Abhidharmakosha-bhashya, Fascicle 8 (Sarvastivada)

然彼器非常，情俱生滅故，

yet its vessel-world is impermanent, because it arises and perishes together with sentient beings;

要七火一水，七水火後風。

there must be seven fires and then one flood; after seven floods and fires, the wind.

論曰：此大三災逼有情類，令捨下地集上天中。初火災興由七日現，次水災起由雨霖淫，後風災生由風相擊。此三災力壞器世間，乃至極微亦無餘在。一類外道執極微常，彼謂爾時餘極微在。何緣彼執猶有餘極微？勿後麁事生無種子故。豈不前說，由諸有情業所生風能為種子。或此即以前災頂風為緣、引生風為種子。又化地部契經中言：風從他方飄種來此。雖爾，不許芽等生時是種等因親所引起。若爾，芽等從何而生？從自分生。如是自分復從自分，展轉乃至最細有分從極微生。於芽等生中，種等有何力？除能引集芽等極微，種等更無生芽等力。何緣定作如是執耶？從異類生定不應理。不應何理？應無定故。功能定故，無不定失。如聲熟變等，從異類定生。德法有殊，實法不爾。現見實法唯從同類生，如藤生枝及縷生衣等。此非應理，非理者何？引不極成為能立故。今此所引何不極成？非許藤枝縷衣別故。即藤縷合，安布不同得枝衣名，如蟻行等。云何知爾？一縷閤中曾不得衣，唯得縷故。有誰為障令不得衣？若一縷中無全衣轉，則應一縷上有衣分無衣。應許全衣唯集諸分，非更別有有分名衣。又如何知衣分異縷？若謂衣要待多所依合，於唯多經合應亦得衣。或應畢竟無得衣理，中及餘邊不對根故。若謂漸次皆可對根，則應眼身唯得諸分，不應說彼得有分衣故，即於諸分漸次了別，總起有分覺，如旋火輪。謂若離縷異色類業，衣色等三不可得故。若錦衣上色等屬衣，則應許實從異類起，一一縷色等無種種異故。或於一分無異色等，邊應不見衣，由彼顯衣故。或即彼分應見異色等，以衣必有異色等相故。彼許有分體唯是一，而有種種色類業殊，審有如斯甚為靈異。又於一火光明界中，遠近不同燒照有異，觸色差別應不得成。各別極微雖越根境，而共聚集可現根證，如彼所宗合能生果，或如眼等合能發識。

The treatise says: These three great calamities press upon sentient beings and make them abandon the lower realms and gather in the upper heavens. The first, the fire calamity, arises through the appearance of seven suns; the next, the flood calamity, arises through continuous rain; the last, the wind calamity, arises through winds striking one another. The power of these three calamities destroys the vessel-world, until not even a single atom remains elsewhere. A certain non-Buddhist school holds that atoms are permanent, and says that at that time the other atoms remain. Why do they maintain that other atoms still remain? So that coarse things should not later arise without a seed. But have we not said before that the wind produced by the karma of sentient beings can serve as a seed? Or this may be that the wind at the summit of the previous calamity serves as the condition and draws forth the wind that serves as the seed. Again, the sutra of the Mahisasaka school says: wind carries seeds from another region to here. Even so, it is not admitted that when a sprout and the like come into being, the seed and the like is the direct cause that brings it about. If so, from what do sprouts and the like arise? They arise from their own parts. Thus its own parts arise again from its own parts, in turn, down to the finest possessors of parts arising from atoms. In the arising of a sprout and so on, what power does the seed have? Apart from gathering the atoms that form the sprout and so on, the seed and the like have no other power to produce a sprout. Why do they insist on this view? Because it is not reasonable that something arises from a different kind. What is not reasonable about it? That it would be indeterminate. Because function is determinate, there is no fault of indeterminacy. Like sound, ripening and transformation and so on, which arise determinately from a different kind. Qualities are special, but substances are not so. We see directly that substances arise only from their own kind, as a vine produces branches or threads produce cloth. This is not reasonable. What is unreasonable about it? It cites something not accepted by both sides as grounds for proof. What is cited here that is not accepted by both sides? We do not accept that vine and branch, or thread and cloth, are different things. A vine or threads combined, arranged differently, receive the names branch or cloth, like ants in a line. How do we know this is so? Because in a single thread combined, we never find cloth, only thread. Who prevents us from finding cloth? If in one thread there is no whole cloth present, then in one thread there would be a part of cloth but no cloth. One must admit that the whole cloth is merely a collection of its parts, and that there is no separate possessor of parts called cloth. Further, how do we know that the parts of the cloth differ from the threads? If you say that cloth must wait for the combination of many supports, then even in a combination of just many warp threads, cloth ought to be obtained. Or else there ought to be no way at all to obtain cloth, since the middle and the other ends would not face the sense faculty. If you say that they can face the faculty successively, then the eye and body would perceive only parts, and it could not be said that they perceive the cloth as a possessor of parts; rather, by distinguishing the parts successively, they give rise to a total notion of a whole, like a whirling fire-wheel. That is to say, if apart from the activity of the different kinds of color of the threads, the three, color and so on of the cloth, cannot be found. If on a brocade the color and so on belong to the cloth, then one must admit that a substance arises from a different kind, because the color and so on of each single thread has no variety. Or else where a single part has no different color and so on, the cloth would not be seen at the edges, since it is by those that the cloth is shown. Or else those same parts ought to be seen to have different colors, since cloth must have the mark of different colors. They hold that the possessor of parts has a single substance and yet displays many kinds of color and activity; truly examined, such a thing would be most strange. Again, within the light of a single fire, burning and illuminating differ by near and far, and so differences of touch and color could not be established. Individual atoms, though beyond the range of the senses, when gathered together can be present to the faculty, as in their own doctrine that combination can produce a result, or as the eye and the like, combined, produce consciousness.

又如瞖目視散髮時，若多相隣彼則能見，一一遠住便無見能。極微對根理亦應爾。又即於色等，立極微名故。色等壞時極微亦壞，極微實攝，色等德收，異體不應定俱時滅。此二體別，理必不然。以審觀時非離色等有別地等，故非體別。又彼宗中自許地等眼身所取，寧異色觸？又燒毛㲲紅花等時，彼覺則無，故毛等覺但緣色等差別而起，熟變生時形量等故。猶如行伍記識瓶盆，若不觀形不記識故。誰當採錄愚類狂言？故對彼宗廣諍應止。此三災頂為在何處？第二靜慮為火災頂，此下為火所焚燒故。第三靜慮為水災頂，此下為水所浸爛故。第四靜慮為風災頂，此下為風所飄散故。隨何災上，名彼災頂。何緣下三定遭火水風災？初二三定中，內災等彼故。謂初靜慮尋伺為內災，能燒惱心等，外火災故。第二靜慮喜受為內災，與輕安俱潤，身如水故，遍身麁重由此皆除故，經說苦根第二靜慮滅。第三靜慮動息為內災，息亦是風等，外風災故。若入此靜慮，有如是內災，生此靜慮時，遭是外災壞。何緣不立地亦為災？以器世間即是地故，但可火等與地相違，不可說言地還違地。第四靜慮何為外災？彼無外災，離內災故。由此佛說彼名不動，內外三災所不及故。有說：彼地有淨居天故，彼不遭諸災所壞。由彼不可生無色天，亦復不應更往餘處。若爾，彼地器應是常。不爾，與有情俱生俱滅故。謂彼天處無總地形，但如眾星居處各別。有情於彼生時死時，所住天宮隨起隨滅，是故彼器體亦非常。所說三災云何次第？要先無間起七火災，其次定應一水災起。此後無間復七火災，度七火災還有一水，如是乃至滿七水災。復七火災後風災起，如是總有八七火災、一七水災，一風災起。何緣如是？由彼有情所修定因於上漸勝，故感身壽其量漸長，由是所居亦漸久住。由此善釋《施設足》文遍淨天壽六十四劫。

