四分律行事鈔資持記 2.1580

2.1580

初句為二，前舉戒示相，二引論證成。（下二同此。）遮惡制殘，故知不等。下篇掘壞，類此明之。論文，上二句證犯殘，上句示異。異業理故。下句釋異。下二句證招報，上句示異。異制教故。（得罪者，即今業因；以能招報，故云報異。舊云：將來得罪法異，即以報為罪。非也。）下句釋異。果由因剋，因即心業，非關制教故。

The first proposition has two parts: first, citing the precept to show its marks; second, citing the treatise to substantiate it. (The lower two are identical to this.) Because prescriptive evil incurs saṃghāvaśeṣa, we therefore know they are unequal. Digging and destroying in the lower category should be clarified by analogy to this. In the treatise text, the upper two lines verify committing saṃghāvaśeṣa; the upper line shows the difference, because it differs from karmic principle. The lower line explains the difference. The lower two lines verify incurring retribution; the upper line shows the difference, because it differs from prescriptive teaching. ('Incurring offense' means the present karmic cause; because it can incur retribution, it says 'retribution differs'. The old commentary said: 'Incurring offense dharmas in the future is different, thus taking retribution as offense.' This is incorrect.) The lower line explains the difference: the fruit is determined by the cause, and the cause is mental karma, having nothing to do with prescriptive teaching.