四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 2.2

2.2

"Venerable sirs, these thirteen saṅghāvaśeṣa dharmas come forth in the half-monthly recitation of the Prātimokṣa Sūtra." This explains the second section. First, [...] the ritual of recitation; next, setting forth the root precepts; and afterward, inquiring into purity. This phrase is its heading. We shall first analyze it comprehensively under nine headings, and afterward [examine] the specific characteristics [...]. As for the comprehensive characteristics: first, arising from the three poisons; second, allocating to body and speech; third, committing oneself or instructing others; fourth, explaining proscriptive versus natural [offenses]; fifth, the categories of original offenses; sixth, the rules of observance and transgression; seventh, similarities and differences between the two orders; eighth, differences in transgressing prohibitions; ninth, automatic operation among lower assemblies. Regarding "arising from the three poisons": the first [...] arises and is constituted by a mind of lustful defilement. Next, there are two precepts that arise and are constituted by a mind of hatred. Next, there are two precepts that arise due to three matters and [a mind of] delusion [...] arise and are constituted by hatred and delusion. Second, regarding "allocating to body and speech": these are classified into four positions. The first two are confined to the body. The next two on coarse speech, the two on defamation, and the four on admonition, making eight [...], have assistance. Next, regarding the two precepts on huts: the body is the primary transgressor, while speech is an assisting action. Next, the single precept on matchmaking: body and speech are both primary transgressors. Third, regarding "committing oneself or instructing others" [...], it is divided into three. First, there are five precepts where committing them oneself constitutes a grave [offense], whereas instructing others is either the same or different. Namely, the two on coarse speech, matchmaking, and the two on huts: committing them oneself definitely incurs a saṅghāvaśeṣa; [...] the same or different: if one instructs another to perform these five and there is personal gain for oneself, one equally incurs a saṅghāvaśeṣa; if one merely instructs another in general without personal gain, it is only a sthūlātyaya. Next, there are two precepts where committing oneself and instructing others uniformly incur the same offense: namely, the two defamation precepts. Whether one commits it oneself or instructs another, whether for oneself or not for oneself, the object of harassment is identical and the intention is expressed without difference; therefore, both self and other incur the same offense. Third, there are six precepts where committing oneself incurs a saṅghāvaśeṣa, while instructing another incurs only a light offense: namely, intentional emission and touching, where committing them oneself incurs a saṅghāvaśeṣa, but instructing another incurs a sthūlātyaya, because there is no personal gain. In the four precepts on admonition below, transgressing them oneself is the primary offense; instructing another to transgress an admonition also incurs a light offense. If the saṅgha has not yet admonished and one instructs them, saying, "Do not desist," one incurs only a duṣkṛta, because there is no saṅgha command or communal act to be transgressed, so the fault is slight. If the saṅgha is in the process of admonishing and one instructs them, saying, "Do not desist," one immediately incurs a sthūlātyaya offense, because the intention to transgress the saṅgha's command is grave. Fourth, regarding natural versus proscriptive [offenses]: matchmaking and the two on huts are proscriptive evils; the remaining ten precepts are inherently unwholesome in substance, and therefore are natural evils. Fifth, regarding categories: the treatise divides them into four ranks. First, there are five precepts that are all [matters of] lustful attachment: the first precept belongs to the category of sexual misconduct; the two precepts on huts belong to the category of theft; corrupting families and evil conduct belongs to the category of killing; the remaining precepts belong to the category of false speech. Sixth, observance and transgression: among these, the two on huts possess both forms of observance and transgression; however, the former hut is half [...] not removing excessive gravity. The remaining eleven are observance through cessation and offense of commission; also [...] observance through cessation and offense of commission apply across all thirteen precepts; observance through performance and offense of omission apply to a minor part of the former hut and the entire grade of the latter hut, as already analyzed above. Seventh, similarities and differences between the two orders: matchmaking, the two defamations, the four transgressions of admonitions, etc.