法華文句記 9.78

9.78

「不應以圓行呵別」者，《經》雖但云「學佛道」者，以藏通菩薩雖亦求佛，與小共故猶屬小攝，既云求短，以權有短是故爾耳。「比丘」下云「訶通」者，四眾通有三乘故也。「去道甚遠」復云「別」者，以通教中復有別機。「沈空」下却釋通也。豈踊出菩薩補處尚皆不識一人，云何令修此等行耶？況人未出預說行耶？況復出已赴命弘持，不見更令有修行處？經又亦不應戲論諸法，此中不須引《中論．觀法品》。見論愛論彼乃通屬三界之惑，亦不須引《淨名》見苦斷集，是則戲論，此乃別斥小乘果人。又不應引《大論》。若言非有非無是戲論法及第四句名戲論謗等，今制嘲謔之論妨安樂行耳。故知釋義須望本經，棄淺從深未為當理。

Regarding "one should not use the perfect practice to rebuke the distinct": although the sūtra merely says "those who study the Buddha path," since bodhisattvas of the Tripitaka and shared [teachings] also seek buddhahood, because they share with the small they are still subsumed under the small. Since it says "seeking shortcomings," it is because the provisional has shortcomings that it is so. Below "bhikṣu" it says "rebuking the shared," because the four assemblies comprehensively have the three vehicles. "Far removed from the path" is again called "distinct," because within the shared teaching there are also capacities for the distinct. Below "sinking into emptiness" it in turn explains the shared. How could it be that the Bodhisattvas Wellspringing Forth, of whom even those in the stage of succession to buddhahood did not recognize a single one, would be made to cultivate these practices? How much less would practices be preached in advance before the people have even emerged? Furthermore, having emerged, they respond to the command to propagate and uphold, and one does not see any further place where they are made to cultivate practice. The sūtra also states that one should not engage in frivolous discourse on dharmas; here one need not cite the "Examination of Dharmas" chapter of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. Discourse born of views and discourse born of affection generally belong to the defilements of the three realms. Nor is it necessary to cite the Vimalakīrti's "seeing suffering and cutting off the origin is frivolous discourse," for that specifically rebukes practitioners of Hīnayāna fruition. Nor should one cite the Dazhidulun: if one says that neither existence nor non-existence is a dharma of frivolous discourse, or that the fourth proposition is called the slander of frivolous discourse, and so forth, here it merely prohibits mocking discourse that obstructs peaceful practices. Therefore we know that in explaining the meaning one must look to the source sūtra; casting aside the shallow to follow the deep does not accord with the principle.