俱舍論 白話全本 · 冊7Abhidharmakośabhāṣya · Complete Vernacular · Vol. 7
十智·行相·諸門分別The Ten Knowledges · Modes of Apprehension · Distinctions through the Several Gates
全文五層 →Full five layers →〔正1〕忍不是智·盡無生不是見——聖慧與有漏慧的分際
論（承前起問）：前一品在開頭處說過『諸忍』與『諸智』，到了後面又說『正見』與『正智』。那麼要問：有沒有一種法是忍而不是智？有沒有一種法是智而不是見？頌說：
頌：在聖者的慧之中，忍不是智；盡智與無生智不是見。除這兩類之外的其餘聖慧，既是智也是見。至於有漏的慧，一律都是智；其中只有六種同時也是見。
論：慧一共有兩種，一種有漏，一種無漏。只有無漏的慧才立『聖』這個名字。
在這聖慧之中，八種忍不是智的體性。為什麼？因為忍在正起的時候，它自己所要斷的那一分疑還沒有斷完；智是決斷已定的名字，疑未斷盡就還不能叫作智。但是忍可以歸在『見』這一邊，因為見的體性是推度——忍正在推度四諦之理，所以是見。
盡智與無生智，這兩種智不是見的體性。為什麼？因為到了這兩種智現前的時候，那種向前尋求的心已經止息了，不再推度，所以不是見。
除了八忍與盡無生二智以外，其餘的聖慧就同時通於智與見兩種體性——因為它們既已斷盡自己那一分的疑（所以是智），又仍是推度的體性（所以是見）。
有漏的慧則全部都歸在智的體性裡；在有漏慧之中，只有六種同時也是見的體性，就是五種染污的見，再加上世間的正見，合成六種。
這樣說下來，聖慧與有漏慧，都是揀擇法相的作用，所以一概歸屬於慧的體性。
〔正2·正3〕十智的總數——二、三、十的開合
論（設問）：智一共有幾種？它們彼此的相狀差別又是怎樣的？頌說：
頌：智總共有十種；再往上收，總的只有二種——有漏與無漏的分別。有漏的那一種叫作世俗智，無漏的那些叫作法智與類智。世俗智普遍地以一切法為境；法智與類智，則依次以欲界、上界（色界與無色界）的四諦為境。
論：智有十種，這十種就把一切的智都收盡了：一是世俗智，二是法智，三是類智，四是苦智，五是集智，六是滅智，七是道智，八是他心智，九是盡智，十是無生智。
這十種智，往上總收只有兩種——就是有漏與無漏的體性差別。
這兩種智再往下開，相狀的差別有三種，就是世俗智、法智、類智。前面所說的有漏智，總名叫作世俗智，因為它多半緣取瓶子之類世俗的境界。後面所說的無漏智，再分成法智與類智兩支。
三種之中，世俗智是普遍的，因為它以一切有為法與無為法為所緣的境。法智與類智這兩種，就依著次第，一個以欲界的四諦為境，一個以上界（色界無色界）的四諦為境。
〔正4〕四諦智從何處分出·盡無生最初緣什麼
論（承轉）：就在這樣的兩種智之中，還可以再分。頌說：
頌：法智與類智，由於所緣境的差別，立出苦、集、滅、道四個名字。這六種智都通於盡智與無生智；而盡無生二智最初生起的時候，只是苦類智與集類智。
論：法智與類智，由於所緣的境不同，就分成苦、集、滅、道四種智。
這樣一共六種智（法、類、苦、集、滅、道），如果是無學位所攝、而且不是見的體性的，就叫作盡智與無生智。
這兩種智最初生起的時候，只屬於苦類智與集類智這一邊。為什麼？因為它們是拿緣苦、集的六種行相，去觀有頂天的蘊為所緣境的。
論（設問）：那麼金剛喻定所緣的境，跟這裡是一樣的嗎？答：如果就緣苦、集這一邊說，原因相同；如果就緣滅、道這一邊說，就不一樣了。
〔正5·正6〕他心智的三重界限，與見道能被知到什麼程度
論（承轉）：在前面所說的九種智之中（十智除去無生智，或說除去他心智本身），還要再問他心智由哪幾種智所成。頌說：
頌：法智、類智、道智與世俗智，這四種之中有成就他心智的；其餘的則不然。他心智對於比自己殊勝的心、對於過去與未來的心，都不能知。法智這一系與類智這一系，彼此也不能互相知。聲聞、麟喻獨覺、佛陀，依次能知見道位的二念心、三念心、以及一切。
論：有法智、類智、道智以及世俗智這四種智可以成就他心智，其餘的智則不成他心智。
這個他心智，對於所緣的境有幾條決定的限制：第一，它不能知比它殊勝的心；第二，它不能知過去與未來的心。
所謂殊勝的心有三方面：一是地，二是根，三是位。就地說，下地的智不能知上地的心。就根說，信解與時解脫這一類鈍根者的智，不能知見至與不時解脫這一類利根者的心。就位說，不還果、聲聞的無學果、獨覺、大覺（佛），前前之位的智不能知後後勝位者的心。
至於說它不能知過去未來的心，是因為他心智只以現在、他人相續之中那些能緣的心與心所為所緣的境。
又，法智這一品與類智這一品彼此也不能互相知：屬法智所攝的那些他心智，不能知類智這一品；屬類智所攝的那些他心智，不能知法智這一品。為什麼？因為法智與類智是分別以欲界、上界的全分為對治而立所緣的。
這個他心智，在見道之中是沒有的——因為見道總觀四諦之理，轉得極快，他心智追不上。不過見道位的心本身，倒是可以被他心智當作所緣。
論（依此說三乘所知之量）：如果有某些有情將要進入見道，聲聞與獨覺會預先修加行，為的是想知道那人見道位的心。等到那些有情真的入了見道位——
聲聞若是把法智這一分的加行修滿了，就能知道他見道最初二念的心。若還想更知道類智那一分的心，另修一段加行，等到加行修滿的時候，對方已經走到第十六心了；這時雖然知道了這個心，卻已不算是知見道（因為第十六心屬修道）。
麟喻獨覺若把法智這一分的加行修滿，同樣能知道見道最初二念的心。若還想更知道類智那一分的心，另修加行，加行滿時能知道對方第八心，也就是集類智心——因為獨覺只憑下品的加行就能到這一步。另有一說：獨覺能知最初二念以及第十五心。
至於世尊，要知就知，根本不必假借加行；對於他人的見道，一切心都能知。
〔正7〕盡智與無生智，差在哪一句話
論（設問）：盡智與無生智這兩種智，相狀上有什麼分別？頌說：
頌：對於四聖諦，自知『我已經知了苦』等等，是盡智；自知『不應再知苦』等等，是無生智。依次配屬，前者是盡智，後者是無生智。
論：像本論（發智論）所說：什麼叫作盡智？就是在無學位中，如果正確地自己知道『我已知苦、我已斷集、我已證滅、我已修道』，由此而有的一切智、見、明、覺、解、慧、光、觀，這就叫作盡智。什麼叫作無生智？就是正確地自己知道『我已知苦，不應更知』，乃至『我已修道，不應更修』，由此而有的一切乃至觀，這就叫作無生智。
論（設難）：無漏的智怎麼可以起這樣的『我已知』的知呢？
迦濕彌羅的諸位論師說：那是從這兩種智出定之後的後得智中，才作這樣的知，所以並無過失。由於後得的這兩種智有分別，才能表顯前面正觀之中兩種智的差別。
另有一說：無漏智本身也作這樣的知；至於本論說到『見』字，只是順著語勢方便帶說，或者是因為它在諦理上現前照了而轉。也正因為如此，本論才又說：而且諸智也都是見。
論（附辨十智相攝）：這十種智彼此相攝的情形是怎樣的？世俗智攝一個全分與一個少分；法智與類智各攝一個全分與七個少分；苦智、集智、滅智各攝一個全分與四個少分；道智攝一個全分與五個少分；他心智攝一個全分與四個少分；盡智與無生智各攝一個全分與六個少分。
〔正8〕為什麼要把二種智開成十種——七個理由
論（設問）：憑什麼緣故，把二種智建立成十種？頌說：
頌：由於自性、對治、行相、行相與境、加行、事辦、因圓——因這七項，所以建立十智。
論：由七個緣故，把二種開成十種：
第一，就自性而立世俗智——因為它是以非勝義的智為自性的。
第二，就對治而立法智與類智——因為這兩種能夠全分對治欲界與上界。
第三，就行相而立苦智與集智——因為這兩種智的境，體上並沒有分別（同是有漏），所分的只在行相。
第四，就行相與境二者而立滅智與道智——因為這兩種的行相與境都各有分別。
第五，就加行而立他心智——如果不是特別修加行，就不能知道他人的心與心所。本來修加行是為了知他人的心，等到修成滿的時候也連心所一起知了；但既然是就加行而立名，所以叫作他心智。
第六，就事辦而建立盡智——因為它是在所作已辦的那個身中最初生起的。
第七，就因圓而立無生智——因為它是以一切聖道為因而生的。
〔正9〕滅道法智為什麼能兼治上界
論（承轉起問）：像上面所說，法智與類智能全分對治欲界與上界之法；那麼有沒有少分能對治上界的呢？頌說：
頌：緣滅諦與道諦的法智，在修道位中，兼能對治上界修所斷的煩惱；而類智則沒有能對治欲界的。
論：修道所攝的滅法智與道法智，兼能對治上界修所斷的煩惱。為什麼？因為欲界的滅與道比上界的滅與道更殊勝；既然已經除掉了自家的怨敵，就有餘力兼除他家的。也正因為如此，類智反過來卻沒有能對治欲界的（上界的滅道不如欲界殊勝，所以不能反治下界）。
〔正10·正11·正12前半〕十智各有什麼行相——兼辨有貪心、聚散心等八對
論（設問）：在這十種智之中，哪一種有哪一些行相？頌說：
頌：法智與類智，行相都是十六種。世俗智有這十六種，另外還有其餘的。四諦智則各有四種。他心智若是無漏的，只有四種行相，就是緣道諦的那四種；若是有漏的，就以自相為所緣，而且一念只緣一件事。盡智與無生智有十四種行相，就是十六之中除去空與非我。
論：法智、類智，每一種都具有非常、苦等十六種行相；這十六種行相，後面（正13）會廣為解釋。
世俗智既有這十六種，又還有其餘的，因為它能緣一切法的自相與共相等等。
苦等四種智，每一種各有緣自己那一諦之境的四種行相。
他心智之中，如果是無漏的，就只有緣道諦的四種行相——因為這種他心智本來就歸在道智裡。如果是有漏的，就取它所緣的心與心所之法的自相為境；境既是自相，行相也就跟著是自相，所以這不歸在前面那十六種行相之內。
這兩種（無漏與有漏的他心智）在任何時候，一念之間都只緣一件事為境：緣心的時候就不緣心所，緣受的時候就不緣想等。
論（設難一·有貪心）：若是這樣，世尊為什麼說『如實了知有貪心』等等？答：那並不是同時取貪與心兩樣，就像不會同時取衣服與衣服上的垢一樣。
所謂有貪心，有兩層意思：一是與貪相應，二是被貪所繫。與貪相應的心，兩層意思都具足；其餘的有漏心，就只是被貪所繫。
另有一說：經上說有貪心，只是指第一種，也就是與貪相應的心。那麼離貪心呢？就是對治貪的心。
論（自破一解）：如果說『凡與貪不相應的就叫離貪心』，那麼與其餘煩惱相應的心也該得離貪之名了（因為它們也不與貪相應）。若是這樣，又會有一種心既不是貪的對治、又不是染污性——那就得承認這種心既不是有貪心、也不是離貪心。所以應當採取餘師的說法：被貪所繫的就叫有貪心；乃至有癡、離癡也照這樣說。
論（毘婆沙師之訓詞）：毘婆沙師這樣說：聚心就是善心，因為它對於所緣不奔馳散亂；散心就是染污心，因為它與散動相應而起。
論（西方諸師之異說·毘婆沙師破之）：西方諸師則這樣說：與睡眠相應的叫作聚心，其餘的染污心叫作散心。
這個說法不合道理。因為照他這樣說，那些染污心如果與睡眠相應，就會同時通於聚與散兩邊（睡眠故名聚、染污故名散）。而且還會違害本論所說的一句話：如實了知聚心，具足有四種智，就是法智、類智、世俗智、道智。
論（其餘七對心之類釋）：沈心就是染污心，因為它與懈怠相應而起；策心就是善心，因為它與正勤相應而起。
小心就是染污心，因為它是少淨品的人所喜好習學的；大心就是善心，因為它是多淨品的人所喜好習學的。
或者也可以從根、價、眷屬、隨轉、力用五方面的多少來說小大：染污心的根少，最多只與二根相應；善心的根多，恆常與三根相應。染污心的價值低，因為不必用功就成；善心的價值高，因為要靠大資糧才成。染污心的眷屬少，因為它沒有未來修；善心的眷屬多，因為它有未來修。染污心的隨轉少，只通三蘊；善心的隨轉多，通於四蘊。染污心的力用小，因為它所斷的善根必定還會再接續；善心的力用大，因為忍必定永斷諸隨眠。由這幾方面，染心與善心才得到小與大的名字。
掉心就是染污心，因為與掉舉相應；不掉心就是善心，因為它能對治掉舉。不靜與靜這一對，也照這樣理解。
不定心就是染污心，因為與散動相應；定心就是善心，因為它能對治散動。
不修心就是染污心，因為得修與習修兩種修都不攝它；修心就是善心，因為它容有這兩種修。
不解脫心就是染污心，因為它自性上、相續上都不解脫；解脫心就是善心，因為它自性上、相續上容許解脫。
論（論主自判此釋不順經）：像上面這樣解釋，既不順契經，也不能辨明八句各自的別義。
怎麼說不順契經？經上說：這個心怎麼叫作內聚？就是心若與惛沈睡眠一起現行，或者內裡相應只有止而無觀。怎麼叫作外散？就是心遊涉在五種妙欲的境上，隨著散、隨著流，或者內裡相應只有觀而無止。
論（往復）：難：前面不是已經說過，染心與睡眠俱起就會有一心通聚散的過失嗎？答：雖然說過，卻不合理，因為經上並不承認與睡眠俱起的染污心就是散心。
難：不是又說過會與本論相違嗎？答：寧可違背論文，不可違背經說。
論（怎麼叫不能辨別義）：照那樣的解釋，就不能辨明散等與聚等這八句各自不同的相狀。依我所解釋的，並不是不能辨明這契經中八句的別義：雖然散等同樣是染污心，卻為了顯示它們過失上的差別；雖然聚等同樣是善心，卻為了顯示它們功德上的差別——所以依著八種義理，別立八個名字。
既然那一家連所違背的經說都通不過去，他所辨的句義在理上也就不成立。
論（再舉沈掉一難）：而且如果沈心就是掉心，經上就不該說：若在那個時候心沈，卻怕它沈而修安、定、捨這三種覺支，叫作非時修；若在那個時候心掉，卻怕它掉而修擇、進、喜三種覺支，叫作非時修。難道修覺支還有散開別修的道理嗎？
答（那一家的救）：這是就『作意想修』叫作修，並不是現前實修，所以沒有過失。
難：我所說的難道也違經嗎？雖然一切染心都可叫沈與掉，但懈怠增盛的經上叫沈心，掉舉增盛的經上叫掉心；就恆常相應這一點，我說它們體是一，這是隨自己的意思說話，誰又能遮止呢？
答：然而這部經的意思實在不是這樣。
論（回頭再辨有貪心）：前面說過：一切被貪所繫的心都叫有貪心。那麼『貪繫』是什麼意思？
如果說是貪的得隨逐它，那麼有學的無漏心也該叫有貪，因為貪的得也隨逐它。如果說是被貪所緣，那麼無學的有漏心也該叫有貪，因為它被貪所緣。若不承認那個心可以被貪所緣，那麼那個心怎麼還能成為有漏？若說是因為被共相的煩惱所緣，那該叫有癡才對，因為是被癡所緣。
而且他心智並不緣貪的得，也不能說它緣『緣心的貪』——那麼憑什麼知道他人的心是有貪等等呢？所以不能以貪繫來立有貪心的名字。
那麼該怎麼說？今天細詳經意：與貪相應才叫有貪心，與貪不相應就叫離貪等等。
難：若是這樣，其餘的契經為什麼說：離貪、瞋、癡的心，不再墮三有？答：那是依著『離的得』而說，所以沒有過失。
難：不是前面已經破過這個說法嗎——與其餘煩惱相應的心也該得離貪之名，因為它們也與貪不相應。答：若依這個意思，承認它們也叫離貪並無妨礙；只是不說它們是離貪心，因為它們該歸到有瞋、有癡那一邊去。
論（收傍論歸本宗·再定他心智之相）：且把旁論停住，回到本宗來說。
這裡所明的他心智，是不是也能取他人心的所緣、也能取他人心的能緣行相？答：兩樣都不能取——知道他人的心的時候，並不觀他所緣的境與能緣的行相。就是說：只知道他有染等等的心，卻不知道他心所染著的色等，也不知道他能緣的行相。若不是這樣，他心智就該連色等也緣了，而且還會有『能自緣』的過失。
所以，諸他心智有幾條決定的相：只能取欲界繫、色界繫以及非所繫（無漏）的，他人相續之中，現在的、同一類的心與心所之法，取其一件實法的自相為所緣境。他心智不與空、無相二三摩地相應，不被盡智無生智所攝，不在見道與無間道之中；其餘沒有被遮止的，就隨其所應而容有。
論（盡無生二智之行相）：盡智與無生智除去空與非我，各自具有其餘十四種行相。這兩種智雖然屬勝義所攝，卻涉及世俗，所以要離開空與非我二行相——因為由它們的力量，出觀的時候會說出這樣的話：我生已盡、梵行已立、所作已辦、不受後有（既說『我』，就與空、非我二行相不順）。
〔正12後半〕無漏行相能不能越出十六——迦濕彌羅與外國師之諍
論（設問）：有沒有無漏的行相越出這十六種、另有其餘的行相所攝？頌說：
頌：清淨（無漏）的行相不越出十六種；其餘一家說另有，因為有本論可依。
論：迦濕彌羅國的諸位論師說：沒有無漏的行相越出這十六種。
外國師則說：另有其餘的無漏行相越出十六種。
怎麼知道呢？因為有本論可依。像本論所說：可有不繫（無漏）的心能了別欲界繫之法嗎？答：能了別——就是以非常故、苦故、空故、非我故、因故、集故、生故、緣故，並且有是處、有是事，如理所引而了別。（外國師便以『有是處、有是事』兩句為十六之外別有的行相。）
論（論主核之）：如果說那段文並不是要顯示『不繫心了別欲界繫法時，除了前面所說的八種行相之外，另有有是處、有是事這樣的行相』，而只是要顯示『作那八種行相是有是處、是有是事』——
這樣的解釋不能成立，因為在其餘的地方並沒有這樣說。就是說：如果那部論是依這個意思說的，那麼在其餘的地方也應該說這句話才對。然而那部論其餘的文只這樣說：可有見所斷的心能了別欲界繫之法嗎？答：能了別——就是以我故、我所故、斷故、常故、無因故、無作故、損減故、尊故、勝故、上故、第一故、能清淨故、能解脫故、能出離故、惑故、疑故、猶豫故、貪故、瞋故、慢故、癡故，不如理所引而了別。
這一段也應該加上『有是處』等句才對；既然沒有這句，可見那樣的解釋不合道理。
〔正13〕十六行相的名與實·四諦各四相的訓詁
論（設問）：十六種行相，實在的體事有幾種？又什麼叫作行相、能行、所行？頌說：
頌：行相實在的體事就是十六種。它的體只是慧。能行的是有所緣的那一切；所行的是一切有法。
論（先錄異說）：有餘師說：十六種行相，名字雖然有十六，實在的體事只有七種——緣苦諦的四種是名與實都是四，緣其餘三諦的名雖各四而實只各一。
論（正說）：像現在這樣說的人則主張：實在的體事也是十六。
論（逐諦訓釋）：苦聖諦有四相：一非常、二苦、三空、四非我。待緣而有，所以說非常；有逼迫的性質，所以說苦；違背我所之見，所以說空；違背我見，所以說非我。
集聖諦有四相：一因、二集、三生、四緣。如同種子之理，所以說因；平等現起之理，所以說集；相續之理，所以說生；成辦之理，所以說緣——譬如泥團、輪、繩、水等眾緣和合，才成辦一個瓶子。
滅聖諦有四相：一滅、二靜、三妙、四離。諸蘊都盡了，所以說滅；貪瞋癡三火止息了，所以說靜；沒有種種患累，所以說妙；脫離種種災難，所以說離。
道聖諦有四相：一道、二如、三行、四出。有通行之義，所以說道；契合正理，所以說如；正向前趣，所以說行；能永超出，所以說出。
論（第二重訓釋）：又，因為不究竟，所以說非常；如同荷負重擔，所以說苦；內裡離開作者士夫，所以說空；不得自在，所以說非我。有牽引之義，所以說因；有出現之義，所以說集；有滋長生產之義，所以說生；有作依止之義，所以說緣。不再接續、相續斷了，所以說滅；離開三種有為之相，所以說靜；是勝義的善，所以說妙；極為安隱，所以說離。對治邪道，所以說道；對治不如理，所以說如；趣入涅槃之宮，所以說行；棄捨一切諸有，所以說出。
論（第三重訓釋）：像這樣，古來的解釋既然不只一門，那就隨各人所樂，再另作一種解釋。
生了又滅，所以說非常；違背聖者之心，所以說苦；在這裡面沒有我，所以說空；它自己就不是我，所以說非我。
因、集、生、緣四相，就照經上所解釋的說——經說五取蘊是以欲為根、以欲為集、以欲為類、以欲為生；只是這個『生』字在經中應排在後面說，與論中的次第有出入。
論（四欲之別）：這四種的體相差別是怎樣的？由於隨著地位不同，所起的四種欲也就有異：一是執取現在的總我而起總的自體欲，二是執取當來的總我而起總的後有欲，三是執取當來的別我而起別的後有欲，四是執取續生的我而起續生時的欲——或者說是執取造業的我而起造業時的欲。
第一種對於苦是最初的因，所以叫作因，就像種子對於果實。第二種對於苦是平等招集，所以叫作集，就像芽等對於果實。第三種對於苦是別緣，所以叫作緣，就像田等對於果實——由於田、水、糞等的力量，才使果實的味、勢、熟、德各各分別生起。第四種對於苦是能就近而生，所以叫作生，就像花蘂對於果實。
論（另依經之愛行說）：或者像契經所說，有兩個五、兩個四共十八種愛行，可以配成四種欲。
執取現在總我的有五種差異：一執我現在決定有，二執我現在如是有，三執我現在變異有，四執我現在有，五執我現在無。
執取當來總我的也有五種差異：一執我當來決定有，二執我當來如是有，三執我當來變異有，四執我當來有，五執我當來無。
執取當來別我的有四種差異：一執我當來別有，二執我當來決定別有，三執我當來如是別有，四執我當來變異別有。
執取續生之我等等的也有四種差異：一執我也當有，二執我也當決定有，三執我也當如是有，四執我也當變異有。
論（滅道八相之再釋）：流轉斷了，所以說滅；眾苦止息了，所以說靜。像經上說：諸行都是苦，只有涅槃最為寂靜——再沒有比它更上的，所以說妙；不會退轉，所以說離。如同正道，所以說道；如實而轉，所以說如；決定能趣，所以說行。像經上說：這條道能到清淨處，其餘的見必定沒有到清淨的道理；永離諸有，所以說出。
論（就所治而立十六相）：又，為了對治常、樂、我所、我見，所以修非常、苦、空、非我四種行相。為了對治無因、一因、變因、知先因等見，所以修因、集、生、緣四種行相。為了對治『解脫是無』之見，所以修滅行相。為了對治『解脫是苦』之見，所以修靜行相。為了對治『靜慮與等至之樂是妙』之見，所以修妙行相。為了對治『解脫是屢屢退墮而非永久』之見，所以修離行相。為了對治無道、邪道、餘道、退道之見，所以修道、如、行、出四種行相。
論（行相之體與三門）：像這樣的行相，是以慧為體。
難：若是這樣，慧本身就該沒有行相了，因為慧與慧不相應（自己不能緣自己）。
答：因此應當說：一切心與心所取境時的類別差異，都叫作行相。慧以及其餘的心心所法，因為都有所緣，所以都是能行；一切有法都是所行。
由這三門，體有寬有窄：慧通於行相、能行、所行三者；其餘的心心所只通能行與所行二者；其餘的一切有法，就只是所行。
〔正14·正15〕十智的三性、所依之地、所依之身
論（承轉）：已經辨過十智的行相差別，接著應當辨它的性攝、所依之地、所依之身。頌說：
頌：就性說，世俗智通三性，其餘九種都是善。就依地說，世俗智通一切地；他心智只依四根本靜慮；法智依這四地再加未至定與中間定共六地；其餘的依這六地再加下三無色共九地。就現起所依之身說，他心智依欲界與色界身；法智只依欲界身；其餘八智通三界身。
論：這十種智，就三性所攝說：世俗智通於善、不善、無記三性，其餘九種智只是善性。
就所依之地的分別說：世俗智通依欲界乃至有頂；他心智只依四種根本靜慮；法智依這四種根本靜慮，再加未至定與靜慮中間；其餘的智則依這六地，再加下面三種無色定。
就所依之身的分別說：他心智依欲界身與色界身，都可以現前；法智只依欲界身現起；其餘八種智現起時，通依三界之身。
〔正16〕十智各歸哪一種念住
論（承轉）：已經辨過性、地、身，接著應當辨念住所攝。頌說：
頌：諸智的念住所攝——滅智只在最後一種（法念住）；他心智在後三種；其餘八智通於四種。
論：滅智收在法念住之中；他心智為後三種念住（受、心、法）所攝；其餘八種智都通於四種念住。
〔正17〕十智彼此以幾智為境
論（設問）：這十種智彼此相望，一一應當說以幾種智為所緣境？頌說：
頌：諸智互相緣時——法智、類智、道智各能緣九種；苦智、集智各能緣二種；世俗、他心、盡、無生四種都能緣十種；滅智則不緣諸智。
論：法智能緣九種智為境，除去類智。類智能緣九種智為境，除去法智。道智能緣九種智為境，除去世俗智——因為世俗智不屬道諦所攝。
苦智與集智，每一種只能緣二種智為境，就是世俗智與有漏的他心智。
世俗智、他心智、盡智、無生智，都能緣十種智為境。
滅智不緣任何智為境，因為它只以擇滅為所緣。
〔正18·正19〕十智所緣，總共有幾種法
論（設問）：十智所緣的法總共有幾種？哪一種智以幾種法為所緣境？頌說：
頌：所緣總共有十種法，就是三界所繫與無漏三類有為，各分相應與不相應二種；無為又分二種。世俗智緣十種法；法智緣五種；類智緣七種；苦智集智各緣六種；滅智緣一種；道智緣二種；他心智緣三種；盡智無生智各緣九種。
論：十智所緣總共有十種法：有為法分為八種——三界所繫與無漏有為，各有相應與不相應之別（三加一為四，各分二，成八）。無為法分為二種——善無為與無記無為的分別。
世俗智總緣這十種法為境。
法智緣五種，就是欲界的二種、無漏道的二種，以及善無為。
類智緣七種，就是色界與無色界的、以及無漏道的共六種，加上善無為。
苦智與集智各緣三界所繫的六種。
滅智緣一種，就是善無為。
道智緣二種，就是無漏道的那兩種。
他心智緣欲界、色界、無漏這三種之中的相應法。
盡智與無生智緣有為的八種，加上善無為，共九種。
論（設難）：可有一念之智能緣一切法的嗎？答：沒有。
難：那麼觀非我的智不是知一切法都非我嗎？答：那也不能緣一切法。
難：不緣哪一種法？它的體又是什麼？
〔正20〕觀一切法非我的那個智，缺了哪一塊
頌：世俗智除去自品，總緣一切法，作非我行相，而且只是聞所成慧與思所成慧。
論：拿世俗智觀一切法為非我的時候，仍要除去自品。所謂自品，就是它自己的體、與它相應的法、以及與它俱有的法。
為什麼要除？因為境與有境是有分別的；而且它們與這個智同一個所緣，又相隣相近——所以不是這個智所能緣的。
這個智只歸欲界與色界所攝，是聞所成與思所成，不是修所成。為什麼不是修所成？因為修所成的慧是各別緣一地的；如果它是修所成，那就該一下子把諸地的染都離盡了。
〔正21·正22〕從異生到無學，各成就幾種智
論（承轉）：已經辨過所緣，接著應當思擇：誰成就幾種智？頌說：
頌：異生位與聖者見道，最初一念決定成就一智；第二念決定成就三智；此後第四、六、十、十四這幾個剎那各增一智。修道位決定成就七智；已離欲的再增他心智。無學位鈍根與利根有別，各決定成就九智與十智。
論：諸異生位以及聖者見道的第一剎那，決定成就一種智，就是世俗智。
第二剎那決定成就三種智，就是加上法智與苦智。
第四、第六、第十、第十四這幾個剎那，就依著次第後後各增一種——依次增類智、集智、滅智、道智。
那些還沒有增到的位次，成就之數就同前一位；所以到了修道位中，也決定成就七種智。
像這樣的諸位，如果已經離欲，就各各再增一種，就是他心智——只除去生在無色界的異生（無色界無他心智）。
時解脫的阿羅漢決定成就九智，就是加上盡智。不時解脫的決定成就十智，就是再增無生智。
〔正23·正24〕見道位中一時能修幾智——現觀邊俗智
論（設問）：在哪一個位次中一時頓修幾種智？先就見道的十五心說。頌說：
頌：見道中忍與智生起時，就在未來修同它一類的。三種類智時還兼修現觀邊俗智。這種俗智不生，屬自地與下地，繫於苦、集、滅三諦之後，以自諦的行相為境，而且只是加行所得。
論：見道位中隨著所起的忍與智，都是就它同一類的在未來修；而且是具修自己那一諦的一切行相與念住。
論（設問）：為什麼見道只修同類？答：因為這種性是先前不曾得過的；而且它的對治與所緣都是決定的。
論（現觀邊俗智）：只有在苦類智、集類智、滅類智這三個時候，才能兼修未來的現觀邊俗智——因為是在一一諦現觀的最後邊上才能兼修，所以立這個名字。由此其餘各位就不能兼修。
論（設問）：道類智時為什麼不修這個？答：因為世俗智不曾對道作過事現觀；而且必定沒有對道作遍事現觀的事——就是說：對苦、集、滅可以遍知、遍斷、遍證，卻必定沒有對道能夠遍修的。雖然集邊、滅邊還沒有遍斷遍證，但就當位說，斷與證已經周遍了；道就不然，因為它的種性太多。
論（錄一異說並不取）：有人說：這個現觀邊俗智是見道的眷屬，而它屬修道所攝，所以不能修。這個道理不能成立，不應拿來作證。
論（此俗智是不生法）：這個世俗智是不生之法，因為在任何時候都沒有現起的餘地。
難：若是這樣，為什麼還說它是修？答：因為先前不曾得，如今才得。
難：既然不能起，那個『得』又依什麼而立？答：只由『得』的緣故才說是得——由這個得而得到先前所未得的，所以你所辨的修，道理上不能成立。
答：像古師所說，修的意義還是可以成立的。
難：他怎麼說？答：由於聖道的力量而修這個世俗智，等到出觀之後，有一種殊勝的緣諦俗智現前；由於得到了它現起的所依，所以叫作得到它——就像得到金礦就叫作得金一樣。
論（毘婆沙師之異取）：毘婆沙師不喜歡這個說法。他們說：隨依哪一地的見道現前，就能修未來自地與下地的——譬如依未至定的見道現前，就能修未來一地的見道與二地的俗智；乃至依第四靜慮的見道現前，就能修未來六地的見道與七地的俗智。
論（現觀邊俗智之念住與行相）：苦邊、集邊所修的通四念住所攝，滅邊所修的只是法念住。隨在哪一諦的現觀之邊而修，就以那一諦的行相緣那一諦為境，因為是由見道的力量而得的。
它只是加行所得。因為智增盛，所以立『智』之名；如果連同眷屬一起說，就以欲界的四蘊、色界的五蘊為它的自性。
〔正25·正26〕修道位離染時各修幾智
論（承轉）：其次就修道離染的位次說。頌說：
頌：修道的最初剎那修六智或七智。斷八地的無間道、以及有欲界的其餘諸道，還有有頂地的八解脫道，各修七智。上界的無間道與其餘諸道，依次修六智與八智。
論：修道的最初一念，就是第十六道類智的時候，現在修二種智。還沒有離欲的，未來修六種，就是法智、類智與苦、集、滅、道四智；已經離欲的修七種，就是加上他心智，而不修世俗智——因為這是有頂的對治。
斷欲界修所斷的九個無間道與八個解脫道，是世俗智、四諦智、法智隨其所應而現修。
斷上面七地的諸無間道，是四類智、世俗智、滅法智、道法智隨其所應而現修。
斷欲界的加行道、以及有欲界的勝進道，是世俗智、四諦智、法智、類智隨其所應而現修。
以上這些在未來都修七種智，就是世俗、法、類與苦集滅道四諦智。
斷有頂地的前八個解脫道，是四類智、二法智（滅道法智）隨其所應而現修；這些在未來也只修七種，只是要除去世俗智，而加上他心智。
斷有頂地的九個無間道，是四類智、二法智隨其所應而現修；未來修法、類與苦集滅道共六種。
斷欲界修所斷的第九解脫道，是世俗智、四諦智、法智隨其所應而現修。
斷上面七地的諸解脫道，是四類智、世俗智、滅法智、道法智隨其所應而現修。
斷欲界修所斷的第九勝進道、以及斷上面八地的諸加行道，是世俗智、四諦智、法智、類智隨其所應而現修。
斷上面七地與有頂八品的諸勝進道，是世俗智、四諦智、法智、類智以及他心智隨其所應而現修。
以上這些在未來都修八種智，就是世俗、法、類、四諦、他心。
〔正27〕無學位最初一念修幾智
論（承轉）：其次辨離染而得無學位。頌說：
頌：無學的最初剎那修九智或修十智，因為鈍根與利根有別；勝進道也是這樣。
論：無學的最初一念，就是斷有頂第九解脫道的時候，是苦類智、集類智與盡智隨其所應而現修，因為所緣的是有頂。
勝進道則九智或十智隨其所應而現修；未來也隨其所應修九或修十——鈍根的人只除無生智，利根的人連無生智也修。
〔正28–30〕練根、雜修、修通，以及其餘諸位各修幾智
論（承轉）：其次辨其餘位次修智的多少。頌說：
頌：練根的無間道，有學修六、無學修七。其餘有學位修六、七、八，無學（應果）修八、九、乃至一切。雜修與修通的無間道，有學修七、應果修八或九；其餘諸道有學修八，應果修九或一切。聖者起其餘功德、以及異生的諸位，所修智的多少，都依理應當思擇。
論（有學練根）：有學位練根的諸無間道，是四諦法智、類智隨其所應而現修；未來修六種，就是四諦的法智類智——因為它像見道，所以不修世俗智；因為能斷障，所以不修他心智。
諸解脫道也是四諦法智類智隨其所應而現修；未離欲的未來修六種，就是四諦法類；已離欲的未來修七種，就是加上他心智。另有餘師說：解脫道位也修世俗智。
諸加行道，是世俗智、四諦法智類智隨其所應而現修；未離欲的未來修七種，已離欲的修八種，就是加上他心智。
諸勝進道，如果還沒有離欲，是世俗智、四諦法智類智隨其所應而現修，未來也是七種；如果已經離欲，是世俗智、四諦法智類智以及他心智隨其所應而現修，未來也是八種。
論（無學練根）：無學練根的諸無間道，是四類智、二法智隨其所應而現修，未來修七種——四諦的法智類智與盡智，而不修世俗智，因為它像對治有頂。
前五個與前八個解脫道，是四類智、二法智隨其所應而現修，未來修八種，就是四諦法類、他心與盡智。
