俱舍論記 9

English (machine translation) 9

Language: English

Regarding the passage: "To which destiny will it go... what is its shape?": From here below is the third section, the analysis under various rubrics. There are eleven rubrics in all, and this is the first, the question explaining its shape: According to whichever destiny it goes to, what is the shape of the intermediate state that arises? Is it the same as or different from the birth it approaches? Alternatively, this can be divided into two questions: To which destiny it will go is one question; what is the shape of the intermediate state that arises is the second question. Or, to which destiny the intermediate state will go and by what karma it is produced is one question; and from "that arises" onward is the second question.

9.4

Regarding the passage: "The verse says: ... remaining after the moment of birth": The first two lines provide the direct answer, and the latter two lines explain the entity it resembles. Alternatively, the first line answers the first question, and the second line answers the second question. The latter two lines are explained as before.

9.5

Regarding the passage: "The commentary says: ... the form of the future basic existence": This explains the first two lines. Although the intermediate and birth existences differ in completing karma, their projective karma is the same; the karma that projects where one goes also summons the capacity to go there, which is called being projected by a single karma, because the karma is the same. Therefore, this intermediate state resembles the basic existence in form, just as the impression and the seal that leaves it do not differ in pattern. Alternatively, because the intermediate and birth existences are projected by one and the same karma, the intermediate state projected by it should be born into the heavenly destiny, etc., going to the heavens, etc. Or, that intermediate state is produced by the karma of the birth-existence. This explains the first line. For this reason, if this intermediate state goes to that destiny, it will take the form of the future basic existence of that preceding destiny. This explains the second line.

9.6

Regarding the passage: "If so, then within a single... burn the mother's womb?": Objection: If the intermediate state resembles the form of the basic existence, within the belly of a single dog or similar animal there can be five fetuses that die at the same time and are each born into a different destiny, so that intermediate states of the five destinies arise all at once. Since an intermediate state of hell is present, it should experience suffering just like the basic existence; how could it fail to incinerate the mother's womb?

9.7

Regarding the passage: "When abiding in the basic existence... obstructed by karma": Answer: Even in the basic existence of hell, one is not constantly burning, just as when temporarily visiting the sixteen additional hells one is not burned, let alone in the intermediate state; or just as in Saṃjīva when temporarily encountering a cool breeze, or in accordance with the name "Saṃjīva" when temporarily resting, one is also not constantly burning. Even granted that it could burn, just as the mother's eyes cannot see it and it cannot be touched because the body of the intermediate state is extremely subtle, fire should also be like this. Although the intermediate states of the various destinies reside in a single belly, they share the same subtlety and do not touch or burn one another, because they are obstructed by karma. By this principle, the mother's womb is also not burned, because it is obstructed by karma.

9.8

Regarding the passage: "The size of the intermediate state of the desire realm... yet its sense faculties are clear and sharp": Above, it was said that it resembles the basic existence, which was a general statement; now its form is specifically shown. Although the intermediate state of the desire realm is the size of a child of five or six years, its sense faculties are clear and sharp. If it is to be born into the human realm, it is like a child of five or six years. The other realms may be understood accordingly. Lest one wonder how such a small body could give rise to defilements, its sense faculties are clear and sharp, and it can give rise to attachment and hatred toward the parents. Moreover, Nyāyānusāra 24 states: "Other masters say that the intermediate states of the desire realm are all of the size of the basic existence in its prime."

9.9

Regarding the passage: "The bodhisattva's intermediate state... the four great continents, and so forth": This specifically shows the great size of the bodhisattva's intermediate state. The number called koṭi will be explained below.

9.10

Regarding the passage: "If so, why... entered through her right flank?": Objection: If it is like the prime of life, why did the mother see a white elephant?

