四分律行事鈔資持記 2.607

2.607

釋第四中，《僧祇》文為二，初通明六緣。皆未入手，故不犯。若施下，二別示僧物又二，初明未分。問：與前何別？答：前云分未入手，則顯分已未入；此言僧物未分，則是一向未分。若下，次明己分。共分一人作淨，通及餘人。注中前明二人共分為犯；此言不作，過日犯捨，故須和會。共活屬己已定，不共反之，故不相違。

In the explanation of the fourth [heading], the text of the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya has two parts: first, it explains generally the six conditions: because none has come into one's hands, there is no violation. From "If given" down is the second part, specifically indicating monastic property, which itself has two parts: first, it clarifies [property] not yet distributed. Question: How is this different from the earlier [case]? Answer: Earlier it said that [the share] distributed had not yet come into one's hands, which showed that it was already distributed but not yet received; here it speaks of monastic property not yet distributed, which means entirely undistributed. From "If" down, it next clarifies one's own share. Where it is a shared portion, one person performs the purificatory procedure (vikalpanā), which extends to the other person. In the notes, it was explained earlier that where two people share a portion, it constitutes a violation; here it says that if one does not perform it, upon passing the days one commits a forfeiture offense, so they must be harmonized. When sharing a livelihood, the attribution to oneself is already fixed; when not sharing, the opposite is true, hence there is no contradiction.