The Flesh of One's Own Child

Fifth Aggregate, the Great Elements: the Great-Elements-and-Derivatives Nyāsa, Chapter One, Part Four. Question: of these four nutriments, how many draw forth a future existence to make it presently manifest, and how many sustain a present existence to keep it continuing? Some say:

— only one draws forth a future existence, namely volition-nutriment, while the other three sustain a present existence. Others say: two draw forth a future existence — volition and consciousness — while the other two sustain a present existence. Other masters say: three draw forth a future existence — contact, volition, and consciousness — while only one, morsel-nutriment, sustains a present existence. According to this final account: all four nutriments alike draw forth a future existence to make it presently manifest, and all four alike sustain a present existence to keep it continuing.

Question: of these nutriments with respect to existence, how many cause what is not yet arisen to arise, and how many nourish what has already arisen? Some say: only one causes what is not yet arisen to arise, namely volition-nutriment, while the other three nourish what has already arisen. Others say: two cause what is not yet arisen to arise — volition and consciousness — while the other two nourish what has already arisen. Other masters say: three cause what is not yet arisen to arise —

— namely contact, volition, and consciousness — while only one, morsel-nutriment, nourishes what has already arisen. According to this final account: all four nutriments alike, with respect to existence, both cause what is not yet arisen to arise and nourish what has already arisen. Question: which nutriment especially nourishes which particular dharma? Answer: morsel-nutriment nourishes the form-faculties and great elements especially well, and hence especially excels at nourishing the form-faculties and great elements; contact-nutriment nourishes mind and mental factors especially well, and hence especially excels at nourishing mind and mental factors; volition-nutriment nourishes future existence especially well, and hence especially excels at nourishing every future existence; and consciousness-nutriment nourishes name-and-form especially well, and hence especially excels at nourishing name-and-form. Question: as was said, "the sense of drawing forth existence" and the rest are the senses of nutriment — is this the sense of cause, or the sense of condition? Either way, what fault would follow? Both possibilities show difficulty: if it is the sense of cause, then external smell, taste, and touch possess none of the five kinds of cause with respect to the internal sense-fields — how, then, could they be nutriment? But if it is the sense of condition, then, apart from the internal sense-field's own essential nature, every other dharma already serves as its predominant condition — why, then, are only these four kinds spoken of as nutriment? Some say: it is the sense of cause. Question: but external smell, taste, and touch possess none of the five kinds of cause with respect to the internal sense-fields — how, then, can this be so? Answer: external smell, taste, and touch serve as the awakening cause, enabling the internal smell, taste, and touch to accomplish the function of nutriment — and it is on account of this causal sense that internal smell, taste, and touch, with respect to the internal sense-fields, are called nutriment: that is, the eye takes only the touch sense-field as its nutriment, and the ear, nose, tongue, and body likewise;

— smell takes the smell and touch sense-fields as its nutriment; taste takes the taste and touch sense-fields as its nutriment; and the touch sense-field takes only the touch sense-field as its nutriment. Mind and mental factors take the three nutriments — contact, volition, and consciousness — as their nutriment. This causal sense should be reflected upon accordingly. Others say: it is the sense of condition. Question: but, apart from the internal sense-field's own essential nature, every other dharma already serves as its predominant condition — why, then, are only these four kinds spoken of as nutriment? Answer: among the dharmas serving as predominant condition for the internal sense-fields, some are close, some distant; some near, some far; some joined, some unjoined; some belonging to this same birth, some belonging to a different birth — whatever is close, near, and joined, belonging to this same birth, is called nutriment; whatever is distant, far, and unjoined, belonging to a different birth, is not called nutriment — and hence nutriment is exactly four in number. These four are all capable of serving the function of nutriment with respect to all twelve internal sense-fields, though with varying degrees of strength, as explained before.

