Beneath the Bodhi Tree, Forward and Backward

Is there a case of a latent tendency's cessation being bodily realized while wisdom does not see that cessation? The answer: four alternatives should be formulated. There is a case of a latent tendency's cessation being bodily realized while wisdom does not see that cessation — namely, when an ordinary being becomes free of the desire realm's defilement, up through the sphere of nothingness's defilement, the cessation of the own-stage's own grade of latent tendency; or, when noble ones directly realize the truth of suffering, the cessation of the latent tendencies abandoned by seeing suffering; upon directly realizing the truth of the origin, the cessation of the latent tendencies abandoned by seeing the origin; upon directly realizing the truth of the path, the cessation of the latent tendencies abandoned by seeing the path; within the path of cultivation, through the dharma-knowledge of suffering, the origin, and the path, and through worldly conventional knowledge, when becoming free, as appropriate, of the desire realm's defilement, up through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's defilement, the cessation of the own-stage's own grade of latent tendency abandoned by cultivation; or, through the dharma-knowledge of suffering, the origin, and the path, and through worldly conventional knowledge, when attaining a fruit or sharpening the faculties, as appropriate, the cessation of the already-cut-off latent tendency thereby realized. There is a case where wisdom sees that cessation while it is not bodily realized — namely, at the direct realization of cessation, the cessation of the latent tendencies abandoned by seeing suffering, the origin, the path, and cultivation; within the path of cultivation, through the knowledge of cessation, when becoming free of the desire realm's defilement, up through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's defilement, excluding the stage of attaining a fruit, the cessation of whatever latent tendency, cut off or not yet cut off, is presently being contemplated; and every other ordinary being or noble one who, without realizing a non-selective cessation, sees a cessation, the cessation of whatever latent tendency is thereby seen. There is a case of a latent tendency's cessation being bodily realized while wisdom also sees that cessation — namely, at the direct realization of cessation, the cessation of the latent tendencies abandoned by seeing cessation; within the path of cultivation, through the knowledge of cessation, when becoming free of the desire realm's defilement, up through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's defilement, the cessation of the latent tendency both realized and contemplated; or, through the knowledge of cessation, when sharpening the faculties, the cessation of the latent tendency both realized and contemplated. There is a case of a latent tendency's cessation being neither bodily realized nor seen by wisdom — 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's cessation being bodily realized while wisdom does not see that cessation? The answer: four alternatives should be formulated. That is, at the moment of attaining the fruit of once-returning through the dharma-knowledge of cessation, there is a case of a latent tendency's cessation being bodily realized while wisdom does not see that cessation — namely, at that time, the cessation of the latent tendencies of the form and formless realms abandoned by seeing. There is a case where wisdom sees that cessation while it is not bodily realized — namely, the cessation of the desire realm's own latent tendencies abandoned by cultivation, of the latter three grades. There is a case of a latent tendency's cessation being bodily realized while wisdom also sees that cessation — namely, the cessation of every one of the desire realm's own latent tendencies abandoned by seeing, together with the latent tendencies abandoned by cultivation of the first six grades. There is a case of a latent tendency's cessation being neither bodily realized nor seen by wisdom — namely, the cessation of the form and formless realms' own latent tendencies abandoned by cultivation. Just as, at the moment of attaining the fruit of once-returning through the dharma-knowledge of cessation, all four alternatives occur within a single moment, so too, at the moment of sharpening one's faculties as a stream-enterer, a once-returner, or a non-returner through the knowledge of cessation, all four alternatives may likewise occur within a single moment.

How is a cause-and-object-severed consciousness defined? The answer: 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 the mind takes as its object what is abandoned by seeing the origin and by seeing suffering.

This, then, is what is meant by a cause-and-object-severed consciousness. Here, if a consciousness's own cause is severed, and its object is severed, while its own substance is not yet severed, it is called a cause-and-object-severed consciousness. As for those masters who hold that a universally-pervasive latent tendency and its associated and co-existent dharmas do not serve as a non-pervasive cause within their own section, they explain it in this way: when the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering has already arisen but the dharma-knowledge of the origin has not yet arisen, if a mind takes as its object what is abandoned by seeing the origin and by seeing suffering, this mind's own cause is entirely severed and its object is entirely severed, while its own substance is not yet severed, and it is therefore called a cause-and-object-severed consciousness. At that time, if a mind takes as its object what is abandoned by seeing the origin, cessation, the path, and cultivation, this mind's cause, though entirely severed, has an object not yet severed, and so it is not a cause-and-object-severed consciousness. At that time, if a mind takes as its object what is abandoned by seeing suffering, the origin, cessation, the path, and cultivation, this mind's cause, though entirely severed, has an object partly severed and partly not, and so it is not a cause-and-object-severed consciousness. As for those masters who hold that a universally-pervasive latent tendency and its associated and co-existent dharmas do also serve as their own section's own pervasive cause, they explain it in this way: when the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering has already arisen but the dharma-knowledge of the origin has not yet arisen, if a mind takes as its object what is abandoned by seeing the origin and by seeing suffering, this mind's own-section cause is not yet severed, but its other-section cause is entirely severed, and its object is entirely severed, while its own substance is not yet severed, and it is therefore called a cause-and-object-severed consciousness. At that time, if a mind takes as its object what is abandoned by seeing the origin, cessation, the path, and cultivation, this mind's cause is partly severed and partly not, with an object not yet severed, and so it is not a cause-and-object-severed consciousness. At that time, if a mind takes as its object what is abandoned by seeing suffering, the origin, cessation, the path, and cultivation, this mind's cause and object are both partly severed and partly not, and so it is not a cause-and-object-severed consciousness. Its own substance has now been displayed; next, that latent tendency's own increasing should be displayed. One asks: within this consciousness, how many latent tendencies increase? The answer: nineteen. One asks: is this a single mind? The answer: it is not. What, then, is the matter? That is, in one not yet free of desire's own defilement, once the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering has arisen but the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of the origin has not yet arisen, if a mind takes as its object what is abandoned by seeing the origin, within the desire realm, and by seeing suffering, this is a cause-and-object-severed consciousness.

