Why the Willow Cannot Be Swept Away

Fourth Aggregate, Karma: the Own-Karma Nyāsa, Chapter Five, Part Two. If karma is one's own karma, is this karma certain to receive ripening? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is karma that is one's own karma which is certain not to receive further ripening — 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's ripening having already reached its final position. This term "final position" carries several senses: there is a final thousand kalpas, a final hundred kalpas, a final kalpa, a final thousand years, a final hundred years, a final year, a final month, a final day-and-night, and a final instant. What is the final thousand kalpas? As when a single karma is capable of drawing forth a lifespan of eighty thousand kalpas within the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception — when one abides in the final thousand kalpas of that span, this karma is one's own karma, and this karma is certain not to receive further ripening,

— its ripening having already reached its final position. What is the final hundred kalpas? As when a single karma is capable of drawing forth a lifespan of ten hundred kalpas within the Cloudless Heaven — when one abides in the final hundred kalpas of that span, this karma is one's own karma, and this karma is certain not to receive further ripening, its ripening having already reached its final position. What is the final kalpa? As when a single karma is capable of drawing forth a lifespan of sixty-four kalpas within the Heaven of Universal Purity — when one abides in the final kalpa of that span, this karma is one's own karma, and this karma is certain not to receive further ripening, its ripening having already reached its final position. What is the final thousand years? As when a single karma is capable of drawing forth a lifespan of sixteen thousand years within the Heaven of Mastery over Others' Emanations — when one abides in the final thousand years of that span, this karma is one's own karma, and this karma is certain not to receive further ripening, its ripening having already reached its final position. What is the final hundred years? As when a single karma is capable of drawing forth a lifespan of ten hundred years in Uttarakuru — when one abides in the final hundred years of that span, this karma is one's own karma, and this karma is certain not to receive further ripening, its ripening having already reached its final position. What is the final year? As when a single karma is capable of drawing forth a lifespan of a hundred years in Jambudvīpa — when one abides in the final year of that span, this karma is one's own karma, and this karma is certain not to receive further ripening, its ripening having already reached its final position. What is the final month? As when a single karma is capable of drawing forth a lifespan of twelve months — when one abides in the final month of that span, this karma is one's own karma, and this karma is certain not to receive further ripening, its ripening having already reached its final position. What is the final day-and-night? As when a single karma is capable of drawing forth a lifespan of thirty days and nights — when one abides in the final day-and-night of that span, this karma is one's own karma, and this karma is certain not to receive further ripening, its ripening having already reached its final position. What is the final instant? As when a single karma is capable of drawing forth a lifespan of a hundred instants — when one abides in the final instant of that span, this karma is one's own karma, and this karma is certain not to receive further ripening, its ripening having already reached its final position.

There is karma that is certain to receive ripening yet 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's ripening not yet having ripened. As with an ānantarya deed already manifested and having already drawn forth its ripening, whose fruit has not yet manifested; or restraint-karma, non-restraint karma, or good or evil conduct of body or speech included within neither restraint nor non-restraint,