(The treatise continues:) Again, when an eye afflicted with a film sees scattered hairs, if many are close together it can see them, but if each is placed far away it has no power to see. The reasoning about atoms facing the sense faculty should be the same. Moreover, atoms are given that name on the basis of color and so on. When color and so on are destroyed, atoms too are destroyed; atoms are included in substance and color and so on in quality, so things of different nature ought not to perish together by definition. That these two are of different nature is not reasonable. For when examined carefully, there is no separate earth and so on apart from color and so on, so they are not different in nature. Moreover, in their own school they admit that earth and so on are apprehended by the eye and body; how can these differ from color and touch? Also, when wool cloth or safflower and the like are burned, the corresponding perception no longer exists; thus the perception of wool and so on arises only from the distinctions of color and so on, because shape and measure are produced in ripening and transformation. Just as in a troop formation, one identifies a vase or basin by form, and if one does not observe the form, one does not identify it. Who would take down the raving words of a fool? Therefore debate against that school should stop. Where is the summit of these three calamities? The second dhyana is the summit of the fire calamity, because what lies below it is burned by fire. The third dhyana is the summit of the flood calamity, because what lies below it is soaked and destroyed by water. The fourth dhyana is the summit of the wind calamity, because what lies below it is scattered by wind. Whichever calamity extends up to it, that is called the summit of that calamity. Why do the lower three dhyanas suffer fire, water and wind? Because in the first, second and third dhyanas there are internal calamities corresponding to them. That is, in the first dhyana, investigation and analysis are the internal calamity, which can burn and distress the mind, and so on, corresponding to the external fire calamity. In the second dhyana, the sensation of joy is the internal calamity, which together with pliancy moistens the body like water, and because all coarse heaviness throughout the body is removed by it, the sutra says that the faculty of suffering is extinguished in the second dhyana. In the third dhyana, the movement of breath is the internal calamity; breath is also wind, corresponding to the external wind calamity. If one enters this dhyana, one has such an internal calamity, and when born in this dhyana one is destroyed by this external calamity. Why is earth not also established as a calamity? Because the vessel-world is itself earth; fire and the like can be opposed to earth, but one cannot say that earth is opposed to earth. What is the external calamity of the fourth dhyana? There is none there, because it is free of internal calamity. For this reason the Buddha called it unmoved, since it is not reached by the three calamities, internal or external. Some say that because the Pure Abodes heavens are in that realm, it is not destroyed by any calamity. Since beings there cannot be born in the formless heavens, nor should they go to other places again. If so, the vessel of that realm ought to be permanent. Not so, because it arises and perishes together with sentient beings. That is, in those heavens there is no overall ground-form; the dwellings are separate like stars. When sentient beings are born or die there, the heavenly palaces they dwell in arise and perish accordingly, and so the substance of that vessel too is impermanent. How are the three calamities ordered? First, seven fire calamities must arise one after another without interval; after that one flood calamity must arise. Then again seven fire calamities follow without interval, and after seven fire calamities again there is one flood, and so on until seven flood calamities are complete. After yet another seven fire calamities, the wind calamity arises. Thus altogether there are eight sets of seven fires, one set of seven floods, and one wind calamity. Why is this so? Because the concentration causes cultivated by those beings become progressively more excellent in the upper realms, and so the bodies and life spans they receive grow progressively longer, and accordingly the places they dwell in also last longer. By this one can well explain the passage of the Sheshi Zu (Prajnaptipada), which says that the life span of the Subhakrtsna heavens is sixty-four kalpas.

尊者世親造

Composed by the Venerable Vasubandhu.

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by the Tripitaka Master Xuanzang by imperial command.

分別業品第四之一

Chapter Four, Part One: Analysis of Karma.

如前所說有情世間及器世間各多差別，如是差別由誰而生？頌曰：

As was said before, the world of sentient beings and the world of vessels are each full of many differences; by what do these differences arise? The verse says:

世別由業生，思及思所作，

The diversity of the world is born from karma: volition and what volition produces;

思即是意業，所作謂身語。

volition itself is mental karma, and what it produces is bodily and verbal karma.

論曰：非由一主先覺而生，但由有情業差別起。若爾，何故俱從業生？欝金栴檀等甚可愛樂，而內身形等與彼相違。以諸有情業類如是，若造雜業感內身形，於九瘡門常流不淨。為對治彼，感外具生色香味觸甚可愛樂。諸天眾等造純淨業，故彼所招二事俱妙。此所由業其體是何？謂心所思及思所作。故契經說：有二種業，一者思業、二思已業，思已業者謂思所作。如是二業分別為三，謂即有情身、語、意業。如何建立此三業耶？為約所依、為據自性、為就等起？縱爾何違？若約所依應唯一業，以一切業並依身故。若據自性應唯語是業，以三種中唯語即業故。若就等起亦應唯一業，以一切業皆意等起故。毘婆沙師說立三業，如其次第由上三因。然心所思即是意業，思所作業分為身、語二業，是思所等起故。身語二業自性云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The world does not arise from a single master who first conceived it, but arises from differences in the karma of sentient beings. If so, why do both arise from karma? Turmeric, sandalwood and the like are very pleasing, while the inner body and so on are the opposite of them. Because the karma of sentient beings is of such kinds, if they create mixed karma they receive an inner body from which impurity constantly flows out of the nine orifices. To counteract that, they receive external things, born with color, scent, taste and touch that are very pleasing. The multitude of gods and others create pure karma, and so what they receive in both respects is excellent. What is the nature of the karma by which this arises? It is the volition in the mind and what volition produces. Therefore the sutra says: There are two kinds of karma, first volitional karma and second karma after volition; the karma after volition is what is produced by volition. These two kinds of karma are divided into three, namely the bodily, verbal and mental karma of sentient beings. How are these three karmas established? Is it by their basis, by their nature, or by their origin? Even if so, what is the objection? If by basis, there should be only one karma, since all karma rests on the body. If by nature, then only speech would be karma, since among the three only speech is itself karma. If by origin, there should also be only one karma, since all karma originates in the mind and so on. The Vaibhasika masters say that the three karmas are established by these three reasons respectively. However, the volition in the mind is itself mental karma, and the karma produced by volition is divided into bodily and verbal karma, since they are caused by volition. What is the nature of bodily and verbal karma? The verse says:

此身語二業，俱表無表性。

These two karmas, bodily and verbal, are both of the nature of informative and non-informative.

論曰：應知如是所說諸業中，身語二業俱表無表性。且身語表其相云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: It should be understood that among the karmas so described, bodily and verbal karma both have the nature of informative and non-informative. First, what are the characteristics of bodily and verbal informative karma? The verse says:

身表許別形，非行動為體，

Bodily informative karma is admitted to be a distinct shape, not movement as its substance,

以諸有為法，有剎那盡故。

because all conditioned things perish in an instant.

應無無因故，生因應能滅，

Because nothing arises without cause, the cause of arising should be able to cause extinction;

形亦非實有，應二根取故，

and shape too is not a real entity, since it would be apprehended by two faculties,

無別極微故，語表許言聲。

and because there is no separate atom; verbal informative karma is admitted to be vocal sound.

論曰：由思力故，別起如是如是身形，名身表業。有餘部說：動名身表，以身動時由業動故。為破此故，說非行動，以一切有為皆有剎那故。剎那何謂？得體無間滅，有此剎那法，名有剎那，如有杖人名為有杖。諸有為法才得自體，從此無間必滅歸無。若此處生即此處滅，無容從此轉至餘方，故不可言動名身表。若有為法皆有剎那，不至餘方義可成立。諸有為法皆有剎那，其理極成後必盡故，謂有為法滅不待因。所以者何？待因謂果，滅無非果，故不待因。滅既不待因，才生已即滅。若初不滅，後亦應然，以後與初有性等故。既後有盡，知前有滅。若後有異方可滅者，不應即此而名有異。即此相異，理必不然。豈不世間現見薪等，由與火合故致滅無？定無餘量過現量者，故非法滅皆不待因。如何知薪等，由火合故滅？以薪等火合，後便不見故。應共審思，如是薪等，為由火合滅故不見？為前薪等生已自滅，後不更生無故不見，如風手合燈焰鈴聲？故此義成應由比量。何謂比量？謂如前說，滅無非果故不待因。又若待因薪等方滅，應一切滅無不待因，如生待因，無無因者。然世現見覺焰音聲，不待餘因剎那自滅，故薪等滅亦不待因。有執覺聲前因後滅。彼亦非理，二不俱故。疑智苦樂及貪瞋等，自相相違理無俱義。若復有位明瞭覺聲無間便生不明瞭者，如何同類不明瞭法能滅明瞭同類法耶？最後覺聲復由誰滅？有執燈焰滅，以住無為因。有執焰滅時，由法非法力。彼俱非理，無非因故。非法非法為生滅因，以剎那剎那順違相反故。或於一切有為法中，皆可計度有此因義。既爾，本諍便應止息，許不待餘因皆有剎那故。又若薪等滅，火合為因，於熟變生中有下中上，應生因體即成滅因。所以者何？謂由火合能令薪等有熟變生，中上熟生、下中熟滅。或即或似生上中因，即能為因滅下中熟，則生因體應即滅因。

