Why "Karma-Path," and What Cuts Off the Wholesome Roots

We have now finished explaining the character of the ten karma-paths. By what meaning are they called "karma-paths"? Verse: among these, the [last] three are only "paths"; the [first] seven are karma and also "paths." Explanation: among the ten karma-paths, the last three are only "paths," since they establish a path along which karma travels, and thus receive the name "karma-path." The volition associated with them is what is called "karma"; because of them, it runs its course, and because of them, it acts, since it carries out its activity through their power. The first seven are karma, being bodily and verbal karma, and are also the "path" of karma, since volition travels through them — because the volition that initiates bodily and verbal karma proceeds by taking that bodily or verbal karma as its object. [Thus] both "karma" and "the path of karma" receive the name "karma-path"; hence, when we speak of "karma-path" here, this fully expresses the meaning both of "the path of karma" and of "karma that is also a path." Although these are not the same kind of thing, one term is applied to both, since this is also fully accepted even in ordinary [non-Buddhist] treatises. Apart from killing and the rest of the seven, and apart from non-greed and the rest of the three, the establishing of the name "karma-path" should be explained analogously. [Objection:] Why are this [root act's] preparatory action and follow-up action not themselves karma-paths? [Reply:] Because it is in dependence on this [root act] that those in turn operate. Moreover, as stated earlier, these are included within the coarser class. Further, it is specifically that through which there is decrease or increase, causing internal or external things to increase or decrease, that is established as the karma-path; apart from this, it is not so. [Objection:] The Dārṣṭāntika masters hold that greed, hatred, and the like are themselves mental karma — by what meaning, then, do they explain these as being called karma-paths? [Reply:] This should be asked of those masters. Still, one may also say: these are mental karma that lead to an unfortunate destiny, and are thus established under the name "karma-path"; or that [karma and path] mutually ride upon one another, and both receive the name "karma-path." The ten unwholesome karma-paths thus described are all contrary to the actual arising of wholesome dharmas.

The ten unwholesome karma-paths thus described are all contrary to the actual arising of wholesome dharmas. By which karma-path is the cutting-off of the wholesome roots accomplished? What is the difference between the characteristics of their cutting-off and their restoration? Verse: only wrong view cuts off wholesome roots; what is cut off is desire-realm, born-of-maturation [wholesome roots]; it denies cause and effect entirely; the cutting-off may be gradual, and both are relinquished together; [this occurs] in human [bodies], three continents, male and female, [those of] view-temperament; its nature is non-possession; restoration comes through doubt or [right] view arising, gradually or all at once, except for those who have committed an ānantarya offense. Explanation: among the unwholesome karma-paths, only upper-grade, fully complete wrong view is able to cut off the wholesome roots. [Objection:] If so, why does the root treatise state: what are the upper-grade unwholesome roots? Those unwholesome roots that are capable of cutting off the wholesome roots. [Reply:] This refers either to what is first eliminated at the stage of freedom from desire, or [is stated thus] because the unwholesome roots are what give rise to the wrong view, and so the matter of the wrong view is attributed back to those roots — just as a village is burned by fire that a thief set, yet the world says that thief burned the village. Which wholesome roots are cut off by this? Only the desire-realm, born-of-maturation wholesome roots, since form-realm and formless-realm wholesome roots were never established [in such a person] to begin with. [Objection:] How is this to be reconciled with the Prajñaptiśāstra? [Reply:] As that treatise states, it is only by this measure that a person is said to have cut off the wholesome roots of the three realms; with reference to the higher wholesome roots, it speaks further still, meaning that this continuum is no longer a vessel for them. [Objection:] Why are only the born-of-maturation wholesome roots cut off? [Reply:] Because the wholesome roots cultivated through effort have already retreated beforehand. [Objection:] In dependence on which wrong view can the wholesome roots be cut off? [Reply:] The wrong view that categorically denies cause and effect. Denying the cause means categorically denying good and bad conduct; denying the effect means categorically denying their ripened result. Other teachers say: these two wrong views are like the uninterrupted path and the path of liberation, [functioning as] distinct [phases]. Other teachers say: the wrong view that cuts off wholesome roots takes only contaminated objects, not uncontaminated ones, as its object, and takes only objects of its own realm, not another realm — since it only functions as an associated latent tendency, its object does not increase in strength [across realms], its power being weak. Those who say otherwise hold it takes all objects, and increases in accordance with its cause, having strong power. Other teachers say: the nine grades of wholesome roots are cut off all at once, in a single instant, by wrong view, just as the path of seeing abandons the afflictions to be abandoned by seeing. Those who say otherwise hold the wholesome roots are cut off gradually — the nine grades of wholesome roots are cut off gradually, in reverse-and-forward correspondence, by the nine grades of wrong view, just as the path of cultivation gradually abandons the afflictions to be abandoned by cultivation — that is, the very weakest wrong view is able to cut off the very strongest wholesome roots, on up to the very strongest wrong view cutting off the very weakest wholesome roots. If stated this way, it accords with the root treatise's text. As the root treatise states: what is meant by "the most minute accompanying wholesome root"? That which is relinquished last at the