四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 1.489

1.489

初中，律列四種：初對首者，此通諸界。今且就伽藍加法。當對一比丘具儀云：「大德一心念！我比丘某甲，依某僧伽藍，前三月夏安居；房舍破，修治故（三說）。」《五分》，彼人告云：「知！莫放逸！」答言：「受持！」義加：「依誰持律者？」答云：「依某律師。」告云：「有疑當往問。」若依聚落、林野等，改前伽藍住處，隨名牒入。料理修治，隨事有無。不同昔愚，皇帝聚落也。問：依寺所以料理資具者？答：修治僧房，用通三世；前人料理，得今受用；今復修理，以補將來；若闕不修，三世不續。問：持律五種，定須何者？答：《四分》云：春冬制依四種：一謂誦戒至三十，二至九十，三誦比丘戒本，四二部戒本；夏中多緣故，須善通塞也，制依第五，謂廣誦二部律。所以須者，《五分》云：有比丘自不知律，又不依持律安居，夏中生疑，又無問處。乃至佛言：往持律處安居。若房舍迮者，聽近持律師七日得往反處，於中安居；心念遙依，有疑往問。若已結前夏，遇緣破者，隨日結成。《四分》云：比丘夏中不依第五律師，得波逸提；春冬不依，突吉羅。中安居法，律有名無法，世中通用後安居法。然律列三時分明，三名顯別，準義，三法不無。既明前後，中間例準（如鉢量，制上下定，中間不顯而知）。應云：「我某甲比丘，依某巖，中三月夏安居（三說）。」必用舊法，理亦應成。後安居者，於五月十六日，同前所對之法，唯改前置後之一字。二明心念者（律中無所依人可白，佛令心念）。當具儀至靈廟前，發願乞安隱修道等，心念口言：「我某甲，依某僧坊，前三月夏安居；房舍破，修治故（三說）。」住處多種，準前對首；若中若後，亦隨二改。三明忘成。謂先要期此界，今從外來，與本心境相應；雖忘，開成。律云：忘不心念者，若為安居故來，便成安居。故知住人不入開例，由本無心。必若有要，理在通限。外來為事，不為修安，雖忘不開，以非為安故來也。四明及界與園。一脚入內，明相即出，佛開為安來者，成。餘廣如《疏》。

First, the Vinaya lists four types [of binding varṣā]: The first is before a counterpart (face-to-face), which applies across all boundaries. Now, taking the saṅghārāma to perform the formal procedure, one should face a bhikṣu, complete with proper deportment, and say: “Venerable One, keep me mindfully in your thoughts! I, the bhikṣu so-and-so, relying upon such-and-such a saṅghārāma, make the summer varṣā for the first three months; because the dwellings are damaged, I will repair them” (spoken three times). According to the Pañcavargika-vinaya, the other person announces to him, saying: “Understood! Be not negligent!” He replies: “I accept and uphold it!” In terms of theoretical principle, one adds: “Upon which Vinaya-holder do you rely?” He replies: “I rely upon such-and-such a Vinaya master.” [The other] advises: “If you have doubts, you should go and ask him.” If one relies on a settlement, a forest, or the like, one alters the previous [designation of the] saṅghārāma residence and names it according to the actual designation. Managing and repairing are done according to whether there is such a task or not. This is not like the ancient fools [who mistakenly said] “the emperor's settlement.” Question: Why must one arrange and repair the requisites when relying upon a monastery? Answer: Repairing the monastic lodgings serves the three periods of time: previous people repaired them so that we can use them today; we now repair them to benefit the future. If deficient and not repaired, the three periods will not continue. Question: Of the five kinds of Vinaya-holders, which one must definitely be [relied upon]? Answer: The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya says that in spring and winter, one is prescribed to rely on four kinds: first, reciting the precepts up to the thirty [niḥsargika-pāyattika]; second, up to the ninety [pāyattika]; third, reciting the Bhikṣu-prātimokṣa; fourth, the prātimokṣas of both divisions. Because there are many conditions during the summer, one must be skilled in what is permissible and prohibited; hence, one is prescribed to rely on the fifth, namely, extensively reciting the Vinaya of both divisions. As for why this is necessary, the Pañcavargika-vinaya says: There was a bhikṣu who himself did not know the Vinaya, nor did he enter varṣā relying on a Vinaya-holder. Doubts arose during the summer, yet he had nowhere to ask. Up to the Buddha saying: Go and enter varṣā where a Vinaya-holder resides. If the dwellings are cramped, he is permitted to enter varṣā in a place near the Vinaya master from which one can travel back and forth within seven days; mentally relying on him from afar, if he has doubts, he goes to ask. If one has already bound the earlier varṣā and it is broken due to conditions, one binds and establishes it according to the day. The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya states: A bhikṣu who does not rely on a Vinaya master of the fifth kind during the summer incurs a pāyattika; if he does not rely on one in spring or winter, he incurs a duṣkṛta. As for the procedure of the middle varṣā, the Vinaya has the name but no procedure; in ordinary practice, the procedure for the later varṣā is generally used. However, the Vinaya clearly lists three periods with three distinct names; by logical deduction, the three procedures are not non-existent. Since the earlier and later are clear, the middle is determined by analogy (just as with the measure of an alms-bowl, where the upper and lower limits are fixed, the middle is understood without being explicitly stated). One should say: “I, the bhikṣu so-and-so, relying upon such-and-such a crag, make the summer varṣā for the middle three months” (spoken three times). Even if one uses the old procedure, in principle it should also be valid. As for the later varṣā, on the sixteenth day of the fifth month, the procedure is the same as that performed before a counterpart above, merely altering the word ‘earlier’ to ‘later’. Second, explaining mental determination (in the Vinaya, when there was no person to rely on to whom one could speak, the Buddha allowed mental determination): With proper deportment, one should go before a sacred shrine, make a vow praying for peace and comfort to practice the Way and so forth, mentally resolving and verbally uttering: “I, so-and-so, relying upon such-and-such a monastery, make the summer varṣā for the first three months; because the dwellings are damaged, I will repair them” (spoken three times). For various dwelling places, follow the earlier face-to-face procedure; if middle or later, also alter accordingly based on the two. Third, explaining valid establishment through forgetting: That is, having previously set a resolve for this boundary, one now arrives from outside, and it accords with the original state of mind; although one forgot, it is permitted to be established. The Vinaya says: For one who forgot and did not make a mental determination, if he came for the sake of varṣā, it becomes a valid varṣā. Hence, we know that residents are not included in this exception, because they originally lacked the intention. If they certainly had a prior resolve, in principle it falls within the permitted scope. If one comes from outside for other business and not to observe varṣā, even if he forgot, it is not permitted, because he did not come for the sake of varṣā. Fourth, explaining reaching the boundary or the garden: When one foot has entered inside and the light of dawn appears, the Buddha permits that for one who came for varṣā, it is validly established. The rest is detailed as in the Commentary.