The Sick Man's Staff

Minds are called "possessing latent tendency" due to a latent tendency — does that latent tendency increase within this mind? And so on, as stated at length. One asks: why does the treatise take up this topic? The answer: in order to refute a rival school and manifest the correct principle. That is, some maintain that there is only a single mind, just as the theorists of a single continuous mind hold, who say: a mind possessing latent tendency and a mind lacking latent tendency do not differ in their own nature — when the noble path manifests, it opposes the afflictions, not the very nature of mind, just as the washing of a garment, the polishing of a mirror, or the refining of gold opposes the dirt, tarnish, or impurity, not the very nature of the garment, mirror, or gold itself; the noble path is exactly the same. Further, within this very body, before the noble path has manifested, the afflictions not yet cut off, the mind possesses latent tendency; once the noble path manifests, the afflictions cut off, the mind lacks latent tendency — though this mind differs at the time of possessing and of lacking latent tendency, its nature remains one and the same, just as a garment, mirror, or piece of gold, before being washed, polished, or refined, is called a soiled garment and the rest, and, once washed, polished, or refined, is called an unsoiled garment and the rest — though differing at the time of being soiled and unsoiled, its nature is no different; mind is exactly the same. In order to refute this position, the treatise shows that a mind possessing latent tendency and a mind lacking latent tendency each differ in their own nature. Others maintain that a latent tendency does not increase with respect to its object, nor does it possess the meaning of increasing with respect to its associated dharmas, just as the Dārṣṭāntikas hold, who say: if a latent tendency increased with respect to its object, it ought to increase as well with respect to another realm, another stage, and uncontaminated dharmas, since these too are equally its object, just as its own realm and stage are; if it possessed the meaning of increasing with respect to its associated dharmas, it ought to increase at every time, whether cut off or not, since association can never truly be separated, exactly like self-nature itself. In order to refute this position, the treatise shows that latent tendencies do possess the meaning of increasing with respect to both their object and their associated and co-existent dharmas — that is, with respect to contaminated dharmas and associated dharmas of their own realm and stage, so long as not yet cut off, they constantly increase. Others maintain that a latent tendency possesses the meaning of increasing only with respect to the person, just as the Vātsīputrīyas hold, who say: it is the person that is called possessing or lacking latent tendency, not mind and the other dharmas, since it is the person that is bound and that is freed. In order to refute this position, the treatise shows that it is only mind and the other dharmas that are bound and freed, and that are called possessing or lacking latent tendency — not any substantially existent person, since no such person ultimately exists at all. It is in order to refute these various rival schools, and to manifest the undistorted principle, that this treatise is composed.

Minds are called "possessing latent tendency" due to a latent tendency — does that latent tendency increase within this mind? The answer: sometimes it increases, and sometimes it does not. How does it increase? This refers to a case where that latent tendency is associated with this mind, not yet cut off, and takes this mind as its object. How does it not increase?

This refers to a case where that latent tendency, though associated with this mind, has already been cut off. Here, "minds" refers to the minds of the five sections — namely, minds abandoned by seeing suffering,

up through minds abandoned by cultivation. "Latent tendencies" refers to the latent tendencies of the five sections — namely, latent tendencies abandoned by seeing suffering, up through latent tendencies abandoned by cultivation. It is through two factors that a mind is called "possessing latent tendency": first, because a latent tendency possesses the nature of increasing with respect to this mind; second, because a latent tendency possesses the nature of being a companion to this mind. A mind abandoned by seeing suffering, through both factors, is called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to the latent tendency abandoned by seeing suffering; through only one factor — namely, the nature of increasing — is it called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to the latent tendency abandoned by seeing the origin; lacking both factors with respect to every other latent tendency, it is not called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to them. A mind abandoned by seeing the origin, through both factors, is called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to the latent tendency abandoned by seeing the origin; through only one factor — namely, the nature of increasing — is it called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to the latent tendency abandoned by seeing suffering; lacking both factors with respect to every other latent tendency, it is not called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to them. A mind abandoned by seeing cessation, through both factors, is called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to the latent tendency abandoned by seeing cessation; through only one factor — namely, the nature of increasing — is it called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to the latent tendency abandoned by seeing suffering and the origin; lacking both factors with respect to every other latent tendency, it is not called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to them. A mind abandoned by seeing the path, through both factors, is called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to the latent tendency abandoned by seeing the path; through only one factor — namely, the nature of increasing — is it called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to the latent tendency abandoned by seeing suffering and the origin; lacking both factors with respect to every other latent tendency, it is not called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to them. A mind abandoned by cultivation, through both factors, is called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to the latent tendency abandoned by cultivation; through only one factor — namely, the nature of increasing — is it called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to the latent tendency abandoned by seeing suffering and the origin; lacking both factors with respect to every other latent tendency, it is not called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to them. Further, a mind abandoned by seeing suffering is of two kinds: first, a mind associated with a universally-pervasive latent tendency; second, a mind associated with a non-pervasive latent tendency. A mind abandoned by seeing the origin is exactly the same. A mind abandoned by seeing cessation is of two kinds:

first, a mind associated with a latent tendency taking a contaminated object; second, a mind associated with a latent tendency taking an uncontaminated object. A mind abandoned by seeing the path is exactly the same. A mind abandoned by cultivation is of two kinds: first, a defiled mind; second, an undefiled mind. A mind associated with a universally-pervasive latent tendency abandoned by seeing suffering, through both factors, is called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to the universally-pervasive latent tendency abandoned by seeing suffering; through only one factor — namely, the nature of increasing — is it called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to the non-pervasive latent tendency abandoned by seeing suffering and the universally-pervasive latent tendency abandoned by seeing the origin; lacking both factors with respect to every other latent tendency, it is not called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to them. A mind associated with a non-pervasive latent tendency abandoned by seeing suffering, through both factors, is called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to the non-pervasive latent tendency abandoned by seeing suffering; through only one factor — namely, the nature of increasing — is it called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to the universally-pervasive latent tendency abandoned by seeing suffering and the origin; lacking both factors with respect to every other latent tendency, it is not called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to them. A mind associated with a universally-pervasive latent tendency abandoned by seeing the origin, through both factors, is called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to the universally-pervasive latent tendency abandoned by seeing the origin; through only one factor — namely, the nature of increasing — is it called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to the non-pervasive latent tendency abandoned by seeing the origin and the universally-pervasive latent tendency abandoned by seeing suffering; lacking both factors with respect to every other latent tendency, it is not called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to them. A mind associated with a non-pervasive latent tendency abandoned by seeing the origin, through both factors, is called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to the non-pervasive latent tendency abandoned by seeing the origin; through only one factor — namely, the nature of increasing — is it called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to the universally-pervasive latent tendency abandoned by seeing suffering and the origin; lacking both factors with respect to every other latent tendency, it is not called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to them. A mind associated with a contaminated-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing cessation, through both factors, is called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to the contaminated-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing cessation; through only one factor — namely, the nature of increasing — is it called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to the universally-pervasive latent tendency abandoned by seeing suffering and the origin; lacking both factors with respect to every other latent tendency, it is not called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to them. A mind associated with an uncontaminated-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing cessation, through both factors, is called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to the uncontaminated-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing cessation; through only one factor — namely, the nature of increasing — is it called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to the contaminated-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing cessation and the universally-pervasive latent tendency abandoned by seeing suffering and the origin; lacking both factors with respect to every other latent tendency, it is not called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to them. A mind associated with a contaminated-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing the path, through both factors, is called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to the contaminated-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing the path; through only one factor — namely, the nature of increasing — is it called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to the universally-pervasive latent tendency abandoned by seeing suffering and the origin; lacking both factors with respect to every other latent tendency, it is not called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to them. A mind associated with an uncontaminated-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing the path, through both factors, is called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to the uncontaminated-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing the path; through only one factor — namely, the nature of increasing — is it called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to the contaminated-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing the path and the universally-pervasive latent tendency abandoned by seeing suffering and the origin; lacking both factors with respect to every other latent tendency, it is not called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to them. A defiled mind abandoned by cultivation, through both factors, is called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to the latent tendency abandoned by cultivation; through only one factor — namely, the nature of increasing — is it called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to the universally-pervasive latent tendency abandoned by seeing suffering and the origin; lacking both factors with respect to every other latent tendency, it is not called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to them. An undefiled mind abandoned by cultivation, through only one factor — namely, the nature of increasing — is it called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to the latent tendency abandoned by cultivation and the universally-pervasive latent tendency abandoned by seeing suffering and the origin;

lacking both factors with respect to every other latent tendency, it is not called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to them. Further, the desire realm's own mind abandoned by seeing suffering is of ten kinds — namely, the minds associated with the five views, doubt, craving, hatred, conceit, and the not-held-in-common ignorance. The mind abandoned by seeing the origin is of seven kinds — namely, the minds associated with two views, doubt, craving, hatred, conceit, and the not-held-in-common ignorance. The mind abandoned by seeing cessation is exactly the same. The mind abandoned by seeing the path is of eight kinds — namely, the minds associated with three views, doubt, craving, hatred, conceit, and the not-held-in-common ignorance. The mind abandoned by cultivation is of five kinds — namely, the minds associated with craving, hatred, conceit, and the not-held-in-common ignorance, together with the undefiled mind — that is, a wholesome contaminated mind or an uncovered undefined mind. A mind associated with identity-view, through both factors, is called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to identity-view and its associated ignorance; through only one factor — namely, the nature of increasing — is it called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to every other latent tendency abandoned by seeing suffering and the universally-pervasive latent tendency abandoned by seeing the origin; lacking both factors with respect to every other latent tendency, it is not called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to them. So too, up through the mind associated with conceit abandoned by seeing suffering, should each be understood in the very same way. The mind associated with the not-held-in-common ignorance abandoned by seeing suffering, through both factors, is called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to the not-held-in-common ignorance abandoned by seeing suffering; through only one factor — namely, the nature of increasing —

is it called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to every other latent tendency abandoned by seeing suffering and the universally-pervasive latent tendency abandoned by seeing the origin; lacking both factors with respect to every other latent tendency, it is not called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to them. The mind abandoned by seeing the origin should be understood in the very same way. The mind associated with wrong view abandoned by seeing cessation, through both factors, is called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to wrong view abandoned by seeing cessation and its associated ignorance; through only one factor — namely, the nature of increasing — is it called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to every other contaminated-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing cessation and the universally-pervasive latent tendency abandoned by seeing suffering and the origin;

