---
title: "四部律并論要用抄 · 16 會通諸律違負"
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/cmcwshzr91meaie049p2fm4wn"
---

### 會通諸律違負第十六

> Chapter 16: Reconciling All Vinaya Violations

問。佛何故為諸弟子制此五部戒律。輕重不同使諸比丘互生是非　答。佛為諸比丘故制一部戒律。尚無二名。何況有五。佛涅槃後優波離共五百羅漢初結集律。時有八十誦。號曰大毘尼藏。一百年中依之而行。初無違諍。一百年後時人異見不同。各隨己見遂成五部。抄略前後隱顯異知。使名差相別五部名生。名相雖殊理通正一　問。僧祇云。燒壞色越毘尼　十誦偷蘭遮　四分云。犯重。云何言一　答。此三部正是戒　僧祇云。明其惡不論損物故曰毘尼十誦云。噵其方便　四分論終處三部理同偏彰似別　問。僧祇明互用寶物犯重。四分偷蘭。此復云何　答。僧祇明守護人邊犯重四分明佛法於物無我。所心無守護。故但得偷蘭。以四方僧物一人邊。計錢難滿故得偷蘭　四分若為守護亦犯重　僧祇云。若無人守護亦偷蘭。故知二部不別　問。何故惡心戒獨分為三。餘戒不去　答。此結集之處觀望戒相犯之者多。故偏列無闕。餘戒犯之希少故不分之。欲使智者尋文通旨。愚者偏執彼此有失　問。有人言。隨所受戒當部自行不得五部通用。此義云何　答。此說不然。何以故。本正一部。文義具足。輕重相順。但時人異見分為五典。致輕重相違。文義不具。若於一部不犯。於部犯者。故名破戒。若於五部盡無違犯。方名持戒。是以應當具行。不得偏執　問曰。人言持戒務急。斷事務緩。何者為是　答。二俱不然。何以故。若過分急人不能行。則斷聖種。若緩易行。必毀滅正法。若人能五部律文。隨修行不增不減。如此之人能護佛法。是真佛子　問。諸大乘經中莫問五逆。及謗方等皆有懺悔之法。何故律教獨言四重不可悔也　答。大乘諸經明罪無定性。世俗文字故。說有第一義中了無罪相可得。正以一切諸求其體性不可得故。罪性亦然。故有歸悔之理。小乘中不明諸法畢竟空寂。計有定之罪。初篇是彰道根本。說言不可悔　問曰。道理而言。罪無輕重皆可懺除。正可悔有難易。何故定言不可悔也　答。道理實可懺。今明不可懺者。以小乘情怖近果。若不犯根本重過容可一形即剋。今日毀犯業障既重。更不勝進。故言不可悔。非畢竟無悔法。律中亦有禪難提等。犯初重戒。無一念露藏心。佛聽盡形學悔。唯聽其悔。一形之中於聖道法能剋證也　問。大乘之中五逆四重豈可不障聖道。獨說小乘障答。大乘亦是障。但大乘人遠求佛果。佛果然要多身積善方可得會。若聞有犯則於道法不進。如法悔以更起勝行。正可有遲病。非是永無進趣。小人無一念樂生死情。期自度不□在生死度眾生。故犯根本戒者則正違期所。是故偏障道。

