梵網經述記卷第一 1.43

1.43

經。佛告佛子至呪殺　釋曰。第二別釋戒相。此即第一不殺學處有八門。一釋名。二制意。三殺緣。四輕重。五得果。六對治。七殺境。八釋本文。釋名者。謂出入息凡名之為生。斷彼相續。令不復生。故名殺生。制止殺業令不生故。名為不殺。是依主釋。第二制意者。略說有十緣。一者。一切有情皆悉愛惜命殺違彼情制立學處。如大智論第十五云。現前眾生各各惜命。是故佛言。莫奪他命。若奪命。世世受苦痛。二者殺為最重故。制不殺。如彼論云。復次殺生罪中最重。何以故。人有死急不惜重寶活命為先。譬如價客入海採寶。垂出大海其船卒壞。珍寶失盡。而自慶言。幾失大寶。眾人怪言。汝失財寶。云何而言幾失大寶。答言。一切寶中人命為重。為命求財。不為財求命。是故世尊十不善業道中殺罪最初。五戒之中殺為第一。三者不殺生得大福利。是故制之。若不殺生。得無怖畏。所以者何。我無害他。他無害我。如論。好殺之人有命之屬皆不憙見。若不好殺。一切眾生皆樂依附。又殺生。人今世後世受種種身心苦痛。不殺之人無此眾難。是為大利。四者生大功德。是故制之。謂。若有人。受不殺戒。從今日不殺一切眾生。是於無量眾中生。以所愛重物施與所得功德。亦復無量。如佛言。有五大施。何等為五。一不殺生。是最大施。不盜不婬不妄語不飲酒亦爾。五者殺違慈定。是故制之。如智論云。行慈三昧其福無量。水火不害。力兵不傷。一切惡毒。所不能中也。六者殺生有十過罪。是故制之。如佛語難提迦優婆塞言。殺生有十罪。一心常懷毒。世世不絕。二眾生增惡眼所不憙見。三常懷惡念思惟惡事。四眾生畏之如見蛇虎。五睡眠時心怖不安。六常有惡夢。七命終之時狂怖惡死。八種短命業。九身壞命終墮泥犁中。十若出為人當在短命。七者違大悲心。是故制之。謂。一切菩薩大悲為本。由此大悲。能超二乘殺遮大悲。令不生長故。八違無畏施。是故制之。九違攝眾生。是故制之。十違本願故。是故制之。菩薩發願言。度諸有情殺違彼願故。第三殺緣者。如集論云。以五緣故分別其戒相。謂事故。意樂故。方便故。煩惱故。究竟故。雜集釋云。殺生事者。謂有情數。意樂者。謂此於彼必害意樂。方便者。謂為害故加刀杖等。煩惱者。謂貪等。究竟者。謂彼眾生由方便故。或無間死。或後時死。解云。此中意言必具五緣。成本業道。隨闕一緣。唯方便業。非根本也。有情數者。謂彼所殺是有情數方成本業。於非有情。雖加刀杖。而非殺生根本業道。闕第一緣故。言彼想等者。亦有二種。一於彼有情起彼有情想。二起害意樂。於彼有情起彼想者。復有二義。一於有情中起有情想。二於彼有情起彼有情想。方便業道。於有情中起有情想者。謂。簡於非情起有情想。又簡於有情起非有情想。所以者何。於非有情起有情想。謂是有情行殺生行。又於有情起非有情想。謂是草木起殺加行而無殺生根本業道想顛倒故。言於彼有情起彼有情想者。謂簡於張起王等想。雖行殺業而非殺生根本業道。以想倒故。如瑜伽論第九說。作用顛倒去。謂如有一於餘眾生思欲殺害。誤殺餘者。當知此中雖有殺生。而無殺生罪。然有殺生種類殺生相似同分罪生。若不誤殺其餘眾生。然於非情加刀杖已謂我殺生。當知此中無有殺生。無殺生罪。然有殺生種類殺生相似同分罪生。如殺生業道。如是不與取等。一切業道。隨其所應作用顛倒應知。解云。此中有三方便罪。一於彼有情起餘有情殺。是重方便。二於有情中起非有情想殺。是中方便。三於非有情起有情殺。是輕方便。不損命故。問。菩薩戒中殺生根本業道皆他勝處。設殺他勝處皆殺根本業道耶。答。自有兩釋。