Distinguishing the Noble Ones

We have now explained that afflictions attain the name "full understanding" through severance at nine superior stages. But severance must always come about through the power of a path — what is the character of this path? Verse: it has been explained that afflictions are severed through seeing the truths and through cultivation; the path of seeing is exclusively undefiled, while the path of cultivation is of both kinds. Explanation: it has already been explained at length that the severance of afflictions comes about through the path of seeing the truths and the path of cultivation. Is this path exclusively undefiled, or can it also be defiled? It should be understood that the path of seeing is exclusively undefiled, while the path of cultivation is of both kinds. Why is this so? Because the path of seeing is able to swiftly counter the afflictions of all three realms at once, severing all nine grades of what is abandoned by seeing in a single stroke — a capacity no worldly path possesses. For this reason, the path at the stage of seeing is exclusively undefiled. The path of cultivation, being of a different character, is of both kinds, exactly as stated just now with the phrase "through seeing the truths and [through cultivation]."

Verse: the four truths were already named — suffering, origin, cessation, and the path; their own essential nature is likewise as stated then; their order here follows the sequence of direct realization. Explanation: there are four truths, whose names were already given earlier. Where was this stated? In the first chapter, in the section distinguishing contaminated and uncontaminated dharmas. How was it stated there? By that verse's words: "the uncontaminated is the noble path" — referring to the truth of the path; "analytical cessation is separation-from-bondage" — referring to the truth of cessation; "and suffering and its origin are the worldly dharmas" — referring to the truths of suffering and its origin. Does the order of the four truths here match how they were listed there? No. What, then, is the order? As now listed: first suffering, second origin, third cessation, fourth path. Does the essential nature of the four truths differ from what was explained earlier? No. The verse's word "likewise" is used specifically to show that their essential nature is the same, even though the order of presentation differs. Why are the four truths presented in this order? Because they are stated following the sequence in which they are actually directly realized in meditative practice — whichever is observed first in that direct realization is stated first; were it otherwise, one would need to state the cause before the effect. Yet in some cases a topic's stated order follows the sequence of its actual arising, as with the four foundations of mindfulness; in other cases it follows mere convenience of expression, as with the four right efforts, where there is no fixed principled reason for the given order. The four truths spoken of here follow the sequence of a yoga practitioner's direct realization. Why must this sequence be fixed? Because this is how one observes them at the preparatory stage.

Why must the preparatory stage observe them in this way? Because whatever dharma is both an object of attachment and a source of oppressive distress, and whose escape one seeks a cause for, ought by reason to be observed first of all. Hence the practitioner, at the preparatory stage, first observes suffering — suffering being precisely the truth of suffering. Next, one further observes: by what is suffering caused? One then observes the cause of suffering — that cause being precisely the truth of the origin. Next, one further observes: by what is suffering brought to cessation? One then observes the cessation of suffering — that cessation being precisely the truth of cessation. Finally, one observes: by what path is the cessation of suffering reached? One then observes the path to cessation — that path being precisely the truth of the path. This is like first seeing that one is ill, then seeking the cause of the illness, then considering how the illness might be cured, and only afterward seeking the right medicine. The sūtras, too, give an analogy for this order. Which sūtra states this? The Sūtra of the Excellent Physician. As that sūtra says: a king among physicians is one who possesses four qualities enabling him to draw out a poisoned arrow — skillfully knowing the symptoms of the illness, its cause, its cure, and the right medicine. The Tathāgata is likewise a great king among physicians, truly and fully understanding suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path. Hence the preparatory stage observes them in this sequence, and the stage of direct realization follows the same sequence, since it is brought about by the force of that preparatory stage, like a horse already familiar with the terrain, now let loose to gallop freely across it. What does "direct realization" itself mean? It should be understood to denote a direct, complete awakening. Why is this said to be exclusively undefiled? Because it is directed toward nirvāṇa, the object of true and complete awakening, and, this awakening being truly pure, it rightly earns this name.

They bear the name "noble." Are these truths therefore false for one who is not a noble one? No — they are true for everyone, since their nature involves no inversion whatsoever. Yet only the noble ones truly see them as they are, others do not; and it is for this reason that the sūtras call them specifically noble truths, not because they fail to be truths for the non-noble, but rather because the non-noble see them through an inverted view. As a verse states: what the noble ones call suffering, the non-noble call pleasurable; what the noble ones call pleasurable, the non-noble call suffering. Other teachers say: two are exclusively noble truths, the remaining two are common to both the noble and non-noble. Only a portion of feeling is the essential nature of suffering; the rest is not. How, then, can it be said that all contaminated formations are the truth of suffering? Verse: suffering arises through union with the three kinds of suffering — accordingly, all contaminated formations, whether pleasing, displeasing, or neither.