第四與第九解脫道，是苦類智、集類智與盡智隨其所應而現修，未來修九種。
最後的解脫道，是苦類智、集類智與盡智隨其所應而現修，未來修十種。
諸加行道現修同有學位，未來修九種。諸勝進道：鈍根的以九智隨其所應而現修，未來也是九；利根的以十智隨其所應而現修，未來也是十。
論（雜修靜慮）：有學位雜修的諸無間道，是四諦法智類智與世俗智隨其所應而現修，未來修七種。諸解脫道只是四諦法智類智，加行位再加世俗智。諸勝進道又加他心智隨其所應而現修，未來都修八種。
無學位雜修的諸無間道，現修同有學位，未來所修鈍根八、利根九。諸解脫道只是四諦法智類智，加行位增世俗智隨其所應而現修，未來所修鈍根九、利根十。諸勝進道與練根位相同。
論（修五神通）：有學位修神通的五個無間道，現修世俗智，未來修七種。宿住通與神境通的二個解脫道、五個加行道，現修世俗智；他心通的解脫道則是法智、類智、道智、世俗智以及他心智。一切勝進道連同苦、集、滅諸智隨其所應而現修；以上這些未來都修八種智。
無學位修神通的五個無間道，現修同有學位，未來所修鈍根八、利根九。解脫道與加行道現修同有學位，未來所修鈍根九、利根十。諸勝進道與練根位相同。至於天眼通與天耳通的二個解脫道，因為是無記性，所以不叫作修。
論（起餘功德）：聖者起其餘的四無量等等、屬修所成所攝的有漏功德時，現在都只修一種世俗智。有學未來所修：未離欲的七種，已離欲的八種。無學未來所修：鈍根九種、利根十種——只除去微微心，因為它在未來只修世俗智。
如果起其餘的無漏功德，屬靜慮所攝的，是四諦法智類智隨其所應而現修；屬無色所攝的，只是四類智隨其所應而現修；未來所修同前面有漏的情形。
論（異生位）：異生離染時，現修世俗智，斷欲界與下三靜慮。第九解脫道、以及依根本四靜慮定而起的勝進道與離染加行道，未來修二種，就是加上他心智；其餘的未來就只修世俗智。
修五神通時，諸加行道與二個解脫道現修世俗智，一個解脫道現修世俗智與他心智。諸勝進道二者隨其所應而現修；未來一切都修這兩種。五個無間道，現在與未來都只是世俗智。
依根本靜慮修其餘功德的，都是現修世俗智，未來修二種。只有順決擇分必定不修他心智，因為它是見道的近眷屬。依其餘地的定修其餘功德的，就都只有世俗智，現在與未來都是如此。
〔正31·正32〕未來修的是哪幾地，以及『所得』是不是都算修
論（設問）：那些未來所修的，是修幾地的？凡是所起的『得』都算是修嗎？頌說：
頌：諸道依此地、得此地時，修此地的有漏功德。聖者為離此地、得此地時，修此地與下地的無漏功德。只有最初的盡智能遍修九地的有漏功德。生在上地必不修下地；曾經得過的不算是修。
論：諸道依此地、以及得此地的時候，能修未來此地的有漏功德。
聖者為離此地、以及得此地的時候，並且此地之中諸道現起的時候，都能修此地與下地的無漏功德。所謂『為離此』一語，通於加行、無間、解脫、勝進四種道之中的兩類。
只有最初的盡智現在前的時候，力量能夠遍修九地的有漏功德——不淨觀等等無量的功德，都能繫縛眾惑而斷之無餘，就像能繫縛者一斷，所繫者的氣勢也就一併通斷。又，那個時候他自己的心正登王位，一切善法所起的『得』都來朝見——譬如大王登位灌頂，一切境內的土地都來朝貢。
然而生在上地必定不修下地。所謂『最初盡智』這句話，是指離有頂染的那一念、以及五種練根位的第九解脫道。
論（何謂是修）：凡是所說的修，只有先前未得而如今使它生起、如今才得的，才是能修與所修。就是說：如果先前不曾得而如今得，是用了功才得的，那才算是所修。如果某法先前曾經得過又棄捨了，如今雖然還得，卻不算是所修，因為並不是特別施設劬勞才證得的。
如果是先前未得、用功使它現前，就能修未來，因為勢力殊勝；曾經得過而再起的，就不修未來，因為不是多用功而起，勢力低劣。
論（轉入四修）：那麼是不是只就『得』這一邊才叫作修？答：不是。
難：那麼怎麼說？答：修一共有四種——一得修、二習修、三對治修、四除遣修。
〔正33〕四種修依什麼法而立·外國師的六修
論（設問）：這樣四種修是依什麼法而立的？頌說：
頌：得修與習修，依善的有為法而立；對治修與除遣修，依諸有漏法而立。
論：得修與習修二種，依有為的善法而立；未來的只有得修，現在的則兼具得、習二修。
對治修與除遣修二種，依有漏法而立。所以有漏的善法具足四種修。
無漏的有為法與其餘的有漏法，依次只具前二修與後二修（無漏有為具得、習二修，其餘有漏法具治、遣二修）。
論（外國諸師之異說）：外國的諸位論師說修有六種：在前面四種之上，再加防修與觀修——防護諸根，叫作防修；觀察自身，叫作觀修。像契經所說：什麼叫作修根？就是對於六根善加防護，乃至廣說。又像契經所說：什麼叫作修身？就是對於自己的身觀察髮、毛、爪等等，乃至廣說。
論（迦濕彌羅國諸論師之答）：迦濕彌羅國的諸位論師則說：防、觀這兩種修，就收在對治修與除遣修之中（不必別立）。
〔Root 1〕Receptivity Is Not Knowledge · Exhaustion and Non-Arising Are Not View — the Boundary between Noble Discernment and Discernment with Outflows
Treatise (taking up the question from what precedes): The previous chapter said at its opening “the several receptivities” and “the several knowledges,” and further on it said “right view” and “right knowledge.” It must then be asked: is there any dharma that is receptivity and not knowledge? Is there any dharma that is knowledge and not view? The stanza says:
Stanza: Within the discernment of the noble ones, receptivity is not knowledge; the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising are not view. The remaining noble discernment apart from these two classes is both knowledge and view. As for discernment with outflows, it is knowledge one and all; and of it only six are at the same time view.
Treatise: Discernment is of two kinds in all, one with outflows and one without outflows. Only discernment without outflows is given the name “noble.”
Within this noble discernment, the eight receptivities are not of the nature of knowledge. Why? Because at the time when a receptivity is arising, that portion of doubt which it is itself to sever has not yet been severed through; and knowledge is a name for what has decided and settled, so that while doubt is not yet severed to the end it still cannot be called knowledge. Yet receptivity may be placed on the side of “view,” since the nature of view is to weigh and consider — and receptivity is at that moment weighing and considering the principle of the four truths, and so is view.
The knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising, these two knowledges, are not of the nature of view. Why? Because by the time these two knowledges are present, that mind which sought forward has already come to rest, and there is no more weighing and considering; and so they are not view.
Apart from the eight receptivities and the two knowledges of exhaustion and non-arising, the remaining noble discernment extends at once to both natures, knowledge and view — since it has already severed to the end its own portion of doubt (hence it is knowledge), and is still of the nature of weighing and considering (hence it is view).
Discernment with outflows, on the other hand, belongs wholly within the nature of knowledge; and within discernment with outflows only six are at the same time of the nature of view, namely the five defiled views together with worldly right view, six in all.
Stated out in this way, both noble discernment and discernment with outflows are the function of selecting out the marks of dharmas, and so are all alike assigned to the nature of discernment.
〔Root 2 · Root 3〕The Total Number of the Knowledges — the Opening Out and Gathering In of Two, Three, and Ten
Treatise (a question posed): How many kinds of knowledge are there in all? And what are the differences in their marks one from another? The stanza says:
Stanza: The knowledges are ten in all; gathered up further, there are in sum only two — the difference of with outflows and without outflows. The one with outflows is called conventional knowledge; those without outflows are called dharma knowledge and subsequent knowledge. Conventional knowledge takes all dharmas universally for its object; dharma knowledge and subsequent knowledge take, in that order, the four truths of the desire realm and of the upper realms.
Treatise: The knowledges are of ten kinds, and these ten gather up all knowledge whatever: first conventional knowledge, second dharma knowledge, third subsequent knowledge, fourth the knowledge of suffering, fifth the knowledge of origination, sixth the knowledge of cessation, seventh the knowledge of the path, eighth the knowledge of others’ minds, ninth the knowledge of exhaustion, tenth the knowledge of non-arising.
These ten knowledges, gathered up above, are only two — that is, the difference in nature between with outflows and without outflows.
These two knowledges, opened out below, have three differences of mark, namely conventional knowledge, dharma knowledge, and subsequent knowledge. Knowledge with outflows, spoken of above, has the general name conventional knowledge, since for the most part it takes for its object conventional objects such as a pot. Knowledge without outflows, spoken of afterward, divides again into the two branches of dharma knowledge and subsequent knowledge.
Of the three, conventional knowledge is the universal one, since it takes for its object all dharmas conditioned and unconditioned. Dharma knowledge and subsequent knowledge, these two, follow in order, the one taking for its object the four truths of the desire realm, the other the four truths of the upper realms (the form realm and the formless realm).
〔Root 4〕From What the Knowledges of the Four Truths Are Divided Out · What Exhaustion and Non-Arising First Take as Object
Treatise (transition): Within these two knowledges just so stated, further division may still be made. The stanza says:
Stanza: Dharma knowledge and subsequent knowledge, by the difference of the objects they take, are given the four names of suffering, origination, cessation, and the path. These six knowledges all extend to the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising; and when the two knowledges of exhaustion and non-arising first arise, they are only the subsequent knowledge of suffering and the subsequent knowledge of origination.
Treatise: Dharma knowledge and subsequent knowledge, since the objects they take differ, divide into the four knowledges of suffering, origination, cessation, and the path.
Of these six knowledges in all (dharma, subsequent, suffering, origination, cessation, path), those that are included in the stage beyond learning and are not of the nature of view are called the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising.
When these two knowledges first arise, they belong only to the side of the subsequent knowledge of suffering and the subsequent knowledge of origination. Why? Because they take the six modes of apprehension that have suffering and origination for their object and contemplate the aggregates of the summit of existence as their object.
Treatise (a question posed): Is the object of the vajra-like concentration, then, the same as here? Answer: as regards the side that takes suffering and origination for its object, the reason is the same; as regards the side that takes cessation and the path for its object, it is not the same.
〔Root 5 · Root 6〕The Threefold Limit upon the Knowledge of Others’ Minds, and How Far the Path of Seeing Can Be Known
Treatise (transition): Within the nine knowledges spoken of above (the ten knowledges less the knowledge of non-arising, or less the knowledge of others’ minds itself), it must further be asked of which knowledges the knowledge of others’ minds is made. The stanza says:
Stanza: Dharma knowledge, subsequent knowledge, the knowledge of the path, and conventional knowledge — among these four there are those that accomplish the knowledge of others’ minds; the rest are not so. The knowledge of others’ minds cannot know a mind superior to itself, nor minds past and future. The line of dharma knowledge and the line of subsequent knowledge cannot know each other either. A śrāvaka, a rhinoceros-like pratyekabuddha, and a buddha can know, in that order, the mind of two thought-instants, of three thought-instants, and all of it, in the stage of the path of seeing.
Treatise: There are the four knowledges — dharma knowledge, subsequent knowledge, the knowledge of the path, and conventional knowledge — that can accomplish the knowledge of others’ minds; the remaining knowledges do not become the knowledge of others’ minds.
This knowledge of others’ minds has several fixed limits with respect to the object it takes: first, it cannot know a mind superior to itself; second, it cannot know minds past and future.
What is called a superior mind has three aspects: first level, second faculty, third stage. As to level, the knowledge of a lower level cannot know the mind of a higher level. As to faculty, the knowledge of one dull of faculty, of the class of one resolute through faith and of one whose liberation depends on circumstance, cannot know the mind of one sharp of faculty, of the class of one attained through view and of one whose liberation does not depend on circumstance. As to stage, of the non-returner, the fruit beyond learning of a śrāvaka, the pratyekabuddha, and the greatly awakened one (the Buddha), the knowledge of each earlier stage cannot know the mind of one at each later and superior stage.
As for its being unable to know minds past and future, that is because the knowledge of others’ minds takes for its object only those minds and mental factors that apprehend an object, in the present, within another’s continuum.
Again, the class of dharma knowledge and the class of subsequent knowledge cannot know each other either: those knowledges of others’ minds included in dharma knowledge cannot know the class of subsequent knowledge, and those included in subsequent knowledge cannot know the class of dharma knowledge. Why? Because dharma knowledge and subsequent knowledge are established with the whole of the desire realm and of the upper realms respectively for their object as counteragent.
This knowledge of others’ minds is absent within the path of seeing — because the path of seeing contemplates the principle of the four truths as a whole and turns exceedingly fast, so that the knowledge of others’ minds cannot keep up with it. The mind of the stage of the path of seeing itself, however, may indeed be taken by the knowledge of others’ minds as its object.
Treatise (stating on this basis the measure of what the three vehicles can know): If certain sentient beings are about to enter the path of seeing, a śrāvaka or a pratyekabuddha will beforehand cultivate the preparatory practice, wishing to know the mind of that person at the stage of the path of seeing. When those sentient beings have truly entered the stage of the path of seeing —
if the śrāvaka has completed the preparatory practice for the portion of dharma knowledge, he can know the mind of the first two thought-instants of the path of seeing. If he wishes to know further the mind of the portion of subsequent knowledge, he cultivates a further stretch of preparatory practice, and by the time that practice is complete the other has already reached the sixteenth mind; and though he then knows this mind, it no longer counts as knowing the path of seeing (since the sixteenth mind belongs to the path of cultivation).
If the rhinoceros-like pratyekabuddha has completed the preparatory practice for the portion of dharma knowledge, he can likewise know the mind of the first two thought-instants of the path of seeing. If he wishes to know further the mind of the portion of subsequent knowledge, he cultivates a further preparatory practice, and when that practice is complete he can know the other’s eighth mind, that is, the mind of the subsequent knowledge of origination — because a pratyekabuddha reaches this far by a preparatory practice of the lower grade alone. There is another account: a pratyekabuddha can know the first two thought-instants and the fifteenth mind.
