Who Creates, Who Receives?

Question: is there a case where simply taking the Three Refuges alone makes one an upāsaka? Or is there a case where incomplete restraint makes one an upāsaka? If it is said that there is, then would not the sūtra's own distinct wording become meaningless — as when it says, "I, so-and-so, take refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Saṅgha; may the venerable one bear witness — I am an upāsaka, and from this day until the end of my life shall protect life and take refuge in purity"? For it ought then equally to be said that there is incomplete restraint for a novice or a bhikṣu as well. But if it is said that there is not, then would not the sūtra's own distinct wording given before become meaningless instead — why then does it establish the upāsaka of one portion, of a minor portion, of a major portion, and of the full portion? The treatise-masters of Gandhāra say: taking the Three Refuges alone, and incomplete restraint as well, both make one an upāsaka.

Question: if taking the Three Refuges alone makes one an upāsaka, then would not the sūtra's own wording become meaningless — for the sūtra says that, when the upāsaka receives restraint,

— he says, before his preceptor, "I, so-and-so, take refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Saṅgha; may the venerable one bear witness — I am an upāsaka, and from this day until the end of my life shall, throughout that span, protect life and take refuge in purity." Answer: by this declaration he obtains only the Three Refuges, being thereby called an upāsaka, but has not yet obtained restraint — it is only afterward, when the training rules are spoken, that he obtains restraint. Yet this wording is not without meaning, since it is by this later self-vow that the earlier Three Refuges are made firm and stable — for without protecting life and taking refuge in purity, they would not be pure. Question: if incomplete restraint makes one an upāsaka, this would well accord with the terms "one portion" and the rest, for why is this? For undertaking one precept is called "one portion," undertaking two is called "a minor portion," undertaking three or four is called "a major portion," and undertaking the full five is called "the full portion" — so why then is there no incomplete restraint for a novice or a bhikṣu as well? Answer: the Buddha, observing the differing capacities of those he converts, bestows restraint accordingly, not uniformly — since upāsakas are unwilling to give up household life, the Buddha, in order to draw them in, allows them to receive as many or as few of the five training rules as they wish, and hence this restraint may be incompletely received. Bhikṣus and novices, by contrast, are willing to give up household life, and, for the sake of establishing them properly, the Buddha prescribes the full restraint, obtained only through complete reception, and hence this restraint cannot be incompletely received, since these are the World-Honored One's own inner household. The treatise-masters of Kashmir say: there is no such thing as taking the Three Refuges alone, or incomplete restraint, being called an upāsaka. Question: if so, would not the sūtra become meaningless — as when it says, "I, so-and-so, take refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Saṅgha," and so on in full? Answer: by this declaration he obtains both the Three Refuges and restraint at once, and thereby becomes an upāsaka. Question: this vow speaks only of abstaining from taking life — how then does one thereby obtain the full complement of all five? Answer: it is on the basis of this self-vow to abstain from taking life that all five restraints are obtained simultaneously, since among the five training rules, this one is supreme — for the very point of taking these precepts is to avoid harming life, and among all forms of harming life, killing is foremost, and hence abstaining from killing is made the basis for all five. Moreover, the phrase "protecting life" does not mean abstaining from killing alone, but not harming any being whatsoever — for his self-vow says, "From this day until the end of my life, I shall not take the life of any being, shall not steal their property, shall not violate their spouse, shall not speak falsely" — and, in order to protect these first four, he also abstains from drinking wine. Hence "protecting life" does not mean abstaining from killing alone. There is, however, a variant recitation that says "abandoning life" — this phrase means abandoning killing and the rest, abbreviating "killing and the rest" to simply "life"; and the phrase "abandoning life" further indicates, with respect to living beings,

— abandoning the deeds that harm and injure them, which is precisely the five restraints, all established to guard against and prevent the harming of life. It is by this very self-vow that restraint is thereby obtained, and hence the sūtra is not without meaning. Question: if the mere self-vow alone obtains restraint, why does the sūtra go on to speak of the five training rules as well? Answer: although restraint has already been obtained through the self-vow, one does not yet know the distinct marks of each of the five, and it is in order to make this known that the five training rules are spoken of — and hence what is said is not without meaning in any part. Question: if so, then why does it speak of the upāsaka of one portion and the rest? Answer: this speaks of the stage of upholding the precepts, not the stage of receiving them — that is, among the five, upholding one and not the other four is called "one portion"; upholding two and not the other three is called "a minor portion"; upholding three or four is called "a major portion"; and upholding all five completely is called "the full portion." The Venerable Saṃghavasu partly agrees with each of the two preceding masters: he holds that there is no such thing as taking the Three Refuges alone making one an upāsaka, yet there is such a thing as incomplete restraint of the five also making one an upāsaka — that is, at the time one is about to receive the upāsaka's precepts,

