The Bodhisattva as a Rescuing Bear

There are three kinds of karma — namely, bodily, verbal, and mental karma. There are four kinds of karma — namely, black karma with a black ripening; white karma with a white ripening; karma both black and white, with a ripening both black and white; and karma neither black nor white, without ripening, capable of exhausting every other karma. Do the three gather in the four, or do the four gather in the three? One asks: for what reason is this treatise composed? The answer: it is in order to distinguish the meaning of the scripture — that is, as the scripture states the three kinds of karma and the four kinds of karma. Although the scripture makes this same statement, it does not broadly discuss it, nor has it ever stated whether the three gather in the four, or the four gather in the three, set forth at length exactly as before. There are, further, those who say: the three kinds of karma have already been distinguished, yet the four kinds of karma have not yet been distinguished — it is wished now to distinguish them, and it is thereby that this treatise is composed. Here, what, precisely, is black karma with a black ripening? It refers to unwholesome karma capable of bringing forth the ripening of a perilous, evil destiny. One asks: the ripening ought not to be named black — for what reason is this so? Exactly as the *Prakaraṇapāda* states: what is a black dharma? It refers to an unwholesome dharma, and a defiled, neutral dharma. What is a white dharma?

It refers to a wholesome dharma, and an undefiled, neutral dharma — every ripened fruit is undefiled and neutral, so for what reason is it named black? The answer: here, it ought solely to state, what is black karma? It refers to unwholesome karma capable of bringing forth a perilous, evil destiny — it ought not to further speak of a "black ripening." Were it to be so stated, and yet it is not so, what intention lies behind this? It refers to the fact that, were it stated in this way, it would already establish black as the cause, not the fruit — exactly as it is said: this thief's own son utters such words, reviling, not honoring, his own father — here, too, it is just the same. There are, further, those who say: here, it is by reliance upon the disagreeable black that this same statement is made. Black is of two kinds: the first is defiled black; the second is disagreeable black. Here, karma, by virtue of these same two blacks, is named black; the ripening, solely by virtue of the disagreeable black, is likewise named black. One asks: black karma, too, brings forth a ripening among humankind and the gods — for what reason does it speak solely of bringing forth the ripening of an evil destiny? The answer: it, too, ought to be so stated, and that it is not so stated here should be understood to be a case whose meaning has been left over for elsewhere. There are, further, those who say:

that same matter is not fixed — that is, wherever, among humankind and the gods, the ripening of black karma exists, in that same place the ripening of white karma necessarily exists as well; there exists no place possessing solely the ripening of black karma, without the ripening of white karma. Among the various evil destinies, wherever the ripening of white karma exists, in that same place the ripening of black karma necessarily exists as well; yet there exist places possessing solely the ripening of black karma, without the ripening of white karma — since, among the evil destinies, there exist places fixed to possess solely a black ripening, it is thereby singled out and spoken of. The *Saṅgītiparyāya* further states: what is black karma with a black ripening? It refers to unwholesome karma bringing forth the destiny of hell. One asks: unwholesome karma, too, brings forth the ripening of the animal and hungry-ghost destinies — for what reason does it speak solely of bringing forth hell, not speaking of the rest? The answer: it, too, ought to be so stated, and that it is not so stated here should be understood to be a case whose meaning has been left over for elsewhere. There are, further, those who say: that same matter is not fixed — that is, the animal and hungry-ghost destinies, too, undergo the ripening of unwholesome karma, and also undergo the ripening of wholesome karma; the hell destiny is fixed to undergo solely the ripening of unwholesome karma, and it is thereby singled out and spoken of. There are, further, those who say: within the Bhagavān's own scripture, it is by means of grave and evil karma that sentient beings are made to feel dread — it is in accordance with that same scripture that it speaks solely of the unwholesome karma bringing forth hell as being named black karma with a black ripening. In order to display this same meaning, that same scripture ought to be cited: there were two outside-path ascetics — the first named Pūrṇa Kauḍika, who upheld the vow of the cow; the second named Acela Seniya, who upheld the vow of the dog. These two outside-path ascetics, at one time, gathered together and sat, speaking in this way: whatever difficult ascetic vows exist in the world, we two have already cultivated and learned in full — who is capable of genuinely recording for us what ripening we have thereby brought forth?

They heard that, born of the Śākya clan, there was a prince of upright and handsome countenance, adorned in his own body with the thirty-two marks of a great man and the eighty subsidiary marks, whom one could gaze upon without ever growing weary, his own body the color of genuine gold, his own constant halo extending a fathom's length, his own voice clear, resonant, gentle, and pleasing, surpassing even the kalaviṅka bird of wondrous voice, his own knowledge and vision unobstructed, his own eloquence unimpeded — who, having grown weary of and relinquished his own household dharma, went forth into the homeless life, diligently cultivating ascetic practice, and, further growing weary of and relinquishing this same practice, cultivated the middle way, and thereby certified the attainment of unsurpassed, complete awakening, possessing every kind of knowledge, genuinely witnessing and seeing the very nature and characteristic of every dharma,

cutting off every net of doubt, bestowing every decisive certainty, thoroughly fathoming the very depths of every question and discussion. We two ought now to go and ask him — were we to obtain his own recorded prediction of the ripening our own ascetic vows have brought forth, we would then rely upon his own teaching — would this not be delightful indeed? Thereupon the two came to where the Buddha was, exchanging various words of affectionate greeting, and, having offered their own consolation and inquiry, withdrew and sat to one side. At that time, Pūrṇa first asked another to inquire on his behalf,

saying to the Buddha: this same Seniya has upheld the vow of the dog, his own cultivation and learning having reached completion — toward what destiny will he proceed, and what kind of birth will he undergo? The Bhagavān said to him: Pūrṇa, cease — you need not ask this, nor should you pursue this same matter, since you two will both, in every case, be unable to bear it, unable to believe it, your own minds harboring shame and resentment.

