大乘義章 7

English (machine translation) 7

Language: English

The meaning of the various karmas of the collection of defiled dharmas has sixteen sections (the three karmas of body and so forth; karmas of the three natures; karmas of the three retributive experiences; karmas bound to the three realms; karmas of the three times of retribution; the three crooked, defiled, and turbid karmas; the four karmas of black, white, and so forth; karmas of the five heinous deeds; the six karmas; the seven unwholesome restraints; the eight kinds of speech; the nine karmas; the ten unwholesome karma paths; the fourteen defiled karmas; the sixteen evil restraints; the thirty-five faults of drinking alcohol).

7.3

Analysis of the three karmas of body and so forth in five sections (first, explaining the names and distinguishing their nature; second, distinguishing their characteristics; third, expansion and contraction, detailed and summary; fourth, light and heavy; fifth, superior and inferior)

7.4

First, explaining the names and distinguishing their essential natures. The aggregation of physical form and shape is named "body." The portal through which speech is produced is named "speech." Investigating conditions is named "mind." Actions initiated relying upon these are therefore named bodily karma up to mental karma. Such are the names. What are their essential natures? Bodily karma is twofold: first, manifest karma (vijñapti-karman); second, non-manifest karma (avijñapti-karman). Regarding manifest karma, the treatises explain it differently. According to the Abhidharma, within the three groups of dharmas, it is included in physical dharmas. Within the twelve sense bases, it is subsumed under the visible-form base. That school explains that because bodily manifestation has the nature of obstruction, it is included in the physical group. It is real form (dravyasat-rūpa), and because it is the domain of the eye, it is subsumed under the visible-form base—specifically, high, low, upright, not upright, and so on. According to the Tattvasiddhi, within the three groups of dharmas, it is included in the physical group. Within the twelve sense bases, it is subsumed under the mental-object base (dharmāyatana). The meaning of "form" is the same as before. For what reason is it subsumed under the mental-object base among the twelve sense bases? In that tradition, real form is not karma; whatever is karma must be nominal form (prajñaptisat-rūpa), and only when there is harm or benefit within a continuum is it named karma. Therefore the Tattvasiddhi says: "When arising in another locus it is capable of harm or benefit, it is named karma." Within a continuum, a subsequent arising differing from the prior is named "arising in another locus." In the Mahāyāna Dharma, there is both real manifest karma, and it is completed through a continuum; its meaning encompasses both, and one must not hold bias toward either. Such is manifest karma. Regarding non-manifest karma, according to the Abhidharma, within the three groups of dharmas it is included in physical dharmas, and within the twelve sense bases it is subsumed under the mental-object base; because it has the nature of obstruction, it is included in physical dharmas. This non-manifest form is not the domain of the eye, but is known only by mental consciousness, and is therefore subsumed under the mental-object base. According to the Tattvasiddhi, within the three groups of dharmas it is included in neither-form-nor-mind (citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra), and within the twelve sense bases it is subsumed under the mental-object base. That tradition does not speak of a non-manifest form; precisely because non-manifest [action] is unlike physical obstruction, it is named non-form, and because it is unlike sentience and thought, it is called non-mind. Because it is the domain of the mind, it is subsumed under the mental-object base. In the Mahāyāna Dharma, the meaning encompasses both: because it is bodily karma, it may be named form; because it lacks the marks of form and mind, it is named neither form nor mind. Such is bodily karma. Verbal karma is also twofold: first, manifest karma; second, non-manifest karma. Regarding manifest karma, the treatises explain it differently. According to the Abhidharma, within the three groups of dharmas it is included in physical dharmas, and within the twelve sense bases it is subsumed under the sound base. Because it has the nature of obstruction, it is included in physical dharmas. It is real sound, and because it is the domain of the ear, it is subsumed under the sound base. That tradition does not accept nominal sound as constituting karma. According to the Tattvasiddhi, within the three groups of dharmas it is included in physical dharmas, and within the twelve sense bases it is subsumed under the mental-object base. Because it has the nature of obstruction, it is included in physical dharmas. It is nominal sound, and because it is the domain of the mind, it is subsumed under the mental-object base. Only within a continuum is there harm or benefit, hence it is named nominal. Regarding non-manifest karma, the treatises' explanations also differ. According to the Abhidharma, within the three groups of dharmas it is included in physical dharmas, and within the twelve sense bases it is subsumed under the mental-object base. Because it has the nature of form, it is included in the physical group. Being a non-manifest dharma and the domain of the mind, it is subsumed under the mental-object base. According to the Tattvasiddhi, within the three groups of dharmas it is included in neither-form-nor-mind, and within the twelve sense bases it is subsumed under the mental-object base. Because it is unlike physical obstruction, it is named non-form. Because it is unlike sentience and thought, it is called non-mind. Because it is the domain of the mind, it is subsumed under the mental-object base. In the Mahāyāna Dharma, the characteristics of verbal karma can be understood by analogy with the body. Within mental karma, the various treatises differ. According to the Abhidharma, there is only manifest karma, and no non-manifest karma. Therefore that treatise states: "Due to three reasons, the mind has no non-manifest [karma]. The three reasons refer to the dharmas of the three natures: wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral. In physical dharmas, the three natures can coexist, so that beside a wholesome body and speech there can be unwholesome non-manifest [karma], and beside an unwholesome body and speech there can be wholesome non-manifest [karma]. Mental dharmas are not like this: wholesome and unwholesome cannot coexist; within a wholesome mind there is no unwholesome non-manifest [karma], and within an unwholesome mind there is no wholesome non-manifest [karma]. For this reason, there is only manifest karma." Yet that manifest karma, within the three groups of dharmas, is included in mental dharmas, and within the twelve sense bases, is subsumed under the mental-object base. Because its essence is volition (cetanā) among the mental factors, it is included in mental dharmas. Because it is the domain of the mind, it is subsumed under the mental-object base. According to the Tattvasiddhi, the mental ground possesses both manifest and non-manifest karma. Therefore that treatise states: "There is no causal condition that would cause the mental ground to lack non-manifest karma." Its explanation of manifest karma is the same as the Abhidharma. Where it differs is that it does not assert a separate essence of volition outside of the mind. Therefore that treatise states: "If volition were not mind, what else would be spoken of as mental karma? When the mind acts upon an object, it is named volition." Regarding non-manifest karma, within the three groups of dharmas it is included in neither-form-nor-mind, and within the twelve sense bases it is subsumed under the mental-object base. Being unlike physical obstruction and further not being sentience or thought, it is said to be neither form nor mind. Because it is the domain of the mind, it is subsumed under the mental-object base. In the Mahāyāna Dharma, there are both manifest and non-manifest [karma]. Among them, manifest karma takes volition as its essence; within the three groups of dharmas it is included in mental dharmas, and within the twelve sense bases it is subsumed under the mental-object base. Non-manifest karma, because it is mental karma, may be called mind; because it lacks the marks of mind, it may be called non-mind; and within the twelve sense bases it is subsumed under the mental-object base. Such is mental karma (this completes the first section).

