，今則已失。「後亦如是」者，於當共同財法二義，不復當續也。古來諸釋，煩而不敘。凡成果罪理必從因，因義不同略分二種：一者傍資助緣，古人名遠方便是也。如飲酒、非時食，犯心滑利，傍資一切犯輕重罪。自稱得聖，傍資犯盜。隱罪經明，犯覆藏吉也。如斯之例非彼正因，然能為緣生其餘犯。二者從正因生，此復二種：一加行漸增，舊人名為進趣方便也。謂於果前積小成大，如創發心已犯小罪，漸增不息輕蘭重蘭，乃至成果攬成果名。而實感果剎那，別感懺悔之時，要心總懺罪方得滅。須知其理。若准《五分》結果罪名不攬因名，故別懺因。此即宗別而意趣同也。又准《十誦》凡犯諸戒容有任運。謂沙彌時先設方便，事未成頃中間受戒，受戒既畢前事方成。任運容犯三波羅夷，以婬無容先設方便故也。二者緣闕所礙，此即闕緣不得成果。緣雖無量，總攝勿過通三別三。通緣三者，如《明了論》。別緣三者，律中境想即是境心諸結罪文即是。辨業細分即七，如上已論。且約殺人辨闕緣者，略而言之有七方便：一闕依方便，舊人名為闕緣方便，以濫總名改為闕依。謂佛制戒依大比丘，今發犯心後方捨戒，即令果罪無依可結。第二未制廣、第三癡狂等病，並非果罪之所依也。此即闕通緣而立此義，已下六種並闕別緣，尋之可知。第二境強，欲殺前人，前人境強而不可害。第三失計，方便如刀打等，舊人名曰緣差，亦濫總名故改之也。第四境差，即境想中後二句是。境想雖有三類差別，莫不下二皆是境差。且如望人進趣欲殺，而臨境所非人來替，想為本人、疑為本人，本人之境理實已闕，故無果罪，但得異境。被差之前，本期境上方便因罪，故云境差也。異境來差，雖有人畜非情等異，莫不皆非本期之人，故云非人。不勞煩敘。第五轉想、第六轉疑，即境想中二三兩句。本趣正境，臨時想轉是也。第七心息，謂急息心而不至果也。此七方便皆闕果名，總名闕緣也。方便業中有遠有近，或全無罪。且如捨戒，先捨後殺，全無犯戒。或發心已方捨戒者，即得吉羅。或遠方便輕偷蘭遮，或近方便重偷蘭遮。境強、失計、心息等類，並准斯釋。故律文云「成者波羅夷，不成者偷蘭遮。」義含差別也。懺悔之時須知輕重，不同古人但數名目不曉差別也。此即略陳方便義訖。古人又解持犯義門，今詳犯者隨文並是，無勞別敘。若論持者，即根律儀正念正知，防護六根不令流泄破戒煩惱名之為持。持有二種，於惡止息、於善策修，古人名為止持、作持是也。亦有一戒雙具止作，或有一向單止單作，思而取悟。然惡有兩：一事、二法。事謂婬等，法謂妄等，此之二種皆須止息。善亦有兩：一事、二法。事謂應造，如順教造房辨釋量等；法謂應學，如誦戒等。於此二種皆應進學，息心不學即是懈怠。復不曉知即不正知，或是無明。此等煩惱變異身語，故成不學無知二罪。律亦誠文，制滿五夏誦戒羯磨。又云「若不知不見五犯聚，我說此人愚癡波羅夷乃至惡說。」言簡義豐理無不備，豈同昔匠廣事繁詞。審持之文，如前應知。

The sixth [clause], fixing the offence, and the seventh, permanent expulsion, should be understood as explained above. From here below, the third [part] concludes by examining whether [the precepts] have been maintained. "O Venerables, I have recited the four offences of defeat" concludes the recitation. From "If a monk commits any one offence" onward, it briefly explains the procedure for punishing and expelling [him] as the context requires. "He shall not dwell together with the monks as before" means that while in the past he shared the two meanings of material goods and the Dharma, he has now lost them. "Nor shall he do so afterwards" means that he shall never again take part in sharing the two meanings of material goods and the Dharma in the future. The explanations of past commentators are tedious, so they will not be related here. Whenever a resultant offence is produced, the principle is that it must proceed from causes; as the meanings of the causes differ, they are briefly divided into two kinds: The first is auxiliary supporting conditions, which earlier commentators called remote preliminary preparations. For example, in drinking alcohol or eating at forbidden times, the mind bent on transgressing becomes reckless and slippery, which auxiliary-supports all offences, light or heavy. Falsely claiming to have attained sagehood auxiliary-supports the offence of theft. Concealing an offence until dawn transgresses the duṣkṛta of concealment. Such examples are not the direct cause of that [resultant offence], yet they can serve as conditions to generate other offences. The second is arising from a direct cause, which again has two kinds: The first is gradual increase through preliminary exertion, which earlier commentators called progressing preliminary preparation. That is, prior to the result, small offences accumulate into a great one; as when first generating the intention [to commit a sin], a minor offence is already incurred, and by gradually increasing without ceasing through light sthūlātyayas and heavy sthūlātyayas, up to the realization of the result, it assumes the name of the resultant offence. Yet at the precise moment of bringing about the result, a distinct result is incurred; at the time of repentance, the mind must comprehensively repent [both cause and result] for the offence to be eradicated. One must understand this principle. If based on the Mahīśāsaka-vinaya, the name of the resultant offence does not subsume the names of the causes, so the causes are repented separately. These are different school doctrines, yet their intended purport is the same. Furthermore, based on the Sarvāstivāda-vinaya, in transgressing the various precepts, there can be spontaneous completion: that is, when one is a śrāmaṇera, one first sets up a preliminary preparation; before the matter is accomplished, one receives the full precepts in the interim; once the reception of the precepts is complete, the previous deed is then accomplished. One can spontaneously transgress three pārājikas, because with sexual intercourse, there is no scope to set up a preliminary preparation beforehand. The second is obstruction due to a lack of conditions; this refers to the lack of conditions preventing the result from being accomplished. Although conditions are immeasurable, when comprehensively subsumed, they do not exceed three general and three specific [conditions]. The three general conditions are as explained in the Vinayārtha-vibhāṣā. The three specific conditions are: the perception of the object in the Vinaya text, which is the mind toward the object; and the various texts that fix the offence, which identify the act. When analyzed in detail, these make seven conditions, as discussed above. Taking the killing of a human being to analyze the lack of conditions, briefly stated, there are seven preliminary preparations: The first is the preliminary preparation of a lack of basis. Earlier commentators called this the preliminary preparation of a lack of conditions, but because it could be confused with the general term, it was changed to "lack of basis." That is, the Buddha instituted the precepts on the basis of a fully ordained monk; if one now generates the mind to commit a transgression and only afterwards abandons the