菩薩戒本疏 2.30

2.30

Seeing suffering and not rescuing contradicts the cultivation of compassionate practice; hence it was prohibited. For śrāvakas, this is limited to Dharma masters, companions, fellows in the Dharma, or being appointed by the saṃgha; outside this it is not prohibited. Originally [the śrāvaka] did not undertake [to save all] beings, whereas the great being must rescue all; originally aiming to encompass all, the prohibition is common to the seven assemblies. This is what the treatise explains as having deep compassion, caring for, serving, and making provisions for the sick. When the text says 'any sick person, they should always make offerings to them, no differently than to a Buddha': the Buddha is the pinnacle of what should be venerated, while the sick are the extreme of what should be pitied; though veneration and pity differ, their meaning as fields of merit is the same, hence 'no differently.' As for 'among the eight fields of merit, the field of merit of tending to the sick is the foremost field of merit': the meaning of veneration comes later, whereas the mind of rescue and pity comes first; thus, although there are eight fields, caring for the sick is supreme. As for 'if parents, masters' down to 'make offerings to them all to heal them': although above it generally mentioned rescuing all, from close to distant there is inevitably an order of priority, hence relatives are specifically cited. Among the eleven items of benefiting sentient beings in the Bodhisattvabhūmi, the second precept states: 'If bodhisattvas see sentient beings afflicted with severe illness, and harboring resentment or malice do not go to serve them, this is called having an offense, having a transgression, and is a defiled transgression. If afflicted by laziness and indolence they do not go to serve them, it is an undefiled transgression. There is no transgression: if one is sick oneself; if one lacks physical strength; if one delegates another who is capable and compliant to go serve them; if one knows the sick person has someone to rely upon and protect them; if one knows the sick person has their own strength and can serve themselves; if one understands that the chronic illness afflicting them can be borne by themselves; if it is to diligently cultivate vast, unsurpassed, and superior wholesome qualities; if one wishes to protect and maintain the wholesome qualities being cultivated so they are without interruption; if one knows oneself to be of the highest grade of dullness and stupidity, one's wisdom being sluggish and turbid, so that regarding the Dharma heard it is difficult to receive and retain, and difficult to gather the mind onto an object of focus to attain samādhi; if one has previously promised another to provide for them. As for the sick, so too it should be known for acting as a companion to those who are suffering, desiring to dispel their suffering.'"