[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [四分律行事鈔資持記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805) › 2.1020 # 四分律行事鈔資持記 2.1020 四分律行事鈔資持記 2.1020 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.1020](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.2.1020) 緣中。第二《戒疏》無自作字，以但制看覆故。疏云：何故看覆，無自覆者？答：不看房成，有受用義；自覆招譏重，故不許。或可從緣起說，由使人作，因即制戒。第三緣，若去見聞互離吉羅；俱離不犯，得房受用。言三節者，若約緣起，則是三重；覆已更覆，故致摧倒；若據律文，即約苫草以分節段，從橫皆犯。《五分》草瓦板等皆可為覆，此多用瓦；應取縱橫三行，即為三節。如疏廣之。四中。問：《戒本》過三方犯，此言竟者？答：戒制指授；三節未竟，若去非過；看竟即過。此據看過，非三節過。不犯者。注戒云：如上指授，遠離見聞，即不犯。 > Under the conditions: in the second, the Commentary on the Precepts lacks the words "self-construction", because it only prohibits overseeing the roofing. The Commentary says: "Why is overseeing the roofing \[prohibited\], but not doing the roofing oneself? Answer: If one does not oversee the completion of the dwelling, there is still the purpose of using it; self-roofing invites heavy censure, hence it is not permitted. Alternatively, it can be explained based on the origin: because of making people do it, the precept was formulated on that occasion." For the third condition, if departing \[causes one to\] be mutually separated from seeing or hearing, it is a duṣkṛta; if separated from both, there is no offense, and one may enjoy the use of the dwelling. As for the words "three tiers": if in terms of the origin, they are three layers; having roofed it, roofing it further, thus causing it to collapse; but if according to the Vinaya text, it is divided into sections and segments based on thatch grass, both lengthwise and crosswise being an offense. In the Pañcavargika-vinaya, grass, tiles, boards, and the like may all serve as roofing; here tiles are mostly used; one should take three rows lengthwise and crosswise, which then constitute three tiers, as expanded in the Commentary. Under the fourth: Question: The Prātimokṣa Sūtra states that one only commits an offense when exceeding three \[tiers\]; why does this say "upon completion"? Answer: The precept prohibits directing and instructing; if the three tiers are not yet complete, departing is not a fault; once overseeing is completed, it is a fault. This is based on overseeing exceeding \[the limit\], not the three tiers exceeding \[it\]. As for non-offenses: the annotated precept says: "Directing as above, if one departs far from seeing and hearing, then there is no offense." > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.1019](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.2.1019) - [Next: 2.1021](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.2.1021) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805~en-mt.2.1020) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.2.1020](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.2.1020) · Pramāṇa