而佛陀卻在《舍利弗問經》中嚴厲地對舍利弗說：「非時食者，是破戒人，是犯盜人，是癲病人，壞善果故，非我弟子。盜我法利，盜名盜食，一團一撮，片鹽片醋，死墮焦腸地獄，如熱鐵丸。」
《毘尼三昧經》中曾解釋說：旦時，諸天食。午時，諸佛食。日暮，畜生食。昏夜，鬼神食。今為離六趣之因，效法三世諸佛，故以午食為正食時。故今印度及南傳佛教國家，仍堅持過午不食之佛制。但我國漢族僧眾則多開此戒，將晚餐視為「藥石」而進食之。這點上人頗不贊同，上人說：
「打禪七，也學著中國打吃七，就吃三茶四飯，外加包子，晚上還要吃包子。你若這樣，還能用功，這是我不相信的。我吃一餐，就已經覺得很麻煩了，那吃四餐，還外加包子，晚上加包子。在中國的佛教，叫晚上吃飯叫什麼呢？叫『藥石』，吃『藥石』、『吃石』，就是在那服藥呢！這叫掩耳盜鈴，這叫自欺欺人。在那兒因為晚上要吃東西啊！他說『吃藥』，這就是中國的佛教，這種騙人的佛教、欺人的佛教，我是沒有法子改正的。」
關於「藥石」的語義，在《玄應音義》卷十八云：「藥石，攻病曰藥石。古人以石為針，今人以鐵，皆謂療病者也。」而《佛庭事苑》卷一中的『羅漢藥石』條也云：「食當作石，取療病義，故曰藥石。」又《禪林象器》中的『飲啖門』對「藥石」云：「藥石，謂晚間之粥，蓋隱語也。……吃晚粥，為養體療病進修道業，故稱為藥石也。」可見「藥石」的確是中國佛教的一種「異名」「晚餐」罷了！
總之，世尊佛陀雖然於圓寂前捨小小戒，但「不非時食」這條戒是不能捨的。《雜阿含經卷十五》云：「摶食斷知已，於五欲功德貪愛則斷；五欲功德貪愛斷者，我不見彼多聞聖弟子，於五欲功德上有一結使而不斷者。有一結繫故，則還生此世。」而「不非食時」戒，就是指「斷摶食」的一種梵行。想了生死出三界家的修行者，能不注重此戒嗎？
下面再談老和尚對「搭衣」的看法。一般的沙彌眾及受持五戒或菩薩戒之在家信眾所穿的叫「縵衣」，也就是指無田相之袈裟（音譯叫「缽叱」），又稱「縵條衣」。在《四分律》卷四十載，佛聽許僧眾穿著不割截之安陀會。在《佛制比丘六物圖》中又載：「縵通三用，然本是沙彌衣，律制沙彌著二縵衣，一當七條入眾，一當五條作務（衣相未正，故但云『當』）。而且佛法剛初傳到漢地百餘年間，凡出家者，都尚未識割截法
，都只著「縵衣」而已；一直到漢魏之世，出家者才漸漸穿起赤布的僧伽梨來。可知赤袈裟，最早是由中國所採用的。所以上人嚴格要求跟他出家的人一定要時時搭著衣，衣不離體的。上人說：
「出家人不搭衣，就等於還俗一樣的，和俗人沒有分別。並不是穿這個『長衫』，穿這彎彎領，就證明你是出家人了。不要說穿這彎彎領，就是搭著衣，你還天天總在犯戒，總在不老實，何況你不搭衣！」
「現在中國的出家人，乃至於其他各地的出家人，多數在大乘的佛教，都不搭衣。這不搭衣，他們認為這就是天公地道，就是應該這樣子。可不知道，不搭衣已經沒有比丘相了。」
上人斬釘截鐵地認為：「出家人一定要搭著衣，否則就沒有比丘相了。」搭衣本身就是佛弟子的表相，佛陀本身就是三衣缽具，衣不離體的。這在《陀羅尼集經》中有說：「佛身形作真金色，披赤袈裟」，又《要略念誦經》云：「佛身猶如紫金，三十二相，八十種好，披赤袈裟，跏趺而坐。」可見上人提倡搭衣，並不是沒有道理的。
經典上提到搭袈裟的利益，是不可勝舉的。如《大乘本生心地觀經》中言，著袈裟有十利；《悲華經》卷八，說佛袈裟成就五聖功德；《十住毗婆沙論》卷十六，言著二六種衣，有十利。《海龍王經》卷四中，說有龍王護持佛的袈裟，得免大鵬金翅鳥之害……等。然而卻有一些人反對搭衣，認為搭衣是標新立異的行為，上人說:
「現在一般人都『習焉不察變成風』了，不搭衣變成真的，搭衣反變成假的。你們大家學佛的人，這一點最粗的知識若再不明白，那麼你們根本都不是個佛教徒。」
《大悲經》上說：「但使性是沙門，污沙門行；形是沙門，披著袈裟者，於彌勒佛所，乃至樓至佛所，得入涅槃，無有餘遺。」我們讀了這些經文後，能再反對搭衣的制度嗎？上人說：「是非何須辯？真偽久自明。智者見真實，愚者行虛偽。善者學菩薩，惡者敢罵佛。平等大悲心，普攝諸含識。」
待續 |
|
And the Buddha sternly advised Shariputra in The Sutra of Shariputra's Questions: "Those who eat at the wrong times are people who are breaking the precepts, are people who steal; are people who will suffer insanity because they destroy wholesome rewards and they are not my disciples." They steal the benefits of my Dharma, they steal a reputation, they steal food-a lump of this and a pinch of that; a bit of salt and a touch of vinegar-and after they die they fall into the Hell of Burning Intestines and everything becomes not iron pellets."
In the Vinaya Samadhi Sutra there's this explanation: "Morning is when the gods eat, noon is when the Buddhas eat, afternoon is when the animals eat, and night is when the ghosts eat. Now, as a cause for being able to leave the six destinies and to do as the Buddhas of the three periods of time do, eating at noon is considered the proper time to eat." Thus, even now, in India and other countries where the Southern Transmission of Buddhism prevails, the Buddha's regulation of not eating after noon is strictly upheld. But in my country, most of the Chinese monks make exceptions when it comes to this precept, calling the evening meal "medicine." The Master does not agree with this. The Master said:
In your Chan meditation session you have learned how to have a Chinese eating session where there are three tea breaks and four meals, with extra hot buns served in the late evening. I don't believe you can eat all that and still work on developing your skill. I eat once a day and still feel it's troublesome. What about eating four meals and extra hot buns in the evening! In Chinese Buddhism what do they call the evening meal? They called it "medicine"-eating "herbs"-eating "stones" [note: The Chinese for "medicine" is the two characters: "herbs" and "stones."] It's just a dose of medicine! That's called plugging up your ears while you steal a bell. That's called cheating yourself and cheating others. Because they want to eat at night, they call it "medicine." That's what Chinese Buddhism is like. It's a Buddhism that cheats people; a Buddhism that deceives people--I have no way to rectify it.
As to the meaning of "medicine," roll l8 of The Meaning of Unusual Terminology says: "Medicine (literally: herbs and stones) is what is used to cure illness. The ancients used stone slivers to draw blood, while iron is used nowadays. These are all for the purpose of curing illness.” The section Arhats Medicine” in roll one of the Collection of the Buddha's Stories says, “Food is taken to cure illness, and so is called ‘medicine’.” The section on “Food and Drink” in Terminology of Chan Utensils has this to say about “medicine”:“Medicine is a metaphorical term that refers to rice gruel taken in the evening. Since gruel is taken in the evening to bolster one's health and cure illness so that one may make progress in one's practice, it is called ‘medicine.’” From this it may be seen that the term ‘medicine’ is merely a different name for ‘dinner’ invented by Chinese Buddhism!
In general, although the Buddha, the World Honored One, gave up some of the very minor precepts before he entered Nirvana, the precept of not eating at improper times could not be renounced. Roll 15 of the Miscellaneous Agama Sutra says, “When one knows to cut off the taking of food rolled in lumps (at improper times), one will have the merit and virtue of eliminating greedy craving among the five desires. Of those learned and sagely disciples who have the merit and virtue of eliminating greedy craving, I have not seen any who have failed to eliminate even a single knot (affliction) among the five desires. If even a single bond were to remain, they would still be reborn in this world.” The precept of not eating at improper times refers to the pure conduct of not taking food rolled in lumps at improper times. How can cultivators who wish to end birth and death and leave the home of the Triple Realm not pay attention to this precept?
