俱舍論疏 18

English (machine translation) 18

Language: English

On the Śāstra's statement, 'Regarding what was analyzed earlier...': The following second major section specifically clarifies karmic obstacles. Within it, there are six parts: 1. identifying the essential nature of the karma; 2. specifically clarifying the schism of the Saṃgha; 3. clarifying the conditions for constituting an act of immediate retribution; 4. clarifying the determinacy of preliminary application; 5. clarifying the greatest faults among grave crimes; 6. clarifying the categories of acts of immediate retribution. This single stanza is the first, clarifying the essential nature of karmic obstacles.

18.4

From 'The Śāstra says' to 'is false speech': This identifies the essential nature of the five acts of immediate retribution. Devadatta knew that the five practices were genuinely not the path, yet deceived ignorant monks by declaring them to be the path; therefore it is false speech. The other four are bodily karmas: causing the Tathāgata’s body to bleed is a preliminary application (prayoga), while the other three are fundamental acts (maula) of killing.

18.5

On the Śāstra's statement, 'Since it is false speech, for what reason is it called causing a schism in the Saṃgha?': This is a question.

18.6

On the Śāstra's statement, 'Because the cause takes the name of the effect, or because it is capable of splitting': This is the answer. Because of the false speech, that Saṃgha is split. False speech is the cause and the schism of the Saṃgha is the fruit; the cause takes the name of the fruit, so it is called 'causing a schism in the Saṃgha.' Alternatively, 'capable of splitting' means that because false speech has the functional capacity to split the Saṃgha, it is called causing a schism in the Saṃgha. Named after its function, it is called 'causing a schism in the Saṃgha.'

18.7

On the Śāstra's statement, 'If so, what is the essential nature of the schism of the Saṃgha?': From here below is the second part, clarifying the essential nature of the schism of the Saṃgha. Within it are five parts: 1. the essential nature of the schism of the Saṃgha and the persons who accomplish it; 2. the time and place in which the schismatic act succeeds; 3. the completion of causing a schism through possessing the necessary conditions; 4. the distinction between the two kinds of schism in the Saṃgha; 5. the periods during which there is no schism of the wheel of Dharma. This single stanza is the first, clarifying the schism of the Saṃgha and the persons who accomplish it.

18.8

[On the phrase of the] treatise, "[It is] unassociated with the mind, [being included in the] aggregate of formations (saṃskāra-skandha)": This reveals the essential nature (svabhāva) of schism in the Saṅgha. This explains that schism in the Saṅgha is non-concord (asāmagrī), non-obscured and neutral (anivṛtāvyākṛta), and subsumed within the aggregate of formations. Fascicle 116 of the Vibhāṣā says: "Evaluation: Relying on any of the six consciousnesses or relying on any of the five feelings, one is able to create a schism in the Saṅgha. Question: What is the self-nature of schism in the Saṅgha? Answer: Its self-nature is non-concord, non-obscured and neutral, an unassociated formation (citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra); it is subsumed under the unassociated formations of the aggregate of formations. That is what is elsewhere spoken of as: 'There are still other unassociated formations of such kind.'" According to this text, the nature of non-concord is simply non-acquisition (aprāpti); it has no separate substance. How is this known? Relying on fascicle 60 of the Vibhāṣā: "Evaluation: The self-nature of falling away (parihāṇi) is non-attainment, non-obscured and neutral; it is simply non-acquisition, subsumed under the aggregate of formations unassociated with the mind, being subsumed under 'there are still other dharmas of such kind unassociated with the mind.' Falling away is different from dharmas favorable to falling away; dharmas favorable to falling away have all unwholesome and obscured-neutral [dharmas] as their self-nature. Just as schism in the Saṅgha is different from the offense of breaking the Saṅgha: schism in the Saṅgha has non-concord as its self-nature, is non-obscured and neutral, and is subsumed under the aggregate of formations unassociated with the mind." Based on what this treatise states, falling away is subsumed under "there are still other dharmas of such kind unassociated with the mind," which is identical to schism in the Saṅgha. Since falling away is not a separate dharma, it is simply non-acquisition. Therefore we know that the non-concordant nature of schism in the Saṅgha is simply the non-acquisition of a shared aspiration and a shared acceptance; it has no separate substantial nature.

18.9

[On] the treatise's [statement], "How does it constitute [an offense of] immediate retribution (ānantarya)?": A question. Since it is non-obscured and neutral, how can it constitute an offense of immediate retribution?

18.10

[On] the treatise's [statement], "Such schism in the Saṅgha ... is the result of [an offense of] immediate retribution": An answer. Such non-obscured and neutral schism in the Saṅgha arises from false speech. False speech is an offense of immediate retribution and the cause of the schism in the Saṅgha. The non-concordant nature of schism in the Saṅgha is the result of that immediate retribution of false speech. Although the result is neutral, the cause is unwholesome, and therefore it constitutes [an offense of] immediate retribution.

18.11

[On] the treatise's [statement], "It is not possessed by the one who causes the schism ... it is possessed by the saṅgha that is broken": This clarifies the person possessing the schism in the Saṅgha. Schism in the Saṅgha is possessed by the saṅgha that is broken.

18.12

[On] the treatise's [statement], "What does this person who causes the schism possess?" and the following verse: The second [section] clarifies what the one who causes the schism possesses, namely the offense of immediate retribution, and so forth.

