四分律行事鈔資持記 1.340

1.340

次定多少中，初示他部。今下，明不取。即序所謂是非條別故也。初示本宗立法分齊。無結略者，如捨戒悔吉等，不云三說；單白白二，不云第二第三等是也。文中且指白四為言，若三歸乞詞，對念說恣，並直云三說。準下，舉法例成。以轉欲中無結略故。不下，斥非。疏云：有人依《五分》、《僧祇》，云不三說不成欲，故此斥之。所以一說即成者，疏云：莫非呈心至僧，眾多忘隱，明判開之；豈限三說，方成一法。

Under "Next: Determining the Number," it first shows other schools. From "Now" onward, it clarifies not adopting them, which is what the preface calls "items and distinctions of right and wrong." First, it shows the limits of establishing the procedure in our own school. Those without concluding abbreviations, such as renouncing the precepts or repenting a duṣkṛta, do not say "speaking three times"; a simple jñapti or jñaptidvitīyā do not say "a second or third time," etc. In the text, it temporarily refers to the jñapticatustha; as for the phrasing for taking the three refuges, or face-to-face mental recitation and pravāraṇā, they directly say "speaking three times." From "According to" onward, it adduces the procedure as an analogous validation, because within the delegation of chanda there is no concluding abbreviation. From "Not" onward, it denounces the error. The Commentary says: "Some rely on the Mahīśāsaka and Mahāsāṃghika vinayas, saying that if one does not speak three times the chanda is invalid; therefore, this denounces it." As for why speaking once is immediately valid, the Commentary says: "It is simply presenting the mind to the Saṃgha; since many forget or conceal, it clearly judges and allows it; how could it be restricted to speaking three times before completing a single procedure?"