7.5

Next, distinguishing their characteristics. Within bodily karma there are three kinds: wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate. Within wholesome there are two: first, cessation; second, performance. Abstaining from the three bodily evils is named cessation; matters such as bowing and paying homage are named performance. Within unwholesome there are also two: first, cessation; second, performance. A determined mental resolve not to bow and pay homage and the like is named cessation; performing the three bodily evils of killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct is named performance. Within indeterminate there are also two: first, cessation; second, performance. Relinquishing the bodily karma initiated by an indeterminate mind is named cessation; initiating it is named performance. Question: In wholesome and unwholesome cessation-karma, relinquishing unwholesome performance constitutes wholesome cessation, and relinquishing wholesome performance constitutes unwholesome cessation. In the indeterminate, why does one not relinquish both wholesome and unwholesome performance to constitute cessation, but instead relinquishes the initiated action of the indeterminate to constitute cessation? If in the indeterminate, one turns back to relinquish indeterminate performance to constitute cessation, then cessation in the wholesome should likewise cease wholesome performance and not relinquish unwholesome performance, and the unwholesome should be likewise. Explanation: They are not analogous. The two categories of wholesome and unwholesome directly oppose each other. Because they directly oppose each other, there are two types of mutual opposition: first, general; second, specific. Speaking generally, wholesome opposes unwholesome, and unwholesome opposes wholesome. Speaking specifically, cessation in the wholesome must oppose unwholesome performance; cessation in the unwholesome must oppose wholesome performance. Indeterminate, viewed in relation to the two categories of wholesome and unwholesome, is not in direct opposition. Because it is not in direct opposition, there is only general mutual opposition, not specific mutual opposition. Because of general mutual opposition, indeterminate opposes the two categories of wholesome and unwholesome. Because it does not specifically oppose them, indeterminate cessation does not oppose the performance of the two categories of wholesome and unwholesome, and indeterminate performance does not oppose the cessation of the two categories of wholesome and unwholesome. Within its own category, cessation and performance mutually oppose each other. Verbal karma is also threefold: wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate. Within wholesome there are two: first, cessation; second, performance. Abstaining from the four verbal faults is named cessation; chanting, recitation, praise, and speech in accordance with the Dharma are named performance. Unwholesome is also twofold: first, cessation; second, performance. Not chanting or reciting and the like is named cessation; committing the four verbal faults is named performance. Indeterminate is also twofold: first, cessation; second, performance. Relinquishing the verbal karma initiated by an indeterminate mind is named cessation; initiating it is named performance. Mental karma is also threefold: wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate. Wholesome has two kinds: first, cessation; second, performance. Ceasing and abstaining from all unwholesome karmic volition is named cessation; initiating wholesome karmic volition is named performance. Within unwholesome there are also two: first, cessation; second, performance. A determined mind ceasing and abstaining from wholesome volition is named cessation; initiating unwholesome karmic volition is named performance. Indeterminate is also twofold: first, cessation; second, performance. Ceasing and abstaining from minds of comportment, craftsmanship, and the like is named cessation; initiating these is named performance. Question: If killing living beings, robbery, and sexual misconduct are bodily actions, then what karma are verbally instructing another to kill, and an ascetic in fury killing the people of the entire country of Gandhāra? The treatises' explanations differ. According to the Abhidharma, these are subsumed under bodily karma, because the culmination that constitutes killing necessarily depends on the body. Regarding verbally instructing to kill, the instructed person must take life with the body before it finally constitutes karma. As for an ascetic killing people in fury, spirits residing nearby, knowing the ascetic's intention, harmed the people of that country. According to the Tattvasiddhi, verbally instructing to kill is verbal karma, and killing through mental wrath is mental karma. Therefore the chapter on the Three Wrongs in the Tattvasiddhi says: "Speech can also instruct, and mind can also act; but because the body is predominant, they are named bodily karma." In the other karmic paths, mutual initiation is likewise by analogy. Sexual misconduct alone is exclusively a bodily action, because its completion as karma necessarily depends on the body. As the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: "Among these three karmas, mind is named the primary karma, and the two kinds of body and speech are named appointed karma." "Appointed" means appointment and convergence; from karmic volition, they are appointed, converged, and integrated in the body and speech, and are therefore named appointed karma. Furthermore, that sūtra states: "Mind is directly named karma, while the two karmas of body and speech are named karmic fruits, because from karmic volition body and speech are accomplished (this completes the second section)."

