Devadatta's Schism and the Ten Unwholesome Paths

Question: as for this karma bringing about a fruit of one eon's lifespan, which kind of eon is meant? Some say: it is the eon of formation. Some further say: it is the eon of destruction. Some further say: it is the great eon. According to this account, it is a middling eon, since there are also cases of escaping before a middling eon is exhausted — for the Vinaya says that Devadatta, when the human lifespan reaches forty thousand years, will come to be born among humans,

— and will certainly attain pratyekabuddha-awakening, a thing that even Śāriputra and the like cannot match. Question: how, then, is the following verse to be reconciled?

Whoever splits the saṅgha, Shattering its harmonious accord, Is born in Avīci hell, Abiding there a full eon's span. The Venerable Vasumitra explains it thus: even an eon diminished still bears the name of a whole eon — just as, among people of the world, one who keeps watch through even a shortened day is still said to have kept a full day's watch. It is just the same here.

Question: this crime of causing schism in the saṅgha also brings about the ripening of the five aggregates in hell — why, then, does it speak only of a lifespan of one eon? Some say:

— it is because lifespan comes first; the World-Honored One speaks of taking the fruit of the five aggregates as a whole under this one heading. Some further say: here the World-Honored One speaks of the supreme dharma — among the five aggregates, lifespan alone is supreme, and hence it is spoken of exclusively. Some further say: lifespan is able to sustain all five aggregates, keeping them from scattering and decaying, and hence it is spoken of exclusively. Some further say: lifespan, from the very moment of birth until the class-nature is exhausted, is without interruption, and it is lifespan that keeps the class-nature itself likewise without interruption — no other dharma is like this, and hence they are not spoken of. Some further say: it is by the measure of lifespan that the world is known to increase or decrease, to advance or decline, to flourish or wane, and hence it is spoken of exclusively. Question: why does causing schism bring about the crime of an eon's abiding, while maliciously drawing the Buddha's blood does not? Answer: to maliciously draw the Buddha's blood harms the Buddha's own born body, while to cause a schism harms the Buddha's own Dharma-body — and every tathāgata-arhat-fully-awakened-one honors and reveres the Dharma-body, not the born body. Some further say: to maliciously draw the Buddha's blood merely injures what is revered, while to cause a schism is to injure and destroy what is revered by the revered themselves. To maliciously draw the Buddha's blood merely wounds the Great Teacher, while to cause a schism is to wound and injure that which the Great Teacher himself takes as teacher — for just as with the Great Teacher, so too it is with the Dharma-king who is the very refuge and resort of all. Some say: to arouse a murderous intent and draw the Buddha's blood is merely a crime of preparatory action, since it is the very nature of a buddha that he cannot actually be harmed; causing schism is not like this — it is a root offense. And exactly as with preparatory action and root offense, so too it is with the initiation and the completion of the act. Some further say: to arouse a malicious intent and draw the Buddha's blood does not require setting in motion a vast and extensive preparatory action, but occurs merely through a sudden, abrupt act of violence; causing schism is not like this — it necessarily requires setting in motion a vast and extensive preparatory action, sometimes spanning a full month or as long as four months, skillfully enticing and deceiving newly ordained bhikṣus until they fall into line, and only afterward is the schism achieved — and this is why its crime is heavier. Some further say: to arouse a malicious intent and draw the Buddha's blood does not disturb the great assembly — although it wounds the Buddha's own body, it cannot arouse in the Buddha any disturbed state of mind, nor does it cause any general uproar, since of the beings of the world who hear of this deed, some hear of it and some do not; whereas to cause a schism in the saṅgha brings about the greatest possible uproar and disturbance to the great assembly.

At the time of the schism, those who ought to enter the state of certainty as to what is right are unable to enter it; those who ought to attain the realization of a fruit are unable to attain it; those who ought to become free of desire are unable to become free of desire; those who ought to exhaust the contaminants are unable to exhaust them; they are unable to recite, uphold, and reflect upon the Tripiṭaka;

— they are unable to reflect upon the dharmas in a place of solitude, nor to cultivate the attainments of the dhyānas and the formless absorptions; they are unable to plant the seeds of the three vehicles; the Dharma-wheel does not turn throughout the trichiliocosm, and the news, spreading in turn, reaches even the gods of the Pure Abodes, disturbing their clear and calm wisdom, preventing it from manifesting undisturbed and lucid. But once the split saṅgha is reunited in harmony, those who ought to enter the state of certainty as to what is right at once enter it; those who ought to attain the realization of a fruit at once attain it; those who ought to become free of desire become free of desire; those who ought to exhaust the contaminants exhaust them; there is then reciting, upholding, and reflecting upon the Tripiṭaka, reflecting upon the dharmas in places of solitude, cultivating the attainments of the dhyānas and the formless absorptions, and the seeds of the three vehicles can also again be planted; the Dharma-wheel again turns throughout the trichiliocosm, and the news, spreading in turn, reaches the gods of the Pure Abodes, letting their clear and calm wisdom again manifest undisturbed and lucid. For this reason, to arouse a malicious intent and draw the Buddha's blood is unable to give rise to the crime of an eon's abiding,

— while to cause a schism in the saṅgha is indeed able to give rise to the crime of an eon's abiding.

