Vinaya Essentials from the Four-Part Vinaya (四分律拾毗尼義鈔)

Preface to the Collated Commentary, No. 747-A

Written by Shih Yuanzhao, Monk of Yuhang Commandery

This commentary has been passed down for a long time. Some have provided explanations for it, others have passed it on orally. However, as we grow increasingly distant from the sage, people’s abilities become meager. The teachings in the marketplace grow further from the truth each day; the verses in the forests are transmitted with accumulating errors. As a result, the compassionate instruction of the Great Teacher has long been obscured, and later students seeking the path no longer know where to turn. For this reason, after many years of deep contemplation and extensive searching in all directions, I wish to broaden my understanding and insight. Naturally, I should explain and reveal this; thus, I have written this preface, roughly dividing it into three sections, so that the wise may contemplate it. As the saying goes, “After grasping half, one has understood the majority.” These are: First, the intention behind the writing; second, the correction of different ancient views; third, the discrepancies in the collated editions.

**First, the Intention Behind the Writing:** The Vinaya, as a teaching, is called the “practice text.” The basis of practice lies in the specifics of actions and circumstances. In the past, many virtuous masters had not yet fully penetrated this meaning. They competed to write extensive commentaries and overwhelming explanations. Only our founding master stood above the common views, editing, cutting, and supplementing to clearly manifest the practical affairs of the world. He arranged the two kinds of precepts and unified them into three practices. Thus, the *Commentary on the Rules* (Shi Chao) is the foremost work. Since the specifics lie in conciseness, and practice relies on a clear model, he did not write broad doctrinal chapters, but directly presented the correct standards. However, the sacred teachings are vast and profound, and the ultimate principles are subtle and deep. Whether in the deep, hidden meanings of the text or in the arising of the teachings’ decline and revival, none of it is not the correct teaching. Why worry about many different approaches? Learning must be gentle, and the meaning must be refined. Therefore, I have gathered the essential meanings and compiled them into a separate text. The flourishing of this text is, after this, its proper place. Thus, you should know that the *Shi Chao* (Rules Commentary) and the *Yi Chao* (Principles Commentary) support each other like the outside and the inside. Without the *Rules Commentary*, practice has no basis, and the essence of the teaching is lost. Without the *Principles Commentary*, understanding cannot develop, and one remains ignorant of the true explanation. Looking closely at their titles, they are clearly divided, and indeed, practice and understanding are both covered. The purpose of these two works lies precisely in this. Some say that this commentary gathers the unfinished meanings from the *Precepts and Karma Commentaries* (Jie Ye Er Shu). I have personally compared them, and the texts and meanings are mostly the same. But if it were “unfinished,” one could only gather what was omitted; it should not repeat the same points. Therefore, this claim is incorrect. Others say this commentary was the draft for the two commentaries. But the *Rules Commentary* clearly points to three distinct parts. How could it be that it was a rough draft for the commentaries? Students of our tradition must examine this deeply. If you have any doubt, I offer a verifiable proof. The intention behind the creation of the *Yi Chao* says: “Every time I quote, I first verify it. Under a single matter, there are many different positions on what to discard and what to establish. The opinions of many masters are vast and complex. Now I have deleted them all and only kept the textual evidence.” (This clarifies that the *Rules Commentary’s* Preface and the *Principles Commentary* say...) And when the teaching touches on other treatises, the principles and reasons are difficult to know. Without a deep understanding, how could one fully grasp it? This is extensively shown in the *Collected Principles Commentary*. I have quoted this as evidence. Furthermore, it clarifies the meanings of “studying” and “ignorance”, “holding” and “violating” the precepts. The two commentaries are similar, but when it comes to the two commentaries, there are many additions and reductions, or sometimes they overturn what came before. The cases are of many kinds. This is evidence from the meaning. Furthermore, the *Rules Commentary* was written first, at the end of the Wude era ((the ninth year)); then this *Yi Chao* was written at the beginning of the Zhenguan period ((the first year)). The dates are very close, clearly showing they were from the same time. Moreover, the two commentaries were begun during the Zhenguan period ((the Precepts Commentary in the 8th year, the Karma Commentary in the 9th year)). This shows that the old claim that it “gathered what was left out” is mistaken. This is evidence from chronology. Also, the Dharma Preceptor Fabao (Xuanchang) commented: “This commentary was written by the founding master of Nanshan at the beginning of the Tang Dynasty to help explain the *Rules Commentary*.” Based on this, it is quite accurate. Since it is said to be “ancillary explanation,” the meaning of mutual support is as clear as a double sun. When it refers to “the beginning of the Tang,” and the texts are produced together, they match perfectly. This is evidence from ancient authorities. The resolution of doubts and the clarification of differences are discussed elsewhere in detail.

**Second, the Correction of Different Ancient Views:** The learned monk Tong Hui (Zan Ning) evaluated this commentary with three reasons that it was written before the *Rules Commentary*: First, the text and the meaning are rough and often mention “first interpretation.” Second, the work is incomplete, with the author’s name hidden and his era lost, and has no preface at the beginning or endorsement at the end. Third, it was a work to help recollection, briefly showing the essential meanings, and only saying “for explanation” etc. Although the ancient records tried to refute this, their reasoning was poor and their words excessive. Furthermore, they did not know the source of the doubt. There truly was a reason for it. I have repeatedly pondered these words and am secretly dissatisfied. Therefore, I have argued this in detail to ensure later generations have no confusion.