9.11

Regarding "This auspicious omen ... is not as seen": this is the reply. Seeing a white elephant in a dream signifies an omen of auspiciousness; it has nothing to do with the intermediate state (antarābhava), because the Bodhisattva long ago abandoned the animal realm ninety-one kalpas earlier. He also cites King Kṛki's dream of ten things, all of which signified omens. "Kṛki" here means "Maker of deeds" (kārya-kṛt); he was the father of Kāśyapa Buddha. Having dreamed of ten things during the night, at dawn he reported them to Kāśyapa Buddha. The Buddha answered, saying: "These signify omens of the future disciples of Śākyamuni's bequeathal of the Dharma." The King dreamed that there was a large elephant shut in a room with no doors or gates, having only a small window; the elephant managed by skillful means to throw its body through and get out, but its tail was still caught in the window, unable to emerge. This signifies that the disciples of Śākyamuni's bequeathed Dharma will be able to leave behind parents, wives, and children to go forth and cultivate the path, yet within that state still harbor thoughts of fame and gain, unable to abandon and depart from them—just as the tail is caught in the window. The King dreamed that there was a thirsty person seeking water to drink, and then there was a well endowed with the eight qualities of good water that followed that person, but [the person] dared not drink. This signifies that among the disciples of Śākyamuni's bequeathed Dharma, the monks and laypersons will be unwilling to study the Dharma; those who know the Dharma follow after them to preach it for the sake of fame and gain, yet they still will not study it. The King dreamed of exchanging one sheng of genuine pearls for one sheng of parched flour; this is an analogy for the disciples of Śākyamuni's bequeathed Dharma preaching the Buddha's true Dharma to others for the sake of pursuing fame and gain, hoping to receive their material wealth. The King dreamed of exchanging sandalwood for common wood; this signifies that disciples of Śākyamuni's bequeathed Dharma exchange the internal true Dharma for external non-Buddhist texts. The King dreamed of a magnificent park and forest with luxuriant flowers and fruits, which was destroyed by wild bandits with nothing remaining; this signifies disciples of Śākyamuni's bequeathed Dharma wiping out the garden of the Tathāgata's true Dharma. The King dreamed of small elephants driving a large elephant out of the herd; this signifies that among the disciples of Śākyamuni's bequeathed Dharma, corrupt cliques of precept-breaking bhikṣus will banish and expel virtuous bhikṣus who observe the precepts, driving them out of the saṃgha. The King dreamed of a monkey whose body was smeared with excrement and filth, rushing into its own troop, and all who saw it avoided it; this signifies that among the disciples of Śākyamuni's bequeathed Dharma, precept-breakers will slander good persons with evil deeds, and all who see them will keep their distance and avoid them. The King dreamed of a monkey that possessed no real virtue, yet the assembly together supported and raised it up, consecrated it with seawater, and enthroned it as king; this signifies that among the disciples of Śākyamuni's bequeathed Dharma, precept-breaking bhikṣus who truly have no knowledge will, for the sake of fame and gain, be mutually supported and raised up by corrupt cliques to be made heads of the assembly. The King dreamed of a wide, strong garment: eighteen people each took hold of a small piece, pulling against each other in four directions, yet the garment did not tear; this signifies that the disciples of Śākyamuni's bequeathed Dharma will divide the Buddha's true Dharma into eighteen schools, and although there will be differing tenets, the true Dharma will still remain intact, and by relying on it to cultivate the path, all can attain liberation. This clarifies the Dharma that is studied. The King dreamed of many people gathering together, warring against each other until almost everyone was killed; this signifies that after the disciples of Śākyamuni's bequeathed Dharma divide into eighteen [schools], each having its disciples, their sectarian tenets differing, they will mutually instigate conflict and strife. This clarifies the persons capable of studying the Dharma. What was dreamed in this way merely signified future omens of other matters; it was not as seen [literally].

9.12

Regarding "Furthermore, all intermediate states ... the earlier is smaller, the later is larger": the intent of this text is to prove entering through the birth passage and not from the right flank. Therefore, in the case of twins, the one born first is smaller because he entered the womb later, while the one born later is larger because he entered the womb earlier. Furthermore, Mahāvibhāṣā 70 says: "Question: Where does the Bodhisattva's intermediate state enter the womb? Answer: It enters from the right flank. Being fully aware, he enters the womb; toward his mother he maintains the perception of a mother, because he has no lustful passion. Another says: He enters through the birth passage, because for all egg-born and womb-born [beings], such is the rule. Question: Where do the previous intermediate states of a wheel-turning monarch (cakravartin) and a pratyekabuddha enter the womb? Answer: They enter from the right flank. Being fully aware, they enter the womb; toward the mother they maintain the perception of a mother, because they have no lustful passion. Another says: They enter through the birth passage, because for all egg-born and womb-born [beings], such is the rule. Other masters say: Because the Bodhisattva's merit and wisdom are exceedingly preeminent, when he is about to enter the womb, he has no inverted perceptions and does not give rise to lustful passion. Although a wheel-turning monarch and a pratyekabuddha possess merit and wisdom, they are not exceedingly preeminent; when about to enter the womb, although they do not have inverted perceptions, they still give rise to lustful passion; therefore, when entering the womb, they must enter from the birth passage." Furthermore, Nyāyānusāra says: "In truth, the intermediate state enters the womb according to its desire, not necessarily by the birth passage, because it is unobstructed; however, due to the power of karma, it is constrained by the womb." The Nyāyānusāra agrees with the former master of the Mahāvibhāṣā, while this treatise agrees with the latter master of the Mahāvibhāṣā.

9.13

Regarding "Dharmasubhūti said ... lying like an immortal concealed in the forest": this is the question. If the Bodhisattva's intermediate state is like that of a person in prime years, how can Subhūti's verse be reconciled?

9.14

Regarding "It is not necessary to reconcile ... there is no error in composing the verse": within the reply: First, this is not a teaching of the Tripiṭaka, so it is not necessary to reconcile it. Second, the words of recited verses may exceed reality. Third, if it must be reconciled, [it was spoken] in accordance with the dream seen by the Bodhisattva's mother, so there is no error in Subhūti's composing the verse.

9.15

Regarding "The intermediate state of the form realm ... because they lack a sense of shame": this clarifies the size of the intermediate state in the form realm, and clarifies whether the intermediate state has clothing or no clothing. It can be understood as written.

9.16

Regarding "What is the nature of the basic existence that it resembles?": what follows explains the final two lines [of the verse]. This is the question.

