四分律行事鈔資持記 1.44

1.44

引證中。既云多別，不可備陳；略引二部，以明異相，故云且如等。所以特引此二部者，此方盛弘。假實二解，敵對相反，於義易見。或可部計雖多，不出空有。是以下明戒體，亦出兩宗耳。兩部勝劣，略列四種，今合釋之。初戒本繁略，對下立教顯約。《十誦》著三衣有六戒（一太高、二太下、三象鼻、四多羅葉、五參差、六攝縐），內衣同上，共十二戒，則為繁也。大小便利，止有一戒；敬塔都無，此為略也。《四分》敬塔便唾，各隨別相，具列多戒，故云顯也。著衣立二，義無不收，故名約也。或可二部廣律戒本對辨優劣，學者尋之。二指體未圓，對下軌用多方。《十誦》色為戒體；能造所造，二俱是色；俱不談心，未窮業本，故未圓也。《四分》二非為體，體從心發；然限在小宗，曲從權意，別立異名。退非是小，進不成大；密使行人心希實道，多方之義，其在茲焉。故《業疏》云：由此宗中分通大乘，業依心起，故勝前計等。問：此句既明戒體，何以但云軌用多方？答：此宗法相，不唯談體；如《羯磨疏》五義分通，故茲一句通含多意。復彰今體望前雖勝，對大猶偏；但云多方，足彰部意。故《戒疏》云：斯人博考三機，殷鑒兩典，包括權實，統收名理等。若爾，前宗何以直示？答：彼部所立，正合小宗，定為偏計，更無他意。故直顯體，義兼隨行，亦非圓故。三接俗楷定，對下提誘生善。多宗五戒，必須盡形；八戒唯止一日一夜，此時定也。二戒不開分受；縱有分受，得善無戒，此數定也。《四分》二戒長短並通，全分皆得；接俗之教，但存生善，故非楷定。四御法無準，對下人法有序。彼宗人位雖同，不無差異；如無和尚得成受戒；及界內一人四處足數；一界之內，多處作法，互相受欲，此人無準也。三種羯磨，加則彌善，減則不成，即法無準也。（文中似單明法，然御之一字，即能秉人。對下須知二皆無序。）《四分》僧有四位，四人除三法（白志、受滅、悔殘），五人除二法（中受，悔殘。），十人除一法（梅殘），二十人通作一切。又須精簡足數別眾，即人有序也。法有八位，心念有三（但對眾也），對首有二（但及眾也），眾法有三（單白、白二、白四），眾別羯磨，各攝分齊，互不相通；少有增減，判歸非法，此法有序也。上明兩宗不同之相，皆是如來隨機施教，淺深不等；懸鑒未來部計支分，作輕重說。教興之意，於茲明矣。（古師科此為分部教興者，遠矣。）

