English
its strength is not a cause for drawing forth rebirth. How is this to be known, that restlessness-accompanied kamma has no nature of giving rebirth? Because it is not included among those to be abandoned by seeing. Unwholesome kammas are indeed of three kinds: to be abandoned by seeing, to be abandoned by development, and some to be abandoned by seeing, some by development. Among these, consciousness-moments accompanied by wrong view and accompanied by doubt are called "to be abandoned by seeing" because they are abandoned by the stream-entry path, which is named "seeing" due to first seeing Nibbāna. Consciousness-moments accompanied by restlessness are called "to be abandoned by development" because they are abandoned by the highest path. For the three higher paths are called "development" because they proceed by way of development in the Nibbāna seen by the first path. But consciousness-moments accompanied by displeasure and dissociated from wrong view are some to be abandoned by seeing, some to be abandoned by development, because they are abandoned by the first path in the state that produces the lower realms, and by the higher paths in the states of greater or lesser intensity. Among these, even that which is "some to be abandoned by seeing" is here called "by seeing" due to the general characteristic of being abandoned by seeing. are called "to be abandoned." And if it were to give rebirth accompanied by restlessness, then, since an unwholesome rebirth is impossible in a good destination, it would give it only in the lower realms. And that which leads to the lower realms would necessarily have to be abandoned by seeing. Otherwise, since that which leads to the lower realms would not be abandoned, the arising in the lower realms would apply to trainees, and this is not proper, as it contradicts statements such as "freed from the four lower realms" and "not subject to falling." And if it were to be abandoned by seeing, it would have to be stated in the analysis of "some are to be abandoned by seeing," but it is not stated. Perhaps it might be said that "greed, hatred, delusion that lead to the lower realms, and the defilements associated with them" are stated among those to be abandoned by seeing, and thus the volition accompanied by restlessness can be included there. That is not so, because it is stated as being exclusively to be abandoned by development. For it is said: "Which phenomena are to be abandoned by development? The mind-moment accompanied by restlessness." Therefore, its not being mentioned among those to be abandoned by seeing proves its inability to give rebirth. But in the Paṭisambhidā-Vibhaṅga, "At whatever time an unwholesome mind has arisen, accompanied by equanimity, associated with restlessness, having a visible object... or a mind-object, whatever it may be that it apprehends, at that time there is contact... there is non-distraction; these phenomena are unwholesome. Knowledge of these phenomena is Dhamma-paṭisambhidā, knowledge of their result is Attha-paṭisambhidā." Since the mind-moment accompanied by restlessness is thus mentioned, and its result is also mentioned, how is its inability to give rebirth to be accepted? This is not mentioned with reference to rebirth-giving. Rather, it is with reference to result in the course of existence. But in the Paṭṭhāna, "Co-arisen volitions to be abandoned by seeing are a condition by way of kamma-condition for mind-originated material phenomena; those of different moments..." The volition to be abandoned by seeing is a condition by way of kamma-condition for the resultant aggregates and for the kamma-born material forms. (Paṭṭhāna 2.8.89) Having extracted the co-nascent and moment-to-moment kamma-conditionality of the volition to be abandoned by seeing, it is stated: "The co-nascent volition to be abandoned by development is a condition by way of kamma-condition for the mind-originated material forms." (Paṭṭhāna 2.8.89) Here, only the co-nascent kamma-conditionality of the volition to be abandoned by development is extracted, not the moment-to-moment kamma-conditionality. And without moment-to-moment kamma-conditionality, there is no drawing forth of rebirth-linking. Therefore, there is no rebirth-linking at all for it. But what some say: "Restlessness-volition does not give both kinds of results, because its moment-to-moment kamma-conditionality is not extracted in the Paṭṭhāna," that is merely their opinion. For in the Paṭisambhidā-Vibhaṅga, the result in the course of life even of those accompanied by restlessness is extracted. And in the Paṭṭhāna, the non-extraction of moment-to-moment kamma-conditionality is only with reference to rebirth-linking results. For if moment-to-moment kamma-conditionality were spoken of with reference to results in the course of life, then they might also think it refers to rebirth-linking results. Therefore, even though results in the course of life are obtainable, moment-to-moment