楞伽阿跋多羅寶經註解 4.280

4.280

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!