四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 2.2

2.2

諸大德是十三僧伽婆尸沙法半月半月說戒經中來　此明第二篇。初□□說儀。次陳本戒後問清淨。此句是其標也。且就總相九門分別。後乃別相□□□□□總相者。一起由三毒。二配於身口。三自作教人。四解遮性。五初犯種類。大持犯方軌。七二部同異。八違制不同。九下眾任運。言起由三毒者。初有□□□事起貪染心成。次有二戒。瞋心起成。次有二戒。因三事起癡□□□□□□瞋癡起成　二配於身口者。位以為四。初二局身。次二麁語二謗四諫等八□□□□□有助成。次二房戒。身為正犯。口是助業次媒嫁一戒。身口正犯　三自作教人□□□為三。一有五戒。自作成重。教人同不同。謂二麁語媒嫁二房自作定殘。□□□同不同。若教人作五。於己有潤故同犯殘。若汎教人於己無潤但可蘭。二次有二戒。自作教人一向同犯。謂二謗戒。自作教人為己不為己。惱境處齊暢思不殊。故彼我同犯。三有六戒。自作犯殘。教人但輕。謂漏失摩觸自作犯殘。教人偷蘭。以無潤己故。下四諫戒自違正犯。教人違諫亦得輕罪。若僧未諫教言莫捨但得吉羅。以無僧命眾法可違過輕微故。若僧諫時教言莫捨即結蘭罪。以違僧命情過重故　四性遮者。媒及二房是遮惡。餘之十戒體是不善。故是性惡　第五種類者是論分為四位。初有五戒咸是愛染。初戒氣分婬之種類。二二房兩戒是盜種類。三污家惡行是殺種類。四餘之戒等妄語種類　六持犯　是中二房具二持犯。然前房半非除過重故。自餘十一止持作犯亦可□持作犯通十三戒作持止犯前房少分第房全品別階降。已如上辨。七二部同異者。媒嫁二謗四違諫等。此七同犯。而四諫戒得罪雖齊。對境翻到。謂各違當眾諫故。媒謗三戒境罪俱等。自餘六戒僧尼不同。漏失僧重尼提。多云。女人煩惱深重難拘難。若制與重罪惱眾生。又女人要在私屏多緣多力。若乃盈流故輕。男子不爾。隨事能出故重。又可染患。內外不同故有輕重。比丘摩觸力能自固以限分制但得僧殘。尼則煩惱厚重。既受摩觸恐成陵逼　深房中制故結夷罪。為四不同故罪階降。一死活。二大小。三染心有無。四身輕重　尼懼陵逼故須活及大等。僧據染患不簡死及大小等。二麁惡語僧重尼輕。以希數故。又尼有趣重方爾故得蘭罪。僧無八事相資故得僧殘。二房戒者。大僧犯殘。尼作犯蘭。若就過量大僧得獨行宿。喜獨造房故制僧殘。尼須伴假。若共造房自無過義。故律言。多人住屋不犯。見日二人造房不犯。設令獨造希故蘭罪。若爾覆屋過三。何故同犯。答。此據尺量分齊。故二人不犯。下過三節直辨摧壞招譏。不簡大小故同僧提　問。尼就有伴假獨義希即得蘭者。若爾尼是有伴假。獨義希屏露二坐不應同犯　答。此就損業損微則輕。又設獨造希而不數故得輕罪。坐等就譏事雖希數齊招譏過。僧尼同犯。若論不處分者。尼無蘭若制居聚落。僧儻無房故宜須造設。不處分情過輕微但結蘭罪。比丘大夫得在蘭若樹下露坐。安身進業。今在聚落營構私房故須重。遮懲其後犯　八違制不同者。前之九戒違佛制得罪。後四諫戒違僧制招愆。此僧制者即是佛制。但僧若不秉即無違諫之殘。殘由違僧故。此四戒違僧制犯　九任運有無。七戒容有任運。二麁兩房二謗媒嫁得有遣人為已作義。所教事成三性之中犯七僧殘。餘無教人故無任運。就十三中初之九戒。若持護眾行法。違則壞眾行法。後之四戒若奉順僧命息過。不為顯眾法成就。有被時之益名護眾教法。違則壞眾教法。前中復三。初五內染。以明壞眾行法。次二兩房事和。以明壞眾行法。次二兩謗情和。以明壞眾行法。前五復三。初一壞眾行法不壞於時。次三壞眾行壞時。次一壞行義微壞眾壞時故。

"Venerable sirs, these thirteen saṅghāvaśeṣa dharmas come forth in the half-monthly recitation of the Prātimokṣa Sūtra." This explains the second section. First, [...] the ritual of recitation; next, setting forth the root precepts; and afterward, inquiring into purity. This phrase is its heading. We shall first analyze it comprehensively under nine headings, and afterward [examine] the specific characteristics [...]. As for the comprehensive characteristics: first, arising from the three poisons; second, allocating to body and speech; third, committing oneself or instructing others; fourth, explaining proscriptive versus natural [offenses]; fifth, the categories of original offenses; sixth, the rules of observance and transgression; seventh, similarities and differences between the two orders; eighth, differences in transgressing prohibitions; ninth, automatic operation among lower assemblies. Regarding "arising from the three poisons": the first [...] arises and is constituted by a mind of lustful defilement. Next, there are two precepts that arise and are constituted by a mind of hatred. Next, there are two precepts that arise due to three matters and [a mind of] delusion [...] arise and are constituted by hatred and delusion. Second, regarding "allocating to body and speech": these are classified into four positions. The first two are confined to the body. The next two on coarse speech, the two on defamation, and the four on admonition, making eight [...], have assistance. Next, regarding the two precepts on huts: the body is the primary transgressor, while speech is an assisting action. Next, the single precept on matchmaking: body and speech are both primary transgressors. Third, regarding "committing oneself or instructing others" [...], it is divided into three. First, there are five precepts where committing them oneself constitutes a grave [offense], whereas instructing others is either the same or different. Namely, the two on coarse speech, matchmaking, and the two on huts: committing them oneself definitely incurs a saṅghāvaśeṣa; [...] the same or different: if one instructs another to perform these five and there is personal gain for oneself, one equally incurs a saṅghāvaśeṣa; if one merely instructs another in general without personal gain, it is only a sthūlātyaya. Next, there are two precepts where committing oneself and instructing others uniformly incur the same offense: namely, the two defamation precepts. Whether one commits it oneself or instructs another, whether for oneself or not for oneself, the object of harassment is identical and the intention is expressed without difference; therefore, both self and other incur the same offense. Third, there are