The Fingertip That Cannot Touch Itself

One asks: can a single moment of karma draw forth only a single class of homogeneous being, or can it also draw forth many classes of homogeneous being? Suppose either — what fault follows?

If a single moment of karma can draw forth only a single class of homogeneous being, how is the Prajñaptiśāstra to be reconciled with this — namely, as it states: there were certain sentient beings who, once dwelling among humankind, served either as a king or as a great minister, wielding great power and, without just cause, harming countless beings, exacting taxes and plundering wealth to supply themselves and their household — and by this unwholesome karma, upon death, fell into hell, where they underwent great suffering and torment across an immeasurable span of time.

Upon relinquishing that life, by their own residual karma, they were then born within the great ocean, receiving the body of a monstrous beast, its form immense, devouring countless creatures of water and land alike, while itself being devoured by countless creatures in turn, its entire body infested as though covered with clinging hair — and, unable to bear the resulting agony,

it rubbed its body against a mountain of sphaṭika crystal, whereupon the very creatures infesting its body were themselves crushed and destroyed together with it, so that the ocean's waters, across many hundreds of thousands of yojanas in breadth, were entirely turned to blood. And, if that is so, how is the Venerable Anavatapta's own recorded past deed to be reconciled with this — namely, as it states: Venerable One,

by the merit of a single meal offered to a field of merit, I was reborn seven times in the heavens as a great heavenly king, and reborn seven times among humankind as a great sovereign lord. And, if that is so, how is the Great Kāśyapa's own recorded past deed to be reconciled with this — namely, as it states: Venerable One, by the merit of a single vessel of coarse rice offered to a field of merit, I was reborn a thousand times in Uttarakuru, enjoying spontaneously arising clothing and food, and reborn a thousand times in the Trāyastriṃśa heaven, enjoying great bliss. And, if that is so, how is the Salt-Simile Sutra to be reconciled with this — namely, as it states: a certain kind of person creates and increases so very much unwholesome karma that, though he ought properly to experience its ripening in hell, instead experiences its ripening within this very life — for there is a kind of person who, though he ought to experience his karma's ripening in hell, instead goes there and experiences it there. But if a single moment of karma can also draw forth many classes of homogeneous being, how is the Prajñaptiśāstra to be reconciled with this — namely, as it states: through the power of karma's own manifold differences, the manifold differences among the destinies of rebirth are established; through the power of the destinies' own manifold differences, the manifold differences among births are established; through the power of births' own manifold differences, the manifold differences among ripening fruits are established; through the power of ripening fruits' own manifold differences, the manifold differences among the faculties are established; through the power of the faculties' own manifold differences, the manifold differences among individual persons are established. And, if that is so, how is the Penetration Sutra to be reconciled with this — namely, as it states: how is one to understand the manifold differences among karmas? One should understand that a distinct karma gives rise to hell, a distinct karma gives rise to the animal realm, a distinct karma gives rise to the realm of hungry ghosts, a distinct karma gives rise to the heavens, and a distinct karma gives rise to the human realm. And, if that is so, how, then, should the threefold distinction among karma received in this very life, and so on, even be established at all? And, if that is so, how is the Prajñaptiśāstra to be further reconciled with this — namely, as it states: one who commits and increases the superior grade of the killing of life, upon the destruction of the body and the ending of life, falls into the uninterrupted hell, while a middling such karma leads to rebirth elsewhere, and an inferior such karma leads to rebirth elsewhere still, and so on, as stated at length? The answer: it should be said that a single moment of karma is able to draw forth only a single class of homogeneous being. One asks: if that is so, how is the Prajñaptiśāstra to be reconciled with this — namely, as it states: there were certain sentient beings who, once dwelling among humankind, and so on, as stated at length? The answer: "by residual karma" here refers to a distinct karma belonging to a different destiny — that is, that person, while among humankind, created and increased two distinct unwholesome karmas, one leading to hell and one leading to the animal realm; having already experienced the hell-karma's own fruit within hell, he was, by the residual animal-realm karma, then born within the great ocean — and so this word "residual" here does not refer to some leftover portion of one and the same karma.

One asks: the Venerable Anavatapta's own recorded past deed — how, then, is it to be reconciled with this — namely, as it states: Venerable One, by the merit of a single meal offered to a field of merit,

and so on, as stated at length? The answer: that passage speaks only with reference to the initial cause, and so speaks in this way — that is, he first, by that single meal-offering, was born into a wealthy and eminent household, richly endowed with wealth and treasure, and then, whether through a memory carried over from a past life or through the power of an original vow, further offered wealth and food by the hundreds and thousands, and so, life after life in succession, ever delighted in giving and ever enjoyed great wealth and bliss — yet he speaks only with reference to that very first, initiating cause. It is just as a farmer who, planting only a scant few seeds across many years, harvests, in the end, hundreds and thousands of measures of grain, and yet says: I planted but a little, and have now reaped hundreds and thousands — or just as a merchant who, trading with but a single gold coin over a long span of time, arrives, in the end, at many millions, and yet says: with a single coin, I have sought and gained this increase —

arriving, in the end, at many millions — all such people speak only with reference to that very first, initiating cause, and this Venerable One is exactly the same. Further, it may be that this Venerable One, within a single lifetime, first offered a single meal and afterward offered many further times, and it is by this that he drew forth many rebirths among gods and humans, yet he speaks only with reference to the very first offering. Further, it may be that this Venerable One, at the very moment of offering that single meal, gave rise to many vows and aspirations, and it is by this that he drew forth many distinct ripening fruits among gods and humans. Further, it may be that this Venerable One, through the act of offering that single meal, gave rise to a lower, a middling, and an upper grade of wholesome karma all at once — by the lower grade of karma, he was born among humankind and became a human sovereign; by the middling grade of karma, he was born among the gods and became, in turn, a heavenly king; and by the upper grade of karma, in his very final body, he was born into the clan of the Śākyas, richly endowed with wealth and treasure, and, going forth from household life to cultivate the path, attained arhatship — and it is through this very principle that the Great Kāśyapa's own recorded past deed has already been reconciled as well. One asks: the Salt-Simile Sutra — how, then, is it to be reconciled with this — namely, as it states: a certain kind of person, and so on, as stated at length?

