Manual of Abhidharma - Reading Two: The Nature of Karma, and What it Produces; the Detailist Concept of ''Non-Communicating Form''
We turn now to our commentary on the “Presentation of Deeds,” which constitutes the fourth chapter of the Treasure House of Knowledge. First we relate the present chapter to the one just finished, and then continue with the exposition of deeds itself.
1 What Causes Worlds
Deeds cause the multitude of worlds.
[IX.1]
One may begin with the following question: “You have just described a multitude of worlds—both the great vessels of the outer worlds and the living beings they contain. Where do they all come from?” They do not come from no cause at all, and they do not come from causes that are inconsistent with their own nature. This is because they stay for some time, then go away; and as the root text said itself, “Not an almighty one or the like, because of stages and such.”
What then does cause them? It is the past deeds of living beings that cause all the multitude of worlds—both the places and the people.
The exposition that follows now on deeds is divided into two parts: first on the basic nature of deeds, and secondly on listings from sutra on the different types of deeds. The former is itself presented first in a brief introduction and then in a more detailed treatment.
2 Introduction to Deeds
They’re movement of the mind and what it brings.
Mental movement is a deed of thought;
What it causes, deeds of body and speech.
These are either communicating or not.
[IV.2-5]
“In the line above,” one might continue, “you said that `deeds cause the multitude of worlds.’ Just how many types of deeds are there?” They—deeds—are of two different types: deeds consisting of movement of the mind, and the deeds that it brings—those that the mind motivates.
One may ask about each of their basic natures. Mental movement is a deed of the thought, for it consists of a deed linked with consciousness of the thought. What it causes—that is, deeds motivated by the mind—are of two kinds: these are deeds of the body and deeds of speech. These two themselves can be further divided into two types each: they are either what we call “communicating” or not.
Our more detailed treatment of these points continues in three steps: the definition of a deed, typical features of the three types of deeds in general, and different divisions of non-communicating types of deeds.
In discussing the definition of a deed we will cover first the communicating, and then the non-communicating types. The former will be described first for those of the body, and then for those of speech.
3 Communicating Deeds of the Body
Body communicating held to be shape.
[IV.6]
“You mentioned,” one might start, “a line just now saying `these are either communicating or not.’ Can you describe the types of bodily deeds that are said to be `communicating’?” Communicating deeds of the body are held in the present school to be the shape that the physical body takes under motivation by movements of the mind present for the duration of specific actions such as prostrating oneself before a holy object or taking the life of a sentient being.
4 Non-Communicating Form
Even during distraction, while mind is stopped,
Virtue or not, continuing after,
Taking the great elements as its causes,
This form we say does not communicate.
[I.41-4]
Someone may begin:
What about the line above that ends with the words “…and non-communicating”? What do you mean by “non-communicating form”?
This form which does not communicate possesses five distinctive features. The first is a feature of period: this type of form is present even during periods when one is distracted, or while one is engaged in a controlled meditation where mind is stopped.
This much is also true of the eye and so on, so that we must mention a feature of essence: this form is either virtuous or not. The description so far could apply to communicating form as well, so a feature of time is included: noncommunicating form continues on after a deed, in a perfect stream. As much could also be said of virtuous and non-virtuous holds, and thus we note that this form takes the great elements as its causes.
The Kashmiri Sanghabhadra [?] attacks this definition with the following verse:
It’s incomplete, contradicts classical
Commentary, one then is not,
One not then is. “Even’s” superfluous,
A feature not mentioned should be.
He explains his criticism as follows:
Let’s consider some non-communicating form at the first instant of its existence. According to you, it could never be non-communicating form, because it is incomplete—it lacks the feature of continuing on in a perfect stream. Consider this form again. According to you, it could also never be a substantial thing, because it’s a stream. And if you go ahead and agree that it is not substantial, you contradict the classical commentaries which explain that it is.
Consider further the non-communicating form that is created by single-pointed concentration. If your definition is correct, then it is not non-communicating form. This is because it does not exist during particular periods when one is distracted, or while mind is stopped; rather, it is present during periods when one is not distracted, and when the mind is functioning.
Take too what is not this kind of form at all: form which does communicate intent. If you are right then it is form which doesn’t communicate intent, because it is present during periods without distraction, and with a functioning mind. Moreover, the word “even” is superfluous: when you state that this type of form is there when the mind is distracted, everyone understands that it is also present at times when the mind is functioning. You have, finally, also made the mistake of not mentioning a feature which should have been: the fact that this type of form is invisible and ineffable.
Sanghabhadra [?] then presents an alternative definition, in the following verse of his own:
Form different from the one
You made: during thought and also
Not, specified, ineffable,
This does “not communicate.”
Both of the above systems, nonetheless, amount to the same inconsistency. If you establish something as non-communicating form because it relates to periods when the mind is not distracted, or functioning, then form which does communicate intent must also not communicate it. And if on the other hand you establish something as non-communicating because it relates to periods where the mind is stopped, then the two restraints which arise from singlepointed concentration could never be non-communicating.
See also
- Manual of Abhidharma - Reading One: Introduction to Abhidharma
- Manual of Abhidharma - Reading Two: The Nature of Karma, and What it Produces; the Detailist Concept of Non-Communicating Form
- Manual of Abhidharma - Reading Three: Types of Deeds, and the Nature of Motivation
- Manual of Abhidharma - Reading Four: The Correlation of Deeds and Their Results
- Manual of Abhidharma - Reading Five: How Karma is Carried, According to the Mind- Only School
- Manual of Abhidharma - Reading Six: How Emptiness Allows Karma to Work, According to the Middle-Way School
- Manual of Abhidharma - Reading Seven: Black and White Deeds, the “Path of Action,” and the Root and Branch Non-Virtues
- Manual of Abhidharma - Reading Eight: Most Basic Virtue, and the Projecting and Finishing Energy of Deeds
- Manual of Abhidharma - Reading Nine: The Five Immediate Misdeeds, and the Concept of a Schism
- Manual of Abhidharma - Reading Ten: The Relative Severity of Deeds and What Causes It
- Manual of Abhidharma - Additions Part 1
- Manual of Abhidharma - Additions Part 2
