Narrowing Eighteen Elements to Four Truths

The Western masters analyze these four through seventeen gates, as their own verse states: "Motivation, basis, cause, object, result, / outflow, ripening, and benefit; / aspect, the two conditions, wisdom, realm, absorption, / examination and the rest, faculty, mind-count, with retrogression last."

One asks: what is heat's own motivation? The answer: every wholesome root previously cultivated and accumulated — from giving, up through skill in the seven bases — all dedicated toward liberation: this is its motivation. One asks: on what basis does heat arise? The answer: on the basis of concentration belonging to its own stage. One asks: what serves as heat's cause? The answer: a same-kind wholesome root of its own stage arising earlier. One asks: what does heat take as its object? The answer: the four noble truths. One asks: what serves as heat's result? The answer: summit, as its proximate result of human effort. One asks: what serves as heat's outflow? The answer: a same-kind wholesome root of its own stage arising afterward.

One asks: what serves as heat's ripening? The answer: the five aggregates of the form realm. One asks: can the nirvedhabhāgīya factors also draw forth a class of rebirth? Some say: no — because this wholesome root turns away in disgust from existence itself, and so, with respect to a class of rebirth, it is only able to bring it to completion, not to draw it forth in the first place. Some say: yes — because this wholesome root, although it turns away in disgust from existence, is still able to draw forth a class of rebirth that accords with the noble path — that is, the class of rebirth it thereby brings about is heightened, vigorous, subtle, and excellent, free of calamity, and in accord with every superior wholesome quality. One asks: what benefit does heat confer? The answer: it serves as a determinative cause for eventually reaching nirvāṇa. Some say: one who has attained heat certainly cannot cut off their own wholesome roots. One asks: how many aspects does heat have? The answer: sixteen aspects. One asks: does heat take a name as its object, or a meaning? The answer: it takes both name and meaning as its object together. One asks: is heat born of learning, of reflection, or of meditative cultivation? The answer: born of meditative cultivation alone. One asks: does heat belong to the desire realm, the form realm, or the formless realm? The answer: the form realm alone. One asks: does heat occur within concentration, or outside it? The answer: within concentration alone. One asks: does heat have both examination and analysis, analysis alone, or neither?

The answer: it has all three. One asks: is heat associated with the faculty of pleasure, joy, or equanimity? The answer: with all three faculties. One asks: is heat a single moment of mind, or many? The answer: many moments. One asks: can heat retrogress, or not? The answer: it can retrogress. As for summit's own motivation: it is the same as heat's, from giving onward. Its result is forbearance, as its proximate result of human effort. Its benefit: it confers the ability never to cut off one's own wholesome roots; some say it also confers never committing the acts of immediate retribution. The rest is as explained for heat. As for forbearance's own motivation: it is the same as summit's, from giving onward. Its result is supreme mundane dharma, as its proximate result of human effort. Its benefit: it confers never retrogressing, never committing the acts of immediate retribution, and never falling into the evil destinies; some say it also confers never clinging to a self. The rest is as explained for summit. As for supreme mundane dharma's own motivation: it is the same as forbearance's, from giving onward. Its object is the truth of suffering alone. Its result is the forbearance of the dharma-knowledge of suffering, as its proximate result of human effort.

Its benefit: serving as the immediately-antecedent condition for entering the certainty of rightness. Its aspect: the four aspects of the truth of suffering. As to being a single moment of mind or many: it should be said to be a single moment. The rest is as explained for forbearance. As for the very first moment of heat: taking three truths as its object, the foundation of mindfulness on dharmas, presently occurring, cultivates all four foundations of mindfulness in the future; a single aspect, presently occurring, cultivates all four aspects in the future — both cultivated as belonging to the same kind, not a different kind. Taking the truth of cessation as its object,

the foundation of mindfulness on dharmas, presently occurring, cultivates only the foundation of mindfulness on dharmas in the future as well; a single aspect, presently occurring, cultivates all four aspects in the future, likewise belonging to the same kind, not a different kind — why is this? Because the very first contemplation of the aggregates' cessation cannot yet cultivate the path taking the aggregates as its object. As for advancing heat, taking three truths as its object: any one of the four foundations of mindfulness, presently occurring, cultivates all four foundations of mindfulness in the future, cultivated as belonging both to the same kind and to a different kind; a single aspect, presently occurring, cultivates all sixteen aspects in the future. Taking the truth of cessation as its object: the foundation of mindfulness on dharmas, presently occurring, cultivates all four foundations of mindfulness in the future; a single aspect, presently occurring, cultivates all sixteen aspects in the future. One asks: why does the very first moment of heat cultivate only what belongs to the same kind, not a different kind, while advancing heat is able to cultivate both the same kind and a different kind? The answer: the very first moment of heat has not yet attained its own lineage,