— 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, already manifested and having already drawn forth its ripening — this is of three kinds: ripening in the present life, in the very next life, or in some later life — and whose fruit has not yet manifested. There is karma that is one's own karma and is certain to receive further ripening — 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's ripening not yet having reached its final position. This term "final position" carries several senses, from the final thousand kalpas down to the final instant. As to the final thousand kalpas: as when a single karma is capable of drawing forth a lifespan of eighty thousand kalpas within the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception — when one abides in the very first thousand kalpas of that span, this karma is one's own karma, and this karma is certain to receive further ripening, namely certain to receive seventy-nine thousand more kalpas of ripening; and so on, up through when one abides in the seventy-ninth thousand-kalpa period, this karma is one's own karma, and this karma is certain to receive further ripening, namely certain to receive one thousand more kalpas of ripening. As to the final hundred kalpas: as when a single karma is capable of drawing forth a lifespan of ten hundred kalpas within the Cloudless Heaven — when one abides in the very first hundred kalpas of that span, this karma is one's own karma, and this karma is certain to receive further ripening, namely certain to receive nine hundred more kalpas of ripening; and so on, up through when one abides in the ninth hundred-kalpa period, this karma is one's own karma, and this karma is certain to receive further ripening, namely certain to receive one hundred more kalpas of ripening. As to the final kalpa: as when a single karma is capable of drawing forth a lifespan of sixty-four kalpas within the Heaven of Universal Purity — when one abides in the very first kalpa of that span, this karma is one's own karma, and this karma is certain to receive further ripening, namely certain to receive sixty-three more kalpas of ripening; and so on, up through when one abides in the sixty-third kalpa, this karma is one's own karma, and this karma is certain to receive further ripening, namely certain to receive one more kalpa of ripening. The final thousand years, and so on down to the final instant, should each be explained in full in just the same way, according to what is fitting. It is because the fruit of such karma is presently manifesting that it is called one's own karma; and it is because this ripening has not yet reached its final position that it is called certain to receive further ripening. There is karma that is not one's own karma and is certain not to receive further ripening — 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's ripening having already fully ripened — namely, 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; or restraint-karma, or non-restraint karma, and so on in full, up through karma conducive to regression, to stability, to further advancement, or to decisive distinction with respect to the dhyānas or the formless attainments, already digested, already experienced, already having done what it was to do, already having delivered its fruit, its ripening no longer capable of further ripening, having already fully ripened. 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. If karma is possessed, is this karma certain to receive further ripening? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is karma that is possessed which is certain not to receive further ripening — namely, past unwholesome or wholesome karma with outflow whose ripening has already fully ripened, this karma not yet lost; or future unwholesome or wholesome karma with outflow, already obtained but certain never to arise; or neutral or undefiled karma that is possessed. As to past unwholesome or wholesome karma with outflow whose ripening has already fully ripened, this karma not yet lost — 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 having already manifested, this karma is not yet lost, since none of the conditions of loss explained before are present. As to desire-realm-bound wholesome or unwholesome volition, or wholesome volition co-arisen with the sorrow faculty of remorse, already manifested and having already drawn forth its ripening — this is of four kinds: ripening as explained before — and its fruit having already manifested, this karma is not yet lost, since none of the conditions of loss explained before are present. As to karma conducive to regression through decisive distinction with respect to the dhyānas or the formless attainments, already manifested and having already drawn forth its ripening — this is of four kinds: ripening as explained before — and its fruit having already manifested, this karma is not yet lost, since none of the conditions of loss explained before are present. As to future unwholesome or wholesome karma with outflow, already obtained but certain never to arise — this means desire-realm-bound wholesome or unwholesome volition, already obtained in the future, certain never to arise, and, being certain never to arise, this karma is certain not to receive further ripening; likewise wholesome volition co-arisen with the sorrow faculty of remorse, or karma conducive to regression through decisive distinction with respect to the dhyānas or the formless attainments, already obtained in the future, certain never to arise, and, being certain never to arise, this karma is certain not to receive further ripening. As to neutral or undefiled karma that is possessed —

— this means neutral or undefiled karma, which, though possessed, is by nature not authentic and lacks the moistening of craving, and hence this karma is certain not to receive further ripening. There is karma that is certain to receive further ripening yet is not possessed — namely, past unwholesome or wholesome karma with outflow whose ripening has not yet ripened, this karma already lost; or future unwholesome or wholesome karma with outflow, not yet obtained but certain to arise. As to past unwholesome or wholesome karma with outflow whose ripening has not yet ripened, this karma already lost — as with restraint-karma already manifested and having already drawn forth its ripening — this is of three kinds: ripening in the present life, in the very next life, or in some later life — and its fruit not yet having manifested, this karma has already been lost, on account of the conditions of loss explained before. As to 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 through decisive distinction with respect to the dhyānas or the formless attainments, already manifested and having already drawn forth its ripening — this is of three kinds: ripening as explained before — and its fruit not yet having manifested, this karma has already been lost, on account of the conditions of loss explained before. As to future unwholesome or wholesome karma with outflow, not yet obtained but certain to arise — this means an ānantarya deed not yet obtained in the future,

— yet certain to arise, and, being certain to arise, this karma is certain to receive further ripening; likewise restraint-karma, 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 through decisive distinction with respect to the dhyānas or the formless attainments, not yet obtained in the future yet certain to arise, and, being certain to arise, this karma is certain to receive further ripening — this is of three kinds: ripening as explained before. There is karma that is possessed and is certain to receive further ripening — namely, past unwholesome or wholesome karma with outflow whose ripening has not yet ripened, this karma not yet lost; or future unwholesome or wholesome karma with outflow, already obtained and also certain to arise; or present unwholesome or wholesome karma with outflow. As to past unwholesome or wholesome karma with outflow whose ripening has not yet ripened, this karma not yet lost — this means an ānantarya deed already manifested and having already drawn forth its ripening, its fruit not yet manifested; or restraint-karma, 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 through decisive distinction with respect to the dhyānas or the formless attainments, already manifested and having already drawn forth its ripening — this is of three kinds: ripening as explained before — and its fruit not yet manifested, this karma not yet lost, since none of the conditions of loss explained before are present. As to future unwholesome or wholesome karma with outflow, already obtained and also certain to arise — this means desire-realm-bound wholesome or unwholesome volition, already obtained in the future and also certain to arise, and, being certain to arise, this karma is certain to receive further ripening — this is of three kinds:

— ripening as explained before; likewise wholesome volition co-arisen with the sorrow faculty of remorse, or karma conducive to regression through decisive distinction with respect to the dhyānas or the formless attainments, already obtained in the future and also certain to arise, and, being certain to arise, this karma is certain to receive further ripening —

