No Creator, Only Karma

As previously discussed, the world of sentient beings and the container world each display many distinctions — by what are these distinctions produced? Verse: the world's distinctions arise from karma; karma is volition, and what volition produces; volition itself is mental karma; what is produced is bodily and verbal karma. Prose: the world does not arise from any single, prior, all-knowing lord, but arises solely through the distinctions among sentient beings' own karma. If this is so, why do both pleasant and unpleasant things all arise from karma alike? Saffron, sandalwood, and the like are exceedingly delightful, and yet the body's own inner form is the very opposite of this. This is because sentient beings' types of karma are of this kind: if one commits mixed karma, this brings about an inner bodily form that continuously discharges impurity through its nine openings; but, in order to counteract this, that same mixed karma also brings about external possessions — form, fragrance, flavor, and touch — that are exceedingly delightful. The various hosts of gods, having committed purely wholesome karma, therefore have both of these two things equally excellent. What is the essential nature of this karma that serves as the cause? It is the mental factor of volition, and what that volition produces. Hence a sūtra states: there are two kinds of karma — first, volitional karma; second, karma-after-volition; karma-after-volition refers to what volition produces. These two kinds of karma, further distinguished, become three: namely, sentient beings' bodily, verbal, and mental karma.

How are these three kinds of karma established? Is it on the basis of their support, their essential nature, or their arising-condition? Even granting any of these, what fault would follow? If established on the basis of support, there ought to be only a single kind of karma, since all karma alike depends upon the body. If established on the basis of essential nature, only verbal karma ought to count as karma, since, among the three, only speech is itself literally an act. If established on the basis of arising-condition, there ought likewise to be only a single kind of karma, since all karma alike arises from the condition of mind. The Vaibhāṣikas say that the three kinds of karma are established, in that same order, by the three reasons stated above. Thus, the mental factor of volition itself is precisely mental karma, while the karma produced by that volition divides into the two, bodily and verbal, since these are what that volition gives rise to as its arising-condition.

What is the essential nature of bodily and verbal karma? Verse: these two, bodily and verbal karma, both have the nature of manifest and unmanifest forms. Prose: it should be understood that, among the karmas thus discussed, both bodily and verbal karma possess the nature of both manifest and unmanifest karma. What, then, is the character of bodily and verbal manifestation? Verse: bodily manifestation is accepted as a distinct shape, not motion, as its essential nature, since all conditioned dharmas are momentary. If motion were accepted as real, the very cause that produces something would, absurdly, also be capable of destroying it. Shape, too, is not truly real on the opposing view, since form would then have to be apprehended by two different faculties at once. Since there is no separate atom corresponding to shape as such, verbal manifestation is accepted as speech-sound instead. Prose: through the power of volition, one specific bodily configuration or another is brought about — this is called bodily manifestation-karma. There is a further school that holds: motion is what is called bodily manifestation, since, when the body moves, this is because karma itself moves. In order to refute this, it is stated that bodily manifestation is not motion, since everything conditioned is momentary. What does "momentary" mean? It means that, immediately upon attaining its own essential nature, a thing ceases without interruption — a dharma possessing this characteristic is called "having momentariness," just as a man carrying a staff is called "one who has a staff." Every conditioned dharma, the very instant it attains its own essential nature, immediately and necessarily ceases, returning to non-existence. If something arises in a given place, it likewise ceases in that very same place — there is no possibility of it then transferring to move to some other location; hence it cannot be said that motion is what constitutes bodily manifestation. If it is established that all conditioned dharmas are momentary, then the principle that nothing literally travels to another location can likewise be established.

That all conditioned dharmas are momentary is a principle already well established, since everything conditioned must necessarily come to an end. Why is this? Because conditioned dharmas' cessation does not depend upon any cause. Why is this so? Because whatever depends upon a cause is called an effect, and cessation, being a non-existence, cannot be an effect; hence it does not depend upon a cause. Since cessation does not depend on a cause, a thing ceases the very moment it has arisen. If a thing did not cease at its very first moment, then it should likewise not cease later either, since its later state has the same essential nature as its initial state. But since it plainly does eventually come to an end, we may infer that it must have already been ceasing all along. If it could only cease once it had become "different" at some later point, then it should not be called "the same thing" that has become different — yet this very same thing becoming different is, in fact, not tenable. Is it not commonly observed in the world that firewood and the like cease to exist precisely because it comes into contact with fire? There is definitely no other means of valid cognition that surpasses direct perception — hence it is not the case that all instances of a dharma's cessation must depend upon a cause. How, then, is it known that firewood and the like cease because of contact with fire? Because, once firewood comes into contact with fire, it is subsequently no longer seen. This should be carefully considered: is firewood no longer seen because it has ceased due to contact with fire? Or is it that the earlier firewood, having already arisen, ceases of its own accord, and, since it is not born again afterward, it is therefore no longer seen — just as with wind meeting a hand, a lamp's flame, or the sound of a bell? Hence this point must be established, if at all, by inference, not direct perception. What sort of inference could establish it? None, since, as already stated, cessation, being a non-existence, cannot be an effect, and therefore does not depend upon a cause. Moreover, if firewood's cessation truly required a cause, then it should follow that no instance of cessation-into-nonexistence anywhere is ever uncaused, just as arising always requires a cause and nothing arises without a cause. Yet it is commonly observed in the world that a cognition, a flame, or a sound ceases of its own accord, momentarily, without depending on any further external cause — hence firewood's cessation, too, does not depend upon a cause.

