Nyāya Sūtras 205

[Answer:] No, because killing consists in [striking] the locus of effects and the instruments.

We do not say that the killing of an eternal entity is violence; rather, for an entity whose nature is indestructible, injury, pain characterized by mutilation, or severance of the continuum characterized by deprivation of life, inflicted upon the body, which is the locus of effects, and upon the sense organs, which are the agents of apprehending their respective objects, is killing, that is, violence. The "effect" is the sensation of pleasure and pain; its abode, substratum, or locus is the body;

Killing—that is, violence—is the injury of the body, which is the locus of effect, and of the sense organs, which are the agents of apprehending their own objects; it is not [the injury] of the eternal self. In this regard, what was said—that 'there is an absence of that [sin], even when that which possesses a self is burned, because of its eternality'—is incorrect. For one for whom violence is the destruction of an entity, there is the fault of the loss of what was done and the arrival of what was not done. And it can only come to this much: either violence is the destruction of an entity, or it is the killing of the locus of effect and of the agents belonging to an entity having the property of non-destruction; there is no other alternative. And the destruction of an entity has been refuted. What else [is there] in that case? The remainder is in accordance with fact.
Or alternatively, 'because of the killing of the locus of effect and the agent' [means]: the locus of effect is the aggregate of body, sense organs, and intellect; the experiencing of pleasure and pain of the eternal self [occurs] there; its base, locus, and dwelling place is that [aggregate] and nothing other than it, so he alone is the agent. For the cessation of the experience of pleasure and pain has that [killing] as its cause, not without it. Its killing—that is, injury, hurt, or causing death—is violence, not the destruction of the self, because [the self] is eternal. Therefore, what was said—that 'there is an absence of that [sin], even when that which possesses a self is burned, because of its eternality'—this is not [so].