Further, turning away from all rupa--since any idea of rupa is absent in it--an drupya absorption is not capable of
producing
an avijnapti, which is rupa.
Abhidharmakosabhasyam-Vol-2-Vasubandhu-Poussin-Pruden-1991
" Thus the last three are considered as vijnapti and as previous to absorption.
This text, the Vaibhasikas say, does not refer to the last three parts of the Way, but rather to speech, action, and livelihood in a state of detachment which have been obtained through the worldly path. This does not prevent speech, etc. , from not forming part of the Way under the aspect of avijnapti
7. If the avijnapti does not exist, the Pratimoksa discipline (samvara, 23
iv. l4a) would disappear. For a person who has assumed the vows of religion is still a Bhiksu or Bhiksuni, when his mind is bad or neutral.
8. A scripture teaches that the renouncing of sin is a dike which 24
arrests immorality. An "absence" cannot be a dike: virati is thus a real dharma (the avijnapti), and not the mere fact of no longer accomplish- ing an action which one has renounced, as the Sautrantikas maintain (p. 560, 562).
***
[The Sautrantikas answer:] These arguments are numerous and diverse, but are not conclusive. Let us examine them one by one.
25
1. The Sutra teaches that rupa is of three types. The Yogacarins say
that in the Dhyanas, through the force of absorption, a rupa arises which is the object of the absorption, that is, which is perceived by the person in the absorption, [for example a skeleton in the asubhabhavana, (vL9). ] This rupa is not seen by the eye; it is thus invisible. It does not "cover," it does not occupy a place: it is thus "free from destruaioa" If you ask how this object of absorption can be rupa [since it does not possess the usual characteristics of rupa,] you forget that the existence of avijnapti would give rise to the same question.
? 2. The scripture says that there is a pure rupa. The Yogacarins maintain that the rupa that arises through the force of the absorption is pure, since the absorption is pure.
26
But other masters, [the Darsttantikas,] maintain that the rupa of
the Arhats (organ of sight, etc) and external rupa, [namely the five objects of the senses (i. 9a), are pure (andsrava)] because they are not a support of the vices.
To this one can object that the scripture expresses itself [without making a distinction,] "What are the impure dharmas? All that which is organ of sight, all that which is visible . . . "
[The Darstantikas answer that all the dharmas referred to in this scripture are qualified as] impure because they are not opposed to the vices: [in fact, only the mind and its mental states can oppose the vices and destroy them. ]
To this one could object that the same dharmas would be impure, because they are not opposed to the vices, and at the same time pure, because they are not a support of the vices, with the unpleasant consequence that the charaaeristic of pure and impure would be confused
No, answer the Darstantikas, for these dharmas are not pure from
the same point of view in which they are impure. Further, if the visible
and the other ayatanas are exclusively impure, why would the scripture 27
specify, "The impure and updddna-provckhig rupas, . . . the impure and updddna-provoking dharmas are the cause of the hardening of the
28
mind and of hypocrisy. " (v. 47)
3. The scripture says that merit increases.
The ancient masters say: It is in the nature of things that merit
increases when persons who have received a gift utilize this gift: by reason of the qualities of these persons (dhyana, absorption of benevolence, etc. ), by reason of the benevolence that they get out of the gift for themselves and for all creatures, the mental series of the givers, be they of bad or of neutral minds, is found to be perfumed by the volition of giving which has for its object the person who receives: their series undergo a subtle ascending transformation and arrives at the state where they are finally capable of bringing forth many results. It is in this sense that the text says, "Merit increases in an intense and un-
29 interrupted manner, merit adds to itself/*
Karma 563
? 564 Chapter Four _ _
But how does one explain the increase of merit in the case of nonmaterial meritorious work?
[The mental series,transforms itself] by reason of the repetition of volitions having for their object [the Tathagata or the Sravakas]. Even during dreams these volitions are linked together.
On the contrary, we do not see how the [Vaibhasikas,] partisans of an avijnapti, can explain the growth of merit in the case of nonmaterial meritorious work. [This does not consist of bodily or vocal action, vijnapti, but merely the joy experienced with regard to the Tathagata or the Sravakas; it does not consist of an absorptioa Now according to the Vaibhasikas, the avijnapti can only give rise to the vijnapti or to an absorptioa Hence it is impossible here. ]
But according to other masters, [certain Sautrantikas,] in the case also of material meritorious works, merit proceeds from the repetition of a volition having for its object [the person who receives. ]
But this opinion is inadmissible in light of the scripture which says, "When an energetic Bhiksu, endowed with morality, possessor of good dharmas, eats the alms of a donor, he then enters into and dwells in the
absorption called 'infinites' (good-will, etc. ), and by reason of this fact
there is certainly produced for the donor an out-flowing of merit, and
30
out-flowing of good and prosperity. " Now does the donor whose
merit thus continues to increase, have a special volition whose object is the person who receives? [We should thus prefer the opinion of the first masters:] in the case of material meritorious works, the merit proceeds from a transformation of the series [of the donor by reason of the qualities of the person who receives. ]
4. According to the Vaibhasikas, if the avijnapti does not exist, he who has an action accomplished by another will not be endowed with the course of action ("path-of-action," karmapatha). When an emissary charged with murder accomplishes the murder, it is in the nature of things that the mental series of the author of the instigation will submit to a certain subtle transformation by virtue of which his series will bear a result later. This holds likewise when one acts for oneself; when the courseofaction(murder,etc. )isachieved,atthismoment theseries undergoes a transformatioa This transformation is called "course of action," and consequently the person whose series is transformed is endowed with the course of action--for the effect (transformation of
? the series) receives the name which belongs more properly to the cause (course of action),--and this transformation is called bodily or vocal accordingly as it results from an action of the body or the voice. It is by virtue of these same principles that the partisans of avijnapti consider the avijnapti as a bodily or vocal course of action.
31
The Bhadanta (Vibhasa, TD 27, p. 6l7al8) proves in a different
manner the nonexistence of avijnapti: "A person is touched by the sin of murder by reason of a tritemporal volition with regard to the skandhas which constitute a living being (iv. 73), that is, when he thinks, 1 shall
e
kill;Ikill;heiskilled*"[Th courseofactioniscompletewhenthereis
preparatory action, principal action, and consecutive action, consisting solely of cetana, iv. 68c]
But this triple volition does not necessarily bring about the achievement of the course of action, for, according to the theory of the Bhadanta, there would be a mortal sin (iv. 97) for the child who says, "my mother has been murdered," if she has not in fact been killed by the emissary charged with the murder.
Nevertheless all this exercise of volition, "I shall kill, I kill, he is
killed" applies only to the person who kills: the intention of the
32 Bhadanta is to refer to this type of murder.
***
But, [ask the Sarvastivadins,] why do you, in your antipathy, deny the existence of the avijnapti and yet admit a transformation of the mental series (ii. 36c-d)?
[In truth, avijnapti, a doctrine of the Sarvastivadins, and the transformation of the mental series, a thesis of the Sautrantikas, are both equally difficult to understand;] I thus have no antipathy [for these doarines. ] But, to say that there arises at the moment of the achieving of the course of action by a bodily operation dependent on a mind, a certain dharma, called avijnapti, [in him who has ordered the course of action,] either from the mind of him who has ordered, or separate from the body of him who has accomplished the murder, is a hypothesis that cannot satisfy us; but to say that there is produced at the moment of the achievement of the course of action by an operation ordered by a certain person, a transformation of the mental series of this person, is a
Karma 565
? hypothesis that satisfies us. And it also satisfies us that the result arises from a transformation of the series and not from an avijnapti.
[Take into account also the arguments enumerated above:] "if the vijnapti does not exist, [how could there be avijnapti! ", "The avijnapti consists solely in no longer doing a certain action," "the avijnapti cannot depend on past primary elements. "]
5. The dharmdyatana is not defined as nonmateriaL The response to this objection is as has been given above: there is an invisible rupa free from destruaion, forming part of the dharmdyatana: this is not the avijnapti; this is a rupa which is the object of the absorption and which arises from the force of the absorptioa
6. The Way, say the Vaibhasikas, would not have eight parts.
How does the saint, when he has attained the Way, [when he sees or meditates on the Truths,] possess correct speech, action, and livelihood? Does he pronounce correct speech, act in a correct manner, and correctly ask for the robes of a monk?
