四分律行事鈔資持記 1.779

1.779

引示中，初引本緣。律因波羅柰國穀貴，有一年少外道，見佛及僧多得供養，即自剃髮，著衣持鉢，入眾中食；諸比丘窮問，彼乃自言，佛因制斷。若下，判成不，初明偷形。未出家者，謂十戒也。未受者，即具戒也。不應受者，約前知也。已受得者，據後知也。律具云：若至一比丘，乃至僧所，不共羯磨說戒；若未出家受具戒，不得與出家受具戒；若已與出家受具戒，聽即名出家受具戒。文剩者字，去之即義顯。曾下，明偷法。正是難位，故令滅擯。前但同遮，縱僧預知，違制得戒。

Under "citing to explain": First, he cites the underlying narrative. In the Vinaya, because grain was expensive in the country of Vārāṇasī, there was a young non-Buddhist who, seeing that the Buddha and the Saṃgha received abundant offerings, shaved his own hair, donned robes, held a bowl, and entered among the assembly to eat. The bhikṣus questioned him thoroughly, and he confessed on his own; the Buddha thereupon instituted the prohibition. From "If" onward, he determines whether it constitutes [an offense] or not. First, he explains stealing the appearance. "One who has not gone forth" refers to the ten precepts. "One who has not received" refers to the complete precepts. "Should not receive" is said regarding knowing beforehand. "Having received, obtains [them]" is based on knowing afterward. The Vinaya says in full: "If one approaches one bhikṣu, up to approaching the Saṃgha, they do not perform a karma or recite the precepts together with him. If he has not gone forth to receive the complete precepts, they must not grant him ordination to receive the complete precepts; if they have already granted him ordination to receive the complete precepts, he is allowed to be called one who has gone forth and received the complete precepts." The word "者" in the text is redundant; removing it makes the meaning apparent. From "Ever" onward, he explains stealing the Dharma. This is precisely the stage of an obstacle (ānantarika-vastu), and therefore he is ordered to be expelled. The former is merely an impediment (antarāyikadharma); even if the Saṃgha knows beforehand, he receives the precepts despite violating the prohibition.