四分律行事鈔資持記 2.268

2.268

次不盡中，初句立義。以下，釋所以。殺打別者，所防過異也。（疏作輕重不同。）能防異者，對治行別也。故下，引證。彼具云：除十善業，及十惡業（化教業道）；善戒（制教七支）惡戒已（即不律儀），更有業戒所不攝者，謂善惡法（此依古記所引）；今鈔略舉善惡戒耳。準此經文，則以根本隔出業戒；可證七支不攝餘戒，故云故知等。此二句，若取偶對，合云：七支根本所收；或不改上句，則下句合云：種類業戒所攝，在文順便。今戒本中，初篇四重，及九十中，兩舌、毀呰、口綺，則七支戒；除此已外，皆業戒也。（舊記以殺妄大小，謂七支攝九戒，非也。此亦輕重不同，何得相攝。）問：據此所解，即應不立種類耶？答：前後兩解，大途不異；但前以七支，總攝種類；後以七支，自為根本；別立業戒，統收種類。多見妄解，故此細釋。

In the second [answer] stating that they are not exhausted, the first sentence establishes the thesis. From "Because" downward explains the reason. The difference between killing and striking lies in the faults they guard against being different. (The Commentary says: the difference between light and heavy.) The difference in what guards against them lies in the distinct practices of counteraction. From "Therefore" downward adduces the proof. That text says in full: "Excluding the ten wholesome courses of action and the ten unwholesome courses of action (the courses of action of the teaching of transformation); the wholesome precepts (the seven paths of action of the teaching of formulation) and unwholesome precepts (i.e., non-restraint); there are further those not subsumed by karma-precepts, called wholesome and unwholesome dharmas" (this follows what was cited in ancient records); the present Manual merely mentions the wholesome and unwholesome precepts. According to this sūtra text, it separates out the karma-precepts from the root; this can prove that the seven paths of action do not subsume the remaining precepts, which is why it says "Therefore we know," etc. If these two sentences were made into a parallel couplet, it should say: "The seven paths of action are gathered under the root"; or, without changing the upper sentence, the lower sentence should say: "The kinds and categories are subsumed under the karma-precepts," which flows naturally in the text. In the present prātimokṣa text, the four pārājikas in the first chapter, as well as malicious speech, abusive speech, and frivolous speech among the ninety [pāyattikas], are the seven paths of action precepts; all other than these are karma-precepts. (The old commentary, taking killing and false speech as major and minor, claimed that the seven paths of action subsume nine precepts; this is incorrect. These also differ in lightness and heaviness; how could they subsume one another?) Question: Based on this interpretation, should kinds and categories not be established? Answer: The earlier and later interpretations are not broadly different; it is just that the earlier one uses the seven paths of action to generally subsume kinds and categories, while the latter takes the seven paths of action as being the root itself and separately establishes karma-precepts to comprehensively gather kinds and categories. Seeing many false interpretations, this is explained in detail here.