成實論

CHAPTER 94: FORMATIONS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH MIND

Formations not associated with mind are: acquisition, non-acquisition, the concentration of non-perception, the concentration of cessation, the realm of non-perception, the life faculty, arising, ceasing, abiding, change, aging, death, collections of names, collections of phrases, collections of syllables, the dharma of ordinary beings, and so forth.

Acquisition means that dharmas are attained because they are accomplished by sentient beings. When a sentient being has accomplished the five skandhas of the body in the present life, this is called acquisition. Furthermore, with respect to good and unwholesome karma from the past whose retribution has not yet been experienced, the sentient being has already accomplished this dharma. As a sutra says: “This person has accomplished wholesome dharmas and has also accomplished unwholesome dharmas.”

Question: Some say that one accomplishes the wholesome and unwholesome bodily and verbal karma of the past, just as one who has gone forth accomplishes the disciplinary restraints undertaken in the past. What of this?

Answer: All have already been accomplished. Why? A sutra says: “If a person commits demeritorious or meritorious deeds, these two things constantly follow the body, as a shadow follows its form.” Another sutra says: “Misfortune and merit do not perish,” meaning that they are capable of yielding retribution. If one did not accomplish demeritorious and meritorious karma, then when the time came for the fruit to be attained, all karmic formations would have been lost.

Question: Past disciplinary restraints should not be accomplished. Why? You have said that past dharmas have ceased, future dharmas do not yet exist, and in the present one cannot constantly possess a wholesome mind. How, then, can disciplinary restraints be accomplished?

Answer: This person accomplishes present disciplinary restraints, not past ones. Just as one is defiled because of present defilement, so, because of present precepts, one is called an observer of the precepts; this is not on account of the past. Nevertheless, because they were previously undertaken and have not been relinquished, one is said to accomplish what pertains to the past.

Question: Some masters of the treatises say that sentient beings accomplish wholesome and unwholesome minds in the future. What of this?

Answer: They do not accomplish them. Why? Otherwise, one would attain the fruit before having performed the karma. Therefore, the future is not accomplished. This is what is called acquisition; there is no separate dharma unassociated with mind called acquisition. What is contrary to this is called non-acquisition. Nor is there a separate dharma of non-acquisition.

The concentration of non-perception: There is no definite dharma here. Why? Ordinary beings cannot extinguish mind and mental factors, as will be explained later.

Because this mind and these mental factors are subtle and difficult to discern, it is called non-perception. The realm of non-perception is likewise. In the concentration of cessation, the mind ceases and no longer functions; therefore, it is called complete cessation.

There is no separate dharma, just as with nirvana. The life faculty: Because of the causes and conditions of karma, the continuity of the five skandhas is called life. Because this life has karma as its root, it is called the life faculty.

When the five skandhas remain in the present life, this is called arising; relinquishing the present life is called ceasing. Because they continue, there is abiding. Because this abiding undergoes alteration, it is called change in abiding.

There are no separate dharmas called arising, abiding, and ceasing. Furthermore, according to the profound meaning of the Buddha-Dharma, dharmas arise only through the conjunction of conditions. Therefore, no dharma is capable of producing another dharma.

It is also said that the eye, visible form, and so forth serve as causes and conditions for eye-consciousness. Arising is not mentioned therein; therefore, there is no fault in there being no arising. It is also said that arising and the other dharmas arise simultaneously.

If dharmas arise simultaneously, they immediately cease. What use, then, are arising and the others therein? This matter should be carefully considered.

Moreover, among the twelve links of dependent origination, the Buddha himself explained the meaning of birth: When sentient beings are born in various places and assume the skandhas, this is called birth. Therefore, the initial acquisition of the skandhas in the present life is called birth. It is also said that the disappearance of the five skandhas is called death, and that the deterioration of the skandhas is called aging.

There are no separate dharmas of aging and death.

Collections of names: Names arise from syllables. When, for example, the words referring to a certain person form a meaning, this is called a phrase. Individual letters are called syllables. Some say that names, phrases, and syllables are formations not associated with mind. This is unreasonable, for these dharmas are included among manifest dharmas.

Question: The dharma of ordinary beings is a formation not associated with mind. What of this?

Answer: The dharma of ordinary beings is not distinct from ordinary beings. If there were a separate dharma of ordinary beings, there should likewise be separate dharmas of jars and so forth. Furthermore, number, unity and difference, conjunction and separation, quality, location, and all such dharmas should each exist separately.

Non-Buddhist scriptures say that a jar is one thing and the dharma of the jar another; because of the dharma of the jar, one knows it to be a jar. They also say that visible form is one thing and the dharma of visible form another. This is unreasonable.

Why? Because “dharma” denotes an intrinsic nature. If you maintain that the dharma of ordinary beings is distinct, then visible form itself would have no essence and would have to depend upon the dharma of visible form in order to exist.

This is unreasonable. Therefore, it is only because you have not considered the matter carefully that you say there is a separate dharma of ordinary beings. Some masters of the treatises, having studied non-Buddhist texts, composed Abhidharma treatises asserting that the dharma of ordinary beings and the like exist separately.

Some masters also say that there separately exist such unconditioned dharmas as dharma-nature, the ultimate limit of reality, and causes and conditions. Therefore, this principle should be carefully considered, and one should not merely follow the words of texts.

– End of the section on the Truth of Suffering.

CHAPTER 95: THE CHARACTERISTICS OF KARMA, IN THE TREATISE ON KARMA, WITHIN THE SECTION ON THE TRUTH OF ORIGIN

The author of the treatise says: The Truth of Suffering has now been explained. The Truth of Origin will next be explained. The Truth of Origin consists of karma and afflictions. Karma is of three kinds: bodily karma, verbal karma, and mental karma. Bodily karma means that which is performed by the body. Among such karma, the three acts beginning with taking life are unwholesome; acts such as rising to welcome others, saluting, and paying homage are wholesome; and acts such as pulling up grass are indeterminate.

Question: If what the body performs is called bodily karma, then jars and other objects should also be bodily karma, since the body also acts upon them.

Answer: Jars and the like are the fruits of bodily karma, not bodily karma itself, because cause and fruit are distinct.

Question: Bodily karma should not exist. Why? The movement performed by the body is called bodily karma, but conditioned dharmas cease from moment to moment; therefore, there should be no movement.

Answer: This was answered in the chapter on moment-to-moment cessation: when a dharma arises in different places and causes harm or benefit to another, this is called bodily karma.

Question: If so, the body itself would be bodily karma, because it arises in different places. It would not be what the body performs that is called bodily karma.

Answer: The body is the instrument by which karma is performed. When the body arises in different places and accumulates demerit or merit, this is called karma. Therefore, the body itself is not karma.

Question: The accumulation of demerit and merit is non-performance. What, then, are the various bodily performances?

Answer: Whatever acts are performed when the body arises in various places are called bodily performances.

Question: What the body performs may be wholesome or unwholesome, but the body itself is not so. Therefore, these are not acts performed by the body.

Answer: Through the power of mind, when the body arises in another place it is capable of accumulating karma. Therefore, it may accumulate either wholesome or unwholesome karma. This does not apply only to the body; verbal karma is likewise. It is not merely sounds and words. Through the power of mind, wholesome or unwholesome karma is accumulated in accordance with sounds and words, and this is called verbal karma. Mental karma is likewise. If the mind resolves, “I shall kill this sentient being,” it then accumulates demerit in the same way.

Question: Just as karma exists separately by means of body and speech, are mind and mental karma identical or distinct?

Answer: There are two cases: sometimes mind itself is mental karma, and sometimes karma arises from mind. For example, the mental resolve to kill a sentient being is unwholesome and is also mental karma. This karma is capable of accumulating demerit more powerfully than bodily or verbal karma. If the mind has not yet formed a definite resolve, then that mental state is distinct from karma.

Question: It is already understood that the characteristic of performance arises from performing. What is the characteristic of the other karma that is accumulated?

Answer: This is called non-performance.

Question: Do only body and speech have non-performance, while mind has no non-performance?

Answer: No. Why? Because there are no causes and conditions for it therein. Thus, only bodily and verbal karma have non-manifest action, while mental karma has no non-manifest action. Furthermore, the sutra speaks of two kinds of karma: “intention, and action after intending.” Intention itself is mental karma; action after intending is of two kinds: karma accumulated through intention, and bodily and verbal karma. Mental karma is extremely important, as will be explained later. That which is accumulated through weighty karma is called non-manifest action, because it continually arises in an unbroken succession. Therefore, it should be known that mental karma also has non-manifest action.

CHAPTER 96: NON-MANIFEST ACTION

Question: What dharma is called non-manifest action?

