四分律行事鈔資持記 2.544

2.544

釋第二中，初句示所屬。前房自作，屬己無疑。此既有主，恐謂未有所屬，故特標簡。若下，明有緣隨用有二，初明自判。若死，謂將死也。不許賣地，緣是僧物；必是私有，理亦應通。僧不許賣，常住常住物故；房僧得罪，若賣成盜故。（前房賣用應同，此房受用亦制。但文互現耳。）若房下，明不自判。可解。

Under the explanation of the second, the first clause indicates to whom it pertains. The previous hut was made by oneself, so it undoubtedly belonged to oneself. Since this one has an owner, one might suspect it does not yet belong to anyone, hence it is specifically distinguished. From "If..." downward explains that when there are circumstances it is used accordingly, having two parts: first, explaining deciding it oneself. "If one dies" means when about to die. Not permitting the sale of the ground is because it is property of the saṃgha; if it is certainly private property, the principle should also permit it. The saṃgha does not permit its sale because it is permanent property of the permanent saṃgha; the saṃgha incurs an offense for the hut, because if sold it constitutes theft. (The sale and use of the previous hut should be identical, and the personal use of this hut is also prohibited. The texts merely present them complementarily.) From "If the hut..." downward explains not deciding it oneself. This is easy to understand.