瑜伽論記 3

English (machine translation) 3

Language: English

Among the nine gates distinguishing karma, the fifth gate of karma does not mention the puruṣakāra-phala (fruit of virile effort) because, apart from the other three fruits, it has no distinct, predominant characteristic.

3.4

Under conferring the maturation fruit (vipāka-phala), it only mentions experiencing the maturation fruit in the Naraka hells. The seventh fascicle of the Abhidharma and the Guobao Jing say that one experiences maturation among animals, hungry ghosts, and in Naraka; that is based on experiencing maturation from the lower, middling, and upper grades of the karma of killing, whereas here it is based solely on the upper grade, hence mentioning only hell.

3.5

Under the concordant fruit (niṣyanda-phala), the ten phrases such as 'shortness of lifespan' are matched respectively to the ten unwholesome courses of karma. A result that resembles its cause is called a concordant fruit; shortness of lifespan is in reality an environmental fruit (adhipati-phala) nominally designated as concordant. Wrong view's concordant fruit of increasing delusion: the Abhidharma treatise states that for those with wrong views, delusion is predominant, and that which constitutes a course of karma is solely predominant.

3.6

Question: If so, why is the course of karma termed wrong view, while the fruit obtained is called an increase in delusion?

3.7

Answer: The increase of delusion originates from wrong view, and wrong view necessarily increases delusion; where there is wrong view there must be delusion, but where there is delusion there is not necessarily wrong view. The course of karma mentions the supported [dharma], calling it wrong view without speaking of delusion; obtaining the fruit mentions the supporting base, calling it delusion without speaking of wrong view. These two gates implicitly complement each other, letting one know that the course of karma is uniquely wrong view, whereas delusion applies broadly to dull dispositions and therefore is not termed a course of karma.

3.8

Under the environmental fruit (adhipati-phala), this is distinguished into ten fruits on the basis of a single entity, whereas the Abhidharma distinguishes ten fruits on the basis of various matters; hence, each is different and their meanings distinct. Here there are ten clauses, which are also matched respectively according to the order of the courses of karma. 'Unfavorable' means not accordant with human desires. Jing's Supplement states: Relying on the Vibhāṣā, there are two explanations: 1. One says that preliminary karma causes short life among humans, while root karma causes birth in the evil destinies; 2. The other says that when one holds a blade wishing to kill a person, causing their complexion to lose its luster and causing external amenities to diminish in luster, the aspect of causing the other to suffer leads to birth in the evil destinies to suffer pain, while the aspect of severing the other's life faculty without continuation leads later to experiencing a short lifespan among humans.

3.9

Now, explaining according to the Yogācārabhūmi: when committing killing, causing the other to suffer and lose facial luster, and severing their life faculty, collectively pulls toward the evil destinies; the residual momentum of this karma, upon later birth among humans, obstructs and destroys life-extending karma and causes the life faculty to be cut short, which is termed the concordant fruit.

3.10

Under 'conferring present-life fruits': this refers to the previous three fruits being impelled to arise in the present life by wholesome and unwholesome deeds. Among the eight zealous resolves, four wholesome and four unwholesome are contrasted, forming four pairs: the first pair relates to body and wealth; the next pair relates to the field of compassion; the next pair relates to the field of desire; the last pair relates to the field of gratitude.

3.11

Among the five inexpiable karmas (ānantarya-karma), fascicle sixty states: one is false speech, namely schism of the saṃgha; four are bodily karma, among which three are taking life; one is the preliminary means of taking life, namely causing the Buddha's body to bleed; as applicable, bodily and vocal karma constitute their intrinsic natures.

3.12

Detailed explanation: the meaning of schism of the saṃgha briefly has eleven points: 1. The schism itself has as its nature discord among the non-concomitant dharmas of the saṃgha's assembly that is split, being unobscured and indeterminate, based on the maturation consciousness, because of discord regarding the turning of the wheel of Dharma and so forth; as for that which is capable of causing the schism, as stated above, it is false speech named after its result; 2. It is performed by a bhikṣu, not a layperson; 3. By one of philosophical view, not of affective conduct; 4. By one of pure conduct, not a breaker of precepts, because their words lack gravity and respect; 5. It is split in a different location, not before the Buddha, because the Tathāgatas cannot be easily scorned or intimidated; 6. It splits ordinary persons, not noble ones; 7. At the time of acquiescing to a different teacher and noble path, saying the five dharmas are the path and the Noble Eightfold Path is not the path; 8. It must not last overnight, for splitting the saṃgha of the wheel of Dharma obstructs the wheel of the noble path and destroys the harmony of the saṃgha; 9. Splitting the wheel of Dharma occurs only in this continent [Jambudvīpa] because the Buddha is present here; splitting karmavācanā applies to three continents because the teachings are present; 10. For splitting the wheel of Dharma, there must be at least nine persons: the split saṃgha is divided into two factions, and the instigator makes one; for splitting karmavācanā, there must be at least eight persons, being divided into two factions; more is also not prohibited; 11. When first attaining enlightenment, later when about to enter nirvāṇa, when the 'boil' of breaking precepts has not yet arisen, when the primary pair of calm abiding and insight has not yet been established, after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, and before precepts have been codified—in these six phases, there is no schism of the wheel of Dharma. Except for these, only at other times can the saṃgha be split.