The treatise says: By the power of volition, one produces this or that bodily shape, and this is called bodily informative karma. Some other schools say that movement is called bodily informative karma, since when the body moves it moves by karma. To refute this it is said that it is not movement, because all conditioned things have the nature of instantaneous existence. What is meant by an instant? What perishes without interval upon obtaining its own being; a thing having this instant is called momentary, as one who has a staff is called a staff-holder. All conditioned things, as soon as they obtain their own being, necessarily perish into non-existence without interval. If a thing arises here and perishes here, there is no room for it to move from here to another place, so it cannot be said that movement is called bodily informative karma. If all conditioned things are momentary, the meaning that they do not go to another place can be established. That all conditioned things are momentary is very well established, because they must perish afterward; that is, the perishing of conditioned things does not depend on a cause. Why? What depends on a cause is called a result, and extinction, being non-existence, is not a result, so it does not depend on a cause. Since extinction does not depend on a cause, a thing perishes as soon as it has arisen. If it did not perish at the beginning, it would be the same later, since the later is the same in nature as the beginning. Since the later has an end, we know the earlier has perishing. If something perishes only when it becomes different later, it cannot be said that by this very fact it is called different; that it is both the same and different is not reasonable. Do we not see in the world that firewood and so on are brought to non-existence by combining with fire? There is no other means of knowledge that surpasses direct perception, so it is not the case that the extinction of things does not depend on causes. How do we know that firewood and so on are extinguished by combination with fire? Because after firewood and so on combine with fire, they are no longer seen. One should consider together: is it because firewood and so on perish through combination with fire that they are not seen, or because the former firewood and so on, having arisen, perish by themselves, and since there is no arising again they are not seen, like a lamp flame, a bell sound, or a flame blown by wind or hand? Therefore this meaning can be established by inference. What is the inference? It is as said before: extinction is not a result, so it does not depend on a cause. Moreover, if firewood and so on perished only by depending on a cause, then all extinction would be without dependence on cause, just as arising depends on a cause and nothing arises without cause. Yet in the world we see that the perception of a flame or a sound perishes by itself instantly without depending on another cause, so the extinction of firewood and so on likewise does not depend on a cause. Some hold that a perception or sound perishes after a former cause. This too is unreasonable, because the two do not coexist. Doubt, knowledge, suffering, pleasure, greed, hatred and so on are, by their own marks, contradictory and cannot be together by reason. If again there is a stage in which a clear perception or sound is immediately followed by an unclear one, how can an unclear thing of the same kind extinguish a clear thing of the same kind? And by what is the last perception or sound extinguished? Some hold that the lamp flame is extinguished because the cause of its remaining is absent. Others hold that when the flame is extinguished, it is by the power of Dharma and non-Dharma. Both are unreasonable, because there is no such non-cause. Dharma and non-Dharma are not causes of arising and perishing, since instant by instant they conform and oppose one another. Or one might in all conditioned things imagine this meaning of cause. If so, the original dispute should cease, since it is admitted that without depending on other causes all have momentariness. Again, if firewood and so on are extinguished with combination with fire as the cause, then in the arising of ripening and transformation, with lower, middle and upper degrees, the substance of the cause of arising would itself become the cause of extinction. Why? Because by combination with fire, firewood and so on can have ripening and transformation arise; the middle and upper ripening arises, and the lower and middle ripening perishes. Or else, what is identical with or similar to the cause of the upper and middle arising is itself able to be the cause of the perishing of the lower and middle ripening, and then the substance of the cause of arising would itself be the cause of extinction.

或滅生因應相無別，不應由即此，或似此彼有，彼復由即此，或似此非有。設於火焰差別生中，容計能生能滅因異；於灰雪酢日水地合能令薪等熟變生中，如何計度生滅因異？若爾，現見煎水減盡，火合於中為何所作？由事火合火界力增，由火界增能令水聚於後後位生漸漸微，乃至最微後便不續，是名火合於中所作。故無有因令諸法滅，法自然滅，是壞性故。自然滅故，才生即滅。由才生即滅，剎那滅義成。有剎那故定無行動，然於無間異方生中，如燒草焰行，起行增上慢。既由斯理行動定無，身表是形理得成立。然經部說：形非實有，謂顯色聚一面多生即於其中假立長色，待此長色於餘色聚一面少中假立短色，於四方面並多生中假立方色，於一切處遍滿生中假立圓色，所餘形色隨應當知。如見火㷮於一方面無間速運便謂為長，見彼周旋謂為圓色，故形無實別類色體。若謂實有別類形色，則應一色二根所取，謂於色聚長等差別，眼見身觸俱能了知，由此應成二根取過。理無色處二根所取。然如依觸取長等相，如是依顯能取於形，豈不觸形俱行一聚？故因取觸能憶念形，非於觸中親取形色。如見火色便憶火煖，及嗅花香能念花色，此中二法定不相離，故因取一可得念餘。無觸與形定不相離，如何取觸能定憶形？若觸與形非定同聚，然由取觸能憶念形，顯色亦應因觸定憶，或應形色如顯無定，則取觸位應不了形。而實不然，故不應說因取於觸能憶念形。或錦等中見多形故，便應一處有多實形。理不應然，如眾顯色，是故形色非實有體。又諸所有有對實色，必應有實別類極微。然無極微名為長等，故即多物如是安布差別相中假立長等。若謂即以形色極微如是安布名為長等，此唯朋黨，非極成故。謂若形色有別極微自相極成，可得聚集如是安布以為長等。非諸形色有別極微自相極成猶如顯色，云何得有聚集安布？

(The treatise continues:) Or else the causes of arising and of extinction would be without difference, but it cannot be that something exists because of this very thing or something like it, and that that again exists because of this very thing or something like it, yet does not exist. Suppose that in the differences of arising in a flame one may imagine that the cause that can produce and the cause that can extinguish are different; but in the ripening and transformation of firewood and the like, which ashes, snow, vinegar, sunlight, water and earth in combination can cause, how can one imagine that the causes of arising and extinction differ? If so, we see that when water is boiled until it is used up, what does fire do in it? Because of the combination of fire, the power of the element of fire increases, and by the increase of the fire element the water-mass in later and later moments arises more and more finely, until at the finest, afterward it no longer continues; this is what the combination of fire does in it. Therefore there is no cause that makes things perish; things perish naturally, because it is their nature to be destroyed. Because they perish naturally, they perish as soon as they arise. Because they perish as soon as they arise, the meaning of momentariness is established. Because of momentariness, there is certainly no movement; rather, in the arising in different places without interval, like a flame burning grass as it spreads, an overweening belief in movement arises. Since by this reasoning movement certainly does not exist, it is reasonable to establish bodily informative karma as shape. The Sautrantika school, however, says: Shape is not a real entity. That is, when a mass of visible color is produced in great number on one side, the notion of long color is conventionally set up within it; relative to this long color, a short color is conventionally set up where the other color mass is few on one side; where many arise on all four sides, a square color is conventionally set up; where they fill everywhere, a round color is conventionally set up; and the remaining shapes should be understood accordingly. Just as one sees a firebrand moving quickly in one direction without interval and calls it long, and sees it whirling around and calls it round, so shape has no separate real kind of substance. If a separate kind of shape were real, then one color would be apprehended by two faculties; that is, in the difference of long and so on in a mass of colors, the eye sees and the body touches and both can know it, and so the fault of apprehension by two faculties would result. By reason a color-base is not apprehended by two faculties. But if one grasps the marks of long and so on by touch, in the same way one can grasp shape by visible color; but are touch and shape not together in one aggregate? Therefore, on grasping touch one can recall shape, but one does not directly grasp shape in touch. Just as on seeing the color of fire one recalls the warmth of fire, and on smelling the scent of a flower one thinks of its color; in these two things, since they are certainly inseparable, by grasping one one can recall the other. Touch and shape are not certainly inseparable; so how, by grasping touch, can one definitely recall shape? If touch and shape are not necessarily in the same aggregate, but one recalls shape by grasping touch, then visible color too should be recalled by touch, or else shape and color should be indeterminate, and in the moment of grasping touch one would not know the shape. In fact this is not so, so it cannot be said that by grasping touch one recalls shape. Or since in brocade and the like many shapes are seen, there should be many real shapes in one place. This is unreasonable, just as with many colors, and therefore shape is not a real entity. Furthermore, all real resistant matter must have a separate kind of real atom. Yet there is no atom called long and so on, so long and so on are conventionally set up in the arrangement and difference of many things so arranged. If you say that the very atoms of shape, so arranged, are called long and so on, this is only a partisan claim and is not accepted on both sides. That is to say, if separate atoms of shape had their own nature accepted on both sides, one could say that, gathered and so arranged, they make long and so on. But it is not accepted on both sides that shapes have separate atoms with their own nature like visible color; how could there be gathering and arrangement?

