大般涅槃經義記 6.339

6.339

初先直破，「王若得罪，諸佛世尊亦應得」下舉佛類破。就直破中，舉重況輕，成王無罪。「若勅侍臣立斬王首，坐時乃斬，猶不得罪」是舉重也。謂不得斬坐王之頭，於彼坐王不勅斬故。「況王不勅，云何得罪」是況輕也。勅殺之中，坐起之別猶不得罪，況王昔日但言削足，不勅令殺，云何得其殺父之罪？是中但破正殺之罪，不言削足令無有罪。

First, it directly refutes: from "if the king incurs guilt, the buddhas, the World-Honoured Ones, should also incur it" downward, it adduces the Buddha as an analogy to refute it. In the direct refutation, it cites the heavy to illustrate the light, establishing that the king is without guilt. "If one orders an attendant to decapitate the king standing, but he decapitates him only when seated, he still does not incur guilt" is the citation of the heavy. That is, one must not decapitate the head of the king when seated, because he was not commanded to decapitate that king when seated. "How much more so when the king gave no command—how could he incur guilt?" is the illustration of the light. Even amidst a command to kill, the difference between sitting and standing still incurs no guilt; how much more so when the king in the past only said to shave the feet and did not command killing—how could he incur the guilt of parricide? In this, it only refutes the guilt of the actual killing; it does not say that shaving the feet causes one to have no guilt at all.