So it continued, up to three times — he still, diligently and earnestly, requested to ask, without ceasing. The Buddha, with compassionate mercy, said to him: listen closely — I shall now genuinely record it for you. Whoever upholds the vow of the dog, if without any flaw or violation, will be reborn among dogs; if with some flaw or violation, will fall into hell. At that time, Pūrṇa, having heard the Buddha's own words, his own mind filled with sorrow and dread, wept and choked, unable to master himself. The Bhagavān said to him: did I not, before, repeatedly tell you, saying, cease — you need not ask this, nor should you pursue this same matter, since you two will both, in every case, be unable to bear it, unable to believe it, your own minds harboring shame and resentment? Now the very fruit has come to pass exactly as I said. At that time, Pūrṇa then restrained himself, and said to the Buddha: it is not because the Bhagavān has recorded that Seniya will be reborn among the destiny of dogs that I weep — rather, I myself, throughout the long night, have upheld the vow of the cow, my own cultivation and learning having reached completion, and I fear that I, too, will meet with the very same fate, and it is for this reason that I am filled with sorrow and dread. I beg only that your own great compassion would proclaim, for my own sake, upholding the vow of the cow — toward what destiny will I proceed, and what kind of birth will I undergo? The Bhagavān said to him: whoever upholds the vow of the cow, if without any flaw or violation, will be reborn among cattle; if with some flaw or violation, will fall into hell. Such matters as these are set forth at length exactly as the scripture states. One asks: what, precisely, constitutes upholding the vow of the dog or the vow of the cow without any flaw or violation? The answer: if one upholds the vow of the dog entirely in accordance with the dharma of a dog, this is named without flaw or violation; if one upholds the vow of the cow entirely in accordance with the dharma of a cow, this, too, is named without flaw or violation; if it is not thus, it is named as having a flaw or violation. It is for this reason that the Bhagavān, by means of grave and evil karma, made sentient beings feel dread, and therefore spoke of the unwholesome karma capable of bringing forth the destiny of hell — it is in accordance with that same scripture that the *Saṅgītiparyāya*, too, speaks in this way: the unwholesome karma bringing forth the destiny of hell is named black karma with a black ripening. There are, further, those who say: the various unwholesome karmas abandoned by seeing the path are named black karma with a black ripening, since, within their own same category, there is no admixture of white. Those who speak in this way hold that every unwholesome karma whatsoever is named black karma with a black ripening, since, within the desire realm, the unwholesome is forceful and dominant, not admixed with any wholesome dharma, the unwholesome dharma being capable of subduing and cutting off the wholesome belonging to its own same ground; the wholesome karma, being feeble, is admixed with the unwholesome, since the desire realm's own wholesome is incapable of cutting off the unwholesome.

What, precisely, is white karma with a white ripening? It refers to wholesome karma bound to the form realm. One asks: wholesome karma bound to the formless realm, too, brings forth a white ripening — for what reason does it speak solely of wholesome karma bound to the form realm as being named white karma with a white ripening, not speaking of wholesome karma bound to the formless realm? The answer: it, too, ought to be so stated, and that it is not so stated here should be understood to be a case whose meaning has been left over for elsewhere. There are, further, those who say: were it stated that wholesome karma bound to the form realm is named white karma with a white ripening, it ought to be understood that this has already stated that wholesome karma bound to the formless realm, too, is that same karma, since both alike belong to the fixed ground, the ground of cultivation, and the ground of dharma — if this is stated, that, too, ought to be understood as stated. There are, further, those who say: if a wholesome karma is capable of bringing forth two kinds of ripened fruit — namely, intermediate existence and basic existence — this same wholesome karma is named white karma with a white ripening; formless-realm karma brings forth solely basic existence, not bringing forth intermediate existence, and it is thereby not spoken of. Exactly as with intermediate existence and basic existence, so, too, should arising and what has arisen, the ripening arising and what has arisen through ripening, the fruit arising and what has arisen through fruit, the subtle fruit and the coarse fruit,

be understood in the same way. There are, further, those who say: if a karma is capable of bringing forth two kinds of ripening — namely, form and non-form — this same wholesome karma is named white karma with a white ripening; formless-realm karma brings forth solely what is non-form, not bringing forth form, and it is thereby not spoken of. There are, further, those who say:

if a karma, possessing both, is capable of bringing forth a ripening — namely, form and non-form — the wholesome karma here is named white karma with a white ripening; the formless realm possesses solely the karma of non-form, without any karma of form, and it is thereby not spoken of. Exactly as with form and non-form, so, too, should being associated and not being associated, possessing a support and not possessing a support, possessing an aspect and not possessing an aspect, possessing an object and not possessing an object, possessing attention and not possessing attention, these two kinds of karma, be understood accordingly. There are, further, those who say: if a karma, possessing all three — namely, bodily, verbal, and mental — is capable of bringing forth a ripening, this pure, wholesome karma is named white karma with a white ripening; within the formless realm, there exists solely mental karma capable of bringing forth a ripening, and it is thereby not spoken of. There are, further, those who say: if a karma, possessing the five aggregates in full, is capable of bringing forth a ripening, this pure, wholesome karma is named white karma with a white ripening; within the formless realm, there exist solely four aggregates capable of bringing forth a ripening, and it is thereby not spoken of. There are, further, those who say: if a karma, possessing the ten wholesome paths of karma in full, is capable of bringing forth a ripening, this pure, wholesome karma is named white karma with a white ripening; within the formless realm, there exist solely three wholesome paths of karma capable of bringing forth a ripening,

and it is thereby not spoken of. There are, further, those who say: if, within this same ground, there exist two kinds of freshness, and two kinds of brightness and clarity — namely, cause and fruit — this same ground's own wholesome karma is named white karma with a white ripening; within the formless realm, there exists solely a single kind of freshness, brightness, and clarity — namely, cause — and it is thereby not spoken of. It is by virtue of such various causes and conditions as these that solely wholesome karma bound to the form realm is named white karma with a white ripening, not wholesome karma bound to the formless realm. What, precisely, is karma both black and white, with a ripening both black and white? It refers to wholesome karma bound to the desire realm, capable of bringing forth the ripening of the human and heavenly destinies. One asks: there exists no single karma that is both black and white at once — for what reason is it named karma both black and white, with a ripening both black and white? The answer: it is in order to display that, within a single support, within a single continuum, one undergoes the ripening brought forth by two kinds of karma — the first black, the second white — and it is thereby that it is named karma both black and white, with a ripening both black and white. One asks: the various evil destinies, too, undergo the ripening of both black and white karma — for what reason does it speak solely of the karma capable of bringing forth the ripening of the human and heavenly destinies as being named karma both black and white, with a ripening both black and white, not speaking of the karma capable of bringing forth the ripening of an evil destiny? The answer: it, too, ought to be so stated, and that it is not so stated here should be understood to be a case

whose meaning has been left over for elsewhere. There are further teachers who say: were it stated that the wholesome karma capable of bringing forth the human and heavenly destinies is named karma both black and white, with a ripening both black and white, it ought to be understood that this has already stated that the wholesome karma capable of bringing forth an evil destiny, too, is that same karma, since their own characteristic of admixture is, alike, without difference — if this is stated, that, too, ought to be understood as already stated. There are, further, those who say: that same matter is not fixed, and it is thereby not spoken of — that is, within the desire realm's own human and heavenly destinies, there exists no single place whatsoever that does not undergo, admixed together, the ripening of black and white karma; among the various evil destinies, although there exist places that undergo, admixed together, the ripening of black and white karma, there further exist places that solely and exclusively undergo the ripening of black karma — namely, a portion of the animal and hungry-ghost destinies, and every hell. Since, among the evil destinies, there exists this same lack of fixity, it is thereby not spoken of. There are, further, those who say: the wholesome and unwholesome karma abandoned by cultivation, bound to the desire realm, is named karma both black and white, with a ripening both black and white, since, within a single category, two kinds of karma are admixed. There are, further, those who say: if wholesome or unwholesome karma is capable of bringing forth the ripening of the desire realm's own human, heavenly, animal, or hungry-ghost destinies, it is named karma both black and white, with a ripening both black and white, since, within a single destiny, one undergoes, admixed together, the ripening of two kinds of karma. Those who speak in this way hold that every wholesome karma of the desire realm whatsoever is named the third kind of karma, since, although this same wholesome karma's own substance is white,

