俱舍論記 18

English (machine translation) 18

Language: English

18.2

Section 4 of Chapter on the Exposition of Karma, Part 6

Regarding "Among those distinguished earlier ... what is its entity?": below this is the second [section], explaining the karma obstacle in detail. Within it: first, presenting the entity of the karma obstacle; second, explaining schism in detail; third, clarifying the conditions for constituting a mortal offense; fourth, clarifying the certainty of preparatory application; fifth, the gravity of the sin and the magnitude of the fruit; sixth, counterparts of the uninterrupted [offenses]. This is the first: presenting the entity of the karma obstacle. It takes up what preceded and raises the question.

18.4

Regarding "The verse says: ... one is a preparatory application of killing": this answers in verse.

18.5

Regarding "The commentary says: ... because it cannot be killed": among the five uninterrupted [offenses], four are bodily karma—namely, killing the father, slaying the mother, killing an arhat, and shedding the blood of a Buddha's body; one is vocal karma—namely, causing a schism in the Saṃgha. Three are fundamental courses of action of killing—namely, killing the father, slaying the mother, and killing an arhat; one is a fundamental course of action of false speech—namely, causing a schism in the Saṃgha; one is a preparatory application of the course of action of killing—namely, shedding the blood of a Buddha's body, because the Tathāgata's body cannot be killed.

18.6

Regarding "The uninterrupted karma of schism ... for what reason is it named schism?": this is a question. Since the uninterrupted karma of schism in the Saṃgha is false speech, for what reason is it named schism?

18.7

Regarding "Because the cause receives the name of the fruit, or because it can cause schism": this is the answer. False speech is the cause, and the schism of the Saṃgha is the fruit; that is, it is because of false speech that the Saṃgha is split. Saying that false speech is named "schism in the Saṃgha" is because the cause receives the name of the fruit, or because it can cause schism. That is, the Saṃgha is that which is split, and false speech is that which causes the split; because it can cause a schism in the Saṃgha, it is named "schism in the Saṃgha"—establishing the name from its function.

18.8

Regarding "If so, the schism of the Saṃgha ... by whom is it possessed?": below this is the second [section], explaining schism in detail. Within it: first, the entity and possession of schism; second, the time and place of possessing the schismatic action; third, completing the conditions to constitute schism; fourth, clarifying the distinction between the two kinds of schism; fifth, the time when there is no schism of the wheel of Dharma. This is the first: the entity and possession of schism. First it asks: what is the entity of the fruit, the schism of the Saṃgha? Second it asks: between the one who causes the schism and the ones who are split, by whom is it possessed?

18.9

Regarding "The verse says: ... it is possessed by the Saṃgha that is split": the first three lines answer the first question, and the last line answers the latter question.

18.10

Regarding "The commentary says: ... it is subsumed under the skandha of formations": this explains the first three lines and identifies the entity of schism, taking disharmony (asāmagrī) among the non-associated [formations] as its nature. Question: What is the entity of the nature of disharmony? The ancient worthy Dharma Master Kong explained: "The nature of disharmony takes non-acquisition (aprāpti) regarding noble dharmas as its entity; because this arises, one cannot enter the noble state. Although the nature of an ordinary being (pṛthagjanatva) also previously involves non-acquisition regarding noble dharmas, one still has the capacity to enter the noble state." Dharma Master Kong's intention is to say: the eightfold noble [path] free of outflows is the entity of harmony, because it is the harmonious virtue of the noble Saṃgha. If one can split this, it is named a schism of the wheel of Dharma. While the various treatises only speak of splitting the ordinary Saṃgha, schism has proximate and remote aspects. Through proximately splitting the ordinary Saṃgha harmonious in practical matters, one cannot enter the noble state; remotely it splits the noble Saṃgha, and therefore the noble Saṃgha is the primary object of the schism. Because splitting this is grave, one incurs the uninterrupted sin. An objection is raised: The treatises only speak of splitting the ordinary, not the noble. To say it splits the noble contradicts the treatises. When treatises discuss schism, it is breaking the nature of harmony. If nobility has already been attained, it cannot be broken; if nobility has not yet been attained, what is there to break? This contradicts reason. Now it is explained: the nature of disharmony takes non-acquisition regarding harmony as its entity. That is, before the Saṃgha is broken, it possesses the nature of harmony; being mutually harmonious, the noble path is admitted to be possible, and because the Saṃgha possesses this nature of harmony, it is capable of entering nobility. If the Saṃgha is split, it relinquishes the nature of harmony and the nature of disharmony arises; because that [person] destroys this nature of harmony, they cannot enter nobility, hence constituting an uninterrupted [offense]. Since they do not possess that nature of harmony, non-acquisition regarding the entity of harmony is taken as the nature of disharmony. Question: If the disharmony of schism takes non-acquisition as its entity, could harmony of the Saṃgha also take acquisition as its entity? The explanation says: dharmas are not necessarily established by mutual opposition; for instance, the nature of an ordinary being takes non-acquisition as its entity, yet the nature of a noble one does not take solely acquisition as its entity. Question: Are the entities of schism of the wheel of Dharma (cakra-bheda) and schism of monastic proceedings (karma-bheda) identical or not? The ancient worthy Dharma Master Xiu explained: "The entity of schism is of two kinds: schism of the wheel of Dharma takes uncalculated cessation (apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha) as its entity. Schism of monastic proceedings takes disharmony as its entity. Within the Saṃgha of the wheel of Dharma, there is no harmony in performing formal acts (karma); there is only the non-arising of dharmas due to deficient conditions, which is why it takes uncalculated cessation as its entity. The Saṃgha of monastic proceedings possesses harmony in performing formal acts; later, when split, due to relinquishing harmony, it takes disharmony as its entity." An objection is raised: If one says schism of monastic proceedings has disharmony as its nature, there is no contradiction here either. But if one says schism of the wheel of Dharma takes uncalculated cessation as its entity, this is incorrect. All treatises state that the entity of the split Saṃgha is the nature of disharmony. To say that splitting the wheel of Dharma is the nature of uncalculated cessation—how could that not be contradictory? If one says the treatises speak based on the Saṃgha of monastic proceedings, this is not so, for the treatises speak based on the Saṃgha of the wheel of Dharma. Furthermore, Dharma Master Kong's intended interpretation was: schism of the wheel of Dharma takes non-acquisition regarding the harmony in principle of the wheel of Dharma as its entity; schism of monastic proceedings takes non-acquisition regarding the harmony in practical matters of formal acts as its entity. An objection is raised: To speak generally of non-acquisition does not contradict the meaning. But to say that the non-acquisition of those noble dharmas is the entity of the schism of the wheel of Dharma is incorrect, refuted as above. Now it is explained: the nature of disharmony in both kinds of schism takes non-acquisition regarding the nature of harmony as its entity. Schism of the wheel of Dharma takes non-acquisition regarding harmony in the wheel of Dharma as its nature; schism of monastic proceedings takes non-acquisition regarding harmony in formal acts as its nature.