The original creation of this commentary was to collect the commentaries and treatises of all masters into a single work. The composition of the ancient sages expressed the meaning directly and did not pursue ornamentation. Now, I have followed their texts, deleted and extracted the essentials. When it came to the two commentaries, I began to polish them further. Compared to the larger texts, the literary and intellectual style is much richer. When compared with this work, how could there be no doubt? Furthermore, over the years, there have been close to ten authors. The meanings of other masters are merely noted as “old explanation,” “another explanation,” etc. Only the major commentary by Master Shou has a broad and profound logic, which is now the standard of our school. Therefore, his name appears alone to simplify the different teachings. This is, in truth, a mark of respect for the source, without hiding our teacher-student lineage. Moreover, his phrase “first interpretation” is economical language. So where is the “roughness”? To criticize it like this is the first reason this is unacceptable.

I have also examined ancient versions. The beginning and end are incomplete, the chapter structure is out of order, and the name and era are unclear. This is indeed as he says, but this is not a reason to dismiss the author. Let me explain this with a few points. Some say that the draft had just been completed when it was stolen by others, and there was no time to edit it. This is what was passed down and is one possibility. Also, during the decline of the Tang and the chaos of the Five Dynasties, monks scattered, and the scriptures and commentaries of all schools were incomplete. This is the second reason. Furthermore, the teachings of the patriarch circulated from the Guanzhong region. The distance between that and Jiangsu/Zhejiang was over a thousand miles. Numerous errors and omissions occurred during transmission. This is the third reason. And from the time of its composition until now, the times are far distant. Some handwriting was lost, or paper and silk deteriorated. For example, the *Gui Jing Yi Wen* (Returning to Respect Rites) has no preface at the beginning. Compared with Confucian classics, where lost and scattered texts are even more common, this is even more true. So can we not accept the current version, which lacks the lower scroll, as valid? This is the fourth reason. But he did not understand this and casually denigrated the work. This is the second reason this is unacceptable.

Furthermore, the methods of writing are not limited to a single model. This work only gathers related meanings, without establishing separate chapter titles. It focuses on extracting the core, with no appended explanations. It simply marks “for explanation” as a major section to unify the different views of various schools and clarify their agreements and disagreements. It lists the difficult questions from different perspectives to resolve deep doubts. The meaning and reasoning are complete. How can it be merely a tool for recollection? This is the third reason this is unacceptable.

Using these points, I refute those three reasons, thus showing that the earlier virtuous masters never seriously discussed this. Those who have transmitted and studied this have not yet tread this path.

**Third, the Discrepancies in the Collated Editions:** This is further divided into three: first, the examination of the different editions.

The edition of Master Tiantai (Yunkan), with commentary and analysis, is in three scrolls and is the one currently circulating. I later obtained an ancient version that only had the upper and middle scrolls. Compared to the three-scroll edition, they are identical from beginning to end. This made me suspect there was an issue, but I had no way to resolve it. Recently, I acquired a copy from Master Changning (Wenpu) at Yongjia, which is in four scrolls, each of the upper and middle scrolls being split into two. He wrote a note: “According to the catalog of Dharma Master Fabao, there were three scrolls. Now I have only obtained two. After careful examination of this statement and consulting the later postscript, I realized that the original text from the eastern barbarians (Korea) had three scrolls, but the lower scroll was lost and not transmitted in Jiangdong (south of the Yangtze). It was not that the original lacked it.” People of later times, not understanding this, divided the middle scroll into two to match the stated number of scrolls, thus losing the original intention. Is this not a disservice to later students? When I further examine the text, the parts that are omitted or abridged are referred to in the *Principles Commentary*, but much of it is not provided there. This is undoubtedly the reason. Various masters’ essays often say, “pointing out an error, I checked and there was no text...” They did not know what to do, so their words are often reckless. Now I follow the ancient version and only preserve the upper and middle scrolls. Fearing they were too heavy, I split them open into four scrolls. The lower scroll is missing, so I leave it open for the future.

**Second, Rectifying the Title.** In the editions I have seen, both ancient and modern, most are titled *The Commentary on the Meaning of the Vinaya (Saṃghaśeṣa & Prāyaścitta ) from the Dīrghāgama*. However, the edition from Yongjia is titled *The Essentials of the (Vinaya) Commentary*. Although the principle and meaning are the same, whether the complete text or the abridged version is used is a great difference. Furthermore, the *Rules Commentary* refers to it by several different names, such as *Collected Meaning Commentary* or simply *Meaning Commentary*—both are abbreviations—or *Supplementary Commentary* to distinguish it from the main work. Now, I follow the majority and use the title as it appears in the text. I also note that Master Tonghui said that the name of the author was hidden since the era was lost. It is evident that at the beginning of the scroll, there was originally no author’s name, and it was added later. I now preserve it.

**Third, Determining the Sequence of Sections.** From the beginning of the upper scroll to the end of the middle scroll, there are sixteen sections total. They all begin with “For explanation” but have no numerical order. However, in many ancient editions, after the passage on “splitting the Sangha,” they place the *Saṃghāvaśeṣa* and the two *Aniyata* (undetermined) offenses, and then they interrupt with “timely and untimely.” Only after this do they list the four *Pārājika* (major defeats) and then proceed to the *Naiḥsargika Prāyaścitta* (confiscatable downfalls). Comparing this with the usual arrangement of sections, it is obviously disordered and inverted. The reason for this is truly unknown. In the past, Master Tiantai moved the *Saṃghāvaśeṣa* and the two *Aniyata* offenses after the four major defeats, and he raised the “timely and untimely” and appended it after “splitting the Sangha.” Although this was a change, the sequence of the text seemed smooth and did not harm the meaning.

Now, following this intention, I have arranged the contents at the beginning of the volume.

Volume One of the Commentary on the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya

Written by Shih Daoxuan, a monk from Zhongnan Mountain