大方廣佛華嚴經疏 43.9

43.9

Third, explaining karma, there are also three parts. In the specific exposition, ten phrases constitute nine kinds of distinction, because the last two are combined. First, the distinction of the causes of the paths: generally speaking, the three natures are the leading causes for the six destinies, while the impelling causes are only good and evil, each having three grades. The second ground has already explained that completing karma (paripūraka-karma) pervades the three natures, and the perfuming of verbal expression (nāma-vāsanā) also pervades the three natures, being accepted as causal seeds. Furthermore, fascicle 17 of the Abhidharmakośa contrasts causes of the three natures with five kinds of fruits, for indeterminate karma can also bring about fruits. The treatise master generally takes the three as causes of the paths; or, since it does not bring about maturation (vipāka), the treatise master's words are general while the intent is specific. Second, "having manifestation" and so on is the distinction of intrinsic nature. However, the treatise's version of the sūtra renders this phrase as "the marks of what is done and what is not done," so that volition (cetanā) is entirely taken as its intrinsic nature. The treatise states: "There are two kinds: 1. At the time of deliberation, this resides in the mental ground, being solely the single volition of contemplation, explaining the meaning of 'not done.' 2. At the time of performing karma, explaining the word 'done' in the sūtra, there is decisive volition; when in body and speech, it is exclusively the volition of initiating action." The Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi states: "Volition that moves the body is called bodily karma; volition that initiates speech is called verbal karma." Yet now, since it says "having manifestation," it means both manifest and unmanifest karma pervade all three types of karma: as for manifest, all three are volition; as for unmanifest, it is neither mind nor form (citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra), or some say it is subsumed under form, the meaning of which is as explained elsewhere. Third, "co-arising and not departing from the mind" is the distinction of expedient means, meaning co-arising with the mind, perfuming the mind without producing a different fruit. This means that this karmic volition co-arises with the simultaneously arising mental consciousness; once arisen in accordance with goodness or evil, it perfumes the fundamental consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna) into seeds of nominal designation and so forth. Because the seed resembles the perfuming agent, it is said "not producing a different fruit," which is the meaning of "not departing." Fourth, "by intrinsic nature of cause" and so on is the distinction of the exhausted accumulation of fruits: because beginningless karmic causes are conditioned (saṃskṛta), their intrinsic nature perishes in a kṣaṇa, hence it says "exhausted." This shows impermanence; yet being able to sustain until the fruit, its function does not perish, hence it says "the accumulation of fruits is not lost," which shows non-annihilation. Although the prior thought-moment ceases, the subsequent thought-moment continuously endures, hence it says "sequential." It is also that the cause is suddenly perfumed, while the fruit is sequential, like the five [links] beginning with consciousness. Fifth, having retribution and having no retribution: the treatise says, "the distinction of having experienced the fruit and not yet having experienced the fruit. Karma of retribution in a past life that is already experienced in the present is called having retribution; retribution in a future life that is not yet experienced is called having no retribution, not that it is entirely non-existent." There is another principle: karma that has already been repented is conceded to have no retribution; having retribution is self-evident. Sixth, manifold retributions such as dark-dark [karma]: the distinction of opposition, meaning four karmas contrast with one another to form distinctions: the first two are the contrast between dark and white, and the last two are the contrast between defiled and undefiled (āsrava and anāsrava). "Dark-dark" refers to the first of the four, whose cause and fruit are both evil. Furthermore, both cause and fruit are associated with ignorance (avidyā); this is the karma of the three wretched paths. "And so on" equates to the remaining three: second is called white-white karma, whose cause and fruit are both good, and both are associated with the illumination of wisdom; this is the good karma of the form realm. Third is dark-white karma, which is good karma of the desire realm; because good and evil are mixed in the cause, the received retributions are also a mixture of desirable and undesirable. Fourth is neither-dark-nor-white karma, referring to undefiled karmas; because they have no maturation, in contrast to the above two karmas of dark and white, the name of "double negation" is established. As for the mark of "manifold retributions," the above three possess retributions; hence the treatise states: "because the accumulation of karma is accomplished." According to the intent of the Abhidharmakośa, dark-white karma is spoken of in terms of continuity (saṃtāna), since no single karma and no single maturation is both dark and white, as they are mutually contradictory. "Continuity" means either that the mental intention is dark while the expedient means is white, such as performing respectful deeds to deceive another; or that the mental intention is white while the expedient means is dark, such as speaking harsh words out of pity for a disciple. Deducing from reason, performing respectful deeds with a deceitful mind can also be simultaneous. The rest is detailed in the eighth fascicle of the Abhidharmasamuccaya-vyākhyā and the sixteenth fascicle of the Abhidharmakośa. Seventh, "immeasurable like fields" is the distinction of causes and conditions. The consciousness-seed is the cause, and the karmic field is the condition; according to differences such as the high or low quality of the field, the seeds also develop many distinctions. The treatise's version of the sūtra says: "the mark of the immeasurable field of karma." Eighth, the distinction between ordinary persons and sages: this is the distinction of what is accumulated and what is not yet accumulated; the supramundane is not yet accumulated, while the mundane is already accumulated. Ninth, the two phrases [forming the distinction] of certainty and uncertainty. The first phrase clarifies the certainty and uncertainty of the three periods of retribution: what is performed in the present and receives retribution in the present is called present retribution (dṛṣṭa-dharma-vedanīya); what is performed in the present and obtains retribution in the immediately following life is called retribution upon rebirth (upapadya-vedanīya); what is performed in the present and only obtains retribution from the third life onward is called retribution in a subsequent life (aparaparyāya-vedanīya). Within these three, each has certainty and uncertainty: in the first two, the time is certain, while the retribution may be certain or uncertain; in the last one, both time and retribution may be certain or uncertain. The tenth phrase clarifies certainty and uncertainty regarding vehicle and non-vehicle. "Vehicle" refers to the three vehicles: cultivating solely the karma of one's own vehicle is called certain; cultivating this vehicle for a time and then cultivating that vehicle is called uncertain. "Non-vehicle" refers to the mundane world, because it lacks the meaning of conveying outward. Those who are certain are difficult to liberate, while those who are uncertain are easy to liberate. In the conclusion, it also mentions eighty-four thousand: since the causes of delusion are such, the karma produced is likewise. The various gates of faculties and so forth all amount to eighty-four thousand; reversing this reveals the gates of perfections (pāramitā), the gates of samādhi, and so forth.