time the wholesome roots are cut off — it is by relinquishing this that one is said to have cut off the wholesome roots. [Objection:] If so, by what reasoning does that same text also state: what are the upper-grade unwholesome roots? Those unwholesome roots capable of cutting off the wholesome roots. [Reply:] That statement speaks with reference to the final completion, with hidden intent, since it is by this that the wholesome roots are cut off without remainder — that is, as long as even one grade of wholesome root still remains, the other grades of wholesome root can still arise on account of it, and one cannot yet say the wholesome roots have been cut off; only when the cutting is complete is it called "cutting off the wholesome roots," and so only the upper grade is said to be capable of cutting off the wholesome roots. Other teachers say: in cutting off the nine grades of wholesome roots, there is never any emerging partway through, as there can be in the path of seeing. Those who say otherwise hold that both emerging and not emerging partway through are possible. Other teachers say: one first relinquishes one's restraint-vow, and only afterward cuts off the wholesome roots, since the vow is not easily relinquished. Those who say otherwise hold that if that restraint-vow is the result initiated by this grade of mind, then when this grade of mind is cut off, that restraint-vow is relinquished as well, since result and cause belong to the same category. In what location can the wholesome roots be cut off? In the human destiny, in three continents — not in the bad destinies, nor in the heavens. Why is this? Because in the bad destinies, whether defiled or undefiled, wisdom is not stable enough; and because in the heavens, the results of good and bad karma are directly seen [making such denial impossible]. By "three continents" is meant excluding Uttarakuru, since its inhabitants lack an extremely evil underlying disposition. Other teachers say: only in Jambudvīpa. [Objection:] If so, this contradicts what the root treatise states — the root treatise states that the people of Jambudvīpa possess, at minimum, eight faculties, and the same holds for the eastern and western continents. In what kind of body does this cutting-off of wholesome roots occur? Only in a male or female body, since their resolve is fixed. Other teachers say: also not in a female body, since desire, diligence, wisdom, and the like are all too dull [in women]. [Objection:] If so, this contradicts what the root treatise states — the root treatise states that whoever possesses the female faculty definitely possesses [all] eight faculties, and likewise for the male faculty. Which type of practitioner is capable of cutting off the wholesome roots? Only the view-practitioner, not the craving-practitioner, since the craving-practitioner's evil underlying disposition is extremely restless, while the view-practitioner's evil underlying disposition is extremely deep and firm. By this reasoning, paṇḍakas and the like cannot cut off the wholesome roots, being of the craving type; moreover, such persons are like those in the bad destinies. What is the substance of this cutting-off of wholesome roots? It should be understood that this cutting-off has non-possession as its substance: at the stage of cutting off the wholesome roots, possession of wholesome dharmas no longer arises, while non-possession continues to arise in succession, taking the place where the arising of possession of the wholesome roots would otherwise have occurred — this is called cutting off the wholesome roots. Hence, the cutting-off of wholesome roots has non-possession as its substance.

Once the wholesome roots have been cut off, by what means are they restored? Through doubt or [right] view arising — that is, when, with respect to cause and effect, doubt sometimes arises: "perhaps this does exist after all"; or when right view arises, [settling that] it definitely exists and is not non-existent — at that time, the possession of the wholesome roots arises once more; because possession arises, this is called the restoration of the wholesome roots. Other teachers say: the nine grades are restored gradually. Those who hold this view say that the wholesome roots are restored all at once and thereafter gradually manifest further, just as when a serious illness is suddenly relieved, one's strength gradually increases thereafter. Can this restoration occur within the present body? It can, except for one who has committed an ānantarya offense. The sūtra, with reference to such a person, states: that person definitely cannot restore the wholesome roots within this present life. That person is only able to restore the wholesome roots when about to die from the hell-state, or precisely at the point of being reborn there — at no other stage. "The stage of being about to be reborn" refers to the intermediate state; "the time of being about to die" refers to when that person is about to die. If it is by the force of a cause, the cut-off wholesome roots are restored at the time of dying; if it is by the force of a condition, the cut-off wholesome roots are restored at the time of being reborn; the same should be understood with respect to the force of oneself or of another. Moreover, one whose underlying intention was corrupted but whose outward conduct was not corrupted, in cutting off the wholesome roots, is a person able to restore the wholesome roots within the present life. One whose underlying intention was corrupted and whose outward conduct was also corrupted, in cutting off the wholesome roots, must wait until after the body has perished before the wholesome roots are restored. The same should be understood for [the pair of] corrupted view without corrupted precepts, and corrupted view together with corrupted precepts. There are those who have cut off wholesome roots without being fixed in a wrong destiny; a four-cornered analysis should be made. The first case: Pūraṇa and others like him. The second case: Ajātaśatru and others like him. The third case: Devadatta and others like him. The fourth case: excluding the preceding characteristics. Having addressed this point in passing, we have finished discussing the cutting off of wholesome roots; we should now further clarify a point about the meaning of the root karma-paths.

