四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 3.96

3.96

請比丘四月與藥無病比丘應受若過受除常請更請分請盡壽請波逸提　此滿足戒本文有六句。一犯人。二藥請。三無病下教齊。四四月受。五闕緣。六過受結犯。辨相中比丘者如上釋。二四月請與藥者。律云。四月者夏四月也。祇云。春夏冬三時俱犯。三言無病比丘應受者。教齊四月受也。此是受藥方法。四言若過受者。此明過四月受。律云。若夜藥有分齊。夏四月應受。若夜無分齊。隨施時應受。不論藥分齊。五言除常請者。明開受緣。律云。常請者施主作如是言。我常與藥。更請者斷已後復更請與藥。分請者持藥至伽藍中分與。盡形受請者。施主言。我常盡形與藥。次前四句通達開緣藥。第六言波逸提者。是違犯句。律云。四藥之中過受三藥俱犯提罪。故伽論過時藥亦犯提罪。七日盡形如律下文。醫所教服藥故知是犯。如施一食過受尚犯。豈況過四月受寧不犯提。故十律云。過四月已復索蘇等七日藥。及終身中椒薑鉢畢鹽等犯提。若索毘醯勒等三吉羅。非時藥賤。又療患義微。受義希故犯小罪　問。施一食中過受蘇油犯輕。此受蘇油何以便重　答。彼據身外塗足。燃燈既是外用。過義受希故彼犯輕。此施內資過受義數故得提罪。又善論若檀越四月與油索蘇吉羅。故知索藥罪輕。過受便重。所以爾者。解言。施主先有好心。四月與藥期限已滿。供養心息。過受致惱。損敗處深。又復乘前供養人喜過受。故過受重。若索藥者。以其居士先無施心。乞任彼量。損惱義微。又以施主先無心故。乞希故輕。與衣不同衣資義寬。與乞過受二俱是數故希犯提罪。律云。不犯者。如戒本四緣是。

"If a bhikṣu is invited to be given medicines for four months, an un-ill bhikṣu should accept it. If he accepts in excess, except in the case of a constant invitation, a renewed invitation, a partial invitation, or a lifelong invitation, it is a prāyaścittika." The complete text of this precept contains six clauses: first, the offender; second, the invitation of medicines; third, from "un-ill" onward, teaching the limit; fourth, acceptance for four months; fifth, lack of conditions; sixth, accepting in excess, establishing the offense. In defining the marks: "bhikṣu" is as explained above. Second, regarding "invited to be given medicines for four months": the Vinaya says that "four months" refers to the four months of the summer. The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya says that all three seasons—spring, summer, and winter—incur an offense. Third, regarding "an un-ill bhikṣu should accept": this instructs that the limit of acceptance is four months. This is the method for receiving medicines. Fourth, regarding "if he accepts in excess": this clarifies accepting beyond four months. The Vinaya says, "If overnight medicines have a prescribed limit, they should be accepted for the four months of summer. If overnight medicines have no prescribed limit, they should be accepted according to the time of donation, regardless of the prescribed limit of the medicine." Fifth, regarding "except in the case of a constant invitation": this clarifies the circumstances under which acceptance is permitted. The Vinaya says, "'A constant invitation' means the donor says, 'I will constantly give medicine.' 'A renewed invitation' means that after it was interrupted, he invites again to give medicine. 'A partial invitation' means bringing medicine into the saṅghārāma to distribute as a share. 'A lifelong invitation' means the donor says, 'I will constantly give medicine for the rest of my life.'" The preceding four clauses are medicines permitted under these circumstances. Sixth, regarding "it is a prāyaścittika": this is the clause establishing the violation. The Vinaya says, "Among the four kinds of medicine, accepting three kinds of medicine in excess all constitute prāyaścittika offenses." Therefore, the Mātṛkā says that accepting medicines after the proper time also constitutes a prāyaścittika offense. Seven-day medicines and lifelong medicines are as in the Vinaya text below. Because it is medicine prescribed by a physician, one knows it is an offense. If accepting in excess even when a single meal is offered is already an offense, how much more so would accepting beyond four months not be a prāyaścittika? Therefore, the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya says, "If, after four months have passed, he further asks for seven-day medicines such as ghee, or lifelong medicines such as pepper, ginger, pippalī, salt, and so forth, he commits a prāyaścittika. If he asks for the three [myrobalans] such as bibhītaka, it is a duṣkṛta." Medicines taken outside the mealtime are cheap, and their therapeutic effect is slight, and occasions for receiving them are rare, so he commits a minor offense. Question: When one meal is offered, accepting ghee and oil in excess is a light offense; why is accepting ghee and oil here heavy? Answer: In that case, it is based on external application to the feet or lighting lamps; since it is for external use, excess acceptance is rare, so that offense is light. Here, the offering is for internal bodily sustenance, and excess acceptance occurs frequently, so he incurs a prāyaścittika. Furthermore, the Samantapāsādikā says that if the dānapati gives oil for four months and one asks for ghee, it is a duṣkṛta; hence one knows that asking for medicine is a light offense, while accepting in excess is heavy. Why is this so? Explanation: The donor originally had a good intention, but when the four-month period of providing medicine is fulfilled, his intention to make offerings ceases. Accepting in excess causes him vexation, and the injury and harm are deep. Moreover, taking advantage of the donor's previous joy in making offerings to accept in excess makes excess acceptance heavy. If one asks for medicine, because the householder previously had no intention to give, begging leaves it to his discretion; the vexation and harm are slight. Furthermore, because the donor originally had no intention, begging is rare, hence light. It is unlike robes; the material allowance for robes is broad, whereas both giving and begging in excess occur frequently, so it rarely incurs a prāyaścittika offense. The Vinaya says regarding non-offenses: "They are the four conditions stated in the text of the precept."