阿毘達磨俱舍論

Part 17

The characteristics of the ten courses of karma have already been explained; next, the meaning of “course of karma” will be discussed.

[Among these, only three are karma;

The other seven karmas are also courses.]

Treatise: Covetousness, ill will, and wrong view are karma and courses of karma; a course of karma, that is, the path along which karma proceeds, is also called volition (cetanā). Indeed, the mental factor of volition associated (tatsaṃprayoginī) with covetousness, ill will, and wrong view (volition associated with them) is able to move because they move (because they move, it moves); and through their power, volition, when intending (abhisaṃskaroti = cetayate) in conjunction with them, is able to proceed according to their activity.

The offense of killing and the other six offenses are all karma because their essence consists of bodily and verbal karmas; and they are also courses of the karma called volition because the volition capable of giving rise to these karmas (the volition capable of equally initiating bodily and verbal karma) (tatsamutthānacetanāyāḥ) terminates and abides in these offenses.

Thus, the expression “course of karma” means only a course along which karma proceeds when applied to covetousness, ill will, and wrong view; but when used to designate the offenses of killing and so forth, it bears both meanings: karma and course of karma (karma karmapathaś ca). This use of the compound remains valid according to the principle that “even among things of dissimilar form, one may remain as the representative of all” (asarūpāṇām apy ekaśeṣaḥ); that is, “even when the members of a compound are all different, [it is still possible] to retain only one [representative member].” (Pāṇini, i. 2. 64).

The wholesome courses of karma—the abstentions from killing and so forth, non-covetousness (anabhidhyā), and so forth—are analyzed in the same manner.

(Question) Why are the preparatory action (prayoga) and the subsequent action (pṛṣṭha) not regarded as courses of karma?

(Answer) Because, with respect to the fundamental karma (maulakarman), the preparatory action has already been completed, while the subsequent action takes the fundamental karma as its basis. Moreover, only the courses of karma are the most manifest and coarse among wholesome and unwholesome conduct. Furthermore, the courses of karma are precisely those actions whose increase or decrease affects the increase or decrease of the external world and sentient beings.

The Sautrāntika masters do not accept volition (cetanā) as mental karma (manaskarman); for them, there is no mental karma separate from covetousness and so forth. How, then, must this school explain the fact that the scriptures call covetousness and so forth courses of karma? This is a question the Sautrāntikas must answer.

There is no difficulty in answering the foregoing question. Covetousness, ill will, and wrong view are all mental karma (karman), and they are also paths (patha) leading to the unfortunate destinies; alternatively, covetousness, ill will, and wrong view serve mutually as paths for one another, because covetousness can cause ill will and wrong view to proceed (vāhayati), and conversely, ill will and wrong view possess the same capacity.

(Question) The ten unwholesome courses of karma are all opposed to wholesome dharmas; but by which course of karma are the roots of goodness cut off, and what is the distinction between the cutting off and the restoration of the roots of goodness?

The stanza answers:

[Wrong view cuts off the roots of goodness; these are the innately acquired roots in the Desire Realm.

All wrong views denying cause and effect, and so forth,

Gradually sever both the roots of goodness and the courses of karma.

Only humans of the three continents, men and women,

Who are of the view-dominated type, cut off the roots of goodness.

Restoration of the roots of goodness requires doubt or belief in existence,

As strength returns when an illness is swiftly cured;

Except for those who have committed the five heinous offenses.]

Treatise: The cutting off of the roots of goodness (kuśalamūlasamuccheda) occurs through wrong view of the ninth grade, the highest grade.

(Question) If only wrong view causes the roots of goodness to be cut off, why does the Fundamental Treatise say: “What are the unwholesome roots of the highest grade?—They are the unwholesome roots capable of cutting off the roots of goodness, or the unwholesome roots first abandoned upon attaining detachment from the Desire Realm (kāmavairāgya).” (Jñānaprasthāna, 2, 8; Vibhāṣā, 35, 5). This passage indicates that covetousness and the other unwholesome roots cut off the roots of goodness.

(Answer) Only wrong view cuts off the roots of goodness; but wrong view is induced (adhyāhṛta = upanīta) by the unwholesome roots, and therefore the Fundamental Treatise attributes to them an action that properly belongs exclusively to wrong view. It is just as the flames themselves burn down a village, yet people say that bandits burned down the village.

(Question) Which roots of goodness are cut off?

(Answer) Only the innately acquired roots of goodness belonging to the Desire Realm (Kāmāpta), because a person who has cut off the roots of goodness has not yet acquired the roots of goodness belonging to the Form Realm and the Formless Realm.

(Question) If so, how is the following passage from the Prajñapti Treatise to be explained: “Therefore, the roots of goodness belonging to all three realms of this person (pudgala) have been cut off”? (Vibhāṣā, 35, 14).

(Answer) This passage merely means that, at this time, the attainment of roots of goodness belonging to the higher realms has become exceedingly remote. This is because the person was formerly a suitable vessel (bhājana) for attaining these roots of goodness but has become incapable of doing so (no longer such a vessel) because the roots of goodness of the Desire Realm have been cut off.

(Question) Why are only the innately acquired roots of goodness (upapatilābhika) cut off?

(Answer) Because a person who cuts off the roots of goodness has already lost the roots of goodness acquired through preparatory practice (prāyogika).

(Question) What is the object of the wrong view that cuts off the roots of goodness?

(Answer) It is the denial of cause: “There is neither wholesome conduct nor unwholesome conduct”; and the denial of effect: “There is no ripened result arising as the recompense of wholesome and unwholesome conduct.”

Some masters maintain that these two kinds of wrong view, which deny cause and effect, assist in cutting off the roots of goodness, just as the uninterrupted path (ānantaryamārga) and the path of liberation (vimuktimārga) assist in the elimination of the afflictions.

