四分律行事鈔資持記 2.287

2.287

壞境中，初示犯。此下，二簡濫。以境通兩戒，犯隨心別，故須辨之。文又分三：初示當戒分齊。若下，二約心簡濫。前簡漏失；由下，後顯今戒。指《戒疏》者，彼問死屍半壞，行染得何罪？答：有二緣，若唯重淫意，入便偷蘭；縱出不淨，不犯僧殘；若欲喜樂意者，如《十誦》、《五分》；乃至骨間，出不淨殘；不出上蘭。故下，三引證。斫頭，即少壞；死即未壞，同前結重。然引重證輕，文似不合；但由彼論，既約淫心；可證非僧殘意，止就婬戒結蘭，明矣。

In "Damaged Objets", first it shows the violation. From "This..." onward is the second part: discerning confusion. Because the object pertains to two precepts, and the violation differs according to the mind, it must be distinguished. The text is further divided into three: first, it indicates the boundaries of the present precept. From "If..." onward, the second is discerning confusion with respect to the mind. The former discerns seminal emission; from "Because..." onward, the latter reveals the present precept. Pointing to the Precept Commentary: there it asks, if a corpse is half-decayed, what offense is incurred by engaging in defilement? The answer is: there are two conditions; if it is solely with a grave lustful intent, entering it immediately incurs a sthūlātyaya; even if impurity is emitted, it does not violate a saṃghāvaśeṣa. If it is with an intent of desiring pleasure, as in the Daśādhyāya-vinaya and the Five-Part Vinaya, even down to between the bones, emitting impurity is a saṃghāvaśeṣa; not emitting it is a superior sthūlātyaya. From "Therefore..." onward is the third part: citing proof. Decapitation means slight damage; freshly dead means not yet decayed, identically concluding a grave offense as before. However, citing the grave to prove the light makes the text appear not to match; yet only because that treatise has already taken the lustful mind as its basis, it can prove it was not the intention of a saṃghāvaśeṣa, and merely concludes a sthūlātyaya with respect to the precept on lust, which is clear.