Black Karma, White Karma, and Neither

Moreover, a sūtra states that karma is of four kinds: there is karma that is black with a black ripened result; there is karma that is white with a white ripened result; there is karma that is black-and-white with a black-and-white ripened result; and there is karma that is neither black nor white, without any ripened result, capable of exhausting all other karma. What is the character of these? Verse: with reference to these distinctions of black and the rest, four kinds of karma are spoken of — unwholesome karma, form-realm wholesome karma, desire-realm wholesome karma, and the uncontaminated capable of exhausting these — should, in this order, be understood as named black, white, mixed, and neither. Prose: the Buddha, with reference to differences in the nature and category of karma's result, and to the distinct relationship between what is to be overcome and its antidote, speaks of black and the other three. All unwholesome karma is uniformly called black, since it is defiled in nature, and its ripened result is likewise black, being undesirable. Wholesome karma of the form realm is uniformly called white, since it is unmixed with anything unwholesome, and its ripened result is likewise white, being desirable. [Objection:] Why is formless-realm wholesome karma not mentioned? [Reply:] It is said that this classification applies only where two kinds of ripened result exist — namely, in the intermediate state and at birth — and where all three kinds of karma are complete — namely, bodily, verbal, and mental; hence it is not spoken of with respect to any other case. Yet a sūtra elsewhere also states that desire-realm wholesome karma is called black-and-white, since it is mixed together with unwholesome karma there, and its ripened result is likewise black-and-white, being mixed with an undesirable result. This name "black-and-white" is established with reference to a continuum, not to any single act's own essential nature — why is this so? Because there is no single act of karma, and no single ripened result, that is itself both black and white, these being mutually opposed. [Objection:] Is it not the case that unwholesome karma's result is likewise mixed with wholesome karma's result — should this not, then, equally be called "white-and-black"? [Reply:] Unwholesome karma's result is not necessarily mixed with wholesome karma's result, whereas desire-realm wholesome karma's result is necessarily mixed with unwholesome karma's result, since, within the desire realm, unwholesome karma predominates over wholesome karma. Uncontaminated karma, capable of permanently exhausting the preceding three kinds of karma, is called "not black," since it is undefiled, and also called "not white," in that it is incapable of bringing about a white ripened result. This phrase "not white" is stated with hidden intent, since the Buddha, in the Great Emptiness Sūtra, tells Ānanda: "The dharmas of one beyond training are purely wholesome, purely white, entirely without fault." The root treatise likewise states: "What is a white dharma? It is wholesome dharmas that are not defiled-neutral and have no ripened result" — since these do not fall within any realm, and are opposed in nature to the dharmas of continued cyclic existence.

Does uncontaminated karma exhaust all three of the preceding kinds of karma equally? It does not. How is this so? Verse: the four patience-attainments, and the first eight uninterrupted paths of eliminating desire — twelve uncontaminated volitions — exhaust only purely black karma; the ninth uninterrupted volition of eliminating desire exhausts both mixed and the remainder of purely black karma at once; and the [ninth uninterrupted volition] of eliminating each of the four meditative absorptions, four in number, causes purely white karma to be exhausted. Prose: within the path of seeing, the four patience-attainments of dharma-knowledge, together with, within the path of cultivation, the first eight uninterrupted noble paths accompanying the elimination of desire-realm defilement, comprise twelve volitions that exhaust only purely black karma. The ninth uninterrupted noble path accompanying the elimination of desire-realm defilement involves one further uncontaminated volition that exhausts both mixed karma and purely black karma at once, since this is the moment that entirely severs desire-realm wholesome karma [from further unwholesome admixture], and also exhausts the ninth grade of unwholesome karma. The ninth uninterrupted path accompanying the elimination of defilement belonging, one at a time, to each of the four meditative absorptions causes purely white karma to be exhausted. For what reason can contaminated wholesome dharmas belonging to any given level be severed only by the very last path there, and not by any other? Because wholesome dharmas are not severed by their own intrinsic nature, since, even once mostly severed, they still admit of manifesting again in the present. Rather, it is only once the affliction that takes them as its object has been exhausted that these wholesome dharmas are said to be severed, since it is at that point that the wholesome dharmas become freed from bondage. Hence, so long as even one further grade of the affliction taking them as its object still remains, the sense of "severing" is not yet established, since the wholesome dharmas have not yet actually become freed from bondage at that point.

