四分律行事鈔資持記 1

English (machine translation) 1

Language: English

1.11 — 3 parts

1.1

Composed by the Śramaṇa Shi Yuanzhao of Yuhang in the Great Song.

Those who have gone forth receive the precepts as their essence and gather the Dharma to abide in their persons. Practice must be cultivated based on the essence; therefore, as the cause, it is termed subsequent practice. The body must move in accord with the Dharma; therefore, as the fruit, it is named the Dharma-body. Truly, this is because setting forth has its principle, and relying on causes attains its proper locus. Furthermore, the single consciousness is fundamentally luminous, and defilement or purity cannot be apprehended. Flowing and mutating in accord with conditions, [the dichotomy of] other and self blazes fiercely; encountering objects gives rise to passions, and following delusion generates karma. Bound in the prison of the realms of existence, one receives bodily forms of ten thousand kinds; rising and sinking across billions of kalpas, there is no rest. Therefore, our Tathāgata mounted the Path of reality and opened the gate of great compassion; intending to bring about the exhaustion of the source of suffering, he instituted rules to first eliminate defiling karma. For example, in felling a tree, one must begin by pruning its branches; not only do seeds and fruits have nothing to depend upon, but the roots and trunk are gradually made to rot away. The Vinaya as a teaching finds its ultimate import in this. Humbly [we consider that] from its arising in central India, the five schools vied in expounding it. When translated and transmitted to the Eastern Lands, the Four-Part [Vinaya] was predominantly propagated; though transmitted across nine generations, the six masters took divergent paths. Then our Patriarchal Master manifested the likeness of the four reliances and wielded the authority of a single word; exerting his strength to support the fallen, he acted as an emissary of the Tathāgata. Extending compassion to regulate things, he served as a guide for all beings. He first composed this text to guide the assembly of the time across the board: none among the five vehicles failed to ride abreast, and the seven assemblies were all moistened [by its grace]. The protocol for gathering the Saṃgha and protecting the Dharma held high the essential guidelines; the daily and timely obligations exhausted all norms and standards. Therefore, successive generations have revered it as a great instruction. However, its underlying principles are profound and abstruse, so those who discuss it rarely find the entrance; its matters and categories are vast and dense, so those who put forward expositions may introduce errors. For this reason, I have thoroughly investigated what is sound and what is not, searched through past and present, exhausted all that I have seen and heard, and set it down fully in brush and ink. Reverently receiving the purport of the Transactions Manual, I have titled it Record Supporting the Maintenance [of the Vinaya]. Without violating the tenet of the three practices, I have compiled and opened its scrolls. Truly, this is because the entire work collectively culminates in the three practices, and the three practices do not exceed the two maintenances. In dividing and explaining the words of the text, it is prized to illuminate profoundly the marks of dharmas; in weighing and evaluating the transactions and functions, it enables one definitively to uphold the reception[-essence] and subsequent [practice]. Thus teaching and practice are both propagated, and both self and others are benefited; once the opening title is raised, the purport of the entire work is fully manifested. Yet because holy wisdom is universally vast while ordinary sentiments are meager and crude, taking a conch to measure the ocean, one sighs incessantly without plumbing its depths; carrying a handful of earth to block a river, one is truly ashamed of not knowing one's own measure. To repay the virtue of the Patriarch and slightly fulfill my longstanding wish, I hope it will circulate forever, aspiring to contribute even one ten-thousandth.

1.3

Surveying the past works and compositions, there are over fifty commentators; each considers theirs a guiding compass, and all claim to exhaust the truth. Yet what is now established differs considerably from past transmissions; hence, at the beginning of the fascicle, five paradigms are briefly indicated: first, determining the school; second, discerning the teachings; third, recounting citations; fourth, explaining refutation and establishment; fifth, indicating the suspension of doubts.

1.4

First, on determining the school: The Three Baskets divide their schools, and what they expound is therefore different. In terms of practice, although they universally aid one another, in terms of teaching, each has its respective domain. Past sages failed to examine this thoroughly and indeed frequently encroached upon other spheres. They broadly discussed scholastic treatise studies, thereby confounding the Vinaya vehicle (namely, commentaries such as the Zenghui, which, following the text, explain the four fruits of nirvāṇa and so forth, extensively enumerating sectional headings according to the marks of dharmas). Furthermore, the treatises they cited mostly relied on the Abhidharmakośa and Mahāvibhāṣā, using the Substantial School to explain the current Nominal School. This can be called inverting the backbone of the school and distorting the flavor of its principles, causing later keen minds to waste their time and effort in vain. Being unworthy inheritors of the transmission, it is our duty to rectify this.

1.5

Therefore, now, speaking of teaching, we belong solely to the Vinaya Basket; speaking of practice, we rely exclusively on the precept articles. We determine the gravity and lightness of maintenance and violation, and establish the standard model of the Saṃgha school. This is the primary foundation, while the rest are all auxiliary. Still fearing narrow-mindedness, further clear evidence is needed. In the Precept Commentary, under the precept against major false speech, he rebuked the ancients, saying: 'Some people, relying on their interpretations, broadly establish doctrinal chapters, taking days on end, which diverges from my intention. Raising the school to explain it, maintenance and violation are the primary focus; as for the other sūtras that accord with the Vinaya, one only needs a brief knowledge of their terms and marks. The masters of the various sūtras and treatises have their own defined school-essences; they do not even understand Vinaya penalties, so how could we improperly learn other teachings? Even if one has heard of them before, one must not expound them; wasting time and squandering days, it is uselessly inflated without benefit. Even concerning one's own school, one is distressed by what remains unheard; how much less could one ever finish expounding the remaining sūtras and treatises! This can be called not knowing one's own measure; when one dies in an instant, do not busy oneself in vain,' and so forth. (The above is the complete text.) Please examine this text; it suffices as a mirror for reflection. One ought to retrace one's steps and not engage in frozen sentiments.

