---
title: "四部律并論要用抄 · 14 四部律及論明五篇七聚持犯輕重"
description: "四部律并論要用抄是中国唐代高僧道宣律师所编纂的一部律学著作。道宣律师是律宗南山宗的创始人，该书成于唐代佛教律学鼎盛时期。其主要内容是对佛教四部广律即十诵律、四分律、僧祇律、五分律的精要摘抄和系统整理，并附以相关论释。该抄本以简明扼要的方式呈现了佛教戒律的核心内容，为僧团持戒修行提供了重要依据。在佛教史上，此书具有承前启后的地位，不仅继承了前代律学传统，更推动了汉传佛教律学体系的发展完善，是研究中国佛教戒律思想不可或缺的重要文献。"
url: "https://rushiwowen.co/en/r/cmcwshzr91me8ie04ibg16ndk"
---

### 四部律及論明五篇七聚持犯輕重第十四

> Chapter 14: The Seven Categories and Degrees of Transgression in the Four Vinayas and Commentaries

持律之人有五德功。一戒品堅牢。二善勝諸怨。於眾中決斷無疑畏。三若疑悔能為開解。四善持毘尼。五令正法得久住。律藏有四名。一名為戒若就教譯防非之法名戒。明此法能禁製身口也。若就行解止惡之心名戒。明心能身口不為惡也二名為律解有二途。一教。二行。就教詮量輕重名之為律。就行調伏剛穬之為律三名波羅提木叉此是西域之言。此方往翻名彼彼解脫。就教譯時此是解縛之法。依而出家人免世羈礙。在在處處身心無累。故云彼彼解脫。就行釋者絕縛之心。念念之中能分分離煩惱。故之解脫。又稱報得解脫。明持戒行。行滿報累自云亦言保解脫明持戒決定能戒縛也四名毘尼亦是西音。此翻滅。就教解時明此法能殄息諍論。故名為滅。就行而言。斷除生死。苦盡無為寂伯為滅。此四之中前二就因立名。外防為戒。內順名律。後二就果立名。解脫者煩惱盡處是有餘涅槃。果滅者身智俱亡。是無餘涅槃果也。又大乘中釋戒與律。是因通果。是有為出要行。解脫與滅果通因。是無為出離。此四皆言藏者。就教文旨苞也。名之為藏。據行而解能出生眾善利益無崖。故稱為藏也五篇者。一波羅夷篇此是胡音。此中義云無餘。若犯此戒則永棄清眾布薩羯磨二種法事不得在數。永無其分故曰無餘。四分云。波羅夷者譬如斷人頭。不可復起。比丘亦復如是。犯此法者不復成比丘。故名波羅夷者。名墮不如是罪。極惡深重作此罪者。即墮。不如意處。不名比丘。非沙門釋子種。失比丘法故名波羅夷者。於法智退沒墮落無道果分。是名波羅夷。乃至所可犯羅不可發露悔過。名波羅夷。問。何故初篇罪名不如是。答。毘婆沙論云。比丘本心持戒出過惡魔二僧伽婆尸沙篇此是胡音。此云僧殘。若犯此戒行則毀缺不足。布薩之數猶故於羯磨眾中出過魔。方類其罪分故曰僧殘。十誦云。僧伽者罪屬僧。僧中有殘。因僧悔過得故名僧伽婆尸沙。僧祇云。僧伽婆尸沙者是罪有餘。應羯磨治故說僧伽婆尸沙。復次此事僧中發露悔過。亦僧伽婆尸沙。五分云。僧伽婆尸沙者。此罪有殘。餘猶有因緣。上可治有恃怗得在僧中除滅者也三名波逸提篇蓋是西音。此翻名墮。若犯此戒墮墜三途。燒煮覆障故名墮也。十誦云。波逸提者暑燒覆障。若不悔過能障是道。故名波逸提四名波羅提提舍尼篇蓋亦西音。此方名向彼悔。若犯此戒事合可呵。客聽發露對手懺除。故云向彼悔也五名式叉迦羅尼篇此方云應當學。明此突吉羅。是威儀練行最下之罪。難護持故加護之名。要須懃習方就。故云應當學。此之五篇護三種行。初篇護根本行。第二護眾法行。下三護威儀行。又為防三種障。初兩篇護防障道罪。初篇正障道僧殘正障眾。第三篇防牽執罪。沈溺三有出離莫由。後之兩篇防譏過罪。生人蓋化益。無於提舍尼勸犯以悔。眾一篇勸專釋精莫犯義該諸篇具綺互而明五篇戒論其體也。皆以三業正善為體。但犯輕重隨緣而制階之為五。貫例屬自之為篇也次明七聚。上明五篇。即為五聚。第六名偷蘭聚此是胡音。此方󱍮惡。此罪有四。一五逆偷蘭滅儐。二初篇邊方便偷蘭當八僧中悔三。第二篇方便當於四僧中悔四獨頭偷蘭三人前悔。善見論云。偷蘭言大遮。言障善道。名為大遮障道七名惡說聚與突吉羅相似突吉羅者。善見論云。突者名惡。吉羅名作。作惡義也。亦云。蹉跌身名惡作。口犯者名惡說。今直取口犯越威儀罪以。為第七聚。此之二聚罪。若故心犯者對首一說悔。誤犯者悔心。此十皆稱聚者。眾戒集聚故也。十誦云。問曰。有善心犯戒。無記心犯戒。答。若有新受戒比丘不知戒相。自手拔塔前草經行處草。自治經行地。自採花供養。是名善心犯戒。不善心者知而故作。無記心者不故犯戒者是。問。阿羅漢善心無記不。答。阿羅漢犯戒皆無記心。謂不憶念有長數數食。不白入村。不著大衣入聚落。若眠時地輿著高床上睡。睡時他持女人著床。未受具戒人過二夜。已睡時入宿。寤已生悔。如是等是無記心問。佛說狂者不犯戒。云何為狂　有五因緣故名為狂。一失財。二失親。三四大不調。四非人所惱。五宿業障報。是名五種狂。若假作犯戒事。自知是比丘者隨事犯。不知者不犯戒　云何心亂不犯　答。有五因緣心亂。謂見非人怖散亂心。非人奪精氣。四大不調。宿報及非人打。是名犯不犯。如前說云何痛惱不犯戒。亦有五因緣。一風發。二冷發。三熱發。四和合發。五時發。是名五犯。不犯如前說。如須提那子等。初作者皆不犯婬戒　優波離問佛。若比丘自呪術力藥力自變作人女。共畜生男婬。得何罪。佛答言。若自知我是比丘想作不可事犯波羅夷。不自知比丘想偷蘭遮。如是作畜生男共人女作婬。亦如是道作道想道非道想道疑波羅夷。非道道想非道倫蘭。有比丘。見木女像。端正可愛。生貪著心。即捉彼女根欲作婬。女根即開尋生疑怖畏。佛言。若舉受樂波羅夷。根不開偷蘭。如木女金銀七寶膠滲布石女乃至泥土如是。出摩德勒伽論。又比丘男根有病。聞師說言。口含可差。自念佛聽。為治病故。即就女人口含。佛言。初入便犯　僧祇云。象身乃至鷄。小者偷蘭。象身大鷄身小者波羅夷。大者雖入不觸其邊。女根被則別處。就則根婬者偷蘭。失不淨僧殘。

> A person who upholds the Precepts possesses five kinds of virtue: first, their precept-observance is firm and steadfast; second, they are skilled at overcoming all enemies, and in assemblies they decide matters without doubt or fear; third, they can resolve others' doubts and regrets; fourth, they are well-versed in the Vinaya; fifth, they ensure the enduring presence of the true Dharma. The Vinaya Piṭaka has four names. First, it is called "Precepts"—when interpreted in terms of doctrine, it refers to the method of preventing wrongdoing, for this method can restrain body and speech. When interpreted in terms of practice, it refers to the mind that ceases wrongdoing, for the mind can keep body and speech from evil. Second, it is called "Regulations" —here there are two explanations: doctrine and practice. In terms of doctrine, it weighs the gravity of offenses and is therefore called "Regulations." In terms of practice, it tames the coarse and stubborn mind and is thus called "Regulations." Third, it is called "Pratimokṣa"—this is a Sanskrit term. Translated into this land, it means "individual liberation." In terms of doctrine, it is the method of untying bonds. Relying on it, monastics escape worldly hindrances; in every place, body and mind are unburdened. Hence it is called "individual liberation." In terms of practice, it is the mind that severs attachment; in each moment, it separates from afflictions. Hence it is called "liberation." It is also called "the reward of liberation," meaning that by upholding precepts and completing practice, the karmic burdens naturally dissolve. It is also called "assured liberation," meaning that upholding precepts definitely severs the bonds of transmigration. Fourth, it is called "Vinaya"—also a Sanskrit term. This translates as "cessation." In terms of doctrine, this method extinguishes disputes, hence "cessation." In terms of practice, it eliminates birth-and-death; when suffering ends and unconditioned stillness is reached, that is "cessation." Among these four names, the first two are established based on the cause: outward defense is "Precepts," inward compliance is "Regulations." The latter two are established based on the fruit: "Liberation" is where afflictions end—this is nirvāṇa with remainder. "Ceasing" is where body and knowledge both vanish—this is nirvāṇa without remainder. In the Mahāyāna, Precepts and Regulations are causes that also connect to the fruit—they are conditioned practices for transcendence. Liberation and Cessation are fruits that also connect to the cause—they are unconditioned transcendence. These four are all called "treasuries" because in terms of doctrine they encompass all teachings. In terms of practice, they give rise to countless virtues and benefit without limit—hence they are called "treasuries." Now for the five categories: First, the Pārājika category—this is a Sanskrit term, meaning "without remainder." If one commits this offense, they are forever cast out from the pure community; they can no longer participate in the Posadha or Karmadāna proceedings. They are forever excluded—hence "without remainder." The Four-Part Vinaya says: "Pārājika is like cutting off a person's head, which cannot be restored. Likewise, a monk who commits this offense can no longer be a monk." It is called Pārājika because one falls into a state of non-fulfillment. This is an extremely grave offense. Committing it causes one to fall into unfavorable circumstances. One is no longer a monk, no longer a renunciant of the Śākya lineage; one has lost the Dharma of a monk. It is called Pārājika because one falls from wisdom, sinks, and loses all possibility of attaining the fruits of the path. Whatever offense falls into this category cannot be confessed away. Hence it is called Pārājika. Question: Why is the first category named "not-like-this"? Answer: The Vibhāṣā-śāstra says that a monk's original intention in upholding precepts is to transcend Māra. Second, the Saṅghāvaśeṣa category—also Sanskrit, meaning "saṅgha residue." If one commits this offense, their conduct is broken and incomplete, yet they remain in the Posadha assembly and can still be corrected through Karmadāna proceedings. Because the offense is partial and remains with the saṅgha, it is called "saṅgha residue." The Ten-Recitation Vinaya says: "Saṅghāvaśeṣa means the offense belongs to the saṅgha; there is residue within the saṅgha. Because one is forgiven through the saṅgha, it is called Saṅghāvaśeṣa." The Mahāsāṅghika Vinaya says: "Saṅghāvaśeṣa means the offense has remainder; it should be dealt with through Karmadāna—hence Saṅghāvaśeṣa. Furthermore, when this matter is confessed before the saṅgha, it is also Saṅghāvaśeṣa." The Five-Part Vinaya says: "Saṅghāvaśeṣa means the offense has residue; there is still cause and condition. It can be treated and resolved within the saṅgha." Third, the Pāyattika category—Sanskrit, translated as "fall." If one commits this offense, they fall into the three lower realms, scorched and covered—hence "fall." The Ten-Recitation Vinaya says: "Pāyattika means burning, covering, and obstructing. If one does not repent, it obstructs the path—hence Pāyattika." Fourth, the Pratideśanīya category—Sanskrit, translated as "confession toward another." If one commits this offense, it is blameworthy. One may openly admit it and repent before another—hence "confession toward another." Fifth, the Śaikṣa category—translated as "should be learned." These are the minor offenses of etiquette and training. They are difficult to maintain, so extra care is required. One must diligently practice to perfect them—hence "should be learned." These five categories protect three kinds of conduct: the first protects the foundational practice, the second protects the communal practice, and the last three protect etiquette. They also guard against three kinds of obstacles: the first two guard against offenses that obstruct the path—the first against what destroys the path, the second against what harms the community; the third guards against offenses of attachment that sink one in the three realms with no escape; the last two guard against offenses of criticism that harm faith and benefit. For Pratideśanīya, one is urged to confess after committing; for the Śaikṣa category, one is urged to remain vigilant and not commit—this principle extends to all categories. These five categories describe the essence of precepts: all are grounded in the wholesome actions of body, speech, and mind. But offenses are weighted by circumstances, and thus distinguished into five grades, arranged as categories. Next, the seven assemblies. The five categories above are five assemblies. The sixth is the Sthūlātyaya category—Sanskrit, meaning "gross offense." This has four types: first, the five heinous acts are gross offenses leading to expulsion; second, offenses near the first category require confession before eight monks; third, offenses near the second category require confession before four monks; fourth, standalone gross offenses require confession before three people. The Good Seeing Treatise says: "Sthūlātyaya means great obstruction—obstructing the path of goodness, hence great obstruction." The seventh is the Durbhāṣita category—similar to Dukṣṛta. The Good Seeing Treatise says: "Du" means bad, "kṣṛta" means done—doing bad. It also means stumbling in body is "bad action," and verbal offenses are "bad speech." Here we take verbal offenses against etiquette as the seventh assembly. For these two assemblies, if one intentionally commits, a single confession before another suffices; if unintentional, repentance in the mind suffices. All are called "assemblies" because many precepts gather together. The Ten-Recitation Vinaya asks: "Can one violate precepts with a wholesome mind, or with a neutral mind?" Answer: "If a newly ordained monk does not know the precept rules, and with his own hand pulls grass before a stūpa, or on the walking path, or levels the walking ground, or picks flowers for offering—this is violating precepts with a wholesome mind. With an unwholesome mind is knowingly doing wrong. With a neutral mind is violating without intention." Question: "Do arhats have wholesome or neutral minds?" Answer: "Arhats violate precepts only with a neutral mind—for instance, forgetting and eating beyond the allowed time, entering a village without informing, entering a town without wearing the great robe, sleeping on a high bed while asleep, or while sleeping having a woman placed on the bed, or staying over two nights with one not fully ordained, or sleeping with someone in the same lodging and regretting upon waking. These are neutral-mind violations." Question: "The Buddha said the insane do not violate precepts. What is insanity?" Answer: "There are five causes: one, loss of wealth; two, loss of relatives; three, imbalance of the four elements; four, harm from non-human beings; five, retribution from past karma. These are the five kinds of insanity. If one knowingly commits offenses while aware of being a monk, they are guilty according to the act. If unaware, they are not guilty." Question: "What about a disturbed mind—why is one not guilty?" Answer: "There are five causes for a disturbed mind: seeing a non-human and being terrified, having vitality drained by a non-human, imbalance of the four elements, karmic retribution, and being beaten by a non-human. Whether guilty or not is as explained above." Question: "What about pain and affliction—why is one not guilty?" Answer: "There are five causes: wind disorder, cold disorder, heat disorder, combined disorders, and seasonal disorders. These are the five types. Not guilty is as explained above—like Sudinna and others who, on their first offense, were not guilty of violating the celibacy precept." Upāli asked the Buddha: "If a monk, through his own spell power or medicine, transforms himself into a woman and engages in intercourse with a male animal, what offense does he commit?" The Buddha answered: "If he knows 'I am a monk' and commits this improper act, he commits Pārājika. If he does not know himself as a monk, it is Sthūlātyaya." Likewise, if a male animal has intercourse with a human woman—the same. If the path is done as the path, or non-path as path, or path with doubt—Pārājika. If non-path done as path—Sthūlātyaya. There was a monk who saw a wooden female statue, beautiful and lovely, and developed greed. He grabbed its genital area intending intercourse, and the opening opened. He then felt doubt and fear. The Buddha said: "If he lifted it and felt pleasure, Pārājika. If the opening did not open, Sthūlātyaya." This applies to wooden, golden, silver, seven-jewel, glued, stone, or clay figures—as stated in the Mahādeva Treatise. Also, a monk with a diseased penis heard his teacher say: "Holding it in the mouth can heal it." He thought the Buddha allowed it for healing, so he had a woman hold it in her mouth. The Buddha said: "The moment it enters, he commits the offense." The Mahāsāṅghika Vinaya says: "From an elephant's body down to a chicken—if small, Sthūlātyaya. If the body is large and the chicken small, Pārājika. If the large one enters but does not reach the edge—the female organ is elsewhere. If one engages in intercourse with it, Sthūlātyaya. If one loses semen, Saṅghāvaśeṣa."