Verse: some say karma conducive to hell-rebirth and other desire-realm karma are, respectively, purely black and mixed; others say karma abandoned through seeing and the rest of desire-realm karma are, respectively, purely black and mixed. Prose: other teachers say: karma conducive to a hell-rebirth, and desire-realm karma conducive to any other rebirth, are, in this order, called purely black karma and mixed karma. That is, since hell's ripened result is brought about only by unwholesome karma, karma conducive to that rebirth is called purely black karma; excluding hell alone, every other ripened result within the desire realm is brought about by both wholesome and unwholesome karma, so karma conducive to those rebirths is called black-and-white karma. Other teachers say: karma abandoned through seeing, and all remaining desire-realm karma, are, in this order, called purely black karma and mixed karma. That is, karma abandoned through seeing has no admixture of anything wholesome, and so is called purely black karma; karma abandoned through cultivation within the desire realm has both wholesome and unwholesome instances, and so is called mixed karma. Moreover, a sūtra speaks of three sages, and a sūtra speaks of three purities, both comprising body, speech, and mind. What is the character of each? Verse: the bodily and verbal karma of one beyond training are the bodily and verbal sages; the mind is the mental sage; the three purities should be understood as the three kinds of good conduct. Prose: the manifested bodily and verbal karma of one beyond training are called the bodily sage and the verbal sage. The mental sage, however, is the mind of one beyond training, not manifested mental karma. Why is this so? Because, in the ultimate sense, a sage's essential nature is mind alone, which is known indirectly through bodily and verbal karma. Moreover, bodily and verbal karma possess the essential nature of renunciation, whereas mental karma does not, since there is no unmanifested [mental karma]. It is by this meaning of renunciation that the designation "sage" is established — hence it is the mind itself that, through bodily and verbal karma, is capable of renunciation, and is thereby called "sage." Why is the designation "sage" reserved for one beyond training alone? Because the arhat is a true sage, all afflictions having been permanently stilled. The three kinds of good conduct — bodily, verbal, and mental — are called the three kinds of purity of body, speech, and mind, since they represent temporary or permanent freedom from the stain of every bad conduct and affliction. These two designations are spoken of in order to still sentient beings' mistaken notions of a false sage or false purity.

Moreover, a sūtra speaks of three kinds of bad conduct, and a sūtra speaks of three kinds of good conduct, both comprising body, speech, and mind. What is the character of each? Verse: unwholesome bodily, verbal, and mental karma are called the three kinds of bad conduct; together with greed, hatred, and wrong view; the three kinds of good conduct are the reverse of this. Prose: all unwholesome bodily, verbal, and mental karma are, in this order, called bodily, verbal, and mental bad conduct. Mental bad conduct, however, is further of three kinds: greed, hatred, and wrong view, which are not themselves volition, since greed and the others possess their own distinct essential nature apart from volition. The Dārṣṭāntika masters say: greed, hatred, and wrong view simply are mental karma, since the Thought Sūtra states that these three constitute mental karma. [Objection:] If this is so, then karma and affliction would merge into a single essential nature. [Response, from the Dārṣṭāntika:] If one accepts that affliction simply is mental karma, what fault would this incur? The Vaibhāṣika say this is not sound reasoning — if one accepts this, it would contradict a great deal of reasoning and scripture, incurring serious faults. As for the sūtra's statement that these are mental karma, this is meant to show that volition operates through these as its gateway, that volition is thereby able to bring about an undesirable result, and that this conduct is condemned and rejected by the wise. Since this conduct is itself bad, it is named bad conduct. The three kinds of good conduct should be understood as the reverse of this — namely, all wholesome bodily, verbal, and mental karma. [Objection:] Non-greed, non-hatred, and right view are not themselves volition — how, then, could they be considered wholesome or unwholesome? [Reply:] Because they serve as the root for the intention to benefit or to harm another.

Moreover, a sūtra speaks of ten karma-paths, some wholesome and some unwholesome. What is the character of these? Verse: these ten karma-paths spoken of are subsumed under bad and good conduct; their essential nature is the coarse portion of these, becoming wholesome or unwholesome as appropriate. Prose: among the bad and good conduct discussed above, whatever is coarse, prominent, and easily recognized is subsumed as the ten karma-paths. As appropriate, the wholesome karma-paths are subsumed under the good conduct discussed above, and the unwholesome karma-paths under the bad conduct discussed above. What portions of bad and good conduct are not subsumed? Among the unwholesome, the bodily karma-path is limited to the actual completed bodily karma, [chosen] for the sake of enabling its avoidance; the verbal karma-paths do not include the preparatory or follow-up stages of verbal bad conduct, nor its minor instances; the mental karma-paths do not include [minor] bad intention, nor minor instances of greed and the like. Among the wholesome karma-paths, the bodily karma-path does not include one portion of bodily good conduct — namely, preparatory and follow-up action, and other wholesome bodily acts such as abstaining from alcohol or making offerings; the verbal karma-path does not include one portion of verbal good conduct — namely, kind speech and the like; the mental karma-path does not include one portion of mental good conduct — namely, [ordinary] wholesome intentions. Among the ten karma-paths, must all of the first seven necessarily have both manifested and unmanifested karma? Not necessarily. How is this so? Verse: six of the unwholesome definitely have unmanifested karma; sexual misconduct, [when] done personally, has both; the seven wholesome, when arising from formal reception, have both; those arising through meditative attainment have only unmanifested karma. Prose: among the seven unwholesome karma-paths, six definitely have unmanifested karma — namely, killing living beings, taking what is not given, false speech, divisive speech, harsh speech, and frivolous speech. If these six are done by commissioning another, there is no manifested karma of one's own at the moment the root act is completed. If one personally performs these six karma-paths oneself, then all six have both manifested and unmanifested karma — that is, at the moment one initiates the manifested act, the victim then dies or the like; but if death or the like occurs only afterward, this is the same as commissioning another, since at the moment the root act is completed, there is only unmanifested karma. Sexual misconduct alone necessarily comprises both, since it must be completed by one's own body, and cannot be delegated to another, just as one cannot delegate the arising of one's own pleasure. The seven wholesome karma-paths, if arising from formal reception, necessarily comprise both manifested and unmanifested karma, since śīla arising from formal reception necessarily depends upon a manifested act. Restraint comprised within meditative or uncontaminated attainment is called "arising through meditative attainment," and this has only unmanifested karma, since it arises solely through the power of mind.