18.11

Regarding "Could it constitute an uninterrupted [karma]?": this is a question. The entity of the schism of the Saṃgha is non-obscured indeterminate (anivṛtāvyākṛta); how could it constitute uninterrupted karma? Why then is it called the uninterrupted [karma] of schism?

18.12

Regarding "Such a schism of the Saṃgha ... is an uninterrupted fruit": this is the answer. Such a schism of the Saṃgha arises from false speech; therefore, schism is said to be the fruit of the uninterrupted, not the uninterrupted karma itself. Because the cause receives the name of the fruit, the uninterrupted [karma] is called schism in the Saṃgha.

18.13

Regarding "It is not possessed by the one who causes the schism ... it is possessed by the Saṃgha assembly": this explains the last line. It is not Devadatta, the one who causes the schism, who possesses this entity of schism; it is possessed only by the foolish Saṃgha that is split. Dharma Master Xiu says: "Devadatta is a monk; not only does he cause the schism, he also has the aspect of being split. Thus the one who causes the schism also possesses it." Now it is explained: this is not so. Here one breaks their cause for attaining the noble wheel of Dharma, preventing them from attaining nobility. Although Devadatta is a monk, because he does not attain nobility, he is not one who is split. Moreover, the treatise only says that it is possessed by the Saṃgha that is split.

18.14

Regarding "This person who causes the schism ... in what place, for how long?": below this is the second [section], explaining the time and place of possessing the schismatic action. In total there are three questions.

18.15

Regarding "The verse says: ... suffering increases along with the increase in sin": the first two lines answer the first question, "Uninterrupted" answers the second question, and from "matures for one kalpa" onward answers the third question.

18.16

"The treatise says […] is born in the Avīci" explains the first three lines [of the verse]. If it is the sin of schism, one is definitely reborn in the Avīci [hell]. If one commits the other four uninterrupted sins, one is not necessarily reborn there, but may be born in other hells. The rest of the text is understandable. Good [karma] in the desire realm is weak and does not bring retribution for an entire kalpa; evil [karma] in the desire realm is strong and brings retribution for an intermediate kalpa. Therefore the Vibhāṣā, fascicle 115, says: "Question: This karma can take a kalpa to experience its fruition; what kind of kalpa is it? Some say it is a kalpa of formation; others say it is a kalpa of destruction; others say it is a great kalpa. The correct view is that this is an intermediate kalpa, because there are those who are released without exhausting the full intermediate kalpa. As the Vinaya says: 'Devadatta, when human lifespan reaches forty thousand years, will come to be reborn among humans and will definitely realize the enlightenment of a pratyekabuddha, which Śāriputra and the others cannot equal.' Question: How is such a gāthā to be harmonized? 'Whoever splits the Saṃgha, destroying the harmonious Saṃgha, is born in the Avīci hell, dwelling for the span of a kalpa.' The venerable Vasumitra stated: 'Dwelling for a deficient kalpa is also called a kalpa, just as in the world, taking charge of work for a deficient day is also called a duty-day; here it is also like this.' (An explanation says: The Lishi jing states that Śākya Tathāgata appeared in the world during the ninth abiding kalpa; Devadatta created uninterrupted karma and entered hell, and only up to the end of the tenth [kalpa] would it constitute one intermediate kalpa. However, when the tenth abiding kalpa decreases to forty thousand years, Devadatta will come to the human realm to realize pratyekabuddha enlightenment; therefore Devadatta does not fulfill the entire intermediate kalpa.)"

18.17

"If one commits multiple uninterrupted sins […] how do they jointly produce a single life?" is a question. If committing two uninterrupted sins can produce two kalpas, up to five uninterrupted sins producing five kalpas, all ripening in the immediately subsequent life, how could multiple uninterrupted sins jointly produce a single life?