18.13

[On the passage of the] treatise, "[The commentary] says ... vocal manifest and unmanifest karma": This explains the essential nature of the one who causes the schism. The preceding question said: "What does this person who causes the schism possess?" The answer says: "This person who causes the schism possesses the offense of breaking the Saṅgha, which has deceitful speech as its nature," explaining that among the ten courses of karma, it is false speech. "It is the vocal manifest and unmanifest karma that arises together with the schism in the Saṅgha" clarifies the time of its accomplishment.

18.14

[On] the treatise's [statement], "This must [bring rebirth] in the Avīci ... but does not necessarily result in birth in the Avīci": This answers the second and third questions. When the fruit of breaking the Saṅgha ripens, where and for how long? The answer says: "In the great hell of Avīci," answering the place. "For the duration of an intermediate kalpa (antarakalpa)," answering the time. It then clarifies that the location for the remaining offenses of immediate retribution is not fixed. The Nyāyānusāra says: "However, that it does not last for a great kalpa (mahākalpa) is because in the desire realm there is no such lifespan. Even the duration of an intermediate kalpa is not fully completed, because the sūtras say that Devadatta will come to be born among humans and realize pratyekabuddha-bodhi when the human lifespan is forty thousand years. Yet this does not contradict the statement that 'the lifespan is one kalpa,' because the name 'one kalpa' is applied to a minor fraction of a kalpa. Even a fraction in the present is designated by the full name, just as when one says, 'Today I was obstructed,' or as when one says, 'Robbers burned the village,' and so forth."

18.15

[On] the treatise's [statement], "If one commits multiple offenses of immediate retribution ... how do they together produce one life?": A question. Since the five offenses of immediate retribution are all experienced in the immediately following life, how can they together experience five fruits at one time?

18.16

[On] the treatise's [statement], "According to the increase of those offenses ... fivefold heavier suffering": An answer. The Nyāyānusāra says: "If one commits multiple offenses of immediate retribution, the first one already projects birth in the Avīci hell; the rest would then have no fruit. [Yet] there is no flaw of having no fruit. For a person who commits multiple offenses of immediate retribution, only one is able to project [the life], while the others assist in completing it; thus, in accordance with the increase in those offenses, the suffering increases in intensity. That is, due to multiple offenses of immediate retribution, one is caused to experience a body in hell that is large and soft, with many violent instruments of torture, undergoing two, three, four, or five times the heavier suffering; or without premature death, experiencing suffering for a long time. How could one say that the rest would have no fruit?" Now, upon detailed consideration, cause and fruit of retribution extend across the three times, and therefore we know that the mutual correspondence of cause and fruit has a fixed nature. The fruit-substances of the five offenses of immediate retribution are each distinct and different: if they produce a physical body, all sense faculties are equally projected with augmenting power, causing the projected fruit-body to be large and soft, and the feelings of suffering produced to be shortened in duration but intensified in grade, arising equally in continuity for the duration of a kalpa or the like. If we rely on the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra, whether suffering is undergone for one kalpa or, if one commits five offenses of immediate retribution, undergone together for five kalpas, the remaining four kalpas are named after the first as retribution in the immediately following life (upapadyavedanīya). This mostly agrees with the Sautrāntika view that one karma projects multiple bodies and multiple karmas project one body. If we rely on the Saṃmatīya school, if one commits up to five offenses of immediate retribution, one undergoes suffering for five kalpas, among which the first is retribution in the immediately following life and the latter four kalpas are retribution in subsequent lives (aparaparyāyavedanīya), each projecting separately. If we rely on the Mahāyāna, the eighth fascicle of the Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā says: "Question: If one commits multiple karmas of immediate retribution, how does one experience their retribution within a single birth in the Avīci? Answer: Within a single life, one suddenly experiences all acquired retributions without fault. Why is this? If one commits multiple karmas of immediate retribution, the physical form that is produced is exceedingly soft, and the instruments of suffering are numerous and intense; thereby one suddenly experiences all kinds of great suffering." Furthermore, the subsequent text states: "Among these karmas, the designation 'experienced in the present life' and so forth is established from the initial stage of ripening; it is not that one only experiences retribution at this single stage. Up to: if one explains it thus, it accords well with the Sūtra on Scolding the Malicious Mind. As that sūtra states: 'Due to karmas of immediate retribution, one repeatedly dies and is born within Naraka, experiencing the retribution of great suffering.' (According to this text, it agrees with the explanations of the Sautrāntika and Saṃmatīya schools. The Mahāyāna also admits that one karma projects multiple lives and multiple karmas project one life)." Question: According to this Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā, the earlier and later passages contradict each other. Answer: There are two explanations. First explanation: The earlier passage follows the provisional method of reasoning (yuktivāda), speaking in accord with the Sarvāstivāda system; the later passage relies on the Mahāyāna. If this were not so, since the earlier passage speaks of experiencing suffering multiplied many times in a single life, how could the later passage speak of passing through multiple kalpas? Second explanation: According to this, if one commits multiple offenses of immediate retribution, one experiences suffering multiplied many times across multiple kalpas; because they mutually assist each other to produce great suffering, it is not simply that it is experienced fivefold and finished in one life. Question: If so, why does the Lokasthiti-śāstra say: "The Tathāgata Śākyamuni appeared in the world during the ninth kalpa of abiding. Devadatta committed three offenses of immediate retribution and entered hell. When the tenth kalpa decreases to forty thousand years, he will come to be born among humans and realize pratyekabuddha-bodhi." Since Devadatta committed three offenses of immediate retribution, according to the Sūtra on Scolding the Malicious Mind, he ought to undergo the retribution of three kalpas. Why then does he attain the pratyekabuddha state without completing even one kalpa? If one says that the Lokasthiti-śāstra accords with the Sarvāstivāda and is therefore a Hīnayāna sūtra, while the Sūtra on Scolding the Malicious Mind accords with the Saṃmatīya and others, why would it not also be a Hīnayāna sūtra? The two texts contradict each other. The statement of the Lokasthiti-śāstra is extremely clear and cannot be harmonized away, whereas the Sūtra on Scolding the Malicious Mind can be interpreted. The "repeated death and birth" in hell is called birth-and-death because it resembles death and birth, as in the Saṃjīva hell. Furthermore, according to the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, Devadatta's entering hell was like bouncing a ball; how could he enter hell for three kalpas? That school should reflect on this. Now, on detailed consideration of the Sarvāstivāda doctrine: if one has already committed karma that is definitely to be experienced in the immediately following life in another destiny, one does not commit the five offenses of immediate retribution. If one has committed other offenses of immediate retribution that lead to birth in other hells, one does not commit schism in the Saṅgha. If one first commits schism in the Saṅgha and afterwards commits other offenses of immediate retribution, all lead into Avīci.