precepts, the resultant offence has no basis upon which to be fixed. The second, prior to the extensive institution [of the precept], and the third, diseases such as madness, are likewise not bases upon which a resultant offence can rest. This meaning is established through the lack of general conditions; the six kinds below all lack specific conditions, which can be understood by examination. The second is when the object is too strong: one wishes to kill the other person, but the other person's condition is too strong, so he cannot be harmed. The third is a failed plan: the preliminary preparations, such as a knife or club, [fail to work]. Earlier commentators called this "discrepancy of conditions," but this also risked confusion with the general term, so it was changed. The fourth is a discrepancy of the object, which corresponds to the last two lines among the perceptions of the object. Although the perceptions of the object have three different categories, all of the lower two are discrepancies of the object. For instance, when one sets forth aiming at a human being with the intent to kill, but on arriving at the object, a non-human has taken his place; if one perceives it as the original person or doubts whether it is the original person, the condition of the original person is indeed already lacking, so there is no resultant offence. One merely incurs the preliminary causal offence on the intended object before being substituted by a different object; hence it is called "discrepancy of the object." Though the substituted different objects may differ as humans, animals, or insentient things, none of them is the originally intended human being; hence they are called "non-human." There is no need to relate this at length. The fifth is a change of perception, and the sixth is a change into doubt; these are the second and third lines among the perceptions of the object. This is when one originally directed oneself toward the correct object, but at the time [of the deed] one's perception changes. The seventh is the cessation of the intention: that is, one abruptly puts an end to one's intention, so it does not reach the result. These seven preliminary preparations all lack the name of the result; collectively they are called "lack of conditions." Among the acts of preliminary preparation, there are remote and proximate ones, and some carry entirely no offence. For instance, in abandoning the precepts, if one abandons them first and kills afterwards, there is no precept transgression at all. If one abandons the precepts only after having generated the intention, one incurs a duṣkṛta. Or a remote preliminary preparation may be a light sthūlātyaya, while a proximate preliminary preparation is a heavy sthūlātyaya. The categories of a strong object, a failed plan, the cessation of the intention, and the like are all explained in accordance with this. Therefore, the Vinaya text says: "If completed, it is a pārājika; if uncompleted, it is a sthūlātyaya." This meaning encompasses distinctions. At the time of repentance, one must know the light and the heavy, unlike the commentators of old who merely enumerated terms without understanding the distinctions. This concludes the brief explanation of the meaning of preliminary preparation. Commentators of old also explained the aspects of maintaining and transgressing [precepts]. Now, examining transgressions, they are all found following the text, so there is no need to relate them separately. As for maintaining, it is the moral discipline of the faculties, correct mindfulness, and correct comprehension, guarding the six faculties so that defilements that break the precepts do not leak out; this is called "maintaining." Maintaining is of two kinds: putting an end to evil, and striving to cultivate good. Commentators of old called these "maintaining by cessation" and "maintaining by action." There is also a precept that possesses both cessation and action, or one that is purely single cessation or single action, which one must grasp through reflection. Now, evil has two aspects: first, practical matters; second, doctrinal matters. Practical matters refer to sexual misconduct and the like; doctrinal matters refer to lying and the like. Both of these must be put to an end. Good also has two aspects: first, practical matters; second, doctrinal matters. Practical matters refer to what should be constructed, such as building a hut in accordance with the teachings and determining the measurements; doctrinal matters refer to what should be learned, such as reciting the precepts. In both of these, one should make progress in learning; if one halts one's mind and does not learn, that is indolence. Furthermore, if one does not comprehend, that is incorrect comprehension, or ignorance. Such defilements alter body and speech, thus resulting in the two offences of not learning and ignorance. The Vinaya also has an explicit rule requiring one who has completed five rains retreats to recite the precepts and the karmavācanā. It also says: "If someone does not know and does not see the five categories of offences, I say this person is foolish, incurring from a pārājika up to a duṣbhāṣita." The words are concise yet the meaning is rich, lacking nothing in principle; how could this be like the expansive matters and tedious words of past masters? The text on examining whether [the precepts] have been maintained should be understood as explained before.