四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 2.42

2.42

Question: The three robes and the six requisites are all equally [articles to] support the body; why is it that being separated from the three robes results in forfeiture and incurs a prāyaścittika, whereas being separated from the other robes and items is lighter? Answer: The three robes are positively instituted, and their reception extends through the three grades [of robes]; now if one is separated from them, it contravenes the institution, the offense is heavy, and one forfeits the method of reception. The other robes, articles, and the like are permitted exceptions; for those of middle and inferior [capacity], they are for [times when one's] support of the Path is insufficient. Now if one is separated from them, this is a contravention against a permitted exception; it incurs only a duṣkṛta, and they are not received. This defines the scope of forfeiting the robes. 3. There are two kinds of boundaries for protecting the robes: first, natural [boundaries]; second, karmically determined boundaries. The number of natural boundaries is variable; according to the general explanation of the various schools, there are fifteen in total. The first is the saṅghārāma boundary. The ārāma has four types. The second is the village boundary, which also has four types: namely, being enclosed all around by walls, fences, or hedges; having an incomplete fence or wall, but being surrounded on four sides by houses, and so forth. The third is the tree boundary: if the leaves of a tree are continuous, so that their shade covers a seated person's hands and feet sitting cross-legged; the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya takes the area covered by the shadow at the exact midpoint of the day, where water does not reach, to be the robe boundary. The fourth is the threshing-floor boundary: the Vinaya states that it is a place where the five grains are processed, meaning a vacant and quiet place outside a village. The fifth is the cart boundary. The sixth is the boat boundary. Both are on land; the Vinaya states that it is the place where a cart or boat turns around. This merely clarifies a stationary cart. In the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, for moving carts: the front cart facing the middle cart as far as a staff reaches; the middle cart facing the front and rear carts as far as a staff reaches; the rear cart facing the middle cart as far as a staff reaches. If it does not reach, it is called a different boundary. The seventh is the shed boundary, meaning outside a village; the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya states that outside a multi-storied pavilion, ladder, or stairs, twenty-five cubits is called the robe boundary. The eighth is the hall boundary: the Vinaya states that it is largely open and exposed. The ninth is the storehouse boundary, where various goods are accumulated and stored. The tenth is the granary boundary, a place where grain and rice are stockpiled. The eleventh is the araṇya boundary: the Vinaya states that an araṇya has no boundary, meaning it is set in an open wilderness without distinct boundaries; provisionally, one measures the size by trees: between eight trees, the space between one tree [and the next] is seven bows; a bow is four cubits long; the total calculation is fifty-eight paces, and including its margin of influence (势分, *prabhāva*), it is over seventy. The twelfth is the travel boundary: in the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, when a bhikṣu carries the robes for his master, walking through the middle, within forty-nine fathoms forward and backward [the robe] is not forfeited; the commentary states that in breadth it is also suspected to be forty-nine fathoms as the boundary for protecting the robe. The thirteenth is the island boundary: the Samantapāsādikā states that within fourteen cubits, one does not forfeit the robe. The fourteenth is the water boundary: the Samantapāsādikā states that when meditating in an araṇya, when dawn is about to break, troubled by drowsiness, one takes off one's robe, places it on the bank, and enters a water pool to bathe; if the dawn breaks, one commits forfeiture; the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya states that in the water, the travel boundary is twenty cubits, but if it is a boat boundary, entering the water makes it different; the Vinayamātṛkā states that if one is wearing the robe on the bank with one foot in the water and one foot on the bank, it is not called a different boundary. The fifteenth is the well boundary: the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya states that when traveling and sleeping in the open beside a well enclosure, placing the robe within twenty-five cubits is called the boundary for protecting the robe. What is called a karmically determined boundary is determined according to the saṃgha's boundary. The Vinaya states: regarding not forfeiting the robe, the ārāma has one boundary; regarding forfeiting the robe, the ārāma has several boundaries. Based on the Dharmaguptaka and other schools mutually supporting each other, there are four kinds: namely, the obstructions of attachment, separation, emotion, and boundary. The upper three obstructions are present across boundaries; if one discusses the obstruction of boundary, they do not communicate with each other. Therefore the text states: regarding forfeiting the robe, within the saṅghārāma there are several boundaries, meaning the above three obstructions