四分律行事鈔資持記 2.310

2.310

損壞中，準論，此有兩節，前段中。彼問經上塵土草穢，得吹去不？答：不得吹，吹犯捨墮。像上同者，鈔家義準。竊詳論意，恐成觸污輕慢經法；須以淨物拂拭，不可口吹，故制罪耳。（舊云損色，未必然也。）若下，即引後段。彼問：戒律不用流落，可燒不？答：不得。不知有罪燒，捨墮（今云犯輕是也）。若知燒有罪故燒，犯決斷。（即偷蘭，今云重者，對上墮故。）與方便破僧同（以壞法故），亦如燒父母。（法身由生故，舉此決上犯蘭，同二逆故。）準此，且望無主為言；必是有主，理從上判。（多見錯解，故具引釋。）古云：如燒故經，安於淨處；先說是法因緣生偈已，焚之。此乃傳謬，知出何文；引誤後生，陷於重逆。疏云：有人無識，燒毀破經；我今火淨，謂言得福；此妄思度。半偈捨身，著在明典；兩字除惑，亦列正經；何得焚除，失事在福也。準此明誡，足驗前非；必有損像蠹經，淨處藏之可矣。

Regarding damaging or destroying [scriptures]: according to the treatises, there are two sections. In the first section, it asks: "If there is dust, dirt, grass, or filth on a scripture, may one blow it away or not?" The reply: "One must not blow it away; blowing it incurs a śaikṣa-pāyattika." The case of an image being the same is deduced conceptually by the author of the Transactions Manual. Carefully analyzing the intent of the treatise, it is feared that this constitutes polluting and disrespecting the scriptural Dharma; one must wipe it with a clean cloth, and must not blow on it with the mouth, hence an offense was instituted. (The old interpretation held that it was for fear of damaging the pigment, which is not necessarily so.) The text below from "If…" cites the latter section. It asks: "If the Vinaya texts are no longer of use and are deteriorating, may one burn them or not?" The reply: "One must not. If one burns them not knowing there is an offense, it is a śaikṣa-pāyattika (what is now called committing a light offense). If one burns them knowing there is an offense in burning them and intentionally burns them, one commits a cut-off [offense]." (That is, a sthūlātyaya; what is now called a heavy offense is in contrast to the above pāyattika.) "It is the same as the preparatory stage of causing a schism in the Sangha (because it destroys the Dharma), and also like burning one's father and mother." (Because the Dharma-body is born from it; this is cited to determine the sthūlātyaya above, being equivalent to the two anantarya offenses.) According to this, it speaks provisionally of when there is no owner; if there must be an owner, the principle is determined according to the above. (Because one often sees erroneous interpretations, it is cited and explained in full.) An ancient said: "Like burning an old scripture: place it in a clean spot, first speak the verse 'All phenomena arise from causes and conditions,' and then burn it." This is a transmitted error, and who knows from what text it comes; it leads future generations astray and plunges them into grave anantarya offenses. The Commentary says: "Some people lack understanding and burn and destroy ruined scriptures, saying: 'I now purify it with fire,' thinking they will attain merit; this is a delusional presumption. Sacrificing one's life for half a verse is recorded in the clear canonical texts; removing delusion through two words is also listed in the authentic sūtras; how can burning and eliminating them cause loss of the actual object while merit remains?" According to these clear admonitions, it is sufficient to prove the former error; if there are indeed damaged images or moth-eaten scriptures, it is permissible to store them in a clean place.