四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 2.33

2.33

"If a bhikṣu is alone with a woman in a screened place, a covered place, an obstructed place, a place suitable for engaging in sexual intercourse, and sits and speaks improper words, and a trustworthy upāsikā charges [him] according to one of the three rules—either a pārājika, a saṃghāvaśeṣa, or a prāyaścittika—and the sitting bhikṣu confesses, 'I committed this offense,' he should be dealt with according to whichever of the three rules [he confessed to]—either a pārājika, a saṃghāvaśeṣa, or a prāyaścittika; as stated by the trustworthy upāsikā, he should be dealt with in accordance with the Dharma: this bhikṣu [is subject to what] is called an indeterminate rule."
This precept text has four clauses: First, up to "speaks improper words" is the indeterminacy of the offense. Second, from "and a trustworthy" onward is the indeterminacy of the charge. Third, from "and the sitting bhikṣu" onward is the indeterminacy of the confession. Fourth, from "and as [stated by] the trustworthy" onward is the indeterminacy of dealing with the offense.
Next below, the clauses of the text are explained in detail. The first section has six clauses, explained one by one:
"If a bhikṣu": the meaning is as above.
"A woman": one with cognitive capacity and not yet deceased. The text simply says: whether mother, daughter, sister, relative or non-relative, old or young, lay or monastic—all are included.
What is meant by "alone": one bhikṣu and one woman.
"Screened place": "screened" is of two kinds: first, screened from sight, such as by dust, fog, darkness, or gloom, where they cannot see one another; second, screened from hearing, an area where even ordinary speech cannot be heard.
"Covered place": having something above acting as a canopy, obstructing and preventing people from seeing.
"Obstructed place": obstructed by trees, walls, fences, clothing, or other objects.
"A place suitable for engaging in sexual intercourse": a place capable of accommodating the act of sexual intercourse.
"Speaks improper words": speaks words concerning sexual desire.
The above six clauses elucidate the indeterminacy of the commission of the offense.
From "trustworthy upāsikā" onward explains the second, the indeterminacy of the charge. Since the offense is indeterminate, the trustworthy woman brings the charge in accordance with the [suspected] offense, and thus the charge is also indeterminate; hence it says, "either a pārājika, a saṃghāvaśeṣa, or a prāyaścittika." Here, speaking in terms of coarse features resembling the three offenses is provisional; in principle, it extends to the five classes of offenses. What is meant by "trustworthy": one who has attained the four indestructible confidences and will never, for the sake of her own body, commit the offenses of the ten non-virtuous actions such as lying.
From "and the sitting bhikṣu" onward explains the third, the indeterminacy of the confession. Since the offense is indeterminate, the confession likewise has no fixed standard; according to the gravity of what is admitted, it is dealt with as the bhikṣu states; hence the text says, "'I committed this offense.'"
From here onward explains the fourth, the indeterminacy of dealing with the offense. Dealing with the offense is of two kinds: first, admitting the offense after being charged; second, not admitting the offense after being charged. As for one who admits the offense: he is dealt with as the bhikṣu states. As for one who does not admit the offense: he is dealt with according to the words of the trustworthy woman. Here, this is admitting the offense; he should be dealt with as the bhikṣu states. If he confesses to having committed a pārājika, he should be subjected to permanent expulsion; if he confesses to having committed a saṃghāvaśeṣa, he is dealt with by separate living (parivāsa); if he confesses to having committed a prāyaścittika, he is made to repent before a single companion—he is dealt with according to whatever he admits.
If he does not admit the offense, the text says: "as stated by the trustworthy upāsikā, he should be dealt with in accordance with the Dharma." Therefore, the Vinaya states: "If he confesses to having done it, he should be dealt with as the bhikṣu states; if he does not confess to having done it, he should be dealt with according to the words of the trustworthy woman." Now, this refers to not confessing to having done it; hence he is dealt with as stated by the upāsikā. It differs from the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya: [where] if the bhikṣu says, 'I committed this offense,' but did not go [there], he is dealt with according to the bhikṣu's words; if he says he went but did not commit this offense, he is also dealt with as the bhikṣu [states]; if he says he did not go and has no offense, he is dealt with according to the trustworthy woman. In the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya: "If he is dealt with under one of the three matters, the elders should ask: 'Bhikṣu, did you go to that house or not?' If he says he went, he should not yet be dealt with; they should again ask gently: 'Did you sit alone with her? Did you speak coarse words? Did you engage in sexual intercourse or not?' If he says no, the senior and junior elders should interrogate him closely: 'Speak the truth, do not lie! Is it as the upāsikā said or not?' If he says it is as the upāsikā said, only then may he be dealt with accordingly. If he says it is not, he is dealt with according to the bhikṣu." The reason he is not dealt with according to the trustworthy woman's words is that, as the Samantapāsādikā states, what is seen or heard may not be accurate.
What is meant by "this is called an indeterminate rule" is the conclusion.
Although this is a precept, there is no [inherent single] offense; it is simply that speaking improper words with a woman in a screened place invites worldly censure and slander, and the trustworthy woman reported it to the Buddha; hence it is called this precept of a charge by a trustworthy person.