法華玄義釋籤 8.31

8.31

開麁顯妙者又二：先更寄相待重問答釋疑，次「開麁」下正明開顯。初文即應開麁令顯妙戒，先問答料簡者，簡出麁戒即為所開，乃是重料簡。於判麁妙文以顯開麁，故下結云「此說猶是待麁之戒」，他既不曾分於四菩薩別，今問三祇菩薩及《大品》中三乘共位菩薩為持何戒？若持梵網，何故重仍存四、輕分四篇？今小吉既與僧殘共篇，懺法一概對首，況夷愆許懺，許增益受，如是等異不可具之。故知前之二教三乘共行，別圓兩教專於梵網，若出家菩薩全用白四，而為護他加制六夷，與小異耳，餘諸輕重各隨其教。次文云「彼若答云」乃至「戒何得異」者，藏通兩經不別列眾，但出家者在出家二眾，在家者在在家二眾，故知還依小乘二眾律儀次第，是故二教無別菩薩戒。故《大論》三十八云：「以釋迦無別菩薩眾，故彌勒、文殊在聲聞中次第而坐。」次「答云無別緣覺眾」者，意明三乘同稟律儀，式又等如《止觀》第四記。「第一義光」等者，心非色故戒亦非色，故心無盡戒亦無盡，故使一切皆摩訶衍。

In "Opening the crude and revealing the subtle," there are also two parts: first, again relying on the relative, re-questioning and answering to resolve doubts; next, from "Open the crude" below, directly explaining the opening and revealing. In the first text, one ought to open the crude to cause the subtle precepts to be revealed; first raising questions and answers to evaluate and distinguish them: distinguishing the crude precepts so they become that which is opened is indeed a re-evaluation. It appears in the text evaluating the crude and the subtle to clarify the opening of the crude; hence it concludes below, "This explanation is still the discipline relative to the crude." Since others have never distinguished among the differences of the four kinds of bodhisattvas, we now ask: As for the bodhisattva of the three asaṃkhyeyas and the bodhisattva of the shared stage of the three vehicles in the Large Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra, what discipline do they uphold? If they uphold the Brahmajāla Sūtra, why do the grave [offenses] still remain four, and the light [offenses] divide into four classes? Now that minor offenses (duṣkṛta) share a class with saṃghāvaśeṣa, and the method of confession is uniformly face-to-face, not to mention that pārājika offenses are permitted confession, and receiving augmentation is permitted—differences such as these cannot be fully detailed. Thus we know that the former two teachings are practiced in common by the three vehicles, whereas the Separate and Perfect teachings exclusively rely upon the Brahmajāla. If an ordained bodhisattva completely uses the fourfold motion and resolution, yet to protect others adds the proscription of the six pārājikas, this merely differs from the small; the remaining gravities and light offenses each accord with their teaching. In the next text, where it says "If they answer…" down to "How could the precepts differ?": the sūtras of both the Tripiṭaka and Common teachings do not separately list assemblies, but merely have those who leave home belong to the two home-leaving assemblies, and those who remain at home belong to the two home-dwelling assemblies. Thus we know that they still rely on the sequential order of the monastic code of the two Hīnayāna assemblies; therefore these two teachings have no separate bodhisattva discipline. Thus Da zhidu lun, fascicle thirty-eight, says: "Because Śākyamuni has no separate bodhisattva assembly, Maitreya and Mañjuśrī sit in sequence among the śrāvakas." Next, "Answering that there is no separate pratyekabuddha assembly": the intention is to clarify that the three vehicles together receive the same monastic code; its ceremonial standards are also equal, as in the fourth record of Zhiguan. As for "the light of ultimate truth," and so forth: because the mind is not physical form, the precepts are also not physical form; because the mind is inexhaustible, the precepts are also inexhaustible; hence they cause everything to be the Mahāyāna.