" That is to
The Indriyas 285
says, "The
?
The Indriyas 285
says, "The
?
Abhidharmakosabhasyam-Vol-1-Vasubandhu-Poussin-Pruden-1991
63b) that attracts the moment that immediately follows the aaion: in faa, the retributive cause depends on the development of the series for the realization of its result.
***
To which time period should a dharma belong in order that it might be each of these six causes? We have implicitely stated this rule, but we have not yet taught it in the Karika:
55a-b. Sarvatragahetu and sabhdgahetu are of two time periods; 375
three causes are of three time periods.
A past and present dharma can be sarvatraga and sabhdgahetu (ii. 52b). Past, present, and future dharmas can be samprayuktaka, sahabhu, and vipdkahetu. The Karika does not speak of kdranahetu (ii. 50a)): the conditioned dharmas of the three time periods are
The Indrryas Til
? 278 Chapter Two
karanahetu\ the unconditioned dharmas are outside of time. ***
Which causes correspond to which results? By reason of which results are they recognized as causes?
376 55c-d. Conditioned things and disconneaion are results.
The Mulasastra says, "What dharmas are results? Conditioned
377 things and pratisamkhyanirodha. "
[Objection:] If the unconditioned is a result, it should have a cause, from which cause one could say that it is the result. Furthermore, since you maintain that it is a cause {kdranahetu, ii. 50a), it should have a result, from which result one could say that it is a cause.
Only conditioned things, [the Sarvastivadins answer,] have cause and result.
378 55d. The unconditioned has neither cause nor result.
For we cannot attribute to it any of the six causes, nor any of the five results.
i. 1. Why not admit that the part of the Path which is called
m
anantaryamarga is the kdranahetu of the result of disconneaion
(visamyogaphala, ii. 57d)?
We have seen that kdranahetu is a cause that does not create any
obstacles to arising; but disconneaion, being unconditioned, does not arise. Thus one cannot attribute a kdrannahetu to it.
2. Then how is disconneaion a result? Of what is it the result?
It is the result of the Path, for it is obtained due to the force of the Path (vi. 51): in other words, it is through the Path that an ascetic obtains possession (prdpti, ii. 36c-d) of disconneaion.
3. Hence it is the obtaining or the possession of disconnection which is the result of the Path, and not disconneaion itself: for the Path is efficacious with regard to the obtaining of disconneaion, but not with regard to disconneaion.
Wrong! The efficacy of the Path possesses diversity with regard to
? both obtaining and disconnection.
The Path produces obtaining; the Path causes one to obtain
disconnection. Hence, although the Path is not the cause of disconnec- tion {-prastisarhkhyanirodha)y one can say that it is the result of the
380
Path.
4. Since no unconditioned thing has adhipatiphala (ii. 58d), how
can one define it as karanahetul
Any unconditioned thing is karanahetu, for it does not create an
obstacle to the arising of any dharma', but it does not have any result, for, being outside of time, it can neither project nor produce a result (ii. 59a-b).
[5. The Sautrantikas deny that] an unconditioned thing is a cause. In fact, the Sutra does not say that a cause can be unconditioned; it says that a cause is only conditioned, "All the hetus, all the pratyayas which have for a result the production of physical matter . . . of the
381
consciousiness, are also impermanent. Produced by impermanent
hetus and pratyayas> how can physical matter . . . and consciousness be permanent? "
[The Sarvastivadins answer:] If a permanent thing, that is, an unconditioned thing is not a cause, it will not be "an object as condition" {atambanapratyaya, ii. 63) of the conciousness that it refers to.
[The Sautrantikas:] The Sutra declares that the hetus and the pratyayas which are capable of producing are impermanent. Itcloes not say that all conditions (pratyayas) of the consciousness are imperma- nent. An unconditioned thing could then be "an object as condition" of the consciousness; for "an object as condition" is not itself productive.
[The Sarvastivadins:] The Sutra says that productive causes are impermanent: hence the Sutra does not deny that an unconditioned thing is kdranahetu, that is, "a cause that does not create an obstacle. "
[The Sautrantikas:] The Sutra admits the existence of "an object as a condition" (ii. 61c); but it does not speak of a karanahetu, "a cause that does not create an obstacle. " It is not proven that an uncondi- tioned thing is a cause.
[The Sarvastivadins:] In fact, the Sutra does not say that that
The Indriyas 279
? 280 Chapter Two
which does not create an obstacle is a cause; but it does not contradict this. Many Sfctras have disappeared How can you be sure that some Sutra does not attribute the quality of kdranahetu to unconditioned things?
***
[ii. The Sautrantikas:] What is the dharma that is called visamyoga or disconnection?
[The Sarvastivadins: The Mulasastra (Jndnaprasthdna, TD 26, p. 923b6) says that] disconnection is pratisarhkhyanirodha (ii. 57d).
[The Sautrantikas:] When I asked you (i. 6) what pratisamkhya- nirodha is, you answered, "It is disconnection;" I asked you what disconnection is, and you answered, "It is pratisarhkhyanirodha^ The two answers are circular and do not explain the nature of the dharma, the unconditioned, to which they refer. You owe us another explanation.
[The Sarvastivadins:] This dharma, in its nature, is real, but indescribable; only the Aryans "realize" it internally, each for himself. It is only possible to indicate its general characteristics, by saying that there is a real entity (dravya), distinct from others, which is good and eternal, and which receives the name of pratisarhkhyanirodha, and which is also called disconnection or visamyoga.
***
iii. The Sautrantikas affirm that the three types of unconditioned
things (i. 5b) are not real. The three dharmas that it refers to are not 382
distinct and real entities like color, sensation, etc.
1. What is called "space" (dkdsa) is solely the absence of any
tangible thing, that is, the absence of a resistant body. Persons say, in their obscurity, that there is space when they do not encounter any obstacle.
2. What is called pratisarhkhyanirodha or Nirvana is--when both the defilements already produced and the existence already produced
? are destroyed--the absence of any other defilements or any other
existence, and that by reason of the force of the consciousness 383
(pratisamkhyd-prajnd).
3. When, independent of the force of consciousness (pratisamkhyd)
and by reason of the mere absence of causes there is an absence of arising dharmas, this is what is called apratisamkhyanirodha. For example, when premature death interrupts existence (nikdyasabhdga, ii. 10,14), there is apratisamkhyanirodha of the dharmas which would have arisen in the course of this existence if it had continued
384
4. According to another school, pratisamkhyanirodha is the
future non-arising of the defilements by reason of consciousness (prajnd); apratisamkhyanirodha is the future non-arising of suffering, that is, of existence, by reason of the disappearance of the defilements, and not directly by reason of consciousness. (The first would then be sopadhisesa nirvdnadhdtu, and the second would be nirupadhisesa nirvdanadhdtu).
But, [the Sautrantikas remark,] the future non-arising of suffering supposes consciousness (pratisamkhyd)',it is then included within pratisamkhyanirodha.
