四分律行事鈔資持記 1.149

1.149

上卷首題，委如前釋。今總分對，略為四別。初約能所。上三字律題是所宗，下七字鈔題是能宗。又律題中，四分屬能集，律是所集。鈔題中，刪補行三字是能，繁闕事三字為所。又鈔字是能，行事屬所。二約通別。律題為通，貫諸部故。鈔題為別，局今文故。又《四分》為別，五中一故；律字是通，諸宗同稱故。刪等六字為別，無所濫故；鈔字為通，容相涉故。三約人分。律是佛制，《四分》即部主集，鈔即祖師撰。四約華梵。上三字翻梵成華，下竝華語。梵云折埵理、質埵理，此翻分四。從此方俗，迴易其語。辨律華梵，如〈釋相〉中。極知繁碎。講學剖文，不得不爾。忘筌之士，更繁何患；執指之徒，無言亦著，豈不然乎！

The title at the head of the first fascicle has been explained in detail before. Now, dividing and comparing it generally, there are briefly four distinctions: First, in terms of active and passive. The first three characters of the Vinaya title are the object of veneration, and the lower seven characters of the Manual's title are the venerating agent. Furthermore, within the Vinaya title, 'Four-Part' belongs to that which compiles, and 'Vinaya' is that which is compiled. In the title of the Manual, the three characters 'cutting, supplementing, transactions' are the agent, and the three characters 'burdensome, omitted, matters' are the object. Again, the character 'Manual' is the agent, and 'transactions' belongs to the object. Second, in terms of common and specific: the title of the Vinaya is common, as it runs through all schools; the title of the Manual is specific, as it is restricted to the present text. Furthermore, 'Four-Part' is specific, being one among the five; the character 'Vinaya' is common, as all schools share the designation. The six characters beginning with 'cutting' are specific, having no ambiguity; the character 'Manual' is common, allowing mutual overlap. Third, distinguished in terms of persons: the Vinaya was instituted by the Buddha, the 'Four-Part' was compiled by the head of the school, and the Manual was composed by the Patriarchal Master. Fourth, in terms of Chinese and Sanskrit: the first three characters translate Sanskrit into Chinese; those below are all Chinese words. Sanskrit says catur-bhāga, which translates here as 'four parts'. Following the customs of this land, the order of the words was inverted. Discerning the Sanskrit and Chinese of the Vinaya is as explained in 'Explaining the Marks'. I am well aware this is burdensome and fragmented. Yet in lecturing and dissecting the text, one cannot do otherwise. For a gentleman who forgets the fish-trap, what worry is there of further burden? For the crowd who cling to the pointing finger, they become attached even without words—how could it not be so!