Abhidharmakosa-bhasya, Fascicle 15, of the Sarvastivada school

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by the Tripitaka Master Xuanzang by imperial command

分別業品第四之四

Chapter 4, Analysis of Karma, Part 4

又經中說，業有四種，謂或有業黑黑異熟、或復有業白白異熟、或復有業黑白黑白異熟、或復有業非黑非白無異熟能盡諸業。其相云何？頌曰：

Moreover, the sutra says that there are four kinds of karma, namely: some karma is black with black ripening; some karma is white with white ripening; some karma is black and white with black and white ripening; and some karma is neither black nor white with no ripening, able to exhaust all karmas. What are their characters? The verse says:

依黑黑等殊，所說四種業，

According to the differences of black, black and so on, the four kinds of karma spoken of,

惡色慾界善，能盡彼無漏，

Evil, form-realm good, desire-realm good, and the one that can exhaust them, the undefiled,

應知如次第，名黑白俱非。

Should be known, in order, as black, white, both, and neither.

論曰：佛依業果性類不同，所治能治殊，說黑黑等四。諸不善業一向名黑，染汙性故，異熟亦黑，不可意故。色界善業一向名白，不雜惡故，異熟亦白，是可意故。何故不言無色界善？傳說若處有二異熟謂中生有，具三種業謂身語意，則說非餘，然契經中有處亦說。欲界善業名為黑白，惡所雜故，異熟亦黑白，非愛果雜故。此黑白名依相續立，非據自性。所以者何？以無一業及一異熟是黑亦白，互相違故。豈不惡業果善業果雜故，是則亦應名為白黑。不善業果非必應為善業果雜，欲善業果必定應為惡業果雜，以欲界中惡勝善故。諸無漏業能永斷盡前三業者名為非黑，不染汙故，亦名非白，以不能招白異熟故。此非白言是密意說，以佛於彼《大空經》中告阿難陀：諸無學法純善純白一向無罪。本論亦言：云何白法？謂諸善法無覆無記無異熟者，不墮界故、與流轉法性相違故。諸無漏業為皆能盡前三業不？不爾。云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The Buddha spoke of the four, black-black and so on, according to the differences in the nature of the karmic result, and the difference between what is cured and what cures. All unwholesome karma is wholly called black, because it is of a defiled nature, and its ripening is also black, because it is not agreeable. Form-realm good karma is wholly called white, because it is not mixed with evil, and its ripening is also white, because it is agreeable. Why is the good of the formless realm not mentioned? It is said that where there are two ripenings, namely the arising in the intermediate existence, and three kinds of karma, namely body, speech and mind, one then speaks of them and not of the others; yet in some places the sutras also mention it. Desire-realm good karma is called black and white, because it is mixed with evil, and its ripening is also black and white, because it is mixed with undesired results. These names black and white are established according to the continuum, not according to their own nature. Why? Because no single karma and no single ripening is both black and white, for they contradict each other. Is it not that, because evil karma's results are mixed with good karma's results, it should also be called white-black? The result of unwholesome karma need not be mixed with the result of good karma, but the result of desire-realm good karma is certainly mixed with the result of evil karma, because in the desire realm evil prevails over good. The undefiled karma that can forever exhaust the preceding three karmas is called neither black, because it is not defiled, and also neither white, because it cannot bring a white ripening. This 'not white' is said with a hidden intention, for in the Great Emptiness Sutra the Buddha told Ananda that the dharmas of those beyond training are purely good, purely white, wholly without fault. The original treatise also says: What are white dharmas? They are all good dharmas, and the unobstructed indeterminate ones with no ripening, because they do not fall into the realms and are contrary to the nature of the dharmas of cyclic existence. Can all undefiled karmas exhaust the three karmas above? Not so. How? The verse says:

四法忍離欲，前八無間俱，

The four dharma acceptances, freedom from desire, the first eight uninterrupted paths together,

十二無漏思，唯盡純黑業，

Twelve undefiled volitions exhaust only purely black karma;

離欲四靜慮，第九無間思，

Freedom from desire, the four meditations, the ninth uninterrupted path with volition,

一盡雜純黑，四令純白盡。

One exhausts the mixed and the pure black, and four make pure white karma exhausted.

論曰：於見道中四法智忍及於修道離欲染位前八無間聖道俱行有十二思唯盡純黑，離欲界染第九無間聖道俱行一無漏思，雙令黑白及純黑盡，此時總斷欲界善故，亦斷第九不善業故。離四靜慮一一地染，第九無間道俱行無漏思，此四唯令純白業盡。何緣諸地有漏善法唯最後道能斷非餘？以諸善法非自性斷，已斷有容現在前故。然由緣彼煩惱盡時方說名為斷彼善法，爾時善法得離繫故。由此乃至緣彼煩惱餘一品在，斷義不成，善法爾時未離繫故。頌曰：

The treatise says: In the path of seeing, the four acceptances of the knowledge of the Dharma, and in the path of cultivation at the stage of freeing oneself from desire-realm defilements, the first eight uninterrupted noble paths, together with the twelve volitions that accompany them, exhaust only purely black karma. When the defilements of the desire realm are left behind, the single undefiled volition that accompanies the ninth uninterrupted noble path exhausts both the black-and-white and the purely black, because at this time one entirely cuts off good karma of the desire realm, and because one also cuts off the ninth unwholesome karma. For each of the four meditations, in leaving behind the defilements of each ground, the undefiled volition that accompanies the ninth uninterrupted path exhausts only the purely white karma. Why is it that for defiled good dharmas of the various grounds only the last path can cut them off and not the others? Because good dharmas are not cut off by their own nature, and having been cut off, they might still appear in the present. Yet it is said that when the defilements which take them as object are exhausted, then one speaks of cutting off those good dharmas, because at that time the good dharmas have obtained separation from bonds. For this reason, as long as one other grade of the defilements that take them as object remains, the meaning of cutting off is not established, because the good dharmas have not then obtained separation. The verse says:

有說地獄受，餘欲業黑雜，

Some say experience in hell, and other desire karma, is black and mixed;

有說欲見滅，餘欲業黑俱。

Some say the desire-realm karma cut by seeing, and other desire karma, are black and both.

