菩薩戒本疏 2.72

2.72

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.