大般涅槃經義記 2.177

2.177

下就律中，或名為犯、或名不犯，呵其漸制。如來初出，未廣制戒，名為不犯。後廣制戒，名之為犯。「云何隨」下責不先制。然此文中直舉三名請佛解釋以為責本，責相未顯，待佛解竟至後難中責相方顯。「云何墮」者，問其所防，所防之罪能隨地獄、畜生、鬼等，故名為墮。「律及木叉」問其能防，能防教法說之為律。律者，是其詮量為義，詮量輕重，持犯得失，能防行法，說為木叉，此云解脫。解脫業非，故名解脫。《遺教》亦云「戒是正順解脫之本，故名波羅提木叉」也。此相云何？下佛答之，文別有四：一明戒律不得頓制，若當頓制，有人便破一切禁戒；二「或復有人誹謗」已下明其經法不得頓說，若當頓說，有人便謗一切諸法；三「如是等人自言聰」下，重就經法明頓說過，由頓說故，能謗之人自言聰明，不肯改悔；四「輕重之罪皆悉覆」下重就戒律明頓制過，由頓制故，破戒之人堅覆不悔。初中有二：一對上問中云何墮等釋顯其義；二「或有人盡破戒」下對上問中或名為犯、或名不犯，明其戒律不得頓制，制則頓犯。前中有四：一釋木叉明能防行、二解墮義彰所防罪、三重釋木叉明所詮行、四解律義彰能詮教。兩處解釋木叉何別？前約遮過以解木叉，後約性罪以釋木叉。

Below, with respect to the Vinaya, 'or called an infraction, or called no infraction' reproves his gradual establishment of prohibitions. When the Tathāgata first appeared and had not yet extensively established the precepts, it was called 'no infraction'; later, when he extensively established the precepts, it was called 'an infraction'. From 'Why according to...' downward reproves him for not establishing them beforehand. However, in this text he simply adduces the three terms and asks the Buddha to explain them as the basis for the reproof; the manner of the reproof is not yet manifest, and only after the Buddha finishes explaining, when reaching the subsequent objection, does the manner of the reproof become manifest. 'Why falling?' asks about what is guarded against: the offences that are guarded against can lead one down into the hells, animals, ghosts, and so forth, and hence it is called 'falling'. 'Vinaya and mokṣa' asks about that which guards: the teaching that guards is called the Vinaya. 'Vinaya' means measuring and assessing: measuring and assessing lightness and heaviness, upholding and violating, gain and loss. The practice that can guard is called mokṣa, translated here as liberation. Being liberated from karmic wrongdoing, it is therefore called liberation. The Sūtra of the Buddha's Bequeathed Teaching also says: 'Precepts are the foundation of proper accord with liberation; therefore they are called prātimokṣa.' What are their characteristics? Below, the Buddha answers him; the text has four distinct parts: first, explaining that the precepts and Vinaya cannot be established suddenly, for if established suddenly, some people would break all the prohibitive precepts; second, from 'Or again there are people who slander...' downward explaining that the teachings of the sūtras cannot be expounded suddenly, for if expounded suddenly, some people would slander all teachings; third, from 'Such people say of themselves that they are clever...' downward again explaining the fault of expounding suddenly with respect to the teachings of the sūtras, because due to sudden expounding, those who can slander say of themselves that they are clever and refuse to repent; fourth, from 'They conceal all offences, light and heavy...' downward again explaining the fault of sudden establishment with respect to the precepts and Vinaya, because due to sudden establishment, those who break precepts stubbornly conceal them without repenting. In the first part there are two: first, explaining and making clear the meanings in response to 'Why falling' and so forth in the above question; second, from 'Or there are people who break all the precepts' downward, in response to 'or called an infraction, or called no infraction' in the above question, explaining that the precepts and Vinaya cannot be established suddenly, for if established, there would be sudden infractions. Within the former there are four parts: first, explaining mokṣa to clarify the practice that can guard; second, explaining the meaning of 'falling' to reveal the offences that are guarded against; third, explaining mokṣa again to clarify the practice that is explained; fourth, explaining the meaning of Vinaya to reveal the teaching that can explain. What is the difference between the two explanations of mokṣa? The former explains mokṣa in terms of secondary transgressions, while the latter explains mokṣa in terms of intrinsic offences.