As for the World-Honored One, he knows whatever he would know, without needing to borrow any preparatory practice at all; of another’s path of seeing he can know every mind.
〔Root 7〕The Knowledge of Exhaustion and the Knowledge of Non-Arising, and the One Sentence That Divides Them
Treatise (a question posed): What is the difference in mark between these two, the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising? The stanza says:
Stanza: With respect to the four noble truths, to know of oneself “I have already known suffering” and the rest is the knowledge of exhaustion; to know of oneself “I need not know suffering again” and the rest is the knowledge of non-arising. Assigned in order, the former is the knowledge of exhaustion, the latter the knowledge of non-arising.
Treatise: As the root treatise (the Treatise on the Development of Wisdom) says: what is called the knowledge of exhaustion? It is that, in the stage beyond learning, if one rightly knows of oneself “I have known suffering, I have severed origination, I have realized cessation, I have cultivated the path,” then all the knowing, seeing, clarity, awareness, understanding, discernment, light, and contemplation that arise thereby — this is called the knowledge of exhaustion. What is called the knowledge of non-arising? It is that one rightly knows of oneself “I have known suffering, and need not know it again,” and so on to “I have cultivated the path, and need not cultivate it again,” and all that arises thereby down to contemplation — this is called the knowledge of non-arising.
Treatise (an objection posed): How can a knowledge without outflows give rise to a knowing of this sort, “I have already known”?
The treatise masters of Kaśmīra say: that knowing is made within the subsequently obtained knowledge after emerging from these two knowledges, and so there is no fault. It is because these two subsequently obtained knowledges are discriminative that they can display the difference between the two knowledges within the prior right contemplation.
There is another account: the knowledge without outflows itself also makes such a knowing; and as for the root treatise’s speaking of “seeing,” that is merely said in passing as the run of the words allows, or else because it becomes present and illumines with respect to the principle of the truths and so turns. It is just for this reason that the root treatise says further: and the knowledges too are all of them view.
Treatise (an appended making-out of the mutual inclusion of the ten knowledges): How does the mutual inclusion of these ten knowledges stand? Conventional knowledge includes one in whole and one in part; dharma knowledge and subsequent knowledge each include one in whole and seven in part; the knowledges of suffering, origination, and cessation each include one in whole and four in part; the knowledge of the path includes one in whole and five in part; the knowledge of others’ minds includes one in whole and four in part; the knowledges of exhaustion and non-arising each include one in whole and six in part.
〔Root 8〕Why the Two Knowledges Are Opened Out into Ten — Seven Reasons
Treatise (a question posed): On what grounds are the two knowledges established as ten? The stanza says:
Stanza: By own nature, by counteragent, by mode of apprehension, by mode of apprehension together with object, by preparatory practice, by the task being done, by the cause being complete — by these seven the ten knowledges are established.
Treatise: By seven grounds the two are opened out into ten:
First, by own nature conventional knowledge is established — since it has for its own nature a knowledge that is not of the ultimate.
Second, by counteragent dharma knowledge and subsequent knowledge are established — since these two can counteract the desire realm and the upper realms in whole.
Third, by mode of apprehension the knowledges of suffering and of origination are established — since the objects of these two knowledges have in their entity no difference (both being with outflows), and what is divided lies only in the mode of apprehension.
Fourth, by the two, mode of apprehension and object, the knowledges of cessation and of the path are established — since for these two the mode of apprehension and the object each differ.
Fifth, by preparatory practice the knowledge of others’ minds is established — for without cultivating the preparatory practice expressly one cannot know another’s mind and mental factors. Originally the preparatory practice is cultivated in order to know another’s mind, and by the time the cultivation is complete the mental factors are known along with it; but since the name is established by the preparatory practice, it is called the knowledge of others’ minds.
Sixth, by the task being done the knowledge of exhaustion is established — since it arises first within that body in which what was to be done is done.
Seventh, by the cause being complete the knowledge of non-arising is established — since it arises with the whole of the noble path for its cause.
〔Root 9〕Why the Dharma-Knowledges of Cessation and of the Path Can Counteract the Upper Realms as Well
Treatise (transition raising a question): As was said above, dharma knowledge and subsequent knowledge can counteract in whole the dharmas of the desire realm and of the upper realms; is there then anything that can counteract the upper realms in part? The stanza says:
Stanza: The dharma knowledges that take cessation and the path for their object can, within the stage of the path of cultivation, counteract as well the afflictions of the upper realms abandoned through cultivation; while subsequent knowledge has nothing that can counteract the desire realm.
Treatise: The dharma knowledge of cessation and the dharma knowledge of the path included in the path of cultivation can counteract as well the afflictions of the upper realms abandoned through cultivation. Why? Because the cessation and the path of the desire realm are superior to the cessation and the path of the upper realms; and having already removed one’s own enemy, one has strength to spare for removing another’s. And it is just for this reason that subsequent knowledge conversely has nothing that can counteract the desire realm (the cessation and the path of the upper realms are not superior to those of the desire realm, and so it cannot counteract the lower realm in return).
〔Root 10 · Root 11 · First Half of Root 12〕What Modes of Apprehension Each of the Ten Knowledges Has — with the Making-Out of the Eight Pairs, the Mind with Greed, the Gathered and the Scattered Mind, and the Rest
Treatise (a question posed): Within these ten knowledges, which one has which modes of apprehension? The stanza says:
Stanza: Dharma knowledge and subsequent knowledge have modes of apprehension sixteen in both cases. Conventional knowledge has these sixteen and others besides. The knowledges of the four truths have four apiece. The knowledge of others’ minds, if it is without outflows, has only four modes of apprehension, namely the four that take the truth of the path for their object; if it is with outflows, it takes an individual mark for its object, and in a single thought takes only one entity. The knowledges of exhaustion and non-arising have fourteen modes of apprehension, namely the sixteen less emptiness and non-self.
Treatise: Dharma knowledge and subsequent knowledge each possess in full the sixteen modes of apprehension, the impermanent, the suffering, and the rest; these sixteen modes of apprehension will be explained at length below (at Root 13).
Conventional knowledge has both these sixteen and others besides, since it can take for its object the individual marks and the common marks of all dharmas and so on.
The four knowledges of suffering and the rest each have the four modes of apprehension that take the object of their own truth.
Within the knowledge of others’ minds, if it is without outflows it has only the four modes of apprehension that take the truth of the path for their object — because such a knowledge of others’ minds is from the first included within the knowledge of the path. If it is with outflows, it takes as its object the individual mark of the mind and mental factors that it takes as object; and since the object is an individual mark, the mode of apprehension follows suit and is of an individual mark, and so this does not fall within the aforesaid sixteen modes of apprehension.
These two (the knowledge of others’ minds without outflows and with outflows) at any time take in a single thought only one entity for their object: when they take a mind for object they do not take mental factors, and when they take feeling for object they do not take perception and the rest.
Treatise (the first objection · a mind with greed): If that is so, why does the World-Honored One say “he knows as it truly is a mind with greed,” and so forth? Answer: that is not to take the two, greed and mind, at the same time, just as one does not at the same time take a garment and the dirt upon the garment.
What is called a mind with greed has two senses: first, that it is associated with greed; second, that it is bound by greed. A mind associated with greed possesses both senses in full; the remaining minds with outflows are only bound by greed.
There is another account: where the sūtra says “a mind with greed,” it means only the first, namely a mind associated with greed. What then of a mind free of greed? It is a mind that counteracts greed.
Treatise (the author refutes one explanation): If it be said that “whatever is not associated with greed is called a mind free of greed,” then a mind associated with the remaining afflictions would also have to acquire the name of being free of greed (since these too are not associated with greed). And if that were so, there would further be a mind which is neither the counteragent of greed nor of a defiled nature — and one would then have to grant that such a mind is neither a mind with greed nor a mind free of greed. Therefore one ought to adopt the account of the other master: what is bound by greed is called a mind with greed; and so on for having delusion and being free of delusion, stated in the same way.
Treatise (the gloss of the Vaibhāṣika masters): The Vaibhāṣika masters say this: the gathered mind is the wholesome mind, since with respect to its object it does not run off and scatter; the scattered mind is the defiled mind, since it arises associated with agitation.
Treatise (the divergent account of the masters of the West · the Vaibhāṣika masters refute it): The masters of the West, on the other hand, say this: that which is associated with sleep is called the gathered mind, and the remaining defiled minds are called the scattered mind.
This account does not accord with principle. For, on his telling, those defiled minds, if they are associated with sleep, would extend at once to both sides, gathered and scattered (gathered because of the sleep, scattered because of the defilement). And it would further do violence to a sentence spoken by the root treatise: to know as it truly is the gathered mind is possessed in full of four knowledges, namely dharma knowledge, subsequent knowledge, conventional knowledge, and the knowledge of the path.
Treatise (the like explanation of the remaining seven pairs of minds): The sunken mind is the defiled mind, since it arises associated with indolence; the roused mind is the wholesome mind, since it arises associated with right diligence.
The small mind is the defiled mind, since it is what men of little pure quality delight to practice; the great mind is the wholesome mind, since it is what men of much pure quality delight to practice.
Or else the small and the great may be spoken of by the more and less of five aspects: root, price, retinue, concomitant turning, and force. The defiled mind has few roots, being associated with two at most; the wholesome mind has many roots, being constantly associated with three. The defiled mind is of low price, since it comes to be without expending effort; the wholesome mind is of high price, since it comes to be only in dependence on a great store of provisions. The defiled mind has a small retinue, since it has no future cultivation; the wholesome mind has a large retinue, since it has future cultivation. The defiled mind has little concomitant turning, extending only to three aggregates; the wholesome mind has much concomitant turning, extending to four aggregates. The defiled mind is of small force, since the wholesome roots it severs will certainly be joined on again; the wholesome mind is of great force, since receptivity certainly severs the latent tendencies forever. It is by these several aspects that the defiled mind and the wholesome mind acquire the names small and great.
The restless mind is the defiled mind, since it is associated with restlessness; the unrestless mind is the wholesome mind, since it can counteract restlessness. The pair, the unstilled and the stilled, is to be understood in the same way.
The unconcentrated mind is the defiled mind, since it is associated with agitation; the concentrated mind is the wholesome mind, since it can counteract agitation.
The uncultivated mind is the defiled mind, since neither of the two cultivations, cultivation as acquisition and cultivation as practice, includes it; the cultivated mind is the wholesome mind, since it admits of these two cultivations.
The unliberated mind is the defiled mind, since in its own nature and in its continuum alike it is not liberated; the liberated mind is the wholesome mind, since in its own nature and in its continuum alike it admits of liberation.
Treatise (the author adjudges this explanation not to accord with the sūtra): An explanation such as the above neither accords with the sūtra nor is able to make out the several senses proper to each of the eight phrases.
How does it not accord with the sūtra? The sūtra says: how is this mind called inwardly gathered? It is when the mind runs together with torpor and sleep, or when what is inwardly associated with it has calm abiding without insight. How is it called outwardly scattered? It is when the mind roams among the objects of the five excellent desires, scattering along and streaming along with them, or when what is inwardly associated with it has insight without calm abiding.
Treatise (exchange): Objection: was it not already said above that a defiled mind arising together with sleep would incur the fault of one mind extending to both gathered and scattered? Answer: it was said, but it does not accord with principle, since the sūtra does not grant that a defiled mind arising together with sleep is the scattered mind.
Objection: was it not also said that this would contradict the root treatise? Answer: better to contradict the words of a treatise than to contradict what a sūtra says.
Treatise (what it means to be unable to make out the several senses): On that explanation, one cannot make out the differing marks proper to each of the eight phrases, the scattered and the rest, the gathered and the rest. On my own explanation it is not the case that the several senses of these eight phrases of the sūtra cannot be made out: though the scattered and the rest are alike defiled minds, they are so named in order to display the differences among their faults; and though the gathered and the rest are alike wholesome minds, they are so named in order to display the differences among their merits — and so, following eight senses, eight names are separately established.
Since that house cannot even get past the sūtra-statement it contradicts, the sense of the phrases it makes out also fails to stand in principle.
Treatise (a further objection from the sunken and the restless): Moreover, if the sunken mind were the restless mind, the sūtra ought not to say: if at that time the mind is sunken, and one nonetheless, fearing that it will sink, cultivates the three limbs of awakening, pliancy, concentration, and equanimity, this is called untimely cultivation; if at that time the mind is restless, and one nonetheless, fearing that it will be restless, cultivates the three limbs of awakening, discernment of dharmas, diligence, and joy, this is called untimely cultivation. Is there then any principle by which the limbs of awakening are cultivated apart and severally?
Answer (that house saves its position): this refers to cultivation in the sense of “attending to it and wishing to cultivate it,” not to cultivating it as present before one; and so there is no fault.
Objection: does what I have said also contradict a sūtra, then? Though every defiled mind may be called sunken and restless, still the sūtra calls that in which indolence prevails the sunken mind, and that in which restlessness prevails the restless mind; and as regards their being constantly associated I say that their entity is one — this is speaking after my own sense, and who then can bar it?
Answer: nevertheless the sense of this sūtra is truly not so.
Treatise (returning to make out the mind with greed): It was said above that every mind bound by greed is called a mind with greed. What then does “bound by greed” mean?
If it be said that the acquisition of greed follows along with it, then the mind without outflows of one in training would also have to be called a mind with greed, since the acquisition of greed follows along with it too. If it be said that it is taken as object by greed, then the mind with outflows of one beyond learning would also have to be called a mind with greed, since it is taken as object by greed. And if it be not granted that that mind can be taken as object by greed, then how does that mind still come to be with outflows? And if it be said that it is because it is taken as object by an affliction of the common mark, then it ought to be called a mind with delusion, since it is taken as object by delusion.
Moreover, the knowledge of others’ minds does not take as object the acquisition of greed, nor can it be said to take as object the greed that takes the mind as object — on what basis, then, is another’s mind known to be one with greed and so forth? Therefore the name of a mind with greed cannot be established by being bound by greed.
How then should it be stated? Examining the sense of the sūtra closely today: it is being associated with greed that is called a mind with greed, and being unassociated with greed that is called being free of greed and the rest.
Objection: if that is so, why does another sūtra say that a mind free of greed, hatred, and delusion no longer falls into the three existences? Answer: that is said with reference to “the acquisition of freedom,” and so there is no fault.
Objection: was this account not already refuted above — that a mind associated with the remaining afflictions would also have to acquire the name of being free of greed, since these too are unassociated with greed? Answer: if it be taken in this sense, there is no obstacle in granting that they too are called free of greed; only they are not said to be minds free of greed, since they are to be assigned to the side of having hatred and having delusion.
Treatise (closing the incidental discussion and reverting to the school’s own position · fixing again the marks of the knowledge of others’ minds): Let the incidental discussion rest here, and let us return to speak of our own position.
Does the knowledge of others’ minds explained here also take the object of another’s mind, and take too the apprehending mode of apprehension of another’s mind? Answer: it takes neither — when one knows another’s mind, one does not contemplate the object it takes nor the mode of apprehension by which it apprehends. That is to say: one knows only that he has a defiled mind and so forth, but does not know the form and the rest to which his mind is attached, nor does one know the mode of apprehension by which it apprehends. Were it otherwise, the knowledge of others’ minds would have to take form and the rest for its object as well, and there would further be the fault of its being able to take itself for its object.
Therefore the knowledges of others’ minds have several fixed marks: they can take only what is affiliated to the desire realm, affiliated to the form realm, or unaffiliated (without outflows), within another’s continuum, in the present, of the same class, mind and mental factors, taking the individual mark of one real dharma as the object. The knowledge of others’ minds is not associated with the two concentrations of emptiness and signlessness, is not included in the knowledges of exhaustion and non-arising, and is not within the path of seeing nor within an uninterrupted path; the remainder, not being barred, is admitted as is fitting.
Treatise (the modes of apprehension of the two knowledges, of exhaustion and of non-arising): The knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising, setting aside emptiness and non-self, each possess in full the remaining fourteen modes of apprehension. Though these two knowledges are included within the ultimate, they touch upon the conventional, and so they must part with the two modes of apprehension, emptiness and non-self — because by their force one says, upon emerging from contemplation, words such as these: my births are exhausted, the holy life is established, what was to be done is done, I shall not undergo further existence (and since “I” is said, this does not accord with the two modes of apprehension, emptiness and non-self).
〔Second Half of Root 12〕Whether Modes of Apprehension without Outflows Can Exceed the Sixteen — the Dispute of Kaśmīra and the Masters Abroad
Treatise (a question posed): Is there any mode of apprehension without outflows that exceeds these sixteen and is included among further modes of apprehension? The stanza says:
Stanza: Pure (that is, without outflows) modes of apprehension do not exceed the sixteen; another house says that there are further ones, since there is a root treatise to rely upon.
Treatise: The treatise masters of the country of Kaśmīra say: there is no mode of apprehension without outflows that exceeds these sixteen.
The masters abroad, on the other hand, say: there are further modes of apprehension without outflows that exceed the sixteen.
How is this known? Because there is a root treatise to rely upon. As the root treatise says: can there be an unaffiliated (that is, without outflows) mind that discerns dharmas affiliated to the desire realm? Answer: it can discern them — namely, it discerns them as drawn forth in accordance with principle, by reason of the impermanent, by reason of suffering, by reason of emptiness, by reason of non-self, by reason of cause, by reason of origination, by reason of arising, by reason of condition, and there being such a case and there being such a fact. (The masters abroad accordingly take the two phrases “there is such a case, there is such a fact” to be modes of apprehension existing apart from the sixteen.)
Treatise (the author checks it): Suppose it be said that this passage is not meant to display that “when an unaffiliated mind discerns dharmas affiliated to the desire realm, besides the eight modes of apprehension stated above there are further modes of apprehension such as there being such a case and there being such a fact,” but is meant only to display that “making those eight modes of apprehension is a case that exists and a fact that exists” —
such an explanation cannot stand, since in the remaining places it does not speak so. That is to say: if that treatise were speaking with this sense in view, then in the remaining places too it ought to say this same phrase. Yet the remaining text of that treatise says only this: can there be a mind abandoned through seeing that discerns dharmas affiliated to the desire realm? Answer: it can discern them — namely, it discerns them as drawn forth not in accordance with principle, by reason of self, by reason of what belongs to self, by reason of annihilation, by reason of permanence, by reason of no cause, by reason of no agent, by reason of diminution, by reason of the venerable, by reason of the superior, by reason of the highest, by reason of the foremost, by reason of what can purify, by reason of what can liberate, by reason of what can bring forth, by reason of confusion, by reason of doubt, by reason of hesitation, by reason of greed, by reason of hatred, by reason of pride, by reason of delusion.
Here too the phrases “there is such a case” and the rest ought to have been added; and since this phrase is absent, it is evident that such an explanation does not accord with principle.
〔Root 13〕The Names and the Entities of the Sixteen Modes of Apprehension · the Glossing of the Four Modes of Each of the Four Truths
Treatise (a question posed): Of the sixteen modes of apprehension, how many are they in real entity? And what, moreover, are called mode of apprehension, that which apprehends, and that which is apprehended? The stanza says:
Stanza: The modes of apprehension are in real entity just sixteen. Their entity is discernment alone. That which apprehends is everything that has an object; that which is apprehended is all existing dharmas.
Treatise (first recording a divergent account): Some other master says: of the sixteen modes of apprehension the names are indeed sixteen, but in real entity they are only seven — of those that take the truth of suffering for their object, name and entity are both four; of those that take the remaining three truths for their object, the names are four apiece but the entities only one apiece.
Treatise (the correct account): One who speaks as we do here, however, maintains: in real entity they are sixteen as well.
Treatise (glossing truth by truth): The noble truth of suffering has four modes: first the impermanent, second suffering, third emptiness, fourth non-self. Because it exists awaiting conditions, it is called impermanent; because it has the nature of oppression, it is called suffering; because it runs counter to the view of what belongs to self, it is called empty; because it runs counter to the view of self, it is called non-self.
The noble truth of origination has four modes: first cause, second origination, third arising, fourth condition. By the principle of a seed, it is called cause; by the principle of an equal manifesting, it is called origination; by the principle of a continuum, it is called arising; by the principle of bringing to completion, it is called condition — as a lump of clay, a wheel, a cord, water, and other conditions must come together before a pot is brought to completion.
The noble truth of cessation has four modes: first cessation, second stillness, third excellence, fourth separation. Since all the aggregates are exhausted, it is called cessation; since the three fires of greed, hatred, and delusion have come to rest, it is called stilled; since there are no manifold troubles, it is called excellent; since one departs from the manifold calamities, it is called separation.
The noble truth of the path has four modes: first the path, second conformity, third progress, fourth issuing forth. Since it has the sense of a way through, it is called the path; since it accords with correct principle, it is called conformity; since it goes rightly forward, it is called progress; since it can transcend forever, it is called issuing forth.
Treatise (the second round of glossing): Again, because it is not final, it is called impermanent; because it is like bearing a heavy burden, it is called suffering; because inwardly it is apart from an agent or person, it is called empty; because it is not under one’s own mastery, it is called non-self. Because it has the sense of drawing forth, it is called cause; because it has the sense of coming forth, it is called origination; because it has the sense of nourishing and bringing to birth, it is called arising; because it has the sense of acting as a support, it is called condition. Because it is not joined on again and the continuum is severed, it is called cessation; because it is apart from the three marks of the conditioned, it is called stilled; because it is the wholesome of the ultimate, it is called excellent; because it is utterly secure, it is called separation. Because it counteracts the wrong path, it is called the path; because it counteracts what is not in accordance with principle, it is called conformity; because it enters upon the palace of nirvāṇa, it is called progress; because it relinquishes all the existences, it is called issuing forth.
Treatise (the third round of glossing): Since the glosses of old are thus not of one gate only, let a further explanation be made as each may please.
Having arisen it ceases again, and so it is called impermanent; it runs counter to the mind of the noble ones, and so it is called suffering; within it there is no self, and so it is called empty; it is not itself a self, and so it is called non-self.
As for the four modes, cause, origination, arising, and condition, they are stated as the sūtra explains them — the sūtra says that the five aggregates of appropriation have desire for their root, desire for their origination, desire for their kind, desire for their arising; only this word “arising” ought in the sūtra to be placed last, which differs from the order in the treatise.
Treatise (the difference of the four desires): What is the difference of mark among these four? Since they follow upon differing stages, the four desires that arise also differ: first, grasping the general self of the present and arousing the general desire for one’s own being; second, grasping the general self of the future and arousing the general desire for further existence; third, grasping a particular self of the future and arousing the particular desire for further existence; fourth, grasping the self that is joined on to birth and arousing the desire at the time of that joining — or else grasping the self that does actions and arousing the desire at the time of doing them.
The first is the initial cause with respect to suffering, and so is called cause, as a seed is to a fruit. The second equally gathers together with respect to suffering, and so is called origination, as a sprout and the rest are to a fruit. The third is a particular condition with respect to suffering, and so is called condition, as a field and the rest are to a fruit — for it is by the force of field, water, dung, and the rest that the flavor, potency, ripeness, and quality of the fruit each arise severally. The fourth can bring forth suffering from near at hand, and so is called arising, as the blossom is to the fruit.
Treatise (a further account following the sūtra’s modes of craving): Or else, as the sūtra says, there are the two fives and two fours, eighteen modes of craving in all, which may be matched with the four desires.
Grasping the general self of the present has five differences: first, holding that I definitely exist in the present; second, holding that I exist thus in the present; third, holding that I exist altered in the present; fourth, holding that I exist in the present; fifth, holding that I do not exist in the present.
Grasping the general self of the future likewise has five differences: first, holding that I shall definitely exist in the future; second, holding that I shall exist thus in the future; third, holding that I shall exist altered in the future; fourth, holding that I shall exist in the future; fifth, holding that I shall not exist in the future.
Grasping a particular self of the future has four differences: first, holding that I shall exist as a particular in the future; second, holding that I shall definitely exist as a particular in the future; third, holding that I shall exist thus as a particular in the future; fourth, holding that I shall exist altered as a particular in the future.
Grasping the self that is joined on to birth and the rest likewise has four differences: first, holding that I too shall exist; second, holding that I too shall definitely exist; third, holding that I too shall exist thus; fourth, holding that I too shall exist altered.
Treatise (a further explanation of the eight modes of cessation and the path): The turning about is severed, and so it is called cessation; the manifold sufferings have come to rest, and so it is called stilled. As the sūtra says: all the formations are suffering, only nirvāṇa is most at peace — there is nothing further above it, and so it is called excellent; it does not fall back, and so it is called separation. It is like the right way, and so it is called the path; it turns as things truly are, and so it is called conformity; it can go forward with certainty, and so it is called progress. As the sūtra says: this path can reach the place of purity, and for the remaining views there is certainly no principle of reaching purity; it departs forever from the existences, and so it is called issuing forth.