[Such is not our thought, answer the Sarvastivadins. ] In the Path, the saint takes possession of certain pure avijnaptis, so that,Vhen he leaves the contemplation, it is by the force of these pure avijnaptis that he produces correct speech, actions, and livelihood, and does not produce incorrect speech, actions, and livelihood A cause takes the name of its result: thus speech, action and livelihood are designated as avijnapti.
If this is so, why not accept my theory? There is no avijnapti; but the saint, when he finds himself in the Path, takes possession of a certain
33
intention (dsaya) and of a certain personality (asraya) so that, when he
comes out of this contemplation, by reason of the force of these two factors he henceforth produces correct speech, actions and livelihood One gives to the cause (dsaya and asraya) the name of their result; and we can thus affirm that the Path possesses eight parts.
According to another opinion, the parts of the Path solely consist of non-commission. What is non-commission? The person who is in absorption acquires, through the force of the Path, definite absolute abstention (akarananiyama, vi. 33a-b). This abstention, which is ac- quired having the pure Path as its support, is pure. This is a part of the Path.
Without doubt, the part (correct speech, etc. ) is not a "thing"
? (dravya), being only abstention: but these are not the only real and distina things which constitute the dharmas; there are for example, the
34
eight worldly dharmas; possession and non-possession; glory and
non-glory; praise and blame; pleasure and suffering. Non-possession of clothes, of food, etc. , is not a thing. (Anguttara, iv. 157, Digha, iii. 260) 7. If the avijnapti does not exist, say the Vaibhasikas, the Pratimoksa
discipline would disappear.
One refutes this objection according to the same principles, by
making a state out of the force of the intention. Discipline is volition which, after it has been translated into the positive action (vidhi) of abstaining from transgression, into the pledge of no longer committing transgression, arrests bad actions and disciplines the body and the voice: the Pratimoksa discipline should be understood in this manner.
The Vaibhasikas object that, if the Pratimoksa discipline is volition, the monk who thinks a thought other than this thought of volition would cease being "disciplined," for he does not then possess the volition which disciplines.
This objection is worthless. In fact, the mental series is perfumed in such a way that, when a thought of transgression starts to appear, the memory of the vow undertaken also appears: the volition of abstention is then found to be present.
8. And this volition has the characteristic of a dike. When one is obliged not to commit transgression, one remembers this obligation, shame (hrt, ii. 32) is present, and one constrains oneself in such a manner that one does not violate morality.
In your system, on the contrary, if immorality is dammed up by an avijnapti independent of memory, then even a person who has a faulty memory would not be able to commit a transgression, since the avijnapti is always there.
Let us stop this discussion here. The Vaibhasikas say that there exists a certain substantial thing (dravya), sui generis, which is avijnaptirupa.
We have seen (i. llb) that the avijnapti arises dependent (upaddya) on the primary elements: the question is then posed whether it derives from the same primary elements which are the support of the vijnapti, that is, the primary elements of the body through which the action termed vijnapti (iv. p. 3,33) is accomplished; or if it derives from other
Karma 567
? 35 primary elements.
The avijnapti derives from primary elements different from those
which serve as the support for the vijnapti: for it is impossible that one
and the same complex of four primary elements would produce both a
subtle, derived rupa,--the avijnapti--, and at the same time a gross, 36
***
The vijnapti is simultaneous to the primary elements from whence it derives; is such also the case for the avijnapti?
The general rule is that all derived rupa is simultaneous to its primary elements. But certain derived rupa,--of the present and the future,--derive from past primary elements:
4c-d. From the first moment, the avijnapti of Kamadhatu arises derived from past primary elements.
The moment the avijnapti arises, it arises derived from primary elements simultaneous to its arising. From this first moment on, avijnapti of the sphere of Kamadhatu--in opposition to the avijnapti arisen from the dhyana, and pure avijnapti (p. 32)--arises, that is, it continues to be reborn, being derived (upadaya) from the same primary elements of the first moment, which are now past: these past primary elements constitute, from the second moment onward, the support of the avijnapti, for they are the cause of its pravrtti, they are its projecting cause; the primary elements simultaneous to each of the moments from the second moment onward are the support of the avijnapti, for they are the cause of its anuvrtti, they are its supporting cause. In the same way, the hand that has hurled the wheel and the ground that the supports the wheel, are the causes, respectively, of the pravrtti and the anuvrtti of the movement of the wheel (see p. 576).
***
To which sphere,--Kamadhatu and the Four Dhyanas--do the primary elements belong, from whence the bodily and vocal aaions of the different spheres derive?
derived rupa, the vijnapti.
? 5a-b. When impure, bodily and vocal action derive from the primary elements of the sphere to which they belong.
Bodily and vocal actions of Kamadhatu derive from the primary, elements of Kamadhatu, and so on to the bodily and vocal actions of the Fourth Dhyana which derives from primary elements of the Fourth Dhyana.
5c. When they are pure, they are from the primary elements of the sphere to which the person who has produced them belongs.
When they are pure, bodily and vocal action derives from the primary elements of the sphere where the person who produces arises: for the pure dharmas are transcendent to the sphere of existence (Kamadhatu, etc. ); for there does not exist any pure primary elements from whence one could derive a pure action; for the pure bodily or vocal action arises by reason of the primary elements, and not only through the mind, since it is derived rupa (upaddyarupa) (Vibhasa, TD 27, p. 723b29-c6)
***
What are the characteristics of these two actions, vijnapti and avijfiapti? What are the characteristics of the primary elements from whence they derive?
5d. The avijnapti is not integral to the organism; it is also an outflowing; it belongs solely to living beings. Not of absorption, it derives from the primary elements which are an outflowing, which are integral to the organism, which are differentiated
37
1. The avijnapti is a derived rupa exempt from mass (amurta),
nonextended (apratigha); thus it cannot be a support of the mind and of mental states; thus it is anupdtta, not integral to the sense organism (i. 34c). The avijnapti is never morally neutral (iv. 7a): hence it is not arisen from retribution (i. 37); it is not of increase (i. 36); it remains then
that it is an outflowing (i. 36), that is, produced by sabhagahetu (ii. 52). [The text says, "also of outflowing," because the avijnapti can be also ksanika (i. 38b): the first pure avijnapti is not an outflowing. ]
Karma 569
? 570 Chapter Four
2. Not absorbed or, in other words belonging to Kamadhatu, it 38
derives from primary elements which are an outflowing, and which are integral to the organism. These primary elements are differentiated, because each of the seven avijnaptis, the renouncing of killing, etc. , which form the Pratimoksa discipline, derive from a distina group of the four primary elements.
6. Arisen from absorption, it derives from non-differentiated primary elements, not integral to the organism, and increase.
3. Avijnapti which arises from samddhi, is divided into two types, that is, (avijnapti arisen from) absorption, and (avijnapti arisen from) pure discipline. These two both arise from samddhi, are of increase, and not integral to the sense organism. They are both arisen from undifferentiated (i. e. , identical) primary elements.
In the same way that the mind which engenders these renouncings is a unity, the primary elements upon which the renouncings are based constitute a unity.
[II. Concerning the vijnapti. ]
The vijnapti is an outflowing; being bodily, it is integral to the
39 organism.
Does bodily vijnapti, by arising, destroy or not destroy the preexistent bodily figure which is retribution (vipdka)P The two hypotheses create difficulties. That it destroys it, is impossible; for it is
contrary to the principles of the Vaibhasikas that a rupa, retribution by nature, continues again, after having been interrupted (i. 37, trans, p. 103). If on the contrary, bodily vijnapti does not destroy the previous figure, two figures,--the first of retribution, the second of out- flowing,--would be found to coexist in one and the same spot.
We must admit that bodily vijiiapti arises deriving from new primary elements, outflowing in its nature, and that it does not destroy the previous figure.
