菩薩戒本疏 2.72

2.72

既信普親一體之道，而瞋打相報，則非孝順亦喪慈忍，故制斷也。即《論》中云：「於他違犯思擇安忍」。二乘俱制，七眾同禁。文中「若殺父母兄弟六親，不得加報」者，外論一世怨親定異，故云：「父母之仇弗與共天下，兄弟之仇弗與共國從，昆弟之仇不為魁。」內融三世怨親一貫，豈容為彼一親而殺此一親耶？故雖殺父兄不得加報。又我親既死不可還活，設害彼親於我何益？故《長壽王經》云：以怨報怨怨終不滅，以德報怨怨乃滅耳。「若國主為他人殺者亦不得加報」者，謂國主為他人故殺我親者，亦不得於國主加報，以國主亦是親故。又可若我國主為他敵國殺者，亦不得於他國加報，以彼亦是親故。長生安劍即其事也。「殺生報生不順孝道」者，謂怨復是親故，亦有生我之恩，殺彼生命報我生恩不孝順道也。此亦殺時別結重罪，今於報怨之邊結輕垢也。「尚不畜」下，舉輕。「況故作七逆之罪」者，知一切是親而行報殺，故名作逆耳。「而出家菩薩無慈報酬」下，違而成犯。偏舉出家者，違之甚故，理通在家。「乃至六親故作」者，父母伯叔兄弟為六親，六親之仇尚不應報，況餘人也。《菩薩地》第十六戒云：「若諸菩薩他罵報罵、他瞋報瞋、他打報打、他弄報弄，是名有犯有所違越，是染違犯。」此戒無開緣，制意可見。

Since one has faith in the path of universal kinship and non-duality, retaliating with anger and blows is neither filial and compliant nor does it preserve compassion and patience; therefore, it is prohibited and eliminated. This is what the Treatise calls "patiently enduring the transgressions of others with reflective consideration." Both vehicles prohibit it, and it is equally forbidden to the seven assemblies. In the text, regarding "if parents, siblings, or the six kinds of kin are killed, you must not retaliate": non-Buddhist treatises maintain that enemies and kin are definitely distinct within a single lifetime, hence they say: "With the killer of one's father or mother, one does not live under the same heaven; with the killer of one's brother, one does not carry weapons together in the same state; with the killer of one's cousin, one does not take the lead." The inner [teaching] harmonizes the three periods of time, where enemies and kin are continuous—how could it allow killing this one relative on account of that one relative? Thus, even if one's father or elder brother is killed, one must not retaliate. Moreover, since my relative is already dead and cannot be brought back to life, even if I harm that relative, of what benefit is it to me? Thus the King Dīrghāyu Sūtra states: "Repaying enmity with enmity, enmity will never cease; repaying enmity with virtue, enmity will cease." Regarding "if the ruler of the state is killed by others, you must likewise not retaliate": this means that if the ruler of the state kills my relative for another's sake, one also must not retaliate against the ruler, because the ruler is also one's kin. Alternatively, if the ruler of my state is killed by another enemy state, one also must not retaliate against the other state, because they too are one's kin. The story of Dīrghāyu putting down his sword is an instance of this. Regarding "killing living beings to repay [the debt of] life does not accord with filial piety": because an enemy is also a relative, they also possess the kindness of having given me birth; killing their life to repay the kindness of giving me birth does not accord with the way of filial piety. In this case, at the time of killing, a separate parājika offense is incurred; here, a duṣkṛta offense is incurred on the side of avenging an enemy. From "When even not keeping" downward, a lesser offense is brought up. Regarding "how much more so intentionally committing the offenses of the seven ānantarya sins": knowing that all are kin and yet carrying out retaliatory killing is called committing an ānantarya sin. From "yet if an ordained bodhisattva, lacking compassion, avenges an enemy" downward, transgression constitutes an offense. Singling out the ordained is because their violation is severe; in principle, it applies also to the householder. Regarding "even intentionally retaliating among the six kinds of kin": parents, uncles, and siblings are the six kinds of kin; even enmity among the six kinds of kin should not be avenged, how much less so that of other people. The sixteenth precept of the Bodhisattvabhūmi states: "If bodhisattvas repay reviling with reviling, anger with anger, blows with blows, or mockery with mockery, this is called being with offense and transgression; it is an afflicted transgression." This precept has no conditions of exemption, and the intention of its formulation is evident.