lacking both factors with respect to every other latent tendency, it is not called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to them. The mind associated with doubt abandoned by seeing cessation should be understood in the very same way. The mind associated with view-grasping abandoned by seeing cessation, through both factors, is called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to view-grasping abandoned by seeing cessation and its associated ignorance; through only one factor — namely, the nature of increasing — is it called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to every other contaminated-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing cessation and the universally-pervasive latent tendency abandoned by seeing suffering and the origin; lacking both factors with respect to every other latent tendency, it is not called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to them. The minds associated with craving, hatred, and conceit abandoned by seeing cessation should be understood in the very same way. The mind associated with the not-held-in-common ignorance abandoned by seeing cessation, through both factors, is called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to that not-held-in-common ignorance; through only one factor — namely, the nature of increasing — is it called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to every other contaminated-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing cessation and the universally-pervasive latent tendency abandoned by seeing suffering and the origin; lacking both factors with respect to every other latent tendency, it is not called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to them. The mind abandoned by seeing the path should be understood in the very same way. The mind associated with craving abandoned by cultivation, through both factors, is called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to that craving and its associated ignorance; through only one factor — namely, the nature of increasing — is it called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to every other latent tendency abandoned by cultivation and the universally-pervasive latent tendency abandoned by seeing suffering and the origin; lacking both factors with respect to every other latent tendency, it is not called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to them. The minds associated with hatred and conceit abandoned by cultivation should be understood in the very same way. The mind associated with the not-held-in-common ignorance abandoned by cultivation,

through both factors, is called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to that not-held-in-common ignorance; through only one factor — namely, the nature of increasing — is it called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to every other latent tendency abandoned by cultivation and the universally-pervasive latent tendency abandoned by seeing suffering and the origin; lacking both factors with respect to every other latent tendency, it is not called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to them. The undefiled mind abandoned by cultivation, through the not-held-in-common latent tendency abandoned by cultivation and the universally-pervasive latent tendency abandoned by seeing suffering and the origin, is called "possessing latent tendency" through only one factor — namely, the nature of increasing; lacking both factors with respect to every other latent tendency, it is not called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to them. Just as this has been explained for the desire realm, the form and formless realms should be understood in the very same way — this, then, is the abbreviated Vibhāṣā treatment of this topic here. Thus, as already stated, the latent tendencies of the three realms' five sections, with respect to the three realms' five sections' minds possessing latent tendency, increase and mutually accord with and augment one another so long as they are not yet cut off, since a latent tendency binds a mind precisely through this very increasing; once cut off, they no longer increase or mutually accord, since a latent tendency no longer binds a mind once it has been cut off. Yet, in the not-yet-cut-off stage, a mind's associated latent tendency and its object-taken latent tendency can both properly be established as giving it the name "possessing latent tendency," since the associated latent tendency possesses both factors, while the object-taken latent tendency possesses only the factor of increasing. In the already-cut-off stage, this mind can be established as "possessing latent tendency" only through its associated latent tendency — not through a latent tendency that had previously taken it as object with a binding relation, since that latent tendency, once cut off, no longer possesses the factor of increasing — whereas the associated latent tendency, even once cut off, still retains the factor of being a companion to the mind. One asks: why is it that, with respect to an associated latent tendency, a mind can be established as "possessing latent tendency" whether that latent tendency has already been cut off or not, while, with respect to an object-taken latent tendency, a mind can be so established only while it has not yet been cut off, never once it has been cut off? The answer: as already explained, a mind is called "possessing latent tendency" through two factors — the factor of increasing and the factor of being a companion. For an associated latent tendency: if not yet cut off, both factors together establish this name for the mind; if already cut off, although it lacks the factor of increasing, it still possesses the factor of being a companion, and so this name can still be established. For an object-taken latent tendency: if not yet cut off, it possesses only the factor of increasing with respect to the mind, and so this name is established through that factor alone; if already cut off, it possesses neither factor, and so this name can no longer be established. One asks: if an associated latent tendency, relative to its associated mind, possesses, while not yet cut off, both the factor of increasing and the factor of being a companion, and, once cut off, though lacking the factor of increasing, still possesses the factor of being a companion, so that the mind is always, in every case, called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to it — why is it that an object-taken latent tendency, relative to the mind that takes it as object, though possessing, while not yet cut off, both the factor of increasing and the factor of being an object, and, once cut off, though lacking the factor of increasing, still in some sense possessing the factor of being an object — why does the mind not always, in every case, retain the name "possessing latent tendency" with respect to it as well? The answer: an associated latent tendency is extremely intimate with its associated mind, every feature between them equal, never separable, exactly like a sheep and its own hide — and so, whether cut off or not, it is always said to be "possessed"; an object-taken latent tendency and the mind that takes it as object are not extremely intimate, their features unequal, never truly united — while not yet cut off, owing to the factor of increasing, it can be said to be "possessed," but, once cut off, being extremely remote, it is no longer said to be "possessed." The naming convention here is established with reference to intimacy, and is not the same as the naming convention used for the mere fact of being an object. The Venerable Vasumitra explained it in this way:

an associated latent tendency defiles its associated mind, whereas an object-taken latent tendency does not do so. Further, an associated latent tendency is never separate from mind,

whereas an object-taken latent tendency is not so. Further, an associated latent tendency covers over and obscures mind, whereas an object-taken latent tendency does not do so.

