四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 3.109

3.109

若比丘不受諫者波逸提　此戒文有三句。一犯人。二不受諫。三結罪。辨相中初句可知。二言不受諫者。自知作非他勸莫作拒而不從故曰不受諫。三言波逸提者。是違犯罪名。釋云。但使知己為非前諫者。是故違情重。是以得提。若謂己所作是前諫者非過輕微故得吉羅。隨所作事邊以識事故作。以不知得脫猶犯根本罪。此違一人諫不隨前事結罪輕重。但就心辨虛故罪重。心實故輕。文中先結心實之吉。次結心虛提。是以律云。若他諫言莫作此事。然故犯根本。不從語吉。若自知所作非然故作犯根本。不從語提。多云。欲作前不受諫犯吉。後作以根本外別得提罪問。違僧諫中諫竟即犯。不待作事。此中所以諫竟未犯。要待作事。此戒既是一人設諫。無有僧命眾法可違。是以諫竟未犯。要待作事違諫義成。是以不類。若爾下拒勸學戒亦是一人所諫。而無眾命可違。何以諫竟即犯。與此相違答。彼諫止犯先。是不學止犯之人。發言拒諫道已。不學即是止犯。表違已成故。所以犯。此諫作犯。雖言拒諫道我作者仍猶未作違未就。要待作事違陳義成亦非一類。律云。不犯者。前人無智報言。可問汝師乃至知諫法者。若諫當用。若戲語獨語夢語錯說等。一切不犯。

"If a bhikṣu refuses admonition, it is a prāyaścittika." This text of the precept has three phrases: first, the person who commits the offense; second, refusing admonition; third, the assigning of the offense. In differentiating the aspects, the first phrase is evident. As for the second, "refuses admonition": knowing oneself that one is doing wrong, and when another urges one not to do it, rejecting it and not complying—hence it is called "refusing admonition." As for the third, "prāyaścittika": this is the designation for the transgression. The commentary states: as long as one knows oneself to be wrong and the previous admonisher to be right, one's intentional violation is grave, and on this account one incurs a prāyaścittika. If one thinks that what oneself is doing is right and the previous admonisher is wrong, the fault is slight, and therefore one incurs a duṣkṛta. Depending on the matter performed, by intentionally acting while being aware of the matter, or by being freed through unawareness, one still commits the fundamental offense. This violation of a single person's admonition does not follow the gravity or lightness of the offense of the preceding matter; the offense is distinguished purely with respect to the mind: because it is insincere, the offense is grave; because the mind is sincere, it is light. In the text, it first assigns a duṣkṛta for a sincere mind, and next assigns a prāyaścittika for an insincere mind. Hence the Vinaya states: "If another admonishes him, saying, 'Do not do this matter,' yet he willfully commits the fundamental [offense], it is a duṣkṛta for disobeying the words. If he knows himself that what he does is wrong yet willfully does it, committing the fundamental [offense], it is a prāyaścittika for disobeying the words." The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā states: "Before intending to act, refusing admonition incurs a duṣkṛta; afterwards, upon acting, apart from the fundamental offense, one separately incurs a prāyaścittika offense." Question: "In disobeying the Saṅgha's admonition, as soon as the admonition is finished, one commits the offense, without waiting for the deed to be done. Why here is the offense not yet committed upon the conclusion of the admonition, requiring that the deed be done?" [Answer:] Because this precept involves a single person offering admonition, there is no command of the Saṅgha or act of the community that can be violated. For this reason, when the admonition is finished, the offense is not yet committed; it must await the performance of the deed for the meaning of violating the admonition to be established. Therefore, they are not of the same class. "If so, the subsequent precept on refusing exhortation to train in the precepts also involves being admonished by a single person without any command of the community to be violated. Why is the offense committed as soon as the admonition is finished, which contradicts this?" Answer: That admonition concerns an offense of omission: he was already a person who did not train, committing an offense of omission. When he utters words rejecting the admonition, saying that he will not train, that in itself is an offense of omission; because the expression of violation has already been accomplished, he therefore commits the offense. Here, the admonition concerns an offense of commission: although he speaks words rejecting the admonition, saying, "I will do it," he still has not done it, so the violation is not accomplished; it must await the performance of the deed for the meaning of violating the admonition to be established. Thus they are also not of the same class. The Vinaya states that it is not an offense if: the previous person lacks wisdom and one replies, "You may ask your teacher, up to those who know the method of admonition; if they admonish, I will heed it"; or if it is spoken in jest, talking to oneself, talking in a dream, spoken erroneously, and so forth—none of these is an offense.