[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [釋門自鏡錄](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2083) › 2.29.1 # 釋門自鏡錄 2.29.1 釋門自鏡錄 2.29.1 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.29.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2083.2.29.1) 弟子蕭衍敬白諸大德等。 夫匡正佛法是黑衣事。 廼非弟子白衣所急。 但經教亦云。 佛法寄囑俗人。 是以弟子不得無言。 今諸大德僧尼開意聽受。 勿生疑閉。 凡出家人。 所以異於外道者。 正以信因信果。 信經所明信是佛說。 經言。 行十惡者受於惡報。 行十善者受於善報。 今出家人。 猶嗜飲酒噉食魚肉。 是則為行同於外道。 外道者執斷常見。 無因無果無施無報。 今佛弟子酣酒嗜肉。 不畏罪因不畏苦果。 即是不信因。 不信果。 與無施無報者復何以異。 此事與外道見同而有不及外道。 外道各信其師。 師所言是弟子言是。 師所言非弟子言非。 涅槃經言。 今日制諸弟子。 不得食一切肉。 戒律言。 飲酒犯波逸提。 今諸僧尼飲酒食肉。 此事違於師教。 是一不及外道。 又外道雖邪。 持牛狗戒。 既受戒已。 後更不犯。 今出家人既受戒已輕慢毀犯。 是二不及外道。 又外道雖復五熱炙身投淵赴火。 未必噉食眾生。 今出家人噉食魚肉。 是三不及外道。 又外道異學雖不當理。 各習師法無有覆藏。 今出家人噉食魚肉。 於所親者乃自和光。 於所疎者則皆隱避。 如是為行是四不及外道。 又外道各重其法。 乃至云不如我道真也。 於諸異人無所忌憚。 今出家人噉食魚肉。 或避同學。 或避弟子。 或避白衣。 或避寺官。 懷狹邪志。 崎嶇覆藏。 此五不及外道。 又復外道直情逕行能長自己徒眾惡。 不能長異部惡。 今出家人噉食魚肉。 或與白衣弟子。 之所聞見內無慚愧。 方飾邪說云。 佛教為法本存遠因。 在於即日未皆悉斷。 白衣愚癡聞是僧說。 謂真實語。 便復信受。 自行不善增廣諸惡。 是六不及外道。 又外道雖復非法說法。 各信經書死不違背。 今楞伽經云。 為利殺眾生以財網諸肉。 二業俱不善死墮叫喚獄。 何為以財網肉。 陸設罝罘。 水設網罟。 此是以網網肉。 若於屠殺人間以錢買肉。 此是以財網肉。 若令此人不以財網肉者。 習惡律儀。 捕害眾生。 此人為當專自供口。 亦復別有所擬。 若別有所擬向食肉者豈無殺分。 何得云我不殺生。 此是灼然違背經文。 是七不及外道。 又復外道同其法者和合。 異其法者苦治令行禁止。 莫不率從。 今出家人或為師長。 或為寺官。 自開酒禁。 噉食魚肉。 不復能得施其教誡。 纔欲發言。 他即譏刺。 身既有瑕。 不能伏物使復摩訶。 直爾止存所以在寺者乖違。 受道者放逸。 此八不及外道也。 又外道受人施與如已法受。 烏戒人受烏戒施。 鹿戒人受鹿戒施。 烏戒人終不覆戒受。 鹿戒施。 鹿戒人終不覆戒受烏戒施。 今出家人云。 我能精進我能苦行。 一時覆相誑諸白衣。 出則飲酒開眾惡門。 入則噉肉集眾苦本。 此九不及外道。 又復酒者是臭氣水穀失其正性。 成此別味。 眾生以罪業因緣故受此惡觸。 此非正真道法。 亦非甘露上味。 云何出家僧尼授白衣五戒。 令不飲酒。 令不妄語。 云何飜自飲酒。 違負約誓。 七眾戒。 八戒齋。 五篇七聚。 長短律儀。 於何科中。 而出此文。 若白衣人。 甘此狂藥。 猶當訶止。 云何出家人而應自飲。 墮尼羅浮陀地獄。 身如段肉。 無有識知。 此是何人皆飲酒者出家僧尼。 豈不可深信經教。 豈可不內愧猶服如來衣。 受人信施居處塔寺仰對尊像。 若飲酒食肉者。 不及居家。 在家人雖復飲酒噉肉。 無犯戒罪。 此一不及在家。 在家人雖復飲酒噉肉。 各有屋宅丘窟。 終不以此仰觸尊像。 此二不及在家。 在家人雖復飲酒噉肉。 終不吐洩寺舍。 此三不及在家。 在家人雖復飲酒噉肉。 無有譏嫌。 出家人若飲酒噉肉。 使人輕賤佛法。 此四不及在家。 在家人雖復飲酒噉肉。 門戶井竈各安其鬼。 > Your disciple Xiao Yan respectfully addresses the Venerable Ones: Rectifying the Buddha's Dharma is the duty of the black-robed \[clergy\]; it is indeed not the urgent concern of your white-robed disciple. Yet the sūtra teachings also state that the Buddha's Dharma is entrusted to laypeople; therefore your disciple cannot remain silent. Now may the Venerable monks and nuns open their minds to listen and accept this, not harboring doubts or closed hearts. That those who have left renunciation differ from the non-Buddhists is precisely because they believe in causes and effects, believe in what the sūtras clarify, and believe that these are the Buddha's words. The sūtras say that those who practice the ten unwholesome actions receive evil retributions, and those who practice the ten wholesome actions receive good retributions. Now those who have left renunciation still indulge in drinking wine and eating fish and meat; this conduct is identical to that of non-Buddhists. Non-Buddhists cling to views of annihilationism and eternalism, holding that there is neither cause nor effect, neither giving nor retribution. Now the Buddha's disciples indulge in wine and crave meat, fearing neither the cause of guilt nor the fruit of suffering; this is simply not believing in causes and not believing in effects. How is this any different from those who hold there is neither giving nor retribution? In this matter, their view is the same as that of non-Buddhists, and yet they fall short of non-Buddhists in several ways: Non-Buddhists each believe in their own teacher: what the teacher says is right, the disciple says is right; what the teacher says is wrong, the disciple says is wrong. The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says: 'Today I institute a rule for all disciples that they must not eat any meat.' The Vinaya says: 'Drinking wine incurs a prāyaścittika.' Now the monks and nuns drink wine and eat meat; this matter violates their Teacher's instructions. This is the first way they fall short of