四分律行事鈔資持記 2.734

2.734

三中。已前律制，但據蠶家；大教轉來，不許受用。乃知聲聞行劣，但取離非；菩薩慈深，遠推來處。雖離殺手，無非殺來；足踏身披，皆沾業分。非大士可忍，豈比丘所宜；請考經文，少懷信仰；廣敘利害，《章服儀》備矣。經文，前明能施如法。離殺手者，非蠶家故。不下，明所施可否。初不受應法，大小俱順故。受者非悲，違大順小故。小從大出，望制雖順，約義還違；故知持戒行慈，方符聖旨；縱情受用，全乖道儀。故《章服儀》云：且自非悲之語，終為永斷之言；據此為論，頗彰深切。次引《涅槃》。乃終窮囑累，決了正教；明文制斷，何得遲疑。今下，舉現事。此指唐時。若《僧傳》中敘南岳道休二師不衣綿帛，竝服艾絮。故祖師云：佛法東漸，幾六百載；唯斯衡岳，慈行可歸。今時禪講，自謂大乘，不拘事相；綾羅鬪美，紫碧爭鮮；肆恣貪情，背違聖教。豈不聞衡岳但服艾絮以禦風霜，天台四十餘年唯被一衲；永嘉食不耕鋤，衣不蠶口；荊溪大布而衣，一床而居。良由深解大乘，方乃專崇苦行；請觀祖德，勿染邪風；則稟教修身，真佛子矣。

In the third section: The previous Vinaya prohibitions were based only on silkworm households; the great teaching came around and does not permit enjoying them. Thus one knows that the śrāvaka practice is inferior, merely adopting separation from wrongdoing; the bodhisattva's compassion is profound, tracing far back to its origin. Although one is free from the slaughtering hand, none of it is not from slaughter; stepping on it with one's feet or wearing it on one's body, all share in the karmic share. This is not something a great being can endure; how could it be suitable for a bhikṣu? Please examine the sūtra passages and foster a little faith; the advantages and disadvantages are narrated at length, fully provided in the *Zhangfu yi* (Rites of Garments). The sūtra text first clarifies that the one capable of giving is in accord with the Dharma. "Being free from the slaughtering hand" is because they are not a silkworm household. From "Not" below, it clarifies whether what is given is acceptable. First, not receiving accords with the Dharma, because both the great and the small [vehicles] are complied with. Receiving is not compassionate, because it violates the great and complies with the small. The small emerges from the great; although it complies with respect to the prohibition, it goes against it in terms of principle. Thus one knows that maintaining precepts and practicing compassion only then tally with the sage's intent; indulging desire in use completely goes against the decorum of the Way. Thus the *Zhangfu yi* states: "For now, words of 'not compassionate' are ultimately words of 'permanent severance'"; to argue based on this quite clearly demonstrates its profundity and urgency. Next, the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra* is cited. This is the ultimate entrustment, the definitive correct teaching; since the clear text prohibits and severs it, how could one hesitate? From "Now" below, present matters are raised. This refers to the Tang dynasty. In the *Biographies of Eminent Monks*, it narrates that the two masters of Nanyue, Daowen and Xiubai, did not wear floss or silk, both wearing mugwort wadding. Thus the Patriarchal Master said: "The Buddha-Dharma flowed east for almost six hundred years; only at this Hengyue can compassionate practice be taken as refuge!" Modern practitioners of Chan and lecturing call themselves Mahāyāna and are not bound by external marks; brocades and damasks contend in beauty, purples and blues compete in brightness; indulging greedy desires, they contradict and violate the holy teaching. Have you not heard that Hengyue merely wore mugwort wadding to ward off wind and frost; Tiantai for over forty years covered himself with only one patch-robe; Yongjia ate without tilling the soil and wore without silkworms' mouths; and Jingxi wore coarse cloth and dwelt on a single bed? Truly because of profound understanding of the Mahāyāna, they only then exclusively exalted ascetic practices. Please observe the ancestral virtue and do not be tainted by perverse winds; then, receiving the teachings and cultivating the person, one is a true son of the Buddha!