四分律行事鈔資持記 1.11

"Four-Part" is a distinctive name among the five divisions [of the Vinaya], and the common designation for a single school. It is titled according to the number of textual sections. When translated into this land, it comprises sixty fascicles in total. Because beginners are often unaware of this, I shall cite and show it in detail: The First Part, twenty fascicles (from the preface up to the twentieth, the Bhikṣu-prātimokṣa). The Second Part, fifteen fascicles (from the twenty-first up to the twenty-eighth, eight fascicles: the Bhikṣuṇī-prātimokṣa); the Ordination Skandhaka, the first [skandhaka] (twenty-ninth up to the thirty-third, five fascicles; Sanskrit skandhaka, translated here as "cluster of dharmas", which is the name for a section or chapter); the Poṣadha Skandhaka, the second (thirty-fourth and thirty-fifth, two fascicles; these two skandhaka are at the end of the Second Part). The Third Part, fourteen fascicles (sixteen skandhakas in all): the Rains-Retreat Skandhaka, the third (thirty-sixth); the Pravāraṇā Skandhaka, the fourth (thirty-seventh); the Leather Skandhaka, the fifth (thirty-eighth); the Robe Skandhaka, the sixth (thirty-ninth and fortieth); the Medicine Skandhaka, the seventh (forty-first and the first half of the forty-second); the Kaṭhina Robe Skandhaka, the eighth (the second half of the forty-second); the Kauśāmbī Skandhaka, the ninth (the first half of the forty-third, named after the country); the Campā Skandhaka, the tenth (the second half of the forty-third, named after the city); the Reprimand Skandhaka, the eleventh (forty-fourth); the Person Skandhaka, the twelfth (the first half of the forty-fifth); the Concealment Skandhaka, the thirteenth (the second half of the forty-fifth); the Suspension Skandhaka, the fourteenth (the first half of the forty-sixth); the Schism Skandhaka, the fifteenth (the second half of the forty-sixth); the Settlement of Disputes Skandhaka, the sixteenth (forty-seventh); the Bhikṣuṇī Skandhaka, the seventeenth (forty-eighth); the Dharma Skandhaka, the eighteenth (forty-ninth). The Fourth Part, eleven fascicles (containing the previous two skandhakas, along with four subsequent sections such as the councils): the Dwellings Skandhaka, the nineteenth (fiftieth); the Miscellaneous Skandhaka, the twentieth (fifty-first, fifty-second, and fifty-third, three fascicles in total; the Precept Commentary says: "The twenty skandhakas are separated across three parts"—this is it); the Council of Five Hundred (the first half of the fifty-fourth); the Council of Seven Hundred (the second half of the fifty-fourth); the Vinaya of the Harmonious Divisions (fifty-fifth, fifty-sixth, and fifty-seventh, three fascicles in total); the Vinaya by One-More (fifty-eighth up to the sixtieth, three fascicles). Because Venerable Dharmagupta, from within the root division, gathered and compiled it into a text according to his own preference, each place where the recitation paused was made into a part. Only after passing through four recitations was the single work completed, and so it was called the "Four-Part". It is not like commentaries and sub-commentaries dividing the text according to its meaning. Hence the Karma Commentary says: "The four parts are the interruptions of the recitation." (The character duan is read in the falling tone, meaning "to pause".) The Precept Commentary says: "The text was transmitted on four occasions, fully exhausting the marks of what was explained. This is based on how far the recitation reached, not on a division of meaning." If the twenty skandhakas are divided across three parts, could that be an opening made by meaning? Question: Since the teachings spread to this land, four vinayas have been translated (the Four-Part, the Five-Part, the Ten-Recitations, and the Mahāsāṃghika); why did the Patriarchal Master exclusively take the Four-Part as the authority? Answer: The transmission of the precepts in this land began with the Four-Part. Although the other divisions were translated, none have been heard to be relied upon and practiced. The Karma Commentary says: "Throughout the entirety of the Divine Continent (China), when it comes to ordination, they all recite the text of the Four-Part. What is now analyzed and explained clarifies subsequent practice on the basis of ordination, and so this single work is established as the foundational authority." Further below it says: "Now when analyzing maintenance and violation, one still does so on the basis of the reception-essence." This intention is clear. (The Tripiṭaka Master Yijing, who