The Four Dhyānas

Having explained the virtues accomplished by knowledge, we should now discuss the remaining virtues by nature; among these, let us first discuss the concentration that serves as their support. Among the various kinds of concentration, what is meant by dhyāna? Verse: the dhyānas are four, each of two kinds; of these, the sense of birth has already been explained; concentration means a wholesome one-pointedness of mind, together with its accompaniments the nature of the five aggregates; the first possesses inquiry, joy, and bliss, and each subsequent one gradually sheds the preceding factors. Explanation: since most virtues depend on the dhyānas, we should first distinguish the varieties of dhyāna. These number four in total — the first, second, third, and fourth — each having two senses: as concentration, a cultivated meditative state, and as birth, the realm one is born into as its result. The substance of birth-dhyāna was already explained in the chapter on the world: the fourth dhyāna comprises eight heavens, and each of the first three comprises three. The substance of concentration-dhyāna, stated in general, is a one-pointedness of mind included within the wholesome nature, since it has wholesome concentration as its intrinsic nature; including its accompanying factors, its nature is the five aggregates.

What is meant by one-pointedness? Exclusive focus on a single object. If this is so, then the name samādhi is established with reference to this very state of mind, and there should be no additional, separate mental factor involved. A distinct dharma that causes the mind to operate upon a single object is what is called samādhi — its substance is not simply identical with the mind itself. But since every mind-moment ceases within a single instant, does not every mind thereby operate on a single object trivially, within its own moment? What use, then, is a separate factor of concentration? If it is said that concentration is needed to prevent the mind, at the next moment, from becoming scattered, then this concentration would be useless with respect to the very moment it is itself associated with. Moreover, it is by virtue of this continuity across moments that samādhi is established — but is this not simply the mind itself continuing to operate on a single object, without needing any separate real dharma? Moreover, samādhi is classified as one of the great-ground mental factors present in every mind, so every mind should equally operate one-pointedly — yet this is not so, since concentration in other, less cultivated categories of mind is weaker. Other teachers say: it is precisely when the mind continues operating on a single object in succession that this is called samādhi, since a sūtra calls this "the training of the heightened mind," and the mind's purest, most excellent state is precisely the four dhyānas. On what basis is the name dhyāna established? Because, through this stillness, one is able to carefully examine and contemplate. Careful examination means truly and accurately knowing, as it is said: "the mind, being in concentration, is able to know truly" — the sense of examination carries this same meaning. According to this position, careful examination has wisdom as its substance.

If this is so, every concentration should be called dhyāna. Not so — only the superior kind receives this name. Just as, in ordinary speech, what emits light is called "the sun," yet fireflies and candles, though they too emit light, do not thereby receive the name "sun." Why is dhyāna alone called superior? Among all forms of concentration, only this one possesses branch-factors, with calm and insight operating in balance, most capable of careful examination, receiving the names joyful abiding in the present life and pleasant conduct — hence this concentration alone is named dhyāna. If this is so, how can even a defiled state receive this name? Because that too is capable of a kind of false careful examination — but then would this not incur the fault of overextending the name too broadly? There is no such fault, since the name is established only with reference to what resembles the genuine article, as when a spoiled seed is still called a "seed." The Blessed One himself also spoke of "evil dhyāna," confirming this extended usage.

If one-pointedness is dhyāna's substance, on what basis are the first, second, third, and fourth established as distinct? The dhyāna possessing inquiry, joy, and bliss is established as the first — and by this it is already clear that it also possesses investigation, since inquiry and investigation necessarily occur together, like smoke and fire; there is no case of inquiry, joy, and bliss occurring without investigation accompanying them. Gradually shedding the preceding branch-factors, the second, third, and fourth are established: having shed investigation and inquiry while still possessing joy and bliss is the second; having shed those and joy as well, while still possessing bliss alone, is the third; having shed all three is the fourth. In this sequence, one-pointedness divides into four kinds. The dhyānas have now been explained. What of the formless attainments?

What of the formless attainments? Verse: the formless attainments are likewise so, four aggregates in substance, each established by leaving behind the ground below; together with the upper three approach-stages, they are collectively called eliminating the perception of form; "formless" means without form, and any later rebirth into form arises purely from the mind; infinite space and the other two are named from their preparatory practice; neither-perception-nor-non-perception is named for being dim and weak. Explanation: these are the same in number and intrinsic nature as the dhyānas — four, each with two senses. The sense of birth is as explained before, in the chapter on the world, which states there are four by birth. The substance of concentration-formless-attainment, stated in general, is likewise a one-pointedness of mind included within the wholesome nature — hence they are said to be "likewise so." Among the accompanying factors, however, this excludes the aggregate of form, since the formless attainments have no accompanying form. Although one-pointedness's own substance shows no difference across the four, they divide into four kinds because each arises upon leaving behind the ground immediately below it: once free of the fourth dhyāna, the resulting attainment is the sphere of infinite space; and so on, up to: once free of the sphere of nothing-at-all, the resulting attainment is the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. What does "leaving behind" mean? Through this path, one is liberated from the affliction of the lower ground — this is the meaning of leaving behind what is below. These four root attainments, together with the upper three approach-stages, are, in total, called "eliminating the perception of form." The approach-stage to the sphere of infinite space does not yet receive this name, since it still takes the lower ground's form as object, still giving rise to the perception of form.

