四分律行事鈔資持記 2.40

2.40

In the reconciliation: it first cites three texts. In the *Dharmaguptaka*, where it is not accomplished, it does not state more or less. In the *Vinayadvāviṃśatividyā-śāstra*, there is only one category, which does not show heavy and light. Only this *Daśādhyāya* has very clear outlines; the commentary cites its text where the first two divisions each have distant and proximate preparatory stages (it posits only two preparatory stages), the positions being divided into three ranks: the proximate of the first division is confessed before the saṃgha within the boundary (superior rank); the distant of the first division and the proximate of the second division are repented before four persons outside the boundary (both being middling rank); the distant of the second division is repented before one person (inferior rank). Accompanying the three offenses in maintenance and violation, one relies on the *Vinayadvāviṃśatividyā-śāstra* for the distant being a heavy duṣkṛta—this is based on our own school; the intermediate and proximate two sthūlātyayas are entirely taken from the *Daśādhyāya*. The phrase 'however...' reconciles the intermediate offenses. The intermediate sthūlātyaya of the *Daśādhyāya* is the heavy duṣkṛta of the *Vinayadvāviṃśatividyā-śāstra*; now wishing to use sthūlātyaya to substitute for duṣkṛta, it shows this briefly to make it known, the rest being indicated below. Whenever determining the substance of an offense, one must discuss it in terms of repentance; although the intermediate sthūlātyaya relies on the Dharma before a minor assembly, in terms of actually relinquishing the root offense, it is still the same as a duṣkṛta, being extinguished before one person. 'The substance is common to both' points to the two texts. 'Understanding by analogy' causes one to compare the two offenses.