1.6

Second, on discerning the teachings: Teachings take expression as their function and accord with capacities for their application. Although they broadly open doors and windows, their standard measurements do not err; although they definitively set models, they exhaustively gather all beings. The perfect voice accords with responses, and emotional deliberations can hardly fathom it; for now, we rely on the three schools of the Karma Commentary to demonstrate the judgements of our own tradition. Teachings are established from the essence, and the essence is the source of the teachings; therefore, one must differentiate the characteristics of the teachings in relation to the essence. The first is the Substantial Dharma School, which is the Sarvāstivāda. When that school explains the essence, it belongs together to the matter aggregate; in subsequent practice, it only guards the seven paths of action; the bodily and vocal forms of the physical body constitute remote preparatory stages. This is the teaching of the Hinayana in its own right. The second is the Nominal Designation School, which is the Dharmaguptaka school we now inherit. When this school discusses the essence, it provisionally terms it 'neither form nor mind'; in subsequent precepts, its marks are identical to the ten courses of action; deliberate thoughts that arise repeatedly upon conditions enter into the category of offenses. This is called the teaching of the Hinayana that exceeds its bounds. The third is the Perfect Teaching School. It uses the intent of the opening and harmonizing of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], definitively resolving provisional vehicles into the single true Path. Therefore, examining the reception-essence, it is the perfumed seeds of the ālaya-vijñāna; subsequent practice is identical to the perfect cultivation of the three clusters [of pure precepts]; even slightly giving rein to a deluded mind constitutes karmic action. This is called the ultimate Mahayana teaching. The present Four-Part [Vinaya] properly belongs to the Nominal School. As the profound has the capacity to encompass the shallow, it secondarily embraces the Sarvāstivāda; as the teaching harbors the principle of extending to the universal, it ultimately harmonizes with the Perfect Vehicle. Thus, the universal and restricted, provisional and substantial, shallow and deep of Hinayana and Mahayana throughout the majestic teachings of the Buddha's lifetime can be distinctly seen.

1.7

Third, on citations: Since antiquity, citing texts has mostly lacked standard models. Some completely copied sūtras and treatises; some fully transcribed the ancestral vehicle; some broadly listed Confucian texts; some frequently drew upon glosses of characters. As these diverge from the intent of the Manual, they truly defile the authentic school. My current intention falls into three distinct categories: First, the intent of using the Three Baskets. The sacred teachings are rich and varied and cannot be fully unfurled; the Transactions Manual established its title taking the gathering of essentials as its root. Hence, the preface below states: 'As for the remaining unexhausted text, if one insists on seeking its beginning and end, that is not the intention of the compiler of the Manual.' Now, whether clarifying what is obscure and concealed, or collating discrepancies, I cite the primary text in full and annotate it according to difficulties; the rest that is easy to understand is conventionally not expanded upon. Second, explaining the use of the ancestral teachings: This refers to the commentaries, manuals, biographies, records, ritual collections, diagrams, and declarations. Since the texts of these works are vast, without study one cannot know them. When later texts abrogate earlier ones, or refer to broader explanations elsewhere, or refute and reject errors, or harmonize differences, other doctrinal chapters are conventionally not cited. Third, on using secular texts: Embellishing chapters and sentences violates the penalties of the Vinaya; praising non-Buddhist texts is strictly admonished in the sūtras. When the ancestral vehicle uses them, the purpose is not in vain: either it cites the secular to illustrate the sacred, or it adopts their meaning to assist the text. How could one exclusively engage in superficial elegance and confound it with worldly discourse? Now, where the rhetorical momentum is related or where their phrasing is borrowed, I merely extract the essentials to show them, enabling one to know their source; as for the forms of characters, they mostly follow doctrinal glosses, and further rely universally on all scriptures, not necessarily relying exclusively on character lexicons.

1.8

Fourth, on refutation and establishment: The compassionate instruction has flowed far, and transmitted delusions have grown ever more numerous. Examining the doctrinal teachings, both outline and guidelines are lost; pursuing terms and marks, advantages and defects are mutually apparent. If one were to attack them exhaustively, it would become excessively cumbersome. If one were to let them go without bringing them up, people would be confused by diverging paths. As for those that obstruct the grand doctrine or where heterodox views are difficult to reform, I merely point them out briefly in accord with the text, so that the principle has a proper recourse; striving for supremacy over every single transaction is far from my current intention.

1.9

Fifth, on indicating the suspension of doubts: The general tenor of this Manual is concise in words yet comprehensive in matters. With shallow knowledge and sparse learning, how could one fully understand it all! I secretly fear that transmissions have been confounded, or that copyists diverged from the authentic text, or that close investigations have not yielded penetration, or that searches have not yet found [the source]. Where the meaning cannot be deduced by conjecture, all are conventionally suspended as doubtful. Either they are merely marked as 'unclear', or diverse explanations are temporarily preserved together, or textual evidence is intended to be sought, or they await later discussion and polishing. This follows the holy treatises' warning to trace the root, and relies on the ancestral teachings' precedent of abrogating earlier views. Reading these five paradigms, the good and bad are clearly separated; for now, I raise the broad outlines, and the rest is detailed below.