3.13

The verse in the Abhidharmakośa states: / At the beginning, the end, before the boil and the pair, / after the Buddha's passing, and before precepts were codified, / in such six stages / there is no splitting of the saṃgha of the wheel of Dharma.

3.14

The Sarvāstivādin masters state that the Buddha experiences this because of past karmic retribution, while the Mahāyāna holds it to be an expedient display. Among these five inexpiable deeds, harming father and mother destroys the field of gratitude; the other three all destroy the field of virtue. Hence they become inexpiable, being common to the three vehicles. What is spoken of as the five inexpiable deeds in the Satyakanirgrantha Sūtra differs from this, being found only in the Mahāyāna; because it targets different capacities, there is also no contradiction. Among these five inexpiable deeds, schism of the saṃgha is the gravest, because it destroys the Dharma-body of merits, obstructs the path of liberation for devas and humans, and completely blocks entry into noble attainment, realization of fruits, and freedom from taint and destruction of defilements; furthermore, the wheel of Dharma in the trichiliocosm is not turned, and the bodies and minds of devas, humans, and nāgas are thrown into turmoil; thus it definitely incurs the great transgression of an entire kalpa in the Avīci hell. Next is causing the Buddha's body to bleed; next is killing an arhat; next is mother; next is father—each subsequent one being progressively lighter. All the detailed explanations are as stated in the eighteenth fascicle of the Abhidharmakośa.

3.15

Those of the same class as inexpiable karmas refers to offenses of the same category as inexpiable karmas. Ji states: defiling an arhat nun or one's mother belongs to the category of matricide; striking a bodhisattva in his final existence belongs to the category of patricide; or committing murder in a divine shrine and the like, or causing injury to one who has been entrusted, or first granting fearlessness to a field of poverty and affliction and then turning to torment them, belongs to the category of killing an arhat.

3.16

Robbing the gate of the saṃgha belongs to the category of schism of the saṃgha; destroying stupas and shrines and the like belongs to causing the Buddha's body to bleed; or they may simply be called categories generally without needing distinct allocations. The present explanation is: defiling an aśaikṣa nun is of the category of killing an arhat; defiling one's mother is of the category of matricide; striking a bodhisattva in his final existence and destroying stupas and shrines is of the category of causing the Buddha's blood to flow; robbing the gate of the saṃgha is of the category of schism of the saṃgha; the rest are of the category of patricide and so forth.

3.17

Regarding the phrase “plundering the monastic community's property” (劫奪僧門): Jing says: “The Sangha's permanent property belongs to the monastic community. Because this property exists, the assembly of the Sangha gathers to perform the poṣadha and recite the precepts. Because this property is plundered, harmony cannot be maintained. This is comparable to when others wish to give property to the Sangha, and one diverts it to oneself.” Bei, Tai, and Ji's explanations largely agree with this. However, Ji states: “‘Monastic community's property’ refers to all matters and resources upon which the Sangha relies.” Tai states: “It means that having entered the monastic precincts, one commits plunder, and so on; thus there is a slight difference.”

3.18

Question: According to the eighth fascicle of the Abhidharma[samuccaya] and the later text of this treatise, both state that the five uninterrupted karmas exclusively yield retribution in the immediately following life (upapadyavedanīya). Why is it said here that there is retribution experienced in the present life (dṛṣṭadharmavedanīya)?

3.19

Jing says: “The five uninterrupted karmas are discussed with reference to their fixed destination. In the various sūtras and treatises, it is mostly stated that they are experienced in the next life; but in actual principle, they generally include retribution experienced in the present life, the next life, and subsequent lives. For example, if one commits multiple heinous acts, then in the present body one first experiences minor suffering, and in the body of the next life one experiences severe suffering. If the karmic momentum is not yet exhausted, dying in hell and being reborn back into hell functions in sense as retribution experienced in subsequent lives. Therefore, the eighth fascicle of the Abhidharma[samuccaya-bhāṣya] states: ‘As that sūtra says: “Due to uninterrupted karma, one repeatedly dies and is reborn in hell, experiencing the great suffering of maturation.”’ The later Supplement (補闕) states: ‘Such heinous karma also obtains present fruition; because the suffering is minor, it is not spoken of from the initial stage as being designated “experienced in the present life”; taking the heaviest as primary, it is merely called “experienced in the next life”.’ Ji also explains: ‘This refers to the fact that because one committed a heinous crime, one is killed or the like in the present life, and so it is called “experienced in the present life”; while the other refers to falling into the Avīci [hell] and the like in the next life, which is called “experienced in the next life”; thus there is also no contradiction.’”

3.20

Question: Karma to be experienced in the present life does not induce an overarching maturation (sarvatrāgaphala); could it be that the five uninterrupted karmas experience merely individual specific fruitions (viśeṣaphala)?

3.21

Answer: Through preparatory karma (prayoga) one experiences the distinct present fruitions, and through the principal karma (mūla) one experiences the future overarching fruition. It is not that a single karma is experienced both in the present and in the future. Designated from the initial [stage], it is called ‘experienced in the present life’; thus it is not that the five uninterrupted [karmas] do not bring about an overarching fruition. It is precisely due to this meaning that the Abhidharma[samuccaya] states: ‘For one who commits numerous uninterrupted karmas, the implements of suffering induced are manifold and intense, and one experiences manifold sufferings all at once.’ The Heyuanxin jing (訶怨心經) states: ‘Due to uninterrupted karma, one repeatedly dies and is reborn in the naraka, experiencing the great suffering of maturation.’ Sūtras such as the Prajñā[pāramitā] and the Lotus Sūtra also state: ‘Due to slandering the sūtra, one is born from one hell into another hell.’ Designated from the initial [stage], these are all experienced in the next life; here it is also like this.

