緇門警訓 3.43

3.43

記云。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（坐具也）身披（三衣也）皆霑業分。非大士可忍。豈比丘所宜。請考經文少懷信仰。廣敘利害見章服儀。離殺手者非蠶家故。不受者應法大小俱順故。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。

The Subcommentary states: "The vinaya rules cited earlier were concerned only with the silkworm rearers; the Great Teaching, going further, does not permit the use [of such cloth]. Thus we know that the practice of the śrāvakas is inferior, taking only the avoidance of wrongdoing, whereas the compassion of the bodhisattva is profound, tracing far back to its origin. Although freed from the hands of the killer, it is still the product of killing: trodden beneath one's feet (the niṣīdana) or draped over one's body (the three robes), it is tainted by a share of the karmic burden. This is not something a great being can endure; how could it be suitable for a bhikṣu? Please examine the scriptural passages and embrace a measure of faith; for a detailed exposition of the advantages and disadvantages, see the Zhangfu yi. 'Freed from the hands of the killer' means not directly from the silkworm rearer. 'Not accepting' accords with the Dharma, conforming to both the Mahāyāna and the Hīnayāna. 'Accepting' is not compassionate, violating the Great and conforming to the Small. The Small derives from the Great; though it accords in view of the prohibition, according to the principle it is contrary. Therefore we know that upholding the precepts and practicing compassion alone accords with the sage's intent; indulging one's desires and using them is completely contrary to the decorum of the Way. Thus the Zhangfu yi says: 'Furthermore, the phrase "not compassionate" is ultimately a statement of permanent prohibition.' Judging from this, it is quite obvious and profound. Next, citing the Nirvāṇa[-sūtra] refers to the ultimate entrustment; the clear text of the definitive true teaching prohibits and cuts it off—how could one hesitate?"