四分律行事鈔資持記 1.718

1.718

三中分二，初釋緣相。作無軌度名非法，事違教制曰非毘尼。今下，遮濫。必取應法，昧教寡德，多亦非滿。文下，二引本制，初明兩位。中邊分齊，如〈二衣〉中。所以五人獨言持律者，邊地僧少，恐不簡練，故特標之，非謂中國便容濫預；古師錯解，如《疏》委斥。此土邊陲，本是開位。僧既漸多，還遵中制。末世浮薄，德學全虧；必準本開，理亦無過；是知律制五人持律，經開千里無師；非謂無僧，但實行者不易得耳。若下，決上邊開。得戒謂僧法無缺，得罪即本制有乖。若爾，中國五人，可同此否？答：中本無開，不可相例。此下，指所出，《伽論》亦然。

In the third [condition], there are two parts: first, explaining the characteristics of the condition. Performing [a transaction] without standard rules is called "unlawful"; matters violating the teachings and regulations are called "non-vinaya". From "Now" downward, it prevents laxity. One must obtain those who accord with the Dharma; if they are ignorant of the teaching and deficient in virtue, even many [monks] do not constitute a full [quorum]. From "The text" downward is the second [part], citing the original regulations, which first clarifies the two locations. The delimitation between the central and border [regions] is as in the "Two Robes" chapter. The reason why five persons are specifically said to be "holders of the vinaya" is that monks are few in the borderlands, and it is feared that they would not be discerning, so this is specifically noted; it does not mean that unqualified individuals are permitted in the central lands. The ancient masters misinterpreted this, as is thoroughly refuted in the Commentary. This borderland territory originally fell under the relaxed exception. As monks gradually grew numerous, we reverted to following the regulations for the central region. In this decadent later age, virtue and learning are completely lacking; if one were to follow the original exception, in principle there would also be no fault. Thus we know that when the vinaya regulates five persons who hold the vinaya, or when the sūtras permit having no master within a thousand li, it does not mean there are no monks, but merely that genuine practitioners are not easily found. From "If" downward, it settles the above borderland exception. "Obtaining the precepts" means that the Saṃgha's transaction is without defect; "incurring an offense" means that the original regulation was violated. If so, can five persons in the central region be treated like this? Answer: The central [region] originally had no exception, so they cannot be treated analogously. From "This" downward points to the source, and the *Mātṛkā-śāstra* is also like this.