— this is of three kinds: ripening as explained before. As to present unwholesome or wholesome karma with outflow — this means an ānantarya deed presently manifesting; or restraint-karma, 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 through decisive distinction with respect to the dhyānas or the formless attainments, presently manifesting — this is of three kinds: ripening as explained before. There is karma that is not possessed and is certain not to receive further ripening — namely, past unwholesome or wholesome karma with outflow whose ripening has already fully ripened, this karma already lost; or future unwholesome or wholesome karma with outflow, not obtained and also certain never to arise; or neutral or undefiled karma not possessed. As to past unwholesome or wholesome karma with outflow whose ripening has already fully ripened, this karma already lost — this means an ānantarya deed that, in some other class-nature, has already been digested and experienced, explained in full as before; likewise restraint-karma, 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 through decisive distinction with respect to the dhyānas or the formless attainments, already past, already digested and experienced, explained in full as before, this karma already lost, on account of the conditions of loss explained before. As to future unwholesome or wholesome karma with outflow, not obtained and also certain never to arise — this means an ānantarya deed not yet obtained in the future, certain never to arise, and, being certain never to arise, this karma is certain not to receive further ripening; likewise restraint-karma, and so on in full, up through karma conducive to regression through decisive distinction with respect to the dhyānas or the formless attainments, not yet obtained in the future, certain never to arise, and, being certain never to arise, this karma is certain not to receive further ripening. As to neutral or undefiled karma not possessed — this means karma that, by not being authentic and lacking the moistening of craving, either was never obtained to begin with, or was obtained and then lost. For the negative case, a tetralemma likewise applies, and should be understood as the reverse of this, as explained in full before. If a stream-enterer has unwholesome karma capable of producing suffering, and so on in full — question: why compose this treatise? Answer: in order to bring certainty to those in doubt. As it is said, two causes bring beings down into evil destinies: karma cut off by insight, and karma cut off by cultivation. Stream-enterers have already permanently cut off karma cut off by insight, yet have not yet been able to cut off karma cut off by cultivation — and some may doubt that stream-enterers should therefore fall into evil destinies, or, conversely, doubt that they must have already cut off karma cut off by cultivation as well. In order to bring certainty to this doubt, and to show that although stream-enterers have not yet permanently cut off karma cut off by cultivation, they are nevertheless certain never to fall into evil destinies, this treatise is composed. If a stream-enterer has unwholesome karma capable of producing suffering, its ripening not yet ripened, and he already possesses it, should he not then fall into an evil destiny — what path obstructs this, that he does not fall? Answer: it is by two groups of fetters that beings are bound and made to fall into evil destinies — fetters cut off by insight, and fetters cut off by cultivation. Although stream-enterers have not yet permanently cut off fetters cut off by cultivation, they have already permanently cut off fetters cut off by insight — and, one of the two provisions being lacking, they do not fall into evil destinies. It is like a chariot, which requires two wheels to bear a load, or a bird, which requires two wings to fly through open sky — lacking either one, neither can function — and it is just the same here: hence stream-enterers do not fall into evil destinies. This is the explanation given according to the base treatise's own text. Other masters, however, say: it is the foolish who fall into evil destinies, not so the wise — and every stream-enterer is one who is wise. It is ordinary beings who fall into evil destinies, not so the noble — and every stream-enterer is one who is noble. It is those with an evil intention, a harmful intention, who fall into evil destinies, not so those with a wholesome intention free of harm — and every stream-enterer has a wholesome intention free of harm. It is precept-violators who fall into evil destinies, not so those who keep the precepts — and every stream-enterer is one who keeps the precepts, having already obtained the sturdy vessel of the precepts cherished by the noble ones. Other masters, further, say: every stream-enterer has attained, with respect to the evil destinies, a cessation not through analysis — and any dharma that has attained cessation not through analysis will, without fail, never again manifest before one — and hence stream-enterers do not fall into evil destinies. Other masters say: whoever fails to see the faults of evil conduct and the virtues of good conduct falls into evil destinies — every stream-enterer, however, truly knows and sees both good and evil, gain and loss, and, though he may, through a lapse of mindfulness, momentarily give rise to evil karma, he does not fall into an evil destiny on that account. Others say: it is one whose view of a real self has not yet been cut off or fully understood who, in creating evil karma, may fall into an evil destiny — every stream-enterer has already cut off and fully understood the view of a real self, and, though he may momentarily give rise to evil karma, he does not fall into an evil destiny. As the World-Honored One said: one who has already cut off and fully understood the view of a self possesses five virtues — first, it blocks the three evil destinies; second, it obstructs the five ānantarya deeds; third, it liberates one from various evil views; fourth, it sets a determinate limit on the boundless span of birth-and-death; and fifth, at the time of death, the mind and spirit remain clear. Others say: it is because a stream-enterer's inner wisdom is pure that, though he has evil karma, he does not fall into an evil destiny — it is like two people who eat food unfit for them: one, whose inner fire is weak, cannot digest what he has eaten and thereby suffers greatly, while the other, whose inner fire is strong, digests it easily and suffers no increase of pain. Just so, though both ordinary beings and stream-enterers alike may experience an object and create unwholesome karma, an ordinary being's inner wisdom is impure, and, lacking the fire of the noble path, he falls into an evil destiny and experiences intense suffering — while a stream-enterer's inner wisdom being pure, he experiences only a slight suffering, whether reborn among gods or humans. Others say: because a stream-enterer is born, as it were, from the noble lineage of the Tathāgata, the Worthy One, the Perfectly Awakened One, extending back through countless ages as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, he does not fall into an evil destiny even though he has evil karma — it is like two people who both violate the king's law: one, a commoner, thereby receives severe punishment,