Further, an associated latent tendency follows along with mind's own course, whereas an object-taken latent tendency does not do so. Further, an associated latent tendency disturbs and confuses mind, whereas an object-taken latent tendency does not do so. Further, an associated latent tendency shares with its associated mind the very same support, the very same object, the very same aspect, the very same fruit, the very same equal-outflow, and the very same ripening — arising together, abiding together, changing together, and ceasing together, extremely intimate with it — whereas an object-taken latent tendency is not so. The Great Virtuous One stated: an associated latent tendency makes its associated mind rigid and stubborn, difficult for the wise to dislodge or overcome, whereas an object-taken latent tendency has no such effect on the mind that takes it as object. The Venerable Ghoṣa explained it in this way: an associated latent tendency causes its associated mind to give rise to defilement, like a smoke-and-flame acquisition, obstructing the noble fruit, whereas an object-taken latent tendency has no such effect on the mind that takes it as object. The Venerable Buddhadeva explained it in this way: an associated latent tendency causes its associated mind to become confused and unclear with respect to its own object, whereas an object-taken latent tendency has no such effect on the mind that takes it as object. It is through all of these various causes and conditions that an associated latent tendency, whether cut off or not yet cut off, always allows a mind to be given the name "possessing latent tendency," whereas an object-taken latent tendency can allow a mind to be given this name only while not yet cut off — once cut off, it is no longer so named. Suppose a latent tendency increases within a mind — is this mind, then, called "possessing latent tendency" solely because of that very latent tendency, and no other? The answer: sometimes because of it alone, and sometimes because of it together with another. How is it because of it alone, and no other? This refers to a case where this mind has not yet been cut off. How is it because of it together with another? This refers to a case where the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering has already arisen, but the dharma-knowledge of the origin has not yet arisen, and this mind takes as its object what is abandoned by seeing suffering and seeing the origin

as its own object of latent tendency. Here, "because of it alone, and no other" means: there is a mind possessing latent tendency solely because that latent tendency increases within it, and not because of any other latent tendency that does not increase within it — that is, this mind has not yet been cut off. If a mind has not yet been cut off, it must necessarily be called "possessing latent tendency" solely because of that latent tendency which increases within it, and not because of any other latent tendency that does not increase within it. Some say: this passage ought instead to be stated as follows — this refers to a case of a defiled mind belonging to one who is still fully bound by every fetter. That position ought not to be maintained, since both one who is fully bound and one who is not fully bound may equally possess a defiled mind or an undefiled mind. It should instead simply be stated: this mind has not yet been cut off — every not-yet-cut-off mind is called "possessing latent tendency" solely because a latent tendency increases within it, and not because of anything else. As for "because of it together with another": this refers to a case where a mind possesses latent tendency both because a given latent tendency increases within it, and also because another latent tendency, which does not increase within it, is nonetheless present — this refers to the case where the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering has already arisen, and so on, as stated at length. A mind abandoned by seeing suffering, possessing latent tendency, at that very moment, is called "possessing latent tendency" both because of the origin-abandoned universally-pervasive latent tendency, which increases within this mind, and also because of the suffering-abandoned associated latent tendency, which does not increase within this mind — and it is in just this sense that a mind abandoned by seeing suffering is spoken of, at this particular stage, as being called "possessing latent tendency" both because of another section's own latent tendency, which increases within this mind, and also because of its own section's own latent tendency, which does not increase within this mind. One asks: why is it that, here, the other section's own latent tendency is called "it," while the own section's own latent tendency is called "another"? The answer: because the earlier question asked whether a latent tendency's increasing within a mind means that this mind is called "possessing latent tendency" solely because of that very latent tendency — it is for this reason that the present answer states: a mind abandoned by seeing suffering, at this stage, is not called "possessing latent tendency" solely because of the origin-abandoned universally-pervasive latent tendency that increases within this mind, but is also called "possessing latent tendency" because of the suffering-abandoned associated latent tendency that does not increase within this mind — and so, in this way, what is properly asked about is called "it," and what is not properly asked about is called "another." The other section's own latent tendency, at that time, has not yet been cut off, and, since it increases, it is what is properly asked about; the own section's own latent tendency, at that time, has already been cut off,

and, since it does not increase, it is not what is properly asked about. Some say: the own section's own latent tendency, at that time, has shifted into a different, earlier stage, and it is for this reason that it is called "another" —

that is, what was formerly not yet cut off is now already cut off. Some say: the own section's own latent tendency formerly possessed mastery, able to act as it wished, but, now already cut off, it no longer possesses mastery, being unable to accomplish anything, and it is for this reason that it is called "another." Some say: the own section's own latent tendency was formerly actually possessed, but is now no longer actually possessed, and it is for this reason that it is called "another." Some say: the own section's own latent tendency has now been ultimately and completely cut off by the noble path, differing from what it formerly was, and it is for this reason that it is called "another." Some say: the own section's own latent tendency has already been specifically distinguished and cut off all at once by the noble path, unlike its former state of being gradually cut off together with the other four sections, and it is for this reason that it is called "another." One asks: a mind abandoned by cultivation, too, possesses this very same meaning — that is, once one grade, up through eight grades, of a defiled mind have already been cut off,

it, too, is called "possessing latent tendency" both because of a not-yet-cut-off latent tendency and because of an already-cut-off latent tendency — why, then, does the treatise not state this as well? The answer: this is simply what the treatise's author intended, and so on, as stated at length. Further, it ought to be stated but is not, and this should be understood as a matter this discussion leaves incomplete. Further, the present case speaks only of one different section serving as "it" while a different section serves as "another" — a mind abandoned by cultivation, though it does possess this very same meaning, has its own section serving as "it" and its own section serving as "another," and it is for this reason that this present passage does not speak of it. Further, this present passage speaks only of a mind abandoned by cultivation whose cutting-off is ultimately final and never subject to retrogression — that mind, too, does possess this very same meaning, but, once cut off, may still sometimes retrogress, and it is for this reason that this present passage does not speak of it.