Some say: that sutra speaks of two people who each create two distinct kinds of karma, thereby experiencing two distinct ripening fruits — that is, there were two people who both took life, one of whom did not diligently cultivate body, precept, mind, and wisdom, and, having little merit, went to hell to experience that karma's own ripening fruit, while the other did diligently cultivate body, precept, mind, and wisdom, and, having much merit, experienced that karma's own ripening fruit right there among humankind. One asks: the scripture speaks of "so very much" — what meaning does this convey? The answer: whether it is a little, or an equal amount, or something merely resembling it, it is alike spoken of as "so very much." There are yet other masters who say: that sutra speaks of a single person who creates two distinct kinds of karma, thereby experiencing two distinct ripening fruits — that is, there was a single person who took two lives, one karma drawing forth a ripening in hell, and the other karma drawing forth a ripening among humankind —

and, if this person did not cultivate body, precept, mind, and wisdom, he would go to hell to experience the distinct ripening fruit of that karma; but if he was able to diligently cultivate body, precept, mind, and wisdom, he would experience the distinct ripening fruit of that karma right there among humankind. There are yet further masters who say: that sutra speaks of a single person who creates a single kind of karma, thereby experiencing two distinct ripening fruits — that is, there was a single person who took a single life, this one karma being able to draw forth both a ripening in hell and, together with it, a ripening among humankind — and, if this person did not cultivate body, precept, mind, and wisdom, he would go to hell to experience that karma's own ripening fruit there, while its human-realm ripening fruit would remain fixed among the dharmas that never arise; but if he was able to diligently cultivate body, precept, mind, and wisdom, he would experience that karma's own ripening fruit right there among humankind, while its hell-realm ripening fruit would remain fixed among the dharmas that never arise. The verdict:

this position ought not to be maintained, lest the fault of a corrupted karma and a corrupted destiny follow. A corrupted karma would mean that a single karma is at once a hell-karma and also a human-karma; a corrupted destiny would mean that a single ripening fruit is at once a hell-destiny fruit and also a human-destiny fruit, since a fruit resembles its own cause. It should instead be said: that sutra speaks of a single person who creates a single kind of karma, thereby experiencing a single ripening fruit — that is, there was a single person who took a single life, this karma being able to draw forth a ripening in hell, and, if this person was unable to diligently practice the path to the point of attaining arhatship, he would go to hell to experience that karma's own fruit there; but if this person was able to diligently practice the path to the point of attaining arhatship, he would then be able to draw the very suffering-experience of that hell-karma into being experienced right there within his human body, without this karma being able to draw forth any class of homogeneous being at all, since a class-of-being-drawing karma cannot be lent out to be experienced by another. It is on this very account that the Venerable Vasumitra stated: is there a case of one who is able to draw the very suffering-experience proper to hell into being experienced right there within a human body? The answer: there is — namely, whoever has attained the fruit of arhatship, his body having been infused through cultivation by superior concentration and wisdom, is thereby able to accomplish this; no ordinary learner, and no ordinary being, is able to accomplish this. It is just as a cook who, having first wetted his hand with water, may then reach into steaming-hot rice without being burned, whereas, had he not wetted his hand, he would certainly be burned — the case here is exactly the same, and it is for this reason that only one beyond further training is able to accomplish this.

There are yet other masters who say: a single moment of karma is also able to draw forth many classes of homogeneous being. One asks: if that is so, then the earlier difficulty is soundly resolved — but how, then, is the later difficulty to be resolved? The answer: the very kinds of karma that sentient beings create are themselves not fixed in a single pattern — there is karma that is chaotically mixed and reversible, and there is karma that is not chaotically mixed and irreversible. If it is chaotically mixed and reversible, then the matter is as cited earlier; if it is not chaotically mixed and irreversible, then the matter is as cited afterward — and so both the earlier and the later difficulties are thereby resolved. The verdict: this position ought not to be maintained, lest the fault of a corrupted karma and a corrupted destiny follow. It should instead be said: a single moment of karma is able to draw forth only a single class of homogeneous being.

Further, it is solely by an unwholesome class-of-being-drawing karma that a being is born within hell; and, once born there, he receives only the ripening fruit of unwholesome dharmas — material form, mind, mental factors, and dissociated formations. As for material form: this refers to nine sense fields, excluding sound. As for mind and mental factors: this refers to painful feeling together with its associated dharmas. As for dissociated formations: this refers to the life faculty, the class of homogeneous being, together with arising, aging, abiding, and impermanence. Further, it is solely by an unwholesome class-of-being-drawing karma that a being is born within the animal realm or the realm of hungry ghosts; and, once born there, he receives the ripening fruit of both wholesome and unwholesome dharmas — material form, mind, mental factors, and dissociated formations. The unwholesome dharmas' own ripening fruit — material form, this refers to nine sense fields, excluding sound; mind and mental factors, this refers to painful feeling together with its associated dharmas; and dissociated formations —

this refers to the life faculty, the class of homogeneous being, together with birth, abiding, aging, and impermanence. The wholesome dharmas' own ripening fruit — material form, this refers to four sense fields, namely form, scent, taste, and touch; mind and mental factors, this refers to pleasant, joyful, and neutral feeling together with their associated dharmas; and dissociated formations, this refers to arising, aging, abiding, and impermanence. There are yet other masters who say: wholesome dharmas produce no ripening form at all within the animal realm or the realm of hungry ghosts, possessing only a ripening of mind, mental factors, and dissociated formations. One asks: if that is so, why is it plainly observed that beings within the animal realm and the realm of hungry ghosts have bodily forms that are, in some cases, beautiful and fine, and, in other cases, ugly and coarse? The answer: their unwholesome karma

