Is the Buddha's Voice a Ripening?

Dharmas obtained through karma — should these be said to be wholesome, unwholesome, or neutral? And so on 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 Vātsīputrīyas and the Vibhajyavādins wish to hold that sound is itself a ripening-fruit. Question: on what authority do they make this claim? Answer: on the authority of a scriptural statement — as the Prajñaptiśāstra says: for what reason does the bodhisattva obtain the mark of the great being's own Brahmā-voice? Because the bodhisattva, in his former lives, abstained from harsh and evil speech, and this karma, upon reaching completion, obtained the Brahmā-voice. On the basis of this statement, they reckon that sound is itself a ripening-fruit. In order to refute this notion and to show that no sound whatsoever is a ripening-fruit, this treatise is composed.

Dharmas obtained through karma — should these be said to be wholesome, unwholesome, or neutral? Answer: dharmas obtained through karma, with respect to the ripening-fruit, are neutral. Question: why is it said in this way? Answer: because there are dharmas that, although obtained through karma, are not neutral — such as the various restraints and non-restraints — and it is in order to set these apart that it is said in this way: dharmas obtained through karma, with respect to the ripening-fruit, are neutral. Here, a Vātsīputrīya or Vibhajyavādin questions the correct-principle theorist, saying: do you indeed hold, definitively, that dharmas obtained through karma, with respect to the ripening-fruit, are neutral? This is a statement made to first pin down the opponent's own position, for if one does not first pin down what position the opponent actually holds, one cannot then fault him for anything, and it is also a way of pressing him on what he has not yet stated — hence this pinning-down statement: do you now accept and definitively hold that dharmas obtained through karma, with respect to the ripening-fruit, are neutral? The correct-principle theorist answers: yes, this is so.

He then further asks: and what do you further hold — is the speech that the Tathāgata utters with a wholesome mind, wondrous in sound, beautiful in sound, gentle and elegant in sound, delightful in sound, wholesome speech? The correct-principle theorist answers: yes, this is so. He then presses the objection, saying: hear now, let me point out your defeat, your loss, and your self-contradiction. If you hold that dharmas obtained through karma, with respect to the ripening-fruit, are neutral, then you ought not to say that the speech the Tathāgata utters with a wholesome mind — wondrous, beautiful, gentle and elegant, delightful in sound — is wholesome speech; to say so is unreasonable. But if you hold that the speech the Tathāgata utters with a wholesome mind — wondrous, beautiful, gentle and elegant, delightful in sound — is wholesome speech, then you ought not to say that dharmas obtained through karma, with respect to the ripening-fruit, are neutral; and to say so is likewise unreasonable. The correct-principle theorist resolves this objection, saying: one should rather explain it thus — the bodhisattva, in his former lives, created and increased the great foundational karma that brings about a ripening-fruit, and it was through this cause and condition that, by successive transmission, the Tathāgata's own subtle great elements of the throat came to be produced, from which this wondrous speech-sound can then arise — while the sound itself is not the ripening.

Question: if no sound whatsoever is a ripening-fruit, how is the statement of the Prajñaptiśāstra to be reconciled? Answer: it is stated with reference to a successive, indirect cause,

— and no sound whatsoever is a ripening-fruit. Question: why is no sound a ripening-fruit? Some say: sound belongs to the third transmission — that is, the initial karma first produces the great elements, and the great elements produce sound; since sound belongs to the third remove, it is not a ripening-fruit. Some further say: sound belongs to the fifth transmission — that is, the initial karma produces the ripening great elements, the ripening great elements produce the nutriment-sustained great elements, the nutriment-sustained great elements produce the outflow-consistent great elements, and it is from these outflow-consistent great elements that sound is produced; since sound belongs to the fifth remove, it is not a ripening-fruit. Some further say: sound follows the will and can be altered at will, while no ripening dharma can be altered at will. Some further say: sound gives rise to further sound, whereas a ripening never again gives rise to another ripening. Some say: sound is brought forth by present exertion, while a ripening-fruit arises from prior karma. Some further say: manifest verbal karma ceases upon becoming detached from the defilement of the first dhyāna alone, whereas, if it were a ripening, it ought to cease only upon becoming detached from the defilement of all three realms. Some further say: sound is of three kinds — wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral — while a ripening-fruit is neutral alone. Some say: if sound were itself a ripening, then one born in an agreeable destiny ought at all times to utter agreeable sounds, and one born in a disagreeable destiny ought at all times to utter disagreeable sounds — yet one plainly observes cases contrary to this, and hence sound is not a ripening. Some further say: sound has gaps and interruptions, while ripened form has none — hence sound is not a ripening. Now, bodhisattvas, through two causes and conditions, vow to seek the great being's mark of the buddha's own subtle Brahmā-voice: first, through having once seen it; second, through having once heard it. Through having once seen it: this means that the bodhisattva once saw, at a great assembly presided over by a buddha, that buddha proclaiming the true Dharma to beings with a Brahmā-voice, subduing rival doctrines, subtle and profound, possessed of the mark of the great being. Through having once heard it: this means that the bodhisattva once fully heard the Tathāgata proclaiming the true Dharma with a Brahmā-voice, and so on up to being possessed of the mark of the great being. At that time, the bodhisattva, having seen and heard this, rejoiced and, with a deeply loving and delighted mind, vowed to undertake the proper causes according with it — that all his own precepts, pure conduct, and diligent effort should be dedicated, with the wish that in the future he should come to abide in the very same class of great being's conduct. Moved by this very intention, he further makes offerings of various superb incense, flowers, offerings, and music to the images of buddhas, pratyekabuddhas, śrāvakas, and stūpas, and reverently serves and provides for his parents, teachers, and fellow practitioners of pure conduct — and, whenever cultivating such superior merit, he dedicates each act toward seeking this very mark of the Brahmā-voice. He further diligently purifies himself of two paths of karma — harsh speech, and idle chatter. Through diligently purifying himself of harsh speech, he obtains the great being's mark of the subtle Brahmā-voice, by which this Brahmā-voice subdues every rival doctrine of the outside paths. Through diligently purifying himself of idle chatter,

