[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787) › 2.21 # 四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 2.21 四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 2.21 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.21](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787.2.21) 若比丘欲壞和合僧堅持不捨。彼比丘應諫是比丘。大德莫壞和合僧。莫方便壞和合僧。莫受壞僧法。堅持不捨。大德應與僧和合。與僧和合歡喜不諍。同一師學如水乳合於佛法中有增益安樂住。是比丘如是諫時堅不捨彼比丘應三諫捨此事故。乃至三諫捨者善。不捨者僧伽婆尸沙　此滿足戒本文有五句。初略明。後廣釋。言略者。一明諫所為事。二彼比丘下諸善比丘屏受諫勸。三是比丘下固執己心不肯從。四彼比丘下眾僧諫勸之令捨。五不捨者下結成違諫。初句文二。若比丘者。出犯人即是所諫之者。二欲壞已下正明破僧諫所為事。欲壞者牒前始心方便。方便已下牒前立邪三寶。邪三寶者。是五邪法。堅持不捨者。牒前行化。謂以五法行化。於時誘諸新學。屏諫文二。初舉上呵諫中初三句勸捨。故曰彼比丘應諫乃至莫方便等。二大德應與已下。舉上呵中二四勸同水乳等。然諸大德行雖有別。所稟師同學法無二。理應和合而無異相。猶如水乳和合僧得。故曰同一師學。如水乳合亦可水與水合。乳與乳合。故曰如水乳合。第三句是比丘者。謂諸善比丘。如是諫時者。謂牒前諸善比丘屏諫之時。堅持不捨者。謂調達比丘執心拒勸。第四句三諫捨者。善聞則順從止不破僧。一無違諫僧殘。二無破僧蘭罪。離斯二過故曰捨者善　問。其實白四師言應三諫。乃至三諫捨者善　答。謂取白及二羯磨故曰三除。第四諫所以爾者。一犯不犯位。分前三未犯殘。說第三竟犯殘。二輕重別。前三犯蘭。第三得殘。故言三諫捨者善。以未犯殘故。據其道理實是白四。又尼律文言。犯三法應捨者。謂過三法不捨者入重位故。第五句罪自下廣解戒本五句之文。所言若比丘者。義如上釋。言欲壞者。以十八法欲壞和合僧。所言和合者。同一羯磨同一說戒。所言僧者。四比丘若五若十乃至無數。言方便欲壞和合僧法堅持不捨。謂住十八法而破僧也。今辨十八法。一法非法。律非律。犯不犯。若輕若重。有殘無殘。麁惡非麁惡常所行非常所行。制非制。說非說。法非法者。八正真道能軌生正解。是泥洹之近因名法。調達說為非法。五邪不能軌生真解。是非法說以為法。律非律者。互說亦爾。犯不犯者。夫言髮抓佛制剪剃。而今調達謂髮抓有命。若不剪剃說為不犯。如心念作惡理。雖有違凡夫未制名為不犯。調達說犯。輕者遮過。調達見壞樹葉墮長壽龍中。便言殺一切草木。其罪最重。初篇業重。一形永障以見須提。初作得重罪。即言一切盜婬悉皆是輕有殘者。犯下四篇。非是永障。是其殘說為無。殘無殘者為犯初篇。永喪道牙字曰無殘說為有殘。母云。麁惡者初二篇方便身口無慚愧心犯濁重偷蘭。名為麁惡說為非麁惡。提罪已下餘蘭等皆非麁惡說為麁惡。常所行者。八正五法互說制者。謂五篇禁戒金口吐宣。名之為制說為非制。非制者。即五法非佛金口名為非制。說以為制。說者四禁是重。餘篇是輕。此是正教名為說以為非說。重輕到說此非佛教名為非說。而說以為說。第二屏諫。初比丘屏諫勸不破僧。次勸和合益。故律云。應彼言。可捨此事。若用語者。若不用語。復令餘比丘乃至王大臣。用語者應來諫是名屏諫。第三句若不用語者。此拒屏諫　問。屏諫竟得何罪　答。此但吉羅。以無眾法故。又所諫人破事未成。違諫未滿要待事成覽吉。成提。第四句眾諫如前文。第五若不捨者下結罪。於中輕重有二。一自作違諫輕重。二教人輕重。自違諫中復二。初未作諫前但有逆方便吉羅。第二作諫時三羯磨竟犯殘。若白二羯磨竟捨犯三蘭。白一竟捨二蘭。白竟捨一蘭　問。第三竟時得殘者。為攬因成果不　答。如五分藉前方便業思勢分相資。令後心之業次第增著。得僧殘時猶有蘭吉。別須懺悔以其業思輕重不同感果有異。故不相成。四分律明但使作惡步步有罪。如生福文證步步有福。多論如欲盜殺步步偷蘭。今所言二羯磨竟三偷蘭。明因中有罪。然得果之時攬因成果。故律云。白未竟有其吉羅。作白竟直結偷蘭。不言別有吉羅可懺。乃至三羯磨竟成殘時。不言別有三蘭須懺。故知因中雖有罪。以以因成果。第二教人文三。一比丘教。二尼教。三下眾教。不犯中律云。初語時捨通開三種。謂不犯吉羅蘭殘等三罪文。若破惡友惡知識。及二人三人欲作非法羯磨。或為僧塔和上闍利知親友等作損減作無住處。若破是人者不犯。 > "If a monk desires to cause a schism in the harmonious Saṅgha and obstinately clings \[to this\] without giving it up, the monks should admonish that monk: 'Venerable, do not cause a schism in the harmonious Saṅgha. Do not adopt means to cause a schism in the harmonious Saṅgha. Do not take up dharmas that cause a schism in the Saṅgha and obstinately cling \[to them\] without giving \[them\] up. The Venerable should be in harmony with the Saṅgha. When one is in harmony with the Saṅgha, joyful and without dispute, studying under the same teacher, blending like milk and water, there is increase and comfortable dwelling in the Buddha's Dharma.' If, when that monk is being admonished in this way, he obstinately clings and does not give it up, the monks should admonish him up to three times to abandon this matter. If he abandons it up to the third admonition, it is well; if he does not abandon it, it is a saṃghāvaśeṣa." / This complete prātimokṣa text consists of five clauses. First, an outline is provided, followed by an extensive explanation. As for the outline: First, it explains the matter for which the admonition is given. Second, from "that monk" onward, the virtuous monks admonish and encourage him in private. Third, from "that monk" onward, he obstinately clings to his own mind and refuses to comply. Fourth, from "those monks" onward, the Saṅgha admonishes and encourages him to abandon it. Fifth, from "if he does not abandon it" onward, the offense of disobeying an admonition is concluded. The first clause has two parts: "If a monk" identifies the offender, namely, the person who is to be admonished. Second, from "desires to cause a schism" onward, it directly clarifies the matter of schism for which the admonition is given. "Desires to cause a schism" recapitulates the initial intention and expedients previously mentioned. From "expedients" onward, it recapitulates the previous establishment of the deviant Three Jewels. The deviant Three Jewels refer to the five deviant dharmas. "Obstinately clings without giving it up" recapitulates his previous proselytizing—meaning that he proselytized with the five dharmas, thereby misleading the new students at that time. The text on admonishing in private has two parts: First, it cites the first three phrases of the reproof above to encourage abandonment; thus it says, "That monk should admonish... down to 'do not adopt means,' etc." Second, from "The Venerable should with..." onward, it cites phrases two through four of the reproof above to encourage blending like milk and water, etc. Although the practices of the venerables differ, the teacher from whom they received \[ordination\] is the same, and the teachings they study are not two; in principle, they should be in harmony without divergence, blending like milk and water to attain harmony in the Saṅgha; thus it is said: "studying under the same teacher, blending like milk and water." It can also mean water blending with water and milk blending with milk; hence it says "blending like milk and water." In the third clause, "that monk" refers to the virtuous monks. "When admonishing in this way" recapitulates the time when the virtuous monks admonished him in private. "Obstinately clings and does not give it up" refers to the monk Devadatta holding obstinately to his view and refusing the admonition. In the fourth clause, "abandoning it upon three admonitions is well" means that upon hearing it, he complies and desists, not causing a schism in the Saṅgha: first, he is free of the saṃghāvaśeṣa of disobeying an admonition; second, he is free of the sthūlātyaya offense of causing a schism in the Saṅgha. Free from these two faults, it is said that "abandoning it is well." / Question: In reality, does the master of the motion and three proclamations say that one should admonish three times, down to "if he abandons it up to three times, it is well"? / Answer: This takes the motion and two karmavācanās, hence it is called "three," excluding the fourth admonition. The reason for this is twofold: First, the distinction between the stages of committing and not committing the offense: in the first three, one has not yet committed the saṃghāvaśeṣa; when the third is completed, one commits the saṃghāvaśeṣa. Second, the distinction between light and heavy: in the first three, one incurs sthūlātyayas; with the third, one incurs a saṃghāvaśeṣa. Therefore it is said that "abandoning it upon three admonitions is well," because one has not yet incurred the saṃghāvaśeṣa. In principle, it is indeed a motion and three proclamations. Furthermore, the Bhikṣuṇī Vinaya states: "He who incurs three dharmas should abandon them," meaning that if he exceeds the three dharmas without abandoning them, he enters the grave stage. The fifth clause concludes the offense. Below is the extensive explanation of the five clauses of the prātimokṣa text. As for "if a monk," the meaning is as explained above. As for "desires to cause a schism," he desires to cause a schism in the harmonious Saṅgha through the eighteen dharmas. "Harmonious" means having the same karmavācanā and the same recitation of the prātimokṣa. "Saṅgha" means four monks, five, ten, up to an innumerable number. "Adopting means desiring to cause a schism in the dharmas of the harmonious Saṅgha and obstinately clinging without giving it up" means residing in the eighteen dharmas to cause a schism in the Saṅgha. Now, to distinguish the eighteen dharmas: 1. dharma and non-dharma; 2. vinaya and non-vinaya; 3. offense and non-offense; 4. light and heavy; 5. with remainder and without remainder; 6. coarse and non-coarse; 7. habitually practiced and not habitually