俱舍論頌疏論本 16
English (machine translation) 16
- Language
- English
16.1
Seventh from here, the black-black and the rest are clarified. Within this: first, clarifying the four karmas; second, clarifying abandonment by the undefiled; third, clarifying divergent explanations.
16.2
Here below, first, clarifying the four karmas. The treatise states: "Again, in the sūtras it is said that karma is of four kinds: that is, there is karma that is black with black maturation; or again, there is karma that is white with white maturation; or again, there is karma that is black and white with black and white maturation; or again, there is karma that is neither black nor white with no maturation, a karma capable of exhausting all karmas. What are their characteristics?" The verse says:
16.3
"Based on distinctions such as black-black and the rest,
Four kinds of karma are spoken of:
Evil, form [realm], and desire-realm wholesome, and the undefiled that can exhaust them,
Should be known respectively
As termed black, white, both, and neither."
16.4
Explanation: The first two lines introduce, and the subsequent [lines] explain. The treatise states: "Based on the differences in the nature and classes of karma and its fruit, and the distinction between what is to be countered and the counteragent, the Buddha spoke of four [karmas], black-black and the rest (the first three differ in karma and fruit; the fourth differs as what is to be countered and the counteragent)."
16.5
[Regarding] 'evil, form, and desire-realm wholesome': 'Evil' means that all unwholesome karma of the desire realm is exclusively called black because it is defiled by nature, and its maturation is also black because it is disagreeable. The wholesome karma of the form realm is exclusively called white because it is not mixed with evil, and its maturation is also white because it is agreeable. The wholesome karma of the desire realm is called black and white because it is intermixed with evil, and its maturation is also black and white because it is intermixed with undesirable fruits. Wholesome nature is white and not black, yet because black comes and intermingles with it, it is given the name 'black and white'; hence the name 'black and white' is established with respect to their alternating admixture before and after, not based on its intrinsic nature. Therefore the treatise states: 'This name "black and white" is established based on the continuum, not based on intrinsic nature. Why is that? Because no single karma and no single maturation is both black and white, mutually contradictory' (thus far the text of the treatise). Question: 'Since the fruit of evil karma in the desire realm is intermixed with the fruit of wholesome karma, it should be called white and black.' Answer: 'The fruit of unwholesome karma is not necessarily intermixed with the fruit of wholesome karma; for instance, in the person of an icchantika there is no wholesome karma, and in the hells there is no agreeable fruit. The fruit of wholesome karma in the desire realm is necessarily intermixed with evil, because in the desire realm evil surpasses good: that is, wrong view of the desire realm can sever wholesome roots, whereas wholesome karma of the desire realm cannot sever evil; hence evil in the desire realm is stronger than good.'
16.6
[Regarding] 'and the undefiled that can exhaust them': 'Them' refers to what is to be countered; 'undefiled' is the counteragent. That is, undefiled karma can exhaust those previous three karmas, black and the rest, and is called neither black nor white. Because it is not defiled, it is called non-black; because it does not incur white maturation, it is called non-white. The treatise states: 'This expression "non-white" is an intentional statement, as when the Buddha in the Mahāśūnyatā-sūtra addressed Ānanda: "All the dharmas of an aśaikṣa are purely wholesome and purely white, entirely without fault" (Explanation: Since he says that the aśaikṣa is purely white, we know that calling undefiled dharmas "non-white" is an intentional statement, not an explicit one).'
16.7
[Regarding] 'should be known respectively as termed black, white, both, and neither': matching the preceding two lines, they are spoken of in order: from the preceding line, evil is called black, form-realm wholesome is called white, desire-realm wholesome is called both, and undefiled is called neither black nor white.
16.8
Second from here, clarifying abandonment by the undefiled. The treatise states: "Can all undefiled karmas exhaustively abandon the former three karmas or not? If not, how is it?" The verse says:
16.9
"In the four dharmakṣāntis and separation from desire,
Associated with the former eight uninterrupted [paths],
Twelve undefiled volitions
Exhaust exclusively purely black karma.
In separation from desire and the four dhyānas,
The ninth uninterrupted volition:
One exhausts the mixed and the purely black;
Four cause the purely white to be exhausted."
16.10
Explanation: 'The four dharmakṣāntis' refers to the four dharmakṣāntis in the path of seeing. 'Separation from desire' flows into the line below, meaning the former eight uninterrupted paths in separating from desire, namely the eight uninterrupted paths in the path of cultivation of the desire realm. 'Associated' means the volition operating together with these eight uninterrupted paths and the preceding four dharmakṣāntis. These are twelve undefiled volitions, which exhaust exclusively purely black karma, meaning they are able to abandon unwholesome karma forever.
16.11
[Regarding] 'in separation from desire and the four dhyānas, the ninth uninterrupted volition': first, the volition of the ninth uninterrupted path in separating from desire; second, the volitions of the ninth uninterrupted paths in separating from the four dhyānas.
16.12
[Regarding] 'one exhausts the mixed and the purely black': taking the single undefiled volition of the aforementioned ninth uninterrupted path in separating from desire, it can exhaust mixed karma and purely black karma; since at this time it completely abandons the wholesome [dharmas] of the desire realm, it can exhaust mixed karma; and because it also abandons the ninth [grade of] unwholesome karma, it can exhaust purely black [karma].
