四分律行事鈔資持記 1.372

1.372

今解中。科文要見諸部人數，故從《僧祇》已下並為他部。然細觀諸文，又似引明離見聞義，今先從義分文為二：從前言至雖說不成，明俱離失；《僧祇》下至得成來，明互離失。初中，上三句定所離。前言者，牒前列相，顯示重解。然在事猶疑，故無標破；雙出兩義，俟後疏文。如下引示。即下房小等文。彼明相接不聞，得成說戒；今取彼意，反顯相離不成說欲；然非正文，故云《五分》解耳。互離中又二，初引《僧祇》。初與欲人，房道僧中隨與即失，不論見聞。餘四人，兩是隔障，即聞而不見失；兩是伸手不及，即見而不聞失（據遠為言）。次引《五分》。初明倒出失，即見而不聞。初明覆處。過即是度，彼約不與欲起去，隨出隨犯，故云幾度。今準彼文以論失欲，一出即失，故羯磨中止名倒出人耳。若在下，次明露處。亦即倒出。既非堂宇，故限一尋。若房下，證取比座。可知。疏云雖不了語，皆為法來，並名布薩；疏有四句，一、聞而不見（《僧祇》隔障；《五分》雲霧黑暗，先不相識，不成受戒；又如背說戒師坐，成別眾，欲並不成。），二、見而不聞（即前《五分》覆露倒出），三、俱見聞失（即前神足），四、俱離失（《僧祇》覆處離見聞，不成受具；又《五分》同覆障處相離不成。）。

In "The present interpretation": The sectional heading requires discerning the number of persons across the various schools; therefore, from the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya onward, all are other schools. However, closely examining the various texts, they also seem to be cited to clarify the meaning of departing from sight and hearing. Now, following the meaning, I divide the text into two: from "the previous statement" to "though declared, it is not accomplished" clarifies the loss by separation from both; from "the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya" downward to "comes to be accomplished" clarifies the loss by mutual separation. In the first part: The top three sentences determine what is separated from. "The previous statement" takes up the earlier list of marks to show a renewed interpretation. Yet, regarding the matter there was still doubt, so there is no explicit refutation; both meanings are presented together, awaiting the subsequent text of the commentary. "As cited and shown below" refers to the text below concerning small rooms and the like. That text explains that being contiguous without hearing still allows poṣadha to be accomplished; now, taking its intent, conversely it shows that being separated does not allow chanda to be declared; however, this is not the primary text, hence it says merely "the Mahīśāsaka-vinaya explains it." In the section on mutual separation, there are again two parts: first, citing the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya. The first person who gives chanda: whether in a room, on the way, or in the Saṃgha, as soon as he gives it, it is lost, irrespective of sight and hearing. Of the remaining four persons, two are separated by barriers, which is losing it by hearing without seeing; two are out of reach of an extended hand, which is losing it by seeing without hearing (stated with reference to distance). Next, citing the Mahīśāsaka-vinaya: First, it clarifies the loss by retreating backwards, which is seeing without hearing. First, it clarifies a sheltered place. "Crossing" means exceeding; that text deals with getting up and leaving without giving chanda, incurring an offense with each departure, hence it says "how many times." Now, based on that text to discuss the loss of chanda, a single departure causes loss; therefore in the karmavācanā it is simply called "a person who retreats backwards." "If in..." below next clarifies an open-air place. This is also retreating backwards. Since it is not a hall or building, it is limited to one fathom [vyāma]. "If in a room..." below confirms by taking the adjacent seat. This can be understood. The commentary states that although one does not understand the words, all have come for the Dharma, and all are termed poṣadha. The commentary gives four propositions: 1. Hearing without seeing (screening barriers in the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya; in the Mahīśāsaka-vinaya, clouds, fog, and darkness, not knowing each other beforehand, do not accomplish ordination; also, such as sitting with one's back to the poṣadha master constitutes a separate assembly, and chanda is not accomplished at all); 2. Seeing without hearing (the aforementioned retreating backwards in sheltered or open spaces in the Mahīśāsaka-vinaya); 3. Both seeing and hearing causing loss (the aforementioned supernormal power); 4. Departing from both causing loss (in the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya, departing from sight and hearing in a sheltered place does not accomplish full ordination; also, in the Mahīśāsaka-vinaya, mutual separation in the same sheltered or screened place is not accomplished).