If this is the case, the part by means of which a bodily vijnapti is produced would be greater than has existed previously, being pene- trated by new primary elements from whence this vijnapti derives. If the part has not been penetrated by these new elements, one could not say that the avijnapti is created by the whole part.
We could answer that the body--retribution in nature--presents
? some voids: thus place is found for the new primary elements, outflowing by nature, from whence the vijnapti derives.
We have said that action is of two types, cetana and cetanakrta, volition and action created by the volition; of three types, mental, bodily, vocal; of five types, cetana, bodily vijnapti, bodily avijnapti, vocal vijnapti, and vocal avijnapti.
40
[What are these action, good, bad, or neutral? To which realm of
existence (dhdtu), to which sphere (bhumi) do they belong? ] 7a. The avijnapti is never neutral.
It is either good or bad
In fact, neutral volition is weak; it is not capable of engendering a powerful action as is the avijnapti, which continues reproducing itself after its initial cause has disappeared
7b. Other action are of three types.
Other actions, namely volition and the vijnapti, can be good, bad, or neutral.
7b-c. Bad action exists in Kamadhatu.
Not in the other spheres, for, in the other spheres the three roots of evil (iv. 8c-d and v. 19), and non-shame and imprudence (ii. 26c-d), are missing.
The restriction of the stanza refers only to bad actions; hence good actions and neutral actions are in all of the Three Dhatus.
7c. Avijnapti also exists in Rupadhatu.
"Also" that is to say: in Kamadhatu as well as in Rupadhatu; not in Arupyadhatu, for the primary elements are missing there [from whence the avijnapti is derived (iv. 6b). ] Only where body and voice exist, do we find [the avijnapti which] is the discipline of the body and voice.
Objection. There are no pure primary elements and yet there is a pure avijnapti. Pwe avijnapti derives from the primary elements of the sphere wherein the person arises who produces the pure avijnaptiln the. same way, when a person arisen in Kamadhatu and Rupadhatu enters into an drupya absorption, he produces an avijnapti of
Karma 571
? Arupyadhatu deriving from the primary elements of Kamadhatu or Rupadhatu.
The case is not the same, for the pure avijnapti transcends the spheres; it has nothing in common with the defilements of the sphere where the person who has produced it is found; it is neither of the same type, nor of a different type through rapport with the primary elements of the sphere. On the contrary, an avijnapti of Arupyadhatu cannot derive from the primary elements, of a different type, of Kamadhatu or Rupadhatu.
Further, turning away from all rupa--since any idea of rupa is absent in it--an drupya absorption is not capable of producing an avijnapti, which is rupa.
The Vaibha? ikas say: Morality exists in opposition to immorality. Immorality is of the sphere of Kamadhatu; morality, consisting of avijnapti, of the realm of Rupadhatu is opposed to it. But the arupyas are removed from Kamadhatu by the four estrangements of dsraya,
prakara, ddlambana, pratipaksa (ii. 67; Vibhasd, TD 27, p. 495c23). 7d. Vijnapti exists in the two spheres where there is vicara.
There is vijnapti, bodily and a vocal action, only in the spheres of
41
"Also," in the spheres where there is no vicara, and "also" in Kamadhatu. ]
Such vijnapti does not exist in Kamadhatu, [where all defiled vijnapti is bad, not neutral. ]
This means that vijnapti of the anivrtavydkrta class exists only in the world of Brahma. It is reported that Mahabrahma produced a false vocal action: in his assembly Mahabrahma boasted falsely, in order to
42 avoid the inquires of the venerable Asvajit.
***
But if vocal avijnapti is absent above the First Dhyana, how can sound (sabdayatana) exist in the Second Dhyana and above?
Kamadhatu and the First Dhyana, where there'isvicara (i. 32c, viii 7). 8a. The vijnapti termed nivrta is also missing in Kamadhatu.
{Nivrta signifies nivrta-avyakrta (ii. 66), defiled but neutral.
? It exists there, but it has for its cause the external primary elements:
43 sound caused by the wind, etc. (i. lOb).
Other masters say: Vijnapti exists in the Second Dhyana and in the
following Dhyanas; it is there in the anivrtdvydkrta class, undefiled-
neutral, not good, but not defiled. In fact the beings who are born in
these Dhyanas do not call forth a good or defiled mind of a lower sphere,
by which mind they would be able to produce a good or defiled
Brahma? Why is the vijnapti of the defiled-neutral class absent in Kamadhatu?
8b. Because the cause which produces it is absent.
i. It is the mind associated with vitarka and vicara which gives rise to the vijnapti: such a mind is absent in the Second Dhyana and above. (iv. 7d).
ii. The nivrtavydkrta mind gives rise to a vijnapti of the same characteristics, since this mind belongs to the class "to be abandoned through Mediation. " (See p. 575 and foil. )
[In Kamadhatu, only the nivrtavydkrta mind is the mind associated with satkdyadrsti and with antagrdhadrsti,'] Thus, it does not give rise to vijnapti (ii. 67, v. 12).
***
Is it solely by reason of the nature of the mind which gives rise (samutthapaka) to them--good or bad nature--that the dharmas are good or bad?
The dharmas are good or bad in four ways: absolutely (param- arthatas), in and of themselves (svabhavatas), through association
46 (samprayOgatas), and through their original cause (samutthanatas).
8b-c. Deliverance is absolute good
Nirvana, being the cessation of all suffering, is perfectly tranquil-
47
and-happy; hence it is absolute good. Comparison: like the absence of
vijnapti. For the good mind of a lower sphere is of an inferior order; and 44
the defiled mind has been abandoned.
But [the Vaibhasikas] defend the first opinion.
Why is the vijnapti, whatever it may be, absent above the world of
45
Karma 573
? Chapter Four ________ .
sickness (Majjhima, i. 510).
8c-d The roots, respect and fear, are good in and of them-
48 selves.
The three roots of good, respect and fear (and lack of greed) (ii. 25), independent of their associations and of their causes, are good in and of themselves. Comparison: like a salutary medicine.
9a. That which is associated [with the roots, etc,] is good through association.
The dharmas, volitions, and mental states, which are associated with the roots of good, with respect, and with fear, are good by association. Associated with these principles, they are good; not associated with these principles, they are not good. Comparison: like a drink wherein one has mixed a salutary medicine.
9b. Actions, etc are good by reason of their original cause. Having their origin in dharmas good in and of themselves or good
through association, bodily aaion, vocal aaion, [the laksanas,] praptis, 49
nirodhasamdpatti, asamjnisamdpatti (ii. 35 and foil. ), are good by reason of their original cause. Comparison: like the milk of a cow which has drunk a drink mixed with a salutary medicine.
How can praptis be good when they have their origin in a mind
50
which is not good?
9c Evil is the contrary.
The contrary of good is as shall now be taught:
1. Samsdra--or existence--has for its nature the process of all
suffering: it is thus perfealy unhappy, and so absolute evil
2. The roots of evil, the absence of shame and imprudence (ii. 26c-d)
are bad in themselves.
3. The dharmas associated with these principles are bad in
themselves.
4. Having their origin in the roots, etc, and in the dharmas
associated with these roots, etc, bodily aaion, vocal aaion, their charaaeristics (arising, etc. ) and the praptis of the bad dharmas, are bad by reason of their original cause.
? Comparison: sickness, unhealthy drugs, etc.
But, one would say, everything that is impure is integral to samsdra: hence can nothing which is impure be good or neutral?
From the absolute point of view, this is true. But putting oneself in the point of view of retribution, the impure dharma which is not defined as to how it should be retributed is called undefined, or neutral (ii. 54), and the impure dharma which produces an agreeable retribu- tion, is called good
What is absolutely neutral?
9d. Two entities are neutral in the absolute sense.
The two unconditioned things (asamskrta, i. 5), namely space and apratisamkhydnirodha, are, without ambiguity, neutral.
A difficulty. The Vaibhasikas teach that aaion, bodily or vocal, is good or bad by reason of its original cause, [namely a good or bad volition. ]The same rule should apply to the primary elements which constitute bodily or vocal aaion (iv. 2b, 3d).
