廣弘明集 5.51

5.51

The objection states: 'If it must be that the resonance of conditions brings an encounter, then what crime did the pure and simple beings of the past commit? What great fortune do the shallow and frivolous beings of today possess? Supposing that this Dharma was originally meant to rescue the frivolous: of all sins, none is greater than killing. At the time of meat-eating, when was killing ever worse? Yet to wait for fire and grain before this could become the sprout of the teaching—did the supernatural power of Great Compassion not encounter an obstacle here? If round-grained rice had not yet been sown and the business of killing was hard to stop, I wonder what Dharma the past Buddhas of earlier times used for their teaching? In the time of which Buddha did this sprout of teaching arise? In addition, the four precepts offend against humans, yet their retribution is somehow light; the single precept of killing beasts brings retribution that is even heavier. Making the primary light and the secondary heavy is also something I have not grasped. Now, the way of establishing human beings is called benevolence and righteousness. When Zhou and Confucius spoke of 'hearing their cries, one cannot bear to eat their meat' and 'felling trees in due season,' it was to make brilliantly clear the way of benevolence and righteousness: if it is so even for birds, beasts, plants, and trees, how much more so for humans—how could one be cruel and rebellious toward them? It was not out of inner dread of transgression, with the intention aimed at retributive consequences. Observing the traces, they might seem similar; examining their intent, they completely diverge. I do not know whether the inner and outer sages can truly be considered equal in this matter or not. These discrepancies are difficult to resolve through sudden realization. I respectfully set them forth to consult and cleanse my doubts, hoping that you will fully illuminate these obscurities.'