四分律行事鈔資持記 2.1501

2.1501

次科，初句徵起。若下，釋通，初釋須聽。若下，次明須制。以中下不堪專制，上智不樂常開；偏立一端，皆容退道；失於機器，豈曰知時！然文對三根，一往分異，須知制本通於中下，聽亦時開上根。故下，雙結。生即是機，通目三類。古記科前文為正明體狀，今分已下，為四行攝法。今應問曰：出體既竟，那忽於後而明攝法？若謂攝法不關體者，何以不列餘六門中？而不知前文且敘二教；今分已下，方出體狀。一迷於此，歷代虛爭；請以理求，勿事氷執。

In the next section, the first line raises the inquiry. Below "if," it explains and resolves it, first explaining the necessity of permission. Below "if," it next clarifies the necessity of prohibition. Because middling and lower practitioners cannot endure exclusive prohibition, and those of superior wisdom do not delight in constant exceptions; establishing only one side would in both cases allow regression from the Path; missing the capacity of the faculties, how could one be said to know the proper time! However, the text's alignment with the three roots is a provisional differentiation; one must know that prohibition originally applies to the middling and lower, and permission also opens at times to superior faculties. Below "therefore," it concludes both together. "Beings" means capacities, generally designating the three categories. The ancient records segmented the preceding text as properly clarifying substantial marks, and from "now divided" downwards as the four practices subsuming dharmas. Now one should ask: Having already finished identifying the essence, how could it suddenly clarify the subsumed dharmas afterward? If one says subsuming dharmas does not pertain to the essence, why is it not listed among the remaining six gates? They did not understand that the preceding text merely recounts the two teachings; only from "now divided" downwards does it identify the substantial marks. Confused on this one point, past generations argued in vain; please seek it through reason, and do not cling rigidly.