Within this, the desire realm's own seven latent tendencies abandoned by seeing the origin increase — four of them increasing within this consciousness through both association and object-taking, namely wrong view, view-grasping, doubt, and ignorance; three of them increasing within this consciousness only through object-taking, namely craving, hatred, and conceit. For one already free of desire's own defilement but not yet free of the form realm's own defilement, once the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering in the class-of-similar-kind has arisen but the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of the origin has not yet arisen, if a mind takes as its object what is abandoned by seeing the origin, within the form realm, and by seeing suffering, this is a cause-and-object-severed consciousness. The form realm's own six latent tendencies abandoned by seeing the origin increase — four of them increasing within this consciousness through both association and object-taking, exactly as stated for the desire realm; two of them increasing within this consciousness only through object-taking, namely craving and conceit. One asks: this ought to hold equally for one not yet free of desire's own defilement — why, then, does the treatise speak of one already free of desire's own defilement? The answer: this passage speaks of what can actually manifest, and only after becoming free of a lower stage's own defilement

can a higher stage's own affliction actually manifest — it is for this reason that the treatise speaks in this way. For one already free of the form realm's own defilement, once the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering in the class-of-similar-kind has arisen but the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of the origin has not yet arisen,

if a mind takes as its object what is abandoned by seeing the origin, within the formless realm, and by seeing suffering, this is a cause-and-object-severed consciousness. The formless realm's own six latent tendencies abandoned by seeing the origin increase — four of them increasing within this consciousness through both association and object-taking, and two of them increasing within this consciousness only through object-taking, exactly as stated for the form realm. There is a recited variant here that reads "already free of the form realm's own defilement but not yet free of the formless realm's own defilement" — this recitation ought not to be maintained, since the phrase "the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of the origin in the class-of-similar-kind has not yet arisen" has already made clear that one is not yet free of the formless realm's own defilement. One asks: a cause-and-object-severed consciousness ought also to be establishable within the section abandoned by cultivation — that is, for one who has already cut off the ninth grade of affliction, up through the first grade, whose mind takes as its object the preceding one grade, up through eight grades, already cut off, this mind, too, ought to be called a cause-and-object-severed consciousness, since the preceding one grade, up through eight grades, has already had its own cause cut off — why, then, does the treatise not speak of this? The answer: it ought to be spoken of but is not, and this should be understood as a matter this discussion leaves incomplete. Further, this present passage speaks of a case where a mind of one section serves as cause and a mind of a different section serves as object, and where the cause and object are severed while the substance is not — this is the case spoken of here; a mind abandoned by cultivation, though its own section serves as cause and its own section serves as object, and though its cause and object are severed while its substance is not, is not spoken of as a cause-and-object-severed consciousness here. Further, "cause" here refers specifically to the universally-pervasive-cause, since this cause is defiled alone, while every other cause is not fixed to defilement in this way; "consciousness" here refers specifically to minds associated with a latent tendency, since these are defiled alone — and it is on this account that a cause-and-object-severed consciousness, as spoken of here, occurs only within the three realms' own sections abandoned by seeing the origin.

One asks: why does the treatise speak of the cause before speaking of the latent tendency? The answer: because the meaning of the Abhidharma treasury ought to be understood through fourteen matters — namely, the six causes, the four conditions, association, possession, and non-possession — and one who understands the Abhidharma without error through these fourteen matters

is called a master of the Abhidharma, not merely one who recites its text. There are yet other masters who say: the meaning of the Abhidharma treasury ought to be understood through seven matters — namely, skill in cause, skill in condition, skill in own-characteristic, skill in shared characteristic, skill in inclusion and non-inclusion, skill in association and non-association, and skill in possession and non-possession — and one who understands the Abhidharma without error through these seven matters is called a master of the Abhidharma, not merely one who recites its text. It is for this reason that the treatise speaks of the cause before speaking of the various latent tendencies, this being sound in principle.

Mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra, Miscellaneous Chapter, the Person Nyāsa, third nyāsa, part one. A single person, within this one life, undergoes the twelve-linked dependent origination — how many links are past, how many future, how many present? Having thus grasped this chapter heading and its meaning, we should now explain it 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 the past and future possess no real substance at all, and that, although the present does exist, it is unconditioned — in order to refute this, the treatise shows that the past and future genuinely possess real substance, and that the present is itself conditioned, included within the three time-periods, since no unconditioned dharma ever falls within any of the three time-periods. Others maintain that dependent origination is itself unconditioned, just as the Vibhajyavādins hold. One asks: on what basis do they maintain this position? The answer: they rely on a certain scripture — that is, the sūtra states: whether the Tathāgata arises in the world or does not arise in the world, the dharma abides, the dharma-nature persists — the Buddha himself fully awakens to it and reveals it to others, and so on, as stated at length — and it is from this that they know dependent origination to be unconditioned. In order to refute this position, the treatise shows that dependent origination is itself conditioned, falling within the three time-periods, since no unconditioned dharma ever falls within the three time-periods at all.