1.10

Explanation of the Preface and Title

1.11.1

"Four-Part" is a distinctive name among the five divisions [of the Vinaya], and the common designation for a single school. It is titled according to the number of textual sections. When translated into this land, it comprises sixty fascicles in total. Because beginners are often unaware of this, I shall cite and show it in detail: The First Part, twenty fascicles (from the preface up to the twentieth, the Bhikṣu-prātimokṣa). The Second Part, fifteen fascicles (from the twenty-first up to the twenty-eighth, eight fascicles: the Bhikṣuṇī-prātimokṣa); the Ordination Skandhaka, the first [skandhaka] (twenty-ninth up to the thirty-third, five fascicles; Sanskrit skandhaka, translated here as "cluster of dharmas", which is the name for a section or chapter); the Poṣadha Skandhaka, the second (thirty-fourth and thirty-fifth, two fascicles; these two skandhaka are at the end of the Second Part). The Third Part, fourteen fascicles (sixteen skandhakas in all): the Rains-Retreat Skandhaka, the third (thirty-sixth); the Pravāraṇā Skandhaka, the fourth (thirty-seventh); the Leather Skandhaka, the fifth (thirty-eighth); the Robe Skandhaka, the sixth (thirty-ninth and fortieth); the Medicine Skandhaka, the seventh (forty-first and the first half of the forty-second); the Kaṭhina Robe Skandhaka, the eighth (the second half of the forty-second); the Kauśāmbī Skandhaka, the ninth (the first half of the forty-third, named after the country); the Campā Skandhaka, the tenth (the second half of the forty-third, named after the city); the Reprimand Skandhaka, the eleventh (forty-fourth); the Person Skandhaka, the twelfth (the first half of the forty-fifth); the Concealment Skandhaka, the thirteenth (the second half of the forty-fifth); the Suspension Skandhaka, the fourteenth (the first half of the forty-sixth); the Schism Skandhaka, the fifteenth (the second half of the forty-sixth); the Settlement of Disputes Skandhaka, the sixteenth (forty-seventh); the Bhikṣuṇī Skandhaka, the seventeenth (forty-eighth); the Dharma Skandhaka, the eighteenth (forty-ninth). The Fourth Part, eleven fascicles (containing the previous two skandhakas, along with four subsequent sections such as the councils): the Dwellings Skandhaka, the nineteenth (fiftieth); the Miscellaneous Skandhaka, the twentieth (fifty-first, fifty-second, and fifty-third, three fascicles in total; the Precept Commentary says: "The twenty skandhakas are separated across three parts"—this is it); the Council of Five Hundred (the first half of the fifty-fourth); the Council of Seven Hundred (the second half of the fifty-fourth); the Vinaya of the Harmonious Divisions (fifty-fifth, fifty-sixth, and fifty-seventh, three fascicles in total); the Vinaya by One-More (fifty-eighth up to the sixtieth, three fascicles). Because Venerable Dharmagupta, from within the root division, gathered and compiled it into a text according to his own preference, each place where the recitation paused was made into a part. Only after passing through four recitations was the single work completed, and so it was called the "Four-Part". It is not like commentaries and sub-commentaries dividing the text according to its meaning. Hence the Karma Commentary says: "The four parts are the interruptions of the recitation." (The character duan is read in the falling tone, meaning "to pause".) The Precept Commentary says: "The text was transmitted on four occasions, fully exhausting the marks of what was explained. This is based on how far the recitation reached, not on a division of meaning." If the twenty skandhakas are divided across three parts, could that be an opening made by meaning? Question: Since the teachings spread to this land, four vinayas have been translated (the Four-Part, the Five-Part, the Ten-Recitations, and the Mahāsāṃghika); why did the Patriarchal Master exclusively take the Four-Part as the authority? Answer: The transmission of the precepts in this land began with the Four-Part. Although the other divisions were translated, none have been heard to be relied upon and practiced. The Karma Commentary says: "Throughout the entirety of the Divine Continent (China), when it comes to ordination, they all recite the text of the Four-Part. What is now analyzed and explained clarifies subsequent practice on the basis of ordination, and so this single work is established as the foundational authority." Further below it says: "Now when analyzing maintenance and violation, one still does so on the basis of the reception-essence." This intention is clear. (The Tripiṭaka Master Yijing, who conversely took the Sarvāstivāda as the authority, did not comprehend this intention.) Question: There are passages citing texts such as "The person and the Dharma are orderly", stating that the Four-Part division is superior; what is the meaning of this? Answer: It is not that this meaning does not exist. But if one were to receive the precepts according to the Daśādhyāya-vinaya, could one then take the Four-Part as the authority because the former division is inferior? The preface clarifies superiority and inferiority in order to reveal the depth or shallowness of the schools' tenets; only when arriving at the third section does it begin to discuss classification according to doctrinal teachings. Question: Taking the present translation, it has sixty fascicles in total; the Sanskrit manuscript was even larger; how could an entire canon be recited to completion in just four sessions? Answer: It does not mean that a single sitting is called a session. Rather, it refers to a given period of time, without a fixed time limit; whenever the gathering reached a certain point and dispersed before finishing, that was counted as one session. Proceeding like this up to four times, the whole work was only then completed. The Mahīśāsaka-vinaya and the Daśādhyāya-vinaya are largely the same in this regard. Only the Vinaya in Eighty Recitations, which was the work of a single summer retreat, was named after each session. Each was established according to the occasion, and they cannot be treated uniformly. As for "Vinaya" (lǜ), in Sanskrit it is called vinaya, while the Chinese language calls it lǜ. Now, summarizing the various texts in accordance with the Precept Commentary, it does not exceed three meanings. First, it is said that lǜ means "law" (fǎ). Named after the teaching, it determines grave and light, exceptions and prohibitions, maintenance and violation; without law, it would not be settled. A subsequent passage says: "Furthermore, just as worldly law relies on punishments and regulations, so too does the Dharma of the Way; conforming to capacities and adhering to the teaching, each has its gradations and must not be transgressed; hence it is called 'law'." Second, it is said that lǜ means "division" (fèn). This means that one must deliberate and determine based on appropriate measure, like the division of climatic qi by the pitch-pipes (lǜlǚ). (In the twelve months of a year, the odd months belong to yáng and are called lǜ, while the even months belong to yīn and are called lǚ. Each lǜ and each lǚ divides two qi, thus making twenty-four solar terms.) It also says: "What the doctrinal marks explain is fully exhausted in four characters: namely, violation, non-violation, light, and grave. If one understands these four characters, one will penetrate decisions without doubt; this is the highest grade and the pinnacle of maintaining the Vinaya." What is called a violation? The presence of both object and conditions. What is called non-violation? The arising of the antidote. What is called light? The cause and effect are slight. What is called grave? The opposite of the previous sentence. Yet unless divided by the Vinaya, these four marks cannot be separated; that maintenance and violation do not become confounded is akin to the climatic periods. Third, it is said that the character lǜ (律) contains the component yù (聿), and yù means a "brush" (bǐ). (In Chu it was called yù, and in Qin it was called bǐ, as seen in the commentary to the Character Book.) One must examine the teaching and verify the facts, rendering judgment with the brush. It also says: "Passing sentence and deciding rectitude cannot be settled without the brush", and so forth. Question: Regarding the three meanings above, how are they distinguished? Answer: All three are names taken by analogy with worldly phenomena. Establishing norms through doctrinal exposition is the meaning of "law"; analyzing the light and the grave is the meaning of "division"; and rendering decisions when facing a case is the meaning of "brush". Containing all three of these, it is therefore called lǜ. The other translations and explanations are detailed in the middle fascicle. As for "excising the superfluous and supplementing deficiencies": "Excising" refers to that which can excise, and "superfluous" refers to that which is excised; "supplementing" refers to that which can supplement, and "deficiencies" refers to that which is supplemented. Since many people in the world do not understand this, it must be explained in detail, which is divided into two. First, excising the superfluous.

