解脫道論 十二入的句義、境界與緣

The second door opens—the method concerning the sense bases.

The twelve sense bases are established first: eye base and form base, ear base and sound base, nose base and odor base, tongue base and taste base, body base and touch base, mind base and Dhamma base. The twelve names form six pairs: there is no break within a pair, only between pairs. The pattern of matching internal and external bases can be seen in the punctuation itself.

The five faculty bases use the same formula five times without changing a word: each is purity of the element; through it form is seen, through it sound is heard, through it odor is smelled, through it taste is known, and through it 細滑 is touched. The five object bases are less uniform—the form base and odor base each lack one “is.” This edition records them as they stand and does not make them uniform.

The mind base is the seven consciousness elements. That seven is precisely the “these seven consciousnesses” of the passage on the aggregate of consciousness, and precisely the “consciousness aggregate is included in seven elements” of the method concerning the aggregates. The same seven appears once in each of three passages, and the treatise never explains it.

Then the treatise says that these twelve sense bases are to be known in five ways. Yet it writes the five names as only four segments—there is no break between “by domain” and “by condition.”

Here is a tool useful from beginning to end of this chapter: When the text reports a number, first count whether the run-on names match it. The treatise reports five approaches, so separate them into five: phrase-meaning, domain, condition, arising of the interposed superior mind, and inclusion—exactly five.

Under conditions, this tool proves especially useful. At first glance the paragraph is a mass of words with no visible breaks, but each item reports its own number—four, three, three, two. Divide by those counts: eye has first arising, support, faculty, and presence (four); form has first arising, object, and presence (three); light has first arising, support, and presence (three); attention has immediacy and nonpresence (two). Four numbers, four sets of names, with not one too many or too few.

More strikingly, at the end of the same paragraph the treatise lists the same set again in separated form and even writes out the final item’s two names directly. Within the same paragraph, the run-on and separated forms appear together; read the latter half first, and the earlier mass becomes easy to parse.

The place in the whole passage where one most needs to pause, however, is the domain approach.

The answer states a determination: eye and ear do not reach their domains; nose, tongue, and body reach theirs; mind has both kinds of domain. By the usual pattern, the passage should now close.

But it does not. Next comes, “Another person says: the ear reaches its domain”—the reason is that only a nearby obstruction makes sound inaudible. Then comes, “Another says: the eye reaches its own domain”—the reason is that one cannot see beyond a wall.

Look closely at how these two are distributed: the answer excludes eye and ear; one alternative account restores ear and the other restores eye, exactly one for one. The treatise gives a reason for each, does not decide, and immediately closes with its concluding formula.

What can be verified is this: each of the two alternative accounts restores one faculty, and the treatise decides neither. This is not a conclusion adjudicated by the treatise; it presents the two alternative accounts just as they stand. This edition records them and does not adjudicate.

(Remember in passing: what lets us recognize the reasoning attached to the two alternative accounts is entirely the expression “Why?”—it occurs only twice in this passage, each time immediately after an alternative account. When you see it, you know that what follows is a reason, not a new claim.)

(One more point to remember: the first approach asks the phrase-meaning of the twelve sense bases. Each of the twelve receives one meaning, but at the end the word “base” itself receives three meanings in a row. In the preceding passage, the word “aggregate” received only one further meaning—the same method, but a different number. Why? The treatise does not say.)

---

Shi Huijing · Waken · The Path of Freedom · Phrase-Meaning, Domain, and Conditions of the Twelve Sense Bases · Doorway · Summer 2026

The Listing of the Twelve Sense Bases

Question: What is the method concerning the sense bases?

Answer: the twelve sense bases—the eye base and form base, the ear base and sound base, the nose base and odor base, the tongue base and taste base, the body base and touch base, the mind base and Dhamma base.

At the point where they are listed, the six pairs of names run on one after another. There is no separator within each pair; separators occur only between pairs. The twelve items are arranged in these six pairs. The wording is recorded as it stands.

