What Restraint Is Obtained From

Does obtaining one of these three restraints — the restraint of individual liberation, meditative restraint, and uncontaminated restraint — also bring about obtaining the other two? It does not. How is this so? Verse: desire-realm restraint is obtained from all, from two, and from the present; meditative and uncontaminated restraint are obtained from the root [karma-path alone], across all three times. Prose: desire-realm restraint refers to the restraint of individual liberation; this is obtained from every root karma-path, together with its preparatory and follow-up actions. "Obtained from two" means obtained with respect to two categories: sentient and non-sentient, and root offenses and proscribed offenses. "Obtained from the present" means it is obtained with respect to the present aggregates, sense-bases, and elements, not the past or future, since this restraint operates within the domain of sentient beings, and the past and future are not themselves such a domain. As for obtaining meditative and uncontaminated restraint, one should understand that this is only from the root karma-path — it is not even obtained from its preparatory or follow-up actions, let alone from proscribed offenses. "Across all times" means it is obtained with respect to the aggregates, sense-bases, and elements of the past, present, and future alike.

By virtue of this distinction, one should set out four cases: there are aggregates, sense-bases, and elements from which one obtains only the restraint of individual liberation and not the other two, and so on. The first case is present-tense preparatory and follow-up actions, together with all proscribed offenses. The second case is past or future root karma-paths. The third case is present-tense root karma-paths. The fourth case is past or future preparatory and follow-up actions. It cannot be that, at the very moment one is properly obtaining a wholesome restraint, a present-tense unwholesome karma-path [that restraint is meant to prevent] already exists — hence, though it is said to be "obtained from the present," in principle one should only speak of it as guarding the future; one should certainly not say that it guards the past or the present.

For those who obtain restraint or non-restraint, is there a difference with respect to all sentient beings, the branches, and the causes? There is certainly a difference. What is its character? Verse: restraint is obtained from all sentient beings, but its branches and causes are not fixed; non-restraint is obtained from all sentient beings and all branches, but not [necessarily all] causes. Prose: restraint is certainly obtained with respect to all sentient beings; there is no possibility of a partial case. Its branches and causes, however, are not fixed. As for the branches not being fixed: some restraint is obtained with respect to all [precept-branches] — namely, the bhikṣu restraint; some is obtained with respect to only four branches — namely, the remaining restraints — since it is only the root karma-path that is called a "restraint-branch." As for the causes not being fixed: in one sense, restraint may be obtained from all causes at once; in another sense, it may be obtained from only one. "From all" means from non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion, since these necessarily arise together. "From only one" means from a lower, middling, or superior mind, since these do not arise together — this is stated here specifically with reference to these latter three causes. There is one kind of person abiding in restraint who obtains restraint with respect to all sentient beings, but not with respect to all branches nor all causes — namely, one who receives the upāsaka or śrāmaṇera precept with a lower, middling, or superior mind. There is another kind who obtains restraint with respect to all sentient beings, by way of all branches but not all causes — namely, one who receives the bhikṣu precept with a lower, middling, or superior mind. There is another kind who obtains restraint with respect to all sentient beings, by way of all branches and all causes — namely, one who receives the upāsaka, śrāmaṇera, and bhikṣu precepts using all three [grades of] mind. There is another kind who obtains restraint with respect to all sentient beings, by way of all causes but not all branches — namely, one who receives the upāsaka, upavāsa, and śrāmaṇera precepts using all three [grades of] mind. There is no case of obtaining restraint that does not pervade all sentient beings, since restraint is obtained only by abiding in a superior, wholesome disposition toward all sentient beings without exception; otherwise, it is not obtained, since a harmful disposition [toward the excluded beings] would not have been entirely stilled.

Only if a person does not impose any of five kinds of fixed limits can they properly receive the restraint of individual liberation — namely, limits with respect to beings, branches, places, times, and circumstances. A limit with respect to beings means thinking, "I shall abstain from killing and the like only with respect to such-and-such class of beings." A limit with respect to branches means thinking, "I shall only uphold and not transgress such-and-such restraint-branch." A limit with respect to places means thinking, "I shall abstain from killing and the like only while residing in such-and-such region." A limit with respect to times means thinking, "I shall be able to abstain from killing and the like only for the duration of one month," and so on. A limit with respect to circumstances means thinking, "I shall be able to abstain from killing and the like except under circumstances such as warfare." One who receives the precept in any of these ways does not obtain restraint, but only obtains virtuous conduct that merely resembles restraint. [Question:] With respect to an object outside one's own power, how could restraint be obtained? [Reply:] It is obtained through generating a supreme disposition, universally extended to all sentient beings, of not wishing to harm life — this is how restraint is obtained.

The Vaibhāṣika offer this account: if one held that the restraint of individual liberation could only be received with respect to reachable objects, then this restraint would have to increase and decrease, since beings constantly shift between the two categories of reachable and unreachable — and this would incur the fault of the restraint of individual liberation being gained and lost apart from any actual condition of gaining or relinquishing it. [Response:] This is not so. Just as sprouting grass that did not exist before, or that has arisen and then withered, causes neither increase nor decrease in restraint already obtained with respect to it, restraint obtained with respect to reachable and unreachable objects should likewise be understood, when such objects shift, in just the same way. [Objection:] This is not comparable. Why is this so? Because sentient beings' earlier and later natures, and grass's earlier and later natures, are not alike. [Further objection:] If this is so, then once a being has attained final nirvāṇa, and their prior mode of existence no longer exists at present, how could this cause no decrease in restraint with respect to them? [Reply:] Hence such an explanation is not sound in principle; the reason stated earlier remains the sound one. [Objection:] If this is so, then, with respect to a former buddha and the beings he liberated who have already attained final nirvāṇa, a later buddha does not generate the restraint of individual liberation toward them — so how could there be no decrease in the later buddha's śīla compared to the former? [Reply:] This is because every buddha's restraint of individual liberation is obtained with respect to sentient beings in general; even supposing that being still existed, the later buddha would likewise obtain restraint with respect to them — hence there is no fault of the later śīla being diminished relative to the former.

