Chapter 17. Investigation of Karma and Its Fruit

A mind that restrains itself and is well-disposed toward others, filled with love — this is dharma, the seed of the fruit here and in the world beyond.

The supreme sage said that karma is intention and what is done after intention; and many kinds of distinction within this karma have been proclaimed.

What is here called karma as intention is held to be mental; and what is called what is done after intention is bodily and verbal.

Speech, movements, and those non-desisting things that are called unmanifest, and the other unmanifest ones as well — these are likewise held to be desisting.

Merit that comes from enjoyment, and demerit of the same kind, and intention as well — these seven dharmas are held to be what makes karma manifest.

karmavādin wrote:

karma is intention and what is done after intention

If karma persists until the time of ripening, it would acquire permanence; and if it has ceased — having ceased, what fruit will it produce?

nāgārjuna wrote:

if it has ceased — having ceased, what fruit will it produce?

That continuous stream which unfolds from the seed, beginning with the sprout — from it the fruit arises; and without the seed it does not unfold.

Since from the seed comes the stream, and from the stream the arising of the fruit, the fruit has the seed as what precedes it; therefore it is neither cut off nor eternal.

That stream of consciousness which unfolds from the mind — from it the fruit arises; and without the mind it does not unfold.

Since from the mind comes the stream, and from the stream the arising of the fruit, the fruit has karma as what precedes it; therefore it is neither cut off nor eternal.

The means of accomplishing dharma are the ten bright paths of karma; the fruit of dharma, here and in the world beyond, is the five qualities of sensual pleasure.

karmavādin wrote:

the fruit has the seed as what precedes it; therefore it is neither cut off nor eternal

If this notion were acceptable, many and great faults would arise; therefore this notion is not possible here.

nāgārjuna wrote:

therefore this notion is not possible here

But I shall set forth the notion that is fitting here — the one celebrated by the buddhas, by the pratyekabuddhas and by the śrāvakas.

Non-loss is like a promissory note, and karma is like a debt; it is of four kinds according to dhātu, and by nature it is indeterminate.

It cannot be removed by abandonment, but only by meditative cultivation; therefore the fruit of actions is born through non-loss.

If it were removed by abandonment or by the transfer of karma, then faults would follow, such as the destruction of karma and others.

Out of all actions — the dissimilar ones and the similar ones alike — those that belong to one dhātu, at rebirth only one [non-loss] arises.

It arises for each single action in the visible dharma; and even when the twofold fruits have ripened, it persists for everything.

It ceases either through the transgression of the fruit or through death; there one should distinguish the influx-free and the influx-bound [kinds].

Emptiness — and yet not annihilation; saṃsāra — and yet not eternity; the non-loss of karma — such is the dharma the Buddha proclaimed.

karmavādin wrote:

the non-loss of karma — such is the dharma the Buddha proclaimed

Why does karma not arise? Because it has no own nature; and since it has not arisen, for that very reason it does not perish either.

If karma existed by own nature, it would without doubt be eternal; and karma would be undone, for what is eternal is not done.

If karma were undone, there would be the fear of the arrival of what was not done; and the fault of living outside brahmacarya would follow.

All conventional dealings without exception would contradict one another — without doubt; and the distinction between one who does merit and one who does evil would not be possible.

And that whose fruit has already ripened would ripen once again, if karma were something fixed — that is, if it were of its own nature.

This karma has the nature of the kleśas, and those kleśas are not truly [existent]; and if the kleśas are not truly [existent], how could karma be truly [existent]?

Karma and the kleśas are declared to be the conditions of bodies; and if these karma and kleśas are empty, what then is to be said of bodies?

A living being is wrapped in ignorance and bound by craving; it is the one who enjoys [the fruit] — and it is neither other than the doer nor the very same as him.

Since this karma neither arises from conditions nor arises without conditions, for that reason there is no doer either.

If there is neither karma nor a doer, whence would the fruit born of karma come? And in the absence of the fruit, whence then would there be one who enjoys it?

Just as a teacher might create a magically manifested being by the power of miraculous abilities, and that manifested one might create another, and that one in turn yet another magically manifested being,

so too the doer, who has the form of a magically manifested being, did that karma; it is like one magically manifested being creating another — the manifested one manifested by a manifested one.

The kleśas, karmic actions, bodies, doers and fruits have the form of a city of gandharvas, and are like a mirage and a dream.