四分律行事鈔資持記 1.494

1.494

作法中二，初敘自然，上二句通標。設下，別釋有二，初四句明展縮有妨。教文定者，六相分齊也。用不可者，界限與處，不相稱故。捨非制者，不依六相，無教開故。下二句明不勝。羯磨法既尊特，常地莫行。如持祕呪，必結壇場。羯磨呪術，其類頗同。故下，次明作法界，初敘開結。此即第二開也。開已復開，故云曲順。楷式定者，開中制也。任下，顯益。上一句反上初患，下四句反上次患。問：至此凡幾開耶？答：初明統通，即本制也。（律中令結說戒堂，猶是統通一界，即同本制。）次分六相，即初開也。復令局結，第二開也。又作法中，復有二開；數集結場，難事結小。若望法食二同，法同食別；二種大界，亦是第開。然莫非大界，故所不論。已上凡經四開，文中宛爾。古多妄解，故須辨示。問：六相自然，開秉羯磨否？答：此無明說，以義定之。若準八年已興羯磨受具，十二年後令弟子說廣，由此始立結界，驗知未結已行羯磨。標指戒堂，亦在自然。他部所計自然地中，得成受戒，亦由此耳。若爾那云地弱不勝？答：由在自然不勝故結，或可約開已為言。疏云：一開已後，凡有作業，非界不成；故制崇和，益在斯矣，先開後制也。若不爾者，六相自然，開之何用？豈可一向作對念耶？又《僧祇》七樹，異眾兩頭，豈唯結界！問：今時有結說戒堂者何耶？答：此迷教也。結戒堂法，由未開別結，通一自然；僧集難準，故令指處。局結纔興，戒堂即廢。況戒堂之法，但是標指；至論僧集，還依自然；全非結界，安得妄行。又有錯引初制大界羯磨為戒堂者，謬復甚矣。然今末世，知法者希。同住百千，來無數十。若令盡集，事必無成。必欲別結一處，用擬行法，可準圍輪之例，須加大界羯磨；若據說恣，本制通集。然律明布薩場上有僧，得罪得成；雖乖制意，且圖成法。況愚徒不集，事等難緣；判罪酌情，義非咎失。

Under 'Ritual Boundaries', there are two [parts]: first, describing the natural [boundaries], the upper two lines mark [it] generally. From 'Supposing...' onward, the specific explanation has two parts: first, four lines explain the hindrance in extending or contracting [them]. 'Fixed by scriptural texts' refers to the delimitations of the six marks. 'Using them is impossible' is because the boundary limits and the places do not correspond. 'Releasing them is not prescribed' is because they do not conform to the six marks and there is no scriptural allowance. The lower two lines explain that [the natural ground] is not capable of bearing [the acts]. Since the karmavācanā ritual is particularly venerable and supreme, it must not be performed on ordinary ground. Just as holding secret mantras necessitates establishing an altar arena, the karmavācanā and incantation arts are quite similar in kind. From 'Therefore...' onward, it next clarifies ritual boundaries, first recounting their allowance and demarcation. This is the second allowance. Allowing again after having already allowed is why it says 'yielding accommodated compliance'. 'Model forms are fixed' refers to the prohibitions within the allowance. From 'Entrusting...' onward, the benefit is manifested. The upper single line counters the first trouble above, and the lower four lines counter the second trouble above.
Question: 'Up to this point, how many allowances have there been altogether?'
Answer: First, explaining the all-encompassing [natural boundary] is the original prohibition. (The command in the Vinaya to delimit an upoṣatha hall was still an all-encompassing single boundary, thus identical to the original prohibition.) Next, distinguishing the six marks is the first allowance. Then ordering restrictive demarcation is the second allowance. Furthermore, within ritual [boundaries], there are another two allowances: demarcating an arena for frequent assemblies, and demarcating a small [boundary] for difficult matters. If viewed from the perspective of identity of both ritual and food versus identity of ritual and difference of food, these two kinds of great boundaries are also sequential allowances. However, as none are not great boundaries, they are not discussed here. Thus far, it has gone through four allowances altogether, as is clearly evident in the text. The ancients had many erroneous interpretations, so this must be distinguished and pointed out.
Question: 'In the six-mark natural boundary, is it allowed to perform karmavācanā?'
Answer: There is no explicit statement of this; it is determined by doctrinal sense. According to the fact that in the eighth year karmavācanā for full ordination was already flourishing, and after the twelfth year the disciples were commanded to recite the extensive [prātimokṣa], whereupon the demarcation of boundaries began to be instituted, it is verified by proof that karmavācanā was already performed before demarcation. Indicating the upoṣatha hall was also within the natural [boundary]. Other schools' assertion that ordination can be validly accomplished on natural ground also derives from this. If so, why is it said that 'the ground is weak and cannot bear it'?
Answer: Because while in the natural [boundary] it could not bear it, they therefore demarcated; or it may be spoken in reference to [the time] after the allowance. The Commentary says: 'After the first allowance, whenever there is an act to be performed, without a boundary it cannot be accomplished; therefore, in order to institute and exalt harmony, the benefit lies in this'—meaning an allowance preceded the prohibition. Were it not so, what would be the use of allowing the six-mark natural boundary? Could one solely rely on individual mental orientation? Furthermore, in the Mahāsāṃghika[-vinaya] regarding the seven trees, different assemblies occupied the two ends—how could it be only a demarcated boundary!
Question: 'Why is it that nowadays some delimit an upoṣatha hall?'
Answer: This is a confusion regarding the teaching. The method of establishing an upoṣatha hall was because restrictive demarcation had not yet been allowed, and all was encompassed in a single natural [boundary]; since the assembly of the saṃgha was hard to determine, they were ordered to designate a place. As soon as restrictive demarcation arose, the upoṣatha hall was abolished. Furthermore, the method of the upoṣatha hall was merely designation; when it comes to the assembly of the saṃgha, it still depended on the natural [boundary]; it was completely not a demarcated boundary, so how could it be practiced arbitrarily? Moreover, there are those who mistakenly cite the karmavācanā for the initially instituted great boundary as being for an upoṣatha hall, which is an even greater error. However, in this final age, those who know the Dharma are rare. Hundreds or thousands live together, but fewer than several tens arrive [for assembly]. If one were to compel all to assemble, the transaction would certainly fail to be accomplished. If one definitely wishes to demarcate a separate place intended for performing the ritual acts, one may follow the precedent of the surrounding wheel and must add the great boundary karmavācanā. In terms of poṣadha and pravāraṇā, the original prohibition was for an all-inclusive assembly. Yet the Vinaya clarifies that if there are saṃgha members above the poṣatha arena, [those below] incur an offense while [the act] is accomplished; although this contravenes the intent of the prohibition, it is temporarily to achieve the validity of the rite. Moreover, when foolish followers do not assemble, the circumstances are equivalent to difficult conditions; judging the offense and assessing the circumstances, in principle it is not a fault.