it is admixed together with the black of the unwholesome, since the unwholesome is capable of cutting off the wholesome belonging to its own same ground; the unwholesome is not thus — it is not admixed together with the wholesome belonging to its own same ground, since the wholesome belonging to its own same ground is incapable of cutting off the unwholesome belonging to its own same ground — and it is by virtue of this that the desire realm's own wholesome karma is named the third kind of karma. What, precisely, is karma neither black nor white, without ripening, capable of exhausting every other karma? It refers to the learner's own volition, capable of everlastingly cutting off every karma. One asks: this same undefiled karma is white in the supreme sense — for what reason, then, is it named neither black nor white? The answer: the *Saṅgītiparyāya* and the *Prajñaptiśāstra* both state that this same karma is unlike the unwholesome, defiled black, and unlike what brings forth a disagreeable ripening's own black, and it is thereby said to be not black; it is likewise unlike the wholesome, contaminated white, and unlike what brings forth an agreeable ripening's own white, and it is thereby said to be not white. There are, further, those who say: this is by reliance upon the whiteness of the fruit that it is said to be not white. White is of two kinds: the first is the whiteness of the cause; the second is the whiteness of the fruit. Wholesome, contaminated karma possesses both kinds of whiteness in full, and it is thereby named white; the various undefiled karmas possess solely the whiteness of the cause, without the whiteness of the fruit, and it is thereby not named white. There are, further, those who say: it is by reliance upon the whiteness of the ripening that it is named not white. White is of two kinds: the first is the whiteness of one's own substance; the second is the whiteness of the ripening. Wholesome, contaminated karma possesses both kinds of whiteness in full, and it is thereby named white; undefiled karma possesses solely the whiteness of its own substance, without the whiteness of the ripening, and it is thereby not named white. There are, further, those who say: this same undefiled karma is capable of cutting off the ripening the world holds dear — since it is not what the world holds dear, it possesses no characteristic of whiteness whatsoever, and it is thereby not named white. It is by virtue of this same meaning that it is named neither black nor white. This same undefiled karma does not, like the preceding three kinds, bring forth a ripened fruit, and it is thereby named without ripening. This same undefiled karma causes the preceding three kinds of karma to be entirely extinguished, equally exhausted, and pervasively exhausted,

everlastingly cut off, everlastingly destroyed, relinquished, spat out, freed of desire, and utterly quiescent, and it is thereby named capable of exhausting every karma. It is in this way that there are spoken of the seventeen kinds of the learner's own volition — namely, the learner's own volition associated with the four forbearances of dharma-cognition within the path of seeing, and the learner's own volition associated with the eight unimpeded paths of becoming free of the desire realm's own defilement. These twelve kinds of volition are capable of exhausting black karma with a black ripening. The learner's own volition associated with the ninth unimpeded path of becoming free of the desire realm's own defilement is capable of exhausting black karma with a black ripening, and karma both black and white, with a ripening both black and white. The learner's own volition associated with the ninth unimpeded path of becoming free of the first dhyāna's own defilement, up through the learner's own volition associated with the ninth unimpeded path of becoming free of the fourth dhyāna's own defilement, is capable of exhausting white karma with a white ripening. These seventeen kinds of undefiled volition are named the learner's own volition capable of cutting off every karma. There are, further, those who say: every undefiled volition belonging to an unimpeded path is named the learner's own volition capable of cutting off every karma, since every unimpeded path is capable of cutting off every karma. There are, further, those who say: every learner's own volition whatsoever is named the learner's own volition capable of cutting off every karma, since every learner's own volition is capable of counteracting contaminated karma. Those who speak in this way hold that the first statement, positing solely these seventeen kinds of undefiled volition, is correct, since these alone are genuinely capable of counteracting the preceding three kinds of karma. One asks: the various undefiled wisdoms, together with their co-existent and associated dharmas, are all genuinely capable of cutting off the preceding three kinds of karma — for what reason does it speak solely of the undefiled learner's own volition? The answer: volition is capable of setting every dharma into motion, causing them to be cut off, and it is thereby singled out and spoken of. There are, further, those who say: although all are capable of cutting off karma, since this discussion here discerns karma, it speaks solely of volition. One asks: if this is so, then the accompanying bodily and verbal karma, too, ought to be spoken of — for what reason does it speak solely of volition? The answer: it is because this same learner's own volition, being associated with undefiled wisdom, and turning together with it, sharing a single object, a single aspect, and a single support, mutually assisting with genuine force, is capable of cutting off every karma — bodily and verbal karma do not possess this same capacity, and it is thereby not spoken of.

Having already stated the own-nature of the three kinds of karma and the four kinds of karma, it is now fitting to display the characteristic of their admixture and non-admixture. Do the three kinds of karma and the four kinds of karma, taken together, gather the former within the latter, or the latter within the former? The answer: the three gather in the four; the four do not gather in the three. What is not gathered in? Namely, excluding the learner's own volition capable of cutting off every karma, every other undefiled karma, wholesome karma bound to the formless realm, and every neutral karma. Here, as for excluding the learner's own volition capable of cutting off every karma, every other undefiled karma: whoever holds that the seventeen kinds of undefiled volition constitute the fourth kind of karma holds that, excluding these seventeen kinds of volition, every other undefiled preparatory-effort, unimpeded, liberation, or continued-advancement path's own associated volition, and the learner's own accompanying karma, together with every non-learner's own karma, constitutes this same "every other undefiled karma." Whoever holds that every unimpeded path's own associated learner's volition constitutes the fourth kind of karma holds that, excluding every unimpeded path, every other undefiled preparatory-effort, liberation, or continued-advancement path's own associated learner's volition, and the learner's own accompanying karma, together with every non-learner's own karma, constitutes this same "every other undefiled karma." Whoever holds that every learner's own volition constitutes the fourth kind of karma holds that the learner's own accompanying karma, and every non-learner's own karma, constitutes this same "every other undefiled karma." Those who speak in this way hold that the first statement, excluding wholesome karma bound to the formless realm, refers to every wholesome karma bound to the formless realm,

while excluding neutral karma refers to the neutral karma bound to all three realms. By virtue of this same principle, the three kinds of karma fully gather in learner, non-learner, and neither the learner nor the non-learner's own karma; the four kinds of karma gather solely in learner and neither the learner nor the non-learner's own karma. The three kinds of karma fully gather in karma bound to the desire, form, and formless realms; the four kinds of karma gather solely in karma bound to the desire and form realms. The three kinds of karma fully gather in wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral karma; the four kinds of karma gather solely in wholesome and unwholesome karma. The three kinds of karma fully gather in karma abandoned by seeing, abandoned by cultivation, and not abandoned; the four kinds of karma gather solely in a portion of these three kinds. The three kinds of karma fully gather in contaminated and undefiled karma, defiled and undefiled karma, karma with ripening and karma without ripening, associated and dissociated karma,

karma with a following and without a following, manifest and unmanifest karma; the four kinds of karma gather solely in a small portion of each of these two kinds. All such categories as these ought to be broadly stated. It is thereby said: the three gather in the four; the four do not gather in the three. What is not gathered in? Namely, excluding the learner's own volition capable of cutting off every karma, every other undefiled karma, wholesome karma bound to the formless realm, and every neutral karma. There are three kinds of karma — namely, bodily, verbal, and mental karma. There exist, further, three kinds of karma — namely, karma ripening in the present life, karma ripening in the very next life, and karma ripening in some later life. One asks: for what reason is this treatise composed?