Question: what is the own-nature of a split saṅgha? Answer: its own-nature is disharmony, an unobscured-neutral factor dissociated from mind, included within the aggregate of factors dissociated from mind — this is exactly what is meant elsewhere by "there are yet further factors dissociated from mind of this same kind." Hence a split saṅgha is one thing, and the crime of causing the schism is another: the split saṅgha is the state of disharmony, unobscured-neutral, included within the aggregate of factors dissociated from mind, while the crime of causing schism is false speech, an unwholesome verbal karma, included within the aggregate of form. It is just as retrogression itself differs from the state of retrogression: retrogression itself is a state of non-possession, unobscured-neutral, included within the aggregate of factors dissociated from mind, while the state of retrogression is unwholesome, obscured-neutral, included within the five aggregates. It is just the same here: the split saṅgha is one thing, the crime of causing schism another — for this reason, it is the saṅgha itself that possesses the split, while it is the one who causes the schism who possesses the crime of causing it.

Question: where does the splitting of the saṅgha occur? Answer: it occurs in the desire realm, among the human destiny. Splitting the saṅgha through separate ritual acts can occur across all three continents; splitting the saṅgha through the founding of a rival dharma-wheel occurs only on Jambudvīpa. Why is this? Wherever a great teacher and a path can be found, there the dharma-wheel can be split; the other continents have no great teacher and no path, and hence there is no one there to split any dharma-wheel. It is like the world at large: wherever there is a king, there arises a false king; wherever there is a strongman, there arises a rival contender in strength — it is just the same here. Wherever there is a great teacher, there arises a false teacher; wherever there is a path, there arises a false path — it is simply the nature of things that the false and the true, occupying the same ground, stand opposed. Question: what is the difference between splitting the saṅgha by separate ritual acts and splitting it by founding a rival dharma-wheel? Answer: splitting by ritual acts means that, within a single boundary, two groups of monks dwell apart from one another, each performing the poṣadha rite and the recitation of the precepts separately. Splitting by founding a rival dharma-wheel means setting up a different teacher and a different path — as when Devadatta said, "I myself am the great teacher, not the ascetic Gautama; these five practices are the true path, not the Noble Eightfold Path taught by Gautama, for whoever is able to cultivate these five practices swiftly realizes nirvāṇa, not through the eightfold path." What are the five practices? First, wearing rag-robes for life; second, always begging for food for life; third, eating only a single sitting's meal for life;

— fourth, dwelling always in the open air for life; fifth, eating none of fish, meat, blood, salt, ghee, or milk for life. This is the difference between splitting the saṅgha by ritual acts and splitting it by founding a rival dharma-wheel. Question: at the time of splitting the saṅgha, what is the minimum number of persons required for the schism to be accomplished? Answer: splitting the saṅgha by ritual acts requires a minimum of eight persons — for only four persons or more are properly called a saṅgha, while three are not, and it is only when, within a single boundary, two groups of monks each dwell apart and separately perform the poṣadha rite and recite the precepts that it can be called a splitting by ritual acts. Splitting the saṅgha by founding a rival dharma-wheel requires a minimum of nine persons,

— since, within a single boundary, two groups of monks must each dwell apart from one another, and among the shameless group there must definitely be one further person, honored by the assembly and capable of instructing it, who should be understood to be Devadatta himself; within the true assembly there must be a minimum of four, and within the false assembly a minimum of five — thus a minimum of nine in all is required before the dharma-wheel saṅgha can be said to be split. Question: at what point should the dharma-wheel saṅgha be said to be split? Answer: the Prajñaptiśāstra says: once Devadatta, as the fifth, together with the others all receive the ballots, at that point the dharma-wheel saṅgha should be said to be split. Some further say: once the formal announcement has been made. Some further say: once they have moved beyond hearing range. Some further say: once they have moved beyond sight range. Some further say: once they have moved beyond both sight and hearing range. According to this last account: if it is a matter of settled intention and vowed acceptance of a different teacher — that is, if those foolish bhikṣus, by settled intention, give rise to such a thought and utter such words as, "Devadatta is my great teacher, not the Buddha, the World-Honored One" — at that point the dharma-wheel saṅgha should be said to be split. Question: what kind of person is capable of splitting the dharma-wheel saṅgha? Answer: there are two kinds of persons — those of craving-conduct, and those of view-conduct. It is those of view-conduct who are capable of splitting the dharma-wheel saṅgha, not those of craving-conduct, since those of view-conduct possess an intention that is firm and sharp, fixed and unwavering with respect to what is defiling and what is purifying, whereas those of craving-conduct lack this quality and so cannot accomplish the split. Moreover, only males can split the dharma-wheel saṅgha, never women, nor paṇḍakas, nor the like. Why is this? At the time of splitting the dharma-wheel, one must, as a matter of course, establish oneself as a great teacher — and women are not a vessel of that higher capacity,

— being disqualified from the role of great teacher, and hence unable to accomplish the split themselves, although they can widely assist in the preparatory means of causing a schism, as with the bhikṣuṇī Sthūlanandā and the like. All paṇḍakas, whether without sexual organs or with both, are of craving-conduct, and those of craving-conduct possess an intention that is neither firm nor sharp, and are undecided with respect to what is defiling and what is purifying — hence that kind is unable to split the saṅgha.

