The Substance of the Five Ānantarya Offenses

Among the three grave obstructions discussed earlier, the five ānantarya offenses were said to constitute the substance of the karmic obstruction. What is the substance of these five ānantarya karmas? Verse: among these five ānantarya, four are bodily karma, one is verbal karma; three are killing, one is false speech, and one is [merely] the preparatory action of the killing karma-path. Explanation: among the five ānantarya, four are bodily karma, one is verbal karma; three are killing, one is the root act of the false-speech karma-path, and one is the preparatory action of the killing karma-path — since the Tathāgata's body cannot actually be destroyed. The ānantarya offense of causing a schism is false speech. Since it is false speech, why is it named "breaking the community"? It is named after its effect by way of its cause, or because it also has the capacity to break [the community]. If so, what is the substance of the community's being broken? Who — the one who breaks it, or the one broken — comes to possess it? Verse: the community's brokenness is a state of non-concurrence, a formation dissociated from mind, of a neutral, non-obstructive nature; it is possessed by the broken community. Explanation: the substance of the community's brokenness is a state of non-concurrence, included within the aggregate of formations dissociated from mind, of a neutral, non-obstructive nature — how, then, does this constitute an ānantarya offense? It is because this communal brokenness arises from false speech that causing a schism is said to be the fruit of an ānantarya act. It is not the one who causes the schism who comes to possess this communal brokenness, but rather the community that is broken that comes to possess it.

What does this person who causes the schism come to possess? Where and for how long is the ripened result of causing a schism? Verse: the one who causes the schism only possesses this false-speech offense; it necessarily ripens in Avīci for a full intermediate eon; in accordance with the offense's increase, the suffering also increases. Explanation: the person who causes a schism in the community possesses the offense of causing a schism, this offense of causing a schism having false speech as its nature — that is, the manifested and unmanifested verbal karma that arises together with the community's being broken. This necessarily, without fail, ripens in the great hell of Avīci, undergoing extremely severe suffering for a full intermediate eon. The remaining ānantarya offenses do not necessarily result in rebirth in Avīci. If a person commits multiple ānantarya offenses, all ripen together in the very next rebirth. How can multiple ānantarya offenses give rise to a single rebirth together? In accordance with the increase in the offenses, the suffering in turn increases in severity — that is, through multiple ānantarya offenses, one obtains, in hell, an especially large and tender body along with especially numerous fierce instruments of suffering, undergoing two, three, four, or five times the severity of suffering. Who, in what location, can cause a schism, and against whom? At what time does the schism occur, and for how long does it last? Verse: it must be a monk observing pure conduct, of the "view" type, causing the schism at a different place, among the foolish and ordinary, at a time when they consent to a teacher or path different [from the Buddha's] — the schism is said to occur then, not lasting overnight. Explanation: one who can cause a schism in the community must be a great monk — certainly not a layperson, nor a nun, and so forth. Only one of the "view" type, not one of the "craving" type. One who dwells in pure conduct, not one who has broken the precepts, since a precept-breaker's words carry no authority. It must be caused at a place other than [where the Buddha resides], not in the Teacher's presence, since none of the Tathāgatas can be slighted or pressed upon — their words being authoritative and dignified, no opposition against them is possible. Only ordinary beings can be led into schism, not noble ones, since noble ones have verified the nature of the Dharma. Some say: even one who has attained forbearance cannot be led into schism either. The term "foolish" is meant to include two senses: it is required that the community being divided consent to a teacher or a path different from the Buddha's own, [and that those persuaded be ordinary and unenlightened]. It should be said that the community's schism occurs at such a time, and that very night it will certainly reunite, not lasting overnight. This is called "breaking the wheel of the Dharma," since it is able to obstruct the wheel of the noble path and destroy the community's harmony. In which continents, and how many people, can break the wheel of the Dharma? In which continents, and how many people, can break [merely] the formal-procedure community? Verse: in Jambudvīpa, nine or more, can break the wheel of the Dharma; breaking [merely] the formal-procedure community occurs across the three continents, with eight or more. Explanation: only in Jambudvīpa, with as few as nine people or more, can the wheel of the Dharma be broken. Not in the other continents, since there is no buddha there — it is only where the Blessed One is present that a rival teacher can exist. It requires eight monastics divided into two groups to constitute what is broken, with the one who causes the break being the ninth; hence, at the very least, nine people are required. The word "or more" clarifies that there is no upper limit beyond this. Breaking [merely] the formal-procedure community occurs across the three continents, with as few as eight people, and no upper limit either. "Across the three continents" is stated because there is scriptural authority for this. It requires that, within a single territorial boundary, the community divide into two factions to separately conduct formal procedures; hence eight people are required, and, since there is no restriction beyond this, "or more" is likewise stated.

