The Three Obstructions and the Naming of Avīci

There are three karmas: bodily, verbal, and mental karma. There are further three karmas: karma conducive to pleasant feeling, karma conducive to painful feeling, and karma conducive to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. Question: Why compose this treatise? Answer: In order to analyze the meaning of the sūtra. For the sūtra speaks of karma conducive to pleasant feeling and so forth, but though it speaks in this way, it does not explain the matter fully — the fuller explanation is as given above. Some further say: although the earlier discussion analyzed bodily and the other two karmas, it did not yet analyze karma conducive to pleasant feeling and the rest; wishing now to analyze these, this treatise is composed. The term “feeling” spoken of here has five kinds in all: first, feeling as own-nature; second, feeling as presently manifest; third, feeling as object-condition; fourth, feeling as associated; fifth, feeling as ripening. Feeling as own-nature is as stated for the three feelings — pleasant feeling, painful feeling, and neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. Feeling as presently manifest is as the Sūtra on the Gateway of the Great Cause of Conditions says: “Ānanda, you should know that when one experiences pleasant feeling, the other two feelings thereby cease. You should know that this pleasant feeling so experienced is impermanent, suffering, subject to dissolution and destruction, and free of self and what belongs to self; painful feeling and neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling should likewise be so known.” Feeling as object-condition is as the Vijñānakāya says: eye and form, taken as condition, give rise to eye-consciousness; the coming-together of the three brings about contact, and contact, taken as condition, brings about feeling. One should know that this feeling takes form, not the person, as its object — form is the condition, arisen from eye-contact, for the feeling that has the non-person as its object; and so it is, in full, up to mind and mental objects. Feeling as associated is as it is said: there are dharmas associated with pleasant feeling, dharmas associated with painful feeling, and dharmas associated with neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. What are the dharmas associated with pleasant feeling? Those dharmas associated with pleasant feeling. What are the dharmas associated with painful feeling? Those dharmas associated with painful feeling. What are the dharmas associated with neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling? Those dharmas associated with neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. Feeling as ripening is as stated here: karma conducive to pleasant feeling, karma conducive to painful feeling, karma conducive to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. Among these five kinds of feeling, it is with respect to feeling as ripening that this treatise is composed. What is karma conducive to pleasant feeling? Desire-realm wholesome karma, up to and including wholesome karma of the third dhyāna ground. What is karma conducive to painful feeling? Unwholesome karma. What is karma conducive to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling?

Brṛhatphala-realm wholesome karma, and formless-realm wholesome karma. Question: Does karma conducive to pleasant feeling definitely bring about the ripening of pleasant feeling? The question applies equally to the other two feeling-karmas. If it is definite, how is what is said afterward to be reconciled? For a later passage of the treatise says: Is there karma that does not bring about the ripening of bodily or mental feeling, yet still brings about a ripening? Answer: There is — namely karma that brings about the ripening of form and of factors dissociated from mind. If it is not definite, why then is it named karma conducive to pleasant feeling, karma conducive to painful feeling, karma conducive to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling? Some say it is definitely so brought about: karma conducive to pleasant feeling definitely brings about the ripening of pleasant feeling, and for this reason is named karma conducive to pleasant feeling; and so on up to karma conducive to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, which definitely brings about the ripening of neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, and for this reason is so named. Question: If so, how is the later passage to be reconciled — the statement that there is karma which does not bring about the ripening of bodily or mental feeling, yet still brings about a ripening, and so on in full? Answer: That karma definitely brings about the ripening of that feeling, and also brings about factors dissociated from mind; but the feeling it brings about does not always manifest, while the form and so forth it brings about continue without interruption. At a time when the feeling it brings about does not manifest, it is said that that feeling-karma brings about only factors dissociated from mind. Hence there is no fault, and the two passages are thereby well reconciled. Some further say: karma conducive to pleasant feeling is indefinite in bringing about the ripening of pleasant feeling, and so on up to karma conducive to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling being indefinite in bringing about the ripening of neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. Question: If so, why is this karma named karma conducive to pleasant feeling and the rest? Answer: Although karma conducive to pleasant feeling does not definitely bring about the ripening of pleasant feeling, still, whatever does bring about the ripening of pleasant feeling is only this karma and no other; hence it is called karma conducive to pleasant feeling — and what is said of the other two feeling-karmas is likewise so. Some further say: although karma conducive to pleasant feeling does not definitely bring about the ripening of pleasant feeling, still, just as pleasant feeling can serve as the support for joy and happiness, causing joy and happiness to arise and continue in succession, becoming their resting ground, so too can its other possible ripening-fruits do the same; hence it is named karma conducive to pleasant feeling. As for karma conducive to painful feeling —

— although it does not definitely bring about the ripening of painful feeling, still, just as painful feeling can serve as the support for sorrow and suffering, causing sorrow and suffering to arise and continue in succession, becoming their resting ground, so too can its other possible ripening-fruits do the same; hence it is named karma conducive to painful feeling. As for karma conducive to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling: although it does not definitely bring about the ripening of neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, still, just as neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling cannot serve as the support for joy, happiness, sorrow, or suffering, and cannot cause joy, happiness, sorrow, or suffering to arise and continue in succession, becoming their resting ground, so too are its other possible ripening-fruits likewise incapable; hence it is named karma conducive to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. Some further say: just as pleasant feeling can nourish that on which it depends, so too can its other ripening-fruits; hence it is named karma conducive to pleasant feeling. Just as painful feeling can injure that on which it depends, so too can its other ripening-fruits; hence it is named karma conducive to painful feeling. Just as neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling can neither nourish nor injure that on which it depends, so too are its other ripening-fruits; hence it is named karma conducive to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. Question: From the desire realm up through the third dhyāna, is there a ripening of neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling at all?