—these seven are common offenses. However, although the offenses incurred in the four admonition precepts are equal, the objects are inverted: namely, each transgresses the admonition of their own community. In the three precepts of matchmaking and defamation, the objects and offenses are entirely equal. The remaining six precepts differ between monks and nuns. For emission: for a monk it is grave; for a nun, a prāyaścittika. The Vibhāṣā says: women's afflictions are profound and grave, difficult to restrain; if one were to establish a grave offense for them, it would torment living beings. Furthermore, for a woman, it must occur in a secluded place, with many conditions and much exertion; if it overflows, it is therefore light. For a man it is not so: it can be emitted in accordance with any circumstance, hence it is grave. Furthermore, the affliction of lust differs inwardly and outwardly, so there is lightness and gravity. When a bhikṣu engages in touching, he has the strength to control himself; restricted by boundaries, he incurs only a saṅghāvaśeṣa. For a nun, afflictions are thick and heavy; once subjected to touching, it is feared that violation will occur; established [as an offense] in a deep room, it is therefore concluded as a pārājika offense. Because of four differences, there are grades of offense: first, dead or alive; second, adult or child; third, presence or absence of a lustful mind; fourth, lightness or gravity of bodily contact. A nun fears violation, so it must be alive, adult, etc.; for a monk, based on the affliction of lust, there is no distinction of dead or alive, adult or child, etc. For the two on coarse speech, it is grave for a monk and light for a nun, because it is rare versus frequent; also, for a nun, only when directed toward a grave matter is it so, hence she incurs a sthūlātyaya offense; a monk lacks the mutual reinforcement of the eight factors, hence he incurs a saṅghāvaśeṣa. Regarding the two precepts on huts: a fully ordained monk incurs a saṅghāvaśeṣa, while a nun committing it incurs a sthūlātyaya. If considering exceeding measurements: a fully ordained monk may travel and lodge alone, and takes pleasure in building a hut alone; hence, a saṅghāvaśeṣa was established. A nun requires a companion; if they build a hut together, there is inherently no fault; therefore, the Vinaya says: "If many people reside in the house, there is no offense; if two people build a hut exposed to the sun, there is no offense." Even if she were to build it alone, because it is rare, it is a sthūlātyaya offense. If so, why do both incur an offense when roofing exceeds three tiers? Answer: this is based on the limits of measurement, so two people do not commit an offense; exceeding three tiers below directly concerns collapse and inviting criticism, without distinguishing large or small, so she shares a prāyaścittika with monks. Question: If for a nun, having a companion makes being alone rare, so that she incurs a sthūlātyaya, then since a nun has a companion, being alone is rare, so she should not share the offense for sitting in screened or open places. Answer: this is judged by the harm of the karma; where harm is slight, it is light; also, even if built alone, it is rare and not frequent, so it incurs a light offense; sitting and the like are judged by criticism: although the act may be rare or frequent, both equally invite the fault of criticism; thus monks and nuns commit the offense equally. If discussing building without authorization: nuns have no dwelling in the wilderness and are prescribed to live in settlements; if a monk happens to have no hut, he ought to construct one; if he does not request authorization, the fault of his intention is slight, so it only constitutes a sthūlātyaya offense; a bhikṣu, being a great man, can sit exposed under trees in the wilderness to settle his body and advance his practice; now, constructing a private hut in a settlement, it must be grave to prevent and punish subsequent transgressions. Eighth, differences in transgressing prohibitions: the former nine precepts incur offenses by transgressing the Buddha's prohibitions; the latter four admonition precepts incur guilt by transgressing the saṅgha's prohibitions. This saṅgha prohibition is itself the Buddha's prohibition; however, if the saṅgha does not perform the act, there is no saṅghāvaśeṣa for transgressing an admonition; because the saṅghāvaśeṣa stems from transgressing the saṅgha, these four precepts are offenses of transgressing the saṅgha's prohibitions. Ninth, presence or absence of automatic operation: seven precepts allow for automatic operation; the two on coarse speech, the two on huts, the two on defamation, and matchmaking admit of the principle of sending someone to act on one's own behalf; when the instructed matter is accomplished, among the three moral natures, one commits seven saṅghāvaśeṣas; the rest do not involve instructing others, so there is no automatic operation. Among the thirteen: regarding the first nine precepts, if maintained, they protect the community's practice of the Dharma; if transgressed, they destroy the community's practice of the Dharma. Regarding the latter four precepts, if one complies with the saṅgha's command and ceases faults, not making manifest the accomplishment of communal acts, there is the benefit of timely assistance, called protecting the community's doctrinal Dharma; if transgressed, they destroy the community's doctrinal Dharma. Among the former, there are again three: the first five concern internal defilement, illustrating the destruction of the community's practice of the Dharma; the next two, the two huts, concern harmony of affairs, illustrating the destruction of the community's practice of the Dharma; the next two, the two defamations, concern harmony of sentiments, illustrating the destruction of the community's practice of the Dharma. Among the first five, there are again three: the first one destroys the community's practice of the Dharma without destroying the season; the next three destroy the community's practice and destroy the season; the next one destroys practice slightly and destroys both community and season.