Other masters say that the wrong view which cuts off the roots of goodness takes as its objects—that is, denies—only contaminated dharmas (sāsrava), namely, the truths of suffering and its origin, and does not take as its objects uncontaminated dharmas (anāsrava), namely, the truths of cessation and the path. This wrong view also takes as its object only its own realm, that is, the realm in which the person presently exists (sabhāgadhātu), and not the Form Realm or the Formless Realm. Indeed, wrong views that deny uncontaminated dharmas or take the higher realms as their objects are very weak in power because they are related to these dharmas and realms only through association.

The Vaibhāṣika masters, however, maintain that the roots of goodness are cut off by all kinds of wrong view: wrong views taking cause as their object, taking effect as their object, taking uncontaminated dharmas as their object, taking contaminated dharmas as their object, taking the Desire Realm as their object, and taking the higher realms as their object.

Some masters say that the nine grades of the roots of goodness—from the lowest of the low grade to the highest of the high grade—are all cut off simultaneously by a single moment of wrong view, just as all the afflictions abandoned through seeing are entirely eliminated by the path of seeing.

However, the Vibhāṣā holds that they can only be severed gradually. The roots of good are severed in the same manner as the afflictions belonging to cultivation-abandonment (bhāvanāheya), which are eliminated by the path of cultivation (satyabhāvanā); that is, roots of good of the highest-high grade (adhimātrādhimātrā) are severed by wrong views of the lowest-low grade, and so on, until roots of good of the lowest-low grade are severed by wrong views of the highest-high grade.

This position accords with the following passage from the Fundamental Treatise (Jñānaprasthāna, 2, 8): “What are the subtle and concomitant (aṇusahagata) roots of good?—They are the roots of good relinquished last when the roots of good are severed; because these roots of good are relinquished, that person is called ‘one who has severed the roots of good.’”

(Question) If the severance occurs gradually, how is the earlier passage of the Fundamental Treatise to be explained: “What are the unwholesome roots of the higher grade?—They are the unwholesome roots capable of eliminating the roots of good”?

(Answer) The above passage refers implicitly to the completion (ultimate consummation) of the severance of the roots of good, because it is precisely through unwholesome roots of the higher grade that all roots of good disappear without remainder (nirravaśeṣaccheda). So long as the roots of good belonging to the final group—the lowest-low grade—have not yet been severed, they certainly remain capable of bringing the other groups of roots of good into manifestation.

Some masters maintain that the severance of the nine grades of roots of good occurs all at once and without interruption (avyutthānena), just like the elimination of the afflictions abandoned by the path of seeing. The Vibhāṣā, however, states that the severance of the roots of good sometimes occurs without interruption and sometimes must occur on several occasions (Vibhāṣā, 5, 12).

Some masters say that the relinquishment of restraint (saṃvaraprahāṇa) occurs before the severance of the roots of good; but the Vibhāṣā states that a course of karma is relinquished (tyāga) only when one falls away from the kind of mind of which that course of karma is the result (Vibhāṣā, 35, 13).

(Question) What kinds of beings can sever the roots of good?

(Answer) Only human beings can sever the roots of good, not beings in the evil destinies (āpāyika), because the discernment (prajñā) of those beings may be defiled or undefiled (kliṣṭa, akliṣṭa) and therefore lacks firmness (dṛḍha); nor can heavenly beings sever them, because for them the results of karma are clearly manifest. Moreover, this can occur only on three continents, not in Uttarakuru, because the people there do not possess an extremely evil disposition (āśaya).

Some masters hold that only the people of Jambudvīpa sever the roots of good; this position, however, contradicts the Fundamental Treatise. The Fundamental Treatise states: “Human beings in Jambudvīpa possess at least eight faculties; the same is true of human beings on the two continents Pūravavideha and Avaragodānīya” (Jñānaprasthāna, 15, 11).

Some masters say that women do not sever the roots of good because their aspiration (chanda) and diligence are both weak (manda); this view, however, contradicts the Fundamental Treatise, which states: “Whoever possesses the female faculty necessarily possesses eight faculties.” It is therefore known that both men and women are capable of severing the roots of good.

Those dominated by craving (tṛṣṇācarita, persons disposed toward craving) do not sever the roots of good, because their disposition (āśaya) is unstable (cala). Only those dominated by views (dṛṣṭicarita, persons disposed toward views) sever the roots of good, because their disposition is habitually evil (pāpa), firm (dṛḍha), and deeply concealed (gūḍha).

For the foregoing reasons, eunuchs and the like are also unable to sever the roots of good, because they belong to the class of those disposed toward craving (tṛṣṇācaritapakṣatvāt), and because their discernment (prajñā) is not firm, just like that of beings in the evil destinies.

(Question) What is the intrinsic nature of the severance of the roots of good?

(Answer) It is precisely non-possession (aprāpti). When the possession (prāpti) of the roots of good no longer arises again—that is, when it no longer continues—then non-possession arises; and the arising of non-possession is the severance of the roots of good.

(Question) Once they have been severed, how can the roots of good arise again?

(Answer) It is through doubt and through the view that causes exist (the view of existence), and so forth. This is the case of persons who have severed the roots of good but then give rise to doubt concerning cause and result or perceive their existence (astidṛṣṭi), that is, right view (samyagdṛṣṭi). When right view arises, it is said that the roots of good have arisen again, because from that moment the possession of these roots of good has appeared (tatprāptisamudācārāt). The roots arise again in all nine of their grades, but become manifest gradually, just as one first regains health (ārogya) and only afterward gradually regains strength.

Other persons who have severed the roots of good can cause them to arise again in this very life; but one who has committed one of the five heinous offenses (ānantarya) and has severed the roots of good cannot cause them to arise again. Concerning this case, a sūtra (Madhyama, 37) states: “This person (pudgala) is incapable (abhavya) of causing the roots of good to arise again in this life; nevertheless, he can certainly cause them to arise again when dying (cyavamāna) in hell or when taking birth (upapadyamāna).” “When taking birth” refers to the stage of intermediate existence; and “when dying” refers to the stage of approaching death in hell (narakacyutyabhimukha).

The roots of good will arise again at the time of taking birth when they were severed through the power of causes (hetubalena); and they will arise again when death approaches when they were severed through the power of conditions (pratyaya). In cases where they were severed through one’s own power or through the power of others, the times at which they arise again likewise differ in this manner.