Because they entirely lack form, the name "formless" is established — this reasoning does not hold, since it is granted that there is form present. If this is so, why is the name "formless" established? Because that form is extremely subtle, it is called formless, just as something with only a trace of yellow is still called "without yellow." What characteristic does this granted form in that realm have? Suppose it consists only of bodily and verbal restraint. But bodily and verbal activity are themselves absent there — how, then, could such restraint exist? Moreover, that realm lacks the great elements — how, then, could there be any derived form? Suppose one replies that it is like how uncontaminated restraint exists without an ordinary karmic basis. Not so — uncontaminated restraint still depends on contaminated great elements, and, moreover, the existence of restraint is also specifically excluded within that formless concentration itself. If it is granted that there exists a form-based sense-faculty and body there, how can it be said that this form is merely "minute"? If it is said this is because the body's size is small there, then a water-mite should also be called "formless," since its body's size is likewise small and imperceptible. If it is said this is because that body is extremely pure and subtle, then intermediate-existence beings within the form realm should also be called "formless." If it is said that body is the utmost extreme of purity and subtlety, then only the peak of existence should receive the name "formless." Just as concentration-born bodies differ in superiority across levels, and a body born within the higher dhyānas cannot be perceived by a lower ground's faculties, how does the formless realm's case differ from this pattern? If it is said that "desire" and "form" are named loosely according to their predominant sense, while "formless" is not — what reasoning supports this distinction?

If it is said that a sūtra states life and warmth are joined; and further states that name-and-form and consciousness depend on each other, like two bundles of reeds leaning on one another; and states that name-and-form serves as a condition for consciousness; and excludes the possibility of coming and going apart from form, through the formations-aggregate and consciousness — on these grounds, the position that the formless realm has form is established. This proof does not actually hold, and requires careful examination. The cited scriptural passages should be jointly examined: does the statement that life and warmth are joined apply with reference to all realms, or specifically to the desire realm? Does "name-and-form and consciousness depend on each other" apply with reference to all realms, or specifically to the desire and form realms? As for "name-and-form serves as a condition for consciousness" — does this mean every instance of consciousness is conditioned by name-and-form, or that name-and-form's own arising never occurs without depending on consciousness? As for excluding coming-and-going apart from form through the formations-aggregate and consciousness — does this exclude it apart from any single one of these, or only apart from all of them together? If it is said that the sūtra's own wording makes no such distinctions, and therefore no further careful examination should be applied — this is not correct, since it would incur the fault of over-extension. That is, external warmth would then also have to be "joined with life," and external name-and-form would have to depend on consciousness as its condition. Moreover, since a further passage states the four nutriments parallel the four abodes of consciousness, the form and formless realms would then have to possess edible food as well. If it is said that a sūtra states there is a class of gods who transcend edible food, and that those gods take joy as their food instead, thereby avoiding this particular fault — then, by the very same reasoning, the formless realm should not have form either, since a sūtra states that its inhabitants have gone forth from form.

Moreover, a sūtra states: formless liberation is the most tranquil, since it transcends all form. A further sūtra states: formless beings have transcended every perception of form entirely. If the formless realm genuinely had form, that form's own particular characteristic would certainly have to be knowable — how, then, could it be said that its inhabitants have transcended the perception of form? If it is said this is stated with reference to contemplating the coarse form of the lower realms specifically, then, by the same reasoning, one would have to grant this equally applies to edible food. Moreover, since each dhyāna transcends the coarser form of the one below it, one should equally be able to say each dhyāna has "gone forth from form," meaning every dhyāna above the first would also have to be called "formless realm." Moreover, one should equally have to say formless beings have "gone forth from feeling," since they also transcend the coarser feeling of the lower realms. Since the sūtra does not say this about feeling, it is known that, within the formless realm, form as a whole category is entirely transcended — not feeling and the rest. On this basis, it is definitely known that realm has no form. As for sūtra passages speaking of "not having gone forth from existence" in other contexts, this refers to not being able to go forth from the existence of one's own ground — not a total, universal, or permanent "going forth." Moreover, the Blessed One, with respect to the dhyānas, speaks of there being a category of form, up through a category of consciousness; with respect to the formless attainments, he speaks only of a category of feeling, up through a category of consciousness, never a category of form. If the formless realm genuinely had form, why would he not speak of a category of form there, the way he does for the dhyānas? Hence, the argument we have established incurs no fault of failing to be proven.

If, while in that formless realm for many kalpas, the continuity of form is completely severed, then, upon later dying and being reborn in a lower realm with form, from what does that new form arise? This form arises from the mind, not from any prior form. That is: the causal potential for form's ripening, generated long ago, has been perfumed into and remains within the mind; its functional potential now ripens, and it is for this reason that the present form arises from that mind. While in the formless state, lacking a body, what does the mind depend upon in order to operate? Why can it not operate independent of a body, the way it does here? Because such a thing has never been observed in the lower realms. But consider: the form realm has no edible food — so what does the body there depend upon in order to function? Yet this too, a body functioning without edible food, has never been observed in the lower desire realm either.

Do infinite space and the rest receive their individual names by taking space and so on as their object? No. How, then? For the lower three formless spheres, respectively, at the time of cultivating the preparatory practice, one contemplates infinite space, infinite consciousness, and nothing existing — and it is on this basis that these three names are established. The fourth name is established because of the dimness and weakness of perception there: since the remaining perception is not prominent, it is called non-perception; yet since a dim, weak perception is still present, it is called non-non-perception. Although, at the time of preparatory practice, one also contemplates that all perceptions are like a disease, like an arrow, like a boil, and that if perception were entirely absent this would be tantamount to a dull, dark stupor, with only "neither perception nor non-perception" offering something genuinely tranquil and excellent in contrast — the name is nevertheless not established with reference to this particular preparatory contemplation. For if one were to press the question, why does the preparatory practice give rise to this contemplation in the first place, one would have to answer: because, in that place, perception is inherently dim and weak. It is on the basis of this dimness and weakness that the correct reason for the name lies. The formless attainments have now been explained.