If there is, how is what is said here to be reconciled — the statement, what is karma conducive to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling? Brṛhatphala-realm wholesome karma, and formless-realm wholesome karma. If there is not, then what feeling-ripening should be said to be brought about by the wholesome karma of the intermediate dhyāna? Some say: the lower grounds have no ripening of neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. Why is this? The lower grounds’ dharmas are coarse, while this feeling is subtle; the lower grounds are not calm, while this feeling is calm. Some further say: the wholesome karma arisen among beings of the lower grounds is entirely arisen for the sake of seeking pleasant feeling — none seek neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling; hence the wholesome karma of the lower grounds does not bring about the ripening of this feeling. Question: but neither do they seek painful feeling — why then does the lower ground bring about that ripening? Answer: beings of the desire realm, in seeking pleasure, create many causes of suffering; hence, though they do not seek it, they still bring about that ripening. Equanimity is calm, and there is no one who, seeking pleasant feeling, creates karma for equanimity; hence there is no such ripening. Question: what feeling-ripening should be said to be brought about by the wholesome karma of the intermediate dhyāna? Answer: it brings about the ripening of the joy faculty of the first dhyāna. Some further say: it brings about the ripening of the pleasure feeling of the first dhyāna. Question: if so, how is a later passage to be reconciled — the statement, is there karma that brings about the ripening of mental feeling but not bodily feeling? Answer: there is — namely wholesome karma free of investigation. Answer: that passage should properly say wholesome karma free of both investigation and analysis; as for why it is not so stated, what is the intent? One should know that the wording here has simply been abbreviated. Some further say: the wholesome karma of the intermediate dhyāna —

— though it does not bring about the ripening of feeling, is still able to bring about factors dissociated from mind. Question: if so, why does the treatise go on to say —

— that wholesome karma free of investigation brings about mental feeling? Answer: it merely says that it can bring about mental feeling and not bodily feeling; it does not say that it brings about only the ripening of mental feeling and not factors dissociated from mind. Some further say: the lower grounds too have a ripening of neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. Question: how then is what is said here to be reconciled — the statement, what is karma conducive to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling? Brṛhatphala-realm wholesome karma, and formless-realm wholesome karma. Answer: this passage shows only the very furthest limit of the ripening of karma conducive to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling — the fourth dhyāna is the limit of the realm possessing form, and the formless realm is the limit of the three realms. Some further say: this passage shows only the field and vessel unshared by this feeling’s ripening — and what is the field and vessel unshared by this feeling’s ripening? The fourth dhyāna, and the formless realm. Some further say: although the lower grounds do have this feeling’s ripening, it is covered over by other feelings, its character unclear and not lasting long in succession; from Bṛhatphala upward there is no other feeling at all, only this feeling, clear and continuous — hence it is spoken of exclusively there. Those who say the lower grounds have no ripening of neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling hold that arhats of the desire realm and the lower three dhyānas enter nirvāṇa abiding in a deportment-mind; arhats of Bṛhatphala enter nirvāṇa abiding in either a deportment-mind or a ripening-mind; and arhats of the formless realm enter nirvāṇa abiding in a ripening-mind. Those who say the lower grounds too have a ripening of neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling hold that arhats of the desire realm and the four dhyānas —

— enter nirvāṇa abiding in either a deportment-mind or a ripening-mind, while arhats of the formless realm enter nirvāṇa abiding in a ripening-mind.

Having explained the intrinsic nature of the earlier and later sets of three karmas, we should now show whether they mix with one another or not — does the earlier subsume the later, or the later the earlier? Answer: the earlier subsumes the later, not the later the earlier. What is not subsumed? Neutral karma and undefiled karma. Here the earlier three karmas are common to both determinate and neutral, while the later three karmas are only determinate; the earlier three karmas are common to both contaminated and undefiled, while the later three karmas are only contaminated. Hence it is said that the earlier subsumes the later, not the later the earlier, and what is not subsumed is neutral karma and undefiled karma. There are three karmas: bodily, verbal, and mental karma. There are further three karmas: past, future, and present karma. There are further three karmas: wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral karma.

There are further three karmas: the trainee’s, the adept’s, and neither the trainee’s nor the adept’s karma. There are further three karmas: karma abandoned by seeing, abandoned by cultivation, and not to be abandoned. Does the earlier subsume the later, or the later the earlier? Answer: they subsume one another according to their respective matters. Why is this? Because the intrinsic nature of bodily, verbal, and mental karma is itself either past, future, or present; either wholesome, unwholesome, or neutral; either the trainee’s, the adept’s, or neither the trainee’s nor the adept’s; either abandoned by seeing, abandoned by cultivation, or not to be abandoned. Hence it is said that they subsume one another according to their respective matters.

There are three karmas: bodily, verbal, and mental karma. There are further three karmas: karma bound to the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm. Does the earlier subsume the later, or the later the earlier? Answer: the earlier subsumes the later, not the later the earlier. What is not subsumed? Undefiled karma. Here the earlier three karmas are common to both contaminated and undefiled, while the later three karmas are only contaminated. Hence it is said that the earlier subsumes the later, not the later the earlier, and what is not subsumed is undefiled karma.