9.17

Regarding "That is, before the existence at death ... in the intermediate, it lacks [one] and is complete with three": the first part directly answers the previous question; next, it generally clarifies that the entity of existence differs across four phases. If it is in the desire or form realms, a sentient being possessed of form is fully endowed with the four existences; if in the formless realm, it lacks only the intermediate existence and is endowed with the remaining three existences. As for "taking rebirth" (pratisaṃdhi), "taking" means joining and continuing, which signifies non-interruption. Furthermore, Mahāvibhāṣā 192 says: "As it says, there are four existences: namely, basic existence (pūrvakāla-bhava), death existence (maraṇa-bhava), intermediate existence (antarā-bhava), and rebirth existence (upapatti-bhava). The word 'existence' (bhava) denotes many meanings, as explained extensively before. Here, the word 'existence' speaks of what belongs to the same class of beings (nikāya-sabhāga); the five skandhas of sentient beings are called 'existence.' What is basic existence? Answer: Excluding the portions of birth and death, it is the existences between those skandhas. This has as its nature the five skandhas or four skandhas of a single life span. Question: Why is this existence called 'basic existence'? Answer: This is born from karma created in a previous time; therefore it is called basic existence. Question: If so, the other existences would also be basic existences, since all are born from karma created in a previous time. Answer: If it is born of karma created in a previous time, and is coarse, manifest, easily perceived, clear, and visible to the senses, it is called basic existence. Although the others are born of karma created in a previous time, they are subtle, concealed, difficult to perceive, and not clearly visible, so they are not so designated. What is death existence? Answer: The skandhas of the portion of death; that is, it has as its nature the five skandhas or four skandhas at the time of the end of life. What is intermediate existence? Answer: Excluding the portions of death and birth, it is the existences between those skandhas; that is, it has as its nature the five skandhas between the two existences. Question: Why is this existence called 'intermediate existence'? Answer: Because this arises between two existences, it is called intermediate existence. Question: If so, the other existences would also be intermediate existences, since all arise between two existences. Answer: If it arises between two existences and is not included within a rebirth destiny (gati), it is called intermediate existence. Although the others arise between two existences, they are included within a destiny, so they are not called intermediate existences. What is rebirth existence? Answer: The skandhas of the portion of birth; that is, it has as its nature the five skandhas or four skandhas at the time of taking rebirth." It is explained extensively as in that text.

9.18

Regarding "Having explained its form and size, the remaining meanings will now be distinguished": this concludes what preceded and introduces the question.

9.19

Regarding "The verse says: ... Hell-beings head downward": these two lines of verse clarify the next nine topics: first, clarifying the range of the eye; second, speed and slowness of travel; third, clarifying completeness of faculties; fourth, clarifying unobstructedness; fifth, irreversibility; sixth, clarifying the food consumed; seventh, clarifying the duration of stay; eighth, the mind of taking rebirth; ninth, the bodily postures of movement.

9.20

Regarding "The commentary says: ... meaning one's own, and lower excluding higher": these bodies of the intermediate state can be seen mutually by those of the same class within the five destinies, but in relation to a different destiny, they cannot see each other. If one possesses an extremely pure divine eye attained through cultivation, one can also see intermediate states of different destinies. All inborn eyes cannot see the intermediate state because it is extremely subtle. According to the second master, the higher can also encompass the lower, so the eye of a heavenly intermediate state can see the five destinies. The lower does not reach the higher, so hell-beings see only their own class; therefore it says "one's own, and lower excluding higher." According to Mahāvibhāṣā 70, there are three theories in total. Two theories are identical to this treatise, and there is another theory which says: "Another says: the intermediate state of hell-beings sees the five intermediate states, up to the heavenly intermediate state also seeing the five intermediate states." However, there is no critical evaluation [by the compiler]. Since the verse of this treatise says "they see the same," let us take the first master of this treatise as correct.

9.21

Regarding "Among all supernormal powers ... because it is the strongest": the supernormal power of karma is a dependent-determinative compound (tatpuruṣa). The intent of the text here can largely be known. Question: This treatise says that among all supernormal powers, the power of karma is the swiftest, which means the movement of the intermediate state is the swiftest. Why does Mahāvibhāṣā 70 say: "The correct explanation is: the momentum of movement of the supernormal power of psychic potency (ṛddhi-viṣaya-abhijñā) is swift; it is not so for all intermediate states"? One explanation says: When this treatise says "swift," it means unobstructed. That is, nothing can obstruct it from going swiftly to take rebirth; therefore it says "swiftest," not referring to swiftness of movement. The Mahāvibhāṣā is based on swiftness of movement, hence it says the supernormal power of psychic potency is swift, not the intermediate states. Thus the Mahāvibhāṣā reconciles the sūtra: "When the sūtra says the power of karma surpasses supernormal powers, it says the power of karma surpasses them based on being unobstructed. Whenever it desires to take rebirth, even the Buddhas and others cannot obstruct it. If one discusses it based on momentum of movement, one should say supernormal powers surpass the intermediate state; that is, pratyekabuddhas and others can obstruct it, excluding only the Buddha. If the Buddha does not bring it to mind, he cannot go beyond the three-thousandfold world system and also has obstructions; but as for this intermediate state going, none can obstruct it." If one adopts this explanation, it agrees with the Mahāvibhāṣā. A second explanation: The supernormal power of psychic potency is threefold: by force of intention, by resolution, and by bodily transport. When this treatise says that among all supernormal powers the power of karma is swiftest, it is spoken with respect to bodily transport, based on a limited "all": that is, this intermediate state is swift compared to that bodily transport. The Mahāvibhāṣā refers to force of intention and resolution, hence it says the supernormal power of psychic potency is swift, not the intermediate states. Each is based on one meaning, so they do not contradict each other. A third explanation: Or perhaps the Kośa speaks according to the meaning of the first master in the Mahāvibhāṣā, hence stating that the movement of the intermediate state is swift, because the sūtra says that the power of karma surpasses supernormal powers.