— one first deliberates carefully with one's preceptor as to which of these training rules one is able to uphold and which one is not, and, having so deliberated, then takes refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Saṅgha, and vows to obtain precisely those precepts one is committed to — and, according to however many one was able to commit to in this prior deliberation, one now obtains restraint in that same number. It is for this reason that the upāsaka's restraint is called the "deliberated precept," a name that does not apply to the novice's or bhikṣu's precepts. According to this last account: there is no such thing as taking the Three Refuges alone making one an upāsaka, nor is there such a thing as incomplete upāsaka-restraint — one becomes an upāsaka only through complete restraint, just as one becomes a novice or the like only through the complete novice or other restraint, without any incompleteness — it is just the same here.

Question: if one takes prātimokṣa restraint without taking the Three Refuges, does one obtain the restraint? Some say: one does not, since taking the Three Refuges serves as the gateway, the basis, and the preparatory action for this restraint. Some say: it is not fixed — that is, if one does not know that one must first take the Three Refuges before receiving the precepts, and, trusting one's preceptor, receives the restraint anyway, one does obtain the restraint, though the preceptor incurs the fault; but if one understands that first taking the Three Refuges and only afterward receiving the restraint is the proper procedure, yet, out of pride alone, refuses to take the Three Refuges, saying, "Let me simply receive the precepts — what need is there to take refuge in faith in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Saṅgha?" — then, because his mind is entangled by pride, though he receives the precepts, he does not obtain the restraint. Question: if one has not first taken the upāsaka's restraint and directly receives the novice's restraint, does one obtain the novice's restraint? Some say: one does not, since the upāsaka's restraint serves as the gateway, the basis, and the preparatory action for this restraint. Some say: it is not fixed — if one does not know that one must first take the upāsaka's restraint before receiving the novice's restraint, and, trusting one's preceptor, receives this restraint anyway, one does obtain the restraint, though the preceptor incurs the fault; but if one understands that first taking the upāsaka's restraint and only afterward receiving the novice's restraint is the proper procedure, yet, out of pride alone, is unwilling to undertake the upāsaka's own restraint, saying, "What need is there to receive this inferior upāsaka precept?" — then, because his mind is entangled by pride, though he receives the precepts, he does not obtain the restraint. Just as it is said for not receiving the upāsaka's restraint yet receiving the novice's restraint, so too it is explained in full for not receiving the novice's restraint yet receiving the bhikṣu's restraint. Question: when an upāsaka receives the novice's restraint, or a novice receives the bhikṣu's restraint, does he give up the earlier restraint and obtain the later one? If he gives up the earlier and obtains the later, why does the Prajñaptiśāstra say that he possesses both the earlier and later restraints together? And if he does give it up, then when he later gives up the novice's restraint to return to being an upāsaka, or gives up the bhikṣu's restraint to return to being a novice, and must receive the precepts once more, how could he obtain the upāsaka's or novice's restraint again at all? But if he does not give it up, then, already possessing two or even three kinds of restraint, why is he named solely with reference to the later precept? And, having had two preceptors, why does the Buddha say that the later one is valid and the earlier one is not? Answer: receiving the later restraint does not give up the earlier precept — that is, when an upāsaka receives the novice's restraint, he does not give up the upāsaka's own five precepts, but further obtains the novice's ten, and at that time possesses fifteen restraints in all; when a novice receives the bhikṣu's restraint, he does not give up the previous fifteen, but further obtains the bhikṣu's own more than two hundred and fifty, and at that time possesses more than two hundred and sixty-five restraints in all. Other masters say: when an upāsaka receives the novice's restraint, he does not give up the upāsaka's own five precepts, but further obtains the novice's own five, and at that time possesses ten restraints in all; when a novice receives the bhikṣu's restraint, he does not give up the previous ten, but further obtains the bhikṣu's own more than two hundred and forty, and at that time possesses more than two hundred and fifty restraints in all. Question: since he already possesses two or even three kinds of restraint, why is he named solely with reference to the later precept? Answer: he is named according to what is superior, and this ought not to be raised as an objection, just as one who attains a superior rank gives up the name of his original, inferior one. Question: since he has had two preceptors, why does the Buddha say that the later one is valid and the earlier one is not? Answer: because the superior restraint is obtained in dependence upon the later teacher, not the earlier — just as one is named according to what one does not depend upon for one's restraint, so too it is with the teacher. Other masters say:

— he does give up the earlier restraint. Question: if so, why does the Prajñaptiśāstra say that he possesses both the earlier and later restraints together? Answer: that treatise's own intent is to say

— that the earlier restraint supports the later, making it superior, and it is because the force of the earlier precept still continues to operate at this time that he is said to "possess" it, though the earlier restraint is not, in fact, still possessed. Question: when one later gives up the bhikṣu's restraint to return to being a novice, or gives up the novice's restraint to return to being an upāsaka, how does one then obtain those two precepts again? Answer: it is precisely through manifest verbal karma, vowing to oneself, "I shall now become a novice, or an upāsaka, once more," that one obtains these two restraints — this does not constitute the completion of the old precept.

