華嚴經探玄記 11.63

11.63

Second, in the text of the specific explanation, leaving the ten unwholesome actions constitutes ten sections. First, within leaving killing, the internal three are distinguished: first, leaving the causes, because one leaves the causes of killing. These are of two kinds: external implements are called the cause of receiving and keeping, meaning knives for hacking, clubs for beating, as well as mantras, poisons, and so forth; whatever implements can kill are all completely abandoned—the Fanwang jing calls this leaving the conditions of killing. Second, internally giving rise to greed and so forth is called the cause of arising; in reality all three poisons are present, so why does the treatise only cite greed and anger? Explanation: because killing living beings out of a deluded mind to make perverse offerings in sacrificial rites is difficult to dispel, it does not mean it is not abandoned; therefore, it is specifically clarified in leaving through antidotes. Question: Since greed and anger are both fully present as causes of arising, why is it that in the text, regarding leaving anger it says 'without anger', while regarding leaving greed it does not say 'without greed', but only says 'possessing shame and conscience'? Answer: Because in the course of action of killing, anger constitutes the culmination. Fascicle seven of the Saṃyuktābhidharma-samuccaya says: 'In the course of action of killing living beings, greed, anger, and delusion are the preliminary expedient, and through anger it is culminated.' As with killing, coarse and harsh speech and the course of action of malice are also like this. For killing living beings, doing so for hide, flesh, etc. is greed; doing so to eliminate enemies, etc. is anger; doing so for sacrificial rites, etc. is delusion. Without departing from benevolence and compassion, one will definitely not harm or kill other sentient beings, therefore it is brought to culmination by anger. 'Possessing shame and conscience' means that killing for profit and risking one's life is shameless; contrary to this, having conscience means being free of greed; in the Fanwang jing this is called leaving the causes of killing. Second, from 'toward all' onward explains leaving through antidotes; that is, internally giving rise to benevolence and compassion serves as the antidote to acts of killing; how could the dharma of killing possibly be accomplished? The Fanwang jing calls this leaving the dharmas of killing. Here, the antidote itself is the abandonment, hence called leaving through antidotes, unlike leaving causes and so forth. Antidotal practice is of two kinds: 1. bestowing the causes of mundane and supramundane happiness; 2. giving the fruits of those two forms of happiness. Here, the compassionate mind is the mind of pacification in the treatise. 'Constantly seeking pleasant matters' generally concludes the happiness of cause and effect. Third, leaving through fruit and action means directly leaving the karma of killing. Gathering causes to consummate killing is called fruit; abandoning what is done here is called leaving the fruit. There are two kinds: subtleness in terms of mental thought, where even affliction never occurs, let alone coarseness in terms of physical harm, which is beyond words. In the treatise, five conditions within coarseness consummate killing. Fascicle seven of the Saṃyuktābhidharma-samuccaya says: 'There are also five conditions: 1. the object, which means belonging to the class of sentient beings; 2. the intention, which means the perception of such and the definite intention to harm; 3. the expedient, which means applying knives, clubs, etc. for the sake of harming; 4. the defilement, which means greed and so forth; 5. the culmination, which means that through the expedient, that sentient being dies either immediately or at a later time.' Among the five of the Daśabhūmika-śāstra, defilement is omitted; among the five of the Saṃyuktābhidharma-samuccaya, 'the existence of another' is omitted to exclude self-harm. Combining the explanations of the two treatises, there are seven conditions in all: 1. another, excluding oneself; 2. a sentient being, excluding the insentient; 3. perception of a sentient being, excluding a confused mind; 4. a mind to kill, excluding an error; 5. initiating an expedient by applying knives and clubs; 6. giving rise to greed and so forth, excluding compassionate rescue, because for a bodhisattva who kills to rescue from a grave transgression, there is no offense; 7. culmination through the severance of life. Determining the guilt when conditions are lacking can be known by analogizing and deducing. All the subsequent precepts also possess these conditions, and should be understood accordingly. Leaving the taking of life is concluded.