non-Buddhists. Furthermore, non-Buddhists, though deviant, uphold the bovine and canine vows; once they have received the vows, they do not violate them thereafter. Now those who have left renunciation, having received the precepts, treat them with contempt and transgress them. This is the second way they fall short of non-Buddhists. Furthermore, non-Buddhists, though scorching their bodies with five fires or throwing themselves into abysses and plunging into flames, do not necessarily devour sentient beings. Now those who have left renunciation devour fish and meat. This is the third way they fall short of non-Buddhists. Furthermore, non-Buddhists of other schools, though not according with the truth, each practice their teacher's dharma without concealment. Now those who have left renunciation devour fish and meat; among those who are close to them they blend in, while among those who are distant they hide and evade. Acting like this is the fourth way they fall short of non-Buddhists. Furthermore, non-Buddhists each value their own teaching, even saying, 'None is as true as our path'; before all different people they hold nothing in dread. Now those who have left renunciation devour fish and meat: sometimes they avoid their fellow students, sometimes they avoid their disciples, sometimes they avoid the white-robed laity, and sometimes they avoid monastery officers. Harboring narrow, devious intentions, they conceal themselves through winding paths. This is the fifth way they fall short of non-Buddhists. Furthermore, non-Buddhists act directly according to their inclinations; they can nurture the evils of their own followers, but cannot nurture the evils of other groups. Now those who have left renunciation devour fish and meat; before what their white-robed disciples hear and see, they have no inner shame, and instead embellish deviant discourses, saying, 'The Buddha's teaching as a principle originally envisions distant causes; as for the present day, it has not yet completely prohibited everything.' The foolish white-robed laity, hearing this spoken by monks, take it as truthful speech and thereupon believe and accept it, personally practicing unwholesomeness and augmenting all evils. This is the sixth way they fall short of non-Buddhists. Furthermore, non-Buddhists, though preaching what is not Dharma as Dharma, each believe in their scriptures and would die rather than transgress them. Now the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra says: 'Killing living beings for profit, netting all meat with wealth—both actions are unwholesome, and at death one falls into the Raurava Hell.' What is meant by 'netting meat with wealth'? Setting snares and nets on land, and setting fishing nets in water—this is netting meat with nets. If one buys meat with money from butchers among people, this is netting meat with wealth. If one supposes that this person does not net meat with wealth, yet he adopts evil precepts and captures and harms living beings, would this person do so solely to feed his own mouth, or would he have other intentions as well? If he has other intentions, how could those who eat the meat be free from a share in the killing? How could they say, 'I do not kill living beings'? This clearly transgresses the sūtra text. This is the seventh way they fall short of non-Buddhists. Furthermore, non-Buddhists harmonize with those who share their teaching, and severely discipline those who differ from their teaching, commanding what is to be done and prohibiting what is not, so that none fail to comply. Now those who have left renunciation, whether acting as masters or as monastery officers, personally open the prohibition against wine and devour fish and meat; they are no longer able to administer admonitions. As soon as they want to speak, others mock and taunt them. Since