四分律行事鈔資持記 1.36

1.36

列名中。據從敘意之下即列篇名，則文理相貫；然以十門生起間之，甚有不便。古科列名在十門之首，釋云為顯諸篇是十門所括。今謂不爾，豈有敘致於前，列名在後！況勒卷分篇，次第有序。今詳，至於已下二十二字，合在列名之後，則使篇名接前敘意，生起冠後十門，文次義顯，永無疑濫。今文倒亂，恐是傳誤；豕亥之訛，古今皆爾；以理為正，豈不然乎。（講者至以標名首已，即讀篇名；入後十門，覆讀生起。）

Under listing the titles: according to proper logic, listing the chapter titles immediately after narrating the intent would make the textual logic continuous; yet interpolating the origin of the ten headings creates great awkwardness. The ancient subdivision placed the list of titles at the head of the ten headings, explaining that this showed the chapters were encompassed by the ten headings. I say this is not so: how could the introductory narrative come before, while the list of titles comes afterward? Furthermore, the divisions of fascicles and chapters proceed in orderly sequence. Now examining it: the twenty-two characters from 'Coming to...' downward should properly follow the listing of titles; this would connect the chapter titles directly to the preceding narrative of intent, and place the origin at the head of the ten headings that follow, making the order of the text and meaning manifest and forever free from doubt and confusion. The inverted disorder of the present text is likely a scribal error in transmission; errors such as reading 'pig' for 'haizi' have occurred in both ancient and modern times; taking reason as correct, how could it not be so? (Lecturers, upon reaching the phrase 'thereby heading the titles', should immediately read the chapter titles; entering into the subsequent ten headings, they should re-read the origin.)