俱舍論頌疏論本 18
English (machine translation) 18
- Language
- English
18.1
From here, the second [section] explains karmic obstructions in particular. Within this, there are six divisions: first, explaining the entity of karmic obstructions; second, explaining schism in the Saṅgha; third, explaining the conditions for completing the heinous [crimes]; fourth, explaining the definiteness of the preparatory stages; fifth, explaining the great retribution for grave guilt; sixth, explaining the counterparts to the immediate [crimes].
18.2
Below, the first [division] identifies the entity of karmic obstructions. The Śāstra states: "Among the three grave obstructions explained previously, the five immediate karmas were said to be the entity of karmic obstructions. What are the entities of the five immediate karmas?" The verse states:
18.3
"Among these five immediate [crimes],
Four are bodily and one is vocal karma;
Three are killing, one is deceitful speech,
And one is a preparatory act to killing."
18.4
Explanation: The first line states the topic. "Four are bodily and one is vocal karma": killing one's father, killing one's mother, killing an arhat, and shedding the blood of a Buddha—these four are bodily karma. Causing a schism in the Saṅgha—this one is vocal karma.
18.5
"Three are killing, one is deceitful speech": killing one's parents and killing an arhat are called the three killings. The deceitful speech that causes a schism in the Saṅgha is called the one deceitful speech. These four are fundamental courses of karma.
18.6
"One preparatory action of taking life" means that shedding the blood of the Buddha is a preparatory sin of taking life; because the Tathāgata's body cannot be killed, there is no fundamental [act of murder]. Question: "Splitting the Saṅgha is false speech (mṛṣāvāda); why is it called 'splitting the Saṅgha'?" Answer: "The cause receives the name of the effect: false speech is the cause and the schism of the Saṅgha is the effect. That is, because the Saṅgha is only split due to false speech, or because this false speech is able to split the Saṅgha, it is called 'splitting the Saṅgha,' taking its name from its function."
18.7
From here, second, explaining splitting the Saṅgha, divided into five points: first, explaining the essence and attainment of the schism of the Saṅgha; second, explaining the person capable of splitting, attainment, time, and place; third, explaining the full conditions that constitute splitting the Saṅgha; fourth, explaining the difference between splitting the two Saṅghas; fifth, explaining the times when the wheel of the Dharma cannot be split.
18.8
First, explaining the essence and attainment of the schism of the Saṅgha: The treatise says: "If so, what is the essence of the schism of the Saṅgha? Who attains it—the one who splits it or those who are split?" The verse says:
18.9
"The schism of the Saṅgha is disharmony, / a formation not associated with mind,
Of the unobscured-unrecorded nature, / attained by the Saṅgha that is split."
18.10
Explanation: "The schism of the Saṅgha is disharmony" means that the essence of the schism of the Saṅgha is the nature of disharmony. This disharmony has non-attainment (aprāpti) as its essence with respect to harmony. That is, when the Saṅgha is not yet split, the community is harmonious together, and it is conceded that there is the noble path whereby one can enter into nobility. Once the Saṅgha has been split, the nature of harmony is lost, and a non-attainment arises with respect to harmony, which is called disharmony. Therefore, the nature of disharmony has non-attainment as its essence with respect to harmony.
18.11
"A formation not associated with mind, of the unobscured-unrecorded nature": this disharmony is subsumed under the skandha of formations not associated with the mind (citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra) and is of an unrecorded (avyākṛta) nature. Question: "Since it is of an unrecorded nature, how can it constitute an immediate retribution (ānantarya)?" Answer: "A schism of the Saṅgha like this arises caused by false speech; because false speech is [an act of] immediate retribution, it is said that the schism of the Saṅgha is the fruit of immediate retribution, not the essence of immediate retribution. The cause receives the name of the effect; thus the [cause of] immediate retribution is spoken of under the name of 'splitting the Saṅgha.'"
18.12
"Attained by the Saṅgha that is split" means that the schism of the Saṅgha is unrecorded and is not attained by the one who splits it; this schism of the Saṅgha is attained only by the community of the Saṅgha that is split.
18.13
From here, second, explaining the person capable of splitting, attainment, time, and place: The treatise says: "What does this person capable of splitting attain? Where and for how long does the maturation of splitting the Saṅgha [occur]?" The verse says:
18.14
"The one who splits attains only / this sin of false speech;
It ripens in the Avīci [hell] for one kalpa; / as the sin increases, the suffering increases."
18.15
Explanation: The first two lines explain the essence of the sin, the next line explains the place and time, and the last line explains the increase in suffering. "The one who splits attains only this sin of false speech": the one who splits the Saṅgha, Devadatta, attains the sin of splitting the Saṅgha, which has false speech as its nature. That is, the vocal intimation (vijñapti) and non-intimation (avijñapti) born simultaneously with splitting the Saṅgha constitute the essence of this sin.
18.16
"It ripens in the Avīci [hell] for one kalpa" means that this must undergo suffering for one kalpa in the Avīci Great Hell; the other acts of immediate retribution do not necessarily result in birth in the Avīci hell. Question: "If one commits multiple acts of immediate retribution, all of which ripen in the next life, how can multiple acts of immediate retribution jointly induce a single life?" Answer: "The verse says: 'as the sin increases, the suffering increases.' In accordance with the increase of that sin, the suffering also increases in severity. That is, due to multiple acts of immediate retribution, multiple intense sufferings in hell are induced, fully experiencing two, three, four, or five times the weight of suffering."
