Egg-Born Arhats and the Bodhisattva's Choice

Question: is prātimokṣa restraint obtained solely with respect to beings capable of being harmed, or is it also obtained with respect to what is incapable of being harmed? If it is obtained solely with respect to what is capable of being harmed, then this restraint ought to increase and decrease — that is, as beings pass from what is incapable of being harmed into what is capable of it, the restraint ought to increase, and as they pass from what is capable of being harmed into what is incapable of it, the restraint ought to decrease. Moreover, this restraint would then be received only with respect to a partial portion, yet the World-Honored One has said that this restraint is never received only in part. Moreover, this would validate the position of the Nirgranthas — for those outside-path teachers, in order to entice others, say things such as: "Welcome, good man — there are beings more than a hundred yojanas from here; if you give rise to a wholesome mind, cast aside your weapons, and vow never to harm them, you will thereby obtain the restraint of not killing with respect to them." But if it is said that restraint is also obtained with respect to what is incapable of being harmed, then how is the statement of the Dharmatrāta-treatise to be reconciled, where it says: moral discipline is obtained with respect to what is capable of being harmed, while loving-kindness is obtained with respect to both what is capable and what is incapable of being harmed? Answer: one should rather say that restraint is obtained with respect to both what is capable and what is incapable of being harmed. Question: if the first three objections are thereby well reconciled, how is the statement of the Dharmatrāta-treatise itself to be reconciled? Answer: one should know that that venerable one spoke with an implicit intent — just as the Buddha himself sometimes spoke the sūtras with an implicit intent — how much more so should that venerable one's own words be understood in this way. What is this implicit intent? That venerable one, by "what is capable of being harmed," means the aggregates, elements, and sense-fields of the present time, and by "what is incapable of being harmed," means those of the past and future; by "moral discipline" he means prātimokṣa restraint, and by "loving-kindness" he means the two restraints of dhyāna and the undefiled. He holds that prātimokṣa restraint is obtained only with respect to the aggregates, elements, and sense-fields belonging to present beings, not with respect to the past or future, since the past and future fall within the category of what is merely nominal dharma.

— whereas the two restraints of dhyāna and the undefiled are obtained with respect to the aggregates, elements, and sense-fields of all three times — hence his statement, too, is not contrary to reason. It is for this reason that prātimokṣa restraint has a mark distinguishing it from the two restraints of dhyāna and the undefiled: prātimokṣa restraint is obtained only with respect to present beings, while the two restraints of dhyāna and the undefiled are obtained with respect to the objects of all three times. Prātimokṣa restraint

— is further obtained with respect to the preparatory action and the after-arising of the root path of karma as well, whereas the two restraints of dhyāna and the undefiled are obtained only with respect to the root path of karma itself. On account of this distinction, a tetralemma should be constructed. There are aggregates, elements, and sense-fields with respect to which prātimokṣa restraint is obtained but not the restraints of dhyāna or the undefiled — namely, the preparatory action and after-arising of a present path of karma. There are aggregates, elements, and sense-fields with respect to which the restraints of dhyāna or the undefiled are obtained but not prātimokṣa restraint — namely, the root path of karma belonging to the past or future. There are aggregates, elements, and sense-fields with respect to which both prātimokṣa restraint and the restraints of dhyāna or the undefiled are obtained — namely, the root path of karma belonging to the present. And there are aggregates, elements, and sense-fields with respect to which neither prātimokṣa restraint nor the restraints of dhyāna or the undefiled are obtained — namely, the preparatory action and after-arising of a path of karma belonging to the past or future. Question: if prātimokṣa restraint is obtained only with respect to present beings, and not with respect to the aggregates and elements of the past or future, then the restraint of the various tathāgata-arhat-fully-awakened-ones would be unequal, for why is this? When buddhas of the past appeared in the world, countless beings served as the objects of their restraint, and those beings have since entered nirvāṇa —

— and so Śākyamuni obtains no restraint with respect to those particular objects; and now, when the buddha Śākyamuni has appeared in the world, countless beings serve as the objects of his restraint, and once those beings have entered nirvāṇa, the Tathāgata Maitreya will obtain no restraint with respect to those particular objects either — the scope of the object varying, so too does the restraint vary in scope, and is this not to say that the restraint of the various buddhas is unequal? Answer: one should say that, although the scope of the objects of restraint may be greater or lesser, the own-substance of the restraint itself is no different from one buddha to the next, since it is universally brought forth with respect to the totality of all beings as its object. Some say: it involves no fault at all to say that the restraint of the buddhas of the three times is unequal. Question: if so, then how is the statement of the Prajñaptiśāstra to be reconciled, which says that all the tathāgata-arhat-fully-awakened-ones are entirely equal? Answer: they are called equal on account of three respects being equal. First, equal practice — since every tathāgata, throughout the past three incalculable eons, diligently cultivated the four perfections to their final completion and thereby attained awakening. Second, equal benefit — since every tathāgata, with respect to the countless beings he converts, brings the work of benefit and joy to its full completion equally. Third, equal Dharma-body —

— since every tathāgata equally attains the ten powers, the four kinds of fearlessness, the three foundations of mindfulness, great compassion, the eighteen exclusive qualities, and other such supreme virtues.