The four karmas are as previously explained. There are three karmas: karma ripening in the present life, and the rest. Do the four subsume the three, or the three the four? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is what is among the four but not the three: the volition of the trainee that exhausts all karmas, desire-realm wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate karma, and form-realm wholesome indeterminate karma. There is what is among the three but not the four: formless-realm wholesome fixed karma. There is what is among both the four and the three: desire-realm wholesome and unwholesome fixed karma, and form-realm wholesome fixed karma. There is what is neither among the four nor the three: apart from the volition of the trainee that exhausts all karmas, the remaining undefiled karma, formless-realm wholesome indeterminate karma, and neutral karma. The four karmas are as previously explained. There are three karmas: karma conducive to pleasant feeling, and the rest. Do the four subsume the three, or the three the four? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is what is among the four but not the three: the volition of the trainee that exhausts all karmas. There is what is among the three but not the four: formless-realm wholesome karma. There is what is among both the four and the three: desire-realm wholesome and unwholesome karma, and form-realm wholesome karma. There is what is neither among the four nor the three: apart from the volition of the trainee that exhausts all karmas, the remaining undefiled karma, and neutral karma.

The four karmas are as previously explained. There are three karmas: past karma, and the rest. There are further three karmas: wholesome karma, and the rest. There are further three karmas:

— the trainee’s karma, and the rest. There are further three karmas: karma abandoned by seeing, and the rest. Do the four subsume the three, or the three the four? Answer: the three subsume the four, not the four the three. What is not subsumed? Apart from the volition of the trainee that exhausts all karmas, the remaining undefiled karma, formless-realm wholesome karma, and neutral karma.

The four karmas are as previously explained. There are three karmas: karma bound to the desire realm, and the rest. Do the four subsume the three, or the three the four? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is what is among the four but not the three: the volition of the trainee that exhausts all karmas. There is what is among the three but not the four: formless-realm wholesome karma, and all neutral karma. There is what is among both the four and the three: desire-realm wholesome and unwholesome karma, and form-realm wholesome karma. There is what is neither among the four nor the three: apart from the volition of the trainee that exhausts all karmas, the remaining undefiled karma. There are three karmas: karma ripening in the present life, and the rest. There are further three karmas: karma conducive to pleasant feeling, and the rest. Does the earlier subsume the later, or the later the earlier? Answer: the later subsumes the earlier, not the earlier the later.

What is not subsumed? Indeterminate karma. Here the earlier three karmas subsume only fixed karma, while the later three karmas subsume both fixed and indeterminate karma. Hence it is said that the later subsumes the earlier, not the earlier the later, and what is not subsumed is indeterminate karma.

There are three karmas: karma ripening in the present life, and the rest. There are further three karmas: past karma, and the rest. There are further three karmas: wholesome karma, and the rest. There are further three karmas: the trainee’s karma, and the rest. There are further three karmas: karma abandoned by seeing, and the rest. Does the earlier subsume the later,

or the later the earlier? Answer: the later subsumes the earlier, not the earlier the later. What is not subsumed? Indeterminate karma and neutral karma.

— and undefiled karma. Here the earlier three karmas subsume only what is fixed, only what is determinate, and only what is contaminated, while the later sets of three karmas together subsume both fixed and indeterminate, both determinate and neutral, and both contaminated and undefiled karma. Hence it is said that the later subsumes the earlier, not the earlier the later, and what is not subsumed is indeterminate karma, neutral karma, and undefiled karma.

There are three karmas: karma ripening in the present life, and the rest. There are further three karmas: karma bound to the desire realm, and the rest. Does the earlier subsume the later, or the later the earlier? Answer: the later subsumes the earlier, not the earlier the later. What is not subsumed? Indeterminate karma and neutral karma. Here the earlier three karmas subsume only what is fixed and only what is determinate, while the later three karmas subsume both fixed and indeterminate, both determinate and neutral karma. Hence it is said that the later subsumes the earlier, not the earlier the later, and what is not subsumed is indeterminate karma and neutral karma.

There are three karmas: karma conducive to pleasant feeling, and the rest. There are further three karmas: past karma, and the rest. There are further three karmas: wholesome karma, and the rest. There are further three karmas: the trainee’s karma, and the rest. There are further three karmas: karma abandoned by seeing, and the rest. Does the earlier subsume the later,

or the later the earlier? Answer: the later subsumes the earlier, not the earlier the later. What is not subsumed? Neutral karma and undefiled karma.

Here the earlier three karmas are only determinate and only contaminated, while the later sets of three karmas together are common to both determinate and neutral, and to both contaminated and undefiled.

Hence it is said that the later subsumes the earlier, not the earlier the later, and what is not subsumed is neutral karma and undefiled karma. Question: why do neutral and undefiled karma not bring about the ripening of pleasant feeling and the rest? Answer: neutral karma is by its own nature feeble, its force not firmly abiding,

and hence has no ripening. Undefiled karma is free of all afflictions and is not bound to the three realms, and hence has no ripening. Why is this?

