四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 1.160

1.160

問：犯邊罪等十八人，及尼中四人，為自言故不足，為體不足？答：解者多途。今言：此等體既非僧，若僧同知，故不足數；必不知者，成足。如與欲中。不同前門中，知與不知，俱不足數。故不持戒和尚中，四句料簡，前三句由不知故得戒；第四句由知從此人受戒不得，故不足數。所以文中及《十誦》，並安「若言」等。昔人以體不合故不足，即將破戒和尚在十人之外，此非正解。何者？若不知犯，則不得輒用他部，以《四分》制十人僧；若知他犯，羯磨則不得牒，以實知非比丘故。

Question: Regarding the eighteen persons who committed extreme offenses and the four classes of nuns, is it because they confessed their fault that they do not make up the quorum, or is their essence inherently insufficient? Answer: Commentators offer many explanations. We now state: Since the essence of these persons is not that of the saṃgha, if the saṃgha collectively knows it, they do not make up the quorum; if they definitely do not know it, they make up the quorum. This is just as in the case of giving chanda. It is not like the previous category, where whether known or unknown, they do not make up the quorum in either case. Therefore, in the fourfold analysis of the non-precept-keeping upādhyāya, in the first three clauses, because it is unknown, ordination is obtained; in the fourth clause, because one knows and receives the precepts from this person, it is not obtained, and hence he does not make up the quorum. For this reason, both in the text and in the Daśādhyāya-vinaya, phrases such as 'if he says' are inserted. Ancient scholars held that they do not make up the quorum because their essence is non-conforming, and thus placed the precept-breaking upādhyāya outside the ten persons; this is not the correct understanding. Why? If the offense is unknown, one must not rashly apply another vinaya when the Dharmaguptaka stipulates a saṃgha of ten persons; if one knows his offense, he must not be named in the karman, because one truly knows he is not a bhikṣu.