四分比丘戒本疏 1.48

1.48

Thirteenth: The precept against being self-willed, rejecting advice, and disobeying an admonition, formerly called the precept against having an evil nature, resisting the Saṃgha, and disobeying an admonition. This text also has three parts: first, describing the transgressor; second, the method of admonition; third, concluding with the offence of disobeying the admonition. In the second, the method of admonition, within the two pairs and four clauses, the arising of the fault comes first and has two clauses: First, 'being of an evil nature and not accepting the words of others' explains the fault of being self-willed and rejecting advice. The secular books say: 'He who likes to ask questions becomes abundant; he who is self-willed becomes petty.' This is that. Second, from 'in matters of the training' onward explains the mark of being self-willed and not accepting admonition. That is, when committing an offence against the precepts, others advise him to desist, [yet he] vainly accepts the offerings of faith, elevates himself, trusts in his self-willed nature, and says to the others: 'Do not speak to me of good or bad (good deeds and good fruits, evil deeds and evil fruits).' The meaning in this foolish mind is: 'I understand karma and its retribution myself; when I receive retribution, it is no business of yours.' 'Nor will I speak to you of good or bad' means: 'Your own karma and its fruit,' following what was said before; and below it summarizes: 'Cease, do not admonish me!' From ancient times it has been handed down that four kinds of people require admonition: first, those advanced in years and of established virtue; second, those who have long stood at the head of the assembly; third, those of broad learning in instructions and discussions, meaning their wisdom surpasses others; fourth, those who live alongside superior persons. Next, it explains the private admonition, admonishing the aforementioned being self-willed and refusing advice. This text also has two sections: first, urging him to cease being self-willed. Hence the text says: 'That monk admonishes this monk, saying: "Venerable Sir! Do not make yourself unamenable to words of admonition."' Second, taking away his clinging mind. The text says: 'The Venerable Sir should himself accept words of admonition,' and so on. As for 'attaining increase' and so forth: causing unarisen good to arise, preventing unarisen evil from arising, causing arisen good to increase, and causing arisen evil to perish, matched accordingly in order. The rest of the text is in accordance with the preceding. Below this is the third part: concluding and verifying observance. 'Venerable Sirs, I have recited the thirteen saṃghāvaśeṣa [rules]' is the conclusion. As for 'saṃghāvaśeṣa', the Yogācāra translates it as 'assembly-remainder' (zhongyu); formerly it was called sengcan ('Saṃgha-remainder'), 'remainder' (can) having the meaning of 'remaining' (yu). That is, when one commits this offence, one may not count toward a quorum in nine formal acts (karmans), yet with respect to other karmans one still has a remaining function of making up a quorum. As for the 'nine karmans', they refer to the four kinds of karmans such as concealment (praticchādana), fifth the formal censure (tarjanīya), sixth expulsion (pravājanīya), seventh subordination (niśraya), eighth prohibition from approaching lay families (pratisāraṇīya), and ninth the site of an offence (utkṣepanīya). The first four dharmas, as fully revealed in the text of the Praticchādana-khandhaka, mutually cannot count toward a quorum; the latter five have been deduced by analogy from ancient times. Since they equally strip away the thirty-five matters (the thirty-five matters, as in the Tarjanīya-khandhaka, consist of seven sets of five: the first five being: first, one may not confer the full ordination on others; second, one may not accept others in subordination; third, one may not accept novices; fourth, one may not accept an appointment to instruct bhikṣuṇīs; fifth, even if appointed, one may not go; and so forth, as extensively explained in the Vinaya), it is clear that with respect to one another they also cannot make up a quorum. As for the three kinds of suspended persons—those who do not see their offence, those who do not repent, and those who do not relinquish an evil view—although they are also equally stripped of the thirty-five matters, nevertheless, when suspended from the assembly, they cannot count toward the quorum of any Saṃgha at all, and thus they are not the same. This residual offence requires reliance on the Saṃgha before it can be repented; hence it is called saṃghāvaśeṣa ('Saṃgha-remainder') or 'assembly-remainder' (there are further different explanations in the Samantapāsādikā, which cannot be recounted in detail). From 'in nine precepts the initial transgression' onward, the text takes the occasion to briefly explain the method of repentance, which contains six parts: first, explaining the completion of the offence upon the completion of conditions; second, clarifying the fault of having committed concealment; third, revealing the method of repentance; fourth, explaining the loss incurred if the Saṃgha is too small; fifth, displaying the guilt of the assembled monks; sixth, concluding that it conforms to the Dharma. First, in clarifying the completion of the offence upon the completion of conditions, the text says: 'in nine precepts the initial transgression, and in four up to the third admonition'; that is, the former nine precepts are based on matters and complete the conditions, so that upon the initial deed the offence is committed, while the latter four precepts are based on the legal procedure and complete the conditions, so that when the three admonitions are completed, the offence is committed. The intention here is to explain that if the conditions are not complete, it is not a saṃghāvaśeṣa, and one may not use the saṃghāvaśeṣa method of repentance; for this reason it is explained. Someone explained: 'This is to resolve a doubt, namely that since the latter four precepts are committed in front of the assembly, concealment should not be dealt with; thus resolving the doubt by saying that concealment must also be dealt with.' Now upon examination: if so, since the former nine are committed privately and there is no suspicion of non-concealment, one should also have resolved the doubt by saying that if one does not conceal them, one is also exempt from dealing with concealment. Why does the text not explain this? Hence we know that is a mistaken explanation. In the second passage, the words 'if a monk commits any one dharma and, knowing it, conceals it' clarify the fault of having committed concealment. According to the Samuccaya-khandhaka and other vinayas and treatises, if one commits a saṃghāvaśeṣa and knows in one's own mind and sees that it is a saṃghāvaśeṣa, concealing it for one night incurs one duṣkṛta of concealment. In this way, progressively, for each single night, one incurs a duṣkṛta of concealment and an accompanying duṣkṛta of concealment. If one has doubt about the saṃghāvaśeṣa offence or does not recognize it, although one still commits concealment, one incurs a duṣkṛta offence. And if one does not undergo [the penalty for] concealment, commits two, three, and so on, or even does not remember the number, one is still permitted to repent. However, in the Dharmaguptaka tradition, the text of the Samuccaya-khandhaka states that one first repents the duṣkṛta of concealment, and only then asks the Saṃgha to deal with the fault of concealment and undergoes the procedure for concealment.