is, in some cases, escorted by wholesome karma, and, in other cases, escorted by unwholesome karma. If it is escorted by wholesome karma, the bodily form is beautiful and fine, since the wholesome subdues the unwholesome's own baseness and evil power; if it is escorted by unwholesome karma, the bodily form is ugly and coarse, since the unwholesome only augments that baseness and evil power further. The verdict: wholesome karma is indeed able to bring about a ripening of material form even within the animal realm and the realm of hungry ghosts, and no contradiction in principle follows from this — the earlier position stated is therefore sound. Further, it is solely by a wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma that a being is born within the desire realm, among humankind or the gods; and, once born there, he receives the ripening fruit of both wholesome and unwholesome dharmas — material form, mind, mental factors, and dissociated formations. The wholesome dharmas' own ripening fruit — material form, this refers to nine sense fields, excluding sound; mind and mental factors, this refers to pleasant, joyful, and neutral feeling together with their associated dharmas; and dissociated formations, this refers to the life faculty, the class of homogeneous being, together with birth, aging, abiding, and impermanence. The unwholesome dharmas' own ripening fruit — material form, this refers to four sense fields, namely form, scent, taste, and touch; mind and mental factors, this refers to painful feeling together with its associated dharmas; and dissociated formations, this refers to arising, aging, abiding, and impermanence. There are yet other masters who say: unwholesome dharmas produce no ripening form at all within the human or heavenly destinies, possessing only a ripening of mind, mental factors, and dissociated formations. One asks: if that is so, why is it plainly observed that beings within the human and heavenly destinies have bodily forms that are, in some cases, ugly and coarse, and, in other cases, beautiful and fine? The answer: their wholesome karma is, in some cases, escorted by unwholesome karma, and, in other cases, escorted by wholesome karma. If it is escorted by unwholesome karma, the bodily form is ugly and coarse, since the unwholesome subdues the wholesome's own beauty and radiant power; if it is escorted by wholesome karma, the bodily form is beautiful and fine, since the wholesome only augments that beauty and radiant power further. The verdict: it should be known that the earlier position stated here, too, is sound, since it does not violate any principle. One asks: it is plainly observed that certain people among humankind possess both sexual characteristics at once — is this a ripening of wholesome karma, or a ripening of unwholesome karma? Some say: this is a ripening of unwholesome karma. There are yet other masters who say: whichever sexual characteristic arises in its proper place and at its proper time is a ripening of wholesome karma, while whichever second sexual characteristic arises out of place or out of time is a ripening of unwholesome karma. The verdict: it should be said instead that, of these two sexual characteristics, the very substance of the male and female faculties themselves is a ripening of wholesome karma,

while the form, scent, taste, and touch belonging to that particular location are a ripening of unwholesome karma. Further, it is solely by a wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma that a being is born within the form realm;

and, once born there, he receives only the ripening fruit of wholesome dharmas — material form, mind, mental factors, and dissociated formations. As for material form: this refers to seven sense fields, excluding sound, scent, and taste. As for mind and mental factors: this refers to pleasant, joyful, and neutral feeling together with their associated dharmas. As for dissociated formations: this refers to the life faculty, the class of homogeneous being, the matter proper to non-perception, together with birth, aging, abiding, and impermanence. Further, it is solely by a wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma that a being is born within the formless realm; and, once born there, he receives only the ripening fruit of wholesome dharmas — mind, mental factors, and dissociated formations. As for mind and mental factors: this refers to neutral feeling together with its associated dharmas. As for dissociated formations: this refers to the life faculty, the class of homogeneous being, together with birth, aging, abiding, and impermanence.

Further, some say: it is solely by the upper-grade class-of-being-drawing unwholesome karma that a being is born within hell, and, once born there, he receives only that upper grade of unwholesome dharma's own ripening fruit; it is solely by the middling-grade class-of-being-drawing unwholesome karma that a being is born within the animal realm, and, once born there, he receives only that middling grade's own ripening fruit; it is solely by the lower-grade class-of-being-drawing unwholesome karma that a being is born within the realm of hungry ghosts, and, once born there, he receives only that lower grade's own ripening fruit. There are yet other masters who say: it is solely by the upper-grade class-of-being-drawing unwholesome karma that a being is born within hell, and, once born there, he receives the ripening fruit of both that upper and that middling grade of unwholesome dharma; the animal realm and the realm of hungry ghosts are as stated before. There are yet others who say: it is solely by the upper-grade class-of-being-drawing unwholesome karma that a being is born within hell, and, once born there, he receives the ripening fruit of all three grades of unwholesome dharma; it is solely by the middling-grade class-of-being-drawing unwholesome karma that a being is born within the animal realm, and, once born there, he receives the ripening fruit of both that middling and that lower grade; the realm of hungry ghosts is as stated before. There are yet others who say: it is solely by the upper-grade class-of-being-drawing unwholesome karma that a being is born within hell, and, once born there, he receives the ripening fruit of all three grades of unwholesome dharma; it is solely by the middling-grade class-of-being-drawing unwholesome karma that a being is born within the animal realm, and, once born there, he receives the ripening fruit of all three grades; it is solely by the lower-grade class-of-being-drawing unwholesome karma that a being is born within the realm of hungry ghosts, and, once born there, he too receives the ripening fruit of all three grades. The verdict: it should be said instead that there exist three grades of unwholesome hell-destiny-drawing class-of-being karma, and, whichever one of these three grades actually draws a being into hell, once born there, he receives, as is appropriate, the ripening fruit of all three grades of unwholesome dharma; there likewise exist three grades of unwholesome animal-realm-drawing class-of-being karma, and, whichever one of these three grades actually draws a being into the animal realm, once born there, he receives, as is appropriate, the ripening fruit of all three grades; and there likewise exist three grades of unwholesome hungry-ghost-realm-drawing class-of-being karma, and, whichever one of these three grades actually draws a being into the realm of hungry ghosts, once born there, he receives, as is appropriate, the ripening fruit of all three grades.