We should now further clarify a point about the meaning of the root karma-paths. Among the wholesome and unwholesome karma-paths described, how many can arise together with volition? Verse: karma-paths co-arising with volition — for the unwholesome, from one up to eight; for the wholesome, opening up in general to ten; specifically, one, eight, and five are excluded. Explanation: among the karma-paths co-arising with volition, the unwholesome, together with volition, range only from one up to eight. One co-arising: when, apart from the remaining two of greed and the rest, any single one arises on its own, or when a bodily unwholesome karma already set in motion by prior preparatory action reaches completion at a moment of undefiled mind. Two co-arising: when killing is completed at a moment of hatred, or when theft, sexual misconduct, or frivolous speech is completed at a moment of arising greed. Three co-arising: when, with a mind of hatred, killing and theft are simultaneously completed with respect to another's life and belongings. [Objection:] If so, the stated completion of the theft karma-path through greed should then be untenable. [Reply:] This determination is made with reference to completion occurring through an undifferentiated state of mind; if a prior preparatory action has set an unwholesome bodily karma in motion, and greed and the rest then arise, completion occurs at whichever of the two applies. Four co-arising: when, wishing to harm another, one utters false speech or harsh speech — one mental karma-path, three verbal karma-paths. If a prior preparatory action has set an unwholesome bodily karma in motion, and greed and the rest are then present, completion occurs at whichever of the three applies. Five, six, and seven should all be understood analogously. Eight co-arising: when a prior preparatory action has set the remaining six unwholesome bodily karmas in motion, and one's own arising wrong desire [greed] and wrong view are completed simultaneously; the latter three karma-paths, arising through their own power alone, can never co-arise together, hence there is no nine or ten. Thus we have explained that the number of unwholesome karma-paths co-arising with volition varies. For the wholesome karma-paths together with volition, the count opens in general up to ten; specifically, with reference to the apparent configuration, one, eight, and five are excluded. Two co-arising: when the five wholesome [sense-]consciousnesses, or the uncontaminated knowledge of extinction and of non-arising based on a formless [absorption], are present, without the seven undistracted wholesome [precepts] being present. Three co-arising: when a mental consciousness associated with right view is present, without the seven bodily-and-verbal wholesome [precepts]. Four co-arising: when an unwholesome or neutral mind is present, and one obtains the restraint of upavāsa, upāsaka, or śrāmaṇera. Six co-arising: when the five wholesome [sense-]consciousnesses are present, and one obtains the upper three precepts. Seven co-arising: when a wholesome mental consciousness without accompanying "following" physical action, associated with right view, is present, and one obtains the upper three precepts; or when an unwholesome or neutral mind is present, and one obtains the bhikṣu precepts. Nine co-arising: when the five wholesome [sense-]consciousnesses are present, and one obtains the bhikṣu precepts; or when the uncontaminated knowledge of extinction and non-arising based on a formless [absorption] is present, and one obtains the bhikṣu precepts; or when a mental consciousness associated with the knowledge of extinction and non-arising, included within meditative concentration, is present. Ten co-arising: when a wholesome mental consciousness without accompanying "following" physical action, associated with right view, is present, and one obtains the bhikṣu precepts; or when, among all other cases, a mind with accompanying "following" physical action, associated with right view, is properly arising. What is excluded with reference to the apparent configuration is as stated; considered comprehensively, with reference to both the hidden and the apparent, nothing at all is excluded. As for the restraint of mere abstention, there are one, eight, and five. One co-arising: when an unwholesome or neutral mind is present, and one obtains abstention from a single branch. Five co-arising: when a wholesome mental consciousness without accompanying "following" physical action, associated with right view, is present, and one obtains abstention from two branches and so on. Eight co-arising: when this mental consciousness is present, and one obtains abstention from five branches and so on.