***
385
5. Another School defines apratisamkhyanirodha as "later non-
existence of the dharmas which have arisen" by virtue of their 386
spontaneous destruction.
In this hypothesis, apratisamkhyanirodha would not be eternal,
since it is non-existent as long as the dharma as cause (i. e. , the defilement) has not perished.
But does not pratisamkhyanirodha have a certain consciousness, the pratisamkhya, for its antecedent? Consequently it too would not be eternal, for, if its antecedent were absent, its consequence would also be absent.
You cannot say that pratisamkhyanirodha is not eternal because its antecedent is pratisamkhyd: in faa, it does not have pratisamkhyd for its antecedent. One cannot say that pratisamkhyd is earlier, or that the
The Indriyas 281
? 282 Chapter Two
"non-arising of the non-arisen dharmas' is later. Let us explain. Non- arising always exists in and of itself. If pratisamkhyd is absent, the dharmas would arise; but if pratisamkhyd arises, the dharmas would absolutely not arise. The efficacy of pratisamkhyd with regard to their non-arising consists in this: 1) that before pratisamkhyd, there is no obstacle to their arising; 2) but given pratisamkhyd, the dharmas, the arising of which has not been previously hindered, do not arise.
***
[iv. The Sarvastivadins refute the Sautrantikas. ] If Nirvana is simply non-arising {anutpdda), how does one explain the Sutra (Samyuktagama, TD 2, p. 182bl5) which says, "The cultivation of the five faculties,--faith, etc. ,--has for its result the abandoning of past,
387
present, and future suffering"?
other than Nirvana, and there can only be non-arising of a future dharma, not of a past or present dharma.
[1. The Sautrantikas:] This Sutra does not contradict our definition
of Nirvana. In fact, "the abandoning of past and present suffering"
means the abandoning of the defilements bearing past and present
In fact, this abandoning is nothing
suffering. Our interpretation is justified by another text (Samyukta, m
TD 2, p. l9a8? ) which says, "Abandon desire (chandardga ) relative
to rupa, to sensation . . . and to consciousness. When desire is
abandoned, rupa, . . . and consciousness will be abandoned and
389
comprehended by you. "
understand "the abandoning of past and present suffering" of which the Sutra speaks when it speaks of the faculties.
If one adopts another reading of this Sutra on the faculties, to wit, "The cultivation of the faculties . . . has for its result the abandoning of past, present, and future defilements," the explanation is the same.
Or rather, past defilement is the defilement of a previous existence; present defilement is the defilement of the present exis- tence; these do not refer to the defilement of a given past or present moment. The same for the eighteen trsnavicaritas (Anguttara, ii. 212) or "modes of thirst": the modes (vicaritas) that are related to a past
It is in this manner that we should
? existence are called past modes, those that are related to a present existence are called present modes, and those that are related to a future existence are called future modes.
Past defilements and present defilements place in the present series seeds that bring forth the arising of future defilement: when these seeds are abandoned, past and present defilement is abandoned: in the same way as one says that an action is exhausted when its retribution is exhausted.
The "abandoning" of future suffering and future defilement is the fact that they absolutely do not arise, given the absence of seeds.
How does one otherwise understand the abandoning of past or present suffering? There is no good reason to make an effort to destroy that which has perished or that which is perishing.
[2. The Sarvastivadins:] If unconditioned things do not exist, how
can the Sutra say "Detachment (viraga) is the best of all conditioned
be the best among the dharmas which do not exist? ?
[The Sautrantikas:] We do not say that unconditioned things do not exist. They exist in fact in the manner in which we say that they exist. Let us explain. Before sound is produced, we say "There is non-existence (of sound) prior to the sound;" after the sound has perished, we say "There is non-existence (of sound) after the sound,"
391
and unconditioned dharmas? " How can a dharma which does not exist 39
and yet it had not been proven that non-existence exists: holds for unconditioned things.
the same
Although it is non-existent, one unconditioned thing merits being praised, namely detachement (viraga), the absolute future non- existence of any wrong. This non-existent thing is the most distin- guished of all non-existent things. The Sutra praises it by saying that it
is the best, so that believers shall conceive joy and affection with regard to it.
[3. The Sarvastivadins:] If pratisarhkhyanirodha or Nirvana is non-existent, how can it be one of the Truths. How can it be the Third Noble Truth?
What should we understand by "Noble Truth" or arayasatya? Without doubt the sense of satya (Truth) is "not incorrect. " The
The Indriyas 283
? 284 Chapter Two
Aryans see that which exists and that which does not exist in a not incorrect manner: in that which is suffering, they see only suffering, and in the non-existence of suffering, they see the non-existence of suffering. What contradiction do you find between the non-existence of suffering and pratisamkhydnirodha being a Truth?
And this non-existence is the Third Truth, because the Aryans see it and proclaim it immediately after the Second Truth.
[4. The Sarvastivadins:] But if unconditioned things are non- existent, the consciousness that has space and the two extinctions for Its object would have a non-thing for its object.
We do not see any inconvenience in this, as we shall explain in the discussion on the past and future (v. 25).
[5. The Sarvastivadins:] What harm do you see in maintaining that unconditioned things really exist? What advantage do you see in this?
This advantage that the Vaibhasika doctrine is found to be safegarded.
May the gods be charged with defending this doctrine, if they judge that it is possible! But to maintain the existence of unconditioned things in and of themselves is to affirm a non-existent thing to be real. In fact, unconditioned things are not known through direct perception (pratyaksa), as is the case for physical matter, sensation, etc. ; and they are not known through inference (anumdna), by reason of their activity, as is the case for the sense organs.
6. Furthermore, if nirodha or extinction is a thing in and of itself, how do you justify the genitive, duhkhasya nirodhah, "the extinaion of suffering," as the extinction of the defilement, or the extinaion of the object of defilement? In our system,, the extinction of a thing is simply the non-existence of this thing. "Extinaion of suffering" means that "suffering will not exist any more. " But we cannot conceive of any cause and effea relationship, of any effect and cause relationship, of a relationship of the whole to the part, etc. , between the things, that is to say, the defilements, and its extinction conceived of as an entity in itself, which would justify the genitive.
We affirm, [answer the Sarvastivadins,] that extinaion is a thing in and 6f itself. Yet we can specify extinaion as being in a relationship
? with such things (extinction of lust, etc. ), for one takes possession (prapti, ii. 37b) of extinction at the moment when one cuts off the possession of a certain thing.
But, we would answer, what is it that determines or specifies the
392 taking of possession of extinction?
[7. The Sarvastivadins:] The Sutra speaks of the Bhiksu who has
393
obtained Nirvana in this life. If Nirvana is non-existence, how could
he obtain it?
[The Sautrantikas:] The Bhiksu, through the possession of the
adverse force of the antidote, that is, through the possession of the Path, has obtained a personality (asraya) contrary to the defilements, and contrary to a new existence. This is why the Sutra says that he has obtained Nirvana.
