Sarvastivada Abhidharmakosa-sastra, Fascicle 25

色差別因尚為難了，況心心所諸無色法因緣差別可易了知？一類外道作如是執，諸心生時皆從於我。前之二難於彼最切。若諸心生皆從我者，何緣後識不恆似前，及不定次生，如芽莖葉等。若謂由待意合差別有異識生，理定不然，我與餘合非極成故，又二物合有分限故。謂彼自類釋合相言，非至為先、後至名合。我與意合應有分限，意移轉故我應移轉，或應與意俱有壞滅。若謂一分合，理定不然，於一我體中無別分故。設許有合，我體既常，意無別異，合寧有別？若待別覺，為難亦同。謂覺因何得有差別？若待行別，我意合者，則應但心待行差別能生異識，何用我為？我於識生都無有用，而言諸識皆從我生。如藥事成能除痼疾，誑醫矯說普莎訶言。若謂此二由我故有，此但有言，無理為證。若謂此二我為所依，如誰與誰為所依義？非心與行如畫如果，我為能持如壁如器，如是便有更相礙失，及有或時別住失故。非如壁器，我為彼依。若爾如何？此但如地，能為香等四物所依。彼如是言，證成無我，故我於此深生喜慰。如世間地不離香等，我亦應爾，非離心行。誰能了地離於香等？但於香等聚集差別，世俗流佈立以地名。我亦應然，但於心等諸蘊差別，假立我名。若離香等無別有地，如何說言地有香等？為顯地體有香等別，故即於地說有香等，令他了達是此非餘，如世間言木像身等。又若有我待行差別，何不俱時生一切智？若時此行功用最強，此能遮餘令不生果。寧從強者果不恒生？答此如前修力道理，許行非常漸變異故。若爾，計我則為唐捐，行力令心差別生故。彼行此修體無異故，必定應信我體實有，以有念等德句義故，德必依止實句義故，念等依餘理不成故。此證非理，不極成故。謂說念等德句義攝體皆非實，義不極成，許有別體皆名實故。經說六實物，名沙門果故。彼依實我，理亦不成。

Even the causes of the differences of form are hard to understand; how can the differences of causes and conditions of the formless dharmas, mind and mental factors, be easy to know? A kind of non-Buddhist holds that all minds arise from the self. The two difficulties above are most acute for him. If all minds arise from a self, why do later consciousnesses not constantly resemble the former, and why do they not arise in a fixed order, like a sprout, stem and leaves? If you say that different consciousnesses arise by waiting for differences in the combination with the mind, that is surely not so, because the combination of the self with something else is not established, and because a combination of two things has limits. Their school explains the characteristic of combination thus: reaching without first having reached is called combination. A combination of the self and the mind should have limits; because the mind moves, the self should move, or it should be destroyed together with the mind. If you say it is a combination of one part, that is surely not so, because there are no separate parts within a single self. If one allows that there is combination, since the self is permanent and the mind has no difference, how could the combination differ? If you wait for a different awareness, the difficulty is the same: through what cause could awareness differ? If you wait for a difference of activity in the combination of self and mind, then it would be that mind alone, waiting for differences of activity, could give rise to different consciousnesses; what use is the self? The self has no use at all in the arising of consciousnesses, and yet you say that all consciousnesses arise from the self. It is like a medicine that has already done its work and cured a chronic illness, while a false physician claims falsely that the cure came from saying "svaha." If you say these two exist because of the self, this is only words, with no reasoning as proof. If you say that the self is the support of these two, how is it, and who is the support of whom? It is not that mind and activity are like a painting or a fruit, and the self is the holder like a wall or a vessel; in that case there would be the fault of mutual obstruction and the fault of sometimes abiding separately. So the self is not a support for them like a wall or a vessel. If so, how? It is only like the earth, which can be the support of the four things, smell and so on. In saying this they establish no-self, and so I am deeply glad of it. As in the world, earth is not apart from smell and the like, so the self should be the same, not apart from mind and activity. Who can know earth apart from smell and the like? In the world, the name earth is set up and circulated only for the particular aggregate of smell and the like. The self should likewise be provisionally named only with respect to the particular aggregates of mind and the others. Apart from smell and the like there is no separate earth, so how can one say that earth has smell and so on? In order to show that the substance of earth has the distinction of smell and so on, one says of earth itself that it has smell and so on, so that others understand that it is this and not other, as the world speaks of a body of a wooden statue. Furthermore, if a self depended on differences in activity, why would it not give rise to omniscience all at once? If at that time the activity is of the strongest power, it can prevent the others from producing effects. Why would the effect of the strong one not always arise? The answer is as before, according to the principle of the power of cultivation, since activity is admitted to be impermanent and gradually changing. If so, to calculate a self is in vain, since it is the power of activity that causes the minds to arise differently. Because that activity and this cultivation are not different in substance, one must believe that the self has real existence, because there are memory and the other qualities, the category of quality, and qualities must depend on the category of substance; since memory and the like cannot be established as depending on anything else. This proof is not reasonable, because it is not established. That is, to say that memory and the like are included in the category of quality, and their substance is not real, is an unestablished meaning, since you allow that whatever has a separate substance is called a substance. The sutra speaks of six substances, called the fruits of the ascetic life. Their reliance on a real self is also not reasonable.

