四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 2.96

2.96

若比丘夏三月竟後迦提一月滿在阿蘭若有疑恐懼處比丘在如是處住三衣中欲留一一衣置村舍內諸比丘有因緣離衣宿乃至六夜若過者尼薩耆波逸提　此滿足戒本文有五句。一者犯人。二明非時分甄去時分不犯。三在阿蘭若已下有極怖處。四在如是處下開置舍內六夜一會。五若過下結罪。廣釋中初句。言若比丘者。義如上辯。第二言夏三月竟後迦提一月滿者。明非時分。故律云。為八月半後也。第三言若阿蘭若有疑恐懼怖處者。是極畏處也。故律云。有疑者疑賊盜。恐怖處者中有恐怖賊盜也。第四言比丘在如是處住三衣中欲留一一衣置村舍內至六夜已來。是明開離衣限。故律云。若有因緣離衣宿齊六夜得至第七夜。明相未出前。應會衣。又多論云。有病得僧羯磨亦無過。問。外難何故定開六夜內因緣。直作羯磨不局日限者何　答。外難進否不可得知。故須定六內病差否。義在易知。故以病差為期。不須定限　若爾七日藥亦應差否。易知面定言七　答。藥之功能七日內來有療患之功。依藥勢力故定七日。如祇律說。又云。寄著可疑。俗人家五分上二衣中隨所重者。聽寄一衣不得寄不衣。以隨身故。禮拜入寺乞食不得單著。但得寄一衣。善見若防堅蜜不須寄衣。無者得寄。六夜一看見衣已還蘭若所。第五言若過者尼薩耆波逸提。是過限結罪文。開通如前離衣戒說。不犯中。律云。已寄六夜至第七夜。明相未出前。若到衣所。若捨衣若奪等四想。若道路險難不通。不捨不至衣所。一切不犯。

"If, when the three months of the summer are completed, the following month of Kārttika is full, a bhikṣu stays in an araṇya where there are doubts and perils; the bhikṣu staying in such a place desires, among the three robes, to leave one or another robe placed inside a village house; if the bhikṣu has cause to spend the night apart from the robe, up to six nights [is permissible]; if he exceeds this, it is a niḥsargika-prāyaścittika." / In this full text of the precept there are five phrases. First is the offender. Second clarifies the non-proper time season, distinguishing it from the proper time season where there is no offense. Third, from "stays in an araṇya" onward, is having an extremely fearful place. Fourth, from "in such a place" onward, permits placing [the robe] inside a house, gathering with it once every six nights. Fifth, from "if he exceeds" onward, concludes the offense. / In the detailed explanation, the first phrase, stating "if a bhikṣu," its meaning is as explained above. The second, stating "when the three months of the summer are completed, the following month of Kārttika is full," clarifies the non-proper time season; thus the Vinaya states: it is after the middle of the eighth month. The third, stating "if in an araṇya where there are doubts and perils," is an extremely fearful place; thus the Vinaya states: "doubts" means suspecting robbers and thieves; "perilous place" means there are terrifying robbers and thieves within it. The fourth, stating "the bhikṣu staying in such a place desires, among the three robes, to leave one or another robe placed inside a village house; up to six nights," clarifies the allowance for the limit of being separated from the robe; thus the Vinaya states: if there is cause to spend the night apart from the robe, it is permissible up to six nights; when reaching the seventh night, before the break of dawn, he should gather with the robe. Furthermore, the *Vibhāṣā* states: if one is ill and obtains the saṃgha's karmavācanā, there is also no fault. / Question: Why are external perils strictly granted six nights, whereas for internal causes, simply performing a karmavācanā is not restricted by a day limit? / Answer: Whether external perils advance or not cannot be known beforehand; hence one must strictly set [a limit of] six [nights]. As to whether an internal illness resolves or not, the principle is easily known; hence recovery from the illness is made the term, and there is no need to fix a limit. / If so, with the seven-day medicine, recovery or non-recovery should also be easily known; why is seven strictly stated? / Answer: The efficacy of the medicine has curative efficacy within seven days; relying on the potency of the medicine, seven days are strictly set, as spoken in the *Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya*. / It also says: depositing [the robe] in a suspicious layperson's house. The *Mahīśāsaka Vinaya* states: of the upper two robes, whichever is heavier, one is permitted to deposit one robe; one may not deposit the lower robe. Because it accompanies the body, when paying homage, entering a monastery, or begging for food, one must not wear only a single [robe]; one is only permitted to deposit one robe. The *Samantapāsādikā* states: if the defenses are secure and dense, there is no need to deposit the robe; if not, one is permitted to deposit it. Every six nights one visits and inspects the robe, and having seen it, returns to the araṇya location. / The fifth, stating "if he exceeds this, it is a niḥsargika-prāyaścittika," is the text concluding the offense for exceeding the limit. The permissions are as explained earlier in the precept on being separated from the robe. / Regarding non-offenses, the Vinaya states: having deposited it for six nights, when reaching the seventh night before the break of dawn, if he arrives at the location of the robe, or if he relinquishes the robe, or if [there arise] the four notions such as being seized, or if the road is perilous and impassable, so that he does not relinquish it and does not reach the location of the robe—in all such cases there is no offense.