Treatise (establishing the sixteen modes by what they counteract): Again, in order to counteract the views of permanence, of pleasure, of what belongs to self, and of self, one cultivates the four modes of apprehension, the impermanent, suffering, emptiness, and non-self. In order to counteract the views of no cause, of a single cause, of a transforming cause, of a cause known beforehand, and the rest, one cultivates the four modes of apprehension, cause, origination, arising, and condition. In order to counteract the view that liberation is nonexistent, one cultivates the mode of apprehension of cessation. In order to counteract the view that liberation is suffering, one cultivates the mode of apprehension of stillness. In order to counteract the view that the pleasure of the meditative absorptions and attainments is excellent, one cultivates the mode of apprehension of excellence. In order to counteract the view that liberation falls back again and again and is not lasting, one cultivates the mode of apprehension of separation. In order to counteract the views of no path, of a wrong path, of some other path, and of a path that falls back, one cultivates the four modes of apprehension, the path, conformity, progress, and issuing forth.
Treatise (the entity of a mode of apprehension and the three gates): Modes of apprehension such as these have discernment for their entity.
Objection: if that is so, then discernment itself would have to be without any mode of apprehension, since discernment is not associated with discernment (a thing cannot take itself as object).
Answer: therefore it ought to be said that every difference of class in the taking of an object by mind and mental factors is called a mode of apprehension. Discernment and the remaining minds and mental factors, since all of them have an object, are all of them that which apprehends; and all existing dharmas are that which is apprehended.
By these three gates the entities have their breadth and narrowness: discernment extends to all three, mode of apprehension, that which apprehends, and that which is apprehended; the remaining minds and mental factors extend only to the two, that which apprehends and that which is apprehended; and all the remaining existing dharmas are that which is apprehended alone.
〔Root 14 · Root 15〕The Three Natures of the Ten Knowledges, the Level They Depend Upon, and the Body They Depend Upon
Treatise (transition): The differences among the modes of apprehension of the ten knowledges having been made out, next should be made out the nature they are included in, the level they depend upon, and the body they depend upon. The stanza says:
Stanza: As to nature, conventional knowledge extends to the three natures, and the remaining nine are all wholesome. As to the level depended upon, conventional knowledge extends to all levels; the knowledge of others’ minds depends only upon the four fundamental meditative absorptions; dharma knowledge depends upon these four together with access concentration and the intermediate absorption, six levels in all; the rest depend upon these six together with the lower three formless levels, nine in all. As to the body depended upon in becoming present, the knowledge of others’ minds depends upon a body of the desire realm and of the form realm; dharma knowledge depends only upon a body of the desire realm; the remaining eight knowledges extend to bodies of the three realms.
Treatise: Of these ten knowledges, as included within the three natures: conventional knowledge extends to the three natures, wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate, while the remaining nine knowledges are of wholesome nature alone.
As to the distinction of the level depended upon: conventional knowledge extends in its dependence from the desire realm up to the summit of existence; the knowledge of others’ minds depends only upon the four fundamental meditative absorptions; dharma knowledge depends upon these four fundamental meditative absorptions together with access concentration and the intermediate absorption; while the remaining knowledges depend upon these six levels together with the three lower formless absorptions.
As to the distinction of the body depended upon: the knowledge of others’ minds can become present in dependence upon a body of the desire realm and a body of the form realm alike; dharma knowledge arises only in dependence upon a body of the desire realm; and the remaining eight knowledges, in becoming present, extend in their dependence to bodies of the three realms.
〔Root 16〕Which Foundation of Mindfulness Each of the Ten Knowledges Falls Under
Treatise (transition): Nature, level, and body having been made out, next should be made out the foundations of mindfulness they are included in. The stanza says:
Stanza: As to the foundations of mindfulness that include the knowledges — the knowledge of cessation is only in the last one (the foundation of mindfulness of dharmas); the knowledge of others’ minds is in the latter three; the remaining eight knowledges extend to all four.
Treatise: The knowledge of cessation is comprised within the foundation of mindfulness of dharmas; the knowledge of others’ minds is included in the latter three foundations of mindfulness (feeling, mind, and dharmas); and the remaining eight knowledges all extend to the four foundations of mindfulness.
〔Root 17〕How Many Knowledges Each of the Ten Takes as Object
Treatise (a question posed): These ten knowledges, set one against another, must each be said to take how many knowledges as their object? The stanza says:
Stanza: When the knowledges take one another as object — dharma knowledge, subsequent knowledge, and the knowledge of the path can each take nine; the knowledges of suffering and of origination can each take two; the four, conventional knowledge, the knowledge of others’ minds, the knowledge of exhaustion, and the knowledge of non-arising, can all take ten; and the knowledge of cessation takes no knowledge as object.
Treatise: Dharma knowledge can take nine knowledges as its object, setting aside subsequent knowledge. Subsequent knowledge can take nine knowledges as its object, setting aside dharma knowledge. The knowledge of the path can take nine knowledges as its object, setting aside conventional knowledge — since conventional knowledge is not included in the truth of the path.
The knowledges of suffering and of origination can each take only two knowledges as their object, namely conventional knowledge and the knowledge of others’ minds that is with outflows.
Conventional knowledge, the knowledge of others’ minds, the knowledge of exhaustion, and the knowledge of non-arising can all take ten knowledges as their object.
The knowledge of cessation takes no knowledge whatever as its object, since it takes cessation through discernment alone as its object.
〔Root 18 · Root 19〕How Many Dharmas in All Are Taken as Object by the Ten Knowledges
Treatise (a question posed): How many dharmas in all are taken as object by the ten knowledges? And which knowledge takes how many dharmas as its object? The stanza says:
Stanza: The objects are ten dharmas in all, namely the conditioned of the three realm-affiliations and of the outflowless, three classes, each divided into the associated and the unassociated, two apiece; and the unconditioned divided again into two. Conventional knowledge takes ten dharmas; dharma knowledge five; subsequent knowledge seven; the knowledges of suffering and of origination six apiece; the knowledge of cessation one; the knowledge of the path two; the knowledge of others’ minds three; the knowledges of exhaustion and non-arising nine apiece.
Treatise: The objects of the ten knowledges are ten dharmas in all. The conditioned dharmas divide into eight — those affiliated to the three realms and the conditioned without outflows, each having the distinction of the associated and the unassociated (three plus one making four, each divided in two, making eight). The unconditioned dharmas divide into two — the distinction of the wholesome unconditioned and the indeterminate unconditioned.
Conventional knowledge takes these ten dharmas in general as its object.
Dharma knowledge takes five, namely the two of the desire realm, the two of the outflowless path, and the wholesome unconditioned.
Subsequent knowledge takes seven, namely those of the form realm and the formless realm together with those of the outflowless path, six in all, plus the wholesome unconditioned.
The knowledges of suffering and of origination each take the six that are affiliated to the three realms.
The knowledge of cessation takes one, namely the wholesome unconditioned.
The knowledge of the path takes two, namely those two of the outflowless path.
The knowledge of others’ minds takes the associated dharmas among the three, the desire realm, the form realm, and the outflowless.
The knowledges of exhaustion and non-arising take the eight conditioned plus the wholesome unconditioned, nine in all.
Treatise (an objection posed): Can there be a knowledge in a single thought that takes all dharmas as its object? Answer: there cannot.
Objection: does the knowledge that contemplates non-self not know that all dharmas are non-self? Answer: that too cannot take all dharmas as its object.
Objection: which dharma does it not take as object? And what, moreover, is its entity?
〔Root 20〕What the Knowledge That Contemplates All Dharmas as Non-Self Leaves Out
Stanza: Conventional knowledge, setting aside its own class, takes all dharmas as its object in general, making the mode of apprehension of non-self; and it is only discernment formed through hearing and discernment formed through reflection.
Treatise: When one contemplates all dharmas as non-self by means of conventional knowledge, one must still set aside its own class. What is called its own class is its own entity, the dharmas associated with it, and the dharmas coexistent with it.
Why must these be set aside? Because object and possessor of an object are distinct; and moreover these have one and the same object as this knowledge and are neighboring and near to it — and so they are not what this knowledge can take as object.
This knowledge is included in the desire realm and the form realm alone, and is formed through hearing and formed through reflection, not formed through cultivation. Why is it not formed through cultivation? Because discernment formed through cultivation takes a single level severally as its object; and if this knowledge were formed through cultivation, then one would at a single stroke have become free of the defilement of all the levels.
〔Root 21 · Root 22〕How Many Knowledges Are Accomplished, from the Ordinary Being to One beyond Learning
Treatise (transition): The objects having been made out, next it should be considered: who accomplishes how many knowledges? The stanza says:
Stanza: At the stage of the ordinary being and in the noble one’s path of seeing, the first thought-instant definitely accomplishes one knowledge; the second thought-instant definitely accomplishes three; thereafter the fourth, sixth, tenth, and fourteenth thought-instants each add one knowledge. At the stage of the path of cultivation seven knowledges are definitely accomplished; one already free of desire adds the knowledge of others’ minds. At the stage beyond learning, dull faculty and sharp faculty are distinguished, definitely accomplishing nine knowledges and ten respectively.
Treatise: At all the stages of the ordinary being and in the first thought-instant of the noble one’s path of seeing, one knowledge is definitely accomplished, namely conventional knowledge.
At the second thought-instant three knowledges are definitely accomplished, namely with the addition of dharma knowledge and the knowledge of suffering.
At the fourth, sixth, tenth, and fourteenth thought-instants, one is added at each later point in due order — subsequent knowledge, the knowledge of origination, the knowledge of cessation, and the knowledge of the path, in that order.
At those stages where no addition has yet been reached, the number accomplished is the same as at the preceding stage; and so, upon reaching the stage of the path of cultivation, seven knowledges are likewise definitely accomplished.
At stages such as these, if one is already free of desire, one adds one more apiece, namely the knowledge of others’ minds — excepting only the ordinary being born in the formless realm (there being no knowledge of others’ minds in the formless realm).
An arhat whose liberation depends on circumstance definitely accomplishes nine knowledges, namely with the addition of the knowledge of exhaustion. One whose liberation does not depend on circumstance definitely accomplishes ten, namely with the further addition of the knowledge of non-arising.
〔Root 23 · Root 24〕How Many Knowledges Are Cultivated at One Time in the Path of Seeing — the Conventional Knowledge at the Border of Direct Realization
Treatise (a question posed): At which stage are how many knowledges cultivated all at once at one time? Take first the fifteen minds of the path of seeing. The stanza says:
Stanza: When receptivity and knowledge arise in the path of seeing, one cultivates in the future what is of the same class as them. At the three subsequent knowledges one further cultivates as well the conventional knowledge at the border of direct realization. This conventional knowledge does not arise; it belongs to its own level and to the lower levels; it is bound to the three truths of suffering, origination, and cessation, taking as its object the modes of apprehension of its own truth; and it is obtained through preparatory practice alone.
Treatise: Within the stage of the path of seeing, whatever receptivity or knowledge arises, one cultivates in the future what is of the same class as it; and one cultivates in full all the modes of apprehension and the foundations of mindfulness of that same truth.
Treatise (a question posed): Why does the path of seeing cultivate only what is of the same class? Answer: because this class-nature has never been obtained before; and moreover its counteragent and its object are both fixed.
Treatise (the conventional knowledge at the border of direct realization): Only at the three moments of the subsequent knowledge of suffering, the subsequent knowledge of origination, and the subsequent knowledge of cessation can one cultivate in addition the future conventional knowledge at the border of direct realization — since it can be cultivated in addition only at the hindmost border of the direct realization of each single truth, this name is established for it. Hence at the remaining stages it cannot be cultivated in addition.
Treatise (a question posed): Why is it not cultivated at the moment of the subsequent knowledge of the path? Answer: because conventional knowledge has never performed direct realization in terms of entities with respect to the path; and moreover there certainly is no thorough direct realization in terms of entities with respect to the path — that is to say: with respect to suffering, origination, and cessation there can be thorough knowing, thorough severing, and thorough realizing, but with respect to the path there certainly is no thorough cultivating. And though the border of origination and the border of cessation have not yet been thoroughly severed and thoroughly realized, as regards the stage in question the severing and the realizing are already complete; with the path it is not so, since its class-natures are too many.
Treatise (recording a divergent account and not adopting it): Some say: this conventional knowledge at the border of direct realization is a retinue of the path of seeing, while it is included in the path of cultivation, and so it cannot be cultivated. This principle cannot stand and should not be taken as proof.
Treatise (this conventional knowledge is a dharma that will not arise): This conventional knowledge is a dharma that will not arise, since at no time is there room for it to become present.
Objection: if that is so, why is it still said to be cultivated? Answer: because it was not obtained before and is only now obtained.
Objection: since it cannot arise, upon what does that “acquisition” rest? Answer: it is only by reason of the acquisition that it is said to be obtained — by this acquisition one obtains what was not obtained before; and so the cultivation you make out cannot stand in principle.
Answer: as the ancient master says, the sense of cultivation can still be made to stand.
Objection: how does he say it? Answer: by the force of the noble path one cultivates this conventional knowledge; and after emerging from contemplation, a superior conventional knowledge taking the truths as its object becomes present. Because one has obtained the support for its arising, one is said to have obtained it — just as obtaining a gold ore is called obtaining gold.
Treatise (the divergent adoption of the Vaibhāṣika masters): The Vaibhāṣika masters do not like this account. They say: whichever level the path of seeing that becomes present depends upon, one can cultivate in the future what belongs to that level and to the lower levels — as when the path of seeing dependent upon access concentration becomes present, one can cultivate in the future the path of seeing of one level and the conventional knowledge of two levels; and so on to the path of seeing dependent upon the fourth meditative absorption becoming present, whereupon one can cultivate in the future the path of seeing of six levels and the conventional knowledge of seven levels.
Treatise (the foundations of mindfulness and the modes of apprehension of the conventional knowledge at the border of direct realization): What is cultivated at the border of suffering and at the border of origination extends to all four foundations of mindfulness; what is cultivated at the border of cessation is the foundation of mindfulness of dharmas alone. At whichever truth’s border of direct realization it is cultivated, it takes that truth as its object with the modes of apprehension of that truth, since it is obtained by the force of the path of seeing.
It is obtained through preparatory practice alone. Because knowledge prevails in it, the name “knowledge” is established for it; and if it be spoken of together with its retinue, it has the four aggregates of the desire realm and the five aggregates of the form realm for its own nature.
〔Root 25 · Root 26〕How Many Knowledges Are Cultivated at Each Stage of Becoming Free of Defilement in the Path of Cultivation
Treatise (transition): Next take the stages of becoming free of defilement in the path of cultivation. The stanza says:
Stanza: The first thought-instant of the path of cultivation cultivates six or seven knowledges. The uninterrupted paths that sever the eight levels, and the remaining paths where the desire realm is concerned, and the eight paths of liberation of the level of the summit of existence, each cultivate seven. The uninterrupted paths of the upper realms and the remaining paths cultivate, in that order, six and eight.
Treatise: At the first thought of the path of cultivation, that is, at the moment of the sixteenth mind, the subsequent knowledge of the path, two knowledges are cultivated in the present. For one not yet free of desire, six are cultivated in the future, namely dharma knowledge, subsequent knowledge, and the four knowledges of suffering, origination, cessation, and the path; for one already free of desire, seven are cultivated, namely with the addition of the knowledge of others’ minds, while conventional knowledge is not cultivated — since this is the counteragent of the summit of existence.
For the nine uninterrupted paths and the eight paths of liberation that sever what is abandoned through cultivation in the desire realm, conventional knowledge, the four knowledges of the truths, and dharma knowledge are cultivated in the present as is fitting.
For the uninterrupted paths that sever the seven levels above, the four subsequent knowledges, conventional knowledge, the dharma knowledge of cessation, and the dharma knowledge of the path are cultivated in the present as is fitting.
For the preparatory paths that sever the desire realm, and for the paths of advance where the desire realm is concerned, conventional knowledge, the four knowledges of the truths, dharma knowledge, and subsequent knowledge are cultivated in the present as is fitting.
All of these cultivate seven knowledges in the future, namely conventional knowledge, dharma knowledge, subsequent knowledge, and the four knowledges of the truths, suffering, origination, cessation, and the path.
For the first eight paths of liberation that sever the level of the summit of existence, the four subsequent knowledges and two dharma knowledges (the dharma knowledges of cessation and of the path) are cultivated in the present as is fitting; and these too cultivate only seven in the future, only that conventional knowledge is to be set aside and the knowledge of others’ minds added.
For the nine uninterrupted paths that sever the level of the summit of existence, the four subsequent knowledges and two dharma knowledges are cultivated in the present as is fitting; and in the future six are cultivated, dharma knowledge, subsequent knowledge, and the four of suffering, origination, cessation, and the path.
For the ninth path of liberation that severs what is abandoned through cultivation in the desire realm, conventional knowledge, the four knowledges of the truths, and dharma knowledge are cultivated in the present as is fitting.
For the paths of liberation that sever the seven levels above, the four subsequent knowledges, conventional knowledge, the dharma knowledge of cessation, and the dharma knowledge of the path are cultivated in the present as is fitting.
For the ninth path of advance that severs what is abandoned through cultivation in the desire realm, and for the preparatory paths that sever the eight levels above, conventional knowledge, the four knowledges of the truths, dharma knowledge, and subsequent knowledge are cultivated in the present as is fitting.
For the paths of advance of the seven levels above and of the eight grades of the summit of existence, conventional knowledge, the four knowledges of the truths, dharma knowledge, subsequent knowledge, and the knowledge of others’ minds are cultivated in the present as is fitting.
All of these cultivate eight knowledges in the future, namely conventional, dharma, subsequent, the four of the truths, and others’ minds.
〔Root 27〕How Many Knowledges Are Cultivated in the First Thought of the Stage beyond Learning
Treatise (transition): Next is made out the becoming free of defilement and obtaining the stage beyond learning. The stanza says:
Stanza: The first thought-instant beyond learning cultivates nine knowledges or ten, since dull faculty and sharp faculty are distinguished; and so also for the path of advance.
Treatise: At the first thought beyond learning, that is, at the moment of the ninth path of liberation that severs the summit of existence, the subsequent knowledge of suffering, the subsequent knowledge of origination, and the knowledge of exhaustion are cultivated in the present as is fitting, since what is taken as object is the summit of existence.
For the path of advance, nine knowledges or ten are cultivated in the present as is fitting; and in the future too nine or ten are cultivated as is fitting — one of dull faculty setting aside only the knowledge of non-arising, one of sharp faculty cultivating the knowledge of non-arising as well.
〔Roots 28–30〕The Refining of the Faculties, the Intermixed Cultivation, the Cultivation of the Supernormal Knowledges, and How Many Knowledges Are Cultivated at the Remaining Stages
Treatise (transition): Next is made out how many knowledges are cultivated at the remaining stages. The stanza says:
Stanza: In the uninterrupted paths of refining the faculties, one in training cultivates six, one beyond learning seven. At the remaining stages one in training cultivates six, seven, or eight, and one beyond learning (the fruit of worthiness) eight, nine, or all. In the uninterrupted paths of intermixed cultivation and of cultivating the supernormal knowledges, one in training cultivates seven and the fruit of worthiness eight or nine; at the remaining paths one in training cultivates eight and the fruit of worthiness nine or all. For a noble one arousing the remaining merits, and for the several stages of the ordinary being, how many knowledges are cultivated should all be pondered as is fitting.
Treatise (the refining of the faculties by one in training): For the uninterrupted paths of refining the faculties at the stage of one in training, the dharma knowledges and subsequent knowledges of the four truths are cultivated in the present as is fitting; and in the future six are cultivated, namely the dharma knowledges and subsequent knowledges of the four truths — because this resembles the path of seeing, conventional knowledge is not cultivated; and because it can sever obstruction, the knowledge of others’ minds is not cultivated.
For the paths of liberation, likewise, the dharma knowledges and subsequent knowledges of the four truths are cultivated in the present as is fitting; for one not yet free of desire six are cultivated in the future, namely the dharma knowledges and subsequent knowledges of the four truths; for one already free of desire seven are cultivated in the future, namely with the addition of the knowledge of others’ minds. Another master says: at the stage of the path of liberation conventional knowledge too is cultivated.
For the preparatory paths, conventional knowledge and the dharma knowledges and subsequent knowledges of the four truths are cultivated in the present as is fitting; for one not yet free of desire seven are cultivated in the future, for one already free of desire eight, namely with the addition of the knowledge of others’ minds.
For the paths of advance: if one is not yet free of desire, conventional knowledge and the dharma knowledges and subsequent knowledges of the four truths are cultivated in the present as is fitting, and in the future likewise seven; if one is already free of desire, conventional knowledge, the dharma knowledges and subsequent knowledges of the four truths, and the knowledge of others’ minds are cultivated in the present as is fitting, and in the future likewise eight.
Treatise (the refining of the faculties by one beyond learning): For the uninterrupted paths of refining the faculties beyond learning, the four subsequent knowledges and two dharma knowledges are cultivated in the present as is fitting, and in the future seven are cultivated — the dharma knowledges and subsequent knowledges of the four truths together with the knowledge of exhaustion, while conventional knowledge is not cultivated, since this resembles the counteracting of the summit of existence.
For the first five and the first eight paths of liberation, the four subsequent knowledges and two dharma knowledges are cultivated in the present as is fitting, and in the future eight are cultivated, namely the dharma knowledges and subsequent knowledges of the four truths, the knowledge of others’ minds, and the knowledge of exhaustion.
For the fourth and the ninth paths of liberation, the subsequent knowledge of suffering, the subsequent knowledge of origination, and the knowledge of exhaustion are cultivated in the present as is fitting, and in the future nine are cultivated.
For the last path of liberation, the subsequent knowledge of suffering, the subsequent knowledge of origination, and the knowledge of exhaustion are cultivated in the present as is fitting, and in the future ten are cultivated.
For the preparatory paths, what is cultivated in the present is the same as at the stage of one in training, and in the future nine are cultivated. For the paths of advance: one of dull faculty cultivates nine knowledges in the present as is fitting, and in the future likewise nine; one of sharp faculty cultivates ten knowledges in the present as is fitting, and in the future likewise ten.
Treatise (the intermixed cultivation of the meditative absorptions): For the uninterrupted paths of intermixed cultivation at the stage of one in training, the dharma knowledges and subsequent knowledges of the four truths together with conventional knowledge are cultivated in the present as is fitting, and in the future seven are cultivated. For the paths of liberation there are only the dharma knowledges and subsequent knowledges of the four truths, with conventional knowledge added at the stage of preparatory practice. For the paths of advance the knowledge of others’ minds is added and cultivated in the present as is fitting; and in the future all cultivate eight.
For the uninterrupted paths of intermixed cultivation at the stage beyond learning, what is cultivated in the present is the same as at the stage of one in training, and what is cultivated in the future is eight for one of dull faculty and nine for one of sharp faculty. For the paths of liberation there are only the dharma knowledges and subsequent knowledges of the four truths, with conventional knowledge added at the stage of preparatory practice, cultivated in the present as is fitting, and what is cultivated in the future is nine for one of dull faculty and ten for one of sharp faculty. The paths of advance are the same as at the stage of refining the faculties.
Treatise (cultivating the five supernormal knowledges): For the five uninterrupted paths in which one in training cultivates the supernormal knowledges, conventional knowledge is cultivated in the present, and seven are cultivated in the future. For the two paths of liberation of the supernormal knowledge of former abodes and of supernormal powers, and for the five preparatory paths, conventional knowledge is cultivated in the present; while for the path of liberation of the supernormal knowledge of others’ minds it is dharma knowledge, subsequent knowledge, the knowledge of the path, conventional knowledge, and the knowledge of others’ minds. For all the paths of advance, the knowledges of suffering, origination, and cessation are cultivated in the present along with them as is fitting; and all of these cultivate eight knowledges in the future.
For the five uninterrupted paths in which one beyond learning cultivates the supernormal knowledges, what is cultivated in the present is the same as at the stage of one in training, and what is cultivated in the future is eight for one of dull faculty and nine for one of sharp faculty. For the paths of liberation and the preparatory paths, what is cultivated in the present is the same as at the stage of one in training, and what is cultivated in the future is nine for one of dull faculty and ten for one of sharp faculty. The paths of advance are the same as at the stage of refining the faculties. As for the two paths of liberation of the supernormal knowledge of the divine eye and of the divine ear, since they are of indeterminate nature they are not called cultivation.
Treatise (arousing the remaining merits): When a noble one arouses the remaining merits with outflows, such as the four immeasurables and the rest, that are included in what is formed through cultivation, in the present he cultivates only one knowledge, conventional knowledge. What one in training cultivates in the future: seven if not yet free of desire, eight if already free of desire. What one beyond learning cultivates in the future: nine for one of dull faculty, ten for one of sharp faculty — excepting only the subtlest of subtle minds, since in the future it cultivates conventional knowledge alone.
If one arouses the remaining merits without outflows: those included in the meditative absorptions are the dharma knowledges and subsequent knowledges of the four truths, cultivated in the present as is fitting; those included in the formless are the four subsequent knowledges alone, cultivated in the present as is fitting; and what is cultivated in the future is the same as in the foregoing case with outflows.
Treatise (the stages of an ordinary being): When an ordinary being becomes free of defilement, conventional knowledge is cultivated in the present, severing the desire realm and the three lower meditative absorptions. For the ninth path of liberation, and for the path of advance and the preparatory path for becoming free of defilement that arise in dependence upon the four fundamental meditative absorptions, two are cultivated in the future, namely with the addition of the knowledge of others’ minds; for the rest, only conventional knowledge is cultivated in the future.
