瑜伽論記 1.391

1.391

言然此種子，亦唯住此位者，景師云：然此不定受種子，若受報時不離三時，故言亦唯住此位。基又解云：順受業中報定時不定，種子緣差，現在未得受果，雖於餘生方始受果，亦唯住在順現受位。顯揚論說業有三，謂順現受、生受、後受；或分為四，加不定受；或開為五，不定受中離時及報定與不定為二業故。此文不說順現受者，意說多時不受果種，雖經多劫而不腐敗故。然大乘中，若業種子有減，一生乃至多生，從初受時名現生後三時業別，由此義故，亦有多時順現受種，唯別報故，且不說之。其譬喻師說有八業，謂三時及不定，皆有定不定，謂順現受時、定報不定報。定為二，餘准可知。是第四業不別依三時但總分別。彼破薩婆多云：若無間業定，順生受不可轉者，三界善業非想最勝，亦應無越得聖道者，彼既可轉，此亦應然。今大乘中似同譬喻，彼阿闍世王五逆之業懺悔不受，即是生報可轉時報俱不定，故決擇云：決定受業者，依未解脫人，相續中說，若已解脫人，無有決定受業，由此順現業等，皆二業成。雖未見正文，理有何失？

Regarding the statement, "However, these seeds also only abide in this state": Master Jing says that for these seeds of indeterminate experience, when experiencing retribution they do not depart from the three times; hence it is said that they "also only abide in this state." Ji further explains: Among karmas of determinate experience, the retribution is determinate while the timing is indeterminate; due to a discrepancy of conditions for the seeds, fruit cannot be experienced in the present; although fruit is only experienced in a future lifetime, they still only abide in the state of karmas experienced in the present lifetime. The Prakaraṇāryavācā says karma is of three kinds: experienced in the present lifetime, experienced in the next lifetime, and experienced in subsequent lifetimes; or divided into four by adding karma of indeterminate experience; or expanded into five, because within indeterminate experience, determinacy and indeterminacy of time and retribution are separated into two karmas. The reason this text does not speak of karmas experienced in the present lifetime is that it intends to speak of seeds that do not experience fruit for a long time, which do not rot even after passing through many kalpas. In the Mahāyāna, if the seeds of karma diminish after one lifetime or multiple lifetimes, they are differentiated as karmas of the three times—present, next, and subsequent—from the time of their first experience. By this meaning, there are also seeds experienced in the present lifetime for a long time, but because they are only particular retributions, they are temporarily not mentioned. The Dārṣṭāntikas say there are eight karmas: namely, the three times and indeterminate all have determinate and indeterminate; that is, experienced in the present lifetime with determinate retribution and indeterminate retribution makes two, and the rest can be understood accordingly. This fourth karma is not separately based on the three times, but is only distinguished generally. They refute the Sarvāstivādins, saying: "If unmediated karma is determinate and inevitably experienced in the next lifetime without possibility of change, then among wholesome karmas of the three realms, that of the Sphere of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception is the supreme, and there should likewise be none who transcend it to attain the noble path. Since that can be changed, this should also be so." Now in the Mahāyāna it appears similar to the Dārṣṭāntikas: King Ajātaśatru's karma of the five heinous crimes was repented and not experienced; this means that retribution in the next life can be changed, with both timing and retribution being indeterminate. Therefore the Viniścaya says: "Determinate karmas are spoken of with reference to the continuum of persons who are not yet liberated; for persons who are already liberated, there is no determinately experienced karma." Thus, karmas experienced in the present and so forth are all constituted by two karmas. Although the root text is not yet seen, what flaw is there in the principle?