一云。殺他勝處皆殺根本業道。有殺根本業道而非他勝處。謂未受戒者殺。二云應作四句分別。殺生業道。有殺生根本業道。而非他勝處。謂未受戒者殺生業道。自有他勝。而非殺生根本業道。如餘有情起餘有情想而行殺生。此想倒故。非根本業。而違悲愍行殺業故。成他勝處。以諸菩薩於一切有情起大悲心。而於有情無悲愍心起殺害意故。成他勝處有亦根本業。亦波羅市迦。謂具戒者殺生業道。第四句者除前相。第二於彼起害意者。謂簡無殺意。而誤殺眾生。闕第二緣非他勝處。唯是輕方便。第三方便者。謂加刀仗。此簡唯有思念。未發加行。非殺業道。加行未發。彼未死故。問。豈不無加行亦成業道。如仙人意憤而殺諸生故。二十唯識云。意業最重。答。仙人意憤義等教他。彼於有情心無所顧。非人敬彼知有惡心動身為殺彼成業道。問。以何表業令鬼知心。答。彼起意憤身語必變。或由呪呾必動身語。而唯識言。意業重者欲顯諸業意為本故。不謂仙殺唯有意業意憤方便而起殺故。從本勝因名之為重。聖教皆言。殺生業道。是身業故。又釋。此中意憤方便而殺彼生。唯有無表而非表業唯識。論云。意業最重故。唯於意業假立殺無表。言煩惱者。謂貪嗔癡簡善心殺非業道故。諸菩薩住大悲心行殺生非業道故。如昔國王殺五百婆羅國而無殺罪今三煩惱。或具或不具以為方便由嗔究竟　言究竟者。謂所殺者命終之後方成業道。彼命未捨。不成業道。唯是方便。由此道理。彼能殺者。前死俱時死皆不成業。所依異故。第四輕重者有二。一據所殺。二依殺心。據所殺者。如涅槃經第十五說。上殺者父母乃至阿羅漢辟支佛畢竟菩薩。中殺者。謂從凡夫人乃至即那含是名中。下殺者。謂三惡道。解言。畢竟菩薩者。十解以上畢竟不退故。或初地以上殺即那含等不成逆故。名為中殺。殺三惡道非道器名為下殺。問。云何殺地獄。答。據殺意樂故名下殺。不心殺。彼又獄卒等有時殺彼故。前釋為好。瑜伽論說。那落迦等。非自他害故。第二由心者。謂能殺心有三品故。彼殺生業成下中上。第五得果者。謂殺生故墮三惡趣。此彼異熟果殺有上中下。如其次第生那落迦傍生鬼趣中。等流果者。若生人間。得命短促。增上果者。一切外事之少光澤。具如雜集論第七。第六對治者。謂大慈悲。若別說者。如十地經第四言。是菩薩復於一切眾生中生安隱心。愛樂心。慈心。悲心。矜愍心。利益心。守護心。我心。師心。生尊心。釋論云。依增上悲復為念眾生故生十種心。復次此心為八種眾生故生。一者於惡行眾生欲令種善行。如經安隱心故。二者於苦眾生欲令如樂具不盡故。如經樂心故。三於怨憎眾生不念加報。如經慈心故。四者於貧窮眾生欲令遠離彼苦。如經悲心故。五者於樂眾生欲令不放逸。如經憐愍心故。六者於外道眾生欲令現信佛法故。如經利益心故。七者於同行眾生欲令不退轉。如經守護心故。八者於一切攝菩提願眾生取如己身。是諸眾生即是我身。如經我心故。生餘二心者。觀彼眾生乘大乘道進趣集具足功德。如經師心故。生尊心故。總說意者。謂諸菩薩以大悲心乃至命難救眾生苦。是為殺對治。如昔鵝吞玉珠。比丘見而為救彼命。乃至命難而不報知。又如菩薩鹿王愍懷身鹿化彼命死。又如鹿王以身為橋。度諸禽獸。力盡致死。如尸毘王救鴿捨身。薩埵王子救虎捨命。如是等類。不可具述。此即菩薩以大慈悲救眾生苦對治殺心。第七辨境者。有二。一可殺境。二起戒境。可殺境者。除色無色天。一切地獄一切中有。佛及第八地以上菩薩所餘有情。皆可殺境。然不律儀者。於一切有情得殺生罪惡阿世耶無分限故。得戒境者。於一切有情得不殺戒。所以者何。於諸有情起善意樂無分限故。