四分律行事鈔資持記 1.462

1.462

三法料簡，增減中。據律，單白及白二中白；或止有四句，闕第二句者，則名為減；然本無增，望彼五句相待為言。若是羯磨及白四中白，定無增減，故非所論。文中先出所以，不出三意。若是事重，如諸說恣還衣亡物之類；若有緣起，如諸結界，須比丘唱相緣起（謂羯磨前緣，非謂本制緣。）；若有乞詞，如諸受懺（謂捨墮單白，非受戒及餘懺也。）。不牒事者，如上結界受懺，竝以前緣牒入羯磨。若上三種，必具五句。若但四句成者，反此三意，兼不牒入，如文所列；即說戒堂及滅諍結集中諸白，竝諸差人白二等是也。然又須知唯略第二；至第四句，緣本雙牒，必無有缺，尋之可知。餘下，明增。例皆五句。然律文亦有翻傳脫漏之者；如結法同食別界，及結淨地；既有緣起，而列四句。如疏所判，漏誦遺筆；想無所疑。

In the critical evaluation of the three procedures, under 'addition and reduction': according to the Vinaya, simple jñaptis and the jñapti in a jñaptidvitīyā karmavācanā may sometimes have only four phrases, lacking the second phrase, which is called 'reduction'; however, fundamentally there is no addition, and this is spoken of relatively in comparison with those five phrases. If it is a karmavācanā or the jñapti in a jñapti-caturtha karmavācanā, there is definitely no addition or reduction, so it is not under discussion. In the text, it first sets forth the reasons, which do not go beyond three intents: if the matter is grave, such as the various announcements, pravāraṇā, returning robes, and goods of the deceased; if there is an originating condition, such as the various boundary demarcations where a bhikṣu must announce the signs and originating conditions (meaning the preliminary conditions before the karmavācanā, not the original foundational conditions); if there is a phrase of petition, such as the various receptions and deśanās (meaning the simple jñapti for niḥsargika-pāyattika, not ordination or other confessions). If it does not cite the matter, as in the boundary demarcation and confession above, they both cite the previous conditions into the karmavācanā. In the above three types, all five phrases must be present. If accomplished with only four phrases, it is the reverse of these three intents, and moreover does not cite them in, as listed in the text; namely, the various jñaptis in the poṣadha hall, the settling of disputes, the saṃgīti, as well as the various jñaptidvitīyā karmavācanās appointing persons, and so forth. Yet one must also know that only the second is omitted; when it comes to the fourth phrase, both circumstance and root are cited, and there is definitely no omission; this can be known by investigating it. Below, from 'the rest', it explains addition: as a rule, they all have five phrases. However, in the Vinaya texts there are also cases of omissions in translation and transmission; such as in demarcating a boundary for shared Dharma and separate food, and demarcating pure ground: since there are originating conditions, yet four phrases are listed. As judged by the Commentary, these are omissions in recitation and dropped characters; I think there should be no doubt.