1.11.2

Since ancient times, those transmitting the Vinaya have held differing personal views; there were over ten schools of commentaries or manuals, and those transmitted orally were likewise more than one or two. In general, regarding a single matter, explanations followed many avenues; if one were to cite all of them fully, it would obscure the actual transactions. [The author] simply presents the correct meaning directly and deletes all the rest, merely using a single phrase to mark the refutation, such as saying: “differing from the previous explanation,” “various explanations differ,” “the remaining interpretations are dismissed,” “past explanations take many paths,” and so forth. Now, the words marking the refutation are termed that which does the expunction, falling under the character “expunge” (shān); the various deleted explanations are all designated that which is expunged, falling under the character “superfluous” (fán). The above is stated based on the principle, but textual evidence is further required. The “Occasion for Composing the Manual” says: “Whenever citations are made, they are first re-examined; regarding a single matter, there are many intentions behind dismissals and establishments; that which was maintained by the various masters consisted of expansive personal views; now they are all expunged and abridged, retaining only the textual evidence,” and so on. Question: How many kinds of superfluousness are there? Answer: Briefly, there are two senses. The first is extensive superfluousness. This refers to the personal views of the various masters explained above, which are expunged; such as naturally defining boundaries, seven trees and seven spaces, the sequence of the precept-platform, tying and untying boundaries in the midst of the summer retreat, the time limit for receiving days, and so forth, all of which had many explanations; now in this manual they are, as a rule, not cited, which refers precisely to the ancient interpretations cited in the Yichao (Meaning Manual) and the two commentaries. The second is superfluous excess. Such as citing the conditions in the phrase of intent, adding requests when receiving days, and the like, which are now all removed; this is what the “Chapter on Karmas” refers to: “Now I wish to prune away superficial talk and illuminate the holy intention,” and so forth. Also, such things as the words of striking the bell, purifying the mouth at the poṣadha, communicating assemblies during the summer retreat, and inappropriate acts at the pravāraṇā; in the “Chapter on the Sangha Regulations,” unprescribed rules are extensively listed; in the “Chapter on Masters and Disciples,” such things as the improper application of cane punishment; this is what the “Sangha Regulations” refers to: “Now I expunge its superfluous evils and supplement its omissions,” and so forth. If one relies on the text of the preface, it properly preserves the former intention; now taking up the latter explanation, it does not fail to encompass both. Even if there are many accounts, they do not exceed these. Question: Does that which is expunged explained above refer to the Vinaya or to the commentaries? Answer: Since antiquity this has not been clear, with divergence between rejection and adoption; now I shall distinguish them. That is to say, whether from our own school or other schools, the Mahāyāna or Hīnayāna sūtras and treatises, the texts and records of past sages from the Western lands or this country, or the manuals and commentaries of various schools: so long as they are cited in this present manual, they are all adopted texts, falling under the character “manual” (chāo). As for the personal views of the various masters, whether committed to writing or transmitted orally, which are not recorded in this manual and are deleted, they are all that which is expunged, being subsumed under the characters “expunging the superfluous” (shān fán). One should know that the meaning of expunging and supplementing appears occasionally in the text of the manual before and after; how could it be that whenever one sees a cited text, it is routinely called expunging and supplementing! The transmission of confusion has lasted long; scholars must examine it deeply. Question: As with the origin stories of the Prātimokṣa and the extensive explanations analyzing the marks, the text of the Vinaya Piṭaka is extensive; since this manual does not cite it, is this not expunging the Vinaya? Answer: The Vinaya is holy teaching, the foundational authority of our school; one may only draw upon its text—how could it be proper to expunge it! First, the text below refers to the extensive details as being found in the Vinaya and the Great Commentary; how could one rashly and uniformly dismiss them as superfluous! Second, in the “Occasion for Composing the Manual,” it only says that personal views were expansive, not that it expunges the Vinaya; nowhere in our school's works does such a statement exist; how could one fail to reflect and casually give rise to slighting slander? If so, the “Chapter on the Poṣadha” says: “Now taking the two masters Puzhao and Dao'an as the basis, for the rest we draw upon the authentic text of the Vinaya, expunging and supplementing to strike the mean”; is this not expunging the Vinaya? Answer: This is confused speech. Those ancient masters' rituals had omissions and redundancies; therefore, relying on the root Vinaya, he expunged their redundancies and supplemented their omissions. Thus the redundancies and omissions were in the source texts of the two masters, while the expunging and supplementing belong to the application of this present manual. Speaking on this basis, it makes the above principle all the more manifest. Question: If it does not expunge the Vinaya, should it then expunge the commentaries? Answer: Whatever is divergent, whether in text or in speech, how could it be restricted to the commentaries? When their essentials are drawn upon, that still belongs to the extraction of the manual; the remaining parts not cited are what are called expunging the superfluous; therefore, in the “Occasion for Composing the Manual,” it only mentions personal views and does not speak of commentaries or manuals. Second, explaining the supplementing of omissions: Since ancient times, those maintaining the Vinaya have either followed their own dogmatic views or been ignorant of the doctrinal divisions, so that when it came to actual transactions, they did not suit the needs of the time. Such as the lengths of the cubit, the sizes of a yojana, karmas being universally read without understanding, cross-examinations not requiring comprehension, bedding being considered not part of the three robes, keeping extra items not being assessed to reduce excess, pure grounds not having the marking signs proclaimed, and the seven witnesses having no words of invitation at all; categories of this kind are extremely numerous, and all routinely had omissions. Now this manual, by examining the principles and conforming to the texts, supplements them to make them detailed and complete. Therefore, below under the precept on dwellings, after determining the measurements of the cubit, it says: “I once traveled through Jin, Wei, and the Guanfu region; whenever there was a Vinaya assembly in any quarter, I unfailingly attended; yet when it came to discussing the rise and fall of the cubit and peck measures, none ever provided an exposition; therefore I immediately supplemented the omission, bringing glory back to the nine dynasties.” (The printed edition has “therefore I immediately expunged and supplemented”; however, since there had never been an exposition, how could there be expunging? Now taking the ancient edition as correct.) Now, the matters not discussed in antiquity are that which is supplemented; the textual passages, principles, and paradigms cited in the manual are that which does the supplementing. Question: Is supplementing omissions the same as or different from resolving and opening up the meaning of the text below? Answer: Resolving and opening up applies generally to what already existed before; supplementing omissions is restricted to what originally did not exist. The rest is as explained in the fifth section of the preface. Question: The Karma for Applicable Circumstances says: “The Vinaya Piṭaka has deficiencies, and its meaning has omissions that must be supplemented”; is this not supplementing the Vinaya? Answer: It is precisely because the Vinaya had deficiencies that the transactions were incomplete; therefore, citing texts and following paradigms, he supplemented that karma text. As for the text of the Vinaya itself, it remains deficient as before; how was it ever supplemented? Question: The Protocol on Minor and Major [Offenses] says: “Expunging and supplementing the old treatises, he compiled the Transactions Manual”; according to this, the expunging and supplementing do not lie in the Vinaya—why do you not allow that it expunges and supplements the commentaries and treatises? Answer: That which is expunged and supplemented mostly came out of old treatises; that which does the expunging and supplementing is all seen in the present manual. But the words “commentaries and treatises” are narrow, whereas the words “personal views” are broad; whether transmitted orally or handed down in writing, in principle nothing is excluded. Please examine closely the intention of the manual and do not linger in hesitation. Regarding “transactions” (xíngshì): “action” (xíng) has the meaning of active implementation, and “matters” (shì) reveals its name in contrast to “principle” (lǐ). However, the marks of matters have many paths, and their meaning must be carefully selected. First, although matters encompass both good and bad, here they are exclusively good matters. Second, within good matters, setting aside ordinary, general goods, it exclusively clarifies the goodness of the precepts. Third, regarding the two practices of the community and the shared practices in the upper and lower fascicles, they are termed active goodness; the personal practice of the middle fascicle is termed cessative goodness. Fourth, regarding the various chapters, the various matters are finely divided. The upper fascicle has twelve chapters: the single chapter “Indicating the School” generally encourages transactions. From “Gathering the Sangha” downward, there are five matters: first, the matter of conditions being fulfilled for communal legal acts (five chapters: Gathering the Sangha, Completing the Quorum, Receiving Consent, Karmas, and Establishing Boundaries).