8. Moreover we have a text that shows that Nirvana is pure
394
non-existence. The Sutra {Samyukta, TD 2, p. 88a7)
complete abandoning, the purification, the exhausting, the detach- ment, the extinction, the abatement, the definitive passing away of this suffering; and the non-rebirth, the non-grasping, the non-appearance of another suffering--this is calm, this is excellent, namely the rejection of all upadhi, the exhausting of thirst, detachment, extinction, Nirvana/'
[The Sarvastivadins:] When the Sutra says that Nirvana is the
non-appearance of a new suffering, the Sutra means that there is no
395 appearance of suffering in Nirvana.
[The Sautrantikas:] I do not see that the locative "in Nirvana" has
any force to establish that Nirvana is a thing. In what sense do you
understand the locative asmin? If this means asmin sati, "if Nirvana
exists, there is no appearance of suffering," then suffering would never
appear, since Nirvana is eternal. If this means asmin prapta, "if
Nirvana has been obtained," you would have to admit that future
suffering will not appear while the Path--by virtue of which you
suppose that Nirvana is obtained--either is, or rather has been
396 obtained.
9. Consequently the comparison of the Sutra is excellent, "The
397 deliverance of his mind is like the Nirvana of a flame.
" That is to
The Indriyas 285
says, "The
? 286 Chapter Two
say, as the extinction of a flame is only the "passing away" of the flame and not a certain thing in and of itself, so too is the deliverance of the mind of the Blessed One.
[10. The Sautrantikas] are still warranted by the authority of the
Abhidharma wherein we read, "What are the avastuka dharmas} They 398
are the unconditioned things. " The term avastuka signifies "unreal," "without self-nature. "
[The Vaibhasikas do not accept this interpretation. ] The term
vastu, in fact, is used in five different meanings: 1. vastu in the sense of
a thing in and of itself, for example, "When one has obtained this
vastu (asubhd, vi. ll), one is in possession of the vastu* (Jndnapras-
thdna, TD 26, p. 1026cll; Vibhdsd, TD 27, p. 985a22); 2. vastu in the
sense of any object of consciousness, for example "All the dharmas are
known through different knowledges, each knowing its own object"
(Prakarana, TD 26, p. 713c20); 3. vastu in the sense of "bond of
attachment," for example, "Is the person who is bound to a vastu
through the bond of affection, bound to this same vastu through the
bond of hostility? " (Vibhdsd, TD 27, p. 298b-c); 4. vastu in the sense of
cause, for example, "What are the dharmas possessing a cause? The 3
conditioned dharmas* (Prakarana, TD 26, p. 716a4); " 5. vastu in the
sense of "act of appropriating to oneself, for example, "vastu of fields,
vastu of a house, vastu of a shop, vastu of riches: abandoning the act of
appropriating these to himself, he renounces them" (Vibhdsd, TD 27, 400
p. 288b5).
The Vaibhasikas conclude: In the passage that concerns us, vastu
has the meaning of cause; avastuka signifies "that which has no cause. " Unconditioned things, although real, always lack activity, have no cause which produces them, and produce no effects.
***
We must explain what type of result proceeds from each type of cause.
56a. Retribution is the result of the last cause.
? The last cause is the retributive cause, vipdkahetu, because the retributive cause is named last in this list. The first result, vipdkaphala (iii. 57), is the result of this cause.
402 56b. The predominating result is the result of the first.
The first cause is kdranahetu or reason for being; the last result proceeds from it.
This result is called adhipaja, arisen from predominence, or adhipata, belonging to predominance, because it is the result of the predominating cause (adhipatiphala, ii. 58c-d). The kdranahetu is considered as playing the role of a master (adhipati).
But, we say, the quality of not creating an obstacle (andvarana- bhdvamdtravasthdna, ii. 50a) suffices to constitute kdranahetu. How can one regard it as a "predominating cause? "
Kdranahetu is either a "non-efficacious cause" and one then
regards it as predominant because it creates no obstacle; or an
"efficacious cause," and one then regards it as predominant because it
possesses mastery, a predominating and generating aaivity. For
example, the ten ayatanas (form and the organ of sight, etc. ) are
predominant with regard to the five sense consciousnesses; the
collective action of living beings is predominant with regard to the
403
physical world. The organ of hearing exercises an indirect pre-
dominence (ddhipatya) with regard to the visual consciousness, for, after having understood, a person experiences the desire to see. And thus following. (See ii. 50a).
56c-d. Outflowing is the result of the similar cause and the universal cause.
An outflowing result (nisyandaphala) proceeds from sabhagahetu (ii. 52) and from sarvatragahetu (ii. 54): for the result of these two causes is similar to its causes (ii. 57c; iv. 85).
56d. The paurusa or virile result, is the result of two causes. The result of sabhagahetu (ii. 59) and samprayuktakahetu (ii. 53c) is
The Indriyas 287
? 288 Chapter Two
called praurusa or virile, that is, the result of purusakara or virile aaivity.
Purusakara or virile activity is not distinct from the person himself, for actioiHs not distinct from him who accomplished the action. The result of virile activity (purusakdraphala) can thus be termed the virile (paurusa) result.
What do we understand by 'Virile activity? "
The activity of a dharma is termed its virile activity (purusakara), because it is similar to the aaivity of a person {purusakara). In the same way, in the world, a certain plant is called kdkajangha, because it resembles the foot of a crow; heros are called mattahastin, because they resemble an enraged elephant.
Are sarhprayuktahetu and sahabhilhetu the only causes that result in virile aaivity?
According to one opinion, all other causes have this type of result, with the exception of retributive causes (vipakahetu). This result is, in fact, either simultaneous to, or immediately following its cause; but such is not the case with a retributive result.
404
According to other Masters, a retributive cause also distantly
results in virile activity, for example the fruits reaped by a laborer. (Hence a dharma is 1) nisyandaphala, because it arises similar to its cause, 2) purusakdraphala, because it arises through the force of its
cause, and 3) adhipatiphala, because it arises by reason of the "non- obstacle" of its cause. )
***
What are the charaaeristics of the different results? 57a. Retribution is a neutral dharma.
Retribution (vipdka) is an undefiled, neutral (anivrtdvydkrta) dharma.
Among the undefiled, neutral dharmas, some belong to living beings, while others do not belong to living beings. Consequently the author specifies
? 57b. Belonging to living beings.
that is, they arise in the series of living beings.
Some of those dharmas belonging to living beings are said to be of
accumulation (aupacayika, having come from food, etc. , i. 37) and some are said to be of an outflowing (naisyandika, coming from a cause which is similar to them, i. 37, ii. 57c). Consequently the author specifies
57c. They arise later than a non-neutral dharma.
A non-neutral action is called this because it produces retribution; non-neutral actions are bad actions and good-impure (kusalasdsrava, ii. 54c-d) actions. From actions of this nature there arises later,--not at the same time, and not immediately afterwards,--the result that one terms "retributive result" or "matured result" (vipakaphala).
Why not consider the dharmas that do not form part of living beings,--mountains, rivers, etc. ,--as retributive results? Do they not arise from good or bad actions?
