四分律行事鈔資持記 1.304

1.304

應擯者。應猶當也；罪合當擯，而未擯故。初約加法未成釋。波羅夷說，即目初篇。由未加擯，無可名召；且以初篇犯法攝之，故云入也。（殘蘭等同此說。）若下，次約二三人知而未舉釋。或下，三約一人獨知不舉釋。並下，結示。《業疏》更出為非公顯，無力遮治，亦名應擯。所言知者，謂三根不濫也。所以必約知者，欲顯此門不足之義；無一人知，即成足故。

Regarding 'those who ought to be expelled': 'ought' means 'should'; their offense warrants that they should be expelled, yet they have not yet been expelled. First, it is explained in terms of the karmavācanā not yet being accomplished. Speaking of pārājika designates the first category. Since the expulsion has not yet been applied, there is no name by which to summon them; tentatively subsuming them under the offense rites of the first category, it therefore says 'included.' (Saṃghāvaśeṣa, sthūlātyaya, and others are treated the same as this explanation.) From 'If' onward, next it is explained in terms of two or three people knowing but not yet raising the matter. From 'Or' onward, thirdly, it is explained in terms of a single person knowing alone without raising it. From 'Both' onward, it summarizes and indicates. The Karma Commentary further presents: if wrongdoing is not public and manifest, and there is no power to check and discipline it, this is also called 'ought to be expelled.' That which is called 'knowing' means that the three roots [of seeing, hearing, and suspecting] are unambiguous. The reason it must be framed in terms of 'knowing' is to manifest the meaning of insufficiency in this gate; for if not a single person knows, he then constitutes sufficiency.