豈不現見諸土器等，有顯相同而形相異？為不已辯即於多物安布差別假立長等，如眾蟻等有相不殊，然有行輪安布形別。形依顯等理亦應然。豈不闇中或於遠處觀杌等物了形非顯，寧即顯等安布為形，以闇遠中觀顯不了，是故但起長等分別。如於遠闇觀眾樹人，但了行軍不知別相，理必應爾，以或有時不了顯形唯知總聚。既已遮遣行動及形，汝等經部宗立何為身表？立形為身表，但假而非實。既執但用假為身表，復立何法為身業耶？若業依身立為身業，謂能種種運動身思，依身門行故名身業。語業意業隨其所應，立差別名當知亦爾。若爾，何故契經中說有二種業：一者思業、二思已業。此二何異？謂前加行起思惟思，我當應為如是如是所應作事名為思業。既思惟已起作事思，隨前所思作所作事，動身發語名思已業。若爾，表業則為定無。表業既無，欲無表業亦應非有，便成大過。如是大過有理能遮，謂從如前所說二表，殊勝思故起思差別，名為無表。此有何過？此應名為隨心轉業，如定無表心俱轉故。無如是過，審決勝思、動發勝思所引生故。設許有表，亦待如前所說思力，以性鈍故。毘婆沙師說：形是實故，身表業形色為體，語表業體謂即言聲，無表業相如前已說。經部亦說：此非實有，由先誓限唯不作故。彼亦依過去大種施設，然過去大種體非有故，又諸無表無色相故。毘婆沙說：此亦實有。云何知然？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) Do we not see among earthen vessels and the like that some have the same visible color but different shapes? Have we not already explained that long and so on are conventionally set up in the different arrangement of many things, like many ants that have no difference in appearance yet are arranged in lines and circles with different shapes? Shape depending on color and so on should be understood in the same way. Do we not, in the dark or from afar, see a stump and the like and know its shape without its color? How can shape be the arrangement of color and so on itself? Because in the dark and at a distance, viewing color is unclear, only notions of long and so on arise. Just as viewing many trees or people from afar in the dark one knows only an army marching and does not know individual features, this must be the reasoning, because at times one does not distinguish color and shape and knows only a total mass. Having already rejected movement and shape, what do you of the Sautrantika school establish as bodily informative karma? If you establish shape as bodily informative karma, it is only conventional and not real. Since you hold that only the conventional is used as bodily informative karma, what dharma then do you establish as bodily karma? If you establish bodily karma as karma that depends on the body, namely the volition that moves the body of various kinds, which acts through the door of the body and so is called bodily karma, then verbal karma and mental karma too should be understood to be named differently as appropriate. If so, why does the sutra say there are two kinds of karma: first, volitional karma, and second, karma after volition? What is the difference between the two? The volition that thinks, arising in preliminary effort, "I shall do such and such things that should be done," is called volitional karma. Having thought, the volition that sets about doing the deed, following what was previously thought, moves the body and utters speech, and this is called karma after volition. If so, informative karma would certainly not exist. If informative karma does not exist, non-informative karma should also not exist, and this would be a great fault. Such a great fault can be rightly rebutted: from the two kinds of informative karma as described before, because of the excellent volition arising and the differences in volition, there is what is called non-informative karma. What fault is there in this? This should be called karma that turns along with the mind, as in concentration where the non-informative turns together with the mind. There is no such fault, because it is brought forth by excellent volition that judges and decides, and excellent volition that sets in motion. Even if informative karma is admitted, it too depends on the power of volition as described before, because its nature is dull. The Vaibhasika masters say that, since shape is real, bodily informative karma has form as its substance, verbal informative karma has vocal sound as its substance, and the marks of non-informative karma are as already explained. The Sautrantikas also say that this is not real, being only a vow, a limit set beforehand, simply not to do something. They too base it on past great elements, but since the substance of past great elements does not exist, and since non-informative things have no mark of form, it is not real. The Vaibhasikas say that this too is real. How do we know this? The verse says:

說三無漏色，增非作等故。

Three kinds of undefiled form are spoken of, and because of increase and not being made, and so on.

論曰：以契經說色有三種，此三為處攝一切色：一者有色有見有對、二者有色無見有對、三者有色無見無對。又契經中說有無漏色，如契經說：無漏法雲何？謂於過去未來現在諸所有色不起愛恚，乃至識亦然。是名無漏法。除無表色，何法名為無見無對及無漏色？又契經說有福增長，如契經言：諸有淨信，若善男子或善女人，成就有依七福業事，若行若住若寐若覺，恆時相續，福業漸增福業續起，無依亦爾。除無表業，若起餘心或無心時，依何法說福業增長？又非自作，但遣他為，若無無表業，不應成業道。以遣他表非彼業道攝，此業未能正作所作故、使作所作已、此性無異故。又契經說：苾芻當知，法謂外處。是十一處所不攝法無見無對，不言無色。若不觀於法處所攝無表色者，此言闕減便成無用。又若無無表，應無八道支，以在定時語等無故。若爾，何故契經中言：彼如是知、彼如是見，修習正見、正思惟、正精進、正念、正定皆至圓滿。正語、業、命先時已得清淨鮮白，此依先時已得世間離染道說，無相違過。又若撥無無表色者，則亦應無有別解脫律儀，非受戒後有戒相續，雖起異緣心而名苾芻等。又契經說：離殺等戒名為隄塘戒，能長時相續堰遏犯戒過故。非無有體可名隄塘。由此等證知，實有無表色。經部師說：此證雖多種種希奇，然不應理。所以然者？所引證中且初經言有三色者，瑜伽師說：修靜慮時定力所生定境界色，非眼根境故名無見、不障處所故名無對。若謂既爾，如何名色釋如是難與無表同？又經所言無漏色者，瑜伽師說：即由定力所生色中，依無漏定者即說為無漏。有餘師言：無學身色及諸外色皆是無漏，非漏依故得無漏名。何故經言有漏法者諸所有眼乃至廣說？此非漏對治故得有漏名，是則此應言有漏亦無漏。若爾，何過？有相雜失。若依此理說為有漏，曾不依此說為無漏。

The treatise says: The sutra says that form is of three kinds, and these three include all form in the bases: first, form that is visible and resistant; second, form that is invisible and resistant; third, form that is invisible and non-resistant. Also, the sutra speaks of undefiled form, as the sutra says: What are undefiled things? That is, one does not give rise to love or hatred toward any form, past, future or present, and likewise up to consciousness; these are called undefiled things. Apart from non-informative form, what thing could be called invisible, non-resistant and undefiled form? Also the sutra speaks of the increase of merit, as the sutra says: Whenever a good man or good woman with pure faith accomplishes the seven kinds of meritorious deeds that rely on something, whether walking, standing, sleeping or waking, at all times continuously, merit grows and merit continues to arise, and so too for those that do not rely on anything. Apart from non-informative karma, when one gives rise to other minds or has no mind, on what dharma is the increase of merit said to depend? Also, what one does not do oneself but has another do: if there were no non-informative karma, it could not become a path of action. Since the informative karma of sending another is not included in the path of action of that one, and since this karma is not yet the actual doing of what is done, but the having-it-done has been done, and its nature is no different. Also the sutra says: Bhiksus, know that Dharma means the external base. The things not included in the eleven bases are invisible and non-resistant, and are not said to be formless. If one does not take non-informative form as included in the Dharma base, this statement would be lacking and useless. Furthermore, if there were no non-informative karma, there would be no eightfold path factors, since while in concentration there would be no speech and the like. If so, why does the sutra say: Knowing thus, seeing thus, he cultivates right view, right thought, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration, all to perfection; right speech, action and livelihood have previously already been purified and made bright? This is said in reference to the worldly path of detachment already attained earlier, so there is no contradiction. Also, if one denies non-informative form, then there would also be no restraint of individual liberation, and it would not be the case that after receiving the precepts one has a continuity of precepts, so that even when one produces other thoughts one is still called a bhiksu and so on. Also the sutra says: The precepts of abstaining from killing and so on are called embankment precepts, because they hold back and block offenses over a long period continuously. What has no substance cannot be called an embankment. From these and other proofs it is known that non-informative form really exists. The Sautrantika masters say: Although these proofs are many and of various wonderful kinds, they are not reasonable. Why? Among the proofs cited, first, the sutra that mentions three kinds of form refers to what the Yogacara masters say: when cultivating dhyana, the form of the object of concentration produced by the power of concentration is called invisible because it is not the object of the eye faculty, and non-resistant because it does not obstruct place. If you say that this being so, why would the difficulty in explaining the name "form" be the same as for non-informative form? Also, the "undefiled form" spoken of in the sutra is, according to the Yogacara masters, form produced by the power of concentration, and that which depends on undefiled concentration is called undefiled. Other masters say: The bodily form of the one beyond training and all external forms are undefiled, because they are not the basis of outflows and so receive the name undefiled. Why then does the sutra say, of defiled things, "whatever eyes there are," and so on, at length? Because they are not antidotes to outflows they receive the name defiled; then this should be called defiled and also undefiled. If so, what is the fault? There would be the fault of confusion. If it is called defiled by this reasoning, it has never been called undefiled by this reasoning.

