四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 2.33

2.33

若比丘共女人獨在屏處覆處障處可作婬處坐說非法語有住信優婆種於三法中以一一法說若波羅夷若僧伽婆尸沙若波逸提是坐比丘自言我犯是罪於三法中應一一法治若波羅夷若僧伽婆尸沙若波逸提如住信優婆種所說應如法治是比丘是名不定法　此戒文有四句。一至非說犯不定。二有住信下舉不定。三是比丘下自言不定。四而住信下治罪不定。次下廣釋文句。初文六句。一一除釋。若比丘者。義如上。言女人者。有智未命終也。祇云若母女姊妹親疎老少在家出家者是。所言獨者。一比丘一女人。言屏處者。屏有二種。一者見屏。若塵若霧。若黑若闇。中不相見也。二聞屏。處者乃至常語。不聞聲處。言覆處者。上有物作蓋也。遮障令人不見。言障處者。若樹若牆。若籬若衣。及餘物障也。言可作婬處者。得容行婬處也。說非法語者。說婬欲法。上六句明犯罪不定。從住信優婆種已下。解第二舉罪不定。犯既不定。可信隨罪而舉。舉亦不定。故言若夷若殘若提。此中且就麁相。似三罪為言。理通五犯。言信者。謂得四不壞信終不為身。而作妄語等十惡之罪。是坐比丘已下。解第三自言不定。犯既不定。自言亦無揩准。隨引輕重如比丘所說治。故文云。我犯是罪已下。解第四治罪不定。治罪有二。一者舉已引罪。二者舉已不引罪。引罪者。如比丘所說治。不引罪者。如可信語也。治之此即引罪也。當如比丘所說治之。自言犯夷。宜從滅殯。若言犯殘。別住治之。若言犯提。令對手悔隨引而治。若不引罪。文云。如住信優婆種所說應如法治。故律云。說自言作者。應如比丘所說治不自言作者。應如住信語治之。今此不自言作。故如優婆種所說治也。不同十誦。比丘言我有是罪。而不往隨比丘語治。若言往不犯是罪。亦如比丘治。若言不往無罪。隨可信治。五分。若於三事一一法治中諸上座應問。是比丘汝往彼家不。若云往未應治。復應軟語與獨坐。不麁語不行婬不。若言不上坐下坐。應切問。汝實語莫妄語。如優婆夷說不。若言如優婆夷說。然後乃可隨治。若言不如比丘治。所以不似可信語者。善見論云。見聞或不審故所言是名不定法者結也　此雖是戒而無有罪。但於屏處與女說非法語招世譏謗。可信白佛故。曰此可信舉戒。

