The Emperor's New Karma

Does one who possesses bodily manifest action thereby possess this unmanifest action? Having now grasped this chapter heading and its explanatory meaning in full, together with other such headings,

— we should next explain it in full. Question: why compose this treatise? Answer: in order to put a stop to another school's position and to make clear our own doctrine. That is, the Dārṣṭāntikas say that manifest and unmanifest karma possess no real own-substance at all. Why do they say this? If manifest action were real, one might grant that unmanifest action, depending upon it, could exist; but manifest action itself is not real — how, then, could it give rise to unmanifest action and make it exist? Given that manifest action itself does not even possess unmanifest action, how can it be said to exist at all, they say — this is nothing but a deceitful, empty claim on the part of the Ābhidharmikas. It is like a man who, encountering a beautiful woman and wishing to draw close to her out of desire, says to her, "You should take off your ordinary human clothes, and I shall dress you in a garment of heaven." The woman, delighted to hear this, undresses just as he says. The man then approaches and fondles her in various ways, and, having indulged his own desire to the full, says to her, "The heavenly garment has now been put upon you." The woman says, "I am now bare like this — I would sooner die than remain uncovered — where is this heavenly garment?" He answers her, "The heavenly robe is so subtle that only I can see it, not you." Just so, this foolish man never had any heavenly garment at all —

— how much less could he have put one upon her. What the Ābhidharmikas say is exactly the same, they claim: there was never any real manifest action to begin with, how much less any unmanifest action arising in dependence upon it — hence, they say, the Ābhidharmikas have wrongly set forth this treatise. Moreover, they ask, if manifest and unmanifest action were form, then which color — blue, yellow, red, or white — would they be? And how, further, could they come to have a wholesome or unwholesome nature? If a wholesome or evil nature is brought about merely through motion, why do the motions of a flower or a sword not likewise become wholesome or evil? In order to put a stop to this Dārṣṭāntika notion and to make clear our own doctrine — that manifest and unmanifest karma are both genuinely real — this treatise is composed. If manifest action possessed no real own-substance, this would contradict the sūtra, as the sūtra says: the fool's own craving is called desire, and what this desire gives rise to as manifest action is called karma. The sūtra further says: nocturnal deliberation and examination are like smoke arising, while the bodily and verbal action stirred at dawn is like the flame that then bursts forth. If unmanifest action possessed no real own-substance, this too would contradict the sūtra, as the sūtra says: form is of three kinds, comprising all form — form that is visible and resistant, form that is invisible yet resistant, and form that is invisible and non-resistant. If there were no such thing as unmanifest form, there could be no such threefold classification at all, for there would be no third category. Moreover, if one denies unmanifest action and unmanifest form, then Vaidehī's son, King Ajātaśatru, ought not to have incurred the ānantarya crime of killing his father at all — for at the moment he committed the manifest act, his father's life still continued, and by the time his father's life actually ended, that manifest action had already ceased —

— it is only through the power of the earlier manifest action that the later unmanifest action was obtained, and hence Ajātaśatru did incur the ānantarya deed. Moreover, that ascetic of the staff-topped matted hair, an outside-path follower who went forth, ought likewise not to have incurred the crime equivalent to an ānantarya deed — for at the moment he committed the manifest act, Maudgalyāyana's life still continued, and by the time Maudgalyāyana attained parinirvāṇa, that manifest action had already ceased — it is only through the power of the earlier manifest action that the later unmanifest action was obtained, and hence that outside-path follower did incur the crime equivalent to an ānantarya deed. Moreover, if one denies unmanifest action and unmanifest karma, there could be no establishing of the three distinct grades — namely, abiding in restraint, abiding in non-restraint, and abiding in neither. As for their own claim — that if this substance of manifest and unmanifest action is form, then which of blue, yellow, red, or white is it — this objection does not hold, since it is not the case that there is no form other than visible color. One should know that bodily manifestation is shape, not visible color, and verbal manifestation is sound, likewise not visible color; and unmanifest action is included within form belonging to the dharma sense-field, and hence cannot be challenged with the same objection as visible color. Now, the sense-fields possessing form are, in total, of four kinds: first, a form-possessing sense-field cognizable only as visible color, not as shape;

— second, a form-possessing sense-field cognizable only as shape, not as visible color; third, a form-possessing sense-field cognizable as both visible color and shape; fourth, a form-possessing sense-field cognizable as neither visible color nor shape. Cognizable as visible color but not shape refers to blue, yellow, red, white, shadow, light, brightness, and darkness. Cognizable as shape but not visible color refers to the form that constitutes bodily manifestation. Cognizable as both refers to every other form cognizable both ways. Cognizable as neither refers to the form of empty space. As for the further objection — that if bodily motion brings about a wholesome or evil nature, then why do the motions of a flower or a sword not do likewise — this too does not hold, since there is a difference between what possesses faculties and what does not: the body belongs to the class of sentient beings, and, moved by mind, is able to manifest the presence of wholesome or evil mind and mind-associated dharmas, whereas a flower or a sword is not so — hence manifest and unmanifest action are certainly and genuinely real. Now, manifest and unmanifest action arise in dependence upon the body, and this dependence may be partial — as with snapping a finger or raising a foot, where the motion of a single part accomplishes a wholesome or evil karma — or it may be complete, as with bowing to the Buddha or pursuing an enemy, where the motion of the whole body accomplishes a wholesome or evil karma. In each case, manifest action corresponds in scale to the number of atomic particles of the body depended upon, and unmanifest action likewise corresponds to the same scale as manifest action. Question: for any given karma, if there is manifest action, is there necessarily unmanifest action as well? And if there is unmanifest action, is there necessarily manifest action as well? Some say: the seven root paths of karma definitely possess both manifest and unmanifest action; the preparatory action and after-arising stages definitely have manifest action, but their unmanifest action is not fixed — only when performed with a fierce entanglement, or with deep and weighty faith, does unmanifest action arise, and not otherwise. Some say:

— the seven root paths of karma definitely have unmanifest action, but their manifest action is not fixed — if one performs the act oneself, there is manifest action, but if one has another perform it, one obtains only the unmanifest action,

— with the preparatory action and after-arising stages explained as before. The verdict: one should say that, apart from sexual misconduct, the other root paths of karma definitely have unmanifest action, while their manifest action is not fixed — if one performs the act oneself and it reaches completion at once, one has manifest action; if one has another perform it, or if the manifest action has already ceased by the time of completion, one has only the unmanifest action. As for sexual misconduct, its manifest action too is definitely present — at the preparatory stage, manifest action is definitely present, while its unmanifest action is not fixed, as explained before; at the after-arising stage, unmanifest action is definitely present, while manifest action is not fixed, present if one performs the act and absent if one does not. One should know that this discussion concerns action performed with a distracted mind — as for the distinctions of fixed and distracted mind across the various components of the act, one should reason through manifest and unmanifest action accordingly.

