四分律行事鈔資持記 1.373

1.373

次他部中，《僧祇》五人。出彼足數，欲法無文；由不足故，理非持欲，約義取之。餘人如上。言與欲人者，謂受他欲已，自復與欲，他欲即失；且如彼律轉欲尚失，何況直與！義準三處通有此失，學者詳之。（古記不數此人，乃謂足數中隔障自有五人，義加一人；然今文及羯磨並云《僧祇》五人；如不足數，亦不除與欲及加隔障，難可憑信。）

Next, in "Other schools": the five persons of the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya. They come from its section on quorum; there is no text in its chanda procedure; because they do not suffice for the quorum, in principle they cannot hold chanda, so this is derived by interpretation. The rest of the persons are as above. As for "the person who gives chanda": this means that having received another's chanda, he himself gives chanda again, and the other's chanda is immediately lost; furthermore, in that Vinaya, even transferring chanda causes loss, how much more so directly giving it! By reasoning, this loss applies generally to all three places; let scholars examine this. (Ancient records did not count this person, alleging instead that among those in the quorum there are already five persons behind screening barriers, so one person is added by implication; however, both the present text and the karmavācanā state that there are five persons in the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya; if they do not count towards the quorum, neither should the one giving chanda be removed nor screening barriers added; this ancient view is hard to trust.)