大般涅槃經集解 11.61

11.61

案僧亮曰：戒者時至則制，不至不制，謂善解因緣也。云何名墮乃至波羅提木叉者，墮是犯罪之稱，律是輕重之目，木叉是戒之義名，亦名知足亦名解脫也。何不說是法門者，若持則得解脫眾苦，犯則墮於惡趣，應早制戒，令知輕重也。僧宗曰：夫欲正他，應須善解。若不達根性，反生其累，非謂利物。上於正他文中亦云消息物情，堪聞便說，與此無異也。總而為語，真非正他。就正他中，前略舉一事，因對女人寄明正他相也。何不先為波斯匿王說是法門者，國主本知王法，而黑白雖異，除患是同，是以佛聽略知戒相。彼國盜至五錢，罪則入死；出家之人犯者，罪應滅擯。至於論罪，每與國主參懷。今問何不頓說經律甚深理耶？此中雖有五句，大意不過二也。初問何不頓制、第二問戒律之相。或時說深者，昔教亦有深淺，如十善五戒是淺，四諦十二緣是深也。若以今教望昔，通為深也。佛初出世不頓說者，應有因緣也。或名犯不犯者，昔總制云諸惡莫作。既無結罪之文，不說為犯也；及因事別制，則說為犯。云何名墮者，此三通問違不違相，違則名墮，不違為律。云何名木叉者，偏問戒體。此中再明木叉者，前直明戒體也。以其與律相涉，恐人致惑，故復簡之，取離身口意之不善即為戒體，律以取防外之威儀及制篇目。欲簡兩異，故再出耳。寶亮曰：五問者，第一難，云何不頓說經教，而有深淺說耶？第二難，何不先頓制戒，須犯後方制耶？第三問墮，所言異昔第三篇也。乃總說五篇七聚，皆是墮家果報也。第四問律，律本詮量輕重，即是向辨墮家事也。第五問波羅提木叉者，問無作戒也。智秀曰：有四問。第一問何不頓說經律，後三問不異前釋。慧朗曰：律者言類也。

Sengliang states: Precepts are instituted when the time arrives and not instituted when it has not arrived; this refers to being skilled in understanding the meaning of causes and conditions. As for 'what is termed "falling" down to "prātimokṣa"': 'falling' is the designation for committing an offense; the Vinaya is the catalog of the minor and the grave; 'mokṣa' is the designation for the meaning of the precepts, also called 'contentment' and also called 'liberation.' As for 'why not preach this Dharma-gate': if one observes them, one attains liberation from all sufferings; if one breaches them, one falls into the evil destinies. Precepts ought to have been instituted early to make them know the minor and the grave. Sengzong states: When one wishes to rectify others, one must possess skillful understanding. If one does not penetrate their faculties and natures, on the contrary burden will arise for them, which cannot be called benefiting beings. Above, in the text on rectifying others, it also said that one considers the feelings of beings and preaches when they are capable of hearing it; it is no different from this. Speaking in general, that is truly not rectifying others. Regarding rectifying others, an example was briefly raised above, relying on the confrontation with a woman to clarify the marks of rectifying others. As for 'why not first preach this Dharma-gate for King Prasenajit': the ruler of the realm originally knew the king's law; and though black and white differ, the removal of harm is the same, which is why the Buddha permitted him to know the marks of the precepts in brief. In that country, stealing up to five coins incurs the penalty of death; when one who has left household life breaches [this], the offense merits expulsion. When it comes to discussing offenses, [the Buddha] always conferred with the ruler of the realm. Now it is asked: 'Why not preach all at once the profound principle of the sūtras and the Vinaya?' Although there are five lines here, the general sense does not exceed two. The first asks why they were not instituted all at once; the second asks about the marks of the precepts and Vinaya. As for 'sometimes preaching the profound': the past teaching also had profound and shallow; for instance, the ten good deeds and the five precepts are shallow, while the four noble truths and the twelve links of dependent origination are profound. If one compares the past with the present teaching, all are profound. That the Buddha did not preach all at once when he first appeared in the world must have had causes and conditions. As for 'sometimes termed offense or non-offense': in the past he instituted generally, 'Commit no evils.' Since there was no text for establishing offenses, it was not spoken of as an offense; and when specific institutions were made according to circumstances, it was then spoken of as an offense. As for 'what is termed "falling"': these three ask generally about the marks of transgressing or not transgressing; transgressing is called 'falling,' and not transgressing is the Vinaya. As for 'what is termed "mokṣa"': this specifically asks about the precept-essence. Here 'mokṣa' is clarified a second time because the earlier passage directly clarified the precept-essence. Because it overlaps with the Vinaya, fearing that people might harbor doubt, it is therefore distinguished again: taking the departure from the unwholesome of body, speech, and mind as the precept-essence, while the Vinaya is taken to guard outer deportment and establish classifications and items. Wishing to distinguish the difference between the two, it is therefore set forth a second time. Baoliang states: Concerning the five questions: the first objection is, 'Why did he not preach the sūtra-teachings all at once, but rather had profound and shallow preachings?' The second objection is, 'Why did he not first institute the precepts all at once, but rather had to wait until an offense occurred before instituting them?' The third asks about 'falling,' what is stated being different from the third class of the past; it comprehensively states that the five classes and seven gatherings are all karmic retributions of the family of falling. The fourth asks about the Vinaya; the Vinaya fundamentally evaluates the minor and the grave, which is just what was discerned earlier regarding the matters of the family of falling. The fifth asks about 'prātimokṣa,' which asks about the unmanifest precept. Zhixiu states: There are four questions. The first asks why he did not preach the sūtras and the Vinaya all at once; the remaining three questions are no different from the previous explanation. Huilang states: 'Vinaya' means category.