Further, some say: it is solely by the upper-grade desire-realm wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma that a being is born within the heaven of mastery over others' emanations, and, once born there, he receives only that upper grade's own ripening fruit; it is solely by the middling-grade desire-realm wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma that a being is born within the five lower heavens, and, once born there, he receives only that middling grade's own ripening fruit; it is solely by the lower-grade desire-realm wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma that a being is born within the human realm, and, once born there, he receives only that lower grade's own ripening fruit. One asks: if it is by lower-grade wholesome karma that a being is born within the human realm, receiving that lower grade's own ripening fruit, then the bodhisattva's own wholesome karma, too, is received among humankind — how, then, can it be of the upper grade? Further, what real difference is there between the bodhisattva's own wholesome karma and the wholesome karma of the heaven of mastery over others' emanations? The answer: this statement — that lower-grade desire-realm wholesome karma is received among humankind — excludes the bodhisattva's own karma;

it is for this reason that the treatise speaks in this way, not meaning to encompass every single case without exception. There is a further, distinct reason why the bodhisattva's own karma is superior: the bodhisattva's own body serves as the very basis for the powers, the fearlessnesses, and other boundless virtues, whereas the body of the heaven of mastery over others' emanations possesses no such matter. And there is a further, distinct reason why the karma of the heaven of mastery over others' emanations is superior: the bodies of that heaven are pure and subtle, resembling the very flame of a lamp, whereas the bodhisattva's own birth-body still bears various forms of impurity requiring relief. There are yet other masters who say: it is solely by the upper-grade desire-realm wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma that a being is born within the heaven of mastery over others' emanations, and, once born there, he receives the ripening fruit of both that upper and that middling grade; the five lower heavens and the human realm are as stated before. There are yet others who say: it is solely by the upper-grade desire-realm wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma that a being is born within the heaven of mastery over others' emanations, and, once born there, he receives the ripening fruit of all three grades; it is solely by the middling-grade desire-realm wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma that a being is born within the five lower heavens, and, once born there, he receives the ripening fruit of both that lower and that middling grade; the human realm is as stated before. There are yet others who say: it is solely by the upper-grade desire-realm wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma that a being is born within the heaven of mastery over others' emanations, and, once born there, he receives the ripening fruit of all three grades; it is solely by the middling-grade desire-realm wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma that a being is born within the five lower heavens, and, once born there, he too receives the ripening fruit of all three grades; it is solely by the lower-grade desire-realm wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma that a being is born within the human realm, and,

once born there, he receives the ripening fruit of both that lower and that middling grade. There are yet others who say: it is solely by the upper-grade desire-realm wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma that a being is born within the heaven of mastery over others' emanations, and, once born there, he receives the ripening fruit of all three grades; it is solely by the middling-grade desire-realm wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma that a being is born within the five lower heavens, and, once born there, he too receives the ripening fruit of all three grades; it is solely by the lower-grade desire-realm wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma that a being is born within the human realm, and, once born there, he too receives the ripening fruit of all three grades. The verdict: it should be said instead that there exist three grades of wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma leading to the heaven of mastery over others' emanations, and, whichever one of these three grades actually draws a being into that heaven, once born there, he receives, as is appropriate, the ripening fruit of all three grades; there likewise exist three grades of wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma leading to the five lower heavens, and, whichever one of these three grades actually draws a being into those heavens, once born there, he receives, as is appropriate, the ripening fruit of all three grades;

and there likewise exist three grades of wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma leading to the human realm, and, whichever one of these three grades actually draws a being into the human realm, once born there, he receives, as is appropriate, the ripening fruit of all three grades.