Five Faculty Bases: One Formula Five Times

In this matter—

The eye base is purity of the element; by it, form is seen.

The ear base is purity of the element; by it, sound is heard.

The nose base is purity of the element; by it, odor is smelled.

The tongue base is purity of the element; by it, taste is known.

The body base is purity of the element; by it, 細滑 is touched.

All five use the exact words “is purity of the element,” without changing a single character.

Five Object Bases, Mind, and Dhamma

The form base is the shape of the element and is the eye’s domain.

The sound base is the element’s resonance and is the ear’s domain.

The odor base is the element’s fragrance and is the nose’s domain.

The taste base is the element’s flavor and is the tongue’s domain.

The touch base is the hardness, softness, cold, and warmth of the earth, water, fire, and wind elements and is the body’s domain.

Among the five object bases, the form and odor entries do not begin with “is the element” but directly with “element”; all three of the others include “is.” The wording is recorded as it stands and is not made uniform.

The mind base is the seven consciousness elements.

The Dhamma base is the three immaterial aggregates, the eighteen subtle forms, and Nibbāna.

These are called the twelve sense bases.

General Heading: Five Ways of Reexamining Them

Further, these twelve sense bases can be known in their distinctions of higher and lower from five approaches: phrase-meaning, domain, condition, the arising of the interposed superior mind, and inclusion.

The base here reads, “Thus, through phrase-meaning, through domain through condition, through the arising of the interposed superior mind, and through inclusion.” There is no separator between “through domain” and “through condition.” The treatise itself reports five approaches, and what follows asks in sequence about phrase-meaning, domain, condition, the arising of the interposed superior mind, and inclusion. The five names can therefore be recovered in the order given above. The wording is recorded as it stands; this edition does not add punctuation.

First Approach: Viewed through Phrase-Meaning

Question: How is it viewed through phrase-meaning?

Answer: the eye means seeing; form, manifestation. The ear means hearing; sound, resonance. The nose means smelling; odor, fragrance. The tongue means tasting; taste has flavor as its meaning. The body means right sustaining; touch, that which can be touched. Mind means knowing; Dhamma, lifelessness.

“Base” means the door of immaterial qualities, a locus, and sustaining.

Thus, viewed through phrase-meaning, it can be known.

The question concerns the phrase-meanings of the twelve sense bases, yet after the twelve items the answer adds one more—the meaning of the word “base” itself. Nor does this additional item receive only one meaning; it receives three in succession. The wording is recorded as it stands and is not cut away.

Second Approach: Viewed through Domain

Question: How is it viewed through domain?

Answer: the eye and ear do not reach their domains; the nose, tongue, and body reach their domains; the mind has both kinds of domain.

Another account says: the ear reaches its domain. Why? Because only a nearby obstruction prevents sound from being heard, as stated concerning spells.

Another account says: the eye reaches its own domain. Why? Because it cannot see beyond a wall.

Thus, viewed through domain, it can be known.

The answer first establishes one judgment—the eye and ear do not reach their domains. It then immediately introduces two alternative accounts: one says the ear reaches its domain, and the other says the eye reaches its domain, each tied to a “why?” and a reason. The two alternatives take back, one by one, precisely the two faculties excluded by the answer. The treatise adjudicates neither account and proceeds directly to the closing formula. The wording is recorded as it stands.

Third Approach: Viewed through Conditions

Question: How is it viewed through conditions?

Answer: conditioned by the eye, form, light, and attention, eye-consciousness arises.

In this matter, the eye serves as a condition for eye-consciousness in four ways: first arising, support, faculty, and presence.

Form serves as a condition in three ways: first arising, object, and presence.

Light serves as a condition in three ways: first arising, support, and presence.

Attention serves as a condition in two ways: immediacy and nonpresence.