If karma that has arisen is firm and strong by its own nature and is bound by the afflictions, it can bring about a ripening. It is like an outer seed: if its substance is firm and full, moistened by water and covered by soil, it can then sprout; if it is not firm and full, though moistened by water and covered by soil, it cannot sprout; and if, though firm and full, it is not moistened by water nor covered by soil, it likewise cannot sprout. Inner karma is just the same: if its substance is firm and strong, moistened by the water of craving and covered by the remaining afflictions, it can bring about a ripening. Neutral karma, though moistened by the water of craving and covered by the remaining afflictions, is by nature feeble and not firm, and so does not bring about a ripening. Undefiled karma, though firm and strong in substance, is not moistened by the water of craving nor covered by the remaining afflictions, and so does not bring about a ripening. Unwholesome karma and contaminated wholesome karma are fully possessed of both conditions, and so can bring about a ripening. This is why neutral karma and undefiled karma are not subsumed by the earlier.

There are three karmas: karma conducive to pleasant feeling, and the rest. There are further three karmas: karma bound to the desire realm, and the rest. Does the earlier subsume the later, or the later the earlier? Answer: the later subsumes the earlier, not the earlier the later. What is not subsumed? Neutral karma. Here the earlier three karmas are only determinate, while the later three karmas are common to both determinate and neutral. Hence it is said that the later subsumes the earlier, not the earlier the later, and what is not subsumed is neutral karma.

There are three karmas: past karma, and the rest. There are further three karmas: wholesome karma, and the rest. There are further three karmas: the trainee’s karma, and the rest.

There are further three karmas: karma abandoned by seeing, and the rest. Does the earlier subsume the later, or the later the earlier? Answer: they subsume one another according to their respective matters, since their meaning differs though their substance does not. There are three karmas: past karma, and the rest. There are further three karmas: karma bound to the desire realm, and the rest. Does the earlier subsume the later, or the later the earlier? Answer: the earlier subsumes the later, not the later the earlier. What is not subsumed? Undefiled karma. Here the earlier three karmas are common to both contaminated and undefiled, while the later three karmas are only contaminated. Hence it is said that the earlier subsumes the later, not the later the earlier, and what is not subsumed is undefiled karma.

There are three karmas: wholesome karma, and the rest. There are further three karmas: karma bound to the desire realm, and the rest. Does the earlier subsume the later, or the later the earlier?

Answer: the earlier subsumes the later, not the later the earlier. What is not subsumed? Undefiled karma. Here the earlier three karmas are common to both contaminated and undefiled, while the later three karmas are only contaminated. Hence it is said that the earlier subsumes the later, not the later the earlier, and what is not subsumed is undefiled karma. There are three karmas: wholesome karma, and the rest. There are further three karmas: the trainee’s karma, and the rest. There are further three karmas: karma abandoned by seeing, and the rest. Does the earlier subsume the later, or the later the earlier? Answer: they subsume one another according to their respective matters, since their meaning differs though their substance does not. There are three karmas: karma bound to the desire realm, and the rest. There are further three karmas: the trainee’s karma, and the rest. There are further three karmas: karma abandoned by seeing, and the rest. Does the earlier subsume the later, or the later the earlier? Answer: the later subsumes the earlier, not the earlier the later. What is not subsumed? Undefiled karma. Here the earlier three karmas are only contaminated, while the later three karmas are common to both contaminated and undefiled. Hence it is said that the later subsumes the earlier, not the earlier the later, and what is not subsumed is undefiled karma. There are three karmas: the trainee’s karma, and the rest. There are further three karmas: karma abandoned by seeing, and the rest. Does the earlier subsume the later, or the later the earlier? Answer: they subsume one another according to their respective matters, as explained above. Is there karma that brings about bodily feeling but not mental feeling? Answer: there is — namely unwholesome karma, since unwholesome karma brings about only the ripening of the pain faculty. Question: why does unwholesome karma not bring about mental feeling? Answer: the mental feeling of its own kind, namely the sorrow faculty, is not itself a ripening, and so is not brought about. Question: why is the sorrow faculty not a ripening? Answer: because the sorrow faculty arises from deliberate attention, is strong in discrimination, and is free from the equanimity of dispassion — a ripening is not like this.

Is there karma that brings about mental feeling but not bodily feeling? Answer: there is — namely wholesome karma free of investigation. Here, among those who wish to hold that the lower grounds have no ripening of neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, the mental-feeling ripening brought about by this wholesome karma free of investigation is the joy faculty of the second dhyāna,

the pleasure faculty of the third dhyāna, and the equanimity faculty of the fourth dhyāna and the formless realm. Some say it also brings about the joy faculty of the first dhyāna, since they belong to the same ground, but does not bring about the pleasure faculty associated with the three consciousnesses, since this karma is subtle. Among those who wish to hold that the lower grounds too have a ripening of neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, the mental-feeling ripening brought about by this wholesome karma free of investigation is the joy faculty and the equanimity faculty of the second dhyāna, the pleasure faculty and equanimity faculty of the third dhyāna, and the equanimity faculty of the fourth dhyāna and the formless realm. Some say it also brings about the equanimity faculty of the intermediate dhyāna. Some say it also brings about the joy faculty of the first dhyāna, but the pleasure faculty, being coarse, is not brought about by this karma.

