法苑珠林 26.8

26.8

Second, Question: In the human destiny there is also an inherent, memory-based cognition arising at birth of this kind, which ought to enable knowing the minds of others and so forth. Why is it not mentioned? Answer: What should have been stated but was not stated—you should know that this principle has further meaning. Furthermore, it is not mentioned because it is rare; that is to say, among the human destiny, those who attain this cognition are extremely rare, and therefore it is not mentioned. As the *Vibhāṣā-śāstra* says, this cognition all arises from karma free of affliction and harm. If there are sentient beings who can guard body and speech and not torment others, when they are in the maternal womb it will certainly be spacious and tolerant, and they will not be distressed by the two contacts of cold and heat or the impure, foul blood of the mother's abdomen. When the time comes to emerge from the womb, they are also not compressed by the birth canal so as to cause their minds to be deranged. Due to these causes and conditions, they are lucid and awake, recollecting and knowing past events. That people at present do not know is truly because they contravene the aforesaid Dharma: because of forgetfulness and confusion, they are unable to know. Question: How many destinies does each destiny know? Answer: Again as the *Vibhāṣā-śāstra* says, devas know the five destinies; humans know four destinies (excluding devas); pretas know three destinies; animals know two destinies; and those in the hells only know the affairs of the hells. Because of superiority, the higher can know the lower; the lower, being inferior, does not know the higher. Question: If because of inferiority they do not know the higher, why do the sūtras say that the nāga-king Supratiṣṭhita, the nāga-king Elāpattra, and others were able to know the thoughts in the mind of the superior human, Śakra? Answer: As the *Vibhāṣā-śāstra* says, these are all inferential knowledge, not direct knowledge. For example, when that Śakra wishes to battle with the asuras, the bones on the back of the nāga-king Supratiṣṭhita spontaneously emit a sound. He then thinks: 'A great sound now issues from the bones of my back. I definitely know that the devas surely wish to battle with those asuras, and they will certainly need me.' Having formed this thought, he immediately goes to the side of that Śakra. Furthermore, when Śakra wishes to disport himself, fragrant hands spontaneously appear on the back of the nāga-king Elāpattra. He then thinks: 'Fragrant hands now appear on my back. I definitely know that Śakra wishes to disport in the parks and groves, and will certainly need me.' Having formed this thought, he immediately transforms his body into an elephant with thirty-two heads, which together with his original head make thirty-three heads in all. Upon each head there appear six tusks; upon each tusk there appear seven great jewel pools; in each pool there appear seven stems of lotus flowers; each lotus flower produces seven petals; upon each petal there appears a seven-jeweled dais; inside each dais is raised a seven-jeweled curtain; inside each curtain are seven devanīs; each devanī has seven attendants; each attendant has seven courtesans; and each courtesan plays celestial music. Having made such transformations, in the time it takes to bend or extend an arm he goes to the front of Śakra's palace and stays there. When Śakra sees him, he immediately ascends upon his usual head along with his retinue, while the other thirty-two celestial ministers each take their retinue and ascend upon the remaining thirty-two heads. Having ascended, he immediately lifts his body into the void and goes swiftly to the place of diversion. Taking this as verification, it is also inferential knowledge, not direct knowledge. By citing these events it is proven that the higher can know the lower, while the lower does not know the higher. However, this principle is not exhaustive: as below, where the wolf knew the woman's mind, killed the child, and departed—this is a case where the lower also knew the higher. Why say that the lower does not know the higher? Here, speaking according to the majority, the higher can know the lower and the lower cannot know the higher. If one investigates in detail, higher and lower mutually know each other, which cannot be cited in full.