是故此中對一切有情制不殺戒。第八釋本文有四。一唱機。二制戒相。三是菩薩下勸修對治。四而自恣下結業道名。此即第一初相汎論殺生。謂奪彼命如是殺生大小通制而少差別。謂聲聞教於一切時唯制不開。菩薩戒中若有利益開許亦殺。如瑜伽論四十一說。若諸菩薩安住菩薩淨戒律儀善權方便為利他故。於諸性罪少分現行。由此因緣。於菩薩戒無所違犯。生多功德。謂如菩薩見劫盜賊。為貪財故。欲殺多生。或復欲害大德聲聞獨覺菩薩。或復欲造多無間業。見是事已發心思惟。我若斷彼惡眾生命當墮地獄。如其不斷無間業成當受大苦。我寧殺彼墮於那落迦。終不令其受無間苦。如是菩薩意樂思惟。於彼眾生。或以善心。或無記心。知是事已為當來故。深生慚愧。以憐愍心而斷彼命。由此因緣。於菩薩戒無所違犯生多功德。問。殺生業道於何時成。為所殺生住死有位能殺生者。成根本業道。為待死後成業道耶。解云。決定死後方成業道。若住死有時成業道者。能殺與所殺俱時捨命。亦應成業道。而不許然。故知死後方成業道。有言。依薩婆多。云如前無異。若依大乘。所殺有情住死有時。能殺生者得成業道。所以者何。過去無體。對何有情得成業道。故知所殺住死有時。能殺生者得成業道。無實眾生及實命根而壞和合故成業道。彌勒所問經論第二卷云。問。無命可殺云何斷命得罪。答。雖無實命。斷和合體。名為殺生。問。害何世蘊名為殺生。過去不可害。已滅無故。未來不可害。未生無故。現在不可害。剎那不住。不待害緣。自然滅故。解云。以現在世刀等緣故。遮未來蘊令不生起。故言殺生。如彌勒所問論云。有人說言。住現在世壞未來世和合蘊體。問。自斷命者成業道不。解云。不成業道。故彌勒所問論云。問。以何義故。自斷命者不得罪報。答。以無可殺者故。此明何義。答。有他人是可殺者。能殺生人得殺生罪。以自殺者無可殺境。即更無殺者故。自斷命不得惡報。問。自殺身者。發起殺心。斷人命根。破壞五陰。捨離人趣。殺業成熟。何故不得殺生罪報。答。若爾阿羅漢人得殺生罪。以死相羅漢自害其身斷己命故。彼阿羅漢亦應獲得斷命之罪。而彼無罪。以離嗔心故。言佛子者。是唱機從佛口生。從法化生。得佛法分又紹佛位。經若自殺至呪殺。第二戒相。先舉過。後制戒。前中有三。初有六句。辨殺相。次一句顯殺業。後四句明緣。自殺者。謂自行殺。教人殺者。謂遣使殺。方便殺者。謂藥等殺。又勸殺等。讚歎殺者。謂讚歎言投巖而死心得生天等。呪殺者。謂人誦呪咀鬼神敬彼而殺彼怨又呪死屍令殺怨家。

Sūtra: The Buddha told the Buddha's disciples […] incantation-killing.

Commentary: Second, individually explaining the characteristics of the precepts. Herein, the first, the śikṣāpada against killing, has eight sections: 1. Explaining the name; 2. The intent behind its institution; 3. The conditions for killing; 4. Light and heavy; 5. The fruits obtained; 6. The antidotes; 7. The objects of killing; 8. Explaining the base text.