18.17
From here, third, explaining the full conditions that constitute splitting the Saṅgha: The treatise says: "Who can split whom, where? When does the split occur? How long does the split last?" The verse says:
18.18
"A monk of views and pure conduct, / splits fools in another place;
When they accept another teacher and path, / it is called a split; it does not last overnight."
18.19
Explanation: "A monk": it must be a fully ordained monk (bhikṣu) who is able to split the Saṅgha; it definitely cannot be a householder, a nun (bhikṣuṇī), or the like. "Of views and pure conduct": "views" means a practitioner of views, not a practitioner of attachment. "Pure" means one who observes the precepts, not a precept-breaker. For the words of a precept-breaker lack authority.
18.20
"Splits [...] in another place": it must be split in another place, not facing the World-Honoured One, because the speech of the Tathāgatas is awe-inspiring and solemn, and facing [him] one definitely lacks the power. (As for "in another place," this refers to inside Mount Gayāśīrṣa, where Devadatta split the Saṅgha, approximately three or four li north of Vulture Peak, while the Buddha was at Vulture Peak.) "Fools": one splits only ordinary beings (pṛthagjana), not noble ones, because all noble ones have realized the nature of phenomena (dharmatā). Some say that those who have attained patience (kṣānti) also cannot be split. The former explanation states that those who have not yet attained nobility are called fools; the latter explanation states that those who have not yet attained patience are called fools. The verse's word "fools" encompasses both of these meanings.
18.21
"When they accept another teacher and path, it is called a split": "accept" means faith—having faith in a teacher other than the Buddha, and having faith in teachings other than what the Buddha spoke. At this time it is called splitting the wheel of the Dharma. That is, Devadatta made this statement: "I am the Great Teacher, not the śramaṇa Gautama; the five dharmas spoken by me are the path, not the eightfold path spoken by Gautama." When foolish monks believe that Devadatta is their Great Teacher and believe that those five dharmas are the path to liberation, at the exact moment this faith arises, the wheel of the Dharma is split. As for the "five dharmas," the *Nyāyānusāra* says: "First, one should not consume milk and the like (and the like includes curd, fresh butter, clarified butter, and ghee); second, abstinence from meat; third, abstinence from salt; fourth, one should wear uncut garments; fifth, one should reside in a monastery at the edge of a village." The *Vibhāṣā* says: "First, to wear rags from the dust heap for one's whole life; second, to always beg for food for one's whole life; third, to eat in one sitting for one's whole life; fourth, to always stay out in the open for one's whole life; fifth, to not eat any taste of meat, salt, clarified butter, milk, and the like for one's whole life." "It does not last overnight": on that night they will definitely be reconciled; it does not persist overnight. That is, the split occurs at dusk, and by the third watch of the night they are reconciled. In this way it is called splitting the Saṅgha of the wheel of the Dharma. Because it can obstruct the wheel of the noble path, it is called splitting the wheel of the Dharma; because it destroys the harmony of the Saṅgha, it is called splitting the Saṅgha.
18.22
From here, fourth, explaining the difference between splitting the two Saṅghas: The treatise says: "In which continent and by how many people is the Saṅgha of the wheel of the Dharma split? In which continent and by how many people is the Saṅgha of monastic acts (karman) split?" The verse says:
18.23
"Only in Jambudvīpa, by nine or more, / can the Saṅgha of the wheel of the Dharma be split;
Splitting only the Saṅgha of monastic acts / extends to three continents, by eight or more."
18.24
Explanation: "In Jambudvīpa": only in Jambudvīpa can the wheel of the Dharma be split, because there is a Buddha there. "Nine or more": there must be nine persons; that is, eight monks divided into two assemblies to be what is split—four being the orthodox assembly and four being the heterodox assembly. The one capable of splitting is the ninth; hence the assembly at its minimum must consist of nine persons. The word "or more" is to clarify that there is no upper limit to having more.
18.25
"Extends to three continents, by eight or more": splitting only [the Saṅgha of] monastic acts (karman) extends across three continents, because the noble Dharma exists [there]. At the minimum there are eight persons, and more is also without limit; that is, within a single boundary (sīmā) the Saṅgha is divided into two factions performing monastic acts separately, and therefore eight persons are required. There is no prohibition against exceeding this; hence it says "eight or more."
18.26
From here, fifth, explaining the times when the wheel of the Dharma cannot be split: The treatise says: "At what times is there no splitting of the wheel of the Dharma?" The verse says:
18.27
"At the beginning, at the end, before the boil, before the pair, / after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, and before fixing the boundary:
At such six positions, / there is no splitting of the Saṅgha of the wheel of the Dharma."
18.28
Explanation: "At the beginning" means not long after the World-Honoured One turned the wheel of the Dharma. "At the end" means when the Buddha is about to enter parinirvāṇa. During these two times, because the Saṅgha is of one flavor, it cannot be broken. "Before the boil": "boil" means an ulcerous boil; heterodox morality is a boil on orthodox morality, and heterodox views are a boil on orthodox views. When the boil has not yet arisen, it is called "before the boil," because the split is only possible once the two boils have arisen. (The five dharmas are heterodox morality; slandering the eight noble paths as not the path is heterodox view.) "Before the pair": Maudgalyāyana was foremost in calming (śamatha); Śāriputra was foremost in insight (vipaśyanā); they were called the supreme pair. When the supreme pair of calming and insight had not yet arrived, it was called "before the pair." It requires them to reconcile the Saṅgha; by the nature of things, it is quickly reunited because of them.