— he obtains speech that is dignified, solemn, clear, and resonant, by which this speech outshines and overwhelms every worldly rival doctrine. It is like a certain person who sees another dwelling in a magnificent hall, arrayed with the five kinds of music, reveling freely in pleasure, and who, hearing the sound of another's music being played, thinks to himself:

— "When shall I too come to dwell in such a magnificent hall, arrayed with the five kinds of music, reveling freely in delight?" And having so reflected, he diligently exerts his own effort, accumulating wealth, until he is able to accomplish everything just as he had wished. The bodhisattva is just the same: through having seen and heard, he vows to seek the karma that brings about the buddha's own mark of the Brahmā-voice-sound. Are past dharmas, and so on in full — Question: why compose this treatise? Answer: because there are those who, disregarding past and future and being ignorant of the three times, wish to hold that the past and the future do not exist, and say that only the present and the unconditioned exist. In order to refute this attachment and to show that the past and future are dharmas that really exist, this treatise is composed. Further, the reason this treatise is composed is in order to put a stop to what a certain outside path teaches —

— that school holds that every dharma has what comes later as the cause of what comes earlier, just as, in a spring, the later water presses upon the earlier water, causing it to well up and flow forth, so that the later water is the cause of the earlier water; and that dharmas are just the same, in that it is precisely because they are pressed and driven forward by the dharma of a later moment that they arise out of the future and enter the present, and then, from the present, cease and pass into the past — hence the future is the cause of the present, and the present is the cause of the past. In order to refute this attachment and to make clear that every dharma has what comes earlier as the cause of what comes later, never what comes later as the cause of what comes earlier — for if one holds that a later dharma is the cause of an earlier one, this directly contradicts the dependent origination of every dharma, both internal and external —

As for contradicting the dependent origination of internal dharmas: this means that formations are conditioned by ignorance, and so on up through birth being conditioned by aging-and-death; that it is on account of the child that there come to be parents; that eye-consciousness, taken as condition, gives rise to eye and form, and so on up through mental consciousness, taken as condition, giving rise to mind and mental objects; and that the kalala embryonic stage arises from the arbuda stage, and so on up through the middle years arising from old age. As for contradicting the dependent origination of external dharmas: this means that the sprout would be the cause of the seed, and so on up through the fruit being the cause of the flower. If this were so, there would follow a great fault — that one would obtain a result before ever performing the deed, that one would first experience the ripening of good or evil before creating the good or evil karma, that one would first fall into Avīci hell before committing the five ānantarya deeds, that one would first receive the position of a wheel-turning king before creating the karma of a wheel-turning king, that one would first realize unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening and only afterward cultivate the bodhisattva practices. And if one could obtain a result without having yet performed the deed, one should equally be able to lose a result after having already performed it — and in that case there would be no bondage and no liberation from it at all. To avoid such a fault, it is held that every dharma has what comes earlier as the cause of what comes later, never what comes later as the cause of what comes earlier — and it is for this reason that this treatise is composed. If karma is past, is its fruit past? Answer: its fruit may be past, future, or present — for the ripening-fruit, owing to the distinctions of whether it has already ceased and so forth, comes in three kinds. If karma is future, is its fruit future? Answer: yes, this is so, since a fruit can never precede its own cause. If karma is present, is its fruit present? Answer: its fruit may be present or future, explained as before. Here some say: this discussion is conducted with reference to the momentary present. According to this account, for past karma, its fruit, whatever time it falls in, has all four kinds of karma — that ripening in the present life, and so on up through that whose ripening is indeterminate; and for future karma and present karma, whatever fruit they have, their karma is likewise of these same four kinds — though one ought not to say that for present karma the fruit is present, since it is not the case that karma created in this very moment is experienced as ripening in this very same moment. Some further say: this discussion is conducted with reference to the present understood as a phase. According to this account, for past karma the fruit is past, future, or present; for future karma and present karma the fruit is future, all explained as before; and as for present karma whose fruit is present, such karma is of two kinds — that ripening in the present life, and that whose ripening is indeterminate. Some further say: this discussion is conducted with reference to the present understood as a single class-nature. According to this account, for past karma: if the fruit is past, it is as explained before; if the fruit is future, such karma is of two kinds — that ripening in a later life, and that whose ripening is indeterminate; if the fruit is present, such karma is of three kinds, excepting that ripening in the present life. For future karma, it is likewise as explained before. For present karma: if the fruit is present, such karma is of two kinds — that ripening in the present life, and that whose ripening is indeterminate; if the fruit is future, such karma is of three kinds, excepting that ripening in the present life. Question: is there karma ripening in the present life whose cause lies in the past and whose fruit lies in the future? Answer: there is, when speaking with reference to the momentary or phase-based present, but not when speaking with reference to the present understood as a single class-nature. Some further say: it can also be spoken of with reference to the present understood as a single class-nature — as when a certain person, having created and increased karma ripening in the present life, suddenly dies before yet receiving its fruit; at that time it is indeed to be called a case where the cause lies in the past and the fruit in the future. Is there karma ripening in the present life whose cause lies in the past and whose fruit lies in the present, or whose cause lies in the present and whose fruit lies in the future? If the question is posed with reference to the present understood as a single class-nature, the answer should be that there is no such case; the Venerable Ghoṣa says there is, as explained before. Is there a case where it is bodily karma alone that brings about a ripening-fruit, while verbal and mental karma do not? And so on in full. Here we now conveniently show the agreeable and disagreeable fruits brought about by the three karmas, just as the later Aggregate of Views conveniently shows the distinctions among their phases. Of the questions posed here, the dark category is answered first, and the pale category afterward — this is called the brief exposition of the Vibhāṣā at this point. Is there a case where it is bodily karma alone that brings about a ripening-fruit, while verbal and mental karma do not? Answer: there is — as when the body is unguarded and speech is guarded: at that time one has either a wholesome mind or a neutral mind, in that one gives rise, in the present, to unwholesome manifest bodily karma, which in turn gives rise to accompanying unmanifest karma, while also, either now or previously, giving rise to wholesome manifest verbal karma, which in turn gives rise to accompanying unmanifest karma, with a wholesome or neutral mind manifesting at that very time. Here, the bodily karma brings about a disagreeable ripening, the verbal karma brings about an agreeable ripening, and the mental karma, if arisen with a wholesome mind, brings about an agreeable ripening, or, if arisen with a neutral mind, brings about neither an agreeable nor a disagreeable ripening. Again, as when the body is guarded and speech is unguarded: at that time one has either an unwholesome mind or a neutral mind, in that one gives rise, in the present, to wholesome manifest bodily karma, which in turn gives rise to accompanying unmanifest karma, while also, either now or previously, giving rise to unwholesome manifest verbal karma, which in turn gives rise to accompanying unmanifest karma, with an unwholesome or neutral mind manifesting at that very time. Here, the bodily karma brings about an agreeable ripening, the verbal karma brings about a disagreeable ripening, and the mental karma, if arisen with an unwholesome mind, brings about a disagreeable ripening, or, if arisen with a neutral mind, brings about neither an agreeable nor a disagreeable ripening. This is what is meant by bodily karma alone bringing about a ripening-fruit, while verbal and mental karma do not.

Is there a case where it is verbal karma alone that brings about a ripening-fruit, while bodily and mental karma do not? Answer: there is — as when the body is guarded and speech is unguarded: at that time one has either a wholesome mind or a neutral mind, in that one gives rise, either now or previously, to wholesome manifest bodily karma, which in turn gives rise to accompanying unmanifest karma, while also giving rise, in the present, to unwholesome manifest verbal karma, which in turn gives rise to accompanying unmanifest karma, with a wholesome or neutral mind manifesting at that very time. Here, the bodily karma brings about an agreeable ripening, the verbal karma brings about a disagreeable ripening, and the mental karma, if arisen with a wholesome mind, brings about an agreeable ripening, or, if arisen with a neutral mind, brings about neither an agreeable nor a disagreeable ripening. As when the body is unguarded and speech is guarded: at that time one gives rise to either an unwholesome mind or a neutral mind, in that one gives rise, either now or previously, to unwholesome manifest bodily karma, which in turn gives rise to accompanying unmanifest karma, while also giving rise, in the present, to wholesome manifest verbal karma, which in turn gives rise to accompanying unmanifest karma, with an unwholesome or neutral mind arising at that very time. Here, the bodily karma brings about a disagreeable ripening, the verbal karma brings about an agreeable ripening, and the mental karma, if arisen with an unwholesome mind, brings about a disagreeable ripening, or, if arisen with a neutral mind, brings about neither an agreeable nor a disagreeable ripening. This is what is meant by verbal karma alone bringing about a ripening-fruit, while bodily and mental karma do not.

For those who wish to hold that restraint and non-restraint can be incomplete, according to their own intent, within these various formulations, the case of the body being guarded while speech is unguarded,

and of speech being guarded while the body is unguarded, may each be spoken of with reference to any of the three states — abiding in restraint, abiding in non-restraint, or abiding in neither restraint nor non-restraint. For those who wish to hold that restraint and non-restraint cannot be incomplete, according to their own intent, these cases are spoken of solely with reference to one abiding in neither restraint nor non-restraint, and not otherwise.

Is there a case where it is mental karma alone that brings about a ripening-fruit, while bodily and verbal karma do not? Answer: there is — as when the body is guarded and speech is guarded, and one has an unwholesome mind at that time; and the reverse case is likewise explained accordingly, following the pattern given before. Here, if the mental karma brings about a disagreeable ripening, the bodily and verbal karma bring about an agreeable ripening; if the mental karma brings about an agreeable ripening, the bodily and verbal karma bring about a disagreeable ripening. This is what is meant by mental karma alone bringing about a ripening-fruit, while bodily and verbal karma do not.

Is there a case where it is bodily and verbal karma that bring about a ripening-fruit, while mental karma does not? Answer: there is — as when the body is unguarded and speech is unguarded, and one has a wholesome or neutral mind at that time; and the reverse case is likewise explained accordingly, following the pattern given before. Here, if the bodily and verbal karma bring about a disagreeable ripening, the mental karma brings about an agreeable ripening, or brings about no ripening at all; if the bodily and verbal karma bring about an agreeable ripening, the mental karma brings about a disagreeable ripening, or brings about no ripening at all. This is what is meant by bodily and verbal karma bringing about a ripening-fruit, while mental karma does not.