A karma-path's preparatory action necessarily has manifested karma; at this stage, unmanifested karma may or may not be present. If a fierce afflictive fixation, or a sincere and pure mind, arises, then unmanifested karma is present; otherwise, it is not. Follow-up action is the reverse of this: it necessarily has unmanifested karma, while at this stage manifested karma may or may not be present — that is, if a later act arises in accordance with the earlier karma, manifested karma is present; otherwise, it is not. In this connection, how are the stages of preparatory action, root act, and follow-up action to be established? Consider, among the unwholesome, the very first act of killing — as when a sheep-butcher, about to carry out killing, first gives rise to the intention to kill, rises from bed, takes hold of the payment and proceeds to the sheep-market, touches the sheep's body, pays for it and takes hold of it, leads it back and feeds it, brings it into the slaughterhouse, and, with staff or knife in hand, strikes or stabs it once or repeatedly, up until the point that life has not yet ended — all of this is called the preparatory action of killing. Precisely at the moment that manifested act occurs together with the victim's actual death, this instant's manifested and unmanifested karma is called the root karma-path of killing. It is by two conditions that a sentient being's root karma-path comes to be touched by the fault of killing: first, the preparatory action; second, the completion of the result. From the instant immediately following this, the unmanifested karma of killing continues on without interruption; this is called the follow-up action of killing. Later actions as well — skinning, cutting, cleaning, weighing, selling, cooking, or eating and praising its flavor — at whatever instant their manifested karma occurs, are likewise called the follow-up action of killing. The remaining six karma-paths, as appropriate, should each be explained by analogy as dividing into these same three parts. Greed, hatred, and wrong view are called the root karma-path the very instant they manifest — hence there is no distinction of preparatory or follow-up action for these.

This point should now be addressed. At the moment the victim actually enters the state of death, does the killer's manifested and unmanifested karma at that very instant thereby constitute the completed karma-path — or is it completed only after death? If so, either way, what fault would follow? Both possibilities incur a fault. If the killer's karma-path is completed exactly at the moment the victim enters the state of death, then the killer and the victim would be dying at the very same moment, and this should then constitute the completed karma-path — yet our own tenet does not accept that the karma-path is completed in this way. If, instead, the killer's karma-path is completed only after the victim's death has occurred, then it should not have been stated earlier that, at the very instant the victim actually dies, that instant's manifested and unmanifested karma is what constitutes the root karma-path of killing — and this would also conflict with the Vaibhāṣika's own interpretation of the root treatise's statement about preparatory action not yet having ceased. For the root treatise states: "Is there a case where a being has already been killed, yet the killing has not yet ceased?" Answer: "There is — as when, though life has already been cut off, the killer's preparatory action has not yet ceased." The Vaibhāṣika explain this passage as follows: here, what pertains to follow-up action is being spoken of using the word "preparatory action" — one should understand that the word "preparatory action" here is actually being used to refer to the root act, since it must be granted that, even after death has occurred, the root act has not yet ceased. If understood this way, there is no fault, and this is what should be stated here. [Question:] What, in this context, makes this reading free of fault? [Reply:] It is that the word "preparatory action" here refers to the root act. [Objection:] If this is so, how, then, could the manifested karma present at that time constitute the root karma-path? [Reply:] Why should it not? [Objection:] Because it would serve no purpose. [Reply, continuing:] What purpose, then, does the unmanifested karma serve here? [Response:] Hence the karma-path's completion does not depend on serving any particular purpose — rather, it is precisely at the moment the preparatory action and its result are jointly brought to full completion that both the manifested and unmanifested karma together constitute the root karma-path.

Moreover, when the karma-paths are considered in relation to one another, they may serve as each other's preparatory and follow-up actions. We should now discuss how the karma-path of killing can take all ten karma-paths as its preparatory action. That is, suppose someone wishes to destroy an enemy: they might scheme and conspire to assemble the conditions for killing; or kill other living beings and pray to spirits for assistance; or steal others' property to fund the undertaking; or seduce that person's wife in order to bring about the husband's death; or, in order to estrange that person from their family and friends, commit the four faults of speech to sow suspicion between them; or, possessing the power to rescue but harboring no wish to do so; or give rise to a covetous mind toward that person's wealth; or give rise to a mind of hatred toward that very person; or give rise to a wrong view that cultivates the killing, and only then actually carry out the killing — in this way, all ten karma-paths are said to serve as the preparatory action for killing. Having killed the enemy, one might then, afterward, go on to put the enemy's own family to death, seize their property, violate those they loved, and further give rise, in succession, to greed, hatred, and wrong view — these ten are called the follow-up action of killing. The remaining karma-paths should be understood accordingly. Greed and the others should not be capable of serving as anyone's preparatory action, since a mere arising of mind does not by itself constitute preparatory action — at the very moment such a mind arises, no [further] deed has yet been performed.

