將講七滅諍略存六門
I will briefly explain the seven ways to settle disputes under six headings.
第一釋字得名者夫按經論毗尼名滅以無為體但無理一揆更無殊狀何有七滅今隨緣而表且序七而已此中體非過未名曰現前能滅於諍故曰毗尼所以目云現前毗尼毗尼不須更論義無異故世局受稱若在過未不能滅諍故憶念者由僧作法念彼清淨情即息故就能治得名不癡者詳心作法證彼前人黠來不犯諍情即息故從境受目不癡對癡癡在僧故自言者引過懺悔定罪輕重而滅於諍故約能立名多人語者詳心捉籌表多人語定理邪正以滅於諍故亦約能治立名罪處所者前引後違或前言犯後言不犯輕重亦爾言致相違徵其犯處故於前後中以前為實後便是虗何者初言伏罪義可好心僧未許治故言多是實後見僧欲治便復更言此是懼罰之言義可不實故不信也約境為名艸覆地者眾僧共犯因評致諍言既翻覆若尋撿者恐成深重難可從滅故聖大慈開不說名種直爾二眾和合迭相懺謝以息其諍如艸覆地掩塵使不用故引喻得名問既憶念不癡二俱清淨得更互彰名不答望同清淨應得俱成增諍不得互彰然憶念本來清淨若與不癡者所舉不息以他諍謂己曾作故若不癡與憶念名者能舉之人諍復難息以他謂我妄舉清人故問憶念不癡律皆言不作舉憶念何故罪處所中律獨云作舉作憶念答彼實不犯但執三根大眾知情故言此罪更不作舉憶念此人實犯須作舉憶念是知不例。
The first section explains how these terms got their names. According to the scriptures and monastic texts, Vinaya means "cessation," and its essential nature is the unconditioned. But since the principle of the unconditioned is one and the same, with no different forms, how could there be seven kinds of cessation? Here we are just describing them according to circumstances, and so we list only seven.
Among these, when the matter at hand belongs neither to past nor future, it is called "present." Because it can settle disputes, it is called Vinaya. Therefore it is named "Present-time Vinaya." Since Vinaya itself needs no further discussion — its meaning being no different — the world fixes the name according to the situation. If something belongs to past or future, it cannot settle disputes.
As for "Recollection": when the Sangha performs the formal procedure, one recalls that one has acted purely, and the emotional tension of the dispute naturally subsides. This name is derived from the remedy applied.
As for "Non-confusion": when one carefully examines the matter and performs the procedure, proving that the person being questioned has come with clarity and has committed no offense, the emotional tension of the dispute subsides. This name is taken from the circumstance — "non-confusion" as opposed to confusion, since the confusion lies with the Sangha.
As for "Self-confession": one acknowledges one's offense in repentance; having determined whether the offense is light or heavy, the dispute is settled. This is named in terms of the act that settles it.
As for "Majority Consent": when one carefully examines the matter and collects voting sticks, indicating the decision of the majority, the right or wrong of the matter is settled and the dispute is resolved. This too is named in terms of the remedy applied.
As for "Against the Offense Committed": if one first says one thing and then contradicts oneself — initially admitting an offense and later denying it, or vice versa regarding whether it is light or heavy — and one's statements become contradictory, one is pressed on where the offense lies. In such a case of prior and later statements, the earlier is taken as true and the later as false. Why? Because when one first admits guilt, the intent may well be sincere, since the Sangha has not yet decided to take action against one. But later, seeing that the Sangha is about to proceed, one then changes one's statement — these are words spoken out of fear of punishment, and their intent cannot be sincere. Therefore they are not trusted. This name is based on the circumstance.
As for "Grass-covering": when the monks have all committed offenses together, and because of disputes they end up arguing back and forth, if an investigation were made the offenses might turn out to be serious and difficult to settle by the regular procedure. Therefore, out of great compassion, the Buddha allowed this to be settled without specifying names or types; instead, the two communities, in harmony, mutually confess and forgive, thus settling the dispute — just as grass covers the ground, hiding the dust so that it need not be removed. Thus the name is derived from this simile.
Question: Since both "Recollection" and "Non-confusion" are concerned with purity, could they not be named interchangeably?
Answer: If we look at their shared purity, they could indeed both apply. But if the dispute grows, they cannot be used interchangeably. For "Recollection" originally concerns someone who is pure, but if it is paired with one who should receive "Non-confusion" and the other party keeps raising the matter, because he thinks the accused actually committed the offense — this will not do. And if "Non-confusion" is paired with one who should receive "Recollection," the one raising the accusation will not let the dispute settle either, because he thinks, "He is wrongly accusing me, a pure person."
