大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 59.65

59.65

疏「二對治中」，疏文有二：先正釋、後簡濫。今初，言「殺生祭祀」者，亦《百論》文。彼論因說捨罪福義，以福捨罪、以無相智捨福。外便救云「外曰：常福無捨因緣，故不應捨。」釋曰：由前菩薩說捨福，因由福滅時苦，是故應捨。外便云：我有常福，則無滅因，故不應捨。何謂常福？彼云「如經說，能作馬祀，是人度衰老死，福報常、生處常，是福不應捨。」釋曰：今但要彼愚癡，故舉其過，揀言不同。彼論廣破，言其無有常福，故是愚癡邪見。

Regarding the Commentary's "Second, within the antidote": the text of the Commentary has two parts—first, the correct explanation; second, distinguishing from improper applications. First, as for the expression "killing living beings in sacrificial offerings," it is also from the text of the Śataśāstra. In that treatise, when explaining the meaning of relinquishing demerit and merit, one relinquishes demerit by means of merit, and relinquishes merit by means of signless wisdom. The outsider then defends their position, saying: "The outsider says: 'Permanent merit has no cause or condition for relinquishment; therefore, it should not be relinquished.'" The explanation states: Because earlier the bodhisattva spoke of relinquishing merit due to the suffering when merit perishes, therefore it should be relinquished. The outsider then said: "I have permanent merit, so there is no cause for perishing; therefore, it should not be relinquished." What is called permanent merit? He says: "As the sūtra states, one who can perform the horse sacrifice transcends decay, old age, and death; their karmic reward is permanent, their place of rebirth is permanent; this merit should not be relinquished." The explanation states: Now, merely to target their delusion, their fault is adduced and differentiated as not being the same. That treatise extensively refutes it, stating that there is no permanent merit; therefore, it is delusion and wrong view.