six precepts where committing oneself incurs a saṅghāvaśeṣa, while instructing another incurs only a light offense: namely, intentional emission and touching, where committing them oneself incurs a saṅghāvaśeṣa, but instructing another incurs a sthūlātyaya, because there is no personal gain. In the four precepts on admonition below, transgressing them oneself is the primary offense; instructing another to transgress an admonition also incurs a light offense. If the saṅgha has not yet admonished and one instructs them, saying, "Do not desist," one incurs only a duṣkṛta, because there is no saṅgha command or communal act to be transgressed, so the fault is slight. If the saṅgha is in the process of admonishing and one instructs them, saying, "Do not desist," one immediately incurs a sthūlātyaya offense, because the intention to transgress the saṅgha's command is grave. Fourth, regarding natural versus proscriptive [offenses]: matchmaking and the two on huts are proscriptive evils; the remaining ten precepts are inherently unwholesome in substance, and therefore are natural evils. Fifth, regarding categories: the treatise divides them into four ranks. First, there are five precepts that are all [matters of] lustful attachment: the first precept belongs to the category of sexual misconduct; the two precepts on huts belong to the category of theft; corrupting families and evil conduct belongs to the category of killing; the remaining precepts belong to the category of false speech. Sixth, observance and transgression: among these, the two on huts possess both forms of observance and transgression; however, the former hut is half [...] not removing excessive gravity. The remaining eleven are observance through cessation and offense of commission; also [...] observance through cessation and offense of commission apply across all thirteen precepts; observance through performance and offense of omission apply to a minor part of the former hut and the entire grade of the latter hut, as already analyzed above. Seventh, similarities and differences between the two orders: matchmaking, the two defamations, the four transgressions of admonitions, etc.—these seven are common offenses. However, although the offenses incurred in the four admonition precepts are equal, the objects are inverted: namely, each transgresses the admonition of their own community. In the three precepts of matchmaking and defamation, the objects and offenses are entirely equal. The remaining six precepts differ between monks and nuns. For emission: for a monk it is grave; for a nun, a prāyaścittika. The Vibhāṣā says: women's afflictions are profound and grave, difficult to restrain; if one were to establish a grave offense for them, it would torment living beings. Furthermore, for a woman, it must occur in a secluded place, with many conditions and much exertion; if it overflows, it is therefore light. For a man it is not so: it can be emitted in accordance with any circumstance, hence it is grave. Furthermore, the affliction of lust differs inwardly and outwardly, so there is lightness and gravity. When a bhikṣu engages in touching, he has the strength to control himself; restricted by boundaries, he incurs only a saṅghāvaśeṣa. For a nun, afflictions are thick and heavy; once subjected to touching, it is feared that violation will occur; established [as an offense] in a deep room, it is therefore concluded as a pārājika offense. Because of four differences, there are grades of offense: first, dead or alive; second, adult or child; third, presence or absence of a lustful mind; fourth, lightness or gravity of bodily contact. A nun fears violation, so it must be alive, adult, etc.; for a monk, based on the affliction of lust, there is no distinction of dead or alive, adult or child, etc. For the two on coarse speech, it is grave for a monk and light for a nun, because it is rare versus frequent; also, for a nun, only when directed toward a grave matter is it so, hence she incurs a sthūlātyaya offense; a monk lacks the mutual reinforcement of the eight factors, hence he incurs a saṅghāvaśeṣa. Regarding the two precepts on huts: a fully ordained monk incurs a