大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 5.38

5.38

In the commentary, from “If explained specifically” downwards is the specific explanation based on the treatise. As for “as detailed in that treatise”, the treatise says: “Committing transgressions refers to the offences of the five assemblies. Arising refers to committing various offences due to ignorance, negligence, intense defilement, or lack of respect. Restoration of purity refers to doing so through inclination and not through punishment, as in receiving the vows of discipline. Renunciation has seven kinds: (1) confessing transgressions individually to another; (2) vowing to undergo penalties, such as taking on further training, and so forth; (3) mutual impediment, where a training rule was first instituted and later reopened through a different approach; (4) separately establishing cessation, where the Saṃgha forms a harmonious consensus to relinquish what was instituted; (5) change of faculty, where a monk or nun changes gender and thus relinquishes offences non-common [to both]; (6) through contemplation of reality, where one contemplates the characteristics of practices such as the supreme Dharma summaries (dharmoddāna); (7) naturally obtained, where through seeing the truths one naturally obtains freedom from minor and secondary infractions. One should know that vinaya has four further meanings: (1) due to the person: the World-Honoured One instituted the training rule based on that person; (2) due to promulgation: after announcing the fault committed by that person, the Great Master convened the Saṃgha and instituted the training rule; (3) due to differentiation: having instituted the training rule, he further elaborated on what had previously been stated in brief; (4) due to determination: deciding and judging the transgression herein as to what constitutes an offence and what does not.” However, the Vinayavibhāṣā gives two explanations for the absence of minor and secondary infractions: one says that “minor” refers to offences of the second division (saṃghāvaśeṣa) and “secondary” refers to two kinds of preparatory offences; the other says that “minor” refers to offences in their nature, and “secondary” refers to offences of institutional prohibition among the precepts. Question: In clarifying the Mahāyāna now, why cite the Hīnayāna teachings? Some answer: in reality the three piṭakas differ between Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna; here it is provisionally cited from the pedagogical perspective of accommodating and leading disciples. Ancients all agreed with this. Here is an additional interpretation: although the mind that upholds them differs, the name and intent broadly coincide, so it is permissible to cite the Hīnayāna. Moreover, the treatise cited above is clear and easy to understand. Furthermore, regarding the earlier phrase “as in receiving the vows of discipline”, the Liang translation says: “as in originally upholding the antidote”.