律戒本疏 1.106

1.106

五十三如法僧事與欲後呵犯墮　六群犯惡。眾欲治之。力契相償。無由得治。五人出行。一人在後。後日一時。六群悉行。唯相助一人。時獨不行。眾治六群。而助者不知緩急。不出闇與眾欲。羯磨之後乃知所治。便即呵言。此為非法。若我知之則不與欲。因是不聽如法僧事一切與欲。先同後異。先同後異悉若問言。眾有事。答言某事。事與言異而非故異。又如法事者呵之亦墮故作異而非法者呵。

Fifty-three: having given one's consent to a lawful monastic action, subsequently scolding [the assembly] is an offense of pāyattika. The ṣaḍvargika monks committed offenses, and the assembly wished to discipline them, but their powers and pacts matched one another, so there was no way to discipline them. Five of them went out, and one stayed behind. Later, on another day, the ṣaḍvargika monks all went out, and only the one who supported them did not go at that time. The assembly disciplined the ṣaḍvargika monks, and that supporter, not knowing the urgency and without emerging [to the assembly], blindly gave his consent to the assembly. After the karma, he only then learned who was disciplined, and immediately scolded them, saying, "This is unlawful! If I had known, I would not have given my consent." Because of this, [the Buddha] did not allow giving consent to a lawful monastic action and then, having first agreed, later dissenting. In all cases of first agreeing and later dissenting, if one asked, "Does the assembly have business?" and they answered, "Such-and-such business," and the business differed from what was said, it is not an intentional dissent. Furthermore, if it is a lawful matter, scolding it is also a pāyattika; if one intentionally creates dissent against what is unlawful, scolding [is permitted].