1.11.3

); second, matters of guiding the assembly and maintaining [the Dharma] (Monastic Regulations); third, matters of receiving beings and guiding them onward (Ordination, Teacher and Disciple); fourth, matters of examination and purifying the mind (Poṣadha, Pravāraṇā); fifth, matters of quieting conditions and encouraging cultivation (Vassa). The four chapters of the middle fascicle contain two matters: first, matters of dedicated vigilance and non-violation (Chapters and Classes, Explaining the Marks, Maintenance and Violation); second, matters of being able to repent after having violated (Repentance Chapter). The fourteen chapters of the lower fascicle are divided into eight matters: first, matters of inner and outer supporting requisites (Two Robes, Four Medicines, Almsbowl and Utensils); second, matters of disciplining the body and abandoning defilement (Facing Offerings, Dhūta); third, matters of humbling oneself with modesty and respect (Monastic Images); fourth, matters of converting outsiders and generating goodness (Funerals and Invitations, Guiding the Laity); fifth, matters of receiving and treating peers in the Dharma (Host and Guest, Caring for the Sick); sixth, matters of daily essential duties (Miscellaneous Practices); seventh, matters of instructing lower assemblies (Śrāmaṇeras and Nuns); eighth, matters of broadly comprehending other schools (Various Schools). Thus, the aspects of practice explained throughout the entire work from beginning to end are nothing other than the preparatory conditions set into motion and formed by the three karmas; therefore it is called 'Transactions' (Xingshi). Placing this at the head of the title distinguishes it uniquely from all other traditions; it is the root source of the original institution of the teachings, the essential backbone expounded by the orthodox doctrine. Reflecting light over nine generations, these words are by no means empty. Hence the preface states: 'As for revealing the practices of worldly affairs to provide a standard track for future novices, not one in a hundred exists.' This is the great essential of our school, seen everywhere throughout the texts. All who partake in studying this school must investigate and practice it thoroughly; if one is blind to this principle, what more can be said! Question: According to [the section on] maintenance and violation below, matters and dharmas are divided into two; now that only 'matters' is placed in the title, does it not fail to subsume 'dharmas'? Answer: In that passage, when explaining cessation and performance, each subsumes its own scope, hence they must be divided into two. Here, looking toward their activation and execution, regardless of whether they are matters or dharmas, they all broadly resolve into 'matters.' Question: The title says 'Transactions' (xíngshì), while below it mentions the 'three practices' (sānxíng); their pronunciations and designations differ, so what are their similarities and differences? Answer: Xíng refers to execution and cultivation; xìng denotes the perfected virtue. It is by means of cultivation that virtue is perfected; the words differ, but the meaning is the same. None fails to flow into the practicing mind and assemble conditions to form karma. 'Manual' (chāo) has two meanings: first, the meaning of extracting; second, the meaning of subsuming. That is, from the authentic texts of the Tripiṭaka and the bequeathed records of the noble and wise, it extracts what is essential and appropriate to serve as the textual substance. Below, it says 'summarizing the authentic texts,' which is this first meaning. Since those texts are vast, recording them fully would be cumbersome; therefore, between them, it briefly highlights the head and the tail, with economical phrasing and complete reasoning; below, it says 'encompassing all meanings,' which is this second meaning. When we come to the tenth section, this will be explained at length. 'Preface' (xù) has three glosses, explained according to their meanings. The Erya says: 'The east and west walls are called xù.' Just as in the world the side-hall walls stand outside the inner chamber, this metaphorically illustrates that the preface stands at the head of the manual; this is the meaning of xù as 'preface/threshold' (duānxù). Second, xù is glossed as 'narration' (xù), meaning the narration of the compilation from beginning to end, comprehensively framing it with the ten sections and tracing the lineage of the three practices, so that the text and meaning of the entire work are distinct and not confused; this is the meaning of xù as 'sequence/narration' (cìxù). Third, when glossed as 'clue/thread' (xù), it is like unwinding a cocoon: when one grasps the thread-end, the rest of the silk can be put in order; when students observe the preface, all the chapters can be sought out; this is the meaning of xù as 'inception/source' (yóuxù). A single word designates the preface, and all three explanations apply. Question: Formerly it was said that there are two prefaces, general and particular; what is the meaning of this? Answer: A single title is set at the head, so how could there be two prefaces! I do not accept this now, and will briefly state three errors. Whenever 'general and particular' are spoken of, together they clarify a single matter, like the examples of the general and particular of maintenance and violation, or the general and particular of the two robes. The present preface is not like that: the earlier part clarifies the compilation and composition of the text, while the latter part encompasses the general meaning of all the chapters; the earlier and latter parts are diametrically different, so how could 'general and particular' be established? If one says it is particular because the ten sections differ, then the seven sections listed in the general meaning of maintenance and violation should also be particular; the Precept Commentary and Karma Commentary each have general meanings and both list multiple sections, and the same objection would apply. That this completely lacks the meaning of general and particular is the first error. Furthermore, it imitates the general and particular prefaces of the sūtra traditions. Yet in the sūtras, the general preface applies generally to all sūtras, while the particular distinguishes [that sūtra] from other scriptures. For what text does this preface to the manual apply generally? From what scripture does it distinguish it? Moreover, to take the general preface as the launching cause and the particular preface as the testimony of credibility: in the sūtras, the general serves as the testimony of credibility and the particular serves as the launching cause; here it would be reversed, which is utterly disorderly. If one claims that by analogy with those it can be called two prefaces, [one should note that] in those texts, through the difference between applying generally to others and being restricted to this text, and the difference between being placed before or after the sūtra, the testimony of credibility ensures freedom from doubt for a hundred generations, and the launching cause reveals that the teaching was not established in vain. The division into two prefaces was intended for this reason. Examining the text of this preface, it cannot be compared to that at all. Falsely adducing that precedent is the second error. Furthermore, the manual uses the ten sections to unify its broad outlines, and also states that these ten items together summarize all the divisions, meaning that the ten sections have no particular meaning whatsoever; failing to understand the purport of the text is the third error. Now, to offer the correct explanation: contrasted with the thirty distinct chapters below, it can only be collectively called the general preface. Within this one preface, it is broadly divided into three passages: The first clarifies the authorship, simply narrating the expressive text. The middle lists the ten sections, encompassing the meaning of all the chapters. Both text and meaning are subsumed under the teaching. The teaching is not empty; its aim is to assist practice. Therefore, it subsequently divides into the three practices, comprehensively gathering all capacities. Throughout the one preface from beginning to end, teaching and practice are thus complete. I have briefly shown the essentials; the rest will be addressed as we come to the text. The annotated characters beneath the title highlight the distinctive name above and contain multiple meanings: First, to differ from the ancients. Below, it reproaches the ancients, saying: 'As for revealing the practices of worldly affairs to provide a standard track for future novices, not one in a hundred exists.' Now, titling it 'Transactions' attains the fundamental purport of the Vinaya. Second, to distinguish it from the mixed. Ancient masters' works were all titled 'Four-Part Vinaya Manual,' 'Commentary,' etc.; therefore, adding this distinctive designation lets it be known that it is not those others. Third, to resolve doubts. The doubt says: in compiling a manual based on the Vinaya, it would suffice merely to establish the title based on what is relied upon; why must words like 'Eliminating the Cumbersome' be added? If it were not annotated and clarified, the doubting mind would remain unresolved. The middle and lower fascicles differ in wording but share the same meaning.