Question: at what periods can the dharma-wheel saṅgha be split? Answer: during six periods the saṅgha cannot be split, and at all other times it can. It cannot be split at the very beginning nor at the very end; not before the two boils have yet broken out; not before the community has yet come together and bound its boundary; not before the first pair of foremost disciples has yet been established; and not after the great teacher's parinirvāṇa. As to why not at the beginning or the end: during these two periods, the assembly of bhikṣus is united in a single flavor within the noble teaching and cannot be split. As to why not before the two boils have yet broken out: this means the time before the two boils of precept-breaking and wrong-view have yet arisen within the noble teaching. As to why not before the community has yet come together and bound its boundary: it is only when, within a single boundary, two groups of monks dwell apart, holding differing views, that it can properly be called a schism. As to why not before the first pair of foremost disciples has yet been established: at a time before the first pair has yet been established, there can definitely be no one capable of splitting the dharma-wheel saṅgha, since it is the very nature of things that every buddha has a first pair of noble and worthy disciples, and if the dharma-wheel saṅgha should be split, this first pair, before even a day and night has passed, will bring it back into harmony. As to why not after the great teacher's parinirvāṇa: if, after the great teacher's own parinirvāṇa, someone were to say, "I myself am the great teacher, not the Tathāgata," everyone together would rebuke him, saying, "While the great teacher was alive, why did you not say that you yourself were the great teacher? Only now, after his parinirvāṇa, do you make such a claim." For this reason it is certain that during these six periods the dharma-wheel cannot be split, while at all other times the dharma-wheel can be split.

Question: abiding in what kind of mind does the saṅgha come to be split? Some say: abiding in eye-consciousness. Some further say: abiding in ear-consciousness. Some further say: abiding in mental consciousness. According to this last account, the saṅgha may be split while abiding in any one of the six consciousness-bodies. Question: abiding in what kind of feeling does the saṅgha come to be split? Some say: abiding in the pleasure faculty. Some further say: abiding in the pain faculty. Some further say: abiding in the joy faculty. Some further say: abiding in the sorrow faculty. Some further say: abiding in the equanimity faculty. According to this last account, the saṅgha may be split while abiding in any one of the five feelings.

Question: of what mind is the split saṅgha the fruit? Some say: it is the fruit of the mind of one gone forth, since a householder cannot bring about a split in the saṅgha. Some further say: it is the fruit of the mind of one who has received full ordination, since a novice cannot bring about a split in the saṅgha. Some further say: taking the proximate cause, it is the fruit of the mind of one fully ordained; taking the remote cause, it is the fruit of the mind of one gone forth. According to this last account: whatever mind one abides in when the schism is brought about is the fruit of that very mind. Question: what kind of person can be split away? Answer: only an ordinary being, never a noble one, since the World-Honored One has explicitly declared that there is no possibility whatsoever that any noble one could be split away. Question: can those who have already attained the aids to penetration be split away or not? Some say: apart from these, all others can be split away. Some further say: these too can be split away, since the World-Honored One has declared only that there is no possibility whatsoever that any noble one can be split away, and has declared nothing regarding any others.

Question: given that Devadatta was able to split the saṅgha, why is it said that the World-Honored One's own retinue cannot be split? The Venerable Vasumitra explains: here, what is called the World-Honored One's own retinue refers to the four approaches and four fruits — these are the true disciples, the true saṅgha, and cannot be split. Furthermore, the Buddha's retinue is of two kinds: first, ordinary beings; second, noble ones. Devadatta split only the ordinary beings,

— and it is for this reason that he is said to have been able to split the saṅgha, while every noble one cannot be split at all, and it is for this reason that the World-Honored One's own retinue is said to be unsplittable. The Great Virtuous One explains: the Buddha's retinue is of two kinds — inner and outer. The inner retinue refers to the noble ones, who are unmoving and unshakeable; the outer retinue refers to ordinary beings, who can be moved and shaken. Since ordinary beings can here be moved and shaken, Devadatta was able to split the saṅgha; since the noble ones are unmoving and unshakeable, the World-Honored One's own retinue is said to be unsplittable.

Question: at the time of the schism, was the Buddha present in the assembly or not? Answer: the Buddha at that time was dwelling within that same boundary, but was not present in the assembly. How is this known? It has been heard that when Devadatta was about to split the saṅgha, the Buddha, out of compassionate concern, rebuked and restrained him, saying, "Devadatta, do not split the saṅgha; do not give rise to such an extremely grave, evil, unwholesome karma; do not head toward a place of disagreeable and great suffering as its fruit." Although the Buddha thus earnestly rebuked and restrained him, Devadatta had not the slightest intention of desisting. At that time the World-Honored One gave rise to right wisdom and insight, carefully examining his own past to see whether he himself had once, long ago, split apart another's following — and he thereupon saw for himself that, innumerable, incalculable eons in the past, he had once split apart the following of another sage, and that the ripening of that karma was now manifesting before him.

Having seen this, he knew that this assembly of monks was certain to be split, and so he entered his quiet chamber and sat there in silent meditation, whereupon Devadatta then split the saṅgha. Hence it is known that the World-Honored One was within the boundary at that time, but was not present in the assembly.

Question: does every buddha have such an occasion of a split saṅgha? Some say: not so. Why is this? Only where such karma of splitting apart another exists, created and increased, does a schism occur; where no such karma exists, no schism occurs — and it was the World-Honored One Śākyamuni alone who had once created and increased such karma, and hence his saṅgha is now split, while other buddhas are not so. Some say: other buddhas too have had their saṅgha split — for it has been heard that in the time of Kāśyapa Buddha, there was a bhikṣu named Puṣpottara, the son of Yaśottara, who committed the five ānantarya deeds and cut off his own wholesome roots.

