四分律行事鈔資持記 1.319

1.319

簡學悔中，初示不足。前未明故。問：究論學悔，四例何收？答：既毀根本，體非淨僧，故非初例。來否隨意，復開秉法，故非第二。生善滅惡，一切不足，復非第四。前既不收，此中方示；雖開秉法，須在數外。準此。乃知秉法之任，信非率爾；且羯磨之詞，不過數句；若唯謹誦，誰不能之，豈得眾中竟無解者。文標無解，此語可思；律制堪能，須知有以；觀今罔冐，實為悲哉。別下，正示所簡。開秉預眾，異彼穢流。足別俱非，寧同淨用。故云中間也。

In differentiating those studying deśanā, it first indicates their insufficiency, as this was not explained before. Question: 'When thoroughly examined, under which of the four classes are those studying deśanā included?' Answer: 'Since they have violated the root, their essence is not that of a pure monk, so they are not in the first class. Whether they come or not is at their pleasure, and they are further allowed to officiate rites, so they are not in the second. For generating good or extinguishing evil, they are completely insufficient, so they are not in the fourth. Since they are not included previously, they are only shown here; although they are permitted to officiate rites, they must remain outside the quorum. Based on this, one knows that the responsibility of officiating rites is truly not a casual matter. Moreover, the words of a karmavācanā are no more than a few sentences; if one merely recites them carefully, who cannot do it? How could it be that in the assembly there is entirely no one who understands? The text specifies "having no understanding"—this phrasing warrants contemplation. The Vinaya requires competence; one must know there is a reason for this. Looking at the pretenders of today, it is truly lamentable!' The passage beginning 'Separate...' directly shows what is differentiated. Being permitted to officiate and being admitted to the assembly distinguishes them from that defiled class. Since they are neither sufficient nor separate, how could they be treated identically with pure use? Therefore it is called "in between".'