四分律行事鈔資持記 1.1118

1.1118

次明分齊。即前四法，約時處人法四位總收，使無通濫故也。初約時者。謂上四法通前中後，一時有四，成十二也。次約處中。自然作法，並通安居；各有十二，成二十四。又約人者，五眾各有二十四，則成一百二十種安居。（疏中又分及界為四，成七種法，用歷三位，成二百一十種，倣上作之。）約法中。上文四法，既通三時，不勞此位；然對異說通局不同，故須重簡。初明對念。通三可知。後明忘及，初引異解，初解局開前後。注羯磨中亦標此義。又下，次解局開後夏。並下，結斷。今準祖意，並通三時；隨日結成，隨滿受歲，義無抑塞。乍觀兩解，從急似善。然律本中但明四法，不簡初後，故云並非等也。問：忘及二法，為加法否？答：準疏亦須陳詞，但夏成在前，加法在後，不以加法為結之始。疏云忘等直得，後用加法何為？答：制開義立，何得不有。（直得是開，加法依制。）

Next, clarifying the classifications: That is, the preceding four procedures are comprehensively subsumed under the four positions of time, place, person, and procedure, so that there is no ambiguity or confusion. First, regarding time: the above four procedures apply to earlier, middle, and later; one time has four, making twelve. Next, regarding place: natural and formalized [boundaries] all apply to the rains retreat; each has twelve, making twenty-four. Furthermore, regarding persons: the five assemblies each have twenty-four, which makes one hundred and twenty kinds of rains retreat. (In the Commentary, reaching the boundary is again divided into four, making seven kinds of procedures; applied across the three positions, this makes two hundred and ten kinds, done by analogy with the above.) Regarding procedure: Since the four procedures above already apply to the three periods, there is no need for this position; however, in contrast to differing explanations regarding applicability and limitation, it must be analyzed again. First, it clarifies face-to-face and mental intention: their application to the three [periods] can be known. Next, it clarifies unmindful and reaching: first citing differing explanations: The first explanation restricts the exception to earlier and later. The Annotated Karmavācanā also notes this meaning. Under 'further...', the second explanation restricts the exception to the later rains retreat. Under 'all...', it concludes and determines. Now, based on the Patriarch's intent, all apply to the three periods; established according to the day, and receiving the years-of-standing according to completion, in principle there is no obstruction. Looking at the two explanations at first glance, following the stricter seems good. However, the root Vinaya merely clarifies four procedures and does not distinguish between earlier and later; hence it says 'neither is correct, etc.' Question: Do the two procedures of unmindful and reaching require a supplementary formula? Answer: According to the Commentary, one must also state the formula; but the completion of the rains retreat comes before, while the supplementary formula comes after; one does not take the supplementary formula as the beginning of the retreat. The Commentary says: If unmindful, etc., obtain it directly, what purpose does the supplementary formula serve later? Answer: The meanings of prohibition and exception being established, how could it not exist? (Directly obtaining it is the exception; the supplementary formula follows the regulation.)