18.17

[On] the treatise's [statement], "Who, where, can cause a schism among whom?": From here down is one verse, the third [section] explaining the conditions for accomplishing a schism, and so forth.

18.18

[On the passage of the] treatise, "[The commentary] says ... because their words lack authority": This clarifies the person who causes the schism. Fascicle 43 of the Nyāyānusāra says: "It must be a senior monk (mahābhikṣu); it is definitely not a householder, a nun (bhikṣuṇī), or the like, because their basis lacks majesty and virtue. It is only one whose conduct is based on [wrong] views (dṛṣṭicarita), not one whose conduct is based on desire (tṛṣṇācarita), because their unwholesome resolve is exceedingly firm and deep, and because they are agitated regarding both defiled and pure categories." Fascicle 116 of the Vibhāṣā is also of the same general meaning.

18.19

[On] the treatise's [statement], "It must be caused in a different location ... face-to-face, it is definitely impossible": This clarifies the location of the schism. "In a different location" refers to Mount Gayaśīrṣa, which is translated as Elephant Head Mountain because the summit of the mountain resembles an elephant's head. It is about three or four li north of Vulture Peak (Gṛdhrakūṭa). It is within the same boundary (sīmā), and Devadatta dwelt there to cause the schism in the Saṅgha, not face-to-face with the Great Teacher (the Teacher was on Vulture Peak; the text should be verified). The old translation of Mount Gayā is an error. Because "Gaja" and "Gayā" are close in sound, it was mistakenly transmitted thus. However, in the West there is another Mount Gayā, more than one hundred and fifty li from Vulture Peak. It is not within the same boundary and is not the place where the schism in the Saṅgha occurred.

18.20

[On] the treatise's [statement], "It only causes a schism among ordinary worldlings (pṛthagjana) ... the word 'fool' is spoken": This clarifies the saṅgha that is broken. The Nyāyānusāra says: "It only causes a schism among ordinary worldlings, not among noble ones (ārya), because they cannot be led astray by another, having attained verified faith (avetyaprasāda). Some say: those who have attained patience (kṣānti) also cannot be schismed, because they have firmly resolved upon what the Buddha taught."

18.21

[On] the treatise's [statement], "It requires that the saṅgha being broken ... at such a time": This clarifies the exact time of the schism. Accepting in common the Buddha's teaching is called concord. Accepting a different Buddha and a distinct Buddhist teaching is called schism in the Saṅgha. The exact moment of acceptance is the time of the schism in the Saṅgha, and it is also the time when that offense of breaking the Saṅgha is concluded. Fascicle 116 of the Vibhāṣā says: "To what extent is it said that the Saṅgha of the wheel of Dharma is broken? There are many explanations. As for the correct explanation: if, by their intention, they vow to accept another teacher—meaning that those foolish monks, with a settled intention, give rise to such a thought and utter such words: 'Devadatta is our Great Teacher, not the Buddha, the World-Honoured One'—to this extent it is said that the Saṅgha of the wheel of Dharma is broken."

18.22

[On] the treatise's [statement], "This night it must be reconciled and not remain overnight": This clarifies how long the schism has already lasted. Master Paramārtha says: "The schism occurs when the sun is about to set, and by the third watch of the night they are reconciled again; therefore it is said that this night it must be reconciled and does not remain overnight."

18.23

[On] the treatise's [statement], "Such is called ... because it destroys the concord of the Saṅgha": A general conclusion of the above. The Nyāyānusāra says: "That is, when the wrong path is set in motion due to the breaking of the Saṅgha, the noble path is obstructed and temporarily does not turn. The 'wrong path' refers to Devadatta's falsely preaching five items as the path to release: first, that one should not consume milk and the like (and the like includes the four flavors such as curd); second, cutting off meat; third, cutting off salt; fourth, that one should wear uncut robes; fifth, that one should dwell in monasteries on the outskirts of villages. If the assembly accepts what he taught, it is called breaking the wheel of the Dharma and also called schism in the Saṅgha." Fascicle 116 of the Vibhāṣā says: "What are the five practices? First, wearing rag robes for the rest of one's life; second, constantly begging for food for the rest of one's life; third, eating only in a single sitting for the rest of one's life; fourth, constantly dwelling in an open space for the rest of one's life; fifth, not eating any fish, meat, blood, flavored salt, ghee, milk, or the like for the rest of one's life (this is not identical to the Nyāyānusāra, but can be considered similar)."