One asks: if dependent-origination dharmas are not unconditioned, how, then, is the scripture just cited to be reconciled with this? The answer: that scripture speaks with reference to the fixed, determinate meaning of cause and effect —

that is, whether the Buddha arises in the world or does not arise in the world, ignorance is fixedly the cause of the formations, and the formations are fixedly the effect of ignorance, and so on, up through birth being fixedly the cause of aging-and-death, and aging-and-death being fixedly the effect of birth — "the dharma abides, the dharma-nature persists" refers to this very meaning of fixed determinacy, not to the meaning of being unconditioned. The intent of that scripture is exactly this. Were it not so, that same scripture also states: whether the Tathāgata arises in the world or does not arise in the world, the dharma abides, the dharma-nature persists — form is always characterized by impermanence, and so on, up through consciousness always characterized by impermanence; earth is always characterized by hardness, and so on, up through wind always characterized by motion; the fruit called harītakī is always bitter in flavor, the fruit called kaṭukarohiṇī is always pungent in flavor — would one then say that the five aggregates and the rest, too, are unconditioned? Since they are indeed conditioned, dependent origination, too, is exactly the same — that is, the five aggregates and the rest, each possessing its own fixed and determinate characteristic, are spoken of in this same manner, and dependent origination, too, is spoken of with reference to this very fixed determinacy of cause and effect.

It is in order to refute this rival school's own distorted position, and to manifest the correct principle, that this treatise is composed.

Here, the author of this treatise, in opening this topic, ought to address five matters: first, why does it speak of only a single person; second, what kind of single person is meant; third, why does it speak of only this present life; fourth, what is meant by "this life"; fifth, what is meant by "present." As for why it speaks of only a single person: this is in order to avoid the fault of a needlessly verbose and lengthy text — were every single person to be named, the text would likewise become needlessly verbose and of no further use; speaking of one alone makes clear that the same holds for every other person as well. As for what kind of single person is meant:

this refers to one who traverses every one of these twelve links in succession, as though climbing a staircase step by step — that is, one who, having given rise, in a past life, to ignorance and the formations, thereby draws forth the present consciousness, name-and-form, six sense fields, contact, and feeling, and then, in this present life, further gives rise to craving, clinging, and becoming, thereby drawing forth the future birth and aging-and-death — this is the very person spoken of here. One who, having given rise, in a past life, to ignorance and the formations, thereby draws forth the present consciousness, up through feeling, but does not, in this present life, go on to give rise to craving, clinging, and becoming, thereby drawing forth the future birth and aging-and-death, is not the person spoken of here — exactly as the Jñāna-nyāsa states that one possessing the eightfold conduct of a learner is called one accomplished in learning: whichever learner is meant there is one who traverses every meditative attainment in succession, as though climbing a staircase step by step — that is, one who first enters the concentration accompanied by applied and sustained thought, then enters the concentration free of applied and sustained thought, then enters a formless concentration, then enters the concentration of cessation, and, upon emerging from the concentration of cessation, gives rise to a contaminated mind before him — this is the very learner spoken of there. One who first enters the concentration accompanied by applied and sustained thought, then enters the concentration free of applied and sustained thought, then enters a formless concentration, then enters the concentration of cessation, and, upon emerging from the concentration of cessation, gives rise to an uncontaminated mind before him, is not the learner spoken of there. Further, as the sūtra states: one first sees a woman's own form, upright, youthful, and radiant with health; next one sees her aged, withered, and emaciated; next one sees her gravely ill and afflicted with suffering; next one sees her dead, one day up through seven days after death; next one sees her body swollen and oozing with pus; next one sees her bones separated, without flesh or blood remaining; and afterward one sees her very skeleton decayed and crumbling, the color of a dove — if a woman's body traverses every one of these stages just described, this is the very case spoken of in that scripture; if it does not, this is not the case spoken of there. Here, too, it is exactly the same — the treatise speaks only of one who traverses all twelve links in succession, and does not speak of any other case. As for why it speaks of only this present life: stating the present life makes clear that the past and future are exactly the same, and so it does not further state them. As for what is meant by "this life":

a single class of homogeneous being is what is meant by "this life." As for what is meant by "present": this refers to the class of homogeneous being's own present state, not to the present of a single moment, nor to the present of a positional stage.

A single person, within this one life, undergoes the twelve-linked dependent origination — how many links are past, how many future, how many present? The answer: two are past —

namely, ignorance and the formations; two are future — namely, birth and aging-and-death; eight are present — namely, consciousness, name-and-form, the six sense fields, contact, feeling, craving, clinging, and becoming. One asks: all twelve of these links are, in fact, each fully present in the past, the future, and the present alike — why, then, does the treatise speak only of two being past, two being future, and eight being present? The answer: one lacking the wisdom-eye infers the future fruit from the present cause, and infers the past cause from the present fruit, and can thereby come to know that these, too, exist — and it is for this reason that the treatise speaks in this way. By the present cause — namely, craving, clinging, and becoming — one infers the future fruit — namely, birth and aging-and-death; by the present fruit — namely, consciousness, name-and-form, the six sense fields, contact, and feeling — one infers the past cause — namely, ignorance and the formations. The World-Honored One wished to let one lacking the wisdom-eye infer, through this present cause and effect, that the past and future likewise exist, and, by means of this, to be able to accomplish his own task — a past effect and a future cause can likewise be known to exist through this very same gateway of inference — and it is for this reason that the author of this treatise speaks only in this way. Further, stating that two links are past refutes the view that saṃsāra originally did not exist but now exists; stating that two links are future refutes the view that saṃsāra, having existed, will return to non-existence; stating that eight links are present establishes the continuous succession of saṃsāra's own cause and effect — the Tathāgata's own work of transformation being thereby complete, the treatise speaks in this way. Further, stating that two links are past refutes eternalism; stating that two links are future refutes annihilationism; stating that eight links are present reveals the middle way — the Tathāgata's own work of transformation being thereby complete, the treatise speaks in this way. Further, stating that two links are past reveals that saṃsāra has a cause; stating that two links are future reveals that saṃsāra has an effect; stating that eight links are present reveals the continuous succession of cause and effect, by which sentient beings are able to accomplish their own task — and it is for this reason that the treatise speaks in this way. Further, stating that two links are past removes delusion about the prior limit; stating that two links are future removes delusion about the posterior limit; stating that eight links are present removes delusion about the middle — by which sentient beings are able to accomplish their own task, and it is for this reason that the treatise speaks in this way. Further, this passage speaks only of a single lifetime's own cause and effect; the cause and effect of every other lifetime may be inferred according to this very same principle, and it is for this reason that the treatise speaks in this way.

The Prakaraṇapāda states as follows: what is dependent origination? The answer: every conditioned dharma. What difference is there between this and what the present treatise here states? The answer: this present statement is provisional in meaning, while that one is fully definitive; this carries a further, unstated intention, while that carries no further unstated intention; this is stated with a further cause left implicit, while that leaves no further cause implicit; this speaks according to worldly convention, while that speaks according to ultimate truth.

This present treatise speaks only of dependent-origination dharmas belonging to a sentient being; that treatise speaks broadly of dependent-origination dharmas belonging to a sentient being and not belonging to a sentient being alike. This present treatise speaks only of dependent-origination dharmas possessing faculties; that treatise speaks broadly of dependent-origination dharmas possessing and lacking faculties alike. This present treatise speaks only of dependent-origination dharmas possessing mind; that treatise speaks broadly of dependent-origination dharmas possessing and lacking mind alike. This present treatise speaks only of appropriated dependent-origination dharmas; that treatise speaks broadly of appropriated and unappropriated dependent-origination dharmas alike. Further, dependent origination is of four kinds: first, momentary; second, connected in succession; third, positional; fourth, far-extending and continuous.

This present treatise speaks of the positional and the far-extending-and-continuous kinds; that treatise speaks of the momentary and the connected-in-succession kinds. One asks: why does this present treatise speak only of dependent-origination dharmas belonging to a sentient being?

The answer: this is simply what the treatise's author intended, and so on, as stated at length. Further, one ought not to press this question against the treatise's own author, since the author composed this treatise in dependence on scripture, and scripture itself speaks only of dependent-origination dharmas belonging to a sentient being — and so this treatise, following it, does likewise. One asks, this further question arising from the very discussion at hand: why does the World-Honored One himself speak only of dependent-origination dharmas belonging to a sentient being? The answer: because he was considering those he was teaching — that is, the Buddha, observing that the sentient beings he was teaching were ready to hear precisely this teaching,

spoke only of dependent-origination dharmas belonging to a sentient being, since it was only by hearing of these that they could come to understand and thereby accomplish their own task — and it is for this reason that he spoke in this way. Further, this accords with the very meaning of "existence" —

that is, dharmas belonging to a sentient being accord, above all others, with the meaning of "existence," since sentient beings, from beginningless time, revolve continuously through the three states of existence without ever ceasing — this being the very meaning of "existence" in its most supreme sense — and it is because dharmas belonging to a sentient being accord with this very meaning of "existence" that they are called limbs of existence, and it is for this reason that the World-Honored One spoke only of dependent-origination dharmas belonging to a sentient being — and this treatise, following him, does likewise. Further, every class of sentient being, from beginningless time, revolves through birth and death, undergoing great suffering and affliction, all owing to deluded clinging to dharmas belonging to a sentient being — and it is for this reason that the World-Honored One, specifically in order to disclose dependent-origination dharmas belonging to a sentient being, spoke in this way — and this treatise, following him, speaks in this way as well.

One asks: what, then, is this dependent origination's own very substance? The answer: the five aggregates, or the four aggregates, constitute this dependent origination's own substance — that is, the desire and form realms' own five aggregates constitute its substance, while the formless realm's own four aggregates constitute its substance — as it is said: self-nature, one's own substance, the characteristic component, and the fundamental original nature are, in every case, synonymous terms.

Its own substance has already been stated; what should be stated next follows. One asks: why is it named "dependent origination"? What does "dependent origination" actually mean? The answer: arising in dependence on conditions is the very meaning of "dependent origination." Dependent on which conditions? The causal condition and the rest. There are yet others who say: possessing a condition capable of giving rise to it is the very meaning of "dependent origination" —

that is, possessing a nature capable of arising from conditions, not lacking such a nature, and not being incapable of arising at all. There are yet others who say: arising from a condition is the very meaning of "dependent origination" — that is, it must necessarily have a condition in order to be able to arise at all. There are yet others who say: arising separately and distinctly from conditions is the very meaning of "dependent origination" — that is, each distinct thing arises from its own distinct combination of conditions coming together. There are yet others who say: arising equally from conditions is the very meaning of "dependent origination." One asks: there is a dharma that arises from four conditions — namely, mind and its mental factors; there is a dharma that arises from three conditions — namely, the concentration of cessation and the concentration of non-perception; there is a dharma that arises from two conditions — namely, every form and every other dissociated formation — how, then, can it be said that they arise "equally" from conditions? The answer: it is precisely this very fact that is meant by "equal" — that is, whatever ought to arise from four conditions arises from exactly four conditions, never from three or two; whatever ought to arise from three conditions arises from exactly three, never from four or two; whatever ought to arise from two conditions arises from exactly two, never from four or three — and it is on this account that it is called "equal." Further, with reference to the dominant-condition, it is called "equal" — that is, at the very moment any single dharma actually arises, every other dharma, excluding only that dharma's own self-nature, serves as its dominant-condition. Further, because they all arise simultaneously together, it is called "equal" — as it is said: every sentient being's mind arises equally, abides equally, and ceases equally. Further, because they all occur within a single moment, it is called "equal." Further, every single sentient being possesses these same twelve links, from beginningless time all the way up until the very attainment of the fruit of no-further-training, and it is on this account that it is called "equal." One asks: sentient beings, some attaining final nirvāṇa earlier and some later —

