四分律行事鈔資持記 1.386

1.386

律中羯磨，大有三位，別開八品；隨事細歷，則有一百八十四種；今此篇中，總明緣法是非成敗；望下諸篇，隨事各別，故云通辨。羯磨梵言。或云劍暮，音之訛轉。注中，初引文示。《了疏》兩翻，大體無異。前則名作為業；後直指作，無復異名。業謂行心鼓動身口，假緣搆造，則有勝功，能遂前事；疏云：業謂成濟前務，必有達遂之功是也。《百論》云事，亦業之異名，無非造作，即體為目。次義求中。此從昔義，疏中不取；彼云：自古至今翻為辦事者，非無此義，但用功能往翻。謂下，釋義。疏出彼解，謂成辦生善滅惡之事。問：此與《百論》何異？答：彼論直召能造，不從所辦。問：疏家所以不取者？答：凡立名定體，從用則疎；如燈能照暗，燈不名照。水能滅火，水不名滅。但分體用，名亦無在。所以疏家旁通舊解。

In the Vinaya, karmans generally comprise three categories, which are specifically divided into eight classes; if examined in detail according to specific matters, there are one hundred and eighty-four kinds. Now, in this chapter, the conditions and legal procedures, their correctness and error, success and failure, are comprehensively clarified. Looking ahead to the subsequent chapters, each differs according to its specific matter; hence it is called "General Analysis". Karman is a Sanskrit word. Sometimes it is called *jianmu*, which is a phonetic corruption. In the note, citations are first adduced for illustration. In the *Liao shu* there are two translations, which in general purport do not differ: the former takes 'action' (*zuo*) as *ye* (karma); the latter directly points to 'action', having no other name. *Ye* means that the volitional mind stirs body and speech, and relying on conditions constructs and produces, thereby possessing superior efficacy capable of accomplishing the matter at hand. The *Commentary* states: '*Ye* means accomplishing and facilitating the prior task; it must have the efficacy of attaining and accomplishing [it]'—this is it. The *Śata-śāstra* uses 'matter' (*shi*), which is also another name for *ye*; it is nothing other than action and making, taking the essence as the name. Next, regarding "deriving the meaning": this follows an older interpretation, which is not adopted in the *Commentary*. That [older view] says: 'From antiquity to the present, translating it as "accomplishing tasks" (*banshi*) is not without this meaning, but merely translates it by looking to its function.' The passage beginning 'This means...' explains the meaning: the *Commentary* sets forth their explanation, meaning the accomplishment of the tasks of generating good and extinguishing evil. Question: How does this differ from the *Śata-śāstra*? Answer: That treatise directly designates the agent of action, without proceeding from what is accomplished. Question: Why did the commentator not adopt it? Answer: Whenever establishing a name to determine an essence, to proceed from function is distant. For example, a lamp can illuminate darkness, but the lamp is not called illumination. Water can extinguish fire, but water is not called extinction. However, if one distinguishes essence from function, the name does not pose a problem either. Therefore, the commentator collaterally accommodates the old interpretation.