It is on account of these three respects that they are called equal, not because the own-substance of their restraint has no difference in scope. It is also on account of an equality of faculties that they are called equal, since every tathāgata abides in the supreme grade of faculties; and on account of an equality of moral discipline, since every tathāgata attains the supreme grade of moral discipline. Other masters say: it is because the restraint of every tathāgata-arhat-fully-awakened-one is obtained with respect to every being whatsoever that they are called equal — not that their own-substance has no difference. That is, as for the beings who were the objects of a past buddha's own restraint, were Śākyamuni Buddha to exist now, he would not thereby also obtain restraint with respect to those same objects — there is no such principle; and as for the beings who are the objects of the buddha Śākyamuni's own restraint, were the Tathāgata Maitreya to exist at the same time, he would not thereby also obtain restraint with respect to those same objects — there is likewise no such principle; hence to speak of them as equal involves no fault either way. Now, restraint should properly be spoken of as a single thing, as when one speaks of the aggregate of moral discipline, the cultivation of moral discipline, and the training in moral discipline; or it should be spoken of as two, namely manifest and unmanifest; or as three, namely inferior, middling, and superior, or the distinctions arising from non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion; or as four, namely bodily and verbal karma, each having a manifest and unmanifest aspect; or as six, namely manifest and unmanifest each having an inferior, middling, and superior grade, or arising from the three roots; or as seven, namely abstaining from taking life, and so on up to abstaining from idle chatter; or as nine, namely from the very lowest of the low up to the very highest of the high; or as twelve, namely manifest and unmanifest bodily and verbal karma each having three grades, or arising from the three roots; or as fourteen, namely abstaining from taking life, and so on up to abstaining from idle chatter, each having a manifest and unmanifest aspect; or as eighteen, namely manifest and unmanifest each having nine grades; or as twenty-one, namely abstaining from taking life, and so on up to abstaining from idle chatter, each having three grades, or arising from the three roots; or as forty-two, namely abstaining from taking life, and so on up to abstaining from idle chatter, each having a manifest and unmanifest aspect, each in turn having three grades or arising from the three roots. And if one further distinguishes by continuum and by moment, restraint becomes countless in number. Here we speak of it summarily as sevenfold — abstaining from taking life, and so on up to abstaining from idle chatter. Here some say: each of these seven branches of moral discipline is obtained with respect to every being, yet what is obtained is a single thing — they hold that, when one violates a single branch of the precepts with respect to a single being, that same single branch is thereby cut off with respect to every being, while the remaining six continue to function; this indeed well reconciles the World-Honored One's own statement, that whoever violates the precepts is no bhikṣu,

— no ascetic, no true son of the Śākyas. Some say: each of these seven branches of moral discipline is obtained with respect to every being, but what is obtained differs from being to being — that is, one obtains a distinct precept for each and every being there is. They hold that when one violates a single branch of the precepts with respect to one particular being, that single branch is cut off only with respect to that one being, while the other six continue to function there, and all seven branches continue to function fully with respect to every other being. Question: if so, how is the World-Honored One's own statement to be reconciled, that whoever violates the precepts is no bhikṣu and so forth? Answer: it speaks of "no bhikṣu" with reference to the ultimate sense of "bhikṣu," since one is thereby unable to attain to it. Other masters say: prātimokṣa restraint, distinguished according to its causes, comes to twenty-one kinds. Here some say: these twenty-one kinds are each obtained with respect to every being, yet what is obtained does not differ — they hold that, when one, through the affliction of greed, violates a single branch of the precepts with respect to one being, the single branch of that precept arisen from non-greed is thereby cut off with respect to every being, while the remaining twenty continue to function as before; this well reconciles the World-Honored One's own statement, that whoever violates the precepts is no bhikṣu and so forth. Some say: these twenty-one kinds are each obtained with respect to every being, but what is obtained differs from being to being — that is, one obtains a distinct precept for each and every being there is. They hold that when one, through the affliction of greed, violates a single branch of the precepts with respect to one being, the single branch of that precept arisen from non-greed is thereby cut off only with respect to that one being, while the remaining twenty continue to function there as before, and all twenty-one kinds continue to function fully with respect to every other being. Question: if so, how is the World-Honored One's own statement to be reconciled, that whoever violates the precepts is no bhikṣu and so forth? Answer: it speaks of "no bhikṣu" with reference to the ultimate sense of "bhikṣu," as explained before. It is on the basis of this very reasoning that it is said: better to go forth and violate the precepts than to remain a five-precept lay follower,

— for why is this? If a lay follower violates his five precepts, he is thereby left with none at all in his own body, whereas one gone forth, even should he violate five of his own precepts, still has many others that continue to function. The treatise-masters of Kashmir say: although one may violate a precept, restraint is not thereby cut off at all — once one properly repents and removes the fault, one is called once more a keeper of the precepts, since there is no such thing as receiving all at once yet giving up and regaining separately, one branch at a time. Before one has repented and removed the fault, one holds both names at once; once one has repented and removed it, one is called simply a keeper of the precepts.

Question: is restraint obtained with respect to external, inanimate things? If it is, then the restraint so obtained ought to increase and decrease — since growing grass withers, and the taste of wine spoils, restraint ought to decrease at such times, and increase again when grass sprouts anew or wine ripens, and such instances are truly countless — hence restraint ought to increase and decrease. But if it is not obtained at all, then the object of this restraint would be received only in part, yet the World-Honored One has said that this restraint is never received only in part; moreover, cutting living grass and the like would then make no use of repentance and removal of fault at all. Some say: although something is indeed obtained, it is not called restraint, but merely a dharma that accords with restraint. Question: is this dharma that accords with restraint included within restraint, or not included within restraint? If it is included within restraint, why not simply call it restraint — what difference is there in calling it "according with restraint" instead? But if it is not included within restraint, then what characteristic does it have, that one should call it "according with restraint" yet not included within restraint? According to this last account, restraint is indeed obtained with respect to external dharmas as well. Question: if so, then restraint ought to increase and decrease. Answer: it does not increase or decrease, since it is obtained as a totality — that is, this restraint is obtained as a single unmanifest totality with respect to all growing grass everywhere at once, and the world is never without growing grass of some kind anywhere; and likewise it is obtained as a single unmanifest totality with respect to all grape wine and the like everywhere at once, so long as it has not yet spoiled, and the world is never entirely without wine of some kind anywhere — hence restraint neither increases nor decreases, and the same holds for other such cases. Question: by what kind of mind is prātimokṣa restraint obtained? Answer: it is obtained by giving rise, universally toward every being, to a wholesome intention free of any wish to harm. If one gives rise to this mind while accepting the precept only with respect to some particular place, one does not obtain restraint with respect to what one has not accepted — for it is precisely because this restraint extends its protection over every place that ought to be accepted that it is called protection. Hence it is said that if this restraint had a fixed territorial boundary, the great earth itself could not contain it, since this restraint is obtained with respect to beings, and beings vastly outnumber the mere extent of the ground they occupy.

