四分律行事鈔資持記 2.656

2.656

別緣中，初科；《善見》有二，初明不失。人衣同界，起虛想故。依下，比例。師前入界，資謂界外，不失依止。律下，會異。律中奪失等想，失衣無罪，與論不同；故約界外通之。準後注云：律據失體，論約失受，故失不失異，則不論界之內外也。若下，次明失。夏未滿者，以滿五夏許離依止故。離師犯吉，聽法故開。和尚離衣，益不及他故。

Regarding distinct conditions: in the first section, the Samantapāsādikā has two parts; first, it clarifies non-forfeiture. Because the person and the robe are in the same boundary, it gives rise to false imaginings. "Relying on..." below draws an analogy: if the teacher enters the boundary first, and the disciple thinks he is outside the boundary, he does not forfeit dependence. "The Vinaya..." below synthesizes differences: in the Vinaya, under notions of being seized or lost, forfeiting the robe carries no offense, which differs from the treatise; therefore, it is harmonized through [being] outside the boundary. According to the subsequent note: the Vinaya is based on forfeiting the substance, whereas the treatise is based on forfeiting the authorization; thus forfeiture and non-forfeiture differ, regardless of whether it is inside or outside the boundary. "If..." below next clarifies forfeiture: "not having completed the rains retreat" is because one is permitted to separate from dependence only upon completing five rains retreats. Departing from one's teacher incurs a duṣkṛta, but an exception is made for listening to the Dharma. If an upādhyāya is separated from his robes, the benefit does not extend to others.