阿毘達磨俱舍論

Part 18

In the preceding exposition of the three grave obstructions, it was explained that the five immediate offenses constitute the essence of karmic obstruction. What follows is an explanation of the nature of these five immediate karmas.

[Among the five immediate offenses,

Four are bodily karma and one is verbal karma;

Three are acts of killing, one is false speech,

And one is the preparatory action of killing.]

Treatise: Four karmas belong to the body, and one belongs to speech. Three are acts of killing, one is false speech, and one is the preparatory action of killing (preparatory action of the karmic path of taking life, prāṇātipāprayoga), because Tathagatas cannot be killed through harm inflicted by others.

Creating a schism in the Sangha (saṃghabheda) is the offense of false speech, and this false speech is precisely the fourth immediate offense. Why is this so? False speech is the cause of schism in the Sangha. Therefore, when schism in the Sangha is called an immediate offense, the name of the cause is applied to the result (designating the result by the name of the cause, hetuphalopacāra). Alternatively, the expression “schism in the Sangha” may also mean “that which is capable of dividing the Sangha” (the agent of division, kāraṇasādhana).

(Question) If so, who acquires the dharma: the act that divides the Sangha or the Sangha that is divided?

The stanza answers:

[Schism in the Sangha is disunity,

A conditioning factor dissociated from mind,

Whose nature is unobscured and morally indeterminate.

It is the Sangha itself that acquires the dharma of schism.]

Treatise: Schism in the Sangha, namely disunity, is a conditioning factor (saṃskāra) dissociated from mind and is by nature unobscured and morally indeterminate (anivṛtāvyākṛta).

(Question) If so, how can this dharma become an immediate offense?

(Answer) Because the person who divides the Sangha (the agent of division, bhettar) does not acquire the schism. On the contrary, it is the Sangha that has been divided that acquires this conditioning factor called “schism.”

(Question) What, then, does the person who divides the Sangha acquire? Where and when is the retribution produced by schism in the Sangha experienced?

The stanza answers:

[The person who divides the Sangha acquires only

The offense of false speech,

And experiences retribution in the Avīci hell throughout an eon;

The increase in suffering results from the increase in offenses.]

Treatise: The person who divides the Sangha acquires the offense (avadya) of “schism in the Sangha,” and this offense of schism is precisely false speech. The false speech arises simultaneously with the schism in the Sangha (saṃghabhedasahaja) and consists of manifest and unmanifest verbal karma. Because of this false speech, the schismatic must fall into the great Avīci hell for the duration of an intermediate eon (antarakalpa), whereas those who commit other immediate offenses do not necessarily fall into this hell.

(Question) If all immediate offenses produce their retribution in the next life, how will a person who commits several different immediate offenses experience it?

(Answer) In the Avīci hell, a person who has committed several immediate offenses must assume an enormous body whose flesh and skin are extremely soft and yielding, causing that person to experience twice, four times, or five times the usual suffering; moreover, the instruments of torture are numerous and exceedingly difficult to endure.

(Question) Who can divide the Sangha? Where can it be divided? At what time? And for how long?

The stanza answers:

[A bhikṣu who proceeds through views and possesses pure conduct;

In places where the Tathagata is absent, and only the foolish can be divided.

When they accept another teacher and another noble path,

It is called schism in the Sangha; and the schism does not last through the night.]

Treatise: The person who divides the Sangha must be a bhikṣu, not a lay practitioner or anyone else. He must be one who proceeds through views, not one who proceeds through craving, and he must possess pure conduct, not be one who has broken the precepts, because the words of a bhikṣu who has broken the precepts no longer possess efficacy.

(Question) Where does schism in the Sangha occur?

(Answer) In other places—that is, not where the Tathagata is present. Schism in the Sangha cannot occur in the presence of the Great Teacher, because no one can overcome (duḥprasaha) the Tathagata, and his words are filled with efficacy.

(Question) Whom, then, can the schismatic divide?

(Answer) He can divide only the foolish (bāla), not arhats, because these noble beings have correctly perceived the Dharma and realized its nature. One teaching holds that a schismatic also cannot divide those who have attained acceptance (kṣānti).

(Question) Under what circumstances is the Sangha divided?

(Answer) When the foolish acknowledge as their teacher someone other than the Tathagata and follow a path other than the path taught by the Tathagata, the Sangha is then said to be divided.

(Question) Once divided, how long does this condition last?

(Answer) It does not extend through the night of that same day; that is, on the morning (pratyūṣe) after the Sangha has been divided, it will be reunited in harmony.

The schism in the Sangha discussed above—also called an immediate offense—is precisely the destruction of the wheel of the true Dharma (schism in the Dharma wheel, cakrabheda). The Tathagata’s wheel of the true Dharma is destroyed because the functioning of the noble path has been obstructed (obstructing the wheel of the noble path, mārga-pravṛttiviṣṭhāpanār). Thus, there is both destruction of the Dharma wheel and schism in the Sangha.

(Question) Where does the destruction of the Dharma wheel occur? And how many bhikṣus are required?

The stanza answers:

[In Jambudvīpa; and nine or more are required for what is called a schismatic Sangha that destroys the Dharma wheel.

Only schism in the Sangha concerning ecclesiastical acts occurs in the three continents; and eight or more are required.]

Treatise: It occurs only in Jambudvīpa, not in the other continents, because Buddhas do not manifest in those continents.

(Question) How many bhikṣus participate in the destruction of the Dharma wheel?

(Answer) Nine bhikṣus or more. The maximum number cannot be predetermined. The Sangha that is divided must contain at least eight members, and the ninth person is the schismatic. For it to be called “a state of schism in the Sangha,” the Sangha must be divided into two groups—the first following the Buddha and the second following the schismatic—and thus two Sanghas (saṃgha) are established. Each group contains four bhikṣus, the minimum number required to be called a Sangha (Vibhāṣā, 116, 4).

Another kind of schism in the Sangha—different from the destruction of the Dharma wheel and not constituting an immediate offense—arises from division concerning the ecclesiastical acts performed within a formally delimited residence (karmabhedād bhavati; division concerning ecclesiastical acts). This occurs when members of the Sangha within the same residence (within a single boundary) separate from one another to conduct activities of the residence, such as the Poṣadha observance, and so forth.

Schism concerning ecclesiastical acts occurs in the three continents, that is, only in places where religious activities are practiced. This kind involves eight or more bhikṣus, who must be divided into two groups of four bhikṣus each; here, however, there is no schismatic who proclaims himself a teacher.