how, then, can dependent origination be said to be "equal" across them? The answer: because every being alike possesses all twelve links complete, it is called "equal." Further, because it is only upon attaining nirvāṇa that dependent origination is ever relinquished, it is called "equal." Further, dependent origination's own general characteristic has no beginning and no end, and, since every sentient being alike possesses this very same dharma, it is called "equal." Further, one who attains nirvāṇa earlier, relative to the whole, has traversed less of it before release and leaves more still unexhausted; one who attains nirvāṇa later has traversed more of it before release

and leaves less still unexhausted, and it is on this account that it is called "equal" — that is, every sentient being possesses countless past and future dependent-origination dharmas, and, although the portion actually traversed while still in the world differs, some more and some less, the total substance and number are, in every case, entirely equal.

As the sūtra states: the Buddha told the monks: I shall teach you dependent origination and dharmas arisen from conditions. One asks: what difference is there between dependent origination and dharmas arisen from conditions? Some say: there is no difference at all. Why is this? The Prakaraṇapāda states as follows: what is dependent origination? Every conditioned dharma. What are dharmas arisen from conditions? Every conditioned dharma — and so it is known that these two are without difference. There are yet other masters who say: there is indeed a difference — that is, the very name differs, this one being named "dependent origination" and that one being named "dharmas arisen from conditions." Further, the cause is called "dependent origination," the effect is called "dharmas arisen from conditions" — and just as with cause and effect, so too should agent and object of action, producer and produced, drawer and drawn, characterizer and characterized, generator and generated, arising-cause and arisen-effect, and taker and taken,

each be understood in the very same way. Further, the earlier-arising is called "dependent origination," the later-arising is called "dharmas arisen from conditions." Further, the past is called "dependent origination," the future and present are called "dharmas arisen from conditions." Further, the past and present are called "dependent origination," the future alone is called "dharmas arisen from conditions." Further, ignorance is called "dependent origination," the formations are called "dharmas arisen from conditions" — and so on, up through birth being called "dependent origination," aging-and-death being called "dharmas arisen from conditions." The Venerable Pārśva states: only ignorance is called "dependent origination," only aging-and-death is called "dharmas arisen from conditions," while the ten links in between are called both "dependent origination" and "dharmas arisen from conditions." The Venerable Ghoṣa explained it in this way: the two past links alone are called only "dependent origination"; the two future links alone are called only "dharmas arisen from conditions"; the eight present links are called both. The Venerable Pūrṇāśa formulated four alternatives: there is a case of "dependent origination" that is not "dharmas arisen from conditions" — namely, a future dharma. There is a case of "dharmas arisen from conditions" that is not "dependent origination" — namely, the past-or-present five aggregates constituting an arhat's very last existence. There is a case of both — namely, every other past-or-present dharma excluding an arhat's very last five aggregates. There is a case of neither — namely, unconditioned dharmas. The Saṅgītiparyāya and the Dharmaskandha both state: if ignorance gives rise to the formations in a fixed, stable, and unmixed way, this is called both "dependent origination" and "dharmas arisen from conditions"; if ignorance gives rise to the formations

in a non-fixed, unstable, and mixed way, this is called "dharmas arisen from conditions" but not "dependent origination" — and, up through birth, excluding aging-and-death, each should be understood in the very same way. The Venerable Vasumitra explained it in this way: whatever dharma serves as a cause is called "dependent origination"; whatever dharma possesses a cause is called "dharmas arisen from conditions." Further, whatever dharma constitutes a coming-together is called "dependent origination"; whatever dharma possesses a coming-together is called "dharmas arisen from conditions." Further, whatever dharma constitutes an arising is called "dependent origination"; whatever dharma possesses an arising is called "dharmas arisen from conditions." Further, whatever dharma constitutes a coming-to-be is called "dependent origination";

whatever dharma possesses a coming-to-be is called "dharmas arisen from conditions." Further, whatever dharma serves as an efficient agent is called "dependent origination"; whatever dharma possesses an efficient agent is called "dharmas arisen from conditions." The Great Virtuous One stated: what is in active operation is called "dependent origination"; what merely follows along with that operation is called "dharmas arisen from conditions." The Venerable Buddhadeva explained it in this way: dharmas, at the very moment they arise, are called "dependent origination"; dharmas, once already arisen, are called "dharmas arisen from conditions." This, then, is the full range of distinctions scripture itself draws between dependent origination and dharmas arisen from conditions.

This present passage speaks only of positional dependent origination — that is, twelve stages are established as the twelve links, each stage comprising a full set of five aggregates. The Venerable Śrīlāta stated: within a single moment, all twelve links can be present at once — as when a mind of greed, intent on killing a living being, arises: the delusion associated with this mind is ignorance; the volition associated with it is the formations; this very mind itself is consciousness; the giving-rise to manifest karma necessarily co-arises with name-and-form —

the mutual support of the faculties with one another is precisely name-and-form together with the six sense fields; the contact associated with this mind is contact; the feeling associated with it is feeling;

the greed itself is craving; the defilements associated with that same craving are clinging; the bodily and verbal karma thereby performed is becoming; the very arising of these dharmas is birth; their ripening and change is aging; their ceasing and destruction is death. A killing-mind associated with hatred and delusion has only eleven links, lacking the craving-link. Though this principle does indeed hold, this present treatise speaks specifically of positional dependent origination, establishing twelve stages as the twelve links, each stage comprising a full set of five aggregates, not a single moment possessing all twelve links at once. Yet the Vijñānakāya further states: toward a lovable and desirable object, owing to ignorance, one gives rise to an attached craving —

