四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 2.107

2.107

However, the dimensions of the Buddha's span (diṣṭi) are not fixed. Now I bring together the various traditions to examine and determine right and wrong. The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya says: "The Buddha's span is two chi and four cun long." The Vinayavibhāṣā agrees. The Samantapāsādikā says: "Three spans of an average person equal one span of the Buddha." The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā says: "One span of the Buddha is one and a half cubits of an ordinary person." The Pañcavargika-vinaya says: "The Buddha's span is two chi long." The above shows that when expressed in chi and cun, the measures are inconsistent. This is because the translations of the scriptures took place in the northern and southern realms, and the Tripiṭaka masters came from different native places; hence many discrepancies arose, contradicting one another. Now, evaluating this through doctrinal reason: when the Buddha was among men, he was twice the height of ordinary men, and his bodily dimensions corresponded accordingly. In this land of Cīnā, the regulations of chi and cun differ according to local custom; yet when calibrated using the standards of the pitchpipes and calendar, the foot and peck of the Ji-Zhou dynasty are taken as standard, because they have been universally observed since antiquity and unchanged through a hundred reigns. Emperor Yang of the Sui dynasty established the peck, foot, and steelyard, modeling them on antiquity; I saw them in person. When the Tang dynasty ruled the realm, it allowed the simultaneous use of both contemporary and ancient measures, not departing from the ancient standards. Thus the Tang Statutes state: "The foot is one chi and two cun to the foot"; the peck and steelyard were both increased proportionately. Judging by the treatises, people of this land are eight chi tall, while the Buddha was sixteen chi. Taking this as the ratio, the Buddha's span is fixed at two chi according to the Pañcavargika-vinaya; although our own Vinaya has no explicit statement, this may be used. Later scholars do not know this, and earlier practitioners were obscure on the doctrine; failing to comprehend both the sacred and secular systems, they simply acted on words as they found them—what confusion! Even in this great Tang dynasty, written standards are unified, yet in discussing the use of the foot there are five different standards; one must determine them by the Ji-Zhou foot and steelyard, so that in official markets weights and measures are completely fair. This is the common practice across Jambudvīpa, not merely the ancient rule of the Ji-Zhou; even for the capacity of an almsbowl, three dou is the largest, and one and a half dou is the smallest. Checking against the texts, the foot and steelyard follow the ancient standard, which increasingly confirms what has been stated above; therefore the steelyard for medicine today does not alter the ancient method. Six chi make a bu, with hu and si as the finest units; by calibrating in this way, the overarching principles can be established. I once traveled through Jin, Wei, and the Guanzhong region, always attending lectures at the various Vinaya centers; yet when it came to discussing the rise and fall of the foot and peck, none of them had even touched upon it. Therefore I prune and supplement here, reflecting light back across nine dynasties. Now adopting the dimensions of the Pañcavargika-vinaya as the ratio: the length is two zhang and four chi, and the width is one zhang and four chi. The Samantapāsādikā says: "This all refers to the clear interior dimensions." The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya says: "The side walls are one zhang and two chi high."