四分律行事鈔資持記 3.96

3.96

In the next subsection, the first sentence makes the concluding determination. First, the principle is universally applicable, as described above; second, there is documentary proof, as cited under the exclusion. Because the old interpretations are not retained, it is called the "definitive doctrine." From "Five-Part..." downward, it substantiates universal demarcation regardless of existence or non-existence. The Daśādhyāya-vinaya and the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya Vibhāṣā are both the same, hence it says "and so forth." The Mahīśāsaka-vinaya says: If originally there was no village, and after demarcating the boundary of not losing robes a village enters later, it is not necessary to demarcate again, because it was already demarcated previously. (Meaning that after the village departs, it still retains robes as before.) If originally there was a village, and after demarcating the robe-boundary the village moves outside the boundary, this empty place possesses the boundary of not losing robes. Right and wrong having been shown, yet fearing people may stubbornly cling to delusions, it says "assess and adopt according to inclination"; "assess" means to evaluate. From "Sarvāstivāda..." downward, it substantiates the obstruction of circumstances: first citing five meanings from the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya Vibhāṣā. The first says settlements are impermanent, meaning they migrate and disperse, not staying in one place; the robe-boundary is fixed, meaning that for formal acts and nature, the demarcations cannot be disrupted. The second meaning is like the origin story in the Dharmaguptaka-vinaya. The third, removing disputes: if one enters a settlement gathering robes, jealousy might easily arise. The fourth, guarding the brahma-practice; taking up to the fifth, removing suspicion; these two can be understood. Next, it cites the origin of the original prohibition. In the Vinaya, because a monk placed robes in a village and his body was exposed when undressing and dressing, they reported the matter to the Buddha, who consequently prohibited [villages] and excluded villages.