華嚴經內章門等雜孔目章 3.32

3.32

The ten unwholesome actions are: 1. killing, 2. stealing, 3. sexual misconduct, 4. lying, 5. harsh speech, 6. divisive speech, 7. frivolous talk, 8. covetousness, 9. malice, and 10. delusion. These actions are of two kinds: first, inherently unwholesome action, because their nature contravenes principle; second, originating evil discipline; both pervade the three karmas. The innate ten unwholesome actions also comprise informative and uninformative [karma]. Informative [karma] is of three kinds: doing it oneself, causing others to do it, and rejoicing upon seeing or hearing of it being done. Uninformative [karma] is of one kind: uninformative [karma] concurrent with the informative action. Question: Why is evil discipline not like the lifetime uninformative [karma] in the precepts? Answer: For the karma of evil discipline, there are those born into families of evil discipline; once they possess awareness, taking hold of instruments of killing immediately constitutes obtaining the evil discipline; it is not solely due to resolving a long-term limitation of mind that evil discipline arises. Because of this distinct meaning, it differs from the lifetime [uninformative karma] of wholesome precepts. There are also those who obtain evil discipline through vows, but not all of them. Furthermore, there are esoteric inversions based on the goodness of the ten unwholesome deeds, as stated in Paramārtha's translation of the treatise. The treatise says: "Again, another sūtra says: 'How does a bodhisattva practice killing? If a bodhisattva cuts off the continuum of sentient beings with life.'" The commentary says: If there is life, one knows there is karma; if there is karma, one knows there is affliction. Because these three are complete, the continuum of the six destinies and the four modes of birth is unbroken. If a bodhisattva, according to their dispositions, expounds the holy path of the three vehicles to cause them to practice, cut off these three dharmas, and attain the fruit of nirvāṇa without remainder, not continuing sentient beings is precisely cutting off life, hence named 'killing'. The treatise says: "'How does a bodhisattva take what is not given by others? If a bodhisattva himself takes what is not given by others.'" The commentary says: A bodhisattva, with great compassion, gathers all sentient beings as his own retinue to lead them away from the steep perils of saṃsāra. Taking sentient beings that are not given by others means that they are not given by their parents or rulers; hence it is called 'taking what is not given by others'. The treatise says: "'How does a bodhisattva practice sexual misconduct? If a bodhisattva arouses improper thoughts toward sense-objects of desire, and so forth.'" The commentary says: A bodhisattva's three karmas are the opposite of sexual lust: mentally knowing it to be illusory and unreal, the root of all evils; orally speaking likewise; and physically not carrying out its acts, which is also the opposite. This is precisely arousing improper thoughts toward sense-objects of desire; hence it is called 'practicing sexual misconduct'. The treatise says: "'How can a bodhisattva speak false speech? If a bodhisattva is able to speak of what is false as false.'" The commentary says: All dharmas are false; a bodhisattva speaks of them as they are false; hence it is called 'being able to speak', and therefore 'being able to speak false speech'. The treatise says: "'How does a bodhisattva practice divisive speech? If a bodhisattva constantly abides in the state of ultimate emptiness and tranquility.'" The commentary says: Divisive speech causes disharmony between one party and another. The bodhisattva contemplates emptiness and speaks of emptiness, causing self and other to not perceive this or that, let alone harmonize them; hence it is called 'practicing divisive speech'. The treatise says: "'How can a bodhisattva abide in pāruṣya? If a bodhisattva abides on the other shore of the knowable.'" The commentary says: If based on direct speech, pāruṣya designates harsh speech; one who abides in harsh speech is not approached by others. A bodhisattva abides on the other shore of the knowable, namely the principle of the three non-natures, and is likewise not approached by sentient beings. Because this principle is not a realm traversed by ordinary beings or the two vehicles, it is called 'being able to abide in harsh speech'. Moreover, if based on esoteric speech, pāruṣya designates abiding on the other shore; that is, using esoteric speech to manifest direct speech. The treatise says: "'How can a bodhisattva speak improper speech? If a bodhisattva is able to analyze all dharmas and understand them according to their classes.'" The commentary says: A bodhisattva can analyze all dharmas, meaning that faculties, objects, and consciousnesses are all non-existent. This non-existence is neither definitively non-existent nor definitively existent; since both existence and non-existence are ungraspable, it is called 'being able to speak improper speech'. The treatise says: "'How does a bodhisattva practice abhidhyā? If a bodhisattva repeatedly causes his own body to attain supreme concentrations.'" The commentary says: If based on direct speech, abhidhyā designates covetousness; one who practices covetousness must delight in external dust. A bodhisattva constantly delights in causing his own body to attain supreme concentrations, hence it is called 'practicing covetousness'. Moreover, if based on esoteric speech, abhidhyā designates repeatedly attaining concentration; that is, using esoteric speech to manifest direct speech. The treatise says: "'How does a bodhisattva arouse a mind of hatred and harm? If a bodhisattva is able to harm all afflictions in the mental ground of self and others.'" The commentary says: Malice has hatred and harm as its characteristic. A bodhisattva generates the intention wishing to sever all afflictions of self and others, hence it is called 'arousing a mind of hatred and harm'. The treatise says: "'How does a bodhisattva arouse wrong view? If a bodhisattva observes according to reality the perverted nature universally active in all places.'" The commentary says: The Mahāyāna takes having discrimination as the perverted nature. The imaginary nature, active everywhere in the dependent nature, is precisely the perverted nature. If free from discrimination, it is called the true nature of the emptiness of persons and dharmas. The Hīnayāna takes the view of self as the perverted nature, because all afflictions are born based on this view of self. If free from the view of self, no wrong attachments can arise, and one attains the true nature of the emptiness of persons. The bodhisattva can observe this perverted nature according to reality and see that it is wrong; hence it is called 'arousing wrong view'. Other points are as in the separate chapter.