At what times is breaking the wheel of the Dharma impossible? Verse: the beginning, the end, the two "blisters," the first pair, after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, before the boundary is established — in these six circumstances, there is no breaking of the Dharma-wheel community. Explanation: "the beginning" means when the Blessed One has not long set the wheel of the Dharma in motion; "the end" means when the Well-Gone One is about to enter parinirvāṇa — in these two periods, the community is of a single flavor. When the "blisters" of correct precepts and correct view have not yet arisen, [there is no schism,] since it is only once these two "blisters" have arisen that a schism becomes possible. Before the first pairing of tranquility and insight has been established, [there is no schism,] since, by nature, any division would swiftly reunite of itself. After the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, there is no true, great Teacher to serve as an opponent. Before the boundary has been established, there is no single boundary within which to divide into two factions. In these six circumstances, there is no breaking of the Dharma-wheel. Not every buddha necessarily has this happen — it necessarily depends on that community's prior karma whether this occurs. Setting this side discussion aside, we should discuss the conditions for the ānantarya offenses. Verse: casting aside a field of gratitude or destroying a field of virtue; even with a change of sex, it still constitutes the grave offense; "mother," on account of that blood — mistaken cases may or may not [count]; [merely] striking with intent to draw a buddha's blood, or [killing] one who is beyond training only afterward, does not [count]. Explanation: for what reason does killing one's mother and the rest constitute an ānantarya offense, and not other acts? Because it casts aside a field of gratitude, or destroys a field of virtue. Killing one's father or mother is casting aside a field of gratitude. How is there gratitude [owed]? Because they are the origin of one's bodily birth. How is this "cast aside"? By abandoning that gratitude. "Field of virtue" refers to arhats and the like, who possess superior qualities and the capacity to generate [merit]. Destroying the basis of such virtue constitutes the grave offense. If a parent's sex has changed, does killing them still constitute the grave offense? It still constitutes the grave offense, since the underlying basis is the same one. By this reasoning, the question arises: is there a case of causing a man to lose his life-faculty, who is neither one's father nor an arhat, yet who is still touched by the ānantarya offense? Yes — when one's mother has changed to a male form. Is there a case of causing a woman to lose her life-faculty, who is neither one's mother nor an arhat, yet still touched by the ānantarya offense? Yes — when one's father has changed to a female form. Suppose a woman's miscarried embryo is taken up by another woman and placed as though born from her own womb, raising the child as her son — if he later kills her, how does this constitute the grave offense of matricide? [Reply: it does not, since] "on account of that blood" refers to the origin of one's bodily birth. Whatever is later done, one should show gratitude to the mother who raised one, since she is the one who nursed, nourished, and raised the child to maturity. If one undertakes an act of killing directed at one's father or mother, but mistakenly kills someone else instead, there is no ānantarya offense. If one undertakes an act of killing directed at someone other than one's father or mother, but mistakenly kills one's father or mother, this likewise does not constitute the grave offense — as when a son, striking a mosquito on his father's body with a stick, [accidentally kills his father]; or when a mother, hiding herself on a bed, is killed by one who mistakes her for someone else. If a single act, through one effort, kills both one's mother and another person, two instances of unmanifested karma arise, but the manifested karma counts only as the grave offense, since the power of an ānantarya act is strong. The venerable Ghoṣaka says there are two instances of manifested karma as well, since manifested karma is constituted by an accumulation of subtle particles. If one kills [someone] without the notion that they are an arhat, but the specific basis one's definite intention to kill is fixed upon is in fact that very arhat, this still constitutes the grave offense, there being no distinguishing [required beyond the intended target]. If one kills one's father, and that father is [also] an arhat, one obtains only a single grave offense, since the underlying basis is a single one. If so, how is the illustrative account to be reconciled? The Buddha told Ajātaśatru: you have already committed two grave offenses, namely, killing your father and killing an arhat. This shows that a single grave offense can arise from the confluence of two conditions, or that [the Buddha] rebuked that person's fault through two approaches [for greater force].

If, with a malicious mind, one [merely strikes] a buddha, does this always incur the ānantarya offense of drawing blood? It is only once blood is actually drawn with killing intent that the grave offense is constituted; [merely] striking with malicious intent, without drawing blood, does not constitute the ānantarya offense. If, at the time of undertaking the preparatory action of killing, the victim is not yet an arhat, and attains the fruit of arhatship only when about to die, does the one who kills them incur the grave offense? No — since there was no preparatory action of killing directed at one already beyond training. If the preparatory action of an ānantarya offense is irreversibly set to succeed, is it still possible to become free from affliction and attain a noble result [in the interval]? Verse: once the preparatory action of the grave offense is certain [to succeed], there is no becoming free from affliction or attaining a fruit. Explanation: if the preparatory action of an ānantarya offense is certain to be completed, then, in the interval, there is definitely no becoming free from affliction or attaining a noble result. For the preparatory action of other unwholesome karma-paths, if the noble path arises in the interval, the karma-path itself does not arise, since the physical basis is definitely incompatible with it. Among all the unwholesome conduct of the ānantarya karmas, which offense is gravest? Among all wholesome conduct and worldly wholesome karma, which produces the greatest result? Verse: causing a schism through false speech is the gravest among offenses; the volition that brings about [rebirth at] the peak of existence is the greatest result among worldly wholesome [karma]. Explanation: although one understands what is and is not the Dharma, for the sake of causing a schism one gives rise to false speech, presenting things in a distorted way — this, among the ānantarya offenses, is the gravest offense, since it wounds the Buddha's Dharma-body and obstructs the world's path to heavenly rebirth and liberation. That is, for as long as the community remains broken and not yet reunited, the entire world is blocked from entering the noble path, attaining its fruit, becoming free from affliction, and exhausting the contaminants; the practice of concentration, recitation, and contemplation, and the like, all cease; the great trichiliocosm's wheel of the Dharma does not turn; gods, humans, nāgas, and the rest become bodily and mentally disturbed — hence it incurs a full intermediate eon's ripened result in Avīci. For this reason, the offense of causing a schism is the gravest; the remaining ānantarya offenses, in order, are the fifth [drawing blood], the third [killing an arhat], the first [killing one's mother — though see the numbering as given], each successively lighter. The second [in this graded scheme] is the very lightest, since gratitude and the like are least involved there. If so, why, among the three kinds of punishable action, does the Buddha say mental wrongdoing is the gravest offense, and elsewhere say that, among wrong views, [a certain] wrong view is gravest? [Reply:] With reference to the five ānantarya, causing a schism is said to be gravest; with reference to the three kinds of punishable action, mental wrongdoing is said to be gravest; with reference to the five distorted views, wrong view is said to be gravest. Or: with reference to the scale of result, the number of beings harmed, and the severing of wholesome roots, gravity is spoken of accordingly, in that order. The volition that brings about the foremost [level of] existence, as ripened result, is the greatest result among worldly wholesome [karma], since it brings about the ripened result of eighty thousand great eons of extreme tranquility. This statement concerns the ripened-result fruit specifically. With reference to the freedom-from-bondage fruit, it is the volition associated with the diamond-like concentration that is able to obtain the greatest result, since the permanent severing of all fetters is this fruit. To distinguish this, the word "worldly" is stated.