According to this account: one does not give up the earlier precept in obtaining the later one, since what is received later is not a dharma contrary to what was received before; moreover, the cause and condition of the earlier and later precepts are each distinct, and hence they ought not to be combined into a total of ten and so forth.

Question: if one receives the upāsaka's precepts as a boy, and only later, upon reaching youth, takes a wife, does one already possess this precept with respect to this particular wife beforehand?

If one already possesses it beforehand, then one ought now to violate the precept; but if one does not already possess it beforehand, then this restraint would have to be obtained with respect to only a partial portion of beings. Answer: one should say that one already possesses it beforehand. Question: if so, then one ought now to violate the precept. Answer: it is obtained with respect to a particular component, not the whole continuum entire — what was previously received and obtained was abstention from sexual misconduct, not from unchaste conduct altogether, so how could one now violate it? Since intimacy with one's own legitimate wife is not misconduct at all, one and the same continuum may have many distinct components,

— what is prohibited and what is actually done being distinct, and hence there is no violation. Question: if one obtains the restraint of non-doing as a boy, and only later, upon reaching youth, takes a wife, does one already possess this restraint with respect to this particular wife beforehand? If one already possesses it beforehand, then one ought now to violate the restraint — yet the restraint of non-doing, once obtained, can definitely never be violated.

But if one does not already possess it beforehand, then this restraint would have to be obtained with respect to only a partial portion of beings. Answer: one should say that one already possesses it beforehand, explained in full as before. Question: in which places does the upāsaka's restraint exist? Answer: it exists within the desire realm, not the form or formless realms; within the human destiny, not the other destinies; and across three continents, excepting the northern continent. Question: if this restraint belongs solely to the human destiny, how is the sūtra's own statement to be reconciled — as when the sūtra says that Śakra, lord of the gods, once came before the Buddha and said, "May the Buddha bear witness — I am an upāsaka, and from this day until the end of my life shall, throughout that span, protect life and take refuge in purity"? Answer: he was merely displaying an outflow of faith, not actually receiving restraint, and hence this ought not to be raised as an objection.

As the sūtra says: the upavāsa restraint is complete with eight components. What are the eight? Abstaining from taking life; abstaining from taking what is not given; abstaining from unchaste conduct; abstaining from false speech; abstaining from drinking any wine; among the grounds of negligence, abstaining from song, dance, and theatrical performance; abstaining from applying scented ointments, garlands, and adornments; abstaining from high and wide beds; and abstaining from eating after the proper time. Question: this is nine components — why then is it said to be eight? Answer: two are combined into one, and hence eight components are spoken of — that is, abstaining from scented ointments, garlands, and adornments, and abstaining from song, dance, and theatrical performance, both operate within the same domain of self-adornment, and are hence combined and established as a single component. Question: why is it called "near-dwelling"? And what is a "near-dwelling component"? Answer: abstaining from eating after the proper time is what is called "near-dwelling" itself; abstaining from taking life and the rest are called "near-dwelling components." Question: should not this leave only seven near-dwelling components? Answer: abstaining from eating after the proper time is called both "near-dwelling" itself and a "near-dwelling component," and hence it is not merely seven — just as right view is called both "the path" itself and "a path-factor," while the others are called "path-factors" but not "the path" itself; just as the investigation of dharmas is called both "awakening" itself and "a factor of awakening," while the others are called "factors of awakening" but not "awakening" itself; just as concentration is called both "dhyāna" itself and "a dhyāna-factor," while the others are called "dhyāna-factors" but not "dhyāna" itself — so too abstaining from eating after the proper time is called both "near-dwelling" itself and a "near-dwelling component," while the others are called "near-dwelling components" but not "near-dwelling" itself; hence it is said that near-dwelling is complete with eight components. The Venerable Ghoṣa and the treatise-masters of the common world say: one should say that near-dwelling may have entirely no components, or one, two, three, and so on up to seven, and need not necessarily be complete with all eight to be called near-dwelling. According to this last account: it is only the case of entirely no components up to seven that is not properly called near-dwelling — what is properly called near-dwelling must necessarily be complete with all eight components.

Question: how is the upavāsa restraint obtained? Answer: it is obtained through another's instruction — that is, it is obtained by following one's teacher's instruction and, oneself uttering sincere words with reverence, receiving it.