1. Explaining the name: The inhalation and exhalation of breath are generally called 'life' (prāṇa). Severing their continuity so that they no longer arise is called 'killing living beings' (prāṇātipāta). Prohibiting the karma of killing so that it does not arise is called 'non-killing' (aprāṇātipāta). This is a genitive tatpuruṣa compound.

2. The intent behind its institution: Briefly stated, there are ten reasons:
First, all sentient beings cherish their life; killing violates their sentiments, so the śikṣāpada was instituted. As the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, Fascicle 15, states: 'All living beings before us cherish their own lives. Therefore, the Buddha said: Do not take another's life. If you take life, you will suffer pain generation after generation.'
Second, because killing is the gravest [offense], non-killing was instituted. As that treatise states: 'Furthermore, among the sins of taking life, it is the gravest. Why? When a person faces the urgency of death, they do not begrudge precious treasures, putting the saving of life first. For example, a merchant went to sea to gather treasures. Just as he was about to emerge from the great sea, his ship suddenly broke apart, and all his rare gems were lost. Yet he rejoiced, saying: "I nearly lost the great treasure!" The crowd was puzzled and said: "You have lost your wealth and treasures; why do you say you nearly lost the great treasure?" He replied: "Among all treasures, human life is the most important. One seeks wealth for the sake of life, not life for the sake of wealth." Therefore, among the ten unwholesome paths of karma taught by the World-Honoured One, the sin of killing is the very first; among the five precepts, killing is the foremost.'
Third, by not killing living beings, one obtains great bliss and benefit; therefore it was instituted. If one does not kill living beings, one attains fearlessness. Why? I do not harm others, and others do not harm me. As the treatise states: 'Those who are fond of killing are despised by all possessing life; if one is not fond of killing, all sentient beings delight in taking refuge in them. Furthermore, a person who kills living beings suffers various bodily and mental pains in this life and future lives; a person who does not kill is free from these numerous adversities. This is a great benefit.'
Fourth, it engenders great merit; therefore it was instituted. That is, if a person receives the precept of non-killing and from this day forward does not kill any sentient beings, they give what they cherish and value to immeasurable multitudes of living beings, and the merit obtained is likewise immeasurable. As the Buddha said: 'There are five great gifts. What are the five? 1. Non-killing is the greatest gift. Not stealing, not engaging in sexual misconduct, not lying, and not drinking alcohol are also like this.'
Fifth, killing violates the concentration of loving-kindness (maitrī-samādhi); therefore it was instituted. As the Upadeśa states: 'One who practices the concentration of loving-kindness has immeasurable merit: water and fire cannot harm them, weapons cannot injure them, and all malicious poisons cannot strike them.'
Sixth, killing living beings has ten faults and sins; therefore it was instituted. As the Buddha said to the upāsaka Nandika: 'Killing living beings has ten sins: 1. The mind constantly harbors poison, uninterrupted from life to life; 2. Sentient beings harbor increasing hatred and look upon one with displeasure; 3. One constantly harbors malicious thoughts and contemplates evil deeds; 4. Sentient beings fear one as if seeing a snake or tiger; 5. When sleeping, one's mind is terrified and unsettled; 6. One constantly has nightmares; 7. At the time of death, one dies a terrifying, wretched death in mad horror; 8. One plants karma for a short lifespan; 9. Upon the breakup of the body at death, one falls into Niraya; 10. If born as a human, one will have a short lifespan.'
Seventh, it violates the mind of great compassion; therefore it was instituted. That is, all bodhisattvas take great compassion as their root; by means of this great compassion, they surpass the two vehicles. Killing obstructs great compassion and prevents it from growing.
Eighth, it violates the gift of fearlessness; therefore it was instituted.
Ninth, it violates the gathering of sentient beings; therefore it was instituted.
Tenth, it violates the original vows; therefore it was instituted. A bodhisattva makes the vow: 'I shall deliver all sentient beings.' Killing violates that vow.

