四分律行事鈔資持記 1.112

1.112

罪異中，上二句明在家為惡（出家亦有犯者，如獨頭心念是。），下二句明出家毀戒。犯化不必違行，違行必兼犯化。業外加制，故云重也。問：性戒可爾，遮非本惡，為有幾罪？如壞生掘地，非不違慈；畜長捉寶，寧無貪染；來者有智，請為通之。又問：化教亦兼事行，豈無身口！行教通禁三業，豈不明心！何以上文離開三業以配兩教，亦請答之？故下，引證。即《善生經》。彼明二人同作一罪，受戒者重，不受者輕。《智論》文同，如〈懺篇〉引。

In "Difference in Offenses": the upper two lines clarify doing evil as a householder (monastics also commit this, such as solitary mental thoughts). The lower two lines clarify monastics violating precepts. Violating transformation does not necessarily transgress practice; transgressing practice must also entail violating transformation. Because prohibition is added on top of karmic action, it is called "heavier". Question: Inherently wrong precepts may be so; but prescribed precepts are not intrinsically evil, so how many offenses do they incur? For instance, destroying life or digging the ground is not without transgressing compassion; storing excess items or handling treasures, how can it be without the defilement of greed? May those of wisdom in the future resolve this. Another question: The teaching of transformation also encompasses concrete practices—how could it lack body and speech? The teaching of practice comprehensively prohibits the three karmas—how could it not illuminate the mind? Why does the text above separate the three karmas to match the two teachings? Please answer this as well. "Hence..." cites proofs, namely the Upāsakaśīla-sūtra. There it explains that when two people commit the same offense, the one who received precepts incurs a heavy offense, while the one who did not incurs a light one. The text of the Dazhidulun is the same, as cited in the chapter on "Confession".