18.24

[On] the treatise's [statement], "In which continent, and how many people?": From here down is one line of verse, the fourth [section] explaining the location of the schism and how many people cause the schism.

18.25

[On the passage of the] treatise, "[The commentary] says ... beyond this there is no limit": This clarifies the location and the number of people. Why is it that, at the very minimum, nine people are still required? Four persons make a community; the two communities, false and right, together make eight people; one person serves as the Buddha; therefore there are nine people. In other continents there is no Buddha; how could one say 'I am the Buddha'? People would not believe it. The word 'and so forth' in the verse indicates that there can be more than nine persons, their number being limitless.

18.26

The Śāstra states: "Schism of action only... hence it also says 'and so forth'", explaining schism of action (karmabheda) in the Sangha. The Nyāyānusāra says: "At what times can schism in the Sangha occur? Schism of action [can occur] from after the demarcation of the boundary (sīmā) onward, even down to the present day, until the Dharma has perished. Schism of the dharmacakra [can occur] excluding six periods of time." The Vibhāṣā says: "Question: When the schism in the Sangha occurs, is the Buddha present in the community? Answer: The Buddha at that time dwells within that boundary, but is not present in the community. How is this known? It was once heard that when Devadatta was about to cause a schism in the Sangha, the Buddha, out of compassion, rebuked and restrained him, saying: 'Devadatta! Do not cause a schism in the Sangha. Do not generate extremely grave, unwholesome evil karma; do not head toward a place of great, unwanted suffering and retribution.' Although the Buddha thus earnestly rebuked and restrained him, he had no mind to desist at all. At that time, the World-Honoured One gave rise to correct gnosis and vision, carefully observing the past [to see] if he himself had in the past caused schism among another's retinue. He then personally observed and saw: countless and immeasurable eons ago, I once ruined the retinue of another ṛṣi; the fruition (vipāka) of that karma is now present before me. Having observed and seen this, he knew that this Sangha was certainly destined to be ruined; he then entered a quiet chamber and sat silently in meditation, and Devadatta thereupon divided the Sangha. Therefore, it is known that the World-Honoured One was within the boundary, but was not in the assembly." Fascicle 106 of the Vibhāṣā says: "Question: What is the distinction between schism of action and schism of the dharmacakra? Answer: Schism of action means that within a single boundary there are two divisions of the Sangha, dwelling separately and performing their respective poṣadha rituals and reciting the precepts. Schism of the dharmacakra means establishing a different teacher and a different path. As Devadatta said: 'I am the Great Teacher, not the śramaṇa Gautama. The five dharmas are the Path, not the Noble Eightfold Path spoken of by Gautama.'"

18.27

The Śāstra states: "At what times...", and the one verse that follows is the fifth section, explaining the times when there is no schism of the dharmacakra in the Sangha.

18.28

From "The Śāstra says" to "there is no schism of the dharmacakra", the text explains the six conditions wherein there is no schism of the dharmacakra in the Sangha. The Vibhāṣā says: "It is not at the beginning or the end, because at these two times the assembly of bhikṣus is harmonious and of one taste in the noble teaching, and cannot be divided. It is not when the two boils have not yet erupted, which means when the two kinds of boils—of precepts and of views—have not yet arisen in the noble teaching. It is not when [the Sangha] has not yet harmoniously bound the boundary together, because there must be two divisions of the Sangha within a single boundary, dwelling separately with different convictions, before it is called a schism in the Sangha. It is not when the foremost pair has not yet been established, which means that before the foremost pair has been established, there is definitely no one capable of causing a schism of the dharmacakra in the Sangha. By the inherent nature of all Buddhas, they always have a foremost pair of noble disciples; if someone has caused a schism of the dharmacakra in the Sangha, before a day and night has elapsed, this foremost pair will reconcile them again. It is not after the Great Teacher's nirvāṇa, because if after the Great Teacher's parinirvāṇa someone were to say: 'I am the Great Teacher, not the Tathāgata', everyone would rebuke them together, saying: 'While the Great Teacher was in the world, why did you not say "I am the Great Teacher"? Now after his nirvāṇa, only then do you speak these words.' Therefore, it is certain that during these six times the dharmacakra is not divided; during the remaining times, the dharmacakra may be divided."

18.29

The Śāstra states: "A schism of the dharmacakra is not... because there is this circumstance", explaining that schism in the Sangha is caused by karma. The Nyāyānusāra says: "In this Bhadrakalpa, at the time of Kāśyapa Buddha, Śākyamuni once caused schism in another's assembly; thus the Vibhāṣā says: 'He personally observed and saw that in the past, countless and immeasurable eons ago, he had once ruined the retinue of another ṛṣi.' Question: Why do the two explanations differ? Answer: There are two events, and the two treatises each cite one as evidence. Another explanation: The Vibhāṣā refers to eons measured by sun and moon, hence it says 'countless and immeasurable eons'."

18.30

The Śāstra states: "Let us set aside peripheral discussions", and the verse-and-a-half that follows is the third major division, explaining the conditions for [actions of] immediate [retribution] (ānantarya).