No, answer the Vaibhasikas, for the intention of the agent corresponds to the aaion, not to the primary elements: [he wants to create a certain aaion, not any primary elements. ]
But, we should say, how will the avijnapti produced by absorption (iv. 6c-d) be good? The agent, entered into absorption, does not have any intention with regard to the avijnapti and so does not think, "Let us create an avijnaptiV We cannot admit that the avijnapti produced by the absorption has its origin in a non-absorbed mind which proceeds from the absorption, for this mind is of another class. Thus the avijnapti produced by the absorption is not good; or rather, if the Vaibhasikas maintain that it is good, they should consider as good the divine eye and the divine ear which they regard as neutral (ii. 72a, trans, p. 315, vii. 45).
There is a difficulty here that the Vaibhasikas should resolve.
It has been said above (iv. 8b) that the mind susceptible of being abandonedthroughSeeingdoesnotgiverisetovijnaptiYettheBlessed One said, "From bad views there proceeds bad resolution, bad speech, bad aaion, bad livelihood. " Now bad views are abandoned through Seeing (v. 4).
This Sutra does not contradia this theory. In faa
51
Karma 575
? 576 Chapter Four
10a-b. That which gives rise (samutthana) is of two types, which 1
are known as hetusamutthana and tatksanasamutthana^
Samutthana is that through which the action arises. What is both cause (hetu) and samutthana is hetusamutthana. What is samutthana at the very moment of the action is tatksanasamutthana.
lOc-d. Which are respectively first setter into motion and second mover.
The hetusamutthana projects, that is to say, produces. It is thus promoter. The tatksanasamutthana is second mover because it is contemporary to the action (see above, p. 568).
But what is [with regard to the action {vijnapti)] the efficacy done by the tatksanasamutthana which makes it the second mover?
If the tatksanasamutthana is absent, the action will not take place, even if it was projected [by the agent; as, for example, the action does not take place when the one who has projected an action ("I shall go to the village") dies. ]
[But if the vijnapti does not take place in the absence of the second mover,] how is there vijnapti for a person free from a mind which
53
undertakes the discipline? (Vibhasa, TD 27, p. 586a8).
[One will then have recourse to another explanation. ] The vijnapti is clearer in him who is endowed with the mind, which is at the moment of the vijnapti, the "second mover" mind. Such is the efficacy of this mind.
lla-b. The consciousness to be abandoned through Seeing is solely agent.
The mind which is abandoned through Seeing is alone the agent of the vijnapti, because it is the cause of the mental process {vitarka and vicara) which gives rise to the vijnapti It is not the second mover 1. ) because it no longer exists at the moment when the vijnapti takes place: this latter is put into motion by a thought "turned inward," [to be abandoned through Meditation, which is the second mover;] 2. ) because, to suppose that it is a second mover, it would then follow that the rupa (that is, the vijnapti) created by it would also be abandoned by
? this Seeing; [in the same way that the vijnapti created by a thought abandoned through Mediation is itself to be abandoned through Meditation. ] And this hypothesis is in contradiction to the Abhidharma (i. 40c-d).
In fact, rupa (-vijnapti) is not contradicted either by vidya (correct knowledge), or by avidya (error, ignorance): hence it cannot be
54 abandoned by means of Seeing the Truths.
[The Sautrantikas would answer that this affirmation, "Rupa is not contradiaed by vidya,"] should be proved. For he who maintains the thesis of the abandoning of rtipa through Seeing would not admit that rupa is not contradiaed by vidya.
[The Vaibhasikas say: If the rupa (-vijnapti) which has its origin in a thought to be abandoned through Seeing is, itself also, to be abandoned through Seeing, then the primary elements which serve as a substrate (dsraya) to this rupa, to this vijnapti, will be, themselves also, abandoned through Seeing, for they take their origin from the same thought. But this is inadmissible, for these primary elements belong to the class of undefiled-neutral dharmas, and everything that is to be abandoned through Seeing is defiled (klista, ii. 40c-d). ]
We deny this consequence. In faa, the primary elements in question are not good or bad by reason of the thought which gives rise to them, whereas this is the case for the vijnapti (iv. 9d). Or rather, we admit this consequence; the primary elements in question are abandoned through Seeing.
[The Vaibhasikas repeat that] this is impossible. The primary elements cannot be abandoned through Seeing; they are no longer not-to-be-abandoned. For the undefiled dharma is not contradiaed either by vidya or by avidya.
[In faa, the undefiled dharma, either of the anivrtdvyakrta, undefiled-neutral class, or of the kuScdasdsrava, good-impure class, is not contradiaed by vidya, that is to say through the pure (andsrava) Path, as is the case for the defiled dharma which perishes by the faa that its prdpti is cut off by this said Path. . .
Hence the Sutra quoted above (p. 575, line 32) does not invalidate our thesis: "The thought susceptible of being abandoned through Seeing
ff
does not give rise to vijnapti, for this Sutra refers to false views
Karma yjl
? considered as agent. (Vibfodsd, TD 27, p. 610c22)
llb-c The manas susceptible of being abandoned through
Meditation is twofold
The mental consciousness of the bhavanaheya category is at one and 55
the same time both agent and mover. lid. The five are solely mover.
The five vijndnakdyas, [visual consciousness, etc. ,] are solely mover,
56
[being free from reflexion (vikdpa, i. 33)]
There are thus four cases:
i. The mind susceptible of being abandoned through Seeing is
exclusively agent.
ii. The five sense consciousnesses are exclusively mover.
iii. The mental consciousness susceptible of being abandoned
through Meditation is both promoter and mover.
iv. The pure mind is neither promoter nor mover.
***
Is the "mover" of the same [nature--good, bad, neutral--] as the agent?
There is no rule on this subject:
12a-b. From a good agent, etc. , a mover of three types.
A good, bad, or neutral mover can come from a good agent. The same for a bad or neutral agent.
58 12c With regard to the Muni, mover of the same type.
With regard to the Buddha the Blessed One, the mover is of the same species as the agent: from a good mover, a good mover; from a neutral agent, a neutral mover.
12c Or good
Or rather, it happens that a good mover comes out of a neutral
agent, whereas a neutral mover never comes out of a good agent: the
59 teaching of the Buddhas is not subject to diminutioa
(Vibfodsd, TD 27, p. 6l0a6)
57
? 60
According to other Schools, the mind of the Buddhas is never
neutral: they are always in absorption; their mental series is exclusively a series of good thoughts. This is why the Sutra says, "The Naga is absorbed when he walks, when he stands still, when he dreams, and when he is seated"
The Vaibhasikas say: The Sutra expresses itself in this manner because the mind of the Blessed One does not disperse itself towards objects without his wishing it. [The Blessed One is always absorbed in the sense that memory is always present in him: walking, he knows that he walks. ]But this is not to say that the Blessed One is exempt from neutral dharmas: dharmas of retribution (vipdkaja), dharmas related to attitudes (irydpatha), a mind capable of creating fictive beings (nir- mdnacitta) (ii. 66).
We have seen that the mind susceptible of being abandoned through Meditation is at one and the same time agent and mover, and can be good, bad, or neutral
61 12d That which arises from retribution is neither of the two.
The mind that has arisen from retribution (vipdkaja, i. 36, ii. 60, iv. 85), is produced without effort, spontaneously, [and so is neither agent nor mover. ]
Is the vijnapti good, bad, or neutral, 1. ) according to the character- istics of the agent, or 2. ) according to the characteristic of its mover?
To what does this question lead?
i. First hypothesis. The two wrong views,--personalism, and past- and-future-of-the-personality--are the agent (iv. lla-b); they are of the defiled-neutral class. [If the vijnapti to which they give rise follows their nature, one will then have, in Kamadhatu, a defiled-neutral action: and you regard this consequence as inadmissible (iv. 8b). ]If you maintain your opinion with regard to this point, you must then admit, [contrary to your thesis, (iv. Ua-b)] that all thoughts susceptible of being abandoned through Seeing are not agents: whereas satkayadrsti and the antdgrdhadrsti are not agents, the other wrong views are agents.