Further, there exist three grades of wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma leading, without any distinction among them, to the first dhyāna, and, whichever one of these three grades actually draws a being into the first dhyāna, once born there, he receives, as is appropriate, the ripening fruit of all three grades of wholesome dharma, without distinction. It is solely by the lower-grade wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma leading to the second dhyāna that a being is born within the heaven of lesser radiance, and, once born there, he receives only that lower grade's own wholesome ripening fruit; it is solely by the middling-grade wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma leading to the second dhyāna that a being is born within the heaven of boundless radiance, and, once born there, he receives only that middling grade's own wholesome ripening fruit; it is solely by the upper-grade wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma leading to the second dhyāna that a being is born within the heaven of radiant purity, and, once born there, he receives only that upper grade's own wholesome ripening fruit. It is solely by the lower-grade wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma leading to the third dhyāna that a being is born within the heaven of lesser purity, receiving only that lower grade's own wholesome ripening fruit; it is solely by the middling-grade wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma leading to the third dhyāna that a being is born within the heaven of boundless purity, receiving only that middling grade's own wholesome ripening fruit; it is solely by the upper-grade wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma leading to the third dhyāna that a being is born within the heaven of universal purity, receiving only that upper grade's own wholesome ripening fruit. It is solely by the lower-grade wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma leading to the fourth dhyāna that a being is born within the cloudless heaven, receiving only that lower grade's own wholesome ripening fruit; it is solely by the middling-grade wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma leading to the fourth dhyāna that a being is born within the heaven of merit born, receiving only that middling grade's own wholesome ripening fruit; it is solely by the upper-grade wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma leading to the fourth dhyāna that a being is born within the heaven of vast fruit, receiving only that upper grade's own wholesome ripening fruit. It is solely by the lower-grade wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma of mixed cultivation of dhyāna leading to the fourth dhyāna that a being is born within the heaven of no affliction, receiving only that lower grade's own dharma of mixed cultivation of dhyāna as its ripening fruit; it is solely by the middling-grade wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma of mixed cultivation of dhyāna leading to the fourth dhyāna that a being is born within the heaven of no heat, receiving only that middling grade's own dharma of mixed cultivation of dhyāna as its ripening fruit; it is solely by the upper-grade wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma of mixed cultivation of dhyāna leading to the fourth dhyāna that a being is born within the heaven of skillful appearance, receiving only that upper grade's own dharma of mixed cultivation of dhyāna as its ripening fruit; it is solely by the upper-upper-grade wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma of mixed cultivation of dhyāna leading to the fourth dhyāna that a being is born within the heaven of skillful vision, receiving only that upper-upper grade's own dharma of mixed cultivation of dhyāna as its ripening fruit; it is solely by the utmost-upper-grade wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma of mixed cultivation of dhyāna leading to the fourth dhyāna that a being is born within the heaven of the ultimate form realm, receiving only that utmost-upper grade's own dharma of mixed cultivation of dhyāna as its ripening fruit. There exist three grades of wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma leading, without any distinction among them, to the sphere of boundless space, and, whichever one of these three grades actually draws a being into that sphere, once born there, he receives, as is appropriate, the ripening fruit of all three grades of wholesome dharma. There exist three grades of wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma leading, without any distinction among them, to the sphere of boundless consciousness, and, whichever one of these three grades actually draws a being into that sphere, once born there, he receives, as is appropriate, the ripening fruit of all three grades. There exist three grades of wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma leading, without any distinction among them, to the sphere of nothingness, and, whichever one of these three grades actually draws a being into that sphere, once born there, he receives, as is appropriate, the ripening fruit of all three grades. There exist three grades of wholesome class-of-being-drawing karma leading, without any distinction among them, to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, and, whichever one of these three grades actually draws a being into that sphere, once born there, he receives, as is appropriate, the ripening fruit of all three grades. One asks: why is it that the first dhyāna's own three grades of wholesome karma yield an undifferentiated ripening fruit, while the three higher dhyānas' own three grades of wholesome karma yield a differentiated ripening fruit? The answer: within the first dhyāna, many beings dwell together in confused proximity under many different lords, whereas the three higher dhyānas involve no such matter. There are yet other masters who say: the first dhyāna still possesses applied and sustained thought, still possesses bodies of consciousness, and still gives rise to manifest bodily and verbal karma proper to its own stage, whereas the three higher dhyānas involve no such matter.

Further, within the desire realm, unwholesome karma possesses a ripening fruit lasting a full aeon, while wholesome karma does not; within the desire realm, unwholesome karma possesses a ripening fruit reaching across all five destinies, while wholesome karma does not. One asks: why is it that, within the desire realm, unwholesome karma possesses a ripening fruit lasting a full aeon, while wholesome karma does not? The answer: the desire realm is an indeterminate realm, not a realm of cultivation, not a realm freed of defilement, and it is there that unwholesome karma is superior while wholesome karma is inferior.

Further, within the desire realm, unwholesome dharmas are difficult to cut off, difficult to break apart, and difficult to transcend, while wholesome dharmas are not so. Further, within the desire realm, the unwholesome roots are strong while the wholesome roots are weak. Further, within the desire realm, the unwholesome is like a master of the house, while the wholesome is like a mere guest. Further, within the desire realm, the unwholesome dharmas' own cause perpetually increases, while the wholesome dharmas' own cause does not. Further, within the desire realm, the unwholesome roots are able to cut off the wholesome roots, while the wholesome roots are unable to cut off the unwholesome roots. Further, within the desire realm, deportment is chaotically mixed, resembling husband and wife dwelling together, and it is on this account that unwholesome dharmas increase while wholesome dharmas diminish. Further, within the desire realm, deportment is also unmixed, resembling a caṇḍāla's own son imprisoned together with a thief's son, and it is on this account, too, that unwholesome dharmas increase while wholesome dharmas diminish. Further, within the desire realm, there exists no fit vessel capable of receiving wholesome karma's own full-aeon ripening fruit. One asks: are there, then, no such vessels as the continents, Mount Sumeru, the seven encircling gold mountains, and the like, each lasting a full aeon? The answer: those are dominant fruits, not ripening fruits — the present passage speaks specifically with reference to the ripening fruit. Further, when desire-realm wholesome karma is brought to its utmost degree of enhancement, it, too, is indeed able to bring about a full-aeon ripening fruit — namely, the very wholesome karma that leads all the way to freedom from the ninth grade of the peak of existence's own defilement. Yet, once one has already become free of that defilement through this very karma, this karma can then no longer draw forth any further class-of-being fruit at all — and it is for this reason that the desire realm possesses no wholesome karma capable of receiving a full-aeon ripening fruit. Further, among all wholesome dharmas, the very foremost is uncontaminated wholesomeness, and this possesses no ripening fruit at all; among contaminated wholesome dharmas, the very foremost is the wholesomeness of the peak of existence, and this does not belong to the desire realm — and it is for these reasons that desire-realm wholesome karma possesses no full-aeon ripening fruit. Among unwholesome dharmas, the very foremost is the karma that draws forth the uninterrupted hell's own class of homogeneous being, and it is this alone that possesses a full-aeon ripening fruit. One asks: why is it that wholesome karma, brought to its utmost degree of enhancement, is able to bring about the peak of existence's own eighty-thousand-great-aeon lifespan, while unwholesome karma brings about only a single intermediate aeon within the uninterrupted hell? The answer: wholesome karma is cultivated across many realms and many stages, whereas unwholesome karma is not so cultivated. One asks: why is it that, within the desire realm, unwholesome karma possesses a ripening fruit reaching across all five destinies, while wholesome karma does not? The answer: everything already stated above serves as the cause of this as well — that is, within the desire realm, unwholesome karma is superior. There is, further, one particular cause not held in common with the foregoing — namely, the desire realm is itself an unwholesome field, just as a poor field makes fine seedlings difficult to grow while weeds and coarse grasses spring up easily; the desire realm is exactly the same, wholesome dharmas flourishing only with difficulty while unwholesome dharmas spring up with ease — and it is for this reason that unwholesome karma receives its ripening fruit within the whole of one destiny and a small portion of the remaining four, while wholesome karma receives its ripening fruit only within a small portion of four destinies. There are yet other masters who say: the wholesome and the unwholesome each possess their own respective points of superiority, and so this need not be pressed as an objection at all — that is, unwholesome karma's own superiority is that it receives its fruit across five destinies, yet does not pervade all three realms; wholesome karma's own superiority is that it pervades all three realms, yet does not receive its fruit across five destinies; and their shared point of superiority is that both alike pervade all four modes of birth in receiving their fruit, and both alike are capable of drawing forth a full five-aggregate ripening fruit.

