大般涅槃經疏 8.15

8.15

從「唯然世尊」去，是第二答法身因。因有得果之能，能名為力，即是答得大堅固力之問也。迦葉前疑無常速朽，聞佛百非非於雜食塵土等身，然後方顯常身不壞，悟解歡喜。而猶未知法身所因云何，更騰疑牒問。金剛身是騰前所因，云何是起後。佛答為三：一正答、二領解、三勸修。初有略、廣。略為二：初明護法、次引證。初文者，護法不壞今得常住，不壞之身取相似因而為答問。次我於往昔，是略引證。從「善男子護持正法」去，廣答。又二：初廣明護法、次廣引證。初又二：一在家、二出家。在家護法取其元心所為，棄事存理匡弘大教，故言護持正法。不拘小節，故言不修威儀。護法有四句：出家在家共不能護者，無名行比丘，無勢力俗人是也。在家出家獨不能護者，還是兩種各各不能。出家在家獨能護者，佛及仙豫是也。出家在家共能護者，今文是也。昔是為今非，今非為昔是；今昔俱非，今昔俱是。昔時平而法弘，應持戒勿持仗；今時險而法翳，應持仗勿持戒。今昔俱險應俱持仗，今昔俱平應俱持戒。取捨得宜，不可一向。次從「迦葉白佛」去，是出家之人護法，有問有答。問中棄理存事為難，答中棄事存理為答，如文。二「善男子過去久遠」去，是廣引證。文為四：一護法本緣。次從「爾時有一」去，明護法行。三從「尋即命終」去，是護法果報。四從「爾時王者」去，是結會前二，如文。第三中云阿閦者，《道行》云無怒，《放光》云妙樂，無怒妙樂二名相成。《淨名》云無動。王前生是第一，比丘後生是第二。又約四依，王是初依第一。比丘是第二依。為聲聞者非小乘也，乃是大乘聲聞。舉此二人，定以何人為證？舊取王能護為證，或雙取為證。第四如文。次迦葉白佛如來常身猶如畫石，是領解。我以常解解佛常身，耿耿不沒喻如畫石。三「以是因緣」下，勸修。又二：初通舉因果以勸四眾、次別勸在家開執刀仗。文即為二：先勸；次簡，又四：一問、二答、三領、四述。就問為二：初問師之有無、二問戒之持犯。問者問其與持刀仗者相隨，猶有師德、為無師德？就佛答又兩：初正答、後結歎。正答中二：初答戒之有無、次答師之有無。初文二：初正答是無戒人與護法相隨，而護法者非無戒人，如文。次既自持戒，云何化他？更問此事。佛答與護法者俱，如文。從「迦葉夫護法者」去，二答有師無師之問，先略、後廣。略中三意：一持經、二持律、三摧伏破戒。具此三德故可為師。正見是內解經律，遇弘緣摧伏惡人是外用。「迦葉若有比丘」下，是廣答，還廣前三而不次第。初廣摧伏為三：先出壞眾師弟、次通舉三眾、三明淨眾能壞前二眾。從「善持律」去，廣明持律能壞前二。律中明六種五法：一學人、二無學人、三神解、四畜弟子、五訓誨、六事用。此中正是神解五法，得離依止堪為師位。四事與律問答小異，一事則異。律謂為誦木叉，此中名隨時教化。神解五法者，一是調伏眾生、二知輕、三知重、四是律應證、五非律不證。云何調伏？調眾生時不得選擇時節處所，又不得一向漫調（云云）。知重可見。知輕者，即十三，前九無諫、後四有諫。兩諫不從未結具方便罪，三諫不從方結正罪。非律不證者，知他犯律不應證之。如有人云：佛入凡夫中作五欲，便自忘是聖人。後遇善知識語云：汝是聖人，那作此事？只覺自是聖人。又佛入地獄代眾生受苦，實受割㓟之痛。如此等言予皆不證，聖人豈然？又云：彌勒應為五百，我是一人。斯言皆不可證。善解一字者，即律一字，應約律字解五名也，如止觀（云云）。「善持契經」去，廣明經亦復如是，例律應有五事：一隨時教化、二知有餘、三知無餘、四非經不證、五是經應證。二佛法無量，是結歎。「迦葉」下，第三領解。「佛讚」下，第四述成（云云）。學人五法者，謂信、戒、定、慧、多聞，從五停心至那舍也。無學人五法，謂五分法身，齊第四果。神解五法如前。畜弟子五法者，一謂十夏。十夏是長宿，堪畜弟子。二持戒纖毫不犯。今時不犯初篇即名不犯，後可悔故。三多聞。大小內外精通者若不能具，會須一藏，無者不可。四能除弟子憂悔。若退戒還俗，應說苦切之事。五能除弟子惡邪。弟子既無衣食勢力，即欲越濟，應為除其惡邪。餘兩五法不論（云云）。

From "Only indeed, World-Honoured One" onward is the second part, answering [concerning] the cause of the dharmakāya. The cause has the capacity to attain the fruit, and this capacity is called "power"; thus, it answers the question on attaining great, firm power. Kāśyapa previously doubted impermanence and swift decay, and upon hearing the Buddha's hundred negations that negated bodies of mixed food, dust, and so forth, only then was the permanent and indestructible body revealed, bringing him awakening, understanding, and joy. Yet, still not knowing what the cause of the dharmakāya was, he reiterated his doubt and formulated his question again. "Vajra body" reiterates the preceding cause; "how" gives rise to what follows. The Buddha's answer has three parts: first, the direct answer; second, accepting and understanding; third, encouraging practice. The first has a brief and an extensive [treatment]. The brief has two parts: first, explaining the protection of the Dharma; second, citing proof. In the first passage, through protecting the Dharma without destruction, one now attains permanence; an indestructible body takes a similar cause to answer the question. Next, "I in the past" briefly cites proof. From "Good sons, guarding and upholding the true Dharma" onward is the extensive answer. It also has two parts: first, extensively explaining the protection of the Dharma; second, extensively citing proof. The first also has two parts: first, the laity; second, the renunciants. For the laity protecting the Dharma, one takes what was intended in their original mind: abandoning mundane affairs to preserve the principle and uphold and spread the great teaching; hence it says "guarding and upholding the true Dharma." Not being bound by minor matters, it says "not cultivating deportment." Protecting the Dharma has four alternatives: both renunciants and laypeople being unable to protect refers to monks without reputation or practice, and worldly people without influence. Laypeople or renunciants individually being unable to protect refers back to these two classes each individually lacking capacity. Laypeople or renunciants individually being able to protect refers to the Buddha and [King] Senyo. Both renunciants and laypeople being able to protect refers to the present text. What was right in the past is wrong in the present; what is wrong in the present was right in the past. Both past and present are wrong; both past and present are right. In past times, when things were tranquil and the Dharma flourished, one should keep the precepts and not take up weapons; in present times, when things are perilous and the Dharma is