9.22

Regarding "All intermediate states possess all five faculties": because they seek the rebirth existence, none are deficient in faculties.

9.23

Regarding "'Resistance' means tangible obstruction ... because insects are born there": this explains the meaning of being unobstructed. The insects in the iron ring mountains demonstrate the meaning of unobstructedness. The rest of the text can be understood as written.

9.24

Regarding "It must go to that destiny ... it definitely does not go to another": this clarifies that the intermediate state cannot be altered.

9.25

Regarding "Does the intermediate body of the desire realm depend on solid food or not?": this is the question.

9.26

Regarding "Although it depends on solid food, it is subtle, not coarse": this is the reply.

9.27

Regarding "What is the subtle [food]?": this is the inquiry.

9.28

[On the phrase] 'meaning that they take only odor as food... to feed on fine odor': gandharva is pronounced with a short vowel; if called with a long vowel, it should be pronounced gandhārvā. Gandha means odor, which is the affix (pratyaya). Arva is the verbal root (dhātu), signifying either seeking or eating. Seeking means seeking odor; eating means eating odor. When gandha qualifies arva, it becomes gandhārva. Here, based on pronunciation with a short vowel, the syllable a is omitted, and it is simply called gandharva. If dha is called with a long vowel, it also subsumes a; if dha is called with a short vowel, it does not include a. Even though dha is called with a short vowel, there is no fault. Citing grammatical rules as evidence: for instance, śakaṃdhu and karkaṃdhu both pronounce kaṃ with a short vowel; if with a long vowel, they should be śakāndhu and karkāndhu. Śakaṃ and karkaṃ are both affixes, and andhu is the verbal root. Long vowels and short vowels should be understood analogous to the previous [explanation]. According to grammar treatises (Vyākaraṇa), there are verbal roots and affixes; when a verbal root is modified by an affix, various meanings are produced. Just as when rice, flour, and the like are modified by salt and the like, various flavors are produced. The rest of the text is self-evident.

9.29

[On the phrase] 'How long does such an intermediate existence (antarābhava) abide?': this is a question.

9.30

[On the passage] 'The Venerable (Bhadanta) says... a death-existence should be established': in the answer, there are four explanations in total. This is the first master's view: because intermediate existence and rebirth-existence are projected by a single karma, [the being] can abide in intermediate existence for a long time. Were it otherwise, intermediate existence and rebirth-existence would be caused by different karmas, and when the vital faculty of intermediate existence finally perishes, a death-existence ought to be established.

9.31

[On the passage] 'Supposing there were a mass of flesh... they would arrive here all at once': this is a hypothetical question.

9.32

[On the passage] 'Although there is no sūtra or treatise... it is inconceivable': the Venerable explains and resolves it. Either they are born at once or they wait gradually, due to craving. Awakening the past karma that causes the insect body is like awakening from sleep to engage in activity. The rest of the text is self-evident.

9.33

[On the passage] 'The Venerable Vasumitra says... they repeatedly die and are repeatedly born': this is the second master's view. If the conditions for birth have not converged, it lasts at most seven days, repeatedly dying and repeatedly being born.

9.34

[On the passage] 'Other masters say at most seven times seven days': this is the third master's explanation: intermediate existence lasts at most seven times seven days (forty-nine days).

9.35

[On the passage] 'The Vibhāṣā says... in another place and another species': this is the correct view of the fourth master. If karmic force definitely dictates that birth should occur from these parents in this place and of this species, it causes the conditions of these parents to converge; even if they dwell in a distant land, it causes them to arrive immediately; even if they strictly uphold the precepts, they will give rise to a defiled mind. If it is not definitely reliant on the converging conditions of these parents, then as appropriate, it immediately takes up birth by substitution in another place or another species. For instance, the intermediate existence of a human may take up birth by substitution in a crane's egg; although born by substitution in that [egg], it is still subsumed under the human [realm]. Other births taken by substitution should be explained according to this.

9.36

[On the passage] 'Some say that it changes its birth... the latter four belong to the same species': this school's intention is to say: if conditions are not fixed, it changes to take a body of a similar species. For instance, in domestic cattle, lust increases in summer; in dogs, in autumn; in bears, in winter; in horses, in spring. For wild oxen, jackals, brown bears, and donkeys, the increase of lust is not fixed. If the intermediate existences of the former four do not meet the season, they sequentially change their birth to the latter four of similar species. This is not the correct view.