As the sūtra states: karma is the cause of the eye. The Abhidharma states: the great elements are the cause of the eye. That same treatise further states: the eye is itself the cause of the eye. One asks: do these three statements not contradict one another? The answer: no real contradiction follows — that is, the sūtra speaks with reference to the ripening-cause, meaning also the generative cause, the abiding cause, the sustaining cause, and the nourishing cause; the Abhidharma speaks with reference to the homogeneous-cause when it says the great elements are the eye's cause; and that same treatise, in further stating that the eye is itself the eye's cause,

— one asks: if the great elements, and the eye itself, are also each the eye's own cause, why does the sūtra single out karma alone as the eye's cause? The answer: karma is the very root of the matter — as it is said: through the power of karma's own manifold differences,

the manifold differences among the destinies of rebirth are established, and so on, up through: through the power of the faculties' own manifold differences, the manifold differences among individual persons are established. Further, karma is the cause of the manifold differences among sentient beings — that is, it is by karma that sentient beings differ in beauty or ugliness, in nobility or lowliness. Further, karma is the cause of the manifold differences among the seven assemblies — that is, it is by karma that the various codes of conduct proper to monks and the rest come to differ. Further, karma is able to distinguish the manifold differences between what is desired and what is not desired as fruit. Further, karma is able to signify the distinguishing marks of folly and wisdom.

Further, karma stamps sentient beings, causing them to differ one from another. Further, the manifold differences among the faculties are, each and every one, due to karma — just as the manifold differences among sprouts are due to the manifold differences among their seeds. Further, every sentient being's own lifespan, whether increasing or decreasing, advancing or declining, flourishing or waning, is, in every case, due to karma. Further, the manifold differences among every realm, every destiny, and every mode of birth are, in every case, due to karma. It is through all of these various causes and conditions, taken together, that the sūtra speaks of karma alone as the eye's own cause.

As the sūtra states: through habitual and widespread practice of the offense of taking life, one will fall into hell, into the animal realm, or into the realm of hungry ghosts, and, afterward, being born among humankind, one's own lifespan will be short. One asks: is it by this very karma that one falls into these evil destinies, and is it likewise by this very same karma that one's lifespan is then shortened? Some say: it is this very unwholesome karma that causes the fall into the evil destinies, and it is this very same karma that then, upon returning to birth among humankind, shortens one's lifespan, since that sūtra states no separate, distinct cause for the two.

There are yet other masters who say: it is by the preparatory stage of taking life that one falls into the evil destinies, while it is by the root act itself of taking life that one's lifespan, upon later birth among humankind, is shortened.

There are yet others who say: falling into the evil destinies is the ripening fruit of taking life, while the shortened lifespan upon later birth among humankind is the equal-outflow fruit of taking life. There are yet others who say: the act of taking another's life carries two distinct faults — first, inflicting an undesired, painful feeling upon that being; second, severing that being's own cherished lifespan. It is by inflicting that undesired, painful feeling that one falls into the evil destinies; it is by severing that being's own cherished lifespan that one's own lifespan, upon later birth among humankind, is shortened. The Venerable Vasumitra stated as follows: a short lifespan among humankind is not, in fact, the ripening fruit of the karma of taking life at all — since the life faculty, being one of the eight faculties shared between the human and heavenly destinies that is a genuine ripening fruit, is, without exception, solely the fruit of wholesome karma. Rather, the one who commits this act had, in an earlier human life, already created and increased a karma projecting a long human lifespan, and only afterward committed the karma of taking life — and this latter karma then inflicts a kind of injury upon that earlier karma, so that, although the earlier karma ought properly to have yielded a lifespan of twenty years, owing to this subsequent injury it yields only ten years instead. It is for this reason that a person's shortened lifespan is not, in fact, the ripening fruit of that killing-karma. As the sūtra states: in the era when the human lifespan is ten years, those people who are able to practice the path of the ten wholesome deeds will have sons and daughters whose own lifespan reaches twenty years. One asks: there exists no principle whereby one person creates karma and a different person experiences its fruit — why, then, is it that, when parents of the ten-year era cultivate wholesomeness, the sons and daughters born to them come to have a lifespan of twenty years? The Venerable Vasumitra explained it in this way: it is these very same ten-year-lifespan people who, through their joint cultivation of wholesomeness, at the ending of that very life, are then reborn as the twenty-year-lifespan children themselves — and so no fault of one person creating karma while a different person experiences its fruit follows. The Great Virtuous One stated as follows: the ripening fruit belonging to each individual person is, in every case, separately and definitely fixed — that is, a twenty-year karma brings about a twenty-year fruit, and so on, up through an eighty-thousand-year karma bringing about an eighty-thousand-year fruit; yet it is because the parents cultivate wholesome karma that the karma their children have themselves already created is thereby enabled to actually bring forth its fruit. Thus, although there exists no principle whereby one person creates karma and a different person experiences its fruit, there does exist a principle whereby karma and fruit, across different persons, mutually serve as a condition for one another. One asks: do the people of the ten-year era, in refraining from taking life and the like, actually complete a genuine path of action, or not? Some say:

they do not — that is, they merely establish a shared restraint against taking life and the like, without any heightened resolve of mind, deliberately deciding to undertake and uphold non-killing and the rest, and so they do not complete a genuine path of action. There are yet other masters who say: they, too, do indeed complete a genuine path of action, since they, too, apply their minds with full attention, mutually facing one another in turn, undertaking the distancing from harm. Further, the Prajñaptiśāstra states: there are four kinds of death — first, death by the exhaustion of lifespan, but not by the exhaustion of wealth, as when a certain kind of person, possessing a karma of short lifespan together with a karma of abundant wealth, in due course dies once his lifespan is exhausted, though his wealth is not yet exhausted; second, death by the exhaustion of wealth, but not by the exhaustion of lifespan,

as when a certain kind of person, possessing a karma of scant wealth together with a karma of long lifespan, in due course dies once his wealth is exhausted, though his lifespan is not yet exhausted; third, death by the exhaustion of both lifespan and wealth together, as when a certain kind of person, possessing a karma of short lifespan together with a karma of scant wealth, in due course dies once both his lifespan and his wealth are exhausted together; fourth, death by the exhaustion of neither lifespan nor wealth, as when a certain kind of person, possessing a karma of long lifespan together with a karma of abundant wealth,

in due course, though neither his wealth nor his lifespan is yet exhausted, nonetheless encounters an adverse condition and dies before his time. The author of that treatise, in speaking this way, means to show that untimely death does indeed exist. Though the Buddha's own merit and lifespan were both likewise not yet exhausted when he entered final nirvāṇa, this was nonetheless not an untimely death, since it was accomplished through the very power of his own concentration at the very limit of existence, his own merit and majestic power not yet having reached their final exhaustion in the ordinary sense — every other sentient being, at the moment of death, has his majestic power reach its final exhaustion, but the Buddha is not like this.

Further, the Prajñaptiśāstra states: is there a case of not experiencing the ripening of karma whose fruit is received in this very life, while yet experiencing the ripening of karma whose fruit is received in the next life or in some later life still? The answer: there is — namely, when the ripening of karma whose fruit is received in this very life does not actually manifest, while the ripening of karma whose fruit is received in the next life or in some later life still does actually manifest. Is there a case of not experiencing the ripening of karma whose fruit is received in the next life, while yet experiencing the ripening of karma whose fruit is received in this very life or in some later life still? The answer: there is — namely, when the ripening of karma whose fruit is received in the next life does not actually manifest, while the ripening of karma whose fruit is received in this very life or in some later life still does actually manifest. Is there a case of not experiencing the ripening of karma whose fruit is received in some later life still, while yet experiencing the ripening of karma whose fruit is received in this very life or in the next life? The answer: there is — namely, when the ripening of karma whose fruit is received in some later life still does not actually manifest, while

the ripening of karma whose fruit is received in this very life or in the next life does actually manifest. This, however, necessarily requires having attained the fruit of arhatship — it is not a matter available to one who has not yet attained it. One asks: a learner, or an ordinary being, ought equally to be capable of such a thing — why does that treatise speak only of the arhat? The answer: only the arhat, his body infused through cultivation by superior concentration and wisdom, possesses this capacity — a learner or an ordinary being possesses no such capacity. Further, only the arhat is able to fully know his own karma — which of it is near, which is far, which is transformable, and which is not transformable; whatever is transformable, he redirects through the power of cultivation, and whatever is not transformable, he draws forward to be experienced in the present, so that no further existence remains afterward — just as a person about to depart for another country, whose various creditors all come forward at once, is thereupon able to settle and repay them all in turn. This is said with reference to fulfilling karma, for which such a thing can occur; the class-of-being-drawing karma is not received simultaneously with any other such karma, and so this does not apply to it.

Further, it is because the continuum involved is one and unbroken, never severed or interrupted, that this is possible. There are yet other masters who say: there is karma that, though its ripening was already experienced in an earlier life, still retains a residual portion, and now, at the present time, having attained the fruit of arhatship, one draws that residual portion forward to be experienced in the present through the power of superior cultivation and the power of resolute discernment — only the arhat possesses this capacity, and it is for this reason that the treatise singles him out for special mention.

One asks: what is the ripening-cause's own very substance? The answer: it is every unwholesome dharma and every contaminated-wholesome dharma — its own substance has already been stated, and so it will not be stated again here. One asks: why is it named the "ripening-cause"? What does "ripening" actually mean? The answer: maturing into something differing in kind is the very meaning of "ripening" — that is, a wholesome or unwholesome cause takes the undefined as its fruit, "fruit" here bearing the sense of "matured," exactly as already explained above. This ripening-cause definitely spans all three time-periods, and possesses a ripening fruit.

What is the efficient-cause? — and so on, as stated at length. One asks: why does the treatise take up this topic? The answer: in order to refute a rival school and manifest the correct principle. That is, some maintain that dharmas, at the time of their arising, arise without any cause at all, just as the outside religious teachers hold — in order to refute this, the treatise shows that the arising of every dharma is, without exception, certainly caused.

Others maintain that, although dharmas, at the time of their arising, do arise from a cause, they do not, at the time of their ceasing, cease from any cause, just as the Dārṣṭāntikas hold — in order to refute this, the treatise shows that both the arising and the ceasing of dharmas are, without exception, never uncaused. Others maintain that only conditioned dharmas can serve as an efficient-cause, never unconditioned dharmas — in order to refute this, the treatise shows that unconditioned dharmas, too, can serve as an efficient-cause. Others maintain that every efficient-cause must possess actual function, taking up and giving its fruit — in order to refute this, the treatise shows that an efficient-cause can also be one that is simply unable to take up or give a fruit, being established as a cause solely through not obstructing. Others maintain that a dharma's own self-nature can also serve as an efficient-cause for itself — in order to refute this, the treatise shows that self-nature is never an efficient-cause for itself. Others maintain that unconditioned dharmas, too, possess an efficient-cause of their own — in order to refute this, the treatise shows that conditioned dharmas possess an efficient-cause, while unconditioned dharmas do not. Others maintain that a later dharma can never serve as an efficient-cause for an earlier one — in order to refute this, the treatise shows that an efficient-cause can obtain among earlier, later, and simultaneous dharmas alike. It is in order to refute these various distinct erroneous positions, and to manifest the correct principle, that the treatise is composed.

