四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 2.445

2.445

又復上來如此釋者，通約本異二境論之；故言定五，或四五句。若唯據本境犯之有無者，一切境想，四即齊四，謂本迷故；五即俱五，謂轉想故。但文中互說。用斯犯等，皆據本境本想；若異境後心，律並不結其罪（如非人疑想偷蘭者，是本想蘭也；後作非人疑想之時，但得吉羅。具足五緣，殺非人，蘭；今作人想，亦吉羅也）。

Furthermore, the above explanation was discussed generally regarding the original and different objects; hence it was said there are definitely five, or either four or five clauses. If one relies solely on the presence or absence of transgression regarding the original object, all object ideations: four is equally four, meaning original bewilderment; five is uniformly five, meaning shifted ideation. It is just that the texts alternate in their descriptions. In applying these transgressions and the like, all rely on the original object and original ideation; as for the subsequent mind regarding a different object, the Vinaya does not charge it with that offense (e.g., when the thullaccaya of doubt or ideation of a non-human occurs, it is the thullaccaya of the original ideation; at the time of subsequently producing the doubt or ideation of a non-human, one only incurs a duṣkṛta. Endowed with the five conditions, killing a non-human is a thullaccaya; now thinking it is a human, it is also a duṣkṛta).