四分律行事鈔資持記 2.1552

2.1552

可懺中，初標問。二下，釋通，初句總示。對破古解。古謂不學可懺，作心欲學，斷相續故；無知不可懺，欲知未了，無有斷義，故不可懺；後緣得解，即是解惑相除，復不須懺。（由解除惑，罪無依故，相字平乎。）今直出正解，古解如《義鈔》引之。如下，別顯，初明先犯。若下，明後斷。以纔起心學，即無無知；二俱有斷，故皆可懺。

Under whether it can be confessed: first, the question is stated. From 'two' below, the explanation resolves it; the first line provides a general indication, refuting the ancient explanation. The ancients claimed that failing to learn could be confessed, because generating the mind desiring to learn severs continuation; and that ignorance could not be confessed, because desiring to know while not yet understanding has no meaning of severance, and thus cannot be confessed; and when subsequent conditions bring understanding, understanding and delusion eliminate each other, so confession is again not needed. (Because understanding eliminates delusion, the offense has no basis; the character xiang is read in the level tone.) Now the correct explanation is directly set forth; the ancient explanation is cited in the Meaning Commentary. From 'as' below, it shows separately: first explaining the prior offense; from 'if' below, explaining the subsequent severance. Because the moment the mind to learn arises there is no ignorance, both involve severance, so both can be confessed.