The answer: it is in order to distinguish the meaning of the scripture — that is, as the scripture states: karma ripening in the present life, and the rest, three kinds of karma — yet it has not broadly discussed it, set forth at length exactly as before. There are, further, those who say: the preceding three kinds of karma — bodily, and the rest — have already been distinguished, yet karma ripening in the present life, and the rest, have not yet been distinguished — it is wished now to distinguish them, and it is thereby that this treatise is composed.

What, precisely, is karma ripening in the present life? It refers to whatever karma, deliberately fabricated and increased in this same life, brings forth its ripened fruit within this very same life — this is named karma ripening in the present life. One asks: if a karma is fabricated and increased at this same time, does it then bring forth its ripened fruit at this same time? The answer: this is not so. For what reason is this so? Every wholesome and evil karma necessarily awaits its own continuum, or crosses over its own continuum, before undergoing its ripening — that is, if this same karma is fabricated and increased, either within this same single continuum, or within this same single span of time, or within this same single shared class of existence, its ripened fruit is undergone — this, then, is named karma ripening in the present life. There decisively exists no karma such that, fabricated within this same moment, it is this same moment, or the immediately following moment, that ripens — this being on account of its belonging to a different category, and its being drawn forth only distantly. Among what is genuinely, directly observed by the world in this same connection as karma ripening in the present life, it has been heard that there was once a wood-gatherer who, entering the mountains, encountered snow, and, losing his own way, wandered lost. At that time, the day had already grown late, the snow deep, the cold bitter and freezing —

close to death, before long, he pressed forward into a dense, tangled forest, where he beheld a bear already dwelling within — its own form and color a deep blue-black, its own eyes like a pair of blazing torches. The man, terrified, felt certain he was about to lose his own life. This bear was, in genuine truth, the Bodhisattva himself, presently manifest in the body of a bear — seeing the man's own sorrow and dread, he thereupon comforted him, saying,

do not now be afraid — a father and mother may, at times, harbor a differing intention toward their own child, yet I, toward you, harbor, in the end, no evil intention whatsoever. He thereupon came forward, gathering the man up and bringing him into his own den, warming his own body until he was revived, taking various roots and fruits and urging him to eat as he wished, and, fearing the cold might cause illness, held him close as they lay together. In this way, he nourished and cared for him, six days passing, and, on the seventh day, the sky having cleared and the road become visible, the man's own heart turned toward returning home. The bear, knowing this, once again gathered sweet fruit, feeding him until he was full, and sent him on his way, escorting him to the very edge of the forest, taking earnest leave of him there. The man knelt and thanked him, saying: how might I repay this kindness? The bear said: I require no further repayment now — only that, exactly as I have, on this same day, protected your own body, you, too, would wish the same with respect to my own life. The man respectfully assented, shouldered his own firewood, and descended the mountain, whereupon he encountered two hunters, who asked him: within the mountains, what insects or beasts have you seen? The wood-gatherer answered: I, too, have seen no other beast — solely a single bear. The hunters begged him: are you capable of showing us where? The wood-gatherer answered: if you are capable of giving me two parts of three, I shall then show you. The hunters agreed to grant him this, and went together with him. In the end, they slew the bear's own life, dividing its flesh into three portions. The wood-gatherer, reaching out both hands to take his own portion of the bear's flesh — by the force of this same evil karma, both his arms at once fell away, exactly as a string of pearls is severed, exactly as a lotus root is cut through. The hunters, alarmed and bewildered, asked him the reason; the wood-gatherer, ashamed and mortified, fully recounted the entire matter from beginning to end. These same two hunters rebuked the wood-gatherer, saying: he showed such great kindness toward you — how could you now bear to commit such a wicked and rebellious act? How strange, that your own body has not simply rotted away entirely! Thereupon the hunters together took the bear's own flesh and offered it to a monastic community. At that time, the elder of the sangha attained the wondrous knowledge of aspiration, and, entering concentration at once, observed what flesh this was — and thereby knew that this was the flesh of the great Bodhisattva, who works benefit and bliss for every sentient being. Presently emerging from concentration, he told the assembly of this same matter; the assembly, one and all, astonished and moved, together gathered fragrant firewood, cremated this same flesh, and, collecting its remaining bones, raised a stūpa there, bowing and making offering to it. Such is the nature of evil karma as this — it necessarily awaits its own continuum, or crosses over its own continuum, before undergoing its own fruit.

Further, once, there was a cattle-drover who, driving his cattle along the road, found that his fellow travelers' own provisions had run out, and, hungry, thirsty, hot, and exhausted, they rested and discussed together, saying: these various cattle, in the end, are not our own possessions — let us cut out their tongues to relieve our own hunger and emptiness. They thereupon smeared salt upon the various cattle's own mouths; the cattle, craving the salty taste, extended their own tongues to lick it, whereupon, with a sharp knife, they all at once cut them off, roasted them over a fire in the dark, and together ate them. Having eaten, they together approached the water to rinse their own mouths, all chewing willow twigs to clean their own teeth as was done, and then used them to scrape their own tongues — by the force of this same evil karma, the various men's own tongue-roots, exactly like rotten fruit, all at once fell away together. Such is the nature of evil karma as this — it necessarily awaits its own continuum, or crosses over its own continuum, before undergoing its own fruit.

Further, it has been heard that, once, there was a cruel and violent man who caused his own mother to hold a vessel while he himself milked the cow, and, in milking, exceeded the proper measure. His mother stopped him, saying: let what remains be kept to nourish the calf. This man, upon hearing this, suddenly gave rise to anger and resentment, and, with his own hand, scooped up milk and flung it upon his own mother's face, the milk-drops scattering across his mother's own body, however much or little. By the force of this same evil karma, this same man's own body then gave rise, in that very place, to just as much white leprosy. Such is the nature of evil karma as this — it necessarily awaits its own continuum, or crosses over its own continuum, before undergoing its own fruit. This, then, is a brief citation of three kinds of evil karma ripening in the present life. Once, within the kingdom of Kośala, there was a king named Prasenajit, who had a single daughter, possessing eighteen forms of ugliness — the poor and lowly would not accept her in marriage, the wealthy and noble did not seek her. There was an elder's own son who had lost his own wealth and standing; the king, hearing of this, sent an envoy to summon him, and told him: I have a young daughter, somewhat lacking in beauty of countenance —

if you are not ashamed of this, I shall grant you a generous stipend and rare treasures. The man consented. The king, delighted, bestowed upon him abundant wealth, treasures, fields, dwellings, and servants, granting him whatever he wished, and, with proper ceremony, had his own daughter married to him, secretly sending her to his own residence. The man, ashamed, kept his own gate locked whenever he went out, so that none among his own kinsmen and acquaintances ever saw her. There were various close friends who reproached him, saying: for what reason do you not show us your own wife? The elder's own son said: what urgency is there in this? The various people, puzzled by his own delaying, thereupon together established a covenant: after seven days hence, each would bring his own household to a certain garden grove, to enjoy themselves together in delight and feasting — whoever violated the covenant would be fined five hundred pieces of gold. When the seventh day arrived, all came exactly as agreed, save the elder's own son alone, who did not bring his own wife, relying instead upon his own wealth, willing to accept whatever fine might be imposed.