If one possesses a body, does one thereby possess bodily karma? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is possessing a body without possessing bodily karma — as in the egg-stage, or when an ordinary being abides within the womb, or when one born in the desire realm abides in neither restraint nor non-restraint with no manifest bodily action whatsoever, whether it was never manifested at all, or was manifested and has since been lost. As for one abiding in the egg-stage or within the womb: although possessing a body, one is not yet able to manifest action; whatever action was manifested in a former life has already been lost at the time of death, since that manifest action depended on the former class-nature. Question: why is one, at this stage, not yet able to manifest action? Answer: because the body is too feeble to serve as the support for manifest action. Other masters say: it is a coarse mind that is able to manifest bodily and verbal action, and this mind is too subtle for that; further, it is a mind turned outward through the sense-gates that is able to manifest action, whereas this mind is turned inward; further, it is a mind taking an external matter as object that is able to manifest action, whereas this mind arises taking an internal matter as object, and hence cannot manifest action. Some say: at this stage one is so cramped and confined, lacking any freedom of movement, that one cannot even move at all, how much less give rise to manifest action —

— just as a man bound by hateful enemies, placed within a cage, and hung upon a dragon's fang, cannot even move at all, how much less go anywhere. Question: if so, then why is it also said that there is movement within the womb? Answer: that movement is caused by the force of wind, not brought about by mind — manifest action must necessarily be instigated by the power of mind. As for one born in the desire realm abiding in neither restraint nor non-restraint with no manifest bodily action: this refers to sleep, intoxication, fainting, or the abandonment of all effort, such that one does not seek to manifest any action; and as for whatever was manifested and has since been lost, this occurs through three conditions — first, because the intention has subsided; second, because the effort has been abandoned; third, because the fixed duration of its force has expired. There is possessing bodily karma without possessing a body — namely, noble ones born in the formless realm: here, a trainee possesses the trainee's own accompanying bodily karma, and an adept possesses the adept's own accompanying bodily karma, while, being born in the formless realm, they do not possess a body. There is possessing both a body and bodily karma — namely, noble ones abiding within the womb, or one born in the desire realm abiding in restraint, in non-restraint, or in neither, who presently manifests bodily action, or who manifested it previously and has not lost it. As for one born in the form realm: here, even a noble one, while abiding within the womb, is likewise not yet able to manifest action, but possesses only the unmanifest karma of dhyāna or the undefiled. As for one born in the desire realm abiding in restraint: this means abiding in one, two, or the full complement of the three restraints — namely, prātimokṣa, dhyāna, and the undefiled. As for one abiding in non-restraint:

— this refers to sheep-butchers and the like. As for one abiding in neither restraint nor non-restraint who presently manifests bodily action: this refers to one who, not asleep, not intoxicated, not fainted, and not having abandoned effort, seeks to manifest action. As for one who manifested it previously and has not lost it: this is through three conditions by which what was previously manifested is not lost — first, because the intention has not subsided; second, because the effort has not been abandoned; third, because the fixed duration of its force has not yet expired — this refers to one who, through deep, weighty faith or a fierce entanglement, gives rise to manifest and unmanifest action that persists up until it is given up. If born in the form realm, one definitely possesses unmanifest bodily karma, and may also possess manifest bodily karma. There is neither possessing a body nor possessing bodily karma — namely, ordinary beings born in the formless realm: being formless, they do not possess a body; being ordinary beings, they do not possess bodily karma — the contaminated kind having already been given up upon crossing to that realm and ground, the undefiled kind never having been attained at all. Question: why is it that contaminated form-karma is given up upon crossing to a different realm or ground, while the undefiled kind is not? Answer: contaminated form-karma is bound and fettered, while undefiled form-karma is liberated and free of bondage. Some say: contaminated form-karma falls within a fixed realm and ground, while undefiled karma falls within a ground but not within a fixed realm. Some say: contaminated form-karma is produced by great elements of the same kind, since both what produces and what is produced are equally contaminated, while undefiled form-karma is produced by great elements of a different kind, the great elements themselves being contaminated even though the karma is undefiled. For this reason, upon crossing to a different realm or ground, contaminated karma is given up, while undefiled karma is not.

