俱舍論 白話全本 · 冊2Abhidharmakośabhāṣya · Complete Vernacular · Vol. 2

〔Stanza 1〕What the Word “Faculty” Means—Who Exercises Dominance over What

Treatise (taking up the question from what precedes): Because the elements were analyzed earlier, the twenty-two faculties have already been enumerated one by one in the Chapter on the Elements; here, then, one question is put: what does “faculty” mean? Answer: supreme, sovereign, manifestly evident—this is what is called a “faculty”; these several senses taken together constitute the faculty’s sense of ‘dominance.’ (‘Dominance’ means a function that overrides everything else and can exercise mastery.) With respect to whom, then, and over what, is this dominant function asserted? The stanza says:

Stanza: It is transmitted that the five faculties beginning with the eye are each dominant with respect to four matters; the female, male, life, and mental faculties are each dominant with respect to two; and the five feelings beginning with pleasure together with the eight faculties beginning with confidence are dominant on the two sides of defilement and purification—each exercising dominance in its own way.

Treatise: The five faculties beginning with the eye are each able to exercise dominance with respect to four matters: first, adorning the body; second, guiding and sustaining the body; third, producing consciousness and the rest; fourth, exclusive activity.

Take first the eye faculty and the ear faculty. Adorning the body means that a person blind or deaf is unsightly in bodily form (with eyes and ears the bodily form is well composed). Guiding and sustaining the body means that only by seeing and hearing can one avoid dangers and calamities (and so the body is maintained and nourished). Producing consciousness and the rest means that the eye and ear give rise to the two consciousnesses, eye-consciousness and ear-consciousness, together with the mental factors associated with them. Exclusive activity means that the eye sees form and the ear hears sound, each having its own use, for which no other faculty can substitute.

Take next the nose, tongue, and body faculties. Adorning the body is as stated above for eye and ear. Guiding and sustaining the body means that only through these three can one make use of food taken in portions (nourishment eaten mouthful by mouthful). Producing consciousness and the rest means that they give rise to the three consciousnesses—nose-, tongue-, and body-consciousness—together with the associated mental factors. Exclusive activity means smelling odor, tasting flavor, and feeling the tangible, each with its own separate use.

The female, male, life, and mental faculties are each able to exercise dominance with respect to two matters.

Take first the two kinds of dominance of the female and male faculties: first, difference among sentient beings; second, difference in characteristics. Difference among sentient beings means that it is by these two faculties that sentient beings are divided into the two classes, female and male. Difference in characteristics means that it is by these two faculties that there come to be differences of bodily shape, of spoken sound, of breasts, and the rest. There is another account: these two faculties are dominant with respect to defilement and purification, and this is why the stanza says “with respect to two.” Why say so? Because those impaired in their very nature—one congenitally without a sexual faculty, one whose sexual faculty is incomplete, and a person of both sexes—will neither acquire non-restraint, nor commit deeds of immediate retribution, nor cut off their wholesome roots, nor incur the other defiled dharmas; and equally they will not acquire discipline, nor attain the fruits of the ascetic life, nor become free of the defilement of desire, nor gain the other purifying dharmas. (Having no share on either side, defiled or pure, they show that the female and male faculties are indeed dominant with respect to defilement and purification.)

The two kinds of dominance of the life faculty are that, with respect to the commonality of sentient beings (the continuum of one life-span belonging to a single class), it can continue it and can sustain it.

The two kinds of dominance of the mental faculty are that it can continue later existence and that it is sovereign in what follows it. As for continuing later existence, the sūtra says: at that time the intermediate existence—the gandharva—has present one of two minds, whichever it may be (and so takes rebirth and continues the next life)—either arising together with craving or arising together with hostility. As for sovereign following, the sūtra says:

Quoted stanza: Mind can lead the world; mind can gather in all things everywhere. Such is this single dharma, mind: all dharmas follow it under its sovereignty.

Treatise (continued): The five feelings beginning with pleasure (pleasure, pain, joy, sorrow, equanimity) and the eight faculties beginning with confidence (confidence, diligence, mindfulness, concentration, and discernment, together with the three faculties without outflows: coming to know what is not yet known, what is known, and full knowledge) are dominant, respectively, with respect to defilement and to purification. The five feelings beginning with pleasure are dominant with respect to defilement, because greed and the other latent tendencies increase by attachment to these feelings. The eight faculties beginning with confidence are dominant with respect to purification, because the various purifying dharmas arise and grow in dependence on these eight.

Certain other masters say that the five feelings beginning with pleasure are dominant with respect to purification as well. As the sūtra says, ‘Because of pleasure the mind becomes concentrated,’ and ‘pain is the support of confidence,’ and again ‘what renunciation depends upon are joy, sorrow, and equanimity.’ (The sense is that the five feelings too can assist purification.)—So the Vaibhāṣikas transmit it.

Certain other masters again say that guiding and sustaining the body is in truth not the work of the eye and the other faculties but the dominance of consciousness: only when consciousness has discerned can one avoid dangers or make use of food taken in portions. Seeing form and the rest likewise do not occur apart from consciousness; hence “exclusive activity” cannot be set up as a separate kind of dominance belonging to the eye and the other faculties—and in that case the eye and the rest do not become “faculties” on these grounds at all. If so, how should the matter be stated? The stanza says:

〔Stanzas 2–4〕The Faculties Established Anew—Discerning One’s Own Object, Two Set Up from the Body, the Abiding of the Commonality, Defilement and Purification, and the Dominance of the Last Three

Stanza: Because of dominance with respect to ‘discerning one’s own object,’ six faculties are established in all; from the body faculty the female and male faculties are set up separately, because they are dominant with respect to femaleness and maleness; because of dominance with respect to the abiding of the commonality of sentient beings, with respect to defilement, and with respect to purification, one should know that the life faculty, the five feelings, and the five beginning with confidence are established as faculties too; and the three faculties—coming to know what is not yet known, what is known, and full knowledge—are likewise so, for they are dominant with respect to attaining each successive path and nirvāṇa and the rest.

Treatise: ‘Discerning one’s own object’ refers to the six bodies of consciousness (from eye-consciousness through mind-consciousness). The five faculties beginning with the eye are dominant with respect to the consciousness that discerns each one’s own object; the sixth, the mental faculty, is dominant with respect to the consciousness that discerns all objects—hence the six faculties beginning with the eye are each established as faculties.

Someone asks: do not form and the other objects also exercise dominance over the consciousness that discerns them? They too ought to be established as faculties. Answer: an object exercises no dominance over consciousness. Dominant function means being ‘supreme and sovereign.’ The eye faculty is supreme and sovereign within the consciousness of form that it gives rise to, and this is why it is called dominant—first, because the eye is the common cause for discerning every kind of form (one eye faculty serves as the common cause for the many consciousnesses that discern many forms); second, because consciousness is sharp or dull according to the eye faculty. The form-object is not so; on both points it is the reverse (one form is the cause of only one consciousness, and consciousness is not sharp or dull according to form). The same holds as far as the mental faculty with respect to dharma-objects.

Next, the female and male faculties are set up separately from the body faculty because they are dominant within femaleness and maleness. The entities of the female and male faculties are not apart from the body faculty; this name is merely set up upon one portion of the body. Stated in order: within femaleness and maleness these two faculties are dominant; this one portion differs somewhat from the remainder of the body faculty, and so two faculties are set up separately out of the body faculty.

Differences in the bodily class, the voice, the activity, and the aspirations and inclinations of a woman are called femaleness. Differences in the bodily class, the voice, the activity, and the aspirations and inclinations of a man, unlike a woman’s, are called maleness. The difference between these two sexes comes from the female and male faculties, and this is why they are said to be dominant with respect to the two sexes.

With respect to the ‘abiding’ of the commonality of sentient beings, the life faculty is dominant; with respect to defilement, the five feelings beginning with pleasure are dominant. Why? Because the sūtra says: upon pleasant feeling greed increases; upon painful feeling hatred increases; upon feeling that is neither painful nor pleasant ignorance increases. With respect to purification, the five faculties beginning with confidence are dominant. Why? Because by the strength of these five faculties one can subdue the various afflictions and give rise to the noble path.

The words ‘one should know’ in the stanza urge acceptance that each of these classes can become a faculty. The three faculties without outflows are dominant with respect to attaining each successive path and nirvāṇa and the rest. The words ‘likewise so’ in the stanza show by extension that each of these three too can become a faculty—that is: the faculty of coming to know what is not yet known is dominant with respect to attaining the path of the faculty of what is known; the faculty of what is known is dominant with respect to attaining the path of the faculty of full knowledge; and the faculty of full knowledge is dominant with respect to attaining nirvāṇa, since one whose mind is not liberated cannot reach parinirvāṇa.

The word ‘and the rest’ in the stanza is meant to show that there is yet another account. Which one? This: with respect to the removal of the afflictions abandoned through seeing, the faculty of coming to know what is not yet known is dominant; with respect to the removal of the afflictions abandoned through cultivation, the faculty of what is known is dominant; and with respect to a pleasant abiding in the present dharma, the faculty of full knowledge is dominant, because through it one experiences the joy of liberation.

Someone objects: if a thing is established as a faculty merely because it is dominant, then ignorance and the rest ought also to be established as faculties, since ignorance and the rest, being causes, are each dominant with respect to the formations and the other results. And the organs of speech and the rest ought also to be faculties—the organ of speech, the hands, the feet, and the organs of excretion and of urination are respectively dominant with respect to speaking, grasping, walking, excreting, and producing pleasure. Answer: these matters should not be established as faculties, because what is accepted as a “faculty” has a definite characteristic. The stanza says:

〔Stanza 5〕The Comprehensive Criterion of a Faculty—The Support of Mind, Its Distinction, Its Abiding, Its Defilement, Its Provision, Its Purification

Stanza: The support of mind, the distinction of that support, the abiding of this life-span, the defilement of this life-span, the provision for this purification, and this purification itself—by these six measures the faculties are established.

Treatise: The ‘support of mind’ means the six faculties beginning with the eye. These six internal sense fields are the root of a sentient being. The distinguishing characteristic of that support comes from the female and male faculties. Again, by the life faculty this one life-span is made to abide. That this life-span becomes defiled is due to the five feeling faculties. The provision for this purification is the five faculties beginning with confidence. The accomplishment of this purification is due to the last three faculties without outflows. By these six items the matter of establishing faculties is fully accounted for.

Therefore one should not accept that ignorance and the rest, or the organs of speech and the rest, are established as faculties too—they do not have the kind of dominance stated here.

Certain other masters set up a different account of the characteristic of a faculty. The stanza says:

〔Stanza 6〕The Other Masters’ Alternative Account—Support in Cyclic Existence, Arising, Abiding, Experience; Likewise in Return to Cessation

Stanza: Or else, by the support in cyclic existence together with the three senses of arising, abiding, and experience, the first fourteen faculties are established; on the side of return to cessation, the last eight faculties are established in the same way.

Treatise: The word ‘or’ in the stanza shows that what follows is the intent of certain other masters—they establish the twenty-two faculties by the two gates of cyclic existence and return to cessation.

Support in cyclic existence means the six faculties beginning with the eye. Arising is by the female and male faculties, since sentient beings are born from them. Abiding is by the life faculty, since it is in dependence on it that they abide. Experience is by the five feelings, since it is by them that objects are received. By just these four senses the first fourteen faculties are established.

In the stage of return to cessation as well, the last eight faculties are established by the analysis of these same four kinds of sense. The support of return to cessation is the five faculties beginning with confidence; as for the three faculties without outflows, arising is by the first (the faculty of coming to know what is not yet known), abiding by the second (the faculty of what is known), and experience by the third (the faculty of full knowledge). The number of the faculties is fixed in just this way, neither more nor fewer. It is also on such grounds that the sūtra lays out the sequence of the twenty-two faculties.

(In answer to the earlier objection:) The organ of speech should not be established as a faculty with respect to speaking, because speaking is accomplished only when training has made its difference (the dominance is not the organ’s own). Nor should the hands and feet each be established as faculties with respect to grasping and walking, because they have no separate entity—‘grasping’ and ‘walking’ are merely names for hands and feet arising in different places and with different characteristics. Moreover, apart from hands and feet there is grasping and walking all the same, as with the kind of beings that crawl upon the belly. Hence hands and feet cannot be established as faculties with respect to those activities.

The organ of excretion should not be established as a faculty with respect to excreting, because a heavy thing falls of itself in space and is besides drawn out by the force of wind (that place is not what exercises mastery). The organ of urination should not be established as a faculty with respect to producing pleasure, because that pleasure is in fact produced by the female and male faculties. Furthermore, the throat, the teeth, the eyelids, and the joints of the limbs would all have to be established as faculties—for they have power with respect to swallowing, chewing, opening and closing, and bending and stretching. And so on, until every cause that has power with respect to its own activity would have to be established as a faculty. Though these have power, they are not dominant, and so they are not established as faculties; the organs of speech and the rest are likewise not dominant, and so should not be established as faculties.

Among these, the eye and the rest as far as the male faculty have already been discussed earlier (in the Chapter on the Elements). The entity of the life faculty is a formation not associated with mind, and it will be analyzed at length in due course in the section on formations not associated with mind. The entity of confidence and the rest is mental factors, and they too will be analyzed at length in the section on mental factors. Only the five feelings beginning with pleasure and the three faculties without outflows have no other place in which to be analyzed, and so should be explained now. The stanza says:

〔Stanzas 7 and 8〕The Division of the Five Feelings and the Establishment of the Three Faculties without Outflows

Stanza: Bodily displeasure is called the pain faculty, and bodily pleasure the pleasure faculty; the mental pleasure of the third meditative absorption is also called pleasure, while mental pleasure in the other levels is called joy; mental displeasure is called the sorrow faculty; intermediate feeling makes no difference between body and mind (and so is a single faculty). On the paths of seeing, of cultivation, and beyond training, the three faculties without outflows are established, each in dependence on nine faculties.

Treatise: ‘Body’ in the stanza means bodily feeling—because it arises in dependence on the body, that is, feeling associated with the five consciousnesses. ‘Displeasure’ means causing harm and distress; within bodily feeling, that which causes harm and distress is called the pain faculty. ‘Pleasure’ means embracing and benefiting (nourishing and assisting); within that same bodily feeling, that which embraces and benefits is called the pleasure faculty.

There is also the feeling associated with mind in the third meditative absorption; that which embraces and benefits is likewise called the pleasure faculty—for in the third meditative absorption there is no bodily feeling (the five consciousnesses do not arise), and so the mental pleasure there is called pleasure. This very same mental pleasure, when the third meditative absorption is set aside, is called the joy faculty in the three lower levels (the desire realm, the first meditative absorption, and the second). Why the division? Because the mental pleasure of the third meditative absorption is settled and still, already free of the craving for joy, and so is called only the pleasure faculty; while the mental pleasure of the three lower levels is coarse and agitated and still has the craving for joy, and so is called only the joy faculty.

Feeling associated with mental consciousness that causes harm and distress is mental displeasure, and is called the sorrow faculty.

‘Intermediate’ in the stanza means neither pleasure nor displeasure, that is, feeling that is neither painful nor pleasant; this intermediate feeling is called the equanimity faculty.

Question: is this equanimity faculty bodily feeling or mental feeling? Answer: it should be said to extend to both. Question: on what grounds are the two, bodily and mental, established together as one faculty? Because this feeling, whether in the body or in the mind, is equally without discrimination. It should be known that pain and pleasure in the mind arise for the most part from discrimination, whereas in the body it is not so: they arise following the force of the object; and the pain and pleasure in the body of an arhat or other noble one arise in just this way (which shows that bodily feeling does not follow discrimination). Therefore, when pain and pleasure are established as faculties, body and mind are set up separately; but equanimity is without discrimination and arises spontaneously, and so in establishing it as a faculty body and mind are combined into one.

Furthermore, painful feeling and pleasant feeling have different characteristics of harming and of benefiting in body and in mind, and so are established as separate faculties; equanimity is equally without discrimination in body and in mind, neither harming nor benefiting, with no difference of characteristic, and so is established altogether as a single faculty.

Mind, pleasure, joy, equanimity, and the five faculties beginning with confidence—these nine faculties, on the three paths, establish in order the three faculties without outflows. That is: on the path of seeing, the ‘faculty of coming to know what is not yet known’ is established in dependence on the nine faculties beginning with mind; on the path of cultivation, the ‘faculty of what is known’ is established in dependence on those same nine; and on the path beyond training, the ‘faculty of full knowledge’ is established in dependence on those nine as well.

On what grounds are these three names established? Answer: on the path of seeing there operates a mode of ‘what has never yet been known and is to be known,’ and so that person is said to be one who comes to know what is not yet known. On the path of cultivation there is no longer anything never yet known; it is only in order to sever the remaining latent tendencies that one knows the same objects again and again, and so that person is said to be one of what is known. On the path beyond training one knows that one has already known, and so it is called knowing; one who possesses this knowing is called one of full knowledge. Or else: one who has cultivated this knowing until it has become his own nature is called one of full knowledge—that is, one who has attained the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising and therefore knows of himself, as it really is: ‘I have fully known suffering and need not fully know it again,’ and so on at length. The faculties possessed by such a person are called the faculty of coming to know what is not yet known, and the rest.

The various differences among the entities of the faculties having now been explained, what should next be clarified are the distinctions of meaning under the several gates. Among these twenty-two faculties, how many are with outflows and how many without outflows? The stanza says:

〔Stanza 9〕The Gate of With and Without Outflows

Stanza: Only the last three faculties are without outflows; the seven faculties that are form, together with life, sorrow, and pain, should be known to be with outflows only; the remaining nine extend to both sides.

Treatise: The last three faculties spoken of above (coming to know what is not yet known, what is known, and full knowledge) are in their entity only without outflows—“without outflows” means stainless; stain and outflow differ in name but are one in substance. The seven faculties that are form, together with the life faculty, the sorrow faculty, and the pain faculty, are invariably with outflows. The seven faculties that are form are the five beginning with the eye plus the female and male faculties, since all are included in the aggregate of form. Mind, pleasure, joy, equanimity, and the five faculties beginning with confidence—these nine extend to both with outflows and without outflows.

Certain masters say that the five faculties beginning with confidence too are only without outflows. Their reason is that the World-Honored One said: ‘If someone is wholly without these five faculties beginning with confidence, I declare that he stands in the class of outer ordinary beings.’ (Which would show that all who possess the five faculties beginning with confidence are noble ones.)—Answer: this is not a reliable proof, for that statement was made with reference to the faculties without outflows. How is this known? Because the World-Honored One first established the various distinctions of noble station in dependence on the five faculties beginning with confidence that are without outflows, and only then made this statement.

Or else: ordinary beings are roughly of two kinds, inner and outer. ‘Inner’ means those who have not cut off their wholesome roots; ‘outer’ means those whose wholesome roots are already cut off. It was with reference to ‘outer ordinary beings’ that the World-Honored One spoke thus: ‘If someone is wholly without these five faculties beginning with confidence, I declare that he stands in the class of outer ordinary beings.’

Again the sūtra says: ‘There are sentient beings dwelling in the world, some already born and some already grown, having faculties of every difference—superior, middling, and inferior.’ This was spoken before the Buddha had turned the wheel of Dharma (when there were as yet no faculties without outflows), and so it is known that the five faculties beginning with confidence extend to what is with outflows as well.

Again the World-Honored One said: ‘So long as I had not known, as it really is, the origin, the disappearance, the gratification, the danger, and the escape with respect to these five faculties beginning with confidence, I could not transcend this world with its gods and humans, its Māra and its Brahmā, and could not, in the end, realize unsurpassed perfect awakening.’—A dharma without outflows cannot be examined under such a division of aspects (origin, disappearance, gratification, danger, and escape are examinations made upon dharmas with outflows), and so the five faculties beginning with confidence extend to both with outflows and without outflows.

With outflows and without outflows have now been explained. Among the twenty-two faculties, how many are maturation and how many are not maturation? The stanza says:

〔Stanza 10〕The Gate of Maturation and Non-Maturation, with the Incidental Discussion on Prolonging and Relinquishing the Life-Formations

Stanza: Only the life faculty is maturation; the sorrow faculty and the last eight faculties are not maturation; the seven faculties that are form, the mental faculty, and the remaining four feelings each extend to both maturation and non-maturation.

Treatise: Only the single life faculty is definitely maturation.

(Someone objects:) If so, then what the arhats prolong when they ‘prolong the life-formations’ is precisely the life faculty; of whose karma is such a life faculty the maturation? Answer: as the root treatise (the Treatise on the Development of Wisdom) says: what is it for a monk to ‘prolong the life-formations’? It is that an arhat who has accomplished the superknowledges and attained sovereignty of mind gives away, according to his portion, robes and bowl and the other requisites that sustain life, either to the Saṅgha or to a single person; and having given, he makes a vow and thereupon enters the fourth limit-stage meditative absorption. Rising from that concentration, he thinks and says aloud: ‘Whatever karma of mine could bring about the maturation of wealth and pleasure, may it all be turned instead to bring about the maturation-result of lifespan.’ At that moment all his karma capable of bringing about the maturation of wealth and pleasure is turned to bring about the maturation-result of lifespan.

There is another position: it is that the residue of maturation from past karma is drawn out. They say that a maturation still remaining from karma undergone in a former life is drawn out for experience by the power of the limit-stage concentration cultivated in the present life.

What is it for a monk to ‘relinquish the life-formations’? It is that an arhat who has accomplished the superknowledges and attained sovereignty of mind gives to the Saṅgha and the rest as before; and having given, he makes a vow and thereupon enters the fourth limit-stage meditative absorption. Rising from that concentration, he thinks and says aloud: ‘Whatever karma of mine could bring about the maturation of lifespan, may it all be turned instead to bring about the maturation-result of wealth and pleasure.’ At that moment all his karma capable of bringing about the maturation of lifespan is turned to bring about the maturation-result of wealth and pleasure.

The Venerable Ghoṣa speaks thus: that arhat rouses the power of the fourth limit-stage concentration and causes the great elements of the form realm to become present within his body; and those great elements either accord with the life-formations or run counter to them, and by this set of causes and conditions he either retains the life-formations or relinquishes them.

(The author of the treatise says:) It should rather be stated thus—that arhat, by this sovereign power of concentration, turns aside the portion of duration belonging to the great elements of the faculties that were produced by past karma and formerly obtained, and draws out instead a portion of duration, never had before, belonging to great elements of the faculties produced by the power of concentration. Therefore this life faculty is not maturation, while all the remaining life faculties are maturation.

Because one discussion gives rise to another (a incidental discussion): for what set of causes and conditions does that arhat prolong the life-formations? It is for the benefit and ease of others, or so that the noble teaching may long endure in the world; he observes that the life-formations of his own body are about to be exhausted, and observes that others do not have these two capabilities (there is no one able to do this work in his stead). And for what set of causes and conditions does he relinquish the life-formations? That arhat observes that what remains of benefit and ease to others in his dwelling in the world is very little, or he is oppressed by the suffering of illness and the like. As one stanza says:

Quoted stanza: The holy life has been excellently established; the noble path has been well cultivated; when the lifespan is exhausted he rejoices, as one who lays down a whole body of illnesses.

Treatise (continued): Here it should be known: in what places, and by which persons, can the lifespan be prolonged or relinquished in this way? Answer: by those arhats among the humans of the three continents (Videha in the east, Jambudvīpa in the south, Godānīya in the west) whose female or male continuity is unbroken (their faculties not deficient), who are liberated not dependent on circumstance (of sharp faculties), and who have attained the limit-stage concentration—because there is a sovereign concentration within their bodies and they are without afflictions.

The sūtra says: the World-Honored One prolonged many vital formations and relinquished many life-formations. What difference is there between ‘vital’ and ‘life’? Some say there is no difference, as the root treatise says: ‘What is the life faculty? Lifespan in the three realms.’ Certain other masters say: the result of karma of a former life is called life-formations; the result of present karma is called vital formations. Others again say: that by which the commonality of sentient beings is made to abide is called life-formations; that by which one abides for a time is called vital formations.

The sūtra’s word ‘many’ is meant to show that what is prolonged or relinquished is many moments—vital and life formations are not a matter of a single instant, and vital and life formations have the property of being able to be prolonged or relinquished (hence ‘many’). Others say that this word ‘many’ is meant to preclude the notion that some real entity, a vital principle or a lifespan, abides through a long time. Others again say that this word is meant to show that there is no real entity of a vital principle or of a lifespan at all: the two names ‘vital’ and ‘life’ are merely set up provisionally upon a plurality of ‘formations’; were it not so, the word ‘formations’ should not have been used.

Why did the World-Honored One relinquish many life-formations and prolong many vital formations? To show that he had attained sovereignty over dying, he relinquished many life-formations; to show that he had attained sovereignty over living, he prolonged many vital formations. That he retained just three months, neither more nor less, is because beyond that term there would be no further work of ripening beings, while short of that term the benefit to beings would not be brought to completion. It was also to establish what he himself had said earlier: ‘Because I have well cultivated the four bases of supernormal power, I can, should I wish to abide for an aeon or for more than an aeon, abide just as my mind intends.’ The Vaibhāṣikas speak thus: this shows that he now subdued the two Māras, the Māra of the aggregates and the Māra of death—for the World-Honored One had already subdued the Māra of the heavens and the Māra of the afflictions beneath the tree of awakening.

The incidental discussion having ended, we return to the main discussion. The sorrow faculty and the last eight faculties beginning with confidence are all not maturation, because they are determinate (bearing a definite mark of wholesome or unwholesome). The remainder extend to both. What follows by implication is thereby established: namely that the seven faculties that are form, the mental faculty, and the four feelings apart from sorrow—these twelve faculties each extend to both classes, maturation and non-maturation.

As for the seven faculties that are form, those that come about through nourishment by food and the like are not maturation, and the rest are maturation. As for the mental faculty and the four feelings: those that are wholesome or defiled, and those included in the modes of deportment (walking, standing, sitting, and lying down), in the fields of craft (the skilled arts), and in the mind capable of transformation, are correspondingly not maturation, and the rest are maturation.

(Someone asks:) If the sorrow faculty is not maturation, how is this sūtra to be reconciled? As the sūtra says: ‘There are three kinds of karma—karma conducive to the feeling of joy, karma conducive to the feeling of sorrow, and karma conducive to the feeling of equanimity.’ Answer: if ‘conducive’ is said with reference to being ‘associated with’ that feeling, there is no fault—it means that the karma is associated with sorrow and is therefore called karma conducive to the feeling of sorrow, just as contact associated with pleasure is called contact conducive to the feeling of pleasure. (It is not being said that sorrow is the maturation-result of that karma.)

(Objection:) If so, karma conducive to the feeling of joy and karma conducive to the feeling of equanimity should be explained in the same way, since one and the same sūtra states them. Answer: explain them as you wish; it does me no harm—whether explained as maturation or as association, there is no fault in the reasoning, and I am left with no difficulty from which there is no escape.

(Question:) In reconciling the sūtra text in this way, what then is the real reason? Why is sorrow not maturation? Answer: because sorrow arises through discriminating the various matters that are not to one’s liking, and when it ceases it likewise depends on discrimination; maturation is not so (maturation arises and ceases spontaneously).

(Objection:) If so, the joy faculty too should not be maturation, for it likewise arises through discrimination and ceases through discrimination.

(The Sarvāstivādins counter:) If the sorrow faculty were accepted as maturation, then after committing karma of immediate retribution sorrow arises at once—and that karma would then have to be said to have already ripened into its result at that very moment (which is unreasonable). (The opponent gives a counter-instance:) The joy faculty should be pressed in exactly the same way: if the joy faculty is accepted as maturation, then after performing an outstanding meritorious deed joy arises at once, and that karma too would have to be said to have already ripened into its result at that moment.

The Vaibhāṣikas all speak thus: because one who is already free of desire has no sorrow faculty, whereas maturation is not so (maturation does not disappear on account of freedom from desire), sorrow is not maturation.

(Objection:) If so, something should be said about the maturation joy faculty of a being free of desire—by what characteristic is it known that it is still present? (Answer:) Whatever characteristic obtains on that side, the characteristic on this side may be known in the same way: that is, since a wholesome joy faculty may still be present at this station, an indeterminate maturation joy faculty should likewise be known by inference not to be absent. As for the sorrow faculty at this station, no kind of it whatsoever can be present, and so it is definitely not maturation.

The eight faculties beginning with the eye, in a good destiny, are the maturation of wholesome karma, and in a bad destiny the maturation of unwholesome karma. The mental faculty, whether in a good or a bad destiny, is the maturation brought about by karma of both kinds. The joy, pleasure, and equanimity faculties, in whatever destiny, are the maturation of wholesome karma. The pain faculty, whether in a good or a bad destiny, is the maturation of unwholesome karma. If in a good destiny there is a person of both sexes, this too is said only with reference to the ‘place’ of the faculty—the place upon which those two faculties depend is brought about by unwholesome karma; it is not that unwholesome karma can bring about the entity of a faculty, and the faculties that are form in a good destiny are still drawn forth by wholesome karma.

Maturation and the rest have now been explained. Among the twenty-two faculties, how many have maturation and how many do not have maturation? The stanza says:

〔Stanza 11〕The Gate of Having and Not Having Maturation

Stanza: The sorrow faculty definitely has maturation; the first eight faculties and the last three do not have maturation; the mental faculty, the remaining four feelings, and confidence and the rest each extend to both.

Treatise: As was disputed above, the sorrow faculty should be known definitely to have maturation. The word ‘definitely’ in the stanza rests on two senses, ‘only’ and ‘out of turn’—it is meant to show that the sorrow faculty only has maturation (there being no share of it that lacks maturation), and, because it possesses two features at once, that it is stated ahead of its turn. To possess two features means that sorrow is neither indeterminate (for it arises from forceful volition) nor without outflows (for it belongs only to the unconcentrated levels). It is for this reason that ‘the sorrow faculty definitely has maturation’ is stated ahead of its turn.

The first eight faculties beginning with the eye, together with the last three, definitely do not have maturation—the first eight because they are indeterminate, the last three because they are without outflows. The remainder extend to both, and what follows by implication is thereby established: namely the mental faculty, the remaining four feelings, and confidence and the rest (the word ‘and the rest’ takes in diligence and the other four faculties)—these ten faculties each extend to both classes.

Mind, pleasure, joy, and equanimity, if unwholesome, or if wholesome and with outflows, have maturation; if indeterminate or without outflows, they do not have maturation. The pain faculty, if wholesome or unwholesome, has maturation; if indeterminate, it does not. The five faculties beginning with confidence, if with outflows, have maturation; if without outflows, they do not.

Having maturation and the rest have now been explained. Among the twenty-two faculties, how many are wholesome, how many unwholesome, and how many indeterminate? The stanza says:

〔Stanza 12〕The Gate of the Three Ethical Qualities

Stanza: Only the last eight faculties are wholesome; the sorrow faculty extends to the wholesome and the unwholesome; the mental faculty and the remaining feelings extend to all three qualities; the first eight faculties are indeterminate only.

Treatise: The eight faculties beginning with confidence are invariably wholesome. Although these eight stand later in the enumeration, they are stated first because the discussion carries on from what precedes. The sorrow faculty extends only to the wholesome and the unwholesome. The mental faculty and the remaining feelings each extend to all three qualities—wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate. The eight faculties beginning with the eye are indeterminate only.

Wholesome, unwholesome, and the rest have now been explained. Among the twenty-two faculties, how many belong to the desire realm, how many to the form realm, and how many to the formless realm? The stanza says:

〔Stanza 13〕The Gate of Realm Affiliation

Stanza: The desire, form, and formless realms exclude, in order, the last three; the form realm further excludes female, male, sorrow, and pain; the formless realm further excludes the five faculties that are form together with joy and pleasure.

Treatise: The desire realm excludes the last three faculties without outflows, because those three faculties are unbound to any realm; from this it is known that only nineteen faculties belong to the desire realm.

The form realm, as before, excludes the three faculties without outflows and further excludes the four faculties male, female, sorrow, and pain; from this it is known that fifteen faculties extend to belonging to the form realm as well.