Moreover, a sūtra states: "Monastics, you should know that killing is of three kinds: first, arising from greed; second, arising from hatred; third, arising from delusion" — and the same holds true all the way through to wrong view as well. In this connection, one should ask: by what mark is killing said to arise from greed? The same question applies to the rest. Not every karma-path is necessarily completed through all three roots equally; however, their preparatory action is not thereby identical in scope. How does this differ? Verse: preparatory action arises from the three roots, since it is greed and the others, arising in immediate succession, that give rise to it. Prose: when the preparatory action of an unwholesome karma-path arises, it arises, in each case, from one of the three unwholesome roots, spoken of with reference to whichever root initiates it. Killing's preparatory action arises from greed in cases such as killing in order to obtain a part of the victim's body, or to obtain wealth, or for mere amusement, or to rescue a friend or oneself — greed gives rise to the preparatory action of killing. It arises from hatred in cases such as killing out of a mind inflamed with rage, in order to eliminate an enemy. It arises from delusion in cases such as ritual sacrifice performed with the mistaken thought that this constitutes righteous conduct, or rulers who, following worldly law, execute enemies and eliminate violent criminals, believing this generates great merit. Moreover, the Persians teach: if one causes an aged or ill parent to die, thereby releasing them from suffering, this generates superior merit. Moreover, certain non-Buddhists teach: since snakes, scorpions, wasps, and the like poison and harm people, killing them generates superior merit; and that sheep, deer, water buffalo, and other birds and beasts, being originally intended for food, may be killed without fault. Killing undertaken because of such wrong views — all these instances of preparatory action arise from delusion. Theft's preparatory action arises from greed in cases such as stealing according to one's need, or for personal profit, honor, and reputation, or to rescue oneself or a friend — greed gives rise to the preparatory action of theft. It arises from hatred in cases such as stealing specifically in order to eliminate an enemy, out of a mind inflamed with rage. It arises from delusion in cases such as rulers who, following worldly law, seize wicked persons' property, believing this to be lawful and incurring no fault of theft. Moreover, brahmins teach: at the very beginning of the kalpa, worldly wealth was bestowed by Mahābrahmā upon brahmins; later, as brahmins' own power weakened, lower castes usurped and made use of it; now, when brahmins seize or steal another's worldly wealth — whether for clothing, for food, or for other uses, or to give away to others — they are, in every case, merely using their own rightful property, and incur no fault of theft — even though, at the moment of taking, they do recognize the property as belonging to another. Theft undertaken because of wrong view is, in every such case, likewise called preparatory action arising from delusion.

Sexual misconduct's preparatory action arises from greed in cases such as giving rise to a defiled attachment toward another's spouse, or seeking another's wealth, status, or esteem, or seeking to rescue oneself or another — a mind of greedy attachment gives rise to the preparatory action of sexual misconduct. It arises from hatred in cases such as giving rise to a mind inflamed with rage in order to eliminate an enemy. It arises from delusion in cases such as the Persian teaching praising sexual relations with one's mother and others; and brahmins who, within cattle-veneration rites, praise women and men who undertake cow-like vows — drinking water, grazing on grass, standing or walking — and who pair off with whomever they happen to encounter, without regard to kinship or distance; and certain other non-Buddhist teachings holding that all women are like a mortar, a flower, a ripened fruit, food, a stairway, a road, a bridge, or a boat, meant to be shared in common by all people in the world. Preparatory action of this kind arises from delusion. False speech and the remaining three verbal karma-paths arise from greed and hatred in ways that should be explained by analogy with the foregoing. As for false speech's preparatory action arising from delusion, a non-Buddhist treatise states: "If a person speaks falsely out of jest, in arranging a marriage, before a queen, or to save a life or to save one's wealth, this incurs no fault." False speech and divisive speech undertaken because of wrong view should, in every such case, be understood as arising from delusion. Moreover, the Vedas and other heterodox treatises, being subsumed entirely under frivolous speech, likewise have their preparatory action arising from delusion. [Objection:] Since greed, hatred, and wrong view themselves have no preparatory action, how can it be said that they, too, arise from the three roots? [Reply:] Because they arise in immediate succession from an equivalent root, it can be said that greed and the others arise from the three roots — that is, there are occasions when a karma-path of greed arises immediately following greed itself, and the same holds following either of the other two roots; hatred and wrong view likewise may each arise immediately following any of the three roots. We have now explained how unwholesome karma-paths arise from the three roots. What of the wholesome side? Verse: the wholesome, in all three stages, arises entirely from the three wholesome roots. Prose: every wholesome karma-path's preparatory action, root act, and follow-up action arises entirely from the wholesome roots of non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion, since all three wholesome stages are initiated by a wholesome mental factor, and a wholesome mind is necessarily associated with all three wholesome roots together. What is the character of these three wholesome stages? They are simply freedom from the three preceding unwholesome stages: freedom from bad preparatory action is itself good preparatory action; freedom from a bad root act is itself a good root act; freedom from bad follow-up action is itself good follow-up action. Consider, for instance, the moment a novice receives the full precept: entering the ordination platform, paying homage to the assembled bhikṣus, sincerely voicing a request to their preceptor, and the single motion together with its two subsequent formal readings — all of this is called the preparatory action of this wholesome karma-path. The single instant in which the third formal reading concludes, together with its manifested and unmanifested karma, is called the root karma-path. From this point onward, up through the teaching of the four supports...

