四分律行事鈔資持記 1.546

1.546

問決中。前雖略斥，未定成否；猶恐妄執，須更明示？答文為二，初明先結得成。文既令捨，即顯結成；所以爾者，唱結無乖故。但下，二明後法不成。所以然者，違制法故。五下，引證復二，初明故違不成。又下，明不知許成。言不知者，謂秉結之人，未闚教故。於後纔知，即不成法。然是愚教，須加二罪。或可後行受者，不知元結，失於次第，約心許成。賴下，示曲開之意。僥倖者，疏云非分遇福也。

In the question and decisive resolution: Although previously refuted in brief, whether [the boundary] succeeds or fails was not yet determined; fearing that false attachment might persist, was it necessary to elucidate further? The response has two parts: first, clarifying that the one bound first is valid. Since the text instructs to revoke it, this indicates that its binding succeeded; the reason being that the proclamation and binding did not conflict. From “only” onward, the second part clarifies that the subsequent act fails. The reason is that it violates the prescribed procedure. From “the five” onward, the cited evidence is also twofold: first, clarifying that intentional violation results in failure. From “moreover” onward, clarifying that unawareness allows validity. “Unawareness” means that the person administering the binding had not yet studied the teachings. As soon as he later becomes aware, it immediately fails to constitute a valid act. However, since this is ignorance of the teaching, two offenses must be added. Alternatively, it may mean that candidates ordained afterwards did not know the original binding lacked proper sequence, so in terms of their intention, [their ordination] is permitted to be valid. From “relying on” onward, the intention behind the lenient exception is indicated. “Good fortune” (qiaoxing), the Commentary states, means encountering unexpected merit beyond one's due.