18.31

"The Śāstra says... hence constituting an anantarya offense", explaining the conditions that constitute an anantarya offense. Father and mother are fields of gratitude, while the other three are fields of merit. The body is the locus of merit; thus destroying it constitutes an anantarya. The Nyāyānusāra says: "If there are parents who, when their child is just born, abandon it on a road with jackals and wolves to kill it, or use means within the womb intending to kill it, yet through the force of determinate karma the child's life does not end—what gratitude do they possess, such that abandoning them constitutes an anantarya? They surely, through fears such as being unable to sustain life, generate the intention to kill when facing an emergency regarding the child. However, when abandoning it and so forth, they must cherish compassion and repeatedly entangle their minds with love and longing toward the child. If one abandons this gratitude, one is touched by a lesser anantarya offense; to show that anantarya offenses have lower, middle, and upper [degrees], it is said that abandoning gratitude constitutes an anantarya offense in every case. Alternatively, it is due to the inherent nature of the field and recipient such as the mother. Even supposing they possessed no gratitude, merely destroying their lives must cause one to be born in hell with immediate retribution. All wise persons make this statement: 'The World-Honoured One has thoroughly penetrated the root and source of phenomena; when he makes such a statement, one should simply believe it deeply.'"

18.32

The Śāstra asks: "If the form of the father or mother changes, does killing them constitute an anantarya?" This is a question.

18.33

The Śāstra states: "The anantarya offense is also constituted... meaning the father's form has changed", explaining that if the father or mother transforms their faculty, killing them still constitutes an anantarya, because the physical support (āśraya) is one. However, if the father or mother transforms into an animal, killing them does not constitute an anantarya.

18.34

The Śāstra states: "Suppose there is a woman... because of being able to nurture and bring to maturity", explaining that the anantarya is constituted on the basis of the origin of birth. The Nyāyānusāra says: "Killing one's adoptive parents constitutes a transgression resembling an anantarya."

18.35

The Śāstra states: "If toward one's father and mother... thinking they are another and killing them", explaining that a mistake does not constitute an anantarya offense. In the Vibhāṣā, it says: "If one dispatches an emissary to kill the parents while they are walking, but they are killed while sitting, it does not constitute an anantarya offense. In such cases, merely bringing forth a discrepancy with the original intention means that none of them constitutes an anantarya."

18.36

The Śāstra states: "If with a single preliminary effort... because of superior force", explaining that when two objects occupy the same place, and one undertakes a single preliminary effort to kill both kinds, the unmanifest action possesses both, while the manifest action follows only the stronger.

18.37

The Śāstra states: "Venerable Ghoṣaka says... because it is constituted by subtle atoms", meaning that this master's intention is to say that manifest action also has both. The Nyāyānusāra says: "Now examining his intention: manifest action possesses multiple subtle atoms; some are subsumed under the anantarya offense, and some are included under other offenses."

18.38

The Śāstra states: "If one kills an arhat... it also constitutes an anantarya offense." "Without a mind of discrimination" means that one definitely generates the intention to kill without making the discrimination: 'If this is an arhat, then I will not kill him.' The Nyāyānusāra says: "There are cases where one has no conception of an arhat regarding an arhat, nor a determinate understanding that this is not an arhat; because there is no discrimination, killing him constitutes an anantarya offense. It is not entirely identical with the case of father and mother: because they are easy to recognize, one who fails to recognize them, even if committing murder, lacks the intention to abandon gratitude. An arhat has no distinct external mark; since it is difficult to recognize that he is one, and also difficult to know that he is not, killing with an indiscriminate mind also constitutes an anantarya; this should be a lower grade. Since the object is superior, it is not completely without an anantarya offense."

18.39

The Śāstra states: "If one kills a father... because the physical support is one", explaining that though the conditions are different, they depend on one [support]. Although there are two fields of gratitude and merit in a single body, because the support body is one, it constitutes a single anantarya offense. It should be spoken of as a grave anantarya.

18.40

The Śāstra states: "If so, then a metaphorical text says... killing a father and slaying an arhat", citing an Avadāna-sūtra to raise an objection. While the Buddha was in the world, in a country of South India there was a king who entrusted the kingdom to the crown prince Śikhaṇḍin and went to Śrāvastī to take refuge in the Buddha, go forth, and attain arhatship. The crown prince was unprincipled, practicing exclusively what was unlawful and tyrannizing the common people. An old, veteran minister went to the father king and recounted the above events in full, requesting the king to return to his country to instruct and admonish the crown prince. The father king granted the request and returned to his home country. The crown prince's sycophantic minister feared being executed and flattered the prince, saying: 'The father king now wishes to return to usurp the crown prince's throne; please send an emissary to kill him on the road.' The crown prince accepted these flattering words and sent an emissary to kill him. The father king knew through the causes and conditions of karma that it was fitting for him to be killed by his son, and willingly accepted death. The Buddha, knowing this matter, sent a disciple to tell the crown prince Śikhaṇḍin: 'You have already committed two anantaryas, namely killing your father and slaying an arhat.' Śikhaṇḍin means 'topknot' in Chinese.

18.41

The Śāstra states: "That text reveals one anantarya... rebuking his crime", resolving the objection.