For those who wish to hold that restraint and non-restraint can be incomplete, and for those who wish to hold that they cannot be incomplete, according to their own intent, within these various formulations, the cases of the body being guarded and speech being guarded, and of the body being unguarded and speech being unguarded, may each be spoken of with reference to any of the three states — abiding in restraint, abiding in non-restraint, or abiding in neither restraint nor non-restraint. Is there a case where it is bodily and mental karma that bring about a ripening-fruit, while verbal karma does not? Answer: there is — as when the body is unguarded and speech is guarded, and one has an unwholesome mind at that time; and the reverse case is likewise explained accordingly, following the pattern given before.

Is there a case where it is verbal and mental karma that bring about a ripening-fruit, while bodily karma does not? Answer: there is — as when the body is guarded and speech is unguarded, and one has an unwholesome mind at that time; and the reverse case is likewise explained accordingly, following the pattern given before. Is there a case where bodily and verbal karma bring about a ripening-fruit, and mental karma does likewise? Answer: there is — as when the body is unguarded and speech is unguarded, and one has an unwholesome mind at that time; and the reverse case is likewise explained accordingly, following the pattern given before. Here, either all three karmas bring about a disagreeable ripening, or all three karmas bring about an agreeable ripening. This is what is meant by bodily and verbal karma bringing about a ripening-fruit, and mental karma doing likewise.

Is there a case where it is none of bodily, verbal, or mental karma that brings about a ripening-fruit, yet a ripening-fruit still occurs? Answer: there is — namely, factors dissociated from mind bringing about a ripening-fruit. What are these factors dissociated from mind, distinct from form and from mental and mind-associated dharmas? They are the attainment of non-perception and the attainment of cessation,

— together with acquisition, and their arising, aging, abiding, and impermanence.

Question: what ripening does the attainment of non-perception bring about? Some say: the attainment of non-perception brings about non-perception and the ripening of form; the life faculty and the class-nature are the ripening of that state's own possession-of-mind dhyāna; the remaining aggregates are a co-arisen ripening. Some further say: the attainment of non-perception brings about non-perception and the ripening of form; the life faculty is the ripening of that state's own possession-of-mind dhyāna; the remaining aggregates are a co-arisen ripening. Some further say: the attainment of non-perception brings about only the ripening of non-perception itself; the remaining aggregates are a co-arisen ripening. Question: if so, then the life faculty would not be a ripening brought about by karma at all — how then is the statement in the Prakaraṇapāda to be reconciled, which says there is a dharma that is a ripening of karma yet is not itself karma, namely the life faculty? Answer: every life faculty is indeed a ripening-fruit, and since ripening-fruits are for the most part brought about by karma, it is spoken of in this way — yet this does not exclude the possibility of some that are not brought about by karma. Some further say: when one possesses mind, one's karma also brings about the ripening of the aggregates of a mindless state; when one is without mind, one's karma also brings about the ripening of the aggregates of a state possessing mind. Question: if so, then a cause possessing mind would bring about a mindless fruit, and a cause without mind would bring about a fruit possessing mind. Answer: this too involves no fault, just as a cause possessing form can bring about a formless fruit, or a formless cause can bring about a fruit possessing form — differences between karma and its fruit are not contrary to sound principle, and it is just the same here. The verdict: one should say that the ripening of non-perception is brought about by the attainment of non-perception alone; every life faculty and class-nature, and the eye and other form faculties, are all brought about by karma; the remaining aggregates are a co-arisen ripening. Question: what ripening does the attainment of cessation bring about? Answer: it brings about the ripening of the four aggregates of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. Question: what ripening does acquisition bring about? Answer: it brings about form, mind, mind-associated dharmas, and factors dissociated from mind. Question: can acquisition bring about the ripening of class-nature? Some say: it cannot, for why is this? Class-nature is brought about by karma, and since this acquisition is not karma, it cannot bring it about. Those who hold that acquisition cannot bring about class-nature hold that this acquisition, when it brings about the ripening of form, can bring about four sense-fields — namely form, smell, taste, and touch; when it brings about the ripening of mind and mind-associated dharmas, this means pleasant feeling, painful feeling, and neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, together with their associated dharmas; when it brings about the ripening of factors dissociated from mind, this means arising, abiding, aging, and impermanence. The Venerable Saṃghavasu says: acquisition too can bring about a class-nature fruit — that is, a great many acquisitions, accumulated together, can bring about a single class-nature, one whose dependent body is dull, feeble, unclear, and unsharp — like an earthworm, a lizard, or an elephant — and that class-nature is what is brought about by acquisition. Those who hold that acquisition too can bring about class-nature hold that this acquisition, when it brings about the ripening of form, means the nine sense-fields excepting the sound field; when it brings about the ripening of mind and mind-associated dharmas, this means pleasant feeling, painful feeling, and neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, together with their associated dharmas; when it brings about the ripening of factors dissociated from mind, this means the life faculty, class-nature, acquisition, arising, abiding, aging, and impermanence. This account, however, should not be made, for why is this? One acquisition, set against another acquisition, does not share a single common fruit with it — so even were they accumulated in a number exceeding a koṭi, what benefit would that be? Only if they shared a single common fruit could such a thing be possible. Hence the account given before is the better one. The Venerable Ghoṣa explains it thus:

— acquisition cannot bring about a class-nature fruit; but when other karma brings about a class-nature and its corresponding acquisition, then, with respect to the eye sense-field up through the mind sense-field, acquisition too can bring about the ripening of their outward characteristics — that is, the arising, abiding, aging, and impermanence of those very dharmas, which is also included here, since these depend upon and are attached to those dharmas and have no independent standing of their own. Is there a case, among the three karmas ripening in the present life and the rest, whose ripening-fruit is neither earlier nor later? Answer: there is, and so on in full. Here, "not earlier" excludes the past, and "not later" excludes the future; "receiving the ripening-fruit" means that the three karmas receive their ripening-fruit at one and the same moment — it is with reference to this that the question is posed, and hence the answer is that there is such a case. That is: as to karma ripening in the present life whose fruit is form, this karma is able to bring about the ripening of four sense-fields, namely form, smell, taste, and touch; as to karma ripening in the very next life whose fruit is mind and mind-associated dharmas, this karma is able to bring about the ripening of pleasant feeling, painful feeling, and neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, together with their associated dharmas; as to karma ripening in some later life whose fruit is a factor dissociated from mind, this karma is able to bring about four kinds of ripening — namely the life faculty, class-nature, acquisition, and arising, abiding, aging, and impermanence. Again, as to karma ripening in the present life whose fruit is a factor dissociated from mind, this karma is able to bring about two kinds of ripening — namely acquisition, and arising, abiding, aging, and impermanence; as to karma ripening in the very next life whose fruit is form, this karma is able to bring about the ripening of nine sense-fields, excepting the sound field; as to karma ripening in some later life whose fruit is mind and mind-associated dharmas,

— this karma is able to bring about the ripening of pleasant feeling, painful feeling, and neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, together with their associated dharmas. Again, as to karma ripening in the present life whose fruit is mind and mind-associated dharmas, this karma is able to bring about the ripening of pleasant feeling, painful feeling, and neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, together with their associated dharmas; as to karma ripening in the very next life whose fruit is a factor dissociated from mind, this karma is able to bring about four kinds of ripening, namely the life faculty, class-nature, acquisition, and arising, abiding, aging, and impermanence; as to karma ripening in some later life whose fruit is form, this karma is able to bring about the ripening of nine sense-fields, excepting the sound field. Is there a case, among the three karmas conducive to pleasant feeling and the rest, whose ripening-fruit is neither earlier nor later? Answer: there is. That is: as to karma conducive to pleasant feeling whose fruit is form, this karma is able to bring about, among humans and gods, the ripening of nine sense-fields, excepting the sound field, and, among the unhappy destinies, the ripening of four sense-fields, namely form, smell, taste, and touch; as to karma conducive to painful feeling whose fruit is mind and mind-associated dharmas, this karma is able to bring about the ripening of painful feeling together with its associated dharmas; as to karma conducive to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling whose fruit is a factor dissociated from mind, this karma is able to bring about, among humans and gods, four kinds of ripening, namely the life faculty, class-nature, acquisition, and arising, abiding, aging, and impermanence, and, among the unhappy destinies, two kinds of ripening, namely acquisition, and arising, abiding, aging, and impermanence. Again, as to karma conducive to pleasant feeling whose fruit is a factor dissociated from mind, this karma is able to bring about, among humans and gods, four kinds of ripening, namely the life faculty, class-nature, acquisition, and arising, abiding, aging, and impermanence, and, among the unhappy destinies, two kinds of ripening, namely acquisition, and arising, abiding, aging, and impermanence; as to karma conducive to painful feeling whose fruit is form, this karma is able to bring about, among the unhappy destinies, the ripening of nine sense-fields, excepting the sound field, and, among humans and gods, the ripening of four sense-fields, namely form, smell, taste, and touch; as to karma conducive to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling whose fruit is mind and mind-associated dharmas, this karma is able to bring about the ripening of neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling together with its associated dharmas. Again, as to karma conducive to pleasant feeling whose fruit is mind and mind-associated dharmas, this karma is able to bring about the ripening of pleasant feeling together with its associated dharmas; as to karma conducive to painful feeling whose fruit is a factor dissociated from mind, this karma is able to bring about, among the unhappy destinies, four kinds of ripening, namely the life faculty, class-nature, acquisition, and arising, abiding, aging, and impermanence, and, among humans and gods, two kinds of ripening, namely acquisition, and arising, abiding, aging, and impermanence; as to karma conducive to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling whose fruit is form, this karma is able to bring about, among humans and gods, the ripening of nine sense-fields, excepting the sound field, and, among the unhappy destinies, the ripening of four sense-fields, namely form, smell, taste, and touch.

Is there a case, among the karma of the three realms, whose ripening-fruit is neither earlier nor later? Answer: there is, and so on in full. Here, by strict reasoning, the answer ought to be that there is no such case, since the ripening-fruit is cut off by realm and ground — so on what principle can it be said that there is? Some say: the question posed here is itself an improper one, and hence an improper answer is given to match it. Why should such an improper question be posed at all? It is posed precisely in order to test another. It has been heard that there was once, in Kashmir, a certain treatise-master who traveled to a monastery in the dark forest of northern India, where the one in charge of communal affairs assigned him to serve as an attendant for the community; he refused, saying, "I am a treatise-master and ought to be exempted from such duty." The one in charge of communal affairs went and reported this to the arhat presiding over the assembly, saying, "There is a bhikṣu from Kashmir who has come to this monastery, and it is now his turn to serve as attendant for the community, but he refuses, saying he is a treatise-master and ought to be exempted from such duty." The arhat said, "You should go and ask him this: is there a case, among the karma of the three realms, whose ripening-fruit is neither earlier nor later?" The one in charge of communal affairs then went and asked him this, and upon receiving the question, he answered that there was no such case. The one in charge of communal affairs then returned to the arhat presiding over the assembly and reported, "I have asked him, and he answered that there is no such case." The arhat said, "He is certainly no treatise-master, and should not be exempted from communal duty." It is for this reason that this question is here recounted once more — it was posed precisely as a test, and hence an improper answer is likewise given in return. Some further say: if this question is posed with reference to the predominant-condition fruit, then the question and answer are not contrary to reason either, since the karma of the three realms may indeed bring about this kind of fruit all at the same time. That is: as to desire-realm-bound karma whose fruit is form,

