大般涅槃經集解 38.24

38.24

案僧亮曰：正答中有三意，此第一歷舉六度，明乃是施命，豈云奪命？若於蟻子尚不無益而殺，況婆羅門耶？舉初度，指明現在有益；後舉五度，明二世益也。僧宗曰：此下答初難之前關。菩薩之為法，蟻子尚不故殺，況婆羅門。但自此人設不殺之亦墮地獄，聖人今為作因緣，故令反迷有速也。若不為其作外緣，則墮墜無已。斯乃所以作解脫因緣，非謂為殺也。因廣彰事驗，明菩薩所行恒施眾生壽命，云何難言斷其命耶？然菩薩所施眾生長壽，乃是佛果無為法性之命、無苦之樂，豈復與彼眾生生死三受樂命者乎？故知其理必然也。于時已得此地者，但自慈心故殺，非是惡心故也。設一譬以顯之，正為護法故斷其命，令善心得生耳。然菩薩常生此心，隨有眾生生善法者，不問好惡要當為之。是以諸婆羅門命終之後，即生三念，既捨人間報受地獄苦重，即覺所作為鄙，兼得宿命智，知從人道來。知所生是地獄，悟謗經之因緣重，是以致斯報。既知罪業如此，便信敬之志，悔昔所作，即壞本業，生於人天。故得知於常理生信，一詣無不感也。自有解言：生於阿鼻受苦無間，應不得生三念。一家所解不憚此為妨，乃可生在無間不得起樂受耳，何容於苦識之中都不得生心而有所懷憶耶？故知此言無妨也。

Sengliang comments: In the direct answer there are three points. This first point reviews the six perfections, clarifying that he actually bestowed life—how could he be said to have taken life? If he would not uselessly kill even an ant, how much less a brāhmaṇa? By citing the first perfection, he shows that there was immediate benefit in the present; by subsequently citing the other five perfections, he shows benefit across both lifetimes. Sengzong says: Below is the answer to the first barrier of the initial objection. In the bodhisattva's practice of the Dharma, he would not intentionally kill even an ant, much less a brāhmaṇa. However, even if this person had not been killed, he would still have fallen into hell; the sage now created the conditions for him, thereby causing his delusion to be reversed quickly. If he had not created an external condition for him, his falling would have been endless. This was precisely creating the cause and condition for liberation, not what is called killing. Then, by extensively displaying empirical evidence, he clarifies that what the bodhisattva practices constantly bestows lifespan upon sentient beings—how can you challenge him by saying he severed their lives? Furthermore, the long life the bodhisattva bestows on sentient beings is the life of the Buddha-fruit's unconditioned dharmatā and the bliss free of suffering; how could it be compared to the life of the three types of feeling of birth and death for those sentient beings? Therefore, we know that the principle is necessarily so. At that time, having already attained this stage, he killed solely out of a benevolent mind, not an evil mind. He sets forth a simile to reveal this: he severed his life precisely to protect the Dharma and cause wholesome thoughts to arise. Bodhisattvas constantly generate this thought: whenever there is a sentient being in whom wholesome dharmas can arise, regardless of whether the action is good or bad, they must certainly perform it. Therefore, after the brāhmaṇas' lives ended, they immediately generated three thoughts: having abandoned their human retribution and received heavy suffering in hell, they instantly realized that what they had done was despicable; moreover, gaining knowledge of past lives, they knew they had come from the human realm. Knowing that their place of rebirth was hell, they realized the condition of slandering the sūtra was grave, which brought about this retribution. Knowing their sinful karma was like this, they formed a resolve of faith and reverence, repented of what they had done in the past, and immediately destroyed their fundamental karma and were reborn in the human and heavenly realms. Therefore, we know that giving rise to faith in the eternal principle unfailingly brings a response at the very first approach. Some provide an explanation: 'Those born in Avīci suffer uninterrupted pain, so they should not be able to generate the three thoughts.' Our school's interpretation does not fear this as an obstacle: they may be born in Avīci and be unable to give rise to pleasant feelings, but how could they be completely unable to generate a thought or harbor recollections amid their conscious awareness of suffering? Therefore, we know this statement poses no problem.