---
title: "四分律拾毗尼義鈔 · 四諍"
description: "唐代律宗高僧道宣律师所撰《四分律拾毗尼義鈔》，是南山律宗重要典籍之一。本书基于《四分律》，针对律藏中毗尼（戒律）的深奥义理进行系统梳理与阐释，补充并发展了律学思想。其内容主要聚焦戒相开遮、持犯轻重等实践问题，为僧团修行提供精确指引。该著作在汉传佛教律学体系中具有承前启后的地位，是研究中国佛教戒律思想及实践的重要文献，对后世律学发展影响深远。"
url: "https://rushiwowen.co/en/r/cmcwq2kzn2pdsjs047pb9crdg"
---

### 將講四諍略存五門

> Explaining the Four Truths in Five Sections

第一辨相得名者夫理不自班藉言以顯詳法是非定理邪正彼此諍言遂成乖分名之為諍諍由言起故名言諍內有三根伺覔前罪舉來詣僧遂生其諍諍由覔起故名覔諍具緣造境違教作事名之為犯因評此犯而致紛紜名之為諍諍從犯起故名犯諍評他已起百一羯磨彼此不和遂生其諍諍由事起故名事諍如母論云二人同競名𩰖徒黨相助名諍往徹僧者名言各說其理名訟諍雖有四得名有二言覔約因犯事從境何者境別塵沙諍乃無量故不從境言即通含要而省約故就因名問理亦是通何不就境名為理諍答理通於四更無別也問若爾言亦是通不可就言受名答理均一揆本自無過執情三品兼復通四是以不彰言雖通四為彰言過有執情三品是以初諍從言立目餘三隨事論其覔諍境別清濁便有二文然境雖違順莫不由覔生諍是故隱境從因犯事二諍從因受名不出言覔今隱因從境疏人解言諍若是從境彰名境別塵沙我犯別無量不可從境得名答言諍從境攝諍不盡諍於二諦更不攝故不相假故論其犯諍由諍輕重方名犯諍此即相假輕重非一若從犯者攝諍斯盡是故從境又問覔諍若從境彰名境別清濁諍便有二者事諍亦境有是非不應從境立名答犯境唯濁覔通清濁事亦是狹唯是羯磨已作者不通餘事及未作者是非皆事故問舉事名事諍舉罪何故不名罪諍乃云覔諍答舉事是其必有事得從於境名事諍舉罪未即有罪是故因其必有覔由此言之事諍就業而立餘三就行而立理實隨緣諍乃無量今且就一方化儀略表此也。

> \*\*First, Distinguishing Characteristics and Naming\*\* The principle itself does not become apparent; it relies on words to be revealed. By examining whether teachings are correct or incorrect, establishing principles as orthodox or heterodox, differing sides engage in debate with words, leading to conflict and division. This is called "dispute" (諍). Since disputes arise from words, they are termed "verbal disputes" (言諍). Within this, there are three roots: 1. \*\*Seeking out faults\*\*: Investigating previous offenses, bringing them before the Sangha, thus giving rise to dispute. Since the dispute arises from the seeking, it is called "dispute from investigation" (覔諍). 2. \*\*Creating conditions, forming objects, violating precepts, committing acts\*\*: This is called "offense" (犯). Because of adjudicating this offense, contention arises. This is called "dispute." Since the dispute arises from the offense, it is called "dispute from offense" (犯諍). 3. \*\*Adjudicating matters that have already arisen, the hundred-and-one formal procedures (karma)\*\*: When there is mutual disagreement, dispute arises. Since the dispute arises from the matter, it is called "dispute from matters" (事諍). As stated in the \*Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya\*: When two people contend, it is called "contention" (𩰖); when factions assist each other, it is called "dispute" (諍). When it reaches the Sangha, each stating their rationale, it is called "litigation" (訟). Although there are four types of dispute, they are named from two perspectives: "verbal" and "investigation" are named from the \*\*cause\*\*; "offense" and "matters" are named from the \*\*object\*\*. Why? The objects are as numerous as dust and sand; disputes are thus limitless. Therefore, they are not named from the object. "Words" are comprehensive and essential, concise and economical, so they are named from the cause. \*\*Question:\*\* Principle (理) is also comprehensive. Why not name it "dispute from principle" based on the object? \*\*Answer:\*\* Principle pervades all four; there is no separate category. Therefore, it is not highlighted. \*\*Question:\*\* If so, words are also comprehensive. Can they not be used to name the dispute? \*\*Answer:\*\* Principle is uniformly the standard; fundamentally, it is without fault. Attached views come in three grades and also pervade all four, hence it is not made explicit. Although words pervade all four, to highlight the fault of words and the three grades of attached views, the first dispute is named from "words." The remaining three are discussed according to their specific matters. Regarding "dispute from investigation": The objects differ in purity and impurity, hence there are two texts. However, whether the object is contrary or compliant, disputes invariably arise from investigation. Therefore, the object is concealed, and the naming follows the cause. The disputes of "offense" and "matters" are named from the cause, which does not go beyond "words" and "investigation." Here, the cause is concealed, and naming follows the object. \*\*A commentator explains:\*\* If "verbal dispute" were named from the object, naming from the object would not exhaust all disputes, as disputes over the Two Truths would not be included, due to lack of mutual dependence. Considering "dispute from offense": It is called such because of disputing the severity of the offense. This implies mutual dependence, as severity is not singular. If named from the "offense" itself, it would exhaust all disputes. Therefore, it is named from the object. \*\*Further question:\*\* If "dispute from investigation" were named from the object, and objects differ in purity/impurity, leading to two types, then "dispute from matters" also involves objects with right and wrong. Should it not then be named from the object? \*\*Answer:\*\* The object of offense is solely impure. Investigation pertains to both pure and impure. Matters are narrow, referring only to completed formal procedures (karma), not extending to other matters or those not yet performed. Right and wrong are all matters. \*\*Question:\*\* Raising a matter is called "dispute from matters." Raising an accusation—why is it not called "dispute from accusation," but rather "dispute from investigation"? \*\*Answer:\*\* Raising a matter implies there \*must be\* a matter; thus, it can be named from the object as "dispute from matters." Raising an accusation does not necessarily mean there \*is\* an offense yet. Therefore, it is named from the cause, which is the inevitable "investigation." Thus, "dispute from matters" is established based on the \*\*act\*\*. The other three are established based on \*\*conduct\*\*. In truth, disputes arise according to conditions and are limitless. Here, we merely outline this based on one aspect of the transformative teaching.