Answer: When merit or demerit arises due to the mind, it continues to arise even while one is asleep, unconscious, and so forth. This is called non-manifest action. As the sutra says: “If one plants trees and establishes gardens and groves, digs wells, builds bridges and culverts, and so forth, the merit produced by that person continually increases day and night.”

Question: There are manifest actions that can be seen, such as giving, paying homage, killing, taking life, and so forth; these must exist. But since non-manifest karma cannot be seen, it does not exist. Please clarify this point.

Answer: If there were no non-manifest action, there would be no dharma of abstaining from killing and so forth.

Question: Abstention means non-doing. Since non-doing is no dharma, just as when a person is not speaking, no dharma of not speaking arises, and when one does not see form, likewise no dharma of not seeing exists.

Answer: Through abstaining from killing and so forth, one may be reborn in heaven. If there were no such dharma, how could it serve as a cause?

Question: One is not reborn in heaven because of abstention, but because of a wholesome mind.

Answer: No. The sutra says: “A diligent person gains more merit according to the length of time he lives.” Because his merit increases accordingly, he enjoys heavenly bliss for a long time. If there were only a wholesome mind, how could he acquire abundant merit?

For that person cannot constantly maintain a wholesome mind. It is also said that when one plants trees and so forth, one’s merit and virtue increase day and night. It is further said that one firmly upholds the precepts.

If there were no non-manifest action, how could it be said that merit continually increases and that the precepts are firmly upheld? Furthermore, an action contrary to non-action is killing. When the successive actions involved in killing arise, only afterward does one incur the offense of killing.

If a person orders another to kill, whenever the killing carried out by that order occurs, the person who gave the order incurs the offense of killing. Therefore, it should be known that non-manifest action exists. Moreover, the disciplinary restraint of the precepts is not mental.

Why? Because even when a person’s mind is in an unwholesome or indeterminate state, or when the person is without conscious thought, that person is still said to uphold the precepts. Therefore, it should be known that non-manifest action exists at that time.

The same applies to unwholesome disciplinary restraint.

Question: It is already known that the dharma of non-manifest action exists and is not mind. Is it then form, or is it a formation dissociated from mind?

Answer: It is included within the formation skandha. Why? Because the characteristic of initiating activity is called formation, and non-manifest action is initiated activity. Form has the characteristic of being subject to impairment and destruction, not the characteristic of initiating activity.

Question: The sutra says that the six kinds of intention are called the formation skandha, but it does not speak of formations dissociated from mind.

Answer: This matter has already been explained: merit and demerit can exist dissociated from mind.

Question: If non-manifest action had the characteristic of form, what fault would there be?

Answer: The five dharmas of form, sound, odor, taste, and touch do not possess the nature of merit or demerit. Therefore, the nature of form cannot be taken to be non-manifest action. Furthermore, the Buddha said that form has the characteristic of being subject to impairment and destruction. Since no such characteristic of affliction can be found in this non-manifest action, it is not of the nature of form.

Question: Non-manifest action is of the nature of bodily and verbal karma, and bodily and verbal karma are form, are they not?

Answer: Non-manifest action is merely called bodily and verbal karma, but in reality it is not an action performed by the body or speech. Since mental karma arises through the body and speech, it is therefore said to have the nature of bodily, verbal, and mental karma. Moreover, non-manifest action may arise solely from the mind. How then could this non-manifest action be called of the nature of form? Furthermore, non-manifest action also exists in the formless realm. How could form exist in the formless realm?

Question: What actions are capable of producing non-manifest action?

Answer: Wholesome and unwholesome intentional karma can produce non-manifest action, but indeterminate karma cannot, because its power is weak.

Question: How long after the action is performed does non-manifest action arise?

Answer: It arises from the second moment of mind onward. When the wholesome or unwholesome mind is strong, it can endure for a long time. If the mind is weak, it does not endure long. For example, precepts undertaken for one day endure for one day, while precepts undertaken for life endure for life.

CHAPTER 97: INTENTIONAL AND UNINTENTIONAL ACTION

Question: The sutra speaks of “intentionally performed karma and unintentionally performed karma.” What are intentional action and unintentional action?

Answer: To act while already knowing beforehand is called intentional action; the contrary is called unintentional action.

Question: If an action is unintentional, is it not called karma?

Answer: Such karma exists, but only when the mind intentionally performs it does the karma bear fruit. Furthermore, karma performed with a resolute mind is called intentional; karma performed with an irresolute mind is called unintentional. For example, speaking inadvertently is called unintentional, while speaking without inadvertence is called intentional.

As the sutra says: “A person who has committed an offense must be rebuked by me; but if he spoke inadvertently, I shall not rebuke him.” This question was asked three times. If one had no prior intention to act yet performed the action, as when a person walking accidentally treads on and kills an insect, this is called unintentional. Because such unintentional karma is not accumulated, it cannot produce karmic retribution.

Karma is of four kinds: action performed but not accumulated; action accumulated but not performed; action both performed and accumulated; and action neither performed nor accumulated. Action performed but not accumulated is as follows: one commits killing and other such karma but immediately afterward feels remorse; one performs giving and other such karma but afterward likewise feels remorse; or, after performing karma with the mind, one later does not remember it.

This is called action performed but not accumulated. Action accumulated but not performed is as follows: another person commits killing and so forth, and one’s own mind rejoices in it; or another performs giving and so forth, and one’s own mind likewise rejoices. Action both performed and accumulated is as follows: one personally commits offenses such as killing, or merits such as giving, and oneself gives rise to a mind of rejoicing.

Action neither performed nor accumulated means that one neither performs the action nor gives rise to rejoicing. Among these, karma that is both performed and accumulated will certainly undergo karmic retribution. Therefore, karma that has been performed and accumulated may receive its retribution in the present life, in the next life, or in a life beyond the next.

Question: If karma that is intentionally performed and accumulated will certainly receive retribution, then there can be no liberation.

Answer: Although karma was intentionally performed, through attaining true wisdom it is no longer accumulated, just as roasted seeds can no longer sprout.

Question: In the Sutra on the Simile of Salt, the Buddha said: “There is a person who creates karma that would bring retribution in hell, yet experiences it lightly in the present life.”

Answer: If grave unwholesome karma can be experienced lightly in the present life instead of heavily, why could it not be brought entirely to an end? If a person is unable to cultivate true wisdom fully, unwholesome karma obtains the opportunity to bring retribution; therefore, that person experiences a small portion of its retribution in the present life.

Question: Although arhats fully cultivate true wisdom, they too experience unwholesome retribution.

Answer: When wholesome dharmas are deeply cultivated, they can prevent unwholesome dharmas from arising. Therefore, if throughout hundreds of thousands of lifetimes a person has cultivated and accumulated wholesome karma such as morality, unwholesome karma cannot arise, just as in the case of the Buddhas, who possess omniscience. Other people are unable to do this, and so their unwholesome karma obtains an opportunity to bear fruit. Thus, although arhats possess true wisdom fully, because of past karma from former lives, they must still experience unwholesome retribution.

Question: The sutras also say that the Buddha experienced such unwholesome karmic retribution as being slandered and so forth.

Answer: The Buddha possesses omniscience and no longer has any unwholesome karmic retribution, because he has eradicated all roots of unwholesome dharmas. Yet, by virtue of his immeasurable supernormal powers, he expediently manifests such things, for the deeds of a Buddha are inconceivable. As the Ekottarika Agama says, there are five inconceivable matters. Karma is of two kinds: karma with determinate retribution and karma with indeterminate retribution. Karma with determinate retribution, whether great or small, will certainly bring retribution. Karma with indeterminate retribution can be caused to disappear entirely.

Question: What is called karma with determinate retribution, and what is called karma with indeterminate retribution?

Answer: The sutra says that the five heinous offenses are karma with determinate retribution.

Question: Are only the five heinous offenses karma with determinate retribution, or are there other offenses as well?

Answer: Among other kinds of karma, there are also a few that have determinate retribution, but they cannot be specifically identified. Retribution may be determinate because the act is grave, as when one makes offerings to or disparages the Buddha or the Buddha’s disciples; or because the intention is grave, as when someone deliberately binds and kills insects and ants, with killing a human being being graver still. All such karmic acts certainly have their corresponding retribution.

Question: If the gravity of the five heinous offenses can be lessened, why can it not be entirely eliminated?

Answer: Such is the nature of these offenses: they cannot be entirely eliminated. Just as a stream-enterer, however negligent, will not undergo an eighth rebirth, so too the five heinous offenses, being firmly established and grave, cannot be entirely eliminated. It is like the law of a king: one who has committed a serious crime may have the sentence reduced but cannot be acquitted.

