四分律行事鈔資持記 2.251

2.251

答中，初句。世疑戒本防非，三乘果人，煩惑既傾，業非永喪，何用戒為？又經律中，如來成道，方始感戒，羅漢破結上法得戒。準此初句，頗決深疑；更有別通，文在《義鈔》。境不盡者，經云：眾生無盡，戒亦無盡；此舉正報必兼依報，故非情境亦無盡也。第二句。正通前難，餘三相因而來。心過在者，以惑心未破，妄業隨興；害生斷草，心不息故。三二俱句。凡夫現境，二皆存故。四中。不同者，如初四重，名僧尼同戒；後四重，尼有僧無；漏觸麁歎，僧有尼無，名不同戒。如僧轉為尼，漏觸等境，非我所防，復無能防，故云俱謝。此句論謝，即不同前謝滅之謝，比之可知。

In the answer, the first line: the world doubts that since the precepts originally defend against wrongs, for fruit-attainers of the three vehicles whose afflictions and confusions are already overturned and whose karmic wrongs are eternally lost, what use do they have for precepts? Furthermore, in the sūtras and vinayas, only when the Tathāgata achieved awakening did he first evoke the precepts, and the arhat obtained the precepts through the higher dharma of breaking fetters. In accordance with this first line, it quite resolves this deep doubt; there is also another clarification, the text of which is in the Meaning Commentary. As for 'the realm is not exhausted', a sūtra states: 'Living beings are inexhaustible, and precepts are also inexhaustible.' Pointing out the direct reward necessarily includes the dependent reward, so the non-sentient realm is also inexhaustible. The second line directly resolves the previous objection, and the remaining three follow from it. 'The mental fault remains' is because when the deluded mind has not been shattered, false karma arises accordingly; because the mind of harming living beings and cutting grass does not cease. The third is the line on 'both exist', because for ordinary beings in the present realm, both persist. In the fourth, 'different' means: the first four grave offenses are called precepts common to monks and nuns; the latter four grave offenses exist for nuns but not for monks; [the offenses of] emission, physical contact, and coarse speech exist for monks but not for nuns, which are called different precepts. For instance, if a monk transforms into a nun, realms like emission and contact are no longer what is defended against by me, nor is there anything capable of defending, hence it is said 'both have ceased'. The cessation discussed in this line is not the same as the cessation of perishing previously mentioned; comparing them, this can be understood.