(Question) At what times does the destruction of the Dharma wheel not occur?

The stanza answers:

[At the beginning, at the end, before the abscess appears, when the two disciples are present,

When the Buddha has entered nirvana, and when the boundaries have not yet been established;

During these six periods, there is no schismatic Sangha that destroys the Dharma wheel.]

Treatise: There are six periods during which the destruction of the Dharma wheel cannot occur.

The first period is the time immediately after the turning of the Dharma wheel; the final period is when the Blessed One enters nirvana. During these two periods, the Sangha shares a single sentiment (one flavor, ekarasa = avyagra = ekamati). Between these two periods, the Dharma wheel also cannot be disrupted before abscesses (arbuda) appear; that is, before the abscess of moral conduct (śīlarbuda) and the abscess of doctrine (dṛṣṭyarbuda) appear within the Sangha (śāsana).

Nor can the Dharma wheel be disrupted before the appearance of a pair (ekayuga); that is, before the appearance of the two eminent disciples, because the Sangha does not remain overnight (parivasati) in a state of division, and because these two disciples have the task of restoring harmony within the Sangha. Nor can the Dharma wheel be disrupted after the Muni has passed into extinction, because once the Teacher has entered nirvana, one who would cause a schism in the Sangha no longer has an opponent (pratidvandvāddhāvāt).

Finally, it cannot be disrupted when the Sangha’s dwelling place has not yet been delimited (when the boundary has not been established, sīmāyam abaddhāyam), because the Sangha is divided only when there are two groups within the same dwelling place whose boundary has been established.

Just as with Buddha Śākyamuni, because of their past karma, the Dharma wheel of all buddhas is never disrupted.

(Question) Why are the offenses of killing one’s mother and the others listed above offenses of immediate retribution, while other offenses are not?

The stanza answers:

[Because they destroy the fields of beneficence and virtue.

Even if their sex has changed, the heinous offense is still committed,

For one’s mother is the source of the killer’s blood;

If there is a mistake, the offense may or may not be committed.

Only the intention to cause the Buddha to bleed constitutes the offense;

If one harms a person who becomes an adept when dying, the offense is not committed.]

Exposition: Killing one’s mother or father is an offense of immediate retribution because it destroys those who have conferred beneficence upon oneself. One’s parents are benefactors because they gave birth to oneself. How does the act of killing destroy them?—By taking their lives.

Killing an arhat and the final two offenses of immediate retribution are offenses of immediate retribution because the arhat, the Sangha, and the Buddha are fields of merit. One cannot destroy the Sangha or the Buddha, but can only injure them (vipādana = vikopa).

(Question) If the sex of one’s mother or father has changed, so that the qualities of motherhood or fatherhood are no longer present in one’s parent, does killing that person constitute an offense of immediate retribution?

(Answer) Even if the person’s sex has changed, killing the person who was one’s mother or father still constitutes an offense of immediate retribution.

The Vibhāṣā (119, 7) says: “Does one commit an offense of immediate retribution by killing a man who is neither one’s father nor an arhat?—One does, if one kills one’s mother after her sex has changed.—Does one commit an offense of immediate retribution by killing a woman who is neither one’s mother nor an arhat?—One does, if one kills one’s father after his sex has changed.”

(Question) If the embryo (kalala) of one woman is expelled (cyu?) and another woman takes it and places it in her own womb, which of these two women is the mother whose killing would cause one to commit an offense of immediate retribution?

(Answer) The mother is the woman from whose blood one was born. The second woman merely fulfills the functions of a mother: she raises one to maturity (āpyāvikā), nurses one (poṣikā), and feeds one (saṃvardhikā).

It is not an offense of immediate retribution if, intending to kill one’s mother, one mistakenly kills someone else; nor is it an offense of immediate retribution if, intending to kill someone else, one mistakenly kills one’s mother. This is like the case of a person who killed his own mother lying on a bed (mañcatalāvalīna), thinking that someone else was sleeping there, or the washerman’s son who killed his own father while intending to kill a mosquito.

If one kills one’s mother and another person at the same time, there are two non-informative karmas (avijñaptis): one non-informative karma of killing and one non-informative karma of an offense of immediate retribution. There is, however, only one informative karma (vijñapti), namely the offense of immediate retribution, because this offense possesses very great force. According to the Venerable Ghoṣaka (Vibhāṣā, 18, 18), however, there are still two informative karmas, because informative karma is composed of atoms.

If one kills an arhat without knowing that the person is an arhat, one nevertheless commits an offense of immediate retribution because one had identified the object of the killing; that is, one had thought, “I must kill this person.”

A person who kills his father after his father has become an arhat commits only one offense of immediate retribution, that of killing an arhat, because at that time his father and the arhat are one and the same person.

(Objection) [When the arhat Rudrāyaṇa was being killed on the orders of his son Śikhaṇdin (Shuǐqiànchí), he said to the person who had come to kill him:] “Go back and tell Śikhaṇdin that he has committed two offenses of immediate retribution: killing his father and killing an arhat.” How, then, can this statement be explained?

(Explanation) Rudrāyaṇa merely meant that his son had committed an offense of immediate retribution arising from two causes (produced by two conditions; dvābhyāṃ kāraṇābhyām); or, in speaking of “two offenses of immediate retribution,” Rudrāyaṇa intended to rebuke his son’s deed twice over.

(Question) Does a person who, with an evil mind, causes the Tathagata to bleed necessarily commit an offense of immediate retribution?

(Answer) If the person intended to kill the Tathagata, the offense of immediate retribution is committed; but if the person intended only to strike the Buddha, the offense of immediate retribution is not committed.

(Question) If one kills a person who, when about to die, attains the fruit of arhatship, does one commit an offense of immediate retribution?

(Answer) No. This is because the preparatory action of that karma of killing was directed toward a person who, at that time, was not yet an arhat, an adept (aśaikṣa).

(Question) If a person has undertaken the preparatory action for an offense of immediate retribution but subsequently stops, can that person attain detachment and the noble fruit?

The stanza answers:

[One who has undertaken the preparatory action

For an offense of immediate retribution

Cannot attain detachment or the fruit.]

Exposition: Why is this so?—Because the intention to commit an offense of immediate retribution is completely opposed to the attainment of detachment or the noble fruit.

If a person enters the noble path after undertaking the preparatory action for a karmic path other than a karmic path of immediate retribution, that karmic path can no longer arise, because it is completely incompatible with the newly attained qualities.

(Question) Among the offenses of immediate retribution, which is the gravest? And among excellent practices, which produces the greatest fruit?

