瑜伽師地論略纂 3.84

3.84

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.