四分律行事鈔資持記 1.143

1.143

別對中，初明自行。上句明建志攝修，次句示學知教相。出離聖道，不類邪術，故云正戒。文指體相，必具法行；體附釋相，相總四篇；故此二字，統於中卷。自下，次明眾行。上句躡前，次句正示。凡行僧事，必先簡眾；故須體淨，方應秉宣。言綱領者，對下毛目也。匡攝住持，存乎眾法；隨事奉修，在乎別行；眾法存則別行修，綱領舉則毛目正；上下作持，離分在此。自他下，明共行。上句示行相。凡為道眾，彼我同須，即是共義，故云兩德。德亦行也。下句顯繁多。除僧法羯磨已外，一切作行，皆歸共收。唯此共行，攝相最廣，故曰多途。或可上句躡前兩行；次句正示行相，謂必須共行輔成自眾，故云成相多途。問：自眾兩行，亦制同遵，豈非相濫？答：自行則護體防心，義非他共；止作體別，此不在言。就論眾行，作業辦事，多是為他；義非常行，有緣方舉。共行不爾，日用恒須，是僧俱稟，獨彰斯目；如衣藥鉢器訃請導俗等類。比論二行，別相可知。然三行之目，古德所傳。若取今文，明標自行；又復前云上卷則攝於眾務，則自眾二行名義灼然。唯斯共行，雖復無文；兩德之言，義取無爽。古多妄解，不免繁詞。（古云：四人羯磨為眾行，一人心念為自行，二人對首為共行者，誤矣。）問：前文已分，何意重迷？答：前判能詮，則以文攝行；此明所詮，則指行在文。雖文行俱明，而正意兩別。問：前以上卷在初，此則中卷為首，何以不同：答：意如上解。若爾，何不依行次第，以自行為上卷耶？答：此有二意。一約行次第，則先止後作，自行合初。二約事勝劣，則住持功大，眾須在首；故律序云：以眾和合故，佛法得久住。今取後意，如文所列。

In the distinct correlation, first it clarifies personal practice. The upper clause clarifies establishing one's aspiration and gathering cultivation; the next clause shows learning to know the marks of the teaching. Transcending to the noble path does not resemble heterodox arts, hence it says "correct precepts." The text points to essence and marks, which must be endowed with Dharma-practices; the essence is appended to explaining marks, and the marks subsume the four chapters; therefore these two words govern the middle fascicle. From "From... onward," it next clarifies community practice. The upper clause follows from the preceding; the next clause directly demonstrates it. Whenever conducting Saṃgha business, one must first screen the assembly; therefore the essence must be pure before one should uphold and proclaim [the karma]. Saying "the overarching outline" contrasts with "the specific details" below. Rectifying, gathering, maintaining, and sustaining reside in the Saṃgha-dharmas; observing and cultivating according to circumstances resides in distinct practices. When Saṃgha-dharmas are maintained, distinct practices are cultivated; when the overarching outline is lifted, the specific details are rectified. The separation between the upper and lower [levels of] maintenance through action lies here. From "Self and other" downward, it clarifies shared practice. The upper clause shows the marks of the practice. All who form the community of the Way, both self and other alike, require it; this is the meaning of "shared," hence it says "both virtues." "Virtue" is also practice. The lower clause reveals their proliferation. Except for Saṃgha-dharma karmavācanā, all practices of action are subsumed under the shared. Only this shared practice subsumes the widest range of marks, hence it says "many paths." Alternatively, the upper clause follows from the preceding two practices, and the next clause directly demonstrates the marks of the practice, meaning that shared practice must assist and complete both personal and community [practices], hence it says, "the marks of completion take many paths." Question: Both personal and community practices are also instituted for common compliance; does this not create confusion among them? Answer: Personal practice protects the essence and guards the mind, the meaning of which is not shared with others; essence differs between cessation and action, which needs no saying here. As for discussing community practice, generating karma and handling affairs is mostly for the sake of others; its meaning is not daily practice, but undertaken only when an occasion arises. Shared practice is not like this; it is constantly required in daily use, and is received alike by all Saṃgha members, so it alone displays this title—such as the classes of robes, medicines, bowls and utensils, funerals, invitations, guiding laypeople, and so forth. Comparing the two practices, their distinct marks can be known. However, the designation of the three practices was transmitted by past masters. If one adopts the present text, it clearly marks personal practice; furthermore, it previously said that the upper fascicle subsumes community affairs, so the names and meanings of the personal and community practices are luminous. Only this shared practice lacks explicit textual naming; yet the phrase "both virtues" captures its meaning without error. Ancients mostly gave erroneous interpretations, inevitably lapsing into proliferating verbiage. (The ancients said, "A four-person karmavācanā is community practice, a single person's mental resolve is personal practice, and two people face-to-face is shared practice"—this is an error.) Question: Since it was already distinguished previously, why be confused again? Answer: The previous determination concerned the elucidating text, thus using text to subsume practice; this clarification concerns what is elucidated, thus pointing to practice within the text. Although both text and practice are clarified, their primary intentions are distinct. Question: Previously the upper fascicle was placed first, whereas here the middle fascicle is placed first; why are they not identical? Answer: The intention is as explained above. If so, why not follow the sequence of practice and take personal practice as the upper fascicle? Answer: This has two meanings. First, in terms of the sequence of practice, cessation precedes action, so personal practice ought to be first. Second, in terms of the superiority or inferiority of affairs, the merit of maintenance and sustaining is great, so the community must be at the head. Thus the Vinaya preface says: "Because the Saṃgha is in harmony, the Buddha-Dharma can endure long." Now we adopt the latter intention, as arranged in the text.