緇門警訓 3.43

3.43

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?"