CHAPTER 98: THE RELATIVE GRAVITY OF OFFENSES

Question: The sutras teach that sinful karma may be light or grave. What constitutes lightness or gravity?

Answer: Karma capable of bringing retribution in the Avici hell is called a grave offense.

Question: What kinds of karma can bring such retribution?

Answer: The karmic act of causing a schism in the Sangha will certainly bring this retribution. Why is this so? Because it divides and sunders the Three Jewels, causing the Jewel of the Sangha to become separated from the Jewel of the Buddha and also destroying the Jewel of the Dharma. Furthermore, only one who has given rise to an extremely grave wrong view can commit such an act. It also arises from profound jealousy and anger toward the Buddha. Moreover, one who has long accumulated an evil disposition and is exceedingly greedy for gain and offerings may commit such an act. Furthermore, when this person proclaims what is not Dharma to be Dharma, he obstructs many sentient beings from cultivating wholesome dharmas; therefore, it is called a grave offense.

Question: Is only the offense of causing a schism in the Sangha requited in the Avici hell, or are there other offenses as well?

Answer: There are other karmic acts as well. For example, the wrong views that there is neither sin nor merit and that making offerings to one’s parents and other virtuous people yields no retribution also bring this result. One who causes others to fall into such wrong views, thereby leading many sentient beings to commit evil karma, also receives this retribution.

Likewise, those who compose scriptures and treatises that propagate such wrong views, such as Purana and the other teachers of wrong views, harm right view and thus establish causes and conditions for many sentient beings to commit evil. The offense of slandering the noble ones and sages also brings this retribution; it is said that one must suffer for eighty-four thousand years on one side of the body. Moreover, the Dhammapada says:

“The noble ones live long for the Dharma

And teach and transform others through that Dharma.

Those of dull faculties, relying on evil views,

Oppose such words;

Like reeds bearing fruit,

They thereby destroy themselves.

Such people fall into hell,

Head downward and feet pointing upward.

Those of evil minds and evil speech,

Because they slander the noble ones and sages,

Fall into one hundred thousand

Nirarbuda hells,

Thirty-six thousand hells,

And five Abuda hells.”

Likewise, killing and similar acts, when both the deed and the intention are grave, may also cause one to fall into the Avici hell. The opposite of what is grave is called light: one is roasted in the fires of lesser hells and undergoes unwholesome retribution among animals, hungry ghosts, humans, or devas. These are called light offenses.

CHAPTER 99: KARMIC ACTS OF GREAT AND SMALL BENEFIT

Question: The sutras teach that there are karmic acts of great and small benefit. What are karmic acts of great benefit?

Answer: Whatever karma can lead to the fruit of unsurpassed perfect enlightenment is called karma of the greatest benefit. Next is karma capable of attaining the fruit of the path of a pratyekabuddha. Next is karma that attains the fruit of the path of a sravaka.

The fourth is karma resulting in rebirth at the summit of existence, where one’s lifespan extends to eighty thousand great kalpas; this is the greatest karmic retribution within samsara. The fifth is karma resulting in rebirth in the sphere of nothingness, where one’s lifespan extends to sixty thousand kalpas. In this way, the sequence descends gradually as far as the Brahma world, where the lifespan is half a kalpa.

Next is the Heaven of Mastery over the Creations of Others in the desire realm, where one enjoys sixteen thousand celestial years, descending as far as the Heaven of the Four Great Kings, where one enjoys five hundred celestial years. Likewise, in the human realm and below the Heaven of the Four Great Kings, beings receive retribution according to their karma. In the same way, among animals, hungry ghosts, and hell beings, there is also karma of small benefit.

Question: What karma can attain the fruit of unsurpassed perfect enlightenment?

Answer: When generosity and the other practices fully perfect the six paramitas, they can bring the fruit of unsurpassed perfect enlightenment. When this wholesome karma is successively less complete, it brings the bodhi of a pratyekabuddha; when still less complete, it brings the bodhi of a sravaka. If one cultivates and increases the four immeasurable minds, one is reborn at the summit of existence.

When one cultivates the four immeasurables in successively lesser degrees, one is reborn correspondingly in the lower levels. When one cultivates the four immeasurables to a still smaller and weaker degree, one is reborn in the form realm according to the causes and conditions of morality and concentration. Through the causes and conditions of practicing generosity, observing precepts, and cultivating wholesome conduct, one is reborn in the desire realm.

The karmic acts of generosity and the like differ according to the relative excellence of the fields of merit. Among fields of merit, practices directed toward the Buddhas are supreme. Next are practices directed toward pratyekabuddhas and others, with their merit gradually decreasing in sequence.

Question: Is the field of merit constituted by the virtue of wisdom superior, or is the field of merit constituted by the virtue of abandonment superior?

Answer: If wisdom can comprehend the characteristics of dharmas—that is, their ultimate emptiness—then that wisdom is superior. Why is this so? The Buddha is supreme among the Buddha’s disciples by virtue of his wisdom, not by virtue of abandonment.

As stated in the Miscellaneous Treasury of Jewels: “Sweeping the grounds of the Sangha’s dwelling over an area as vast as the entire continent of Jambudvipa does not equal sweeping a space the size of a palm at a Buddha’s stupa.” Moreover, all wisdom exists for the sake of abandonment. Bodhisattvas remain in samsara for a long time precisely to accomplish abandonment skillfully. Skillful abandonment means severing their own fetters and the fetters of sentient beings.

All these fetters are gradually severed through wisdom. Therefore, one should know that the field of merit of wisdom is superior to the virtue of abandonment.

Question: Between a stream-enterer of sharp faculties and a stream-enterer of dull faculties, which is the superior field of merit?

Answer: The one of sharp faculties is superior, not the one of dull faculties.

Question: This statement does not seem reasonable. The sutra says: “Making offerings to one hundred stream-enterers does not equal making an offering to one once-returner.” It also says: “Weeds harm the rice crop, and sensual desire defiles the mind; therefore, generosity toward one free from desire must yield greater merit.” A once-returner’s greed and attachment have gradually diminished, whereas a stream-enterer’s have not. How, then, can you say that the stream-enterer is superior?

Answer: This sutra is of provisional meaning. How do we know this? The same sutra also says: “Giving to an animal yields a hundredfold benefit.” Yet in truth, giving to crows, birds, and other animals cannot produce retribution superior to giving to a non-Buddhist practitioner who possesses the five supernormal powers.

Therefore, the meaning of this sutra must be further distinguished. The sutra speaks in this way according to the majority of cases, setting wisdom aside. Furthermore, through the power of wisdom, a stream-enterer is called a field of merit even though still experiencing sensual pleasures; an ordinary person who has abandoned sensual desire is not, even if that person can attain concentration at the summit of existence.

Moreover, one possessing wisdom and great learning within the stage of comprehension is superior to one who attains concentration at the summit of existence but remains within the stage lacking comprehension. Furthermore, although Bodhisattva Maitreya has not yet realized buddhahood, arhats nevertheless bow to and venerate him. Likewise, one who merely gives rise to the resolve for bodhi is immediately honored by an arhat.

For example, a novice monk was carrying the robe and alms bowl while following an arhat. When the novice suddenly gave rise to the resolve for unsurpassed bodhi, the arhat immediately took back the robe and bowl, carried them himself, and walked behind the novice. This is explained at length in the parable.

Therefore, one should know that wisdom is the supreme field of merit.

CHAPTER 100: THE THREE KINDS OF KARMA

Question: The sutras teach three kinds of karma: wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate. What karma is wholesome?

Answer: Any karma capable of bringing good to others is wholesome. Such wholesome karma arises from generosity, observance of precepts, and loving-kindness, not from bathing and similar practices.

Question: What is meant by “good”?

Answer: That which enables others to attain happiness is called good. It is also called wholesome and is also called merit.

Question: If causing others to obtain happiness is called merit, then causing others to suffer should constitute an offense. When a physician uses acupuncture or cauterization and causes a patient pain, should the physician incur an offense?

Answer: A physician uses acupuncture or cauterization for the sake of bringing about well-being and therefore incurs no offense.

Question: If one gains merit by bringing happiness to others, then if a man commits adultery with another’s wife and causes her pleasure, should he likewise gain merit?

Answer: Sexual misconduct is definitively unwholesome. If someone causes another to engage in an unwholesome dharma, that is suffering, not happiness. Happiness means happiness now and happiness afterward, not merely a little pleasure in the present, because that little pleasure brings great suffering later.

Question: Someone may bring happiness to another by giving food and drink, yet if the food and drink are not digested and cause that person’s death, does the giver incur an offense or gain merit?

Answer: This person gave food with a benevolent mind and no malicious intention. Therefore, he gains only merit and incurs no offense.

