俱舍論記 16.110

16.110

「或復生者至殺罪所觸」者，第二師答。生是命根，若有能令以刀杖等斷現在命，無有勢力引同類命相續至生相。不續至生相，爾時名殺。謂以惡心隔斷他命，乃至一念應至生相闕緣不生，唯此應知殺罪所觸。不隔當命，名曰非餘，即非殺罪所觸。應知此中現蘊自滅，不可言殺但可言衰，當蘊不續可言殺也。既言不續名殺，明知殺未來蘊。兩家釋生義雖有異，若論殺義皆殺未來。又解：若據體斷唯殺未來，若據衰用亦殺現在，義皆無妨。故《婆沙》一百一十八云「問：殺何蘊名殺生？過去耶？未來耶？現在耶？過去已滅、未來未至、現在不住，悉無殺義，云何名殺耶？答：殺未來蘊，非過去、現在。問：未來未至，云何可殺？答：彼住現在，遮未來世諸蘊和合，說名為殺。由遮他蘊和合生緣，故得殺罪。有說殺現在、未來蘊，但非過去。問：未來可爾。現在不住，設彼不殺亦自然滅，云何殺耶？答：斷彼勢用，說名為殺。所以者何？先現在蘊雖不住而滅，然不能令後蘊不續。今現在蘊不住而滅，則能令後蘊不續，故於現蘊亦得殺罪（然無評家。前據體斷名殺，後兼斷用亦殺現在，義并無違。此論意同前師。若據衰，亦同後說）。」又《婆沙》云「問：諸蘊中何蘊可殺，於彼得罪？有說：色蘊。所以者何？唯色可為杖等所觸故。有說：五蘊。問：四蘊無觸，云何可殺？答：彼依色轉，色蘊壞時彼便不轉，故亦名殺，如瓶破時乳等亦失。又都於五蘊起惡心而殺，故於彼得殺罪。」又《婆沙》云「問：殺壽盡者得殺罪不？答：若此剎那壽應盡，即爾時加害者，不得殺罪。若由加害，乃至一剎那壽住不生法，皆得殺罪，況多剎那。

"Or again, what is called life ... touched by the fault of killing": the second master answers. Life is the life-faculty; if someone is able to cut off present life by means of a sword, staff, or the like, so that it lacks the power to induce life of the same category to continue up to the characteristic of arising—failing to continue to the characteristic of arising—at that moment it is called 'killing'. That is, by an evil mind cutting off another's life so that for even a single thought-moment what should have reached the characteristic of arising fails to arise due to lacking conditions, this alone should be known as touched by the fault of killing. Not cutting off future life is called 'none other', which is not touched by the fault of killing. It should be known that here the present aggregates perish of themselves and cannot be said to be killed, but can only be said to decline; when future aggregates fail to continue, this can be called 'killing'. Since it says failing to continue is called killing, we clearly know that it is killing the future aggregates. Although the two masters differ in their explanations of the meaning of 'life', when discussing the meaning of 'killing', both kill the future. Another explanation: if based on cutting off the substance, it is solely killing the future; if based on causing the function to decline, it also kills the present—both meanings are unhindered. Thus the *Mahāvibhāṣā*, fascicle 118, says: "Question: Killing which aggregates is called killing living beings? Past? Future? Present? The past has already perished, the future has not yet arrived, and the present does not endure; all lack the meaning of killing—how is it called killing? Answer: Killing the future aggregates, not the past or present. Question: Since the future has not arrived, how can it be killed? Answer: While abiding in the present, one obstructs the harmony of the aggregates of the future world; this is called killing. Because one obstructs the conditions for the arising in harmony of the other aggregates, one incurs the fault of killing. Some say: Killing the present and future aggregates, but not the past. Question: For the future it may be so. The present does not endure; even if one did not kill it, it would perish naturally—how is it killed? Answer: Cutting off its efficacy and function is called killing. Why is this? The former present aggregates, though perishing without enduring, could not cause the subsequent aggregates to not continue. Now the present aggregates perish without enduring and can cause the subsequent aggregates to not continue; hence one also incurs the fault of killing with respect to the present aggregates (However, there is no critical master [evaluating these]. The former refers to cutting off the substance as killing; the latter combines cutting off the function, also killing the present; the principles do not conflict at all. The intention of this treatise is the same as the first master. If based on decline, it is also the same as the latter explanation)." Moreover, the *Mahāvibhāṣā* says: "Question: Among the aggregates, which aggregate can be killed so that one incurs the fault with respect to it? Some say: the form aggregate. Why? Because form alone can be touched by a staff and the like. Some say: the five aggregates. Question: The four aggregates lack touch; how can they be killed? Answer: They operate reliant on form; when the form aggregate is destroyed, they then do not operate, hence it is also called killing, just as when a jar is broken, the milk and so on are also lost. Furthermore, one generally initiates an evil mind toward the five aggregates and kills them; hence one incurs the fault of killing with respect to them." Moreover, the *Mahāvibhāṣā* says: "Question: If one kills someone whose lifespan has ended, does one incur the fault of killing? Answer: If the lifespan of this thought-moment was due to end, and precisely at that time one harms them, one does not incur the fault of killing. If, due to the harm, even for a single thought-moment the endurance of lifespan becomes a phenomenon that does not arise, one always incurs the fault of killing, how much more so for many thought-moments."