3.22

Question: Why is killing a pratyekabuddha not [counted as] a heinous transgression (ānantarya)?

3.23

Answer: Because they are few, it is not mentioned; it is subsumed under the category of killing an arhat. If we rely on what is stated in the Kṣitigarbha Bodhisattva Sūtra: ‘Killing a pratyekabuddha does not constitute a heinous transgression, because they do not preach the Dharma to benefit beings.’

3.24

Question: Why is slandering the Dharma not spoken of as a heinous transgression?

3.25

Explanation: Slandering the Dharma is so excessively grave that it surpasses the category of heinous transgressions; therefore, it is not established [as one of them]. Alternatively, [the five ānantaryas] are stated provisionally in relation to persons; this explanation applies to slandering the Great Dharma. If we rely on what is stated in the Satyakanirgrantha Sūtra: ‘Among the five heinous transgressions, slandering the Dharma of the Three Vehicles is the second heinous transgression.’

3.26

Regarding ‘making offerings to [one emerging from] the samādhi of benevolence (maitrī-samādhi) and the like obtains fruition in the present life’: this is based on the initial stage of emergence. That is, like one who has just emerged from the samādhi of benevolence, the samādhi of non-contention (araṇā-samādhi), or the absorption of cessation (nirodha-samāpatti); or one who has just attained the fruit of stream-entry or arhatship—it is likewise. It does not apply to long after emergence. Pratyekabuddhas are not mentioned because they are few and thus omitted, but in reality one also obtains it [from them]. Once-returners and non-returners are not mentioned because they are not newly attaining aryahood.

3.27

Question: Why is only the samādhi of benevolence mentioned, and not the samādhis of compassion, sympathetic joy, or equanimity, and so forth?

3.28

Answer: Sympathetic joy and equanimity are inferior; compassion also extends to distraction; whereas benevolence is superior in bestowing worldly and supramundane happiness. The same applies to non-contention and the like: inwardly one realizes the true state of non-contention, while outwardly one pacifies all afflictions, which is superior to aspiration-knowledge (praṇidhijñāna) and the like; hence the others are not mentioned. Regarding ‘in the presence of the Sangha of learners and non-learners’: the Abhidharma[samuccaya] states: ‘The Buddha heads the Sangha’ refers to all the Sangha assembled before the Buddha; or it refers to the Buddha's disciples—ordinary beings and noble ones, the Sangha of learners and non-learners—and this is called ‘the Buddha heading the Sangha’. Because it says ‘Sangha’, it does not mean individual persons.

3.29

‘Giving an overarching fruition’ (增上果): this means that it is also due to karma that experiences fruition in the present life; that is, not only through others, but also through one's own present karma of seeing the Buddha, making offerings, and so forth.

3.30

‘Karma as heaven’ (業天): worldly people mostly consider good and evil to come from heaven; in actual truth they come from karma, so karma is called ‘heaven’.

3.31

Regarding the ‘eight doors of harm and benefit’: the first seven are the three of body and four of speech, paired respectively; the eighth combined comprises the three paths of mental karma. Alternatively, the previous ones are the first six kinds, and the seventh and eighth are commonly induced by all karmas.

3.32

Under the sixth, ‘the predominance of karma’, there are six [aspects]. The first four apply generally to both good and evil; the fifth is unwholesome; the sixth is exclusively wholesome. The first is the characteristic of sharp [affliction]; the second is the characteristic of exertion; under the third, ‘intrinsic nature’, first the four of speech are evaluated, next the three of body, and finally the three of mind collectively evaluate the three karmas. In evaluating the paths of the ten karmas individually, physical matter (rūpa) comes first and the mind comes later. Within physical matter, the heavy comes first and the light later; within the paths of mental karma, the light comes first and the heavy later. Although the methods of presentation differ, there is no fault. However, among the three penal karmas, mental karma is the heaviest; among the five perverse views, wrong view is the heaviest; among the five uninterrupted karmas, causing a schism in the Sangha is the heaviest. Because the points of comparison differ, here karma is explained without reference to the uninterrupted [crimes]; thus, [considering] verbal karma as light is logically without fault.

3.33

Under the seventh, ‘karmic inversion’, ‘transgressions similar to and belonging to the same category as taking life’ refers to preparatory paths of action being similar to the principal ones.

3.34

In ‘inversion regarding appropriation’, it only mentions up to frivolous speech and does not mention the three paths of mental karma, because the seven branches of body and speech generally possess the nature of moral discipline (śīla), are commonly known, and physical actions are easily appropriated.

3.35

Under the eighth, ‘distinctions of karma’, there are two parts: first, listing the names of karma in four categories; second, individually explaining them accordingly. The listing of categories has four: first, five kinds of twofold doors; second, ten kinds of threefold doors; third, one kind of fourfold door; fourth, one kind of fivefold door.

