廣弘明集 26.6

26.6

釋氏之教義本慈悲。慈悲之要全生為重。恕己因心以身觀物。欲使抱識懷知之類。愛生忌死之群。各遂厥宜得無遺夭。而俗迷日久淪惑難變。革之一朝則疑怪莫啟。設教立方每由漸致。又以情嗜所染甘腴為甚。嗜染於情尤難頓革。是故開設三淨用申權道。及涅槃後說立言將謝則大明隱惻貽厥將來。夫肉食蠶衣為方未異。害命夭生事均理一。爚繭爛蛾。非可忍之痛。懸庖登爼。豈偏重之業。而去取異情開抑殊典。尋波討源良有未達。漁人獻鮪。肉食同有其緣。桑妾登絲。蠶衣共頒其分。假手之義未殊。通閉之詳莫辯。訪理求宗未知所適。外典云。五畝之宅樹之以桑。則六十者可以衣帛矣。鷄肫犬彘勿失其時。則七十者可以食肉矣。然則五十九年已前。所衣宜布矣。六十九年已前。所食宜蔬矣。輕煖於身事既難遣。甘滋於口又非易亡。對而為言非有優劣。宜枲麻果菜事等義同攘寒實腹曾無一異。偏通繒纊當有別途。請試言之。夫聖道隆深非思不洽。仁被群生理無偏漏。拯麁去甚教義斯急。繒衣肉食非已則通。及晚說大典弘宣妙訓。禁肉之旨載現于言。黜繒之義斷可知矣。而禁淨之始猶通蠶革。蓋是敷說之儀。各有次第。亦猶闡提二義俱在一經。兩說參差各隨教立。若執前迷後。則闡提無入善之塗。禁淨通蠶。則含生無有頓免之望。難者又以闡提入道聞之後說。蠶革宜禁曾無概理。大聖弘旨義豈徒然。夫常住密奧傳譯遐阻。泥洹始度咸謂已窮。中出河西方知未盡。關中晚說厥義彌暢。仰尋條流理非備足。又案涅槃初說阿闍世王大迦葉阿難三部徒眾獨不來至。既而二人並來。惟無迦葉。迦葉佛大弟子。不容不至而經無至文理非備盡。昔涅槃未啟。十數年間廬阜名僧已有蔬食者矣。豈非乘心闇踐自與理合者哉。且一朝裂帛可以終年。烹牢待膳亘時引日。然則一歲八蠶已驚其驟。終朝未肉盡室驚嗟。拯危濟苦先其所急。敷說次序義實在斯。外聖又云。一人不耕必有受其飢者。故一人躬稼亦有受其飽焉。桑野漁川事雖非已。炮肉裂繒咸受其分。自涅槃東度。三肉罷緣。服膺至訓操概彌遠。促命有殫長蔬靡倦。秋禽夏卵比之如浮雲。山毛海錯事同於腐鼠。而繭衣纊服曾不惟疑。此蓋慮窮於文字思迷於弘旨。通方深信之客。庶有鑒於斯理。斯理一悟行迷克反。斷蠶肉之因。固蔬枲之業。然則含生之類。幾於免矣。