conversely took the Sarvāstivāda as the authority, did not comprehend this intention.) Question: There are passages citing texts such as "The person and the Dharma are orderly", stating that the Four-Part division is superior; what is the meaning of this? Answer: It is not that this meaning does not exist. But if one were to receive the precepts according to the Daśādhyāya-vinaya, could one then take the Four-Part as the authority because the former division is inferior? The preface clarifies superiority and inferiority in order to reveal the depth or shallowness of the schools' tenets; only when arriving at the third section does it begin to discuss classification according to doctrinal teachings. Question: Taking the present translation, it has sixty fascicles in total; the Sanskrit manuscript was even larger; how could an entire canon be recited to completion in just four sessions? Answer: It does not mean that a single sitting is called a session. Rather, it refers to a given period of time, without a fixed time limit; whenever the gathering reached a certain point and dispersed before finishing, that was counted as one session. Proceeding like this up to four times, the whole work was only then completed. The Mahīśāsaka-vinaya and the Daśādhyāya-vinaya are largely the same in this regard. Only the Vinaya in Eighty Recitations, which was the work of a single summer retreat, was named after each session. Each was established according to the occasion, and they cannot be treated uniformly. As for "Vinaya" (lǜ), in Sanskrit it is called vinaya, while the Chinese language calls it lǜ. Now, summarizing the various texts in accordance with the Precept Commentary, it does not exceed three meanings. First, it is said that lǜ means "law" (fǎ). Named after the teaching, it determines grave and light, exceptions and prohibitions, maintenance and violation; without law, it would not be settled. A subsequent passage says: "Furthermore, just as worldly law relies on punishments and regulations, so too does the Dharma of the Way; conforming to capacities and adhering to the teaching, each has its gradations and must not be transgressed; hence it is called 'law'." Second, it is said that lǜ means "division" (fèn). This means that one must deliberate and determine based on appropriate measure, like the division of climatic qi by the pitch-pipes (lǜlǚ). (In the twelve months of a year, the odd months belong to yáng and are called lǜ, while the even months belong to yīn and are called lǚ. Each lǜ and each lǚ divides two qi, thus making twenty-four solar terms.) It also says: "What the doctrinal marks explain is fully exhausted in four characters: namely, violation, non-violation, light, and grave. If one understands these four characters, one will penetrate decisions without doubt; this is the highest grade and the pinnacle of maintaining the Vinaya." What is called a violation? The presence of both object and conditions. What is called non-violation? The arising of the antidote. What is called light? The cause and effect are slight. What is called grave? The opposite of the previous sentence. Yet unless divided by the Vinaya, these four marks cannot be separated; that maintenance and violation do not become confounded is akin to the climatic periods. Third, it is said that the character lǜ (律) contains the component yù (聿), and yù means a "brush" (bǐ). (In Chu it was called yù, and in Qin it was called bǐ, as seen in the commentary to the Character Book.) One must examine the teaching and verify the facts, rendering judgment with the brush. It also says: "Passing sentence and deciding rectitude cannot be settled without the brush", and so forth. Question: Regarding the three meanings above, how are they distinguished? Answer: All three are names taken by analogy with worldly phenomena. Establishing norms through doctrinal exposition is the meaning of "law"; analyzing the light and the grave is the meaning of "division"; and rendering decisions when facing a case is the meaning of "brush". Containing all three of these, it is therefore called lǜ. The other translations and explanations are detailed in the middle fascicle. As for "excising the superfluous and supplementing deficiencies": "Excising" refers to that which can excise, and "superfluous" refers to that which is excised; "supplementing" refers to that which can supplement, and "deficiencies" refers to that which is supplemented. Since many people in the world do not understand this, it must be explained in detail, which is divided into two. First, excising the superfluous.