16.13
[Regarding] 'four cause the purely white to be exhausted': taking the ninth uninterrupted volitions in each stage of separating from the four dhyānas, these are four volitions that cause the purely white to be exhausted, meaning each can abandon forever the wholesome dharmas of its own stage. The treatise states: 'For what reason are the defiled wholesome dharmas of each stage abandoned only by the final path and not by the others? Because wholesome dharmas are not abandoned by intrinsic nature, since after being abandoned they can still manifest. Rather, only when the defilements taking them as object are exhausted are those wholesome dharmas said to be abandoned, because the wholesome dharmas at that time attain freedom from bondage. Hence, as long as even one grade of defilement taking them as object remains, the meaning of abandonment is not established, because the wholesome dharmas at that time are not yet freed from bondage.' Explanation: As for abandonment through object-bondage, defiled wholesome dharmas are bound by defilements; when the nine grades of afflictions that take them as object are completely abandoned, the wholesome dharmas are freed from bondage, which is termed abandonment through object-bondage. When something does not operate after abandonment, that is called abandonment by intrinsic nature. Because wholesome dharmas may still manifest after being abandoned, they are not abandoned by intrinsic nature. Abandoning wholesome dharmas does not abandon the substance of the wholesome, but only abandons the defilements taking the wholesome as object; since one still possesses the wholesome, it can manifest. Saying 'can manifest' means that while the wholesome grief faculty does not operate after being abandoned, all remaining wholesome dharmas do operate after being abandoned; hence the word 'can' is used.
16.14
Third from here, presenting divergent explanations. The verse says:
16.15
"Some say that experienced in hell [is black],
And other desire karma is black and mixed.
Some say that eliminated through seeing in desire [is black],
And other desire karma is black and both."
16.16
Explanation: [Regarding] 'some say that experienced in hell, and other desire karma is black and mixed': other masters say that karma experienced in hell is called black-black karma, while the remaining karma of the desire realm, whether wholesome or unwholesome, is called mixed karma. Because the maturation of hell is caused solely by unwholesome karma, [karma] leading to its experience is called black-black karma; because other maturations of the desire realm are caused by both wholesome and unwholesome karma, [karma] leading to their experience is called black-and-white karma.
16.17
[Regarding] 'some say that eliminated through seeing in desire, and other desire karma is black and both': other masters say that karma abandoned through seeing in the desire realm is called black-black, and the remaining karma abandoned through cultivation in the desire realm is called both. 'Both' means black and white. That is, because karma abandoned through seeing is not mixed with good, it is called black-black. The remaining karma abandoned through cultivation in the desire realm contains both wholesome and unwholesome, hence it is called 'both' karma.
16.18
Eighth from here, clarifying the three munis and the like. The treatise states: "Again, in the sūtras it is said that there are three munis, and in the sūtras it is also said that there are three purities, all pertaining to body, speech, and mind. What are their respective characteristics?" The verse says:
16.19
"The bodily and vocal karmas of an aśaikṣa,
And the mind itself, are the three munis;
The three purities should be known
To be the three kinds of good conduct."
16.20
Explanation: 'Muni' is translated here as silent one. 'The bodily and vocal karmas of an aśaikṣa' refers to the two munis of body and speech. 'And the mind itself' refers to the third, the mental muni; that is, the mind itself is called muni, not mental karma. The ultimate muni has only the mind as its essence, but its character is hidden and hard to know; because body and speech are free from various evils, the mind can be known by inference. Therefore, because these [actions of] body and speech serve as inferential means, they are established as munis. Mental karma is neither ultimate nor an inferential means, and hence is not a muni. Furthermore, bodily and vocal karma have the essence of avoidance, whereas mental karma does not, because it lacks non-information (avijñapti). A muni is established through the meaning of avoidance; therefore, it is the mind itself, [and] because bodily and vocal karmas can avoid [wrongs], they are called munis. That a muni is established only in the aśaikṣa is because the words of defilement are permanently silenced, for the clamor and dispute of defilements are like words.
16.21
[Regarding] 'the three purities should be known to be the three kinds of good conduct': the three kinds of good conduct of body, speech, and mind are precisely called the three purities. These three purities comprise both defiled wholesome and undefiled wholesome; defiled [wholesome] is temporarily free from stain and undefiled [wholesome] is permanently free from stain, so both are called pure.
16.22
Ninth from here, clarifying the three bad conducts and the like. The treatise states: "Again, in the sūtras it is said that there are three bad conducts, and in the sūtras it is also said that there are three good conducts, all pertaining to body, speech, and mind. What are their respective characteristics?" The verse says:
16.23
"Evil bodily, vocal, and mental karma
Are called the three bad conducts,
Together with greed, malice, and wrong views;
The three good conducts are the reverse of these."
16.24
Explanation: The unwholesome states of the three karmas are called the three bad conducts. Among the mental bad conducts, it is not merely mental karma; greed, malice, and wrong views are also included and called mental bad conduct. The three good conducts are the reverse of the three bad conducts: namely, all wholesome karmas of body, speech, and mind, as well as non-mental karma—non-greed, non-malice, and right view.
