俱舍論記 16.70

16.70

「謂於根本說加行聲」者，論主答。謂於根本說加行聲，釋本論文即無有過，宗許命終後方成業道故。而前文言彼正命終成業道者，於過去事說現在聲，或於加行因中假立業道果號。故《正理》云「決定死後業道方成。而前所言正命終者，於已往事却說現聲。如有大王自遠已至，而問今者從何所來。或此於因假說為果（已上論文）。」問：何故死已方成業道？解云：凡論殺生，令命不續，故於不續方成業道。現在命猶存，如何成業道？《正理》意同此釋，然救毘婆沙師釋本論云「豈不根本及與後起，皆於所殺死有後生，俱可名為殺生後起。是故應信毘婆沙師於本論文極為善釋。」俱舍師責云：若作斯救，義實無違，然後起言不分明故。

Regarding "That is, using the term 'preparation' for the fundamental [act]": The author of the treatise answers. That is, using the term 'preparation' to refer to the fundamental [act] to explain the text of the root treatise is free of fault, because the school accepts that only after the termination of life is the path of action accomplished. As for the previous text stating that when that [being] is just dying the path of action is accomplished, it applies the present tense to a past event, or figuratively applies the name of the result—the path of action—to the preparatory cause. Thus the Nyāyānusāra says: "It is definitively after death that the path of action is accomplished. As for what was previously said about 'just dying', it is merely applying the present tense to what has already passed. Just as when a great king has arrived from afar, one asks, 'From where do you come now?' Or this is figuratively speaking of the cause as the result (end of treatise passage)." Question: Why is the path of action accomplished only after death? Gloss: Whenever one discusses killing living beings, it is causing life not to continue; hence only upon its non-continuation is the path of action accomplished. While present life still exists, how could the path of action be accomplished? The Nyāyānusāra's intention agrees with this explanation. However, in rescuing the Vaibhāṣika master's interpretation of the root treatise, it says: "Is it not that both the fundamental and the subsequent acts arise after the dying-state of the one killed, and thus both may be called subsequent to killing? Therefore one should believe that the Vaibhāṣika master's interpretation of the root treatise is exceedingly skillful." The master of the Kośa critiques this: If one makes this rescue, the meaning is indeed not contradicted; however, the word 'subsequent' is not clear.