量處輕重儀 2.115

2.115

時有或斯義者，便搆難重疊，容色奮發，赫然張怒，詰余云，我聞正律明斷，澡罐入重，剃刀入輕。今汝拒違，明非聖教。余答，教有開合，文通隱顯，律張四說，經列法依。澡罐從重大小未分，刀鉢在輕，體量通混。今為計會諸部，抑有明文，理事含弘，便定淆紊。約量據體，宜如兩分。且決絕於臨機，何遲疑於文相。試為述其二三，足為事類聯璧。如剃刀有文入分，裁刀無文在重，鉢便三斗入輕，瓶則半斗在重。二文兩義，雙皆俱違，情理天乖，事用同轍，何角張於正教自負罪於將來？今以當律無制量之文，此即未了之說，宜用外部通判，便決滯於本條。至於剃刀截刀錐針之屬，餘律在輕，雖文或左右，而義類融會，自外細雜，輕可隨身，即事交須，又無譏醜，律本文事缺斷，不可經停。宜從諸部明文，並非重攝。

At that time, someone took issue with this principle, repeatedly raising objections. Flushing with agitation and blazing with anger, he interrogated me, saying: 'I have heard that the genuine Vinaya clearly decides that the washing ewer is classified as heavy property, while the razor is classified as light property. Now you contradict and violate this, which is clearly not the Sage's teaching.' I answered: 'The teachings have permissions and prohibitions; the texts have both implicit and explicit expressions. The Vinaya opens with four expositions, and the sūtras set forth the refuges of Dharma. The washing ewer falls under heavy property, yet its large and small sizes have not been distinguished; the knife and pātra fall under light property, yet their substance and capacity are treated without distinction. Now, by correlating the various Vinayas, there are indeed clear passages; when principles and facts are broadly accommodated, confusion can be resolved at once. Sizing according to capacity and resting on substance, they should properly follow the two divisions. Let us be decisive when facing circumstances—why hesitate over textual forms? Let me venture to state two or three examples, which will suffice to show how the cases match like two halves of a jade tally. For instance, the razor has a textual basis to enter the distribution, while the tailoring knife lacks a textual basis and is placed in heavy property; a pātra holding three dǒu is placed into light property, while a jar holding half a dǒu is placed in heavy property. These two texts and two principles both contradict each other; reason and circumstance are as far apart as heaven, yet their practical use is on the same track. Why lock horns over the true teaching and bring blame upon yourself in the future? Now, since our own Vinaya lacks a text regulating the capacities, this is an incomplete exposition; one should use other Vinayas to make an overall judgment, thereby resolving what is clogged in the primary clause. As for razors, cutting knives, awls, needles, and the like, other Vinayas classify them as light property. Although the texts may differ, their principles and categories harmonize. Aside from these, minor and miscellaneous items that are light and can be carried on one's person are urgently needed for daily affairs, and incur no criticism or disgrace. The original Vinaya text lacks an explicit judgment for this situation, and things cannot be left in abeyance. One should follow the explicit texts of the various Vinayas: none of these are subsumed under heavy property.'