梵網經菩薩戒本疏 1.44

1.44

Third, explaining the name: The breath is called life; when it is severed and discontinued as it turns based on body and mind, this is called killing living beings. The precept is the practice that can counter [it], named after that which is countered; hence it is called the precept against killing. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra states: 'The Buddha-nature of sentient beings abides within the five aggregates. If one destroys the five aggregates, this is called killing living beings. If there is killing of living beings, one immediately falls into the evil destinies.' There are three kinds of breath: the past and present cannot be killed; because it cuts off the future, it is called killing. Sentient beings are termed 'the in-and-out breath'; severing the in-and-out breath is therefore called killing. We Buddhas also conform to worldly convention and call it killing. Question: If severing the breath is called killing, is entering the cessation attainment death? Answer: Because when one emerges later the breath is produced again, therefore it is not called severed. Question: When the breath of this retribution ceases and the breath of the next retribution is produced, shouldn't [the continuity] be not non-existent? Answer: Because the life-faculty is severed and the retributions are distinct and separated, it is not comparable to the cessation attainment. Question: Since killing is like this, arising from conditions it must lack intrinsic nature; lacking intrinsic nature, there should be no offense. Answer: It is precisely without intrinsic nature that one incurs an offense, and again without intrinsic nature that one receives the retribution; all phenomena are like this. Question: Since one's own mind transforms into sentient beings and kills them oneself, there are no real sentient beings dying; on what grounds is there an offense? Answer: One's own mind also transforms into the offense, just as when a sentient being comes to retaliate and one undergoes the punishment—know that it is also like this. Question: Knowing that the nature of killing is empty, killing should have no offense. Answer: Emptiness is the antidote to offenses; one who knows emptiness will definitely not kill, and one who kills definitely does not understand emptiness; therefore there is also an offense. If one says there is no offense and commits killing, because of wrong view the offense is heavier than that toward sentient beings; how could one say of the rest that there is no offense?