A person whose “disposition is corrupted” (āśayavipanna)—that is, one who has fallen away from (vipanna, vinaṣṭa) the roots of good through the manifestation of wrong view (mithyādṛṣṭisaṃmukhībhāva)—can cause the roots of good to arise again in this very life. But persons whose “disposition is corrupted” and whose “preparatory conduct is also corrupted” (prayogavipanna)—that is, those who have fallen away and in addition committed a heinous offense (ānantarya)—can cause the roots of good to arise again only after the destruction of this body. [This is a variation of what was stated above: “those who sever the roots of good through their own power and through the power of others…”].

The same distinction applies between a case of severance through wrong view (corruption of view, dṛṣṭivipanna) and a case involving both corruption of view and corruption of moral discipline (śīlavipanna), that is, severance accompanied by the additional commission of a heinous offense. [This too is a variation of the immediately preceding case].

There may be cases in which the roots of good have been completely severed (samucchinnakuśalamūla) without one being destined for wrongness (mithyātvaniyata). There are four cases: ⁽¹⁾ Pūraṇa and the other five masters; ⁽²⁾ Ajātaśatru; ⁽³⁾ Devadatta; and ⁽⁴⁾ those who neither sever the roots of good nor commit a heinous offense.

A person holding wrong views who severs the roots of good falls into the Avīci hell; one who commits a heinous offense falls into the Avīci hell or into another hell.

(Question) Volition (cetanā) is the source of karma; but with how many kinds of paths of karma can volition co-occur?

The verse answers:

[Volition co-occurs with the paths of karma;

If unwholesome, with from one to eight paths of karma;

If wholesome, with ten paths of karma,

But it does not co-occur with one, eight, or five paths of karma.]

Treatise: ⁽¹⁾ In the case of unwholesome paths of karma:

Volition co-occurs with one path of karma when covetousness, ill will, or wrong view arises, but no material karma (rūpin) occurs; or when a person, having previously made preparations (preliminary action) for one of the material karmas, has an undefiled mind—wholesome or neutral—at the moment when, merely out of rashness, that person commits this path of karma.

Volition co-occurs with two paths of karma when a person, having aroused a mind of ill will (vyāpannacitta), kills a living being (prāṇivadha); or when a person, impelled by covetousness (abhidhyāviṣṭa), steals, commits sexual misconduct, or engages in frivolous speech.

Volition also co-occurs with three paths of karma when a person, out of an angry mind, kills and steals at the same time.

(Question) If so, why was it stated earlier that the offense of stealing is completed (niṣṭhā) only through greed (lobha)?

(Answer) This was stated with reference to the completion (parisamāptau) of the offense of taking what has not been given (adattādāna) by those whose sole thought is to steal (apaharaṇa).

Another case in which volition co-occurs with three paths of karma is when covetousness arises (saṃmukhībhāva) at the time one directs another person to commit two material paths of karma.

Volition co-occurs with four paths of karma when, with the intention of causing division, one utters false speech (anṛtavacana) or abusive speech (paruṣavacana); there is then one mental path of karma and three verbal paths of karma. It also does so when covetousness and so forth arise (abhidhyādigata) while one is performing three material paths of karma.

Volition co-occurs with five, six, or seven paths of karma when covetousness and so forth arise in the mind while one is performing four, five, or six paths of karma, respectively.

Volition co-occurs with eight paths of karma when preparations have already been made for the six paths of karma beginning with killing, and while performing these six paths one also becomes covetous and commits sexual misconduct.

Volition does not co-occur with nine or ten paths of karma because covetousness, ill will, and wrong view do not arise simultaneously.

⁽²⁾ In the case of wholesome paths of karma:

Generally speaking, volition can co-occur with ten wholesome paths of karma; but it does not co-occur with one, eight, or five paths of karma.

Volition co-occurs with two paths of karma when a person, while absorbed in a formless concentration (ārūpya), realizes the knowledge of exhaustion (kṣayajñāna) or the knowledge of non-arising (anutpādavijñāna), and the five consciousnesses are wholesome in nature; thus, there are the two paths of karma of non-covetousness and non-ill will.

Volition also co-occurs with three paths of karma when mental consciousness (manovijñāna) is associated with right view (samyagdṛṣṭi) and the seven wholesome material paths of karma are absent.

Volition co-occurs with four paths of karma when one has an unwholesome or neutral mind but acquires the discipline of a lay follower (Upāsaka) or the discipline of a novice (Śrāmaṇera), comprising the four wholesome material paths of karma beginning with abstention from killing.

Volition also co-occurs with six paths of karma when one acquires the disciplines mentioned above while the five consciousnesses are wholesome: four wholesome material paths of karma, one path of non-covetousness, and one path of non-ill will.

Volition also co-occurs with seven paths of karma when one acquires the disciplines mentioned above with wholesome mental consciousness and, in addition, right view; or when one has an unwholesome or neutral mind but acquires the discipline of a bhikṣu, consisting of seven paths of karma that are entirely material.

Volition co-occurs with nine paths of karma when one acquires the discipline of a bhikṣu while the five bodily consciousnesses are wholesome but right view is absent; when one acquires the discipline of a bhikṣu at the time of realizing the knowledge of exhaustion or the knowledge of non-arising while absorbed in a formless concentration [this is the case of the two paths of karma described above, to which are added the seven paths belonging to a discipline that is unmanifest]; or when one is entering a concentration belonging to dhyāna and realizes the knowledge of exhaustion or the knowledge of non-arising [that is, right view is absent, but the seven material paths of karma are simultaneously present because they form part of the unmanifest discipline of dhyāna (avijñapti)].

Volition co-occurs with ten paths of karma when one acquires the discipline of a bhikṣu with wholesome mental consciousness, except in the cases of the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising. This is the case of all volitions arising together (sahavartini) with the discipline of dhyāna and with the uncontaminated discipline, when such volition is not associated with the knowledge of exhaustion or the knowledge of non-arising.