Question: Is adultery with another’s wife not likewise? Since it is done merely for pleasure, does one both incur an offense and gain merit?

Answer: This has already been answered. Sexual misconduct is definitively unwholesome because it gives rise to great suffering. Moreover, the giving of food and drink contains a share of merit. Why? Because those who receive food and drink do not necessarily die. All beings engage in sexual misconduct because of a defiled, covetous mind; it is entirely without a meritorious cause. How, then, could merit be gained?

Question: Some people benefit many others by killing. When someone destroys enemies, the nation is freed from calamity; when someone kills ferocious beasts, the people are benefited. Should one gain merit through killing in such cases? Or someone may use stolen or plundered goods to support his parents; through sexual intercourse, good children may be born; through false speech, someone’s life may be prolonged; or through harsh speech and the like, someone may be benefited. All these belong to the ten evils. How could merit possibly be gained through them?

Answer: Such a person gains merit and also incurs an offense. He gains merit by benefiting others and incurs an offense by harming others.

Question: This physician first causes someone pain and afterward brings him well-being. Why does the physician not both incur an offense and gain merit, but instead gains merit alone?

Answer: The physician performs acupuncture or cauterization with a wholesome mind and no malicious intention. If an action arises from both wholesome and unwholesome motives, then both offense and merit are obtained.

Question: Killing and the like all bring merit. Why? Because by means of killing one obtains what one desires.

For example, by killing on behalf of a king, one gains wealth and rank. Since it is through the causes and conditions of merit that one obtains what one desires, how can killing not be called meritorious? Moreover, a person capable of killing gains praise, and praise is something enjoyed by people of the world; what people of the world enjoy is the karmic result of merit.

Again, killing brings delight, and delight is also the karmic result of merit. Moreover, the scriptures say that if one dies while confronting the enemy in battle, one will be reborn in heaven. As a verse says: “If a man dies in battle, celestial maidens will vie to take him as their husband.” It is also said that although a good man may be wealthy and honored, when facing bandits, if he charges to the front and is capable of killing, he incurs no offense; if he does not kill, he incurs an offense.

Furthermore, the Scripture of Worldly Dharma says that there are four classes of people: brahmins, kshatriyas, vaishyas, and shudras. Each of these four classes has its own dharmas. Brahmins have six dharmas, kshatriyas four, vaishyas three, and shudras one.

The six dharmas are: 1. Personally performing sacrifices to the gods; 2. Acting as a priest in the worship of the gods; 3.

Personally reciting the Vedas; 4. Teaching them to others; 5. Giving alms; 6.

Receiving gifts. The four dharmas are: 1. Personally performing sacrifices to the gods but not acting as a priest; 2.

Receiving instruction in the Vedas from others but not teaching them to anyone; 3. Giving alms but not receiving gifts; 4. Protecting the people.

The three dharmas are: 1. Performing sacrifices to the gods but not acting as a priest; 2. Personally studying the Vedas but not teaching them to anyone; 3.

Personally giving alms but not receiving anything from anyone. The single dharma is merely to attend to the needs of the three higher classes. Since kshatriyas protect the people, they have the authority to take the lives of others and thereby gain only merit, without offense.

Moreover, the Vedas say that killing brings merit. That is, when one recites a mantra from the Vedas while killing a goat, the goat, upon death, is reborn in heaven. The Vedas are an article of faith in the world.

The same scripture also says that if someone truly deserves death, killing him is no offense, just as sages possessing the five superknowledges may kill people through imprecations. It cannot be said that divine sages incur offenses. How, then, could an offender accomplish such a deed?

Therefore, it is known that killing brings merit. Again, someone who has sufficient mental power to take a life may gain merit, while someone who spares a life may incur an offense. If a person kills with a benevolent mind, wishing to bring happiness, how could there be an offense?

Butchers raise cattle and goats, yet although they provide for them, they still incur offenses. In this way, do stealing and the like also contain merit?

Answer: You say that because killing enables one to obtain what one desires, it should be called meritorious. This is unreasonable. Why?

Because it is owing to merit that one obtains what one desires, although the desired object may have to be acquired through killing. Why is this so? It is because one created impure merit in a former life.

As a sutra says: “One plunders, robs, and kills to acquire goods to use as alms, causing others sorrow and tears; this and other such giving is impure giving. Its karmic result must be obtained through evil conditions.” Moreover, this person possessed merit in a former life but also had the karmic condition of killing; therefore, in the present life, he must rely upon killing before he can experience that karmic result.

There are also beings who owe him wealth or life, and therefore he fulfills his desires by robbing or killing them. Furthermore, not all beings obtain wealth and rank through killing. As people in the world say: “That person has little merit; though he performs much labor, he obtains no result.” The same applies to praise and delight.

It is through the causes and conditions of merit that one obtains praise, sustenance for one’s life, and happiness. It is only because that merit is impure that these are obtained through killing.

Question: Lions, tigers, wolves, and the like obtain powerful bodies born entirely from offenses. Do yakshas, rakshasas, and the like likewise obtain bodily pleasures through offenses?

Answer: This has already been answered. Because of impure merit, such results are obtained through the conditions of offenses. As the scriptures among your own writings say, if one dies while confronting the enemy in battle, one will be reborn in heaven.

This is unreasonable. Why? Because those scriptures use false words to entice the foolish and make them exert themselves.

How is this known? Merit must arise from merit, and offenses arise from offenses. Since there is absolutely no cause of merit therein, whence could a meritorious result be obtained?

You say that the four classes of beings each have their own dharmas, and that kshatriyas incur no offense when they kill to protect the people. This, too, is merely an inherited family custom. Butchers and the like have transmitted their trade from generation to generation and must constantly kill, yet they are not thereby exempt from offenses.

Kshatriyas are the same. Although killing accords with royal law, they must still incur offenses. If kshatriyas incurred no offense for killing in accordance with royal law, then butchers and hunters should likewise incur no offense.

Only when kshatriyas, moved by compassion for the people, remove calamities do they thereby gain merit. If, apart from the reason stated above, they take the lives of others, then they incur an offense. It is like someone who plunders another’s wealth to support his own parents: this person must experience the results of both offense and merit.

Question: If someone steals and robs in order to support his parents, he should not incur an offense. As a scripture on worldly law says: “If one has lacked food for seven days, one may steal from a Shudra without offense; if one is starving and about to die, one is provisionally permitted to take from a Brahmin.” Although such a person sustains his life through evil karma, he is not called one who has broken the precepts, because it was done in an emergency. Just as dust and dirt cannot defile empty space, so too is this person not defiled by an offense—is this not so?

Answer: In that very law of the Brahmins it is said: “If, while the seizure is taking place, the owner of the property comes to make a claim, the Brahmin must then make a comparison: If the owner’s merit is inferior, he should kill him. Why? Because I, a Brahmin, am a superior person and can employ many methods of repentance to eradicate this offense.

If the merit of the two is equal, then whether one kills oneself or kills the other, the offense is equally grave, for this is a serious offense that is difficult to eradicate. If the owner’s virtue is superior, one should relinquish one’s own life, for this is a middling offense that cannot easily be eradicated.” Having made such distinctions, the same reasoning should apply to the matter of killing or robbing another.

Moreover, you speak of sustaining life through evil karma. Since evil karma is involved, how can it be called merit? You say that the one who attacks first incurs no offense, while failing to kill him constitutes an offense.

This assertion has already been refuted. Why? Because if the other person is more virtuous, one should relinquish one’s own life.

If there were no offense, why would this be necessary? You say that the Vedas teach that merit is gained by killing living beings. This argument has already been answered above: there is no merit in killing....

You say that if a person truly deserves death, killing him is no offense. If so, should there also be no offense in killing evil people and thieves? Furthermore, all sentient beings would then be offenders, for by initiating karma they undergo the skandhas constituting the body.

If so, one would incur no offense by killing any living being. This cannot be accepted.

Question: If sentient beings themselves created the conditions for being killed in a former life, why does one incur an offense by killing them now? The karma of robbery and theft, and so forth, should all be understood in the same way.

Answer: If that were so, there would be neither offense nor merit. Why? If a person himself created the conditions for being killed in a former life and therefore killing him is said to be no offense, then refraining from killing would likewise produce no merit.

Similarly, giving alms to another should also produce no merit, because the recipient himself cultivated the karma of giving in a former life and now personally receives its result. Yet it cannot truly be the case that there is neither offense nor merit. Therefore, one should know that although sentient beings themselves created the karma for being killed, the killer still incurs an offense because he gives rise to the afflictions of greed, anger, and delusion.

These afflictions are called false inversions. Merely giving rise to an inverted mind already deserves punishment; how much more so deliberately initiating an act of karma? This is what causes samsara to continue without end.