We have already discussed how these restraints are obtained. Non-restraint is certainly obtained with respect to all sentient beings and all karma-path branches; there is no case of non-restraint covering only a partial object or lacking complete branches. This is certainly so, because a lower-grade mind and the others [middling, superior] never arise together as causes all at once. If there is a person who obtains non-restraint through a lower-grade mind, and, on some later occasion, kills a sentient being through a superior-grade mind, that person still only possesses the lower-grade non-restraint as their basic condition, while also having accomplished a superior-grade manifested killing act on that particular occasion. The same should be understood, by analogy, for middling- and superior-grade cases. What, in this context, is meant by "living in non-restraint"? It refers to those who slaughter sheep, slaughter chickens, slaughter pigs, catch birds, catch fish, hunt beasts, rob and steal, act as executioners, oversee prisons, bind serpents, boil dogs, and set traps, and so on. The word "and so on" is meant to include kings who administer corporal punishment and others engaged in hearing cases and pronouncing judgment, so long as they constantly harbor a mind bent on harm. One earns the name "non-restraint" by belonging, as one of this class, to a settled state of non-restraint. As for what makes a "sheep-butcher" specifically earn the name "non-restraint": it refers to one who, for the sake of their livelihood, has committed with a fixed resolve, for their entire remaining life, to a constant wish to kill sheep. The rest, as appropriate, should be understood in just the same way.

That restraint is obtained universally with respect to the realm of sentient beings makes sense, since it is received by virtue of a supreme disposition wishing benefit and happiness for all universally. [Objection:] But a person living in the non-restraint of, say, a sheep-butcher, harbors no intention to harm their own closest kin, and would not wish to kill even to save their own life — how, then, can it be said that they obtain non-restraint universally with respect to all beings? [Reply:] Because, were that close relative to become a sheep or the like, there could indeed be a harmful intention toward them as well. [Objection:] But since one knows one's close relative is not presently a sheep or the like, how could there be a harmful intention toward them [now]? Moreover, a noble one could certainly never become a sheep or the like — so how could non-restraint be obtained with respect to them? [Reply, offering one possible resolution:] If one considers the future embodiment of that sheep and the like, non-restraint is obtained with respect to it within the present continuum. [Objection to this resolution:] But then a sheep and the like, in some future life, would also have close relatives and noble beings among them, toward whom there could certainly be no harmful intention — so, by this logic, one would have to consider a future embodiment [in every direction], and non-restraint would not, in fact, be obtained in the present at all. [Further pressing the point:] Since there is indeed harmful intent toward the present body of an actual sheep, how could non-restraint fail to be obtained with respect to it? And since there is no harmful intent toward the present body of one's mother and the like, how could non-restraint also be obtained with respect to them? A different resolution should be sought for these parallel cases.

Moreover, a person living in the non-restraint of a sheep-butcher who, throughout a single lifetime, never takes what is not given, remains content with their own spouse, and, being mute and unable to speak, commits none of the four faults of speech — how could such a person still obtain complete non-restraint across all its branches? [Reply:] Because they have thoroughly ruined their wholesome disposition across the board. Although mute and unable to speak, the bodily gesture corresponding to whatever meaning they would wish to express through speech is still present, and hence the branches are obtained in full. [Objection:] If this is so, then such a person might, at some point, first receive two or three training-points, and only later take up killing alone, without having ruined their wholesome disposition with respect to the remaining branches — how, then, could the complete sevenfold bad precept be generated? The Vaibhāṣika state: there is certainly no such thing as a person "living in non-restraint" who is missing branches or possesses only a partial portion. The Sautrāntika masters state: in accordance with whatever limit was actually committed to, whether the branches are complete or incomplete, and whether the full scope or only a partial scope, non-restraint is obtained accordingly. The same holds for restraint as well, except for the eightfold [upavāsa] precept, since its wholesome or unwholesome character, matched to its own fixed measure, is mutually exclusive and blocks the other from arising.

We have discussed how non-restraint is obtained from this. As for how non-restraint and other unmanifested karma are obtained by what means, this has not yet been discussed and should now be explained. Verse: non-restraint is obtained through performance or through vowed reception; other unmanifested karma is obtained through a field, through a [formal] undertaking, or through solemn conduct. Prose: non-restraint is obtained through two causes. First, being born into a family of non-restraint, through the initial actual performance of preparatory actions leading to killing and the like. Second, even when born into some other family, through initially making a firm commitment to undertake matters such as killing — thinking, "I shall engage in such-and-such an undertaking, in order to seek wealth and sustain my own life" — at which very moment the bad precept-vow is generated. Other unmanifested karma is obtained through three causes. First, through a field — meaning that, with respect to a worthy field of merit to whom a garden, grove, or the like is given, wholesome unmanifested karma arises the very instant the gift is given, as already discussed with respect to meritorious deeds having a support. Second, through a formal undertaking — meaning making a personal vow, such as, "I shall not eat before first paying homage to the Buddha," or establishing a fixed commitment, such as regularly providing food offerings on fast days, half-month intervals, and annual occasions. Third, through solemn conduct — meaning giving rise to earnest, solemn intention in carrying out wholesome or unwholesome conduct. These three causes give rise to this other kind of unmanifested karma.