within this, the ignorance itself is the ignorance-link; the one who is attached and craving is the formations-link; the consciousness that discerns the object is the consciousness-link; the aggregates co-arising with that consciousness are the name-and-form-link; the faculties that name-and-form depends on are the six-sense-fields-link; the coming-together of the six sense fields is the contact-link; the faculty that receives that contact is the feeling-link; the delighting in what is felt is the craving-link; the intensification of that craving is the clinging-link; the karma that draws forth a future existence is the becoming-link; the arising of these aggregates is the birth-link; their ripening and change is the aging-link; their ceasing and destruction is the death-link; internal burning distress is sorrow; wailing and tears is lamentation; the unbalanced painful feeling associated with the five sense-consciousnesses is suffering; the unbalanced painful feeling associated with mental consciousness is distress; the scorching of the mind is affliction — and so on, as elaborated at length. One asks: what difference is there between this passage and the one stated earlier? The answer: the earlier passage describes a single mind's own momentary process; this later passage describes many minds' own continuous succession — the earlier is a single moment, the later a continuous succession —

this, then, is the difference between them. Although that treatise does speak of a multiple-mind, continuous-succession version of the twelve links, it is still not the same as what this present treatise means, since what that treatise describes as the twelve links are, for the most part, distinct, separate dharmas, at times even arising simultaneously — whereas what this present treatise describes as the twelve links each comprise a full set of five aggregates, each occurring at its own distinct time. The Prajñaptiśāstra states: what is ignorance? Every affliction of the past. That statement ought not to be made in this way, since, if stated in this way, it would abandon its own defining characteristic. It ought instead to be stated: what is ignorance? The past stage of affliction. What are the formations? The past stage of karma. What is consciousness? The rebirth-linking mind and its accompanying co-factors. What is name-and-form? The stage after rebirth-linking has occurred but before the eye and the other four material sense faculties have yet arisen — the interval spanning the five intermediate embryonic stages is the name-and-form stage. What is the six sense fields? The stage once the four material sense faculties have already arisen, the six sense fields thereby complete, yet the eye and other faculties not yet able to serve as a support for contact — this is the six-sense-fields stage. What is contact? The stage in which the eye and other faculties, though now able to serve as a support for contact, do not yet distinguish the difference between pleasure and pain, nor are yet able to avoid harmful conditions — touching fire, touching a blade, eating poison, eating excrement, or eating and engaging in sexual activity out of craving not yet actually manifesting — this is the contact stage. What is feeling? The stage in which one is now able to distinguish pleasure from pain, and able to avoid harmful conditions — not touching fire, not touching a blade, not eating poison, not eating excrement — though one has already given rise to a craving for food, one has not yet given rise to craving for sexual activity or for material possessions — this is the feeling stage. What is craving? The stage in which, though one has already given rise to craving for food, for sexual activity, and for material possessions, one has not yet, in every direction, sought after these four things without wearying of the effort — this is the craving stage. What is clinging? The stage in which, owing to these three cravings, one seeks after these things in every direction, and, though traversing many dangers and hardships without wearying of the effort, one has not yet, for the sake of a future existence, given rise to good or evil karma — this is the clinging stage. What is becoming? The stage in which, in the very midst of that seeking, one also gives rise to good or evil karma for the sake of a future existence — this is the becoming stage. What is birth? This refers precisely to the present consciousness-stage, which, in the future time, will be called the birth-stage. What is aging-and-death? This refers precisely to the present name-and-form, six-sense-fields, contact, and feeling stages, which, in the future time, will be called the aging-and-death stage. Further, some say: ignorance is of two kinds — mixed with other matters, and unmixed with other matters; it is likewise of two further kinds — manifest and unmanifest. Ignorance conditioning the formations is likewise of two kinds — the karma of mere intention, and the karma already carried out through intention. The formations conditioning consciousness is likewise of two kinds — accompanied by regret, and unaccompanied by regret. Consciousness conditioning name-and-form is likewise of two kinds — included within a desirable destiny, and included within an undesirable destiny. Name-and-form conditioning the six sense fields is likewise of two kinds — nourished, and ripened. The six sense fields conditioning contact is likewise of two kinds — resistant contact, and designation-contact. Contact conditioning feeling is likewise of two kinds — bodily feeling, and mental feeling. Feeling conditioning craving is likewise of two kinds — craving for sexual desire, and craving for material possessions. Craving conditioning clinging is likewise of two kinds — operating through the gateway of view, and operating through the gateway of craving. Clinging conditioning becoming is likewise of two kinds — operating through an internal gateway, and operating through an external gateway. Becoming conditioning birth is likewise of two kinds — momentary birth, and class-of-being birth. Birth conditions aging-and-death: aging is of two kinds — aging seen by the eye, and aging seen by wisdom; death is of two kinds — momentary death, and class-of-being death.

As the sūtra states: the Buddha told the monks: in the past, I took grass to the bodhi tree, and, having arrived there, spread it out and sat cross-legged, contemplating the twelve-linked dependent origination both forward and backward — because this exists, that exists; because this arises, that arises — namely, ignorance conditioning the formations, up through birth conditioning aging-and-death, aging-and-death conditioning sorrow, lamentation, suffering, distress, and affliction. One asks: how does the Bodhisattva contemplate the twelve-linked dependent origination both forward and backward? The answer: inferring effect from cause is called forward contemplation; inferring cause from effect is called backward contemplation. Further, proceeding from the subtle into the coarse is called forward contemplation; proceeding from the coarse into the subtle is called backward contemplation — just as with coarse and subtle, so too should visible and invisible, currently observed and not currently observed,

