俱舍論疏 13.74

13.74

On the Śāstra's statement: "Such a great error [... to ...] what fault is there in this?": The Sautrāntikas explain. The Sautrāntika view is that the form and sound of body and speech are called intimation, and their nature is indeterminate, which is the same as the Mahāyāna. The intention that moves body and speech is called bodily and vocal intimation karma, and it encompasses the three moral natures. Because the power of intention perfuses seeds, it is called non-intimation karma. The Nyāyānusāra says: "Does this subsume all karmas entirely, or does it subsume a minor portion of distinct karmas? Some say: It subsumes all karmas here. Others say: It does not subsume the uncontaminated (these are the two Sautrāntika interpretations of the sūtra on intentional karma and karma having intended). This explanation does not accord with the sūtra's meaning, because mental karma should not be subsumed here. Does one give rise to deliberative intention in order to actuate the two, body and speech, and give rise to actuating intention when precisely actuating the two, body and speech? Both of these operate relying on the gates of body and speech, and should both be subsumed under bodily and vocal karma. If so, what is called mental karma here (the above points out errors in the two preceding explanations: if it subsumes all three karmas entirely, since phenomena operate relying on body and speech, how could it subsume mental karma)? If the intention operating relying on the two gates of body and speech is also conceded in one part to be called mental karma, then there would be the fault of confusion in karma (this is: even if one concedes that what operates relying on the gates of body and speech is mental karma, then mental karma would also be bodily and vocal karma, resulting in the fault of confusion). Even if one concedes that giving rise to deliberative intention in order to actuate body and speech is the nature of mental karma, this still does not generally subsume all karmas, because there is contaminated mental karma that does not operate relying on the gates of body and speech. Its extent is boundless, none of which is subsumed in this sūtra (the former showed the fault that mental karma is not established; now, even granting that they have mental karma, there is also the fault that it does not fully subsume mental karma). Furthermore, it certainly does not subsume the various intentions arising based on visual contact and so forth, because those intentions are not subsumed under the two intentions previously mentioned—deliberative and actuating. Based on this, the intention associated with the five consciousnesses is mental karma. This intention associated with the five consciousnesses is not the intention that generates deliberation, nor is it the intention of actuating movement, and so forth." His further shifts in argument are omitted and not related. It also says: "Furthermore, your Sautrāntika school says that when seers killed living beings through mental wrath, under which karma is that subsumed? Is it bodily karma, or mental karma? Yet here there is no distinction between the two intentions arising earlier and later—deliberative and actuating—because the deliberative intention is precisely actuating; thus one cannot escape the fault of confusion in karma." Following this treatise text, the seers' mental wrath lacks the two kinds of intention; since bodily and vocal karma are distinguished by reference to the two intentions, when there is no distinction in intention, the two karmas should not exist, or mental karma would precisely be bodily and vocal, thus resulting in confusion. It also says: "Nor should it be said that the intention relying on body and speech is called bodily and vocal intimation. For by their own statement, shape is bodily intimation, being provisional and not real; however, intention should not be shape and unreal. Furthermore, the sūtra states that rising to welcome, joining the palms, and paying respectful homage are bodily intimation karma; another sūtra also states that intimation is precisely karma. From this it is proven that distinct shapes of the hands and so forth, successively generated by intention to act and so forth, are called bodily intimation, which is precisely bodily karma. Therefore, the Abhidharma school's establishment of bodily and vocal karma accords with teaching and conforms with reason, without the fault of confusion." Now, to defend the Sautrāntikas: when another sūtra states that intimation is precisely karma, it applies the name of the cause to the effect, and it is not that [intimation itself] is precisely karma; or it is named from that which is intimated, because the shapes of hands, feet, and so forth intimate actuating intention.