His own wife, remaining alone at home, reproached and resented herself, thinking: for what former offense have I received this same ugly body? Everyone else enjoys happiness; I alone suffer.

It would be better to die early. With a single, wholehearted mindfulness of the Buddha, she was on the verge of harming herself. The Buddha, knowing the time had come, then descended and rose up before her from beneath the earth. The woman, seeing the Tathāgata, gave rise to a mingled sorrow and joy, and, with a resolve of pure faith, gazed upon the Buddha's own excellent marks — by the force of this same wholesome karma, in but a moment, her own body was transformed, becoming like a heavenly maiden's, her own joy redoubled all the more. The Buddha spoke the dharma for her; she, distancing herself from every defiling dust, attained the fruit of stream-entry. Once the Bhagavān had departed, this same woman sat alone, of matchless beauty, at peace and at ease. At that time, her own former companions, seeing that the man had not brought his own wife, thereupon made him drunk with wine, secretly took his own gate-key, and together went to his own residence — from a distance, they beheld his own wife, of matchless dignity, exactly like Śakra's own consort. Thereupon, the assembled people gave rise to deep admiration and praise, saying to one another: it is no wonder he would not show her to others, given this very reason! They thereupon hastened to the garden, together to offer their own thanks to her husband, and to congratulate and praise him.

This same man, embarrassed and abashed, thought he was being mocked and ridiculed; upon returning and seeing her for himself, he gave rise to deep suspicion and bewilderment, asking: are you, noble lady, an illusion wrought by magic, or some spirit or demon? Where is my own wife? His own wife then fully answered him with everything that had occurred. Thereupon her own husband, having witnessed what he had never witnessed before, took refuge in the Three Jewels. Such is the nature of wholesome karma as this — it necessarily awaits its own continuum, or crosses over its own continuum, before undergoing its own fruit.

Once, within the kingdom of Gandhāra, King Kaniṣka had a certain eunuch who constantly supervised the affairs of the inner palace. Having once gone out beyond the city walls, he saw a herd of cattle, numbering some five hundred, being driven into the city. He asked the cattle-driver: what cattle are these? The man answered: these cattle are being taken to have their own generative organs removed. Thereupon the eunuch reflected to himself: it is by my own past evil karma that I have received this same body without manhood — I ought now to use my own wealth to save these same cattle from this same calamity. He thereupon paid their own price in full, causing every one of them to be released. By the force of this same wholesome karma, this same eunuch was thereby restored to a male body, and, filled with deep joy, hastened back into the city,

standing before the palace gate, and, through an intermediary, informed the king, requesting to enter and pay his own respects. The king summoned him to enter, and, puzzled, asked him the reason; the eunuch then fully reported the entire matter to him. The king, hearing this, was astonished and delighted, generously bestowing rare treasures upon him, and, further, granting him a high office, entrusting him with matters beyond the palace. Such is the nature of wholesome karma as this — it necessarily awaits its own continuum, or crosses over its own continuum, before undergoing its own fruit.

Once, within the kingdom of Takṣaśilā, there was a woman who, going to the sacred shrine that King Aśoka had raised at the place where King Candraprabha had given away his own thousand heads, to pay reverent homage, saw dog dung lying before the Buddha's own seat. She thereupon reflected: this same place is pure and clean — how could dog dung defile and pollute it so? With her own hands, she gathered and removed it, and adorned it with fragrant clay. By the force of this same wholesome karma, this same woman's entire body came to give forth fragrance exactly like the sandalwood tree, her own mouth constantly emitting the fragrance of the blue lotus flower. Such is the nature of wholesome karma as this — it necessarily awaits its own continuum, or crosses over its own continuum, before undergoing its own fruit. This, then, is a brief citation of three kinds of wholesome karma ripening in the present life.

What, precisely, is karma ripening in the very next life? It refers to whatever karma, deliberately fabricated and increased in this same life, brings forth its ripened fruit in the second life — this is named karma ripening in the very next life.

What, precisely, is karma ripening in some later life? It refers to whatever karma, deliberately fabricated and increased in this same life, brings forth its ripened fruit following the third life, or the fourth, or even beyond this — this is named karma ripening in some later life.

One asks: does every karma ripening in the present life necessarily undergo its ripening in the present life? The same question should be asked with respect to karma ripening in the next life, or in some later life. The Dārṣṭāntikas say:

this is not fixed, since every karma whatsoever is capable of being altered — up through, even an act bringing immediate retribution is capable of being altered. One asks: if this is so, then for what reason is it named karma ripening in the present life, and the rest? They speak in this way: karma ripening in the present life is not fixed to undergo its ripened fruit within the present life; if it does undergo it, it is decisively within the present life, not elsewhere, and it is thereby named karma ripening in the present life — what is spoken of concerning karma ripening in the next life, or in some later life, is likewise just the same. They further hold that every karma whatsoever is capable of being altered, up through even an act bringing immediate retribution being capable of being altered — for were an act bringing immediate retribution incapable of being altered,

there would then exist no one capable of transcending the very peak of existence; yet there does exist one capable of transcending the very peak of existence, and it is thereby that an act bringing immediate retribution, too, ought to be capable of being altered. The various Ābhidharmika treatise-masters say: every karma ripening in the present life decisively undergoes its ripened fruit within the present life, and it is thereby named karma ripening in the present life — what is spoken of concerning karma ripening in the next life, or in some later life, is likewise just the same. It is by virtue of this same answer, therefore, that one ought to reply to the question of why it is named karma ripening in the present life, up through karma ripening in some later life.

There are further teachers who speak of four kinds of karma — namely, karma ripening in the present life, karma ripening in the next life, karma ripening in some later life,

and karma whose ripening is indeterminate. The karma ripening in the present life, up through in some later life, is karma incapable of being altered; the karma whose ripening is indeterminate is karma capable of being altered — it is solely in order to alter this same fourth kind of karma that one upholds the moral precepts and diligently cultivates the holy conduct, reflecting: may I, by virtue of this, thereby alter this same karma. There are further teachers who speak of five kinds of karma — namely, karma ripening in the present life, karma ripening in the next life, and karma ripening in some later life, each solely a single kind; within karma whose ripening is indeterminate, there exist, further, two kinds — the first is fixed in its ripening; the second is not fixed in its ripening. As for the karma ripening in the present life, in the next life, and in some later life,

and, within karma whose ripening is indeterminate, whatever karma is fixed in its ripening, all such karma is incapable of being altered; whatever karma, within karma whose ripening is indeterminate, is not fixed in its ripening, this same karma is capable of being altered — it is solely in order to alter this same fifth kind of karma that one upholds the moral precepts and diligently cultivates the holy conduct, reflecting: may I, by virtue of this, thereby alter this same karma. There are further teachers who speak of eight kinds of karma — namely, karma ripening in the present life is of two kinds —