9.37

[On the passage] 'Does not the intermediate existence... how can it be said to change to a similar [species]?': the treatise master refutes this. Does not intermediate existence necessarily lack distinction in genus-similarity (nikāyasabhāga) from the rebirth-existence, because they are projected by a single karma? How could it be said to change to take a similar [species]?

9.38

[On the passage] 'Such an intermediate existence... or become an eunuch (napuṃsaka)': this clarifies that the intermediate existence gives rise to an inverted mind, and in passing it also clarifies dwelling in the womb. Following the craving that arose previously, the face either faces toward or away; right is superior and left is inferior, so males face right and females face left. Furthermore, the *Nyāyānusāra* says: 'Because women and men are habituated to left and right actions, it is caused by the force of discrimination from past causes.' The phrase 'the aggregates become dense' means they gradually become hard and dense. The rest of the text is self-evident.

9.39

[On the passage] 'In this meaning... resting upon semen and blood': herein, in passing, it clarifies whether the great elements of semen and blood become the basis of the faculties or do not become the basis of the faculties, collectively raising two questions. 'Faculty' refers to the body faculty, because at the initial moment of birth there is only the body faculty. 'Basis' refers to the primary elements (mahābhūta) on which it relies. The question is: Does karmic force cause the great elements of semen and blood at the final thought-moment of the intermediate existence to immediately become the great elements that are the basis of the faculties in the initial thought-moment of rebirth-existence? The phrase 'immediately become' is stated in terms of the course of the continuum: it means the great elements of the preceding moment become the great elements that are the basis of the faculties in the succeeding moment. If strictly scrutinized, the great elements that are the basis of the faculties in the succeeding moment are not truly formed by using those great elements of semen and blood of the preceding moment, because those have perished. They are merely immediately caused to arise by homogeneous cause (sabhāga-hetu); thus it is said that they 'immediately become the basis of the faculties.' Just as milk transforming into curds or water transforming into insects is stated in terms of the course of the continuum—saying that milk immediately becomes curds, or water immediately becomes insects—yet if viewed across moments, curds and insects are not identical to milk and water. This summarizes the intent of the first question. The intent of the second question is: Does karma separately produce the great elements belonging to the basis of the faculties in the final moment of intermediate existence, which, resting upon semen and blood, are able to form the basis of the faculties in the initial moment of rebirth-existence, rather than the great elements of semen and blood of the preceding moment becoming the basis of the faculties of the subsequent moment?

9.40

[On the passage] 'Some say semen and blood... increases the kaṭasī': the answer. There are two masters; this is the first master. This master's intention says: the great elements of semen and blood immediately become the basis of the faculties. That is, the great elements of semen and blood without faculties in the preceding moment perish together with the intermediate existence, and immediately give rise to the continuation of the great elements possessing faculties in the initial moment of subsequent rebirth-existence. He posits that the great elements that are the basis of the faculties in the initial moment of rebirth-existence take the great elements of semen and blood in the final stage of intermediate existence as homogeneous cause (sabhāga-hetu) and are immediately caused to arise, just as when the seed-cause perishes, the sprout-fruit arises in succession. Because it gathers the great elements of semen and blood to form the basis of the faculties, the initial stage obtains the name kalala. A sūtra says: 'From impurity arises the kalala,' which proves that the great elements of semen and blood immediately become the basis of the faculties. Furthermore, a sūtra says: 'At the time of first taking rebirth, it grasps a drop of blood to form the body,' so we know that the great elements of semen and blood immediately become the basis of the faculties. Kaṭasī: this means craving, and also means the cauldron of blood.

9.41

[On the passage] 'Other masters say... there is no fault of contradiction': the second master explains. Due to the force of karma, the great elements that are the basis of the faculties are separately produced; it is the great elements of the body faculty at the end of the intermediate existence that serve as the homogeneous cause, giving rise to the great elements that are the basis of the faculties in the initial moment of rebirth-existence. These great elements of the body faculty at the end of the intermediate existence abide reliant on semen and blood; semen and blood are the contemporaneous semen and blood of those great elements, which abide using that impurity as a condition. A metaphor is drawn to illustrate this: just as insects are separately born relying on cast-off dung. If it did not rely on that impurity as a condition, it would lack the power to produce the basis of the faculties of rebirth-existence, just as a seed producing a sprout must rely on the earth and so forth. As for the sūtra saying that 'the impurity of the parents produces the kalala,' it is the great elements that are the basis of the faculties within the mass of impurity that produce the kalala; therefore, there is no fault of contradicting that sūtra. The intent of the *Nyāyānusāra* evaluates and adopts this latter master of the treatise, refuting the former master of this treatise by saying: 'His assertion that when the physical matter of rebirth-existence arises, it does not arise in continuation of the physical matter of intermediate existence, contradicts the principle of the sprout [arising] from the seed. For insentient and sentient to serve as seed and give rise [to one another] is not reasonable, because their continuums are different. When the two physical matters of the sentient and insentient perish together, and subsequent sentient physical matter arises, to say that the insentient is the cause while the sentient is not the cause is unreasonable.'

9.42

[On the passage] 'Thus has it been explained... Now next it shall be explained': concluding the preceding and introducing what follows.