Question: can one who receives restraint by first speaking on his own, or by speaking simultaneously with his teacher, obtain the restraint? Answer: one cannot — one must necessarily follow the teacher's own words, since it is only by speaking as the teacher speaks that one properly receives it. Question: from whom should the upavāsa restraint be received? Answer: it may be received from any of the seven communities, and no one else,

— for why is this? Only one who holds lifelong precepts is fit to serve as a preceptor. Question: wearing what clothing and adornments should one receive this restraint? Answer: whatever clothing and adornments one ordinarily wears may be worn while receiving this restraint; but whatever is worn merely to adorn the body temporarily

— must first be set aside before one may receive this precept; a bed or seat and the like should be understood according to this same pattern. Question: for how long a period is this precept received? Answer: for exactly one day and one night, neither more nor less — that is, it is received from one's teacher at dawn, and the restraint is given up when the next dawn comes. Question: if one receives it all at once for a half-month, a month, or an even longer period, does one obtain the restraint? Answer: one should say that one does not, for why is this? The span of a single day and night is fixed and determined, since the coming and going of light and darkness is easy to recognize, and one meal, one fast, and the improper time are also fixed within a single day and night — the upavāsa restraint cannot be received all at once spanning two days and nights, how much less many days and nights; just as one cannot receive the lifelong restraint of an upāsaka and the like all at once spanning two class-natures, how much less many class-natures, so too by the same principle one cannot receive the day-and-night restraint all at once spanning more than its own proper limit, since restraint has only these two proper measures. Question: does receiving it for the day but not the night, or for the night but not the day, still obtain this precept? Some say: it does not, for why is this? The Buddha taught this as a day-and-night precept. Question: if so, then how is the causal account given by the Venerable Kātyāyana to be reconciled — as when it is said that this venerable one once told a group of sheep-butchers, "You should all abandon this evil karma, lest you receive a great fruit of suffering in a future life," and the butchers replied, "We sustain ourselves by this very trade — how could we possibly abandon it?" The venerable one asked them, "At what time of day do you carry out your butchering trade?" and they answered, "Only by day." The venerable one then told them, "You may then undertake and uphold the eight upavāsa precepts by night." The butchers, delighted, followed this instruction, and, at death, were all reborn in the wilderness as ghosts, where, every day, a large mottled black dog would suddenly appear and devour their flesh — leaving only their bones, upon which the flesh would grow back moments later as before, only to be devoured once more, suffering in this way as if in hell — and yet, every night, they would enjoy the five sensual pleasures, sporting and delighting in pleasure just as if among the gods.

The venerable one further went to those who committed sexual misconduct — prostitutes and the like — and told them, "You should abandon this trade, lest you receive a great fruit of suffering in a future life." They replied, "We have long practiced this occupation — we cannot abandon it all at once." The venerable one asked them, "At what time of day is this impure occupation of yours carried out?" and they answered, "Only by night." The venerable one then told them, "You may then undertake and uphold the eight upavāsa precepts by day." Those given to misconduct, delighted, followed this instruction, and, at death, were all reborn in the wilderness as ghosts, where, every night, a swarm of centipedes would suddenly appear and gnaw at their flesh — leaving only their bones, upon which the flesh would grow back moments later as before, only to be gnawed once more, suffering in this way as if in hell — and yet, every day, they would enjoy the five sensual pleasures, sporting and delighting in pleasure just as if among the gods.

Question: how is what is said here to be reconciled with the earlier ruling that receiving it for only the day or only the night obtains no precept at all? Answer: what they received is included within good conduct, not restraint proper, and they received the fruit of good conduct, not the fruit of restraint,

— and hence there is no fault. Other masters say: this was a magical transformation wrought by that venerable one's own supernormal power, not something genuinely real, done in order to bring about Koṭīkarṇa's own disenchantment with the world — being a transformation, it need not be reconciled at all. Some say it can indeed still be obtained — that is, one who has previously resolved to constantly observe the fast on the eighth day of the month and the like, but is prevented by some circumstance, may still receive it in this manner. The verdict: the first account is the better one, since this is a day-and-night precept. Question: if one receives this precept only in the afternoon, does one still obtain it? Answer: one should say that one does not, except for one who had previously resolved to constantly observe the fast on the eighth day of the month and the like, but, through some other circumstance, forgot to do so before noon, and, remembering only after eating, feels deep remorse and shame, and thereupon requests a preceptor and receives it properly — such a one does still obtain this precept.

Question: if a paṇḍaka, hermaphrodite, or one without sexual organs receives the upavāsa restraint, does one obtain the restraint? Answer: one should say that one does not, for why is this? The body such a one depends upon is by nature feeble and weak, unfit to serve as a vessel for either restraint or non-restraint — just as a salty, briny field can grow neither fine crops nor foul weeds. Nevertheless, the upavāsa restraint should still be bestowed upon such a one, so that good conduct may arise and a superior fruit may be received; or, should a paṇḍaka and the like be entrusted by a king with important affairs, causing suffering to many people, if he receives this restraint, his poisonous intent may be temporarily calmed, bringing benefit to many — and hence it should still be bestowed upon him, even though he does not, in fact, obtain the upavāsa restraint itself.