We have discussed how restraint and the others are obtained; how they are relinquished has not yet been discussed, and should now be explained. First, how is the restraint of individual liberation relinquished? Verse: "taming" [restraint] of individual liberation is relinquished through deliberate renunciation, death, the simultaneous arising of both sexual characteristics, the severing of wholesome roots, and, [for upavāsa alone,] the passing of the night. Prose: the word "taming" is meant to indicate restraint, since restraint is able to bring the [sense] faculties under control. Except for the upavāsa precept, the remaining seven kinds of restraint of individual liberation are relinquished through four causes: first, through generating a manifested verbal act, in the presence of someone capable of understanding, that renounces the training-points, in accordance with one's own intention; second, through discarding one's present class of existence [i.e., dying]; third, through the simultaneous arising of both sexual characteristics; fourth, through the severing of the wholesome roots on which the restraint depends. The upavāsa precept is relinquished through these same four causes, plus the passing of the night — hence, taken as a whole, the restraint of individual liberation is said to be relinquished through five causes. For what reason is the precept relinquished through these five causes? Because a manifested act contrary to the act of reception arises; because the physical basis [the restraint] depends on is discarded; because that basis is altered; because the cause [the restraint] depends on is severed; and because the fixed time-limit has elapsed.

Other schools say: committing even one of the four extremely grave offenses that incur expulsion also causes the śrāmaṇera or bhikṣu restraint to be relinquished. Other schools say: the disappearance of the true Dharma is also able to cause the restraint of individual liberation to be relinquished, since, once the Dharma has disappeared, all training-points, bounded territories, formal procedures, and the like entirely cease to function. The Vaibhāṣika of Kashmir say: committing a root offense does not cause the restraint to be relinquished — if it did, then the biweekly recitation of the precepts should not state that a bhikṣu who has committed a root offense should receive the remaining restraints anew. Committing a root offense is like a debt being relinquished: although the debt is relinquished, when the debtor later has the means to repay it, there is no need to newly re-establish the earlier debt. In just this way, although a bhikṣu has committed a grave offense, the restraint remains; if they properly confess before the saṅgha in accordance with the proper method, the earlier transgression is thereby removed, without newly receiving the precept.

[Objection:] If this is so, then for what reason does the Blessed One state that one who commits one of the four grave offenses is not called a bhikṣu, not called a śramaṇa, and is not a son of the Śākyas? He destroys the substance of a bhikṣu, injures the nature of a śramaṇa, is ruined and fallen, and is given the name "one defeated" — this is said with hidden intent, referring to a bhikṣu in the ultimate sense. [Response:] This statement is reckless. What makes it reckless? It takes the Blessed One's own definitive, literal teaching and, through a different interpretation, renders it non-literal, thereby providing an occasion for those with many afflictions to commit grave offenses. [Question:] How is it known that this statement is meant literally? [Reply:] Because the Vinaya itself explains that there are four kinds of bhikṣu: first, a bhikṣu in name only; second, one who merely calls himself a bhikṣu; third, a "beggar" bhikṣu; fourth, a bhikṣu who has destroyed the afflictions. In this context, "not a bhikṣu" means not a bhikṣu in the sense of one who has received the full precept through the formal white-and-fourfold procedure — this person, who was formerly this kind of bhikṣu, later becomes not this kind of bhikṣu through committing a grave offense; hence it is known that this statement is meant literally. As for the claim that non-restraint from one particular grave offense should not require relinquishing every restraint entirely — this claim is itself a challenge to the Teacher's own words. The Teacher himself gave this simile here: just as a palm tree, once its crown has been severed, can never again grow tall and flourish, so too is it with monastics who commit a grave offense. What does the Teacher's simile here mean to show? It means to show that, upon violating even one root, grave offense within the precepts, the rest of what was received can never again grow and flourish. That is, at the moment such grave offenses are violated, one transgresses the very root conduct of a bhikṣu, and this is bound up with an extremely intense lack of shame and conscience. Since the very root of conduct is thereby severed, it stands to reason that every restraint should be relinquished across the board.

Moreover, one who has committed a grave offense is not permitted by the Blessed One to eat so much as a single mouthful of communal monastic food, or to set even one heel upon monastery grounds, and is expelled from every monastic function. The Teacher, with reference to such a person, says: one should swiftly uproot the weeds among the rice; one should swiftly discard rotten roof-beams; one should swiftly winnow away the chaff among the grain; in just this way, one should swiftly expel from the assembly those who, though called bhikṣus, are in truth not bhikṣus at all. What, then, is the character of that [remaining] bhikṣu-nature, whatever characteristic it retains, that must still be present? For the Blessed One states: "Cunda, you should know there are four kinds of śramaṇa, and no fifth." What are the four? First, the śramaṇa who has attained the path; second, the śramaṇa who points out the path; third, the śramaṇa who lives by the path's outward form; fourth, the śramaṇa who corrupts the path. Although this is stated, such a person retains only the remaining outward characteristic of a śramaṇa, and is thus still called a śramaṇa — like charred wood, an artificial parrot, a dried pond, a spoiled seed, a spinning firebrand, or a corpse. [Objection:] If one who has committed a grave offense were not a bhikṣu, then there should be no such thing as a probationary śaikṣa-bhikṣu. [Reply:] It is not said that committing a grave offense always constitutes the offense of defeat; only when it does constitute the offense of defeat is it definitively said that the person is not a bhikṣu. That is, there may be a person of exceptional continuum who, though committing an extremely grave precept-violation, does not thereby incur the offense of defeat, because they have not concealed it in their mind for even a single moment. This is how the Dharma-Lord, the Blessed One, established it: committing an offense of defeat means one is no longer a bhikṣu. [Question:] Why, then, is such a person not permitted to go forth and receive ordination again? [Reply:] Because their continuum has already become an extremely intense state of shamelessness and lack of conscience, they lack the capacity to generate the restraint of going-forth, like a scorched seed; it is not that they are seen as still possessing bhikṣu-restraint, and this is why they are not permitted to go forth and receive ordination again. Why is this so? Because, even were such a person to later claim to be a bhikṣu and formally relinquish the training, they would still not be permitted to go forth again — there being no point in this, what use would there be in laboring to rescue such a case? If such a person still possessed a bhikṣu-nature, then other bhikṣus ought to pay homage and take refuge in this kind of bhikṣu. At the time the true Dharma disappears, although there is no longer any bounded territory, formal procedure, or Vinaya, there is no possibility of newly obtaining restraint not yet obtained — yet for restraint already obtained, there is no question of it being relinquished.

How are meditative and uncontaminated restraint and the like relinquished? Verse: meditation-born wholesome dharmas are relinquished through changing levels, falling back, and so on; noble ones' [uncontaminated dharmas] are relinquished through attaining a fruit, sharpening the faculties, and falling back. Prose: wholesome dharmas bound to the meditative levels are relinquished through two causes: first, through changing levels — that is, when one rises from a lower level to be born in a higher one, or falls from a higher level to be born in a lower one; second, through falling back — that is, when one regresses from meditative merit already attained. The word "and so on" is meant to indicate that relinquishing one's class of existence also relinquishes a lesser portion of superior wholesome roots, and that, just as wholesome dharmas in the form realm are relinquished through changing levels and falling back, the same holds for the formless realm as well, the only difference being that it lacks restraint, unlike the form realm. Uncontaminated wholesome dharmas are relinquished through three causes: first, through attaining a fruit — that is, upon attaining a fruit, one relinquishes both the preceding path leading toward that fruit and the path of the fruit itself; second, through sharpening the faculties — that is, at the stage of sharpening one's faculties, attaining the sharp-faculty path causes the dull-faculty path to be relinquished; third, through falling back — that is, upon regressing, one loses both the path of the fruit and the superior path built upon the fruit.

Having discussed how restraint is relinquished in this way, how is non-restraint relinquished? Verse: bad precept-vow is relinquished through death, through obtaining restraint, or through the simultaneous arising of both sexual characteristics. Prose: non-restraint is relinquished through three causes. First, through death, since this relinquishes the physical basis it depends on. Second, through obtaining restraint — that is, if one receives the restraint of individual liberation, or attains meditative restraint, the bad precept-vow is thereby relinquished; when restraint is obtained through the power of its causes and conditions, all non-restraint is entirely cut off, since wholesome and unwholesome precept-vows are opposed in nature, and the wholesome precept's force prevails between the two. Third, through the simultaneous arising of both sexual characteristics in one's continuum, since the physical basis is thereby altered at that moment. For one abiding in a bad precept-vow, even if they at some point give rise to the intention not to act and set aside the knife, the net, and the like, if they have not received any wholesome restraint, their non-restraint cannot be said to be relinquished — just as, though one may avoid whatever triggered an illness, without taking the proper medicine, the illness will ultimately be difficult to cure. [Question:] For one living in non-restraint who receives the upavāsa precept, once the point of the night's passing arrives and the restraint is relinquished, does this person then obtain non-restraint again, or should they be called one in the "in-between" state? Some teachers say: they obtain non-restraint again, since the corrupted underlying disposition is not permanently relinquished — like hot iron whose glow dims from red to a duller color [without actually returning to its original state]. Other teachers say: if the person does not act again, there is no cause for them to obtain non-restraint, since non-restraint depends on manifested karma to be obtained.

How, then, is "in-between" unmanifested karma relinquished? Verse: the in-between category is relinquished through the breakdown of intention, force, action, object, lifespan, or wholesome roots. Prose: "in-between" unmanifested karma is relinquished through six causes. First, through the breakdown of the intention behind its reception — that is, relinquishing what one had committed to, thinking, "from this time on, I abandon what I previously committed to." Second, through the breakdown of its underlying force — that is, unmanifested karma drawn forth by the force of pure faith or of affliction is relinquished once that force's own natural limit breaks down, just as a released arrow, or a potter's wheel, comes to a stop once the force of the bowstring or the like is exhausted. Third, through the breakdown of the action itself — that is, no longer performing afterward what one had previously undertaken. Fourth, through the breakdown of the object involved. What is meant by "object"? It refers to a donated monastery building, furnishings, shrine, garden, or grove, as well as equipment set up for wrongdoing, such as traps and nets. Fifth, through the breakdown of one's lifespan — that is, because the physical basis one depends on undergoes change. Sixth, through the breakdown of one's wholesome roots — that is, when one undertakes the deliberate effort of severing one's wholesome roots, this relinquishes the desire realm's non-material wholesome unmanifested karma drawn forth by those wholesome roots, along with every other non-material defiled dharma at the same time.

How, then, is this relinquished? Verse: the desire realm's non-material wholesome dharmas are relinquished through severing the roots or rebirth in a higher realm; non-material defiled dharmas are relinquished through the arising of the antidote-path. Prose: all of the desire realm's non-material wholesome dharmas are relinquished through two causes: first, severing the wholesome roots; second, being reborn into a higher realm. All non-material defiled dharmas across the three realms are relinquished through a single cause: namely, that they arise [as objects to be overcome] specifically through the antidote-path. Whenever this particular class of path capable of severing them arises, the afflictions comprised within it, together with their supporting companions, are relinquished — and by no other means.