論曰：有餘師說：順地獄受及欲界中順餘受業，如次名為純黑雜業。謂地獄異熟唯不善業感，故順彼受名純黑業。唯除地獄，餘欲界中異熟皆通善惡業感，故順彼受名黑白業。有餘師說：欲見所斷及欲界中所有餘業，如次名為純黑俱業。謂見所斷無善雜故名純黑業，欲修所斷有善不善故名俱業。又經中說有三牟尼，又經中言有三清淨，俱身語意。相各云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Some other teachers say that karma experienced in hell, and karma experienced in other desire-realm states, are called, in order, purely black and mixed karma. That is, the ripening in hell is brought only by unwholesome karma, so karma experienced there is called purely black karma. Apart from hell, the ripening in the rest of the desire realm is brought by both good and evil karma, so karma experienced there is called black-and-white karma. Some other teachers say that the karma cut off by seeing in the desire realm, and all other karma in the desire realm, are called, in order, purely black and both. That is, what is cut off by seeing has no good mixed in, so it is called purely black karma, while what is cut off by cultivation in the desire realm has both good and unwholesome, so it is called 'both' karma. The sutra also speaks of three sages and three purities, both of body, speech and mind. What are their characters? The verse says:

無學身語業，即意三牟尼，

The bodily and verbal karma of those beyond training, and their mind, are the three sages;

三清淨應知，即諸三妙行。

The three purities should be known to be the three kinds of fine conduct.

論曰：無學身語業，名身語牟尼，意牟尼即無學意非意業。所以者何？勝義牟尼唯心為體，謂由身語二業比知。又身語業是遠離體，意業不然，無無表故。由遠離義建立牟尼，是故即心由身語業能有所離，故名牟尼。何故牟尼唯在無學？以阿羅漢是實牟尼，諸煩惱言永寂靜故。諸身語意三種妙行，名身語意三種清淨。暫永遠離一切惡行煩惱垢故名為清淨。說此二者為息有情計邪牟尼，邪清淨故。又經中說有三惡行，又經中言有三妙行，俱身語意。相各云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The bodily and verbal karma of those beyond training are called the sages of body and speech, and the sage of mind is the mind of one beyond training, not mental karma. Why? The sage in the ultimate sense has only the mind as its substance, and is known by inference from the two karmas of body and speech. Also, bodily and verbal karma have the nature of renunciation, but mental karma does not, because it has no unmanifest form. The word 'sage' is established through the meaning of renunciation, so the mind, because it can renounce by means of bodily and verbal karma, is called a sage. Why is the sage only among those beyond training? Because an arhat is the true sage, as the defilements and words are forever stilled. The three kinds of fine conduct of body, speech and mind are called the three purities of body, speech and mind. They are called purities because for the moment or forever they separate one from the stains of all evil conduct and defilement. These two are taught in order to stop beings from clinging to false sages and false purity. The sutra also says there are three evil conducts, and also three fine conducts, both of body, speech and mind. What are their characters? The verse says:

惡身語意業，說名三惡行，

Evil bodily, verbal and mental karma are called the three evil conducts,

及貪瞋邪見，三妙行翻此。

And also greed, hatred and wrong view; the three fine conducts are the reverse of these.

論曰：一切不善身語意業，如次名身語意惡行。然意惡行復有三種，謂非意業貪、瞋、邪見，貪等離思別有體故。譬喻者言：貪瞋邪見即是意業，故《思經》中說此三種為意業故。若爾，則應業與煩惱合成一體。許有煩惱即是意業，斯有何失？毘婆沙師說彼非理。若許爾者，便與眾多理教相違，成大過失。然契經說是意業者，顯思以彼為門轉故、由此能感非愛果故、是聰慧者所訶厭故。此行即惡，故名惡行。三妙行者，翻此應知。謂身語意一切善業。非業無貪、無瞋、正見。正見邪見既無故思欲益他損他，如何成善惡？能與損益為根本故。又經中言：有十業道，或善或惡。其相云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: All unwholesome bodily, verbal and mental karma are called, in order, the evil conduct of body, speech and mind. However, the evil conduct of mind has three further kinds, namely greed, hatred and wrong view, which are not mental karma, because greed and the others have a substance separate from volition. The Sautrantikas say: Greed, hatred and wrong view are themselves mental karma, because in the Volition Sutra these three are spoken of as mental karma. If so, then karma and afflictions would become one in substance. If you hold that affliction is itself mental karma, what fault does this have? The Vaibhasika masters say that is irrational. If this were accepted, it would contradict many reasons and teachings and become a great fault. Yet the sutra says it is mental karma in order to show that volition proceeds through them as a gateway, that through them it can bring undesired results, and that they are loathed by the wise. This conduct is evil, so it is called evil conduct. Of the three fine conducts, one should know that they are the reverse of these, namely all good bodily, verbal and mental karma. They are non-greed, non-hatred and right view, not karma. Since right view and wrong view are not themselves karma, how can the volition to benefit or harm others become good or evil? Because they are the root that gives benefit or harm. The sutra also says that there are ten paths of karma, either good or evil. What are their characters? The verse says:

所說十業道，攝惡妙行中，

The ten paths of karma spoken of are included in evil and fine conduct,

麁品為其性，如應成善惡。

Their nature is the coarse grade; as appropriate they become good or evil.