Question: why is the visible-form sense-field not established as nutriment? Some say: because it lacks the very mark of nutriment. Others say: the visible-form sense-field is coarse and heavy when grasped, whereas only what is fine and light when grasped is called nutriment, since nutriment must be fine, light, and nourishing to the body. Others say: the visible-form sense-field is grasped without direct contact,

— whereas nutriment is grasped only through direct contact, since nutriment's own function cannot be accomplished without joining to the body. Others say: the visible-form sense-field only accomplishes the function of nutriment once it has reached a state of transformation and decomposition — that is, once soaked and softened by water, cooked and transformed by fire, and stirred by wind — only then does it become nutriment, since this function is never accomplished by visible form that has not yet been transformed,

— and hence earns the name of nutriment; visible form is not nutriment, unlike smell and the rest. Other masters say: were visible form nutriment, then merely seeing food with the eye ought to remove hunger and thirst — and, were this so, a donor's expenditure of actual food would be entirely wasted. Others, further, say: were visible form nutriment, then renunciants merely seeing food with the eye ought to violate the precept against eating after the proper time. Others say: were visible form nutriment, then the gods of the form realm ought to take morsel-food as well, since they too perceive visible forms — and one should know that these latter three accounts depart from reason, since smell and touch would incur the same faults, and hence the former four accounts should be recognized as the better ones. Question: if visible form is not nutriment, how is the sūtra to be reconciled, where the World-Honored One says, "Householder, the food you have offered is truly excellent in color, fragrance, and taste"? Answer: though visible form is not nutriment, the Buddha spoke in this way in order to inspire the donor's own intention — that is, when the Buddha praises an offered food's excellence, the donor thereby gives rise to the exalted thought, "How wonderful that the Tathāgata praises and accepts my offering — I shall surely obtain excellent merit and benefit from this." Question: if praising a food's color, though color is not nutriment, still counts as praise, then praising its fragrance and the rest, though these are nutriment, ought equally to fail to count — since the former, being non-nutriment, is treated the same as the latter, which is nutriment. Answer: the Buddha, in this passage, has no intention of distinguishing what is and is not nutriment — he speaks this sūtra only in order to inspire the donor's own intention and aspiration,

— for, were such praise itself equivalent to being nutriment, then touch, not being named in this particular praise, would have to be denied the status of nutriment as well, which is absurd.

Question: what is the meaning of "morsel-nutriment"? Answer: it is called morsel-nutriment because it is eaten in divided portions. Question: if so, is what is merely drunk or sipped not morsel-nutriment at all?

Answer: this name is given with reference to the majority of cases, and hence there is no fault in it. Others say: even drinking and sipping do, in fact, involve division into portions. Other masters say:

— the name is given with reference to the very beginning of the age, when the people of that first era consumed the earth's own essence, all of it divided into portions and swallowed accordingly — and it is on this account that the name "morsel-nutriment" arose.

Question: the Buddha teaches that morsel-nutriment has coarse and fine varieties — how should this distinction be understood? Answer: the Prakaraṇapāda explains that the coarseness or fineness of morsel-nutriment is known only relatively, one against another — that is, among water-creatures, the small serves as food for the large, and coarseness and fineness are established through this same relative chain: what the timiṅgila-timiṅgila devours is coarse, while what the timiṅgila alone devours is fine; what the timiṅgila alone devours is coarse, while what ordinary timi-fish devour is fine; what ordinary timi-fish devour is coarse, while what great fish, tortoises, turtles, makaras, and crocodiles devour is fine; what great fish and turtles devour is coarse, while what the remaining water-creatures devour is fine. Among land-creatures, what elephants, horses, and camels devour is coarse, while what sheep, deer, and pigs devour is fine; what sheep, deer, and pigs devour is coarse, while what rabbits, cats, and foxes devour is fine; what rabbits, cats, and foxes devour is coarse, while what the remaining land-creatures devour is fine. Among sky-creatures, what garuḍas devour is coarse, while what geese, wild geese, peacocks, parrots, mynas, and jīvañjīva birds devour is fine; what geese, wild geese, and peacocks devour is coarse, while what the remaining sky-creatures devour is fine. Some say: whatever beings take grass and trees as food, their food is coarse; whatever beings take cakes and cooked grain as food, their food is fine. Other masters say: whatever beings take cakes and cooked grain as food, their food is coarse; whatever beings take ghee and oil as food, their food is fine. Others, further, say: food swallowed through the mouth is coarse; food entering through the navel or the pores is fine — that is, beings within the womb take in food through the navel, while only bodhisattvas take it in through every pore. Some say: food that, once eaten, leaves a lingering outflow is coarse; food that leaves no such outflow is fine — as with the taste and fragrance of the mythical soma, and the like, taken as food.