16.25
Tenth from here, clarifying the ten karmapathas. Within this: first, clarifying the essence of karmapatha; second, clarifying the name and meaning of karmapatha; third, incidentally clarifying the severing of wholesome roots; fourth, clarifying the concurrent operation of karmapathas; fifth, clarifying the establishment of karmapatha according to locus; sixth, clarifying the fruits of karmapatha.
16.26
Within clarifying the essence of karmapatha: first, directly clarifying the essence of karmapatha; second, clarifying the varieties of karmapatha.
16.27
Now first, clarifying the essence of karmapatha. The treatise states: "Again, in the sūtras it is said that there are ten karmapathas, either wholesome or unwholesome. What are their characteristics?" The verse says:
16.28
"The ten karmapathas that are spoken of
Are subsumed within bad and good conduct;
Their essence is their coarse varieties,
Constituting wholesome and unwholesome accordingly."
16.29
Explanation: 'The ten karmapathas that are spoken of' is the heading, meaning the ten karmapathas spoken of in the sūtras.
16.30
[Regarding] 'are subsumed within bad and good conduct; their essence is their coarse varieties': this identifies their essence. Among the three bad conducts and the three good conducts, those that are coarse, prominent, and easily known are subsumed as the ten karmapathas.
16.31
[The phrase] "they become unwholesome or wholesome as appropriate" assigns [them to their respective classes]: as appropriate, the subsuming of the aforementioned good conduct is called the wholesome courses of action (karmapatha), and the subsuming of the aforementioned bad conduct is called the unwholesome courses of action. The expression "the coarse grade" excludes what is not coarse and manifest. Among bodily bad conduct, the preparatory (prayoga) and subsequent (pṛṣṭha) offenses, as well as drinking alcohol, striking, binding, and the like, are not coarse and manifest; although they are bad conduct, they are not subsumed under courses of action. Causing other sentient beings to lose their lives, lose their wealth, lose their wives and concubines, and so forth—these characteristics are coarse and manifest, and are stated to be courses of action so that people may keep away from them. Among vocal bad conduct, preparatory and subsequent offenses, as well as speech with a light afflicted mind—such as singing with an afflicted mind by wheel-turning kings or people of the northern continent, or practicing deceit where the conditions are incomplete and it is not accomplished—such speech is light; these are not coarse and manifest, and are not subsumed under courses of action. Among mental bad conduct, volition (cetanā) is not a course of action. When one says "course of action" (karmapatha), it provides a course (patha) for action (karma); volition is itself action, and its own substance cannot be the course for its own substance. Therefore, bad mental conduct that is volition is not a course of action. Greed and so forth among wheel-turning kings and people of the northern continent are light, and are likewise not courses of action. Among bodily good conduct, preparatory and subsequent wholesome acts, abstention from drinking alcohol, giving, making offerings, and the like; among vocal good conduct, affectionate speech and the like—all these are not coarse and manifest, and are not subsumed under courses of action. Among mental good conduct, wholesome volitions are action and not the course; hence they are likewise not subsumed under courses of action.
16.32
Hereafter, second, the distinctions among the courses of action are explained. Within this: 1. explaining vijñapti and avijñapti; 2. explaining the three roots; 3. explaining the bases (āśraya); 4. distinguishing them through questions and answers; 5. explaining the characteristics of the courses of action.
16.33
Under explaining vijñapti and avijñapti, there are two parts: 1. explaining them with respect to the root [action]; 2. distinguishing them with respect to the preceding and following [stages].
16.34
First, regarding the explanation with respect to the root [action], the Śāstra states: "Among the ten courses of action, do the first seven courses of action definitely have both vijñapti and avijñapti? If not, how is it?" The verse says:
16.35
"Six bad [actions] definitely have avijñapti;
when done by oneself, and sexual misconduct, have both.
Seven wholesome [actions] born of undertaking have both;
those born of absorption have only avijñapti."
16.36
The commentary says: "Six bad [actions] definitely have avijñapti" refers to killing, taking what is not given, false speech, malicious speech, harsh speech, and frivolous speech; these six kinds definitely have avijñapti. Whether they have vijñapti is not fixed: if one dispatches another to act, when the root [action] is accomplished, because one has no vijñapti oneself, there is only avijñapti.
16.37
"When done by oneself, and sexual misconduct, have both" has two aspects: first, when done by oneself they have both; second, sexual misconduct has both. "When done by oneself they have both" means that when these six bad actions are done by oneself, they have both vijñapti and avijñapti. At the very moment vijñapti arises, the other person immediately dies, and so forth. The Śāstra states: "If they die later, it is the same as dispatching an emissary. For when the root [action] is accomplished, there is only avijñapti. (The explanation is: when one takes a sword to kill an enemy, at the very moment the sword descends, it is bodily vijñapti-karma. When the vijñapti arises, the enemy's life has not yet ended. After the vijñapti has arisen, the enemy's life only then ends; this is called 'dying later and so forth'. There is only avijñapti, because the vijñapti is already gone)." "Sexual misconduct has both" means that sexual misconduct necessarily has both vijñapti and avijñapti; for one must engage in it oneself to experience pleasure, and dispatching another cannot produce delight as doing it oneself does.
16.38
"Seven wholesome [actions] born of undertaking have both" means that the seven wholesome courses of action, if born from undertaking [precepts], necessarily possess both vijñapti and avijñapti, because the morality (śīla) born of undertaking must rely on vijñapti.
16.39
"Those born of absorption have only avijñapti" means that both meditative and path moralities are born based on absorption; these are only avijñapti, because they are born solely depending on mental power, and there is no vijñapti.
16.40
Hereafter, second, regarding the distinction based on preceding and following [stages], the Śāstra states: "Are the preparatory and subsequent [stages] like the root [action]? If not, how is it?" The verse says:
16.41
"The preparatory definitely has vijñapti;
avijñapti may or may not exist;
the subsequent is the reverse of this."
16.42
The commentary says: In "The preparatory definitely has vijñapti; avijñapti may or may not exist", the preparatory stage of a course of action definitely has vijñapti, but avijñapti is not fixed—it may or may not exist. If it arises from an earnest mind, there is avijñapti; if from a light mind, there is none.
16.43
"The subsequent is the reverse of this" means that the subsequent stage is the reverse of this preparatory stage: in the subsequent stage, avijñapti is definitely present, while vijñapti is not fixed; if action is performed in accordance with the preceding deed, there is vijñapti-karma, otherwise there is none. Question: "In this context, how are the preparatory, subsequent, and root stages established?" Answer: "First, among unwholesome actions, taking the initial act of killing: when a sheep-butcher is about to perform the killing, he first gives rise to the intention to kill and rises from his seat. Holding money, he goes to the sheep market, touches the sheep's body, negotiates the price, takes possession of it, leads it back, feeds and waters it. About to enter the slaughterhouse, holding a knife or stick in his hand, whether striking or stabbing, until life has not yet ended—all such actions are called the preparatory stage of killing. Consequent upon this vijñapti-karma, at the very moment its life ends, the vijñapti and avijñapti karma of this single moment constitute the root course of action of killing. Through two conditions, sentient beings are touched by the sin of killing of the root course of action: first, through the preparation; second, through the fulfillment of the fruit (the ending of life is called the fulfillment of the fruit). After this moment, the avijñapti-karma of killing continues to roll on without interruption; this is called the subsequent stage of killing. And at a later time, the moments of vijñapti-karma when flaying, butchering, washing, weighing, selling, boiling, eating, or praising its flavor—such are also called the subsequent stage of killing (what was said earlier about the subsequent stage having vijñapti-karma refers precisely to this text). The remaining six courses of action, as appropriate, differ in their three divisions and should be understood by analogy." The Śāstra states: "As soon as greed, hatred, and wrong view become present, they are immediately called root courses of action, so they have no distinction of preparatory and subsequent stages. (The explanation is: the seven beginning with killing encompass preparatory, root, and subsequent stages; the three beginning with greed are root only)."
16.44
Hereafter, second, the distinction based on the three roots. Within this: 1. explaining the unwholesome preparatory stage; 2. explaining the three stages of producing the wholesome; 3. explaining the culminating courses of action.
16.45
First, explaining the unwholesome preparatory stage, the Śāstra states: "Moreover, it is said in the sūtra: 'Monks, you should know that killing is of three kinds: first, born of greed; second, born of hatred; third, born of delusion. Up to wrong view, it is likewise threefold.' Here it should be explained: with what characteristic is killing said to be born of greed? The question regarding the rest is also like this (this is the question). Not all courses of action are culminated by all three roots; however, their preparatory stages are not the same as that (when the sūtra says the ten courses of action are born of the three roots, it is spoken with respect to the preparatory stage). How are they not the same?" The verse says:
16.46
"The preparatory arises from the three roots;
because they arise immediately after them,
greed and so forth are born from the three roots."
16.47
The commentary says: "The preparatory arises from the three roots" means that when the preparatory stage of an unwholesome course of action arises, each arises from the three unwholesome roots; this is spoken on the basis of the initial origination (when the previous sūtra says that killing and so forth arise from the three roots, it is spoken on the basis of the initial origination; the initial origination is precisely the preparatory stage). As for the preparatory stage of killing arising from greed: for instance, one initiates the preparation for killing out of desire to obtain the other's bodily parts, or to obtain wealth, or for sport and amusement. Arising from hatred: for instance, to eliminate an enemy, one gives rise to a furious mind and initiates the preparation for killing. Arising from delusion: for instance, when sacrificing a horse to the gods in an altar ritual, thinking this is righteous mind. Furthermore, kings and the like, relying on worldly laws, execute enemies thinking it creates great merit. Again, the Persians (Pārasīka) say: 'When parents are old and sick, killing them brings superior merit, because it frees them from hardship.' Furthermore, tīrthikas say that snakes, scorpions, and the like are poisonous and harmful to humans, so killing them incurs no sin; sheep, deer, cattle, and the like were originally intended for sacrificial offering, so killing them incurs no sin. Such acts initiate the preparation for killing from delusion.
16.48
As for the preparation for stealing arising from greed: it means initiating the preparation for stealing according to what one needs. Arising from hatred: it means desiring to eliminate an enemy, giving rise to a furious mind, and initiating the preparation for stealing. Arising from delusion: it means kings and the like confiscating the property of evil people, thinking it should be so by law. Furthermore, Brahmins say: 'In the beginning of the kalpa, the Great Brahma king bestowed worldly wealth upon all Brahmins; later, when the power of Brahmins grew weak, they were encroached upon and had their belongings enjoyed by inferior castes. Nowadays, when Brahmins enjoy others' worldly wealth in various ways, they are entirely using their own wealth, and there is no sin of stealing.' Such acts initiate the preparation for stealing from delusion.
