法華文句記 10.106

10.106

次引證判位中云「不專」等者，顯不讀誦故以不輕為專而云「但禮」，以入位之法不獨五種法師，或自或他若信若法，或冥或顯或廣或略，故秖宣一句，功莫大焉。故今文判屬隨喜位，為六根之親因。有人云：不專是雜。今謂但顯不雜，不專對專。有人問：何故禮俗？今為答之。菩薩化緣法無一準，唯利是務故設斯儀，見眾生理與果理等，故禮生禮佛其源不殊，此自行也。欲令眾生生慕果願，果願者何？我等但理彼尚故禮，況證果理而不尊高。又云：「汝等皆行菩薩道當得作佛」，豈非擊我令修圓因，此約現在順從者也，亦信行也，亦法行也。夫益有冥顯，顯近冥遠，遠如勝意現雖不受，聲納於懷，由謗罵之辜墮於惡道，聞順從之力還遇不輕，乃至今日還令會入，以是義故上慢尚成遠因，聞信寧無現益？故毀謗者成毒鼓因，廣略準知。自行莊嚴化功歸己，自他熏瑩故淨六根。有人此中引《大經》中禮知法者，及《淨名》中比丘禮俗。此義不然。《涅槃》常儀顯敬法之志，從彼請益故忘情禮下；《淨名》聞法已獲重恩，故忘犯設敬不存恒則。若大乘正義出俗恒則，亦無令道而禮於俗，不輕立行咸異於斯，不為宣通大小非教。有人云：菩薩不作是禮即是有犯。今謂有犯須準科條，《梵網》無文小乃無制。又云：菩薩於性罪必護，於遮罪有越。今謂於遮必越，越名持不？越不名持，破非菩薩。忘犯濟物貴在物安，若也物安何簡遮性？今禮四眾濟眾何辜？故大小二乘咸遮禮俗，禮尚不受濟義不成。

Next, in citing scriptural proof and judging stages, the text says 'not dedicated,' and so forth; this shows that because he did not recite the texts, he made never-disparaging his dedication, saying 'only bowing.' Since the practices for entering the stages are not limited to the five kinds of dharma-masters, but may be self or other, by faith or by dharma, hidden or manifest, broad or abridged, merely proclaiming this single phrase yielded incomparable merit. Hence the present text classifies him in the stage of rejoicing, as the direct cause of the six sense-organs. Someone said, '"Not dedicated" means mixed.' Now I say: this simply indicates unmixed; 'not dedicated' stands in contrast to 'dedicated.' Someone asked, 'Why bow to laypeople?' Now I answer: A bodhisattva's conditions for conversion are not fixed by any single standard; taking solely the benefiting [of beings] as his task, he established this protocol. Seeing that the principle of sentient beings is equal to the principle of fruition, bowing to sentient beings and bowing to the Buddha do not differ in their origin—this is his practice for himself. He also wished to make sentient beings generate an aspiration yearning for fruition. What is the aspiration for fruition? 'Even when we only possess principle, he still bows to us; how much more so should the realization of the principle of fruition not be exalted!' Furthermore, he said, 'You are all practicing the bodhisattva path and will surely become buddhas'—is this not an impetus stirring us to cultivate the perfect cause? This concerns those who complied in the present, which is also practice by faith and practice by dharma. Now, benefit has the hidden and the manifest: the manifest is immediate, while the hidden is distant. The distant is like Viśeṣacinti: though he did not accept it in the present, the sound entered his heart; through the guilt of slandering and reviling, he fell into the evil destinies, yet by the power of having heard and complied, he again encountered Sadāparibhūta, and down to the present was once more enabled to unite and enter. For this reason, the overbearingly arrogant still formed a distant cause; how could those who heard and had faith lack present benefit? Therefore, slanderers formed the cause of the poisoned drum; broad and abridged may be understood accordingly. His own practice is adornment, and the merit of converting others reverts to himself; because self and other perfume and purify, he purified the six sense-organs. Someone here cited the bowing to those who know the Dharma in the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, and monks bowing to laypeople in the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa. This interpretation is not correct. The regular protocol in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra shows the intention to revere the Dharma: because he sought instruction from him, he set aside feelings and bowed to one inferior. In the Vimalakīrti, having heard the Dharma, he had already received great grace, and so he set aside transgression and performed reverence without maintaining standard rules. If one considers the orthodox doctrine of the Mahāyāna and the regular rules for renouncing the world, there is no command for the religious to bow to the laity. Sadāparibhūta's establishment of practice differed entirely from these; it was not for the sake of publicizing the Greater or Lesser Vehicles, nor was it not teaching. Someone said, 'If a bodhisattva does not perform this bowing, he has transgressed.' Now I say: Transgression must be based on the precepts. The Brahmajāla has no such text, and the Lesser Vehicle has no such regulation. He also said, 'A bodhisattva must safeguard against natural offenses, but may transgress prohibitive offenses.' Now I say: If one must transgress prohibitive rules, does transgressing count as upholding [the precepts]? If transgressing does not count as upholding, destroying them means one is not a bodhisattva. Setting aside transgression to save beings values the peace of beings above all; if beings are at peace, why distinguish prohibitive from natural? Now, bowing to the four assemblies saves beings—what guilt is there? Therefore, both Greater and Lesser Vehicles forbid bowing to laypeople; if the bow is not even accepted, the meaning of saving beings is not accomplished.