Question: do contact-nutriment, volition-nutriment, and consciousness-nutriment also have coarse and fine varieties? If they do, why does the sūtra speak of this distinction only with respect to morsel-nutriment? But if they do not, why does morsel-nutriment alone have this distinction, and not the others? Answer: contact-nutriment, volition-nutriment, and consciousness-nutriment also have coarse and fine varieties, known relatively across realm and ground — that is, the desire realm is coarse relative to the form realm, which is fine; the form realm is coarse relative to the formless realm, which is fine; the first dhyāna is coarse relative to the second, which is fine; and so on, up through the sphere of nothingness being coarse relative to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, which is fine. Question: if so, why does the sūtra not mention this? Answer: that it ought to be mentioned yet is not should be understood as a matter left with a further, supplementary account. Others say: the sūtra raises the first case in order to make the latter clear — having already stated that morsel-nutriment has coarse and fine varieties, one should know that the other nutriments have this same distinction as well. Others say: morsel-nutriment's coarseness or fineness is known through four specific causal factors involving degrees of more or less, which do not apply in the same way to the other nutriments — namely, pursuit, accumulation, consumption, and outflow. As to pursuit: beings pursue morsel-nutriment in greater or lesser degree, and what is pursued more is coarse, what is pursued less is fine. As to accumulation: beings accumulate morsel-nutriment in greater or lesser degree, and what is accumulated more is coarse, what is accumulated less is fine. As to consumption: beings consume morsel-nutriment in greater or lesser degree, and what is consumed more is coarse, what is consumed less is fine. As to outflow: morsel-nutriment leaves an outflow in greater or lesser degree, and what leaves more outflow is coarse, what leaves less is fine. Others say: morsel-nutriment's coarseness and fineness can be described relative to the sense-fields, while the other nutriments cannot,

— that is, smell, taste, and touch may be described as fine relative to form and sound, or as coarse relative to mind and dharmas; but contact, volition, and consciousness, being included solely within the mind and dharma sense-fields, are, with respect to these sense-fields, always fine, never coarse, having no further, distinct relative comparison, and hence coarseness and fineness are not spoken of for them in this way.

Question: in which realm are how many nutriments found? Answer: the desire realm has all four, with morsel-nutriment predominating; the form realm has three, with contact-nutriment predominating; the formless realm also has three, with volition-nutriment predominating in the lower three formless spheres, and consciousness-nutriment predominating at the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. Others say: volition-nutriment predominates even at the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, since a single volitional act there is capable of bringing about a ripening-fruit of an eighty-thousand-kalpa lifespan. Question: in which destiny are how many nutriments found? Answer: hell has all four, with consciousness-nutriment predominating. Question: what morsel-nutriment exists in hell? Answer: drinking molten copper,

— and swallowing red-hot iron balls, taken as morsel-nutriment. Question: nutriment is, by definition, something that provides benefit — yet these things, entering the body, burn the lips, tongue, throat, chest, and belly, and, once passed through and out, leave the whole body scorched with increasing flame — how, then, can this be called nutriment? Answer: though it causes burning torment, it still bears the mark of nutriment, since, at the very moment it first enters the body, it temporarily removes hunger and thirst. The animal realm has all four, with one or another predominating depending on the specific kind and location. The ghost realm has all four, with volition-nutriment predominating. It is told that, once, the Venerable Pūrṇa, going out to beg for alms, was about to enter the city of Puṣkalāvatī, when, before the city gate, he suddenly encountered an old, starving ghost-woman. He asked her why she was dwelling there, and the ghost-woman replied, in turn, "Venerable one, do you see me?" — and, upon his answering that he did, she said, "My husband has gone into the city, hoping to find some elder there suffering from a festering boil, so that, by pressing and squeezing it, he might gather the pus and blood to bring back and share with me — it is for this that I now wait here." He asked her how long ago her husband had entered the city, and the ghost-woman answered, "Confused by hunger and thirst, I no longer remember how long ago my husband entered the city — I remember only that the great river beside this city has, since then, shifted its course seven times to the south of the city and seven times to the north, and he has still not returned." The venerable one, moved to pity, sorrowfully took his leave.

Thus this ghost-woman, tormented by hunger and thirst for so immeasurably long a time, was sustained in body and continuity solely by her own hope — and hence it is known that volition-nutriment predominates within the ghost realm. Humans and the gods of the desire realm both have all four nutriments, though morsel-nutriment predominates among these kinds; the gods of the form and formless realms follow the pattern already explained for their respective realms.

