English
English version: Regarding the question of ‘named karma path’ (Nama-karma-patha). What does this mean? The mind is karma; when these seven mental karmas arise together, they are called ‘path’ (marga), and the remaining three that correspond to them are called ‘karma path’ (karma-patha). Someone asks: ‘If that which is karma is called path, and all can lead to hell and other evil destinies, then why are the remaining three not karma paths?’ The answer is: ‘Because these three (referring to the remaining three that correspond to the seven karmas) can serve as the root of those seven karmas, because they correspond to each other, but they cannot directly produce results like those seven karmas, so they are not called karma paths.’ Someone asks: ‘Why are all delicious foods, drinking alcohol, eating meat, rolling up sleeves to hit people, all kinds of playful laughter and other evil deeds, as well as all acts of worship, offerings, reverence, abstaining from alcohol and other good deeds, not said to be karma paths?’ The answer is: ‘Abstaining from alcohol and other behaviors are merely mental karmas that can give rise to the seven karmas, but they are not bodily or verbal karmas, so they are not karma paths; if what is done corresponds to the mind, it is also considered a karma path.’ Someone asks: ‘If that which is karma can serve as a path, it is called a karma path, and if karma path is understood in this way, then all dharmas in the mind should be called karma paths. If this is the case, why are only ten karma paths mentioned, and not countless karma paths?’ The answer is: ‘Because they are superior and weighty. What does this mean? Among all evil and good deeds, the ten karma paths are the most important, while the others are not as important, so countless karma paths are not mentioned.’ Someone asks: ‘This statement is not correct. Why? Because karma is uncertain. What does this mean? Sometimes it is through near or distant expedient means that something appears important, while the actual karma appears minor, so it should not be said that only the ten karmas are karma paths, and not countless karma paths.’ The answer is: ‘It is not like that. Why? Because the ten karmas are usually weighty, while near or distant expedient means are usually light. Moreover, most sentient beings in the world fear the ten karmas, but do not fear near or distant expedient means. Furthermore, the ten karma paths can cause deep and heavy oppression and harm, while the others cannot, so your saying that karma is uncertain has already been answered. And your saying that all dharmas in the mind should be called karma paths is not correct. Why? Because the seven karmas are always extremely serious, while the three mental karmas are sometimes light and sometimes heavy, and behaviors such as drinking alcohol…’ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
不尔。以是义故，但说彼十名为业道，不说余者名为业道。” 问曰：“远离杀生者，杀生等相应说？” 答曰：“杀生有八种：一者、故心；二者、他；三者、定不定众生相；四者、疑心；五者、起舍命方便；六者、作；七者、不作相；八者、无作相。是等名为杀生身业。身口意业名为杀生。故心者。” 问曰：“有人言：不作心杀成杀生罪，譬如触火。此明何义？如火能烧，若故心触、不故心触皆能烧人。杀生亦尔，若故心杀、不故心杀，悉皆应得杀生罪报。” 答曰：“不然。何以故？若无心杀得罪报者，则阿罗汉不得涅槃。此明何义？以阿罗汉断世间因，有不作心而杀众生，如是亦应还生世间，而实不然。以是义故，不故心杀不得罪报。又言如火者，此义不然。何以故？以恶业中无恶心隔故。所明何义？犹如彼火，薪炭等隔，触而不烧，如是彼恶业中无恶心隔，虽复杀生不能与报，是故火喻义不相应。” 问曰：“云何死者受苦，而杀生者不得罪报？” 答曰：“以心不坏故。又此义不然。何以故？离逼恼众生有罪，离利益众生有福，如断善根慈悲无诤灭尽定等，得罪得福。”◎ ◎问曰：“何故名他？” 答曰：“非自命故。” 问曰：“以何义 现代汉语译本：不是这样的。因为这个缘故，只说那十种行为是业道，不说其他的行为是业道。” 问：‘远离杀生，和杀生等行为是相应地说的吗？’ 答：‘杀生有八种情况：第一，有意的动机（故心）；第二，对象是其他生命（他）；第三，对像是确定或不确定的众生（定不定众生相）；第四，心存疑惑（疑心）；第五，开始采取舍弃生命的方法（起舍命方便）；第六，实际行动（作）；第七，没有停止行动的想法（不作相）；第八，没有停止行动的实际（无作相）。这些都称为杀生的身业。身、口、意三业都可能构成杀生。有意的动机（故心）是这样的。’ 问：‘有人说：没有作意的心杀也构成杀生罪，就像接触火焰一样。这说明什么道理？就像火能燃烧，无论是故意接触还是无意接触都能烧伤人。杀生也是如此，无论是故意杀还是无意杀，都应该得到杀生的罪报。’ 答：‘不是这样的。为什么呢？如果无心杀人也要得到罪报，那么阿罗汉就无法证得涅槃了。这说明什么道理？因为阿罗汉已经断除了世间的因，即使无意中杀害了众生，也应该重新回到世间，但实际上并非如此。因此，无意的杀生不会得到罪报。再说，用火来比喻也是不恰当的。为什么呢？因为恶业中没有恶念的阻隔。这说明什么道理？就像火一样，如果有薪柴等阻隔，接触也不会燃烧。同样，如果恶业中没有恶念的阻隔，即使杀了生也不会得到报应。所以，用火来比喻是不恰当的。’ 问：‘为什么死者会遭受痛苦，而杀生者却不一定得到罪报呢？’ 答：‘因为死者的心识没有坏灭的缘故。而且这种说法也是不正确的。为什么呢？因为远离逼迫恼害众生的行为会有功德，远离利益众生的行为会有罪过，就像断绝善根、慈悲、无诤、灭尽定等等，都会得到罪或福。’ 问：‘为什么称为“他”？’ 答：‘因为不是自己的生命。’ 问：‘根据什么道理……’