saṅghāvaśeṣa, while a nun committing it incurs a sthūlātyaya. If considering exceeding measurements: a fully ordained monk may travel and lodge alone, and takes pleasure in building a hut alone; hence, a saṅghāvaśeṣa was established. A nun requires a companion; if they build a hut together, there is inherently no fault; therefore, the Vinaya says: "If many people reside in the house, there is no offense; if two people build a hut exposed to the sun, there is no offense." Even if she were to build it alone, because it is rare, it is a sthūlātyaya offense. If so, why do both incur an offense when roofing exceeds three tiers? Answer: this is based on the limits of measurement, so two people do not commit an offense; exceeding three tiers below directly concerns collapse and inviting criticism, without distinguishing large or small, so she shares a prāyaścittika with monks. Question: If for a nun, having a companion makes being alone rare, so that she incurs a sthūlātyaya, then since a nun has a companion, being alone is rare, so she should not share the offense for sitting in screened or open places. Answer: this is judged by the harm of the karma; where harm is slight, it is light; also, even if built alone, it is rare and not frequent, so it incurs a light offense; sitting and the like are judged by criticism: although the act may be rare or frequent, both equally invite the fault of criticism; thus monks and nuns commit the offense equally. If discussing building without authorization: nuns have no dwelling in the wilderness and are prescribed to live in settlements; if a monk happens to have no hut, he ought to construct one; if he does not request authorization, the fault of his intention is slight, so it only constitutes a sthūlātyaya offense; a bhikṣu, being a great man, can sit exposed under trees in the wilderness to settle his body and advance his practice; now, constructing a private hut in a settlement, it must be grave to prevent and punish subsequent transgressions. Eighth, differences in transgressing prohibitions: the former nine precepts incur offenses by transgressing the Buddha's prohibitions; the latter four admonition precepts incur guilt by transgressing the saṅgha's prohibitions. This saṅgha prohibition is itself the Buddha's prohibition; however, if the saṅgha does not perform the act, there is no saṅghāvaśeṣa for transgressing an admonition; because the saṅghāvaśeṣa stems from transgressing the saṅgha, these four precepts are offenses of transgressing the saṅgha's prohibitions. Ninth, presence or absence of automatic operation: seven precepts allow for automatic operation; the two on coarse speech, the two on huts, the two on defamation, and matchmaking admit of the principle of sending someone to act on one's own behalf; when the instructed matter is accomplished, among the three moral natures, one commits seven saṅghāvaśeṣas; the rest do not involve instructing others, so there is no automatic operation. Among the thirteen: regarding the first nine precepts, if maintained, they protect the community's practice of the Dharma; if transgressed, they destroy the community's practice of the Dharma. Regarding the latter four precepts, if one complies with the saṅgha's command and ceases faults, not making manifest the accomplishment of communal acts, there is the benefit of timely assistance, called protecting the community's doctrinal Dharma; if transgressed, they destroy the community's doctrinal Dharma. Among the former, there are again three: the first five concern internal defilement, illustrating the destruction of the community's practice of the Dharma; the next two, the two huts, concern harmony of affairs, illustrating the destruction of the community's practice of the Dharma; the next two, the two defamations, concern harmony of sentiments, illustrating the destruction of the community's practice of the Dharma. Among the first five, there are again three: the first one destroys the community's practice of the Dharma without destroying the season; the next three destroy the community's practice and destroy the season; the next one destroys practice slightly and destroys both community and season.