If it were otherwise, then when divine seers gave rise to the afflictions of greed, anger, and the like, they should not immediately lose their supernormal powers. If these are not offenses, then what is opposed to Dharma and what can be called merit? One should know that although sentient beings themselves created the conditions for being killed in a former life, the killer still necessarily incurs an offense.

Although you say that an offender is incapable of accomplishing such an act, this is unreasonable. Chandalas and others can also kill people by means of spells. The same is true of seers: because of an evil mind, an offense can still be accomplished in accordance with the words of a spell.

Furthermore, it can be accomplished through the power of the victim’s merit; because the killer takes away a life, he incurs an offense. You say that, through the power of the mind, taking a life may produce merit while giving up one’s life may incur an offense. This is unreasonable.

Why? Because merit can be gained only through the power of the mind together with meritorious causes and conditions, not through the mind alone. If, with a virtuous intention, one committed sexual misconduct with one’s teacher’s wife or killed a Brahmin, would one thereby gain merit?

In frontier lands such as Parthia, if people have intercourse with their mothers or elder sisters with what they regard as a meritorious intention, would they possess merit? Therefore, one should know that merit arises only from meritorious causes and conditions, not merely from the mind. Robbery, theft, and the like are also thus.

One should therefore know that killing and the like are all unwholesome. Moreover, killing and the like do not benefit others and are therefore called unwholesome. Although they may bring a little fleeting pleasure in the present life, in a future life one undergoes extremely great suffering.

Because they harm others, this is called the characteristic of the unwholesome. Furthermore, one can presently see that many sentient beings who commit killing and the like undergo many sufferings and afflictions in the three evil destinies and in the human realm. One should therefore know that suffering and affliction are the results of killing and the like, for the result resembles its cause.

Moreover, in the three evil destinies, punishment and suffering are exceedingly severe. One should therefore know that beings are born there because of the causes and conditions of killing and the like.

Question: The same is true among humans and devas. The devas also frequently wage war against the asuras and kill one another; among humans, too, pits, trenches, poisons, and nets are used to kill sentient beings.

Answer: Among humans and devas there are practices of abstaining from killing and the like, whereas in the three evil destinies there are none. One should know that punishment and suffering in those realms are extremely great. Furthermore, among humans, because of the causes and conditions of killing and the like, the benefits and joys of longevity and so forth were lost.

In remote antiquity, human beings had immeasurable lifespans; radiance issued from their bodies, shining like the white sun, and they flew about freely. The earth naturally produced whatever things they desired, and glutinous rice grew spontaneously. Yet because they committed the offenses of killing and the like, they lost all such things.

Later, when the human lifespan declines to only ten years, still more things will be lost: ghee, oil, crystallized sugar, glutinous rice, maize, and the like will all cease to exist. One should therefore know that killing and the like are unwholesome karma. Moreover, if beings abstain from killing and the like, happiness returns: lifespans increase until people live for eighty thousand years, and all their desires are fulfilled at will.

One should therefore know that killing is called unwholesome. Furthermore, in present-day Uttarakuru, rice and maize grow naturally, and clothing is produced from trees, all because its inhabitants abstain from killing and the like. To state the matter briefly: whatever happiness sentient beings possess all arises from abstaining from killing and the like.

Therefore, one should know that killing and the like are unwholesome karma. Moreover, killing is a practice abandoned by good people. Buddhas, bodhisattvas, pratyekabuddhas, shravakas, and all other virtuous persons have entirely abandoned and abstained from it.

One should therefore know that it is unwholesome.

Question: Good people also permit this killing of living beings and the like. For example, the Vedas say that, for the sake of making offerings to devas, it is permissible to kill goats.

Answer: Such people are not good. Good people always seek the benefit and happiness of others, cultivate loving-kindness and compassion, and regard enemies and loved ones with equality. How could such people kill living beings? Those people, their minds clouded by greed and anger, composed those scriptures themselves in order to seek rebirth in heaven. They cast spells upon those sentient beings, and through the power of merit were able to accomplish this act. Moreover, those who have attained liberation never engage in killing and the like. One should therefore know that it is unwholesome.

Question: Those who have attained liberation also refrain from other acts, such as eating after noon. Should these acts also be considered unwholesome?

Answer: Such acts serve as causes and conditions for offenses to arise, and therefore good people also abandon them. If a practice were faultless, it should not be abandoned. Eating after noon and the like can impair spiritual cultivation, and so these practices are also abandoned.

Some dharmas are abandoned because they are intrinsically unwholesome, such as killing and stealing; other dharmas are abandoned because they serve as causes and conditions for the unwholesome, such as drinking alcohol and eating after noon. One should therefore know that killing living beings is intrinsically unwholesome. Moreover, killers are detested by many people, just as lions, tigers, wolves, hostile bandits, butchers, and the like are detested.

If a person is detested by many because of such causes and conditions, how could this not be unwholesome? Conversely, those who do not kill are loved by many, like the sages and noble ones who cultivate loving-kindness and compassion. One should therefore know that killing is unwholesome.

Question: Some who kill living beings are loved because of their strength and valor. For example, a person who kills hostile bandits on behalf of a king is cherished by the king, is he not?

Answer: Because of causes and conditions, they are not truly cherished. As it is said, if a person commits evil deeds to please a ruler, then when the ruler becomes displeased, he will in turn become suspicious of that person. If someone becomes suspect because he has committed evil deeds, how can he be called cherished? Moreover, those who do what is unwholesome do not even love themselves; how much less do they love others! Therefore, one should know that killing living beings is an unwholesome dharma. Furthermore, killing and the like are causes of suffering and affliction, such as beating, harming, binding, and so forth; therefore, one should know that they are unwholesome.

Question: Such dharmas as refraining from killing can also be causes of suffering. For example, if a king orders someone to kill an enemy, and that person refuses to kill, he will surely be harmed by the king.

Answer: If one were harmed merely because one did not kill, then would all those who refrain from killing be harmed and put to death? This person is harmed because he himself disobeyed the king’s command. If the king knew that in the depths of his heart this person would not kill, he would not harm him but would instead make offerings to him.

Therefore, one should know that killing and the like are causes and conditions of suffering, whereas refraining from killing and the like are not. Moreover, those who commit killing all feel remorse when they are about to die. Therefore, one should know that it is unwholesome.

Furthermore, because of acts such as killing, others will not trust them; even among their own associates they do not trust one another, much less would good people trust them. Moreover, good people keep far away from those who commit killing and the like, such as butchers, hunters, and so forth. Furthermore, those who commit killing and the like are not regarded as happy people.

Butchers, hunters, and the like never attain honor and nobility through such occupations throughout their lives. Moreover, good people diligently strive to abandon killing and the like. If these were not unwholesome, why would they diligently seek to abandon them?

Furthermore, it is plainly seen that killing and the like bring undesirable retribution. One should know that in future lives as well, they will undergo painful retribution. Moreover, if killing and the like were not unwholesome, what other dharma could be called unwholesome?

Question: If such dharmas as killing are unwholesome, then no one could possess a beautiful human body. Why is this? Because there is never a time when one does not kill living beings. For example, while walking to and fro, whenever one raises and lowers one’s feet, one constantly kills minute living beings. One also frequently takes the possessions of others according to one’s own notions and likewise speaks falsely according to one’s own notions. Therefore, surely no one could possess a beautiful body.

Answer: When an act is done intentionally, one incurs an offense; this is not so when it is done unintentionally. As a sutra says: “There truly is a living being; one gives rise to the perception that it is a living being, forms the intention to kill it, and, having killed it, incurs the offense of killing.” Stealing and the like are also thus.

Question: Just as when a person ingests poison, whether intentionally or unintentionally, the poison can kill that person; and just as when someone falls into a pit of fire, whether knowing or unknowing, the fire can burn that person. The same applies to stepping on thorns and the like. One should therefore know that whether killing is intentional or unintentional, one must incur an offense.

Answer: These analogies are not applicable. Poison causes death because its essential function is to harm the body, whereas offenses and merit arise from the mind; how can the two be compared? Moreover, with fire, thorns, and the like, if one is not conscious of them, they cannot produce suffering.

Therefore, these analogies are not applicable. If one is unaware, one does not experience pain; only when one is aware does one experience it. Likewise, if there is no intentional mind, the karma of the act is not established; when there is an intentional mind, it is established.

Only in this way would the analogy be applicable. When there is intention, there is an offense; when there is no intention, there is none. Because all karma differs according to the mind, it may be greater or lesser.

If there were no intentional mind, how could there be greater and lesser karma?

