俱舍論記 16.141

16.141

「如無失者應取為宗」者，此即論主印前兩責內無失者為宗，即取正聞能解名解，以於爾時具有表業及無表故。言無失者，即印斯言。又解：論主以理總相評言，如無失者應取為宗，解成業道此亦何定？若有耳識無迷亂緣，即據正聞能解名解，表、無表二皆成業道。若有耳識迷亂緣時不名能解，後意思審方能正解，即據已聞正解名解，唯無表一亦成業道。由斯不定，故論主言如無失者應取為宗。又《正理》云「若正對眾背想發言，不見等中誑言見等，所誑領解此剎那中，表、無表業名本業道。有說：所誑印可方成。若爾，應無誑賢聖理。然誑賢聖為過既深，由此應知前說為善（解云：相領解即成業道，非要被誑印可方成）。」問：如殺業道殺已方成，誑語業道領解即成，何故不言解已方成？解云：殺據命斷，現命不續方名業道，故言殺已。誑據領解，現領解時即成業道，不言解已。

"Whichever is free from fault should be taken as the thesis": this is where the author of the treatise endorses the one without fault among the two preceding cross-examinations as the thesis, which means adopting the view that "understanding" means correctly hearing with the auditory consciousness being able to understand, because at that very moment both informative karma and non-informative karma are present. Saying "whichever is free from fault" endorses this statement. Another explanation: The author of the treatise evaluates the matter comprehensively on the basis of reason, saying that whichever is free from fault should be taken as the thesis; for how could the understanding that constitutes the path of karma be entirely fixed? If the auditory consciousness is free from conditions causing confusion, then it is grounded on correct hearing being able to understand as "understanding", and both informative and non-informative karma constitute the path of karma. If the auditory consciousness is subject to conditions causing confusion, it is not called "able to understand", and it is only after the mental consciousness reflects and deliberates that it can understand correctly; it is then grounded on having heard and correctly understood as "understanding", and non-informative karma alone constitutes the path of karma as well. Because of this indefiniteness, the author of the treatise says that whichever is free from fault should be taken as the thesis. Furthermore, the *Nyāyānusāra* says: "If, facing an audience, one speaks contrary to what one thinks, falsely claiming to have seen what one has not seen and so forth, then in the very moment when the deceived person comprehends, both informative and non-informative karma are called the original path of karma. Some say: it is accomplished only when the deceived person assents to it. If so, there could be no principle of deceiving noble persons. However, deceiving noble persons is an extremely grave offense; from this one should know that the former explanation is correct (the explanation says: comprehending the meaning at once constitutes the path of karma; it is not necessary that the person deceived assents to it before it is accomplished)." Question: Just as the path of karma of killing is accomplished only after the killing has taken place, whereas the path of karma of false speech is accomplished upon comprehension, why does it not say that it is accomplished only "after comprehension"? The explanation says: Killing is grounded on the cessation of life; only when the present life is not continued is it called a path of karma, hence it says "after killing". Falsehood is grounded on comprehension; at the very time of present comprehension the path of karma is accomplished, hence it does not say "after comprehension".