[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [四分比丘戒本疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1807) › 1.48 # 四分比丘戒本疏 1.48 四分比丘戒本疏 1.48 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.48](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1807.1.48) 第十三自用拒勸違諫戒，舊名惡性拒僧違諫戒。文亦有三：一容犯人、二諫法、三結違諫罪。第二諫法，兩對四句中，先過起者有二句義：一、「惡性不受人語」者，辨自用拒勸過也。俗書云「好問則裕，自用則小」是也。二、「於戒法中」已下，辨自用不受諫相也。謂犯戒時，餘人勸止，虛受信施，高舉自身信自用性，語餘人言：「汝莫語我若好若惡（好行好果惡行惡果）。」此愚意云，行業果報我自閑解，受報之時不關汝事。「我亦不語汝若好若惡」者，汝自業果及前而說，下總結云「且止莫諫我」。古來相傳有四種人須諫：一年耆宿德、二久居眾首、三博學誡議謂智能過人、四共勝人參居。次辨屏諫，諫前自用不受勸也。文亦兩節：一勸止自用。故文云「彼比丘諫是比丘言：大德！莫自身不受諫語。」二奪彼執情。文云「大德自身當受諫語」等也。「得增益」等，未生之善令生，未生之惡不生，已生之善令增，已生之惡令滅，如次配之。餘文准前。自下第三結已審持。「諸大德我已說十三僧伽婆尸沙」者，結已也。僧伽婆尸沙者，瑜伽翻為眾餘，舊名僧殘，殘即餘義。謂犯此罪，於九羯磨不得足數，望餘羯磨猶有餘殘足數之用也。言九羯磨者，謂覆藏等四種羯磨，五呵責，六儐，七依止，八遮不至白衣家，九罪處所。初之四法，如覆藏犍度文中具顯互不足數，後之五種古來義准。既是同奪三十五事（三十五事，如呵責犍度有其七五。且第一五，一不得授人大戒、二不得受依止、三不得受沙彌、四不得受差教誡尼、五設差不得往。如是等廣如律說也），明知互望亦不足數。其不見不懺惡邪不捨三舉之人，雖亦同奪三十五事，然舉出眾一切僧數皆不得足，故不同也。此之殘罪，要藉依僧方得懺悔，故曰僧殘，或曰眾餘也（《善見論》文更有異釋，不能繁敘）。「九戒初犯」已下，因便略明懺悔之法，或於中文六：一辨具緣成犯、二明成覆藏過、三顯懺悔之法、四釋僧少之失、五彰眾僧有罪、六結成應法。初明具緣成犯者，文言「九戒初犯四至三諫」，謂前九戒約事具緣，初成即犯；後之四戒約法具緣，三諫滿犯。此中意辨，若緣不具即非僧殘，即不得用僧殘懺悔法，是故明也。有人釋云：此為釋疑，謂後四戒既對眾犯，應不治覆，故釋疑云亦須治覆。今詳，若爾，前九屏犯疑無不覆，亦應釋疑云若不覆者亦免治覆。文何不明，故知謬釋也。第二文云言「若比丘犯一一法知而覆藏」者，明成覆過也。准人犍度及餘律論，若犯一殘，自心了知見是僧殘，覆藏一夜得一覆吉。如是展轉，隨一一夜各得覆吉及隨覆吉。若於殘罪疑及不識，雖亦犯覆，得吉羅罪。而不行覆犯二三等，乃至不憶數，並聽懺悔。然四分宗人犍度文先懺覆吉，後方從僧乞治覆過而行覆法。 > Thirteenth: The precept against being self-willed, rejecting advice, and disobeying an admonition, formerly called the precept against having an evil nature, resisting the Saṃgha, and disobeying an admonition. This text also has three parts: first, describing the transgressor; second, the method of admonition; third, concluding with the offence of disobeying the admonition. In the second, the method of admonition, within the two pairs and four clauses, the arising of the fault comes first and has two clauses: First, 'being of an evil nature and not accepting the words of others' explains the fault of being self-willed and rejecting advice. The secular books say: 'He who likes to ask questions becomes abundant; he who is self-willed becomes petty.' This is that. Second, from 'in matters of the training' onward explains the mark of being self-willed and not accepting admonition. That is, when committing an offence against the precepts, others advise him to desist, \[yet he\] vainly accepts the offerings of faith, elevates himself, trusts in his self-willed nature, and says to the others: 'Do not speak to me of good or bad (good deeds and good fruits, evil deeds and evil fruits).' The meaning in this foolish mind is: 'I understand karma and its retribution myself; when I receive retribution, it is no business of yours.' 'Nor will I speak to you of good or bad' means: 'Your own karma and its fruit,' following what was said before; and below it summarizes: 'Cease, do not admonish me!' From ancient times it has been handed down that four kinds of people require admonition: first, those advanced in years and of established virtue; second, those who have long stood at the head of the assembly; third, those of broad learning in instructions and discussions, meaning their wisdom surpasses others; fourth, those who live alongside superior persons. Next, it explains the private admonition, admonishing the aforementioned being self-willed and refusing advice. This text also has two sections: first, urging him to cease being self-willed. Hence the text says: 'That monk admonishes this monk, saying: "Venerable Sir! Do not make yourself unamenable to words of admonition."' Second, taking away his clinging mind. The text says: 'The Venerable Sir should himself accept words of admonition,' and so on. As for 'attaining increase' and so forth: causing unarisen good to arise, preventing unarisen evil from arising, causing arisen good to increase, and causing arisen evil to perish, matched accordingly in order. The rest of the text is in accordance with the preceding. Below this is the third part: concluding and verifying observance. 'Venerable Sirs, I have recited the thirteen saṃghāvaśeṣa \[rules\]' is the conclusion. As for 'saṃghāvaśeṣa', the Yogācāra translates it as 'assembly-remainder' (zhongyu); formerly it was called sengcan ('Saṃgha-remainder'), 'remainder' (can) having the meaning of 'remaining' (yu). That is, when one commits this offence, one may not count toward a quorum in nine formal acts (karmans), yet with respect to other karmans one still has a remaining function of making up a quorum. As for the 'nine karmans', they refer to the four kinds of karmans such as concealment (praticchādana), fifth the formal censure (tarjanīya), sixth expulsion (pravājanīya), seventh subordination (niśraya), eighth prohibition from approaching lay families (pratisāraṇīya), and ninth the site of an offence (utkṣepanīya). The first four dharmas, as fully revealed in the text of the Praticchādana-khandhaka, mutually cannot count toward a quorum; the latter five have