盜戒　問。有比丘。偷有主舍利。云何犯不犯答。若自活直五錢犯重。不滿五錢偷蘭。若惡僧取彼我俱無偷蘭。為供養故。佛是我師。我應供養。滿五突吉羅。出摩德勒伽論。又論云。有比丘。偷支提物。謂不犯。佛言。有守護者滿犯　問。比丘偷經物。得何罪　答。滿犯重。不滿偷蘭。若為經書故取不犯。若經滿犯重。不滿偷蘭。若為讀誦書寫不犯。四分云。佛語。無價計紙墨直以結罪　五分云。有比丘。盜他經。謂是佛語無犯。佛言。計紙墨功直五錢犯　僧祇云。有比丘。變馬意欲向東。而馬走反向南西北者。犯何罪　答。偷蘭。若馬隨比丘向東者。舉四足即犯。如馬餘畜亦如是。如意主東方。餘三方亦爾。若心無所主趣向一方。四足離處犯。因此僧祇家明十三種分齊物。以明犯不犯相。一物分齊。物有八種。一時藥。二七日藥。三夜分藥。四終身藥。五隨物。六種物。七不淨物。八不淨不淨物。若比丘以盜心觸此八種物越毘尼。若動彼物偷蘭。離處滿犯重。二處分齊。地水船乘空空中物等應知。三不空分齊。如非時盜食。食滿犯重。不滿偷蘭。非波逸。若以理得食。非時而食。是波逸提。如是應廣知。四園壚分齊。象馬等廐。牛羊等欄。菓菜等園樆。若盜此諸物。要出障為限齊犯。五籠分齊。謂鳥狩等出籠為限。若意盜籠。畏主覺故合籠持去。雖遠未犯。若捨籠取鳥滿者犯。若籠鳥俱道。離處便犯。若空處有諸人放畜生。比丘盜驅去。其至即覺逐比丘。比丘未得想其主不作失想。未犯重。若主作失心。比丘得心犯。若以草誘去。離見聞者犯。六奇分齊。若比丘受他寄物持去道中見物。好便生盜心。移離處犯重。若受寄物持去中。見餘比丘從前而來。便問言。汝從何來。彼言某處來。問識某甲。答言識。又問平安不。答言已死。然此物應屬現前者。若彼受寄比丘知法多詐便作念。我何故共彼分。即下道離見聞。作法獨受。得何罪。答。越毘尼罪。乃至出界詐心作羯磨。亦越毘尼。七雜物分齊。如上牧人種種畜等也。八幡分齊。盜蓋等。若重不勝曳去。雖遠不犯等可知。若塔幡蓋及天寺物。風吹遠處。塵垢淨墨作糞掃想取無犯。九相因分齊。如白衣舍有不收攝物。比丘往見。生盜心取等。又如比丘食時。取比丘坐具鍵𨩲著鉢中。令弟子持去。得越毘尼。弟子出得偷蘭。若作盜心犯重。彼覺可知。十撅分齊。與幡中想似。十一園分齊。為他雜等。若偏心為他分。及至移封擭一麥者犯重。以地無價故。十二賊分齊。共惡賊建言相盜等。若比丘失物追逐彼賊。奪取其物。成恐怖取彼比丘。若未作失想。還取物者無罪。若空作想還取者。便是賊復劫賊滿便犯重。十三稅分齊。違官度格禁物等十誦云。地以稅物盜著比丘幞中。比丘不知或空中持稅物。度過問者不犯　摩德勒伽論云。變金作銅度稅處。犯偷蘭。又比丘持稅物欲度開自念。若度者犯重。我此物當施與父母兄弟姊妹。施塔眾僧生疑問佛。佛言偷蘭　四分云。有比丘。盜他衣鉢物。錯得已衣。佛言偷蘭。有比丘盜他衣并得己衣偷蘭。他衣犯重　十誦云。若檀越僧食次第未至。而言至者波逸提。若得食滿者犯重　問。有比丘。非衣物不覆藏取。以盜心移著異處。亦犯重不　答。有。答比丘摴蒲以心轉齒是問。盜欝單越物。得重不　答。彼國人無我所屬。故不犯。餘二方計錢滿犯重　又問。比丘為盜變作尼形。是犯不　答。犯。尼變作比丘亦爾。有比丘。從居士索園中菜葡。居士不與比丘。即以呪術力而呪殺之。生疑問佛。佛言。犯。餘菜亦如是。有人藏寶物著地中。比丘以呪力壞寶色。壞他利。犯何罪。佛言。犯重。有獵師。逐鹿入寺。尋後來索。比丘答。那得還汝。彼去。比丘疑。佛言。不犯。又被射鹿入寺。獵者言。此鹿已中箭。當更射殺。汝等避箭。諸比丘言。不與汝避。亦不與汝鹿。呵以去。後鹿死。比丘不知云何。佛言。應還獵者。又諸比丘決心壞他獵網。佛言。偷蘭。若非心壞突吉羅。壞鳥網壞獄亦如是　善見論云。比丘決心壞他物。應還其直。不還者犯。若見被網鳥狩等。慈心欲放。先准價與物。繫著摾上。然後放者得福無罪　又十誦云。有賊將弟子去。和上奪取。心生疑問佛。佛言。若屬賊者奪犯重。未定屬奪不犯。若試呪力奪不犯。若神通力奪不犯。自走得脫不犯。若比丘盜多人未分物。雖過五錢不犯重。得偷蘭　五分云。若比丘盜地中物。發心及方便皆突吉羅。掘地殺草波逸提。動彼物偷蘭。離處滿犯重。類餘可知　十誦則不爾。掘地殺草但得突吉羅。何以故。為成盜方便　善見明八種突吉羅。一方便突吉羅。如偷蘭。覓伴及求刀斧。隨其方便名方便突吉羅。二共相突吉羅。如伏藏。上草木栰之。悉成突吉羅。何以故。為成盜罪方便故。是名共相突吉羅。三重物突吉羅。如十種寶十種穀種種器杖等。不應捉。名重物突吉羅。四錢突吉羅。一切菓為初。若捉得。突吉羅。是名非錢。五毘尼突吉羅。入村乞食。塵入鉢中不更受。是名毘尼突吉羅。六知突吉羅。聞唱已知而不出罪。是知吉羅。七白突吉羅。若於十日中以一日得突吉羅。是名白突吉羅。八聞突吉羅。佛語諸比丘前亦未現得突吉羅。是名聞吉羅也　云何五錢　餘三部并論不分別。唯十誦云。五錢者若一銅錢直。十六小錢者是。又僧祇云。十九古錢者名一罽利沙槃為四分。若盜一分直犯重。

