四分比丘戒本疏 1.45

1.45

Question: Since both disobey an admonition by the Saṃgha, why is there a difference between saṃghāvaśeṣa and prāyaścittika? Answer: Establishing offences as heavy or light naturally involves many meanings. For instance, creating schism in the Saṃgha causes excessively grave distress and disturbance; in conceiving such schemes, the instigator should be admonished first, because if the leader desists, the others will also desist. Since the leader does not desist, those who fan the flames and heap on firewood commit an even more severe fault, and therefore must also be admonished. Corrupting families and slandering [the Saṃgha after] expulsion: accumulating faults in villages over a long time causes people to lose their pure faith; upon being expelled, they ought to submit, but instead slander the Saṃgha. Their fault is also not light, hence they must be admonished. Being of an obstinate nature, resisting the Saṃgha, acting haughtily, and bullying the assembly are also difficult for people to tolerate; hence they must be admonished. Disobeying any of these incurs a saṃghāvaśeṣa. As for Ariṭṭha, who said that sensual desires are not obstacles: this was a habitual warped view that he considered correct. Although the Saṃgha provided admonition, his biased view had not opened up; if a heavy offence were concluded, it would exceed his proper measure, and thus he incurs only a prāyaścittika. However, ancient scholars raised a difficulty: If accumulating many faults by corrupting families makes the offence of disobeying admonition heavy, then since the matter of private admonition covers all seven classes of offences, why not determine the weight of disobeying admonition based on the specific matter? Now it is explained: corrupting families commits faults in villages over a long period, accumulating a great deal of guilt; whereas in private admonition, although it covers the seven classes of offences, the other person might only intend to commit one and does not plan to commit many. How can this be compared to the numerous faults of corrupting families? The separate precepts for nuns should also be resolved along these lines, which cannot be recounted in detail. The text of the precept has three parts: first, it allows for the offender; second, it explains the procedure of admonition; third, it concludes the offence of disobeying admonition. Regarding the second, the procedure of admonition, there are two pairs and four phrases: In the first pair, if a fault arises, one should first admonish privately; in the second pair, if he disobeys the private admonition, one should properly have the Saṃgha admonish him. The meaning of all admonition precepts is identical to this. Within the arising of the fault, there are four meanings: First, 'wishing to break the concordant Saṃgha' is the initial intention initiating the action. 'By expedient means undertaking the dharma of breaking the concordant Saṃgha' naturally has two kinds: First, expediently breaking the concordant Saṃgha, just as Devadatta personally acted as a false Buddha, caused four evil companions to act as a false Saṃgha, and devised schemes to break the Saṃgha; hence it is called 'expedient means'. Second, undertaking the dharma of breaking the concordant Saṃgha, which means mutually undertaking and practicing five kinds of false dharmas as the false Dharma-jewel. The five false dharmas are: 1. begging food for one's whole life, 2. wearing rag-robes, 3. sitting in the open, 4. not eating ghee and salt, and 5. not eating fish and meat. The fourth meaning, 'persistently adhering to it without renouncing it', means falsely relying on and attaching to the false Three Jewels, rigidly upholding and practicing them, competing with the Buddha in converting people, and destroying the wheel of the true Dharma. In private admonition, according to the Vinaya, it extends to admonishing the seven assemblies, non-Buddhists, and so on; here we temporarily discuss admonition by monks. The text has two sections: 1. Admonishing him to cease the four faults, as in the text. 2. From 'Venerable, you should be in harmony with the Saṃgha' onward: refuting his clinging view. Refuting by saying 'you should be in harmony with the Saṃgha' refutes his initial intention initiating the action. 'Being joyful in harmony with the Saṃgha' refutes his devising schemes. 'Not disputing' refutes his establishing the false five dharmas. From 'training under the same teacher' onward: encouraging him to reverse his competition in conversion, so that he may gain increase in approaching the path and attain peace and joy in realizing the path. Next, the second is explained: if he disobeys the private admonition, the Saṃgha should properly admonish him. 'When that monk is admonished in this way, he persistently adheres to it and does not renounce it' refers to disobeying the private admonition. From 'the monks should thrice admonish that monk' onward, there are two points within: 1. instructing the Saṃgha to admonish him to renounce it, and 2. praising renunciation as good. That is, praising the reversal of disobedience into compliant goodness. 'Thrice admonished' means one motion (ñatti) stating the proposal, and three karmavācanās of admonition; at the third moment, one incurs a saṃghāvaśeṣa. Before the third, it is still possible to renounce it, hence it says 'good'. The ancients who took one motion and two karmavācanās as the three admonitions were incorrect. 'If at the third he does not renounce it, it is a saṃghāvaśeṣa' directly concludes the offence of disobeying admonition. In the past, various masters mostly relied on the treatises to explain the schism of the wheel of Dharma, claiming that after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa this matter definitely does not occur, and in principle could not be transgressed. Now, examining the intention of the Vinaya, it is slightly different from the treatises: in the treatises, they explain the uninterrupted (ānantarya) karma, and thus exclusively restrict it to Devadatta alone to constitute this karma. Now, the intention of the Vinaya text is that even after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, if one separately establishes false dharmas, conducts voting by voting-sticks, and converts people to follow one's own view, although it is not strictly included in uninterrupted karma, it nevertheless distresses the Saṃgha; the Saṃgha must provide an admonition, and if one is admonished and does not renounce it, one also incurs a saṃghāvaśeṣa. Therefore, the Vinaya text states: 'There are two matters that break the Saṃgha: first, performing a karma; second, taking voting-sticks (śalākā).' According to the treatises, taking voting-sticks constitutes uninterrupted karma; according to the Vinaya, it is explained comprehensively, hence it says 'performing a karma'. Although the theoretical aspects of this precept are vast and manifold, in actual practice the matter is concise; hence it is summarized thus.