Question: did Devadatta first split the saṅgha and afterward cut off his wholesome roots, or first cut off his wholesome roots and afterward split the saṅgha? Some say: he first split the saṅgha and afterward cut off his wholesome roots. Why is this? Only one possessed of moral discipline, wide learning, an upright bearing, noble lineage, an awe-inspiring dignity, and skillful speech is capable of splitting the saṅgha; but once one has cut off one's wholesome roots, one thereby loses one's pure precepts, and, lacking that higher standing, is no longer capable of splitting the saṅgha. The Venerable Vasumitra likewise says that Devadatta first split the saṅgha and afterward cut off his wholesome roots — for if he had first cut off his wholesome roots and afterward split the saṅgha, he ought not to have been capable, at the time of the schism, of giving rise to the crime of an eon's abiding. Why is this? A person who has not cut off his wholesome roots may still give rise, with respect to what is not the true dharma, to the notion that it is not the true dharma, and, with respect to causing the schism, to the notion that it is a fault; but if one gives rise, with respect to what is not the true dharma, to the notion that it is the true dharma, and, with respect to causing the schism, to the notion that it is no fault, then even one who causes the schism can never thereby give rise to the crime of an eon's abiding — it is necessary that one give rise, with respect to what is not the true dharma, to the notion that it is not the true dharma, and, with respect to causing the schism, to the notion that it is a fault; only a schism caused in this way can give rise to the crime of an eon's abiding. By this reasoning, does every case of splitting the saṅgha give rise to the crime of an eon's abiding? And conversely, does whoever is capable of giving rise to the crime of an eon's abiding always thereby split the saṅgha? A tetralemma should be constructed. There is what splits the saṅgha yet is not capable of giving rise to the crime of an eon's abiding — namely, one who splits the saṅgha while holding, with respect to what is not the true dharma, the notion that it is the true dharma, and, with respect to causing the schism, the notion that it is no fault. There is what is capable of giving rise to the crime of an eon's abiding yet does not split the saṅgha — namely, the cutting-off of wholesome roots. There is what both splits the saṅgha and is capable of giving rise to the crime of an eon's abiding — namely, one who splits the saṅgha while holding, with respect to what is not the true dharma, the notion that it is not the true dharma, and, with respect to causing the schism, the notion that it is a fault. And there is what neither splits the saṅgha nor is capable of giving rise to the crime of an eon's abiding — namely, whatever falls outside the notions just described. The Great Virtuous One explains: when Devadatta undertook the preparatory action for splitting the saṅgha, he simultaneously undertook the preparatory action for cutting off his wholesome roots, and when he undertook the preparatory action for cutting off his wholesome roots, he simultaneously undertook the preparatory action for splitting the saṅgha — hence, at the very time he split the saṅgha, he thereby also cut off his wholesome roots, and at the very time he cut off his wholesome roots, he thereby also split the saṅgha; and because he committed these two crimes at one and the same time, he accomplished an extremely grave, evil, unwholesome karma, and had not so much as a single moment's regret or shame over it.

Question: does everyone who commits an ānantarya deed thereby cut off wholesome roots, and does everyone who cuts off wholesome roots thereby commit an ānantarya deed? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is what commits an ānantarya deed without cutting off wholesome roots — as with King Ajātaśatru and the like. There is what cuts off wholesome roots without committing an ānantarya deed — as with the six teachers and the like. There is what both commits an ānantarya deed and cuts off wholesome roots — as with Devadatta, Kokālika, and the like. And there is what neither commits an ānantarya deed nor cuts off wholesome roots — namely, whatever falls outside the cases just described. Among the three kinds of good conduct, which brings the greatest fruit? It is the volition present within the meditative attainment of the peak of existence,

— for this karma is able to bring about a fruit of eighty thousand eons of lifespan in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. One should know that this answer is given with the question posed with respect to the ripening-fruit specifically; if the question were posed with respect to the five kinds of fruit generally, or solely with respect to the fruit of freedom from bondage, the answer that should be given is: the volition associated with the vajra-like concentration,

— for it is this volition that is able to realize the fruit of the complete and thorough understanding of the extinction of all fetters. It is because the intent here is to ask specifically about the ripening-fruit that this present answer is given.

Question: is it a single volition that brings about the eighty-thousand-eon lifespan, or is it many volitions? If it is a single volition, how can so slight a karma bring about so great a fruit? If it is many volitions, why is it not said that a single class-nature fruit is brought about piecemeal, part by part? Some say: it is a single volition that brings it about. Question: how can so slight a karma bring about so great a fruit? Answer: first a single volition brings it about as a whole, and afterward many volitions bring it to completion — it is like a painter who first uses a single color to sketch the outline, and afterward fills it in with many colors; it is just the same here. Some further say: it is many volitions that bring it about. Question: why then is it not said that a single class-nature fruit is brought about piecemeal, part by part? Answer: within that state of concentration, taking a single object and a single mode of activity,

— many volitions arise in succession, some able to bring about a lifespan of ten thousand eons, some twenty thousand eons, some thirty thousand eons, some forty thousand eons, and so on; in this way many volitions bring it about piecemeal, part by part; yet, since they depend upon a single kind of preparatory concentration giving rise to a single class of concentration, taking a single object and a single mode of activity, with many volitions arising in succession and bringing it about, it is spoken of as a single result. According to this last account: a single volition brings it about as a whole, and many volitions bring it to completion.

Question: is this volition included within the near-access ground, or within the fundamental ground? Some say: it is within the near-access ground. Some further say: it is within the fundamental ground. According to this last account, this is not fixed — it may be within the near-access ground, or within the fundamental ground, since all such volition belongs to one and the same ground. Question: what kind of eon is this "eighty thousand eons"? Some say: this is a middling eon. Some further say: this is an eon of formation. Some further say: this is an eon of destruction. According to this last account, this is a great eon.

