俱舍論疏 16.70

16.70

論「若所殺生至根本業道」，此出後成業道過也。於中有二：一違前說過、二違《婆沙》釋。此即第一過也。《正理》通云「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，謂所殺者正命終時，能殺有情加行表業於殺有用，非業道表。此業道表續加行生，彼所引故，名加行果。然因於殺有勝功能，是故於因假說為果，實非業道說業道聲。豈不此時表業有用，即應立此為業道耶？非要有能方成業道，勿無表業失業道名。此於殺中有何功用？如無表業，表亦應然。又理不應立加行表即為業道，所殺有情於命終位命猶有故。要加行表與所殺生命俱時滅，彼死有後無同類命，一剎那中表、無表業可成業道。此後念表於殺無能，尚非殺生，何況是罪？但應無表得業道名，雖無殺能是殺果故。豈不後表理亦應然？殺表為因所引起故。謂由加行果圓滿時，此二俱成根本業道。雖於他命斷此二無能，而有取當來非愛果用，暢殺思故名殺業道。」

The Śāstra [states], from "If the sentient being to be killed" up to "maula karmapatha": this demonstrates the fault in the karmapatha being accomplished afterwards. Herein there are two [points]: first, the fault of contradicting the earlier explanation; second, contradicting the explanation of the Vibhāṣā. This is the first fault. The Nyāyānusāra resolves this: "It is determined that the karmapatha is only accomplished after death. Yet what was stated earlier about 'actual death' is a usage of present phrasing for a past event. It is like when a great king has already arrived from afar, one asks, 'From where do you come now?' Alternatively, this is a metaphorical designation of the result in terms of the cause: when the one being killed is actually dying, the prayoga manifest action of the killer has efficacy regarding the killing, but is not the manifest action of the karmapatha. This manifest action of the karmapatha arises in continuation from the prayoga, and because it is induced by it, it is termed the result of the prayoga. However, the cause has superior efficacy regarding the killing; therefore, the result is metaphorically designated in terms of the cause, and although it is not truly the karmapatha, the term karmapatha is used. Is it not that at this time the manifest action has efficacy, so this precisely should be established as the karmapatha? It is not necessary that efficacy be required to accomplish the karmapatha, lest non-manifest action lose the designation of karmapatha. What function does that have in killing? As with non-manifest action, the manifest action should likewise be so. Furthermore, it is unreasonable to establish the prayoga manifest action as the karmapatha itself, because at the stage of the one being killed's death, life still remains. The prayoga manifest action and the life of the killed being must cease simultaneously; after that death-existence, there is no life of the same category, and within a single moment, manifest and non-manifest karma can accomplish the karmapatha. Manifest action in this subsequent moment has no efficacy regarding the killing; it is not yet taking life, much less an offense. Only non-manifest action should obtain the designation of karmapatha, because although it lacks the capacity to kill, it is the result of killing. Is it not that subsequent manifest action should reasonably be so as well, because it is induced with the manifest action of killing as its cause? That is, when the result is fulfilled through the prayoga, both of these become the maula karmapatha. Although these two lack efficacy regarding the severing of the other's life, they function to grasp an undesirable future result, and because they give expression to the volition to kill, they are called the karmapatha of killing."