四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 3.109

3.109

"If a bhikṣu refuses admonition, it is a prāyaścittika." This text of the precept has three phrases: first, the person who commits the offense; second, refusing admonition; third, the assigning of the offense. In differentiating the aspects, the first phrase is evident. As for the second, "refuses admonition": knowing oneself that one is doing wrong, and when another urges one not to do it, rejecting it and not complying—hence it is called "refusing admonition." As for the third, "prāyaścittika": this is the designation for the transgression. The commentary states: as long as one knows oneself to be wrong and the previous admonisher to be right, one's intentional violation is grave, and on this account one incurs a prāyaścittika. If one thinks that what oneself is doing is right and the previous admonisher is wrong, the fault is slight, and therefore one incurs a duṣkṛta. Depending on the matter performed, by intentionally acting while being aware of the matter, or by being freed through unawareness, one still commits the fundamental offense. This violation of a single person's admonition does not follow the gravity or lightness of the offense of the preceding matter; the offense is distinguished purely with respect to the mind: because it is insincere, the offense is grave; because the mind is sincere, it is light. In the text, it first assigns a duṣkṛta for a sincere mind, and next assigns a prāyaścittika for an insincere mind. Hence the Vinaya states: "If another admonishes him, saying, 'Do not do this matter,' yet he willfully commits the fundamental [offense], it is a duṣkṛta for disobeying the words. If he knows himself that what he does is wrong yet willfully does it, committing the fundamental [offense], it is a prāyaścittika for disobeying the words." The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā states: "Before intending to act, refusing admonition incurs a duṣkṛta; afterwards, upon acting, apart from the fundamental offense, one separately incurs a prāyaścittika offense." Question: "In disobeying the Saṅgha's admonition, as soon as the admonition is finished, one commits the offense, without waiting for the deed to be done. Why here is the offense not yet committed upon the conclusion of the admonition, requiring that the deed be done?" [Answer:] Because this precept involves a single person offering admonition, there is no command of the Saṅgha or act of the community that can be violated. For this reason, when the admonition is finished, the offense is not yet committed; it must await the performance of the deed for the meaning of violating the admonition to be established. Therefore, they are not of the same class. "If so, the subsequent precept on refusing exhortation to train in the precepts also involves being admonished by a single person without any command of the community to be violated. Why is the offense committed as soon as the admonition is finished, which contradicts this?" Answer: That admonition concerns an offense of omission: he was already a person who did not train, committing an offense of omission. When he utters words rejecting the admonition, saying that he will not train, that in itself is an offense of omission; because the expression of violation has already been accomplished, he therefore commits the offense. Here, the admonition concerns an offense of commission: although he speaks words rejecting the admonition, saying, "I will do it," he still has not done it, so the violation is not accomplished; it must await the performance of the deed for the meaning of violating the admonition to be established. Thus they are also not of the same class. The Vinaya states that it is not an offense if: the previous person lacks wisdom and one replies, "You may ask your teacher, up to those who know the method of admonition; if they admonish, I will heed it"; or if it is spoken in jest, talking to oneself, talking in a dream, spoken erroneously, and so forth—none of these is an offense.