9.43

[On the passage] 'If moisture-born... places are pure or filthy': clarifying moisture-born and apparitional births. As the text shows, it is self-evident.

9.44

[On the phrase] 'Could there be attachment born even toward hell?': an objection. Apparitional birth takes place because of attachment to the place.

9.45

[On the passage] 'Because the mind is inverted... casting oneself into that': the answer is self-evident from the text.

9.46

[On the passage] 'Ancient masters of former times... rushing toward that': ancient masters of the Sautrāntika, or ancient masters of the Sarvāstivāda. Seeing companions of their own kind with whom they had formerly engaged in hunting and the like when creating the karma that causes that hell, they rush toward that.

9.47

[On the passage] 'Furthermore, the intermediate existence of gods... enjoying tranquility and practicing austerities': this clarifies the posture of movement of the intermediate existence. For now, it is explained in terms of those dying in the human realm who are reborn in the various destinies. If explained in terms of intermediate existence taking rebirth elsewhere, the posture of movement is not fixed. For instance, in the case of rebirth from the Akaniṣṭha heaven into the Four Heavenly Kings heaven, there is nothing preventing [the being from moving] head downward and feet upward. Just as when reborn from a lower hell into an upper hell, there is nothing preventing head upward and feet downward. Therefore the *Vibhāṣā*, fascicle 70, says: 'For now, it is explained based on those who pass away in the human realm. If one dies in hell and is reborn again in hell, one does not necessarily travel head downward and feet upward. If one dies in the heavens and is reborn again in the heavenly destiny, one does not necessarily travel feet downward and head upward. If one dies in hell and is born in the human destiny, one should ascend head first. If one dies in the heavens and is born in the human destiny, one's head should face downward. As for the intermediate existences of the two destinies of pretas and animals, it should be understood appropriately according to where they go.' This is the correct view of the *Vibhāṣā*. One should know that the posture of intermediate existence when humans, pretas, and animals each go to their destinies is just like humans and so forth rushing horizontally, like birds flying in the air, or like fully flying immortals.

9.48

[On the passage] 'As for the inverted mind previously mentioned... is it invariably so for all?': from here onward, eleven [sections] clarify entering the womb. It quotes the preceding [text] and raises the question.

9.49

[On the passage] 'It is not so; the sūtra states that there are four kinds of entering the womb': the answer.

9.50

[On the phrase] 'What are the four?': an inquiry.

9.51

[On the passage] 'The verse says... in order the four, other births': the answer. The first verse clarifies the differences in the three times among the four ways of entering the womb; the latter verse explains the four in terms of persons.

9.52

[On the passage] 'The commentary says... therefore the four are stated in reverse': explaining the first three lines. If one cultivates merit and wisdom, one is able to possess correct awareness; if one does not cultivate merit and wisdom, one cannot possess correct awareness. If one follows the order of the sūtras proceeding from inferior to superior, being unaware in all three periods should be stated first, while the remaining three would follow the order of this treatise. But to conform with the rules of metrical composition and fearing metrical fault, the first is stated in reverse as the fourth. Therefore the *Vibhāṣā*, fascicle 172, states being unaware in all three periods as the first, while the remainder follow the order of this treatise. Another explanation: whenever the fourfold logic (catuṣkoṭi) is applied in verses, the two single ones are at the beginning, both-are is the third, and neither-is is the fourth. Since the meaning of being unaware in all three periods corresponds to the neither-is alternative, the first is stated in reverse as the fourth. Yet another explanation: according to the order of the sūtras, the first is unaware in all three periods, the second is aware in all three periods, the third is aware in two periods, and the fourth is aware in one period. Fearing metrical fault and conforming with the rules of metrical composition, the four kinds are stated in reverse.

9.53

[On the passage] 'All egg-born beings... are constantly devoid of awareness': explaining the fourth line, clarifying that the egg-born are unaware in all three stages.

9.54

[On the passage] 'How can the egg-born... be said to enter the womb?': a question. It ought to be called entering an egg; how can it be called entering a womb?

9.55

[On the passage] 'Because egg-born beings... entering the womb has no fault': the answer. Entering the womb is stated based on the initial name, while egg-born is discussed based on what will come later. Just as saying 'making the conditioned': making is present action, while the conditioned is the future result. When currently performing karma, to mention the future result is naming it from what is to come. When boiling rice, to say 'boiling cooked rice' is naming it from what is to come. When grinding wheat, to say 'grinding flour' is also naming it from what is to come. Therefore, saying that the egg-born enters the womb has no fault.

9.56

[On the phrase] 'How are the three stages correctly aware or not correctly aware?': a question.

9.57

[On the passage] 'First, sentient beings... those who are not correctly aware': from here down is the answer. This displays those who are not correctly aware.