Why are the female and male faculties excluded? Because the form realm is already free of the dharmas of sexual desire, and because possessing female and male faculties would make the bodily form unsightly. (Someone objects:) If so, why does the sūtra speak of ‘male’ there? (Counter-question:) Where is this said? (Answer:) It is said in a sūtra. As the sūtra says: ‘There is no such principle and no such possibility that a female body should be the Great Brahmā; there is such a principle and such a possibility that a male body should be the Great Brahmā.’ (Reconciliation:) That refers to another kind of male appearance, namely the features possessed by a male body in the desire realm (it is not that the form realm really has a male faculty).

Why is there no pain faculty? Because bodies in the form realm are pure and subtle (not a support for pain), and because there are no unwholesome dharmas there (no object of pain). Why is there no sorrow faculty? Because calm abiding moistens the continuum of body and mind (not a support for sorrow), and because there is definitely nothing there that harms or injures (no object of sorrow).

The formless realm, as before, excludes the three faculties without outflows together with female, male, sorrow, and pain, and further excludes the five faculties that are form together with the joy faculty and the pleasure faculty; from this it is known that only eight faculties extend to belonging to the formless realm—namely mind, life, equanimity, and the five beginning with confidence.

Belonging to the desire realm and the rest have now been explained. Among the twenty-two faculties, how many are abandoned through seeing, how many abandoned through cultivation, and how many not subject to abandonment? The stanza says:

〔Stanza 14〕The Gate of the Three Modes of Abandonment

Stanza: The mental faculty and three feelings extend to all three; the sorrow faculty extends to what is abandoned through seeing and through cultivation; nine faculties are abandoned through cultivation only; and five are either abandoned through cultivation or not subject to abandonment.

Treatise: Mind, joy, pleasure, and equanimity each extend to all three, because each may be abandoned through seeing, abandoned through cultivation, or not subject to abandonment. The sorrow faculty extends only to what is abandoned through seeing and through cultivation, because it is not without outflows. The seven faculties that are form, the life faculty, and the pain faculty are abandoned through cultivation only—because they are not defiled, are not produced by the six kinds of affliction, and are all with outflows. The five faculties beginning with confidence are either abandoned through cultivation or not subject to abandonment—because they are not defiled (and so are not abandoned through seeing) and extend to both with outflows and without outflows. The last three faculties are not subject to abandonment only, because all are without outflows, and a dharma without fault is not something to be abandoned.

The distinctions of meaning under the several gates have now been explained. In which realm, and how many maturation faculties, are first obtained? The stanza says:

〔Stanza 15〕The Gate of the Maturation Faculties Obtained at Birth

Stanza: In the desire realm, birth from the womb, from an egg, and from moisture first obtain two maturation faculties; birth by transformation first obtains six, seven, or eight; the form realm first obtains six; the upper realm obtains the life faculty only.

Treatise: In the desire realm, birth from the womb, from an egg, and from moisture, at the first moment of taking birth, obtain only the two maturation faculties of body and life, because in these three modes of birth the faculties arise gradually.

(Question:) Why are the mental faculty and the equanimity faculty not obtained at that time? (Answer:) Because the mind at the moment of continuing into birth is necessarily defiled (a defiled mind is not maturation, and so is not counted among the maturation faculties).

Birth by transformation obtains six, seven, or eight faculties at its first stage: one without sexual form (having neither female nor male faculty) first obtains six, as with the humans at the beginning of an aeon. Which six? Eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and life. One with a single sexual form first obtains seven, as with the gods. One with both sexual forms first obtains eight. (Question:) Are there then beings of both sexes who take birth by transformation? (Answer:) Within the bad destinies birth by transformation with both sexes is admitted.

The first obtaining of faculties in the desire realm having been stated, next come the form and formless realms. In the desire realm desire predominates, and so only ‘desire’ is said; in the form realm form predominates, and so only ‘form’ is said. The sūtra too says: ‘Peaceful liberations that transcend form and the formless.’ The form realm first obtains six maturation faculties, as stated above for one without sexual form born by transformation. ‘The upper realm obtains life only’—in the formless realm concentration predominates and birth predominates, and so the word ‘upper’ is used; in the formless realm the maturation faculty first obtained is the life faculty alone and nothing else.

The first obtaining of maturation faculties has now been stated. In which realm, and how many faculties, cease last at the moment of death? The stanza says:

〔Stanza 16〕The Gate of the Faculties That Cease at Death

Stanza: The faculties that cease at the moment of dying—three in the formless realm, eight in the form realm; in the desire realm ten, nine, or eight for one who dies all at once, and only four for one who dies gradually; if one dies with a wholesome mind, add in each case the five beginning with confidence.

Treatise: When life is about to end in the formless realm, the three faculties life, mind, and equanimity cease last. When life is about to end in the form realm, those same three together with the five beginning with the eye—these eight cease last—because all who are born by transformation are necessarily born with their faculties complete and die with them complete.

For one whose life ends all at once in the desire realm, ten, nine, or eight faculties cease last: for a person of both sexes, ten faculties cease last, namely the female and male faculties together with the preceding eight; for one of a single sex, nine cease last, one of female and male being excluded; for one without sexual form, eight cease last—that is, without female and male, only the preceding eight.

What has been said above is stated with reference to dying all at once. If one dies gradually, only four faculties are relinquished last—that is, when life ends gradually in the desire realm, body, life, mind, and equanimity cease last; and there is definitely no principle by which these four cease one before another (they must cease together).

What has been said above should be known to refer only to those who die with a defiled or an indeterminate mind. If one dies with a wholesome mind in any of the three realms, the five faculties beginning with confidence are necessarily all present, and so to every station stated above the five beginning with confidence should be added in number—that is, in the formless realm the count rises to eight, and as far as gradual death in the desire realm it rises to nine; the counts in between may be known by the same reasoning.

In this great section analyzing the faculties, every dharma concerning the faculties should be pondered. Among the twenty-two faculties, how many can attain which fruit of the ascetic life? The stanza says:

〔Stanza 17〕The Gate of the Faculties Used in Attaining the Fruits

Stanza: Nine faculties attain the two fruits at the two edges; the two middle fruits use seven, eight, or nine faculties; eleven faculties attain arhatship—and that is said with reference to what may be present within a single body.

Treatise: ‘Edges’ in the stanza means the fruit of stream-entry and the fruit of arhatship, because among the four fruits of the ascetic life they stand first and last. ‘Middle’ means the fruit of once-return and the fruit of non-return, because set against the first and the last they lie in between.

The first fruit, stream-entry, is attained by nine faculties: namely the mental faculty and the equanimity faculty, the five beginning with confidence, the faculty of coming to know what is not yet known, and the faculty of what is known—nine in all. The faculty of coming to know what is not yet known is on the uninterrupted path, the faculty of what is known on the path of liberation; these two aid one another in attaining the first fruit—serving, in that order, as the drawing cause and the supporting cause with respect to the attainment of release from bondage.

The fruit of arhatship too is attained by nine faculties: namely the mental faculty, the five beginning with confidence, the faculty of what is known, the faculty of full knowledge, and any one taken from among joy, pleasure, and equanimity—nine in all. The faculty of what is known is on the uninterrupted path, the faculty of full knowledge on the path of liberation; these two aid one another in attaining the last fruit—serving, in that order, as the drawing cause and the supporting cause with respect to the attainment of release from bondage.

The two middle fruits are attained, as the case may be, by seven, eight, or nine faculties. Why?

Take first the fruit of once-return. One who realizes it in sequence attains it by the mundane path through seven faculties, namely the mental faculty and the equanimity faculty and the five beginning with confidence; by the supramundane path he attains it through eight faculties, namely the seven just named plus the faculty of what is known as the eighth. One who has become free of the craving of desire in double measure and so realizes it by leaping over attains it through nine faculties, as with the fruit of stream-entry.

For the fruit of non-return, one who realizes it in sequence attains it by the mundane path through seven faculties and by the supramundane path through eight, just as with attaining the fruit of once-return in sequence. One who has become wholly free of the craving of desire and realizes it by leaping over attains it through nine faculties, just as with attaining the fruit of once-return by leaping over.

Though this is so in general, there is still a difference within it: because the matter differs according to the level, any one of pleasure, joy, and equanimity may be taken; whereas in the case stated above of ‘attaining the earlier fruits by leaping over’ there is only the single equanimity faculty (pleasure and joy not being included).

Again, for one who realizes the fruit of non-return in sequence: if on the ninth path of liberation he enters a fundamental level, then by the mundane path he attains it through eight faculties—because his uninterrupted path is associated with equanimous feeling while his path of liberation has joyful feeling besides, and these two aid one another in attaining the third fruit; with respect to the attainment of release from bondage they serve as the two kinds of cause, as stated above. By the supramundane path he attains it through nine faculties—the eight as before plus the faculty of what is known as the ninth, since it is present on both the uninterrupted path and the path of liberation.

(Someone objects:) Did not the root Abhidharma (the Treatise on the Development of Wisdom) ask ‘by how many faculties is arhatship attained?’ and answer ‘by eleven faculties’? How is it that you say here it is attained by nine?

(Answer:) In actual fact the fourth fruit is attained by nine faculties only. The root treatise says eleven with reference to what ‘may be present within a single body.’ That is: it is admitted that there may be such a person who, after falling repeatedly from the station beyond training, realizes the fruit of arhatship again and again with any one of pleasure, joy, and equanimity present (so that eleven faculties are used in all, counting earlier and later occasions together). It is for this reason that the root treatise says eleven faculties. Yet there is no principle by which three feelings arise at one time, and so it is said here that it is definitely attained by nine faculties.

(Question:) Why is the same not said with regard to the fruit of non-return? (Answer:) Because none attains the fruit of non-return with the pleasure faculty, whereas a principle of falling away does exist afterwards; nor is there re-attainment by the pleasure faculty after falling away (since one who has first become free of desire and realizes the third fruit by leaping over has no principle of falling back)—for this fruit of freedom from desire, attained by both the mundane and the supramundane paths, is exceedingly firm.

Now it should be pondered: which faculties does one possess, and among those faculties how many are necessarily possessed? The stanza says:

〔Stanzas 18–20〕The Gate of Necessary Possession

Stanza: One who possesses life, mind, or equanimity necessarily possesses three faculties in each case; one who possesses the pleasure faculty or the body faculty necessarily possesses four in each case; one who possesses the eye and the rest, or the joy faculty, necessarily possesses five in each case; one who possesses the pain faculty necessarily possesses seven; one who possesses the female, the male, or the sorrow faculty, or confidence and the rest, possesses eight in each case; the last two faculties without outflows each carry eleven, and the first faculty without outflows carries thirteen.

Treatise: Whoever possesses any one among the three faculties life, mind, and equanimity necessarily possesses all three—there is no principle by which one of these three could be lacking while the others were still possessed. Apart from these three, the remaining faculties are all indefinite: they may or may not be possessed.

Among them: the four faculties eye, ear, nose, and tongue are definitely not possessed by one born in the formless realm; and one born in the desire realm who has not yet obtained them, or who has lost them, does not possess them either. The body faculty is definitely not possessed only by one born in the formless realm. The two faculties female and male are definitely not possessed by one born in the two upper realms; and one born in the desire realm who has not yet obtained them or who has lost them does not possess them either. The pleasure faculty is definitely not possessed by an ordinary being born in the fourth meditative absorption or in the formless realm. The joy faculty is definitely not possessed by an ordinary being born in the third or fourth meditative absorption or in the formless realm. The pain faculty is definitely not possessed by one born in the form or formless realm. The sorrow faculty is definitely not possessed by anyone free of the craving of desire. The five faculties beginning with confidence are definitely not possessed by one whose wholesome roots are cut off. The first faculty without outflows (the faculty of coming to know what is not yet known) is definitely not possessed by any ordinary being or by one already established in a fruit. The second faculty without outflows (the faculty of what is known) is definitely not possessed by any ordinary being, nor by one on the path of seeing, nor by one beyond training. The last faculty without outflows (the faculty of full knowledge) is definitely not possessed by any ordinary being or by one still in training. At the stations not excluded by the conditions above, it should be known, as stated before, that those faculties are necessarily possessed.

If one possesses the pleasure faculty, one necessarily possesses four faculties—life, mind, equanimity, and this pleasure faculty. If one possesses the body faculty, one likewise necessarily possesses four—life, mind, equanimity, and this body faculty. If one possesses the eye faculty, one necessarily possesses five—life, mind, equanimity, the body faculty, and the eye faculty. For the ear, nose, and tongue faculties it should be known that there are likewise five—the first four as in the case of the eye, the fifth being that faculty itself.

If one possesses the joy faculty, one likewise necessarily possesses five—life, mind, equanimity, the pleasure faculty, and the joy faculty. (Question:) One born on the level of the second meditative absorption who has not yet obtained the third—having relinquished the lower level and not yet obtained the upper—which pleasure faculty does he possess? (Answer:) It should be said that he possesses the defiled pleasure faculty of the third meditative absorption; the rest he has not yet obtained.

If one possesses the pain faculty, one necessarily possesses seven—the body faculty, the life faculty, the mental faculty, and the four feelings apart from sorrow. If one possesses the female faculty, one necessarily possesses eight—the seven as stated for the pain faculty, with the female faculty as the eighth. If one possesses the male faculty, one likewise necessarily possesses eight—the seven as stated for the pain faculty, with the male faculty as the eighth. If one possesses the sorrow faculty, one likewise necessarily possesses eight—the seven as stated for the pain faculty, with the sorrow faculty as the eighth. If one possesses confidence and the rest, one likewise possesses eight in each case—life, mind, equanimity, and the five beginning with confidence.

If one possesses the faculty of full knowledge, one necessarily possesses eleven faculties—life and mind, pleasure, joy, and equanimity, the five beginning with confidence, and the faculty of full knowledge. If one possesses the faculty of what is known, one likewise necessarily possesses eleven—the ten as stated above plus the faculty of what is known. If one possesses the faculty of coming to know what is not yet known, one necessarily possesses thirteen—body, life, mind, pain, pleasure, joy, equanimity, the five beginning with confidence, and the faculty of coming to know what is not yet known.

How many faculties, then, does one possess who possesses fewest? The stanza says:

〔Stanza 21〕The Gate of the Fewest Faculties Possessed

Stanza: Fewest is eight—one without wholesome roots possesses the five feelings, body, life, and mind; a fool (an ordinary being) born in the formless realm possesses the wholesome (the five beginning with confidence) together with life, mind, and equanimity.

Treatise: One whose wholesome roots are already cut off is called “without wholesome roots.” If he possesses fewest, he still possesses eight faculties—namely the five feeling faculties together with body, life, and mind. ‘Feeling’ means what receives, because it takes in; or else it is so named because receiving is its very nature—just as what is complete in nature is named by the word ‘complete.’

Just as one whose wholesome roots are cut off possesses fewest at eight faculties, so a fool born in the formless realm likewise possesses eight. ‘Fool’ designates an ordinary being, because he has not yet seen the truths. Which eight? The five faculties beginning with confidence together with the life, mind, and equanimity faculties. The five faculties beginning with confidence are invariably wholesome, and so are called ‘the wholesome’ as a class. (Question:) If so, the three faculties without outflows should be included as well (for they too are wholesome). (Answer:) No—for the statement is made with reference to ‘eight faculties,’ and what is spoken of is ‘a fool born in the formless realm’ (an ordinary being has no faculty without outflows).

How many faculties, then, does one possess who possesses most? The stanza says:

〔Stanza 22〕The Gate of the Most Faculties Possessed

Stanza: Most is nineteen faculties—a person of both sexes excludes the three pure faculties; a noble one not yet free of desire excludes two pure faculties and one sexual form.

Treatise: A person possessing both sexes has all the faculties beginning with the eye complete; excluding the three faculties without outflows, he possesses the remaining nineteen. What is without outflows is called “pure” because it is free of the two bonds. A person of both sexes is necessarily an ordinary being of the desire realm and is not yet free of the craving of desire, and so has nineteen faculties.

(Question:) Is it only such a person who has nineteen faculties, or is there another besides? (Answer:) A noble one not yet free of desire also has nineteen—that is, a noble one still in training who is not yet free of the craving of desire possesses at most nineteen faculties as well, except that what he excludes is two faculties without outflows and one sexual form. If he abides on the path of seeing, he excludes the faculty of what is known and the faculty of full knowledge; if he abides on the path of cultivation, he excludes the faculty of coming to know what is not yet known and the faculty of full knowledge. One of the two faculties female and male is excluded, because no noble one is of both sexes.

Closing of the fascicle: Because the distinction between faculties and non-faculties arose in the analysis of the elements, the twenty-two faculties have on that occasion been extensively analyzed to their conclusion.

〔Head of the Fascicle〕All Dharmas Fall into Five Classes; This Fascicle Analyzes the Joint Arising of the First Four

Treatise: It should now be pondered whether, since all “conditioned dharmas” (dharmas fabricated by the coming together of many conditions) differ in their characteristics and therefore differ severally in their arising, there are any dharmas that must arise together. Answer: there are dharmas that definitely arise together. Stated in general, all dharmas fall in brief into five classes: first, form (dharmas that are material); second, mind (mind as sovereign, that is, consciousness itself); third, mental factors (the various mental operations that arise in dependence on mind); fourth, formations not associated with mind (dharmas that are neither form nor mind, provisionally set up upon the stations of form and mind); fifth, the unconditioned (dharmas not fabricated by conditions, without arising or cessation). The unconditioned has no “arising” at all, and so is not discussed here. Now the way in which form definitely arises together will be analyzed first. The stanza says:

〔Stanza 23〕Form Definitely Arises Together: Eight Entities, Nine Entities, Ten Entities

Stanza: In the desire realm the finest aggregate of form, if it contains no sound and no faculty, has eight entities arising together; if it contains the body faculty, nine; if it contains the eye or another of the remaining faculties, ten.

Treatise: When the aggregation of form reaches its finest, the name minute aggregate is established for it—to show that there is nothing finer than this. If such a minute aggregate is in the desire realm and has in it neither sound nor faculty, then eight entities arise together, and not one of the eight may be lacking. Which eight? The four great elements (earth, water, fire, and wind, the four that can produce) together with four kinds of derived form—color, odor, flavor, and the tangible. As for those aggregates of ultimate atoms that have no sound but do have a faculty, the entities arising together in them are either nine or ten: an aggregate containing the body faculty has nine entities arising together—the eight as before with the body faculty as the ninth; an aggregate containing one of the remaining faculties has ten entities arising together—the nine as before with one of the faculties beginning with the eye added. Eye, ear, nose, and tongue are never apart from the body faculty〔so an aggregate containing the eye faculty must contain the body faculty as well〕; while the four faculties eye, ear, nose, and tongue, set against one another, each occupy a different place〔so they are not heaped one upon another in a single aggregate〕. In all the aggregates above, if sound arises within them, the count rises in order to nine, ten, or eleven—for where there is sound, sound never arises apart from a faculty, being produced with appropriated great elements (great elements held by consciousness within the body) for its cause.

Question: if the four great elements are said to arise inseparably, why is it that in the many aggregates of form only one among hardness, wetness, warmth, and motion can be perceived and not the rest? Answer: in such an aggregate the element whose force predominates is clearly perceptible, while the entities of the other three are not absent. It is like feeling a needle-point and a bamboo tally bound together〔only the needle is felt, not the tally〕, or like tasting the flavor of salt mixed with flour〔only the saltiness is tasted, not the flour〕. Question: how then is it known that the other three are really there? Answer: because there are present the four operations of gathering (water’s drawing together), ripening (fire’s bringing to maturity), increasing (wind’s growth), and sustaining (earth’s upholding). There is another account: when a fitting condition is met, a hard thing displays the characteristics of flowing and moistening, which shows that they were there all along; just as in an aggregate of water a characteristic of warmth appears on account of extreme cold—though the four elements are inseparable, it is only that the operation of cold predominates, just as with feeling and with sound the operation may be strong or weak. And certain other masters say that within such an aggregate the remaining elements have only their seed (the capability of producing) and have not yet manifested their entity and characteristic, which is why the sūtra says 「於木聚中有種種界」 tr. “within an aggregate of wood there are various elements”—and 「界」 tr. “element” here means seed.

Question: how is it known that there is visible form within wind?〔Wind is not visible.〕 Answer: this point can only be accepted on the authority of the teaching and cannot be arrived at by inference. Or else: since the odor combined with wind is present and can be smelled, and since odor and visible form are inseparable〔it is known that there is visible form within wind〕. It was said above that in the form realm there is no odor and no flavor; therefore an aggregate in the form realm, if without sound, has six, seven, or eight〔entities arising together〕, and if with sound has seven, eight, or nine arising together. This may be inferred from the foregoing and is therefore not stated separately.

Question: is the word “entity” used here with reference to substance (a dharma’s own entity) or to sense field (the classification into twelve sense fields)? Answer: if you ask thus, what fault follows? Answer: fault follows on either side. If it is stated with reference to substance, then eight, nine, or ten is too few—for the minute aggregates must have shape, being an accumulation of many ultimate atoms together; heaviness or lightness necessarily accompanies them, and smoothness or roughness likewise; in some places there is also cold, hunger, and thirst. On this reckoning the number stated is at fault by being too few. If it is stated with reference to sense field, then eight, nine, or ten is too many—for the four great elements are all included in the sense field of the tangible, so that four and the rest should have been said. On this reckoning the number stated is at fault by being too many. Answer: in fact there is no fault on either side. It should be known that the word “entity” here is in one part stated with reference to substance, namely the great elements that are the support, and in one part stated with reference to sense field, namely the derived form that is supported. Question: if so, the “entities” of the great elements would come to be very many—for the several kinds of derived form each differ and each depend upon their own set of four great elements. Answer: it should be known that the statement here is made with reference to kinds of substance, since the several sets of four great elements are without difference of kind〔and so are stated together as four〕. Question: what need is there for such distinguishing talk? Answer: speech arises as one pleases; it is the sense that should be pondered. The definite co-arising of form has now been analyzed. The definite co-arising of the remaining dharmas should be analyzed next. The stanza says:

〔Stanza 24, First Half〕Mind and Mental Factors Necessarily Arise Together

Stanza: Mind and mental factors necessarily arise together; all conditioned formations arise together with the four characteristics, and some with acquisition.

Treatise: Mind and mental factors necessarily arise together: should either of them be lacking, the other does not appear. What is meant by “formations” is all conditioned dharmas, that is, form, mind, mental factors, and the formations not associated with mind. The two words “necessarily together” in the preceding line flow down to this line—meaning that when the formations of form, mind, and the rest arise, they necessarily appear together with the four conditioned characteristics (arising, abiding, change, and cessation). The words “and some with acquisition” mean that among the formations only dharmas belonging to a sentient being arise together with acquisition (that force by which something is possessed); dharmas〔belonging to what is not sentient〕are not so, and hence the word “some.” Mental factors were mentioned above; what, then, is a mental factor? The stanza says:

〔Stanza 24, Second Half〕Mental Factors Divided in General into Five Classes

Stanza: Mental factors fall provisionally into five classes, that is, the five distinguished as the factors of the great ground and the rest.

Treatise: The dharmas that are mental factors fall provisionally into five classes. Which five? First, the factors of the great ground; second, the factors of the great wholesome ground; third, the factors of the great defiled ground; fourth, the factors of the great unwholesome ground; fifth, the factors of the small defiled ground. “Ground” means the place of activity: if this dharma is the place in which that dharma is active, this dharma is said to be the “ground” of that. The ground of the “great dharmas” is therefore called the great ground〔the great ground here is mind as sovereign, and feeling and the other ten are called great dharmas because they pervade every mind〕; and any dharma here that belongs to the great ground is called a factor of the great ground—that is, those dharmas present in every mind at all times. What are they? The stanza says:

〔Stanza 25〕The Ten Factors of the Great Ground: Feeling, Perception, Volition, Contact, Desire, Discernment, Mindfulness, Attention, Resolve, Concentration

Stanza: Feeling, perception, volition, contact, and desire; discernment, mindfulness, and attention; resolve and concentration—these ten pervade every mind.

Treatise: It is transmitted thus: the ten dharmas listed above are present together and pervasively in every moment of mind. Among them—feeling is the three kinds of reception: painful, pleasant, and neither painful nor pleasant, since it has these distinctions. Perception is the taking up of the distinguishing characteristics of an object〔discriminating what a thing is and is not〕. Volition is what causes mind to fabricate〔driving mind to act〕. Contact is what arises from the coming together of faculty, object, and consciousness, and is able to make touch〔the meeting of mind with its object〕. Desire is seeking after the work to be done. Discernment is the ability to select among dharmas〔to distinguish and decide〕. Mindfulness is holding the object clearly in mind without losing it. Attention is what causes mind to be alert〔rousing mind and turning it toward an object〕. Resolve is the ability to endorse an object〔to settle that ‘it is thus and not otherwise’〕. Concentration is mind’s being one-pointed upon a single object. The modes of apprehension of mind and mental factors are exceedingly subtle: it is hard enough to distinguish them one by one as they succeed one another, still more so to distinguish those simultaneously present within one and the same moment. It is as with the various medicines that have form and are grasped by the faculties that are form: even the differences of their flavors are hard to know—how much more so dharmas without form, which can be grasped only by awakened discernment. The ten factors of the great ground have now been stated. The ground of the “great wholesome dharmas” is called the great wholesome ground; and any dharma here that belongs to the great wholesome ground is called a factor of the great wholesome ground—that is, those dharmas present in every wholesome mind at all times. What are they? The stanza says:

〔Stanza 26〕The Ten Factors of the Great Wholesome Ground: Confidence, Heedfulness, Pliancy, Equanimity, Conscience, Shame, Non-Greed, Non-Hatred, Non-Harming, Diligence

Stanza: Confidence and heedfulness, pliancy, equanimity, conscience, and shame, the two roots non-greed and non-hatred, and non-harming, together with diligence—these pervade wholesome minds alone.

Treatise: The dharmas above pervade every wholesome mind alone. Among them, confidence is what makes mind clear and settled〔like a water-clearing gem dropped into turbid water, whereupon the turbid water becomes clear〕. There is another account: it is the immediate acceptance and endorsement of the four truths, the three jewels, and karma and its results, and for that reason is called confidence. Heedfulness is the cultivating of wholesome dharmas and the keeping apart from unwholesome dharmas. Question: what then is “cultivating”? Answer: its very nature is the unwavering focus upon wholesome dharmas. In the scriptures of the other schools there is this explanation—guarding the mind is called heedfulness. Pliancy is mind’s workability〔mind become supple and usable〕.

Question: does not a sūtra also speak of “bodily pliancy”? Answer: although it is not the case that this is never said, it is like “bodily feeling”〔feeling is properly a mental factor, and when associated with the five consciousnesses is called bodily feeling〕; pliancy should be understood in the same way. Question:〔if bodily pliancy is a dharma with outflows associated with the five consciousnesses,〕how can it be established as a factor of awakening (one of the seven factors of awakening)? Answer: it should be known that the bodily pliancy spoken of here is the body’s workability〔that is, the contact of pliancy〕. Question: how then can it be called a factor of awakening? Answer: because it conforms to the factors of awakening there is no fault—since bodily pliancy can give rise to mental pliancy among the factors of awakening. Question: is such a way of speaking〔naming by conformity〕found elsewhere as well? Answer: it is. As the sūtra says: joy and the dharmas conducive to joy are alike called the awakening factor of joy; hatred and the causes and conditions of hatred are alike called the hindrance of ill will; right view, right intention, and right effort are together called the aggregate of discernment—and although intention and effort are not in themselves of the nature of discernment, they acquire the name of discernment because they conform to it. Therefore there is no fault in bodily pliancy acquiring the name of a factor of awakening because it conforms to the factors of awakening.

Mind’s evenness, its being without alertness, is called equanimity〔neither leaning to one side nor deliberately rousing itself〕. Question: how can it be said that within one and the same mind there is both alertness〔of attention〕and the absence of alertness〔of equanimity〕? Can attention and equanimity really be associated together? Answer: was it not already said above that the characteristics of mind and mental factors are subtle and hard to know? Question: some things that are hard to know can still be known when carefully examined; but this one is the hardest of all—to say that they are contrary and yet that they do not conflict. Answer: this one〔attention〕has alertness; upon that one〔equanimity〕there is none; the two being thus quite distinct, what conflict can there be? Question: if so, they should not take one and the same object; otherwise all〔dharmas of contrary nature〕would have to be associated with one another. Answer: with such a class of cases, the remaining dharmas here should all be sought out together; and following the tenor of those dharmas, the same should be understood here now. Conscience and shame, the two, will be stated below. The two roots are non-greed and non-hatred〔two of the three wholesome roots〕; the wholesome root non-delusion has discernment for its nature and has already been stated above among the factors of the great ground, and so is not again established as a factor of the great wholesome ground. Non-harming is the absence of harm and distress〔toward others〕. Diligence has for its nature the making of mind vigorous. The factors of the great wholesome ground have now been stated. The ground of the “great defiled dharmas” is called the great defiled ground; and any dharma here that belongs to the great defiled ground is called a factor of the great defiled ground—that is, those dharmas present in a defiled mind at all times. What are they? The stanza says:

〔Stanza 27, First Half〕The Six Factors of the Great Defiled Ground: Delusion, Heedlessness, Indolence, Lack of Confidence, Torpor, Restlessness

Stanza: Delusion, heedlessness, indolence, lack of confidence, torpor, and restlessness—these six are constant and belong to defiled minds alone.

Treatise: Among them, delusion is what is called folly and delusion, that is, ignorance, absence of cognition, absence of manifestation〔not illuminating, not deciding, not making clear〕. Heedless means heedlessness, not cultivating what is wholesome—and it is precisely what “cultivating what is wholesome”〔that is, heedfulness〕counteracts. Indolent means indolence, mind not vigorous—and it is precisely what the “diligence” stated above counteracts. Lack of confidence is mind not clear and settled—precisely what the “confidence” stated above counteracts. Torpid means torpor; the Abhidharma treatise says: what is torpor? It is heaviness of body and heaviness of mind, unworkability of body and unworkability of mind, torpidness of body and torpidness of mind—this is called torpor. Question: this〔torpor〕is a mental factor; how then is it called “bodily”? Answer: it is said as “bodily feeling” is said, and so there is no fault. Restless means restlessness, which makes mind unable to be still. Only such six as these are called factors of the great defiled ground.

Question: does not the root Abhidharma〔the root treatise〕say that there are ten factors of the great defiled ground, and does that treatise not omit torpor? Which ten?—lack of confidence, indolence, lost mindfulness, distracted mind, ignorance, incorrect knowing, improper attention, wrong resolve, restlessness, and heedlessness. Answer: Beloved of the gods!〔a westerners’ jesting term for a fool〕You now know only the letter of that treatise and do not grasp its intent. Question: what is the intent? Answer: the five—lost mindfulness, distracted mind, incorrect knowing, improper attention, and wrong resolve—have already been stated among the factors of the great ground〔having respectively mindfulness, concentration, discernment, attention, and resolve for their entity〕, and should not be established a second time as factors of the great defiled ground; just as non-delusion, having discernment for its entity, is not established separately〔among the factors of the great wholesome ground〕, so it should be with those five. Defiled “mindfulness” is called lost mindfulness, defiled “concentration” is called distracted mind, defiled “discernment” is called incorrect knowing, and defiled attention and resolve are called improper attention and wrong resolve—and that is why it was so stated.

Question: then is it the case that ‘whatever is a factor of the great ground is also a factor of the great defiled ground’? Answer: a fourfold analysis should be made. The first case〔a factor of the great ground but not of the great defiled ground〕is feeling, perception, volition, contact, and desire; the second case〔a factor of the great defiled ground but not of the great ground〕is lack of confidence, indolence, ignorance, restlessness, and heedlessness; the third case〔both〕is the five beginning with mindfulness stated above; the fourth case〔neither〕is whatever remains when the first three are set aside. Another master maintains that “wrong concentration” is not the same as “distracted mind,” and the fourfold analysis he makes differs from this.

