---
title: "律抄第三卷手決 · 2 離衣戒"
description: "律抄第三卷手決是佛教律宗重要典籍，相传为唐代高僧道宣律师所著。该书成书于中国佛教律学鼎盛时期，系统总结了佛教戒律的精要，尤其侧重比丘、比丘尼的日常行为规范与戒律实践。内容涵盖衣、食、住、行等僧团生活细节，并阐释持戒与修行的内在关联。作为南山律宗的核心文献之一，该手決不仅为唐宋时期僧团提供了权威戒律指南，更对汉传佛教律学体系的形成产生深远影响，至今仍被视为了解佛教戒律思想的重要参考。"
url: "https://rushiwowen.co/en/r/cmcwplq4a2773js04iey8ul9h"
---

### 離衣戒第二

> Second Precept: Not Keeping Extra Robes

不同昔解者。古人云。離長衣宿吉也。解如戒本疏者。彼云。自有比丘持一衣。生出自有此衣。隨身長故如佛藏經說之二唯持三衣不畜長。三中人畜百一物。四下品畜諸長物。五畜七寶重物等。四分他部村相成者。此律不了。多論村有五義。今除村。村外謂男女住處也。有雜染也。抄家此四礙非但列當宗亦列諸部共成也。上之三礙通界並有者。如自結作法界為不相通抄然處無作法等上之三礙各通兩界有也。兩界自不相通耳。並有若干界者。疏云。若衣身同在一藍。是名一界。身衣別藍故名若干界也。若有男女來入藍住。即村界起身衣互互經宿。失衣便成若干界。村有五義者。一聚落界散不定衣界是定。二為除誹謗故。三為除鬪諍。四為護梵行故。五為除機嫌故。兩無任得者祇取二十五肘勢分而稍似竟。四分據明內為言。後似其窄挾寬容互通故言任得。性相乖忤者。逆不相過。十二桄梯者。若無此梯上下不得。即有離衣也。律云。奪相失相者。比丘出界外比。迴來間在路聞道。三衣被賊捋去。失相等決心失了。無離衣罪失受法。後對衣所其衣先在不失。但如法受持之。幻人樂人者。幻或人心輕算比丘情性有隔也。自然十五種界。頌曰。藍樹場車船。村舍堂庫倉。蘭洲井水道。十一自四作。又兩無任得者。祇有樓閣界無倉庫界。四分有食厨無樓閣。互取皆通故云任得。祇律樓閣外有二十五時為界體。勢分分外更無十三步。勢分是一無。四分庫倉明內為言者。內為界體。體外別有十三步。勢分自然衣界。而無僧祇二十五時抄分後是一無也。名兩無任得也。文雖互舉護衣寬挾一種取捨。情故曰任得也。舍界者。律中不釋其相。應是村外舍也。若在村內者即村界所攝也。計其舍界與村界應別。故言村外舍也。村相後說者。下釋云。無市為村。有市為聚落等文是也。聚非家界者。聚落有垣牆等。相周為聚落界。而內唯有一家者。隨垣院護衣。是名非家界也。家界非聚者。謂垣牆聚落內有多家。家別相形對故不得依聚落。垣牆護衣也。即名家界非聚也。十誦論多論人人共住名聚落界。言別界者。鷄飛不及棄糞掃至射外是別界者。此聚落有一界異界。聚落者。院牆中有一家。縱有三四家。院牆並名聚界。就中有一別界。若各垣牆外鷄飛所及處是別界。四聚落不失衣者。為四聚落相接。中有梯通往反自在。即依聚落護衣。是名一界。以聚中唯有一家無別家相形。依聚落護衣。既得往反。是名一界也。隨在一聚中身在車梯下皆得也。挨有一界異界者。隨無第房得護衣。無有乖之義名一界。若望取水處作食處便利處。是別界也。挨者挨類不同名挨也。兄弟隨房內所作事業。事別各各不同名挨界。謂挨類不同也。蔽露者。前蔽而無壁。是堂界也。兼勢分計七十一步四尺八寸也。十二祇水中道行界者。據淺水可得行者說。聽上界者。據大水說也。失不失者。律中謂言失却衣體。此中謂言衣在界外。謂言失受也。師雖疑衣謂言界外。其沙彌持衣已前入界。衣既同在界內。無離過亦不失受也。小便所逼加行難等所作憐愍者。了論中有六憐愍外。更有二種不失。一小便所逼不失。二他加行故為被水逼。以此難為加行得免比丘離衣也。此義轉車戒中廣說者。謂指護衣戒。了論疏云。如比丘出界外。歸來未到住處。明相出即聽在處。所取一車安著大界牆壍等。還更取一竹竿。量牆高下。如無牆有壍亦須量高下。取竿縛著車。軛頭量之撥著。比丘記別在處。不失衣。若不不著失衣。諸部並無勢分者。前引十誦多論云。鷄飛不及棄糞掃外。箭射及外名為異界意。此是四分家勢分也。僧祇云。比丘有緣至他處留宿者。祇第八文云。後有失衣之相。彼云比丘著上下二衣入聚落。有女人語比丘言。我今夜欲供養形像。當助料理。便住即相助。日沒欲還寺。後慇懃留宿。應借僧尼俗人衣等受持。無衣時城門開後夜當還寺。至門屋下立應內。手著孔中或門孔或水瀆中。水瀆中展手與衣合。若無孔者應喻牆入。若不得入者當疾捨衣。容無衣犯越毘尼。以輕易重故。彼律無勢分者。祇律中無十三步勢分也。若互錯陟各有別界者。戒疏云。藍村是強。八樹等界弱。八自相望不說強弱。蘭若空界衣守自性全是其弱　僧村二界互兩相形引俗強僧弱。何以知之。俗人入寺村界別生。比丘入持藍界不起故。三十已去者。多論文應望三十夏說也。法如疏說者。用白二法。一乞一月。並如戒疏說。二共作迦那衣者。十五日夏滿十六日已去。是迦提月眾共作迦絺那衣成。便受功德衣。自合五月離衣。及他要事者。急要請喚事。或命梵等難事。急聽六夜離。三者對處作法離者。處即藍界也。作法者即藍上有攝衣界也。出界離衣。五中隔塞或忘斷等離者。比丘元在外忽難事卒起。中路隔塞未得會衣。不作離心不失受。忽然作念彼衣。或應失奪賊捋去。決心為失忘斷便失受法。不失如後者。即次下開通釋也。有緣時在不失者。衣重身老。有緣時在不失者。謂迦提五月時。限滿便失者。迦提一月五月滿即失也　餘一一唯思知而會通者。如初緣前云。以輕易重。有須對首捨也。四蘭苦恐怖得離。五王難賊路隔塞離。六迦提賞勞離。七為僧事塔事及要急緣開六夜離。已上並約緣難限開離衣無罪。失不失如後者。五中隔塞。忘斷失不失者。當出界之時不知。後有難起身在外。未迴忽難卒起。水陸道斷惡人惡獸等。不獲得過心。心專望祠候。難止即歸。縱經多日不離衣無過。若起心此難事卒應未止。經宿意決不擬會。衣便即失受法也。五根等不失者。謂賊捋去。謂失體故失法根。實無情過去不犯捨也。若女人來往染礙者。上明情隔。二礙者水陸道斷隔礙也。惡賊獸等是情礙也。此二礙忽生失受無罪。若無攝護而為二礙者。即捨苦難忽生。而欲會不得情憶却受之。心必不失法。上二礙既如此。女人比之亦然。苦元無攝護。而為染礙者犯捨也。而常護持忽染礙不覺生者。失法無罪。此即不得。言不失此不通諸部者。此即四律望諸部不同也。祇律第八云。兄弟住處分齊等。挨界家界與此四律脫衣形露等緣不同也。

> The understanding differs from the past. The ancients said: "Leaving a long robe overnight is permissible." The explanation follows the \*Vinaya Commentary\*: It states: "There are monks who possess only one robe, and this robe naturally becomes long from being worn." <note>As described in the \*Buddha Treasury Sutra\*.</note> Second, there are those who possess only the three robes and do not keep extra long ones. Third, the average person keeps the one hundred and one permissible items. Fourth, those of lower capacity keep various long items. Fifth, those who keep the seven treasures and heavy items, etc. Regarding the establishment of village boundaries in the \*Four-Part Vinaya\* and other schools, this Vinaya is not explicit. The \*Mahāvibhāṣā\* states a village has five meanings. Here, we exclude the village itself, referring to the dwelling places of men and women outside the village. There is also the issue of impurity. This section notes four hindrances, listing not only those of our own school but also those commonly established by various schools. The first three hindrances are present in both types of boundaries. For example, a self-established boundary (\*karma-boundary\*) does not interconnect. <note>Commentary.