俱舍論記 5.126

5.126

「又亦應言捨壽行故」者，論主解云：此第四句中，又亦應言諸佛、羅漢捨壽行故，而不言者非枉橫緣故，以作論者據枉橫緣故。《婆沙》二十俱非句中言「彼作論者顯有橫死故作是說。佛雖財、壽俱未盡故而般涅槃，然非橫死，邊際定力所成辨故。」《正理》破此論云「不應復言捨壽行故，義已攝在初句中故。」《正理》意說：捨壽行者，引感壽業令感富樂。即是感壽業盡，故應名壽盡故死，非福盡故死。俱舍師救云：故促壽死非為壽盡，如何可在初句攝？又違《婆沙》說佛財、壽俱未盡故第四句攝。意違《俱舍》，何斯反害自宗？

"One should also mention the relinquishment of the formations of life" is the explanation by the author of the treatise: In this fourth alternative, one should also mention the Buddhas and arhats relinquishing the formations of life. That it was not stated is because this is not an untimely accidental condition, for the author of that treatise proceeded on the basis of untimely accidental conditions. In the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle twenty, on the alternative of 'neither', it says: "The author of that treatise made this statement in order to show that there is untimely accidental death. Although the Buddha entered parinirvāṇa when neither his material resources nor his life had been exhausted, it was nevertheless not an accidental death, because it was accomplished through the power of edge-of-existence concentration (prāntakoṭika-dhyāna)." The Nyāyānusāra refutes this treatise, saying: "One should not again say 'relinquishing the formations of life', because that meaning is already subsumed within the first alternative." The intended meaning of the Nyāyānusāra is: relinquishing the formations of life means drawing upon the karma that brings about life to cause it to bring about wealth and bliss. That is precisely the exhaustion of the karma that brings about life; therefore, it should be called death due to the exhaustion of life, not death due to the exhaustion of merit. The Kośa master defends: Curtailing life and dying is not [natural] exhaustion of life; how could it be subsumed under the first alternative? Furthermore, it contradicts the Mahāvibhāṣā's statement that the Buddha's resources and life were both unexhausted and thus subsumed under the fourth alternative. In wishing to oppose the Kośa, how does he end up harming his own school?