[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [四分律行事鈔資持記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805) › 1.25 # 四分律行事鈔資持記 1.25 四分律行事鈔資持記 1.25 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.25](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.1.25) 次義集者，即諸本羯磨。以羯磨文散在廣律，並以義類集結成篇，故云文在義集。如今《隨機羯磨》，亦稱撰集；又《業疏》中召出羯磨人為集法者，皆可證矣。此科文意，為遮後疑。恐云上斥疏鈔繁費乖宗；且諸本羯磨，直顯行事，如何上云百無一本，無乃誣彼先賢耶。今雖許有，還成無用。言時有者，明其不多也。銳懷者，美其敏利也。即目鎧諦光願四師。上標人法。或下，指過。初二句即光願二本。光本多以義求，願本廣引緣據；詞繁事隱，不濟時用，故云多列等。閑緩非要，謂之游詞。好廣者樂從，尚簡者不顧，故云逗機未足。逗猶濟也。次單題下，即鎧諦二本。上二句斥文略。題即書寫。彼唯出法，不辨緣成，故云莫宣，猶言不述也。下二句明無用。既不曉成敗，加被無功，故云依文等。故《業疏》序中總斥四本云：增減繁略，互見得失等。（昔來所釋，都無所曉。） > Next, as for the compilations of meanings (義集), these refer to the various editions of karmavācanā texts. Because the karmavācanā texts are scattered throughout the extensive Vinaya, they were collected and compiled into chapters according to categories of meaning; hence it is said that "the texts reside in compilations of meanings." Just as the present \*Karmavācanā for Situational Application\* (隨機羯磨) is also called a compilation, and in the \*Karma Commentary\* (業疏) those who extracted karmavācanā are referred to as "compilers of the texts"—all serve as proof. The meaning of the text in this heading is to prevent subsequent doubts. It is feared someone might say: "Above, you criticized commentaries and manuals as verbose, wasteful, and contrary to the fundamental principles; yet the various editions of karmavācanā directly demonstrate the transactions. How then could you say above that 'not one in a hundred' \[is useful\]? Does that not slander those former worthies?" Now, although it is admitted that they exist, they still turn out to be useless. Saying that they are "occasional" clarifies that they are not numerous. "Those of sharp mind" praises their cleverness and acuity. This refers to the four masters Kai, Di, Guang, and Yuan. The above indicates the persons and texts. The text from "or" downward points out their faults. The first two lines refer to the two editions by Guang and Yuan. Guang's edition mostly seeks after doctrinal meaning, while Yuan's edition extensively cites conditions and sources; the wording is verbose and the transactions are obscured, failing to serve practical application—hence it says "mostly listing..." and so on. Leisurely and non-essential \[language\] is called superfluous verbiage. Those fond of broadness happily followed them, while those valuing brevity disregarded them; hence it says "they insufficiently met students' capacities." \*Dou\* (逗) means to meet or serve. Next, from "simply entitling" downward, refers to the two editions by Kai and Di. The first two lines criticize the texts for being too brief. "To entitle" means to write down. They merely set forth the procedures without discerning the requisite conditions; hence it says "they did not proclaim," which is to say they did not explain. The lower two lines clarify their uselessness. Since one does not understand valid execution or invalidity, the performative empowerment is fruitless; hence it says "relying on the text..." and so on. Therefore, the preface of the \*Karma Commentary\* comprehensively criticizes the four editions, saying: "Additions and subtractions, verbosity and brevity, each display merits and demerits," and so on. (Past interpretations understood nothing of this.) > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.24](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.1.24) - [Next: 1.26](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.1.26) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805~en-mt.1.25) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.1.25](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.1.25) · Pramāṇa