18.18

"According to the increase of those sins […] five times heavier suffering" is the answer. It directly explains the fourth line [of the verse]. As one commits progressively more uninterrupted sins, one's body becomes larger and more tender, the instruments of torment progressively increase, and the suffering experienced progressively increases. Among the multiple uninterrupted sins committed, the first is the projecting karma (ākṣepaka-karma), and the subsequent ones are the fulfilling karma (paripūraka-karma). Therefore the Nyāyānusāra says: "For a person who commits multiple uninterrupted sins, only one can project, because the others assist in fulfilling [it]." The Nyāyānusāra also says: "As when committing multiple uninterrupted sins, the first projects and the later fulfill." According to the Sarvāstivāda, no matter how many are committed, they are all called karma to be experienced in the immediately following birth (upapadyavedanīya-karma), and are experienced in the same single kalpa. According to the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra, if one commits one uninterrupted sin, one experiences fruition for one kalpa; if one commits two uninterrupted sins, they are experienced together for two kalpas; and so forth up to five uninterrupted sins being experienced together for five kalpas. The remaining later four kalpas take their name from the first, and are collectively called karma of the next life's retribution. The Tattvasiddhi mostly relies on the Sautrāntika school, [holding that] one karma produces multiple bodies, and also multiple karmas produce a single body. According to the Saṃmatīya school, if one commits one uninterrupted sin, one experiences retribution for one kalpa, and so on up to committing five uninterrupted sins experiencing retribution for five kalpas; among them, the first kalpa is karma of the next life's retribution, and the remaining four kalpas are karma of subsequent retributions (aparaparyāyavedanīya-karma), each separately produced.

18.19

"Who, where, […] and for how long is it split?" From here down is the third [part], setting forth the conditions that constitute a schism. The first asks who can cause the schism; the second asks in what place; the third asks against whom the schism is made; the fourth asks at what time the schism occurs; and the fifth asks for how long the schism lasts.

18.20

"The verse says: […] It is called a schism not lasting overnight." 'A bhikṣu of pure conduct with wrong view' answers the first question; 'in a different place' answers the second question; 'fools' answers the third question; 'at the time of accepting another teacher's path, it is called a schism' answers the fourth question; and 'not lasting overnight' answers the fifth question.

18.21

"The treatise says […] because their words have no authority" explains 'a bhikṣu of pure conduct with wrong view splits [it]'. It is split by a fully ordained monk who rivals the Buddha, styling himself a Buddha; thus it is not a layperson or the like, because their physical basis lacks authority and virtue. It is solely one who follows views, because their evil intention is extremely firm and deep; it is not one who follows craving, because they are restless with respect to both defiled and pure phenomena. One who abides in pure conduct, not one who violates precepts, because the words of one who violates precepts have no authority. From this it is known that first one splits the Saṃgha and afterward cuts off roots of goodness; one must possess śīla, because one's words are authoritative and solemn. If one cuts off roots of goodness, one immediately relinquishes the precepts. Therefore the Vibhāṣā, fascicle 116, says: "Question: What class of pudgala causes a schism in the Saṃgha of the wheel of Dharma? Answer: There are two kinds of pudgalas: first, those who follow craving; second, those who follow views. Those who follow views cause a schism in the Saṃgha of the wheel of Dharma, not those who follow craving. Because the intentions of those who follow views are firm and fierce, what they do regarding defiled and pure phenomena is resolute and without regression. Those who follow craving have no such quality, so they cannot cause a schism. Furthermore, only men cause a schism in the Saṃgha of the wheel of Dharma, not women, nor ṣaṇḍhas, paṇḍakas, and the like. Why is this? When the wheel of Dharma is split, as a matter of principle, one sets oneself up as the Great Teacher. But women are not superior vessels and have no share in being the Great Teacher, so they cannot cause a schism. However, they can extensively employ expedients for schism, like the bhikṣuṇī Sthūlanandā and others. Ṣaṇḍhas, paṇḍakas, the sexless, and hermaphrodites are all followers of craving; the intentions of those who follow craving are neither firm nor fierce, and they are not resolute regarding defiled or pure phenomena; therefore, those classes cannot cause a schism."

18.22

"It must be split in a different place […] he would definitely have had no power" explains 'in a different place'. The different place means Mount Gajasīrṣa, which here is translated as 'Elephant Head Mountain', named so because the summit of the mountain resembles an elephant's head. It is about three or four li north of Vulture Peak, within the same boundary; Devadatta stayed there and split the Saṃgha, not in the presence of the Great Teacher. The older version saying Mount Gayā is an error. Because the sounds of 'Gaja' and 'Gayā' are close, it was erroneously transmitted. However, in the Western Regions there is a separate Mount Gayā, more than one hundred and fifty li from Vulture Peak, not within the same boundary, and not the place of the schism.

18.23

"Only ordinary persons are split […] it says 'fools'" explains 'fools'. Formerly it was stated that those who have not attained the noble state are called fools, and later it was stated that those who have not attained patience (kṣānti) are called fools; to encompass both of these meanings, it uses the word 'fools'.