16.49
As for the preparation for sexual misconduct arising from greed: it means giving rise to an afflicted attachment toward another's wife, or seeking wealth, and so on. Born of hatred: eliminating an enemy and venting anger, initiating the preparation for sexual misconduct. Born of delusion: for instance, the Persians praise practicing non-chaste conduct with mothers and the like. Furthermore, tīrthikas praise women and men observing the bovine ascetic vow, making no distinction between close and distant relations, copulating with whoever is encountered. Moreover, tīrthikas say: 'All women are like mortars, flowers, fruits, cooked food, steps, roads, bridges, and boats: they should be used in common by all people in the world.' Such acts initiate the preparation for sexual misconduct from delusion.
16.50
The four vocal courses of action, such as false speech, arising from greed and hatred, should be understood by analogy with the preceding. As for false speech arising from delusion: as a tīrthika treatise says, 'If a person speaks falsely for the sake of sport, during marriage, before women or a king, to save life, or to save wealth, there is no sin.' Furthermore, giving rise to false speech and so forth on account of wrong view—these preparatory stages are born of delusion. In addition, the Vedas and other heterodox treatises are subsumed under frivolous speech; if one says that reciting and studying them incurs no sin, such vocal preparation is born of delusion. Question: 'The seven beginning with killing all have preparatory stages born of the three roots; since greed, hatred, and wrong view have no separate preparatory stage, how can they be said to be born from the three roots?' Answer: 'The verse says: "Because they arise immediately after them, greed and so forth are born from the three roots." It means that immediately following those three unwholesome roots, the three beginning with greed arise; therefore it is said that greed and so forth are born from the three roots. That is to say, sometimes immediately following greed, the course of action of greed arises, and likewise from the other two; hatred and wrong view are likewise from the three. The preceding thought-moment is called the root, and the subsequent is called the course of action; because root and course have different meanings, the courses of action are said to be born from the three roots.'
16.51
Hereafter, second, explaining the three stages of producing the wholesome, the Śāstra states: "It has been explained that the unwholesome arises from the three roots; what about the wholesome?" The verse says:
16.52
"The wholesome in the three stages
all arise from the three wholesome roots."
16.53
The commentary says: The three stages of the ten wholesome courses of action—preparatory, root, and subsequent—because they are wholesome, are all born from the three wholesome roots, such as non-greed, because the three such as non-greed are necessarily associated [with them]; therefore, they all possess all three. 'The three wholesome stages' means that abstaining from the unwholesome preparatory, root, and subsequent stages is called the wholesome preparatory, root, and subsequent stages. Take, for example, when a novice (śrāmaṇera) receives full ordination: coming into the ordination hall, up to the single motion and two proclamations (jñaptidvitīyā karmavācanā) and so forth, are all called the preparatory stage of the wholesome course of action. When the third proclamation ends, the vijñapti and avijñapti karma in that single moment is called the root course of action. From this time onward, up to the declaration of the four resources (niśraya), and other vijñapti and avijñapti karma that roll on consecutively based on the earlier [ordination], are all called the subsequent stage. (The four resources are: always begging for food, sitting under trees, wearing rag-robes, and using fermented/discarded medicine. 'Other based on the earlier' refers to the body before death).
16.54
Hereafter, third, the culminating courses of action. The Śāstra states: "As stated earlier, not all courses of action are culminated by all three roots; which root culminates which course of action?" The verse says:
16.55
"Killing, harsh speech, and malice
are culminated entirely by hatred.
Stealing, sexual misconduct, and greed
are all culminated by greed.
Wrong view is culminated by delusion; the remainder are held to be through the three."
16.56
The commentary says: "Killing, harsh speech, and malice are culminated entirely by hatred": "culminated" means bringing to completion and conclusion; for hatred must be present to bring to completion and conclusion the three beginning with killing.
16.57
"Stealing, sexual misconduct, and greed are all culminated by greed" means that it is necessarily by means of a greedy mind that these three are completed.
16.58
Regarding "wrong view is brought to completion by delusion": it is because wrong view is accomplished through high-grade delusion.
16.59
Regarding "it is accepted that the remainder are [brought to completion] by all three": lying, malicious speech, and frivolous speech are called "the remainder." Each one of these, such as lying, is brought to completion by the three roots, because when greed, hatred, and the like are manifest, each is able to bring these three to completion.
16.60
Third, explaining the bases of the courses of action. The treatise states: "Upon what bases do the evil courses of action proceed?" The verse says:
16.61
"They arise on the bases of sentient beings, implements, name-and-form, / Name-bodies, and the like."