Second hypothesis. The vijnapti through which a person under- takes theJPratimoksa discipline will not be good, if this person, while he is receiving the ordination, has a bad or neutral mind
ii. The Vaibhasikas answer. The vijnapti is of the same nature as its
Karma 579
?
This text, the Vaibhasikas say, does not refer to the last three parts of the Way, but rather to speech, action, and livelihood in a state of detachment which have been obtained through the worldly path. This does not prevent speech, etc. , from not forming part of the Way under the aspect of avijnapti
7. If the avijnapti does not exist, the Pratimoksa discipline (samvara, 23
iv. l4a) would disappear. For a person who has assumed the vows of religion is still a Bhiksu or Bhiksuni, when his mind is bad or neutral.
8. A scripture teaches that the renouncing of sin is a dike which 24
arrests immorality. An "absence" cannot be a dike: virati is thus a real dharma (the avijnapti), and not the mere fact of no longer accomplish- ing an action which one has renounced, as the Sautrantikas maintain (p. 560, 562).
***
[The Sautrantikas answer:] These arguments are numerous and diverse, but are not conclusive. Let us examine them one by one.
25
1. The Sutra teaches that rupa is of three types. The Yogacarins say
that in the Dhyanas, through the force of absorption, a rupa arises which is the object of the absorption, that is, which is perceived by the person in the absorption, [for example a skeleton in the asubhabhavana, (vL9). ] This rupa is not seen by the eye; it is thus invisible. It does not "cover," it does not occupy a place: it is thus "free from destruaioa" If you ask how this object of absorption can be rupa [since it does not possess the usual characteristics of rupa,] you forget that the existence of avijnapti would give rise to the same question.
? 2. The scripture says that there is a pure rupa. The Yogacarins maintain that the rupa that arises through the force of the absorption is pure, since the absorption is pure.
26
But other masters, [the Darsttantikas,] maintain that the rupa of
the Arhats (organ of sight, etc) and external rupa, [namely the five objects of the senses (i. 9a), are pure (andsrava)] because they are not a support of the vices.
To this one can object that the scripture expresses itself [without making a distinction,] "What are the impure dharmas? All that which is organ of sight, all that which is visible . . . "
[The Darstantikas answer that all the dharmas referred to in this scripture are qualified as] impure because they are not opposed to the vices: [in fact, only the mind and its mental states can oppose the vices and destroy them. ]
To this one could object that the same dharmas would be impure, because they are not opposed to the vices, and at the same time pure, because they are not a support of the vices, with the unpleasant consequence that the charaaeristic of pure and impure would be confused
No, answer the Darstantikas, for these dharmas are not pure from
the same point of view in which they are impure. Further, if the visible
and the other ayatanas are exclusively impure, why would the scripture 27
specify, "The impure and updddna-provckhig rupas, . . . the impure and updddna-provoking dharmas are the cause of the hardening of the
28
mind and of hypocrisy. " (v. 47)
3. The scripture says that merit increases.
The ancient masters say: It is in the nature of things that merit
increases when persons who have received a gift utilize this gift: by reason of the qualities of these persons (dhyana, absorption of benevolence, etc. ), by reason of the benevolence that they get out of the gift for themselves and for all creatures, the mental series of the givers, be they of bad or of neutral minds, is found to be perfumed by the volition of giving which has for its object the person who receives: their series undergo a subtle ascending transformation and arrives at the state where they are finally capable of bringing forth many results. It is in this sense that the text says, "Merit increases in an intense and un-
29 interrupted manner, merit adds to itself/*
Karma 563
? 564 Chapter Four _ _
But how does one explain the increase of merit in the case of nonmaterial meritorious work?
[The mental series,transforms itself] by reason of the repetition of volitions having for their object [the Tathagata or the Sravakas]. Even during dreams these volitions are linked together.
On the contrary, we do not see how the [Vaibhasikas,] partisans of an avijnapti, can explain the growth of merit in the case of nonmaterial meritorious work. [This does not consist of bodily or vocal action, vijnapti, but merely the joy experienced with regard to the Tathagata or the Sravakas; it does not consist of an absorptioa Now according to the Vaibhasikas, the avijnapti can only give rise to the vijnapti or to an absorptioa Hence it is impossible here. ]
But according to other masters, [certain Sautrantikas,] in the case also of material meritorious works, merit proceeds from the repetition of a volition having for its object [the person who receives. ]
But this opinion is inadmissible in light of the scripture which says, "When an energetic Bhiksu, endowed with morality, possessor of good dharmas, eats the alms of a donor, he then enters into and dwells in the
absorption called 'infinites' (good-will, etc. ), and by reason of this fact
there is certainly produced for the donor an out-flowing of merit, and
30
out-flowing of good and prosperity. " Now does the donor whose
merit thus continues to increase, have a special volition whose object is the person who receives? [We should thus prefer the opinion of the first masters:] in the case of material meritorious works, the merit proceeds from a transformation of the series [of the donor by reason of the qualities of the person who receives. ]
4. According to the Vaibhasikas, if the avijnapti does not exist, he who has an action accomplished by another will not be endowed with the course of action ("path-of-action," karmapatha). When an emissary charged with murder accomplishes the murder, it is in the nature of things that the mental series of the author of the instigation will submit to a certain subtle transformation by virtue of which his series will bear a result later. This holds likewise when one acts for oneself; when the courseofaction(murder,etc. )isachieved,atthismoment theseries undergoes a transformatioa This transformation is called "course of action," and consequently the person whose series is transformed is endowed with the course of action--for the effect (transformation of
? the series) receives the name which belongs more properly to the cause (course of action),--and this transformation is called bodily or vocal accordingly as it results from an action of the body or the voice. It is by virtue of these same principles that the partisans of avijnapti consider the avijnapti as a bodily or vocal course of action.
31
The Bhadanta (Vibhasa, TD 27, p. 6l7al8) proves in a different
manner the nonexistence of avijnapti: "A person is touched by the sin of murder by reason of a tritemporal volition with regard to the skandhas which constitute a living being (iv. 73), that is, when he thinks, 1 shall
e
kill;Ikill;heiskilled*"[Th courseofactioniscompletewhenthereis
preparatory action, principal action, and consecutive action, consisting solely of cetana, iv. 68c]
But this triple volition does not necessarily bring about the achievement of the course of action, for, according to the theory of the Bhadanta, there would be a mortal sin (iv. 97) for the child who says, "my mother has been murdered," if she has not in fact been killed by the emissary charged with the murder.
Nevertheless all this exercise of volition, "I shall kill, I kill, he is
killed" applies only to the person who kills: the intention of the
32 Bhadanta is to refer to this type of murder.
***
But, [ask the Sarvastivadins,] why do you, in your antipathy, deny the existence of the avijnapti and yet admit a transformation of the mental series (ii. 36c-d)?
[In truth, avijnapti, a doctrine of the Sarvastivadins, and the transformation of the mental series, a thesis of the Sautrantikas, are both equally difficult to understand;] I thus have no antipathy [for these doarines. ] But, to say that there arises at the moment of the achieving of the course of action by a bodily operation dependent on a mind, a certain dharma, called avijnapti, [in him who has ordered the course of action,] either from the mind of him who has ordered, or separate from the body of him who has accomplished the murder, is a hypothesis that cannot satisfy us; but to say that there is produced at the moment of the achievement of the course of action by an operation ordered by a certain person, a transformation of the mental series of this person, is a
Karma 565
? hypothesis that satisfies us. And it also satisfies us that the result arises from a transformation of the series and not from an avijnapti.
[Take into account also the arguments enumerated above:] "if the vijnapti does not exist, [how could there be avijnapti! ", "The avijnapti consists solely in no longer doing a certain action," "the avijnapti cannot depend on past primary elements. "]
5. The dharmdyatana is not defined as nonmateriaL The response to this objection is as has been given above: there is an invisible rupa free from destruaion, forming part of the dharmdyatana: this is not the avijnapti; this is a rupa which is the object of the absorption and which arises from the force of the absorptioa
6. The Way, say the Vaibhasikas, would not have eight parts.
How does the saint, when he has attained the Way, [when he sees or meditates on the Truths,] possess correct speech, action, and livelihood? Does he pronounce correct speech, act in a correct manner, and correctly ask for the robes of a monk?