One asks: how, exactly, do latent tendencies increase with respect to their object, and how do they increase with respect to their association? The Western masters explained it in this way:

it is by virtue of a latent tendency's own binding nature that it increases with respect to its object; it is by virtue of its own companion nature that it increases with respect to its association. The masters of Kashmir state: it is because, with respect to its object, a latent tendency distinctly grasps and augments each dharma's own particular aspect, that it is said to increase with respect to its object; it is because, with respect to its associated dharmas, it causes them to share in its own fault, mutually according with and augmenting one another, that it is said to increase with respect to its association. There are yet other masters who say: latent tendencies increase with respect to their object exactly as they do with respect to their association, and increase with respect to their association exactly as they do with respect to their object. One asks: if that is so, how is the Prakaraṇapāda to be reconciled with this?

As it states: how does the latent tendency of desire-realm craving increase? The answer: with respect to what is lovable, pleasing, delightful, and agreeable — yet that latent tendency has no capacity to take an object with respect to its associated dharmas; why, then, does the treatise also speak of them as "lovable" and the rest? The answer: that passage is displaying craving's own characteristic — that is, the latent tendency of desire-realm craving possesses the characteristic of finding things lovable and the rest, and it is for this reason that the treatise speaks in this way; it is not displaying any distinct characteristic belonging to its object or to its association. The Venerable Vasumitra explained it in this way: it is through four factors that latent tendencies are said to possess the meaning of increasing — first, because they cause one to fall into an evil intention, just as, within a great assembly, a single person committing an evil deed causes the many others present to fall into an evil intention as well; in just this way, when a single latent tendency arises within one and the same associated grouping, it causes every mind and mental factor within that very grouping to fall into an evil intention as well. Second, because they are like fire's own heat — just as, when a small vessel of water is placed atop hot iron, both the vessel and the water alike become heated through and through; in just this way, when a single affliction arises within a single grouping of mental dharmas, it causes every mind and mental factor to become heated with affliction as well. Third, because they are like smoke and the rest — just as a garment stained by smoke, dust, or grime becomes entirely soiled and foul; in just this way, when a single latent tendency is present within a mental grouping, the whole grouping becomes defiled as well. Fourth, because they are worthy of censure and contempt — just as, within a monastic community, if a single member commits an offense, the entire community is subject to reproach; in just this way, when a single latent tendency is present within a mental grouping, the whole grouping becomes worthy of censure and contempt as well. It is through the presence of these four factors, with respect to association, that increasing is spoken of; with respect to the object as well, these same four factors also increase — that is, whenever the object itself grows and increases through these four factors, the affliction is thereby said to increase with respect to it. One asks: do past and future latent tendencies also increase? The answer: they, too, do increase — for, if those latent tendencies did not increase, then, at the stage when an undefiled mind manifests before one, there would be no latent tendency present at all, which would contradict what scripture itself states — as it is said: the Buddha told the mother of Mālā-garland: an infant child, lying on his back, cannot yet even distinguish the relative merits of a sensual object — how much less could he give rise to a mind entangled in the fetter of sensual craving! And yet he is indeed bound by the latent tendency of sensual craving. One asks: since past and future dharmas possess no actual function at all, how can it be said that a latent tendency increases with respect to them? The answer: they are capable of giving rise to something, once they actually manifest in the present — just as fire, though not presently manifest, is still capable of giving rise to smoke. The Venerable Ghoṣa explained it in this way: although they possess no function of actually taking hold of an object,

they nonetheless possess a binding capacity, with respect to their object and their associated dharmas, exactly as though they were presently manifest, and it is for this reason that such a latent tendency is said to possess the meaning of increasing. The Venerable Śrīlāta stated: it is through five factors that past and future latent tendencies may be said to possess the meaning of increasing — first, because their own cause is not yet exhausted; second, because their own acquisition is not yet cut off; third, because their own support has not yet been transformed; fourth, because their own object has not yet been fully understood; fifth, because their own antidote has not yet been attained. Minds are called "possessing latent tendency" due to a latent tendency — will that latent tendency necessarily be cut off with respect to this mind? The answer: sometimes it will be cut off, and sometimes not. How is it that it will be cut off? This refers to a case where that latent tendency takes this mind as its object. How is it that it will not be cut off? This refers to a case where that latent tendency is associated with this mind. This passage shows that a latent tendency can properly be said to be "cut off" with respect to its object, but not with respect to its association — that is, with respect to its object, an affliction can be restrained so that it no longer manifests and commits further faults, but, with respect to association, an affliction cannot be restrained so that it no longer becomes associated with mind and the rest — and it is for this reason that it can properly be said to be "cut off" with respect to its object, but not with respect to its association. Some say: this passage ought instead to be stated as follows: how is it that it will be cut off? This refers to a case where that latent tendency takes this mind as its object and is not yet cut off. How is it that it will not be cut off? This refers to a case where that latent tendency takes this mind as its object and has already been cut off, or is associated with this mind. That position is unsound. Why is this? Because the earlier question asked only whether a mind, called "possessing latent tendency" due to latent tendency, will have that latent tendency cut off with respect to it — the present passage need only state: how is it that it will be cut off? This refers to a case where that latent tendency takes this mind as its object — the meaning is already complete. What need is there to further add "not yet cut off"? If that latent tendency has already been cut off, then this mind is no longer called "possessing latent tendency" because of it, and so it is not what is being asked about at all — and it is for this reason that there is no need to further add "not yet cut off." And, further, the phrase "takes this mind as object and has already been cut off" ought not properly to be said of a latent tendency taking a mind as its object at all — if it has already been cut off, then it is not what is being asked about — and so one need only state: how is it that it will not be cut off? This refers to a case where that latent tendency is associated with this mind — the meaning is already complete. Yet, in stating here that a latent tendency can be said to be cut off with respect to its object, but not with respect to its association, this is spoken with reference to the meaning of a mind being named "possessing latent tendency," not with reference to the meaning of increasing — since, with respect to increasing, both can equally be said to be cut off.