Is there karma that brings about both bodily and mental feeling? Answer: there is — namely wholesome karma with investigation. Among those who wish to hold that the lower grounds have no ripening of neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling: this wholesome karma with investigation, if in the desire realm, brings about the ripening of the pleasure faculty as bodily feeling associated with the five bodily consciousnesses, and the ripening of the joy faculty as mental feeling associated with mental consciousness; if in the first dhyāna, it brings about the ripening of the pleasure faculty as bodily feeling associated with the three consciousnesses, and the ripening of the joy faculty as mental feeling associated with mental consciousness. Among those who wish to hold that the lower grounds too have a ripening of neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling: this wholesome karma with investigation, if in the desire realm, brings about the ripening of the pleasure faculty and the equanimity faculty as bodily feeling associated with the five bodily consciousnesses, and the ripening of the joy faculty and the equanimity faculty as mental feeling associated with mental consciousness; if in the first dhyāna, it brings about the ripening of the pleasure faculty and the equanimity faculty as bodily feeling associated with the three consciousnesses, and the ripening of the joy faculty and the equanimity faculty as mental feeling associated with mental consciousness. Question: why is the joy faculty a ripening-fruit but not the sorrow faculty? Answer: the mode of activity of joyful feeling is sometimes coarse and sometimes subtle; it need not always arise through deliberate attention, and need not always involve strong discrimination — it can occur even within subtle states of concentration. Moreover, this joy faculty is not the equanimity of dispassion, and does not contradict what belongs to ripening, and so it is a ripening; the sorrow faculty is not like this, and so is not a ripening. Question: why is the equanimity faculty brought about only by wholesome karma and not unwholesome karma? Answer: the mode of activity of the equanimity faculty is subtle and calm, delighted in by the wise, and so is brought about by wholesome karma; unwholesome karma is by nature coarse and agitated, and so cannot bring about the ripening of equanimity feeling. Is there karma that does not bring about bodily or mental feeling, yet still brings about a ripening? Answer: there is — namely karma that brings about the ripening of factors dissociated from mind. The ripening that is form consists of the nine sense-fields excepting the sound field; the ripening that is a factor dissociated from mind consists of the life faculty, the class-nature shared with others, birth, abiding, aging, and impermanence. Some say —

— and the state of non-perception as well.

Question: here, what is called bodily feeling, and what is called mental feeling? Answer: if a feeling is present among the five bodily consciousnesses, it is called bodily feeling; if it is present in the mental ground, it is called mental feeling. Some further say: among feelings, whichever is free of discrimination is called bodily feeling, and whichever has discrimination is called mental feeling. Some further say: whichever feeling takes an own-characteristic object as its object is called bodily feeling, and whichever takes both an own-characteristic and a common-characteristic object is called mental feeling. Some further say:

— whichever feeling takes a present object is called bodily feeling, and whichever takes an object of the three times or an unconditioned object is called mental feeling. Some further say: whichever feeling takes a really existent object is called bodily feeling, and whichever takes both a really existent and a nominally existent object is called mental feeling. Some further say: whichever feeling grasps its object in a single pass is called bodily feeling, and whichever grasps it repeatedly is called mental feeling. Some further say: whichever feeling, upon briefly attending to its object, at once comprehends it, is called bodily feeling, and whichever comprehends it only through searching investigation is called mental feeling. Some further say: among feelings, whichever depends on form and takes form as object is called bodily feeling, and whichever depends on the non-material and takes both form and the non-material as object is called mental feeling; and just as with form and the non-material, so too it is said with the resistant and the non-resistant, the aggregated and the non-aggregated, and the combined and the non-combined. The Venerable Vasumitra says: the Buddha spoke of two feelings, bodily feeling and mental feeling — but which is called bodily feeling, and which mental feeling? In truth there is no bodily feeling at all; every feeling whatsoever is mental feeling. Why is this?

Because it is associated with mind. Yet whatever feeling operates by depending on the five sense faculties is called bodily feeling, since it always takes the body as its predominant condition; and whatever operates by depending on the mental faculty is called mental feeling, since it always takes mind as its predominant condition. Others say likewise: there is no bodily feeling at all; every feeling whatsoever is mental feeling. Why is this? Because it is associated with mind. Yet whatever feeling operates by depending on the three faculties and takes a combined object is called bodily feeling, since it always involves conceptualization; and whatever operates by depending on the three faculties and takes a non-combined object is called mental feeling, since it does not always involve conceptualization.

The Great Virtuous One says: there are two kinds of feeling — first, bodily feeling; second, mental feeling. Whatever is bodily feeling is also mental feeling, but there is what is mental feeling and yet not bodily feeling — namely, whatever feeling does not take an external matter as object and give rise to discrimination, but rather, depending only on an internal matter, grasps its mark and gives rise to discrimination, that is, whatever takes as object the person as a whole, or form included in the mind-object field, or factors dissociated from mind, or unconditioned dharmas, and the like, is called mental feeling. The Great Virtuous One wishes to hold that such mental feeling has no real object at all, and operates through discrimination alone.

As it is said, there are three obstructions: the afflictive obstruction, the karmic obstruction, and the retributive obstruction. Question: why compose this treatise? Answer: in order to analyze the meaning of the sūtra. For the sūtra says: if beings are possessed of six factors, then even upon hearing the Dharma and Vinaya realized and taught by the Tathāgata, they are incapable of becoming far removed from defilement, of leaving stain behind, and of giving rise, with respect to all dharmas, to the pure Dharma-eye. What are the six? First, the afflictive obstruction; second, the karmic obstruction; third, the retributive obstruction; fourth, lack of faith; fifth, lack of joy; sixth, evil wisdom. Though it speaks of being possessed of these six factors, it does not explain them fully, nor has it ever said what is called the afflictive obstruction, what the karmic obstruction, and what the retributive obstruction. That sūtra is the very root and origin from which this treatise arises; what it has not explained should now be explained, and so this treatise is composed. Some further say: although the earlier discussion analyzed the various karmas, it did not yet analyze the obstructions of karma and the rest; wishing now to analyze these, this treatise is composed.

