天台菩薩戒疏 2.4

2.4

第二、不飲酒戒。酒是惛狂之藥，重過由此而生，故制罪也。別具四緣：一、是真酒，二、真酒想，三、無重病緣，四、入口，便犯。律中不通誤飲，此文乃制「故」。就文為又二：初標名舉過，制令止惡；次「若故」下遺制結犯。初言酒器者，盛酒空器也。空器尚犯，況勸酒耶？獄出報生雜類，乃至蛐蟮，故云無手。教人等令飲，尚乃不應，何況自飲？故並結犯。結犯可知。

Second: the precept against drinking alcohol. Alcohol is a medicine of stupor and madness; grave faults arise from it, and so the offense is established. It specifically possesses four conditions: first, it is genuine alcohol; second, the conception that it is genuine alcohol; third, there is no circumstance of severe illness; fourth, it enters the mouth, whereupon the offense is committed. In the Vinaya, mistaken drinking is not included [as an offense], whereas this text specifically establishes [the offense for doing so] "intentionally". As for the text, it again has two parts: first, stating the title, adducing the fault, and enjoining the cessation of evil; next, from "if intentionally..." onward, the bequeathed injunction concluding the offense. First, regarding "vessels of alcohol": empty vessels that hold alcohol. If even empty vessels incur an offense, how much more so urging others to drink? Emerging from the hells, the retribution is to be born among miscellaneous species, even earthworms; hence it says "without hands". Even instructing others to drink is impermissible; how much less drinking it oneself? Therefore, both are concluded as offenses. Concluding the offense may be understood.