A further question: since you〔Sarvāstivādins〕grant that torpor extends to association with every affliction, and yet do not state it among the factors of the great defiled ground, whose is the fault? Some speak thus: it ought to have been stated here, and the reason it was not is that it conforms to concentration—they hold that one whose mode is torpor readily gives rise to concentration, unlike one whose mode is restlessness. Question: who is of the mode of torpor and not of restlessness? Who is of the mode of restlessness and not of torpor? These two have never failed to operate at the same time. Answer: even so, it should be known that “mode” is said with reference to what predominates. Answer: granted that “mode” is said according to the predominance of operation, the establishing of a “ground-factor” must be made in dependence on a dharma that has its own entity, and so it is only as six that this ground-factor holds good in reasoning—because these six alone arise pervasively together with a defiled mind and do not extend elsewhere. The factors of the great defiled ground have now been stated. The ground of the “great unwholesome dharmas” is called the great unwholesome ground; and any dharma here that belongs to the great unwholesome ground is called a factor of the great unwholesome ground—that is, those dharmas present in an unwholesome mind at all times. What are they? The stanza says:

〔Stanza 27, Second Half〕The Two Factors of the Great Unwholesome Ground: Non-Conscience and Shamelessness

Stanza: What pervade every unwholesome mind alone are non-conscience and shamelessness.

Treatise: Only two mental factors arise together with every unwholesome mind alone, namely non-conscience and shamelessness, and so these two alone are called factors of the great unwholesome ground. The characteristics of these two dharmas will be analyzed below. The factors of the great unwholesome ground have now been stated. The ground of the “small defiled dharmas” is called the small defiled ground; and any dharma here that belongs to the small defiled ground is called a factor of the small defiled ground—that is, those dharmas that arise together only with a small portion of defiled minds. What are they? The stanza says:

〔Stanza 28〕The Ten Factors of the Small Defiled Ground: Rage, Concealment, Avarice, Envy, Vexation, Harmfulness, Resentment, Flattery, Deception, Self-Intoxication

Stanza: Rage, concealment, avarice, envy, vexation; harmfulness, resentment, flattery, deception, and self-intoxication—dharmas of this class are called factors of the small defiled ground.

Treatise: Dharmas of this class are abandoned through cultivation alone〔not through seeing〕, arise only on the ground of mental consciousness, are associated with ignorance alone, and operate each separately〔never two at once〕, and are therefore called factors of the small defiled ground. These dharmas will be analyzed at length below when the secondary afflictions are stated. The five classes of mental factors have now been stated. Besides these there are also the remaining indeterminate mental factors—regret, sleep, applied thought, sustained thought, and the like—which should be stated here. In which class of mind, then, how many mental factors definitely arise together? The stanza says:

〔Stanzas 29–31〕How Many Mental Factors Each of the Five Classes of Mind in the Desire Realm Has

Stanza: In the desire realm applied thought and sustained thought are necessarily present, and so the wholesome class has twenty-two mental factors, with regret sometimes added〔making twenty-three〕. Among unwholesome minds, the class associated with independent ignorance and the class associated with view have twenty only; the class of the four afflictions, the class of the secondary afflictions such as rage, and the class of regret have twenty-one each. The obscured-indeterminate class has eighteen; the unobscured-indeterminate class is granted twelve. Sleep is not incompatible with any class, and where there is sleep every class gains one.

Treatise: Taking the desire realm, mind falls into five classes: wholesome mind is a single class; unwholesome mind is of two classes—that associated with “independent ignorance,” and that associated with the remaining afflictions and the rest; indeterminate mind is of two classes—obscured-indeterminate and unobscured-indeterminate. And since mind in the desire realm necessarily has applied thought and sustained thought, the wholesome class necessarily has twenty-two mental factors arising together, namely the ten factors of the great ground, the ten factors of the great wholesome ground, and the two indeterminate dharmas applied thought and sustained thought. Not every wholesome mind has regret; where it is present the count rises to twenty-three.

Question: what is regret? Answer: the entity of an evil deed done is called “an evil deed done.” It should be known that the name regret is here established from ‘the dharma that takes an evil deed done as its object’—that is, the nature that regrets and repents in taking one’s own evil deed as its object. Just as the door of liberation that takes “emptiness” as its object is called the “emptiness door of liberation”〔though its entity is in fact concentration〕, and the non-greed that takes “the unclean” as its object is called “the unclean〔contemplation〕”〔though its entity is in fact non-greed〕. Again, just as the world commonly names what is supported by the place that supports it, as when it is said that ‘all villages, towns, and lands are assembling’〔though what assemble are people〕; and regret is precisely the place upon which repentance depends, and so takes its name from that support. Again, as when the name of a cause is provisionally set up upon the entity of a result, as when it is said that ‘these six sense fields of contact should be known as karma done in the past’〔the six sense fields being the result and past karma the cause〕.

Question: if the object is a thing “not done,” how can it also be called regret? Answer: the name “done” may be established even for what is not done, as when in repenting one says: ‘I did not formerly do such work; this is my regret.’ Question: what kind of regret is wholesome? Answer: repenting over ‘not having done the good that should be done, and having done the evil that should not be done’—this is wholesome regret; the contrary〔repenting having done good, repenting not having done evil〕is called unwholesome. These two arise respectively in dependence upon the two grounds, the wholesome and the evil.

If it is the unwholesome class associated with independent ignorance, twenty mental factors necessarily arise together, namely the ten factors of the great ground, the six factors of the great defiled ground, the two factors of the great unwholesome ground, and the two indeterminate dharmas applied thought and sustained thought. Question: what is meant by the independent class of mind? Answer: it is the class of mind in which there is only ignorance, without the remaining afflictions such as greed. In the unwholesome class of mind associated with view twenty mental factors likewise arise together, the names and numbers being as stated for the independent class above; it does not become twenty-one because view has been added—for “view” is only a difference of operation belonging to “discernment” among the ten factors of the great ground. By “unwholesome mind associated with view” is meant a mind in which there is either wrong view, or the grasping at views, or the grasping at rules and observances. In the class of mind of the four unwholesome afflictions, greed, hatred, pride, and doubt, twenty-one mental factors arise together—twenty as in the independent class, plus one of greed and the rest. In the class associated with the secondary afflictions such as rage spoken of above, twenty-one mental factors likewise arise together—twenty as in the independent class, plus one of rage and the rest. In the unwholesome class of mind associated with regret, twenty-one mental factors likewise arise together—that is, with regret counted as the twenty-first. Stated in brief: among unwholesome minds the independent class and the class associated with view have twenty only, while the classes associated with the remaining four afflictions and with the secondary afflictions have twenty-one.

If it is the obscured-indeterminate class of mind, only eighteen mental factors arise together, namely the ten factors of the great ground and the six factors of the great defiled ground, together with the two indeterminate dharmas applied thought and sustained thought. Obscured-indeterminate mind in the desire realm means the mind associated with the view of a real person (the view of self) and with the extreme view; here too the count is not increased on account of “view,” the reason being as explained above. In the remaining unobscured-indeterminate class of mind, twelve mental factors are granted to arise together, namely the ten factors of the great ground together with the indeterminate applied thought and sustained thought. The masters abroad maintain that regret extends to the indeterminate as well, in which case this associated class would have thirteen mental factors arising together. It should be known that sleep is not incompatible with any of the classes of mind stated above, since it extends to all three ethical qualities—wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate; whichever class has sleep is said to gain one, so that twenty-two becomes twenty-three and twenty-three becomes twenty-four, and the unwholesome and indeterminate are to be reckoned in the same way. The fixed measure of the classes of mental factors arising together in the desire realm has now been stated; the upper realms should be stated next. The stanza says:

〔Stanza 32〕The Progressive Reduction of Mental Factors in the Upper Realms

Stanza: The first meditative absorption removes what is unwholesome alone, together with regret and sleep; the intermediate absorption further removes applied thought; higher still there is the further removal of sustained thought and the rest.

Treatise: In the first meditative absorption, of the mental factors stated above, what is “unwholesome alone” is removed, together with regret and sleep, and the rest are all present. By “what is unwholesome alone” is meant the affliction of hatred, together with the remaining ones such as rage〔the seven small afflictions〕apart from flattery, deception, and self-intoxication, and also non-conscience and shamelessness. The words ‘the rest are all present’ are as stated for the desire realm. The intermediate absorption removes what was removed above and further removes applied thought, the rest being all present. From the second meditative absorption upward as far as the formless realm, what was removed above is removed and “sustained thought and the rest” is removed besides—the word “and the rest” showing that flattery and deception are removed too; the rest are all present as before.

The sūtra says that flattery and deception reach at most as high as the Brahmā heaven, because there there is still “mutual dependence among the multitude”〔the ordering of ruler and subject, of higher and lower〕, and above that they are not found. There was once this event: the Great Brahmā King was in the midst of his own Brahmā assembly when he was suddenly asked by the monk Aśvajit, ‘At what station do these four great elements cease without remainder?’ The Brahmā King did not know the station of cessation without remainder, and so answered evasively and confusedly: ‘Here in this Brahmā assembly I am the Great Brahmā, the sovereign, the maker, the transformer, the producer, the nourisher, the father of all〔beings〕.’ Having said this, he drew Aśvajit outside the assembly and, speaking flatteringly, made a shamefaced apology and told him to go back and ask the Buddha. The number of mental factors in the several classes of mind in the several realms and levels has now been stated; there should next be stated a few of the distinctions among the mental factors analyzed above. What is the difference between non-conscience and shamelessness, and between love and respect? The stanza says:

〔Stanza 33〕The Difference between Non-Conscience and Shamelessness; the Difference between Love and Respect

Stanza: Non-conscience is not honoring〔qualities and those who have them〕; shamelessness is seeing no fear in wrongdoing; love is confidence and respect is conscience, and these two exist only in the desire and form realms.

Treatise: Among them the difference between non-conscience and shamelessness is this—to have, toward qualities and toward those who possess them, no reverence and no esteem, nothing that gives one pause, and nothing to which one submits oneself, is called non-conscience, and it is precisely the adversary of “reverence.” A dharma reproved and rejected by the good is called wrongdoing; to see nothing to fear〔in the results〕of such wrongdoing is called shamelessness. The word “fear” here shows that fear can arise from an undesired result.

Question: what is the “seeing no fear” meant to show? Is it ‘seeing and yet not fearing’ that is called seeing no fear, or is it ‘not seeing its fearsome〔result〕’ that is called seeing no fear? Answer: what fault follows if you ask thus? Answer: fault follows on either side—if it is seeing and yet not fearing, then what is shown must be〔wrong〕cognition; if it is not seeing its fearsome result, then what is shown must be ignorance. Answer: this phrase is not meant to show either seeing or not seeing. Question: what then is it meant to show? Answer: it is meant to show that there is another dharma, a secondary affliction, which is the cause of those two〔wrong cognition and ignorance〕, and this is what is called shamelessness.

Certain other masters say: to feel no disgrace regarding the wrongdoing one has committed, in respect of oneself, is called non-conscience; and to feel no disgrace in respect of others is called shamelessness. Question: if so, the two differ in what they regard—how can they arise together? Answer: it is not being said that the two regard self and other separately at one and the same time; rather, that “shamelessness” whose operation predominates in regarding oneself is called non-conscience, and that shamelessness whose operation predominates in regarding others is called shamelessness. The difference between conscience and shame is known by reversing the above: reversing the first explanation, to have reverence and esteem, something that gives one pause, and something to which one submits oneself, is called conscience; and to see fear in wrongdoing is called shame. Reversing the second explanation, to feel disgrace in respect of oneself for the wrongdoing committed is called conscience, and to feel disgrace in respect of others is called shame. The difference between non-conscience and shamelessness has now been stated.

The difference between love and respect is this—“love” is loving delight, and its entity is confidence. Yet love is of two kinds: defiled and undefiled. The defiled is greed, as in love for wife and children; the undefiled is confidence, as in love for teachers and elders.〔Making a fourfold analysis of confidence and love:〕confidence and not love is the confidence that takes the truths of suffering and origin as its object〔accepting them as suffering and origin, and yet not delighting in them〕; love and not confidence is every defiled love; both confidence and love is the confidence that takes the truths of cessation and the path as its object〔both accepting and delighting〕; neither confidence nor love is whatever remains when the first three are set aside. There is another account: confidence is the acceptance and endorsement of what has qualities, and it is upon this that loving delight arises afterwards, and so love is not confidence.

“Respect” is reverent regard, and its entity is conscience—as was said above in explaining conscience, ‘having reverence’ and the rest.〔Making cases of conscience and respect:〕conscience and not respect is the conscience that takes the truths of suffering and origin as its object; both conscience and respect is the conscience that takes the truths of cessation and the path as its object. There is another account: respect is holding something in esteem, and it is upon this that conscience and disgrace arise afterwards, and so respect is not conscience.

If the object is a pudgala (a sentient being, a person), the presence or absence of love and respect should be set out in four cases: love without respect, as toward wife and children and toward disciples living together; respect without love, as toward another’s teacher and toward men of quality and rank; both love and respect, as toward one’s own teacher, one’s parents, one’s uncles; neither love nor respect, whatever remains when the first three are set aside. Love and respect of this sort exist in the desire and form realms and not in the formless realm. Question: are not confidence and conscience factors of the great wholesome ground, and are they not present in the formless realm as well? Answer: love and respect are of two kinds—those that take dharmas as their object and those that take a pudgala as their object; those that take dharmas as their object exist in all three realms, while what is spoken of here are those that take a pudgala as their object, and so they exist in the desire and form realms and not in the formless realm. The difference between love and respect has now been stated. What is the difference between applied thought and sustained thought, and between pride and self-intoxication? The stanza says:

〔Stanza 34〕The Difference between Applied and Sustained Thought; the Difference between Pride and Self-Intoxication

Stanza: Applied and sustained thought are the coarseness and fineness of mind; pride is mind exalting itself against another, and self-intoxication is mind grown high and unrestrained through attachment to what belongs to oneself.

Treatise: The difference between applied and sustained thought is this—they are the coarseness and fineness of mind: mind’s coarse nature is called applied thought, and mind’s fine nature is called sustained thought. Question: how can these two be associated with one and the same mind〔coarse and fine being contrary〕? Some explain thus: it is like clarified butter floating on cold water with the light of a blazing sun striking it from above—by the working of the water and of the sun the butter neither congeals nor melts; just so, in one mind there is applied thought and sustained thought, and by reason of them mind becomes neither too fine nor too coarse, so that both have their operation within one mind.

〔The author of the treatise objects:〕if so, applied and sustained thought are only the cause of coarseness and fineness and not their entity; just as water and sunlight are the cause of congealing and melting, while the entity of the sun is not itself congealing or melting. Again, the natures of coarse and fine are established relatively—by comparing realms, levels, and grades of high and low against one another〔the upper being fine relative to the lower, the lower coarse relative to the upper〕—so that even the summit of existence would then have applied and sustained thought. Again, the natures of coarse and fine have no separate kinds of entity, and applied and sustained thought cannot be distinguished by them.

There is another explanation, that the two dharmas applied thought and sustained thought are verbal formations (the cause of utterance), and that the sūtra therefore says ‘there is speech only where there are applied and sustained thought, and where there are none there is no such verbal formation’; among them the coarse is called applied thought and the fine sustained thought—within a single mind, one distinct dharma being coarse and another distinct dharma fine, what conflict is there in reason?〔The author of the treatise objects:〕if there really were separate kinds of entity there would indeed be no conflict in reason; but there are no separate kinds of entity, and so a conflict with reason does follow—for within a single kind of entity it is not admissible that high and low〔coarse and fine〕arise at the same time. If it be said that the kinds of entity do differ, then the distinguishing characteristic of those kinds should be stated. Answer: the distinguishing characteristic of the kinds of these two is hard to state, and their distinguishing characteristic can be shown only by higher and lower〔set against each other〕.〔The author of the treatise objects:〕a distinguishing characteristic cannot be shown by higher and lower—for within each kind there are again higher and lower. From this it should be known that the two dharmas applied and sustained thought definitely may not be held to be associated with one and the same mind. Question: if so, why does the sūtra say that the first meditative absorption is complete with five limbs〔applied thought, sustained thought, joy, pleasure, and concentration〕? Answer: “complete with five limbs” is said with reference to a level and not with reference to a single moment, and so there is no fault. The difference between applied and sustained thought has now been stated.

The difference between pride and self-intoxication is this—pride is the nature of mind exalting itself against another: weighing the difference in the qualities and classes of oneself and of another, mind exalts and relies upon itself and slights another, and so it is called pride. Self-intoxication is the nature of mind grown haughty and unrestrained, preceded by attachment to what belongs to oneself. Another master says: just as the difference of elated exaltation produced by liquor is called “drunkenness,” so the difference of elated exaltation produced by greed is called “self-intoxication.” Such is the characteristic difference between pride and self-intoxication. The differences among the classes of mind and mental factors and the ways in which they arise together have now been stated. Yet mind and mental factors are given various names in the sūtras according to the sense intended, and the differences of these names and senses should now be analyzed. The stanza says:

〔Stanza 35〕Mind, Thought, and Consciousness Are One in Entity; the Four Names of Mind and Mental Factors and the Five Senses of Association

Stanza: The three names mind, thought, and consciousness are one in entity; mind and mental factors are alike called “having a support,” “having an object,” “having a mode of apprehension,” and “associated”—and “associated” has five senses.

Treatise: Because it gathers and gives rise, it is called mind; because it deliberates, it is called thought; because it discerns, it is called consciousness. There is another explanation: because of the various differences of pure and impure elements it is called mind; because this very thing〔mind〕serves as the support of another〔consciousness〕it is called thought; and because it is what does the depending, it is called consciousness. Therefore, although the senses conveyed by the three names mind, thought, and consciousness differ, the entity is one.

Just as the three names mind, thought, and consciousness differ in sense and are one in entity, so it is with mind and mental factors being called “having a support,” “having an object,” “having a mode of apprehension,” and “associated”—the names and senses differ and the entity is one. That is: mind and mental factors are all called having a support, because they must rely on a supporting faculty〔in order to arise〕; or having an object, because they must take up an object; or having a mode of apprehension, because upon the distinctions among the classes of the object they raise up a mode of apprehension〔the image of the object appearing upon mind〕; or associated, because they are evenly conjoined.

Question: in what sense are they called “evenly conjoined”? Answer: because of five senses: mind and mental factors are even in five senses, and are therefore said to be associated—namely, support, object, mode of apprehension, time, and entity are all even. What is meant by evenness of entity is that within a single association, just as the entity of mind is only one, so each of the dharmas that are mental factors is only one. The extensive analysis of mind and mental factors has now been stated. What are the formations not associated with mind? The stanza says:

〔Stanza 36〕The General Enumeration of the Fourteen Formations Not Associated with Mind

Stanza: The formations not associated with mind are acquisition, non-acquisition, commonality, the result of non-perception, the two absorptions〔the absorption without perception and the absorption of cessation〕, the life faculty, the four characteristics, the name-bodies and the rest—dharmas of this class.

Treatise: Dharmas such as these are not associated with mind and are not of the nature of form and the rest, yet are included in the aggregate of formations, and are therefore called formations not associated with mind. Among them the characteristics of acquisition and non-acquisition will be analyzed first. The stanza says:

〔Stanza 37〕The Nature of Acquisition and Non-Acquisition, and What They Rest Upon

Stanza: “Acquisition” is obtaining and possession; “non-acquisition” is the contrary of this; acquisition and non-acquisition rest only upon one’s own continuum and upon the two cessations.

Treatise: Acquisition is of two kinds: first, what has never been acquired, or has been acquired and lost, being now obtained—this is called “obtaining”; second, what has been acquired and not lost, continuing on—this is called “possession.” It should be known that non-acquisition is the contrary of these〔that is, non-obtaining and non-possession〕.

Question: in which dharmas are acquisition and non-acquisition found? Answer: in one’s own continuum and in the two cessations (cessation through discernment and cessation independent of discernment). That is: among conditioned dharmas, only those falling within one’s own continuum have acquisition and non-acquisition; not those in another’s continuum, since no one can possess a dharma belonging to another’s body; nor upon what is not a continuum〔external and insentient〕, since no one can possess a dharma of what is insentient. So it is definitely with conditioned dharmas. As for unconditioned dharmas, acquisition and non-acquisition are found only upon the two cessations. There is no sentient being that does not possess cessation independent of discernment, and so in the Abhidharma treatise it is transmitted thus: who possesses dharmas without outflows? All sentient beings—and apart from the noble one still fully bound in the first moment〔of the path of seeing〕and all remaining fully bound ordinary beings, the rest of sentient beings possess cessation through discernment. There is definitely no one who possesses space, and so no acquisition is spoken of with regard to space; and since there is no acquisition, neither is there non-acquisition—for this school holds that acquisition and non-acquisition are established as the reverse of one another. That whatever has acquisition also has non-acquisition may be inferred by reasoning, and so is not separately explained.

Question: on what ground is it known that there is a separate thing called “acquisition”? Answer: because the sūtra so says. As the sūtra says: ‘A noble one, with regard to those ten dharmas of one beyond training, by their arising, by their acquisition, by their possession, has cut off the five limbs …’ and so on at length. Question: if so, then what is insentient and another’s continuum should also be possessed. Answer: why do you say so? Question: because the sūtra so says. As the sūtra says: ‘Monks, you should know that there is a wheel-turning monarch who possesses the seven treasures …’ and so on at length. Answer: here sovereignty is spoken of as possession—that is, the wheel-turning monarch has sovereign power over those seven treasures and sets them in motion as he pleases〔and so is said to possess them〕. Question: since here sovereignty is spoken of as possession, on what ground is it known from the remaining〔sūtra passages〕that there is a separate thing? Answer: what is unreasonable in granting that there is a separate thing?

Question: this is what is unreasonable—the “acquisition” you posit has no entity that can be known, as color and sound and the rest can be〔known by direct perception through the five consciousnesses〕or as greed and hatred and the rest can be〔known by the cognition of others’ minds〕; nor has it any operation that can be known, as the eye and ear and the rest have〔whose presence is inferred from the operation of seeing and hearing〕. Therefore it is not admissible that there be a separate thing called acquisition; and to posit a separate thing is precisely what is unreasonable.

If it be said that this “acquisition” does have an operation—namely, being the cause of the arising of the dharmas acquired—then an unconditioned dharma〔which does not arise〕should have no acquisition. Again, when a dharma to be acquired has not yet been acquired, or has been relinquished〔through change of realm and level or through freedom from defilement〕, at that time no acquisition is present—how then is it to arise in the future? If it be said that a ‘co-arising acquisition’ is the cause of arising, then what work is left for arising and the arising of arising〔among the four characteristics〕? Again, an insentient dharma〔having no acquisition〕would then definitely never arise. Again, for one fully bound〔an ordinary being〕there could be no difference between the appearing of afflictions of the lower, middling, and higher grades—since acquisition has no differences. And if it be said that the difference comes from some other cause, then it is by that〔other cause〕that the dharmas should arise, and what use is “acquisition”? Therefore what they say—that acquisition has an operation, namely being the cause of the arising of the dharmas acquired—does not hold good in reason.

Question: who says that this “acquisition” is the cause of the arising of a dharma? Question: if so, what operation has this acquisition? Answer: it is the cause by which differences are established. Question: why do you say so? Answer: if there were no acquisition, then when an ordinary being and a noble one give rise to a worldly mind there would be no way of establishing the difference between an ordinary being and the noble ones. Question: is there not a difference already, in that afflictions have been cut off or not cut off? Answer: if you hold that there is no acquisition, how can you say that afflictions are cut off or not cut off? Only for one who grants acquisition do cutting off and not cutting off make sense—because the acquisition of the affliction has been separated from or not separated from. Answer: it is because of a difference in the support〔the body〕that the sense of afflictions being cut off or not cut off is established: the noble ones, by the power of the paths of seeing and of cultivation, cause the supporting body to be transformed and made other than it was, so that with regard to the afflictions abandoned by those two paths there is no longer any power to make them appear—just as a seed burnt by fire is transformed and made other than before and has no power to produce; so too, when in the noble one’s supporting body there is no capacity to produce an affliction, that is called the affliction’s being cut off. Or when by the mundane path the seeds of affliction in the supporting body are subdued, that too is called cutting off; the contrary is called not cut off. Whatever is not cut off is said to be possessed, and whatever is cut off is said not to be possessed—and both of these are merely provisional and not real.

Wholesome dharmas are of two kinds: those cultivated without effort and those cultivated only by effort, that is, wholesome acquired by birth and wholesome acquired through preparation. As for what is cultivated without effort: if the seed in the supporting body has not been damaged, it is said to be possessed; if the seed has been damaged, it is said not to be possessed—as with one whose wholesome roots are cut off, who by the force of wrong view has damaged the seeds of wholesome roots in his supporting body; it should be known that this is what is called cutting off, and it is not that the seeds of wholesome roots in the supporting body must be utterly slain for it to be called cutting off. As for what is cultivated only by effort: if that dharma has already arisen in the supporting body and the effort producing it is sovereign and undamaged, it is said to be possessed; the contrary is said not to be possessed. These two also are provisional and not real. Therefore the name “possession” is established simply at the station in which, in the supporting body, a seed is unuprooted, undamaged, and grown sovereign, and there is no separate thing at all.

Question: what dharma here is called a seed? Answer: it is the capability—serially transmitted or immediately proximate—that name and form〔the five aggregates〕have with respect to producing their own result; and this is constituted by continuum, transformation, and distinctiveness. Question: what is transformation? Answer: it is the nature of being other before and after within a continuum. Question: what is continuum? Answer: it is the formations of the three times in their causal and resultant nature. Question: what is distinctiveness? Answer: it is the capability of producing a result without interval.

Yet in one place a sūtra says ‘if one possesses greed one cannot cultivate the four foundations of mindfulness’—the sense of that sūtra being that one who indulges in the affliction of greed cannot turn away from it〔as it is actually occurring〕, and so is said to possess it; and during the time when he is disposed to indulge in greed and craving he certainly cannot cultivate the four foundations of mindfulness〔it is not that mere possession of the seed prevents cultivation〕. “Possession” of this sort is in every kind merely provisional and not real; and “non-possession,” which is named simply by the negation of this〔possession〕, is likewise provisional and not real. The Vaibhāṣikas say: both of these are separate things, real and not provisional.〔The author of the treatise says:〕viewing the matter thus, both roads may be reckoned well stated. Question: why? Answer:〔the Sautrāntika account〕does not conflict with reason;〔the Sarvāstivāda account〕is what my own school holds. The nature of acquisition and non-acquisition has now been analyzed; what are their differences? Acquisition will be analyzed first. The stanza says:

〔Stanzas 38 and 39, First Half〕The Five Gates of Difference in Acquisition

Stanza: Dharmas of the three times each have acquisitions of the three times; dharmas that are wholesome and the rest have acquisitions that are wholesome and the rest only. A dharma bound to a realm has its acquisition in its own realm only; a dharma unbound has acquisitions extending to four kinds. A dharma neither of training nor beyond training has three kinds of acquisition, and a dharma not subject to abandonment has two.

Treatise: The gate of the three times—dharmas of the three times each have three kinds of acquisition: a past dharma has a past acquisition, a future acquisition, and a present acquisition; future and present dharmas likewise each have three kinds of acquisition.

The gate of the three ethical qualities—again, dharmas that are wholesome and the rest have acquisitions that are wholesome and the rest only: that is, wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate dharmas have respectively wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate acquisitions.

The gate of realm affiliation—again, a dharma bound to a realm has its acquisition in its own realm only: that is, dharmas of the desire, form, and formless realms have respectively acquisitions of the desire, form, and formless realms only. If a dharma is unbound〔without outflows〕, its acquisition extends to four kinds: that is, dharmas without outflows have, in general, four kinds of acquisition—acquisitions of the three realms together with an acquisition without outflows. Taken separately: the acquisition of cessation independent of discernment extends to all three realms; the acquisition of cessation through discernment belongs to the form and formless realms and is also without outflows; the acquisition of the truth of the path is without outflows alone. Therefore an unbound dharma has four kinds of acquisition.

The gate of the three kinds of training—again, a dharma of training has an acquisition of training only, and a dharma beyond training an acquisition beyond training only; the acquisition of what is neither of training nor beyond training admits of a distinction: in general there are three kinds. Taken separately: all dharmas with outflows and the three unconditioned dharmas are called dharmas neither of training nor beyond training. Dharmas with outflows have acquisitions neither of training nor beyond training only; and so it is with the acquisition of cessation independent of discernment and with the acquisition of a cessation through discernment not induced by the noble path. If it is a cessation through discernment induced by the path of training, its acquisition is of training; if induced by the path beyond training, its acquisition is beyond training.

The gate of the three modes of abandonment—again, dharmas abandoned through seeing and abandoned through cultivation have respectively acquisitions abandoned through seeing and abandoned through cultivation. The acquisition of a dharma not subject to abandonment admits of a distinction: in general there are two kinds. Taken separately: the dharmas without outflows are called not subject to abandonment; the acquisition of cessation independent of discernment is abandoned through cultivation only, and so is the acquisition of a cessation through discernment not induced by the noble path; the acquisition of a cessation through discernment induced by the noble path, and the acquisition of the truth of the path, are both not subject to abandonment. Though it was stated above in general that ‘dharmas of the three times each have three,’ the distinguishing characteristics within this should now be sorted out. The stanza says:

〔Stanza 39, Second Half, and Stanza 40, First Half〕The Differences in the Three Times of the Acquisition of Indeterminate and Other Dharmas

Stanza: The acquisition of what is indeterminate arises only together with it, save for the two superknowledges and transformation; the acquisition of obscured〔indeterminate〕form likewise arises only together with it; in the desire realm〔wholesome and unwholesome form〕has no acquisition preceding the dharma.

Treatise: The acquisition of what is unobscured-indeterminate arises only together with the dharma and is neither earlier nor later—because its force is feeble: if the dharma is past, the acquisition is past; if the dharma is future, the acquisition is future; if the dharma is present, the acquisition is present.

Question: is the acquisition of every unobscured-indeterminate dharma like this? Answer: no. Question: how so? Answer: the two superknowledges of the eye and the ear are to be excepted, and also what is capable of transformation〔that is, the mind〕. That is: the discernment that is the superknowledge of the eye and of the ear, and the mind capable of transformation, being of strong force and accomplished through the distinctions of preparatory practice, though included within the unobscured-indeterminate quality, have acquisitions preceding, following, and arising together with them. If the field of craft and the mode of deportment are practiced to an extreme degree, their acquisitions too may perhaps be like this.

Question: is it only the acquisition of an unobscured-indeterminate dharma that arises together with it alone? Answer: no. Question: how so? Answer: obscured-indeterminate form has its acquisition likewise—that is, obscured-indeterminate manifest form has its acquisition, as stated above, arising together with it alone. For although〔the affliction that produces it〕may be of the higher grade, it still cannot give rise to nonmanifest form, which shows that its force is feeble; and therefore it definitely has no acquisition preceding or following the dharma.

Question: as the acquisition of an indeterminate dharma has such distinctions, do the acquisitions of the wholesome and the unwholesome have differences too? Answer: they do. Question: how so? Answer: wholesome form and unwholesome form belonging to the desire realm have no acquisition “preceding the dharma,” but have only a co-arising acquisition and an acquisition following the dharma. Question: does non-acquisition, like acquisition, have all these classes of difference? Answer: no. Question: how so? The stanza says:

〔Stanza 40, Second Half, and Stanza 41〕The Differences of Non-Acquisition and Its Relinquishing

Stanza: Non-acquisition is unobscured-indeterminate alone; past and future dharmas each have non-acquisitions of the three times. Dharmas of the three realms and unbound dharmas each have non-acquisitions of the three realms; since the non-acquisition of the noble path is granted to be ordinary-being status〔it is known that non-acquisition does not extend to what is without outflows〕. When that dharma is acquired, or when the level is changed, that non-acquisition is relinquished.

Treatise: The difference of the three ethical qualities—every non-acquisition is included within the unobscured-indeterminate quality alone.

The difference of the three times—past and future each have three kinds: that is, a present dharma definitely has no present non-acquisition but only a past non-acquisition and a future non-acquisition; while past and future dharmas each have non-acquisitions of all three times.

The difference of realm affiliation—dharmas bound to the three realms and unbound dharmas each have non-acquisitions of the three realms: that is, a dharma bound to the desire realm has non-acquisitions of the three realms〔according to the realm in which the supporting body is〕, and so it is with dharmas bound to the form and formless realms and with unbound dharmas. There is definitely no non-acquisition that is without outflows. Why? Because it is granted that ‘the non-acquisition of the noble path’ is what is called ordinary-being status〔the status of a worldling〕. As the root treatise says: ‘What is ordinary-being status? It is not obtaining the noble dharmas.’ “Not obtaining” is precisely another name for non-acquisition; and to say that ordinary-being status is without outflows does not hold good in reason.