The stanza answers:

[The lie that divides the Sangha is the gravest offense.

Volition at the summit of existence produces the greatest fruit:

It is the greatest fruit of mundane wholesome dharmas.]

Treatise: A person, although knowing what is Dharma and what is non-Dharma, nevertheless lies in order to create a schism in the Sangha and gives false instructions; he thereby commits the gravest offense (sāvadya) among all evil deeds (duścarita). This is because he has injured the Dharma-body of the Tathagata and obstructed the happiness of the world and the liberation of sentient beings. As long as the harmony of the Sangha has not been restored, there remain obstacles to entering the noble path (niyāmāvakrānti), attaining the fruits, attaining detachment (vairāgya), and eliminating the afflictions—the destruction of the outflows (āsravakṣaya).

All practices connected with the cultivation of meditative concentration (dhyāna), recitation, and reflection (cintā) cease. The worlds of devas, nāgas, and human beings are disturbed, sorrowful (durmanas), deprived of self-mastery (asvatantra), and confused (muṣitasmṛti). This is why the retributive result of this offense must last for an entire kalpa in hell.

Among the offenses of immediate retribution, the fifth, the third, and the first are successively less grave; the offense of killing one’s father is the least grave.

(Objection) If so, why did the Blessed One say that mental action, or punishment (daṇda), is the gravest (mahā-sāvadyatara) of the three kinds of action, and that wrong view (mithyādṛṣṭi) is the gravest of all offenses?

(Explanation) It should be understood that causing a schism in the Sangha is the gravest among the offenses of immediate retribution; mental action is the gravest of the three actions; and wrong view is the gravest of evil views. Alternatively, causing a schism in the Sangha is the gravest with respect to the duration of its retributive result (vipākavistara); mental action, or mental punishment (manodaṇda), is the gravest with respect to the number of people harmed; and wrong view is the gravest with respect to the severance of roots of virtue.

Among worldly wholesome dharmas, the volition pertaining to the summit of existence (bhavāgracetanā) produces the greatest fruit. This volition pertaining to existence is precisely the kind of mental karma that enables one to be reborn at the highest level of the Formless Realm. It produces the greatest fruit among worldly wholesome karmas because its retributive result is complete tranquility for eighty thousand great kalpas.

The foregoing concerns the ripened result. With respect to the result of separation, the karma producing the greatest fruit is the volition associated with the Diamond-Like Samādhi (Vajropamasamādhi), because its fruit is the severance of every bond—the permanent elimination of all fetters. For this reason, the verse says: “Among worldly wholesome dharmas…”

(Question) Is it only because of offenses of immediate retribution that a person is certain to be reborn in hell?

(Answer) Offenses similar to those of immediate retribution (ānantaryasabhāga) also cause a person to fall into hell. Some masters add that one is “not reborn in hell immediately afterward (anantaram).”

(Question) What are these similar offenses?

The verse answers:

[Defiling one’s mother or a female arhat;

Killing a bodhisattva established in certainty,

Or a noble one who is still in training;

Seizing the property of the Sangha;

Destroying a stūpa—

All are offenses of the same class as those of immediate retribution.]

Treatise: These five offenses, in the order stated above, are each similar to an offense of immediate retribution: violating one’s own mother or violating a female arhat (= killing one’s mother); killing a bodhisattva destined for enlightenment, one established in certainty (= killing one’s father); killing a noble one who is not an arhat (= killing an arhat); seizing the Sangha’s means of livelihood (= causing a schism in the Sangha); and destroying a stūpa (stūpa) (= injuring the Tathagata).

Karmas having other ripened results are obstructed in three cases:

[Upon attaining patience, the fruit of Non-returning,

Or the fruit of arhatship, these karmas are each completely obstructed.]

Treatise: Upon emerging from the stage called the Summit (mūdhānas) and attaining the stage of Patience (kṣānti), karmas capable of producing ripened results in the evil destinies, but whose fruition has been obstructed, remain stationed below (ñebargnas = upatiṣṭhanti), because the noble one has passed beyond the plane in which these karmas would ripen. This is like creditors all rising up (uttiṣṭhante) when their debtor is about to leave the country (deśatyāgaṃ kurvataḥ).

Upon attaining the fruit of Non-returning, karmas capable of producing ripened results in the Desire Realm, but whose fruition has been obstructed, remain stationed below—with the exception of karmas capable of producing ripened results in the present life.

The same applies upon attaining the fruit of arhatship: Karmas capable of producing ripened results in the Form Realm and the Formless Realm, but whose fruition has been obstructed, remain stationed below.

(Question) It was stated above that killing a bodhisattva established in certainty is also an offense of the same class as an offense of immediate retribution. From what point is one called a bodhisattva established in certainty, and why is one so called?

The verse answers:

[From the time he cultivates karmas that produce the excellent marks,

The bodhisattva begins to be called “certain.”

He is born in a good destiny and a noble family,

Has complete faculties, is male, remembers former lives, and does not regress.]

Treatise: From the time he begins to create karmas whose ripened result is the thirty-two marks, the bodhisattva is called “destined for enlightenment,” or “established in certainty.” Why is this so? Because from that time onward, the bodhisattva is always born in a good destiny, in a noble family, and so forth.

He is said to be born in a good destiny because the bodhisattva’s destinies are always excellent: he is born only among devas and human beings.

The bodhisattva is born into wealthy and noble families of Kṣatriyas, Brāhmaṇas, or extremely rich Gṛhapatis, and not into impoverished families.

Those whose faculties are incomplete are described as “deficient in faculties” (vikalendriya); the bodhisattva, however, possesses all the faculties and is therefore called “one with complete and excellent faculties” (pūrṇākṣa?), synonymous with avikalendriya, “not deficient in faculties.”

The bodhisattva is always male; he never assumes a female body, much less a sexually indeterminate body (saṇḍha, etc.).

In every life, the bodhisattva remembers all his previous lives.

When overcome, people ordinarily give up; the bodhisattva, however, cannot be overcome and is therefore resolute (aviṛt?), never abandoning his undertaking. For the purpose of benefiting all sentient beings, the bodhisattva is never overcome by suffering or by any evil conduct of others. The one whom we commonly call the unpaid servant of the world is precisely this bodhisattva. He is a magnanimous person who, although endowed with the most excellent and perfect virtues (saṃpad), has cultivated such pure compassion that he regards himself as a dog, utterly without selfishness, before all sentient beings. The bodhisattva endures every humiliation and every cruel treatment inflicted by sentient beings, and accepts all the most arduous and difficult tasks.

