僧殘法是戒經（Pātimokkha）的第二篇，其嚴重性僅次於不通懺悔的波羅夷法（Pārājika）。犯此戒法者可依一定的程序懺除過咎，回復清淨。然而，巴利尼律的僧殘法多出了nissāraṇīya（應捨）一字，聖典註（canonical commentary）的註解過於簡短而致使其指涉模擬兩可：應捨的對象也許是犯戒的比丘尼，也許是所犯的罪過。覺音論師（Buddhaghosa）所著的《一切善見》（Samantapāsādikā）有力排眾議的意味，堅稱應捨的是犯戒的比丘尼，而非所犯的罪過，足見在當時的教界，部派之間對於「應捨」的解讀似乎是存有歧見的。 這一點在比對漢譯各部律和其他現存律本僧殘法結尾語時得到印證。漢譯律中只有《四分律》、《五分律》和《十誦律》有新增語，除了《四分律》外，《五分律》和《十誦律》都作「可悔過」，顯然沒有比丘尼被驅出的意味。梵文《說出世部僧祇尼律》中niḥsaraṇīya關涉的事也不是犯戒的比丘尼。 《一切善見》對nissāraṇīya的註解毫無疑問的是指逐出僧團的處置，與律制的規定有所相違，但《一切善見》的主張顯然其來有自。根據《附隨》（Parivāra）所載，此一特殊的懲處適用於不共比丘的十條比丘尼僧殘法，雖然有嚴格化的傾向，它卻是有其合理的根據。《犍度篇》有文可證在歷史的發展中，僧團被賦予更多的權力：根據律制，原不應被驅逐的成員，如果僧團認為有必要，也可將之驅逐出去。在巴利律的傳統內，將犯十不共僧殘法的比丘尼驅出顯見有一定的歷史傳承。漢譯諸律的文本卻不見有如巴利律這樣突破傳統的發明，或許這便是意見分歧的原因之一。

The second chapter of the Pātimokkha, the Saṅghādisesa, is less strict than the Pārājika rules, which pertain to offenses allowing no repentence. The offender against Saṅghādisesa rules can return to purity by getting rid of the offenses through some formal procedures. One finds, however, in the Pāli Bhikkhunī Saṅghādisesa and additional phrase “should be relinquished” (nissāraṇīya). The canonical commentary includes a glossary note on this phrase, but it is ambiguous and unclear due to its brevity: it could mean either that the offending bhikkhunī should be banished or that the offense itself should be removed. Buddhaghoasa's glossary note in the Samantapāsādikā is controversial in that he insists the reference is to the offending bhikkhunī herself, rather than to the offense. The insistent tone he adopts suggests that there was disagreement on this point in contemporary Buddhism. A comparison of the Chinese and other recensions of the text seems to have confirmed the above-mentioned disagreement hinted at in the Samantapāsādikā. Addition of a new expression appears in four of the various recensions, among which three comprehend the additional expression as meaning the removal of the offense, not banishment of the offending bhikkhunī. The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya remains ambiguous due to lack of any further explanation. Samantapāsādikā's glosssary not on niḥsaraṇīya definitely means banishment of the offending bhikkhunī from the Saṅgha. This specification obviously goes beyond what is determined in the Vinaya. Neverthelessly, it is not unfounded. There appears in the Parivāra a tendency to strengthen the monastic discipline for hikkhunī, that is, additional punishment is imposed on offenders against Saṅghādisesa rules, but this only applied to the ten peculiar to bhikkhunīs. Such specification further finds its support in the Khandhaka, which demonstrates that in the course of historical development, the Saṅgha is entitled to expel, if it deems this necessary, those who originally do not deserve expulsion, according to the Vinaya. It is obvious that within the Pāli tradition, banishment of bhikkhunīs who offend the ten peculiar rules has its history. One finds, however, no such innovation in the Chinese recensions of the Khandaka, and this may have partially contributed to disagreement on what the phrase “should be relinquished” actually means.