For all four items, the names of the conditions run straight into the next subject, without separators between them. The treatise reports its own number for each item—four, three, three, and two—and the run-on names are exactly as many in each case, so they can be recovered in the order shown above. The wording is recorded as it stands; this edition does not add punctuation.

Conditioned by the ear, sound, space, and attention, ear-consciousness can arise—using this distinction, the rest should be distinguished accordingly.

Conditioned by the nose, odor, wind, and attention, nose-consciousness can arise.

Conditioned by the tongue, taste, water, and attention, tongue-consciousness can arise.

Conditioned by the body, touch, and attention, body-consciousness can arise.

Conditioned by the mind, Dhamma, release, and attention, mind-consciousness can arise.

Four Kinds of Dhamma-Object

In this matter, mind is the later-phase mind, and Dhamma is the Dhamma-object. This is of four kinds:

The first kind is the six internal sense bases in the past, present, and future.

The second kind is the five external sense bases in the past, future, and present, excluding what is not a faculty-base.

The third kind is the Dhamma base.

The fourth kind is eleven conventional names—namely, beings, direction-and-time, offense, ascetic practice, all signs, nothingness, entry into concentration, cessation, jhāna, true reflection, and untrue reflection.

This is called the Dhamma-object.

Among the four kinds, the first gives the order “past, present, future,” while the second gives “past, future, present”; the order is not the same in the two places. The first and third kinds also lack the word “is” before them, while the second and fourth include it. The wording is recorded as it stands and is not made uniform.

Conditions for Mind-Consciousness

Collected mind is the mind’s following “brightness.” Attention is the turning at the mind door. Mind-consciousness is rapid mind.

In this matter, mind serves as a condition for mind-consciousness through the support condition; Dhamma through the object condition; release through the support condition; and attention through two conditions—immediacy condition and presence condition.

Thus, viewed through conditions, it can be known.

The two conditions for attention are earlier written as “immediacy and nonpresence,” but here as “immediacy condition and presence condition.” The wording differs in the two places: the earlier passage has “non-,” while this passage does not. The wording is recorded as it stands and is not corrected.

---

Shi Huijing · Waken · The Path of Freedom · Phrase-Meaning, Domain, and Conditions of the Twelve Sense Bases · Vernacular · Summer 2026

After the method concerning the aggregates closes its door, the second door opens.

State the central observation first: in this passage, the treatise first lays down its own judgment and then introduces two different accounts; those two accounts restore, one by one, the two faculties it has just excluded—first the ear, then the eye. Both give reasons, and the treatise adjudicates neither.

The domain approach first establishes a judgment, then cites two alternative accounts in succession, each withdrawing the exclusion of one faculty. The treatise decides neither account and proceeds directly to its closing formula.

First Establish the Twelve Sense Bases

The opening list reads: “Answer: the twelve bases, eye base form base, ear base sound” 〔T32 448c25〕 “base, nose base odor base, tongue base taste base, body base touch base, mind base Dhamma” 〔T32 448c26〕 base.

The twelve names are arranged in six pairs—no comma is inserted within a pair; commas appear only between pairs. The pattern of internal and external correspondence is already visible in the punctuation of the list.

The five faculty bases use the same formula five times: “base. Here, as for the eye base, it is purity of the element, by means of which form is seen. As for the form base,” 〔T32 448c27〕. Ear, nose, tongue, and body follow the same form, and at “domain. As for the body base, it is purity of the element, by means of which smooth and rough are touched. As for the touch base,” 〔T32 449a03〕 not one character has changed. The four-character formula “is purity of the element” occurs only five times in the entire treatise, all five here.

The five object bases are less uniform. The sound, taste, and touch bases all begin “is the element,” whereas the form base reads “the element’s visible shape and pattern is the eye’s domain” 〔T32 448c28〕, and the odor base reads “purity, by means of which odor is smelled. As for the odor base, elemental odor, the nose’s domain. Tongue base” 〔T32 449a01〕—these two lack one occurrence of “is.” They are recorded as they stand and are not made uniform.

