四分律行事鈔資持記 1.971

1.971

會通中，《俱舍》。明八戒皆云受布薩護，故云名也。名即是召。次引《了論》。戒護兩分，會同《俱舍》。二論言護，名義頗同；布薩與戒，華梵互舉，事同名異。後引律者。律中二十犍度，第二即〈說戒犍度〉；後〈五百結集〉中，迦葉敘波離結集，乃云〈布薩犍度〉；即知前標說戒，後云布薩，前後互舉，故云即也。此句正指同前篇目。問：為布薩翻說戒耶？且布薩自翻淨住，戒乃梵語尸羅；既非對翻，云何律論二名互顯。問：何以不云布薩正儀耶？思之可解。（學者多昧，故當曲釋。）

In synthesizing: the Kośa explains that the eight precepts are all called 'receiving poṣadha protection', hence it says 'the name'; 'name' means the designation. Next, citing the Liaolun: precepts and protection are divided into two, harmonizing with the Kośa. The two treatises speak of 'protection', and their name and meaning are quite the same; poṣadha and precepts are alternately adduced in Chinese and Sanskrit, being identical in fact but different in name. Later, citing the Vinaya: of the twenty khandhakas in the Vinaya, the second is the "Poṣadha-khandhaka" (reciting the precepts); later, in the "Council of the Five Hundred", Kāśyapa recounting Upāli's compilation calls it the "Poṣadha-khandhaka"; thus one knows that earlier it is titled 'reciting the precepts' and later called 'poṣadha', the earlier and later alternately mentioning them, hence it says 'namely'. This sentence directly indicates identity with the preceding chapter title. Question: Does poṣadha translate as 'reciting the precepts'? Indeed, poṣadha itself translates as 'dwelling in purity', and 'precept' is the Sanskrit śīla; since they are not direct translations of each other, why do the Vinaya and treatises show the two names interchangeably? Question: Why does it not say 'The Correct Ritual of Poṣadha'? Contemplating it, this can be understood. (Scholars are mostly ignorant of this, so it should be explained in detail.)