四分比丘戒本疏 1.45

1.45

問：同違僧諫，何故乃有殘、提不同？答：結罪重輕自有多義。且如破僧惱亂過重，共作計謀宜先諫主，以若主息餘亦息故。主既不息，助火蓋薪為過更甚，故復須諫。污家儐謗，於聚落中長時積過令失淨心，被儐應伏而返謗僧，過亦不輕，故宜須諫。惡性拒僧高舉凌眾，情亦難容，故應須諫，違並結殘。如論利吒說欲不障，宿習曲見謂之為是，僧雖設諫，情見未開，若結重罪便非分限，故但得提。然古難云：若以污家過集積增違諫罪重者，屏諫之事該於七聚，何不就事以結違諫重輕不同。今解污家於聚落中長時起過積罪已多，其屏諫中雖諫七聚，前人或容唯欲犯一不擬多犯，何得類於污家多過？尼有別戒，亦應准通，不能繁敘。戒本文三：一容犯人、二辨諫法、三結違諫罪。第二諫法，兩對四句：第一對者，若有過起先應屏諫；第二對者，若違屏諫，理應僧諫。一切諫戒義皆同此也。就過起中，有四句義：一、「欲壞和合僧」者，初發業心也。「方便受壞和合僧法」者，自有二種：一方便壞和合僧，即如調達，自作邪佛，令四惡伴以為邪僧，設破僧計，故云方便。二受壞和合僧法，謂共受行五種邪法為邪法寶。言五邪者，一盡形壽乞食、二著糞掃衣、三露坐、四不食蘇鹽、五不食魚肉。第四義「堅持不捨」者，於邪三寶假託倚傍堅執受持，與佛競化破正法輪也。於屏諫中，准律通於七眾及外道等諫，今且論比丘諫也。文有兩節：一、勸止四過，如文。二、「大德應與僧和合」已下，奪彼執情也。奪云「應與僧和合」者，奪起初發業心也。「與僧和合歡喜」者，奪設計也。「不諍」者，奪立邪五法也。「同一師學」已下，勸翻競化，得趣道增益、得證道安樂也。次辨第二。若違屏諫，理應僧諫。「是比丘如是諫時堅持不捨」者，違屏諫也。「彼比丘應三諫」已下，於中有兩：一教僧諫捨、二讚捨為善。謂讚翻違還成順善也。三諫者，一白表宜，三羯磨諫，第三剎那即得僧殘。第三之前猶應可捨，故云善也。古人取一白二羯磨為三諫者，非也。「第三不捨者僧伽婆尸沙」，正結違諫罪也。古來諸師多依諸論辨破法輪，於佛滅後定無此事，理非可犯。今詳律意與論稍異，謂諸論中辨無間業，故偏局取調達一人以成斯業。今律文意，設佛滅後別立邪法，行籌化人歸從己見，雖非正是無間業收，亦惱眾僧，僧須設諫，諫而不捨亦得僧殘。故律文言「有二事破僧，一作羯磨、二取舍羅。」准論取籌成無間業，准律通辨，故云作羯磨也。此戒義門雖復繁廣，行之事簡，故略云爾。