18.29
"After the Buddha's parinirvāṇa": after the Buddha passes into nirvāṇa, there is no true Great Teacher to stand in opposition. "Before fixing the boundary": because the Saṅgha cannot be divided into two factions within a single boundary (sīmā). In the above six positions, there is no splitting of the wheel of the Dharma.
18.30
From here, section three of the main text, explaining the conditions of the acts of immediate retribution: The treatise says: "Let us set aside peripheral discussions; we should distinguish the conditions of the acts of immediate retribution." The verse says:
18.31
"Abandoning and destroying the fields of kindness and virtue; / changing gender also constitutes the immediate sin.
'Mother' refers to [her] from whose blood one came; / in error and the like it is absent or present;
Drawing the Buddha's blood with intent to strike, / or killing a subsequent non-learner, does not constitute it."
18.32
Explanation: "Abandoning and destroying the fields of kindness and virtue": because one abandons the field of kindness and destroys the field of virtue, an act of immediate retribution is constituted. Parents are the field of kindness, being the source from which one's body arose. The Buddha and arhats are called fields of virtue, meaning that they are endowed with supreme virtues and are also able to generate supreme merits in all sentient beings. Because one destroys the basis of virtue, an act of immediate retribution is constituted.
18.33
Question: "If the parents' gender changes, does killing them constitute an act of immediate retribution?" Answer: "The verse says: 'changing gender also constitutes the immediate sin'; because the physical body upon which they rely is one and the same, killing them must constitute an act of immediate retribution."
18.34
Question: "Suppose a woman's embryo (kalala) falls out, and another woman takes it, places it into her birth canal, and gives birth to a child: which one does killing constitute the immediate sin of matricide?" Answer: "The verse says: '"Mother" refers to [her] from whose blood one came.' 'From whose blood' means the original birth mother. Killing her constitutes the immediate sin, because she is the source from which the body arose. Although one kills the stepmother, there is no immediate sin. In all that one undertakes, one should consult the stepmother, because she nurtured your body."
18.35
"In error and the like it is absent or present": "absent" means intending to kill parents with an act of immediate retribution but mistakenly killing another person, or intending to kill another person but mistakenly killing parents—neither constitutes an act of immediate retribution. "And the like" includes killing another person without an intimation (vijñapti). For example, if a person initiates a single preparatory action to kill the mother and another person, there are two non-intimations (avijñapti), but the intimation is only one. There is an intimation only with respect to the mother, and no intimation with respect to the other person, because the power of karma of immediate retribution is strong, so it must have an intimation. Venerable Ghoṣaka says: 'There are two intimations; because intimation is aggregated, constituted by subtle atoms, the atoms of intimation are each distinct. It is due to the karmic intimation that the other's life is severed; therefore there must be an intimation.' 'Or present': if one kills an arhat without the notion of an arhat, having formed a definite intention to kill that body without differentiation, there is also the sin of immediate retribution; hence it says 'or present.' If one kills one's father, and the father is an arhat, one incurs a single sin of immediate retribution, because the body is one.
18.36
"Drawing the Buddha's blood with intent to strike, or killing a subsequent non-learner, does not constitute it": "does not constitute it" means there is no act of immediate retribution. This word "does not" applies to two places: first, if one does not produce an intention to kill, but only produces an intention to strike, drawing blood from the Buddha's body does not constitute the sin of immediate retribution; second, killing a subsequent non-learner also does not constitute an immediate retribution—meaning that at the time of the killing [the victim] had not yet become a non-learner (aśaikṣa), and only when on the verge of death did he become a non-learner, which is called a 'subsequent non-learner.'"
18.37
From here, fourth, explaining that the preparatory actions definitely entail immediate retribution: The treatise says: "If one commits an act of immediate retribution, when the preparatory action is definite, established and unalterable, can there be detachment from defilement and attainment of the noble fruit?" The verse says:
18.38
"When the preparatory action of committing an immediate sin is definite, / there is no detachment from defilement or attainment of the fruit."
18.39
Explanation: If the preparatory action of the five acts of immediate retribution is definitely to be accomplished, in the interim it is definite that there is no detachment from defilement or attainment of the fruit.
18.40
From here, fifth, explaining the greatest sin and the greatest fruit: The treatise says: "Among all evil actions and karmas of immediate retribution, which sin is the heaviest? Among all sublime actions and mundane wholesome karmas, which has the greatest fruit?" The verse says:
18.41
"The false speech of splitting the Saṅgha / is the greatest among sins;
The intention that induces the peak of existence / has the greatest fruit among mundane wholesome deeds."
18.42
Explanation: Regarding 'schism is the greatest crime': Devadatta, knowing what was Dharma and what was non-Dharma, uttered false speech with the desire to cause a schism in the Sangha, which is the greatest sin. This is because it damages and destroys the Buddha's Dharmakāya and obstructs the worldly path to heavenly rebirth and liberation. That is to say, once the Sangha is divided, until it is reconciled, for everyone in the world, entry into the path, attainment of fruits, detachment from defilements, and the destruction of the outpourings are all blocked; practices such as cultivating absorption, reciting texts, and contemplation cease; the wheel of the Dharma does not turn in the trichiliocosm; and the bodies and minds of devas, humans, nāgas, and so forth are thrown into turmoil. Therefore, it incurs a ripening of one eon in the Avīci [hell]. Among the remaining four inexpiables: the fifth is the next heaviest, the third is next, the first is lighter, and the second is the lightest, because [the breach of] gratitude and so forth is less.
