四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 2.25

2.25

若比丘依聚落若城邑住。污他家行惡行污他家亦見亦聞行惡行亦見亦聞。諸比丘當語是比丘言。大德污他家行惡行污他家亦見亦聞。大德汝污他家行惡行今可遠此聚落去不須住此是比丘語彼比丘作是語。大德諸比丘有愛有恚有怖有癡有如是同罪比丘有驅者。諸比丘報大德莫作是語。有愛有恚有怖有癡有如是同罪比丘有驅者有不驅者。而諸比丘不愛不恚不怖不癡。大德污他家行惡行污他家亦見亦聞行惡行亦見亦聞之比丘如是諫時堅持不捨。彼比丘應再三諫捨此事故。乃至三諫捨者善。不捨者僧伽婆尸沙　此滿足文有五句。一非理傍僧諫所為事。二從諸比丘下自理屏諫。三是比丘下拒屏諫。四彼比丘下僧諫。五若不捨下結違諫罪。初文有四一犯人。二依聚若下正明起過自他俱壞。三諸比丘下牒過驅儐。四是比丘下非理傍僧。傍僧辭者。謂不治違路者名有愛。懼於走者名有怖。謂僧嗔我二人名有恚。此三皆非解心所為。不達治罰之方名有癡。如是同罪下顯已謗意。二屏諫文三。一諫莫謗僧故曰莫作是語等。二而諸比丘下得僧自雪已心。故曰而諸比丘不愛等路。懺已無罪可治名不愛。走人不現復不得治名不怖。汝等二人進不懺悔退不巡走。身過俱現。理合治罰名不恚。善達治儐故名不癡。三大德已下推過屬彼故曰大德污他家等。三是比丘者為諸善比丘。如是諫時者。謂牒前諸善比丘。屏諫之時堅持不捨者。謂能謗比丘執心拒勸。四三諫捨者善。聞則從順止不謗僧。離斯重過故曰捨者善。五結罪。自下廣釋文義。言若比丘者。義如釋。言聚落者。村有四種。如上。若城邑者。屬王處也。言污他家者。有男有女。名之曰家。污家有四。一總舉四數。二別釋。三總結。言總舉者。污家有四。一依家污家。一家得物又與一家。所得物處聞之不喜。所與物處思當報恩。即作是言。有與我者。我當報之。若不與我。我何故與。二者依利養污家。如法得利。及鉢中餘或與一居士。得者生念。當報其恩。若不與我。我何故與。三者依親友污家。若比丘依王大臣或為一居士。或不為一居士。便生念言。其為我者我當供養。不為我者我不供養。四者依僧伽藍污家。若比丘取僧華菓與一居士。不與一居士。彼有德者思當供養。若不與者我不供養。以此四事故污家名污他家。言行惡行者。彼比丘作如是等非法行也。自種花樹。自溉灌。自摘花。自作鬘。以線貫繫。自持與人。若復教人作如上事。村有婦女。同床坐起。同器飲食。言語戲笑。或自歌舞倡伎。或他作己唱和。或作俳說。或繟鼓簧吹唄作眾鳥鳴。或走或揚跛行。或嘯或自作弄身。或受戲笑是。是名行惡行。言污他家行惡行亦見亦聞者。律云。時有比丘。彼村止宿。著衣持鉢入村乞食。法服齊整行去庠序。低目而行。既不顧視亦不言笑。不相周接善言問訊。我等不應與其飲食。不如阿濕婆等與人周接及上所言。應與供養。時彼乞食困乃得之。往至佛所具白佛言。令比丘往村驅出此前是依聚落起過。自他俱損。已下明牒過驅儐文。從諸比丘當語至不須住此已來是驅儐文。已下非理謗僧辭。從是比丘語彼有驅不驅者。其謗僧意。倚傍六人同作。祇云。三聞達多摩醯沙達多走至王道聚落。迦留陀夷闡陀逆路懺悔。此四不治跡涉。愛憎故起謗。謂不治逆路者名有愛。懼於走者名有怖。謂僧嗔我二人名有畏。此三皆非解心所為。不達治罰之方名有癡。顯已謗意故曰有驅者有不驅者。自下明屏諫文。所言大德莫作是語者。諫莫謗僧故曰莫作是語乃至有驅者有不驅者。已下僧自雪己心。故曰諸比丘不愛不恚不怖不癡。逆路懺已無罪可名治曰不愛。走人不現復不得治名曰不怖。汝等二人進不懺悔退不逃走。身過俱理合治罰名不恚。善達治儐故名不癡。已下推過屬彼。故曰不德污他家行乃至亦見聞是。已下明謗人拒諫不從。故文云。是比丘如是諫時堅持不捨。下明僧諫。文云。彼比丘應三諫捨此事故乃至三諫捨者善。應初諫言欲作白僧法當捨。若捨唯得吉。若不捨作白已即得偷蘭。復應諫言。大德作白已。餘有三羯磨在可捨。此事莫為僧呵便犯重罪。乃至初羯磨第二第三已來。應如是諫。故文言捨者善。隨捨罪輕故曰善。已下明拒勸不捨而結僧殘罪。故文云。若不捨者僧伽婆尸沙。已下明不犯。律云。若得衣食與父母病人。與小兒與妊人。與牢獄繫人。與寺中客作不名污家。若種樹花菓。乃至教人貫花為三寶故不名惡行。若度河溝渠坑跳躑者不犯。若同伴在後還顧不見。而嘯喚者不犯。若為父母若為病人。若為信心檀越。乃至三寶事持書往反。皆不犯。

"If a monk, dwelling in dependence on a village or town, corrupts families and engages in evil conduct, and his corrupting of families is both seen and heard, and his evil conduct is both seen and heard, the monks should address that monk, saying: 'Venerable, you corrupt families and engage in evil conduct; your corrupting of families is both seen and heard, and your evil conduct is both seen and heard. Venerable, you have corrupted families and engaged in evil conduct; you should now go far away from this village and not remain here.' If that monk speaks to those monks, saying: 'Venerables, the monks have desire, have anger, have fear, and have delusion. Among monks with identical offenses like this, there are those who are expelled and those who are not expelled.' The monks should reply: 'Venerable, do not speak like this, saying: "There is desire, there is anger, there is fear, there is delusion; among monks with identical offenses like this, there are those who are expelled and those who are not expelled." For the monks do not have desire, do not have anger, do not have fear, and do not have delusion. Venerable, you corrupt families and engage in evil conduct; your corrupting of families is both seen and heard, and your evil conduct is both seen and heard.' When the monk is admonished in this manner, if he stubbornly holds fast and does not desist, those monks should admonish him a second and a third time to make him desist from this matter. If he desists upon up to three admonitions, that is good; if he does not desist, it is a saṅghāvaśeṣa."
This complete text comprises five clauses: (1) slandering the Saṅgha without justification, which is the matter leading to admonition; (2) from "the monks" onward, the private admonition on proper grounds; (3) from "that monk" onward, the rejection of the private admonition; (4) from "those monks" onward, the admonition by the Saṅgha; (5) from "if he does not desist" onward, the establishment of the offense of resisting admonition.