— while the other, a prince, merely receives a reproach. Just so, though both ordinary beings and stream-enterers alike create evil karma, ordinary beings, not belonging to the noble lineage, find that the evil karma they create brings the suffering of an evil destiny, while every stream-enterer, belonging to the noble lineage, finds that evil karma brings only the slight suffering of the human or heavenly realms. Others say: it is because a stream-enterer sees the fault in whatever object he experiences that, though he has evil karma, he does not fall into an evil destiny — it is like two fish, both greedy for bait on a hook: one, lacking skill, swallows the hook along with the bait and loses its life, while the other, possessing skill, strikes the bait with its tail and takes the food without losing its life. Just so, though both ordinary beings and stream-enterers alike experience an object and create unwholesome karma, ordinary beings, lacking noble wisdom, see no fault in what they enjoy, and, growing deeply attached, thereby bring upon themselves intense suffering — while stream-enterers, possessing noble wisdom, see the fault in whatever they enjoy, and, not growing deeply attached, experience only slight suffering. Others say: it is because a stream-enterer possesses calming and insight that, though he has evil karma, he does not fall into an evil destiny —

— it is like a lizard and a crow, feeding together on a corpse floating upon the water: when a man shoots an arrow at them, the lizard, having no wings, sinks at once into the water, while the crow, having wings, flies away at once. Just so, though both ordinary beings and stream-enterers alike experience an object and create unwholesome karma,

— when struck by the arrow of impermanence, an ordinary being, lacking the wings of calming and insight, sinks at once into the waters of an evil destiny, while a stream-enterer, possessing the wings of calming and insight, rises instead into the open sky of rebirth among gods or humans, or of nirvāṇa itself. Others say: it is because a stream-enterer, and likewise a once-returner, has a mind made supple and pliant,

— inclined toward nirvāṇa, with a firm seed of faith and a deeply rooted faculty of faith, that, though he has evil karma, he does not fall into an evil destiny — it is like the great ocean, which once commanded all the rivers, "You may now sweep away every tree and gather them all here with me." The rivers replied, "We can sweep away all of them, except the willow." The ocean asked why, and the rivers answered, "The willow possesses two virtues that keep it from being swept here — first, its roots coil down deep and firm; second, it is soft and yields with the current — and though the waves may pound it again and again, it cannot be swept away." Just so, the evil destinies once commanded the flood of affliction, "You may now sweep away every being given to desire and gather them all here with me." The flood of affliction replied, "I can sweep away all of them, except those who possess the two fruits." The evil destinies asked why, and the flood of affliction answered, "They possess two virtues that keep them from being swept there — first, their faculty of faith is deeply rooted and firm; second, their mental conduct is supple and pliant — and though the waves of karma may pound them again and again, they cannot be swept away." And hence stream-enterers do not fall into evil destinies.

As the World-Honored One said: my noble disciples should reflect and record for themselves that they have already exhausted the pit of hell, the animal realm, hungry ghosts, and dangerous evil destinies, and so on in full. Question: why compose this treatise? Answer: in order to bring certainty to those in doubt. As the World-Honored One said: if any bhikṣu or bhikṣuṇī, observing carefully, sees present within himself the four factors of unwavering faith, he should reflect and record for himself that he has already exhausted the pit of hell, the animal realm, hungry ghosts, and dangerous evil destinies. And the World-Honored One further said: if any learned noble disciple, observing carefully, sees present within himself the four factors of unwavering faith, that noble disciple should reflect and record for himself that he has already exhausted the pit of hell, the animal realm, hungry ghosts, and dangerous evil destinies. Some doubt, with regard to this, whether stream-enterers have,

