四分律行事鈔資持記 1.963

1.963

互出界中，初牒文。《律》云：和尚闍梨決意出界去不還，而即日還；佛言，此失依止（弟子亦同）。失下，次義決。不失請者，不越宿故。言但生者，謂起意也。請法謂求教授。《律》約即還，故云決意；若論隔宿，不問決與不決，三法俱失。指《大疏》者，古記引云：師徒決意出界心隔，雖即日還，便失依止者（謂失下二）；若爾，離衣破夏，何待經宿？答：師徒各有兩捨之心故失，人有離衣處心，衣處無離人意，故須經宿；又衣夏約明相論失，依止約心約界明失，故不同也。

Under mutually crossing the boundary, first, reciting the text. The Vinaya says: If the upādhyāya or ācārya resolutely determines to cross the boundary and not return, yet returns the same day, the Buddha said this loses the niśraya (the same applies to a disciple). From "Losing" downward, next, resolving the principle. Not losing the request is because he has not stayed past dawn. "Merely arising" refers to generating the thought. "The requesting dharma" refers to seeking instruction. The Vinaya refers to returning immediately, hence it says "resolutely determines"; if it involves staying overnight, regardless of whether determined or not, all three dharmas are lost. "Pointing to the Great Commentary": an old record cites: "If master and disciple resolutely determine to cross the boundary with an alienated mind, even if returning the same day, they lose the niśraya" (meaning losing the lower two); if so, why does separating from the robe or breaking the rains retreat require passing the night? Answer: Because master and disciple each possess the mind of mutual abandonment, it is lost; a person has the intention of leaving the place of the robes, but the place of the robes has no intention of leaving the person, therefore it requires passing the night. Furthermore, robe and rains retreat are determined as lost in relation to the break of dawn, whereas niśraya is explained as lost in relation to the mind and the boundary; hence they are not the same.