四分律行事鈔資持記 1.245

1.245

水界中，初引《五分》。水中行者，謂徒涉也。水灑及處者，示界限也。次引《善見》分三，初定分齊。準下離衣勢分，相傳以十三步為定。取下，次簡可否。取常流者，界相定故。潮水不得者，疏云：以乍溢故。若下，三明乘船又二；初明下矴。疏云若橦。所以爾者，或恐自然界限不定，或結船界相有參差故。不下，明繫纜。得否可尋。若準《善見》，水中不得結作法界；疏云：此論以水相虛浮，體相難識故也；今則約岸分標，義亦可得，如〈結界〉中。問：所以唯六相者？答：攝處盡故。問：幾事用之？答：結法未興，唯除說恣，通行餘法；制後僧事，局開結界；心念對首及別眾食，並須約界。問：用有通局，可得聞乎？答：有難蘭若，唯局三小；自餘五相，並通大界；水道二處，義無戒場；別眾食中，亦止五相，除有難蘭若。問：相或相涉，何以分之？答：聚蘭二種相別易知。道行非二攝。水界通三處。

In [the section on] water boundaries, first it cites the Mahīśāsaka-vinaya. "Walking in water" means wading on foot; "the place reached by splashing water" indicates the limit of the boundary. Next, citing the Samantapāsādikā, divided into three: first, determining the limit. Based on the surrounding scope for leaving robes below, traditional transmission takes thirteen paces as the standard. From "taking" onwards, next screening what is permissible and what is not: taking a constant flow is because the marks of the boundary are fixed; tidal water is not permissible because, as the Commentary states, it suddenly overflows. From "if" onwards, third, clarifying riding a boat, also divided into two: first, clarifying lowering the anchor. The Commentary states: or a post. The reason it is so is either fearing that the natural boundary's limits are unfixed, or that when establishing a boat boundary, the marks are uneven. From "not" onwards, clarifying tying the mooring rope; whether it is permissible may be investigated. According to the Samantapāsādikā, one cannot establish an enacted boundary in water; the Commentary states: this treatise holds that because the mark of water is unstable and floating, its substantial marks are difficult to discern; nowadays, demarcating markers based on the shore is conceptually possible, as in the chapter on "Establishing Boundaries." Question: Why are there only six marks? Answer: Because they encompass all places. Question: For how many transactions are they used? Answer: Before enacted methods arose, with the sole exception of poṣadha and pravāraṇā, they generally applied to other transactions; after the prohibition, Saṃgha transactions were restricted to enacted boundaries; mental transactions, face-to-face transactions, and eating in separate assemblies must all be determined according to the boundary. Question: May we hear whether their use is general or restricted? Answer: The araṇya with difficulties is restricted only to the three small ones; the remaining five marks all apply generally to the great boundary; for the two places of water and road, conceptually there is no ordination platform; in eating in separate assemblies, there are also only five marks, excluding the araṇya with difficulties. Question: If the marks overlap, how are they distinguished? Answer: The distinction between village and araṇya is easy to know; traveling on the road is not subsumed under either; water boundaries apply across all three places.