3.36

‘Karma of action’ (作業) refers to either karma of intention or karma of body and speech initiated after intention. Deliberating and deciding intention is called ‘karma of intention’; the superior intention that initiates action is called ‘karma of body and speech initiated after intention’. Alternatively, the initiating intention is called ‘karma of intention’, and the two karmas of body and speech initiated by this intention are called ‘karma of body and speech initiated after intention’. This explanation is identical to that of the Abhidharma[samuccaya], which states: ‘What is karma of intention? It refers to meritorious, non-meritorious, and immovable karma. What is karma after intention? It refers to bodily, verbal, and mental karma.’ The Tripiṭaka Master explains: ‘The former is preparatory karma of intention; the latter is the three principal karmas.’

3.37

Regarding ‘karma of non-action’ (不作業): Jing says: ‘It refers to an intentional karma of the mind arising abruptly, which is not the preliminary preparatory intention meant to initiate body and speech, and thus lacks the initiated principal two karmas of body and speech.’ Bei records two explanations: One says that karma created by a conceptualizing mind is called ‘karma of action’, while karma created by a spontaneous mind is called ‘karma of non-action’. The other says that karma created by an alert mind is called ‘karma of action’, while karma created by a confused and disordered mind is called ‘karma of non-action’. Another explanation is: karma of action generally includes the manifest and unmanifest karma of the preparatory and principal paths of action that are not yet extinguished and not yet abandoned—this is called ‘karma of action’. That is, the seeds of the two karmas, both preparatory and principal, whose manifest and unmanifest karma are already extinguished and already abandoned, are called ‘karma of non-action’, because they are not accomplished and lack superior function.

3.38

Ji says: ‘All manifest karmas, both preparatory and principal, are called “karma of action” because there is initiation and performance; all unmanifest karmas are called “karma of non-action” because there is no initiation and performance. This applies generally to the manifest and unmanifest karma of the Three Vehicles, which is why mind is not mentioned.’ In ‘karma that has accumulated and karma that has not accumulated’:

3.39

Regarding the eighth, ‘karma intrinsically indeterminate’ (自性無記業): Master Ji explains: ‘It refers to good and evil that are not subsumed under the paths of karma, of middling or inferior nature; it is not the indeterminate nature among the three natures. It is called indeterminate because its own entity does not increase; or it refers to indeterminate karma among the three natures.’

3.40

Regarding the ninth, ‘karma impaired by regret’ (悔所損業): the eighty-ninth [fascicle] states: ‘Among all performed karmas that have not accumulated, if there is no subsequent regret and one does not cultivate an antidote, and it will experience fruition, it is called “accumulated karma”; if there is subsequent regret and the like, it is called “not accumulated”. Alternatively, karma previously accumulated becomes “not accumulated” due to subsequent regret and the like, as in the case of Ajātaśatru; while without subsequent regret and the like, it is called “accumulated karma”.’ The sixtieth [fascicle] states: ‘Karma of fixed experience is established with reference to those who are not yet liberated; for those who are liberated, the arising of the path suppresses and severs it.’ The Abhidharma[samuccaya] states: ‘There are five kinds of purposefully created karma: 1. commanded by others; 2. urged by others; 3. done without understanding; 4. rooted in attachment—namely, all karmas initiated through intense attachment when the mind is clouded by the three poisons; 5. inverted discrimination—namely, evil karma practiced under the belief that it is superior and blameless. Among these five, those rooted in attachment and inverted discrimination—whether performed or accumulated—are not exempt from maturation because they are heavy; the remaining three, though performed, are not accumulated and do not necessarily experience maturation because they are light.’ That treatise explains that ‘performed’ means initiating and creating various karmas to make them active (samudācāra); ‘accumulated’ means augmenting their karmic impressions (vāsanā).

3.41

Regarding ‘purposeful karma’ (故思業), namely ‘having purposefully deliberated, either performing karma or accumulating karma, and so forth’: here, that which is purposefully performed or accumulated is called ‘purposeful karma’, while that which is not purposefully performed or accumulated is called ‘non-purposeful karma’. The Abhidharma[samuccaya] states that purposeful karma is contrary to this, since it applies to both accumulated and non-accumulated. Here, based on distinct, powerful deliberation that will definitely bring about maturation, it is called ‘purposeful karma’; whereas there, based merely on being performed with purposeful deliberation and not being spontaneous karma, it applies even to that which will not obtain fruition, all being called ‘purposeful’. Because the points of comparison differ, there is also no contradiction.

3.42

Regarding ‘karma of fixed experience’ and ‘karma of indeterminate [experience]’: the Tripiṭaka Master explains: ‘In karma of fixed experience, both the time and the retribution are fixed; indeterminate karma is the opposite of this.’ Ji further explains: ‘The aforementioned purposeful karma will definitely bring about maturation; the aforementioned non-purposeful karma will indeterminately bring about maturation.’ The Abhidharma[samuccaya] states: ‘Regarding karma of fixed experience, fixedness has three kinds: 1. fixedness of action: through the power of past karma, one induces a determined body; in this lifetime, one must create this karma within a fixed time limit and will never transgress it, such that even the spiritual power of Buddhas cannot prevent it; 2. fixedness of experiencing maturation: precisely the karma of fixed experience mentioned here, whose fruition will definitely be experienced, though the time is not yet fixed; 3. fixedness of stage: karma fixed in stage as experienced in the present life, the next life, or subsequent lives.’ What is revealed in meaning here is that if karma is subsumed under a path of action, it is called fixed; preparatory and subsequent karmas can be either fixed or indeterminate. If not yet regretted and not yet liberated, it is called fixed karma; if already regretted and already liberated, it is called indeterminate karma. When it says here “performed and accumulated”, “performed” means creating active karma, and “accumulated” means augmenting seeds.