— direct, present cognition capable of truly knowing this, and it is in order to make known that stream-enterers know the matter spoken of above only through inference, not through direct, present cognition, that this treatise is composed. Do stream-enterers, then, possess a present cognition capable of reflecting and knowing for themselves that they have already exhausted the pit of hell, the animal realm, hungry ghosts, and dangerous evil destinies, and recording this for themselves? Answer: they do not. If so, how do they know it? Answer: through faith in the Buddha's word — for the World-Honored One said, if any bhikṣu or bhikṣuṇī, and so on as explained in full before; and the World-Honored One further said, if any learned noble disciple, and so on in full, has already exhausted the pit of hell, the animal realm, hungry ghosts, and dangerous evil destinies. Question: here, "hell," "the animal realm," and "hungry ghosts" already encompass the evil destinies — why does it further speak of the "pit of dangerous evil destinies"? Answer: the former is expanded, the latter abbreviated; the former is particular, the latter general; the former opens the categories out, the latter combines them — there is no fault of redundant repetition. Some say: the term "hell" indicates hell; the term "animal realm" indicates the animal realm; the term "hungry ghosts" indicates hungry ghosts; and the phrase "pit of dangerous evil destinies" indicates paṇḍakas and hermaphrodites, since these constitute a dangerous evil-destiny pit within the human realm itself. Others, further, say: the terms "hell" and the rest indicate hell and the rest, while the phrase "pit of dangerous evil destinies" indicates one who has committed an ānantarya deed,

— since such a one, in the immediately following existence, must without fail fall into hell. Other masters say: the terms "hell" and the rest indicate hell and the rest, while the phrase "pit of dangerous evil destinies" indicates one who has cut off his wholesome roots, since such a one, should he fail to restore them, must without fail fall into hell. Other masters say: the terms "hell" and the rest indicate hell and the rest, while the phrase "pit of dangerous evil destinies" indicates one in a state of non-restraint, since such a one is bound to fall into the evil destinies. Others, further, say:

— the terms "hell" and the rest indicate the fruit of the evil destinies, while the phrase "dangerous evil-destiny pit" indicates the cause that leads there — as the World-Honored One said, "You bhikṣus, if you see one who practices the three kinds of evil conduct, you should know that you have thereby already seen hell, the animal realm, and hungry ghosts, the evil destinies." Others, further, say: the terms "hell" and the rest indicate the three evil destinies collectively; the word "dangerous" further indicates hell specifically, since in hell there is no wholesome ripening and no security; the term "evil destiny" indicates hungry ghosts specifically, since their requisites are perpetually lacking and everything they encounter is evil; and the term "pit" indicates the animal realm specifically, since animals are born when the eon comes into being and perish only when the eon is destroyed, and are exceedingly difficult to escape. Other masters say: the word "dangerous" indicates all three evil destinies collectively, since all three evil destinies are extremely perilous; the term "evil destiny" likewise indicates all three collectively, since everything reached in them is foul; and the term "pit" likewise indicates all three collectively, since the body and mind in them are utterly base, dwelling in vile and impure conditions like a pit of dung. Question: hell and the other evil destinies contain countless kinds of instruments of suffering, presently existing — how, then, can it be said that hell, the animal realm, and hungry ghosts have already been exhausted? Answer: it is because no noble one is ever born there again,

— never again taking up the aggregates, sense-fields, and elements of that realm, that it is called "exhausted" — not because every instrument of suffering there has thereby ceased to exist entirely does it earn the name "exhausted." Question: some ordinary beings, too, never fall into evil destinies — why then does the text speak of "exhaustion" only with reference to noble ones? Answer: ordinary beings are indeterminate — some do not fall, yet others do — and, being indeterminate, they are not said to have "exhausted" the evil destinies; every noble one, by contrast, is determinately certain never to fall, and hence this term is used for them alone. Question: stream-enterers have, in some small part, also exhausted certain possibilities within the human and heavenly realms — why then does the text speak only of exhausting hell and the rest? Answer: with respect to the human and heavenly realms, stream-enterers may or may not be reborn there, whereas with respect to hell and the rest, it is absolutely determinate that they will never be reborn there — and hence this alone is singled out for mention. Moreover, stream-enterers have already attained the four kinds of wisdom — the wisdom of suffering, of its origin, of its cessation, and of the path — but have not yet attained the wisdom of exhaustion or the wisdom of no-further-arising. Question: why is this treatise composed at all? Answer: in order to bring certainty to those in doubt — for some may doubt that, since stream-enterers know the matter of "exhaustion" only through inference, they must likewise know the four noble truths only through inference; while others may doubt that, since stream-enterers have already cut off the afflictions cut off by insight along with their fruits, they must therefore have already attained the wisdom of exhaustion and of no-further-arising as well. In order to remove this doubt, and to show that stream-enterers have attained the four kinds of wisdom but not yet the wisdom of exhaustion or of no-further-arising — that is, having attained the four kinds of wisdom, they know and directly realize the four truths through present cognition, yet, not having attained the wisdom of exhaustion or of no-further-arising, they know "exhaustion" itself only through inference — this treatise is composed. Question: why have stream-enterers not yet attained the wisdom of exhaustion and of no-further-arising? Answer: it is only once every future birth is exhausted, every affliction cut off, and every task accomplished, that the wisdom of exhaustion and of no-further-arising arises — and stream-enterers have not yet exhausted every future birth, cut off every affliction, and accomplished every task, and hence they have not yet attained the wisdom of exhaustion and of no-further-arising. Other masters say: it is only once birth, old age, sickness, and death are permanently exhausted across every realm, destiny, and place of birth that the wisdom of exhaustion and of no-further-arising can be realized — and stream-enterers have not yet permanently exhausted birth, old age, sickness, and death across every realm, destiny, and place of birth, and hence they have not yet attained the wisdom of exhaustion and of no-further-arising.