That good conduct and evil conduct included within neither restraint nor non-restraint have their unmanifest action continue uninterrupted through three conditions — first, because the intention has not subsided; second, because the effort has not been abandoned; third, because the fixed duration of its force has not yet expired. As to the intention not subsiding and the effort not being abandoned: this is as when one, before an image of the Buddha or a stūpa, gives rise to a mind of pure devotion, offering reverent worship — the unmanifest action thus generated continues uninterrupted from its very first moment for as long as the intention has not subsided or the effort has not been abandoned; once the intention subsides or the effort is abandoned, the unmanifest action ceases. As to the fixed duration of its force not yet having expired: this refers to good or evil deeds performed with a mind of pure devotion or with a fierce entanglement, whose unmanifest action continues uninterrupted for exactly as long as that force lasts — as when, through a fierce entanglement, one kills the ant Kuṇḍalī, the unmanifest action thus generated continues for the rest of one's life; and deeds performed with a mind of pure devotion are likewise so — as when a certain person, giving rise to deep and weighty faith, prepares offerings and presents them to the assembly of monks, burning incense, scattering flowers, and making various offerings, or, in accordance with what the Buddha has taught, holds such gatherings for a day, a month, or five years, inviting the assembly of monks and making various offerings, giving rise to a mind of pure devotion and generating bodily and verbal karma — this continues uninterrupted for as long as the intention has not subsided or the effort has not been abandoned; once the intention subsides and the effort is abandoned, the unmanifest action ceases — and the same is explained in full for moderate conduct as well. There is, further, moderate good and evil conduct whose unmanifest action continues uninterrupted for the entire span of one's class-nature. As to good conduct: this is as when one takes a vow, "I shall not eat before first making an offering to images of the buddhas, stūpas, and the like," and, day after day, according to one's own ability,

— makes an offering of as little as a single flower or a single stick of incense, one's unmanifest action continues uninterrupted for the entire span of one's class-nature. Or one may take a vow, "I shall not eat before first giving another the means and conditions of sustaining life," and, day after day, according to one's own ability, gives another as little as a single handful of food or a half-span of cloth, one's unmanifest action continues uninterrupted for the entire span of one's class-nature. Or one may take a vow, "I shall not eat before first making an offering to the Three Jewels," and, day after day, according to one's own ability, gives the saṅgha as little as a single bowl of food, or sweeps and cleans as little as a single foot's width of ground,

— one's unmanifest action continues uninterrupted for the entire span of one's class-nature. Or one may take a vow to give to the poor and needy, or to make offerings to the saṅgha, on a certain day each year, taking only a small portion of one's own goods for that use while setting aside the remainder as a reserve — one's unmanifest action continues uninterrupted for the entire span of one's class-nature. Cases such as these are called good conduct. As to evil conduct: this is as when one takes a vow, "I shall, day after day, inflict some harm or loss upon my enemy, and if I fail to do so, I shall not eat," and thereupon, day after day, does as little as strike a single blow or utter a single word of abuse and reviling — one's unmanifest action continues uninterrupted for the entire span of one's class-nature. Cases such as these are called evil conduct.

There is, further, the making of images of the buddhas, stūpas, and other objects of offering, the copying out of the true Dharma comprised in the Tripiṭaka, the making of images of noble monks, the building of monasteries, the giving of robes, medicine, and other requisites of life, the establishment of houses of merit and the planting of groves, and the building of wells, bridges, boats, staircases, roads, and the like — the unmanifest action generated by these manifest deeds continues uninterrupted through the full complement of three conditions: first, the intention; second, the physical basis; third, the object. As to the intention: this means that, taking that deed as object, one's deep joy and delight has not subsided. As to the physical basis: this means that the class-nature-continuum of the body one depends upon has not yet reached the end of its life. As to the object: this means that the thing constructed — the image of the Buddha and the like — has not yet been entirely destroyed. Should any one of these three conditions fail, the unmanifest action previously generated is thereby cut off — this is called good conduct. As to evil conduct: this refers to the making of nets, snares, knives, arrows, and the like, to be understood according to the same pattern as before. This is called the brief exposition of the Vibhāṣā on manifest and unmanifest karma.

