四分律行事鈔資持記 1.507

1.507

初問。村者，即是俗舍，西竺僧坊多有俗住；此土或容暫止，或復界寬恐疑故問。答中，初引《五分》。既請布薩，必先結界；此文乃是全在俗舍，類顯僧界有村不妨。次引《婆論》。明文通結。聚落即村，名通大小；今取男女所居，下至一家，即名聚落。後引《四分》。即攝衣文。疏云：《四分》明文，除村村外，明知攝僧不簡村也。（有引法食二同文者，非。彼明界相耳。）村取者，昇本作取村；或云寫誤，合作聚字。

The first question: 'Village' refers to lay dwellings; in Western India monastic quarters often had laypeople living in them; in this land it may accommodate temporary lodging, or because the boundary is wide there is fear of doubt, hence the question.
In the answer: first citing the Mahīśāsaka-vinaya: since poṣadha was invited, a boundary had to be demarcated first; this text refers to [a boundary] entirely within lay dwellings, which analogously shows that there is no objection to a saṃgha boundary containing a village. Next citing the Mahāvibhāṣā[-śāstra]: the explicit text allows demarcating all-inclusively. A settlement is a village; the name applies to both large and small; here it is taken as a place inhabited by men and women, down to a single household, which is called a settlement. Afterwards citing the Dharmaguptaka[-vinaya]: this is the text on subsuming robes. The Commentary says: 'The Dharmaguptaka explicit text excludes village and outside-the-village; this makes it clear that subsuming the saṃgha does not exclude villages.' (Those who cite the text on identity of both ritual and food are incorrect; that text only clarifies the boundary markers.) 'Village takes' in Sheng's edition reads 'takes village'; or it is said to be a scribal error and should be the character 'settlement' (聚).