Which sentient beings possess wholesome or unwholesome restraint? Verse: bad precept-vow exists only among humans, excluding Uttarakuru, paṇḍakas, and hermaphrodites; restraint exists among these same [humans] and also among gods, but only humans possess all three kinds; among those born in the desire and form-realm heavens, there is meditative restraint, and, together with the formless realm, uncontaminated restraint, excluding the intermediate absorption and the heaven of no-perception. Prose: non-restraint exists only within the human realm, and, even there, only in three of the four continents, excluding Uttarakuru. Within these three continents, it is further excluded for paṇḍakas and those possessing both sexual characteristics. Restraint is the same — that is, among humans, excluding those just excluded, and also existing among gods; hence restraint is possible within these two realms of existence. [Question:] By what means is it known that the continua of paṇḍakas and the like are not a basis for restraint? [Reply:] Because there is clear scriptural and Vinaya evidence for this. A sūtra states, the Buddha addressing Mahānāman: "Any layperson clothed in white whose male faculties are complete, who takes refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Saṅgha with a sincere and pure mind, and, with truthful speech, declares, 'I am an upāsaka' ... to this extent is called an upāsaka." The Vinaya likewise states: "You should exclude this kind of person." Hence it is known that restraint is not possessed by this class of being. [Question:] By what reasoning do they lack restraint? [Reply:] Because the afflictions arising from their dual physical basis operate with intensified force within a single continuum, because they lack the capacity for sound, deliberate reflection, and because they lack an intense sense of shame and conscience. [Objection:] If this is so, why do they also lack non-restraint? [Reply:] Because their minds, even with respect to wrongdoing, are unsettled and inconstant. Moreover, wherever wholesome restraint is possible, unwholesome restraint is possible there as well, since the two are established as mutual opposites. The people of Uttarakuru lack both the capacity for formal reception and for meditative concentration, and lack any superior, totalizing disposition toward wrongdoing; hence they possess neither wholesome nor unwholesome precepts. Intense shame and conscience are absent in the unfortunate destinies; hence restraint and non-restraint are likewise absent there, since restraint and non-restraint exist only where they can be associated with, or opposed to, an intense sense of shame and conscience. Moreover, paṇḍakas and the like are like salty, alkaline soil, and hence cannot generate either wholesome or unwholesome precepts — just as salty, alkaline soil is observed in the world to be incapable of nourishing either fine crops or noxious weeds. [Objection:] If this is so, why does a sūtra speak of an egg-born nāga who, on the eighth day of each half-month, leaves its palace to come among humans and seek to receive the eightfold upavāsa precept? [Reply:] This attains virtuous conduct, not restraint itself. Hence restraint exists only among humans and gods; only humans, however, possess all three kinds. Among gods, there is only meditative and uncontaminated restraint — extending, together with the formless realm, to the remaining heavens, excluding only the heaven of no-perception and the intermediate meditative state.

If one is born in the desire-realm heavens or in the form realm, one may possess meditative restraint; if born in the formless realm, this is certainly not possible. Uncontaminated restraint also exists with respect to the formless realm. That is, if born in the desire-realm heavens or in the form realm, excluding the intermediate absorption and the heaven of no-perception, one may possess uncontaminated restraint; if born in the formless realm, one merely possesses it [as an abstract capacity], since, being formless, it certainly does not manifest in an active, present sense there. Having thus distinguished the different natures and characteristics of these various karmas, we should now explain the various kinds of karma indicated in the sūtras. A sūtra states that karma is of three kinds: wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral. What are their characteristics? Verse: what is secure and what is insecure, and what is neither, are named wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral karma. Prose: these are the characteristics named wholesome and the rest. "Secure" karma is called wholesome, since it is capable of obtaining a desirable ripened result, or nirvāṇa, thereby rescuing beings from suffering, whether temporarily or permanently. "Insecure" karma is called unwholesome, since it brings about an undesirable ripened result, being opposite in nature to the "secure" quality described above. Karma that is neither of the first two is given the name "neutral," since it cannot be classified as either wholesome or unwholesome.

Moreover, a sūtra states that karma is of three kinds: merit, non-merit, and the unmoving. What are their characteristics? Verse: merit, non-merit, and the unmoving — desire-realm wholesome karma is called merit, unwholesome karma is called non-merit, and the upper realms' wholesome karma is called unmoving, with respect to its own level and location, since its karmic result has no movement. Prose: desire-realm wholesome karma is called merit, since it brings about a desirable result that benefits sentient beings. Unwholesome karma is called non-merit, since it brings about an undesirable result that harms sentient beings. Wholesome karma of the two upper realms is called unmoving. [Objection:] Does the Blessed One not state that the lower three meditative absorptions are all called "moving"? [Reply:] The noble ones speak of investigation and analysis present within these as being called "movement" [in that specific sense]. Because the lower three absorptions still have investigation and analysis, since their disturbance has not yet been stilled, they are given the name "moving" [in that sense]; but in the sūtra concerning "the unmoving," the name is given with reference to their capacity to bring about a fixed, unmoving ripened result. [Objection:] How could an absorption that still has movement bring about an unmoving ripened result? [Reply:] Although this absorption still has the disturbance of movement, with respect to how its karma corresponds to its result, it does not shift about the way desire-realm karma does, and hence it is given the name "unmoving." That is, karma belonging to other destinies within the desire realm can, through the power of other conditioning factors, ripen in a different destiny than originally directed — since there is karma capable of bringing about external and internal wealth, status, physical form, strength, pleasure, and the like, which, though it ought to ripen among the gods, is instead redirected by the power of other conditions and ripens among humans instead. Karma belonging to the other levels of the form and formless realms admits of no such redirection to ripen at a different level; since the karma's result and its own level are thus fixed, it is given the name "unmoving."

Moreover, a sūtra states that karma is of three kinds: conducive to pleasant feeling, and so on. What are their characteristics? Verse: conducive to pleasant, painful, and neither: wholesome karma up through the third [absorption] is conducive to pleasant feeling; unwholesome karma is conducive to painful feeling; wholesome karma of the levels above is conducive to neither; other teachers say the lower levels also have this, since the intermediate absorption's karma yields a ripened result. Prose: among wholesome karmas, those from the desire realm up through the third meditative absorption are called conducive to pleasant feeling, since pleasant feelings extend only this far. Unwholesome karmas are called conducive to painful feeling. Wholesome karmas of the levels above the third absorption are called conducive to neither painful nor pleasant feeling, since above this point there is no painful or pleasant feeling at all. These karmas do not bring about only the feeling itself as their result; one should understand that they also bring about that feeling's supporting conditions — both the feeling and its supporting conditions are here called "feeling." Other teachers say: the lower levels also possess a third kind of karma conducive to neither, at the specific stage of the intermediate absorption, since the intermediate absorption's karma yields a ripened result. If this were not so, the intermediate absorption's karma would have no ripened result at all — or else it would not count as karma, since it would have no painful or pleasant ripened result. Other teachers say: this karma is capable of bringing about the pleasure-faculty ripened result belonging to the root level [above it]. Others say: this karma brings about no feeling-result at all. Both of these latter two positions contradict the root treatise. For the root treatise states: "Is there karma that brings about a mental-feeling ripened result but not a bodily one?" Answer: "There is — namely, wholesome, investigation-free karma." The root treatise further states: "Are there three kinds of karma that do not ripen in sequential order relative to one another?" Answer: "There are — namely, karma conducive to pleasant feeling ripening as matter, karma conducive to painful feeling ripening as mind and mental factors, and karma conducive to neither ripening as a non-associated formation," and so on at length. By this, it is confirmed that the lower levels, too, possess karma conducive to neither, since it is not the case that these three karmas ripen simultaneously only outside the desire realm. [Question:] Is this karma wholesome or unwholesome? [Reply:] It is wholesome, though weak.

