[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [佛祖統紀](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2035) › 4.8 # 佛祖統紀 4.8 佛祖統紀 4.8 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2035.4.8) 述曰。法華開顯之後。涅槃廣開常宗。知一切眾生皆有佛性。於是末代無知。安於平等大慧之說。忽略戒律不復經懷。此戒緩之失也。至於不讀佛經唯好外典。此乘緩之失也（是知讀經要在解義。行行始可名乘。若秖循行數墨。但是人天福業。菩提遠因。未足以為出世之近果也）乘戒俱緩。非三塗之歸而何歸。如來久鑑未來。唱商行寄金之典。重扶三藏圓會真常。顧命之言有在於是。然則扶律談常之教。正被今日。凡在為學可不自勉。是以止觀方便具五緣中。首明持戒以為助道。要令行人以圓三觀。觀察所持十種戒本相相清淨事理俱持。乘戒俱急。非同十二年中不知圓常。唯明事相之戒。故義例有云。雖依法華三昧妙行。末代鈍根。若無扶助。則正行傾覆。故須扶律談常以顯實相。若夫大經所云。於戒緩者不名為緩。於乘緩者乃名為緩。此即偏贊大乘。格量優劣之文。豈當恃此便忽事戒。止觀謂乘急戒緩者。以三塗身見佛聞經。如華嚴涅槃。鬼神龍畜皆預列眾。如是因果。差降升沈非一。云何難言理戒得道。何用事戒。幸於人天受道。何意苦入三塗（文句）不明此宗。未足與議涅槃最後之訓。若但弘四分不讀大乘。徒知專守鹿苑持犯之章。曾未獲聞鷲峯開顯之旨。此為弘道。良用悲心。如智者之滅。弟子問誰可宗仰。則答之曰。波羅提木叉（戒）四三昧在焉（乘）左溪之逝。則顧謂門人曰。吾六即道圓萬行無得（乘）戒為心本（戒）汝等師之。是又知列祖弘道。未嘗不取本於乘戒俱急扶律談常之意。 > I comment: After the Lotus opened and revealed \[the real\], the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sutra broadly opened up the principle of permanence, letting it be known that all sentient beings have Buddha-nature. Thereupon, the ignorant in the final age, resting complacently in the doctrine of universal great wisdom, neglected the monastic precepts and no longer bore them in mind. This was the failing of laxity regarding the precepts. As for not reading the Buddhist scriptures and only delighting in non-Buddhist texts, this was the failing of laxity regarding the vehicle. (From this we know that reading the scriptures consists fundamentally in understanding their meaning; only when practice follows can it be called a 'vehicle.' If one merely follows the lines and counts the ink marks, that is only the meritorious karma of humans and devas, a remote cause for bodhi, not yet sufficient to be the proximate fruit of transcending the world.) When both vehicle and precepts are neglected, where else could one end up but the three wretched destinies? The Tathāgata, having long foreseen the future, proclaimed the scripture of the merchant depositing gold, once again supporting the Tripiṭaka and perfectly unifying with true permanence—his testamentary words lay in this. Thus, the teaching of supporting the vinaya and speaking of permanence is directed precisely at our present day. How can any who engage in learning fail to exert themselves? Therefore, among the five conditions of the expedients of Calmness and Insight, keeping the precepts is placed first as an auxiliary to the Path, requiring the practitioner to contemplate, through the perfect threefold contemplation, the ten kinds of prātimokṣa vows as pure in every characteristic, keeping them both phenomenally and principlically. Both vehicle and precepts must be urgent, not like the \[teachings of the first\] twelve years that did not know the perfect and permanent and explained precepts only in their phenomenal aspects. Hence the Yili states: 'Although one relies on the sublime practice of the Lotus Samādhi, if the dull-rooted of the final age have no supporting assistance, the correct practice will collapse. Therefore, one must support the vinaya and speak of permanence to reveal the true mark.' As for what the Great Sutra says—'One who is lax in precepts is not called lax; only one who is lax in the vehicle is called lax'—this is a passage that singularly praises the Mahāyāna and measures relative superiority and inferiority. How could one rely on this to neglect phenomenal precepts? The Calmness and Insight says that those who are 'urgent in the vehicle but lax in the precepts' see the Buddha and hear the scripture in bodies of the three wretched destinies; just as in the Avataṃsaka and Nirvāṇa sutras, ghosts, spirits, dragons, and beasts are all numbered among the assembly. Such causes and fruits, with their gradations of rising and falling, are varied. How could one object by saying, 'Since one attains the Path through the precepts of principle, what need is there for phenomenal precepts?' When fortunate enough to receive the Path among humans and devas, why willingly suffer falling into the three wretched destinies? (Sentence commentary) One who is not clear on this doctrine is not yet qualified to discuss the final instruction of the Nirvāṇa Sutra. If one merely propagates the Four-Part Vinaya without reading the Mahāyāna, one merely knows how to abide strictly by the rules of observance and transgression from the Deer Park, having never heard the purport of the opening and revelation on Vulture Peak. For this to be propagating the Path is truly lamentable. For example, when Zhiyi passed away, his disciples asked whom they should take as their authority, and he answered them: 'The prātimokṣa (precepts), and the four kinds of samādhi are therein (vehicle).' When Zuoxi died, he looked back and said to his disciples: 'My path of the six identities is complete and my myriad practices are non-attainment (vehicle); the precepts are the basis of the mind (precepts); take them as your teacher.' From this we also know that the transmission of the Path by successive patriarchs never failed to take its root in the principle that both vehicle and precepts must be urgent, and in supporting the vinaya and speaking of permanence. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2035.4.7) - [Next: 4.9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2035.4.9) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2035.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2035~en-mt.4.8) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2035.4.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2035.4.8) · Pramāṇa