中觀論疏 8.4

8.4

品開七番：第一正破業體。「問曰如牙等相續」下，第二破業相續。「問曰今當復更說」下，第三破不失法。「問曰若爾無業果報」下，第四破斷滅邪見。「問曰若諸煩惱」下，第五破果報。「問曰汝雖種種因緣破業」下，第六破起業人。「問曰汝雖種種破業」下，第七破現所見事。一一章中皆有前立、次破，故有七立七破。初立中有長行與偈。長行有四：「問曰汝雖破諸法」者，第一牒論主破也。「而業決定有」者，第二外人立業因也。如《法句》中云「非空非海中，避之不得脫」，故稱決定有。故佛十力中業力最深。「能令一切眾生受果報」者，上辨業因，今明得果。釋迦受於九罪，釋迦過去以九珠羅莿刺調達足，是故今受木鏘報。目連以神通拔不出，世尊避之，莿亦遂去，以業報決定，故莿刺如來化為金鏘。仲尼厄於陳蔡，賢聖不免，況復凡夫，故知決定得果。「如經說」下，第三引經，略明三業：一下品業，謂惡者入地獄也；二中品業，修福者生天；三上品業，謂行道者得涅槃。前二有漏業，後一無漏業。「是故諸法不應空」下，第四結呵論主。就偈有五，分為四章：初明一業、次明二業、第三一偈明三業、第四兩偈明七業。初一業者，即一善業。於善業中但明慈業，慈為眾善之本。又知論主是菩薩，必有慈心不應破慈，故偏引也。「人能降伏心利益於眾生」者，此明慈業之用，能降伏惡，利益於眾生。然慈業益物，益物即是行善，伏惡即是止善。又降伏是自行，利益是化他。「是名為慈善」者，以有慈故能伏惡益物，自行化他。「二世果報種」者，上辨行因，今明得果。種謂因也。「大聖說二業」下，第二明二業。前明一業謂別業，但明慈善業故；今明通業，通於善惡。又前別明業用，今明業體也。上半明二業而舉大聖者，恐論主破之，故引佛說為證也。次半偈總為下三業七業作章門。次一偈開二業為三業，即是釋上二業義，上半明意業、下半明身口業。二偈次明七業者，有人言：身、口為二；作業、無作業，故是四；善不善中隨取一，故為五業；從用中有善惡，亦隨取一，故為六；思即七也。二釋云：身中有作、無作，口中有作、無作，為四；善從用、惡從用為六；思為七。影師又云：「此青目釋也。」又釋云：前二並有失，今明身中有作無作、口中有作無作，此四句同第二釋；於善從用中自有事在善、復有從用善，及思為七業。此釋就善中自七、惡中自七。所以然者，身自有善作善無作，善口亦爾；從用中有事在善從用善，罪亦自有事在罪及從用罪，猶如造經是事在善，若轉誦之即是從用善。望下長行具有此意。今所釋者，開偈為二：一者正明七業之體、最後一句稱歎七業之用。就初又二：一行半偈明身口六業，次有一句明於意業，即是七也。就初又二：前一偈明身口內業、次半偈明身口外業。所言內者，自起身口業，故名為內；從他而生，目之為外。身口二業不出此內外也。就身口二業中又開為二：上半明業相、下半辨業性。「身業及口業」者，此句總明身口二業。「作與無作業」者，別明身口二業。身有作無作、口有作無作，故以作無作釋身口二業。「如是四事中」下，第二明業性。四事者，身作無作、口作無作，名為四事也。「亦善亦不善」者，作無作但有善惡二性，是業無記雖有作不名為業。又善惡二業能發無作，無記力弱不發無作，故云善不善也。「從用」下，上來明內四業竟，今次明外兩業。上內業有二：一業相門、二業性門。今外業亦二：「從用生」三字是業相門。但從用有二：一身從用、二口從用。身從用者，如身運衣與他，他若受用著之，便生無作之善，屬於施主，名身無作也。口無作者，如法師講說，學士覆述之，即生口無作，屬於法師。問：內業具有作無作，外業亦有作無作，何故偏云身口二種無作為外業耶？答：欲明一人具七業。然內業有身口作無作四業屬於行者，次復有外二無作業還屬行者。若從用二種作業，則屬前人，故不數之，所以但取二無作也。「福德」兩字已下，第二明外業性門。內業性既有善不善，外業性亦有善不善。有人數罪福為二，此事不然。若以罪福為二者，前內業中亦應數之，不應云：如是四事中有善有不善也。以前既不取善不善，今亦爾也。此內外六種是身口業，第七名思即是意業。「能了諸業相」者，第二稱歎。精識此七業者，能了身口內外作無作等一切諸業。問：彼何故立此七耶？答：此七是一科之數，攝義事周，其猶善惡等三、黑白等四之流類也。長行還依偈次第釋之：第一前釋七業；「是七種」下，釋第二歎業偈也。從初文釋身口六業；「第七名思」下，釋第二意業。就釋六，義又二：第一正釋六業；「如是名為六種」，第二總結六義。初又二：初釋內業；「復有從用生」下，第二釋外業。釋內業中，前釋上半業體相門；「是二種有善不善」下，釋業性門。初又二：前釋第一句總明身口二業；「是七種」下，釋第二別明作無作。「答曰業住至受報」下，第二論主破。上雖一業乃至七業，並明得果。今總問之，業為待果起方滅、為果未起時業已滅耶？若待果起方滅者，則業是常；今業是有為法，一念尚不住，豈得待果起方滅？若果未起業已滅者，則無復業，誰牽果耶？薩婆多云：現在起善惡業，過現相而去入於過去，為得得之，屬於行人，後若果起，此得則斷。然此義具斷常，起而即謝為斷，在過去不滅為常。僧祇、曇無德、譬喻明現在業謝過去體是無，而有曾有義，是故得果。此亦具斷常。謝過去為斷，有曾有義則常。次迦葉鞞雙用兩家義，彼云：現在業謝過去，未得果時常在，此同薩婆多常義；後果起，此業復謝滅無，同僧祇斷義。次成實師，莊嚴云：業謝過去體是無，而有曾有義，故得果。引論文云「如過去諸禪曾於心有，若與果報則無所害。」次開善云：業謝過去、成就來現在，故現在心中有成就業、有現起業。論文云「昔起貪心相續至今，今心不異昔，故言我有。」如此等亦不離斷常，入今偈破。攝論師云：梨耶持善惡世出世種子，是故得果。今依偈責之，種子為待果而滅、為未起而滅？若待果起而滅即常，未起而滅則無果報。

This chapter is divided into seven turns: first, directly refuting the substance of karma; second, from "The opponent asks: Just as sprouts and the like are continuous" onward, refuting the continuity of karma; third, from "The opponent asks: Now we shall further explain" onward, refuting the dharma of non-exhaustion (avipraṇāśa); fourth, from "The opponent asks: If so, then there would be no karmic retribution" onward, refuting the nihilistic wrong view; fifth, from "The opponent asks: If all afflictions" onward, refuting retribution; sixth, from "The opponent asks: Although you refute karma through various causes and conditions" onward, refuting the person who generates karma; seventh, from "The opponent asks: Although you refute karma in various ways" onward, refuting visible empirical phenomena. Within each section there is first an establishment [by the opponent] and then a refutation [by the treatise master]; thus there are seven establishments and seven refutations.
In the initial establishment, there are both prose and verses. The prose has four parts: first, "The opponent asks: Although you refute all dharmas," repeats the treatise master's refutation. Second, "karma definitely exists," is the outsider establishing the cause that is karma. As the Dharmapada states: "Neither in the sky nor in the ocean / can one escape [karma] by evading it"; hence it is said to definitely exist. Thus, among the ten powers of the Buddha, the power of karma is the deepest. Third, "which causes all sentient beings to experience karmic retribution": the preceding clarified the cause of karma, and this now explains the obtaining of its fruit. Śākyamuni suffered nine tribulations: in the past, Śākyamuni pricked Devadatta's foot with a nine-pearl thorn, and therefore he now received the retribution of being struck by a wooden splinter. Maudgalyāyana was unable to pull it out using his supernormal powers; when the World-Honoured One tried to evade it, the thorn followed him, because karmic retribution is definite, so the thorn pierced the Tathāgata and turned into a gold splinter. Confucius faced distress between Chen and Cai; if even sages and worthies cannot escape, how much less can ordinary persons! Thus we know that one definitely obtains the fruit. Fourth, from "As the sūtra states" onward, cites scriptures to briefly explain the three karmas: first, lower-grade karma, meaning evil doers enter hell; second, middle-grade karma, where those who cultivate merit are born in heaven; third, upper-grade karma, meaning those who practice the Path attain nirvāṇa. The first two are tainted karmas, and the latter is untainted karma. From "Therefore dharmas should not be empty" onward, the fourth concludes by reproving the treatise master.
Regarding the verses, there are five, divided into four sections: the first clarifies one karma; the next clarifies two karmas; the third is one verse clarifying three karmas; the fourth is two verses clarifying seven karmas.
The first "one karma" is simply the one good karma. Within good karma, it only clarifies the karma of benevolence (maitrī), for benevolence is the root of all good. Moreover, knowing that the treatise master is a bodhisattva who must possess a mind of benevolence and should not refute benevolence, it specifically cites this. "If a person can subdue their mind and benefit sentient beings": this clarifies the function of the karma of benevolence, being able to subdue evil and benefit sentient beings. Now, the karma of benevolence benefits beings: benefiting beings is the good of practice, and subduing evil is the good of restraint. Furthermore, subduing is self-cultivation, and benefiting is transforming others. "This is called the good of benevolence": because of having benevolence, one can subdue evil and benefit beings, cultivating oneself and transforming others. "The seed of retribution across two lives": the preceding analyzed the cause of practice, and this now clarifies obtaining the fruit. "Seed" means cause.
From "The Great Sage spoke of two karmas" onward, the second clarifies the two karmas. The previous clarification of one karma was a specific karma, because it only explained the karma of benevolence; now it clarifies general karma, which applies universally to both good and evil. Furthermore, the previous specifically clarified the function of karma, whereas this clarifies the substance of karma. The first half [of the verse] clarifies the two karmas and cites the Great Sage because, fearing the treatise master would refute it, it adduces the Buddha's word as proof. The next half-verse serves as the general heading for the three karmas and seven karmas below.
The next single verse expands the two karmas into three karmas, which explains the meaning of the two karmas above: the first half clarifies mental karma, and the second half clarifies bodily and vocal karma.
Next, regarding the two verses clarifying the seven karmas, someone said: body and speech make two; bodily action (vijñapti) and bodily non-action (avijñapti) [with vocal action and non-action] make four; taking one from either good or unwholesome makes five karmas; taking one from either good or evil in what arises from use makes six; and intention (cetanā) makes seven. A second interpretation states: bodily action and non-action, vocal action and non-action make four; good arising from use and evil arising from use make six; intention makes seven. Master Tanying also said: "This is Piṅgala's interpretation." Yet another interpretation states: the previous two both have flaws; now it is explained that bodily action and non-action, and vocal action and non-action—these four lines agree with the second interpretation; within what arises from use, there is itself the intrinsic good and the good arising from use, which along with intention make seven karmas. This interpretation means there are seven within good and seven within evil. Why is this? The body itself has good action and good non-action, and good speech is likewise; within what arises from use, there is intrinsic good and good arising from use; sins likewise have intrinsic sin and sin arising from use, just as copying a scripture is an intrinsic good, and reciting it is a good arising from use. Looking ahead to the prose below, it contains this meaning.
Our present explanation divides the verses into two: first, directly clarifying the substance of the seven karmas; and the final line praises the function of the seven karmas. In the first part, there are again two: one and a half verses clarify the six karmas of body and speech, and the following one line clarifies mental karma, which makes seven. In the first part, there are again two: the first verse clarifies internal bodily and vocal karma, and the next half-verse clarifies external bodily and vocal karma. What is called "internal" means bodily and vocal karmas generated by oneself, hence called internal; that which arises depending on another is designated as external. Bodily and vocal karmas do not go beyond this internal and external. Within the two karmas of body and speech, it is again divided into two: the first half clarifies the characteristics of karma, and the second half analyzes the nature of karma.
"Bodily karma and vocal karma": this line generally clarifies the two karmas of body and speech. "Action and non-action karma": this specifically clarifies the two karmas of body and speech. The body has action and non-action, and speech has action and non-action; thus bodily and vocal karmas are explained in terms of action and non-action.
From "Among these four matters" onward, the second clarifies the nature of karma. "Four matters" means bodily action and non-action, and vocal action and non-action, which are called the four matters. "Are both good and unwholesome": action and non-action only possess the two natures of good and evil; indeterminate karma, though having action, is not called karma. Furthermore, the two karmas of good and evil can generate non-action, whereas indeterminate karma is weak in power and does not generate non-action; hence it says "good and unwholesome."
From "arising from use" onward: the preceding clarified the four internal karmas; now it clarifies the two external karmas. The internal karmas above had two parts: first, the aspect of karmic characteristics; second, the aspect of karmic nature. Now external karma also has two parts: the three characters "arising from use" are the aspect of karmic characteristics. However, what arises from use has two: first, bodily arising from use; second, vocal arising from use. Bodily arising from use: for instance, if one physically provides clothing to another, and the other receives and uses it by wearing it, then the non-action good arises, belonging to the donor; this is called bodily non-action. Vocal non-action: for instance, if a Dharma master gives an exposition and a student repeats it, then vocal non-action is generated, belonging to the Dharma master. Question: Internal karma possesses both action and non-action, and external karma also possesses action and non-action; why does it specifically mention only the two kinds of non-action of body and speech as external karma? Answer: It aims to clarify that a single person possesses the seven karmas. Now, internal karma has the four karmas of bodily and vocal action and non-action belonging to the practitioner; next, there are also the two external non-action karmas that still belong to the practitioner. If the two kinds of action arising from use were considered, they would belong to the other person, so they are not counted; therefore it takes only the two non-actions.
