Crookedness, Filth, and Turbidity

There is restraint, and there is non-restraint; there are those who abide in restraint, and there are those who abide in non-restraint. What is restraint? It has seven kinds: abstaining from taking life, and so on up to abstaining from idle chatter. What is non-restraint? It likewise has seven kinds: taking life, and so on up to idle chatter. What is one who abides in restraint? There are seven communities — first, bhikṣus; second, bhikṣuṇīs; third, probationary nuns; fourth, male novices; fifth, female novices; sixth, laymen; seventh, laywomen. What is one who abides in non-restraint? There are twelve kinds of non-restraint households — first, sheep-butchers; second, poultry-butchers; third, pig-butchers; fourth, bird-trappers; fifth, fishers; sixth, hunters; seventh, thieves; eighth, executioners; ninth, snake-binders; tenth, jailers; eleventh, dog-cooks; twelfth, vākṣīlaka. As to sheep-butchers: for the sake of sustaining life, harboring a murderous intent, whether buying, selling, raising, or feeding animals for slaughter — all such activity is called sheep-butchering, and poultry-butchering and pig-butchering are just the same. Bird-trappers are those who, for the sake of sustaining life, catch and take various birds; fishers and the like are likewise. Snake-binders are those who, for the sake of sustaining life, practice charming snakes and serpents — some say this means the binding of elephants. Dog-cooks refers to caṇḍālas and other such impure and evil persons. As for vākṣīlaka: there is an animal called vākura, a kind of python, which constantly devours merchant travelers in the wilderness; there are those who specialize in killing such creatures, taking payment from the merchants to sustain their own life by this means — hence they are called vākṣīlaka. Some say vākura means a snare, and that there are those who, for the sake of sustaining life, constantly set snares to catch various creatures, and are hence called vākṣīlaka. Some say a hunting master is called vākṣīlaka, as there is a verse that says:

A deer, once free of the hunter's snare's own torment, Never again returns to fall into that snare; A wise one, having abandoned the common world to go forth, Never again returns to the affliction and constraint he left. The Venerable Ghoṣa explains: if one, receiving orders from a superior, interrogates prisoners and, giving free rein to one's own temper, inflicts brutal and violent suffering upon them, or judges cases contrary to what is right, or levies taxes with a poisoned heart — all such persons are likewise called those who abide in non-restraint.

Question: since these various restraints are obtained only through the taking of a vow, is non-restraint likewise obtained in this way? Some say: it too is obtained through the taking of a vow — that is, when one takes up an instrument of killing and vows, "From this day until the end of my life, I shall constantly perform this activity to sustain my own life," at that moment one obtains this non-restraint. Some further say: although one takes up an instrument of killing and makes such a vow, one does not thereby obtain this non-restraint — it is obtained through two conditions: first, through performing the act; second, through undertaking the occupation. Through performing the act: this means that one born into a non-restraint household, at the very first moment of performing the act of killing living beings and the like, thereby obtains this non-restraint. Through undertaking the occupation: this means that one born into another household who, for the sake of sustaining life, harbors a murderous intent and goes to a place of non-restraint such as a sheep-butcher's, and makes this vow, "From this day until the end of my life, I shall constantly perform the very activity you yourselves perform, to sustain my own life," at that moment obtains this non-restraint. Some further say: this too is obtained only at the very first moment of actually performing that act — this last account holds that non-restraint is obtained through this single condition alone.

If one, with an inferior mind, gives rise to manifest karma and receives the various restraints, then throughout the entire span of that class-nature, those restraints continue to function only at the inferior grade — although one may afterward, through effort, give rise to evil or good conduct comprised in bodily, verbal, or mental action, that restraint always continues to function at the inferior grade and never increases further.

If one, with a middling mind, gives rise to manifest karma and receives the various restraints, then throughout the entire span of that class-nature, those restraints continue to function only at the middling grade — although one may afterward, through effort, give rise to evil or good conduct comprised in bodily, verbal, or mental action, that restraint always continues to function at the middling grade, neither increasing nor decreasing.

If one, with a superior mind, gives rise to manifest karma and receives the various restraints, then throughout the entire span of that class-nature, those restraints continue to function only at the superior grade — although one may afterward, through effort, give rise to evil or good conduct comprised in bodily, verbal, or mental action, that restraint always continues to function at the superior grade and never diminishes further.

— hence it is thus. Question: is there a case where a newly ordained bhikṣu possesses restraint of the superior grade, while an arhat possesses restraint only of the inferior grade? Answer: there is — namely, a newly ordained bhikṣu who, with a superior mind, gave rise to manifest karma and received the various restraints, while an arhat who, with an inferior mind, gave rise to manifest karma and received the various restraints; in this way the newly ordained bhikṣu possesses restraint of the superior grade, while the arhat possesses restraint only of the inferior grade.