still newly learning to contemplate the truths, and so cultivates only what belongs to the same kind; advancing heat has already attained its own lineage, long habituated to contemplating the truths, and so cultivates both the same kind and a different kind. As for the very first moment of summit, taking all four truths as its object: the foundation of mindfulness on dharmas, presently occurring, cultivates all four foundations of mindfulness in the future; a single aspect, presently occurring, cultivates all sixteen aspects in the future. As for advancing summit, taking three truths as its object: any one of the four foundations of mindfulness, presently occurring, cultivates all four foundations of mindfulness in the future; a single aspect, presently occurring, cultivates all sixteen aspects in the future. Taking the truth of cessation as its object: the foundation of mindfulness on dharmas, presently occurring, cultivates all four foundations of mindfulness in the future; a single aspect, presently occurring, cultivates all sixteen aspects in the future. As for both the very first moment and the advancing stage of forbearance, taking all four truths as its object: the foundation of mindfulness on dharmas, presently occurring, cultivates all four foundations of mindfulness in the future; a single aspect, presently occurring, cultivates all sixteen aspects in the future. One asks: why do both the very first moment and the advancing stage of forbearance always presently occur only as the foundation of mindfulness on dharmas, while heat and summit are not like this? The answer: forbearance stands close to the path of seeing, and resembles it — just as, within the path of seeing, only the foundation of mindfulness on dharmas arises, forbearance is exactly the same. The Venerable Ghoṣaka speaks as follows: the very first moment and the advancing stage of forbearance are, respectively, like the very first moment and the advancing stage of heat, since with respect to the form realm's own wholesome roots there is a stage of not-yet-attained lineage and a stage of already-attained lineage. This position should not be maintained, however, since all four of these wholesome roots are, alike, born of cultivation within the form realm — forbearance stands close to the path of seeing precisely because, like the path of seeing, it gives rise to the foundation of mindfulness on dharmas. One asks: does advancing forbearance always cultivate all sixteen aspects? The answer: no — sometimes sixteen, sometimes twelve, sometimes eight, sometimes four. Why is this?

Because, just as its object gradually narrows truth by truth, so too does its cultivated aspect narrow accordingly — and it is by this that it draws gradually nearer to the path of seeing, resembling it. As for supreme mundane dharma: the foundation of mindfulness on dharmas, presently occurring, cultivates all four foundations of mindfulness in the future; a single aspect, presently occurring, cultivates all four aspects in the future — cultivated as belonging to the same kind alone, not a different kind. One asks: supreme mundane dharma has already attained its own lineage,

long habituated to contemplating the truths — why, then, does it cultivate only what belongs to the same kind, not a different kind? The answer: supreme mundane dharma has only this one aspect capable of being cultivated, and no other — like a person who possesses only a single robe: once it is taken, there is nothing further left to take. The case here is exactly the same, and this should not even be questioned. Further: supreme mundane dharma stands immediately adjacent to the path of seeing, resembling it. Further: supreme mundane dharma opens the gate of the path of seeing, guiding and giving rise to it, resembling it.

One asks: do the very first moments of heat, summit, and forbearance contemplate the four noble truths continuously, or not continuously? Some say: continuously — just as, within the path of seeing, across its fifteen moments of mind, the four noble truths are directly and continuously realized, the case here is exactly the same. Some say: not continuously — that is, having contemplated the truth of the desire realm's suffering, one then pauses; next one applies preparatory effort and, having contemplated the truth of the form and formless realms' suffering, pauses again; and the same for the remaining truths. On this view, the matter is not fixed either way — it may be continuous or not continuous, depending on the force of the practitioner's own preparatory effort. One asks: what attention, occurring without interval, draws forth heat? The answer: an attention belonging to the aspect born of cultivation within a concentration of the form realm, involving disgust, longing, revulsion, and yearning — this attention, without interval, draws forth heat; heat, without interval, draws forth summit; summit, without interval, draws forth forbearance; and forbearance, without interval, draws forth supreme mundane dharma. One asks: this is understandable for one already free of the desire realm's defilement — but what of one not yet free of it? The answer: the desire realm, too, has an attention resembling this one,

belonging to the aspect born of reflection, involving disgust, longing, revulsion, and yearning — for one not yet free of the desire realm's defilement, this attention, without interval, draws forth heat; the rest is as explained above. One asks: suppose a practitioner has fully cultivated heat and is about to give rise to summit, but then dies before doing so — in their next life, do they give rise to summit directly, or must they begin again from the very start? The answer: if they encounter an enlightened teacher, they may give rise to it according to whatever stage is appropriate for them. As for stating the precise boundary of this,

they are indeed able to give rise to summit directly. If they do not encounter such a teacher, they must begin again from the start, though they will still be able to do so swiftly, unlike their very first cultivation. One asks: if, in a later life, one gives rise to summit directly, from what attention, occurring without interval, does it arise? The answer: from the very same attention present when heat first arose — just as it is said that summit arises from heat, and forbearance arises from summit in just the same way. One asks: if that is so, why does the treatise say that heat, without interval, gives rise to summit, and summit, without interval, gives rise to forbearance? The answer: this is stated with respect to one continuous succession occurring within a single lifetime — but not with respect to every case. One asks: if one has retrogressed from heat and then gives rise to heat once again, does one thereby regain the very same heat once possessed before? The answer: one should say no — whatever measure of heat is lost through retrogression, that very same measure is regained anew.

It is gained freshly, anew, each time — why is this? Because it is extremely difficult to attain, has not yet become habituated, and is accomplished only through exertion — just as the precepts of individual liberation, whatever measure is relinquished and then received again, are regained freshly, anew, in that very same measure; the case here is exactly the same. What is said of heat holds for summit as well. Heat and summit arising in dependence on a fundamental dhyāna certainly never retrogress, since the concentration they depend on is itself sovereign and firm; heat and summit arising in dependence on the stage of proximate concentration or the intermediate dhyāna, by contrast, are not fixed either way, since they remain subject to retrogression. One asks: once a practitioner, relying on a lower stage, is reborn in a middle or higher stage, and has already reached the middle or upper grade there — can they still give rise to the lower or middle grade of heat, summit, or forbearance? The answer: certainly not, since one who occupies a superior, advancing stage no longer takes delight in what was already previously attained. One asks: after giving rise to heat, does the practitioner necessarily seek to become free of defilement? Some hold: no, they do not delight in becoming free of defilement — since they would rather give rise to summit than delight in giving rise to the thought of the peak of existence, let alone a concentration of a lower stage. On this view, the matter is not fixed either way: if the practitioner knows they have the power to give rise to summit, they proceed to give rise to it directly; but if they know they lack this power, they instead seek to become free of defilement — why is this? Because, having become free of defilement, they will be reborn in a superior place, free of the lower realm.