From the two characters "merit" onward, the second clarifies the aspect of the nature of external karma. Since the nature of internal karma includes both good and unwholesome, the nature of external karma also includes both good and unwholesome. Some count sin and merit as two, but this is not correct. If sin and merit were counted as two, then they should also have been counted in the previous internal karma, and it should not have said: "Among these four matters, there are good and unwholesome." Since good and unwholesome were not separately counted before, the same applies here. These six internal and external kinds are bodily and vocal karma; the seventh, named intention, is mental karma.
"Can comprehend the characteristics of karmas": the second part praises [karma]. One who thoroughly understands these seven karmas can comprehend all karmas—internal, external, action, non-action, and so forth of body and speech. Question: Why did they establish these seven? Answer: These seven constitute a category of enumeration that completely subsumes all meanings and phenomena, just like categories such as the three [types] of good and evil or the four [types] of dark and bright [karma].
The prose follows the order of the verses to explain them: first, it explains the seven karmas; from "These seven kinds" onward, it explains the second verse that praises karma. From the initial text it explains the six karmas of body and speech; from "The seventh is named intention" onward, it explains the second, mental karma. Regarding the explanation of the six, the meaning has two parts: first, directly explaining the six karmas; "These are called the six kinds," second, generally summarizes the six meanings. The first part has two: first, explaining internal karma; from "There are also those arising from use" onward, second, explaining external karma. In explaining internal karma, the first explains the first half on the substance and characteristics of karma; from "These two kinds are good and unwholesome" onward, it explains the aspect of the nature of karma. The first part has two: the first explains the first line, generally clarifying the two karmas of body and speech; from "These seven kinds" onward, the second specifically clarifies action and non-action.
From "The answer states: Karma abides until the receiving of retribution" onward, the second is the treatise master's refutation. Although above, from one karma up to seven karmas, all clarified the obtaining of the fruit, now we generally question it: Does karma await the arising of the fruit before it perishes, or has karma already perished before the fruit arises? If it awaits the arising of the fruit before perishing, then karma is permanent. Now karma is a conditioned dharma that does not abide even for a single thought-moment; how could it await the arising of the fruit before perishing? If karma has already perished before the fruit arises, then karma no longer exists—what would draw forth the fruit?
The Sarvāstivādins say: when good and evil karma arise in the present, they pass beyond the present phase and enter the past, being attained through acquisition (prāpti) and belonging to the practitioner; later, when the fruit arises, this acquisition is severed. However, this position contains both annihilation and permanence: arising and immediately passing away is annihilation, and remaining unperished in the past is permanence.
The Mahāsāṃghika, Dharmaguptaka, and Dārṣṭāntika clarify that present karma, having passed away into the past, is non-existent in its substance, yet it possesses the meaning of "having once existed," and therefore one obtains the fruit. This also contains both annihilation and permanence: passing away into the past is annihilation, while possessing the meaning of having once existed is permanence.
Next, the Kāśyapīya combines the positions of the two schools. They say: when present karma passes away into the past, it remains permanent until the fruit is attained—this agrees with the Sarvāstivāda's meaning of permanence; later, when the fruit arises, this karma again passes away into extinction and non-existence—this agrees with the Mahāsāṃghika's meaning of annihilation.
Next, among the masters of the Tattvasiddhi: Zhuangyan said that when karma passes away into the past, its substance is non-existent, yet it possesses the meaning of "having once existed," so one obtains the fruit. He cites the treatise text: "Just as past meditative concentrations once existed in the mind, there is no contradiction if they bestow karmic retribution." Next, Kaishan said that karma passes away into the past, but its attainment comes into the present; thus within the present mind there is attained karma and presently arising karma. The treatise text states: "In the past a mind of greed arose and continued up to the present; the present mind is not different from the past, so we say 'I exist.'" Views such as these also do not depart from annihilation and permanence, and fall under the refutation of the present verse.
The masters of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha say: the ālayavijñāna holds worldly and transworldly seeds of good and evil, and therefore one obtains the fruit. Now, censuring them according to the verse: do the seeds perish awaiting the fruit, or do they perish before it arises? If they perish awaiting the arising of the fruit, that is permanence; if they perish before it arises, there would be no karmic retribution.