Question: this karma is able to bring about the ripening of four aggregates — why, then, does it speak only of taking a fruit of lifespan? Some say: it is because lifespan comes first;

the World-Honored One speaks of taking the fruit of the four aggregates as a whole under this one heading. Some further say: here the World-Honored One speaks of the supreme dharma — among the four aggregates, lifespan alone is supreme, and hence it is spoken of exclusively. Some say: it is lifespan alone that is able to sustain the four aggregates, keeping them from scattering and decaying, and hence it is spoken of exclusively. Some say: lifespan, throughout a single lifetime, is without interruption, and it is lifespan that keeps the class-nature itself likewise without interruption — no other dharma is like this, and hence it is spoken of exclusively. Some further say:

— it is by the measure of lifespan that the world is known to increase or decrease, to advance or decline, to flourish or wane, and for this reason lifespan is spoken of exclusively.

Just as it has been explained that evil conduct and good conduct bring about the greatest disagreeable and agreeable fruits respectively, so too should the wholesome and unwholesome roots, together with the ten paths of karma, be explained in full.

That is: among the three unwholesome roots, which carries the greatest sin? It is that which is able to give rise to the false speech that causes a schism — this unwholesome root is able to bring about a fruit of one eon's lifespan in Avīci hell. Among the ten unwholesome paths of karma, which carries the greatest sin? It is the false speech that causes a schism — this karma is able to bring about a fruit of one eon's lifespan in Avīci hell. Among the three wholesome roots, which brings the greatest fruit? It is that which is able to give rise to the volition present within the meditative attainment of the peak of existence — this wholesome root is able to bring about a fruit of eighty thousand eons of lifespan in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. Among the ten wholesome paths of karma, which brings the greatest fruit? It is that which is joined with the volition present within the meditative attainment of the peak of existence — this path of karma is able to bring about a fruit of eighty thousand eons of lifespan in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. One should know that, since this passage speaks in summary, it mentions only the greatest fruit of evil conduct and good conduct, and no other.

Fourth Aggregate, Karma: the Wrong-Speech Nyāsa, Chapter Two, Part One. Is all wrong speech wrong livelihood? And is all wrong livelihood wrong speech? Having now grasped this chapter heading and its explanatory meaning in full,

— we should next explain it in full. Question: why compose this treatise? Answer: in order to put a stop to another school's position and to make clear our own doctrine. That is, the Dārṣṭāntikas hold that, apart from bodily and verbal karma, right livelihood and wrong livelihood possess their own separate own-nature. Why do they say this? On the basis of the sūtra — for the sūtra, in speaking of the Noble Eightfold Path, is understood by them to mean that the Buddha's eight factors each possess their own separate own-nature, not intermixed with one another, and on this basis they claim that right livelihood and wrong livelihood have their own own-nature apart from bodily and verbal karma. In order to refute this notion and to make clear that right and wrong livelihood are both simply included within bodily and verbal karma, this treatise is composed. Thus, among the unwholesome paths of verbal karma, whatever arises from greed is called both wrong speech and wrong livelihood, since it arises for the sake of sustaining life, while whatever arises from hatred or delusion is called merely wrong speech, not wrong livelihood, since it does not arise for the sake of sustaining life. Among the unwholesome paths of bodily karma, whatever arises from greed is called both wrong action and wrong livelihood, while whatever arises from hatred or delusion is called merely wrong action, not wrong livelihood, for the same reason as before. Among the wholesome paths of verbal karma, whatever arises from non-greed is called both right speech and right livelihood, since it counters wrong livelihood, while whatever arises from non-hatred or non-delusion is called merely right speech, not right livelihood, for the same reason as before. Among the wholesome paths of bodily karma, whatever arises from non-greed is called both right action and right livelihood, while whatever arises from non-hatred or non-delusion is called merely right action, not right livelihood, for the same reason as before. This thereby makes clear that right and wrong livelihood are both taken as having bodily and verbal karma as their own-nature — this is called the brief exposition of the Vibhāṣā at this point. Is all wrong speech wrong livelihood, and is all wrong livelihood wrong speech? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is what is wrong speech but not wrong livelihood — namely, apart from the four evil conducts of verbal karma directed toward wrong livelihood, all other evil conduct of verbal karma, that is, verbal karma arisen from hatred or delusion, since this is of the nature of verbal karma but does not arise for the sake of sustaining life. There is what is wrong livelihood but not wrong speech — namely, the three evil conducts of bodily karma directed toward wrong livelihood,