If one possesses bodily manifest action, does one thereby possess this unmanifest action? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is possessing bodily manifest action without this unmanifest action — as one born in the desire realm abiding in neither restraint nor non-restraint who presently manifests bodily action without obtaining this unmanifest action, or who manifested it previously and has not lost it without obtaining this unmanifest action. As to presently manifesting bodily action: this means one who, not asleep, not intoxicated, not fainted, and not having abandoned effort, seeks to manifest bodily action. As to not obtaining this unmanifest action: this means one whose action, though manifested, does not arise from deep and weighty faith or a fierce entanglement, and hence does not obtain this unmanifest action. As to manifesting it previously and not having lost it: this refers to the three conditions by which manifest action is not given up — first, because the intention has not subsided; second, because the effort has not been abandoned; third, because the fixed duration of its force has not yet expired — and as to not obtaining this unmanifest action, the meaning is as explained before. There is possessing unmanifest bodily action without this manifest action — namely, noble ones abiding within the womb; or one born in the desire realm abiding in restraint who has not obtained prātimokṣa restraint, with no manifest bodily action, whether never manifested or manifested and lost; or one born in the form realm, with no manifest bodily action, whether never manifested or manifested and lost; or noble ones born in the formless realm. Here, noble ones, while abiding within the womb, are unable to manifest action, and the manifest karma of a former life has already been lost, so that they possess only the unmanifest karma of dhyāna or the undefiled. As to abiding in restraint: this means abiding in the restraint of dhyāna or the undefiled. As to having no manifest bodily action: this means one who, asleep, intoxicated, or fainted, has abandoned all effort and does not seek to manifest action. As to manifesting it and having lost it: this refers to the giving up of manifest bodily action through three conditions — first, because the intention has subsided; second, because the effort has been abandoned; third, because the fixed duration of its force has expired. As to one born in the form realm having no manifest bodily action: this means one who has abandoned effort and does not seek to manifest action. As to manifesting it and having lost it: this is as explained before. As to noble ones born in the formless realm: the trainee possesses the trainee's own unmanifest karma, and the adept possesses the adept's own unmanifest karma. There is possessing both bodily manifest action and this unmanifest action — namely, one born in the desire realm abiding in restraint who has not obtained prātimokṣa restraint, who presently manifests bodily action and also obtains this unmanifest action, or who manifested it previously and has not lost it, likewise obtaining this unmanifest action; or one abiding in prātimokṣa restraint, or in non-restraint, or in neither restraint nor non-restraint,

— who presently manifests bodily action and also obtains this unmanifest action, or who manifested it previously and has not lost it, likewise obtaining this unmanifest action; or one born in the form realm who presently manifests bodily action, or who manifested it previously and has not lost it. Here, "presently manifesting bodily action and also obtaining this unmanifest action" and the like means one who, through deep and weighty faith or a fierce entanglement, manifests action and also obtains unmanifest action; one abiding in prātimokṣa restraint or in non-restraint definitely possesses both manifest and unmanifest bodily action; and one born in the form realm who presently manifests bodily action is one who has not abandoned effort and seeks to manifest action — the rest explained as before. There is neither possessing manifest bodily action nor this unmanifest action — namely, one in the egg-stage; or an ordinary being abiding within the womb; or one born in the desire realm abiding in neither restraint nor non-restraint, with no manifest bodily action, whether never manifested or manifested and lost; or ordinary beings born in the formless realm — for ordinary beings abiding in the womb or egg have already lost the manifest and unmanifest karma of a former life and are presently unable to give rise to it, as explained before, and one born in the formless realm has already given up contaminated karma and has not yet attained the undefiled, that ground being formless — the rest explained as before. If one possesses wholesome bodily manifest action, does one thereby possess this unmanifest action? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is possessing wholesome bodily manifest action without this unmanifest action —

— namely, one born in the desire realm abiding in non-restraint, or in neither restraint nor non-restraint, who presently manifests wholesome bodily action without obtaining this unmanifest action, or who manifested it previously and has not lost it without obtaining this unmanifest action. As to presently manifesting wholesome bodily action: this means one not asleep and so forth. As to not obtaining this unmanifest action: this means one whose action does not arise from deep and weighty faith. As to manifesting it previously and not having lost it: this refers to the three conditions explained before, and as to not obtaining this unmanifest action, this is likewise because it does not arise from deep and weighty faith. Question: for one abiding in non-restraint, what wholesome bodily manifestation is there? Answer: even such a one gives rise to wholesome manifestation through offering reverent worship to parents, teachers and elders, buddhas, pratyekabuddhas, the buddhas' disciples, and the like. There is possessing wholesome unmanifest bodily action without this manifest action — namely, noble ones abiding within the womb; or one born in the desire realm abiding in restraint who has not obtained prātimokṣa restraint, with no wholesome manifest bodily action, whether never manifested or manifested and lost; or one born in the form realm, with no wholesome manifest bodily action, whether never manifested or manifested and lost; or noble ones born in the formless realm. Here, "abiding in restraint" means abiding in the restraint of dhyāna or the undefiled; "not having obtained prātimokṣa restraint" means that one abiding in this restraint definitely possesses wholesome unmanifest bodily action — the rest explained as before. There is possessing both wholesome manifest bodily action and this unmanifest action — namely, one born in the desire realm abiding in restraint who has not obtained prātimokṣa restraint, who presently manifests wholesome bodily action and also obtains this unmanifest action, or who manifested it previously and has not lost it, likewise obtaining this unmanifest action; or one abiding in prātimokṣa restraint, or in non-restraint, or in neither restraint nor non-restraint, who presently manifests wholesome bodily action and also obtains this unmanifest action, or who manifested it previously and has not lost it, likewise obtaining this unmanifest action; or one born in the form realm who presently manifests wholesome bodily action, or who manifested it previously and has not lost it —

— all the meanings here being as explained before. There is neither possessing wholesome manifest bodily action nor this unmanifest action — namely, one in the egg-stage; or an ordinary being abiding within the womb; or one born in the desire realm abiding in non-restraint, or in neither restraint nor non-restraint, with no wholesome manifest bodily action, whether never manifested or manifested and lost; or ordinary beings born in the formless realm.