In which realms and destinies are the wholesome and unwholesome karma-paths found? How many are merely possessed, and how many are also actually practiced? Verse: among the unwholesome, in hell, harsh speech, frivolous speech, and hatred are both [possessed and practiced]; greed and wrong view are [merely] possessed; in Uttarakuru, the latter three [are merely possessed]; frivolous speech is both practiced and possessed; the remaining desire-realm [destinies] have all ten as both. For the wholesome, the last three are both practiced and possessed [everywhere]; in the formless realm and the heaven of non-percipient beings, the first seven are merely possessed; elsewhere they are both possessed and practiced, except in hell and Uttarakuru. Explanation: among the ten unwholesome karma-paths, three are both [possessed and practiced] in hell — namely, harsh speech, frivolous speech, and hatred, all three being both actually practiced and possessed. Why? Because of mutual abuse, there is harsh speech; because of wailing and lament, there is frivolous speech; the body and mind being coarse, violent, and unruly, because of mutual hatred, there is hatred. Greed and wrong view are possessed but not practiced, since there is no desirable object, and since the results of karma are directly seen. Because death occurs from the exhaustion of karma, there is no karma-path of killing; because there is no property or women to be had, there is no theft or sexual misconduct; being of no use, there is no false speech; and for this same reason, and because [hell-beings] are perpetually separated, there is no divisive speech. In Uttarakuru, greed, hatred, and wrong view are all definitely possessed but not practiced, since [its inhabitants] do not grasp at what is "mine," their bodies and minds are gentle, there is no matter of harm, and there is no evil disposition. Only frivolous speech is both practiced and possessed there, since they sometimes sing with a defiled mind, without evil disposition. They have no killing and the rest, since their lifespan is fixed, there is no property or women to be had, their bodies and minds are gentle, and it would serve no purpose — each as appropriate. How, then, do people there engage in non-chaste conduct? When a man and woman there develop mutual desire, they join hands together and go beneath a tree; if the tree's branches bend down to cover them, they know this is permissible conduct; if the branches do not bend down, both, feeling ashamed, part ways instead. Apart from the aforementioned hell and Uttarakuru, in the rest of the desire realm, all ten are both [possessed and practiced] — that is, among the gods, hungry ghosts, animals, and humans of the three continents of the desire realm, all ten unwholesome karma-paths are both possessed and practiced, yet with a distinction: for gods, hungry ghosts, and animals, the first seven karma-paths belong only to the "neutral" category, without non-restraint; among humans of the three continents, both kinds exist. Although the multitude of gods have no one who kills a god, at times they kill beings of other destinies. Other teachers say: gods also kill gods — the head must be severed and the waist cut before their life is finally ended. We have finished discussing the unwholesome. Among the wholesome karma-paths, non-greed and the other two, throughout the three realms and five destinies, are both of the two kinds — namely, possessed and actually practiced. The seven bodily-and-verbal [wholesome karma-paths], in the formless realm and among non-percipient beings, are only capable of being possessed, and are certainly not actually practiced — that is, noble beings born in the formless realm possess uncontaminated restraint of the past and future; non-percipient beings necessarily possess the fourth-meditation restraint of the past and future. Yet a noble one, depending on whichever stage, having once given rise to and once extinguished uncontaminated restraint — [how is this possessed]? When born in the formless [realm], they possess it as past; if, in a future life, they depend on a body of one of the five stages, uncontaminated restraint can be possessed in every case. In the remaining realms and destinies, apart from hell and Uttarakuru, the seven wholesome [karma-paths] are both actually practiced and possessed, yet with a distinction: hungry ghosts and animals have the "neutral" category of the karma-path of abstention; in the form realm, there is only restraint; the three continents and the desire-realm gods possess both kinds.

What are the fruits obtained by the unwholesome and wholesome karma-paths? Verse: all are able to bring about a ripened fruit, an outflow fruit, and a dominant fruit — this because [killing] causes another to suffer, severs their life, and destroys their dignity. Explanation: let us first distinguish that the ten unwholesome karma-paths each bring about three fruits. What are these three? They differ as ripened, outflow, and dominant. That is, with respect to these ten, if one practices them, cultivates them, and engages in them extensively, by this power one is born in hell — this is the ripened fruit. Having emerged from there and come to be born here, within the same class of humans, one experiences the outflow fruit — that is, the killer's lifespan is short and cut off; the thief's material resources are scarce and lacking; the sexual offender's spouse is unchaste; the false speaker is frequently subjected to slander; the divisive speaker's friends and loved ones become estranged and discordant; the harsh speaker constantly hears unpleasant words; the