四分律行事鈔資持記 2.110

2.110

正破中，初文；初二句，敘教本融。若據大小，理教實異；今約從本施出，或約開會有歸，故云無分隔耳。對下，明因機故異。故下，引證，初證說小悟大。即《無量義經》，彼云：善男子！初說（鹿苑）、中說（《方等》、《般若》）、今說（即當經也）；文詞是一，而義別異；義異故，眾生解異；解異故，得道亦異；善男子！初說四諦，為求聲聞人；而八億諸天，來下聽法，發菩提心（此證前義鈔作八萬）；次說《方等》、《般若》，菩薩修行；而百千比丘，無量人天，得須陀洹等（此同後文）。雙下，證說大悟小。即《涅槃》云：須跋陀羅，聞佛說大涅槃甚深妙法，得法眼淨；乃至漏盡，得阿羅漢果等。以下準經顯意。此謂如來一音演法，眾生隨類得解，然此但望言教是一；至於佛意，不無密赴，故使隨類得益也。此明不以所學，即判大小。但達其大者，一切歸大，何妨學律；志之小者，所為皆小，徒自窮經，故曰：在心不唯教也。

In [the section of] the direct refutation, there is first the text; the first two sentences describe how the teachings are originally fused. If considered in terms of Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, the principles and teachings are indeed distinct; here, speaking in terms of their being set forth from the root source, or in terms of the opening and convergence finding their return, it is therefore said that there is no division between them. Below, 'Facing [the faculties]' clarifies that the differences arise due to the capacities [of beings]. Below, 'Therefore' adduces citations as proof: first, it proves that expounding the small may lead to awakening to the great. That is the *Anantanirdeśa-sūtra*, which states: 'Good man! The initial expounding (the Deer Park), the intermediate expounding (the *Vaipulya* and *Prajñā*), and the present expounding (namely this very sūtra); the phrasing is the same, yet the meanings are distinctly different. Because the meanings are different, sentient beings' understandings are different; because their understandings are different, their attainment of the Way is also different. Good man! Initially I expounded the four truths for those seeking to be śrāvakas, yet eight hundred million devas came down to listen to the Dharma and gave rise to the bodhicitta (this confirms the former meaning; the *Transactions Manual* has eighty thousand). Next I expounded the *Vaipulya* and *Prajñā*, the practices of bodhisattvas, yet hundreds of thousands of bhikṣus and countless humans and devas attained the fruit of srotāpanna and so forth (this accords with the latter passage).' Below, 'Both' proves that expounding the great may lead to awakening to the small. Namely, the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra* states: 'Subhadra heard the Buddha expound the profound and wondrous Dharma of the Mahāparinirvāṇa and attained the purity of the Dharma-eye; up to the exhaustion of outflows and attaining the fruit of arhatship,' and so on. Below, 'Taking the sūtra as the standard' reveals the intent. This refers to the Tathāgata expounding the Dharma with a single voice, while sentient beings attain understanding according to their kinds; however, this is said only with regard to the identity of the spoken teaching. As for the Buddha's intent, it does not lack secret adaptations, thereby causing beings to obtain benefits according to their kinds. This clarifies that one does not determine great or small merely by what is studied. If one only penetrates the great, everything returns to the great—what obstacle is there to studying the Vinaya? For one whose aspirations are small, all that he does is small, and in vain does he exhaust the sūtras. Therefore it is said: 'It lies in the mind, not solely in the teaching.'