their own persons have flaws, they cannot subdue others or make them practice the Great Vehicle. Simply letting things be, they merely tolerate conditions so that those residing in the monastery are at variance, and those receiving the Path become negligent. This is the eighth way they fall short of non-Buddhists. Furthermore, when non-Buddhists receive gifts from people, they receive them according to their own rules: those under the crow vows receive the crow-vow offerings; those under the deer vows receive the deer-vow offerings. A person under the crow vows never conceals his vows to receive the deer-vow offerings, nor does a person under the deer vows conceal his vows to receive the crow-vow offerings. Now those who have left renunciation say, 'I am capable of vigor; I am capable of asceticism,' temporarily concealing their appearance to deceive all the white-robed laity; when going out they drink wine, opening the gates of all evils, and when entering they devour meat, accumulating the root of all suffering. This is the ninth way they fall short of non-Buddhists. Furthermore, wine is a foul water-grain mixture that has lost its original nature to become this distinct taste. Sentient beings, on account of sinful karma, receive this foul contact. This is not the genuine Path or Dharma, nor is it the supreme flavor of amṛta. Why do ordained monks and nuns confer the five precepts on the white-robed laity, enjoining them not to drink wine and not to tell lies, yet conversely drink wine themselves, violating and breaking their sworn commitments? In the precepts for the seven classes, the eight precepts of fasting, the five categories and seven divisions, the long and short codes of discipline—under which heading does such a text appear? If white-robed people indulge in this mad medicine, one should still rebuke and stop them; how could those who have left renunciation drink it themselves? Falling into the Nirbudda Hell, their bodies will be like chunks of meat, devoid of consciousness. Who are these people? They are all ordained monks and nuns who drink wine. How can they not deeply believe in the sūtra teachings? How can they not feel inner shame, while still wearing the Tathāgata's robes, receiving the donations of the faithful from people, dwelling in stūpas and monasteries, and gazing up before the revered images? If they drink wine and eat meat, they fall short of householders: Although householders drink wine and devour meat, they commit no sin of violating precepts. This is the first way \[clergy\] fall short of householders. Although householders drink wine and devour meat, each has their own house, hill, or cave, and they never thereby look up and defile the revered images. This is the second way \[clergy\] fall short of householders. Although householders drink wine and devour meat, they never vomit or soil the monastery quarters. This is the third way \[clergy\] fall short of householders. Although householders drink wine and devour meat, they incur no criticism or suspicion; but if those who have left renunciation drink wine and devour meat, they cause people to disparage the Buddha's Dharma. This is the fourth way \[clergy\] fall short of householders. Although householders drink wine and devour meat, their gates, doors, wells, and stoves each pacify their own spirits. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.28](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2083.2.28) - [Next: 2.29.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2083.2.29.2) - [Up: 2.29](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2083.2.29) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2083~en-mt.2.29.1) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2083.2.29.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2083.2.29.1) · Pramāṇa