Question: In the Vinaya, both "Recollection" and "Non-confusion" are said not to involve "raising a charge." Why is it that in the case of "Against the Offense Committed," the Vinaya alone says "raising a charge" and "recollection"?
Answer: That person truly did not commit the offense, but because someone insists on the three grounds and the Sangha knows the facts, they declare, "For this offense, let no further charge or recollection be raised." But this person truly did commit the offense, so a charge and recollection must be made. Thus you should understand that this is not a uniform case.
第二定體異者且論現前必有五法五法者何起諍名人秉法名僧僧住處名界軌用名法能滅名毗尼此有四解一解五名四體人僧界別有名體法與毗尼更無別體軌用邊名作法滅諍名為毗尼第二解五名四體少異言毗尼無別體用上四法為體故第三解五名五體既言五法故以調逆進不名法正殄於諍名毗尼問有法起時名作毗尼毗尼起時有法已息如何乃言五法現前答雖不竝頭而有相續在現故言現前第四解能所相對在現前故言五法僧界法毗尼是其能起諍者是其所要以能對所方有滅諍義得名現前毗尼故問為當四人已上作法一向具五法為當亦有不具者答義即不定如伽論云十種羯磨不現前但具四法何者覆鉢捨學家捨作房擯沙彌顛狂不禮不共語不供養等是也唯有僧界法毗尼毗尼者遠有諍義又說戒自恣等唯有僧界法如結大小界唯有僧法若三人已下作能滅者但須三種現除僧界設四人已上但使不秉羯磨者亦有三問五法中能斷通僧人但與一僧名所為通僧人隱僧彰人何答秉法故存僧名所中就數分實有僧別之位皆不秉法故從別名人問五中能所別故使僧人立二名者如三中亦有能所別何故不從能所立僧人答若就數分實應僧人立二但以別人及僧不秉羯磨處齊故同作人名若與僧名恐濫於作法故問瞻波中一人舉一人乃至僧舉僧皆不如法何故上云一人乃至為僧僧為僧皆如法者答瞻波中對羯磨治人是故皆非此中直是定理是非非治人故所以如法問既知五法未知五法中法毗尼人與三法中法毗尼人有何差別答五中法指羯磨法三中法者或是言語定是非為法或自言懺法名法三中人者起諍人及判諍人通名人現五中人者但取起諍人不取於僧其毗尼者勿不皆是諍無之處此是正體故五三同也若就詮相三五皆異何者五法中無指羯磨判滅為無名毗尼三法中無者言語判滅為無名毗尼或以自言懺滅名為毗尼汎論五三異者五法是寬三法是狹何者五法獨滅於言諍若配餘六通滅四諍三法不通故廣如別章。
When we speak of the second category—the distinguishing characteristics of the essence of Concentration—we must first understand that whenever it is present, five factors must be present. What are these five? One who raises a dispute is called a person; one who upholds the Dharma is called the Sangha; the Sangha's dwelling place is called the boundary; the governing function is called the Dharma; that which can settle the matter is called the Vinaya. There are four interpretations of this.
The first interpretation: five names but four essences. Person, Sangha, and boundary each have their own distinct name and essence. Dharma and Vinaya have no separate essence apart from each other—from the aspect of governing function it is called procedural action, and from the aspect of settling disputes it is called Vinaya.
The second interpretation: five names but four essences, with a slight difference. It says Vinaya has no separate essence; it takes the above four Dharmas as its essence.
The third interpretation: five names and five essences. Since five factors are spoken of, and because correcting what is contrary and promoting what is proper is not called Dharma, while directly putting an end to dispute is called Vinaya. Question: When a Dharma arises, it is called procedural action; when Vinaya arises, the Dharma has already ceased—how then can we say the five factors are present? Answer: Although they do not appear simultaneously at the same moment, they exist in succession, and because they are present in that succession, we say they are present.
The fourth interpretation: from the standpoint of the capable and the object, they are present. It says the five factors—Sangha, boundary, Dharma, and Vinaya—are the capable agents, while the one who raises the dispute is the object. Only when the capable meets the object does the meaning of settling disputes arise, and thus it is called present Vinaya.