[Objection:] If this is so, this contradicts what was already said — that wholesome karma up through the third [absorption] is called conducive to pleasant feeling, since obtaining a desirable result is what is called wholesome karma. [Reply:] One should understand that this earlier statement was made with reference to the majority of cases. [Further objection:] Since karma and feeling differ in essential nature, how can karma be called conducive to pleasant feeling and the like? [Reply:] Although karma and pleasant feeling differ in essential nature, karma is nonetheless able to serve as a cause that benefits pleasant feeling. Or, alternatively, this feeling may be understood as what is "received" by the karma. [Objection:] How could that feeling "receive" the karma? [Reply:] Because that feeling is this karma's own ripened fruit. Or, alternatively, that feeling may be understood as what the karma itself "receives," since it is by this that the feeling as ripened fruit comes to be received — just as one speaks of a bathing-powder as "conducive to bathing"; this should be understood the same way. Hence it is called karma conducive to pleasant feeling; the other two kinds of karma should be understood likewise. In general, "conducive to feeling" may be briefly stated as fivefold: first, conducive-to-feeling by intrinsic nature, referring to feeling itself in general, as a sūtra states, "at the time of experiencing a pleasant feeling, one truly understands that one is experiencing a pleasant feeling," and so on at length; second, conducive-to-feeling by association, referring to contact in general, as a sūtra states, "contact conducive to pleasant feeling," and so on at length; third, conducive-to-feeling by object, referring to sense-objects in general, as a sūtra states, "having seen form with the eye, one experiences only the form, not craving for the form," and so on at length, since form and the like are what feeling takes as its object; fourth, conducive-to-feeling by ripened result, referring to karma that brings about a ripened result, as a sūtra states, "karma conducive to feeling in this very life," and so on at length; fifth, conducive-to-feeling by present manifestation, referring to feeling actually occurring in the present, as a sūtra states, "at the moment of experiencing a pleasant feeling, the other two feelings have already ceased," and so on at length — it is not that, while this pleasant feeling is currently manifest, some other feeling is also able to be experienced at that same moment; rather, it is simply with reference to the pleasant feeling's own presence in the moment that one speaks of "experiencing pleasant feeling." What is discussed in the present context is specifically conducive-to-feeling by ripened result, since it is karma's capacity to bring about feeling as its ripened result that is at issue — and although karma and feeling differ in essential nature, karma can nonetheless properly be called conducive to pleasant feeling and the like.

Do these three kinds of karma each have determinate and indeterminate varieties? What is their character? Verse: these have determinate and indeterminate varieties; the determinate kind is threefold, ripening-in-this-life and the rest; some speak of karma as fivefold; other teachers speak of a four-part analysis. Prose: each of the feeling-conducive karmas discussed above should be understood to have both determinate and indeterminate varieties, the latter so named because it is not guaranteed to actually ripen. The determinate kind is, in turn, threefold: first, ripening in this very life; second, ripening in the immediately following life; third, ripening later still. These three determinate karmas, together with the indeterminate kind, make four categories in all. Some wish to further divide indeterminate-ripening karma into two kinds — determinate or indeterminate as to its ripened result — which, together with the three determinate karmas, make five categories in all. "Ripening in this very life" means karma created in this life that ripens in this very same life. "Ripening in the next life" means karma created in this life that ripens in the second life following. "Ripening later" means karma created in this life that ripens only from the third life onward, in due sequence. Other teachers say: karma that "ripens in this life" can also ripen in a later life; the karma is simply named according to whichever occasion it happens to ripen first, lest a powerful karma should otherwise be said to yield only a diminished ripened result [by being artificially confined]. The Vaibhāṣika do not accept this position, since some karma's result is close at hand without being especially powerful, and some is otherwise, contrary to expectation — just as, among external seeds, the mallow bears fruit after three half-months, while wheat requires a full six months before bearing fruit. The Dārṣṭāntika masters speak of a four-part analysis of karma: first, karma determinate in its timing but indeterminate in its ripened result — namely, the three "ripens-in" categories, which are not guaranteed to actually ripen; second, karma determinate in its ripened result but indeterminate in timing — namely, indeterminate karma that is nonetheless certain to ripen; third, karma determinate in both respects — namely, the "ripens-in" categories when certain to ripen; fourth, karma indeterminate in both respects — namely, indeterminate karma not certain to ripen. They hold that karma thus comes to eight kinds in total, since "ripening in this life" itself has both determinate and indeterminate varieties, and the indeterminate category likewise has two varieties.