1.12

Regarding the author's title: it was originally meant to indicate the name and show where the text originated. Since names might be confused, they are distinguished by monastery; if monasteries share the same name, they are selected by location. 'Jingzhao' is the ancient city of Chang'an, modern Yongxing Prefecture; it was the site where emperors and kings established their capitals since antiquity, hence it was given this designation. 'Jing' is glossed as great, referring to the vastness of its territory; 'zhao' means multitude, referring to the abundance of scholars and commoners. This was the area where the Vinaya master carried out his transformative teaching, and it was also his original birthplace. Some say Changcheng, or some say Dantu (Changcheng in Huzhou, Dantu in Runzhou); these refer to the origins of his ancestors, not his birthplace. The Account of Conduct says that the Great Master was born and raised in the capital, which serves as clear evidence. His renunciation, his parinirvāṇa, and the transformative deeds between them are fully recorded in the Account of Conduct and need not be cited here at length. 'Compiled and transmitted': Broadly speaking, compiling is also transmitting. Now that both are specified, they must be explained separately. 'Compiled' (zhuàn) means holding the tablet and dipping the brush to arrange and order [the writing] into chapters; 'transmitted' (shù) means humbling oneself while deferring to others, following along the old tracks. According to the later endorsement, it was compiled in the ninth year of Wude, while the endorsement to the Precept Commentary says the early years of Zhenguan; because the ninth year of Wude changed to Zhenguan, there is no contradiction. That commentary also says: 'In the fourth year of Zhenguan, observing the transformative influence from afar, at Mount Mibu I produced another three-fascicle manual for Vinaya Master Ze; it followed my former draft, adding polish so that the veins and arteries were connected.' According to this, it was a revision of the previous text. Examining the catalogue, this corresponds to the eighth year of Zhenguan, which is the version transmitted today. (Formerly it was said that there were six fascicles, and also that it was later divided into twelve fascicles. Based on the preface below, which states: 'Three fascicles gather the text, and the text leaves nothing unelaborated,' the truth and falsity can be seen.)