The dharmas that do not form part of living beings are, by nature, common in that everyone may partake of them. Now retributive results, by definition, are unique: another person never experiences the retributive results of actions that I accomplish. Action produces a "predominating result" (adhipaUphala) in addition to a retributive result: all beings experience this result in common, because the collectivity of their actions cooperate in their creation (see above, note 403).
405 57d. A result that resembles its cause is called outflowing.
A dharma resembling its cause is an outflowing result (nisyanda- phala). Two causes, the similar cause and the universal cause
(sabhagahetUy ii. 52, and sarvatragahetu, ii. 54a-b) produce an out- flowing result.
If the result of the universal cause is an outflowing result, a result similar to its cause, why not give the universal cause the name of similar cause?
A result of a universal cause is always similar to its cause 1) from
The Indriyas 289
? 290 Chapter Two
the point of view of the stage: like it, it belongs to Kamadhatu, etc. ; and 2) from the point of view of its moral character: like it, it is defiled. But it can belong to a different category than the category of its
cause. "Category" means the method of abandoning: it is susceptible of being abandoned by Seeing the Truth of Suffering, etc. (ii. 52b). When there is a similarity between a cause and its result from this last point of view, the universal cause is at one and the same time a similar cause.
Four alternative cases present themselves:
1. A similar cause which is not a universal cause: for example, a non-universal defilement (rdga, etc. ) related to the defilements of their own category;
2. A universal cause which is not a similar cause: the universal defilements related to a defilement of another category;
3. A universal cause which is also a similar cause: the universal defilements related to a defilement of their own category;
4. All other dharmas are neither similar causes nor universal 406
causes.
57e. Extinction through intelligence is disconnection.
Disconnection (visamyoga) or visamyogaphala, "result that con- sists of disconnection" is extinction (ksaya-nirodhd) obtained by the speculative consciousness (dht=prajnd). Visamyogaphala is hence
pratisamkhyanirodha. (See above p. 280).
58a-b. A dharma is the result of the virile activity of the
dharma through the force by which it arises.
This refers to a conditioned dharma.
Examples: the absorption of the First Dhyana is the result of the virile activity of a mind in Kamadhatu which instigates it or prepares it; the absorption of the Second Dhyana is the result of the virile activity of a mind in the First Dhyana.
A pure dharma can be the result of the virile activity of an impure dharma (the laukikdgradhannas have duhkhe dharmajndnakfdnti for their result, vi. 25c-d).
? A mind that can create fictive beings (nirmdnacitta) is the result of 407
the virile activity of a mind in a Dhyana (vii. 48). And thus following. Pratisamkhyanirodha or Nirvana is considered to be a "result of virile activity;" now the definition given inKarika 58a-b does not apply
to nirodha which, being eternal, does not arise. We say then that it is the result of the virile activity of the dharma by the force of which one obtains possession of it.
58c-d. Any conditioned dharma is the predominating result {adhipatiphala) of conditioned dharmas, with the exception of
408 the dharmas that are later than it.
What difference is there between the result of virile activity and a predominating result?
The first refers to the agent; the second refers to both the agent and the non-agent. For example, a created thing is the result of the virile activity and the predominating result of the artisan who created it; it is only the predominating result of what is not the artisan.
***
In what condition {avastha)--the past, present, or future--is each of the causes {hetu) found when they grasp and when they produce their result?
[59. Five causes grasp their results in the present; two produce
it in the present; two produce it in both past and present; and
409 one produces it in the past.
What is understood by "grasping a result" and "producing a
410 result? "
411
A dharma produces a result at the moment when it gives this result the power of arising, that is, at the moment when, the future result being turned towards arising or is ready to arise, this dharma gives it the power that causes it to enter into the present. ]
A dharma grasps a result when it become its seed
The lndiiyas 291
? 292 Chapter Two
59a-b. Five causes grasp their result in the present.
Five causes grasp their results only when they are in the present: in the past, they have already grasped their results; in the future, they have no activity (v. 25).
The same holds for karanahetu\ but the stanza does not mention it, because kdranahetu does not necessarily have a result.
59b. Two produce their result in the present.
The mutually coexistent cause (sahabhu) and the associated cause (samprayuktaka) produce their results only when they are in the present: these two causes in fact grasp and produce their results at the same time.
59c. Two produce their results in both the past and the present.
The similar cause (sabhdga) and the universal cause (sarvatraga) produce their results both when they are in the present and when they are in the past.
How can they produce their outflowing results (nisj/anda, ii. 56c) when they are in the present? We have seen (ii. 52b, 54a) that they are earlier than their results.
One says that they produce their results in the present, because
they produce them immediately. When their result has arisen, they are
past: they have already produced it; they do not produce the same
412 result twice.
***
i. It happens that, at a given moment, a good similar cause {sabhagahetu) grasps a result but does not produce a result. Four alternatives: to grasp, to produce, to grasp and to produce, and to
413 neither grasp nor to produce.
1. The possession of the roots of good that the person who has cut
off the roots of good (iv. 80a) abandons at the last moment, grasps a
414 result, but does not produce a result.
? 2. The possession of the roots of good that the person who again
takes up the roots of good (iv. 80c) acquires in the first moment,
produces a result, but does not grasp a result.
415
We must say: This same possession,--the possession abandoned
at the last moment by the person who has cut off the roots of good,-- produces its result, but does not grasp it at the moment when this person again takes up the roots of good.
3. The possession of the person whose roots of good are not cut off--with the exception of the two proceeding cases: that of the person who has achieved cutting them off, and that of the person who again takes up the roots of good--both grasp and produce.
4. In all other cases, possession neither grasps nor produces: for example, the possession of the roots of good of a person whose roots of good are cut off; the possession of the roots of good of a superior stage by a person who has fallen from this stage: these possessions have already grasped their result, and hence do not grasp it any more; they do not produce it, since the person cannot have possession of these roots at the present time.
ii. The Vibhasa establishes the same alternatives with respect to bad similar causes:
1. The possession of the bad dharmas that a person who obtains detachment from desire abandons at the last moment.
2. The possession that a person who fell from detachment acquires in the first moment.
We must say: These same possessions, when a person falls from detachment.
3. The possession of a person who is not detached, with the exception of the two preceding cases.
4. Possession in all other cases: for example the possession of a person detached and not subject to falling.
iii. There are also four alternatives regarding defiled-neutral similar causes:
1. The last possession of defiled-neutral dharmas that the saint who becomes an Arhat abandons.
2. The first possession that a fallen Arhat acquires.
The Indriyas 293
? 294 Chapter Two
Or better: the aforementioned possession of an Arhat who has fallen.
3. The possession of a non-detached person in Bhavagra, the two preceding cases being excluded.
4. Possession in all other cases: the possession of an Arhat.
iv. When an undefiled-neutral similar cause produces its result, it grasps it (for the undefiled-neutral lasts until Nirvana), but it can grasp its result without producing it: for example, in the case of the
last skandhas of an Arhat which have no outflowing (nisyanda).
v. We have up to now considered the dharmas that are not "subject to consciousness" (salambana).
***
To which time period should a dharma belong in order that it might be each of these six causes? We have implicitely stated this rule, but we have not yet taught it in the Karika:
55a-b. Sarvatragahetu and sabhdgahetu are of two time periods; 375
three causes are of three time periods.
A past and present dharma can be sarvatraga and sabhdgahetu (ii. 52b). Past, present, and future dharmas can be samprayuktaka, sahabhu, and vipdkahetu. The Karika does not speak of kdranahetu (ii. 50a)): the conditioned dharmas of the three time periods are
The Indrryas Til
? 278 Chapter Two
karanahetu\ the unconditioned dharmas are outside of time. ***
Which causes correspond to which results? By reason of which results are they recognized as causes?
376 55c-d. Conditioned things and disconneaion are results.
The Mulasastra says, "What dharmas are results? Conditioned
377 things and pratisamkhyanirodha. "
[Objection:] If the unconditioned is a result, it should have a cause, from which cause one could say that it is the result. Furthermore, since you maintain that it is a cause {kdranahetu, ii. 50a), it should have a result, from which result one could say that it is a cause.
Only conditioned things, [the Sarvastivadins answer,] have cause and result.
378 55d. The unconditioned has neither cause nor result.
For we cannot attribute to it any of the six causes, nor any of the five results.
i. 1. Why not admit that the part of the Path which is called
m
anantaryamarga is the kdranahetu of the result of disconneaion
(visamyogaphala, ii. 57d)?
We have seen that kdranahetu is a cause that does not create any
obstacles to arising; but disconneaion, being unconditioned, does not arise. Thus one cannot attribute a kdrannahetu to it.
2. Then how is disconneaion a result? Of what is it the result?
It is the result of the Path, for it is obtained due to the force of the Path (vi. 51): in other words, it is through the Path that an ascetic obtains possession (prdpti, ii. 36c-d) of disconneaion.
3. Hence it is the obtaining or the possession of disconnection which is the result of the Path, and not disconneaion itself: for the Path is efficacious with regard to the obtaining of disconneaion, but not with regard to disconneaion.
Wrong! The efficacy of the Path possesses diversity with regard to
? both obtaining and disconnection.
The Path produces obtaining; the Path causes one to obtain
disconnection. Hence, although the Path is not the cause of disconnec- tion {-prastisarhkhyanirodha)y one can say that it is the result of the
380
Path.
4. Since no unconditioned thing has adhipatiphala (ii. 58d), how
can one define it as karanahetul
Any unconditioned thing is karanahetu, for it does not create an
obstacle to the arising of any dharma', but it does not have any result, for, being outside of time, it can neither project nor produce a result (ii. 59a-b).
[5. The Sautrantikas deny that] an unconditioned thing is a cause. In fact, the Sutra does not say that a cause can be unconditioned; it says that a cause is only conditioned, "All the hetus, all the pratyayas which have for a result the production of physical matter . . . of the
381
consciousiness, are also impermanent. Produced by impermanent
hetus and pratyayas> how can physical matter . . . and consciousness be permanent? "
[The Sarvastivadins answer:] If a permanent thing, that is, an unconditioned thing is not a cause, it will not be "an object as condition" {atambanapratyaya, ii. 63) of the conciousness that it refers to.
[The Sautrantikas:] The Sutra declares that the hetus and the pratyayas which are capable of producing are impermanent. Itcloes not say that all conditions (pratyayas) of the consciousness are imperma- nent. An unconditioned thing could then be "an object as condition" of the consciousness; for "an object as condition" is not itself productive.
[The Sarvastivadins:] The Sutra says that productive causes are impermanent: hence the Sutra does not deny that an unconditioned thing is kdranahetu, that is, "a cause that does not create an obstacle. "
[The Sautrantikas:] The Sutra admits the existence of "an object as a condition" (ii. 61c); but it does not speak of a karanahetu, "a cause that does not create an obstacle. " It is not proven that an uncondi- tioned thing is a cause.
[The Sarvastivadins:] In fact, the Sutra does not say that that
The Indriyas 279
? 280 Chapter Two
which does not create an obstacle is a cause; but it does not contradict this. Many Sfctras have disappeared How can you be sure that some Sutra does not attribute the quality of kdranahetu to unconditioned things?
***
[ii. The Sautrantikas:] What is the dharma that is called visamyoga or disconnection?
[The Sarvastivadins: The Mulasastra (Jndnaprasthdna, TD 26, p. 923b6) says that] disconnection is pratisarhkhyanirodha (ii. 57d).
[The Sautrantikas:] When I asked you (i. 6) what pratisamkhya- nirodha is, you answered, "It is disconnection;" I asked you what disconnection is, and you answered, "It is pratisarhkhyanirodha^ The two answers are circular and do not explain the nature of the dharma, the unconditioned, to which they refer. You owe us another explanation.
[The Sarvastivadins:] This dharma, in its nature, is real, but indescribable; only the Aryans "realize" it internally, each for himself. It is only possible to indicate its general characteristics, by saying that there is a real entity (dravya), distinct from others, which is good and eternal, and which receives the name of pratisarhkhyanirodha, and which is also called disconnection or visamyoga.
***
iii. The Sautrantikas affirm that the three types of unconditioned
things (i. 5b) are not real. The three dharmas that it refers to are not 382
distinct and real entities like color, sensation, etc.
1. What is called "space" (dkdsa) is solely the absence of any
tangible thing, that is, the absence of a resistant body. Persons say, in their obscurity, that there is space when they do not encounter any obstacle.
2. What is called pratisarhkhyanirodha or Nirvana is--when both the defilements already produced and the existence already produced
? are destroyed--the absence of any other defilements or any other
existence, and that by reason of the force of the consciousness 383
(pratisamkhyd-prajnd).
3. When, independent of the force of consciousness (pratisamkhyd)
and by reason of the mere absence of causes there is an absence of arising dharmas, this is what is called apratisamkhyanirodha. For example, when premature death interrupts existence (nikdyasabhdga, ii. 10,14), there is apratisamkhyanirodha of the dharmas which would have arisen in the course of this existence if it had continued
384
4. According to another school, pratisamkhyanirodha is the
future non-arising of the defilements by reason of consciousness (prajnd); apratisamkhyanirodha is the future non-arising of suffering, that is, of existence, by reason of the disappearance of the defilements, and not directly by reason of consciousness. (The first would then be sopadhisesa nirvdnadhdtu, and the second would be nirupadhisesa nirvdanadhdtu).
But, [the Sautrantikas remark,] the future non-arising of suffering supposes consciousness (pratisamkhyd)',it is then included within pratisamkhyanirodha.
***
385
5. Another School defines apratisamkhyanirodha as "later non-
existence of the dharmas which have arisen" by virtue of their 386
spontaneous destruction.