and manifest and unmanifest, each be understood in the very same way. Further, inferring the distant from the near cause is called forward contemplation; inferring the near from the distant cause is called backward contemplation — just as with near and distant, so too should here and there, currently present and not currently present, and this class of homogeneous being and that class of homogeneous being, each be understood in the very same way. One asks: this sūtra speaks of ignorance conditioning the formations — why does it not instead speak of ignorance as the cause of the formations? The answer: other scriptures do speak of ignorance as the cause of the formations, as the Great Cause-and-Condition Discourse states: the Buddha told Ānanda: aging-and-death has such a cause, has such a condition, has such an origin —

namely, birth — just as it is said that birth is the cause of aging-and-death, and so on, up through it being said that ignorance is the cause of the formations. One asks: a single sūtra does state that ignorance is the cause of the formations, yet many sūtras state that ignorance conditions the formations — what is the intended significance of this? The answer: if one states that ignorance is the cause of the formations, this speaks only of defiled formations; if one states that ignorance conditions the formations, this speaks broadly of both defiled and undefiled formations. Further, if one states that ignorance is the cause of the formations, this speaks only of unwholesome formations; if one states that ignorance conditions the formations, this speaks broadly of meritorious and imperturbable formations as well as unwholesome ones. Further, if one states that ignorance is the cause of the formations, this speaks only of the causal condition; if one states that ignorance conditions the formations, this speaks broadly of all four conditions — and it is for this reason that most sūtras state that ignorance conditions the formations. One asks: why does scripture speak only of ignorance conditioning the formations, and not of the formations conditioning ignorance? The answer: it ought also to be stated that the formations condition ignorance, and that it is not so stated should be understood as a matter left incomplete. Further, ignorance conditioning the formations is a relationship of forceful, intimate accordance, while the formations conditioning ignorance is not so. Further, ignorance conditioning the formations is a fixed, determinate relationship, while the formations conditioning ignorance is not so, since an arhat's own contaminated karma does not give rise to ignorance. Further, the formations conditioning ignorance operates only through ignorance's own power, as scripture states: improper attention, arising through delusion, is able to draw forth ignorance — and it is for this reason that scripture speaks only of ignorance conditioning the formations. Further, the formations, relative to ignorance, possess only the meaning of condition,

whereas ignorance, relative to the formations, possesses the meaning of both cause and condition — and it is for this reason that scripture speaks only of ignorance conditioning the formations. Further, this sūtra speaks of positional dependent origination — the earlier stage's own aggregates are called ignorance, the later stage's own aggregates are called the formations, the earlier cause and later effect mutually drawing one another along — and it is for this reason that it does not speak of the formations conditioning ignorance. One asks: since ignorance, as a condition, universally gives rise to all twelve links, why does scripture speak only of ignorance conditioning the formations? The answer: it ought also to be stated for the rest, and that it is not so stated should be understood as a matter left incomplete. Further, ignorance conditioning the formations is a relationship of forceful, intimate accordance, unlike the rest. Further, ignorance conditioning the formations is an especially powerful relationship, unlike the rest. Further, ignorance is able to serve as a proximate condition for the formations,

and it is for this reason that this relationship alone is singled out for mention; with respect to consciousness and the remaining ten links, it serves only as a distant condition, and it is for this reason that these are not mentioned. Just as with near and distant, so too should here and there, currently present and not currently present, this class of homogeneous being and other classes of homogeneous being, each be understood in the very same way. Further, ignorance serves the formations as an exclusive condition, and it is for this reason that this relationship alone is singled out for mention; with respect to consciousness and the remaining ten links, it serves only as a shared condition, and it is for this reason that these are not mentioned. Further, this sūtra speaks of positional dependent origination proceeding in sequence, each stage giving rise mutually to the next — were it to say that ignorance conditions ignorance, there would then be no sequence of earlier and later at all; were it to say that ignorance conditions consciousness and the rest directly, this too would violate the proper sequence — and it is for this reason that scripture speaks only of ignorance conditioning the formations. One asks: this sūtra states that the formations condition consciousness — yet another passage states that name-and-form conditions consciousness, and yet another passage states that two conditions give rise to consciousness — what is the difference among these three accounts? The answer: "the formations condition consciousness" describes karma's own manifold differences; "name-and-form conditions consciousness" describes the manifold differences of consciousness's own abode; "two conditions give rise to consciousness" describes the manifold differences of consciousness's own support and object. Further, "the formations condition consciousness" describes the moment of initial drawing-forth; "name-and-form conditions consciousness" describes the moment after it has been drawn forth and is being guarded; "two conditions give rise to consciousness" describes the moment after it has been guarded and is now growing and increasing. Further, "the formations condition consciousness" describes the moment of rebirth-linking; "name-and-form conditions consciousness" describes the moment after rebirth-linking, when it abides; "two conditions give rise to consciousness" describes the moment after abiding, when it receives its object. Further, "the formations condition consciousness" speaks of karma and name-and-form; "name-and-form conditions consciousness" speaks of the ripened name-and-form; "two conditions give rise to consciousness" speaks of the name-and-form that serves as support and object. Further, "the formations condition consciousness" speaks of the consciousness of the bad destinies; "name-and-form conditions consciousness" speaks of the consciousness of humans and gods in the desire realm; "two conditions give rise to consciousness" speaks of the consciousness of the form and formless realms. The Venerable Pārśva states: "the formations condition consciousness" speaks of the intermediate-existence consciousness; "name-and-form conditions consciousness" speaks of the consciousness at the very moment of birth-existence; "two conditions give rise to consciousness" speaks of the consciousness of the fundamental existence thereafter. There are yet other masters who say: "the formations condition consciousness" speaks of defiled consciousness; "name-and-form conditions consciousness" and "two conditions give rise to consciousness" speak of both defiled and undefiled consciousness — just as with defiled and undefiled, so too with covered and uncovered, blameworthy and blameless, and subject to retrogression and not subject to retrogression, should each be understood in the very same way. There are yet others who say: "the formations condition consciousness" speaks of the consciousness at the very stage of that link itself; "name-and-form conditions consciousness" speaks of the consciousness at the stage of the name-and-form link; "two conditions give rise to consciousness" speak of the six-sense-fields link and every later stage's own consciousness. One asks: this sūtra states that consciousness conditions name-and-form, while another passage states that name-and-form conditions consciousness — what is the difference between these two? The answer: "consciousness conditions name-and-form" displays consciousness's own function; "name-and-form conditions consciousness" displays name-and-form's own function. Further, consciousness and name-and-form mutually serve as condition for one another, exactly like two bundles of reeds leaning together and thereby standing; just as an elephant, a horse, a boat, or a chariot, together with the one who rides or steers it, mutually depend on one another in order to reach their destination, consciousness and name-and-form are exactly the same — since consciousness serves as condition, name-and-form is able to continue on in rebirth; since name-and-form serves as condition, consciousness is able to abide — and it is for this reason that these two are said to mutually serve as condition for one another. Further, "consciousness conditions name-and-form" speaks of the very moment of initial rebirth-linking; "name-and-form conditions consciousness" speaks of the stage after rebirth-linking has occurred. Further, "consciousness conditions name-and-form" speaks of how, at the moment of rebirth-linking, consciousness is able to give rise to name-and-form; "name-and-form conditions consciousness" speaks of how, after rebirth-linking, consciousness comes to depend upon and abide within name-and-form. Further, "consciousness conditions name-and-form" speaks with reference to what is produced; "name-and-form conditions consciousness" speaks with reference to what produces. Further, "consciousness conditions name-and-form" speaks with reference to an earlier-and-later relationship; "name-and-form conditions consciousness" speaks with reference to a simultaneous relationship.

