四分比丘戒本疏 2.137

2.137

第八大段七滅諍法。文亦分三：一依教滅諍、二列罪名相、三結已審持。初文復二：初至「戒經中來」，辨所依教。文言「七滅諍法」者，本音名七毘尼法也。第二「若有」已下，辨用滅諍。諍或容起，故云若有也。起必須殄，故即應除也。諍體不同，總有四種：一言諍、二覓諍、三犯諍、四事諍。對此，三門分別：一釋名、二體治、三結罪。言釋名者，諍理生諍，名為言諍。求過生諍，名為覓諍。評犯生諍，名為犯諍。羯磨生諍，名為事諍。次體治者，總辨體者，大僧大尼各當眾諍，令僧朋儻乖別過生，是四諍攝。若與五眾異類互諍，無乖破事，非四諍攝。次別辨者，一明言諍。三藏理事立敵紛然，名之為言。如聲論師出家為僧，仍執舊計立聲為常，無質礙故，猶如虛空。佛法破云：聲是無常，所作性故，譬如瓶等。然聲事一，常無常理立敵互諍，是言諍體。此諍自有下品上品。若辨治者，於七藥中總而言之用二藥治。言七藥者，戒文所列如其次第：一現前毘尼，此有二義：一者別用現前，謂以面對判斷言諍，名曰現前。二者通用現前，通判諸諍皆須面對，悉名現前。二憶念毘尼、三不癡毘尼、四自言治毘尼、五罪處所毘尼，謂如有人被他舉罪，初引後違，僧作白四治罰，令引實罪處所。由此滅諍，名曰毘尼。戒文名為覓罪相者，詰問求覓令引實罪，義意同也。六多人語毘尼，戒文名為多人覓罪者，罪是諍過，非是五篇犯罪之罪也。此中意說，用多人語求覓聲論執常之過，判為非理也。七草布地毘尼，上來七中，若治言諍下品之者，唯以現前一滅滅之，謂上所辨別用現前者是也。於中隨於八處判滅，謂或自界求一勝德或二或三，或至僧位或他界內或僧或三或二或一，漸次流轉隨應八處，諍者心伏，名為現前毘尼一滅滅也。然八滅中，三德已下具三現前：一者法現前，如判聲常以為非理是也。二毘尼現前，謂勸受此判。三人現前，謂判諍人及起諍人也。若四人已上具五現前，謂加結界成就及能滅僧也。此之三五，皆是面對判定之義，悉名現前。然僧位中，恐有惡人妄伴諍事，故單白差具十德者別集一處共互斷事。正斷之時，亦須取彼諸惡人欲。又於坐中驅出三人：一者若有比丘不誦戒、不學律藏、作非法語，應作單白驅出此人。二者誦戒、不學大藏、執少許文，亦白驅出。三者法師比丘，以言辭力強說道理，亦白驅出。驅出已後，如法判定。諍事滅後，更發起者，波逸提。下發諍皆准此（上發諍戒，道理悉在此中明之）。若上品言諍，於前八處皆不能滅，須二滅滅，謂多人語及現前。現前即是通用。現前謂離多人，無別體性。自下現前悉准此釋。言多人者，謂作白二差五德人行籌判定。行籌凡有十三種法，謂顯露等，廣如律辨。且如眾中非法人多，然彼和上上座智人皆如法語，應顯露行作二種籌：一破、二完。行時告云：「立聲常者捉破舍羅，立無常者捉完舍羅（或翻此告）。」行已數之。若執聲常其籌數少，即判為非。若其籌多，託事作亂不得判定，應更餘處密求智人來集此界更行籌滅。今時屢見非法眾僧妄從多人，一何謬矣。餘十二種，不能繁敘。此即多人語也。言現前者，此中唯是僧位判諍，具五現前，謂法、毘尼、人、僧、界，悉是面對判定法也。次辨覓諍，總而言之用四滅滅，謂若有人舉覓他罪，因此能所兩朋紛諍者，名為覓諍。僧滅之時，撿問所舉。所舉之人凡有三種：一者不作不犯人，如沓婆摩羅子是大阿羅漢，都不犯罪，被人謗故外有聞根。若被舉告，僧既詰知清淨無犯，為作白四憶念知清以息諍事，名憶念毘尼。二者作而不犯人，如滅諍犍度，難提比丘癡狂病時多作眾罪（說戒犍度是那那由比丘），是聖所開，故名作而不犯也。被舉告僧，僧知無犯，為作白四，僧共證明，不癡已來實無所犯，以息諍事。三者亦作亦犯人，謂如罪人被舉告僧。僧撿問時，初言犯重須臾云輕，或初言犯須臾還諱，與作白四奪三十五事治罰，令引實犯之處。以此息諍，名罪處所。三中前二人不被治，諍事易滅，判為下諍；後一治罰，諍即難滅，判為上品。現前不離此三毘尼，故四滅滅也。次辨犯諍，總而言之以三滅滅。評犯有兩：一者傍人評，逐朋成兩。且如一人自手掘地，二朋傍評，一云彼人地地想掘犯波逸提，一云彼人地非地想犯突吉羅。諍既紛紜，喚彼犯人，問取自言。犯人便云我地地想。即令對面懺提諍滅，名自言治。諍餘聚罪，准此應知。兩朋各執事理俱異，名為犯諍，不同言諍事一理異也。所對懺境，隨應一人乃至僧位。僧位五現，餘即三現。現前無別體，亦如上辨。二者或是傍評，雖逕自言，諍猶不滅。或眾共犯二朋見異，如尼讚食，一朋云是讚食提罪，一朋云是指授可呵。若欲輕懺，見重者違；若欲重懺，見輕者拒。多時乖別，須作草布。草布法者，不說罪名互乞歡喜，如草掩泥不污人足，名之為草布。此為息諍，而罪不滅。此准《母論》第八說也。若准《多論》第九，罪諍俱滅，如論應知。准律，第一朋中智人應起，具儀共相諮稟，擬作草布。詞句如律，不能繁敘。第二眾中亦爾，相諮稟已，單白和僧，和訖懺悔，廣如律中。此既僧滅，局五現前。次辨事諍者，一切滅滅，謂此事諍但諍羯磨，以得事名，理實即是前三諍攝。且如二人見他受日秉白二法，一云白二受日不成，須白四故；一云白二受日得成，教明文故。此即事一理異，言諍攝也。滅法准前，文如秉法，實不犯罪被他舉告，言惡心秉，僧知清淨即與憶念。又秉癡作被他舉告，僧與不癡。又秉實犯，初引後違得罪處所。此即並是覓諍所攝。又如見人別眾秉法，二人傍評，一云彼是惡心秉法，故令不成犯蘭（說戒犍度惡心蘭）；一云彼是懈怠心秉犯吉（亦准說戒犍度）。此即事理俱異，犯諍所攝。此既隨應，前三諍攝，故以七滅隨應滅之，准前三諍也。第三門結罪者，如文。列罪名相，七戒皆言「應與」者，有智之人觀知應與也。言「當與」者，隨應正為對面判滅也。若觀應與而不為判，悉犯吉羅。故此七戒即第五篇攝也。由諍過重，故勸當與，隱罪名也。七分二位：第一位者，初一次二及自言一，如其次第滅下品中言、覓、犯三。第二位者，覓罪多覓及如草布，如其次第滅上品中覓、言、犯三也。

The eighth major section concerns the seven methods for settling disputes (adhikaraṇa-śamatha). The text is also divided into three parts: first, settling disputes according to the teachings; second, listing the titles and characteristics of the offences; third, concluding with the examination and upholding [of the rules]. The first part is again twofold: first, up to "found in the Prātimokṣa Sūtra", explains the teachings upon which it relies. The phrase in the text "seven methods for settling disputes" means in the original language the seven vinaya methods. Second, from "if there are" onwards, explains employing [them] to settle disputes. Disputes may perhaps arise, hence it says "if there are". When they arise they must be extinguished, hence they "should be eliminated immediately". The natures of disputes differ; in total there are four kinds: first, disputes over speech (vivādādhikaraṇa); second, disputes over seeking [faults] (anuvādādhikaraṇa); third, disputes over offences (āpattādhikaraṇa); fourth, disputes over business (kiccādhikaraṇa). With respect to these, there is a three-part analysis: first, explaining the names; second, their nature and remedy; third, the assignment of offences. Regarding the explanation of names: a dispute arising over a principle of contention is called a dispute over speech. A dispute arising from seeking faults is called a dispute over seeking. A dispute arising from evaluating an offence is called a dispute over offences. A dispute arising concerning a formal act (karman) is called a dispute over business. Next, as for their nature and remedy: explaining their nature in general, when monks (bhikṣu) or nuns (bhikṣuṇī) each dispute within their own assembly, causing the Saṃgha to form factions and fall into discord and fault, this is subsumed under the four disputes. If they mutually dispute with different classes among the five assemblies without any matter of discord and schism, this is not subsumed under the four disputes. Next, explaining them individually: First, elucidating disputes over speech. When opponents and proponents become tumultuous concerning the principles and phenomena of the Tripiṭaka, this is called "speech". For example, when a Grammarian (Śabdika) goes forth as a monk, he still clings to his old views, positing that sound is permanent because it is without physical obstruction, just like empty space. The Buddhist Dharma refutes this, saying: sound is impermanent because it has the nature of being produced, just like a pot, and so forth. Yet the phenomenon of sound is one, whereas opponents and proponents mutually dispute over the principles of permanence and impermanence; this is the nature of a dispute over speech. This dispute inherently has inferior and superior [degrees]. If one explains its remedy, speaking generally, among the seven medicines, two medicines are used to remedy it. As for the seven medicines, listed in order according to the precept text: First, settlement in the presence (sammukhā-vinaya). This has two meanings: first, specific use of the presence, which means deciding a dispute over speech face to face, called "in the presence"; second, general use of the presence, where generally deciding all disputes requires being face to face, all called "in the presence". Second, settlement by mindfulness (smṛti-vinaya). Third, settlement for the non-insane (amūḍha-vinaya). Fourth, settlement by self-admission (pratijñākāraka-vinaya). Fifth, settlement based on the specific offence (tatsvabhavaiṣīya-vinaya), which means, for example, when someone is accused of an offence by another, he at first admits it and later denies it; the Saṃgha performs a formal act with one motion and three announcements (ñatticatuttha-kamma) to punish him, causing him to admit to the specific offence. Settling the dispute by this means is called [this] vinaya. In the precept text, it is called "seeking the marks of an offence"; interrogating and seeking to make him admit to the real offence has the same doctrinal intent. Sixth, settlement by majority decision (yadbhūyasikīya-vinaya). In the precept text it is called "seeking the offence by the majority"; "offence" here means the fault of disputation, not an offence of committing a transgression in the five categories. What is meant here is that the words of the majority are used to seek out the Grammarian's fault of clinging to permanence, judging it to be contrary to reason. Seventh, settlement like covering with grass (tṛṇaprastāraka-vinaya). Among the seven above, if one is remedying an inferior degree of dispute over speech, it is settled solely by the single settlement of "in the presence"—namely, the specific use of "in the presence" explained above. Within this, it is judged and settled in any of eight places: whether seeking in one's own boundary one person of superior virtue, or two, or three; or proceeding to the level of the full Saṃgha; or in another boundary, whether the Saṃgha, or three, or two, or one. Successively passing through according to what is appropriate among the eight places, when the disputants' minds submit, it is called settling by the single settlement of settlement in the presence. However, among the eight settlements, for three virtuous persons and below, three kinds of presence are complete: first, presence of the Dharma, such as judging sound's permanence to be contrary to reason; second, presence of the vinaya, which means exhorting acceptance of this judgment; third, presence of persons, which means the persons judging the dispute and the persons raising the dispute. If there are