無漏亦然，有何相雜？若色處等一向有漏，此經何緣差別而說？如說有漏有取諸色心栽覆事，聲等亦爾。又經所說福增長言，先軌範師作如是釋：由法爾力福業增長，如如施主所施財物。如是如是受者受用，由諸受者受用施物，功德攝益有差別故。於後施主心雖異緣，而前緣施思所燻習，微細相續漸漸轉變差別而生，由此當來能感多果。故密意說，恆時相續福業漸增福業續起。若謂如何由餘相續德益差別令餘相續心雖異緣而有轉變？釋此疑難與無表同。彼復如何由餘相續德益差別令餘相續別有真實無表法生？若於無依諸福業事如何相續福業增長，亦由數習緣彼思故，乃至夢中亦恆隨轉。無表論者於無依福既無表業，寧有無表？有說：有依諸福業事，亦由數習緣彼境思，故說恆時相續增長。若爾，經說：諸有苾芻具淨屍羅成調善法，受他所施諸飲食已，入無量心定身證具足住。由此因緣應知施主無量福善滋潤相續，無量安樂流注其身。施主爾時福恆增長，豈定常有緣彼勝思？是故所言思所燻習微細相續漸漸轉變差別而生，定為應理。又非自作但遣他為業道如何得成滿者，應如是說：由本加行，使者依教所作成時，法爾能令教者微細相續轉變差別而生，由此當來能感多果。諸有自作事究竟時，當知亦由如是道理。應知即此微細相續轉變差別名為業道，此即於果假立因名，是身語業所引果故。如執別有無表，論宗無表亦名身語業道。然大德說：於取蘊中由三時起思，為殺罪所觸，謂我當殺正殺殺已。非但由此業道究竟，勿自母等實未被害，由謂已害成無間業。然於自造不誤殺事，起如是思，殺罪便觸。若依此說非不應理，何於無表偏懷憎嫉定撥為無，而許所燻微細相續轉變差別？

(The treatise continues:) The undefiled is likewise; what mixing is there? If the form base and the rest are always defiled, why does this sutra speak of them differently? As it is said, defiled, appropriated forms are the matter of mind's planting and covering; sound and the rest are the same. Again, concerning the sutra's phrase "merit increases," the earlier master of rules explained it thus: by the power of the nature of things, meritorious karma increases, just as the wealth given by a donor is, according to how the recipients use it, differently beneficial to their merit according to how the recipients enjoy the gift. Later, though the donor's mind may turn to other objects, the continuum that was perfumed by the earlier volition of giving, in subtle form, gradually changes and arises in different ways, and for this reason it can bring many fruits in the future. Hence, with a hidden meaning, it is said that the meritorious karma of a constant continuum increases, and meritorious karma continues to arise. If one asks how, through the differing benefit of virtue in one continuum, another continuum, though its mind turns to other objects, undergoes change, the explanation of this difficulty is the same as for unmanifest karma. And how, through the differing benefit of virtue in one continuum, does a separate real unmanifest dharma arise in another continuum? As for meritorious deeds without a basis, how does the meritorious karma increase in a continuum? It is also because of repeated cultivation, taking that volition as object, so that it follows along even in dreams. In the theory of unmanifest karma, since there is no unmanifest karma for merit without a basis, how could there be unmanifest karma? Some say: for meritorious deeds with a basis, it is also because of repeated cultivation, taking the volition regarding that object as the support, that it is said to increase constantly in continuity. If so, the sutra says: "A monk who is endowed with pure morality and has accomplished good dharmas, having received food and drink given by others, enters the immeasurable mind concentration and abides, bodily realizing it in completeness. By this cause, one should know that the donor's immeasurable merit and goodness moistens his continuum, and immeasurable happiness flows into his body." At that time the donor's merit constantly increases; could it be that he always has a superior volition directed at that? Therefore what was said, that the subtle continuum perfumed by volition gradually changes and arises in different ways, is surely the reasonable doctrine. Again, if one does not act oneself but only sends another to do it, how is the course of action completed? One should say: through the original preparatory effort, when the messenger completes the deed according to instructions, by the nature of things it causes the subtle continuum of the one who gave the instruction to change and arise in difference, and for this reason it can bring many fruits in the future. When one acts oneself and the deed is completed, one should know it is also by this same reasoning. One should know that this change and difference in the subtle continuum is itself called the course of action; here the name of cause is figuratively applied to the effect, since it is the result drawn out by bodily and verbal action. As for those who hold that there is a separate unmanifest karma, in their doctrine unmanifest karma is also called the course of bodily and verbal action. However, the great master said: in the aggregates of appropriation, volition arises at three times and one is touched by the offense of killing, namely: "I shall kill," "I am killing," and "I have killed." It is not only by this that the course of action is completed; otherwise, if one's mother and others were not actually harmed, one would be said to have harmed them and so commit an act of immediate retribution. However, in the case of one's own deliberate and not mistaken act of killing, if such a volition arises, the offense of killing is touched. If this is what is said, it is not unreasonable; why then do you harbor hatred and jealousy toward unmanifest karma and insist on denying it as nonexistent, while allowing the change and difference of the perfumed subtle continuum?

然此與彼俱難了知，今於此中無所憎嫉，然許業道是心種類，由身加行事究竟時，離於心身於能教者身中別有無表法生，如是所宗不令生喜。若由此引彼加行生事究竟時，即此由彼相續轉變差別而生，如是所宗可令生喜。但由心等相續轉變差別，能生未來果故。又先已說。先說者何？謂表業既無，寧有無表等。又說法處不言無色，由有如前所說定境無見無對法處攝色。又言道支應無八者，且彼應說正在道時，如何得有正語業命？為於此位有發正言、起正作業求衣等不？不爾，云何由彼獲得如是種類無漏無表，故出觀後由前勢力能起三正不起三邪，以於因中立果名故，於無表立語業命名。若爾，云何不受此義？雖無無表而在道時，獲得如斯意樂依止，故出觀後由前勢力，能起三正不起三邪。以於因中立果名故，可具安立八聖道支。有餘師言：唯說不作邪語等事以為道支，謂在定時由聖道力，便能獲得決定不作。此定不作，依無漏道而得安立，故名無漏，非一切處要依真實別有法體方立名數。如八世法，謂得、不得及與毀、譽、稱、譏、苦、樂。非此不得衣食等事別有實體，此亦應然。別解脫律儀亦應准此，謂由思願力先立要期，能定遮防身語惡業，由斯故建立別解脫律儀。若起異緣心應無律儀者，此難非理，由燻習力欲起過時憶便止故。戒為隄塘義亦應准此，謂先立誓限定不作惡，後數憶念慚愧現前，能自制持令不犯戒。故隄塘義由心受持，若由無表能遮犯戒，應無失念而破戒者。且止此等眾多諍論。毘婆沙師說有實物名無表色，是我所宗。前說無表大種所造性，為表大種造、為有異耶？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) However, both are hard to understand, and here I harbor no hatred or jealousy; I only accept that the course of action is a kind of mind, and that when the deed of bodily preparation is completed, a separate unmanifest dharma arises in the body of the one who gave instruction apart from mind and body; this doctrine does not give rise to delight. But if by this one draws out the deed that arises from that preparatory effort, and when it is completed, this arises by the change and difference in that continuum, this doctrine can give rise to delight, because it is only through the change and difference in the continuum of mind and the rest that future fruit can be produced. Also, this was already explained earlier. What was explained earlier? That, since manifest karma does not exist, how could there be unmanifest karma, and so on. It is also said that the dharma base does not include the formless, because there is the form included in the dharma base, namely the form belonging to meditative states, as before, which is invisible and non-resistant. It is also said that the path factors would lack eight; but they should be said to be present at the time of the path, so how could right speech, right action, and right livelihood exist? At this stage, does one utter right speech, undertake right action, seek robes and so on? No. How then, through that, does one obtain this kind of undefiled unmanifest karma? Therefore, after emerging from contemplation, by the force of the earlier state, one can give rise to the three rights and not give rise to the three wrongs; since the name of the fruit is applied to the cause, the names of verbal action and livelihood are given to the unmanifest. If so, why not accept this meaning? Though there is no unmanifest karma, at the time of the path one obtains such a disposition and support, so after emerging from contemplation, by the force of the earlier state, one can give rise to the three rights and not give rise to the three wrongs. Since the name of fruit is applied to the cause, the eight noble path factors can be fully established. Other masters say: only the non-commission of wrong speech and the like is taken as the path factor; that is, when in concentration, by the power of the noble path, one obtains the certainty of not doing them. This certain non-doing is established depending on the undefiled path, and so is called undefiled; it is not that in every case a real separate substance is required before a name or number is established. Like the eight worldly dharmas, namely gain and loss, defamation and praise, eulogy and ridicule, suffering and pleasure: loss of clothing, food, and so on has no separate real substance; this should be the same. The discipline of individual liberation should follow this too: by the power of volition and vow, one first sets a fixed term and can definitely guard against bodily and verbal evil deeds; for this reason the discipline of individual liberation is established. If one says that when the mind turns to other objects there would be no discipline, this objection is unreasonable, because by the power of perfuming, when one is about to commit an offense, remembrance stops one. The meaning of morality as an embankment should also follow this: one first establishes a vow and limit not to do evil, and later repeated remembrance and shame become manifest and can restrain oneself and keep from breaking the precepts. Therefore the meaning of an embankment is upheld by the mind; if unmanifest karma could prevent breaking the precepts, there should be no one who loses mindfulness and breaks precepts. Let us stop these many disputes here. The Vaibhasika masters hold that there is a real thing called unmanifest form, which is our own doctrine. It was said earlier that unmanifest karma is of the nature of derived matter; is it produced from the same great elements as manifest karma, or are they different? The verse says:

此能造大種，異於表所依。

The great elements that produce this are different from those on which the manifest relies.

論曰：無表與表異大種生。所以者何？從一和合有細麁果，不應理故。如表與大必同時生，無表亦然，為有差別。一切所造色多與大種俱時而生，然現在未來亦有少分依過去者。少分者何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Unmanifest karma arises from great elements different from those of manifest karma. Why? Because it is unreasonable that a subtle fruit and a coarse fruit should arise from one combination. As manifest karma and the great elements must arise at the same time, so unmanifest karma is also like this; there is a difference. All derived forms mostly arise at the same time as the great elements, but in the present and future some depend in part on the past. What is this part? The verse says:

欲後念無表，依過大種生。

In the desire realm, unmanifest karma after the first moment arises depending on past great elements.

論曰：唯欲界繫初剎那後，所有無表從過大生，此為所依無表得起。現身大種但能為依，為轉隨轉因隨其次第，如輪行於地，手地為依。何地身語業？何地大所造？頌曰：

The treatise says: Only for desire-realm unmanifest karma after the first moment, all of it arises from past great elements, and this is the support on which unmanifest karma can arise. The great elements of the present body can only serve as support, as a cause of continuing and following, in due order, as a wheel moves on the ground with the hand and the ground as support. On what ground are bodily and verbal actions, and by what ground's great elements are they derived? The verse says:

有漏自地依，無漏隨生處。

Defiled ones rely on their own ground; undefiled ones follow the place of birth.

論曰：欲界所繫身語二業，唯欲界繫大種所造。如是乃至第四靜慮身語二業，唯是彼地大種所造。若身語業是無漏者，隨生此地應起現前，即是此地大種所造，以無漏法不墮界故、必無大種是無漏故、由所依力無漏生故。此表無表其類是何？復是何類大種所造？頌曰：

The treatise says: Bodily and verbal actions belonging to the desire realm are derived only from great elements belonging to the desire realm. Likewise, up to the fourth dhyana, bodily and verbal actions are derived only from the great elements of that ground. If bodily and verbal actions are undefiled, they become manifest according to the place of birth, and are derived from the great elements of that ground, because undefiled dharmas do not fall within any realm, because there are certainly no great elements that are undefiled, and because undefiled dharmas arise by the force of their support. What kind are these manifest and unmanifest karmas, and from what kind of great elements are they derived? The verse says:

無表無執受，亦等流情數，

Unmanifest karma is unappropriated, and also outflowing; it belongs to sentient beings,

散依等流性，有受異大生，

The distracted kind relies on the outflowing nature; the appropriated arises from different great elements,

定生依長養，無受無異大，

The kind born of concentration relies on the nourished; it is unappropriated, without different great elements,

表唯等流性，屬身有執受。

Manifest karma is only of the outflowing nature; it belongs to the body and is appropriated.

論曰：今此頌中先辯無表是無執受，無變礙故。亦等流性，亦言顯此有是剎那，謂初無漏。餘皆等流性，謂同類因生。此唯有情，依內起故。於中欲界所有無表，等流有受別異大生。異大生言顯身語七一一是別大種所造，定生無表差別有二。謂諸靜慮無漏律儀。此二俱依定所長養。無受無異大種所生。無異大言顯此無表七支同一具四大種所生。所以者何？所依大種，如心唯一，無差別故。應知有表唯是等流，此若屬身是有執受，餘義皆與散無表同。表業生時為要破壞本身形量、為不爾耶？若爾，何失？若破壞者，異熟色斷應可更續，是則違越毘婆沙宗。若不破壞，如何得有一身處所二形量成？有別新生等流大種，造有表業不破本身。若爾，隨依何身分處起有表業應大於本，新生大種遍增益故。若不遍增益，如何遍生表？身有孔隙，故得相容。已辯業門二三五別。此性界地差別云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: In this verse, first it is explained that unmanifest karma is unappropriated, because it has no change or obstruction. It is also of the outflowing nature; the word "also" shows that there is one that is momentary, namely the first undefiled one. The rest are all of the outflowing nature, that is, produced from a cause of the same class. It belongs only to sentient beings, because it arises relying on the inner. Among these, the unmanifest karma of the desire realm is outflowing, appropriated, and arises from different great elements. The phrase "arises from different great elements" shows that the seven bodily and verbal limbs are each derived from separate great elements. The unmanifest karma born of concentration has two kinds, namely the discipline of the dhyanas and the undefiled discipline. Both of these rely on the nourished great elements of concentration. They are unappropriated and not born of different great elements. The phrase "without different great elements" shows that this unmanifest karma of seven limbs is born from the same set of four great elements. Why? Because the supporting great elements, like the mind, are one and without difference. One should know that manifest karma is only outflowing, and if it belongs to the body it is appropriated; the other meanings are the same as for distracted unmanifest karma. When manifest karma arises, does it have to destroy the measure of the original body, or not? If so, what is the fault? If it destroys it, then ripened matter that has been cut off could be continued again, which would contradict the Vaibhasika doctrine. If it does not destroy it, how can there be two measures of form in the one place of a single body? There are separate newly arisen outflowing great elements that produce manifest karma without destroying the original body. If so, wherever in the body manifest karma arises, it should be larger than the original, because the newly arisen great elements would add to it everywhere. If they do not add everywhere, how does manifest karma arise everywhere? The body has pores, and so they can coexist. The distinctions of two, three, and five among the gates of karma have been explained. What are the differences in nature, realm, and ground? The verse says:

無表記餘三，不善唯在欲，

Unmanifest karma is neutral and the other two; the unwholesome exists only in the desire realm,

無表遍欲色，表唯有伺二，

Unmanifest karma pervades the desire and form realms; manifest karma exists only in the two grounds with sustained thought,

欲無有覆表，以無等起故。

In the desire realm, there is no defiled-obscured manifest karma, because there is no mind that gives rise to it.

