四分律行事鈔資持記 1.531

1.531

不受欲中三義，初約結法。對餘羯磨明制緩急，有開不開；《業疏》續云：餘法是眾同之末，並依後起。二界弱者。欲法本開，為成同界羯磨眾法；地既不勝，欲將何用；此義唯除結界，就餘法明之。疏云：自然本弱，僧事不行（此明通制餘法，下釋唯開結界。）；不開一結，用通僧界，諸務不立；故此白二，乃是前開（上明結界未有欲法，以之不開，下明欲本應僧；須在法地，不通自然。）；欲是末緣，必憑僧起；界是作法，強故攝之。（舊記謬解不勝欲羯磨，故委示之。）三令知界。此義最優，文據復顯。餘人不知者，若約同法，理合皆知；或容後忘，或是後來比丘；未立牓示，致有斯緣。（結處起疑，此文更顯。）

In not accepting chanda, there are three principles: First, regarding the consecration act. Comparing it with other karmavācanās clarifies that the regulation has degrees of leniency and strictness, with exceptions and no exceptions; the Karma Commentary continues: "Other acts are secondary to the commonality of the assembly, and all arise dependent on subsequent [consecration]." Second, the boundary being weak. The rule of chanda was originally allowed in order to accomplish karmas of the assembly within the same boundary; since the ground does not sustain it, for what purpose would chanda be used? This principle applies solely to acts other than boundary consecration. The Commentary states: "The natural boundary is inherently weak, so monastic affairs cannot be conducted within it (this clarifies the general prohibition of other acts; below explains that boundary consecration alone is allowed); without allowing this one consecration to establish the monks' boundary, none of the duties could be performed; therefore this jñaptidvitīyā karmavācanā is an earlier exception (above clarifies that when consecrating a boundary, the chanda rule does not yet apply, and hence it is not allowed; below clarifies that chanda originally corresponds to the Saṃgha; it must be on consecrated ground and does not apply to a natural boundary); chanda is a secondary condition and must rely on the Saṃgha to arise; the boundary is an act of consecration, and being strong, encompasses it." (The old record mistakenly explained that it does not sustain the chanda karmavācanā, hence this detailed explanation.) Third, enabling them to know the boundary. This principle is the most superior, and its textual evidence is the most evident. As for "other people do not know," if one considers those of the same Dharma, in principle all should know; but perhaps they forget later, or are bhikṣus who arrive afterward; because no public notice has yet been erected, this condition arises. (When doubt arises at the place of consecration, this text becomes all the more evident.)