the first is fixed in its ripening; the second is not fixed in its ripening. Karma ripening in the next life, and karma ripening in some later life, and karma whose ripening is indeterminate, are each likewise of two kinds — the first fixed in its ripening, the second not fixed in its ripening. This, then, is named eight kinds of karma. Among these, every karma fixed in its ripening is incapable of being altered; every karma not fixed in its ripening is capable of being altered — it is in order to alter this that one upholds the moral precepts and diligently cultivates the holy conduct. It is thereby that a tetralemma ought to be cast here — that is, there is karma fixed in time, indeterminate in ripening; there is karma fixed in ripening, indeterminate in time; there is karma fixed in time, and likewise fixed in ripening; there is karma indeterminate in time, and likewise indeterminate in ripening. What, precisely, is karma fixed in time, indeterminate in ripening? It refers to whatever karma, among karma ripening in the present life, in the next life, or in some later life, is indeterminate in its ripening. What, precisely, is karma fixed in ripening, indeterminate in time? It refers to whatever karma, among karma whose ripening is indeterminate, is fixed in its ripening. What, precisely, is karma fixed in time, and likewise fixed in ripening? It refers to whatever karma, among karma ripening in the present life, in the next life, or in some later life, is fixed in its ripening. What, precisely, is karma indeterminate in time, and likewise indeterminate in ripening? It refers to whatever karma, among karma whose ripening is indeterminate, is indeterminate in its ripening. This, then, is named the tetralemma of the eightfold karma. One asks: is there, then, a single moment in which three kinds of karma can be given rise to at once — namely, karma ripening in the present life, in the next life, and in some later life? The answer: there is —

that is, one first sends two agents to cut off life and to take what is not given, and afterward, personally, engages in sexual misconduct oneself — since this same act is completed through one's own doing, not by virtue of another. Were dharmas of this kind to arise, all three kinds of karma would, at the same time, reach completion together — among these, the first karma undergoes its ripened fruit within the present life; the second karma undergoes its ripened fruit in the very next life; the third karma undergoes its ripened fruit in whatever life follows the third life onward. The remaining paths of karma, whether performed oneself or through instructing another, should likewise be understood to differ in just the same way.

One asks: of karma ripening in the present life, and the rest, how many are capable of projecting the fruit of a shared class of existence, and how many are capable of completing the fruit of a shared class of existence? There are those who say: two are capable of both projecting and completing the fruit of a shared class of existence — namely, karma ripening in the next life, and karma ripening in some later life; two are capable of completing, but not projecting, the fruit of a shared class of existence — namely, karma ripening in the present life, and karma whose ripening is indeterminate. There are, further, those who say: three are capable of both projecting and completing the fruit of a shared class of existence — namely, excluding karma ripening in the present life; one is capable of completing, but not projecting, the fruit of a shared class of existence — namely, karma ripening in the present life. There are, further, those who wish to hold that karma ripening in the present life, too, is capable of projecting the fruit of a shared class of existence — if this is stated, then these four kinds of karma are, all of them, in every case, capable of both projecting and completing the fruit of a shared class of existence. One asks: among these various kinds of karma, which is the most supreme? There are those who say: karma ripening in the present life is the most supreme — for what reason is this so? Because it obtains its own fruit nearby. There are, further, those who say: karma ripening in some later life is the most supreme — for what reason is this so? Because every karma belonging to a bodhisattva is the very most supreme, and all of it is karma ripening in some later life. One asks: karma ripening in the present life is capable of obtaining its own fruit nearby, and, among the various kinds of karma, might be said to be supreme on this account; karma ripening in some later life is remote from its own fruit — how, then, could it be the most supreme?

The answer: karma ripening in the present life, though it obtains its own fruit nearby, has a fruit that is inferior, and is thereby not named the most supreme; karma ripening in some later life, though it is remote from its own fruit, has a fruit that is supreme and inexhaustible, and it is thereby named the most supreme — exactly as with an external seed: there is one that obtains its own fruit nearby, yet whose fruit is inferior; there is one that is remote from its own fruit, yet whose fruit is the most supreme. Exactly as autumn seedlings, after three half-months, thereupon bear fruit — this same fruit is the very nearest, yet the very most inferior; exactly as rice and wheat, and the like, after six months, their own fruit then ripens — being next remote from its own fruit, its fruit is next supreme; exactly as the kharjūra tree, after five or six years, or twelve years, only then bears its own fruit — this same fruit being next supreme; exactly as the tāla tree, after a hundred years, only then bears its own fruit — this same fruit being the very most supreme. Exactly as, with an external seed, whatever is nearest to its own fruit has the most inferior fruit, and whatever is next remote has the next supreme fruit, and whatever is the very most remote has the very most supreme fruit — the seed's own distinction of supreme or inferior following the fruit's own distinction — internal karma, too, is just the same: karma ripening in the present life is the very nearest to its own fruit, yet its own fruit is the very most inferior; karma ripening in the next life is next remote from its own fruit, yet its own fruit is next supreme; karma ripening in some later life is the very most remote from its own fruit, yet its own fruit is the very most supreme — karma's own distinction of supreme or inferior following the fruit's own distinction, and it is thereby that karma ripening in some later life is the most supreme, and none other. One asks: within which realm can how many kinds of karma be produced? There are those who say: the desire realm is capable of producing all four kinds of wholesome and unwholesome karma; the form and formless realms are capable of producing solely three kinds of wholesome karma, excluding karma ripening in the present life — for what reason is this so? Because, within the desire realm, in reliance upon the Buddha, the Bodhisattvas, the disciples, the solitary-realizers, one's own parents, and one's own teachers and elders, and other such venerable ones, one gives rise to a heightened wholesome or evil karma, and this same karma swiftly undergoes its ripened fruit; the form and formless realms possess no such supreme condition, and it is thereby that, within them, one is incapable of giving rise to this same karma ripening in the present life. One asks: if this is so, then how is what the *Prakaraṇapāda* states to be reconciled? As it states: karma ripening in the present life, karma ripening in the next life, and karma ripening in some later life, are all followed and increased by every latent affliction. The answer: within that same treatise, it ought to be stated in this way: karma ripening in the present life is followed and increased by every latent affliction of the desire realm; karma ripening in the next life, and karma ripening in some later life, are followed and increased by every latent affliction of the desire realm, and by the universally operative latent afflictions and the latent afflictions abandoned by cultivation belonging to the form and formless realms — it ought to be so stated, and that it is not so stated, what intention lies behind this? It should be understood that that same text speaks in a general, summary way. One asks: if this is so, then how is what the *Saṅgītiparyāya* states to be reconciled? As it states: karma ripening in the present life, karma ripening in the next life, and karma ripening in some later life, are followed and increased by every latent affliction of the desire realm, and by the universally operative latent afflictions and the latent afflictions abandoned by cultivation belonging to the form and formless realms. The answer: that same text ought to be stated in this way: karma ripening in the present life is followed and increased by every latent affliction of the desire realm; karma ripening in the next life, and karma ripening in some later life, are followed and increased by every latent affliction of the desire realm,

