四分律行事鈔資持記 1.240

1.240

不可分別中分二，初約人明。僧下，二約處辨。疏云：或約僧之來去，難可知之；或約處所散落，不知際域；隨有一種，即歸此收。《尼鈔》云：中華之處，人民繁多，不可分故。用下，示量。彼因有人問佛種樹法，佛教令七弓種一樹；續後波離問集僧量，即用答之。異眾相見者，約兩向作法為言。準下計數。五肘弓一肘尺八，弓長九尺，七九共成六丈三尺，六尺為步，一間計十步半，如是合之。不同下，破古。疏云：昔云七十三步半者，錯算七間也；或執舊云樹限兩頭各有勢分，又云周圓種樹，又改《僧祇》為八樹字。餘廣如彼。下指《義鈔》，即刪繁意；彼文已亡，意如前示。古記不知所以，例云指誤；假令是誤，一處可爾；況此上卷凡十餘處，指廣如彼；檢彼並無，豈皆誤耶！誣聖辱祖，不慮招殃；引誤後生，何可窮也。

In [the section on] indivisible [villages], there are two parts: first, clarifying in terms of persons; and from "monks" onwards, second, distinguishing in terms of place. The Commentary states: either it is in terms of the coming and going of monks being difficult to know, or it is in terms of settlements being scattered so that the boundaries are unknown; whichever single one is present, it falls under this category. The Bhikṣuṇī Manual says: in the regions of China, the population is dense and numerous, hence it is indivisible. From "using" onwards, the measurement is indicated. Because someone asked the Buddha the method for planting trees, the Buddha instructed that a tree be planted every seven bows; subsequently, when Upāli asked about the measure for assembling the Saṃgha, he simply used this to answer him. "Different assemblies seeing one another" is spoken with respect to performing the karma facing toward each other. From "based on" onwards, it calculates the figure: a five-forearm bow has a forearm of one foot eight inches, so the bow is nine feet long; seven times nine makes sixty-three feet; with six feet to a pace, one interval counts as ten and a half paces, and they are combined like this. From "unlike" onwards, it refutes the ancients. The Commentary states: those in the past who spoke of seventy-three and a half paces miscalculated seven intervals; or they clung to the old view that the trees' limits each had surrounding scopes at both ends; or they said planting trees in a circle; or they changed the Mahāsāṃghika text to the character "eight trees." The rest is detailed there. Below, pointing to the Meaning Manual represents an intention to eliminate redundancies; that text is already lost, and the meaning is as indicated before. Ancient records, not knowing the reason, routinely claimed it was an erroneous citation; supposing it were an error, that might be so in one place; how much more so when in this upper scroll alone there are more than ten places pointing to details as being there, yet on checking there they are not found—could they all be errors! To slander the sages and dishonor the patriarchs without fearing calamity, and to mislead later generations—how could this ever be exhausted!