金剛般若論會釋 2.54

2.54

第五滅罪中有二，初、標配經，後、逐難釋。經文分二，初、標輕賤，後、釋所由，但罪滅轉重令輕，被人訶罵，便為無當來重地獄苦，亦得菩提。《對法論》說，業有五種，一、人教勅，二、他勸請，三、無所了知，此前三種雖作，不增長，不必受異熟果，若有此三業，受持經時一切都滅，以業非是受報定故；四、根本執著，五、顛倒分別，此二業重，作必增長，定受異熟故，先世業是。此後二定受異熟，異熟決定、時不定攝。所以者何？由報定故，轉重令輕；由時不定，墮惡道，令人中受。即四業中第四不定，不定有三，是第二句，餘之二句，一切都滅。其三定業，此中言何？《涅槃經》言，未入我法，名決定業，已入我法，名不定業。由此闍王生報五逆，時、報俱定，見佛懺悔，聞小乘經，初懺悔故，入拍毱地獄，轉重令輕；後聞大乘，至誠懇悔，逆罪消滅。故入佛法，名不定業。若准此義，此中且說，中容受持，若心懇勵，一切都滅。然《瑜伽》說，未得解脫名決定業，已得解脫名不定業，謂得阿羅漢名得解脫，一切不受，然說阿羅漢迦留陀夷及指鬘等，或前二果定得無學，從當所得勝果為名，名阿羅漢，或實無學示現惡業苦異熟果，不然不善離欲已無，如何無學更有彼果？後有苦受，非不善果。經、論文異，相就兩處皆得會同。以論就經，論據一切悔、不悔業、定、不定業，非勝心聞大乘法至誠懇勵，如未生怨等，故《瑜伽》說，不業定中悔所損轉業，名為不定。故未悔前別名定業，若已悔者名不定業，以經為正。以經就論，論說四業，定、不定報，法門定故，所言悔損名不定者，不定業中有此悔故。由此處處皆言作業受果決定，諸佛神力所不能轉，三乘通義，經說總滅唯大乘用，理亦無違。然依前說，但言作業受果決定，自不悔者神力不排，不說自悔而定受報，任意通取。《涅槃經》云，智者重業名不定故，若入聖已，及聞正法而自悔，心業報不轉，一切眾生無得聖者。後師說言，一切眾生不定業多，定業甚少，故得入聖，非排定業令其不定方得入聖，若定業成不定，初定無姓，後成不定，而亦有姓，便成大過。

In the fifth, "Eradication of Sins," there are two parts: first, marking the correlation to the sūtra, and second, explaining according to the difficulties. The sūtra text is divided into two: first, marking contempt and revilement, and second, explaining the reason: it is merely that sins are eradicated, converting the heavy into the light; by being scolded and reviled by people, one will be free from the heavy suffering of the future hells and will also attain bodhi. The *Abhidharmasamuccaya* states that there are five kinds of karma: first, commanded by another person; second, urged by another; third, without comprehension—these previous three, although performed, do not increase, and one does not necessarily experience their ripened fruit; if one has these three karmas, when one upholds the sūtra, all of them are eradicated, because the karma is not fixed in receiving retribution; fourth, root clinging; fifth, inverted conceptual discrimination—these two karmas are heavy, performed and definitely increased, and definitely experience ripening, which is past-life karma. These latter two definitely experience ripening, being subsumed under definite ripening and indefinite time. Why is this? Because retribution is definite, the heavy is turned into the light; because the time is indefinite, falling into the evil destinies is converted into being experienced among humans. That is to say, among the four karmas, it is the fourth, the indefinite; of the three indefinite ones, it is the second clause; as for the other two clauses, all are entirely eradicated. What does it say here about the three definite karmas? The *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra* says: before entering my Dharma, it is called definite karma; after entering my Dharma, it is called indefinite karma. Because King Ajātaśatru had the five heinous crimes due to ripen in the present life, both their time and retribution were definite; but seeing the Buddha and repenting, he heard the Small Vehicle sūtras, and because of his initial repentance, he entered the bouncing-ball hell, turning the heavy into the light; later he heard the Great Vehicle, sincerely and earnestly repented, and the heinous sins were eradicated. Therefore, entering the Buddha-Dharma is called indefinite karma. According to this meaning, what is said here provisionally refers to mediocre upholding; if one's mind is earnest and strenuous, all of them are entirely eradicated. However, the *Yogācāra* says: not having attained liberation is called definite karma; having attained liberation is called indefinite karma—meaning that attaining arhatship is called attaining liberation, where none is experienced at all. Yet regarding what is said of the arhats Kālodayin, Aṅgulimāla, and others: either those of the first two fruits are certain to attain the state of non-learning and are called arhats by taking their name from the supreme fruit they will later attain; or they are truly in the state of non-learning and manifest the painful ripened fruit of bad karma—otherwise, unwholesome states being already absent through detachment from desire, how could those in the state of non-learning still have that fruit? Suffering experienced in later existence is not the fruit of unwholesomeness. The texts of the sūtra and the treatise differ, yet taking them in relation to each other, they can be reconciled in both places. If we interpret the treatise in light of the sūtra: the treatise relies on all repented and unrepented karma, definite and indefinite karma, and does not refer to hearing the Mahāyāna teaching with a supreme mind and sincere earnestness, as in the case of Ajātaśatru and others; thus the *Yogācāra* says that karma transformed and damaged by repentance among non-definite karma is called indefinite. Therefore, before repentance it is separately called definite karma, and if already repented it is called indefinite karma, taking the sūtra as authoritative. If we interpret the sūtra in light of the treatise: the treatise speaks of four karmas, with definite and indefinite retribution, because the doctrinal method is fixed; as for what is called damage through repentance being called indefinite, it is because this repentance exists within indefinite karma. Hence it is stated everywhere that performing karma and experiencing its fruit is definite, something that the supernatural powers of all buddhas cannot alter, which is the common meaning of the three vehicles; that the sūtras speak of total eradication applies only to the Great Vehicle, and logically there is no contradiction. However, according to the former explanation, it only says that performing karma and experiencing its fruit is definite in the sense that the supernatural powers do not overturn it for those who do not repent on their own; it does not say that one who repents on one's own will definitely receive retribution; one may interpret it freely as one wishes. The *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra* says that the heavy karma of a wise person is called indefinite; if after entering sagacity or hearing the true Dharma one repents on one's own and the karmic retribution of the mind were not overturned, then not a single sentient being could attain sagacity. Later masters say that sentient beings have much indefinite karma and very little definite karma, which is why they are able to enter sagacity; it is not that definite karma is overturned and made indefinite so that they can only then enter sagacity. If definite karma became indefinite, then being initially definite they would have no lineage, and later becoming indefinite they would also have a lineage, which would entail a great error.