妙法蓮華經玄贊 10.337

10.337

故念觀音良緣滋潤，自心悔愧苦惱皆脫。亦有釋言，其不增長及不定業可得轉滅；其三時決定業及報定時不定者，但能令輕非全令滅盡。《金剛般若》云：「先世罪業應墮惡道，由持經故為人輕賤，先世罪業即為消滅，當得菩提。」不云全滅。又《賢愚經》鴦掘摩羅雖得阿羅漢，為現業有果故為火所燒。又說迦毘羅城除一童子，自餘男女盡是初果聖人，不應為彼瑠璃所殺。其決定造業，佛尚不排，況受果耶。在解脫人名不定者，依不定業說。此亦不然。若得阿羅漢一切不善盡，何業受果耶？在初二果不善未盡，不障彼果，何妨亦受。《般若經》中不說滅盡舉心微者，至誠懇切受持彼經一切不受。若不爾者，五無間罪皆決定業，未生怨王如何悔已一切不受？《十地論》云「一感報定、二作業定，諸佛威神所不能轉」者，說自不發悔愧之心、不入聖道者，業果決定，非悔愧已可名定業。《法句經》言：「非空非海中，非入巖穴間，無有地方所，脫之不受難。」亦據不逢佛菩薩等起悔愧心而入道者決定業報。由此《業報差別經》說：「若業增上心作無慚無愧，作已更作無心改悔，是業決定。若業非增上心作，雖作惡業常懷慚愧，是業不定。」但知諸業非悔非道之所損伏，可有受果；被損便無受果之義。然經說指鬘及阿羅漢猶受業果者，時猶住凡或初二果，今身必定得阿羅漢從當為名，非受果時名阿羅漢。又遇良緣，要自發心、悔愧入聖道，罪業方排。雖遇良緣，無心悔愧亦不入聖，乃至諸佛亦不能轉。迦毘羅城釋種被殺，雖得初果，別報業在初果不排。又非聽聞大乘悔愧懇切深心，故受先業；脫聞大乘勵懇深悔亦不被殺。得阿羅漢一切不受，設有被殺非業果故，不爾指鬘殺人滿千唯少於一，云何得聖？又無悔愧及伏斷滅諸罪業者，有情便無得受聖期。由此故知初說為善，應同《涅槃》、《瑜伽》為正。

Therefore, when mindfulness of Avalokiteśvara provides the nourishing moistening of excellent conditions, and one's own mind experiences regret and remorse, all suffering and distress are escaped. There is also an explanation stating that unaccrued and indeterminate karma can be transformed and eliminated, whereas karma determinate in the three times and karma with determinate retribution but indeterminate timing can only be made lighter, not completely eliminated. The *Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā* says: "If a person's sinful karma from previous lives ought to cause them to fall into the evil destinies, by virtue of upholding this sūtra they are despised by others; their sinful karma from previous lives is then eliminated, and they will attain bodhi." It does not say completely eliminated. Moreover, in the *Sūtra of the Wise and the Foolish*, although Aṅgulimāla attained arhatship, because his present karma had fruit, he was burned by fire. It also says that in the city of Kapilavastu, except for one young boy, the rest of the men and women were all sages of the first fruit, yet they should not have been killed by Virūḍhaka. When it comes to karma determinately committed, even the Buddha does not overturn it, so how much less the experience of its fruit? If it is called indeterminate in a liberated person, this is spoken in reference to indeterminate karma. This is also not correct. If one has attained arhatship, all unwholesome karma is exhausted, so through what karma would one receive fruit? At the first and second fruits, unwholesome karma is not yet exhausted and does not obstruct those fruits, so what prevents one from also receiving [retribution]? That the *Prajñāpāramitā-sūtra* does not speak of complete elimination is bringing up those whose minds are slight; if one upholds that sūtra with utmost sincerity and earnestness, one receives nothing at all. Were it not so, the five uninterrupted sins are all determinate karma, so how could King Ajātaśatru, after regretting, receive nothing at all? The *Daśabhūmika-śāstra* says, "First, determinacy in incurring retribution; second, determinacy of karmic action—these cannot be overturned by the spiritual powers of the buddhas." This refers to those who themselves do not give rise to a mind of regret and remorse and do not enter the noble path, for whom karmic fruit is determinate; it does not mean that after regret and remorse it can still be called determinate karma. The *Dharmapada* says: "Not in the sky, nor in the sea, / nor by entering a mountain cave; / there is no place on earth / where, escaping, one is not subject to calamity." This also relies on the determinate karmic retribution of those who do not encounter buddhas, bodhisattvas, and so forth, do not give rise to a mind of regret and remorse, and do not enter the path. On this basis, the *Karmavibhaṅga-sūtra* says: "If karma is committed with a predominant mind, without shame and without remorse, and having committed it, one commits it again without intention to reform and regret, this karma is determinate. If karma is committed without a predominant mind, and though one commits evil karma one constantly harbors shame and remorse, this karma is indeterminate." One need only know that when karmas are not impaired and suppressed by regret and by the path, there can be the experience of fruit; once impaired, there is no sense of experiencing the fruit. When sūtras say that Aṅgulimāla and arhats still experienced karmic fruits, at that time they were still abiding as ordinary beings or at the first or second fruit; because they were definitely to attain arhatship in the present life, they were named in advance after what was to come, not that they were called arhats at the time of receiving the fruit. Furthermore, when encountering excellent conditions, one must personally generate the aspiration, feel regret and remorse, and enter the noble path; only then is sinful karma overturned. Even if one encounters excellent conditions, if one has no mind of regret and remorse and does not enter the noble path, even the buddhas cannot overturn it. The Śākyas in the city of Kapilavastu were killed; although they had attained the first fruit, karma of individual retribution is not overturned at the first fruit. Moreover, it was not that they heard the Mahāyāna with deep, earnest, and sincere regret and remorse; hence they received past karma. Had they heard the Mahāyāna with diligent, earnest, and deep regret, they would not have been killed either. When arhatship is attained, nothing at all is experienced; even if some are killed, it is not the fruit of karma. Were it not so, Aṅgulimāla killed people amounting to a thousand lacking only one; how could he have attained sagehood? Furthermore, if there were no regret and remorse and no suppression, severing, and elimination of various sinful karmas, sentient beings would have no expectation of attaining sagehood. Therefore, we know that the first explanation is good, and agreement with the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra* and *Yogācārabhūmi* should be taken as correct.