法苑珠林 93.44

93.44

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.