7.6

Next, the meaning of opening and combining, detailed and brief, is explained. Opening and combining are not fixed. Sometimes they are subsumed into one, collectively termed "karma". Sometimes they are divided into two: first, active karma (vijñapti-karma), and second, unmanifest karma (avijñapti-karma), as discriminated above. Sometimes they are spoken of as three, within which there are three [ways of categorization]: First, distinguishing them according to instrument, namely the three kinds of karma of body, speech, and mind. Second, distinguishing them according to meaning: first, active karma, namely the two active karmas of body and speech; second, unmanifest karma, namely the unmanifest karma of body and speech; third, karma that is neither active nor unmanifest, namely mental karma. Third, distinguishing them according to nature, namely wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate karma. Sometimes they are spoken of as four, namely the four kinds of karma such as dark and bright. Sometimes they are spoken of as five; as the *Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya* says: bodily karma has two, manifest and unmanifest; speech karma is also like this, thus making four; mind has only manifest, and combined with the preceding, this makes five. If relying on the *Tattvasiddhi*, the mind-ground also has manifest and unmanifest karma. If following this meaning, karma is spoken of as six. Sometimes they are divided into nine: bodily, verbal, and mental karmas each have three types—wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate—which makes nine. Moreover, as in the "Chapter on the Nine Karmas" of the *Tattvasiddhi*, they are further spoken of as nine. What are these? It explains that the desire realm has three: first, manifest karma; second, unmanifest karma; third, karma that is neither manifest nor unmanifest, as discriminated above; the form realm is also like this, thus making six; the formless [realm] has two: first, unmanifest karma; second, karma that is neither manifest nor unmanifest, which combined with the preceding makes eight; and untainted karma, combined with the preceding makes nine. Sometimes they are divided into thirteen; as the Abhidharma says: body and speech have five: first, wholesome manifest; second, unwholesome manifest; third, indeterminate manifest. Unmanifest has two, which combined with the preceding makes five. The two unmanifests are: first, wholesome unmanifest; second, unwholesome unmanifest. Indeterminate is weak and feeble, and does not issue unmanifest [karma]. Since bodily karma is such, speech karma is also like this, thus making ten. The mind-ground has only three kinds of manifest karma, which combined with the preceding makes thirteen. If relying on the *Tattvasiddhi*, the mind-ground also has wholesome and unwholesome unmanifest karma; discussing it based on this, there are fifteen karmas. Or again, they are spoken of as twenty-three karmas: wholesome karmas are ten, namely non-killing and so forth; unwholesome are also ten, namely killing, stealing, and so forth; combined with the three indeterminate karmas of body, speech, and mind, this is precisely twenty-three kinds of karma. If dividing them broadly, the varieties of numbers are inexhaustible. (This concludes the third section.)

7.7

Next, the meaning of the light and heavy among the three karmas is discriminated. Among the three karmas, which is the heaviest? In this, the two karmas of body and speech are first contrasted with mental karma to discriminate light and heavy, and afterwards they are discussed individually. As for contrasting body and speech with mind to discriminate them, mental karma is the heaviest, because all bodily and verbal [actions] are accomplished through mind. Furthermore, among unwholesome karmas, wrong view is the heaviest, for it can sever wholesome roots and make one an icchantika. Among wholesome karmas, the path of deliverance of the three vehicles is the most supreme. Among worldly [karmas], the karma of the [sphere of] neither-perception-nor-non-perception is superior. All these are made by mind; therefore, we know that mind is heavy. Next, light and heavy are explained individually according to the three karmas: Among bodily [actions], the heaviest is shedding the Buddha's blood. Among speech [actions], the heaviest is causing schism in the Saṃgha and slandering the vaipulya sūtras. Among mind [actions], the heaviest is wrong view. Such are unwholesome karmas; among wholesome karmas, the karma of bodhi is considered the heaviest. Among these three kinds, bodily is light, speech is medium, and mind is the heaviest. (This concludes the fourth section.)

7.8

Next, the differences in obtaining retribution as superior and inferior are discriminated. As Nāgārjuna says, "Unwholesome has three [grades], namely inferior, medium, and superior: the inferior is born as a hungry ghost; the medium is born as an animal; the superior is born in hell. Wholesome also has three [grades], namely inferior, medium, and superior: the inferior is born as an asura; the medium is born among humans; the superior is born in heaven." Furthermore, it is distinguished, "Unwholesome has four grades, namely inferior, medium, superior, and highest-superior: the inferior is born as an asura; the medium is born as a hungry ghost; the superior is born as an animal; the highest-superior is born in hell. Wholesome also has four: the inferior is born as a human; the medium is born in heaven; those of the superior grade obtain the fruit of the two vehicles; those of the highest-superior grade obtain the unsurpassable fruit." Furthermore, in the *Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]*, wholesome is divided into four grades: the inferior is born in Uttarakuru, the medium is born in Pūrvavideha, the superior is born in Aparagodānīya, and those of the highest-superior grade are born in Jambudvīpa. This is dividing superior and inferior in relation to the Path. That Uttarakuru is incapable of receiving the Path, so inferior wholesome [karma] leads to birth there; the places of birth for the medium and superior grades are difficult to explain. If contrasted with the dharma of the Path, medium wholesome [karma] should lead to birth in Aparagodānīya, and superior to birth in Pūrvavideha. However, in that sūtra, the medium and superior grades are merely divided in terms of retribution. Southern Jambudvīpa is supreme in receiving the Path, so superior wholesome [karma] leads to birth there. If dividing the four grades in relation to karmic retribution: the inferior is born in Jambudvīpa, the medium is born in Pūrvavideha, the superior is born in Aparagodānīya, and those of the highest-superior grade are born in Uttarakuru. The meaning of the three karmas is briefly discriminated in this way.

