四分律行事鈔資持記 2.2038

2.2038

斥古中，初示非。遂，往也。古師即指諸家集羯磨者。如僧鎧羯磨：初出懺殘；二懺偷蘭，白二法懺，不分重輕；三懺捨墮，不簡單提；四懺餘罪，不顯罪相；提舍吉羅，並不出法。又曇諦羯磨：初亦懺殘；二懺捨墮；三懺餘罪，謂單提、提舍、蘭吉，同一法懺，詞句並同捨墮。事儀加改，謂之增減；立法出沒，謂之隱顯。若準下文，則古謂夷罪必須都無覆心，方開懺悔；又唯婬開懺，餘三不開；又僧殘中覆藏別住，或云盡行，或俱不行；又提舍中同懺提法，又眾學罪同皆責心；增減隱顯，尋之可見。臆課多者，責其師心。課猶說也。照教無文，謂事無所據；撿行違律，謂行用非法。故下，引斥。即律〈增二〉中，明二種愚人。初人抱過不悔，次人悔不依教；今取次人，證上非法。律文又出二種智人，與愚相反，如下科引。聖下二句，示師心所以。上句示後悔法，皆見律文；下句顯前諸師不能依用。

In [the section] refuting the ancients, it first indicates their errors. 'Sui' means in the past. 'Ancient masters' refers to those of various traditions who compiled karmavācanā texts. For instance, in Senggai's Karmavācanā: first it sets forth deśanā for saṃghāvaśeṣa; second, deśanā for sthūlātyaya, using a jñaptidvitīyā karmavācanā procedure without distinguishing between heavy and light; third, deśanā for niḥsargika-pāyattika, without distinguishing it from simple pāyattika; fourth, deśanā for remaining offenses, without clarifying the marks of the offenses; and for pratideśanīya and duṣkṛta, it sets forth no procedure at all. Also, in Dandi's Karmavācanā: first it likewise has deśanā for saṃghāvaśeṣa; second, deśanā for niḥsargika-pāyattika; third, deśanā for remaining offenses—meaning simple pāyattika, pratideśanīya, sthūlātyaya, and duṣkṛta share one single deśanā procedure, with phrasing entirely identical to niḥsargika-pāyattika. Modifying ritual procedures by additions or alterations is called 'addition and subtraction'; establishing procedures that appear or vanish is called 'concealment and disclosure.' According to the text below, the ancients held that for pārājika offenses there must be no concealment of mind whatsoever before opening deśanā; furthermore, they held that only unchastity allows deśanā, while the other three do not. Also, regarding separate dwelling (mānatva) for concealing saṃghāvaśeṣa, some said all must practice it, while others said neither needs to practice it. Also, regarding pratideśanīya, they treated it as identical to the procedure for pāyattika, and regarding śaikṣadharma offenses, they all uniformly prescribed mental self-reproach. Such additions, subtractions, concealments, and disclosures can be seen upon examination. When it says 'their subjective fabrications are numerous,' it rebukes their reliance on subjective opinion. 'Ke' is equivalent to 'saying.' Having no textual basis in the teachings means the practical procedures lack foundation; their scrutinized practice contravening the Vinaya means the implementation is contrary to Dharma. The subsequent phrase, 'therefore...', cites a rebuke. That is, from the 'Twos' section of the Vinaya, it clarifies two kinds of foolish persons: the first person harbors faults and does not repent; the second person repents but does not rely on the teaching. Here, the second person is taken to verify the aforementioned non-Dharmic practice. The Vinaya text also presents two kinds of wise persons, who are the opposites of the foolish, as cited in the subsection below. The two phrases from 'Sage...' downward indicate the reason for their subjective opinions. The upper phrase shows that the procedures for repenting afterward all appear in the Vinaya text; the lower phrase reveals that the earlier masters were unable to rely upon and apply them.