The conditions under which volition co-occurs with wholesome paths of karma included within discipline (saṃvarasaṃgṛhīta) have now been explained. If only the paths of karma not included within discipline are considered, volition can also co-occur with one, five, or eight paths of karma when: ⁽¹⁾ one abstains from one offense (undertaking abstention in one respect, ekāngaviratisamādāna) and has a mind different from the mind that initiated this abstention, namely a defiled or neutral mind; ⁽²⁾ one abstains from two offenses and has wholesome mental consciousness: this wholesome mental consciousness possesses the three mental karmas, to which are added the two material karmas constituted by these abstentions; or ⁽³⁾ one abstains from five offenses under the same conditions as above.

(Question) Which paths of karma are merely possessed, and which are both possessed and actively practiced?

The verse answers:

[In the hells, the destinies of the unwholesome,

Abusive speech, frivolous speech, and ill will occur in both ways.

Covetousness and wrong view are only possessed.

In the Northern Continent, the last three paths of karma are possessed;

Frivolous speech is also actively practiced.

Elsewhere in the Desire Realm, they are also actively practiced.

In all places,

The last three wholesome paths of karma are both actively practiced and possessed.

Formless beings and non-percipient beings

Only possess the preceding wholesome paths of karma;

Other beings both possess and actively practice them,

Except in the hells and the Northern Continent.]

Treatise: Of the ten unwholesome paths of karma, three are both possessed and actively practiced in the hells: ⁽¹⁾ frivolous speech, because beings in the hells constantly lament (parideva); ⁽²⁾ abusive speech, because they constantly revile one another (nigraha); and ⁽³⁾ ill will, because their mental continuums are inherently cruel and merciless, and thus they continually bear hatred toward one another (cittasaṃtānapāruṣyāt).

Beings in the hells possess covetousness and wrong view, but these two paths of karma are not actually practiced because there are no objects there to which they might become attached (rañajanīyavastu)—that is, no agreeable objects; moreover, the results of karma are already manifest.

In the hells there is no karma of killing, because beings there die when their karma is exhausted (exhaustion of karma, karmakṣaya); there is no stealing or sexual misconduct because there is no individual possession of property or women (dravyastrīparigrahābhāvāt); there is no false speech because it would be useless; and there is no malicious speech because it would be useless and beings are already perpetually separated.

Covetousness, hatred, and wrong view exist in Kuru in the sense that beings there possess these three courses of karma. In reality, however, there is no covetousness there because there is no private property; nor is there hatred, because their dispositions are gentle (snigdhasaṃtānatvāt) and there are no grounds for resentment (āghātavastu); nor is there wrong view, because they have no evil intentions (apāpāśayatvat). Frivolous speech alone is both possessed and manifest, because the beings there frequently sing with defiled minds.

Because they have no evil intentions, because their lifespan has a clearly fixed limit, because there is no private possession of either property or women, and because such acts would be useless, there is no killing or any of the other courses of karma.

(Question) If the beings of Kuru do not privately possess women (parigraha), how do they engage in sexual relations with one another?

(Answer) When they wish to enjoy pleasure with a certain woman, they take her by the hand and lead her to the foot of a tree. If she is a woman with whom they are permitted to have intercourse, the branches of the tree droop down to conceal them; if they are not permitted, the branches do not conceal them.

In all other places of the Desire Realm—that is, apart from the hells and Kuru—all ten courses of karma are both possessed and manifest.

For animals, ghosts, and devas, unwholesome courses of karma are not included within non-restraint (asaṃvaranirmukta); for human beings, however, they may or may not be included within non-restraint.

(Question) Is there a course of karma consisting of killing in the heavenly realms?

(Answer) Devas do not kill one another, but there are still cases in which they kill beings belonging to other destinies, such as ghosts and so forth. Some hold that devas also kill one another by severing the head or cutting the body in two at the waist.

The wholesome courses of karma of non-covetousness, non-hatred, and right view are both possessed and manifest in all realms and destinies.

Beings of the Formless Realm and non-percipient beings possess only the seven wholesome courses of karma belonging to form, namely, the courses of karma of body and speech. Noble ones reborn in the Formless Realm possess (samanvāgata) past and future restraint or uncontaminated restraint; non-percipient beings likewise possess meditative restraint under such conditions.

The past uncontaminated restraint possessed by a noble one reborn in the Formless Realm has as its basis (āśraya) the meditative absorption or absorptions that the noble one has produced or relinquished; future uncontaminated restraint, however, takes all five planes as its basis, namely, the Desire Realm and the four meditative absorptions.

Other beings—that is, those in the other realms and destinies, with the exception of the hells and Kuru—both possess and manifest the seven wholesome courses of karma. Beings in the hells and Kuru have no restraint undertaken by vow (samādānaśīla). In other places, all seven wholesome courses of karma belonging to form are manifest.

There is the following distinction: For animals and ghosts, the wholesome courses of karma are never included within restraint; in the Form Realm, however, they are included within restraint; elsewhere, the wholesome courses of karma may belong to either category.

(Question) How do wholesome and unwholesome courses of karma produce their fruits?

The stanza answers:

[All are capable of bringing about

Fruits of maturation, outflow, and predominance;

Because killing causes others to suffer,

Cuts short their lifespan, and destroys their vitality.]

Exposition: Wholesome and unwholesome courses of karma all bring about three kinds of fruit: the fruit of maturation, the fruit of outflow, and the predominant fruit.

⁽¹⁾ Through repeatedly performing (āsevita), cultivating (bhāvita), and increasing (bahulikṛta) each unwholesome course of karma, the wrongdoer is reborn in hell; this is the fruit of maturation.

⁽²⁾ If the wrongdoer is subsequently reborn in the human realm, among beings of the same class, then because of killing, their lifespan will again be shortened (alpāyur bhavati); because of stealing, they will suffer poverty (bhogavyasanin); because of sexual misconduct, they will have an unfaithful spouse (sasapatnadāra); because of lying, they will frequently be slandered by others (abhyākhyānabahula); because of divisive speech, their friends and companions will become hostile to one another (bhinnaparivāra); because of abusive speech, they will hear only disagreeable things (amanāpaśravaṇa); because of frivolous speech, others will not trust their words (anādeyavacana); because of covetousness, their covetousness will become intense; because of hatred, their hatred will become intense;

because of wrong view, they will be afflicted with delusion, for delusion is the greatest of wrong views.