Since ancient times, those transmitting the Vinaya have held differing personal views; there were over ten schools of commentaries or manuals, and those transmitted orally were likewise more than one or two. In general, regarding a single matter, explanations followed many avenues; if one were to cite all of them fully, it would obscure the actual transactions. [The author] simply presents the correct meaning directly and deletes all the rest, merely using a single phrase to mark the refutation, such as saying: “differing from the previous explanation,” “various explanations differ,” “the remaining interpretations are dismissed,” “past explanations take many paths,” and so forth. Now, the words marking the refutation are termed that which does the expunction, falling under the character “expunge” (shān); the various deleted explanations are all designated that which is expunged, falling under the character “superfluous” (fán). The above is stated based on the principle, but textual evidence is further required. The “Occasion for Composing the Manual” says: “Whenever citations are made, they are first re-examined; regarding a single matter, there are many intentions behind dismissals and establishments; that which was maintained by the various masters consisted of expansive personal views; now they are all expunged and abridged, retaining only the textual evidence,” and so on. Question: How many kinds of superfluousness are there? Answer: Briefly, there are two senses. The first is extensive superfluousness. This refers to the personal views of the various masters explained above, which are expunged; such as naturally defining boundaries, seven trees and seven spaces, the sequence of the precept-platform, tying and untying boundaries in the midst of the summer retreat, the time limit for receiving days, and so forth, all of which had many explanations; now in this manual they are, as a rule, not cited, which refers precisely to the ancient interpretations cited in the Yichao (Meaning Manual) and the two commentaries. The second is superfluous excess. Such as citing the conditions in the phrase of intent, adding requests when receiving days, and the like, which are now all removed; this is what the “Chapter on Karmas” refers to: “Now I wish to prune away superficial talk and illuminate the holy intention,” and so forth. Also, such things as the words of striking the bell, purifying the mouth at the poṣadha, communicating assemblies during the summer retreat, and inappropriate acts at the pravāraṇā; in the “Chapter on the Sangha Regulations,” unprescribed rules are extensively listed; in the “Chapter on Masters and Disciples,” such things as the improper application of cane punishment; this is what the “Sangha Regulations” refers to: “Now I expunge its superfluous evils and supplement its omissions,” and so forth. If one relies on the text of the preface, it properly preserves the former intention; now taking up the latter explanation, it does not fail to encompass both. Even if there are many accounts, they do not exceed these. Question: Does that which is expunged explained above refer to the Vinaya or to the commentaries? Answer: Since antiquity this has not been clear, with divergence between rejection and adoption; now I shall distinguish them. That is to say, whether from our own school or other schools, the Mahāyāna or Hīnayāna sūtras and treatises, the texts and records of past sages from the Western lands or this country, or the manuals and commentaries of various schools: so long as they are cited in this present manual, they are all adopted texts, falling under the character “manual” (chāo). As for the personal views of the various masters, whether committed to writing or transmitted orally, which are not recorded in this manual and are deleted, they are all that which is expunged, being subsumed under the characters “expunging the superfluous” (shān fán). One should know that the meaning of expunging and supplementing appears occasionally in the text of the manual before and after; how could it be that whenever one sees a cited text, it is routinely called expunging and supplementing! The transmission of confusion has lasted long; scholars must examine it deeply. Question: As with the origin stories of the Prātimokṣa and the extensive explanations analyzing the marks, the text of the Vinaya Piṭaka is extensive; since this manual does not cite it, is this not expunging the Vinaya? Answer: The Vinaya is holy teaching, the foundational authority of our school; one may only draw upon its text—how could it be proper to expunge it! First, the text below refers to the extensive details as being found in the Vinaya and the Great Commentary; how could one rashly and uniformly dismiss them as superfluous! Second, in the “Occasion for Composing the Manual,” it only says that personal views were expansive, not that it expunges the Vinaya; nowhere in our school's works does such a statement exist; how could one fail to reflect and casually give rise to slighting slander? If so, the “Chapter on the Poṣadha” says: “Now taking the two masters Puzhao and Dao'an as the basis, for the rest we draw upon the authentic text of the Vinaya, expunging and supplementing to strike the mean”; is this not expunging the Vinaya? Answer: This is