四分律行事鈔資持記 1.809

1.809

斥例中。準《疏》古有二解。一云：依《多論》、《十誦》，縱無亦開，得戒得罪。（上科已破，但不標古。）又有人云：若無衣鉢，全是非法；若借得者，當時是有；義準破戒和尚四句，即今所斥。初引古。此下，正斥。《疏》云：得不無文，凡情難信；幸依聲教，則無戒也。

Under 'rejecting the analogy': According to the Commentary, the ancients had two interpretations. One stated: 'Relying on the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya Vibhāṣā and Daśādhyāya-vinaya, even if one lacks them, an exception is granted; one obtains the precepts and incurs an offense.' (This was already refuted in the previous heading, but without labeling it as ancient.) Another person said: 'If one lacks robes and bowl, it is entirely unlawful; if one obtains them by borrowing, at that time one possesses them.' This analogically draws on the four alternatives regarding a precept-breaking preceptor, which is precisely what is refuted now. First, it cites the ancient [interpretation]. The text from 'This' down directly refutes it. The Commentary states: 'Regarding whether one obtains them or not, there is no textual authority; ordinary sentiments are hard to trust. If one relies faithfully on the verbal teaching, then there are no precepts.'