practiced; 8. prescribed and non-prescribed; 9. spoken and non-spoken. "Dharma and non-dharma": the noble eightfold path can regulate and generate correct understanding; it is the proximate cause of nirvāṇa, and is called dharma. Devadatta called it non-dharma. The five deviant \[practices\] cannot regulate and generate true understanding; they are non-dharma, yet he called them dharma. "Vinaya and non-vinaya": the reciprocal reversal is the same. "Offense and non-offense": cutting hair and clipping nails are prescribed by the Buddha; but Devadatta maintained that hair and nails have life, and if one does not cut and clip them, he called it non-offense. In the case of evil thoughts, though in principle there is a transgression, because they are not yet prohibited for ordinary beings, it is called non-offense; yet Devadatta said it was an offense. "Light": minor transgressions. Devadatta saw that damaging leaves caused one to fall among the long-lived nāgas, and thereupon claimed that killing all grass and trees is the gravest offense. The karma of the first category (pārājika) is grave, permanently obstructing the holy life throughout one's existence; but seeing that Sudinna incurred a grave offense upon his first act, he claimed that all theft and sexual misconduct are light. "With remainder": transgressions of the lower four categories are not permanent obstructions; they have remainder, yet he called them without remainder. "Without remainder": committing the first category permanently destroys the sprouts of the path, and is called without remainder, yet he said it has remainder. The Mātṛkā says: "Coarse" refers to the preparatory bodily and verbal actions of the first two categories, committing gross, heavy sthūlātyayas without a sense of shame or conscience; this is called coarse, yet he called it non-coarse. Transgressions from prāyaścittika downwards, as well as the remaining sthūlātyayas, are non-coarse, yet he called them coarse. "Habitually practiced": the noble eightfold path and the five dharmas are spoken of reversely. "Prescribed": the five categories of precepts proclaimed from the golden mouth are called prescribed, yet he called them non-prescribed. "Non-prescribed": the five dharmas not originating from the Buddha's golden mouth are called non-prescribed, yet he claimed they were prescribed. "Spoken": the four prohibitions are grave, and the remaining categories are light; this is the correct teaching and is called spoken, yet he called it non-spoken. Reversing heavy and light is not the Buddha's teaching and is non-spoken, yet he claimed it was spoken. Second, the admonition in private: First, the monk admonishes him in private, encouraging him not to cause a schism in the Saṅgha; next, he encourages the benefits of harmony. Therefore, the Vinaya says: "One should say to him, 'You may abandon this matter.' If he listens, \[well and good\]; if he does not listen, another monk, or even a king or great minister, should be sent; whoever can make him listen should come and admonish him." This is called admonishing in private. The third clause, "if he does not listen," means rejecting the private admonition. / Question: What offense is incurred after the private admonition? / Answer: This is merely a duṣkṛta, because no formal Saṅgha procedure was held. Furthermore, the schismatic act of the person being admonished is not yet completed; the disobedience of the admonition is not yet fulfilled; one must await the completion of the matter to encompass the duṣkṛta and form a prāyaścittika. The fourth clause, the admonition by the Saṅgha, is as in the previous text. Fifth, from "if he does not abandon it" onward, the offense is concluded. Within this, there are two aspects of light and heavy: first, the lightness and heaviness of disobeying