Some hold that a cognition or a sound ceases through an earlier cause taking effect later. But this too is untenable, since the two cannot coexist — doubt and certainty, pain and pleasure, craving and hostility, are mutually exclusive in their own essential nature and cannot both be present at once. Furthermore, if a clear cognition or sound were immediately followed by an unclear one, how could an unclear dharma of the same general kind destroy a clear dharma of that same kind? And by what, then, would the very last cognition or sound in a series be destroyed? Some hold that a lamp's flame ceases because of the power of "abiding" as an unconditioned factor; others hold that a flame's cessation comes from the power of dharma or adharma. Both are untenable, since there is, in fact, no such cause at all — dharma and adharma cannot serve as causes of both arising and cessation, since arising and cessation run in mutually opposed directions from moment to moment. Or, if one insists on positing such a cause, then this same reasoning could be applied to find a "cause" behind every single conditioned dharma's cessation without exception — but if so, the very dispute we started with should already be settled, since it would mean granting that all things are momentary without needing to appeal to any further external cause. Moreover, if firewood's cessation truly had contact-with-fire as its cause, then, since the process of heating-and-transforming has lower, middle, and higher stages, the very cause that produces a stage should also turn out to be the cause that destroys it. Why is this? Because it is contact with fire that brings about the middle and higher stages of heating-and-transformation in firewood, with the middle and higher stages of heat arising precisely as the lower and middle stages cease. Whether identical to or merely similar to the cause that produces the middle and higher stages, that very same cause would also serve as the cause that destroys the lower and middle stages — meaning the cause of arising and the cause of cessation would have to be one and the same, with no real difference between them; and it would then be untenable that a later state be said to exist by virtue of being identical to, or similar to, an earlier one, while also being said to not exist by virtue of that same identity or similarity. Even granting, in the case of variations among stages of flame, that one might posit distinct causes for producing and for destroying, how could one possibly posit distinct producing and destroying causes in cases where firewood's heating-and-transformation comes about through contact with ash, snow, vinegar, sunlight, water, or earth? If this is so, then what, in fact, is fire's contact accomplishing when we observe boiling water gradually diminishing until it is gone? What happens is that the fire-element's power increases through contact with the fuel, and as the fire-element increases, it causes the mass of water to arise, moment by moment, in ever more diminished amounts, until it reaches its very subtlest state and then simply fails to continue arising further — this, and this alone, is what fire's contact accomplishes in this process. Hence there is, in truth, no cause that makes any dharma cease; dharmas cease of themselves, since to perish is simply their very nature. Because they cease of themselves, they cease the very moment they arise; and because they cease the very moment they arise, the doctrine of momentary cessation is thereby established. Given that things are momentary, motion is certainly impossible — yet, in the arising of successive instances at immediately adjacent locations, as when a grass-fire's flame appears to travel, an exaggerated sense of "motion" nonetheless arises. Since, by this reasoning, motion is certainly nonexistent, the position that bodily manifestation is shape, rather than motion, is thereby established as sound.

But the Sautrāntika school says: shape is not really existent. That is to say, where a mass of color arises densely along one direction, we conceptually posit "long" with respect to it; then, relative to this "long," where a mass of color arises less densely along another direction, we conceptually posit "short"; where color arises evenly massed along all four directions, we conceptually posit "square"; where color arises filling every direction uniformly, we conceptually posit "round" — and the remaining shapes should be understood in the same way. It is just as when one sees a firebrand's glow moving rapidly and unbroken in one direction and calls it "long," or sees it whirling in a circle and calls it "round" — hence shape has no truly existing, distinct essential nature of its own apart from color. If shape were held to truly exist as a distinct kind of matter, then a single instance of color-and-shape would have to be apprehended by two different sense faculties — since a mass of color's shape-differences such as "long" are said to be knowable both by the eye's seeing and by the body's touching — and this would incur the fault of one and the same form-matter being apprehended by two different faculties, which is not logically sound; there is no case of a form-processed object being apprehended by two faculties. But just as shape is apprehended dependent on touch, so too does one apprehend shape dependent on color — are not touch and shape not, in fact, occurring together within a single mass? Hence it is by way of apprehending touch that one comes to recall shape, not that shape itself is directly apprehended within the tactile sensation. It is like seeing fire's color and thereby recalling fire's warmth, or smelling a flower's fragrance and thereby recalling the flower's color — in these cases, the two things are simply never found apart from one another, so that apprehending one allows one to recall the other. [Objection:] But touch and shape are not invariably inseparable — how, then, could apprehending touch reliably call shape to mind? [Reply:] Even where touch and a given shape do not always occur together in one mass, it remains the case that apprehending touch can call shape to mind; if this were not so, then color, too, ought to reliably call shape to mind merely through touch, or else shape ought to be as unfixed a correlate of touch as color's own correlate is unfixed — in which case, at the moment one apprehends touch, one ought not to be able to make out any shape at all. But this is plainly not so in fact; hence one should not say that shape is directly apprehended within touch by way of apprehending touch. [Further objection:] Or else, since many different shapes are perceived in something like brocade, there ought to be many distinct real shapes present in a single location. [Reply:] This is not logically sound — the same holds true for a mass of various colors, which likewise shows many colors in one location without each one being a separately arising real substance — hence shape does not truly exist as a distinct substance. Moreover, whatever resistant, truly-existing matter there is must consist of truly existing, distinct atoms of its own kind; yet there is no atom that could be named "long" and the like — hence it is only with respect to the differing patterns in which multiple atoms are thus arranged that "long" and so forth are conceptually posited. If one insists that it is precisely the atoms of shape-color, thus arranged, that are named "long" and so on, this is mere partisan assertion, not something logically well established — for one could speak this way only if shape-color's distinct atoms, each with their own real essential nature, were themselves logically well established as capable of being massed together in such an arrangement to form "long" and so on; but no shape-colors possess distinct atoms with their own real essential nature the way color-atoms do, so how could there be any "massing together in arrangement" to speak of at all? Is it not, in fact, commonly observed that clay pots and the like can share the very same color while differing in shape? Have we not already explained this very point — that it is precisely with respect to differing patterns of arrangement among multiple things that "long" and so on are conceptually posited — just as a mass of ants shows no difference in individual appearance, and yet, through the arrangement of their marching formation, distinct shapes appear? Shape's dependence on color should be understood in just the same way. And is it not the case that, in darkness or from a great distance, one may make out the shape of a post or similar object without making out its color at all — meaning that shape cannot simply be color-thus-arranged, since in darkness or at a distance, where color is not made out, one nevertheless still forms a notion such as "long"? It is just as when one observes a line of trees or people from a great distance in darkness — one makes out only that it is a marching column, without being able to distinguish individual features; this must be understood in just the same way, since at times one fails to make out either color or shape and grasps only an aggregate as a whole.