This is the fruit of outflow.

(Question) Although the lifespan is shortened, rebirth in the human realm is still the fruit of wholesome karma. How, then, can it be regarded as the fruit of outflow of the karma of killing?

(Answer) We do not say that human life is the fruit of the karma of killing. We say only that one who has performed the karma of killing will have a shortened lifespan because of having committed that kind of karma. Killing is the cause of the shortening of a human lifespan, but that lifespan itself remains the fruit of wholesome karma.

⁽³⁾ Because of killing, external things such as plants, soil, and so forth possess very little vitality (alpaujas = alpavīrya); because of stealing, they are damaged by hail, dust, or corrosive substances (aśanirajobahula); because of sexual misconduct, they are covered with dust or corrosive substances (rajovakīrṇa); because of lying, they have a foul odor (durgandha); because of divisive speech, they are found in uneven places, with elevations and depressions (utkūlanikūla = unnatanimna); because of abusive speech, if they are soils, they are saline and barren (ūṣarajangala), or if they are plants, they are unsightly (viprakruṣṭa = vigarhita) and harmful (pāpika); because of frivolous speech, the seasons become disordered (viṣamartupariṇāmā bāhyā bhāvāḥ);

because of covetousness, fruits are small; because of hatred, fruits are sour; because of wrong view, there is little fruit or no fruit at all.

This is the predominant fruit.

(Question) Is it because of the karma of killing that the wrongdoer is reborn in hell and afterward has only a short lifespan in the human realm?

(Answer) Some masters hold that both results arise from the karma of killing itself. Existence in hell is the fruit of maturation, and the shortening of lifespan is the fruit of outflow of the karma of killing. Other masters hold that existence in hell arises from the preparatory action of the karma of killing, while the shortening of lifespan is due to its fundamental action.

In fact, the sutra states that the karma of killing is the cause of a life in hell; but in saying this, the sutra does not refer solely to the act of killing itself. It also refers to the entire series of actions accompanying the act of killing (saparivāra), that is, the fundamental action together with its retinue. In this case, what is called the fruit of outflow does not exist separately (nātivartate) from the fruit of maturation and the predominant fruit.

It is called the fruit of outflow solely because of the resemblance between cause and fruit: killing leads to a short lifespan, stealing to poverty, and so forth.

(Question) Why do all ten of these courses of karma bring about three kinds of fruit?

(Answer) All those who commit the offense of killing (prāṇātipāta) cause suffering to the one they are about to kill (vadhya), cause that being to die (maraṇam kṛtam), and destroy that being’s vitality (ojas). Because they cause suffering, the ripened result is that they must undergo suffering in hell; because they cause another to die, the homogeneous result is that their lifespan is shortened; because they destroy vitality, the dominant result is that external things possess very little vigor. The other unwholesome courses of karma are likewise.

The wholesome courses of karma also have the three kinds of result described above. Through abstention from killing, when practiced, cultivated, and developed, one is reborn in the heavenly realms; if one subsequently returns as a human being, one will have a long lifespan. For all wholesome karma, these three kinds of result are contrary to the results of the unwholesome courses of karma. (Vibhāṣā, 113, 21)

(Question) Among the eight unwholesome factors (wrong factors), the Blessed One distinguished karma pertaining to form into three kinds: wrong speech (mithyāvāc), wrong action (mithyākarmānta), and wrong livelihood (mithyājīva). Is wrong livelihood, then, separate from wrong speech and wrong action?

(Answer) They are not separate.

[Since bodily and verbal karma arising from greed

Constitutes wrong livelihood, it is very difficult to abandon.

If one holds that wrong livelihood arises from greed for the requisites of life,

That is unreasonable, for it contradicts the sutra.]

Treatise: Bodily and verbal karma arising from hatred and delusion are called wrong action and wrong speech; because they also arise from greed, they constitute wrong livelihood. This distinction is made because wrong livelihood is very difficult to purify.

Greed (rāga) is by nature a thief (apahar): it is very difficult to guard the mind against karma engendered by greed. As long as one remains alive, wrong livelihood is very difficult to purify; therefore, the Blessed One established wrong livelihood as a separate category. A verse (Vibhāṣā, 116, 13) says: “It is very difficult for an ordinary person to keep his thoughts pure, for he is constantly prey to various thoughts; it is very difficult for a practitioner to keep his livelihood pure, for his food and clothing depend upon others.”

If someone thinks that activities such as singing, dancing, and so forth are performed merely for amusement and therefore do not constitute wrong livelihood, because wrong livelihood includes only those bodily and verbal karmas engendered by greed for the means of subsistence (jīvitopakaraṇa), (Mahāvyutpatti, 239, 32) we reply that this is not so. In the Śīlaskandhikā Sutra, the Blessed One taught that going to watch elephant fights and so forth is also wrong livelihood, because it is precisely the enjoyment of improper objects (mithyāviṣayaparibhoga).

(Question) Five kinds of result were previously mentioned: dominant (adhipati), personal-effort (puruṣakāra), homogeneous (niṣyanda), ripened (vipāka), and separation (visaṃyogaphala). Which kinds of karma have which kinds of result?

The verse answers:

[Defiled karma belonging to the path of abandonment

Has all five kinds of result;

Undefiled karma has four kinds,

Excluding only the ripened result.

Other wholesome or unwholesome defiled karmas

Also have four, excluding only separation.

Other undefiled and morally indeterminate karmas

Have three kinds, excluding the two above.]

