四分律行事鈔資持記 2.1502

2.1502

出體中。初文。欲分四行，歷明體狀；故先總示，各攝分齊。初二句標示。言攝法者，法之一字，即所持體，通目事法。止持中事，豈不名法；如戒本云：四夷法等。須知事法，名有通別；隨文用舍，不可專隅。通則事亦名法，即今所標攝法者是；法亦名事，如作羯磨，俱名行事。別則事專境事，法唯制法；如下止作二門，別配可見。止下，分對通塞。所下，點前局事，初句徵問。法下，釋通，上句明不通法。反明婬盜等事，非進修故。言方知者，謂作門善法，為之乃知；顯下止門惡事，不待為故，止可自攝而已。下二句明局事。故得明者，謂止持門，止得明事耳。若準《戒疏》，指為古義；後自立云：五邪七非俱非正法，義同殺盜；則明止作二門，俱通事法。古來章記，便引疏文續之，例云順古。且今鈔撮要，意在易明，豈得一向橫引古語！或有不取，文自標云：餘義廢之、廢昔義等；但知傳謬，未詳所以。今為略舉，餘隅反之。以初撰鈔，猶同昔見；故多循舊，時有改作；疏在後製，垂暮重修；研窮盡理，始加刊削。故今判釋，未可便以鈔疏交參；翻使披尋，轉迷文意；故須且作今義釋之，不同之處，文外自點；須至學疏，好自披括。乃至句法，意亦同此。

In the section explaining the essences. First text. Because [the Master] intends to divide them into the four practices and clarify their essences and characteristics in sequence, he first presents an overview of the scope encompassed by each. The first two sentences state this. As for 'encompassing the phenomena' (shefa), the single character fa ('phenomena') refers to the essence that is maintained, generically designating both factual affairs and formalized procedures (shifa). How could the factual affairs in maintaining by cessation not be called fa? Just as the Prātimokṣa says: 'the four pārājika dharmas', and so forth. One must know that regarding 'factual affairs' and 'procedures', the terms have both generic and specific uses; they are adopted or set aside according to the context and must not be rigidly restricted. Generically, factual affairs are also called fa, as in the present heading 'encompassing the phenomena' (shefa); fa is also called factual affairs (shi), as in conducting karmans, which are all called 'transactions' (xingshi). Specifically, shi is restricted to objective affairs, whereas fa refers solely to prescribed procedures, as will be seen below in the specific assignment to the two gates of cessation and action. From 'Stopping...' onward, the text distinguishes between what is inclusive and what is exclusive. From 'That which...' onward, the text points out that the preceding is confined to factual affairs; the first clause raises a question. From 'Procedure...' onward, the text resolves it: the upper clause clarifies that it does not extend to procedures. This implicitly shows that affairs such as sexual misconduct and theft are not matters of progressive cultivation. Saying 'only then known' means that wholesome dharmas of the gate of action are known only through performing them; this shows that the unwholesome affairs of the gate of cessation below need not wait to be performed—merely desisting from them naturally encompasses them. The following two clauses clarify the restriction to factual affairs. 'Hence it is clarified' means that the gate of maintaining by cessation can only clarify factual affairs. If judged by the Precept Commentary, this is indicated as an ancient interpretation; later it establishes: 'The five wrong livelihoods and seven illicit acts are neither of them correct dharmas, being identical in sense to killing and theft'; thus it clarifies that both the gates of cessation and action encompass both factual affairs and procedures. Ancient commentaries immediately cited the text of the Precept Commentary to continue it, uniformly calling it 'conforming to the ancient'. Yet the present Transactions Manual extracts the essentials with the intent of facilitating understanding—how could one indiscriminately cite ancient statements across contexts! Where something is rejected, the text itself marks it by saying: 'other positions are set aside', 'discarding former interpretations', and the like; people merely know of the transmission errors without discerning the reasons behind them. Here I briefly cite this, and the rest may be inferred conversely. Because when first composing the Transactions Manual, it still shared former views, he largely followed the old, occasionally revising; the Precept Commentary was composed later and revised in his declining years; only after thoroughly investigating the principles to the utmost did he apply deletions and emendations. Therefore in the present critical exegesis, one should not immediately intermingle the Transactions Manual and the Precept Commentary, which would conversely confuse the reader searching through the text about its meaning. Thus one must temporarily explain it according to the present meaning; wherever it differs, it is noted outside the text; when one reaches the study of the Precept Commentary, one should carefully analyse it for oneself. Even regarding the syntactic arrangements, the intent is the same.