> \*\*THE PRECEPT ON STEALING - QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS\*\* \*\*Question:\*\* If a monk steals a relic that belongs to someone else, does he commit an offense or not? \*\*Answer:\*\* If he does so to support himself and the value reaches five coins, he commits a grave offense. If it does not reach five coins, he commits a transgression (thulakkhandaka). If he takes it from evil monks, thinking, "This belongs to both him and me," there is no stealing offense. If he takes it out of devotion, thinking, "The Buddha is my teacher, I should make offerings to him," and it reaches five coins' worth, he commits a wrongdoing (dukkata). This comes from the Mulasarvastivada commentary. Another passage from the same commentary says: A monk stole items from a shrine, thinking it was not an offense. The Buddha said: "If there is someone guarding them, and the value is sufficient, it is a grave offense." \*\*Question:\*\* What offense does a monk commit if he steals scriptures? \*\*Answer:\*\* If the value reaches the full amount, a grave offense. If not, a transgression. If he takes them for the sake of the teachings, there is no offense. If scriptures themselves reach the full value, it is grave; if not, a transgression. If he takes them for the purpose of reading, reciting, or copying, there is no offense. The Four-Part Vinaya says: The Buddha ruled that the offense should be determined by the value of the paper and ink, regardless of how priceless the words are. The Five-Part Vinaya says: A monk stole another's scripture, thinking, "This is the Buddha's word, so there is no offense." The Buddha said: "Calculate the value of the paper and labor. If it reaches five coins, it is a grave offense." The Sanghika Vinaya says: A monk wanted to turn a horse toward the east, but the horse ran south, west, or north instead. What offense does he commit? \*\*Answer:\*\* A transgression. If the horse follows the monk's intention and goes east, then as soon as all four hooves leave the ground, he commits a grave offense. The same applies to other animals. If his mind is directed toward one direction, as soon as the four feet leave the ground, he commits the offense. Because of this, the Sanghika school explains thirteen categories of objects to clarify the distinctions between offense and no offense. \*\*1. Categories of Objects\*\* - Objects are of eight kinds: (1) time-limited food, (2) seven-day medicine, (3) one-night medicine, (4) lifetime medicine, (5) miscellaneous items, (6) seeds, (7) impure items, (8) doubly impure items. If a monk with thieving intent merely touches these eight kinds of objects, he commits a wrongdoing (vyaya). If he moves them, a transgression. If he removes them from their place and the value is sufficient, a grave offense. \*\*2. Categories of Location\*\* - Land, water, boats, vehicles, and objects in the air should be understood similarly. \*\*3. The Category of Non-Emptiness\*\* - For example, stealing food at the wrong time. If the food's value reaches the full amount, a grave offense; if not, a transgression. This is not a pācittiya offense. If one rightfully obtains food and eats it at the wrong time, that is a pācittiya offense. This should be understood broadly. \*\*4. The Category of Enclosures\*\* - Stables for elephants and horses, pens for cattle and sheep, gardens for fruits and vegetables. To steal such things, one must move them beyond the boundary to commit the offense. \*\*5. The Category of Cages\*\* - Birds and animals are the limits. If one intends to steal a cage, but fearing the owner's awareness, carries the whole cage away—even if far, no offense yet. If one abandons the cage and takes the bird, and the value is sufficient, a grave offense. If both cage and bird are carried away together, the offense occurs upon removal from the place. If in an open area someone has released animals and a monk drives them off with thieving intent, and the owner immediately notices and pursues—if the monk has not yet thought "I have obtained them" and the owner has not thought "I have lost them," there is no grave offense. If the owner has the thought of loss and the monk has the thought of gain, he commits the offense. If he lures them away with grass beyond sight and hearing, he commits the offense. \*\*6. The Category of Entrusted Goods\*\* - If a monk receives someone's entrusted goods and, while traveling, sees something valuable and develops thieving intent, and moves it from its place, he commits a grave offense. If while carrying entrusted goods he meets another monk coming from ahead and asks, "Where do you come from?" He replies, "From such-and-such a place." "Do you know so-and-so?" "Yes." "Are they well?" "They have died." Now this property should belong to those present. If the monk carrying the goods—being knowledgeable and cunning—thinks, "Why should I share this with him?" and leaves the path, out of sight and hearing, to perform a formal act to take it all for himself, what offense? \*\*Answer:\*\* A wrongdoing (vyaya). Even if he goes outside the boundary and performs a fraudulent formal act, it is still a wrongdoing. \*\*7. The Category of Miscellaneous Objects\*\* - As with herders and various domestic animals above. \*\*8. The Category of Banners\*\* - Stealing canopies and the like. If an object is too heavy to drag away—even if dragged far, no offense, and so on should be understood. If a temple banner, canopy, or shrine article is blown far away by wind, and is soiled with dust and grime, and one takes it thinking it is discarded waste, there is no offense. \*\*9. The Category of Causal Connection\*\* - For example, a layperson's house has unsecured items. A monk sees them and develops thieving intent and takes them. Another example: While eating, a monk takes another monk's sitting cloth and water strainer, puts them in his bowl, and has his attendant carry them away. He commits a wrongdoing. The attendant, once outside, commits a transgression. If there is thieving intent, a grave offense. The owner would notice and know. \*\*10. The Category of Stakes\*\* - Similar to the banner category above. \*\*11. The Category of Land\*\* - Land belonging to others, divided portions, and so on. If with biased intent one takes another's share—even moving a boundary marker or a single barley grain—one commits a grave offense, because land has no fixed value. \*\*12. The Category of Thieves\*\* - Conspiring with evil thieves to steal, and so on. If a monk loses his belongings and pursues the thief, and in terror takes back his belongings from the thief—if he has not yet thought "I have lost them," taking them back is no offense. But if he merely imagines loss and takes them back, then he is a thief robbing a thief, and if the value is sufficient, a grave offense. \*\*13. The Category of Taxes\*\* - Violating government regulations, smuggling prohibited goods, and so on. The Ten-Recital Vinaya says: Someone concealed taxable goods in a monk's bundle. The monk, unaware, or carrying taxable goods through the checkpoint in the air, when questioned, commits no offense if he did not know. The Mulasarvastivada commentary says: Changing gold into copper to pass through a toll station commits a transgression. Again, a monk carrying taxable goods wishes to cross, and thinks: "If I cross, I commit a grave offense. I will give these goods to my parents, brothers, sisters, or to the stupa and the community." He asks the Buddha about his doubt. The Buddha said: "A transgression." The Four-Part Vinaya says: A monk stole another's robe and bowl, but mistakenly took his own. The Buddha said: "A transgression." A monk stole another's robe and also got his own. The transgression applies to his own. For the other's robe, a grave offense. The Ten-Recital Vinaya says: If in a donor's meal distribution the proper turn has not yet come, but one claims it has, that is a pācittiya offense. If one obtains food of sufficient value, a grave offense. \*\*Question:\*\* If a monk takes items that are not clothing, without concealing them, and with thieving intent moves them to another place, does he commit a grave offense? \*\*Answer:\*\* Yes. \*\*Question:\*\* A monk plays dice, manipulating the throw. What about this? \*\*Question:\*\* Does stealing objects from Uttarakuru (the Northern Continent) constitute a grave offense? \*\*Answer:\*\* No, because the people there have no sense of ownership. For the other two continents, if the value in money reckoning reaches the full amount, a grave offense. \*\*Question:\*\* If a monk transforms into a nun's form to steal, is that an offense? \*\*Answer:\*\* Yes. A nun transforming into a monk's form is the same. A monk asked a layman for vegetables from his garden. The layman refused. The monk then used his powers of incantation to kill the vegetables. He asked the Buddha about his doubt. The Buddha said: "An offense." The same applies to other vegetables. Someone hid treasure in the ground. A monk used incantation power to destroy the treasure's appearance, harming another's property. What offense? The Buddha said: "A grave offense." A hunter chased a deer into the monastery. He then came to retrieve it. The monk said, "How could I return it to you?" The hunter left. The monk then had doubts. The Buddha said: "No offense." Another time, a deer shot by an arrow entered the monastery. The hunter said, "This deer has been hit by an arrow. I should shoot it again. You should avoid the arrow." The monks said, "We will not avoid the arrow for you, nor will we give you the deer." They scolded him and drove him away. Later the deer died. The monks did not know what to do. The Buddha said: "It should be returned to the hunter." Again, monks intentionally destroyed a hunter's net. The Buddha said: "A transgression." If unintentional, a wrongdoing. Destroying bird nets or prison walls is the same. The Good Vision commentary says: If a monk intentionally destroys another's property, he should repay its value. If he does not repay, he commits an offense. If he sees birds or animals caught in a net and, out of compassion, wishes to release them, he should first estimate the value and place an equivalent amount on the net, and then release them. This brings merit and no offense. The Ten-Recital Vinaya says: A thief took a monk's disciple away. The teacher took him back. He had doubts and asked the Buddha. The Buddha said: "If the disciple belonged to the thief, taking him back is a grave offense. If ownership was not yet established, no offense. If one takes him back by the power of incantation, no offense. By the power of psychic abilities, no offense. If he escapes on his own, no offense." If a monk steals property belonging to many people that has not yet been divided, even if it exceeds five coins' worth, he does not commit a grave offense, but a transgression. The Five-Part Vinaya says: If a monk steals objects buried in the ground—his initial intention and preparatory acts are all wrongdoings (dukkata). Digging the earth and killing grass is a pācittiya offense. Moving the object is a transgression. Removing it from its place with sufficient value is a grave offense. Other cases should be understood by analogy. The Ten-Recital Vinaya differs: digging earth and killing grass yields only a wrongdoing. Why? Because they are preparatory acts for the theft. The Good Vision commentary explains eight kinds of wrongdoings (dukkata): \*\*1. Preparatory wrongdoing\*\* - Like seeking companions and tools for a theft; whatever preparatory acts are done are called preparatory wrongdoings. \*\*2. Collective wrongdoing\*\* - Like buried treasure; even the grass and reeds above it, when touched, constitute wrongdoings. Why? Because they are steps toward the completed theft. This is called collective wrongdoing. \*\*3. Heavy-object wrongdoing\*\* - Like the ten kinds of gems, ten kinds of grain, and various vessels and weapons that should not be handled. This is called heavy-object wrongdoing. \*\*4. Coin-related wrongdoing\*\* - All fruits are included in this category. If one picks them up, it is a wrongdoing. This is called non-coin-related wrongdoing. \*\*5. Vinaya wrongdoing\*\* - Like entering a village for alms and dust falling into the bowl; not accepting further food. This is called vinaya wrongdoing. \*\*6. Knowing wrongdoing\*\* - Like hearing the announcement of one's offense and not confessing it. This is called knowing wrongdoing. \*\*7. Declared wrongdoing\*\* - If within ten days one commits a wrongdoing on a single day. This is called declared wrongdoing. \*\*8. Hearing wrongdoing\*\* - The Buddha speaks to the monks before the offense has manifested. This is called hearing wrongdoing. \*\*What is meant by "five coins"?\*\* The other three Vinayas and their commentaries do not define it. Only the Ten-Recital Vinaya says: "Five coins" means one copper coin worth sixteen small coins. The Sanghika Vinaya says: Nineteen ancient coins make one kārṣāpaṇa, divided into four parts. If one steals one part's worth, he commits a grave offense.

殺戒　十誦律。優波離問。若比丘呪術或藥力變身作畜生形。而斷人命。犯不。佛言。自憶念是比丘者犯。不憶念者偷蘭　問。有人棄胎一女人還。取內身中後生子殺。何母犯重并逆　答。殺前母得重并逆罪　若此子欲出家。當問何母　答。應問後母　又問。比丘若欲殺父母。作方便作殺因緣。竟持刀自殺。得重逆不　答。父母先死比丘後死者并逆。若比丘先死父母後得偷蘭。若比丘相殺亦如是。有人捉賊欲將殺。賊走得脫逐賊人。問比丘見賊不。是賊中有與比丘嫌。便言在某處。若捉得殺。非所嫌者偷蘭。若人壞畜胎之波逸提。畜生壞人胎。若墮犯重。有看病比丘自念。我不看者必當早死。此物眾僧共分。病人遂死。生疑問佛。佛言。偷蘭。不與亦爾問。頗有比丘殺比丘。非父羅漢犯重并逆。佛言。有母出家轉根者是。父轉亦如是。比丘殺人。人死間還或狂者偷蘭　四分云。有比丘。與女墮胎藥母死。佛言。母死無犯。方便墮胎得偷蘭　僧祇云。有摩訶羅。不知戒相。見官欲殺。人恐其苦故。語膾子言。此人可矜。莫使苦痛。汝與利刀為作一瘡。膾子答言。爾。便以利刀為作一瘡。是比丘得波羅夷。若膾子言。大德王自有教。汝用知是事為。但自思惟。佛語。若爾者得越毘尼。若膾子復思惟。當用比丘語為作一瘡。以不即用比丘語故。是比丘得偷蘭。凡殺人方便皆越毘尼。若人受苦時得偷蘭。命斷犯重。欲殺此而殺彼。但越毘尼。盜亦如是。從何處來殺得波羅夷四分云。從初識至後識而斷者皆犯重　五分云。若人若似人入母胎已後四十九日。若似人過此已後盡名為人。十誦人作人想人作非人想疑悉波羅夷。下殺畜生飲虫水亦如是。非人人想非人疑問　四分殺人越毘尼趣波羅夷。天龍鬼神偷蘭。殺畜生不能變化者偷蘭。盜亦如是。婬則不然。俱是重。境不簡其趣皆犯重也。

> \# The Precept on Killing (Sha Jie) From the \*Sarvāstivāda Vinaya\* (Ten Recitations Vinaya) Upāli asked the Buddha: "If a monk, through spells or the power of medicine, transforms his body into the form of an animal and then takes a human life, does he commit an offense?" The Buddha said: "If he is mindful that he is still a monk, he commits a grave offense. If he is not mindful, he commits a \*sthūlātyaya\* (serious transgression)." \*\*Question:\*\* A woman abandoned her fetus, but another woman retrieved it and placed it inside her own body. Later, the child was born and then killed. Which mother commits the grave offense and the five heinous crimes (including killing a parent)? \*\*Answer:\*\* Killing the first mother incurs both a grave offense and a heinous crime. If this child wishes to become a monk, which mother should be asked for permission? \*\*Answer:\*\* The second mother should be asked. \*\*Question:\*\* If a monk intends to kill his father or mother and makes preparations, but then takes his own life with a knife, does he incur the grave offense and heinous crime? \*\*Answer:\*\* If the parents die first and the monk dies afterward, he incurs both the grave offense and the heinous crime. If the monk dies first and the parents die afterward, he incurs a \*sthūlātyaya\*. The same principle applies when monks kill one another. A group of people caught a thief and were about to kill him, but the thief escaped. The pursuers asked a monk, "Did you see the thief?" Now, among the pursuers there was someone who held a grudge against the monk. The monk, perhaps out of spite, said, "He is at such-and-such a place." The thief was caught and killed. If the victim was not the person the monk intended to harm by speaking, the monk incurs a \*sthūlātyaya\*. If a person destroys an animal's fetus, it is a \*pāyattika\* (expiation offense). If an animal destroys a human fetus and it results in miscarriage, it is a grave offense. \*\*A story about a monk attending to the sick:\*\* A monk was caring for a sick person and thought to himself: "If I do not care for him, he will surely die soon. Then his possessions will be shared among the monastic community." The sick person then died. The monk had doubts and asked the Buddha. The Buddha said: "He incurs a \*sthūlātyaya\*. The same applies if he did not give the patient his medicine." \*\*Question:\*\* Is there a case where a monk kills a monk who is his mother, or kills an Arhat, and incurs both a grave offense and a heinous crime? The Buddha said: "Yes—if his mother had left the household life and then changed her gender (to become male, making her 'father' by Vinaya reckoning). The same applies if his father had changed gender." When a monk kills a person, but the person returns to life between life and death, or becomes insane, the monk incurs a \*sthūlātyaya\*. The \*Dharmaguptaka Vinaya\* (Four Part Vinaya) says: A monk gave a woman an abortion-inducing medicine. The mother died. The Buddha said: "There is no offense for the mother's death. For the attempted abortion, a \*sthūlātyaya\* is incurred." The \*Mahāsāṅghika Vinaya\* says: There was an ignorant monk who did not know the precepts. He saw that the authorities were about to execute a criminal, and out of compassion, fearing the man would suffer, the monk said to the executioner: "This man deserves pity. Do not make him suffer. Use a sharp knife and give him one swift wound." The executioner replied, "Yes," and with a sharp knife gave one swift wound. That monk incurred a \*pārājika\* (defeat, the most serious offense). If the executioner had said: "Venerable sir, the king himself has given the order—why do you concern yourself? Just reflect on your own practice"—and if the executioner then acted on his own, that monk would incur only a \*duṣkṛta\* (minor offense). If the executioner, after considering, thought, "I will follow the monk's advice and give one wound," but did not immediately follow the monk's words, the monk incurs a \*sthūlātyaya\*. In all cases of attempted killing, the initial preparation incurs a \*duṣkṛta\*. When the victim is suffering, a \*sthūlātyaya\* is incurred. When life is cut off, a grave offense is committed. If one intends to kill this person but kills that person instead, only a \*duṣkṛta\* is incurred. The same applies to stealing. \*\*Regarding from what point killing constitutes a \*pārājika\*:\*\* The Four Part Vinaya says: From the beginning of consciousness to the end of consciousness—cutting off life at any point in between—all constitute grave offenses. The Five Part Vinaya says: Whether human or human-like, after entry into the mother's womb for forty-nine days, if human-like, beyond this period it is all considered human. The Ten Recitations Vinaya says: Killing a human while thinking it is human, or killing a human while thinking it is not human, or killing a human with doubt—all are \*pārājika\*. The same applies going down the scale: killing animals, or drinking water with insects. Killing a non-human while thinking it is human, or killing a non-human with doubt—The Four Part Vinaya says: Killing a human incurs a \*pārājika\*; killing a human-like being incurs a \*pārājika\*. Killing gods, \*nāgas\*, ghosts, or spirits incurs a \*sthūlātyaya\*. Killing animals that cannot transform incurs a \*sthūlātyaya\*. The same applies to stealing. But for sexual misconduct, it is different—it is always a grave offense regardless of the being's realm. All such acts are grave offenses.