If one, at the very outset, with an inferior entanglement, takes a being's life, then with respect to that particular being one obtains the inferior-grade manifest and unmanifest karma comprised within the taking of life and within non-restraint; and with respect to every other being, one obtains only the inferior-grade unmanifest karma comprised within non-restraint. If, at some later time, one takes a being's life with an inferior, middling, or superior entanglement, then with respect to that particular being one obtains only the corresponding inferior, middling, or superior grade

— of manifest and unmanifest karma comprised within the taking of life, but does not obtain again the manifest and unmanifest karma comprised within non-restraint, since this was already obtained previously. It is just the same when one's first entanglement is of the middling or superior grade, explained in full accordingly — for the taking of life and the like is obtained gradually with respect to each particular being, while non-restraint itself is obtained universally and all at once. Question: since a sheep-butcher has no wish to kill any other kind of being, why does this person obtain non-restraint universally, with respect to every being whatsoever? Answer: although his non-restraint arises specifically with respect to sheep, still, every being whatsoever possesses the aggregates, elements, and sense-fields that a sheep also possesses; moreover, the scope of his own evil intent is broad and all-encompassing, and so he obtains non-restraint with respect to all beings. There is no case where this could be otherwise, made for the sake of a fine distinction — for even if every being whatsoever were to take on the form of a sheep and come to stand before him, he would give rise to an evil intent toward every one of them and wish to kill every one of them. Hence he obtains non-restraint with respect to every being whatsoever.

Among those who abide in non-restraint: there are those who obtain non-restraint with respect to every being, but not through every component, nor through every cause.

There are those who obtain non-restraint with respect to every being through every component, but not through every cause. There are those who obtain non-restraint with respect to every being through every cause, but not through every component. There are those who obtain non-restraint with respect to every being through every component and through every cause. And as for obtaining non-restraint through every component and through every cause but not with respect to every being — there is no such case, since "every being" simply is the class comprising every being. "Every component" means the taking of life, and so on up to idle chatter. "Every cause" means the inferior, middling, and superior entanglement, or greed, hatred, and delusion. As to obtaining non-restraint with respect to every being through neither every component nor every cause: this means taking life with an inferior, middling, or superior entanglement — only one of these, not the others — and not giving rise to any other component either. As to obtaining it through every component but not every cause: this means taking life, and so on up through idle chatter, with only one of the inferior, middling, or superior entanglements, not the others. As to obtaining it through every cause but not every component: this means taking life with the inferior, middling, and superior entanglements all together, without giving rise to any other component. As to obtaining it through every component and through every cause: this means taking life, and so on up through idle chatter, with the inferior, middling, and superior entanglements all together. Among those who abide in restraint: there are those who obtain restraint with respect to every being, but not through every component, nor through every cause. There are those who obtain restraint with respect to every being through every component,

— but not through every cause. There are those who obtain restraint with respect to every being through every component and through every cause. As to obtaining restraint with respect to every being through every cause but not through every component — there is no such case. As to obtaining restraint through every component and through every cause but not with respect to every being — there is likewise no such case, since "every being" simply is the class comprising every being. "Every component" means abstaining from taking life, and so on up to abstaining from idle chatter. "Every cause" means the inferior, middling, and superior grade of mind, or non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion. As to obtaining restraint with respect to every being through neither every component nor every cause: this means receiving the layman's or the novice's precepts with an inferior mind — or a middling or superior mind, or two of these but not all — but not the others. As to obtaining it through every component but not every cause: this means receiving the layman's precepts, up through the bhikṣu's precepts, with an inferior mind — or a middling or superior mind, or two of these but not all. As to obtaining it through every component and through every cause: this means receiving the layman's, novice's, and bhikṣu's precepts in turn with an inferior, then a middling, then a superior mind. Question: if one receives the one-day precepts, the layman's precepts, and the novice's precepts in turn with an inferior, then a middling, then a superior mind, should this not likewise be called obtaining restraint with respect to every being through every cause but not every component — why then is it said there is no such case? Answer: this discussion here is conducted solely with respect to lifelong restraint, not with respect to a single day and night, since that one-day observance is called a fast, and is not fixed within the category of restraint proper.

Question: just as one who has received restraint at the inferior grade may afterward obtain the middling grade, and afterward the superior grade, is non-restraint likewise so? Some say: non-restraint is just like restraint in this respect, for why is this? If wholesome restraint, requiring great effort and great exertion, can still be obtained again and again, how much more so non-restraint. According to this last account: restraint is obtained gradually, but non-restraint is not, for why is this? Restraint is difficult to obtain, and being difficult to obtain, it is received gradually and obtained gradually; non-restraint is easy to obtain, and being easy to obtain, it is received all at once and obtained all at once.

Question: just as wholesome restraint may have its components incomplete, is non-restraint likewise so? Answer: the treatise-masters of Gandhāra say:

— non-restraint karma can indeed have its components incomplete; for if beings are born into various non-restraint households and are, from birth, mute for the entire span of that class-nature, unable to speak, they can obtain only non-restraint karma of the nature of the three bodily actions, and cannot obtain the four verbal ones. The great treatise-masters of Kashmir, however, all say: non-restraint has no incompleteness of components at all — it is wholesale unwholesome restraint received gradually that may have incomplete components, but non-restraint is not like this, since it is not received gradually and is easily obtained. Question: when one abiding in non-restraint receives the eight precepts of the fast day, does he give up his non-restraint and obtain restraint, and then, when the next morning comes, give up that restraint and obtain non-restraint once again? Answer: the treatise-masters of Gandhāra say: when one abiding in non-restraint receives the eight precepts of the fast day, he gives up his non-restraint and obtains restraint, and when the next morning comes, he gives up that restraint and obtains non-restraint once again — for since restraint is obtained, non-restraint is thereby cut off, and since restraint is given up, non-restraint thereby continues once more. The great treatise-masters of Kashmir, however, all say: when one abiding in non-restraint receives the eight precepts of the fast day, he gives up his non-restraint and obtains restraint, but when the next morning comes and he gives up that restraint, he does not thereby obtain non-restraint, since it was the very obtaining of restraint that caused the giving-up of non-restraint, and since the fixed limit of that restraint's own duration has now been reached, restraint too is given up; hence, at that time, he is named neither one who abides in restraint nor one who abides in non-restraint. If, throughout the remaining span of that being's class-nature, he does not act again, he does not obtain non-restraint; if he does act again, he obtains non-restraint once more. Lifelong restraint is given up through four conditions: first, giving up one's training; second, a change of sex; third, cutting off one's wholesome roots; fourth, giving up one's class-nature. Those who uphold the Vinaya say that the disappearance of the Dharma constitutes a fifth condition — that is, when the Dharma disappears, all training, going forth, receiving full ordination, and the formal binding of monastic boundaries all cease entirely, and hence restraint too is given up at that time. According to this last account: at that very time, whoever had previously obtained restraint does not give it up — one already gone forth is still called one gone forth, and one already fully ordained is still called one fully ordained; it is only that one not yet gone forth can no longer go forth, and one not yet fully ordained can no longer be fully ordained — and it is with reference to this that it is said that everything ceases entirely.

Non-restraint is given up through four conditions: first, receiving prātimokṣa restraint; second, attaining dhyāna-restraint; third, a change of sex;

— fourth, giving up one's class-nature. Question: just as wholesome restraint is given up through giving up one's training, is this non-restraint given up in just the same way? Answer: some say: if one is able to resolve firmly to give up one's implements of killing, at that moment one gives up non-restraint. According to this last account: even though one may resolve firmly to give up one's implements of killing, if one does not receive the precepts and obtain wholesome restraint, one can never be said to have given up non-restraint.

There are three evil conducts, and three of crookedness, filth, and turbidity, and so on in full. Question: why compose this treatise? Answer: in order to analyze the meaning of the sūtra. For the sūtra says: there are three evil conducts, and three of crookedness, filth, and turbidity — though the sūtra speaks in this way, it does not explain the matter fully; the fuller explanation is as given above. Some further say: the earlier nyāsa already analyzed the three evil conducts, but did not yet analyze crookedness, filth, and turbidity;

wishing now to analyze these, this treatise is composed.

The three of crookedness, filth, and turbidity are: bodily crookedness, bodily filth, bodily turbidity; verbal crookedness, verbal filth, verbal turbidity; mental crookedness, mental filth, mental turbidity. What is the threefold crookedness? It is the bodily, verbal, and mental karma arisen from flattery and deceit. Why is this? Flattery and deceit is itself called crookedness, and the three karmas arisen from this crooked-marked dharma are likewise called crooked, being its very fruit. Question: for what reason, further, is flattery and deceit called crookedness? Answer: because it is the very opposite of straightness. As there is a verse that says:

Whatever coils, winds, and bends, Whatever is uneven, crooked, and untrue, Dangerous pits, ravines, and tangled thickets — All these are similes for flattery and deceit. Some further say: because beings damaged by flattery and deceit find it difficult to escape saṃsāra and difficult to enter nirvāṇa, just as crooked timber is difficult to bring out of a tangled thicket and difficult to bring into a village — it is just the same here, and hence it is called crookedness. Some further say: because beings damaged by flattery and deceit, when about to undertake some act, then turn back and abandon it, and when about to speak, then hold back and say nothing, their very nature being treacherous and evil, difficult to fathom their true intent, and difficult to associate with — hence it is called crookedness. Some further say: because beings damaged by flattery and deceit are shunned by all who are wise, just as one who loves purity flees the foul stench of a corpse in the charnel ground, being loathed by the straightforward — hence it is called crookedness.

Some further say: because beings damaged by flattery and deceit are such that even the buddhas set aside their great compassion toward them, just as a deceitful patient is abandoned even by a good physician, since it obstructs proper instruction — hence it is called crookedness. Question: where does flattery and deceit occur? Answer: in the desire realm and the first dhyāna, not in the higher grounds.