9.58

"If in the three states […] self-consciously knows abiding and leaving": this clarifies full awareness. Knowing entering, abiding, and leaving without inverted notions is called full awareness. The Prakaraṇāśraya (Xianzong lun), fascicle 13, states: "Would it not be that continuing existence is definitely an afflicted mind, so how could one enter the mother's womb with full awareness? Full awareness and correct mindfulness are stated as the restraint of the sense faculties, and the restraint of the sense faculties must definitely be wholesome; there is no such fault. That all full awareness is subsumed under wholesomeness is not accepted, for otherwise there would be no lying with full awareness. Alternatively, entering the fetal state is stated based on the continuum, not solely on the exact moment of rebirth-linking. In this state there is much wholesomeness and little affliction; based on the predominant portion, it is spoken of as full awareness. Alternatively, to cause one to give rise to reverence toward them, the designation 'full awareness' is established for non-confusion—meaning that one truly knows 'this is my father, this is my mother,' and therefore it is called full awareness. How could a bodhisattva in the third category, in his final existence, who clearly understands all regarding the experiencing of fruit and so forth, have such a thing when entering the womb? Having a mind arise abruptly from beginningless habituation—what fault is there in this? Or he only gives rise to an afflicted mind of affectionate attachment, without illicit desire (Explanation: first, knowing in accordance with the object; second, spoken from the predominant portion; third, non-confusion—hence it is called full awareness)." Furthermore, the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 70, states: "Sentient beings mostly give rise to such inverted notions and only then enter the mother's womb, except only the bodhisattva, who, when about to enter the womb, has the notion of father toward the father and the notion of mother toward the mother. Although capable of full awareness, he gives rise to affectionate attachment toward his mother, and by the power of this attachment he immediately enters the mother's womb." Furthermore, the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 172, in discussing the bodhisattva's full awareness, states: "He immediately gives rise to affectionate love toward his parents and so forth, and thereby links rebirth." The statement in the earlier text of the Mahāvibhāṣā that 'he gives rise to affectionate attachment toward his mother' is spoken based on the strong and predominant portion.

9.59

"Also, to specifically show […] they are indicated by future names": this explains the fifth and sixth lines. When about to enter the womb, one is in the intermediate existence, not yet a wheel-turning monarch or the like. Speaking of "wheel-turning monarchs and the like" is spoken according to their future names.

9.60

"For what reason are there such three different grades?": a question.

9.61

"Due to karma, knowledge, or both […] superior merit and knowledge": this explains the seventh line and the following, which may be understood.

9.62

"Excepting the preceding three kinds […] combined, they form the fourth": this explains that the remaining births are unknowing at the three times. Furthermore, the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 172, states: "Some say: The fourth entering the womb refers to the bodhisattva; the third entering the womb refers to the pratyekabuddha; the second entering the womb refers to the wheel-turning monarch; the first entering the womb refers to other sentient beings. Some say: The fourth entering the womb refers to the bodhisattva; the third entering the womb refers to the pratyekabuddha; the second entering the womb refers to a śrāvaka of the pāramitās; the first entering the womb refers to other sentient beings. Some say: The fourth entering the womb refers to the bodhisattva; the third entering the womb refers to the pratyekabuddha; the second entering the womb refers to stream-enterers and once-returners; the first entering the womb refers to other sentient beings." As is extensively explained there. It also states: "Furthermore, these four kinds of entering the womb all refer to the bodhisattva. Among them, some say: The fourth entering the womb is the bodhisattva of the third asaṃkhyeya; the third entering the womb is the bodhisattva of the second asaṃkhyeya; the second entering the womb is the bodhisattva of the first asaṃkhyeya; the first entering the womb is the bodhisattva prior to this." There are further explanations that are not the orthodox doctrine, which the evaluator himself refutes, as is extensively explained there.

9.63

"Here, the heterodox […] the meaning of an existing self is established": below this, the second major section refutes heterodox imputations. This first sets out the views of those who grasp at a self, namely the Vaiśeṣikas, Sāṃkhyas, and others.

9.64

"Now, in order to refute them […] therefore the wheel of existence has no beginning": this is the direct refutation. The preceding verse clarifies that there is no self, and that entry into the womb is attained solely by affliction and karma. The subsequent verse shows that the continuum is unbroken, and the wheel of existence has no beginning.

9.65

"The treatise says […] What is the characteristic of the self?": the treatise author examines and questions.

9.66

"It can abandon these aggregates and continue other aggregates": the one who grasps at a self answers. The self can abandon these aggregates, and the self can continue other aggregates.

9.67

"An internal agent-person […] only excepting a nominal designation based on dharmas": the treatise author refutes it. Such an internal agent-person or self is definitely non-existent. Like form and the like, which possess substantial entity and can be known by direct perception; or like the eye and the like, which possess function and can be known by inference—[a self] is unapprehendable. In the sacred teaching, the World-Honoured One also said: "Karma exists and fruition exists, but an agent, a real self, is unapprehendable." Being able to abandon the prior aggregates and being able to continue the subsequent aggregates is merely a nominal designation based on dharmas; such a nominal designation based on dharmas is not what is refuted.

9.68

"What is this nominal designation based on dharmas?": the one who grasps at a self asks.

9.69

"Because this exists, that exists […] extensively explaining dependent origination": the reply. Because this cause exists, that fruit exists; because this cause arises, that fruit arises; extensively explaining the twelve links of dependent origination. Here it is clarified that abandoning this and going to that is simply the prior and posterior continuity of cause and effect. Precisely with respect to these dharmas, one nominally designates an 'agent'; there is no separate agent. Therefore the Nyāyānusāra, fascicle 25, states: "In order to show that all conditioned phenomena in the continuum of cause and effect are themselves the agent, it is therefore further stated: 'Because this exists, that exists; because this arises, that arises.'"