1.13

Explaining the Text of the Preface

1.14

In the first section, praising the precepts: the first two lines state the praise. From "For..." downward, the explanation also has two parts: the upper two lines present analogies to reveal their virtues; the four lines below, contrasting them with the other piṭakas, manifest their superiority. "The virtue of the precepts" is the dharma being praised; "inconceivable" is the wording that conveys the praise. Precepts have four meanings: dharma, essence, practice, and marks. Here, following the general mark, only the precept-dharma is praised. The reason it does not say "indiscussible" is because mental thought is intimate and immediate, while verbal discussion is distant and remote; since even thinking of it is difficult, it certainly cannot be discussed. Alternatively, the phrasing is restricted [for metre], but the principle must encompass both. The line beginning with "Surpassing..." clarifies the above meaning of "inconceivable": since it transcends phenomena and nothing can be compared to it, it is beyond the reach of the mental capacity of ordinary and lesser beings. The character guan (冠, "surpassing" / "crowning") is pronounced in the falling tone, meaning to bind and wear [upon the head]; a cap is an ornament for the head, taking the meaning of standing out aloft. "Phenomena" refers to all existing things in the world. Question: Are guides and boats not phenomena? Answer: When the sūtras and vinayas praise the precepts, although they cite many phenomena, they capture only a partial aspect and cannot be entirely identical. Here, two things are briefly cited to illustrate slightly the efficacy of the precepts. "Guides" are carriage ruts, clarifying their setting out and progression; "ferry boats" takes the sense of transporting across. Furthermore, [the chapter] "Clarifying the Tenet" says: "This is your great master," because it can guide beings; or [they are] like a person's feet, being able to reach a destination; or they are called the great earth, generating, maturing, and maintaining. [They are] the pillars of the pavilion of the factors of awakening, upon which the noble path relies; the walls of a citadel of dhyāna-concentration, upon which concentration and wisdom depend; and so forth, down to being like a pool, like a mirror, like a necklace, like a head, and like a vessel. Furthermore, in the *Prajñāpāramitopadeśa*, they are like precious jewels, like life, like the wings of a bird, like a ship, and so forth, as can be known by consulting it. Again, in the "Categories of Offenses" [chapter], when first clarifying the protection of the precepts, eight analogies are fully listed: like a prince, like moonlight, like a wish-fulfilling jewel, like a king's only son, like a person's single eye, like provisions for the poor, like a king's fine realm, and like good medicine for the sick. Again, the preface to the *Prātimokṣa* says: "Like the ocean without bound, like jewels never wearying [the possessor]." The *Mahāsāṃghika-prātimokṣa* says: "Like a chain for an ape, like a bridle and bit for a horse." These are extensively found in the sūtras and vinayas, and need not be cited redundantly. It is precisely because the virtue of the precepts is lofty and vast that it cannot be compared to a single thing; citing various phenomena throughout captures only a single aspect of each and cannot fully resemble it, which is why it is said to "crown and surpass." "The five vehicles" are humans, devas, śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, and buddhas, which are the persons capable of riding. The five precepts, the ten good deeds, the truths, dependent origination, and the six perfections are the dharmas to be ridden. Those who ride these dharmas must depend on observing the precepts; therefore, the precept-dharma generally serves as their guide. Such is the common explanation. Now, an alternative explanation states: as in the *Prātimokṣa*, "If one wishes to be born in the heavens, or to be born among humans, one should always guard the feet of the precepts"—how could this refer only to the five precepts and ten good deeds? However, the precepts have four levels: the five, the eight, the ten, and the complete [precepts]. In terms of dull faculties, they universally serve as worldly good; in terms of superior wisdom, they all serve as the foundation of the path. Therefore the *Upāsaka-śīla-sūtra* says: "The five precepts are extremely difficult; they can serve as the root for the precepts of the great bhikṣu and the bodhisattva." Hence we know that the four [levels of] precepts all guide the five vehicles. The praise stated here generally encompasses the four levels, but specifically focuses on the complete [precepts]. Question: The *Precept Commentary* says: "The precepts were instituted for the path, originally not for worldly merit; they rely only on the three vehicles." Why does it now say "five vehicles"? Answer: That [text] exclusively investigates the sagely intent to reveal the source of the