四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 2.25

2.25

"If a monk, dwelling in dependence on a village or town, corrupts families and engages in evil conduct, and his corrupting of families is both seen and heard, and his evil conduct is both seen and heard, the monks should address that monk, saying: 'Venerable, you corrupt families and engage in evil conduct; your corrupting of families is both seen and heard, and your evil conduct is both seen and heard. Venerable, you have corrupted families and engaged in evil conduct; you should now go far away from this village and not remain here.' If that monk speaks to those monks, saying: 'Venerables, the monks have desire, have anger, have fear, and have delusion. Among monks with identical offenses like this, there are those who are expelled and those who are not expelled.' The monks should reply: 'Venerable, do not speak like this, saying: "There is desire, there is anger, there is fear, there is delusion; among monks with identical offenses like this, there are those who are expelled and those who are not expelled." For the monks do not have desire, do not have anger, do not have fear, and do not have delusion. Venerable, you corrupt families and engage in evil conduct; your corrupting of families is both seen and heard, and your evil conduct is both seen and heard.' When the monk is admonished in this manner, if he stubbornly holds fast and does not desist, those monks should admonish him a second and a third time to make him desist from this matter. If he desists upon up to three admonitions, that is good; if he does not desist, it is a saṅghāvaśeṣa."
This complete text comprises five clauses: (1) slandering the Saṅgha without justification, which is the matter leading to admonition; (2) from "the monks" onward, the private admonition on proper grounds; (3) from "that monk" onward, the rejection of the private admonition; (4) from "those monks" onward, the admonition by the Saṅgha; (5) from "if he does not desist" onward, the establishment of the offense of resisting admonition.
The first section has four parts: (1) the offender; (2) from "dwelling in dependence on a village" onward, directly clarifying the initiation of the fault whereby both self and other are ruined; (3) from "the monks" onward, stating the fault and expelling him; (4) from "that monk" onward, slandering the Saṅgha without justification. As for the words slandering the Saṅgha: saying that not punishing those who repented on the road was "having desire"; being afraid of those who fled was "having fear"; claiming that the Saṅgha was angry with the two of them was "having anger"—these three were not done out of understanding; not comprehending the method of disciplinary punishment was "having delusion." "Monks with identical offenses like this" onward reveals the intent behind his slander.
Second, the private admonition text has three parts: (1) admonishing not to slander the Saṅgha, hence it says "do not speak like this," etc.; (2) from "for the monks" onward, the Saṅgha clears its own mind, hence it says "for the monks do not have desire," etc. Having repented on the road, there was no offense to be punished, which is called "not having desire"; the persons who fled were not present and thus could not be punished, which is called "not having fear"; you two individuals neither stepped forward to repent nor retreated to flee, and both your persons and your faults were present, so it was in accordance with principle that you should be punished, which is called "not having anger"; properly understanding the disciplinary expulsion is called "not having delusion"; (3) from "Venerable" onward, placing the fault back upon them, hence it says "Venerable, you corrupt families," etc.
Third, "that monk" refers to the good monks. "When admonished in this manner" refers back to the aforementioned good monks. "Stubbornly holds fast and does not desist" at the time of private admonition means that the slandering monk obstinately rejects the remonstrance.
Fourth, "if he desists upon three admonitions, that is good": upon hearing it, he complies, desists, and ceases slandering the Saṅgha; being freed from this grave fault, it is therefore said that "desisting is good."
Fifth, establishing the offense.
Below is a detailed explanation of the text's meaning. The words "if a monk" are as explained above. The word "village" refers to four kinds of villages, as above. "Town" refers to a place subject to a king. The words "corrupting families": where there are men and women, it is called a "family." Corrupting families has four types: (1) general enumeration of the four; (2) specific explanations; (3) general conclusion. As for the general enumeration, corrupting families has four types: First, corrupting families in dependence on a family: obtaining an item from one family and giving it to another family; the place where the item was obtained is displeased upon hearing of it, while the place to which it was given considers repaying the favor, saying: "If someone gives to me, I shall repay him; if he does not give to me, why should I give to him?" Second, corrupting families in dependence on gain: obtaining gain in accordance with the Dharma, and taking the leftovers in the bowl to give to a householder; the recipient gives rise to the thought that he should repay the favor, [saying]: "If he does not give to me, why should I give to him?" Third, corrupting families in dependence on relatives and friends: if a monk relies on a king or a minister, or acts for the sake of one householder and not for another, they give rise to the thought: "Whoever acts for me, I shall make offerings to; whoever does not act for me, I shall not make offerings to." Fourth, corrupting families in dependence on the saṅghārāma: if a monk takes flowers and fruits of the Saṅgha and gives them to one householder but not to another; those who have merit consider making offerings, [thinking]: "If he does not give to me, I shall not make offerings." On account of these four matters, corrupting families is called "corrupting other families."