(Question) What are the karmas that produce the excellent marks?

The verse answers:

[In Jambudvīpa, as a male, in the presence of a Buddha,

Mindful of the Buddha and endowed with compassion,

He cultivates them for one hundred kalpas;

Each excellent mark is adorned by one hundred merits.]

Treatise: The bodhisattva initiates the karmas that lead to the excellent marks—the karmas cultivated to produce the excellent marks—in Jambudvīpa and not on any other continent, because the beings of this continent possess keen intelligence (paṭubuddhi). The bodhisattva is only male, not female, because he has passed beyond the stage of being a woman. He undertakes them only in the presence of great teachers, because the bodhisattva’s volition takes only the Buddhas as its objects. These karmas arise from reflection (cintā), not from hearing the Dharma (śruta) or cultivating concentration (bhāvanāmaya). The bodhisattva accomplishes all these karmas in precisely one hundred kalpas, not over any longer period.

However, through the purification of his faculties, the Blessed One Śākyamuni passed beyond nine of these one hundred kalpas and initiated the karmas leading to the excellent marks over ninety-one kalpas (ekanavatyāṃ kalpeṣu), the remainder of the one hundred kalpas. For this reason, he said to Aśibandhaka: “Village headman, when I recollect the period from ninety-one kalpas ago until the present, I do not see any household that was impoverished (mibdeba) or brought to ruin (upahata) by giving cooked food.” The Blessed One explained it in this way because this was precisely the number of great kalpas known through his natural recollection.

The earlier masters (pūrvācāryas) say that after completing the first kalpa, the bodhisattva had abandoned four defects and attained two kinds of merit.

Each excellent mark arises from one hundred merits.

(Question) What is the measure of each of these one hundred merits?

(Answer) Some say that each merit equals the merit capable of bringing blessed happiness to all sentient beings, with the sole exception of bodhisattvas approaching awakening (bodhi)—that is, bodhisattvas who are accomplishing the karmas that produce the excellent marks. Some say that it equals the collective karma of all sentient beings, the collective karma that created the world through its own dominant force. Others say that only the Buddhas know the measure of this kind of merit.

(Question) How many Buddhas did the Blessed One attend upon (paryupāsayāmāsa) while he was still a bodhisattva?

The verse answers:

[During the three incalculable kalpas,

He attended upon seventy thousand Buddhas in each;

In this order, he further attended upon

Five thousand, six thousand, and seven thousand Buddhas.]

Treatise: During the first incalculable kalpa (asaṃkhyeya), he attended upon seventy-five thousand Buddhas; during the second incalculable kalpa, he attended upon seventy-six thousand Buddhas; and during the third incalculable kalpa, he attended upon seventy-seven thousand Buddhas.

(Question) Which Buddhas appeared at the end of each incalculable kalpa?

The verse answers:

[The three incalculable kalpas ended,

In reverse order, with his meeting the Buddhas Vipaśyin,

Dīpaṃkara, and Ratnaśikhin;

The first Buddha he attended upon was Śākyamuni.]

Treatise: The first incalculable kalpa ended in the time of the Perfectly Awakened One Ratnaśikhin; the second incalculable kalpa ended in the time of the Blessed One Dīpaṃkara; and the third incalculable kalpa ended in the time of the Tathagata Vipaśyin.

Among the Buddhas whom the Blessed One attended upon, the first was Śākyamuni.

Long ago, there was a Buddha named Śākyamuni, a Perfectly Awakened One. It was in reliance upon this very Buddha that the Blessed One, who was then still a bodhisattva, first made the aspiration for bodhi: “May I become a Buddha like this Buddha!” Like our Buddha Śākyamuni, that Buddha Śākyamuni appeared during an age of decline, and his teaching also endured for only one thousand years.

(Question) How did the bodhisattva Śākyamuni perfect his cultivation of the pāramitās?

The verse answers:

[Solely through compassion, he gave everything;

Though his hands and feet were severed, he bore no resentment;

He praised the Buddha Puṣya;

Thereafter came unsurpassed bodhi.

The six pāramitās,

In the four stages above—

Cultivating generosity; cultivating morality; then cultivating generosity and morality—

Were perfected in that order.]

Treatise: When, out of compassion, the bodhisattva gave everything to all sentient beings—even his own eyes or the marrow within his body—without seeking any blessed happiness whatsoever, he perfected the pāramitā of generosity.

Although he had not yet become free from desire (vītarāga), the bodhisattva bore no resentment when his limbs were severed. He thereby perfected the two pāramitās of morality and patience.

When the Blessed One was still a bodhisattva, he saw the Tathagata Puṣya inside a mountain cave, his body radiant with light. The bodhisattva gazed upon the Tathagata for seven days and seven nights, forgetting that he was standing on one foot. He composed a verse in praise of the Tathagata: “O Blessed One! Whether in the heavens, upon the earth, in this world, in the realm of Vaiśravaṇa, in the palace of the Maruts, in other celestial abodes, or throughout all quarters and directions, no sage equal to you can be found, even if one were to traverse this entire vast earth with its mountains and forests in search of one.” According to tradition, the bodhisattva thereby perfected the pāramitā of diligence, and nine kalpas were transcended (pratyudāvartita).

At the moment he entered vajra concentration (vajrasamādhi), immediately before attaining bodhi, the bodhisattva perfected the two pāramitās of concentration (dhyāna) and wisdom (prajñā).

The six are called pāramitās because they have reached the further shore of all the perfections (saṃpad) belonging to each of them.

(Question) The sutra teaches that there are three bases of meritorious action (puṇyakriyāvastus): generosity, morality, and cultivation. How, then, are these three called bases of meritorious action?

The verse answers:

[The three kinds—generosity, morality, and cultivation—

According to the conditions with which they are associated,

Are called bases of meritorious action;

Their distinctions are like those of the paths of karma.]

Treatise: Generosity, observance of morality, and cultivation, according to the intrinsic nature of each, may be merit (puṇya), action (kriyā), and a basis (vastu)—that is, the locus at which an action is performed—or they may be only merit, action, or a basis. This is like the paths of karma: some are both karma and paths of karma, while others are only paths of karma.

First, consider the basis of meritorious action belonging to generosity: ⁽¹⁾ Bodily and verbal actions are all merit, action, and a basis. They are merit because they yield desirable ripened results; they are meritorious action (puṇyakriyā) because their nature is action; and they are a basis—that is, the locus of action or objective support (vastu, adhiṣṭhāna)—of the volition of giving that is capable of initiating them. ⁽²⁾ The volition (cetanā) of giving is only merit (puṇya) and action (puṇyakriyā, meritorious action). ⁽³⁾ The dharmas—feeling and so forth—that accompany bodily and verbal actions are only merit.