Heat, summit, forbearance, and the rest fall into seventy-three distinct varieties by their own class — how is this so? With respect to the desire realm's own defilement, whether fully bound or fully free of it, there are ten cases: fully bound counts as one; freed of one grade of defilement, up through freed of nine grades, gives nine more — together with the first, ten in total. With respect to the first dhyāna's defilement, freed of one grade up through freed of nine grades gives nine — with no separate "fully bound" case here, since that case is already subsumed under the desire realm's own tenth. The same holds for every later stage, all the way up to the sphere of nothingness's own defilement, where freed of one grade up through freed of nine grades again gives nine. Across all these stages, the heat and the rest that arise number seventy-three distinct varieties in total. One asks: is the heat arising at any one of these stages the very same as the heat arising at any other, or different? Some say: it is the same —

One asks: if that is so, then why does the treatise speak of seventy-three distinct varieties? The answer: although its substance is one and the same, the stages differ — it is with reference to this difference of stage that so many are spoken of. Others say: they genuinely differ from one another — that is, the heat and the rest arising for one fully bound differ from those arising for one freed of one grade, and so on, up through those arising for one freed of the ninth grade of the sphere of nothingness's own defilement. Moreover, for one fully bound, the heat and the rest arising for another who is likewise fully bound are both attained and present in the body, both possessed and presently occurring; but the heat and the rest arising for one already freed of bondage are neither attained nor present in the body, neither possessed nor presently occurring, for the one fully bound. For one freed of the desire realm's first grade of defilement, the heat and the rest arising for another likewise freed of that same grade are both attained and present in the body, both possessed and presently occurring; the heat and the rest arising for one fully bound are attained but not present in the body, not possessed, not presently occurring; and the heat and the rest arising at every other stage are neither attained nor present in the body, neither possessed nor presently occurring. And so on, up through one freed of the sphere of nothingness's ninth grade of defilement, for whom the heat and the rest arising from their own stage are both attained and present in the body, both possessed and presently occurring, while the heat and the rest arising at every other stage are attained but not present in the body, not possessed, not presently occurring.

For one who gives rise to heat and the rest in dependence on a fundamental dhyāna, it is certain that they will enter the certainty of rightness within this very lifetime — why is this? Because, in their case, it is the noble path itself that draws forth heat and the rest. For one who gives rise to heat and the rest in dependence on the stage of proximate concentration or the intermediate dhyāna, by contrast, the matter is not fixed either way — why is this? Because, in their case, it is heat and the rest that draw forth the noble path. One asks: if one gives rise to the nirvedhabhāgīya factors in dependence on a given stage, must one then enter the certainty of rightness relying on that very same stage?

Some hold: if one gives rise to the nirvedhabhāgīya factors in dependence on a given stage, one then enters the certainty of rightness relying on that very same stage. On this view, the matter is not fixed either way — one may rely on this very same stage, or one may rely on a different stage instead. As for relying on the very same stage: this describes the śrāvaka lineage — if one gives rise to heat in dependence on the stage of proximate concentration, one likewise gives rise to summit, forbearance, and supreme mundane dharma, entering the certainty of rightness, relying on that very same stage; and so on, up through: if one gives rise to heat in dependence on the fourth dhyāna, one likewise gives rise to summit, forbearance, and supreme mundane dharma, entering the certainty of rightness, relying on that very same stage. As for relying on a different stage: this, too, describes the śrāvaka lineage — if one gives rise to heat in dependence on the stage of proximate concentration,

one then relies on the first dhyāna to give rise to heat, summit, forbearance, and supreme mundane dharma, entering the certainty of rightness — and so on, up through the fourth dhyāna, likewise. If one gives rise to heat and summit in dependence on the stage of proximate concentration, one relies on the first dhyāna to give rise to summit, forbearance, and supreme mundane dharma, entering the certainty of rightness — and so on, up through the fourth dhyāna. If one gives rise to heat, summit, and forbearance in dependence on the stage of proximate concentration, one relies on the first dhyāna to give rise to forbearance and supreme mundane dharma, entering the certainty of rightness — and so on, up through the fourth dhyāna. Others say: if one gives rise to heat in dependence on the stage of proximate concentration, one relies on the first dhyāna to give rise to summit, forbearance, and supreme mundane dharma, entering the certainty of rightness — and so on, up through the fourth dhyāna. If one gives rise to heat and summit in dependence on the stage of proximate concentration, one relies on the first dhyāna to give rise to forbearance and supreme mundane dharma, entering the certainty of rightness — and so on, up through the fourth dhyāna. If one gives rise to heat, summit, and forbearance in dependence on the stage of proximate concentration, one relies on the first dhyāna to give rise to forbearance and supreme mundane dharma, entering the certainty of rightness — and so on, up through the fourth dhyāna. Others say still: if one gives rise to heat in dependence on the stage of proximate concentration, one relies on the first dhyāna to give rise to heat, summit, forbearance, and supreme mundane dharma, entering the certainty of rightness — and so on, up through the fourth dhyāna. If one gives rise to heat and summit in dependence on the stage of proximate concentration, one relies on the first dhyāna to give rise to heat, summit, forbearance, and supreme mundane dharma, entering the certainty of rightness — and so on, up through the fourth dhyāna. If one gives rise to heat, summit, and forbearance in dependence on the stage of proximate concentration, one relies on the first dhyāna to give rise to heat, summit, forbearance, and supreme mundane dharma, entering the certainty of rightness — and so on, up through the fourth dhyāna. One asks: the nirvedhabhāgīya factors,

