四分律行事鈔資持記 2.1319

2.1319

初緣。四諍者，一言諍（評教理是非，犯相輕重。），二覓諍（評三根清濁，五德是非。），三犯諍（於五犯聚懺評有濫），四事諍（通上三種評羯磨是非，迷悟不決，名言中事諍；評用法治舉徵覈虛實，名覓中事諍；非法羯磨，定罪重輕，名犯中事諍。）。私諍者，律云：除此諍，若餘鬪罵發者；若發已諍（謂先諍後發），除二眾，餘人諍而發起者，一切吉羅。不犯中，若先不知；若觀作不觀想（僧如法觀斷想，謂不善觀。）；若事實爾，語言不善觀等（謂實非法）；若戲若錯等。

The conditions for the first [offense]: As for the "four disputes": 1. verbal disputes (evaluating right and wrong in teachings and principles, and the lightness or gravity of marks of offenses); 2. investigative disputes (evaluating the purity or defilement of the three roots, and the right or wrong of the five virtues); 3. offense disputes (evaluating irregularities in the deśanā of the five clusters of offenses); 4. transactional disputes (applying to the above three in evaluating the validity of a karmavācanā: lack of resolution due to confusion or realization is called transactional dispute within words; evaluating the application of Dharma to censure, raise, or investigate truth and falsehood is called transactional dispute within investigation; invalid karmavācanā and determining gravity of offenses is called transactional dispute within offenses). As for "private disputes", the Vinaya states: Other than these disputes, if it is stirred up by other fighting or cursing; or if it is a dispute after stirring up (meaning first disputing, then stirring it up), except for the two assemblies, if other people dispute and stir it up, all are duṣkṛtas. In the non-offenses: if one did not know beforehand; if, in a case of proper observation, one perceives it as improper observation (the saṃgha observed and decided in accordance with the Dharma, but one considers it ill-observed); if the facts are truly so, and one speaks of it as ill-observed (meaning it is truly invalid); or if in jest or by mistake, etc.