English
English version: 'It is not so. For this reason, only those ten actions are called paths of karma; others are not called paths of karma.' Question: 'Is abstaining from killing spoken of in the same way as killing and related actions?' Answer: 'There are eight aspects of killing: first, intentional motivation (故心, gù xīn); second, another being (他, tā); third, a definite or indefinite perception of a living being (定不定众生相, dìng bù dìng zhòng shēng xiàng); fourth, a doubtful mind (疑心, yí xīn); fifth, initiating means to abandon life (起舍命方便, qǐ shě mìng fāng biàn); sixth, the action itself (作, zuò); seventh, the thought of not stopping the action (不作相, bù zuò xiàng); eighth, the actual not stopping of the action (无作相, wú zuò xiàng). These are called the bodily karma of killing. Karma of body, speech, and mind constitute killing. Intentional motivation (故心, gù xīn) is like this.' Question: 'Some say: killing without intention constitutes the sin of killing, just like touching fire. What does this mean? Just as fire can burn, whether one touches it intentionally or unintentionally, it can burn people. Killing is also like that; whether one kills intentionally or unintentionally, one should receive the karmic retribution of killing.' Answer: 'It is not so. Why? If killing without intention results in karmic retribution, then an Arhat (阿罗汉, Ā luó hàn) could not attain Nirvana (涅槃, Niè pán). What does this mean? Because an Arhat has severed the causes of the world, even if they kill a living being unintentionally, they should be reborn into the world, but in reality, it is not so. For this reason, unintentional killing does not result in karmic retribution. Furthermore, the analogy of fire is not appropriate. Why? Because there is no separation of evil intention in evil karma. What does this mean? Just as fire, if separated by firewood or charcoal, will not burn upon contact, similarly, if there is no separation of evil intention in evil karma, even if one kills, it will not bring retribution. Therefore, the analogy of fire is not appropriate.' Question: 'Why does the deceased suffer, while the killer does not necessarily receive karmic retribution?' Answer: 'Because the consciousness of the deceased has not been destroyed. Moreover, this statement is also incorrect. Why? Because abstaining from oppressing and harming beings brings merit, and abstaining from benefiting beings brings demerit, just like severing roots of goodness, compassion, non-contention, cessation of perception and sensation (灭尽定, miè jìn dìng), etc., one obtains demerit or merit.' Question: 'Why is it called 'another' (他, tā)?' Answer: 'Because it is not one's own life.' Question: 'According to what principle...' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 故自断命者不得罪报？”
Chinese