18.43
Regarding 'volition that causes the summit of existence has the greatest fruit among worldly goods': 'Volition' is karma. That is, the karmic volition that causes the summit of existence has the greatest fruit among worldly goods, because it brings about eighty thousand great eons [of lifespan]. In terms of the fruit of ripening, karma of the summit of existence is superior. In terms of the fruit of disconnection, the volition associated with the vajropamasamādhi can attain a great fruit, because all fetters are severed for the sake of this fruit; it is to exclude this that the text says 'worldly goods.'
18.44
Next is the sixth [section], explaining what is similar to the inexpiable. The treatise says: 'Is it only inexpiable sins that definitely lead to rebirth in hell (a question)? Do those similar to inexpiables also definitely lead to rebirth there? Other masters say: "They do not lead to an immediately following rebirth (the commentary explains: This is the answer; 'not leading to an immediately following rebirth' means that those similar to inexpiables do not plunge into hell in the very next rebirth; that is, they extend to what is to be experienced in subsequent lives)." What are those similar in kind?' The verse says:
18.45
'Defiling one's mother or a female aśaikṣa, killing a bodhisattva abiding in certainty,
And [killing] a noble śaikṣa, seizing the conditions for the Sangha's concord,
And destroying a stūpa—these are similar to the inexpiables.'
18.46
Explanation: 'Defiling one's mother and defiling a female aśaikṣa' are similar in kind to the sin of matricide. Killing a bodhisattva abiding in certainty (a bodhisattva cultivating the marks for a hundred eons) is similar in kind to patricide. Killing a noble śaikṣa is similar in kind to killing an arhat. Seizing the conditions for the Sangha's concord (the Sangha's requisites and property) is similar in kind to causing a schism in the Sangha. Destroying a stūpa (which is translated as 'lofty and prominent') is similar in kind to shedding the Buddha's blood.
18.47
Next is the fifth [section], explaining the obstacles at three times. The treatise says: 'There is ripening karma that can greatly act as an obstacle at three times. As for the three times,' the verse says:
18.48
'About to attain forbearance, non-return, and
Arhatship, karma acts as an obstacle.'
18.49
Explanation: When one is at the summit stage and about to attain the stage of forbearance, karma leading to the bad destinies greatly acts as an obstacle, because forbearance transcends that ripening plane (which is the fruit of the hells). It is like a person about to leave the country where he originally lived, and all his creditors greatly obstruct him. When one is about to attain the fruit of non-return, karma bound to the desire realm greatly acts as an obstacle, except for karma to be experienced in the present life (since a non-returner experiences karma of the desire realm in the present life, it is excluded). When one is about to attain the fruit of arhatship, karma of the form and formless realms greatly acts as an obstacle, also excluding what is to be experienced in the present life. The two similes are as before.
18.50
Next, in the sixth major section, the marks of a bodhisattva are explained, which is divided into four: first, explaining the stage of abiding in certainty; second, explaining the karma of cultivating the marks; third, explaining offerings to the Buddhas; and fourth, explaining the perfection of the six pāramitās.
18.51
Below, the first explains the stage of abiding in certainty. The treatise says: 'As mentioned above, from what stage does a bodhisattva abiding in certainty obtain the designation "abiding in certainty"? And why is it called "certainty"?' The verse says:
18.52
'From cultivating the karma of the wondrous marks, the bodhisattva obtains the designation of certainty:
Born in good destinies, noble families, endowed with male [faculties], mindfulness, and steadfastness.'
18.53
Explanation: 'From cultivating the karma of the wondrous marks' means that beyond the three incalculable eons, over one hundred great eons cultivating the karmic fruit of the thirty-two wondrous marks, one obtains the designation of abiding in certainty. There are six meanings by which this is called 'certainty': First, certainty of good destinies, always being born among humans and devas, not in bad destinies. Second, certainty of birth in noble families, always being born in families of Brahmins, Kṣatriyas, wealthy householders, or great Brahmins (meaning distinguished clans). Third, certainty of complete faculties, always possessing superior faculties in noble families without defect or deficiency. Fourth, certainty of being male, always receiving a male body and not being female. Fifth, certainty of mindfulness, always remembering past lives. Sixth, certainty of steadfastness, never falling back in wholesome actions that one performs; that is, in benefiting and gladdening sentient beings, when others come to oppose him, he is able to endure it all with a mind free of weariness. It is as when people say there is a 'priceless servant' (dāsa, meaning a servant without a price, called a priceless servant because one need not buy him with money). One should know that this expression designates that bodhisattva who, through long cultivation of unconditioned great compassion (called unconditioned because it arises even without external conditions), is naturally and constantly bound to others, viewing all sentient beings universally as identical to himself, or constantly viewing himself as their servant. That is to say, in all things difficult to seek, he can endure them, and in all oppressive toils, he can bear them.
18.54
Next is the second [section], explaining the karma of cultivating the marks. The treatise says: 'What are the characteristics of the karma of cultivating the wondrous marks?' The verse says:
18.55
'In Jambūdvīpa, as a male facing a Buddha, thoughts of the Buddha produced by contemplation;
Cultivated only in the remaining hundred eons, each adorned with a hundred merits.'
18.56
Explanation: 'In Jambūdvīpa, as a male facing a Buddha': Cultivating the karma of the wondrous marks belongs only to humans of Jambūdvīpa, because their intelligence is sharp. It requires a male body, because he has already transcended womanhood. 'Facing a Buddha' means only in the direct presence of a Buddha.
