大般涅槃經疏 17.20

17.20

「善男子如汝所言」下，第二答殺難，還酬三意。今初答何故殺而實非殺，廣舉六度。文為三：先牒問、次正答、三結實不殺。「汝向所問」下，酬其護念問，亦三：先牒問。次「我時已得」下，是正釋。上迦葉問：未得不動地時得破戒不？佛答言得。此中答云：殺時已得一子之地。二文云何？一解云：上問家問未得，佛答云得地及破戒。二解云：上言未得，未得於真；此中言得，即得於真。舊解云：是見機殺，故云無罪。河西云：一大悲心恐其墮獄；二為護法，其既謗法，是故殺之，令免謗罪；三為滅邪見；四生其信心。作此觀之，亦似實殺。興皇云：是示現殺，如前童子盜聽，如後罵於調達。今問：若是化殺，豈有地獄三念、甘露十劫之事？若皆是化，如來所作，為利益誰？若俱非化，童子死已，後生何處？故知二解不可偏用。若得意者，理在其間。三「以是義」下，結。

From "Good son, as you have said" onward is second, answering the objection about killing, also responding to the three intentions. Here, first, answering why he killed when in reality it was not killing, he broadly adduces the six pāramitās. The text has three parts: first, repeating the question; next, the answer proper; third, concluding that in reality he did not kill. From "Regarding what you just asked" onward responds to his question about protecting with care, also in three parts: first, repeating the question. Next, from "At that time I had already attained" onward is the explanation proper. Above, Kāśyapa asked: "When one has not yet attained the unshakeable stage, may one break the precepts or not?" The Buddha answered, saying one may. Here he answers, saying: "When killing, I had already attained the stage of one's only child." How are the two passages [reconciled]? One explanation says: the questioner above asked about "not yet attained," and the Buddha answered saying one attains the stage and breaks the precepts. A second explanation says: "not yet attained" stated above meant not yet attained the true; "attained" stated here means already attained the true. Former explanations say: this was killing upon seeing the appropriate occasion, hence it is said to be without sin. Héxī says: first, out of great compassion he feared he would fall into hell; second, for the sake of protecting the Dharma, since he had slandered the Dharma, he killed him on that account to free him from the sin of slander; third, to eradicate wrong views; fourth, to give rise to his faith. Looking at it this way, it also seems like actual killing. Xīnghuáng says: this was a manifestational killing, just as earlier the youth secretly listened, and later he scolded Devadatta. Now we ask: if it was a transformationally manifested killing, how could there be the matter of the three thoughts of hell and the ten kalpas of amṛta? If it was all transformationally manifested, for whose benefit was the Tathāgata's action done? If neither was a transformation, where was the youth reborn after dying? Therefore, we know the two explanations cannot be held exclusively. If one grasps the meaning, the principle lies between them. Third, from "For this reason" onward is the conclusion.