The basis of meritorious action belonging to morality consists only of bodily and verbal actions, but these possess all three: merit, action, and a basis.

With regard to the meritorious deed consisting in cultivation, consider the cultivation of loving-kindness (maitrī): ⁽¹⁾ This cultivation is both merit and a basis, because it is the basis on which a meritorious action is performed (puṇyakriyāyāś ca vastu), namely, the volition associated with loving-kindness, since in the world this kind of volition takes the form of loving-kindness; ⁽²⁾ this volition is both merit and karma, just like the morality constituting the restraint of meditation (dhyānasaṃvara) attained by one who cultivates loving-kindness; ⁽³⁾ the other dharmas (faith, etc.) accompanying cultivation are merit alone.

Alternatively, the expression “meritorious deed” (puṇyakriyā) also means the performance of merit (puṇyakāraṇa) or preparation for merit (puṇyaprayoga); and giving, morality, and cultivation are all bases of meritorious deeds, because undertaking them also has the sense of preparing for merit (initiating the preparation for merit).

Another theory holds that, strictly speaking, a meritorious deed is wholesome volition itself; and giving, morality, and cultivation are all bases, that is, foundations for the performance of this volition.

(Question) What does giving (dāna) mean, and what kind of result does it produce?

The stanza answers:

[Because of relinquishment, it is called giving,

For the sake of making offerings and benefiting others.

Bodily and verbal karma and that which gives rise to them

Produce the result of great wealth.]

Treatise: Clearly, giving means everything that is given away (relinquished, deya); here, however, giving also refers to the giver. A giver may give out of fear, from a desire for repayment, because of attachment (rāga), and so forth; therefore, the various causes of giving are not discussed here. The author merely wishes to state briefly that giving is the giver who gives in order to express reverence or render service (the statement that it is for the sake of offering and benefiting).

(Question) Then who gives?

(Answer) It is bodily and verbal karma and that which gives rise to these karmas. An assemblage (kalāpa) of minds and mental factors (cittacaita) constitutes the source of bodily or verbal karma: it is precisely this assemblage and this karma that give. As a stanza says: “When a person, with a wholesome mind (manas), gives away what belongs to him, it is said that the wholesome skandhas themselves have given.”

The meritorious deed consisting in giving (dānamaya) brings the result of great wealth.

To speak of “a meritorious deed consisting in (comprising, maya) giving” means that giving is the substance of that meritorious deed, just as one says “a house made of grass” (tṛṇmayagṛha) or “a vessel made of leaves.”

(Question) For whose benefit should one give?

The stanza answers:

[One gives for one’s own benefit, for the benefit of others, for both,

And for the benefit of neither.]

Treatise: Giving to a shrine (caitya) does not benefit another, but it does benefit the giver when the giver is an Ārya who has not become free from desire (avitarāga, avirakta, sarāga), or an ordinary being who is either free or not free from desire.

The giving of an Ārya who is free from desire to another—except when this giving produces its result in the present life—does not benefit that Ārya, because the Ārya who is free from desire has passed beyond the realm of sensual desire (Kāmadhātu), where the ripened result of this giving could occur in the next life. This giving benefits only the other person.

Giving by an Ārya who has not become free from desire, or by an ordinary being who is either free or not free from desire, to another benefits both oneself and the other.

Giving by an Ārya who is free from desire to a shrine—except when this giving produces its result in the present life—benefits neither the Ārya nor another. Such giving is performed only to express reverence and gratitude.

It was previously stated in general that giving produces the result of great wealth; the causes of the differences among the results of giving will now be explained.

[Because of differences in the giver, the gift, and the field,

The results of giving differ.]

Treatise: Giving differs because of three causes: the giver, the gift, and the field; and because acts of giving differ, their results also differ.

(Question) How do givers differ?

The stanza answers:

[Givers differ because of faith and so forth;

If one gives with reverence and so forth,

One will be honored, delight in one’s possessions,

Enjoy them at the proper time, and one’s resulting possessions will be difficult to lose.]

Treatise: A giver (dānapati) is excellent when endowed with faith, moral conduct, learning (śruta), generosity (tyāga), wisdom (prajñā), fewness of desires (alpecchatā), and so forth.

When the giver is excellent, the giving is also excellent; and when the giving is excellent, its result is also excellent.

Such a giver always gives with reverence (satkṛtya), with his own hand (svahastena), at the proper time of need (kāle), and without harming anyone (parān anupahatya).

A person who gives with reverence will be honored by others; one who gives with one’s own hand will experience joy when enjoying wealth; one who gives at the proper time of need will obtain things for enjoyment at an appropriate time rather than at a time when they cannot be enjoyed; and one who gives without harming others will have possessions that are not damaged, plundered, burned by fire, and so forth.

The foregoing has explained the most excellent kind of giver and why giving becomes excellent through such a giver; next comes the explanation of the object given.

[Gifts differ because of form and so forth;

And one will obtain beauty, a good reputation,

The affection of others, a soft body,

And pleasant sensations of touch according to the season.]

Treatise: A gift is of the most excellent kind when it is fully endowed with form, fragrance, taste, and touch.

(Question) What will the giver obtain through such gifts?

(Answer) One who gives an object fully endowed with color will obtain beauty; one who gives an object fully endowed with fragrance will obtain a good reputation everywhere, just as a fragrance spreads; one who gives an object fully endowed with flavors will obtain happiness, just as a sweet taste is pleasant; one who gives an object fully endowed with qualities of touch will have a soft body, like the precious woman of a Cakravartin, whose hands and feet experience only agreeable sensations of touch—warm or cool according to the season (ṛtusukhasparśāni cāsyāngāni).

(Question) What constitutes the excellence of a field?

The stanza answers:

[Fields differ because of the realm of rebirth, suffering,

Kindness, and virtue.]

Treatise: A field is excellent because of the realm of rebirth. The Blessed One said: “If one gives to an animal, one receives a result a hundredfold greater; if one gives to a person who violates moral precepts, one receives a result a thousandfold greater.”

A field is excellent because of suffering. Among the seven dependent bases of meritorious deeds (aupadhika puṇyakriyāvastus), the Blessed One included giving to the sick, to those who care for the sick, and giving in times of bitter cold, and so forth. He further said: “Concerning a son or daughter of a good family who possesses these seven dependent bases of meritorious deeds, the measure of their merit cannot be stated.”