依義如前已遮遣故，由此所立但有虛言。若我實無，為何造業？為我當受苦樂果故。我體是何？謂我執境。何名我執境？謂諸蘊相續。云何知然？貪愛彼故。與白等覺同處起故。謂世有言：我白我黑。我老我少。我瘦我肥。現見世間緣白等覺，與計我執同處而生，非所計我有此差別，故知我執但緣諸蘊。以身於我有防護恩，故亦於身假說為我，如言臣等即是我身。於有恩中實假說我，而諸我執所取不然。若許緣身亦起我執，寧無我執緣他身起，他與我執不相屬故。謂若身若心與我執相屬，此我執起緣彼非餘，無始時來如是習故。相屬謂何？謂因果性。若無我體，誰之我執？此前已釋，寧復重來。謂我於前已作是說，為依何義說第六聲，乃至辨因為果所屬。若爾，我執以何為因？謂無始來我執燻習，緣自相續有垢染心。我體若無誰有苦樂？若依於此有苦樂生，即說名為此有苦樂，如林有果及樹有花。苦樂依何？謂內六處，隨其所起說為彼依。若我實無，誰能作業？誰能受果？作受何義？作謂能作，受謂受者。此但易名，未顯其義。辯法相者釋此相言：能自在為，名為作者。能領業果，得受者名。現見世間，於此事業若得自在，名為能作。如見天授於浴食行得自在故，名浴等者。此中汝等說何天授？若說實我，喻不極成；說蘊便非自在作者。業有三種，謂身、語、意。且起身業必依身心，身心各依自因緣轉，因緣展轉依自因緣，於中無一自在起者，一切有為屬因緣故。汝所執我，不待因緣亦無所作，故非自在。由此彼說能自在為名作者相，求不可得。然於諸法生因緣中，若有勝用假名作者，非所執我，見有少用故定不應名為作者。能生身業勝因者何？謂從憶念引生樂欲，樂欲生尋伺，尋伺生勤勇，勤勇生風，風起身業。汝所執我，此中何用？故於身業，我非作者。語意業起，類此應思。我復云何能領業果？

(The treatise continues:) By meaning it has already been refuted as before, so what is established by it is only empty words. If the self does not really exist, why does one create karma? Is it because the self will receive the fruits of pain and pleasure? What is the substance of the self? It is the object of self-grasping. What is called the object of self-grasping? It is the continuum of aggregates. How do we know this? Because one is attached to them, and because the notion of white and so on arises in the same place. For the world says: I am white, I am black, I am old, I am young, I am thin, I am fat. We plainly see that in the world the awareness taking white and so on as object arises in the same place as the calculation of self-grasping, and it is not that the self that is calculated has these differences, so we know that self-grasping takes only the aggregates as object. Because the body has the kindness of protecting the self, the body is also provisionally called the self, as when one says that ministers and the like are one's own body. Among those that have shown kindness one provisionally calls them "self," but what is grasped by self-grasping is not like this. If you allow that self-grasping also arises taking the body as object, why does self-grasping not arise taking another's body as object? Because the other's body is not connected with one's self-grasping. That is, self-grasping arises taking as object the body and mind that are connected with it and not others, because it has been practiced so since beginningless time. What is connected? It is the nature of cause and effect. If there is no self-substance, whose is the self-grasping? This was already explained before; why bring it up again? That is, I already said before, in explaining on what meaning the sixth case-ending is based, up to distinguishing cause as belonging to effect. If so, what is the cause of self-grasping? It is the perfuming of self-grasping since beginningless time, a defiled mind that takes its own continuum as object. If the self-substance does not exist, who has pain and pleasure? If pain and pleasure arise depending on this, one then says that this has pain and pleasure, as in "the forest has fruit" and "the tree has flowers." On what do pain and pleasure depend? On the six inner bases; as each arises, it is said to depend on that. If the self does not really exist, who can do karma? Who can receive the fruits? What is the meaning of doing and receiving? Doing means that which can do, and receiving means the one who receives. This is only a change of names and does not show the meaning. Those who explain the characteristics of dharmas say: One who can act freely is called the doer; one who can take up the fruit of the karma gains the name of receiver. In the world we plainly see that one who has mastery in this undertaking is called the one who can do it, as one sees that Devadatta has mastery in bathing, eating and walking, and so is called one who bathes and so on. What do you say Devadatta is here? If you say a real self, the example is not established; if you say the aggregates, they are not a free agent. Karma is of three kinds, bodily, verbal and mental. First, the arising of bodily karma necessarily depends on body and mind; body and mind each proceed by their own causes and conditions; the causes and conditions in turn depend on their own causes and conditions; and among these there is none that arises freely, since all conditioned things belong to causes and conditions. The self you hold to does not depend on causes and conditions and also does nothing, and therefore is not free. Thus the characteristic of the doer proposed by them, that which can act freely, cannot be found. However, among the causes and conditions for the arising of dharmas, if there is one with superior function it is provisionally called the doer, and the self you hold to is surely not fit to be called a doer, since it is not seen to have even a slight function. What is the superior cause that can produce bodily karma? From memory arises desire, from desire arise investigation and analysis, from these arises effort, from effort arises wind, and from wind arises bodily karma. What use is the self you hold in this? Therefore the self is not the doer of bodily karma. How verbal and mental karma arise should be considered along the same lines. And how can a self take up the fruits of karma?