confused speech. Those ancient masters' rituals had omissions and redundancies; therefore, relying on the root Vinaya, he expunged their redundancies and supplemented their omissions. Thus the redundancies and omissions were in the source texts of the two masters, while the expunging and supplementing belong to the application of this present manual. Speaking on this basis, it makes the above principle all the more manifest. Question: If it does not expunge the Vinaya, should it then expunge the commentaries? Answer: Whatever is divergent, whether in text or in speech, how could it be restricted to the commentaries? When their essentials are drawn upon, that still belongs to the extraction of the manual; the remaining parts not cited are what are called expunging the superfluous; therefore, in the “Occasion for Composing the Manual,” it only mentions personal views and does not speak of commentaries or manuals. Second, explaining the supplementing of omissions: Since ancient times, those maintaining the Vinaya have either followed their own dogmatic views or been ignorant of the doctrinal divisions, so that when it came to actual transactions, they did not suit the needs of the time. Such as the lengths of the cubit, the sizes of a yojana, karmas being universally read without understanding, cross-examinations not requiring comprehension, bedding being considered not part of the three robes, keeping extra items not being assessed to reduce excess, pure grounds not having the marking signs proclaimed, and the seven witnesses having no words of invitation at all; categories of this kind are extremely numerous, and all routinely had omissions. Now this manual, by examining the principles and conforming to the texts, supplements them to make them detailed and complete. Therefore, below under the precept on dwellings, after determining the measurements of the cubit, it says: “I once traveled through Jin, Wei, and the Guanfu region; whenever there was a Vinaya assembly in any quarter, I unfailingly attended; yet when it came to discussing the rise and fall of the cubit and peck measures, none ever provided an exposition; therefore I immediately supplemented the omission, bringing glory back to the nine dynasties.” (The printed edition has “therefore I immediately expunged and supplemented”; however, since there had never been an exposition, how could there be expunging? Now taking the ancient edition as correct.) Now, the matters not discussed in antiquity are that which is supplemented; the textual passages, principles, and paradigms cited in the manual are that which does the supplementing. Question: Is supplementing omissions the same as or different from resolving and opening up the meaning of the text below? Answer: Resolving and opening up applies generally to what already existed before; supplementing omissions is restricted to what originally did not exist. The rest is as explained in the fifth section of the preface. Question: The Karma for Applicable Circumstances says: “The Vinaya Piṭaka has deficiencies, and its meaning has omissions that must be supplemented”; is this not supplementing the Vinaya? Answer: It is precisely because the Vinaya had deficiencies that the transactions were incomplete; therefore, citing texts and following paradigms, he supplemented that karma text. As for the text of the Vinaya itself, it remains deficient as before; how was it ever supplemented? Question: The Protocol on Minor and Major [Offenses] says: “Expunging and supplementing the old treatises, he compiled the Transactions Manual”; according to this, the expunging and supplementing do not lie in the Vinaya—why do you not allow that it expunges and supplements the commentaries and treatises? Answer: That which is expunged and supplemented mostly came out of old treatises; that which does the expunging and supplementing is all seen in the present manual. But the words “commentaries and treatises” are narrow, whereas the words “personal views” are broad; whether transmitted orally or handed down in writing, in principle nothing is excluded. Please examine closely the intention of the manual and do not linger in hesitation. Regarding “transactions” (xíngshì): “action” (xíng) has the meaning of active implementation, and “matters” (shì) reveals its name in contrast to “principle” (lǐ). However, the marks of matters have many paths, and their meaning must be carefully selected. First, although matters encompass both good and bad, here they are exclusively good matters. Second, within good matters, setting aside ordinary, general goods, it exclusively clarifies the goodness of the precepts. Third, regarding the two practices of the community and the shared practices in the upper and lower fascicles, they are termed active goodness; the personal practice of the middle fascicle is termed cessative goodness. Fourth, regarding the various chapters, the various matters are finely divided. The upper fascicle has twelve chapters: the single chapter “Indicating the School” generally encourages transactions. From “Gathering the Sangha” downward, there are five matters: first, the matter of conditions being fulfilled for communal legal acts (five chapters: Gathering the Sangha, Completing the Quorum, Receiving Consent, Karmas, and Establishing Boundaries).