These three obstructions, in sum, take as their own-nature blazing and sharp afflictions, the five ānantarya deeds, and the various ripenings of hell and the like. Having explained their own-nature, we should now explain the reason for it. Question: why are they called obstructions? Answer: these three kinds can obstruct the noble path and the wholesome roots that are the preparatory practice for the noble path, and hence are called obstructions. What is the afflictive obstruction? It is as when a certain one is by original nature fully possessed of blazing greed, hatred, and delusion afflictions; because of this, he is difficult to bring to weariness and disgust with existence, difficult to instruct, difficult to awaken, difficult to bring to liberation, difficult to bring to release. Here, those originally fully possessed of blazing and sharp greed affliction are exemplified by Nanda and the like; those fully possessed of blazing and sharp hatred affliction are exemplified by Aṅgulimāla and the like; those fully possessed of blazing and sharp delusion affliction are exemplified by Kāśyapa and the like. Question: if so, then the statement that they are difficult to bring to weariness and disgust, difficult to instruct, difficult to awaken, difficult to bring to liberation, difficult to bring to release, is well reconciled, since through the Buddha’s own diligent skillful means of teaching they all came to see the truths. But how, then, is the statement that they can obstruct the noble path and the wholesome roots preparatory to it to be reconciled? Answer: although they were capable of obstructing the noble path and its preparatory wholesome roots, still, through the Buddha’s own power and skillful transformative means, they came to see the truths — but for the great śrāvakas such as Śāriputra, this is not a domain that could have been so transformed. Some further say: those fully possessed of blazing and sharp greed affliction are exemplified by eunuchs and the like; those fully possessed of blazing and sharp hatred affliction are exemplified by

— those like the venomous-breathed one and the like; and those fully possessed of blazing and sharp delusion affliction are exemplified by the six teachers and the like. Question: if so, the statement that they can obstruct the noble path and its preparatory wholesome roots is well reconciled, since they never came to see the truths at all. But how then is the statement that they are difficult to bring to weariness and disgust, difficult to instruct, and so forth, to be reconciled, since one who never at all attains the seeing of the truths ought not to be called merely “difficult”? Answer: it should rather be said —

— that they do not give rise to weariness and disgust at all, cannot be instructed at all, and so forth; and as for why it is not stated in this way, what is the intent? It is that not giving rise to weariness and disgust at all is itself called being difficult to bring to weariness and disgust, and so on up to not attaining liberation at all is itself called being difficult to bring to liberation.

Question: how is this afflictive obstruction established — with respect to possession, or with respect to present manifestation? Answer: it is established with respect to present manifestation, not with respect to possession. For if it were established with respect to possession, then all beings would be without distinction, since all equally possess all the afflictions. Because it is established with respect to present manifestation, the distinctions among afflictions then form a tetralemma: there is affliction that is blazing but not sharp; there is affliction that is sharp but not blazing; there is affliction that is both blazing and sharp; and there is affliction that is neither blazing nor sharp.

Affliction that is blazing but not sharp is inferior-grade affliction that is frequently active; sharp but not blazing is superior-grade affliction that is not frequently active; both blazing and sharp is superior-grade affliction that is frequently active; neither blazing nor sharp is inferior-grade affliction that is not frequently active. Here, affliction that is blazing but not sharp is still the afflictive obstruction, because, although this affliction is of inferior grade, being frequently active it proceeds from the inferior to the middling, and from the middling to the superior, gradually advancing until it is even capable of cutting off the wholesome roots. That affliction which is sharp but not blazing is not the afflictive obstruction, because, although this affliction is of superior grade,

not being frequently active, it can gradually be diminished, up to being finally and utterly extinguished upon entering the state of certainty as to what is right. That affliction which is both blazing and sharp is the afflictive obstruction, and is in every case the heaviest; that affliction which is neither blazing nor sharp is not the afflictive obstruction, and is in every case the lightest. In just this way, wholesome roots too form a tetralemma: there is wholesome root that is blazing but not sharp; there is wholesome root that is sharp but not blazing; there is wholesome root that is both blazing and sharp; and there is wholesome root that is neither blazing nor sharp. Blazing but not sharp is inferior-grade wholesome root that is frequently active; sharp but not blazing is superior-grade wholesome root that is not frequently active; both blazing and sharp is superior-grade wholesome root that is frequently active; neither blazing nor sharp is inferior-grade wholesome root that is not frequently active. Here, wholesome root that is blazing but not sharp is not obstructed by the afflictive obstruction, because, although this is inferior-grade wholesome root, being frequently active it proceeds from the inferior to the middling, and from the middling to the superior, gradually increasing until it can swiftly realize the cutting-off of all fetters. That wholesome root which is sharp but not blazing is obstructed by the afflictive obstruction, because, although this is superior-grade wholesome root, not being frequently active, the afflictions may well manifest again and again and gradually increase, capable of cutting off the wholesome root. That wholesome root which is both blazing and sharp is, in every case, supreme; that wholesome root which is neither blazing nor sharp is, in every case, inferior.

