大般涅槃經義記 5.398

5.398

第三段中，別有四句：第一汎明殺闡提者不入三殺；二「彼諸」下明婆羅門悉是闡提；三「譬如」下明殺闡提都無罪報，先喻、後合；四「何以」下明婆羅門是一闡提無信等根，是故殺之不入地獄。問曰：下說布施畜生得百倍報，施一闡提得千倍報，是則闡提勝過畜生，何故殺之輕於畜生？釋言：施殺義應齊等，而下文中言施闡提勝畜生者，觀相行施。彼一闡提人報勝畜，對之行施，其心多重，故勝畜生。今此文中言殺輕者，觀根行殺，以知闡提全無善根，殺無惡意，是故無罪，不同畜生。

In the third section, there are specifically four phrases: first, generally clarifying that killing an icchantika does not fall within the three killings; second, below "All those...", clarifying that the Brahmins were all icchantikas; third, below "Just as...", clarifying that killing an icchantika carries entirely no retribution for sin, first by simile and then by application; fourth, below "Why?", clarifying that the Brahmins were icchantikas and lacked roots such as faith, and therefore killing them did not result in entering hell. Question: Below it says that giving to an animal brings a hundredfold retribution, whereas giving to an icchantika brings a thousandfold retribution; this means that an icchantika is superior to an animal, so why is killing one lighter than [killing] an animal? Explanation: The principles of giving and killing should be equal, but where the text below says that giving to an icchantika is superior to [giving to] an animal, it is giving performed while observing appearances. That icchantika's human retribution is superior to an animal's; giving directed toward them involves a heart with greater gravity, hence it is superior to [giving to] an animal. Where the present text says killing is lighter, it is killing performed while observing the faculties: knowing that an icchantika entirely lacks good roots, killing them is without malicious intent, and therefore is without sin, which is not like [killing] an animal.