); second, matters of guiding the assembly and maintaining [the Dharma] (Monastic Regulations); third, matters of receiving beings and guiding them onward (Ordination, Teacher and Disciple); fourth, matters of examination and purifying the mind (Poṣadha, Pravāraṇā); fifth, matters of quieting conditions and encouraging cultivation (Vassa). The four chapters of the middle fascicle contain two matters: first, matters of dedicated vigilance and non-violation (Chapters and Classes, Explaining the Marks, Maintenance and Violation); second, matters of being able to repent after having violated (Repentance Chapter). The fourteen chapters of the lower fascicle are divided into eight matters: first, matters of inner and outer supporting requisites (Two Robes, Four Medicines, Almsbowl and Utensils); second, matters of disciplining the body and abandoning defilement (Facing Offerings, Dhūta); third, matters of humbling oneself with modesty and respect (Monastic Images); fourth, matters of converting outsiders and generating goodness (Funerals and Invitations, Guiding the Laity); fifth, matters of receiving and treating peers in the Dharma (Host and Guest, Caring for the Sick); sixth, matters of daily essential duties (Miscellaneous Practices); seventh, matters of instructing lower assemblies (Śrāmaṇeras and Nuns); eighth, matters of broadly comprehending other schools (Various Schools). Thus, the aspects of practice explained throughout the entire work from beginning to end are nothing other than the preparatory conditions set into motion and formed by the three karmas; therefore it is called 'Transactions' (Xingshi). Placing this at the head of the title distinguishes it uniquely from all other traditions; it is the root source of the original institution of the teachings, the essential backbone expounded by the orthodox doctrine. Reflecting light over nine generations, these words are by no means empty. Hence the preface states: 'As for revealing the practices of worldly affairs to provide a standard track for future novices, not one in a hundred exists.' This is the great essential of our school, seen everywhere throughout the texts. All who partake in studying this school must investigate and practice it thoroughly; if one is blind to this principle, what more can be said! Question: According to [the section on] maintenance and violation below, matters and dharmas are divided into two; now that only 'matters' is placed in the title, does it not fail to subsume 'dharmas'? Answer: In that passage, when explaining cessation and performance, each subsumes its own scope, hence they must be divided into two. Here, looking toward their activation and execution, regardless of whether they are matters or dharmas, they all broadly resolve into 'matters.' Question: The title says 'Transactions' (xíngshì), while below it mentions the 'three practices' (sānxíng); their pronunciations and designations differ, so what are their similarities and differences? Answer: Xíng refers to execution and cultivation; xìng denotes the perfected virtue. It is by means of cultivation that virtue is perfected; the words differ, but the meaning is the same. None fails to flow into the practicing mind and assemble conditions to form karma. 'Manual' (chāo) has two meanings: first, the meaning of extracting; second, the meaning of subsuming. That is, from the authentic texts of the Tripiṭaka and the bequeathed records of the noble and wise, it extracts what is essential and appropriate to serve as the textual substance. Below, it says 'summarizing the authentic texts,' which is this first meaning. Since those texts are vast, recording them fully would be cumbersome; therefore, between them, it briefly highlights the head and the tail, with economical phrasing and complete reasoning; below, it says 'encompassing all meanings,' which is this second meaning. When we come to the tenth section, this will be explained at length. 'Preface' (xù) has three glosses, explained according to their meanings. The Erya says: 'The east and west walls are called xù.' Just as in the world the side-hall walls stand outside the inner chamber, this metaphorically illustrates that the preface stands at the head of the manual; this is the meaning of xù as 'preface/threshold' (duānxù). Second, xù is glossed as 'narration' (xù), meaning the narration of the compilation from beginning to end, comprehensively framing it with the ten sections and tracing the lineage of the three practices, so that the text and meaning of the entire work are distinct and not confused; this is the meaning of xù as 'sequence/narration' (cìxù). Third, when glossed as 'clue/thread' (xù), it is like unwinding a cocoon: when one