18.24

"It requires that the Saṃgha that is split […] at such a time" explains 'at the time of accepting another teacher's path, it is called a schism', revealing the time of the schism. When it speaks of 'having another noble path', it requires that the Saṃgha being split accepts that another teacher, Devadatta, is different from the Buddha, the World-Honoured One, and also accepts that, distinct from the eightfold noble path spoken of by the Buddha, there is another noble path taught by Devadatta. Devadatta spoke thus: 'I am the Great Teacher, not the śramaṇa Gautama. The five dharmas are the path, not the eightfold noble path taught by Gautama.' When the Saṃgha that is being split accepts the other teacher and the other path, one should say that the Saṃgha is split at such a time. Therefore the Vibhāṣā, fascicle 116, says: "At what point should it be said that the Saṃgha of the wheel of Dharma is split? Answer: The Prajñapti-śāstra says: 'Devadatta made himself the fifth, and they all received the voting-sticks together; at this point it should be said that the Saṃgha of the wheel of Dharma is broken.' Others say: after making the formal declaration (jñapti). Others say: upon departing from where it was heard. Others say: upon departing from where it was seen. Others say: upon departing from where it was seen and heard. The correct view is: when, due to intention, they vow to accept another teacher—meaning that those foolish bhikṣus, through a fixed intention, generate such a mind and utter such words: 'Devadatta is our Great Teacher, not the Buddha, the World-Honoured One'—at this point it should be said that the Saṃgha of the wheel of Dharma is broken." As for the five dharmas, the Nyāyānusāra says: "Regarding the wrong path, Devadatta falsely taught five things as the path of deliverance: first, one should not consume milk, etc.; second, one must cut off meat; third, one must cut off salt; fourth, one should wear unhemmed robes; fifth, one should reside in monasteries on the outskirts of villages. (An explanation says: 'Milk, etc.' includes curd, raw ghee, cooked ghee, and the clarification of ghee; these five are called attachment to flavors. The rest of the text is understandable.)" Furthermore, the Vibhāṣā, fascicle 116, says: "What are the five dharmas? First, wearing rag robes for one's whole life; second, constantly begging for food for one's whole life; third, eating only in a single sitting for one's whole life; fourth, constantly staying in the open air for one's whole life; fifth, not eating any fish, meat, blood, flavorings, salt, ghee, milk, etc., for one's whole life. (The five dharmas in the Vibhāṣā differ from the Nyāyānusāra.)"

18.25

"That night it must be reconciled […] destroying the harmony of the Saṃgha" explains 'not lasting overnight'. Master Paramārtha says: "When the sun is about to set, the Saṃgha is split; by the third watch of the night, it is reconciled again. Therefore it is said: that night it must be reconciled, not remaining overnight. Such a thing is called splitting the Saṃgha of the wheel of Dharma, because it can obstruct the wheel of the noble path and destroy the harmony of the Saṃgha." The non-turning of the noble path is called splitting the wheel of Dharma; destroying the harmony of the Saṃgha is called splitting the Saṃgha. Therefore the Nyāyānusāra says: "When the assembly assents to what he taught, it is called splitting the wheel of Dharma and also called splitting the Saṃgha."

18.26

"In which continents, how many people […] in which continents, how many people" is the fourth [part] below, explaining the distinction between the two [kinds of] schisms in the Saṃgha. It asks about the places and the people: first, asking about the wheel of Dharma; second, asking about karmavācanā.

18.27

"The verse says: […] applies to three continents, eight [monks] and so forth." The first two lines answer the first question; the latter two lines answer the latter question.

18.28

"The treatise says: […] beyond this, there is no limit" explains the first two lines, elucidating the schism of the wheel of Dharma. It is understandable from the text. Furthermore, the Vibhāṣā says: "Question: When the Saṃgha was split, was the Buddha within the assembly or not? Answer: At that time, the Buddha resided within that boundary, but was not in the assembly. How is this known? It was heard that when Devadatta was about to split the Saṃgha, the Buddha, out of compassion, admonished and forbade him, saying: 'Devadatta! Do not split the Saṃgha; do not give rise to extremely grave, unwholesome evil; do not head toward a place of disagreeable, great fruition of suffering.' Although the Buddha admonished him earnestly like this, Devadatta had no thought of stopping. At that time, the World-Honoured One gave rise to correct knowledge and vision, thoroughly examining the past: 'Did I in past times split another's retinue?' He then saw for himself that countless, innumerable kalpas ago, he had destroyed another ṛṣi's retinue. The maturation of that karma was now manifesting before him. Having seen this, he knew that this Saṃgha would definitely be broken, so he entered a quiet room and sat silently in meditation, and Devadatta then broke the Saṃgha. Therefore it is known that the World-Honoured One was within the boundary, but was not in the assembly."

18.29

"Splitting only the karmavācanā […] therefore it also says 'and so forth'" explains the latter two lines. 'Applies to three continents' because there are noble teachings and because there is an assembly of ordained disciples. The rest of the text is understandable. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: "At what times can there be a schism in the Saṃgha, a schism in the Saṃgha of karmavācanā? From after the establishment of the boundary down to the present day, it can occur until the Dharma is extinguished; a schism in the Saṃgha of the wheel of Dharma is excluded at six times." Furthermore, the Vibhāṣā, fascicle 116, says: "Question: What is the difference between a schism of karmavācanā and a schism of the wheel of Dharma? Answer: A schism of karmavācanā means that within one boundary there are two divisions of the Saṃgha, each staying separately to perform poṣadha, karmavācanā, and recitation of the precepts. A schism of the wheel of Dharma means establishing another teacher and another path, as Devadatta said: 'I am the Great Teacher, not the śramaṇa Gautama. The five dharmas are the path, not the eightfold noble path taught by Gautama.'"