Just as a physician and one who is not a physician may both cause a patient to suffer, yet because of the power of their intentions, there is a difference between transgression and merit. Again, when a child grasps its mother’s breast, it incurs no transgression because its mind is free from defilement. If one grasps it with a defiled mind, then one incurs a transgression.

Therefore, one should know that transgression and merit both arise from the mind. Moreover, if one could incur a transgression without deliberate intention, then liberated persons, who may unintentionally afflict and harm sentient beings, ought also to incur transgression. There would then be no liberated persons, because those who have causes of transgression could not attain liberation.

Again, if transgression and merit existed without deliberate intention, a single karmic action would have to be both wholesome and unwholesome. Suppose a person performing a meritorious deed accidentally killed a sentient being: would that karma then be both a transgression and a merit? This is unreasonable.

One should know that without deliberate intention there should be neither transgression nor merit. Again, if karmic retribution existed in the absence of mind, how could one distinguish this as wholesome, that as unwholesome, and another as indeterminate? Thus, it is entirely through the mind that these distinctions exist.

For example, three people may circumambulate a stupa together: the first does so while recollecting the Buddha’s virtues; the second intends to steal; and the third merely walks around for recreation. Although their bodily actions are identical, they differ as wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate. One should know that this is due to the mind.

Again, some karma is certain to produce retribution, while some karma is not certain to produce retribution. Karma may be superior, middling, or inferior. There is retribution in the present life, retribution in the next life, and retribution in subsequent lives thereafter.

If transgression and merit were not acquired through the mind, how could there be such distinctions? Again, if karma existed apart from the mind, then things not included among sentient beings should also possess transgression and merit. If the wind toppled a mountain and thereby afflicted and harmed sentient beings, the wind ought to incur transgression; if it carried fragrant flowers to a monastery or stupa, it ought then to acquire merit.

But this is impossible. Therefore, one should know that apart from the mind there is neither transgression nor merit.

Again, certain non-Buddhists say: “By practicing fasting, lying upon ashes, earth, or thorns, casting oneself into a deep ravine, leaping into fire, or throwing oneself from a cliff, and through such causes and conditions of suffering, one acquires merit.” A wise person challenges them, saying: “If that were so, then sentient beings in the hells, who are continually burned and roasted; hungry ghosts, who suffer hunger and thirst; insects that fly into flames; fish and loaches that dwell in water; and pigs, goats, dogs, and the like, which constantly lie upon dung and earth, should all also acquire merit.” Those non-Buddhists reply: “Merit arises only when one deliberately endures such suffering and distress;

it is not acquired without deliberate intention.” Those in the hells and the like do not deliberately undergo burning and other sufferings.

If merit existed without deliberate intention, then those in the hells and the like should also possess merit. Such are the errors that follow. If transgression and merit existed without deliberate intention, there would be no good people in the world.

Why? Because in all four deportments people constantly kill sentient beings. This cannot be so.

One should know that without deliberate intention there is neither transgression nor merit. Furthermore, no one could be born in a favorable realm, because everyone would continually incur transgression. Yet in truth there are Brahma kings and beings with exceptionally beautiful bodies.

Therefore, one should know that karma performed without deliberate intention constitutes neither transgression nor merit.

Again, according to your teachings, anyone who eats impure food incurs transgression. Yet if examined carefully, all food and drink are impure, and thus anyone eating impure food would have to incur transgression. Likewise, anyone who touched liquor and the like would no longer be a brahmin. But if one has neither seen nor heard of the impurity and eats with a pure mind, one incurs no such transgression. One should know that apart from the mind there is neither transgression nor merit. Again, when making offerings to a deity, one kills a goat with a meritorious intention so that the goat may be reborn in heaven. Because one kills with a meritorious intention, one acquires merit. If this were not so, then every act of killing would both acquire merit and incur transgression.

Again, the brahmins say: “There are occasions when stealing entails no transgression. If one has gone without food for seven days, one may take from a shudra; and if one is starving and near death, one may take from a brahmin. Likewise, if one desires to beget a beautiful child, sexual misconduct entails no transgression.” If these distinctions were not based upon deliberate intention, such differences could not exist.

Therefore, one should know that if a person without deliberate malice gives poison to another, on what grounds could that person incur transgression? If one deliberately gives poison to someone, but the poison instead cures the illness, should one then acquire merit? Suppose one gives food to another, but the food cannot be digested and causes that person’s death—does the giver thereby incur transgression?

If transgression and merit existed without deliberate intention, the Dharma would be confused and disorderly. Moreover, worldly people judge all matters according to the mind. The very same words, for example, may give rise to joy or anger.

The same applies to striking and other acts. Therefore, one should know that all karma depends upon the mind. Furthermore, mental karma is supreme—as will be explained in the following chapter—and thus one should know that all karma resides in the mind.

Again, although a wise person dwells amid the five sensual pleasures, that person does not incur transgression; this is entirely due to the power of the mind. Why? When the wise see forms, they do not give rise to distorted perceptions, and therefore they do not commit the fault of attachment to forms.

The same applies to sounds and the other objects. If the fault existed even without distorted perceptions arising, then all seeing and hearing would necessarily be faulty. Mental karma would then be useless.

A wise person, guided foremost by wisdom, may experience the five sensual pleasures without becoming attached to them. Although the five sensual pleasures remain present, because the mind is disenchanted, it can remain free from defiled attachment. Is this not the power of mental karma?

Therefore, one cannot acquire transgression or merit without deliberate intention.

Question: You say that the defining characteristics of wholesomeness and unwholesomeness are whether an action harms or benefits others. This is unreasonable. Why?

If a person uses personal possessions to sustain the body and thereby performs a meritorious deed, then even eating one’s own food would still generate merit. Again, although stupas and monasteries are not included among sentient beings, one also acquires merit by sprinkling and sweeping them. Furthermore, acts of reverence and the like do not benefit others.

Merely diminishing another person’s merit should not generate merit. Again, it is not merely by forming an intention that one acquires merit; merit arises only when one actually gives clothing and food to benefit another person. If so, those who cultivate loving-kindness and compassion should possess no merit.

Again, because stupas, monasteries, and the like are not included among sentient beings, seizing their property, damaging their objects, or destroying them should entail no transgression. Again, if one reviles and abuses another person when that person is not present, one should incur no transgression, for the person does not hear it and suffers no harm or loss. Again, if one merely gives rise to an evil intention toward another but performs no bodily or verbal action, what harm is done?

Such an intention should therefore entail no transgression. Moreover, one may sometimes incur transgression by reviling oneself, killing oneself, or engaging in sexual misconduct by oneself. Therefore, the defining characteristics of wholesomeness and unwholesomeness cannot consist solely in harming or benefiting others.

Answer: You say that one acquires merit by using one’s own possessions to sustain oneself. This is unreasonable. If one acquired merit by making offerings to oneself, there would be no need for any other worthy recipient of offerings.

Yet in truth, those who seek merit make offerings to others. Moreover, merit becomes increasingly slight when directed toward oneself. Therefore, one should know that acting for oneself should not generate merit.

You also say that eating one’s own food constitutes a meritorious deed. If sustaining one’s own body benefits others, then merit can arise through the mind on that account; it is not acquired merely because one acts for oneself. You say that although stupas and monasteries are not sentient beings, one acquires merit by sprinkling and sweeping them.

Such a person recollects that the Buddha’s virtues are supreme among sentient beings, and therefore sprinkles and sweeps them. Thus, this merit is also acquired in relation to a sentient being.

Question: The Buddha has already entered nirvana and is not called a sentient being. As a sutra says: “The Buddha exists neither as being nor nonbeing; nor as both being and nonbeing; nor as neither being nor nonbeing.” How, then, can he be called a sentient being?

Answer: If one has already entered nirvana, one is no longer called a sentient being. That person contemplates the Buddha as He was before entering nirvana and makes offerings to Him; therefore, merit is gained. It is like a person making ancestral offerings to his parents while thinking of them as they were when alive; otherwise, it would not be called making offerings to one’s parents. This matter is likewise.

You say that paying homage and the like is of no benefit to others. This is unreasonable. Why? Because paying homage and the like bring many benefits to others: they cause those persons to be honored and respected by others; this is called benefiting them. They also cause others to follow their example and learn to show respect; this is called merit. Furthermore, when one pays homage to others, one personally breaks the habit of arrogance. Because one destroys a portion of what is unwholesome, one gains many benefits; it also serves to proclaim the virtues of others. Paying homage and the like have benefits such as these.

Moreover, you say that paying homage and the like diminish the merits of others. This is unreasonable. For one pays homage with a wholesome mind, unlike non-Buddhists who perform acts of homage with the intention of harming the other person. Again, in the case of giving, if the recipient cannot digest the food and drink, the giver would also diminish that person’s merit. If so, giving should likewise produce no merit. Therefore, when paying homage and the like, one should carefully consider whether it is meritorious and perform it if it is.