[Such is not our thought, answer the Sarvastivadins. ] In the Path, the saint takes possession of certain pure avijnaptis, so that,Vhen he leaves the contemplation, it is by the force of these pure avijnaptis that he produces correct speech, actions, and livelihood, and does not produce incorrect speech, actions, and livelihood A cause takes the name of its result: thus speech, action and livelihood are designated as avijnapti.
If this is so, why not accept my theory? There is no avijnapti; but the saint, when he finds himself in the Path, takes possession of a certain
33
intention (dsaya) and of a certain personality (asraya) so that, when he
comes out of this contemplation, by reason of the force of these two factors he henceforth produces correct speech, actions and livelihood One gives to the cause (dsaya and asraya) the name of their result; and we can thus affirm that the Path possesses eight parts.
According to another opinion, the parts of the Path solely consist of non-commission. What is non-commission? The person who is in absorption acquires, through the force of the Path, definite absolute abstention (akarananiyama, vi. 33a-b). This abstention, which is ac- quired having the pure Path as its support, is pure. This is a part of the Path.
Without doubt, the part (correct speech, etc. ) is not a "thing"
? (dravya), being only abstention: but these are not the only real and distina things which constitute the dharmas; there are for example, the
34
eight worldly dharmas; possession and non-possession; glory and
non-glory; praise and blame; pleasure and suffering. Non-possession of clothes, of food, etc. , is not a thing. (Anguttara, iv. 157, Digha, iii. 260) 7. If the avijnapti does not exist, say the Vaibhasikas, the Pratimoksa
discipline would disappear.
One refutes this objection according to the same principles, by
making a state out of the force of the intention. Discipline is volition which, after it has been translated into the positive action (vidhi) of abstaining from transgression, into the pledge of no longer committing transgression, arrests bad actions and disciplines the body and the voice: the Pratimoksa discipline should be understood in this manner.
The Vaibhasikas object that, if the Pratimoksa discipline is volition, the monk who thinks a thought other than this thought of volition would cease being "disciplined," for he does not then possess the volition which disciplines.
This objection is worthless. In fact, the mental series is perfumed in such a way that, when a thought of transgression starts to appear, the memory of the vow undertaken also appears: the volition of abstention is then found to be present.
8. And this volition has the characteristic of a dike. When one is obliged not to commit transgression, one remembers this obligation, shame (hrt, ii. 32) is present, and one constrains oneself in such a manner that one does not violate morality.
In your system, on the contrary, if immorality is dammed up by an avijnapti independent of memory, then even a person who has a faulty memory would not be able to commit a transgression, since the avijnapti is always there.
Let us stop this discussion here. The Vaibhasikas say that there exists a certain substantial thing (dravya), sui generis, which is avijnaptirupa.
We have seen (i. llb) that the avijnapti arises dependent (upaddya) on the primary elements: the question is then posed whether it derives from the same primary elements which are the support of the vijnapti, that is, the primary elements of the body through which the action termed vijnapti (iv. p. 3,33) is accomplished; or if it derives from other
Karma 567
? 35 primary elements.
The avijnapti derives from primary elements different from those
which serve as the support for the vijnapti: for it is impossible that one
and the same complex of four primary elements would produce both a
subtle, derived rupa,--the avijnapti--, and at the same time a gross, 36
***
The vijnapti is simultaneous to the primary elements from whence it derives; is such also the case for the avijnapti?
The general rule is that all derived rupa is simultaneous to its primary elements. But certain derived rupa,--of the present and the future,--derive from past primary elements:
4c-d. From the first moment, the avijnapti of Kamadhatu arises derived from past primary elements.
The moment the avijnapti arises, it arises derived from primary elements simultaneous to its arising. From this first moment on, avijnapti of the sphere of Kamadhatu--in opposition to the avijnapti arisen from the dhyana, and pure avijnapti (p. 32)--arises, that is, it continues to be reborn, being derived (upadaya) from the same primary elements of the first moment, which are now past: these past primary elements constitute, from the second moment onward, the support of the avijnapti, for they are the cause of its pravrtti, they are its projecting cause; the primary elements simultaneous to each of the moments from the second moment onward are the support of the avijnapti, for they are the cause of its anuvrtti, they are its supporting cause. In the same way, the hand that has hurled the wheel and the ground that the supports the wheel, are the causes, respectively, of the pravrtti and the anuvrtti of the movement of the wheel (see p. 576).
***
To which sphere,--Kamadhatu and the Four Dhyanas--do the primary elements belong, from whence the bodily and vocal aaions of the different spheres derive?
derived rupa, the vijnapti.
? 5a-b. When impure, bodily and vocal action derive from the primary elements of the sphere to which they belong.
Bodily and vocal actions of Kamadhatu derive from the primary, elements of Kamadhatu, and so on to the bodily and vocal actions of the Fourth Dhyana which derives from primary elements of the Fourth Dhyana.
5c. When they are pure, they are from the primary elements of the sphere to which the person who has produced them belongs.
When they are pure, bodily and vocal action derives from the primary elements of the sphere where the person who produces arises: for the pure dharmas are transcendent to the sphere of existence (Kamadhatu, etc. ); for there does not exist any pure primary elements from whence one could derive a pure action; for the pure bodily or vocal action arises by reason of the primary elements, and not only through the mind, since it is derived rupa (upaddyarupa) (Vibhasa, TD 27, p. 723b29-c6)
***
What are the characteristics of these two actions, vijnapti and avijfiapti? What are the characteristics of the primary elements from whence they derive?
5d. The avijnapti is not integral to the organism; it is also an outflowing; it belongs solely to living beings. Not of absorption, it derives from the primary elements which are an outflowing, which are integral to the organism, which are differentiated
37
1. The avijnapti is a derived rupa exempt from mass (amurta),
nonextended (apratigha); thus it cannot be a support of the mind and of mental states; thus it is anupdtta, not integral to the sense organism (i. 34c). The avijnapti is never morally neutral (iv. 7a): hence it is not arisen from retribution (i. 37); it is not of increase (i. 36); it remains then
that it is an outflowing (i. 36), that is, produced by sabhagahetu (ii. 52). [The text says, "also of outflowing," because the avijnapti can be also ksanika (i. 38b): the first pure avijnapti is not an outflowing. ]
Karma 569
? 570 Chapter Four
2. Not absorbed or, in other words belonging to Kamadhatu, it 38
derives from primary elements which are an outflowing, and which are integral to the organism. These primary elements are differentiated, because each of the seven avijnaptis, the renouncing of killing, etc. , which form the Pratimoksa discipline, derive from a distina group of the four primary elements.
6. Arisen from absorption, it derives from non-differentiated primary elements, not integral to the organism, and increase.
3. Avijnapti which arises from samddhi, is divided into two types, that is, (avijnapti arisen from) absorption, and (avijnapti arisen from) pure discipline. These two both arise from samddhi, are of increase, and not integral to the sense organism. They are both arisen from undifferentiated (i. e. , identical) primary elements.
In the same way that the mind which engenders these renouncings is a unity, the primary elements upon which the renouncings are based constitute a unity.
[II. Concerning the vijnapti. ]
The vijnapti is an outflowing; being bodily, it is integral to the
39 organism.
Does bodily vijnapti, by arising, destroy or not destroy the preexistent bodily figure which is retribution (vipdka)P The two hypotheses create difficulties. That it destroys it, is impossible; for it is
contrary to the principles of the Vaibhasikas that a rupa, retribution by nature, continues again, after having been interrupted (i. 37, trans, p. 103). If on the contrary, bodily vijnapti does not destroy the previous figure, two figures,--the first of retribution, the second of out- flowing,--would be found to coexist in one and the same spot.
We must admit that bodily vijiiapti arises deriving from new primary elements, outflowing in its nature, and that it does not destroy the previous figure.
If this is the case, the part by means of which a bodily vijnapti is produced would be greater than has existed previously, being pene- trated by new primary elements from whence this vijnapti derives. If the part has not been penetrated by these new elements, one could not say that the avijnapti is created by the whole part.