Explanation: there are three natures of suffering — the suffering of suffering, the suffering of formations, and the suffering of change. Contaminated formations, each as appropriate, are united with one of these three natures of suffering, and so all of them are indeed, without fault, the truth of suffering. Among these, pleasing contaminated formations are called suffering because they are united with the suffering of change. Displeasing contaminated formations are called suffering because they are united with the suffering of suffering. All remaining contaminated formations are called suffering because they are united with the suffering of formations. What is meant by pleasing, displeasing, and the rest? It refers to the three feelings — pleasure and the others — since it is by the power of these three feelings that the contaminated formations associated with pleasurable feeling and so on come to be called pleasing and so on. Why is this so? Because pleasurable feelings become suffering through their own change — as a sūtra states: pleasurable feelings are pleasurable when they arise, pleasurable while they persist, but suffering when they change. Painful feelings, by contrast, are suffering by their very nature — as a sūtra states: painful feelings are suffering when they arise, and suffering while they persist. Feeling that is neither painful nor pleasurable becomes suffering through its nature as a formation, since it is fabricated by a multitude of conditions — as a sūtra states: whatever is impermanent is suffering. Just as feeling relates to what accompanies it, so too do all other formations.

Other teachers explain it this way: suffering that is itself suffering in nature is called the suffering of suffering; and, in just the same way, up through formations that are themselves suffering in nature, called the suffering of formations. It should be understood that, in speaking here of the pleasing and displeasing specifically in terms of the suffering of change and the suffering of suffering, this is done because of what is distinctive to each; in truth, all formations are suffering precisely because they are formations, and it is only the noble ones who are able to directly perceive this. As a verse states: just as a single eyelash, placed on the palm of the hand, goes unnoticed, but if placed upon the eye, causes harm and discomfort — so the ordinary, foolish person is like the palm, failing to notice the eyelash of the suffering of formations, while the wise one is like the eye, generating, upon this same object, an intense sense of revulsion and dread.

Ordinary, unawakened beings generate a fearful sense of suffering only when undergoing the extreme suffering of the aggregates in the Avīci hell of unremitting torment — a fear the noble ones experience even with respect to the exceedingly subtle aggregates found at the very peak of existence. Should not the truth of the path likewise be included within the suffering of formations, since it too has the nature of being conditioned? The truth of the path is not suffering, since running contrary to the noble mind is the defining mark of the suffering of formations, and the arising of the noble path does not run contrary to the noble mind — indeed, it is precisely this path that is capable of bringing about the complete exhaustion of every kind of suffering. As for the formula that regards all conditioned things as suffering and nirvāṇa alone as peaceful stillness, this too proceeds by first seeing those dharmas as suffering, and only afterward observing their cessation as peaceful stillness; hence the word "conditioned," as used in that formula, refers specifically to what is contaminated.

If it is granted that certain dharmas do indeed involve genuine pleasure, why does the sūtra speak only of suffering, and not of pleasure, as the noble truth? One explanation holds that this is because pleasure is comparatively rare — just as a heap containing both green beans and black beans, with far more black beans than green, is simply called a heap of black beans, the minority element being absorbed into the majority's name. Indeed, what wise person, feeling a slight sense of relief from pouring water over a festering boil, would on that basis conclude the boil itself is a source of pleasure? Other teachers offer a further verse in explanation: because it is capable of serving as a cause of suffering; because it gathers together many sufferings; and because there is suffering in the very longing for it — pleasure, too, is for these reasons called suffering. In truth, it should rather be said that the noble ones observe that the substance of both existence and of pleasure alike is suffering, since, considered from the standpoint of the suffering of formations, they share one and the same single flavor — and it is on this basis that suffering alone, not pleasure, is established as the noble truth.

Some teachers of other schools hold the following position: there is definitely no real pleasure; feeling is, without exception, nothing but suffering. How is this known? By both scripture and reasoning. How by scripture? As the Blessed One says: all feelings whatsoever are nothing but suffering. A further sūtra states: you should observe pleasurable feeling as suffering. A further sūtra states: to regard suffering as pleasure is called an inversion. How by reasoning? Because every cause of pleasure is unreliable. That is, things such as clothing, food and drink, warmth, and coolness, which sentient beings generally accept as causes of pleasure, will instead produce suffering if enjoyed at the wrong time or to excess, thereby becoming a cause of suffering rather than remaining a cause of pleasure. Even at a moderate degree of use, if the timing alone is wrong, it likewise becomes a cause of suffering capable of producing suffering. From this it can be known that things like clothing are, at bottom, always causes of suffering, whose true character as such simply becomes apparent once the suffering they produce grows sufficiently intense. The same reasoning should apply to changing one's bodily posture. Moreover, a sensation of pleasure arises only precisely when one is counteracting some suffering, and only when that suffering is thereby exchanged for relief does the sensation of pleasure come about — that is, when one has not yet been afflicted by sufferings such as hunger, thirst, cold, heat, fatigue, or desire, one does not generate a sensation of pleasure with respect to a supposed cause of pleasure. Hence, with respect to whatever counteracts a weighty cause of suffering, the ordinary, unawakened person falsely imagines that this generates pleasure — but in truth, there is no fixed, reliable cause capable of generating pleasure as such. In the mere exchange of one suffering for a lesser one, the ordinary person mistakenly calls this pleasure, just as one shifts a heavy load momentarily from one shoulder to the other. Hence feeling is nothing but suffering; there is definitely no real pleasure.