Is it only the true ānantarya offenses that definitely result in rebirth in hell, or do the ānantarya "counterpart" offenses also definitely result in rebirth there? Other teachers say: [the counterparts] do not necessarily result in rebirth [in Avīci as the true ānantarya do]. What are these counterparts? Verse: defiling one's arhat mother-nun, killing a settled bodhisattva or a noble one in training, seizing away the conditions of the community's harmony, and destroying a stūpa — these are the ānantarya counterparts. Explanation: these five, in this order, are the substance of the five ānantarya counterpart karmas — that is, there is engaging in extremely defiling, non-chaste conduct with one's mother who is an arhat nun; or killing a settled bodhisattva; or killing a noble one still in training; or seizing away the conditions for the community's harmony; or destroying a stūpa — these are the five counterparts to the grave offenses. There is karma whose ripening poses an extreme obstruction at three specific junctures. As for these three junctures, the verse states: [karma is] an obstruction when about to attain forbearance, when about to attain non-returner, and when about to attain the fruit of one beyond training. Explanation: when, from the summit stage, one is about to attain forbearance, karma capable of producing rebirth in a bad destiny becomes an extreme obstruction, since forbearance transcends the stage where such ripening could occur — like all of a person's creditors becoming most urgent just as that person is about to leave the country where they resided. When one is about to attain the fruit of non-returner, karma bound to the desire realm becomes an extreme obstruction, except for karma whose ripening accords with being received within this present life. When one is about to attain the fruit of one beyond training, karma bound to the form or formless realms becomes an extreme obstruction, likewise excepting karma according with reception in this present life. The two similes are as given before.

As mentioned above, "the settled bodhisattva" — from which stage does he obtain the name "settled"? And in what sense is he called "settled"? Verse: from cultivating the karma of the marvelous marks, the bodhisattva obtains the name "settled" — being reborn in fortunate destinies and eminent families, complete in male [form], and firm in memory. Explanation: from cultivating the karma capable of bringing about, as its ripened result, the thirty-two marvelous marks of a great being, the bodhisattva then establishes the name "settled," since, from this time until he attains buddhahood, he is constantly reborn in fortunate destinies and eminent families, and so forth. "Reborn in fortunate destinies" means reborn among humans or gods, these destinies being called "fortunate" because they are excellent and praiseworthy. Within these fortunate destinies, he is constantly reborn into eminent families — that is, brahmin or kṣatriya families, or the households of extremely wealthy elders or great brahmin clans. Within eminent families, [ordinary members'] faculties may be complete or deficient, yet that bodhisattva constantly possesses superior faculties, constantly receiving a male body, never a female one — how much less would he receive the body of a paṇḍaka or the like! In life after life, he is constantly able to remember his past lives, and the wholesome deeds he performs are never subject to retreat or discouragement — that is, in matters of benefiting and bringing happiness to sentient beings, he is able to endure all manner of suffering pressing upon his body. Although others direct all sorts of evil, contrary conduct toward him, that bodhisattva's mind knows no weariness or discouragement. As the world has a traditional saying of "the priceless servant," this saying should be understood to refer to that bodhisattva. Because that great being, although he has already accomplished every kind of supreme and perfect virtue, through his long cultivation of unconditioned great compassion, spontaneously and constantly remains bound in service to others. Universally, among all classes of sentient beings, he embraces them all as his equals, with a mind free of arrogance. Or he constantly regards himself as though he were their servant, and so, in all matters that are difficult to satisfy, he is able to endure them, and in all wearisome, pressing matters, he is able to bear their weight.