Question: the non-obtaining of which noble dharmas is called ordinary-being status? Answer: the non-obtaining of all〔the noble dharmas of the three vehicles〕—since the root treatise states no distinction. These words “not obtaining” express separation from “obtaining”; were it otherwise〔and did merely failing to obtain something make one an ordinary being〕, then the Buddhas, the World-Honored Ones, who also do not possess the noble dharmas of the śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha lineages, would have to be called ordinary beings. Question: if so, the root treatise ought to have added the word “wholly”〔saying “wholly not obtaining the noble dharmas”〕. Answer: there is no need to add it, for the sense of “wholly” is already contained in this one phrase—just as when it is said that ‘this class〔of beings〕feeds on water, feeds on wind’〔though “wholly” is not said, it is understood that they feed on water and wind alone〕.

There is another account: it is the non-obtaining of receptivity to the cognition of dharma concerning suffering and of the dharmas arising together with it that is called ordinary-being status. 〔Against this〕it cannot be objected that ‘at the subsequent cognition concerning the path this dharma is relinquished—must one not then become a non-noble one?’—because the non-acquisition of that〔receptivity concerning suffering〕has already been permanently destroyed before. Question: if so, since this〔nature of receptivity concerning suffering〕extends to all three vehicles, the non-obtaining of which vehicle’s is called ordinary-being status? Answer: here too it should be said “the non-obtaining of all.” Question: if so, then the same objection as before arises. Answer: this objection too should be resolved as before. Question: if so, is the second statement not made to no purpose?〔The author of the treatise says:〕what the Sautrāntika masters say is better. Question: what is the Sautrāntika sense? Answer: it is that the difference of station within a continuum in which noble dharmas ‘have never yet arisen’ is what is called ordinary-being status.

Question: when is such a non-acquisition relinquished? Answer: the non-acquisition of a dharma is relinquished when that dharma is acquired, or when the level is changed. Just as the non-acquisition of the noble path is called ordinary-being status and is relinquished when this noble path is acquired or when the level is changed. The non-acquisitions of the other dharmas should be pondered in the same way. When the acquisition of a non-acquisition is cut off and the non-acquisition of the non-acquisition arises, this is called relinquishing the non-acquisition.

Question: do acquisition and non-acquisition have further acquisitions and non-acquisitions of their own? Answer: it should be said that these two each have a further acquisition and non-acquisition. Question: if so, does not an infinite regress follow? Answer: no infinite regress follows, since it is granted that acquisitions may reciprocally cause one another to be possessed. That is: when a dharma arises, three dharmas arise together with its own entity—first, the root dharma; second, the acquisition of the dharma〔the major acquisition〕; third, the acquisition of the acquisition〔the minor acquisition〕. Within the continuum, the arising of the acquisition of the dharma causes the root dharma and the acquisition of the acquisition to be possessed; and the arising of the acquisition of the acquisition causes the acquisition of the dharma to be possessed—so that no infinite regress follows here. In this way, when the entity of a wholesome or a defiled dharma first arises, three dharmas arise together with that entity; at the second moment six dharmas arise together, namely three acquisitions of dharmas and three acquisitions of acquisitions; at the third moment eighteen dharmas arise together, namely, with respect to the〔nine〕dharmas produced at the first and second moments, nine acquisitions of dharmas and nine acquisitions of acquisitions. In this way the acquisitions increase further and further one after another.

All past and future afflictions and secondary afflictions, together with the wholesome acquired by birth, being associated moment by moment〔as they arise〕and together with the coexistent〔dharmas〕, produce in the turning of birth and death without beginning or end acquisitions without limit—in a single sentient being alone, moment by moment in the continuum of birth and death, acquisitions without limit arise; and in this way the continua of all sentient beings, each of them separate, produce moment by moment immeasurable and limitless acquisitions arising all together. Acquisitions so many as this gather in one place in the greatest number, and because they are without resistance they can contain one another. Were it not so, space would already not contain the acquisitions of a single sentient being, still less those of a second and the rest.

〔Stanza 42, First Line〕Commonality—The Real Thing by Which Sentient Beings Resemble One Another

Stanza: Commonality is the dharma that makes sentient beings “alike.”

Treatise: There is a separate real thing named “commonality”—it makes sentient beings equal in class as they succeed one another. The Root Treatise (the fundamental treatise of the Sarvāstivādins) calls it “the commonality of sentient beings.” This commonality is again of two kinds: undifferentiated and differentiated. Undifferentiated commonality is the “commonality of sentient beings” shared by all sentient beings—because every sentient being possesses it equally. Differentiated commonality is the commonality established severally for sentient beings according to realm, level, destiny, mode of birth, and lineage, and according to female, male, lay follower (a householder who has taken the precepts), monk (one gone forth), one in training, one beyond training, and the rest—because sentient beings of one class each possess it equally. There is also dharma-commonality, established according to the aggregates, sense fields, and elements〔the dharma by which dharmas resemble one another〕.

If there were no real thing having “undifferentedness” for its characteristic and named commonality, then among sentient beings that differ one from another the equal and undifferentiated cognition and expression, ‘this too is a sentient being, that too is a sentient being,’ ought not to be established. So too with the equal and undifferentiated cognition and expression regarding the aggregates and the rest〔the dharmas of the three classifications〕〔which would likewise not be established without dharma-commonality〕—the reasoning is to be understood in the same way.

Is there a case of dying and being born again in which the commonality of sentient beings is neither relinquished nor newly acquired? A fourfold analysis should be made. The first case: dying in one place and being born again in that same place〔commonality neither relinquished nor acquired〕. The second case: at the moment of entering “the certainty of the noble path” (the path of seeing), relinquishing the commonality of an ordinary being and acquiring the commonality of a noble one〔both relinquished and acquired〕. The third case: dying in this destiny and being born in another destiny and the like〔both relinquished and acquired, as regards destiny〕. The fourth case: excluding the three cases above〔all that remains〕.

〔What follows is the author of the treatise raising questions on behalf of the Sautrāntikas.〕If there were a separate real thing named “the commonality of an ordinary being,” what need would there be to establish “ordinary-being status” separately? It is not as though there were a “humanness” apart from the commonality of a human being. Moreover, commonality is not what the world can see with its eyes—for it is not form; nor is it what awakened discernment can discern—for it has no separate operation. People, though they do not know that there is〔a substantial〕commonality of sentient beings, all the same form the cognition of ‘no difference’ regarding sentient beings; so even granting that it has an entity, what use is it?

Again, on what ground is “commonality of the insentient” not allowed? Grain, wheat, beans, gold, iron, and the mango and the jackfruit tree, and the rest—do not these too have their several likenesses within their own kinds? Again, the several commonalities also differ one from another; how is it that no further commonality is established upon those commonalities, and yet the cognition and expression that ‘they have no difference’ can still arise?

Further,〔by establishing it thus〕you exactly establish the position held by the Vaiśeṣika outsiders: that school holds that there is a “category of universal sameness,” saying that the expression and understanding of ‘all is one and the same being’ which arises with regard to all dharmas is produced by this category of universal sameness; and it further holds that there is a “category of sameness-and-difference,” saying that the expression and understanding of ‘this is the same, that is different’ which arises with regard to distinct classes is produced by this category of sameness-and-difference.

The Vaibhāṣikas answer thus: what they hold is not of the same kind of sense as this〔commonality〕of ours—for they speak of ‘one thing operating upon many things’〔whereas our commonality belongs to each sentient being severally and is momentary and impermanent〕. And, granting the point either way, whether or not that amounts to establishing the outsiders’ position, this commonality must have a real entity, because the sūtra says so. As the World-Honored One said: ‘If he comes back here, he acquires the commonality of a human being,’ and so on at length.

〔The Sautrāntikas answer:〕Though there is such a scriptural text, the sūtra does not say that ‘there is a separate real thing named commonality.’〔The Sarvāstivādins ask:〕If so, what is the commonality the sūtra speaks of?〔The Sautrāntikas answer:〕It is that when formations of this class arise, ‘the commonality of a human being’ and the like are provisionally established upon them—just as one speaks of the commonality of grain, wheat, beans, and the rest〔a mere name〕.〔The author of the treatise judges:〕This is not well stated, because it contradicts my own〔Sarvāstivāda〕school.

Commonality has now been analyzed. What is the result of non-perception? The stanza says:

〔Stanza 42, Lines Two through Four〕The Result of Non-Perception—The Maturation That Shuts Off Mind in the Heaven of Non-Percipient Beings

Stanza: The result of non-perception is the dharma that, within the Heaven of Non-Percipient Beings, makes mind and the dharmas that are mental factors cease; it is maturation, and its dwelling is in the Bṛhatphala Heaven.

Treatise: If one is born among the non-percipient sentient beings of that heaven, there is a dharma that can make mind and mental factors cease, and this dharma is named “the result of non-perception.” It is a real thing, able to block future mind and mental factors and make them not arise for a time—just as a dyke blocks a river. This dharma is invariably a maturation result. The maturation of what? Of the absorption without perception.

Where do the non-percipient sentient beings dwell? In the Bṛhatphala Heaven. Within the Bṛhatphala Heaven there is a high and superior place—just as〔within the first meditative absorption there is〕the intermediate absorption—named the Heaven of Non-Percipient Beings.

Are those sentient beings constantly without perception, or do they also have perception? In the phases of being born and of dying they have perception for a long while. They are called “non-percipient” because in the long interval between, perception does not arise in them. As the sūtra says: those sentient beings pass away from that place because perception arises. And those sentient beings, like one waking from a long sleep, give rise to perception again.

After passing away from there they are necessarily born in the desire realm and not in any other place—because the force of the concentrated practice cultivated earlier is exhausted, and there they cannot cultivate concentration again; just as an arrow shot into the sky must fall when its force is spent. If a sentient being is about to be born in that place, he must first have karma of the desire realm “to be experienced in a later life”〔karma whose result is held over to a later birth〕—just as one who is about to be born in Uttarakuru must have karma for birth among the gods〔since one who dies there is necessarily born among gods〕.

The result of non-perception has now been analyzed. What are the two absorptions? They are the absorption without perception and the absorption of cessation. The absorption without perception is stated first: what is its characteristic? The stanza says:

〔Stanza 43〕The Absorption without Perception—The Outsiders’ Absorption That Shuts Off Mind in Search of Liberation

Stanza: The absorption without perception is like the result of non-perception stated above〔making mind and mental factors cease〕; it is in the later meditative absorption, its attention is directed to seeking liberation; its quality is wholesome only, and it is to be experienced in the next life only; it is not attained by noble ones, and at its first attainment only one time-period is obtained.

Treatise: As stated above, there is a dharma able to make mind and mental factors cease, named “the result of non-perception”; in the same way there is another dharma able to make mind and mental factors cease, named “the absorption without perception.” The absorption of one who is without perception is called the absorption without perception; or else, the absorption that is itself non-perception is called the absorption without perception〔the former is a dependent-determinative reading, the latter an appositional-determinative one〕. The words “is like this” in the stanza are only meant to show this much: that in making mind and mental factors cease, this absorption is the same as the result of non-perception.

On which level is this absorption? In the later meditative absorption, that is, in the fourth meditative absorption, and on no other level. In search of what is the absorption without perception cultivated? In search of liberation. Those people hold “non-perception” to be true liberation, and in order to realize it they cultivate the absorption without perception.

It was said above that the result of non-perception is maturation, and so it is of indeterminate quality, which need not be stated again. This absorption without perception, however, is invariably wholesome. Because it is wholesome, it can bring about the five-aggregate maturation among the non-percipient sentient beings of that heaven. Being of wholesome quality, then, in which manner is it to be experienced〔as to the time of its result〕? To be experienced in the next life only—not in the present life, not in a later life, and not indeterminately. If one has aroused this absorption and afterwards falls away from it, it is transmitted that such a person will certainly be able to arouse it again in this present life and will in future be born among the non-percipient sentient beings of that heaven; hence one who has attained this absorption certainly cannot enter the certainty of the noble path〔the path of seeing〕.

Again, this absorption can be attained by ordinary beings only and not by noble ones—for the noble ones regard the absorption without perception as they would the sight of a deep pit and take no pleasure in entering it. Only by holding “non-perception” to be true liberation and giving rise to the notion of renunciation does one cultivate this absorption; and no noble one holds what is with outflows to be true liberation or true renunciation, and so they certainly do not practice this absorption.

When noble ones attain the absorption of the fourth meditative absorption, do they, as with attaining a meditative absorption, thereby also attain the past and future absorption without perception? They do not attain even the rest〔of that absorption without perception〕. Why? Because although that absorption without perception has been cultivated before, being without mind it must be attained by a great preparatory effort, and so at its first attainment only one time-period is obtained—that is, the present time only; as with first receiving the individual liberation precepts〔where too only the present is obtained〕. After attaining this absorption, from the second moment onward and until it has not yet been relinquished, one also possesses〔that share〕belonging to the past; but because it is without mind, there is no “future cultivation.”

Next the absorption of cessation is stated: what is its characteristic? The stanza says:

〔Stanza 44 and Stanza 45, First Half〕The Absorption of Cessation—The Mindless Absorption a Noble One Enters in Search of Peaceful Abiding

Stanza: The absorption of cessation is likewise as above〔making mind and mental factors cease〕; its attention is directed to seeking peaceful abiding, and its level is the summit of existence; its quality is wholesome, and its being experienced in the next life or in a later life is indeterminate; it is attained by noble ones only, through preparatory practice; the Buddha attains it at the moment of becoming a buddha and not before, because of the thirty-four moments.

Treatise: As with the absorption without perception, so it is with the absorption of cessation. What is the sense that the words “likewise so” take by analogy? They take by analogy the “ceasing of mind and mental factors” in the absorption without perception. As was said above, ‘there is another dharma able to make mind and mental factors cease, named the absorption without perception’; in the same way, there is another dharma able to make mind and mental factors cease, named the absorption of cessation.

The differing characteristics of these two absorptions are as follows: the former, the absorption without perception, is for seeking liberation, and is preceded by an attention with the “notion of renunciation”; this absorption of cessation is for seeking peaceful abiding, and is preceded by an attention with the “notion of stilling.” The former, the absorption without perception, is in the later meditative absorption; this absorption of cessation is only at the summit of existence, that is, at the station of neither perception nor non-perception.

This absorption, like the absorption without perception above, is of wholesome quality only, neither indeterminate nor defiled—because it is set in motion by a wholesome mind. The former, the absorption without perception, is to be experienced in the next life only; this absorption of cessation extends to being experienced in the next life, in a later life, and indeterminately—as regards its maturation, it may be experienced in the next life, or in a later life, or indeterminately, or not experienced at all. “Not experienced at all” means that if one reaches parinirvāṇa upon a lower level〔one does not experience the result at the summit of existence〕. Of which level and of how many aggregates does this absorption bring about the maturation? It brings about the four-aggregate maturation at the summit of existence only〔the summit of existence being formless, there is no aggregate of form there〕.

The former, the absorption without perception, is attained by ordinary beings only; this absorption of cessation is attained by noble ones only and cannot be aroused by an ordinary being—because ordinary beings fear annihilation; and because it can be aroused only by the force of the noble path; and because it is entered only through the resolve upon “nirvāṇa in the present dharma.”

This absorption too, like the former, is not “attained by leaving defilement behind.” By what, then, is it attained? By preparatory practice—because it must be realized through preparatory practice. Again, at its first attainment only the present is obtained; the past is not obtained and the future is not cultivated—because it can be cultivated only by the force of mind. From the second moment onward and until it has not yet been relinquished, one also possesses〔that share〕belonging to the past.

Does the World-Honored One too attain it through preparatory practice? He does not. How, then? He attains it at the moment of becoming a buddha—that is, the Buddha, the World-Honored One, attains it when the “knowledge of exhaustion” arises. The Buddha has no quality attained through preparatory practice: he need only briefly arouse the wish and make it present, and every perfect quality arises just as he pleases; hence all the Buddha’s qualities are attained by leaving defilement behind.

〔Question:〕The World-Honored One had never before aroused the absorption of cessation; how then, at the moment of attaining the knowledge of exhaustion, did he become one “liberated in both parts”〔liberated from the obstruction of discernment and from the obstruction of concentration alike〕?〔Answer:〕Because he had attained sovereignty with regard to arousing the absorption of cessation, he is one liberated in both parts just as one who has already aroused it.

The masters of the West say: the bodhisattva, while still in training, first aroused this absorption and only then attained awakening.〔Question:〕Why is their account not allowed here?〔Answer:〕If their account were allowed, it would accord with the Venerable Upagupta’s Treatise That Is the Feet of Reason’s Eye—as that treatise says: ‘It should be said that the Tathāgata first aroused the absorption of cessation and afterwards produced the knowledge of exhaustion.’ The Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīra say: it is not that he first aroused the absorption of cessation and only afterwards produced the knowledge of exhaustion. Why? It is transmitted that the bodhisattva attained awakening in thirty-four moments.〔Those thirty-four moments are:〕in the direct realization of the truths there are sixteen moments; in leaving behind the craving of the summit of existence there are eighteen—that is, cutting off the nine grades of affliction of the summit of existence, arousing nine uninterrupted paths and nine paths of liberation; these eighteen, added to the preceding sixteen, make thirty-four. Every bodhisattva must already have left behind craving as far as the station of nothingness before he enters the path of seeing, and need not cut off the afflictions of the lower levels again; and in the midst of this there is no occasion for a “mind of an unlike kind” to arise〔the mind of the absorption of cessation is with outflows, unlike the thirty-four moments without outflows〕; hence bodhisattvas while in training should not arouse the absorption of cessation.

The masters abroad speak thus: if a mind of an unlike kind did arise in the midst, what fault would there be?〔Answer:〕If so, there would be the fault of “transgressing the resolve of mind”〔going against the limit he had himself set〕. Yet bodhisattvas do not transgress the resolve of mind.〔The masters abroad:〕Reasonably, a bodhisattva does not transgress the resolve of mind; but it is not that he does not transgress the noble path without outflows〔arousing a mind with outflows is no transgression〕.〔Answer:〕If so, how is the resolve of mind not transgressed? The resolve of mind is this: ‘Until I attain the permanent exhaustion of the outflows, I shall not unloose this cross-legged posture.’〔The bodhisattva〕certainly does not transgress such a resolve of mind, because it is within a single sitting that he brings all things to their conclusion. The former account〔that of the masters of Kaśmīra〕is the better, because it is what my own school holds.

Although many characteristics in which the two absorptions are alike and unlike have already been stated, there are further likenesses and differences among them〔still to be stated〕. The stanza says:

〔Stanza 45, Second Half〕The Likeness and Difference of the Bodies upon Which the Two Absorptions Depend

Stanza: Both absorptions depend upon the desire and form realms〔for the bodies in which they arise〕; the absorption of cessation first arises among humans only.

Treatise: By “the two absorptions” are meant the absorption without perception and the absorption of cessation. Both these absorptions can become present in dependence upon the two realms, desire and form. If someone does not allow that the absorption without perception can also be aroused in the form realm, that contradicts this passage—the Root Treatise says: ‘There may be an existence that is form, and this existence is not of five formations.’ The meaning is: a sentient being bound to form may be born in a heaven with perception and dwell in a mind of an unlike kind, or may enter the absorption without perception, or may enter the absorption of cessation; or, having been born in the Heaven of Non-Percipient Beings, may enter non-perception—and this is what is called ‘an existence that is form, and this existence is not of five formations’〔being in the form realm and yet not having the formations of five aggregates〕. By this it is proved that both these absorptions can become present in dependence upon the desire and form realms, and this is their likeness.

As to their difference: the absorption without perception can first arise in both realms, desire and form; the absorption of cessation first arises among humans only. Only after this absorption has first been cultivated among humans, and there has first been a falling away from it, is one born in the form realm and cultivates it again in dependence upon a body of the form realm.

Does this absorption of cessation too fall away? It should be said that it does. Were it not so, it would injure the Udāyin Sūtra. That sūtra says: ‘Venerable one! There are monks who, having formerly here been complete in pure moral discipline, complete in concentration, and complete in discernment, are able to enter and emerge from the absorption of the cessation of feeling and perception again and again—this does occur. It should be known as it really is that in the present dharma, or at the moment of death, they cannot diligently cultivate so as to fulfill liberation; and that after the breaking up of this body they pass beyond the gods who take food in portions and are reborn in one place or another with a heavenly body formed by mind. Having been born there, they are again able to enter and emerge from the absorption of the cessation of feeling and perception again and again—this too does occur.’ It should be known as it really is that this “heavenly body formed by mind” the Buddha declares to be of the form realm, while the absorption of the cessation of feeling and perception is only at the summit of existence. If one who has attained this absorption certainly did not fall away, how could he take birth in the form realm?

Some other schools hold that the fourth meditative absorption also has the absorption of cessation. On what they hold, the position that the absorption of cessation does not fall away is also tenable.〔Answer:〕The position that ‘the fourth meditative absorption has the absorption of cessation’ certainly does not hold. Why? Because the sūtra speaks of “nine successive absorptions”〔the absorption of cessation standing ninth, above the summit of existence〕.〔Objection:〕If this must be so, how can there be the sense of a “leaping absorption”?〔Answer:〕This succession is stated with reference to a beginner; when sovereignty is attained, one may leap over and enter as one pleases.

Thus the two absorptions have several differences: a difference of level—the one in the fourth meditative absorption, the other on the level of the summit of existence; a difference of preparation—the one preceded by an attention with the notion of renunciation, the other by an attention with the notion of stilling; a difference of continuum—the one arising in the continuum of an ordinary being, the other in the continuum of a noble one; a difference of maturation—the one bringing about the Heaven of Non-Percipient Beings, the other the maturation result of the summit of existence; a difference in the manner of experience—the one to be experienced in the next life only, the other in the next life, in a later life, and indeterminately; a difference of first arising—the one first arising in the two realms of desire and form, the other among humans only.

The two absorptions have as their own nature simply “the ceasing of mind and mental factors”; why then are they called only “non-perception” and “cessation of feeling and perception”? Because in the preparatory practice of the two absorptions it is only these〔perception, or feeling and perception〕that are turned away from in disgust—just as〔the cognition of another’s mind〕can also know feeling and the rest and yet is called only “the cognition of another’s mind”〔being named from where the preparatory practice weighs〕.

Now that within the two absorptions mind has been cut off for a long time, how does mind arise again afterwards? The Vaibhāṣikas allow that the past exists, and so an earlier mind can serve as the immediately antecedent condition of a later mind. Certain other masters say: just as, when one is born in the formless realm, form is cut off for a long time, how does form arise again afterwards? The re-arising of that form must be from mind and not from form〔the earlier form not existing〕; in the same way, the mind that emerges from the absorption should also be so—it arises from the “body endowed with faculties” and not from〔a previous〕mind. And so those preceptors of former times all said that the two dharmas, mind and the body endowed with faculties, are seeds of one another. By the two dharmas are meant mind and the body endowed with faculties.

The Venerable Vasumitra says in the Treatise of Questions: if one holds that the absorption of cessation is wholly without mind, then this fault does arise; I say that in the absorption of cessation there is still a subtle mind〔and so there is no need to posit their being seeds of one another〕, and therefore this fault does not arise. The Venerable Ghoṣa says that this does not hold in reason. Why? If there were consciousness in this absorption, then, faculty, object, and consciousness having come together, there would necessarily be contact; and with contact for a condition there would be feeling and perception. As the World-Honored One said: ‘With mind and dharmas for conditions, mind-consciousness arises; and with the contact of the three come together arise feeling, perception, and volition.’ Then within this absorption feeling, perception, and the rest would also not cease〔and it would not be an absorption of the cessation of feeling and perception〕.

If it be said: just as the sūtra says “feeling is the condition of craving,” and yet an arhat, though he has feelings, does not give rise to craving; so it should be with contact—not every contact serves as the condition of feeling and the rest.〔Answer:〕This example does not hold, because there is a difference of qualification. The sūtra qualifies it of itself, saying: ‘Feelings produced by a contact of ignorance are the condition for the arising of craving.’ But nowhere has it ever qualified “contact producing feeling.” Hence the two differ.

For this reason the Vaibhāṣikas say that within the absorption of cessation all minds cease.〔Question:〕If there is wholly no mind, how is it still called an “absorption”?〔Answer:〕Because it makes the great elements operate evenly, it is called an absorption; or else, because the force of the〔preceding〕mind of concentration reaches evenly to this point, it is called an absorption.

Are these two absorptions really existent or provisionally existent? It should be said that they are really existent—because they can block mind and make mind not arise. Some say: this proof does not hold in reason, because it is the preceding mind of concentration that does the blocking. That is: the preceding mind of concentration arises in opposition to other minds, and by its arising it merely makes other minds not operate for a time; it〔the mind of concentration〕can give rise to a support opposed to mind and make it continue on, and so an absorption is provisionally established only upon this station in which “mind does not operate,” and there is no separate entity. This is an absorption merely provisionally established upon the station in which mind does not operate: it is not there before the absorption is entered nor after it is emerged from, and so it is provisionally said to be included among the conditioned. Or else: it is that very support, drawn on by the mind of concentration and made to arise in that way, upon which an absorption is provisionally established.

It should be known that the result of non-perception is likewise: a preceding mind arises in opposition to other minds, and by its arising it merely makes other minds not operate for a time; and upon the station in which “mind does not operate” the result of non-perception is provisionally established, the rest being as stated above.〔The author of the treatise judges:〕This is not well stated, because it contradicts my own school.

The two absorptions have now been analyzed. What is the life faculty? The stanza says:

〔Stanza 46, First Half〕The Life Faculty—It Is “Lifespan,” Able to Sustain Warmth and Consciousness

Stanza: The entity of the life faculty is lifespan, and it is able to sustain warmth and consciousness.

Treatise: The entity of life is lifespan. Therefore the Abhidharma says: ‘What is the life faculty? Lifespan in the three realms.’ This is still not clear: what dharma is called lifespan? It is that there is another dharma able to sustain warmth and consciousness, and this is called lifespan. Therefore the World-Honored One said:

〔Quoted Stanza〕When the Three Dharmas Lifespan, Warmth, and Consciousness Leave the Body

Stanza: Lifespan, warmth, and consciousness—when these three dharmas leave the body, the body they leave lies stiff and prone, like a piece of wood without thought or feeling.

Treatise: Therefore there is another dharma serving as the cause that sustains warmth and consciousness in continuing to abide, and it is called “lifespan.”

〔What follows is the incidental discussion on whether the life faculty is really or provisionally existent.〕If so, what dharma is able to sustain this lifespan? It is warmth and consciousness that in turn sustain this lifespan.〔If so,〕these three dharmas sustain one another and turn on together—then which dharma ceases first? And by that one’s ceasing, the other two would cease after it.〔If none ceases first,〕then these three dharmas should be everlasting and never pass away. That being so, this lifespan must be sustained by “karma”—because it continues on as karma draws it.

If so, on what ground is it not allowed that karma alone sustains warmth and consciousness, and that lifespan is required besides? In reason it should not be so: one must not let it follow that ‘all consciousness from beginning to end is constantly maturation’〔for if there were no lifespan and karma alone sustained consciousness, consciousness would be constantly maturation, which does not accord with the facts〕. That being so, it should be said that karma sustains warmth and warmth in turn sustains consciousness—what need is there for this lifespan?〔Answer:〕In that case, in the formless realm there would be nothing to sustain consciousness, since there is no warmth there.〔Objection:〕Then it should be said that in the formless realm consciousness is sustained by karma.〔Answer:〕How can you shift your account again and again to suit yourself—now saying that this consciousness is sustained by warmth alone, now again that karma alone sustains consciousness? And this has already been said above. What was said above? Just this: one must not let it follow that ‘all consciousness from beginning to end is maturation.’ Therefore it must be granted that there is another dharma able to sustain warmth and consciousness, and it is called lifespan.

〔The Sautrāntikas say:〕Now I too do not say that there is no entity of lifespan at all; I say only that the entity of lifespan is not a separate real thing.〔Question:〕If so, what dharma is called the entity of lifespan?〔Answer:〕It is the “portion of duration of the commonality” drawn forth by the karma of the three realms, and this is said to be the entity of lifespan. The commonality drawn forth by the karma of the three realms has a portion of duration that continues on with determinacy, and one abides for just so long as one is to abide; hence this portion is said to be the entity of lifespan. It is like the portion drawn forth by a seed of grain and the rest, lasting until the time of ripening; or like the portion drawn forth by the shooting of an arrow, lasting until the time of coming to rest.

〔An outsider interposes an objection:〕Some say that there is a “formation” that is a distinct quality, arising in dependence on an arrow and the like, and that by its force the arrow keeps travelling without cease so long as it has not fallen to the ground.〔The author of the treatise refutes:〕Its entity being one and having no resistance, there ought to be no differences of station in going toward a different direction—of speed, of slowness, of time of arrival; and it ought never to fall at all. If it be said that it is obstructed by wind, then it ought either to fall as soon as it is released or never to fall—since the wind that obstructs has no difference before and after.

〔The author of the treatise endorses the Sarvāstivādins:〕‘There is a separate real thing able to sustain warmth and consciousness, named the entity of lifespan’—this account is the better.

〔What follows analyzes the cause of death.〕Does one die because lifespan is exhausted, or is there some other cause? The Treatise of Designations says: there is dying because lifespan is exhausted, and there is dying not because merit is exhausted, making a fourfold analysis at length. The first case: the force of the karma bringing about the maturation of lifespan is exhausted. The second case: the force of the karma bringing about the result of wealth and pleasure is exhausted. The third case: the karma able to bring about both is exhausted together. The fourth case: one cannot avoid a violent condition coming from without〔an untimely death〕. Besides these it should also be said that ‘one dies through relinquishing the life-formations’〔as the Buddha and the arhats relinquish the life-formations themselves〕. At the station where lifespan is exhausted, the exhaustion of merit has no further operation with regard to death; hence when both are exhausted together there is death, and this is called “dying because both are exhausted.”

The Treatise on the Development of Wisdom says: should this lifespan be said to turn along with the continuum, or should it be said to abide as soon as it arises?—Of sentient beings bound to the desire realm who do not enter the absorption without perception and do not enter the absorption of cessation, it should be said that this lifespan turns along with the continuum; of those who enter the absorption without perception or the absorption of cessation, and of all sentient beings bound to form and to the formless, it should be said that this lifespan abides as soon as it arises. What does that mean? If the supporting body can be injured, lifespan is injured along with it, and this is called the first kind, “turning along with the continuum”; if the supporting body cannot be injured but abides just as it arose, this is called the second kind, “abiding as soon as it arises.”

The Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīra say: the first clause shows that there is obstruction and the second that there is none; and by this it is settled that there is “untimely death.” Therefore the sūtra speaks of four kinds of “acquiring a body of one’s own”: there is a kind of acquiring a body of one’s own that can be injured only by oneself and not by another. A fourfold analysis is made at length. That which can be injured only by oneself and not by another: the gods of playful forgetfulness and the gods of mental wrath born in the desire realm—because they arouse an excessive delight or anger and so pass away there, and not by any other condition. Besides these it should also be said “the Buddhas who enter parinirvāṇa of themselves”〔this too being by oneself and not by another〕. That which can be injured only by another and not by oneself: the classes of sentient beings within the womb or the egg. That which can be injured by both: most of the remaining sentient beings of the desire realm. That which can be injured by neither: all sentient beings in the intermediate existence and in the form and formless realms, and a portion of those in the desire realm—such as the beings of naraka (the hells), those of Uttarakuru, one properly abiding on the path of seeing, one abiding in the absorption of loving-kindness, one abiding in the absorption of cessation or the absorption without perception, royal seers, the Buddha’s envoys, and those the Buddha has prophesied—Damira, Uttara, Gaṅgila, Yaśas the householder’s son, and Kumārajīva—together with the bodhisattva in his final body, and the mother of that bodhisattva while she bears the bodhisattva in her womb, and every wheel-turning monarch, and the mother of a wheel-turning monarch while she bears him in her womb.

If so, why does the sūtra say: ‘Great one! Which sentient being’s acquired body of his own can be injured neither by himself nor by another?’ ‘Śāriputra! It is the sentient being reborn in the station of neither perception nor non-perception’〔naming only the summit of existence〕? It is transmitted: the bodies of their own acquired in the remaining formless meditative absorptions can be injured by the noble path of their own level and can also be injured by the preliminary stage of one level above; only at the summit of existence are both these injuries absent, and so it is said to be “injurable by neither.”

〔Objection:〕Is not the summit of existence also injured by the noble path of another level, and should it not then be called injurable by another?〔Answer:〕Here it should be said to be “naming the last to display the first”—just as elsewhere it is “naming the first to display the last.” Where is the first named to display the last? As the sūtra says: ‘Like the Brahmakāyika gods—this is called the first heaven of pleasant birth.’ Where is the last named to display the first? As the sūtra says: ‘Like the Ābhāsvara gods—this is called the second heaven of pleasant birth.’

〔The objector says again:〕The word “like” in those sūtras displays the sense of a simile, and only so may one say “naming one to display the rest”—because the way of a simile is to name one and display its like. Here〔in the sūtra of Śāriputra’s question and answer〕there is no word “like,” and so one may not reason in the same way.〔Answer:〕If the word “like” occurred only where there is the sense of a simile, then the word “like” ought not to occur in the other sūtras. But another sūtra says thus: ‘Sentient beings with form, differing in body and differing in perception, like a portion of humans and the gods—this is the first station of consciousness.’ Hence it is known that the word “like” occurs where there is no simile as well.

The incidental discussion stops here. The life faculty has now been analyzed. What are the characteristics? The stanza says:

〔Stanza 46, Second Half〕The Four Conditioned Marks—Arising, Abiding, Change, and Cessation

Stanza: What are called the marks are the arising, abiding, change, and cessation of conditioned dharmas.

Treatise: Since these four are the marks of the conditioned, a dharma that has these four should be conditioned, and what is contrary to this is an unconditioned dharma. These four marks, with regard to dharmas: what can make a dharma arise is called “arising”; what can make it settle is called “abiding”; what can make it decay is called “change”; what can make it break up is called “cessation.” “Nature” has the sense of entity.

〔Objection:〕Does not the sūtra speak of “three conditioned marks of the conditioned”?〔Answer:〕In that sūtra four should reasonably have been stated; which is the one not stated? It is the mark of “abiding.” Yet what the sūtra calls “change of what abides” is precisely another name for “change” here—just as “arising” is called “origination” and “cessation” is called “exhaustion”; so it should be known that “change” is called “change of what abides.”

If a dharma can make the formations flow through the three times, this sūtra speaks of it as a conditioned mark, in order to make sentient beings give rise to a mind of weariness and dread. That is: those formations are moved by the force of “arising” and made to flow from the future into the present; and are pressed by the force of the marks “change” and “cessation” and made to flow from the present into the past—because they are made to decay and to break up. It is transmitted: it is like a man in the midst of a dense forest with three enemies wishing to injure him: one drags him out of the dense forest, one weakens his strength, and one destroys his life faculty. So it should be known are the three marks with regard to the formations.

As for “abiding,” it takes hold and settles those formations, is pleasant to them and does not part from them, and so it is not established among the conditioned marks. Again, unconditioned dharmas also have “abiding in their own characteristic,” and the mark of abiding would be confused with that, so the sūtra does not state it.

Some say: this sūtra takes “abiding” and “change” together as one, called the “mark of the change of what abides”〔and so the sūtra states three marks〕.〔Question:〕Why state them thus together?〔Answer:〕“Abiding” is what sentient beings cling to and love; in order to make them weary of it and cast it away, it is stated together with “change”—just as Black-Ear is shown together with Auspicious〔so that seeing Black-Ear one casts Auspicious away too〕. Therefore there are certainly four conditioned marks.

〔Objection:〕Since these four marks, arising and the rest, are themselves conditioned, there should be further marks of arising and the rest for them; and if there are further marks, an infinite regress follows, because those marks would again have their own further marks of arising and the rest.〔Answer:〕It should be said that there are further ones, and yet there is no infinite regress. Why? The stanza says:

〔Stanza 47, First Half〕The Four Secondary Marks—Their Function upon Eight Dharmas and upon One

Stanza: These four primary marks have in turn the “arising of arising” and the rest〔the four secondary marks〕; the primary marks have their function upon eight dharmas, the secondary marks upon one.

Treatise: “These” refers to the four primary marks stated above. “The arising of arising and the rest” refers to the four secondary marks—the arising of arising, the abiding of abiding, the change of change, and the cessation of cessation. That the formations are conditioned is by the four primary marks; that the primary marks are conditioned is by the four secondary marks.

〔Objection:〕Should not the primary marks, like the dharma they mark, each have four secondary marks, and those again four each, and so on without end?〔Answer:〕There is no such fault, because the four primary marks and the four secondary marks differ in their function upon “eight dharmas” and upon “one dharma.”

What is called function? It is a dharma’s operation, or what is called “human effort”〔as with a man’s doing〕. Each of the four primary marks has its operation upon eight dharmas, and each of the four secondary marks upon one dharma only. What does this mean? It means: when one dharma arises, together with its own entity nine dharmas arise all at once—its own entity being one, and the primary and secondary marks being eight. The “arising” among the primary marks, excluding itself, can give rise to the other eight; the “arising of arising” among the secondary marks gives rise, among these nine dharmas, only to the “arising” of the primary marks. It is like a hen: some hens bear many chicks and some bear only one; the powers of “arising” and “the arising of arising,” the one giving rise to eight and the other to one, are likewise. The “abiding” among the primary marks likewise excludes itself and makes the other eight abide; the “abiding of abiding” among the secondary marks makes only the “abiding” of the primary marks abide among the nine. “Change” and “cessation” are correspondingly the same. Hence, although the marks of arising and the rest have marks of their own again, the secondary marks are only four, and there is no fault of infinite regress.

〔What follows is the Sautrāntikas raising an objection.〕The Sautrāntika masters say: on what ground is empty space cut up in this fashion〔dividing names where there is nothing〕? It is not that the marks of arising and the rest have a real dharma-entity such as you distinguish. Why? Because there is no determinate means of knowledge〔that could prove it〕. That is: these marks are not like color and the rest, for which there is a determinate direct perception, inference, or authoritative testimony that could prove their entity to be real.

〔The Sarvāstivādins cite scripture:〕If so, why does the sūtra say: ‘The origination of the conditioned may be known; its exhaustion and its change of what abides may also be known’?〔The author of the treatise answers:〕Beloved of the gods! You cling to the letter and lose the sense. The Blessed One said: it is the sense that is to be relied upon. What is the real sense stated in this sūtra? It is this: the class of the foolish, blinded by ignorance, clings to self and what belongs to self upon the continuum of the formations and through the long night gives rise to attachment there; and the World-Honored One, in order to cut off that clinging of theirs, wished to display that ‘the continuum of the formations is in its entity conditioned and of the nature of what arises from conditions,’ and therefore spoke thus of three conditioned marks of the conditioned—it is not to display that the formations possess these three marks within a single moment; for the origination and the rest of a single moment cannot be known, and what cannot be known should not be established as a “mark.” Therefore that sūtra goes on to say: ‘The origination of the conditioned may be known; its exhaustion and its change of what abides may also be known.’

As for the sūtra’s repeating the two words “conditioned,” it is to make one know that ‘this mark declares the conditioned,’ and not to think that the mark declares ‘the existence of a conditioned dharma’—as a gathering of white egrets declares that water is not absent; nor to think that it declares the wholesomeness or unwholesomeness of a conditioned dharma—as the marks of a maiden declare the wholesome or the unwholesome.

The first arising of the continuum of the formations is called “arising”; at the station of final exhaustion it is called “cessation”; the continuum turning on in the middle is called “abiding”; and the difference between what is earlier and what is later is called “change of what abides.” It was upon this sense that the World-Honored One said to Nanda: ‘This good son well knows the arising of feeling, well knows the abiding of feeling, and well knows the decay, change, and breaking up of feeling.’ Therefore a stanza says:

〔Quoted Stanza〕The Four Marks of the Continuum, First

Stanza: The first of a continuum is called “arising”; “cessation” is the station of final exhaustion; the turning on in the middle is called “abiding”; “change of what abides” is the difference of earlier and later.

And there is a further stanza:

〔Quoted Stanza〕The Four Marks of the Continuum, Second

Stanza: Not being before and being now is “arising”; the continuum turning on is “abiding”; a difference of earlier and later is “change of what abides”; the cutting off of the continuum is called “cessation.”

And there is a further stanza:

〔Quoted Stanza〕The Stanza on There Being No Abiding in a Moment

Stanza: Since dharmas are momentary, there is no “abiding” but only cessation; they cease of themselves, and so to hold that there is “abiding”〔as a mark〕does not hold in reason.

Treatise: Therefore “abiding” is spoken of only upon the continuum—and in this way what the Abhidharma says is established. For that treatise says: ‘What is called abiding? It is every formation that has arisen and not yet ceased.’ It is not that “having arisen and not ceasing” is the nature of a momentary dharma〔a momentary dharma, having arisen, ceases at once and has no station of not ceasing〕.

Although the Treatise on the Development of Wisdom says thus: ‘Within a single mind, what arising is called birth? What exhaustion is called death? What change of what abides is called aging?’—yet that treatise’s text is stated with reference to ‘the mind in the continuum of the commonality of sentient beings’ and not with reference to a single moment.

Again, even with respect to conditioned dharmas moment by moment, the four marks are established once one has left aside “holding that there are real things.” How are they established? Thus: each thought’s not being before and being now is called “arising”; being and then not being again is called “cessation”; the later moments succeeding the earlier and arising is called “abiding”; and that difference of earlier and later is called “change of what abides.”

〔Objection:〕When earlier and later thoughts arise alike, is there not in fact no difference between the earlier and the later?〔Answer:〕How is that mark of difference to be known? It is like a diamond and the like, where there is a difference between being thrown and not thrown, and between being thrown with strong force and with weak force, and a difference of speed and slowness in falling—which shows that the sense of a difference in the transformation of the great elements is established. When formations arise in a continuum alike, there is no great difference between earlier and later, and so, though there is change, they look alike.

〔Objection:〕If so, the last moment of sound or of light, and the last six sense fields at nirvāṇa, having no later thought, should have no “change of what abides”; and then the mark you establish would not extend to all the conditioned.〔Answer:〕Here “abiding” is not being spoken of as a conditioned mark. What then is meant? What is meant is “the change of what abides.” Hence if there is abiding, there is necessarily change; and by establishing the mark thus, there is no fault of not extending to all.

Yet the conditioned mark stated by the World-Honored One in this sūtra, displayed in brief, is just this: that a conditioned dharma is not before and is now, is and then is not again, and continues on in abiding; and the difference between the earlier and the later set against each other. Here what need is there of separate things such as arising and the rest?

〔The Sarvāstivādins object:〕How can what is “the dharma marked” be established as “what marks”?〔The Sautrāntikas answer:〕Just as the marks of a great man are not other than a great man; as the marks of a bull—horns, hump, dewlap, hooves, and tail—are not other than the bull; and as hardness and the rest are the marks of the earth element and the rest and are not other than earth and the rest; and as seeing at a distance something rising and knowing it to be the mark of smoke is not other than the entity of smoke. The conditioned mark should be so in reason as well. Though one has understood the intrinsic nature of a conditioned form and the rest, so long as one has not understood “the difference of the continuum of not being before and not being after,” one still does not know that its entity is conditioned; and so it is not that ‘the nature of form and the rest’ is itself the conditioned mark—and yet neither is there, apart from that nature of form and the rest, a separate real thing such as arising and the rest.

〔The Sarvāstivādins ask in return:〕If, apart from the intrinsic nature of a conditioned form and the rest, there are things such as arising and the rest, what does not hold in reason?〔The Sautrāntikas answer:〕One dharma at one time would have to be at once presently arising, presently abiding, presently decaying and changing, and presently breaking up—because you allow that the four marks are present together.〔The Sarvāstivādins answer:〕This objection does not hold, because the times of their operation differ: the operation of arising is in the future, and what has already arisen in the present does not arise again. When dharmas have arisen and are in the present, only then do the operations of the three marks abiding and the rest begin; it is not that at the time of the operation of arising the other three operate. Hence, though present together, they are not in conflict.

〔The Sautrāntikas refute further:〕It should first be considered whether the entity of a future dharma exists or not, and only then should it be said whether “arising” has an operation at that station or not. Supposing you allow that the arising of a future thing has an operation, how is it still future? Please state the “mark of the future.” When a dharma is in the present, the operation of arising has already passed away; how is it still present? Please state the “mark of the present.”

Again, the three operations of abiding and the rest are all in the present; then the entity of one dharma would at one moment be at once settling, decaying, and breaking up. If at that time the mark of abiding can make this dharma abide, while at the same time change and cessation can make it decay and break up, then at that time is this dharma to be called abiding, decaying, or breaking up? Those who say ‘the operations of abiding and the rest are not simultaneous’—their account contradicts the sense of momentary cessation.

If it be said: I say that a moment is when the operations of all a dharma’s marks are brought to completion—then you should now say on what ground the mark of abiding arises together with the two marks change and cessation and yet “abiding” can operate first and make the dharma it makes abide neither change nor cease. If it be said that the force of abiding is strong and so it operates first, then how does it afterwards grow weak, so that together with the root dharma it too suffers decay from change and cessation?

If it be said that the mark of abiding, having once operated, should not operate again, as with “arising”—of “arising” this may be said: the operation of arising is to draw the dharma it produces into the present, and once drawn in it need not be drawn in again. But of “abiding” this should not be said: the operation of abiding is to settle the dharma it makes abide and make it neither decay nor cease; and having made it abide, it may well make it abide forever. For this reason the operation of the mark of abiding should arise constantly, and one may not take “arising” as an example to say that it has no further operation.

Again, who obstructs the operation of abiding and makes it be for a moment and then be no more? If it be said that change and cessation obstruct it, then the force of change and cessation should be the stronger—why do they not operate first? Again, once the operation of abiding stops, change and cessation and the root dharma of themselves do not abide; where then and how do the two marks change and cessation operate? And what work is left for these two operations to do? By the holding of abiding, dharmas that have arisen do not cease for a time; and once the operation of abiding is relinquished, the dharma certainly does not abide and ceases of itself at once—so that there is nothing left for the operations of change and cessation to do.

Again, that a dharma having arisen and not yet broken up is called “abiding,” and having abided and at the time of breaking up is called “cessation”—this may pass for now; but as for “change,” pressed forward or backward within one dharma, in reason it cannot be. Why? “Change” means the transformation of the nature and characteristic between earlier and later, and it is not that upon this very dharma one may say it is “changed from this.” Therefore a stanza says:

〔Quoted Stanza〕Change Cannot Be Established upon One Dharma

Stanza: If it is said to be that very earlier one〔and change asserted of it〕, change is not established; if it is said to differ from the earlier, it is not one and the same dharma. Therefore, upon one dharma, to establish “change” cannot in the end be established.

Treatise: Although another school says that only when the causes and conditions of cessation are met can the mark of cessation cause the cessation of what it makes cease—yet what they say is like someone saying that when a purgative is taken a god must also come to make it work.〔Since〕the causes and conditions of cessation can themselves make it cease, what need is there to posit a mark of cessation besides? Again, they too allow that mind and mental factors cease momentarily and need not wait for any further cause and condition of cessation; then the operations of “cessation” and “abiding” would have no earlier and later—and in that case one dharma at one time both abiding and ceasing does not accord with correct reasoning.

Therefore to speak of the conditioned marks in dependence on “the continuum” neither contradicts correct reasoning and accords well with the sūtras.

〔What follows answers why future dharmas do not arise all at once.〕If “arising,” while in the future, can give rise to the dharma it produces, why do not all future dharmas arise all at once? The stanza says:

〔Stanza 47, Second Half〕Arising Gives Rise to What It Produces, Not Apart from the Meeting of Causes and Conditions

Stanza: “Arising” can give rise to the dharma it produces, yet not apart from the meeting of causes and conditions.

Treatise: It is not that, apart from the meeting of the other causes and conditions, the force of the mark of arising alone can give rise to what it produces; hence future dharmas do not all arise at once.

〔The Sautrāntikas object:〕If so, we see only that causes and conditions have the capacity to give rise, and there is no separate mark of arising. When causes and conditions meet, dharmas arise; when they do not meet, they do not arise—what need is there to trouble a mark of arising? It is evident that the force of causes and conditions alone gives rise〔to dharmas〕.

〔The Sarvāstivādins answer:〕Are all existent dharmas such as you can know? The nature of dharmas is subtle and exceedingly hard to know, and so, though a thing presently has its entity, it may be unknowable. Were there no mark of arising, there ought to be no cognition of “arising”; and further, the expression in the sixth case〔the possessive relation expressed by “of”〕could not be established—as when one says “the arising of form,” “the arising of feeling,” and the like. Just as one ought not to say “the form of form.” And as you object that there is no arising, so also, as fits each case, may one object all the way to there being no cessation.

〔The Sautrāntikas object in return:〕If so, in order to establish the cognitions of “emptiness” and “non-self,” must one also posit ‘the nature of emptiness’ and ‘the nature of non-self’ apart from dharmas? In order to establish the cognitions of “one and two, large and small, several, joined and separate, this and that, being,” and the rest, must one, like the outsiders, posit apart from dharmas separate natures of number, magnitude, severalty, junction, separation, that, this, being, and the rest? And in order to establish the expression in the sixth case, must one posit a separate “nature of a collection, of form”? And when one says “the intrinsic nature of form,” how is this expression in the sixth case to be established?

Therefore arising and the rest are merely provisionally established and have no separate real thing. To explain that the formations are “not before and are now,” it is provisionally established as “arising.” Such a mark of arising that is “not before and now” is of many kinds according to the dharmas of form and the rest upon which it depends; and to distinguish it from the others, the expression in the sixth case, “the arising of form,” “the arising of feeling,” and the like, is used, in order to let another know that ‘this arising belongs to form alone and not to feeling and the rest.’ The other cases are likewise. It is like the world saying “the fragrance of sandalwood” or “the substance of a stone,” and here it should be the same. As for abiding and the rest, they should be understood in the same way as fits each case.

〔The Sarvāstivādins object:〕If formations can arise apart from a mark of arising, why do unconditioned space and the rest not arise?〔The Sautrāntikas answer:〕Formations are called “arising” because they are not before and are now; the entity of the unconditioned exists constantly—how can it be said to arise? Again, just as it is so by the nature of things, and one does not say that all dharmas have arising; in the same way it should also be allowed that ‘not all dharmas can arise.’ Again, just as conditioned dharmas alike have a mark of arising, and you also allow that causes and conditions may or may not have a capacity with regard to a conditioned dharma; in the same way it should be allowed that all dharmas, conditioned and unconditioned alike, have no mark of arising, and that the causes and conditions have the operation of giving rise to the one class and not to the other.

〔The Sarvāstivādins conclude:〕The Vaibhāṣikas say that the marks of arising and the rest are separate real things, and this position should stand. Why? How could one abandon one’s own school merely because those who raise objections are many? One does not refrain from sowing wheat for fear that deer may come, nor refrain from eating a sweet ball for fear that many flies may settle on it. Hence one should diligently apply oneself to answering objections and should practice in accordance with the sense of one’s own school.

Thus the conditioned marks have been analyzed. What is the sense of the name-bodies and the like? The stanza says:

〔Stanza 48, First Half〕Name-Body, Phrase-Body, Syllable-Body

Stanza: What are called the name-bodies and the rest are the “collective expression” of ideation, statement, and letter-sound.

Treatise: The word “and the rest” takes in the phrase-body and the syllable-body. It should be known that the “name” spoken of here is “ideation”—as one says the ideations of form, sound, odor, flavor, and the rest. A “phrase” is a “statement,” able to express a sense to completion—as the statement ‘all formations are impermanent’ and the like. Or else: a statement able to make clear the correspondence and difference of action, quality, and time is called a phrase. A “syllable” is a “letter-sound”—as one says the letters a, ā, i, ī, and the rest.

〔Objection:〕Are these letters not also the names of written signs?〔Answer:〕It is not that the letters were made in order to display written signs, but that written signs were made in order to display the letters.〔Since one must consider〕how a person may understand even without having heard them spoken, written signs were made. Hence the letters are not names of written signs.

What is called “the body of names and the rest”? It is the “collective expression” of ideations and the rest. What is called collective expression is the sense of gathering together—because in the sense of gathering together the verbal base utsa is spoken of. The name-body spoken of here is form, sound, odor, and the rest〔many names joined〕; the phrase-body is ‘all formations are impermanent,’ ‘all dharmas are without self,’ ‘nirvāṇa is peace,’ and the like; the syllable-body is ka, kha, ga, and the rest.

〔Objection:〕Are these three not of the nature of speech? Having sound for their entity, they belong to the intrinsic nature of form; how then can they instead be said to be formations not associated with mind?〔Answer:〕These three are not of the intrinsic nature of speech. Speech is vocal sound, and it is not that by vocal sound alone the sense can be made known to another.〔Question:〕How then is the sense made known?〔Answer:〕It is speech that gives rise to “name,” and name that displays the sense—and only so can it be made known.

〔Moreover〕not every vocal sound is called “speech”; only a vocal sound by which the sense can be made known is called speech. What sort of vocal sound makes the sense knowable? One that speakers have jointly settled among the several senses as “the fixed measure of what expresses”〔by common convention〕. Thus the ancients jointly settled upon the single sound go among nine senses as the fixed measure of what expresses. Therefore a stanza says:

〔Quoted Stanza〕The Nine Senses of the Sound Go

Stanza: Direction, beast, earth, light, speech, diamond, eye, heaven, and water—upon these nine senses the wise established the single sound go〔as their common designation〕.

Treatise: Those who hold that “name displays the sense” must likewise grant that such a “name of a sense” is also jointly settled as a fixed measure of what expresses. And since this sense of a phrase is displayed only by “name,” while the work of displaying by vocal sound alone is already accomplished, what need is there to reckon crosswise and posit besides a really existent “name”?

Further, it has not yet been made clear how this “name” is given rise to by speech: is it displayed by speech, or produced by speech? If it is produced by speech, then since all speech is of the nature of sound, every sound ought to be able to produce a name; and if it be said that the sound able to produce a name has a distinguishing feature, then that distinguishing feature already suffices to display the sense—what need is there to wait upon a separate “name”? If it is displayed by speech, then since all speech is of the nature of sound, every sound ought to be able to display a name; and if it be said that the sound able to display a name has a distinguishing feature, then that distinguishing feature already suffices to display the sense—what need is there to wait upon a separate “name”?

Again, the sounds of the several moments cannot be gathered together, nor is there any dharma that arises little by little in parts; how then can the arising of a “name” be given rise to by speech?〔Someone draws an analogy:〕How then do you explain that ‘after the moments of past manifest karma, the last moment of manifest karma can produce nonmanifest karma’?〔Answer:〕If so, only at the last position of the sound would a name be produced; then hearing only the last sound ought to make the sense known〔which is not the fact〕.

If one holds thus: speech produces the syllable, the syllable in turn produces the name, and the name displays the sense—here the objections are the same as stated above, because the syllables of the several moments likewise cannot be gathered together. And as for the fault in “speech displays the name,” it too should be stated on the model of “speech produces the name.” Again, of a “syllable” other than speech, even the clear-witted, applying their thought, cannot make out its characteristic〔which shows that apart from speech there is no separate syllable〕. Again, that the syllable is either displayed or produced by speech, on the model of “speech with respect to name,” does not hold in reason.

Again, if someone holds that the name, like arising and the rest〔the four marks〕, arises together with the sense—then a present name designating a past or a future sense ought to be impossible. Again, parents and others give names to their children as they please; how can it be said that the name arises together with the sense as arising and the rest do? Again, unconditioned dharmas ought to have no name, since they have no sense of “arising”—and yet you do not grant this〔that the unconditioned has no name〕.

Yet the World-Honored One said in a stanza that ‘it arises in dependence on name and syllable’—this only says that these are the measure jointly settled by many upon the several senses. Sound is itself name, and the differing arrangement of this name makes a stanza. It is upon this sense that “a stanza depends on name” is said. This stanza is the differing arrangement of names; to hold that it is a really existent thing does not accord with correct reasoning—as with many trees forming a row, or minds in succession〔the row and the succession being nothing apart from the trees and the minds〕.

Or else one should hold only that there is a separate entity of “syllable,” and gather them together to make the name-bodies and the rest; to posit the others〔name and phrase〕besides is superfluous and useless.

〔The Sarvāstivādins conclude:〕The Vaibhāṣikas say that there are separate real things as the name-bodies and the rest, included in the aggregate of formations not associated with mind, real and not provisional. Why? Because not every dharma is such as reflective thought can know.

To which realms do these name-bodies and the rest belong? Are they of the class of sentient beings or not? Are they maturation-born, nourished, or of homogeneous outflow? Are they wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate? All this should be analyzed. The stanza says:

〔Stanza 48, Second Half〕The Realm Affiliation, Five Classes, and Three Qualities of the Name-Bodies and the Rest

Stanza:〔The name-bodies and the rest〕belong to the desire and form realms only, are included in the class of sentient beings, are of homogeneous outflow, and are of unobscured-indeterminate quality.

Treatise: These name-bodies and the rest belong to the two realms, desire and form, only. Some say that they also belong to the formless realm, and yet it cannot be stated〔they cannot say how〕. Again, the name-bodies and the rest are included in the class of sentient beings—because they are possessed by a speaker and are not the sense displayed〔the sense extending to the insentient as well〕. Again, the name-bodies and the rest are of homogeneous outflow only〔neither maturation nor nourished〕. And they are included in the unobscured-indeterminate quality only.

As stated above, the senses of the remaining formations not associated with mind that have not yet been stated should now be analyzed in brief. The stanza says:

〔Stanza 49〕A General Analysis of the Remaining Senses of Commonality and the Rest

Stanza: Commonality is likewise as〔the name-bodies and the rest〕, and also extends to the formless realm and also to maturation; acquisition and the marks extend to three classes; non-acquisition and the two absorptions are of homogeneous outflow only.

Treatise: The words “likewise so” are meant to show that commonality, like the name-bodies and the rest, extends to the desire and form realms, to the class of sentient beings, to homogeneous outflow, and to the unobscured-indeterminate. The words “and the formless” show that it is not confined to the two realms desire and form. The words “and maturation” show that it is not confined to homogeneous outflow. Hence, as to realm,〔commonality〕extends to all three realms, and as to class it extends to the two senses of homogeneous outflow and maturation.

“Acquisition” and the marks, as to class, extend to all three—that is, momentary, of homogeneous outflow, and maturation. “Non-acquisition” and the two absorptions are of homogeneous outflow only. The single word “only” is to make clear that they are not maturation and the rest.

The senses not stated above have now been stated. The result of non-perception and the life faculty were analyzed above〔and so are not stated again here〕.

〔Question:〕Why is it not said that acquisition and the rest are included in the class of sentient beings only?〔Answer:〕Because it was already said above that they are ‘what a sentient being possesses,’ and the rest.〔Question:〕Why is it not said that the marks extend to both the class of sentient beings and what is not of that class?〔Answer:〕Because it was already said above that ‘all that is conditioned is together with the four marks.’ What remains unstated may be known by inference as fits each case.

〔Root 50〕General Listing of the Six Causes

Carrying forward: The formations not associated with mind have now been explained. Earlier, when the arising-mark was said to produce what is to arise, it was noted that this is not accomplished by the arising-mark alone, apart from the remaining causes and conditions. Which dharmas here, then, are called causes and conditions? Causes are stated first. There are six kinds of cause. Which six? The stanza says:

Stanza: The enabling cause and the coexistent cause, the homogeneous cause and the associated cause, the all-pervading cause and the maturation cause — the Abhidharma masters allow that there are only these six kinds of cause.

Treatise: There are six kinds of cause: first the enabling cause, second the coexistent cause, third the homogeneous cause, fourth the associated cause, fifth the all-pervading cause, sixth the maturation cause. The masters of Abhidharma allow that there are only these six kinds of cause. Now the first question: what is the character of the first, the enabling cause? The stanza says:

〔Root 51〔Line 1〕〕The Enabling Cause: Not Obstructing Is Itself Being a Cause

Stanza: Apart from the dharma itself, all other dharmas are its enabling causes.

Treatise: When any conditioned dharma arises, only its own entity is excluded, and all other dharmas are its enabling causes — because at the time it arises those dharmas abide without adding any obstruction. Although the remaining five causes also, by their very nature, act upon a result and may be called enabling, each of those five has a name of its own, while this one alone has no other name available, and so the general name is given to it — just as “sense field of visible form” and the rest are properly general terms yet are used as particular names.

Someone objects: is it not said that, so long as the truths have not been known, the outflows are about to arise, and that because they have been known the outflows do not arise? Then cognition does obstruct the arising of the outflows; and again, sunlight obstructs a person from seeing the stars before him. How then can it be said that when a conditioned dharma arises, all dharmas apart from its own entity are its enabling causes? — It should be understood that what is said is that at the time this dharma arises, those dharmas all abide without obstruction, and that it is on this account that they are enabling causes of it. (When cognition arises, and when sunlight arises, the outflows and the seeing of stars simply do not arise; only when cognition and sunlight are not present is it the time for the outflows and the seeing of stars to arise, and at that time those very dharmas abide without obstructing them.)

A further question: if a dharma had the power to obstruct this dharma when it arises and yet did not obstruct it, it might be established as a cause — just as the people of a realm, because their sovereign does them no harm, all say, “It is because of our sovereign that we obtain ease.” But if a dharma has no obstructing operation at all with respect to the arising of this dharma (not even the capacity to obstruct), then, however much it does not obstruct, on what ground is it a cause? — Take nirvāṇa and dharmas that will never arise, with respect to the arising of any conditioned dharma; or the continuum of beings in the hells and elsewhere, with respect to the arising of the aggregates of the formless realm: their being present amounts to their being absent, and they have no obstructing operation whatever. The answer: although they have no obstructing operation, they are still established as causes, just as with a king who has no power — the people of the realm may say, exactly as before, “Because of our sovereign we obtain ease.”

This is said of all enabling causes in general, taking only the one sense of not obstructing. Where the more excellent among them are concerned, the enabling cause is not wholly without power to produce a result: the eye faculty and the visible object, for instance, with respect to the arising of visual consciousness and the rest; food with respect to the body; seeds and the rest with respect to sprouts and the rest — these do genuinely have productive power.

Another objection is raised: if all dharmas become enabling causes because they do not obstruct, why do not all dharmas arise all at once? When one person kills, why does not everyone alike incur the act of killing as that killer does? — The objection does not stand. It is only on the one point of not obstructing that all dharmas are allowed to be enabling causes; it is not said that they all have an intimate productive force with respect to the arising of the result. (The intimate cause and the mind that equally instigates are not present, and so there is no arising all at once and no shared offense.)

Another class of masters says: all enabling causes have an enabling power with respect to the arising of the result. To them one may put the question: what enabling power has nirvāṇa and the rest with respect to the arising of visual consciousness? The answer: mental consciousness arises taking nirvāṇa and the rest as its object, and becomes either a wholesome or an unwholesome mind; and because that mental consciousness has occurred, visual consciousness afterwards obtains its arising in due sequence — for they are causes of one another in a chain. So nirvāṇa and the rest do have an enabling power with respect to the arising of visual consciousness. The remaining dharmas are to be inferred on this same model, and all should be known to have productive power in a chain.

The character of the enabling cause has been explained. Second, what is the character of the coexistent cause? The stanza says:

〔Root 51〔Lines 2–4〕〕The Coexistent Cause: Serving as One Another’s Results

Stanza: Serving as one another’s results is the coexistent cause — as with the four great elements among themselves, as with what marks and what is marked, as with mind and the dharmas that follow mind.