The words "engaging in evil conduct": that monk performs such improper conduct as planting flower trees himself, watering them himself, picking flowers himself, making garlands himself, stringing them with thread, and personally taking them to give to people; or having others do the above things; sitting and rising on the same bed with women of the village; eating and drinking from the same vessel; conversing, joking, and laughing; or singing, dancing, and performing theatrical entertainment himself, or chiming in when others perform; or engaging in comedic banter; or playing drums, blowing mouth-organs, chanting, or imitating the calls of various birds; or running, leaping, limping; or whistling, or contorting his body, or partaking in frivolous amusement—these are called "engaging in evil conduct."
Regarding the words "corrupting families and engaging in evil conduct is both seen and heard," the Vinaya states: At that time, there was a monk who lodged in that village. Putting on his robes and holding his bowl, he entered the village to beg for food. His Dharma robes were neat and tidy, his walking composed and dignified; he walked with lowered gaze, neither glancing around nor speaking and laughing, nor socializing or offering courteous greetings. [The villagers thought:] "We should not give him food and drink; he is not like Assaji and others who socialize with people and do the things mentioned above, who deserve offerings." At that time, he obtained alms only after hardship. Going to the Buddha's place, he reported the matter in full to the Buddha. [The Buddha] had the monks go to the village to drive them out. The foregoing was the initiation of faults in dependence on a village, harming both self and other.
Below clarifies the text stating the fault and expelling them: from "the monks should address" to "not remain here" is the expulsion text.
Below is the phrase slandering the Saṅgha without justification: from "that monk speaks to those monks" to "there are those who are expelled and those who are not expelled." The intent behind slandering the Saṅgha: depending on [the fact that the other] six persons had committed the same acts. The text states: Samantapāsādika [or Samādattā] and Mahiṣadattā fled to a village on the royal highway; Kālodāyin and Channa repented on the road. The failure to punish these four appeared to involve favoritism and malice, hence they gave rise to slander: claiming that not punishing those who repented on the road was "having desire"; fearing those who fled was "having fear"; claiming that the Saṅgha was angry with the two of them was "having anger"—these three were not done out of understanding; not comprehending the method of disciplinary punishment was "having delusion." Revealing the intent behind his slander, he therefore said: "There are those who are expelled and those who are not expelled."
Below clarifies the text of private admonition. As for the words "Venerable, do not speak like this": admonishing him not to slander the Saṅgha, it therefore says "do not speak like this" down to "there are those who are expelled and those who are not expelled." Below, the Saṅgha clears its own mind, hence it says "the monks do not have desire, do not have anger, do not have fear, and do not have delusion." Having repented on the road, there was no offense that could be punished, which is called "not having desire"; the persons who fled were not present and thus could not be punished, which is called "not having fear"; you two individuals neither stepped forward to repent nor retreated to flee, and both your persons and your faults were present, so it was in accordance with principle that you should be punished, which is called "not having anger"; properly understanding the disciplinary expulsion is called "not having delusion." Below, placing the fault back upon them, it therefore says "Venerable, you corrupt families and engage in evil conduct," down to "both seen and heard."
Below clarifies that the slandering person resisted admonition and did not submit; thus the text says: "When that monk was admonished in this manner, he stubbornly held fast and did not desist."
Below clarifies the Saṅgha's admonition. The text says: "Those monks should admonish him a second and a third time to make him desist from this matter," down to "if he desists upon three admonitions, that is good." At the first admonition, one should say: "The Saṅgha intends to perform a formal motion; you should desist." If he desists, he incurs only a duṣkṛta. If he does not desist, once the motion is made, he immediately incurs a thullaccaya. One should admonish him again, saying: "Venerable, the motion has been made; there remain three karmavācanās, so you should desist from this matter. Do not, by being rebuked by the Saṅgha, commit a grave offense." Thus one should admonish him up through the first, second, and third karmavācanās. Hence the text says "if he desists, that is good"; because the offense is lighter as soon as one desists, it is called "good."
Below clarifies that by resisting the remonstrance and not desisting, the saṅghāvaśeṣa offense is established; thus the text says: "If he does not desist, it is a saṅghāvaśeṣa."
Below clarifies non-offenses. The Vinaya states: If one obtains clothing and food and gives them to one's parents, to the sick, to young children, to pregnant women, to persons bound in prison, or to hired workers in the monastery, it is not called corrupting families. If one plants trees, flowers, and fruits, down to having others string garlands, for the sake of the Three Jewels, it is not called evil conduct. If one leaps and bounds while crossing a river, ditch, or pit, it is not an offense. If one's companion is left behind and, turning back, one cannot see him, whistling and shouting is not an offense. Carrying letters back and forth for the sake of parents, for the sick, for faithful donors, down to matters concerning the Three Jewels, are all not offenses.