As the World-Honored One said: through a learner's plotting of harm, and through the great nāga's careful observation, the Kośala clan would, within seven days, without fail be utterly destroyed. What is a learner's plotting of harm? And so on in full. Question: why compose this treatise? Answer: in order to analyze the meaning of the sūtra. For the sūtra says: bhikṣus, you should know that, through harming the moist vessel and destroying the might of the precepts, and through a learner's plotting of harm and the great nāga's careful observation, the Kośala clan would, within seven days, without fail be utterly destroyed. What is meant by "harming the moist vessel"? It means that Virūḍhaka, lord of Kośala, unrestrained and deranged, slaughtered the Śākya clan — and these Śākyas were his own maternal kin, having, since his childhood, repeatedly shared food from the same vessel with him, which the world calls being of the "moist vessel." In turning against this kinship and committing murder against it, he harmed his own "moist vessel" kin, and hence the phrase "harming the moist vessel" is used. Others say:

— it should rather be said that he harmed their "moist faces," since the Śākyas wept and pleaded for mercy with rain-streaked faces, yet he showed no pity for their tear-streaked faces and carried out the slaughter regardless. Others say: it should rather be said that he harmed their "moist eyes," since the Śākyas' eyes brimmed with tears of grief, and, rather than showing them any compassion, he took their lives instead — and it is on account of this deed that his clan would, without fail, be utterly destroyed. What is meant by "destroying the might of the precepts"? It means destroying both conventional and undefiled moral discipline. As to "a learner's plotting of harm": "learner" here means one who has attained the fruit of stream-entry or of once-returning — such a one engages in this plotting of harm, and, on account of this plotting of harm, that king's own royal line would, before long, be destroyed. What is meant by "the great nāga's careful observation"? The term "nāga" here refers to an arhat — arhats carefully observed this matter; or, alternatively, the term refers to the Blessed One himself, called the "Great Nāga,"

— meaning that the Buddha, the World-Honored One, carefully and directly observed that, within seven days, the Kośala clan would, without fail, be utterly destroyed, on account of a learner's plotting of harm — and indeed, within seven days, Virūḍhaka's own entire clan was destroyed. The masters of the West say that it was on account of a learner's plotting of harm that the Kośala clan was, without fail, destroyed on the very seventh day. It is now, in order to analyze the meaning of this passage in the sūtra, that this treatise is composed.

What is a learner's plotting of harm? Answer: it is when a learner, not yet free from the defilement of desire, being harmed by another, gives rise to the thought, "May he perish, may his mother lose her beloved child." Question: for what reason does a learner come to be harmed by another? Answer: on account of three circumstances — acting at the wrong time, in the wrong place, or on the wrong path. Acting at the wrong time means wandering through a village or hamlet during the night, and being seized by border-guards or patrolling watchmen, bound, recorded, interrogated, and harmed in various ways. Acting in the wrong place means entering a tavern, a brothel, a royal residence, or a gambling house, and being seized by an inspector, flogged, and interrogated with various forms of hardship. Acting on the wrong path means, during the farming season, entering another's garden or field and trampling their crops, and being seized by its guardian and made to suffer various torments. Being thus oppressed by suffering, he gives rise to the thought, "May he perish, may his mother lose her beloved child" — "perish" here meaning death and destruction, and "his mother losing her beloved child" meaning mother and son being torn apart. Question: a learner has already obtained the restraint of non-doing — why then would he still give rise to such a plotting of harm? Answer: it is because, oppressed by suffering, he gives rise to this thought with respect to himself alone — "may I sooner perish and lose what I love, than continue to be oppressed by this suffering" — not with respect to the other person at all, and hence there is no fault in this.

Others say: he does give rise to this thought with respect to the other person as well, yet only as a reproach, not as an actual wish to cause harm — for why is this? If he knew that this plotting of harm could bring about the death of so much as a single ant's egg, he would not give rise to such a thought even to save his own life — and hence this thought is meant only as a reproach. Question: is this learner's plotting of harm merely a matter of thought, or is it also expressed in speech? Others say: it is merely a matter of thought, never expressed in speech.