第二僧尼同異者謂尼僧各自有四諍不殊是名為同而有異者如僧尼論義兩情乖競此雖言諍然不假滅滅故不名言諍攝何故一二眾既別為之義稀二住處別故不礙羯磨說戒三復無共用藥滅故言諍反三如是乃至事諍亦爾此中有異者比丘與尼諍二眾犯二比丘諍尼犯或二尼諍比丘犯罪事不同者皆不在犯諍或比丘諍尼犯事同見不同者在言諍攝或比丘與尼諍二眾羯磨亦非事諍或二比丘諍尼羯磨成與不成在言諍中事諍攝以得有破僧共用藥滅故二尼諍比丘羯磨亦爾論起諍人多少者言犯二諍得通多少人起覔諍唯得三人已下起事諍無別如前三判。

> Regarding the second point on the similarities and differences between monks and nuns: Monks and nuns each have four types of disputes, which are fundamentally the same—this is the similarity. However, there are differences: For example, when monks and nuns engage in debates and their views conflict, this is considered a dispute of words. Yet, because it does not require formal resolution through reconciliation, it is not classified as a "dispute of words" in the strict sense. Why? First, the two communities are separate, so such situations are rare. Second, their dwelling places are distinct, so it does not hinder formal procedures like \*karma\* or recitation of precepts. Third, there is no shared method of reconciliation through medicinal means. Therefore, it is not classified as a dispute of words. The same logic applies to disputes of conduct. The differences here are: If a monk disputes with a nun, both communities are involved, and both may be at fault. If two monks dispute with a nun, or two nuns dispute with a monk, the nature of the fault differs. Such cases are not classified as disputes of fault. If a monk disputes with a nun, and both communities are involved in the formal procedure, it is not considered a dispute of conduct. If two monks dispute with a nun, and the formal procedure is either valid or invalid, it falls under disputes of words or conduct, as reconciliation through shared medicinal means is possible. The same applies when two nuns dispute with a monk. Regarding the number of people involved in disputes: Disputes of words and fault can involve any number of people. Disputes of conduct, however, must involve three or fewer people. Disputes of conduct have no further distinctions beyond the three types previously explained.

第三辨諍根義者言根有四一貪無貪等就體性說根二僧界人就事說根三六諍等就業說根四十八法就法說根若泛評四種僧是非而生諍由僧起故言僧為根界人準此又摩夷云諍根本六分別十八何者為六一瞋恚二惱害三約為四惱疾五見取六邊邪二見廣說法非法乃至說非說十八種是名諍根本聚覔根有三初二同前三者以三舉事為根此是所犯事僧界人等是所評事故不同貪根者謂三不善心舉而生諍無貪等準此可知又由舉僧犯而生諍者故言僧為根僧根由犯界就遠緣說界為根餘者可解犯根亦四初三同覔四者六犯所起如增六說三舉等就所犯事說六犯者就能犯說故不同貪等為根者三不善心犯遠生於諍說為根既言是犯故無三善為根若就起諍行者得有三善心為根義事根有三如前三中初二說問四諍何故根有不同答言中多評法相故以十八事為根餘三不同故不說覔犯三中唯求犯不犯輕重故以三舉六犯等為根與事不同故不說事中同前二位故不說十八三舉六犯等根又解亦可準通互舉而已。

