大般涅槃經集解 19.40

19.40

Daosheng states: Though the five aggregates are destroyed, there is no harm to the buddhadhātu. Because the five aggregates are injured, it is called killing living beings; one cannot, because the buddhadhātu is unharmed, say there is no unwholesome karma. Sengliang states: Because the cause is not apart from the fruit, it is said to 'dwell'. The continuity of the five aggregates may be deva or human; the aggregates of humans and devas differ, dying here and being born there, and so they can be destroyed. Both seek bliss and purity, and these two do not differ, so they cannot be destroyed; the Buddha used milk and poison as an analogy. Sengzong states: This explains why, though there is killing of living beings, the buddhadhātu is unharmed. Why so? The way of cause and fruit is indeed interconnected in principle: where there is a cause, there is a fruit; where there is no cause, there is no fruit. Precisely because the buddhadhātu is not apart from the consciousness at the causal stage, it is said to dwell within the aggregates. How could one demand that an already existing entity be identical with the aggregates and thus immune to injury? The reason the sin of killing exists is that the five aggregates are conditioned, continuous dharmas: through force serving as the condition for severing them, all four causes and conditions are present, and so the sin of killing exists; the sin arises from the side of severing the aggregates. One cannot say that because the aggregates are severed, the nature is also injured along with them; nor, because the nature is eternal, that the aggregates cannot be destroyed. The Record of Jingyi states: 'Dwelling in the five aggregates' means that based on this body, one cultivates the wholesome roots of contributory causes. The consciousness serves as the primary cause, possessing the sense of generating [results]. If one now severs this continuity, the function of sustaining life is terminated; if terminated, the realization of the fruit is deferred. Now, speaking of the fruit from within the cause, it is said to 'dwell'. Because severing the continuity of the five aggregates blocks the arising of good, one incurs the sin of killing; it is not simply because one severs the physical form that the sin of killing is constituted. Therefore, making offerings to an icchantika yields no merit, and killing one incurs no sin. That one is said to incur sin is simply because of an evil mind, not because of blocking the aggregates. Baoliang states: If one speaks of the impermanent, illusory retributions, how could dying here and being born there incur sin? Now, the conditions for incurring sin have a distinct reason. If there is no evil mind and no injury to the field [of merit], there is no sin at all. Below it says: 'If killing an ant still incurs sinful retribution, killing an icchantika incurs no sin'; this makes clear that incurring the sin of killing stems, first, from an evil mind, and second, from injuring the field. The wholesome roots of that person should arise in succession; because one severs their life, they cannot arise consecutively, which is why one incurs sin, not merely because severing life invites calamity. 'The buddhadhātu dwells in the five aggregates' refers to the contributory-cause buddhadhātu. Practicing the Way and attaining sagehood depends on this body of aggregates; once one has severed that life, wholesome roots cannot arise. When one wishes to discuss the correspondence between sin and merit, one discusses it in terms of this principle.