四分律行事鈔資持記 1.42

1.42

引證中二，初通指制戒證。觀下律者，即諸犍度。據前戒本，諸俗譏言無有正法，外道無異；佛因制戒，頗符此意。然是他譏，佛意未顯，故指下文制法以明。如〈說戒犍度〉，因諸外道八日十四十五三時集會，瓶沙王見已白佛，因制半月說戒。〈安居犍度〉，因六群春夏冬三時遊行，居士譏言諸外道尚三月安居，此諸釋子一切時遊行，因制安居。〈自恣犍度〉，因諸比丘結安居已，作制不共語問訊；佛言汝曹癡人，同於外道共受瘂法。〈衣犍度〉中，有比丘持木鉢；佛言不應持如是鉢，此是外道法；乃至比丘畜繡手衣，著草衣、樹皮衣、葉衣、瓔珞衣、皮衣、鳥毛衣、人髮衣、馬尾牛尾衣露身，佛一一皆言不應爾，此是外道法，乃至結云：如是一切外道法不應作。且引一二以息世疑；下諸犍度，其文非一。故云凡所及並懷也。（舊記指下結集中譏謗之文，則凡所竝懷之語，如何釋耶？）懷即佛意，異術即外道。（術音述，道也。）故下，別引結集證。此即本律五百結集緣起之文。以佛滅後，外道譏言沙門瞿曇法律若煙耳！世尊在日，皆共學戒；而今滅後無學戒者。於是迦葉遂興結集，即告眾曰：我等可共論法毘尼，勿令外道以致餘言。（祖師取意加上一句，使文易見。）問：今明佛意，那引結集文耶？答：當科所明，竝引佛世；文既非一，不可別舉，故通指之。然結集之文，語意彰顯，故得更引展轉為證。問：結集時事，既在滅後，那證聖心？答：結集存法，既為絕於餘言；佛意本興，信專懷於異道。如下五例，開制往徵；亦引後文，用彰元意；此為明例，何事疑乎！（此約迦葉結集意釋。）又佛始歸真，便譏法滅；反知在日，對彼何疑。（此取外道譏謗意釋，古記錯解，故特委示。）

In citing proof, there are two parts. First, generally pointing to the proof of instituting precepts: “Observing the Vinaya below” refers to the various Skandhakas. According to the preceding Prātimokṣa, worldlings ridiculed them, saying they had no correct Dharma and were no different from non-Buddhists; the Buddha instituted precepts on this account, which accords quite well with this meaning. Yet that was ridicule from others, and the Buddha’s intent was not yet apparent, so he points to the texts of instituting rules below to clarify it. For example, in the “Poṣadha Skandhaka,” because the non-Buddhists assembled at the three times of the eighth, fourteenth, and fifteenth days, King Bimbisāra saw this and reported it to the Buddha, who thereupon instituted the semimonthly poṣadha. In the “Varṣā Skandhaka,” because the ṣaḍvargikas wandered about during all three seasons of spring, summer, and winter, householders ridiculed them, saying that even non-Buddhists observed three months of vassa, while these sons of the Śākya wandered about at all times, so he thereupon instituted vassa. In the “Pravāraṇā Skandhaka,” because the bhikṣus, having concluded vassa, made a regulation not to speak to or greet one another, the Buddha said: “You foolish men, you are identical to non-Buddhists in adopting a vow of muteness together.” In the “Cīvara Skandhaka,” there was a bhikṣu who carried a wooden bowl; the Buddha said: “One should not carry such a bowl; this is a practice of non-Buddhists”; up to bhikṣus keeping embroidered garments, wearing grass robes, bark robes, leaf robes, garland robes, leather robes, bird-feather robes, human-hair robes, horse-tail or cow-tail robes, or remaining naked, to each of which the Buddha said: “One should not do so; this is a practice of non-Buddhists,” concluding: “All such practices of non-Buddhists should not be done.” He cites just one or two to quell worldly doubts; in the various Skandhakas below, the texts are numerous. Therefore it says: “All that was touched upon” and “all embraced.” (Older records point to the text below regarding ridicule and slander at the council; then how would one explain the words “all that was touched upon and all embraced”?) “Embraced” means the Buddha’s intent; “heterodox arts” refers to non-Buddhists. (The pronunciation of shu [術] is shu [述], meaning path.) Below, from “therefore” onward, it separately cites the proof from the council. This refers to the text on the causes and conditions of the council of the five hundred in our Vinaya. Because after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, non-Buddhists ridiculed them, saying: “The Dharma and Vinaya of the recluse Gautama are like smoke! While the World-Honoured One was in the world, they all studied the precepts together; but now that he has passed into extinction, no one studies the precepts.” Thereupon Kāśyapa initiated the council and said to the assembly: “We should together discuss the Dharma and Vinaya, so as not to allow non-Buddhists to utter further words.” (The Patriarchal Master captured the meaning and added the opening line to make the text easy to understand.) Question: We are currently explaining the Buddha’s intent; why cite the text of the council? Answer: What is explained in this subsection all draws citations from the Buddha's lifetime; since the texts are not single, they cannot be cited individually, so he points to them generally. However, the text of the council has a prominent phrasing and meaning, so he could further cite it as secondary corroboration. Question: Since the event of the council occurred after the parinirvāṇa, how does it prove the Sage’s mind? Answer: Since preserving the Dharma at the council was meant to cut off further words, the Buddha’s original intent in instituting it was surely focused upon heterodox paths. As in the five examples below of examining exceptions and prohibitions, later texts are also cited to display the original intent; this serves as a clear precedent, so what cause is there for doubt! (This explains it in terms of Kāśyapa’s intent for the council.) Moreover, as soon as the Buddha returned to the real, they ridiculed the extinction of the Dharma; by inverse inference, what doubt can there be that he addressed them while in the world? (This explains it in terms of the non-Buddhists’ ridicule and slander; because ancient records misinterpreted it, it is specifically detailed here.)