Question: why is there no flattery and deceit in the higher grounds? Answer: the higher grounds are neither a field, nor a vessel, nor a ground, nor a basis for flattery and deceit, and since they are none of these, it does not occur there. Some further say: one strives toward the higher grounds precisely in order to remove flattery and deceit — if flattery and deceit were still present in the higher grounds, one ought not to exert oneself seeking to reach them. If whatever exists in the lower grounds also existed in the higher, then it would not be proper to posit a gradual process of extinguishing defilements; and if no gradual process of extinguishing defilements were posited, there could then be no final and complete extinguishing at all; and if there were no final and complete extinguishing, there would be no liberation; and if there were no liberation, there would also be no saṃsāra, and hence everything whatsoever would be nonexistent. Wishing to avoid such a consequence, it is held that the higher grounds have no flattery and deceit. Some further say: wherever kings and ministers are established, and distinctions of noble and lowly rank among beings are established, there flattery and deceit occurs — and since no such thing obtains in the higher grounds, there is no flattery and deceit there, for wherever there are kings, ministers, chieftains, and distinctions of noble and lowly rank, they must necessarily harbor flattery and deceit in their mutual dealings with one another. Some further say: wherever there are consciousness-bodies together with investigation and analysis, and manifest bodily and verbal karma of their own particular nature, there flattery and deceit occurs — and since the higher grounds lack all these dharmas, there is no flattery and deceit there. What is the threefold filth? It is the bodily, verbal, and mental karma arisen from hatred. Why is this? Hatred is itself called filth, and the three karmas arisen from this filth-marked dharma are likewise called filth, being its very fruit. Question: are not all the afflictions themselves filth? As there is a verse that says:

The weeds and rank grasses of this world Are able to defile a fertile field; Just so the filth of every kind of greed Defiles every kind of sentient being. The weeds and rank grasses of this world Are able to defile a fertile field; Just so this filthiest of all filth Defiles every kind of sentient being. Pride, craving, and ignorance, and the other afflictions, are spoken of in the same verse form. Why, then, is hatred alone here called filth? Answer: although every affliction is indeed called filth, only hatred bears the name of filth twice over, and hence it alone is called filth — as the verse above says, "this filthiest of all filth defiles every kind of sentient being." Some further say: because this hatred defiles its own continuum and defiles the continuum of others, surpassing the other afflictions in this respect, it alone is called filth. How does it defile its own continuum? When hatred manifests, the whole body becomes coarse and rigid, distressed and haggard, the brow furrowed, trembling and ill at ease, like one possessed by a demon, unpleasant for others to behold. How does it defile the continuum of others? When hatred disturbs another, it causes them defilement, or subjects them to lashings and beatings, up to the loss of life itself. Question: where does hatred occur? Answer: in the desire realm, not in the two higher realms. Question: why is there no hatred in the two higher realms? Answer: because they are neither a field, nor a vessel, and so on in full, as before. Some further say: one strives toward the higher realms precisely in order to remove hatred, explained in full as before. Some further say: wherever there is the fetter of miserliness and envy, there is hatred, for why is this? Because beings, relying upon the fetter of miserliness and envy, give rise to hatred within the continuum of others — and since the higher realms are not like this, they have no hatred.

Further, wherever there is shamelessness and lack of dread of blame, there is hatred, and the higher realms are not like this. Further, wherever there is the pain faculty and the sorrow faculty, there is hatred, and the higher realms are not like this. Further, wherever there is the male or female faculty, there is hatred, and the higher realms are not like this. Further, wherever there is craving for morsel-food and craving for sexual union, there is hatred, and the higher realms are not like this — the explanations for each being as given before. For this reason the higher realms have no hatred. Some further say: wherever there is the cause of enmity and injury, there is hatred; the cause of enmity and injury is called the nine grounds of vexation, and since the form and formless realms have no cause of enmity and injury, they have no hatred — hence the Venerable Ghoṣa says that it is the cause and condition of enmity and injury that sets hatred in motion. Some say: wherever the body one depends upon is dry, coarse, and rigid, there is hatred, while in the higher realms the body one depends upon is moist and soft, and hence there is no hatred. Some further say: the form and formless realms possess an antidote to hatred, namely loving-kindness cultivated in meditative equipoise, and hence there is no hatred there.

It is like a place where the vairambha wind blows, where storm-clouds can never remain gathered — the higher realms are just the same: possessing the antidote to hatred, the loving-kindness of meditative equipoise, which acts as this very vairambha wind, the storm-cloud of hatred cannot remain there at all.

What is the threefold turbidity? It is the bodily, verbal, and mental karma arisen from greed. Why is this? Greed is itself called turbidity, and the three karmas arisen from this turbidity-marked dharma are likewise called turbidity, being its very fruit. Question: for what reason is greed called turbidity? Answer: because it is able to defile and cloud.

In the world, whatever stains a color is called turbid — just as the world speaks of a turbid root, a turbid stalk, a turbid branch, a turbid leaf, a turbid flower, a turbid fruit — all of these being able to stain, and hence called turbid. Further, turbidity carries the sense of what is base and lowly — the world commonly calls one of excessive greed base and turbid. Further, turbidity carries the sense of what is impure — because greed obscures the mind, drawing it near to defiling dharmas and causing it to abandon pure ones. Question: where does greed occur? Answer: from the desire realm up through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. Having explained their own-nature, we should now show whether these mix with one another or not. Do the three evil conducts subsume the threefold crookedness, filth, and turbidity, and do these in turn subsume the three evil conducts? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is evil conduct that is not crookedness, filth, or turbidity — namely, apart from the bodily, verbal, and mental evil conduct of the desire realm arisen from flattery, hatred, and greed, all other bodily, verbal, and mental evil conduct. There is crookedness, filth, or turbidity that is not evil conduct — namely, the bodily, verbal, and mental karma of the first dhyāna arisen from flattery and greed, and the mental karma of the remaining form and formless realms arisen from greed.