Question: within which mode of birth are how many nutriments found? Answer: egg-born beings have all four, with contact-nutriment predominating. Others say: volition-nutriment predominates instead — and how is this known? As the Prakaraṇapāda explains: there is a sea-creature that, from time to time, comes ashore, lays its eggs in the sand along the beach, covers them over, and returns to the sea — and, while within the eggshell, the offspring's bodies do not decay, on account of remembering their mother, that is, remembering the touch of her warmth when she once brooded over them; but, should they forget their mother, their bodies would then decay. Other masters say: it is rather that, so long as the mother remembers the offspring within the eggs, the eggs do not decay, and, should she forget them, the eggs then decay. This account, however, is unreasonable, for why is this? One being's own life ought never to be sustained by another being's own act of nutrition. Hence the former account accords better with reason. Womb-born beings have all four, with morsel-nutriment predominating. Moisture-born beings have all four, with contact-nutriment predominating. Spontaneously-born beings have all four, with one or another predominating depending on the specific kind and location.

The term "food" itself carries, in general, two distinct senses — the conventional, and the ultimate. As to the conventional sense: as when it is said in ordinary speech, "a vessel with leftover food" or "a vessel without leftover food"; or as when it is said in ordinary speech, naming a food by its city of origin, "this food comes from the City of Fortune," "this food comes from Takṣaśilā," "this food comes from Sāgala," "this food comes from the Palace of Tranquility," and so on; or as when those who praise a food name it accordingly,

— such as Kṣatriya-food, Munda-food, Buddha-praised food, and four-directions food. Or, as the sūtra speaks of "forward-flowing food" and "backward-flowing food": as to forward-flowing food, the World-Honored One says, "Bhikṣus, you should know that all existence has its food — just as, when heaven pours down a great rainstorm, its torrents first fill the mountains, then the valleys and ravines; once the valleys and ravines are full, the small streams fill; once the small streams are full, the large streams fill; once the large streams are full, the small rivers fill; once the small rivers are full, the great rivers fill; once the great rivers are full, the great ocean is at last filled." As to backward-flowing food, the World-Honored One says, "Bhikṣus, you should know that all existence has its food — the great ocean has its food, namely the great rivers; the great rivers have their food, namely the small rivers; the small rivers have their food, namely the large streams; the large streams have their food, namely the small streams; the small streams have their food, namely the valleys and ravines; and the valleys and ravines have their food, namely heaven's own downpour." As to the ultimate sense of food: this refers to the four nutriments themselves, which truly and genuinely benefit all beings.

Question: is every morsel of food nutriment? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is a morsel that is not nutriment — namely, a morsel taken as a condition that is incapable of nourishing the faculties and increasing the great elements. There is nutriment that is not a morsel — namely, contact, volition, or consciousness taken as a condition that is capable of nourishing the faculties and increasing the great elements. There is what is both a morsel and nutriment — namely, a morsel taken as a condition that is capable of nourishing the faculties and increasing the great elements. There is what is neither a morsel nor nutriment — namely, contact, volition, or consciousness taken as a condition that is incapable of nourishing the faculties and increasing the great elements. Just as morsel-nutriment admits of this tetralemma, so too does each of consciousness-, volition-, and contact-nutriment,

— each explained in full in this same way, yielding sixteen cases in all. Question: is whatever is incapable of nourishing the faculties and increasing the great elements thereby simply not nutriment? Answer: it is so, for why is this? Because nourishing has already been said to be the very mark of nutriment. Question: yet one plainly observes food that, once eaten, causes distress, or even leads one to set down the burden of one's own body — how, then, can nourishing be the mark of nutriment? Answer: though food and drink may carry both harm and benefit, what is here called nutriment refers to benefit, not harm. Benefit occurs at two possible times — the moment of first eating, and the moment of digestion. Sometimes there is harm at digestion but benefit at first eating, as with eating a delicious poison — this, too, is called nutriment. Sometimes there is harm at first eating but benefit at digestion, as with taking a bitter medicine — this, too, is called nutriment. Since either of these two moments, whichever it may be, accomplishes the function of nutriment, both are properly called nutriment, and hence nourishing is said to be the mark of nutriment. Others say: even a food that, upon first eating, causes some initial discomfort, still, once vomited back up afterward, brings about a benefit — and hence the mark of nutriment stated before still holds firm. The sūtra says: bhikṣus, these four nutriments are capable of sustaining beings already arisen, and of aiding and benefiting beings still seeking further existence.

