English
Some say that this is said to avoid the over-generality of each limb having its own characteristics. It seems that the elimination of the two actions and the transgressions of the precepts is not covered. The third is to be understood as appropriate. In this case, it is the elimination of not thinking, etc., by the mind of stealing. That is, not thinking is to think that it belongs to another, and to hesitate, and even if it is not given, it will be coveted. The previous, remaining, decreasing, and digging are to dispel doubts that they are not mainly involved in the elimination, and to show the difference of places. Previously, if the act of stealing is done, and later regretted, it is to dispel the doubt of whether the previous act can be eliminated, and to explain the grossness of the act, and from where to count the transgression of the act of the act, and to dispel the doubt that after taking it out of the digging, it will become the grossness of the remaining things. If elimination is done, it is the cessation of the continuity of motivation, and the ultimate elimination. The first is the first, and the second is the two in the middle, saying that the latter has no meaning of elimination. Its basis refers to the similarity that arises incidentally to the similarity. The fourth has four types: slightly reduced, very slightly reduced, changed to other, and changed to no fall. The first is that in the case of Pārājika and Saṃghāvaśeṣa, it is a gross sin, and the related sins, in the case of the three confessions, it is a misdeed, and in that case it is a misdeed. If greed arises for the property of non-humans, the root sin is Pārājika, the action is a gross sin, and the action of the action is a misdeed. If greed arises for the property of non-humans, the root sin is a gross sin, the action is a misdeed, and the action of the action is a slight misdeed, and the same applies to all Pārājika and Saṃghāvaśeṣa. If a pure Bhikṣuṇī is entrusted to an impure Bhikṣuṇī, the root sin is Saṃghāvaśeṣa, and the action and the action of the action are the same as before. The same applies to confession. For a round lower garment that does not meet the standard, the root sin is a misdeed, the action is slight, and the action of the action is very slight, and the same should be understood for others. The above is what was said earlier, and Pārājika should be understood as an incidental mention. The second is that for Pārājika and Saṃghāvaśeṣa, the root sin is three good misdeeds, and slight, very slight.
Chinese
三者，对于舍弃等三者，则转变为小罪等三者。例如，对于神物价值不全，本体为小罪，对于两种行为为微小，极为微小等。其余所有堕罪和剩余罪也应如此理解。如果比丘尼不清净，委托给见解不一致者，也如前者一样转变。因此，对于此者，本体不做小罪，对于其他者也如此。不合规的裙子等未分成圆形，则本体变为微小。此处并非指极为微小。同样，也适用于其他情况。第三种有三种：包括类别和转变为其他情况。第一种是：堕罪的类别是分支，四种类别是排除。例如，杀人的排除，杀死家畜，则转变为堕罪的类别。第二种是：非梵行堕罪是分支，其余三种是排除。例如，行为明显的排除，不明显，则如对诽谤略作遮止一样。第三种是：仅仅是说词语不同，但意义与先前所示的三种和之后所示的没有差别。如果从堕罪的情况转变为剩余罪，堕罪，分别忏悔和本体的小罪，则类别转变为不同。如果转变为粗大罪，则为下品，如果转变为小罪，则为中品，如果没有堕罪，则转变为那里，因为已经说明了。第四种有四种：本体没有堕罪，认为堕罪完全清净，不属于此时的堕罪，以及考虑到完全没有堕罪。说为堕罪。第一种是：具寿们！如果从少量少量地偷窃，则不会转变为堕罪。对于其他者，则没有堕罪等。说：前者不应作为可信的教证，后者，注释说，如果持续不断则有堕罪，如果相反则没有堕罪，这似乎不一致。第二种是：从不砍伐树木的地方，带着财物离开，对于近处没有堕罪。如是说。那是应学习的
English
The three, for the three such as abandonment, etc., then transform into the three such as minor offenses, etc. For example, for divine objects of incomplete value, the main body is a minor offense, for the two actions it is minute, extremely minute, etc. All other parajikas and remaining offenses should also be understood in the same way. If a bhikshuni is impure, entrusting to someone with inconsistent views, it also transforms as before. Therefore, for this one, the main body does not commit a minor offense, and it is the same for others. If an unsuitable skirt, etc., is not divided into a circle, then the main body becomes minute. Here, it is not referring to extremely minute. Similarly, it also applies to other situations. The third has three: including category and transforming into other situations. The first is: the category of parajika is a branch, and the four categories are exclusions. For example, the exclusion of killing, killing livestock, then transforms into the category of expiatory offenses. The second is: non-brahmacharya parajika is a branch, and the other three are exclusions. For example, the exclusion of obvious actions, not obvious, then it is like making a slight prohibition against slander. The third is: it is merely saying different words, but the meaning is no different from the three shown previously and those shown later. If from the situation of parajika it transforms into a remaining offense, an expiatory offense, individual confession, and a minor offense of the main body, then the category transforms into different. If it transforms into a gross offense, then it is inferior, if it transforms into a minor offense, then it is intermediate, and if there is no offense, then it transforms into there, because it has been explained. The fourth has four: the main body has no offense, thinking that the offense is completely purified, the offense does not belong to this time, and considering that there is completely no offense. It is said to be an expiatory offense. The first is: Venerables! If stealing from a small amount little by little, then it will not transform into an offense. For others, there is no offense, etc. Saying: the former should not be taken as a credible teaching, and the latter, the commentary says that if it continues continuously then there is an offense, and if it is the opposite then there is no offense, which seems inconsistent. The second is: from a place where trees are not cut down, leaving with property, there is no offense for the nearby. It is said like that. That is what should be learned
Chinese
并非没有。第三，如“未做亦然”等，因在其他情况下禁止了两种未煮熟的谷物。有人说，如果这三者不是这样，就会与根本没有堕落相重复，但所有这些都成了争论是否是其他的依据，因为根本没有堕落，所以不能成为损害。第四种情况分为两种：一切所制定的堕落之因，以及某些所制定的没有堕落。第一种是：没有戒律，即使有也没有制定，不是自性存在，没有各自的动机。有人说，难道这不遍及一些不依赖动机，该做的未做之堕落吗？第二种是：没有清净的罪过，与完全的放逸相关，具有障碍的因缘，以及因一方面无法成办而没有堕落。自性清净不会变成没有堕落的原因是：因为本体会变成罪恶，所以不可能没有遮止，因此无法摧毁所制定的，因为有所制定所以有堕落，如果进入其中，就会成为戒律的障碍，并且为了戒律的缘故，必须舍弃生命。第一种是：如在石头上额外堆砌层次，挖掘沙子等没有堕落一样，原因是由于没有制定，即没有遮止。不确定会导致遮止变得无意义，因为不遮止遮止物。那么，挖掘不损害众生的土地，以及饮用不醉的酒，也会变成没有堕落，因为没有遮止吗？如果这样问，那么，直接的遮止不存在是不确定的，就像诽谤一样。间接的遮止不存在是不成立的，因为有太过分等。与前者不同，因为被事物确定等所限制。第二种是：为了展示伟大的人物，以及为了在困难的情况下维持生计，许多人聚集在一起，因为放逸所以没有罪过。这又分为两种：大的放逸和分散的放逸。对此没有罪过的原因是：因为在这种情况下，在那个时间和地点摧毁了所制定的，就像摧毁法律一样。
English
It is not that there is no. Third, like "not done is also so," because in other cases two uncooked grains are prohibited. Some say that if these three are not like this, it will be repeated with no fall at all, but all of these become the basis for arguing whether it is other or not, because there is no fall at all, so it cannot be a harm. The fourth case is divided into two: all that is prescribed is the cause of falling, and some that are prescribed have no fall. The first is: no precepts, even if there are, they are not prescribed, not inherently existent, and there are no respective motivations. Some say, does this not extend to some falls that do not depend on motivation and do not do what should be done? The second is: there is no pure fault, it is related to complete indulgence, it has the cause of obstacles, and it becomes without falling due to one aspect of not being able to accomplish it. The reason why self-nature purity does not become no falling is: because the essence will become sin, it is impossible to have no prohibition, therefore it is impossible to destroy what is prescribed, because there is prescription, there is falling, and if you enter into it, it will become an obstacle to discipline, and for the sake of discipline, you must give up your life. The first is: like building extra layers on stones, digging sand, etc., there is no falling, the reason is because there is no prescription, that is, there is no prohibition. Uncertainty will cause the prohibition to become meaningless, because the prohibition is not prohibited. Then, digging the land that does not harm sentient beings, and drinking wine that does not get drunk, will also become no falling, because there is no prohibition? If you ask this, then, the direct absence of prohibition is uncertain, like slander. The indirect absence of prohibition is not established, because there are too many extremes, etc. It is not the same as the former, because it is limited by the determination of things, etc. The second is: in order to show a great person, and in order to maintain livelihood in difficult circumstances, many people gather together, because indulgence, there is no fault. This is also divided into two: great indulgence and scattered indulgence. The reason why there is no fault in this is: because in this case, at that time and place, what was prescribed was destroyed, just like destroying the law.