[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [四分律行事鈔資持記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805) › 1.11.2 # 四分律行事鈔資持記 1.11.2 四分律行事鈔資持記 1.11.2 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.11.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.1.11.2) 自古傳律，情見不同，或疏或鈔十有餘家； 口相傳授，亦非一二。 凡於一事，解釋多途； 必備而引之，則翳於行事。 但直申正義，餘竝削除。 止用一言標破，如云：不同前解、諸說不同、餘義廢之、昔解多途等。 今以標破之言，謂之能刪，屬在刪字； 削去諸說，竝號所刪，屬於繁字。 上據義說，更須文證。 鈔興意云：每所引用，先加覆檢； 於一事之下，廢立意多； 諸師所存，情見繁廣； 今竝刪略，止存文證等。 問：繁有幾種？ 答：略有二義。 一者繁廣。 即上所明諸師情見，刪除之者； 如自然定方、七樹七間、戒場先後、夏中結解、受日限定等，並有多說； 今於鈔中例皆不引，即義鈔兩疏所引古解者是。 二者繁濫。 如欲詞牒緣，受日加乞之類，今竝除之，即〈羯磨篇〉云：今欲剋剪浮言，發揚聖旨等。 又如：知鐘之語、說戒淨口、安居通聚、自恣為非，〈僧網篇〉中，廣列非制； 〈師資篇〉中，妄行杖罰之類，即〈僧網〉云：今則刪其繁惡，補其遺漏等。 若依序文，正存前意； 今取後說，非不兼通。 縱有多述，不出於此。 問：上明所刪，為律為疏？ 答：自昔不明，去取兩異，今為分之。 謂本宗他部大小經論、西土此方先賢文紀、諸家鈔疏，但使今鈔引者，竝是取文，皆屬鈔字。 至於諸師情見，或筆於文、或傳於口，今鈔不錄，削除之者，並是所刪，即刪繁字攝。 應知刪補之義，鈔文前後時或有之； 豈得凡見引文，例稱刪補！ 傳迷來久，學者深須究之。 問：如戒本緣起，廣解辨相，律藏文廣，今鈔不引，豈非刪律？ 答：律是聖教，今家所宗； 但可取文，豈宜刪去！ 一者下文指廣如律，并及大疏，何得率爾例斥為繁！ 二者鈔興意中但云情見繁廣，不云刪律； 一家宗部，並無此語； 如何不思，輒見輕謗。 若爾，〈說戒篇〉云：今以普照道安二師為本，餘則取律誠文刪補取中，豈非刪律？ 答：此迷語也。 彼以古師儀式有闕有繁； 故憑本律，刪彼所繁，補彼所闕。 是則繁闕在二師之本，刪補屬今鈔之用。 據斯以言，彌彰上義。 問：若不刪律，應即刪疏？ 答：但是異端，或文或說，豈局於疏。 及乎取彼要當，還屬鈔取； 自餘不引，始號刪繁； 故鈔興意中但云情見，不言疏鈔也。 二明補闕者。 自古持律，或隨己執見、或暗於教部，至於行事，未適時宜。 如尺量短長、由旬大小、羯磨例皆白讀、問難不取解知、臥具謂非三衣、畜長不科減量、淨地不立唱相、七證全無請詞； 斯類極多，例皆遺闕。 今鈔約義準文，補令詳備。 故下房戒，定尺量已，云余曾遊晉魏及以關輔，諸方律肆，每必預筵； 至論尺斗廢興，曾未霑述； 故即補闕，反光九代。 （印本作故即刪補，然既未霑述，豈得有刪？ 今準古本為正。 ）今以往古未論之事，即為所補； 鈔中所引文義理例，是為能補。 問：補闕與下文義決通，為同為異？ 答：決通通先有，補闕局元無。 餘如序中第五門說。 問：《隨機羯磨》云：律藏殘缺，義有遺補，豈非補律？ 答：正由律缺，行事不周； 故引文約例，補彼羯磨。 至如律文，仍前自缺，何嘗補之。 問：《輕重儀》云：刪補舊章，撰述事鈔； 準此刪補不在於律，如何不許刪補章疏？ 答：所刪所補，多出舊章； 能刪能補，並見今鈔。 但章疏語局。 情見言通，口授文傳，理無不攝。 請詳鈔意，勿事遲疑。 行事者，行以運造為義，事即對理彰名。 然事相多途，義須精簡。 初以事通善惡，此唯善事。 二就善中簡餘泛善，局明戒善。 三約上下兩卷眾共二行名作善； 中卷自行名止善。 四約諸篇細分諸事。 上卷十二篇：標宗一篇，總勸行事。 集僧已下有五事：初眾法緣成事（集僧、足數、受欲、羯磨、結界，五篇。 > 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). > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.11.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.1.11.1) - [Next: 1.11.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.1.11.3) - [Up: 1.11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.1.11) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805~en-mt.1.11.2) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.1.11.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.1.11.2) · Pramāṇa