四分律行事鈔資持記 3.1125

3.1125

《僧祇、十誦》。制減許增。單白通二，白二通一，極至白四，無所通矣。《僧祇》。加中間，則有四種。求聽，如受日法，從僧求故。《了論》。中間在二間者，唱白一分，羯磨一分，共為一法；唱事問聽，皆不具足，如後所引。加白羯磨，如今打槌白眾之類；直爾白知，故不問聽否。及餘三法，則有五矣。又云下，總簡。《業疏》所引，更兼單白，則有三法通三人作，與今不同；故疏通云：準此單白，既有問聽；云何非僧，而得秉御？大德僧聽，言何所屬？今通其旨，三人和白，初則改辭（改大德僧為諸大德），餘文準用，論通三人，豈不然乎！（文明單白，中間例爾。）

The Mahāsāṃghika and Daśādhyāya vinayas prohibit decrease but permit increase. A single jñapti extends to two, a jñaptidvitīyā extends to one, reaching the maximum of jñapticaturthā, beyond which nothing extends. The Mahāsāṃghika adds an intermediate, so there are four kinds. "Requesting permission" is like the method for receiving days, because it is requested from the saṃgha. The *Vinayadvāviṃśatividyā-śāstra*: the intermediate lies between the two, where reciting the jñapti is one part and the karmavācanā is one part, together forming a single rite; reciting the matter and asking for permission are both incomplete, as cited below. Karmavācanā with an added jñapti is like the present-day striking of the gavel to announce to the assembly; it is simply announcing for knowledge, hence it does not ask for permission. Together with the other three rites, there are five. From "It also says..." onward, it summarizes and differentiates. What is cited in the *Karma Commentary* further includes a single jñapti, so there are three rites that extend to three persons performing them, which differs from the present; hence the Commentary resolves it by saying: according to this single jñapti, since it involves asking for permission, how could it not be a saṃgha and yet be able to preside? To what do the words "Venerable ones, let the saṃgha listen" pertain? Now to resolve its meaning: when three persons agree on a jñapti, at the beginning the words are altered (altering "Venerable saṃgha" to "All venerable ones"), and the rest of the text is applied accordingly; is it not indeed the case that the treatise extends it to three persons! (The text clearly states a single jñapti, and the intermediate follows the same pattern.)