7.9

The meaning of karma of the three natures is discriminated in three sections: (1. Explaining the names and discerning the substance; 2. Distinguishing the characteristics; 3. Distinguishing according to persons).

7.10

In the first section, the names are explained and the substance is discerned. Karma of the three natures refers to wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate. Accordant is called wholesome; contrary is called unwholesome. This contrariety and accordance are explained below in the five grades and ten wholesome [precepts]. That which is neither contrary nor accordant is spoken of as indeterminate (avyākṛta). There are two meanings in the explanation: First, distinguishing in relation to the fruit: neutral karma cannot record (vyākaroti) the two retributions of suffering and pleasure; therefore it is called indeterminate (avyākṛta). Second, distinguishing in relation to exposition: neutral karma is not recorded/declared by the Tathāgata as wholesome or as unwholesome; therefore it is called indeterminate. Such are the names and meanings. What is their substance? Wholesome is of two kinds: first, innate, formed in the present through past habituation; second, expedience, newly arisen in confrontation with conditions. Unwholesome is only one, not divided into the distinction of innate and expedience. Why is it so? All unwholesome dharmas are formed by character through long habituation in the past, without relying on present expedience to cultivate their arising; therefore they are not divided. Indeterminate has four [types], namely retribution-born, comportment, craftsmanship, and transformation. The two retributions of suffering and pleasure are called retribution-born; moving forward, stopping, coming, and going are comportment; managing worldly livelihood and affairs is spoken of as craftsmanship; the fourteen transformations and so forth are called transformation. (This concludes the first section.)

7.11

Next, their characteristics are discriminated. The differences in characteristics are five: First, determining the three natures in terms of conventional dharmas: among all ordinary beings and noble ones, the two wholesome [actions] of cessation and activity within body, speech, and mind are called wholesome; the two unwholesome [actions] of cessation and activity are equally called unwholesome; retribution-born, comportment, craftsmanship, and transformation are collectively called indeterminate. Second, distinguishing in terms of the dharmas of the monastic path: among all ordinary beings and noble ones, the two wholesome [actions] of cessation and activity within body, speech, and mind are called wholesome; the two unwholesome [actions] of cessation and activity are equally called unwholesome; retribution-born is indeterminate; comportment, craftsmanship, and transformation have three distinct meanings, as spoken in the Vinaya: that which is done in accordance with the Dharma is called wholesome; that which is done contrary to the Dharma is collectively called unwholesome; that which is neither contrary nor accordant is spoken of as indeterminate. Third, distinguishing in relation to the fruit: that which generates pleasure is wholesome; that which generates suffering is unwholesome; that which is incapable of generating [either] is spoken of as indeterminate. In this approach, for ordinary beings and trainees (śaikṣa), the two wholesome [actions] of cessation and activity within body, speech, and mind are called wholesome, because they are capable of generating pleasure; the two unwholesome [actions] of cessation and activity are equally called unwholesome, because they are capable of generating suffering. Retribution-born, comportment, craftsmanship, and transformation are spoken of as indeterminate, because they are incapable of generating [these]. All actions performed by noble ones beyond training (aśaikṣa) are collectively called indeterminate, because they cannot record a future fruit. Therefore, in the *Bodhisattvabhūmi* (*Dichi*), an offense committed by an arhat is called an indeterminate duṣkṛta offense. Since the offense is indeterminate, wholesome and so forth are also likewise. Fourth, distinguishing in relation to principle: "principle" refers to the principle of emptiness. Accordance with the principle is called wholesome; contrariety to the principle is unwholesome; being neither contrary nor accordant is spoken of as indeterminate. In this approach, whatever is done by ordinary beings—wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate—is all called unwholesome, because it arises from a mind grasping at inherent nature, contrary to the principle of emptiness. The practices of the noble ones of the three vehicles that accord with the principle are called wholesome; that which is performed by the noble ones of the three vehicles in adaptation to phenomenal affairs is spoken of as indeterminate. Fifth, distinguishing in relation to the real: "the real" refers to the nature of the non-empty tathāgatagarbha. In relation to this real nature, accordance is called wholesome, contrariety is called unwholesome, and being neither contrary nor accordant is spoken of as indeterminate. In this approach, the attributes of true realization and practice of the buddhas and bodhisattvas are called wholesome; all that is performed by ordinary beings and the two vehicles is wholly called unwholesome. In the dharma of bodhisattvas, conditioned cultivation of the untainted is also wholesome and unwholesome: what accords in characteristic is called wholesome; because it is contrary in nature, it is spoken of as unwholesome; other insentient dharmas are spoken of as indeterminate. (This concludes the second section.)

