四分律行事鈔資持記 1.512

1.512

第六問。律無明斷，世有濫行，故此釋之。答中，初以義決。文出說戒，既制相接，驗不開重。彼云時諸比丘二界相接，佛言不應爾，當作標式；彼二界共相錯涉，佛言不應爾，應留中間。今鈔合之耳。若下，引例決。即〈藥法〉中開淨地文。彼云：諸比丘不知何處是淨地，白佛，佛言若疑先有淨地，解已然後結，如篇末備引。故下，通結二文。昔人有作《行事策》者，云凡欲結界，恐往世曾結，必須先解；後世相承，名解妨疑；不問空有水陸曾結不結，例皆先解；弊風罔世，三百餘年；雖英敏間生，曾無一悟，況執迷鼓論于今尚然；有據此文，故須略釋；直引明據，餘廣如別。今言疑者，略有二種：一疑先結如非，二疑標相分齊。初中，如〈受戒篇〉云：羯磨所託，必依法界；若作不成，後法不就；故須深明界相，善達是非；訪問元結是誰，審知無濫，方可依準；不然，解已更結，《戒壇經》云：至於結界，持護要須，是非相顯；若疑若誤，捨已重加，豈非敬慎之至也。又下云：先結大界，後結戒場，不成後法，故須解之。又《五百問》：云：於中受戒，恐無所獲。又〈受戒〉中，引僧伽跋摩恐界不如法，駕船江中等。二疑標相者，下云結已即須牓示，令後主客俱委，無有濫疑；又云：作羯磨比丘死，餘人不知界處，佛令捨已更結；又下引治故伽藍，不失淨地，若疑應捨已更結，故知界在等。請考諸文，足為明據；豈是先不結處，強自生疑！且羯磨所加，緣如則法就；事須考實，豈得妄施；過濫實多，未可卒敘；必遵聖教，何用浪爭。

The sixth question: The Vinaya has no explicit ruling, and there are lax practices in the world, so this is explained here. In the answer, it first determines this by principle. The text comes from the [chapter on] poṣadha: since it prohibits their being contiguous, it proves that overlapping is not permitted. It says there that at that time, the monks had two boundaries contiguous to each other, and the Buddha said, "It should not be so; you should make markers." Those two boundaries were mutually confused and entangled with each other, and the Buddha said, "It should not be so; you should leave an intermediate space." The present Manual merely combines them. From "If…" downward, it resolves it by citing a precedent. This is the text on allowing pure ground in the "Medicines Chapter." It says there: "The monks did not know where the pure ground was, and addressed the Buddha. The Buddha said: 'If you suspect that there was previously pure ground, revoke it, and then afterwards establish it,'" as fully cited at the end of the chapter. From "Therefore…" downward, it concludes both texts. In the past, someone composed the Manual Tactics, stating that whenever one wishes to establish a boundary, fearing that it might have been established in a past life, one must first revoke it; later generations handed this down, calling it "revoking to prevent doubt." Regardless of whether it is uninhabited or inhabited, water or land, previously established or not, all were routinely revoked first. This corrupt custom deceived the world for over three hundred years. Although brilliant and keen individuals arose occasionally, not one ever realized this, not to mention that those who cling to confusion and stir up debates are still doing so today. Because some rely on this text, a brief explanation is necessary, directly citing clear evidence, while the rest is extensive as elsewhere. When we speak of "doubt" now, there are briefly two kinds: first, doubting whether a previous establishment was valid or not; second, doubting the demarcation of the markers and characteristics. Regarding the first, as the "Precept Reception Chapter" states: "That upon which a karmavācanā relies must be a boundary according to the Dharma; if its execution is not accomplished, subsequent procedures will not succeed. Therefore one must thoroughly understand the boundary characteristics and skillfully grasp right and wrong. One should inquire who originally established it and carefully ascertain that there was no laxity before one may follow it; otherwise, revoke it and establish it again." The Precept Platform Sūtra states: "As for establishing a boundary, it is essential to guard and protect it, making right and wrong apparent; if there is doubt or error, discard it and redo it—how could this not be the utmost in reverence and caution?" It also says below: "If one first establishes a great boundary and later establishes a precept platform, the subsequent procedure is not accomplished, so one must revoke it." Furthermore, the Five Hundred Questions states: "If one receives precepts within it, one fears that nothing will be obtained." Also, in "Precept Reception," it cites that Saṅghavarman, fearing the boundary was not according to the Dharma, boarded a boat on the river, and so on. Regarding the second, doubting the markers and characteristics: below it says that once established, one must post notices to make both hosts and guests in the future fully informed, leaving no laxity or doubt; it also says: "The monk who performed the karmavācanā having died, other people did not know where the boundary was, and the Buddha ordered them to discard it and establish it again"; it also cites below that in repairing an old saṅghārāma, one does not lose the pure ground, and if there is doubt, one should discard it and establish it again, from which we know the boundary remains, and so forth. Please examine these various texts: they are sufficient as clear proof. How could it be that in a place where none was previously established, one forcibly generates doubt oneself? Moreover, when a karmavācanā is applied, if the conditions conform, then the legal act succeeds; matters must be investigated for reality—how can it be falsely applied? Faults and abuses are indeed numerous and cannot be recounted in haste; if one must comply with the holy teachings, what need is there to dispute in vain?