teaching; this [text] clarifies that it universally covers both capacities to manifest the universality of benefit. Even so, speaking in terms of the three vehicles still includes provisional [teachings]. If we speak of the twin trees re-supporting [the teaching], all return to the eternal; hence we know that the four precepts all guide toward the Buddha vehicle. Because faculties and vessels differ, they are divided into three and five; understand it in this way. As for "the ferry boat of the Triratna": there are four types of Triratna: the one essence, the principle essence—discussed in terms of principle; the teaching marks, which are restricted to the time of the Buddha; and the maintained [Triratna], which universally covers the three periods. Its efficacy relies on the power of the precepts to transport without interruption; hence it is like a boat. Why is this so? Because the two jewels of the Buddha and the Dharma both rely on the Saṃgha for propagation; and where the Saṃgha Jewel resides, it cannot be established without the precepts. As in "Clarifying the Tenet," complying with them maintains the Triratna, while contravening them overturns and destroys the True Dharma. Again, as the *Avataṃsaka* says: "To fully receive and uphold the deportment and teachings can cause the Triratna not to be cut off," and so forth; the rest is as cited later. Alternatively, to cross over the stream of ordinary beings and enter the rank of the Triratna, one must receive the precepts, matching the analogy of the boat. The text accommodates this interpretation, but the former explanation is correct. The character shi (寔, "truly") is pronounced zhi; it is glossed as "real" and as "this." Next, in revealing superiority, there are two parts: first, contrasting them with the two trainings to clarify the superiority of the practice that is expounded; below, contrasting them with the other two piṭakas to reveal the superiority of the teaching that expounds them. "Concentration and wisdom cannot equal them": one must elucidate their superiority and inferiority based on two meanings mutually. In terms of severing delusions and realizing reality, wisdom is superior, because precepts merely stop karmic actions and concentration only gathers distraction. In terms of the sequence of cultivation and practice, it must begin with the precepts, because dhyāna-concentration and wisdom arise in dependence upon them. Now, speaking of "establishing cultivation" follows precisely the latter meaning, which is why it says "cannot equal." The *Sūtra of the Buddha's Last Teaching* on "reliance and cause" and the *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra* on "seizing and binding" both share this meaning. Next, in revealing the teaching: "The host of texts" refers to the two piṭakas of sūtras and treatises; "in this" points to the affairs of maintenance. Sūtras and treatises do not speak of these, hence it says "cease their chanting." This refers to shaving the hair, dyeing the robes, receiving the precepts, and the sequence of entering the path, down to receiving [the precepts] within the Saṃgha, deśanā, poṣadha, pravāraṇā, boundaries, reciting the precepts, disciplinary actions, admonitions, the relations between master and disciple, high and low ranks, walking, standing, sitting, lying down, eating, drinking, clothing, communal acts, and individual practices. These various transactional marks are the cardinal principles of the Buddha's Dharma; that it is maintained for ten thousand generations owes its efficacy to this. Only this Vinayapiṭaka details and reveals the models; other piṭakas do not have this as their tenet, and therefore do not distinguish them. Therefore the *Samantapāsādikā* says: "The Vinayapiṭaka is the life-span of the Buddha's Dharma; only when the Vinayapiṭaka remains does the Buddha's Dharma remain." The detailed discussion of how this comes about is fully presented in the middle fascicle. In accordance with what is expounded above, two explanations must also be given. If it is a matter of expounding principle, generating wisdom, destroying delusion, and revealing reality, then the sūtras and treatises are superior. If it is a matter of guiding affairs, encompassing cultivation, eradicating evil, and producing good, then the Vinaya alone is supreme. Therefore we know that the three piṭakas each possess superior capacities; here, viewed in terms of maintenance, there is superiority and inferiority. Question: The Great and Small [Vehicle] sūtras and treatises cited in "Clarifying the Tenet" also clarify the vinaya and precepts; why say they "cease their chanting"? Answer: Although they also clarify them, their titles follow "sūtra" and "śāstra," and they merely praise the efficacy of the precepts in brief; as for the affairs of maintenance and so forth listed above, they are not what those texts treat, and so it can be said thus.

First 16 of 1,308 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

四分律行事鈔資持記 — Classical Chinese

四分律行事鈔資持記 1

Contents

Linked texts (1)