As has been explained, the upavāsa restraint received in this way may have its root path of karma pure while its approach is impure — as when a ruler receives this restraint, and his own cook, wishing to kill a living being to prepare for his meal, is told by him, "I have now received the precepts and cannot permit killing —

— set it aside until tomorrow morning, and kill it then to prepare my meal." Or again, when a captured enemy is brought before him for punishment, he tells the guards, "I have now received restraint and cannot permit killing — set him aside until tomorrow morning, and execute him then according to law." This is what is called the root path of karma being pure while the approach is impure — the World-Honored One says that the restraint so received, though a superior deed, does not obtain a great fruit. Or there is a case where both the root path and the approach are pure, yet damaged by evil discursive thought — namely, discursive thought of desire, of malice, or of harm — and the World-Honored One says that the restraint so received, though a superior deed, does not obtain a great fruit. Or there is a case where both the root path and the approach are pure, undamaged by evil discursive thought, yet lacking the embrace of right mindfulness — namely, mindfulness of the Buddha, of the Dharma, of the Saṅgha, of moral discipline, of generosity, and of the gods — and it is said that the restraint so received, though a superior deed, does not obtain a great fruit. Or there is a case where both the root path and the approach are pure, undamaged by evil discursive thought, embracing right mindfulness, yet not dedicated toward liberation — namely, undertaking and upholding the precepts merely in order to seek rebirth among the gods and their sensual pleasures — and the World-Honored One says that the restraint so received, though a superior deed, does not obtain a great fruit. But if the root path and the approach are both pure, undamaged by evil discursive thought, embracing right mindfulness, and dedicated toward liberation, the World-Honored One says that the restraint so received is a truly excellent deed capable of obtaining a great fruit. It is with reference to this last kind of received restraint that the World-Honored One told Viśākhā, the mother of Mṛgāra, "Whoever possesses these eight upavāsa restraints, were one to compare their worth against all the treasures of the sixteen great kingdoms, these treasures would not amount to even one part in sixteen — nor one part in a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, nor any fraction expressible by number or calculation, not even one part in an upaniṣad." The sixteen great kingdoms are: Aṅga, Magadha, Kāśī, Kosala, the Vṛji confederacy, Malla, Puṇḍra, Suṣumā, Aśvaka, Avanti, Yavana... Kaccha, Kuru, Pañcāla, Vatsa, and Śūrasena. These sixteen kingdoms, being especially rich in treasure, are singled out for mention — the treasures referred to being pearls, lapis lazuli, coral, shells, jade, gold, silver, mother-of-pearl, moonstone, and rubies coiled to the right, and the like. Moreover, it was with reference to this same later restraint that the Buddha rebuked the verse of praise spoken by Śakra, lord of the gods — for when Śakra heard the Buddha speak of the surpassing merit of the upavāsa restraint, he praised it with a verse, saying:

"On the six fast-days and in the months of miraculous transformation, One who undertakes and upholds the eight precepts of the fast — His merit, so surpassing excellent, Must then be equal to my own." At that time the World-Honored One told the assembly of bhikṣus, "This verse spoken by Śakra, lord of the gods, is contrary to reason — such a claim could properly be made only by an arhat, for why is this? This Śakra has not yet permanently rid himself of greed, hatred, delusion, and the rest, has not yet attained liberation, and remains bound in body and mind by birth, old age, sickness, death, sorrow, grief, and suffering — how then could it be said that the merit obtained by undertaking and upholding this precept equals my own? The arhats, their every contaminant already exhausted, their task already accomplished, having laid down every heavy burden, their own benefit already fulfilled, every fetter of existence already ended, their minds well liberated, never again to take up further existence — they alone could properly say that the merit obtained by undertaking and upholding this precept equals my own. The merit of the lord of the gods brings about only further lordship among the gods, while undertaking and upholding these eight precepts can lead to the realization of complete awakening — and hence it should never be said that the two are merely equal."

Question: who should receive this upavāsa restraint? Some say: only noble ones, not ordinary beings; only upāsakas, not non-upāsakas — for who would give up a lifelong precept for a merely temporary one? Yet there is such a thing as giving up a temporary precept for a lifelong one. Who would receive a temporary precept for the sake of a lifelong one? Yet there is such a thing as receiving a lifelong precept for the sake of a temporary one. According to this last account: both noble ones and ordinary beings, both upāsakas and non-upāsakas, may receive it — yet what the Blessed One taught to Viśākhā, the mother of Mṛgāra, and the verse spoken with reference to Śakra, lord of the gods, apply solely to noble ones.

