法華義疏 9.154

9.154

「若是善男子」下，明佛滅度後二種法師，亦前明下品次辨上品。此二品與前二品異者，前約弘法廣略以分二品；今約為人少多以分二品。「則如來使」者，宣轉教命為使義也。「如來所遣」者，流通得其旨趣，必可委之以理，為所遣也。「行如來事」者，佛以益物為事，弘說有益為行如來事也。「何況於大眾中」，下第二、明上品法師也。「藥王若有惡人」下，第二、通明信毀。就文為二：初、明毀之得大罪；後、明信之得大福。所以明信毀者凡有二義：一者、如來出世欲示眾生罪福二門，故《大品》云「若不說魔事魔罪則是眾生惡知識」也。二者、上明二種法師宣通正法之時，不應輕毀宜須供養。毀持經人罪重佛者，汎論罪福凡有二種：一者、約心；二者、約境。約心者，重心則罪重、輕心即罪輕。若爾重心毀佛則罪重，輕心毀佛則罪輕。持經人亦爾，不應言毀佛罪輕、毀持經人罪重。二者、約境，若罵勝境則罪重，毀劣境則罪輕，亦不應言罵佛罪輕、罵持經人罪重。既不約心就境，云何釋此文耶？有人言：罵佛不作斷法意故罪輕，毀弘經人作斷法意故罪重。所以然者，由此人弘法是故被罵，此則罵人復毀於法，罪兼二種所以重也。竺道生云：「法出於佛，若聞說罵佛，是則罵人非罵法，是故罪輕；今受持有我，若毀呰之則是毀人有法乃毀法也」。今明佛以離八風無復憂喜，雖復得毀不妨正化；今弘經之人猶是凡夫未免八風，若逢毀呰心則退悔不能弘法，法既不弘便無行法之人，既無行法之人誰復得佛？以斷三寶種故罪重也。又弘經人聞毀則妨自行，自不得成佛，亦妨化他，他又不成佛，則罪之大矣；佛聞俱不妨自行化他，故罪輕也。

From “If this good son” onward clarifies the two types of Dharma masters after the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa, likewise first clarifying the inferior rank and then distinguishing the superior rank. Where these two ranks differ from the preceding two ranks is that previously the two ranks were divided in terms of the breadth or brevity of their propagation of the Dharma, whereas here the two ranks are divided in terms of whether the people [they teach] are few or many. “He is an envoy of the Tathāgata” means that declaring and transmitting the instructions and decrees constitutes an “envoy.” “Sent by the Tathāgata” means that, in circulating [the sūtra], he grasps its purport and can certainly be entrusted with the principle, and thus is one who is “sent.” “Carrying out the Tathāgata’s work” means that the Buddha takes benefiting living beings as his work, so propagating and expounding [it] to bring about benefit constitutes carrying out the Tathāgata’s work. From “How much more so if among a great assembly” onward is the second part, which clarifies the superior-rank Dharma master. From “Bhaiṣajyarāja, if there is an evil person” onward is the second major section, which comprehensively clarifies faith and disparagement. In terms of the text, there are two parts: first, clarifying that disparaging him incurs great guilt; second, clarifying that having faith in him obtains great blessing. As for why faith and disparagement are clarified, there are broadly two meanings. First, the Tathāgata appears in the world wishing to reveal the two approaches of transgression and blessing to sentient beings; hence the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra states, “If one does not speak of Māra's deeds and Māra's faults, one is an evil spiritual friend to sentient beings.” Second, since it was clarified above that when the two kinds of Dharma masters proclaim and propagate the true Dharma they should not be belittled or disparaged but should be made offerings to, [this passage follows]. Regarding the fault of disparaging a keeper of the sūtra being heavier than [disparaging] the Buddha: generally discussing transgression and blessing, there are broadly two types—first, in terms of the mind; second, in terms of the object. In terms of the mind: a grave mind makes the fault heavy, and a light mind makes the fault light. If so, disparaging the Buddha with a grave mind would make the fault heavy, and disparaging the Buddha with a light mind would make the fault light. The same applies to the keeper of the sūtra; one should not say that disparaging the Buddha brings lighter fault while disparaging the keeper of the sūtra brings heavier fault. Second, in terms of the object: if one reviles a superior object, the fault is heavy, whereas if one disparages an inferior object, the fault is light; again, one should not say that reviling the Buddha brings lighter fault while reviling the keeper of the sūtra brings heavier fault. Since it is determined neither by the mind nor by the object, how is this passage to be explained? Some say: when reviling the Buddha, one does not have the intention to sever the Dharma, so the fault is lighter; when disparaging the propagator of the sūtra, one has the intention to sever the Dharma, so the fault is heavier. Why is this so? It is because this person propagates the Dharma that he is reviled; this reviles the person and also disparages the Dharma, so the fault combines both types and is therefore heavy. Zhu Daosheng states: “The Dharma originates from the Buddha; if one is heard reviling the Buddha, this reviles the person and not the Dharma, so the fault is light; here, the upholder possesses a self, so if one disparages him, this disparages a person who possesses the Dharma, which directly disparages the Dharma.” Now it is explained that because the Buddha has transcended the eight worldly winds, he no longer experiences sorrow or joy; although he may be disparaged, it does not impede his correct transformation [of beings]. Now, the propagator of the sūtra is still an ordinary person and has not escaped the eight worldly winds; if he encounters disparagement, his mind will regress with regret and he will be unable to propagate the Dharma. Since the Dharma will not be propagated, there will be no one who practices the Dharma; and since there is no one who practices the Dharma, who else will attain Buddhahood? Because it cuts off the lineage of the Three Jewels, the fault is heavy. Furthermore, when the propagator of the sūtra hears disparagement, it obstructs his own practice so that he himself cannot attain Buddhahood, and it also obstructs his transformation of others so that they too cannot attain Buddhahood; thus the fault is great. When the Buddha hears it, it obstructs neither his own practice nor his transformation of others, and therefore the fault is light.