We could answer that the body--retribution in nature--presents
? some voids: thus place is found for the new primary elements, outflowing by nature, from whence the vijnapti derives.
We have said that action is of two types, cetana and cetanakrta, volition and action created by the volition; of three types, mental, bodily, vocal; of five types, cetana, bodily vijnapti, bodily avijnapti, vocal vijnapti, and vocal avijnapti.
40
[What are these action, good, bad, or neutral? To which realm of
existence (dhdtu), to which sphere (bhumi) do they belong? ] 7a. The avijnapti is never neutral.
It is either good or bad
In fact, neutral volition is weak; it is not capable of engendering a powerful action as is the avijnapti, which continues reproducing itself after its initial cause has disappeared
7b. Other action are of three types.
Other actions, namely volition and the vijnapti, can be good, bad, or neutral.
7b-c. Bad action exists in Kamadhatu.
Not in the other spheres, for, in the other spheres the three roots of evil (iv. 8c-d and v. 19), and non-shame and imprudence (ii. 26c-d), are missing.
The restriction of the stanza refers only to bad actions; hence good actions and neutral actions are in all of the Three Dhatus.
7c. Avijnapti also exists in Rupadhatu.
"Also" that is to say: in Kamadhatu as well as in Rupadhatu; not in Arupyadhatu, for the primary elements are missing there [from whence the avijnapti is derived (iv. 6b). ] Only where body and voice exist, do we find [the avijnapti which] is the discipline of the body and voice.
Objection. There are no pure primary elements and yet there is a pure avijnapti. Pwe avijnapti derives from the primary elements of the sphere wherein the person arises who produces the pure avijnaptiln the. same way, when a person arisen in Kamadhatu and Rupadhatu enters into an drupya absorption, he produces an avijnapti of
Karma 571
? Arupyadhatu deriving from the primary elements of Kamadhatu or Rupadhatu.
The case is not the same, for the pure avijnapti transcends the spheres; it has nothing in common with the defilements of the sphere where the person who has produced it is found; it is neither of the same type, nor of a different type through rapport with the primary elements of the sphere. On the contrary, an avijnapti of Arupyadhatu cannot derive from the primary elements, of a different type, of Kamadhatu or Rupadhatu.
Further, turning away from all rupa--since any idea of rupa is absent in it--an drupya absorption is not capable of producing an avijnapti, which is rupa.
The Vaibha? ikas say: Morality exists in opposition to immorality. Immorality is of the sphere of Kamadhatu; morality, consisting of avijnapti, of the realm of Rupadhatu is opposed to it. But the arupyas are removed from Kamadhatu by the four estrangements of dsraya,
prakara, ddlambana, pratipaksa (ii. 67; Vibhasd, TD 27, p. 495c23). 7d. Vijnapti exists in the two spheres where there is vicara.
There is vijnapti, bodily and a vocal action, only in the spheres of
41
"Also," in the spheres where there is no vicara, and "also" in Kamadhatu. ]
Such vijnapti does not exist in Kamadhatu, [where all defiled vijnapti is bad, not neutral. ]
This means that vijnapti of the anivrtavydkrta class exists only in the world of Brahma. It is reported that Mahabrahma produced a false vocal action: in his assembly Mahabrahma boasted falsely, in order to
42 avoid the inquires of the venerable Asvajit.
***
But if vocal avijnapti is absent above the First Dhyana, how can sound (sabdayatana) exist in the Second Dhyana and above?
Kamadhatu and the First Dhyana, where there'isvicara (i. 32c, viii 7). 8a. The vijnapti termed nivrta is also missing in Kamadhatu.
{Nivrta signifies nivrta-avyakrta (ii. 66), defiled but neutral.
? It exists there, but it has for its cause the external primary elements:
43 sound caused by the wind, etc. (i. lOb).
Other masters say: Vijnapti exists in the Second Dhyana and in the
following Dhyanas; it is there in the anivrtdvydkrta class, undefiled-
neutral, not good, but not defiled. In fact the beings who are born in
these Dhyanas do not call forth a good or defiled mind of a lower sphere,
by which mind they would be able to produce a good or defiled
Brahma? Why is the vijnapti of the defiled-neutral class absent in Kamadhatu?
8b. Because the cause which produces it is absent.
i. It is the mind associated with vitarka and vicara which gives rise to the vijnapti: such a mind is absent in the Second Dhyana and above. (iv. 7d).
ii. The nivrtavydkrta mind gives rise to a vijnapti of the same characteristics, since this mind belongs to the class "to be abandoned through Mediation. " (See p. 575 and foil. )
[In Kamadhatu, only the nivrtavydkrta mind is the mind associated with satkdyadrsti and with antagrdhadrsti,'] Thus, it does not give rise to vijnapti (ii. 67, v. 12).
***
Is it solely by reason of the nature of the mind which gives rise (samutthapaka) to them--good or bad nature--that the dharmas are good or bad?
The dharmas are good or bad in four ways: absolutely (param- arthatas), in and of themselves (svabhavatas), through association
46 (samprayOgatas), and through their original cause (samutthanatas).
8b-c. Deliverance is absolute good
Nirvana, being the cessation of all suffering, is perfectly tranquil-
47
and-happy; hence it is absolute good. Comparison: like the absence of
vijnapti. For the good mind of a lower sphere is of an inferior order; and 44
the defiled mind has been abandoned.
But [the Vaibhasikas] defend the first opinion.
Why is the vijnapti, whatever it may be, absent above the world of
45
Karma 573
? Chapter Four ________ .
sickness (Majjhima, i. 510).
8c-d The roots, respect and fear, are good in and of them-
48 selves.
The three roots of good, respect and fear (and lack of greed) (ii. 25), independent of their associations and of their causes, are good in and of themselves. Comparison: like a salutary medicine.
9a. That which is associated [with the roots, etc,] is good through association.
The dharmas, volitions, and mental states, which are associated with the roots of good, with respect, and with fear, are good by association. Associated with these principles, they are good; not associated with these principles, they are not good. Comparison: like a drink wherein one has mixed a salutary medicine.
9b. Actions, etc are good by reason of their original cause. Having their origin in dharmas good in and of themselves or good
through association, bodily aaion, vocal aaion, [the laksanas,] praptis, 49
nirodhasamdpatti, asamjnisamdpatti (ii. 35 and foil. ), are good by reason of their original cause. Comparison: like the milk of a cow which has drunk a drink mixed with a salutary medicine.
How can praptis be good when they have their origin in a mind
50
which is not good?
9c Evil is the contrary.
The contrary of good is as shall now be taught:
1. Samsdra--or existence--has for its nature the process of all
suffering: it is thus perfealy unhappy, and so absolute evil
2. The roots of evil, the absence of shame and imprudence (ii. 26c-d)
are bad in themselves.
3. The dharmas associated with these principles are bad in
themselves.
4. Having their origin in the roots, etc, and in the dharmas
associated with these roots, etc, bodily aaion, vocal aaion, their charaaeristics (arising, etc. ) and the praptis of the bad dharmas, are bad by reason of their original cause.
? Comparison: sickness, unhealthy drugs, etc.
But, one would say, everything that is impure is integral to samsdra: hence can nothing which is impure be good or neutral?
From the absolute point of view, this is true. But putting oneself in the point of view of retribution, the impure dharma which is not defined as to how it should be retributed is called undefined, or neutral (ii. 54), and the impure dharma which produces an agreeable retribu- tion, is called good
What is absolutely neutral?
9d. Two entities are neutral in the absolute sense.
The two unconditioned things (asamskrta, i. 5), namely space and apratisamkhydnirodha, are, without ambiguity, neutral.
A difficulty. The Vaibhasikas teach that aaion, bodily or vocal, is good or bad by reason of its original cause, [namely a good or bad volition. ]The same rule should apply to the primary elements which constitute bodily or vocal aaion (iv. 2b, 3d).