Question: in which places does the upavāsa restraint exist? Answer: it exists solely within the desire realm, not the form or formless realms; within the human destiny, not the other destinies — but how then is the sūtra's own statement to be reconciled?

For the sūtra says that there was once a sea-dwelling nāga who, emerging from the great ocean on the six fast-days, received the eight precepts of the fast, letting go of body and mind and dwelling in tranquility, and, softly chanting a melodious verse, said, "Now, in this world, I harm nothing at all." Answer: he obtained good conduct, not restraint proper,

— rejoicing at his own temporary freedom from evil conduct. He recalled that, formerly among humans, he had received the eight precepts of the fast but had been unable to keep them purely, and, having violated them, fell into the nāga destiny — and, reflecting to himself, "I was once among humans; had I been able to keep the eight precepts of the fast purely, I ought now to be reborn among the gods, enjoying every pleasure — how did I come, through my own violation, to fall into this unhappy destiny?", weary of his own past evil conduct, he repeatedly emerged from the sea to receive the eight precepts of the fast, chanting his own verse of rejoicing — yet, in fact, that nāga obtained only good conduct, not restraint proper. Question: why is this restraint called "near-dwelling"? Answer: because it dwells near the conduct of an arhat, since receiving this restraint means training in accordance with that conduct. Some say: it is because it dwells near lifelong restraint. Some say: it is because this precept dwells near for only a short time. Such a restraint is also called "nourishing" — nourishing the meager wholesome roots of beings, causing them gradually to increase. Some say it is called nourishing because it nourishes the wholesome roots of household life, bringing them near to dwelling alongside the wholesome roots of one gone forth. Question: of the eight components spoken of, how many are components of moral discipline, how many of non-negligence, and how many of renunciation? Answer: five are components of moral discipline — abstaining from taking life, and so on up to abstaining from drinking wine. One is a component of non-negligence — abstaining from eating after the proper time. The remaining two are components of renunciation. Further, the first four are components of moral discipline, since they abstain from natural offenses; the fifth is a component of non-negligence, since, although one has undertaken moral discipline, drinking wine causes the mind to become negligent, unable to guard itself; and the last three are components of renunciation,

— since they accord with a mind of world-weariness, and world-weariness is what enables the realization of restraint's own fruit. It is for this reason that near-dwelling is complete with eight components, though it adds three to the original five, and subtracts one from a total of ten — two being combined into one, and one being opened out into two.

Fourth Aggregate, Karma: the Own-Karma Nyāsa, Chapter Five, Part One. What is one's own karma? What is the meaning of "one's own karma"? Having now grasped this chapter heading and its explanatory meaning in full, we should next explain it in full. Question: why compose this treatise? Answer: in order to analyze the meaning of the sūtra. For the sūtra says: the Buddha told the young brahmin, "Beings in the world are all governed by their own karma, are all a portion of their karma, are all born from karma, and have karma as their support — karma is what differentiates the various classes of beings into their respective stations, high or low, superior or inferior." Though the sūtra speaks in this way, it does not explain in full the meaning of "one's own karma" — this sūtra is the very root and basis this treatise depends upon, and what it has not explained should now be explained, and so this treatise is composed. The Venerable Vasumitra explains: "beings in the world are all governed by their own karma" means that whatever karma one creates oneself, one in turn experiences its ripening oneself. "All a portion of their karma" means that, according to whatever karma one has performed, one experiences that same ripening. "All born from karma" means that karma serves as the cause of one's birth, by which one obtains one's ripening-fruit,

— being born in whatever place one is destined to be born. "Karma is what one depends upon" means that karma serves as the dependent cause by which one receives the various requisites of existence appropriate to it. "Karma differentiates the various classes of beings into their respective stations, high or low, superior or inferior" means, as explained before, that it is by karma that the various places of birth are differentiated into high or low, superior or inferior.