3.43

Regarding ‘ripened karma and unripened karma’: Jing says: ‘The former is karma whose capacity is exhausted after having produced its ripened fruit; the latter is karma whose capacity still continues.’ Ji says: ‘Karma of the past and present that is currently producing fruit is called ripened karma; karma of the future and present that will produce fruit is called unripened karma.’ Among the karmas of the three natures, obscured indeterminate (nivṛtāvyākṛta) is also called indeterminate karma, because it does not take the three wholesome roots or the three unwholesome roots as its causal condition.

3.44

Regarding ‘karma subsumed under moral restraint’ (律儀所攝業) and so forth: the karma of the prātimokṣa restraint, according to the text of the Viniścaya[saṃgrahaṇī], takes the six dharmas—the five faculties of faith and so forth, together with intention—as its nature; this takes the mind of origination (samutthāna) that initiates karma, and so these six dharmas constitute its essence. If one takes the essence of the precept itself, it is properly designated metaphorically on the side of the continuum of seeds of the seven branches preventing wrongdoing; active prātimokṣa restraint, having arisen in body and speech, perishes in a single thought-moment and is not the essence of restraint. The Abhidharma[samuccaya] states: ‘It refers to the restraint received by the seven assemblies: the five assemblies of renunciants, as well as laymen (upāsaka) and laywomen observing eight precepts (upavāsastha). Renunciants, for their entire lives, abandon evil conduct and sexual conduct; laymen, for their entire lives, abandon evil conduct but do not abandon sexual conduct; those observing eight precepts cannot abandon evil conduct and sexual conduct for their entire lives. Therefore, the prātimokṣa is established in three classes.’

3.45

Regarding "or karma subsumed under restraint through the abandonment that is the fruition of dhyāna and equipoisal attainments": Ji says: "Dhyāna" refers to the four dhyānas of the form realm; "equipoisal attainments" refers to the four formless realms; "fruition" refers to the virtues cultivated and produced based on dhyāna and the formless [attainments]; "abandonment" refers to the restraint of abandonment that is conjoined with dhyāna and the formless [attainments], wherein present volition remotely guards against all faults of violating precepts in the desire realm. "Fruition" then means the abandonment that is the result of the restraint of abandonment; as for its substance, it is restraint born of meditative concentration, which in the three vehicles commonly includes physical and vocal [actions], and in the Mahāyāna additionally includes mental karma. There is an explanation that "abandonment" is the precept of the unconditioned nature, while "fruition" is the restraint born of meditative concentration. Now, this explanation of karma says "fruition and abandonment" rather than "fruition of abandonment," so abandonment is not the unconditioned, as was previously explained regarding the wholesome. Alternatively, both fruition and abandonment are the substance of the precept, so both are taken together; only the initial proximate [stage] possesses an antidote of abandonment, while in the higher stages it constitutes remote abandonment—this is according to the meaning of contaminated precepts born of meditative concentration. The *Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī* says: it exists only in the form realm; both the present text and the text of the third division state that it extends to the formless realm. The *Abhidharmasamuccaya* establishes it solely based on the form realm. That text itself resolves this by saying: because gross form does not exist in the formless realm, it is omitted and not established. Master Tai says: The restraint generated with the four dhyānas and four formless [attainments] as cause is called fruition; it is therefore the restraint of dhyāna and the formless [attainments]. It is also named the precept of abandonment, because the fruit of meditative concentration serves as an expedient means for abandoning afflictions, not directly abandoning afflictions because it is contaminated. Regarding "karma subsumed under taintless restraint": this refers to the nature of abandonment obtained by one who sees the truths through the power of the taintless—namely, the restraint concurrent with the path. All these are based on precepts that stop wrongdoing and block offenses, which is wholesome cessation; ordinary acts such as bowing to the Buddha or chanting sūtras are called wholesome performance. Master Tai says: The prātimokṣa manifest precept is also nominally established on seeds differently [from unmanifest precept]; the unmanifest is explained solely on the basis of seeds because of continuum; whereas the unmanifest of the path and meditative concentration exists or does not exist according to the mind, hence it is nominally established based on the present manifest activity. If so, when emerging from meditative concentration, is it possessed or not? Master Bei says: Although the past and future do not exist, it is theoretically said to be accomplished; what fault is there in this? However, because it is not a continuum, it is nominally established solely on the basis of present manifest activity. Master Tai says: It is established based on both the manifest and the seeds; non-restraint is also established from the perspective of the unwholesome seeds of the seven classes of karma forming a continuum that blocks what is wholesome.

