四分律行事鈔資持記 1.1133

1.1133

引古中，初出彼計。疏云：有人言：本依界故成安居，若解本界，便失夏也；以失所依，即日雖結，亦不成就；故文云安居竟應解界，未竟而解，故知非也。此下，難破有四，初斥妄。律下，二顯正；初牒律文。為下，示意。但文非明顯，致令錯會；故準《十誦》德衣之文，方決疑壅。廣下，指彼三十五云：夏竟，眾多僧坊共結一界受功德衣已，捨是大界，諸比丘皆名受功德衣否？答：一切皆得受之。又下，三引證。舊記云，指首師《律疏》。本非為夏，乃顯別有所為；文雖不示，義應同上。古下，四引難。古人云者，已為前代古德難破，今引用之，疏中標云有人言是也。前引律云安居竟應解界應自恣，二文不異，故引相並。然律通三日自恣，十四十五未竟皆成；及中後人隨前自恣，住待日滿；用此相並，明知解結非破夏矣。文兼等者，不竟解結若云破，不竟自恣亦應破；自恣既不破，解結云何破！上句示文同，下句明義合；破則齊破，成則俱成，不可偏故。疏又難云：如在攝衣界中，護衣緣故須解，亦應失本所依，即日明離；然未經宿，不說離衣；夏亦同此，何得即破。（前云：解界即日破夏，不待經宿，故有此難。）

In citing the ancients, first, their view is brought forth. The Commentary states: "Someone said: 'Because one originally relies on the boundary, the retreat is accomplished; if one dissolves the original boundary, one loses the retreat; because the foundation relied upon is lost, even if it is demarcated on that very day, it is not accomplished. Thus the text states, "When the retreat is completed, one should dissolve the boundary"; dissolving it when not yet completed is therefore known to be incorrect.'" From "This..." onward, the refutation consists of four parts. First, reproving the error. From "The Vinaya..." onward, the second reveals the correct view: first, quoting the Vinaya text. From "In order to..." onward, explaining the meaning. Merely because the text is not obvious, it led to erroneous understanding; therefore, by relying on the text on the merit-robe in the Daśādhyāya-vinaya, the obstruction of doubts is finally resolved. From "Extensively..." onward, it points to fascicle 35 of that text, which states: "When the rains retreat is completed, if many monasteries together demarcate a single boundary and receive the merit-robe, and then abandon this great boundary, are all the bhikṣus called having received the merit-robe or not? Answer: All succeed in receiving it." From "Furthermore..." onward, the third cites evidence. Old records say this points to Master Shou's Vinaya Commentary. Originally it was not for the sake of the rains retreat, but rather to show that there was another specific purpose; although the text does not indicate it, the principle should be identical to the above. From "The ancients..." onward, the fourth cites refutations. Saying "the ancients said" means that it had already been refuted by ancient masters of virtue of previous generations, and is now cited; the label in the Commentary stating "someone said" is this. The earlier citation of the Vinaya states, "When the rains retreat is completed, one should dissolve the boundary and should perform pravāraṇā"; the two texts are no different, so they are juxtaposed. However, the Vinaya allows three days for pravāraṇā, so that on the fourteenth or fifteenth, even if not completed, all are valid; and middle or later retreatants follow those preceding in pravāraṇā, staying to await the fulfillment of their days. Juxtaposing this makes it clearly known that dissolving and demarcating do not break the rains retreat. "The text embraces, etc." means: If dissolving and demarcating before completion are said to break [the retreat], then pravāraṇā before completion should also break it. Since pravāraṇā does not break it, how could dissolving and demarcating break it! The upper clause shows the textual correspondence, and the lower clause clarifies the doctrinal agreement: if broken, both are broken; if accomplished, both are accomplished; one cannot be biased. The Commentary also refutes: "If one is in a robe-retention boundary, and because of the condition of protecting robes it must be dissolved, one should also lose the original foundation relied upon, and on that very day separation [from the robes] would be manifest; yet if the night has not passed, separation from robes is not asserted. The rains retreat is also like this; how could it immediately break?" (Earlier it was said that dissolving the boundary breaks the retreat on that very day without waiting for the night to pass; hence this refutation).