No, answer the Vaibhasikas, for the intention of the agent corresponds to the aaion, not to the primary elements: [he wants to create a certain aaion, not any primary elements. ]
But, we should say, how will the avijnapti produced by absorption (iv. 6c-d) be good? The agent, entered into absorption, does not have any intention with regard to the avijnapti and so does not think, "Let us create an avijnaptiV We cannot admit that the avijnapti produced by the absorption has its origin in a non-absorbed mind which proceeds from the absorption, for this mind is of another class. Thus the avijnapti produced by the absorption is not good; or rather, if the Vaibhasikas maintain that it is good, they should consider as good the divine eye and the divine ear which they regard as neutral (ii. 72a, trans, p. 315, vii. 45).
There is a difficulty here that the Vaibhasikas should resolve.
It has been said above (iv. 8b) that the mind susceptible of being abandonedthroughSeeingdoesnotgiverisetovijnaptiYettheBlessed One said, "From bad views there proceeds bad resolution, bad speech, bad aaion, bad livelihood. " Now bad views are abandoned through Seeing (v. 4).
This Sutra does not contradia this theory. In faa
51
Karma 575
? 576 Chapter Four
10a-b. That which gives rise (samutthana) is of two types, which 1
are known as hetusamutthana and tatksanasamutthana^
Samutthana is that through which the action arises. What is both cause (hetu) and samutthana is hetusamutthana. What is samutthana at the very moment of the action is tatksanasamutthana.
lOc-d. Which are respectively first setter into motion and second mover.
The hetusamutthana projects, that is to say, produces. It is thus promoter. The tatksanasamutthana is second mover because it is contemporary to the action (see above, p. 568).
But what is [with regard to the action {vijnapti)] the efficacy done by the tatksanasamutthana which makes it the second mover?
If the tatksanasamutthana is absent, the action will not take place, even if it was projected [by the agent; as, for example, the action does not take place when the one who has projected an action ("I shall go to the village") dies. ]
[But if the vijnapti does not take place in the absence of the second mover,] how is there vijnapti for a person free from a mind which
53
undertakes the discipline? (Vibhasa, TD 27, p. 586a8).
[One will then have recourse to another explanation. ] The vijnapti is clearer in him who is endowed with the mind, which is at the moment of the vijnapti, the "second mover" mind. Such is the efficacy of this mind.
lla-b. The consciousness to be abandoned through Seeing is solely agent.
The mind which is abandoned through Seeing is alone the agent of the vijnapti, because it is the cause of the mental process {vitarka and vicara) which gives rise to the vijnapti It is not the second mover 1. ) because it no longer exists at the moment when the vijnapti takes place: this latter is put into motion by a thought "turned inward," [to be abandoned through Meditation, which is the second mover;] 2. ) because, to suppose that it is a second mover, it would then follow that the rupa (that is, the vijnapti) created by it would also be abandoned by
? this Seeing; [in the same way that the vijnapti created by a thought abandoned through Mediation is itself to be abandoned through Meditation. ] And this hypothesis is in contradiction to the Abhidharma (i. 40c-d).
In fact, rupa (-vijnapti) is not contradicted either by vidya (correct knowledge), or by avidya (error, ignorance): hence it cannot be
54 abandoned by means of Seeing the Truths.
[The Sautrantikas would answer that this affirmation, "Rupa is not contradiaed by vidya,"] should be proved. For he who maintains the thesis of the abandoning of rtipa through Seeing would not admit that rupa is not contradiaed by vidya.
[The Vaibhasikas say: If the rupa (-vijnapti) which has its origin in a thought to be abandoned through Seeing is, itself also, to be abandoned through Seeing, then the primary elements which serve as a substrate (dsraya) to this rupa, to this vijnapti, will be, themselves also, abandoned through Seeing, for they take their origin from the same thought. But this is inadmissible, for these primary elements belong to the class of undefiled-neutral dharmas, and everything that is to be abandoned through Seeing is defiled (klista, ii. 40c-d). ]
We deny this consequence. In faa, the primary elements in question are not good or bad by reason of the thought which gives rise to them, whereas this is the case for the vijnapti (iv. 9d). Or rather, we admit this consequence; the primary elements in question are abandoned through Seeing.
[The Vaibhasikas repeat that] this is impossible. The primary elements cannot be abandoned through Seeing; they are no longer not-to-be-abandoned. For the undefiled dharma is not contradiaed either by vidya or by avidya.
[In faa, the undefiled dharma, either of the anivrtdvyakrta, undefiled-neutral class, or of the kuScdasdsrava, good-impure class, is not contradiaed by vidya, that is to say through the pure (andsrava) Path, as is the case for the defiled dharma which perishes by the faa that its prdpti is cut off by this said Path. . .
Hence the Sutra quoted above (p. 575, line 32) does not invalidate our thesis: "The thought susceptible of being abandoned through Seeing
ff
does not give rise to vijnapti, for this Sutra refers to false views
Karma yjl
? considered as agent. (Vibfodsd, TD 27, p. 610c22)
llb-c The manas susceptible of being abandoned through
Meditation is twofold
The mental consciousness of the bhavanaheya category is at one and 55
the same time both agent and mover. lid. The five are solely mover.
The five vijndnakdyas, [visual consciousness, etc. ,] are solely mover,
56
[being free from reflexion (vikdpa, i. 33)]
There are thus four cases:
i. The mind susceptible of being abandoned through Seeing is
exclusively agent.
ii. The five sense consciousnesses are exclusively mover.
iii. The mental consciousness susceptible of being abandoned
through Meditation is both promoter and mover.
iv. The pure mind is neither promoter nor mover.
***
Is the "mover" of the same [nature--good, bad, neutral--] as the agent?
There is no rule on this subject:
12a-b. From a good agent, etc. , a mover of three types.
A good, bad, or neutral mover can come from a good agent. The same for a bad or neutral agent.
58 12c With regard to the Muni, mover of the same type.
With regard to the Buddha the Blessed One, the mover is of the same species as the agent: from a good mover, a good mover; from a neutral agent, a neutral mover.
12c Or good
Or rather, it happens that a good mover comes out of a neutral
agent, whereas a neutral mover never comes out of a good agent: the
59 teaching of the Buddhas is not subject to diminutioa
(Vibfodsd, TD 27, p. 6l0a6)
57
? 60
According to other Schools, the mind of the Buddhas is never
neutral: they are always in absorption; their mental series is exclusively a series of good thoughts. This is why the Sutra says, "The Naga is absorbed when he walks, when he stands still, when he dreams, and when he is seated"
The Vaibhasikas say: The Sutra expresses itself in this manner because the mind of the Blessed One does not disperse itself towards objects without his wishing it. [The Blessed One is always absorbed in the sense that memory is always present in him: walking, he knows that he walks. ]But this is not to say that the Blessed One is exempt from neutral dharmas: dharmas of retribution (vipdkaja), dharmas related to attitudes (irydpatha), a mind capable of creating fictive beings (nir- mdnacitta) (ii. 66).
We have seen that the mind susceptible of being abandoned through Meditation is at one and the same time agent and mover, and can be good, bad, or neutral
61 12d That which arises from retribution is neither of the two.
The mind that has arisen from retribution (vipdkaja, i. 36, ii. 60, iv. 85), is produced without effort, spontaneously, [and so is neither agent nor mover. ]
Is the vijnapti good, bad, or neutral, 1. ) according to the character- istics of the agent, or 2. ) according to the characteristic of its mover?
To what does this question lead?
i. First hypothesis. The two wrong views,--personalism, and past- and-future-of-the-personality--are the agent (iv. lla-b); they are of the defiled-neutral class. [If the vijnapti to which they give rise follows their nature, one will then have, in Kamadhatu, a defiled-neutral action: and you regard this consequence as inadmissible (iv. 8b). ]If you maintain your opinion with regard to this point, you must then admit, [contrary to your thesis, (iv. Ua-b)] that all thoughts susceptible of being abandoned through Seeing are not agents: whereas satkayadrsti and the antdgrdhadrsti are not agents, the other wrong views are agents.
Second hypothesis. The vijnapti through which a person under- takes theJPratimoksa discipline will not be good, if this person, while he is receiving the ordination, has a bad or neutral mind
ii. The Vaibhasikas answer. The vijnapti is of the same nature as its
Karma 579
?