What is the character of cultivating the karma of the marvelous marks? Verse: [only] in Jambudvīpa, [only] a male, in the presence of a buddha, [this is] cultivation consisting in thought, [taking] the remaining hundred eons to cultivate, each [mark] adorned with a hundred merits. Explanation: a bodhisattva must be within Jambudvīpa to be able to cultivate the karma that draws forth the marvelous marks, since this continent's beings possess the clearest, sharpest wisdom. He must be a male, not a female or other body, since, by that time, he has already transcended the stage of female and similar bodies. It occurs only in the present presence of a buddha, taking that buddha as its object and giving rise to volition — this is "cultivation consisting in thought," not the type belonging to hearing or [ordinary] meditative cultivation. It takes only the remaining hundred eons to cultivate, no more, since this is simply the fixed pattern for every buddha during the causal stage. Only the Blessed One Śākyamuni, through blazing diligence, was able to surpass by nine eons, completing the karma for the marvelous marks in ninety-one eons. This is why the Tathāgata told a village headman: I recall that, across ninety-one eons, I have not seen a single household suffer even slight harm on account of offering me food — only great benefit resulted. From this point, he constantly, by his own nature, remembered his past lives; this is why only "ninety-one eons" is spoken of. The elder teachers of the tradition say: from the beginning of the first incalculable eon onward, the bodhisattva had already departed from four faults and attained two virtues. As explained above, each individual marvelous mark is adorned by a hundred merits — what, then, constitutes the measure of a single unit of merit? Some say: setting aside a bodhisattva close to buddhahood, the karma cultivated by all other sentient beings that brings about the ripened fruit of wealth and happiness constitutes one unit of merit. Others say: when a world is about to come into being, the dominant power of the karma that all sentient beings give rise to, bringing about a great-thousand-world realm, constitutes one unit of merit. Others say: this measure is known only to a buddha.

Our present great teacher, in his former stage as a bodhisattva, across the three incalculable eons — how many buddhas did he venerate? Verse: across the three incalculable eons, he venerated, respectively, seventy, and, in order, five, six, and seven thousand buddhas. Explanation: in the first incalculable eon, he venerated seventy-five thousand buddhas; in the next incalculable eon, seventy-six thousand buddhas; in the final incalculable eon, seventy-seven thousand buddhas. At the completion of each of the three incalculable eons, and at his first arousal of the intention [to attain buddhahood], which buddha did he encounter, respectively? Verse: at the completion of the three incalculable eons, in reverse order, he encountered Vipaśyin, Dīpaṃkara, and Ratnaśikhin; at the beginning, Śākyamuni. Explanation: "in reverse order" means from later to earlier. That is, at the completion of the third incalculable eon, the buddha he encountered and served was named Vipaśyin; at the completion of the second eon, the buddha he encountered and served was named Dīpaṃkara; at the completion of the first eon, the buddha he encountered and served was named Ratnaśikhin; at the stage of his very first arousal of the intention [to attain buddhahood], he encountered Śākyamuni. That is, our Blessed One, in his former stage as a bodhisattva, at the very first encountered a buddha named Śākyamuni, and, before him, gave rise to the great vow: may I too become a buddha, exactly as the present Blessed One has become. That buddha likewise appeared in a final [degenerate] eon, and, after his nirvāṇa, his true Dharma likewise abided for a thousand years. Hence the present Tathāgata is, in every respect, identical to him.

Our bodhisattva Śākyamuni, in which stage were which pāramitās brought to completion? Verse: purely through compassion, universal giving; being cut apart in body, without anger; praising the Buddha Tiṣya; then, unsurpassed awakening — the six pāramitās, at these four stages, one, two, then one, two, were, in this order, brought to completion. Explanation: at the time the bodhisattva was universally able to give everything to everyone, even down to his eyes and marrow, all such giving arising purely from a compassionate mind, not from any personal wish for a superior rebirth, at this point the pāramitā of giving was brought to completion. At the time the bodhisattva's body was cut apart limb from limb, although he had not yet become free from desire and craving, his mind held not the slightest anger; at this point the pāramitās of moral discipline and patience were brought to completion. At the time the bodhisattva, through courageous, vigorous practice, encountered the Tathāgata Tiṣya seated within a jeweled shrine, having entered the concentration of the fire-element, his majestic light blazing forth, extraordinarily unlike the ordinary, [the bodhisattva] gazed up with utmost sincerity, forgetting to lower the one foot he had raised, and for seven days and nights without slackening, with a purified mind, praised that buddha with this fine verse: "In heaven and on this earth, in the abode of great learning, in realms departed to, in heavenly places, throughout the ten directions, there is none — O foremost of men, O bull among men, great renunciant — sought through every land, mountain, and forest, who is your equal." Having offered this praise, he thereupon surpassed nine eons; at this point the pāramitā of vigorous effort was brought to completion. At the time the bodhisattva was seated at the diamond seat, about to ascend to unsurpassed, perfect awakening, and, just before that unsurpassed awakening, abided in the diamond-like concentration, at this point the pāramitās of concentration and wisdom were brought to completion. Because [these six] are able to bring one to the far shore of the perfected virtues one seeks, these six are called pāramitās.

Because [these six] are able to bring one to the far shore of the perfected virtues one seeks, these six are called pāramitās. A sūtra states: there are three grounds for meritorious deeds — the giving-type ground for meritorious deeds, the precept-type ground for meritorious deeds, and the cultivation-type ground for meritorious deeds. Why are these established under the name "ground for meritorious deeds"? Verse: the three types — giving, precepts, and cultivation — each, as appropriate, receive the name "ground for meritorious deeds," the distinctions working as in the karma-paths. Explanation: all three types are meritorious, whether as karma or as ground, as appropriate, working as explained for the karma-paths — that is, just as, in distinguishing the ten karma-paths, there is [an item that is] both karma and path, and [an item that is] path but not karma, so here there is [an item that is] merit, karma, and ground all at once; [an item that is] merit and karma but not ground; [an item that is] merit and ground but not karma; and [an item that is] merely merit, neither karma nor ground. Within the giving type, bodily and verbal karma fully bear the threefold designation of merit, karma, and ground; the volition that initiates them is called only "meritorious karma"; the dharmas concurrent with that volition are called only "merit." Since the precept type consists solely of bodily and verbal karma in nature, it likewise fully bears the designation of merit, karma, and ground. Within the cultivation type, loving-kindness alone is called "ground of merit," being the ground [object] of the activity; the volition associated with loving-kindness, taking loving-kindness as its gateway for action, is called only "meritorious karma"; the remaining concurrent dharmas are called only "merit." Some say: only volition is true meritorious karma; the "ground" of meritorious karma refers to giving, precepts, and cultivation, since meritorious karma operates by means of these three as its gateway. What is called "giving"? What result does giving bring about? Verse: the act of relinquishing by which this is [properly] called giving — namely, for the sake of honoring or benefiting — [consists of] bodily and verbal [karma] together with what initiates them; this brings about the result of great wealth. Explanation: although the object relinquished may also be called "the gift," here it is the act of relinquishing itself that is properly called "giving," since it is by means of this act that the relinquishing is accomplished — hence the means by which the relinquishing occurs is the true substance of giving. An act of relinquishing may also occur out of fear, or out of hope for some advantage, or through greed, and this is not what is meant here; hence the words "for the sake of honoring or benefiting" are stated, to distinguish [true giving] from these. That is, relinquishing something for the sake of honoring and benefiting another is what is fully called "giving." What does "fully" refer to? It refers to bodily and verbal karma, together with what initiates them. What initiates them? It refers to non-greed together with what is able to give rise to this cluster [of wholesome states]. As a verse states: if a person, with a pure mind, sets aside what is their own and gives it, this momentary cluster of wholesome aggregates is, altogether, established as "giving." One should understand that this giving-type ground for meritorious deeds is able to bring about, as its result, great wealth both in the future and in the present. The term "giving-type merit" reveals that giving constitutes its substance, just as one speaks of a "leaf-type" vessel or a "grass-type" dwelling. The precept and cultivation types should be explained according to this same pattern.

For whose benefit is giving undertaken? Verse: for the benefit of self, of other, of both, or of neither, is giving undertaken. Explanation: here, all ordinary beings, whether not yet free from desire and craving or already free from desire and craving, who take what is their own and offer it to a caitya — this giving is called giving for the sake of benefiting oneself alone, since it is not the case that another obtains benefit from it. If a noble one who has already become free from desire and craving gives to sentient beings, apart from giving whose result is received in accordance with the present life, this giving is called giving for the sake of benefiting the other alone, since the other obtains benefit thereby, and not for the sake of benefiting oneself, having transcended the stage of [such] fruit. If all those ordinary beings, whether not yet free from desire and craving or already free from desire and craving, take what is their own and give it to sentient beings, this giving is called giving for the benefit of both together. If that noble one, already free from desire and craving, offers to a caitya, apart from giving whose result is received in accordance with the present life, this giving is called giving that benefits neither, since this is undertaken purely for the sake of reverence and repaying gratitude.

Having already generally explained that giving brings about great wealth, we shall now discuss the distinct causes behind the differences in giving's result. Verse: because the giver, the gift, and the field differ, the result of giving differs. Explanation: giving has distinctions owing to three causes — namely, the giver, the gift, and the field each having distinctions; because giving differs [accordingly], the result differs. As for the distinctions arising from the giver, what are these? Verse: differences in the giver, through faith and the like, giving with reverence and the like, obtain respect, broad enjoyment, timeliness, and security from loss as results. Explanation: because the giver accomplishes distinguishing qualities such as faith, moral discipline, and learning, this is called a difference in the giver; because the giver differs, the giving becomes different; because the giving differs, the result differs accordingly. Any giver who possesses such qualities, and who is able to carry out, in accordance with the Dharma, the four kinds of giving — with reverence and the rest — obtains, correspondingly, the four results of respect and the rest. That is, if the giver carries out giving with reverence, this brings about being constantly held in respect by others. If one gives with one's own hand, this is able to bring about the capacity to enjoy great wealth with delight. If one gives at the proper time, this brings about wealth received at the proper time, since what is needed arrives at the proper time, without being missed. If one gives without causing loss [to others], this brings about material wealth that is not encroached upon by others nor destroyed by fire and the like.

What are the distinctions arising from the gift given? Verse: differences in the gift, through color and the rest, obtain beauty, good name, being loved, and a soft body with pleasurable sensation whenever desired. Explanation: depending on whether the gift given is lacking or complete in color, fragrance, taste, and touch, one correspondingly obtains a lacking or complete result of beauty and the rest. That is, if the color of the gift given is complete, this brings about beauty as its result. If the fragrance is complete, this brings about a good reputation, just as fragrance spreads throughout every direction. If the taste is complete, this brings about being loved by many, just as a fine taste is loved by many. If the texture is complete, this brings about a soft body, and a body with pleasurable sensation arising whenever desired, as with the jewel-woman and the like. Where the result is diminished, this is due to the cause being lacking; it is likewise by the completeness of color, fragrance, and the rest that a gift is called "different." Because the gift differs, both the substance of the giving and its result differ. What are the distinctions arising from the recipient field given to? Verse: differences in the field, through destiny and suffering, have distinctions of gratitude and virtue. Explanation: because the recipient field's destiny, suffering, and debt of gratitude or virtue each have distinctions, this is called a difference in the field; because the field differs, the result of giving differs accordingly. As for the distinction by destiny: as the Blessed One states, giving to an animal receives a hundredfold result; giving to a precept-breaking person receives a thousandfold result. As for the distinction by suffering: as stated among the seven grounds for meritorious deeds grounded in ongoing conditions, one should give to a traveler, to one attending the sick, to a monastery's garden and grove, to regular provisions, and according to the season's cold, wind, and heat. It further states that any faithful man or woman who fully accomplishes these seven grounds for meritorious deeds grounded in ongoing conditions obtains merit that cannot be measured or taken hold of. As for the distinction by gratitude: as with one's parents, teachers, and others to whom gratitude is owed — as the Jātaka sūtra recounts of bears, deer, and the like, and other classes of beings to whom gratitude is owed. As for the distinction by virtue: as a sūtra states, giving to a precept-holding person receives a hundred-million-fold result, and so on.