There is what is both evil conduct and crookedness, filth, or turbidity — namely, the bodily, verbal, and mental evil conduct of the desire realm arisen from flattery, hatred, and greed. And there is what is neither evil conduct nor crookedness, filth, or turbidity — namely, whatever falls outside the categories just named. "The categories just named" means: within the aggregate of form, apart from unwholesome form and obscured-neutral form arisen from flattery and greed, taking the remaining aggregate of form; within the aggregate of formations, apart from unwholesome volition, and volition associated with greed, hatred, and wrong view, and obscured-neutral volition arisen from flattery and greed, taking the remaining associated and dissociated aggregate of formations; and the three complete aggregates together with the unconditioned dharmas — all of this together constitutes the fourth case, and hence it is said, "whatever falls outside the categories just named."

Here there are two kinds of instigation: causal instigation, and momentary instigation. Causal instigation is called the initiating mind; momentary instigation is called the accompanying mind. Question: are the five sense-consciousnesses also capable of serving as either kind of instigation in giving rise to bodily and verbal karma? Some say: the five sense-consciousnesses cannot give rise to bodily or verbal karma, for why is this? It is mental consciousness alone that, with respect to bodily and verbal karma, serves as both initiator and accompanier, causing that karma to manifest; the five sense-consciousnesses cannot serve as initiator, nor can they serve as accompanier, and cannot cause that karma to manifest. Question: if so, how is it to be reconciled that it is said one sees one's own bodily gesture, and hears one's own verbal utterance, known by three consciousnesses? Answer: one does not see the bodily gesture itself, but sees only its accompanying features; one does not hear the verbal utterance itself, but hears only its accompanying sound — and it is precisely in this sense that it is called "seeing" and "hearing." As for being known by three consciousnesses, this refers to taking another's bodily action as object, not one's own. Some further say: the five sense-consciousnesses too can give rise to bodily and verbal karma, since mental consciousness serves as both initiator and accompanier, and although the five sense-consciousnesses do not serve as initiator, they do serve as accompanier in giving rise to that karma. If one holds this view, it is indeed well reconciled with one's seeing one's own bodily gesture and hearing one's own verbal utterance, for why is this? If mental consciousness serves as both initiator and accompanier, and eye-consciousness also serves as accompanier, then one sees the bodily gesture; if mental consciousness serves as both initiator and accompanier, and ear-consciousness also serves as accompanier, then one hears the verbal utterance. As for being known by three consciousnesses, this takes both one's own action and another's action as object. The Venerable Saṃghavasu says: the five sense-consciousnesses too can give rise to bodily and verbal karma, serving as both causal instigation and momentary instigation, for why is this? It is as when a certain person, without any prior deliberate attention, is suddenly struck by another and immediately strikes back — at that moment he does not yet form the deliberate thought, "I shall strike him," and one should know that this is simply striking while abiding in bodily consciousness; hence the five sense-consciousnesses too can give rise to both bodily and verbal karma, serving as both causal and momentary instigation. According to this last account: the five sense-consciousnesses cannot serve as causal instigation giving rise to bodily or verbal karma, for why is this? Because it is mental consciousness that, with respect to bodily and verbal karma, serves as both initiator and accompanier, while the five sense-consciousnesses serve only as accompanier and never as initiator.

Here, if a wholesome mind serves as initiator, a wholesome mind likewise serves as accompanier; if a defiled mind serves as initiator, a defiled mind likewise serves as accompanier; if a deportment-related mind serves as initiator, a deportment-related mind likewise serves as accompanier; if a craft-related mind serves as initiator, a craft-related mind likewise serves as accompanier, in giving rise to bodily and verbal karma. Question: if, when a deportment-related mind serves as initiator, that same mind must also serve as accompanier, then how is it that, as when one is walking and happens to see an image of the Buddha, a wholesome eye-consciousness arises, or, seeing a courtesan, a defiled eye-consciousness arises —

— would this not mean that a wholesome or defiled mind is serving as accompanier in giving rise to that action? The Venerable Vasumitra explains: this occurs because the discerning faculty turns so swiftly that it gives rise to a mistaken over-estimation, in that this eye-consciousness is thought to arise during the very act of walking, while in fact, during the actual walking, neither the wholesome nor the defiled mind is present at all.

When the wholesome or defiled mind is actually present, the walking itself stops and does not continue — hence this wholesome or defiled mind is merely like a companion, and is not called instigation.

