四分律行事鈔資持記 1.312

1.312

犯殘七人，初列名數。具如〈懺篇〉。本宗四人，但據正行。第四人，《業疏》上加將字，於相甚顯。（此四出人法中，不在四滿句。）《十誦》三人，並約行竟；恐謂行竟，妄將充數故。《業疏》云：六夜竟與將出罪何異？答：律文兩位，約遠近耳。（六夜竟，望出罪遠，將出即近。）又問與四羯磨人何異？答：前但小犯，情過可訶，故足數收；此犯次死，罪深難拔，故不足也。不足下，示少分義。謂唯除悔殘四法，是不足耳，以同犯者不合同治故。不妨下，明應法。此十一人，準疏別判；乃知今鈔全依律出，猶同古解；彼云：有人云：四羯磨者，眾法皆通；僧殘諸治，局二篇悔。若作此解，焉有被訶責者得更治人？犯二篇者，開餘懺主！審約事情，律文不了。以義糺定，應分二途。若同犯同治，理無預加。律言足數，謂差結等。（此一途也。）若自有犯，必無清過，以有罪人不合解罪。乍可應餘非罪羯磨。（此一途也。）若作斯通，始終無妨。（準此決前十一人，但應生善名足；一切滅惡犯治，並不成足；鈔存不了義，用疏廢之。）問：前四後七，有何別耶？答：據律則別，疏決無殊；不妨同歸少分不足，得為一例。問：四門同別，可得聞乎？答：初二兩門一向不足，第三相翻名足，第四或足不足。又初後具戒。中二多別，尼等四人，有而非類；邊等十三全無，舉滅皆有，全壞以分。問：三例不足，為總幾人？答：初例三十一，次門二十三，第四十一。共六十五。準下別眾，學悔不足；《業疏》更加背說戒坐，共為二人，不係前例。

Regarding the seven persons who committed saṃghāvaśeṣa offenses, their names and numbers are first listed, fully as in the 'Deśanā' chapter. The four persons of our own school are considered only in terms of their actual practice. For the fourth person, the Karma Commentary adds the word 'about to' before it, which makes the mark extremely evident. (These four persons are derived from the categories of persons and rites, and are not among the four clauses on completing the quorum.) The three persons from the Daśādhyāya-vinaya are all treated in terms of having completed the practice; this is done out of fear that people might think that having completed the practice, they could mistakenly be counted in the quorum. The Karma Commentary states: 'What is the difference between having completed the six nights and being about to be cleared of the offense?' The answer is: 'The two positions in the Vinaya text are considered in terms of distance. (Having completed the six nights is far from clearing the offense, while being about to be cleared is near.)' It asks again: 'What is the difference between them and the persons subjected to the four karmavācanās?' The answer is: 'The former committed only minor offenses, and the intentional fault was open to protest, so they are included in completing the quorum; these offenses are next to spiritual death, the guilt being deep and hard to extricate, so they do not make up the quorum.' The passage beginning 'Not making up...' indicates the meaning of partial [insufficiency]. That is, except for the four rites of expiating saṃghāvaśeṣa, they are insufficient, because those who share the offense must not jointly settle it. The passage beginning 'This does not hinder...' explains that they are valid for other rites. These eleven persons are determined differently according to the Commentary; thus one knows that the present Manual fully relies on what is stated in the Vinaya, which still accords with the ancient interpretation. That [ancient text] says: 'Some say: those under the four karmavācanās are valid for all saṃgha rites; all treatments of saṃghāvaśeṣa are restricted to the repentance of the two chapters [of offenses]. If one takes this interpretation, how could one who has been reprimanded go on to penalize others? And for those who have committed offenses of the two chapters, how could other masters of deśanā be allowed! When carefully examined against the facts of the matter, the Vinaya text is not definitive. When settled by principle, two paths must be distinguished: If they share the offense and share the penalty, in principle they cannot be involved. When the Vinaya says they make up the quorum, it refers to appointments, boundaries, and the like. (This is one path.) If one has offenses oneself, one definitely lacks a cleared status, for a guilty person is not permitted to resolve offenses. At best, they may be valid for other karmavācanās that do not deal with offenses. (This is the other path.) If one resolves it in this way, there is no contradiction from beginning to end.' (Following this, to determine the status of the eleven persons mentioned before: they are called sufficient only for generating good; for all quelling of evil and handling of offenses, they do not make up the quorum. The Manual preserves the non-definitive meaning, which is superseded by the Commentary.) Question: 'What difference is there between the former four and the latter seven?' Answer: 'According to the Vinaya there is a difference, but determined by the Commentary there is no difference; they both equally belong to partial insufficiency and can form a single class.' Question: 'May we hear the points of identity and difference among the four categories?' Answer: 'The first two categories are unconditionally insufficient. The third is the converse and is called sufficient. The fourth is either sufficient or insufficient. Furthermore, the first and the last have the full precepts. The middle two have many differences: the four persons such as nuns have [the precepts] but are not of the same kind; the thirteen unordainable persons completely lack them; those subjected to the three suspensions and two expulsions all have them, being distinguished by complete destruction [of their standing].' Question: 'In the three classes of insufficiency, how many persons are there in total?' Answer: 'In the first class, thirty-one; in the next category, twenty-three; in the fourth, eleven. In total, sixty-five. Following the separate assembly below, those studying deśanā are insufficient; the Karma Commentary further adds sitting with one's back turned during the poṣadha recitation, making two persons, which are not linked to the previous classes.'