The single instant in which the third formal reading concludes, together with its manifested and unmanifested karma, is called the root karma-path. From this point onward, through the teaching of the four supports and other manifested and unmanifested karma continuing on in accordance with this root act, all of this is called follow-up action. As already stated, not every karma-path is completed through all three roots equally — which root completes which karma-path? Verse: killing, harsh speech, and hatred are all completed by hatred; theft, sexual misconduct, and greed are all completed by greed; wrong view is completed by delusion; the remaining three are held to be completed by any of the three. Prose: among the unwholesome karma-paths, killing, harsh speech, and the karma-path of hatred are completed by hatred, since these three are only completed when an extremely coarse and unwholesome mind, indifferent to consequence, is present. Taking what is not given, sexual misconduct, and the karma-path of greed — these three karma-paths are completed by greed, since these three are only completed when an extremely defiled mind still concerned with some benefit is present. Wrong view's completion necessarily depends on delusion, being completed only when a superior grade of delusion is present. False speech, divisive speech, and frivolous speech are each held to be completed by any of the three roots, since greed, hatred, or delusion, whichever is present, is each independently capable of completing these three. Where do these unwholesome karma-paths arise? Verse: at the location of a sentient being, of possessions, of name-and-form, and of the name-body, in turn. Prose: as stated above, the karma-paths, in their four groupings of three, three, one, and three, arise, in this order, at four locations. Killing and the other two [in its group] arise at the location of a sentient being; theft and the other two [in its group] arise at the location of possessions; wrong view alone arises at the location of name-and-form; false speech and the other two [in its group] arise at the location of the name-body.

If one undertakes the preparatory action of killing, definitely intending to kill another, but dies at the very same time as the intended victim, or dies before them, does one still obtain the fault of the root karma-path? Verse: dying simultaneously or dying beforehand — neither obtains it, since the basis is different. Prose: if the would-be killer dies at the very same time as the victim, or dies beforehand, that person definitely does not obtain the root karma-path. Hence it may be asked: can there be a killer who undertakes the preparatory action of killing and brings the result to completion, and yet is not touched by the fault of killing? The answer: there can. How so? When the would-be killer dies simultaneously with, or before, the victim. Why is this so? Because, since the victim's life still remains, the would-be killer cannot thereby be said to have completed the fault of killing. Nor can the would-be killer, once their own life has ended, obtain the fault of killing, since the physical basis involved is now a different one — that is, the body that the preparatory action of killing depended upon has now perished; although a body of a similar general class may arise for them afterward, this is not the basis to which the fault could attach, since no preparatory action of killing was ever actually undertaken in connection with it — hence it is not reasonable that the karma-path of killing should be completed in this case. If many people gather together as an army intending to kill an enemy, or as a hunting party, and, among them, any one person performs an act of killing, who then comes to possess the karma-path of killing? Verse: if the army and the like share in the same undertaking, all become as if they were themselves the actor. Prose: within an army or similar group, if any one member performs an act of killing, this is as if each had personally performed it — all of them equally come to possess the karma-path of killing, since they have all consented together to this same shared undertaking; just as, when people mutually instruct one another toward a single shared purpose, one person's act of killing causes all the rest to incur the fault as well. Even if someone was forced by others' power into joining this group, if their mind then comes to align with it, they likewise come to possess the fault of killing. The sole exception is someone who has established a vow to never perform killing even for the sake of saving their own life — even if forced by others' power to be present within the group, since they have no killing-intention, they incur no fault of killing.

We should now discuss the characteristics that constitute each karma-path — that is, to what precise extent is something called killing, and so on up through to what extent something is called wrong view? Let us first distinguish the characteristics of killing. Verse: killing is by premeditated intention, [correct] recognition of the other, and killing without accident. Prose: it is necessary that one first generate a premeditated intention to kill, correctly recognize the other sentient being as such, and, having undertaken the preparatory action of killing, kill without accident — that is, one kills only that intended being, not indiscriminately killing some other; only to this extent is it called the karma-path of killing. Killing performed with doubt also constitutes killing — that is, if one first harbors doubt with respect to the object one wishes to kill, as to whether it is alive or not, or, granting that it is alive, whether it is or is not the intended target, but then resolves, "whether it is or is not, I will certainly kill it," and, through this reckless, indifferent mind, does kill the sentient being, this too constitutes the karma-path. [Objection:] Given that the aggregates perish moment by moment, how can killing be constituted at all? [Reply:] The cessation of the breath is called life, [this life] operating in dependence on body and mind; when something causes this to be cut off, such that it does not continue to arise, this is called killing — just as extinguishing a lamp's flame, or silencing a bell's sound, is called "killing" that flame or that sound. Alternatively, "life" refers to the life-faculty itself; causing this to be cut off, such that it does not continue, is called killing — that is, through a malicious mind, one cuts off another's life, such that even a single moment that ought to have arisen as life fails to arise; it is this alone, and nothing else, that is touched by the fault of killing. [Question:] To whom does this life that is cut off belong? [Reply:] Since whatever lacks it thereupon dies, and it has already been designated as "the sixth" [in a certain list], what could it belong to, if not to a self? This should be examined at length in the treatise refuting the self. Hence the Blessed One states in verse: "Lifespan, warmth, and consciousness — when these three factors leave the body, the abandoned body lies fallen, like a piece of wood, without thought or awareness." Hence a body possessing these faculties is called a living being, and a body lacking them is, by settled principle, called dead.