frivolous speaker's words lack dignity and authority. The greedy person's greed intensifies; the hateful person's hatred increases; the wrong-viewed person's delusion increases, since delusion of that type increases. This is called the distinct outflow fruit of the karma-paths. [Objection:] A short human lifespan is also the fruit of wholesome karma — how can this be said to be killing's outflow? [Reply:] It is not said that a human lifespan itself is the fruit of the karma of killing; it is only said that, because of killing, a human's lifespan is short — one should understand that the karma of killing acts as an obstructing cause with respect to the human life-faculty, causing it not to endure for long. As for the dominant fruit obtained by these ten: with respect to all the external requisites one relies upon for life, because of killing they have little luster; because of theft, one frequently encounters frost and hail; because of sexual misconduct, there is much dust; because of false speech, there is much foulness and filth; because of divisive speech, one's dwelling place is hazardous and crooked; because of harsh speech, the fields are full of thorns, gravel, and salty, alkaline soil unsuited for crops; because of frivolous speech, the seasons shift unpredictably. Because of greed, the harvest is meager; because of hatred, the harvest is bitter; because of wrong view, the harvest is meager or entirely absent. This is called the distinct dominant fruit of the karma-paths. [Objection:] Does a single act of killing bring about the ripened fruit of rebirth in hell and then also cause a short human lifespan afterward? Or is there something further involved? [Reply:] Some teachers say: it is this very same single act of killing that first brings about that ripened fruit and afterward brings about this outflow fruit. Others further say: the two fruits have distinct causes — the former [ripened fruit] refers to the preparatory action, the latter [outflow fruit] to the root act; although one speaks in general of "one act of killing," this in fact comprehensively includes the root act together with its accompanying [preparatory and follow-up actions]. The term "outflow fruit" spoken of here does not exclude the ripened and dominant fruits [from also technically qualifying]; it is stated loosely, with reference to a slight resemblance [between cause and effect], as "outflow." Why does each of these ten bring about three fruits respectively? Take the initial case of the karma of killing: at the moment of killing another, one causes them to suffer, severs their life, and destroys their dignity — that is, at the time of killing, one causes the other to suffer, and so one falls into hell to undergo the ripened fruit of suffering; because one severs the other's life, one comes to be born among humans experiencing a shortened lifespan as the outflow fruit; because one destroys the other's dignity, one experiences external objects with little luster as the dominant fruit. The remaining unwholesome karma-paths should be considered analogously. From this, the threefold fruit of the wholesome karma-paths can be inferred correspondingly — that is, abstaining from killing and the rest, if practiced, cultivated, and engaged in extensively, by this power one is born among the gods, experiencing the ripened fruit. Having passed away from there and come to be born here, within the same class of humans, one experiences the outflow fruit — that is, one who abstains from killing obtains a long lifespan. The rest, being opposite to the above, should be explained analogously. Moreover, a sūtra states: among the eight branches of the wrong [path], the bodily karma is divided into three — namely, wrong speech, wrong action, and wrong livelihood. Since, apart from wrong speech and wrong action, wrong livelihood has nothing further, why is it spoken of separately? Verse: bodily and verbal karma arising from greed [is called wrong livelihood], since wrong livelihood is difficult to remove; [the view that] it must involve craving for the requisites of life contradicts the sūtra and is therefore unreasonable. Explanation: the two kinds of karma, verbal and bodily, arising from hatred and delusion respectively, are called wrong speech and wrong action. The two kinds of karma, bodily and verbal, arising from greed, are separately established as "wrong livelihood," because they are difficult to remove — that is, greed is able to seize hold of the minds of sentient beings, so that the karma it gives rise to is difficult to guard against and restrain. In order that right livelihood be cultivated with earnest care, the Buddha separated this out from the preceding two and spoke of it as its own single category. As a verse states: worldly wrong view is difficult to remove, since one constantly clings to a different view; on the path, wrong livelihood is difficult to guard, since the requisites of life depend on others. Other teachers hold: only bodily and verbal karma arising from greed for the requisites sustaining one's life is called wrong livelihood, not [wrong livelihood arising from] greed more generally. Why is this? Because singing and dancing done for one's own amusement do not sustain one's life. [Reply:] This contradicts the sūtra and is therefore certainly not so — in the Sūtra on the Aggregate of Precepts, watching elephant fights and the like, the Blessed One also classifies as wrong livelihood, since one wrongly makes use of external objects to artificially prolong one's life. Right speech, right action, and right livelihood should be understood as the opposite of this.

