佛祖統紀 4.8

4.8

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.