四分律行事鈔資持記 2.535

2.535

指授中，《僧祇》有二法；初至亦得，引第一僧法。即比丘來三乞已，僧與處分法。必無能秉，方開三說。（上二皆是僧作。）若處下，引第二僧差使法。由前僧法，合眾往彼；今為病等七緣，不得同往，故開遣使。彼比丘亦於僧中三乞已，僧作羯磨差使觀察，至彼審無妨難者；一比丘云：僧已示作房處，三說。（今鈔不引。）不得羯磨四人者，謂白二差人，不得加四；彼云不得眾羯磨眾，故極至三人。往彼下，簡指授成不。四種人即能指授比丘也。第一彼云：先年預指授。（以乞造必在年內，不當先與指授故。）二中，彼云：他界不名指授。（以不知此處妨難故。）第三彼云：若僧中一人二三人不作房，不應指授。（不作者少，顯作者多，恐相覆隱故。）若不作房者多，聽作。第四彼云：若水中非砂地非碎石地非石上非火燒地。（反明非上水中，是下四地，方成指授；以非生地故。）據此約處，亦由不善知法，妄行指授，還屬簡人。即下轉證。律中：乞法比丘若不可信，眾僧往看；若僧不去，應遣僧中可信者看。

In pointing out and assigning: the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya has two procedures. From the beginning up to "is also permitted," it cites the first procedure by the Saṃgha: that is, after a bhikṣu has made three requests, the Saṃgha's procedure of granting authorization to him. Only if none are able to carry it out is the three-proclamation method permitted. (Both of the above are acts performed by the Saṃgha.) From "If the place…" downward, it cites the second procedure of the Saṃgha dispatching delegates. Because the previous procedure of the Saṃgha required the entire community to go there, but now due to the seven circumstances such as illness they cannot all go together, dispatching delegates is permitted. That bhikṣu likewise makes three requests in the Saṃgha, and the Saṃgha performs a karmavācanā to dispatch delegates to inspect; when they arrive there and examine that it is free of hindrance and danger, one bhikṣu says: "The Saṃgha has already indicated the site for building the hut," proclaimed three times. (Not cited in the present Transactions Manual.) "The karmavācanā must not consist of four persons" means that when using a jñaptidvitīyā karmavācanā to depute persons, they must not add up to four; that text says that a community may not perform karmavācanā for a community, hence at most up to three persons. From "Going there…" downward, it examines whether pointing out and assigning is valid. The "four kinds of persons" refers to the bhikṣus who can point out and assign. In the first, that text says: pointing out and assigning in advance in a previous year. (Because requesting and building must take place within the year, one should not assign it in advance.) In the second, that text says: [assigning in] another boundary is not called pointing out and assigning. (Because one does not know the hindrances and dangers of this place.) In the third, that text says: if among the Saṃgha one, two, or three persons do not build huts, it should not be assigned. (Few not building shows that many are building, for fear of mutual concealment.) If those not building huts are many, building is permitted. In the fourth, that text says: if in water, not on sand, not on gravel, not on stone, and not on fire-scorched ground. (This inversely clarifies that not being in the water above, but on the four grounds below, constitutes valid pointing out and assigning; because it is not living ground.) Based on this, regarding the place, it is also due to not understanding the Vinaya well and assigning recklessly; this still belongs to examining the persons. From "Namely…" downward, further proof is given. In the Vinaya: if the bhikṣu requesting authorization is untrustworthy, the community of monks goes to look; if the Saṃgha does not go, they should send trustworthy ones among the Saṃgha to look.