四分律行事鈔資持記 1.1192

1.1192

結指中。點上所判。講者因先諸記妄云順古，便云此是斥古；妄上加妄，此妄何窮！且鈔文前後義評義準，其言非一，豈非文者皆不取耶。

Under 'Concluding reference', it points out the determinations above. Lecturers, because earlier records falsely claimed it accords with the ancient [meaning], thereupon said this refutes the ancient [meaning]; adding falsehood upon falsehood, where will this falsity end! Furthermore, the Manual's text repeatedly contains evaluative critiques and analogical applications throughout; its statements are not singular—could it be that wherever it is not textual, none of it is accepted?