— that is, bodily karma arisen from greed, since this arises for the sake of sustaining life but is not of the nature of verbal karma; the remaining clauses should be explained accordingly. There is what is both wrong speech and wrong livelihood — namely, the four evil conducts of verbal karma directed toward wrong livelihood. And there is what is neither wrong speech nor wrong livelihood — namely, apart from the three evil conducts of bodily karma directed toward wrong livelihood, all other evil conduct of bodily karma. Is all wrong action wrong livelihood, and is all wrong livelihood wrong action? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is what is wrong action but not wrong livelihood — namely, apart from the three evil conducts of bodily karma directed toward wrong livelihood, all other evil conduct of bodily karma, that is, bodily karma arisen from hatred or delusion, since this is of the nature of bodily karma but does not arise for the sake of sustaining life. There is what is wrong livelihood but not wrong action — namely, the four evil conducts of verbal karma directed toward wrong livelihood, that is, verbal karma arisen from greed, since this arises for the sake of sustaining life but is not of the nature of bodily karma; the latter two clauses should be explained accordingly. There is what is both wrong action and wrong livelihood — namely, the three evil conducts of bodily karma directed toward wrong livelihood. And there is what is neither wrong action nor wrong livelihood — namely, apart from the four evil conducts of verbal karma directed toward wrong livelihood, all other evil conduct of verbal karma. Here, whatever arises from greed is called wrong livelihood precisely insofar as it is directed toward wrong livelihood. Is all right speech right livelihood, and is all right livelihood right speech? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is what is right speech but not right livelihood — namely, apart from the four good conducts of verbal karma directed toward right livelihood, all other good conduct of verbal karma, that is, verbal karma arisen from non-hatred and non-delusion, since this is of the nature of verbal karma but does not counter wrong livelihood. There is what is right livelihood but not right speech — namely, the three good conducts of bodily karma directed toward right livelihood, that is, bodily karma arisen from non-greed, since this counters wrong livelihood but is not of the nature of verbal karma; the latter two clauses should be explained accordingly. There is what is both right speech and right livelihood — namely, the four good conducts of verbal karma directed toward right livelihood. And there is what is neither right speech nor right livelihood — namely, apart from the three good conducts of bodily karma directed toward right livelihood, all other good conduct of bodily karma. Is all right action right livelihood, and is all right livelihood right action? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is what is right action but not right livelihood — namely, apart from the three good conducts of bodily karma directed toward right livelihood, all other good conduct of bodily karma, that is, bodily karma arisen from non-hatred and non-delusion,

— since this is of the nature of bodily karma but does not counter wrong livelihood. There is what is right livelihood but not right action — namely, the four good conducts of verbal karma directed toward right livelihood,

— that is, verbal karma arisen from non-greed, since this counters wrong livelihood but is not of the nature of bodily karma; the latter two clauses should be explained accordingly. There is what is both right action and right livelihood — namely, the three good conducts of bodily karma directed toward right livelihood. And there is what is neither right action nor right livelihood — namely, apart from the four good conducts of verbal karma directed toward right livelihood, all other good conduct of verbal karma. Here, whatever arises from non-greed is called right livelihood precisely insofar as it is directed toward right livelihood. Having now shown in brief whether these mix with one another or not, we should next explain their distinctions in full. That is: whenever evil conduct arises for the sake and cause of gain and sustaining life, this is called wrong speech or wrong action, and is also called wrong livelihood, since it is of the nature of bodily or verbal karma and arises for the sake of sustenance. Whenever evil conduct arises for the sake of various other causes, it is called wrong speech or wrong action, but is not called wrong livelihood, since, though of the nature of bodily or verbal karma, it does not arise for the sake of sustenance; the remaining cases should be explained accordingly. Further, whenever evil conduct arises in connection with various animal-charms and false means of livelihood, it is called wrong speech-karma and is also called wrong livelihood; whenever evil conduct arises for various other causes, it is called wrong speech-karma but is not called wrong livelihood. Further, whenever evil conduct arises through the cause and condition of the four cravings, it is called wrong speech-karma and is also called wrong livelihood; whenever evil conduct arises through other conditions, it is called wrong speech-karma but is not called wrong livelihood. Further, whenever evil conduct arises through any of the five wrong-livelihood conditions of feigning and displaying false signs in order to seek gain through gain, it is called wrong speech-karma and is also called wrong livelihood; whenever evil conduct arises for other conditions, it is called wrong speech-karma but is not called wrong livelihood. Further, whenever the preparatory action of evil conduct arises, it is called wrong speech-karma and is also called wrong livelihood; whenever the root path of karma of evil conduct arises, it is called wrong speech-karma but is not called wrong livelihood — why is this? Because the preparatory action is difficult to remove, unlike the root offense. Further, whenever various kinds of prohibited offense arise, it is called wrong speech-karma and is also called wrong livelihood; whenever a natural offense arises,

— it is called wrong speech-karma but is not called wrong livelihood, why is this? Because a prohibited offense is difficult to guard against, unlike a natural offense. By the reasoning set out through these six and seven approaches, it is settled that there is definitely no separate establishment of wrong livelihood apart from bodily and verbal karma. Question: if so, then why does the treatise speak of the three kinds — wrong speech and the rest — and why does the sūtra, in speaking of the Noble Eightfold Path, speak separately of right livelihood apart from right speech and right action? Answer: because wrong livelihood deceives and confuses people through means so subtle as to be difficult to detect, the Buddha reveals it together with bodily and verbal karma, and then reveals it separately once more — just as when a bandit chief is executed along with his followers, and his head is then separately displayed. Some further say: because wrong livelihood is so difficult to purge and cleanse, the Buddha rebukes it together with bodily and verbal karma,

— and then rebukes it separately once more, just as, in speaking of the fault of desire in a woman, one speaks together of the desire for its objects and the desire arisen from affliction, and then rebukes each separately once more. Why is wrong livelihood so difficult to purge and cleanse? Because there are two things difficult to remove and difficult to abandon — for the householder, wrong view, and for the one gone forth, wrong livelihood.

