English
the five, beginning with taking life, are karmic paths by way of their divisions. It is said: In the Mūlaṭīkā, it is said that due to its similarity and its helpfulness in sexual misconduct, it is included in all ten karmic paths. Taking similarity there, they say that drinking alcohol is also included here as sexual misconduct in the sense of tastes. Taking helpfulness, in the Paṭisambhidāmaggaṭīkā, it is said that wholesome and unwholesome deeds that generate rebirth are karmic paths. In the explanation of the sentence, "The remaining things that are not said to be karmic paths do not certainly generate rebirth," "the remaining things" refers to drinking alcohol, etc., and abstaining from them, etc. For drinking alcohol is a cause of intoxication. Intoxication is a path to demerit. Abstinence from it leads to freedom from intoxication. And that is a path to merit. Thus, these, being supports for karmic paths, can also generate rebirth by way of proximate kamma. There, "by way of proximate kamma" means by way of the unwholesome kamma or wholesome kamma that arises close to that drinking alcohol or that abstinence from drinking alcohol, and that has them as its root. This is the meaning. This is what is said: Whoever, having drunk liquor, due to the intoxication of liquor, does any deed, such as taking life, for him, the drinking of liquor is a strong supporting condition for that deed, and is like a prior intention. That alone generates rebirth distinctly, not the other. Just as prior and subsequent intentions, which are merely accessory to a deed that has reached the path of action, generate rebirth, not the others. So too is this. For it cannot be determined that only those deeds that are explicitly mentioned in the suttas on the paths of action generate rebirth, not the others. But those deeds that are certainly endowed with the power to generate rebirth are explicitly stated there. And it can be understood that those deeds that are not certain in generating rebirth are not explicitly stated there. Thus, in the commentary to the Paṭisambhidāmagga, it is said that wholesome and unwholesome deeds are indeed paths of action that generate rebirth. It is said that the remaining deeds, being uncertain in generating rebirth, are not called paths of action. Therefore, this too, being uncertain in generating rebirth, is not explicitly stated there. What was said before, that it generates rebirth by way of a proximate deed, can be said to be included among the proximate deeds explicitly stated there. Its function is twofold: generating rebirth and generating deeds. Among these, its function of generating deeds is greater and more extensive than its function of generating rebirth. Therefore, Sakka, the lord of devas, in the Kumbha Jātaka, said: "Indeed, having drunk, they commit evil deeds, by body, speech, and mind; having committed evil deeds, they go to hell. Therefore, buy this full jar for her!" Thus, her going to the lower realms was stated by way of a proximate deed. It should be understood that both of its functions are taken into account in the Aṅguttara Nikāya, where it is said: "Monks, the drinking of liquor and strong drink, when indulged in, leads to... rebirth." This is the nature of the suttas: where it is said "leads to," it should be interpreted according to what is appropriate. Thus, in the Mūlaṭīkā, rebirth... In the reading "leads to rebirth," that which arises together with kamma gives rebirth. It is said that what is a companion to kamma, not arising together with kamma, leads to rebirth. But some, not having considered this meaning, by this Pāli text, think it is exclusively a distinct path of action. But that commentary statement is: "From the aspect, they are indeed the five paths of action." There, by the word 'eva', because their nature is volition, their nature as a division of jhana etc. is excluded. For volition, even having reached the path of action, or not having reached it, from the aspect, it is indeed a division of the path of action. For that very reason, in the Mūlaṭīkā, "are indeed paths of action" is said to mean "are indeed divisions of paths of action." And in the Anuṭīkā, it is said: "They are indeed divisions of paths of action, not divisions of jhana etc." But some, not having noticed this meaning, by this statement, say its distinct path of action nature. But in the Khuddakapāṭha Commentary, its path of action nature is completely rejected. For there, having distinctly stated both the nature of bodily action etc. and the nature of a path of action for the first four, concerning intoxicating drinks, it is said: "It is indeed bodily action." By this, it rejects both the nature of verbal action and the nature of a path of action. And in the Dhātusaṃyutta Commentary, it is rejected. As it says: "The third is said by way of five actions, according to the intention of those who understand. The fourth, by way of seven paths of action; the fifth, by way of