18.30

"At what time […] there is no schism in the Saṃgha of the wheel of Dharma" is the fifth [part], on the times when there is no schism of the wheel of Dharma.

18.31

Regarding "The commentary says: [...] there is no schism of the wheel of the teaching": "Blisters" refers to ulcerous blisters; wrong precept and wrong view are termed two blisters. "Wrong precept" refers to asserting that the five dharmas are the path; "wrong view" refers to rejecting the Buddha's eightfold noble [path] as not being the path. The rest of the text is clear. Furthermore, fascicle 116 of the *Vibhāṣā* states: "It is not in the initial or final [periods], because in these two periods the assembly of bhikṣus is harmonious and of a single flavor within the holy teaching, and cannot be divided. It is not when the two blisters have not yet erupted, which refers to when the two kinds of blisters—of precepts and views—have not yet arisen within the holy teaching. It is not when [the Saṃgha] has not yet harmoniously established a boundary together, because there must be two groups of monks within a single boundary dwelling separately with different convictions for it to be called a schism of the Saṃgha. It is not when the foremost pair has not yet been established, which means that when the foremost pair has not yet been established, there is definitely no one capable of causing a schism in the Saṃgha of the wheel of the teaching. It is the inherent nature of all Buddhas to have a foremost pair of noble disciples; if anyone were to cause a schism in the Saṃgha of the wheel of the teaching, before a day and night has passed, this foremost pair would bring about harmony again. It is not after the Great Teacher's nirvāṇa, because if after the Great Teacher entered parinirvāṇa someone were to say, 'I am the Great Teacher, not the Tathāgata,' all would reproach him together, saying: 'When the Great Teacher was in the world, why did you not say "I am the Great Teacher"? Now after his nirvāṇa you make such a statement?' Therefore, it is determined that during these six times the wheel of the teaching cannot be broken, whereas during the remaining times the wheel of the teaching can be broken."

18.32

Regarding "A schism of the wheel of the teaching is not [...] because such an event occurred": this reveals that a schism of the wheel of the teaching is due to past karma, [Devadatta] having previously divided the retinue of another ṛṣi, as was said before. Furthermore, the *Nyāyānusāra* states: "Because during the time of Kāśyapa Buddha in this Bhadrakalpa, Śākyamuni previously divided another's assembly." The *Vibhāṣā* and the *Nyāyānusāra* each cite a different event, which is why they differ.

18.33

Regarding "Let us set aside peripheral discussions [...] killing one who afterwards becomes an aśaikṣa is not": this is the third [section], clarifying the conditions that constitute an anantarya [sin].

18.34

Regarding "The commentary says: [...] not others": this explains the first line. This is the question.

18.35

"Because of abandoning the field of benefaction and destroying the field of virtues": this is the general reply.

18.36

"Killing father and mother is abandoning the field of benefaction": this specifically explains the field of benefaction.

18.37

"How do they have benefaction?": this investigates.

18.38

"Because they are the origin of the birth of one's body": this is the answer.

18.39

"How does one abandon them?": this asks.

18.40

"It refers to discarding their benefaction": this is the answer.

18.41

Regarding "The field of virtues refers to the rest [...] therefore it constitutes an anantarya offense": this specifically explains the field of virtues. The field of virtues refers to the rest—the arhats, the Saṃgha, and the Tathāgata—because they possess all superior virtues and can generate superior virtues in others. Destroying the body upon which those superior virtues rely constitutes an anantarya offense. Furthermore, the *Nyāyānusāra* states: "If there are parents who, when their child is just born, abandon it on a path frequented by jackals and wolves in order to kill it, or use means within the womb intending to kill it, but through the force of determinate karma the child does not die—what benefaction do they have, such that abandoning them constitutes an anantarya? They must have had fears regarding livelihood and the like, and in urgent distress concerning the child, suddenly gave rise to a murderous intention; yet when abandoning it and so forth, they must have harbored compassion, their minds entangled in repeatedly longing for the child with love. If one abandons this benefaction, a lower anantarya offense touches [one]. In order to show that anantarya offenses have lower, middling, and higher [degrees], it is said that abandoning benefaction in all cases constitutes an anantarya offense. Alternatively, it is due to the inherent nature of the field and receptacle of the mother and so forth. Even if they had no benefaction, merely taking their life must result in birth in the uninterrupted hell. All wise persons say: 'The World-Honoured One thoroughly penetrated the root-source of dharmas; when he made such a statement, one must simply have deep faith.'"

18.42

Regarding "If the parents' sex is transformed, does killing them constitute an anantarya?": this explains the second line. This is the question.

18.43

Regarding "The anantarya offense is also constituted [...] refers to the father transforming his form": this is the answer. The anantarya offense is also constituted because the body on which it relies is identical before and after. Due to this principle, the *Vibhāṣā* therefore raises this question: "Can someone deprive a male of the life-faculty who is neither his father nor an arhat, yet be touched by an anantarya offense?" The answer says: "Yes; it refers to the mother transforming her form into a male." Question: "Can someone deprive a female of the life-faculty who is neither his mother nor an arhat, yet be touched by an anantarya offense?" The answer says: "Yes; it refers to the father transforming his form into a female."

18.44

Regarding "Supposing a woman [...] constitutes the anantarya of matricide": this explains the third line. This is the question.

