法苑珠林 93.44

93.44

問曰。肉由害命斷之且然。酒不損生何為頓制。若無損計罪無過言非。飲漿食飯亦應得罪。而實不爾。酒何偏斷。答曰。結戒隨事得罪據心。肉體因害。食之即罪。酒性非損。過由弊神。餘處生過。過生由酒。斷酒即除。所以遮制。不同非謂酒體是罪。

Question: Meat arises from harming life, so to forbid it is understandable; wine does not harm life, so why is it banned unconditionally? If there is no harm, reckoning it a fault and calling it wrong is groundless. Drinking broth or eating rice should also incur guilt, yet in reality it is not so; why then is wine forbidden in particular? Answer: The establishment of precepts follows the circumstance; the incurring of guilt is based on the mind. The nature of meat stems from killing; eating it is immediately a transgression. The nature of wine does not harm, but the fault arises from impairing the spirit: transgressions arise elsewhere, yet their arising stems from wine; severing wine removes them. This is why it is prohibited by interdiction; unlike [natural transgressions], it does not mean that the substance of wine is itself a transgression.