四分律行事鈔資持記 3.164

3.164

《十誦》，初約呵責失。施主下，次約主亡失。注中，初重斥。彼謂實淨物屬於他，故須更說；展轉在己，故不須之。然上《十誦》真實主亡，物不入僧，可驗二淨並是屬己；義無偏判，故再斥之。又下，和會，初示相違。上文即前簡人中《十誦》文也。或下，義詳《五分》。謂前漫標，非是通指五眾。義猶未決，故云或是等。善下，引論轉證。顯非他屬。

In the Daśādhyāya-vinaya, the first [passage] concerns the forfeiture due to reproof. "From the dānapati downward" next concerns the forfeiture due to the owner's death. In the commentary, it first severely refutes [the contrary opinion]. They claim that real pure items belong to another, and therefore one must re-declare them; but mediated [pure items] belong to oneself, and therefore one does not need to do so. However, according to the Daśādhyāya-vinaya above, when the real owner dies, the goods do not enter the Saṃgha, which proves that both kinds of pure [ownership] belong to oneself. As the principle admits of no one-sided judgment, he refutes it again. "Moreover, below..." reconciles them, first showing the contradiction. The above passage is the Daśādhyāya-vinaya passage cited earlier under selecting persons. "Or below..." analyzes the Mahīśāsaka-vinaya in detail, meaning that the earlier general designation did not universally refer to the five assemblies. Since the meaning was not yet definitive, he says "or it is..." and so forth. "The Shanjian below..." cites the treatise as further proof, showing that it does not belong to another.