四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 2.141

2.141

律不犯中，奪失燒漂壞五想者（衣實現在，妄起想心，經宿失受，無罪。決心謂失，即是捨心；無情過故，不犯捨也。《善見》不失者，師主疑心，恐在界外；此謂失體，不同《論》云衣不失受也）。若水陸道斷，若賊惡獸命梵等難，若不捨衣，不犯；此是情隔兩礙，失受無罪。若先慢不攝，後雖經緣，失衣犯捨；若諸難忽生，往會不得，恒懷領受，必不失法。由難忽生，非情過故，離亦無罪。如受欲事，界內有難，持出界外，還來不失。此亦同之。前言失受，事隔不知，而經明相，失受無罪。若女人來往，染礙進退，比二礙可知。又有不立染礙，止是情攝者，此不通諸部。問：忘不持衣外行，至夜方覺，取會無緣，失不？答：彼人恒自將隨身，忽忘，事同長衣開之。上且解如是，不盡極多，廣如《戒本含注疏》及《刪補羯磨疏》中明之。

Regarding the five notions of being forcibly taken, lost, burned, swept away by water, or destroyed in the Vinaya's exceptions: (If the robes actually exist, but one mistakenly gives rise to such a notion and passes the night, losing their formal determination, there is no offense. Having a resolute mind that they are lost is itself a mind of relinquishment; because there is no mental fault, one does not commit an offense of forfeiture. As for the *Samantapāsādikā* stating that there is no loss, this is when the master has a doubtful mind, fearing they are outside the boundary; this refers to the loss of their entity, which is not the same as the *Śāstra* saying that the robe does not lose its formal determination). If the roads by water or land are cut off, or if there are difficulties from bandits, ferocious beasts, life, or celibacy, and one does not relinquish the robes, there is no offense; this is an obstruction of both feeling and fact, so losing their formal determination incurs no offense. If one was negligent beforehand and did not collect them, then even if one later undergoes such conditions, losing the robes incurs the offense of forfeiture. If various difficulties arise suddenly so that one cannot go to join them, yet one constantly maintains the intent to receive them, one definitely does not lose the formal status. Because the difficulties arise suddenly and it is not a mental fault, being separated from them also incurs no offense. It is like the matter of receiving chanda: if there is a difficulty within the boundary and one carries it outside the boundary, when one returns, it is not lost. This is also the same. When it was said earlier that one loses the formal determination, it means that one is obstructed by facts and does not know it, and passing the appearance of dawn incurs no offense for losing the formal determination. If women come and go, so that lustful obstruction affects one's advance or retreat, by comparison with the two obstructions, this can be understood. Furthermore, there are those who do not establish lustful obstruction and maintain that it is only mental collection; this does not apply across all schools. Question: If one forgets and goes outside without holding the robe, realizing it only at night, and has no condition to retrieve and join it, does one lose it or not? Answer: If that person constantly carries it with him, and suddenly forgets it, the matter is allowed in the same way as an extra robe. The above is just an explanation like this, which is far from exhausted and exceedingly extensive, as clarified in detail in the *Commentary on the Pātimokkha with Embedded Notes* and the *Commentary on the Pruned and Supplemented Karmans*.