楞伽阿跋多羅寶經註解 4.280

4.280

佛說心品將末，大慧復請垂誡酒、肉等以終之。蓋吾佛設化，以一性平等為本，以慈悲同體為心，以為人入道為宗故，莫先於清淨離過，以濟物度生為事故，莫上於罪福因果。是以《楞嚴》正宗之後，具明四種明誨、三種漸次，而於此經誡之彌篤，亦可以之擬流通焉。文先請通誡，次請別誡。佛答中備列不應食肉者凡十七緣，云云。次示遮制通局中，初言小教方便，或開五種，謂見、聞、疑、殺等。自餘宜若開食或制十種，謂人、蛇、象等。而不及餘類，似應通許者。然尤謹言之，但曰遮制而已，曾無開許之言。縱有一時方便，亦不得已爾。次言此經，開除方便，一切悉斷，其言可謂深切矣。而論者猶以聽制食肉，為一疑難。蓋記者有言曰，此經菩薩不應食肉，故知仍存小教中開，遂謂此經但制菩薩。仍存小教開許者，或謂記者之誤。今謂非也，正言《楞伽》當四《阿含》之後，故存漸教之說，異乎《梵網》頓制，以見此經部當方等，如是而已。所謂存者，特其文耳，何謂猶存其事，且以為誤耶？不然經云「一切悉斷」，斯言何謂乎？嗚呼！大為之防、嚴為之制，而世猶或違之，況不為之誡乎！有以見業習之深也，至有不復讚歎梵行，亦令他人入不律儀者，吾知斯人自貽厥咎。然此經言，一切法唯自心現，苟知善惡唯心，柰何順妄想而違聖教哉！戒之，勉之。

As the Buddha's explanation of the Chapter on Mind drew near its end, Mahāmati again requested that he confer admonitions on alcohol, meat, and the like to conclude it. For when our Buddha established his teaching, he took the equality of the single nature as the root, the identity of compassion and body as the mind, and causing people to enter the path as the essential aim; therefore nothing precedes purity and freedom from fault. Because delivering beings and saving the living is the matter at hand, nothing is higher than cause and effect regarding sin and blessing. For this reason, after the main text of the Śūraṅgama, the four clear instructions and three gradual stages are fully elucidated; and in this sūtra the admonition is all the more earnest, so that it may also be compared to the dissemination section. The text first requests a general admonition, and next requests a specific admonition. In the Buddha's reply, he fully lists altogether seventeen reasons why meat should not be eaten, and so forth. Next, in showing whether the prohibition is general or particular: first he speaks of the expedient means of the Hīnayāna teachings, in which five kinds are perhaps permitted—namely, not seen, not heard, not suspected, not killed [for oneself], and so forth—while the rest would seem to be permitted for eating; or ten kinds are prohibited—namely, human, snake, elephant, and so on—while not mentioning other kinds, which seems to imply general permission. Yet speaking still more carefully, he merely says 'prohibition' and never speaks of granting permission. Even if there were a temporary expedient, it was simply unavoidable. Next he says that in this sūtra, expedients are set aside and all [meat] without exception is cut off; his words may be called profound and earnest indeed. Yet commentators still take the permission and prohibition of eating meat as a dilemma. For a commentator said: 'This sūtra says that bodhisattvas should not eat meat; hence we know that the permission in the Hīnayāna teachings is still retained,' and thus maintained that this sūtra only prohibits it for bodhisattvas. As for those who say the commentator was mistaken to think the Hīnayāna permission was retained, I now say this is not so: it simply means that the Laṅkā comes after the four Āgamas, and therefore retains the gradual teaching's discourse, differing from the sudden prohibition of the Brahmajāla, thus showing that this sūtra belongs to the vaipulya class; it is merely like this. What is said to be 'retained' is merely its text; how could it mean that the practice itself was still retained, and moreover consider that an error? If it were not so, why would the sūtra say 'all is cut off without exception'? Alas! Great guards were erected and strict prohibitions established, yet the world still sometimes transgresses them; how much more so if no admonition had been made! This shows how deep karmic habit is: it has even gone so far that some no longer praise pure conduct, and also cause others to enter into non-restraint. I know that such persons bring calamity upon themselves. Yet this sūtra says that all dharmas are merely the appearance of one's own mind. If one knows that good and evil are mind alone, how can one comply with false discrimination and contravene the holy teachings? Guard against it! Exert yourselves!