As stated earlier, there are five kinds of fruit — how many fruits does each kind of karma have? Verse: the uninterrupted path, if contaminated karma, has all five fruits complete; if uncontaminated karma, it has four, excluding only the ripened fruit; other contaminated wholesome or unwholesome [karma] likewise has four, excluding the freedom-from-bondage fruit; the remaining uncontaminated and neutral [karma] has three, excluding what was excluded before [plus one more]. Explanation: the path that is able to realize cessation and is able to sever affliction is called the "path of severing" — namely, the uninterrupted path. This path has two kinds: contaminated and uncontaminated. Contaminated path-karma has all five fruits complete. The ripened fruit is the desirable ripened result, within its own stage, brought about by the path of severing. The outflow fruit is the later, similar or superior dharmas, within its own stage. The freedom-from-bondage fruit is the uncompounded cessation-through-discernment realized by the power of this path, through severing affliction. The personal-effort fruit is the liberation, together with its cultivation and severing, drawn forth by the path. The dominant fruit is all other conditioned dharmas apart from its own intrinsic nature, excluding only what arose in a prior life. As for the uncontaminated path-karma within the path of severing, it has only four fruits, excluding the ripened fruit. The remaining contaminated wholesome and unwholesome karma also has four fruits, excluding the freedom-from-bondage fruit — being distinct from the aforementioned path of severing, it is called "remaining." The subsequent uses of "remaining" should be explained by this same example. As for the remaining uncontaminated and neutral karma, it has only three fruits, excluding what was excluded before — that is, excluding the aforementioned ripened fruit and freedom-from-bondage fruit [and one more, depending on the case]. Having generally distinguished the fruits belonging to karma, we next distinguish the characteristics of karma's fruit from a different angle, first discussing wholesome and the other two kinds of karma. Verse: wholesome and the rest, with respect to wholesome and the rest, [as cause and effect]: the first has four, two, three; the middle has two, three, four; the last has two, three, three fruits. Explanation: what is stated last should, in each case, in order, be understood as expressing the meaning appropriate to the preceding scheme, applied throughout. Now, wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral karma, each in turn as cause, are discussed, in this order, with respect to the number of fruits produced with wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral dharmas as effect — the following examples should be understood analogously. That is, the first, wholesome karma, has four fruits with respect to wholesome dharmas, excluding the ripened fruit; has two fruits with respect to unwholesome dharmas, namely personal-effort and dominant; has three fruits with respect to neutral dharmas, excluding outflow and freedom-from-bondage. The middle, unwholesome karma, has two fruits with respect to wholesome dharmas, namely personal-effort and dominant; has three fruits with respect to unwholesome dharmas, excluding ripened and freedom-from-bondage — what is its outflow fruit? It refers to the neutral dharmas of the class of self-view and extreme-view, which the pervasively active unwholesome [karma] and the unwholesome karma abandoned through seeing suffering give rise to as outflow; has four fruits with respect to neutral dharmas, excluding freedom-from-bondage. The last, neutral karma, has two fruits with respect to wholesome dharmas, namely personal-effort and dominant — what is its outflow fruit? It refers to the unwholesome dharmas that certain neutral karma of the class of self-view and extreme-view gives rise to as outflow; has three fruits with respect to unwholesome dharmas, excluding ripened and freedom-from-bondage; has three fruits with respect to neutral dharmas, excluding ripened and freedom-from-bondage.

We have finished discussing the three [moral] natures; we shall now discuss the three times. Verse: past [karma], with respect to the three [times], each has four; present [karma], with respect to the future, likewise; with respect to the present, has two fruits; future [karma], with respect to the future, has three fruits. Explanation: past, present, and future karma, each in turn as cause, corresponding to past and the other [times] as effect, are distinguished as follows: past karma, with respect to the dharmas of the three times, each has four fruits, excluding only the freedom-from-bondage fruit. Present karma, with respect to the future, has four fruits, as stated before; with respect to the present, has two fruits, namely personal-effort and dominant. Future karma, with respect to the future, has three fruits, excluding outflow and freedom-from-bondage. It is not said that a later karma has an earlier fruit, since an earlier dharma is certainly not the fruit of a later karma. We have finished discussing the three times; we shall now discuss the stages. Verse: the same stage has four fruits; a different stage has two or three. Explanation: with respect to karma of any stage, the dharmas of the same stage yield four fruits, excluding freedom-from-bondage. If contaminated, the dharmas of a different stage yield two fruits, namely personal-effort and dominant. If uncontaminated, the dharmas of a different stage yield three fruits, excluding ripened and freedom-from-bondage — since [uncontaminated karma] does not fall within [a fixed] realm, its outflow fruit is not barred [across stages]. We have finished discussing the stages; we shall now discuss trainee-status and the rest. Verse: a trainee's [karma], with respect to the three, each has three; an adept beyond training has one, three, two; what is neither has two, two, five fruits. Explanation: the karma of a trainee, an adept beyond training, and one who is neither, each in turn as cause, corresponding, in this order, to three types of dharma as effect, are distinguished as follows: trainee karma, with respect to the dharmas of a trainee, has three fruits, excluding ripened and freedom-from-bondage; with respect