四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 2.134

2.134

Twelfth is the road-travel boundary (mārga-sīmā). The Daśādhyāya-vinaya states: When a bhikṣu walks on a road carrying robes for his master, within forty-nine fathoms front and back, they are not forfeited. The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā states: Forty-nine fathoms in length and breadth is also acceptable without forfeiture. The Mahāsāṃghika states: If one sleeps on the road pillowed on the three robes: when dawn appears, if one is separated from the robes, it is a transgression. By analogy, one's body should be within the tree boundary or araṇya. The Samantapāsādikā states: If one sends a śrāmaṇera or a layperson carrying robes to enter a boundary ahead, and the bhikṣu enters later unaware, thinking he is outside the boundary, when dawn appears he thinks they are forfeited; they are not forfeited. The same applies to dependence (niśraya). The Vinaya speaks of the thought of forfeiture with reference to being outside the boundary. If a disciple has not completed his varṣā, carries robes for his master, and encounters someone expounding the Dharma, and because of his eagerness to hear the Dharma dawn appears, he does not commit the fault of separating from his master; the upādhyāya incurs the offense of separating from his robes. The Vinayavibhāṣā speaks of: Matters pressed by urination and the like, difficulties caused by the actions of others, and actions done out of compassion. This principle is expounded in detail under the turning-cart boundary. The explanation says: If pressed by the hardships of urination, defecation, illness, or dread, one leaves the boundary at night and is unable to return before dawn, one also does not forfeit the robes. Furthermore, if two people sleep together and place their three robes in the same spot, and one person has an urgent matter and must travel at night, but does not take his own robes and mistakenly takes the robes of the person remaining; when dawn arrives, the traveler forfeits his robes. Because the traveler mistakenly took them, they are forfeited; since it was not caused by the person remaining, he does not forfeit the robes. The traveler's intention was active, hence it is called 'action'; for the person remaining this was a difficulty, and on account of this difficulty, not forfeiting the robes is permitted.