論曰：無表唯通善不善性，無有無記。所以者何？以無記心勢力微劣，不能引發強業令生，可因滅時果仍續起。所言餘者，謂表及思。三謂皆通善、惡、無記。於中不善在欲非餘，已斷不善根無慚無愧故。善及無記諸地皆有，以於頌中不別遮故。欲色二界皆有無表，以無色中無大種故。隨於何處有身語轉，唯是處有身語律儀。若爾，身生欲色二界入無色定應有律儀，如起無漏心有無漏無表。不爾，以彼不墮界故。於無色界若有無表，應有無表非大種生。不可說言有漏無表以別界地大種為依。又背諸色入無色定，故彼定中不能生色，由彼定有伏色想故。毘婆沙師作如是說：為治惡戒故起屍羅。唯欲界中有諸惡戒，無色於欲具四種遠：一所依遠、二行相遠、三所緣遠、四對治遠，故無色中無無表色。表色唯在二有伺地，謂通欲界初靜慮中，非上地中可言有表。有覆無記表，欲界定無，唯於梵世中可得說有。曾聞大梵有誑諂言，謂自眾中為避馬勝所徵問故矯自歎等。上地既無言，何得有聲處？有外大種為因發聲。有餘師言：上三靜慮亦有無覆無記表業，無善無染。所以者何？非上地生能起下地善及染心發身語表，劣故斷故。前說為善。復以何因二定以上都無表業？於欲界中無有有覆無記表業，以無發業等起心故。有尋伺心能發表業，二定以上都無此心。又發表心唯修所斷，見所斷惑內門轉故。以欲界中決定無有有覆無記修所斷惑，是故表業上三地都無。欲界中無有覆無記表，為但由等起令諸法成善不善性等？不爾。云何？由四種因成善性等：一由勝義、二由自性、三由相應、四由等起。何法何性由何因成？頌曰：

The treatise says: Unmanifest karma extends only to wholesome and unwholesome natures; there is none that is neutral. Why? Because the force of a neutral mind is weak and cannot draw forth strong karma, so that when the cause ceases the fruit would still continue. As for the "others," these are manifest karma and volition. The "three" refers to the wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral, all of which they extend to. Among these, the unwholesome exists only in the desire realm and not elsewhere, because those who have cut off the unwholesome roots are without shame and without embarrassment. The wholesome and neutral exist in all grounds, since the verse does not exclude them separately. Unmanifest karma exists in both the desire and form realms, because there are no great elements in the formless realm. Wherever bodily and verbal actions occur, only there are bodily and verbal disciplines. If so, one born in the desire or form realm and entering a formless concentration should have discipline, as when one gives rise to an undefiled mind there is undefiled unmanifest karma. Not so, because that does not fall within the realms. If there were unmanifest karma in the formless realm, there should be unmanifest karma not born of great elements. One cannot say that defiled unmanifest karma relies on the great elements of another realm or ground. Moreover, entering the formless concentration turns one's back on forms, so in that concentration form cannot arise, because that concentration has the subduing of the perception of form. The Vaibhasika masters say: Morality arises to counteract evil conduct. Only in the desire realm are there evil precepts, and the formless realm is remote from the desire realm in four ways: remote in support, in mode of operation, in object, and in remedy; therefore there is no unmanifest form in the formless realm. Manifest form exists only in the two grounds with sustained thought, that is, it extends to the desire realm and the first dhyana, and one cannot say manifest karma exists in higher grounds. Defiled-obscured neutral manifest karma certainly does not exist in the desire realm and can be said to exist only in the Brahma world. It has been heard that Great Brahma had deceitful and flattering speech, namely falsely praising himself among his own assembly to avoid the questioning of Asvajit, and so on. Since the higher grounds have no speech, how could there be a sound base? External great elements serve as the cause that produces sound. Other masters say: in the upper three dhyanas there is also unobscured neutral manifest karma, with neither wholesome nor defiled. Why? Because one born in a higher ground cannot give rise to the wholesome or defiled mind of a lower ground to produce bodily and verbal manifest karma, because it is inferior and because it has been cut off. It was said before that it is wholesome. By what cause then is there no manifest karma at all from the second dhyana upward? In the desire realm there is no defiled-obscured neutral manifest karma, because there is no mental factor that gives rise to the action. A mind with initial and sustained thought can give rise to manifest karma, and from the second dhyana upward there is no such mind. Also, the mind that gives rise to manifest karma is only cut off by cultivation; it operates through the outer gate of delusions cut off by seeing. In the desire realm there is certainly no defiled-obscured neutral delusion cut off by cultivation, and therefore there is no manifest karma in the upper three grounds. In the desire realm there is no defiled-obscured neutral manifest karma; but is it only through the arising-cause that dharmas become wholesome, unwholesome, and so on? No. How then? The wholesome nature and the rest are established by four causes: first, by ultimate meaning; second, by intrinsic nature; third, by association; fourth, by arising. Which dharma, which nature, is established by which cause? The verse says:

勝義善解脫，自性慚愧根，

Ultimately wholesome is liberation; wholesome by nature are shame, embarrassment, and the roots;

相應彼相應，等起色業等，

Wholesome by association are those associated with them; wholesome by arising are form, karma, and the like,

翻此名不善，勝無記二常。

The reverse is called unwholesome; the supreme and the two constants are neutral.

論曰：勝義善者，謂真解脫，以涅槃中最極安隱、眾苦永寂猶如無病。自性善者，謂慚愧根，以有為中唯慚與愧及無貪等三種善根，不待相應及餘等起，體性是善猶如良藥。相應善者，謂彼相應，以心心所要與慚愧善根相應方成善性，若不與彼慚等相應，善性不成，如雜藥水。等起善者，謂身語業不相應行，以是自性及相應善所等起故，如良藥汁所引生乳。若異類心所起得等，云何成善？此義應思，如說善性四種差別，不善四種與此相違。云何相違？勝義不善，謂生死法。由生死中諸法皆以苦為自性，極不安隱猶如痼疾。自性不善，謂無慚愧三不善根，由有漏中唯無慚愧及貪瞋等三不善根，不待相應及餘等起，體是不善猶如毒藥。相應不善，謂彼相應，由心心所法要與無慚愧不善根相應方成不善性，異則不然，如雜毒水。等起不善，謂身語業不相應行，以是自性相應不善所等起故，如毒藥汁所引生乳。若爾，便無一有漏法是無記或善，皆生死攝故。若據勝義誠如所言，然於此中約異熟說。諸有漏法若不能記異熟果者立無記名，於中若能記愛異熟說名為善，故無有過。勝義無記，謂二無為，以太虛空及非擇滅唯無記性更無異門。於此應思。若等起力令身語業成善不善，則諸大種例亦應然。以作者心本欲起業，非四大種，故不成例。若爾，定心隨轉無表，非正在定作意引生，亦非散心加行引發，不同類故。如何成善？或天眼耳應成善性，於如是義應設劬勞。如上所言，見所斷惑內門轉故不能發表。若爾，何緣契經中說：由邪見故起邪思惟、邪語、邪業及邪命等。此不相違。何以故？頌曰：

The treatise says: Ultimately wholesome refers to true liberation, because in nirvana there is utmost peace and security and all suffering is forever stilled, like being free of disease. Wholesome by intrinsic nature refers to shame, embarrassment, and the roots, because among conditioned things only shame, embarrassment, and the three wholesome roots such as non-greed are wholesome in their nature, not depending on association or other arising, like good medicine. Wholesome by association refers to what is associated with them, because mind and mental factors become wholesome in nature only when associated with shame, embarrassment, and the wholesome roots; if not associated with shame and the rest, the wholesome nature is not established, like medicine mixed in water. Wholesome by arising refers to bodily and verbal actions and the dissociated formations, because they are aroused by what is wholesome by nature and by association, like milk produced from the juice of good medicine. If a different kind of mind causes the arising, how does it become wholesome? One should think about this meaning. As the four kinds of wholesome differences are stated, the four kinds of unwholesome are the opposite. How opposite? Ultimately unwholesome refers to the dharmas of birth and death, because all dharmas in birth and death have suffering as their nature, most insecure like a chronic illness. Unwholesome by nature refers to shamelessness, lack of embarrassment, and the three unwholesome roots, because among the defiled only shamelessness, lack of embarrassment, and the three roots such as greed and hatred are unwholesome in essence, not depending on association or other arising, like poison. Unwholesome by association refers to what is associated with them, because mind and mental factors become unwholesome only when associated with the unwholesome roots of shamelessness and lack of embarrassment; otherwise they are not, like water mixed with poison. Unwholesome by arising refers to bodily and verbal actions and dissociated formations, because they are aroused by what is unwholesome by nature and by association, like milk produced from the juice of poison. If so, there would be no defiled dharma that is neutral or wholesome, since all are included in birth and death. If we speak by the ultimate meaning, it is indeed as you say; but here it is spoken of in terms of ripened results. If a defiled dharma cannot designate a ripened fruit, it is called neutral; among them, one that can designate a pleasing ripened fruit is called wholesome, and so there is no fault. Ultimately neutral refers to the two unconditioned dharmas, because space and cessation not through discrimination are only neutral in nature and have no other aspect. One should think about this. If the force of arising makes bodily and verbal actions become wholesome or unwholesome, then the great elements, by the same example, should also be so. Because the actor's mind originally wishes to produce the action, and not the four great elements, the example does not hold. If so, the unmanifest karma that follows a concentrated mind is not produced by attention while in concentration, nor drawn forth by the preparatory effort of a distracted mind, being of a different kind; how does it become wholesome? Or the divine eye and ear should become wholesome; one should make an effort over this meaning. As said above, delusions cut off by seeing operate through the outer gate and so cannot give rise to manifest karma. If so, why does the sutra say that because of wrong view one gives rise to wrong thought, wrong speech, wrong action, and wrong livelihood? These are not contradictory. Why? The verse says:

等起有二種，因及彼剎那，

Arising is of two kinds: the cause and its moment,

如次第應知，名轉名隨轉。

Which, in order, should be known as "turning" and "following turning."