Among the results of giving, which is supreme? Verse: [giving between] the liberated, and the bodhisattva's [giving]; the eighth kind of giving is supreme. Explanation: the Blessed One states: if one already free from affliction gives material resources to another already free from affliction, this, among gifts of wealth, is supreme. If it is the giving carried out by bodhisattvas, this is the cause of universal benefit and happiness for sentient beings; although not called giving from the liberated to the liberated, it is likewise supreme among meritorious giving. Apart from this, there are furthermore eight kinds of giving, the eighth of which is also supreme in merit. What are the eight kinds of giving? First, giving to whoever is near at hand; second, giving out of fear; third, giving to repay a favor; fourth, giving in hope of a favor in return; fifth, giving in accordance with ancestral practice; sixth, giving in hope of heaven; seventh, giving for the sake of reputation; eighth, giving for the sake of adorning the mind, supporting the mind, providing resources for yoga [meditative practice], and attaining the supreme good. "Giving to whoever is near at hand": the elder teachers of the tradition say this means giving only to whoever happens to be nearby. "Giving out of fear": this means seeing one's wealth about to be destroyed, and preferring to give it away rather than lose it. "Giving in accordance with ancestral practice": this means giving in accordance with the practice handed down from one's forefathers. The remaining kinds of giving are easily understood, and so are not separately explained. As a sūtra states: giving to one approaching stream-entry has an immeasurable result; giving to one who has attained the fruit of stream-entry has a still greater result — and so on, as stated at length. Is there giving whose result is immeasurable even though the recipient has not attained a noble fruit? Verse: [giving to] one's parents, the sick, a Dharma-teacher, or a bodhisattva in his final rebirth — even if these are not verified noble ones, the result of giving to them is likewise immeasurable. Explanation: these five kinds of persons, even if they are ordinary beings, giving to them is nonetheless able to bring about an immeasurable result. "Abiding in the final existence" is called "final rebirth." Among the four kinds of field, which field does a Dharma-teacher belong to? He belongs to the gratitude-field. Why is this? Because he is the great spiritual friend of the world; because he gives the eye of wisdom to those blinded by ignorance; because he reveals to the world what is dangerous and what is safe; because he causes sentient beings to give rise to the uncontaminated Dharma-body. In brief, a Dharma-teacher who expounds well performs, up to a point, the very work that a buddha performs — hence giving to him brings about an immeasurable result.

For those wishing to understand the characteristics of heavy and light karma, one should know that heaviness and lightness are, in brief, governed by six factors. What are the six? Verse: follow-up action, the field, the root act, the preparatory action, the volition, and the underlying disposition — through these being lower or higher, karma becomes a lower or higher grade. Explanation: "follow-up action" means what is done subsequently following the act. "The field" means what is harmed or benefited by that act. "The root act" means the root karma-path itself. "The preparatory action" means what draws forth the bodily and verbal [acts]. "The volition" means that through which the karma-path is completed. "The underlying disposition" means whatever intention one holds — "I should act in such and such a way," "I will act in such and such a way." Some karma becomes a heavy grade purely through being encompassed by the follow-up action, since this definitely establishes its ripened result. Some karma becomes heavy through the field; some becomes heavy through the power of the root act specifically, rather than any other factor — as when killing within the field of one's parents is a grave offense, while theft and the like become heavy through some other factor; this should be reasoned through by analogy. If all six factors are of the upper grade, this karma is heaviest; the opposite of this is lightest; excluding these [extremes], the intermediate cases are neither heaviest nor lightest. As a sūtra states: there are two kinds of karma — created karma, and increased karma. For what reason is karma called "increased"? By five causes. What are the five? Verse: through careful deliberation, completion, the absence of remorse or a countermeasure, having an accompanying companion, and [certainty of] ripened result — this karma is called "increased." Explanation: "through careful deliberation" means that the karma performed was not entirely without prior deliberation, nor performed through hasty, careless intention. "Through completion" means that, among sentient beings, some fall into a bad destiny through a single unwholesome act, some through as many as three; some through a single karma-path, some through as many as ten. Among these, if there is karma equal to this measure that should cause a fall into a bad destiny, then, before it is complete, it is called merely "created," not "increased"; once it is complete, it also obtains the name "increased." "Through the absence of remorse or a countermeasure" means there is no regret and no countermeasure applied to the karma. "Through having an accompanying companion" means the unwholesome karma performed had unwholesome [factors] assisting it as companions. "Through [certainty of] ripened result" means it is certain to bring about a ripened result — the wholesome case should be understood analogously, in reverse. Karma other than this is called merely "created," as explained previously.

