俱舍論疏 16.71

16.71

論「又應違害至根本未息故」，第二過也。若命終以後能殺生者業道方成，即違《婆沙》釋本論也。《婆沙》既言於後起以加行聲說，故知前時已成根本。若謂前時未成根本，即於此位成根本者，《婆沙》應言於根本以加行聲說。

The Śāstra [states], from "Furthermore, it would contradict" up to "because the maula has not yet ceased": this is the second fault. If the killer's karmapatha is accomplished only after life has ceased, it contradicts the Vibhāṣā's explanation of the root treatise. Since the Vibhāṣā speaks of the pṛṣṭha using the term prayoga, we know that the maula was already accomplished earlier. If one were to say it was not yet accomplished earlier, but rather is accomplished as the maula at this stage, the Vibhāṣā ought to have said that the maula is spoken of using the term prayoga.