四分律行事鈔資持記 1.278

1.278

初科別解《四分》，所為中，初標。以下，釋，上明不足所以。文約乞法，據攝多種，今分三別。一乞法（處分畜眾求懺等陳詞乞，受日無詞乞。），二不乞直與（如諸差人及治諫等。），三自身作法即是所為（戒師白和捨墮受懺。）。為僧量者，量謂觀察前人可否。既是自乞，豈容自量；制不許足，旨在於此。若通下，次明入數非法。此之二句語意似重，或恐意別，詳之。

In the first section, which specifically explains the *Four-Part Vinaya*, under "the recipient": it is first indicated. From "below" onward, it is explained: the above clarifies the reason for being insufficient. The text concerns requesting the Dharma, which subsumes many kinds; now they are divided into three distinctions: 1. Requesting the Dharma (making a spoken request, such as for disposition, keeping followers, seeking confession, etc.; receiving days [away] is a request without a spoken formula); 2. Direct granting without request (such as various appointments of persons, disciplinary admonitions, etc.); 3. One's own performance of the rite is itself the matter concerned (the precept master's jñapti for harmony, relinquishing a naiḥsargika and receiving deśanā). "To deliberate for the Saṅgha": deliberating means observing whether the other person is acceptable or not. Since it is one's own request, how could one be allowed to deliberate on oneself? The prohibition against completing the quorum has its purpose here. From "if universal" onward, it next clarifies that entering the count is uncanonical. The meaning of these two sentences seems redundant; or perhaps the meaning differs, which should be examined.