Some further say: when a deportment-related mind gives rise to an action, a wholesome or defiled mind and the like assist in giving rise to it, and hence, when a deportment-related mind is functioning as initiator, its accompanying mind may be of three kinds — wholesome, defiled, or neutral. Question: if, when a craft-related mind serves as initiator, that same mind must also serve as accompanier, then how is it that, as when a painter, in painting a buddha, gives rise to a wholesome eye-consciousness, and in painting a woman, gives rise to a defiled eye-consciousness — would this not mean that a wholesome or defiled mind is serving as accompanier in giving rise to that action? The Venerable Vasumitra explains: the discerning faculty arises so swiftly that it gives rise to a mistaken over-estimation, in that this eye-consciousness is thought to arise during the very act of painting, while in fact, during the actual painting, neither the wholesome nor the defiled mind is present at all. When the wholesome or defiled mind is actually present, the painting itself stops and does not continue — hence this wholesome or defiled mind is merely like a companion, and is not called instigation. Some further say:

— when a craft-related mind gives rise to an action, a wholesome or defiled mind assists in giving rise to it, and hence, when a craft-related mind is functioning as initiator,

— its accompanying mind may likewise be of three kinds, wholesome, defiled, or neutral. Question: why is the ripening-born mind unable to serve as either kind of instigation giving rise to bodily or verbal karma? Answer: it is only a strong and vigorous mind that gives rise to bodily or verbal karma, and the ripening-born mind is by its own nature feeble, and hence cannot give rise to such karma. Some further say: if bodily or verbal karma were to be given rise to by the ripening-born mind serving as either kind of instigation, then what should this bodily or verbal karma itself be called — deportment-related, craft-related, or ripening-born? If deportment-related or craft-related, how could the ripening-born mind possibly give rise to it? And if it were itself ripening-born, then this bodily or verbal karma would have to be itself a ripening — but bodily and verbal karma is definitely never a ripening,

since it arises through preparatory exertion; nor could it be called either wholesome or defiled, since it is held to arise specifically from the ripening-born mind — hence this ripening-born mind cannot give rise to bodily or verbal karma. Further, it is possible for a path-of-seeing-abandoned mind to serve as initiator while a path-of-cultivation-abandoned mind serves as accompanier in giving rise to bodily or verbal karma, or for a path-of-cultivation-abandoned mind to serve as initiator while a path-of-cultivation-abandoned mind likewise serves as accompanier; but it is not possible for a path-of-seeing-abandoned mind to serve as initiator while a path-of-seeing-abandoned mind likewise serves as accompanier, nor for a path-of-cultivation-abandoned mind to serve as initiator while a path-of-seeing-abandoned mind serves as accompanier, in giving rise to bodily or verbal karma. Why is this? Because a path-of-seeing-abandoned mind cannot serve as momentary instigation giving rise to bodily or verbal karma. Now, arising from this very discussion, a further question arises: why can a mind abiding in what is abandoned by seeing not serve as momentary instigation giving rise to bodily or verbal karma? Answer: it is necessarily a coarse and diffuse mind that can serve as momentary instigation giving rise to bodily or verbal karma, and this mind is too subtle to give rise to such karma. Further, it is a mind turned outward through the sense-gates that can serve as momentary instigation giving rise to bodily or verbal karma, and this mind is turned inward, and hence cannot give rise to such karma. Some further say: if a path-of-seeing-abandoned mind could serve as momentary instigation giving rise to bodily or verbal karma, then what should this karma itself be called — abandoned by seeing, abandoned by cultivation, or abandoned by both? If abandoned by seeing, then this bodily or verbal karma ought not to depend, as its preparatory basis, on what is abandoned by cultivation — namely, the four great elements it is made of, which are abandoned by cultivation. If abandoned by cultivation, then it ought not to have a path-of-seeing-abandoned mind as its momentary instigation. And if abandoned by both, then any single arisen karma would have to split into two parts, so that a single dharma would possess two own-natures — but this is not the case, and hence a path-of-seeing-abandoned mind is not momentary instigation. Question: if a path-of-seeing-abandoned mind cannot serve as momentary instigation giving rise to bodily or verbal karma, then how is what is stated in the sūtra to be reconciled — the statement that whatever bodily, verbal, and mental karma persons of wrong view have, whatever they intend, seek, or bring about, all of it obtains a disagreeable, unpleasant, unwelcome fruit, since this view is so violent and evil, namely wrong view itself? Answer: this is stated with reference to causal instigation, not with reference to momentary instigation, and hence there is no fault. Further, it is possible for a mind of this same class-nature to serve as initiator while a mind of this same class-nature likewise serves as accompanier, or for a mind of a different class-nature to serve as initiator while a mind of that same different class-nature likewise serves as accompanier, in giving rise to bodily or verbal karma; but it is not possible for a mind of this class-nature to serve as initiator while a mind of a different class-nature serves as accompanier, in giving rise to bodily or verbal karma. Some further say: this too is possible — as when a certain person vows to hold a great almsgiving assembly lasting five years, but dies partway through it,

— and, carried by the power of that vow, is reborn into a wealthy and eminent household, where he recalls his past life and carries out in full everything he had vowed before; this is then called a mind of one class-nature serving as initiator, while a mind of a different class-nature serves as accompanier, in giving rise to bodily and verbal karma.

There are three good conducts and three purities — bodily, verbal, and mental purity — and so on in full. Question: why compose this treatise? Answer: in order to analyze the meaning of the sūtra. For the sūtra says there are three good conducts and three purities, but though it speaks in this way, it does not explain the matter fully; the fuller explanation is as given above. Some further say: the earlier nyāsa already analyzed the three good conducts, but did not yet analyze the three purities; wishing now to analyze these, this treatise is composed.