The first section has four parts: (1) the offender; (2) from "dwelling in dependence on a village" onward, directly clarifying the initiation of the fault whereby both self and other are ruined; (3) from "the monks" onward, stating the fault and expelling him; (4) from "that monk" onward, slandering the Saṅgha without justification. As for the words slandering the Saṅgha: saying that not punishing those who repented on the road was "having desire"; being afraid of those who fled was "having fear"; claiming that the Saṅgha was angry with the two of them was "having anger"—these three were not done out of understanding; not comprehending the method of disciplinary punishment was "having delusion." "Monks with identical offenses like this" onward reveals the intent behind his slander.
Second, the private admonition text has three parts: (1) admonishing not to slander the Saṅgha, hence it says "do not speak like this," etc.; (2) from "for the monks" onward, the Saṅgha clears its own mind, hence it says "for the monks do not have desire," etc. Having repented on the road, there was no offense to be punished, which is called "not having desire"; the persons who fled were not present and thus could not be punished, which is called "not having fear"; you two individuals neither stepped forward to repent nor retreated to flee, and both your persons and your faults were present, so it was in accordance with principle that you should be punished, which is called "not having anger"; properly understanding the disciplinary expulsion is called "not having delusion"; (3) from "Venerable" onward, placing the fault back upon them, hence it says "Venerable, you corrupt families," etc.
Third, "that monk" refers to the good monks. "When admonished in this manner" refers back to the aforementioned good monks. "Stubbornly holds fast and does not desist" at the time of private admonition means that the slandering monk obstinately rejects the remonstrance.
Fourth, "if he desists upon three admonitions, that is good": upon hearing it, he complies, desists, and ceases slandering the Saṅgha; being freed from this grave fault, it is therefore said that "desisting is good."
Fifth, establishing the offense.
Below is a detailed explanation of the text's meaning. The words "if a monk" are as explained above. The word "village" refers to four kinds of villages, as above. "Town" refers to a place subject to a king. The words "corrupting families": where there are men and women, it is called a "family." Corrupting families has four types: (1) general enumeration of the four; (2) specific explanations; (3) general conclusion. As for the general enumeration, corrupting families has four types: First, corrupting families in dependence on a family: obtaining an item from one family and giving it to another family; the place where the item was obtained is displeased upon hearing of it, while the place to which it was given considers repaying the favor, saying: "If someone gives to me, I shall repay him; if he does not give to me, why should I give to him?" Second, corrupting families in dependence on gain: obtaining gain in accordance with the Dharma, and taking the leftovers in the bowl to give to a householder; the recipient gives rise to the thought that he should repay the favor, [saying]: "If he does not give to me, why should I give to him?" Third, corrupting families in dependence on relatives and friends: if a monk relies on a king or a minister, or acts for the sake of one householder and not for another, they give rise to the thought: "Whoever acts for me, I shall make offerings to; whoever does not act for me, I shall not make offerings to." Fourth, corrupting families in dependence on the saṅghārāma: if a monk takes flowers and fruits of the Saṅgha and gives them to one householder but not to another; those who have merit consider making offerings, [thinking]: "If he does not give to me, I shall not make offerings." On account of these four matters, corrupting families is called "corrupting other families."