to the dharmas of one beyond training, likewise three; with respect to what is neither, has three fruits, excluding ripened and outflow. The karma of one beyond training, with respect to the dharmas of a trainee, has one fruit, namely the dominant fruit; with respect to the dharmas of one beyond training, has three fruits, excluding ripened and freedom-from-bondage; with respect to what is neither, has two fruits, namely personal-effort and dominant. The karma of what is neither, with respect to the dharmas of a trainee, has two fruits, namely personal-effort and dominant; with respect to the dharmas of one beyond training, likewise two; with respect to what is neither, has five fruits. We have finished discussing trainee-status and the rest; we shall now discuss what is abandoned through seeing and the rest. Verse: karma abandoned through seeing and the rest, each in turn, with respect to the three, has: the first, three, four, one; the middle, two, four, three fruits; the last, one, two, four — each should be understood in this order. Explanation: karma to be abandoned through seeing, through cultivation, and not to be abandoned, each in turn as cause, corresponding, in this order, to three types of dharma as effect, are distinguished as follows: the first, karma abandoned through seeing, with respect to dharmas abandoned through seeing, has three fruits, excluding ripened and freedom-from-bondage; with respect to dharmas abandoned through cultivation, has four fruits, excluding freedom-from-bondage; with respect to dharmas not to be abandoned, has one fruit, namely the dominant fruit. Karma abandoned through cultivation, with respect to dharmas abandoned through seeing, has two fruits, namely personal-effort and dominant; with respect to dharmas abandoned through cultivation, has four fruits, excluding freedom-from-bondage; with respect to dharmas not to be abandoned, has three fruits, excluding ripened and outflow. The last, karma not to be abandoned, with respect to dharmas abandoned through seeing, has one fruit, namely the dominant fruit; with respect to dharmas abandoned through cultivation, has two fruits, namely personal-effort and dominant; with respect to dharmas not to be abandoned, has four fruits, excluding only the ripened fruit. "Each in this order" means that, as appropriate, this pervades all the preceding schemes — the abbreviated method should be understood accordingly.

Having discussed karma, we should further ask: the root treatise speaks of three kinds of karma — action that should be done, action that should not be done, and action that is neither — what is their character? Verse: defiled karma is "should not be done"; some say this also includes karma that breaks with established norms; "should be done" is the opposite of this; the third contradicts both. Explanation: some say defiled karma is called "should not be done," since it arises from improper attention. Other teachers say: bodily, verbal, and mental karma that breaks with established norms is also "should not be done" — that is, however one should properly walk, stand, speak, dress, and eat, and so on; if one does not do so, this is called "should not be done," since it does not accord with worldly propriety; the opposite of this is called "should be done." Some say wholesome karma is called "should be done," since it arises from proper attention. Other teachers say: bodily, verbal, and mental karma that conforms to established norms is also called "should be done"; whatever contradicts both of the preceding is the third — the two explanations differ as appropriate. Does a single karma project only a single rebirth, or does it project many? And is a single rebirth projected by only a single karma, or by many? Verse: one karma projects one rebirth; many karmas can bring it to completion. Explanation: according to our own tradition's position, it should be said: it is only by a single karma that a single rebirth is projected; this term "a single rebirth" indicates a single instance of shared class-membership, since it is only upon obtaining this shared class-membership that one speaks of "a rebirth." [Objection:] If so, why does the venerable Aniruddha himself say: I recall that once, in the past, from a single offering of food to a supremely worthy field of merit, I obtained, as its ripening, seven rebirths in the Heaven of the Thirty-Three, seven rebirths among humans as a wheel-turning sage-king, and, in my final rebirth, was born into the great Śākya household, abundant in treasures and enjoying great happiness? [Reply:] Through that one karma, he obtained, in one rebirth, great nobility, abundant wealth, and wisdom carried over from past lives; riding upon this, he further performed deeds that brought about the merit of subsequent rebirths, and so, successively, up through his final body, he was born into a wealthy and noble household, attaining the ultimate result — he spoke this way to reveal the power of the initial cause. It is like a person who, holding a single gold coin, through successive trades obtains a thousand gold coins, and then declares: I originally became greatly wealthy and happy because of that one gold coin. Others further say: at that time, based on that single act of offering food, he gave rise to many powerful aspirations, some directed toward rebirth in the heavens, some toward rebirth among humans, ripening at different moments, some earlier and some later, since a single moment [of volition] cannot ripen at different times — hence it is not that a single karma is able to project many rebirths, nor is there a single rebirth projected by many karmas. Do not suppose that a shared class-membership could be divided into parts and differentiated in this way. Although only a single karma projects a single shared class-membership, its fulfillment and completion are permitted to come through many karmas — like a painter who first outlines a figure's shape in a single color, and afterward fills in its many colors. This is why, although beings equally receive a human body, among them some possess complete limbs, faculties, proportions, coloring, strength, and adornment, while others are markedly deficient compared to those before them — it is not that karmic power alone accounts for both the projecting and the completing of a rebirth.