What are the meditative attainments? Verse: the root attainments number eight; the first seven each have three varieties — tainted, pure, and uncontaminated; the last has only two, tainted and pure; tainted means associated with craving; pure means worldly wholesome, and is what is craved and tainted by the tainted variety; uncontaminated means transcendent. Explanation: what has been explained above concerns the dhyānas and formless attainments. The root attainments number eight in total; the first seven each possess three varieties; the peak-of-existence attainment has only two, since this ground, being dim and weak, lacks the uncontaminated variety. The first, tainted attainment, refers to what is associated with craving — since craving taints and clings to its object, and this attainment is associated with craving, it receives the name tainted. Pure attainment designates worldly wholesome concentration, arising associated with non-greed and other pure, wholesome dharmas, hence receiving the name pure. It is precisely this pure attainment that the tainted attainment craves and clings to as its object — immediately upon the pure state ceasing, the tainted concentration taking it as object can arise. Taking the past pure state as object, one gives rise to deep craving and attachment toward it; at that time, although one is said to have "exited" the attainment previously craved, with respect to the now-active craving concentration, one is said to have "entered" it. Uncontaminated concentration refers to transcendent concentration; since craving can never take it as object, it is never something craved or clung to.

Among these eight attainments just discussed, the dhyānas possess branch-factors; the formless attainments do not. How many branches does each of the four dhyānas have? Verse: the first dhyāna has five branches — investigation, inquiry, joy, bliss, and concentration; the second has four — inner purity, joy, bliss, and concentration; the third has five — equanimity, mindfulness, wisdom, bliss, and concentration; the fourth has four — equanimity, mindfulness, neutral feeling, and concentration. Explanation: among only the pure and uncontaminated four dhyānas, the first possesses five branches: investigation, inquiry, joy, bliss, and concentration. Here, "concentration" is what the verse also calls "dhyāna" more generally — the two terms differ in name but share the same substance, hence a sūtra states that the mind's being fixed, being equally fixed, is called right concentration. This is also called one-pointedness of mind, with the meaning as already explained earlier. It is traditionally said that only concentration is both dhyāna itself and a dhyāna-branch, while the remaining four branches are dhyāna-branches but not dhyāna itself. According to the true meaning, this is like a "four-branched army" — infantry, cavalry, chariots, and elephants, none of which alone constitutes "the army," yet each properly called one of its branches — and the remaining dhyāna-branches should be understood in just the same way. The second dhyāna has only four branches: inner equanimous purity, joy, bliss, and concentration. The third dhyāna possesses five branches: formational equanimity, right mindfulness, right wisdom, experiencing bliss, and concentration. The fourth dhyāna has only four branches: purity of formational equanimity, purity of mindfulness, neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, and concentration.

Since the dhyāna-branches' names total eighteen, how many real substances are there among these in total? Verse: these real substances number eleven; the first two dhyānas' bliss is actually pliancy; inner purity is precisely the faith-faculty; joy is precisely the feeling of joy. Explanation: these branches' real substances number only eleven. The first dhyāna's five branches constitute five real substances. The second dhyāna's three branches are as before; adding the inner-purity branch brings the total to six. The third dhyāna's concentration is as before; adding its remaining four branches brings the total to ten. The fourth dhyāna's three branches are as before; adding the neither-painful-nor-pleasant branch brings the total to eleven. On this basis, it can be said that something may be a branch of the first dhyāna but not of the second, and a four-cornered analysis should be made: the first corner is investigation and inquiry, belonging to the first but not the second; the second corner is inner purity, belonging to the second but not the first; the third corner is joy, bliss, and concentration, belonging to both; the fourth corner excludes all of the above. The remaining branches, compared against each other across the other dhyānas, should be reasoned through in the same way.

Why is it said that the third dhyāna adds a genuinely new bliss-feeling? Because the first two dhyānas' "bliss" is included within pliancy instead. What reasoning proves this is pliancy? Because the first two dhyānas lack the bliss-faculty. It is not the case that the first two dhyānas have bodily-experienced bliss, since, while actually within concentration, the five sense-consciousnesses are absent. Nor is there mentally-experienced bliss in the ordinary sense, since the text already speaks of "joy" as a separate branch — and joy is precisely the feeling of joy itself; since a single mind cannot have two feelings occurring at once, there cannot also be a separate bliss-feeling present. Nor can joy and bliss be manifesting in alternation, since the text states the first dhyāna fully possesses five branches together, and the second, four — meaning both are present simultaneously as co-existing branches, not taking turns.

Some say: there is no such thing as a mental bliss-faculty at all; whenever "bliss" is spoken of as a branch within the first three dhyānas, it always refers to the bliss-faculty included within bodily feeling. If this is so, why does a sūtra state: what is the bliss-faculty? It is the bodily and mental pleasant feeling drawn forth by the power of a pleasing contact. Some traditions have added the word "mental" here, since most scriptural collections state only "bodily." Moreover, the bliss-branch established for the third dhyāna is stated by the sūtra itself to be bliss experienced specifically by the body. If it is said that "body" here loosely means "mind," what merit would there be in using the term "body" this way? Moreover, in the fourth dhyāna, pliancy is doubly increased, yet it is not said that this dhyāna has a bliss-branch. If it is said that pliancy is called "bliss" only when it accompanies genuine pleasant feeling, then the third dhyāna's pliancy, which does accompany bliss, should also count as part of the bliss-branch. If it is said that pliancy there is diminished by formational equanimity — not so, since formational equanimity actually enhances pliancy, and, moreover, that fourth dhyāna's pliancy surpasses the first two in strength regardless. Moreover, a sūtra states: at the time when a noble disciple abides having fully realized, in the body, the joy born of seclusion, they have already severed five dharmas and fully perfected the cultivation of five others — stated fully, up through: what are these five cultivated dharmas? Delight, joy, pliancy, bliss, and concentration. Since this sūtra speaks of pliancy and bliss separately, the first two dhyānas' bliss cannot simply be pliancy.

But how could there be body-consciousness while actually within concentration? Even granting there is, there is no fault: within concentration, there is a "pliancy-wind" arising from superior concentration, which gives rise to a pleasant feeling pervading and touching the whole body. If it is said this would cause the mind to scatter externally and ruin the concentration — there is no such fault, since this pliancy-wind arises from superior concentration in the first place, and, by drawing forth internal bodily bliss, is actually able to further reinforce concentration itself. If it is said that giving rise to body-consciousness should count as "exiting" concentration — this objection does not hold, for the reason just given. If it is said that, depending on a desire-realm body-faculty, one should not be able to give rise to a form-realm tactile consciousness — granting that a consciousness taking pliancy as its object can arise this way involves no fault. If this is so, then, while actually within uncontaminated concentration, this contact and body-consciousness should themselves become uncontaminated. But one should not have an established branch-factor be partly contaminated and partly uncontaminated within a single attainment — would this not be a fault of contradicting reason? There is no such fault. Why? Because it is already granted that bodily pliancy is included among the awakening-factors, which themselves can be uncontaminated. If it is said that pliancy is called an "awakening-factor" merely because it accompanies uncontaminated dharmas, without itself literally becoming uncontaminated — then, by the same logic, one should equally grant that this present case is spoken of as uncontaminated only in that same accompanying sense. Does granting this contradict a sūtra? As a sūtra states: "whatever eye" — stated fully — this sūtra states that all fifteen contaminated-only elements are entirely contaminated. There is no fault of contradicting this sūtra, since that statement was made with implicit reference to other, ordinary instances of contact and body-consciousness, not this special case.

How can it be that, when an uncontaminated dhyāna manifests, some of its branches are contaminated while others are uncontaminated? Since they do not arise at the same moment, what fault would this involve? If it is said that, because joy and bliss do not arise together, there should then be no basis for establishing five branches or four branches — this too involves no fault: it is said, with reference to what may possibly occur, that there are joy and bliss branches, just as with investigation and inquiry. If it is said that investigation and inquiry are actually granted to arise together, so they cannot serve as an analogy for things that do not arise together — this does not fail as an analogy, since coarse and subtle mental activity are mutually opposed and so should not arise together; moreover, with respect to things that do not arise together, no fault can be stated against listing them jointly as branches. On this basis, it can be said: the second and subsequent dhyānas are established by removing two, three, or four factors from the first dhyāna's five branches — and it is for this very reason that five branches are stated for the first dhyāna in the first place, in order to set up a scheme of gradually departing from what precedes and thereby establishing what follows. Since there is no gradual removal involved in the case of perception and the like, these are not spoken of as branches. Or, one might ask: why are only five branches established for the first dhyāna specifically? If it is said these five specifically support the first dhyāna's superiority, and are therefore established as its branches — this is not reasonable, since mindfulness and wisdom are also capable of supporting a dhyāna even better than investigation and inquiry do. Although there is a certain group who make this claim, it is not something jointly established by the ancient preceptor-masters, and should be carefully examined and judged.

What, then, should be said to be called "inner equanimous purity"? This dhyāna, being far removed from the agitation of investigation and inquiry, has its mental continuity operate purely — this is called inner purity. Where the agitation of investigation and inquiry is present, the mental continuity operates impurely, like a river disturbed by waves. If this is so, does inner purity then lack any separate substance of its own — and if so, how can it be granted as one of the eleven real substances counted earlier? For this reason, it should be said that this is precisely the faith-faculty: that is, upon realizing the second dhyāna, within that meditative ground, now free of the agitation belonging to the intermediate state before it, a deep faith accordingly arises — this is called inner purity. Faith has purity as its characteristic, hence the name "purity" is established for it. Being free of external disturbance and flowing evenly, it is called "inner" and "equanimous." Being pure and also inner-and-equanimous at once, the name "inner equanimous purity" is thereby established. Other teachers say: this inner purity, as well as concentration, investigation, and inquiry, all lack any separate substance of their own — for if a mere phase or state of the mind, lacking any separate substance, could still properly be called a "mental factor," then mental factors in general would fail to be established as anything more than descriptive labels. Although there is some reasoning to this position, it is not the position of our own school.

As stated above, joy is precisely the feeling of joy. What proof establishes that this is certainly so? Would you yourselves actually claim that joy is not the feeling of joy? As other schools grant this identity, we too grant it in just the same way. How, then, do other schools maintain that it is not the feeling of joy? They hold that there is a separate joy which is its own distinct mental factor, while the bliss present within the first three dhyānas is actually the feeling of joy — hence joy and the feeling of joy have distinct substances, on their account. But the bliss of the first three dhyānas cannot be called the feeling of joy: two āgama passages clearly prove this. As the Sūtra Distinguishing Inversions states: the five faculties, grief and the rest, are extinguished without remainder in stages — within the third dhyāna, joy is extinguished without remainder; within the fourth dhyāna, bliss is extinguished without remainder. A further sūtra states: in the fourth dhyāna, bliss is cut off and suffering is cut off, joy and grief having already vanished earlier. Hence the third dhyāna definitely lacks the joy-faculty — and from this it follows that the feeling called "joy" is precisely joy itself, not bliss.

Do all these dhyāna-branches just discussed exist within a tainted dhyāna as well? Not so. How, then? Verse: tainted dhyāna, in sequence from the first, lacks joy, then bliss, then inner purity, then right mindfulness and wisdom, then equanimity and mindfulness; another account says only pliancy and equanimity are absent. Explanation: the dhyāna-branches explained above are not all present within a tainted dhyāna. According to one account, stated with reference to each level's specific character: the first dhyāna's tainted state lacks the joy and bliss born of seclusion, since these do not arise except through freedom from affliction. The second dhyāna's tainted state lacks inner purity, since it is disturbed and muddied by affliction. The third dhyāna's tainted state lacks right mindfulness and wisdom, since it is confused and disordered by tainted bliss. The fourth dhyāna's tainted state lacks purity of equanimity and mindfulness, since it is defiled by affliction. Other teachers say: the tainted states of the first two dhyānas lack only pliancy, while the tainted states of the latter two lack only formational equanimity, since the remaining branches are included among the greater wholesome factors and so can still occur even in a tainted mind.

A sūtra states: the first three dhyānas involve movement, while the fourth does not. On what basis is this said? Verse: the fourth is called unmoving because it is free of eight calamities; the eight are investigation, inquiry, the four feelings, and the in-breath and out-breath. Explanation: the lower three dhyānas are called "having movement" because calamities are present within them; the fourth dhyāna is called "unmoving" because it is free of calamities. The calamities number eight — what are these eight? Investigation, inquiry, the four feelings, the in-breath, and the out-breath. The fourth dhyāna entirely lacks all eight of these calamities, and it is for this reason that the Blessed Buddha declared it unmoving. Yet a sūtra also states, more narrowly: the fourth dhyāna is not disturbed by investigation, inquiry, joy, or bliss. Other teachers say: the fourth dhyāna is like a lamp burning steadily within a sealed room, giving light without any flicker of movement.

Do all the feelings present within cultivated dhyāna likewise hold for birth-dhyāna? Not so. How, then? Verse: for birth-dhyāna, from the first: there are joy, bliss, and neutral feeling; then joy and neutral feeling; then bliss and neutral feeling; and, in sequence, only neutral feeling remains. Explanation: within the first birth-dhyāna, there are three feelings present: joy-feeling, associated with mental consciousness; bliss-feeling, associated with three sense-consciousnesses; and neutral feeling, associated with all four of these consciousnesses together. The second has two: joy and neutral feeling, associated with mental consciousness alone; there is no bliss-feeling here, since the remaining sense-consciousnesses are absent, and also because the mental delight present there is comparatively coarse. The third has two: bliss and neutral feeling, associated with mental consciousness. The fourth has only one: neutral feeling alone, associated with mental consciousness. This is the difference between the feelings of cultivated dhyāna and those of birth-dhyāna.

The upper three dhyānas lack the three sense-consciousness-bodies as well as investigation and inquiry — so how can beings born there see, hear, touch, or give rise to manifest bodily and verbal action? It is not that beings born in those grounds entirely lack eye-consciousness and the rest; rather, when these arise, they simply are not classified as belonging to that upper ground. Why is this? Verse: for one born in the upper three dhyānas, when the three sense-consciousnesses and manifesting mind arise, these are entirely classified within the first dhyāna, and are solely unobscured-neutral. Explanation: for one born in the upper three grounds, when the three sense-consciousness-bodies and the mind giving rise to manifest action arise, these are entirely bound to the first dhyāna. Being born in a higher ground yet giving rise to a lower ground's mental state is like giving rise to a transformation-mind — hence such a being is able to see, hear, touch, and give rise to manifest action, and these four are solely unobscured-neutral in moral quality. Such a being does not give rise to the lower ground's tainted states, since affliction toward that ground has already been abandoned; nor does it give rise to the lower ground's wholesome states, since that ground is inferior to its own.

How is the pure and other varieties of attainment first acquired? Verse: when entirely unpossessed before, pure attainment is acquired through freedom from affliction or through birth; uncontaminated through freedom from affliction; tainted through birth and through falling back. Explanation: among the eight root attainments, when each is acquired for the first time while entirely unpossessed before, according to what is appropriate to it: the pure variety is acquired either through freedom from affliction or through birth — that is, while in a lower ground, by becoming free of that ground's affliction, or by being born into that very ground from a higher one. This holds for all seven lower root attainments. The peak of existence is not so, since it can only be acquired through freedom from affliction, having no higher ground's birth to acquire it through. Why does the verse specifically say "entirely unpossessed"? To exclude the case of acquiring merely a further portion of something already possessed — as when, through preparatory practice, one acquires the portion conducive to the decisive discrimination, or when, through falling back, one acquires the portion conducive to regression. On this very basis, the following question may be raised: is there a case of pure concentration being acquired through freedom from affliction? And correspondingly, is there a case of it being relinquished through freedom from affliction, acquired through falling back, or acquired through birth? The question may be posed in just this way for each combination. Answer: yes, such cases exist — take the portion conducive to regression as an example. The first dhyāna's portion conducive to regression is acquired upon becoming free of the desire realm's affliction, and relinquished upon becoming free of its own affliction; it is acquired again upon falling back from freedom from its own affliction, and relinquished upon falling back from freedom from the desire realm's affliction. It is acquired upon being born into that very ground from a higher one, and relinquished upon being born from that ground into a lower one. The same reasoning should be applied, as appropriate, to the portions belonging to the remaining grounds.

The uncontaminated variety is acquired only through freedom from affliction: that is, a noble one, upon becoming free of a lower ground's affliction, acquires the higher ground's uncontaminated attainment. This too refers only to the case where it was entirely unpossessed before; if it was already possessed previously, it may also be acquired at other times — as when, at the stage of the knowledge of exhaustion, one acquires the path of the one beyond training, or when, in the course of refining one's faculties, one acquires the paths of the trainee or the one beyond training. The remaining cases involving preparatory practice and falling back should all be reasoned through in the same way. But is it not the case that, upon entering the state of correct assurance, one is also said to first acquire the uncontaminated attainment? This is not a fixed rule: for one proceeding by the gradual stages, the root dhyāna concentration itself has not yet been acquired at that time. Here, we discuss only cases of definite acquisition. The tainted variety is acquired through birth and through falling back: that is, upon dying in a higher ground and being reborn in a lower one, one acquires the lower ground's tainted attainment; and upon falling back from freedom from that ground's own affliction, one likewise acquires that ground's tainted attainment.

After a given attainment, how many other attainments can it generate? Verse: uncontaminated, in sequence, generates wholesome above and below, up to the third level; pure, in sequence, generates likewise, and also generates its own ground's tainted; tainted generates its own ground's pure and tainted, together with the next lower ground's pure; at death, pure generates all; tainted generates its own and the lower ground's tainted. Explanation: uncontaminated attainment, in sequence, generates the wholesome attainments above and below its own level — the term "wholesome" here comprehensively includes both pure and uncontaminated. However, this reaches only as far as the third level above or below, since it is too distant to leap all the way to a fourth. Hence, among the seven uncontaminated attainments: immediately following the first dhyāna, six can be generated — its own level and the next two above, each in both pure and uncontaminated form. Immediately following the sphere of nothing-at-all, seven can be generated — its own and the six below, with the ground above it, the peak of existence, only in its pure form. Immediately following the second dhyāna, eight can be generated — its own and the six above, together with the two grounds below. Immediately following the sphere of infinite consciousness, nine can be generated — its own and the six below, together with the three grounds above. Immediately following the third dhyāna, the fourth dhyāna, or the sphere of infinite space, ten can be generated in each case — the eight grounds above and below, together with its own ground's two. A mind of the class-inference type can, immediately following, generate a formless attainment; a mind of the dharma-inference type cannot, since it depends on taking a lower realm's truths as its object.

What is generated immediately following pure attainment follows the same pattern, except that each pure attainment also additionally generates its own ground's tainted variety. Immediately following the peak of existence's pure attainment, six can be generated — its own pure and tainted, together with the pure and uncontaminated of the ground below. Immediately following the first dhyāna's pure attainment, seven can be generated. The sphere of nothing-at-all's pure attainment generates eight; the second dhyāna's, nine; the sphere of infinite consciousness's, ten; all the remaining grounds' pure attainments generate eleven. From tainted attainment, one generates one's own ground's pure and tainted attainment, together with the pure concentration of the next ground below. This is because, being oppressed by one's own ground's affliction, one also comes to hold the pure concentration of the ground below in high regard — hence there is a case of generating the next lower ground's pure attainment from a tainted state. But if this transition required correctly and clearly understanding the distinction between tainted and pure states, how could any tainted state — which by definition cannot correctly and clearly understand anything — accomplish it? It is through the power of a prior vow: one has previously vowed, "may I attain the lower pure state rather than remain dependent on this higher tainted one" — and the force of that prior vow continues operating through the mental continuum, so that afterward, the lower pure concentration is generated from the tainted state. This is comparable to someone who, having first resolved to wake at a certain hour before falling asleep, is able to awaken precisely when that hour arrives. Uncontaminated attainment and tainted attainment can never generate one another, whereas pure attainment can generate either — this is exactly how the three varieties differ from one another. Everything just described about pure and tainted attainment generating tainted attainment concerns only attainment actually present within concentration itself. If instead we consider generation through birth, pure and tainted attainment behave differently: at the moment of death, birth-acquired pure attainment can generate every one of the attainments without exception; whereas birth-acquired tainted attainment can only generate, immediately following, the entirety of its own ground's and every lower ground's tainted attainment, never generating anything above, since affliction toward that higher ground has not yet been abandoned.

Pure concentration has four kinds: the portion conducive to regression, to stability, to distinction, and to the decisive discrimination. In sequence, these conform to affliction, to their own ground, to the ground above, and to the uncontaminated; considered in relation to each other, in sequence, they generate two, three, three, and one. Explanation: pure attainments have four kinds in total: the portion conducive to regression, the portion conducive to stability, the portion conducive to distinction, and the portion conducive to the decisive discrimination. Each ground has all four, except the peak of existence, which has only three, since it has no higher ground to advance toward and therefore lacks the portion conducive to distinction. Among these four, only the fourth — the portion conducive to the decisive discrimination — is capable of generating the uncontaminated. Why is this? Because these four kinds have, respectively, the following character: the portion conducive to regression conforms to affliction; the portion conducive to stability conforms to its own ground; the portion conducive to distinction conforms to the ground above; and the portion conducive to the decisive discrimination conforms to the uncontaminated — hence the uncontaminated is generated only from this last kind. As for how these four generate one another: the first can generate two, namely the portions conducive to regression and to stability. The second generates three, excluding only the portion conducive to the decisive discrimination. The third generates three, excluding only the portion conducive to regression. The fourth generates one, namely itself and no other. As stated above, both pure and uncontaminated attainment are each capable of leaping above or below, as far as the third level.

The two kinds of concentration, forward and reverse, uniform and mixed, adjacent and transcending; reaching adjacent then transcending completes the practice; only the three continents' sharp-faculty arhats beyond training can accomplish it. Explanation: the root wholesome attainments divide into two kinds: contaminated and uncontaminated. Proceeding upward is called "forward"; returning downward is called "reverse." Staying within the same kind is called "uniform"; switching between the two kinds is called "mixed." Moving to an adjacent level is called "in sequence"; skipping over one level is called "transcending." That is, when a practitioner cultivates the transcending concentration, they first repeatedly practice, forward and reverse, uniformly, moving level by level in sequence, through the eight contaminated grounds; next, they repeatedly practice, forward and reverse, uniformly, moving level by level in sequence, through the seven uncontaminated grounds; next, they repeatedly practice, forward and reverse, moving level by level in sequence, mixing contaminated and uncontaminated attainments together; next, they repeatedly practice, forward and reverse, uniformly transcending, within the contaminated grounds; next, they repeatedly practice, forward and reverse, uniformly transcending, within the uncontaminated grounds — this completes what is called the preparatory practice for the transcending concentration. Afterward, transcending forward and reverse while mixing contaminated and uncontaminated attainments together is called the accomplishment of the transcending concentration itself. Here, "transcending" means being able to skip over only a single level — it is too far to be able to leap all the way into a fourth. The cultivation of the transcending concentration belongs only to human beings of the three continents, and only to arhats beyond training who are not liberated merely "in due season," since it requires both mastery over concentration and complete freedom from affliction. Those liberated "in due season," though free of affliction, lack mastery over concentration; those who have attained through view, though possessing mastery over concentration, still retain some affliction — hence neither of these can cultivate the transcending concentration.

The attainments depend on one's own or a lower body, not a higher one, since that would serve no purpose; only a noble one born at the peak of existence gives rise to a lower attainment, in order to exhaust the remaining afflictions. Explanation: the arising of the various attainments depends on a body belonging to one's own ground or a lower one. It is not possible to give rise to a lower attainment while depending on a higher ground's body, since a higher-ground body giving rise to a lower attainment would serve no purpose — one already possesses a superior concentration of one's own, the lower attainment's power is inferior, it has already been abandoned, and it is something to be regarded with aversion. Although this is the general rule, to state the matter more precisely: a noble one born at the peak of existence must give rise to the uncontaminated attainment of the sphere of nothing-at-all, in order to exhaust the remaining afflictions of their own ground — since the peak of existence itself has no uncontaminated path capable of arising there, and since the sphere of nothing-at-all is the nearest neighboring ground, it is that attainment, once actually present, which exhausts the remaining afflictions.

Tainted concentration takes only what is bound to its own ground as object; pure and uncontaminated take all as object; the root, wholesome, formless attainments do not take a lower ground's contaminated dharmas as object. Explanation: tainted concentration takes as its object only its own ground's contaminated dharmas — it certainly cannot take a lower ground as object, since affliction toward that lower ground has already been abandoned; nor does it take a higher ground as object, since craving is specific to each particular ground; nor does it take the uncontaminated as object, since it would then have to become wholesome instead of tainted. Pure and uncontaminated concentration, by contrast, are both capable of universally taking as object one's own, higher, and lower grounds' conditioned and unconditioned dharmas, since all of these can serve as their object. There is, however, one distinction: neutral unconditioned dharmas are not an object of the uncontaminated. The root-ground wholesome formless attainments do not take a lower ground's contaminated dharmas as their object, while there is nothing among their own or a higher ground's dharmas that they cannot take as object. Although they are also capable of taking a lower ground's uncontaminated path as object, they take only the path belonging to the class-inference type, not the dharma-inference type, and they are likewise incapable of taking a lower ground's cessation-through-analysis as object. The formless attainments' approach-stages, however, do take a lower ground as object, since their immediately-following path must necessarily take a lower ground as its object.

The uncontaminated is able to sever afflictions, as are the pure approach-concentrations. Explanation: all uncontaminated concentrations are able to sever afflictions. Even the root pure concentrations lack this ability — how much less, then, could any tainted concentration sever afflictions? Uncontaminated concentration cannot sever a lower ground's afflictions, since freedom from that ground's affliction has already been achieved; it cannot sever its own ground's afflictions, since it is itself bound up with them; and it cannot sever a higher ground's afflictions, since that ground surpasses it. The pure approach-concentrations, however, are also able to sever afflictions, since each of them is capable of severing the afflictions of the next ground below. The pure concentration belonging to the intermediate dhyāna, however, is not able to sever afflictions.

The approach-concentrations number eight, and are pure; the first is also uncontaminated, or has three varieties. Explanation: the approach-concentrations also number eight, serving as the entry gate to each of the eight root attainments. All of them are associated solely with neutral feeling, since they operate through deliberate effort, and since one has not yet become free of fear toward the lower ground. All eight of these approach-concentrations are included within the pure variety; only the first approach-concentration is also uncontaminated. None of them have a tainted variety, since they are the very path by which affliction is abandoned. Although a mind at the approach-concentration stage can still give rise to a tainted rebirth-linking state, it is specifically the concentration itself that is excluded from being tainted, which is why the text states things this way. Some say: the concentration of not-yet-arrival does also have a tainted variety associated with it, since, before the root first dhyāna has actually arisen, one can still crave this approach-concentration itself — on this view, the concentration of not-yet-arrival possesses all three varieties.

The intermediate dhyāna lacks investigation; it possesses all three varieties, and is associated solely with neutral feeling. Explanation: the root first dhyāna and its approach-concentration are both associated with investigation and inquiry; among the seven concentrations above the first dhyāna, all lack both investigation and inquiry — except the intermediate dhyāna alone, which has inquiry without investigation. It therefore surpasses the first dhyāna yet does not reach the second, and it is on this basis that the name "intermediate" is established. For this same reason, there exists no comparable "intermediate dhyāna" anywhere above the second dhyāna, since no other single ground admits of this kind of internal ascent and descent. This concentration possesses all three varieties — tainted, pure, and uncontaminated — since it has an excellent, genuinely appealing quality capable of being craved. Like the other approach-concentrations, it is associated solely with neutral feeling, not joy, since it operates through deliberate effort. For this reason, it is classified as belonging to the painful, effortful mode of practice. This concentration is capable of yielding rebirth as Mahābrahmā as its result, since one who cultivates it extensively becomes Mahābrahmā. The attainments have now been explained.

What is samādhi? A sūtra states that samādhi has three kinds in total: possessing both investigation and inquiry; lacking investigation but possessing inquiry alone; and lacking both investigation and inquiry. What is the character of each? Verse: the first and its approach-stage possess both; the intermediate possesses inquiry alone; everything above lacks both. Explanation: samādhi possessing both investigation and inquiry refers to concentration associated with both — this is included within the first dhyāna and its not-yet-arrived approach-stage. Samādhi lacking investigation but possessing inquiry alone refers to concentration associated with inquiry only — this is included precisely within the intermediate dhyāna ground. Samādhi lacking both investigation and inquiry refers to concentration associated with neither — this is included everywhere from the second dhyāna's approach-concentration up through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.

A sūtra further speaks of three kinds of samādhi: emptiness, wishlessness, and signlessness. What is the character of each? Verse: emptiness refers to the aspects of emptiness and non-self; signlessness refers to the four aspects of cessation; wishlessness refers to the remaining ten aspects — associated with these truth-aspects; these extend through pure and uncontaminated forms; the uncontaminated three are the three gates of liberation. Explanation: the samādhi of emptiness refers to concentration associated with the two aspects of emptiness and non-self. The samādhi of signlessness refers to concentration associated with the four aspects of the truth of cessation. Nirvāṇa is free of ten marks, hence it is called "signless," and the samādhi taking it as object accordingly receives the name signless. What are these ten marks? The five aggregates such as form and the rest, the two marks of male and female, and the three conditioned marks of arising, abiding, and perishing. The samādhi of wishlessness refers to concentration associated with the remaining ten aspects of the other three truths, since these are to be regarded with aversion — the aspects of impermanence and of suffering's causes — and since even the path itself, like a raft, must ultimately be relinquished. The concentration capable of taking these as object receives the name wishlessness, since all of them are to be transcended and left behind as what currently confronts one. The aspects of emptiness and non-self, however, are not something to be regarded with aversion and relinquished, since they resemble nirvāṇa's own character. Each of these three has two varieties, pure and uncontaminated, since mundane and transcendent samādhi differ from each other. The mundane variety extends through all eleven grounds; the transcendent variety extends through only nine. Among these, the uncontaminated variety is called the three gates of liberation, since it is capable of serving as the entry gate to nirvāṇa itself.

A sūtra further speaks of three doubled samādhis: emptiness-of-emptiness, wishlessness-of-wishlessness, and signlessness-of-signlessness. What is the character of each? Verse: the doubled two take the uncontaminated as object, grasping the aspect of emptiness or of impermanence; the last takes signless concentration's non-analytical cessation as object, taking the aspect of tranquility; these belong to contaminated samādhi, to human beings not liberated in due season, excluding the seven approach-stages above the first. Explanation: these three kinds of samādhi take the previously-cultivated samādhis of emptiness and the rest as their object, grasping the aspect of emptiness and so on with respect to them — hence the names "emptiness of emptiness" and so on are established. The samādhi of emptiness-of-emptiness takes the previously-cultivated uncontaminated samādhi of emptiness as object, grasping that prior samādhi's own aspect of emptiness, since the aspect of emptiness is especially conducive to aversion, surpassing even non-self in this respect. Wishlessness-of-wishlessness takes the previously-cultivated uncontaminated samādhi of wishlessness as object, grasping only the aspect of impermanence with respect to it, not grasping the aspect of suffering's cause and so on, since these are not themselves uncontaminated aspects, and not grasping the aspect of the path and so on either, since the point here is specifically to generate aversion and relinquishment toward the prior samādhi itself, for which impermanence alone suffices. Signlessness-of-signlessness takes as its object the previously-cultivated uncontaminated samādhi of signlessness's own non-analytical cessation, since uncontaminated dharmas have no analytical cessation available to them; it grasps only the aspect of tranquility, not the aspects of cessation, excellence, or freedom, since these would be too easily confused with the aspect of impermanence-and-cessation, given that non-analytical cessation is itself a neutral dharma, not a result of freedom from bondage. These three kinds of samādhi are solely contaminated, since their function is precisely to generate aversion even toward the noble path itself. The uncontaminated is not like this. Only human beings of the three continents who are not liberated in due season are capable of giving rise to these doubled forms of samādhi. They depend on eleven grounds, excluding the seven approach-stages above the first — that is, they depend on the desire realm, the not-yet-arrived approach-stage, the eight root attainments, and the intermediate dhyāna.

A sūtra further speaks of four purposes for cultivating samādhi: to abide in present joy; to attain excellent knowledge and vision; to attain discriminating wisdom; and to bring about the permanent exhaustion of the contaminants. What is the character of each? Verse: to attain present joy, one cultivates the wholesome dhyānas; to attain excellent knowledge and vision, one cultivates the pure divine-eye power; to attain discriminating wisdom, one cultivates the various wholesome preparatory practices; to attain the exhaustion of the contaminants, one cultivates the diamond-like concentration. Explanation: as a sūtra states, there is a kind of cultivated samādhi which, through practicing it, cultivating it, and applying oneself to it repeatedly, brings about an abiding in present joy — and so on, as stated at length. The term "wholesome" here comprehensively includes both the pure and the uncontaminated. Cultivating the wholesome dhyānas brings about an abiding in present joy — and although the sūtra speaks specifically only of the first dhyāna, this is a case of citing the first to indicate what follows; in actual principle, this extends to the remaining dhyānas as well. The sūtra does not speak of abiding in future joy, since future joy is not something one can be assured of abiding in — one may instead fall back, or be reborn in a higher realm, or enter final nirvāṇa, and so simply fail to abide in it at all. If, relying on the various concentrations, one cultivates the divine-eye power, one thereby comes to attain excellent knowledge and vision. If one cultivates the wholesome preparatory practices belonging to the three realms, together with the uncontaminated wholesome states, one attains discriminating wisdom. If one cultivates the diamond-like concentration, one thereby attains the permanent exhaustion of the contaminants. In actual principle, the cultivation that brings about this exhaustion depends generally on any of the various grounds, and although the sūtra speaks specifically only of the fourth dhyāna, tradition holds that this is because the Blessed One was speaking with reference to his own particular attainment.