四分律行事鈔資持記 1.298

1.298

答中，初標古。即刪繁意。有執體者，如下難破。今下，正解，初立義。若知即當此例，不知自屬後門。如下，二指類。下篇云：受欲已，自言我是十三難人等；由自陳故，非是僧用（此證知則不足）；若不自言，相中同順（此證不知成足）。不同下，三遮簡。前是緣乖，此取緣如。故下，四引例。即受戒法中，有從破戒和尚受戒，後生疑問佛，佛為決之；生疑有四，故成四句。一問汝知和尚破戒不？答：不知（佛言得戒）。二問汝知彼破戒不？答：知；復問汝知不合從此人受不？答：不知（佛言得戒）。三問汝知彼破戒不？答：知；復問汝知不合從彼受不？答：知；又問汝知從此人受不得不？答：不知（佛言得戒）。四問如上三句，並答知（佛言不得）。故不足數，此句例成今義，三句得戒例足，後句不得例不足。所下，五取證。文中即〈瞻波犍度〉；彼不足中，前後兩出如上等人；別眾中一出，並云若自言犯邊污尼等。《十誦》者，文見第三例。

In the answer: first, it marks the ancient view. This refers to the intention in the Abbreviated Compilation. For those who cling to the essence, they are refuted and overturned as below. From 'Now' onward, the correct interpretation begins; first, it establishes the thesis. If known, they fall under this category; if unknown, they naturally belong to the subsequent gate. From 'As below' onward, secondly, it indicates the category. The lower chapter states: 'Having received consent, one states oneself: "I am a person of the thirteen obstructions," and so forth'; because of their own declaration, they are not for the saṃgha's use (this proves that if known, they are insufficient); if one does not declare it oneself, within outward marks they conform in harmony (this proves that if unknown, they constitute sufficiency). From 'Unlike' onward, thirdly, it wards off and screens. The former is a discordance of conditions; here it takes the conditions as conforming. From 'Therefore' onward, fourthly, it cites a precedent. That is, in the rite of receiving the precepts, someone received the precepts from an upādhyāya who broke the precepts; later doubts arose and he asked the Buddha, and the Buddha resolved it for him. Four doubts arose, thus forming four propositions. The first asked: 'Did you know the upādhyāya broke the precepts?' Answer: 'I did not know' (the Buddha said: 'The precepts were obtained'). The second asked: 'Did you know he broke the precepts?' Answer: 'I knew.' He asked again: 'Did you know it was inappropriate to receive them from this person?' Answer: 'I did not know' (the Buddha said: 'The precepts were obtained'). The third asked: 'Did you know he broke the precepts?' Answer: 'I knew.' He asked again: 'Did you know it was inappropriate to receive them from him?' Answer: 'I knew.' He asked yet again: 'Did you know that receiving them from this person, you would fail to obtain them?' Answer: 'I did not know' (the Buddha said: 'The precepts were obtained'). The fourth asked as in the above three propositions, and all were answered 'I knew' (the Buddha said: 'They were not obtained'). Thus he was insufficient for the count; this proposition analogously establishes the present thesis: the three propositions obtaining the precepts analogously establish sufficiency, and the latter proposition not obtaining them analogously establishes insufficiency. From 'Where' onward, fifthly, it takes proof. In the text, this refers to the 'Campā-skandhaka'; under its insufficiency section, the aforementioned persons appear twice, before and after; in the section on separate assemblies, it appears once, and all state: 'If he declares himself to have committed a border offense or defiled a nun,' and so forth. Regarding the Daśādhyāya-vinaya, the text appears in the third category.