Treatise: It is called the Path of Abandonment (prahāṇamārga) because it is the path capable of abandoning, or because the afflictions are abandoned by means of this path (prahīyante ‘nena). This path is also called the Uninterrupted Path (ānantarya)—which will be explained later—and is of two kinds: undefiled (anāsrava) and defiled (sāsrava). Karma constituting a part of the defiled Path of Abandonment has all five kinds of result: ⁽¹⁾ the ripened result is the agreeable retribution belonging to the same sphere as the karma; ⁽²⁾ the homogeneous result consists of dharmas born of concentration, similar to the karma, and belonging to a later stage (samādhijā uttare sadṛśā dharmāḥ); ⁽³⁾ the result of separation is freedom from the afflictions, the abandonment of the afflictions;

⁽⁴⁾ the personal-effort result consists of the dharmas produced by this kind of karma (tadākṛṣṭa), namely: (a) the Path of Liberation (vimuktimārga), (b) coexistent dharmas (sahabhū), (c) future dharmas developed by means of this kind of karma (yac cānāgataṃ bhāvyate), and (d) the abandonment itself; ⁽⁵⁾ the dominant result consists of all conditioned dharmas other than this kind of karma itself and other than the dharmas already arisen.

Karma constituting a part of the undefiled Path of Abandonment has four kinds of result, excluding only the ripened result.

Wholesome or unwholesome defiled karma that does not constitute a part of the Path of Abandonment also has four kinds of result, excluding only the result of separation.

The remaining undefiled karmas—that is, undefiled karmas that do not belong to the Path of Abandonment but constitute only a part of the Paths of Preparation, Liberation, and Excellence (prayoga-vimukti-viśeṣa-mārgas)—have no result of separation because this kind of karma is not a cause of abandonment, and no ripened result because it is undefiled karma.

These two kinds of result are also absent from defiled or undefiled morally indeterminate karma (nivṛta, anivṛtāvyākṛta).

(Question) What are the characteristics of the results of the various kinds of karma?

The verse answers:

[Wholesome, unwholesome, and morally indeterminate dharmas constitute

Four, two, and three kinds of result of wholesome karma;

They constitute two, three, and four kinds of result of unwholesome karma;

They constitute two, three, and three kinds of result of morally indeterminate karma.]

Treatise: ⁽¹⁾ Wholesome, unwholesome, and morally indeterminate dharmas constitute, respectively, four kinds of result, two kinds of result, and three kinds of result of wholesome karma:

The homogeneous, separation, personal-effort, and dominant results of wholesome karma are wholesome dharmas. The ripened result is by nature morally indeterminate.

The personal-effort and dominant results of wholesome karma are unwholesome dharmas.

The homogeneous result of a wholesome karma is necessarily wholesome; the result of separation is by nature wholesome.

The ripened, personal-effort, and dominant results of wholesome karma are morally indeterminate dharmas.

⁽²⁾ Wholesome, unwholesome, and morally indeterminate dharmas, in this order, constitute two kinds of result, three kinds of result, and four kinds of result of unwholesome karma:

The two results of personal effort and dominance of unwholesome karma are wholesome dharmas.

Three results—excluding the ripened result and the result of separation—are unwholesome dharmas.

Four results—excluding the result of separation—are morally indeterminate dharmas.

Thus, it is admitted that the homogeneous result (niṣyandaphala) of unwholesome dharmas may consist of morally indeterminate dharmas. How does this occur? The two morally indeterminate dharmas—the view of a real self (satkāyadṛṣṭi) and the view of extremes (antagrāhadṛṣṭi)—are both homogeneous results of unwholesome dharmas. These are the universally pervasive afflictions (sarvatraga) abandoned through seeing suffering and its origin; and the afflictions belonging to the group of craving (rāga), and so forth, abandoned through seeing suffering.

⁽³⁾ Wholesome, unwholesome, and morally indeterminate dharmas constitute two kinds of result, three kinds of result, and three kinds of result of morally indeterminate karma.

The two kinds of result, personal effort and dominance, are wholesome dharmas.

The three fruits—namely, excluding the ripened fruit and the fruit of disconnection—are unwholesome dharmas. The unwholesome dharmas of all five classes, which are abandoned by seeing the truth of suffering (those abandoned through seeing the truth of suffering, and so forth), are the outflow fruit of the karmically indeterminate views of a real body and attachment to extremes.

The three fruits—as above—are karmically indeterminate.

The three moral qualities of the fruits have been explained above; next comes the exposition of their temporal periods, planes, and so forth.

[Past, present, and future dharmas constitute four kinds of fruit of past karma.

Future dharmas constitute four kinds of fruit of present karma.

Present dharmas constitute two kinds of fruit of present karma.

Future dharmas constitute three kinds of fruit of future karma.]

Treatise: All dharmas, or dharmas of every kind—that is, those belonging to the past, present, and future—may constitute four kinds of fruit of past karma. Thus there is no fruit of disconnection, because this fruit lies outside time.

The intermediate kind of karma, namely present karma, has four kinds of fruit—excluding the fruit of disconnection—and all of them are future dharmas.

Present dharmas are the dominant fruit and the fruit of personal effort of present karma.

For karma that has not yet arisen, there are three kinds of fruit constituted by future dharmas: the ripened fruit, the dominant fruit, and the fruit of personal effort. Future karma has no outflow fruit.

[Dharmas of the same plane constitute four kinds of fruit;

Dharmas belonging to another plane constitute three or two fruits.]

Treatise: Karma belonging to a given plane produces four kinds of fruit—excluding the fruit of disconnection—and these fruits are all dharmas belonging to the same plane as the karma (svabhūmika).

Uncontaminated dharmas belonging to a plane other than that of the karma constitute three fruits of that karma: the fruit of personal effort, the dominant fruit, and the outflow fruit.

Contaminated dharmas belonging to a plane other than that of the karma constitute two fruits of that very karma: the fruit of personal effort and the dominant fruit.

[Dharmas of those in training, and so forth, constitute three kinds of fruit of the karma of those in training;

They constitute one kind of fruit, three kinds of fruit, and two kinds of fruit of the karma of those beyond training;

They constitute two kinds of fruit, two kinds of fruit, and five kinds of fruit

Of karma that is neither of those in training nor of those beyond training.]