If one possesses unwholesome bodily manifest action, does one thereby possess this unmanifest action? Answer: whoever possesses unwholesome unmanifest bodily action definitely possesses this manifest action as well. There is possessing unwholesome manifest bodily action without this unmanifest action — namely, one born in the desire realm abiding in restraint, or in neither restraint nor non-restraint, who presently manifests unwholesome bodily action without obtaining this unmanifest action, or who manifested it previously and has not lost it without obtaining this unmanifest action. As to presently manifesting unwholesome bodily action: this means one not asleep and so forth. As to not obtaining this unmanifest action: this means one whose action does not arise from a fierce entanglement. As to manifesting it previously and not having lost it: this refers to the three conditions explained before — the rest explained as before. Question: abiding in what kind of restraint can there be unwholesome bodily manifestation? Answer: it may occur while abiding in any of the three restraints. Question: for one abiding in the restraint of dhyāna or the undefiled, what unwholesome bodily manifestation is there? Answer: there is — as when one strikes or beats a being, unwholesome bodily manifestation of this kind. Question: should there not also be a case of possessing unwholesome unmanifest bodily action without manifest action — namely, having another commit a killing on one's behalf? A tetralemma ought then to be constructed here — why is only the fourth case given? Some say: a tetralemma should indeed be constructed. There is possessing unwholesome manifest bodily action without this unmanifest action — namely, one born in the desire realm abiding in restraint, or in neither restraint nor non-restraint, who presently manifests unwholesome bodily action without obtaining this unmanifest action, or who manifested it previously and has not lost it without obtaining this unmanifest action. There is possessing unwholesome unmanifest bodily action without this manifest action — namely, one born in the desire realm abiding in restraint, or in neither restraint nor non-restraint, who has another commit a killing on their behalf. There is possessing both unwholesome manifest bodily action and this unmanifest action — namely, one born in the desire realm abiding in non-restraint, or in restraint, or in neither restraint nor non-restraint, who presently manifests unwholesome bodily action and also obtains this unmanifest action, or who manifested it previously and has not lost it, likewise obtaining this unmanifest action. And there is neither possessing unwholesome manifest bodily action nor this unmanifest action — namely, one in the egg-stage; or an ordinary being abiding within the womb; or one born in the desire realm abiding in restraint, or in neither restraint nor non-restraint, with no unwholesome manifest bodily action, whether never manifested or manifested and lost, without obtaining this unmanifest action — and one born in the form or formless realm should be stated in the same way. As for why this is not so stated, one should know that this passage speaks only with reference to manifest and unmanifest action of the same kind, not of different kinds — that is, bodily manifestation giving rise to bodily unmanifest action is called the same kind, while verbal manifestation giving rise to bodily unmanifest action is called a different kind. One should rather say: there is no case of possessing unwholesome unmanifest bodily action alone, and hence only the fourth case ought to be given here. Why is this? Because whoever is able to speak in order to have another commit a killing and thereby obtains unmanifest bodily action must also possess unwholesome manifest bodily action, since he must necessarily move his body, his hands, and so forth in doing so. If this were not so, then the earlier passage on possessing wholesome unmanifest bodily action without this manifest action ought likewise to have stated: one abiding in non-restraint, or in neither restraint nor non-restraint, who speaks wholesome words to have another give alms on their behalf, and thereby obtains wholesome unmanifest bodily action — but this was not stated there in the case of wholesome karma, and hence one knows that whoever speaks to have another give alms on their behalf and thereby obtains unmanifest bodily action must also be able to move his body, his hands, and so forth, and thereby possesses wholesome manifest bodily karma as well — and it is for this reason that neither passage states such a case. If one possesses obscured-neutral bodily manifest action, does one thereby possess this unmanifest action?

Answer: there is no possessing of obscured-neutral unmanifest bodily action; there is only possessing this manifest action — namely, one born in the form realm who presently manifests obscured-neutral bodily action. Question: why does the desire realm have no obscured-neutral bodily manifestation? Answer: whatever affliction of the desire realm can serve as an instigator giving rise to bodily or verbal action is entirely unwholesome; only the view of a real self and the view of extremes, together with the ignorance associated with them, are obscured-neutral, yet these are all abandoned by seeing, and a mind abandoned by seeing cannot give rise to bodily or verbal action, since it arises turned inward and is exceedingly subtle.

Question: if one born in the desire realm has already become free of the desire realm's defilement, and gives rise to an affliction of the first dhyāna manifesting before the mind, why does this not give rise to obscured-neutral bodily or verbal manifest action? Answer: one born in the desire realm can give rise only to the affliction proper to that meditative attainment, not to the affliction proper to that ground of birth — and among the afflictions, it is only the affliction proper to one's own ground of birth that gives rise to bodily or verbal action. Other masters say: it is simply the nature of things that this should be so — if an affliction proper to a given ground manifests before the mind, it is thereby able to set in motion the ripening-continuum of that same ground and give rise to the manifest action of that ground, since all defiled karma must necessarily depend upon the ripening-continuum of its own ground; and one born in the desire realm cannot possibly possess a ripening-continuum of the form realm. It is for this reason that it is only one actually born in the form realm's first dhyāna who can give rise to this obscured-neutral bodily or verbal manifest action.

If one possesses unobscured-neutral bodily manifest action, does one thereby possess this unmanifest action? Answer: there is no possessing of unobscured-neutral unmanifest bodily action; there is only possessing this manifest action — namely, one born in the desire or form realm who presently manifests unobscured-neutral bodily action, the distinctions within which should be reasoned through accordingly.

If one possesses past bodily manifest action, does one thereby possess this unmanifest action? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is possessing past manifest bodily action without this unmanifest action — namely, one born in the desire realm abiding in neither restraint nor non-restraint who manifested it previously and has not lost it, without obtaining this unmanifest action. As to manifesting it previously and not having lost it: this refers to the three conditions explained before. As to not obtaining this unmanifest action: this means it does not arise from deep and weighty faith or a fierce entanglement. There is possessing past unmanifest bodily action without this manifest action — namely, noble ones abiding within the womb; or one born in the desire realm abiding in restraint who has not obtained prātimokṣa restraint, having never previously manifested bodily action, or having manifested it and lost it; or one born in the form realm, having never previously manifested bodily action, or having manifested it and lost it; or trainees born in the formless realm, with no bodily manifest action, and so forth —

— to be understood according to the pattern given before. Question: if trainees attain the fruit of non-returning by way of a worldly path, without ever having manifested undefiled restraint, and are then born in the formless realm, how could they possess past unmanifest bodily karma? And if they do not possess it, why does this passage state the matter in this way?

Question: are there trainees born in the formless realm at all? Some say: there are indeed trainees born in the formless realm who do not possess past unmanifest bodily karma, yet this passage speaks only with reference to those who do possess it, and hence there is no fault. Other masters say: once one has attained a noble fruit, one must necessarily give rise to the noble path of that superior fruit manifesting before the mind, and hence trainees born in the formless realm definitely do possess past unmanifest bodily karma.