Do the three good conducts subsume the three purities, and do the three purities subsume the three good conducts? Answer: they subsume one another according to their respective matters, for why is this? Bodily good conduct simply is bodily purity, verbal good conduct simply is verbal purity, and mental good conduct simply is mental purity. Question: undefiled good conduct, being forever free of stain, filth, and turbidity, may properly be called pure — but contaminated good conduct, being itself possessed of stain, filth, and turbidity, how can it be called pure? Answer: contaminated good conduct is called pure because it possesses a partial purity, for why is this? Contaminated good conduct too is able to remove the afflictive stains up through the sphere of nothingness, and hence it can be called pure. Some further say: contaminated good conduct is able to bring about and accord with the purity of the ultimate truth, and is hence likewise called pure.

There are three good conducts and three silences — bodily, verbal, and mental silence — and so on in full. Question: why compose this treatise? Answer: in order to analyze the meaning of the sūtra. For the sūtra says there are three good conducts and three silences, but though it speaks in this way, it does not explain the matter fully;

the fuller explanation is as given above. Some further say: the earlier nyāsa already analyzed the three good conducts, but did not yet analyze the three silences; wishing now to analyze these, this treatise is composed.

Do the three good conducts subsume the three silences, and do the three silences subsume the three good conducts? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is good conduct that is not silence — namely, apart from the bodily and verbal good conduct of the adept, all other bodily and verbal good conduct, and all mental good conduct. There is silence that is not good conduct — namely, the mind of the adept. There is what is both good conduct and silence — namely, the bodily and verbal good conduct of the adept. And there is what is neither good conduct nor silence — namely, whatever falls outside the categories just named. "The categories just named" means: within the aggregate of form, apart from wholesome form; within the aggregate of formations, apart from non-greed, non-hatred, right view, and wholesome volition; within the aggregate of consciousness, apart from the mind of the adept — taking the remaining aggregates of form, formations, and consciousness, and the two complete aggregates, together with the unconditioned dharmas — all of this together constitutes the fourth case, and hence it is said, "whatever falls outside the categories just named."

Do the three purities subsume the three silences, and do the three silences subsume the three purities? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is purity that is not silence — namely, apart from the bodily and verbal purity of the adept, all other bodily and verbal purity, and all mental purity. What does this mean further? It means the bodily and verbal purity of the trainee and of one who is neither trainee nor adept, and all three kinds of mental purity, since mental silence belongs solely to the mind of the adept. There is silence that is not purity — namely, the mind of the adept, since it is not of the nature of karma. There is what is both purity and silence — namely, the bodily and verbal purity of the adept. And there is what is neither purity nor silence — namely, whatever falls outside the categories just named, as explained in full above.

Question: why, among the five aggregates, is silence established only with respect to the two aggregates of form and consciousness, and not the remaining aggregates? Answer: it ought properly to be established with respect to all of them, and as for why it is not so established, one should know that this teaching is incomplete. Some further say: this is stated here in order to show the very first and the very last — the first being the aggregate of form, the last being the aggregate of consciousness, just as one speaks of the first and the last in speaking of entering and emerging, proceeding and having crossed over, the preparatory stage and the final stage, which one should understand in the same way. Some further say: this is stated here in order to show the coarsest and the subtlest — among the five aggregates, the aggregate of form is the coarsest, and the aggregate of consciousness is the subtlest. Some further say: true silence belongs only to the mind of the adept, and by what means is this mind of the adept to be inferred? By means of bodily and verbal karma — hence silence is established with respect to the mind of the adept together with bodily and verbal karma alone. Question: why does silence belong solely to the adept? Answer: silence can be found only in the body of the adept, and cannot be found in the body of the trainee or of one who is neither trainee nor adept. Arising from this very discussion, a further question arises: why can silence be found only in the body of the adept, and not elsewhere? Answer: because this silence is the most supreme dharma, and a supreme dharma cannot be found in an inferior body — for why is this? If one speaks of a supreme dharma, this means the dharma of the adept, supreme over the dharma of one who is not a trainee and the rest; and if one speaks of a supreme person, this means the person who is an adept, supreme over the person who is a trainee and the rest. Some further say: in the body of the adept, the afflictions and mental discursiveness have been finally and utterly extinguished, and silence is thereby perfected — hence silence is established there; other bodies are not like this, and hence it is not established with respect to them.

