俱舍論記 16.128

16.128

「此從國王至況出家者」者，答。有兩解。一云：此從國王得罪，行非法事不忍許故。第二說云：於自妻妾受八戒時尚不應行，況出家者。以輕況重，但有侵陵即成業道。犯罪雖同，妻等非時，尼是非境。雖有兩解，後解為勝。故《正理》云「苾芻尼等如有戒妻，若有侵陵亦成業道。」有說：此罪於所住王，以能護持及不許故。若王自犯，業道亦成。故前所說於理為勝。又解：此師亦可為正。若王自犯，於聽察等邊得罪，彼執法故。

"This is from the king […] how much more so one who has gone forth": this is the reply. There are two explanations. One says: this sin is incurred in relation to the king, because he does not tolerate or permit the commission of unlawful acts. The second explanation says: one should not even engage in [intercourse] with one's own wife when she has undertaken the eight precepts, how much less so with one who has gone forth! Inferring the heavy from the light, as long as there is violation, it constitutes a course of action. Although the offense is the same, with one's wife it is an improper time, whereas with a bhikṣuṇī it is an improper person. Although there are two explanations, the latter explanation is superior. Therefore the Nyāyānusāra says: "A bhikṣuṇī and the like are like a wife with precepts; if there is violation, it also constitutes a course of action." Some say: this sin is in relation to the king of the region, because he can protect and does not permit it. If the king himself commits it, the course of action is also constituted. Therefore the previously stated explanation is logically superior. Another interpretation says: this master may also be correct; if the king himself commits it, the sin is incurred in relation to the judges and so forth, because they uphold the law.