obstructed, one should take up weapons and not keep [rigid] precepts. If both past and present are perilous, both should take up weapons; if both past and present are tranquil, both should keep the precepts. Taking up and setting aside must be fitting; one must not be one-sided. Next, from "Kāśyapa addressed the Buddha" onward concerns the protection of the Dharma by renunciants, containing questions and answers. In the questions, abandoning the principle to preserve mundane affairs is raised as an objection; in the answers, abandoning mundane affairs to preserve the principle serves as the reply, as in the text. Second, from "Good sons, in the distant past" onward extensively cites proof. The text has four parts: first, the original circumstances of protecting the Dharma. Next, from "At that time there was one" onward explains the practice of protecting the Dharma. Third, from "Soon his life ended" onward is the karmic reward of protecting the Dharma. Fourth, from "The king at that time" onward brings together and reconciles the preceding two, as in the text. In the third part, regarding Akṣobhya, the Daoxing says "Without Anger" (Wunu), the Fangguang says "Wonderful Joy" (Miaole); the two names "Without Anger" and "Wonderful Joy" complement each other. The Vimalakīrti says "Immovable" (Wudong). The king's prior birth is the first; the monk's subsequent birth is the second. Furthermore, in terms of the four reliances, the king is the first of the first reliance; the monk is the second reliance. As for being a śrāvaka, this is not the Hīnayāna, but a Mahāyāna śrāvaka. In adducing these two persons, which person is definitively taken as proof? Former [commentators] took the king's capacity to protect as proof, or took both together as proof. The fourth is as in the text. Next, Kāśyapa's addressing the Buddha that the Tathāgata's permanent body is like an engraving on stone is accepting and understanding. With an understanding of permanence I understand the Buddha's permanent body, lucid and indelible, likened to an engraving on stone. Third, from "By this reason" downward encourages practice. This also has two parts: first, generally adducing cause and fruit to encourage the four assemblies; second, specifically encouraging the laity to permit the holding of knives and weapons. The text has two parts: first, the encouragement; second, the differentiation, which further has four parts: first, questioning; second, answering; third, accepting; fourth, validating. Within the questioning there are two parts: first, questioning whether there is a teacher; second, questioning the keeping or breaking of precepts. The questioner asks whether one who accompanies those holding knives and weapons still possesses the virtue of a teacher, or lacks the virtue of a teacher. The Buddha's answer also has two parts: first, the direct answer; later, the concluding praise. Within the direct answer there are two: first, answering the presence or absence of precepts; second, answering the presence or absence of a teacher. In the first passage there are two: first, directly answering that it is a person without precepts who accompanies the protector of the Dharma, whereas the protector of the Dharma is not a person without precepts, as in the text. Next, since he himself keeps the precepts, how does he transform others? This matter is questioned further. The Buddha answers that he is together with the protector of the Dharma, as in the text. From "Kāśyapa, one who protects the Dharma" onward is the second, answering the question of whether there is a teacher or no teacher, first briefly, then extensively. In the brief [treatment] there are three points: first, upholding the sūtras; second, upholding the vinaya; third, subduing the precept-breakers. Because one possesses these three virtues, one can be a teacher. Right view is internally understanding the sūtras and vinaya; encountering the conditions for propagation to subdue evil persons is the external function. From "Kāśyapa, if there is a monk" downward is the extensive answer, which also expands upon the previous three, though not in sequence. First, extensively explaining subduing has three parts: first, pointing out the teachers and disciples of the corrupt assembly; second, generally adducing the three