四分律行事鈔資持記 1.7

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.