解脫道論 義疏通講 · 冊4

Among the twelve chapters of the Path of Freedom, this is the only one that opens by setting out everything an entire chapter will discuss as a series of questions.

“Question: What is concentration? What is its characteristic? What is its function? What is its arising? What is its basis? Who receives jhāna?” 〔T32 406c22–23〕. It continues, “What is the difference among liberation, concentration, and attainment? How many causes of concentration can be seen, through which concentration arises? How many dhammas obstruct concentration? How many benefits does concentration have? How many requisites does concentration have? How many kinds of concentration are there? How is concentration caused to arise?” 〔T32 406c23–25〕.

Thirteen question marks in one breath.

The central observation may be stated at the outset: these thirteen questions are the table of contents of the Chapter on the Analysis of Concentration. When the author answers them, the first seven proceed in order, the middle three are answered in reverse, and the final question receives no answer through the end of the chapter. These three misalignments between table of contents and body are where this passage most deserves to be read slowly.

The Opening: “At This Point” Connects to the Chapter on Ascetic Practices

The first sentence of the passage is: “Question: At this point, what should a person practising seated meditation—purified in virtue, having practised the undertaking of the ascetic practices, and having accomplished the most excellent wholesome place—do? Answer: Cause concentration to arise” 〔T32 406c21–22〕.

“At this point” is not empty wording. “Undertaking of the ascetic practices” occurs six times in the whole treatise. The first five are all in the final section of the preceding Chapter on Ascetic Practices (406c03·406c13·406c14·406c15·406c16), and the sixth is this sentence. The preceding chapter has just finished explaining the thirteen ascetic practices and has just reached “What are the beginning, middle, and end? Undertaking is the beginning, practice the middle, and joy the end” 〔T32 406c18–19〕. This passage immediately asks: then what should this person do next?

The answer has only three characters in Chinese: “Cause concentration to arise” 〔T32 406c22〕.

The question is “What should one do?” 〔T32 406c22〕—it asks about action. The answer, “Cause concentration to arise,” speaks of arising. The entire chapter unfolds from this one sentence: it first asks what this person should do and answers “Cause concentration to arise”; what “concentration” is must therefore be explained. This is how the thirteen questions are compelled to follow.

Thirteen Questions: A Table of Contents Without Numbers

The thirteen questions follow without an idle sentence among them. Numbered, they are: 1, what is concentration; 2, what is its characteristic; 3, what is its function; 4, what is its arising; 5, what is its basis; 6, who receives jhāna; 7, what is the difference among liberation, concentration, and attainment; 8, how many causes of concentration can be seen, through which concentration arises; 9, how many dhammas obstruct concentration; 10, how many benefits does concentration have; 11, how many requisites does concentration have; 12, how many kinds of concentration are there; 13, how is concentration caused to arise.

The author does not number them or say “the following thirteen matters.” He simply sets out the questions and then proceeds through the answers. Unless readers number them for themselves, they will not discover the three misalignments that follow.

What Is Concentration?—Stated Three Times in One Section

The author gives three accounts in answering the first question.

The first is the author’s own statement: “Answer: Concentration is a purified mind, single-minded energy, and equality with the quality of tranquility, truly abiding without distraction—this is called concentration” 〔T32 406c25–27〕.

The second is likewise the author’s own statement, but takes another path. Instead of speaking from the mind’s condition, it speaks from an external force: “Again, the fierce wind of defilements does not overturn one’s thought, like a lamp in a hall whose flame remains unmoving” 〔T32 406c27–28〕. Defilements are the wind and thought is the lamp; the unmoving that the wind cannot move is concentration.

The third is a citation: “As the Abhidhamma says: when the mind abides rightly, without anything to grasp, it is neither moved nor disturbed; it is tranquil and unattached; it is right concentration, the faculty of concentration, and the power of concentration—this is called concentration” 〔T32 406c28–407a01〕.

The three accounts stand together, while their closing formulas have two forms. The first two close with one form of “this is called concentration” 〔T32 406c27〕, and the third closes with a second form 〔T32 406c29–407a01〕. The author’s own statements and the cited statement differ even in their closing phrases.

One further point: “faculty of concentration” and “power of concentration” each occur four times in the whole treatise, but they occur together only here. The author places faculty and power together within the definition of concentration and never again states them together in this way.

Characteristic, Function, Arising, and Basis: Four Questions, Four Answers

The second through fifth questions are answered together: “What is its characteristic? What is its function? What is its arising? What is its basis? Abiding of mind is its characteristic, subduing the adversary is its function, tranquility is its arising, and being unattached amid defilement with the mind liberated is called its basis” 〔T32 407a01–03〕.

Four questions receive four answers. In Chinese, the first three answers each have only three characters—“abiding of mind is its characteristic; subduing the adversary is its function; tranquility is its arising” 〔T32 407a01–02〕. Only the fourth answer has ten characters—“being unattached amid defilement with the mind liberated is called its basis” 〔T32 407a02–03〕.

Three short and one long. The author does not say why, and this edition does not say on the author’s behalf. Only this can be verified: among the four items, only the answer on “basis” is long.

Who Receives Concentration? Four Matters, Five Comparisons, and Two Comparisons for the First Matter

The heading of the answer to the sixth question already differs from the question. The question has “Who receives jhāna?” 〔T32 406c23〕, while the answer has “Who receives concentration?” 〔T32 407a03〕—a difference of one word, with each expression occurring once in the whole treatise.

The answer is “It is a person who receives equality of mental factors, equality of preparatory concentration, and so forth” 〔T32 407a03〕. Five comparisons then follow in sequence: “like holding a balance in one’s hand and making the mind and mental factors equal; like oil in a bowl” 〔T32 407a03–04〕; “mindfulness and energy acting equally make concentration, just as four horses pull a cart with equal strength” 〔T32 407a04–05〕; “reflection acting equally makes concentration, like an arrow-maker concentrating and straightening an arrow” 〔T32 407a05–06〕; and “because it removes the adversary, like medicine removing poison” 〔T32 407a06〕.

The arrangement deserves to be seen clearly: four matters and five comparisons—the first matter, “making the mind and mental factors equal” 〔T32 407a04〕, alone receives two comparisons, the balance and the bowl of oil; each of the other three receives one. Holding a balance speaks of its two ends corresponding; oil in a bowl speaks of fullness without overflow. For the same “equality,” the author gives two different images.

At the end of this section another citation appears: “As Abhidhamma says: gathering in is a meaning of concentration; following is a meaning of concentration; fullness is a meaning of concentration” 〔T32 407a06–07〕. The phrase “is a meaning of concentration” occurs only three times in the whole treatise, all in this single sentence—gathering in, following, and fullness are stated together, and the author does not explain their distinction.

One more matter should be retained. The earlier citation reads “as the Abhidhamma says” 〔T32 406c28〕, while this one reads “as Abhidhamma says” 〔T32 407a06–07〕. The same work is named in two forms, ten lines apart. They are recorded without being made uniform.

Three Use “And So Forth”; One Does Not

The answer to the seventh question explains four names: “Jhāna means the four jhānas, namely the first jhāna and so forth. Liberation means the eight liberations, beginning with perceiving form internally and observing form externally, and so forth. Concentration means the three concentrations, beginning with concentration with applied and sustained thought, and so forth. Attainment means the nine successive attainments” 〔T32 407a07–10〕.

Of the four names, the first three close with “and so forth”—“the first jhāna and so forth” 〔T32 407a08〕, “perceiving form internally and observing form externally, and so forth” 〔T32 407a08–09〕, and “with applied and sustained thought, and so forth” 〔T32 407a09〕. The fourth does not use “and so forth”; it reads “the nine successive attainments” 〔T32 407a10〕.

The question lists only three names—liberation, concentration, and attainment—while the answer explains four—jhāna, liberation, concentration, and attainment. The additional word “jhāna” is the same word found in the preceding question “Who receives jhāna?” Under the Taishō punctuation, “jhāna” belongs to the preceding question; according to what the answer explains, “jhāna” belongs to this question. The text itself does not divide it, and this edition does not divide it on the text’s behalf.

In addition, “three concentrations” occurs only here in the whole treatise 〔T32 407a09〕. The author says “with applied and sustained thought, and so forth” without listing the three—those three items are opened only later in this chapter (407b16–18). Within one chapter, the text first carries them with “and so forth” and later opens them one by one. This is a method the treatise uses repeatedly.

Nine “Because” Statements

After answering the seventh question, the author adds another: “Why is it called jhāna? Because of reflecting on matters, because of reflecting on adversaries, because of the mind’s joy and pleasure, because of liberation through separation from hindrances, because of causing equality, because of the means that arouse concentration, because of attaining mastery, because of not abiding in attainment according to one meaning, and because of delighting in arousing concentration” 〔T32 407a10–13〕.

Nine items, every item closing with “because”: nine items and nine “because” statements, without a second closing form among them. This is the most regular list in the passage.

Four Benefits: Two Statements of the Buddha for One Benefit, and One for Each of the Others

The answer to the tenth question is the longest section of the passage: “As for liberation and attainment, how many benefits cause concentration to arise? Four benefits are seen to cause concentration to arise” 〔T32 407a13–14〕; “What are the four? Pleasant abiding in the presently seen Dhamma, pleasure in contemplating matters, direct realization of supernormal knowledge, and fullness of being” 〔T32 407a14–15〕.

The four benefits are opened one by one, and each has a statement of the Buddha attached as evidence.

The first benefit asks, “What is pleasant abiding in the presently seen Dhamma? A person who has attained concentration can give rise to what is without influxes; the mind gives rise to a delightful savor and experiences supramundane pleasure—this is pleasant abiding in the presently seen Dhamma” 〔T32 407a15–17〕. Two statements are attached: “Therefore the Blessed One said: this body of his gives rise to joy from tranquility, causing him to gain coolness, gradually reach fullness, and become fully accomplished, and so forth” 〔T32 407a17–18〕; and “As the Buddha told a monk: when I formerly was 尼乾, for seven days and seven nights my body did not move, my mouth uttered no words, and I remained upright and silent, experiencing only pleasure. This is called pleasant abiding in the presently seen Dhamma within the noble Dhamma” 〔T32 407a19–21〕.

The second benefit, “pleasure in contemplating matters, means that a person practising seated meditation who has attained concentration of mind has no covering or entanglement in the matter, is pliant and capable of sustaining, contemplates and sees the aggregates, sense bases, elements, and so forth, and is intrinsically at ease” 〔T32 407a21–23〕. It is linked to “Therefore the Blessed One instructed the monks to practise: all such things are known by the mind in accordance with reality” 〔T32 407a23–24〕.

The third benefit, “direct realization of supernormal knowledge, means that a person who has attained concentration realizes the five direct knowledges in dependence upon it: supernormal power, the divine ear, knowing others’ minds, recollection of past lives, and the divine eye” 〔T32 407a24–26〕. It is linked to “Therefore the Blessed One said: having attained concentration of mind, one transforms it as appropriate, causing all such things to be gained according to one’s will” 〔T32 407a26–27〕.

The fourth benefit reads, “Fullness of being means that a person who has attained concentration but has not yet reached the adept is ultimately kept from regression. Through concentration that person gains a result and obtains fullness of being in the form and formless realms” 〔T32 407a27–28〕. It is linked to “As the Buddha said: through a little cultivation of the first jhāna, one gains the retinue of Brahmā; all of that kind are born there” 〔T32 407a28–407b01〕.

The four benefits are linked to five statements of the Buddha in four introductory forms: “therefore the Blessed One said,” with two occurrences in this section; “as the Buddha told a monk”; “therefore the Blessed One instructed the monks”; and “as the Buddha said.” Of these, “as the Buddha told a monk” and “therefore the Blessed One instructed the monks” each occur only once in the whole treatise.

The distribution deserves still more attention: from “Concentration is a purified mind” 〔T32 406c25–26〕 to the end of the passage, every introduced statement of the Buddha is in this section, with none anywhere else. The definition of concentration cites no words of the Buddha; neither do characteristic, function, arising, and basis, who receives concentration, the obstructing dhammas, the causes of concentration, or the requisites—only when the passage speaks of benefits does every item require the words of the Buddha as its warrant.

The statement about 尼乾 also deserves a pause: “When I formerly was 尼乾” 〔T32 407a19〕. The name occurs only once in the whole treatise. The author neither explains it nor identifies its scripture, using it only as an example of “experiencing only pleasure.” It is retained without an identification.

The section closes with “In this way, all these four benefits can give rise to that concentration, and each should be aroused” 〔T32 407b01–02〕.

Three Questions Answered in Reverse

At this point the order becomes disarranged—or, rather, the author deliberately changes the order.

The order in the questions is: 8, how many causes of concentration can be seen 〔T32 406c23–24〕; 9, how many dhammas obstruct concentration 〔T32 406c24〕; 10, how many benefits does concentration have 〔T32 406c24–25〕.

The order in the answer is: first the benefits 〔T32 407a13〕; then the obstructing dhammas—“How many obstructions to concentration are there? There are eight dhammas: desire for desire, ill will, indolence, sleep, agitation-play, doubt, ignorance, and absence of joy and pleasure. All unwholesome dhammas are obstructing dhammas” 〔T32 407b02–04〕; and last the causes of concentration—“How many causes of concentration are there? There are eight dhammas. These causes are renunciation and non-anger, a clear sign and non-distraction. All wholesome dhammas gladden the mind and can give rise to knowledge of dhammas—these are causes of concentration” 〔T32 407b04–06〕.

Questions eight, nine, and ten are answered as ten, nine, and eight—precisely reversed. The first seven questions remain perfectly ordered; these three are reversed in full; and the eleventh then returns to the original sequence: “How many requisites does concentration have? There are seven kinds of virtue” 〔T32 407b06〕.

The author does not say why. Only one thing can be verified: after the reversal, the three sections on benefits, obstructing dhammas, and causes of concentration form a sequence that moves from result back to cause—first what is good about attaining concentration, then what blocks it, and finally what gives rise to it; only after that does the text state which requisites must be prepared. Read in the order of the questions, it is cause, obstruction, result; read in the order of the answer, it is result, obstruction, cause. Both sequences work; the author chooses the latter.

Pause: Five Stated Numbers, Three Agreements and Two Disagreements, Both at the End

The passage has five places where a number is stated. Count them one by one:

“What are the four? Pleasant abiding in the presently seen Dhamma, pleasure in contemplating matters, direct realization of supernormal knowledge, and fullness of being” 〔T32 407a14–15〕—four stated, four listed: agreement.

Beneath “Why is it called jhāna?” 〔T32 407a10〕 are nine items—nine stated through nine closing “because” statements, nine listed: agreement.

“How many obstructions to concentration are there? There are eight dhammas” 〔T32 407b02〕—eight stated; “desire for desire, ill will, indolence, sleep, agitation-play, doubt, ignorance, and absence of joy and pleasure” 〔T32 407b02–03〕 lists eight: agreement.

“How many causes of concentration are there? There are eight dhammas” 〔T32 407b04〕—eight stated. Under the base punctuation, what follows forms four groups. Divided name by name, it gives renunciation, non-anger, clear sign, non-distraction, all wholesome dhammas, gladdening the mind, and giving rise to knowledge of dhammas: seven items. Neither way of counting reaches eight.

“How many requisites does concentration have? There are seven kinds of virtue” 〔T32 407b06〕—seven stated. What follows has six items separated by enumeration commas: contentment with requisites, guarding the doors of the faculties, moderation in food, not sleeping during the early, middle, and late watches of the night, constant mindfulness and wisdom, and a quiet dwelling. Six are listed.

Of the five places, three agree and two do not; both disagreements occur within these final three sections.

This is a place to pause and ask: why precisely these two?

The passage cannot answer “why.” Only one thing can be verified, and it is small: both deficits are exactly one.

At “seven kinds of virtue,” if “virtue” is detached from the phrase and the passage is read as seven kinds—virtue, contentment with requisites, guarding the doors of the faculties, moderation in food, not sleeping during the early, middle, and late watches of the night, constant mindfulness and wisdom, and a quiet dwelling—there are exactly seven. The two readings differ only in whether the word “virtue” belongs above or below.

The passage on “eight dhammas” is likewise short by one item, while the text itself does not name the items one by one; even the number of groups depends on punctuation.

The author does not say, and this edition neither imposes a division nor supplies an item. It places only what can be verified side by side: the passage states numbers in five places; three can be counted clearly and two cannot; the two unclear counts are at the end, and each has a deficit of one.

The Missing Question

Of the thirteen questions, the answer to the twelfth, “How many kinds of concentration are there?” 〔T32 406c25〕, begins at the opening of the next passage—“As for how many kinds of concentration there are.” That is the work of the other four units in this chapter.

The thirteenth, “How is concentration caused to arise?” 〔T32 406c25〕, receives no answer under that heading anywhere from beginning to end of this chapter. The expression occurs only once in the whole treatise.

The chapter closes with “all concentrations enter into the four concentrations”—the kinds of concentration have been distinguished, but the method of arousing concentration has not been stated.

One more thing can be verified. “What makes concentration arise?” likewise occurs only once in the whole treatise, at the opening of the next chapter: “Question: At this point, what makes concentration arise? Answer: If a person beginning seated meditation wishes to bring meditative concentration into being, that person should seek a superior good friend” 〔T32 408a29–408b01〕. Each expression occurs once: one in a question in this chapter, the other in a question in the next. The author does not say that they continue one another, and this edition does not join them.

Reading Practice: When a General Question Appears, Number Its Items and Mark Their Places in the Answer

The reading practice offered by this passage lies in the opening observation.

This treatise is cast in questions and answers. Whenever many questions are set out in one breath, do not simply continue reading; stop first and number the questions one by one—with thirteen questions, number through thirteen. Then read the answer, and whenever one question is answered, return and mark its number.

When the marking is complete, look for three things: first, whether the sequence has been disturbed; second, whether the heading in the answer uses the same words as the question; third, whether any number never receives a mark.

Applied to this passage, all three yield something. The sequence reverses at questions eight through ten. The headings and question wording differ in three places: who receives jhāna / who receives concentration; how many requisites does concentration have / how many requisites of concentration are there; how many kinds of concentration are there / as for how many kinds of concentration there are. And the thirteenth question never receives a mark.

This method can be carried into every general question in the treatise. The questions are the table of contents the author himself provides; the answers are the road he himself walks. Where the contents and the road do not agree is where the chapter turns.

---

Take away three things. One observation: this chapter opens with one question listing thirteen items as the outline of the whole chapter. The first seven answers proceed in order; the eighth through tenth are answered in reverse—the question gives cause, obstruction, and benefit, while the answer gives benefit, obstruction, and cause—and the thirteenth, “How is concentration caused to arise?” 〔T32 406c25〕, receives no answer under that heading through the end of the chapter. One reading practice: when a general question appears, number its items first and then mark each one in the answer; look for a changed sequence, nonuniform wording between heading and question, and a number that never receives a mark. One place to pause: the passage states a number five times. The four benefits agree, the nine “because” statements agree, and the eight obstructions agree, while the “eight dhammas” of the causes of concentration list seven and the “seven kinds of virtue” of the requisites list six; both disagreements occur in the final three sections 〔T32 407b04–08〕. Only this can be verified: both deficits are one, and both turn on whether a single word belongs above or below. The author does not say why, and this edition does not impose a division.

Four smaller matters should also be retained: the Abhidhamma is cited twice under two forms—“as the Abhidhamma says” 〔T32 406c28〕 and “as Abhidhamma says” 〔T32 407a06–07〕 stand ten lines apart; the four benefits are linked to five statements of the Buddha in four introductory forms, while “as the Buddha told a monk” 〔T32 407a19〕 and “therefore the Blessed One instructed the monks” 〔T32 407a23〕 each occur once in the whole treatise, and no statement of the Buddha is introduced outside the four benefits; all six comparisons occur in the first two sections, with no simile from “jhāna means the four jhānas” 〔T32 407a07–08〕 onward, while “making the mind and mental factors equal” 〔T32 407a04〕 alone receives two comparisons; and “three concentrations” 〔T32 407a09〕 and “nine successive attainments” 〔T32 407a10〕 each occur once in the whole treatise, with the three items of the former opened only later in this chapter.

---

Shi Huijing · Waken · The Path of Freedom · The General Questions on Concentration, Its Benefits, and Its Requisites · Exposition · Summer 2026

This passage has one hundred and thirty-five characters. It is the shortest section in the Chapter on the Analysis of Concentration and the most structurally bare among the chapter’s sixteen classifications.

Three twofold divisions use the same opening all three times: “How many kinds of concentration are there? Concentration is of two kinds: first, worldly concentration; second, supramundane concentration” 〔T32 407b08–09〕; “Again, concentration is of two kinds: wrong concentration and right concentration” 〔T32 407b12–13〕; and “Again, concentration is of two kinds: outer concentration and absorption concentration” 〔T32 407b14–15〕.

The central observation may be stated at the outset: the three pairs share one form, but each receives fewer words than the pair before it—the first lists nine characteristics for one side and none for the other; the second gives one sentence to each side and uniquely adds a judgment of development and abandonment; the third gives one sentence to each side and adds nothing. Whom the author gives more and whom he gives less is itself part of what the passage says.

The First Pair: Nine Characteristics for the Worldly, One Sentence for the Supramundane

The first pair begins by giving its names: worldly concentration and supramundane concentration. It then divides them by attainment: “Concentration obtained through noble fruition is called world-transcending concentration; the rest is called concentration of the world” 〔T32 407b09–10〕—the criterion of division is “who obtains it,” not “what it is.”

The author then begins to characterize worldly concentration: “It is with influxes, with fetters, and with bonds; it is a stream, a peril, a covering, 戒盜見盜, appropriation, and defilement” 〔T32 407b10–11〕, closing with “this is called worldly concentration” 〔T32 407b11–12〕.

Nine characteristics. Yet their Chinese copula is arranged unevenly: the first three in “it is with influxes, with fetters, and with bonds” 〔T32 407b10〕 share one instance of 是, while each of the following six carries its own. Nine entries have seven occurrences of 是. They are recorded without being regularized.

Within them, 戒盜 occurs nine times in the treatise, across chapters two, eleven, and twelve; 見盜 occurs only here 〔T32 407b11〕. This is also the sole place where the two names occur together. The author does not explain their difference.

After the nine characteristics, what does the passage say of world-transcending concentration? “What is contrary to this is named world-transcending concentration” 〔T32 407b12〕.

Four characters in the Chinese. The author does not list a single characteristic of world-transcending concentration; he says only that it is the opposite of those nine.

The shape of the first pair is therefore: nine entries on one side, none on the other.

The Second Pair: Two Definitions, Plus One Judgment

The second pair changes its criterion of division: “What is wrong concentration? An unwholesome one-pointed mind is called wrong concentration; a wholesome one-pointed mind is called right concentration” 〔T32 407b13–14〕.

It is divided not by who obtains it, but by whether that one-pointed mind is wholesome or unwholesome. Each side receives one sentence, and the forms are perfectly symmetrical—the same “one-pointed mind” is wrong with the addition of “unwholesome” and right with the addition of “wholesome.”

The author then adds a sentence found after neither of the other pairs: “Wrong concentration should be abandoned; right concentration should be developed” 〔T32 407b14〕.

This sentence occurs only once in the entire treatise.

Pause: Why, Among the Three Pairs, Is This the Only One to Add a Judgment of Abandoning and Developing?

This is a place to pause and ask. All three pairs divide concentration in two and are presented as equally important. Why does only the second pair end with “should be abandoned” and “should be developed”?

The answer available within this passage lies in the differing criteria used by the three pairs, and it can be checked:

The criterion of the first pair is “obtained through noble fruition” 〔T32 407b09〕—whether noble fruition has been obtained is not something to abandon or develop; it is an already-accomplished result.

The criteria of the third pair are “the initial portion of each particular concentration” and “immediately after 性除” 〔T32 407b15–16〕—these indicate stages of concentration, an earlier portion and a later portion, and likewise are not things to abandon or develop.

Only the second pair uses “an unwholesome one-pointed mind” and “a wholesome one-pointed mind” as its criterion 〔T32 407b13–14〕. Wholesome and unwholesome are precisely what can be developed and abandoned.

The practical judgment can therefore fall only on the second pair; applied to either of the others, it would have no purchase.

The author does not state this level of meaning. The one verifiable matter is that the three pairs use different criteria. This edition places them side by side and does not formulate a further position on the author’s behalf.

Look a little farther across the chapter: among all sixteen classifications from beginning to end, this alone adds a judgment of development and abandonment after making its division. The other fifteen stop with classification and explanation of names. Classification is classification, and practice is practice; only at this one seam does the chapter let the two touch.

The term “wrong concentration” occurs six times in the treatise—four times in this passage and twice more among the ten wrong factors in chapter twelve 〔T32 460b25–26·460b29〕. There, wrong mindfulness and wrong concentration are said to be “destroyed by the path of the arahant”; this passage says only “should be abandoned” and does not say by what path. It is recorded without supplementation.

The Third Pair: Two Sentences, with Nothing Added

The third pair is the most economical: “The initial portion of each particular concentration is called outer concentration” 〔T32 407b15–16〕, and “Immediately after 性除, this is called absorption concentration” 〔T32 407b16〕.

Two sentences, one for each side. There are no nine entries, no judgment, and not even a question—the second pair at least asks “What is wrong concentration?” 〔T32 407b13〕, while the third does not pose any question at all.

The opening of this pair also has a variant worth recording. The base text reads “again, concentration is of two kinds” 〔T32 407b14–15〕, while the Song, Yuan, Ming, and Gong witnesses read “in this way, there is one kind.” The internal evidence of this passage stands on the side of the base: the second pair opens with “again, concentration is of two kinds: wrong concentration and right concentration” 〔T32 407b12–13〕, verbally identical to the base opening of the third pair; the variant differs from the form of the first two pairs. That internal evidence is recorded, but the readings remain presented without adjudication, and the body follows the base.

The Most Economical Pair Is Instead the One Used Most Later

The six names in the three pairs meet very different fates after this passage.

“Worldly concentration” occurs four times, “concentration of the world” three times, “supramundane concentration” once, and “world-transcending concentration” twice—every occurrence is within this passage, and none of the four names is used again afterward.

“Wrong concentration” has two further occurrences outside this passage, both in chapter twelve.

The term “absorption concentration,” however, occurs fifteen times in the whole treatise—twice in this passage, with all thirteen remaining occurrences in chapter eight (from 414b04 through 417a09). When chapter eight explains the doorways of practice and reaches the difference between jhāna access and absorption, it uses this very name.

Not only the name but also the definition is carried forward. This passage says, “Immediately after 性除, this is called absorption concentration” 〔T32 407b16〕; chapter eight says, “Immediately after 性除, this is named absorption” 〔T32 414b05–06〕. The same definition is stated twice, with only the closing formula changed—“this is called absorption concentration” and “this is named absorption.” The four-character expression 性除無間 occurs only in these two passages.

Chapter eight also changes this passage’s “outer concentration” to “jhāna access” and supplies a sequence of similes: “the mind moves in outer concentration like a boat among waves” 〔T32 414a25–26〕. The present passage contains no simile at all; the similes arrive only in chapter eight.

The arrangement of the three pairs can therefore be seen another way: the pair given the fewest words is the only one in this chapter that continues to be used at length later in the treatise.

Reading Practice: When Reading Classifications, First Measure the Words

The reading practice offered by this passage is simple and can remain useful for a lifetime.

When several classifications follow one another, do not read only what has been divided. First measure how many words each group and each side receives.

When the author repeats the same opening within one passage, that repetition itself says, “these groups stand on the same level.” Yet the words they receive are not level—one side has nine entries and the other none; one pair adds a judgment and two do not. The formula is even, but the weight is not; where they are unequal is where the author asks for attention.

After measuring the words, ask a second question: are these names used again after this passage? The names used many times are those the author will actually put to work; names found only here are established to make the account complete.

Applied to this passage, both questions have answers: the third pair, given the fewest words, is precisely the pair used most later, while the first pair, given the most words, is never used again outside this passage.

---

Take away three things. One observation: the three twofold divisions share one form but decrease in detail: the first lists nine characteristics of worldly concentration and none of world-transcending concentration (“contrary to this” 〔T32 407b12〕); the second gives one sentence to each side and uniquely adds a judgment of development and abandonment (“wrong concentration should be abandoned; right concentration should be developed” 〔T32 407b14〕, occurring once in the treatise); and the third gives one sentence to each side, with no judgment, entries, or question. Yet “absorption concentration,” the name in the pair given the fewest words, occurs fifteen times in the treatise, thirteen of them in chapter eight, making it the only one of the six names used extensively later. One reading practice: when reading classifications, first measure the words: when one opening is repeated but the allocated words are unequal, the inequality is where the author places weight; then ask whether the names are used again after the passage. One place to pause: why does only the second pair add a judgment of development and abandonment? 〔T32 407b14〕 The passage answers through its own criteria: the first pair divides by what is “obtained through noble fruition,” and the third by stages of concentration; neither concerns something to be abandoned or developed. Only the second divides by “an unwholesome one-pointed mind” and “a wholesome one-pointed mind,” and wholesome and unwholesome are what can be developed and abandoned. The author does not state why, and this edition does not formulate a position on the author’s behalf.

Three smaller matters should also be retained: 見盜 occurs once in the whole treatise 〔T32 407b11〕, while 戒盜 occurs nine times, and this is their sole occurrence together. Nine entries have seven occurrences of the copula 是 〔T32 407b10–11〕, because the first three share one; and the variant in the opening of the third pair 〔T32 407b15〕—the base reads “again, concentration is of two kinds,” while four witnesses read “in this way, there is one kind.” The internal evidence of the passage favors the base, but the two readings remain recorded without adjudication.

---

Shi Huijing · Waken · The Path of Freedom · The Two-Fold Divisions of Concentration: Wrong and Right · Exposition · Summer 2026

This passage’s six doorways form the densest passage in the Chapter on the Analysis of Concentration. In four hundred and seventy-three characters, the author changes the count of how many kinds of concentration there are six times.

The central observation may be stated at the outset: in this passage’s fifth doorway, “the four kinds of practice,” the listed order does not agree with the order of the item-by-item expansion below it, while the variant readings in the Song, Yuan, Ming, and Gong witnesses agree exactly with the order of the expansion.

This can be checked character by character, without relying on conjecture. Nor is it the only place in the passage where what comes before and after is uneven—the six doorways follow one another, and nearly every doorway has an irregularity; this is the only irregularity supported by a variant reading.

The First Two Doorways Correlate with Jhānas; the Third with Persons

Three groups of threefold concentration occur in succession.

The first group is divided by applied and sustained thought: “Again, concentration is of three kinds: concentration with applied and sustained thought, concentration without applied thought but with little sustained thought, and concentration without applied or sustained thought” 〔T32 407b16–17〕, and is correlated with jhānas—“What is with applied and sustained thought? The first jhāna has applied and sustained thought, the second jhāna has no applied thought and little sustained thought, and the remaining jhānas have neither applied nor sustained thought” 〔T32 407b17–19〕.

The second group is divided by joy, pleasure, and equanimity: “Again, concentration is of three kinds: concentration arisen together with joy, concentration arisen together with pleasure, and concentration arisen together with equanimity” 〔T32 407b19–20〕, and is also correlated with jhānas—“The first and second jhānas are called arisen together with joy, the third jhāna is called arisen together with pleasure, and the fourth jhāna is called arisen together with equanimity” 〔T32 407b20–21〕.

The third group changes: “Again, concentration is of three kinds: wholesome concentration, resultant concentration, and functional concentration” 〔T32 407b21–22〕. This group is correlated not with jhānas but with persons—“What is wholesome concentration? When the learner on the noble path and the ordinary person cultivate form and formless concentration, this is called wholesome concentration” 〔T32 407b22–23〕; “When the learner in noble fruition and the ordinary person are born in the form and formless realms, this is called resultant concentration” 〔T32 407b23–24〕; “When the adept (one beyond training) receives form and formless concentration, this is called functional concentration” 〔T32 407b24–25〕.

Though all are threefold divisions of concentration, the first two doorways ask, “Which jhāna is this?” while the third asks, “What kind of person is this?” This is recorded without being made uniform.

There is one smaller matter concerning the three names in the second group: “arisen together with joy,” “arisen together with pleasure,” and “arisen together with equanimity” each occur only twice in the whole treatise, and every occurrence is within this passage—once in the list of names and once in the correlation with jhānas. Beyond this passage, none of the three names occurs again anywhere in the treatise.

One Sentence to Remember: Does the Second Jhāna Have Sustained Thought?

The first doorway says, “the second jhāna has no applied thought and little sustained thought” 〔T32 407b18〕.

Later in the same chapter, however, when the fourth doorway of the fourfold divisions of concentration is presented, it reads “accomplished in three factors after leaving applied and sustained thought” 〔T32 408a03–04〕—applied and sustained thought are left together, making the second jhāna without applied or sustained thought.

Within the same chapter, there are two accounts of the second jhāna.

The author does not explain this in a single word in the present passage. Only in the still later fifth unit does the sentence appear, “Because there are results for two persons, the second jhāna is of two kinds: without applied or sustained thought, and without applied thought but with little sustained thought” 〔T32 408a10–11〕.

That sentence is not in the present passage, and this passage does not speak on its behalf. Here only what can be checked is set out: “without applied thought but with little sustained thought” occurs five times in the whole treatise—twice in the present passage, twice later where the five jhānas are presented, and once more in chapter eleven. The present passage establishes the name; only later does another passage come to settle it.

First Doorway of Four-Fold Concentration: One Name, Four Origins

“Again, concentration is of four kinds: desire concentration, form concentration, formless concentration, and 無所受定” 〔T32 407b25–26〕.

As the four names are explained, each is explained in a different way: desire concentration is explained by practice—“The so-called 彼彼行正受行 is called desire concentration” 〔T32 407b26〕; form concentration is explained by jhāna—“The four jhānas are called form concentration” 〔T32 407b26–27〕; formless concentration is explained by concentration together with the result of action—“The four formless concentrations and the result of wholesome action are called formless concentration” 〔T32 407b27〕; 無所受定 is explained by fruition—“The fruits of the four paths are called 無所受定” 〔T32 407b27–28〕.

Within these, the six-character expression 彼彼行正受行 occurs only once in the whole treatise. The author does not explain it, and its punctuation is also doubtful. It is retained according to the characters, without being punctuated on the text’s behalf.

Pause: The List Has “Pleasant–Sharp, Pleasant–Dull,” but the Expansion Has “Pleasant–Dull, Pleasant–Sharp”

The fifth doorway is the longest in this passage and the place most deserving a pause.

The author first lists the names: “Again, concentration has four kinds of practice: painful practice with dull wisdom, painful practice with sharp wisdom, pleasant practice with sharp wisdom, and pleasant practice with dull wisdom” 〔T32 407b28–407c01〕.

According to this list, the order of the four items is: painful–dull, painful–sharp, pleasant–sharp, pleasant–dull.

The author next gives the persons: “These are four persons: first, one of 密煩惱; second, one of 疎煩惱; third, one of sharp faculties; and fourth, one of dull faculties” 〔T32 407c01–02〕.

He then expands them one by one: “Among persons of 密煩惱, one of dull faculties practises painfully and obtains concentration with dull wisdom” 〔T32 407c02–03〕; “one of 密煩惱 and sharp faculties practises painfully and obtains concentration with sharp wisdom” 〔T32 407c03–04〕; “among persons of 疎煩惱, one of dull faculties practises pleasantly and obtains concentration with dull wisdom” 〔T32 407c04〕; “one of 疎煩惱 and sharp faculties practises pleasantly and obtains concentration with sharp wisdom” 〔T32 407c04–05〕.

According to this expansion, the order of the four items is: painful–dull, painful–sharp, pleasant–dull, pleasant–sharp.

In the third and fourth items, the list and the expansion are exactly reversed.

It is worth pausing here to ask: is the list wrong, or is the expansion wrong?

The passage itself gives no answer. What can be checked is another matter, and the evidence is hard: the Taishō has a textual note on both of these characters. For the third item’s 利, the Song, Yuan, Ming, and Gong witnesses read 鈍; for the fourth item’s 鈍, the four witnesses read 利. Taken together, the four witnesses’ list is precisely “pleasant practice with dull wisdom, pleasant practice with sharp wisdom”—in complete agreement with the order of the expansion.

The internal evidence is therefore this: the base text’s list does not agree with its own expansion, while the variant list agrees with the expansion of the base text.

This edition records the internal evidence, still presents both readings without adjudication, and follows the base in the text. This is not a matter the present edition can decide: a textual note records without emending, and however strong the internal evidence, it remains only internal evidence. It is recorded clearly and handed over for human review.

One further point should be retained: the author says “these four persons” 〔T32 407c01〕, but the four items listed are actually two pairs—密煩惱 and 疎煩惱 form one pair, while sharp faculties and dull faculties form the other. The four persons are not counted directly from four items; they are produced by crossing two pairs. The author does not state the method of crossing; he merely sets out the four correlated persons for the reader to see.

This doorway ends by saying, “By this method, all should be distinguished” 〔T32 407c08〕. Among the chapter’s sixteen doorways, only this one tells the reader, once its account is complete, to use this method to infer the rest.

The Sixth Doorway: Four Statements with Two Irregularities

The final doorway is a set of four statements concerning concentration and matter: “Again, concentration is of four kinds: small concentration with a small matter, small concentration with an immeasurable matter, immeasurable concentration with a small matter, and immeasurable concentration with an immeasurable matter” 〔T32 407c08–10〕.

Set out in sequence, the four statements ought to be completely parallel—the concentration half says whether concentration is obtained as the mind wishes, while the matter half says whether energy is small or great. In fact, there are two irregularities:

The first is in the first statement. “What is small concentration with a small matter? Concentration is not obtained as the mind wishes; the concentration has little energy; this is called small concentration with a small matter” 〔T32 407c10–11〕—the matter half reads “the concentration has little energy” 〔T32 407c10–11〕. The remaining three statements all read “that matter”: “that matter has great energy” 〔T32 407c12〕, “that matter has little energy” 〔T32 407c13〕, and “that matter has great energy” 〔T32 407c15〕. Of the four statements, the first does not use “that matter.”

The second is in the fourth statement. The concentration half of the first three reads “concentration is not obtained as the mind wishes” 〔T32 407c10〕, “concentration is not obtained as the mind wishes” 〔T32 407c11–12〕, and “concentration is obtained as the mind wishes” 〔T32 407c13〕; the fourth reads “concentration has already been obtained as the mind wishes” 〔T32 407c14–15〕. It has the additional word “already” (已).

The Taishō textual note falls precisely on the fourth statement: in “that matter, great energy,” four witnesses read 定, “concentration,” for the base text’s 事, “matter.” Each reading corresponds to one of the forms in the other statements of the same set—the base follows “that matter,” agreeing with the second and third statements; the four witnesses follow “concentration,” agreeing with the first. Both readings are recorded without adjudication, and the present text follows the base.

Six Doorways in One Passage, Without a Single Simile

There is one further matter to look back upon after reading the passage: not a single simile occurs in it.

Earlier, in the section defining concentration in 04-01, six similes are crowded into ten lines—a lamp in a hall, a balance held in the hand, oil in a bowl, a cart drawn by four horses, an arrow-maker straightening a shaft, and medicine dispelling poison. In the present passage, six doorways occupy four hundred and seventy-three characters without using a single simile introduced by “like.”

The author uses similes when defining concentration and does not use them when classifying concentration. This passage is pure classification.

How to Read: Copy the List and the Expansion into Two Columns, Then Align Them

The way of reading offered by this passage is the very method used to reach the observation above.

When a passage first lists names and then explains them one by one, do not simply read straight through. Copy the list into one column and the expansion into another, then align them item by item.

After aligning them, examine three things: first, whether the orders agree; second, whether every item is explained in the same way; and third, whether the Taishō has a textual note where they do not agree.

Applied to this passage, all three yield something: the fifth doorway’s order does not agree, the disagreement occurs precisely where there are textual notes, and the variant side agrees with the expansion; the fourth doorway explains its four items in four different ways—by practice, by jhāna, by concentration together with the result of action, and by fruition; the sixth doorway’s four statements have two irregularities, and another textual note falls on one of them.

Where a textual note occurs is often where the text itself is unstable. Align the text yourself before consulting the notes—the order cannot be reversed, or one is using the notes to look for a problem instead of using the problem to confirm the notes.

---

Take away three things. One observation: in the fifth doorway, the third and fourth items of the listed order are reversed in the expanded order (the list is painful–dull, painful–sharp, pleasant–sharp, pleasant–dull 〔T32 407b28–407c01〕, while the expansion is painful–dull, painful–sharp, pleasant–dull, pleasant–sharp 〔T32 407c02–05〕), and the Taishō has textual notes on both of these items, while the listed order in the four witnesses agrees exactly with the expansion. Its internal evidence is recorded, both readings remain presented without adjudication, and the present text follows the base. One way of reading: copy the list into one column and the expansion into another, then align them item by item; see whether the orders agree, whether the modes of explanation are the same, and whether there is a textual note where they do not agree. Align them yourself before consulting the notes, not the other way around. One place to pause: is the list unstable, or is the expansion unstable? The passage itself cannot answer; what can be checked is only the direction of the internal evidence—the base text’s list does not agree with the base text’s expansion, while the variant list agrees with the base text’s expansion. This edition does not decide on the text’s behalf.

Four smaller matters should also be retained: among the three doorways of threefold concentration, the first two correlate with jhānas and the third with persons 〔T32 407b17–25〕; this passage’s “the second jhāna has no applied thought and little sustained thought” 〔T32 407b18〕 and 04-04’s “accomplished in three factors after leaving applied and sustained thought” 〔T32 408a03–04〕 coexist as two accounts in the same chapter, and only in 04-05 are they connected by “because there are results for two persons”; the present passage does not state the reason. The four statements of the sixth doorway have two irregularities—the first reads “the concentration has little energy” 〔T32 407c10–11〕 while the other three read “that matter,” and the fourth reads “concentration has already been obtained as the mind wishes” 〔T32 407c14–15〕 while the other three have no “already.” Across more than four hundred characters and six doorways, similes have no occurrences, in contrast with the six similes in 04-01’s section defining concentration.

---

Shi Huijing · Waken · The Path of Freedom · The Three-Fold and Four-Fold Divisions of Concentration · Exposition · Summer 2026

This passage has three hundred characters and four doorways, each of which divides concentration into four kinds.

The number is uniform. Yet the manner of presentation never repeats.

The observation may be stated at the outset: though all four are four-fold divisions, the first doorway explains for each item what it is obtained in dependence on; the second pairs each statement with names of concentrations; the third alone sets up a question and answer; and the fourth says, for each jhāna, what it leaves and what it accomplishes—four doorways and four forms, with no doorway using the same form as another. Moreover, within each doorway there is one place where its items are not uniform.

The easiest mistake in reading the classificatory passages of this treatise is to look only at the number. The number is the same, but the manner of presentation differs; where the form changes, the author has changed the aspect he wants you to see.

First Doorway: Three Items Say “Cultivated and Obtained in Dependence on …”; One Omits Two Characters

“Again, concentration is of four kinds: desire concentration, energy concentration, mind concentration, and wisdom concentration” 〔T32 407c16〕.

The four explanations read: “As for desire concentration: cultivated and obtained in dependence on desire, this is called desire concentration” 〔T32 407c17〕; “obtained in dependence on energy, called energy concentration” 〔T32 407c17–18〕; “cultivated and obtained in dependence on mind, this is called mind concentration” 〔T32 407c18〕; and “cultivated and obtained in dependence on wisdom, this is called wisdom concentration” 〔T32 407c18–19〕.

Placed together, the difference becomes visible. Among the four items, the second alone omits two characters in succession: the items on desire, mind, and wisdom all use the form “cultivated and obtained in dependence on …,” while the item on energy reads “obtained in dependence on energy,” omitting 修, “cultivated”; the items on desire, mind, and wisdom all close with the form “this is called desire concentration,” “this is called mind concentration,” and “this is called wisdom concentration,” while the item on energy reads “called energy concentration,” omitting 為.

Two omissions in the same item. The author does not say why. They are recorded without supplementation.

There is one further point: among the four items, only the first sets up the heading “as for desire concentration”; the other three begin directly with “in dependence on.”

These four names are listed together at one other place in the treatise, in chapter nine, the Chapter on the Five Direct Knowledges: “This monk cultivates the basis of supernormal power associated with the superior practice of desire concentration; energy concentration, mind concentration, and wisdom concentration are likewise” 〔T32 441c18–19〕. There they are tied to the basis of supernormal power and each is paired with superior practice; the present passage says only what each is obtained in dependence on and does not mention the basis of supernormal power in a single character. This is recorded without supplementation.

Second Doorway: The Names Paired with the Four Statements Number Two, One, Two, One

“Again, concentration is of four kinds: some concentration is obtained by the Buddha but not by disciples” 〔T32 407c19–20〕. After all four statements have been set out, names are paired with them one by one:

The first statement is paired with two concentrations—“the concentration of great compassion and the concentration of twin transformation are obtained by the Buddha, not by disciples” 〔T32 407c22〕. The second statement is paired with one—“learner-fruition concentration is obtained by disciples, not by the Buddha” 〔T32 407c22–23〕. The third statement is paired with two—“the nine successive concentrations and adept-fruition concentration are obtained by both the Buddha and disciples” 〔T32 407c23–24〕. The fourth statement is paired with one—“concentration without perception is obtained by neither the Buddha nor disciples” 〔T32 407c24–25〕.

Two, one, two, one. The four statements are not each paired with one name, nor are they each paired with two. They are recorded without being made uniform on the text’s behalf.

One small matter here is worth remembering: learner-fruition concentration and adept-fruition concentration are separated by one statement yet receive opposite determinations—learner-fruition concentration is obtained by disciples but not by the Buddha, whereas adept-fruition concentration is obtained by both the Buddha and disciples. The two names differ by only one character in Chinese, 無, and stand one statement apart, yet they are placed on opposite sides. The author does not say why.

The names “concentration of great compassion” and “concentration of twin transformation” each occur only twice in the whole treatise. Their other occurrences are in chapter eight, in the passage on cultivating loving-kindness: “When calm is fulfilled, all jhānas, liberations, concentrations, and attainments are fulfilled, and the concentrations of twin transformation and great compassion arise” 〔T32 437a19–20〕, where they are connected with the bodhisattva great being. There the order is “twin transformation and great compassion,” exactly the reverse of the present passage’s “great compassion and twin transformation.” It is recorded without being made uniform on the text’s behalf.

Third Doorway: Of the Four Statements, Only the First Is Posed as a Question

“Again, concentration is of four kinds: some concentration is for arising but not for cessation” 〔T32 407c25〕.

After setting out the four statements, the author suddenly poses a question and answer: “Question: What is for arising but not for cessation? Answer: Wholesome and unwholesome concentration of the desire realm; this is called for arising but not for cessation” 〔T32 407c27–28〕.

The remaining three are stated directly: “concentration of the four noble paths is for cessation but not for arising” 〔T32 407c28–29〕; “wholesome form and formless concentration of learners and ordinary persons is for both arising and cessation” 〔T32 407c29〕; and “all fruition concentration and functional concentration is for neither arising nor cessation” 〔T32 408a01〕.

Throughout this chapter, apart from the opening unit, “Question:” and “Answer:” occur only here and in the passage on the five jhānas. Of the four doorways, only this one takes the form of question and answer; and the statement it asks about, “what is for arising but not for cessation,” is literally the first statement just listed—the whole content of the question is repeated, without a single new character.

The four statements also have four forms of closing: “this is called,” “is,” “also,” and “not.” Four statements with four closing forms are recorded without being made uniform on the text’s behalf.

Fourth Doorway: Listing Names, Stating a Number, Stating a Number, Listing Names

“Again, concentration is of four kinds: the first jhāna, the second jhāna, the third jhāna, and the fourth jhāna” 〔T32 408a01–02〕.

As the four jhānas are presented one by one, the manner of presentation shifts back and forth twice among the four items:

The first jhāna—“leaving the five hindrances and accomplishing applied thought, sustained thought, joy, pleasure, and one-pointedness: this is called the first jhāna” 〔T32 408a02–03〕. Five names are listed, but the number of factors is not stated.

The second and third jhānas—“leaving applied and sustained thought, one accomplishes three factors; leaving joy, one accomplishes two factors” 〔T32 408a03–04〕. The numbers of factors are stated, but not one name is listed.

The fourth jhāna—“leaving pleasure equanimity one-pointedness accomplishing the fourth jhāna” 〔T32 408a04–05〕. It returns to listing names, without stating a number of factors.

Listing names, stating a number, stating a number, listing names. One movement out and one movement back.

Pause Here: Where Does the Fourth Jhāna’s “Equanimity” Come From?

It is worth pausing here to ask.

The five names listed for the first jhāna are applied thought, sustained thought, joy, pleasure, and one-pointedness—“equanimity” is not among them. The second jhāna leaves applied and sustained thought and has three factors; the third leaves joy and has two. Following this subtraction, the fourth jhāna leaves pleasure and ought to have only one-pointedness remaining.

Yet the text reads “equanimity one-pointedness” 〔T32 408a04〕—there is one additional equanimity. The author says only “leaving pleasure”; he does not say “obtaining equanimity,” nor does he say where this equanimity comes from.

The present passage cannot answer this. Two matters can be checked, both within this chapter:

The first occurs in the preceding unit. The second doorway of the three-fold concentrations says: “The first and second jhānas are called arisen together with joy, the third jhāna is called arisen together with pleasure, and the fourth jhāna is called arisen together with equanimity” 〔T32 407b20–21〕. The character “equanimity” had already been assigned to the fourth jhāna earlier in this chapter—when the preceding unit divided the jhānas by joy, pleasure, and equanimity, the fourth jhāna was the one arisen together with equanimity. Thus the appearance of “equanimity” in the fourth jhāna here does not descend from nowhere within this chapter.

The second occurs in the following unit. The sentence here has no internal punctuation, and where to divide the five-character expression 離樂捨一心 is open. The parallel sentence in the next unit is clear: “Leaving pleasure, one accomplishes two divisions, called the fourth jhāna, namely equanimity and one-pointedness” 〔T32 408a08–09〕—“two divisions” states plainly that these are two things: equanimity and one-pointedness.

The chapter itself thus gives an answer concerning the punctuation of the present sentence, and gives it later. This edition nevertheless retains the literal wording and does not punctuate it on the text’s behalf—internal evidence is internal evidence, while punctuation is punctuation, and this step is left for human review.

As for where “equanimity” comes from, the author never says. Only what can be checked is set out here: the preceding unit already paired equanimity with the fourth jhāna, and the present passage uses it without explanation.

A Way to Read: When the Number Is the Same but the Form Differs, Set Down the “Number” and Look at the “Form”

The way of reading offered by this passage lies in the observation stated at the outset.

This treatise contains many classifications, and several successive doorways using the same number are common. When encountering such a passage, do not read by following the number—the same number does not mean the same manner of presentation. Record the “explanatory form” of each doorway:

Does it explain what something is obtained in dependence on? Does it pair a statement with a series of names? Does it pose a question and answer? Does it state what is left and what is accomplished?

After the forms have been recorded and compared, one often finds that the author changes the cut each time he changes doorways; and where the form changes, he has changed the aspect he wants you to see—basis, person capable of obtaining it, arising and cessation, or sequence of jhānas.

After recording the form, ask a second question: are the four items within each doorway themselves uniform? This passage has four doorways, and each contains one place that is not uniform: in the first, the second item alone omits two characters in succession; in the second, the names paired with the four statements number two, one, two, one; in the third, the closing expressions have four forms while only the first statement is posed as a question; and in the fourth, the presentation moves back and forth between listing names and stating a number.

The number is easiest to see; the form must be recorded; the nonuniformity within a doorway must be counted. Only after seeing all three levels has this passage been read.

---

Take away three things. One observation: this passage has four doorways, all making four-fold divisions, yet using four forms: the first explains the basis for each item 〔T32 407c17〕, the second pairs each statement with names of concentrations 〔T32 407c22〕, the third alone sets up a question and answer while the remaining statements are direct 〔T32 407c27–28〕, and the fourth states for each jhāna what is left and accomplished 〔T32 408a02–03〕; no doorway uses the same form as another, and within each doorway there is one place that is not uniform. One way of reading: when the number is the same but the form differs, set down the “number” and look at the “form”: record each doorway’s explanatory form, then count whether its four items are uniform; where the form changes, the author has changed the aspect he wants you to see. One place to pause: where does the fourth jhāna’s “equanimity” come from? 〔T32 408a03–05〕 Equanimity is absent from the five names listed for the first jhāna, and the author says only “leaving pleasure,” not “obtaining equanimity.” The chapter answers itself to this extent: the preceding unit already paired it with the fourth jhāna in “the fourth jhāna is called arisen together with equanimity” 〔T32 407b21〕; and concerning the punctuation of “leaving pleasure equanimity one-pointedness,” the next unit’s “leaving pleasure, one accomplishes two divisions, called the fourth jhāna, namely equanimity and one-pointedness” 〔T32 408a08–09〕 clarifies it by saying “two divisions.” This edition nevertheless retains the literal wording and does not punctuate it on the text’s behalf.

Three smaller matters should also be retained: only the second item of the first doorway omits two characters in succession—修, “cultivated,” and 為 〔T32 407c17–18〕—and only the first item sets up the heading “as for desire concentration”; learner-fruition concentration and adept-fruition concentration are separated by one statement yet placed on opposite sides 〔T32 407c22–24〕, without the author saying why; and the order “concentration of great compassion and concentration of twin transformation” is the reverse of chapter eight’s “concentrations of twin transformation and great compassion” 〔T32 437a20〕, recorded without being made uniform on the text’s behalf.

---

Shi Huijing · Waken · The Path of Freedom · The Multiple Four-Fold Classifications of Concentration · Exposition · Summer 2026

This passage is the final section of the Chapter on the Analysis of Concentration. Once its three doorways have been presented, the whole chapter closes with one sentence: “In this way, concentration can be known to be of many kinds; all concentrations enter into the four concentrations” 〔T32 408a26–27〕.

Before that close, the author first establishes the five jhānas.

The observation may be stated at the outset: the count of factors in the five jhānas does not agree with its own sequential decrease. The first jhāna has five factors; leaving applied thought gives four; leaving joy ought to give three, yet the text reads “two factors”; then leaving pleasure gives two divisions. Between four factors and two factors, one level is missing; and the author says only “leaving joy,” without saying where sustained thought has gone.

There is no textual note on the number of factors at this point. The Taishō has three textual notes in this passage, and not one concerns the number of factors; the “factor” at 408a08 carries only a repeated note from the preceding unit’s 枝／支 variant.

The Five Jhānas: Subtract the Numbers for Yourself

The author’s words are: “Again, concentration is of five kinds: the first jhāna, the second jhāna, the third jhāna, the fourth jhāna, and the fifth jhāna” 〔T32 408a05–06〕.

He then gives the factors: “The five jhānas have five factors: applied thought, sustained thought, joy, pleasure, and one-pointedness. Leaving the five hindrances, one accomplishes five factors; this is called the first jhāna” 〔T32 408a06–07〕.

The five factors are named plainly: applied thought, sustained thought, joy, pleasure, and one-pointedness.

“Leaving applied thought, one accomplishes four factors; this is called the second jhāna” 〔T32 408a07–08〕. Five minus one is four. This is the key to there being five jhānas—only applied thought is left, not sustained thought.

“Leaving joy, one accomplishes two factors; this is called the third jhāna” 〔T32 408a08〕.

Four minus one ought to be three. The text reads two.

“Leaving pleasure, one accomplishes two divisions, called the fourth jhāna, namely equanimity and one-pointedness” 〔T32 408a08–09〕.

Pause Here: Where Did Sustained Thought Go?

It is worth pausing here.

The five factors given by the author are applied thought, sustained thought, joy, pleasure, and one-pointedness. The second jhāna leaves applied thought, leaving sustained thought, joy, pleasure, and one-pointedness—four factors, just as the text says. The third jhāna leaves joy, which ought to leave sustained thought, pleasure, and one-pointedness—three factors. Yet the text says two factors.

To arrive at two factors, sustained thought must also drop away at this level; but the text does not account for this in a single character.

The present passage cannot answer why. Three matters can be checked:

First, the literal wording. When the preceding unit presents the four jhānas, its sentence for the third jhāna is “leaving joy, one accomplishes two factors” 〔T32 408a04〕—exactly the same five characters as the sentence here. The decrease there is five factors, three factors, two factors: the first jhāna has five factors, the second “leaves applied and sustained thought and accomplishes three factors” 〔T32 408a03–04〕, and the third has two. Within the four-jhāna system, “leaving joy, one accomplishes two factors” is correct: three minus one is two.

Second, the numbers. “Accomplishes three factors” occurs only once in the whole treatise 〔T32 408a03–04〕, in the four-jhāna doorway; “accomplishes four factors” likewise occurs only once 〔T32 408a07〕, in the present doorway. Each system has one number used only by it, while both doorways use “accomplishes two factors.”

Third, the textual notes. The three notes in this passage occur respectively at 408a10, 408a12, and 408a21, and not one falls on the number of factors (the character “factor” at 408a08 carries only the repeated 枝／支 note from the preceding unit). No variant reading bears witness at this point.

The author does not say, and this edition neither alters nor supplies. Only what can be checked is set out here: the five-jhāna doorway drops directly from four factors to two; the text does not say where the intervening factor went; and its five characters are the same as in the four-jhāna doorway.

One smaller matter should also be remembered: among the four items, the first, second, and third jhānas all speak of “factors,” while only the fourth jhāna speaks of “divisions”—“one accomplishes two divisions” 〔T32 408a08–09〕. The classifier changes within the same sequence.

Why Both Four Jhānas and Five Jhānas Are Taught: The Chapter Answers Only Here

“Question: Why are four jhānas taught and five jhānas also taught? Answer: Because there are results for two persons. The second jhāna is of two kinds: without applied or sustained thought, and without applied thought but with little sustained thought” 〔T32 408a09–11〕.

This question and answer tie a knot in the chapter.

Earlier, when 04-03 establishes the three-fold concentrations, it says “the second jhāna has no applied thought and little sustained thought” 〔T32 407b18〕. When the preceding unit 04-04 establishes the four jhānas, it says “leaving applied and sustained thought, one accomplishes three factors” 〔T32 408a03–04〕—applied and sustained thought are left together, so the second jhāna has neither. Within the same chapter, two accounts of the same second jhāna coexist.

Neither earlier passage explains this. Only in the present sentence does the author say that it is because there are two persons.

As for what the three characters 二人報 mean, the treatise does not explain. The base reads 報, while the Song, Yuan, Ming, and Gong witnesses read 執. The internal evidence of the present passage is insufficient to decide between them. Both are recorded without adjudication, and the present text follows the base.

The Two Persons: Four Paired Features, with One Pair That Does Not Align

The author next places the two persons side by side:

“Question: Which person practising seated meditation brings the first jhāna to mastery and arouses the second jhāna?” 〔T32 408a11–12〕 “Answer: One gathers mindfulness and reflects upon coarse applied and sustained thought, and further knows the fault of applied thought, causing the second jhāna without applied or sustained thought to arise; this is that person’s sequence of cultivating the four jhānas” 〔T32 408a12–13〕. “There is another person who has brought the first jhāna to mastery and caused the second jhāna to appear. This person gathers mindfulness and reflects upon coarse applied thought, knows only the fault of applied thought, sees the state without applied thought but with little sustained thought, and arouses the second jhāna; this is that person’s sequence of receiving the five jhānas. Therefore five jhānas are taught” 〔T32 408a14–16〕.

Four features form pairs: what mindfulness is gathered around is coarse applied and sustained thought / coarse applied thought; the manner of knowing is further knows / knows only; what is accomplished is causes to arise / sees; and the sequence is cultivating the sequence of four jhānas / receiving the sequence of five jhānas.

The pairs are highly regular, with only one place that does not align: the fault known is “applied thought” in both cases.

The first person gathers mindfulness around two things, “coarse applied and sustained thought,” yet the fault known is stated as only one thing, “applied thought.” The second gathers mindfulness around one thing, “coarse applied thought,” and the thing known is likewise the one thing, “applied thought.” The second person is internally aligned; the first is not.

The Taishō textual note falls precisely here: at 408a12, where the base reads “further knows the fault of applied thought,” the four witnesses read “applied and sustained thought.” With the four witnesses’ one change, the first person becomes aligned—gathering mindfulness around coarse applied and sustained thought and knowing the fault of applied and sustained thought.

The internal evidence of this passage stands on the side of the variant; this edition nevertheless records both without adjudication, and the present text follows the base. This is the second place in the passage where internal evidence agrees with a variant. It is recorded clearly and left for human review.

One further literal detail should be remembered: for the same matter, the first person’s is called “cultivating the sequence of four jhānas,” while the second person’s is called “receiving the sequence of five jhānas”—one says “cultivating,” the other “receiving.” Each phrase occurs only once in the whole treatise. The author does not state the difference.

Five-Division Attainment: Four “Fulfillments,” One “Perception”

“There are again five kinds of concentration, called five-division attainment: joy-fulfillment, pleasure-fulfillment, mind-fulfillment, light-fulfillment, and contemplation-perception” 〔T32 408a16–18〕.

Set out in sequence, the first four names all end with “fulfillment,” while the fifth is “contemplation-perception” and does not use “fulfillment.”

The correlations are not uniform either: “The first and second jhānas are joy-fulfillment, the third jhāna is pleasure-fulfillment; with knowledge of others’ minds it is called mind-fulfillment, with the divine eye it is called light-fulfillment, and insight knowledge arising from each particular concentration is called contemplation-perception” 〔T32 408a18–20〕.

The first two are correlated with jhānas, while the last three are correlated with knowledge and direct knowledge. Within one list, the names are not uniform, and the correlations use two forms.

The exposition of “knowledge of others’ minds” and “the divine eye” occurs in chapter nine, the Chapter on the Five Direct Knowledges; the present passage gives only their names and does not explain them.

Five-Knowledge Right Concentration: Five Sentences, with the Third and Fourth Almost Repeating

“Again, concentration is of five kinds, called five-knowledge right concentration. This is pleasure in the present and also a future result of pleasure” 〔T32 408a20–21〕.

Under the punctuation of the base text, exactly five sentences follow:

One: “This is pleasure in the present and also a future result of pleasure” 〔T32 408a21〕. Two: “This concentration arises in dependence on 身智; it is practised by the noble and is without defilement” 〔T32 408a21–22〕. Three: “This concentration is cultivated by a person of wisdom; this concentration is quiet and still, and pleasant; through 猗所得 it accomplishes what is not two and does not subdue birth and death” 〔T32 408a22–23〕. Four: “This concentration is quiet and still, and most pleasant; it is obtained through 猗成一性; it is not the ‘I’ that subdues birth and death” 〔T32 408a23–24〕. Five: “In this concentration, mindfulness enters and mindfulness arises; it arises in dependence on 身智” 〔T32 408a24–25〕.

Two matters should be remembered.

First: the third and fourth sentences almost repeat. Quiet and still, and pleasant / quiet and still, and most pleasant; through 猗所得 it accomplishes what is not two / obtained through 猗成一性; does not subdue birth and death / is not the “I” that subdues birth and death. Three pairs of expressions, each close in meaning yet different in every wording. The author does not state the difference, and this edition neither merges nor deletes them.

Second: the four-character expression 依身智起 occurs only twice in the whole treatise, both in this passage 〔T32 408a21·408a25〕—once at the beginning of the second sentence and once at the end of the last. The same expression at the beginning and end encloses three sentences.

There is one further variant reading: for “this” in the first sentence, the four witnesses read “this concentration.” The internal evidence again stands on the side of the variant—the final three sentences all begin with “this concentration,” and the second also has “this concentration” as its object; only the first reads “this.” With the four witnesses’ one change, the five sentences become uniform. This edition nevertheless records both without adjudication, and the present text follows the base.

The Chapter’s Close: Sixteen Doorways Increase to Five, Yet Close with Four

“Again, fields of practice have already been distinguished; now the matters of practice and the lower, middle, and higher are distinguished” 〔T32 408a25–26〕; “In this way, concentration can be known to be of many kinds; all concentrations enter into the four concentrations” 〔T32 408a26–27〕.

Beginning with the second unit, the Chapter on the Analysis of Concentration divides concentration throughout: three doorways of two kinds, three doorways of three kinds, seven doorways of four kinds, and three doorways of five kinds—sixteen doorways, with the number increasing from two to five.

Yet the final sentence says that all concentrations enter into the four concentrations.

The increase reaches five; the close rests on four. The author does not say why. It is recorded without explanation on the text’s behalf.

The sentence before the close has one further point to remember: “fields of practice have already been distinguished” 〔T32 408a25〕—the four Chinese characters 分別行處 are precisely the title of chapter seven of this treatise 〔T32 411a07〕, although chapter seven follows the present chapter. The text does not connect the two, and its punctuation is also left open. The literal wording is retained.

Once this sentence closes, the chapter heading “Chapter Five, Seeking a Good Friend” stands on the next line 〔T32 408a28〕; on the following line, the next chapter opens by asking, “At that time, how is concentration to arise?”—the present chapter divides concentration sixteen times but does not say how it arises; the matter of arousing concentration is given to the next chapter.

A Way to Read: When a Sequence Says “Leaving Something, Accomplishing This Many,” Subtract the Numbers for Yourself

The way of reading offered by this passage lies in the observation stated at the outset, and it is extremely simple.

Whenever a step-by-step descending list says “leaving such-and-such, one accomplishes this many factors,” do not merely read past it—take up a pen and subtract the numbers for yourself.

How many things were given at the first level? How many are left at each level? Does the number produced by subtraction agree with the number written in the text?

If it agrees, the list has been read through. Where it does not agree, the text has usually omitted a step without saying so. Then ask one more question: is there a textual note at this point? Where there is a note, the variant often supplies the omitted step; where there is no note, the text itself simply stands this way and can only be recorded as written.

Applied to the present passage, both inquiries bear fruit: the number of factors in the third jhāna cannot be obtained by subtraction, and there is no textual note on the factor count at that point; the comparison of the two persons has one place that does not align, and a textual note falls precisely there, with a variant that would make it align.

One method, two results—this is precisely why it is worth carrying away.

---

Take away three things. One observation: the factors of the five jhānas do not agree with their own sequential decrease: the first jhāna has five factors 〔T32 408a06–07〕 → leaving applied thought gives four 〔T32 408a07–08〕 → leaving joy gives “two factors” 〔T32 408a08〕 → leaving pleasure gives two divisions 〔T32 408a08–09〕. The sequence drops directly from four to two; the text does not say where the intervening factor, sustained thought, has gone, and there is no textual note on the factor count at this point. Its five characters are identical with the preceding unit’s sentence for the third jhāna in the four-jhāna doorway 〔T32 408a04〕, where they are correct within the decrease five → three → two. One way of reading: when encountering a descending list of “leaving something, accomplishing this many,” subtract the numbers for yourself; where subtraction fails, the text has usually omitted a step, and one must then ask whether there is a textual note—where there is a note, a variant often supplies that step; where there is none, the text can only be recorded as written. One place to pause: where did sustained thought go? 〔T32 408a08〕 The present passage cannot answer. Three matters can be checked: the four-jhāna doorway has the same sentence and its subtraction is correct; “accomplishes three factors” and “accomplishes four factors” each occur once in the whole treatise and belong to different doorways; and not one of the three textual notes in this passage concerns the factor count. This edition neither alters nor supplies.

Four smaller matters should also be retained: “because there are results for two persons” 〔T32 408a10〕 connects the chapter’s two accounts of the second jhāna—04-03’s without applied thought but with little sustained thought, and 04-04’s leaving applied and sustained thought, neither earlier passage saying why; four features in the comparison of the two persons form pairs, while the fault known is “applied thought” in both places 〔T32 408a12·408a14–15〕, and the internal evidence stands with the variant “applied and sustained thought,” though the text is not altered; four names in five-division attainment end with “fulfillment,” while the fifth is contemplation-perception 〔T32 408a17–18〕, with the first two correlated with jhānas and the last three with knowledge and direct knowledge; and the two occurrences of 依身智起 in the whole treatise are both in the passage on five-knowledge right concentration 〔T32 408a21·408a25〕, once at the beginning of the second sentence and once at the end of the last, while the third and fourth sentences almost repeat.

---

Shi Huijing · Waken · The Path of Freedom · The Five-Fold Divisions and the Four and Five Jhānas · Exposition · Summer 2026