assemblies; third, explaining that the pure assembly can destroy the former two assemblies. From "skillfully upholding the vinaya" onward extensively explains that upholding the vinaya can destroy the former two. The vinaya explains six kinds of five dharmas: first, the learner; second, the non-learner; third, spiritual understanding; fourth, keeping disciples; fifth, instructing; sixth, practical affairs. Here it refers precisely to the five dharmas of spiritual understanding, by which one attains release from reliance and is fit for the rank of teacher. Four items differ slightly from the vinaya's questions and answers, while one item is different. The vinaya calls it reciting the prātimokṣa; here it is called teaching and transforming in accord with the occasion. The five dharmas of spiritual understanding are: first, taming sentient beings; second, knowing the light [offenses]; third, knowing the heavy [offenses]; fourth, certifying what is vinaya; fifth, not certifying what is not vinaya. What is taming? When taming sentient beings, one must not choose times and places, nor may one indiscriminately tame them across the board (and so forth). Knowing the heavy is evident. Knowing the light refers to the thirteen [saṃghāvaśeṣas]: the first nine have no admonition, while the last four have admonitions. If two admonitions are not heeded, the preparatory offense of completion is not yet established; only when three admonitions are not heeded is the principal offense established. Not certifying what is not vinaya means knowing that another violates the vinaya and one should not certify it. For example, some people say: "The Buddha entered among worldlings and engaged in the five desires, then forgot himself that he was a sage. Later he met a good friend who said to him, 'You are a sage; why do you do this?' and only then realized himself that he was a sage." Also: "The Buddha entered hell to undergo suffering on behalf of sentient beings, truly experiencing the pain of being sliced and flayed." Statements such as these I do not certify at all; how could a sage be so? Also, they say: "Maitreya should be five hundred [persons], and I am one of them." All such statements cannot be certified. Skillfully understanding a single word refers to a single word of the vinaya; one should explain the five designations according to the words of the vinaya, as in the Zhiguan (and so forth). From "skillfully upholding the sūtras" onward extensively explains that the sūtras are also like this; by analogy with the vinaya, there should be five items: first, teaching and transforming in accord with the occasion; second, knowing what has a remainder; third, knowing what has no remainder; fourth, not certifying what is not a sūtra; fifth, certifying what is a sūtra. Second, that the Buddhadharma is immeasurable is the concluding praise. From "Kāśyapa" downward is the third, accepting and understanding. From "The Buddha praised" downward is the fourth, validating and completing (and so forth). The five dharmas of a learner are faith, morality, concentration, wisdom, and broad learning, from the fivefold stilling of the mind up to the [stage of] Ānanda. The five dharmas of a non-learner are the five-part dharmakāya, up to the fourth fruit. The five dharmas of spiritual understanding are as before. The five dharmas of keeping disciples are: first, ten rains-retreats. Ten rains-retreats constitutes seniority, fitting one to keep disciples. Second, keeping the precepts without violating even the slightest fraction. Nowadays, not violating the first category [of pārājika] is called non-violation, because the rest can be repented. Third, broad learning. If one cannot be thoroughly versed in the greater and lesser [vehicles] and the inner and outer [teachings], one must definitely master one piṭaka; lacking this, it is not permissible. Fourth, being able to dispel a disciple's grief and remorse. If they wish to regress from the precepts and return to the lay life, one should explain stern and poignant matters. Fifth, being able to dispel a disciple's evil heresies. When a disciple lacks clothing, food, and influence, and thus wishes to transgress and cross bounds, one should dispel their evil heresies for them. The remaining two five dharmas are not discussed (and so forth).