四分律行事鈔資持記 2.197

2.197

次色聲中。此師所立色聲有二：一外五塵及報色，非罪福性；內方便色，是罪福性；二者，一念色聲，眼耳所得，非罪福性；相續色聲，法入所攝，是罪福性。今取方便，相續色聲，以為作體。文中分二，初立體。相續，簡一念也；行來跪屈，至作法竟，即相續色；陳詞乞戒，言句具足，相續聲也。善者，簡五塵報色也。以下，遮妨。由此宗中，十四種色，悉是無記；今立色聲，恐謂乖宗，故釋之耳。法入攝者，過去色也。意識得者，謂能受人，跪屈陳詞，心所緣也。（舊記云：三師十僧，意識得者，謬矣。）問：前立業思，於義既顯，何以後師復立色聲耶？答：合教順宗，甚有眉目。講者未達，妄生輕貶，後學慎勿隨之。問：雙出兩解，依何為定？答：文無去取，不妨兩得；但諸文中，多用前義。雙存偏用，好自深思。問：此與多宗作戒何異？答：異宗各立，必應有異；引前對照，約塵分析，如指諸掌。餘如別述。

Next, within matter and sound: the matter and sound posited by this master are of two types: 1. external five sensory objects and retribution matter are not of the nature of sin or merit; internal preparatory matter is of the nature of sin or merit; 2. matter and sound of a single thought-moment, which are apprehended by eye and ear, are not of the nature of sin or merit; continuous matter and sound, which are subsumed under the mental base, are of the nature of sin or merit. Now we take preparatory, continuous matter and sound to be the essence of action. The text is divided into two: first, positing the essence. "Continuous" excludes a single thought-moment; walking, coming, kneeling, and bowing until the completion of the rite is continuous matter; stating words and begging for the precepts with complete phrases and sentences is continuous sound. "Wholesome" excludes the five sensory objects and retribution matter. "Because..." below averts objections. Because in this school the fourteen kinds of matter are all indeterminate, in now positing matter and sound one might fear it contradicts the school, hence it explains it. "Subsumed under the mental base" refers to past matter. "Apprehended by the mental consciousness" means what is conditioned in the mind of the person receiving [the precepts] when kneeling, bowing, and stating words. (The old record says: "Apprehended by the mental consciousness of the three masters and ten monks"; this is erroneous.) Question: Earlier karmic volition was posited, and its meaning was already clear; why did a later master additionally posit matter and sound? Answer: It conforms to the teaching and accords with the school, having very clear organization. Lecturers fail to understand and arbitrarily give rise to disdain; later students must take care not to follow them. Question: When two explanations are presented together, which one should be determined upon? Answer: The text makes no choice between them, so there is no harm in accepting both; however, throughout the various texts, the former meaning is mostly used. Retaining both while favoring one in application: consider this deeply for yourself. Question: How does this differ from the action precept of the Sarvāstivāda school? Answer: Being established by different schools, there must certainly be differences; citing the previous [explanations] for comparison and analyzing them according to the sensory objects, it is as clear as pointing to the palm of one's hand. The rest is as described elsewhere.