3.46

According to the subsequent text of the *Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī*, the seven branches and distinct branches are obtained successively, and each branch also acquires heavy branches. "Slanderers" refers to those who exclusively engage in sycophancy, slandering, and mocking others to make a living—a vile sort and a class of extortionists. "Judges": in the Western Regions, distinct judges were established who sought wealth to make a living. Here there are twelve, while the *Abhidharmasamuccaya* has fourteen. The present text lacks three found in that text: first, hunting deer; second, catching fish; third, slaughtering cattle. That text lacks one found here—namely, the judge. In the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra*, sixteen are mentioned: raising cattle, sheep, pigs, and chickens for profit, fattening them and reselling them, buying them for profit, and slaughtering them after purchase—these make eight kinds. Catching fish, catching birds, hunters, robbers, executioners, slanderers, jailers, and snake-charmers make another eight. It lacks these: the judge and the elephant-binder. The *Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya* speaks of twelve: sheep slaughterers, pig raisers, chicken raisers, fish catchers, bird catchers, hunters, thieves, executioners, jailers, snake-charmers, hunting-trackers, and dog slaughterers. The various texts differ; this is merely a brief mention of their points, not limited to just these. Were it not so, would those who exclusively slaughter horses, donkeys, and the like not belong to them? These are all discussed with reference to the objective domains of their killing and harming; their substance is simply the unwholesome karma of the seven branches.

3.47

Regarding "the self-nature of giving": it refers to what is generated by volition. As for physical karma and vocal karma that are able to relinquish the given objects, both the *Abhidharmasamuccaya* and *Triṃśikā* take the volition of the three karmas together with non-greed as the nature; here, non-greed is stated to be the causal condition, and volition is stated within the gateway of origination. Taking physical and vocal karma within the self-nature is based on what is manifested externally as a general discussion across the three vehicles; therefore, it speaks only of physical and vocal [karma] and does not mention mental karma.

3.48

Within the self-nature of morality, taking the three karmas as its nature is why it speaks of "physical and vocal karma, etc."; as the *Triṃśikā* says, because one receives the bodhisattva precepts, it extends to all three karmas. That the basis extends to the sentient and insentient is because, as appropriate, both natural precepts and instituted precepts extend their basis to both. Regarding "the self-nature of cultivation refers to samādhi": the substance of the four immeasurables—loving-kindness is non-hatred, compassion is non-harming, sympathetic joy is non-jealousy, and equanimity is the wholesome mental factor of equanimity among the three wholesome roots; here, following that upon which they depend, meditative concentration is taken as their substance.

3.49

As for "the basis": the sentient beings of the three realms that are taken as objects are summarized into three classes: first, those with neither suffering nor pleasure—granting them pleasure is called loving-kindness; second, those with suffering—rescuing them is called compassion; third, those with pleasure—sympathizing with their joy is called sympathetic joy. Toward the first class one gives rise to the idea of being free from delusion; toward the second class one gives rise to the idea of being free from hatred; toward the third class one gives rise to the idea of being free from greed; and causing them equally to be free from evil is called equanimity. This adduces the object of loving-kindness to encompass the other three. Regarding "explaining the possession of the three": the specific characteristics are as indicated in other sūtras.

3.50

Regarding "meritorious karma refers to that which induces the maturation of fortunate destinies, etc.": meritorious karma experiences general maturation in the human and heavenly realms. As for "and experiences experienced concordantly in the five destinies": it experiences particular maturation in four destinies, while in the hells it experiences a similar particular retribution that is a fruit of outflowing; thus it generally says "concordant with the five [destinies]." There is an opinion: It is not so. The *Cheng weishi lun* says: When other texts speak of them having outflowing pleasure, one should know that this is stated according to conventional adaptation; therefore, in the Mahāyāna, there is no wholesome fruition there; because of wholesome karma, experiencing slight suffering is called obtaining fruition, with no further particular retribution, unlike the Hīnayāna where the four dust-elements of the hells are additionally induced by wholesome karma. Another explanation: Separating the asuras and combining them [elsewhere] makes six destinies; hence it says wholesome karma is concordant with the five destinies, but in reality it does not exist in hell. Bei says: There is an opinion that wholesome karma can also induce particular fruitions in the hells, as in obtaining a cool breeze in the minor hells.

3.51

Among karma experiencing neither suffering nor pleasure, regarding particular retributions being only karma of the fourth dhyāna and above: there are two explanations for this. One says: from the third dhyāna and below there are particular retributions of feeling; that this text and the *Abhidharmasamuccaya* do not say there is such karma is because for the most part wholesome karma induces the fruition of pleasant feeling, and only a small part of wholesome karma induces the fruition of equanimity feeling, so it is omitted and not discussed. Were it not so, why would the wholesome karma of the lower stages not obtain that fruit? The second says: from the third dhyāna and below, there is no distinct wholesome karma of equanimity; the fruit of equanimity in the sixth consciousness is tranquil. Because lower karma is gross, the wholesome only invites pleasure; hence there is no fruit of equanimity.

3.52

Question: If lower wholesome karma is gross and does not invite the fruit of equanimity, is the eighth [consciousness's] fruit of equanimity not invited by lower karma?

3.53

Answer: Because they are general and particular fruits, they should not serve as an analogy. Jing says: Now, although in the Mahāyāna there is no text stating this, reasoning indicates that in the fortunate destinies, superior wholesome [karma] induces feeling of equanimity; because the ālaya[vijñāna] is the general retribution, it also induces the equanimity retribution of the six consciousnesses. Lower wholesome [karma] induces joy and pleasure because it is a particular retribution. In the unfortunate destinies, superior unwholesome [karma] induces the equanimity feeling of the fundamental consciousness; because it is the general retribution, it also induces the equanimity feeling of the six consciousnesses; lower unwholesome [karma] induces painful feeling because it is a particular retribution.