The masters of Abhidharma hold that pleasure genuinely exists, and this accords with reason. How is this known? We should first turn the question back upon those who deny pleasure: by what standard do they define suffering? If suffering consists in being oppressed and afflicted, then, since there also exists a state of ease and comfort, pleasure should likewise be established as real. If suffering consists in harm and injury, then, since there also exists benefit and enrichment, pleasure should likewise be established as real. If suffering consists in what is unwanted, then, since there also exists what is genuinely wanted and pleasing, pleasure should likewise be established as real. If it is said that the pleasing object's own nature is not truly real, since, when the noble ones become free of defilement, what is pleasing turns into what is not pleasing — this is not so. When the noble ones become free of defilement, it is because they come to observe it, through a different approach, as unwanted. That is, if a feeling is, by its own intrinsic characteristic, genuinely pleasing, that feeling never actually becomes not-pleasing. Rather, when the noble ones become free of defilement, they come to be revolted by this same feeling through a different mode of observation — observing that it is a basis for heedlessness, and that it must, through great effort, be seen as impermanent and subject to decay, and is therefore not to be prized — but this does not mean its own intrinsic characteristic is itself unpleasing. If that feeling's own nature were itself unpleasing, no one should ever be capable of generating desire toward it. And if no one ever generated desire toward it, the noble ones, at the point of becoming free of defilement, would have no need to observe pleasant feeling through some further mode in order to generate deep revulsion toward it. Hence, by its own intrinsic characteristic, real pleasant feeling does indeed exist.

As for the Blessed One's statement that all feelings whatsoever are nothing but suffering — the Buddha himself provides the resolution, as a sūtra records. The Buddha told Ānanda: I said this with a hidden intention, based on the fact that all formations are impermanent, and all conditioned things undergo change and decay. From this it can be known that this sūtra's statement is not made with reference to the suffering of suffering as such. If it were meant literally, by intrinsic characteristic, that all feeling is suffering, why would Ānanda have needed to ask: the Buddha, in other sūtras, spoke of three kinds of feeling — pleasure, suffering, and neither-suffering-nor-pleasure. With what hidden intention does this sūtra now state that all feelings whatsoever are nothing but suffering? Ānanda ought instead to have asked with what hidden intention the Buddha spoke of three kinds of feeling, and the Blessed One ought correspondingly to have answered only that it was with such-and-such hidden intention that he spoke of three kinds of feeling. But since the sūtra contains no such question and answer in that direction, it must instead be, by intrinsic characteristic, that three kinds of feeling truly and really exist. Since the Blessed One himself explicitly stated that he spoke with a hidden intention when he said that all feelings whatsoever are nothing but suffering, this itself already shows that this particular sūtra statement was made with a special intention, and is not a statement of the final, definitive truth.

As for the further sūtra passage stating that you should observe pleasurable feeling as suffering — it should be understood that this sūtra's intent is to reveal that pleasurable feeling has two natures: a pleasurable nature, since this feeling, according to its own intrinsic characteristic, is genuinely pleasing; and a suffering nature, since, considered from a different angle, it is also an impermanent dharma subject to change and decay. Observing it as pleasure serves as a form of bondage, since those prone to craving relish its flavor in that way, whereas observing it as suffering leads to liberation, since one who observes it this way becomes free of craving. Because observing it as suffering brings about liberation, the Buddha therefore urged sentient beings to observe pleasure as suffering. How is it known that pleasure's own intrinsic characteristic is indeed pleasurable? As a verse states: the buddhas, in their perfect and complete awakening, know that all formations are impermanent, and that all conditioned things undergo change and decay, and it is on this basis that they say all feeling is suffering. As for the further sūtra statement that to regard suffering as pleasure is called an inversion — this too is spoken with a distinct intention: it refers to how ordinary worldly beings, with respect to pleasurable feelings, exquisite sensory desires, and the portion of pleasure found within existence, one-sidedly regard these as purely pleasurable, and this constitutes their inversion. Pleasurable feelings, considered from a different angle, also possess a suffering-nature, yet ordinary worldly beings observe them only as pleasure, and it is this one-sided view that constitutes the inversion. Exquisite objects of sensory desire involve little actual pleasure and much suffering, yet are observed only as pleasurable, and this too constitutes inversion. The same holds for existence in general. Hence this scriptural statement cannot be used to prove that pleasurable feeling has no real existence. If, by intrinsic characteristic, all feeling really were suffering without exception, what benefit would there be in the Buddha speaking of three kinds of feeling at all? And if one supposes the Blessed One merely spoke in accordance with worldly convention, this does not accord with reason, since the Blessed One himself explicitly stated that his remark that all feeling is suffering was spoken with a hidden intention, and, moreover, with respect to observing the five feeling-faculties, he speaks in accordance with how things truly are.

Moreover, with respect to observing the five feeling-faculties, the Buddha speaks in accordance with how things truly are. A sūtra states: whatever is the pleasure-faculty, and whatever is the joy-faculty — both of these should be understood to be pleasurable feeling, and so on, at length. It further states: if, by right wisdom, one truly observes and sees these same five faculties, the three fetters are permanently severed, and so on, at length. Moreover, how could the Buddha, with respect to a single painful feeling, distinguish it into three merely in accordance with worldly convention? If it is claimed that, since worldly beings experience three degrees of suffering — lower, upper, and middling — and correspondingly generate three sensations of pleasure, and that the Buddha, following this convention, spoke of pleasure and the others as three, this too does not hold, since pleasure itself is likewise threefold, so it should follow that only the highest degree of pleasurable sensation would arise in connection with the lowest degree of suffering. Moreover, when one experiences pleasure arising from an especially wonderful fragrance, taste, or tactile sensation, what lower degree of suffering is present, that worldly beings should generate a sensation of pleasure with respect to it? If one grants that a lower degree of suffering is present, then, once this lower suffering has already ceased, worldly beings ought, at that point, to experience the very highest degree of pleasurable sensation, since no suffering whatsoever remains present. The same line of questioning applies to the experience of pleasure through sensory desire. Moreover, when a lower-grade feeling is manifestly present, it is granted to be clear, intense, and readily identifiable, yet when a middling-grade feeling is present, the opposite is granted to hold — how could this accord with reason? Moreover, since it is said that the lower three meditative absorptions involve pleasure, there ought correspondingly to be a lower degree of suffering there; and since it is said that the higher stages involve equanimity, there ought correspondingly to be a middling degree of suffering there. But how could it accord with reason that suffering should increase precisely as meditative attainment grows more excellent? Hence it is not correct to establish pleasure, joy, and equanimity respectively on the basis of lower, upper, and middling degrees of suffering.

Moreover, a sūtra states: the Buddha told Mahānāma: if form were purely and simply suffering, never pleasurable, and never accompanied by pleasure, and so on, at length. From this it can be known that there must indeed be at least some small portion of genuinely real pleasure. Thus far we have shown that the scriptural passages the opponents cite in an attempt to prove that no real pleasure exists do not succeed as proof; their logical arguments likewise fail to establish their case. As for their argument that every cause of pleasure is unreliable — this is not sound reasoning, since it misunderstands the true meaning of causation. It is only in dependence on the specific condition of the underlying basis that any external object becomes a cause of pleasure or a cause of suffering, not the object alone. If this same external object, upon reaching this same underlying basis in this same specific condition, is capable of serving as a cause of pleasure, it has never failed, upon reaching precisely this condition, to serve as a cause of pleasure — and therefore the cause of pleasure is not, in fact, unreliable. It is like ordinary fire: depending on the specific condition of whatever is being cooked or roasted, that fire becomes either a cause of delicious ripeness or a cause of spoiling, and this depends not on the fire alone. If this same fire, applied to this same food in this same specific condition, serves as a cause of delicious ripeness, it has never failed, under precisely this condition, to serve as such a cause, and so the cause of delicious ripeness is not unreliable either. The cause of pleasure works in exactly the same way, and so its being genuinely determinate is established by reason.

The sūtra names craving as the origin because it does so with reference to what is most prominent; in truth, the other causes as well are also, properly speaking, the truth of the origin. How is this principle known? Because other sūtras likewise speak of these other causes. As the Blessed One states in a verse: karma, craving, and ignorance serve as causes bringing about future formations, causing the continuity of existence — this is what is called a person. A further sūtra speaks of five kinds of seed — this is simply another name for the appropriated consciousness. That same sūtra speaks of these being placed within the earth-element — this is simply another name for the four abodes of consciousness. Hence what the sūtra states is spoken with a hidden intention, whereas the Abhidharma speaks directly according to the true characteristics of the dharmas. As for the sūtra's statement that craving alone is the origin, this speaks one-sidedly of only the cause of continuation. The verse's statement that karma, craving, and ignorance are all causes speaks fully of both the cause of coming-into-being and the cause of continuation, together with their underlying causes.

What is meant by coming-into-being, and what is meant by continuation? The actual manifestation of a distinct individual entity, differentiated by realm, destiny, birth, and so forth, is called coming-into-being. The subsequent, undifferentiated continuity of that same existence is called continuation. Karma and craving-for-existence serve, respectively, as the cause of each of these two, just as a seed serves as the cause capable of generating a sprout distinguished by its particular kind, while water serves as the cause capable of sustaining the continued growth of any sprout, without distinction as to kind — so too should karma and craving-for-existence be understood as, respectively, the cause of coming-into-being and the cause of continuation. By what reasoning is craving established as the cause of continuation? Because, apart from craving, a future existence definitely does not arise — among those who die possessing craving and those who die free of craving, only in the case of the one possessing craving is a further future existence observed to arise. By this reasoning it is established that craving is the cause of continuation, since whether continuation occurs or not is determined precisely by the presence or absence of craving. Moreover, it is because of craving that the mental continuum races onward toward a future existence — it is directly observed that wherever craving is present with respect to some object, the mental continuum repeatedly inclines toward that object. By analogy, it can be inferred that it is because of craving that the mental continuum is driven onward toward a future existence. Moreover, in the grasping of a future body, there is no other dharma that clings as tenaciously as craving does — like a paste made of vetch-bean powder mixed with water and applied to the body while bathing, which, once dried, sticks fast to the body and is difficult to remove, surpassing everything else in tenacity. In just the same way, there is no other causal factor that grasps a future body as tenaciously as self-love does — and by this reasoning too, craving is established as the cause of continuation.

The Blessed One thus taught that there are four truths. Other sūtras further state: there are two kinds of truth — conventional truth and ultimate truth. What is the character of these two truths? Verse: that whose cognition ceases once broken, and likewise whatever, once further analyzed by wisdom, its cognition also ceases — such things, like a jar or water, are conventional; whatever differs from this is called ultimate. Explanation: if, for a given thing, the cognition of that thing ceases the moment that thing is physically broken apart, that thing should be understood as a matter of conventional truth. For example, once a jar is smashed into fragments, the cognition "jar" no longer arises; the same holds for something like cloth. Moreover, if there is a thing such that, once wisdom analytically resolves it into its remaining components, the cognition of that thing likewise ceases, this too is conventional — for example, once wisdom analytically resolves water into visible form and so forth, the cognition "water" no longer arises; the same holds for fire and the rest. At the point before such a thing has been broken apart or analytically resolved, worldly convention designates it with a name on the basis of ordinary perception, and because it is established as existing in this way, by designation, it is called conventional. In accordance with the principle of conventional truth, it is said that things like a jar genuinely exist, not falsely, and this is called conventional truth.

Whatever differs from this is called ultimate truth. That is, if, for a given thing, the cognition of that thing does not cease even when it is broken apart, and, even once wisdom analytically resolves it into its remaining components, the cognition of it still persists, such a thing should be understood as a matter of ultimate truth. For example, when something like visible form is broken down all the way to its ultimate, indivisible particles, or when superior wisdom analytically strips away taste and the like, the cognition of it still persists at every stage; the same holds for feeling and the rest. Because these are genuinely and truly existent in this way, they are called ultimate. In accordance with the principle of ultimate truth, it is said that things like form genuinely exist, not falsely, and this is called ultimate truth. The earlier master-teachers explain it this way: whatever dharmas are apprehended by supramundane wisdom, and by the correct mundane wisdom subsequently attained in its wake, are called matters of ultimate truth; whatever dharmas are apprehended, by contrast, by all other kinds of cognition are called matters of conventional truth.

Having now explained the truths, we should explain by what skillful means one diligently cultivates to approach the path of seeing the truths. Verse: about to approach the path of seeing the truths, one should settle into moral discipline and diligently cultivate the wisdoms born of hearing, reflection, and meditation, whose objects are, respectively, name, both name and meaning, and meaning. Explanation: whoever has resolved to approach the seeing of the truths should first settle into pure moral discipline, and only then diligently cultivate the wisdom born of hearing and the rest. That is, one first takes in teachings conducive to seeing the truths through hearing; having heard them, one diligently seeks out the meaning of what was heard; having grasped the meaning, one reflects upon it without distortion; and only after such reflection is one able to cultivate it further through meditative concentration. A practitioner who thus settles into moral discipline and diligently cultivates in this way gives rise, on the basis of the wisdom born of hearing, to the wisdom born of reflection, and, on the basis of the wisdom born of reflection, gives rise to the wisdom born of meditation. What distinguishes these three kinds of wisdom? The Vaibhāṣika masters hold that these three differ, respectively, in whether they take as their object name alone, both name and meaning together, or meaning alone: the wisdom born of hearing takes only names as its object, since it is not yet able to set aside the literal text and directly observe the meaning. The wisdom born of reflection takes both name and meaning as its object, since at times it proceeds from text to meaning and at other times from meaning to text, not yet having entirely set aside the text. The wisdom born of meditation takes only meaning as its object, since it is already able to set aside the text entirely and observe the meaning alone. It is like a person floating in deep, swift-flowing water: one who has never learned to swim cannot let go of some support; one who has learned but not yet mastered the skill sometimes lets go and sometimes clings to a support; and one who has thoroughly mastered swimming needs no support at all, crossing by their own strength alone. The three kinds of wisdom are analogous to these three.

Some object: if this is so, then the wisdom born of reflection cannot properly be established as its own category, since it takes both name and meaning as its object, it would, by this same logic, simply amount to a combination of the wisdom born of hearing and the wisdom born of meditation. Upon careful examination, however, there is no fault in distinguishing these three: the superior wisdom that a practitioner generates in dependence on hearing an authoritative teaching is called wisdom born of hearing; the superior wisdom generated in dependence on correctly reasoning through it is called wisdom born of reflection; and the superior wisdom generated in dependence on cultivating meditative concentration is called wisdom born of meditation. The phrase "born of" indicates that these three kinds of superior wisdom are each brought about by their respective cause, just as, in ordinary worldly speech, one says of a living ox that it is grass-fed.

For those who wish to diligently apply themselves in cultivation, how should the vessel of body and mind be purified so that cultivation quickly succeeds? Verse: possessing bodily and mental seclusion, being without discontent and without excessive desire — meaning, with respect to what one has already obtained or not yet obtained, seeking still more is called being "without." These counteract three opposing things across the three realms, and have non-greed as their nature. Explanation: the purity of the vessel comes about, in brief, through three causes. What are these three? First, bodily and mental seclusion; second, contentment and having few desires; third, abiding in the four noble lineages. Bodily seclusion means being apart from mixed, crowded dwelling. Mental seclusion means being free of unwholesome discursive thought. These two are readily accomplished through contentment and having few desires. Contentment means being without discontent; having few desires means being without excessive desire. What is the difference between these two? The masters of Abhidharma uniformly explain it this way: seeking still more with respect to fine clothing one has already obtained is called discontent; excessively desiring fine clothing one has not yet obtained is called excessive desire. But does not seeking more also concern what has not yet been obtained, collapsing this distinction? It should therefore instead be said: feeling disappointed that what one has already obtained is not fine or plentiful enough is discontent; seeking fineness or abundance in clothing and similar things one has not yet obtained is excessive desire. Contentment and having few desires counteract these two respectively, and their character should be understood as the direct opposite. Contentment and few desires pervade all three realms and can be undefiled, whereas the two things they counteract are bound only to the desire realm. The essential nature of contentment and few desires is non-greed, while the essential nature of the two things they counteract is desire-greed itself.

Because they are capable of generating many noble ones, they are called noble lineages. The essential nature of the four noble lineages is likewise non-greed. Among the four, the first three consist solely in contentment — generating contentment with whatever one happens to obtain in clothing, food and drink, and bedding. The fourth noble lineage consists in delight in abandonment and cultivation — how can this too have non-greed as its essential nature? Because it is capable of relinquishing the greed for existence. For what purpose are these four noble lineages established? Because the Buddha's disciples, in giving up worldly possessions and occupations, go forth and take refuge in the Buddha in search of liberation. The Blessed One compassionately established, for their benefit, two things supportive of the path: basic requisites, and activity. The first three noble lineages are the requisites supportive of the path; the last is the activity supportive of the path. If you are able to rely on these requisites and thereby take up this activity, liberation will not be long in coming. Why are these two things established in this way? In order to counteract four kinds of arising craving. As a sūtra states: monks, listen carefully! Craving arises, when it should arise, on account of robes; abides, when it should abide, on account of robes; and takes hold, when it should take hold, on account of robes. The same is said of craving arising on account of food and drink, bedding, and existence-or-nonexistence. It is in order to counteract these four that the four noble lineages are taught. On the basis of this same meaning, it can also be explained through a further approach: the Buddha, wishing to both temporarily quiet and ultimately eliminate craving for what belongs to me and for my own body, taught the four noble lineages. What belongs to me refers to things such as clothing; my own body refers to oneself; and craving with respect to these is called desire. The first three noble lineages are taught in order to temporarily quiet the first three forms of craving; the fourth is taught in order to permanently eliminate all four forms of craving.

We have now explained the vessel on which cultivation depends. Through what gate does one correctly enter cultivation? Verse: entering cultivation requires two gates — the contemplation of impurity and mindfulness of breathing — to be cultivated respectively by one dominated by desire and one dominated by discursive thought. Explanation: the essential gates for correctly entering cultivation are two: the contemplation of impurity, and mindfulness of breathing. Who correctly enters cultivation through which gate? This should be understood in the following order. Dominated by desire means one in whom desire arises intensely and repeatedly; such a being is called a desire-type practitioner, and it is by contemplating impurity that such a person correctly enters cultivation. One whose mind is much disturbed by discursive thought is called a thought-type practitioner, and it is by relying on mindfulness of breathing that such a person correctly enters cultivation. Some teachers say: mindfulness of breathing, precisely because it does not involve many different objects, is capable of stilling disturbing discursive thought; impurity contemplation, by contrast, involves many objects, differences of color and shape, which tend to provoke further discursive thought, and so is incapable of counteracting it. Other teachers further say: mindfulness of breathing operates through an inward-turned mode, and is thereby capable of stilling disturbing thought; impurity contemplation, by contrast, mostly operates through an outward-turned mode, and so, like visual consciousness, is incapable of counteracting it.

Among these, the contemplation of impurity should be discussed first. What is the character of this contemplation? Verse: in order to universally counteract the four kinds of desire, the contemplation of the skeleton is to be discussed first — expanding out as far as the sea and then contracting again is called the stage of initial practice; removing everything from the feet up through half of the skull is called the stage of matured cultivation; fixing the mind between the eyebrows is called the stage of transcending mental application. Explanation: the cultivation of impurity-contemplation is specifically intended to counteract desire; desire, however, comes in four distinct kinds, in brief: desire for color, for shape, for exquisite touch, and for being served. Cultivating impurity-contemplation with a bruised, discolored corpse as its object counteracts the first kind of desire; with a corpse being devoured as its object counteracts the second; with a corpse infested by maggots as its object counteracts the third; with a motionless corpse as its object counteracts the fourth. If, however, one cultivates impurity-contemplation taking the skeleton as its object, this is capable of universally counteracting all four kinds of desire, since a skeleton contains none of the objects that could provoke any of these four — for this reason, the cultivation of skeleton-contemplation should be discussed first. Because this belongs entirely to the category of resolved mental application, and because it takes only a small, limited object, it does not sever affliction, but is only capable of suppressing it, preventing it from becoming manifest. A yoga practitioner cultivating skeleton-contemplation passes through three stages: initial practice, matured cultivation, and transcending mental application. When a practitioner wishing to cultivate this contemplation begins, they should first fix the mind on a part of their own body, and, by the power of resolved imagination, contemplate that part as if its skin and flesh were rotting away, gradually exposing clean bone, until the entire skeleton of the whole body is contemplated. Once one skeleton has been visualized, one visualizes a second, and so on, gradually expanding to fill a room, a monastery, a garden, a village, a country, until the entire earth, bounded by the ocean, is filled with skeletons, in order to strengthen the power of this resolved imagination. One then gradually contracts this visualization back down, until only a single skeleton is contemplated once more; at this point, this expand-then-contract form of impurity-contemplation is complete, and this is called the stage of initial practice.

In order to further strengthen the power of this contracted visualization, one begins, within that single skeleton, by mentally removing the foot bones, contemplating and fixing the mind upon the remaining bones, and gradually continues, removing bone after bone, up until only half of the skull remains, contemplating and fixing the mind upon that half-skull alone. At this point, this further-contracted impurity-contemplation is complete, and this stage is called the stage of matured cultivation. In order to attain complete mastery over this contracted visualization, one then removes even the remaining half-skull, fixing the mind instead between the eyebrows, concentrating single-pointedly on this one object, abiding there in serene stillness. At this point, this most extremely contracted form of impurity-contemplation is complete, and this stage is called the stage of transcending mental application.

What is the nature of this impurity-contemplation? How many stages does it depend on? What does it take as its object? Where does it arise? What is its mode of activity? What time does it take as its object? Is it contaminated or uncontaminated? Is it attained through freedom from defilement, or through preparatory effort? Verse: it has non-greed as its nature, depends on ten stages, takes desire-realm form as its object, arises among humans; it is impurity, takes an object of its own time, is contaminated, and is attained by both means. Explanation: we now answer, in order, the questions raised. This contemplation has non-greed as its essential nature, and can be cultivated relying on ten stages — the four dhyānas and their four preparatory stages, together with the intermediate dhyāna and the desire realm — taking as its object only visible form belonging to the desire realm that can actually be seen. What is meant by what can be seen? It refers to color and shape. That its object is visible form in this meaningful sense is thereby established. It arises only among those born in the human destiny, and, among humans, only in three of the four continents, excluding the northern continent — it does not even occur among beings of other destinies, let alone among beings born in other realms. Since it is established under the name impurity, its mode of activity is exclusively that of perceiving impurity. Whatever time the practitioner exists in, the object taken belongs to that same time; however, with respect to a dharma that has not yet arisen, it can take an object belonging to any of the three times. Since it is associated exclusively with resolved mental application, this contemplation should, by reason, be exclusively contaminated. It can be attained either through freedom from defilement or through preparatory effort, since there are cases of both having previously attained it and never having previously attained it.

Having explained the distinguishing characteristics of impurity-contemplation, we should next discuss mindfulness of breathing. What are its distinguishing characteristics? Verse: mindfulness of breathing has wisdom as its nature, is cultivated in five stages, takes wind as its object, arises in dependence on a desire-realm body; it is attained by both means, is real, and does not exist in the formless realm; it has six factors: counting and so on. Explanation: mindfulness of breathing refers to what the sūtras call ānāpānasmṛti. Āna means holding the in-breath, drawing external air inward into the body. Apāna means holding the out-breath, expelling internal air outward from the body. It is wisdom, empowered by the force of mindfulness, that observes this breath as its object, hence it is called ānāpāna-mindfulness. Although its essential nature is wisdom, it is named mindfulness because it is sustained by the power of mindfulness, through which the object becomes clear and the intended task is accomplished, just as with the foundations of mindfulness. It can be cultivated across five stages — the preparatory stages of the first, second, and third dhyānas, the intermediate dhyāna, and the desire realm — since this mindfulness is associated exclusively with equanimous feeling. Painful and pleasurable feelings tend to draw forth discursive thought, and since this mindfulness counters discursive thought, it cannot arise together with them. Joy and pleasure run contrary to single-pointed concentration, whereas this mindfulness depends on concentrating single-pointedly on its object, so, being mutually opposed, they cannot arise together either. Some say that equanimous feeling is also present within the root stage of the lower three dhyānas, and on this account it is cultivated relying on eight stages, since, once the higher concentrations are actually present, breathing itself ceases to exist.

This concentration takes wind as its object, and arises in dependence on a body belonging to the desire realm. It occurs only among beings of the human and heavenly destinies, excluding Uttarakuru. It can be attained either through freedom from defilement or through preparatory effort, and is associated exclusively with genuine mental application. Only beings within the true Dharma are capable of cultivating this practice; non-Buddhist practitioners lack it, since there is no one to teach it to them, and because they are, on their own, incapable of perceiving such a subtle phenomenon. This practice reaches its full completeness through six factors: counting, following, fixing, observing, turning, and purifying.

This practice reaches its full completeness through six factors: counting, following, fixing, observing, turning, and purifying. Counting means fixing the mind on the in-breath and out-breath as its object, without any further deliberate effort — relaxing the body and mind, and simply maintaining mindful awareness of the count of each in-breath and out-breath, counting from one to ten without undercounting or overcounting, out of concern that the mind might otherwise become excessively scattered or excessively contracted. In this practice, however, three faults may occur: the fault of undercounting, mistaking two breaths for one; the fault of overcounting, mistaking one breath for two; and the fault of confusion, mistaking an in-breath for an out-breath, or an out-breath for an in-breath. When free of these three faults, the counting is called correct. If, partway through counting to ten, the mind becomes scattered, one should begin counting again from one in sequence, repeating this cycle until concentration is attained. Following means fixing the mind on the in-breath and out-breath as its object, without further deliberate effort, simply following the breath as it moves, being mindful of how far each in-breath and out-breath travels. That is, one is mindful of the in-breath: does it travel throughout the whole body, or only through part of it? One follows that in-breath with unbroken mindfulness as it travels to the throat, the heart, the navel, the hips, the thighs, the shins, down even to the toes. When mindful of the out-breath, one likewise follows it with unbroken mindfulness as it leaves the body and travels outward, to a distance of one span or one fathom, wherever it reaches. Some teachers say that the out-breath travels extremely far, all the way to the wind-wheel or to Vairambha. This does not accord with reason, since this practice of mindfulness is always accompanied by genuine mental application.

Fixing means fixing mindfulness exclusively at the tip of the nose, or between the eyebrows or at the toes, wherever one prefers, settling the mind at that chosen place, and observing the breath dwelling in the body like a thread through beads, noting whether it is cool or warm, harmful or beneficial. Observing means that, having observed this breath-wind, one further observes the derived matter composed of the four great elements that accompanies the breath, together with the mind and mental factors that depend on and abide in that matter, observing the full five aggregates as one's object. Turning means shifting one's attention onward, taking the awareness generated by observing the breath-wind and progressively redirecting it into ever more excellent wholesome roots, all the way up to the stage of supreme mundane dharmas. Purifying means advancing further, entering the path of seeing and beyond. Other teachers say instead: turning begins with the foundations of mindfulness and continues up through the diamond-like concentration; only the knowledge of exhaustion and what follows it are called purifying. In order to summarize these six aspects, a verse states: it should be understood that mindfulness of breathing has six distinct aspects, distinguished as counting, following, fixing, observing, turning, and purifying.

What should be understood as the distinguishing characteristics of the breath? Verse: the in-breath and out-breath follow the body; they occur in dependence on two distinguishing factors; they are reckoned among the sentient, but are not something appropriated; they are of the nature of equal outflow, and cannot be taken as an object by a lower stage. Explanation: the breath belongs to whatever realm the body is born into, since the breath is included as a part of the body. The occurrence of the in-breath and out-breath depends on two distinguishing factors, since, for one born in the formless realm, or in the earliest embryonic stage, or one who has entered a mindless concentration, or has entered the fourth dhyāna and above, the breath does not occur in any of these cases. That is, the breath can occur only when the body possesses open pores and passages, and a mind belonging to a stage where breathing occurs is actually manifest at that time. When emerging from the fourth dhyāna and above, and at the very moment of birth, the in-breath is the very first to occur; when entering the fourth dhyāna and above, and at the very last moment before death, the out-breath is the very last to occur. The breath is reckoned among the sentient, since it is a part of a sentient being's body. It is not something appropriated, since it is separate from the faculties.

It has the nature of equal outflow, since it is generated by a cause of the same class. It is not nourishment-grown, since the breath actually diminishes as the body grows. It is not produced by ripened fruition, since, once interrupted, it can start up again afterward and continue, whereas no other kind of ripened-fruition form behaves this way. It can be taken as an object only by a mind belonging to its own stage or a higher one, never by a lower stage's mind, except in the case of postural minds, which, being able to produce results across realms, are not so restricted. Abhidharmakośa-śāstra of the Sarvāstivāda School, Fascicle Twenty-Two, [end].