ten paths of action." For there, in the third, because of being mixed with intoxicating drinks, it is indeed said by way of five actions. Not by way of five paths of action. And in these, it is indeed rejected as being indefinite in generating rebirth-linking, so it cannot be said. For if it were so, all Pāli, commentaries, and sub-commentaries would be consistent. In "bodily action," here the body is of three kinds: the body with constituents, the sensitive body, and the moving body. Here, the moving body, characterized as bodily intimation, is intended. Thus it is said: "characterized as bodily intimation." For the moving body is sometimes done by a bodily part even for the purpose of making one's own intention known to another, thus it is bodily intimation. It is called. And that, being the opening for the arising of kamma, is the door, the body-door. For when, through that very preparatory action, the act of cutting off the life-faculty, etc., is accomplished, then for that person, the exertion and production of the volitional state, called body-kamma, arises as a gain. In that body-door. And here, because all kamma does not succeed without the associated mind, which is its forerunner. "Mind is the forerunner of mental states. Mind is their chief, mind-made are they," thus it is said. And here, by "mental states" are meant good and bad mental states. Therefore, the mind-door, being common to all kamma, cannot differentiate kamma. But the uncommon ones, body and speech, alone can. And because the former seven kinds of kamma do not succeed by mind alone. But they succeed only through the applications of body and speech arising from them. Therefore, it is said that these alone become the openings for the arising of those kamma, called the body-door. And further, the speech-door. But if it is said only that "from the body-door it is called body-kamma, and from the speech-door it is called speech-kamma," then the naming of kamma by door, such as "the three, like taking life, are called body-kamma, and the four, like false speech, are called speech-kamma," would be unsuccessful. How? For when the first two are broken through the speech-door by means of a command. Then they would lose the name "body-kamma." They would be counted as "speech-kamma." Why? Because it is said that "from the speech-door it is called speech-kamma." They would have two names, being seen in both doors. But when the middle four are accomplished through the body-door by means of a fist, etc. Then they too would lose the name "speech-kamma." They would be counted as "body-kamma." Why? Because it is said that "from the body-door it is called body-kamma." They would have two names, being seen in both doors. And if this is so, then "taking life, ... wrong conduct" being called body-kamma, this statement... It would be useless. Similarly, from another, false speech. La. And frivolous talk, these are called verbal actions. When it is said, "mostly occurring," then by each word "mostly," the six kinds of offenses are avoided, and the classification of action by door, as described, is established. Just as a forest dweller is a warrior. Mental actions, however, even when occurring through other doors, are merely occurrences. Other doors are not a factor for the accomplishment of these actions. Therefore, it should be understood that they are treated separately. Since the name "body" for the body door is self-evident and well-known in thousands of suttas, and similarly, the name "speech" for the speech door, and the name "mind" for the mind door, which consists of wholesome and unwholesome impulsion consciousness, therefore, when "body door, speech door, mind door" is said everywhere, there is no need to classify the door by action. But where "body action door, speech action door, mind action door" is stated, there, in the discussions of doors and so on, the classification of the door by action must also be stated separately. [153] By this, what was said in the Vibhāvanī, "The body door is said to be the face of the arising of bodily action," that is refuted. [154] And what was said there, "Similarly, for one who performs false speech and so on through bodily movement, verbal action also occurs through the body door, so there would be no classification of the door by action," that also is not fitting. For verbal action, even when performed through bodily movement and occurring through the body door, cannot change the name of that door or give its own name to it. Because that name is naturally established. [155] By this very fact, what was said there, "Similarly, bodily action mostly occurs through the body door, not other actions. Therefore, due to the majority of bodily actions occurring here, the state of being the body action door is established, just as the state of being a brahmin village and so on for brahmin villages and so on," that also is refuted. For the name "body action door" Here it is said, "There is." [Bodily action] 149.