四分律行事鈔資持記 2.1192

2.1192

九中，初決意者，謂作斷念，理應更受。二中。餘須更受，故知已失。三中。初二句亦即《了論》。由失本體故，行法皆失，故云一切。沒即滅也。即下，引例。分亡物中，殘宿內宿惡觸等食，餘比丘得食。以彼命終，諸罪皆失。例今頗同。四中。時藥過中失受。三藥不加口法，同時藥斷；若加口法，各隨限滿即失。如後即對解中。五中，初示相。若下，會通。《僧祇》，如前轉變不失中引。答文可解。第六。注中，初判不洗亦成。此據無膩，有則須洗。但下，本其洗意。謹奉佛制，不妄貪噉，即是淨心。雖有此通，縱令手淨；但得成受，不無違制。

In [clause] nine, the first, "determination of mind," means forming the thought of termination, so by principle it should be received again. In the second: as the remainder must be received again, one knows it has already been lost. In the third: the first two sentences are also from the Vinayadvāviṃśatividyā-śāstra. Because the original basis is lost, the practiced dharmas are all lost; hence it says "all." "Perished" means extinguished. From "namely" onwards, an analogy is adduced. Among distributed property of the deceased, food left overnight, kept overnight indoors, or improperly touched can be eaten by the other bhikṣus. Because that person has passed away, all offenses are dissipated. The analogy here is quite similar. In the fourth: timely medicines lose validity after midday. The three medicines, if not consecrated with the verbal formula, terminate at the same time as timely medicines; if consecrated with the verbal formula, each is lost when its respective limit expires. As stated later in the direct explanation. In the fifth, it first shows the characteristics. From "if" onwards, it synthesizes. The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya is as cited earlier under "transformation without loss." The response text can be understood. Sixth: in the note, it first judges that even without washing, it is valid. This is based on the absence of grease; if there is grease, it must be washed. From "merely" onwards, it traces the original intent of washing: reverently upholding the Buddha's prohibition and not greedily gorging at random is precisely the pure mind. Although there is this accommodation, even if the hands are clean, while the receipt is valid, it is not free of transgressing the prohibition.