Others say: expressing it in speech, too, involves no fault, since it is meant as a reproach, not as harm — for why is this? If he knew that this verbal act could bring about the harm of so much as a single ant's egg, he would not give rise to it even to save his own life, let alone give rise to a verbal act over it. Question: does a learner give rise to such plotting of harm within a city or town where his own parents dwell? Others say: he does not. Others say: he does, yet only as a reproach, explained in full as before. Further, when a learner who has already become free from the defilement of desire is harmed by another after having fallen back from that freedom from desire, does he likewise give rise to the thought, "May he perish, may his mother lose her beloved child"? Question: does he give rise to this thought and words only after having already fallen back, or does he give rise to this plotting of harm while not yet having fallen back? If he gives rise to these words only after already having fallen back, then, lacking any special power, how could the plotting of harm he carries out succeed so swiftly? But if he gives rise to this plotting of harm while not yet having fallen back, then, having no desire or ill will at all, how could he give rise to such a thought and such words? Answer: it should be said that he has indeed already fallen back —

— Question: but then, lacking such power, how does it succeed so swiftly? Answer: before becoming free from desire, his power was already feeble and weak, requiring many repeated thoughts of plotting harm before it could succeed at all —

— whereas, at the time of falling back from freedom from desire, the residual force of the superior path he had once attained now sustains his heartfelt wish, and the plotting of harm succeeds swiftly. Others say: while he had not yet fallen back, the gods, nāgas, spirits, and ghosts revered his virtue and offered him their devotion — and, upon later meeting suffering and falling back to carry out this plotting of harm, these same beings lend their aid, causing the matter to succeed swiftly. Question: a non-returner, upon falling back, still carries out such plotting of harm — does an arhat, upon falling back, likewise do so? Answer: a non-learner, upon falling back, does not carry out such plotting of harm, for, on account of the surpassing excellence of his fruit, even his temporary falling back differs in its outward conduct and karma from a learner's falling back. Question: if even a non-learner who has fallen back has no such plotting of harm, how much less could there be plotting of harm while not yet having fallen back at all — but if so, how is the sūtra passage to be reconciled, where it is said that the Buddha Krakucchanda rebuked and drove off Māra's messenger, who thereupon at once fell into hell? Answer: this was only a reproach, not an actual wish to cause harm — it was that messenger's own karma, already spent, that caused him to fall into hell of his own accord. It is told that this Buddha, together with a single attendant named Ativana, once entered the village of Sāla, begging for alms house by house in order. At that time Māra's messenger transformed himself into a young man and, from a distance, threw a stone at the attendant, striking his head and covering his face with blood; the attendant continued to follow behind the Buddha. The Buddha then turned, as an elephant-king turns, and, looking back and seeing what had happened, rebuked Māra, saying, "How could you commit such an improper, evil deed?" — and it was at that very moment that Māra's own karma became spent, and he fell into hell of his own accord. Hence this was only a reproach, never an actual wish to cause harm.

Question: is this learner's plotting of harm undertaken only for the learner's own sake, or also on behalf of others? Answer: there are cases where it is also undertaken on behalf of others. As, once, in this land of Kashmir, there was a royal capital named Huanluozha, and, not far from the city, a monastery called Stone Cliff, where dwelt a bhikṣu who was an arhat, dyeing his own robes beside the monastery. A man in the city, having lost a calf, tracked it and came to that place, asking the bhikṣu from a distance whether he had seen a calf. The bhikṣu answered that he had not. As the man drew closer, the force of the bhikṣu's own past karma caused him to perceive the dyed robe as resembling ox-hide soaked in blood, and the boiled bark-fiber as resembling meat, and the water-jar as resembling an ox's head — and, seeing this, the man, startled and enraged, cried out, "Great thief! How could a bhikṣu steal my calf and butcher it as well?" — and thereupon beat him, bound him, and delivered him to the king, who handed him over to the magistrate to be shut up in prison. By the force of that same karma, the arhat's own disciples, though much time passed, had no memory of him at all — but once his evil karma was spent, all of his disciples suddenly recalled him at once, thinking, "Where is our teacher?", and, tracking him down, learned that he was imprisoned. They then together petitioned the king, saying, "Our teacher has been wrongfully imprisoned for years, though innocent — may Your Majesty look into this and release our teacher." The king ordered the magistrate to release him at once — but the arhat, having been imprisoned for so long, had ragged robes and long hair, no longer resembling a monk at all, and, when the magistrate's officers searched, they could not find any such prisoner, and reported back to the king that no such captive existed. The disciples petitioned once more, insisting that their teacher was certainly still within —

— having been imprisoned for so many years, he had lost every outward mark of a monk, and they asked that a proclamation be made at the prison itself, announcing, "Whoever is a monk, the king in his grace grants you release." The king did as they asked, and had this proclaimed at once. The arhat, his evil karma now spent, upon hearing the call, awoke as though from a dream, and, by his own supernormal power, rose into the open sky, hovering there like a wild goose-king in flight. When the king saw this, he threw himself down and fainted; only after being sprinkled with cold water for a long while did he revive, grieving bitterly that, in his own ignorance, he had wrongfully imprisoned a noble one, and fearing he must now fall into an evil destiny with no hope of escape — and so, together with his ministers, he bowed toward the sky in reverence, begging, "May the noble one, out of compassion, forgive my transgression." The arhat then bowed his head and told him, "I have never once given rise to anger against you all —"

