四分律行事鈔資持記 1.342

1.342

明乖錯中。稱字去呼。謂對說時，與前詞句不相稱可；以餘眾別羯磨，不許落非；獨此欲詞，有成法義，故立此問。（古作平呼，謂不稱欲緣，且上既云不稱正本，何乃反問成否，於理不然。）答中，初句斷成。由下，釋所以。如結界唱相，受懺陳乞，既牒入法，不可有乖。欲但通情，既不入法，有乖許得。律中下，引證甚明。文如後引。

In explaining discrepancies: The character cheng 稱 is read in the departing tone [chèng, "to match"]. It means that when speaking face-to-face, the statement does not match the previous phrases. Because in other sangha and individual karmavācanās errors are not permitted, yet uniquely in this statement of chanda there is the meaning of the rite being valid, this question is raised. (The ancients read it in the level tone [chēng, "to mention"], meaning not to mention the circumstance of the chanda. But since it was already stated above that not mentioning matches the original text, why would one conversely ask whether it is valid or not? In principle this is not so.) In the answer, the first sentence decisively states it is valid. From "by reason of" onward explains the rationale: like proclaiming the boundaries when demarcating a sīmā, or presenting requests when receiving deśanā, since they are cited to enter the karmavācanā, there must be no discrepancy. Chanda only conveys one's intention; since it does not enter the karmavācanā, it is allowed to be valid even if there is a discrepancy. "In the Vinaya..." cites evidence very clearly. The text is as cited below.