[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [四分律行事鈔資持記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805) › 1.7 # 四分律行事鈔資持記 1.7 四分律行事鈔資持記 1.7 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.1.7) 三引用者。自古引文多無楷式。或全寫經論，或具錄祖乘，或汎列儒書，或多援字解。既乖鈔旨，實穢真宗。今意所存，類分三別。初用三藏意。聖教繁富，未可具舒；《事鈔》建題，撮要為本。故下序云：自外不盡之文，必欲尋其始末，則非鈔者之意。今或申明幽隱，或讎校差違；竝具引正文，仍隨難注釋；自餘易曉，例不廣之。二明用祖教者。謂《疏鈔、傳錄、儀集、圖誥》，部文既廣，非學不知。其或以後廢前，或指廣如彼，或斥奪謬妄，或和會異同；諸餘義章，例亦不舉。三用俗書者。莊嚴章句，違律刑科；讚詠外書，如經極誡。祖乘有用，義不徒然；或是舉俗況道，或復取義助文。豈得專事浮華，混同世論！今或語勢相涉，或借用彼文。但撮要示之，令知所出；及論字體，多從義訓；兼復通依眾典，不必專據字書。 > Third, on citations: Since antiquity, citing texts has mostly lacked standard models. Some completely copied sūtras and treatises; some fully transcribed the ancestral vehicle; some broadly listed Confucian texts; some frequently drew upon glosses of characters. As these diverge from the intent of the Manual, they truly defile the authentic school. My current intention falls into three distinct categories: First, the intent of using the Three Baskets. The sacred teachings are rich and varied and cannot be fully unfurled; the Transactions Manual established its title taking the gathering of essentials as its root. Hence, the preface below states: 'As for the remaining unexhausted text, if one insists on seeking its beginning and end, that is not the intention of the compiler of the Manual.' Now, whether clarifying what is obscure and concealed, or collating discrepancies, I cite the primary text in full and annotate it according to difficulties; the rest that is easy to understand is conventionally not expanded upon. Second, explaining the use of the ancestral teachings: This refers to the commentaries, manuals, biographies, records, ritual collections, diagrams, and declarations. Since the texts of these works are vast, without study one cannot know them. When later texts abrogate earlier ones, or refer to broader explanations elsewhere, or refute and reject errors, or harmonize differences, other doctrinal chapters are conventionally not cited. Third, on using secular texts: Embellishing chapters and sentences violates the penalties of the Vinaya; praising non-Buddhist texts is strictly admonished in the sūtras. When the ancestral vehicle uses them, the purpose is not in vain: either it cites the secular to illustrate the sacred, or it adopts their meaning to assist the text. How could one exclusively engage in superficial elegance and confound it with worldly discourse? Now, where the rhetorical momentum is related or where their phrasing is borrowed, I merely extract the essentials to show them, enabling one to know their source; as for the forms of characters, they mostly follow doctrinal glosses, and further rely universally on all scriptures, not necessarily relying exclusively on character lexicons. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.1.6) - [Next: 1.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.1.8) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805~en-mt.1.7) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.1.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.1.7) · Pramāṇa