In this hypothesis, apratisamkhyanirodha would not be eternal,
since it is non-existent as long as the dharma as cause (i. e. , the defilement) has not perished.
But does not pratisamkhyanirodha have a certain consciousness, the pratisamkhya, for its antecedent? Consequently it too would not be eternal, for, if its antecedent were absent, its consequence would also be absent.
You cannot say that pratisamkhyanirodha is not eternal because its antecedent is pratisamkhyd: in faa, it does not have pratisamkhyd for its antecedent. One cannot say that pratisamkhyd is earlier, or that the
The Indriyas 281
? 282 Chapter Two
"non-arising of the non-arisen dharmas' is later. Let us explain. Non- arising always exists in and of itself. If pratisamkhyd is absent, the dharmas would arise; but if pratisamkhyd arises, the dharmas would absolutely not arise. The efficacy of pratisamkhyd with regard to their non-arising consists in this: 1) that before pratisamkhyd, there is no obstacle to their arising; 2) but given pratisamkhyd, the dharmas, the arising of which has not been previously hindered, do not arise.
***
[iv. The Sarvastivadins refute the Sautrantikas. ] If Nirvana is simply non-arising {anutpdda), how does one explain the Sutra (Samyuktagama, TD 2, p. 182bl5) which says, "The cultivation of the five faculties,--faith, etc. ,--has for its result the abandoning of past,
387
present, and future suffering"?
other than Nirvana, and there can only be non-arising of a future dharma, not of a past or present dharma.
[1. The Sautrantikas:] This Sutra does not contradict our definition
of Nirvana. In fact, "the abandoning of past and present suffering"
means the abandoning of the defilements bearing past and present
In fact, this abandoning is nothing
suffering. Our interpretation is justified by another text (Samyukta, m
TD 2, p. l9a8? ) which says, "Abandon desire (chandardga ) relative
to rupa, to sensation . . . and to consciousness. When desire is
abandoned, rupa, . . . and consciousness will be abandoned and
389
comprehended by you. "
understand "the abandoning of past and present suffering" of which the Sutra speaks when it speaks of the faculties.
If one adopts another reading of this Sutra on the faculties, to wit, "The cultivation of the faculties . . . has for its result the abandoning of past, present, and future defilements," the explanation is the same.
Or rather, past defilement is the defilement of a previous existence; present defilement is the defilement of the present exis- tence; these do not refer to the defilement of a given past or present moment. The same for the eighteen trsnavicaritas (Anguttara, ii. 212) or "modes of thirst": the modes (vicaritas) that are related to a past
It is in this manner that we should
? existence are called past modes, those that are related to a present existence are called present modes, and those that are related to a future existence are called future modes.
Past defilements and present defilements place in the present series seeds that bring forth the arising of future defilement: when these seeds are abandoned, past and present defilement is abandoned: in the same way as one says that an action is exhausted when its retribution is exhausted.
The "abandoning" of future suffering and future defilement is the fact that they absolutely do not arise, given the absence of seeds.
How does one otherwise understand the abandoning of past or present suffering? There is no good reason to make an effort to destroy that which has perished or that which is perishing.
[2. The Sarvastivadins:] If unconditioned things do not exist, how
can the Sutra say "Detachment (viraga) is the best of all conditioned
be the best among the dharmas which do not exist? ?
[The Sautrantikas:] We do not say that unconditioned things do not exist. They exist in fact in the manner in which we say that they exist. Let us explain. Before sound is produced, we say "There is non-existence (of sound) prior to the sound;" after the sound has perished, we say "There is non-existence (of sound) after the sound,"
391
and unconditioned dharmas? " How can a dharma which does not exist 39
and yet it had not been proven that non-existence exists: holds for unconditioned things.
the same
Although it is non-existent, one unconditioned thing merits being praised, namely detachement (viraga), the absolute future non- existence of any wrong. This non-existent thing is the most distin- guished of all non-existent things. The Sutra praises it by saying that it
is the best, so that believers shall conceive joy and affection with regard to it.
[3. The Sarvastivadins:] If pratisarhkhyanirodha or Nirvana is non-existent, how can it be one of the Truths. How can it be the Third Noble Truth?
What should we understand by "Noble Truth" or arayasatya? Without doubt the sense of satya (Truth) is "not incorrect. " The
The Indriyas 283
? 284 Chapter Two
Aryans see that which exists and that which does not exist in a not incorrect manner: in that which is suffering, they see only suffering, and in the non-existence of suffering, they see the non-existence of suffering. What contradiction do you find between the non-existence of suffering and pratisamkhydnirodha being a Truth?
And this non-existence is the Third Truth, because the Aryans see it and proclaim it immediately after the Second Truth.
[4. The Sarvastivadins:] But if unconditioned things are non- existent, the consciousness that has space and the two extinctions for Its object would have a non-thing for its object.
We do not see any inconvenience in this, as we shall explain in the discussion on the past and future (v. 25).
[5. The Sarvastivadins:] What harm do you see in maintaining that unconditioned things really exist? What advantage do you see in this?
This advantage that the Vaibhasika doctrine is found to be safegarded.
May the gods be charged with defending this doctrine, if they judge that it is possible! But to maintain the existence of unconditioned things in and of themselves is to affirm a non-existent thing to be real. In fact, unconditioned things are not known through direct perception (pratyaksa), as is the case for physical matter, sensation, etc. ; and they are not known through inference (anumdna), by reason of their activity, as is the case for the sense organs.
6. Furthermore, if nirodha or extinction is a thing in and of itself, how do you justify the genitive, duhkhasya nirodhah, "the extinaion of suffering," as the extinction of the defilement, or the extinaion of the object of defilement? In our system,, the extinction of a thing is simply the non-existence of this thing. "Extinaion of suffering" means that "suffering will not exist any more. " But we cannot conceive of any cause and effea relationship, of any effect and cause relationship, of a relationship of the whole to the part, etc. , between the things, that is to say, the defilements, and its extinction conceived of as an entity in itself, which would justify the genitive.
We affirm, [answer the Sarvastivadins,] that extinaion is a thing in and 6f itself. Yet we can specify extinaion as being in a relationship
? with such things (extinction of lust, etc. ), for one takes possession (prapti, ii. 37b) of extinction at the moment when one cuts off the possession of a certain thing.
But, we would answer, what is it that determines or specifies the
392 taking of possession of extinction?
[7. The Sarvastivadins:] The Sutra speaks of the Bhiksu who has
393
obtained Nirvana in this life. If Nirvana is non-existence, how could
he obtain it?
[The Sautrantikas:] The Bhiksu, through the possession of the
adverse force of the antidote, that is, through the possession of the Path, has obtained a personality (asraya) contrary to the defilements, and contrary to a new existence. This is why the Sutra says that he has obtained Nirvana.
