大般涅槃經義記 4.290

4.290

「勇士」已下明第二句愛命有餘，「若言恕」下明後半偈是其有餘，先牒偈文，總顯有餘。「何以」下釋。過有三種：一以己喻彼阿羅漢人，則有見己同凡之過，同彼凡夫有其我想及以命想，若有此想則應擁護，不聽他人打罵毀辱。二以己喻彼凡夫，便有見阿羅漢同己之過，見阿羅漢同己行人，凡夫造作生死諸行故名行人，故上文言嶮惡道者謂諸行也，若見羅漢同己行人，則是耶見死入地獄。三以己喻彼凡夫，便有同羅漢過。云何同乎？如阿羅漢不害眾生，眾生亦應不害羅漢，而諸眾生殺害羅漢，不同羅漢不害眾生，云何得名以己喻彼？

From "a brave warrior" onward, he clarifies that the second line on loving life is non-final; from "if it is said that comparing oneself" onward, he clarifies that the latter half of the verse is non-final, first citing the verse text and generally revealing it to be non-final. From "why is this" onward, he explains it. There are three kinds of faults: First, if one compares oneself to an arhat, there is the fault of viewing oneself as identical to an ordinary person: being identical to an ordinary person in having the notion of a self and the notion of a life; if one has such notions, one should protect them and not allow others to strike, scold, or insult one. Second, if one compares oneself to an ordinary person, there is the fault of viewing the arhat as identical to oneself: viewing the arhat as identical to oneself as an agent of conditioning—ordinary people perform all the conditioned activities of birth and death, hence they are called "agents of conditioning," which is why the text above says that the rugged, evil paths refer to conditioned activities—if one views an arhat as identical to oneself as an agent of conditioning, this is wrong view and upon death one will enter hell. Third, if one compares oneself to an ordinary person, there is the fault of making them equal to an arhat. How would they be equal? Just as an arhat does not harm sentient beings, sentient beings should also not harm an arhat; yet sentient beings kill and harm arhats, not being like arhats who do not harm sentient beings—how can this be called comparing oneself to others?