7.12

Next, discussing them in terms of persons: "Persons" refers to ordinary beings, śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, bodhisattvas, and buddhas. Ordinary beings, the two vehicles, and bodhisattvas fully possess the three karmas. For the Tathāgata alone, Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna differ. In the Hīnayāna teaching, it is proclaimed that the Tathāgata has wholesome and indeterminate, but no unwholesome karma, as spoken in the *Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya*. Furthermore, as in the *Tattvasiddhi*, the Buddha's retribution is indeterminate, while his other virtues are wholesome. In the Mahāyāna teaching, it is proclaimed that the Tathāgata is solely wholesome, without unwholesome or indeterminate. Therefore the *Bodhisattvabhūmi* (*Dichi*) states, "Only the Tathāgata is entirely wholesome in all respects." In the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* (*Dazhidulun*), it is also spoken in the same way; hence it proclaims that the eighteen unshared attributes are solely wholesome. The karmas of the three natures are briefly treated as such.

7.13

The meaning of karma resulting in the three feelings is discriminated in three sections: (1. Explaining the names; 2. Discerning the characteristics; 3. Distinguishing according to realms).

7.14

First, explaining the names. As for "the three feelings", they are suffering, pleasure, and neither-suffering-nor-pleasure. Afflictive oppression is called suffering; comfortable delight is called pleasure; neutral feeling renounces the previous two kinds, and is therefore called neither-suffering-nor-pleasure, also called the feeling of equanimity. What is termed "karma" is that causes such as wholesome and unwholesome give rise to the three feelings, and hence it is called karma. Question: Wholesome and unwholesome can generate the five aggregates; for what reason does one exclusively speak of feeling-karma, and not speak of form-karma, perception-karma, and so forth? As the "Chapter on the Three Feelings" in the *Tattvasiddhi* says, "Feeling is the real retribution; therefore it is called feeling-karma. The others are nominal retributions; therefore they are omitted and not discussed." As for feeling being real: retributions such as suffering and pleasure directly recompense the past causes of wholesome and unwholesome; therefore it is called real retribution. The rest, such as form, do not directly correspond to the two causes of wholesome and unwholesome, and therefore are not called real; they are merely spoken of as retribution by association, and thus are called nominal retribution. That treatise further states, "Feeling is the most supreme; therefore it is called feeling-karma. The others are inferior, which is why they are not mentioned." As for "supreme": its recompensing of the cause is obvious; it generates delight or revulsion; its power and function are strong; therefore it is called supreme. The others are not like this, and therefore are called inferior. That treatise further states, "Feeling can be distinctively apprehended in relation to conditions; therefore it is called feeling-karma. The others are not like this, and are set aside without discussion." How is the feeling-mind apprehended in relation to conditions? Just as a person says, "fire is painful, fire is pleasant," and so on for all things, because feeling arises with distinctions in relation to conditions, its meaning as recompensing retribution is apparent, and therefore it is called feeling-karma. (This concludes the first section.)

7.15

Next is to explain their characteristics. Question: What karma can obtain painful feeling, up to what karma can obtain equanimous feeling? Explanation: Unwholesome karma can obtain painful feeling; wholesome karma can obtain both pleasant and equanimous feelings. That unwholesome karma obtains pain is self-evident in meaning. Among wholesome karma, which obtains pleasure and which obtains equanimity? In the *Vibhāṣā*, two masters discuss this differently. One master explains: Wholesomeness has three grades, namely low, medium, and high. The superior and subtle wholesome deeds of the fourth dhyāna and above can obtain equanimous feeling. Therefore, that treatise says: "Obtaining neither-pain-nor-pleasure is called superior wholesomeness." Both medium and low wholesome deeds obtain pleasant feeling. Question: For what reason does the lower stage have no retribution of equanimous feeling? The *Abhidharma* explains: "The lower stage is coarse, while equanimous feeling is subtle. The lower stage is not tranquil, while equanimous feeling is serene. Furthermore, when creating wholesome deeds in the lower stage, one acts merely to experience pleasure, not for equanimity; therefore, the lower stage has no retribution of equanimous feeling." According to this explanation, beneath the third dhyāna there is no dying with a retribution mind, because there is no retribution equanimity. The second master maintains: Among the three grades of wholesomeness, both superior and inferior wholesome deeds can obtain equanimous feeling, while medium wholesome deeds obtain pleasure. According to this explanation, beneath the third dhyāna there is also retribution equanimity. Because there is retribution equanimity, beneath the third dhyāna one can also die within a retribution mind. In the *Tattvasiddhi* system, it agrees with the latter view: among the three grades of wholesomeness, both superior and inferior wholesome deeds can obtain equanimous feeling. The inferior can obtain the retribution of equanimous feeling beneath the third dhyāna; the superior can obtain the retribution of equanimous feeling of the fourth dhyāna and above. This is truly because wholesome dharmas do not arise and become perfected all at once; they are subtle at first, then prominent, and ultimately subtle, wondrous, free of characteristics, and serene. Therefore, the superior and inferior alike obtain equanimous feeling, while the medium obtains pleasant feeling. Question: Since equanimous feeling arises from wholesomeness, as it repays and accords with a wholesome cause, it ought to be called pleasure; for what reason is it termed equanimity? Explanation: There is a reason. What is obtained through inferior wholesomeness ought generally to be called pleasure, but because it is slight and faint, the conscious mind does not clearly perceive it; therefore, it is termed equanimity. What is obtained through superior wholesomeness is truly supreme pleasure, but because it is serene and detaches from the coarse conscious mind, it is spoken of as equanimity. Question: If the superior and inferior pleasures thus induced are called equanimity, should the wholesomeness capable of inducing them be called morally neutral? Explanation: They are not of the same category. For something to be morally neutral, it is called morally neutral only because it cannot record future karmic fruit and retribution. Truly, because the meaning of a recorded dharma is to produce fruit, as long as it causes fruit to arise, it is called recorded. As for pleasure, its meaning is conscious perception. In the superior and inferior pleasures, the conscious mind is faint and minimal; therefore, it is not called pleasure, but is spoken of as equanimity. Question: If the pleasant fruit obtained through inferior wholesomeness is called equanimity simply because the conscious mind is faint, then in the slight pain obtained through inferior unwholesome karma, the conscious mind is also minimal; for what reason is it not called equanimity? Explanation: They are not of the same category. The nature of pain is coarse and heavy, and its opposition to the mind is strong, so it is always consciously perceived; therefore, it is not called equanimity. The nature of pleasure is light and thin, and its arising does not oppose the mind, so the sense of conscious awareness produced is faint; thus it is spoken of as equanimity. Question: Both pain and pleasure arise from karma; for what reason is pain coarse and pleasure faint? Explanation: The conditioned dharmas of the three realms are in essence impermanent, undergoing arising and cessation, which is the suffering of conditioned formations. That painful feeling takes that subtle suffering of conditioned formations as its essence: pain arising upon suffering, the suffering increases and is therefore coarse. That pleasant feeling also takes the subtle suffering of conditioned formations as its essence: pleasure arising upon suffering, being superficial and thin, it is therefore faint. Because pain is coarse, both light and heavy pain are called painful feeling; because pleasure is faint, what is coarse is pleasant feeling, and what is subtle is equanimous feeling. (This concludes the second section.)