若謂於果我能了別，此定不然，我於了別都無有用，於前分別生識因中已遮遣故。若實無我，如何不依諸非情處罪福生長？彼非愛等所依止故，唯內六處是彼所依。我非彼依，如前已說。若實無我，業已滅壞，云何復能生未來果？設有實我，業已滅壞，復云何能生未來果？從依止我，法非法生。如誰依誰，此前已破，故法非法不應依我。然聖教中不作是說，從已壞業未來果生。若爾，從何？從業相續轉變差別，如種生果。如世間說，果從種生。然果不從已壞種起，亦非從種無間即生。若爾，從何？從種相續轉變差別果方得生，謂種次生芽莖葉等，花為最後方引果生。若爾，何言從種生果？由種展轉引起花中生果功能，故作是說。若此花內生果功能非種為先所引起者，所生果相應與種別。如是雖言從業生果，而非從彼已壞業生，亦非從業無間生果，但從業相續轉變差別生。何名相續轉變差別？謂業為先，後色心起，中無間斷，名為相續。即此相續，後後剎那異前前生，名為轉變。即此轉變，於最後時有勝功能無間生果，勝餘轉變，故名差別。如有取識正命終時，雖帶眾多感後有業所引燻習，而重近起數習所引明瞭非餘。如有頌言：

(The treatise continues:) If you say that the self can discriminate the fruit, this is surely not so, since the self has no use at all in discrimination, which has already been refuted in the discussion of the cause of consciousness arising from discrimination before. If there really is no self, why do merit and demerit not grow depending on non-sentient bases? Because those are not the support of love and the like; only the six inner bases are their support. The self is not their support, as already said before. If there is really no self, once karma has perished, how can it again give rise to a future fruit? And if there is a real self, once karma has perished, how can it again give rise to a future fruit? From the self as support, it is said, dharma and non-dharma arise. Who depends on whom? This was refuted before, so dharma and non-dharma should not depend on a self. However, the noble teaching does not say that a future fruit arises from karma that has perished. If so, from what? From the particular transformation of the karmic continuum, like a seed giving rise to fruit. As the world says that fruit arises from seed. Yet the fruit does not arise from a seed that has perished, nor does it arise immediately from the seed. If so, from what? The fruit arises from the particular transformation of the seed's continuum, namely the seed successively gives rise to the sprout, stem and leaves, and the flower finally draws out the fruit. If so, why say that the fruit arises from the seed? Because the seed, through successive stages, draws out the capacity to produce fruit in the flower, one speaks thus. If the capacity within the flower to produce fruit were not drawn out in the first place by the seed, the fruit produced should be different from that seed. So although one says that a fruit arises from karma, it does not arise from karma that has already perished, nor from karma immediately, but from the particular transformation of the continuum of karma. What is called the particular transformation of the continuum? With karma first, later form and mind arise without interruption in between, and this is called continuity. This continuity, in later and later moments differing from earlier and earlier moments, is called transformation. This transformation, at the very last moment, has a superior capacity and immediately gives rise to the fruit, superior to the other transformations, and so it is called particular. For example, when a consciousness that clings is just about to die, though it bears the perfuming drawn out by many karmas that bring about later existence, what is clear is what is drawn out by the heaviest, the nearest, and the most frequently practiced, not the others. As a verse says:

業極重近起，數習先所作，

The karma that is heaviest, nearest, frequently practiced, or done earlier,

前前前後熟，輪轉於生死。

ripens in the order of former before latter, and one turns in the wheel of birth and death.