</note> However, in places without such established boundaries, etc., these first three hindrances each exist in both types of boundaries, but the two boundaries themselves do not interconnect. "Both have several boundaries": The commentary says: "If the robe and the body are in the same monastery (\*vihāra\*), this is called one boundary. If the body and robe are in separate monasteries, it is called several boundaries." If men or women enter and stay in the monastery, the village boundary arises, and if the body and robe are separated overnight across these boundaries, the robe is lost, thus forming several boundaries. "The village has five meanings": 1) The boundary of a settlement is scattered and indefinite, while the robe boundary is fixed. 2) To remove slander. 3) To remove disputes. 4) To protect the holy life. 5) To remove grounds for suspicion. "Both without restriction, either is acceptable": The \*Dharmaguptaka Vinaya\* simply takes a twenty-five-cubit effective area, which seems to be the limit. The \*Four-Part Vinaya\*, speaking clearly about the interior, later seems narrow, but as width and capacity are mutually interchangeable, it says "either is acceptable." "Contradictory in nature and characteristic": They are opposed and do not overlap. "Twelve-rung ladder": If there is no such ladder, one cannot go up or down, thus there is separation from the robe. The Vinaya says: "Loss by seizure, loss by disappearance": A monk goes outside the boundary. On his way back, he hears on the road that his three robes have been stolen by thieves. Loss by disappearance, etc., means he decisively considers them lost. There is no offense of leaving the robe, but the act of receiving is lost. Later, if he finds the robe where it originally was and it is not lost, he must properly receive and maintain it again. "Magician, entertainer": A magician or an entertainer's mind is frivolous, calculating; a monk's disposition is separate. "Fifteen kinds of natural boundaries": A verse says: Monastery, tree, field, cart, boat, village, house, hall, storehouse, granary, garden, island, well, watercourse. Eleven are natural, four are established. Also, "both without restriction, either is acceptable": The \*Sarvāstivāda Vinaya\* has a multi-story building boundary but no storehouse/granary boundary. The \*Four-Part Vinaya\* has a kitchen boundary but no multi-story building boundary. Taking from each other, both are acceptable, hence "either is acceptable." The \*Sarvāstivāda Vinaya\* states the boundary of a multi-story building extends twenty-five cubits as the boundary body. Beyond the effective area, there are no thirteen steps. The effective area is one unit. The \*Four-Part Vinaya\*, speaking clearly about the interior of storehouses/granaries, takes the interior as the boundary body. Outside the body, there are separately thirteen steps as the effective area of the natural robe boundary. It does not have the \*Sarvāstivāda\*'s twenty-five cubits. <note>Commentary.