What is the karmic obstruction? It is the five ānantarya deeds. What are the five? First, killing one’s mother; second, killing one’s father; third, killing an arhat; fourth, causing a schism in the saṅgha; fifth, with malicious intent, drawing the blood of a buddha. Question: as previously explained, it is because they can obstruct the noble path and its preparatory wholesome roots that they are called obstructions. But apart from the five ānantarya deeds, there is other good and evil conduct as well — namely, karma fixed to a definite eighth existence, and killing brought about through a superior entanglement of hatred, such as against the ant Kuṇḍalī and the like — through which, being obstructed, one is likewise unable, in this very life, to enter the noble path. Why is this not also said to be the karmic obstruction? Answer: this too should indeed be said to be the karmic obstruction, and as for why it is not so stated, one should know that this teaching is incomplete.

In this section, all three obstructions have such incomplete teachings. Some further say: the five ānantarya deeds definitely constitute the obstruction, and hence are spoken of exclusively; the other good and evil conduct may or may not constitute the obstruction, and hence is not spoken of. Some further say: the five ānantarya deeds are furnished with five causes and conditions, being easy to see and easy to know, and hence are spoken of exclusively. What are the five? First, their own-nature; second, their destination; third, the time of their receiving birth; fourth, their fruit; fifth, the person who commits them. As to their own-nature: these five are by nature fixed and extremely grave evil deeds. As to their destination: these five are definitely experienced in hell and not in any other destiny. As to the time of their receiving birth: these five definitely ripen in the very next life following, not ripening in the present life, nor in a later life beyond, nor with an indeterminate time of ripening. As to their fruit: these five definitely bring about a result in the world that is extremely disagreeable. As to the person: the person capable of committing these five is easy to see and easy to know —

— namely, this one is capable of killing his mother, this one his father, and so on up to this one being capable of drawing a buddha’s blood. Apart from these five, all other good and evil conduct is without these five causes and conditions of being easy to see and easy to know, and hence is not so spoken of.

Question: as for the preparatory action of the ānantarya deeds that fulfills that karmic fruit — is this fixed or not fixed with respect to that fruit? If it is said to be fixed, then why is this not so stated here? Moreover, how could the Venerable Aṅgulimāla and Śrīgupta have been able to be turned back from it? If it is not fixed, then how is what is said in the Nyāsa on the Taking of Life to be reconciled — the statement, is there one who has not yet killed a living being, whose killing is not yet completed, whose karmic ripening is nonetheless certain to bring about rebirth in hell? Answer: there is — as when one dies at the very moment of undertaking the preparatory action for an ānantarya deed. Some further say: this karma is fixed with respect to that fruit. Question: then the Nyāsa on the Taking of Life is indeed well reconciled — but why is this not stated here? Answer: here it should properly speak of the five ānantarya deeds together with their preparatory action, and as for why it is not so stated, what is the intent? Answer: this has already been stated as included within the five ānantarya deeds themselves, since the five ānantarya deeds make use of this as their preparatory action; once the fruit has been stated, one should know that the preparatory action has thereby already been stated. Question: how was the Venerable Aṅgulimāla able to be turned back? Answer: he had not yet undertaken the ānantarya preparatory action itself; hence he said, “For now I shall not yet kill my mother — for now I shall first eat my meal.” Question: but was he not intent on killing the Omniscient One? Answer: at that time he had undertaken the preparatory action of killing directed toward one who was not the Omniscient One, not toward the Omniscient One himself. For this reason the World-Honored One transformed himself into an ordinary bhikṣu and entered the Tāḍa Grove to intercept him, since if that venerable one had undertaken the preparatory action of killing directed at the Omniscient One himself, it could never have been remedied — for if any being undertakes the preparatory action of killing directed at the Omniscient One, then even as many tathāgata-arhat-fully-awakened-ones as there are grains of sand in the Ganges could not save him from hell. Hence one knows that he undertook the preparatory action of killing directed toward one who was not the Omniscient One, not toward the Omniscient One himself. Question: how was Śrīgupta able to be turned back? Answer: he too had not undertaken the ānantarya preparatory action itself; hence, although he secretly prepared a pit of fire and food laced with poison, he thought to himself, “If the Tathāgata is indeed omniscient, he will surely avoid it of his own accord; if he is not omniscient, he shall then be destroyed, lest he go on deceiving and devouring the world.” Since the preparatory action of killing he undertook was not directed at the Omniscient One as such, it could therefore be turned back. Some further say: this karma is not fixed with respect to that fruit. Question: then it is indeed well reconciled that it is not stated here, and the karma of the Venerable Aṅgulimāla and Śrīgupta can likewise be turned back — but how then is the Nyāsa on the Taking of Life to be reconciled? Answer: the preparatory action of the ānantarya deeds that fulfills that karmic fruit is, with respect to that fruit, in some cases fixed and in some cases not fixed. What the Nyāsa on the Taking of Life speaks of as fixed refers to what could not be turned back; the Venerable Aṅgulimāla and Śrīgupta represent what could be turned back, that is, what is not fixed — and so both statements are thereby well reconciled. What is the retributive obstruction? It is birth in any of these states among beings: hell, the animal realm, the realm of hungry ghosts, the northern continent of Uttarakuru, and the heaven of no perception. Question: but other continents too have a ripening that constitutes an obstruction, as with paṇḍakas, hermaphrodites, and those without sexual organs or with both — why is this not spoken of here? Answer: this too should properly be spoken of, and as for why it is not so stated, one should know that this too is an incomplete teaching; hence it was said above that all three obstructions here have incomplete teachings. Some further say: here only what is fixed is spoken of as an obstruction —

— what is not fixed being excluded, since for those beings whatever ripening they have may or may not constitute an obstruction, and hence it is not spoken of.