18.57
'Thoughts of the Buddha produced by contemplation': This karma of the wondrous marks gives rise to volitions by contemplating the Buddha, and is subsumed under what is produced by contemplation.
18.58
'Cultivated only in the remaining hundred eons': Beyond the three incalculables, in the remaining one hundred great eons one cultivates the karma of the wondrous marks; such is the regular principle for all Buddhas on the causal path. Only Śākyamuni Buddha, with blazing vigor, was able to surpass nine eons, completing the cultivation of the wondrous marks in ninety-one eons.
18.59
'Each adorned with a hundred merits': The karma of each of the thirty-two marks is adorned with a hundred merits; one hundred wholesome volitions are called 'a hundred merits.' For example, when cultivating the mark of flat soles: first, fifty volitions arise to refine and purify the physical vessel; next, one volition arises to directly draw it forth; finally, fifty volitions arise to bring it to completion. It is just as a farmer first prepares the ridges and furrows, then casts the seeds, and finally covers and irrigates them with manure and water. Cultivating the feet being thus, the other marks are also like this. The 'fifty volitions' mean that the ten wholesome courses of karma each have five volitions. Taking the first, the karma of non-killing, it has five volitions: first, the volition of abstaining from killing; second, the volition of encouraging others to the path; third, the volition of praise; fourth, the volition of rejoicing; fifth, the volition of dedication. This should also be known up to right view; these are called the fifty volitions. Question: 'What is the measure of one merit?' Answer: 'Some say that, excluding only the bodhisattvas close to Buddhahood, the karma resulting in the wealth and happiness of all remaining sentient beings is called the measure of one merit. Some say that karma causing a great trichiliocosm is the measure of one merit. Some say that its measure is boundless and known only to a Buddha.'
18.60
Next is the third [section], explaining the offerings to the Buddhas, which is divided into two: first, explaining the number of Buddhas; second, explaining the Buddhas encountered.
18.61
First, explaining the number of Buddhas: The treatise says: 'In the past, when our Great Master was a bodhisattva, how many Buddhas did he make offerings to during the three incalculable eons?' The verse says:
18.62
'During the three incalculable eons, he made offerings to seventy thousand each,
And, in succession, made offerings to
Five, six, and seven thousand Buddhas.'
18.63
Explanation: In the first incalculable eon, he made offerings to seventy-five thousand Buddhas; in the second incalculable eon, he made offerings to seventy-six thousand Buddhas; in the third incalculable eon, he made offerings to seventy-seven thousand Buddhas.
18.64
Next is the second [section], explaining the Buddhas encountered. The treatise says: 'As each of the three incalculable eons was completed, and at the initial arising of the aspiration, which Buddha did he encounter?' The verse says:
18.65
'At the completion of the three incalculable eons, in reverse order he encountered Vipaśyin,
Dīpaṃkara, and Ratnaśikhin; at first, Śākyamuni.'
18.66
Explanation: 'In reverse order' means from later to earlier. That is, at the completion of the third incalculable eon, he encountered Vipaśyin Buddha. At the completion of the second eon, he encountered Dīpaṃkara Buddha. At the completion of the first eon, he encountered Ratnaśikhin Buddha. When he first gave rise to the aspiration, he encountered Śākyamuni and made the great vow: 'May I become a Buddha, exactly like the present World-Honoured One.' That Buddha, the World-Honoured One, appeared in the world in a declining eon, and his true Dharma remained for one thousand years; therefore, our present Tathāgata is in every respect identical to him.
18.67
Next is the fourth [section], explaining the perfection of the six pāramitās. The treatise says: 'At which stages did our Śākyamuni bring the practice of which pāramitā to completion?' The verse says:
18.68
'Giving universally out of compassion alone, having his body mutilated without anger,
Praising Tiṣya Buddha, and next [attaining] unsurpassed bodhi:
The six pāramitās, at these four stages,
One, two, another one, and two, were brought to completion in that order.'
18.69
Explanation: 'Giving universally out of compassion alone' explains generosity. When the bodhisattva gave away everything universally, even his eyes and marrow, without stinginess, solely out of a mind of compassion and not seeking an exalted birth (rebirth among humans and devas), at this point the practice of the generosity pāramitā was brought to completion.
18.70
'Having his body mutilated without anger' explains the two [pāramitās] of morality and patience. When the bodhisattva had his limbs mutilated and his mind had not the slightest anger, at this point his cultivation of morality and patience was brought to completion. Not retaliating when his body was mutilated was the perfection of pure morality. Because his mind was without anger, patience was brought to completion.
18.71
Regarding 'praising Tiṣya Buddha' (which is translated as 'perfection'): This explains vigor. When the bodhisattva was vigorously exerting himself, during his causal practices he encountered Tiṣya Tathāgata sitting in a jeweled niche, having entered the fire-element samādhi, his awe-inspiring radiance brilliant and extraordinary. Gaping in devotion, he forgot to put down one foot for seven days and seven nights, and with an untiring, pure mind praised that Buddha with a wondrous gāthā, saying:
18.72
'In heaven and earth, this realm, the chamber of Vaiśravaṇa,
The palace of Brahmā, the heavenly abodes, and the ten directions, there is none [like you];
Bull among men, Great Śramaṇa,
Searching the earth, mountains, and forests, everywhere you are without equal.'
18.73
Explanation: 'Heaven and earth' means above in heaven and below on earth. 'This realm' means this trichiliocosm. Vaiśravaṇa's palace is translated as 'the chamber of much hearing,' because his renown for faith and respect fills the ten directions. 'The palace of Brahmā' is the palace of the king Mahābrahmā; tīrthikas grasp it as permanent, so the Buddha, to refute them, called it the 'passing palace.' 'Heavenly abodes' are the various other heavenly places. Not only is there none resembling the Buddha in the palace of Brahmā and so forth, but in the worlds of the ten directions there is also none resembling the Buddha. Searching the earth, searching the mountains, searching the forests, everywhere there is none equal to the Buddha. Having offered this praise, he bypassed nine eons; at this point his practice of the vigor pāramitā was brought to completion.
18.74
'Next [attaining] unsurpassed bodhi': This explains concentration and wisdom. The vajropamasamādhi immediately precedes the attainment of Buddhahood, hence it is called 'next to the unsurpassed'; at this point the pāramitās of concentration and wisdom were brought to completion.
18.75
'At these four stages': The first is the stage of giving; the second is the stage of freedom from anger; the third is the stage of vigor; the fourth is the stage next to the unsurpassed.
18.76
'One, two, another one, and two': 'One' is the stage of giving, which is one pāramitā. 'Two' is the stage of freedom from anger, which is two pāramitās. 'Another one' is at the stage of vigor, which is one pāramitā. 'Another two' is at the stage next to the unsurpassed, which is two pāramitās.
18.77
Next, in the seventh major section, giving, morality, and cultivation are explained, which is divided into two: first, briefly explaining giving, morality, and cultivation; second, extensively explaining giving, morality, and cultivation.
18.78
Below, the first briefly explains them. The treatise says: 'The sūtras say that there are three bases of meritorious deeds: first, the basis of meritorious deeds consisting of giving; second, the basis of meritorious deeds consisting of morality; third, the basis of meritorious deeds consisting of cultivation. How are these designated as "bases of meritorious deeds"?' The verse says:
18.79
'The three categories of giving, morality, and cultivation, each according to its propriety,
Receive the name of bases of meritorious deeds;
The distinctions are like those of the courses of karma.'
18.80
Explanation: 'The three categories of giving, morality, and cultivation': Concentration is called cultivation; 'category' means natural kind. That is, giving, morality, and cultivation are each distinct natural kinds.
18.81
"Each according to what is appropriate / Receives the name 'basis of meritorious action'": this means that all three—giving and so forth—are called "merit" (puṇya), and among them some are bases of meritorious action, some are action (karman) but not a basis (vastu), and some are a basis but not action; hence it says "each according to what is appropriate." First, within the category of giving, physical and verbal actions are called "bases of meritorious action." They are called "merit" because they are wholesome; they are called "action" because they are performed; they are called "bases" because volition (cetanā) relies upon them, "basis" having the meaning of a support (āśraya). The volition that is the equivalent cause of those bodily and verbal [actions] is called only "meritorious action": it is called "merit" because it is wholesome, and "action" because it is performed; since volition does not rely upon itself, it is not called a "basis." The factors co-existent with volition receive only the name "merit": their intrinsic nature is not formative activity, so they are not called "action"; volition does not directly rely upon them, so they are not called "bases." That upon which volition directly relies is body and speech. As the category of discipline (śīla) is solely of the nature of physical and verbal action, it completely receives the name "basis of meritorious action," which should be explained in accordance with the preceding. In the category of cultivation (bhāvanā), benevolence (maitrī) alone is called a "meritorious basis": it is called "merit" because it is wholesome; since the volition associated with benevolence takes benevolence as its avenue to engage in formative activity, benevolence is called a "basis"—meaning the basis of action. The volition concurrent with benevolence and the discipline concurrent with it are called only "meritorious action": they are called "merit" because they are wholesome, and "action" because they are performed; apart from volition and discipline, the remaining co-existent factors receive only the name "merit."
18.82
"The distinction is as with the courses of action": just as among the courses of action (karmapatha), the first seven are both actions and courses, while the three—covetousness, malice, and so forth—are courses but not actions, so the name "course" applies generally to all ten, while "action" belongs only to the first seven. Here, the scope of "basis of meritorious action" is also like this: the name "merit" applies generally, while "action" and "basis" are not fixed; such distinctions are just as with the courses of action. Some say: Volition alone is true meritorious action; the "bases of meritorious action" refers to giving, discipline, and cultivation, because with these three as doors, meritorious action operates.
18.83
From here, the second part extensively explains giving, discipline, and cultivation, which is divided into three: first, explaining generosity (dāna); second, explaining discipline and cultivation; third, explaining the gift of Dharma.
18.84
In the first part, on generosity, there are further nine divisions: 1. explaining generosity; 2. explaining the distinctions in the benefit of giving; 3. explaining the distinct causes of the fruit of giving; 4. explaining the supreme merit of giving; 5. explaining the immeasurable fruit of giving; 6. explaining the marks of light and heavy karma; 7. explaining performing and accumulating; 8. explaining the merit of giving to a caitya; 9. explaining that the fruit derives from the internal mind.
18.85
The first section below explains generosity. The treatise says: "What dharma is named 'giving'? What fruit does giving bring about?" The verse says:
18.86
"Relinquishing by this is called giving; / Namely, for the sake of veneration or benefit, / Body, speech, and what instigates them: / This brings about the fruit of great wealth."
18.87
The commentary says: "Relinquishing by this is called giving" means that by means of this non-greed mind and what can instigate body and speech, one is able to relinquish material wealth. Non-greed and so forth are the true essence of giving.
18.88
"Namely, for the sake of veneration or benefit" means that one practices giving for the sake of venerating or benefiting sentient beings.
18.89
"Body, speech, and what instigates them": this clarifies the instruments of relinquishment; bodily and verbal action and that which instigates them are called the instruments of relinquishment. "That which instigates them" refers to the mind of non-greed and the one aggregation of mind and mental factors. A verse says: "If a person with a pure mind (a mind of non-greed) / Deprives themselves to practice giving, / The wholesome aggregates of this moment (these are the five aggregates: the instigator has four aggregates, and the instigated body and speech are the form aggregate) / Are collectively designated by the name 'giving.'" According to this verse, one knows that giving has the five aggregates as its essence. As for "merit of the category of giving," "category" means essence, intending to clarify that this merit has giving as its essence; just as with "a vessel of the leaf category," this vessel has leaves as its essence. The merits of the categories of discipline and cultivation should be explained accordingly.
18.90
Next is the second part, explaining the distinctions in the benefit of giving. The treatise says: "For the benefit of what does one practice giving?" The verse says:
18.91
"For the benefit of oneself, another, or both; / And practicing giving not for either."
18.92
The commentary says: "For the benefit of oneself" means practicing giving to benefit one's own person: ordinary persons or noble ones who are not free from desire, as well as ordinary persons who are free from desire, making offerings to a caitya—this is called benefiting oneself, because it brings about maturation (vipāka), whereas the caitya receives no benefit, not having experiential enjoyment. "For the benefit of another" means practicing giving to benefit another's person: a noble one free from desire giving to sentient beings has no benefit to their own person, because they will not experience a fruit in a second lifetime, but there is benefit to the other, because the other enjoys it. "For the benefit of both": "both" refers to self and other; practicing giving to benefit oneself and another: noble ones or ordinary persons who are not free from desire, and ordinary persons free from desire, giving to sentient beings, benefits their own person because they experience the fruit of giving in a second lifetime, and there is benefit to the other because the other enjoys it.
18.93
"Practicing giving not for either" means practicing giving neither for oneself nor for another: a noble one free from desire making offerings to a caitya does not bring about a fruit for themselves, nor does the other enjoy it; there is benefit to neither, done solely out of reverence and to repay kindness.
18.94
Next is the third part, explaining the distinct causes of the fruit of giving, which has two divisions: first, explaining the distinctions of giver and so forth; second, explaining the giver, the gift, and the field.
18.95
The first section below explains the distinctions of giver and so forth. The treatise says: "Previously it was generally explained that giving brings about great wealth; next we should discern the distinct causes of the fruit of giving." The verse says:
18.96
"Due to distinctions in giver, gift, and field, / The fruits of giving are distinct."
18.97
The commentary says: Distinctions in the fruits of giving are due to three causes: the giver, the gift, and the field. Because giving is distinct, the fruits are distinct.
18.98
Next is the second part, explaining the giver, the gift, and the field, which has three divisions: first, explaining the giver; second, explaining the gift; third, explaining the field.
18.99
The first section below explains the giver. The treatise says: "First, how is there distinction due to the giver?" The verse says:
18.100
"Distinction in the giver is due to faith and so forth; / Practicing respectful giving and so forth / Yields fruits of being respected, widely cherished, / Timely, and difficult to plunder."
18.101
The commentary says: "Distinction in the giver is due to faith and so forth" means that distinctions in the giver are due to the distinct virtues of the seven noble treasures of faith and so forth: 1. deep faith, 2. maintaining discipline, 3. extensive learning, 4. wisdom, 5. relinquishing and giving, 6. shame (hrī), 7. modesty (apatrāpya). Some possess all seven and some do not possess them all, hence the "distinction in the giver." Because the giver is distinct, both the giving and the fruit are distinct.
18.102
"Practicing respectful giving and so forth": "and so forth" includes the three givings: with one's own hand, in a timely manner, and without causing harm. If a giver possesses the seven noble treasures and practices the four givings of respect and so forth, they can bring about the four fruits of being respected and so forth: if the giver practices respectful giving, they bring about the respect of others; if they give with their own hand, they bring about vast wealth which they take pleasure in enjoying; if they give in a timely manner, they bring about timely wealth, their needs being met at the proper time; if they give without causing harm, they bring about wealth that is difficult to plunder, not being destroyed by theft, robbery, fire, and so forth.
18.103
Next is the second part, explaining the distinctions in the gift. The treatise says: "How is there distinction due to the material given?" The verse says:
18.104
"Distinction in the gift is due to color and so forth; / One obtains splendid color, good fame, / The affection of many, a supple body, / And pleasurable touch in accordance with the season."
18.105
The commentary says: "Distinction in the gift is due to color and so forth" means that the material given may lack or possess color, fragrance, taste, and tangibility; hence it is called "distinction in the gift." Because the material given is complete in color, it brings about splendid color; because it is complete in fragrance, it brings about good fame, just as a fragrance diffuses and pervades all directions; because it is complete in taste, it brings about the affection of many; because it is complete in tangibility, it brings about a supple body and touch that produces pleasurable sensation in accordance with the season, like the jewel of a woman and so forth. If the fruit is deficient, it is because the cause was lacking.