The Nirgrantha ascetics say: killing without deliberate intent still incurs the fault of killing, just as touching fire, even without prior intention, still results in being burned. [Reply:] If this is so, then you yourselves, upon encountering another's spouse, or accidentally touching their body, should equally incur fault. Moreover, a compassionate person who pulls out a fellow ascetic's hair, or a teacher who, out of loving-kindness, urges the cultivation of austerities, or a case where a donor's overnight food happens to disagree with a guest's digestion — all of these should then incur the fault of causing suffering to another [which is absurd]. Moreover, a fetus and its mother are mutual causes of suffering to one another, yet mother and fetus should [on this logic] both incur the fault of causing suffering to another. Moreover, since the one killed comes into contact with the killing agent, then, just as fire burns whatever depends on contact with it, [the killed party's body] should likewise burn [and thus incur fault] — it should not be that only the killer incurs fault. Moreover, if one commissions another to kill, the fault of killing should not arise at all, just as fire does not burn the one who merely instructs another to touch it [rather than touching it directly]. Moreover, wood and other such objects should be touched by the fault [of killing], since a collapsing house and the like can likewise take life. Moreover, this point is established not merely by analogy, but stands on sound reasoning in its own right. Having thus distinguished the characteristics of killing, we should discuss taking what is not given. Verse: taking what is not given is taking another's property, by force or by stealth, making it one's own. Prose: the qualifications already discussed above — such as "without accident" — apply here as well, flowing through to this next topic, and need not be restated. That is, one must first generate a premeditated intention to steal, correctly recognize the property as belonging to another, undertake the preparatory action of theft by force or by stealth, and take it without accident so as to make it one's own — only to this extent is the fault of taking what is not given completed. If one steals an offering dedicated to a stupa, this constitutes the fault of theft against the Tathāgata himself, since the Buddha, at the time of approaching final nirvāṇa, out of compassion for the world, accepted all such offerings entirely for himself. Other teachers say this should instead be understood with reference to whoever is responsible for guarding it. If one digs up and takes an ownerless buried treasure, this constitutes the fault of theft against the reigning sovereign. If one steals property designated for rotating communal use, whether the formal procedure has already been completed for the saṅgha within a given boundary, or has not yet been completed, this constitutes the fault of theft universally against the Buddha's disciples. Other similar cases should be reasoned through by analogy.

Having discussed taking what is not given, we should discuss sexual misconduct. Verse: sexual misconduct is fourfold — engaging in what should not be engaged in. Prose: there are, altogether, four kinds of engaging in what should not be engaged in, all of which are called the fault of sexual misconduct. First, engaging in an improper object: engaging with a wife or concubine belonging to another, or with one's mother, father, a relative of either parent, or even a person under a ruler's protection. Second, engaging via an improper channel: engaging with one's own wife through the mouth or any other improper orifice. Third, engaging in an improper place: engaging within a monastery or at a stupa's secluded precincts. Fourth, engaging at an improper time. What is meant by "improper time"? It refers to the period of pregnancy, the period of nursing a child, and the period of observing the upavāsa precept — even with one's own wife or concubine, this too constitutes the fault of misconduct. Some say: this refers specifically to a case where the husband has agreed to his wife's undertaking the precept, and then commits a violation — only this is called "improper time." Since "without accident" was already stated earlier, this qualification flows through and applies here as well. If one mistakes another's wife for one's own, or one's own wife for another's, or errs merely as to orifice and the like, then, although the act is performed, this does not constitute the karma-path. If one engages in improper conduct with a particular married woman while believing her to be some entirely different married woman, does this constitute the karma-path? Some say it does, since the preparatory action of sexual misconduct and its actual consummation have both occurred with respect to a married woman. Others say it does not, reasoning by analogy with the karma-path of killing, where the preparatory action must be directed at, and completed with respect to, the very same being. With respect to committing this act with a bhikṣuṇī, from whom is the karma-path's fault incurred? This is incurred with respect to the reigning sovereign, since the sovereign's own authority does not tolerate this — for even with one's own wife or concubine, this act should not be performed during her observance of the precept, how much more so with one who has gone forth from household life. With respect to committing this act with a young girl, from whom is the fault incurred? If she has already been promised to someone, it is incurred with respect to that party; if not yet promised to anyone, it is incurred with respect to whoever protects her; this case, and all others like it, may also, in every instance, be incurred with respect to the sovereign.