Question: when an ordinary being who has attained forbearance dies, does he give up this dharma of forbearance? If he gives it up, why does he not fall into an unhappy destiny? And if he gives it up, why is it given up specifically at the ordinary being's death, while the noble one does not give it up? But if it is not given up, then why do neither this passage nor the Aggregate of Great Elements ever state this? Answer: one should say that it is given up. Question: if so, then why does he not fall into an unhappy destiny? Answer: because the power of this wholesome root is so great — for there are wholesome roots of feeble power that, even when possessed, do not obstruct an unhappy destiny, how much less when not possessed at all; and there are wholesome roots, such as those innately arisen, of powerful strength that, even when not possessed, still obstruct an unhappy destiny, how much more so when possessed, as with this dharma of forbearance — and this is why, although it is given up, one does not fall into an unhappy destiny. Some further say: it is because this wholesome root, having once arisen within the body,

— causes the karma and afflictions capable of bringing about an unhappy destiny to be permanently removed from this body, such that even their cause no longer arises there at all, how much less would one fall into an unhappy destiny. It is like a man who, in autumn, takes a purgative medicine — although the medicine itself does not remain within his body, the illness it treats does not arise there either; it is just the same here. Some further say: because the powerful, vigorous strength of this wholesome root has thoroughly permeated the body, it causes the karma and afflictions capable of bringing about an unhappy destiny to never arise again within this body at all, and since their cause does not arise, one does not fall into an unhappy destiny — it is like the den once inhabited by a lion king: although the lion is no longer there, its lingering scent still remains, and no small bird or beast dares to enter; it is just the same here. Further, this wholesome root abides within the body like a master, its strength powerful and dominant, while the unwholesome abides like a mere guest, its strength weak and diminished. Further, this wholesome root's own intention is so heightened that one delights in cutting off evil dharmas and delights in cultivating wholesome ones. Further, once this wholesome root has arisen within the body, every unhappy destiny thereby obtains a non-analytical cessation, and no dharma that has obtained non-analytical cessation ever arises again — and hence one does not fall into such a destiny. Further, because this wholesome root has arisen within the body, it causes the practitioner to fall into the great stream of the Dharma, and it is by this very principle that one does not fall into an unhappy destiny. Some further say: because this wholesome root stands in close proximity to the noble path, one does not fall into an unhappy destiny by relying upon the power of the noble path — it is like one who, fearing hateful bandits, takes refuge with a king, and, relying upon the king's own power, the bandits dare not even look him in the eye directly, how much less do him harm; it is just the same here — being close to the noble path, the karma and afflictions capable of bringing about an unhappy destiny do not even manifest at all, how much less would one fall into such a destiny. Some further say: because this wholesome root guards and protects the very bodily vessel in which the noble path is to dwell — meaning that this body is destined to become the dwelling-place of the noble path — the karma and afflictions capable of bringing about an unhappy destiny ought to be permanently and forever removed from it,

— just as a superior place designated as a king's own residence is guarded by an officer who allows no one else to dwell there; it is just the same here. Some further say: because this wholesome root has arisen within the body, it causes the practitioner to be fixed in the destiny of humans or gods, never dwelling in an unhappy destiny — just as a wealthy and eminent person is fixed in a superior dwelling, never dwelling in a lowly, cramped one; it is just the same here. Some say: this wholesome root's preparatory effort is truly supreme, causing the strength of the karma and afflictions capable of bringing about an unhappy destiny to grow weak and diminished, no longer able to bring about the ripening of such a destiny — and hence, although it is given up, one does not fall into an unhappy destiny. Some say: because of this wholesome root's own dominant power, it causes the practitioner to see the faults of evil conduct and the virtues of good conduct, and by this means such evil karma will certainly never arise again,

— how much less would one fall into an unhappy destiny. Some say: because of this wholesome root's own dominant power, it causes the practitioner to abide in a wholesome intention, seeing the faults of saṃsāra and the supreme virtue of nirvāṇa, and so he creates no evil karma and does not fall into an unhappy destiny. Some say: because of this wholesome root's own dominant power, it causes the practitioner's mind to become gentle and pliant, deeply firm in its faith and accordance with nirvāṇa, and it is by this means that, although it is given up, one does not fall into an unhappy destiny. The Venerable Ghoṣa explains: because of this wholesome root's own dominant power, it causes the practitioner's intention to become supreme, his mind constantly according with, moving toward, and approaching final nirvāṇa, with desire, delight, acceptance, longing, and reverent love — and by this cause and condition he creates no evil karma, and hence, although it is given up, he does not fall into an unhappy destiny. Question: why is it that an ordinary being gives up the forbearance he has attained at the time of death, while a noble one does not give it up? Answer: an ordinary being has no undefiled antidote to hold and govern this wholesome root, and hence it is given up at the time of death; a noble one has an undefiled antidote to hold and govern it, and hence it is not given up. Some say: an ordinary being's own power of concentration is feeble and unstable, being contaminated — like paint mixed without any binding glue, which cannot long remain fixed upon whatever it is painted onto — and hence it is given up; a noble one's undefiled power of concentration is firm and strong, holding this wholesome root fast even at death, without giving it up — the simile given above should be understood in reverse for this case. Some say: an ordinary being, lacking superior calm and insight, gives it up at death, while a noble one, being the reverse, does not give it up at death. Other masters say: an ordinary being does not give up forbearance even at death. Question: if so, then why does neither this passage nor the Aggregate of Great Elements state this? Answer: it ought properly to be stated, and as for why it is not so stated, one should know that this teaching is incomplete. Some say: it has already been stated within the third clause above — namely, that noble ones abiding within the womb possess a body and bodily karma. There are two kinds of "noble": first, conventional; second, ultimate.

One who has attained this wholesome root is called a conventional noble one; one who has entered the noble path is called an ultimate noble one — even one who has merely given rise to the resolve to go forth is already called noble in this sense, how much more so one who has attained forbearance. Other masters say: this is not fixed — an ordinary being, at death, may or may not give up forbearance. If one has continually applied oneself to it, applying oneself earnestly and cultivating it until it is firm and stable, one does not give up this dharma of forbearance at death; if not, then it is given up at death — just as with what one has studied and practiced: if it has become thoroughly mastered, it is not forgotten even after a long time, but otherwise it is forgotten, as with the son of Maitrāyaṇī who, from the very moment of his birth, was already able to proclaim, "The fetters are of two kinds," and so on in full. According to this last account: an ordinary being definitely gives up forbearance at death, since his wholesome root is inferior — an ordinary being, having given rise to this kind of wholesome root while depending on this ground, is reborn back into this very same ground at death, and, his class-nature having been given up, this wholesome root too is definitely given up,

— how much more so a dharma of the form realm that must pass through a birth in the desire realm, which certainly cannot fail to be given up.

