四分律行事鈔資持記 2.1095

2.1095

對界中，論文初列四界。不出作法自然。聚落有二，如〈結界〉中。家即村舍，亦屬聚界。曠野即蘭若，一拘盧準論二里。道行水界，文雖不明，義須準說；但有難蘭若，則非所論。別布薩者，相因而引，非此中意。若僧下，辨成犯相；初明所別，食竟無犯。以前僧必無重食之理，故云不合也。若僧下，明未食結犯。下文簡境，且列三人，如向備引。注文兩節，初通示三人不障僧食。恐謂非別，不與食故。其中滅擯，財法雖亡，然體猶存；除餘僧施，尚沾食分。若下，別示沙彌。以別雖無損，而集則有益；即前唱法乃至沙彌是也。（僧次取淨，狂擯不成。）

In "Regarding the Boundary", the treatise text first lists four boundaries. They do not exceed ritual and natural boundaries. There are two kinds of settlements, as in "Establishing Boundaries". "Household" means a village house, which also belongs to the settlement boundary. "Wilderness" means an araṇya; one krośa is, according to the treatise, two li. For travel by road or water boundary, although the text is not clear, the meaning must be explained analogously; only an araṇya with perils is not under discussion. "Separate poṣadha" is cited incidentally, and is not the meaning here. From "If the saṃgha..." onward distinguishes the marks of constituting the offense; first it clarifies that regarding the separated party, after eating is finished there is no offense. Because for the former saṃgha there is certainly no principle of eating again, it says "it is not fitting". From "If the saṃgha..." onward clarifies concluding an offense when they have not yet eaten. The text below sifts the object, provisionally listing three persons, as cited fully above. The commentary has two sections: first, generally showing that the three persons do not obstruct saṃgha food, for fear that thinking it is not a separate group, one would not give them food. Among them, for one who is finally expelled, although property and Dharma are lost, the substance still remains; except for other offerings to the saṃgha, he still receives a share of food. From "If..." onward, it specifically shows novice monks: because although separation causes no harm, assembly brings benefit; that is, the aforementioned method of calling down to novice monks is this. (Monastic rotation takes purity; the insane and expelled do not qualify.)