四分律行事鈔資持記 1.1117

1.1117

及界中。疏云：界者入攝僧界，園者僧伽藍園。（藍是梵語，園即華言，即院相也。）此須料簡，若藍狹界寬，及藍界俱等，並約界論；或藍寬界狹，或復無界，則約園說。律據僧坊，準通俗舍。此收四種，疏云：園界兩所，足有雙隻。（謂園與界各有雙隻二種，故為四也。）問：隻足尚成，何須雙足？答：律因緣起隨機緩急，先雙後隻，次第開之。既約隻成，雙則無用，所以文中但言一脚耳。下指廣者，疏云：所以一脚入界，明相出成者；以怱切不暇，開不結成。又問：雙足入出，成敗相對（敗即破夏）；未知一足入出，得例前不？答：要須兩足出界辨破，以利勝故；若一出破，一入不成，皆損行人，不名開制，大有理也。

In reaching the boundary: The Commentary says: 'The boundary means entering the saṃgha-incorporating boundary; the park means the saṃghārāma park.' (Ārāma is Sanskrit, park is the Chinese word; that is, the boundary of the monastery compound.) This requires analysis: if the ārāma is narrow and the boundary broad, or if the ārāma and boundary are equal, all are treated with respect to the boundary; if the ārāma is broad and the boundary narrow, or again if there is no boundary, then it is explained with respect to the park. The Vinaya is based on a monastery, but by analogy applies to secular houses. This includes four kinds. The Commentary says: 'There are two places, park and boundary, and the feet may be double or single.' (This means the park and the boundary each have two kinds, double and single, thus making four.) Question: If a single foot still succeeds, why are both feet needed? Answer: In the Vinaya, due to the origin story following the urgency of practitioners' capacities, it first permitted both and then a single foot successively. Since it succeeds with a single foot, both feet are of no use; that is why the text only mentions one foot. Below, where it points to the detailed explanation, the Commentary says: The reason why having one foot enter the boundary when dawn appears succeeds is that because of haste and lack of leisure, an exception is made so that it is completed without reciting the formula. Question again: Entering and leaving with both feet correspond to success and failure (failure means breaking the retreat); is it known whether entering and leaving with one foot can follow the former analogy? Answer: Both feet must leave the boundary to determine a break, because the benefit is superior; if leaving with one foot broke it, and entering with one foot did not complete it, both would harm the practitioner, and it could not be called an exception or prohibition. This has great reason.