18.45

Regarding "The one due to whose blood [...] can bring to maturity": this is the answer. The one who constituted the body by relying on her drop of blood is the biological mother; killing her constitutes an anantarya offense because she is the origin of the body's birth. The second woman is merely an adoptive mother. All affairs concerning what should be done, comings and goings, and so on, should be consulted with the latter mother, because that latter mother was able to nurse, rear, and bring [the child] to maturity. Thus the *Nyāyānusāra* states: "For the one born due to her blood, consciousness lodged [there] and only then grew. The second woman is merely like an adoptive mother; although all actions should be deliberated and resolved with her, killing her only constitutes a peer of the anantarya."

18.46

Regarding "If with respect to parents [...] killing [them] mistaking them for another": below this explains that in cases of error and so forth, there is none. This directly clarifies that killing by mistake does not incur an anantarya, as is clear from the text. Thus the *Vibhāṣā* states: "One incurs an anantarya offense due to two causes: first, undertaking the preparatory effort; second, the culmination of the fruit. Even if one undertakes the preparatory effort, if the fruit does not culminate, one does not incur the anantarya offense. Even if the fruit culminates, if one did not undertake the preparatory effort, one also does not incur the anantarya offense."

18.47

Regarding "If with a single preparatory effort [...] because they are composed of subtle particles": this is subsumed under the term "and so forth." The former master's intention says: it follows the stronger, and the vijñapti is one. If both are equally strong, as when with a single preparatory effort one kills both father and mother, two vijñaptis and two avijñaptis arise simultaneously. If both are equally weak, as when killing non-relatives, two vijñaptis and two avijñaptis also arise. The latter master's intention says: in all cases, two vijñaptis and two avijñaptis arise, the subtle particles of vijñapti being distinct in each case. Because there is vijñapti-karma, one can sever another's life; if vijñapti-karma were absent, how could another's life be severed? Thus the *Vibhāṣā* states: "Venerable Ghoṣaka said: 'All vijñapti-karmas are composed of subtle particles; the subtle particles for killing the mother and for the other are each distinct, so the offense of vijñapti is incurred with respect to the two persons.'" Furthermore, the *Dharmaskandha* states that when receiving the five precepts, five vijñaptis and five avijñaptis are obtained simultaneously; therefore, one knows that vijñapti and avijñapti karmas arise manifoldly together.

18.48

Regarding "If one kills an arhat [...] it also constitutes an anantarya offense": this explains "perhaps there is." This is clear.

18.49

Regarding "If one kills a father [...] because the basis is one": this is also subsumed under the word "and so forth," which is clear.

18.50

Regarding "If so, how can the statement in the parable [...] 'killing an arhat'?": this cites a sūtra to raise an objection. If so, how is the statement in the *Dṛṣṭānta-sūtra* to be reconciled? The Buddha told Śikhaṇḍin: "You have already committed two anantaryas, namely patricide and killing an arhat." Formerly, when the Buddha was in the world, there was a king in South India who entrusted the kingdom to Crown Prince Śikhaṇḍin and went to Śrāvastī to take refuge in the Buddha and go forth, attaining the fruit of arhatship. The Crown Prince was unprincipled, acting exclusively contrary to Dharma and tyrannizing the common people. An old, former minister went to where the father king was and fully related the matter above, requesting the king to return to the kingdom to instruct the Crown Prince. The father king consented to the request and thereupon returned to his native kingdom. Sycophantic ministers of the Crown Prince, fearing execution, flattered the Crown Prince, saying: "The father king wishes to come and usurp the Crown Prince's throne; please dispatch an emissary to kill him on the road." The Crown Prince accepted these sycophantic words and thereupon sent an emissary to kill him. The father king, knowing the karmic conditions that he was fated to be killed by his son, willingly accepted death. The Buddha, knowing this matter, sent a disciple to tell Crown Prince Śikhaṇḍin: "You have already committed two anantaryas, namely patricide and killing an arhat." "Śikhaṇḍin" translates here as "Topknot."

18.51

Regarding "That reveals that one anantarya [...] reproaching his offense": this is the answer. Reconciling that sūtra's words: that sūtra reveals that a single anantarya was constituted by two conditions—the father and the arhat. The statement "committed two anantaryas" was to reproach Śikhaṇḍin's offense through the two gates of the field of benefaction and the field of virtues. Question: In the previous discussion of three transforming together, it said that if belonging to another's life, there are simultaneous hatred, killing, and theft; there, because the basis is also one, three paths of karma proceed simultaneously. When killing a father who is an arhat the basis is also one; what prevents obtaining two anantaryas? Explanation: Because the karmas of hatred, killing, and theft are distinct, separate paths of karma are determined; severing life is a single [action], so two anantaryas are not determined.

18.52

Regarding "If with respect to the Buddha [...] is there an anantarya offense?": this explains the fifth and sixth lines, since the word "no" below applies to both places. This is the question.

18.53

Regarding "It requires an intention to kill [...] then an anantarya is absent": this is the answer. It requires an intention to kill that sheds the Buddha's blood for it to constitute an anantarya offense. If one sheds blood with an intention merely to strike, because the offense is minor, an anantarya is absent.

18.54

Regarding "At the time of the preparatory effort to kill [...] is there an anantarya offense?": this explains the sixth line. This is the question.

18.55

"None, because with respect to an aśaikṣa body there was no preparatory effort to kill": the answer is clear.

