四分律行事鈔資持記 1.230

1.230

斥濫中，初二句引濫斥妄。彼謂比丘使人打鐘，須云知鐘，是為淨語；若直云打鐘，名不淨語。諸下二句，約教顯非。文舉經論，言略於律。打如前引四五十律，擊如《阿含》，檛出《智論》。知下，以理難破。前明打鐘，能教所教，俱通道俗；然知淨語，能不通俗，所不通道；事非相例，故用難之。知淨不通俗者，能教局道也；鐘則不爾，通彼俗士，使人打故。及自為者，所教局俗也；鐘亦不爾，通彼比丘，受教自打故。早下，勸勉。疏云：知鐘之言，雖非巨害，然是知法者之大忌。（《古記》妄解，以疏對照，曲而釋之。）

Regarding reproaching improper practices: the first two sentences cite the improper practice and reproach the delusion. They claim that when a bhikṣu has someone strike the bell, he must say "know the bell" (zhīzhōng), which is considered pure speech; if he directly says "strike the bell," it is called impure speech. The subsequent two sentences, based on the teachings, reveal its error. The text brings up sūtras and treatises, being brief on the Vinaya. "Striking" (dǎ) is as previously cited from the Four-Part and Ten-Recitation Vinayas; "beating" (jī) is as in the Āgama; "knocking" (zhuā) comes from the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra. Beginning with "know" (知), it refutes it through reasoning. Previously it was explained that regarding striking the bell, both the one instructing and the one instructed encompass both monastics and laity. However, with the pure speech of "knowing" (zhī), the one capable [of instructing] does not encompass the laity, while the one instructed does not encompass monastics. The matters are not analogous; therefore, this is used to challenge it. That knowing pure speech does not encompass the laity means the one instructing is restricted to monastics; the bell is not so, encompassing laymen, since one has others strike it. And as for doing it oneself, the one instructed is restricted to the laity; the bell is also not so, encompassing bhikṣus, who receive the instruction and strike it themselves. Beginning with "early" (早), it gives encouragement. The Commentary states: "Although the words 'know the bell' do no great harm, they are nonetheless a great taboo among those who know the Dharma." (The Old Record explains this erroneously; checking it against the Commentary, it interprets it tortuously.)