四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 1.126

1.126

問：為身四面各取六十三步，為身一面取三十一步半耶？答：四面各取六十三步。故彼文云，七樹之間，異眾相見，而不犯別。此二眾相望，不論界相。問：彼此俱秉羯磨，自然定量，若為廣狹？答：諸說不同，今解：彼此二眾，各一面有三十一步半，通就二眾，則六十三步（此自然常有，不問秉法不秉法，界恒隨定）。故《僧祇》中，異眾者，望二處比丘身也。今若界外無人，則身面各三十一步半，是隨分自然。若有人者，但令異界自然，在我自然界外，無錯涉之過，並成法事。今行事之家，恐有別眾，但為深防，故於方面各半倍之。實而言之，各半減是。故《薩婆多》云：比丘隨遊行住處，有縱廣自然界。問：自然界者，為方圓耶？答：昔云定方。今解不然。若界方者，四維有餘，則無教可準。今言，自然界中，不定方圓。若四面四維，各無異界，此界定圓；若有別界，則尖斜不定。故《十誦》云：方各一拘盧舍者，謂身面所向之方，非謂界形畟方也。文云：弟子隨師，方面遊行，可亦不得四維也。《五分》亦云：去身面拘盧舍也。《善見》亦云：方圓七槃陀界。文自明矣。乃至結大界，以三由旬為量。《明了論》云：合角量取三由旬也。故廣引誠證，定方須廢。

Question: Does one take sixty-three paces on each of the four sides of the person, or thirty-one and a half paces on one side of the person? Answer: One takes sixty-three paces on each of the four sides. Therefore that text states that within the interval of seven trees, the different assemblies see each other without committing the offense of a separate saṃgha. This refers to the two assemblies facing each other, not discussing boundary markers. Question: If both sides are conducting a karman, how wide or narrow is the natural fixed measurement? Answer: The various explanations differ; the current interpretation is: the two assemblies each have thirty-one and a half paces on one side, which together between the two assemblies make sixty-three paces. (This natural boundary always exists; whether conducting a legal act or not, the boundary is perpetually fixed accordingly.) Therefore in the Mahāsāṃghika, 'different assemblies' refers to looking at the bodies of the monks in the two locations. Now, if there is no one outside the boundary, then thirty-one and a half paces facing each side of the body constitutes the natural boundary according to one's share. If there are people, as long as the natural boundary of the other boundary is outside my natural boundary, there is no error of overlap, and both successfully accomplish their ritual actions. Nowadays, practitioners fear having a separate saṃgha, and merely as a strong precaution, double it on each side. Strictly speaking, reducing each by half is correct. Thus the Sarvāstivāda states: 'Wherever a monk travels and stays, there is a natural boundary in length and breadth.' Question: Is a natural boundary square or circular? Answer: Formerly it was said to be definitely square. The current interpretation is not so. If the boundary were square, there would be excess in the four diagonal corners, for which there is no canonical authority to rely on. Now we say: within a natural boundary, square or circular is not fixed. If on the four sides and four diagonal corners there are no other boundaries, this boundary is definitely circular; if there are other boundaries, it is irregularly pointed or slanted. Thus the Daśādhyāya-vinaya saying 'each side is one krośa' refers to the direction faced by the person, not that the shape of the boundary is an exact square. The text states: 'The disciple follows the teacher, walking in the direction [he goes]'; this surely cannot exclude the four diagonal corners. The Pañcavargika also says: 'a krośa from the front of the body.' The Samantapāsādikā also says: 'a boundary of seven abbhantaras square or circular.' The text itself is clear. Even when demarcating a great boundary, three yojanas is taken as the measure. The Vinayavibhāṣā states: 'Joining the corners, it measures three yojanas.' Thus, extensively citing reliable evidence, [the theory of] a definite square must be rejected.