As stated in the sutra: “There was a bhiksu in a bathhouse who rubbed another person’s body with his hands. The Buddha told the bhiksus: ‘The one making this offering is an arhat, while the one receiving the offering is a person who has broken the precepts. You should learn from this.’” One should not offer what is fit for a lion to jackals, cats, and the like.

You say that merit is not gained merely by generating the intention. The mind is the root of all merit. When people benefit themselves and others, and benefit this life and future lives, all such benefit takes a wholesome mind as its root. When people harm themselves and others, and bring harm in this life and future lives, all such harm takes an unwholesome mind as its root.

Furthermore, one who cultivates loving-kindness benefits all beings through the karmic result of a loving mind: the winds and rains come at the proper times; the sun, moon, and stars do not deviate from their regular courses; the waters of the great ocean do not overflow; and great fires do not burn destructively. Wrong bodily conduct produces an undesirable result, while right bodily conduct produces a desirable result.

No third kind of result is taught. Furthermore, the karmic result of merit is desirable and accords with one’s wishes, while the karmic result of wrongdoing is the opposite. Moreover, suffering and happiness are respectively the karmic results of wrongdoing and merit.

Neither suffering nor happiness is also a karmic result of wholesome conduct. Therefore, one should know that the indeterminate has no karmic result.

CHAPTER 101: WRONG CONDUCT

The Buddha taught three kinds of wrong conduct: wrong bodily conduct, wrong verbal conduct, and wrong mental conduct. The creation of evil karma by the body is called wrong bodily conduct. This wrong conduct is of two kinds: first, that included among the ten unwholesome courses of karma, such as killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct; second, that which is not included among them, such as whipping, beating with sticks, binding, stabbing one’s wife, and the like, as well as evil karma occurring before or after the aforementioned unwholesome courses.

Question: Are killing and the like, these three kinds of unwholesome karma, exclusively bodily karma by nature?

Answer: The offense of killing is called the unwholesome karma of killing. This offense may be committed bodily, as when one uses one’s own body to kill a sentient being. It may also be committed verbally, as when one uses words to instruct another person to kill a sentient being. It may even be committed by means of mental spells or incantations, as when someone generates an intention capable of causing another person to die. The offenses of stealing and sexual misconduct are likewise. Only when one personally performs the act does one incur the offense in full.

Furthermore, unwholesome bodily karma may take the body as its sign, may take speech as its sign, or may arise when another person knows one’s intention. Through such causes and conditions, one may also commit the offenses of killing and the like. Yet because they are mostly caused by bodily action, they are collectively called bodily karma. Wrong verbal conduct is likewise. The evil karma produced by speech is called wrong verbal conduct. Here, too, there are two kinds. When someone asks one a definite question and one lies to that person face-to-face, this is included among the unwholesome courses of karma; other instances are not included. Wrong views, intense anger, and the like constitute wrong mental conduct.

Question: Why are wrong views taught among the ten unwholesome courses of karma, while delusion is taught among the three unwholesome roots?

Answer: Wrong view is another name for delusion. When this delusion increases and becomes firmly established, it is called wrong view. Delusion has no separate characteristic; it is called delusion solely because of inverted attachment.

Question: The sutra states: “Wrong conduct produces undesirable karmic results, while right conduct produces desirable karmic results.” Yet the characteristics of the desirable and undesirable are not fixed; the very same form may be desirable to one person and undesirable to another. Therefore, their characteristics should be explained.

Answer: Happiness is the characteristic of the desirable. As the sutra states: “The result of merit is called happiness.” Suffering is the characteristic of the undesirable. As the sutra states: “You should give rise to fear regarding wrongdoing, for it is a cause and condition of suffering.”

Question: If happiness is the characteristic of the desirable, then pigs, dogs, and the like take pleasure in eating excrement and filth. Is that a result of merit?

Answer: It is an impure result of merit. As the Sutra on Karma states: “If one gives at an improper time, gives impure things, or gives to one who is not a field of merit with a contemptuous and turbid mind, such giving and the like produce a corresponding karmic result.”

Question: The sutra states that right conduct produces desirable results. Why does it also say that, through the causes and conditions of right conduct, one is born in heaven?

Answer: Some who engage in wrong conduct are also born in heaven, and one might therefore say that birth in heaven is the karmic result of wrong conduct. Thus, the sutra further states that only through the causes and conditions of right conduct is one born there. Furthermore, wrong conduct and right conduct can produce bodies in the two different destinies of evil and good. After receiving such a body, one experiences suffering or happiness therein. Through the causes and conditions of wrong conduct, one suffers in the evil destinies; through the causes and conditions of right conduct, one enjoys the happiness of gods and humans.

CHAPTER 102: RIGHT CONDUCT

Wholesome action performed by the body is called right bodily conduct. The same applies to speech and mind. Abstaining from the three unwholesome bodily karmas beginning with killing is called right bodily conduct. Speech free from the four faults is called right verbal conduct. The mind free from the three unwholesome states is called right mental conduct. These three are included within moral restraint. Elsewhere, they are called the moral restraint of precepts, concentration, and the undefiled.

Furthermore, all wholesome bodily karma, such as paying homage, giving, and the like, is called right bodily conduct. Elsewhere, speaking truthful and gentle words and the like is called right verbal conduct. Mental karma free from covetousness and the like is called right mental conduct. Collectively, these are called the three kinds of right conduct.

Question: Non-Buddhists and seers do not possess the karmic result of the precepts that lead to liberation. Can such persons acquire the moral restraint of the precepts?

Answer: Those non-Buddhists generate the moral restraint of the precepts from the mind, and this is also called the precepts received verbally. Furthermore, those persons can also acquire the moral restraint of the precepts included within right conduct. For example, when the human lifespan has declined to only ten years, people who undertake the rule of abstaining from killing will give birth to children whose lifespan is twenty years.

Question: The sutra speaks of right conduct, pure conduct, and conduct of quiescent cessation. Is there any difference among them?

Answer: Some treatise masters say: When ordinary persons cultivate wholesome bodily, verbal, and mental karma, it is called right conduct. Because trainees have already severed the fetters, this same right conduct in them is called pure conduct. Since those beyond training have severed the fetters and their speech arises free from fetters, it is called conduct of quiescent cessation. Furthermore, because those beyond training ultimately never give rise to unwholesome karma, it is called conduct of quiescent cessation. Thus it is said: “Body, speech, and mind are all conduct of quiescent cessation.”

Others say that these three kinds of conduct are identical in meaning but differ in name. Because it is good and upright, it is called right; because it is free from the afflictions, it is called quiescent; and because it is free from all that is unwholesome, it is called quiescent cessation. Thus, although there are three names, their meaning does not differ.

Question: Some treatise masters say that only mind is conduct of quiescent cessation, not volition. What does this mean?

Answer: These three kinds of conduct all depend upon the mind. Why? Because apart from mind there is no volition, nor is there any bodily or verbal karma.

Question: The sutra says: “When one sees that the practice of right conduct has been completely fulfilled, one sees a heavenly being.” If seeing one of the heavenly class does not mean that all who practice right conduct are born in heaven, why does the sutra say this?

Answer: Because it speaks of the heavenly class, this matter is already clear. Although those who practice right conduct are not necessarily born in heaven, if they are born into a noble station, they resemble heavenly beings; therefore, it is said that one sees the heavenly class. All who practice right conduct ought to be born in heaven, but some are hindered by various conditions and therefore are not born there.

This refers to conduct in which the wrong and the right are mixed; because wrong conduct is stronger, they cannot be born in heaven. As the Buddha said to Ananda in the sutra: “I see persons who cultivate the three kinds of right conduct yet are born in an evil realm.” For such persons, the karmic retribution of wrong conduct from previous lives has ripened; although they now cultivate right conduct, it is not yet complete.

Again, some, when approaching death, give rise to a mind of wrong view and therefore fall into an evil realm. The case of those who practice wrong conduct yet are born in a good destination is likewise. Therefore, the ordinary worldling’s judgment of phenomena should not be trusted.

One should know that differences in rebirth accord with whichever karmic force is stronger.

CHAPTER 103: DETERMINING THE DESTINATION OF KARMA

Question: The sutra speaks of three kinds of karma: karma bound to the Desire Realm, karma bound to the Form Realm, and karma bound to the Formless Realm. What are these kinds of karma?

