四分律行事鈔資持記 1.239

1.239

會同中。疑謂聚落乃是民居，伽藍相異，安得例同。故此會之。言律中者，即指盜戒具出四相，如上所引；及後離衣釋伽藍界，更不別列，略指如上，故知是同。必下，簡濫。準不周淨，三邊有相，須準聚集；兩面一面，還依蘭若。有人迷此，謂城邑中院相周匝處，並可分別；請觀〈結界篇〉中圖相，藍院四周，自然四出，即知謬妄，不勞攻之。今謂上明伽藍，同可分聚；唯局蘭若，不通餘處；學者詳辨，在文皎然。

In harmonizing them: The doubt was that a village consists of civilian residences, whereas a saṅghārāma has a different mark; how could they be treated analogously? Hence it harmonizes them here. Saying "in the Vinaya" points to the theft precept fully setting forth the four marks, as cited above; and later, in explaining the saṅghārāma boundary for being separated from one's robes, it does not list them separately but briefly points to the above, so we know they are identical. Beginning with "if" (必), it discriminates against confusion. According to an incomplete enclosure, if three sides have marks, it must follow the gathering; if two sides or one side [have marks], it still relies on the araṇya. Someone was confused about this, claiming that in cities and towns, wherever compound marks are enclosed all around, they are all distinguishable; please observe the diagrammatic marks in the chapter on "Demarcating Boundaries": the saṅghārāma compound is enclosed on four sides, naturally extending in four directions; then you will know this is erroneous and needs no refutation. What is stated above means that a saṅghārāma is identical to a distinguishable village only within an araṇya, and does not apply to other places; for students who distinguish this carefully, it is lucid in the text.