四分律行事鈔資持記 1.136

1.136

正示中，初文，上句推其師受，顯非自裁。次句呈於己懷，明須去取。每下，正敘刪削，初二句示撿討。覆謂反覆。於下四句，明所刪。一事，舉少類多；一事尚然，況一部行事，其繁可知。文中繁有二重：一廢立多者，約諸家相望也；二情見繁者，就諸家自論也。今下，示能刪。此亦有二：一者全除刪，如受戒法及十三難羯磨戒本等，並廣列義門，今鈔不錄。二者對破刪，如下但云諸說不同、昔解多途、廢昔義等，而不委引彼說者是。如自然界體廣狹方圓、三小立相、安居受日等，並多古解，一一標破；此但直申今義，即引誠教，證令取信，故云今並等。且引一事，餘準明之。如下問云：自然界為方圓耶？答云：昔云定方（下引彼說，即刪略也。）；下引《十誦》、《本律》、《五分》、《善見》、《了論》等文，仍云廣引誠證，定方須廢（此謂止存文證）。首題刪繁，文唯據此；如上所示，想無惑矣。

In the direct demonstration, as for the opening passage: the upper clause refers back to transmission from the master, showing that this was not one's own invention; the next clause expresses one's own sentiments, clarifying that selection and rejection were necessary. From "Whenever" downward, it directly recounts the deletions. The first two clauses show the examination and deliberation: "turn over" (覆) means back and forth. The following four clauses clarify what was deleted. "A single affair" exemplifies the few to represent the many; if even a single affair is like this, how much more so the affairs and practices of an entire volume—their proliferation can well be known! In the text, proliferation has two layers: first, many establishing and discarding [of positions], which is viewed with reference to the various masters against one another; second, proliferating subjective views, which is discussed with reference to the various masters internally. From "Now" downward, it indicates what can delete. This also has two [aspects]: first, deletion by total excision, such as the rite of ordination, the karmavācanā for the thirteen impediments, the Prātimokṣa-sūtra, and so forth, in all of which doctrinal topics were extensively listed, but are not recorded in this manual; second, deletion by direct refutation, which is like the cases below where it merely states, "the various explanations are not identical," "former interpretations take many paths," or "discarding former doctrines," without citing their explanations in detail. For example, regarding the extent, squareness, or roundness of the natural boundary's essence, the establishing of marks for the three small [boundaries], and the receiving of days during the rains retreat, there are many ancient explanations that are singled out and refuted one by one. Here, one simply sets forth the present doctrine directly and cites authentic teachings to verify and engender trust; hence it says, "Now I combinedly," etc. Having cited one matter for now, the rest may be understood by analogy. As asked below: "Is the natural boundary square or round?" The reply says: "Formerly it was said to be definitely square" (citing their explanation below is the deletion and abridgment); below it cites texts such as the Daśādhyāya-vinaya, the root Vinaya, the Pañcavargika-vinaya, the Samantapāsādikā, the Vinayadvāviṃśatividyā-śāstra, and so forth, yet says that having extensively cited authentic verifications, "definitely square" must be discarded (this means only preserving the textual proofs). "Deleting proliferation" in the opening title relies solely on this passage; as demonstrated above, there should presumably be no confusion.