four persons and above, five kinds of presence are complete, which means adding the perfection of the established boundary and the Saṃgha capable of settling. These three or five all have the meaning of deciding face to face, and all are called "in the presence". However, in the level of the full Saṃgha, fearing that there may be wicked people falsely siding with the disputatious matter, a single motion is performed to select those possessing the ten virtues to gather separately in one place and mutually decide the matter together. At the very time of deciding, it is also necessary to obtain the consent (chanda) of those wicked people. Moreover, three persons should be expelled from the assembly: first, if there is a monk who does not recite the precepts, does not study the Vinaya Piṭaka, and speaks words contrary to Dharma, one should make a single motion to expel this person; second, one who recites the precepts but does not study the great canon, clinging to a tiny amount of text, should also be expelled by a motion; third, a Dharma-master monk who, by the power of verbal rhetoric, forcefully expounds arguments, should also be expelled by a motion. Having expelled them, the matter is decided according to Dharma. After the dispute has been settled, if someone raises it again, it is a prāyaścittika. All subsequent raising of disputes should follow this standard (the precepts on raising disputes above are all explained by the principles here). If it is a superior dispute over speech, and cannot be settled in any of the former eight places, it must be settled by two settlements: namely, majority decision and presence. Presence here is the general use. "In the presence" means that apart from the majority, it has no separate entity. All subsequent mentions of "in the presence" should be interpreted according to this. By "the majority", it means performing a formal act with one motion and one announcement (ñattidutiya-kamma) to select persons of five virtues to distribute voting sticks (śalākā) and make the judgment. There are in all thirteen methods of distributing voting sticks, such as open distribution and so forth, as explained at length in the Vinaya. For example, if there are many people in the assembly who are contrary to Dharma, yet their preceptors, elders, and wise persons all speak in accordance with Dharma, one should openly distribute two kinds of voting sticks: first, broken; second, intact. When distributing, one announces: "Those who posit sound as permanent take the broken śalākā; those who posit impermanence take the intact śalākā (or the reverse of this announcement)." Having distributed them, one counts them. If those clinging to sound being permanent have fewer sticks, it is immediately judged to be wrong. If their sticks are more numerous, they rely on the matter to cause disorder and no decision can be made; one should secretly seek wise persons elsewhere to assemble in this boundary and distribute sticks again to settle it. Nowadays one frequently sees unlawful assemblies of monks falsely following the majority—how mistaken! The remaining twelve methods cannot be recounted in detail. This is majority decision. As for "in the presence", here it is solely the settlement of disputes at the level of the Saṃgha, being complete with the five kinds of presence: namely, Dharma, vinaya, persons, Saṃgha, and boundary, all of which are methods of deciding face to face. Next, explaining disputes over seeking: speaking generally, they are settled by four settlements. If someone raises and seeks another's offence, and because of this both the accuser and the accused form factions and dispute turbulently, it is called a dispute over seeking. When the Saṃgha settles it, it investigates the person who was accused. The person accused is of three kinds in total: First, one who did not act and did not commit [an offence]. For example, Dabba Mallaputta was a great arhat who committed no offence at all; because he was slandered by