見斷識唯轉，唯隨轉五識，

Consciousness cut off by seeing only turns; the five consciousnesses only follow,

修斷意通二，無漏異熟非。

Cut off by cultivation, the mind extends to both; the undefiled and the ripened are not.

於轉善等性，隨轉各容三，

In turning, the wholesome nature and the rest; in following, each admits all three,

牟尼善必同，無記隨惑善。

The Sage's wholesome is surely the same; the neutral follows the delusion or the wholesome.

論曰：表無表業等起有二，謂因等起、剎那等起，在先為因故、彼剎那有故。如次初名轉，第二名隨轉。謂因等起將作業時，能引發故說名為轉。剎那等起正作業時，不相離故名為隨轉。隨轉於業有何功能？雖有先因為能引發，若無隨轉者如死業應無。若爾，無心如何發戒？諸有心者業起分明，故隨轉心於業有用。見所斷識於發表中唯能為轉，於能起表尋伺生中為資糧故不為隨轉，於外門心正起業時此無有故。又見所斷若發表色，此色則應是見所斷。若許見斷，斯有何失？是則違越阿毘達磨，又明無明不相違故。有漏業色非見所斷，如是道理應更成立。若爾大種亦應見斷，俱見斷心力所起故。無如是過失，如非善不善。或復許爾，理亦無違。不應許然，以諸大種定非見斷及非所斷，以一切種不染汙法與明無明不相違故。彼經但據前因等起而作是說，故不相違。若五識身唯作隨轉，無分別故、外門起故。修斷意識通為二種，有分別故、外門起故。一切無漏異熟生心非轉隨轉，唯在定故、不由加行任運轉故。如是即成四句差別。有轉非隨轉，謂見所斷心。有隨轉非轉，謂眼等五識。有轉亦隨轉，謂修所斷三性意識。有非轉隨轉，謂諸無漏異熟生心。轉隨轉心定同性不？此不決定。其事云何？謂前轉心若是善性，後隨轉識通善等三，不善無記隨轉亦爾。唯牟尼尊轉隨轉識，多分同性少有不同。謂轉若善心隨轉亦善，轉心若無記隨轉亦然。而或有時善隨無記轉，曾無無記為善隨轉時。以佛世尊於說法等，心或增長無萎歇故。有餘部說：諸佛世尊常在定故，心唯是善，無無記心。故契經說：

The treatise says: The arising of manifest and unmanifest karma is of two kinds, namely the causal arising and the momentary arising, because the former is the cause and the latter exists in that very moment. In order, the first is called "turning" and the second "following turning." That is, the causal arising, when one is about to act, is called "turning" because it can draw forth the action. The momentary arising, when one is acting, is called "following turning" because it is inseparable. What is the function of following turning in karma? Though an earlier cause can draw it forth, if there were no following turning, karma would be like a dead act. If so, how can a mindless person give rise to precepts? In those with mind, karma arises clearly, so the following mind is useful for karma. Consciousness cut off by seeing can only be "turning" in drawing forth manifest karma, because it is a provision in giving rise to initial and sustained thought that produce manifest karma, and is not "following turning," since it does not exist when the mind through the outer gate is actually undertaking the action. Also, if what is cut off by seeing produced manifest form, this form should be cut off by seeing. If you allow that it is cut off by seeing, what is the fault? It would violate the Abhidharma, and also because knowledge and ignorance do not contradict. Defiled karma-form is not cut off by seeing, and this reasoning should be established more. If so, the great elements should also be cut off by seeing, being produced by the force of a mind that is cut off by seeing. There is no such fault, as with what is neither wholesome nor unwholesome. Or if one allows this, the reasoning is also not contradictory. One should not allow it, because the great elements are certainly neither cut off by seeing nor not cut off, as all undefiled dharmas of every kind do not contradict knowledge or ignorance. That sutra speaks only on the basis of the earlier causal arising, and so there is no contradiction. As for the five consciousness groups, they only act as "following turning," because they are without discrimination and operate through the outer gate. Mind-consciousness cut off by cultivation extends to both kinds, because it has discrimination and operates through the outer gate. All undefiled and ripened-born minds are neither "turning" nor "following turning," because they exist only in concentration and move spontaneously, not through preparatory effort. This gives four alternatives. There is "turning" but not "following turning," namely the mind cut off by seeing. There is "following turning" but not "turning," namely the five consciousnesses, eye and the rest. There is both "turning" and "following turning," namely mind-consciousness of the three natures cut off by cultivation. There is neither "turning" nor "following turning," namely all undefiled and ripened-born minds. Are the "turning" mind and the "following turning" mind necessarily of the same nature? This is not certain. How? If the earlier "turning" mind is wholesome, the later "following turning" consciousness extends to the three natures such as the wholesome; the same holds for the unwholesome and neutral following. Only the "turning" and "following" consciousness of the Sage, the Buddha, is mostly of the same nature, with few exceptions. That is, if the turning mind is wholesome, the following mind is also wholesome; if the turning mind is neutral, the following mind is the same. But there are times when a wholesome one is followed by a neutral one, though never a neutral one followed by a wholesome one. Because the World-Honored Buddha, in teaching the Dharma and so on, has a mind that is increased and never withered. Other schools say: the Buddhas, the World-Honored Ones, are always in concentration, so their minds are only wholesome and there is no neutral mind. Hence the sutra says:

那伽行在定，那伽住在定，

The naga (dragon, a figure for the Buddha) walks in concentration, the naga stands in concentration,

那伽坐在定，那伽臥在定。

The naga sits in concentration, the naga lies down in concentration.

毘婆沙師作如是釋：此顯佛意若不樂散心，則於四威儀能常在定，然於餘位非無威儀及異熟生通果心起。諸有表業成善等性，為如轉心、為如隨轉？設爾，何失？若如轉者，則欲界中應有有覆無記表業，身見邊見能為轉故。或應簡別，非一切種見所斷心皆能為轉，若如隨轉惡無記心俱得別解脫表應非善性。於此徵難應設劬勞，應言如轉心表成善等性，然非如彼見斷轉心，修斷轉心為間隔故。若表不由隨轉心力成善等者，則不應言：彼經但據前因等起非據剎那，故欲界中定無有覆無記表業。但應說言：彼經唯據餘心所間因等起說，故見斷心雖能為轉，而於欲界定無有覆無記表業。

(The treatise continues:) The Vaibhasika masters explain this thus: This shows that, if the Buddha's intention is not to enjoy a distracted mind, then in the four postures he can always be in concentration, but at other times it is not that there are no postures or that minds of ripened-born or resultant type do not arise. When manifest karma becomes wholesome and so on, is it like the turning mind or like the following mind? Suppose so, what is the fault? If like the turning mind, there would be defiled-obscured neutral manifest karma in the desire realm, because view of self and extreme views can serve as turning. Or one should make a distinction: not every kind of mind cut off by seeing can serve as turning. If like the following mind, then an evil or neutral mind obtained together with the manifest karma of individual liberation should not be wholesome in nature. For this challenge one should make an effort and say: manifest karma becomes wholesome and so on like the turning mind, but not like that turning mind cut off by seeing, because it is separated by the turning mind cut off by cultivation. If manifest karma did not become wholesome by the force of the following mind, then one should not say it; that sutra speaks only on the basis of the earlier causal arising and not the momentary one, and so in the desire realm there is certainly no defiled-obscured neutral manifest karma. One should rather say: that sutra speaks only on the basis of causal arising separated by other mental factors, and so, though the mind cut off by seeing can serve as turning, there is certainly no defiled-obscured neutral manifest karma in the desire realm.