四分律行事鈔資持記 1.29

1.29

次體勢中，初別列。有四句。初句明繁者。或作繁廣釋。上卷諸篇，廣張行事。中卷盜戒離衣畜寶別眾食等。下卷二衣四藥導俗沙彌等。或作繁累釋。如結界唱相，有場無場兩種大界，竝先委示，正唱復出。受戒遮難，亦先釋相，出眾對眾復兩列之。說戒懺殘，並前廣引諸教，然後還引前文，排布儀式。上就當篇各明。若約別篇互望，亦有此義。如〈結界篇〉重明集僧，又〈羯磨篇〉中，復列集僧結界簡人受欲等，及〈受戒篇〉還述集僧等，〈釋相篇〉復明受戒具緣等。〈釋相〉、〈對施〉兩出五觀食法等。如是並為顯於行事，不可闕略；即下所謂若略減取其梗概，用事恒有不足是也。第二略指者。初約諸篇互指。如〈集僧〉指結界在後，〈結界〉指集僧如前，〈說戒〉指白眾在〈僧網〉，〈安居〉指五利如〈自恣〉，〈羯磨〉中簡眾與欲並指前篇。又各就當篇明者。如〈足數〉中指四儀別相，廣如〈別眾〉；懺殘指覆藏如後。如此相指，遍該一部，且舉一二。類謂同流，從即訓順。如安居竟，合明迦提五利，不欲更繁；然夏竟受利，與下自恣同流相順，故指如彼。餘皆倣此。又釋：如無場大界，已出結法；後有場大界，即指如前。乃至加三衣法，具出一法餘並例指。受日中出半月羯磨已，一月如前。此釋亦通，不無其義。三文斷者。如〈受欲〉中明說欲相，引《五分》、《僧祇》文，斷已續云義評等；下諸篇中義云義曰義詳義準等，皆同此例。（古解云云，一無可取。）四徵詞者。即推覈之語，謂推覈深隱，必假問端以為發起；汎論問答，為立賓主；賓則申疑推究，主則隨義決通；欲使言議相持，教理明顯。一咨請問（即〈結界〉中諸問，如云大界有村得合結否？），二假疑問（〈受欲〉中問不稱緣，欲法成否？〈羯磨〉中問白讀成否等？），三破古問（〈集僧〉中問自然方圓，〈足數〉中問邊罪等人自言據體等。），四相並問（〈受戒〉中問戒師白和，教授不和。又問戒師不差，教授獨差。），五推窮問（〈受欲〉中問此律宿欲不成，及〈受戒〉中問《十誦》尼無重出家，何故開捨戒？），六互違問（〈釋相〉問毘尼殄已起，戒防未起，何言斷過去非？盜戒問盜像供養無犯，盜經結重等。）。諸篇之中所有問答，不出此例；文中一句收無不盡。上來四句，總括一部文體大要；意使預知，至文不惑；今更以四句助顯其意。初句繁而不費，次句略而不闕，三參而不亂，四幽而不隱。如下，通結。如是者，指示之詞。謂上四種遍在一部，不使前後義有相違，故云始終交映。又除顯事用，不令前後文有繁複，故云隱顯互出。交亦是互，映即照也。

In the second section, on the literary form and style, first there is the separate enumeration. It has four lines. The first line explains the detailed passages. This may be explained as extensive and broad: the chapters in the upper fascicle comprehensively set forth the ritual transactions; the middle fascicle covers the precept against theft, separation from one's robes, keeping treasures, eating in separate groups, and so on; and the lower fascicle covers the two robes, the four medicines, guiding laypeople, novices, and so forth. Alternatively, it may be explained as detailed and repetitive: as with the announcement of the boundary marks during the demarcating of boundaries, where both the large boundaries with a platform and those without a platform are first explained in detail, and then set forth again at the time of the actual announcement; with the impediments and obstructions to ordination, their marks are also explained first, and then enumerated twice again, outside the saṃgha and before the saṃgha; with the poṣadha recitation and the confession of saṃghāvaśeṣa, various teachings are extensively cited first, and then the preceding texts are cited again to arrange the actual ritual procedures. The above is explained within each respective chapter. Looking across different chapters, this meaning also holds: for example, the "Chapter on Demarcating Boundaries" re-explains assembling the saṃgha; further, in the "Chapter on Karmavācanā", assembling the saṃgha, demarcating boundaries, examining participants, receiving consent, etc., are enumerated again; the "Chapter on Ordination" also recounts assembling the saṃgha and so forth; the "Chapter on Explaining the Marks" again clarifies the requisite conditions for ordination and so on; and the chapters "Explaining the Marks" and "Facing Offerings" both set forth the method of contemplating food through the five reflections. All of this is done to clarify the ritual transactions, which cannot be omitted or abbreviated; this is precisely what is meant below by: "If one curtails them to take only the general outline, in performing the transactions there will constantly be inadequacies." The second line concerns abbreviated cross-references. First, in terms of mutual cross-references between different chapters: the chapter on "Assembling the Saṃgha" points forward to "Demarcating Boundaries"; "Demarcating Boundaries" points backward to "Assembling the Saṃgha"; "Poṣadha Recitation" points to announcing to the assembly in "The Saṃgha's Regulation"; "Rainy Season Retreat" points to the five benefits as treated in "Pravāraṇā"; and in "Karmavācanā", the examination of the assembly and the conferring of consent both refer back to preceding chapters. Moreover, to explain this within individual chapters: in the chapter on "Making up the Requisite Number", the distinct marks of the four postures refer to "Separate Assembly" for an extensive treatment; and confession of saṃghāvaśeṣa points forward to concealment. Such mutual cross-references pervade the entire work; these are merely one or two examples. "Kind" refers to belonging to the same category; "follow" is glossed as accord with. For example, after the retreat concludes, it is fitting to clarify the five benefits of the kaṭhina, but one does not wish to be repetitive; since receiving the benefits at the end of the summer retreat belongs to the same category and accords with the subsequent pravāraṇā, it refers to that chapter. All other cases are modeled on this. Another explanation: for example, for the large boundary without a platform, the method of demarcation has already been set forth; subsequently, for the large boundary with a platform, it simply refers back to the preceding. Down to the procedure for adding the three robes: one procedure is fully set forth, and the rest are cross-referenced by analogy. Under receiving extra days: after the half-month karmavācanā has been set forth, the one-month procedure refers back to the preceding. This explanation is also acceptable, and its reasoning is sound. Third is the break in the text. For example, in "Receiving Consent", when clarifying the marks of declaring consent, after citing the Mahīśāsaka and Mahāsāṃghika texts, having broken off, it continues with "In evaluating the meaning...", and so on; in subsequent chapters, phrases like "The meaning is...", "The meaning states...", "The meaning is examined as...", and "By analogy with the meaning..." all follow this pattern. (The ancient commentaries give various explanations, none of which are acceptable.) Fourth is interrogative terms: these are words of critical inquiry. When investigating what is profound and hidden, one must rely on questions to open the discussion. Speaking generally of question and answer, they establish the interlocutor and the master: the interlocutor raises doubts and investigates, while the master resolves and clarifies in accordance with the meaning; the aim is that through debate, the doctrine and principles become manifest. First, inquiring questions (such as various questions in "Demarcating Boundaries", like: "If there is a village within the large boundary, can they be demarcated together or not?"); second, hypothetical questions (such as asking in "Receiving Consent": "If one does not state the circumstance, is the consent valid or not?", and in "Karmavācanā": "Is reading the jñapti valid or not?"); third, questions refuting ancient views (such as asking in "Assembling the Saṃgha" about square and circular natural boundaries, and in "Making up the Requisite Number" about those with grave offenses claiming based on their own essence); fourth, parallel questions (such as asking in "Ordination": "If the preceptor recites the motion in harmony, but the instructor is discordant; or if the preceptor is not formally appointed, but the instructor alone is formally appointed?"); fifth, probing questions (such as asking in "Receiving Consent": "In this vinaya, consent from the previous night is invalid", and in "Ordination": "Why does the Daśādhyāya permit renouncing the precepts, when for a nun there is no re-ordination?"); sixth, mutually conflicting questions (such as asking in "Explaining the Marks": "The vinaya restrains what has already arisen, while the precepts guard against what has not yet arisen; why say it cuts off past wrongs?", or in the theft precept, asking: "Stealing an image for veneration incurs no offense, but stealing a sutra incurs a grave offense?"). All questions and answers across the various chapters do not go beyond these patterns; this single phrase in the text encompasses them all without remainder. The above four lines summarize the essential literary styles of the entire work. The intention is to let the reader know them in advance so that, coming to the text, one is not confused. Now I add four further lines to bring out this meaning: first, detailed without being superfluous; second, concise without being deficient; third, interwoven without being disorderly; fourth, profound without being obscure. From "As with..." downward, it concludes generally. "As with" is an indicative phrase, meaning that the above four features pervade the entire work, not letting the meaning in the beginning and end contradict one another; hence it says "mutually reflecting from beginning to end". Furthermore, by presenting the practical application of matters, it prevents the text before and after from becoming redundant; hence it says "alternately appearing and remaining hidden". "Intertwined" also means mutual, and "reflecting" means illuminating.