3. The conditions for killing: As the Abhidharmasamuccaya states, its precept characteristics are distinguished by five conditions: object (vastu), intention (āśaya), expedient means (prayoga), defilement (kleśa), and culmination (niṣṭhā). The Vyākhyā explains: 'The object of killing means that which falls within the category of sentient beings. The intention means the intention to definitely harm this [being]. The expedient means means applying knives, clubs, etc., to inflict harm. The defilement means greed, etc. The culmination means that the sentient being dies, either immediately or later, due to the expedient means.'
Explanation: The meaning intended here is that all five conditions must be complete to constitute the fundamental path of karma. If any single condition is lacking, it is merely an expedient karma, not a fundamental one.
'Falls within the category of sentient beings' means that the one killed belongs to the category of sentient beings; only then is the fundamental karma constituted. If one applies a knife or club to non-sentient things, although applied, it is not the fundamental path of karma of killing living beings, because the first condition is lacking.
The phrase 'perception of that, etc.' also has two aspects: 1. Generating the perception of a sentient being regarding that sentient being; 2. Generating the intention to harm.
Generating that perception regarding that sentient being again has two senses: 1. Generating the perception of a sentient being within a sentient being; 2. Generating the perception of that specific sentient being regarding that specific sentient being. [In the case of] an expedient path of karma, generating the perception of a sentient being within a sentient being means excluding generating the perception of a sentient being regarding a non-sentient thing, and also excluding generating the perception of a non-sentient thing regarding a sentient being. Why? Generating the perception of a sentient being regarding a non-sentient thing, thinking it is a sentient being, is performing the action of killing; conversely, generating the perception of a non-sentient thing regarding a sentient being, thinking it is grass or wood, is initiating the preparatory action of killing, but there is no fundamental path of karma of killing living beings because the perception is inverted.
'Generating the perception of that specific sentient being regarding that specific sentient being' excludes, for example, generating the perception of Wang when Zhang is present; although one performs the act of killing, it is not the fundamental path of karma of killing living beings, because the perception is inverted. As stated in Fascicle 9 of the Yogācārabhūmi: 'On inverted action... for instance, someone intends to kill a certain sentient being, but mistakenly kills another; one should know that here, although there is killing of a living being, there is no sin of killing living beings; rather, an offense belonging to the category, resemblance, and homologous class of killing living beings arises. If one does not mistakenly kill another sentient being, but having applied knives or clubs to a non-sentient thing, thinks "I have killed a living being," one should know that here there is no killing of a living being, nor is there the sin of killing living beings; rather, an offense belonging to the category, resemblance, and homologous class of killing living beings arises. Just as with the path of karma of killing living beings, so it is with not taking what is not given and all other paths of karma; one should know them according to inverted action as appropriate.'
Explanation: Herein there are three offenses of expedient means: 1. Regarding that sentient being, to generate the perception of another sentient being and kill it is a heavy expedient means; 2. Generating the perception of a non-sentient thing regarding a sentient being and killing it is a middling expedient means; 3. Generating the perception of a sentient being regarding a non-sentient thing and killing it is a light expedient means, because life is not harmed.
Question: In the bodhisattva precepts, are all fundamental paths of karma of killing living beings defeats (pārājika)? If it is a defeat of killing, is it necessarily a fundamental path of karma of killing?
Answer: There are two explanations. One says: All defeats of killing are fundamental paths of karma of killing. But there are fundamental paths of karma of killing that are not defeats, namely killing performed by one who has not received the precepts. The second says: One should distinguish them via four alternatives (catuṣkoṭi). In the paths of karma of killing living beings:
[1] There is the fundamental path of karma of killing living beings that is not a defeat, namely the path of karma of killing living beings by one who has not received the precepts.
[2] There is a defeat that is not the fundamental path of karma of killing living beings: for example, generating the perception of another sentient being regarding a sentient being and performing killing. Because this perception is inverted, it is not a fundamental karma; yet because it violates compassion and performs the karma of killing, it constitutes a defeat. For bodhisattvas generate great compassion toward all sentient beings, and having no compassionate mind toward a sentient being, they generate an intention to kill; hence it constitutes a defeat.
[3] There is that which is both a fundamental karma and a pārājika: namely, the path of karma of killing living beings by one who has received the full precepts.