18.56

Regarding "If one commits an anantarya [...] because they are definitely incompatible": this is the fourth [section], clarifying the determination of preparatory effort. If an anantarya's preparatory effort is definitely to culminate, in the interim there is absolutely no separation from passion or attainment of the fruit, because that karma is powerful and must be experienced in the subsequent life. This path of separation from passion and path of attaining the fruit cannot prevent that path of karma from arising; therefore, separation from passion and attainment of the fruit are definitely absent. It should be understood that the preparatory effort for an anantarya is of two kinds: first, reversible; second, irreversible. Here the question is based on the irreversible. Thus fascicle 23 of the *Abhidharmasamayapradīpikā* states: "However, according to our school, preparatory effort for an anantarya is generally spoken of as two: proximate and remote. The proximate is irreversible, while the remote has the sense of being reversible (Explanation: When treatises say it is reversible, they speak on the basis of the remote; when treatises say it is irreversible, they speak on the basis of the proximate, as detailed in the *Nyāyānusāra* and *Mahāvibhāṣā*), with the exception of anantarya karma. If one commits other unwholesome paths of karma, if the noble path arises in the interim of the preparatory effort, the path of karma does not arise. The body on which one relies that has transformed to the noble state is definitely incompatible with that unwholesome path of karma. Because that path of karma is weak and the power of the noble path is strong, it can prevent this karma from becoming manifest; therefore, one is able to enter nobility. The path of separation from passion is weak and cannot prevent that unwholesome karma from arising." Another explanation: it does not mention separation from passion because it is omitted for brevity and not discussed.

18.57

Regarding "Among all evil actions [...] great fruition among mundane wholesome [actions]": this is the fifth [section], clarifying the gravity of the offense and the greatness of the fruition. The upper two lines clarify the gravity of the offense; the lower two lines clarify the greatness of the fruition.

18.58

Regarding the passage from "The Śāstra says" up to "because [their] kindness and so forth are less": this explains the first two lines. Although Devadatta understood that the Noble Eightfold [Path] is the Dharma and the five [practices] are not the Dharma, in order to cause a schism in the Saṃgha he generated deceptive speech and perversely indicated that the five practices are the Dharma and the Noble Eightfold [Path] is not the Dharma. Among the immediate [retribution sins], this is the greatest offense, because thereby he damaged and destroyed the Buddha’s Dharma-body and obstructed the worldly path to birth in heaven as well as the path to nirvāṇa. That is to say, as long as the Saṃgha has not reconciled, all worldly beings who ought to enter noble status, attain the fruits, detach from defilement, or exhaust the outflows are completely blocked. Those who cultivate the various absorptions, review and recite the scriptures, and engage in hearing and thinking are completely halted; the wheel of the Dharma does not turn; and bodily and mental disturbances arise in all of them; therefore it incurs the ripening of a single eon in the Avīci Hell. Due to this, schism of the Saṃgha is the gravest offense among the five immediate [retribution sins]. The offenses of the remaining four immediate [retribution sins] follow in order: fifth is shedding the blood of a Buddha's body, third is slaying an arhat, and first is slaying one’s mother; these three gradually become lighter in that order. Second, slaying one’s father is the lightest, because [his] kindness and so forth are less. "And so forth" means including merit. Between the two fields of kindness and merit, the field of merit is superior to the field of kindness, because that field of merit is capable of uprooting the suffering of birth and death for sentient beings; therefore, an offense against the field of merit is graver than one against the field of kindness. Among the three within the field of merit, schism of the Saṃgha is the gravest because it harms the Dharma-body, for that which the Buddhas take as their teacher is the so-called Dharma. Next, shedding the blood of a Buddha's body is a grave offense because the Buddha’s virtues are superior to an arhat's, and moreover, he is the teacher. Next, slaying an arhat is lighter; within the field of merit, because the latter's virtues are fewer, the offense is therefore lighter, whereas because the former's virtues are greater, the offense is graver. Between the two kinds within the field of kindness, the father's kindness is less than the mother's. Because the mother conceives, bears, and nurtures, her compassionate kindness is greater; hence [the offense against] the mother is graver and [against] the father is lighter.

18.59

Regarding the passage from "If so, why" up to "false view is the greatest": this is an objection. If the karma of deceptive speech is the gravest offense, why is it that among the three penal karmas of body, speech, and mind, the Buddha declared mental penalty to be the greatest offense? "Penalty" refers to the punishment of one who commits evil karma; because it penalizes [one by causing them] to enter hell, karma is termed "penalty." Furthermore, a sūtra states that among offenses, false view is the greatest.

18.60

Regarding the passage from "In terms of the five immediate [retribution sins]" up to "are declared grave in that order": this is the reply. Within each of the doctrinal categories, one is the gravest. In terms of the five immediate [retribution] karmas, schism of the Saṃgha is declared to be grave; in terms of the three penal karmas, mental penalty is declared to be the greatest offense; and in terms of the five perverted views, false view is declared to be grave. Alternatively, in terms of having great fruit, schism of the Saṃgha is declared to be the gravest offense, because it is experienced for an eon in the Avīci Hell. In terms of harming many sentient beings, mental karma is declared to be the gravest offense, just as the wrath in the minds of the ṛṣis harmed many sentient beings. In terms of severing the roots of wholesome [qualities], false view is declared to be the gravest offense. Therefore it is said that they are declared grave in that order.