於此義中有差別者，異熟因所引與異熟果功能，與異熟果已即便謝滅。同類因所引與等流果功能，若染汙者對治起時即便謝滅，不染汙者般涅槃時方永謝滅，以色心相續爾時永滅故。何緣異熟果不能招異熟，如從種果有別果生。且非譬喻，是法皆等。然從種果無別果生。若爾，從何生於後果？從後熟變差別所生。謂於後時即前種果遇水土等諸熟變緣，便能引生熟變差別。正生芽位方得種名，未熟變時從當名說，或似種故世說為種。此亦如是，即前異熟遇聞正邪等諸起善惡緣，便能引生諸善有漏及諸不善有異熟心，從此引生相續轉變，展轉能引轉變差別，從此差別後異熟生，非從餘生。故喻同法。或由別法類此可知，如拘櫞花塗紫礦汁，相續轉變差別為因，後果生時瓤便色赤，從此赤色更不生餘。如是應知，從業異熟更不能引餘異熟生。前來且隨自覺慧境，於諸業果略顯麁相。其間異類差別功能，諸業所燻相續轉變，至彼彼位彼彼果生，唯佛證知非餘境界。依如是義，故有頌言：

In this respect there are differences: the capacity for the matured effect drawn out by the cause of maturation, having given the matured effect, perishes at once. The capacity for the effect of outflow drawn out by the homogeneous cause, if defiled, perishes at once when the antidote arises; if undefiled, it perishes forever only at parinirvana, since the continuum of form and mind is then forever extinguished. Why can the matured effect not bring about maturation, as a separate fruit arises from a seed's fruit? This is not an apt example, for all dharmas are equal. But from a seed's fruit no separate fruit arises. If so, from what does the later fruit arise? It arises from the particular ripening transformation later. That is, at a later time, the fruit of the earlier seed meets conditions for ripening transformation such as water and soil and so can draw out the particular ripening transformation. Only at the stage when the sprout is just arising is it given the name seed; before the ripening transformation it is named by what it will become, or because it resembles a seed the world calls it a seed. So too here: the earlier matured effect itself, meeting conditions that give rise to good or bad, such as hearing right or wrong teachings, can draw out various wholesome defiled minds and various unwholesome minds with maturation, and from these it draws out the transformation of the continuum, which in turn can draw out particular transformations, and from this particular transformation a later matured effect arises, not from anything else. So the example fits the dharma. Or one may understand by another example: when a citron flower is smeared with lac juice, the particular transformation of the continuum is the cause, and when the fruit arises the pulp becomes red, and from this redness nothing further arises. So one should know that from the matured effect of karma no other matured effect can be drawn out. So far we have followed the realm of our own understanding and wisdom and briefly shown the gross aspects of the fruits of karma. As for the particular capacities of various kinds in between, the transformation of the continuum perfumed by karmas, and the arising of this and that fruit at this and that stage, only the Buddha realizes and knows them, and they are not the realm of others. Because of this meaning, a verse says:

此業此燻習，至此時與果，

This karma, this perfuming, gives its fruit at this time;

一切種定理，離佛無能知。

the fixed principle of all seeds: apart from the Buddha none can know.

已善說此淨因道，謂佛至言真法性，

Having well taught this path of the pure cause, that is, the Buddha's true word and true nature of dharmas,

應捨闇盲諸外執，惡見所為求慧眼。

one should abandon the dark and blind clinging of non-Buddhists and seek the eye of wisdom for what evil views have done.

此涅槃宮一廣道，千聖所遊無我性，

This one broad road to the palace of nirvana, where a thousand sages have walked, the nature of no-self,

諸佛日言光所照，雖開殊眼不能覩。

lit by the sunlight of the Buddhas' words, cannot be seen even with eyes wide open.

於此方隅已略說，為開智者慧毒門，

On this direction I have spoken briefly, to open for the wise the gate of wisdom's poison,

庶各隨己力堪能，遍悟所知成勝業。

so that each according to his own strength may broadly awaken to what is to be known and accomplish superior works.