7.16

The third section discusses them in terms of their realms. "Realms" refers to the distinctions among the three realms and five destinies. First, their characteristics are distinguished in terms of the three realms. As for karma of painful feeling, according to the *Abhidharma*, it arises in the desire realm, and the fruit of retribution obtained is also in the desire realm. According to the *Tattvasiddhi*, karma of painful feeling arises throughout all three realms but pertains to the desire realm. It properly arises in the desire realm and arises by transference in the higher realms; the fruit of retribution obtained arises throughout all three realms, but pertains to the desire realm. The desire realm is the place where the retribution is properly received; the higher realms are the places where it is received by transference. Question: How does pain arise in the higher realms? Explanation: When their retribution in the higher realms is about to end, a distressed and vexed mind arises; distress and vexation are subsumed under painful feeling. Therefore, that treatise says: "Pain and pleasure follow the body up to the fourth dhyāna; grief and joy follow the mind up to the peak of existence, because grief and pain are both subsumed under painful feeling." As for karma of pleasant feeling, according to the *Abhidharma*, it is in the desire realm and the form realm beneath the third dhyāna, and the retribution received is also in the desire realm and the form realm beneath the third dhyāna. According to the *Tattvasiddhi*, karma that brings the retribution of pleasant feeling arises throughout the three realms, but pertains to beneath the third dhyāna. Beneath the third dhyāna is the place of proper arising; above the third dhyāna is the place of arising by transference. The fruit obtained also extends through the three realms, but pertains to beneath the third dhyāna. Beneath the third dhyāna is the place of proper reception; above the third dhyāna is the place of reception by transference. As for karma of equanimous feeling, it arises throughout all three realms, and its reception of retribution is variable. According to the *Tattvasiddhi*, all three realms receive it. Question: Since equanimous feeling extends throughout the three realms, why do the sūtras say that equanimous feeling exists above the fourth dhyāna? The *Tattvasiddhi* explains: "From the fourth dhyāna and above there are no other feelings; therefore, equanimity alone is spoken of. In reality, however, equanimous feeling is not absent from the lower [realms]." According to the *Abhidharma*, only above the fourth dhyāna is there retribution of equanimous feeling; the lower stages do not have it. Even if the lower stages have feeling, it is expedient equanimity. Such is the case for the three realms. Next, their characteristics are distinguished in terms of the five destinies. Karma of painful feeling arises throughout all five destinies, and the reception of retribution is likewise. In the lower three destinies, one receives overall retribution of pain; in the two destinies of humans and devas, one receives particular retribution of pain. Karma of pleasant feeling, according to the *Abhidharma*, arises throughout the five destinies, and the pleasant fruits obtained are both overall and particular. The fruit of overall retribution is solely in humans and devas; the pleasant feeling of particular retribution, excluding only the hells, pervades the other four destinies. How is this known? As the *Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya* says: "Wholesome karma is of four kinds: 1. karma of retribution in the present life, 2. karma of retribution in the next birth, 3. karma of retribution in subsequent births, 4. karma of indefinite retribution. Among these four kinds, hell creates three, excluding karma of retribution in the present life, because in hell there is no wholesome retribution. In the other four destinies, all four karmas arise fully." One clearly knows that the other destinies generally have wholesome retribution. According to the *Tattvasiddhi*, karma of true feeling arises throughout the five destinies, and the pleasant feeling obtained also pervades the five destinies. Therefore, that treatise says: "Great benefit of wholesome karma yields retribution as humans and devas, up to nirvāṇa. Minor benefit of wholesome karma yields even a small amount of pleasure in the three lower realms." Karma of equanimous feeling, according to the *Abhidharma*, arises throughout humans and devas, with retribution in the form realm heavens. According to the *Tattvasiddhi*, karma of equanimous feeling arises throughout the five destinies, and the reception of fruit is likewise. The karma bringing the retribution of the three feelings is briefly outlined as above.

7.17

The doctrine of karma bound to the three realms is distinguished through five gates: 1. explaining the names, 2. that which binds, 3. that which is bound, 4. distinctions of location, and 5. remedial eradication.

