四分律行事鈔資持記 1.82

1.82

取用法，相關中，初文為二，初正明取舍。緩急重輕，四義條別。初如受衣文《僧祇》通夜，《多論》無衣鉢得戒等，並緩別也。二如《僧祇》轉欲即失，捨財入僧永棄等，名急別也。三如前所引境想不同，即重別也。四初篇無重犯等，謂輕別也。是非一句，通收上四互望為言。又引事釋者，〈足數〉中古師以破戒和尚在十人外；今斥云不得輒用他部；又受日中云：不得秉《四分》羯磨，用《僧祇》事訖等。餘尋諸部篇。準論不取者，即同意用也。故下，二引證。言四說者，本律增四中云：佛告諸比丘，有四種廣說，一若比丘作是語：長老！我於某村某城親從佛聞，受持不忘，此是法、是毘尼、是佛所教。若聞彼說，不應嫌疑，亦不應呵。應審定文句已，尋究法律；若相違者，應語彼言：汝所說者非佛所說、或是長老不審佛語、不須復誦、亦莫教餘人，今應棄捨。若與法相應者，應語彼言：是佛所說、應善誦習、教諸比丘等。（此名一廣說也。）第二從僧中上座前聞。第三從知法眾多比丘所聞。第四從知法一比丘所聞。（並如上檢校，文同不引。）《十誦》墨印者，即是《四分》四說，故云亦同，但名異耳。《四分》約能說人，《十誦》據能證教。彼云：若言我從佛聞，乃至一比丘聞，未應歎毀；應向三藏聖教印定是也。引此二文者，由先世諸師隨情引用；今約部類檢勘可否，即同意用。若作此釋，方見所引四說墨印，頗符論意。

In "The Method of Adoption and Application", under "Relevance": The first text is divided into two. First, it directly clarifies adoption and rejection. Lenient, strict, heavy, and light—these four meanings are distinguished by category. First, such as the text for receiving robes in the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya lasting through the night, or obtaining the precepts without robes and bowl in the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya Vibhāṣā—these are distinctions of leniency. Second, such as the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya holding that shifting desire immediately causes loss [of the precept], or giving property to the saṃgha being abandoned forever—these are called distinctions of strictness. Third, such as the previously cited difference in mental perception of the object—this is a distinction of heaviness. Fourth, the first division having no repeated offenses, and so forth—this refers to a distinction of lightness. The single phrase "right and wrong" comprehensively encompasses the above four viewed mutually. Furthermore, citing matters to explain: in [the chapter on] "Fulfilling the Quorum", ancient masters placed a precept-breaking upādhyāya outside the ten persons; now he refutes this, saying that one must not rashly use other divisions; again, in [the section on] "Receiving Days", he says: one must not conduct a Dharmaguptaka karman and use Mahāsāṃghika affairs to conclude it, and so forth. For the rest, consult the chapter on the various divisions. "Not adopting based on the treatise" corresponds to conjectural application. Under "Therefore...": Second, it cites corroboration. As for the "four statements", the Increase-by-Four section of our Vinaya says: "The Buddha addressed the bhikṣus: 'There are four kinds of extensive statements. 1. If a bhikṣu speaks thus: "Elders! In such-and-such a village or city I personally heard this from the Buddha, received and held it without forgetting; this is the Dharma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Buddha's teaching." If one hears that statement, one should neither doubt nor scold. One should examine and determine the words and clauses, and thoroughly investigate the Dharma and Vinaya. If they conflict, one should speak to him: "What you have said was not spoken by the Buddha, or the elder did not examine the Buddha's words carefully; you need not recite it again, nor teach other people; now you should discard it." If it accords with the Dharma, one should speak to him: "This was spoken by the Buddha; you should recite and practice it well, and teach the bhikṣus,"' and so forth (this is called one extensive statement). Second, hearing it before a senior elder within the saṃgha. Third, hearing it from many bhikṣus who know the Dharma. Fourth, hearing it from a single bhikṣu who knows the Dharma." (All are checked as above; the text being the same, it is not cited.) The "ink seal" of the Daśādhyāya-vinaya is precisely the four statements of the Dharmaguptaka; hence it says "also the same," only the names differing. The Dharmaguptaka is based on the person who can speak; the Daśādhyāya-vinaya is based on the teaching that can verify. It says: "If one says: 'I heard it from the Buddha,' up to 'heard it from a single bhikṣu,' one should not yet praise or disparage; one should seal and determine it against the holy teaching of the Tripiṭaka," this is it. These two texts are cited because masters of earlier generations cited according to their inclinations; now verifying feasibility according to divisions and categories corresponds to conjectural application. If one makes this interpretation, only then does one see that the four statements and the ink seal cited accord quite well with the treatise's intention.