四分律行事鈔資持記 1.578

1.578

別證中。然與論文小異，今具引之，彼前問云：二眾結界，得互相叉結否？答：得叉（謂不共行法故。），得共結（謂受戒出罪，僧尼同法，鈔變其語，故云不得相叉。），後問云大僧得與尼通結界否？答得。今鈔所引，上二句即後問答，下一句即是前答。疏云不相叉者，恐出僧外，非成同法故。

In the specific proof: However, there is a slight difference from the text of the treatise; it is now fully cited. Earlier, it asked: "Can the two assemblies bind a boundary by mutually intercrossing?" Answer: "Intercrossing is permissible (meaning because of unshared practices); joint binding is permissible (meaning that for receiving precepts and rehabilitation from offenses, monks and nuns share the same dharma; the Manual altered the wording, hence stating 'intercrossing is not permissible')." Later, it asked: "Can great monks bind a boundary in common with nuns?" Answer: "Permissible." In what is cited in the present Manual, the first two phrases are precisely the later question and answer, and the bottom phrase is precisely the earlier answer. When the Commentary states "not intercrossing," it is out of fear that they might step outside the Saṃgha, not constituting a shared dharma.