俱舍論疏 16.72

16.72

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."