Question: Since both disobey an admonition by the Saṃgha, why is there a difference between saṃghāvaśeṣa and prāyaścittika? Answer: Establishing offences as heavy or light naturally involves many meanings. For instance, creating schism in the Saṃgha causes excessively grave distress and disturbance; in conceiving such schemes, the instigator should be admonished first, because if the leader desists, the others will also desist. Since the leader does not desist, those who fan the flames and heap on firewood commit an even more severe fault, and therefore must also be admonished. Corrupting families and slandering [the Saṃgha after] expulsion: accumulating faults in villages over a long time causes people to lose their pure faith; upon being expelled, they ought to submit, but instead slander the Saṃgha. Their fault is also not light, hence they must be admonished. Being of an obstinate nature, resisting the Saṃgha, acting haughtily, and bullying the assembly are also difficult for people to tolerate; hence they must be admonished. Disobeying any of these incurs a saṃghāvaśeṣa. As for Ariṭṭha, who said that sensual desires are not obstacles: this was a habitual warped view that he considered correct. Although the Saṃgha provided admonition, his biased view had not opened up; if a heavy offence were concluded, it would exceed his proper measure, and thus he incurs only a prāyaścittika. However, ancient scholars raised a difficulty: If accumulating many faults by corrupting families makes the offence of disobeying admonition heavy, then since the matter of private admonition covers all seven classes of offences, why not determine the weight of disobeying admonition based on the specific matter? Now it is explained: corrupting families commits faults in villages over a long period, accumulating a great deal of guilt; whereas in private admonition, although it covers the seven classes of offences, the other person might only intend to commit one and does not plan to commit many. How can this be compared to the numerous faults of corrupting families? The separate precepts for nuns should also be resolved along these lines, which cannot be recounted in detail. The text of the precept has three parts: first, it allows for the offender; second, it explains the procedure of admonition; third, it concludes the offence of disobeying admonition. Regarding the second, the procedure of admonition, there are two pairs and four phrases: In the first pair, if a fault arises, one should first admonish privately; in the second pair, if he disobeys the private admonition, one should properly have the Saṃgha admonish him. The meaning of all admonition precepts is identical to this. Within the arising of the fault, there are four meanings: First, 'wishing to break the concordant Saṃgha' is the initial intention initiating the action. 'By expedient means undertaking the dharma of breaking the concordant Saṃgha' naturally has two kinds: First, expediently breaking the concordant Saṃgha, just as Devadatta personally acted as a false Buddha, caused four evil companions to act as a false Saṃgha, and devised schemes to break the Saṃgha; hence it is called 'expedient means'. Second, undertaking the dharma of breaking the concordant Saṃgha, which means mutually undertaking and practicing five kinds of false dharmas as the false Dharma-jewel. The five false dharmas are: 1. begging food for one's whole life, 2. wearing rag-robes, 3. sitting in the open, 4. not eating ghee and salt, and 5. not eating fish and meat. The fourth meaning, 'persistently adhering to it without renouncing it', means falsely relying on and attaching to the false Three Jewels, rigidly upholding and practicing them, competing with the Buddha in converting people, and destroying the wheel of the true Dharma. In private admonition, according to the Vinaya, it extends to admonishing the seven assemblies, non-Buddhists, and so on; here we temporarily discuss admonition by monks. The text has two sections: 1. Admonishing him to cease the four faults, as in the text. 2. From 'Venerable, you should be in harmony with the Saṃgha' onward: refuting his clinging view. Refuting by saying 'you should be in harmony with the Saṃgha' refutes his initial intention initiating the action. 'Being joyful in harmony with the Saṃgha' refutes his devising schemes. 'Not disputing' refutes his establishing the false five dharmas. From 'training under the same teacher' onward: encouraging him to reverse his competition in conversion, so that he may gain increase in approaching the path and attain peace and joy in realizing the path. Next, the second is explained: if he disobeys the private admonition, the Saṃgha should properly admonish him. 'When that monk is admonished in this way, he persistently adheres to it and does not renounce it' refers to disobeying the private admonition. From 'the monks should thrice admonish that monk' onward, there are two points within: 1. instructing the Saṃgha to admonish him to renounce it, and 2. praising renunciation as good. That is, praising the reversal of disobedience into compliant goodness. 'Thrice admonished' means one motion (ñatti) stating the proposal, and three karmavācanās of admonition; at the third moment, one incurs a saṃghāvaśeṣa. Before the third, it is still possible to renounce it, hence it says 'good'. The ancients who took one motion and two karmavācanās as the three admonitions were incorrect. 'If at the third he does not renounce it, it is a saṃghāvaśeṣa' directly concludes the offence of disobeying admonition. In the past, various masters mostly relied on the treatises to explain the schism of the wheel of Dharma, claiming that after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa this matter definitely does not occur, and in principle could not be transgressed. Now, examining the intention of the Vinaya, it is slightly different from the treatises: in the treatises, they explain the uninterrupted (ānantarya) karma, and thus exclusively restrict it to Devadatta alone to constitute this karma. Now, the intention of the Vinaya text is that even after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, if one separately establishes false dharmas, conducts voting by voting-sticks, and converts people to follow one's own view, although it is not strictly included in uninterrupted karma, it nevertheless distresses the Saṃgha; the Saṃgha must provide an admonition, and if one is admonished and does not renounce it, one also incurs a saṃghāvaśeṣa. Therefore, the Vinaya text states: 'There are two matters that break the Saṃgha: first, performing a karma; second, taking voting-sticks (śalākā).' According to the treatises, taking voting-sticks constitutes uninterrupted karma; according to the Vinaya, it is explained comprehensively, hence it says 'performing a karma'. Although the theoretical aspects of this precept are vast and manifold, in actual practice the matter is concise; hence it is summarized thus.