— this karma also brings about, within the desire realm, the ripening of nine sense-fields, excepting the sound field. As to form-realm-bound karma whose fruit is mind and mind-associated dharmas: this means that brahmins, householders, and devout laypersons, hearing that a certain bhikṣu has realized dhyāna, thereupon offer him various robes, food and drink, and other requisites of life, and he, having received these offerings, gives rise to pleasant feeling and its associated dharmas. As to formless-realm-bound karma whose fruit is a factor dissociated from mind: this means that brahmins, householders, and devout laypersons, hearing that a certain bhikṣu has attained a formless absorption, thereupon offer him various robes, food and drink, and other requisites of life, and he, having received these offerings, has his life faculty sustained without interruption. Again, as to desire-realm-bound karma whose fruit is a factor dissociated from mind: this karma also brings about, within the desire realm, four kinds of ripening, namely the life faculty, class-nature, and arising, abiding, aging, and impermanence. As to form-realm-bound karma whose fruit is form: this means that brahmins, householders, and devout laypersons, hearing that a certain bhikṣu has realized dhyāna, thereupon offer him various robes, food and drink, and other requisites of life, and he, having received these offerings, nourishes his faculties and increases his great elements. As to formless-realm-bound karma whose fruit is mind and mind-associated dharmas:

— this means that brahmins, householders, and devout laypersons, hearing that a certain bhikṣu has attained a formless absorption, thereupon offer him various robes, food and drink, and other requisites of life, and he, having received these offerings, gives rise to pleasant feeling and its associated dharmas. Again, as to desire-realm-bound karma whose fruit is mind and mind-associated dharmas: this karma also brings about pleasant feeling, painful feeling, and neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, together with their associated dharmas. As to form-realm-bound karma whose fruit is a factor dissociated from mind: this means that brahmins, householders, and devout laypersons, hearing that a certain bhikṣu has realized dhyāna, thereupon offer him various robes, food and drink, and other requisites of life, and he, having received these offerings, has his life faculty sustained without interruption. As to formless-realm-bound karma whose fruit is form: this means that brahmins, householders, and devout laypersons, hearing that a certain bhikṣu has attained a formless absorption, thereupon offer him various robes, food and drink, and other requisites of life, and he, having received these offerings, nourishes his faculties and increases his great elements. By this reasoning, then, if this question here is posed with reference to the predominant-condition fruit, the question and answer are not contrary to reason, since the predominant-condition fruit is never cut off by any realm or ground whatsoever. Is there a case, among wholesome and unwholesome karma, whose ripening-fruit is neither earlier nor later? Answer: there is, and so on in full. That is: as to wholesome karma whose fruit is form, this karma is able to bring about, among humans and gods, the ripening of nine sense-fields, excepting the sound field, and, among the unhappy destinies, the ripening of four sense-fields, namely form, smell, taste, and touch; as to unwholesome karma whose fruit is mind and mind-associated dharmas, this karma is able to bring about the ripening of painful feeling together with its associated dharmas; as to that whose fruit is a factor dissociated from mind, this karma is able to bring about, among the unhappy destinies, four kinds of ripening, namely the life faculty, class-nature, and arising, abiding, aging, and impermanence, and, among humans and gods, two kinds of ripening, namely arising, abiding, aging, and impermanence. Again, as to wholesome karma whose fruit is mind and mind-associated dharmas, this karma is able to bring about the ripening of pleasant feeling and neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, together with their associated dharmas; as to that whose fruit is a factor dissociated from mind, this karma is able to bring about, among humans and gods, four kinds of ripening, namely the life faculty, class-nature, and arising, abiding, aging, and impermanence, and, among the unhappy destinies, two kinds of ripening, namely arising, abiding, aging, and impermanence.

As to unwholesome karma whose fruit is form, this karma is able to bring about, among the unhappy destinies, the ripening of nine sense-fields, excepting the sound field, and, among humans and gods, the ripening of four sense-fields, namely form, smell, taste, and touch. Is there a case, among karma abandoned by seeing and abandoned by cultivation, whose ripening-fruit is neither earlier nor later? Answer: there is,

and so on in full. That is: as to karma abandoned by seeing whose fruit is form, this karma is able to bring about, among the unhappy destinies, the ripening of nine sense-fields, excepting the sound field, and

is able to bring about, among humans and gods, the ripening of four sense-fields, namely form, smell, taste, and touch. As to karma abandoned by cultivation whose fruit is mind, mind-associated dharmas, or a factor dissociated from mind: this karma is of two kinds, wholesome and unwholesome. As to the wholesome karma whose fruit is mind and mind-associated dharmas, this karma is able to bring about the ripening of pleasant feeling and neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, together with their associated dharmas; as to that whose fruit is a factor dissociated from mind, this karma is able to bring about, among humans and gods, four kinds of ripening, namely the life faculty, class-nature, and arising, abiding, aging, and impermanence, and, among the unhappy destinies, two kinds of ripening, namely arising, abiding, aging, and impermanence. As to the unwholesome karma whose fruit is mind and mind-associated dharmas, this karma is able to bring about the ripening of painful feeling together with its associated dharmas; as to that whose fruit is a factor dissociated from mind, this karma is able to bring about, among the unhappy destinies, four kinds of ripening, namely the life faculty, class-nature, and arising, abiding, aging, and impermanence, and, among humans and gods, two kinds of ripening, namely arising, abiding, aging, and impermanence. Again, as to karma abandoned by seeing whose fruit is mind and mind-associated dharmas, this karma is able to bring about the ripening of painful feeling together with its associated dharmas; as to that whose fruit is a factor dissociated from mind, this karma is able to bring about, among the unhappy destinies, four kinds of ripening, namely the life faculty, class-nature, and arising, abiding, aging, and impermanence, and, among humans and gods, two kinds of ripening, namely arising, abiding, aging, and impermanence.