Treatise: ⁽¹⁾ Dharmas “belonging to noble ones who are not arhats” (those in training, śaikṣa) constitute the outflow fruit, the fruit of personal effort, and the dominant fruit of the karma of those in training.

Dharmas “belonging to noble ones who are arhats” do likewise.

Dharmas that are neither of those in training nor of those beyond training constitute the fruit of personal effort, the dominant fruit, and the fruit of disconnection of the karma of those in training.

⁽²⁾ Dharmas of those in training, and so forth, constitute respectively one fruit, three fruits, and two fruits of the karma of those beyond training.

Dharmas of those in training are the dominant fruit of this kind of karma.

Dharmas of those beyond training are the dominant fruit, the outflow fruit, and the fruit of personal effort of this kind of karma.

Dharmas that are neither of those in training nor of those beyond training are the dominant fruit and the fruit of personal effort of this kind of karma.

⁽³⁾ Dharmas of those in training, and so forth, constitute respectively two kinds of fruit, two kinds of fruit, and five kinds of fruit of the kind of karma different from the preceding two, namely karma that is neither of those in training nor of those beyond training (naivaśaikṣanāśaikṣa).

Dharmas of those in training and dharmas of those beyond training are the fruit of personal effort and the dominant fruit of this kind of karma.

Dharmas that are neither of those in training nor of those beyond training are the five kinds of fruit of this kind of karma.

[For karma abandoned through seeing, and so forth,

Each has the three classes of dharmas—those abandoned through seeing, and so forth—as its fruits.

The first kind of karma has three, four, and one fruit;

The intermediate kind has two, four, and three fruits;

The last kind has one, two, and four fruits;

All should be understood respectively in this manner.]

Treatise:

⁽¹⁾ Dharmas that can be abandoned by the path of seeing (those abandoned through seeing, darśanaheya), dharmas that can be abandoned by the path of cultivation (those abandoned through cultivation, bhāvanāheya), and dharmas that cannot be abandoned constitute respectively three fruits, four fruits, and one fruit of the kind of karma that can be abandoned by the path of seeing (karma abandoned through seeing).

Dharmas abandoned through seeing are the three fruits—the dominant fruit, the fruit of personal effort, and the outflow fruit—of karma abandoned through seeing.

Dharmas abandoned through cultivation are the four fruits of this kind of karma, excluding the fruit of disconnection.

Dharmas not subject to abandonment are the dominant fruit of this kind of karma.

⁽²⁾ The foregoing dharmas constitute respectively two fruits, four fruits, and three fruits of the kind of karma abandoned by the path of cultivation (karma abandoned through cultivation).

Dharmas abandoned through seeing are the two fruits—the fruit of personal effort and the dominant fruit—of karma abandoned through cultivation.

Dharmas abandoned through cultivation are the four fruits of this karma, excluding the fruit of disconnection.

Dharmas not subject to abandonment are the three fruits—the fruit of personal effort, the dominant fruit, and the fruit of disconnection—of this karma.

⁽³⁾ The foregoing dharmas constitute, respectively, one fruit, two fruits, and four fruits of the kind of karma that cannot be abandoned (karma not subject to abandonment).

Dharmas abandoned through seeing are the dominant fruit of karma not subject to abandonment.

Dharmas abandoned through cultivation are the two fruits—the dominant fruit and the fruit of personal effort—of this karma.

Dharmas not subject to abandonment are the four fruits of this karma, excluding the ripened fruit.

The expression “respectively” (in due order, yathākarmam = anukarmam) in the verse is intended to apply to all the cases; this is a concise mode of expression (abhisaṃkṣepanyāyaḥ).

In the course of this exposition of karma, a question arises: The Root Treatise (Jñānaprasthāna) speaks of karma that should be performed (yogavihita), karma that should not be performed (ayogavihita), and karma that is neither to be performed nor not to be performed. What, then, do these three kinds mean?

The verse answers:

[Defiled karma should not be performed.

Some say that karma contrary to proper rules is also such.

Its opposite is karma that should be performed.

What differs from both above is the third kind of karma.]

Treatise: Some hold that karma which should not be performed is defiled karma (kliṣṭa), because this kind arises from improper mental attention (ayoniśomanaskāra). Others hold that improper karma, which has departed from established rules (vidhiprabhraṣṭa), is also karma that should not be performed: When a person walks, stands, eats, or dresses otherwise than as one should, these acts, although undefiled and karmically indeterminate, nevertheless belong to the category of karma that should not be performed, because that person acts contrary to conventional forms of proper conduct.

The opposite of the foregoing kind is karma that should be performed, namely wholesome karma, or karma that is both wholesome and in accordance with proper rules (avidhiprabhraṣṭa). Karma different from both that which should be performed and that which should not be performed is karma that is neither to be performed nor not to be performed.

(Question) Does one karma project (ākṣipati) one life or many lives? Do many karmas project one life or many lives?

The verse answers:

[One karma projects one life;

Many karmas are capable of bringing it to completion.]

Treatise: According to our school (Vibhāṣā, 19, 16–20, 14), one karma projects only one life. Here the word “life” (birth, janman) does not mean the act of birth (jāti), but rather a mode of existence (group-homogeneity, nikāyasabhāga). When a person obtains this mode of existence, it is called a “life.”

⁽¹⁾ One karma can project only one life; it cannot project many lives.

(Sautrāntika) This doctrine contradicts what the Venerable Aniruddha said: “Through the ripened result of this offering of almsfood (piṇḍapāta), after being born seven times in the Heaven of the Thirty-Three, I was finally born into the wealthy Śākya clan.”

(Explanation) The Venerable became a man of great wealth and distinction through this offering; afterward, he also attained the knowledge of recollecting many former lives and accumulated much new merit. In speaking thus, however, he intended to indicate his initial effort. It is like a person who initially possessed only a single coin but, through commerce, acquired a thousand coins and therefore said: “Through this single coin alone, I acquired such a fortune.”

Another explanation says that, through his offering, the Venerable Aniruddha produced many volitions, and each of these mental factors brought about one result.

