English
Nor has any difference been added. If it becomes a distinction of that very thing, is it only that, or are there other definitions as well? According to the latter, it will not become a definition. Likewise, through many differences such as whether or not it is necessary to search, these two can also be represented. If it serves two purposes, namely a house, and if it serves three purposes, it belongs to a large house, because the share is large, hence it is a thorough distinction of definition. Then, do these possess definitions? Even if they do not, according to the first collection, it contradicts the commitment; according to the latter, it is too extreme to include a house in a large house. Furthermore, some say that what is built for the purpose of the two Jewels (དཀོན་མཆོག，ratna， रत्न, precious) is a large house, and what is built for the purpose of the Sangha (དགེ་འདུན，saṃgha， संघ, community) is a house, as can be seen from most requests, "Starting from the great monastery (གཙུག་ལག་ཁང་ཆེན་པོ，vihara， विहार, dwelling), others are built for the purpose of the Sangha and the Jewel," because what is built for the Sangha is not said to be a great monastery. Some say this, while others say that what is built for the sake of the Sangha is said to be greater because of the Dharma of giving, because it is said to be able to satisfy the Three Jewels (དཀོན་མཆོག་གསུམ，triratna， त्रिरत्न, three jewels). The reason is also that it is for the Sangha, but because the individual numbers of the Sangha are not specified, there may be hundreds, thousands, etc., so for the purpose of the Sangha, more than eighteen cubits (ཁྲུ་བཅོ་བརྒྱད) would not be allowed, and furthermore, there would also be a prohibition against excessive desire for the Sangha, because that is the prohibition of the house. So, what is it? What is built for the purpose of any of the Three Jewels is a large house, and what is built for a purpose other than that is a house. Then, if one entity of one place, one part is built for the purpose of the Jewel, and one part is built for another purpose, to which does it belong? If it belongs to both, it will be blamed, and it will not become the essence, because it is necessary to determine one purpose and the purpose of the collection, so the branches are contradictory. Saying this, it should be examined. Here, in the commentary (ཊཱི་ཀྐ，ṭīkā， टीका, commentary), it says, "Here, the branches of the house and the Sangha remaining of the great monastery are these," and ultimately what remains is one extreme that becomes thick earlier, and three extremes that become offenses (ཉེས་བྱས，āpatti， आपत्ति, transgression) earlier than thick, and two extremes that are offenses earlier than offenses, for a total of six. First
Chinese
哦，是这样的。土地和木材、砖瓦、泥土、工钱等等其他用途的根本，以及允许的，至少是无可争辩的。教法的四个分支，不实行和超过限度。这变成共同的方式是：在大房子里寻找，即使不是超限的分支，但这两者变化时，会有剩余。比如，不干净的和未指示的基础，超过限度和寻找。如果作为目的，就是大房子，如果作为单一目的，就是变成房子的剩余。那也是在未超过限度的情况下，未成立为处所的缘故。第二种是：寻找和存在超限，以及四个分支中的一些实行，一些不实行。那也是基础干净却没有请求允许，或者基础不干净的其中之一或两个不齐全等等。如果作为单一目的，就是房子的粗大，如果作为集合目的，就是大房子的粗大。如果像这样认为它像房子和大房子一样产生剩余，就不能说它不会变成一体。虽然这两者仅仅在未经指定上相似，但也有不同。这里是在自己拥有的基础上，未经他人指定，自己随意建造。下面的是自己也没有权力，在主人不允许的情况下，未经他人催促，自己为了主人的利益而建造。因此，那会变成下属，而这变成主要部分并不矛盾。那么，什么不是主要的呢？未经他人委托，自己随意做不是分支，因为产生了指定。他人委托不是分支，因为也产生了自己随意做。名为“未经他人委托，自己随意做不是分支，因为产生了指定。他人委托不是分支，因为也产生了自己随意做”的意义，其断除疑惑的主要在于前者。那么，指定者的堕落完全清净也由这显示，因此下面的经文会变得无意义吗？不是的。这显示了随意建造会变成堕落，而不是自己不建造，指定后让别人建造，那么和自己建造的堕落相同。因为没有显示。在“未经指定”的注释中也说：“因为那个基础是属于谁的，因此为了建造寺庙。”这样说，也不能仅仅将它应用于房子。以前的藏地持律者们认为，这里变成主要部分的未经指定，以及……
English
Oh, it is like this. The root of land and wood, bricks, mud, wages, and other uses, and what is permissible, at least what is indisputable. The four branches of the Dharma, not practicing and exceeding the limit. The way this becomes common is: searching in a large house, even if it is not an excessive branch, but when these two change, there will be a remainder. For example, an impure and uninstructed foundation, exceeding the limit and searching. If it is taken as the purpose, it is a large house, if it is taken as a single purpose, it becomes the remainder of the house. That is also because it has not been established as a place without exceeding the limit. The second is: searching and the existence of exceeding the limit, and some of the four branches are practiced, some are not. That is also like a clean foundation but without requesting permission, or one or two of an unclean foundation being incomplete, etc. If it is taken as a single purpose, it is the thickness of the house, if it is taken as a collective purpose, it is the thickness of the large house. If it is considered that it produces a remainder like a house and a large house, it cannot be said that it will not become one. Although these two are similar only in being undesignated, they are also different. Here, on the basis of one's own ownership, one builds freely without being designated by others. The following is that even oneself has no power, and without the owner's permission, without being urged by others, one builds for the benefit of the owner. Therefore, that will become subordinate, and it is not contradictory for this to become the main part. So, what is not the main thing? Doing what one pleases without being entrusted by others is not a branch, because designation arises. Entrustment by others is not a branch, because doing what one pleases also arises. The meaning of "Doing what one pleases without being entrusted by others is not a branch, because designation arises. Entrustment by others is not a branch, because doing what one pleases also arises," the main point of resolving doubts lies in the former. So, the complete purification of the downfall of the designator is also shown by this, so will the following sutra become meaningless? No, it won't. This shows that building at will will become a downfall, but not that one does not build oneself, and after designating, one has others build, then it is the same as the downfall of building oneself. Because it is not shown. In the commentary on "undesignated" it is also said: "Because that foundation belongs to whoever it belongs to, therefore for building a temple." Saying this, it is also not appropriate to apply it only to a house. The former Tibetan Vinaya holders considered the undesignated that becomes the main part here, and...
Chinese
如果因为所做的不是如语而未指定，二者不会变成一个。因此，下面的不是如语，而是与未测量的基础结合。而且，也不仅仅是与房屋结合。 我还要继续讲解。所谓“如是教诫”，是指不按照作为教法和清净之基础的如是教诫去做，而是与此相反。例如，身体供养砖块等，清净者说“好”，指定者就与自己相似。如果不做，就会仅仅堕落于建造者，所以与自己不相似。所做的是，仅仅由一个人来安置，对于做长远的地方，会堕落于多种堕落吗？断除了这样的疑惑。如果舍弃第七个而做，那就是不同的。所谓“支分等”，就像对七个争论之词，每一个都会变成堕落一样，消除了对于各个支分会是不同的堕落吗的疑惑。以前和现在的情况下，注释中说：因为没有能力而完全舍弃中间，后来又对其他想法的著作，那是不同的堕落。对于未抓住而随顺自性去成办，那是恶作。因为这样说的缘故。虽然随顺成办仅仅是一个，例如，就像争论之时和争论之后进行调解等词语，已经做了不同的堕落一样。难道在这里，对于不合适等支分，也要做不同的堕落吗？为了消除这样的疑惑。所说的以前是指，如果完成未完成的部分，似乎是指粗略地说结合。在后面，对于没有做多种争论之词，而做了一个随顺书信之后，虽然显现出显示了不同的堕落，但是，所谓“之时”和“之后进行调解”，调解是作为结尾的显现，随顺成办的一个，是作为仅仅是使者的书信来把握的。什么会变成房屋的僧残呢？从“寻找”到“阻碍”之间。谁寻找呢？是驱逐堕落者。寻找什么呢？是土地。在何处寻找呢？注释中说：即使从那个基础是此法出家者那里寻找也可以。这样说。以前的那些，用五个名称，用五个语特征，通过提问的方式寻找是需要的，这样说。
English
If what is done is not as spoken and not specified, the two will not become one. Therefore, the following is not as spoken, but is combined with the unmeasured basis. Moreover, it is not just combined with the house alone. I will continue to explain. The so-called "as instructed" means not acting according to the as instructed, which serves as the basis for the teachings and purification, but rather the opposite. For example, if the body offers bricks, etc., and the pure one says "good," the specified one is similar to oneself. If one does not do it, one will only fall to the builder, so it is not similar to oneself. What is done is that it is only placed by one person, and for doing a long place, will one fall into many falls? This eliminates such doubts. If one abandons the seventh and does it, then it is different. The so-called "limbs, etc." is like each of the seven contentious words becoming a fall, eliminating the doubt of whether the various limbs will be different falls. In the previous and present cases, the commentary says: Because of lack of ability, one completely abandons the middle, and later writes about other ideas, that is a different fall. For not grasping and following one's own nature to accomplish, that is an evil deed. Because of this saying. Although following and accomplishing is only one, for example, just as the words such as reconciling at the time of contention and after contention have been made different falls. Is it that here too, for unsuitable limbs, etc., one should make different falls? To eliminate such doubts. What was said earlier means that if one completes the unfinished part, it seems to refer to roughly saying combination. Later, for not making many contentious words, but making one following the letter, although it appears to show different falls, the so-called "at the time" and "reconciling afterwards," reconciliation is to be made as the manifestation of the end, and the one following and accomplishing is grasped as merely the letter of the messenger. What will become the sangha remnant of the house? From "searching" to "hindering." Who searches? It is the one who expels the fall. What is searched for? It is the land. Where to search? The commentary says: Even searching from that basis, which is the ordained of this Dharma, is also possible. It says so. The previous ones, using five names, using five linguistic characteristics, it is said that searching through the method of questioning is necessary.