論曰：於前所說惡妙行中，若麁顯易知，攝為十業道。如應若善攝前妙行，不善業道攝前惡行。不攝何等惡妙行耶？且不善中身惡業道，於身惡行不攝一分，謂加行後起餘不善身業，即飲諸酒執打縛等，以加行等非麁顯故。若身惡行令他有情失命失財失妻妾等，說為業道，令遠離故。語惡業道於語惡行，不攝加行後起及輕。意惡業道於意惡行，不攝惡思及輕貪等。善業道中身善業道，於身妙行不攝一分，謂加行後起及餘善身業，即離飲酒施供養等。語善業道於語妙行不攝一分，謂愛語等。意善業道於意妙行不攝一分，謂諸善思。十業道中前七業道為皆定有表無表耶？不爾。云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Within the evil and fine conduct spoken of above, whatever is coarse, obvious and easy to know is included as the ten paths of karma. As appropriate, if good it is included in the fine conduct above, and the unwholesome paths of karma are included in the evil conduct above. What evil and fine conduct is not included? To begin with, among the unwholesome, the bodily evil path of karma does not include one part of bodily evil conduct, namely other unwholesome bodily karma of preparation and aftermath, such as drinking alcohol, striking and binding, because preparation and the like are not coarse and obvious. If bodily evil conduct causes other beings to lose their lives, property, wives and concubines and so on, it is called a path of karma, because it leads them to separation. The verbal evil path of karma does not include, within verbal evil conduct, the preparation, aftermath and light cases. The mental evil path of karma does not include, within mental evil conduct, evil volition and light greed and so on. Among the good paths of karma, the bodily good path does not include one part of fine bodily conduct, namely preparation, aftermath and other good bodily karma, such as abstaining from alcohol, giving and offering. The verbal good path of karma does not include one part of fine verbal conduct, namely kind speech and the like. The mental good path of karma does not include one part of fine mental conduct, namely all good volitions. Among the ten paths of karma, do the first seven necessarily have both manifest and unmanifest form? Not so. How? The verse says:

惡六定無表，彼自作婬二，

Six evil ones are certainly unmanifest; if done oneself, the wrong conduct of desire has both;

善七受生二，定生唯無表。

The seven good ones, from taking birth, have both; those born of concentration are only unmanifest.

論曰：七惡業道中，六定有無表，謂殺生、不與取、虛誑語、離間語、麁惡語、雜穢語。如是六種若遣他為，根本成時自表無故。若有自作彼六業道，則六皆有表無表二，謂起表時彼便死等；後方死等與遣使同，根本成時唯無表故。唯欲邪行必具二種，要是自身所究竟故，非遣他作，如自生喜。七善業道若從受生，必皆具二，謂表、無表，受生屍羅必依表故。靜慮無漏所攝律儀名為定生，此唯無表，但依心力而得生故。加行後起如根本耶？不爾。云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: Among the seven evil paths of karma, six certainly have unmanifest form, namely killing, taking what is not given, false speech, divisive speech, harsh speech and idle chatter. These six, if one sends another to do them, have no manifest form of oneself when the root act is completed. If one does those six paths oneself, all six have both manifest and unmanifest form, namely at the time of manifest action the victim dies and so on; if death comes later, it is the same as sending a messenger, and at the time of completion of the root there is only the unmanifest, because of this. Only wrong conduct in desire necessarily has both, because it must be completed by one's own body and cannot be sent to another, just as one cannot have joy by someone else. If the seven good paths of karma are taken from birth, they all have both, namely manifest and unmanifest, because the discipline taken at birth must rely on the manifest. The restraint included in meditation and the undefiled is called born of concentration, and this is only unmanifest, because it arises relying only on the power of mind. Are preparation and aftermath like the root act? Not so. How? The verse says:

加行定有表，無表或有無，

Preparation certainly has the manifest, and the unmanifest may or may not be present;

後起此相違。

Aftermath is the opposite of this.

論曰：業道加行必定有表，此位無表或有或無。若猛利纏淳淨心起則有無表，異此則無。後起翻前，定有無表，此位表業或有或無。謂若後時起隨前業則有表業，異此便無。於此義中如何建立加行根本後起位耶？且不善中最初殺業，如屠羊者將行殺時，先發殺心從床而起，執持價直趣賣羊廛，㨊觸羊身酬價捉取，牽還養飯將入屠坊，手執杖刀若打若刺，或一或再至命未終，如是皆名殺生加行。隨此表業彼正命終，此剎那頃表無表業，是謂殺生根本業道。由二緣故，令諸有情根本業道殺罪所觸：一由加行、二由果滿。此剎那後殺無表業隨轉不絕，名殺後起。及於後時剝截治洗，若稱若賣或煮，或食讚述其美表業剎那，如是亦名殺生後起。餘六業道隨其所應三分不同，準例應說。貪瞋邪見才現在前，即說名為根本業道，故無加行後起差別。此中應說。為所殺生住死有時，能殺生者彼剎那頃表無表業即成業道？為死後耶？若爾何失？二俱有過。若所殺生正住死有，能殺生者業道即成，即能殺者與所殺生，俱時命終應成業道。然宗不許彼業道成。若所殺生命終以後，能殺生者業道方成，是則不應先作是說：隨此表業彼正命終。此剎那頃表無表業，是謂殺生根本業道。又應違害毘婆沙師釋本論中加行未息，謂本論說：頗有已害生殺生未滅耶？曰：有，如已斷生命彼加行未息。毘婆沙者釋此文言：此中於後起，以加行聲說。應言於根本說加行聲，許命終後根本未息故。如無有過此中應說。此中說何名為無過？謂於根本說加行聲。若爾，於時所有表業如何可成根本業道？何為不成？以無用故。無表於此有何用耶？故業道成非由有用，但由加行果圓滿時，此二俱成根本業道。又諸業道展轉相望，容有互為加行後起。今且應說殺生業道以十業道為起加行。