There is possessing both past manifest bodily action and this unmanifest action — namely, one born in the desire realm abiding in restraint who has not obtained prātimokṣa restraint, who manifested bodily action previously and has not lost it, likewise obtaining this unmanifest action; or one abiding in prātimokṣa restraint, or in non-restraint, or in neither restraint nor non-restraint, who manifested bodily action previously and has not lost it, likewise obtaining this unmanifest action; or one born in the form realm who manifested bodily action previously and has not lost it —

Here, as to one abiding in prātimokṣa restraint or in non-restraint, some say: this passage speaks only with reference to the second moment onward, since at the very first moment there is not yet any past manifest or unmanifest action. Some say: even at the very first moment one already possesses past manifest and unmanifest karma, since one possesses the preparatory karma that preceded it. There is neither possessing past manifest bodily action nor this unmanifest action — namely, one in the egg-stage; or an ordinary being abiding within the womb; or one born in the desire realm abiding in neither restraint nor non-restraint,

— having never previously manifested bodily action, or having manifested it and lost it; or arhats and ordinary beings born in the formless realm.

If one possesses past wholesome bodily manifest action, does one thereby possess this unmanifest action? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is possessing past wholesome manifest bodily action without this unmanifest action — namely, one born in the desire realm abiding in non-restraint, or in neither restraint nor non-restraint, who manifested wholesome bodily action previously and has not lost it, without obtaining this unmanifest action. There is possessing past wholesome unmanifest bodily action without this manifest action — namely, noble ones abiding within the womb; or one born in the desire realm abiding in restraint who has not obtained prātimokṣa restraint, having never previously manifested wholesome bodily action, or having manifested it and lost it; or one born in the form realm, having never previously manifested wholesome bodily action, or having manifested it and lost it; or trainees born in the formless realm. There is possessing both past wholesome manifest bodily action and this unmanifest action — namely, one born in the desire realm abiding in restraint who has not obtained prātimokṣa restraint, who manifested wholesome bodily action previously and has not lost it, likewise obtaining this unmanifest action; or one abiding in prātimokṣa restraint, or in non-restraint, or in neither restraint nor non-restraint, who manifested wholesome bodily action previously and has not lost it, likewise obtaining this unmanifest action; or one born in the form realm who manifested wholesome bodily action previously and has not lost it. As to one abiding in prātimokṣa restraint, the two accounts here should be understood as before. Question: for one born in the form realm, how does one possess past wholesome bodily manifestation? Answer: it is as when the Buddha once went to the Brahmā heaven, and the Brahmā gods bowed and circumambulated him in reverence — from that time on, until such devotion is abandoned, they possess this past wholesome bodily manifest karma. There is neither possessing past wholesome manifest bodily action nor this unmanifest action — namely, one in the egg-stage; or an ordinary being abiding within the womb; or one born in the desire realm abiding in non-restraint, or in neither restraint nor non-restraint, having never previously manifested wholesome bodily action, or having manifested it and lost it; or arhats and ordinary beings born in the formless realm.

If one possesses past unwholesome bodily manifest action, does one thereby possess this unmanifest action? Answer: whoever possesses past unwholesome unmanifest bodily action possesses this manifest action as well. There is possessing past unwholesome manifest bodily action without this unmanifest action — namely, one born in the desire realm abiding in restraint, or in neither restraint nor non-restraint, who manifested unwholesome bodily action previously and has not lost it, without obtaining this unmanifest action. The two accounts here should be understood as before.

If one possesses past obscured-neutral bodily manifest action, does one thereby possess this unmanifest action? Answer: there is no possessing of either past obscured-neutral manifest bodily action or this unmanifest action. If one possesses past unobscured-neutral bodily manifest action, does one thereby possess this unmanifest action? Answer: there is no possessing of either past unobscured-neutral manifest bodily action or this unmanifest action.

If one possesses future bodily manifest action, does one thereby possess this unmanifest action? Answer: there is no possessing of future manifest bodily action; there is only possessing this unmanifest action — namely, noble ones abiding within the womb; one born in the desire realm who has attained a wholesome mind of the form realm; one born in the form realm; or noble ones born in the formless realm. Question: why is there no possessing of future bodily or verbal manifest action at all? Answer: because there is no such thing as pre-fashioning a future manifest action, since it has not yet arisen — if one could possess future bodily or verbal manifest action, one would then be making use of a karma not yet performed. Question: why, then, can one possess future unmanifest action? Answer: because it arises together with mind and is cultivated in accordance with mind.

If one possesses future wholesome bodily manifest action, does one thereby possess this unmanifest action? Answer: there is no possessing of future wholesome manifest bodily action; there is only possessing this unmanifest action — namely, noble ones abiding within the womb; one born in the desire realm who has attained a wholesome mind of the form realm; one born in the form realm; or noble ones born in the formless realm.

If one possesses future unwholesome bodily manifest action, does one thereby possess this unmanifest action? Answer: there is no possessing of either future unwholesome manifest bodily action or this unmanifest action.

If one possesses future obscured-neutral bodily manifest action, does one thereby possess this unmanifest action? Answer: there is no possessing of either future obscured-neutral manifest bodily action or this unmanifest action.

If one possesses future unobscured-neutral bodily manifest action, does one thereby possess this unmanifest action? Answer: there is no possessing of either future unobscured-neutral manifest bodily action or this unmanifest action. Question: why is there no possessing of either obscured-neutral or unobscured-neutral manifest action across the past or future? Answer: the power of possession that such karma obtains extends only this far — it is able to possess only the karma of the very same moment, having no power to possess what has already ceased or has not yet arrived: its possession of a past karma is itself past, its possession of a future karma is itself future, and its possession of a present karma is itself present. Some say: because the habitual imprint of such karma is not firm and strong, there is no possessing it across the past or future — just as, when the habitual imprint of wholesome or unwholesome karma is firm and strong, one can possess it across both the past and the future, whereas neutral karma is not like this.