[Objection:] Since you have already dismissed both motion and shape, what, then, does your Sautrāntika school posit as bodily manifestation? [Reply:] We posit shape as bodily manifestation, but only as a conceptual designation, not as something really existing. [Objection:] Since you hold that bodily manifestation is only a conceptual designation, what, then, do you posit as bodily karma? [Reply:] If karma is posited with reference to the body, it is called bodily karma — meaning the volition that is capable of moving the body in its various ways; because it operates through the gate of the body, it is called bodily karma. Verbal karma and mental karma should likewise be understood as each given their distinguishing name according to what is appropriate to each. [Objection:] If this is so, why does a sūtra speak of two kinds of karma — first, volitional karma, and second, karma-after-volition? What is the difference between these two? [Reply:] The preliminary volition that arises beforehand — thinking, "I ought to do such-and-such a deed" — is called volitional karma. Once this deliberation has occurred, the volition to carry out the deed arises, and, in accordance with what was previously deliberated, one performs the deed, moving the body and uttering speech; this is called karma-after-volition. [Objection:] If this is so, then manifested karma (表業) would necessarily not exist at all. And if manifested karma does not exist, then unmanifested karma (無表業), too, ought not to exist — which would be a very grave error. [Reply:] This grave error can, in fact, be averted by reason: from the two kinds of manifestation already discussed above, a distinctive volition arises by virtue of an especially forceful intention, and this is called unmanifested karma. [Objection:] What is wrong with this? [Reply:] This would have to be called "karma that follows along with the mind," since it would arise together with the mind the way meditative unmanifested karma does. [Response:] There is no such fault, because it is produced specifically by a decisively resolved, forceful volition and by the forceful volition that sets action in motion. Even granting that manifested karma exists, it, too, depends on this same volitional force described above, since [bodily and verbal action] are by nature dull and inert [and cannot act on their own].

The Vaibhāṣika school says: shape truly exists; hence bodily manifested karma has shape-matter as its essential nature, while verbal manifested karma's essential nature is simply spoken sound itself; the character of unmanifested karma is as already explained above. The Sautrāntika school, for their part, say: this, too, does not truly exist, since it is posited merely with reference to a prior vow having been made and never subsequently violated. It, too, is conventionally described with reference to past great elements, yet the essential nature of past great elements does not truly exist; moreover, all instances of unmanifested karma lack any characteristic of color-matter at all. The Vaibhāṣika reply: this, too, truly exists. How is this known? Verse: the sūtras speak of three kinds of formless matter, and of merit increasing, [neither of which make sense] apart from an agent [continuing to act], and so forth.

Prose: this is because a sūtra states that matter is of three kinds, and these three, taken as a class, subsume all matter: first, matter that has color, has visibility, and has resistance; second, matter that has color and has resistance but has no visibility; third, matter that has color but has neither visibility nor resistance. Moreover, a sūtra speaks of the existence of formless matter, as a sūtra states: "What is a formless dharma? It is this: with respect to all the various forms of the past, future, and present, one does not give rise to craving or hostility toward them — and the same holds true up through consciousness as well. This is called a formless dharma." Apart from unmanifested karma, what dharma could be called "having no visibility and no resistance," or "formless matter"?

Moreover, a sūtra speaks of merit continuing to increase, as a sūtra states: "Any person of pure faith, whether a good son or a good daughter, who has accomplished the seven meritorious deeds that have a [material] support, will, whether walking, standing, sleeping, or waking, continuously and without interruption see their merit gradually increase and their meritorious action continue to arise; and the same holds true even where there is no such support." Apart from unmanifested karma, when some other state of mind has arisen, or when no mind at all is present, by virtue of what dharma could one speak of merit as increasing?

Moreover, in the case of not personally performing a deed, but instead sending another to do it, if unmanifested karma did not exist, this should not amount to the completion of a karma-path. This is because the manifested karma of sending another to act is not itself subsumed under that other deed's karma-path — this manifested karma of instructing has not itself properly performed the deed that was to be done — and yet, whether the one sent has already completed the deed or not, this manifested karma's own essential nature remains entirely unchanged either way.

Moreover, a sūtra states: "Monastics, you should know that the dharma[-object] is the external sense-base." This is a dharma not subsumed under any of the [other] eleven sense-bases, and it is invisible and non-resistant, yet the sūtra does not say it is formless. If one does not take this to be referring to the unmanifested matter subsumed under the dharma-base, then this statement would be deficient and rendered useless. Moreover, if unmanifested karma did not exist, there should be no [factors of] right speech, right action, and right livelihood among the eight path-factors, since, at the time one is in meditative absorption, speech and the like are absent. If this is so, why does a sūtra state: "Having thus known, and thus seen, one cultivates right view, right thought, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration, all brought to full perfection; right speech, right action, and right livelihood have already, at an earlier time, attained purity and become bright and clean"? This is stated with reference to the worldly path of removing defilement already attained at an earlier time, and involves no contradiction [with the claim that these factors are absent during actual absorption].