3.54

Among "karma experiencing retribution in the present life, etc.", both this text and the *Abhidharmasamuccaya* state that there are three, named after the first; present [retribution] is only particular retribution, while the rest extend to general and particular. Fascicle sixty mentions four karmas: first, determinate maturation; second, determinate timing; third, both determinate; fourth, both indeterminate. *Prakaraṇāryavācā* 19 states that there are five karmas: first, determinate to be experienced in the present life; second, determinate to be experienced in the next birth; third, determinate to be experienced in subsequent lives; fourth, determinate experience of retribution; fifth, determinate performance of karma.

3.55

Jing says: In accordance with the subsequent text, the classification of eight karmas is a Mahāyāna doctrine; the Sautrāntika master Harivarman adopted the Mahāyāna doctrine and distinguished eight karmas within his own school.

3.56

Now, based on this text, although it speaks of karma of the three times, it also completely includes the eight karmas. How so? Karma determinate in time and indeterminate in maturation, and karma determinate in both time and fruit, are karma of the three times without needing to be stated as established; as for the two kinds of karma that are determinate in retribution and indeterminate in time, or indeterminate in both time and retribution, when they obtain their fruit it does not depart from the three times: whenever they obtain the fruit of maturation, they are subsumed under that time; therefore, it is said that in meaning the three times subsume the eight karmas. It is also possible that here it only discriminates karma that is determinate in both time and retribution among the three times; or it is possible that here it takes only the two propositions—determinate in time but indeterminate in retribution, and determinate in both time and retribution—as karma of the three times, and therefore does not subsume karma that is determinate in retribution but indeterminate in time, or indeterminate in both time and retribution.

3.57

Regarding "karma of the trainee refers to ordinary persons, etc.": this means that after all ordinary persons generate the mind of the three vehicles and [attain] wholesome roots contributing to liberation, they are all called trainees; karma of the trainee extends to the contaminated and taintless, and the non-trainee is likewise. Regarding "karma of neither trainee nor non-trainee: it refers to all wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral karma in the remaining continuums, excluding the previous two."

3.58

Question: In the previous persons of the trainee and non-trainee, both [wholesome roots] contributing to liberation, [wholesome roots] contributing to decision, and taintless karma are taken and named trainee and non-trainee; are not all contaminated wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral karma in that trainee person, and the meritorious wholesome karma and neutral karma in the non-trainee person, karma of neither trainee nor non-trainee? If so, why is it said again regarding karma of neither: "it refers to all wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral karma in the remaining continuums, excluding the previous two"?

3.59

Master Ba has three explanations: One says: Although in the previous two persons there are meritorious wholesome [karmas] and the like, according to the predominant part they are all called karma of the trainee and non-trainee; therefore, "excluding the previous two" means that all karma in the stages of ordinary persons prior to generating the mind is named neither. The second says: "Excluding the previous two" means excluding the karma of the trainee and non-trainee in the previous two persons of the trainee and non-trainee; "in the remaining continuums"—this word "remaining" is inclusive, referring to all meritorious wholesome karma, neutral karma, and the like in the persons of the trainee and non-trainee and in the persons of other ordinary persons, which are all neither. The third says: "It refers to excluding the previous two in the remaining continuums" means excluding all karma of the trainee and non-trainee in the two continuums of the trainee and non-trainee.

3.60

"All wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral karma": all meritorious wholesome karma, unwholesome karma, and neutral karma in ordinary persons and trainees; and all meritorious wholesome and neutral karma in non-trainees are all karma of neither; therefore it says "all wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral karma." In fascicle sixty-six, only the noble ones are spoken of as trainees because it is designated from the superior; here, based on the support, they are treated collectively, so that the trainee's innate wholesome [roots] and the like are also called trainee; were it not so, they would be otherwise, which would not accord with that text.

3.61

Regarding "karma abandoned by seeing refers to unwholesome karma, etc., that experiences unfortunate destinies": "etc." includes karma [leading to] a female body, karma [leading to] an eighth existence, karma [leading to] the heaven of non-conception, karma [leading to] Uttarakuru, and wholesome karma of particular retribution among ghosts and beasts, because upon obtaining the path of seeing they are definitively not experienced.

3.62

Regarding "karma abandoned by cultivation, etc.": there is unwholesome karma that also experiences particular retributions of painful feeling in the human and heavenly realms; hence, together with wholesome karma and neutral karma, it is abandoned by the path of cultivation.

3.63

Question: The wholesome and neutral are not substances that are hindrances; how are they abandoned by cultivation?

3.64

The explanation says: They are also bound by the conditions of affliction and have not yet attained disjunction from bondage; hence they are said to be abandoned by cultivation. However, according to what is said in the *Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī*, abandoning the substance of contaminated wholesome and neutral aggregates is called abandonment; thus the *Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī* says: Abandoning the afflictions of seeing obtains the realm of abandonment; abandoning the afflictions of cultivation obtains the realm of desirelessness—these two are nirvāṇa with remainder; abandoning the contaminated wholesome and neutral aggregates obtains the realm of cessation—this is nirvāṇa without remainder.