Question: how do the two kinds of being spoken of in this sūtra — those already arisen, and those still seeking existence — differ from one another? Answer: those abiding in basic existence are called "already arisen," and those abiding in the intermediate state are called "still seeking existence," since they seek their next existence through one of the six sense-gates. Others say: the noble ones are called "already arisen," and ordinary beings are called "still seeking existence," since ordinary beings especially crave future existence. Others say: the non-learners are called "already arisen," and the learners are called "still seeking existence," since the latter still retain some aspiration toward future existence.

Question: beings already arisen may equally be aided and benefited, and beings still seeking existence may equally be sustained — why, then, does this passage speak only of sustaining the already arisen and aiding those still seeking? Answer: this sūtra passage ought properly to describe both kinds of being in both ways at once, and that it does not do so should be understood as a matter left with a further, supplementary account. Others say: it is in order to adorn the meaning with a variety of wording and a variety of expression, making it easier to understand. Others say: it is in order to display two mutually illuminating gateways and summaries, and so on in full. Others say: basic existence, being sustained, lasts by far the longest span of time, while noble ones and non-learners, in the intermediate state, seek only a brief, temporary sustaining — and it is with reference to this distinction that the word "sustaining" is used for the one, and not for the other.

The sūtra says: bhikṣus, these four nutriments are the root of every illness, the root of every boil and sore, the root of every poisoned arrow, the cause of old age and death,

— and the condition of old age and death. Question: nutriment can also serve as the root of happiness — for the World-Honored One says that the path depends upon provisions, and nirvāṇa depends upon the path,

— and the pleasure of the path in turn leads to the pleasure of nirvāṇa, and nutriment is foremost among the path's own provisions — why, then, does the Buddha here call it the root of illness and the rest? Answer: it is in order to curb beings' own craving for morsel-food specifically, since it is on account of craving food that beings give rise to evil conduct and bring about intense suffering — and it is for this reason that the World-Honored One spoke in this way. Even granting that morsel-food might serve only as the cause of some present pleasure, the wise should still never indulge in craving it, since doing so would still generate evil karma bringing about future suffering,

— how much more so, then, when it is also the very root of present bodily illness and affliction? Hence the wise should never become attached to it, and it is for this reason that the Buddha composed this sūtra.

The sūtra says: bhikṣus, you should contemplate morsel-nutriment as the flesh of your own child in the wilderness; you should contemplate contact-nutriment as a newly-flayed cow; you should contemplate volition-nutriment as a pit of blazing coals; and you should contemplate consciousness-nutriment as three hundred sharp spears. Question: how should a bhikṣu contemplate morsel-nutriment as the flesh of his own child in the wilderness? Answer: it is as if a husband and wife had only a single child, handsome in face and deeply cherished, and, their country having fallen into famine, they set out for another land, but, reaching the wilderness, their provisions were exhausted, with the road ahead still far, and, going without food for several days, all three grew faint, near death. The husband secretly reflected: the road is far, our provisions are gone, and death is imminent — by reason, the three of us cannot all survive together, so why should we cling to one another only to perish as one? If, of the three, one now serves as food, then, though one dies, two may yet survive — better than all three perishing together. If I offer myself, I fear my wife's grief and sorrow would drive her to end her own life, unable to bear the ordeal; if I offer my wife, I fear our child, losing his mother, could not survive either way, and we would lose both. But our beloved child, though born of us both, could still be had again should husband and wife both survive — better, then, to give up our child's life in order to cross this wilderness. Having thought this, he could not contain his grief. His wife, noticing, asked him the reason, and the husband told her fully what he had thought. Upon hearing it, the wife choked with grief and collapsed to the ground in anguish,

— and, only after a long while, revived, wailing and crying out to heaven at this cruel injustice. The husband slowly consoled her, and, after a long while, she consented. Thereupon husband and wife embraced their child, kissing him again and again, crying out in uncontainable grief, "How can such suffering be!" — and, weeping and choking for a long while, at last ended their child's life, cutting the flesh into dried strips to serve as provisions for the road.

Every time they were about to eat, the husband and wife wept together, crying out, "My child, my child," tears streaming as they ate — and, having eaten, they lamented and reproached themselves again and again. Throughout, from their very first deliberation until the moment of eating along the road, they never once felt any joy, thinking only of their beloved child. Just so, a practitioner dwelling in a solitary place, never negligent, rightly reflecting, gives rise to a single, beloved, excellent, wholesome dharma-child, and holds it constantly in mind, never abandoning it — wearied of birth-and-death, journeying toward nirvāṇa — and, when, over a long period of practice, his provisions run short, he sets aside his dedicated cultivation for the sake of sustaining the body that supports the noble path, and enters the city to beg for alms, doing so together with heedfulness and right reflection, from the moment he leaves his solitary place until the moment he finishes eating —

— never once feeling any attachment or delight, thinking only of the practice he has set aside. A bhikṣu should contemplate morsel-nutriment in just this way, as the flesh of a child in the wilderness. One who has already cut off and fully understood craving for morsel-nutriment thereby cuts off and fully understands craving for the five sensory desires as well, since both are subject to the same suppression and the same antidote. And, once craving for the five sensory desires has been cut off and fully understood, no fetter remains uncut and ununderstood capable of binding one back to rebirth in the desire realm — this describes, with hidden intent, the attainment of the fruit of non-returning through freedom from sensory-desire craving, referring to the exhaustion of the lower-portion fetters. Question: how should a bhikṣu contemplate contact-nutriment as a newly-flayed cow? Answer: it is as if an ox had somehow wronged its owner, who, wishing to cause it suffering, has it flayed alive,

— and this ox, its skin gone, wherever it goes, whether on land or momentarily lifted into the air, is at once swarmed by every kind of insect competing to bite and feed upon it; and, trying to rub itself against fences, plants, trees, or walls to drive the insects away, only increases its agony all the more. Could such an ox have even the slightest pleasure at such a time? Whether touched or untouched, it suffers greatly either way. Just so, could any mode of existence have even the slightest pleasure? Whether already produced or not yet produced, it is nothing but suffering either way. A bhikṣu should contemplate contact-nutriment in just this way, as the newly-flayed cow described above. One who has already cut off and fully understood craving for contact-nutriment thereby cuts off and fully understands craving for the three kinds of feeling as well, since every feeling arises dependent on contact, as the sūtra says, "contact conditions feeling." And, once craving for the three feelings has been cut off and fully understood, one's task is accomplished, and one should further deliberately seek to cut off contact-nutriment itself entirely — this describes, with hidden intent, the attainment of the fruit of arhatship through transcending the very peak of existence, referring to the exhaustion of every fetter whatsoever.

How should a bhikṣu contemplate volition-nutriment as a pit of blazing coals? Answer: it is as if, near a city, there were a great pit of fire, without visible flame or smoke, yet filled with glowing coals. A wise person, neither foolish nor dull-witted, seeing this, thinks to himself, "This great fire pit, filled with glowing coals — should I fall in, I would certainly die without doubt," and, having thought this, resolves to keep his distance, and departs at once. But a foolish, childish, ignorant person, seeing the very same pit, thinks instead, "How beautiful, this glowing red pit," and leaps straight in, suffering and dying as a result. Just as the wise person, seeing the great fire pit, is filled with terror and keeps far away, so too do the noble ones develop deep revulsion toward and abandonment of volition for future existence; and just as the ignorant person, lacking wisdom, leaps into the great fire pit and dies in agony, so too do ordinary beings give rise to volition for future existence, thereby suffering boundless pain and losing their own life of wisdom. A bhikṣu should contemplate volition-nutriment in just this way, as the pit of blazing coals described above. One who has already cut off and fully understood craving for volition-nutriment thereby cuts off and fully understands the three kinds of craving as well, since these three cravings are the very cause of arising, as the sūtra says, "karma is the cause of birth; craving is the cause of arising." And, once these three cravings have been cut off and fully understood, one's task is accomplished, and one should further deliberately seek to cut off volition-nutriment itself entirely — this too describes, with hidden intent, the attainment of the fruit of arhatship through transcending the very peak of existence, referring to the exhaustion of every fetter whatsoever.