The treatise says: In the path of karma, preparation certainly has the manifest, while at this stage the unmanifest may or may not be present. If it arises from an intense entanglement or a very pure mind, there is the unmanifest; otherwise there is not. The aftermath is the reverse of the former: it certainly has the unmanifest, while at this stage manifest karma may or may not be present. That is, if later one performs an act that follows the earlier karma, there is manifest karma; otherwise there is none. In this matter, how are the stages of preparation, root and aftermath established? Take first the unwholesome, beginning with killing. For example, a butcher of sheep, when about to kill, first forms the intention to kill and rises from his bed, takes the price and goes to the sheep market, touches the sheep's body, names a price and seizes it, leads it home and feeds it, then takes it to the slaughterhouse, and with a staff or knife in his hand strikes or stabs it, once or twice, until its life is not yet ended; all of these are called the preparation for killing. Following this manifest act, at the moment the animal dies, the manifest and unmanifest karma of that instant is called the root path of karma of killing. For two reasons beings are touched by the guilt of the root path of killing: first, because of the preparation, and second, because of the completion of the result. After that moment, the unmanifest karma of killing continues without break, and is called the aftermath of killing. And at a later time, the moments of manifest karma of skinning, cutting, washing, weighing, selling, cooking, eating, or praising its flavor are also called the aftermath of killing. The other six paths of karma should be explained by analogy, as appropriate, in the same three parts. Greed, hatred and wrong view are called the root path of karma as soon as they appear, so there is no distinction of preparation and aftermath. Here one should ask: when the being to be killed is in the state of dying, does the manifest and unmanifest karma of the killer at that moment complete the path of karma? Or does it do so after death? What fault is there either way? Both have faults. If the path of karma is completed when the one to be killed is in the dying state, then the killer and the one killed would have both died at the same time, and one should say the path of karma is completed; but our school does not accept that this path is completed. If the path is completed only after the one killed has died, then one should not have said earlier: following this manifest act, at the moment the animal dies, the manifest and unmanifest karma at that moment is called the root path of killing. It would also contradict the Vaibhasika masters' explanation of the original treatise, where the preparation is not yet finished, as the original treatise says: Is there a case where one has harmed a living being and the killing is not yet ended? Answer: There is, as when the life is cut off but the preparation has not ended. The Vaibhasikas explain this passage as saying that here the word 'preparation' is used for the aftermath. One should say that the word 'preparation' is used for the root, because it is accepted that after death the root has not ended. If there is no fault, what is it that is called faultless here? It is that the word 'preparation' is used for the root. If so, how can the manifest karma at that time be the root path of karma? Why can it not? Because it is of no use. What use is the unmanifest here? The path of karma is not completed because of use, but when the preparation and the result are both fulfilled, these two together complete the root path of karma. Moreover, the paths of karma, in relation to each other, can serve as one another's preparation and aftermath. Now one should say that the path of killing takes the ten paths of karma as its preparation.

謂如有人慾害怨敵，設諸謀計合搆殺緣，或殺眾生祈請助力，或盜他物以資殺事，或婬彼婦令殺其夫，或為乖離彼親友故起語四過令生猜阻。設有勢力無救護心，或於彼財心生貪著，或即於彼起瞋恚心，或起邪見長養殺業然後方殺，如是名為以十業道為殺加行。殺怨敵已，復於後時誅其所親，收其財物婬彼所愛，乃至復起貪瞋邪見次第現前，此十名為殺生後起。所餘業道如應當知。貪等不應能為加行，非唯心起加行即成，唯起心時未作事故。又經中說：苾芻當知，殺有三種：一從貪生、二從瞋生、三從痴生。乃至邪見有三亦爾。此中應說：何相殺生？名從貪生。問餘亦爾。非諸業道一切皆由三根究竟，然其加行不與彼同。云何不同？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) For example, if a man wishes to harm an enemy, he devises plans and puts together the conditions for killing, or kills living beings to pray for help, or steals another's goods to aid the killing, or seduces the enemy's wife in order to have her kill her husband, or because of separating the enemy from his friends he makes the four faults of speech to cause suspicion and obstruction. If he has power but no heart to protect, or in respect of the enemy's wealth he becomes greedy, or he directs a mind of hatred at the enemy, or he develops wrong view and nourishes the karma of killing, and only then kills, this is called taking the ten paths of karma as the preparation of killing. After killing the enemy, at a later time he executes the enemy's relatives, seizes their property, seduces those they love, and so on, with greed, hatred and wrong view appearing in turn; these ten are called the aftermath of killing. The other paths of karma should be understood likewise. Greed and the others should not be able to serve as preparation, and the preparation is not completed merely by a thought arising, because when only the thought has arisen the act has not yet been done. The sutra also says: Monks, know that there are three kinds of killing: first, born of greed; second, born of hatred; third, born of delusion. The same three kinds apply up to wrong view. Here one should ask: what kind of killing is called born of greed? And likewise for the others. It is not that all paths of karma are completed through the three roots, yet their preparation is not the same as theirs. How is it different? The verse says:

加行三根起，彼無間生故，

Preparation arises from the three roots, because they arise immediately after it,

貪等三根生。

Greed and the rest arise from the three roots.