9.70

"If so, what kind of self is not refuted?": the one who grasps at a self asks.

9.71

"Only the aggregates exist […] is not refuted": the reply. Postulating a self nominally upon the aggregates is not refuted.

9.72

"If so, you should accept […] transmigrating to another world": the one who grasps at a self objects. You should accept that the aggregates are permanent, transmigrating from this previous world to another subsequent world.

9.73

"The aggregates perish moment by moment […] the meaning of entering the womb is established": the aggregates perish moment by moment and have no capacity to transmigrate; by the power of affliction and karma, intermediate existence enters the womb.

9.74

"As propelled by karma […] gradually increases": as propelled by karma, the continuum of aggregates transmigrates to another world due to affliction and karma. From "It is not that all" onward, it explains specifically: the aggregates are not all of uniform long or short measure; because the karmic causes projecting lifespan differ, they gradually increase in accordance with the strength or weakness of the projecting karma.

9.75

"What is the gradual order?": a question.

9.76

"As the Holy One stated […] the stage when bodily form is complete": the reply. This clarifies the gradual growth through five stages within the womb: Kalala, translated here as harmonious union, or impure mixture, or coagulated slime; arbuda, translated here as blister; peśī, translated here as flesh; ghana, translated here as solid flesh; praśākhā, translated here as limbs and digits. The subsequent stage up to hair, nails, and so forth, until the physical sense faculties and bodily forms are complete, is collectively named the fifth stage. If according to the Sammatīya school, from hair and so forth onward constitutes the sixth stage. When this child in the womb dwells in the womb, it is like an arrow piercing the body, harming the mother; therefore it is called the arrow in the womb.

9.77

"Due to the arising of karma […] severe pain, difficult to endure": due to the power of wind, the arrow in the womb is turned around, feet upward and head downward, causing it to head toward the birth canal, like passing an excessively large, obstructed lump of excrement. Turning and descending from within this womb, due to being compressed, there is severe pain, difficult to endure. Alternatively, after emerging from this birth canal, it falls onto straw or the like, suffering severe pain difficult to endure.

9.78

"The mother at times […] the destiny toward which one is headed is hard to discern": this clarifies dying from difficulties before emerging from the womb. The mother at times overexerts in bodily postures of walking, standing, sitting, or lying down; or at times has food or drink excessively cold or hot; or at times engages in work excessively; or due to the power of the child's past sinful karma, it dies in the womb, even to the point of having its limbs dismembered and extracted outside. Yet this child in the womb, driven by past karma to be experienced in subsequent lives, has a destination among the three realms and five destinies that is hard to discern. Following this text, there are those who can only create completing karma experienced in the present life; they can create neither karma to be experienced in the next life nor in subsequent lives, whether completing or projecting—hence it speaks of "karma to be experienced in subsequent lives." Śālmali is the name of a grass whose juice is slippery; or it is the name of a tree.

9.79

"Or again, without difficulty […] subtle and coarse food and drink": this clarifies emerging from the womb without difficulty. Like a knife or like ash, rough and coarse hands. Clarified butter refers to ghee. The rest of the text is readily understood.

9.80

"Gradually increasing further […] revolving in a circle without beginning": when reaching the stage of matured faculties, one again gives rise to affliction and karma, and the continuum of intermediate existence again heads toward another world. Thus, this present body's affliction and karma serve as the cause, and therefore subsequent births arise. Subsequent births again serve as causes, giving rise to affliction and karma, and from this affliction and karma there is again further birth; therefore we know the wheel of existence revolves in a circle without beginning. Or it can be said: thus the previous body's affliction and karma served as causes, and therefore this present life arose; this present life again serves as a cause giving rise to affliction and karma, and from this affliction and karma there is again further birth; therefore we know the wheel of existence revolves in a circle without beginning.

9.81

"If one posits a beginning […] a sprout will surely not arise": some heterodox views, or the Mahīśāsaka view, posit that phenomena in the first moment do not arise from causes, and only from the second moment onward do they arise from causes. If they posit a beginning, the subsequent stages should not arise from causes, because they are arisen, just like the initial stage. The initial stage should arise from causes, because it is arisen, just like the subsequent stages. If neither the initial nor subsequent stages arose from causes, this would contradict direct perception. It is directly observed that sprouts and the like arise from seeds and the like as their causes, because their respective location and time are both determined accordingly. Furthermore, with fire and the like as causes, fruits such as cooked transformation arise. Therefore, there are definitely no phenomena that arise without causes. The doctrine of permanent causes has already been refuted earlier. Therefore, saṃsāra definitely has no beginning, yet it has a final end. Because the causes of affliction and karma are exhausted, and since the fruit of birth must depend on the causes of affliction and karma, when the causes of affliction and karma perish, the fruit of birth must be eradicated. By reason it must definitely be so. Just as when the cause, the seed, perishes, the fruit, the sprout and the like, will surely not arise.

First 81 of 220 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

俱舍論記 — Classical Chinese