The mind base is “base is the seven consciousness elements. The Dhamma base is the three immaterial aggregates and eighteen” 〔T32 449a05〕 “subtle forms and Nibbāna” 〔T32 449a06〕. That seven is precisely the “these seven consciousnesses” of the consciousness-aggregate section 〔T32 448a26〕 and the aggregate method’s “the consciousness aggregate is included in seven elements” 〔T32 448c11–12〕. The same seven appears once in each of three sections, without any of them explaining the others.

Reading Practice: When a Number Is Announced, Count the Run-On Names

The reading practice given by this passage is one of the most useful tools for continuing through this chapter.

The general heading says: “It can be known as distinguished in five ways. Thus by phrase-meaning, by domain by condition, by” 〔T32 449a07〕 “the arising of the interposed superior mind, and by inclusion” 〔T32 449a08〕.

It announces five ways, yet the punctuation on the page divides only four groups—there is no break between “by domain” and “by condition.” The number announced by the treatise itself is the evidence for restoring the division: phrase-meaning, domain, condition, arising of the interposed superior mind, and inclusion make exactly five. The questions that follow also take up precisely these five in order.

The same tool becomes especially useful in the approach by conditions.

Its answer reads: “attention gives rise to eye-consciousness. Here the eye becomes a condition for eye-consciousness through four conditions” 〔T32 449a18〕. “First-arising, support, faculty, and presence. Form becomes a condition through three conditions: first-arising, object, and” 〔T32 449a19〕 “presence. Light becomes a condition through three conditions: first-arising, support, and presence. Attention becomes a condition through” 〔T32 449a20〕 “two conditions: immediacy and nonpresence” 〔T32 449a21〕.

At first sight, this is a run of words whose divisions cannot be seen. Yet every sentence announces its own number—four, three, three, two. Divide the names according to those numbers:

For the eye as a condition of eye-consciousness, four conditions: first-arising, support, faculty, and presence.

For form, three conditions: first-arising, object, and presence.

For light, three conditions: first-arising, support, and presence.

For attention, two conditions: immediacy and nonpresence.

Four numbers, four groups of names, with neither one too many nor one too few. This is not a guess—the numbers announced by the treatise itself compel the division.

More strikingly, at the end of the same passage the treatise writes the same kind of material again, now as a divided list: “mind becomes a condition for mind-consciousness through support; Dhamma becomes a condition through the object; release” 〔T32 449b03〕 “becomes a condition through support; attention becomes a condition through two conditions: immediacy” 〔T32 449b04〕 “condition and presence. Thus it can be known by conditions” 〔T32 449b05〕.

Within the same passage, run-on writing and divided listing appear side by side. The earlier part runs the names together; the later part separates each item with semicolons and directly names the final item’s two conditions. If the reader first reads the latter half, the earlier cluster is no longer difficult.

(There is, however, one discrepancy that should be retained: the two conditions of attention are earlier given as “immediacy and nonpresence” 〔T32 449a21〕, but later as “immediacy-condition and presence” 〔T32 449b04–449b05〕—the earlier passage contains “non,” while the later one does not. This edition records both and does not correct either.)

The tool has now been stated. When a number is announced, first count whether the names written together agree with it. This chapter has used run-on writing from its first unit through this point, and the tool applies at every such place.

Along the Way, Notice Something Hard to See Elsewhere: The Third Condition of the Five Consciousnesses

Once the passage has been divided, something visible only through that division comes into view.

The conditions of the five consciousnesses are arranged one consciousness per sentence. The eye is conditioned by form and light; then “becomes a condition through two conditions: immediacy and nonpresence. Conditioned by ear, sound, and space, attention enables” 〔T32 449a21〕 ear-consciousness to arise—the ear has sound and space. “Ear-consciousness arises; distinguish the rest by this distinction. Conditioned by nose, odor, wind, and attention,” 〔T32 449a22〕 nose-consciousness arises—the nose has odor and wind. The tongue has taste and water. The sentence for body-consciousness, however, is “conditioned by body and touch,” and nothing third follows it.

