四分律行事鈔資持記 2.875

2.875

In refuting ancient views, it first shows the condition for an exception, which was cited in the previous commentary. The first is the original exception; not making a day-limit is the same as the various Vinayas above. 'Afterwards' downwards is the renewed exception; permitting up to six nights is the same as the various texts below. 'Settlement bhikṣus' refers to the group-of-six. Not manifesting the characteristics of the conditions means that although six nights are permitted, it does not state circumstances regarding the Saṃgha, stupa, and so on. Regarding the ancient masters' misguided clinging, the Commentary states: previous masters, not understanding upon investigating the texts, thought that six nights were permitted because of fear and dread; now, dividing according to the phrasing of the Prātimokṣa-sūtra, the former is the condition of peril (in the Prātimokṣa-sūtra, from the beginning up to 'placing them inside a village house' is the condition of fear and dread), and the latter is the condition of special affairs (and 'having an affair as condition' is the condition permitting six nights). Question: If there is now no day-limit for places of fear and dread, how does one reconcile this with the conditions listed above? Answer: Now it is explained that bandit fear in an araṇya is also limited to only six nights. If so, why does the Manual say that for robbery by bandits in an araṇya no day-limit is prescribed? Answer: This was the original exception; later, because offenses arose, both conditions were placed under the same restriction. If so, how does this differ from the ancient masters? Answer: The ancient masters did not understand the Prātimokṣa-sūtra and listed the two conditions together, hence they are refuted. (One should know by analogy that the Prātimokṣa-sūtra first takes up the two conditions; from 'even up to' downwards, it concludes the two offenses by analogy.)