四分律行事鈔資持記 1.77

1.77

三中。初輕重異者。一約罪釋。本宗初篇重犯，餘部但吉。本宗犯罪方便隨滅，餘律仍存。《四分》女觸比丘蘭，《十誦》結殘。《十誦》身根互壞，觸者蘭；《四分》捉髮亦殘。（且略遣文，餘尋〈釋相〉。）二約亡物釋。下云然此亡物，諸部未融等。錫杖澡罐針錐等物，《四分》歸重；餘律並輕（如〈二衣〉中）。三約事釋。如《四分》受戒，緣具方成故重；餘宗緣闕並開（如無和尚無衣鉢等）。本宗轉欲則輕，餘宗不開故重。本宗悔殘，微乖法式，悔罪不出，故重；《十誦》不行別住六夜，直得出罪，故輕。二持犯分途者。即如上引境想不同。又《四分》婬戒，並據毛頭；《十誦》論犯過皮過齒。《四分》隨處盜五成犯，《十誦》取本古錢方結。《僧祇》通夜護衣，《四分》限在明相。三有無遞出者。遞亦互也。即如上引眾學有無。及盜非畜物，《四分》無文，並準《十誦》。《四分》二寶蠶綿並無悔法，《十誦》出之。又《四分》衣界通有勢分，餘部皆無等。四廢興互顯者。《四分》歌聲說戒用廢，《五分》直說取興。《四分》開結淨地用廢，《十誦》制斷取興。又如《僧祇》牒事說欲用廢，《四分》不牒取興之類。

Under "Three." First, differences in minor and grave [offenses]. 1. Explained in terms of offenses: In this school, a repeated violation of the first pārājika section is grave; in other schools, it is merely a duṣkṛta. In this school, the preparatory stage of an offense ceases with the main deed; in other vinayas, it remains. In the Dharmaguptaka, a woman touching a bhikṣu is a sthūlātyaya; in the Daśādhyāya-vinaya, it constitutes a saṃghāvaśeṣa. In the Daśādhyāya-vinaya, if the physical faculties are mutually defective, touching is a sthūlātyaya; in the Dharmaguptaka, grasping the hair is also a saṃghāvaśeṣa. (This merely dispatches the text briefly; for the rest, consult the "Explaining Marks" chapter.) 2. Explained in terms of deceased monks' property: Below it says, "However, regarding this property of the deceased, the various schools have not harmonized," etc. Items such as khakkhara staves, water jars, needles, and awls are classified as heavy in the Dharmaguptaka, but all as light in other vinayas (as in the chapter on "The Two Robes"). 3. Explained in terms of matters: As in the Dharmaguptaka ordination, it succeeds only when all conditions are complete, hence it is grave; in other schools, where conditions are deficient, exceptions are granted (such as lacking an upādhyāya, lacking robes and bowl, etc.). In our school, relinquishing desire is light; in other schools, no exception is granted, hence it is grave. In our school, in repenting a saṃghāvaśeṣa, if one slightly deviates from the ritual regulations, the repentance does not remove the offense, hence it is grave; in the Daśādhyāya-vinaya, without undergoing the mānatva and parivāsa for six nights, one directly exits the offense, hence it is light. Second, divergent paths of maintenance and violation: this is just as cited above regarding differences in perception of the object. Furthermore, in the Dharmaguptaka's precept against sexual misconduct, all is based on the tip of a hair; the Daśādhyāya-vinaya discusses violation in terms of passing the skin and passing the teeth. In the Dharmaguptaka, stealing five [māṣas] anywhere constitutes an offense; the Daśādhyāya-vinaya takes the original ancient coin to determine it. The Mahāsāṃghika protects robes throughout the whole night; the Dharmaguptaka limits it to the appearance of dawn. Third, mutual inclusion and omission: "mutual" also means reciprocal. This is just as cited above regarding the presence or absence of rules in the section on Śaikṣa dharmas. And concerning stealing property of non-livestock, the Dharmaguptaka has no text, so all follow the Daśādhyāya-vinaya. For the two jewels, silkworms, and cotton, the Dharmaguptaka has no method of repentance, whereas the Daśādhyāya-vinaya provides it. Furthermore, in the Dharmaguptaka, the robe-boundary generally possesses a functional perimeter, whereas the other schools all lack it, and so forth. Fourth, mutual manifestation of abolition and institution: In the Dharmaguptaka, chanting the poṣadha with a singing voice is abolished, while the Mahīśāsaka institutes direct recitation. In the Dharmaguptaka, establishing a pure site as an exception is abolished, while the Daśādhyāya-vinaya institutes its prohibition. Also, as in the Mahāsāṃghika, announcing the specific matter when expressing consent is abolished, while the Dharmaguptaka institutes not announcing it, and the like.