瑜伽師地論略纂 3.84

3.84

害為正法中，文有五，第五申正義，餘四如前。　「能祀者」，能祭祀殺生人。　「所害者」，所用祭祀所害生命。　「諸助伴」者，助祭祀者。　「若是法自體者，離彼殺生，不能感得自所愛果」等者，殺生呪術若是正法，應離殺生，此呪應獨能感得可愛果。自既能感，何假殺生？若離殺生，自不能感，如何轉彼殺生非法成於正法，當來感得可愛果生？　「若能息者，無處無時，無有一人」等者，若殺生呪術能息貪瞋等者，不見十方一切處，亦不見三世一切時，有其一人息貪瞋等。現量既不見，云何說彼能息除耶？佛法內呪，理能息內貪瞋癡毒。　「若遍行者，自所愛親不先用祀」者，此呪若遍殺一切生處行法為正法者，汝所愛親何不先殺用祀天耶？「若不遍者」，呪能不定，違比量故，或有不遍故。　「若唯轉因，於果無能」者，由呪行殺，唯感所殺等罪因，不感罪果。又轉不轉，比量相違。　「若亦轉果，應如轉變」等者，由行呪殺生，當來能變羊等惡色令成妙色，亦應現在由呪術力不殺羊命，即令轉得可愛天身，何假殺之後，令羊等捨羊身已方取天身？比量可知。

In [the section on regarding] harm as true Dharma, the text has five parts; the fifth states the correct view, and the other four are as before. "The sacrificer" is the person who can perform the sacrifice and slaughter living beings. "The harmed" refers to the living beings slaughtered and used for the sacrifice. "The companions" are those who assist in the sacrifice. As for "If it were the intrinsic nature of the Dharma, then apart from that slaughter, it could not induce its desired fruit," etc.: if the mantra of slaughter were true Dharma, then apart from slaughter, this mantra should alone be able to induce an agreeable fruit. Since it could induce it on its own, why rely on slaughter? If apart from slaughter it cannot induce it on its own, how could it turn that non-Dharma of slaughter into true Dharma so as to induce the arising of an agreeable fruit in the future? As for "If it could extinguish them, there would be no place, no time, and not a single person," etc.: if the mantra of slaughter could extinguish greed, hatred, and the like, one would never see in any place in the ten directions, nor at any time across the three times, a single person who has extinguished greed, hatred, and so on. Since it is not seen by direct perception, how can one claim that it can eradicate them? Mantras within the Buddha's Dharma, in principle, can extinguish the inner poisons of greed, hatred, and delusion. As for "If it applies everywhere, why do you not first use your own beloved relatives for sacrifice?": if this mantra performs its rite by slaughtering in all realms of life as true Dharma, why do you not first kill your own beloved relatives to sacrifice to the gods? As for "If it does not apply everywhere": the efficacy of the mantra would be indeterminate, contradicting inference, or else it is not omnipresent. As for "If it only alters the cause, it has no capacity regarding the fruit": by performing slaughter with the mantra, it only induces the cause of guilt for what is slaughtered, etc., and does not induce the fruit of guilt. Moreover, whether it alters it or not contradicts inference. As for "If it also alters the fruit, it should be like transformation," etc.: if by chanting the mantra and killing living beings, one could in the future transform the bad color of sheep and the like into exquisite color, one should also in the present, through the power of the mantra, without killing the life of the sheep, directly cause it to transform and obtain an agreeable divine body; why rely on killing it, so that only after the sheep and the like shed the sheep's body do they take a divine body? This can be known through inference.