kamma-conditionality was not stated in terms of them. Thus, it is not possible to prevent its results in the course of life. Therefore, it is said: "But in the course of life," etc. But teachers like Buddhamitta say that there is restlessness-accompanied volition to be abandoned by development, and there is also that not to be abandoned by development. Among these, that to be abandoned by development occurs in the continuum of a trainee. The other occurs in the continuum of an ordinary person. And the giving of results is only for that occurring in the continuum of an ordinary person, not for the other. Thus, dividing restlessness-accompanied volition into two, they describe one as giving both kinds of results, and the other as having no results at all. Whatever their determination on this point, and whatever its refutation, and whatever the rejection of the view of those who say there are no results at all, which is not stated here, all that... It should be understood in the way stated in the Amatthamañjūsā and other texts, and especially in the Abhidhammatthavikāsinī, which is a commentary on the Abhidhammāvatāra. "In all sense-realms" means in all sense-realms, whether fortunate or unfortunate destinations. "As is appropriate" means suitable for the doors and objects. Even in the lower realms, the resultant consciousness that arises in the great prosperity of Nāgas and Supaṇṇas, and the resultant consciousness that arises in the inhabitants of hell when they see Mahāmoggallāna Thera and others, is the fruit of wholesome kamma. For an unwholesome deed cannot possibly have a desirable result. This has been stated: "It is impossible, monks, it is not possible, that an unwholesome deed should have a desirable, pleasant result" (MN 3.131; AN 1.284-286; Vibh. 809). Therefore, wholesome kamma generates ahetuka vipāka even in the lower realms. And since kamma from one realm cannot produce results in another realm, and since the cultivation of dispassion for the sense-realm cannot give rise to consciousness related to sense-craving, and because the results of the exalted and supramundane wholesome deeds are entirely similar, and since rūpāvacara kamma cannot produce ahetuka vipāka, it is said that "in all sense-realms" and so on, these produce rūpa and other objects as appropriate even in the rūpa-realm. 71. To show that kamma, when ripening in this way, ripens in three ways—as sixteen, twelve, or eight—the phrase "even there" and so on was stated. "Even there" means even in such wholesome kamma that is ripening. "Superior" means distinguished by the acquisition of wholesome retinue, or by subsequent repeated practice. For kamma that, at the time of its occurrence, is surrounded by wholesome kamma occurring before and after, or that is accumulated later through repeated practice, is superior. But kamma that, at the time of its performance, is surrounded by unwholesome kamma, or that is later tainted by the arising of remorse, thinking "this was badly done by me," is to be considered inferior. "Rebirth-linking" means only one rebirth-linking. For one kamma does not cause rebirth-linking in many existences, but resultant continuity can occur in hundreds or thousands of existences. As it is said: "Having given a gift to an animal, a hundredfold return is to be expected." (Majjhima Nikāya 3.379) Because here, wisdom is the opposite of delusion, which is the cause of misfortunes like being born blind, or indeed, of all unwholesome states; therefore, action associated with it does not become a cause for misfortunes like being born blind. Thus, even a very weak three-rooted action draws forth only a two-rooted rebirth, not a rootless one. And a two-rooted action, due to the absence of association with wisdom, is incapable of producing wisdom as a result, just as an unwholesome action, due to the absence of association with non-greed, is incapable of producing non-greed as a result. Therefore, even if it is very strong, it draws forth only a two-rooted rebirth, not a three-rooted one. Thus it is said: "a weak three-rooted, a strong two-rooted," and so on. Here, it might be asked: Just as in the Paṭisambhidāmagga, it is said: "Due to the causes of eight roots, rebirth associated with wisdom occurs in a fortunate destiny." (Paṭi. Ma. 1.231) This refers to rebirth associated with wisdom, due to the causes of eight roots: three roots at the moment of impulsion of wholesome action, two roots at the moment of craving, and three roots at the moment of rebirth. Similarly, it is said: "Due to the causes of six roots, rebirth dissociated from wisdom occurs in a fortunate destiny." (Paṭi. Ma. 1.233) This refers to rebirth dissociated from wisdom, due to the causes of six roots: two roots at the moment of impulsion, two roots at the moment of craving, and two roots at the moment of rebirth. Since "due to the causes of seven roots, rebirth dissociated from wisdom occurs in a fortunate destiny" is not stated