— to which the king replied, "If so, may you grant us your acceptance." The venerable one, out of compassion, then came down into the royal palace, where the king and his ministers, rejoicing, praised and paid him homage, shaved his beard and hair, presented him with new robes, and, together with his own disciples, made him lavish offerings, escorting him back to the monastery amid incense, flowers, and a great procession. Among his disciples were many noble ones as well, and the arhat exhorted the assembly, saying, "Because of my own past misdeeds, I met with this wrongful imprisonment — you must not, out of an evil intention,

— regard that royal capital with resentment." At that time, one of his novice disciples, who had attained the fruit of stream-entry, was far away and had not heard these words. Later, following the other bhikṣus into the royal capital, he saw the place where his teacher had been unjustly imprisoned, and secretly gave rise to a thought of harm: "This lawless city wrongfully imprisoned my own preceptor, who endured such prolonged hardship over the course of many years — how bitter, how unbearable such suffering was." At that time, a non-human being, devoted in faith to the Three Jewels, and aware of the novice's thought, that very night,

— rained down earth upon the entire city, burying and destroying it completely. Again, in this same land, there once was another royal capital named Wholesome Stability, and, not far from the city, a monastery named Battle-Lord, where dwelt a bhikṣu who was an arhat, deep in meditative absorption, having left the door unlatched. A man's wife, having fled him, took refuge in the monastery, and, seeing the monk in deep absorption, hid herself beneath his bed. Her husband, tracking her, entered the monastery soon after and asked the monk whether he had seen her — the monk, not perceiving her at all, answered that he had not. The husband then searched everywhere and, finding her hidden beneath the bed, grew furious and cried out, "Thieving monk! How dare a renunciant hide my wife and indulge his lust!" — and thereupon beat him, bound him, and delivered him to the king, who handed him over to the magistrate, as explained fully before. The difference from the earlier account is that here it was a late-ordained monk who had realized the fruit of stream-entry who carried out the plotting of harm, and it was a non-human being who set the fire that burned down the royal capital — confirming that there is indeed such a thing as plotting of harm undertaken on behalf of another.

Question: what is the own-nature of this learner's plotting of harm? Answer: volition associated with anger is the own-nature of plotting of harm — within the Dharma, it is called plotting of harm; outside the Dharma, it is called resentful intent. When an outside ascetic's resentful intent leaves a village no longer a village, a city no longer a city, or a kingdom no longer a kingdom, he thereby incurs the offense of taking life. Question: why is it that, though both alike leave a village and the rest utterly destroyed, the outside ascetic incurs this offense while the one within the Dharma does not? Answer: the outsider lacks the noble path, while the one within possesses it; the outsider lacks calming and insight, while the one within possesses them; the outsider proceeds all the way to actual harmful action, while the one within reaches only the stage of reproach; the outsider even carries the act into overt effort, while the one within only gives rise to a thought or, at most, words — and hence it is the outside ascetic who incurs the offense, not the one within the Dharma. Question: does a learner's plotting of harm always succeed? Answer: this is not fixed — if beings have created and increased karma of great and overwhelming power, then, when the ripening of that karma manifests, the plotting simply does not succeed. As, once, there was a brahmin king named Puṣyamitra, who hated and envied the Buddhadharma, burning its scriptures, destroying its stūpas, demolishing its monasteries, and slaughtering its monks — in a single border region of this land of Kashmir alone he destroyed five hundred monasteries, not to speak of elsewhere — with evil Māra secretly lending him the aid and power of kumbhāṇḍa spirits and yakṣas, so that wherever he went, none could withstand him, and he gradually annihilated the Buddhadharma until he approached the very Bodhi Tree itself. The guardian deity of the Bodhi Tree, named Truth-Speaker, reflecting, "This evil king is now exceedingly foolish and violent, and is about to destroy the very place where Buddhas, World-Honored Ones as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, defeated Māra's army and accomplished supreme awakening," transformed herself into a woman of surpassing beauty and stood before him. The king, upon seeing her, was at once overcome with lustful desire — and the good spirits who protect the Dharma, seizing this opening, slew the king together with his army and every one of the evil spirits who had aided him, none escaping.

At that time, there were within the Buddhadharma many learners who, though they carried out plots of harm against him, none succeeded, on account of that king's own overwhelming store of merit. And so too, in the past, King Tarāḍa once invaded this land of Kashmir, destroying the Buddhadharma, slaughtering monks, demolishing stūpas and monasteries, and burning its scriptures — and, at that time, there were in that land many worthy and noble ones who, though they rose up in plots of harm against him, none succeeded either, on account of that evil king's own overwhelming store of merit. Hence it is said: if beings have created and increased karma of great and overwhelming power, then, when the ripening of that karma manifests, such plotting simply does not succeed.