8. Moreover we have a text that shows that Nirvana is pure
394
non-existence. The Sutra {Samyukta, TD 2, p. 88a7)
complete abandoning, the purification, the exhausting, the detach- ment, the extinction, the abatement, the definitive passing away of this suffering; and the non-rebirth, the non-grasping, the non-appearance of another suffering--this is calm, this is excellent, namely the rejection of all upadhi, the exhausting of thirst, detachment, extinction, Nirvana/'
[The Sarvastivadins:] When the Sutra says that Nirvana is the
non-appearance of a new suffering, the Sutra means that there is no
395 appearance of suffering in Nirvana.
[The Sautrantikas:] I do not see that the locative "in Nirvana" has
any force to establish that Nirvana is a thing. In what sense do you
understand the locative asmin? If this means asmin sati, "if Nirvana
exists, there is no appearance of suffering," then suffering would never
appear, since Nirvana is eternal. If this means asmin prapta, "if
Nirvana has been obtained," you would have to admit that future
suffering will not appear while the Path--by virtue of which you
suppose that Nirvana is obtained--either is, or rather has been
396 obtained.
9. Consequently the comparison of the Sutra is excellent, "The
397 deliverance of his mind is like the Nirvana of a flame.
" That is to
The Indriyas 285
says, "The
? 286 Chapter Two
say, as the extinction of a flame is only the "passing away" of the flame and not a certain thing in and of itself, so too is the deliverance of the mind of the Blessed One.
[10. The Sautrantikas] are still warranted by the authority of the
Abhidharma wherein we read, "What are the avastuka dharmas} They 398
are the unconditioned things. " The term avastuka signifies "unreal," "without self-nature. "
[The Vaibhasikas do not accept this interpretation. ] The term
vastu, in fact, is used in five different meanings: 1. vastu in the sense of
a thing in and of itself, for example, "When one has obtained this
vastu (asubhd, vi. ll), one is in possession of the vastu* (Jndnapras-
thdna, TD 26, p. 1026cll; Vibhdsd, TD 27, p. 985a22); 2. vastu in the
sense of any object of consciousness, for example "All the dharmas are
known through different knowledges, each knowing its own object"
(Prakarana, TD 26, p. 713c20); 3. vastu in the sense of "bond of
attachment," for example, "Is the person who is bound to a vastu
through the bond of affection, bound to this same vastu through the
bond of hostility? " (Vibhdsd, TD 27, p. 298b-c); 4. vastu in the sense of
cause, for example, "What are the dharmas possessing a cause? The 3
conditioned dharmas* (Prakarana, TD 26, p. 716a4); " 5. vastu in the
sense of "act of appropriating to oneself, for example, "vastu of fields,
vastu of a house, vastu of a shop, vastu of riches: abandoning the act of
appropriating these to himself, he renounces them" (Vibhdsd, TD 27, 400
p. 288b5).
The Vaibhasikas conclude: In the passage that concerns us, vastu
has the meaning of cause; avastuka signifies "that which has no cause. " Unconditioned things, although real, always lack activity, have no cause which produces them, and produce no effects.
***
We must explain what type of result proceeds from each type of cause.
56a. Retribution is the result of the last cause.
? The last cause is the retributive cause, vipdkahetu, because the retributive cause is named last in this list. The first result, vipdkaphala (iii. 57), is the result of this cause.
402 56b. The predominating result is the result of the first.
The first cause is kdranahetu or reason for being; the last result proceeds from it.
This result is called adhipaja, arisen from predominence, or adhipata, belonging to predominance, because it is the result of the predominating cause (adhipatiphala, ii. 58c-d). The kdranahetu is considered as playing the role of a master (adhipati).
But, we say, the quality of not creating an obstacle (andvarana- bhdvamdtravasthdna, ii. 50a) suffices to constitute kdranahetu. How can one regard it as a "predominating cause? "
Kdranahetu is either a "non-efficacious cause" and one then
regards it as predominant because it creates no obstacle; or an
"efficacious cause," and one then regards it as predominant because it
possesses mastery, a predominating and generating aaivity. For
example, the ten ayatanas (form and the organ of sight, etc. ) are
predominant with regard to the five sense consciousnesses; the
collective action of living beings is predominant with regard to the
403
physical world. The organ of hearing exercises an indirect pre-
dominence (ddhipatya) with regard to the visual consciousness, for, after having understood, a person experiences the desire to see. And thus following. (See ii. 50a).
56c-d. Outflowing is the result of the similar cause and the universal cause.
An outflowing result (nisyandaphala) proceeds from sabhagahetu (ii. 52) and from sarvatragahetu (ii. 54): for the result of these two causes is similar to its causes (ii. 57c; iv. 85).
56d. The paurusa or virile result, is the result of two causes. The result of sabhagahetu (ii. 59) and samprayuktakahetu (ii. 53c) is
The Indriyas 287
? 288 Chapter Two
called praurusa or virile, that is, the result of purusakara or virile aaivity.
Purusakara or virile activity is not distinct from the person himself, for actioiHs not distinct from him who accomplished the action. The result of virile activity (purusakdraphala) can thus be termed the virile (paurusa) result.
What do we understand by 'Virile activity? "
The activity of a dharma is termed its virile activity (purusakara), because it is similar to the aaivity of a person {purusakara). In the same way, in the world, a certain plant is called kdkajangha, because it resembles the foot of a crow; heros are called mattahastin, because they resemble an enraged elephant.
Are sarhprayuktahetu and sahabhilhetu the only causes that result in virile aaivity?
According to one opinion, all other causes have this type of result, with the exception of retributive causes (vipakahetu). This result is, in fact, either simultaneous to, or immediately following its cause; but such is not the case with a retributive result.
404
According to other Masters, a retributive cause also distantly
results in virile activity, for example the fruits reaped by a laborer. (Hence a dharma is 1) nisyandaphala, because it arises similar to its cause, 2) purusakdraphala, because it arises through the force of its
cause, and 3) adhipatiphala, because it arises by reason of the "non- obstacle" of its cause. )
***
What are the charaaeristics of the different results? 57a. Retribution is a neutral dharma.
Retribution (vipdka) is an undefiled, neutral (anivrtdvydkrta) dharma.
Among the undefiled, neutral dharmas, some belong to living beings, while others do not belong to living beings. Consequently the author specifies
? 57b. Belonging to living beings.
that is, they arise in the series of living beings.
Some of those dharmas belonging to living beings are said to be of
accumulation (aupacayika, having come from food, etc. , i. 37) and some are said to be of an outflowing (naisyandika, coming from a cause which is similar to them, i. 37, ii. 57c). Consequently the author specifies
57c. They arise later than a non-neutral dharma.
A non-neutral action is called this because it produces retribution; non-neutral actions are bad actions and good-impure (kusalasdsrava, ii. 54c-d) actions. From actions of this nature there arises later,--not at the same time, and not immediately afterwards,--the result that one terms "retributive result" or "matured result" (vipakaphala).
Why not consider the dharmas that do not form part of living beings,--mountains, rivers, etc. ,--as retributive results? Do they not arise from good or bad actions?