3.65

Furthermore, when afflictions to be abandoned through seeing directly initiate bad karma, they exclusively bring about the two types of retribution—general and particular—in the bad destinies. If considered from the standpoint of abandonment through the cessation of cause causing the demise of fruit, this is also called abandonment on the path of seeing. Hence a text elsewhere states: 'All aggregates, realms, and bases of the bad destinies are abandoned through seeing.' If considered from the aspect of abandoning the bondage of conditions, then both the general and particular retributions of the bad destinies are abandoned through cultivation. Thus another passage states: 'The substance of all unobscured-unrecorded aggregates is abandoned through cultivation.' If afflictions to be abandoned through seeing merely serve as a remote cause or general instigation to generate wholesome karma bringing about the general and particular retributions of humans and gods, both this karma and its retribution are abandoned through cultivation; because karma is initiated and retribution is brought about by a wholesome mind to be abandoned through cultivation, rather than being directly initiated by afflictions to be abandoned through seeing. If afflictions to be abandoned through cultivation are of the superior grade and directly initiate bad karma bringing about general and particular karma in the bad destinies, then what can initiate it is said to be abandoned on the path of cultivation. If they serve as a remote cause distantly initiating bad karma bringing about retribution in the bad destinies, then it is abandoned through seeing, because it was directly initiated by afflictions [abandoned] through seeing.

3.66

Those in the West also say: 'The five consciousnesses arising in reliance on a body in the bad destinies are abandoned through seeing; the five consciousnesses arising in reliance on a body in the good destinies are abandoned through cultivation.' Furthermore, wholesome and unwholesome karma brings about neutral feeling in that ālaya[-vijñāna]. The Tripiṭaka Master says: 'It also concurrently brings about the neutral feeling retribution among the six consciousnesses; this is neutral feeling born of maturation.'

3.67

Question: Prior to the path of seeing, the wholesome [roots] of the seven expedients also bring about particular retributions of humans and gods; why are they not said to be abandoned through cultivation?

3.68

Answer: This has already been explained, namely, in the explanation of experiencing the good destinies through wholesome karma.

3.69

Among the four karmas such as black-black: non-meritorious karma is named black-black, referring to the general karma of the three bad destinies and the particular bad karma of the five destinies. Immovable karma is named white-white, referring to the general and particular wholesome karma of the form and formless realms. Various meritorious karmas are named black-white-black-white karma, referring to the general karma of humans and gods in the desire realm and the particular wholesome karma conformable to the five destinies. Because the wholesome is opposed by the unwholesome, it is named black-white-black-white karma; because black karma has not yet been abandoned, its meritorious karma receives this name. Here, Jing explains: 'This refers to meritorious karma prior to separation from desire being named black-white karma. If so, then the four karmas such as black in the Yogācāra[-bhūmi] would not completely subsume karma, as they would not subsume the desire-realm wholesome karma initiated by a person who has separated from desire. However, the Tripiṭaka Master says: Wholesome [karma] at the time of separation from desire is of the same category as wholesome [karma] prior to separation from desire, so it can be said to be completely subsumed.' The Abhidharmasamuccaya explains these three kinds: they receive their names with respect to both cause and fruit. Black-black: because the cause is defiled, and the fruit is undesirable. White-white: because the cause is undefiled, and the fruit is desirable. Black-white-black-white: because the cause is bad mixed with good, and the fruit is mixed with bad. Because the fruit of desire-realm meritorious karma is necessarily mixed with the non-meritorious, it is black-white-black-white. There is also non-meritorious fruit not mixed with merit; hence it is not called white-black-white-black karma.

3.70

Furthermore, when that treatise explains black-black karma, referring to unwholesome karma, its intention takes the purely unwholesome karma initiated by one who has severed wholesome roots, as well as the fundamental and expedient purely unwholesome karma initiated by one who has not severed wholesome roots, to be black-black. If unwholesome karma is mixed with wholesome karma, whether serving as the fundamental or as the expedient, such unwholesome [karma] is combined with that wholesome [karma] to establish black-white-black-white karma.

3.71

Question: Why is it that in the Yogācāra[-bhūmi] all non-meritorious karma is named black-black, whereas the Abhidharma[-samuccaya] excludes unwholesome karma mixed with the wholesome, and only that which arises alone is named black-black?

3.72

Explanation: In the Yogācāra[-bhūmi], because unwholesome karma in the desire realm is strong, even if some arises intercalated with [wholesome karma], it is not adulterated by the wholesome; therefore all unwholesome karma is named black-black. The Abhidharma[-samuccaya], on the other hand, relies on purely arisen unwholesome karma uninterrupted by the wholesome to call it black-black; if it arises intercalated, it is subsumed under the third, black-white karma. Furthermore, the Abhidharma[-samuccaya] and Fascicle 66 state: 'White-white karma refers to wholesome karma of the three realms. Black-white-black-white karma refers to mixed karma of the desire realm.' It is not that a single moment of karma is both wholesome and unwholesome. Rather, in reliance on intention and expedient means, they are combined and stated as a single karma called mixed karma: that is, there is karma that is black in intention and white in expedient means, such as cultivating various wholesome acts with a deceitful mind; or there is karma that is white in intention and black in expedient means, such as disciplining disciples by initiating bad physical or vocal acts. This black-white karma extends to both wholesome and unwholesome natures. This treatise explains black-black and the other karmas in reliance on the three karmas of meritorious, non-meritorious, and immovable, while that treatise explains black-black and the other karmas in reliance on purely [good or bad] and mixed good and bad; therefore they do not contradict each other.

First 72 of 286 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

瑜伽論記 — Classical Chinese