Moreover, if one denies the existence of unmanifested matter, then there should also be no such thing as the vow of individual liberation, since it would not be the case that, after receiving the precepts, one's precept-observance continues on, such that one is still called a monastic even while a mind directed toward some entirely different object has arisen. Moreover, a sūtra states that the precept of abstaining from killing and the like is called an "embankment precept," because it is able to hold back, over a long and continuous stretch of time, the fault of transgressing the precepts, the way an embankment holds back a flood. Something that has no reality of its own at all could not be called an embankment. By this body of evidence, it is known that unmanifested matter truly exists.

The Sautrāntika masters say: these proofs, however numerous and however remarkable-seeming, are nonetheless not logically sound. Why is this so? Among the proofs cited, take first the sūtra's statement that there are three kinds of matter. The Yogācāra masters say: this refers to the object-matter of meditative concentration produced by the power of concentration while cultivating calm-abiding meditation — it is called invisible because it is not an object of the eye faculty, and it is called non-resistant because it does not obstruct any location. [Objection:] If this is so, then how does the difficulty of naming this "color-matter" differ at all from the very same difficulty raised against unmanifested matter? [Reply, continuing:] As for the sūtra's mention of "formless matter," the Yogācāra masters say: among the matter produced by the power of concentration, that which is associated with uncontaminated concentration is called formless. Other teachers say: a non-learner's [i.e., an arhat's] bodily matter, and various external matter as well, are all formless, since, not being a basis for outflows, they attain the name "formless." [Objection:] Why, then, does a sūtra say, "contaminated dharmas are all those [forms belonging to] the eye," and so on at length? [Reply:] This is because it is not a counter-agent to outflows that it is called contaminated — but then this same matter ought to be called both contaminated and formless at once. [Objection:] If so, what fault would that be? [Reply, continuing:] There would be the fault of the two categories mixing together. [Response:] If, by this same reasoning, a thing is called contaminated, it has never, by this same reasoning, also been called formless; and the same holds for "formless" — so where is the mixing? [Objection:] If the sense-base of form and the like are uniformly contaminated [in one respect while being formless in another], why would a sūtra speak of them so differently in different places? [Reply:] It is just as a sūtra speaks of "the contaminated, appropriated forms" as things the mind covers over and conceals — and sound and the like are just the same.

As for the sūtra's statement about merit increasing, earlier master-teachers explain it this way: by the power of a natural law, meritorious karma increases as follows — as the donor's given wealth is used and enjoyed by its recipients in various ways, the merit and benefit attained differ according to how the recipients use and enjoy the given goods. Although the donor's mind has since turned to entirely different objects, the volition that accompanied the earlier act of giving has already perfumed the continuum, and this subtle continuum gradually transforms and differentiates as it arises, becoming thereby capable of bringing about manifold results in the future. Hence it is said, with implicit intent, that merit continuously and without interruption gradually increases and continues to arise. [Objection:] But how could a differentiated benefit in one continuum cause a transformation in another continuum whose mind has turned to different objects? This is the very same difficulty faced by the doctrine of unmanifested karma. [Reply:] How, then, on your side, could a differentiated benefit in one continuum give rise to a real, distinct unmanifested dharma in another continuum? [Further objection:] In the case of meritorious deeds that have no [material] support at all, how could merit continuously increase? [Reply:] This, too, is by virtue of repeatedly cultivating a volition directed toward that object, which continues on even into dreams. Advocates of unmanifested karma, since there is no unmanifested karma at all for meritorious deeds without a support, how could there be any unmanifested karma there either? [Alternative reply:] For meritorious deeds that do have a support, this, too, is by virtue of repeatedly cultivating a volition directed toward that object, and hence it is said to continuously and without interruption increase. [Objection:] If so, a sūtra states: "Any monastic who, possessing pure moral discipline and having perfected well-tamed dharmas, having received food offered by another, enters the concentration of boundless mind and dwells having personally realized its fulfillment" — by this cause and condition, one should know that the donor's boundless merit and goodness nourishes their continuum, and boundless ease and happiness flows into their body. At that time, is the donor's merit certainly and constantly increasing only because there is some continuous, deliberate volition directed toward that object? [Reply:] Hence what has been stated — that the perfuming left by volition, subtly continuing, gradually transforms and differentiates as it arises — is certainly the sound position.

As for how a karma-path could be completed and fulfilled in the case of not personally performing a deed but sending another to do it, one should explain it this way: from the original preparatory action onward, at the time the one sent completes the commissioned deed as instructed, a natural law causes the instructor's own subtle continuum to arise, gradually transforming and differentiating, and, by virtue of this, becomes capable of yielding manifold results in the future. In the case where one completes a deed personally, one should understand that the same principle applies. One should understand that this very subtle, gradually transforming and differentiating continuum is what is called the karma-path — this is a case of conventionally applying the name of the cause to the effect, since it is the result brought about by bodily and verbal karma. Just as [the Vaibhāṣika] hold that a distinct unmanifested dharma exists, our own tenet likewise calls this same continuum "unmanifested bodily and verbal karma-path." The Venerable states: within the five aggregates of appropriation, it is by the arising of volition across three distinct times that one is touched by the fault of killing — namely, "I shall kill," "I am now killing," and "I have killed." It is not the case that the karma-path is completed merely by this alone — otherwise, someone who merely believes their own mother has been killed, when she has not actually been harmed at all, would incur the offense of immediate retribution simply by thinking "I have already killed her." Rather, it is with respect to an unintentional killing one has actually brought about oneself that arising such a thought touches one with the fault of killing. If one follows this account, it is not unreasonable — so why, then, harbor such particular hostility toward unmanifested karma, insisting on denying it outright, while granting this very same account of a subtle, perfuming, gradually transforming and differentiating continuum? Yet both accounts are, in truth, equally difficult to fully comprehend. Here, we harbor no hostility toward either; rather, we grant that a karma-path is a kind of mental phenomenon. What we cannot accept with any satisfaction is the tenet that, at the moment a bodily undertaking reaches completion, a distinct unmanifested dharma arises within the body of the one who gave the instruction, apart from mind and body altogether. But if, instead, it is this very continuum, brought about by that preparatory action, that transforms and differentiates as it arises at the moment the undertaking reaches completion, then this tenet can indeed be accepted with satisfaction — since it is simply by virtue of the mind's own continuum transforming and differentiating that future results can be produced.

