俱舍論疏 16.72

16.72

論。「如無有過至說加行聲」，論主正《婆沙》，釋文可知。《正理論》云「如本論說：頗有已害生，殺生未滅耶？曰：有。如已斷生命，彼加行未息。此言何義？此中義者，以殺生時，起殺加行總有三種：一唯由內，謂拳擊等；二唯由外，謂擲石等；三俱由二，謂揮刀等。於此三種殺加行中，有所殺生命雖已斷，而能殺者生想未除，故於殺生不捨加行。由此本論作如是言：如已斷生命，彼加行未息，於殺加行說殺生聲，故得說為殺生未滅。此亦業道後，如何名加行？毘婆沙師作如是釋：此於後起說加行聲。所以者何？以能殺者殺加行想猶未息故，於所殺生已命終想猶未生故，立加行名。如何但言此於後起？應作是說：及於根本。所以者何？以所殺者次死有後一剎那時，及此後時多剎那頃，能殺加行皆容未息。是故應言：此於後起及於根本說加行聲。無勞復說及於根本，以於後分聲亦攝根本故。要於所殺死有後時，能殺方成殺生根本。豈不根本及真後分，皆於所殺死有後生俱可名為殺生後分？是故應信毘婆沙師於本論言極為善釋。」

The Śāstra [states], from "As there is no fault" up to "it speaks using the term prayoga": the author of the Śāstra corrects the Vibhāṣā, and the text of the explanation is clear. The Nyāyānusāra states: "As the root treatise says: 'Is there a case where life has already been harmed, yet the taking of life has not ceased?' It says: 'There is. For instance, when life has already been severed, but his prayoga has not ceased.' What does this mean? The meaning here is that when taking life, the prayoga undertaken to kill is threefold in sum: first, solely through internal means, namely striking with fists, and so forth; second, solely through external means, namely hurling stones, and so forth; third, through both together, namely swinging a blade, and so forth. Among these three kinds of prayoga to kill, there are cases where the life of the being killed has already been severed, but the killer has not yet relinquished the notion of it being alive, and therefore does not abandon the prayoga toward killing. Hence, the root treatise speaks in this way: 'For instance, when life has already been severed, but his prayoga has not ceased.' Applying the term 'taking life' to the prayoga of killing, it can therefore be said that 'taking life has not ceased.' This is also after the karmapatha; how can it be called a prayoga? The masters of the Vaibhāṣika explain it thus: 'This speaks of the pṛṣṭha using the term prayoga. Why? Because the killer's notion of the prayoga of killing has not yet ceased, and the notion that the one killed has already died has not yet arisen; therefore, the designation prayoga is established.' Why say only that this refers to the pṛṣṭha? One should say: and to the maula as well. Why is this? Because in the single moment immediately following the death-existence of the one killed, and for many moments after this, the killer's prayoga may well not have ceased in all cases. Therefore, one should say: this speaks of the pṛṣṭha and the maula using the term prayoga. There is no need to add 'and the maula,' because the term 'subsequent division' also subsumes the maula. Only subsequent to the death-existence of the one killed does the killer accomplish the maula of taking life. Are not both the maula and the true subsequent division, since both arise subsequent to the death-existence of the one killed, capable of being called the subsequent division of taking life? Therefore, one should trust that the masters of the Vaibhāṣika have explained the words of the root treatise exceedingly well."