The same log simile as SN 35.241, given in compressed form except for one fully restated item
Length
~1 minute to read
Northern parallel
A rough counterpart may exist in the Chinese Saṃyukta-āgama (T99), though this reading guide does not assert a specific matching sutra number
Difficulty
★☆☆☆☆ — brief, leaning on the previous discourse
Why this discourse
This discourse restates SN 35.241's own log-and-Ganges simile in a new setting, Kimibilā, with a new questioner, Venerable Kimbila. Bilara-data compresses almost the entire exchange with an ellipsis marker, assuming the reader already has the previous discourse's full sevenfold list in mind, and gives only one item in full: Kimbila's own question about “rotting away,” answered this time with a specifically monastic example — committing an offense so corrupt that no rehabilitation is possible — rather than SN 35.241's more general description of an unethical pretender.
Reading guide
A compressed repeat, not a new simile
The setting and questioner change, but the log, the river, and the sevenfold list of hazards are identical to SN 35.241's own; bilara-data itself marks the repeated portions with an ellipsis rather than spelling them out a second time.
One item singled out for a full restatement
Of the sevenfold list, only “rotting away” is given a complete answer here, suggesting this particular exchange with Kimbila was remembered specifically for that one detail rather than the whole simile.
A monastic answer, not a general one
SN 35.241 defined rotting away broadly, as anyone unethical, filthy, and depraved while claiming to be a genuine ascetic. Here the same term is defined specifically as a mendicant committing “the kind of corrupt offense for which no rehabilitation is possible” — the same underlying image, narrowed to a concrete monastic-discipline case.
Named for its questioner, not its content
This project's own reading of the discourse's title, “The Simile of the Tree Trunk (2nd),” reflects its relationship to SN 35.241 as a paired twin rather than any difference in the simile's own content, which remains the same log carried by the same river.
Key terms
kimibilāyaṁ — Kimibilā — this discourse's own setting, on the bank of the Ganges, distinct from Kosambī in SN 35.241
āyasmā kimbilo — Venerable Kimbila — the questioner here, in place of the unnamed mendicant of SN 35.241
…pe… — the peyyāla (repetition) marker bilara-data uses to compress the sevenfold list already given in full at SN 35.241, assumed rather than restated
saṅkiliṭṭhaṁ āpattiṁ āpanno... na vuṭṭhānaṁ paññāyati — “committed the kind of corrupt offense for which no rehabilitation is possible” — the one item given in full, narrowing SN 35.241's broader definition of “rotting away” to a specific monastic case
dutiyaṁ — “second” — this discourse's own untranslated closing marker, confirming its status as SN 35.241's paired twin
The text
The complete discourse as bilara-data preserves it — compressed throughout except for the one fully restated exchange about “rotting away.” Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato (CC0, SuttaCentral).
§1At one time the Buddha was staying near Kimibilā on the bank of the Ganges river. Seeing a large tree trunk being carried along by the current, he addressed the mendicants: “Mendicants, do you see that large tree trunk being carried along by the current of the Ganges river?” “Yes, sir,” they replied. … When this was said, Venerable Kimbila said to the Buddha: “But sir, what’s the near shore and what’s the far shore? What’s sinking in the middle? What’s getting stranded on high ground? What’s getting taken by humans or non-humans? What’s getting caught up in a whirlpool? And what’s rotting away?” … “And what, Kimbila, is rotting away? It’s when a mendicant has committed the kind of corrupt offense for which no rehabilitation is possible. This is called ‘rotting away’.”
· · ·
Self-check quiz
5 questions. Click an answer to see immediate feedback. No score is recorded — this is for your own checking.
Question 1 of 5
How does this discourse relate to SN 35.241?
Correct: A. Bilara-data itself marks the repeated portions with an ellipsis, assuming SN 35.241's full list.
Question 2 of 5
Who asks the question in this discourse, in place of SN 35.241's unnamed mendicant?
Correct: A. The setting also changes, from Kosambī to Kimibilā.
Question 3 of 5
Which single item from the sevenfold list is given a full restatement here?
Correct: A. All other items are compressed with an ellipsis marker, assumed from SN 35.241.
Question 4 of 5
How does this discourse's definition of "rotting away" differ from SN 35.241's?
Correct: A. SN 35.241 gave a general description of an unethical pretender; here the same term is defined via a specific monastic-discipline case.
Question 5 of 5
What does this discourse's own closing marker, "dutiyaṁ," confirm?
Correct: A. "Second" — pairing this discourse directly with SN 35.241 as its twin.