A field is excellent because of kindness received. This refers to giving to one’s father, mother, teacher, and other benefactors; the Jātaka recounts the stories of the bear, the deer, and so forth.

The excellence of the field is due to virtue. The Blessed One said: “Giving to a virtuous person yields a fruit one hundred thousand times greater....”

(Question) Among all acts of giving, which is the greatest?

The stanza answers:

[Giving between those who are liberated, and that of a bodhisattva,

The eighth kind of giving is the greatest.]

Exposition: The Blessed One said that the giving of one who is free from attachment (vitarāga, virakta) to another who is free from attachment is the greatest kind of giving.

Or it is the giving of a bodhisattva for the benefit and happiness of all sentient beings. Although this giving is performed by one who is not yet free from attachment toward those who are not yet free from attachment, it is nevertheless a supreme act of giving.

Apart from the giving of a bodhisattva, there is also the eighth of the eight kinds of giving taught by the Blessed One.

(Question) What are these eight kinds?

(Answer) They are: ⁽¹⁾ giving to one who has approached (āsadya); ⁽²⁾ giving out of fear; ⁽³⁾ giving with the thought, “Because another has given to me” (adān me dānam iti dānam), that is, giving in repayment of kindness; ⁽⁴⁾ giving with the thought, “So that another will give to me” (dāsyati), that is, giving in expectation of recompense; ⁽⁵⁾ giving with the thought, “Because my father and grandfather gave” (giving in accordance with ancestral custom, dattapūrraṃ me pitṛnhiś ca pitāmahaiś ceti dānam); ⁽⁶⁾ giving in order to attain a heavenly realm (svargārtham), that is, giving for rebirth in heaven; ⁽⁷⁾ giving in order to gain renown (kīrtyartham), that is, giving out of love of fame;

⁽⁸⁾ giving to adorn the mind (cittālaṃkārārtham), to furnish the mind (cittaoariṣkārārtham), to equip oneself for yoga (yogasaṃbhārārtham = yodanidānārtham), and to attain the supreme goal (uttamārthasya prāptate), that is, to attain arhatship or nirvana.

(Question) What does giving to one who has approached mean?

(Answer) The ancient masters explain: It is giving immediately to those who are nearby and approaching oneself.

Giving out of fear is the giving of a person who sees that the object to be given is about to be destroyed and thinks, “It would be better to give this object away.”

The Sutra (Madhyama, 47, 3) says: “The fruit of giving to one who is proceeding toward the fruit of stream-entry (srotāpannaphalapratipannaka) is immeasurable; and if one gives to one who has attained the fruit of stream-entry, the fruit is even more immeasurable.”

(Question) Is the fruit of giving to those who are not noble ones not likewise immeasurable?

The stanza answers:

[Father, mother, the sick, a Dharma teacher,

And a bodhisattva in the final birth—

Although they have not yet realized the noble fruit,

The fruit of giving to them is still immeasurable.]

Exposition: Although these five classes of persons are only ordinary beings, making offerings to them nevertheless yields immeasurable fruit.

The expression “a bodhisattva in the final birth” (antyajanman) means “a bodhisattva in the final existence” (caramabhavika).

(Question) To which class of persons does a Dharma teacher (dharmabhāṇaka) belong? And under which kind of field is such a person included?

(Answer) Such a person belongs to the field of beneficence, for this is one who gives the eye of wisdom (prajñācakṣus) to the many who are obscured by ignorance; one who reveals (prakāśayitar) to others what is good (sama = dharma) and what is evil (viṣama = adharma); and one who establishes the undefiled Dharma-body. In brief, this person performs all the deeds of a Buddha and is therefore a great spiritual friend (mahākalyāṇamitra).

To assess the gravity or lightness of karma, we must discuss six causes:

[Subsequent action, field, foundation,

Preparation, volition, and intention;

According as these are small or great,

Karma becomes small or great.]

Exposition: Subsequent action means continuing to act in accordance with a deed after it has been committed.

The field is that to which we cause harm or bring benefit.

The foundation (adhiṣṭhāna) is the fundamental path of karma.

Preparation consists of the preceding bodily and verbal actions.

Volition (cetanā) is that by virtue of which the path of karma is brought to completion (niṣṭhā).

Intention (āśaya) consists of intentions such as: “I should do this or that to them; I shall do this or that.”

Sometimes karma is grave solely because of subsequent action (pṛṣṭhaparigrahād eva), namely, when this causes the karmic result to acquire the character of being “certain to occur” (vipākanaiyamyāvasthānāt). Sometimes karma is grave solely because of the field, as the offense of killing one’s father is graver than an ordinary act of killing. Sometimes the field is the same, but one foundation (adhiṣṭhāna) makes the karma grave, while another foundation makes it light. For example, killing one’s father or mother is a grave offense, but in comparison with this offense, stealing from one’s parents, lying to one’s parents, and so forth are not grave. Cases in which karma is grave because of preparation and the other factors are explained in the same way.

When all the causes are great, the karma becomes extremely grave; and when all the causes are small, the karma becomes extremely light. Apart from these two categories of grave and light karma, intermediate karmas are neither excessively grave nor excessively light.

(Question) The Sutra says that karma is of two kinds: karma that is performed and karma that accumulates. For what reasons is karma said to accumulate?

Because of five kinds of causes:

[Through deliberate reflection, completeness,

The absence of remorse and counteraction,

The presence of an accompanying factor, and karmic result,

Karma is said to accumulate.]

Exposition: Through deliberate reflection means that when a karma is performed, it is not the case that volition was entirely absent beforehand, nor is it the case that volition acted only at the final moment.

Through completeness means that sentient beings fall into the unfortunate destinies by committing one evil conduct or all three evil conducts, and fall into the unfortunate destinies by committing one path of karma or all ten paths of karma. If one completes the requisite number, one must fall into an unfortunate destiny. If the number is incomplete, the karma is called merely performed and not accumulated; if it is complete, it is also called accumulated.

Through the absence of remorse and counteraction means that there is neither regret nor any counteraction against the evil karma.

Through the presence of an accompanying factor means that a karma already unwholesome is further accompanied by an unwholesome dharma (akuśalam akuśalaparivāraṃ ca), such as rejoicing after committing an evil deed.

Through karmic result means that a karma is certain to yield a karmic result (vipākadāne niyatam).

The same applies to wholesome karma.

Karmas lacking these characteristics are merely performed and are not accumulated.

