四分律行事鈔資持記 1.235

1.235

初明聚落，可分別中。準疏分二：謂僧則在無易委（人可分別），聚亦周院可悉（處可分別）。《尼鈔》云：城外村坊，邊夷城邑，人民稀尠，可得分別故。應作四句。初人處俱可分，則依此相。二人處俱不可分，如後步量。三人可、處不可，四處可、人不可，並依後集。故知此相必須具二。文引《十誦》二十二卷。彼因比丘問佛，初至結界，即引問詞。彼接云：爾時界應幾許？言無僧坊者，人可分也。聚落即處可分。隨下，是佛答。謂隨處廣狹，即是界限。注。行來處見四十七，故云下文。此下，先以義決。分齊即同勢分，顯非聚落界體；意不取之。故《業疏》云：縱彼文中齊行來處，此制通攝，恐妨界內；必作法時身在門外，亦得兩成等。《四分》下，次引文決。即盜戒聚落，止取四相。（一、四周牆，二、柵籬，三、籬牆不周，四、四周有屋。）則顯彼此村聚相同，不須遠取。此由他執，故特注顯。（《古記》妄解，準疏為正。）

First, explaining the distinguishable village: according to the Commentary, it is divided into two: namely, the presence or absence of the saṃgha is easy to determine (persons are distinguishable), and the village also has an enclosing boundary that can be fully known (places are distinguishable). The Bhikṣuṇī Manual states: "Villages outside the city walls, and border barbarian towns and hamlets, have sparse populations, so they can be distinguished." One should formulate four propositions: 1. Both persons and places are distinguishable: then one relies on this mark. 2. Neither persons nor places are distinguishable: as in the pacing measurement below. 3. Persons are distinguishable, but places are not; 4. Places are distinguishable, but persons are not: both rely on the gathering below. Therefore, we know that this mark must possess both. The text cites fascicle twenty-two of the Ten-Recitation Vinaya. Because a bhikṣu asked the Buddha upon first arriving to demarcate a boundary, it cites the words of the question. It continues: "At that time, how large should the boundary be?" Saying "there are no monastic quarters" means persons are distinguishable. "Village" means places are distinguishable. Beginning with "according to" (隨) is the Buddha's reply, meaning that according to the extent of the place, that serves as the boundary limit. Note: "Places of coming and going" appears in fascicle forty-seven, hence it says "the text below." Beginning with "this" (此), it first resolves it by meaning. The delimitation is the same as the perimeter (勢分), showing it is not the essence of the village boundary; in meaning, it is not adopted. Therefore, the Karma Commentary states: "Even if in that text it is bounded by the places of coming and going, this rule subsumes generally, for fear of obstructing what is within the boundary; if when performing the ritual action one's body is outside the gate, both are also accomplished, etc." Beginning with "Four-Part" (四分), it next resolves it by citing text. That is, in the theft precept, regarding the village, it takes only four marks: (1. walls on all four sides; 2. palisade or fence; 3. incomplete fence or wall; 4. houses on all four sides). This shows that villages in both [contexts] are identical, without needing to take them from afar. Because others held to this, it was specially noted and clarified. (The Old Record explains this erroneously; one should take the Commentary as correct.)