If one possesses present bodily manifest action, does one thereby possess this unmanifest action? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is possessing present manifest bodily action without this unmanifest action — namely, one born in the desire realm abiding in restraint who has not obtained prātimokṣa restraint, who presently manifests bodily action without obtaining this unmanifest action, whether or not he manifested it previously and has not lost it, without obtaining this unmanifest action; or one abiding in neither restraint nor non-restraint who presently manifests bodily action without obtaining this unmanifest action, whether or not he manifested it previously and has not lost it, without obtaining this unmanifest action; or one born in the form realm who presently manifests bodily action. Here, one born in the desire realm abiding in restraint means one abiding in the restraint of dhyāna or the undefiled, and presently manifesting bodily action means

— this shows that, at that time, the mind is not in concentration and one is not asleep and so forth. As to not obtaining this unmanifest action: this shows that both past and present manifest action does not arise from deep and weighty faith or a fierce entanglement, and hence does not give rise to unmanifest action — there is no possessing of present unmanifest bodily action here at all. There is possessing present unmanifest bodily action without this manifest action — namely, one born in the desire realm abiding in restraint who has not obtained prātimokṣa restraint, whether or not actually in concentration, presently having no manifest bodily action, having manifested it previously and not lost it, thereby obtaining this unmanifest action; or one abiding in prātimokṣa restraint or in non-restraint, presently having no manifest bodily action; or one abiding in neither restraint nor non-restraint, presently having no manifest bodily action, having manifested it previously and not lost it, thereby obtaining this unmanifest action; or one born in the form realm actually in concentration. Here, "actually in concentration" shows the presence of unmanifest action while excluding the presence of manifest action; "obtaining this unmanifest action" shows that a past manifest bodily action has already given rise to this unmanifest bodily karma, which continues to function in the present. As to one abiding in prātimokṣa restraint or in non-restraint presently having no manifest bodily action: some say this refers to the second moment onward, since at the very first moment there must necessarily be manifest action; some say that even the very first moment is included in what is meant here, since one presently has no manifest bodily action by virtue of having received non-restraint, or by virtue of having obtained the full precepts while in concentration. There is possessing both present manifest bodily action and this unmanifest action — namely, one born in the desire realm abiding in restraint who has not obtained prātimokṣa restraint, who presently manifests bodily action and also obtains this unmanifest action, or who manifested it previously and has not lost it, thereby obtaining this unmanifest action; or one abiding in prātimokṣa restraint or in non-restraint who presently manifests bodily action; or one abiding in neither restraint nor non-restraint who presently manifests bodily action and also obtains this unmanifest action, or who manifested it previously and has not lost it, thereby obtaining this unmanifest action. Here, as to one abiding in prātimokṣa restraint or in non-restraint presently manifesting bodily action: some say this refers only to the second moment onward, since at other moments there is no manifest bodily action; some say it also includes every other moment, since manifest bodily action can also arise again at a later stage.

There is neither possessing present manifest bodily action nor this unmanifest action — namely, one in the egg-stage or abiding within the womb; or one born in the desire realm abiding in restraint who has not obtained prātimokṣa restraint, not in concentration, presently having no manifest bodily action, whether or not he manifested it previously and has not lost it, without obtaining this unmanifest action; or one abiding in neither restraint nor non-restraint presently having no manifest bodily action, whether or not he manifested it previously and has not lost it, without obtaining this unmanifest action; or one born in the form realm not in concentration, presently having no manifest bodily action; or one born in the formless realm. Here, "not in concentration"

— shows that one does not possess present unmanifest action, the rest explained as before. If one possesses present wholesome bodily manifest action, does one thereby possess this unmanifest action? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is possessing present wholesome manifest bodily action without this unmanifest action — namely, one born in the desire realm abiding in restraint

— who has not obtained prātimokṣa restraint, who presently manifests wholesome bodily action without obtaining this unmanifest action, whether or not he manifested it previously and has not lost it,

— without obtaining this unmanifest action; or one abiding in non-restraint, or in neither restraint nor non-restraint, who presently manifests wholesome bodily action

— without obtaining this unmanifest action, whether or not he manifested it previously and has not lost it, without obtaining this unmanifest action; or one born in the form realm who presently manifests wholesome bodily action. Here, one born in the form realm who presently manifests wholesome bodily action definitely does not possess present unmanifest action, since he is definitely not in concentration — the rest explained as before. There is possessing present wholesome unmanifest bodily action without this manifest action — namely, one born in the desire realm abiding in restraint

— who has not obtained prātimokṣa restraint, whether or not actually in concentration, presently having no wholesome manifest bodily action, having manifested it previously and not lost it, thereby obtaining this unmanifest action; or one abiding in prātimokṣa restraint, presently having no wholesome manifest bodily action; or one abiding in non-restraint, or in neither restraint nor non-restraint, presently having no wholesome manifest bodily action, having manifested it previously and not lost it, thereby obtaining this unmanifest action; or one born in the form realm actually in concentration. As to one abiding in prātimokṣa restraint presently having no wholesome manifest bodily action: some say this refers to the second moment onward; some say it extends to the very first moment as well, as explained before.

