四分律行事鈔資持記 3.153

3.153

第四心念中，初引《五分》出法。正說分三。初遙施彼得過制限，故云十一日。復如前下，次復取還；不越常開，故但十日；恐至明相，成犯長故。復如初下，又說與彼，如前得過。所以爾者，疏云：既是別人捨心難盡，且令轉換，得延時限；終須對說，方始究竟。次引《僧祇》。或示同開，或遮疑濫，恐謂心念不須言故。初標判。內下，釋成。下引本律顯別。應是不說淨者，疏云：一是長衣，一是受持，更番受淨，不得過限；計受持者，不畏犯長，無奈淨者將是過限，故限十日內轉之。注中謂同《五分》，以律語通，未敢一定，故兩存之。

Fourth, in mental resolution: First, it cites the *Mahīśāsaka-vinaya* to present the procedure. The actual declaration is divided into three. First, remotely giving it to the other person allows one to exceed the restricted limit, hence it says 'eleven days.' Below 'Again, as before...', next, one takes it back again; not exceeding the ordinary exception, it is therefore only ten days; this is out of fear that when the sign of dawn arrives, an offense of holding a surplus [robe] would be incurred. Below 'Again, as at first...', one speaks and gives it to that person again, and as before one may exceed [the limit]. The reason it is done this way is, as the Commentary states: since it belongs to another person and the mind of relinquishment is difficult to exhaust, temporarily having it exchanged allows one to extend the time limit; in the end, one must speak it face-to-face before it is truly complete. Next, it cites the *Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya*: either to show that it is identical to an exception, or to prevent doubt and corruption, fearing that people might think mental resolution does not require spoken words. First, it states the judgment. Below 'Internally...', it explains and establishes it. Below, it cites our own Vinaya to show the distinction. Regarding those who presumably do not speak purification, the Commentary says: one is an extra robe, and one is held by determination; alternating their reception and purification, they must not exceed the limit. Considering that the one holding it by determination does not fear the offense of holding surplus, while having no choice regarding the purified one which is about to exceed the limit, it is therefore transferred within ten days. The note suggests it is identical to the *Mahīśāsaka-vinaya*; because the Vinaya's wording is general, one does not dare determine it conclusively, so both views are preserved.