菩薩戒本疏 2.174

2.174

余曾聞之師，世多《梵網》疏鈔，而義寂師所述最為妙詮也。爾來求之，髣髴乎寶覺尊者之於《首楞嚴》者，有稔于期矣。頃寓城北密嚴菴，偶書林某氏携來一古書曰：「此是寂法師之《梵網疏》也。」余驚歎頂受，而燒薌拜閱，傳寫展轉，誤魯魚者不為不多，管識之所及，謹校隨正，遂諭某氏繡梓行世，庶幾自利延及他焉。然此疏所牃與流布經往往有異，東掖註疏言藏中有闕本，蓋指之乎？是故且執天台經本駁入疏中，以便合稽。又旁添和字者，欲令嬰學易解也。其猶未正者，更俟後賢之參訂而已。

I once heard from my teacher that there are many commentaries and subcommentaries on the Brahmajāla[-sūtra] in the world, but Master Uijeok's work is the most marvelous exposition. Ever since, I have sought it, just as Venerable Baojue sought the Śūraṅgama[-sūtra], for many years. Recently, while lodging at Mi'an Hermitage in the northern part of the city, a certain person from the bookshops unexpectedly brought an old book and said: "This is Dharma Master [Ui]jeok's Commentary on the Brahmajāla[-sūtra]." Astonished and admiring, I reverently received it atop my head, burned incense, and bowed as I read it. Through successive transcriptions, errors like mistaking "lu" for "yu" were not few. To the extent of my limited knowledge, I carefully collated and corrected them, and then instructed that person to carve the woodblocks to circulate it in the world, hoping that benefiting myself might extend to others. However, the text cited in this commentary frequently differs from the prevailing edition of the sūtra. The Dongye commentary mentions that there is a missing edition in the canon; was it perhaps referring to this? For this reason, I have temporarily adopted the Tiantai text of the sūtra to insert into the commentary, in order to facilitate cross-checking. Furthermore, Japanese phonetic glosses have been added beside the text to make it easy for beginners to understand. Those parts that are not yet corrected must await the collation and revisions of future worthy scholars.