What is the efficient-cause? The answer: the eye and form serve as condition to produce eye-consciousness; this eye-consciousness has that eye, that form, that consciousness's own associated dharmas, that consciousness's own co-existent dharmas, and, further, the ear and sound, the ear-consciousness, the nose and scent, the nose-consciousness, the tongue and taste, the tongue-consciousness, the body and touch, the body-consciousness, the mental faculty and dharmas, the mental consciousness, whatever possesses form or is formless, whatever is visible or invisible, whatever is resistant or non-resistant, whatever is contaminated or uncontaminated, whatever is conditioned or unconditioned, and so on — every dharma, without exception, serving as an efficient-cause for it, excluding only its own self-nature. Just as with eye-consciousness, so too should ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mental-consciousness each be understood in the very same way. This, then, is called the efficient-cause. Here, "that consciousness's own associated dharmas" and "that consciousness's own co-existent dharmas" refer to the dharmas associated with, and co-existent with, eye-consciousness. One asks: given the earlier passage's own sixfold gateway concerning the eye and form and the rest, or its own sixfold-then-threefold gateway,

already skillfully marking out, skillfully explaining, and clearly establishing and displaying that the very substance of every dharma serves as an efficient-cause, the meaning would already seem complete — why, then, does the treatise go on to further state the five further pairs, such as "possessing form or formless," and the rest? The answer: the earlier statement is the extended account, the later statement the abbreviated one; the earlier statement distinguishes each item separately, the later statement summarizes them all together; the earlier statement proceeds gradually, the later statement all at once — and it is in this way that the meaning is rendered clearly manifest. One asks: why does this passage not simply state, "what is the efficient-cause? every dharma" — plainly, without further qualification? The answer: were it stated in this way, self-nature would then have to be admitted as an efficient-cause for itself. One asks: if that is so, why does it not instead state, "what is the efficient-cause? every dharma, excluding its own self-nature"? The answer: were it stated in this way, the unconditioned, too, would then have to be admitted as possessing an efficient-cause, lacking any means of exclusion. One asks: if that is so, why does it not instead state, "what is the efficient-cause? every conditioned dharma, excluding its own self-nature"? The answer: were it stated in this way, unconditioned dharmas would then have to be excluded from ever serving as an efficient-cause for anything else. One asks: why does this passage speak only of the six consciousnesses as what takes every other dharma as its efficient-cause, rather than every other conditioned dharma as well? The answer: consciousness is the most superior among all dharmas, and it is for this reason that the treatise speaks in this way — every one of the six causes is, in every case, explained with reference to what is most superior, without ever exhausting every last particular. One asks: if that is so, then, for eye-consciousness, every dharma excluding its own self-nature is an efficient-cause for it — why, then, does this passage first speak of the eye and form, next speak of that consciousness's own associated and co-existent dharmas, and only afterward speak of the ear and the rest, encompassing every dharma? The answer: the eye and form, serving eye-consciousness as its support and as its object, function as its efficient-cause with especially forceful power; its own associated and co-existent dharmas serve as its efficient-cause through an especially intimate function; the ear and the rest do not stand in so intimate a relation, and it is for this reason that they are mentioned only afterward. One asks: why is it that self-nature is never an efficient-cause for itself? The answer: were self-nature to serve as an efficient-cause for itself, then cause and effect, agent and object of action, producer and produced, drawer and drawn, characterizer and characterized, transformer and transformed, sustainer and sustained would all be rendered utterly without distinction — yet cause and effect are indeed distinct, and it is for this reason that self-nature is never an efficient-cause for itself. Further, self-nature has no benefit or harm, no increase or decrease, no accomplishment or destruction, no advance or retreat, with respect to itself, and it is for this reason that it is never an efficient-cause for itself. Further, self-nature is neither its own cause, nor its own immediately-antecedent condition, nor its own object-condition,

nor its own dominant condition, and it is for this reason that it is never an efficient-cause for itself. Further, were self-nature to serve as an efficient-cause for itself, this would violate every plainly observed fact of the world — that is, a fingertip cannot touch itself, an eye cannot see itself, a knife cannot cut itself, and even a person of great strength cannot carry himself upon his own back — every such thing is impossible, and the case here is exactly the same. Further, self-nature possesses no mastery and no independence with respect to itself, having nothing to depend upon or look toward in itself, and it is for this reason that it is never an efficient-cause for itself. Further, self-nature does not depend upon self-nature, and it is for this reason that it is never an efficient-cause for itself — just as a person depends upon a staff in order to be able to rise, and, once the staff is removed, falls back down again, self-nature possesses no such relationship of dependency with itself. Further, what constitutes an efficient-cause is precisely the portion of reality that offers no obstruction; every dharma's own self-nature, however, obstructs that very self-nature, and it is for this reason that it is never an efficient-cause for itself. Obstruction is itself of two kinds: first, conventional obstruction, as when a person lying upon a bed obstructs any other person from also lying there; second, ultimate obstruction, as when a dharma's own self-nature obstructs that very self-nature, rendering it unable to act with respect to itself. Further, were self-nature to serve as an efficient-cause for itself, one ought then to be able to say that ignorance serves as condition for ignorance, rather than that ignorance serves as condition for the formations, and one ought then to be able to say that eye-consciousness serves as condition to produce eye-consciousness, rather than that the eye and form serve as condition to produce eye-consciousness — and it is for this reason that it is settled, decisively, that self-nature is never an efficient-cause for itself.