One not yet free from desire, taking what belongs to oneself and offering it to a caitya — this giving is called giving for the sake of benefiting oneself alone. Since there is no recipient, how does merit arise? Verse: for a caitya, merit is of the relinquishing type, just as with loving-kindness and the like, [which are] without a receiver. Explanation: merit is of two kinds — first, relinquishing; second, receiving. "Merit of the relinquishing type" means that merit arises simply through a wholesome mind relinquishing material resources. "Merit of the receiving type" means that merit arises only once the recipient field receives and makes use of the gift. In offerings made to a caitya, although the receiving type is absent, the relinquishing type of merit is present. Since it does not receive, from what does the merit arise? And by what reasoning is it known that merit's arising must depend on receiving or not receiving? [Objection:] Not receiving means no benefit is conferred on another. [Reply:] This is not a conclusive proof — if merit necessarily depended on conferring benefit on another, then cultivating loving-kindness and the like, and right view and the like, ought not to generate merit either. Therefore, one should accept that venerating a caitya generates abundant merit, just as cultivating loving-kindness does — that is, just as someone cultivating the concentration of loving-kindness and the like, although there is no recipient and no benefit conferred on another, nonetheless generates immeasurable merit from their own mind, so too a virtuous being, though already extinguished in the past, generates merit from one's own mind through expressing reverence and offering in remembrance. Is this not, then, wasted effort in giving and reverence? Not so — since it is the mind that initiates the karmic act that is decisive. That is, just as someone wishing to harm an enemy, even though that enemy's life has ended, still harboring hostile thoughts, gives rise to all kinds of harmful bodily and verbal karma, generates substantial demerit — not merely from the arising of the intention alone. In just the same way, though a great teacher has already passed, expressing reverence and offering in remembrance, giving rise to bodily and verbal karma, generates substantial merit — not merely from the arising of the intention alone. If one plants the seed of giving in a good field, this may bring about a desirable result; if one gives to a bad field, should this then bring about an undesirable result? This should not be so. Why is this? Verse: a bad field still yields a desirable result, since the seed and its fruit are not reversed. Explanation: it is directly observed that, in a field, the seed and its fruit are not reversed — from a bitter-gourd seed, a bitter-gourd fruit arises, its taste extremely bitter; from a sugarcane seed, a sugarcane fruit arises, its taste extremely sweet — this is not, through the power of the field, reversed. In just the same way, even though a giver gives to a bad field, so long as their mind intends to benefit [the recipient] and plants the seed of giving, this brings about only a desirable result, not an undesirable one; however, due to the fault of the field, the seed planted may yield a diminished fruit, or, [in severe cases,] no fruit at all.

The digression on the giving-type ground for meritorious deeds is now complete; we shall next discuss the precept-type ground for meritorious deeds. Verse: abstaining from root offenses and from proscribed conduct is called moral discipline, each of two kinds; [purity means] not undermined by root offenses or their causes, supported by a remedy, and directed toward cessation, and so forth. Explanation: all unwholesome physical conduct is called "root offense" — here, this refers to inherently wrong conduct, under the name "root offense." "Proscribed" refers to what is restricted, such as eating at an improper time — though not inherently wrong, the Buddha, for the protection of the Dharma and for particular reasons concerning beings, restricted it separately; one who has received the precepts and violates this is also called an offender, though, to distinguish it from inherently wrong conduct, it is called only "proscribed." Abstaining from both the inherently wrong and the proscribed is called, together, "moral discipline." Each of these has two forms — manifested and unmanifested — since bodily and verbal karma constitute their intrinsic nature. We have now briefly explained the distinctions in moral discipline's intrinsic nature. If four qualities are present, it obtains the name "pure"; the opposite of this is called "impure." What are the four qualities? First, not undermined by root offenses — "root offenses" referring to the aforementioned unwholesome physical conduct. Second, not undermined by their causes — their causes referring to the afflictions of greed and the like, together with the secondary afflictions. Third, supported by a remedy — that is, supported by the foundations of mindfulness and the like, which are able to counteract root offenses and their causes. Fourth, grounded in cessation — that is, grounded in nirvāṇa, dedicated toward nirvāṇa, not toward a superior [future] rebirth. The word "and so forth" indicates that other accounts exist as well. Some say: the purity of precepts comes from five causes — first, purity of the root itself; second, purity of one's supporting companions; third, absence of harmful intent; fourth, being held by mindfulness; fifth, dedication toward tranquil [cessation]. Other teachers say: there are four kinds of precepts. First, precepts of fear — that is, out of fear of losing one's livelihood, of a bad reputation, of punishment, or of a bad destiny, one receives and guards one's moral conduct. Second, precepts of aspiration — that is, out of craving for a superior state of existence, abundant wealth, honor, and renown, one receives and upholds pure precepts. Third, precepts according with the factors of awakening — that is, for the sake of seeking liberation and right view and the like, one receives and upholds pure precepts. Fourth, genuinely pure precepts — that is, uncontaminated precepts, since these are permanently free from the defilement of karma and affliction.

