四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 3.11

3.11

與未受具人同室宿過限戒第五　制意者。凡道俗路乖情事相反。始習未閉事多相惱近則生慢。亂道廢業。故宜別處存道益敬為。是故須制。然出家之人栖心無定事有遊行。投人止宿存形濟命。又沙彌離俗憑蔭在此處。無所杖事須眷接。是以開聽限期二宿。然禁則防其過。開則通其益。開制之宜理所應然　別緣具五。一未受具人男子簡去女人以佛不聽與女人同室。本不開二夜。何有過三之咎。故伽論云。以二夜共沙彌宿。第三夜共女人宿。得二提罪。二室相成就。三共同室。四知同室。五隨過三夜犯提。已下正明戒本。此戒文三。初句略制。三牒制隨開二夜三夜。後廣制。言略制者。因六群共長者同室宿。中有比丘。亂心睡眠形露。為彼調持。佛制不聽共宿。言牒隨開者。次因羅云開聽二三　問。佛既不聽與未具人宿。驅出羅云應是順教。何以呵。言癡人無慈不護我意　答。夫為弟子有事之時。理須諮啟。佛因事開輒爾。驅出乖弟子之儀。無慈之甚。是以佛呵癡人無慈親。是佛子尚不慈念。豈況餘人寧有慈愍。五分佛呵癡人云。何野干驅逐師子。讚嘆持戒因聽共未具人二宿。言第三廣制者。下所辨是。

Precept 5: Lodging in the same room with an unordained person beyond the limit. Regarding the intention behind the formulation: In general, the paths of monastics and laypersons diverge, and their sentiments and affairs are contrary. For those beginning training who are not yet restrained, matters frequently cause mutual annoyance, and intimacy breeds disrespect, throwing the path into disorder and neglecting practice. Therefore, it is appropriate to stay in separate places to preserve the path and foster respect; for this reason, it had to be formulated. However, for a person who has left home, the dwelling of the mind is not fixed, and activities require traveling about, taking shelter with others to lodge to preserve the body and sustain life. Furthermore, a śrāmaṇera has left the secular world and relies on support in this place; having nothing else to depend on, it is necessary to receive and look after him. For this reason, permission is granted with a limit of two nights. Thus, prohibition prevents their faults, while permission allows their benefit; the suitability of permission and prohibition is naturally what reason dictates. The specific conditions comprise five: 1. An unordained male person, excluding women, because the Buddha did not permit lodging in the same room with a woman; in the first place, two nights are not permitted, so how could there be the fault of exceeding three? Hence the Mātṛkā states: "If one lodges two nights with a śrāmaṇera and on the third night lodges with a woman, one incurs two prāyaścittika offenses." 2. The characteristics of a room are fulfilled. 3. Being together in the same room. 4. Knowing that they are in the same room. 5. Incurring a prāyaścittika when exceeding three nights. Below, the Prātimokṣa text is properly explained. This precept text has three parts: first, a phrase with a brief prohibition; second, reiterating the prohibition followed by the permission for two nights and three nights; third, the comprehensive formulation. Regarding the brief prohibition: it was because the group of six monks lodged in the same room with householders; among them was a bhikṣu whose mind was disturbed during sleep so that his body was exposed, and he was mocked by them; the Buddha formulated that lodging together was not permitted. Regarding reiteration followed by permission: next, on account of Rāhula, permission was granted for two or three nights. Question: Since the Buddha did not permit lodging with unordained persons, driving Rāhula out should have conformed to the teaching; why was there a rebuke, saying: "Foolish men, you have no compassion and do not protect my intention"? Answer: When a disciple has an affair, reason requires that he consult and report. The Buddha granted permission because of the situation; driving him out so rashly contravened the decorum of a disciple and was utterly lacking in compassion. Therefore the Buddha rebuked them: "Foolish men, you have no compassion. Even toward the Buddha's own son you have no compassionate thought, how much less could you have kindness and pity toward other people?" In the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya, the Buddha rebuked the foolish men, saying: "How can jackals drive away a lion?" He praised the keeping of precepts, and consequently permitted lodging with unordained persons for two nights. Regarding the third, the comprehensive formulation: that is what is explained below.