[4] The fourth alternative is aside from the preceding characteristics.
Second, 'generating an intention to harm regarding that [being]' excludes having no intention to kill yet mistakenly killing a sentient being; lacking the second condition, it is not a defeat, but merely a light expedient means.
Third, 'expedient means' means applying knives or clubs. This excludes merely harboring a thought without initiating preparatory action; it is not a path of karma of killing, because preparatory action was not initiated and the other has not died.
Question: Can a path of karma not be constituted even without preparatory action, just as the wrath of the ṛṣis' minds killed many living beings? The Viṃśikā states: 'Mental karma is the gravest.'
Answer: The wrath of the ṛṣis' minds is functionally equivalent to instructing others. Their minds having no regard for sentient beings, non-human beings (amanuṣya) venerated them and, knowing they had an evil mind, moved their bodies to kill them; thus it constituted a path of karma for them.
Question: By what vijñapti-karman did they make the spirits know their mind?
Answer: When they generated wrath in mind, their body and speech necessarily changed; or by incantations, their body and speech were certainly moved. As for the Viṃśikā stating that mental karma is the gravest, it intends to show that the mind is the root of all karmas; it does not mean that the killing by the ṛṣis was exclusively mental karma. Because they took mental wrath as the expedient means to initiate the killing, it is called grave based on the principal, predominant cause. The sacred teachings all state that the path of karma of killing living beings is bodily karma.
Another explanation: Here, mental wrath was the expedient means that killed those beings, possessing only avijñapti and not vijñapti-karman. The treatise on Consciousness-Only says that mental karma is the gravest, so only on mental karma is the avijñapti of killing nominally designated.
'Defilement' means greed, anger, and delusion; this excludes killing with a wholesome mind, which is not a path of karma. When bodhisattvas dwell in great compassion and carry out killing, it is not a path of karma, just as an ancient king killed five hundred Brahmins without having the sin of killing. Now, the three defilements, whether complete or incomplete, serve as the expedient means, while culmination is accomplished through anger.
'Culmination' means that only after the life of the one being killed comes to an end is the path of karma constituted. If their life has not yet ceased, the path of karma is not constituted; it is merely an expedient means. By this principle, if the killer dies prior to or simultaneously with [the victim], neither constitutes the [full] karma, because the bases are different.

4. Light and heavy: There are two aspects: 1. Based on the object killed; 2. Based on the mind of killing. Based on the object killed, as Fascicle 15 of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra states: Superior killing is parents up to arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and definitive bodhisattvas. Middling killing is from ordinary persons up to anāgāmins; this is called middling. Inferior killing is the three wretched destinies.
Explanation: 'Definitive bodhisattvas' refers to those from the ten understandings and above, because they are definitively non-retrogressing, or from the first bhūmi and above. Killing an anāgāmin, etc., does not constitute a heinous sin; hence it is called middling killing. Killing those in the three wretched destinies, who are not vessels for the path, is called inferior killing.
Question: How can one kill in hell?
Answer: It is called inferior killing based on the intention to kill; it does not mean the mind actually kills them. Furthermore, the wardens of hell sometimes kill them; therefore the previous explanation is preferable. The Yogācārabhūmi states that beings in the hells (naraka), etc., cannot be harmed by oneself or others.
Second, based on the mind: Because the mind capable of killing has three grades, the karma of killing living beings becomes inferior, middling, or superior.

5. The fruits obtained: By killing living beings, one falls into the three wretched destinies. This is their ripening fruit (vipāka-phala). Killing has superior, middling, and inferior grades; according to their order, one is born in the hells, as animals, or in the realm of hungry ghosts. As for the fruit concordant with the cause (niṣyanda-phala), if born among humans, one receives a short lifespan. As for the sovereign fruit (adhipati-phala), all external things have little luster. This is detailed in Fascicle 7 of the Abhidharmasamuccaya-bhāṣya.