Having discussed sexual misconduct, we should discuss false speech. Verse: speaking, with a defiled and differing intention, in a way whose meaning is understood, constitutes false speech. Prose: speaking with an intention differing from the actual meaning conveyed, where the one being deceived comes to understand the meaning of what was said, with a defiled mind and without accident, constitutes false speech. If the one being deceived does not come to understand the meaning of the words, what is this speech? It is frivolous speech. Since false speech is speech actually uttered, and speech is composed of many syllables, at what point is the karma-path completed? Together with the very last syllable, that syllable's manifested vocal sound arising together with its unmanifested karma constitutes this karma-path. Or, alternatively, at whatever moment the deceived party comes to understand the meaning, the manifested and unmanifested karma at that moment constitutes this karma-path, with all the preceding syllables constituting this karma-path's preparatory action. At what point, precisely, is "understanding the meaning" to be reckoned — with reference to having already heard and then correctly understood, or with reference to properly hearing and thereby already being capable of understanding? If either, what difficulty follows? If "understanding" is reckoned with reference to having already heard and correctly understood, then, since the meaning conveyed by speech is known by mental consciousness, and the manifested speech and the auditory consciousness [that heard it] have, by that point, already ceased together, this karma-path would have to be completed by unmanifested karma alone. If "understanding" is instead reckoned with reference to properly hearing and thereby being capable of understanding, although this avoids that difficulty, there is not yet actual comprehension — how, then, could mere proper hearing be called "understanding"? [Reply:] For one skilled in language, where there is no cause for confusion, the mere arising of auditory consciousness may itself be called "capable of understanding" — this position, being free of difficulty, should be adopted as the correct one. A sūtra states that speech, briefly summarized, is of sixteen kinds: stating that one has truly seen and so forth with respect to matters one has not seen, not heard, not sensed, and not known; or stating that one has not seen and so forth with respect to matters one has seen, heard, sensed, and known — these eight kinds are called ignoble speech. If, with respect to matters not seen through not known, one states that one has not seen and so forth; or, with respect to matters seen through known, one states that one has truly seen and so forth — these eight kinds are called noble speech. What are the characteristics of "seen" and the rest? Verse: by eye-, ear-, and mental consciousness, together with the remaining three [senses] which apprehend, these are, in order, called seen, heard, known, and sensed. Prose: the Vaibhāṣika explain it this way: if an object is apprehended by eye-consciousness, it is called "seen"; if apprehended by ear-consciousness, it is called "heard"; if apprehended by mental consciousness, it is called "known"; if apprehended by nose-, tongue-, or body-consciousness, it is called "sensed." Why is this so? Because smell, taste, and touch are, in nature, morally neutral, like something lifeless and without awareness — hence what apprehends them is specifically given the name "sensed" [rather than more actively "known" or "seen"]. How is this confirmed? By both reasoning and scripture. As for scripture: a sūtra states, the Buddha addressing Mahāprajāpatī: "What do you think? With respect to all forms that are not seen by your eyes, that you have never seen, will never see, and do not wish to see — do you, because of these, give rise to desire, to craving, to fondness, to attachment, to clinging, to grasping, or to infatuation?" [She replies:] "No..."

"Do you, because of these, give rise to desire, craving, fondness, attachment, clinging, grasping, or infatuation?" "No, Venerable One." "With respect to all sounds not heard by your ears," and so on at length, through "all dharmas not known by your mind," and so on at length — "No, Venerable One." The Blessed One further tells Mahāprajāpatī: "In this matter, you should know only the seen with respect to what is seen; you should know only the heard, sensed, and known with respect to what is heard, sensed, and known." Since this sūtra speaks of form, sound, and mental objects as "seen," "heard," and "known," this confirms that smell and the other two objects are, together, established under the single name "sensed." [Objection:] If this is not accepted, what else could be called "sensed"? Moreover, smell, taste, and touch lie outside the scope of "seen" and the rest — with respect to these three objects, no statement could otherwise even be made; this is what is meant by "reasoning." [Reply:] This proof does not succeed, since this sūtra is not, in fact, evidence for this point — its meaning is a different one. It is not the case that, in this sūtra, the Blessed One intended to determine the technical meanings of "seen" and the other three terms; rather, the meaning conveyed by this sūtra is that the Buddha is exhorting her that, with respect to the six sense-objects and the matters spoken of as "seen" and the rest, one should recognize only the bare fact of seeing and so forth, without adding any further quality of desirable or undesirable. [Question:] If this is so, what, then, are the actual characteristics of "seen" and the rest? [Reply:] Other teachers say: whatever object is directly witnessed by the five sense-faculties is called "seen"; whatever is known through another's report is called "heard"; whatever is inferred through one's own reasoning, using various accepted principles, is called "sensed"; whatever the mind directly realizes is called "known." Among the five sense-objects, each may in turn be spoken of using any of the four terms — seen, heard, sensed, known; for the sixth object [mental objects], excluding "seen," the remaining three apply. By this account, the term "sensed" is not without its own referent, and statements about smell, taste, and touch are indeed possible — hence that [objector's] reasoning, too, turns out to be unreasonable. The earlier teachers of the tradition explain it this way instead: what is directly seen by the eye is called "seen"; what is heard through another's account is called "heard"; what one arrives at through one's own reflection and reasoning is called "sensed"; what one personally experiences within, or directly realizes, is called "known." Setting this digression aside, we should return to the proper discussion. Can the fault of false speech be incurred through a bodily gesture conveying a different meaning, without uttering any speech at all? Indeed, it can. Hence the treatise states: can the fault of killing be incurred without the body moving? Yes — through speech. Can the fault of false speech be incurred without uttering speech? Yes — through bodily movement. Can both faults be incurred without the body moving and without speech being uttered? Yes — as in the case of a sage's inward anger, and the occasion of formally suspending [a fellow monastic from the communal recitation]. If the body does not move and speech is not uttered, how can unmanifested karma still arise apart from any manifested act? Considerable effort should be devoted to this difficulty.