妄稱得過人法　有比丘言。我於四果偷蘭。摩德勒伽論釋言。得有二種。一已退今言退者是不得退。是故不犯。有人問比丘。汝得沙門果不。是比丘因手中捉菓答言得。是犯不。答。偷蘭。論釋云。意在沙門果犯重。有人言。大德若是阿羅漢者受是衣物。若比丘默然受者偷蘭。有比丘。常入白衣持家。時到著衣持鉢。至白衣舍前立。居士語比丘言。大德若是阿羅漢者。入我舍坐受衣食。呪願去。比丘默入受衣時供養。已去者得偷蘭已上出十誦律僧祇云。有比丘語白言。某寺比丘皆非是凡。得越毘尼。若言。我亦在中。得偷蘭。施主問言。大德得是法耶。答言得者犯重。比丘自言。我法智耶越毘尼。若言我法智偷蘭。若言得法智犯重。人法者五欲五蓋除男入寺。過人法者四念處八道四果四禪八定八勝九次第十一切處是。婬取染樂益以損主。殺以斷命。妄語取彰了了。亦簡趣尊卑同於殺盜。

> A bhikkhu falsely claims to have attained states beyond ordinary human ability. For instance, a bhikkhu says, “I have attained the four fruits,” which constitutes a grave offense. According to the commentary in the \*Mātṛkā\* treatise, attainment is of two kinds: one is that which has already been achieved, and the other is that which has been lost. If one speaks of “attainment” while it has been lost, it is not a violation. Someone asks a bhikkhu, “Have you attained the fruit of the ascetic life?” The bhikkhu, holding a fruit in his hand, replies, “I have attained it.” Is this an offense? The answer is: a grave offense. The commentary explains: if he intended the fruit of the ascetic life, it is a heavy offense. Someone says, “Venerable Sir, if you are an arahant, accept these robes and this alms.” If the bhikkhu remains silent and accepts them, he commits a grave offense. Another case: A bhikkhu regularly visits the home of a lay supporter. At the proper time, wearing his robe and carrying his bowl, he stands at the layperson’s door. The householder says to the bhikkhu, “Venerable Sir, if you are an arahant, enter my house, sit, receive robes and food, and give your blessing before leaving.” The bhikkhu silently enters, accepts the offerings, and then departs—this is a grave offense. <note>From the \*Sarvāstivāda Vinaya\*</note> According to the \*Mahāsāṃghika\* tradition: A bhikkhu tells a lay person, “The bhikkhus in that monastery are not ordinary beings.” This incurs a transgression of the lesser offense (dukkaṭa). If he says, “I am among them,” it is a grave offense. When the donor asks, “Venerable Sir, have you attained this state?” and he answers, “Yes,” it is a heavy offense. If the bhikkhu says, “I have the knowledge of the Dharma,” it is a lesser offense. If he says, “I have attained the knowledge of the Dharma,” it is a lesser offense, but if he says he has attained the Dharma itself, it is a heavy offense. “Human qualities” refers to the five sensual desires and the five hindrances, excluding the male organ when entering a monastery. “States beyond human ability” refers to the four foundations of mindfulness, the eightfold path, the four fruits, the four meditations, the eight liberations, the eight masteries, the nine successive attainments, and the ten universal bases. Lust takes what is tainted and delights in it, harming the owner. Killing cuts off life. False speech must be clearly and unambiguously stated, and its gravity depends on the status of the person addressed, just as with killing and stealing.

第二篇初漏失戒　十誦云。覺時作方便睡時失不淨。睡時作方便覺時失。皆偷蘭　摩德伽云。與他作境界偷蘭。諸篇戒廣不可具逐戒相。難者略出同異。戒相易知者如毘尼廣說。不復出之。應知。

> Second Section: Initial Loss of the Precepts According to the Ten Recitations, if one makes an effort while awake and loses the pure essence during sleep, or makes an effort while asleep and loses it while awake, both are offenses of the Turud (a grave transgression). The Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya states that using another person as an object of defilement is also a Turud offense. The various precepts are extensive and cannot be fully detailed here, one by one. Where they are difficult, I will briefly point out the similarities and differences. The precepts that are easy to understand are fully explained in the Vinaya, so I will not repeat them here. This should be understood.

磨觸戒　若比丘觸女人。是女即轉根作男子偷蘭。自轉根亦偷蘭。尼觸女。女人轉根犯重。尼自轉根僧殘。比丘觸男子。男子轉者僧殘。比丘自轉犯重。尼觸男。男及自轉皆偷蘭出十誦律二俱無衣得僧殘。一有衣一無衣得偷蘭。以衣觸衣突吉羅。

> \*\*The Precept on Touching\*\* If a monk touches a woman, and that woman then changes gender and becomes a man, he commits a \*shulana\* offense. If he himself undergoes a gender change, it is likewise a \*shulana\* offense. If a nun touches a woman, and that woman changes gender, the nun commits a serious offense. If the nun herself changes gender, she commits an offense requiring formal confession (\*sanghavasesa\*). If a monk touches a man, and that man changes gender, the monk commits a \*sanghavasesa\* offense. If the monk himself changes gender, he commits a serious offense. If a nun touches a man, and either the man or the nun undergoes a gender change, both cases are \*shulana\* offenses. When both parties are without clothing, the offense is \*sanghavasesa\*. When one is clothed and the other is not, the offense is \*shulana\*. When touching occurs through clothing, the offense is a \*dukkata\* (wrongdoing). <note>From the Ten Recitations Vinaya</note>

麁惡語戒　若說二道。口言麁獷。心有欲念。皆得僧殘　十誦云。有比丘。見女人著赤衣。生不正露形。便言優婆夷大赤。女人不解答言。衣新染故赤。心疑。佛言。得偷蘭。

> \*\*The Precept on Harsh Speech\*\* If one speaks in a coarse or rough manner, and the mind harbors lustful intentions—whether the words are spoken directly or indirectly—this constitutes an offense requiring formal rehabilitation (saṅghādiśeṣa). According to the \*Ten Recitations Vinaya\*: A monk saw a woman wearing red clothing and, with an impure mind, made a suggestive remark: "Madam, you are very red." The woman, not understanding his intent, replied: "The cloth is newly dyed, hence it is red." He then began to doubt his own action. The Buddha ruled: This constitutes a lesser offense (sthūlātyaya).

歎身索供養戒　但取染心言彰了即成犯。人取識別知解者　十誦云。有比丘語女人言。汝一切能與。唯此事不能與。彼女人即知其心便答。一切能與。此亦能與。比丘心疑。佛言。僧殘十誦云。比丘惶心受語狂心報彼偷蘭。狂心受語惶心報彼僧殘。有白衣夫婦。相瞋不和合。比丘為和合悔過如本。比丘心疑。佛言。有三種婦。一用財得。二禮法得。三破壞得。是三種婦。若作手書言非我婦。禮儀未斷。猶故出入。未唱言非我婦。比丘和合偷蘭。是三種婦。若作手書言非我婦。禮法已斷。不復出入。而未唱言非我婦。比丘和合偷蘭。若已作手書言非我婦。禮法已斷不復出入。已唱言非我婦。眾人所知。合和者僧殘。合和父母亦偷蘭。若受富貴人語語貧賤人。語向富貴人說及還報偷蘭　云何名富貴人　答。乃至三語令富受用。是名富貴人　鼻㮈耶論云。比丘解放畜生。合其牝亦僧殘。

> \*\*Precept on Seeking Offerings through Seductive Speech\*\* The offense is established simply by the arising of a lustful mind and making one's intention known through words. Regarding how another person recognizes and understands the intention, the \*Shi Song Lü\* (Ten Recitations Vinaya) states: A monk said to a woman, "You can give me everything—only this one thing you cannot give." The woman understood his intention and replied, "I can give everything. This too I can give." The monk then had doubts \[about whether he had committed an offense\]. The Buddha declared: \[This constitutes\] an offense requiring expulsion (saṅghāvaśeṣa). The \*Shi Song Lü\* further states: If a monk speaks with a confused mind and the woman responds with a deranged mind, it is a heavy offense (sthūlātyaya). If a monk speaks with a deranged mind and the woman responds with a confused mind, it is an offense requiring expulsion. There was a case of a lay couple who were angry with each other and not on good terms. A monk reconciled them so they returned to their former harmony. The monk then had doubts. The Buddha declared: There are three kinds of wives: (1) one obtained through payment, (2) one obtained through proper ritual, and (3) one obtained through breaking \[a previous marriage\]. For these three kinds of wives: If a husband has written a document saying "She is not my wife," but the ritual bond is not yet severed—she still comes and goes \[from the house\], and the statement has not yet been publicly proclaimed—then a monk who reconciles them commits a heavy offense. For these three kinds of wives: If the husband has written a document saying "She is not my wife," the ritual bond is severed, she no longer comes and goes, but the statement has not yet been publicly proclaimed—then a monk who reconciles them commits a heavy offense. If the husband has already written a document saying "She is not my wife," the ritual bond is severed, she no longer comes and goes, and the statement has already been publicly proclaimed so that everyone knows—then a monk who reconciles them commits an offense requiring expulsion. Reconciling parents \[in a similar situation\] also constitutes a heavy offense. If one receives a message from a person of high status and delivers it to a person of low status—or speaks to someone of high status and then reports back—this also constitutes a heavy offense. What is meant by "a person of high status"? Answer: One who, within three utterances, can cause another to enjoy wealth and resources. Such a person is called "high status." The \*Naiye Nalun\* (Vinaya Commentary) states: If a monk releases a male animal and brings it together with a female animal, this also constitutes an offense requiring expulsion.

僧不處分過量造房戒　十誦云。比丘自物作房偷蘭。餘比丘作房未成。比丘後偷蘭。妨處者屋四邊各一尋地內無地。居士地外道地大石流水池水大樹深坑。無上諸緣。是名無妨　五分云。若作金瓦屋及寶。或僧地中作房。皆偷蘭。難處者四衢道中多聚戲處。婬入處。市肆處。放牧處。師子虎狼惡狩處。嶮岸水踢突處。社樹大樹處。好園田處。墳墓。式逼村或去村遠道路嶮。是名難處。不處分及過量得僧殘。難處妨處得突吉羅。

> The Precept on Monks Building Unsanctioned Oversized Rooms According to the Ten Recitations Vinaya: If a monk builds a dwelling for himself using his own resources, he commits a \*sthūlātyaya\* offense. If another monk builds a dwelling that is unfinished, and the first monk then continues the work, he also commits a \*sthūlātyaya\*. As for "obstructed locations": within four cubits on each side of the dwelling, if there is no space belonging to the monastic community—such as land owned by laypeople, land belonging to non-Buddhists, large rocks, flowing water, ponds, large trees, or deep pits—and no other such obstacles are present, this is called an unobstructed location. According to the Five Recitations Vinaya: If one builds with golden tile roofing, precious materials, or builds a dwelling on monastic land, all these constitute \*sthūlātyaya\* offenses. As for "dangerous locations": crossroads, places of gathering and amusement, places of sexual activity, marketplace areas, herding grounds, places with lions, tigers, wolves, or other wild beasts, steep cliffs, areas prone to flash floods, land under sacred trees or large trees, fine gardens and fields, cemeteries, or locations that are either too close to a village or too far from the village with dangerous roads—these are called dangerous locations. Building without authorization and exceeding the prescribed size results in a \*saṅghāvaśeṣa\* offense. Building in a dangerous or obstructed location results in a \*duṣkṛta\* offense.

