菩薩戒本疏 2.66

2.66

慎終追遠，歸厚莫故。殺生以救死難，齋講以資亡靈，是則行慈報恩之善行，故制令作。大小不共。大士一切應度，以等慈普故。聲聞正在眷屬，此外不制。以自度故，七眾同犯也。文中有二：一、放生以救死難；二、齋講以資亡靈。前中復二：初以慈心行放生，後以方便解苦難。初中「以慈心故行放生業」者，見臨死之厄，深生慈心放之令生。「一切男子是我父」下，明所救生中修慈心之由。此中有二：一、於一切生起等普親觀；二、於一切物起一體觀。前中男女父母者，就相且配約實，隔世男女通是父母，六途眾生既皆是親，見其厄苦不得不救。「而殺而食者即殺父母」者，舉其普親兼遮殺食。「亦殺我故身」下，明一體觀。於中乘勢，先止殺食，後正明一體觀。「一切地水是我先身，一切火風是我本體」者，眾生之身攬四大而成體，生時聚集為身，死時離散為物，雖集散從緣而其性不殊，大而觀之無非我體。故聖人以群生為己身，以萬物為己體者，理自不然，豈能爾乎？故常行放生以救濟也。「生生受生」下，明方便解苦難。「生生受生」者，雖更生歷死而悲觀愈深。「若見世人」下，正明方便救度。所殺之生被現在之苦，能殺之人受當來之苦，故於能所殺者普生悲而救度。「應方便救護解其苦難」者，救所殺生解其現苦。「常教化講說菩薩戒救度眾生」者，救能殺生遮其當苦。「若父母」下，齋講以資亡靈。法力難思冥資不空，故亡過神靈隨在何趣，除彼二定必得蒙益。問：相續既別，云何此修福因彼得樂果，自作他受違因果故？答：因果道理實無我作他受，然彼此相緣非無互資，故目連設福母靈脫於餓苦，那舍修善父神免於劇難，是則相感之義理數必然。

"Being careful at the end and pursuing [reverence for] the distant past causes the virtues of the people to return to thickness." Releasing living beings to rescue them from mortal peril, and holding vegetarian feasts and lecturing [on scriptures] to aid departed spirits—these are good actions that practice compassion and repay kindness; hence, [this precept] is established to enjoin their performance. The Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna differ here. A great being (bodhisattva) should deliver all beings, because universal compassion is all-pervading. The śrāvaka focuses particularly on family members and is not restricted beyond them, because they seek self-deliverance. The seven assemblies all commit this offense. The text has two parts: first, releasing living beings to rescue them from mortal peril; second, holding vegetarian feasts and lecturing to aid departed spirits. The first part also has two aspects: initially, practicing the release of living beings with a compassionate mind; subsequently, resolving their suffering and difficulties through skillful means. Under the initial aspect, regarding "out of a mind of compassion, one performs the deed of releasing living beings": seeing their plight near death, one deeply gives rise to a compassionate mind and releases them to preserve their lives. From "all men are my fathers" downward, the reason for cultivating a compassionate mind toward the living beings to be rescued is explained. This contains two points: first, giving rise to the contemplation of universal equality of kinship toward all living beings; second, giving rise to the contemplation of non-duality (one body) toward all entities. In the former, regarding "men and women as fathers and mothers": in terms of phenomenal appearances, they are tentatively correlated, but in terms of reality, across different lives all men and women are universally fathers and mothers. Since the sentient beings of the six paths are all one's kin, seeing their distress and suffering, one cannot fail to rescue them. Regarding "yet killing and eating them is killing one's parents": this raises their universal kinship and also prohibits killing and eating them. From "and also killing one's former body" downward, the contemplation of one body is explained. Taking advantage of the momentum within this, killing and eating are first stopped, and thereafter the contemplation of one body is properly explained. Regarding "all earth and water are my past bodies, all fire and wind are my original substance": the bodies of sentient beings are formed by gathering the four great elements; at the time of birth, they aggregate into a body, and at the time of death, they disperse into entities. Although aggregating and dispersing follow conditions, their nature is not distinct; viewing them broadly, none are not one's own substance. Therefore, that the sage takes all living beings as their own body and all entities as their own substance is inherently so in principle—how could it be otherwise? Thus, one always practices the release of living beings to bring them relief. From "life after life receiving birth" downward, resolving suffering and difficulties through skillful means is explained. Regarding "life after life receiving birth": although repeatedly undergoing birth and experiencing death, one's compassionate contemplation becomes ever deeper. From "if one sees people of the world" downward, properly rescuing and delivering through skillful means is explained. The living beings being killed undergo present suffering; the persons who kill will receive future suffering. Therefore, toward both the killer and the killed, one universally gives rise to compassion and rescues them. Regarding "one should apply skillful means to rescue and protect them, resolving their suffering and difficulties": this rescues the living beings being killed, resolving their present suffering. Regarding "always teaching, transforming, lecturing on, and expounding the bodhisattva precepts to rescue and deliver sentient beings": this rescues the living beings who can kill, warding off their future suffering. From "if on the day of death of parents" downward, holding vegetarian feasts and lecturing to aid departed spirits is discussed. The power of the Dharma is inconceivable, and its unseen aid is not in vain; therefore, wherever the departed spirit may dwell among the destinies, except for those in the two determinate [retributions], they will surely receive benefit. Question: Since mental continua are distinct, how can cultivating meritorious causes here allow another to obtain a pleasurable fruit there? That would violate cause and effect by having one perform and another receive. Answer: In the principle of cause and effect, there is indeed no case where I act and another receives; yet, since they are mutually conditioned, it is not without mutual assistance. Thus Maudgalyāyana generated merit, and his mother's spirit was freed from the suffering of hunger; Na-she cultivated goodness, and his father's spirit was spared from severe calamity. Thus the principle of mutual resonance is an inevitable matter of course.