四分律行事鈔資持記 1.1171

1.1171

事訖中。疏引古計云：事訖不來，夏亦不失，以法在故。今師不同，如文所示。初示所以。施猶用也。問：事訖即謝，返界路遙，中途經宿；無法隨身，應須失夏？答：法託緣生，緣謝法失；本期還來，未及本處，事猶未息，故非失夏。問：事訖法亡，或緣未竟，期限已滿，約何明失？答：《四分》、《十誦》日夜兩別，如後自明。《明了》下，引證。《十誦》不許者，前云：中路聞死反戒八難起不應去等。《僧祇》同者，前云中前和了，中後即還等是也。

Under "when the matter is finished": The Commentary cites an ancient opinion saying that if the matter is finished and one does not return, the vassa is still not lost because the Dharma procedure remains. The present master differs, as shown in the text. First, he shows the reason: shi means "to use." Question: "Once the matter is finished, [the leave] expires; if the road back to the boundary is long and one spends the night en route, having no Dharma procedure accompanying oneself, should one lose the vassa?" Answer: "The Dharma procedure arises relying on conditions; when the conditions expire, the Dharma procedure is lost. If one originally intended to return, but has not yet reached the original place, the matter has not yet ceased; therefore one does not lose the vassa." Question: "When the matter is finished, the Dharma procedure vanishes; or if the condition is not yet concluded but the time limit has already expired, on what basis is the loss explained?" Answer: "The Dharmaguptaka and the Daśādhyāya differentiate between days and nights, as will become clear below." Below "Vinayadvāviṃśatividyā," evidence is cited. As for the Daśādhyāya not permitting it, it previously stated: "If en route one hears of death, disrobing, or the eight adversities arising, one should not go," and so forth. That the Mahāsāṃghika is the same refers to the earlier statement: "If reconciled before midday, one returns after midday," and so on.