四分律行事鈔資持記 2.25

2.25

答足數中，初準懺明足。即簡二滅，不在所論。如下，例證；《十誦》開作說恣羯磨（不開餘法），亦聽眾中誦律（無堪能處）；既容秉御，身預淨僧，義同足數，故云理當也。但下，約過明不足。情過深者，犯極惡也；不任用者，虧德業也。故下，引示，律云：僧說戒及羯磨時，來不隨意。故知雖懺，必無足理；縱聽秉法，身不入數；但望二擯，財法永亡，不參眾務，以為優耳。上云理足，文含二意；一為救無知，謂失，例犯；二為救犯者，抱過不悔；故此諸文，委曲提示。問：世云：小無懺重之文，那云懺淨耶？答：大小兩乘，通明懺重；小雖開懺，但障獄業，不能復本，故云無耳。若爾，依大懺淨，可預數不？答：化制不同。化據業道，制就違教。縱依《方等》，事理懺滅；於今制教，不懺須擯，懺成學悔。若行制懺，縱業不亡，還名清淨。須知化制，懺法天別。人多妄迷，故曲疏之。餘在後篇。

In answering counting toward the quorum: first, based on deśanā, it clarifies that one does count toward the quorum. That is, it excludes the two expulsions, which are not under discussion. As below, it offers analogical proof: the Daśādhyāya-vinaya permits one to perform the karmas of poṣadha and pravāraṇā (not permitting other rites), and also allows one to recite the Vinaya amidst the assembly (where there is no other capable person); since one is allowed to preside over and execute the rite, and one's person is admitted among pure monks, in principle it is the same as counting toward the quorum, hence it says "it is logically appropriate." But following "However," it clarifies not counting toward the quorum based on the fault. If the affective fault is deep, it is committing the extreme evil; if one is unfit for use, one's virtuous practice is deficient. Therefore, below it cites to show, the Vinaya saying: "When the saṃgha performs poṣadha and karmavācanā, their coming is not at their will." Therefore, know that although one repents, there is definitely no principle of counting toward the quorum; even if permitted to preside over the rite, one's person does not enter the count; it is merely regarded as superior in comparison to the two expulsions, where material goods and Dharma are forever lost, and one has no participation in the saṃgha's affairs. Above it was said "it is logically sufficient," which text contains two intentions: first, to rescue the ignorant who claim it is lost, and so commit offenses by analogy; second, to rescue offenders who cling to their faults without repentance. Therefore, these texts give detailed and indirect admonitions. Question: People commonly say that the Hinayāna has no text on repenting grave offenses; why say "repenting and becoming pure"? Answer: Both the Mahāyāna and Hinayāna equally clarify repenting grave offenses; although the Hinayāna permits deśanā, it merely blocks hell karma and cannot restore the original state, hence it says "there is none." If so, if one becomes pure by relying on Mahāyāna deśanā, may one count toward the quorum? Answer: The teaching of conversion and the teaching of regulation are different. Conversion is based on the path of karma; regulation relates to transgressing the rules. Even if, relying on the Vaipulya sūtras, the phenomenal and ultimate deśanā extinguishes [the sin], according to the present disciplinary regulations, if one does not repent, one must be expelled; if one repents, one undergoes penance. If one performs the disciplinary deśanā, even if the karma is not eradicated, one is still called pure. One must know that the methods of deśanā in conversion and regulation are as different as heaven and earth. Many people are deluded about this, so it is analyzed in detail. The rest is in the subsequent fascicle.