房後戒　但以有主無過量為別。更無異也。

> Regarding the precept of sleeping quarters: the only difference is whether the lodging is owned by someone else and whether it exceeds the allowable size. There is no other distinction.

無根謗戒　比丘自言犯婬。有比丘以無根盜謗者亦僧殘。互作勿應知　十誦云。比丘以無根謗尼突吉羅　四分僧尼相謗皆殘後戒亦如是。假根不假根為異也。

> \*\*The Precept on Unfounded Accusation\*\* If a monk confesses to having committed sexual misconduct, and another monk falsely accuses him of theft without any basis, this also constitutes an offense requiring formal disciplinary action (saṅghādiśeṣa). Mutual accusations should not be made knowingly. According to the Ten Recitations Vinaya, if a monk makes an unfounded accusation against a nun, it is a minor offense (duṣkṛta). In the Four-Part Vinaya, when monks and nuns accuse each other without basis, both incur the same serious offense. The same applies to the following precepts. The distinction lies in whether there is a factual basis—whether the accusation is grounded or not.

破僧違諫戒　非法非法想破僧殘。非法法想不犯　毘尼毘婆沙云。破有二種。一法輪。二羯磨僧。破法輪僧逆偷蘭。入阿鼻不可悔。破羯磨僧犯偷蘭。非逆可悔。非一劫受罪。破法輪僧下至九人。自稱為佛。破羯磨僧下至八人。不稱作佛。破法輪界內界外一切盡破。破羯磨唯界內別作法事。破法輪僧唯男子。破羯磨通男子女人。破法輪破俗諦僧。破羯磨二諦俱破。破法輪僧唯南方。破羯磨通三界方　四分家凡諸違諫戒未白已前一切突吉羅。白已去偷蘭　僧祇云。僧伽婆尸沙起已屏處三諫越毘尼。多人中三諫越毘尼。及僧中偷蘭罪。一切盡共合成一僧伽婆尸沙。中間止者離止治罪。

> Breaking the Sangha and Disregarding Admonition: If one breaks the Sangha, thinking it is not the Dharma (when it actually is not the Dharma), it is an offense requiring confession and expulsion (Sanghāvaśeṣa). If one thinks what is not the Dharma is the Dharma, there is no offense. The \*Vinaya Vibhāṣā\* states: There are two kinds of breaking the Sangha— 1. Breaking the Dharma wheel (creating a schism over teachings). 2. Breaking the assembly (creating a schism in the monastic community). - Breaking the Dharma wheel is an offense of \*sthūlātyaya\* (gross wrongdoing), leading to Avīci hell with no possibility of expiation. - Breaking the assembly is also \*sthūlātyaya\*, but it is not a grave transgression and can be expiated; the offender does not suffer for a full eon. Breaking the Dharma wheel requires at least nine people, with the instigator claiming to be the Buddha. Breaking the assembly requires at least eight people, without claiming to be the Buddha. Breaking the Dharma wheel destroys both within and outside the monastic boundaries. Breaking the assembly only disrupts formal acts within the boundary. Breaking the Dharma wheel is done only by men; breaking the assembly can be done by both men and women. Breaking the Dharma wheel destroys the conventional (worldly) Sangha; breaking the assembly destroys both conventional and ultimate Sangha. Breaking the Dharma wheel occurs only in the southern direction; breaking the assembly occurs in all three realms and directions. According to the \*Dharmaguptaka\* tradition: For all offenses involving disregard of admonition, before the formal announcement ( \*jñapti\* ), all are \*sthūlātyaya\* (gross wrongdoing). After the announcement, they become \*sthūlātyaya\* and above. The \*Mahāsāṅghika\* school says: When a \*Sanghāvaśeṣa\* offense arises, if one is admonished three times in private, it is a violation (\*atikrama\*). Admonished three times in the midst of many, it is a violation. Together with the \*sthūlātyaya\* offense in the Sangha, all combine into one single \*Sanghāvaśeṣa\*. If one stops in the middle, the stopping itself is treated separately and dealt with accordingly.

第三篇初畜長衣戒　三十尼薩耆波逸提并九十波逸提有一百二十戒。名第三篇。俱前之三十因財故犯須捨已如悔。下九十戒往成無可捨。以捨不捨無別故二處。問清淨同是三說。對手悔合為一篇　僧祇云。優波離問佛。齋幾許應作淨。幾許不作淨。佛言。廣一肘長二肘應淨四分云。長衣廣如來四指八寸長如來八指尺六也。如是應作淨十誦云。問曰。若衣經淨緯不淨。緯淨經不淨。經緯俱不淨。應捨應淨施不。佛言。不應淨施。云何名不淨。謂駱陀毛牛毛羝羊毛等。雜織者名不淨。又問。若比丘多有長衣。若火燒若腐爛。若斷壞若虫嚙。應捨不。佛言。不應捨。是比丘俱應如法滅罪　僧祇云。比丘共衣犯長不。答。不犯。若分竟不作淨者犯　問。何等人邊應作淨。佛言。於五眾邊作淨　又問。相去近遠得從作淨。佛言。齊三由旬知其存亡　又問。施主死。當云何。佛言。得停十日。於餘知識邊作淨。

> \*\*Section Three: The Rule of Retaining Extra Robes\*\* The Thirty Nissaggiya Pācittiya offenses (rules involving forfeiture and confession) together with the Ninety Pācittiya offenses make up one hundred and twenty precepts. These constitute the Third Section. The first thirty offenses, because they arise from possessions, require relinquishment before confession. The latter ninety offenses, once committed, are complete without anything to forfeit. Because there is no distinction between what must be relinquished and what need not be relinquished, these are placed in two separate categories. When asked about purification, all are confessed three times before an opponent (another monk). Thus they are combined into one section. The Saṅghika (Mahāsāṅghika) Vinaya records: Upāli asked the Buddha, "How large may a robe be for it to be considered proper for marking (the ceremony of making it 'pure/extra')? How large must it be to not require marking?" The Buddha answered: "Two cubits in length and one cubit in width should be marked." The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya states: "An extra robe should be one span of the Tathāgata wide (equivalent to eight inches) and one cubit of the Tathāgata long (equivalent to sixteen inches). Thus it should be marked." The Sarvāstivāda Vinaya says: "It is asked: If a robe has its warp threads pure but its weft threads impure, or its weft threads pure but its warp threads impure, or if both warp and weft are impure—should it be relinquished and given as a pure gift (to be rededicated)?" The Buddha answered: "It should not be so given. What is called impure? It refers to robes woven with mixed materials such as camel hair, cow hair, or sheep wool. Such mixed weaving is called impure." It is further asked: "If a monk has many extra robes, and they are burned by fire, rotted, torn, or eaten by insects—should they be relinquished?" The Buddha answered: "They need not be relinquished. That monk should, according to the Dharma, remove his offense (through confession)." The Saṅghika Vinaya states: "If a monk shares ownership of robes with another, does he commit the offense of retaining extra robes?" Answer: "He does not commit the offense. But if, after dividing the property, he does not mark his share as 'pure' (with the ceremony of dedication), he commits the offense." Question: "From what kind of persons should one request the marking of purity?" The Buddha answered: "The marking may be done with any of the five assemblies (monks, nuns, male lay devotees, female lay devotees, and novices)." It is further asked: "Within what distance may one rely on another for this marking ceremony?" The Buddha answered: "Within three yojanas (roughly 24 miles), provided one knows of the other's existence." It is again asked: "If the donor (for the ceremony) dies, what should be done?" The Buddha answered: "One may wait for the ten-day period (of holding the robe). Then one should have the purity marking performed with another acquaintance."

離衣宿戒　十誦云。優波離問。若比丘受僧衣離宿。是應捨不。答。不應。是比丘但應如法滅罪　僧祇云。六十家聚落界有村。各別起屋。比丘安衣在第一屋。人在第三屋宿。日光未滅去。至明相出時還者犯。若日光滅已去。至明相出時還無罪。日光未滅去。明相未出還無犯。一切屋中皆比丘住無犯。若結界或周匝有渠水。共一門出入無犯。或夜與一衣會無犯。又暫宿界。或寄宿處多人雜住。畏有賊故。安衣閣上。在閣下宿犯。不犯如上。若其中安梯橙道通者不犯。若在道行寄天寺中宿　問。守寺人何處牢不畏賤　若或內或外比丘安衣。舍內在外宿向戶臥犯。不犯如上。若戶鉤在比丘邊者不犯。若比丘浣衣在船上。曬風吹衣盡向外。逕宿者犯。若夜中風吹衣暫入船內者不犯。若衣半在內半在船外。外者犯。以不可截故盡捨也。若比丘於處內中宿。是家內兄弟二人。於一家中別作分齊。兄不聽弟。弟不聽兄入。若比丘兄分齊內。日光未沒至明相出時者犯。若兄弟語比丘言。俗人自相違。於法不礙任意。住止者爾時隨意置衣無罪。若聚落界相接。比丘衣枕臥。比丘手足及頭各在一界。衣在頭下。離頭者犯。若夜中手足暫到衣所者不犯。車前後兩輪各一界亦爾。井堪中犯。不犯亦然。以繩連著身。身宿不犯。若比丘在道行。弟子持在前在。或兩邊去衣二十五肘。外相出犯。若二十五肘內暫與衣合不犯　十誦云。弟子與師持衣道中行。四十九尋外至地了時犯。若比丘在二界內宿衣離身半隨地界中者突吉羅。若衣一角在身上不犯。有諸比丘。持衣鉢著一處。在衣四邊臥。是中一比丘起去。雖可得還取處至地了時犯捨。若樹界枝葉相接乃至枸盧舍。是中墮所著衣至地了不犯　四分云。阿蘭若處八樹間。一樹七弓弓長四肘。齊是不失衣　五分云。十種界各有同界異界。同者羯磨結不失衣界。於得自在往返。異界者不結衣界。雖結而於中不得自在往返。名為異也。露地同界者跏趺坐四面各七尺。異界七尺之外行道。同界者面去身七弓。異界者七弓之外至明相出時還到。界分一足入界不失衣。若口言我捨是衣。亦不失衣　又僧祇聚落界中云。若比丘著上下衣。至白衣家。值白衣營福。留連比丘佐助。是比丘不持衣去。至日暮時辭白衣還寺。白衣苦留比丘宿者。若彼住處諸比丘有衣者。應暫借受持。若無者隨近有比丘住者從借。若比丘有尼住處從借。若復無俗人有被衣從借。作淨安紐受持。若無是事後夜分城門開。當病還寺。若到寺門者當喚開。不開者應在門屋底住。若無門屋應手或內脚門孔中水瀆孔中令與衣。若無孔應踰牆入莫令內人疑怪若不得入當疾捨衣。寧無衣犯越毘尼。以輕易重也。

