四分律行事鈔資持記 3.291

3.291

次差人中，初科，前標示律文。今下，準用時事。《注羯磨》云：有人存三番作法，此思文未了（一差人，二付衣，三分次；律云持衣與一比丘，令白二分，然律即指付分一法，彼謂有二，故是未了。）；亦有存二番法者（一差人，二付分，古記謂是口差，今家即者，非也。）：今鈔所用，即一番法者；以口差人，但作付分，故不作差法；反上律文，故云違法。知事則本由公選，口差則亦顯眾和，故云通得。間既云違法，何不白二差之？答：律雖明制，不出法故。諸家所立，竝是意裁。今家不行，恐成專擅。（作《行事策》者，亦妄出法；古記相㳂，雷同引用，都迷聖旨。）即《注羯磨》云：今準律文，具含付分二法，餘無故不出是也。若爾，違法即應有過。答：律既不出，非故不行。況知事口差，通和義顯，理應無過。

In the next [section on] appointing a person: in the first section, the preceding indicates the Vinaya text. From 'Now' onward, it accords with current practice. The Annotated Karmavācanā states: 'Some maintain a three-step ritual procedure; this reflection shows an incomplete understanding of the text (first, appointing a person; second, handing over the robes; third, distributing by turn; the Vinaya says to give the robes to one bhikṣu and have him divide them by a jñaptidvitīyā karmavācanā, yet the Vinaya refers precisely to the single procedure of handing over to divide; they considered there to be two, hence their understanding was incomplete); there are also those who maintain a two-step procedure (first, appointing a person; second, handing over to divide; ancient records say this is verbal appointment, but our current school identifying them is incorrect).' That which is used in the present Transactions Manual is a one-step procedure; because one verbally appoints a person and merely performs handing over to divide, one does not perform an appointment procedure; this goes against the above Vinaya text, hence it is said to violate the rule. Because an administrator is fundamentally chosen publicly, verbal appointment also manifests the harmony of the assembly, hence it is said that either is permissible. Question: Since it is said to violate the rule, why not appoint him by a jñaptidvitīyā karmavācanā? Answer: Although the Vinaya strictly institutes it, it does not provide the procedure. What the various schools established were all formulated by their own opinions. If our school does not practice it, it is for fear of becoming arbitrary. (Those who composed the Xing Shi Ce also spuriously created procedures; ancient records followed along, quoting them indiscriminately, entirely losing the sagely intention.) That is, the Annotated Karmavācanā states: 'Now according with the Vinaya text, it fully contains the two procedures of handing over and dividing; because there are no others, none are presented,' which is precisely this. If so, violating the rule should entail an offense. Answer: Since the Vinaya does not provide it, it is not an intentional non-performance. Furthermore, with an administrator verbally appointed, the meaning of universal harmony is apparent; in principle, there should be no offense.