an admonition by oneself; second, the lightness and heaviness of instructing others. Within one's own disobedience, there are again two: First, before the admonition is performed, there is only a preparatory duṣkṛta. Second, when the admonition is performed, upon the completion of the three karmavācanās, he incurs a saṃghāvaśeṣa. If he abandons it after the motion and two karmavācanās are completed, he incurs three sthūlātyayas; if he abandons it after the motion and one \[karmavācanā\] is completed, two sthūlātyayas; if he abandons it after the motion is completed, one sthūlātyaya. / Question: When he incurs a saṃghāvaśeṣa at the completion of the third, does it encompass the causes to form the fruit, or not? / Answer: As in the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya, relying on the momentum of the previous preparatory intentional karma mutually assisting, the subsequent mental karma is sequentially reinforced. When the saṃghāvaśeṣa is incurred, there are still sthūlātyayas and duṣkṛtas, which must be repented separately, because the lightness and heaviness of the intentional karma differ, producing different karmic retributions; thus they do not merge. The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya explains that as long as evil is committed, every step incurs an offense, just as the text on generating merit proves that every step brings merit. The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā states that, as when intending to steal or kill, every step is a sthūlātyaya. Now, stating that three sthūlātyayas occur after the two karmavācanās are completed clarifies that offenses exist within the cause; yet when the fruit is attained, it encompasses the causes to form the fruit. Therefore, the Vinaya says: "Before the motion is completed, there is a duṣkṛta; once the motion is made, it directly concludes in a sthūlātyaya," not saying that there is a separate duṣkṛta that can be repented. Down to when the third karmavācanā is completed and forms a saṃghāvaśeṣa, it does not state that there are three separate sthūlātyayas that must be repented. Hence we know that although there are offenses within the cause, it uses the causes to form the fruit. Second, instructing others has three parts: 1. instructed by a monk; 2. instructed by a nun; 3. instructed by the lower assemblies. In the non-offense section, the Vinaya states: "Abandoning it at the first word comprehensively opens three kinds," meaning that one does not commit the three offenses of duṣkṛta, sthūlātyaya, and saṃghāvaśeṣa. The text says: "If one disrupts bad companions and evil spiritual friends, or two or three persons who wish to perform an improper karmavācanā, or if someone causes loss or makes homeless the Saṅgha, stupas, upādhyāyas, ācāryas, relatives, and friends—if one disrupts such persons, there is no offense." > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.20](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787.2.20) - [Next: 2.22](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787.2.22) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787~en-mt.2.21) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (4) - [四分律](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.vinaya.other-vinayas.dharmaguptaka*zh-buddhayasas.5.4) — Classical Chinese - [四分律比丘含注戒本](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1806.1.236) — Classical Chinese - [四分律比丘戒本](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.vinaya.pratimoksa.dharmaguptaka*zh-buddhayasas.1.34) — Classical Chinese - [四分僧戒本](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.vinaya.sastra.dharmaguptakapratimoksasutra*zh-buddhayasas.1.18) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787.2.21](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787.2.21) · Pramāṇa