When the five supernormal knowledges are cultivated, for the preparatory paths and two of the paths of liberation conventional knowledge is cultivated in the present, and for one path of liberation conventional knowledge and the knowledge of others’ minds are cultivated in the present. For the paths of advance both are cultivated in the present as is fitting; and in the future all cultivate these two. For the five uninterrupted paths, in the present and in the future alike there is conventional knowledge alone.
For one who cultivates the remaining merits in dependence upon the fundamental meditative absorptions, in every case conventional knowledge is cultivated in the present and two are cultivated in the future. Only the factors conducive to penetration certainly do not cultivate the knowledge of others’ minds, since they are the near retinue of the path of seeing. For one who cultivates the remaining merits in dependence upon the absorptions of the remaining levels, there is conventional knowledge alone, in the present and in the future alike.
〔Root 31 · Root 32〕The Levels of What Is Cultivated in the Future, and Whether Everything “Obtained” Counts as Cultivation
Treatise (a question posed): Of those things cultivated in the future, of how many levels are they cultivated? And does every acquisition that arises count as cultivation? The stanza says:
Stanza: When the paths depend upon this level and when this level is obtained, one cultivates the merits with outflows of this level. When a noble one is becoming free of this level and is obtaining this level, he cultivates the merits without outflows of this level and of the lower levels. Only the first knowledge of exhaustion can cultivate throughout the merits with outflows of the nine levels. One born in a higher level certainly does not cultivate a lower one; and what was once obtained does not count as cultivation.
Treatise: When the paths depend upon this level, and at the time when this level is obtained, one can cultivate in the future the merits with outflows of this level.
When a noble one is becoming free of this level, and at the time when this level is obtained, and at the time when the paths within this level become present, in every case he can cultivate the merits without outflows of this level and of the lower levels. The phrase “becoming free of this” extends to two of the four kinds of path, the preparatory, the uninterrupted, the liberated, and the advancing.
Only when the first knowledge of exhaustion becomes present is the force able to cultivate throughout the merits with outflows of the nine levels — the immeasurable merits, the contemplation of the impure and the rest, can all bind the manifold confusions and sever them without remainder, just as when what binds is once severed, the vital force of what is bound is severed through along with it. Moreover, at that time his own mind is just ascending the royal throne, and the acquisitions aroused by all wholesome dharmas come to pay court to it — as when a great king ascends the throne and is consecrated by sprinkling of the head, and all the lands within his borders come to render tribute.
Nevertheless, one born in a higher level certainly does not cultivate a lower one. The phrase “the first knowledge of exhaustion” refers to the thought that becomes free of the defilement of the summit of existence, and to the ninth path of liberation of the five stages of refining the faculties.
Treatise (what counts as cultivation): Of all that is called cultivation, only what was not obtained before and is now made to arise and now obtained is what cultivates and what is cultivated. That is to say: if something was not obtained before and is now obtained, and is obtained by expending effort, only then does it count as what is cultivated. If some dharma was once obtained before and then relinquished, though it be obtained again now, it does not count as what is cultivated, since it was not realized by any express setting forth of toil.
If it was not obtained before and one makes it become present by effort, one can cultivate the future, since the force is superior; what was once obtained and arises again does not cultivate the future, since it does not arise by much effort and its force is inferior.
Treatise (turning to the four kinds of cultivation): Is it, then, only from the side of “obtaining” that anything is called cultivation? Answer: it is not.
Objection: how then is it to be stated? Answer: cultivation is of four kinds in all — first cultivation as acquisition, second cultivation as practice, third cultivation as counteragent, fourth cultivation as expulsion.
〔Root 33〕Upon What Dharmas the Four Kinds of Cultivation Are Established · the Six Cultivations of the Masters Abroad
Treatise (a question posed): Upon what dharmas are these four kinds of cultivation established? The stanza says:
Stanza: Cultivation as acquisition and cultivation as practice are established upon wholesome conditioned dharmas; cultivation as counteragent and cultivation as expulsion are established upon dharmas with outflows.
Treatise: The two, cultivation as acquisition and cultivation as practice, are established upon conditioned wholesome dharmas; for the future there is only cultivation as acquisition, while for the present there are both cultivation as acquisition and cultivation as practice.
The two, cultivation as counteragent and cultivation as expulsion, are established upon dharmas with outflows. Hence wholesome dharmas with outflows possess all four kinds of cultivation in full.
Conditioned dharmas without outflows and the remaining dharmas with outflows possess, in that order, only the former two cultivations and the latter two (conditioned dharmas without outflows possessing cultivation as acquisition and as practice, the remaining dharmas with outflows possessing cultivation as counteragent and as expulsion).
Treatise (the divergent account of the masters abroad): The treatise masters abroad say that cultivation is of six kinds: upon the four foregoing they add cultivation as guarding and cultivation as contemplating — to guard and protect the several faculties is called cultivation as guarding; to contemplate one’s own body is called cultivation as contemplating. As the sūtra says: what is called cultivating the faculties? It is to guard and protect the six faculties well, and so on at length. And again as the sūtra says: what is called cultivating the body? It is to contemplate with respect to one’s own body the hair of the head, the hair of the body, the nails, and the rest, and so on at length.
Treatise (the answer of the treatise masters of the country of Kaśmīra): The treatise masters of the country of Kaśmīra, on the other hand, say: these two cultivations, guarding and contemplating, are comprised within cultivation as counteragent and cultivation as expulsion (and need not be separately established).
佛不共法·共功德·六通The Dharmas Exclusive to a Buddha · Merits Held in Common · The Six Supernormal Knowledges
全文五層 →Full five layers →〔正34前半〕十八不共法——先立一個總名
論（承前起問）：像上面那樣，諸智的種種差別已經一一辯明了；接著應當顯示的，是『由智所成就的功德』。在這些功德之中，先辯佛所獨有、不與他人共通的那一分。
且說最初成佛、證得盡智的那個位次上所修成的『不共佛法』，共有十八種。哪十八種呢？頌說。
頌：十八種不共佛法，就是佛的十力等等。
論：佛的十力、四無所畏、三念住，再加上大悲——這幾類合起來，就叫作十八不共法。（十加四加三加一，恰好十八。）
為什麼叫『不共』呢？因為這十八種功德，唯有在諸佛證盡智的時候才修得，其餘的聖者（聲聞、獨覺）一概沒有，所以名為不共。
那麼佛的十力，各各的相狀又是怎樣的呢？頌說。
〔正34後半·正35·正36〕佛的十力——體性·依地·依身·得名之由
頌：十力之中，第一『處非處智力』是十智；『業異熟智力』是八智，除去滅智與道智；『靜慮解脫等持等至智力』『根上下智力』『種種勝解智力』『種種界智力』這四力都是九智；『遍趣行智力』是九智或十智；『宿住隨念智力』與『死生智力』二力都是世俗智；『漏盡智力』是六智或十智。宿住與死生二智力依四靜慮而起，其餘八力則通依十一地。這十力都依南贍部洲的男子之身、即佛身而起。之所以名為『力』，是因為佛於一切境上智無滯礙的緣故。
論：佛的十力，逐一說明如下。
一是處非處智力——所謂『處』就是道理上講得通的、『非處』就是講不通的；此力具足如來的十智為其體性。
二是業異熟智力——知道什麼業感什麼果；以八智為體性，就是十智之中除去滅智與道智這兩種。
三是靜慮解脫等持等至智力（知一切禪定的深淺出入）、四是根上下智力（知有情根器的利鈍高下）、五是種種勝解智力（知有情各各的意樂偏好）、六是種種界智力（知有情種種的性類差別）——這四力都是九智的體性，就是十智之中除去滅智。
七是遍趣行智力——知種種行道所通往之處。這裡的『或』字顯示此力的義涵有兩條路可走：如果說它只緣『能趣之行』（能走的路）為境，那就是九智，除去滅智；如果說它也緣『所趣之處』（走到的地方）為境，那就是十智為體性。
八是宿住隨念智力（憶知過去生），九是死生智力（知有情死此生彼）——這二力都是世俗智的體性。
十是漏盡智力——此處的『或』字同樣顯示義涵有兩條路：如果說它只緣『漏盡』本身為境，那就是六智，除去道智、苦智、集智與他心智；如果說它是指『漏盡之身中所得的一切智』，那就是十智為體性。
以上是十力的自性已經辯明了。
接著辯依地的差別：第八宿住力與第九死生力依四靜慮而起；其餘八力則通依十一地而起。哪十一地？就是欲界、四靜慮、未至定、中間定，再加上四無色定——合稱十一地。依地已經辯明了。
接著辯依身的差別：這十力都依南贍部洲的男子之身、也就是佛身而起。依身已經辯明了。
問：為什麼叫作『力』呢？
答：因為在一切所知的境界之中，佛的智慧無所滯礙地運轉，所以名為力。正因為這樣，這十力唯獨依佛身而有；唯有佛已經斷除了一切煩惱以及煩惱的餘習，於一切境上想知道什麼就能知道什麼。其餘的人（二乘等）與此相違——雖然也有智，但於境有礙，所以他們的智不能名為力。
舉例：像舍利子，曾經捨棄了一個應度之人（誤判其無善根而不度）；又曾經不能觀知一隻被鷹追逐的鴿子，其前際與後際各受生多少（智力有限，看不到頭尾）。
至於諸佛，則遍於一切所知，心力無有邊際。
那麼佛的身力又是怎樣的呢？頌說。
〔正37〕佛的身力——那羅延·三說並列·體是觸處
頌：佛的身力等同那羅延；或說是身上一節一節都具足那羅延之力。從凡象起算，經七個階位，後後比前前增十倍。這身力以觸處為其體性。
論：佛的生身之力等同那羅延（大力士之名）。
有一類餘師說：佛身的每一支節，一一都具足那羅延之力（不是全身合起來才有那麼大力）。
大德法救說：諸如來的身力是無有邊際的，就像心力一樣無邊。若不是這樣，那麼諸佛的身就承載不住那無邊的心力了。
（三人支節之喻）：大覺（佛）、獨覺與轉輪王，他們支節相連的樣子依次是——像龍蟠結一般（緊密相扣）、像連鎖一般（環環相鈎）、像相鈎一般（僅止於鈎）；所以這三者相望，力有勝有劣。
問：那羅延之力，其量究竟有多大？
答：以十倍十倍遞增的方式，經過象等七種力位——就是凡象、香象、摩訶諾健那、鉢羅塞建提、伐浪伽、遮怒羅、那羅延；後一位的力都是前一位的十倍。
另有一說：前面六位是十倍十倍遞增，增到與那羅延半身之力相敵；這半身之力再加一倍，才成為完整的那羅延力。
在以上所說的幾種算法之中，唯有那個『多』的算法（也就是取力量較大的一路）比較合理。
這樣的身力，以觸處為其體性，也就是所觸之中大種（地水火風）的差別。
另有一說：身力是『所造觸』，離開七種所造觸之外另有一種。（此處二說並列，本論不作判定。）
那麼佛的四無所畏，各各的相狀又是怎樣的呢？頌說。
〔正38前半〕四無所畏——各配一力
頌：四無所畏依次配當：第一配初力、第二配第十力、第三配第二力、第四配第七力。
論：佛的四無所畏，如經中廣說。
一是正等覺無畏（宣稱我於一切法正等覺，無人能難）——十智為其體性，就像十力中的第一處非處力。
二是漏永盡無畏（宣稱我諸漏已盡）——六智或十智為性，就像第十漏盡智力。
三是說障法無畏（宣說何法能障聖道）——八智為其體性，就像第二業異熟智力。
四是說出道無畏（宣說出離之道）——九智或十智為性，就像第七遍趣行智力。
問：為什麼在『智』上安立『無畏』這個名？
答：『無畏』這個名所指的是『沒有怯懼』；由於有智的緣故，所以不怯懼他人的問難——因此『無畏』這個名，所指的就是諸智之體。
不過照道理說：無畏其實是『由智所成就』的（智是因，無畏是果），不應當說無畏之體就是智本身。
那麼佛的三念住，各各的相狀又是怎樣的呢？頌說。
〔正38後半〕三念住——順·違·俱三境上皆住捨
頌：三念住以念與慧為體，所緣的是順境、違境與兼俱之境。
論：佛的三念住，如經中廣說。
第一念住：諸弟子眾一向恭敬、能夠正確地領受奉行；如來緣念這件事，並不因此生起歡喜，而是安住於捨，正念正知——這叫作如來的第一念住。
第二念住：諸弟子眾一向不恭敬、不能正確領受奉行；如來緣念這件事，並不因此生起憂慼，而是安住於捨，正念正知——這叫作如來的第二念住。
第三念住：諸弟子眾之中，一類恭敬能正受行、一類不敬不正受行；如來緣念這件事，並不因此生起或歡或慼，而是安住於捨，正念正知——這叫作如來的第三念住。
這三種念住，都是以『念』與『慧』為其體。
問：諸大聲聞也能在弟子的順境、違境以及兼俱之境上，離開歡喜與憂慼；那麼這三念住憑什麼稱為『不共佛法』呢？
答：因為唯有佛在這件事上連煩惱的餘習也一併斷盡（聲聞只是斷了煩惱，餘習未除）。
又一釋：那些弟子是隨屬於如來的（不是隨屬於聲聞的）；他們有順、有違、有兼俱時，照理應當很容易引起強烈的歡喜或憂慼，而佛能夠不起，這才可謂希奇。至於不隸屬於諸聲聞的人，聲聞於他不起歡慼，那並不算奇特——所以唯有在佛這裡，這三念住才得到『不共』之名。
那麼諸佛的大悲，其相狀又是怎樣的呢？頌說。
〔正39〕大悲——以俗智為體·五義故大·八因異悲
頌：大悲唯以世俗智為體；由資糧、行相、所緣、平等、上品這五義而稱『大』；它與一般的悲有八種因的差別。
論：如來的大悲，是以世俗智為其體性。若不是這樣（若以無漏智為體），那就不能普緣一切有情，也不能作三苦（苦苦、壞苦、行苦）的行相了——這一點與『共有悲』（一般聖者亦有的悲）不同。
問：『大悲』這個名，是依什麼義而安立的？
答：依五種義，於此立一個『大』字。
一、由資糧故大——它是由廣大的福德與智慧兩種資糧所成辦的。 二、由行相故大——此悲之力，能夠在三苦之境上作行相（不只緣苦苦一種）。 三、由所緣故大——此悲總以三界的有情為所緣（不限一界）。 四、由平等故大——此悲平等地對一切有情作利樂之事（無親疏之別）。 五、由上品故大——此悲是最上品的，再沒有別的悲能與它齊等。
（大悲與悲之八異）：這大悲與一般的悲，由八種因而有差別。
一、由自性——大悲以無癡為性，悲以無瞋為性，自性有異。 二、由行相——大悲作三苦行相，悲只作一苦行相。 三、由所緣——大悲緣三界，悲只緣一界。 四、由依地——大悲唯依第四靜慮，悲則通於其餘諸地。 五、由依身——大悲唯依佛身，悲則通於其餘之身。 六、由證得——大悲要離有頂之欲（斷盡三界惑）才證得，悲則不必。 七、由救濟——大悲是事情已然成辦的救濟，悲只是有希望而已。 八、由哀愍——大悲平等哀愍，悲則不平等。
佛的功德之異於其餘有情，已經辯明了。那麼諸佛與諸佛互相對望，是不是法法都相等呢？頌說。
〔正40〕諸佛相望——三事平等·四事有異·三種圓德
頌：由資糧、法身與利他這三事，諸佛彼此相似；由壽量、種、姓、身量等，諸佛之間容有差別。
論：由三件事的緣故，諸佛都是平等的——一是由資糧同樣圓滿，二是由法身同樣成辦，三是由利他同樣究竟。
而由壽量、種、姓、身量等的不同，諸佛相望便容有差別。
壽異——佛的壽命有短有長。 種異——佛有生於剎帝利種的，有生於婆羅門種的。 姓異——佛有姓喬答摩的，有姓迦葉波的。 量異——佛的身有小有大。 『等』字所顯——還包括諸佛正法住世的久近等等。
這些之所以有異，是因為佛出世的時節不同，所應教化的有情根機所宜也各別的緣故。
（三種圓德）：諸有智慧的人，思惟如來的三種圓德，便會深深生起愛敬之心。哪三種呢？一是因圓德，二是果圓德，三是恩圓德。
一、因圓德又有四種—— 一是無餘修：福德與智慧二種資糧都修，沒有遺漏。 二是長時修：經歷三大劫阿僧企耶（無數長時）而修，毫不疲倦。 三是無間修：精勤勇猛，剎那剎那地修，沒有荒廢。 四是尊重修：恭敬所學之法，毫無顧惜地修，沒有一點慢心。
二、果圓德也有四種——一是智圓德，二是斷圓德，三是威勢圓德，四是色身圓德。
其中智圓德有四種：一是無師智（不由他教），二是一切智，三是一切種智，四是無功用智（不假作意）。
斷圓德有四種：一是一切煩惱斷，二是一切定障斷，三是畢竟斷（永不再起），四是并習斷（連餘習也斷）。
威勢圓德有四種：一是對於外境能變化、能住持而得自在的威勢；二是對於壽量能促能延而得自在的威勢；三是於虛空、於障礙、於極遠之處能夠速行，能令大小相入而得自在的威勢；四是能令世間種種本來如此的法性轉成殊勝希奇的威勢。
威勢圓德又另有四種：一是難教化的必定能教化，二是難答的問難必定能決疑，三是所立之教必定能令人出離，四是惡黨必定能降伏。
色身圓德有四種：一是具足眾相（三十二相），二是具足隨好（八十種好），三是具足大力，四是內身骨堅硬超越金剛，外發神光超過百千個太陽。
三、恩圓德也有四種——就是能令有情永遠解脫三惡趣的生死，或者能安置有情於善趣與三乘之中。
總的來說，如來的圓德就是這樣；若要一一分析，則有無邊之多，唯有佛世尊自己能知能說——而且要留住命行、經歷許多大劫阿僧企耶來說，才說得盡。
這樣就顯出：佛世尊之身，具有無邊殊勝奇特的因德、果德與恩德，就像一座大寶山。
有些愚夫自己缺乏眾德，即使聽到這樣一座佛功德之山以及佛所說之法，也不能生起信心與敬重。而諸有智之人，聽到這樣的宣說，信重之心深徹骨髓；他們由於這一念極其信重之心，就能轉滅無邊的不定惡業，攝受殊勝的人天果報乃至涅槃。
所以說，如來出現於世，對於諸有智者而言就是無上的福田——依著這福田，能引生出不空過的、可愛的、殊勝的、迅速的、究竟的果報。正如薄伽梵自己說頌說。
〔引頌·非本頌〕：若能在佛這塊福田上，種下哪怕只是一小分的善根，最初就能獲得殊勝的善趣之報，最後也必定得到涅槃。
如來的不共功德已經說完了；接著應當辯明『共功德』。頌說。
〔正41〕共功德的總目——哪些共聖·哪些兼共凡
頌：另外還有一些佛法，是與其餘的聖者以及異生（凡夫）所共有的，就是無諍、願智、無礙解等等功德。
論：世尊還有無量的功德，是與其餘的聖者以及異生共有的——就是無諍、願智、無礙解、神通、靜慮、無色定、等至、等持、四無量、八解脫、八勝處、十遍處等等，各隨其所應而共。
其中要分兩層：前面三門（無諍、願智、無礙解）唯與其餘聖者共（凡夫沒有份）；至於神通、靜慮等，則兼與異生共（凡夫也能得）。
前三門之中，先辯無諍。頌說。
〔正42〕無諍——息他煩惱之智
頌：無諍以世俗智為體，依第四靜慮而起，唯不動種性的阿羅漢能起，唯依三洲人身；所緣的是未來欲界之中有事的煩惱。
論：所謂無諍，就是說阿羅漢觀見有情之苦是由煩惱而生；他自知自己這個身在福田之中最為殊勝（別人容易對他起煩惱），恐怕他人的煩惱又緣著自己而生起，所以特意引發這樣一種智——藉這個方便，令其他有情不因緣念自己之身而生起貪、瞋等。
這種行能夠止息諸有情類的煩惱之諍，所以得名『無諍』。
這種行只以世俗智為體性；以第四靜慮為其所依，因為第四靜慮在樂通行之中最為殊勝的緣故。
唯有不動種性的阿羅漢能起，其餘的不能——其餘的阿羅漢連自己起惑都還防不住，何況要止息他人身中的煩惱。
這種行唯依止三洲的人身（北俱盧洲除外）。
所緣的是欲界、未來、有事的煩惱——之所以緣未來，是不要讓他人的煩惱緣著自己生起（未來的還來得及遮）。至於那些『無事惑』（不緣具體事境而起的煩惱），是不可能遮防的，因為它們是從內而起、隨所應而總緣境的緣故。
無諍已經辯明了，接著辯願智。頌說。
〔正43前半〕願智——如願而知
頌：願智能夠普緣一切；其餘的性相如無諍中所說。
論：以『願』為先導而引發妙智生起，如所願的那樣了知——所以名為願智。
這種智的自性、所依地、種性、所依身，都與無諍相同；唯有所緣不同——因為它以一切法為所緣的緣故。
毘婆沙者這樣說：願智不能親證知無色界；只是觀察那邊的因行以及等流的差別（而比知之），就像田夫之類（看見芽就知道種子）。
（修法）：諸有想要生起這願智的人，先發起誠懇之願，求知某一境；然後入邊際第四靜慮作為加行；從此無間，隨著所入之定勢力的勝與劣，如先前願力所引，正智生起，於所求之境都能如實了知。
願智已經辯明了。無礙解又是怎樣的呢？頌說。
〔正43後半·正44·正45〕四無礙解——法·義·詞·辯
頌：無礙解有四種，就是法、義、詞、辯；分別緣名、義、言說與說道，以不可退轉之智為其體性。法與詞二無礙解唯是世俗智，分別依五地與二地。義無礙解攝十六智，辯無礙解攝九智，這二者都通依一切地。得的時候必定四種同得；其餘的性相如無諍中所說。
論：諸無礙解總說有四種——一是法無礙解，二是義無礙解，三是詞無礙解，四是辯無礙解。
這四種總的說來，依次是以緣『名』、緣『義』、緣『言』以及緣『說道』的不可退轉之智為其自性。也就是說——
以無退之智緣『能詮之法』（名身、句身、文身），立為第一（法無礙解）； 緣『所詮之義』，立為第二（義無礙解）； 緣『方言詞』（各地的語言），立為第三（詞無礙解）； 緣『應合正理、宣說無滯無礙』以及緣『自在的定與慧二道』，立為第四（辯無礙解）。
這就總說了無礙解之體，同時也顯出了它所緣的是什麼。
（各各的智攝與依地）——
其中法、詞二無礙解唯是世俗智所攝，因為所緣的是名身等以及世間言詞這一類事境的緣故。
法無礙解通依五地，就是欲界與四靜慮；因為在上地（無色）沒有名身等的緣故。
詞無礙解唯依二地，就是欲界與初靜慮；因為在上地沒有尋與伺的緣故。
義無礙解攝十六智——這裡有兩條路：如果說一切法都名為『義』，那麼義無礙解就是十智所攝；如果說唯有涅槃才名為『義』，那麼義無礙解就是六智所攝，就是世俗智、法智、類智、滅智、盡智、無生智。（十與六合稱十六。）
辯無礙解攝九智，就是十智之中唯除滅智，因為它緣的是說道的緣故。
義、辯這二種都通依一切地而起，就是從欲界一直到有頂。因為辯無礙解在說道之中，容許隨緣其中任何一種都能生起的緣故。
（施設足論之釋）：《施設足論》解釋這四者說——緣名身、句身、文身，緣這些所詮之義，緣這『一、二、多』與『男、女』等等言語的差別，緣這無滯之說以及所依之道，各以無退轉之智；依次建立為法、義、詞、辯四無礙解之名。由此就顯出了這四者次第的所以然。
（有餘師之別解）：另有一類餘師說——『詞』是指一切訓釋的言詞，例如前面說過的『有變礙故名為色』這一類（以訓詁釋名）；『辯』則是指展轉宣說而言無滯礙。
（傳說之加行）：相傳這四種無礙解的生起，依次要以串習算計、佛語、聲明、因明作為前加行；如果在這四處還沒有得到善巧，就必定不能生起無礙解。
（論主之正義）：照道理說，一切無礙解的生起，唯有學習佛語能作它的加行（佛語之中四者具足）。
（得必具四）：這四種無礙解之中，隨得到其中一種時，必定四種都得；不是四種不具足還可以叫作『得』的。
這四種的所緣、自性、依地，與前面無諍的差別就是這樣；至於種性與所依身，則如無諍中所說（不動種性、三洲人身）。
像上面所說的無諍行等等，頌說。
〔正46〕邊際定——遍所隨順·增至究竟
頌：這六種都依邊際定而得；邊際定之體有六種，皆是第四靜慮之後所修。因為遍所隨順、增至究竟，所以得『邊際』之名。除佛之外，其餘聖者都是加行所得。
論：無諍、願智、四無礙解這六種，都是依邊際定而得的。
邊際靜慮之體有六種——就是前面那六種之中除去詞無礙解，再加上『邊際定』自身（合為六）。詞無礙解雖然也依邊際定而得，但它的體並不為那第四靜慮所收，因為『邊際』這個名只依第四靜慮而立的緣故。
問：為什麼叫作『遍所隨順』？
答：就是說正在修學這個靜慮的時候，從欲界心入初靜慮，次第順著往上入，一直到有頂；再從有頂入無所有處，次第逆著往下入，一直到欲界；再從欲界次第順著往上入，展轉一直到第四靜慮——這就叫作『一切地遍所隨順』。
問：為什麼叫作『增至究竟』？
答：就是專修第四靜慮，從下品到中品、從中品到上品；這三品又各分三品（共九品），到上上品生起，就名為『至究竟』。這樣的靜慮就得到『邊際』之名。
（邊際二字之訓）：這裡『邊』字所顯的是『無可超越』之義——最勝而無可超越，所以名為邊。『際』字所顯的是『類』義與『極』義，就像說『四際』以及『實際』那樣的用法。
（得法之異）：除佛之外，其餘一切聖者，所說的這六種都唯是加行所得，不是離染所得；因為並不是人人都得的緣故。
唯有佛於這六種也是離染而得——諸佛的功德在最初盡智生起的時候，由於離染的緣故一切頓時全得；後來隨心所欲便能引現在前，不必再作加行，因為佛世尊於一切法都自在運轉的緣故。
前面三門唯與其餘聖者共的功德已經辯明了；至於那也與凡夫共的功德，先應當辯『通』。頌說。
〔正47–50〕六通——體性·依地·所緣·得法·念住攝·三性
頌：通有六種，就是神境通、天眼通、天耳通、他心通、宿住通、漏盡通；六通都是解脫道所攝，以慧為體。其中四種是世俗智，他心通是五智，漏盡通如漏盡力所說。前五通依四靜慮，以自地與下地為境。聲聞、麟喻獨覺與佛，依次能於一千、二千、三千乃至無數世界起作用。未曾得過的由加行得，曾經修習過的由離染得。念住方面，前三通唯身念住，他心通三念住，其餘四通四念住。天眼與天耳是無記性，其餘四通唯是善性。
