四分律行事鈔資持記 1.919

1.919

《四分》三段，初明選德。言輒爾者，《律》云：彼不選擇人受依止故。即下，示過。文略呵責等四治，故云等也。因下，二明簡年。二歲比丘，即《律》緣起尊者婆先也。未斷乳者，喻於嬰兒，豈能生子也。若下，三明誘去。《律》因二師破戒見等，佛言聽作如是意誘去，欲令長益沙門法故。引《五百問》。反示如法不聽。言犯重者，成盜人故。因說者，彼云昔有比丘輒誘沙彌去；此老比丘無人看視，不久命終，故制。《律》中，六群誘他弟子，佛言不應。（止犯吉羅，論中重者，必約盜心。）

The Dharmaguptaka-vinaya has three sections: first, it explains selecting virtues. The phrase 'at will' means, as the Vinaya states, 'because he accepted dependence without selecting the person.' From 'namely' downward, it shows the faults. The text abbreviates the four penal actions of reprimand and the rest; hence it says 'and so on.' From 'incident' downward, second, it explains selecting according to years [of ordination]. The two-vassa monk refers to the venerable Upasena, the originator in the Vinaya. 'Not yet weaned from milk' is a metaphor for an infant—how could such a one give birth to a child? From 'if' downward, third, it explains enticing away. In the Vinaya, because two teachers broke precepts, views, and so on, the Buddha said he permitted enticing [the disciple] away with such an intent, wishing to cause the Śramaṇa-dharma to increase and grow. Citing the Five Hundred Questions: It conversely shows that when it is in accordance with the Dharma, [enticing away] is not permitted. The phrase 'committing a grave offense' is because it constitutes stealing a person. As for 'on account of which it is spoken,' that text states: Formerly, a monk arbitrarily enticed a śrāmaṇera away; this elderly monk had no one to look after him and soon passed away; hence it was prohibited. In the Vinaya, when the ṣaḍvargikas enticed another's disciple away, the Buddha said it ought not to be done. (It merely incurs a duṣkṛta; in the treatise, it being grave definitely refers to having a mind of theft.)