四分比丘戒本疏 1.52

1.52

自下第三大段二不定。文亦分三：一明所依教、二列其名相、三結已審持。初文可知。列名相中，第一屏不定戒。文有三句：一容犯人、二辨不定相、三結不定名。第二辨相中，文有四節：一、「共女人獨在屏覆障處可作婬處坐說非法語」者，有其三義，名為不定。一於屏處，此是造罪由緒之處，故約由緒名為不定。猶如父母見其惡子行於非法里巷之中，此之里巷是造罪由緒。二於此處「復見比丘獨與女坐說非法語」。此復二義：一約比丘造罪由緒，由緒不定。二約住信舉罪，聖女所見之事，事相不定。律文且據共坐威儀，准《明了論》真諦疏釋，若行住臥亦在犯限。二、「住信優婆夷（聖優婆夷得不壞信，名為住信）。於三法中一一法語（乃至）若波逸提」者，聖女依前造罪由緒所見事相來向僧說。其相麁者有夷等三，詳其諸部自有三說：一者依《十誦》，所見事相通舉一切，故彼文言「云何不定？但見女人來去坐立，不見作婬、奪人命、觸女、殺草過中食飲酒等，故名不定。」二者依《明了論》真諦疏釋，所見事相但舉愛染一切篇聚。故彼疏云「若已行婬然後共坐則波羅夷；若已觸竟則得僧殘；若欲婬觸則得偷蘭；直染心坐則波逸提；若無染心則突吉羅。」三者依此《四分》戒文，但舉三罪，律中不言更有餘罪，此則但約愛染之中罪相麁者攝入不定，訪而撿之；其餘細者恐太繁勞，此中不撿，任彼自言而懺悔之。三、「是坐比丘自言我犯是罪（乃至）若波逸提」者，於由緒中因見事相舉告僧眾，僧眾詰得此三定罪，故依此三隨應定治。四、「如住信優婆夷所說應如法治是比丘」者，前人諱罪詰而不得，是故應如聖女所說執彼有犯，眾僧應如罪處所法白四治之，故云應如法治是比丘也。奪三十五事，令引實犯罪之處所（罪處所法，如律滅諍犍度廣辨）。此罪處所既未肯引，定犯何罪，正是治其不定情過，正是此戒所防之過也。此中過意，一於屏覆罪由緒處；二復與女說非法語，即是造罪由緒之相；三僧問時又不定引，是其情過。並是此戒所防故。三問時總犯默妄也。《明了論》中依由緒義以釋不定，故彼文言「是不定，諸罪因故，故名不定。」又約不引，須詰令定，以釋不定，故彼文言「於此中諸罪不定。」古來諸師深為不曉廣事繁言，不見正理不能具敘。此二不定，局取聖女舉罪告僧方為撿問，以其聖人寧死不妄。若凡夫舉，即不為詰。

Below, the third major section deals with the two aniyatas (indeterminate offences). The text is also divided into three parts: first, clarifying the teaching relied upon; second, listing the names and characteristics; third, concluding with careful observation. The first part is understandable. Among the listing of names and characteristics, the first is the precept on indeterminate offences in a secluded place. The text has three clauses: first, permitting the offender; second, identifying the indeterminate characteristics; third, concluding with the indeterminate name. In the second, identifying the characteristics, the text has four sub-clauses: First, 'Sitting with a woman alone in a secluded, covered, and screened place, a place fit for sexual intercourse, speaking improper words' has three meanings called indeterminate. First, being in a secluded place: this is the venue that gives rise to the commission of an offence; hence it is called indeterminate in relation to the venue. Just as parents see their bad son walking in an improper lane: this lane is the venue that gives rise to an offence. Second, in this place, 'further seeing a monk sitting alone with a woman, speaking improper words.' This again has two meanings: first, regarding the venue of the monk committing the offence, the venue is indeterminate; second, regarding the upāsikā who abides in faith lodging the accusation, the circumstance seen by the noble woman is indeterminate in its circumstance. The vinaya text provisionally addresses the posture of sitting together; according to the explanation in Paramārtha's commentary on the Vinayasaṃgraha, walking, standing, and lying down also fall within the limits of the offence. Second, 'An upāsikā who abides in faith (a noble upāsikā who has attained unshakable faith is called abiding in faith) speaks of one or another among the three dharmas, up to and including a prāyaścittika': the noble woman comes to the Saṃgha to report the circumstance seen based on the preceding venue of offence. Among these, the coarse characteristics are three: pārājika and the others. Examining the various schools, there are naturally three views: First, according to the Sarvāstivāda-vinaya, the observed circumstance universally covers everything; hence its text says, 'Why is it indeterminate? One only sees a woman coming, going, sitting, or standing, but does not see the committing of sex, taking human life, touching a woman, cutting grass, eating after noon, drinking alcohol, etc.; therefore it is called indeterminate.' Second, according to Paramārtha's commentary on the Vinayasaṃgraha, the observed circumstance only covers all classes and categories of lustful attachment. Hence that commentary says, 'If one has already engaged in sex and then sits together, it is a pārājika; if one has already touched, one incurs a saṃghāvaśeṣa; if one desires sex and touching, one incurs a thullaccaya; if one sits with a direct lustful mind, it is a prāyaścittika; if one has no lustful mind, it is a duṣkṛta.' Third, according to the text of the precept in this Dharmaguptaka-vinaya, it only cites three offences, and the vinaya does not mention that there are any other offences; this only subsumes the coarse characteristics among lustful offences under the indeterminate, investigating and verifying them. As for the other subtle ones, fearing excessive trouble, they are not investigated here, leaving it to his own confession. Third, 'If this sitting monk himself says, "I committed this offence... up to and including prāyaścittika"': within the venue, based on the circumstance seen, [the matter] was reported to the Saṃgha, and the Saṃgha interrogates and obtains these three determinate offences; therefore, according to these three, he is definitively penalized as appropriate. Fourth, 'As spoken by the upāsikā who abides in faith, this monk should be penalized according to the Dharma': the aforementioned person conceals his offence and cannot be gotten to confess through interrogation; therefore, according to what the noble woman said, he should be held to have committed an offence, and the Saṃgha should penalize him with a motion with three announcements according to the legal procedure for the venue of an offence; hence it says, 'this monk should be penalized according to the Dharma.' He is deprived of thirty-five matters and made to admit the venue of the offence actually committed (the legal procedure for the venue of an offence is detailed in the Adhikaraṇa-śamatha Khandhaka of the vinaya). Since this venue of the offence has not yet been admitted, determining which offence was committed precisely penalizes his mental fault of indeterminacy, which is precisely the fault prevented by this precept. The intentions regarding the fault here are: first, in a secluded and covered venue of offence; second, further speaking improper words with a woman, which is the characteristic of the venue giving rise to an offence; third, when questioned by the Saṃgha, he does not determinately admit it, which is his mental fault. These are all prevented by this precept. During the three interrogations, he commits silent deception. In the Vinayasaṃgraha, it explains indeterminate based on the meaning of the venue; hence its text says, 'It is indeterminate because it is the cause of various offences; therefore it is called indeterminate.' Also, based on not admitting and needing to be interrogated so as to determine it, it explains indeterminate; hence its text says, 'Herein the various offences are indeterminate.' The masters of old thoroughly failed to understand this, multiplying words and discourses, failing to see the correct principle, and were unable to narrate it fully. These two indeterminate offences are strictly restricted to cases where a noble woman brings the accusation to the Saṃgha before an interrogation takes place, because a noble one would rather die than speak falsely. If an ordinary person brings the accusation, an interrogation is not conducted.