18.42

The Śāstra states: "If toward the Buddha... then there is no anantarya", explaining that only shedding blood with an intention to kill constitutes an anantarya offense. The Nyāyānusāra says: "If one sheds blood with an intention to strike, there is no anantarya, because there is no determinate intention to destroy the field of merit." The Vibhāṣā distinguishes four alternatives: there is shedding blood without constituting an anantarya, namely shedding blood with an intention to strike; there is not shedding blood yet constituting an anantarya, namely striking the Buddha with intent to kill, causing the bloody area to divide into two without breaking the skin; or both alternatives, as in shedding the Buddha's blood with an intention to kill; or neither alternative, excluding the aforementioned cases.

18.43

The Śāstra states: "If at the time of the preliminary effort to kill... because there is no preliminary effort to kill [an arhat]", explaining that since he was not an arhat at the time of the preliminary effort, there is no anantarya offense.

18.44

The Śāstra states: "If one commits the preliminary effort for an anantarya, it cannot be reversed", and the half-verse below is the fourth section, explaining that during the preliminary effort there is definitely no detachment from desire and so forth.

18.45

"The Śāstra says... because it is definitely incompatible with that": If one undertakes a preliminary effort for an anantarya that will definitely be completed, in the interim there is definitely no detachment from desire or attainment of fruition, because one is definitely destined to be born in hell. In the interim of the preliminary efforts for other [acts of] killing and so forth, if the noble path arises, the karmapatha does not occur; because the continuum has transformed into that of a noble person, it definitely cannot be conjoined with the karma of killing and so forth. According to this, it may either be that although their life is severed, the karmapatha is not completed; or by the power of the path, their life is prevented from being severed. Fascicle 43 of the Nyāyānusāra says: "However, according to our school, preliminary efforts for an anantarya are generally explained as of two kinds: first, proximate; second, remote. Among these, because the proximate cannot be reversed, the root treatise poses questions and answers based on it. That is, someone initiates a preliminary effort to kill their mother, and immediately after the strike the mother's life has not yet ended, or the mother's strength is greater and she kills her son in return, or he is seized and killed by the king or others, or the son's lifespan ends and he dies naturally—the root treatise makes such a statement based on this (Is there a case where without yet having killed a being, killing has not ceased, yet the vipāka of this karma definitely leads to birth in hell? Answer: Yes. As when one's life ends at the stage of the preliminary effort for an anantarya karma). As for the remote among them, because it has not yet reached the irreversible stage, it can be reversed. If it were not so, the World-Honoured One would have said that the preliminary effort for an anantarya is also an anantarya offense. The Dārṣṭāntikas say: even the five anantarya karmas can still be reversed, how much more so their preliminary efforts!" and so on at length.

18.46

The Śāstra states: "Among all evil actions and anantarya karmas", and the one verse below is the fifth section, explaining the gravest offense and the greatest fruit.

18.47

"The Śāstra says... because of obstructing the worldly paths to birth in heaven and liberation", explaining that schism in the Sangha is the greatest offense. "Understanding what is Dharma and not Dharma": Devadatta knew that the Buddha possessed all-knowledge and that the eightfold correct path was real, and that he himself lacked all-knowledge and the five dharmas were false. "Displaying them invertedly": deceiving the foolish, showing the true to be false and demonstrating the false to be true, and so forth; this is the greatest offense among the anantaryas, firstly because of injuring and ruining the Buddha's Dharmakāya, and secondly because of obstructing the worldly paths to birth in heaven and liberation. This presents the reason why it is a great offense. The Nyāyānusāra says: "That is, once the Sangha has been divided, until it is reconciled, it has the power to obstruct all ordinary persons and so forth: causing those who have not entered the certainty [of correctness] to be unable to enter, causing those who have already entered the certainty [of correctness] to be unable to attain other fruits, causing those who have already attained other fruits to be unable to attain detachment from desire, causing those who have attained detachment from desire to be unable to realize the destruction of the outflows, and causing the practices of meditation, recitation, reflection, and so forth to cease."

18.48

The Śāstra states: "That is, once the Sangha has been divided... the offense is the heaviest", explaining the reason why it is the greatest offense.

18.49

The Śāstra states: "The remaining anantarya offenses... because gratitude and so forth are lesser", explaining the sequence of gravity among the other anantaryas. "The fifth" refers to shedding the Buddha's blood. "The third" refers to slaying an arhat. "The first" refers to killing one's mother. "The second" refers to killing one's father. "Because gratitude and so forth are lesser" explains the reason why they become progressively lighter.

18.50

The Śāstra states: "If so, why is it that [...] wrong view is the greatest?" This is an objection. If the transgression of causing a schism in the Saṃgha is the greatest, since causing a schism in the Saṃgha is vocal karma, why is it that bodily, vocal, and mental punishments that lead into the hells are named the three punishments, and the sūtra states that mental punishment is the heaviest, not mentioning vocal karma?

18.51

The Śāstra states: "In terms of the five ānantaryas [...] wrong view is said to be the heaviest." This is the answer. As they are based on different senses, they do not contradict each other.

18.52

The Śāstra states: "Or, based on their great fruits [...] they are declared the heaviest in sequential order." This is the second explanation. In terms of bringing about a great fruit, causing a schism in the Saṃgha is the heaviest. In terms of the mental wrath of the ṛṣis that harms many sentient beings, mental karma is the heaviest; in terms of being able to sever the roots of wholesome qualities, wrong view is the heaviest.

18.53

The Śāstra states: "bringing about the Peak of Existence [...] the words 'worldly wholesome' are spoken." This clarifies the great fruits among wholesome [karmas]. There are two: first, worldly wholesome; second, supramundane wholesome. Worldly wholesome is volition that brings about the Peak of Existence. Supramundane wholesome refers to volition associated with the vajropamasamādhi.

18.54

The Śāstra states: "Is it only an ānantarya transgression that is definitely reborn in the hells?" The subsequent half-stanza constitutes the sixth section, clarifying what is of the same class as an ānantarya.

18.55

The commentary states: "[...] are of the same class as the five heinous [acts]." The Nyāyānusāra states: "The expression 'of the same class' has the meaning of being similar." Now, examining this: 'similarity' means similarity in the guilt incurred; that is to say, the guilt incurred from these five [actions] of the same class is similar in gravity to the transgressions they resemble, hence they are called 'of the same class'. They correspond sequentially to the five ānantaryas as their similar classes. "Robbing the conditions for the Saṃgha's concord" refers to robbing the Saṃgha's requisites and property, and so forth.

18.56

The Śāstra states: "Karma with vipāka, during the three times:" The subsequent half-stanza is the fifth major section, clarifying the extreme obstructions across the three times.

18.57

The commentary states: "[...] all constitute extreme obstructions." This clarifies the first obstruction.

18.58

The Śāstra states: "If one is about to attain [...] karma to be experienced in the present life." This clarifies the second obstruction. The previous karmas leading to the three bad destinies are exclusively to be experienced in the next life or in subsequent lives; they definitely are not said to be experienced in the present life. Here, karma of both natures is included, excluding karma to be experienced in the present life, because upon attaining the fruit of the non-returner, one does not transcend the present fruit.

18.59

The Śāstra states: "If one is about to attain [...] the two similes are as before." This clarifies the third obstruction. The exclusion of karma to be experienced in the present life is explained as above.

18.60

The Śāstra states: "As mentioned above, a bodhisattva who dwells in certitude:" The subsequent passage is the sixth major section, clarifying the bodhisattva's karma. Within it there are four parts: first, clarifying the stage of dwelling in certitude; second, cultivating the karma of the marks; third, the number of Buddhas worshipped; fourth, clarifying the fulfillment of the six pāramitās. This one stanza is the first, clarifying the stage of dwelling in certitude.

18.61

The commentary states: "[...] establishes the name 'dwelling in certitude'." This means that when one cultivates the karmic retribution of the marks for one hundred kalpas, this is termed 'dwelling in certitude'. Dwelling in certitude has six aspects: first, definitely being born in a good destiny; second, definitely being born into a wealthy and noble household, etc.; third, definitely being endowed with complete sense-faculties; fourth, definitely possessing a male body; fifth, definitely remembering past lives; sixth, having wholesome qualities that never regress or weaken.

18.62

The Śāstra states: "Because from this time onward [...] a great mahāsāla household." This explains the first two certitudes. A 'sāla' household is translated here as an eminent clan.

18.63

The Śāstra states: "among noble households [...] having a body as a ṣaṇḍha, etc." This explains the third and fourth certitudes.

18.64

The Śāstra states: "In every life, he is constantly able [...] constantly free from regression." This explains the latter two certitudes. From this time onward, he intrinsically and always knows [past lives]; it is not that previously he was completely unaware of them.

18.65

The Śāstra states: "That is to say, regarding the benefit and happiness [...] he is designated as that bodhisattva." This further explains freedom from regression. Suffering is of two kinds: first, the suffering of one's own practice; second, the suffering of being afflicted by others; he is capable of enduring both of these sufferings. When it says, "That is to say, regarding matters that benefit and bring happiness to sentient beings, even when manifold sufferings press upon his body, he is completely capable of enduring them," this encompasses both kinds of suffering. When it says, "Even though others in various ways [...] he is designated as that bodhisattva," this further explains that on account of the suffering of being afflicted by others, his mind does not regress.

18.66

The Śāstra states: "Due to that great being [...] he is entirely capable of shouldering them." This explains why he does not regress in the face of others' evil deeds and opposition. Because he is without regression, the stanza names him "firm". The Nyāyānusāra states: "Would not the stage in which one has not yet cultivated the karma of the exquisite marks, but whose bodhicitta does not regress, deserve the name of 'dwelling in certitude'? Why must a bodhisattva only receive the name of the stage of dwelling in certitude when cultivating the karma of the exquisite marks? Because at that time humans and devas together come to know it. Previously, he was only known by the devas; or at that time his certitude of progressing toward equal enlightenment is established, whereas previously only equal enlightenment was determined, not the rest." The explanation says: Previously, he was only determined to progress toward equal enlightenment, and did not possess the other six certitudes.

18.67

The Śāstra states: "What are the characteristics of cultivating the karma of the exquisite marks?" The next stanza is the second, clarifying the cultivation of the karma of the exquisite marks.

18.68

The commentary states: "[...] because they are the clearest and sharpest." In this, there are six gates in total: first, the place of cultivation; second, the bodily support; third, the object faced; fourth, clarifying the wisdom; fifth, clarifying the adornment of time; sixth, clarifying the count. This is the first, clarifying the place.

18.69

The Śāstra states: "Only as a male [...] because of the status of females, etc." This clarifies the bodily support. The Nyāyānusāra states: "The karma of the wondrous marks can only be initiated on the basis of a pure body."

18.70

The Śāstra states: "Only directly facing a Buddha [...] not belonging to the categories of hearing or cultivation." This clarifies the object and wisdom. Because one cultivates the marks of a Buddha, it is only accomplished directly facing a Buddha. Because it is superior, it is not the wisdom resulting from hearing or born of acquisition; because it is distracted [mental state], it is not the wisdom resulting from cultivation.

18.71

The Śāstra states: "Only in the remaining one hundred kalpas [...] such is the nature of the Dharma." This clarifies the time of cultivation. Such is the nature of the Dharma: if it were less, it would be insufficient; if it were more, it would be useless.

18.72

The Śāstra states: "Only the Bhagavān [...] the karma of the exquisite marks was accomplished." This clarifies that because of vigor, the present Buddha surpassed nine kalpas.

18.73

The Śāstra states: "Therefore, the Tathāgata [...] only spoke of ninety-one kalpas." This cites a sūtra to verify the surpassing of nine kalpas.

18.74

The Śāstra states: "The senior masters of old stated [...] as analyzed above." This recounts the alternative view of the Sautrāntikas. The "four faults" are the bad destinies, a poor household, coarse karma, and an incomplete female body. The "two virtues" are remembering past lives and now obtaining non-regression.

18.75

The Śāstra states: "Each single exquisite mark is adorned with one hundred merits." This is the count of the merits of the marks. The Nyāyānusāra states: "Here, one hundred volitions are called one hundred merits. That is, when one is about to create the karma for each single exquisite mark, one first generates fifty volitions to purify the bodily vessel, and only then generates the karma that brings forth that one mark. Afterward, one again generates fifty wholesome volitions to adorn the bringing forth of the karma, making it complete. The fifty volitions are: based upon the ten karmapathas, one generates five volitions for each single karmapatha. Taking the first karmapatha of abstaining from killing, it has five volitions: first, the volition to abstain from killing; second, the volition to exhort and guide; third, the volition to praise; fourth, the volition to rejoice; fifth, the volition of dedication, meaning directing what has been cultivated toward liberation. Up through right view, each likewise has five. Other masters say: Based on the ten karmapathas, one generates in each case lower and other grades of wholesome volitions in five grades, before and after alike, like perfuming the dhyānas. Other masters state: Based on the ten karmapathas, one generates five volitions in each case: first, purity of application; second, purity of the fundamental; third, purity of the subsequent; fourth, freedom from malicious investigation; fifth, mindful reception. Still other masters say: For each karma of a mark, as it takes the Buddha as an object, there are volitions never previously practiced, a full hundred of which are present to serve as adornment."

18.76

The Śāstra states: "What is the measure of each single merit?" This is a question.

18.77

The Śāstra states: "Some say: with the exception only of a bodhisattva close to Buddhahood [...] only a Buddha can know." This is the reply. There are three replies, which can be understood from the text. The Nyāyānusāra states: "What is the measure of each of the one hundred merits? Some say: based on a body formed by accumulating merits throughout three incalculable kalpas, the initiation of such innumerable and exceptional virtues has a measure that only a Buddha can know." This is identical to the latter explanation in this Śāstra. "Some say: if, through the predominant power of karma, one is able to become Śakra, ruling as king over the two desire heavens with sovereign sway, that is the measure of one merit." The rest is the same as this Śāstra. Fascicle 177 of the Vibhāṣā states: "Evaluation: All such explanations are expedients born of pure intention to praise the measure of the bodhisattva's merits, but none have attained the actual reality. In the true sense, the measure of each single merit generated by a bodhisattva is limitless and boundless; because the bodhisattva has accumulated and perfected all the pāramitās over three incalculable kalpas, the volitions and aspirations he brings forth are extremely vast, so that only a Buddha can know them, and they are beyond the estimation of all others."

18.78

The Śāstra states: "Now, our Great Teacher:" The subsequent stanza is the third, clarifying the number of Buddhas worshipped. In this there are two parts: first, clarifying the number of Buddhas worshipped; second, clarifying the names of the Buddhas encountered. This is the first.

18.79

The commentary states: "[...] seventy-seven thousand Buddhas." This explains the differences in the number of Buddhas worshipped across the three kalpas.

18.80

The Śāstra states: "In the three incalculable kalpas:" The next verse line is the second, clarifying the names of the Buddhas encountered.

18.81

The commentary states: "[...] was named Ratnaśikhin." This clarifies the names of the final Buddhas encountered in the three incalculable kalpas in reverse order.

18.82

The Śāstra states: "When first generating the mind [...] each was identical to that [Buddha]." This clarifies the initial Buddhas of the three incalculable kalpas. The Nyāyānusāra states: "At the beginning of the first incalculable kalpa, he first encountered Śākyamuni Buddha [...] up to when the Bhagavān was the potter's son; in the presence of that Buddha, he generated a deeply pure mind, anointed him with fragrant oil, bathed him with fragrant water, and after making offerings, made a vast vow: 'May I become a Buddha, exactly like the present Bhagavān!'" The rest is the same as this Śāstra. According to this text, the True Dharma is again determined to be one thousand years. Encountering Śākyamuni Buddha corresponded to the wholesome roots conducive to liberation of the Mahāyāna lineage. Since the Buddha's extinction, there are many different accounts today, roughly speaking exceeding one thousand five hundred years. This is detailed extensively in a separate chapter.

First 82 of 190 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

俱舍論疏 — Classical Chinese