16.62
The explanation says: Here there are four clauses: first, the basis of sentient beings; second, the basis of implements; third, the basis of name-and-form; fourth, the basis of name-bodies and the like, where "and the like" includes phrases (pada) and syllables (vyañjana). Killing, harsh speech, and ill-will arise upon the basis of sentient beings. Although one might curse non-sentient things, the fault is light and it is not a course of action. Stealing, sexual misconduct, and covetousness arise upon the basis of implements. Whether sentient or non-sentient, whatever is an implement used and enjoyed by another is collectively called "implements." If one steals livestock and the like, it arises upon the basis of sentient beings. Stealing gold, silver, and the like arises upon the basis of non-sentient things. Sexual misconduct arises solely upon the basis of sentient beings. Covetousness applies to both sentient and non-sentient bases. Only wrong view arises upon the basis of name-and-form: "form" refers to the form skandha, while "name" refers to the remaining skandhas. This name-and-form encompasses all causes and effects; wrong view repudiates cause and effect, hence it arises upon name-and-form. The three of lying, malicious speech, and frivolous speech arise upon the basis of name-bodies and the like, which means that in practicing deception and the like one artfully constructs verbal expressions; therefore these three, lying and the rest, necessarily depend on names and the like.
16.63
Fourth, questions and answers distinguishing [courses of action]. Within this: 1. Having killed, it is yet not a course of action; 2. Another kills, yet it constitutes a course of action.
16.64
First, as for having killed, it is yet not a course of action: The treatise states: "If one undertakes the preparatory effort, definitely intending to kill another, but dies simultaneously with or before the one to be killed, does one also incur the guilt of a fundamental course of action?" The verse says:
16.65
"If one dies simultaneously or dies before, / There is no fundamental [guilt], because the basis is distinct."
16.66
The explanation says: "Dies simultaneously" means the killer and the one killed end their lives at the same time. "Dies before" means the killer dies first and the one killed dies later. "There is no fundamental [guilt]" means that in dying simultaneously or dying before, there is no fundamental course of action. "Because the basis is distinct" explains the reason why there is no course of action. If the killer dies simultaneously or dies before, since the life of the being to be killed still remains, it is not possible to cause that killer to incur the guilt of killing. When the one killed actually ends their life, because that killer has been born in a distinct basis—that is, having assumed another body, which is called a "distinct basis"—this distinct basis is not the support of the sin. Since it never undertook the preparatory effort for killing, that it should constitute the course of action of killing is logically untenable.
16.67
Second, another kills, yet it constitutes a course of action: The treatise states: "If many people gather as an army, desiring to kill an enemy or hunt beasts and the like, when any one among them kills a living being, who among them accomplishes the course of action of killing?" The verse says:
16.68
"In an army or the like, if they share the same undertaking, / All become like the agent."
16.69
The explanation says: In an army or the like, when one person commits the killing, the entire group accomplishes the course of action just like the one who actually carried out the killing, because they collectively agreed upon the single undertaking.
16.70
Fifth, explaining the characteristics of the courses of action. Here it is divided into six: 1. Explaining killing; 2. Explaining stealing; 3. Explaining sexual misconduct; 4. Explaining lying; 5. Explaining malicious speech and the like; 6. Explaining the mental courses of action.
16.71
First, explaining killing: The treatise states: "Now we should next determine the characteristics that constitute the courses of action: to what extent is it called 'taking life', up to to what extent is it called 'wrong view'? First, we distinguish the characteristics of taking life." The verse says:
16.72
"Taking life is through deliberate intention, / The notion of another, and killing without error."
16.73
The explanation says: Five conditions must be met for it to be called the course of action of taking life: 1. Giving rise to the intention to kill through deliberate intention. 2. Directed toward another sentient being. The verse says "another," meaning another sentient being. "Another" excludes oneself; killing oneself is not a course of action. "Sentient being" excludes non-sentient things; killing non-sentient things is not a course of action. 3. The notion of another sentient being. The verse says "notion," meaning the notion of another sentient being. "Another" excludes the notion of oneself; "sentient being" excludes the notion of non-sentient things. If one has the notion of oneself toward another, or the notion of a non-sentient thing toward a sentient being, killing in either case is not a course of action. 4. Making the preparatory effort of killing, such as holding a sword and approaching the other. 5. Killing without error, meaning killing only that particular one and not killing others indiscriminately. The word "killing" in the verse means, first, the preparatory effort of killing, and second, killing without error. Question: "The skandhas perish in every moment, naturally extinguishing moment by moment; how does killing occur?" Answer: "The breath of wind is called life, which operates dependent upon body and mind; if someone cuts it off so that it does not continue to arise again, like extinguishing the light of a lamp or the sound of a bell, this is called killing. Alternatively, the life-faculty is called life; cutting off life so that it does not continue is called killing, meaning that with an evil mind one interrupts another's life so that even a single thought-moment that ought to have arisen does not arise. Only this, and nothing else, is touched by the sin of killing. According to the two explanations above, non-continuation is called killing; one should understand that the killer only kills the future [moments]. The past has already ceased and the present does not abide, so one cannot speak of killing life [in them]; it is merely called killing because it obstructs the continuity of substance and function in the future. Another explanation: if based on cutting off the substance, it is strictly the future; if discussing the impairment of function, it also extends to the present, meaning causing the present skandhas to lack the causal efficacy to induce subsequent skandhas (there are these two explanations in the *Vibhāṣā*)."
16.74
Second, explaining stealing: The treatise states: "Having distinguished taking life, we shall now determine taking what is not given." The verse says:
16.75
"Taking what is not given is another's property, / Appropriated by force or stealth to belong to oneself."
16.76
The explanation says: The "without error," "deliberate intention," and "notion" of the previous verse carry forward into this subsequent section and are not repeated. Stealing is complete with five conditions: 1. Having previously aroused the deliberate intention of desiring to steal, which carries forward from the preceding. 2. Directed toward another's property; stealing one's own property is not a course of action. 3. Giving rise to the notion of another's property; the notion of one's own property is not a course of action. The third condition of "notion" carries forward from the preceding. 4. Either by force or by stealth, making the preparatory effort of stealing. 5. Taking without error, causing it to belong to oneself; "belong to oneself" is present in the verse, while "without error" carries forward from the preceding. Only when these five conditions are met does it constitute a course of action.
16.77
Third, explaining sexual misconduct: The treatise states: "Having determined taking what is not given, we shall now determine sexual misconduct." The verse says:
16.78
"Sexual misconduct is of four kinds: / Engaging in what should not be engaged in."
16.79
The explanation says: In total there are four kinds of engaging in what should not be engaged in: 1. With an improper person, meaning engaging with another's wife, or father, or mother, or relatives of father or mother, up to an object of desire protected by a king. 2. In an improper orifice, meaning engaging with one's own wife in the mouth or other orifices. 3. In an improper place, meaning in a monastery, near a caitya, or in an open area. 4. At an improper time, meaning during pregnancy, while nursing a child, or while observing the fasting precepts; even if with one's own wife or concubine, it still constitutes sexual misconduct. Regarding committing unchaste conduct with a nun: according to one explanation, one incurs the transgression on the side of the king, because he does not tolerate or allow it; according to a second explanation, even with one's own wife or concubine one should not violate them while observing the fasting precepts, so how much less one who has gone forth? By arguing from the grave to the light, any assault constitutes the transgression of sexual misconduct. If one violates an unmarried maiden, one incurs the transgression against the party to whom she was betrothed. If she was not yet betrothed to another, it is against the person who protects her; this and all remaining cases are incurred against the king.
16.80
Fourth, explaining false speech: 1. Explaining false speech; 2. Explaining what is seen, heard, and so forth.
16.81
First, explaining false speech: The treatise states: "Having spoken of sexual misconduct, we shall now determine false speech." The verse says:
16.82
"Uttering words with a defiled, contrary notion, / When the meaning is understood, is false speech."
16.83
The explanation says: Four conditions must be met to constitute the course of action of false speech: 1. Uttering words with a contrary notion toward the object regarding which one deceives, such as saying one did not see when one saw. 2. The one deceived understands the meaning of what was said, being in mutual comprehension. 3. Arousing a defiled mind. 4. Being without error. The first three are present in the verse; "without error" carries forward from the preceding. If the one deceived does not understand the meaning of the words, it is subsumed under frivolous speech and does not constitute the course of action of false speech.
16.84
Second, explaining what is seen, heard, and so forth: The treatise states: "The sūtra explains that statements are in brief of sixteen kinds: namely, speaking of what was not seen, not heard, not sensed, and not known as having actually been seen, and so forth; or, among what was seen, heard, sensed, and known, speaking of it as not seen, and so forth. These eight kinds are called non-noble speech. If regarding what was not seen up to not known, one speaks of it as not seen, and so forth; or regarding what was seen up to what was known, one speaks of it as actually seen, and so forth, these eight kinds are called noble speech. What are the characteristics of what is seen and the rest?" The verse says:
16.85
"What is verified by eye, ear, and mental consciousness, / Along with the other three, / Are respectively called / What is seen, heard, known, and sensed."
16.86
The explanation says: If an object is verified by visual consciousness, it is called "what is seen," meaning visible forms. If an object is verified by auditory consciousness, it is called "what is heard," meaning sounds. If an object is verified by mental consciousness, it is called "what is known," meaning the object of phenomena (dharmas). If an object is verified by the three consciousnesses of nose, tongue, and body, it is called "what is sensed," meaning odors, tastes, and tangibles.
16.87
The verse saying "the other three" refers precisely to the three consciousnesses of nose, tongue, and body. Visible forms, sounds, and phenomena all partake of the three moral natures; only odors, tastes, and tangibles are exclusively indeterminate in nature. Because the indeterminate nature is like the dead without sensation, what verifies them is specifically given the name "sensed." According to the Sautrāntika school: if it is the five objects of form and the rest verified by direct perception of the five sense faculties, it is called "what is seen." If it is the six objects heard from others by tradition, it is called "what is heard." If one exercises one's own mind to infer by various reasonings the six admitted objects, it is called "what is sensed." If one verifies the six objects by direct perception of the mind, it is called "what is known." Among the five objects, each admits the arising of all four types of verbal expressions—seen, heard, sensed, and known; regarding the sixth object, there are three, excluding "seen." (The gloss says: the sixth object refers to the object of phenomena; it lacks "seen" and has the three of heard, sensed, and known. What is called direct perception of mental consciousness refers to the five objects verified by the mental consciousness arising directly after the five consciousnesses, and the six objects directly verified by mental consciousness in concentration; this is called direct-perception mental consciousness.) The treatise states: "Former masters have said: 'What is directly seen by the eye is called what is seen. What is heard from others by tradition is called what is heard. Whatever is conceived by exercising one's own mind is called what is sensed. What is internally experienced by oneself and verified by oneself is called what is known.'" (The gloss says: "internally experienced by oneself" refers to the four objects verified by auditory, olfactory, gustatory, and bodily consciousness, which are called internally experienced; "verified by oneself" refers to the six objects verified by direct-perception mental consciousness. Based on the above, one should infer that the object of visible form possesses all four verbal expressions, while the remaining five, sounds and the rest, have only three verbal expressions, excluding what is seen. One should carefully reflect upon this.)