are inside the compound of the saṅghārāma, so there are multiple boundaries for the robe. Regarding not forfeiting the robe, within the saṅghārāma there is one boundary, meaning there are none of the above three obstructions. As for the obstruction of attachment, the Vinaya states: if there is a woman inside the ārāma, when coming and going the robe must accompany the body; if a woman is in the middle, and the person and robe are on opposite sides, it is called a different boundary. As for what is called the obstruction of separation, the Vinaya states: it is when water or land routes are severed and one cannot meet with the robe; the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya states that if the robe is inside a room while the person is outside, and one cannot open it with a key, nor are there ladders or steps, it is called an obstruction. As for the obstruction of emotion, the Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā states: where a king comes inside the boundary to defecate or urinate, approaching the king's vicinity is not a robe boundary; and persons performing illusions or playing music are all called emotional obstructions; the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya states that places demarcated for brothers are also called emotional obstructions. As for what is called the obstruction of boundary, it is as explained above: if there are several boundaries, the person and the robe must be in the same place; if not, it is called forfeiting the robe; and down to the araṇya boundary, it is also like this. According to the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, a margin of influence is added, which is absent in the other schools. Regarding the margin of influence: the margin of an ārāma is the place outside the ārāma to which a stone thrown by a person reaches the robe; this is called the margin of the boundary; and down to the storehouse and granary boundaries, it is also like this. The Samantapāsādikā states: an average person throwing a stone—neither strong nor weak—throwing a stone with all his might to where it lands; measuring this, it is fifteen paces. This only refers to natural [boundaries] not communicating; for a karmically determined [boundary], one must enter the boundary before meeting with the robe. The fifth phrase is the scope of permitted separation. As for 'except by a karmavācanā of the saṃgha', the Vinaya states: at that time, a bhikṣu had an illness, and the three robes were extremely heavy; wishing to travel, the Buddha permitted an exception, allowing him to request a karmavācanā to be separated from his robes for nine months. The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā gives four reasons for permitting separation from the robes: first, because sentient beings with whom one has affinities ought to receive one's actions; second, because it is appropriate to travel to reduce illness; third, to seek what is suitable for practicing the Path; fourth, to subdue those not yet subdued, and to cause those already subdued to rejoice. Within the exception, there is validity and invalidity: first, it is valid only if the robe is heavy and the person is sick; the other three alternatives—mutually present or mutually absent—render the rite invalid. The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā states: suppose the robe and the person are mutually non-consonant with the Dharma; the former person commits an offense of false speech, but the rite is successfully established, because the karmavācanā protects against staying separated from the robe, not against illness and the like. The Mahīśāsaka Vinaya states: for those who enter the earlier rains-retreat, nine months; for those who enter the later rains-retreat, eight months. The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya states: leaving the saṃghāṭī behind. The Mahāsāṃghika and Mahīśāsaka Vinayas only allow leaving behind the uttarāsaṅga, not the other two. In the texts of the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya and the Vibhāṣā, all among the three robes have the meaning of being permitted to be left; but one may only be separated from one robe, not two. The sixth phrase, 'niḥsargika-prāyaścittika', clarifies the scope of establishing the offense. Herein there are four [steps]: first, forfeiting the offending robe; second, repenting the offense committed; third, returning the original robe; fourth, establishing the offense for not returning it. The meaning is as explained extensively in the Vinaya. As for non-offenses, herein there are five: first, when a karmavācanā has been performed, one duly receives it without forfeiting, hence no offense; second, because one meets [with the robe], no offense; third, because one does not relinquish [it], no offense; fourth, because perception of the four thoughts and the like results in losing the reception, no offense; fifth, because of perils by water or land, one does not forfeit it, hence no offense. All these four must occur before dawn breaks; only then may it be a non-offense. For perils by water or land not resulting in the loss of reception: when one knows in one's mind that the robe exists and constantly maintains the intent of reciting and receiving it, therefore it is not lost. Thus the Vinaya states: as for non-offense, the saṃgha has performed a karmavācanā; dawn has not yet broken; if one meets with the robe; if one conceives the thought of loss; if water or land routes are severed—if there are these various perils, all are non-offenses.