Question: of these three obstructions, how many can a single continuum possess at once? Answer: it may possess only one — any single one of the three; or it may possess two — the afflictive obstruction together with the karmic obstruction, or the afflictive obstruction together with the retributive obstruction. There is no possessing of the karmic obstruction and the retributive obstruction without the afflictive obstruction, and hence there is likewise no possessing of all three at once.

Question: of these three obstructions, which is the heaviest? Some say: the retributive obstruction is heaviest, for what reason? Because at the time of the cause it can still be turned back, while at the time of the fruit it can no longer be turned back. Some further say: the karmic obstruction is heaviest, for what reason? Because the karmic obstruction is able to draw forth the retributive obstruction. According to this account: the afflictive obstruction is heaviest, since the afflictive obstruction is able to draw forth the karmic obstruction, and the karmic obstruction is in turn able to draw forth the retributive obstruction — thus all are rooted in affliction, and for this reason it is heaviest.

Among the three kinds of evil conduct, which carries the greatest sin? It is the false speech that causes a schism in the saṅgha, for this karma is able to bring about a ripened fruit of suffering in Avīci hell lasting a full eon in duration, while other karmas are not fixed in this way. Question: this passage says that the false speech causing schism is the greatest sin, yet elsewhere it is said —

— that mental karma is the greatest sin, and elsewhere still it is said that wrong view is the greatest sin. What distinguishes these three great sins? Some say: sin is of three kinds — karma, affliction, and evil conduct. Among karmas, mental karma is the great sin; among afflictions, wrong view is the great sin; among evil conduct, the false speech causing schism is the great sin. Some further say: because it disturbs the great assembly, mental karma is the great sin; because it destroys every wholesome root, wrong view is the great sin; because it is able to bring about a fruit of great suffering as its ripening, the false speech causing schism is the great sin. Some further say: among the three karmas, mental karma is the great sin; among the five views, wrong view is the great sin; among the five ānantarya deeds, the false speech causing schism is the great sin. Some further say: among the paths of karma abandoned by seeing, wrong view is the great sin; among the paths of karma abandoned by cultivation, the false speech causing schism is the great sin; among karma abandoned by both seeing and cultivation, mental karma is the great sin. Some further say: with respect to karma that is itself volition, mental karma is called the great sin; with respect to karma brought about by volition, the false speech causing schism is called the great sin; with respect to what is not karma at all, wrong view is called the great sin. Some further say: with respect to karma that initiates, mental karma is called the great sin; with respect to karma that is initiated, the false speech causing schism is called the great sin; with respect to what is not karma at all, wrong view is called the great sin. Some further say: with respect to karma that turns, mental karma is called the great sin; with respect to karma that is turned, the false speech causing schism is called the great sin; with respect to what is not karma at all, wrong view is called the great sin. These are called the distinctions among the three great sins.

Question: at the time of causing a schism, there is also bodily karma in the coming and going of the preparatory action, deliberation, and other verbal karma as well — why then is it said that false speech alone is able to cause the schism? Answer: whatever is present at every stage, from preparatory action through to completion, at the time of causing the schism, is what is spoken of here. Among all these karmas, only false speech is present at every stage, from preparatory action through to completion, capable of causing the saṅgha’s ruin, and hence it is spoken of exclusively; the other karmas are not like this, and hence are not so spoken of.

Question: as it is said that this karma is able to bring about the fruit of Avīci hell — why is it named the hell of no interval? Answer: this is a name conventionally established, a notion conventionally established;

it need not be the case that the name in every respect corresponds to the meaning. Moreover, this hell is also called “no interval,” also called “where blazing flames of molten iron pierce the limbs like arrows,” also called “where one constantly experiences all manner of suffering and affliction through the gateways of the six sense-contacts,” and also called “suffering brought upon oneself by one’s own karma.” Some further say:

— it is because, within this hell, there is no interval, no gap at all, that could allow pleasant feeling even briefly to manifest, that it is named “no interval.” Question: in the other hells, are there matters of joy and pleasure such as song, dance, and food and drink? Answer: although the other hells have no pleasure that is itself a ripening, they do have a pleasure that is merely of the same outflow. As the Prajñaptiśāstra says: in the Reviving Hell, there are times when a cool breeze occasionally blows, or when one hears a voice calling out, “Revive, revive!” — at which those beings suddenly come back to life, their limbs, flesh, and blood restored just as before, giving rise to a brief joy and pleasure. Avīci hell has no such matter, and hence is named “no interval.” Some further say: the beings born there are so vast in number —

— that there is no interval, no gap between them, and hence it is named “no interval.” This account, however, is not so. Why is this? It is only through superior-grade evil conduct that one is born in that hell, and beings of the world are not all capable of undertaking superior-grade evil conduct — just as it is only through the cultivation of superior-grade good conduct that one is born at the Peak of Existence, and beings of the world are not all capable of undertaking superior-grade good conduct; hence those born at the Peak of Existence are few, and likewise those born in Avīci are few. Hence that account does not hold.

Question: if so, why then is it named “no interval”? Answer: it is named “no interval” with respect to the ripened fruit — because the beings who create such great evil karma and are born in that hell obtain vast and enormous bodies, each one of whose forms is utterly vast, filling up every place throughout that hell without any interval or gap remaining, it is therefore named “no interval.”