As to karma abandoned by cultivation whose fruit is form: this karma is of two kinds, wholesome and unwholesome. As to the wholesome karma whose fruit is form, this karma is able to bring about, among humans and gods, the ripening of nine sense-fields, excepting the sound field, and, among the unhappy destinies, the ripening of four sense-fields, namely form, smell, taste, and touch. As to the unwholesome karma whose fruit is form, this karma is able to bring about, among the unhappy destinies, the ripening of nine sense-fields, excepting the sound field, and, among humans and gods, the ripening of four sense-fields, namely form, smell, taste, and touch. The cause and fruit of ripening have already been explained in full in the Nyāsa on Knowledge within the Aggregate of Miscellaneous Topics.

Fourth Aggregate, Karma: the Killing-of-Life Nyāsa, Chapter Three, Part One. Is there a case where a killing of life has already occurred, yet the act of killing is not yet extinguished? Having now grasped this chapter heading and its explanatory meaning in full, we should next explain it in full.

Here there is what is not itself killing yet is spoken of with the term "killing," and there is what is not itself preparatory action yet is spoken of with the term "preparatory action" — that is, the preparatory action for killing is also called "killing," and what arises after the killing is also called "preparatory action." This is called the brief exposition of the Vibhāṣā at this point. Is there a case where a killing of life has already occurred, yet the act of killing is not yet extinguished? Answer: there is — as when another's life has already been cut off, yet the preparatory action toward it has not yet ceased: this means that a certain person, intending to take another's life, attacks him with a knife, a staff, or the like, and although the preparatory action has not yet ceased, that person's life has already been cut off; the same holds in full for sending an agent, or using poison or spells. Is there a case where a killing of life has not yet occurred, yet the act of killing has already been extinguished? Answer: there is — as when another's life has not yet been cut off, yet the preparatory action toward it has already ceased: this means that a certain person, intending to take another's life,

— attacks him with a knife, a staff, or the like, and although that person's life has not yet been cut off, the attacker believes it has already been cut off and ceases the attack; the same holds in full for sending an agent, or using poison or spells. Is there a case where a killing of life has already occurred, and the act of killing has already been extinguished? Answer: there is — as when another's life has already been cut off, and the preparatory action toward it has already ceased: this means that a certain person, intending to take another's life, attacks him with a knife, a staff, or the like, and, at the very moment his life is cut off, the preparatory action likewise ceases; the same holds in full for sending an agent, or using poison or spells. Is there a case where a killing of life has not yet occurred, and the act of killing is not yet extinguished? Answer: there is — as when another's life has not yet been cut off, and the preparatory action toward it has not yet ceased:

this means that a certain person, intending to take another's life, attacks him with a knife, a staff, or the like, and that person's life has not yet been cut off, while the preparatory action toward it has likewise not yet ceased; the same holds in full for sending an agent, or using poison or spells.

Is there a case where a killing of life has not yet occurred and the act of killing is not yet extinguished, yet this karma's ripening definitely leads to rebirth in hell? Answer: there is — as when one dies at the very moment of undertaking the preparatory action for an ānantarya deed. How does this happen? It is as when a certain person, wishing to kill his own mother, has just begun the preparatory action, when he is seized by the authorities, or when his mother, being strong, instead kills her son in self-defense, or when, through his mother's own merit, a guardian deity causes the son who would kill her to fall into hell while the mother herself survives, or when, having undertaken the preparatory action such that his mother's death is certain, he then feels remorse partway through and takes his own life, likewise falling into hell. Just as with the killing of a mother, so too should it be understood for the committing of any of the other ānantarya deeds. Question: since there is only dharma and no real being, how can there be any sin of killing at all? The Venerable Vasumitra explains: just as, although there is no real being, there is still the notion of a being, so too, although there is no real being, there is still the sin of killing. Further: these aggregates, elements, and sense-fields are able to give rise to the notion of a self, a sentient being, a life-possessor, one who is born, one who is nourished, and a person — and hence, if one destroys and breaks them, one obtains the sin of killing. Further: the aggregates, elements, and sense-fields are able to give rise to the notion of permanence, pleasure, and purity — and hence, if one destroys and breaks them, one obtains the sin of killing. The Great Virtuous One says: these aggregates, elements, and sense-fields are objects of appropriation that give rise to a threefold awareness — "I shall kill," "I am now killing," "I have killed" — and hence, if one destroys and breaks them, one obtains the sin of killing. Thus the being is a conventional existent, yet the sin of killing exists; it is an ultimate existent that this sin of killing is obtained through, by two conditions — first, undertaking the preparatory action; second, the result reaching completion. If one undertakes the preparatory action but the result does not reach completion,

— or the result reaches completion without one having undertaken the preparatory action, in neither case is the sin of killing obtained; only when the preparatory action is undertaken and the result also reaches completion is the sin of killing obtained. Question: is there a case where the preparatory action is undertaken and the result also reaches completion, yet the sin of killing is still not obtained? Answer: there is — as when the killer and the one killed both give up their lives at the same moment, or when the killer himself dies first. Question: killing which aggregate is called "killing a living being" — the past, the future, or the present aggregate?

