四分律行事鈔資持記 3.419

3.419

《四分》中，初明安食。律因大界有樹生枝覆淨地，諸比丘欲安物著上，佛言根在不淨地，即是不淨；又樹在淨地，枝覆大界，比丘欲安食物，佛言根在淨地得食。故云從根斷也。若樹下，次明互墮。無人觸知者，律云：若不作意欲使墮者淨，故云不成內宿。（又云樹在淨地，果墮不淨地，比丘不知，佛言淨。文中不引。）據墮淨地，本無有過；但根在大界，果熟不收，疑恐成犯，故下須約長足以論。謂下，義判有二；初約未離，須分足與未足。若下，次約已離，則不分之。律文不明長足離處，故注示之。

In the Dharmaguptaka-vinaya, the first [passage] explains placing food. Because in the large boundary there was a tree whose branches grew overhanging a pure ground, the bhikṣus wished to place items upon it; the Buddha said that if the roots are in impure ground, it is impure. Furthermore, when a tree was in a pure ground and its branches overhung the large boundary, the bhikṣus wished to place food items [there], and the Buddha said that if the roots are in the pure ground, one may eat it. Therefore it says that it is determined from the roots. From "If the tree..." onward, it next explains mutual falling. "Without anyone touching or knowing": the vinaya says that if one does not have the intention to cause it to fall, it is pure, hence it says that it does not constitute keeping overnight indoors. (It also says that if a tree is in a pure ground and the fruit falls into an impure ground, and the bhikṣus do not know of it, the Buddha said it is pure. This is not cited in the text.) Considered in terms of falling into the pure ground, there was originally no fault; but because the roots are in the large boundary, if ripe fruit is not collected, there is apprehension that an offense might be incurred, so below it must be discussed in terms of having eaten to sufficiency. "Meaning..." onward: the doctrinal determination has two [parts]. First, regarding not yet being detached [from the tree], one must distinguish between having eaten to sufficiency and not yet having eaten to sufficiency. From "If..." onward, next, regarding already being detached, it is not distinguished. Because the vinaya text does not clarify whether the sufficiency of eating is detached or not, the commentary's note indicates it.