四分比丘戒本疏 1.47

1.47

第十二、被儐之時謗僧違諫戒。文亦有三：一容犯人、二辨諫法、三結違諫罪。第二諫法，兩對四句，如前所判。就過起中，文有二句：一由污家故僧驅儐、二被儐時非理謗僧。非理謗僧，正是所諫事也。就前儐中，文復二節：一依於城聚污家惡行。言「污家」者，准律有四：一依家污家。如從張家得他施物餉遣王家，張家聞之失信不喜，王家得物思偏報恩，失平等信。二依利養污家。如法得利，與一居士不與一居士。三者依親友污家。謂依王臣，曲為一人不為一人。四依僧伽藍污家。謂取僧花果與一人不與一人，並令前人失平等心，故名污家也。言「惡行」者，自種花、教人種花，或與女人同床同器食等，乃至種種非威儀事，上至犯殘、下至犯吉。作此污家惡行二事，令諸道俗亦見亦聞也。二、「諸比丘當語比丘」已下乃至「不須住此」者，准律文中作白四羯磨驅出，離此所行聚落。今戒本中乍似別人口言驅出者，蓋作法已有此口言也。第二非理謗僧，文意云「被儐比丘語諸比丘云：汝有愛恚怖癡，何以故更有與我；同罪比丘何不驅儐而獨儐我。」准《僧祇律》當時六人同作污家，聞僧欲儐，遂有三聞達多、磨醯沙達多走至王道聚落，復有迦留陀夷、闡陀逆路懺悔。此之四人走不可治、懺復無罪。唯有阿濕波、富那婆娑不走不懺，遂被僧儐。因即謗僧云：「愛他懺者、怖他走者，是故不驅；恚我二人，是故獨驅。既有愛恚怖三，故知具足愚癡煩惱。」此即過起文訖。次明屏諫止奪等，准前應知。《薩婆多論》第四卷云「若比丘凡有所求，若為三寶、若自為，以種種信物與國王大臣長者居士在家出家，皆名污家。五眾盡不聽，啼哭乃至父母喪亡一切不聽。四眾吉羅，尼得逸提。」廣說開遮，具如彼論。

Twelfth: The precept against slandering the Saṃgha when being expelled and disobeying an admonition. This text also has three parts: first, describing the transgressor; second, explaining the method of admonition; third, concluding with the offence of disobeying the admonition. Regarding the second, the method of admonition, there are two pairs and four clauses, as analysed before. Regarding the arising of the fault, the text has two clauses: first, the Saṃgha expels him on account of corrupting families; second, when being expelled, he slanders the Saṃgha contrary to reason. Slandering contrary to reason is precisely the matter being admonished. Regarding the preceding expulsion, the text again has two sections: first, corrupting families and engaging in evil conduct based in a town or village. As for 'corrupting families', according to the Vinaya there are four types: First, corrupting families based on a family: for example, taking gifts received from Zhang's family and sending them as presents to Wang's family, so that Zhang's family hears of it, loses faith, and becomes displeased, while Wang's family, upon receiving the goods, thinks of returning the favour with partiality, thereby losing impartial faith. Second, corrupting families based on offerings: receiving gain in accordance with the Dharma, yet giving it to one householder and not to another. Third, corrupting families based on relatives and friends: relying on royal ministers and showing bias for one person while neglecting another. Fourth, corrupting families based on the saṅghārāma: taking flowers and fruits belonging to the Saṃgha and giving them to one person and not to another; all of these cause the other person to lose an impartial mind, and hence it is called corrupting families. As for 'evil conduct', planting flowers oneself, teaching others to plant flowers, or sharing a bed, sharing food vessels, and so forth with a woman, up to all kinds of matters improper for deportment, ranging from a saṃghāvaśeṣa at the worst to a duṣkṛta at the lowest. Committing these two matters of corrupting families and evil conduct causes both clerics and laypeople to see and hear them. Second, from 'the monks should say to that monk' up to 'you must not dwell here': according to the Vinaya text, one performs a ñatticatuttha-kamma to expel him, causing him to leave the village in which he acted thus. Here in the prātimokṣa, it seems for a moment as if it is merely another person's spoken words of expulsion; this is because the formal act already includes these spoken words. As for the second, slandering the Saṃgha contrary to reason, the sense of the text is: 'The expelled monk says to the monks: "You have fondness, anger, fear, and delusion. Why is that? There are other monks who share the same offence as me; why do you not expel them, but expel me alone?"' According to the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya, at that time six persons were together corrupting families. Hearing that the Saṃgha wished to expel them, Samvṛtta and Mahiṣādhṛti fled to a royal highway village, while Udāyin and Chanda repented on the way back. These four could not be penalized because they fled, or were free from offence because they repented. Only Aśvaka and Punarvasu neither fled nor repented, and were consequently expelled by the Saṃgha. Thereupon they slandered the Saṃgha, saying: 'You are fond of those who repented and fear those who fled, which is why you did not expel them; you hate us two, which is why you expelled us alone. Since you have these three—fondness, anger, and fear—we know you are fully endowed with the affliction of delusion.' Here ends the passage on the arising of the fault. Next, the explanation of the private admonition, its stopping and taking away, and so on, should be understood in accordance with the preceding. Fascicle 4 of the Sarvāstivāda-śāstra states: 'Whenever a monk seeks something, whether for the Three Jewels or for himself, and gives various gifts of faith to kings, great ministers, elders, householders, whether lay or ordained, all this is called corrupting families. None of the five assemblies is permitted [to do so]; even weeping and wailing at the death of parents, none of it is permitted. For the four assemblies it is a duṣkṛta; for a bhikṣuṇī it is a prāyaścittika.' The full explanation of permissions and prohibitions is detailed in that treatise.