> The third section clarifies the root meaning of disputes. It states there are four types of roots: 1. \*\*Greed and Non-Greed, etc.\*\* – This refers to the root in terms of inherent nature. 2. \*\*The Sangha, the Boundary, the Person\*\* – This refers to the root in terms of the matter or event. 3. \*\*The Six Disputes, etc.\*\* – This refers to the root in terms of the action or deed. 4. \*\*The Eighteen Dharmas\*\* – This refers to the root in terms of the dharmas themselves. If one broadly judges the four types of Sangha (in terms of right/wrong) and a dispute arises from the Sangha, it is said the Sangha is the root. The Boundary and Person follow this principle. Furthermore, the \*Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya\* says: "The roots of dispute are sixfold, differentiated into eighteen." What are the six? 1. Anger and resentment 2. Harm and injury 3. Conceit and arrogance 4. Agitation and haste 5. Clinging to views 6. Extreme and wrong views These are elaborated in terms of speaking Dharma/non-Dharma, up to speaking/not speaking, making eighteen types. These are called the fundamental aggregate of dispute roots. \*\*Seeking the Root\*\* has three aspects. The first two are the same as before. The third is taking the three accusations (\*tridaṇḍa\*) as the root, as they are the matter of the transgression. The Sangha, Boundary, Person, etc., are the matters being judged, hence they differ. \*\*Greed as Root\*\* means disputes arise from accusations made with the three unwholesome mental states. Non-greed, etc., can be understood accordingly. Furthermore, because disputes arise from accusing the Sangha of transgressions, it is said the Sangha is the root. The Sangha root, due to the transgression and the boundary, is spoken of as the Boundary being the root from the perspective of a distant condition. The rest can be understood. \*\*Transgression Root\*\* also has four aspects. The first three are the same as in "Seeking." The fourth is the arising from the six transgressions, as explained in the \*Ekottarika Āgama\* (Increasing by Six section). The three accusations, etc., refer to the root in terms of the transgression matter. The six transgressions refer to the root in terms of the capability to transgress, hence they differ. \*\*Greed, etc., as Root\*\* means transgressions committed with the three unwholesome mental states distantly give rise to disputes, thus are called the root. Since it is stated as "transgression," there is no root of three wholesome mental states. If considering the disputant's active mind, there can be the meaning of the three wholesome mental states serving as the root. \*\*Matter Root\*\* has three aspects, as explained in the first two of the previous three. \*\*Question:\*\* Among the four disputes, why are their roots different? \*\*Answer:\*\* In verbal disputes, there is much judging of Dharma characteristics, therefore the eighteen matters are taken as the root. The other three disputes are different, therefore they are not stated. In \*\*Seeking\*\*, among the three, one only seeks whether there is transgression or not, and its severity, therefore the three accusations and six transgressions, etc., are taken as the root. As this differs from the matter of the event, the eighteen are not stated. In the \*\*Matter\*\* of the event, it is the same as the first two positions, therefore the eighteen, three accusations, six transgressions, etc., are not stated as the root. Another explanation: One could also, according to principle, mutually reference them accordingly.

第四三性之義者言覔犯事皆通三性義準可知問不善犯中凡聖何異答凡夫遮性俱犯三果唯犯遮戒亦可凡夫犯廣略學人唯犯略十誦云凡夫通三性犯戒阿羅漢唯無記作四分亦似通善問四諍為善為不善答不善問若爾何故文云或善等耶答若據始心評理是非說作善後心乖惱即是諍今滅時滅諍不滅善言覔二諍中無記是善無記犯諍中無記是不善無記事諍中無記不定若言覔二諍中無記名善無記犯諍中事諍無記是不善無記問既言無記如何乃說王不善耶答論解不定此說微品善惡不能引於總報說為無記望感別報邊說善不善非謂泛爾無記心起故言無記問從三諍生事諍如何昔解若諍制言諍羯磨以七藥滅名言諍中事作若諍制覔諍中羯磨亦以七藥滅名覔中事作若諍制犯諍中羯磨亦同七藥滅名犯中事作若爾諍受日等羯磨何諍所收今解但使諍其一切已作百一羯磨道理是非事同見異者是言諍中事作若諍治人舉罪能舉證犯所舉諱犯不肯引過者覔中事作若前人羯磨惡心懈怠心者是犯中事作指事顯相品之差別廣如別章。

