四分比丘戒本疏 2.92

2.92

第六十八、說欲不障道，違僧三諫。戒文三：一容犯人、二辨諫法、三結違諫罪。第二諫法，兩對四句：第一對者，有過起，先應屏諫。第二對者，若違屏諫，理應僧諫。就過起中，文但一句。如律中說：阿唎吒作如是語：「我知佛所說，行婬欲非障道法。」利吒意云，若障道者，初之二果何故婬欲？於屏諫中，文有兩節：一勸止邪說。二「世尊無數」已下，奪彼執情。奪云世尊說障者障後二果，而初二果斷次未至，非謂不障而不斷也。次辨第二，若違屏諫理應僧諫。「彼比丘諫此比丘時，堅持不捨」者，違屏諫也。「彼比丘應三諫」已下，僧諫。文兩：一教僧諫捨、二讚捨為善。謂讚翻違，還成順善。

The sixty-eighth [precept], stating that sensual desires do not obstruct the path, and defying three admonitions from the Saṃgha: The precept text has three parts: first, identifying the offender; second, defining the method of admonition; third, concluding with the offence of defying admonition. In the second part, the method of admonition, there are two pairs with four clauses. In the first pair, when a fault arises, one should first admonish him in private. In the second pair, if he defies the private admonition, by principle the Saṃgha should admonish him. Regarding the arising of the fault, there is only one clause in the text. As stated in the Vinaya: Ariṭṭha made this statement: 'I know what the Buddha has taught: engaging in sensual desires is not a Dharma that obstructs the path.' Ariṭṭha meant: if it obstructs the path, why do those in the first two fruits have sensual desires? In the private admonition, there are two sections in the text: first, urging him to cease his false statement; second, from 'the World-Honoured One has in countless [ways]' onward, refuting his attachment. Refuting it by saying: what the World-Honoured One said obstructs refers to obstructing the latter two fruits, while the severance in the first two fruits has not yet arrived in sequence; it does not mean that it does not obstruct and is therefore not severed. Next is the explanation of the second part: if he defies private admonition, by principle the Saṃgha should admonish him. 'When that monk admonishes this monk, if he stubbornly clings and does not relinquish it' means defying private admonition. From 'that monk should admonish him three times' onward is the admonition by the Saṃgha. The text has two parts: first, instructing the Saṃgha to admonish him to relinquish it; second, praising relinquishment as good. This means praising the reversal of defiance, which turns back into compliant goodness.