7.18

First is explaining the names. "Bound to the three realms" refers to karma bound to the desire, form, and formless realms. "Desire" refers to the desire realm; defiled craving for sense objects is called desire. To distinguish it from the higher realms, it is called the desire realm. However, in the desire realm, one also clings to one's own body, but desire for the five sense objects exists in the lower realm and is absent in the higher; in order to distinguish it from the higher realms, it is named after desire. "Form" refers to the form realm; in contrast to the lower realm, it ought to be named "absence of desire." Because in this realm one clings to internal physical forms, it is called form after that which is clung to; form distinguishes it from what is above and below, so it is called the form realm. "Formless" refers to the formless realm. Following what is grasped, it ought to be named the mind realm, because in this realm physical retribution is completely severed. Standing in opposition to the lower realms to manifest its name, it is therefore called formless; using this to distinguish it from the lower realms, it is called the formless realm. Regarding "bound karma," there are four meanings in this explanation: 1. Distinguishing the meaning of binding in terms of the essence of karma: the essence of sāsrava karma belongs to the three realms, and therefore it is called karma bound to the three realms. 2. Distinguishing the meaning of binding in terms of obtaining the fruit: the location where sāsrava karma receives retribution is definitively in the three realms, and therefore it is called karma bound to the three realms. 3. Distinguishing the binding by contrasting karma and fruit: within the three realms, karma and fruit bind each other, and therefore it is called karma bound to the three realms. Thus the *Tattvasiddhi* says: "From hell up to Paranirmitavaśavartin, receiving retribution therein is called bound to the desire realm. From the Brahma world up to Akaniṣṭha, receiving retribution therein is called bound to the form realm. From the stage of boundless space up to neither-perception-nor-non-perception, receiving retribution therein is called bound to the formless realm." 4. Distinguishing the binding in contrast to defilement: being bound as an object condition by the defilements of its own realm, it is therefore called bound karma. Question: If it is called "bound" because karma and fruit mutually bind each other, for what reason is it not called "bound fruit," but exclusively called "bound karma"? Explanation: Speaking of binding with respect to the fruit is also acceptable; here, relying on the gate of karma, it is called bound karma. Furthermore, karma is the root, and therefore it is spoken of exclusively. Another question: Defilements can also bind the fruit; for what reason are defilements not spoken of as the binding, but it is exclusively called bound karma? Explanation: In principle, defilements are also bindings; here, in terms of the gate of karma, it is called bound karma. Furthermore, karma is the direct seed, and therefore it is spoken of exclusively. Question: To which realm does indeterminate retribution karma that is morally neutral belong? The *Tattvasiddhi* explains: "It is bound to the desire realm. Why? Because it can be the karmic fruition of the desire realm." Another question: What is the difference between bound karma and bound dharmas? Explanation: Bound karma is restricted to the three types of karma and does not extend to other dharmas. If one discusses bound dharmas, they generally include karma, defilements, and their associated mind and mental factors; all of these are called bound dharmas. Such is the meaning of the names. (This concludes the first section.)

7.19

Next is to explain that which binds. Here there are four aspects: 1. Distinguishing in contrast between sāsrava and anāsrava: Sāsrava is binding, whereas anāsrava is variable. In the Hīnayāna teaching, it is categorically unbinding. In the Mahāyāna teaching, anāsrava is of two kinds: first, true realization, which is categorically unbinding; second, cognizing conditions, which is both bound and unbinding. With respect to the fruit of portioned birth and death, it does not accumulate or attract [rebirth], and is therefore called unbinding; with respect to the fruit of transformational birth and death, cause and effect mutually bind, and it is also called binding, meaning that within the transformational worldly realm one receives fruit and retribution. 2. Distinguishing in terms of wholesomeness, unwholesomeness, and moral neutrality: If one says that the essence of karma definitively belongs to the three realms and is also called bound karma because it is bound by the defilements of its own realm, then all sāsrava wholesome, unwholesome, and morally neutral karmas are called bound karma. If one says that obtaining the fruit definitively belongs to the three realms and is called bound karma because cause and effect mutually bind within the three realms, then sāsrava wholesome and unwholesome karmas are called bound karma, while morally neutral karma is not bound, as it has no fruit or retribution. Between those two karmas of wholesomeness and unwholesomeness, unwholesome karma is definitively bound to the desire realm. Wholesome karma is of two kinds: first, concentrated; second, distracted. Distracted karma refers to wholesome deeds such as giving and morality, which are bound to the desire realm; concentrated karma refers to the karmas of the eight dhyāna concentrations, among which the four dhyānas are bound to the form realm, and the four formless concentrations are bound to the formless realm. 3. Distinguishing in terms of bodily, vocal, and mental karma: Bodily and vocal karmas are bound to the desire and form realms; mental karma alone is bound across all three realms. 4. Distinguishing in terms of demerit, merit, and the unshakeable: Demerit refers to unwholesome karma; merit refers to scattered wholesome karma; the unshakeable refers to the karmas of the eight dhyāna concentrations. Among these three kinds, the two karmas of demerit and merit are bound to the desire realm, while unshakeable karma is bound to the upper two realms. (This concludes the second section.)