(Question) It was previously stated that the giving of one who has not yet become free from desire to a shrine (caitya) benefits only that person. However, if there is no one to enjoy the offered object, how can merit arise?

The stanza answers:

[Giving to a caitya produces merit through relinquishment,

Like the cultivation of loving-kindness and so forth, it has no recipient who makes use of it.]

Exposition: The merit of giving is of two kinds: ⁽¹⁾ merit arising from relinquishment (tyāgānvaya), which is the merit obtained from the act of relinquishing; and ⁽²⁾ merit arising from use (paribhogāvaya), which is the merit obtained when the recipient makes use of the offered object.

The merit of giving to a shrine is merit arising from relinquishment.

(Question) If there is no recipient, how can this act of giving produce merit?

(Answer) We shall answer this objection by asking in return: Why can giving produce merit when there is a recipient, and why can giving not produce merit when there is no recipient?

(Explanation) Because in the latter case there is no person who is satisfied or benefited by this giving (kasya cid anugrahābhāvāt).

(Question) If the satisfaction of the recipient is a condition for the arising of merit, then would the cultivation of the immeasurable minds (loving-kindness, etc.) and the cultivation of right view (samyagdṛṣṭibhāvanā) be without merit?

Therefore, it is known that giving to stupas and shrines still produces merit.

In the cultivation of loving-kindness, although there is no recipient and no one who is satisfied, merit nevertheless arises for the practitioner through the power of this very kind of mind. Likewise, although a virtuous one has passed away (abhyatīta), an offering to a stupa or shrine in itself still produces merit through the sincerity of the donor’s own mind (svacittād eva puṇyam).

(Question) Can it be said that the material actions involved in making offerings as acts of reverence (dānamānakriyā) are unnecessary?

(Answer) It cannot be so. This is because the sincere intention that gives rise to these actions is stronger than the sincere intention of one who merely adorns and gives mentally. It is just as when a person intends to kill his enemy: although the enemy has already been killed, that person continues to perform bodily and verbal actions prompted by the preceding intention, thinking, “This is my enemy”—that is, thinking, “This enemy is not yet dead.” This still brings about much demerit, rather than demerit arising merely from the thought. Likewise, although the Great Teacher is no longer present, one must give rise to bodily and verbal actions of reverence and offering in order to acquire abundant merit; merely giving rise to the thought is not sufficient.

(Question) If the seed of the karma of giving is sown in a good field, a desirable fruit will be harvested. Thus, if it is sown in a bad field, will it yield an undesirable fruit?

The stanza answers:

[Even a bad field yields desirable fruit,

For there is no contradiction between seed and fruit.]

Treatise: We presently see in the world that the seed and the fruit grown in a field do not contradict one another. From the seed of the grape (mṛdvīkā) arises a sweet-tasting grape; from the seed of the Nimba tree arises a bitter-tasting fruit. It is not through the influence of the soil that the seed and fruit differ from one another.

Likewise, even when a donor encounters a bad field, because the donor gives rise to the intention to benefit another and sows the seed of giving, the donor still obtains a desirable fruit, not an undesirable one. Nevertheless, owing also to the defects of the field, at times little fruit is harvested, as in the case of giving to ordinary persons and so forth; or at times no fruit at all is harvested, as in the case of making a superficial gift to adherents of non-Buddhist teachings and so forth.

The meritorious deed consisting of giving has been explained above. Next comes the explanation of the meritorious deed consisting of moral discipline.

[Abstention from transgressions and prohibited offenses

Is called moral discipline; moral discipline is of two kinds.

It is unspoiled by transgressions and their causes,

And relies upon antidotes and quiescence.]

Treatise: Unwholesome material actions are called transgressions of moral discipline. Among them, natural offenses are precisely those offenses which, when committed, are called transgressions of moral discipline. Offenses consisting of “disobedience” (prohibited offenses), such as eating at an improper time and so forth, are not natural offenses; nevertheless, because the Buddhas establish such rules with the intention of supporting the true Dharma and sentient beings, violating them is still called a transgression of moral discipline.

Abstention from both natural offenses and prohibited offenses is called moral discipline. Moral discipline is of two kinds, manifest and non-manifest, because both have bodily and verbal karma as their intrinsic nature. This was briefly explained above.

When endowed with four qualities, moral discipline is called pure; when the contrary is the case, it is called impure.

The four qualities are: ⁽¹⁾ it is not spoiled by transgressions of moral discipline—here, “transgressions of moral discipline” refers to the unwholesome material actions mentioned above; ⁽²⁾ it is not spoiled by the causes of transgression—here, “causes” refers to the afflictions of greed and so forth, and the secondary afflictions (upakleśas); ⁽³⁾ it relies upon antidotes, such as the four foundations of mindfulness (smṛtyupasthānas), because these dharmas are capable of counteracting transgressions and their causes; ⁽⁴⁾ it relies upon quiescence rather than superior rebirths in the heavenly realms—that is, it relies solely upon nirvana and is directed toward nirvana.

Some say that five causes make moral discipline pure: ⁽¹⁾ the purity of the fundamental courses of karma (maulakarmapatha), that is, abstention from evil courses; ⁽²⁾ the purity of the actions accompanying (sāmantaka) the fundamental courses of karma, that is, abstention from the preparatory and instrumental acts of killing and so forth; ⁽³⁾ freedom from disturbance by various kinds of discursive thought (vitarkānupaghāta); ⁽⁴⁾ being guarded by mindfulness (smṛtyanuparigṛhītatva), that is, recollections of the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha that enable one to abstain from karmically indeterminate actions; ⁽⁵⁾ dedication toward nirvana (nirvāṇapariṇāmitatva).

Some say that moral discipline is of four kinds: ⁽¹⁾ moral discipline based on fear, namely, moral discipline observed out of fear of lacking the necessities of life, fear of a bad reputation, fear of punishment, or fear of the lower realms; ⁽²⁾ expectant moral discipline (āśaṃsāśīla), namely, moral discipline observed out of desire for agreeable rebirths, material enjoyments, and praise; ⁽³⁾ moral discipline conducive to the factors of awakening, namely, moral discipline observed by one who possesses right view (samyagdṛṣṭi) for the sake of liberation; ⁽⁴⁾ pure moral discipline (pariśuddha), namely, moral discipline that, being free from defilements (nirmala), is without outflows (anāsrava).

Moral discipline has been explained above. Next, cultivation is discussed.

[Wholesome meditative equipoise is called cultivation,

Because it is capable of perfuming the mind.]