論：通有六種——一是神境智證通，二是天眼智證通，三是天耳智證通，四是他心智證通，五是宿住隨念智證通，六是漏盡智證通。
六通之中，雖然第六漏盡通唯有聖者才有，但前面五種異生也能得；依總相而說，所以也說『共異生』。
（自性）：這六通都是解脫道所攝，以慧為自性，就像沙門果那樣（沙門果亦以無漏道為體）。說『解脫道』，是為了顯出『出離障礙』之義。
（各通之智攝）：神境等四通（神境、天眼、天耳、宿住）唯是世俗智所攝。他心通是五智所攝，就是法智、類智、道智、世俗智、他心智。漏盡通如前面漏盡力中所說——就是或六智或十智。由此也就已經顯出：漏盡智通依一切地、緣一切境。
（依地）：前面那五通都依四靜慮。
問：為什麼這五通不依無色定？
答：因為前三通（神境、天眼、天耳）分別緣色為境；修他心通要以色（面相身相）為門；修宿住通要漸次憶念分位的差別才能成就，成就時所緣的又是處與性等等——依無色地沒有這些能力。
（三通之修法）：諸有想修他心通的人，先審細觀察自己身與心二相前後的變異、如何展轉相隨；然後再審細觀察他人的身相與心相。由這樣的加行，漸次得以成就；成就之後，不必再觀自心的諸色，於他人的心等就能如實了知。
諸有想修宿住通的人，先自己審察前一剎那已滅之心；漸漸逆著觀察此生分位前前的差別，一直到結生心；乃至能憶知中有之中最前的一念——這就名為自身宿住的加行已成。要憶念他人的宿住，加行也是這樣。
這通最初生起時唯能次第而知（一步一步倒推）；串習成熟之後，也能超越次第而憶。
所憶之事必須是曾經領受過的。問：那麼憶念淨居天（自己未曾生彼）又怎麼說？答：因為過去曾經聽聞過的緣故。
從無色界歿而來生此間的人，是依他人的相續而最初生起此通的（自身無色時無宿住可憶）；其餘的人則都依自己的相續而起。
修神境等前三通的時候，思惟輕、光、聲作為加行；成就之後便得自在，隨所應為。
所以這五通不依無色。又諸無色地是『觀減止增』（止多觀少），而五通必須依止與觀均等之地；未至定等地由這一條理由也已經遮除了（它們亦非止觀均地）。
（所緣唯自下地）：這五通所緣之境唯是自地與下地。且如神境通，隨依哪一地而起，就在自地與下地行化自在，於上地則不然，因為勢力劣的緣故。其餘四通也是這樣，各隨其所應。所以沒有誰能取無色界的他心與宿住作為那二通之境（無色界在上）。
（作用之廣狹）：就這五通在世界之境上作用的廣與狹，諸聖者並不相同——大聲聞、麟喻獨覺、大覺，若不極力作意，依次能在一千、二千、三千世界之境上起行化等自在的作用；若極力作意，則依次能在二千、三千、無數世界上起作用。
（得法）：這五通若是勢用殊勝猛利、從無始以來不曾得過的，就由加行而得；若是曾經串習過、沒有殊勝勢用的以及與它同類的，就由離染而得。不過若要現前起用，都要由加行。至於佛，一切都是離染而得，隨欲現前，不必加行。
（念住攝）：六通之中，前三通唯是身念住，因為但緣色的緣故——神境通緣色、香、味、觸四種外處，天眼緣色，天耳緣聲。
問：若是這樣，為什麼經說死生智能知有情類由於現在身中成就身、語、意諸惡行等等（那是緣心法，不只是色）？
答：那並不是天眼通本身能知此事；另有一種殊勝之智是此通的眷屬，依聖者之身而起，能夠這樣知。因為它是由天眼通之力所引起的，所以與此通合起來立一個『死生智』之名。
他心智通是三念住所攝，就是受、心、法三種，因為緣心等的緣故。
宿住通與漏盡通是四念住所攝，因為通緣五蘊一切境的緣故。
（三性）：這六通之中，天眼、天耳是無記性所攝，因為許此二者之體是眼識、耳識相應的慧的緣故。
問：若是這樣，怎麼還說它依四靜慮呢（無記之識屬欲界五識）？
答：因為是隨『根』而說的，所以也沒有過失——就是說所依止的眼耳二根，是由四靜慮之力所引起的，即為那一地所攝，所以說依四地；通是依根而說的，所以說『依四』。
或另作一解：這是依『通的無間道』而說的，因為通的無間道依四地的緣故。
其餘四通的性都是善。
問：若是這樣，為什麼《品類足論》說『通是什麼？就是善慧』（那天眼耳豈非不是通）？
答：那是依多分而說，或者是就殊勝者而說。
就像契經所說的『無學三明』，它們在六通之中以什麼為體性呢？頌說。
〔正51〕三明——治三際愚·唯後真實
頌：第五、第二、第六這三通名為明，因為對治三際之愚的緣故。最後一種容有真實，前二種是假說。有學位中有愚闇，所以不名為明。
論：所謂三明——一是宿住智證明，二是死生智證明，三是漏盡智證明。依次以無學位所攝的第五通、第二通、第六通為其自性。
六通之中唯這三種獨得『明』名，是因為它們依次對治三際之愚——宿住智通對治『前際』之愚，死生智通對治『後際』之愚，漏盡智通對治『中際』之愚。
這三種都名為『無學明』，因為都在無學之身中生起的緣故。
其中最後一種（漏盡）容有是真實的明，因為它通於無漏的緣故。其餘二種（宿住、死生）是假說為明，因為體唯是非學非無學（有漏無記等）的緣故。
問：有學身中也有前二通，為什麼不立為明？
答：因為有學身中還有愚闇在，所以雖有前二也不立為明。雖然有時能暫時伏滅愚闇，後來還是要被覆蔽，所以不名為明。
契經說有三種示導，它們在六通之中以什麼為體呢？頌說。
〔正52〕三示導——教誡導最尊
頌：第一、第四、第六這三通是三示導之體；其中教誡示導最為尊勝，因為它決定由通所成、並且能引生利樂之果。
論：三示導——一是神變示導，二是記心示導，三是教誡示導。依次以六通之中的第一（神境）、第四（他心）、第六（漏盡）為其自性。
唯有這三種能引導所化的有情最初發心，最為殊勝的緣故；或者說這三種能引導那些憎背正法的人以及處中（不信不謗）的人令其發心的緣故。
能『示』能『導』，所以得『示導』之名。又唯有這三種能令人於佛法之中依次歸伏、信受、修行，所以得示導之名，其餘三通則不然。
（教誡最尊）：這三示導之中，教誡示導最為尊勝——因為唯有它決定是由通所成的，也決定能引他人得利樂之果。
前面二導（神變、記心），呪術也能做得到，不一定要靠神通，所以不是決定的。譬如有一種呪術名叫健馱梨，持了它就能騰空自在；又有一種呪術名叫伊剎尼，持了它就能知道他人心中所念。至於教誡示導，除了漏盡通之外其餘的都做不到，所以它是決定的。
又前面二導只能令他人暫時迴心，不能引生殊勝之果；教誡示導則決定能令他人引來當來的利益與安樂之果，因為它是如實地以方便宣說的緣故。由此可知，教誡最為殊勝，其餘二者不是。
『神境』這兩個字所要顯的是什麼義呢？頌說。
〔正53·正54〕神境——體是等持·境有行化二種
頌：神之體就是等持；境有二種，就是行與化。行有三種——意勢唯佛所有，運身與勝解則通餘乘。化有二種，就是欲界化與色界化；分別是四外處與二外處為性，各又有似自身、似他身二種。
論：依毘婆沙所說的理趣，『神』這個名所指的唯是殊勝的等持（定），因為由它能作神變之事的緣故。諸神變之事就名為『境』。
這境有二種，就是行與化。
行又有三種—— 一是運身：就是乘空而行，猶如飛鳥。 二是勝解：就是對極遠的地方作『近』的思惟（勝解），便能迅速到達。 三是意勢：就是對極遠之處，舉心緣念之時身即能至。這種勢用如同意念之速，所以得『意勢』之名。
這三者之中，意勢唯佛所有；運身與勝解則也通於其餘二乘。就是說我世尊神通迅速，無論方所遠近，舉心便至。由此世尊這樣說過：『諸佛的境界是不可思議的。』所以意勢之行唯世尊有；勝解之行則兼及其餘聖者；運身之行更連異生也有。
化又有二種，就是欲界化與色界化。
若是欲界所化，化的是四種外處（色、香、味、觸），除去聲。若是色界所化，唯化二種，就是色與觸——因為色界之中沒有香與味的緣故。
這二界之化又各有二種，就是屬於自身的化與屬於他身的化的差別。身在欲界時化有四種，身在色界時也是這樣（四種），所以合成八種。
問：若是生在色界而作欲界之化，怎麼不犯『成就香味』的過失呢？
答：就像做衣服與莊嚴具那樣，做是做了而不成（不成其為真實的香味）。
另有一說：生在色界時唯化二處（色與觸，不化香味，故無此過）。
問：能化之心所作的化事，是不是就是『通』本身？
答：不是。問：那是什麼？答：是通所生的果。
問：這化事有幾種？差別又是怎樣的？頌說。
〔正55–58〕能化心十四——依地·得法·語默·留身
頌：能化之心有十四種，是定所生之果，依次為二至五種；隨所依之定而得，從淨定生、也從自類生，共二種。化事由自地心而起，化所發的語則由自地或下地心而起。化身與化主說話必定同時，唯佛不然。佛先立願留身，後起餘心而發語。有死後留堅實之體的，另有一說謂無留身之義。初學者多心化一事，成滿者一心化多事。修得的化心是無記所攝，其餘所得則通三性。
論：神境通之果能變化之心，其力能化生一切化事。
這化心有十四種，因為依根本四靜慮而生，有地的差別的緣故——
依初靜慮有二種化心：一是欲界所攝，二是初靜慮所攝。 依第二靜慮有三種化心：前二種如前，再加第二靜慮。 依第三靜慮有四種，依第四靜慮有五種——就是各自加上自地與下地的，照這個道理可以推想。
（依地之律）：諸果化心依自地與上地，必定不依下地（不能以下地之心生上地之果）；因為下地的定心不能生上地之果，勢力劣的緣故。
第二定等所生的『下地化心』，比起初定等所生的『上地化心』，由於所依與所行的緣故也得名為勝。就像得靜慮那樣，化心也是這樣——果與所依是同時而得的緣故。
（生起次第）：諸從靜慮起而生的果化心，這種心必定沒有『直接出觀』之義——就是說從淨定起最初的化心，此後後面的心從自類心而起，前面的前念又生自類之心，最後的化心還生回淨定。所以這化心是從二種心生、也能生二種心（自類與淨定），因為定果心是無記性所攝（無記不能直接出觀）。至於不還入定的心才有『直出』之義，就像從門進去、還從門出來一樣。
（化事與化語之依地）：諸所化之事是由自地之心而起的，沒有以異地的化心生起別地之化的道理。
化所發的言語，則通由自地或下地之心而起——就是說欲界與初定之化所發的語，這語必定由自地之心而起；上地之化要起語，則由初定之心（上地自身沒有能起表業之心的緣故）。
（語默俱時）：若一位化主起了許多化身，一定要化主說話的時候，諸化身才說話；言音所詮表的內容也一切都相同。所以有伽他這樣說。
〔引頌·非本頌〕：一位化主說話的時候，所有的化身都一起說話；一位化主若是默然，所有的化身也都默然。
（佛之例外）：這只是就其餘的人說的，佛則不是這樣——因為佛的諸定之力最為自在，與所化之身說話容許不同時，言音所詮的內容也容許有差別。
問：發語之心一起，化心便沒有了（二心不俱）；化心既然沒有，就應當沒有化身，那化身怎麼還能說話？
答：由於先前願力留住了所化之身，後來再起別的心發語表業；所以雖然化語與化心二心不俱時，卻依著（留住的）化身也能發語。
（留身至死後）：並不是只有化主壽命現在的時候才能留住化身令它久住；也有令它住到自己命終之後的。就像尊者大迦葉波留下骨瑣之身，一直到慈尊（彌勒）出世之時。唯有堅實之體才可以久留，所以迦葉波不留肉等（唯留骨）。
另有一類餘師說：願力留身必定不能令它留到死後；飲光尊者（迦葉波）所留的骨瑣之身，是由諸天神扶持才久住的。
（初習與成滿）：初習業的人要用許多化心才能化生一件化事；習得成滿的人則一個化心就能隨欲化生或多或少的化事。
（三性）：這十四種能變化之心都是修得的，是無記性所攝——這就是『通果無記』之義。
至於其餘由生得等所成的能變化心，則通於善、不善、無記三性。像天、龍等所有的能變化心即是；它們也能為自身與他身作化，於十種色處之中化九種，除去聲。
照道理說，並沒有能化作『根』的；不過所化之境不離於根，所以說『化九處』也沒有過失。
『天眼耳』這幾個字所要顯的是什麼義呢？頌說。
〔正59〕天眼耳——定地所生之淨色
頌：天眼與天耳是指『根』，就是定地所生的淨色；恒是同分、處所無缺，能取被障、極細、極遠等等之境。
論：這裡所說的唯是指天眼根與天耳根，就是四靜慮所生的淨色——就是說緣著光與聲修加行的緣故，依四靜慮而在眼、耳之邊引起那一地微妙大種所造的淨色眼耳二根；以之見色、聞聲，就名為天眼、天耳。
問：這樣的眼耳為什麼名為『天』？
答：因為體就是天（定地之色即天之類），是定地所攝的緣故。
（三種天眼耳）：然而天眼、天耳的種類有三—— 一是修得天，就是上面所說的（依定修成）。 二是生得天，就是生在天中而得的。 三是似天，就是生在其餘趣中，由於殊勝之業等所引生，能夠遠見遠聞，相似於天眼天耳。像藏臣寶、菩薩、輪王、諸龍鬼神以及中有等等。
（修得者之相）：修得的眼耳，無論過去、現在、當生，恒常是『同分』的（必與識俱起而有用）——因為到了現在必定與識俱起、能見能聞的緣故。
處所必定具足，沒有翳、沒有缺，就像生在色界的一切有情那樣；能夠隨其所應，取那些被障隔的、極細的、極遠的種種方所之色與聲。
所以在這裡有這樣一首頌。
〔引頌·非本頌〕：肉眼對於諸方被障隔的、極細的、極遠的色，沒有能見的功用；天眼則見之無有遺漏。
前面說過化心與其餘所得的差別；那麼神境等五通，各各也有這種差別嗎？也有。是怎樣的呢？頌說。
〔正60·正61〕五通之類——修·生·呪·藥·業
頌：神境智有五種——修得、生得、呪成、藥成、業成。他心智是修、生、呪，再加占相成（共四）。其餘三種是修、生、業（共三）。除了修所得的以外，都通於三性。人趣之中沒有生所得的；地獄趣最初受生時能知（他心與宿住）。
論：神境智之類總有五種——一是修得，二是生得，三是呪成，四是藥成，五是業成。像曼馱多王以及中有等等的神境智，就是業成所攝。
他心智之類總有四種——前三種如上（修得、生得、呪成），再加上占相成。
其餘三種（天眼、天耳、宿住）各有三種，就是修得、生得、業成。
（三性）：除了修所得的以外，其餘都通於善等三性。因為它們不是定所生之果，所以不得『通』之名。
（趣之通局）：人趣之中完全沒有『生所得』的（人不因生而自得五通）；其餘各趣都容許有。隨其所應，本性生念（宿世之憶）就是業所成所攝。
在地獄趣最初受生的時候，唯能以生得的他心通與宿住通，知道他人之心等以及過去之生；等到苦受逼迫已極，就再也沒有能知之義了。
若生在其餘各趣，照這個道理應當可以知道。
〔First Half of Root 34〕The Eighteen Dharmas Not Held in Common — First Establishing a General Name
Treatise (taking up the question from what precedes): In the manner set out above, the several differences of the knowledges have each been made out one by one; what must next be shown is ‘the merits accomplished by knowledge.’ Among these merits, that portion which the Buddha alone possesses and does not hold in common with others is made out first.
Let us speak first of the ‘dharmas of a buddha not held in common’ that are cultivated at that stage of first becoming a buddha and realizing the knowledge of exhaustion; they are eighteen in all. Which eighteen? The stanza says:
Stanza: The eighteen dharmas of a buddha not held in common are the Buddha’s ten powers and the rest.
Treatise: The Buddha’s ten powers, four fearlessnesses, and three foundations of mindfulness, with great compassion added — these classes taken together are called the eighteen dharmas not held in common. (Ten plus four plus three plus one comes to exactly eighteen.)
Why are they called ‘not held in common’? Because these eighteen merits are cultivated only when the buddhas realize the knowledge of exhaustion, and the remaining noble ones (the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas) have none of them whatever; hence the name ‘not held in common.’
And what, then, are the several marks of the Buddha’s ten powers? The stanza says:
〔Second Half of Root 34 · Root 35 · Root 36〕The Buddha’s Ten Powers — Their Nature · Level of Dependence · Body of Dependence · and the Reason for the Name
Stanza: Among the ten powers, the first, the ‘power of the knowledge of the possible and the impossible,’ is the ten knowledges; the ‘power of the knowledge of actions and their maturation’ is eight knowledges, excluding the knowledge of cessation and the knowledge of the path; the ‘power of the knowledge of the meditative absorptions, liberations, concentrations, and attainments,’ the ‘power of the knowledge of the higher and lower faculties,’ the ‘power of the knowledge of the various resolves,’ and the ‘power of the knowledge of the various elements’ — these four powers are all nine knowledges; the ‘power of the knowledge of the paths leading everywhere’ is nine knowledges or ten; the ‘power of the knowledge that recollects former abodes’ and the ‘power of the knowledge of death and birth,’ these two powers, are both conventional knowledge; the ‘power of the knowledge of the exhaustion of the outflows’ is six knowledges or ten. The two powers of former abodes and of death and birth arise in dependence upon the four meditative absorptions; the remaining eight powers extend to all eleven levels. These ten powers all arise in dependence upon the body of a man of the southern continent Jambudvīpa, that is, the body of a Buddha. They are named ‘powers’ because the Buddha’s knowledge is unhindered with regard to every object.
Treatise: The Buddha’s ten powers are explained one by one as follows.
First is the power of the knowledge of the possible and the impossible — the ‘possible’ being what holds good in principle and the ‘impossible’ what does not; this power has the full ten knowledges of the Tathāgata for its nature.
Second is the power of the knowledge of actions and their maturation — knowing what action draws what result; it has eight knowledges for its nature, that is, the ten knowledges with the two, the knowledge of cessation and the knowledge of the path, removed.
Third is the power of the knowledge of the meditative absorptions, liberations, concentrations, and attainments (knowing the depth and shallowness, the entering and issuing, of every absorption), fourth the power of the knowledge of the higher and lower faculties (knowing whether sentient beings are keen or dull, high or low, in the faculties of their capacity), fifth the power of the knowledge of the various resolves (knowing the inclinations and preferences of each sentient being), and sixth the power of the knowledge of the various elements (knowing the various differences of kind and nature among sentient beings) — these four powers all have nine knowledges for their nature, that is, the ten knowledges with the knowledge of cessation removed.
Seventh is the power of the knowledge of the paths leading everywhere — knowing where the various practiced paths lead. The word ‘or’ here shows that the sense of this power admits of two routes: if it be said to take only the ‘practice that leads’ (the road that can be walked) for its object, it is nine knowledges, with the knowledge of cessation removed; if it be said to take also the ‘place led to’ (the place arrived at) for its object, then it has the ten knowledges for its nature.
Eighth is the power of the knowledge that recollects former abodes (recollecting and knowing past lives), ninth the power of the knowledge of death and birth (knowing that sentient beings die here and are born there) — these two powers both have conventional knowledge for their nature.
Tenth is the power of the knowledge of the exhaustion of the outflows — here too the word ‘or’ shows that the sense admits of two routes: if it be said to take only ‘the exhaustion of the outflows’ itself for its object, it is six knowledges, with the knowledge of the path, of suffering, of origin, and of the minds of others removed; if it be said to refer to ‘all the knowledge obtained in a body whose outflows are exhausted,’ then it has the ten knowledges for its nature.
Thus far the own nature of the ten powers has been made out.
Next the difference of the level of dependence is made out: the eighth, the power of former abodes, and the ninth, the power of death and birth, arise in dependence upon the four meditative absorptions; the remaining eight powers arise in dependence upon all eleven levels. Which eleven levels? The desire realm, the four meditative absorptions, access concentration, and the intermediate absorption, with the four formless absorptions added — eleven levels in all. The level of dependence has been made out.
Next the difference of the body of dependence is made out: these ten powers all arise in dependence upon the body of a man of the southern continent Jambudvīpa, that is, the body of a Buddha. The body of dependence has been made out.
Question: Why are they called ‘powers’?
Answer: Because within every object that can be known the Buddha’s discernment turns without being hindered anywhere, they are named powers. It is for just this reason that these ten powers exist in dependence upon the body of a Buddha alone; the Buddha alone has cut off every affliction together with the residual habits of affliction, and with regard to every object he can know whatever he wishes to know. Others (those of the two vehicles and the rest) are the contrary of this — although they too have knowledge, it is hindered with regard to objects, and so their knowledge cannot be named power.
An instance: As with Śāriputra, who once let go of a man who ought to have been led across (misjudging him to have no wholesome roots, and so not leading him across); and who again could not observe and know, of a dove pursued by a hawk, how many births it had received in its prior and its later reaches (his power of knowledge being limited, he could not see the head or the tail of it).
As for the buddhas, throughout everything that can be known, the power of their mind is without limit.
And what, then, is the Buddha’s bodily power? The stanza says:
〔Root 37〕The Buddha’s Bodily Power — Nārāyaṇa · Three Accounts Set Side by Side · The Entity Is the Sense Field of the Tangible
Stanza: The Buddha’s bodily power equals that of Nārāyaṇa; or it is said that each single joint of the body fully possesses the power of Nārāyaṇa. Counting from the ordinary elephant, through seven stages, each later one increases tenfold over the one before. This bodily power has the sense field of the tangible for its nature.
Treatise: The power of the Buddha’s born body equals that of Nārāyaṇa (the name of a mighty strong man).
Some other masters say: Every single limb and joint of the Buddha’s body fully possesses the power of Nārāyaṇa (it is not that only the whole body together has so much strength).
The Venerable Dharmatrāta says: The bodily power of the tathāgatas is without limit, just as the power of their mind is without limit. Were it not so, the bodies of the buddhas could not bear up that limitless power of mind.
(The simile of the joints of the three persons): The Great Awakened One (the Buddha), the pratyekabuddha, and the wheel-turning monarch — the manner in which their limbs and joints are linked is, in order, like a dragon coiled and knotted (tightly interlocked), like a linked chain (ring hooked into ring), and like hooks meeting (going no further than hooking); and so, regarded one against another, these three are superior and inferior in power.