> The meaning of the three natures: It is said that seeking out offenses involves all three natures, and the principle can be understood accordingly. Question: In the case of unwholesome offenses, how do ordinary beings and sages differ? Answer: Ordinary beings violate both prohibitive and essential precepts, while those at the third fruit only violate prohibitive precepts. Alternatively, ordinary beings broadly violate both, while learners only violate the ten prohibitions in a limited sense. The \*Ten Recitations\* states: "Ordinary beings violate precepts through all three natures, while arhats only act through the neutral nature." The \*Four-Part Vinaya\* also seems to include wholesome actions. Question: Are the four types of disputes wholesome or unwholesome? Answer: Unwholesome. Question: If so, why does the text say "or wholesome, etc."? Answer: If based on the initial intention, evaluating right and wrong, it may be called wholesome. But when the later mind becomes contentious and agitated, it becomes a dispute. When the dispute is resolved, the dispute ceases, but the wholesome aspect does not cease. Regarding seeking disputes: The neutral nature in seeking disputes is wholesome-neutral. The neutral nature in offense disputes is unwholesome-neutral. The neutral nature in matter disputes is indeterminate. If it is said that the neutral nature in seeking disputes is called wholesome-neutral, and the neutral nature in offense disputes and matter disputes is unwholesome-neutral— Question: Since it is called neutral, why then is it said that the king’s actions are unwholesome? Answer: The treatise explains that this is indeterminate. This refers to minor wholesome or unwholesome actions that do not lead to overall retribution and are thus called neutral. However, from the perspective of causing specific retribution, they are called wholesome or unwholesome. It does not mean they arise from an ordinary neutral mind, hence they are called neutral. Question: How did past explanations describe matter disputes arising from the three disputes? If a dispute arises over rules, it is a verbal dispute, and the seven remedies are applied to resolve it—this is called a matter within a verbal dispute. If a dispute arises over seeking, it is a seeking dispute, and the seven remedies are applied to resolve it—this is called a matter within a seeking dispute. If a dispute arises over offenses, it is an offense dispute, and the seven remedies are similarly applied—this is called a matter within an offense dispute. If so, under which dispute are matters such as requesting leave for retreat classified? Now it is explained: Whenever there is a dispute over any of the 101 formal procedures, if the matter is the same but views differ, it is a matter within a verbal dispute. If there is a dispute over disciplining someone, accusing an offense, providing evidence of the offense, and the accused denies or refuses to admit the fault—it is a matter within a seeking dispute. If the person in question acts with a malicious or negligent mind during the formal procedure—it is a matter within an offense dispute. These distinctions clarify the categories of matters, and the details are extensively explained in separate chapters.

第五定諍多少者如律中云或有言即是言諍或有言非言諍或有言諍即是言或有言即是諍或有言非諍或有諍即是言或有諍非言廣如彼說此中首解諍有二種初言單諍者因其論義兩情乖背無伴勢者是名單諍以是義故或有言者舉單言即言諍者是單諍或有言者舉單言非言諍者非單諍是往復單言恐此單言諍濫餘三諍故須簡言或有言諍即言者謂是言諍非三諍後言重諍者兩人論義執情致鬬復有餘人即伴勢力自重諍故或有言即是諍是初總顯也或有言非諍者或有諍即是言者正是重諍恐此重生諍謂是餘三諍故須簡之或有諍非言諍謂是餘三諍犯覔等諍準此類解故律不論廣如首解。

> Regarding the fifth category, the dispute over the number of disputes: As stated in the Vinaya, some say it is a dispute of words, some say it is not a dispute of words, some say a dispute is the same as words, some say words are the same as a dispute, some say it is not a dispute, some say a dispute is the same as words, and some say a dispute is not words. This is explained in detail there. Here, the first explanation is that there are two types of disputes. The first is a simple dispute: when two people argue over meaning, their views conflict, and there is no support from others—this is called a simple dispute. For this reason, some say that a simple word is a dispute of words, meaning it is a simple dispute. Others say that a simple word is not a dispute of words, meaning it is not a simple dispute but a back-and-forth exchange of simple words. To avoid confusing this simple verbal dispute with the other three types of disputes, it must be clarified. Some say a dispute is the same as words, meaning it is a dispute of words and not one of the other three disputes. The second type is a compounded dispute: when two people argue over meaning, their stubbornness leads to conflict, and others join in, adding strength to the dispute, making it compounded. Some say words are the same as a dispute—this is the general explanation. Others say words are not a dispute, or a dispute is the same as words—this specifically refers to a compounded dispute. To avoid mistaking this compounded dispute for the other three types of disputes, it must be clarified. Some say a dispute is not a dispute of words, meaning it belongs to the other three types of disputes, such as disputes over offenses or seeking faults. This is explained in detail in the first explanation.

## 四分律拾毗尼義鈔卷中之二