In "citing proofs": Having said that there are many divisions, they cannot be detailed fully; two schools are briefly cited to clarify their different characteristics, hence it says "As for instance..." and so on. The reason these two schools in particular are cited is that they were extensively propagated in this land. The two explanations of nominal designation and substantial reality stand in direct opposition, making the meaning easy to perceive. Alternatively, although the sectarian tenets are numerous, they do not go beyond emptiness and existence. Therefore, when clarifying the precept-essence below, it also brings forth both schools. Regarding the superiority and inferiority of the two schools, four kinds are briefly listed, which are now explained together: First, the complexity versus conciseness of the Prātimokṣa-sūtra is contrasted with the explicit conciseness of the established teaching below. In the Daśādhyāya-vinaya, there are six precepts concerning wearing the three robes (first, too high; second, too low; third, elephant trunk; fourth, tāla leaf; fifth, uneven; sixth, gathered in folds); the inner robe is the same as above, making twelve precepts in all, which is complex. For defecation and urination, there is only one precept; for venerating stūpas, there are none at all, which is concise. The Dharmaguptaka-vinaya, in regard to venerating stūpas, urination, defecation, and spitting, fully lists many precepts according to their specific characteristics, hence it is called "explicit". For wearing robes it establishes two [precepts], yet in meaning nothing is omitted, hence it is termed "concise". Alternatively, one may contrast the broad Vinayas and Prātimokṣa-sūtras of the two schools to discern their superiority and inferiority, which students should investigate. Second, pointing out that the essence is not complete is contrasted with the multiple methods of standard application below. In the Daśādhyāya-vinaya, matter is the precept-essence; both that which generates and that which is generated are matter; neither discusses mind and does not fathom the root of karma, hence it is not complete. In the Dharmaguptaka-vinaya, neither form nor mind is the essence, and the essence arises from the mind; however, being restricted to the Hīnayāna school and accommodating provisional intent, it establishes a distinct name. In stepping back it is not Hīnayāna, yet in stepping forward it does not constitute Mahāyāna; it secretly leads practitioners to aspire to the true path, and the meaning of "multiple methods" lies precisely here. Therefore, the Karma Commentary says: "Because in this school it partially connects with the Mahāyāna, and karma arises relying on the mind, it is superior to the previous tenet," and so on. Question: Since this sentence clarifies the precept-essence, why does it merely say "the multiple methods of standard application"? Answer: The dharma-characteristics of this school do not merely discuss the essence; as in the five meanings of partially connecting in the Karmavācanā Commentary, this single phrase comprehensively contains many meanings. Furthermore, it reveals that while the present essence is superior compared to the former, compared to the Mahāyāna it is still biased; merely saying "multiple methods" is sufficient to reveal the intent of the school. Therefore, the Precept Commentary says: "This master broadly examined the three faculties, carefully reflected on the two canons, embraced the provisional and the real, and comprehensively gathered names and principles," and so on. If so, why does the former school directly indicate it? Answer: What that school establishes corresponds directly to the Hīnayāna school and is definitively a biased tenet with no other intent. Therefore, it directly reveals the essence, and its meaning encompasses subsequent practice, which is likewise not complete. Third, adapting to the laity with fixed standards is contrasted with guiding and inducing the generation of goodness below. In the Sarvāstivāda school, the five precepts must last for one's whole life; the eight precepts last only for one day and one night—this is temporal fixity. The two sets of precepts do not allow fractional reception; even if one fractionally receives them, one attains goodness but not the precepts—this is numerical fixity. In the Dharmaguptaka-vinaya, both precepts apply to long or short durations, and full or fractional reception is acceptable; the teaching of adapting to the laity only preserves the generation of goodness, hence it lacks fixed standards. Fourth, directing rituals without exact standards is contrasted with the orderly sequence of persons and procedures below. In that school, although the status of persons is the same, there are differences: for example, receiving the precepts is valid without an upādhyāya; within a boundary, one person counts toward the quorum in four different places; and within a single boundary, rituals are performed in multiple places while mutually receiving desire—this is persons lacking exact standards. Among the three kinds of karmavācanā, increasing [the quorum] is even better, while reducing it invalidates the act—this is procedures lacking exact standards. (In the text it seems to clarify procedures alone, but the character "directing" refers to the person able to uphold them. In contrast to what follows, one must understand that both lack order.) In the Dharmaguptaka-vinaya, the saṃgha has four ranks: four persons exclude three procedures (the single jñapti, reception and extermination, and confessing a saṃghāvaśeṣa); five persons exclude two procedures (reception in the central region and confessing a saṃghāvaśeṣa); ten persons exclude one procedure (confessing a saṃghāvaśeṣa); and twenty persons are universally able to perform everything. Furthermore, one must carefully screen out separate assemblies from the quorum—this is persons having order. Procedures have eight ranks: mental acts have three (only facing the assembly), face-to-face acts have two (only and assembly), and saṃgha procedures have three (single jñapti, jñaptidvitīyā karmavācanā, and jñapti-caturtha-karmavācanā); saṃgha and individual karmavācanā each encompass their proper bounds without mutual conflation; with the slightest addition or reduction, it is judged invalid—this is procedures having order. The above explains the differences between the two schools, all of which are the Tathāgata bestowing teachings according to faculties with varying depths; foreseeing the future branch divisions of the schools, he spoke of light and heavy. The intent behind the arising of the teachings is clear from this. (When ancient masters classified this as the arising of teachings from the division of schools, they were far from the mark.)