Even a householder of the keenest intelligence, upholding the five precepts, will, when pressed by suffering, resort to various incense, flowers, food and drink to propitiate and pray to the gods; even one gone forth, of the keenest intelligence, upholding the full precepts, being dependent upon others for the conditions that sustain his body and life, will, upon seeing a donor, compose his bearing and display a friendly countenance. This is why right and wrong livelihood are spoken of separately. Both the sūtras and the Prajñaptiśāstra say: the taking of life, and so on up through wrong view, are each of three kinds — first, arisen from greed; second, arisen from hatred; third, arisen from delusion. What is the taking of life arisen from greed? It is as when a certain one, out of greed for another's skin, flesh, sinew, or bone, harms that living being; or, for the sake of one beloved and delightful, or a friend who has once benefited or will benefit him, commits the act of killing; or when another, through wealth and various benefits, seeks him out to commit killing on his behalf — as when a king and the like, through wealth and rank, recruits the brave and fierce to subdue those not yet subdued. Killing of this kind is called arisen from greed.

What is it arisen from hatred? It is as when a certain one, harboring a mind of injury toward another being, a mind of resentment and enmity, a mind that delights in evil, takes that being's life — or again harms that being's relatives and friends in order to cut off the path of vengeance. Killing of this kind is called arisen from hatred.

What is it arisen from delusion? It is as when a certain kind gives rise to such a view and sets forth such a doctrine: camels, horses, cattle, sheep, chickens, pigs, deer, and the like exist entirely to be sacrificed and eaten by people, and hence there is no fault in killing them. There is a further kind who gives rise to such a view and sets forth such a doctrine:

— tigers, leopards, jackals, wolves, centipedes, and snakes injure and harm people, and to kill them, ridding people of this affliction, is likewise without fault. There is, moreover, among the mlecchas of the West, a tribe called Mūka, who give rise to such a view and set forth such a doctrine: when one's parents grow aged and infirm, or fall into a chronic illness, one who is able to kill them gains merit and incurs no fault — for why is this? One who has grown aged and infirm has faculties that have withered and decayed and can no longer eat or drink, and if he dies he will obtain new and superior faculties and drink fresh, warm milk once more; and one who has fallen into a chronic illness suffers greatly, and death alone brings release — hence killing is without fault. Killing of this kind is called arisen from delusion, since it gives rise to a false slander through confusion about the true relation of karma and its fruit.

What is taking what is not given, arisen from greed? It is as when a certain one, desiring another's wealth and possessions, takes them without their being given; or, for the sake of one beloved and delightful,

or a friend who has once benefited or will benefit him, commits the act of theft; or when another, through wealth and various benefits, seeks him out to commit theft on his behalf —

as when a general recruits soldiers to plunder another's wealth and treasure. Theft of this kind is called arisen from greed. What is it arisen from hatred? It is as when a certain one, harboring toward beings a mind of injury, resentment, enmity, and delight in evil, steals their property in order to cause them distress, or steals the property of their relatives and friends out of hatred for them. Theft of this kind is called arisen from hatred. What is it arisen from delusion? It is as when a certain kind of brahmin gives rise to such a view and sets forth such a doctrine: all the earth was originally created by the divine power of Brahmā and bestowed upon the brahmins; now that the brahmins' own strength has grown feeble, the kṣatriyas and others have seized and taken it for their own use, so that when a brahmin takes and uses it, he is merely taking back what is properly his own, and there is no crime of theft in it at all — though even as he takes it, he still forms the notion that it belongs to another. Theft of this kind is called arisen from delusion, since it gives rise to a false slander through confusion about the true relation of karma and its fruit.

What is sexual misconduct arisen from greed? It is, for the most part, when one, with a mind steeped in defiled attachment, or through wealth, gain, and various benefits, commits sexual misconduct here or there — this is called arisen from greed. What is it arisen from hatred? It is as when a certain one, harboring toward another being a mind of injury, resentment, enmity, and delight in evil, wishing to defile and humiliate that being and bring various forms of ruin upon them, thereupon commits sexual misconduct against them — this is called arisen from hatred. What is it arisen from delusion? It is when brahmins give rise to such a view and set forth such a doctrine: brahmins may properly keep four wives, kṣatriyas three, vaiśyas two, and śūdras one, and so long as a brahmin has not yet reached his proper number, there is no fault even in violating another man's wife — though even as he does so, he still forms the notion that she belongs to another. Moreover, among the mlecchas of the West, there is a tribe called Mūka, who give rise to such a view and set forth such a doctrine: there is no fault whatsoever in taking one's own mother, daughter, sister, or another's wife as a sexual partner — for why is this? Every woman is like ripened fruit, or prepared food and drink, or a road, bridge, ship, stairway, or mortar,

— things which are, by their very nature, meant for common use by all beings; hence there is no fault in engaging in sexual relations with them. Misconduct of this kind is called arisen from delusion, for the same reason as before.

What is false speech arisen from greed? It is as when a certain one, for the sake of fame and gain, speaks to another being while concealing his own true thought, whether on his own behalf or another's — as when a king and the like recruits a skilled orator to go about persuading others, in order to entice those not yet subdued. That person, at such a time, for the sake of wealth and rank, will either use an inside connection to deceive an outsider, or use an outside connection to deceive an insider, or use both to deceive both. False speech of this kind is called arisen from greed. What is it arisen from hatred? It is as when, harboring toward another a mind of injury, resentment, enmity, and delight in evil, and wishing to entrap that being, one speaks false words; or again speaks false words to that being's own beloved friends out of hatred for them. False speech of this kind is called arisen from hatred. What is it arisen from delusion? It is as when a certain one gives rise to such a view and sets forth such a doctrine: whoever, facing danger to his own or another's body or life, speaks falsely, does not thereby incur the fault of false speech — as when a hunter is asked where a deer has gone, or an army's scout is asked where the king's forces are, and though one truly sees and truly knows, yet, fearing to bring harm, answers untruthfully, this incurs no fault. One should know that this kind is not in fact without fault — but because they believe there is none at all, they commit it again and again. False speech of this kind is called arisen from delusion, for the same reason as before.