Question: Is it that when four or more people perform procedural actions, the five factors are always complete? Or are there cases where they are incomplete? Answer: The principle is not fixed. As the Vinaya commentary says, there are ten kinds of karma transactions that are not present, having only four factors. Which are they? Covering the bowl, suspending the training of a family, suspending the building of a dwelling, expelling a novice, madness, not paying homage, not speaking together, not making offerings, and so on. In these, only Sangha, boundary, and Dharma are present; Vinaya is absent. As for Vinaya, there is a remote sense of dispute. Also, in recitation of precepts and the invitation ceremony, only Sangha, boundary, and Dharma are present. As for binding major and minor boundaries, only Sangha and Dharma are present.
If three or fewer people perform the act of settlement, only three factors need be present—Sangha is excluded. Even if there are four or more people, as long as they do not carry out the karma transaction, the same three factors apply.
Question: Among the five factors, the one who can cut off is generally the Sangha, yet it is given only the single name "Sangha." The one acted upon is generally also the Sangha, yet the Sangha name is concealed and the person name is revealed. Why? Answer: Because they carry out the Dharma, the Sangha name is retained; in the case of the one acted upon, it is classified by number, and in reality there are Sangha and individual positions, but since they do not carry out the Dharma, they are named by the individual designation.
Question: Among the five, because of the distinction between capable and object, the Sangha is given two names. But among the three factors there is also a distinction between capable and object—why is the Sangha not given two names there? Answer: If we classify by number, in reality the Sangha should be given two names. But because the individual person and the Sangha, in the place where they do not carry out the karma transaction, are the same in being equal, they are both called by the person designation. If they were given the Sangha name, there would be a risk of confusion with the performance of karma transactions.
Question: In the Campā chapter, one person accusing one person, up to the Sangha accusing the Sangha—all are said to be improper. Why then does it say above that from one person up to doing for the Sangha, and the Sangha doing for the Sangha, all are proper? Answer: In the Campā chapter, it is in relation to karma transactions for correcting people, and therefore all are improper. Here, it is simply a matter of establishing principle and determining right and wrong, not correcting people, and therefore it is proper.
Question: We now know the five factors, but what is the difference between the Dharma, Vinaya, and person among the five factors and the Dharma, Vinaya, and person among the three factors? Answer: In the five, Dharma refers to karma transaction Dharma. In the three, Dharma may mean verbal determination of right and wrong as Dharma, or self-confession as Dharma. In the three, "person" refers to both the one who raises the dispute and the one who judges it, both commonly called person. In the five, "person" refers only to the one who raises the dispute, not to the Sangha. As for Vinaya, in both cases it is the place where there is no dispute—this is the essential body, and in this the five and three are the same. But as to the expressed characteristics, the five and three are all different. Why? In the five, karma transaction judgment and elimination is not called no-name Vinaya. In the three, verbal judgment and elimination is not called no-name Vinaya, or self-confession and elimination is called Vinaya. Generally speaking, the difference between five and three is that the five factors are broad and the three factors are narrow. Why? The five factors settle verbal disputes alone; if matched with the other six, they can settle the four disputes. The three factors do not extend that far. This is explained in detail in separate chapters.
第三總別通塞者總以收攝為義別以區分立稱通以體徧諸處塞乃唯局自分此中名有總別體殊通塞毗尼之名是總以有收攝義故若論現前名等是則以名各不相收然現前是體通用通故名為總餘六不獨行要假現前方得滅諍即是明用通餘六六自相望六六常別憶念現前非是不癡現前故知是別若以餘六望現前現前常是總若以現前望下六即是其別如似羯磨望受日結界受日結界是別若以結界受日望羯磨羯磨即是總問現前該六名為通者自言亦通何故落在塞中答汎爾自言應說為通但今自言唯取攬短歸己名自言毗尼故不在通餘無攬短之義如憶念之人本亦不犯木癡之人病差不為多人語者各言我是罪處之人後便解違艸布地者不說名種是故不說自言為通指文辨相廣如別章如此七滅論義皆有三法現前若如文辨者唯現前自言二毗尼有三五現前餘五各五其中界現前五中皆同法滅位通隨相各別人亦通五毗尼唯多人語中人可在斷諍數中餘皆不爾僧亦位通隨相不同何者現前毗尼中僧具十德者集餘不在例多人語中僧不問愚智悉集并起諍人自判艸覆中僧不揀愚智要是兩朋眾皆集即此彼互作僧人憶念不癡罪處所中僧應簡取具不愛等四諸門如律。