16.88
Fifth, explaining the three kinds of speech: malicious speech and the like. The treatise states: "Having determined false speech, we shall now determine the remaining three kinds of speech." The verse says:
16.89
"Speech that breaks another with a defiled mind / Is called malicious speech. / Unpleasant speech is harsh speech. / All defiled speech is frivolous speech. / Others say it is defiled speech distinct from the three: / Flattery, singing, heretical treatises, and the like."
16.90
The explanation says: Four conditions must be met to constitute malicious speech. As for "speech that breaks another with a defiled mind," there are four conditions here: 1. A defiled mind. 2. Uttering speech to break another; whether the other is broken or not, it all constitutes malicious speech. 3. The hearer understands the meaning of what was said, being in mutual comprehension. 4. Being without error. The latter two conditions carry forward from the preceding.
16.91
Regarding "disagreeable harsh speech," it also requires four conditions: first, a defiled mind; second, uttering disagreeable words that insult another; third, [the other] understanding the meaning; fourth, not being mistaken. This is called harsh speech. The three characters "defiled-mind speech" are all carried over from the first line; it should say: "disagreeable speech with a defiled mind is named harsh speech." Understanding the meaning and not being mistaken are also carried over from before.
16.92
Regarding "all defiled idle chatter," all speech from a defiled mind is called idle chatter, because words uttered from defilement are all idle chatter. In the verse, "speech" is added to "all defiled," so the character "speech" is carried over from the first line. This idle chatter is accomplished through two conditions: first, a defiled mind; second, the uttered speech.
16.93
Regarding "others say [idle chatter is] defiled [speech] other than the three: flattery, songs, false treatises, and so on," other masters say: "Speech from a defiled mind other than the preceding three kinds of speech, namely lying and so forth, is called idle chatter—namely, flattery, songs, and so forth. 'Flattery' refers to adulation, such as a monk uttering flattering words through wrong livelihood. 'Songs' refers to singing, such as teasing one another through recitation and singing, or entertainers. 'False treatises' refers to words maintained through incorrect views. 'And so on' includes sighs of grief from a defiled mind, as well as worldly words of frivolous elaboration. All of these are idle chatter. When a wheel-turning king appears in the world, although there is singing, it arises from a mind of renunciation and is not truly a defiled mind." Other masters say: "At such times, the singing at weddings is too slight an offense to constitute a karmapatha."
16.94
Next is the sixth part, explaining the karmapathas of mind. The treatise says: "Having already analyzed lying and the rest, we should now analyze the three of the mind." The verse says:
16.95
"Coveting others' wealth with evil desire, malice that hates sentient beings, / and views repudiating good, evil, and so on are named the karmapathas of wrong view."
16.96
The explanation says: "Coveting others' wealth with evil desire" means conceiving an improper desire for another's wealth and generating a mind bent on taking it by force or stealth; such evil desire is named the karmapatha of covetousness.
16.97
"Hating sentient beings" means wishing to carry out harmful deeds against others; such malice is named the karmapatha of malice. If one is angry at one's own body or angry at insentient things, the fault is too slight to be a karmapatha. The covetousness and so forth of a wheel-turning king or of Uttarakuru are slight and are none of them karmapathas.
16.98
Regarding "views repudiating good, evil, and so on," as the sūtra states: "There is no giving, no affection, no sacrifice, no good conduct, no evil conduct, no fruit and ripening of good and evil deeds; there is no this world, no that world, no father, no mother, no apparitionally born sentient beings, no world, no śramaṇas or brāhmaṇas, no arhats." The explanation says: In this sūtra, "no giving" means there is no merit in giving. "No affection" means there is no merit in morality. "No sacrifice" means there is no merit in cultivation. "No this world" means there is no present [world]. "No that world" means there are no past or future worlds. The Vibhāṣā says: "Since the present world is already seen, why does it say it does not exist? Answer: The tīrthikas are blinded by ignorance; though they can see it with their eyes, they still repudiate it as non-existent." One should not blame the eyeless or the foolishly blind for falling into a pit. Alternatively, "no this world" does not deny the substance of the world, but only denies cause and effect: that there is no this world as the cause of another world, and no this world as the fruit of another world. "No father and mother" denies that father and mother have the karma to produce a child. "No giving, and so forth" is the wrong view that denies causes. "No fruit, and so forth" is the wrong view that denies fruits. "No śramaṇas, and so forth" is the wrong view that denies the noble ones. When the verse says "repudiating good, evil, and so on," it means the wrong view that denies causes, and "and so on" includes denying fruits and denying the noble ones.
First 98 of 100 passages. Read on
Linked texts (1)
- 俱舍論頌疏論本 — Classical Chinese