There is possessing both present wholesome manifest bodily action and this unmanifest action — namely, one born in the desire realm abiding in restraint who has not obtained prātimokṣa restraint,

— who presently manifests wholesome bodily action and also obtains this unmanifest action, or who manifested it previously and has not lost it, thereby obtaining this unmanifest action; or one abiding in prātimokṣa restraint who presently manifests wholesome bodily action; or one abiding in non-restraint, or in neither restraint nor non-restraint, who presently manifests wholesome bodily action and also obtains this unmanifest action, or who manifested it previously and has not lost it, thereby obtaining this unmanifest action. There is neither possessing present wholesome manifest bodily action nor this unmanifest action — namely, one in the egg-stage or abiding within the womb; or one born in the desire realm abiding in restraint who has not obtained prātimokṣa restraint, not in concentration, presently having no wholesome manifest bodily action, whether or not he manifested it previously and has not lost it, without obtaining this unmanifest action; or one abiding in non-restraint, or in neither restraint nor non-restraint, presently having no wholesome manifest bodily action, whether or not he manifested it previously and has not lost it, without obtaining this unmanifest action; or one born in the form realm not in concentration, presently having no wholesome manifest bodily action; or one born in the formless realm. If one possesses present unwholesome bodily manifest action, does one thereby possess this unmanifest action? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is possessing present unwholesome manifest bodily action without this unmanifest action — namely, one born in the desire realm abiding in restraint, or in neither restraint nor non-restraint,

— who presently manifests unwholesome bodily action without obtaining this unmanifest action, whether or not he manifested it previously and has not lost it, without obtaining this unmanifest action.

As to abiding in restraint: this means abiding in any of the three restraints. As to not obtaining this unmanifest action: this is because it does not arise from a fierce entanglement — the rest explained as before. There is possessing present unwholesome unmanifest bodily action without this manifest action — namely, one born in the desire realm abiding in non-restraint, presently having no unwholesome manifest bodily action; or one abiding in restraint, or in neither restraint nor non-restraint, presently having no unwholesome manifest bodily action, having manifested it previously and not lost it, thereby obtaining this unmanifest action. As to one abiding in non-restraint presently having no unwholesome manifest bodily action: some say this excludes the very first moment; some say it includes the first moment as well, since there is a case of non-restraint arisen from speech alone, giving rise to the body's non-restraint.

There is possessing both present unwholesome manifest bodily action and this unmanifest action — namely, one born in the desire realm abiding in restraint, or in neither restraint nor non-restraint, who presently manifests unwholesome bodily action and also obtains this unmanifest action, or who manifested it previously and has not lost it, thereby obtaining this unmanifest action.

As to one abiding in non-restraint who presently manifests unwholesome bodily action, this is explained as before. There is neither possessing present unwholesome manifest bodily action

— nor this unmanifest action — namely, one in the egg-stage; or one abiding within the womb; or one born in the desire realm abiding in restraint, or in neither restraint nor non-restraint, presently having no unwholesome manifest bodily action, whether or not he manifested it previously and has not lost it, without obtaining this unmanifest action.

As to one born in the form or formless realm, this is all explained as before.

If one possesses present obscured-neutral bodily manifest action, does one thereby possess this unmanifest action? Answer: there is no possessing of present obscured-neutral unmanifest bodily action; there is only possessing this manifest action — namely, one born in the form realm who presently manifests obscured-neutral bodily action. If one possesses present unobscured-neutral bodily manifest action, does one thereby possess this unmanifest action? Answer: there is no possessing of present unobscured-neutral unmanifest bodily action; there is only possessing this manifest action — namely, one born in the desire or form realm who presently manifests unobscured-neutral bodily action, explained in full as above. Bodily manifest and unmanifest action having thus been fully treated,

— verbal manifest and unmanifest action is likewise to be explained in full in the same way, differing only in that verbal sound rather than bodily form is spoken of. As for the fixed principles stated here:

— the desire realm definitely has no mind-following unmanifest action; the form realm definitely has no manifestation-dependent unmanifest action. Question: why is this so? Answer: it is simply the nature of things that this should be so. Some further say: the desire realm has manifestation-dependent unmanifest action, and hence definitely has no mind-following unmanifest action; the form realm has mind-following unmanifest action, and hence definitely has no manifestation-dependent unmanifest action. Some further say: desire-realm manifest action is able to give rise to unmanifest action, and hence there is definitely no mind-following unmanifest action there; form-realm manifest action does not give rise to unmanifest action, and hence mind-following unmanifest action can exist there. Some further say: the innate action-instigating mind of the desire realm is deep and weighty, fierce and sharp, and hence the manifest action it gives rise to is able to give rise to unmanifest action; the innate action-instigating mind of the form realm is not deep and weighty, fierce and sharp, and hence the manifest action it gives rise to is unable to give rise to unmanifest action. Some further say: one born in the desire realm lacks a concentrated mind, and since the unconcentrated mind there is dominant, the manifest action it gives rise to is able to give rise to unmanifest action; one born in the form realm possesses a concentrated mind, and since the unconcentrated mind there is subordinate, the manifest action it gives rise to is unable to give rise to unmanifest action. It is for causes and conditions such as these that

— the form realm definitely has no manifestation-dependent unmanifest action, and the desire realm definitely has no mind-following unmanifest action.

Question: is an echo that follows speech itself verbal karma? Answer: it is not verbal karma, but is merely called speech-sound, since it merely arises from speech. Question: is the sound of a flute or pipe verbal karma? Answer: it is not verbal karma, but is merely called speech-sound, since it is caused merely by the flow of air. Question: are the cries of birds and beasts verbal karma? Some say: they are not verbal karma, but are merely called speech-sound, since one who hears them cannot understand their meaning. Other masters say: they are indeed verbal karma — for although a human being does not understand the meaning of what they say, creatures of the same kind understand one another perfectly well; and moreover, one who understands the language of birds and beasts, hearing their sound, does know what is being said. Question: is transformation-speech verbal karma? Some say: it is verbal karma, since it is instigated by mind. Other masters say: it is not verbal karma, but is merely called speech-sound, since the transformed body has no genuine appropriation of sentience. If karma is bound to the desire realm, is its fruit likewise bound to the desire realm? And so on in full. One should know that this discussion proceeds with reference to four of the fruits, excluding the fruit of predominance, since the fruit of predominance is indeterminate and exceedingly broad in scope — that is, for birth in any one realm, there are fruits in all three realms, and karma in all four categories, each of the four categories having, as its own predominant fruit, dharmas of all four realms. If karma is bound to the desire realm, is its fruit likewise bound to the desire realm?

Answer: whatever karma is bound to the desire realm, its fruit is likewise so — that is, by way of three fruits, or two. There is a fruit bound to the desire realm that is not the fruit of that karma —

— namely, by means of a form-realm path, one creates a desire-realm transformation and gives rise to desire-realm speech; this transformation and speech are the exertion-fruit of that form-realm path. If karma is bound to the form realm, is its fruit likewise bound to the form realm? Answer: whatever fruit is bound to the form realm, its karma is likewise so — that is, by way of three fruits, or two. There is karma bound to the form realm that is not the fruit of that karma — namely, by means of a form-realm path, one creates a desire-realm transformation and gives rise to desire-realm speech, this transformation and speech being the exertion-fruit of that form-realm path; and, by means of a form-realm path, one realizes and verifies the cutting-off of fetters — namely, through the worldly paths of the near-access grounds of the various dhyānas — that cutting-off being the freedom-fruit and exertion-fruit of this path, the details to be distinguished by ground according to the pattern given before. If karma is bound to the formless realm, is its fruit likewise bound to the formless realm? Answer: whatever fruit is bound to the formless realm, its karma is likewise so — that is, by way of three fruits, or two. There is karma bound to the formless realm that is not the fruit of that karma — namely, by means of a formless-realm path, one realizes and verifies the cutting-off of fetters — namely, through the near-access paths of the formless attainments — that cutting-off being the freedom-fruit and exertion-fruit of this path, the details to be distinguished by ground according to the pattern given before. If karma is unbound, is its fruit likewise unbound? Answer: whatever fruit is unbound, its karma is likewise so — that is, by way of three fruits, or two. There is a fruit that is unbound that is not the fruit of that karma — namely, by means of a form- or formless-realm path, one realizes and verifies the cutting-off of fetters — namely, through the worldly paths of the near-access grounds — that cutting-off being the freedom-fruit and exertion-fruit of this path, the details to be distinguished by ground according to the pattern given before. If karma is not bound to the desire realm, is its fruit likewise not bound to the desire realm? Answer: whatever fruit is not bound to the desire realm, its karma is likewise so. There is karma not bound to the desire realm that is not the fruit of that karma — namely, by means of a form-realm path, one creates a desire-realm transformation and gives rise to desire-realm speech, this transformation and speech being the exertion-fruit of that form-realm path. If karma is not bound to the form realm, is its fruit likewise not bound to the form realm? Answer: whatever karma is not bound to the form realm, its fruit is likewise so. There is a fruit not bound to the form realm that is not the fruit of that karma — namely, by means of a form-realm path, one creates a desire-realm transformation and gives rise to desire-realm speech, this transformation and speech being the exertion-fruit of that form-realm path; and, by means of a form-realm path, one realizes and verifies the cutting-off of fetters, that cutting-off being the freedom-fruit and exertion-fruit of this path, the details to be distinguished by ground according to the pattern given before. If karma is not bound to the formless realm, is its fruit likewise not bound to the formless realm? Answer: whatever karma is not bound to the formless realm, its fruit is likewise so. There is a fruit not bound to the formless realm that is not the fruit of that karma — namely, by means of a formless-realm path, one realizes and verifies the cutting-off of fetters, that cutting-off being the freedom-fruit and exertion-fruit of this path, the details to be distinguished by ground according to the pattern given before. If karma is not unbound, is its fruit likewise not unbound? Answer: whatever fruit is not unbound, its karma is likewise so. There is karma that is not unbound that is not the fruit of that karma — namely, by means of a form- or formless-realm path, one realizes and verifies the cutting-off of fetters, that cutting-off being the freedom-fruit and exertion-fruit of this path, the details to be distinguished by ground according to the pattern given before. Question: by whom are the various things that are transformed actually created — by the path, or by the transformation-mind? If by the path, then why is the transformation-mind called the one that transforms? If by the transformation-mind, then how is the passage stated here to be reconciled, which speaks of creating a desire-realm transformation and giving rise to desire-realm speech by means of a form-realm path? Some say: the various things that are transformed are created by the path. Question: if so, then why is the transformation-mind called the one that transforms? Answer: it ought properly to be called the transformed mind, not the one that transforms — yet, since it is by the power of the path that the transformed thing is made, and since the transformation-mind arises at the very same moment as the transformed thing, it is called the transforming mind, though it is not in fact the one that transforms. Other masters say: the various things that are transformed are created by the transformation-mind. Question: if so, then how is the statement made here to be reconciled — the statement that a desire-realm transformation and desire-realm speech are created by means of a form-realm path? Answer: it is stated with reference to a successive, indirect cause — just as with the way of grandchildren descending from a son: the path of supernormal locomotion ceases the very instant it arises, without interval, and the transformation-mind arises at the very same moment as the transformed thing —

— the transformation-mind is itself this path's own proximate exertion-fruit, and the transformed thing is in turn the transformation-mind's own proximate exertion-fruit — the transformed thing being either the four sense-fields or two. According to this last account: the various things that are transformed are created both by the path and by the transformation-mind — that is, the path of supernormal locomotion ceases without interval, and the transformation-mind arises at the very same moment as the transformed thing; although they arise at the same moment, the transforming mind is solely the fruit of the path, while the transformed thing is both the fruit of the earlier path and the fruit of the transformation-mind.

Question: can transformation-speech arise apart from the transformed body? Some say: it cannot. Question: if so, how is the statement made here to be reconciled — the statement that a desire-realm transformation and desire-realm speech are created by means of a form-realm path? Answer: there are two kinds of transformed body — first, one that speaks; second, one that does not speak.

"Creating a desire-realm transformation by means of a form-realm path" shows the wordless transformed body, while "giving rise to desire-realm speech" shows the worded transformed body. Some say:

— transformation-speech can indeed arise apart from a transformed body — just as, from within empty space, one may not see any transformed body yet still hear transformation-speech; and here, "creating a desire-realm transformation by means of a form-realm path" broadly indicates both worded and wordless transformed bodies, while "giving rise to desire-realm speech" broadly indicates transformation-speech both dependent upon a body and apart from any body. According to this last account: transformation-speech cannot arise apart from a transformed body at all, since speech must necessarily arise from the collision of coarse great elements.