The third is total, particular, shared, and blocked. "Total" means encompassing and gathering in. "Particular" means distinguishing and setting apart. "Shared" means its substance pervades all places. "Blocked" means it is confined only to its own part. In this, names have total and particular, and their substance differs as shared or blocked. The name "Vinaya" is total because it has the meaning of gathering in. If we speak of the names "presence" and so on, then by name each does not gather in the others; however, "presence" is shared in substance, and because it is shared it is called total. The remaining six do not operate alone; they must rely on presence before they can settle a dispute. This shows that their function is shared with the remaining six. When the six are compared with one another, each of the six is always particular. "Recollection" and "presence" are not "non-delusion presence," so we know they are particular. If the remaining six are compared with presence, presence is always total. If presence is compared with the six below, then it is particular. This is like comparing karma to the acceptance of days and the marking of boundaries: acceptance of days and marking of boundaries are particular. If acceptance of days and marking of boundaries are compared with karma, then karma is total. Question: If presence includes the six and is called shared, then one's own statement is also shared. Why is it placed among the blocked? Answer: Generally speaking, one's own statement should be called shared. But here one's own statement refers only to taking what is brief and returning it to oneself, so it is called the Vinaya of one's own statement; therefore it is not included in shared. The others do not have the meaning of taking what is brief. For example, a person of recollection originally did not offend; a person of wooden delusion, when the illness is cured, does not act; the one who speaks for many says, "I am the person in the place of offense," and afterward understands; the one who spreads grass says it without naming the kind. Therefore it is not said that one's own statement is shared. Pointing to the text to distinguish the characteristics is extensively explained in separate chapters. In this way, the seven settlements of disputes, when their meanings are discussed, all have three modes of presence. If we distinguish according to the text, only presence and one's own statement have three; the five presences have the rest, five each. Among these, the five presences of boundary are all the same in mode; the position of cessation is shared according to characteristics, and each is different. Persons are also shared in the five; the Vinaya of one's own statement and speaking for many: the person may be counted among those who settle disputes; the rest are not so. The Sangha also is shared in position, but according to characteristics it is not the same. Why? In the presence of Vinaya, the Sangha assembles those who possess the ten virtues; the rest are not included in this category. In speaking for many, the Sangha does not ask whether foolish or wise; all assemble, and the disputing party judges for himself. In grass-covering, the Sangha selects neither foolish nor wise; it is essential that both parties assemble. That is, here and there they act mutually as Sangha. In recollection, non-delusion, and the place of offense, the Sangha should select those who possess the four qualities such as non-love, and so on, according to the disciplines and through all the gates as in the Vinaya.
第四滅罪諍及以治人者自言艸覆罪諍俱滅罪處一種不滅罪俱滅諍自餘四種唯滅諍而無罪可滅其七中六種但滅諍不治人以人無過故諍是𩰖亂故須滅之罪處所亦滅諍亦治人諍須滅如上以人諱罪觸僧故須治人與處所竟應奪三十五事又五分云本言治有二種一可悔二不可悔不可悔者與作盡形壽不可悔白四羯磨餘無此過故不論解此中問法之與藥有何別答如現前毗尼法者簡集智慧羯磨是也藥者正用三藏教法判者是也不如憶念等三法藥同體今疏家作法藥通解所以不出法藥體者一解滅不究竟故若作此解不出法者且得如是藥是究竟何以不出此責難自言毗尼諍應得滅從多論同言未滅第二作不定解者覔中三品上中下定言犯二諍執情流轉不定用藥無準故不出義可爾又解餘四所以不出法藥者現前通滅四諍智出何體若欲具論謂皆竝用正欲隨分少序恐謂常定謂皆滅諍是故隱之如現前中五法三法人有增減等是名不定雖簡眾白竟諍復未滅故言不究竟如自言或對一二三四或自引犯不犯輕重等故知無準雖假和白諍罪未滅故知亦不究竟多人語中三種行舍羅五四不同故知無準雖作差白羯磨等諍情未息滅亦不究竟艸覆中用法應定但以滅不究竟是故不出法體。
For the fourth category—the resolution of offenses and disputes, and the disciplining of persons—when someone confesses and covers their offense, both the offense and the dispute are resolved. In the case of offenses, one type does not cease; for all the rest, both offense and dispute cease. As for the remaining four types, only the dispute ceases while no offense remains to be resolved. Among the seven, six only settle disputes without disciplining persons, because the persons are without fault and the dispute is merely a quarrel, so it must be settled.
In the method of dealing with offenses, both the dispute and the person are addressed. The dispute must be settled as above. Because the person conceals their offense and thereby offends the Sangha, the person must be disciplined. The matter of the person and the procedure concluded, the thirty-five matters should be revoked.