grasps the thread-end, the rest of the silk can be put in order; when students observe the preface, all the chapters can be sought out; this is the meaning of xù as 'inception/source' (yóuxù). A single word designates the preface, and all three explanations apply. Question: Formerly it was said that there are two prefaces, general and particular; what is the meaning of this? Answer: A single title is set at the head, so how could there be two prefaces! I do not accept this now, and will briefly state three errors. Whenever 'general and particular' are spoken of, together they clarify a single matter, like the examples of the general and particular of maintenance and violation, or the general and particular of the two robes. The present preface is not like that: the earlier part clarifies the compilation and composition of the text, while the latter part encompasses the general meaning of all the chapters; the earlier and latter parts are diametrically different, so how could 'general and particular' be established? If one says it is particular because the ten sections differ, then the seven sections listed in the general meaning of maintenance and violation should also be particular; the Precept Commentary and Karma Commentary each have general meanings and both list multiple sections, and the same objection would apply. That this completely lacks the meaning of general and particular is the first error. Furthermore, it imitates the general and particular prefaces of the sūtra traditions. Yet in the sūtras, the general preface applies generally to all sūtras, while the particular distinguishes [that sūtra] from other scriptures. For what text does this preface to the manual apply generally? From what scripture does it distinguish it? Moreover, to take the general preface as the launching cause and the particular preface as the testimony of credibility: in the sūtras, the general serves as the testimony of credibility and the particular serves as the launching cause; here it would be reversed, which is utterly disorderly. If one claims that by analogy with those it can be called two prefaces, [one should note that] in those texts, through the difference between applying generally to others and being restricted to this text, and the difference between being placed before or after the sūtra, the testimony of credibility ensures freedom from doubt for a hundred generations, and the launching cause reveals that the teaching was not established in vain. The division into two prefaces was intended for this reason. Examining the text of this preface, it cannot be compared to that at all. Falsely adducing that precedent is the second error. Furthermore, the manual uses the ten sections to unify its broad outlines, and also states that these ten items together summarize all the divisions, meaning that the ten sections have no particular meaning whatsoever; failing to understand the purport of the text is the third error. Now, to offer the correct explanation: contrasted with the thirty distinct chapters below, it can only be collectively called the general preface. Within this one preface, it is broadly divided into three passages: The first clarifies the authorship, simply narrating the expressive text. The middle lists the ten sections, encompassing the meaning of all the chapters. Both text and meaning are subsumed under the teaching. The teaching is not empty; its aim is to assist practice. Therefore, it subsequently divides into the three practices, comprehensively gathering all capacities. Throughout the one preface from beginning to end, teaching and practice are thus complete. I have briefly shown the essentials; the rest will be addressed as we come to the text. The annotated characters beneath the title highlight the distinctive name above and contain multiple meanings: First, to differ from the ancients. Below, it reproaches the ancients, saying: 'As for revealing the practices of worldly affairs to provide a standard track for future novices, not one in a hundred exists.' Now, titling it 'Transactions' attains the fundamental purport of the Vinaya. Second, to distinguish it from the mixed. Ancient masters' works were all titled 'Four-Part Vinaya Manual,' 'Commentary,' etc.; therefore, adding this distinctive designation lets it be known that it is not those others. Third, to resolve doubts. The doubt says: in compiling a manual based on the Vinaya, it would suffice merely to establish the title based on what is relied upon; why must words like 'Eliminating the Cumbersome' be added? If it were not annotated and clarified, the doubting mind would remain unresolved. The middle and lower fascicles differ in wording but share the same meaning.