and by the universally operative latent afflictions and the latent afflictions abandoned by cultivation belonging to the form and formless realms — it ought to be so stated, and that it is not so stated, what intention lies behind this? It should be understood that it is because that same text's own momentum carried it along that it speaks in this way. Those who speak in this way hold that the form and formless realms, too, are capable of giving rise to karma ripening in the present life. One asks: it was already stated before that, within the desire realm, it is in reliance upon the Buddha, the Bodhisattvas, and other such supreme conditions that one is capable of giving rise to karma ripening in the present life —

the upper two realms lack this same supreme condition — how, then, are they capable of giving rise to it? The answer: those places rely solely upon the force of cause, sustaining it, and are likewise capable of giving rise to karma ripening in the present life; within the desire realm, too, there exist those who give rise to this same karma solely by virtue of the force of cause — that is, there are those who open their own gate and offer generous provisions to the worthy and the noble, and yet are incapable of giving rise to karma ripening in the present life; there are, further, those who, with but a single morsel of food, give to a single animal, and yet are capable of giving rise to karma ripening in the present life. By such matters as these, it is known that it is not necessarily by reliance upon a supreme condition alone that this same karma is given rise to — yet it must, nonetheless, be by reliance upon the force of cause, sustaining it, that one becomes capable of giving rise to it. It is for this reason that the various great treatise-masters of Abhidharma in Kaśmīra, of old, all spoke in this way: if, with a sincere and pure mind, one holds even a single handful of grass and gives it to another for his own cattle's food, one should know this is capable of giving rise to karma ripening in the present life.

One asks: within which destiny can how many kinds of karma be produced? The answer: within hell, one is capable of producing four kinds of unwholesome karma, and three kinds of wholesome karma, excluding karma ripening in the present life. The animal and hungry-ghost destinies, and the three continents of humankind, and the heavens of the desire realm, are capable of producing all four kinds of wholesome and unwholesome karma. Uttarakuru is capable of producing four kinds of wholesome karma, and three kinds of unwholesome karma, excluding karma ripening in the next life. Within the form and formless heavens, how many can be produced is exactly as already stated before. One asks: within which kind of birth can how many kinds of karma be produced? The answer: within all four kinds of birth, one is, in every case, capable of producing all four kinds of wholesome and unwholesome karma.

One asks: who, within which ground, can produce how many kinds of karma? The answer: as for the various ordinary beings born within the desire realm, not yet free of the desire realm's own defilement: they are capable of producing the desire realm's own four kinds of wholesome and unwholesome karma. As for those already free of the desire realm's own defilement, not yet free of the first dhyāna's own defilement: if subject to retrogression, they are capable of producing the desire realm's own four kinds of karma, and are capable of producing the first dhyāna's own three kinds of karma, excluding karma ripening in the present life — there are those who say: they are capable of producing the first dhyāna's own two kinds of karma, namely, karma ripening in some later life and karma whose ripening is indeterminate. If not subject to retrogression, they are capable of producing the desire realm's own three kinds of wholesome karma, excluding karma ripening in the next life, and are capable of producing the first dhyāna's own three kinds of karma, excluding karma ripening in the present life. As for those already free of the first dhyāna's own defilement, not yet free of the second dhyāna's own defilement: if subject to retrogression, they are capable of producing the desire realm's own four kinds of karma, and are capable of producing the first and second dhyāna's own three kinds of karma, excluding karma ripening in the present life — there are those who say: they are capable of producing the second dhyāna's own two kinds of karma, namely, karma ripening in some later life and karma whose ripening is indeterminate. If not subject to retrogression, they are capable of producing the desire realm's own three kinds of wholesome karma, excluding karma ripening in the next life,

and are capable of producing the first dhyāna's own two kinds of karma, namely, karma ripening in some later life and karma whose ripening is indeterminate, and are capable of producing the second dhyāna's own three kinds of karma,

excluding karma ripening in the present life, set forth at length, up through: as for those already free of the sphere of nothingness's own defilement: if subject to retrogression, they are capable of producing the desire realm's own four kinds of karma, and are capable of producing the four dhyānas' and three formless attainments' own three kinds of karma, excluding karma ripening in the present life — there are those who say: they are capable of producing the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's own two kinds of karma, namely, karma ripening in some later life and karma whose ripening is indeterminate. If not subject to retrogression, they are capable of producing the desire realm's own three kinds of wholesome karma, excluding karma ripening in the next life, and are capable of producing the four dhyānas' and three formless attainments' own two kinds of karma, namely, karma ripening in some later life and karma whose ripening is indeterminate, and are capable of producing the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's own three kinds of karma, excluding karma ripening in the present life. This has already stated the various ordinary beings born within the desire realm. As for the various ordinary beings born within the first dhyāna, not yet free of the first dhyāna's own defilement: they are capable of producing the first dhyāna's own four kinds of karma. As for those already free of the first dhyāna's own defilement, not yet free of the second dhyāna's own defilement: they are capable of producing the first dhyāna's own three kinds of karma, excluding karma ripening in the next life, and are capable of producing the second dhyāna's own three kinds of karma, excluding karma ripening in the present life, set forth at length, up through: as for those already free of the sphere of nothingness's own defilement: they are capable of producing the first dhyāna's own three kinds of karma, excluding karma ripening in the next life, and are capable of producing the three formless attainments' own two kinds of karma, namely, karma ripening in some later life and karma whose ripening is indeterminate, and are capable of producing the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's own three kinds of karma, excluding karma ripening in the present life. Exactly as is said for one born within the first dhyāna, so, too, should it be broadly stated up through one born within the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. This has already stated the various ordinary beings belonging to every ground. As for the various noble ones born within the desire realm, not yet free of the desire realm's own defilement: they are capable of producing the desire realm's own four kinds of wholesome and unwholesome karma. As for those already free of the desire realm's own defilement, not yet free of the first dhyāna's own defilement: they are capable of producing the desire realm's own two kinds of karma, namely, karma ripening in the present life and karma whose ripening is indeterminate, and are capable of producing the first dhyāna's own three kinds of karma, excluding karma ripening in the present life. As for those already free of the first dhyāna's own defilement, not yet free of the second dhyāna's own defilement: if subject to retrogression, they are capable of producing the desire realm's own two kinds of karma, namely, karma ripening in the present life and karma whose ripening is indeterminate, and are capable of producing the first and second dhyāna's own three kinds of karma, excluding karma ripening in the present life — there are those who say: they are capable of producing the second dhyāna's own two kinds of karma, namely, karma ripening in some later life and karma whose ripening is indeterminate. If not subject to retrogression, they are capable of producing the desire realm's own two kinds of wholesome karma,