論曰：不善業道加行生時，一一由三不善根起，依先等起故作是說。殺生加行由貪起者，如有為欲得彼身分、或為得財、或為戲樂、或為拔濟親友自身，從貪引起殺生加行。從瞋起者，如為除怨，發憤恚心起殺加行。從痴起者，如有祠中謂是法心起殺加行，又諸王等依世法律誅戮怨敵除剪兇徒，謂成大福起殺加行。又波剌私作如是說：父母老病，若令命終得免困苦便生勝福。又諸外道有作是言：蛇蠍蜂等為人毒害，若能殺者便生勝福。羊鹿水牛及餘禽獸，本擬供食故殺無罪。又因邪見殺害眾生，此等加行皆從痴起。偷盜加行從貪起者，謂隨所須起盜加行、或為別利恭敬名譽、或為救拔自身親友，從貪引起偷盜加行。從瞋起者，謂為除怨，發憤恚心起盜加行。從痴起者，謂諸王等依世法律奪惡人財，謂法應爾無偷盜罪。又婆羅門作如是說：世間財物於劫初時，大梵天王施諸梵志，於後梵志勢力微劣，為諸卑族侵奪受用。今諸梵志於世他財若奪若偷，充衣充食或充餘用或轉施他，皆用己財無偷盜罪。然彼取時有他物想，又因邪見盜他財物，皆名從痴起盜加行。邪婬加行從貪起者，謂於他妻等起染著心、或為求他財名位恭敬、或為救拔自身他身，從貪著心起婬加行。從瞋生者，謂為除怨，發憤恚心起婬加行。從痴生者，如波剌私讚於母等行非梵行。又諸梵志讚牛祠中有諸女男受持牛禁，吸水齧草或住或行，不簡親踈隨遇隨合。又諸外道作如是言：一切女人如臼花果熟食階隥道路橋船，世間眾人應共受用。此等加行從痴所生。虛誑語等語四業道從貪瞋生，類前應說。然虛誑語所有加行從痴生者，如外論言：

The treatise says: When the preparation of an unwholesome path of karma arises, each arises from the three unwholesome roots, as it is said by relying on the earlier arising cause. As for preparation for killing that arises from greed: for example, someone wants to get parts of the body, or to get wealth, or for amusement, or to rescue friends and kin or himself, and from greed the preparation for killing is aroused. As for that arising from hatred: to remove an enemy, one forms a mind of fury and begins the preparation for killing. As for that arising from delusion: for example, in a sacrifice, thinking it is the Dharma, one begins the preparation for killing; or kings and others, following the laws of the world, execute enemies and cut down evildoers, thinking it makes great merit, and begin the preparation for killing. Also the Persians say: When one's parents are old and ill, if one causes them to die they are freed from hardship and one will obtain great merit. Also certain non-Buddhists say: Snakes, scorpions, bees and the like poison people, and one who can kill them will obtain great merit; sheep, deer, water buffalo and other birds and beasts were originally meant as food, so killing them is without fault. Also those who kill beings through wrong view: all these preparations arise from delusion. As for preparation for stealing that arises from greed: according to need one begins the preparation for stealing, or for some particular profit, respect or fame, or to rescue oneself or relatives, and from greed the preparation for stealing is aroused. As for that arising from hatred: to remove an enemy, one forms a mind of fury and begins the preparation for stealing. As for that arising from delusion: kings and others, according to the law of the world, take the wealth of evil men, thinking the law should be so and there is no fault of stealing. The Brahmins also say: The wealth of the world was, at the beginning of the eon, given by the Great Brahma King to the Brahmins, and later the Brahmins' power became weak and they were encroached upon and used by lower clans. Now whenever the Brahmins seize or steal the wealth of others in the world, for clothing, food or other uses, or give it on to others, they are all using their own wealth and have no fault of stealing. Yet at the time of taking they have the perception of another's property; and also those who steal others' property through wrong view: all are called preparation for stealing arising from delusion. As for preparation for wrong conduct in desire that arises from greed: toward another's wife and so on one arouses a defiled mind, or to seek another's wealth, position, name or respect, or to rescue oneself or another, from a mind of greed the preparation for sexual activity arises. As for that arising from hatred: to remove an enemy, one forms a mind of fury and begins the preparation for sexual activity. As for that arising from delusion: for example, the Persians praise sexual relations with one's mother and the like. Also the Brahmins praise, in the cow sacrifice, men and women who take up the cow vow, sucking water and chewing grass, staying or walking, without distinguishing close or distant, mating with whomever they meet. Also certain non-Buddhists say: All women are like mortars, flowers, fruits, cooked food, steps, roads, bridges and boats, which people of the world should use in common. These preparations arise from delusion. The four paths of speech karma, false speech and the others, arise from greed and hatred, and should be explained like the above. As for the preparation of false speech that arises from delusion, as an outside treatise says:

若人因戲笑，嫁娶對女王，

If a person, in jest, at a marriage, before a woman or a king,

及救命救財，虛誑語無罪。

Or to save life or wealth, speaks falsely, there is no fault.

又因邪見起虛誑語、離間語等所有加行，當知一切從痴所生。又諸吠陀及餘邪論，皆雜穢語攝，加行從痴生。貪瞋等三既無加行，如何可說從貪等生？以從三根無間生故，可說貪等從三根生。謂或有時從貪無間生貪業道，從二亦然。瞋及邪見從三亦爾。已說不善從三根生。善復云何？頌曰：

Also, all the preparations of false speech, divisive speech and the like that arise through wrong view should be known to arise from delusion. Also the Vedas and other wrong treatises are all included in idle chatter, and their preparation arises from delusion. Since greed, hatred and the other two have no preparation, how can one say they arise from greed and so on? Because they arise immediately after the three roots, one can say greed and the others arise from the three roots. That is, sometimes the path of karma of greed arises immediately after greed, and likewise after the other two. The same holds for hatred and for wrong view with the three. The arising of unwholesome karma from the three roots has been explained. How about good? The verse says:

善於三位中，皆三善根起。

In the three stages of the good, all arise from the three good roots.