The sūtra says: there are four kinds of birth — egg-birth, womb-birth, moisture-birth, and spontaneous birth. What is egg-birth? It refers to beings born from an eggshell — about to dwell, having dwelt, now dwelling within the eggshell; enveloped, breaking through, and emerging from the eggshell in the process of being born, arising, manifesting, and having emerged — such as geese, wild geese, peacocks, parrots, mynah birds, kokila cuckoos, and jīvañjīva birds, and the like, together with a certain kind of nāga, a certain kind of garuḍa, and a certain kind within the human destiny, and various others besides born from an eggshell, explained in full as above — this is called egg-birth. What is womb-birth? It refers to beings born from the womb's membrane — about to dwell, having dwelt, now dwelling within the womb's membrane;

enveloped, breaking through the womb's membrane in the process of being born, arising, manifesting, and having emerged — such as elephants, horses, cattle, sheep, camels, donkeys, deer, and the like, together with a certain kind of nāga, a certain kind of garuḍa, a certain kind of ghost, and a certain kind within the human destiny, and various others besides born from the womb's membrane, explained in full as above — this is called womb-birth. What is moisture-birth? It refers to beings born from moisture — arising in dependence upon the leaves of grasses and trees, in caves and thickets, or in dependence upon rotting flesh, excrement, filth, and the like, or in dependence upon ponds, pools, rivers, and seas, arising through mutual moistening, mutual pressure, and mutual dependence, arising, manifesting, and having emerged — such as mosquitoes, gnats, and midges, centipedes, millipedes, crawling insects, bees, and the like, together with a certain kind of nāga, a certain kind of garuḍa, and a certain kind within the human destiny, and various others besides born from moisture, explained in full as above — this is called moisture-birth. What is spontaneous birth? It refers to beings born with nothing to depend upon, their faculties whole and their limbs and body fully complete, arising suddenly, manifesting suddenly, and emerging suddenly at their very place of birth — such as the beings of the hells, the destiny of the gods, every being in intermediate existence, and a certain kind of nāga, a certain kind of garuḍa, a certain kind of ghost, and a certain kind within the human destiny, and various other kinds of beings besides born with nothing to depend upon, explained in full as above — this is called spontaneous birth. Question: are the beautifully colored birds among the gods of the desire realm egg-born or spontaneously born? If egg-born, then, once they die, there ought to be a corpse remaining, and the gods would then have to behold an unclean sight — yet the divine assembly, at the six sense-gates, constantly encounters only wondrous objects, as the sūtra says: whatever their eyes see is uniformly beloved and pleasing, and so too for whatever is known by the mind. But if they are spontaneously born, why is this not stated among the spontaneously born examples given before? Answer: they are all in fact egg-born. Question: if so, then, once they die, there ought to be a corpse remaining — how then do the gods never behold an unclean sight? Answer: not long after their death, a fierce wind arises and sweeps their corpse far away to some other place. Other masters say: they are all in fact spontaneously born. Question: why is this not stated among the spontaneously born examples given before? Answer: it ought properly to be stated, and as for why it is not so stated, one should know that this teaching is incomplete. Some say: they are already included among the "certain kind of garuḍa" mentioned before, and hence there is no fault at all. Question: what is the own-nature of these four kinds of birth? Answer: the four aggregates or the five aggregates constitute their own-nature — that is, the five aggregates in the desire and form realms, the four aggregates in the formless realm. Here some say: only the ripening aggregates constitute their own-nature; some say the nutriment-sustained aggregates are included as well. This is the own-nature of the four kinds of birth. Having explained their own-nature, we should now explain the reason for it. Question: why are they called "birth"? Answer: because it is through the coming-together of the various classes of beings that they arise, and hence it is called birth. Question: the three realms and five destinies also arise through such a coming-together, and are likewise called birth — why are these four alone singled out? Answer: these four alone cause the arising specifically of the class of sentient beings,

— and encompass the entire class of sentient beings without exception. Realm and destiny are not like this: although realm does encompass the entire class of sentient beings, it arises not solely as the class of sentient beings but extends to non-sentient things as well; and although destiny arises solely as sentient beings, it does not encompass the entire class of sentient beings, since it does not include intermediate existence. It is for this reason that only these four are called "birth." Question: what is the meaning of "birth"? Answer: the sense of a being's manifesting is the sense of birth; the sense of a being's arising, and the sense of a being's emerging, is the sense of birth.