others, externally there were grounds for hearing [accusations]. If accused, once the Saṃgha interrogates and knows he is pure and free of offence, it performs for him a formal act with one motion and three announcements of mindfulness, knowing he is pure so as to calm the dispute; this is called settlement by mindfulness. Second, one who acted but did not commit [an offence]. For example, in the Adhikaraṇa-khandhaka, when the monk Nanda was mad and insane, he committed many offences (in the Uposatha-khandhaka it is the monk Nāṇāyu); this was permitted by the Sage, hence it is called "acting but not committing". When he is accused before the Saṃgha, the Saṃgha, knowing he has no offence, performs a formal act with one motion and three announcements for him, the Saṃgha jointly certifying that since becoming sane he has truly committed no offence, so as to calm the dispute. Third, one who both acted and committed [an offence]. This means, for example, when an offender is accused before the Saṃgha, when the Saṃgha investigates him, at first he says he committed a grave offence and in an instant says a light one, or at first says he committed it and in an instant conceals it again; [the Saṃgha] performs a formal act with one motion and three announcements to deprive him of thirty-five privileges as a penalty, causing him to admit to the specific offence actually committed. Calming the dispute by this means is called [settlement based on] the specific offence. Among the three, the first two persons are not penalized, and the dispute is easily settled, being judged as an inferior dispute; the latter one is penalized, and the dispute is difficult to settle, being judged as a superior [dispute]. Presence is not separate from these three vinaya methods, hence it is settled by four settlements. Next, explaining disputes over offences: speaking generally, they are settled with three settlements. Evaluating offences has two forms: First, bystanders evaluate it, following factions to form two sides. For example, when one person digs the earth with his own hand, two factions of bystanders evaluate it: one says that the person dug with the perception of earth as earth, committing a prāyaścittika; one says that the person dug with the perception of earth as non-earth, committing a duṣkṛta. When the dispute becomes turbulent, they summon that offender and question him to obtain his own statement. The offender then says: "I had the perception of earth as earth." They immediately have him confess the prāyaścittika face to face and the dispute is settled; this is called settlement by self-admission. Disputes over offences of the remaining classes should be understood by following this. The two factions each cling to differing phenomena and differing principles; this is called a dispute over offences, unlike a dispute over speech where the phenomenon is one and the principle is different. The object before whom one confesses is, as appropriate, one person up to the level of the Saṃgha. At the level of the Saṃgha, there are five presences; for the rest, there are three presences. "In the presence" has no separate entity, also as explained above. Second, it may be that although bystanders evaluate it and it passes through self-admission, the dispute is still not settled; or the assembly has jointly committed an offence and the two factions hold different views, such as when a nun praises food: one faction says it is a prāyaścittika offence of praising food; one faction says it is an instruction worthy of reprimand. If they wish to make a light confession, those who see it as grave will object; if they wish to make a grave confession, those who see it as light will refuse. Being in discord for a long time, they must perform [settlement] like covering with grass. As for the method of covering with grass: without stating the names of the offences, they mutually seek reconciliation, just as grass covering mud does not soil people's feet; this is called "covering with grass". This is to calm the dispute, but the offences are not eliminated. This is stated according to the eighth fascicle of the Mātṛkā-śāstra. According to the ninth fascicle of the Sarvāstivāda-śāstra, both the offences and the dispute are eliminated, as should be known from the treatise. According to the Vinaya, a wise person in the first faction should rise, complete the decorum, and mutually consult, intending to perform [settlement] like covering with grass. The wording is as in the Vinaya and cannot be recounted in detail. It is also like this in the second assembly; having consulted, they harmonize the Saṃgha with a single motion, and having harmonized it, they make confession, at length as in the Vinaya. Since this is settled by the Saṃgha, it is restricted to the five presences. Next, explaining disputes over business: they are settled by all [seven] settlements. That is to say, this dispute over business is merely a dispute over formal acts, thereby obtaining the name "business"; in actual principle, it is subsumed under the previous three disputes. For example, two persons see another receiving [permission to spend] the day and performing a formal act with one motion and one announcement; one says that receiving the day with one motion and one announcement is invalid, because one must have a formal act with one motion and three announcements; one says that receiving the day with one motion and one announcement is valid, because the clear text of the teaching allows it. This is a case where the phenomenon is one and the principles differ, which is subsumed under disputes over speech. The method of settling it follows the former. Another case is when one performs a formal act, truly without committing an offence, but is accused by another who says it was performed with an evil mind; when the Saṃgha knows he is pure, it gives him [settlement by] mindfulness. Again, when one performs [a formal act] while insane and is accused by another, the Saṃgha gives him [settlement for] the non-insane. Again, when one performs it and has truly committed [an offence], at first admitting it and later denying it, one receives [settlement based on] the specific offence. These are all subsumed under disputes over seeking. Furthermore, for example, when seeing someone perform a formal act apart from the assembly, two bystanders evaluate it: one says that he performed the act with an evil mind, thereby causing it to be invalid and committing a sthūlātyaya (in the Uposatha-khandhaka, evil-mindedness is a sthūlātyaya); one says that he performed it with a negligent mind, committing a duṣkṛta (also following the Uposatha-khandhaka). This is a case where both the phenomenon and the principle differ, which is subsumed under disputes over offences. Since these, as appropriate, are subsumed under the previous three disputes, they are settled by the seven settlements as appropriate, following the previous three disputes. The third part, assignment of offences, is as in the text. In listing the names and characteristics of the offences, where the seven precepts all say "should be given", it means a wise person perceives and knows that it should be given. The words "shall be given" mean that according to what is appropriate, one directly decides and settles it face to face. If one perceives that it should be given but does not decide it, one commits a duṣkṛta in every case. Therefore these seven precepts are subsumed under the fifth category. Because the fault of disputation is grave, they are exhorted that it "shall be given", concealing the name of the offence. The seven are divided into two ranks: In the first rank, the first one, the next two, and the one of self-admission, in this order, settle the inferior degree among the three of speech, seeking, and offences. In the second rank, seeking the offence, majority seeking, and like covering with grass, in this order, settle the superior degree among the three of seeking, speech, and offences.