大般涅槃經義記 6.337

6.337

四「色相」下結成無殺，色之體相如是不住、乃至叵縛，云何可殺？下約前二破入地獄，句別有六：一就十色簡一去九，「若色是父，可殺可害，獲罪報者，餘九應非，若九非者則應無罪」。二就一色明有可殺義，先舉三數，次列三名，下就分別。於中先明過現叵殺，初舉、後釋。過色已滅，故不可殺；現色暫現，念念自滅，故不可殺。下就未來明有殺義，遮不起故。三「如是」下，以前可殺、不可殺義成色不定。四以色不定成殺不定。五以殺不定成報不定。六以報不定破入地獄，報既不定，「云何說言定入地獄」。

Fourth, from "the marks of form" downward, it concludes that there is no killing: if the substantial marks of form are thus non-abiding and up to impossible to bind, how could there be killing? Below, based on the previous two, falling into hell is refuted; the phrases are distinguished into six: First, regarding the ten forms, selecting one and setting aside nine: "If form were the father, and could be killed and harmed, bringing retribution of guilt, the other nine should not be; if the nine are not, then there should be no guilt." Second, regarding the one form, clarifying the meaning of its being killable: first it cites the number three, next lists the three names, and below analyzes them. Therein, it first clarifies that past and present cannot be killed: first citing, then explaining. Past form has already perished, so it cannot be killed; present form momentarily appears, perishing of itself from moment to moment, so it cannot be killed. Below, regarding the future, it clarifies the meaning of killing, because it prevents it from arising. Third, from "in this way" downward, through the aforementioned meanings of killable and unkillable, it establishes that form is indeterminate. Fourth, through the indeterminacy of form, it establishes that killing is indeterminate. Fifth, through the indeterminacy of killing, it establishes that retribution is indeterminate. Sixth, through the indeterminacy of retribution, it refutes falling into hell; since retribution is already indeterminate, "how can it be said that one definitely falls into hell?"