金剛般若論會釋 2.54

2.54

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.