⁽²⁾ Many karmas cannot together project a single life, for if they did, the projection of lives would become fragmented (bhāgaśaḥ). Nevertheless, although a single life is projected by only one karma, it is brought to completion by many karmas. It is like a painter who initially sketches only the outlines of a picture and afterward embellishes the whole. The same applies in the case of human beings: although all share the same human nature, some possess complete faculties, limbs, and bodily parts; some possess a most imposing complexion, strength, and form, while others lack one or another of these qualities.

In fact, karma alone does not have the capacity to project a life; all dharmas that produce ripened results (savipāka), such as feelings and so forth, also have this capacity. [There are, however, exceptional cases.]

[The Two Types of Mindless Concentration and the Dharmas of Acquisition

Are Incapable of Projecting a Life (but Other Dharmas Can)]

Treatise: Although they belong to the class of dharmas “possessing ripened results,” the two types of mindless concentration cannot project a life because they do not coexist (saha na bhavataḥ) with karma. The dharmas of acquisition (prāptis) also cannot project a life because they do not share a common result with the type of karma with which they coexist.

(Question) The Blessed One said that there are three kinds of grave obstruction (āvaraṇas): the obstruction of karma (karmāvaraṇa), the obstruction of afflictions (kleśāvaraṇa), and the obstruction of ripened results (vipākāvaraṇa). What, then, are these three kinds of obstruction?

The verse answers:

[These three obstructions are the immediate karmas,

The afflictions that arise continually,

All the unfortunate destinies, the northern continent, and the Heaven of Non-Perception.]

Treatise: The grave obstruction consisting of karmas refers to the five immediate offenses (ānantarya): killing one’s mother, killing one’s father, killing an arhat, causing a schism in the Sangha, and maliciously causing the body of the Tathagata to bleed.

The grave obstruction consisting of afflictions refers to afflictions that arise continually. Afflictions are of two kinds: those that arise continually and those that are violent (tīvra). Continually arising afflictions are those that arise without interruption; violent afflictions are afflictions of the highest degree (adhimātra). Continually arising afflictions constitute a grave obstruction, as in the case of eunuchs and so forth.

An affliction that arises only occasionally can still be restrained even when its arising is extremely violent, unlike continually arising afflictions, though these may initially be weaker. If a person possessing such continually arising afflictions makes no effort to restrain them, they will progress from a weak degree to a medium degree, until they become extremely strong, of the highest degree, and constitute an obstruction.

The grave obstruction consisting of ripened results refers to the three unfortunate destinies—hell beings, animals, and ghosts—and to part of the fortunate destinies: being born as a human on the continent of Uttarakuru or as a deva in the Heaven of Non-Perception.

(Question) What is an obstruction?

(Answer) It consists of dharmas that obstruct the noble path and obstruct the preparatory (prāyogika) wholesome roots leading to the noble path.

(Objection) In addition to the immediate offenses, other kinds of karma that obstruct the noble path should also have been included: karmas that are certain to bring about rebirth in the unfortunate destinies and so forth (apāyādiniyata), and karmas that are certain to project birth from an egg, birth from moisture, birth as a woman, and the eight kinds of birth.

(Explanation) Here only those karmas that can readily be recognized by others (sudarśaka), as well as by their own perpetrator (suprajñaka), from five points are mentioned. These include the immediate offenses of killing, false speech, and the preparatory action of killing. The result of such karma is suffering; the destiny brought about by the karma is hell; the time at which its ripened result is experienced is precisely the next life; and the perpetrator himself must bear the designation “one who killed his father.” From these five points, karma constituting an immediate offense can be readily recognized.

Among these obstructions, the greatest obstruction (sarvapāpiṣṭha) is the obstruction of afflictions, followed by the obstruction of karma. This is because these two kinds of obstruction prevent liberation (abhavya), not only in the present life but also in the next life. According to the Vibhāṣā (115, 17), the obstruction of afflictions is the greatest because it produces the obstruction of karma, and the obstruction of karma is more serious than the obstruction of ripened results because it produces this third kind of obstruction.

(Question) What does “immediate” (ānantarya) mean?

(Answer) The five immediate offenses are so called because they cannot be “interposed” (antariya); that is, with respect to their retribution, they cannot be impeded (abhibhūta) by karmas that would otherwise bear fruit in the next life. Or they are called immediate (ānantarya) because, immediately (anantaram) after the present life, one who commits an immediate offense must at once be reborn in hell. Thus, a dharma has been designated “immediacy” (ānantarya) because one who commits an immediate offense acquires this dharma, just as a dharma is designated “the state of an ascetic” (śrāmaṇya) because it causes a person to become an ascetic.

(Question) In what places are these three kinds of grave obstruction found?

The verse answers:

[Immediate offenses occur on three continents,

But not among eunuchs and so forth,

Because they receive little beneficence and show little reverence;

The other two obstructions occur in all five destinies.]

Treatise: In addition to the reasons previously given why eunuchs and so forth do not undertake undisciplined conduct, in this case it is also because their fathers and mothers have produced for them a defective (vikala) body (ātmabhāva) and have shown them only meager affection (sneha); therefore, these very parents have conferred little beneficence upon them. Moreover, eunuchs and so forth do not possess complete reverence (lajjitva = hrīvyapatrāpya) toward their parents—a reverence whose violation (vipādana, vikopana) would cause eunuchs and so forth to become perpetrators of an immediate offense.

For the same reasons as above, pretas and animals who commit the offense of killing their parents are likewise not perpetrators of an immediate offense. However, the Venerable One says that animals possessing clear discernment (paṭubuddhi), such as a well-bred and intelligent horse (ājāneya), nevertheless commit an immediate offense (Vibhāṣā, 119, 6).

For the same reasons as above, persons whose parents are nonhuman beings (amanuṣya) likewise do not commit an immediate offense if they kill their parents.

Existence in Uttarakuru constitutes a retributive obstruction with respect to the human realm; and existence in the Heaven of Non-Perception constitutes a retributive obstruction with respect to the heavenly realm.