Below let us discuss the Venerable Master's view on wearing the precept sash. Most Shramaneras (novices) and lay people who have received the five precepts or the Bodhisattva precepts wear what is called the “plain robe” (Chinese: man (tiao) yi, Sanskrit: pattha), which is a kashaya sash without the partitions (patches) resembling fields. Roll Forty of the Four Division Vinaya records that the Buddha allowed Sangha members to wear antarvasaka robes without patches. In the Illustrated Record of the Six Articles the Buddha Required Bhikshus to Have, it is recorded that “The plain robe has three uses. Originally it was a robe for Shramaneras. The Vinaya stipulates that Shramaneras should have two plain robes, one with seven strips for entering the assembly, and one with five strips for working.” (The word “should” is used since the style of the robes had not yet been standardized.) For the first hundred years or so after Buddhism entered China, the monks did not yet know how to make the patched robes, so they wore plain robes. It was not until the time between the Han and Wei dynasties that they gradually started to wear the samghati (upper) robes. The Venerable Master strictly required those who left the home-life with him to wear their precept sash at all times and never let it leave their bodies. The Master said,
If a left-home person doesn't wear his precept sash, it's as if he has returned to lay-life. He's no different from worldly people. Wearing the long Chinese robe with the arched collar is not enough to show that one is a left-home person. Not to speak of the Chinese robe, even if you do wear the precept sash, you still break the precepts and do dishonest things every day. How much worse it'd be if you didn't wear the sash!
Nowadays the left-home people in China and other places-in fact the vast majority of (left-home people in) Mahayana Buddhism-do not wear their precept sashes. They feel perfectly justified and natural not wearing them-they think that's just the way it should be. What they don't realize is that without the precept sash, they no longer have the appearance of Bhikshus.
The Venerable Master stated “very decisively that left-home people definitely must wear their precept sashes, or else they don't look like Bhikshus.” The precept sash is what distinguishes one as a disciple of the Buddha. The Buddha himself had his three robes and an almsbowl, and he always wore his robes. The Dharani Collection Sutra says, “The Buddh's golden body was clad in a saffron kashaya robe.” The Sutra on the Essentials of Recitation says, “The Buddha's body seemed to be burnished gold, adorned with thirty-two marks and eighty subtle characteristics. He was clad in a saffron kashaya robe and sat in full lotus.” Thus it was not without reason that the Venerable Master advocated that monks wear their precept sashes.
There are countless instances where the Sutras mention the benefits of wearing the kashaya robe. For example, the Mahayana Sutra of the Contemplation of the Mind-ground discusses ten benefits of wearing the kashaya. The eighth roll of the Compassionate Flower Sutra describes five holy merits of the Buddha's kashaya. The sixteenth roll of the Ten Dwellings Vibhasha Shastra describes twenty-six kinds of robes and their ten benefits. The fourth roll of the Sutra of the Sea Dragon King speaks of how the dragon king escaped from the golden-winged Peng bird by the protection of the Buddha's kashaya. Yet there are still those who oppose wearing the precept sash and regard it as trying to put on a special style. The Venerable Master said,
Now people have unknowingly turned a bad habit into a convention. Those who don't wear the precept sash are regarded as genuine Buddhists, while those who do wear it are considered phony. If all of you students of Buddhism don't even understand this elementary point, then you basically aren't Buddhists.
The Great Compassion Sutra says, “Even if they are Shramanas [Buddhist monks] by nature who defile the Shramanas’ practice, if they have the appearance of Shramanas and wear the kashaya, they will all without exception be able to enter Nirvana between the time of Maitreya Buddha and Lokeshvararaja Buddha.” After reading these words from the Sutras, can we still oppose the rule of wearing the precept sash? The Master said, “What need is there to distinguish between right and wrong? True and false will become clear in time. Wise ones see what is real, while stupid ones practice what is false. Those who are good learn to be like Bodhisattvas, while those who are evil dare to slander the Buddha. With a mind of equal great compassion, universally save all sentient beings.”
To be continued |
