四分比丘戒本疏 2.97

2.97

第七十三、不攝耳聽戒。南山律師《行事抄》中名為恐舉先言戒。如律緣起，六群比丘自知犯罪，恐人發舉。先詣他邊言：「我始知。」又有人云：此是詐驚張戒。今詳若爾，即小妄攝，何須此戒？尋諸律論，皆結不聽。《多論》第九云「此中正結不專心聽罪也。」《僧祇》二十一云「中間隨不聽越毘尼，一切不聽提。」故今解戒本文三：一容犯人。二「恐舉先言我今始知」，此中容有小妄。三「餘比丘」（已下），憑始知言，舉事以責不聽罪也。文言「餘比丘知是比丘二三坐」者，舉數以責也。「彼比丘無知」已下，舉不聽果而責也。無知犯罪，隨本罪治，仍增無知吉也。「語長老」已下，正示無知之因，不聽罪也。「彼無知故波逸提」者，舉果而結因也。如過三鉢戒云「不分食者提」，足為例也。律文云「無知故重與波逸提，若不與者突吉羅」，謂令眾僧責無知故，重與不聽罪也。

Seventy-third, the precept on not inclining the ear to listen. In the Xingshichao, Vinaya Master Nanshan calls it the precept on speaking first for fear of being accused. According to the origin story in the vinaya, the group of six monks knew themselves to have committed an offence and feared that others would raise accusations. They went beforehand to others and said, 'I only just learned of it.' Someone else says: this is the precept on feigning surprise and alarm. Now, considering this, if it were so, it would be subsumed under minor lying; why would this precept be needed? Consulting the various vinayas and treatises, all assign the offence to not listening. The ninth fascicle of the Sarvāstivāda-śāstra states: 'Herein, the offence is specifically assigned to not listening with a concentrated mind.' The Mahāsāṃghika[-vinaya], fascicle twenty-one, states: 'In the interim, failure to listen according to the vinaya is an infraction of the vinaya; all failure to listen is a prāyaścittika.' Therefore, the present commentary explains the precept text in three parts: first, identifying the person committing the offence; second, 'fearing an accusation, he speaks first, saying: "I only just now learned of it"'—within this, minor lying may be present; third, from 'the other bhikṣus' onward, relying on his words of only just learning of it, raising the matter to reprove the offence of not listening. The text says, 'the other bhikṣus know that this bhikṣu has sat through it two or three times'—this raises the number [of times] to reprove him. From 'that bhikṣu is ignorant' onward, it raises the result of not listening to reprove him. Committing an offence out of ignorance is dealt with according to the fundamental offence, yet with the addition of a duṣkṛta for ignorance. From 'speaking to the elder' onward, it directly shows the cause of ignorance: the offence of not listening. 'Because of his ignorance, it is a prāyaścittika' raises the result to assign the offence to the cause. Just as in the precept on exceeding three bowls it says, 'if he does not distribute the food, it is a prāyaścittika,' which serves sufficiently as a parallel. The vinaya text states: 'Because of his ignorance, assign him an additional prāyaścittika; if it is not assigned, it is a duṣkṛta'—this means instructing the Saṃgha to reprove his ignorance and assign him the offence of not listening on top [of it].