Treatise: If two dharmas serve as one another’s results of human effort (the result obtained through the force of the cause’s operation), then those two dharmas are one another’s coexistent causes. What is their character? Just as the four great elements — earth, water, fire, wind — are reciprocally coexistent causes with respect to one another; and likewise the marks (the four marks of arising, abiding, change, and cessation) and the dharma they mark, and mind and the dharmas that follow mind, are all causes of one another. In this way the coexistent cause, by the single sense of being one another’s results, gathers in all conditioned dharmas accordingly.

One exception, however, must be sorted out: a primary dharma and its secondary marks (the four lesser marks) are not one another’s results — the primary dharma is not a result produced by the secondary marks — and yet the primary dharma is still a coexistent cause of the secondary marks (the secondary marks follow the primary dharma), while conversely the secondary marks are not coexistent causes of the primary dharma. This point should be argued out here.

What, then, are called the dharmas that follow mind? The stanza says:

〔Root 52〔Lines 1–3〕〕The Entities of the Dharmas That Follow Mind

Stanza: The mental factors, the two disciplines of absorption and of the without-outflows, and the marks of these together with mind itself — these are the dharmas that follow mind.

Treatise: All dharmas associated with mind (the mental factors), the two disciplines — the discipline of absorption and the discipline without outflows — and the marks of arising, abiding, change, and cessation belonging to these dharmas and to mind itself: all of these are called dharmas that follow mind. (The two disciplines are nonmanifest form that exists when one enters absorption and is absent when one leaves it, and so they follow mind.)

Why, then, are these dharmas called followers of mind? The stanza says:

〔Root 52〔Line 4〕〕Ten Reasons Adjudicate Following: Time, Result, Ethical Quality, and the Rest

Stanza: Because time is the same, result is the same, and the three ethical qualities, wholesome and the rest, are the same.

Treatise: Stated briefly, it is because time is the same, result and the rest are the same, and the wholesome and the rest are the same, that these dharmas are said to follow mind.

First, as to time: these dharmas have one arising, one abiding, and one cessation with mind, and they fall together into one time-period (past, present, or future, all belonging to one period). These four items together make the gate of time, showing that only what is simultaneous with mind is called a follower.

Second, as to result and the rest: these dharmas obtain one result with mind, call forth one maturation with mind, and obtain one homogeneous outflow with mind.

It should be understood that the “one” stated first here (one arising, one abiding, one cessation) shows simultaneity, while the “one” stated afterwards (one result, one maturation, one homogeneous outflow) shows commonality — one and the same word, with a different meaning in the two places.

Third, as to the wholesome and the rest: these dharmas are, together with mind, wholesome in quality, or unwholesome in quality, or indeterminate in quality.

From the four items of time, the three of result, and the three of quality, ten reasons are reckoned in all, and hence the name dharmas that follow mind.

Here, stated in terms of dharma-numbers: mind as sovereign is a reciprocal coexistent cause with at least fifty-eight dharmas — namely the ten factors of the great ground, their forty primary marks, and mind’s own four primary marks and four secondary marks, eight in all, making fifty-eight dharmas together. Conversely, among these fifty-eight, once mind’s four secondary marks are removed, the remaining fifty-four are the coexistent causes of mind.

Another master says: only fourteen dharmas are causes of mind — that is, the ten factors of the great ground together with mind’s four primary marks (not taking in the forty primary marks upon the factors of the great ground). This position is not good. Why? Because it contradicts the express words of the Treatise on Categories of Dharmas. As that treatise says: “There are dharmas of the truth of suffering that have the view of a real person as their cause and are not causes of the view of a real person — that is, apart from the future view of a real person and the arising, aging, abiding, and impermanence of the dharmas associated with it, the remaining defiled dharmas of the truth of suffering”; and, “There are dharmas of the truth of suffering that have the view of a real person as their cause and are also causes of the view of a real person — that is, the dharmas just excluded.” (Since what is excluded includes the four marks of the associated dharmas, it is evident that the primary marks upon the factors of the great ground are also reciprocal coexistent causes with mind.) Some transmitted versions, however, do not recite the five characters “and the dharmas associated with it.” The Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīra say that the passage must certainly be recited thus; or that even without those characters one should know from the sense that the statement is abbreviated.

Next it must be sorted out that coexisting and the coexistent cause are not the same thing. Whatever is a cause by way of the coexistent cause certainly coexists; but there are also things that coexist and yet are not causes by way of the coexistent cause — namely: the secondary marks with respect to their own primary dharma; the secondary marks with respect to one another; the secondary marks of the dharmas that follow mind with respect to mind; those secondary marks with respect to one another; all simultaneously arisen resistant derived forms with respect to one another; some simultaneously arisen nonresistant derived forms with respect to one another; all simultaneously arisen derived forms and great elements with respect to one another; and all simultaneously arisen acquisitions and what is acquired with respect to one another. These dharmas, though called coexistent, are not causes by way of the coexistent cause — because they do not take one result, one maturation, and one homogeneous outflow together. As for an acquisition and what is acquired, they do not even necessarily proceed at the same time, but may be earlier, later, or co-arisen, and so are all the less coexistent causes.

These points may be granted for the moment. But — in the causation universally acknowledged in the world, the seed is earlier and the sprout later; simultaneous cause and result of the sort you speak of has never been seen. So it must now be made clear: among a mass of dharmas arising at the same time, how can there be any sense of cause and result?

The Sarvāstivādins answer: Is it not evident to sight? A lamp flame and its light, a sprout and its shadow, are simultaneous and yet are one another’s cause and result.

The Sautrāntikas counter: This is exactly what should be argued out in detail — are the lamp flame and its light one another’s cause and result, or do the causes and conditions conjoined in the preceding moment (human effort, the lamp vessel, the oil, the wick) make flame and light arise together? As for the shadow, it appears because something else blocks the light; how can that shadow be said to have the sprout as its cause? (If the sprout produced the shadow, then where there is a sprout but no sunlight there should still be a shadow.)

The Sarvāstivādins defend the position: Your denial of our simultaneous cause and result does not stand to reason — because whether the result’s entity exists or not is settled by whether the cause exists or not. Those skilled in reasoning state the character of cause and result thus: if, when this cause exists the result exists, and when this cause does not exist the result does not exist, then this is definitely the cause and that definitely the result. And among coexistent dharmas, when one exists all exist and when one does not exist none does — which accords exactly with the principle of cause and result.

The Sautrāntikas ask again: Granting that things arising at the same time may be said to have the principle of cause and result, how can they be said to be one another’s cause and result? The Sarvāstivādins answer: By what was said just above (that when this exists that exists and when this does not exist that does not, which runs both ways), there is no contradiction in their being one another’s cause and result.

If that is so, then should not the derived forms spoken of above as inseparable from one another also be one another’s causes? Likewise derived forms and the great elements, and the secondary marks of what follows mind together with mind and the rest, are all inseparable from one another; should they not all be one another’s causes?

If it be said: just as three staves standing by leaning on one another, so the sense of cause and result among coexistent dharmas is established — then this too must be thought through again: do those three staves stand by the force of leaning on one another at the same time, or do the causes and conditions conjoined in a preceding moment make those three staves arise together and so stand? And besides, cords, hooks, the ground, and the like are there as well, holding and supporting them so that they stand. The answer: here too there are likewise the homogeneous cause and the rest (other supporting conditions) at work, and therefore the sense of the coexistent cause is still established.

The character of the coexistent cause has been explained. Third, what is the character of the homogeneous cause? The stanza says:

〔Root 53 · First Half of Root 54〕The Homogeneous Cause: Similar, of One’s Own Category and Level, Arisen Before

Stanza: The homogeneous cause is what is similar; it is confined to the same category and the same level, and must be a dharma arisen before. The path without outflows, however, is reciprocally a cause across the nine levels, though only what is equal or superior is its result. Dharmas arising from preparation are likewise — that is, what is formed through hearing, what is formed through reflection, and the rest.

Treatise: The homogeneous cause is similar dharmas being one another’s homogeneous causes. For instance, wholesome five aggregates and wholesome five aggregates are reciprocally homogeneous causes with respect to one another; and the defiled with the defiled, and the indeterminate with the indeterminate, the five aggregates considered reciprocally, should be known in the same way.

Here there are divergent views: some masters say that, of the pure indeterminate aggregates, all five aggregates are results of the aggregate of form〔form can be a cause of the five aggregates〕and the four aggregates are not causes of form; some masters say that all five aggregates are results of the four aggregates〔the four aggregates can be causes of the five aggregates〕and form is not a cause of the four aggregates; and still other masters say that form and the four aggregates, considered reciprocally, are in neither direction causes.

Again: within one and the same body, the first embryonic stage, the kalala, can be a homogeneous cause of the ten stages that follow; and each of the nine stages beginning with the second, the arbuda, excluding the stages before itself, is a cause of the remaining stages. With respect to the ten like stages in another’s body, each stage can be a cause of all ten. On this same model, the self-same production of barley, rice, and the rest in the external world should also be widely considered.

If one does not allow that form can be a homogeneous cause of form, that position contradicts the express words of the root treatise — for the root treatise says, “past great elements are causes and dominant conditions of future great elements,” and so on.

Are all similar dharmas, then, to be called homogeneous causes of similar dharmas? They are not. How so? Only what is of one’s own category and one’s own level is a cause for that same category and level, and so the stanza says “the same category and level.” Category means the five categories — that is, what is abandoned by seeing suffering, what is abandoned by seeing origination, what is abandoned by seeing cessation, what is abandoned by seeing the path, and what is abandoned by cultivation. Level means the nine levels — that is, the desire realm reckoned as one level, plus the four absorptions and the four formless attainments, eight in all. Here, dharmas abandoned by seeing suffering are homogeneous causes only for what is abandoned by seeing suffering and are not causes for the other four categories; and so on up to what is abandoned by cultivation being a homogeneous cause only for what is abandoned by cultivation. And within each single category, the level of the desire realm is a homogeneous cause only for the desire realm, the level of the first absorption only for the first absorption, and so on up to the level of the summit of existence being a homogeneous cause only for the summit of existence — between different levels there is no principle of being a cause at all.

Nor is that all. What more? The stanza says “arisen before”: only a dharma already arisen earlier is a homogeneous cause of a later dharma that is similar to it, whether that later dharma is imminently arising or not yet arisen. How is this known to be so? Because the root treatise says so. As the Treatise on the Development of Wisdom says: “What is the homogeneous cause? Previously arisen wholesome roots are homogeneous causes of subsequently arisen wholesome roots of their own realm and of the dharmas associated with them.” In this way the past with respect to the other two time-periods, and past and present with respect to the future, and so forth, should all be stated at length accordingly.

That treatise, however, also contains this question: “If a dharma is a cause of another dharma, is there ever a time when it is not a cause of that dharma?” And its author answers: “There is no time when it is not a cause.” — This was said covertly with respect to the three causes of coexistence, association, and maturation (those three extending to the future), and so there is no fault.

Someone says instead: a future dharma at the stage of imminent arising can certainly be a homogeneous cause for it, and so that passage was answered covertly on the basis of the final stage, the stage of imminent arising. This explanation is not a good resolution of the objection raised — because a future dharma is not a homogeneous cause before the stage of imminent arising, and becomes a homogeneous cause only after that stage (so that there still is a time when it is not a cause). Moreover, on his reading, when the treatise goes on to ask, “If a dharma is immediately antecedent to another dharma, is there ever a time when it is not immediately antecedent to it?”, its author answers, “When this dharma has not yet reached the state of having arisen.” On his explanation, that place too ought to have been answered, “There is no time when it is not a condition”; why then does it answer, “When this dharma has not yet reached the state of having arisen”?

He then repairs his position by saying: this was to display the two modes of question and answer, one covert and one plain — as it is stated there, so it might have been stated here, and as it is stated here, so it might have been stated there. — And what merit is gained by composing the text so? It only shows that the treatise’s author was not skilled in composition. Hence it should be known that the earlier explanation, the covert reference to the three causes, is the good one.

If that is so, why then does the Treatise on Categories of Dharmas say, “There are dharmas of the truth of suffering that have the view of a real person as their cause and are not causes of the view of a real person — that is, apart from the future view of a real person and the dharmas of the truth of suffering associated with it, the remaining defiled dharmas of the truth of suffering; and there are dharmas of the truth of suffering that have the view of a real person as their cause and are also causes of the view of a real person — that is, the dharmas just excluded”? (If there is no homogeneous cause in the future, why exclude “the future dharmas of the truth of suffering associated with the view of a real person”?) The answer: that passage should be stated as “apart from the future dharmas of the truth of suffering associated with the view of a real person” (that is, merely associated, and not included under the homogeneous cause). And even if the recitation really were as he says, one should know from the sense that it is not so (not evidence for a homogeneous cause in the future).

And how is the Treatise of Designations to be reconciled? That treatise says that dharmas have four determinate matters — namely cause, result, support, and object. It should be known that the word “cause” in that passage refers to the enabling cause, the coexistent cause, the associated cause, and the maturation cause (the four that extend to the future); “result” refers to the dominant result, the result of human effort, and the maturation result; “support” refers to the six faculties, the eye and the rest; and “object” refers to the six objects, visible form and the rest. (The homogeneous cause and the homogeneous result are not included there, and so no difficulty arises.)

If that is so, does not the homogeneous cause then become something that was not and comes to be? — This is allowed, and there is no fault: it is stated with respect to position and not with respect to entity; the result is established by the position of conjunction and operation, and not established with respect to entity.

Then supposing the homogeneous cause did exist in the future as well, as the maturation cause does, what fault would there be? The answer: if it existed in the future, the root treatise should have said so; but the root treatise speaks only of those homogeneous causes that can take a result and give a result (that is, in past and present), and so there is no fault.

Furthermore, on principle it cannot exist there: for the homogeneous cause draws forth a homogeneous result, and to say that this cause exists already in the future is by all reasoning impossible — future dharmas have no division into earlier and later. And it should not be said that an already arisen dharma is the homogeneous outflow of a not yet arisen dharma, just as a past dharma is not a result of a present one; otherwise there would be the fault of the result being earlier and the cause later. Therefore there is no homogeneous cause in the future.

If that is so, should not the maturation cause likewise be absent in the future? — It should not, because a maturation result is never earlier than its cause and never simultaneous with it (the result must be later than the cause). The answer: since future dharmas have no earlier and later, the fault just stated does not follow, because the maturation cause and its result are not similar. That is to say: the homogeneous cause and its result are similar, and if there were no earlier and later they would be one another’s causes; and being one another’s causes they would be one another’s results, and to be one another’s cause and result contradicts reason. The maturation cause and its result are not similar, and so even apart from the distinction of earlier and later the fault stated above does not arise. Therefore the homogeneous cause is established with respect to position, and so is absent in the future; the maturation cause is established with respect to character, and so is not absent in the future either.

On what basis is it said that the homogeneous cause is “only of one’s own level”? It is said with respect to what has outflows. In the case of the path without outflows, considered reciprocally, the path of each level can be a cause for all nine levels — that is, access concentration, intermediate absorption, the four fundamental absorptions, and the three fundamental formless attainments: the truth of the path in these nine levels is reciprocally a cause. Why? Because the path without outflows abides in every level like a guest lodging for a time, is not included within any realm, and is not appropriated as its own by the craving belonging to any level; so the paths of the nine levels, though the levels differ, can be reciprocally causes — for they are alike of the one class, the without-outflows.

Yet it is a cause only for what is equal or superior, and cannot be a cause of what is inferior, because it arises from preparation, that is, from applied effort. Thus an already arisen receptivity to the cognition of dharma concerning suffering is still a homogeneous cause of a future receptivity to the cognition of dharma concerning suffering, and this is called “equal”; and that same receptivity can also be a homogeneous cause of everything thereafter, from the cognition of dharma concerning suffering up to the knowledge of non-arising, and this is called “superior.” Stated at length in this way, up to the point where already arisen knowledges of non-arising are homogeneous causes only for what is equal to them, since there is nothing more excellent than they.

Again: the already arisen path of seeing, path of cultivation, and path beyond training are homogeneous causes for three, for two, and for one respectively (the path of seeing being a cause for all three paths, the path of cultivation for the two paths of cultivation and beyond training, and the path beyond training only for the path beyond training). And here a path of dull faculties is a homogeneous cause both for dull and for sharp faculties, whereas a path of sharp faculties is a cause only for a path of sharp faculties. Thus the paths of the three noble persons of dull faculties — one who follows through faith, one resolute through faith, and one whose liberation depends on circumstance — are homogeneous causes for six, for four, and for two respectively; and the paths of the three noble persons of sharp faculties — one who follows the dharma, one attained through view, and one whose liberation does not depend on circumstance — are homogeneous causes for three, for two, and for one respectively.

A further question: a path of a higher level may be a cause of a lower level; how then is it still said to be “equal or superior” (a higher level being superior and a lower inferior, so that it becomes a cause for what is inferior)? The answer: this is said by the two senses of increase in the cause and of faculty. Increase in the cause means that among the nine grades of the path of seeing and the rest, the lowest of the low and the others increase in causal force at each successive stage (so that a lower grade of a higher level may still be a cause for a higher grade of a lower level without being inferior). By faculty is meant that a path of dull faculties at a higher level is a cause for a path of sharp faculties at a lower level. And although within one continuum it is impossible for both the path of one who follows through faith and the path of one who follows the dharma to arise, an already arisen path may be a cause for a future path of the other class.

“Dharmas arising from preparation are likewise”: not only the noble path, but any worldly dharma that arises from preparation is likewise a cause only for what is equal or superior and not for what is inferior. What are the entities of dharmas arising from preparation? They are discernment formed through hearing, discernment formed through reflection, and the rest. The word “rest” takes in discernment formed through cultivation — the qualities produced by hearing, reflection, and cultivation are called “formed by them,” and because they arise only through applied effort they are causes for what is equal or superior and not for what is inferior.

Thus, as belonging to the desire realm: what is formed through hearing can be a homogeneous cause of what is formed through hearing and of what is formed through reflection within its own realm, and is not a cause of what is formed through cultivation (the desire realm has nothing formed through cultivation); what is formed through reflection is a homogeneous cause of what is formed through reflection and is not a cause of what is formed through hearing, since hearing is inferior to reflection. As belonging to the form realm: what is formed through hearing can be a homogeneous cause of what is formed through hearing and of what is formed through cultivation within its own realm, and is not a cause of what is formed through reflection (the form realm has nothing formed through reflection, for as soon as the mind sets itself to consider, it enters absorption); what is formed through cultivation is a homogeneous cause only of what is formed through cultivation in its own realm and is not a cause of what is formed through hearing, since hearing is inferior. As belonging to the formless realm: what is formed through cultivation is a homogeneous cause only of what is formed through cultivation in its own realm, and is not a cause of what is formed through hearing or reflection — there being no hearing there (no ear faculty), and reflection being inferior.

These dharmas further have nine grades each: the lowest of the low can be a cause for all nine grades; the low-middle for eight grades; and so on up to the highest of the high, which is a cause only for the highest of the high, since all the grades inferior to it are excluded. As for wholesome dharmas acquired by birth, the nine grades may be reciprocally causes for one another (not restricted to equal or superior); and it is the same with defiled dharmas.

The unobscured-indeterminate is of four kinds in all: those co-arisen with the maturation-born, with the mode of deportment, with the field of craft, and with the transformation mind; and these are causes for four, for three, for two, and for one respectively (each later one being more excellent). Moreover the transformation mind of the desire realm has the four absorptions as its results, but the transformation mind that is the result of a lower absorption is not a cause of the transformation mind that is the result of a higher absorption — because a dharma arising from preparation does not obtain an inferior result, just as one who diligently applies effort to sowing rice and barley does not toil in vain and reap nothing at all.

Because this is so, someone asks: is there an already arisen dharma without outflows that is not a cause of a dharma without outflows still at the stage of not having arisen? There is — for instance an already arisen class of the cognition of dharma concerning suffering with respect to the not yet arisen class of the receptivity concerning suffering (cognition being superior to receptivity, and so not a cause of the inferior); and, generally, any superior dharma with respect to any inferior dharma. Is there a dharma without outflows already determinately obtained within one continuum that is not a cause of what arises later? There is — for instance the future class of the receptivity concerning suffering with respect to the class of the cognition of dharma concerning suffering already arisen after it (a result never being earlier than its cause); or else, because there is no homogeneous cause in the future. Is there a previously arisen dharma without outflows that is not a cause of a dharma without outflows arising later? There is — for instance a previously arisen superior dharma without outflows with respect to an inferior dharma without outflows arising later, as when one falls back from a higher fruit and the lower fruit becomes present. And likewise the previously arisen acquisition of the cognition of dharma concerning suffering is not a homogeneous cause of the subsequently arisen acquisition of the receptivity concerning suffering, since the latter is inferior to the former.

The character of the homogeneous cause has been explained. Fourth, what is the character of the associated cause? The stanza says:

〔Second Half of Root 54〕The Associated Cause: Equal in Five Senses and Sharing One Support

Stanza: The associated cause is settled as mind and mental factors alone, and they must have one and the same support.

Treatise: Only mind and mental factors are associated causes.

If that is so, should not mind and mental factors whose objects and modes of apprehension differ also be one another’s associated causes? — They should not. Only those whose object and mode of apprehension are the same may be said to be in association.

If that is so, should not those whose objects and modes of apprehension are the same but whose times differ also be said to be associated causes? — They should not. Only when object, mode of apprehension, and time are all the same is it called association.

If that is so, should not those in different bodies whose object, mode of apprehension, and time are all the same (as when a crowd looks together at the new moon at the same moment) also be said to be in association? — In order to bar all these difficulties in a single phrase, the stanza says “the same support”: only mind and mental factors having one and the same support can be one another’s associated causes. Here the word “same” shows that the support is a single one — for instance, visual consciousness takes the eye faculty of this one moment as its support, and the feeling and other mental factors associated with it take that same eye faculty as their support; and so on up to mental consciousness and its associated dharmas taking the mental faculty as their common support, which should be understood in the same way.

The entity of the associated cause is in fact the coexistent cause; what difference in meaning, then, is there between the two causes? The answer: the coexistent cause is established by the sense of being one another’s results, like a company of merchants relying on one another and passing together through a dangerous road; the associated cause is established by the sense of being associated together in five equalities, like that same company of merchants eating together and working together at the business of food and drink and the rest, where if one man among them is missing none of them is in association — and so the sense of being one another’s causes is most fully established.

The character of the associated cause has been explained. Fifth, what is the character of the all-pervading cause? The stanza says:

〔First Half of Root 55〕The All-Pervading Cause: Previously Arisen All-Pervading Afflictions as the General Cause of Defiled Dharmas on the Same Level

Stanza: The all-pervading cause means the all-pervading dharmas arisen before, which are causes of all defiled dharmas on one and the same level.

Treatise: The all-pervading cause is the previously arisen all-pervading dharmas being all-pervading causes of subsequently arisen defiled dharmas of the same level. As for which dharmas the all-pervading dharmas are (the eleven all-pervading latent tendencies together with the dharmas associated and coexistent with them), this will be analyzed at length in the chapter on latent tendencies, where the sense of pervasion is treated.

Why must this cause be established separately from the homogeneous cause? Because it is the general cause of all defiled dharmas — the homogeneous cause is a cause only within its own category, whereas the all-pervading cause is a cause not only of defiled dharmas of its own category but also of the defiled dharmas of every other category; and by its force the afflictions of the other categories, together with their retinues (the dharmas associated and coexistent with them), grow along with it.

Question: do the defiled dharmas within the continuum of a noble one (the defilements abandoned by cultivation) also take these all-pervading dharmas abandoned by seeing as their cause? Answer: the Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīra say that all defiled dharmas take what is abandoned by seeing as their cause. So the Treatise on Categories of Dharmas says: “What are the dharmas that have what is abandoned by seeing as their cause? They are the defiled dharmas, together with the maturation called forth by dharmas abandoned by seeing.” And again: “What are the dharmas that have the indeterminate as their cause? They are all indeterminate conditioned dharmas together with the unwholesome dharmas.” And again: “There are dharmas of the truth of suffering that have the view of a real person as their cause and are not causes of the view of a real person . . . that is, apart from the future view of a real person and the arising, aging, abiding, and impermanence of the dharmas associated with it, the remaining defiled dharmas of the truth of suffering.” (All three passages attest that what is abandoned by seeing is a general cause of every defiled dharma.)

If that is so, how is the Treatise of Designations to be reconciled? That treatise says: “Is there a dharma that is unwholesome and has only the unwholesome as its cause? There is — the first defiled volition arising when a noble one falls back from freedom from desire.” (If every defiled dharma has what is abandoned by seeing as its cause, why is only the unwholesome stated here as its cause?) Answer: that was said covertly with respect to a cause not yet abandoned — what is abandoned by seeing is also a cause of that volition, but the noble one has already abandoned the defilements of seeing, and so it is passed over unstated.

The character of the all-pervading cause has been explained. Sixth, what is the character of the maturation cause? The stanza says:

〔Second Half of Root 55〕The Maturation Cause: the Unwholesome and the Wholesome with Outflows

Stanza: The maturation cause is the unwholesome dharmas, together with those wholesome dharmas that have outflows alone.

Treatise: Only unwholesome dharmas and wholesome dharmas with outflows are maturation causes, because they are dharmas that can call forth maturation.

Question: why do indeterminate dharmas not call forth maturation? Answer: because their force is too weak, like a rotted seed. Question: why do dharmas without outflows not call forth maturation? Answer: because there is no craving to moisten them, like a sound seed with no water to irrigate it (which likewise cannot sprout); and moreover the without-outflows does not belong to any of the levels bound within the three realms, so how could it call forth a maturation belonging to a bound level? The remaining dharmas (the unwholesome and the wholesome with outflows) have both senses complete — they have the moistening of craving and they belong to a bound level — and so can call it forth, like a sound seed that has also received the moisture of water.

How is the name “maturation cause” to be understood? Is it “the cause of maturation” (a dependent-determinative analysis), or is it “maturation which is itself the cause” (an appositional-determinative analysis)? Answer: both explanations hold, and what fault is there in that? — If it were only “the cause of maturation,” the holy teaching should not say “the maturation-born eye” (which speaks of maturation with respect to the result); if it were only “maturation which is itself the cause,” the holy teaching should not say “the maturation of an action” (which speaks of maturation with respect to the cause). That both explanations hold has already been argued above.

What, then, is the meaning of the two words “maturation”? The Vaibhāṣikas explain it thus: ripening as a different kind is the sense of maturation — the maturation cause alone ripens as a different kind (the cause being wholesome or unwholesome and the result indeterminate); the coexistent cause and the rest ripen only as the same kind; and the one enabling cause extends to both same kind and different kind. Therefore this one alone is named the maturation cause.

(The author argues that this is insufficient): the result called “ripening” should not be a result obtained by the other causes. To deserve the name “ripening” a result must have two senses complete. First, its entity must arise only through the transformation and differentiation of a continuum (after an action is done the result is not called forth at once, and only when the continuum is about to call forth the result is it called transformation and differentiation). Second, its duration must have a definite limit in accordance with the relative strength of the cause’s force (ten years, say, or a hundred). Now the entities of the results produced by the coexistent and associated causes do not need to arise through the transformation and differentiation of a continuum, since they give the result at the very time they take it (the first sense is lacking); and the results of the enabling, homogeneous, and all-pervading causes do not have a temporal limit in accordance with the relative strength of the cause’s force, since to the very end of birth-and-death the results of wholesome and unwholesome actions and the rest still arise again and again with no limit of time (the second sense is lacking). Therefore it should be explained thus: ripening through transformation is the sense of maturation; and one should not distinguish it from the other causes by the single word “different” (which does not cover the sense fully).

Next, how many aggregates the maturation cause takes to call forth one result together. Within the desire realm: sometimes one aggregate is the maturation cause calling forth one result together — namely a determinate acquisition within the aggregate of formations, together with its four marks of arising and the rest; sometimes two aggregates are the maturation cause calling forth one result together — namely wholesome or unwholesome bodily and verbal action (the aggregate of form) together with their arising and the rest (the aggregate of formations); sometimes four aggregates are the maturation cause calling forth one result together — namely wholesome or unwholesome mind and mental factors together with their arising and the rest.

Within the form realm: sometimes one aggregate calls forth one result together — namely a determinate acquisition, or the attainment of non-perception, together with their arising and the rest; sometimes two aggregates call forth one result together — namely wholesome manifest action of the first absorption together with its arising and the rest; sometimes four aggregates call forth one result together — namely wholesome mind and mental factors not in equipoise (a scattered mind) together with their arising and the rest; sometimes five aggregates call forth one result together — namely mind and mental factors in equipoise (a concentrated mind) together with the form that follows them and with their arising and the rest.

Within the formless realm: sometimes one aggregate calls forth one result together — namely a determinate acquisition, or the attainment of cessation, together with their arising and the rest; sometimes four aggregates call forth one result together — namely all wholesome mind and mental factors together with their arising and the rest.

Next, the number of sense fields of maturation called forth by a single action. There is action that calls forth maturation in one sense field only — that is, it calls forth the sense field of dharmas, such as the life faculty. If it calls forth the mental sense field, it certainly calls forth two sense fields at once — the mental sense field and the sense field of dharmas. If it calls forth the sense field of the tangible, it should be known to be the same (the tangible and dharmas). If it calls forth the sense field of the body, it certainly calls forth three — the body, the tangible, and dharmas. Calling forth visible form, odor, and taste should be known in the same way. If it calls forth the sense field of the eye, it certainly calls forth four — the eye together with body, tangible, and dharmas. Calling forth the ear, nose, and tongue should be known in the same way. And there is action that can call forth five, or six, or seven, or eight, or nine, or ten, or eleven sense fields — because some actions have few results and some many, just as among the seeds of the outer world some bear few fruits and some many: few, as with grain and barley; many, as with the lotus, the pomegranate, and the banyan tree.

Again: there is action of one lifetime that calls forth maturation in three lifetimes, but no action of three lifetimes that calls forth maturation in one — for one does not toil in vain and get a result smaller than the cause. There is action of one moment that calls forth maturation in many moments, but no action of many moments that calls forth maturation in one, on the same reasoning.

A maturation result, however, is never simultaneous with the action, since at the very time of acting the result is not undergone; nor is it undergone immediately, in the very next moment, since the next moment is drawn forth by the force of the immediately antecedent condition (which is homogeneous outflow, not maturation). Moreover, since what the maturation cause calls forth is a result of a different kind, it can be brought about only when a continuum has transformed.

The particular characters of the six causes have now been explained. In which time-period, then, are these six causes determinately located? A cause’s residence in a time-period is determinate. Though this principle has already been stated, it has not yet been gathered into a stanza, and so it should be sorted out once more. The stanza says:

〔First Half of Root 56〕The Determinate Time-Periods of the Six Causes

Stanza: The all-pervading cause and the homogeneous cause extend to two time-periods; the associated, coexistent, and maturation causes extend to all three.

Treatise: The all-pervading cause and the homogeneous cause reside only in the two time-periods of past and present and are absent in the future — for the reason stated above, that they are established with respect to position. The three causes of association, coexistence, and maturation are present throughout all three time-periods. Since the stanza does not state in which time-period the enabling cause resides, one may infer from the class of the sense that the enabling cause extends to the three time-periods and also to what is outside time (unconditioned dharmas are enabling causes too).

The particular characters of the six causes and the determination of their time-periods have been explained. What dharma, then, is a result, with respect to which something is established as a cause? The stanza says:

〔Second Half of Root 56〕Results Are Only the Conditioned and Release from Bondage; the Unconditioned Has Neither Cause nor Result

Stanza: Results are all conditioned dharmas together with release from bondage (cessation through discernment); unconditioned dharmas themselves have neither cause nor result.

Treatise: As the root treatise says: “What are result-dharmas? They are all conditioned dharmas together with cessation through discernment.”

If that is so, then since the unconditioned (cessation through discernment) is allowed to be a result, it ought to have a cause — for only with respect to that cause can it be called a result; and since this unconditioned is also allowed to be a cause (an enabling cause), it ought to have a result — for only with respect to that result can it be called a cause. Answer: only conditioned dharmas have causes and results, and unconditioned dharmas do not. Why? Because the unconditioned has none of the six causes and none of the five results.

Question: why is it not allowed that the paths of unimpeded progress are enabling causes of the result of release from bondage? Answer: an enabling cause is established with respect to not obstructing the arising of something; but the unconditioned has no arising at all, so what can the path enable in it?