Among these distinctions of karma just discussed, verse: it is good to say that all four can be produced together; only three can draw forth a new class of existence; every realm and destiny can produce all four; hell excludes wholesome karma ripening in this life; for the firm ones, at levels free from desire, ordinary beings do not produce karma ripening in the next life, and noble ones produce neither karma ripening in the next life nor karma ripening in later lives, together with falling back from the desire realm or the peak of existence. Prose: ripening-in-this-life and the other three kinds — determinate together with indeterminate — make four. This is stated as good, since it clarifies only the determinacy of timing, in order to explain the character of the four kinds of karma spoken of in the sūtras. Can all four kinds of karma be produced at once? This can indeed occur. How so? Having dispatched three messengers to carry out wrongdoing, one might, at that very same moment, personally complete an act of sexual misconduct. How many of these kinds of karma are capable of drawing forth a class of existence? Only three are capable of this, excluding karma ripening in this life, since one's present class of existence in this very body was already drawn forth by earlier karma. Which realm or destiny is capable of producing how many kinds of karma? Every realm and destiny, whether wholesome or unwholesome as appropriate, is capable of producing all four. This is the general rule; as for specific exceptions, hell excludes wholesome karma ripening in this life, since there is no desirable result there; it is capable of producing all the rest. "Firm" refers to those whose attainment is irreversible, considered here with respect to levels free from desire. Ordinary beings there can produce the remaining three, excluding karma ripening in the next life. Noble ones exclude both karma ripening in the next life and karma ripening in later lives, and are capable of producing only the remaining two. This is because an ordinary being not yet free from backsliding could, in due sequence, be reborn again in a lower state, whereas an irreversible noble one can certainly never again be reborn into any of the lower levels. In whatever level one is presently reborn, one is capable of producing karma ripening in this life; producing indeterminate karma is nowhere restricted at all. Yet, if noble ones have already attained freedom from desire with respect to the desire realm or the peak of existence, then, even should they fall back from this, they still do not produce karma ripening in a subsequent life, since one who falls back from such an attainment is certain to fall back all the way to that same fruit. Once one has thus fallen back from a fruit, one certainly cannot die [before regaining it], as will be explained later.

Is karma also produced while abiding in the intermediate state? It is indeed produced. How is this so? Verse: the intermediate state within the desire realm can produce twenty-two kinds of karma, all subsumed under ripening-in-this-life, since the classes of existence involved are without distinction. Prose: within the desire realm, while abiding in the intermediate state, one is capable of producing twenty-two kinds of karma — that is, the intermediate state itself, together with five stages while in the womb and five stages after leaving the womb. The five stages within the womb are: first, kalala; second, arbuda; third, peśī; fourth, ghana; fifth, praśākhā. The five stages outside the womb are: first, infant; second, child; third, adolescent; fourth, middle-aged; fifth, elderly. While abiding in the intermediate state, one is capable of producing both determinate and indeterminate karma with respect to the intermediate state itself through to old age. One should understand that these eleven kinds of determinate karma produced [across all these stages, since the intermediate state's determinate karma is not separately counted] are all subsumed under ripening-in-this-life, since the classes of existence involved are without distinction — that is, the intermediate state and its own ten subsequent stages are drawn forth by one and the same karmic act, as a single class of existence. This is why no separate karma "ripening specifically in the intermediate state" is spoken of, since it is already subsumed under karma ripening in this life and the other categories. What is the character of determinate karma? Verse: through heavy affliction, a pure mind, being constantly performed, or arising with respect to a field of merit; karma harming one's parents is [always] determinate. Prose: if karma performed is done through heavy affliction, or a wholehearted and pure mind, or is constantly performed, or arises with respect to an especially exalted field of merit — "field of merit" meaning the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha, or an exceptional person who has attained a superior fruit or superior meditative concentration — then, even absent heavy affliction, a pure mind, or constant practice, whatever wholesome or unwholesome karma arises with respect to such a field is determinate. Likewise, any act of harm performed against one's parents, whether with a lighter or heavier degree of intent, is subsumed under determinate karma in every case. All karma that falls short of these conditions is not determinate in its ripening.

What is the character of karma yielding its fruit in this very life? Verse: through an exceptional field, an exceptional intention, or a determinate ripening, and through karma performed upon attaining permanent freedom from a given level's defilement, karma is guaranteed to yield its fruit in this very life. Prose: as for an exceptional field, it is heard that a monastic, speaking disparagingly with a woman's manner of speech before the assembled saṅgha, was transformed into a woman in that very lifetime — traditions of this kind are not singular. As for an exceptional intention, it is heard that an emasculated person, having rescued cattle from castration, was transformed into a full-fledged man in that very lifetime — traditions of this sort, too, are not singular. Or again: if one is born into a given level and there permanently attains freedom from that level's own defilement, then any wholesome or unwholesome karma performed at that level whose ripening-timing was not already otherwise determinate will necessarily yield its fruit in this very life. If there remains some other, already-determinate karma fixed to ripen elsewhere, this necessarily retains no possibility of "permanent freedom" changing it, and it will necessarily yield its ripened result at that other, already-fixed occasion. If the karma's ripening were indeterminate even in this further respect, then, due to attaining permanent freedom from defilement, it would simply not yield a ripened result at all. In which field of merit does karma performed become guaranteed to yield its result immediately? Verse: with respect to the Buddha as foremost among the saṅgha, and to one emerging from the attainment of cessation, of freedom from conflict, of loving-kindness, of the path of seeing, or of the path of cultivation — karma of harm or benefit is received immediately. Prose: with respect to fields of merit of this kind, wholesome or unwholesome karma is guaranteed to yield its fruit immediately. "Field of merit" here refers to the Buddha as foremost among the saṅgha, distinguished, with respect to the type of person involved, into five: first, one emerging from the attainment of cessation — that is, this attainment brings the mind to such stillness that it closely resembles nirvāṇa, and the very first moment of mind arising upon emerging from this attainment is like someone entering and then returning from nirvāṇa itself. Second, one emerging from the attainment of freedom from conflict — that is, this attainment takes countless sentient beings as its object, pervaded by an overriding intention to benefit them; upon emerging from this attainment, one's continuum carries forward a body imbued and cultivated by countless, most excellent qualities. Third, one emerging from the attainment of loving-kindness — that is, this attainment takes countless sentient beings as its object, pervaded by an overriding intention toward their ease and happiness; upon emerging from this attainment, one's continuum likewise carries forward a body imbued and cultivated by countless, most excellent qualities. Fourth, one emerging from the path of seeing — that is, this path permanently severs every affliction abandoned through seeing, attaining a superior transformation of basis; upon emerging from it, a purified body-continuum arises. Fifth, one emerging from the path of cultivation — that is, this path permanently severs every affliction abandoned through cultivation, attaining a superior transformation of basis; upon emerging from it, a purified body-continuum likewise arises. Hence these five are called fields of merit. Karma of harm or benefit performed with respect to any of these is guaranteed to yield its result immediately. If one emerges instead from some other attainment or fruit, then, since the concentration previously cultivated was not of this exceptional kind, and the afflictions abandoned through cultivation have not yet been entirely exhausted, that continuum does not qualify as a superior field of merit.

Among ripened results, feeling is the most significant. We should now consider: among the various kinds of karma, is there any that brings about only a mental-feeling ripened result, or a bodily-feeling result without a mental one? There is indeed. How is this so? Verse: wholesome, investigation-free karma is held to bring about only mental feeling; unwholesome karma brings about only bodily feeling — this is the distinction among karmas capable of bringing about feeling. Prose: wholesome, investigation-free karma refers to wholesome karma belonging to the intermediate absorption up through the peak of existence; among these, whatever is capable of bringing about a feeling as its ripened result should be understood to bring about only mental feeling, not bodily feeling, since bodily feeling is necessarily accompanied by investigation and analysis. Whatever unwholesome karma is capable of bringing about feeling should be understood to bring about only bodily feeling, not mental feeling, since the fruit of an unwholesome cause is painful feeling, and painful feeling accompanied by mental engagement is definitively called sorrow — and sorrow is not itself a ripened result, as already explained earlier.

With respect to what basis of consciousness does mental derangement in sentient beings occur? Verse: mental derangement occurs only in mental consciousness, arising from karmic ripening, fright, injury, elemental discord, or grief, excluding Uttarakuru, within the desire realm. Prose: mental derangement in sentient beings occurs only within mental consciousness; if it occurred within any of the five sense-consciousnesses, this would certainly not be derangement, since the fivefold sense-consciousnesses lack discriminative judgment. Derangement arises from five causes. First, arising from the ripening of a being's own karma — that is, from having used drugs or incantations to derange another's mind, or forced another to drink poison or alcohol against their will, or displayed an intimidating manner to terrify birds and beasts, or set loose a fierce fire to burn mountains and marshes, or dug pits to trap sentient beings, or through some other undertaking caused another to lose their presence of mind — through this karmic cause, one draws forth, in a future life, a specifically corresponding ripened result capable of deranging the mind. Second, from fright — that is, when a non-human being appears in a frightening form and presses upon one, and the sentient being, upon seeing this, is thereby brought to derangement. Third, from injury — that is, due to some undertaking that troubles a non-human being, that being, out of anger, damages one's vital points, and one is thereby brought to derangement. Fourth, from discord — that is, when the body's internal wind, heat, and phlegm elements mutually conflict, and the great elements' discord brings about derangement. Fifth, from grief — that is, due to the loss of a loved one or similar matters, sorrow's poison fills the heart and derangement results, as with Vāsiṣṭhī and others. [Objection:] If derangement occurs only within mental consciousness, and derangement is also held to arise from karmic ripening, how is it that mental feeling was said not to be a ripened result? [Reply:] It is not said that derangement itself is a ripened result of karma, only that it arises from a ripened result of karma — that is, an unwholesome karmic cause brings about an unevenly-composed set of ripened great elements, and, in dependence on these great elements, the mind then loses its presence of mind; this is what is called derangement. Derangement, considered against mental disturbance [more broadly], should be analyzed into four cases: there is derangement without disturbance, and so on at length. "Deranged, not disturbed" refers to a deranged person's undefiled mind. "Disturbed, not deranged" refers to an underanged person's defiled mind. "Both deranged and disturbed" refers to a deranged person's defiled mind. "Neither" refers to an underanged person's undefiled mind. Excluding Uttarakuru, every other class of sentient being within the desire realm may be susceptible to derangement — that is, even the minds of desire-realm gods can become deranged, so how much more so humans and those in the unfortunate destinies? Hell-beings are constantly deranged, being overwhelmed by so much suffering — that is, hell-beings are constantly struck at their vital points by all manner of foreign instruments of suffering, fierce and unbearable, and, overwhelmed by this painful feeling, can scarcely even recognize themselves, let alone discern right from wrong; hence it is recorded in tradition that, in hell, resentful hearts wail in anguish, running about deranged and screaming. Among noble ones within the desire realm, excluding only the buddhas, derangement remains possible through elemental discord, but not through karmic ripening: if there is determinate karma of this kind, it must necessarily have already been experienced before attaining noble status; if the karma is indeterminate, then, by virtue of having attained noble status, it is rendered incapable of yielding any result and is also free from fright, since noble ones have transcended the five kinds of fear. Nor is there injury, since no non-human being harbors hostility toward noble ones. Nor is there grief, since noble ones have realized the true nature of phenomena.

Moreover, a sūtra states that karma is of three kinds: crooked, tainted, and turbid. What are their characteristics? Verse: crooked, tainted, and turbid karma are said to arise from flattery, hatred, and greed. Prose: each of the three — bodily, verbal, and mental karma — has three kinds in turn, namely crooked, tainted, and turbid, arising, in this same order, from flattery, hatred, and greed, respectively. That is, bodily, verbal, or mental karma arising from flattery is called crooked karma, sharing flattery's own bent character. Bodily, verbal, or mental karma arising from hatred is called tainted karma, sharing hatred's own corrosive character. Bodily, verbal, or mental karma arising from greed is called turbid karma, sharing greed's own muddying character. [Thus ends] Fascicle Fifteen of the Abhidharmakośa of the Sarvāstivāda School.