中觀論疏 8.5

8.5

From "The question says" downward is the second round, which refutes the thesis of the continuity of karma; first it establishes it, and next refutes it. Within the establishment there are two parts: first, a general explanation that the continuity of karma is free from annihilation and permanence; second, a specific presentation of the ten wholesome karmas being able to obtain retributions. The first part also has two sections: the first two verses explain the continuity of external phenomena as free from annihilation and permanence, which is the explanation by metaphor; the next two verses are the continuity of internal phenomena being free from annihilation and permanence, which is the application of the metaphor. The [latter] two verses have three parts: the first verse directly explains continuity; the next half-verse explains that due to continuity there is a fruit; the third half-verse concludes that it is free from annihilation and permanence; the text is easy to understand. From "The causes and conditions and retribution of this wholesome karma" downward is the second part, which specifically presents the ten wholesome karmas being able to obtain retributions. The reason for particularly citing the ten wholesome actions is identical to the meaning of the karma of benevolence above: benevolence is the foremost among the wholesome karmas, and the ten wholesome actions are likewise so. The *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* says: "Whether there is a Buddha or no Buddha, there are always the ten wholesome actions; thus the ten wholesome actions are constant virtues. Other virtues exist when there is a Buddha and do not exist when there is no Buddha, and are called visiting virtues." Question: The text says "ten bright courses of karma"; what is karma, and what is a course of karma? Answer: Sūtras and treatises differ. The *Upāsaka[-śīla] Sūtra* says: "Of these ten items, three are karma and not courses, while seven are both karma and courses." The *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* says: "Three are courses and not karma, while seven are both karma and courses." We must now harmonize and explain them. The sūtra takes volition directly as karma; but volition does not manifest by itself, hence it is karma and not a course. The treatise explains that the three afflictions give rise to karma and are not karma [itself], hence it says they are courses and not karma. Each relies on one approach. The treatise masters explain four permutations: 1. Karma and not a course, as in the *Upāsaka Sūtra*. 2. A course and not karma, as in the treatise's explanation of the three afflictions. 3. Both karma and a course of karma, as are the seven actions [of body and speech]. 4. Neither karma nor a course, as are bodily and vocal forms and sounds. The Abhidharma masters also have four permutations, which differ greatly from this: 1. A course and not karma, namely greed, anger, and wrong views; they are courses because they expand volition, but their substance is not volition, so they are not karma. 2. Karma and not a course, which is volition itself; because volition creates, it is called karma, and having no further volition, it is not the course of volition. 3. Both karma and a course, namely the seven of body and speech; their substance is karma, and they also expand volition as courses. 4. Neither karma nor a course, namely the three unwholesome roots preceding volition; they can only produce volition but cannot expand volition, hence they are not courses, and furthermore are not volition, hence they are not karma. Question: According to the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa*, the three afflictions are courses and not karma; why does it now speak of "ten courses of karma"? The treatise master answers: Because the minority follows the majority, all are named courses of karma. From "The answer says" downward is the second part, the refutation. Why does it only offer a general negation? First, although the opponent has this defense, in the end it does not leave annihilation and permanence behind, and therefore it is not accepted. Second, intending to refute it all at once later on, it is therefore only briefly negated here. Furthermore, knowing that their argument has not exhausted its momentum, he simply negates it directly to draw out their subsequent defense and refute it completely all at once. The prose has two parts: first, a direct refutation; from "Furthermore" downward is a concessionary refutation.