A Body Between Two Lives

To which destiny will one go, and what is the shape of the intermediate-existence being that arises? Verse: since it is induced by that same single karma, it resembles the shape of the future actual-existence; "actual existence" means the period before death, following the moment of birth. Prose: whatever karma is capable of inducing the destiny to which one will go, that very same karma also brings about the intermediate-existence being capable of traveling there. Hence, if this intermediate-existence being is heading toward a given destiny, it takes on the very shape of the actual-existence body it will have once it arrives there. If that is so, then within a single dog's womb, for instance, intermediate-existence beings belonging to all five destinies might suddenly arise together. But if a hell-being's intermediate existence is thereby present, how could it fail to burn up the mother's womb? Even while dwelling in its actual hell-existence, does it burn everything constantly? No — it is like someone briefly wandering through a garden, not setting the garden ablaze just by being present; how much more so while merely in the intermediate-existence state. Even granting that it could burn — just as it cannot be seen or touched by ordinary beings, since the intermediate-existence body is extremely subtle, this objection does not hold up as valid reasoning. Although intermediate-existence beings belonging to different destinies may dwell within a single womb, they do not touch or burn one another, since this is prevented by the power of karma.

The desire-realm intermediate-existence being, although its size is like that of a small child five or six years old, has faculties that are bright and keen. The bodhisattva's intermediate-existence being, however, has the form and stature of one in the prime of life, perfectly formed and complete with all the marks and signs of excellence — hence, while dwelling in this intermediate existence and about to enter the womb, it illuminates a hundred koṭis of the four great continents, and so on. If that is so, then why did the bodhisattva's mother dream that a young white elephant came and entered her right side? This is an auspicious omen-image, unrelated to the actual form of the intermediate-existence being itself — the bodhisattva had, after all, long since abandoned the animal destiny. This is comparable to the ten things King Kṛkin saw in his dream: a great elephant, a well, roasted barley-flour, sandalwood, a wondrous grove, a small elephant, two monkeys, something broad and firm, a garment, and strife. Dreams of this kind merely signify omens portending other future events — they do not depict things exactly as they will literally appear. Moreover, every intermediate-existence being enters through the birth canal; it does not enter the womb by breaking through the mother's flank — hence, among twins, the one born first is smaller, and the one born after is larger. How, then, is Dharmasugupta's statement to be reconciled with this? He wrote: "The white elephant's form was dignified and fine, possessing six tusks and four feet; with correct awareness it entered the mother's womb, resting there as a sage secluded in a forest grove." This need not be reconciled at all, since it does not belong to the canonical scriptures — verses of praise of this kind sometimes exceed the literal truth. If it must be reconciled, then, just as with the dream-image seen by the bodhisattva's mother, composing such a verse involves no fault.

The form realm's intermediate-existence being's size is complete and full, just like its actual-existence body. It arises together with clothing, since beings of that realm have heightened modesty and shame; the bodhisattva's intermediate-existence being likewise arises together with clothing. The nun Śuklā, through the power of a vow made in a former life, has, life after life, a naturally-arising garment that never leaves her body, changing in accordance with the occasion, even up to her final attainment of complete nirvana, at which time this very garment is used to wrap her corpse for cremation. All remaining desire-realm intermediate-existence beings, however, have no clothing, since they have all cultivated and increased a lack of modesty and shame. What, then, is the essential nature of the actual-existence which the intermediate-existence being resembles? It is the aggregates that occur before the existence of death and after the existence of birth — in general terms, its essential nature is the five aggregates subject to clinging. Within this, distinguishing by stage, there are four: first, intermediate existence, whose meaning has already been explained; second, the existence of birth, namely the moment of conception within any of the destinies; third, actual existence, namely every stage other than the moment of conception and the period before death; fourth, the existence of death, namely the very last moment of that life. Form-possessing sentient beings possess all four kinds of existence in full; those reborn within the formless realm lack one, possessing only three.

The shape and size have now been explained; the remaining points should now be discussed. Verse: it is seen by beings of the same kind, and by the pure divine eye; its karma-based supernormal power is swiftest, and its faculties are complete; it is unobstructed and cannot be turned back; it feeds on fragrance, and does not abide for long; with an inverted mind, it approaches the object of its desire; the moisture-born and the transformation-born are drawn to fragrance or to a suitable place; the gods' heads point upward, three lie horizontal, and the hell-beings' heads point downward. Prose: an intermediate-existence body is seen by others of the same kind; if one has cultivated and attained the utterly pure divine eye, one is likewise able to see it — but ordinary, innately-acquired eyes are entirely unable to perceive it, since it is extremely subtle. There is a further view: the gods' intermediate-existence beings possess eyes fully capable of seeing it. Among the intermediate-existence beings of the five destinies, those of humans, ghosts, animals, and hell-beings can see four, three, two, and one kind respectively — that is, each can see its own kind and those below it, but not those above.

Among every kind of supernormal power, the power produced by karma is the swiftest. Traversing empty space with unobstructed freedom is what is meant by "supernormal power"; since this power is obtained through karma, it is called "karmic power," and since the force and function of this power are so rapid, it is called "swift." The intermediate-existence being possesses the very swiftest karmic power of all — not even the World-Honored One, at the very summit, is able to obstruct or restrain it, since the force of its karma is at its most overwhelmingly strong. All intermediate-existence beings, moreover, possess all five faculties complete. "Obstruction" means being blocked or impeded; this body cannot be blocked even by something as hard as a diamond, and so it is called "unobstructed." It has been heard that, when a mass of blazing red-hot iron was split open, a worm was found alive within it — this shows that, once the intermediate-existence being destined for a given place has already arisen there, no force of any kind whatsoever is able to turn it aside: that is, one cannot cause a human intermediate-existence being to vanish and some other kind of intermediate-existence being to arise in its place, and the same holds for every other kind as well. Once the intermediate-existence being destined for a given destiny has already arisen, it can only proceed to that destiny, and will definitely never go to any other.

Does the desire-realm intermediate-existence being's body take nourishment from physical food? Although it does take nourishment from physical food, this nourishment is subtle, not coarse. What is meant by "subtle"? It refers to fragrance alone — and it is on this basis that it obtains the name "gandharva." Since the meaning within these syllabic roots is not singular, a shortened pronunciation such as "śakaṇḍa" for "śakuṇḍagandha," or "karkaṇḍa" for a similarly compounded term, involves no fault, being merely an abbreviation. Those of little merit feed only on foul-smelling fragrance, while those of abundant merit feed on pleasant fragrance.

How long, then, does intermediate existence last? The Bhadanta states: there is no fixed limit to this. As long as the conditions for rebirth have not yet come together, the intermediate-existence being persists continuously, since its life faculty is not induced by a separate karma distinct from the karma that will produce the class-commonality it shares with the humans or other beings of its destined kind. If it were otherwise, then, at the moment the intermediate-existence being's life faculty finally ceases, this would have to be established as an existence of death in its own right. The Venerable Vasumitra states: this lasts, at most, seven days; if the conditions for rebirth have not yet come together by then, one repeatedly dies and is reborn as a fresh intermediate-existence being. There is a further view: at most forty-nine days. The Vaibhāṣika masters state: this lasts only a brief time, since, while in intermediate existence, one is eager to seek out the existence of birth, and so does not abide for long, swiftly proceeding to conception.

Suppose there were a mass of flesh as great as Mount Sumeru itself — when the summer rains arrive, it transforms into a swarming mass of worms. Should it be said that all these intermediate-existence beings had been gradually waiting for this very moment? Or should it be said that they suddenly arrived here from some other direction? Although there is no explicit text in the sutras or treatises that settles this question directly, the following should be said, in accordance with correct reasoning: there exist countless different kinds of beings, with short lifespans, who are deeply attached to fragrance and flavor. These beings, upon smelling this scent, and out of craving for its fragrance and flavor, all die together at the very same moment; through the power of the very karma that had, through this craving-driven awareness, already destined them to a worm's body, they simultaneously take on subtle worm-bodies in this very place. Or again: many sentient beings destined to be born together in this very place may, while the many necessary conditions have not yet come together, remain within intermediate existence — and now, upon encountering the full complement of conditions, they are suddenly all born here at once. Those destined to be born together are certainly not born at different times: it is comparable to karma capable of producing a wheel-turning king, which must wait until human lifespans reach eighty thousand years, or exceed that span, before it suddenly bestows its result, never at any other time. This case should be understood in just the same way. Hence the World-Honored One has said: the distinctions among the karmic results of sentient beings are inconceivable.

If, for one whose conditions for rebirth have not yet immediately come together, it is definitely fixed that one is to be born in this particular place and as this particular kind of being, the force of karma will itself cause these conditions to come together. But if one is not definitely destined to rely on these particular conditions coming together, one then instead takes temporary birth in some other place, as some other kind of being — there is a view that holds one transfers to take birth as a similar, comparable kind of being instead. For instance, domestic cattle, dogs, bears, and horses have their desire for mating increasing in the order belonging to summer, autumn, winter, and spring, respectively, whereas wild oxen, jackals, brown bears, and donkeys have no fixed season. If the first four kinds' intermediate-existence beings fail to encounter their proper time, they transfer, in the same order, to be born instead as the corresponding one of the latter four, similar kinds. But is it not the case that an intermediate-existence being can never differ from the class-commonality of the birth it is to have, since both are induced by one and the same single karma? How, then, can it be said that it transfers to take birth as merely a similar kind instead?

Thus, in order to reach the place of its birth, the intermediate-existence being first gives rise to an inverted state of mind and rushes toward the object of its desire. Although its karmically-produced eye remains at a distance, it is able to see its future parents uniting at the place of its birth, and, upon seeing this, gives rise to this inverted state of mind: if it is to become male, it conceives desire for the mother; if it is to become female, it conceives desire for the father. Conversely, it gives rise to feelings of aversion toward the parent of the same sex as itself. Hence the Prajñaptiśāstra states as follows: at that time, the gandharva manifests one or the other of two states of mind — either affection or aversion. Through giving rise to these two kinds of inverted mind, it comes to believe that its own body is united with the one it desires. When the impure fluid of the one it resents is discharged into the womb, it takes this to be its own, and thereupon gives rise to a feeling of joy and comfort; from this point, its aggregates thicken, the intermediate-existence being then perishes, and the existence of birth arises — this is called "conception having occurred." If it is to be male, it dwells within the womb leaning against the mother's right side, crouching with its back facing outward; if it is to be female, it dwells leaning against the mother's left side, facing toward the belly. If it is to be neither male nor female while dwelling within the mother's womb, it dwells in accordance with whichever desire has arisen. There is definitely no intermediate-existence being that is neither female nor male, since an intermediate-existence body must necessarily possess a complete set of faculties. Because, while in the intermediate-existence state, one is definitely either female or male, one enters the mother's womb and dwells accordingly; it is only afterward, as the fetus grows and develops, that one might become a eunuch or otherwise sexually ambiguous.

Within this topic, a further point should be considered: is it through the power of karma that the parents' reproductive fluids, as great elements, themselves directly become the basis for the sense faculties? Or does karma instead separately generate a distinct basis for the faculties, a new set of great elements, which then simply rests upon the parents' fluids? There is a view that holds: the reproductive fluids themselves directly become the basis for the faculties — that is, the former, faculty-less intermediate-existence being ceases entirely, and what possesses faculties thereafter arises in immediate succession, according to the same principle by which a seed ceases as a sprout arises. It is on this basis that the very first stage is called kalala, and this reading also accords beautifully with the wording of the sutra passage: "From the parents' impure fluids, the kalala is produced." And the Buddha further told the monks: "You have, throughout the long night of saṃsāra, taken hold of and sustained drops of blood, accumulating them into something the size of a small measure." There is a further view held by other masters: a distinct set of great elements is separately generated — comparable to how, in dependence on decaying leaves and dung, a separate worm is born. Within the impure mass, the kalala is generated as something distinct — and it is on this basis that it is said, "From the parents' impure fluids, the kalala is produced." Hence there is no contradiction with that sutra passage either.

Thus far, womb-birth and egg-birth have been discussed; the remaining kinds should now be explained, each according to what is appropriate. As for moisture-born beings: they are born through attachment to fragrance — that is, they smell, from a distance, the fragrance of their place of birth, and, giving rise to craving and attachment, go there to be born; depending on what is appropriate to their karma, this fragrance may be pure or foul. As for transformation-born beings: they are born through attachment to a place — that is, they observe, from a distance, their future place of birth, and, giving rise to craving and attachment, go there to be born; depending on what is appropriate to their karma, this place may be pure or foul. But could attachment and craving possibly arise even toward the hells? Because the mind is inverted at this moment, the arising of such attachment involves no contradiction. That is: such an intermediate-existence being may see itself being assailed by cold rain and freezing wind, and, seeing the hot hells' flames blazing fiercely, its heart delights at the thought of warmth, and it throws itself into that place. Or it may see itself being harmed by scorching wind and raging fire, and, seeing the cold hells, its mind longs for coolness, and it throws itself into that place. The elder masters of former times explain it this way: because of what it did in the past, at the very moment its karma is about to ripen, it sees companions of its own kind, and rushes to join them there. Moreover, a god's intermediate-existence being rises with its head held upright, as though rising from a seated position; the intermediate-existence beings of humans, ghosts, and animals move about in a manner just like ordinary humans; a hell-being's intermediate-existence being plunges downward head-first, feet upward, falling into that place. Hence a verse states: "Plunging downward into the hells, feet above and head below — this, on account of having slandered the sages who delight in stillness and practice austerities."

It was said above that one enters the mother's womb with an inverted mind — but is this definitely the case for every intermediate-existence being without exception? It is not. A sutra states: there are four kinds of entry into the womb. What are the four? Verse: the first has correct awareness only upon entry; the second and third additionally have it while dwelling and while emerging; the fourth has none at any stage at all — and egg-born beings are always without awareness. Prose: there are certain sentient beings who have accumulated abundant merit-producing karma and diligently cultivated mindfulness and wisdom; hence, at the time of death and rebirth, sustained by the power of mindfulness, they possess correct awareness without confusion. Among these, some have correct awareness only upon entering the womb; some have correct awareness while dwelling in the womb, in addition to upon entering; and some have correct awareness upon emerging, in addition to knowing both entry and dwelling — the word "in addition" indicates that each later stage necessarily includes the one before it. There are other sentient beings whose merit and wisdom are both meager; at the stages of entering, dwelling, and emerging, they lack correct awareness entirely — if one lacks correct awareness upon entry, one necessarily lacks it while dwelling and emerging as well, though the verse states the four in reverse order for the sake of fitting the verse form. All egg-born beings, at the stages of entering the womb and so forth, are always entirely without awareness. But how can egg-born beings be said to "enter the womb," if they emerge from an egg? Because an egg-born being must first enter the womb before the egg is laid — "entering the womb" is spoken of on the basis of what is yet to come, comparable to how a sutra speaks of "performing conditioned actions," and how ordinary speech says "cooking rice" or "grinding flour." Hence there is no fault in speaking of an egg-born being's "entry into the womb." What, then, does correct or incorrect awareness at the three stages actually look like? For sentient beings of meager merit, at the stage of entering the mother's womb, an inverted, mistaken perception arises: they see a great storm of wind and rain, or scorching heat and bitter cold, or hear the tumultuous, threatening din of a great army pressing in upon them, and so they perceive themselves as entering into dense grass, a thick forest, a cave of leaves, a thatched hut, or crawling beneath a tree or a wall; while dwelling there, they perceive themselves as continuing to dwell within that same place; at the stage of emerging, they perceive their body as coming out from that very place. For those whose merit is more abundant, at the stage of entering the mother's womb, an inverted, mistaken perception likewise arises, but of a different kind: they perceive themselves as entering a wondrous garden grove, ascending a flower-adorned terrace or palace, or dwelling upon a magnificent couch, and so on; their perception while dwelling and emerging follows the same pattern. This is what is meant by lacking correct awareness at all three stages. If, at all three stages, one is able to maintain correct awareness, then, at the time of entering and so forth, no inverted, mistaken perception arises at all: that is, at the stage of entering the womb, one knows that one is entering the womb, and, at the time of dwelling in and emerging from the womb, one knows for oneself that one is dwelling and emerging.

The first three kinds of entry into the womb belong, respectively, to a wheel-turning king and the two kinds of Buddha, since karma and wisdom are progressively more supreme in each; the fourth belongs to all remaining births. To further clarify the four kinds of entry into the womb: the first three, respectively and in order, belong to a wheel-turning king, a pratyekabuddha, and a fully-awakened Buddha. The first kind of entry belongs to the wheel-turning king: correct awareness only at the stage of entry, neither while dwelling nor while emerging. The second kind of entry belongs to the pratyekabuddha: correct awareness while entering and dwelling, but not at the stage of emerging. The third kind of entry belongs to the unsurpassed, fully-awakened Buddha: correct awareness at the stages of entering, dwelling, and emerging, all three. These first three types of persons are identified here by their future title. Why, then, do these three grades differ in this way? Because karma and wisdom are, respectively and in order, progressively more supreme in each. In the first, karma is supreme: the wheel-turning king has, in past lives, cultivated vast and extensive merit. In the second, wisdom is supreme: the pratyekabuddha has, for a long time, cultivated extensive learning and superior discernment. In the third, both are supreme: the unsurpassed, fully-awakened Buddha has, across measureless eons, cultivated supreme merit and wisdom both together. Excepting these first three kinds, all remaining womb-born and egg-born beings, whose merit and wisdom are both inferior, together make up the fourth kind.

At this point, heretics who hold to a doctrine of self say: if it is accepted that a sentient being transfers and proceeds to another world, then the meaning of my own doctrine, that there is a self, is thereby established. To refute this, verse: there is no self — there are only the aggregates, brought about by affliction and karma; through the continuity of intermediate existence, one enters the womb, like a lamp's flame; just as, once induced, it increases in sequence, its continuity is due to affliction and karma, proceeding onward to yet another world — hence the wheel of existence has no beginning. Prose: what characteristic does the self you cling to actually have? You hold that it is capable of relinquishing these aggregates and continuing on to other aggregates, functioning as an inner agent — but such a thing definitely does not exist, since it cannot be apprehended, any more than form or the eye could be apprehended as some further entity behind them. The World-Honored One has likewise said: there is karma, there is karmic ripening, but no agent can be found. That is: there is nothing capable of relinquishing these aggregates and continuing on to other aggregates, except for what is merely conventionally designated, on the basis of dharmas. What is meant by "conventionally designated on the basis of dharmas"? It means: depending on this, that exists; because this arises, that arises — as is explained at length under dependent origination. If that is so, then what kind of "self" is not being refuted here? Only the aggregates themselves — that is, it is only on the basis of the aggregates that the name "self" is conventionally established; this alone is not what is being refuted. If that is so, then it should be accepted that the aggregates themselves are capable of transferring from this world to another. But the aggregates perish moment by moment, and are incapable, on their own, of any such turning or transferring — it is specifically because of what is brought about by habitually-cultivated affliction and karma that the intermediate-existence aggregates are made to continue in succession and enter the womb. It is comparable to a lamp's flame: although it perishes moment by moment, it is nevertheless able to continue in succession and travel to another place. The aggregates are just the same — speaking of them as "transferring" involves no error. Hence, although there is no self, the meaning of the aggregates continuing in succession and entering the womb, on account of affliction and karma, is thereby established. Just as, once induced by karma, the aggregates continue in sequence, progressively increasing, they also, through the force of affliction and karma, proceed onward to yet another world. That is: it is not the case that the aggregates induced in every case grow and continue for an equal, uniform span of time, since the karmic causes that induce a given lifespan differ from one another; in accordance with the strength of the karma capable of inducing that lifespan, the aggregates increase in sequence for precisely that corresponding span of time.

What, then, is this sequence? As the noble ones have stated: first comes the kalala; next arises the arbuda; from this arises the peśī; the peśī gives rise to the ghana; next comes the praśākhā; and afterward, hair, body-hair, and nails, together with the physical sense faculties and bodily form, gradually increase in succession. That is, within the mother's womb, there are five stages: first, the kalala stage; second, the arbuda stage; third, the peśī stage; fourth, the ghana stage; fifth, the praśākhā stage.

This arrow-like embryo within the womb gradually increases in stages, until it reaches the point where its physical sense faculties and bodily form are complete; then, through the force of a karmically-produced wind of ripening, this arrow-like embryo within the womb is turned and directed toward the birth canal — like a hardened, oversized lump of excrement, blocked and unable to pass; from this position, it then falls forth amid intense suffering, difficult to bear. At times, the mother may, through excessive bodily movement, eating, or labor, bring on complications; or, through the power of the child's own past unwholesome karma, the child may die within the womb. At such a time, there are women, or physicians, skilled in the art of midwifery and in caring for infants, who warm their hands with ghee and the sap of the śālmali tree, apply this to their hands, and take up a small, sharp knife. Within the womb, it is like a cesspit, utterly filthy and base, filled with mixed impurity; a dark, dwelling place relied upon by countless thousands of worms; constantly flowing with foul fluid that must always be attended to; reproductive fluid and blood, grimy and greasy, decaying and putrid, foul-smelling and slippery; impure discharge overflowing, base and repulsive to look upon — all of this covered over by nothing more than a thin, perforated layer of skin. Drawn forth by past karma, the infant's body, through this wound-like opening, has its limbs disentangled and is drawn out into the open. This fetal being, carried along by what it has done in the past, proceeds toward a karmic result to be experienced later, whose precise nature is difficult to know in advance. Or, alternatively, it may be born without difficulty, safely and peacefully — its body, like a fresh wound, delicate and soft, difficult even to touch. Either the mother, out of love for her child, or some other woman, using hands as rough as a knife's blade or ash, takes hold of the infant, washes and wipes it clean, and settles it into a resting place. Next, the infant is given clear ghee to taste and is nursed with the mother's milk; gradually, it is accustomed to receiving both fine and coarse food, and, growing in stages, it reaches the stage of matured faculties — at which point it once again gives rise to afflictions and accumulates further karma. On account of this, when the body eventually breaks apart, there is once again, just as before, an intermediate-existence being continuing on to yet another world. In this way, affliction and karma serve as the cause for birth, and birth in turn serves as the cause for the arising of further affliction and karma; from this affliction and karma, birth occurs once again — hence it is known that the wheel of existence turns in an endless cycle, without beginning.

If one insists that there is a first beginning, then this beginning would have to be without cause; but if the beginning has no cause at all, then everything else, too, ought to arise spontaneously, without cause. Yet it is directly observed that a sprout, for instance, arises from a cause such as a seed, since both the specific place and the specific time of its arising are fixed and determinate; and, again, things such as cooking and ripening produce transformation through causes such as fire. On this basis, it is certain that there is no dharma whatsoever that arises without a cause. As for the doctrine of a permanent, uncaused first cause — this has already been refuted above. For this reason, birth-and-death definitely has no beginning — yet it does have an end, since its cause can be exhausted. Since birth depends upon a cause, when that cause is destroyed and eliminated, the resulting birth must likewise cease to exist — this is certainly how the principle must work, just as, when a seed is destroyed, a sprout definitely cannot arise from it.

Thus, the continuity of the aggregates is spoken of, taking three lifetimes as its stages. Verse: these conditions of dependent origination number twelve links across three time-periods; the earlier and later periods each have two, while the middle eight apply to one who experiences the full complement. Prose: the twelve links are: first, ignorance; second, formations; third, consciousness; fourth, name-and-form; fifth, the six sense-bases; sixth, contact; seventh, feeling; eighth, craving; ninth, grasping; tenth, existence; eleventh, birth; twelfth, aging-and-death. As for the three time-periods: first, the prior period; second, the later period; third, the middle period — these correspond respectively to the past, future, and present lifetimes. How, then, are the twelve links established across the three periods? The prior and later periods each establish two links, and the middle period establishes eight, thus making twelve in total. Ignorance and formations belong to the prior period; birth and aging-and-death belong to the later period; the remaining eight belong to the middle period. Do all sentient beings, within this single lifetime, necessarily possess all eight of these middle-period links in full? Not necessarily. If that is so, then why does the teaching speak of eight links? This is stated with reference to one who experiences the complete, full course. What is meant here is: a person who passes through every single stage is called "one who experiences the full course" — this does not include those who die prematurely in the middle, nor those in the form and formless realms, but refers only to a desire-realm person, since the Mahānidāna Sutra speaks of possessing them in full. That sutra states: the Buddha said to Ānanda, "If consciousness did not enter the womb, could name-and-form grow and increase in scope?" "No, World-Honored One!" — and so on, at length. At times, dependent origination is spoken of as having only two divisions: one subsumed under the prior period, and one subsumed under the later period. The first seven links are subsumed under the prior period — that is, from ignorance up through feeling; the remaining five links are subsumed under the later period — that is, from craving up through aging-and-death — since these are divided into the two portions of prior cause and later effect.

What dharma constitutes the essential nature of ignorance and the other links? Verse: the stage of past affliction is ignorance; past karma of every kind is called formations; the aggregate precisely at the moment of conception is consciousness; before the six sense-bases arise is name-and-form; from the arising of the eye and other faculties, up until the threefold union, this is the six sense-bases; the stage in which the differing causes of the three feelings are not yet clearly known is called contact; the stage prior to sexual craving is feeling; craving for the necessities that sustain enjoyment, together with sexual craving, in order to obtain various objects, running about everywhere in pursuit, this is called grasping; what is able to actually produce and draw forth the karma for a future resultant existence is called existence; what binds one to that future existence is called birth; and up to the point of undergoing that experience is aging-and-death. Prose: the stage of afflictions occurring within a past life, whose result has now ripened, is collectively called "ignorance," since these afflictions operate together with ignorance at the same time, and manifest specifically through the power of ignorance — comparable to speaking of "the king's procession": although the king is not without an entourage accompanying him, since the king is the most prominent among them all, the whole procession is collectively called "the king's procession." The stage of merit-producing and other karma occurring within a past life, whose result has now ripened, is collectively given the name "formations." The word "stage," introduced in the verse's first line, applies continuously all the way through to "aging-and-death." At the very moment of conception within the mother's womb and the like, that single-instant stage — the five aggregates at that moment — is called "consciousness." After the consciousness of conception, and before the six sense-bases arise, all the intervening stages are collectively called "name-and-form." Strictly speaking, this should be described as the stage before four of the sense-bases arise, but it speaks of six because this is established with reference to the complete, full set. From the point the eye and other faculties have arisen, up until the stage where faculty, object, and consciousness have not yet come together, this is given the name "the six sense-bases." Once the threefold union has occurred, but the distinct causes of the three feelings are not yet clearly discerned, this whole stage is collectively named "contact." Once the distinct characteristics of the three feelings' causes have been clearly discerned, but sexual craving has not yet arisen, this stage is named "feeling." When craving for fine necessities and sexual desire actually manifest, but before one broadly pursues them, this stage is named "craving." When one runs about everywhere in pursuit, in order to obtain all sorts of superior, wonderful objects, this stage is named "grasping." Because of this pursuit, one accumulates karma capable of drawing forth a future resultant existence — this stage is named "existence." Through the force of this karma, one relinquishes this life and precisely binds oneself to that future existence — this stage is named "birth." That future existence's link of "birth" — corresponding, in the present case, to consciousness's moment of arising and its subsequent gradual increase, all the way up to the future stage of feeling — is, in that future life, collectively named "aging-and-death." Thus, that future "aging-and-death" corresponds, in terms of the present life's scheme, to the four links of name-and-form, the six sense-bases, contact, and feeling. This is how the essential nature of each of the twelve links, individually, has been explained.

Moreover, dependent origination is spoken of, with distinctions, as being of four kinds: first, momentary; second, continuously-linked; third, staged; fourth, remotely-continuous. What is meant by "momentary"? It means that, within the very same instant, all twelve links are present together in the act of killing driven by craving: delusion is ignorance; volition is precisely formations; discernment with respect to the object is called consciousness; the three aggregates co-arising with consciousness are collectively called name-and-form; the faculties on which name-and-form depend are called the six sense-bases; the coming-together of the six sense-bases with their respective conditions is contact; the experiencing of that contact is feeling; craving is precisely craving itself; the entanglements associated with this craving are grasping; the bodily and verbal karma thereby produced is existence; the arising of these dharmas in this way is called birth; their ripening and changing is called aging; and their cessation and destruction is called death. There is a further explanation: the momentary and continuously-linked kinds, as explained in the Prakaraṇapāda, both pervade every conditioned dharma universally. At each of the twelve links' stages, all five aggregates present are subsumed under that particular stage. And this same continuity, extending remotely and without beginning, is called "remotely-continuous."

But now, to correctly explain the sutra's actual intent, verse: what is properly meant here is that, in its causal aspect, it is called dependent origination, and in its resultant aspect, it is called dependently-arisen. Prose: each link, considered in its causal aspect, is called "dependent origination," since it serves as the condition capable of giving rise to a result. Each link, considered in its resultant aspect, is called "dependently-arisen," since it is itself produced from a condition. In this way, both meanings hold for every link at once, since every link possesses both a causal nature and a resultant nature. If that is so, then this designation should not be able to hold in both senses simultaneously. It is not so, since the respect in which each is being considered differs. That is: when a given link is considered under the aspect that earns it the name "dependently-arisen," it is not, in that very same respect, also being considered under the aspect that earns it the name "dependent origination" — just as with the names "cause" and "result," or "father" and "son." The Venerable Pūrṇāśa holds: there are dharmas that are dependent origination but not dependently-arisen, and this should be treated as a fourfold case. The first case: future dharmas. The second case: an arhat's past and present dharmas at the stage of his very last moment of mind. The third case: all other past and present dharmas. The fourth case: all unconditioned dharmas.

The Sautrāntika masters raise this challenge: is what has been said here merely an expression of your own personal view, or is it truly the sutra's own intended meaning? If you claim it is the sutra's own meaning, the sutra's meaning is not actually so. Why is this? The staged reading of dependent origination just presented — taking the five aggregates of an entire period as each of the twelve links — contradicts the sutra, since the sutra states something different. As a sutra states: "What is ignorance? It is not-knowing with respect to the prior period," and so on, at length. This is a statement of definitive meaning, and cannot be forcibly reinterpreted into a statement of provisional meaning. Hence the staged reading of dependent origination just presented actually contradicts the sutra's own meaning. Not every sutra statement is a statement of strictly definitive meaning; some statements are made with reference to whatever is most prominent. As the Elephant's Footprint Simile Sutra states: "What is the internal earth-element? It is hair, body-hair, nails," and so on. Although this is not to say that there are no other form-dharmas present besides these, the statement is made with reference to whatever is most prominent — the present case should be understood in just the same way. This citation does not succeed as evidence: it is not that this sutra intends "earth-element = hair and nails" as a partial, representative statement rather than a complete one; rather, that sutra distinguishes the earth-element specifically by means of hair, nails, and the like, and there is no earth-element existing beyond hair, nails, and so on — hence that sutra's statement is indeed a complete one, in its own terms. The sutra's statement about ignorance and the other links should likewise be understood as a complete statement, just like that one — apart from what is explicitly stated, there is nothing further. But is it not the case that the earth-element, beyond hair and nails, also exists within things like nasal mucus and tears? And mucus and the like are indeed also mentioned within that very sutra, which states: "and there are, moreover, other substances within the body..." Even granting that there might likewise be some further ignorance analogous to this additional bodily material, you ought now to point out and demonstrate what it specifically is; if you simply import something of an entirely different category and place it under the heading "ignorance," what benefit does that actually provide? Although all five aggregates are indeed present at every stage, it is specifically according to whether a given factor is present or absent at that stage that this dharma is established as the link representing that stage. There are cases where all five aggregates are present, yet formations conducive to merit, demerit, or the unshakable are absent, as are consciousness, up through craving, and so on — hence the sutra's meaning is exactly as it plainly states.

There is a view that holds: dependent origination is an unconditioned dharma, since a sutra states: "Whether the Tathāgata arises in the world or does not arise in the world, this dharma-nature of dependent origination abides constantly." If this is meant in one particular sense, the principle can indeed hold; but if meant in a different sense, the principle does not hold. What is this acceptable sense, and what is the different, unacceptable sense? That is: if what is meant is that, whether the Tathāgata arises in the world or not, formations and the rest always arise in dependence on ignorance and the other specific conditions, never in dependence on anything else, or, alternatively, never arising without any condition at all — and it is on this basis that it is said to "abide constantly" — if this is the intended meaning, then the principle can indeed hold. But if what is meant is that there exists some separate, distinct entity called "dependent origination," which itself abides serenely and permanently, then the principle does not hold. Why is this? Because arising and coming-to-be are both, in themselves, characteristics of the conditioned; it would not accord with correct principle for some separate, permanent entity to bear the characteristic of impermanence. Moreover, "arising" must necessarily be established in dependence on something that arises; what relevance could this supposedly permanent, abiding dharma possibly have to ignorance and the other links, such that it could be said this dharma is established in dependence on them, as "their" dependent origination? Moreover, to name something "dependent origination" while claiming it refers to something permanent — such a use of the term bears no coherent correspondence to its own meaning at all.

What, then, is the precise verbal meaning of "dependent origination" here? "Prati" means "arriving at"; the root "i" means "going, moving." Through the transformative influence of the preceding element, "going/moving" is transformed by "arriving at" into "condition." "Sam" means "union, combination"; "ut" means "rising up"; the root "pad" means "being, existing." "Being," by means of combination and rising, is transformed into "arising." On this basis, a given existing dharma, once it has arrived at its condition and thereby combined and risen up, constitutes the meaning of "dependent origination." This account of the term's meaning, however, does not accord with reason. Why is this? Because this reading implies a single agent performing two sequential actions, and the earlier of these two actions ought to be marked with the word "already," as when one says, "having already bathed, a person then eats." But there is no dharma of any kind, belonging to formations, that exists prior to its own arising, first arriving at its condition and only afterward, at a later time, arising — since, without an agent already existing, there can be no action performed by it. Hence a verse states: "If arriving at the condition precedes arising, this cannot be, since it is not accordant with reason; if the two are simultaneous, this destroys the very reading just given, since arriving ought to have been stated first." There is no such fault in our reading. Let us, in turn, put a counter-question to the grammarian masters: at what time does a dharma actually arise — in the present, or in the future? Suppose either answer — what fault follows? If it arises in the present, then "arising" would not be the same as "having-already-arisen" — but how, then, could it count as "present" at all? And if being present just is having-already-arisen, then how could it still be described as "arising"? If something already arisen were to arise yet again, this would lead to an infinite regress. If, instead, it arises in the future, then, at that future time, it does not yet exist at all — how, then, could there be any agent for this action? And if there is no agent, how could there be any action of arising at all? Hence, the very stage of arising just is the stage of "arriving at the condition" — they are one and the same moment. What, then, is this "stage of arising"? It is precisely the moment a given formation belonging to the future world is in the very act of arising — and it is with respect to this very same moment that "arriving at the condition" is likewise spoken of. Moreover, the grammarian masters' assumption that there must be a genuine "agent" and "action," distinct from one another, here does not, in truth, hold up. They assume: "being" is the agent, and "arising" is the action — but, in this case, no agent distinct from the action of arising can actually be found or apprehended at all. Since we posit no such thing, this account of the meaning, in conventional terms, involves no error.

This meaning of dependent origination is precisely what is meant by "depending on this, that exists" and "because this arises, that arises" — and it is on this basis that these formulas should be invoked to explain the meaning of dependent origination. Hence a verse states: just as something arises without first existing, so too should "arriving at the condition" be understood in just the same way; if arising were said to occur only after having already come to be, this would lead to infinite regress; and whether one insists existence comes first or non-existence comes first, or that both occur together, the word "already" still smuggles in a false priority — as when one says darkness "arrives" only after the lamp has "already" gone out, or that the mouth "opens" only after one has "already" fallen asleep — for if sleep truly came after the mouth's opening, the mouth ought instead to close. There is a further view that resolves this difficulty by means of a different construal of the term's roots. "Prati" means "various, manifold"; the root "i" means "not abiding, impermanent." "Not abiding," through the influence of "various, manifold," is transformed into "condition." "Sam" means "gathering together"; "ut" means "rising up"; the root "pad" means "activity, formation." Through "rising up" taking the lead, "formation" is transformed into "arising." This means: once various conditions have combined together, they cause the formations to gather together and rise up — this is the meaning of "dependent origination."

The eye and form each serve as a condition giving rise to eye-consciousness, for instance — how, in a case like this, could "various things gathering together" actually apply? Why does the World-Honored One state the first two lines of the formula — namely, "depending on this, that exists" and "because this arises, that arises"? It is in order to establish certain knowledge regarding dependent origination. As is stated elsewhere: it is in dependence on ignorance that formations come to exist; apart from ignorance, formations could not possibly exist. Moreover, this is to demonstrate how the links are transmitted, one giving rise to the next: it is in dependence on this link that that link comes to exist, and it is because that link arises that the remaining links come to arise. Moreover, this is to demonstrate how the three time-periods are transmitted, one giving rise to the next: it is in dependence on the prior period that the middle period comes to exist, and it is because the middle period arises that the later period comes to arise. Moreover, this is to demonstrate the two kinds of direct transmission as conditions: that is, in one case, ignorance gives rise, in immediate succession, to formations; in another case, it is only through the successive, mediated power of several intervening links that formations eventually arise. There is a further view held by other masters: these two phrases are meant to refute the two doctrines of "no cause" and "a permanent cause" — that formations cannot exist without any cause at all, nor can they arise from a permanent, unproduced cause such as a fundamental nature or a self. If that were so, however, the first phrase would become useless, since the second phrase alone, "because this arises, that arises," is already fully capable of refuting both the "no cause" and the "permanent cause" doctrines on its own. However, there are those who hold that a self serves as the basis upon which formations and the rest come to exist, while nevertheless allowing that formations and the rest arise because of causal factors such as ignorance. Hence the World-Honored One, in order to eliminate this position, decisively established that a result's existence comes about specifically through a generative cause: "because this arises, that arises" just is "depending on this, that exists" — it is not that a result's existence depends on some further, separate cause beyond this.

That is: "ignorance conditions formations," and so on, up through "thus this whole great mass of suffering comes to accumulate." The ācārya masters explain these two phrases as demonstrating both the uninterrupted continuity of cause and result, and their arising: it is in dependence on ignorance's uninterrupted continuity that formations continue uninterrupted, and it is precisely because ignorance arises that formations come to arise. This same pattern should be understood to apply, at length, all the way through the whole chain. There is a further explanation: these two phrases demonstrate the "abiding" and "arising" of cause and result — for as long as the cause's continuity exists, the result's continuity likewise exists, and it is precisely because the cause's portion arises that the result's portion also arises. If the intent is to explain "arising," why does it speak of "abiding" first? And why would the Buddha reverse the natural sequence, stating "abiding" before stating "arising"? There is yet a further explanation: "depending on this, that exists" means that, depending on the result's existence, the cause's cessation can be inferred. "Because this arises, that arises" is stated out of concern that one might doubt the result arises without any cause at all — hence it further states that it is specifically because the cause arises that the result then comes to arise, not that it arises without any cause. If this were truly the sutra's meaning, it ought instead to have been phrased: "depending on this, that ceases to exist." Moreover, it ought to have first stated "because the cause arises, the result arises," and only afterward stated "depending on the result's existence, the cause's cessation can be inferred" — only in this order would the statement actually make good sense. If it were otherwise, then, in seeking to explain dependent origination, on what basis would one state the cause's cessation first? Hence, that explanation does not match the sutra's actual intended meaning.

Once again: how, in detail, does "ignorance condition formations," and so on, up through "birth conditions aging-and-death," actually work? Let me now briefly clarify what accords with the sutra's own meaning. Ordinary, foolish beings, not knowing that dependently-arisen dharmas are simply formations, mistakenly give rise to the view of self and the conceit of self-attachment; and, in order to secure pleasant or neutral experience for themselves, they perform three kinds of karma through body, speech, and mind respectively: in order to experience future pleasure for themselves, they perform meritorious karma; in order to experience future neutral, neither-pleasant-nor-painful experience, they perform unshakable karma; and in order to experience present pleasure, they perform demeritorious karma. This is what is meant by "ignorance conditions formations." Through the power of this inducing karma, the continuity of consciousness flows onward like a traveling flame, proceeding to one destiny or another, relying on the intermediate-existence being, rushing toward its place of birth, and binding itself to the body of existence at conception — this is what is meant by "formations condition consciousness." If explained in this way, this accords well with the sutra's own analysis, in which the link of consciousness is understood to extend to all six kinds of consciousness, since consciousness in this specific sense is what comes first. Within this destiny, name-and-form then arises, possessing the five aggregates in full, continuing in succession throughout the entire span of that one lifetime — this is stated in just this way in sutras such as the Mahānidāna and the Discourse Distinguishing Dependent Origination. As name-and-form gradually matures, and the eye and other faculties become complete, this is called "the six sense-bases." Next, once these come together with their objects, consciousness arises; and, through this threefold union, contact conducive to pleasure and the like comes to be. In dependence on this, the three feelings — pleasure and the rest — arise; and from these three feelings, three kinds of craving are induced: being pressed by suffering, one gives rise to desire-craving with respect to pleasant feeling; or, with respect to pleasant and neutral feeling, one gives rise to form-craving; or, solely with respect to neutral feeling, one gives rise to formless-craving.

From delighting in and craving these feelings, the graspings — desire-grasping and the rest — arise. Here, "desire" refers to the five wondrous sense-pleasures. "View" refers to the sixty-two views, as explained at length in the Brahmajāla Sutra. "Precept" refers to distancing oneself from evil precepts; "vow" refers to vows such as imitating dogs or cattle — exemplified by the Jain ascetics and brahmins, and by various other heretical schools such as the Pāśupatas and the Vārṣagaṇyas, who undertake all manner of pointless austerities: going naked, plucking out their hair, wearing the hides of crows or deer, wearing matted topknots smeared with ashes, carrying three staffs, shaving their beards and hair, and so on. "The discourse of self" refers to the internal body, on the basis of which "self" is spoken of. There is a further view: the view of self and the conceit of self are what is called "the discourse of self." Why are these two alone called by this name? Because it is specifically through these two that "self" is spoken of at all — and, since the self does not actually exist, this is called "the discourse of self." As a sutra states: "Monks, you should know: foolish, unlearned ordinary beings, following mere conventional speech, give rise to attachment to a self — yet, within this, there is in truth no self, nor anything belonging to a self, at all." Among these four kinds, "grasping," in the sense relevant here, refers to desirous craving. Hence, in the Blessed One's sutras, it is explained: "What is grasping? It is desirous craving." Through grasping serving as a condition, one accumulates various kinds of karma capable of bringing about a future existence — this is called "existence." As the World-Honored One told Ānanda: "Karma capable of bringing about a future existence is called existence, since it serves as the condition for that existence." The continuity of consciousness flows onward toward a future birth; in accordance with the same principle already explained, the full possession of the five aggregates at that future conception is called "birth." With birth serving as the condition, aging-and-death then occurs; its specific characteristics are explained at length, as in the sutras. Thus, the word "pure" shows that there is only formations, with no self and nothing belonging to a self. The words "great mass of suffering" show that suffering accumulates without beginning and without end. The word "arising" shows how this mass of suffering comes to be. This is what the Vaibhāṣika school holds, as already explained above.