> Question: Why did the Buddha establish these five sets of monastic precepts for his disciples, with different degrees of severity, causing monks to dispute among themselves? Answer: The Buddha established only one set of precepts for all monks. There wasn't even a second name for them, let alone five. After the Buddha's passing, Upali, together with five hundred arhats, first compiled the precepts. At that time, there were eighty recitations, called the Great Vinaya Treasury. For a hundred years, it was followed without any disputes. After a hundred years, people's views diverged, and each followed their own understanding, eventually forming five schools. They abbreviated and rearranged the texts, hiding and revealing different interpretations, which led to different names and distinct traditions. Though the names and forms differ, the underlying principle is one and the same. Question: The Mahāsāṃghika school says burning or damaging robes is a pāyantika offense. The Sarvāstivāda school calls it a sthūlātyaya. The Dharmaguptaka school says it is a pārājika. How can these be called the same? Answer: These three texts are indeed the precepts. The Mahāsāṃghika explains the wrongdoing without focusing on damage to property, hence calling it pāyantika. The Sarvāstivāda school speaks of the preparatory act. The Dharmaguptaka school discusses the final outcome. The principles in all three are the same; they only appear different due to emphasis. Question: The Mahāsāṃghika school says using community property with a discriminative mind is a pārājika. The Dharmaguptaka school calls it a sthūlātyaya. What about this? Answer: The Mahāsāṃghika school addresses the perspective of the custodian, thus pārājika. The Dharmaguptaka school explains that in the Dharma, regarding possessions, there is no self, no possessiveness, and no custodian, so it is only sthūlātyaya. Because when calculating the value of property belonging to the four directions' community in a single person's possession, it is difficult to reach the threshold for pārājika. The Dharmaguptaka school also says if there is a custodian, it is pārājika. The Mahāsāṃghika says if no one guards it, it is also sthūlātyaya. Therefore, we know the two schools are not different. Question: Why are the precepts concerning malicious intent divided into three parts, while other precepts are not? Answer: At the place of compilation, observing the precept violations, those that were frequently transgressed were listed in full. Other precepts were rarely broken, so they were not divided. This enables the wise to seek the meaning through the text, while the foolish cling to one side and lose both. Question: Some say that one should practice only the precepts of one's own school, and the five schools cannot be used interchangeably. What do you think of this? Answer: This view is incorrect. Why? Originally there was one complete precept text with full meaning, consistent in severity. But people's differing views divided it into five versions, causing inconsistencies in severity and incomplete meaning. If one does not violate one school's rules but violates another's, this is called breaking precepts. Only by not violating any of the five schools' rules can one be said to uphold precepts. Therefore, one should practice all of them and not cling to a single view. Question: Some say that upholding precepts should be done urgently, while cutting off worldly affairs should be done slowly. Which is correct? Answer: Neither is correct. Why? If one is overly urgent, people cannot practice and would cut off the seeds of sainthood. If one is lax and casual, one would destroy the true Dharma. If someone can follow the precepts of all five schools, practicing without adding or subtracting, such a person can protect the Buddha's teaching and is a true child of the Buddha. Question: In the Mahāyāna scriptures, even the five heinous crimes and slandering the Vaipulya sutras have methods of repentance. Why do the Vinaya teachings alone say that the four pārājika offenses cannot be repented? Answer: The Mahāyāna sutras explain that offenses have no fixed nature. According to worldly conventions, they are spoken of, but in ultimate truth, no nature of offense can be found. Because when seeking the essence of all things, it cannot be found, the nature of offense is likewise. Therefore, there is the principle of repentance and return. In the Hīnayāna, the emptiness of all dharmas is not explained; offenses are considered fixed. The first category constitutes the root of the path, so it is said they cannot be repented. Question: Logically speaking, offenses whether light or heavy can all be repented. It is just that repentance may be easy or difficult. Why is it definitively said that some cannot be repented? Answer: Logically, they can indeed be repented. Saying they cannot be repented is because Hīnayāna practitioners fear the near-term fruits. If one has not committed a fundamental offense, one might achieve the goal in a single lifetime. But once one has violated the precepts, the karmic obstacles are heavy and one cannot advance further. Hence it is said they cannot be repented. It is not that there is absolutely no method of repentance. In the Vinaya, there are cases like Dhyānāntika and others who, having committed the heaviest offenses, did not harbor a single thought of concealment. The Buddha allowed them to spend their entire lives learning repentance. They were permitted to repent, and within a single lifetime, they could attain the noble path. Question: In Mahāyāna, do not the five heinous crimes and four pārājika offenses also obstruct the noble path? Why is this obstruction spoken of only for Hīnayāna? Answer: In Mahāyāna, they also obstruct. But Mahāyāna practitioners seek Buddhahood far in the future. The fruit of Buddhahood requires many lifetimes of accumulated goodness to be realized. If one hears that having committed an offense means the path is blocked, one would not advance. Through proper repentance and generating superior practices, one may only be delayed, but never permanently cut off from progress. Hīnayāna practitioners have not a single thought of delight in saṃsāra; their goal is self-liberation, not remaining in the cycle to save beings. Therefore, for one who has violated the fundamental precepts, this directly contradicts their aspiration. Hence the obstruction is particularly spoken of in that context.