大般涅槃經義記 7.281

7.281

下次明其俱得淨報，於此四中，持戒正見得世淨報；破戒邪見得出世間離相淨報；持戒正見得世淨報，相顯易知，不勞解釋；破戒邪見得淨福報，義隱難識，今偏釋之。文中初言「若如是者，云何復言得淨果報」徵前起後，若如向來施及受者破戒邪見是為極惡，云何說言俱得淨報？下釋有四：初言「無施無報故淨」對問略釋，壞世諦相證第一義故名為淨。二「若不見」下翻犯為持，成得淨報見第一義。「無施報者」，行無罪過解不遠理，「是故此人不名破戒、專著邪見」。三「若依聲聞言不見」下釋通向前持犯二言。以何義故，不見施等前說以為破戒邪見，今復說為不名破戒、專著邪見？故今釋之，依聲聞法，不見施等名為破戒、名為邪見；若依是經名持正見。四「有異念」下釋大異小。何故依此《大涅槃經》偏得名為持戒正見，依小不爾？故今須釋。有異念處菩薩修集，是故不見持戒、破戒，施及報等名持、名正。「以是義」下總結此行。

Next, it explains that they all attain a pure retribution. Among these four, upholding precepts and right view attain worldly pure retribution; breaking precepts and wrong view attain supramundane pure retribution free from marks. Upholding precepts and right view attaining worldly pure retribution is clear in its marks and easy to know, requiring no laborious explanation; breaking precepts and wrong view attaining pure meritorious retribution is hidden in meaning and difficult to recognize, so it is now specifically explained. In the text, the initial statement, "if it is like this, why is it further said that they attain a pure retribution?" challenges what preceded to introduce what follows: if, as just stated, the giver and recipient breaking precepts and holding wrong views is extremely evil, why is it said that they both attain a pure retribution? The explanation below has four parts: first, stating "because there is neither giving nor retribution, it is pure" briefly explains in response to the question: destroying the marks of conventional truth and realizing ultimate truth is therefore called pure. Second, from "if one does not see" and so on, it overturns transgression into upholding, accomplishing the attainment of pure retribution by seeing ultimate truth. "Those without giving and retribution" are without fault in their practice and not distant from the principle in their understanding; "therefore this person is not called one who breaks precepts or is exclusively attached to wrong views". Third, from "if relying on the śrāvakas, saying not seeing" and so on, it explains and resolves the two previous statements on upholding and transgression. For what reason was not seeing giving and so on previously explained as breaking precepts and wrong views, but is now again explained as not being called breaking precepts and being exclusively attached to wrong views? Therefore it is now explained: relying on the śrāvaka Dharma, not seeing giving and so on is called breaking precepts and called wrong views; if relying on this sūtra, it is called upholding right view. Fourth, from "having different mindfulness" and so on, it explains the Mahāyāna differing from the Hīnayāna. Why is it that, relying on this *Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra*, it is uniquely able to be called upholding precepts and right view, whereas relying on the small [vehicle] it is not so? Therefore it must now be explained. There are different stations of mindfulness that the bodhisattva cultivates and accumulates; therefore, not seeing upholding precepts, breaking precepts, giving, retribution, and so on is called upholding [precepts] and called right [view]. From "for this reason" and so on, it summarizes this practice.