釋門章服儀 1.21

1.21

答曰：「出俗五眾，准的四依，聖有成儀，無經凡慮。開濟形苦，意在心清，事不獲已，置斯聖種。而正律遮許，慈悲務先，得而生惱，必不容納。故肉食蠶衣，為方未異，害命夭生，事均理一。暴繭爛蛾，非可忍之痛；懸疱登爼，成惡業之酷。漁人獻鮪，桑妾登絲，假手之義不殊，分功之賞無別。是以至聖殷鑒，審惡報之難亡，經律具彰，兩俱全斷。故《涅槃》、《象腋》、《楞伽》、《大雲》，莫不盛顯行慈，昌標止殺。殺為罪之元也，俗戒首焉，何有道宗安行其事？說導創演，必化之以慈仁；身服所先，必衣之以繒綵。繒綵所成，非殺不登，其事安忍，不思非犯，無由自處，顰眉撫事，良可嗟之。是以震旦承教，全具不倫，斷肉之制久行，禁絲之儀莫用，非為誠教不約，過在迷文，或可於文不迷，愛沒無由將出。故《律》中蠶家乞綿，用成臥具，為俗所訶，名殺生也。佛因制戒，不許服之，縱得已成，斬碎塗壁，此則永捨之極誡也，必須斷之。如《律》中用蟲、飲蟲，異途同制；野蠶、家蠶，分緣通約。若純若雜，俱犯於部篇；自成他成，咸碎於斤斧。今僧迷名，為非法服，故不行矣。如上正名，想無有惑，故《僧祇》云憍奢耶者，蠶口初絲，事同《四分》、《五分》，不許為服。縱得衣財，經緯俱布，中穿一絲，亦通制斷，又極誡也。《薩婆多》云：『外國用綿成衣，自有二種，或細擘分布，如作氈法，或引成經緯，即綿紬也，皆不許之。』自古諸師，不思教意，縱是昔迷，云即臥具，由殺害得，尚令斤碎，安有道服慈忍者相，由殺害得，反聽受持也？是知受持聖法，非淨不行，妄以傳之，誠乖本意。故大唐塞外，三垂海濱，大夏諸蕃，有佛法處，所被道服，皆資氈布，無用絲綿，即良證也。此土齊、魏名僧，周、隋高勝，所服大衣，皆資以布，雖未委教，闇與文同，豈非慈惻之深，法衣依法故也？如俗常習，以布為衫，通國同遵，不可頓易。故《大論》所顯布僧伽梨者，明是古佛道法，出有聖標，名為聖種，是以大聖依而服之，以為後式。《五分》鉢坏，亦同此也。是知法衣、應器，非凡所行，佛不出世，則不現也。故諸明達，遵途莫違，有承據矣。即《雜含》云：『修四無量，服三法衣，則成慈悲者之服。』余少經律肆，講至斯文，無席開遮，引用蓋寡，深懷猜貳，未敢通行，隨得披服，覆形而已。貞觀末歲，參傳譯經，顧訪蠶衣，方知莫用，深恨知之晚矣。且形體所寄，資於溫暖，就報強羸，難用通約。所以《涅槃》密教，開抑有由，諒有殊意也。不可同肉全斷，則下人報弱，無入道之期；似乳通開，則上行慢求，有惰學之務。所以方便引喻，為道資形。故諸經云：『依法而用，雖受十萬，不以為多；必未能行，一盃之水，一納之衣，不許輒受。』斯誠致也。是知取納之務，務在清心，雖許披服，服而不著，可也。然三種法衣，理非通限，還貿氈布，用准於前。良以自餘裙帔，唯擬遮寒，事不獲已，開濟形苦。生涯形報，終入死門，業命未傾，資心助道。事不獲已，供其衣食，終號養怨，無所益也。如能志節高劭，情割浮華，敬重正宗，死而無恨者，斯則比丘法行，列聖崇之。如草繫海板之儔也，約戒命難，是所通開；約心忍死，奉而不捨。故為幽冥之所翼，贊經論之所昌言。此但遮戒，以死持之，何況性重，多而不厭，誠可怪也。」