</note> The latter is one unit. This is called "both without restriction, either is acceptable." Although the text mentions both for protecting the robe, whether taking a broad or narrow interpretation is based on circumstance, hence "either is acceptable." "House boundary": The Vinaya does not explain its characteristic. It should be a house outside a village. If it is inside a village, it is subsumed under the village boundary. Considering the house boundary and village boundary should be separate, hence "house outside a village." "Village characteristic explained later": The explanation below states: "A place without a market is a village; a place with a market is a town, etc." This is the text. "Town boundary, not household boundary": A town has walls, etc., enclosing it as the town boundary. If inside there is only one household, then the robe is protected according to the walled courtyard. This is called "not a household boundary." "Household boundary, not town boundary": This means within the walled town there are many households. Because households are distinct and opposed to each other, one cannot rely on the town walls to protect the robe. This is called "household boundary, not town boundary." The \*Sarvāstivāda Vibhāṣā\* and \*Mahāvibhāṣā\* state: A place where many people live together is a town boundary. "Separate boundary": Where a chicken cannot fly to, where rubbish is discarded beyond, where an arrow shot falls beyond—this is a separate boundary. This means within one town there can be one boundary or different boundaries. "Town": Within a walled courtyard, even if there are three or four households, the walled courtyard is collectively called the town boundary. Within it, there can be a separate boundary. If each has its own walled courtyard, the area a chicken can fly to is a separate boundary. "Four towns not losing the robe": This is when four towns are connected, with ladders allowing free passage back and forth. One then relies on the town to protect the robe. This is called one boundary. Because within the town there is only one household without other households opposing it, relying on the town to protect the robe, since one can go back and forth, it is called one boundary. Whether one is in a cart or under a ladder within any of the towns, it is permissible. "Adjacent, having one boundary, different boundary": According to the absence of separate rooms, one can protect the robe. There being no contradictory principle is called one boundary. But considering the place for fetching water, the place for cooking, the place for relieving oneself—these are separate boundaries. "Adjacent" means adjacent but of different categories, hence "adjacent boundary." It refers to different categories of adjacent things. Brothers, within their rooms, the work they do, each task being different, is called an adjacent boundary, meaning categories are different. "Sheltered, unsheltered": The former is sheltered but without walls, which is a hall boundary. Including the effective area, it totals seventy-one steps, four feet, eight inches. "Twelve, watercourse boundary while traveling": This refers to shallow water where one can walk. "Listening to the upper boundary": This refers to large bodies of water. "Lost, not lost": In the Vinaya, "lost" means the robe object itself is lost. Here, "lost" means the robe is outside the boundary, meaning the act of receiving is lost. Although the teacher suspects the robe is outside the boundary, if the novice who was holding the robe had already entered the boundary beforehand, and the robe is thus also within the boundary, there is no offense of separation, nor is the act of receiving lost. "Pressed by need to urinate, difficulty of undertaking action, etc., done out of compassion": The \*Satyasiddhi Śāstra\* lists six compassionate allowances. Additionally, there are two more kinds where it is not lost: 1) Pressed by need to urinate, it is not lost. 2) Due to another's action, such as being forced by water, using this difficulty as the reason for action, the monk is exempt from the offense of leaving the robe. This principle is explained in detail in the turning-the-cart