[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) › 3.95 # 四分律行事鈔資持記 3.95 四分律行事鈔資持記 3.95 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.95](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.3.95) 立法中，初科，上二句標古法，上句通示諸家。比由羯磨文牒除村，故生異執。準疏凡有二解。初師云：有村須除，無村不須，何得雷同俱須除也。（此依《曇諦羯磨》，彼注云：有村除村，無村不須唱除村。）第二師云：有村結者，現除懸不結；後村移出，不合攝衣（由本有村牒除，則村處無法；故云不結，彼謂除村體故。）；無村結者，現結懸除；村來不攝，村去還會（本無村結，遍界有法，但村來為礙耳。）。下句別指初解。彼謂除體據現無村，則於羯磨詞中，除去除村等語，故云無村結法。（舊記妄出古解，全乖疏文。）今下，立今義分三，初通立，上二句明結法俱通。下一句明牒除所以。若下，二別顯。現謂即今，懸謂擬後。羯磨緣云結不失衣界，此即結也；除村村外，即是除也。有村即除，故云現除；然其村處雖不攝衣，不妨通結擬後村去，故云懸結（即異古師懸不結也）。無村即遍，故云現結；雖現無村，擬後村至，不得通攝，故云懸除。注釋可見。下注村有二字寫倒。以下，三雙釋，上句明結遍。以雖有村，不礙法故。直下，顯除通。以除緣難，不除體故。 > Under "Establishing the Method," in the first subsection, the first two lines designate the ancient method; the first line generally shows the various teachers. Because the karmavācanā text recites the exclusion of villages, differing attachments arose. According to the commentary, there are altogether two interpretations. The first master says: If there is a village it must be excluded; if there is no village it is not necessary—how can it be uniform that in all cases it must be excluded? (This relies on Dharmasatya's Karmavācanā, whose note says: "If there is a village, exclude the village; if there is no village, it is not necessary to proclaim the exclusion of the village.") The second master says: In demarcating when there is a village, it is presently excluded and suspendedly not demarcated; if the village later moves out, it does not retain robes. (Because originally there was a village and it was recited as excluded, there is no Dharma at the site of the village; hence it is said not to be demarcated, as they claim it excludes the essence of the village.) In demarcating when there is no village, it is presently demarcated and suspendedly excluded; when a village arrives it does not retain, and when the village departs it gathers again. (Originally demarcated with no village, the Dharma exists throughout the boundary, but only the arrival of a village serves as an obstruction.) The lower line specifically refers to the first interpretation. They claim that excluding the essence is based on there presently being no village, so in the words of the karmavācanā, words such as excluding the village are removed; hence it is called the method of demarcation without a village. (The old record falsely produced an ancient interpretation, entirely conflicting with the commentary text.) From "Now..." downward, establishing the present meaning divides into three. First, generally establishing: the upper two lines clarify that the demarcation methods are both applicable. The lower one line clarifies the reason for reciting the exclusion. From "If..." downward is the second, specifically revealing. "Present" means right now; "suspended" means intending the future. The karmavācanā context says "demarcating the boundary of not losing robes"—this is the demarcation; "excluding villages and outside villages"—this is the exclusion. When there is a village it is immediately excluded, hence called "presently excluded"; however, although that village site does not retain robes, it does not prevent universal demarcation in anticipation of the village departing later, hence called "suspendedly demarcated" (which differs from the ancient master's suspended non-demarcation). When there is no village it is universal, hence called "presently demarcated"; although at present there is no village, in anticipation of a village arriving later it cannot universally retain, hence called "suspendedly excluded." The annotations are evident. In the note below, the two characters for "village" and "have" were written in reverse. From "Because..." downward is the third, doubly explaining. The upper line clarifies that the demarcation is universal. Because although there is a village, it does not obstruct the Dharma. From "Directly..." downward, it reveals that exclusion is applicable. Because it excludes the difficulty of circumstances, not the essence. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.94](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.3.94) - [Next: 3.96](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.3.96) - [Up: 3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805~en-mt.3.95) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.3.95](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.3.95) · Pramāṇa