One asks: through what does a latent tendency come to be cut off? The answer: through its object — the meaning already displayed earlier is now given its actual textual statement. That is, latent tendencies, through the power of an antidote, are made to no longer give rise to any further fault with respect to their object, and it is in this sense that they can be said to be cut off; it is just as when a person restrains his own child from ever again entering a tavern, a brothel, or a gambling house. To make a latent tendency depart from its associated dharmas altogether is simply impossible — and it is for this reason that it is said that, with respect to associated dharmas, there is no such thing as being "cut off."

You say a latent tendency is cut off through its object? The answer: yes. If that is so, then the latent tendencies abandoned by seeing cessation and the path that take a contaminated object as their own object — through what, then, are they cut off? If you say this very latent tendency's own cutting-off, or that its own object is cut off, neither seems proper. The answer: the uncontaminated-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing cessation and the path is cut off through its object, and it is because that is cut off that this contaminated-object-taking latent tendency is also thereby cut off. Here, the meaning intended is that it is specifically through wisdom directly seeing an affliction's own object that a latent tendency is properly cut off — and, in order to establish this principle firmly, this dialogue of question and difficulty and reconciling answer unfolds. "You say a latent tendency is cut off through its object?" is a question — for, though this was already briefly stated earlier, it was not yet examined and fixed with precision; without first examining and fixing precisely what a rival school actually holds, to then state that school's own faults would be improper. "The answer: yes" is the reply, confirming, with fixed certainty, that it is specifically through wisdom directly seeing an affliction's own object that a latent tendency is cut off, admitting no further alternative — hence the reply "yes." "If that is so, then the latent tendencies abandoned by seeing cessation and the path that take a contaminated object as their own object — through what, then, are they cut off? If you say this very latent tendency's own cutting-off, or that its own object is cut off, neither seems proper" is the difficulty raised — meaning: as for the contaminated-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing cessation and the path, through what is it cut off? If one says it is cut off through wisdom directly seeing this very suffering or origin, this cannot be right, since, at the time of directly seeing suffering and the origin, this latent tendency has not yet been cut off; if one says it is cut off through wisdom directly seeing cessation or the path, this too cannot be right, since cessation and the path are not this latent tendency's own object at all. "The answer: the uncontaminated-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing cessation and the path is cut off through its object, and it is because that is cut off that this contaminated-object-taking latent tendency is also thereby cut off" is the reconciling answer — meaning: the contaminated-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing cessation and the path arises and continues to grow only in dependence on the uncontaminated-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing cessation and the path; once this uncontaminated-object-taking latent tendency is cut off through directly seeing cessation and the path, that contaminated-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing cessation and the path is thereby also cut off in turn — just as a sick and weakened person, standing only by leaning on a staff, falls the moment the staff is taken away; the case here is exactly the same. One asks: it was earlier firmly established that it is specifically through wisdom directly seeing an affliction's own object that a latent tendency is properly cut off, yet it is now being said that it is because its own object is cut off that the corresponding latent tendency taking it as object is thereby cut off — does this not contradict what was said before? The answer: no contradiction follows — if wisdom directly seeing an object is even able to cut off the very latent tendency that takes that object as its own object, how much more should it be able to cut off some other latent tendency that itself merely depends on this one for its own continued existence — just as, if shaking a tree can even cause its own fruit to fall, how much more would toppling the tree outright cause its fruit to fall. Moreover, what was said earlier — that it is specifically through wisdom directly seeing an affliction's own object that a latent tendency is cut off — did not mean specifically through wisdom directly seeing the object of the very latent tendency being cut off, but rather through wisdom directly seeing whatever object some affliction, any affliction at all, actually has — and so no contradiction follows, since it is precisely through wisdom directly seeing the uncontaminated-object-taking latent tendency's own object that the contaminated-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing cessation and the path is also thereby cut off. By this very principle, the forbearance for the dharma-knowledges of suffering and the origin are able to cut off the universally-pervasive latent tendencies that take the higher realms as their object; and, within the path of cultivation, the knowledges of cessation and the path are able to cut off the nine stages' own afflictions abandoned by cultivation. There are yet other masters who say: "cut off through its object" means that the affliction's own object is itself cut off, and it is because of this that the latent tendency taking it as object is then cut off in turn — and, in order to establish this principle firmly, the very same format of question and difficulty and reconciling answer is applied. You say a latent tendency is cut off through its object? The answer: yes. If that is so, then the latent tendencies abandoned by seeing cessation and the path that take an uncontaminated object as their own object — through what, then, are they cut off? If you say their own object is cut off, this cannot be right, since cessation and the path, being without fault, can never be cut off at all. The answer: it is because the contaminated-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing cessation and the path is cut off that this uncontaminated-object-taking latent tendency is also thereby cut off. This position, however, ought not to be maintained, since it directly contradicts the position already established above, and, further, since it cannot properly be reconciled with the root treatise's own text, there being cases where the object is cut off yet the latent tendency taking it as object is not yet cut off, and cases where the latent tendency taking an object as object is cut off yet that very object is not yet cut off. There are yet further masters who say: "cut off through its object" means only that it is through an object-possessing path that a latent tendency is cut off. This position, too, ought not to be maintained, since the World-Honored One himself states that the noble eightfold path is able to cut off all suffering, past, future, and present, relinquished, transformed, spat out, exhausted, freed of defilement, extinguished, quiescent, and brought to nirvāṇa — and so it should instead be said that both an object-possessing path and a path lacking any such object are equally able to cut off affliction. And, further, since both the difficulty raised against this position and its own attempted reconciliation fail to correspond properly to the root text, this position, too, is unsound. The Venerable Śrīlāta then stated as follows:

it is through four factors that latent tendencies are cut off: first, because their object is cut off — as with the contaminated-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing cessation and the path; second, because the taking subject is cut off — as with a latent tendency taking another realm as its object; third, because both are cut off together — as with the non-pervasive latent tendency abandoned by seeing suffering and the origin; fourth, because an antidote is attained — as with every other latent tendency, which, upon attaining its own respective antidote, is thereupon also cut off. The Venerable Vasumitra explained it in this way: it is through five factors that latent tendencies are cut off — first, cut off through seeing the object, as with an uncontaminated-object-taking latent tendency, and a latent tendency that is pervasive and takes its own realm as object; second, cut off because the object is cut off, as with the contaminated-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing cessation and the path; third, cut off because the taking subject is cut off, as with a pervasive latent tendency that takes another realm as its object; fourth, cut off because both are cut off together, as with the non-pervasive latent tendency abandoned by seeing suffering and the origin; fifth, cut off because an antidote is attained, as with a latent tendency abandoned by cultivation.

Suppose a latent tendency will be cut off with respect to a given mind — is this mind, then, called "possessing latent tendency" solely because of that very latent tendency, and no other? The answer: sometimes because of it alone, and sometimes because of it together with another. How is it because of it alone, and no other? This refers to an undefiled mind abandoned by cultivation. How is it because of it together with another? This refers to a defiled mind. Here, "undefiled" excludes the defiled; "abandoned by cultivation" excludes the uncontaminated — that is, this refers specifically to a contaminated wholesome mind, or an uncovered undefined mind. "This mind, because of it" means: because of the latent tendency that takes this mind as its object and increases within it, it is called "possessing latent tendency"; "and no other" means: not because of any associated latent tendency, since this mind has no associated latent tendency at all. For a defiled mind, "because of it" means: because of the latent tendency that takes this mind as its object and increases within it, it is called "possessing latent tendency"; "and also another" means: and also because of another, associated latent tendency. One asks: why is it that, here, the object-taken latent tendency is called "it," while the associated latent tendency is called "another"? The answer: because the earlier question asked whether a latent tendency will be cut off with respect to this mind — and it was already explained earlier that a latent tendency has the meaning of "will be cut off" only with respect to its object, not with respect to its association — it is for this reason that the present answer speaks only of the object-taken latent tendency's own future cutting-off. This very latent tendency is what is properly asked about, and so is called "it"; the associated latent tendency is not what is properly asked about, and so is called "another." One asks: why does this passage repeat the same question-and-answer format used earlier? The answer: it is in order to resolve a genuine doubt — that is, someone might doubt that a mind is called "possessing latent tendency" only through what will be cut off, since the associated latent tendency has no such meaning of future cutting-off, one might doubt that the mind is therefore not called "possessing latent tendency" through it — and it is in order to resolve this very doubt that the present passage shows a defiled mind, too, is called "possessing latent tendency" through it. Or, again, one might doubt that an associated latent tendency, too, possesses this meaning of future cutting-off, and the present passage now shows in turn that the associated latent tendency has no such meaning at all. Or, again, one might doubt that a mind is called "possessing latent tendency" with respect to a latent tendency solely through the factor of increasing — the present passage now further shows that it relies also on the factor of being a companion — that is, an undefiled mind relies only on the factor of increasing to be called "possessing latent tendency," while,

if it is a defiled mind, it relies on both factors together.