18.106
Next is the third part, explaining the distinctions in the field. The treatise says: "How is there distinction due to the field of giving?" The verse says:
18.107
"Distinctions in the field are due to destiny, suffering, / Beneficence, and virtue."
18.108
The commentary says: The four fields of destiny (gati), suffering (duḥkha), beneficence (upakāra), and virtue (guṇa) being different is called "distinctions in the field." Due to distinction in destiny: giving to animals receives a hundredfold fruit, while giving to a person who has broken the precepts receives a thousandfold fruit; this is called distinction in destiny. Due to distinction in suffering: this refers to the seven material meritorious actions, which, because they relieve the suffering of others, have immeasurable merit: 1. giving to travelers; 2. giving to guests far from home; 3. giving to the sick; 4. giving to caretakers of the sick; 5. giving monasteries and parks; 6. giving constant food: faithful laymen in the Western regions, fearing travelers might starve in remote places, construct buildings, set up funds, store ample food and drink, and provide universally to all; or some specifically designate it for offering to renunciants, and because food is constantly given, it is called giving constant food; 7. giving according to the season: giving to them according to cold, heat, or wind.
18.109
Due to distinction in beneficence: as toward parents and so forth, one obtains ten billion times. Due to distinction in virtue: giving to a person who maintains the precepts yields a hundred million times the fruit, up to giving to a Buddha, which yields an immeasurable fruit.
18.110
Next is the fourth part, explaining the supreme merit of giving. The treatise says: "Among all givings, which is the most supreme?" The verse says:
18.111
"A liberated one giving to a liberated one, a bodhisattva's, / And the eighth giving are the most supreme."
18.112
The commentary says: The most supreme are three: 1. A liberated person: a liberated person giving to a liberated person has the most supreme merit. 2. Generosity practiced by bodhisattvas: because it is the cause of universal benefit and happiness for all sentient beings, it is also the most supreme. 3. Among the eight kinds of giving, the eighth is the most supreme: (1) giving upon arrival: only being able to give when [a recipient] draws near and arrives; (2) giving out of fear: seeing that wealth is about to perish, one would rather give it away than lose it; (3) giving to repay kindness; (4) giving in seeking a reward; (5) giving by following ancestral practice: practicing the generosity performed by one's former fathers and grandfathers; (6) giving hoping for heaven: wishing to be born in heaven; (7) giving to seek a reputation; (8) giving to adorn the mind: practicing generosity to eliminate stinginess, to attain yoga (meditative absorption), and to attain the supreme meaning (the bliss of nirvāṇa)—this is called adorning the mind.
18.113
Next is the fifth part, explaining the immeasurable fruit of giving. The treatise says: "As a sutra says: 'Giving to one progressing toward the fruit of stream-entry has an immeasurable fruit; giving to one who has attained the fruit of stream-entry has a fruit that is even greater,' up to extensive explanations. Can giving to a non-noble one also have an immeasurable fruit?" The verse says:
18.114
"Parents, the sick, a Dharma master, / And a bodhisattva in their final body: / Even if they have not realized noble status, / The fruit of giving [to them] is also immeasurable."
18.115
The commentary says: 1. father, 2. mother, 3. a sick person, 4. a Dharma master, 5. a bodhisattva in their final body—meaning born in a royal palace and dwelling in their final existence. These five kinds, even if they are ordinary persons, merely giving to them is able to bring about immeasurable merit.
18.116
Next is the sixth part, explaining the marks of light and heavy karma. The treatise says: "Those who wish to know the marks of light and heavy karma should know that lightness and heaviness are briefly due to six causes (stating the thesis). What are the six (raising the question)?" The verse says:
18.117
"Subsequent arising, field, fundamental, / Preparatory action, volition, and intention: / Through these being inferior or superior, / Karma becomes of the lowest or highest grade."
18.118
The commentary says: There are six causes: Subsequent arising is the first cause, meaning having committed an offense, one proceeds to commit it again following the former. The field is the second cause, doing harm or benefit toward the four fields above. The fundamental is the third cause, meaning the fundamental course of action. Preparatory action is the fourth cause, meaning leading up to the fundamental, which is called preparatory action. Volition is the fifth cause, meaning through that volition the course of action is brought to culmination. Intention is the sixth cause, meaning the disposition of one's purpose: 'I shall perform such deeds,' and so on. First, from the intention, preparatory action is aroused; next, from preparatory action, volition is produced; next, from volition, the fundamental is triggered; this fundamental must arise in dependence upon the field; and only afterward does the subsequent arising become manifest. Here, following the logical order, we proceed from the later to the earlier.
18.119
"Through their being inferior or superior, karma becomes of inferior or superior grade": because these previous six [factors] each have inferior and superior grades, karma comes to be of inferior or superior grade. Or there are some karmas that, among the previous six, become of superior grade solely through the aftermath, determinately establishing their ripening fruit in the aftermath. Or there are some karmas that become grave through the field, as when one performs karma in a field of benefactor-virtue it is grave, whereas when one performs karma towards other persons it is slight. Or there are some that, towards a field, become of superior grade through the force of the fundamental [act], and not through the other four; as when one commits murder towards parents the transgression is grave, whereas when one commits theft towards parents it is slight. As for the remaining three—preliminary, volition, and intention—their karma becoming of superior grade should be explained following the preceding. If all six causes are of superior grade, this karma is the gravest; reversed, it is the slightest; intermediate between these, karma is neither [the gravest] slight nor grave.
First 119 of 159 passages. Read on
Linked texts (1)
- 俱舍論頌疏論本 — Classical Chinese