論曰：諸善業道所有加行根本後起，皆從無貪無瞋無痴善根所起，以善三位皆是善心所等起故、善心必與三種善根共相應故。此善三位其相云何？謂遠離前不善三位離惡加行即善加行，離惡根本即善根本，離惡後起即善後起。且如勤策受具戒時，來入戒壇禮苾芻眾，至誠發語請親教師，乃至一白二羯磨等，皆名為善業道加行。第三羯磨竟一剎那中，表無表業名根本業道。從此以後至說四依，及餘依前相續隨轉表無表業，皆名後起。如先所說，非諸業道一切皆由三根究竟，何根究竟何業道耶？頌曰：

The treatise says: All the preparation, root and aftermath of good paths of karma arise from the good roots of non-greed, non-hatred and non-delusion, because the three good stages are all aroused by good mental factors, and good mind is necessarily accompanied by the three good roots. What are the characters of these three good stages? That is, they are the reverse of the three unwholesome stages: separation from the preparation for evil is good preparation, separation from the root of evil is good root, and separation from the aftermath of evil is good aftermath. For example, when a novice is urged to receive the full precepts, he enters the ordination platform and bows to the assembly of monks, sincerely utters the request to the preceptor, and so on through the one motion and the two announcements; all of these are called the preparation of the good path of karma. In the single moment when the third announcement is finished, the manifest and unmanifest karma is called the root path of karma. From then on, up to the recitation of the four supports, and the other manifest and unmanifest karma that continue following the earlier one, are all called aftermath. As said earlier, it is not that all paths of karma are completed through the three roots; then through which root is which path of karma completed? The verse says:

殺麁語瞋恚，究竟皆由瞋，

Killing, harsh speech and ill will are all completed through hatred,

盜邪行及貪，皆由貪究竟，

Stealing, wrong conduct and covetousness are all completed through greed,

邪見痴究竟，許所餘由三。

Wrong view is completed through delusion; the others are held to come through all three.

論曰：惡業道中殺生、麁語、瞋恚業道，由瞋究竟，要無所顧極麁惡心現在前時此三成故。諸不與取、欲邪行、貪，此三業道由貪究竟，要有所顧極染汙心現在前時此三成故。邪見究竟要由愚痴，由上品痴現前成故。虛誑、離間、雜穢語三，許一一由三根究竟，以貪瞋等現在前時一一能令此三成故。諸惡業道何處起耶？頌曰：

The treatise says: Among the evil paths of karma, killing, harsh speech and ill will are completed through hatred, because these three are accomplished only when an extremely coarse and evil mind, with no regard, is present. Taking what is not given, wrong conduct in desire and covetousness, these three paths of karma are completed through greed, because these three are accomplished only when an extremely defiled mind, with some regard, is present. The completion of wrong view must be through ignorance, because it is accomplished by the appearance of the highest grade of delusion. False speech, divisive speech and idle chatter are each held to be completed through the three roots, because when greed, hatred and the others are present, each can accomplish these three. Where do the evil paths of karma arise? The verse says:

有情具名色，名身等處起。

Sentient beings, goods, name and form; they arise in name groups and the like.

論曰：如前所說四節業道，三三一三隨其次第於有情等四處而生。謂殺等三有情處起，偷盜等三眾具處起，唯邪見一名色處起，虛誑語等三名身等處起。有起加行定欲殺他，而與所殺生俱死或前死，亦得根本業道罪耶？頌曰：

The treatise says: As for the paths of karma explained earlier in four sections, three, three, one and three arise, in order, in the four places beginning with sentient beings. That is, killing and the other two arise in the place of sentient beings, stealing and the other two in the place of goods, wrong view alone in the place of name and form, and false speech and the other two in the place of name groups and the like. If someone has begun the preparation for killing, firmly intending to kill another, but dies together with or before the one to be killed, does he obtain the guilt of the root path of karma? The verse says:

俱死及前死，無根依別故。

Dying together or dying first, there is no root, because the basis is different.

論曰：若能殺者與所殺生俱時命終、或在前死，彼定不得根本業道。故有問言：頗有殺者起殺加行及令果滿，而彼不為殺罪觸耶？曰：有。云何？謂能殺者與所殺生俱死、前死。何緣如是？以所殺生其命猶存，不可令彼能殺生者成殺罪故。非能殺者其命已終可得殺罪，別依生故。謂殺加行所依止身今已斷滅，雖有別類身同分生，非罪依止。此曾未起殺生加行，成殺業道理不應然。若有多人集為軍眾欲殺怨敵、或獵獸等，於中隨有一殺生時，何人得成殺生業道？頌曰：

The treatise says: If the killer dies at the same time as the one he would kill, or dies earlier, he certainly does not obtain the root path of karma. Therefore someone asks: Is there a case in which a killer begins the preparation for killing and causes the result to be fulfilled, yet is not touched by the guilt of killing? Answer: There is. How? That is, when the killer dies together with or before the one to be killed. Why so? Because the life of the one to be killed still remains, and it cannot cause the killer to complete the guilt of killing. It is not that one whose life has already ended can obtain the guilt of killing, because the basis of birth is different. That is, the body that was the basis of the preparation for killing has now been cut off, and although a body of a different kind arises with a class-sameness, it is not the basis of the guilt. That person has never begun the preparation for killing, so it is not right that he complete the path of killing. If many people gather as an army to kill an enemy, or to hunt beasts and the like, and one of them kills, who completes the path of killing? The verse says:

軍等若同事，皆成如作者。

If an army and the like share one purpose, all complete it as if they were the doer.

論曰：於軍等中若隨有一作殺生事，如自作者，一切皆成殺生業道，由彼同許為一事故。如為一事展轉相教，故一殺生餘皆得罪。若有他力逼入此中，因即同心亦成殺罪。唯除若有立誓自要救自命緣亦不行殺，雖由他力逼在此中，而無殺心故無殺罪。今次應辯成業道相。謂齊何量名曰殺生？乃至齊何名為邪見？且先分別殺生相者，頌曰：

The treatise says: Among an army and the like, if any one of them does the act of killing, all of them complete the path of killing as if they had done it themselves, because they all share the same purpose of one act. Just as when several people urge one another toward a single act, so for one killing the others all incur the guilt. If someone is forced into the group by the power of others, and then shares their mind, he also completes the guilt of killing. The exception is one who has taken a vow and would not kill even to save his own life; though forced into the group by others, he has no mind to kill and so has no guilt of killing. Now one should explain the characteristics of completing a path of karma: up to what extent is it called killing, and up to what is it called wrong view? First, to distinguish the characteristics of killing, the verse says:

殺生由故思，他想不誤殺。

Killing is by intentional volition, perceiving another, without error.

論曰：要由先發欲殺故思，於他有情他有情想，作殺加行不誤而殺。謂唯殺彼不漫殺餘，齊此名為殺生業道。有猶豫殺亦成殺生，謂彼先於所欲殺境心懷猶豫為生非生？設復是生為彼非彼？後起決志，若是若非我定當殺。由心無顧，若殺有情亦成業道。於剎那滅蘊，如何成殺生？息風名生，依身心轉，若有令斷不更續生，如滅燈光、鈴聲名殺。或復生者即是命根，若有令斷不續名殺。謂以惡心隔斷他命，乃至一念應生不生，唯此非餘，殺罪所觸。此所斷命為屬於誰？謂命若無彼便死者，既標第六，非我而誰？破我論中當廣思擇。故薄伽梵所說頌言：

The treatise says: It must be that one has first formed the intentional volition to kill, toward another sentient being with the perception of another sentient being, and made the preparation for killing and killed without error. That is, one kills only that being and does not kill others at random; up to this point it is called the path of karma of killing. Killing with hesitation also completes killing: that is, he first hesitated in his mind about the object to be killed, whether it is alive or not alive, and if alive whether it is that one or not, and later decided: whether it is or not, I will certainly kill. Because his mind has no regard, if he kills a sentient being it also completes the path of karma. How can there be killing in aggregates that perish in a moment? The breath is called life, and it proceeds relying on body and mind; if someone cuts it off so that it does not continue to arise, like the extinction of a lamp's light or a bell's sound, that is called killing. Or the one who is alive is simply the life faculty, and if someone cuts it off so that it does not continue, that is called killing. That is, with an evil mind one cuts off another's life, even one moment of what ought to arise but does not, and only this and nothing else is touched by the guilt of killing. To whom does this cut-off life belong? If without it that being dies, then since it is marked as the sixth, who is it if not the self? In the treatise refuting the self it will be discussed at length. So the verse spoken by the Bhagavan says:

壽煖及與識，三法捨身時，

Life, heat and consciousness, when these three dharmas leave the body,

所捨身僵仆，如木無思覺。

The abandoned body lies stiff, like wood without thought or feeling.

故有根身名有命者，無根名死其理決然。離繫者言，不思而殺亦得殺罪。猶如觸火，設不先思亦被燒害。若爾汝等遇見他妻，或誤觸身亦應有罪。又善心者拔離繫髮，或師慈心勸修苦行，或因施主宿食不消，此等皆應獲苦他罪。又胎與母互為苦因，應母與胎有苦他罪。又所殺者既與殺合，亦應如火能燒自依，不應但令能殺得罪。又遣他殺，殺罪應無，如火不燒教觸火者。又諸木等應為罪觸，如舍等崩亦害生故。又非但喻，立義可成。已分別殺生。當辯不與取。頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) Therefore the body with faculties is called one with life, and without faculties it is called dead; this principle is settled. The Nirgranthas say that one who kills without intent also gets the guilt of killing, just as touching fire burns even without prior intent. If so, when you see another's wife, or touch her body by mistake, you too should have fault. Also one with a good mind who pulls out a hair, or a teacher who with a compassionate mind urges ascetic practice, or a donor whose food has not been digested, all these should get the fault of causing suffering to others. Also the fetus and the mother are causes of suffering for each other, so the mother and fetus should have the fault of causing suffering to others. Also, since the one killed is joined with the killer, he should also be like fire that burns what it relies on, and it should not be that only the killer incurs guilt. Also if one sends another to kill, there should be no guilt of killing, as fire does not burn the one who taught another to touch fire. Also wood and the like should be touched by the guilt, as the collapse of a house also kills beings. Moreover this is not merely an analogy; the doctrine can be established. The distinction of killing has been completed. Next one should explain taking what is not given. The verse says:

不與取他物，力竊取屬己。

Taking what is not given from others, by force or stealth, making it one's own.

論曰：前不誤等如其所應，流至後門故不重說。謂要先發欲盜故思，於他物中起他物想，或力或竊起盜加行，不誤而取令屬己身，齊此名為不與取罪。若有盜取窣堵波物，彼於如來得偷盜罪，以佛臨欲入涅槃時，哀愍世間總受所施。有餘師說：望守護者。若有掘取無主伏藏，於國主邊得偷盜罪。若有盜取諸迴轉物，已作羯磨於界內僧、若羯磨未成，普於佛弟子得偷盜罪。餘例應思。已辯不與取。當辯欲邪行。頌曰：

The treatise says: What was said earlier about 'without error' and the like should apply as appropriate, and it flows down to the later gates, so it is not repeated. That is, one must first have formed the intentional volition to steal, and toward another's goods hold the perception of another's, and by force or by stealth begin the preparation for stealing, and without error take it and make it belong to oneself; up to this point it is called the guilt of taking what is not given. If one steals the property of a stupa, one incurs the guilt of stealing from the Tathagata, because when the Buddha was about to enter nirvana, out of compassion for the world he accepted all that was given. Some other teachers say: It is with reference to the guardians. If one digs up an ownerless buried treasure, one incurs the guilt of stealing from the ruler of the country. If one steals goods that are in circulation, then if the formal act has been done, one incurs the guilt of stealing from the Sangha within the boundary; if the act is not yet completed, one incurs the guilt of stealing from all disciples of the Buddha. The rest should be considered by analogy. Taking what is not given has been explained. Next one should explain wrong conduct in desire. The verse says:

欲邪行四種，行所不應行。

Wrong conduct in desire has four kinds: acting where one should not act.