What is divisive speech arisen from greed? It is as when a certain one, for the sake of fame and gain, speaks divisively of a being or that being's friends, whether on his own behalf or another's — as when a king and the like recruits a skilled orator to sow discord, hoping thereby to bring another under his control. That person, at such a time, for the sake of wealth and rank, will either use an inside connection to divide an outsider, or use an outside connection to divide an insider, or use both to divide both. Or again, a brahmin has two patrons — one who provides robes, another who provides food — and the brahmin thinks to himself: if the two patrons remain on good terms with one another, I shall receive but a single gift from each; but if they become estranged, I shall receive two gifts from each. For this reason he speaks divisively. This is called arisen from greed. What is it arisen from hatred? It is as when, harboring toward another a mind of injury, resentment, enmity, and delight in evil,

one speaks divisively of that being or that being's friends in order to destroy them — this is called arisen from hatred. What is it arisen from delusion? It is as when a certain kind of brahmin and the like gives rise to such a view and sets forth such a doctrine: among households of undisciplined conduct, if they remain on good terms with one another, their evildoing only multiplies,

whereas if they are estranged, they do less evil — and hence, whoever speaks divisively among such households incurs no fault whatsoever. This is called arisen from delusion, for the same reason as before. What is harsh speech arisen from greed? It is as when, for the sake of fame and gain, one reviles and humiliates another being, whether on his own behalf or another's — as when a king and the like appoints a harsh officer of the law to preside over litigation, or appoints a military scribe to draft proclamations, and through such occasions speaks harshly. This is called arisen from greed. What is it arisen from hatred? It is as when, harboring toward another a mind of injury, resentment, enmity, and delight in evil, one reviles and humiliates that being or that being's friends, whether on his own behalf or another's — this is called arisen from hatred. What is it arisen from delusion? It is as with the matted-hair ascetics called fire-worshippers, whose nature is exceedingly harsh and abrupt and much given to harsh speech, and whose disciples, taking this to be an excellent virtue, all practice harsh speech themselves — this is called arisen from delusion, for the same reason as before.

What is idle chatter arisen from greed? It is as when a certain one, for the sake of fame and gain for himself or another, engages in idle chatter — as when a performer, for the sake of wealth and gain, engages before a great assembly in various verses, songs, jests, and mixed banter; or as when men and women, with a mind steeped in defiled attachment, engage in idle chatter; or again as when one composes worldly literary works and upholds and recites them — this is called arisen from greed. What is it arisen from hatred? It is as when, harboring toward another a mind of injury, resentment, enmity, and delight in evil, one mocks and taunts that being through idle chatter, or mocks and taunts that being's own beloved friends out of hatred for them — this is called arisen from hatred. What is it arisen from delusion? It is as when a certain kind of brahmin gives rise to such a view and sets forth such a doctrine: whoever tends the sacred fire, or offers sacrifice to other gods, or recites the Vedas and various spells and incantations, thereby attains complete purity and liberation — this is called arisen from delusion, for the same reason as before. What is greed arisen from greed?

It is when an entanglement of greed arises immediately following another entanglement of greed — this is called greed arisen from greed. What is it arisen from hatred? It is when an entanglement of greed arises immediately following an entanglement of hatred — this is called greed arisen from hatred. What is it arisen from delusion? It is when an entanglement of greed arises immediately following an entanglement of delusion — this is called greed arisen from delusion. What is hatred arisen from greed? It is when an entanglement of hatred arises immediately following an entanglement of greed — this is called hatred arisen from greed.

What is it arisen from hatred? It is when an entanglement of hatred arises immediately following another entanglement of hatred — this is called hatred arisen from hatred. What is it arisen from delusion?

It is when an entanglement of hatred arises immediately following an entanglement of delusion — this is called hatred arisen from delusion.

What is wrong view arisen from greed? It is when an entanglement of wrong view arises immediately following an entanglement of greed — this is called wrong view arisen from greed. What is it arisen from hatred? It is when an entanglement of wrong view arises immediately following an entanglement of hatred — this is called wrong view arisen from hatred. What is it arisen from delusion?

It is when an entanglement of wrong view arises immediately following an entanglement of delusion — this is called wrong view arisen from delusion. Question: it is now understood that all ten unwholesome paths of karma arise from greed, hatred, and delusion — but of these three, in the case of each path, how many function as the preparatory action, and how many bring it to completion? Some say: for the taking of life, harsh speech, and malice — these three have all three roots as their preparatory action, but are brought to completion by hatred; for taking what is not given and sexual misconduct,

— together with covetousness, these three have all three roots as their preparatory action, but are brought to completion by greed; for the remaining three paths of verbal karma, all three roots serve as both preparatory action and completion; and for wrong view alone, all three roots serve as its preparatory action, but it is brought to completion by delusion. Some further say: sexual misconduct is not fixed — for if one holds that the path of karma is completed only once emission has occurred, then all three roots serve as preparatory action, but it is completed by greed; if one holds that the path of karma is completed as soon as entry into the impure gateway occurs, then all three roots serve as both preparatory action and completion. As for all the remaining paths of karma, in every case all three roots serve as both preparatory action and completion.