律蔵「不定法」と覓罪相（tassapāpiyyasikā）の関係

抄録

The author has confirmed the validity of the claim that a monk is required to acknowledge his offense before he can be subject to any form of punitive legal action, focusing on the aniyata section, the third section in the Pātimokkha/Vibhaṅga of the vinaya. As a result of an investigation of sikkhāpada and vibhaṅga of the first aniyata section and the meaning of the tassapāpiyyasikā procedure which appears in the vibhaṅga of the rule, the following facts have come to light.

1. The first sikkhāpada of the aniyata section of all of five vinayas except the Mahīśāsaka vinaya, a reduced version, can be interpreted either to mean, “a monk is required to acknowledge his offense before he can be subject to any form of punitive legal action,” or “the monastic community can take punitive legal action against a monk without his acknowledgement.”

2. The vibhaṅga of four vinayas, that is, except the Mūlasarvāstivāda vinaya, adopt the former interpretation, and only the Mūlasarvāstivāda vinaya adopts the latter.

3. The vibhaṅgas of three vinayas of the above mentioned four vinayas, the Dharmaguptaka, Mahāsāṃghika, and Mūlasarvāstivāda vinayas, introduce the tassapāpiyyasikā procedure, one of seven adhikaraṇasamatha-dharmas, as part of handling methods of aniyata. The tassapāpiyyasikā is a kind of punitive action performed by the Buddhist order against a monk who has made inconsistent allegations. Only adopting the former interpretation, the introduction of the tassapāpiyyasikā procedure can be contextually rational. No rational explanation can be possible in adopting the latter interpretation. Therefore it is inconsistent that the Mūlasarvāstivāda vinaya, which adopts the latter interpretation, contains the tassapāpiyyasikā procedure in its vibhaṅga.

Based on these facts, the following conclusion can be drawn. It is inconceivable that the sikkhāpada of aniyata was enacted on the interpretation that “the monastic community can take punitive legal action against a monk without his acknowledgment.” Such an interpretation is unique to the Mūlasarvāstivāda vinaya. It is quite possible that the Mūlasarvāstivāda vinaya later introduced it in place of the traditional one, the former interpretation. Borgland’s idea that all vinayas hold in common the principle that the monastic community can take punitive legal action against a monk without his acknowledgment has to be reconsidered.