namely, karma ripening in the present life and karma whose ripening is indeterminate, and are capable of producing the first dhyāna's own single kind of karma, namely, karma whose ripening is indeterminate, and are capable of producing the second dhyāna's own three kinds of karma, excluding karma ripening in the present life — set forth at length, up through: as for those already free of the sphere of nothingness's own defilement, not yet free of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's own defilement: if subject to retrogression, they are capable of producing the desire realm's own two kinds of karma, namely, karma ripening in the present life and karma whose ripening is indeterminate, and are capable of producing the four dhyānas' own three kinds of karma, excluding karma ripening in the present life, and are capable of producing the four formless attainments' own three kinds of karma, excluding karma ripening in the present life — this being stated in general; if stated separately, among the four formless attainments, whoever produces karma ripening in the next life does not thereby produce karma ripening in some later life, and whoever produces karma ripening in some later life does not thereby produce karma ripening in the next life. There are those who say: they are capable of producing the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's own two kinds of karma, namely, karma ripening in some later life and karma whose ripening is indeterminate. If not subject to retrogression, they are capable of producing the desire realm's own two kinds of wholesome karma, namely, karma ripening in the present life and karma whose ripening is indeterminate, and are capable of producing the four dhyānas' and three formless attainments' own single kind of karma, namely, karma whose ripening is indeterminate, and are capable of producing the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's own two kinds of karma, namely, karma ripening in the next life and karma whose ripening is indeterminate. If already free of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's own defilement, they are capable of producing the desire realm's own two kinds of karma, namely, karma ripening in the present life and karma whose ripening is indeterminate, and are capable of producing the four dhyānas' and four formless attainments' own single kind of karma, namely, karma whose ripening is indeterminate. This has already stated the noble ones born within the desire realm. As for the various noble ones born within the first dhyāna, not yet free of the first dhyāna's own defilement: they are capable of producing the first dhyāna's own three kinds of karma, excluding karma ripening in some later life. As for those already free of the first dhyāna's own defilement, not yet free of the second dhyāna's own defilement: they are capable of producing the first dhyāna's own two kinds of karma, namely, karma ripening in the present life and karma whose ripening is indeterminate, and are capable of producing the second dhyāna's own three kinds of karma, excluding karma ripening in the present life. As for those already free of the second dhyāna's own defilement, not yet free of the third dhyāna's own defilement: they are capable of producing the first dhyāna's own two kinds of karma, namely, karma ripening in the present life and karma whose ripening is indeterminate, and are capable of producing the second dhyāna's own single kind of karma, namely, karma whose ripening is indeterminate, and are capable of producing the third dhyāna's own three kinds of karma, excluding karma ripening in the present life, set forth at length, up through: as for those already free of the sphere of nothingness's own defilement, not yet free of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's own defilement: they are capable of producing the first dhyāna's own two kinds of karma, namely, karma ripening in the present life and karma whose ripening is indeterminate, and are capable of producing the three formless attainments' own single kind of karma, namely, karma whose ripening is indeterminate, and are capable of producing the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's own two kinds of karma, namely, karma ripening in the next life and karma whose ripening is indeterminate.

If already free of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's own defilement, they are capable of producing the first dhyāna's own two kinds of karma, namely, karma ripening in the present life and karma whose ripening is indeterminate, and are capable of producing the three formless attainments' and four formless attainments' own single kind of karma, namely, karma whose ripening is indeterminate. Exactly as is said for the noble one born within the first dhyāna, so, too, should it be broadly stated for one born within the second, the third, and the fourth dhyāna — with this distinction, that they are capable of producing their own same ground's own four kinds of karma, differing from what precedes. If the various noble ones are born within the sphere of infinite space, not yet free of the sphere of infinite space's own defilement, they are capable of producing the sphere of infinite space's own two kinds of karma, namely, karma ripening in the present life and karma whose ripening is indeterminate. If already free of the sphere of infinite space's own defilement, not yet free of the sphere of infinite consciousness's own defilement, they are capable of producing the sphere of infinite space's own two kinds of karma, namely, karma ripening in the present life and karma whose ripening is indeterminate, and are capable of producing the sphere of infinite consciousness's own two kinds of karma, namely, karma ripening in the next life and karma whose ripening is indeterminate. If already free of the sphere of infinite consciousness's own defilement, not yet free of the sphere of nothingness's own defilement, they are capable of producing the sphere of infinite space's own two kinds of karma, namely, karma ripening in the present life and karma whose ripening is indeterminate, and are capable of producing the sphere of infinite consciousness's own single kind of karma, namely, karma whose ripening is indeterminate, and are capable of producing the sphere of nothingness's own two kinds of karma, namely, karma ripening in the next life and karma whose ripening is indeterminate. If already free of the sphere of nothingness's own defilement, not yet free of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's own defilement, they are capable of producing the sphere of infinite space's own two kinds of karma, namely, karma ripening in the present life and karma whose ripening is indeterminate, and are capable of producing the sphere of infinite consciousness's and the sphere of nothingness's own single kind of karma, namely, karma whose ripening is indeterminate, and are capable of producing the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's own two kinds of karma, namely, karma ripening in the next life and karma whose ripening is indeterminate. If already free of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's own defilement, they are capable of producing the sphere of infinite space's own two kinds of karma, namely, karma ripening in the present life and karma whose ripening is indeterminate, and are capable of producing the remaining three formless attainments' own single kind of karma, namely, karma whose ripening is indeterminate. Exactly as is said for the noble one born within the sphere of infinite space, so, too, should it be broadly stated, up through one born within the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. As for a stage of intermediate existence within the desire realm, twenty-two kinds of karma can be produced — namely, intermediate existence's own two kinds of karma, fixed and indeterminate in ripening; and, likewise, each of the stages of the kalala, the arbuda, the peśī, the ghana, and the praśākhā, and infancy, babyhood, childhood, youthful prime, and old age, each possesses two kinds of karma, fixed and indeterminate in ripening — this, then, is named twenty-two kinds of karma. Abiding within the kalala stage, one is capable of producing twenty kinds of karma — namely, excluding the intermediate-existence karma's own two kinds — set forth at length in this way, up through: abiding within the stage of old age, one is capable of producing two kinds of karma — namely, precisely the old-age stage's own fixed and indeterminate karma. One asks: if karma produced within the stage of intermediate existence undergoes its ripening within the stage of basic existence, ought this same karma to be said to be karma ripening in the present life, or karma ripening in the next life? The answer: this is karma ripening in the present life, not karma ripening in the next life — for what reason is this so? Because intermediate existence and basic existence, taken altogether, constitute a single shared class of existence, there being no distinction between them.

Having already stated the own-nature of the preceding and following three kinds of karma, it is now fitting to display the characteristic of their admixture and non-admixture. Does the former gather in the latter, or the latter gather in the former? The answer: the former gathers in the latter; the latter does not gather in the former. What is not gathered in? Namely, karma whose ripening is indeterminate, neutral karma, and undefiled karma. Here, the former three kinds fully gather in fixed and indeterminate karma; the latter three kinds gather solely in fixed karma. The former three kinds fully gather in wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral karma; the latter three kinds gather solely in wholesome and unwholesome karma. The former three kinds fully gather in contaminated and undefiled karma; the latter three kinds gather solely in contaminated karma. Such matters as these are broadly stated across measureless approaches to the distinction between the former and the latter — here, stated only in brief summary. It is thereby said: the former gathers in the latter; the latter does not gather in the former. What is not gathered in?

Namely, karma whose ripening is indeterminate, neutral karma, and undefiled karma.