18.61

Regarding the passage from "Inducing the highest existence" up to "the words 'worldly wholesome' are spoken": this explains the latter two lines. Wholesome volition at the Peak of Existence induces the greatest fruit; this is spoken with respect to the fruit of ripening. If, among the five fruits, one considers the fruit of disjunction, then the volition associated with the vajropamasamādhi can attain the greatest fruit, because the permanent severance of all fetters is the fruit of this volition. Although all volitions of the unhindered paths that are uncontaminated attain disjunction, they are not like this one. In order to exclude this uncontaminated volition, the words "worldly wholesome" are spoken.

18.62

Regarding "Is it only the offenses of immediate [retribution] that definitely lead to rebirth in hell?": from here down is the sixth [section], explaining the analogues of the immediate [retribution sins]. This is the question.

18.63

Regarding the passage from "All analogues of the immediate [retribution sins]" up to "do not immediately take birth [there]": this is the reply. All analogues of immediate [retribution] karma also definitely result in rebirth in hell. Other masters say: although analogues of the immediate [retribution sins] definitely lead to rebirth in hell, it is not necessary that they immediately take birth in hell, because they can be experienced in subsequent lives or are indeterminate. Hence the *Nyāyānusāra* states: "All analogues of the immediate [retribution sins] are also definitely born there, but they are not definitely born immediately, because they are not immediate [retribution] karma."

18.64

Regarding "What are the analogues?": this is a question.

18.65

Regarding the passage from "The verse says" up to "these are the analogues of the five heinous [sins]": the word "analogue" has the meaning of similarity. That is to say, if someone engages in extreme defilement—meaning unchaste conduct—with their mother who is an arhatī, or with their mother and an arhatī, this is called the substantial karma analogous to matricide. Because an offensive karma is committed against a mother, it is called an analogous karma. Or if someone slays a bodhisattva who has abided in certainty for a hundred great eons, this is called the substantial karma analogous to patricide. Because the bodhisattva’s kindness is profound like a father’s, committing karma against him is called an analogous karma. Or slaying a noble one in training is the substantial karma analogous to slaying an arhat, because those in training and those beyond training are equally noble fields of merit; committing karma against them is called an analogous karma. The conditions for Saṃgha concord refer to requisites and the like. If someone robs the conditions for Saṃgha concord, causing the Saṃgha to disperse, this is called the substantial karma analogous to causing a schism in the Saṃgha. Requisites for concord are equivalent in meaning to the Saṃgha; committing karma against them is called an analogous karma. Or if someone destroys a Buddha stupa, this is called the substantial karma analogous to shedding the blood of a Buddha's body. The veneration by the multitude for this stupa is similar to that for a Buddha; committing karma against it is called an analogous karma. Such are named the analogues of the five heinous [sins].

18.66

Regarding the passage from "Karma that possesses ripening" up to "the two similes are as before": this is the fifth major section, explaining the obstructions of the three times. A minor portion should also be excluded from indeterminate karma, because half acts as an obstruction and half does not act as an obstruction, which is why it is not discussed. Thus the *Nyāyānusāra*, fascicle 43, states: "However, herein are excluded karma to be experienced in the present life, karma indeterminate as to ripening that is to be experienced indeterminately, and among karma determinate as to ripening, that which does not ripen in another place." By inferring from this, one understands that among karma to be experienced in the next life, karma to be experienced in subsequent lives, and karma to be experienced indeterminately, that which is determinate as to ripening and ripens in another place can all act as an obstruction. The rest of the text can be understood.

18.67

Regarding the passage from "As stated above" up to "is spoken of as 'certainty'": from here down is the sixth major section, explaining the characteristics of a bodhisattva. Herein, first is explaining the stage of abiding in certainty, second is explaining the cultivation of the karma for the marks, third is explaining making offerings to Buddhas, and fourth is explaining the fulfillment of the six perfections. This is the first, explaining the stage of abiding in certainty. As for the "bodhisattva abiding in certainty" mentioned above, from what stage does one obtain the name of abiding in certainty? This asks about the bodhisattva's stage. It also asks: With respect to what is it spoken of as "certainty"? This asks about the name "certainty."

18.68

Regarding the passage from "The verse says" up to "possessing the male [gender], and steadfast mindfulness": the first two lines answer the first question, and the latter two lines answer the second question. The word "certainty" here means that being determined to be born in good destinies and the like is called "certainty"; it is not the attainment of meditative absorption (samādhi). A bodhisattva who abides in this is called "abiding in certainty."

18.69

Regarding the passage from "The Śāstra says" up to "and noble families, etc.": this briefly explains the root verse, as can be understood from the text. The thirty-two marks are explained in full as in the *Mahāvibhāṣā*, fascicle 177.

18.70

Regarding the passage from "Being born in good destinies" up to "always without retreat or faltering": this individually explains the latter half of the verse. First is explaining good destinies. Second is explaining noble families: either being born into a brāhmaṇa family, or born into a kṣatriya family, or born into the family of an immensely wealthy householder, or born into a great brāhmaṇa family. *Bāla* here means prominent clan; or "great brāhmaṇa" applies across the three situations above. Third is explaining completeness [of faculties]. Fourth is explaining male [gender]. Fifth is explaining mindfulness. Sixth is explaining steadfastness, namely that being without retreat or faltering is called steadfast.

First 70 of 186 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

俱舍論記 — Classical Chinese