The words "engaging in evil conduct": that monk performs such improper conduct as planting flower trees himself, watering them himself, picking flowers himself, making garlands himself, stringing them with thread, and personally taking them to give to people; or having others do the above things; sitting and rising on the same bed with women of the village; eating and drinking from the same vessel; conversing, joking, and laughing; or singing, dancing, and performing theatrical entertainment himself, or chiming in when others perform; or engaging in comedic banter; or playing drums, blowing mouth-organs, chanting, or imitating the calls of various birds; or running, leaping, limping; or whistling, or contorting his body, or partaking in frivolous amusement—these are called "engaging in evil conduct."
Regarding the words "corrupting families and engaging in evil conduct is both seen and heard," the Vinaya states: At that time, there was a monk who lodged in that village. Putting on his robes and holding his bowl, he entered the village to beg for food. His Dharma robes were neat and tidy, his walking composed and dignified; he walked with lowered gaze, neither glancing around nor speaking and laughing, nor socializing or offering courteous greetings. [The villagers thought:] "We should not give him food and drink; he is not like Assaji and others who socialize with people and do the things mentioned above, who deserve offerings." At that time, he obtained alms only after hardship. Going to the Buddha's place, he reported the matter in full to the Buddha. [The Buddha] had the monks go to the village to drive them out. The foregoing was the initiation of faults in dependence on a village, harming both self and other.
Below clarifies the text stating the fault and expelling them: from "the monks should address" to "not remain here" is the expulsion text.
Below is the phrase slandering the Saṅgha without justification: from "that monk speaks to those monks" to "there are those who are expelled and those who are not expelled." The intent behind slandering the Saṅgha: depending on [the fact that the other] six persons had committed the same acts. The text states: Samantapāsādika [or Samādattā] and Mahiṣadattā fled to a village on the royal highway; Kālodāyin and Channa repented on the road. The failure to punish these four appeared to involve favoritism and malice, hence they gave rise to slander: claiming that not punishing those who repented on the road was "having desire"; fearing those who fled was "having fear"; claiming that the Saṅgha was angry with the two of them was "having anger"—these three were not done out of understanding; not comprehending the method of disciplinary punishment was "having delusion." Revealing the intent behind his slander, he therefore said: "There are those who are expelled and those who are not expelled."
Below clarifies the text of private admonition. As for the words "Venerable, do not speak like this": admonishing him not to slander the Saṅgha, it therefore says "do not speak like this" down to "there are those who are expelled and those who are not expelled." Below, the Saṅgha clears its own mind, hence it says "the monks do not have desire, do not have anger, do not have fear, and do not have delusion." Having repented on the road, there was no offense that could be punished, which is called "not having desire"; the persons who fled were not present and thus could not be punished, which is called "not having fear"; you two individuals neither stepped forward to repent nor retreated to flee, and both your persons and your faults were present, so it was in accordance with principle that you should be punished, which is called "not having anger"; properly understanding the disciplinary expulsion is called "not having delusion." Below, placing the fault back upon them, it therefore says "Venerable, you corrupt families and engage in evil conduct," down to "both seen and heard."
Below clarifies that the slandering person resisted admonition and did not submit; thus the text says: "When that monk was admonished in this manner, he stubbornly held fast and did not desist."
Below clarifies the Saṅgha's admonition. The text says: "Those monks should admonish him a second and a third time to make him desist from this matter," down to "if he desists upon three admonitions, that is good." At the first admonition, one should say: "The Saṅgha intends to perform a formal motion; you should desist." If he desists, he incurs only a duṣkṛta. If he does not desist, once the motion is made, he immediately incurs a thullaccaya. One should admonish him again, saying: "Venerable, the motion has been made; there remain three karmavācanās, so you should desist from this matter. Do not, by being rebuked by the Saṅgha, commit a grave offense." Thus one should admonish him up through the first, second, and third karmavācanās. Hence the text says "if he desists, that is good"; because the offense is lighter as soon as one desists, it is called "good."
Below clarifies that by resisting the remonstrance and not desisting, the saṅghāvaśeṣa offense is established; thus the text says: "If he does not desist, it is a saṅghāvaśeṣa."
Below clarifies non-offenses. The Vinaya states: If one obtains clothing and food and gives them to one's parents, to the sick, to young children, to pregnant women, to persons bound in prison, or to hired workers in the monastery, it is not called corrupting families. If one plants trees, flowers, and fruits, down to having others string garlands, for the sake of the Three Jewels, it is not called evil conduct. If one leaps and bounds while crossing a river, ditch, or pit, it is not an offense. If one's companion is left behind and, turning back, one cannot see him, whistling and shouting is not an offense. Carrying letters back and forth for the sake of parents, for the sick, for faithful donors, down to matters concerning the Three Jewels, are all not offenses.