The dharmas that do not form part of living beings are, by nature, common in that everyone may partake of them. Now retributive results, by definition, are unique: another person never experiences the retributive results of actions that I accomplish. Action produces a "predominating result" (adhipaUphala) in addition to a retributive result: all beings experience this result in common, because the collectivity of their actions cooperate in their creation (see above, note 403).
405 57d. A result that resembles its cause is called outflowing.
A dharma resembling its cause is an outflowing result (nisyanda- phala). Two causes, the similar cause and the universal cause
(sabhagahetUy ii. 52, and sarvatragahetu, ii. 54a-b) produce an out- flowing result.
If the result of the universal cause is an outflowing result, a result similar to its cause, why not give the universal cause the name of similar cause?
A result of a universal cause is always similar to its cause 1) from
The Indriyas 289
? 290 Chapter Two
the point of view of the stage: like it, it belongs to Kamadhatu, etc. ; and 2) from the point of view of its moral character: like it, it is defiled. But it can belong to a different category than the category of its
cause. "Category" means the method of abandoning: it is susceptible of being abandoned by Seeing the Truth of Suffering, etc. (ii. 52b). When there is a similarity between a cause and its result from this last point of view, the universal cause is at one and the same time a similar cause.
Four alternative cases present themselves:
1. A similar cause which is not a universal cause: for example, a non-universal defilement (rdga, etc. ) related to the defilements of their own category;
2. A universal cause which is not a similar cause: the universal defilements related to a defilement of another category;
3. A universal cause which is also a similar cause: the universal defilements related to a defilement of their own category;
4. All other dharmas are neither similar causes nor universal 406
causes.
57e. Extinction through intelligence is disconnection.
Disconnection (visamyoga) or visamyogaphala, "result that con- sists of disconnection" is extinction (ksaya-nirodhd) obtained by the speculative consciousness (dht=prajnd). Visamyogaphala is hence
pratisamkhyanirodha. (See above p. 280).
58a-b. A dharma is the result of the virile activity of the
dharma through the force by which it arises.
This refers to a conditioned dharma.
Examples: the absorption of the First Dhyana is the result of the virile activity of a mind in Kamadhatu which instigates it or prepares it; the absorption of the Second Dhyana is the result of the virile activity of a mind in the First Dhyana.
A pure dharma can be the result of the virile activity of an impure dharma (the laukikdgradhannas have duhkhe dharmajndnakfdnti for their result, vi. 25c-d).
? A mind that can create fictive beings (nirmdnacitta) is the result of 407
the virile activity of a mind in a Dhyana (vii. 48). And thus following. Pratisamkhyanirodha or Nirvana is considered to be a "result of virile activity;" now the definition given inKarika 58a-b does not apply
to nirodha which, being eternal, does not arise. We say then that it is the result of the virile activity of the dharma by the force of which one obtains possession of it.
58c-d. Any conditioned dharma is the predominating result {adhipatiphala) of conditioned dharmas, with the exception of
408 the dharmas that are later than it.
What difference is there between the result of virile activity and a predominating result?
The first refers to the agent; the second refers to both the agent and the non-agent. For example, a created thing is the result of the virile activity and the predominating result of the artisan who created it; it is only the predominating result of what is not the artisan.
***
In what condition {avastha)--the past, present, or future--is each of the causes {hetu) found when they grasp and when they produce their result?
[59. Five causes grasp their results in the present; two produce
it in the present; two produce it in both past and present; and
409 one produces it in the past.
What is understood by "grasping a result" and "producing a
410 result? "
411
A dharma produces a result at the moment when it gives this result the power of arising, that is, at the moment when, the future result being turned towards arising or is ready to arise, this dharma gives it the power that causes it to enter into the present. ]
A dharma grasps a result when it become its seed
The lndiiyas 291
? 292 Chapter Two
59a-b. Five causes grasp their result in the present.
Five causes grasp their results only when they are in the present: in the past, they have already grasped their results; in the future, they have no activity (v. 25).
The same holds for karanahetu\ but the stanza does not mention it, because kdranahetu does not necessarily have a result.
59b. Two produce their result in the present.
The mutually coexistent cause (sahabhu) and the associated cause (samprayuktaka) produce their results only when they are in the present: these two causes in fact grasp and produce their results at the same time.
59c. Two produce their results in both the past and the present.
The similar cause (sabhdga) and the universal cause (sarvatraga) produce their results both when they are in the present and when they are in the past.
How can they produce their outflowing results (nisj/anda, ii. 56c) when they are in the present? We have seen (ii. 52b, 54a) that they are earlier than their results.
One says that they produce their results in the present, because
they produce them immediately. When their result has arisen, they are
past: they have already produced it; they do not produce the same
412 result twice.
***
i. It happens that, at a given moment, a good similar cause {sabhagahetu) grasps a result but does not produce a result. Four alternatives: to grasp, to produce, to grasp and to produce, and to
413 neither grasp nor to produce.
1. The possession of the roots of good that the person who has cut
off the roots of good (iv. 80a) abandons at the last moment, grasps a
414 result, but does not produce a result.
? 2. The possession of the roots of good that the person who again
takes up the roots of good (iv. 80c) acquires in the first moment,
produces a result, but does not grasp a result.
415
We must say: This same possession,--the possession abandoned
at the last moment by the person who has cut off the roots of good,-- produces its result, but does not grasp it at the moment when this person again takes up the roots of good.
3. The possession of the person whose roots of good are not cut off--with the exception of the two proceeding cases: that of the person who has achieved cutting them off, and that of the person who again takes up the roots of good--both grasp and produce.
4. In all other cases, possession neither grasps nor produces: for example, the possession of the roots of good of a person whose roots of good are cut off; the possession of the roots of good of a superior stage by a person who has fallen from this stage: these possessions have already grasped their result, and hence do not grasp it any more; they do not produce it, since the person cannot have possession of these roots at the present time.
ii. The Vibhasa establishes the same alternatives with respect to bad similar causes:
1. The possession of the bad dharmas that a person who obtains detachment from desire abandons at the last moment.
2. The possession that a person who fell from detachment acquires in the first moment.
We must say: These same possessions, when a person falls from detachment.
3. The possession of a person who is not detached, with the exception of the two preceding cases.
4. Possession in all other cases: for example the possession of a person detached and not subject to falling.
iii. There are also four alternatives regarding defiled-neutral similar causes:
1. The last possession of defiled-neutral dharmas that the saint who becomes an Arhat abandons.
2. The first possession that a fallen Arhat acquires.
The Indriyas 293
? 294 Chapter Two
Or better: the aforementioned possession of an Arhat who has fallen.
3. The possession of a non-detached person in Bhavagra, the two preceding cases being excluded.
4. Possession in all other cases: the possession of an Arhat.
iv. When an undefiled-neutral similar cause produces its result, it grasps it (for the undefiled-neutral lasts until Nirvana), but it can grasp its result without producing it: for example, in the case of the
last skandhas of an Arhat which have no outflowing (nisyanda).
v. We have up to now considered the dharmas that are not "subject to consciousness" (salambana).