Furthermore, the Five-Part Vinaya says: originally there are two kinds of discipline—one that can be remedied and one that cannot. For the one that cannot be remedied, one performs the act of lifelong non-remediation through a formal motion with four proclamations. No other case has this fault, so it is not discussed.
Here someone asks: What is the difference between the method and the medicine? Answer: As in the case of the "present-face" disciplinary procedure, the method refers to the formal act that selects and gathers wisdom. Medicine refers to what is judged by correctly applying the teaching of the three baskets. It is not the same as the three procedures such as recollection. Here the method and medicine are identical in substance. The commentator does not bring out the substance of method and medicine because, by one interpretation, the resolution is not final. If one takes this interpretation, the method is not brought out—this much is acceptable. But medicine is final, so why is it not brought out? This is a challenge. The confession procedure's dispute should be resolved, yet according to the majority of treatises, it is not yet resolved.
In the second interpretation, which is indeterminate: seeking among the three grades—upper, middle, and lower—one determines that the offense and the two disputes are uncertain because the emotional attachment is still turning and unsettled, so the application of medicine has no fixed standard. Thus it is not brought out. This reasoning is acceptable.
Another explanation for why the remaining four do not bring out method and medicine: the present-face procedure universally resolves the four disputes. From what substance does wisdom arise? If one wants to discuss it fully, all are used together. If one wishes to explain only in part briefly, one fears people will think it is always fixed and that all resolve disputes. Therefore it is concealed. As in the present-face procedure, the five methods and three methods involve persons increasing or decreasing—this is called indeterminate. Although the assembly is selected and the proclamation completed, the dispute is still not resolved, so it is said to be not final. As with confession, whether one faces one, two, three, or four persons, or whether one oneself brings up offenses or non-offenses, light or heavy, and so forth—one knows there is no fixed standard. Although one relies on confession and proclamation, the dispute and offense are not yet resolved, so one knows it is also not final. In the procedure of many persons, the three kinds of casting lots—five and four differing—one knows there is no fixed standard. Although the act of appointment and proclamation is performed, the disputing minds are not yet calmed and resolved, so it is also not final. In the procedure of covering with grass, the method used should be fixed, but because the resolution is not final, therefore the substance of the method is not brought out.
第五滅人多少者二通五局如律中解依阿含經要羅漢被舉得作憶念凡夫不得何故凡夫有故犯戒羅漢無故犯止誤犯耳善見云憶念毗尼者為愛盡比丘至那含不為凡夫婆論云比丘比丘尼現前三眾不現前與憶念羯磨不癡罪處亦爾婆多云若比丘犯戒內爛舉眾共知不須自言直爾遣出伽論云若不語彼而擯比丘得成擯僧犯吉羅不作憶念亦如是不作白羯磨亦得成擯眾僧犯吉不現前如是祇律云覔罪相羯磨人盡形行八事一不得與度人二不得與受具戒三不得與人作依止四不得受比丘按摩供給五不得作比丘使六不得受次第差會義云都盡時得七不得為僧作說法人八不得與僧作說毗尼及羯磨人。
Fifth, regarding how many people are involved in the Cessation: there are two categories—general and specific—as explained in the Vinaya. According to the Āgama Sutras, an Arhat who has been accused may practice the recollection procedure, but an ordinary person may not. Why is that? Because an ordinary person can still commit offenses intentionally, while an Arhat has no intentional offenses—only accidental transgressions. The Samantapāsādikā states: the recollection Vinaya is for those who have exhausted craving, up to and including the Non-Returner, but not for ordinary people. The Vibhāṣā states: for monks and nuns in the presence of the three assemblies, and not in their absence, the recollection karma is performed; the same applies to the procedure for those not insane. The Vibhāṣā also states: if a monk violates precepts and is inwardly corrupt, and the whole assembly knows it, there is no need for him to confess—he is simply expelled. The Mahāvibhāṣā states: if one is expelled without being told, the expulsion is valid, but the Sangha commits an offense of wrongdoing. So too, if the recollection is not performed, and if the white karma is not performed, the expulsion is still valid, and the Sangha commits an offense of wrongdoing—likewise for absence. The Mahāsāṅghika Vinaya states: a person under the procedure of "seeking the offense" must practice eight things for life: first, he must not ordain others; second, he must not confer full ordination; third, he must not give dependence to anyone; fourth, he must not receive massage or offerings from monks; fifth, he must not employ monks as servants; sixth, he must not receive sequential assignments. The Vinaya commentary says: at the very end, he may; seventh, he must not act as a Dharma teacher for the Sangha; eighth, he must not act as one who recites the Vinaya or performs karma for the Sangha.
