四分律行事鈔資持記 1.982

1.982

斥古中。彼據《善見》、《十誦》幾時住世之文，便云不增至三；以三半不說，法即滅故。初示律開限。諒無他意，但恐僧事停廢耳。亦下，遮濫述。律下，引文破，初本律二文。拘睒彌者，因比丘鬪諍故。言佛在者，顯法非滅也。何妨下，縱彼所計；一國可爾，而非都滅。高勝比丘為長者門師，長者臨終，將寶藏付之云：候我二子長大，與其好者；他日付弟，兄生怨心，來告阿難；阿難疑之，經六布薩不與同法；後阿難問：高勝具陳父意，阿難云：汝吉羅不犯。次引《僧祇》。即弗迦羅聚落比丘妬蘭若比丘有名利，彼十四來，語云十五說，待彼去後說；明日來，云昨日已說，汝叛布薩得罪，我不與汝共食，如是經二十年，故云相嫌等。然彼二文，非謂不說；用此質前，文似非類；一往且望不同法邊，得云不說耳。

In refuting past commentators, they relied on the passages in the Samantapāsādikā and the Daśādhyāya-vinaya regarding how long the Dharma would abide in the world, and asserted that it cannot be increased up to three [fortnights], because if it is not recited for three fortnights, the Dharma is destroyed. First, it shows the limits permitted by the Vinaya. There is surely no other meaning; it was merely feared that the saṃgha's transactions would be suspended and abandoned. From "Also..." onward, it prevents irresponsible statements. From "The Vinaya..." onward, it cites texts to refute them, beginning with two passages from this Vinaya. The case of Kauśāmbī was due to bhikṣus disputing. The statement that "the Buddha was in the world" demonstrates that the Dharma was not destroyed. From "What obstacle..." onward, it temporarily concedes their claim: this may be so in one country, but it is not a total destruction [of the Dharma]. The bhikṣu Gao Sheng was the household preceptor of an elder. When the elder was near death, he entrusted his treasury of jewels to him, saying: "Wait until my two sons grow up, and give it to the better one." Later, he gave it to the younger brother, and the elder brother gave rise to resentment and came to accuse him before Ānanda. Ānanda suspected him and did not participate in legal acts with him for six poṣadhas. Later Ānanda questioned him, and Gao Sheng explained his father's intentions in full; Ānanda said: "You committed no duṣkṛta offense." Next, the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya is cited. This concerns the bhikṣus of the village of Bhukara who were jealous of an araṇya bhikṣu's reputation and gain; when he came on the fourteenth, they told him it would be recited on the fifteenth, waiting until after he left to recite it. When he came the next day, they said: "It was already recited yesterday; by violating the poṣadha you have incurred an offense, and I will not eat with you." This went on for twenty years, which is why it says "they resented one another and so forth." However, those two texts do not mean that it was not recited; using this to question the former view seems of an inappropriate category. For the moment, looking from the perspective of not performing legal acts together, one may merely say that it was not recited.