once at the middle or upper grade, cannot then give rise to a lower or middle grade — how, then, can this passage now speak in this way? The answer: within the very same stage, this cannot happen; across a different stage, it can. All the above accounts describe the śrāvaka lineage. One asks: what of the bodhisattva? Some hold: if the bodhisattva gives rise to heat in dependence on the stage of proximate concentration, he gives rise to heat, summit, and forbearance relying on the first dhyāna through the third dhyāna, and, relying on the fourth dhyāna, gives rise to heat, summit, forbearance, and supreme mundane dharma, entering the certainty of rightness. If he gives rise to heat and summit in dependence on the stage of proximate concentration, he gives rise to heat, summit, and forbearance relying on the first dhyāna through the third dhyāna, and, relying on the fourth dhyāna, gives rise to heat, summit, forbearance, and supreme mundane dharma, entering the certainty of rightness. If he gives rise to heat, summit, and forbearance in dependence on the stage of proximate concentration, he also gives rise to heat, summit, and forbearance relying on the first dhyāna through the third dhyāna, and, relying on the fourth dhyāna, gives rise to heat, summit, forbearance, and supreme mundane dharma, entering the certainty of rightness. One asks: the nirvedhabhāgīya factors, once at the middle or upper grade,

cannot then give rise to a lower or middle grade — how, then, can this passage now speak in this way? The answer: within the very same stage, this cannot happen; across a different stage, it can. Some say: a śrāvaka cannot do this, but a bodhisattva can. Other masters, in order to avoid even this fault, say as follows: if the bodhisattva gives rise to heat in dependence on the stage of proximate concentration, the same holds up through the fourth dhyāna; if he gives rise to summit in dependence on the stage of proximate concentration, the same holds up through the fourth dhyāna; if he gives rise to forbearance in dependence on the stage of proximate concentration, the same holds up through the fourth dhyāna — and it is precisely in dependence on the fourth dhyāna that he gives rise to forbearance and supreme mundane dharma, entering the certainty of rightness. On this view, the bodhisattva relies on the fourth dhyāna alone to give rise to heat, summit, forbearance, and supreme mundane dharma, entering the certainty of rightness — why is this? Because every one of the bodhisattva's own supreme virtues is drawn forth in dependence on the fourth dhyāna alone, from the contemplation of impurity all the way through the knowledge of non-arising. One asks: what of the pratyekabuddha? The answer: the rhinoceros-horn-like pratyekabuddha,

is as explained for the bodhisattva; the pratyekabuddha who practices in a group is not fixed either way, as explained for the śrāvaka. One asks: in his own past lives, did the bodhisattva ever give rise to the nirvedhabhāgīya wholesome roots? Whichever one answers, what fault would follow? If he did give rise to them, why does the treatise say that all the bodhisattva's own supreme wholesome roots — from the contemplation of impurity all the way through the knowledge of non-arising — are attained in a single sitting? But if he never gave rise to them, then by whose power did the bodhisattva go ninety-one aeons without ever falling into an evil destiny? Some hold: the bodhisattva, in his own past lives, did indeed give rise to the nirvedhabhāgīya factors,

and it was by the power of forbearance that he went ninety-one aeons without falling into an evil destiny. One asks: if that is so, then why does the treatise say that the bodhisattva's own wholesome roots are all attained in a single sitting? The answer: what he gave rise to in the past belonged to another's lineage, not his own; "attained in a single sitting" speaks of his own lineage specifically — and so there is no real contradiction. Some hold instead: he never gave rise to them at all — why is this? Because the bodhisattva's own wholesome roots are not accumulated across successive lifetimes, but attained all at once, in a single sitting beneath the Bodhi tree. One asks: if that is so, then by whose power did the bodhisattva go ninety-one aeons without falling into an evil destiny? The answer: what wards off the evil destinies need not necessarily come from the nirvedhabhāgīya factors — giving, moral discipline, learning, reflection, heat, or summit, any of these, are each able to ward off the evil destinies; only for one of dull faculties is forbearance itself required. And whenever a bodhisattva practices even a single act of giving, it already encompasses moral discipline and wisdom as well; whenever he upholds a single precept, it already encompasses giving and wisdom; whenever he exercises a single moment of wisdom, it already encompasses giving and moral discipline — by this, he is able to ward off countless myriads of evil destinies, let alone merely three. On this view, the bodhisattva's own supreme wholesome roots,

from the contemplation of impurity all the way through the knowledge of non-arising, are all drawn forth in this very life, in a single sitting relying on the fourth dhyāna — not even arising at any other point within this same life, let alone in a previous one. The rhinoceros-horn-like pratyekabuddha is exactly the same; the wholesome roots of the pratyekabuddha who practices in a group are not fixed either way, as explained for the śrāvaka.

Heat, summit, forbearance, and supreme mundane dharma each admit of six distinct lineage-differences: the lineage prone to retrogression, the lineage prone to self-destruction, the lineage that guards its attainment, the lineage that abides in it, the lineage capable of penetrating further, and the lineage that is immovable. Here, one may transform from the retrogression-prone lineage's own heat into the destruction-prone lineage's own heat, and so on, up through transforming from the penetrating lineage's own heat into the immovable lineage's own heat. One may transform from the śrāvaka lineage's own heat into the pratyekabuddha or buddha lineage's own heat; one may transform from the pratyekabuddha lineage's own heat into the buddha or śrāvaka lineage's own heat. The buddha lineage's own heat, however, can certainly never be transformed into any other. What has been said of heat holds for summit as well. One may transform from the śrāvaka lineage's own forbearance into the pratyekabuddha lineage's own forbearance — but neither the śrāvaka nor the pratyekabuddha lineage's own forbearance can ever be transformed into the buddha lineage's forbearance, since a bodhisattva makes his own vow to be reborn in the evil destinies, which forbearance itself runs contrary to. Nor can the pratyekabuddha lineage's own forbearance ever be transformed into the śrāvaka lineage's, since forbearance, once attained, never retrogresses. Some hold: one may transform from the śrāvaka lineage's own heat, summit, and forbearance into the pratyekabuddha lineage's own heat, summit, and forbearance — but once one has given rise to the pratyekabuddha lineage's own heat and summit, one can no longer give rise to any other vehicle's heat and summit, since the pratyekabuddha's own wholesome roots, beginning with the contemplation of impurity and extending through the knowledge of non-arising, are all attained in a single sitting.

