四分律行事鈔資持記 1.1091

1.1091

兩判中，初句指前文。《多論》唯明依閏，《伽論》文通兩位，故云兼具。次句明雙用。夏下，正判；初明須依。謂先知有閏，宜從《多論》，不得不依。故不取《伽論》。若下，次明通依不依。言反前者，謂夏初不知有閏，結已方立。或依不依，隨人取捨，故云通二論也。西土作閏不定；此方不爾，預出年曆，並是先知，皆須依閏。（舊謂：先知有閏，要依不依，隨人所欲者。非。）疏云：即彼《伽論》，前安居已，王作閏月；本知有故，則依閏不合受衣；本不知有，數日成夏。

Under the two determinations: the first sentence refers to the preceding text. The Sarvāstivāda Vinaya Vibhāṣā only clarifies following the leap month, whereas the text of the Saṃghabhedavastu treatise covers both cases; hence it says 'possessing both'. The next sentence clarifies using both. From 'rains' downward is the main determination; first, it clarifies that one must follow it: that is, if one knows in advance of the leap month, one should follow the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya Vibhāṣā and cannot fail to follow it; hence the Saṃghabhedavastu treatise is not adopted. From 'if' downward, it next clarifies that both following and not following are permissible. 'Contrary to the above' means that at the beginning of the rains one did not know there would be a leap month, and it was only established after the binding. Whether one follows it or not is left to the individual's choice; thus it says 'permissible under both treatises'. In the Western lands, the decreeing of a leap month was not fixed; this land is not like that, for the annual calendar is published beforehand and is known in advance, so all must follow the leap month. (The old view that 'even if knowing in advance of a leap month, whether to follow it or not is according to personal preference' is incorrect.) The Commentary states: 'In that Saṃghabhedavastu treatise, after the prior rains-retreat had begun, the king decreed an intercalary month; if one originally knew of it, one follows the leap month and is not permitted to receive robes; if one originally did not know of it, completing the tally of days constitutes the rains-retreat.'