I answer: "The five assemblies who have left the world take the four resources as their standard. The sages have established models, which do not pass through ordinary speculation. Permitting the relief of physical hardship, the intention lies in purifying the mind; when affairs leave no choice, these holy lineages are instituted. Yet the prohibitions and permissions of the correct Vinaya make compassion their priority: if obtaining something engenders affliction, it will never be tolerated. Therefore, eating meat and wearing silken garments do not differ in their mode: harming life and cutting short living beings are identical in fact and one in principle. Exposing cocoons and boiling silkworms are agonies that cannot be endured; hanging in the butcher's stall and placed on the chopping block constitute the cruelty of evil karma. The fisherman presenting tuna and the mulberry maid offering silk do not differ in the sense of using an intermediary's hand, nor is there any distinction in the reward of shared merit. Therefore the Supreme Sage took deep warning: examining how evil retribution is hard to escape, both sūtras and Vinayas fully make it known, completely prohibiting both. Thus the Nirvāṇa, the Elephant's Trunk, the Laṅkāvatāra, and the Great Cloud Sūtras all abundantly manifest the practice of compassion and prominently proclaim the cessation of killing. Killing is the origin of all transgressions, and stands first among worldly precepts; how could the lineage of the Path calmly practice it? When preaching and guidance are first set forth, one must transform beings with kindness and benevolence; yet when it comes to what is put on the body first, one insists on dressing in patterned silk! As patterned silk is produced, it cannot be attained without killing; how can one bear this in practice? Without reflecting that this is an infraction, having no way to comport oneself, knitting one's brows as one touches the material—this is truly lamentable. Therefore when the Eastern Land received the teachings, it became entirely disordered: the regulation prohibiting meat has long been observed, but the rule forbidding silk is not used. It is not that the sincere teachings were not restrictive, but that the fault lies in delusion regarding the texts; or perhaps, though not deluded regarding the texts, being submerged in attachment, there was no way to bring it forth. Therefore in the Vinaya, when a monk begged floss from a silkworm-raising family to make a bedding robe, he was rebuked by the laity, who called it taking life. The Buddha accordingly established the precept and did not permit wearing it; even if it had already been made, it had to be chopped into pieces and smeared onto walls. This is the extreme admonition of perpetual abandonment; it must be cut off. Just as in the Vinaya using insects and drinking water with insects are subject to the same regulation despite different situations, so too wild silkworms and domestic silkworms are uniformly restricted despite differing circumstances. Whether pure [silk] or blended, both incur offenses in the relevant chapters; whether made by oneself or made by others, all are to be chopped with axes. Today monks are confused about the terminology, taking it to mean non-Dharma robes, and thus do not put it into practice. Clarifying the terminology as above, I presume there will be no more confusion. Thus the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya states that kauśeya is the first silk from the mouth of the silkworm; the circumstance being the same as in the Dharmaguptaka and Mahīśāsaka, it is not permitted for robes. Even if one obtains robe material, if warp and weft are both hemp, but a single thread of silk is woven into the middle, it is also comprehensively prohibited; this is another extreme admonition. The Sarvāstivāda-śāstra says: 'In foreign countries, using floss to make robes has two varieties: either finely pulling it apart and spreading it out, as in the method of making felt, or drawing it into warp and weft, which is floss-pongee; neither is permitted.' Various masters since ancient times did not reflect on the meaning of the teaching; even granting their former confusion that it referred only to bedding robes, if that which is obtained through killing is still ordered to be chopped to pieces, how could the marks of the monastic robe—compassion and patience—be permitted to be received and upheld when obtained through killing? From this we know that when receiving and upholding the holy Dharma, unless pure, it cannot be practiced; to transmit it erroneously truly contradicts the original intention. Therefore beyond the borders of the Great Tang, along the shores of the three seas, and in the various barbarian lands of Bactria, wherever the Buddha Dharma exists, the monastic robes worn all rely on felt and hemp, and none use silk floss; this is clear evidence. In this land, famous monks of the Qi and Wei, and eminent sages of the Zhou and Sui, in the great robes they wore, all relied on hemp; although they had not thoroughly studied the teaching, they secretly conformed to the texts. Is this not because their compassion was deep, and their Dharma robes were according to the Dharma? As in common worldly practice, hemp is used for shirts; the whole country complies with this, and it cannot be abruptly changed. Thus the hemp saṃghāṭī revealed in the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra makes clear that this is the monastic method of ancient buddhas: appearing as a holy insignia, it is named the holy lineage; therefore the Great Sage relied on and wore it to serve as a model for later generations. The earthenware patra of the Mahīśāsaka is also like this. From this we know that Dharma robes and patras are not what ordinary people practice; if a buddha does not appear in the world, they do not appear. Therefore let all who are clear-sighted follow the path without deviation; there is an authoritative basis for it. Thus the Saṃyuktāgama says: 'Practicing the four immeasurables and wearing the three Dharma robes, these become the robes of the compassionate.' In my youth I attended Vinaya lectures; when the lectures reached this passage, there was no session distinguishing permission and prohibition, and citations were exceedingly few. Harboring deep doubts, I did not dare to practice it openly, putting on whatever I obtained, merely to cover my body. In the final years of the Zhenguan era, taking part in translating the sūtras, I inquired into silken garments, and only then realized they must not be used, deeply regretting having learned of it so late. Moreover, as the physical body is what one relies on, it requires warmth; and given that retributions vary in strength and frailty, it is difficult to apply a uniform restriction. Therefore in the esoteric teaching of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], permission and prohibition have their reasons, truly having special intentions. It cannot be completely prohibited like meat, for then those of inferior capacity with weak retributions would have no chance to enter the Path; nor can it be universally permitted like milk, for then those of superior practice would seek it indolently and show slackness in their studies. Therefore expedient analogies were drawn to nourish the body for the sake of the Path. Hence the various sūtras say: 'If used according to the Dharma, even receiving a hundred thousand is not considered too much; but if one is unable to practice, one is not permitted to accept even a cup of water or a single patched robe.' This is truly profound! From this we know that the effort in accepting robes lies in purifying the mind: though permitted to wear them, wearing them without attachment is acceptable. Yet for the three kinds of Dharma robes, the principle admits of no general exception; they must still be traded for felt and hemp, taking the previous standard as guide. This is because remaining skirts and cloaks are intended solely to ward off the cold; when affairs leave no choice, they are permitted to relieve physical hardship. The bodily retribution of a lifetime ultimately enters the gate of death; while karmic lifespan has not yet run out, one nourishes the mind to aid the Path. When affairs leave no choice, providing it with food and clothing is ultimately called nourishing an enemy; it brings no benefit. If one can make one's resolve and integrity lofty, sever feelings of superficial glamour, revere the true lineage, and die without regret, this is the Dharma practice of a bhikṣu, esteemed by all the sages. It is like the company of those tied with grass or floating on a board in the sea: in terms of the precepts, life-threatening difficulties are what is generally permitted; in terms of the mind, enduring death, they uphold them without abandoning them. Therefore they are protected by the unseen realm, and praised in the proclamations of sūtras and treatises. When even this prohibitory precept is upheld unto death, how much more so for the inherently heavy [precepts]? Yet practitioners indulge in them insatiably—this is truly astonishing!"