precept. It refers to the precept on protecting the robe. The \*Satyasiddhi Śāstra\* commentary says: For example, a monk goes outside the boundary. Returning, before reaching his dwelling, dawn breaks. He is then allowed to take a cart at that place, place it against the great boundary wall or moat, etc. Then take a bamboo pole, measure the height of the wall. If there is no wall but a moat, also measure its depth. Tie the pole to the cart yoke and measure, pushing it. The monk marks the spot. The robe is not lost. If not done, the robe is lost. "Various schools all lack an effective area": Previously cited, the \*Sarvāstivāda Vibhāṣā\* and \*Mahāvibhāṣā\* say: Beyond where a chicken cannot fly, beyond where rubbish is discarded, beyond where an arrow shot falls—this is called a different boundary. The idea is that this is the \*Four-Part Vinaya\* school's effective area. The \*Sarvāstivāda Vinaya\* says: If a monk has a reason to go to another place and stay overnight... The eighth section of the \*Sarvāstivāda Vinaya\* states: Later, there is a sign of losing the robe. It says: A monk wearing his upper and lower robes enters a town. A woman says to the monk: "I wish to make offerings to an image tonight. Please help prepare." He stays and helps. At sunset, he wishes to return to the monastery. She earnestly asks him to stay overnight. He should borrow a robe from a monk, nun, or layperson, etc., and receive and maintain it. If there is no robe, when the city gate opens late at night, he should return to the monastery. Standing under the gatehouse, he should put his hand into a hole—a gate hole or a water drain. In the water drain, extending his hand, he and the robe are joined. If there is no hole, he should throw the robe over the wall. If he cannot get it in, he should quickly discard the robe. Allowing no robe avoids a \*vinaya\* transgression, exchanging a minor for a major offense. That Vinaya lacks an effective area: The \*Sarvāstivāda Vinaya\* does not have the thirteen-step effective area. "If mutually overlapping, each has a separate boundary": The precept commentary says: Monastery and village are strong. The eight tree boundaries, etc., are weak. The eight among themselves are not said to be strong or weak relative to each other. The wilderness empty boundary, the robe guarding its own nature, is entirely weak. The monastic and village boundaries, mutually opposed, attract the secular as strong and the monastic as weak. How do we know? Laypeople entering the monastery give rise to a separate village boundary. A monk entering does not give rise to a monastery boundary, hence it is weak. "Thirty and beyond": The \*Mahāvibhāṣā\* text should refer to those with thirty rains-retreats or more. "The method as explained in the commentary": Using the \*jñapti-dvitīya\* (formal motion and one announcement) procedure. 1) Requesting for one month, all as explained in the precept commentary. 2) Collectively making the \*kaṭhina\* robe: On the fifteenth day after the summer retreat ends, from the sixteenth day onward, it is the \*kaṭhina\* month. If the assembly collectively completes the \*kaṭhina\* robe, one then receives the robe of merit. One naturally may be separated from the robe for five months. "And for urgent necessary matters": Urgent invitations or summons, or dangers to life or the holy life, etc. In such urgent cases, separation for six nights is allowed. 3) Separation by establishing a boundary through procedure: The place is the monastery boundary. The procedure is establishing a robe-encompassing boundary within the monastery. Leaving the boundary separates from the robe. "Fifth, separation due to obstruction, forgetting, cutting off, etc.": A monk originally outside suddenly encounters a difficulty arising. Blocked on the way, he cannot reunite with the robe. If he does not generate the thought of separation, the act of receiving is not lost. If he suddenly thinks, "That robe might be lost, seized by thieves, taken away," and decisively considers it lost, or forgets and cuts off the thought, then the act of receiving is lost. "Not lost as explained later": This refers to the following explanatory passage. "If there is a reason, it is present and not lost": The robe is heavy, the body is old. "If there is a reason, it is present and not lost": This refers to the \*kaṭhina\* five-month period. "When the limit is full, then it is lost": When the \*kaṭhina\* one month or five months is complete, it is lost. "For each of the others, one must only think, know, and comprehend": As with the first condition mentioned earlier: "Exchanging a minor for a major offense." There is a need to relinquish before the assembly. "Fourth, in the wilderness, due to hardship and fear, separation is allowed. Fifth, due to royal danger, bandits, road obstruction, separation is allowed. Sixth, due to the \*kaṭhina\* reward, separation is allowed. Seventh, for monastic affairs, stupa affairs, and urgent necessary reasons, separation for six nights is opened." All the above are allowances for separation from the robe without offense, based on conditions of difficulty and limits. "Lost or not lost as explained later": Regarding the fifth, obstruction, forgetting, cutting off—whether lost or not: When leaving the boundary, one does not know. Later, a difficulty arises while one is outside, not yet returned. Suddenly a difficulty abruptly occurs—water or land routes cut off, evil people, evil beasts, etc.—making it impossible to cross. The mind single-mindedly hopes and waits for the difficulty to cease so one can return. Even after many days, there is no offense of leaving the robe. If one gives rise to the thought, "This difficulty will probably not cease abruptly," and after a night decides one does not plan to reunite with the robe, then the act of receiving is immediately lost. "Five roots, etc., not lost": Refers to being stolen by thieves. This is considered loss of the object, hence loss of the act. The root is actually without intention; the past action is not an offense requiring relinquishment. "If women come and go, causing impurity hindrance": Above explains hindrance of sentiment. The two hindrances are: 1) Water or land routes cut off, physical hindrance. 2) Evil bandits, beasts, etc., are hindrances of sentiment. If these two hindrances arise suddenly, loss of the act of receiving occurs without offense. If there was no prior protection and these two hindrances arise, then relinquishment is required. Hardship and difficulty arise suddenly, and one wishes to reunite but cannot due to sentiment; if one recalls the act of receiving, one certainly does not lose the act. Since the above two hindrances are like this, women are similar. If originally there was no protection, and impurity hindrance arises, it is an offense requiring relinquishment. But if one always protects and suddenly, without awareness, impurity hindrance arises, loss of the act occurs without offense. This is not permissible. "Saying 'not lost' does not apply to other schools": This means the four Vinayas differ from other schools on this point. The eighth section of the \*Sarvāstivāda Vinaya\* says: Brothers, the demarcation of dwelling places, etc., adjacent boundaries, household boundaries—these differ from the four Vinayas regarding conditions for removing robes, bodily exposure, etc.