大般涅槃經義記 6.340

6.340

下類破之，何故須類？王有餘執，由我削足令父命盡，我於正殺不得無罪。佛今類破，若由削足令父命盡，王於正殺而得罪者，諸佛於殺亦有緣由，亦應得罪。佛於此殺雖有緣由而不得罪，王於正殺雖有緣由，云何得其正殺之罪？文中初言「若王得罪，諸佛世尊亦應得罪」，略舉類破。「何以」下釋，初先徵問，下對釋之，明佛於殺亦有緣由故應得罪。是中不欲明佛得罪，舉佛如來於殺有緣而不得罪，成彼世王於殺有緣不得正罪。文中四句：一明先王由供諸佛故得為王，先順後返；二「若不為」下明由作王故被殺害，反以顯之；三「若汝殺父當有罪」下以王類佛，令佛得罪；四「若佛世尊無得罪」下以佛類王，成王無罪。諸佛於殺亦有緣由而不得罪，汝獨云何偏得殺罪？

Below, it refutes by analogy. Why is an analogy needed? The king still harboured an attachment: "Because I shaved his feet, my father's life was ended; regarding the actual killing, I cannot be without guilt." The Buddha now refutes by analogy: if, because shaving the feet ended the father's life, the king incurs guilt for the actual killing, then the buddhas also had causal connections to the killing, and should also incur guilt. Although the Buddha had causal connections to this killing, he incurs no guilt; though the king had causal connections to the actual killing, how could he incur the guilt of the actual killing? In the text, it first says, "If the king incurs guilt, the buddhas, the World-Honoured Ones, should also incur guilt," briefly adducing an analogy to refute it. From "for what reason" downward, it explains: first inquiring, then answering in explanation, clarifying that because the Buddha also had causal connections to the killing, he should incur guilt. In this, it does not intend to clarify that the Buddha incurs guilt, but adduces that the Buddha, the Tathāgata, had causal connections to the killing yet incurs no guilt, to establish that King Ajātaśatru had causal connections to the killing yet does not incur the actual guilt. In the text there are four phrases: first, clarifying that because the former king made offerings to the buddhas he became king, first straightforwardly and then inversely; second, from "if he had not become" downward, clarifying that because he became king he was killed, showing it inversely; third, from "if your killing of your father should incur guilt" downward, comparing the king to the Buddha to cause the Buddha to incur guilt; fourth, from "if the Buddha, the World-Honoured One, incurs no guilt" downward, comparing the Buddha to the king to establish that the king is without guilt. The buddhas also had causal connections to the killing yet incur no guilt; how could you alone incur the guilt of killing?