What is one's own karma? Answer: it is karma that has already been obtained and now has a ripening, together with karma whose ripening has already arisen and is now being experienced. "Karma that has already been obtained and now has a ripening" — this phrase shows karma conducive to reception in intermediate existence. "Karma whose ripening has already arisen and is now being experienced" — this phrase shows karma conducive to reception in basic existence. Just as with reception in intermediate existence and reception in basic existence, one should know that it is likewise so for karma conducive to the arising of a ripening, karma conducive to the arising of a basic-existence ripening, karma conducive to the reception of a fruit through arising, karma conducive to the reception of a fruit through basic existence, and karma conducive to a fine fruit or a coarse fruit. Question: is it on account of the cause that it is called "one's own karma," or on account of the fruit? If it is on account of the cause that it is so called, then how is the second phrase's own statement to be reconciled, since the second phrase speaks of karma whose ripening has already arisen and is now being experienced? But if it is on account of the fruit that it is so called, then how is the first phrase's own statement to be reconciled, which speaks of karma already obtained and now having a ripening? Some say: it is on account of the cause alone that it is called "one's own karma," on the basis of the first phrase. Some say: it is on account of the fruit alone that it is called "one's own karma," on the basis of the second phrase. According to this last account: it is on account of the cause alone that it is called "one's own karma." Question: if so, then why does it further speak of karma whose ripening has already arisen and is now being experienced? Answer: it is only at the stage of abiding in the fruit that the cause itself earns the name "one's own karma" — and hence the Venerable Ghoṣa explains: it is only once an agreeable or disagreeable fruit has already arisen and manifests before one that that karma is, at that very time, called "one's own karma" — not karma not yet performed, nor karma at the very moment of being performed, since it is impossible for the ripening-fruit to manifest at that same moment — the fruit can only arise once the karma itself has already ceased.

What is the meaning of "one's own karma"? Answer: it is the sense of obtaining one's own fruit, one's own outflow, and one's own ripening. Here some say: "one's own fruit" refers to the fruit of exertion; "one's own outflow" refers to the outflow-fruit; "one's own ripening" refers to the ripening-fruit. Some say: all these phrases refer to the ripening-fruit alone, since this discussion speaks of the karma that brings about ripening as "one's own karma" — and in some places the outflow-fruit is spoken of using the term "ripening," as when it is said, what is called the experiencing of ripening? — answer: craving is this; and in some places the ripening-fruit is spoken of using the term "outflow," as is said here. Further, it is because the ripening this karma brings about manifests and ripens within one's own continuum, and nowhere else, that it is called "one's own karma." Question: is it the very same person who creates the karma who experiences its fruit, or is it a different person who creates it and a different person who experiences it? Answer: there are grounds on which it is said that this one creates and this one receives; there are grounds on which it is said that one creates and another receives; and there are grounds on which it is said that no one creates and no one receives. As to the grounds on which it is said that this one creates and this one receives: this means that, although the aggregates, sense-fields, and elements arise and cease moment by moment in succession, each moment distinct from the last, they may still be spoken of as forming a single, continuous whole. As to the grounds on which it is said that one creates and another receives: this means that karma created within the human destiny may be experienced as a fruit within another destiny, and karma created within another destiny is likewise so. As to the grounds on which it is said that no one creates and no one receives: this means that every dharma is without self — there is no being, no life-principle, no nurturer, no person, empty and without any inner agent, free of any doer or any receiver, there being only the aggregated formations that arise and cease.

Within one's own continuum, it nourishes and continues to nourish, sustains and continues to sustain, protects and continues to protect, causes to function and continues to cause to function, benefits and continues to benefit — and hence it is called one's own karma. Question: the ripening of wholesome karma may indeed nourish and so forth within one's own continuum, but the ripening of unwholesome karma, within one's own continuum, does nothing but cause harm — as when a being in hell is wrapped in thirteen fierce flames that burn its body — does such a being then still have "nourishment" and the like? Answer: nourishment and the like are of two kinds — first, causing increase; second, causing non-interruption. The ripening of wholesome karma, within one's own continuum, is called nourishment and the like on account of both of these,

— while the ripening of unwholesome karma, within one's own continuum, is called nourishment and the like solely on account of causing non-interruption, not on account of causing increase, and hence there is no fault in this.

If karma is "one's own karma," should it be said to be past, future, or present? Answer: this karma should be said to be past,

— Question: why should this karma not be said to be future? Answer: because one does not first experience the fruit and only afterward create the cause. Question: why should this karma not be said to be present? Answer: because the ripening-cause and its ripening-fruit never coexist at the same time. If karma is one's own karma, does one possess this karma? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed.

There is karma that is one's own karma which one does not possess — namely, karma that has already been obtained and now has a ripening, and whose ripening has already arisen and is now being experienced,

— but this karma has already been exhausted. As with an ānantarya deed already manifested and having already drawn forth its ripening-fruit, now manifesting before one — this karma has already been exhausted, since one has given up the class-nature it depended upon. If restraint-karma has already manifested and drawn forth its ripening — this is of four kinds: ripening in the present life, in the very next life, in some later life, or with indeterminate ripening — and its fruit is now manifesting, this karma has already been exhausted, through four conditions, or through five: giving up one's training, a change of sex, cutting off one's wholesome roots, giving up one's class-nature, or the dawn's first light appearing. If non-restraint karma has already manifested and drawn forth its ripening — this is of the same four kinds as explained before — and its fruit is now manifesting, this karma has already been exhausted, through four conditions: receiving restraint, attaining dhyāna, a change of sex, or giving up one's class-nature.