We have discussed the precept type; we shall next discuss the cultivation type. Verse: wholesome equipoise is called cultivation, since it is exceptionally able to perfume the mind. Explanation: as for "wholesome equipoise," what is its essential nature? It is samādhi itself, together with its concurrent [factors]. What is the meaning of "cultivation"? It means perfuming the mind — that is, the wholesome quality belonging to the level of concentration is exceptionally able to perfume the mental continuum, causing it to form a class of virtue, like a flower perfuming sesame seeds. For this reason, this alone is called "cultivation." We have earlier discussed that the merit of giving is able to bring about great wealth — what do the precept and cultivation types, respectively, bring about? Verse: precepts and cultivation, in this order, bring about, as their supreme [result], rebirth in the heavens and liberation. Explanation: precepts bring about heavenly rebirth; cultivation brings about liberation. The word "supreme" indicates that this is spoken with reference to the supreme case — that is, giving is also able to bring about the result of heavenly rebirth, but it is with reference to the supreme case that precepts are spoken of [in this connection]. Upholding precepts is also able to bring about the fruit of liberation, but it is with reference to the supreme case that cultivation is spoken of [in this connection]. A sūtra states that four kinds of persons are able to generate brahma-merit: first, one who, in a place where none has existed before, builds a stūpa to venerate the Tathāgata's relics; second, one who builds a monastery and provides the four requisites in support of the saṅgha of the four directions; third, a disciple of the Buddha who, having caused a schism, is able to reconcile it; fourth, one who universally cultivates loving-kindness and the like toward sentient beings. What is the measure of this brahma-merit? Verse: bringing about an eon's rebirth in the heavens, and the like, constitutes one unit of brahma-merit. Explanation: the elder teachers of the tradition explain it this way: whatever merit is able to bring about a full eon's rebirth in the heavens, experiencing all pleasures there, constitutes one unit of merit, since the pleasure experienced during that time corresponds to a full eon's lifespan among the gods of the Brahma-attendant heaven. As a verse from another school states: a person of faith and right view, who cultivates the ten supreme practices, thereby generates brahma-merit, bringing about an eon of heavenly bliss. The Vaibhāṣika masters explain it this way: this is identical to the measure of merit already discussed in distinguishing the karma of the marvelous marks. The word "and the like" indicates that such differing accounts exist.

We have already discussed material giving. What is Dharma-giving? Verse: Dharma-giving means expounding sūtras and the like faithfully, without corruption. Explanation: if one is able, faithfully and without a corrupted mind, to expound sūtras and the like to sentient beings so that they give rise to correct understanding, this is called Dharma-giving. Hence, one who has a distorted mind, or a mind corrupted by seeking gain, reputation, or honor, and expounds [the Dharma with such a mind], harms both self and other, [rather than accruing] great merit. Having previously separately explained the three grounds for meritorious deeds, we shall now explain the sūtra's [teaching on] the three portions of wholesome [dharmas] conducive [to further attainment]. Verse: conducive to merit, conducive to liberation, conducive to penetration — these three, in order, bring about a desirable result, nirvāṇa, and the noble path, as wholesome [dharmas]. Explanation: "the portion conducive to merit" refers to wholesome [dharmas] capable of bringing about a desirable worldly result. "The portion conducive to liberation" refers to wholesome [dharmas] definitely capable of bringing about the fruit of nirvāṇa. Once this wholesome [root] has arisen, that sentient being is said to have, within their own being, "the dharma of nirvāṇa." If, upon hearing that saṃsāra has fault, that all dharmas are without self, and that nirvāṇa has virtue, one's bodily hairs stand on end, and one weeps tears of sorrow, one should know that this person has already planted the wholesome [root] conducive to liberation — just as, seeing sprouts arise in a field that has received rain, one knows that seeds must already have existed within that ground beforehand. "The portion conducive to penetration" refers to wholesome [dharmas] capable, in the near term, of bringing about the fruit of the noble path — namely, warmth and the other three [stages], to be explained at length later.

As for writing, seals, calculation, composition, and enumeration spoken of in the world, what should be understood as the essential nature of these five? Verse: what arises correctly, in accordance with proper method, through the three kinds of karma together with what initiates them are, in order, the essential nature of writing and seals, of calculation and composition, and of enumeration. Explanation: "arising correctly" means arising through proper preparatory action. "The three kinds of karma" should be understood as bodily, verbal, and mental. "What initiates them" refers to whatever is able to give rise to these three, such as perception and the like, as appropriate. Here, writing and seals have, as their essential nature, the aforementioned bodily karma together with the five aggregates that initiate it. Next, calculation and composition have, as their essential nature, the aforementioned verbal karma together with the five aggregates that initiate it. Enumeration, last, should be understood to have, as its essential nature, the aforementioned mental karma together with the four aggregates that initiate it, since it is only by mental volition that counting is accomplished. We should now briefly discuss alternate names for the various dharmas. Verse: wholesome and uncontaminated is called excellent; defiled is called possessing fault, obstructive, and inferior; conditioned wholesome [dharmas are called] worthy of cultivation; liberation is called unsurpassed. Explanation: wholesome, uncontaminated dharmas are also called "excellent." Defiled dharmas are also called "possessing fault," "obstructive," and "inferior." Based on this parallel with "excellent" and "inferior," the remaining [correspondences] are already established, and so the verse does not separately explain them. Conditioned wholesome dharmas are also called "worthy of cultivation"; the remaining [dharmas], by this same logical parallel, are "not worthy of cultivation," this meaning already being established. Why are unconditioned dharmas not called "worthy of cultivation"? Because they cannot be repeatedly practiced so as to increase, and because cultivation is for the sake of a result, and this has no result [in that sense]. Liberation, nirvāṇa, is also called "unsurpassed," since there is no single dharma able to surpass nirvāṇa, it being wholesome and permanent, transcending all other dharmas. That dharmas other than this have something superior to them is a meaning already established by this same parallel. Abhidharmakośa-śāstra of the Sarvāstivāda School, Fascicle Eighteen, [end].