論曰：總有四種行不應行，皆得名為欲邪行罪：一於非境行不應行，謂行於他所攝妻妾或母或父或父母親乃至或王所守護境。二於非道行不應行，謂於自妻口及餘道。三於非處行不應行，謂於寺中制多逈處。四於非時行不應行。非時者何？謂懷胎時、飲兒乳時、受齋戒時。設自妻妾亦犯邪行。有說：若夫許受齋戒而有所犯方謂非時。既不誤言，亦流至此。若於他婦謂是己妻，或於己妻謂為他婦，道非道等但有誤心，雖有所行而非業道。若於此他婦作餘他婦想，行非梵行成業道耶？有說亦成，以於他婦起婬加行及受用故。有說不成，如殺業道於此起加行，於餘究竟故。於苾芻尼行非梵行，為從何處得業道耶？此從國王不忍許故。於自妻妾受齋戒時尚不應行，況出家者。若於童女行非梵行，為從何處得業道耶？若已許他，於所許處；未許他者，於能護人；此及所餘，皆於王得。已辯欲邪行。當辯虛誑語。頌曰：

The treatise says: There are four kinds of acting where one should not, all of which are called the guilt of wrong conduct in desire. First, acting where one should not in an improper object, namely toward a wife or concubine under another's protection, or one under the protection of her mother, father or relatives, or even one guarded by the king. Second, acting where one should not by an improper path, namely toward one's own wife by the mouth or other paths. Third, acting where one should not in an improper place, namely in a temple or at a remote shrine. Fourth, acting where one should not at an improper time. What is an improper time? It is when she is pregnant, when she is nursing a child, or when she has taken up the fasting precepts. Even with one's own wife or concubine, one commits wrong conduct. Some say: It is only when the husband has agreed to take the fasting precepts and transgresses that it is called an improper time. Since 'without error' was already stated, this too flows down to here. If one regards another's wife as one's own wife, or one's own wife as another's wife, or if there is mistaken mind about the path or not the path and so on, then although one acts, it is not a path of karma. If with this other woman one has the perception of some other woman and engages in unchaste conduct, does this complete a path of karma? Some say it does, because one has begun the preparation for sex with another's wife and enjoyed her. Some say it does not, as in the path of killing, where the preparation is begun for one and completed for another. When one engages in unchaste conduct with a nun, from where is the path of karma obtained? It is because the king would not tolerate or permit it. Even with one's own wife or concubine, one should not do it when she has taken the fasting precepts, how much less with a renunciant. If one engages in unchaste conduct with a young girl, from where is the path of karma obtained? If she has been promised to another, from the one to whom she was promised; if she has not been promised, from the one who protects her; this and other cases are all obtained from the king. Wrong conduct in desire has been explained. Next one should explain false speech. The verse says:

染異想發言，解義虛誑語。

With a defiled mind, speaking with a different perception, and the meaning being understood, is false speech.

論曰：於所說義異想發言，及所誑者解所說義，染心不誤成虛誑語。若所誑者未解言義，此言是何？是雜穢語。既虛誑語是所發言，有多字成言，何時成業道？與最後字俱生表聲及無表業成此業道。或隨何時所誑解義，表無表業成此業道。前字俱行皆此加行，所言解義定據何時？為據已聞正解名解？為據正聞能解名解？若爾何失？若據已聞正解名解，言所詮義意識所知，語表耳識俱時滅故，應此業道唯無表成。若據正聞能解名解，雖無有失然未了知，如何正聞可名能解？善言義者無迷亂緣，耳識已生名為能解，如無失者應取為宗。經說諸言略有十六，謂於不見不聞不覺不知事中言實見等，或於所見所聞所覺所知事中言不見等，如是八種名非聖言。若於不見乃至不知言不見等，或於所見乃至所知言實見等，如是八種名為聖言。何等名為所見等相？頌曰：

The treatise says: When one speaks with a perception different from the meaning spoken, and the one deceived understands the meaning spoken, with a defiled mind and without error, it completes false speech. If the one deceived has not understood the meaning of the words, what are those words? They are idle chatter. Since false speech is a spoken utterance, and a word is formed of many syllables, at what moment is the path of karma completed? The path of karma is completed with the manifest sound that arises together with the last syllable and the unmanifest karma. Or it is completed with manifest and unmanifest karma at whatever time the deceived one understands the meaning. What arises together with the earlier syllables is all preparation. As for the understanding of the meaning of the words, is it fixed at what time? Is understanding determined by having already heard and truly understanding? Or is understanding determined by one who hears and is able to understand? What is the fault of either? If understanding is by having already heard and truly understanding, the meaning conveyed by words is known by mental consciousness, while the verbal manifest ceases at the same time as the ear consciousness, so this path of karma should be completed only by the unmanifest. If understanding is determined by one who hears and is able to understand, although there is no fault, yet it is not yet understood, so how can one who is hearing be called able to understand? One who is good at the meaning of words, with no condition of confusion, and in whom ear consciousness has arisen, is called able to understand; as for the position without fault, it should be taken as the doctrine. The sutra says that words are briefly of sixteen kinds, namely, regarding things not seen, not heard, not sensed, not known, saying one truly saw them and so on, or regarding things seen, heard, sensed and known, saying one did not see them and so on; these eight kinds are called non-noble speech. If one says of what is not seen up to what is not known that one did not see it and so on, or says of what is seen up to what is known that one truly saw it, these eight kinds are called noble speech. What are the characteristics of what is seen and so on? The verse says: