四分律行事鈔資持記 1.207

1.207

問中，彼論前云：若於罪不罪不可得故，是時名為尸羅波羅蜜。後即問曰：若人捨惡行善，是為持戒，云何言罪不罪不可得？今鈔倒之，意使易解。答中。但引罪不可得。彼續云：罪無故，不罪亦不可得。若肉眼下二句，疑引別文，尋之未獲。彼又云：復次眾生不可得故，殺罪亦不可得；罪不可得故，戒亦不可得。何以故？以有殺罪故則有戒；若無殺罪，則亦無戒。（若體此意，方名持戒清淨。不爾，止是世福。學者聞此，豈不疑之。）

In the question: that treatise previously stated: "If offense and non-offense are unapprehendable, this is called śīlapāramitā." Later it then asks: "If someone abandons evil and practices good, this is upholding the precepts; how can you say that offense and non-offense are unapprehendable?" Now the manual reverses them, wishing to make it easier to understand. In the answer: it only cites that offense is unapprehendable. That text continues: "Because there is no offense, non-offense is also unapprehendable." As for the two lines from "If the fleshly eye…" down, they are suspected of citing another text, which has not been found upon searching. That text also says: "Furthermore, because sentient beings are unapprehendable, the offense of killing is also unapprehendable; because the offense is unapprehendable, the precept is also unapprehendable. Why is this? Because there is the offense of killing, there is the precept; if there were no offense of killing, there would also be no precept." (If one embodies this meaning, only then is it called purity in upholding precepts. Otherwise, it is merely worldly merit. When students hear this, how could they not doubt it?)