第六病藥相當者藥雖有七所除有二凡滅諍之來要從下至上是故初四毗尼擬滅諍中下二品藥後三毗尼擬滅諍上品藥此中問言諍以幾藥滅答以現前多人語二何故言諍由評理邪正法相是非各言已是不能刊定遂生其諍然法相是非唯教所備是故三藏法師依於聖教用現前多人語定理是非邪正既分諍情即息藥病相當故唯有二餘五無此義如覔諍中三毗尼諍由人起清濁未分是以生諍用憶念不癡定人清罪處所定人濁清濁已分諍情遂息故是對治言諍評理而生若以憶念等三定人清濁理相不分猶自生諍非此對治何得用也其犯諍由人犯之輕重而生起須以自言定犯輕重若彼相朋黨不聽自言諍情遂深不須檢校罪之輕重以艸覆滅言諍評理不諍罪事不同犯有輕重何須自言及艸覆也問頗有言諍以一滅滅不以多人語耶答若一比丘乃至僧為比丘現前好言教語如法如毗尼如佛所教令息諍事是名一滅滅然僧評斷應差十法者別住一處共斷此事餘有不誦戒者不知戒毗尼便捨正義作非法語僧作單白出此比丘十法如律若多人法者先差五德人謂不愛等為行舍羅者以白二差令行行有三種三種者若念眾中非法者多而和尚闍棃皆如法應顯露行舍羅舍羅即二一破二完法非法者各執隨一若念諍事如法人多而和尚等不如法即應覆藏行舍羅恐諸比丘隨和尚捉舍羅故若念如法人多而和尚等非法者彼應耳語而行舍羅舍羅有二如初可知此中若如法多者彼應作白言諍事已滅若如法少即應作亂已便起去應遣使往比丘住處僧中白言彼住處非法比丘多善哉長老能往至彼若如法多諍事滅功德多此比丘聞應往若不往當如法治問覔諍以幾滅滅答此四滅滅現前憶念不癡罪處何故覔諍由人而起須用此四定人清濁諍情即息藥病相當是以用覔既不諍理何用多人復不諍前犯輕重故不用自言艸覆問頗有覔諍用二滅滅不以不癡罪處所耶答若比丘不犯重殘及蘭諸比丘言犯此三罪數詰不止僧應與此比丘憶念滅然不現前不自言不清淨非法別眾皆不如法是名為覔諍以二滅滅問頗有覔諍以二滅滅不以憶念罪處所耶答若有比丘顛狂心亂犯眾罪後後還得心諸比丘皆言犯重殘蘭數詰不止僧以自四與此比丘不癡毗尼五事如法名為覔諍以二滅滅不以憶念等問頗有覔諍以二滅滅現前罪處所不以憶念不癡耶答若有比丘好論議與外道論時得一切難便前後語相違若在眾僧中問時亦前後語相違眾中故作妄語僧以白四與此比丘罪處所五事如法名為覔諍以二滅滅問頗有得艸覆以現前滅不答如覔三中或初一人二人三人眾僧等一往和諧得者是問犯諍以幾滅滅答此三滅滅現前自言艸覆何故自言懺悔定罪輕重諍情即息藥病相當故若約不聽流至上品作艸覆滅之既不諍理故不用多人又不諍人之清濁何用憶念等三然自言罪諍共滅艸覆滅諍廣如磨夷問頗有犯諍以二滅滅現前自言不以艸覆耶答若比丘犯罪若罪在一比丘前懺應至一清淨比丘所而作懺法是也二三四等皆亦如是問頗有犯諍以二滅滅現前艸覆不以自言耶答若比丘諍事是中比丘多犯眾罪非沙門法云無齊限出入行來不順威儀尋究此事恐令罪深重不得如三藏教令滅諍事智慧比丘以單白作如艸覆懺亦有犯諍唯現前滅義同覔諍問事諍以幾滅滅答以一切滅滅隨所犯故首解事諍中更無別趣唯有前三故以一切滅滅恐濫竝用故言隨所犯問餘諍用藥皆別一一問事諍之中唯有總問者何答餘諍用藥滅當品即盡是故別問此諍三品用藥不定若當問一當品不盡是以闕而不解然言諍中事作以現前多人滅覔諍中事作用憶念等三滅犯諍中事作以自言艸覆滅故言以一切滅滅隨所犯十誦又云常所行事唯一現前滅。