Answer: Karma whose retribution is experienced anywhere from the hells up to the Heaven of Those Who Enjoy Others’ Creations is called karma bound to the Desire Realm. Karma whose retribution is experienced anywhere from the Brahma World up to the Akanistha Heaven is called karma bound to the Form Realm. Karma whose retribution is experienced anywhere from the Sphere of Infinite Space up to the Sphere of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception is called karma bound to the Formless Realm.

Question: Are neither indeterminate karma nor karma whose retribution is not fixed included among these three kinds?

Answer: Both this karma and its retribution are bound to the Desire Realm. Why? Because these phenomena are karmic retributions of the Desire Realm.

Question: Not all phenomena in the Desire Realm are karmic retributions; therefore, is this not incorrect?

Answer: All phenomena in the Desire Realm are karmic retributions bound to the Desire Realm.

Question: If so, this agrees with the false doctrine of non-Buddhists, who claim that every experience of suffering and pleasure is caused by karma from previous lives. Furthermore, if the karmic retribution of previous lives is wholesome or unwholesome, does it produce further retribution or not? Moreover, diligent effort would serve no purpose. If everything is karmic retribution, why toil and exert oneself? And if all afflictions and karma are karmic retribution, liberation would be impossible, for karmic retribution would never be exhausted.

Answer: Your statement concerning the false doctrine of non-Buddhists does not apply here. The non-Buddhists say: “Suffering and pleasure, good and bad, are solely karmic retributions from previous lives.” If so, present causes and conditions would be unnecessary. Yet we actually see that myriad things arise from present conditions, as in the case of seeds.

Therefore, it cannot be said that everything arises from the karmic causes and conditions of previous lives. Moreover, myriad things arise through both causes and conditions. For example, a seed is the cause, while earth, water, time, space, and so forth are conditions.

Eye-consciousness takes karma as its cause, while the eye, visible forms, and so forth are its conditions. Therefore, this is not the same as the false doctrine of the non-Buddhists. You spoke of the karmic retribution of previous lives.

Your objection is unreasonable, for we presently see that one result gives rise to another result in an unbroken succession, just as rice produces rice. In the same way, retribution produces retribution; what fault is there in this? Furthermore, such things as congenital impotence in a man, the lustfulness of sparrows, mandarin ducks, and the like, and the anger of venomous snakes and the like should all be understood as karmic retributions from previous lives.

Question: If retribution produces further retribution, would this not continue without end?

Answer: I teach three kinds of karmic retribution: wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate. Wholesome and unwholesome karma produce retribution, whereas indeterminate karma does not; therefore, the process is not endless. It is like rice producing rice: from the seed a sprout arises, but it does not arise from the stalk and the other parts.

Likewise, only wholesome and unwholesome karmic retributions give rise to other retributions; they do not arise from indeterminate retribution. You say that there would be no need for strenuous effort. Although retribution arises from karma, effort must still be applied before it can be brought to completion.

For example, rice arises through the karma of obtaining rice, but seeds and other conditions are still required before it can come to fruition. You say that there would be no liberation. This is unreasonable.

When true wisdom is attained, evil karma is entirely extinguished, just as roasted seeds can no longer sprout; therefore, there is no fault of liberation being impossible. Moreover, all conditioned phenomena take karma as their root. If karma were not their root, how could they arise?

Furthermore, the arising of myriad phenomena has its determinate allotment: a particular phenomenon will certainly arise from the body of this person and not from the bodies of others. If karma were not the root, how could such differences be determined?

Question: If phenomena arise solely from causes, as beans arise from beans, what fault would there be?

Answer: This too takes karma as its root. Because the karmic causes and conditions for obtaining beans exist, beans can arise from beans. How is this known? In ancient times, people cultivated wholesome conduct, and glutinous rice arose naturally. Therefore, one should know that karma is the root whereby beans can arise from beans.

Question: If so, do things included among sentient beings arise from karma in previous lives?

Answer: It is not only things included among sentient beings; things not included among sentient beings also take karma as their root. All sentient beings share the retribution of collective karma, namely, the places in which they dwell. Through karmic causes and conditions, there are the earth and other such things; through the karmic causes and conditions for light, there are the sun, moon, and so forth. Therefore, one should know that all things that arise take karma as their root. Why? Because in previous lives there were causes arising from the power of generosity, observance of precepts, and so forth; therefore, such things also arise from karma and related causes.

Question: If unconditioned Dharma also arises from karma, it too should be called a bound phenomenon, but that cannot be so, for the sutra says that there are experienced phenomena that are not bound.

Answer: Unconditioned Dharma takes true wisdom as its cause and karma as a condition. Because the power of true wisdom is stronger, it is called unbound.

Question: What karma undergoes retribution in the Desire Realm? What karma undergoes retribution in the Form Realm and in the Formless Realm?

Answer: If one commits the ten unwholesome courses of karma in any of the three realms—the Desire Realm, Form Realm, or Formless Realm—one undergoes retribution in the Desire Realm.

Question: Can the ten unwholesome courses of karma also be committed in the Form Realm and the Formless Realm?

Answer: Unwholesome karma can be produced there. As the sutra says, wrong view exists there. Is wrong view not unwholesome?

Question: Wrong view there is indeterminate, not unwholesome, is it not?

Answer: It is not indeterminate. How is this known? Because the Buddha said in the sutra: “Wrong view is a cause of suffering and distress.” Whatever bodily, verbal, and mental karma is produced by a person holding wrong views, and whatever that person does, all bring painful retribution, just as all four great elements composing a bitter gourd have the same bitter flavor.

Just as wrong view in the Desire Realm is unwholesome, so wrong view in the Form Realm and the Formless Realm is likewise called unwholesome, because it has the same characteristic. Brahma Baka said to the other Brahmas: “Do not go to the Buddha, the ascetic Gautama. I can liberate you here.” Thus, he produced unwholesome mental and verbal karma in the Form Realm.

Moreover, there were Brahmas in that realm who challenged the Buddha with difficult questions. There are such instances. Furthermore, persons in the Form Realm and the Formless Realm say: “This is nirvana.” When, at the end of their lives, they see that a body of skandhas will arise in the Desire Realm or the Form Realm, they immediately give rise to the wrong view that there is no nirvana, thereby slandering the unsurpassed Dharma.

How could this not be unwholesome? For these reasons, one should know that unwholesome karma exists in those realms.

Question: If unwholesome karma exists there, to which realm is this karma bound?

Answer: This unwholesome karma brings retribution in the Realm of Desire, because it is bound to the Realm of Desire. Wholesome karma is of three grades: superior, middling, and inferior. Inferior karma brings retribution in the Realm of Desire; middling karma brings retribution in the Realm of Form; superior karma brings retribution in the Formless Realm. Some also say: “Wholesome karma that brings retribution in the Realm of Form is included within the four dhyanas; that which brings retribution in the Formless Realm is included within the four formless concentrations. All other karma produced by a distracted mind brings retribution in the Realm of Desire.”

Question: Why does wholesome karma produced there bring retribution in the Realm of Desire?

Answer: Just as wholesome karma produced here with a collected mind brings retribution there, so too wholesome karma produced there with a distracted mind brings retribution here. Furthermore, just as unwholesome karma produced in the Realms of Form and Formlessness brings retribution in the Realm of Desire, wholesome karma there is likewise.

Question: If those in the Realms of Form and Formlessness are unable to produce wholesome karma bound to the Realm of Desire, what then?

Answer: There is no basis for this assertion. If those in the Realm of Desire can produce wholesome karma pertaining to the Realms of Form and Formlessness, how could those in the Realms of Form and Formlessness be unable to produce wholesome karma pertaining to the Realm of Desire? Furthermore, you say: “In the Realm of Form, one can give rise to a karmically indeterminate mind of the Realm of Desire.” If one can give rise to an indeterminate mind, why could one not give rise to a wholesome mind?

Moreover, in the sutra, the Buddha told the deva Shou: “You should remain mindful, steady your mind, and apprehend the coarse characteristic.” The coarse characteristic is precisely a mind bound to the Realm of Desire. When this person, with a wholesome mind, listens to the Dharma or pays homage to the Buddha, these are all instances of the mind being bound to the Realm of Desire. Were it otherwise, it would not be called the coarse characteristic.

Furthermore, there one seeks and recollects the merit of material offerings. As it is said: “Blessed One! Because I was insatiable regarding three things, when my life ended here, I was reborn in the Heaven Free from Heat.” These three things were beholding and paying homage to the Buddha, listening to the Dharma, and making offerings to the Sangha.

Seeking and recollecting the merit of material offerings binds the mind to the Realm of Desire. Moreover, there are those here who recollect the Buddha and so forth without seeking material merit; therefore, one should know that there is wholesome karma bound to the Realm of Desire.

End of Fascicle Seven of the Satyasiddhi Shastra.