梵網經古迹記 2.83

2.83

Explanation: Liquor is the root cause of delusion, heedlessness, and the arising of offenses. Formerly [Svāgata possessed] the power to subdue dragons, yet [after drinking] he could not even restrain a toad; up to four heinous crimes arise from this, with the sole exception of causing a schism in the Sangha. Therefore, it is now prohibited. Regarding 'countless faults': it is because intoxication gives rise to faults that it becomes an offense. As the Abhidharmakośa states, when used in measured amounts to cure illness, it lacks the characteristic of an intrinsic offense (svabhāva-sāvadyatā). Thus we know it is a prohibitive offense (pratiṣedha-sāvadyatā), though vinaya masters claim it is an intrinsic offense. Upāli asked, 'How should I provide for the sick?' The World-Honoured One said, 'Except for intrinsic offenses, all may be supplied.' Yet when Śākyan clan members contracted diseases and required liquor, the World-Honoured One did not permit them to drink it. Furthermore, noble beings who undergo rebirth also do not violate it; hence various Abhidharma masters state that it is not an intrinsic offense. However, the general suspension of prohibitive precepts was granted for the sick; later, prohibiting the drinking of liquor at a different time was done to prevent one from committing intrinsic offenses through using this. Furthermore, that all noble ones do not drink liquor is because noble beings are endowed with shame and conscience, and drinking causes one to lose right mindfulness. That they do not drink even a small amount is because, like poison, the dosage is indeterminate. Regarding 'five hundred lifetimes without hands': this is due to the fault of an extremely intense evil mind, not a good mind or the like. If it is given with a good mind, the Yogācārabhūmi permits it as included within the perfection of giving. As the Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā states: For a lay bodhisattva to give liquor is without fault, for he should form this thought: 'The practice of the perfection of giving completely fulfills people's wishes; later I will skillfully teach and transform them to abandon liquor.' Regarding '[one must not] teach [others to drink]...' down to 'much less drink it oneself': having earlier used passing the cup as an analogy for drinking it oneself, this is the second part, using teaching others to drink as an analogy for drinking it oneself. 'If one intentionally drinks it oneself or teaches another to drink' is the general summary of the violation. However, the Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā-sūtra states: 'One must not drink liquor. If an expert physician blends medicine and mixes many medicines together, using a small amount of liquor with many medicines is permitted. One must not consume oil or rub it on the body, etc.; but if there is a cause and condition, it may be used, and one may consume milk, curd, fresh butter, and clarified butter. I formerly consumed milk-gruel for wind and phlegm chills.' Thus the Adbhutadharma-paryāya-sūtra, in laying down the five precepts, states: 'If one drinks liquor to gladden the mind and give rise to good, drinking it does not violate the precept.' It is explained in detail as in that text. How much more so with the bodhisattva precepts, where there is benefit and no violation, just as Vimalakīrti entered brothels and taverns to establish people's resolve.