Question: within which realms and destinies can how many kinds of birth be found? Answer: within the desire realm, all four kinds of birth can be found; within the form and formless realms, only spontaneous birth is found, since beings there, at the time of taking rebirth, have nothing to depend upon. Among the five destinies, the gods and hell-beings have only spontaneous birth. Some say: the ghost destiny too has only spontaneous birth. Some say: the ghost destiny also has womb-birth, as when a female hungry ghost said to Maudgalyāyana:

"By night I give birth to five children, and devour each as soon as it is born; By day I give birth to five more, just the same — though I consume them all, I am never sated." The animal and human destinies each possess all four kinds of birth. As to human egg-birth: long ago, on this continent, there was a merchant who, venturing out to sea, obtained a female crane,

whose form was so magnificent that he took a fancy to her, and she thereupon laid two eggs; later, when the eggs opened, two young boys emerged, handsome and intelligent, who, upon growing up, went forth and both attained the fruit of arhatship — the younger named Upaśela, the elder named Śaila. There is also the case of Viśākhā's own mother, who bore thirty-two eggs, and the consort of King Pañcāla, who bore five hundred eggs, and so on. As to human womb-birth: this is as with people of the present age. As to human moisture-birth: this is as with Māndhātā, Caru, Upacaru, Kapotamālā, Āmrapālī, and the like. As to human spontaneous birth: this is as with the humans of the very beginning of the eon. Beings of all four kinds of birth, once born, may still attain the noble Dharma, but having attained it, they will certainly never again take birth by egg or by moisture. Question: why is this so? Answer: egg-birth and moisture-birth are, by nature, mostly ignorant and dull, while noble ones are intelligent, and hence they do not take such births. Some say: egg-birth and moisture-birth are, by their very nature, contrary to the noble nature, and hence noble ones do not take them. Other masters say: those two kinds of birth are, for the most part, of evil and harmful intention, whereas noble ones are not so, their intention being wholesome alone. Some say: those two kinds of birth mostly practice evil moral conduct and are submerged in the ocean of suffering, whereas noble ones have already obtained the firm float of the precepts cherished by the noble, by which they cross beyond it. Some say: egg-birth and moisture-birth belong to the animal class, and noble ones have already attained a non-analytical cessation with respect to it. Some say: egg-birth and moisture-birth are, for the most part, cramped and confined, whereas noble ones are not so, their karma being expansive and generous — and it is for reasons of this kind that noble ones do not take these two kinds of birth. Other masters say: noble ones delight in solitude and dread repeated existence, while those of moisture-birth are, for the most part, a jumbled, crowded mass, and those of egg-birth undergo a kind of double birth — namely, emerging from the mother's womb, and then emerging from the eggshell — hence the world speaks of a brahmin ascetic, a bird, or an elephant as "twice-born," the bird by name, the elephant by its double drinking — and it is for this reason that noble ones do not take such births. Other masters say: egg-birth and moisture-birth mostly lack any strong protector, while noble ones possess the dharma of a supreme protector, and hence do not take those births — and it is on this basis that it is said that, had Āmrapālī possessed a supreme protector, she would never have been subjected to humiliation by Mahendraka. The Venerable Ghoṣa explains: "the destiny into which the father is born, the son is reborn there too" — meaning that, just as the great bodhisattvas near the very stage of buddhahood, being the fathers of the whole assembly of noble ones, certainly do not take birth by egg or by moisture, so too their noble sons, who attain the fruit, do likewise. It is for all these various causes and conditions that noble ones definitely do not take birth by egg or by moisture.

Question: among these four kinds of birth, which is the most extensive? Some say: egg-birth is the most extensive, as it has been heard that, in the mountain valleys of foreign lands,

— eggs fill every place without exception, so many that elephants and the like trample them underfoot without even noticing. Other masters say: womb-birth is the most extensive, as it has been heard that, in a foreign land, a single toad once gave birth to seven broods of young, and a single fish, passing through seven ponds, filled each with its offspring. Other masters say: moisture-birth is the most extensive, for why is this? Should any collection of rotting flesh, excrement, or the like gather during the rainy season, anywhere from the golden wheel at the earth's foundation up to the Brahmā heaven, all of it can give rise to worms, and every one of these worms is included within moisture-birth. According to this last account, spontaneous birth is the most extensive, since it comprises the entirety of two destinies and a small portion of three others, together with every being in intermediate existence, all of which are spontaneously born; and it comprises the entirety of two realms and a small portion of the third, all of which are spontaneously born; and even the preparatory-stage beings of the other three kinds of birth within the desire realm are themselves spontaneously born as well. Question: among these four kinds of birth, which is the most supreme? Answer: spontaneous birth is the most supreme. Question: if so, then why does the bodhisattva, in his very last body, not take spontaneous birth? Answer: because the two conditions never coincide in time — that is, at the beginning of the eon, when humans were spontaneously born, no buddha had yet appeared in the world; only once the eon reaches its declining phase does a buddha appear in the world,

— and by that time humans are no longer spontaneously born. Some further say: spontaneous birth is too light and buoyant to serve as the support for the king of mountains that is a buddha's own powers, fearlessnesses, and other such virtues. Some further say: every spontaneously born body is too feeble and weak to bear the heavy burden of unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening. Some further say: were one to take spontaneous birth, there would then be no relatives or family whatsoever, and yet these are entirely the fruit of excellent karma — the bodhisattva, having diligently cultivated excellent karma to its utmost perfection throughout the long night of saṃsāra, does not take spontaneous birth for this very reason. Some further say:

— the bodhisattva, throughout the long night of saṃsāra, diligently and vigorously created and increased the karma that brings about the acquisition of parents, and the bodhisattva's own parents likewise cultivate, throughout the long night, the karma that brings about the bearing of a noble son; were he to take spontaneous birth, both of these long-cultivated efforts would go entirely to waste, without fruit — and it is for this reason that he does not take it. Some say: it is in order to display the bodhisattva's supremacy in every respect — namely, in wisdom and insight, in lineage, and in rank — that, for this very reason, he does not take spontaneous birth. Some say: it is in order to cut off ordinary beings' own pride of lineage that, relying upon a supreme lineage, he does not take spontaneous birth. Some say: it is in order to draw in and lead those who delight in household life into the Dharma that he does not take spontaneous birth — for were he to take spontaneous birth, they would then say, "The Buddha, having no relatives, therefore holds household life in contempt — how could he be compared to us?" But if the bodhisattva is born into a kṣatriya household of powerful lineage and connections, and is yet able to renounce it all as one spits out phlegm, opening the gate of the deathless and attaining perfect, complete awakening, then everyone gives rise to a sense of the rare and wonderful, and receives his teaching with reverence. Some say: the bodhisattva, wishing to serve as both inner and outer protector of the banner of the Dharma, does not take spontaneous birth. Every buddha possesses both an inner and an outer protector — the inner referring to the factors of awakening, the outer referring to his relatives; for without an outer protector, he would be vulnerable to destruction by evil bands of outside-path followers. The Buddha, the World-Honored One, delivered the members of the Śākya clan precisely in order to protect the true Dharma in this way, and it is on this basis that even the group of six wayward bhikṣus once said, "Should any outside-path teacher come to trouble the Buddha, then, if the Buddha does not restrain us, we too are able to subdue him by force." Some say: it is in order to forestall a slander from outside-path followers that he does not take spontaneous birth — that is, the Buddha, having personally descended from the palace of Tuṣita, his body radiant with a splendor that illuminated the whole trichiliocosm, entered his mother's womb, and, once ten months had passed, emerged from her womb, at once took seven steps and proclaimed himself alone supreme, then went forth, practiced austerities, went to the Bodhi tree, and attained perfect, complete awakening — and yet, even so, he was still slandered by some who said that, after a hundred eons, some great illusion would emerge with no father and no mother, to devour the world;

— were he to take spontaneous birth, such slander would only increase all the more, and this is why the bodhisattva does not take spontaneous birth. Some say: it is in order to benefit beings of the future that he does not take spontaneous birth, for why is this? Were he to take womb-birth, there would then be relics left behind, and, even a thousand years after his final nirvāṇa,

— countless beings, so long as they are able to give rise to even a mustard-seed's worth of deeply reverent and pure intention toward the realm of those relics, offering their respectful veneration, will thereby obtain boundless merit, be reborn among the gods to experience happiness, and eventually attain final nirvāṇa. Were he to take spontaneous birth, there would be no such thing at all, for why is this? A spontaneously born being, at death, is like a lamp's flame going out — leaving nothing whatsoever behind. Now, arising from this very discussion, a further question arises: why does a spontaneously born being, at death, leave nothing whatsoever behind? Answer: because, at the time of birth, all of that being's faculties arise all at once, and hence, at the time of death, they likewise all cease at once — like a person playing in water, now surfacing, now suddenly submerged. Some further say: a spontaneously born body is light and subtle, like a cloud or a flash of lightning, or like a gust of wind or a flame — once extinguished, nothing whatsoever remains, and no one knows where it has gone. Further, spontaneous birth has an increase of derived form, while the other three kinds of birth have an increase of the great elements, and since it is derived form that is increased, its cessation is accordingly instantaneous and complete. Further, spontaneous birth has an increase of faculty-dharmas,

— while the other three kinds of birth do not have this increase of faculty-dharmas, and since it is faculty-dharmas that are increased, its cessation is likewise instantaneous and complete — that is, a spontaneously born being's own body, having little in the way of non-faculty matter such as hair and nails. Question: if a spontaneously born being, at death, leaves nothing whatsoever behind, then why does the sūtra say that a spontaneously born garuḍa takes a spontaneously born nāga as its food? Answer: it takes it as food out of ignorance of this fact, yet it does not actually satisfy its hunger thereby. Some say: while the nāga has not yet died, the garuḍa does briefly satisfy its hunger; once the nāga has died, it grows hungry once more and takes food again — this does not contradict what the sūtra says. Some further say: the flesh of a spontaneously born nāga is so refined and subtle that, like ghee or oil, it accomplishes the work of nourishment the very instant it is swallowed into the stomach. Some say: a spontaneously born garuḍa, being highly skilled in its methods, seizes a spontaneously born nāga by pressing down on its neck with its talons and swallowing it tail-first, so that, while its life has not yet been extinguished, it can indeed accomplish the work of nourishment — but once it has died, this is no longer so.

Other masters say: when the garuḍa eats a spontaneously born nāga, its own saliva flows out first, dissolving the nāga's brain, which flows down along with it, and it is this, swallowed together with the nāga, that accomplishes the work of nourishment — it is not the spontaneously born nāga alone that accomplishes this.

Question: how is what another sūtra says to be reconciled — the statement that within the great hells there are large, fierce, mottled black dogs that pounce upon beings lying prostrate on the iron ground, tearing open their bellies and devouring their entrails? Answer: because the entrails, not yet separated from the body, do briefly satisfy the dog's hunger, it is spoken of as "eating." Some say: by the power of the evil karma of the beings undergoing this punishment, it merely causes them to experience suffering, and does not actually accomplish any real work of nourishment for the dog at all.

If one possesses a body, does one thereby possess verbal karma? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed — there is possessing a body without verbal karma, possessing verbal karma without a body, possessing both a body and verbal karma, and possessing neither — all explained just as in the earlier tetralemma of body against bodily karma, the difference being that here manifest verbal action is spoken of, since whether bodily and verbal karma are bound to a given ground is necessarily the same in either case. If one possesses a body, does one thereby possess mental karma? Answer: all who possess a body definitely possess mental karma. There is possessing mental karma without possessing a body —

