四分律行事鈔資持記 1.758

1.758

釋疑中。前明上品，越教乖宗，故須問釋。答中，初二句標示。言義當者，則顯教宗本非是大，有義相當，即如下引。《疏》云分通，意亦同此。戒下，委釋，初引義例。律下，指廣。《疏》中總列五義云：相召為佛子（文如上引），施生成佛道（如此所引），沓婆厭無學，捨財用非重，塵境非根了，此皆誠例也。光師下，攀古例。然彼所判，太成通漫；文雖引據，意不全取；四分是大，將何為小？即應梵網體行全同；菩薩聲聞，二戒無別。定知不爾。是以祖師所立，語意從容；義當分通，深符教旨；待至中卷，更為詳明。（今亦有人直判為大，不識教限，妄自云云。）問：上品心者，為全是大，為分通耶？答：扶成本宗，分通義耳。問：分通之義，出自何人？答：如來立教，被此機緣。部主深知，還符佛意，別立成宗。是以前後《律》序，法正所安，多伸此意，豈不明乎！（有人妄斥南山不合立分通義，寡陋之識，何足議也。）

In resolving doubts: The previous explanation of the superior grade transgressed the teaching and deviated from the school's doctrine; hence it was necessary to raise questions and explain. In the answer, the first two lines indicate and show. Regarding the statement 'in principle it corresponds': this reveals that the doctrinal tenet was fundamentally not the Great Vehicle, but in principle it corresponds to it, as quoted below. When the Commentary speaks of 'partial sharing', its intent is also the same. Under 'Precepts onward', he details the explanation: first, adducing principles and precedents. Under 'Vinaya onward', he points to the extensive explanations. The Commentary lists five principles in all, saying: 'Addressing one another as sons of the Buddha' (the text as quoted above), 'giving to sentient beings to achieve the Buddha path' (as quoted here), 'Dabba becoming weary of the state of no-further-learning', 'renouncing wealth when the purpose is not grave', and 'dust-like sense objects not being cognised by the sense faculties'—these are all verifiable precedents. Under 'Master Guang onward', he relies on ancient precedents. However, what [Master Guang] determined was excessively generalized and diffuse; although he cited texts as authority, his intent was not entirely adopted: if the Four-Part is the Great Vehicle, what would be taken as the Small? Then it would have to be entirely identical in essence and practice with the Brahmā Net; the two sets of precepts, for bodhisattvas and śrāvakas, would have no difference. We definitely know this is not so. Therefore, the formulation established by the Patriarchal Master is measured in speech and thought; that 'in principle it corresponds to partial sharing' deeply accords with the import of the teaching; when we reach the middle fascicle, it will be clarified in further detail. (At present, some directly determine it to be the Great Vehicle, not knowing the limits of the teaching and speaking wildly on their own.) Question: Is the mind of the superior grade entirely the Great Vehicle, or is it partial sharing? Answer: It assists and completes our own school; it is merely the principle of partial sharing. Question: From whom did the principle of partial sharing originate? Answer: When the Tathāgata established the teaching, it accommodated this caliber of capacity. The head of the school thoroughly understood this, and in further accord with the Buddha's intention, separately established it to form the school. Therefore, throughout the prefaces to the Vinaya, where Dharmagupta made arrangements, he frequently expressed this intent; how could it not be clear! (Someone errantly denounced Nanshan as not being justified in establishing the principle of partial sharing; how could such shallow and meager understanding even be worth discussing?)