We have finished discussing false speech. We shall now discuss the remaining three kinds of speech. The verse states: Speech arising from a defiled mind that breaks apart another is called divisive speech; disagreeable, coarse speech [is called harsh speech]; speech arising from any defilement is called frivolous speech — some say it is distinguished from these three kinds of defilement, [naming] flattery, song, heterodox treatises, and the like. Explanation: if, with a defiled mind, one utters speech aimed at breaking apart another, then whether or not the other party's relationship is actually broken, the karma-path of divisive speech is equally completed — [as with false speech,] it is completed once the meaning is understood without error; [this standard] carries over and applies here as well. If, with a defiled mind, one utters disagreeable speech to disparage another, this is called harsh speech; since [the standard of] defiled speech from before carries over here too, [the karma-path is completed once] the meaning is understood without error, just as before — that is, once the person originally intending to scold has had their intended meaning correctly understood, the karma-path is completed. All speech arising from a defiled mind is called frivolous speech. Why is this? Because all speech arising from defilement is inherently corrupting. Only the word "speech" carries over from before [into this definition]. Other teachers say: distinct from the first three kinds of speech — false, divisive, and harsh — whatever speech arises from any defiled mind is called frivolous speech, referring specifically to flattery, song, heterodox treatises, and the like. "Flattery" means obsequious speech, as when a monk, sustaining himself through an improper livelihood, harbors and utters flattering speech. "Song" means singing, as when worldly people, with a defiled mind, tease one another in playful verse, or when performers, to please others' feelings, compose verses and lyrics from a defiled mind. "Heterodox treatises" means broadly expounding and defending the words and positions of various wrong views. "And the like" refers to lamentation arising from a defiled mind, and various words of worldly idle banter. These are simply distinct from the first three kinds of defiled speech, and all fall under frivolous speech. [Objection:] A wheel-turning monarch also sings at times he manifests his reign — why would this not also fall under frivolous speech? [Reply:] Because that speech arises from a mind of renunciation and gives rise to further renunciation, not preceded by a defiled mind. Other teachers say: at such times there can also be defiled speech connected with arranging a marriage and the like, but because the fault is slight, it does not complete a karma-path. We have finished discussing the three kinds of speech. We shall now discuss the three mental [karma-paths].

We shall now discuss the three mental [karma-paths]. The verse states: An evil wish for another's wealth is greed; malice toward sentient beings is hatred; the view that denies good and evil and the rest is called the wrong-view karma-path. Explanation: an evil wish directed at another's property is called greed — that is, giving rise to an unreasonable wish regarding another's wealth, [thinking] how might this become mine rather than theirs, giving rise to a forceful, covetous mind that craves and seeks another's possessions; such an evil wish is called the greed karma-path. Other teachers say: all craving of the desire realm is the greed karma-path. Why is this? Because in the Sūtra of the Five Hindrances, with respect to the hindrance of covetous desire, the Buddha teaches that one should cut off craving for this world — hence it is known that "greed" is a general term for desire-realm craving. Others say: although desire-realm craving, in its entirety, may be called greed, one cannot say that all of it completes a karma-path, since only the coarser portion is included within this evil conduct — otherwise, [one would absurdly have to say that] the craving-desire arising during a wheel-turning monarch's era or in Uttarakuru completes the greed karma-path. Malice toward sentient beings is called hatred — that is, wishing to do harm to another sentient being; such malice is called the hatred karma-path. Denying, through evil views, the existence of good and evil and so forth — this view is called the wrong-view karma-path. As the sūtra says: there is no giving, no rejoicing [in merit], no sacrificial offering, no good conduct, no bad conduct, no ripened fruit of the karma of good or bad conduct, no this world, no other world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously born beings, no ascetics or brahmins in the world who are arhats. That sūtra fully sets forth the wrong view that denies karma, denies its fruit, and denies the noble ones; this verse names only the first and uses "and so forth" to encompass the rest. Abhidharmakośa-śāstra of the Sarvāstivāda School, Fascicle Sixteen, [end].