The past has already ceased, the future has not yet arrived, and the present does not abide — none of them, it seems, admit of the sense of "killing" at all, so how can it be called killing a living being? Answer: it is the future aggregate that is killed, not the past or the present. Question: since the future has not yet arrived, how can it be killed? Answer: one who abides in the present and obstructs the coming-together of the aggregates of a future life is said to "kill" — since it is by obstructing the coming-together of the causes and conditions for another's aggregates to arise that one obtains the sin of killing. Some say that it is the present and the future aggregate that are killed, but not the past. Question: granting the future, the present does not abide — even without being killed, it would cease of its own accord regardless — so how can it be called killing? Answer: cutting short its potency and function is called killing, for why is this? Although the present aggregate of a moment ago does not abide and ceases regardless, it is nonetheless incapable, on its own, of preventing the aggregate that follows it from continuing; but when the present aggregate is now cut short before it would otherwise cease, this is indeed capable of preventing the aggregate that follows it from continuing — and hence the sin of killing is obtained with respect to the present aggregate as well. Question: among all the aggregates, which aggregate can be killed, such that the sin of killing is obtained with respect to it? Some say: the aggregate of form, for why is this? Only form can be touched by a knife, a staff, and the like. Some say: all five aggregates,

— Question: the four formless aggregates cannot be touched, so how can they be killed? Answer: they operate in dependence upon form, and when the aggregate of form is destroyed, they thereupon cease to operate, and hence this too is called killing,

— just as, when a jar is broken, the milk within it is likewise lost. Moreover, the killer's own malicious intent is directed at all five aggregates together, and it is by killing that he obtains the sin of killing with respect to them. Question: is what is killed neutral, or is it that the sin obtained is of three kinds? Some say: it is neutral, for why is this? Only unobscured-neutral form can be touched by a knife, a staff, and the like. Some say: it is of three kinds. Question: wholesome and defiled dharmas cannot be touched, so how can they be killed? Answer: wholesome and defiled dharmas operate in dependence upon the neutral, and when the neutral is destroyed, they thereupon cease to operate, and hence this too is called killing — the rest explained in full as before. Question: as when, with a single preparatory action, one kills both one's mother and another woman at the same time — with respect to the mother, one obtains the unmanifest karma of both killing and an ānantarya deed, while with respect to the other woman, one obtains only the unmanifest karma of killing — but as for this manifest karma, is only one obtained, or two? Some say: only one manifest action is obtained, for why is this? Because it is a single preparatory action that kills them both at the same time, without any distinction. The Venerable Ghoṣa explains:

— he obtains two manifest actions, for why is this? This bodily manifest karma is composed of atomic particles, and the particles involved in killing the mother and in killing the other are distinct from one another — just as two unmanifest karmas are obtained, two manifest actions should likewise be obtained. Question: as when, with a single preparatory action, one kills many beings, one obtains as many instances of unmanifest killing karma as there are beings — but as for this manifest karma, is only one obtained, or many? Some say: only one is obtained, for why is this? Because it is a single preparatory action that kills them all at the same time, without any distinction. The Venerable Ghoṣa explains: he obtains many manifest actions, explained in full as before.

Question: if one kills someone whose lifespan was due to end anyway, does one obtain the sin of killing? Answer: if that very moment was the moment that lifespan was due to end regardless, then the one who inflicted the attack at that very moment does not obtain the sin of killing; but if, through the attack, even a single moment's continuation of life that would otherwise have arisen is prevented from arising, one obtains the sin of killing in every such case, how much more so for many moments.

Question: if one kills by severing a vital point, does one obtain the sin of killing? Answer: if that very moment was precisely the moment that life was due to be given up regardless, then the one who inflicted the attack at that very moment does not obtain the sin of killing; but if, through the attack, even a single moment's continuation of life that would otherwise have arisen is prevented from arising, one obtains the sin of killing in every such case, how much more so for many moments.

Question: if one attacks another such that his death is certain, but then takes one's own life before he dies, does one obtain the sin of killing? Answer: one does not, for why is this? Because the result has not yet reached completion, and, having already lost one's own life, there is no subsequent class-nature in which that sin could be established. Question: if two combatants in battle attack one another and both die at the same moment, does each obtain the sin of killing? Answer: neither obtains it, for why is this? Because for both, the result has not yet reached completion, and, both having already lost their lives, there is no subsequent class-nature in which that sin could be established for either. Question: if one is compelled by a king or the like to carry out an execution, does one obtain the sin of killing? Some say: one does not, for why is this? Because one is constrained by another's power, not acting from one's own wish. According to this account, one does still obtain the sin of killing, unless one had resolved firmly in one's own mind that one would sooner give up one's own life than harm another — only in that case is there no fault. Question: if, acting in accordance with a law established by a former king, one metes out a punishment that turns out excessive, does one obtain the sin of killing? Answer: both the king and the officiating judge obtain it. If one sends another to carry out a killing, one obtains the unmanifest karma of killing; the person sent, and likewise anyone who kills by his own hand, obtains both the manifest and unmanifest karma of killing. If a great many beings conspire to take a single life, whoever undertakes the preparatory action and personally cuts off that life obtains the manifest and unmanifest karma comprised in killing, while the other co-conspirators and those who merely cheer him on obtain only the unmanifest karma of killing; but if these many persons each individually undertake preparatory action sufficient to cut off that one life, one should know that all of them obtain both the manifest and unmanifest karma. Is there a case where one obtains the sin of killing without the body having acted at all? Answer: there is — as when one orders another, by speech alone, to carry out a killing. Is there a case where one obtains the sin of false speech without ever uttering a word? Answer: there is — namely, through a bodily gesture. Is there a case where one obtains both sins at once, without the body having acted and without uttering a word?

Answer: there is — as with a sage's own resentful state of mind, and as with the silent gesture of declaring one's own purity at the time of the poṣadha rite.