大般涅槃經義記 4.130

4.130

第二發心分齊之中，迦葉先問，問中有二：一牒上後段經力發心，對彼四依而為徵問；二「又如佛」下牒上初段經力滅罪，對彼四依弟子為問。前中初言「大涅槃光入生毛孔作菩提因，是義不然」牒以直非。「何以」下釋，先自徵責，後顯非意。「犯四禁等光明入身作菩提因與淨持戒有何差別」責下同上，此名四依，為淨持戒、修諸善者，犯罪聞經即能發心，與彼何別？「若無差別，如來何故說四依義以問責別」，若無差別，如來何故偏說四人為物依止，不說犯禁五逆等人為世依乎？

In the second section, on the demarcation of generating the resolve, Kāśyapa first asks a question. In the question there are two parts: first, citing the later segment above on generating the resolve through the power of the sūtra to raise a challenge against those four refuges; second, from "Furthermore, as the Buddha..." onward, citing the initial segment above on eradicating transgressions through the power of the sūtra to question with respect to the disciples of those four refuges. In the former, the opening statement, "That the light of the Great Nirvāṇa enters the pores of sentient beings to serve as a cause of bodhi—this meaning is not so," cites it to directly refute it. From "Why?" onward, he explains, first challenging it himself and then revealing the reason for the refutation: "What difference is there between those who transgress the four prohibitions and the like having the light enter their bodies to serve as a cause of bodhi, and those who purely uphold the precepts?" This challenges that the lower is made equal to the upper: these called the four refuges are those who purely uphold the precepts and cultivate all wholesome deeds; if those who commit transgressions hear the sūtra and can immediately generate the resolve, what difference is there between them and the former? "If there is no difference, why did the Tathāgata explain the meaning of the four refuges to interrogate and differentiate them?" If there is no difference, why did the Tathāgata uniquely speak of four persons as the reliance for living beings, and not say that those who transgress the prohibitions, commit the five inexpiable offenses, and the like are the reliance for the world?