四分律行事鈔資持記 2.278

2.278

篇目者，篇聚都名，前篇已解；持犯總義，廣在後云；此則單錄別條，直顯行相。古來講解，例以《刪定戒本》，輒加注釋；乃用鈔文，牒釋戒相；顛亂祖乘，昏迷後學；為弊斯久，卒難曉喻；今略點示，有識知非，早須廢捨。鈔是宗鈔，那得釋文；序云：若長途散釋，則寡於討論；必隨相曲分，便過在繁碎。今反以宗鈔，牒釋戒文，深乖鈔旨，此一非也。《含注戒本》，自有解申；乃全依本文，一無改易；即戒序云：今依律本，具錄正經；仍隨佛解，即為注述，是也。但以翻傳，詞尚淳質；故仍刪定，專被誦持；對於律解，義同文異；故知注釋，須準古文；若但誦持，可依刪定。今則兩本皆注，殊乖祖心。（有云：未刪定時已注，故從古本，未知此意。）況以淺近浮詞，妄參聖語；雜碎科條，浪節真經；瞽論紛紜，焉知自誤，此二非也。又章記至此，且入戒序，科文解釋；至後戒條，例分為二：一戒本，二鈔文。且此科文，為屬戒本，為屬鈔文？是則科段交參，兩無所攝深；非常途撰述之體，此三非也。又復以鈔釋戒，殊不相符；且如初戒云：共戒同戒，不捨戒等；今鈔直列境緣，曾無一詞相對；雖強科配，終成乖各，此四非也。又《含注戒本》，全依佛語，注釋精詳；復有義疏，解文委備；當須遍學，方盡始終。今以鈔釋戒，彼成無用；即今律肆，罕見傳通，良由於此；況剽竊疏文，冐為己注；文無起盡，義不周旋；雖欲究尋，終成徒爾；必若鈔文釋戒，後復撰疏何為？此五非也。且略責五非，極多不便。今並刪削，直點鈔文；但摘撮本緣，令知端始。或文略義壅，則引疏決通。或諸部互違，則旁引比對；欲知要旨，妙識犯緣。此乃釋相之綱宗，持犯之樞鍵者矣。

Regarding the chapter titles, the general names of the sections and clusters have already been explained in the previous chapter; the comprehensive meaning of maintenance and violation will be extensively discussed later; here, he merely records the specific items to directly reveal the marks of practice. Lecturers from ancient times down conventionally added commentaries arbitrarily based on the Revised Prātimokṣa, then used the text of the Manual to cite and explain the precept marks, throwing the ancestral vehicle into disarray and confusing later students. This malpractice having persisted for so long, it is exceedingly difficult to make them understand. Now I briefly point it out, so that those with discernment may know its error and promptly discard it. The Manual is a manual of the tradition; how could it be an exegetical text? The preface says: 'If it were a diffuse, long-distance exegesis, then discussion would be sparse; if it followed the marks with tortuous distinctions, the fault would lie in excessive triviality.' Now, on the contrary, using a manual of the tradition to cite and explain the text of the precepts profoundly contradicts the intent of the Manual—this is the first error. The Prātimokṣa with Interlinear Notes itself has its explanations and expressions; it entirely relies on the root text without any alteration. That is what the Precept Preface means when it says: 'Now, relying on the Vinaya text, I fully record the authentic scripture, and following the Buddha's explanations, I compile the notes.' However, because of translation and transmission, its language remained pure and unadorned; hence it was still revised and fixed specifically for recitation. Compared with the Vinaya explanations, the meaning is identical while the text differs. Therefore we know that for annotations and explanations, one must follow the ancient text; if only for recitation, one may rely on the revised version. Now both versions are annotated, which profoundly contradicts the Patriarch's mind. (Some say: 'Before the revision was made it had already been annotated, hence it followed the ancient text,' not knowing this intention.) How much worse it is to use shallow and superficial words to arbitrarily intrude upon holy words, and miscellaneous sub-clauses to recklessly segment the true scripture! When blind arguments are rampant, how can one know one's own mistakes? This is the second error. Furthermore, when the chapter records reach this point, they enter the Precept Preface with outlines and explanations; when reaching the subsequent precept clauses, they are conventionally divided into two: first, the Prātimokṣa text, and second, the Manual text. Now, do these outline headings belong to the Prātimokṣa text or to the Manual text? Thus the outline sections intertwine and belong fully to neither, which is deeply contrary to the style of conventional composition—this is the third error. Furthermore, using the Manual to explain the precepts does not match at all. For instance, the first precept says: 'sharing the precepts, having the same precepts, not relinquishing the precepts,' and so on; now the Manual directly lists objects and conditions, without a single corresponding word. Although forcefully matched into outlines, in the end they remain mismatched—this is the fourth error. Moreover, the Prātimokṣa with Interlinear Notes entirely relies on the Buddha's words, and its notes and explanations are precise and detailed; there is also the Commentary on the Meaning, which explains the text thoroughly. One must study them completely to exhaust the matter from beginning to end. Now, by using the Manual to explain the precepts, those texts are rendered useless. The fact that they are rarely transmitted in contemporary Vinaya quarters is truly due to this. How much worse it is to plagiarize the commentary's text, pretending it to be one's own notes! The text has no beginning and end, and the meaning is not sustained; though one wishes to investigate, in the end it is entirely in vain. If the Manual text were meant to explain the precepts, why would he later compose the commentary? This is the fifth error. I have merely censured these five errors, yet there are exceedingly many inconveniences. Now I delete them all and directly comment on the Manual text, merely extracting the root conditions so that one may know the beginning. Or, where the text is brief and the meaning blocked, I cite the commentary to resolve and penetrate it; or, where the various schools contradict each other, I cite them in parallel for comparison, wishing [the reader] to know the essential points and subtly recognize the conditions of violation. This is the guiding principle for explaining the marks, and the pivotal key to maintenance and violation.