The verdict: this position should not be maintained. Why is this? Because, although the rhinoceros-horn-like pratyekabuddha lineage's own wholesome roots are indeed attained in a single sitting, the pratyekabuddha lineage who practices in a group is not fixed either way, as already explained for the śrāvaka. Hence supreme mundane dharma, whether classified by its six lineage-differences or by the three vehicles' own lineages, can never be transformed at all, since it lasts for exactly a single moment.

One asks: in what place do the nirvedhabhāgīya factors arise? The answer: they can arise in the desire realm, but not in the form or formless realms. Within the desire realm, they can arise among humans and gods, but not in the three evil destinies, since these are superior wholesome roots. Among humans, they can arise in the three continents, but not in Uttarakuru. Among the gods, though they can arise, they only ever arise as a continuation, never as a first occurrence — that is, one must first give rise to them among humans, and only afterward, having retrogressed and been reborn among the desire-realm gods, is one able, through the force of prior habituation, to continue giving rise to them there. One asks: why can they never first arise among the gods? The answer: because that realm lacks the superior attention of disgust and the rest. One asks: the evil destinies do possess this superior attention of disgust and the rest — why, then, do these wholesome roots not arise there? The answer: because the evil destinies lack a superior supporting body. Only where both a superior attention of disgust and the rest, and a superior supporting body, are present together, can this class of wholesome root first arise. Among the desire-realm gods, though a superior supporting body is present, the superior attention of disgust and the rest is lacking; in the evil destinies, though the superior attention of disgust and the rest is present, a superior supporting body is lacking.

Only among humans are both present together, and this is why these roots can first arise there. One asks: why can these wholesome roots not arise in the form or formless realms? The answer: wherever a place is able to support entering the certainty of rightness, that place is able to support their arising; since the form and formless realms are unable to support entering the certainty of rightness, they are unable to support their arising. One asks, as a further question arising from this discussion: why are the form and formless realms unable to support entering the certainty of rightness? The answer: because they are neither the field nor the vessel for it — and so on, as explained at length. Further: wherever a place is able to support the arising of both forbearance and knowledge, that place is able to support entering the certainty of rightness. The form and formless realms, though able to support the arising of knowledge, are unable to support the arising of forbearance, and this is why they cannot support entering the certainty of rightness. Further: wherever a place is able to support the arising of both dharma-knowledge and subsequent-knowledge, that place is able to support entering the certainty of rightness. The form and formless realms, though able to support the arising of subsequent-knowledge, are unable to support the arising of dharma-knowledge, and this is why they cannot support entering the certainty of rightness. Further: wherever a place possesses both a superior supporting body and the feeling of pain, that place is able to support entering the certainty of rightness. The form and formless realms, though they possess a superior supporting body, lack the feeling of pain, and this is why they cannot support entering the certainty of rightness.

One asks: on what kind of body do heat, summit, forbearance, and supreme mundane dharma depend to arise? The answer: on either a male or a female body. One asks: does one who, relying on a female body, attains the heat that arises for a female body, thereby also attain the heat that arises for a male body? The answer: yes — and the same holds for the attaining of summit and forbearance as for heat. One asks: does one who, relying on a male body, attains the heat that arises for a male body, thereby also attain the heat that arises for a female body? The answer: yes — and the same holds for the attaining of summit and forbearance as for heat. With respect to a female body: the heat arising for one female body is, for another female body, both attained and present in the body, both possessed and presently occurring; the heat arising for a male body is, for a female body, attained but not present in the body, not possessed, not presently occurring — and the same holds for summit and forbearance as for heat. With respect to a male body: the heat arising for one male body is, for another male body, both attained and present in the body, both possessed and presently occurring; the heat arising for a female body is, for a male body, attained but not present in the body, not possessed, not presently occurring — and the same holds for summit and forbearance as for heat. The heat arising for a female body serves as a cause both for the heat arising for a female body and for the heat arising for a male body — and the same holds for summit and forbearance as for heat. The heat arising for a male body serves as a cause for the heat arising for a male body, but not for the heat arising for a female body — why is this? Because the superior cannot serve as a cause of the inferior, and the latter is itself inferior — and the same holds for summit and forbearance as for heat. One asks: having given rise to the nirvedhabhāgīya wholesome roots in dependence on a male body,

can one still afterward take on a female body? The answer: yes, one can still take on a female body — but only with respect to the first three roots, not supreme mundane dharma, since the latter lasts for exactly a single moment. One asks: having given rise to the nirvedhabhāgīya wholesome roots, can one still afterward take on the body of a eunuch, a hermaphrodite, one lacking sexual organs, or one possessing both? The answer: yes, one can still take on such a body — but only with respect to heat and summit, not the others. Why is this? Because once one has attained forbearance, one already runs contrary to the evil destinies, and these bodies — the eunuch's and the rest — are themselves crude and degraded in form, being, among humans, already a kind of evil destiny; once one has attained forbearance and the other superior wholesome roots, one can certainly never again take on such a body.

One asks: does an ordinary being who has attained forbearance, at the moment of death, relinquish forbearance itself along with relinquishing their own class of rebirth? Whichever one answers, what fault would follow? If they do relinquish it, then they ought to fall into the evil destinies — so why does the treatise say that one who has attained forbearance never falls into the evil destinies? And if they do relinquish it, why is it that an ordinary being relinquishes it at death while a noble one does not? But if they do not relinquish it, why do neither the Karma Chapter nor the Great Elements Chapter mention this — just as it is said that an ordinary being dwelling in the womb possesses the body itself but not yet bodily karma? The answer: it should be said that it is relinquished. Some say it is not relinquished. Some say the matter is not fixed either way — sometimes relinquished, sometimes not. Each of these positions is explained fully elsewhere, in the later Karma Chapter's own section on the destruction of life. On this treatise's own view, an ordinary being certainly relinquishes forbearance at death, since their wholesome root is itself inferior. An ordinary being, relying on a given stage,

gives rise to this class of wholesome root — and if, at death, they are reborn once again in that very same stage, they certainly relinquish their own class of rebirth in the process; how much more certainly, then, do they relinquish this wholesome root itself? It is, after all, a dharma of the form realm — how could it possibly survive unrelinquished after passing through a rebirth in the desire realm?

One asks: what is the actual character of the preparatory effort that cultivates heat? The answer: in brief, its character consists of three kinds of wisdom — the wisdom born of learning, the wisdom born of reflection, and the wisdom born of meditative cultivation. One asks: how does one cultivate the wisdom born of learning? The answer: a practitioner cultivating direct realization either encounters an enlightened teacher who, in brief, summarizes the essentials of every dharma for him — that there are only the eighteen elements, the twelve sense fields, and the five aggregates — or else reads and recites the Sūtra-piṭaka, the Vinaya-piṭaka, and the Abhidharma-piṭaka on his own, and, once thoroughly familiar with them, reflects as follows: the letter and meaning of the three baskets are exceedingly vast and broad — if I constantly bear them all in mind, my mind will grow weary and worn out; the essentials the three baskets teach come down to only the eighteen elements, the twelve sense fields, and the five aggregates. Having reflected in this way, he first contemplates the eighteen elements. In contemplating them, he establishes three aspects: by name, by specific characteristic, and by general characteristic. "By name" means: this is named the eye-element, and so on, up through this is named the mental-consciousness-element. "By specific characteristic" means: this is the eye-element's own specific characteristic, and so on, up through this is the mental-consciousness-element's own specific characteristic. "By general characteristic" means: the sixteen aspects observed across the eighteen elements, their sixteen kinds of general characteristic. Taking these elements as his object, he cultivates wisdom and cultivates calm-abiding. Once he has cultivated wisdom and calm-abiding with respect to the eighteen elements, weariness arises once again, and he reflects as follows: these eighteen elements are, in fact, the same as the twelve sense fields — I should therefore condense them further into the twelve sense fields, namely: the ten material elements are precisely the ten material sense fields; the seven mind-elements are precisely the mental sense field; and the dharma-element is precisely the dharma-field. In contemplating these twelve sense fields, he likewise establishes three aspects: by name, by specific characteristic, and by general characteristic. "By name" means: this is named the eye-field, and so on, up through this is named the dharma-field. "By specific characteristic" means: this is the eye-field's own specific characteristic, and so on, up through this is the dharma-field's own specific characteristic. "By general characteristic" means: the sixteen aspects observed across the twelve sense fields, their sixteen kinds of general characteristic. Taking these sense fields as his object, he cultivates wisdom and cultivates calm-abiding. Once he has cultivated wisdom and calm-abiding with respect to the twelve sense fields, weariness arises once again, and he reflects as follows: these twelve sense fields, excepting the unconditioned, are precisely the five aggregates — I should therefore condense them further into the five aggregates, namely: the ten material sense fields, together with the form subsumed under the dharma-field, are precisely the aggregate of form; the mental sense field is precisely the aggregate of consciousness; and, within the dharma-field, feeling is precisely the aggregate of feeling, perception is precisely the aggregate of perception, and the remaining mental factors and the formations dissociated from mind are precisely the aggregate of volitional formations.

In contemplating these five aggregates, he likewise establishes three aspects: by name, by specific characteristic, and by general characteristic. "By name" means: this is named the aggregate of form, and so on, up through this is named the aggregate of consciousness. "By specific characteristic" means: this is the aggregate of form's own specific characteristic, and so on, up through this is the aggregate of consciousness's own specific characteristic. "By general characteristic" means: the twelve aspects observed across the five aggregates, their twelve kinds of general characteristic. Taking these aggregates as his object, he cultivates wisdom and cultivates calm-abiding. Once he has cultivated wisdom and calm-abiding with respect to the five aggregates, weariness arises once again, and he reflects as follows: these five aggregates, together with the unconditioned, are precisely the four foundations of mindfulness — I should therefore condense them further into the four foundations of mindfulness, namely: the aggregate of form is precisely the foundation of mindfulness on the body; the aggregate of feeling is precisely the foundation of mindfulness on feeling; the aggregate of consciousness is precisely the foundation of mindfulness on mind; and the aggregates of perception and volitional formations, together with the unconditioned, are precisely the foundation of mindfulness on dharmas. In contemplating these four foundations of mindfulness, he likewise establishes three aspects: by name, by specific characteristic, and by general characteristic. "By name" means: this is named the foundation of mindfulness on the body, and so on, up through this is named the foundation of mindfulness on dharmas. "By specific characteristic" means: this is the foundation of mindfulness on the body's own specific characteristic, and so on, up through this is the foundation of mindfulness on dharmas' own specific characteristic. "By general characteristic" means:

the sixteen aspects observed across the four foundations of mindfulness, their sixteen kinds of general characteristic. Taking these foundations of mindfulness as his object, he cultivates wisdom and cultivates calm-abiding. Once he has cultivated wisdom and calm-abiding with respect to the four foundations of mindfulness, weariness arises once again, and he reflects as follows: these four foundations of mindfulness, excepting space and cessation not through discernment, are precisely the four noble truths — I should therefore condense them further into the four noble truths, namely: the resultant portion of every contaminated dharma is precisely the truth of suffering; its causal portion is precisely the truth of origin; cessation through discernment is precisely the truth of cessation; and the counteragent is precisely the truth of the path. In contemplating these four noble truths, he likewise establishes three aspects: by name, by specific characteristic, and by general characteristic. "By name" means: this is named the truth of suffering, and so on, up through this is named the truth of the path. "By specific characteristic" means: this is the truth of suffering's own specific characteristic, and so on, up through this is the truth of the path's own specific characteristic. "By general characteristic" means: the four aspects observed across the truth of suffering, its four kinds of general characteristic — first, suffering; second, impermanence; third, emptiness; fourth, no-self. The four aspects observed across the truth of origin, its four kinds of general characteristic — first, cause; second, origin; third, arising; fourth, condition. The four aspects observed across the truth of cessation, its four kinds of general characteristic — first, cessation; second, stillness; third, excellence; fourth, escape. The four aspects observed across the truth of the path, its four kinds of general characteristic — first, path; second, suchness; third, practice; fourth, deliverance. Taking these truths as his object, he cultivates wisdom and cultivates calm-abiding. As he cultivates wisdom and calm-abiding with respect to the four noble truths, he contemplates the truths progressively, just as in the path of seeing: first contemplating, separately, the suffering of the desire realm, and only afterward, together, the suffering of the form and formless realms; first contemplating, separately, the origin of the desire realm, and only afterward, together, the origin of the form and formless realms; first contemplating, separately, the cessation of the desire realm, and only afterward, together, the cessation of the form and formless realms; first contemplating, separately, the path of the desire realm, and only afterward, together, the path of the form and formless realms.

In contemplating the four noble truths in this way, one sees them as if through a fine silk veil, gazing at forms and images beyond it. Only at this point is the cultivation of the wisdom born of learning brought to completion. On this basis, the wisdom born of reflection is next given rise to; once its cultivation, too, is complete, the wisdom born of meditative cultivation is then given rise to — and this is precisely what is named heat. Heat next gives rise to summit; summit next gives rise to forbearance; forbearance next gives rise to supreme mundane dharma; supreme mundane dharma next gives rise to the path of seeing; the path of seeing next gives rise to the path of cultivation; and the path of cultivation next gives rise to the path beyond training. It is in this sequence that the wholesome roots reach their full completion.

Wholesome roots are of three kinds: first, those conducive to merit; second, those conducive to liberation; and third, those conducive to penetration. As for wholesome roots conducive to merit: they are the seeds that give rise to rebirth as a human or as a god. The seed giving rise to human rebirth is one able to produce, among humans, a lofty clan and great nobility, abundant wealth and treasure, a complete retinue, a fine and dignified countenance, a soft and supple body, and even, at times, the status of a wheel-turning monarch. The seed giving rise to divine rebirth is one able to produce rebirth among the gods of the desire, form, or formless realms, there to enjoy supreme and excellent fruits — or even, at times, the status of Śakra, lord of the gods, of a demon king, or of Brahmā, possessed of great majesty and ruling over many. As for wholesome roots conducive to liberation: they are the seeds of a determinate liberation, by which one comes, without fail, to attain final nirvāṇa. As for wholesome roots conducive to penetration: these are precisely heat, summit, forbearance, and supreme mundane dharma. Here, the wholesome roots conducive to liberation should be analyzed at length. One asks: what is this wholesome root's own essential nature? The answer: bodily, verbal, and mental karma serve as its essential nature — though mental karma predominates. One asks: does this wholesome root belong to the mental stage, or to the collection of the five sense-consciousnesses? The answer: it belongs to the mental stage, not to the five sense-consciousnesses. One asks: is this wholesome root attained through preparatory effort, through freedom from defilement, or is it innate? The answer: through preparatory effort alone. Some say: it can also be innate. The verdict: the first position given is the sound one, since it arises through preparatory effort. One asks: is this wholesome root born of learning,

of reflection, or of meditative cultivation? The answer: born of learning and reflection, not of meditative cultivation. Some say: it is also born of meditative cultivation. The verdict: the first position given is the sound one, since it belongs to the desire realm alone. One asks: in what place does this wholesome root arise? The answer: in the desire realm, not the form or formless realms; within the desire realm, among the human destiny, not the others; and among humans, in the three continents, not Uttarakuru. One asks: at what time is this wholesome root's seed planted? The answer: at a time when a buddha has appeared in the world, since there must be a buddha's teaching present for this seed to be planted at all. Other masters say: even without a buddha's teaching present, if one encounters a pratyekabuddha, one can still plant this wholesome root. One asks: on what kind of body does this wholesome root depend to arise? The answer: on either a male or a female body. One asks: through what act is this wholesome root's seed planted? The answer: through giving, through moral discipline, or through learning — though not fixed to any one of these, since it depends on the disposition behind the act. That is, some people, through the giving of even a single handful of food, or even a single tooth-cleaning twig, are able to plant the seed of liberation — as with Caṇḍāla and others, who, whatever they gave, always said: may I, through this act, certainly attain liberation. Others, though they hold a great unrestricted assembly of giving, are nonetheless unable to plant the seed of liberation — as with Abhirūpa-Nanda and others,

who, whatever they gave, always sought only worldly wealth, nobility, and fame, never seeking liberation. Some, upholding the eightfold precepts of a single day and night, are able to plant the seed of liberation; others, upholding the precepts of individual liberation for their entire lifetime, are nonetheless unable to plant the seed of liberation. Some, reciting even a single four-line verse, are able to plant the seed of liberation; others, though thoroughly versed in the letter and meaning of the three baskets, are nonetheless unable to plant the seed of liberation. One asks: who, then, is certain to plant this wholesome root conducive to liberation? The answer: whoever possesses a heightened disposition, delighting in the pursuit of nirvāṇa and turning away in disgust from birth-and-death, is certain to plant this wholesome root, however small the portion of giving, discipline, or learning they undertake; but whoever lacks this heightened disposition, delighting in the pursuit of nirvāṇa and turning away in disgust from birth-and-death, cannot plant this wholesome root at all, however large the portion of giving, discipline, or learning they undertake. One asks: once this wholesome root has been planted, how long must pass before liberation can be attained? The answer: at the very swiftest, it requires exactly three lifetimes — in the first life, the seed is planted; in the second life, it is brought to ripeness; and in the third life, liberation is finally attained. In every other case, the matter is not fixed — for some, having planted this wholesome root conducive to liberation,

may pass through one aeon, or a hundred aeons, or a thousand aeons, transmigrating through birth and death, without ever managing to give rise to the nirvedhabhāgīya factors; and others, having already given rise to the nirvedhabhāgīya wholesome roots, may pass through one lifetime, or a hundred lifetimes, or a thousand lifetimes, transmigrating through birth and death, without ever managing to enter the certainty of rightness. The wholesome roots conducive to liberation likewise admit of six lineage-varieties, from the retrogression-prone lineage up through the immovable lineage: one may transform from the retrogression-prone lineage's own liberation-conducive root into the destruction-prone lineage's own, and so on, up through transforming from the penetrating lineage's own into the immovable lineage's own; one may transform from the śrāvaka lineage's own liberation-conducive root into the pratyekabuddha or buddha lineage's own; one may transform from the pratyekabuddha lineage's own into the śrāvaka or buddha lineage's own — but once one has given rise to the buddha lineage's own liberation-conducive root, it can never again be transformed, being itself of the utmost keenness and power.

One asks: within heat's own preparatory effort, there is said to be an "arising-and-perishing contemplation" — what is the actual character of this contemplation's own preparatory effort? The answer: every practitioner of yoga, about to contemplate arising and perishing, first takes up the marks of flourishing and decline, both internal and external, and then returns to his own dwelling place, settling his body and mind. He first contemplates a single lifetime's own body — its arising before, and its perishing after; next he contemplates it by stage of life; next by year; next by season; next by month; next by half-month; next by a single day and night; next by muhūrta; next by lava; next by kṣaṇa; and so on, narrowing further still, until, with respect to every conditioned dharma, he contemplates two moments of arising and two moments of perishing. This marks the completion of preparatory effort. Next, with respect to every conditioned dharma, he contemplates a single moment of arising and a single moment of perishing — and this is what is named the completed arising-and-perishing contemplation.

One asks: in this arising-and-perishing contemplation, when contemplating arising and perishing, does a single mind observe both, or do two minds each observe one? If a single mind observes both, does it form a single understanding, or two? If it forms a single understanding, then, just as it observes arising as arising, it ought equally to observe perishing as arising — observing arising as arising can rightly be called correct observation, while observing perishing as arising ought to be a mistaken observation; and just as it observes perishing as perishing, it ought equally to observe arising as perishing — observing perishing as perishing can rightly be called correct observation, while observing arising as perishing ought to be a mistaken observation. How, then, could a single understanding be both correct and mistaken at once? If it forms two understandings, then there ought to be two distinct entities — yet a single mind having two entities is simply not possible. If, instead, two minds each observe one — one mind observing arising, one mind observing perishing — then there would be no single "arising-and-perishing contemplation" at all; how, then, could it be named as such? The answer: across two moments, one mind observes arising and one mind observes perishing — it is with reference to this continuous succession that it is named the "arising-and-perishing contemplation," not with reference to a single moment; and so no fault follows. Some say: a single mind observes arising and perishing both at once, without incurring the fault just described, since, upon seeing arising, one infers by comparison that perishing exists as well, because whatever arises must also perish; and upon seeing perishing, one infers by comparison that arising exists as well, because whatever perishes must also have arisen. The verdict: this position is unreasonable — how could a single mind possibly hold two distinct kinds of understanding at once, since direct perception and inferential comparison are themselves two entirely different modes of knowing? The first position given is therefore the sound one.

One asks: is this arising-and-perishing contemplation an attention of resolute conviction, or an attention of genuine reality? Some say: an attention of genuine reality. One asks: if that is so, then conditioned formations, in reality, neither come nor go — how, then, can seeing them as coming and going be called "genuine"? The answer: before this contemplation is fully accomplished, one does indeed see them as coming and going; once it is accomplished, one sees only arising and perishing, no longer seeing any mark of coming or going at all — just as with a spinning top: watched slowly, one sees it coming and going, but watched swiftly, one no longer does; the same should be understood for the whirling firebrand and the potter's wheel. Others say: it is an attention of resolute conviction. One asks: if that is so, how is the verse's own statement to be reconciled with this? As it states:

"If one has knowledge and vision, one is able to exhaust the contaminants; / without knowledge and vision, how could they ever be exhausted? / Whoever is able to contemplate the aggregates' own arising and perishing — / this, then, is the mind that is liberated from the afflictions." This shows that it cannot be a mere attention of resolute conviction that cuts off the afflictions. The answer: this is stated with reference to a transmitted, indirect cause — like the relationship between grandparent and grandchild. That is, the attention of resolute conviction draws forth and gives rise to the attention of genuine reality, and it is by the attention of genuine reality that the afflictions are actually cut off — and so there is no real contradiction.