四分律行事鈔資持記 1.725

1.725

引證中。上列諸緣，皆依律本。此但通證立緣簡辨非無所據，至論列相，不必全同。初《母論》中。總束五緣，不過人法，略證所對三四五也。次引《多論》。唯明邊難，略證能受第三一緣。然其邊罪，律據具戒；論通白衣，故約三戒次第明相。初列三受。隨下，顯難。文出破五，即障餘三；中間省略受十不得，故云乃至。破八障二，破十障一，第論可知。然五八戒相，不分輕重；還準具戒，殺盜淫妄，各有大小。酒是遮惡，犯則非障。不作和尚者，設有濫受，體非僧故。

In citing proofs: the various conditions listed above are all based on the root vinaya. This merely provides general proof that establishing conditions and discerning them is not without basis; as for the enumerated marks, they need not be entirely identical. First, in the *Mātṛkā-śāstra*, it summarizes five conditions, which do not exceed persons and Dharma, briefly confirming items three, four, and five of the counterpart [conditions]. Next, it cites the *Sarvāstivāda Vinaya Vibhāṣā*. It solely clarifies the obstacle of the borderland offense, briefly confirming the single third condition of those capable of receiving. However, regarding the borderland offense, the vinaya relies on the full precepts; the treatise extends to laypersons, hence it clarifies the marks sequentially with respect to the three [levels of] precepts. First, it lists the three receptions. From "Following" downward, it displays the obstacles. The text states that violating the five [precepts] obstructs the remaining three; in the middle, receiving the ten [precepts] without success is omitted, hence it says "and so forth". Violating the eight obstructs two, and violating the ten obstructs one, which can be known through sequential reasoning. However, the marks of the five and eight precepts are not divided into light and heavy; following the model of the full precepts, killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, and false speech each have major and minor degrees. Alcohol is an evil of prohibition, so violating it is not an obstacle. As for "not acting as an upādhyāya", even if there were an improper reception, the entity is not a monk.