6. The antidotes: That is, great loving-kindness and compassion. If explained specifically, as Fascicle 4 of the Daśabhūmika Sūtra says: 'Furthermore, toward all sentient beings, this bodhisattva gives rise to a mind of peace, a mind of affectionate delight, a mind of loving-kindness, a mind of compassion, a mind of sympathy, a mind of benefit, a mind of protection, a mind of self, a mind of teacher, and a mind of reverence.' The commentary says: 'Relying on predominant compassion, again for the sake of being mindful of sentient beings, they generate ten kinds of minds. Furthermore, these minds are generated for the sake of eight kinds of sentient beings: 1. Toward sentient beings of evil conduct, desiring that they plant wholesome conduct, hence the sūtra says "a mind of peace"; 2. Toward suffering sentient beings, desiring that their requisites for pleasure be inexhaustible, hence the sūtra says "a mind of delight"; 3. Toward hostile and resentful sentient beings, not thinking of retaliation, hence the sūtra says "a mind of loving-kindness"; 4. Toward impoverished sentient beings, desiring that they leave that suffering far behind, hence the sūtra says "a mind of compassion"; 5. Toward joyous sentient beings, desiring that they not be heedless, hence the sūtra says "a mind of sympathy"; 6. Toward sentient beings of non-Buddhist paths, desiring that they present faith in the Buddha-Dharma, hence the sūtra says "a mind of benefit"; 7. Toward fellow practitioners, desiring that they not retrogress, hence the sūtra says "a mind of protection"; 8. Toward all sentient beings who encompass the vow of bodhi, taking them as their own body—these sentient beings are my own body—hence the sūtra says "a mind of self." Generating the remaining two minds means observing those sentient beings boarding the Great Vehicle path, advancing and gathering complete virtues, hence the sūtra says "a mind of teacher" and "a mind of reverence."' The general import is that bodhisattvas, with great compassion, even at the cost of their own lives, rescue sentient beings from suffering; this is the antidote to killing. For example, in the past a goose swallowed a jade pearl; a monk saw it, and to save its life, did not reveal it even when facing death. Also, for example, the bodhisattva deer king, pitying a pregnant deer, offered himself to die in her place. Also, for example, a deer king used his body as a bridge to ferry birds and beasts, exhausting his strength until death. Like King Śibi abandoning his body to save a dove, and Prince Sattva sacrificing his life to save a tigress. Instances such as these cannot be fully recounted. This is how bodhisattvas use great loving-kindness and compassion to rescue sentient beings from suffering, counteracting the mind of killing.

7. Distinguishing the object: There are two: 1. The object that can be killed; 2. The object for which the precept is aroused. As for the object that can be killed: except for the gods of the form and formless realms, all beings in the hells, all intermediate existences (antarābhava), Buddhas, and bodhisattvas of the eighth bhūmi and above, all remaining sentient beings are objects that can be killed. However, one who lacks restraint incurs the sin of killing regarding all sentient beings, because evil intention (āśaya) has no limitation. As for the object for which the precept is obtained: one obtains the precept of non-killing regarding all sentient beings. Why? Because the wholesome intention aroused toward sentient beings has no limitation. Therefore, herein the precept of non-killing is instituted toward all sentient beings.

8. Explaining the base text: There are four parts: 1. Calling out the intended capacity; 2. Instituting the precept characteristics; 3. From 'this bodhisattva' below, encouraging the cultivation of the antidote; 4. From 'yet indulging oneself' below, concluding with the name of the path of karma.
Herein, this is the first: the first characteristic broadly discusses killing living beings, which means taking another's life. Such killing is prohibited across both the Greater and Lesser Vehicles, but with a slight difference: the śrāvaka teaching strictly prohibits it at all times without permission, whereas in the bodhisattva precepts, if there is benefit, it is permitted to kill. As Fascicle 41 of the Yogācārabhūmi states: 'If bodhisattvas dwelling in the restraint of the pure precepts of the bodhisattva, through skillful expedients and for the benefit of others, engage slightly in inherent offenses, by this cause and condition they commit no transgression against the bodhisattva precepts and engender much merit. For instance, a bodhisattva sees a robber who, out of greed for wealth, wishes to kill many living beings, or wishes to harm virtuous śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, or bodhisattvas, or wishes to commit many karmas of immediate retribution. Having seen this, the bodhisattva reflects: "If I sever the life of this evil sentient being, I should fall into hell; but if I do not sever it, his karma of immediate retribution will be completed and he will suffer great torment. I would rather kill him and fall into Naraka than let him suffer the torment of immediate retribution." A bodhisattva reflecting with such an intention, toward that sentient being, either with a wholesome mind or with an indeterminate mind, having recognized this situation, for the sake of the future, deeply gives rise to shame and conscience, and with a mind of pity severs his life. Due to this cause and condition, there is no transgression against the bodhisattva precepts, and much merit is generated.'