Question: whose result, then, is it? And wherein lies the sense of “result”? Answer: it is the result of the path, because it is realized by the force of the path.

Question: if that is so, then the result of the path should be only that acquisition (the acquisition of cessation through discernment), since the path has productive power with respect to the acquisition and none with respect to cessation through discernment itself. Answer: it is not so. The path’s function with respect to the acquisition and its function with respect to the cessation differ: with respect to the acquisition its function is to produce, and with respect to the cessation its function is to realize. On this principle, although the path is not a producing cause of the cessation, one may still say that cessation through discernment is a result of the path.

Question: since unconditioned dharmas have no dominant result, how can they still be said to be enabling causes? Answer: because unconditioned dharmas do not obstruct the arising of other dharmas, they are established as enabling causes; yet they are said to have no result because, apart from the dharmas of the world, there is no operation of taking a result and giving a result (the unconditioned is not within the three time-periods and so has no taking or giving).

(What follows is the Sautrāntika and Sarvāstivāda debate over whether the unconditioned is really existent; the treatise records the words of both parties at length.)

The Sautrāntika masters say: The unconditioned is not a cause. For no sūtra says that a cause is unconditioned, while there is a sūtra saying that causes are conditioned only.

Question: which sūtra says so? Answer: as a sūtra says, “Whatever causes and conditions produce form are all impermanent. Forms produced by impermanent causes and conditions — how could they be permanent?” And so on at length up to consciousness.

Counter: if that is so, then the unconditioned should also be unable to serve as an object condition for a consciousness that takes it as object (since the sūtra says that causes and conditions are all impermanent). Answer: the sūtra says only that what produces is impermanent, and so the unconditioned may still be an object condition — the sūtra says only that “whatever causes and conditions produce consciousness are all impermanent,” and does not say that everything that serves as a condition of consciousness is impermanent; so no difficulty arises.

Counter again: in that case the sūtra likewise says only that a productive cause is impermanent, and so it has not ruled out the unconditioned being an enabling cause merely by not obstructing. Answer: there is a scripture saying that unconditioned dharmas are object conditions, but no scripture saying that unconditioned dharmas are enabling causes; and so they should not be established as causes merely by not obstructing. Rejoinder: though no sūtra says so, neither is there any place where a sūtra forbids it; and immeasurable sūtras have by now been lost, so how can it be decided that no sūtra says so?

Question: what dharma, then, is called release from bondage? Answer: cessation through discernment, as stated in the root treatise. Counter: was it not asked earlier what cessation through discernment is, and answered that it is release from bondage? And now, when it is asked what release from bondage is, the answer is that it is cessation through discernment — with the two answers thus leaning on each other, its intrinsic nature is in the end never displayed. Another gate should therefore be opened to display its intrinsic nature.

(The Sarvāstivādins answer): The intrinsic nature of this dharma is really existent and beyond words; only the noble ones know it, each by inward realization. One can only say by way of expedient, in general terms, that it is wholesome and permanent, and that there is a separate real thing named cessation through discernment, also named release from bondage.

The Sautrāntika masters say: No unconditioned dharma is really existent — there is no separate real thing there as there is with form, feeling, and the rest, because what is indicated here is precisely an absence.

Question: if that is so, why are they still called space and the like? Answer: it is merely the absence of anything tangible that is named space — as in the dark, where nothing is met with by touch, and people say, “This is space.” And when an arisen latent tendency together with the seed that produces it has reached the stage of ceasing, and by the force of selection the remainder (suffering and the defilements) does not arise again, that is named cessation through discernment; while when, apart from the force of selection, the remainder does not arise again merely through the lack of a condition, that is named cessation independent of discernment — as with the remaining aggregates of one who dies untimely in the midst of the commonality of a lifespan (aggregates that should have arisen and do not).

Some masters of another school say: it is by the capacity of discernment that latent tendencies do not arise, and this is named cessation through discernment; while when latent tendencies lack a condition so that subsequent suffering does not arise, and this is not by the capacity of discernment, it is named cessation independent of discernment. (The Sautrāntikas refute this): apart from the force of selection this cessation cannot be established at all, and so this non-arising too should be included under cessation through discernment.

Others say: dharmas, once arisen, naturally come to a subsequent absence, and this is named cessation independent of discernment. (Refutation): if it is grasped in this way, the entity of cessation independent of discernment becomes impermanent — for before a dharma has ceased, this cessation independent of discernment does not exist. Counter: is it not the same with your cessation through discernment? It has selection as its antecedent, and so it too first is not and afterwards is, and should likewise be impermanent. Answer: cessation through discernment is not something that first has selection and only then comes to be. Why? It is not that only after selection has occurred does a not yet arisen dharma acquire its non-arising — that non-arising was there all along; it is only that without selection the dharmas would arise, and once selection has arisen the dharmas never arise again. With respect to this non-arising, selection does have a capacity — that is to say, previously there was nothing to obstruct arising, and now selection has become what obstructs arising; it has not manufactured a non-arising.

(The Sarvāstivādins object again): If mere non-arising is taken to be nirvāṇa, how is this passage of scripture to be reconciled? The sūtra says, “The five faculties, if cultivated, if practiced, if much practiced, can cause the sufferings of past, future, and present to be forever cut off.” The entity of this “forever cut off” is nirvāṇa; but the sense of non-arising applies only to the future and not to past and present — is this not a contradiction?

(The Sautrāntikas answer): Though there is such a passage, it does not contradict the principle. The sense of this sūtra is that the afflictions that take past and present suffering as their object are cut off, and therefore it is called the cutting off of the sufferings. Just as the World-Honored One said: “With respect to form you should cut off desire and craving; when desire and craving are cut off, that is called the cutting off of form and the full understanding of form.” And so on at length up to consciousness. The “cutting off” of past and present suffering should be understood in the same sense. And if there is some other sūtra that says “cutting off past, future, and present afflictions,” explained on the foregoing principle its sense likewise does not contradict.

Or else this sūtra has another intent: past afflictions means the afflictions arisen in past lives, and present afflictions means the afflictions arisen in the present life. So among the modes of craving, the eighteen modes of craving spoken of there as arisen in the past time-period are spoken of with respect to past lives, and the future and present should be known in the same way. And the afflictions arisen in these two time-periods, in order to produce future afflictions, have drawn forth seeds within the present continuum; when those seeds are cut off, those afflictions are called cut off — just as when the maturation result is exhausted the action too is called exhausted. Future sufferings and afflictions, having no seed, definitely do not arise, and so are said to be cut off. If it were not explained thus, on what ground would past and present (already ceased, presently ceasing) still need to be cut off? For what has already ceased and what is presently ceasing, one need not exert further effort to make it cease.

(The Sarvāstivādins object again): If the entity of unconditioned dharmas is wholly an absence, why does a sūtra say, “Among all dharmas, whether conditioned or unconditioned, freedom from defilement is foremost”? How can a “foremost” be established within an absence?

(The Sautrāntikas answer): Neither do I say that the entity of unconditioned dharmas is wholly an absence; it is only that they should “be” in the way I have described. For instance, it is said, “This sound has a prior non-existence and has a subsequent non-existence” — that non-existence may not be spoken of as really existent, and yet the use of the word “has” in that sentence still stands. To say “there is an unconditioned” should be understood in the same way. And though it is non-existent it can still be extolled — thus calamities and misfortunes are utterly non-existent, and this is named freedom from defilement; among all that exists and does not exist this is the most excellent, and in order that those to be trained may conceive deep gladness in it, it should be extolled as foremost.

(The Sarvāstivādins object again): If unconditioned dharmas are merely non-existent, then, being non-existent, they should not be named the noble truth of cessation.

(The Sautrāntikas answer): First state what “noble truth” means — does it not belong to the sense of being without inversion? The noble one’s seeing is without inversion both toward what exists and toward what does not: toward suffering he sees that it is just suffering, and toward the non-existence of suffering he sees that it is just non-existence. What in this contradicts the sense of a noble truth?

(Objection again): Since it is non-existent, how can it be established as the third noble truth? (Answer): Because it is what the noble ones see and state immediately after the second truth, the truth of origination, it becomes the third.

(Objection again): If the entity of unconditioned dharmas is nothing but an absence, then the consciousness that takes space or nirvāṇa as its object becomes a consciousness with a non-existent object. (Answer): There is no fault in a non-existent object; this point should be considered where the past and the future are examined.

(The Sautrāntikas ask in return): If one allows that the unconditioned has a separate real entity, what is lost and what is gained? — Allowing it makes it possible to defend the Vaibhāṣika school, and this may count as the gain; and if there really were something worth defending, the gods would surely know it and would come to defend it themselves. Yet allowing it to be really existent displays a false and constructed grasping, and this is the loss. Why? Because it is neither something whose entity can be found, as with form and feeling, nor something whose function can be found, as with the eye and the ear.

Again: if the unconditioned had a separate real entity, how could one use the sixth case-ending, the genitive, and say “the cessation of that thing”? For the cessation and that thing do not belong to one another — the two are not related as cause and result. Only if it is merely the negating of that thing can the sixth case-ending stand: the absence of that thing is named its cessation, and so one says “the cessation of that thing.”

(The Sarvāstivādins answer): Although cessation has a separate real entity, it is at the time when that thing obtains its cutting off that this cessation is obtained, and so this cessation may be said to belong to that thing. (The Sautrāntikas object): What is it that makes this cessation belong to this one acquisition? (The Sarvāstivādins reconcile the objection by citing scripture): As a sūtra says, “A bhikṣu obtains nirvāṇa in the present life” — if it were non-existent, how could “obtains” be said? (The Sautrāntikas answer): Because one obtains the antidote, one obtains a permanent separation from the afflictions and from the body that is the basis of further existence, and this is named obtaining nirvāṇa.

(The Sautrāntikas cite the holy teaching): There is moreover holy teaching that shows nirvāṇa to have non-existence alone as its intrinsic nature. As a sūtra says: “All sufferings are cut off without remainder, severally relinquished, exhausted, freed from defilement, ceased, stilled, forever gone; the remaining suffering does not continue, is not appropriated, does not arise. This is utterly at peace, this is utterly excellent — that is, the casting off of all the bases together with the exhaustion of all craving, freedom from defilement, and cessation, which is named nirvāṇa.”

(The Sarvāstivādins press): Why not allow that “what is said to be non-arising is non-arising in dependence on this really existent nirvāṇa, and is therefore called non-arising”? (The Sautrāntikas answer): Looking at this seventh case-ending, the locative, in “in dependence on this,” we find it has no force at all with respect to the existence of the cessation realized. Why should it be said to be “non-arising in dependence on this”? If “in dependence on this” belongs to the sense of what already exists, then there should have been no arising from the beginning (since nirvāṇa is permanent); and if “in dependence on this” belongs to the sense of what has been obtained, then it should be allowed to be “in dependence on the acquisition of the path” — so one can say only that it is in dependence on the path, or on the acquisition of the path, that suffering does not arise. This you should accept.

By this one can rightly understand the simile stated in the sūtra: as with the nirvāṇa of a lamp flame, so it is with the liberation of mind. The sense of that passage is that the nirvāṇa of a lamp is merely the passing away of the flame and is not some further thing; and so it is with the World-Honored One’s mind attaining liberation — it is merely the ceasing of the aggregates, and there is nothing else there at all.

The Abhidharma too says: “What are dharmas without entity? They are the unconditioned dharmas.” And “without entity” means without intrinsic nature.

(The Sarvāstivādins answer): The Vaibhāṣikas do not allow this explanation. If they are asked what “entity” means, they say that entity is of five kinds in brief. First, entity as intrinsic nature — as where it is said, “If one has obtained this entity, one possesses this entity.” Second, entity as object — as where it is said, “All dharmas are known by cognition, each according to its entity.” Third, entity as bondage — as where it is said, “If one is bound by the fetter of craving with respect to this entity, is one also bound by the fetter of hatred with respect to this entity?” Fourth, entity as cause — as where it is said, “What are dharmas possessed of entity? They are the conditioned dharmas.” Fifth, entity as what is included — as where it is said, “the entity that is a field, the entity that is a house, the entities that are wife and children.” The “entity” spoken of here takes the fourth sense (cause being named entity), and shows that unconditioned dharmas have no cause; so the unconditioned, though a really existent thing, is without cause and without result because it is permanently without operation.

The general discussion ends here. Among the results, then, which result should be said to be obtained by which cause? The stanza says:

〔Root 57〕Which Result Each of the Six Causes Obtains

Stanza: The last cause (the maturation cause) obtains the maturation result, and the first cause (the enabling cause) obtains the dominant result; the homogeneous cause and the all-pervading cause obtain the homogeneous result; the coexistent cause and the associated cause obtain the result of human effort.

Treatise: What is called “the last cause” is the maturation cause — among the six causes it stands last, and so is called last; and the first of the five results, the maturation result, is what this cause obtains. What is called “the first cause” is the enabling cause — among the six causes it stands first, and so is called first; and the last of the five results, the dominant result, is what this cause obtains. A “dominant result” is a result of dominance.

Question: the enabling cause merely abides without obstructing; what dominance can be spoken of? Answer: it is on this very point of not obstructing that it obtains the name of dominance. Or else, the enabling cause also has excellent power: as the ten sense fields and ten elements have with respect to the five bodies of consciousness, and the actions of sentient beings with respect to the receptacle world; and the ear faculty and the rest with respect to the arising of visual consciousness, and so on, also have a productive power that is dominant in a chain — for on hearing of something one conceives the wish to see it (and so visual consciousness arises). Dominance of this kind should all be considered according to reason.

The homogeneous cause and the all-pervading cause obtain the homogeneous result, because the results of these two causes both resemble their causes. The coexistent cause and the associated cause obtain the result of human effort — and it is not that there is a separate “human effort” apart from the entity of the “person”〔the agent〕; it is simply that the result obtained by the operation of these two causes is named the result of human effort.

Question: what dharma does the name “human effort” refer to? Answer: it refers to the operation belonging to dharmas — like the doings of a person, and so it obtains the name of human effort. The name is established from a simile, just as the world speaks of the crow’s-foot herb and the drunken-elephant general (the herb resembling a crow’s foot, the general entering the ranks like a drunken elephant).

Question: do only these two causes have the result of human effort, or do the others as well? Some masters say: the other causes also have this result, excepting only the maturation cause — because a result of human effort either arises simultaneously with its cause or arises immediately after it, whereas a maturation result does not. And other masters say: the maturation cause too has a result of human effort separated by a long interval, as with the harvest a farmer gathers.

What are the characters of the five results, maturation and the rest? The stanza says:

〔Root 58 · Root 59〕The Characters of Each of the Five Results

Stanza: The maturation result is an indeterminate dharma, belonging only to sentient beings, and produced by the determinate, that is, by the wholesome and the unwholesome. The homogeneous result resembles its own cause. The result of release from bondage is exhaustion through discernment, that is, cessation through discernment. If a dharma arises through the force of another, that result is named the result of human effort. Apart from conditioned dharmas already arisen before, the remaining conditioned dharmas are the dominant result of those earlier dharmas.

Treatise: A maturation result is found only among unobscured-indeterminate dharmas.

Question: does it then extend also to what is not counted among sentient beings (the outer receptacle world), or is it restricted to sentient beings? And does it extend to the homogeneous and to the nourished? Answer: it should be known that a maturation result is only “produced by the determinate” — all unwholesome dharmas and wholesome dharmas with outflows can determine, that is, call forth, maturation, and so are named determinate; and maturation arises only after that determinate action, neither simultaneously nor immediately, and so is named “produced by the determinate.” This is the character of a maturation result. (Since it is produced by the determinate alone, it follows that it does not extend to the homogeneous or to the nourished, for those two are produced by all three ethical qualities.)

Question: what is not counted among sentient beings (mountains, rivers, the great earth) also arises from action; why is it not named maturation? Answer: because it is held in common — others can enjoy it just the same. Whereas a maturation result has no sense whatever of being enjoyed in common by others: it never happens that one person acts and another thereby undergoes the maturation result. Question: the dominant result too is produced by action; how then can it be enjoyed in common? Answer: because it arises from action held in common.

A dharma resembling its own cause is named the homogeneous result — that is, resembling the two causes, homogeneous and all-pervading.

Question: if the all-pervading cause also obtains a homogeneous result, why is it not allowed simply to be called a homogeneous cause? Answer: because the result obtained by the all-pervading cause resembles its cause only in belonging to the same level and being alike defiled in nature, and not by resemblance of kind〔category〕; only where the result resembles the cause by kind is the cause of that result named a homogeneous cause. Hence this question is raised: “If something is a homogeneous cause, is it also an all-pervading cause?” Four alternatives should be distinguished. First alternative: a non-all-pervading dharma acting as a homogeneous cause (a homogeneous cause but not an all-pervading cause). Second alternative: an all-pervading dharma of another category acting as an all-pervading cause (an all-pervading cause but not a homogeneous cause). Third alternative: an all-pervading dharma of its own category acting as an all-pervading cause (both at once). Fourth alternative: apart from the characters of the preceding three (neither of the two).

A dharma whose defilements are exhausted by discernment is named the result of release from bondage: because it is cessation it is called exhaustion, and because it is selection it is called discernment — that is to say, cessation through discernment is named the result of release from bondage.

If a dharma arises through the force of another dharma, that dharma is said to be named the result of human effort. For instance, when by the force of a preparatory mind of a lower level an absorption of a higher level, with or without outflows, is made to arise, and when by the force of a pure mind of meditative absorption a transformation mind is made to arise — such cases are all of this kind. As for cessation through discernment, it should be said to be obtained by the force of the path (and not to be a result of human effort produced by it).

Among conditioned dharmas, apart from those already arisen before, the remaining conditioned dharmas are the dominant result of those earlier dharmas. (For a result is either simultaneous with its cause or later than it, and is never earlier.)

Question: what difference is there between the result of human effort and the dominant result? Answer: the name “result of human effort” is established only with respect to the agent; the designation “dominant result” extends to everything other than that agent. For instance, a thing made by a craftsman: with respect to the craftsman who made it, it takes both names, result of human effort and dominant result; with respect to anyone other than the craftsman, it is only a dominant result.

Among the six causes stated above, at which stage does which cause take a result and give a result? The stanza says:

〔Root 60〕The Times of Taking and Giving a Result

Stanza: Five causes take their result only in the present; the coexistent and associated causes give their result likewise. The homogeneous and all-pervading causes give their result in past and present; the one maturation cause gives its result only in the past.

Treatise: The five causes (excluding the enabling cause) take their result only in the present, and certainly not in the past — because they have already taken it; nor in the future — because the future has no operation. (The enabling cause should likewise be said to take its result in the present, but since the enabling cause does not necessarily have a result, this stanza does not state it.)

The giving of a result by the coexistent cause and the associated cause is likewise only in the present — because these two causes necessarily take their result and give it at the same time.

The giving of a result by the homogeneous cause and the all-pervading cause extends to both past and present. Giving in the past is readily understood; how is it said that they give in the present as well? Because some homogeneous results arise immediately, right after the cause. And once the result has arisen the cause becomes past, and that is “having already given the result,” and it should not give again.

For a wholesome homogeneous cause there are cases of taking the result without giving it, and four alternatives should be distinguished. First alternative (takes but does not give): the last acquisition relinquished at the time when wholesome roots are cut off. Second alternative (gives but does not take): the first acquisition obtained at the time when wholesome roots are restored — and it should be said that at that time it is the prior acquisition of what is restored (that is, the acquisition relinquished earlier). Third alternative (both takes and gives): all the other stages at which wholesome roots are not cut off. Fourth alternative (neither takes nor gives): apart from the characters of the preceding three.

Among unwholesome homogeneous causes there are likewise four alternatives. First alternative: the last acquisition relinquished at the time of becoming free from craving for the desire realm. Second alternative: the first acquisition obtained at the time of falling back into craving for the desire realm — and it should be said that at that time it is the prior acquisition of the one who falls back. Third alternative: all the other stages at which one is not yet free from craving for the desire realm. Fourth alternative: apart from the preceding three characters.

Among obscured-indeterminate homogeneous causes there are likewise four alternatives — at the time of obtaining the fruit of an arhat, at the time of falling back, at the time of not yet having obtained it, and at the other stages, to be assigned according to reason.

Among unobscured-indeterminate homogeneous causes there is a following-consequent clause: whenever it gives a result it certainly also takes one; and there are cases of taking a result without giving one — namely the last aggregates of an arhat (at entry into nirvāṇa without remainder, taking with nothing given).

Considered in terms of the momentary distinctions among what has an object (mind and mental factors), a wholesome homogeneous cause likewise has four alternatives. First alternative (takes but does not give): a wholesome mind immediately followed by the arising of a defiled or indeterminate mind. Second alternative (gives but does not take): the reverse of the first. Third alternative (both takes and gives): a wholesome mind immediately followed by another wholesome mind. Fourth alternative: apart from the preceding three characters. For an unwholesome mind and the rest there are likewise four alternatives, each as applicable, to be known on the same pattern.

Question: what is the meaning of taking a result and giving a result? Answer: because a cause can serve as the seed of a result it is named taking the result; because it is presently giving that result the power to become manifest it is named giving the result.

The maturation cause gives its result only in the past, because a maturation result is neither simultaneous with its cause nor arisen immediately after it.

There are also other masters who, beyond the preceding five results, separately state four results. First, the establishment result — as the water disc is a result of the wind disc, and so on up to grasses and trees being results of the great earth. Second, the preparatory result — as the knowledge of non-arising and the rest are results obtained remotely from the preparation of the contemplation of impurity and the like. Third, the conjunction result — as visual consciousness and the rest are results of the eye faculty and the rest in conjunction. Fourth, the cultivation result — as transformation minds and the rest are results of the cultivation of the meditative absorptions. All four of these results are included within the result of human effort and the dominant result.

The statement of causes and results is complete. Next it should be considered: which dharmas here are produced by how many causes? Dharmas are of four classes in brief — defiled dharmas, maturation-born dharmas, the first dharmas without outflows, and the remaining dharmas other than those three. Question: what are the remaining dharmas? Answer: the remaining indeterminate dharmas apart from maturation, and the remaining wholesome dharmas apart from the first without outflows. From how many causes does each of these four classes arise? The stanza says:

〔Root 61 · First Half of Root 62〕From How Many Causes Each of the Four Classes Arises

Stanza: Defiled dharmas, maturation-born dharmas, the remaining dharmas, and the first noble dharmas without outflows — excluding, in that order, the maturation cause, the all-pervading cause, the two causes of maturation and all-pervasion, and further the homogeneous cause, are produced by the remaining causes. This is stated with respect to mind and mental factors; as for form and the formations not associated with mind, the associated cause must further be excluded.

Treatise: Defiled dharmas, excluding the maturation cause, arise from the remaining five causes (a defiled dharma is not a result produced by the maturation cause). Maturation-born dharmas, excluding the all-pervading cause, arise from the remaining five causes (what the all-pervading cause produces is defiled only). The third class, the remaining dharmas, excluding both the maturation and the all-pervading causes, arise from the remaining four causes. The first dharmas without outflows, excluding both those causes and the homogeneous cause as well, arise from the remaining three causes (before the first without-outflows there is no dharma of the same kind).

Question: with respect to what are these four classes of dharmas stated? Answer: they are stated with respect to mind and mental factors.

Question: and from how many causes do these four classes arise in the case of the formations not associated with mind and of form? Answer: beyond the causes excluded for mind and mental factors, the associated cause is further excluded — it should be known that the remaining dharmas arise from four causes, three causes, and two causes, these being the remaining causes. Here defiled and maturation-born form and formations not associated with mind arise from the remaining four causes; the third class, the remaining dharmas, arise from the remaining three causes; and the first dharmas without outflows arise from the remaining two causes. As for a dharma produced by a single cause, there definitely is none.

〔Second Half of Root 62 · Root 63〕The Names and Entities of the Four Conditions

Stanza: It is said that there are four kinds of condition. The causal condition is the five causes among the six, excluding the enabling cause; the immediately antecedent condition is mind and mental factors already arisen, excluding the last mind; the object condition is all dharmas; the dominant condition is the enabling cause.

Treatise: Where are these four conditions stated? They are stated in a sūtra. As a sūtra says, there is “the nature of the four conditions,” namely the nature of the causal condition, of the immediately antecedent condition, of the object condition, and of the dominant condition. The word “nature” spoken of here refers to the class of a condition (there is no further thing called a nature).

First the causal condition: among the six causes (enabling, coexistent, homogeneous, associated, all-pervading, maturation), excluding the enabling cause, the remaining five causes are the nature of the causal condition.

Next the immediately antecedent condition: excluding the last moment of mind and mental factors of an arhat about to enter nirvāṇa, all other mind and mental factors that have already arisen are the nature of the immediately antecedent condition. Why is it called immediately antecedent? Because the dharmas this condition produces are equal before and after with no interval between, and on this sense the name immediately antecedent is established.

Just because equality is required, form and the rest cannot be established as immediately antecedent conditions — for the arising of form is not equal. For instance, a form of the desire realm sometimes gives rise without interval to two kinds of nonmanifest form, of the desire realm and of the form realm; and sometimes it gives rise without interval to nonmanifest form of the desire realm and nonmanifest form without outflows (two kinds together). In this way forms become present mixed together, whereas what the immediately antecedent condition produces must be without mixture; and so form is not established as an immediately antecedent condition.

The Venerable Vasumitra has a further account of this point: within one and the same body a portion of nourished form continues unbroken, and afterwards a second portion of nourished form arises, and the two do not injure or contradict each other (they can coexist), and so they cannot be established as an immediately antecedent condition. The Venerable One (Dharmatrāta) says further that when forms arise without interval they are sometimes few and sometimes many — sometimes many produce few, as burning a great heap of rice straw makes a small heap of ash; and sometimes few produce many, as a single fine seed grows into a banyan tree whose root, trunk, branches, and leaves flourish by degrees, the trunk rising high and the boughs hanging low, casting shade over a wide space.

Someone objects: when mental factors arise without interval, are there no classes of them differing in number? For instance, the number of mental factors in a wholesome, an unwholesome, and an indeterminate mind differs; and so too the number of mental factors in a concentration with applied and sustained thought differs from that in other concentrations. Answer: such differences of number obtain only when unlike kinds are compared with one another; within one and the same kind there is no case of inequality — no one feeling arises without interval into many feelings, and no many feelings arise without interval into one feeling; and perception and the other mental factors are the same, so there is no fault of inequality.

Again it is asked: is it then only a preceding dharma of one’s own kind that can be an immediately antecedent condition of a later one? Answer: it is not. How then? The preceding class of mind (mind together with its associated mental factors making one class) serves as a whole as the immediately antecedent condition of the following class of mind, and is not limited to what is set over against its own kind. What was said above, that within the kind that is the entity of feeling and the rest few do not produce many, was said only to explain the sense of the word “equal.”

There is a class of people who admit only continuity within a kind, holding that an immediately antecedent condition obtains only within one’s own kind — that mind produces only mind and feeling only feeling, and so on at length for each of the rest. On their account, when a defiled mind arises without interval from an undefiled mind, the afflictions within that defiled mind take as their immediately antecedent condition the afflictions that ceased earlier; just as, on emerging from the absorption of cessation, the mind arises taking as its condition the mind that ceased earlier when one was entering the absorption of cessation. Their account is not good, for on it the first mind without outflows (before which there is no mind without outflows of the same kind) would have to arise while lacking an immediately antecedent condition.

Formations not associated with mind, like forms, also become present mixed together, and so are not immediately antecedent conditions — for formations not associated with mind that belong to the three realms and those not bound within the three realms may become present at the same time.

Someone asks: why is an immediately antecedent condition not allowed in the future time-period? Answer: because future dharmas abide mixed together and admit of no sequence of before and after.

Again it is asked: since the future has no before and after, how can the World-Honored One know of the future time-period that “after this dharma without interval that dharma should arise”? Answer: he knows it manifestly by comparison with past and present dharmas. It is transmitted that the World-Honored One sees that in the past time-period such and such an action called forth such and such a result, and that after this dharma without interval that dharma arose; and sees that in the present time-period such and such an action calls forth such and such a result, and that after this dharma without interval that dharma arises. Having so seen, he can then, among those dharmas of the future that abide mixed together, know as it really is that after this dharma that dharma should arise.

Although he knows in this way, it is not inferential cognition. For the Buddha, merely by comparing the causal sequences of past and present, is able to know manifestly, upon those future dharmas that abide mixed together, that such and such a sentient being will in a future time-period perform such and such an action and call forth such and such a result; this is included in the knowledge of aspiration, and so is not inferential knowledge.

Objection: if so, then before the World-Honored One had seen the prior limit, the past, he ought to have been unable to know dharmas of the later limit, the future. Another party says instead: within the continuum of a sentient being there is from the first a “prior sign of the cause” of a future result, which is a differentiated dharma within the aggregate of formations not associated with mind; the Buddha need only observe this sign to know the future, and need not range manifestly into the meditative absorptions and arouse the supernormal knowledge of birth and death. If that were so, the Buddhas would know the future by divining from signs and not by direct realization.

Therefore one should follow what the Sautrāntika masters say: the World-Honored One, on merely directing his mind in a single moment, knows all dharmas everywhere, neither by inference nor by reading signs. This account is the good one. As the World-Honored One himself said: the powers of the Buddhas and the domain of the Buddhas are inconceivable.

Again it is asked: if the future has no determinate sequence of before and after established, why does scripture say precisely that the highest worldly dharma is without interval followed only by the receptivity to the cognition of dharma concerning suffering and by no other dharma? And so on at length up to the vajra-like concentration being without interval followed only by the knowledge of exhaustion and by no other dharma? Answer: if the arising of one dharma is bound to another dharma, then only when that dharma is immediately antecedent can this dharma arise — as the arising of a sprout and the rest depends on a seed and the rest. Yet there is no immediately antecedent condition in that case (seed and sprout are form, and form has no immediately antecedent condition).

Again it is asked: why is it said that the last mind and mental factors of an arhat are not an immediately antecedent condition? Answer: because no further mind and mental factors continue on from them and arise. Objection: on this account, every mind that has ceased without interval is also named mind-faculty; then, since no consciousness arises after the last mind, it too ought not to be named mind-faculty. Answer: mind-faculty is displayed by way of serving as a support, not by way of exercising an operation; and this last mind still has the sense of being available as a support (it is only that the remaining assisting conditions are lacking, and so no subsequent consciousness arises), and so it still obtains the name mind-faculty. The immediately antecedent condition, however, is displayed by way of exercising an operation: of any dharma taken as a result by this condition, there are definitely no dharmas and no sentient beings that can obstruct it so as to keep it from arising. Therefore the last mind, though it may obtain the name mind-faculty, may not be said to be an immediately antecedent condition.

Two fourfold analyses. Question: is every dharma that is an immediately antecedent result of mind also a dharma that arises directly after mind? Answer: four alternatives should be distinguished. First alternative (immediately antecedent to mind but not arising directly after mind): the mind and mental factors on emerging from a mindless absorption, and the moments of the two absorptions from the second moment onward. Second alternative (arising directly after mind but not immediately antecedent to mind): the four marks of arising, abiding, change, and cessation belonging to the first arisen moment of the two absorptions, and the four marks of arising, abiding, change, and cessation belonging to mind and mental factors in a state possessed of mind. Third alternative (both): the first arisen moment of the two absorptions, and mind and mental factors in a state possessed of mind. Fourth alternative (neither): the four marks of arising, abiding, change, and cessation belonging to the moments of the two absorptions from the second moment onward, and the four marks of arising, abiding, change, and cessation belonging to the mind and mental factors on emerging from a mindless absorption.

It is asked again: is every dharma immediately antecedent to mind also a dharma directly after a mindless absorption? Answer: four alternatives are to be made here likewise, only with the order transposed — the third and fourth alternatives above are the first and second here, and the first and second above are the third and fourth here.

Again it is asked: when mind and mental factors emerge from the two absorptions and look back to the mind at the time of entering, a long stretch lies between (a whole span of mindlessness), so how can they still be said to be immediately antecedent? Answer: because no other mind and mental factors intervene in between (what intervenes is not mind). The explanation of the immediately antecedent condition ends here.