"If a bhikṣu is alone with a woman in a screened place, a covered place, an obstructed place, a place suitable for engaging in sexual intercourse, and sits and speaks improper words, and a trustworthy upāsikā charges [him] according to one of the three rules—either a pārājika, a saṃghāvaśeṣa, or a prāyaścittika—and the sitting bhikṣu confesses, 'I committed this offense,' he should be dealt with according to whichever of the three rules [he confessed to]—either a pārājika, a saṃghāvaśeṣa, or a prāyaścittika; as stated by the trustworthy upāsikā, he should be dealt with in accordance with the Dharma: this bhikṣu [is subject to what] is called an indeterminate rule."
This precept text has four clauses: First, up to "speaks improper words" is the indeterminacy of the offense. Second, from "and a trustworthy" onward is the indeterminacy of the charge. Third, from "and the sitting bhikṣu" onward is the indeterminacy of the confession. Fourth, from "and as [stated by] the trustworthy" onward is the indeterminacy of dealing with the offense.
Next below, the clauses of the text are explained in detail. The first section has six clauses, explained one by one:
"If a bhikṣu": the meaning is as above.
"A woman": one with cognitive capacity and not yet deceased. The text simply says: whether mother, daughter, sister, relative or non-relative, old or young, lay or monastic—all are included.
What is meant by "alone": one bhikṣu and one woman.
"Screened place": "screened" is of two kinds: first, screened from sight, such as by dust, fog, darkness, or gloom, where they cannot see one another; second, screened from hearing, an area where even ordinary speech cannot be heard.
"Covered place": having something above acting as a canopy, obstructing and preventing people from seeing.
"Obstructed place": obstructed by trees, walls, fences, clothing, or other objects.
"A place suitable for engaging in sexual intercourse": a place capable of accommodating the act of sexual intercourse.
"Speaks improper words": speaks words concerning sexual desire.
The above six clauses elucidate the indeterminacy of the commission of the offense.
From "trustworthy upāsikā" onward explains the second, the indeterminacy of the charge. Since the offense is indeterminate, the trustworthy woman brings the charge in accordance with the [suspected] offense, and thus the charge is also indeterminate; hence it says, "either a pārājika, a saṃghāvaśeṣa, or a prāyaścittika." Here, speaking in terms of coarse features resembling the three offenses is provisional; in principle, it extends to the five classes of offenses. What is meant by "trustworthy": one who has attained the four indestructible confidences and will never, for the sake of her own body, commit the offenses of the ten non-virtuous actions such as lying.
From "and the sitting bhikṣu" onward explains the third, the indeterminacy of the confession. Since the offense is indeterminate, the confession likewise has no fixed standard; according to the gravity of what is admitted, it is dealt with as the bhikṣu states; hence the text says, "'I committed this offense.'"
From here onward explains the fourth, the indeterminacy of dealing with the offense. Dealing with the offense is of two kinds: first, admitting the offense after being charged; second, not admitting the offense after being charged. As for one who admits the offense: he is dealt with as the bhikṣu states. As for one who does not admit the offense: he is dealt with according to the words of the trustworthy woman. Here, this is admitting the offense; he should be dealt with as the bhikṣu states. If he confesses to having committed a pārājika, he should be subjected to permanent expulsion; if he confesses to having committed a saṃghāvaśeṣa, he is dealt with by separate living (parivāsa); if he confesses to having committed a prāyaścittika, he is made to repent before a single companion—he is dealt with according to whatever he admits.
If he does not admit the offense, the text says: "as stated by the trustworthy upāsikā, he should be dealt with in accordance with the Dharma." Therefore, the Vinaya states: "If he confesses to having done it, he should be dealt with as the bhikṣu states; if he does not confess to having done it, he should be dealt with according to the words of the trustworthy woman." Now, this refers to not confessing to having done it; hence he is dealt with as stated by the upāsikā. It differs from the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya: [where] if the bhikṣu says, 'I committed this offense,' but did not go [there], he is dealt with according to the bhikṣu's words; if he says he went but did not commit this offense, he is also dealt with as the bhikṣu [states]; if he says he did not go and has no offense, he is dealt with according to the trustworthy woman. In the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya: "If he is dealt with under one of the three matters, the elders should ask: 'Bhikṣu, did you go to that house or not?' If he says he went, he should not yet be dealt with; they should again ask gently: 'Did you sit alone with her? Did you speak coarse words? Did you engage in sexual intercourse or not?' If he says no, the senior and junior elders should interrogate him closely: 'Speak the truth, do not lie! Is it as the upāsikā said or not?' If he says it is as the upāsikā said, only then may he be dealt with accordingly. If he says it is not, he is dealt with according to the bhikṣu." The reason he is not dealt with according to the trustworthy woman's words is that, as the Samantapāsādikā states, what is seen or heard may not be accurate.
What is meant by "this is called an indeterminate rule" is the conclusion.
Although this is a precept, there is no [inherent single] offense; it is simply that speaking improper words with a woman in a screened place invites worldly censure and slander, and the trustworthy woman reported it to the Buddha; hence it is called this precept of a charge by a trustworthy person.