Question: what is the difference among good conduct, purity, and silence? Some say: the difference is merely nominal — one is called good conduct, another purity, another silence. Some further say: the difference lies also in meaning — the sense of skillful accomplishment is the meaning of good conduct; the sense of a spotless nature is the meaning of purity; the sense of freedom from delusion and confusion is the meaning of silence. Some further say: it is called good conduct because it is able to bring about a beloved fruit; it is called purity because it is unmixed with affliction; it is called silence because it is finally and utterly stilled — these are the three distinctions among good conduct, purity, and silence. Is all bodily evil conduct bodily karma arisen from improper attention? And is all bodily karma arisen from improper attention bodily evil conduct? And so on in full. Question: why compose this treatise? Answer: in order to analyze the meaning of the sūtra. For the sūtra says there is bodily, verbal, and mental karma arisen from improper attention, but though it speaks in this way, it does not explain the matter fully; the fuller explanation is as given above. Some further say: the earlier nyāsa, although it already analyzed the three kinds of evil conduct, did not yet analyze bodily, verbal, and mental karma arisen from improper attention; wishing now to analyze these, this treatise is composed. Is all bodily evil conduct bodily karma arisen from improper attention? And is all bodily karma arisen from improper attention bodily evil conduct? Answer: all bodily evil conduct is indeed bodily karma arisen from improper attention, for why is this? Because all evil conduct is contrary to what is right, and is instigated by improper attention. But there is bodily karma arisen from improper attention that is not bodily evil conduct — namely, obscured-neutral bodily karma, and unobscured-neutral bodily karma arisen from improper attention. As to obscured-neutral bodily karma arisen from improper attention: this means bodily karma arisen from afflictions such as flattery and craving belonging to the first dhyāna ground. As to unobscured-neutral bodily karma arisen from improper attention: this means, for instance, going or coming other than as one properly should, and so on in full, as before. Is all verbal evil conduct verbal karma arisen from improper attention? And is all verbal karma arisen from improper attention verbal evil conduct? Answer: all verbal evil conduct

— is indeed verbal karma arisen from improper attention, for why is this? Because all evil conduct is contrary to what is right, and is instigated by improper attention. But there is verbal karma arisen from improper attention that is not verbal evil conduct — namely, obscured-neutral verbal karma, and unobscured-neutral verbal karma arisen from improper attention. As to obscured-neutral verbal karma: this means verbal karma arisen from afflictions such as flattery and craving belonging to the first dhyāna ground. As to unobscured-neutral verbal karma arisen from improper attention: this means, for instance, uttering something other than the single word one properly should, and so on in full, as before.

Is all mental evil conduct mental karma arisen from improper attention? And is all mental karma arisen from improper attention mental evil conduct? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is mental evil conduct that is not mental karma arisen from improper attention — namely, the three kinds of mental evil conduct: covetousness, malice, and wrong view. There is mental karma arisen from improper attention that is not mental evil conduct — namely, obscured-neutral mental karma, and unobscured-neutral mental karma arisen from improper attention. As to obscured-neutral mental karma: this means volition associated with the view of a real self and the view of extremes bound to the desire realm, and volition associated with every affliction of the form and formless realms. As to unobscured-neutral mental karma arisen from improper attention: this means the volition capable of giving rise to the unobscured-neutral bodily and verbal karma arisen from improper attention spoken of before. There is what is both mental evil conduct and mental karma arisen from improper attention — namely, unwholesome mental karma. And there is what is neither mental evil conduct nor mental karma arisen from improper attention — namely, whatever falls outside the categories just named.

"The categories just named" are as explained in full above — that is, a tetralemma constructed within the aggregate of formations, wherein, apart from greed, hatred, wrong view, defiled volition, and unobscured-neutral volition arisen from improper attention, one takes the remaining associated and dissociated aggregate of formations, together with the four complete aggregates and the unconditioned dharmas — all of this together constitutes the fourth case, and hence it is said, "whatever falls outside the categories just named."

Is all bodily good conduct bodily karma arisen from proper attention? And is all bodily karma arisen from proper attention bodily good conduct? Answer: all bodily good conduct is indeed bodily karma arisen from proper attention, for why is this? Because all good conduct is never contrary to what is right, and is instigated by proper attention. But there is bodily karma arisen from proper attention that is not bodily good conduct — namely, unobscured-neutral bodily karma arisen from proper attention. What does this mean further? It means, for instance, going or coming just as one properly should, and so on in full, as before.

Is all verbal good conduct verbal karma arisen from proper attention? And is all verbal karma arisen from proper attention verbal good conduct?

Answer: all verbal good conduct is indeed verbal karma arisen from proper attention, for why is this? Because all good conduct is never contrary to what is right, and is instigated by proper attention. But there is verbal karma arisen from proper attention that is not verbal good conduct — namely, unobscured-neutral verbal karma arisen from proper attention. What does this mean further? It means, for instance, uttering just the single word one properly should, and so on in full, as before. Is all mental good conduct

— mental karma arisen from proper attention? And is all mental karma arisen from proper attention mental good conduct? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is mental good conduct that is not mental karma arisen from proper attention — namely, the three kinds of mental good conduct: non-greed, non-hatred, and right view. There is mental karma arisen from proper attention that is not mental good conduct — namely, a portion of unobscured-neutral mental karma arisen from proper attention, that is, the volition capable of giving rise to the unobscured-neutral bodily and verbal karma arisen from proper attention spoken of before. There is what is both mental good conduct and mental karma arisen from proper attention — namely, wholesome mental karma. And there is what is neither mental good conduct nor mental karma arisen from proper attention — namely, whatever falls outside the categories just named. "The categories just named" are as explained in full above — that is, a tetralemma constructed within the aggregate of formations, wherein, apart from non-greed, non-hatred, right view, wholesome volition, and unobscured-neutral volition arisen from proper attention, one takes the remaining associated and dissociated aggregate of formations, together with the four complete aggregates and the unconditioned dharmas — all of this together constitutes the fourth case, and hence it is said, "whatever falls outside the categories just named."