四分律行事鈔資持記 3.207

3.207

囑授中，初科四句，初中。順初受者，以受戒時稟四依故。生福即現因。上處期後報，謂善道也。三中。篤猶極也。此身未得無漏聖道，故云空無無漏。勸囑謂他人相勉。增字寫誤，合作憎；或與不與，心不等故。前業謂向前所作福業，或修聖道。佛誠斷者，判歸僧故。四中，初示相。慳施二心起滅不常，故云展轉。後引事證。二緣竝出《五百問論》。彼云：昔有比丘念著銅椀；僧分物時，便來求椀，僧遂還之，舌舐放地，臭不可用等；又有比丘喜樂衣服，因病致死，後化為蛇來纏衣等。銅椀見〈瞻病篇〉，慳衣在〈對施篇〉。而言〈隨相〉者，或即指下〈隨篇〉事相，或是傳寫之謬。（舊云指文誤者，或云後失修者，未必然也。）

In 'entrusting and conferring', the first section has four lines. In the first: 'concordant with the initial reception' is because when receiving the precepts one relies on the four resources. 'Producing merit' is the present cause. 'Hoping for a later retribution in a superior realm' refers to the good destinies. In the third: 'grave' (du) also means extreme. This body has not yet attained the uncontaminated noble path, hence it says 'devoid of the uncontaminated'. 'Encouraging entrustment' means mutual urging by others. The character 'increase' (zeng) is a scribal error and should be 'loathe' (zeng); whether giving or not giving, the mind is not equal. 'Prior karma' refers to the meritorious karma previously performed, or cultivating the noble path. The 'Buddha's sincere determination' is because he decided they belong to the saṃgha. In the fourth, first is showing the characteristics. The two minds of stinginess and generosity arise and cease inconsistently, hence it says 'successively'. Afterward, events are cited as proof. Both cases come from the Pañcaśatī-paripṛcchā-śāstra. It says: formerly there was a bhikṣu who clung with attachment to a bronze bowl; when the saṃgha was distributing items, he came seeking the bowl, so the saṃgha returned it to him; he licked it with his tongue and placed it on the ground, foul and unusable, etc. There was also a bhikṣu who delighted in robes, died due to illness, and afterward turned into a snake that came to coil around the robes, etc. The bronze bowl appears in the chapter 'Attending to the Sick'; stinginess with robes is in the chapter 'Relating to Giving'. As for saying 'Concomitant Marks', this either points to the activities below in the chapter 'Subsequent [Practice]' or is an error of scribal transmission. (Former commentators said it was a mistaken text reference, or that the later text lost cultivation; this is not necessarily so.)