[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) › 2.28 # 四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 2.28 四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 2.28 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.28](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787.2.28) 諸大德我已說十三僧伽婆尸沙法九初犯四乃至三諫　此結前十三戒。就中有二。初九。後四。諫不諫別故。云初作犯四至三諫。今釋諫不諫意。若語屏諫一切皆須。故云展轉相諫。不受諫中心虛結提。心實第五乃至此中違諫之事亦須說諫。故文中言莫為僧所呵更犯重罪。故知諫語通於一切。言僧諫者。具四義者有。不具者無。言四義者。一者性惡。二是顯露。三謂惱僧。四者倚傍。上之三義可知。言倚傍者。前之九戒條然。是非更無兩濫。倚傍聖教是非既分。過顯易識。何須設諫。開示其人。此四戒等皆有倚傍。言說相似濫理行二教。是非交雜真偽難分。須僧設諫開示是非。曉悟其壞。異彼改迷。棄惡就善。捨邪從正。故須設諫。如初二諫戒倚傍。如來四依之教。唱說相似。執乞食等名同。故曰倚傍污家。傍僧者執六人同作。而殯不殯濫。第四戒倚傍釋種輕陵諸比丘倚傍之義。此應廣說為如斯義。須僧設諫闕者無諫。今問有無。不問九殘。所以不諫。蓋問生罪之緣。所以僧殘罪齊。下四因諫而生前九。作便即結此。謂一切事中具四義者。須諫違而結殘。餘無倚傍等不假僧諫。但以事實直作即犯。雖可諫不諫異殘位同。故是以共篇。 > "Venerable sirs, I have recited the thirteen saṃghāvaśeṣa dharmas: nine are offenses at the first commission, and four become offenses after up to three admonitions." This concludes the preceding thirteen precepts. Within this there are two parts: the first nine and the latter four. Because of the distinction between needing admonition and not needing admonition, it says "nine are offenses at the first commission, and four become offenses after up to three admonitions." Now, to explain the rationale of admonition versus non-admonition: If we speak of private admonition, it is required in all cases, hence it is said "mutually admonish one another." When one does not accept admonition, if with a diffident mind, an offense of prāyaścittika is incurred; if with a resolute mind, the fifth \[offense\], and even concerning the transgression of admonition here, admonition must also be stated. Therefore, the text states: "Do not, by being rebuked by the Saṃgha, commit a grave offense again." Hence we know that words of admonition apply universally to all cases. As for formal admonition by the Saṃgha, it applies to those possessing four conditions, and does not apply to those lacking them. The four conditions are: first, inherent badness; second, manifest exposure; third, causing vexation to the Saṃgha; fourth, relying on pretexts. The first three conditions are self-evident. As for "relying on pretexts": the previous nine precepts are distinct; right and wrong are unequivocally clear. Since right and wrong are already distinguished by relying on the sacred teaching, the fault is obvious and easy to recognize; what need is there to establish an admonition to reveal it to that person? These four precepts all involve relying on pretexts: their statements appear similar \[to the teaching\], causing confusion between doctrine and practice, with right and wrong intertwined and genuine and false difficult to discern. The Saṃgha must establish admonitions to reveal right and wrong, enlighten their corrupted \[views\], cause them to change their delusion, cast off evil and turn to good, and abandon error to follow correctness. Therefore, admonitions must be established. For instance, the first two precepts concerning admonition rely on the Tathāgata's teaching of the four reliances; their claims sound similar, and their insistence on begging for food, etc., share the same names, hence they are called "relying on pretexts." In corrupting families and slandering the Saṃgha, they insist that six persons acted together, confusing the matter of expulsion versus non-expulsion. The fourth precept relies on the pretext of the Śākya clan's status to disparage the bhikṣus. This meaning of "relying on pretexts" should be explained in detail. Because of such reasons, the Saṃgha must establish admonitions; when these are absent, there is no admonition. Now, in asking about presence or absence, one does not ask about the nine saṃghāvaśeṣas, as to why they lack admonitions; rather, one asks about the conditions giving rise to offenses, as to why their saṃghāvaśeṣa offenses are of the same rank. The latter four arise due to admonition, whereas the former nine are incurred immediately upon commission. This means that among all matters, those possessing the four conditions require an admonition, and transgressing it incurs a saṃghāvaśeṣa. The others, lacking pretexts, etc., do not require an admonition by the Saṃgha; directly committing them according to the facts constitutes an offense. Although the distinction of whether admonition is required or not differs, their rank as saṃghāvaśeṣa is the same; thus they share the same section. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.27](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787.2.27) - [Next: 2.29](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787.2.29) - [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.2.28) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787.2.28](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787.2.28) · Pramāṇa