Question: how should a bhikṣu contemplate consciousness-nutriment as three hundred sharp spears? Answer: it is as if a man were struck by a hundred spears in the early part of the day, another hundred at midday, and another hundred in the latter part of the day — receiving three hundred spear-wounds every single day, all the way to the end of his life — until his whole body becomes one continuous wound, without so much as a mustard seed's worth of unbroken skin remaining anywhere. Just so, a practitioner is, day after day, constantly drawn away by three hundred distinct objects, each one piercing his dedicated practice like a sharp spear, injuring it continuously all the way to the end of his life, until his own cultivated attainments become riddled with countless wounds and blemishes.

A bhikṣu should contemplate consciousness-nutriment in just this way, as the three hundred sharp spears described above. One who has already cut off and fully understood craving for consciousness-nutriment thereby cuts off and fully understands craving for name-and-form as well, since consciousness is the very condition for name-and-form, as the sūtra says, "consciousness conditions name-and-form." And, once craving for name-and-form has been cut off and fully understood, one's task is accomplished, and one should further deliberately seek to cut off consciousness-nutriment itself entirely — this describes, with hidden intent, the attainment of the fruit of arhatship through transcending the very peak of existence, referring to the exhaustion of every fetter whatsoever.

Question: are the other three nutriments equally comparable to three hundred spears? If they are, why does the sūtra speak of this contemplation only with respect to consciousness-nutriment? But if they are not, why is consciousness-nutriment alone comparable to three hundred spears, and not the others? Answer: the other nutriments, too, ought equally to be comparable to three hundred spears — just as this contemplation is applied to consciousness-nutriment, so too should it be applied to the other three — and that the sūtra speaks of this contemplation only with respect to consciousness-nutriment should be understood as a matter left with a further, supplementary account. Others say: this sūtra passage shows the final, culminating case, thereby making clear that the nutriments explained previously should likewise be understood in this same way. Other masters say: the mind's own nature is stubborn and exceedingly difficult to subdue, and hence the Buddha, in rebuking it, uses the simile of three hundred spears specifically for it, while the other nutriments are each given their own, different similes through their own separate approach. Others say: this sūtra passage simply highlights whichever comparison is most fitting in each case, and hence there is no fault in this — the same principle of reconciliation applies wherever it is found to hold across the first three similes as well. As the sūtra says: this brahmin Vairāma, with such excellent food and drink as this, gave alms to an assembly of great śāla-tree brahmins — yet giving food and drink to an ordinary being of the Jambū forest obtains a greater fruit of merit than this. Question: who, in this sūtra passage, is meant by "an ordinary being of the Jambū forest"? Some say: this refers to any embodied being at all within Jambudvīpa. Others say: this refers to outside-path ascetics already free from the defilement of desire. Others say this refers to a bodhisattva close to buddhahood — but this cannot be right, for giving alms to a bodhisattva close to buddhahood would obtain merit surpassing that of giving to a billion arhats. According to this final account: this refers to an ordinary being who has already attained the wholesome roots conducive to liberation, whose virtue surpasses that of the brahmins in question.

This sūtra further says: if, compared to giving food and drink to an ordinary being of the Jambū forest, one instead gives food and drink to a single stream-enterer, this obtains a greater fruit of merit than the former — since he has already cut off every evil view, exhausted the three fetters, become free of the causes of evil destinies cut off by insight, set a definite limit on his future existence, and attained the fruit of stream-entry. This sūtra further says: if, compared to giving food and drink to a hundred stream-enterers, one instead gives food and drink to a single once-returner, this obtains a greater fruit of merit than the former — since he has become free of the causes of evil destinies cut off by cultivation, weakened greed, hatred, and delusion, and attained the fruit of once-returning. This sūtra further says: if, compared to giving food and drink to a hundred once-returners, one instead gives food and drink to a single non-returner, this obtains a greater fruit of merit than the former — since he has already cut off the lower-portion fetters, transcended rebirth in the desire realm, and attained the fruit of non-returning. This sūtra further says: if, compared to giving food and drink to a hundred non-returners, one instead gives food and drink to a single arhat,

— this obtains a greater fruit of merit than the former — since he has already cut off every fetter whatsoever, transcended rebirth even at the peak of existence, and attained the fruit of arhatship. This sūtra further says: if, compared to giving food and drink to a hundred arhats, one instead gives food and drink to a single pratyekabuddha, this obtains a greater fruit of merit than the former — since he has awakened by his own power alone. This sūtra further says: if, compared to giving food and drink to a hundred pratyekabuddhas, one instead gives food and drink to a single Tathāgata, this obtains a greater fruit of merit than the former — since he has both perfectly awakened himself and is capable of awakening others as well. This sūtra further says: if, compared to offering food and drink directly to the Tathāgata, one instead builds a monastery and donates it to the community of monks of the four directions, this obtains a greater fruit of merit than the former — since a monastery's own benefit is unobstructed and inexhaustible. Question: the merit of giving to the Buddha surpasses that of giving to the community — and, throughout this whole passage, the lesser case is always given first, the greater case last — why, then, does this final comparison list the Buddha first and the community afterward? Answer: it is precisely for this same reason that the Buddha is listed first and the community afterward, for why is this?