Is there a case where a latent tendency is cut off, yet wisdom does not see its own object? The answer: four alternatives should be formulated. There is a case of a latent tendency being cut off while wisdom does not see its own object — namely, when an ordinary being becomes free of the desire realm's defilement, up through the sphere of nothingness's defilement, cutting off the latent tendencies taking a higher stage as object and the latent tendencies taking an uncontaminated object as object; or when noble ones, directly realizing the desire realm's own truths of suffering and origin, cut off latent tendencies taking another realm as their object; or, upon directly realizing the truths of cessation and the path,

cutting off the contaminated-object-taking latent tendencies abandoned by seeing cessation and the path, since the knowledges of cessation and the path free one from every latent tendency abandoned by cultivation. There is a case where wisdom sees an object, yet the latent tendency taking it as object is not cut off — namely, when an ordinary being becomes free of the desire realm's defilement, up through the sphere of nothingness's defilement, with respect to the latent tendencies of the earlier and later grades; or, when becoming free of the first dhyāna's defilement, up through the sphere of nothingness's defilement, with respect to every other-stage-object-taking latent tendency belonging to the desire realm up through the sphere of boundless consciousness; or, when noble ones directly realize the form and formless realms' own truths of suffering and origin, with respect to the desire realm's own every other-realm-object-taking latent tendency;

upon directly realizing the truth of suffering, with respect to the own-realm-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing the origin, the contaminated-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing cessation and the path, and every latent tendency abandoned by cultivation; upon directly realizing the truth of the origin, with respect to the own-realm-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing suffering, the contaminated-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing cessation and the path, and every latent tendency abandoned by cultivation; through the dharma-knowledge and subsequent-knowledge of suffering and the origin, and through worldly conventional knowledge, when becoming free of the defilement abandoned by cultivation, with respect to the contaminated-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing, and the earlier and later grades of latent tendency abandoned by cultivation; through the knowledge of cessation and the path, when becoming free of the defilement abandoned by cultivation, with respect to the uncontaminated-object-taking latent tendency; and every other ordinary being or noble one who, without actually cutting off an affliction, merely sees that affliction's own object — this covers every remaining case. There is a case where a latent tendency is cut off and wisdom also sees its own object — namely, when an ordinary being becomes free of the desire realm's defilement, up through the sphere of nothingness's defilement,

with respect to its own stage's own grade of latent tendency; or, when noble ones directly realize the truths of suffering and the origin, with respect to the own-realm-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing suffering and the origin; upon directly realizing the truths of cessation and the path, with respect to the uncontaminated-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing cessation and the path; through the dharma-knowledge and subsequent-knowledge of suffering and the origin, and through worldly conventional knowledge, when becoming free of the defilement abandoned by cultivation, with respect to its own stage's own grade of latent tendency abandoned by cultivation. There is a case where a latent tendency is not cut off and wisdom also does not see its own object — namely, every case excluded from those just described.

One asks: is there a case, within the span of a single moment, of a latent tendency being cut off while wisdom does not see its own object? The answer: four alternatives should be formulated — yet there are many distinct stages at which this occurs.

That is, at the moment of the forbearance for the dharma-knowledges of suffering and origin, and at the moment of the forbearance for the dharma-and-subsequent-knowledges of cessation and the path, all four alternatives occur. As for the four alternatives at the moment of the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering: the first alternative refers to the desire realm's own other-realm-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing suffering; the second alternative refers to the desire realm's own own-realm-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing the origin, the contaminated-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing cessation and the path, and every latent tendency abandoned by cultivation; the third alternative refers to the desire realm's own own-realm-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing suffering; the fourth alternative refers to every case excluded from those just described. The four alternatives at the moment of the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of the origin should be understood accordingly, in the very same way. As for the moment of the forbearance for the dharma-and-subsequent-knowledges of cessation and the path: if, while still an ordinary being, one has already become partially or wholly free of the desire realm's defilement, and of the seven higher stages' defilement as well, then all four alternatives can indeed be formulated. Taking the four alternatives at the moment of the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of cessation as an example: the first alternative refers to the desire realm's own contaminated-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing cessation, not yet freed from before; the second alternative refers to the desire realm's own uncontaminated-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing cessation, already freed from before; the third alternative refers to the desire realm's own uncontaminated-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing cessation, not yet freed from before; the fourth alternative

refers to the desire realm's own contaminated-object-taking latent tendency abandoned by seeing cessation, already freed from before — or every case excluded from those just described. The four alternatives at the moment of the forbearance for the subsequent-knowledge of cessation, and at the moment of the forbearance for the dharma-and-subsequent-knowledges of the path, should be understood accordingly, each in the very same way. When an ordinary being becomes free of the desire realm's defilement, up through the sphere of nothingness's defilement, all four alternatives can be formulated within each and every uninterrupted path: the first alternative refers to the latent tendency of that very grade taking another stage as its object; the second alternative refers to the latent tendency of the earlier and later grades taking its own stage as its object; the third alternative refers to the latent tendency of that very grade taking its own stage as its object; the fourth alternative refers to every case excluded from those just described. One asks: is there a case of obtaining an affliction's cutting-off without relinquishing it, or relinquishing it without obtaining its cutting-off, or both obtaining and relinquishing it, or neither obtaining nor relinquishing it? The answer: there is. As for obtaining without relinquishing: this refers to an ordinary being, when becoming free of the desire realm's defilement, up through the sphere of nothingness's defilement, or a noble one, at the very moment of cutting off an affliction, excluding the stage of attaining a fruit. As for relinquishing without obtaining: this refers to an ordinary being who, retrogressing from freedom of a lower stage's defilement, passes away from a higher stage and is reborn in the second dhyāna or above, or passes away from the two higher realms and is reborn in the desire realm, or a noble one, at the moment of retrogressing toward an intermediate stage.

As for both obtaining and relinquishing: this refers to an ordinary being who passes away from a higher stage and is reborn in the first dhyāna or above, or a noble one, at the moment of sharpening the faculties to attain a fruit, or of retrogressing from a fruit. As for neither obtaining nor relinquishing: this refers to every case excluded from those just described.