> The Rule on Sleeping Apart from the Robe According to the \*Shi Song\* (Ten Recitations Vinaya), Upatissa asked: "If a monk receives a robe from the Saṅgha and sleeps apart from it, should he forfeit it?" The answer was: "No. He should only confess and repent according to the Dharma." According to the \*Sengqi\* (Mahāsāṅghika Vinaya): In a settlement with sixty families, there were separate houses. A monk placed his robe in the first house but slept in the third house. If he left while the sun was still up and did not return until dawn the next morning, he committed an offense. If he left after sunset and returned at dawn, there was no offense. If he left while the sun was still up and returned before dawn, there was no offense. If all the houses were occupied by monks, there was no offense. If the area was enclosed with a boundary, or surrounded by a moat, and everyone shared a single gate, there was no offense. If he slept with another robe for the night, there was no offense. Similarly, if he temporarily stayed within a bounded area, or lodged in a place with many people, and fearing thieves, placed his robe on a shelf but slept below it, that was an offense. However, if there was a ladder or steps connecting the shelf to the ground, there was no offense. If a monk was traveling and lodged for the night at a temple, he asked: "Where is the caretaker's place safest from thieves?" If the robe was placed inside the building while he slept outside facing the door, that was an offense—except when the door latch was within his reach. If he was washing his robe on a boat, and the wind blew the robe completely outside the boat, and he slept through the night, that was an offense. If the wind blew the robe partially inside the boat during the night, there was no offense. If half the robe was inside and half outside, the outside part was an offense, and because the robe could not be cut, the whole robe had to be forfeited. If a monk lodged inside a house where two brothers lived separately, and neither allowed the other into his section, and the monk slept in the elder brother's section with his robe in the younger's, from sunset until dawn, that was an offense. But if the brothers told the monk, "We lay people quarrel among ourselves, but this does not hinder the Dharma. Stay as you please," then he could place his robe anywhere without offense. If village boundaries were adjacent, and a monk slept with his robe as a pillow—his hands, feet, and head each in a different boundary—and the robe was under his head, if it left his head, that was an offense. If his hands or feet briefly touched the robe during the night, there was no offense. The same applied to the front and back wheels of a cart in separate boundaries. If a well was within the boundary, the same rules applied. If the robe was tied to his body with a rope and he slept, there was no offense. If a monk was traveling and his disciple carried the robe ahead or to the side, and the robe was more than twenty-five cubits away at dawn, that was an offense. If it was within twenty-five cubits and he briefly joined it, there was no offense. According to the \*Shi Song\*: If a disciple carried the robe for his teacher while traveling, and at dawn the robe was more than forty-nine fathoms away, that was an offense. If a monk slept within two boundaries with his robe half a body-length away, and the robe fell within the ground boundary, that was a \*tuskyṛta\* offense. If one corner of the robe touched his body, there was no offense. Some monks placed their robes and bowls in one spot and slept around them. If one monk got up and left, even though he could return and retrieve the robe, if dawn arrived before he did, he had to forfeit it. If tree boundaries had branches touching, even up to a \*krośa\* apart, then as long as the robe was within that range, at dawn there was no offense. According to the \*Sifen\* (Dharmaguptaka Vinaya): In a wilderness area with eight trees, one tree being seven bows apart—each bow being four cubits—this was the limit for not losing the robe. According to the \*Wufen\* (Mahīśāsaka Vinaya): Ten kinds of boundaries each had "same boundary" and "different boundary" cases. The same boundary meant a formally declared robe-boundary within which one could move freely. The different boundary meant no such formal boundary was declared, or even if declared, one could not move freely within it—this was called "different." For an open-ground same-boundary: Sitting cross-legged, the boundary extended seven feet in each direction. For different-boundary: Walking beyond seven feet. For same-boundary: The robe could be seven bows away from the body. For different-boundary: If beyond seven bows, one had to return by dawn. If one foot crossed into the same boundary, the robe was not lost. Even if one verbally declared, "I abandon this robe," it was not lost. Also, according to the \*Sengqi\* on village boundaries: If a monk wearing his upper and lower robes went to a layperson's house, and the layperson was making merit and asked the monk to stay and help, and the monk did not take his robe when leaving at dusk, he took leave to return to the monastery. If the layperson insisted he stay the night, then if the monks there had robes, he could borrow one and wear it. If not, he could borrow from nearby monks. If there were nuns nearby, he could borrow from them. If none, and laypeople had blankets, he could borrow one, mark it as a temporary acquisition, and wear it. If none of these options were available, and after midnight the city gates opened, he should hurry back to the monastery. If he reached the gate and it was locked, he should call for it to be opened. If it was not opened, he should stay under the gatehouse. If there was no gatehouse, he should reach through the door hole, a foot hole, or a drainage hole to touch his robe. If there was no hole, he could climb over the wall, but without alarming the residents. If he could not get in, he should quickly abandon the robe. Better to be without a robe and commit a lesser offense than to keep the robe and commit a graver one—this was the principle of choosing the lesser evil.

從非親里比丘尼取衣戒　云何名親里　十誦云。親里名母姊妹若女。乃至七世因緣。是名親里　僧祇云。非親里者非父親相續非母親相續　五分云。若無自心求自布薩。或知彼有長衣得取無犯。

> \*\*Rule on Taking Robes from a Nun Who Is Not a Relative\*\* What is meant by "relative"? According to the \*Ten Recitations\*, a relative refers to one's mother, sister, or daughter—extending through seven generations of family ties. This is called a relative. The \*Saṃghāti\* commentary states that a non-relative is someone not connected through either the paternal or maternal line. According to the \*Five Divisions\*, if one has no ulterior motive in seeking alms or self-benefit, or if one knows the nun has surplus robes, taking them is not an offense.

使非親里尼浣故衣戒　十誦云。若比丘入尼寺中有埿。若中牛糞污比丘衣。尼為却者犯捨。以不可截故都捨。若浣衣時尼轉根者突吉羅。若病若為僧若為佛圖。若借他衣澆染打不犯　僧祇云。若比丘多有尼弟子。得使捨。取薪取水煮染取食行水扇扇等。唯不得教浣。

> This rule concerns a monk asking a nun who is not a relative to wash his robes. According to the Ten Recitations Vinaya: If a monk enters a nunnery and his robes get stained with mud or cow dung, and a nun removes the stain for him, it is an offense requiring forfeiture. Because the garment cannot be cut apart, the entire robe must be forfeited. If while washing, the nun changes gender, it is a minor offense (dukkata). However, if the nun is ill, or if the washing is done for the monastic community, or for the Buddha's shrine, or if the monk borrows another's robe and asks her to rinse, dye, or beat it, there is no offense. According to the Mahasanghika Vinaya: If a monk has many nun disciples, he may ask them to perform services such as gathering firewood, fetching water, boiling dye, preparing food, serving water, and fanning him. The only thing he must not ask them to do is wash his robes.

從非親里居士乞衣戒　僧祇云。若乞灑水囊。若乞小補衣物。若繫頭物。若裹瘡物。若衣緣。若乞衣中一條。如是等物不犯。若如是乞時。檀越以全物及衣截施取者不犯。若作念我但索小物。檀越自當與我全衣。得犯捨。離波多苦脚冷。從一白衣乞裹脚。欽婆羅衣得已生疑。佛不聽。從非親里乞衣。即往白佛。佛言。如是聽乞所應受持衣。若護󰈷衣護髀衣拭手巾等。拭面身體巾等　又五分云。壞時。

> The rule on begging for cloth from those who are not relatives: According to the Samantapasadika, if one begs for a water strainer, small mending cloth, head covering, wound dressing, hemming strip, or one strand of thread for clothing, such requests are not violations. If, when making such a request, the donor gives the entire cloth or cuts a full piece of cloth to give, that also is not a violation. However, if one thinks, "I will ask only for a small piece," yet secretly hopes the donor will give the whole robe, this becomes an offense requiring confession (nissaggiya pacittiya). The Venerable Revata once suffered from cold feet. He begged a layman for cloth to wrap his feet, making a felt garment (kambala). After receiving it, he had doubts: “The Buddha has not allowed begging for cloth from non-relatives.” He went to the Buddha and reported this. The Buddha said, “In such cases, I allow begging for what is appropriate to receive and wear as cloth.” This includes robes for protection, cloth for protecting the thighs, hand towels, and towels for wiping the face and body. The Mahisasaka (Sariputra) text also states: “When \[the garment\] is damaged, \[one may beg\].”

不得受寶戒　四分云。錢有八種。金銀銅鐵白鑞鉛錫木胡膠。隨國土受用犯捨　十誦云。受金銀錢尼薩耆。自餘六種突吉羅　五分作羯磨差棄之。若水火坑壙野中不聽記處。棄已不得更捉。彼使不應問僧。此物當云何。僧亦不應教。作如是。若不問僧復不棄。使淨人貿衣食來與僧。僧得受。若分唯犯罪人不得受分　四分明。捨寶法者守園人。若信樂優婆塞。當語彼人言。此物我不應受。汝當知之。若彼人受已還與比丘者當為受。令淨人賞之。貿淨人衣畜。若彼受已不還比丘者。得遣餘人。若自往索語言。佛有教。為淨故與。若教與三寶。及餘人或還本主。何以故。不欲令失彼信施故　僧祇云。若金像或金度不得捉。若像倒使淨人捉。無淨人得金處扶。若遍有金以衣裹手。若施主家有寶床。聽以物覆坐。上不得觸及歎寶留盛食。但手指地言受。受不得觸邊。

> Regarding the precept on not accepting precious treasures: The Four-Part Vinaya states that there are eight types of money—gold, silver, copper, iron, pewter, lead, tin, wood, and resin. Whatever the local currency is, accepting it constitutes an offense requiring forfeiture. The Ten Recitations Vinaya says that accepting gold, silver, or money is a major offense requiring forfeiture, while accepting the other six types is a lesser offense. According to the Five-Part Vinaya, such items should be formally repudiated and discarded. They may not be deposited in places such as water, fire, pits, tombs, or the wilderness without marking the location. Once discarded, they may not be picked up again. The person who discarded them should not ask the monastic community what to do with the items, nor should the community instruct them to do so. If one neither asks the community nor discards the items, but instead has a lay attendant exchange them for cloth or food to give to the community, the community may accept them. However, if the items are divided, only the offending monk is excluded from receiving a share. The Four-Part Vinaya clarifies the precept on relinquishing treasures: one should entrust them to a garden keeper or a faithful lay disciple. One should tell them, "I am not permitted to accept this. You should know this." If the layperson accepts it and returns it to the monk, the monk may accept it, have a lay attendant exchange it, and then trade it for cloth to keep. If the layperson accepts it but does not return it to the monk, the monk may send someone else to retrieve it. Alternatively, he may go himself and say, "The Buddha has instructed us to give this for purification purposes." If instructed to give it to the Three Jewels, to others, or return it to the original owner—this is to avoid causing the donor to lose the merit of their offering. The Sanghata Vinaya says: Do not touch a golden statue or a gilded one. If a statue falls over, have a lay attendant right it. If there is no lay attendant, support it by the gold-free areas. If the whole statue is covered in gold, wrap your hand in cloth before touching it. If a donor's home has a jeweled bed, one may use a cloth covering to sit on it. Do not touch it or praise the jewels. When receiving food, do not touch the bowl's edge; simply point to the ground with your finger and say "I accept." Do not touch the sides of the bowl.

賣買戒　四分云。五眾平價迭相貿易不犯僧祇云。俗人貿易物作知淨語者不犯畜長鉢戒　十誦云。若比丘畜鉢。一夜便轉根者即犯。尼轉根者得十日。

> \*\*The Precept on Buying and Selling\*\* According to the \*Four Part Vinaya\*, when five types of monastics engage in fair trade among themselves, they do not commit an offense. The \*Sarvāstivāda Vinaya\* states: If a layperson is involved in trade, and the monastics use proper "clean speech" (such as making a formal declaration of intention to avoid personal gain), there is no offense. \*\*The Precept on Keeping an Extra Bowl\*\* According to the \*Ten Recitation Vinaya\*, if a monk has kept an extra bowl for one night and then changes his spiritual orientation (e.g., from monk to nun), he immediately commits an offense. However, if a nun who has kept an extra bowl changes her orientation, she is granted a ten-day grace period.

乞鉢戒者乞鉢者。若從親里乞。從出家人乞。若為他乞他為已。或不求自得。若施僧錢時次第而得。或自價賣得皆不犯　又十誦云。比丘有多鉢。盡應僧中行不。答。俱行一鉢。餘者隨意與親友。

> Regarding the almsbowl precepts: When seeking an almsbowl, if one asks from relatives or from monastics, or if one asks on behalf of another and that person asks for oneself, or if it is received without asking, or if it is obtained in sequence when alms are given to the monastic community, or if it is acquired through one's own trade or sale—none of these are violations. Furthermore, the Ten Recitations states: If a monk has multiple bowls, should they all be distributed among the community? Answer: All bowls may be offered, but one bowl is kept for oneself. The remaining ones may be given freely to friends and relatives as one wishes.

奪衣戒　十誦云。若奪不淨衣。或轉根得突吉羅。應當廣知。

> \### The Precept on Seizing Robes According to the \*Ten Recitations\* (Shí sòng lǜ), if one seizes impure robes, or if the offense is committed by one who has undergone a change of faculties (e.g., a change in gender or spiritual status), it constitutes a \*thullakkaya\* (a grave offense of wrongdoing). This should be understood in detail.

過畜七日藥戒　何故制限七日者。藥勢相接七日可知故也　僧祇云。若食上多有藥食不盡得。以苲作漿作非時受。若有餘緣不得苲。即應作是言。此中淨物生我當受。蘇蜜亦如是。得作七日服。凡服藥先漱口洗手。然後服之。四藥不足如酪。是時藥作蘇即為七日藥。燒作灰即作為盡形藥。文煩不廣釋也。

> \*\*The Rule on the Seven-Day Medicine\*\* Why is the limit set at seven days? Because the effects of the medicine will become clear within that period. According to the Mahāsāṃghika vinaya: If there are leftover medicinal foods at mealtime that cannot be finished, they may be made into a drink and consumed at an off-time. If there is some other reason preventing this, one should say, "I will accept this pure item when it arises." This applies equally to butter and honey, which may be taken as seven-day medicines. Whenever taking medicine, one should first rinse the mouth and wash the hands, then take it. The four types of medicine are incomplete when compared to yogurt. If what is considered time-appropriate food is made into butter, it becomes a seven-day medicine; if burned to ash, it becomes a life-long medicine. The texts are complex and will not be explained in detail here.

迴僧物入己戒　若物許僧迴與塔。塔迴與僧。四方迴現前。現前迴向四方。僧向尼。尼向僧。或此住處迴與異住處。皆突吉羅。云何尼薩耆。此名為捨財捨罪也。又捨法云何受寶貿二。或對俗人。餘二十八戒對僧捨。就二十八戒中乞鉢一戒大眾捨。餘二十七戒或本眾異眾。若對一人皆得成。但不得別眾捨。就二十七戒雜野蠶臥具一戒捨者。以斧細斬作埿塗壁等用。餘二十六戒捨者。不壞其體。就二十六戒中過畜七日戒。捨已唯得塗足燃燈及塗戶向。更不得餘用。自餘二十五戒捨已得如法用。

> If a monk takes for himself what was offered to the Sangha, such an act is an offense. If goods were offered to the Sangha but then redirected to a stupa, or if goods offered to a stupa are redirected to the Sangha, or if goods meant for the four directions are redirected to the present assembly, or vice versa — if goods meant for the Sangha are given to nuns, or goods meant for nuns are given to the Sangha, or if goods from one monastery are redirected to another — all such acts are offenses of wrongdoing (\*dukkaṭa\*). Now, what is meant by "forfeiture" (\*nissaggiya\*)? It means relinquishing both the article and the offense. As for the method of relinquishment — for the two offenses involving receiving precious metals or engaging in trade, confession is made before laypeople. The remaining twenty-eight offenses are relinquished before the Sangha. Among these twenty-eight, the offense involving the begging bowl is relinquished before the full assembly. The other twenty-seven may be relinquished before one's own faction or another faction, or even before a single person, so long as it is not done apart from the assembly. Among the twenty-seven offenses, the one concerning the mixed silkworm bedding is relinquished by cutting it to pieces with an axe and using it for plastering walls or similar purposes. The remaining twenty-six offenses are relinquished without damaging the articles themselves. Among these twenty-six, the offense of keeping a robe beyond seven days — once relinquished, the robe may only be used for wiping the feet, lighting lamps, or rubbing doors — no other use is permitted. The remaining twenty-five offenses, once relinquished, may be used in accordance with the proper regulations.

九十事中　壞鬼神村戒　四分云。草非一名。一切草木皆鬼神所依。故云鬼神村也。餘律名殺眾草木戒　僧祇云。比丘作方便自截五生種。竟日不止得一波逸提。中間息已更截。隨意一一波逸提。教人如是。此明一葉為一罪　十誦家一根一子各一罪　又十誦云。落生菓墮落熟菓突吉羅　僧祇云。半熟者越毘尼。全熟者無犯。翻覆水中浮萍越毘尼。擲岸上墮　十誦云。取浮萍名葦突吉羅。空中飛落樹菓無罪　又僧祇云。比丘須水至池邊水上遍有萍草者。當覓牛馬行處。蛇蟆行處取水。若無者取土凷向上擲言。至梵天去。凷下打水開處得取。若夏中衣上坐湄使淨人知著。日中就已得自柔却。石上生衣亦使淨人知却。然後浣衣。若淨人取五生種。一切皆言知是淨五分云。比丘須五種。應淨人言。汝知是。若下解復語言。汝看是。若故不解復語言。我須是。猶故不解復語言。與我是作。如是語索者犯。

> Among the ninety precepts, the rule against destroying the "spirit village" of plants: According to the Four-Part Vinaya, "grass" is not a single name. All grasses and trees are dwellings of spirits, hence called "spirit village." Other vinayas call it the rule against killing sentient plants. The Samghika Vinaya says: A monk who deliberately cuts the five kinds of seeds and continues through the day without stopping commits one Pacittiya. If he pauses and then cuts again, each act is a separate offense. Instructing others similarly is treated the same way. This clarifies that one leaf is one offense. According to the Sarvastivada Vinaya, one root or one seed is each a separate offense. The Sarvastivada further states: If ripe fruit falls and hits unripe fruit on the ground, it is a Duskrta. The Samghika says: Half-ripe fruit causes a violation; fully ripe fruit is not an offense. Turning over duckweed in water violates the Vinaya. Throwing it onto the shore also falls under the same offense. The Sarvastivada says: Taking duckweed or reeds is a Duskrta. Fruit falling from trees in mid-air is not an offense. The Samghika further says: When a monk needs water and the pond is covered with duckweed, he should look for places where cattle or horses have walked, or where snakes and toads have passed, to draw water. If none exists, he should throw a clod of earth upward saying, "Go to the Brahma heaven." The clod breaks the water surface, and he can take the water from the opened area. If moss grows on robes in summer, he should have a pure person (attendant) know about it, and once it dries in the midday sun, he can rub it off himself. Moss on stones should also be removed by a pure person, then wash the robes. If a pure person picks the five kinds of seeds, all should be told, "Know this." The Five-Part Vinaya says: When a monk needs the five kinds of seeds, he should say to the pure person, "You know this." If he still doesn't understand, say, "Look at this." If he still doesn't understand, say, "I need this." If he still doesn't understand, say, "Give me this to make use of." Asking in such ways constitutes an offense.

掘地戒　善見論云。有真地非真地者。無沙石純土者名真地。若多有瓦石沙礫而土少名非真地。被燒地亦名非真地。若沙石地以水洮看　四分沙石一分土者。如是得自掘。石上土厚四寸。𤍜者可取。雨已逕四月不得取。

> The Precept on Digging Earth According to the \*Shanjian Lun\* (Good Vision Treatise), there is true earth and non-true earth. Earth that is pure soil without sand or stones is called true earth. If the ground has many tiles, stones, or gravel and little soil, it is called non-true earth. Burned earth is also called non-true earth. If the ground is sandy and stony, and upon rinsing with water, it is found to be four parts sand to one part soil, then it is permissible to dig oneself. If soil is on top of rock and is four inches thick, it may be taken when dry. But after rain has passed for four months, it must not be taken.

與未受具戒人同宿戒　得二夜三夜當護明相。第四宿初夜隨脇著地犯　僧祇云。第四宿當別房。若露地天雨寒雪聽入房坐。至地了不得臥。若老病不堪久坐。聽以縵障。若齊頂。若齊腋下垂地。當用緻物作。不得容猫子過得臥也。若更互坐至曉不犯。

> \*\*Rule on Sharing Lodging with the Unordained\*\* One may stay for two or three nights, but must be mindful of the dawn. On the fourth night, if one lies down with side touching the ground during the first part of the night, it is an offense. According to the Mahāsāṅghika tradition: On the fourth night, one should stay in a separate room. If it is outdoors and it rains or snows, one may enter a building to sit. But once the ground is visible, one must not lie down. If one is elderly or ill and cannot endure prolonged sitting, they may use a screen. The screen may reach the top of the head, or hang down from the armpits to the ground. It must be made of dense material—not something a cat could squeeze through. Only then may one lie down. If people take turns sitting through the night until dawn, there is no offense.

食尼讚敬食戒　僧祇云。若尼語施主言。某甲從眾盡多聞精進。當請一切。皆名讚歎食。若言某甲眾主多聞精進。為是比丘故通世人名讚歎。餘不犯。若檀越設供時。有比丘至家。下至一比丘尼言。外有比丘。施主言。故請不可得。何況自來。是名讚歎。若尼言門中比丘。是阿練好禪師。如是得食者犯。若如是讚歎食。當展轉貿食。食不得捨。食而去。若比丘坐污穢不淨。不喜與貿者。當作念言。此鉢中食。是某甲比丘許。我當食。如是食者無罪。

> The nun's praise of food and the precepts say: If a nun tells a donor, "This person from the community is highly learned and diligent—please invite them all," this is all called praising food. If she says, "This person is the community leader, learned and diligent," and because of that monk, she praises him to the general public, it is also considered praising. Otherwise, there is no offense. When a donor is making offerings, if a monk comes to the house, and even one nun says, "There is a monk outside," and the donor says, "We have already invited whom we could—how much more so for one who comes on their own," this is called praising. If a nun says, "The monk at the gate is a good forest-dwelling meditator," and receives food in this way, it is an offense. If one has received food through such praise, one should exchange it with others. One must not abandon the food and leave. If a monk is sitting in a dirty or unclean place and is unwilling to exchange, one should think, "This food in the bowl is allotted to that monk; I may eat it." Eating in this way is without offense.

受一食處過受戒　僧祇云。若十六間屋間中一家施食。若在我屋中宿者。當與食。比丘若為三寶事故一宿不訖者。得曰到一家屋中食。若遍已應餘處。一宿已更得十六日。若事猶不了當更去。隔一宿復得來食。若餘食去時。作福家或設會。請比丘住食不犯。若同村相助作福舍亦不得從乞食。當往餘村乞。即彼處宿。

> Accepting the Single-Meal Rule and Exceeding It According to the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya: If there are sixteen houses in an area, and one household offers food, saying, "Those who stay overnight in my home will be given meals," a monk may, for the sake of the Three Jewels' affairs, go to that household for a meal if he cannot finish his work within one day. After visiting all such households, he should seek food elsewhere. Having stayed one night, he may continue for up to sixteen more days. If his work remains unfinished, he should move on. After staying away for one night, he may return to receive food again. When he leaves with leftover food, if the benefactor's family holds a banquet and invites the monk to stay and eat, this is not an offense. However, if fellow villagers jointly build a merit hall, one may not seek alms there; he should go to another village to beg for food and stay there overnight.

展轉食戒　展轉者先受他足食。請後更受背前受。後請者墮　僧祇家云。處處食戒。若受二請作念施他者不犯　十誦云。阿難先受他請。後受波斯匿王請。忘受前請不迴施與他。臨食方憶念。食不咽。畏犯戒故。又不敢吐恭敬。佛知阿難心悔語言。心念與他便食。優波離即問。佛聽阿難心念與他得食。若餘人心念與他得食不。佛言不得。除五種人。如上說。

> \*\*The Rule on Accepting Food After Another Invitation\*\* "Eating after receiving another invitation" means: After accepting a meal offering from one person, one later accepts another invitation that goes against the previous commitment. If one accepts the second invitation, it is an offense. The Mahāsāṅghika tradition calls this the "rule on eating in multiple places." If one accepts two invitations with the intention of giving one portion to someone else, there is no offense. According to the \*Sarvāstivāda\* (Ten Recitations Vinaya): Once, Ānanda had already accepted an invitation from one person, and later also accepted an invitation from King Prasenajit. He had forgotten the earlier invitation and did not think to give it away to another. Only when the meal was about to begin did he remember. He could not bring himself to swallow the food, fearing he would violate the precept. At the same time, he dared not spit it out out of respect. The Buddha, knowing Ānanda's regret, said to him: "Mentally give the food to others, and then eat." Upāli then asked: "The Buddha allows Ānanda to eat by making a mental dedication to others—can other people also eat in this way?" The Buddha replied: "No. Except for five kinds of people, as explained earlier."

足食已不作餘食法戒　僧祇云。足有八種。一自恣足謂食五正五雜。正自恣滿足。口言足。起離處不作殘食者墮。二少欲足。食正食時動手現少取相。離坐不作殘食者犯。三穢污足。若行食人手有瘡疥。及餘人不淨。比丘見惡之不用過去。此名為足。四雜足。行食人持乳酪器盛食行。比丘見已惡之言不用過去。即名犯足。五不便足。行食時比丘問是何食。答言󰉓。比丘言。此動我風我不便過去。此亦名足。餘不便食亦如是。六諂曲足。行正食時畏口言足。現手作相。若搖頭若縮鉢作相。名犯足食。七停住足。行正食時言先行飯。恐先行等亦即犯足。若作維那指示現相者不名足。八自足。有比丘至白衣家。放󰉓飯囊著一處。從檀越乞水欲飲。檀越念言。此比丘正當須󰉓。即問言。須󰉓不。比丘謂家中取󰉓施即答言。須是。白衣即捉比丘󰉓囊。授與比丘。比丘以惜己󰉓故便言置。置此亦犯足。若八事中犯一破威儀。已不作餘食。食者口口墮。不犯者一切餅一切菓一切菜粥。初出釜畫字者非處處食非。

> \*\*The Precept on Not Eating After One Has Eaten Enough\*\* According to the Samghika school, there are eight situations in which a monk is considered to have "eaten enough": 1. \*\*Satisfied by eating\*\*: After eating the five staple foods and five side dishes, one is full and verbally declares, "I have had enough." If one then gets up from one's seat and eats leftover food elsewhere, one commits an offense. 2. \*\*Satisfied by moderation\*\*: While eating the main meal, one gestures with one's hands to indicate taking less. If one then leaves one's seat and eats leftover food elsewhere, one commits an offense. 3. \*\*Satisfied through disgust\*\*: If the food server has sores or scabs on their hands, or is otherwise unclean, and the monk finds this repulsive and refuses the food by gesturing to pass it by—this is considered "having eaten enough." If one then eats leftover food, one commits an offense. 4. \*\*Satisfied through mixing\*\*: If the food server carries food in a vessel that had contained milk or yogurt, and the monk, seeing this, expresses disgust and refuses the food, gesturing to pass it by—this is considered "having eaten enough." 5. \*\*Satisfied through discomfort\*\*: When food is being served, the monk asks, "What is this?" The server replies, "It is food with oil." The monk says, "This will aggravate my wind condition; I will not have any, pass it by." This is also considered "having eaten enough." The same applies to any other food that causes physical discomfort. 6. \*\*Satisfied through craftiness\*\*: During the main meal, being too embarrassed to say "enough" verbally, one makes hand gestures, shakes one's head, or pulls back one's bowl as a signal—this is considered "having eaten enough." If one then eats leftover food, one commits an offense. 7. \*\*Satisfied through stopping\*\*: During the main meal, one says, "Serve the rice first," fearing that the server might bring more food. This is also considered "having eaten enough." However, if one is serving as the usher (weina) and merely giving directions with gestures, it does not count. 8. \*\*Satisfied through one's own conduct\*\*: A monk visits a layperson's home, places his food bag in one spot, and asks the layperson for water to drink. The layperson thinks, "This monk must need some food," and asks, "Do you need any?" The monk, thinking the layperson is offering food from the house, replies, "Yes, I need some." The layperson then picks up the monk's food bag and hands it to him. The monk, out of concern for his own food, says, "Never mind, put it down." This, too, is considered "having eaten enough." \*\*Rule\*\*: If one violates any of these eight conditions, one has broken proper deportment. If one then eats leftover food without having completed the meal, one commits an offense with each mouthful taken. \*\*Exceptions (No offense)\*\*: Eating all types of cakes, all types of fruits, and all types of vegetable porridge. Also, food that has just been taken out of the pot and is still marked with the shape of a ladle—this is not considered "eating at the wrong time" or "eating extra food."

別眾食戒　毘尼毘婆沙論云。凡別眾惡是檀越食。是別請非僧次。是界內非界外。若僧祇食一切無別眾食罪。若食僧祇食。但名不清淨亦名盜僧食。不名別眾食。若界內有有檀越別食。能一切無遮者大善。若不能無遮。應僧次請僧中一人。若送一分食不犯。請一人外更者異僧來。乃至一人犯墮。若不爾者三人已下各異處食無過。若界內有檀越食。先作意請僧中一人。若忘不請食。已在前應取一分置上坐頭。送與眾僧。若僧遠恐時過應取此食。次第行之無犯。若三比丘一尼者不犯。三尼一比丘。三比丘一沙彌。三界內一在界外三在空一地等不犯。若俗人請比丘。或設十日食。或九日食。先隨意請人。使定至作食。初日一切集。鳴槌竟。勸化比丘應高處立。高聲大唱六十獵者入。無被請者。各住處未被請中有六十臘者應入。若無次唱五十九臘。乃至唱沙彌亦得清淨。若界內不相容。持食外出不犯。若檀越家內請四比丘。已上食雖打犍槌。若檀越遮者知外有一比丘。不得食者犯。凡界有多種。僧結界者。有聚落界。有曠野自然界。方一拘盧舍。此諸界內不得別眾食及作法事。大眾集時者極少。乃至客舊四人。若食難得聽食易得不聽　善見論云。有五因緣。不犯別眾罪。一犯請足。四先請四人一人不赴請。施主臨時趣喚一人。雖四人俱食不犯。何以故。以一人非請故。二乞食足。四三人受請。一人乞食不受。三沙彌足。四三比丘一沙彌不犯。四鉢虧足。四一比丘一鉢請食不犯。五病人足。四三比丘一病人不犯。若人來詣寺。請僧受我等飯。此人不知法。解律者應語。明日知如是。乃至半月故。不解者應語。汝如是請者但得沙彌。若言。大德亦受餘家請。何以故不受我請。語言。汝但言請僧。莫言與飯等。若四人中一人解法者。作方便持三人食竟方不犯　五分云。若白衣請比丘舍內食。有客比丘在門外白。施主不聽入者應語言。與我等食分自平等共食善。若不得應各以鉢受分出外共食。若得者善。若復不得僧坊內有食。應與之。

> \*\*The Rule on Eating Separately as a Group\*\* According to the \*Vinaya Vibhāṣā Śāstra\*, eating separately as a group is considered a fault when it involves food offered by a specific donor for a specific group—this is an invitation to selected individuals, not a general invitation to the monastic community in order of seniority. The fault applies to eating within the monastic boundary, not outside it. If the food is provided by the monastic community itself—such as community meal offerings—then there is no fault of eating separately as a group. However, eating community food without proper entitlement is both impure and counts as stealing the community's food, though it is not classified as eating separately as a group. If, within the monastic boundary, there is a donor offering separate meals, and the community can accommodate all monastics without obstruction, that is excellent. If some monastics cannot be accommodated, then one should invite a member of the community by seniority to join the meal, or send a portion of food to the community—then there is no fault. If, after inviting one person to join, another monastic arrives unexpectedly, and even one person is left out, then a fault is committed. If this cannot be arranged, then groups of three or fewer eating separately in different places is permissible. If there is a donor meal within the boundary, one should first plan to invite a member of the community. If one forgets to invite and the meal has already begun, one should set aside a portion and place it at the head seat, then send it to the community. If the community is far away and one fears the meal will spoil, one may take that portion and distribute it in order without fault. There is no fault in the following cases: three monks and one nun; three nuns and one monk; three monks and one novice; three within the boundary and one outside; three on the ground and one in the air—these mixed settings do not constitute the fault. If a layperson invites monks and plans to offer a ten-day or nine-day meal, and the initial invitations are made, then when the food is prepared, all should gather on the first day. After the bell is struck, the monk in charge of fundraising should stand in a high place and announce loudly: "Those with sixty years of seniority, enter!" Those who were not invited should stay where they are. Among the uninvited, those with sixty years of seniority should enter. If none, then announce fifty-nine years, and so on down to novices—this is considered pure. If the monastic boundary cannot accommodate everyone, taking the food outside to eat is not a fault. If a donor invites four or more monks to eat at their home, and even though the bell is struck, the donor blocks other monks from entering—knowing that another monk outside cannot get food—then a fault is committed. There are several types of boundaries: the monastic boundary, the village boundary, and the wilderness natural boundary, which spans one \*krośa\* (about 2.5 kilometers). Within these boundaries, one must not eat separately as a group or hold formal acts. When the community gathers, the minimum is at least four—whether resident or visiting. If food is scarce, it is permissible for those who have already received food to eat; if food is plentiful, it is not permissible. The \*Samantapāsādikā\* says: There are five causes that exempt one from the fault of eating separately as a group: 1. \*\*The invitation is fulfilled by the one who broke the rule.\*\* Four people are invited; one does not come. The donor, at the last moment, invites another person to fill the seat. Even though four people eat together, there is no fault, because one of them was not originally invited. 2. \*\*Alms-round food completes the meal.\*\* Four people are invited; three accept, but one chooses to go on alms-round instead of accepting. 3. \*\*A novice completes the number.\*\* Three monks and one novice—no fault. 4. \*\*A food-bowl completes the number.\*\* One of the four invited is actually bringing his own bowl to receive food—no fault. 5. \*\*A sick person completes the number.\*\* Three monks and one sick person—no fault. If someone comes to the monastery and says, "Please accept our meal offering," but does not know the proper procedure, a monk who understands the precepts should say: "Tomorrow, do it this way," and likewise for up to half a month. If the person still does not understand, one should say: "If you invite in this way, you will only be feeding novices." If the person says, "Venerable, you accept other laypeople's invitations—why not mine?" one should say: "Just say 'I invite the monastic community,' and do not say 'I offer food' or the like." If among the four people, one understands the rules, they can arrange for the other three to receive food first, and only then eat—this avoids a fault. The \*Mahīśāsaka Vinaya\* says: If a layperson invites monks to eat inside their home, and a visiting monk arrives at the door but the donor refuses to let him in, one should say: "Give us a share of the food, and we will eat together equally." If that is not granted, each monk should take food in their own bowl and go outside to eat together. If they receive the food, that is good. If even that is not possible, the monastery should have food on hand to give to the visiting monk.

不受食戒　僧祇云。濁水應受。性黃聽不受五分云。鹹不須。著鹽應受。廣如上說。

> Here is the translation: The precept on not accepting food that has not been offered. According to the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya: muddy water should be accepted, but if it is naturally yellow, it may be refused. According to the Mahisasaka Vinaya: water that is salty does not need to be accepted. But if salt has been added, then it should be accepted. The full details are as explained above.

殘宿食戒　四分云。今日受食至明日。於一切沙門釋子皆不清淨　僧祇云。停過一須臾犯。須臾者二十念名一瞬。頃一彈指一羅預名須臾。日極長時盡有十八須臾頃。夜有十三須臾。夜長短亦如是。若過一須臾即名為犯。

> The Rule on Remaining Night Food (Residual Food Precept) — According to the Four-Part Vinaya: "Food received today, if kept until tomorrow, is considered impure for all wandering monks and disciples of the Buddha." According to the Mahāsāṃghika: "If it is stored beyond one kṣaṇa (a brief moment), it is an offense." A kṣaṇa is defined as: twenty thought-moments make an instant; an instant, a snap of the fingers; a snap of the fingers, a kṣaṇa. In the longest day, there are eighteen such kṣaṇas; in the night, thirteen. The night and day lengths vary accordingly. If one exceeds a single moment, it is counted as an offense.

非時食戒一如上說

> The Precept on Eating at Improper Times<note>As explained above.</note>

僧伽藍中取寶戒　不淨物使淨人取淨者得自取。若無識者應停至三年。已若本塔園中得者即作塔用。僧園中得者當作四方僧用。得寶時當審諦看不得顯露唱。令得寶應善頭數多少。貌好惡。有人來認相應者不得直還。當集眾多人教歸三寶。然後還之。若其物已用過三年已。主來索者應善語其量。苦索不已者應以塔物還。若塔無物應為塔乞物還。若比丘寺內曠路行道中。見物四方無人者。應取不得覆藏。當顯露捉。若無人識得用。若物上有寶付淨人。寶逕三年。無人認者得作醫直。若修僧坊掘地中得寶。若人不可信者應白王。令知隨王判斷。若物以用王索者。若僧物還。若治故塔時得寶。淨人不可信者停三年。已隨種種而用。用已王覺知索物者。比丘善作方便開化王心。苦索不免者應用塔物還。若塔無物應為塔乞物還。若王問佛法中戒律云何。比丘應答。佛法戒律中塔地所得物即作塔用。僧地中得物即作僧用。王若言從佛法律用者善。若寶上有銘記姓名。物主索亦如是作。新僧坊新塔地中得寶亦如是。

> \*\*Concerning Treasures Found Within the Monastery Grounds\*\* If impure items (such as valuables) are found, they should be handled by a "pure person" (a lay steward). If a pure person is available, one may have them take it. If there is no one qualified to handle it, the item should be set aside for up to three years. If the item was found on temple (stupa) grounds, it should be used for the upkeep of the stupa. If found within the monastery's own grounds, it should be used for the benefit of the monastic community. When valuables are found, examine them carefully. Do not publicly announce what has been discovered. You should take note of how many items there are and their general quality. If someone comes forward claiming ownership, the item should not be returned to them directly. Instead, gather the community and guide them to take refuge in the Three Jewels (Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha). Only then may it be returned. If the items have already been used and more than three years have passed, and the original owner comes seeking them, you should speak to them kindly and reasonably. If they insist forcefully, you should repay them from the temple's resources. If the temple has no funds, you should go out and do a special alms collection to compensate them. If a monk finds items on a deserted road within the monastery compound, and no one is around, they may pick them up—but must not hide them. The item should be kept openly and visibly. If no one claims it, it may be used. If the item has precious components, they should be given to a pure person (steward) to handle. If the precious parts are not claimed after three years, they may be used to cover medical expenses. If treasure is found while digging inside the monastery, and the person who finds it cannot be trusted, the matter should be reported to the king, and the king's judgment should be followed. If the king later demands the goods back after they have already been used, they should be repaid from the monastery's communal funds. If treasure is found while repairing an old stupa, and the steward cannot be trusted, wait three years. After that, use the items for various appropriate purposes. If the king later discovers the matter and demands the items, the monks should skillfully and wisely open the king's heart. If, despite kind persuasion, the king insists, then repay from the stupa's funds. If the stupa has no resources, then do a special alms collection to repay. If the king asks, "What do the Buddhist precepts say about this?" The monks should answer: "In Buddhism, treasure found on stupa grounds is used for the stupa, and treasure found on monastery grounds is used for the community." If the king says, "Let it be according to the Buddha's law," that is good. If the treasure bears an inscription with a name, and the owner comes to claim it, handle it in the same manner as above. The same rules apply to treasures found in newly built monasteries or newly constructed stupa grounds.

飲酒戒　四分云。若有病餘藥不治。唯酒為藥聽。或用塗瘡不犯　五分云。婆竭陀比丘有酒習。不得酒故命惙然。佛言聽臭酒器。若不差聽以酒和食。食復不差。佛言。聽以酒與之　飲酒有十失。一無顏色。二無力。三眼闇。四喜現瞋相。五失財物。六生病事。七益鬪諍。八惡名流布。九智慧減少。十死入惡道。然煩惱性利終日伏之尚自難制。況復加之以酒助煩惱。如火益籬。云何可息。

> The Precept on Alcohol According to the Four-Part Vinaya: If a monk is ill and no other medicine can cure him, alcohol may be used as medicine. It is also permitted to apply it to wounds as a treatment. The Five-Part Vinaya recounts: The monk Bhāradvāja had a habit of drinking. When he could no longer get alcohol, his life was in danger. The Buddha said to let him drink from a vessel that had held alcohol. If that did not help, he was to be allowed to have alcohol mixed with food. If he still did not recover, the Buddha said to give him alcohol directly. There are ten harms of drinking alcohol: 1. Loss of complexion. 2. Loss of strength. 3. Blurred vision. 4. Easily showing anger. 5. Loss of wealth and possessions. 6. Inviting illness. 7. Increasing quarrels and disputes. 8. Spreading a bad reputation. 9. Reducing wisdom. 10. Falling into lower realms after death. Yet the nature of afflictions is sharp and persistent—even suppressing them all day long is difficult. How much harder when alcohol fuels them further? It is like adding firewood to a fire—how could it ever be extinguished?