If "community" here meant only the community of śrāvakas, it would not include the Buddha — but the community of the four directions does include the Buddha, being the very community that constitutes a field of merit, the community of bhikṣus. If one gives to the Buddha alone, only the Buddha himself receives it, and the wider community does not, and hence this merit is the lesser; if one gives to the community, both the community and the Buddha alike receive it, and hence this merit is the greater, being unobstructed and yielding unlimited merit. Though this final comparison lists the Buddha first and the community afterward, it is still properly understood as listing the lesser case first and the greater case last.

Question: the resulting fruit's own excellence also depends on the excellence of the donor's own intention — why, then, does the World-Honored One here praise only the excellence of the field? Answer: those the World-Honored One converts are of two kinds —

— one complete in both faith and wisdom, and one with faith but lacking wisdom. For those complete in both faith and wisdom, the Buddha does not praise the field's own excellence, since they are themselves capable of discerning a worthy field from an unworthy one; but for those with faith yet lacking wisdom, the Buddha does praise the field's excellence, since they are incapable of discerning this for themselves. Yet the resulting merit of a gift may, in truth, be excellent on account of the donor's own excellent intention, or on account of the field's own excellence, or, in fact, on account of both together — yielding, accordingly, a fourfold distinction: merit that is excellent on account of the field but not the intention; merit excellent on account of the intention but not the field; merit excellent on account of both together; and merit merely modest, both field and intention being modest alike. Question: the Buddha gives to Śāriputra, and Śāriputra gives to the Buddha — which of these two gifts yields the greater merit? Answer: those who hold that a gift's merit is excellent on account of the donor's own intention say that the Buddha's own gift yields the greater merit, since even Śāriputra and others like him cannot fully know the Buddha's own present intention in giving, let alone match it. Those who hold that a gift's merit is excellent on account of the field say that Śāriputra's gift yields the greater merit, since the Buddha himself is the single most supreme field of merit across all three realms of existence.

Question: can a gift be given to one merely approaching the fruit of stream-entry, not yet having attained it? If it can, why does the earlier sūtra passage not mention this? But if it cannot, how is another sūtra passage to be reconciled, which says:

"The four approachers, together with the four fruits, Are the true field of merit, the Saṅgha — Endowed with moral discipline, wisdom, and concentration, A donor obtains from them a great fruit." Some say that a gift can indeed be given — namely, robes and the like, though not food and drink specifically. Question: if it can be given, why does the earlier sūtra passage not mention this? Answer: the earlier sūtra passage speaks specifically of giving food and drink, not robes and the like, and hence it does not mention this case. Others say: food, too, can indeed be given to one approaching a fruit, but only in the sense of being allocated to him without his actually consuming it — that is, when someone within a monastery enters the path of seeing, others receive his own allotted portion of food on his behalf; or, at the very moment he enters the path of seeing while about to eat, a donor's food is placed upon his lap, or set upon a maṇḍala-altar near him. Question: why, then, does the earlier sūtra passage not mention this? Answer: that earlier sūtra speaks only of one who actually consumes the food, whereas this present case concerns mere allocation, and hence there is no contradiction between the two. Other masters say: one approaching a fruit genuinely cannot be given anything at all, and it is for this reason that the earlier sūtra passage does not mention this. Question: if so, how is the verse cited above to be reconciled? Answer: that verse's own intent is simply to show that a person becomes a field of merit through the distinct degree of his progress along the path — that is, to show that one who has attained the undefiled path obtains a great fruit for a donor and is properly called a true field of merit — it is not claiming that such a person can, at that very moment, actually receive another's gift. The earlier question of whether a gift "can be given" was asking specifically whether it can be received and made use of, which is an entirely different question.