答曰：“以无可杀、杀者故。此明何义？若有他人是可杀者，能杀生人得杀生罪。以自杀者无可杀境，即更无杀者，以无杀者故，自断命不得恶报。又过去阴不续杀生等阴，是故自杀不得杀罪。” 问曰：“自杀身者，起于杀心断人命根，破坏五阴舍离人趣，杀业成就，何故不得杀生罪报？”答曰：“若尔，阿罗汉人应得杀罪。此明何义？以死相罗汉自害其身断己命故，彼阿罗汉亦应获得断命之罪。而彼无罪。何以故？以离瞋心等故，是故自杀不得杀罪。 “又定不定众生相者，定众生相、不定众生相，彼众生相名为定不定众生相。又定众生相者，有百千人作心于中定杀某人，是名为定，若杀彼人得成杀罪，若杀余人不得杀罪。不定者，以舍一切故随杀得罪，以彼处不离众生相故。 “疑者，疑心杀生亦得杀罪，以彼是众生。既舍众生，其心虽疑，以舍慈悲心杀众生故得杀生罪。 “起舍命方便者。此明何义？若杀者于彼事中起不善心，必欲断彼众生命根，非慈悲心、无护罪心，舍众生心作杀方便是名为起。 “又作不作相无作相者，作者所作事，不作者所不作事，彼作事共起，虽作业灭而善无记法相续不断。” 问曰：“云何不作而名为业？ 现代汉语译本 问：那么，自杀的人不会得到罪报吗？ 答：因为没有可杀的对象，也没有杀人者。这是什么意思呢？如果存在可以被杀的他人，能够杀死这个活人，就会得到杀生的罪报。但自杀的人没有可杀的对象，也就没有杀人者，因为没有杀人者，所以自杀不会得到恶报。而且，过去的五阴不再延续杀生等恶业，因此自杀不会构成杀生罪。 问：自杀的人，因为生起杀心而断绝自己的命根，破坏五阴，舍弃人道，杀业已经成就，为什么不会得到杀生罪报呢？ 答：如果这样说，那么阿罗汉（Arhat，已证得涅槃的圣者）也应该得到杀罪。这是什么意思呢？因为证得死亡之相的阿罗汉会自我伤害，断绝自己的生命，那么这位阿罗汉也应该获得断命的罪过。但是他并没有罪。为什么呢？因为他已经远离了嗔恨心等等，所以自杀不会构成杀生罪。 ‘又定不定众生相者’，‘定众生相’、‘不定众生相’，这些众生相被称为‘定不定众生相’。‘定众生相’是指，如果有成百上千的人下定决心一定要杀死某人，这就被称为‘定’，如果杀死了这个人，就会构成杀罪，如果杀死了其他人，就不会构成杀罪。‘不定’是指，因为舍弃了一切，所以随便杀死谁都会得到罪报，因为那个地方不会脱离众生相。 ‘疑者’，以怀疑的心杀生也会得到杀罪，因为他们是众生。既然已经舍弃了众生，即使心中有所怀疑，因为舍弃了慈悲心而杀害众生，所以会得到杀生罪。 ‘起舍命方便者’。这是什么意思呢？如果杀人者在那个事件中生起不善之心，一定要断绝那个众生的命根，没有慈悲心、没有保护罪恶的心，舍弃众生之心而采取杀生的手段，这就被称为‘起’。 ‘又作不作相无作相者’，‘作者’所做的事情，‘不作者’所不做的事情，这些做的事情共同发生，即使业已灭尽，而善和无记法的相续却不会断绝。 问：为什么不作为也被称为业？
English
English version Question: 'Therefore, does one who commits suicide not receive karmic retribution?' Answer: 'Because there is no one to be killed and no killer. What does this mean? If there is another person who can be killed, and one is able to kill that living person, one will receive the karmic retribution for killing. But one who commits suicide has no object to be killed, and thus there is no killer. Because there is no killer, committing suicide does not result in evil retribution. Furthermore, the past skandhas (five aggregates) do not continue the skandhas of killing, etc. Therefore, suicide does not constitute the sin of killing.' Question: 'One who kills oneself, arising from the intention to kill, severs one's own life force, destroys the five skandhas, abandons the human realm, and completes the karma of killing. Why does one not receive the karmic retribution for killing?' Answer: 'If that were the case, then an Arhat (Arhat, one who has attained Nirvana) should also receive the sin of killing. What does this mean? Because an Arhat who has attained the aspect of death harms himself and severs his own life, that Arhat should also receive the sin of severing life. But he has no sin. Why? Because he has abandoned anger, etc. Therefore, suicide does not constitute the sin of killing.' 'Moreover, the aspects of definite and indefinite beings,' 'the aspect of definite beings,' 'the aspect of indefinite beings,' these aspects of beings are called 'the aspects of definite and indefinite beings.' 'The aspect of definite beings' refers to, if there are hundreds or thousands of people who are determined to kill someone, this is called 'definite.' If they kill that person, it constitutes the sin of killing; if they kill someone else, it does not constitute the sin of killing. 'Indefinite' refers to, because one has abandoned everything, killing anyone will result in karmic retribution, because that place does not depart from the aspect of beings. 'Doubtful,' killing with a doubtful mind also results in the sin of killing, because they are beings. Since one has abandoned beings, even if there is doubt in the mind, because one has abandoned compassion and killed beings, one will receive the sin of killing. 'Initiating the means of abandoning life.' What does this mean? If the killer arises an unwholesome mind in that matter, determined to sever the life force of that being, without a compassionate mind, without a mind to protect from sin, abandoning the mind of beings and taking the means of killing, this is called 'initiating.' 'Moreover, the aspects of doing, not doing, and non-doing,' 'the doer's' actions, 'the non-doer's' non-actions, these actions occur together, even if the karma has ceased, the continuity of good and neutral dharmas (Dharmas, teachings or phenomena) will not be cut off. Question: 'Why is non-action also called karma?' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ”