四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 1.303

1.303

若有戒場者，先解大界，却解戒場，此是常準。上座問答，一一隨有單牒；不同受戒，一答得作多法。彼由同界故得，此中不開。為中隔自然，兩界各別，作法不通。若作法，同前而解。次解戒場，應在相內，不得在大界遙解。律無正法。舊羯磨中，用大界法解之，唯稱大小為別。今不同之。戒場不許說戒，何得牒解？今準難事界，但翻結為解，理通文順。

If there is a precept platform, first dissolve the great boundary, and then dissolve the precept platform; this is the regular standard. The elder's interrogations and responses address each single item as it exists; unlike ordination, a single answer cannot serve multiple procedures. In that case, it is permitted because they share the same boundary; here, it is not permitted. Because a natural [feature] intervenes between them, the two boundaries are distinct, and the transaction does not carry across. If performing the procedure, dissolve it as before. Next, dissolving the precept platform should take place within the markers; it must not be dissolved from afar in the great boundary. The Vinaya contains no direct procedure for this. In old karman texts, the procedure for the great boundary was used to dissolve it, merely using the words 'great' and 'small' to distinguish them. Now I do not follow that. The precept platform does not permit upoṣadha recitation, so how could that be cited in the dissolution? Now, relying on the boundary for difficult circumstances, one simply reverses demarcation into dissolution, so that the principle is consistent and the wording flows smoothly.