The object condition: the nature of the object condition is all dharmas, established with respect to mind and mental factors each as applicable. For instance, visual consciousness and the mental factors associated with it take all visible form as object condition; likewise auditory consciousness and its associated dharmas take all sound, olfactory consciousness and its associates all odor, gustatory consciousness and its associates all taste, tactile consciousness and its associates all tangibles, and mental consciousness and its associates take all dharmas as object condition.

If a dharma is an object for another dharma, then there is no time at which it is not an object for that one — even at a time when it is not actually being taken as an object, it still counts as included among objects, because being actually taken as an object and not being taken as an object have one and the same character. It is like firewood and the like, which even when not being burned is still called fuel, since there is no difference in character.

Question: mind and mental factors are determinate toward their object in three respects, place, entity, and moment (determinately taking this place, this entity, this moment); is there likewise such determinacy toward the support, the faculty? Answer: it should be said that there is such determinacy likewise. Yet in the present time-period mind and mental factors intimately adhere to their own support, while in past and future they are separated from the support. Some say instead: in the past time-period too they still intimately adhere to their support. The explanation of the nature of the object condition ends here.

The dominant condition: the nature of the dominant condition is just the enabling cause — for it is the enabling cause that is taken as the dominant condition. The entity of this condition is the broadest of all, and so it is named the dominant condition, because all dharmas are dominant conditions.

Question: since all dharmas are also object conditions (the nature of the object condition being all dharmas), why is it said of the dominant condition alone that its entity is broadest? Answer: the dharmas arising together with a given mind have never served as the object of that very moment of mind, and yet they can still serve as dominant conditions; and so the entity of the dominant condition alone is broadest. Or, to put it another way: it is named the dominant condition with respect to the breadth of what it does — for all dharmas, each excluding its own entity, can serve as dominant conditions for all conditioned dharmas.

Question: is there any dharma that, with respect to some dharma, is none whatever of the four conditions? Answer: there is. It is one’s own entity with respect to one’s own entity (an intrinsic nature serves as none of the conditions for itself). Is there such a case with respect to another nature as well? There is: a conditioned dharma with respect to an unconditioned dharma, and an unconditioned dharma with respect to an unconditioned dharma (an unconditioned dharma does not arise, and so receives no condition).

〔Root 64〕At Which Positions the Four Conditions Operate

Stanza: Two causes operate at the moment of ceasing, three causes operate at the moment of arising, and the remaining two conditions operate contrariwise.

Treatise: It was said above that the five causes are the nature of the causal condition. Among these five causes, the coexistent cause and the associated cause operate at the moment of ceasing. “The moment of ceasing” displays that the dharma is in the present time-period — because the mark of ceasing is before us, it is named the moment of ceasing. The coexistent and associated causes exercise their operation only at the stage where the resultant dharma is about to cease, since these two causes cause the resultant dharma that arises together with them to have its operation.

As for the three causes at the moment of arising: this refers to a future dharma standing at the stage of being about to arise — because the mark of arising is before us, it is named the moment of arising. The homogeneous cause, the all-pervading cause, and the maturation cause, these three, have their operation arise at the stage where the resultant dharma is arising.

The two positions of the causal condition having been stated, the operation of the two conditions is the reverse of this. The immediately antecedent condition operates at the stage of a dharma’s arising, because when that resultant dharma is to arise the preceding mind and mental factors must yield their place to it. The object condition operates at the stage of the ceasing of the mind that takes it, because mind and mental factors must be in the present time-period in order to grasp an object. As for the dominant condition, it abides at every position without obstruction, and so its operation follows the position of not obstructing and bars nothing at all (it obtains at the stage of arising and at the stage of ceasing alike).

〔Root 65〕From How Many Conditions Each Dharma Arises; Refuting the Grasping That One Cause Produces All

Stanza: Mind and mental factors arise from four conditions, the two mindless absorptions from three only, and the remaining dharmas from two conditions. The world is not produced by Īśvara or the like as a single cause, because dharmas arise in sequence and for other such reasons.

Treatise: Mind and mental factors arise from four conditions. Their causal condition is the five causes stated above; their immediately antecedent condition is the mind and mental factors of the preceding moment, already arisen and not the last; their object condition is, each as applicable, either the five objects beginning with visible form or all dharmas; and their dominant condition is, each as applicable, all other dharmas excluding its own entity.

The absorption of cessation and the absorption without perception, these two, arise from three conditions, excluding the object condition, because the two absorptions do not take an object (being mindless, they do not take an object). As to the causal condition, it is by two causes: first the coexistent cause, that is, the four marks of arising, abiding, change, and cessation; second the homogeneous cause, that is, previously arisen wholesome dharmas of the same level. As to the immediately antecedent condition, it is the mind and its associated dharmas before entry into the absorption. The dominant condition is as stated above. In this way the two absorptions are drawn forth by mind and the rest; and because they obstruct the arising of mind and the rest, they are for mind merely dharmas immediately antecedent to it, and are not its immediately antecedent condition.

The remaining formations not associated with mind and the forms arise from two conditions, the causal condition and the dominant condition.

All the worlds arise only from the causes and conditions stated above, and are not produced by any single cause such as Īśvara, a self, or the primal nature.

Someone asks: on what ground is this said? Answer: if you too grant that the establishing of anything requires other causes, have you not thereby abandoned the position that all the worlds arise from Īśvara and the like as a single cause?

First, the refutation by sequence. Again, the worlds are not produced by Īśvara or the like as a single cause, because they arise in sequence. If the worlds truly arose from Īśvara or the like as a single cause, then everything ought to arise all at once and not in sequence; yet we plainly see dharmas arising in sequence, and so they are definitely not produced by a single cause.

If it be said that Īśvara does this according to his own wish (that he wills this dharma to arise now, that dharma to cease now, and another to arise and cease later), then it is not produced by a single cause after all, since it further arises through differences of wish. Or, taking a step back: those differing wishes ought to arise all at once, since the Īśvara they depend on is himself without difference.

If it be said that those differing wishes must further await other causes and so do not arise all at once, then it is not the case that everything takes Īśvara alone as its cause. Or, if it be said that the causes awaited must in turn await yet other causes in order to differ and arise in sequence, then the causes awaited will have no limit. And if it be said that they await no further differing cause, then that cause has no sense of arising in sequence, and those differing wishes are not sequential either.

If it be granted that the causes differ in turn without limit, that is to accept beginninglessness — and in that case, though one vainly clings to Īśvara as the cause of dharmas, one has in fact not gone beyond the correct principle of causes and conditions in the Buddha’s school.

If it be said that Īśvara’s wish, though arising all at once, does not make the worlds arise all at once, because the worlds arise according to his wish — this too is unreasonable, for that wish of Īśvara’s has no difference in its earlier and later positions (and where there is no difference, how should the results be earlier and later?).

Second, the refutation by uselessness. Again, when Īśvara exerts great effort to produce the worlds, what benefit does he obtain in the end? If it be said that he produces the worlds in order to arouse his own delight, then, since that delight cannot be aroused apart from other means, Īśvara must depend on something else in the arousing of delight, and so he is not sovereign. And as it is with delight, so it should be with everything else, since no ground can be found for treating them differently.

Or again: if Īśvara produces the hells and other measureless instruments of suffering to oppress and harm sentient beings, merely in order to arouse his own delight at the sight of such a spectacle — enough! What use is such an Īśvara? By the stanza those non-Buddhists themselves recite, this is indeed truly well said.

〔Quoted Stanza · Not a Root Stanza〕A Stanza Recited by the Non-Buddhists

Stanza: Because he is perilous, sharp, and able to burn, fearsome and constantly oppressing and harming, and delights to feed on blood, flesh, and marrow, he is therefore named Rudra.

Treatise (the refutation continuing after the stanza): Third, the refutation by contradiction with the world. Again, to accept that all the worlds arise only from Īśvara as a single cause is to slander and wipe out the other causes and conditions of the world that are plainly visible, and the human effort and the rest (are farming and weaving, cart-making and house-building, all to be had without human labor?).

If it be said that Īśvara becomes a cause only by awaiting the assisting capacities of the other causes and conditions, that is merely the language of partisan reverence for Īśvara — for apart from the other causes and conditions no distinct function of his can in fact be seen. Or again: if that Īśvara can produce only with the help of other causes and conditions, then he ought not to be called sovereign.

If one holds that the first arising has Īśvara as its cause while only what arises thereafter in continuity awaits other causes, then, since what first arose awaited no other cause, it ought to be beginningless and originally existent, just like Īśvara.

As for the accounts of a self and of the primal nature and the rest, each as applicable is to be examined and dismissed at length just as Īśvara was. Therefore there is no dharma that arises from a single cause alone.

Strange indeed! The people of the world do not cultivate excellent wisdom, and are like foolish beasts and birds — this is truly to be pitied. Life after life they each perform their own actions and each undergo their own maturation result and result of human effort, and yet they falsely construct Īśvara and the like as the cause.

Enough for now of refuting error; the correct doctrine should be set out.

〔Root 66〕The Four Great Elements and Derived Form as Causes for One Another

Treatise (taking up the question from what precedes): It was said above that the remaining dharmas arise from two conditions. Among them, when the great elements and derived form are set over against each other, in what way are they causal conditions for each other?

Stanza: The great elements are two causes for the great elements and five kinds of cause for derived form; derived form is three kinds of cause for derived form, and for the great elements one cause only.

Treatise: First, the great elements as two causes for the great elements: the great elements set over against one another have only the two senses of the coexistent cause and the homogeneous cause (being simultaneous and mutually supporting, they have the coexistent cause; the earlier arisen drawing forth the later of the same kind, they have the homogeneous cause).

The great elements as able to be five causes for derived form: which five? They are the differentiations of producing, supporting, establishing, upholding, and nourishing. These five causes are in fact only differentiations of the enabling cause. Because derived form arises from the great elements, they are called the producing cause; because once arisen it proceeds still in dependence upon the great elements, as a disciple depends on a teacher, they are called the supporting cause; because they can uphold derived form, as a wall carries a painting, they are called the establishing cause; because they cause it to continue unbroken, they are called the upholding cause; because they cause it to increase, they are called the nourishing cause. Thus is displayed the causal nature of the great elements with respect to derived form as arousing, altering, holding, maintaining, and increasing.

Derived form as three kinds of cause for derived form: derived forms set over against one another may have three kinds of cause, namely the coexistent cause, the homogeneous cause, and the maturation cause (the enabling cause proceeds without differentiation toward all dharmas, and so is commonly not entered in the count). The coexistent cause refers to bodily and verbal action that follows mind (these two being coexistent with one another), and not to the other derived forms. The homogeneous cause refers to all previously arisen derived form with respect to what arises later and is of the same kind. The maturation cause refers to bodily and verbal action being able to call forth the maturation result of the eye faculty and the rest.

Derived form as one cause only for the great elements: derived form is only one kind of cause for the great elements, namely the maturation cause — because bodily and verbal action can call forth a maturation result that is a great element.

〔Root 67〕Mind Is of Twelve Kinds

Treatise (taking up the question from what precedes): It has been stated in general above that among mind and mental factors the earlier can be the immediately antecedent condition of the later; but it has not yet been determinately stated after which kind of mind how many kinds of mind arise, nor after how many kinds of mind which kind arises. This should now be stated determinately. Stated briefly, mind is of twelve kinds. Which twelve?

Stanza: The desire realm has four minds — wholesome, unwholesome, obscured-indeterminate, and unobscured-indeterminate; the form realm and the formless realm have three each, excluding the unwholesome; and there are two further minds without outflows.

Treatise: Take first the desire realm, which has four kinds of mind: wholesome, unwholesome, obscured-indeterminate, and unobscured-indeterminate. The form realm and the formless realm have three minds each: excluding the unwholesome, the rest are as stated above (wholesome, obscured-indeterminate, unobscured-indeterminate). These ten in all are minds with outflows. As for minds without outflows, there are only two: the mind of one in training and the mind of one beyond training. Together they make twelve minds.

〔Roots 68–71〕How the Twelve Minds Arise from One Another

Stanza: The wholesome mind of the desire realm produces nine minds and itself arises from eight; the defiled mind of the desire realm arises from ten and produces four; the rest (the unobscured-indeterminate) arises from five and produces seven. The wholesome mind of the form realm produces eleven and itself arises from nine; the obscured mind of the form realm arises from eight and produces six; the unobscured mind of the form realm arises from three and can produce six. The wholesome mind of the formless realm produces nine and itself arises from six; the obscured mind of the formless realm produces seven and also arises from seven, and its unobscured mind follows the pattern of the form realm. The mind of one in training arises from four and produces five; the mind of one beyond training arises from five and produces four.

Treatise: The wholesome mind of the desire realm can without interval produce nine minds: first, the four minds of its own realm; second, two minds of the form realm — at the time of entering absorption it produces the wholesome mind of that realm, and at rebirth-linking it produces the defiled mind of that realm, in that order; third, one mind of the formless realm, namely at rebirth-linking (producing the defiled mind of that realm). The wholesome mind of the desire realm can without interval produce the defiled mind of the formless realm, but cannot produce the wholesome mind of the formless realm, because it is too far away. The formless realm is called far from the desire realm by four distances: first, distance of support; second, distance of mode of apprehension; third, distance of object; fourth, distance of antidote. Besides these it can also produce the mind of one in training and the mind of one beyond training, that is, at the time of entering contemplation.

This wholesome mind of the desire realm also arises without interval from eight minds: the four minds of its own realm; two minds of the form realm — at the time of emerging from absorption it arises from the wholesome mind of that realm, and again, when one is distressed by a defiled absorption, from the defiled mind of that realm there arises a wholesome mind of the lower level (in order to rely on the lower wholesome mind to guard against falling back); and the mind of one in training and the mind of one beyond training, that is, at the time of emerging from contemplation.

The defiled minds of the desire realm (that is, the unwholesome and the obscured-indeterminate), these two each arise without interval from ten minds — that is, from the twelve minds excluding the minds of one in training and of one beyond training; for at the stage of rebirth-linking any mind of any of the three realms can without interval produce a defiled mind of the desire realm. And these defiled minds can without interval produce four minds: the four minds of their own realm, there being no principle by which they produce the rest.

The rest refers to the unobscured-indeterminate mind of the desire realm. This mind arises without interval from five minds: the four minds of its own realm, and the wholesome mind of the form realm (since the transformation mind of the desire realm arises from that mind of absorption). This mind can also without interval produce seven minds: the four minds of its own realm; two minds of the form realm, namely the wholesome and the defiled — for the transformation mind of the desire realm further produces the wholesome mind of that realm (re-entering absorption), while at the stage of rebirth-linking it produces the defiled mind of that realm; and one mind of the formless realm, that is, at the stage of rebirth-linking this unobscured mind can produce the defiled mind of that realm.

The wholesome mind of the form realm can without interval produce eleven minds: that is, all but the unobscured-indeterminate mind of the formless realm. It also arises without interval from nine minds: excluding the two defiled minds of the desire realm and excluding the unobscured-indeterminate mind of the formless realm.

The obscured mind of the form realm arises without interval from eight minds: excluding the two defiled minds of the desire realm and the minds of one in training and of one beyond training. It can without interval produce six minds: the three minds of its own realm, together with the wholesome, unwholesome, and obscured-indeterminate minds of the desire realm.

The unobscured mind of the form realm arises without interval from three minds: only the three minds of its own realm, there being no principle by which it arises from the rest. It can without interval produce six minds: the three minds of its own realm, and the defiled minds of the desire realm and of the formless realm.

The wholesome mind of the formless realm can without interval produce nine minds: excluding the wholesome mind of the desire realm and the unobscured-indeterminate minds of the desire and form realms. It also arises without interval from six minds: the three minds of its own realm, together with the wholesome mind of the form realm and the minds of one in training and of one beyond training.

The obscured mind of the formless realm can without interval produce seven minds: the three minds of its own realm, together with the wholesome mind of the form realm and the defiled minds of the desire and form realms. It also arises without interval from seven minds: excluding the defiled minds of the desire and form realms and the minds of one in training and of one beyond training.

The unobscured mind of the formless realm is as stated for the unobscured mind of the form realm: it arises without interval from three minds, namely the three minds of its own realm, the rest being unreasonable; and it can without interval produce six minds: the three minds of its own realm, and the defiled minds of the desire and form realms.

The mind of one in training arises without interval from four minds: the mind of one in training itself and the wholesome minds of the three realms. It can without interval produce five minds: the four just named plus the one mind of one beyond training.

The rest refers to the mind of one beyond training, which arises without interval from five minds: the wholesome minds of the three realms and the two minds of one in training and of one beyond training. It can without interval produce four minds: the wholesome minds of the three realms and the one mind of one beyond training.

The mutual arising of the twelve minds is explained to this point.

〔Root 72 · Root 73〕The Twelve Minds Unfolded into Twenty

Treatise (taking up the question from what precedes): How are these twelve minds divided into twenty minds?

Stanza: The twelve are opened into twenty — the wholesome mind of each of the three realms divides into two, acquired through preparation and acquired by birth; the unobscured-indeterminate of the desire realm divides into four, maturation-born, mode of deportment, field of craft, and supernormal-result mind; the form realm drops the field of craft, and the remaining numbers are as stated above.

Treatise: The wholesome mind of each of the three realms divides into two kinds, because of the difference between what is obtained through preparation and what is had from birth. The unobscured-indeterminate of the desire realm divides into four minds: first maturation-born, second mode of deportment, third field of craft, fourth supernormal-result mind. The unobscured mind of the form realm divides into three, excluding the field of craft — because in the higher realms there is no making of the various crafts. In this way the twelve minds become twenty: the wholesome divides into six (two in each of the three realms) and the unobscured-indeterminate into eight (four in the desire realm, three in the form realm, one in the formless realm); the formless realm has no mode of deportment and the rest, and the remaining numbers are as above, so that they make twenty in all.

The three unobscured minds of the mode of deportment and the rest take visible form, odor, taste, and the tangible as their objects; the field of craft and the rest take sound as object besides. These three minds are mental consciousness alone. As for the preparatory stages of the mode of deportment and of the field of craft, they extend also to the four consciousnesses and the five consciousnesses. Some other masters say: there is a mental consciousness drawn forth by the mode of deportment and by the field of craft which can take all twelve sense fields as its object.

How do these twenty minds arise from one another? Take first the eight minds of the desire realm —

The wholesome mind acquired through preparation can without interval produce ten minds: seven minds of its own realm (excluding the supernormal-result mind), one mind of the form realm (the wholesome mind acquired through preparation), and the two minds of one in training and of one beyond training. It also arises without interval from eight minds: four minds of its own realm (two wholesome and two defiled), two minds of the form realm (the wholesome mind acquired through preparation and the obscured-indeterminate), and the two minds of one in training and of one beyond training.

The wholesome mind acquired by birth can without interval produce nine minds: seven minds of its own realm (excluding the supernormal-result mind), and the two obscured-indeterminate minds of the form and formless realms. It also arises from eleven minds: seven minds of its own realm (excluding the supernormal-result mind), two minds of the form realm (the wholesome mind acquired through preparation and the obscured-indeterminate), and the two minds of one in training and of one beyond training.

The two defiled minds can without interval produce seven minds: seven minds of their own realm (excluding the supernormal-result mind). They also arise from fourteen minds: seven minds of their own realm (excluding the supernormal-result mind), four minds of the form realm (excluding the wholesome acquired through preparation and the supernormal-result mind), and three minds of the formless realm (excluding the wholesome acquired through preparation).

The maturation-born mind and the mode-of-deportment mind can without interval produce eight minds: six minds of their own realm (excluding the wholesome acquired through preparation and the supernormal-result mind), and the two obscured-indeterminate minds of the form and formless realms. They also arise without interval from seven minds: seven minds of their own realm (excluding the supernormal-result mind).

The field-of-craft mind can without interval produce six minds: six minds of its own realm (excluding the wholesome acquired through preparation and the supernormal-result mind). It also arises without interval from seven minds: seven minds of its own realm (excluding the supernormal-result mind).

From the supernormal-result mind two minds arise without interval: one mind of its own realm (the supernormal-result mind) and one mind of the form realm (the wholesome mind acquired through preparation). It likewise arises without interval from these two minds, namely the two just named of its own realm and of the form realm.

Next, among the six minds of the form realm —

From the wholesome mind acquired through preparation twelve minds arise without interval: six minds of its own realm, three minds of the desire realm (the wholesome acquired through preparation, the wholesome acquired by birth, and the supernormal-result mind), one mind of the formless realm (the wholesome acquired through preparation), and the minds of one in training and of one beyond training. It also arises without interval from ten minds: four minds of its own realm (excluding the mode of deportment and the maturation-born), two minds of the desire realm (the wholesome acquired through preparation and the supernormal-result mind), two minds of the formless realm (the wholesome acquired through preparation and the obscured-indeterminate), and the minds of one in training and of one beyond training.

The wholesome mind acquired by birth can without interval produce eight minds: five minds of its own realm (excluding the supernormal-result mind), two minds of the desire realm (the unwholesome and the obscured), and one mind of the formless realm (the obscured-indeterminate). It also arises without interval from five minds: five minds of its own realm (excluding the supernormal-result mind).

The obscured-indeterminate mind can without interval produce nine minds: five minds of its own realm (excluding the supernormal-result mind), and the four minds of the desire realm (two wholesome and two defiled). It also arises from eleven minds: five minds of its own realm (excluding the supernormal-result mind), three minds of the desire realm (the wholesome acquired by birth, the mode of deportment, and the maturation-born), and three minds of the formless realm (excluding the wholesome acquired through preparation).

The maturation-born mind and the mode-of-deportment mind can without interval produce seven minds: four minds of their own realm (excluding the wholesome acquired through preparation and the supernormal-result mind), two minds of the desire realm (the unwholesome and the obscured), and one mind of the formless realm (the obscured-indeterminate). They also arise without interval from five minds: five minds of their own realm (excluding the supernormal-result mind).

From the supernormal-result mind two minds arise without interval: two minds of its own realm (the wholesome acquired through preparation and the supernormal-result mind). It likewise arises without interval from these two minds, namely the two just named of its own realm.

Next, among the four minds of the formless realm —

The wholesome mind acquired through preparation can without interval produce seven minds: four minds of its own realm, one mind of the form realm (the wholesome acquired through preparation), and the minds of one in training and of one beyond training. It also arises without interval from six minds: three minds of its own realm (excluding only the maturation-born), one mind of the form realm (the wholesome acquired through preparation), and the minds of one in training and of one beyond training.

The wholesome mind acquired by birth can without interval produce seven minds: four minds of its own realm, one mind of the form realm (the obscured-indeterminate), and two minds of the desire realm (the unwholesome and the obscured). It also arises without interval from four minds: the four minds of its own realm.

The obscured-indeterminate mind can without interval produce eight minds: four minds of its own realm, two minds of the form realm (the wholesome acquired through preparation and the obscured), and two minds of the desire realm (the unwholesome and the obscured). It also arises without interval from ten minds: four minds of its own realm, three minds of the form realm (the wholesome acquired by birth, the maturation-born, and the mode of deportment), and three minds of the desire realm (of the same names as stated for the form realm).

The maturation-born mind can without interval produce six minds: three minds of its own realm (excluding the wholesome acquired through preparation), one mind of the form realm (the obscured-indeterminate), and two minds of the desire realm (the unwholesome and the obscured). It also arises without interval from four minds: the four minds of its own realm.

Next, among the two minds without outflows —

From the mind of one in training six minds arise without interval: the wholesome minds acquired through preparation in all three realms, together with the wholesome mind of the desire realm acquired by birth, and the minds of one in training and of one beyond training. It also arises without interval from four minds: the wholesome minds acquired through preparation in the three realms, and the mind of one in training.

From the mind of one beyond training five minds arise without interval: that is, of the six minds produced by the mind of one in training just named, excluding the one mind of one in training. It also arises without interval from five minds: the wholesome minds acquired through preparation in the three realms, and the minds of one in training and of one beyond training.

Some supplementary questions and answers. Question: for what reason can a wholesome mind acquired through preparation without interval produce the three minds of maturation-born, field of craft, and mode of deportment, while those three cannot without interval produce a wholesome mind acquired through preparation? Answer: because those three minds are weak in force and are not drawn forth by applied effort; whereas the field of craft and the mode of deportment proceed by gladly exerting applied effort to draw them forth, and so they cannot accord with producing a wholesome mind acquired through preparation. As for the mind of emerging from absorption, it proceeds without applied effort, and so a wholesome mind acquired through preparation may without interval produce them.

Question: if so, then neither should a defiled mind without interval produce a wholesome mind acquired through preparation, since the two do not accord. Answer: even so, when one is wearied by the present activity of the afflictions, then in order to know them one may also arouse preparation; and the wholesome mind of the desire realm acquired by birth, being bright and keen, follows on the more readily.

Again: from the mind of one in training, the mind of one beyond training, and the wholesome mind of the form realm acquired through preparation, the wholesome mind of the desire realm acquired by birth may arise without interval; but the wholesome mind of the desire realm acquired by birth is not drawn forth by applied effort, and so those minds cannot conversely be drawn forth from it. Again: the wholesome mind of the desire realm acquired by birth, being bright and keen, may arise without interval from a defiled mind of the form realm; whereas the wholesome mind of the form realm acquired by birth, not being bright and keen, cannot arise without interval from a defiled mind of the formless realm.

Three kinds of attention. Attention is of three kinds: first, attention to an individual characteristic, as in contemplating form as having the character of resistance, and so on up to contemplating consciousness as having the character of discerning, and the attention associated with such contemplations; second, attention to a common characteristic, that is, the attention associated with the sixteen modes of apprehension of the four truths; third, attention through resolve, that is, the contemplation of impurity, the four immeasurables, the liberations possessed of form, the bases of mastery, and the totalities, and the attention associated with such contemplations.

All three kinds of attention can without interval cause the noble path to become present, and the noble path can without interval arouse all three kinds of attention. Stated in this way, it accords with the sūtra’s words, “one cultivates the awakening-factor of mindfulness and the rest in company with the contemplation of impurity.”

Some other masters say: only from attention to a common characteristic does the noble path without interval become present, while the noble path without interval arouses all three kinds of attention. As for the sūtra’s saying “one cultivates the awakening-factor of mindfulness and the rest in company with the contemplation of impurity,” that is because only after the contemplation of impurity has tamed the mind can attention to a common characteristic be drawn forth, from which without interval the noble path becomes present — it is stated with the hidden intent of this arising in turn.

Others say again: only from attention to a common characteristic does the noble path without interval become present, and the noble path without interval can arouse attention to a common characteristic alone. If so, then one who enters the certainty of the noble path in dependence on access concentration and the other two of the three levels may have the noble path without interval produce the attention to a common characteristic of the desire realm (that level not being too far); but if one enters the certainty of the noble path in dependence on the second, third, or fourth absorption, which attention can the noble path without interval arouse? It cannot arouse the attention to a common characteristic of the desire realm, because that is too far away; nor is there in that level an attention to a common characteristic already obtained before — unlike the factors conducive to penetration already obtained (and if it be said to be an attention to a common characteristic of one’s own level not previously obtained, that just is the noble path); and the factors conducive to penetration of a noble person cannot become present again, since after the fruit has been obtained the path of preparation cannot be freshly aroused.

If it be said that there is another attention to a common characteristic, cultivated and obtained simultaneously with the factors conducive to penetration and belonging to them as of their kind — as in contemplating that all formations are impermanent, that all dharmas are not a self, and that nirvāṇa is at peace — which the noble path can without interval draw into presence: the Vaibhāṣikas do not allow this account, because it contradicts correct principle.

If one obtains the fruit of an arhat in dependence on access concentration, the mind of emerging from contemplation thereafter is either of the level of access concentration or of the level of the desire realm. If one obtains the fruit of an arhat in dependence on the sphere of nothingness, the mind of emerging from contemplation thereafter is either of the level of the sphere of nothingness or of the level of the summit of existence. If one obtains the fruit of an arhat in dependence on the remaining levels, the mind of emerging from contemplation thereafter is of one’s own level alone and does not extend to the other levels.

In the desire realm there are three kinds of attention: first, formed through hearing; second, formed through reflection; third, acquired by birth. The form realm likewise has three kinds of attention: first, formed through hearing; second, formed through cultivation; third, acquired by birth — and it has nothing formed through reflection, since there, as soon as the mind is raised to consider, one enters absorption. The formless realm has only two kinds of attention: first, formed through cultivation; second, acquired by birth.

Among these, five kinds of attention can without interval cause the noble path to become present, excluding the three that are acquired by birth, since the noble path is bound to a mind of preparation. And the noble path without interval can also give rise to the attention of the desire realm acquired by birth, because it is bright and keen.

〔Root 74〕How Many Minds May Be Acquired When a Given Mind Is Present

Treatise (taking up the question from what precedes): Among the twelve minds stated above, when which mind is present may how many minds be acquired?

Stanza: Among the defiled minds of the three realms, six, six, and two minds may be acquired in order; with the wholesome mind of the form realm three may be acquired, and with the mind of one in training four; when the remaining minds are present, only their own mind may be acquired.

Treatise: At the position where a defiled mind of the desire realm is present, six minds among the twelve may be acquired — because these minds were not accomplished before and are accomplished now. By restoring wholesome roots through a mind of doubt and by falling back from a higher realm, the wholesome mind of the desire realm is at that time called acquired; by falling back through the arising of an affliction and by falling back from a higher realm, two minds of the desire realm are acquired (the unwholesome and the obscured), together with one obscured mind of the form realm; and by falling back through the arising of an affliction, one obscured mind of the formless realm is acquired, together with the mind of one in training. Hence it is called acquiring six.

At the position where a defiled mind of the form realm is present, six minds among the twelve are likewise acquired. By falling back from the formless realm, one unobscured-indeterminate mind of the desire realm and three minds of the form realm are acquired; the defiled mind of the form realm itself is also acquired by falling back; and by falling back through the arising of an affliction, one obscured mind of the formless realm is acquired, together with the mind of one in training. Hence it is called acquiring six.

At the position where a defiled mind of the formless realm is present, only two minds among the twelve are acquired: by falling back through the arising of an affliction, that defiled mind is acquired together with the mind of one in training. Hence it is called acquiring two.

At the position where a wholesome mind of the form realm is present, three minds among the twelve may be acquired, namely that wholesome mind together with the unobscured-indeterminate minds of the desire and form realms — and this is by reason of advancing upward.

At the position where the mind of one in training is present, four minds among the twelve may be acquired, namely the mind of one in training together with the unobscured-indeterminate minds of the desire and form realms and the wholesome mind of the formless realm — and this is by reason of first entering the certainty of the noble path and of becoming free, through the noble path, from the defilements of the desire and form realms.

The rest refers to the minds other than the defiled and the others stated above; the treatise does not state the differences in minds acquired when those are present. It should be known that at the position where those minds are present, only their own mind may be acquired (no other mind being acquired along with it).

Another school states this in general in a single stanza.

〔Quoted Stanza · Not a Root Stanza〕Another School’s Summary Stanza on Acquiring Minds

Stanza: Those possessed of wisdom say: when a defiled mind arises nine minds are acquired; with a wholesome mind six minds are acquired; and with an indeterminate mind only the indeterminate is acquired.

Treatise (the author’s assessment): With a wholesome mind it should rather be said that seven minds are acquired. First, at the position where the wholesome mind of the desire realm arises when wholesome roots are restored through right view, it is called acquired; second and third, at the culminating position of becoming free from the defilements of the desire realm, the two unobscured-indeterminate minds of the desire and form realms are acquired all at once; fourth and fifth, at the time of obtaining the concentrations of the form and formless realms, the wholesome minds of those two realms are said to be acquired; sixth and seventh, at the position of first entering the certainty of the noble path and at the time of realizing the fruit of an arhat, the mind of one in training and the mind of one beyond training are said to be acquired. As for the rest (the defiled and the indeterminate), their character may be known from what has been explained above.

〔Quoted Stanza · Not a Root Stanza〕A Stanza Gathering the Preceding Sense

Treatise (continuing): In order to gather in the sense stated above, a further stanza is spoken.

Stanza: By taking birth (rebirth-linking), by entering absorption, by becoming free from defilement, by falling back, and at the position of restoring wholesome roots — at these five positions a mind is acquired, because those minds were not accomplished before.