been deduced by analogy from ancient times. Since they equally strip away the thirty-five matters (the thirty-five matters, as in the Tarjanīya-khandhaka, consist of seven sets of five: the first five being: first, one may not confer the full ordination on others; second, one may not accept others in subordination; third, one may not accept novices; fourth, one may not accept an appointment to instruct bhikṣuṇīs; fifth, even if appointed, one may not go; and so forth, as extensively explained in the Vinaya), it is clear that with respect to one another they also cannot make up a quorum. As for the three kinds of suspended persons—those who do not see their offence, those who do not repent, and those who do not relinquish an evil view—although they are also equally stripped of the thirty-five matters, nevertheless, when suspended from the assembly, they cannot count toward the quorum of any Saṃgha at all, and thus they are not the same. This residual offence requires reliance on the Saṃgha before it can be repented; hence it is called saṃghāvaśeṣa ('Saṃgha-remainder') or 'assembly-remainder' (there are further different explanations in the Samantapāsādikā, which cannot be recounted in detail). From 'in nine precepts the initial transgression' onward, the text takes the occasion to briefly explain the method of repentance, which contains six parts: first, explaining the completion of the offence upon the completion of conditions; second, clarifying the fault of having committed concealment; third, revealing the method of repentance; fourth, explaining the loss incurred if the Saṃgha is too small; fifth, displaying the guilt of the assembled monks; sixth, concluding that it conforms to the Dharma. First, in clarifying the completion of the offence upon the completion of conditions, the text says: 'in nine precepts the initial transgression, and in four up to the third admonition'; that is, the former nine precepts are based on matters and complete the conditions, so that upon the initial deed the offence is committed, while the latter four precepts are based on the legal procedure and complete the conditions, so that when the three admonitions are completed, the offence is committed. The intention here is to explain that if the conditions are not complete, it is not a saṃghāvaśeṣa, and one may not use the saṃghāvaśeṣa method of repentance; for this reason it is explained. Someone explained: 'This is to resolve a doubt, namely that since the latter four precepts are committed in front of the assembly, concealment should not be dealt with; thus resolving the doubt by saying that concealment must also be dealt with.' Now upon examination: if so, since the former nine are committed privately and there is no suspicion of non-concealment, one should also have resolved the doubt by saying that if one does not conceal them, one is also exempt from dealing with concealment. Why does the text not explain this? Hence we know that is a mistaken explanation. In the second passage, the words 'if a monk commits any one dharma and, knowing it, conceals it' clarify the fault of having committed concealment. According to the Samuccaya-khandhaka and other vinayas and treatises, if one commits a saṃghāvaśeṣa and knows in one's own mind and sees that it is a saṃghāvaśeṣa, concealing it for one night incurs one duṣkṛta of concealment. In this way, progressively, for each single night, one incurs a duṣkṛta of concealment and an accompanying duṣkṛta of concealment. If one has doubt about the saṃghāvaśeṣa offence or does not recognize it, although one still commits concealment, one incurs a duṣkṛta offence. And if one does not undergo \[the penalty for\] concealment, commits two, three, and so on, or even does not remember the number, one is still permitted to repent. However, in the Dharmaguptaka tradition, the text of the Samuccaya-khandhaka states that one first repents the duṣkṛta of concealment, and only then asks the Saṃgha to deal with the fault of concealment and undergoes the procedure for concealment. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.47](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1807.1.47) - [Next: 1.49](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1807.1.49) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1807.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1807~en-mt.1.48) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (3) - [四分律比丘含注戒本](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1806.1.293) — Classical Chinese - [四分律比丘戒本](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.vinaya.pratimoksa.dharmaguptaka*zh-buddhayasas.1.38) — Classical Chinese - [四分僧戒本](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.vinaya.sastra.dharmaguptakapratimoksasutra*zh-buddhayasas.1.22) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1807.1.48](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1807.1.48) · Pramāṇa