Question: The power of Nārāyaṇa — how great is its measure?
Answer: By the manner of increasing tenfold and tenfold again, passing through seven stages of power beginning with the elephant — that is, the ordinary elephant, the fragrant elephant, the mahānagna, the praskandha, the varāṅga, the caṇūra, and Nārāyaṇa; the power of each later stage being tenfold that of the stage before.
There is another account: The first six stages increase tenfold and tenfold again, increasing until they match the power of half the body of Nārāyaṇa; and this power of half the body, doubled again, then makes the complete power of Nārāyaṇa.
Among the several reckonings given above, only that ‘greater’ reckoning (that is, the route that takes the larger strength) is the more reasonable.
Bodily power such as this has the sense field of the tangible for its nature, that is, the differences of the great elements (earth, water, fire, and wind) among things touched.
There is another account: Bodily power is a ‘derived tangible,’ existing separately apart from the seven derived tangibles. (Here two accounts are set side by side, and this treatise passes no judgment.)
And what, then, are the several marks of the Buddha’s four fearlessnesses? The stanza says:
〔First Half of Root 38〕The Four Fearlessnesses — Each Matched to a Power
Stanza: The four fearlessnesses are matched in order: the first to the first power, the second to the tenth power, the third to the second power, the fourth to the seventh power.
Treatise: The Buddha’s four fearlessnesses are as the sūtra explains at length.
First is fearlessness in perfect awakening (declaring that he is perfectly awakened to all dharmas, and none can raise an objection) — it has the ten knowledges for its nature, just as the first among the ten powers, the power of the possible and the impossible.
Second is fearlessness in the permanent exhaustion of the outflows (declaring that his outflows are exhausted) — it has six knowledges or ten for its nature, just as the tenth, the power of the knowledge of the exhaustion of the outflows.
Third is fearlessness in declaring the dharmas that obstruct (declaring what dharmas can obstruct the noble path) — it has eight knowledges for its nature, just as the second, the power of the knowledge of actions and their maturation.
Fourth is fearlessness in declaring the path of deliverance (declaring the path that issues forth) — it has nine knowledges or ten for its nature, just as the seventh, the power of the knowledge of the paths leading everywhere.
Question: Why is the name ‘fearlessness’ established upon ‘knowledge’?
Answer: What the name ‘fearlessness’ designates is ‘the absence of timidity’; and it is because he has knowledge that he is not timid before another’s objection — therefore what the name ‘fearlessness’ designates is just the entity of the several knowledges.
Yet stated in principle: fearlessness is in fact ‘accomplished by knowledge’ (knowledge being the cause and fearlessness the result), and one ought not to say that the entity of fearlessness is knowledge itself.
And what, then, are the several marks of the Buddha’s three foundations of mindfulness? The stanza says:
〔Second Half of Root 38〕The Three Foundations of Mindfulness — Abiding in Equanimity amid All Three, the Favorable, the Adverse, and the Mixed
Stanza: The three foundations of mindfulness have mindfulness and discernment for their entity, and take as object the favorable, the adverse, and the mixed.
Treatise: The Buddha’s three foundations of mindfulness are as the sūtra explains at length.
The first foundation of mindfulness: The assemblies of disciples are wholly reverent and able rightly to receive and to carry out what is taught; the Tathāgata takes this as the object of his mindfulness and does not thereupon give rise to delight, but abides in equanimity, with right mindfulness and right knowing — this is called the Tathāgata’s first foundation of mindfulness.
The second foundation of mindfulness: The assemblies of disciples are wholly irreverent and unable rightly to receive and carry out what is taught; the Tathāgata takes this as the object of his mindfulness and does not thereupon give rise to dejection, but abides in equanimity, with right mindfulness and right knowing — this is called the Tathāgata’s second foundation of mindfulness.
The third foundation of mindfulness: Among the assemblies of disciples, one class is reverent and able rightly to receive and carry out what is taught, and another class is irreverent and does not rightly receive and carry it out; the Tathāgata takes this as the object of his mindfulness and does not thereupon give rise either to delight or to dejection, but abides in equanimity, with right mindfulness and right knowing — this is called the Tathāgata’s third foundation of mindfulness.
These three foundations of mindfulness all have ‘mindfulness’ and ‘discernment’ for their entity.
Question: The great śrāvakas too can, amid the favorable, the adverse, and the mixed circumstances of their disciples, be free of delight and of dejection; on what ground, then, are these three foundations of mindfulness called ‘dharmas of a buddha not held in common’?
Answer: Because in the Buddha alone, in this matter, the residual habits of affliction too are cut off along with them (the śrāvakas have only cut off the afflictions, without removing the residual habits).
A further explanation: Those disciples belong to the Tathāgata (and not to the śrāvakas); when they are favorable, adverse, or mixed, it should by rights be very easy for strong delight or dejection to be aroused, and that the Buddha can refrain from giving rise to it is what may be called marvelous. As for people who do not belong to the śrāvakas, that a śrāvaka gives rise to neither delight nor dejection over them is nothing remarkable — and so it is in the Buddha alone that these three foundations of mindfulness earn the name ‘not held in common.’
And what, then, is the mark of the great compassion of the buddhas? The stanza says:
〔Root 39〕Great Compassion — Conventional Knowledge for Its Entity · Great by Five Senses · Differing from Compassion by Eight Causes
Stanza: Great compassion has conventional knowledge alone for its entity; it is called ‘great’ by the five senses of provision, mode of apprehension, object, equality, and highest grade; it differs from ordinary compassion by eight kinds of cause.
Treatise: The great compassion of the Tathāgata has conventional knowledge for its nature. Were it not so (were it to have knowledge without outflows for its entity), it could not take all sentient beings universally for its object, nor could it form the mode of apprehension of the three sufferings (the suffering of suffering, the suffering of change, the suffering of formations) — and in this it differs from ‘the compassion held in common’ (the compassion that the remaining noble ones too possess).
Question: On what sense is the name ‘great compassion’ established?
Answer: On five senses, and upon them the one word ‘great’ is here established.
One, great by reason of provision — it is brought to accomplishment by the two vast provisions of merit and of knowledge. Two, great by reason of the mode of apprehension — the force of this compassion can form the mode of apprehension upon the object of the three sufferings (and not upon the suffering of suffering alone). Three, great by reason of the object — this compassion takes the sentient beings of all three realms together for its object (and is not limited to one realm). Four, great by reason of equality — this compassion does the work of benefit and ease equally for all sentient beings (with no division of near and far). Five, great by reason of highest grade — this compassion is of the very highest grade, and there is no other compassion that could be its equal.
(The eight differences between great compassion and compassion): This great compassion differs from ordinary compassion by eight kinds of cause.
One, by own nature — great compassion has non-delusion for its nature, compassion has non-hatred for its nature; their own natures differ. Two, by mode of apprehension — great compassion forms the mode of apprehension of the three sufferings, compassion forms that of one suffering only. Three, by object — great compassion takes the three realms for its object, compassion takes one realm only. Four, by level of dependence — great compassion depends upon the fourth meditative absorption alone, compassion extends to the remaining levels as well. Five, by body of dependence — great compassion depends upon the body of a Buddha alone, compassion extends to the remaining bodies as well. Six, by realization — great compassion is realized only upon freedom from craving for the summit of existence (all the afflictions of the three realms being cut off), while compassion does not require this. Seven, by deliverance — great compassion is a deliverance in which the matter is already brought to accomplishment, while compassion is a hope only. Eight, by pity — great compassion pities equally, while compassion does not pity equally.
That the Buddha’s merits differ from those of other sentient beings has been made out. Regarded one against another, then, are the buddhas equal in every dharma? The stanza says:
〔Root 40〕Buddhas Regarded One against Another — Equal in Three Things · Differing in Four · The Three Perfections
Stanza: In the three things of provision, dharma body, and benefiting others, the buddhas are alike one with another; in lifespan, class, clan, bodily size, and the like, there may be differences among the buddhas.
Treatise: By reason of three things, the buddhas are all equal — first, by their provision being alike complete; second, by their dharma body being alike brought to accomplishment; third, by their benefiting of others being alike ultimate.
But by the differences of lifespan, class, clan, bodily size, and the like, buddhas regarded one against another may admit of difference.
Difference in lifespan — a Buddha’s life may be short or long. Difference in class — a Buddha may be born in the kṣatriya class, or in the brahmin class. Difference in clan — a Buddha may be of the Gautama clan, or of the Kāśyapa clan. Difference in size — a Buddha’s body may be small or large. What the word ‘and the like’ shows — it takes in also the length or brevity of the abiding of the true Dharma in the world, and so forth.
That these differ is because the times at which the buddhas appear in the world differ, and because what suits the faculties and capacities of the sentient beings to be trained is severally different.
(The three perfections): Those who possess discernment, pondering the three perfections of the Tathāgata, give rise to a deep mind of love and respect. Which three? First the perfection of cause, second the perfection of result, third the perfection of grace.
One, the perfection of cause is again of four kinds — First, cultivation without remainder: both provisions, of merit and of knowledge, are cultivated, with nothing left out. Second, cultivation over a long time: he cultivates through three great aeons of asaṃkhyeya (an incalculably long time) without the least weariness. Third, cultivation without interval: with diligence and vigor he cultivates moment upon moment, letting nothing fall idle. Fourth, cultivation with reverence: he reveres the dharma he studies and cultivates it without sparing himself, without a trace of arrogance.
Two, the perfection of result is likewise of four kinds — first the perfection of knowledge, second the perfection of abandonment, third the perfection of majestic power, fourth the perfection of the form body.
Among these, the perfection of knowledge is of four kinds: first knowledge without a teacher (not derived from another’s instruction), second omniscience, third the knowledge of all modes, fourth effortless knowledge (needing no deliberate attention).
The perfection of abandonment is of four kinds: first the abandonment of every affliction, second the abandonment of every obstruction to absorption, third final abandonment (never to arise again), fourth abandonment along with the residual habits (the residual habits too being cut off).
The perfection of majestic power is of four kinds: first the majestic power of mastery in transforming and in sustaining outward objects; second the majestic power of mastery in shortening or prolonging the lifespan; third the majestic power of mastery in swift motion through space, through obstruction, and to the utmost distance, and in making the small and the large enter one another; fourth the majestic power of turning the various natures of dharmas that are just so in the world into what is superior and marvelous.
The perfection of majestic power is again of four other kinds: first, that those hard to train he assuredly can train; second, that objections hard to answer he assuredly can resolve; third, that the teaching he establishes assuredly can make men issue forth; fourth, that evil parties he assuredly can subdue.
The perfection of the form body is of four kinds: first, the full possession of the many marks (the thirty-two marks); second, the full possession of the minor signs (the eighty kinds of excellence); third, the full possession of great strength; fourth, that within, the bones of his body are hard beyond adamant, and without, he sends forth a divine radiance surpassing a hundred thousand suns.
Three, the perfection of grace is likewise of four kinds — that is, being able to make sentient beings forever liberated from birth and death in the three evil destinies, or being able to set sentient beings within the good destinies and the three vehicles.
Spoken of in sum, the perfections of the Tathāgata are such as this; were they analyzed one by one, they would be limitless in number, and the Buddha, the World-Honored One, alone can know them and can declare them — and he would have to preserve his vital formations and pass through many great aeons of asaṃkhyeya in the declaring before they could be declared to the end.
Thus it is shown: the body of the Buddha, the World-Honored One, possesses limitless, superior, and marvelous merits of cause, of result, and of grace, like a great mountain of jewels.
Some fools, themselves lacking the many merits, cannot give rise to confidence and reverence even when they hear of such a mountain of a Buddha’s merits and of the Dharma the Buddha declares. But those who possess discernment, hearing such a declaration, have a mind of confidence and reverence that penetrates to the marrow of their bones; and by this one thought of utmost confidence and reverence they can turn away and extinguish limitless indeterminate evil actions, and take to themselves the superior results of the human and heavenly destinies, and nirvāṇa itself.
Therefore it is said that the appearing of the Tathāgata in the world is, for those who possess discernment, an unsurpassed field of merit — relying upon which field one can draw forth a result that is not passed in vain, that is lovely, that is superior, that is swift, and that is ultimate. Just as the Bhagavat himself said in a stanza:
〔Quoted Stanza · Not a Root Stanza〕: If in the field of merit that is the Buddha one can plant even so much as a small portion of the wholesome, one obtains at first a superior recompense in a good destiny, and at last one assuredly attains nirvāṇa.
The merits of the Tathāgata not held in common have now been spoken of; next the ‘merits held in common’ must be made out. The stanza says:
〔Root 41〕The General Roll of the Merits Held in Common — Which Are Held in Common with the Noble Ones · Which Also with Ordinary Beings
Stanza: There are, further, dharmas of a buddha that are held in common with the remaining noble ones and with ordinary beings, namely the merits of non-contention, the knowledge of aspiration, the unobstructed knowledges, and the rest.
Treatise: The World-Honored One has, further, immeasurable merits that are held in common with the remaining noble ones and with ordinary beings — namely non-contention, the knowledge of aspiration, the unobstructed knowledges, the supernormal knowledges, the meditative absorptions, the formless absorptions, the attainments, the concentrations, the four immeasurables, the eight liberations, the eight bases of mastery, the ten totalities, and the rest, each held in common according as it suits.
Herein two layers must be divided: the first three gates (non-contention, the knowledge of aspiration, the unobstructed knowledges) are held in common with the remaining noble ones alone (ordinary beings have no share in them); as for the supernormal knowledges, the meditative absorptions, and the rest, they are held in common with ordinary beings as well (ordinary beings too can obtain them).
Among the first three gates, non-contention is made out first. The stanza says:
〔Root 42〕Non-contention — the Knowledge That Stills Affliction in Others
Stanza: Non-contention has conventional knowledge for its entity, arises in dependence upon the fourth meditative absorption, can be raised only by an arhat of the unshakable lineage, and depends upon a human body in the three continents alone; what it takes as object is the afflictions of the desire realm, in the future, and possessed of an entity.
Treatise: What is called non-contention is this: an arhat observes that the suffering of sentient beings arises from affliction; and knowing that this body of his own is the most superior of fields of merit (so that others easily give rise to affliction over him), he fears that the afflictions of others may again arise with himself for their object, and therefore deliberately draws forth a knowledge of this kind — using this means so that other sentient beings may not, by taking his body as the object of their mindfulness, give rise to greed, hatred, and the rest.
Because this practice can still the contention of affliction among the classes of sentient beings, it earns the name ‘non-contention.’
This practice has conventional knowledge alone for its nature; and it has the fourth meditative absorption for its support, because the fourth meditative absorption is the most superior among the pleasant modes of progress.
Only an arhat of the unshakable lineage can raise it, and the rest cannot — the remaining arhats cannot even guard against the arising of afflictions in themselves, much less still the afflictions in the body of another.
This practice depends upon a human body in the three continents alone (the northern continent Uttarakuru being excluded).
What it takes as object is the afflictions of the desire realm, in the future, and possessed of an entity — the reason it takes the future as object is so that the afflictions of others may not arise with himself for their object (what is future can still be forestalled in time). As for those ‘afflictions without an entity’ (the afflictions that arise without taking a concrete object-situation as object), they cannot possibly be forestalled, since they arise from within and take their objects generally, according as it suits.
Non-contention has been made out; next the knowledge of aspiration is made out. The stanza says:
〔First Half of Root 43〕The Knowledge of Aspiration — Knowing as One Has Aspired
Stanza: The knowledge of aspiration can take everything universally for its object; its remaining characteristics are as stated under non-contention.
Treatise: With ‘aspiration’ leading the way, a fine knowledge is drawn forth and arises, and one understands just as one has aspired — hence the name knowledge of aspiration.
The own nature, level of dependence, lineage, and body of dependence of this knowledge are all the same as with non-contention; only its object differs — because it takes all dharmas for its object.
The Vaibhāṣikas say this: The knowledge of aspiration cannot directly realize and know the formless realm; it only observes the causal practices there and the differences of their homogeneous outcome (and so knows them by inference), like the class of farmers (who see the sprout and know the seed).
(The manner of cultivation): Those who wish to give rise to this knowledge of aspiration first raise a sincere aspiration, seeking to know a certain object; then they enter the limit-stage fourth meditative absorption as their preparatory effort; and from this, with nothing intervening, according as the force of the absorption entered is superior or inferior, a right knowledge arises as drawn forth by the force of the prior aspiration, and everything about the object sought is known as it really is.
The knowledge of aspiration has been made out. And what are the unobstructed knowledges? The stanza says:
〔Second Half of Root 43 · Root 44 · Root 45〕The Four Unobstructed Knowledges — Dharma · Meaning · Speech · Eloquence
Stanza: The unobstructed knowledges are of four kinds, namely of dharma, of meaning, of speech, and of eloquence; they severally take as object names, meanings, utterance, and the way of utterance, and have for their nature a knowledge that cannot be turned back. The two unobstructed knowledges of dharma and of speech are conventional knowledge alone, and depend severally upon five levels and upon two. The unobstructed knowledge of meaning includes sixteen knowledges, that of eloquence nine knowledges, and both of these extend to all levels. When they are obtained, all four are assuredly obtained together; their remaining characteristics are as stated under non-contention.
Treatise: The unobstructed knowledges, stated in sum, are of four kinds — first the unobstructed knowledge of dharma, second the unobstructed knowledge of meaning, third the unobstructed knowledge of speech, fourth the unobstructed knowledge of eloquence.
These four, stated in sum, have for their own nature, in that order, the knowledge that cannot be turned back which takes as object ‘name,’ ‘meaning,’ ‘utterance,’ and ‘the way of utterance.’ That is to say —
Taking as object with a knowledge that cannot recede ‘the dharmas that express’ (the name-bodies, phrase-bodies, and syllable-bodies) is established as the first (the unobstructed knowledge of dharma); taking as object ‘the meaning that is expressed’ is established as the second (the unobstructed knowledge of meaning); taking as object ‘the words of local speech’ (the languages of the several regions) is established as the third (the unobstructed knowledge of speech); taking as object ‘utterance that accords with correct principle and is declared without hindrance or obstruction,’ and also ‘the two masterful ways of absorption and discernment,’ is established as the fourth (the unobstructed knowledge of eloquence).
This states in sum the entity of the unobstructed knowledges, and at the same time shows what they take as object.
(What knowledges each includes, and the levels each depends upon) —
Among them, the two unobstructed knowledges of dharma and of speech are included in conventional knowledge alone, because what they take as object is the object-situation of the name-bodies and the rest and of worldly speech.
The unobstructed knowledge of dharma extends to five levels, that is, the desire realm and the four meditative absorptions; because in the higher levels (the formless) there are no name-bodies and the rest.
The unobstructed knowledge of speech depends upon two levels alone, that is, the desire realm and the first meditative absorption; because in the higher levels there is neither applied nor sustained thought.
The unobstructed knowledge of meaning includes sixteen knowledges — here again there are two routes: if it be said that all dharmas are named ‘meaning,’ then the unobstructed knowledge of meaning is included in ten knowledges; if it be said that nirvāṇa alone is named ‘meaning,’ then the unobstructed knowledge of meaning is included in six knowledges, that is, conventional knowledge, dharma knowledge, subsequent knowledge, the knowledge of cessation, the knowledge of exhaustion, and the knowledge of non-arising. (Ten and six together are called sixteen.)
The unobstructed knowledge of eloquence includes nine knowledges, that is, the ten knowledges with the knowledge of cessation alone excluded, because what it takes as object is the way of utterance.
These two, meaning and eloquence, both extend to all levels in their arising, that is, from the desire realm all the way to the summit of existence. Because the unobstructed knowledge of eloquence, within the way of utterance, may arise taking as object any one thereof according as it suits.
(The explanation of the Treatise of Designations): The Treatise of Designations, explaining these four, says — taking as object the name-bodies, phrase-bodies, and syllable-bodies; taking as object the meanings that these express; taking as object the differences of speech such as ‘one, two, and many’ and ‘male and female’ and the rest; taking as object this unhindered utterance and the path upon which it depends; each with a knowledge that cannot be turned back; and in that order there are established the names of the four unobstructed knowledges, of dharma, of meaning, of speech, and of eloquence. By this the reason for the order of these four is shown.
(A divergent explanation of some other masters): There is another class of masters who say — ‘speech’ refers to all glossing words, as for example the phrase given above, ‘because it deteriorates and resists it is named form’ (explaining a name by a gloss); while ‘eloquence’ refers to declaring on and on with words unhindered and unobstructed.
(The preparatory effort in the transmitted account): It is transmitted that the arising of these four unobstructed knowledges takes, in that order, the repeated practice of calculation, the Buddha’s words, the science of sounds, and the science of reasons for its prior preparatory effort; and if one has not yet attained skill in these four places, the unobstructed knowledges assuredly cannot arise.
(The author’s correct sense): Stated in principle, the arising of every unobstructed knowledge has for its preparatory effort the study of the Buddha’s words alone (all four being complete within the Buddha’s words).
(In obtaining, all four are complete): Among these four unobstructed knowledges, whichever one is obtained, at that moment all four are assuredly obtained; it is not that ‘obtaining’ may still be spoken of where the four are not complete.
The object, own nature, and level of dependence of these four differ from those of non-contention above in just this way; as for lineage and the body of dependence, they are as stated under non-contention (the unshakable lineage, a human body in the three continents).
Of the practice of non-contention and the rest spoken of above, the stanza says:
〔Root 46〕Limit-Stage Absorption — Universally According with All · Increasing to the Utmost
Stanza: These six are all obtained in dependence upon limit-stage absorption; the entity of limit-stage absorption is of six kinds, all cultivated after the fourth meditative absorption. Because it universally accords with all and increases to the utmost, it obtains the name ‘limit-stage.’ Apart from the Buddha, all the remaining noble ones obtain them by preparatory effort.
Treatise: The six — non-contention, the knowledge of aspiration, and the four unobstructed knowledges — are all obtained in dependence upon limit-stage absorption.
The entity of limit-stage meditative absorption is of six kinds — that is, those six with the unobstructed knowledge of speech removed, and ‘limit-stage absorption’ itself added (making six). Although the unobstructed knowledge of speech too is obtained in dependence upon limit-stage absorption, its entity is not gathered in by that fourth meditative absorption, because the name ‘limit-stage’ is established in dependence upon the fourth meditative absorption alone.
Question: Why is it called ‘universally according with all’?
Answer: That is to say, when one is cultivating this meditative absorption, from a mind of the desire realm one enters the first meditative absorption, and enters upward in order, all the way to the summit of existence; then from the summit of existence one enters the sphere of nothingness and enters downward in reverse order, all the way to the desire realm; then from the desire realm one enters upward in order again, turning about all the way to the fourth meditative absorption — and this is called ‘universally according with all the levels.’
Question: Why is it called ‘increasing to the utmost’?
Answer: That is to say, one cultivates the fourth meditative absorption exclusively, from the low grade to the middle, from the middle to the high; and these three grades are each divided again into three (nine in all), and when the highest of the high arises it is named ‘reaching the utmost.’ A meditative absorption such as this obtains the name ‘limit-stage.’
(The gloss on the two words ‘limit-stage’): Here the word ‘limit’ shows the sense of ‘there being nothing beyond it’ — being most superior with nothing beyond it, it is named limit. The word ‘stage’ shows the sense of ‘class’ and the sense of ‘the utmost,’ as in such usages as ‘the four stages’ and ‘the real stage.’
(The difference in the manner of obtaining): Apart from the Buddha, for all the remaining noble ones these six kinds spoken of are obtained by preparatory effort alone, not obtained by separation from defilement; because it is not that everyone obtains them.
The Buddha alone obtains these six also by separation from defilement — the merits of the buddhas, at the moment when the knowledge of exhaustion first arises, are by reason of separation from defilement all obtained at once; and afterwards he can draw them forth before him as he wishes, with no need of further preparatory effort, because the Buddha, the World-Honored One, turns masterfully with regard to all dharmas.
The merits of the first three gates, held in common with the remaining noble ones alone, have been made out; as for the merits that are held in common with ordinary beings as well, the ‘supernormal knowledges’ must be made out first. The stanza says:
〔Roots 47–50〕The Six Supernormal Knowledges — Entity · Level of Dependence · Object · Manner of Obtaining · Inclusion in the Foundations of Mindfulness · The Three Ethical Qualities
Stanza: The supernormal knowledges are of six kinds, namely of the divine object-field, of the divine eye, of the divine ear, of the minds of others, of former abodes, and of the exhaustion of the outflows; all six are included in the path of liberation and have discernment for their entity. Among them four are conventional knowledge, that of the minds of others is five knowledges, and that of the exhaustion of the outflows is as stated under the power of the exhaustion of the outflows. The first five depend upon the four meditative absorptions and take their own level and the levels below for their object. The śrāvaka, the pratyekabuddha likened to the rhinoceros horn, and the Buddha can, in that order, exert them upon a thousand, two thousand, three thousand, and even countless worlds. What has never been obtained is obtained by preparatory effort; what has been practiced before is obtained by separation from defilement. As to the foundations of mindfulness, the first three supernormal knowledges are in the foundation of mindfulness of the body alone, that of the minds of others in three foundations of mindfulness, and the remaining four supernormal knowledges in four foundations of mindfulness. The divine eye and the divine ear are of indeterminate nature; the remaining four supernormal knowledges are of wholesome nature alone.
