大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 59.59

59.59

Regarding the commentary's phrase "The moral code applies to both stopping and doing": below, the third is sorting out distinctions. Therein are two parts: first, sorting out the three clusters in general, where the first two are self-benefit and the latter is benefiting others. Among the former, the moral code is precisely stopping evil, and gathering wholesome dharmas is precisely performing wholesomeness. Later, from "Furthermore, the first, the moral code" downward, it sorts out only the first two, because the first two may be conflated. Therein are two parts: first, sorting them out directly; second, resolving objections sequentially. Here is the first, which already resolves an objection. That is, someone asks: "Since the moral code includes both stopping and doing—stopping being the cessation of evil and doing being the performance of wholesomeness—and doing is identical with gathering wholesomeness, why do you say that the moral code only explains the cessation of evil?" Hence there is this response, all of which derives from the intention of the Śataśāstra. In that treatise, an outsider initially asks, "What Dharma did the Buddha teach?" The answer states, "The Dharma of stopping evil and practicing wholesomeness." Explanation: Cessation from and not committing various evils such as killing is called stopping evil. Faithfully receiving and cultivating the correct practice of the three karmas is called practicing wholesomeness. The outsider then presents a further fault, saying: / "The outsider said: Since you have already spoken of stopping evil, you should not further speak of practicing wholesomeness. / The insider said: Because giving and so forth are wholesome practices. That is, giving is wholesome, not the stopping of evil. Furthermore, as in the case of a great bodhisattva whose evil has already been stopped, who practices the four immeasurables with pity for sentient beings, what evil is he stopping? / The outsider said: Giving is the dharma that stops stinginess; therefore, giving should be stopping evil. / The insider said: Not so. If giving were stopping evil, then all those who do not give would be guilty of transgression." / Explanation: This is a reductio ad absurdum, showing that giving is not stopping evil. Here, reversing its application, it shows that not practicing giving or patience does not constitute an offense. Furthermore, within the moral code, "doing" refers to keeping robes, reciting purification, and so forth, where not doing so constitutes an offense; it is not like giving, patience, and so forth, so they are not the same.