The doctrinal principle of the Śākya clan is rooted in compassion. The essential point of compassion is to prioritize the preservation of life. Forgiving others by reflecting upon one's own mind, and regarding beings through one's own person, it seeks to allow all classes endowed with consciousness and awareness, and all creatures that cherish life and dread death, to each fulfill their proper nature and escape premature demise. Yet mundane delusions have long persisted, and entrenched confusion is hard to alter. To reform them in a single morning would provoke bewilderment and astonishment. Establishing teachings and devising methods must always proceed gradually. Furthermore, what emotional appetites are stained by, nothing exceeds sweet and rich foods. Desires staining the emotions are especially difficult to reform all at once. For this reason, the three kinds of pure meat were provisionally introduced to express the expedient path. When the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra was taught at the end, and the spoken words were about to cease, the Lord's profound pity was manifested and bequeathed to the future. Now, meat-eating and silk clothing do not differ in principle; killing life and bringing creatures to an untimely end are equal in deed and one in principle. Boiling cocoons and scalding moths to mush is not a pain that can be endured. Hanging up carcasses in the kitchen and serving them on slaughter-trays—how could this be an unbalanced deed? Yet what is accepted and rejected differs in sentiment, and what is permitted and restrained differs in canonical texts. Seeking the waves and probing the source, there is truly something not yet comprehended. The fisherman presents his tuna, and eating meat shares the same condition; the silkworm-raising maid gathers silk, and silk clothing equally partakes of the guilt. The implication of doing so through another's hand is no different; the details of what is permitted or forbidden remain undifferentiated. Inquiring into principle and seeking the source, one knows not where to turn. Non-Buddhist texts say: 'Plant mulberry trees around a homestead of five mu, and those of sixty years may wear silk. Do not miss the breeding seasons of fowls, pigs, dogs, and swine, and those of seventy years may eat meat.' If so, then before fifty-nine years of age, one ought to wear coarse cloth. Before sixty-nine years of age, one ought to eat vegetables. Light and warm clothing upon the body is already hard to relinquish; sweet flavors in the mouth are likewise not easily abandoned. Comparing the two, neither has superiority or inferiority. Coarse hemp and fruits and vegetables are equal in fact and identical in meaning; warding off cold and filling the belly have never had a single difference. If silk and wadding were exclusively permitted, there must have been an alternative reason. Permit me to venture an explanation: The sacred Way is lofty and profound, and without deliberation it cannot be thoroughly grasped; benevolence covers all sentient beings, and in principle there is no partial neglect. Rescuing the gross and eliminating the extreme are the pressing concerns of doctrinal teachings. Wearing silk and eating meat were permitted if one did not do it oneself. But when the great scripture was expounded in the Lord's final teachings and the wondrous instructions were broadly proclaimed, the intent to prohibit meat was expressly set down in words. The meaning of discarding silk may definitively be known from this. That at the beginning of the purified prohibitions, silk and leather were still permitted, is merely because the procedures of exposition have their proper sequence. This is just as the two meanings of icchantika both exist within a single sūtra; the two conflicting accounts were each established according to the progression of teachings. If one clings to what came before and is deluded regarding what followed, then icchantikas would have no path of entering goodness; and if purifying prohibitions permitted silk, then sentient creatures would have no hope of sudden deliverance. Challengers may also object that icchantikas entering the Path was heard in the later teachings, whereas that silk and leather should be prohibited has never had any clear principle stated. Yet how could the Great Sage's expansive intention be in vain? The profound mysteries of eternal abiding met with distant obstacles in transmission and translation. When the Parinirvāṇa Sūtra was first translated, all considered it complete; only when it emerged in Hexi did they know it was not yet exhaustive. When expounded later in Guanzhong, its meaning became all the more fluent. Tracing its historical currents, the earlier texts were in principle not yet complete. Moreover, examining the opening exposition of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, only the three assemblies of King Ajātaśatru, Mahākāśyapa, and Ānanda did not arrive. Later, the two did come together, yet only Kāśyapa was absent. Kāśyapa was the Buddha's great disciple; it is inconceivable that he would not arrive, yet the sūtra has no text recording his arrival; thus the principle was not completely recorded. Formerly, before the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra was unfolded, famous monks on Mount Lu had already adopted a vegetarian diet for over a decade. Could this not be because, following their minds and practicing in obscurity, they naturally accorded with principle? Furthermore, tearing a bolt of silk once can last a whole year; slaughtering a beast for a meal takes only hours or a day. Thus, eight batches of silkworms a year is already startling in speed, while spending an entire morning without meat throws the whole household into shock and lamentation. In rescuing the imperiled and aiding the suffering, one prioritizes what is most urgent; the sequence of exposition truly lies in this principle. An external sage also said: 'If one person does not plow, someone will surely suffer hunger because of him; thus, if one person plows in person, someone will also be filled.' Although sericulture in the fields and fishing in the rivers are not done by oneself, roasting meat and tearing silk both partake of the guilt. Since the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra was brought east, the conditions for the three kinds of pure meat have ceased. Embracing these supreme instructions, high integrity has reached ever farther. Life's fleeting span may be exhausted, yet one never tires of lifelong vegetarianism. Autumn birds and summer eggs are regarded like floating clouds; land flora and marine delicacies are treated as rotting rats. Yet over cocoon garments and silk wadding one has never harbored doubts! This is merely because reflection is exhausted by literal words, and thought is deluded regarding the expansive intent. May discerning and deeply faithful gentlemen look into this principle. Once this principle is realized, deluded actions can be reversed, cutting off the causes of silk and meat and securing the practice of vegetables and hemp. Then all classes of sentient beings will be close to deliverance.