Treatise: The supernormal knowledges are of six kinds — first the supernormal knowledge realized through the knowledge of the divine object-field, second that realized through the knowledge of the divine eye, third that realized through the knowledge of the divine ear, fourth that realized through the knowledge of the minds of others, fifth that realized through the knowledge that recollects former abodes, sixth that realized through the knowledge of the exhaustion of the outflows.
Among the six supernormal knowledges, although the sixth, that of the exhaustion of the outflows, belongs to the noble ones alone, the former five can be obtained by ordinary beings as well; speaking by the general mark, it is therefore said that they are ‘held in common with ordinary beings.’
(Own nature): These six supernormal knowledges are all included in the path of liberation and have discernment for their own nature, like the fruits of the ascetic life (the fruits of the ascetic life too having the path without outflows for their entity). The words ‘path of liberation’ are said in order to show the sense of ‘issuing forth from obstruction.’
(What knowledges each supernormal knowledge includes): The four supernormal knowledges beginning with that of the divine object-field (the divine object-field, the divine eye, the divine ear, and former abodes) are included in conventional knowledge alone. That of the minds of others is included in five knowledges, that is, dharma knowledge, subsequent knowledge, the knowledge of the path, conventional knowledge, and the knowledge of the minds of others. That of the exhaustion of the outflows is as stated above under the power of the exhaustion of the outflows — that is, either six knowledges or ten. By this it is already shown that the supernormal knowledge of the exhaustion of the outflows depends upon all levels and takes all objects.
(Level of dependence): Those five supernormal knowledges above all depend upon the four meditative absorptions.
Question: Why do these five supernormal knowledges not depend upon the formless absorptions?
Answer: Because the first three supernormal knowledges (the divine object-field, the divine eye, the divine ear) severally take form for their object; because cultivating the supernormal knowledge of the minds of others requires form (the appearance of the face and of the body) for its gate; and because cultivating the supernormal knowledge of former abodes requires recollecting in order the differences of the stages before it can be accomplished, and when accomplished what it takes as object is again the sense fields, the natures, and the rest — and in dependence upon the formless levels there are none of these capacities.
(The manner of cultivating three supernormal knowledges): Those who wish to cultivate the supernormal knowledge of the minds of others first examine closely the alterations, before and after, of the two marks of their own body and mind, and how these follow one upon another in turn; and then they examine closely the marks of the body and of the mind of another. By preparatory effort of this kind it is gradually accomplished; and once accomplished, they need no longer observe the forms belonging to their own mind, and they know the mind and the rest in another just as they really are.
Those who wish to cultivate the supernormal knowledge of former abodes first examine the mind that has just ceased in the moment before; gradually they observe in reverse the earlier and earlier differences of the stages of this life, all the way to the mind of taking rebirth; and even to the point of being able to recollect the very first thought-instant within intermediate existence — this is called the preparatory effort for former abodes in one’s own body being accomplished. To recollect the former abodes of another, the preparatory effort is likewise of this kind.
When this supernormal knowledge first arises it can know only in order (step by step in reverse); once practice has ripened, it can also recollect leaping over the order.
What is recollected must be what has been experienced before. Question: How then does one recollect the Pure Abodes (having never oneself been born there)? Answer: Because one had heard of them in the past.
One who dies from the formless realm and is born here raises this supernormal knowledge for the first time in dependence upon the continuum of another (there being no former abodes to recollect while one was oneself formless); all others raise it in dependence upon their own continuum.
When cultivating the first three supernormal knowledges beginning with the divine object-field, one ponders lightness, light, and sound as one’s preparatory effort; and once accomplished one attains mastery, and does as suits the case.
Therefore these five supernormal knowledges do not depend upon the formless. Again, the formless levels are of ‘observation decreased and stillness increased’ (much stillness and little observation), while the five supernormal knowledges must depend upon a level where stillness and observation are equal; and access concentration and the like are by this same reason likewise excluded (they too not being levels where stillness and observation are equal).
(The object is one’s own level and those below alone): The object of these five supernormal knowledges is one’s own level and the levels below alone. Take the supernormal knowledge of the divine object-field: whichever level it arises in dependence upon, upon that level and the levels below it exercises transformation at will, while upon the higher levels it does not, because its force is inferior. The remaining four supernormal knowledges are likewise so, each according as it suits. Therefore there is none who can take the minds of others or the former abodes of the formless realm as the object of those two supernormal knowledges (the formless realm being above).
(The breadth and narrowness of their operation): In the breadth and narrowness of the operation of these five supernormal knowledges upon the object that is a world, the noble ones are not alike — the great śrāvaka, the pratyekabuddha likened to the rhinoceros horn, and the Great Awakened One, if they do not attend to the utmost, can in that order exercise the mastery of transformation and the rest upon the object of a thousand, two thousand, and three thousand worlds; and if they attend to the utmost, they can in that order exert them upon two thousand, three thousand, and countless worlds.
(The manner of obtaining): Of these five supernormal knowledges, those whose operation is superior and keen and that have never been obtained since beginningless time are obtained by preparatory effort; those that have been practiced before and have no superior operation, and those of the same class as these, are obtained by separation from defilement. Yet for raising them before one in operation, all require preparatory effort. As for the Buddha, everything is obtained by separation from defilement and is raised before him as he wishes, with no preparatory effort.
(Inclusion in the foundations of mindfulness): Among the six supernormal knowledges, the first three are in the foundation of mindfulness of the body alone, because they take only form as object — the supernormal knowledge of the divine object-field takes as object the four outer sense fields of form, scent, taste, and the tangible, the divine eye takes form as object, and the divine ear takes sound.
Question: If that is so, why does the sūtra say that the knowledge of death and birth can know that the classes of sentient beings, by the evil conduct of body, speech, and mind accomplished in their present bodies, and so forth (which is to take mental dharmas as object, and not form alone)?
Answer: It is not that the supernormal knowledge of the divine eye itself can know this matter; there is a further superior knowledge that is the retinue of this supernormal knowledge, arising in dependence upon the body of a noble one, and it can know in this way. Because it is drawn forth by the force of the supernormal knowledge of the divine eye, it is joined with this supernormal knowledge and the one name ‘knowledge of death and birth’ is established.
The supernormal knowledge of the minds of others is included in three foundations of mindfulness, that is, those of feeling, of mind, and of dharmas, because it takes mind and the rest as object.
The supernormal knowledges of former abodes and of the exhaustion of the outflows are included in four foundations of mindfulness, because they take as object all objects, the five aggregates.
(The three ethical qualities): Among these six supernormal knowledges, the divine eye and the divine ear are included among things of indeterminate nature, because the entity of these two is granted to be the discernment associated with eye-consciousness and ear-consciousness.
Question: If that is so, how can they still be said to depend upon the four meditative absorptions (an indeterminate consciousness belonging to the five consciousnesses of the desire realm)?
Answer: Because this is said in accordance with the ‘faculty,’ and so there is no fault — that is to say, the two faculties of eye and ear upon which they depend are drawn forth by the force of the four meditative absorptions, and are thus included in those levels, and so they are said to depend upon four levels; the supernormal knowledge is spoken of in accordance with the faculty, and so ‘depending upon four’ is said.
Or another explanation is made: This is said in accordance with the ‘uninterrupted path’ of the supernormal knowledge, because the uninterrupted path of a supernormal knowledge depends upon four levels.
The remaining four supernormal knowledges are all of wholesome nature.
Question: If that is so, why does the Treatise on Categories of Dharmas say, ‘what is a supernormal knowledge? It is wholesome discernment’ (would not the divine eye and ear then not be supernormal knowledges)?
Answer: That is said with regard to the greater part, or is said with regard to the superior.
As for the ‘three clear knowings of one beyond training’ spoken of in the sūtra, what have they for their nature among the six supernormal knowledges? The stanza says:
〔Root 51〕The Three Clear Knowings — Counteracting the Folly Regarding the Three Periods · Only the Last Is Truly So
Stanza: The fifth, the second, and the sixth of the supernormal knowledges are named clear knowings, because they counteract the folly regarding the three periods. The last may be truly so, the former two are said conventionally. In the stage of one in training there is folly and darkness, and so they are not named clear knowings.
Treatise: What are called the three clear knowings — first the clear knowing realized through the knowledge of former abodes, second the clear knowing realized through the knowledge of death and birth, third the clear knowing realized through the knowledge of the exhaustion of the outflows. They have for their own nature, in that order, the fifth, the second, and the sixth supernormal knowledges as included in the stage beyond training.
That among the six supernormal knowledges these three alone earn the name ‘clear knowing’ is because in that order they counteract the folly regarding the three periods — the supernormal knowledge of former abodes counteracts the folly regarding the ‘prior period,’ the supernormal knowledge of death and birth counteracts the folly regarding the ‘later period,’ and the supernormal knowledge of the exhaustion of the outflows counteracts the folly regarding the ‘middle period.’
These three are all named ‘the clear knowings of one beyond training,’ because they all arise in the body of one beyond training.
Among them the last (the exhaustion of the outflows) may be a true clear knowing, because it extends to what is without outflows. The remaining two (former abodes and death and birth) are said conventionally to be clear knowings, because their entity is only what is neither in training nor beyond training (with outflows, indeterminate, and the like).
Question: In the body of one in training there are also the former two supernormal knowledges; why are they not established as clear knowings?
Answer: Because in the body of one in training there is still folly and darkness, and so, although the former two are present, they are not established as clear knowings. Although at times he can subdue and extinguish folly and darkness for a while, afterwards he is covered over again, and so they are not named clear knowings.
The sūtra says there are three guiding demonstrations; what have they for their entity among the six supernormal knowledges? The stanza says:
〔Root 52〕The Three Guiding Demonstrations — the Demonstration by Instruction Is the Most Honored
Stanza: The first, the fourth, and the sixth of the supernormal knowledges are the entity of the three guiding demonstrations; among them the guiding demonstration by instruction is the most honored, because it is assuredly accomplished by a supernormal knowledge and can draw forth a result of benefit and ease.
Treatise: The three guiding demonstrations — first the guiding demonstration of divine transformation, second the guiding demonstration of discerning minds, third the guiding demonstration of instruction. They have for their own nature, in that order, the first (the divine object-field), the fourth (the minds of others), and the sixth (the exhaustion of the outflows) among the six supernormal knowledges.
These three alone can guide the sentient beings to be trained to raise the mind for the first time, and are the most superior; or, it is said, these three can guide those who hate and turn their backs on the true Dharma, and those who stand in the middle (neither believing nor slandering), to raise the mind.
Because they can ‘demonstrate’ and can ‘guide,’ they earn the name ‘guiding demonstration.’ Again, these three alone can bring a person, within the Buddha’s Dharma, to submit, to accept in faith, and to practice, in that order, and so they earn the name guiding demonstration, while the remaining three supernormal knowledges do not.
(The demonstration by instruction is the most honored): Among these three guiding demonstrations, the guiding demonstration by instruction is the most honored — because it alone is assuredly accomplished by a supernormal knowledge, and assuredly can draw forth for others a result of benefit and ease.
The former two demonstrations (divine transformation and discerning minds), spell-craft too can accomplish, without necessarily relying upon a supernormal knowledge, and so they are not definite. As, for instance, there is a spell-craft named Gandhārī, and holding it one can soar into the sky at will; and again there is a spell-craft named Īkṣaṇī, and holding it one can know what is in the mind of another. As for the guiding demonstration by instruction, nothing apart from the supernormal knowledge of the exhaustion of the outflows can accomplish it, and so it is definite.
Again, the former two demonstrations can only make another turn his mind for a while, and cannot draw forth a superior result; whereas the guiding demonstration by instruction assuredly can make another draw forth a result of benefit and ease to come, because it declares by skillful means just as things really are. From this it may be known that instruction is the most superior, and that the other two are not.
What sense do the two words ‘divine object-field’ mean to show? The stanza says:
〔Root 53 · Root 54〕The Divine Object-Field — the Entity Is Concentration · the Object-Field Is of Two Kinds, Motion and Transformation
Stanza: The entity of ‘the divine’ is just concentration; the object-field is of two kinds, namely motion and transformation. Motion is of three kinds — the momentum of thought belongs to the Buddha alone, while conveying the body and resolve extend to the other vehicles as well. Transformation is of two kinds, namely transformation in the desire realm and in the form realm; they have severally four outer sense fields and two outer sense fields for their nature, and each again is of two kinds, resembling one’s own body and resembling another’s body.
Treatise: Following the tenor of what the Mahāvibhāṣā says, what the name ‘divine’ designates is superior concentration (absorption) alone, since by it deeds of divine transformation can be done. And the deeds of divine transformation are named the ‘object-field.’
This object-field is of two kinds, namely motion and transformation.
Motion is again of three kinds — First, conveying the body: that is, riding through space, like a flying bird. Second, resolve: that is, pondering a place utterly far off as ‘near’ (resolving upon it), whereupon one can swiftly arrive. Third, the momentum of thought: that is, when for a place utterly far off one raises the mind and takes it as object, the body can at once arrive there. This operation is as swift as thought, and so it earns the name ‘momentum of thought.’
Among these three, the momentum of thought belongs to the Buddha alone; conveying the body and resolve extend also to the other two vehicles. That is to say, our World-Honored One is swift in supernormal power, and whether the place be far or near, he raises his mind and at once arrives. Hence the World-Honored One has said: ‘The object-field of the buddhas is inconceivable.’ Therefore the motion of the momentum of thought belongs to the World-Honored One alone; the motion of resolve extends also to the remaining noble ones; and the motion of conveying the body extends even to ordinary beings.
Transformation is again of two kinds, namely transformation in the desire realm and transformation in the form realm.
If it be a transformation of the desire realm, what is transformed is the four outer sense fields (form, scent, taste, and the tangible), with sound removed. If it be a transformation of the form realm, only two are transformed, namely form and the tangible — because within the form realm there is neither scent nor taste.
The transformations of these two realms are again each of two kinds, namely the difference between a transformation belonging to one’s own body and one belonging to another’s body. When the body is in the desire realm the transformations are four kinds, and when the body is in the form realm likewise so (four kinds), making eight kinds in all.
Question: If one is born in the form realm and makes a transformation of the desire realm, how does one not incur the fault of ‘accomplishing scent and taste’?
Answer: It is like making clothes and ornaments — they are made, and yet not accomplished (they do not become real scent and taste).
There is another account: When one is born in the form realm, only two sense fields are transformed (form and the tangible, scent and taste not being transformed, and so this fault does not arise).
Question: Is the deed of transformation done by a mind capable of transformation just the ‘supernormal knowledge’ itself?
Answer: It is not. Question: What is it then? Answer: It is the result produced by the supernormal knowledge.
Question: How many kinds are there of these deeds of transformation, and what are their differences? The stanza says:
〔Roots 55–58〕The Fourteen Minds Capable of Transformation — Level of Dependence · Manner of Obtaining · Speech and Silence · Preserving the Body
Stanza: The minds capable of transformation are of fourteen kinds, the results produced by absorption, being in order from two to five kinds; they are obtained according to the absorption depended upon, and arise from the pure absorption and also from their own class, two kinds in all. A deed of transformation is raised by a mind of its own level, while the speech uttered by a transformation is raised by a mind of its own level or of a lower. A transformed body and the master of transformation assuredly speak at the same time, save in the Buddha alone. The Buddha first makes a vow and preserves the body, and afterwards raises another mind and utters speech. There are those who preserve a solid entity after death; there is another account which holds that there is no sense of preserving a body. One newly at the practice transforms one thing with many minds; one who has become accomplished transforms many things with one mind. A mind of transformation obtained by cultivation is included among things of indeterminate nature; the rest, however obtained, extend to all three ethical qualities.
Treatise: The mind capable of transformation that is the result of the supernormal knowledge of the divine object-field has the power to produce by transformation every deed of transformation.
This mind of transformation is of fourteen kinds, because it arises in dependence upon the four fundamental meditative absorptions, and there is a difference of level —
In dependence upon the first meditative absorption there are two minds of transformation: first, that included in the desire realm; second, that included in the first meditative absorption. In dependence upon the second meditative absorption there are three minds of transformation: the former two as before, with the second meditative absorption added. In dependence upon the third meditative absorption there are four, and in dependence upon the fourth meditative absorption there are five — that is, each adding those of its own level and of the levels below; by this principle it may be inferred.
(The rule of the level of dependence): The minds of transformation that are results depend upon their own level and the levels above, and assuredly do not depend upon the levels below (a mind of a lower level cannot produce a result of a higher level); because a mind of absorption of a lower level cannot produce a result of a higher level, its force being inferior.
The ‘mind of transformation of a lower level’ produced by the second absorption and the rest, as against the ‘mind of transformation of a higher level’ produced by the first absorption and the rest, is likewise named superior by reason of what it depends upon and what it ranges over. As with obtaining a meditative absorption, so it is with a mind of transformation — because the result and what it depends upon are obtained at the same time.
(The order of arising): Of the minds of transformation that are results arising after one has issued from a meditative absorption, this mind assuredly has no sense of ‘issuing from contemplation directly’ — that is to say, from the pure absorption there arises the first mind of transformation, and thereafter the later minds arise from minds of their own class, and each earlier thought-instant produces in turn a mind of its own class, and the last mind of transformation produces again the pure absorption. Therefore this mind of transformation arises from two kinds of mind and can also produce two kinds (its own class and the pure absorption), because a mind that is the result of absorption is included among things of indeterminate nature (and an indeterminate mind cannot issue from contemplation directly). Only a mind that does not re-enter absorption has the sense of ‘issuing directly,’ as one goes in by the gate and comes out again by the gate.
(The level of dependence of a deed of transformation and of transformed speech): The deeds transformed are raised by a mind of their own level, and there is no principle by which a mind of transformation of a different level should raise a transformation belonging to another level.
The speech uttered by a transformation, however, is raised by a mind of its own level or of a lower level — that is to say, the speech uttered by a transformation of the desire realm or of the first absorption is assuredly raised by a mind of its own level; while for a transformation of a higher level to raise speech, it is raised by a mind of the first absorption (because in the higher levels themselves there is no mind capable of raising manifest action).
(Speech and silence at the same time): If one master of transformation raises many transformed bodies, only when the master of transformation speaks do the several transformed bodies speak; and the content expressed by the sounds of speech is in every case the same. Hence there is a gāthā that says thus:
〔Quoted Stanza · Not a Root Stanza〕: When the one master of transformation speaks, all the transformed bodies speak together; if the one master of transformation is silent, all the transformed bodies too are silent.
(The Buddha’s exception): This is said only with regard to the rest; with the Buddha it is not so — because the force of the Buddha’s several absorptions is the most masterful, and his speaking with the transformed bodies may be at different times, and the content expressed by the sounds of speech may also differ.
Question: Once the mind that utters speech has arisen, the mind of transformation is gone (two minds not being present together); and the mind of transformation being gone, there ought to be no transformed body — how then can the transformed body still speak?
Answer: Because the transformed body has been preserved by the force of a prior vow, and afterwards another mind is raised that utters the manifest action of speech; and so although the two minds, of transformed speech and of transformation, are not present together, speech can still be uttered in dependence upon the (preserved) transformed body.
(Preserving the body after death): It is not only while the life of the master of transformation is present that a transformed body can be preserved and made to last long; there are also those who make it last after their own life has ended. Just as the Venerable Mahākāśyapa left his body of linked bones to last until the age of the Compassionate One (Maitreya). Only a solid entity may be preserved long, and so Kāśyapa did not preserve his flesh and the rest (preserving the bones alone).
There is another class of masters who say: The force of a vow preserving a body assuredly cannot make it last after death; the body of linked bones preserved by the Venerable Drinker of Light (Kāśyapa) was made to last long by the upholding of the gods.
(One newly at the practice and one who has become accomplished): One newly at the practice must use many minds of transformation to produce one deed of transformation by transformation; one whose practice has become accomplished can with a single mind of transformation produce by transformation as many or as few deeds of transformation as he wishes.
(The three ethical qualities): These fourteen minds capable of transformation are all obtained by cultivation and are included among things of indeterminate nature — this is the sense of ‘the indeterminate of penetrative effect.’
As for the other minds capable of transformation, accomplished by being obtained at birth and the like, they extend to all three ethical qualities, wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate. Such are the minds capable of transformation possessed by gods, nāgas, and the like; and they too can make transformations for their own bodies and for the bodies of others, transforming nine among the ten sense fields of form, with sound removed.
Stated in principle, there is nothing that can transform a ‘faculty’; yet since the object transformed is not apart from a faculty, to say ‘nine sense fields are transformed’ is likewise not at fault.
What sense do the words ‘divine eye and ear’ mean to show? The stanza says:
〔Root 59〕The Divine Eye and Ear — Subtle Form Produced in the Levels of Absorption
Stanza: The divine eye and the divine ear refer to ‘faculties,’ that is, the subtle form produced in the levels of absorption; they are always participating and their locations are without defect, and they can apprehend objects that are obstructed, utterly subtle, utterly far off, and the rest.
Treatise: What is spoken of here is only the faculty of the divine eye and the faculty of the divine ear, that is, the subtle form produced by the four meditative absorptions — that is to say, because one takes light and sound as object in one’s preparatory effort, there are drawn forth, in dependence upon the four meditative absorptions and at the edge of the eye and the ear, the two subtle-form faculties of eye and ear produced by the fine great elements of those levels; and to see forms and hear sounds with them is named the divine eye and the divine ear.
Question: Why are eye and ear such as these named ‘divine’?
Answer: Because their entity is just divine (form of the levels of absorption being of the class of the divine), since they are included in the levels of absorption.
(Three kinds of divine eye and ear): Yet the divine eye and the divine ear are of three kinds — First, divine by cultivation, which is what was spoken of above (accomplished by cultivation in dependence upon absorption). Second, divine by birth, which is obtained by being born among the gods. Third, resembling the divine, which is that a being born in the other destinies, by reason of a superior action and the like that produced it, can see far and hear far, resembling the divine eye and the divine ear. Such as the jewel that is the treasurer minister, bodhisattvas, wheel-turning monarchs, the several nāgas, ghosts, and spirits, and intermediate existence, and the like.
(The mark of what is obtained by cultivation): The eye and ear obtained by cultivation, whether past, present, or yet to arise, are constantly ‘participating’ (assuredly arising together with a consciousness and having a function) — because on reaching the present they assuredly arise together with a consciousness and can see and can hear.
Their locations are assuredly complete, without film and without defect, like all the sentient beings born in the form realm; and they can, according as it suits, apprehend those forms and sounds in every quarter that are obstructed, utterly subtle, and utterly far off.
Hence there is here a stanza such as this:
〔Quoted Stanza · Not a Root Stanza〕: The fleshly eye, with regard to forms in the several quarters that are obstructed, utterly subtle, and utterly far off, has no function of seeing; the divine eye sees them without anything left out.
The difference between a mind of transformation and what is otherwise obtained was spoken of above; do the five supernormal knowledges beginning with that of the divine object-field each have such a difference as well? They do too. And what is it? The stanza says:
〔Root 60 · Root 61〕The Classes of the Five Supernormal Knowledges — Cultivation · Birth · Spell · Drug · Action
Stanza: The knowledge of the divine object-field is of five kinds — obtained by cultivation, obtained by birth, accomplished by spell, accomplished by drug, accomplished by action. The knowledge of the minds of others is by cultivation, by birth, and by spell, with accomplishment by the reading of marks added (four in all). The remaining three are by cultivation, by birth, and by action (three in all). Apart from what is obtained by cultivation, all extend to the three ethical qualities. In the human destiny there is none obtained by birth; in the destiny of the hells, at the first taking of birth, they can know (the minds of others and former abodes).
Treatise: The classes of the knowledge of the divine object-field are five in all — first obtained by cultivation, second obtained by birth, third accomplished by spell, fourth accomplished by drug, fifth accomplished by action. The knowledges of the divine object-field of such as King Māndhātṛ and intermediate existence and the like are included in what is accomplished by action.
The classes of the knowledge of the minds of others are four in all — the former three as above (obtained by cultivation, obtained by birth, accomplished by spell), with accomplishment by the reading of marks added.
The remaining three (the divine eye, the divine ear, and former abodes) are each of three kinds, namely obtained by cultivation, obtained by birth, and accomplished by action.
(The three ethical qualities): Apart from what is obtained by cultivation, the rest all extend to the three ethical qualities of the wholesome and so forth. Because they are not the result produced by absorption, they do not earn the name ‘supernormal knowledge.’
(What is restricted to which destiny): In the human destiny there is wholly none ‘obtained by birth’ (a human does not of himself obtain the five supernormal knowledges by being born); in the remaining destinies they are all admitted. Each according as it suits, the recollection arising from one’s own nature (the recollection of past lives) is included in what is accomplished by action.
In the destiny of the hells, at the first taking of birth, beings can, with the supernormal knowledges of the minds of others and of former abodes obtained by birth alone, know the minds of others and the rest and their past lives; but once the feeling of suffering has pressed upon them to the utmost, there is no further sense in which they know.
If one is born in the remaining destinies, it should be known accordingly by this principle.