梵網經菩薩戒本疏 5.147

5.147

八、釋文者，有五：一、舉過正制；二、犯便違行；三、舉輕況重；四、簡道異俗；五、故犯成愆。初中，先於自怨，亦二：謂瞋約意業，打據身業。語隨二起，略而不舉。若具，應言以罵報罵。又以自身被殺，自無現酬，故不言以殺報殺也。「若殺父母」下，犯君親怨，亦二：謂親約孝境，君約忠境。據孝據忠，理應酬報。但為怨怨相酬，怨終不盡，唯有無怨，怨乃息耳。是故如來慈救，制此嚴科，故云「不得加報」也。二、「殺生報生」下，明違理乖行。謂「生」猶命也，謂殺命還以命酬，故云「殺生報生」，非是以生報殺，此違理也。「不順孝道」者，明乖行也。問：俗禮之中，君父之怨不報非孝，何故此中若報非孝耶？答：道與俗反，俗據現在，不說當來因果業報。今若重酬苦業滋多，令其君父沈淪永劫，何成孝道？況此怨等何必前生非己父母，今若殺彼豈成孝行？故云不順孝道也。三、「尚不畜」下明舉輕況重，以畜奴婢身打口罵隨起瞋惱，三業罪咎口業偏多，故云「口罪無量」。此舉輕猶無量罪。下況重，故云「況作七逆之罪」，理宜罪重無量難晚。四、「而出家」簡道異俗，於中雖在家出家二位同犯，然出家作此過失尤深，故別重舉。以捨俗親緣修慈普濟，而反為親酬報，乖行至甚故。五、「故作」下明故違結犯，可知。

Eighth, explaining the text: there are five [parts]: first, citing the fault to formally institute [the precept]; second, violating it directly breaches practice; third, citing the minor to illustrate the major; fourth, distinguishing the spiritual from the worldly; fifth, intentional violation constitutes an offense. In the first part, first regarding enmities against oneself, there are also two: anger refers to mental action, striking is based on bodily action. Speech arises along with both and is omitted rather than cited. If fully stated, one should say 'retaliating against revilement with revilement.' Furthermore, because if one's own body is killed, one cannot avenge it in the present, it does not say 'retaliating against killing with killing.' From 'if one kills parents' onward, violating enmities against rulers and parents also has two: parents pertains to the domain of filial piety; rulers pertains to the domain of loyalty. Based on filial piety and loyalty, in principle one should take revenge. However, because enmities avenging enmities never come to an end, only through the absence of enmity does enmity cease. Therefore, the Tathāgata in his compassionate rescue instituted this strict rule; hence it says 'one must not add retaliation.' 2. From 'killing living beings to retaliate against living beings' onward explains violating principle and contravening practice. 'Living beings' is equivalent to life; meaning killing a life and returning revenge with a life; hence it says 'killing living beings to retaliate against living beings,' not repaying killing with living; this violates principle. 'Not according with filial piety' explains contravening practice. Question: In worldly propriety, if the enemy of one's ruler or father is not avenged, it is unfilial; why here is taking revenge unfilial? Answer: The spiritual and the worldly are opposites. The worldly is based on the present and does not speak of future karmic retribution of cause and effect. Now if one retaliates heavily, bitter karma multiplies, causing one's ruler and father to sink [into suffering] for eternal kalpas—how could that constitute filial piety? Moreover, why must these enemies not have been one's own parents in a previous life? If one kills them now, how could that constitute filial conduct? Hence it is said to not accord with filial piety. 3. From 'even not keeping' onward cites the minor to illustrate the major. Because in keeping male and female servants, bodily striking and verbal reviling arise along with anger and vexation, and among the transgressions of the three karmas, verbal karma is especially predominant, it says 'immeasurable verbal offenses.' This cites the minor as still incurring immeasurable offenses. Below it illustrates the major; hence it says 'how much more committing the offenses of the seven heinous acts?' In principle, the gravity of the offenses must be immeasurably difficult to redeem. 4. 'Yet one who has left household life' distinguishes the spiritual from the worldly. Within this, although the two ranks of householder and renunciant commit the same offense, when a renunciant commits this the fault is especially deep; thus it is singled out and emphasized again. Because one abandons worldly kinfolk to cultivate compassion and universally deliver, yet conversely takes revenge on behalf of kin, this contravenes practice to the utmost. 5. From 'intentionally committing' onward explains intentional violation adjudicating an offense; this can be known.