四分律行事鈔資持記 2.1503

2.1503

止持制門，初句總舉。一下，別示；可學，又二，初制止中。舉婬盜者，正示體狀也。三境，即三趣；皆重，故云通也。四主，更加三寶；犯相各異，故云分也。文中，且舉初篇二戒；自餘篇聚，所禁一切惡事，竝屬此門。（疏中，更加制止法，如五邪七非；體乖聖教，不得行故。）次制作中。衣鉢等者，即體狀也。衣鉢答須三如，文中略色，且舉體量。（疏加製作法，如三羯磨等。）問：此即作持門事，那在止問明之？答：為示雙持義故，疏明雙持雙犯，則有二種。初約心用，一切諸戒，皆雙持犯；以凡持一戒，必起對治；禁惡名止，起治名作；兩犯亦爾。凡所造惡，必無治故。（此可持奉用心，非正簡判。）二據教行，即諸戒中，或有教制奉行之者，若制若聽，或事或法；且如三衣，教遣須具；依教而作，為作持；望無違犯，是止持；餘皆類說。自餘婬盜等，無制法者，竝是單持隻犯耳。（簡判諸戒，正用此義。）如上雙持，止持屬此門，作持歸後攝。是則止持具有二種：一對惡事明止，正是本位。二對善事明止，兼收後門。應知衣鉢等事，前後俱明；約行須別，不可相濫。餘廣如疏。不可學中，初示今義。律境想中，本迷轉想疑心，皆開本罪；今云迷倒，總上三種。謂此迷心，臨事忽起，無由防護，故云不可。（有云心迷，學不可得者，非。）隨境不了者，疏云：於殺盜境，疑慮不分；望非犯位，故是止持；而心不了，是不可學。（若對法者，四依、五邪、七非、三法，是非相濫，忘思不了也。）廢下，刪古。注簡有二，初出古意。昔以事者，彼於止持，通立可學不可學，制作門事是可學，制止門事是不可學；以唯離過，非進修故；作持唯是可學，無不可學。（如後指波。）今下，顯今所立，初示異。古約事分，通塞乃別；今約心迷，統該篇聚。一下，申理。上二句示可學。言一切者，總指諸戒也。皆可學者，竝須明練守護無違也。但下，明不可學。此依律文境想以立。唯除破僧婬酒（酒有義斷）。餘戒竝開想疑，故云佛一切開也。此謂素竝明達，臨境忽忘；不同愚教，一向無知。

In the prescribed gate of maintaining by cessation, the first clause provides a general statement. From 'One...' onward, it demonstrates specifically. Under 'capable of study' there are also two parts; first, under 'prescribed cessation'. Citing sexual misconduct and theft directly demonstrates the essence and characteristic. The three objects are the three destinies; all are grave [offenses], hence called 'universal'. The four owners further include the Triratna; because the marks of offense differ for each, it is called 'differentiated'. In the text, he provisionally cites two precepts of the first pārājika section; all other prohibited unwholesome affairs throughout the remaining sections and classes belong to this gate. (The Precept Commentary further adds 'prescribed stopping of procedures', such as the five wrong livelihoods and seven illicit acts; because their essence contravenes the holy teaching, they must not be practiced.) Next, under 'prescribed action'. Robes, bowls, and so forth are the essences and characteristics. Robes and bowls need to conform to the three conformities; the text omits color and provisionally mentions essence and measurement. (The Precept Commentary adds 'prescribed procedures of action', such as the three kinds of karmans.) Question: These are affairs belonging to the gate of maintaining by action; why are they clarified under cessation? Answer: In order to demonstrate the meaning of dual maintenance. The Precept Commentary clarifies that there are two kinds of dual maintenance and dual violation. First, in terms of mental application: all precepts admit of dual maintenance and violation; for whenever one maintains a single precept, one must arouse the counteractive remedy: prohibiting evil is called cessation, and arousing the counteragent is called action; dual violation is also like this, for whenever evil is committed, there is inevitably no counteragent. (This concerns the mental application when maintaining and upholding; it is not the standard analytical determination.) Second, based on teaching and practice: among the various precepts, there are those where the teaching prescribes practice, whether prescribed or permitted, whether factual affairs or procedures. For example, regarding the three robes, the teaching requires them to be possessed; acting in accordance with the teaching is maintaining by action; regarding the absence of violation, it is maintaining by cessation; the rest are explained analogously. Aside from these, sexual misconduct, theft, and the like, which have no prescribed ritual procedures, are all merely single maintenance and single violation. (The analytical determination of the precepts directly employs this meaning.) As for the dual maintenance above, maintaining by cessation belongs to this gate, while maintaining by action falls under the subsequent heading. Thus maintaining by cessation possesses two kinds: 1. Clarifying cessation with respect to unwholesome affairs, which is precisely its primary position. 2. Clarifying cessation with respect to wholesome affairs, which concurrently incorporates the subsequent gate. One should know that affairs such as robes and bowls are clarified in both the preceding and succeeding sections; with respect to practice they must be distinguished and not conflated. The rest is extensively as in the Precept Commentary. Under 'incapable of study', first the present meaning is shown. In the Vinaya's classification of perception regarding the object: fundamental delusion, shift of perception, and doubtful mind are all granted an exception from the primary offense; now saying 'deluded and inverted' summarizes these three kinds. This means that when this deluded mind suddenly arises in the face of an event, there is no way to guard against it; hence it is called 'incapable'. (Some say that when the mind is deluded, study cannot be attained; this is incorrect.) Regarding 'failure to discern according to the object', the Precept Commentary states: with respect to the objects of killing and theft, one has doubt and hesitation without discerning; relative to not being in the position of an offense, it is maintaining by cessation; yet because the mind fails to discern, it is 'incapable of study'. (If correlated with procedures: with respect to the four reliances, five wrong livelihoods, seven illicit acts, and three dharmas, right and wrong are conflated, and one fails to discern due to lapse of mindfulness.) From 'Discarding...' onward, the ancient view is eliminated. The note of distinction has two parts; first, presenting the ancient view. Formerly, based on affairs, they universally established both 'capable of study' and 'incapable of study' within maintaining by cessation: affairs of the prescribed action gate were capable of study, whereas affairs of the prescribed cessation gate were incapable of study, because they merely constituted departure from fault rather than progressive cultivation; maintaining by action was solely capable of study, lacking the incapable of study. (As indicated below.) From 'Now...' onward, showing what is presently established; first, showing the difference. The ancients divided according to affairs, so that inclusive and exclusive differed; now it is divided according to mental delusion, universally encompassing all sections and classes. From 'One...' onward, explaining the principle. The upper two clauses show 'capable of study'. The word 'all' generally refers to the various precepts. 'All capable of study' means that all must be clearly understood and guarded without violation. From 'Only...' onward, clarifies 'incapable of study'. This is established based on the Vinaya's text on perception regarding the object. Only schism, sexual misconduct, and alcohol are excluded (regarding alcohol, there is an interpretive determination). For the remaining precepts, perception and doubt are universally granted exceptions; hence it says: 'the Buddha granted universal exceptions'. This refers to one who is normally thoroughly comprehending, but suddenly forgets in the presence of the object; it is not like being ignorant of the teaching and completely unlearned.