If good or evil conduct of body or speech, included within neither restraint nor non-restraint, has already manifested and drawn forth its ripening — this is of the same four kinds as explained before — and its fruit is now manifesting, this karma has already been exhausted, through three conditions: the intention subsiding, the effort being abandoned, or the fixed duration of its force expiring. If desire-realm-bound wholesome or unwholesome volition has already manifested and drawn forth its ripening — this is of the same four kinds as explained before — and its fruit is now manifesting, this karma has already been exhausted — if wholesome, through cutting off one's wholesome roots, or through giving up one's class-nature and the like; if unwholesome, through becoming free of defilement. If wholesome volition co-arisen with the sorrow faculty of remorse has already manifested and drawn forth its ripening — this is of the same four kinds as explained before — and its fruit is now manifesting, this karma has already been exhausted, through cutting off one's wholesome roots, or through having already become free of defilement. If karma conducive to regression, to further advancement, or to decisive distinction with respect to the first dhyāna has already manifested and drawn forth its ripening — this is of the same four kinds as explained before — and its fruit is now manifesting, this karma has already been exhausted, through having already become free of defilement, or through changing realm or ground, and the like.

And so on, up through karma conducive to regression and the rest with respect to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, to be explained in full in the same way. There is karma that one possesses which is not one's own karma — namely, karma that has not yet been obtained and does not now have a ripening, and whose ripening has not yet arisen and is not now being experienced, this karma not yet having been exhausted. As with an ānantarya deed already manifested and having already drawn forth its ripening, whose fruit has not yet manifested — this karma has not yet been exhausted, since one has not yet given up the class-nature it depended upon. If restraint-karma, or non-restraint karma, or good or evil conduct of body or speech included within neither restraint nor non-restraint, or desire-realm-bound wholesome or unwholesome volition, or wholesome volition co-arisen with the sorrow faculty of remorse, has already manifested and drawn forth its ripening — all of these being of the same four kinds as explained before — and its fruit has not yet manifested, this karma has not yet been exhausted, since none of the conditions of exhaustion explained before are yet present. If karma conducive to regression, to stability, to further advancement, or to decisive distinction with respect to the first dhyāna has already manifested and drawn forth its ripening — this is of the same four kinds as explained before — and its fruit has not yet manifested, this karma has not yet been exhausted, since one has not yet become entirely free of defilement, nor changed realm or ground, and so forth. And so on, up through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,

— to be explained in full for karma conducive to regression and the rest in the same way. There is karma that is one's own karma which one also possesses — namely, karma that has already been obtained and now has a ripening, and whose ripening has already arisen and is now being experienced, this karma not yet having been exhausted. As with restraint-karma, or non-restraint karma, or good or evil conduct of body or speech included within neither restraint nor non-restraint, already manifested and having already drawn forth its ripening — this is of two kinds: ripening in the present life, or with indeterminate ripening — and its fruit is now manifesting, this karma has not yet been exhausted, since none of the conditions of exhaustion explained before are yet present. If desire-realm-bound wholesome or unwholesome volition, or wholesome volition co-arisen with the sorrow faculty of remorse, has already manifested and drawn forth its ripening — this is of the same four kinds as explained before — and its fruit is now manifesting, this karma has not yet been exhausted, since none of the conditions of exhaustion explained before are yet present. If karma conducive to regression, to stability, to further advancement, or to decisive distinction with respect to the dhyānas or the formless attainments has already manifested and drawn forth its ripening — this is of the same four kinds as explained before —

— and its fruit is now manifesting, this karma has not yet been exhausted, since none of the conditions of exhaustion explained before are yet present. There is karma that is neither one's own karma nor one that one possesses — namely, karma that has not been obtained and does not now have a ripening, and whose ripening has not arisen and is not now being experienced, this karma having already been exhausted — as with an ānantarya deed that, in some other class-nature, has already been digested, already been experienced, already done what it was to do, already delivered its fruit, its ripening no longer capable of further ripening, having already fully ripened.

If restraint-karma, or non-restraint karma, or good or evil conduct of body or speech included within neither restraint nor non-restraint, or desire-realm-bound wholesome or unwholesome volition, or wholesome volition co-arisen with the sorrow faculty of remorse, or karma conducive to regression

— to stability, to further advancement, or to decisive distinction with respect to the dhyānas or the formless attainments, has, in some other class-nature, already been digested, already been experienced, already done what it was to do, already delivered its fruit, its ripening no longer capable of further ripening, having already fully ripened — this karma has already been exhausted, on account of the conditions of exhaustion explained before being present.

For the negative case, a tetralemma likewise applies, and should be understood as the reverse of this — the second case above becomes the first case here, the first case above becomes the second case here, the fourth case above becomes the third case here, and the third case above becomes the fourth case here, explained in full as before.