The Blessed One speaks of three grave obstructions: the karmic obstruction, the afflictive obstruction, and the ripened-result obstruction. What is the substance of these three obstructions? Verse: the [karmic] obstruction is the ānantarya karmas; [the afflictive obstruction is] persistently recurring affliction; and [the ripened-result obstruction is] the entirety of the bad destinies, together with Uttarakuru and the non-percipient heaven. Explanation: "ānantarya karma" refers to the five ānantarya karmas. What are the five? First, killing one's mother; second, killing one's father; third, killing an arhat; fourth, causing a schism in a harmonious saṅgha; fifth, with malicious intent, causing a buddha's body to bleed. These five are called the karmic obstruction. Affliction is of two kinds: first, persistently recurring, meaning affliction that constantly arises; second, intensely sharp, meaning upper-grade affliction. It should be understood that, among these, only the persistently recurring kind is called the afflictive obstruction — as with paṇḍakas and the like, whose persistently recurring afflictions are difficult to subdue and remove, hence it is called an obstruction. Upper-grade affliction, though intensely sharp, does not constantly arise, and so is comparatively easy to subdue and remove. Among lower-grade afflictions, though the persistently recurring kind is not intensely sharp, it is difficult to subdue and remove, since its constant activity gives no opportunity [for a remedy to take hold] — that is, from the lower grade as condition, the intermediate grade arises; from the intermediate grade as condition, the upper grade arises again, such that no opportunity arises for the path that subdues and removes it to come about. Hence, among afflictions, regardless of upper or lower grade, it is specifically the persistently recurring kind that is called the afflictive obstruction. The whole of the three bad destinies, the human destiny's Uttarakuru, and the non-percipient heaven are called the ripened-result obstruction. What does this obstruction obstruct? It obstructs the noble path, and the wholesome roots that are the preparatory cultivation for the noble path. Moreover, within the karmic obstruction, by rights, other determinate karmas should also be mentioned — namely, all other karma definitely leading to rebirth in a bad destiny, or as an egg-born or moisture-born being, or as a woman, or the karma fixing one's eighth [and final] existence [before liberation], and so on. However, if a karma is, by five causal factors, especially easy to see and know, it is on this basis that it is singled out for mention here — these five being the place, the destiny, the type of birth, the result, and the person. Among all karmas, it is only the five ānantarya karmas that possess all five of these easy-to-see-and-know factors; other karmas do not, and so are not mentioned here. The remaining obstructions' scope should be understood accordingly. Among these three obstructions, the afflictive and karmic obstructions are both grave, since one who has these cannot be remedied even within the very next rebirth. The Vaibhāṣika masters explain it this way: because the earlier can give rise to the later, the later is lighter than the earlier. What meaning does this term "ānantarya" [without interval] point to? With reference to the ripened result, it is certain that no further karma or further rebirth can serve as an interval — hence this term refers only to the meaning of "without interval." Alternatively, the person who commits this karma, upon dying, definitely falls into hell without any interval — hence it is called "without interval." That person possesses this "without interval" [quality], and thereby obtains the name "ānantarya" — being joined with the dharma of "without interval," one is named "ānantarya," just as, being joined with the state of a śramaṇa, one is named a śramaṇa. In which destinies should these three obstructions be understood to occur? Verse: the ānantarya [obstruction exists only] in the three continents, not elsewhere, not for paṇḍakas and the like, due to little gratitude and little shame; the remaining obstructions occur throughout the five destinies. Explanation: the ānantarya karmas belong only to humans of the three continents, not to Uttarakuru, nor to other destinies or realms. Even within the three continents, only ordinary women and men commit ānantarya karma, not paṇḍakas and the like. Why is this? It is for the very same reason already given as to why such persons lack the cause that would prevent them from cutting off the wholesome roots — this is also the reason there is no ānantarya offense here. Moreover, with respect to their parents and to themselves, in turn, there is little gratitude and little shame — that is, their parents feel little gratitude toward them, since they provided little of the increase specifically needed for such a person's bodily formation, and also because [the parents] feel little affection toward them in turn; such a person's sense of shame and conscience toward their parents is likewise faint, since there is no outwardly manifested, heightened sense of shame or conscience that could even be said to be violated, and so they do not incur the fault of an ānantarya offense. By this same reasoning, it is already explained why hungry ghosts and animals, though they may kill their own mothers and so forth, do not commit an ānantarya offense. Yet a great authority says: if the awareness [at the time] is clear and distinct, this can also constitute an ānantarya offense — as with an unusually intelligent horse. If a person kills a father or mother who is not their actual [biological] parent, this does not constitute the grave offense, since the mental object is of an inferior kind. Having explained that the karmic obstruction belongs only to humans of the three continents, the remaining obstructions should be understood to occur throughout all five destinies; however, within the human destiny, [the ripened-result obstruction] is found only in Uttarakuru, and within the heavenly destiny, only in the non-percipient [heaven]. Abhidharmakośa-śāstra of the Sarvāstivāda School, Fascicle Seventeen, [end].