One asks: this sūtra states that name-and-form conditions the six sense fields, yet this statement ought not to apply universally across the four modes of birth — that is, for beings born from a womb or an egg or from moisture, whose faculties gradually arise, one can indeed speak of name-and-form conditioning the six sense fields; but for beings born through spontaneous transformation, whose faculties arise all at once, how could one still speak of name-and-form conditioning the six sense fields? One ought instead simply to say that consciousness conditions the arising of the six sense fields directly. Some say: this sūtra speaks only of the desire realm's three modes of birth, and does not speak of the higher realms' spontaneous-transformation birth, and so no fault follows. It should instead be said: this sūtra speaks broadly of all three realms and all four modes of birth — that is, even a spontaneously-transformed being, at the very moment of first receiving birth, though already possessing every faculty complete, has not yet become sharp and keen; only afterward, gradually increasing, does it become sharp and keen. While not yet sharp and keen, the very first moment is called the consciousness-link stage; from the second moment onward, it is called the name-and-form-link stage; once it reaches the stage of sharpness and keenness, it is called the six-sense-fields-link stage — and it is for this reason that this sūtra involves no fault of failing to apply universally. One asks: the six sense fields are already included within name-and-form — why, then, does the sūtra speak of name-and-form conditioning the six sense fields? The answer: this has already been explained above — before the eye and the other four material sense faculties have yet arisen, this is called the name-and-form stage; once these four faculties have arisen, the six sense fields being thereby complete, this is called the six-sense-fields stage. Even for a spontaneously-transformed being, though its six faculties arise all at once, while not yet sharp and keen, it is called the name-and-form stage; only once sharp and keen is it called the six-sense-fields stage — and so no fault follows. One asks: this sūtra states that the six sense fields condition contact, yet another passage states that name-and-form conditions contact, and yet another passage states that two conditions give rise to contact — what is the difference among these three accounts? The answer: "the six sense fields condition contact" displays contact's own support — that is, it displays how every external thing, in coming together, must necessarily depend on something internal, the internal dharma being superior, and so this is what is spoken of as its support — this sūtra therefore speaks of the six sense fields conditioning contact; "name-and-form conditions contact" displays contact's own very substance; "two conditions give rise to contact" displays contact's own distinct support and object. Further, "the six sense fields condition contact" speaks of the contact of the bad destinies; "name-and-form conditions contact" speaks of the contact of humans and gods in the desire realm; "two conditions give rise to contact" speaks of the contact of the form and formless realms. Further, "the six sense fields condition contact" speaks of positional contact; "name-and-form conditions contact" speaks of present contact; "two conditions give rise to contact" speaks of the contact arising from the coming-together of the three factors. Further, "the six sense fields condition contact" speaks of contact at the contact-link's own stage; "name-and-form conditions contact" speaks of contact at the earlier stage; "two conditions give rise to contact" speaks of contact at the later stage. One asks: contact and feeling arise together — why does this sūtra speak only of contact conditioning feeling, and not of feeling conditioning contact? The answer: though the two do arise together, contact conditioning feeling, not feeling conditioning contact, is the relationship of superior accordance — that is, contact's own power of accordance toward feeling is superior, unlike feeling's toward contact — just as a lamp and its own light arise together, yet the light is caused by the lamp, not the lamp by the light; the case here is exactly the same.

Further, this sūtra speaks of positional dependent origination — the earlier stage is called contact, the later stage is called feeling — and so this need not be pressed as an objection at all. One asks: why is it that contact's accordance toward feeling is superior, while feeling's accordance toward contact is not? The answer: it is necessarily through contact with an object that feeling then arises as pleasant or unpleasant — it is not through feeling something as pleasant or unpleasant that contact with an object then occurs — and it is for this reason that contact's accordance toward feeling is superior, not feeling's accordance toward contact. This is spoken with reference to the principle of dependent origination itself, not with reference to the correspondence-cause or the co-existent-cause.