That is, the eye has light, the ear space, the nose wind, and the tongue water: each of four faculties has a third condition standing between faculty and object, while the body alone has none.

The treatise does not explain this. What can be checked is only the distribution: four have one, and one does not. It also accords with the preceding approach’s judgment—the preceding approach says that eye and ear do not reach their domains, while nose, tongue, and body do; since the body reaches its domain, it does not require that mediating thing. The two approaches speak in their own terms, yet their divisions illuminate one another. This edition records only that verifiable correspondence and does not formulate another position on the treatise’s behalf.

One further abbreviation should be retained. After the sentence on ear-consciousness, the treatise immediately says, “distinguish the rest by this distinction” 〔T32 449a22〕—one sentence omits the full explanation of the remaining consciousnesses, after which each receives a brief sentence. What requires detail is detailed once; the remainder is inferred from the pattern. This too is characteristic of the treatise’s manner of writing.

Turn: Two Alternative Accounts Restore One Faculty Each

Now return to the central observation.

The answer under the domain approach is brief: “It can be known by phrase-meaning. Question: How by domain? Answer: eye and ear do not reach the domain,” 〔T32 449a13〕 “nose, tongue, and body reach the domain; mind has both kinds of domain” 〔T32 449a14〕.

A threefold division is established: eye and ear do not reach the domain; nose, tongue, and body reach it; mind has both.

Following the pattern used throughout this book, a closing formula should come next. It does not.

Instead the text continues: “nose, tongue, and body reach the domain; mind has both kinds of domain. Further, some say: the ear reaches its domain” 〔T32 449a14〕. “Why? Only when there is a nearby obstruction is sound not heard, as stated regarding spells. Further, it is said that the eye” 〔T32 449a15〕 “reaches the domain with respect to its own domain. Why? One does not see beyond a wall. Thus” 〔T32 449a16〕.

Some further say: the ear reaches its domain. The reason is that sound is not heard only when a nearby obstruction intervenes, as stated regarding spells.

It is further said: the eye reaches the domain within its own domain. The reason is that one does not see beyond a wall.

Observe the distribution of these two accounts. The answer excludes the eye and ear, while one alternative restores the ear and the other restores the eye—an exact one-for-one correspondence, with neither more nor less.

The treatise’s handling of these two accounts is not to handle them further. It gives their reasons, offers no decision, and immediately closes: thus it can be known by domain.

This deserves a pause. It is not stating a settled conclusion; it is handing over an unsettled point intact. This edition records it without adjudicating it and does not infer from it which position the author of the treatise held.

One formal detail should also be retained. These two alternatives can be recognized as reasons through a single marker—“why?” The expression occurs only twice in this passage 〔T32 449a15·449a16〕, and both occurrences immediately follow an alternative account. When “why?” appears, what follows is a reason, not a new claim. Once claim and reason are read separately, the section becomes clear.

Pause: The Twelve Names Each Receive One Meaning, but the Collective Name Receives Three

The first approach is phrase-meaning. Each of the twelve bases receives one meaning: “Answer: eye means seeing” 〔T32 449a08〕 “; form means manifestation; ear means hearing; sound means resonance; nose means” 〔T32 449a09〕 smelling … the sequence continues until “body means right sustaining; touch means touchability; mind means knowing; Dhamma means life-” 〔T32 449a11〕 lessness. Twelve items, twelve meanings, one meaning for each item.

Then an additional item appears: “lessness as its meaning. Base means a door for immaterial qualities, a locus, and sustaining. Thus by” 〔T32 449a12〕.

The word “base” itself is also explained—and it is given three meanings in succession.

The preceding section did the same thing. After asking about the phrase-meanings of the five aggregates, it added at the end that “aggregate means a gathering of kinds” 〔T32 448b28〕. In two consecutive sections of this chapter, the treatise finishes listing the individual names and then returns to explain the collective name.

There is, however, one difference. The preceding section adds only one meaning for “aggregate,” while this section adds three for “base.” Each of the twelve individual names receives only one meaning, but the collective name receives three.

Pause and ask: why?

This passage cannot answer. Only these facts can be checked: the twelve items each receive one meaning; the final item receives three; and “door for immaterial qualities,” “sustaining,” and “right sustaining” each occurs only once in the entire treatise 〔T32 449a12·449a12·449a11〕. This edition records them without deleting anything and does not supply an explanation.

Four Kinds of Dhamma-Object, and One Count That Matches

The latter half of the conditions approach suddenly turns to the “Dhamma-object”: “Here, mind is the later-phase mind; Dhamma is the Dhamma-object. This forms four kinds” 〔T32 449a25〕.

The four kinds are: “the six internal bases—past, present, future—the first kind; the five external bases—past” 〔T32 449a26〕 “future, present—excluding what is not a faculty-base, is the second kind; the Dhamma base, the third” 〔T32 449a27〕 kind. The fourth is “kind. Eleven kinds of conventional naming, namely beings, direction and time, offenses, and ascetic practice” 〔T32 449a28〕 among its eleven items.

Two small irregularities should be retained. First, the first kind says “past, present, future,” while the second says “past, future, present”—the same three times appear in different orders. Second, the source does not place “is” before the first and third kinds, but does before the second and fourth. They are recorded without being made uniform.

The fourth kind’s eleven items are the only place in this passage where the announced number and the punctuation agree completely: beings, direction and time, offense, ascetic practice, all signs, nothingness, entry into concentration, cessation, jhāna, true reflection, and untrue reflection—counting them one by one gives exactly eleven.

Compare this with the general heading’s “by domain by condition” and with the four groups of condition-names. Within the same passage, some numbers agree with the punctuation and some do not. A number’s agreement is therefore not something to assume; it must be checked each time. This is precisely why the preceding reading practice is necessary.

One further word deserves notice. The fourth kind is called “conventional naming” 〔T32 449a28〕; the final sentence in the preceding section’s fourfold account of aggregates and truths says, “Inclusion is also included in truth. What is conventionally named is included neither in the aggregates nor in truth” 〔T32 448c22〕. The same word for conventional naming occurs once in each of two consecutive sections, and the treatise does not refer either place to the other. This edition records the two and does not reconcile them.

---

Carry away three things. One observation—after the domain approach establishes its judgment, it cites two alternative accounts in succession; each restores one of the faculties excluded by the answer, first the ear and then the eye, and each is joined to a reason marked by “why?” The treatise adjudicates neither 〔T32 449a14–449a16〕 and immediately gives its closing formula. One reading practice—when a number is announced, first count whether the names written together agree with it: the general heading announces five ways while its punctuation divides only four groups 〔T32 449a07〕; the conditions approach announces four, three, three, and two, and the run-on names agree with each number 〔T32 449a18–449a21〕; later in the same passage the corresponding condition-names appear again in divided form 〔T32 449b03–449b05〕, allowing the earlier cluster to be checked against the latter half. One place to pause—the twelve bases each receive only one meaning, while the final word “base” itself receives three in succession 〔T32 449a12〕; the preceding word “aggregate” receives only one. Why does the same method yield different quantities? This edition records the difference without explaining it.

Three smaller matters should also be retained: the formula “is purity of the element” occurs five times for the five faculty bases and nowhere else in the treatise; among the five object bases, the form and odor bases lack one occurrence of “is”; and among the four kinds of Dhamma-object, the first gives the order “past, present, future,” while the second gives “past, future, present.”

---

Shi Huijing · Waken · The Path of Freedom · Phrase-Meaning, Domain, and Conditions of the Twelve Sense Bases · Exposition · Summer 2026