Question: At what time is the path of karma of killing living beings constituted? Is the fundamental path of karma constituted for the killer while the killed being is in the state of dying existence (maraṇabhava), or does it wait until after death to constitute the path of karma?
Explanation: It is definitely constituted as a path of karma only after death. If it were constituted while in the state of dying existence, then when killer and killed perish simultaneously, it would also constitute a path of karma; but this is not accepted, so we know it is constituted only after death. Some say that according to the Sarvāstivāda, it is no different from the above; but according to the Mahāyāna, while the killed sentient being is in the state of dying existence, the killer's path of karma is constituted. Why? The past has no substance; toward what sentient being could the path of karma be constituted? Therefore we know that while the killed is in the state of dying existence, the killer's path of karma is constituted. There is no real sentient being nor real vital faculty, yet by destroying the composite, the path of karma is constituted. Fascicle 2 of the Treatise on the Maitreyaparipṛcchā Sūtra states: 'Question: If there is no life to be killed, how is taking life an offense? Answer: Although there is no real life, severing the composite entity is called killing living beings. Question: Severing the aggregates of which temporal period is called killing living beings? The past cannot be harmed, as it is already ceased and non-existent; the future cannot be harmed, as it has not yet arisen and is non-existent; the present cannot be harmed, as it does not abide for a kṣaṇa and naturally ceases without waiting for conditions of harm. Explanation: Through the conditions of knives, etc., in the present period, one obstructs the future aggregates from arising; therefore it is called killing living beings. As the Treatise on the Maitreyaparipṛcchā states: "Some say: abiding in the present period, one destroys the composite aggregate entity of the future period."' Question: Does one who severs one's own life constitute a path of karma?
Explanation: It does not constitute a path of karma. Hence the Treatise on the Maitreyaparipṛcchā states: 'Question: For what reason does one who severs one's own life not receive retribution for the sin? Answer: Because there is no one who can be killed. What does this mean? Answer: Only when there is another person who can be killed does the killer incur the sin of killing living beings. Because for a suicide there is no object that can be killed—that is, there is no other killer—severing one's own life does not incur evil retribution.'
Question: One who commits suicide generates a mind to kill, severs a human vital faculty, destroys the five aggregates, abandons the human realm, and brings the karma of killing to maturation; why do they not receive the retribution for the sin of killing living beings?
Answer: If so, then an arhat would incur the sin of killing living beings, because an arhat who manifests death harms his own body and severs his own life; that arhat would likewise incur the sin of severing life. Yet they have no sin, because they are free from a mind of anger.
'Buddha's disciples' calls upon those capable: born from the mouth of the Buddha, born through transformation from the Dharma, obtaining a portion of the Buddha-Dharma, and inheriting the Buddha's position.
Sūtra: 'If one kills oneself […] incantation-killing': Second, the characteristics of the precepts. First it cites the faults, and then institutes the precept. In the former part there are three sections: first, six phrases distinguish the characteristics of killing; next, one phrase shows the karma of killing; finally, four phrases clarify the conditions.
'Kills oneself' means performing the killing personally.
'Causes others to kill' means dispatching an envoy to kill.
'Expedient killing' means killing with poison, etc., or encouraging killing, etc.
'Praising killing' means praising it, saying: 'Throwing yourself off a cliff to die, your mind will be born in heaven,' etc.
'Incantation-killing' means a person chants incantations and curses, and spirits/ghosts venerate them and kill their enemy; or chanting incantations over a corpse to make it kill one's enemy.