7.20

Next is to explain that which is bound. Herein there are two [aspects]: first, explaining that which is bound with respect to binding karma; second, explaining that which is bound with respect to binding dharmas. Within that which is bound by karma, there are four distinctions: First, distinction based on sāsrava and anāsrava. According to the Abhidharma, sāsrava resultant dharmas are produced from karma and are that which is bound by karma; anāsrava [dharmas] are not produced from sāsrava karma and are not bound by karma. If according to the Tattvasiddhi, all sāsrava [dharmas] are produced from past sāsrava karma and are bound by karma; anāsrava dharmas are also produced from past [deeds of] generosity, precepts, and the like, yet they are karmic fruits but not bound by karma. Why is this? Because the sūtras teach that there are unbounded experiences. Furthermore, an anāsrava dharma in arising must rely on a cause and in coming to be must depend on conditions; the good of generosity, precepts, and the like cultivated in the past serves as their condition, while expedient anāsrava serves as their cause—because the causal force is great, they are therefore not bound. Such is the treatise's explanation. If one says that cause and effect mutually belonging and clinging to one another is called 'bound', there is also no harm in that principle. Within the Mahāyāna teaching, truly realized anāsrava is not bound by karma, whereas transformational anāsrava is bound by karma. Second, distinction based on the three natures. According to the Abhidharma, among indeterminate dharmas, resultant indeterminate dharmas are karmic fruits and are bound by karma, whereas the rest are not bound by karma. If according to the Tattvasiddhi, among sāsrava dharmas, dharmas of all three natures are produced from past sāsrava karma and are bound by karma. Hence that treatise states: 'I say that karmic retributions are of three kinds: wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate. Regarding wholesome retributions: because someone cultivated wholesome dharmas in the past, their present retribution is purely wholesome. Regarding unwholesome retributions: the retributions of desire such as being a non-man (paṇḍaka) and the like, the retributions of anger such as poisonous snakes, scorpions, and the like—all such things. Retributions that are indeterminate can be understood by their meaning. Because they are karmic retributions, they are bound by karma.' Furthermore, that treatise states: 'All dharmas that are produced have karma as their root. If there were no root of karma, how could they arise? Hence it is known that all dharmas are bound by karma.' Third, distinction based on internal and external. In the Abhidharma teaching, the internal retribution of sentient beings is produced from karma and is bound by karma; external mountains, rivers, and all other objective realms are not produced from karma and are not bound by karma. Question: Are not all mountains, rivers, and the great earth the environmental retribution (adhipatiphala) of sentient beings? Why do you say they are not bound by karma? Moreover, if a person does good, they are reborn in an auspicious place; if a person commits evil, they are reborn in a miserable place. Why do you say they are not bound by karma? The Abhidharma explains: 'External mountains, rivers, and the like still take external dharmas—the four great elements—as their cause, and do not arise due to karma; therefore they are not bound by karma. Regarding the statement that doing wholesome karma leads to birth in an auspicious place and doing unwholesome karma leads to birth in a miserable place: the force of karma is like the wind; by the wind of wholesome karma, sentient beings are blown to auspicious places to experience pleasure; by the wind of unwholesome karma, sentient beings are blown to miserable places to suffer pain. However, the places where they dwell do not arise due to karma; therefore they are not bound by karma.' If according to the Tattvasiddhi, all internal and external [dharmas] are fruits of karma, and all are that which is bound. Question: External dharmas are not included among sentient beings; they exist naturally beforehand and do not exist due to karma. How can you say they are bound by karma? Furthermore, external dharmas are produced from homogenous causes—just as beans produce beans, wheat produces wheat, and so forth—what use is there for karma, that you call them fruits of karma and bound by karma? The Tattvasiddhi explains: 'Although external dharmas are not included among sentient beings, because they are the fruit of sentient beings' collective karma, they also arise from karma. If one says that external dharmas are produced from homogenous causes and do not depend on karma, this doctrine is incorrect. Why is it not so? Just as sentient beings, although born from the union of parents, also rely upon karma. External dharmas are likewise: although they are homogenous and mutually arise due to one another, what harm is there in them depending on karma? Furthermore, all things are not entirely produced from homogenous causes, as at the beginning of the kalpa all the myriad things arose without [apparent external] causes; it is clearly known that they depend on karma. Because they are produced by karma, they are bound by karma.' Fourth, distinction based on the three aggregates. The 'three aggregates' are matter, mind, and that which is neither matter nor mind. According to the Abhidharma, among material dharmas, only the five retributive faculties and the material form, sound, smell, taste, and tangibles that support those faculties are the fruits of karma and bound by karma; all the rest—the five faculties of the eye and so forth nurtured through expedients, as well as the external five dusts—are not karmic fruits and not bound by karma. Among mental dharmas, only mind and mental factors (caitta) arising as retribution are karmic fruits and bound by karma; all the rest of mental dharmas of the three natures are not karmic fruits and not bound by karma. Among dharmas that are neither mental [nor material], only the life-faculty, the retribution of the non-conceptual heaven, the types of sentient beings, and their associated arising, abiding, and cessation are retributive dharmas and bound by karma; the rest are all non-retributive and not bound by karma. If according to the Tattvasiddhi, among sāsrava dharmas, all material dharmas, all mental dharmas, and that which is neither matter nor mind are universally fruits of karma and bound by karma. The above four aspects are distinctions made with respect to karma. Next is to explain that which is bound with respect to binding dharmas. According to the Abhidharma, all sāsrava [dharmas] within the plane of the desire realm are bound by the afflictions of the desire realm as their object-conditions, and are called bound to the desire realm. All sāsrava [dharmas] within the plane of the form realm are bound by the afflictions of the form realm as their object-conditions, and are called bound to the form realm. The formless realm is also like this. In the Tattvasiddhi Treatise, this doctrine is not maintained (here ends the third section).

First 20 of 71 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大乘義章 — Classical Chinese