Treatise: (Question) To what does meditative equipoise (samāhita) refer?

(Answer) It refers to the dharmas whose intrinsic nature is concentration (samādhi), and to the dharmas that coexist with those whose intrinsic nature is concentration.

(Question) Why are these dharmas called cultivation (bhāvanā)?

(Answer) Because they perfume the mind. Wholesome dharmas belonging to concentration exert a very powerful influence upon the mind, for the mind itself takes on the qualities of this kind of wholesomeness, just as sesame seeds are influenced by flowers when they absorb the flowers’ fragrance (puṣpagandhamayīkaraṇāt).

(Question) It was said above that the fruit of giving includes great material enjoyments (mahābhoga). What kinds of fruit, then, are produced by moral discipline and cultivation?

The stanza answers:

[Fundamentally, moral discipline and cultivation, respectively,

Produce the fruits of heavenly rebirth and liberation.]

Treatise: From the standpoint of their principal results, moral discipline has rebirth in a heavenly realm as its fruit, while cultivation has liberation as its fruit. Giving has a heavenly realm as its fruit, but moral discipline is the fundamental cause of such heavenly rebirth. Liberation, or nirvana, has cultivation as its cause. On the path of abandonment (prahāṇamārga), this cultivation is capable of immediately producing detachment from the afflictions. Nevertheless, moral discipline also contributes to this, because moral discipline is also associated with serenity (śamatha) and insight (vipaśyanā).

The sutras state that four kinds of persons are capable of acquiring the merit of Brahma (brahma-puṇya): ⁽¹⁾ those who make offerings to the relics of the Tathagata (Tathāgata-dhātu) and construct stupas and shrines; ⁽²⁾ those who make offerings to the Sangha of the four quarters, establish monasteries, and donate gardens, clothing, food, bedding and seats, and medicines; ⁽³⁾ those who are able to reconcile a Sangha that has been divided; and ⁽⁴⁾ those who cultivate loving-kindness and so forth toward all sentient beings.

(Question) What is the measure of this merit of Brahma?

The stanza answers:

[It brings about the fruit of birth among the devas for one kalpa, and so forth;

That is the measure of one merit of Brahma.]

Exposition: The earlier masters of the treatises said that, by virtue of this merit, one can bring about a life in a heavenly realm for one kalpa and enjoy its meritorious bliss; through the fruit thus brought about, one enjoys bliss for a period equal to the one-kalpa lifespan of the Brahma-purohita devas.

Other schools have a verse that states: “One who has faith in right view and cultivates the ten supreme practices produces the merit of Brahma, for it brings about the blissful fruit of a heavenly realm for one kalpa.”

The Vibhāṣā states: “The measure of the merit of Brahma is equal to the merit described above in the analysis of the karma that brings about the excellent marks.” The words “and so forth” in the stanza indicate other doctrines.

The preceding discussion concerned the giving of material wealth; next comes the giving of Dharma:

[The giving of Dharma is the correct exposition of the scriptures, and so forth,

With an undefiled mind.]

Exposition: If one is able to explain the scriptures correctly with an undefiled mind, enabling all sentient beings who hear them to understand clearly, this is called the giving of Dharma. Therefore, if one expounds them incorrectly or with a defiled mind that seeks gain (lābha), honor (satkāra), or fame (kīrti), one thereby destroys the great merit that would have accrued to oneself.

The preceding discussion separately explained three kinds of wholesome dharmas through an analysis of the three meritorious deeds; wholesome dharmas are also divided into three further kinds:

[The three kinds conducive to merit, conducive to liberation, and conducive to penetration

Are wholesome dharmas capable of bringing about, respectively,

Desirable fruits, nirvana, and the noble path.]

Exposition: That which is conducive to merit (puṇyabhāgīya) is the kind of wholesome dharma capable of bringing about a desirable ripened fruit.

That which is conducive to liberation (mokṣabhāgīya) is the kind of wholesome dharma which, once arisen, becomes a dharma leading to final nirvana (parinirvāṇa). Whenever a person, on hearing teachings concerning the faults of cyclic existence (saṃsāra), non-self, and the qualities of nirvana, experiences the hairs of the body standing on end and tears flowing from the eyes, one should know that this person has accomplished the wholesome roots conducive to liberation. It is just as, upon seeing sprouts growing when rain falls, one knows that seeds had previously been sown in the holes in the ground (khalabila) there.

That which is conducive to penetration (nirvedhabhāgīya) consists of the four dharmas beginning with warmth (uṣmagata); this will be presented in greater detail later.

(Question) People speak of writing (letters), drawing or engraving (seals), calculation, literary composition, and enumeration. What, then, are the intrinsic natures of these kinds of activities?

[All arise in the proper manner

Through the three karmas and that which activates them.

In sequence, these constitute the intrinsic natures of writing, engraving,

Calculation, literary composition, and enumeration.]

Exposition: “Arise in the proper manner” means that they arise through their respective preparatory efforts; “the three karmas” are bodily, verbal, and mental karma; and “that which activates them” is the capacity to initiate these three kinds of karma. According to their respective conditions, the dharmas in question are precisely feeling, perception, and so forth.

Among these five arts, writing and engraving have bodily karma and the five skandhas capable of activating bodily karma as their intrinsic nature.

Calculation and literary composition have verbal karma and the five skandhas capable of activating verbal karma as their intrinsic nature.

Enumeration has mental karma and the four skandhas capable of activating mental karma as its intrinsic nature, because only mental volition is capable of counting.

What follows is a brief presentation of the various names of dharmas:

[Wholesome undefiled dharmas are called excellent;

Defiled dharmas are called culpable,

Obscured, or inferior;

Conditioned wholesome dharmas are called those to be cultivated;

Liberation is called unsurpassed.]

Exposition: Wholesome undefiled dharmas are called excellent; defiled dharmas are also called “culpable,” “obscured,” and “inferior.” On the basis of the two categories of excellent and inferior dharmas, one can know the dharmas of the intermediate category; therefore, the stanza does not mention them.

Conditioned wholesome dharmas are also called “those to be cultivated”; dharmas contrary to these are called “those not to be cultivated.”

(Question) Why are unconditioned dharmas not called “those to be cultivated”?

(Answer) Because these dharmas cannot be repeatedly cultivated so as to increase; moreover, cultivation produces a fruit, whereas unconditioned dharmas have no fruit.

Liberation, nirvana, is also called unsurpassed because no other dharma can surpass nirvana, which is entirely wholesome, permanent, and transcends all other dharmas. All remaining dharmas can be surpassed by another dharma.