Moreover, this has already been addressed above. What was already said? Namely, that since manifested karma itself does not exist, how could there be unmanifested karma, and so on. Moreover, as for the statement that the dharma-base is not called formless, this is because there is the invisible, non-resistant matter subsumed under the dharma-base, produced by meditative concentration, as already discussed above. As for the claim that the path would lack eight factors, one should first ask: while actually in the path [of meditative absorption], how could there be right speech, action, and livelihood at all? At this stage, does one utter proper speech, or undertake proper action such as seeking robes, or not? If not, then how does one, by virtue of this, attain this special kind of formless unmanifested factor? Rather, it is that after emerging from meditative absorption, by the power of what came before, one is able to give rise to the three "right" factors and not give rise to the three "wrong" ones — since it is by conventionally applying the name of the effect to the cause that the names "right speech," "right action," and "right livelihood" are established with respect to what precedes them. [Objection:] If this is so, why not simply accept this same principle [for unmanifested karma generally]? [Reply:] Although there is no unmanifested karma, while in the path one attains just such a supporting disposition of intention, so that, after emerging from absorption, by the power of what came before, one is able to give rise to the three "right" factors and not give rise to the three "wrong" ones. Because the name of the effect is conventionally applied to the cause, the eight noble path-factors can accordingly be fully established. Other teachers say: what is meant by these path-factors is simply the non-performance of wrong speech and the like — that is, while in meditative absorption, by the power of the noble path, one attains a firm determination not to act wrongly. This determined non-action is established with reference to the formless path, and hence is called formless; it is not the case that, in every instance, a name or enumeration must be established only with reference to some really-existing, distinct dharma. It is just like the "eight worldly dharmas" — gain, loss, disrepute, renown, praise, blame, suffering, and happiness — where, for instance, "not gaining clothing or food" and the like does not require any distinct real substance of its own; the same should be understood to hold here as well.

The vow of individual liberation should likewise be understood according to this same principle: it is by the power of aspiration and intention, having earlier established a firm resolve, that one is able to reliably guard against bodily and verbal misconduct — and it is by virtue of this that the vow of individual liberation is established. If one objects that, once a mind directed toward some other object has arisen, there should then be no precept-observance remaining, this objection is not sound, since, by the power of the earlier perfuming, the very moment an impulse toward transgression is about to arise, memory arises and it is thereby halted. The meaning of the precept as an "embankment" should likewise be understood according to this same principle: having earlier established a firm vow not to commit wrongdoing, one is later restrained by the repeated arising of memory and a sense of shame and conscience, which enables one to hold oneself in check and not violate the precept. Hence the meaning of "embankment" is sustained by the mind itself; if it were unmanifested karma that held back the violation of precepts, there should be no one who ever broke a precept through a mere lapse of memory. Let us set aside, then, these many points of dispute. The Vaibhāṣika school states: there truly exists a real thing called unmanifested matter — this is our own school's tenet.

It was stated earlier that unmanifested karma has the four great elements as what constructs it — is it constructed by the same great elements as manifested karma, or is there a difference? Verse: the great elements that construct this [unmanifested karma] differ from those that manifested karma depends on. Prose: unmanifested karma arises from great elements different from those of manifested karma. Why is this so? Because it is unreasonable for a single, unified combination [of great elements] to produce both a subtle and a coarse effect at once. Just as manifested karma necessarily arises together, at the same time, with its [own] great elements, so too does unmanifested karma — the difference lies only in this [which great elements each depends on]. All constructed matter, for the most part, arises together with the great elements at the very same time; yet, with respect to the present and future, there is also a small portion that depends on past [great elements].

Verse: unmanifested karma bound to the desire realm, from the moment after its first instant onward, arises depending on past great elements. Prose: it is only in the case of unmanifested karma bound to the desire realm that, after its very first instant, it arises from past great elements — the present body's great elements serve merely as its ongoing support, functioning as the condition for what proceeds and what follows in due sequence, just as a wheel rolls upon the ground, or a hand depends upon the ground [or surface it rests against] to move. Which realm's bodily and verbal karma is constructed by which realm's great elements? Verse: contaminated karma depends on its own realm; uncontaminated karma follows the place of birth. Prose: bodily and verbal karma bound to the desire realm is constructed only by great elements bound to the desire realm; and so on, up through bodily and verbal karma at the level of the fourth meditative absorption, which is constructed only by that same level's great elements. If bodily and verbal karma is uncontaminated, then, wherever one is born into this realm, it should arise manifestly there, constructed precisely by that realm's great elements — since uncontaminated dharmas do not fall within the exclusive domain of any one realm, since there is certainly no such thing as an uncontaminated great element in itself, and since the uncontaminated quality [of such karma] arises through the power of what it depends upon.

What kind of category do manifested and unmanifested karma each belong to? And what kind of great elements construct each of them? Verse: unmanifested karma has no graspable physical basis, and belongs only to sentient beings, and is a natural outflow; ordinary [desire-realm] unmanifested karma depends on distinct great elements for [each of] its seven [bodily and verbal branches] that have a graspable-physical-basis quality; meditation-produced unmanifested karma is nourished by [meditative] cultivation, has no graspable physical basis, and has no distinct great elements [across its branches]; manifested karma is only a natural outflow, and, belonging to the body, has a graspable physical basis. Prose: in this verse, first, unmanifested karma is explained as having no graspable physical basis, since it undergoes no alteration or obstruction. It is also [called] a natural outflow — though the word "also" indicates that there is a momentary exception, namely, its very first, uncontaminated instant [of arising]; apart from this, all the rest is of the nature of a natural outflow, meaning it arises from a cause of the same general kind. This [unmanifested karma] belongs only to sentient beings, since it arises through an internally-based process. Among these, unmanifested karma belonging to the desire realm is a natural outflow, has a graspable-physical-basis quality, and arises from distinct great elements. "Arises from distinct great elements" indicates that each of the seven branches of bodily and verbal [unmanifested karma] is constructed by its own separate great elements. Meditation-produced unmanifested karma divides into two kinds: the discipline of the meditative absorptions, and uncontaminated discipline. Both of these are nourished by [the power of] meditative concentration, lack a graspable physical basis, and are not produced from distinct great elements. "Not from distinct great elements" indicates that these seven branches of unmanifested karma are all produced together from a single, shared set of the four great elements. Why is this so? Because the great elements they depend on, like the single mind [supporting them], are themselves undifferentiated. One should understand that manifested karma is only of the nature of a natural outflow; if it belongs to the body, it has a graspable physical basis; in every other respect, its meaning is the same as that of ordinary [desire-realm] unmanifested karma.

[Question:] When manifested karma arises, must it necessarily break apart the body's original shape, or not? If so, what fault would follow either way? If it does break apart the original shape, then ripened matter [which is supposed to continue without interruption] would be cut off and would then have to resume again afterward — but this would contradict the Vaibhāṣika school's own tenet. If it does not break apart the original shape, how could one and the same bodily location come to have two shapes both established there at once? [Reply:] There is a distinct, newly-arisen set of great elements of the natural-outflow type, which constructs manifested karma without breaking apart the original body. [Objection:] If this is so, then wherever, in whatever part of the body, manifested karma arises, that part should become larger than it originally was, since the newly-arisen great elements would be adding to it everywhere they occur. [Reply:] If they did not spread and add to it everywhere, how could manifested karma arise pervasively throughout [the relevant part]? [Further reply:] The body has pores and interstices, and so it is able to accommodate both [the old and the new matter together, without any overall increase in size].

Having already explained the two-, three-, and five-fold distinctions among the categories of karma, what are the distinctions of moral quality, realm, and level [that apply to karma]? Verse: unmanifested karma is [wholesome or] unwholesome, not neutral; unwholesome karma exists only in the desire realm; unmanifested karma pervades the desire and form realms; manifested karma exists only in the two levels that have investigation; the desire realm has no defiled-neutral manifested karma, since it lacks the mental state that initiates it. Prose: unmanifested karma is only ever wholesome or unwholesome in nature; there is no morally neutral unmanifested karma. Why is this so? Because a morally neutral mind's force is too weak and feeble to give rise to a strong enough karmic force to bring about an effect that continues on even once its cause has ceased. By "the rest," manifested karma and volition are meant. These three [volition, manifested karma, and unmanifested karma taken generally] can each be wholesome, evil, or neutral — except that, among these, unwholesome karma exists only in the desire realm and nowhere else, since [beings in higher realms] have already eliminated the unwholesome roots, having neither shamelessness nor lack of conscience. Wholesome and neutral karma exist at every level, since the verse does not specifically exclude them anywhere. Both the desire and form realms have unmanifested karma, since the formless realm has no great elements at all. Wherever bodily and verbal action occurs, only there can there be a corresponding vow of bodily and verbal restraint. [Objection:] If this is so, then a being born in the desire or form realm who enters formless absorption ought to retain such a vow, just as one who gives rise to an uncontaminated mind has uncontaminated unmanifested karma [even without ordinary great elements to depend on]. [Reply:] This is not so, because that [formless-realm case] does not fall within [the domain of] any realm [the way contaminated things do]. If there were unmanifested karma in the formless realm, it would have to be unmanifested karma not produced from great elements — yet one cannot say that contaminated unmanifested karma depends on the great elements of some other, unrelated realm or level. Moreover, entering formless absorption specifically means turning away from all form altogether, and so, within that absorption, form cannot be generated, since that very absorption involves suppressing the perception of form. The Vaibhāṣika explain it this way: precepts (śīla) arise specifically as a counter-agent to bad conduct, and bad conduct exists only in the desire realm; the formless realm is, relative to the desire realm, distant in four respects — distant in its basis, distant in its mode of activity, distant in its object, and distant in its counter-agent — and hence the formless realm has no unmanifested matter at all.

Manifested karma exists only at the two levels that possess investigative thought — that is, spanning the desire realm and the first meditative absorption; one cannot speak of manifested karma existing at any level above these. Defiled, morally neutral manifested karma certainly does not exist in the desire realm; it can only be said to exist within the Brahmā world. It has been heard that Mahābrahmā once spoke with deceptive flattery — namely, that, within his own assembly, in order to avoid a question posed by Aśvajit [Mahānāma, here rendered by his traditional epithet "Horse-Victor"], he falsely praised himself, and so on. Since higher levels have no speech, how could there be a sound sense-base there at all? [Reply:] There are external great elements that serve as the cause producing sound [there]. Other teachers say: the second through fourth meditative absorptions also possess a morally neutral, "not-covered" kind of manifested karma, though they have neither wholesome nor defiled manifested karma. Why is this so? Because one born at a higher level cannot give rise to the inferior wholesome or defiled mental states of a lower level so as to produce bodily or verbal manifestation there, since such states are too weak, and have already been abandoned. The previously stated position is held to be sound.

[Question:] Given that the desire realm has no defiled-neutral manifested karma, is it only by way of what initiates it that dharmas come to have a wholesome or unwholesome nature and so forth? [Reply:] It is not so. [Question:] How, then? [Reply:] Wholesome nature and the like are established by four causes: first, by ultimate reality; second, by intrinsic nature; third, by association; fourth, by initiation. Which dharma has which nature by which cause? Verse: wholesome by ultimate reality is liberation; wholesome by intrinsic nature is shame, conscience, and the [wholesome] roots; wholesome by association is what is associated with these; wholesome by initiation is matter, karma, and the like; reversing this gives "unwholesome"; the remaining case is the two constant neutrals. Prose: wholesome by ultimate reality means true liberation, since, within nirvāṇa, there is the most complete security, with all forms of suffering eternally stilled, just like being free of illness. Wholesome by intrinsic nature means shame, conscience, and the [wholesome] roots, since, among conditioned dharmas, only shame, conscience, and the three wholesome roots [non-greed, non-hatred, non-delusion] are wholesome in their own essential nature, without depending on association or on anything else that initiates them — like an inherently effective medicine. Wholesome by association means whatever is associated with these, since a mind or mental factor becomes wholesome in nature only by being associated with shame, conscience, and the wholesome roots; if not associated with these, its wholesome nature does not come about — like water mixed with medicine. Wholesome by initiation means bodily and verbal karma, a non-associated formation, since it is initiated by what is wholesome by intrinsic nature or by association — like medicine-infused liquid that, in turn, gives rise to milk [with medicinal properties, in a nursing infant]. [Objection:] But if it is initiated by a different kind of mental state, how could it become wholesome? [Reply:] This point should be carefully considered. As has been explained for the four distinctions of wholesome nature, the four distinctions of unwholesome nature are the reverse of these. How are they the reverse? Unwholesome by ultimate reality means the dharmas of saṃsāra, since, within saṃsāra, all dharmas have suffering as their essential nature, being extremely insecure, just like a chronic illness. Unwholesome by intrinsic nature means the absence of shame and conscience and the three unwholesome roots, since, among contaminated dharmas, only the absence of shame and conscience, together with greed, hatred, and the three unwholesome roots, are unwholesome in their own essential nature, without depending on association or anything else that initiates them — like a poison. Unwholesome by association means whatever is associated with these, since a mind or mental factor becomes unwholesome in nature only by being associated with the absence of shame and conscience and the unwholesome roots; otherwise, it does not — like water mixed with poison. Unwholesome by initiation means bodily and verbal karma, a non-associated formation, since it is initiated by what is unwholesome by intrinsic nature or by association — like poisoned liquid that, in turn, gives rise to [tainted] milk. [Objection:] If this is so, then no contaminated dharma at all could be morally neutral or wholesome, since all of them would be subsumed under saṃsāra. [Reply:] With respect to ultimate reality, this is indeed exactly as stated; but here, the discussion is framed in terms of karmic ripening specifically. Among contaminated dharmas, those that are incapable of yielding a ripened result are given the name "neutral," while, among these, those capable of yielding a desirable ripened result are called "wholesome" — hence there is no fault here. Neutral by ultimate reality refers to the two unconditioned dharmas, since empty space and cessation-not-through-discernment are, by their nature, purely neutral, with no other possible category for them.

[Objection:] If the power of what initiates a thing makes bodily and verbal karma become wholesome or unwholesome, then this same reasoning should also apply to the great elements. [Reply:] This is because what the actor's mind originally intends to set in motion is the karmic action, not the four great elements — hence the parallel does not hold. [Further objection:] If this is so, then unmanifested karma that continues moment by moment while in meditative concentration is neither produced by the deliberate mental application occurring precisely while settling into concentration, nor initiated by the preparatory effort of an ordinary, undistracted mind, since it does not belong to either of these same categories — how, then, does it come to be wholesome? Or, similarly, how do the divine eye and divine ear come to be of a wholesome nature? With respect to this point, considerable effort should be devoted. As stated above, an affliction abandoned through seeing [the truths] operates too inwardly, absorbed in its own object, and therefore cannot give rise to manifested karma. [Objection:] If this is so, then for what reason does a sūtra state that, by virtue of wrong view, wrong thought, wrong speech, wrong action, and wrong livelihood arise? [Reply:] This is not actually a contradiction. Why is this so? [The answer follows in the next verse.]

Verse: initiation is of two kinds — causal, and that of the [present] instant; these should be understood, in order, as "causal-initiating" and "momentary-initiating." Afflictions abandoned through seeing [the truths] are only causal-initiating; the five [sense-]consciousnesses are only momentary-initiating; mental consciousness abandoned through cultivation is both; uncontaminated and ripened-arising [consciousness] are neither. Prose: manifested and unmanifested karma's initiation is of two kinds — causal initiation and momentary initiation — since the former exists earlier as a cause, and the latter exists at that very instant [of action]. In order, the first is called "causal-initiating," the second "momentary-initiating." That is, causal initiation, at the time one is about to perform an action, has the capacity to draw it forth, and so is called causal-initiating. Momentary initiation, at the very moment the action is actually performed, is inseparable from it, and so is called momentary-initiating. [Question:] What function does momentary initiation serve with respect to the action? [Reply:] Although there is an earlier cause capable of drawing the action forth, if there were no momentary initiation, the action would be like a dead thing, lacking [present force]. [Objection:] If so, how could one without any mind [i.e., in a mindless state] give rise to precepts? [Reply:] For those who do have mind present, the arising of the action is clear and distinct, and so a momentarily-initiating mind does have a function with respect to the action [in the ordinary case]. Consciousness abandoned through seeing [the truths], with respect to giving rise to manifested karma, can only ever be causal-initiating; with respect to the investigative and deliberative process that gives rise to manifested karma, it serves as a supporting condition, but not as momentary initiation, since it is not present at the very moment an outwardly-directed mind actually gives rise to the action. Moreover, if [an affliction] abandoned through seeing gave rise to manifested matter, this matter would then have to be [classified as] abandoned through seeing as well. [Objection:] If one grants that it is abandoned-through-seeing, what fault would follow? [Reply:] This would contradict the Abhidharma, and would also mean that knowledge and ignorance are not mutually opposed [after all, since both would produce the very same kind of matter]. That contaminated karmic matter is not abandoned through seeing must therefore be established all the more firmly on this basis. [Objection:] If this is so, then the great elements too should be abandoned through seeing, since they likewise arise through the power of a mind abandoned through seeing. [Reply:] There is no such fault, just as [the great elements] are neither wholesome nor unwholesome [despite arising from a wholesome or unwholesome mind]. [Alternative reply:] Or, one might even grant this point, and there would still be no contradiction in doing so. [Further reply:] One should not grant this, however, since the great elements are, without exception, neither abandoned-through-seeing nor abandoned-through-anything-else, because undefiled dharmas of every kind are never in contradiction with either knowledge or ignorance. That sūtra [cited earlier] speaks only with reference to prior causal initiation, and so there is no contradiction. As for the fivefold group of [sense-]consciousnesses, since they lack discriminative deliberation and arise only outwardly-directed, they serve only as momentary initiation. Mental consciousness abandoned through cultivation is capable of both, since it has discriminative deliberation and arises outwardly-directed as well. All uncontaminated and morally-neutral ripened-arising states of mind are neither causal-initiating nor momentary-initiating, since they occur only within meditative concentration [in the former case] or arise spontaneously, not through deliberate effort [in the latter]. In this way, four distinct combinations result: there is causal-initiating without momentary-initiating — namely, consciousness abandoned through seeing; there is momentary-initiating without causal-initiating — namely, the eye and the other [four sense-]consciousnesses; there is both causal- and momentary-initiating — namely, mental consciousness of the three moral qualities that is abandoned through cultivation; and there is neither — namely, all uncontaminated and ripened-arising states of mind.

Must a causal-initiating mind and its momentary-initiating mind necessarily be of the same moral quality? This is not fixed. How is this so? If the preceding causal-initiating mind is wholesome, the following momentary-initiating consciousness may be wholesome, unwholesome, or neutral; the same holds for an unwholesome or a neutral causal-initiating mind. Only in the case of the Sage, the Blessed One, are the causal-initiating and momentary-initiating consciousnesses mostly of matching quality, with only a small number of exceptions — that is, if the causal-initiating mind is wholesome, the momentary-initiating mind is also wholesome, and if the causal-initiating mind is neutral, the momentary-initiating mind is likewise so. Yet there are, at times, cases where a wholesome causal mind is followed by a neutral momentary-initiating mind, though there is never a case of a neutral causal mind being followed by a wholesome momentary-initiating mind. This is because, while the Buddha, the Blessed One, is teaching Dharma and engaged in similar activities, his mind either continues to grow, and never withers away. Certain other schools hold: since Buddhas, the Blessed Ones, are constantly in meditative absorption, their minds are only ever wholesome, and there is no neutral mind at all. Hence a sūtra states: "The Nāga walks in meditation; the Nāga stands in meditation; the Nāga sits in meditation; the Nāga lies down in meditation." The Vaibhāṣika explain it this way: this shows that the Buddha's intention, if he does not wish for a distracted mind, is such that he can remain constantly in meditative absorption throughout all four bodily postures — yet, at other times, it is not the case that he lacks ordinary deportment, or that a neutral, ripened-arising, universally-effective mind does not also arise in him.

Does manifested karma come to have a wholesome or other moral quality following the pattern of the causal-initiating mind, or that of the momentary-initiating mind? Suppose either is the case — what fault would follow? If it follows the causal-initiating mind, then the desire realm should have defiled-neutral manifested karma after all, since the view of a [real, substantial] self and extreme views are capable of serving as causal initiation. Or, one might attempt to make a further distinction — that not every kind of consciousness abandoned through seeing is capable of causal initiation — yet if manifested karma instead follows the momentary-initiating mind, then an unwholesome or neutral mind occurring together with the manifestation of the vow of individual liberation ought to make that manifested karma fail to be wholesome. With respect to this difficulty, considerable effort should be devoted. One should say: manifested karma comes to have a wholesome or other moral quality following the causal-initiating mind — but not that causal-initiating mind which is itself abandoned through seeing, since a causal-initiating mind abandoned through cultivation always intervenes in between. If manifested karma did not come to have a wholesome or other moral quality through the power of the momentary-initiating mind, then it would be incorrect to have said that the sūtra [cited earlier] speaks only with reference to prior causal initiation, not with reference to the [present] instant, so that the desire realm certainly has no defiled-neutral manifested karma. Rather, one should say instead: that sūtra speaks only with reference to a causal initiation with some other mind intervening in between — hence, although consciousness abandoned through seeing can serve as causal initiation, the desire realm still certainly has no defiled-neutral manifested karma. Abhidharmakośa, Fascicle Thirteen [ends here].