— namely, one born in the formless realm. If one possesses a body, does one thereby possess bodily and verbal karma? Answer: there is possessing a body without either bodily or verbal karma — as in the egg-stage, or an ordinary being abiding within the womb, or one born in the desire realm abiding in neither restraint nor non-restraint, with no manifest bodily or verbal action, whether never manifested or manifested and lost. There is possessing a body together with bodily karma but not verbal karma — as one born in the desire realm abiding in neither restraint nor non-restraint who presently manifests bodily action, or manifested it previously and has not lost it, with no manifest verbal action, whether never manifested or manifested and lost. There is possessing a body together with verbal karma but not bodily karma — as one born in the desire realm abiding in neither restraint nor non-restraint who presently manifests verbal action, or manifested it previously and has not lost it, with no manifest bodily action, whether never manifested or manifested and lost. And there is possessing a body together with both bodily and verbal karma — as noble ones abiding within the womb, or one born in the desire realm abiding in restraint, in non-restraint, or in neither, who presently manifests both bodily and verbal action, or manifested it previously and has not lost it. If one is born in the form realm and possesses bodily and verbal karma, does one thereby possess a body? Answer: one may or may not. How does one possess it? As explained before. How does one not possess it? As with noble ones born in the formless realm. If one possesses a body, does one thereby possess bodily and mental karma? Answer: there is possessing a body together with mental karma but not bodily karma — as in the egg-stage, or an ordinary being abiding within the womb, or one born in the desire realm abiding in neither restraint nor non-restraint with no manifest bodily action, whether never manifested or manifested and lost. There is possessing a body together with both bodily and mental karma — as noble ones abiding within the womb, or one born in the desire realm abiding in restraint, in non-restraint, or in neither, who presently manifests bodily action, or manifested it previously and has not lost it.

If one is born in the form realm and possesses bodily and mental karma, does one thereby possess a body? Answer: one may or may not. How does one possess it? As explained before. How does one not possess it? As with noble ones born in the formless realm. If one possesses a body,

— does one thereby possess verbal and mental karma? Answer: there is possessing a body together with mental karma but not verbal karma, and possessing a body together with both verbal and mental karma — all explained just as in the earlier tetralemma of body against bodily and mental karma, the difference being that here manifest verbal action is spoken of. If one possesses verbal and mental karma, does one thereby possess a body? Answer: one may or may not, explained just as before. If one possesses a body, does one thereby possess bodily, verbal, and mental karma? Answer: there is possessing a body together with mental karma but not bodily or verbal karma; there is possessing a body together with bodily and mental karma but not verbal karma; there is possessing a body together with verbal and mental karma but not bodily karma; and there is possessing a body together with bodily, verbal, and mental karma all at once — all explained just as in the earlier tetralemma of body against bodily and verbal karma, since mental karma is at all times invariably possessed. If one possesses bodily, verbal, and mental karma, does one thereby possess a body? Answer: one may or may not, explained just as before.

If one possesses bodily karma, does one thereby possess verbal karma? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is possessing bodily karma without verbal karma — as one born in the desire realm abiding in neither restraint nor non-restraint who presently manifests bodily action, or manifested it previously and has not lost it, with no manifest verbal action, whether never manifested or manifested and lost. There is possessing verbal karma without bodily karma — as one born in the desire realm abiding in neither restraint nor non-restraint who presently manifests verbal action,

— or manifested it previously and has not lost it, with no manifest bodily action, whether never manifested or manifested and lost. There is possessing both bodily and verbal karma — as noble ones abiding within the womb, or one born in the desire realm abiding in restraint, in non-restraint, or in neither, who presently manifests both bodily and verbal action, or manifested it previously and has not lost it; or one born in the form realm; or noble ones born in the formless realm. And there is possessing neither bodily nor verbal karma — as in the egg-stage, or an ordinary being abiding within the womb, or one born in the desire realm abiding in neither restraint nor non-restraint with no manifest bodily or verbal action, whether never manifested or manifested and lost; or an ordinary being born in the formless realm. If one possesses bodily karma, does one thereby possess mental karma? Answer: all who possess bodily karma possess mental karma. There is possessing mental karma without bodily karma — as in the egg-stage, or an ordinary being abiding within the womb, or one born in the desire realm abiding in neither restraint nor non-restraint,

— with no manifest bodily action, whether never manifested or manifested and lost; or an ordinary being born in the formless realm. If one possesses bodily karma, does one thereby possess verbal and mental karma? Answer: there is possessing bodily karma together with mental karma but not verbal karma — as one born in the desire realm abiding in neither restraint nor non-restraint who presently manifests bodily action, or manifested it previously and has not lost it, with no manifest verbal action, whether never manifested or manifested and lost. There is possessing bodily karma together with both verbal and mental karma — as noble ones abiding within the womb, or one born in the desire realm abiding in restraint, in non-restraint, or in neither, who presently manifests both bodily and verbal action, or manifested it previously and has not lost it; or one born in the form realm; or noble ones born in the formless realm. If one possesses verbal and mental karma, does one thereby possess bodily karma? Answer: one may or may not. How does one possess it? As explained before. How does one not possess it? As one born in the desire realm abiding in neither restraint nor non-restraint who presently manifests verbal action, or manifested it previously and has not lost it, with no manifest bodily action, whether never manifested or manifested and lost.

If one possesses verbal karma, does one thereby possess mental karma? Answer: all who possess verbal karma possess mental karma. There is possessing mental karma without verbal karma — explained just as before for bodily karma against mental karma, the difference being that here manifest verbal action is spoken of. The summary meaning of what has been said above is this: a body, if born in the formless realm, is definitely not possessed; if born in the desire or form realm, bodily and verbal karma are then definitely possessed. As for one in the egg-stage, an ordinary being within the womb, and an ordinary being born in the formless realm, these definitely do not possess it;

— every noble one, every ordinary being of the form realm, and every ordinary being of the desire realm abiding in either wholesome or unwholesome precepts, all definitely possess it; the rest may or may not possess it. Mental karma, however, is invariably and definitely possessed by all, without exception.