The Inchworm at the Blade's Tip

One asks: it is proper enough to say that pleasant feeling and neutral feeling serve as a condition for craving, since one clings to and delights in such feeling, seeking after agreeable things in every direction — but how can painful feeling, too, serve as a condition for craving, when this sūtra states, in general, that feeling conditions craving? The Venerable Vasumitra explained it in this way: painful feeling serves as an even more powerful condition for craving than the other two feelings — that is, the World-Honored One states that, oppressed by painful feeling, one craves all the more for pleasurable things; and, craving pleasurable things, one thereby gives rise to a latent tendency of craving toward pleasant feeling itself, continuing on and growing ever stronger. There are yet other masters who say: all three feelings equally serve as a superior condition for craving. Pleasant feeling, as it were, declares: I alone am able to give rise to craving and sustain its continuity, superior to the other two feelings — for it is because sentient beings crave and cling to me that they seek after agreeable things in every direction, performing wholesome and unwholesome deeds, whereby their continued existence goes on without end. Painful feeling, as it were, declares: I alone am able to give rise to craving and sustain its continuity, superior to the other two feelings — for it is because sentient beings, oppressed by me, crave pleasant feeling, that they seek after agreeable things in every direction, performing wholesome and unwholesome deeds, whereby their continued existence goes on without ceasing. Neutral feeling, as it were, declares: I alone am able to give rise to craving and sustain its continuity, superior to the other two feelings — for even within the desire realm and the three lower dhyānas, craving still arises toward me, giving rise to wholesome and unwholesome deeds that sustain continued existence — how much more so, then, in the higher stages, which possess neither pleasure nor pain, should this fail to be so? The Venerable Pārśva states: all three feelings are equally able to serve as a condition giving rise to craving. The Vijñānakāya states: if any of the three feelings remains uncut and unknown, it is able to give rise to every craving that draws forth the fruit of manifold suffering — and so it is known that all three feelings alike serve as craving's own condition. One asks: how, exactly, do all three feelings each give rise to craving? The answer: craving is of five kinds — first, the craving for union; second, the craving for non-union; third, the craving for separation; fourth, the craving for non-separation; fifth, the craving born of delusion. Not-yet-arisen pleasant feeling gives rise to the craving for union; already-arisen pleasant feeling gives rise to the craving for non-separation. Not-yet-arisen painful feeling gives rise to the craving for non-union; already-arisen painful feeling gives rise to the craving for separation. Not-yet-arisen neutral feeling gives rise to the craving for union; already-arisen neutral feeling gives rise to the craving for non-separation — and it is with respect to neutral feeling that the craving born of delusion, for the most part, grows and increases. One asks: craving is already included within clinging — why, then, does this sūtra state that craving conditions clinging? The answer: the very first stage of craving's own arising is called by the name "craving"; its broadened and intensified stage is called by the name "clinging." Further, the lower grade is called "craving"; the upper grade is called "clinging" — and so no fault follows. One asks: "feeling conditions craving" and "craving conditions clinging" — what difference is there between these two? The answer: if craving takes feeling as its cause, it is called "feeling conditions craving"; if craving takes craving as its cause, it is called "craving conditions clinging." Further, if craving is feeling's own effect, it is called "feeling conditions craving"; if craving is craving's own effect, it is called "craving conditions clinging" — and just as with cause and effect, so too should what is produced and what produces, what nourishes and what is nourished, what increases and what is increased, what draws and what is drawn, and what operates and what follows that operation, each be understood in the very same way. One asks: why is it that the prior limit's own dependent origination takes ignorance as its very first link, while the posterior limit's own dependent origination takes craving as its very first link? The answer: these two afflictions are alike each a root — that is, ignorance is the prior limit's own root, while craving-for-existence is the posterior limit's own root. Further, the prior limit's own afflictions have already perished and been destroyed, and so are difficult to know, and it is for this reason that they are spoken of as "ignorance"; the posterior limit's own afflictions are presently manifest before one, seeking a future existence, and it is for this reason that they are named "craving." Further, ignorance possesses seven distinguishing features, and it is for this reason that it is placed at the very head of the prior limit's own dependent origination: first, it spans all five sections; second, it pervades all six consciousnesses; third, it spans all three realms; fourth, it possesses the nature of a latent tendency; fifth, it is able to give rise to heavy bodily and verbal karma; sixth, it serves as the superior preparatory effort for cutting off the wholesome roots; seventh, it possesses the nature of universal pervasiveness. Craving possesses only six of these features, and it is for this reason that it is placed at the very head of the posterior limit's own dependent origination — that is, among the seven features just listed, excluding only the nature of universal pervasiveness. Further, ignorance possesses three distinguishing features, and it is for this reason that it is placed at the very head of the prior limit's own dependent origination: first, it is forever the chief and leader; second, it is associated with every affliction;

third, it possesses the nature of universal pervasiveness. Craving, being especially superior in its power to draw forth future existence, is for this reason placed at the very head of the posterior limit's own dependent origination. Further, ignorance possesses four distinguishing features, and it is for this reason that it is placed at the very head of the prior limit's own dependent origination: first, it may take a contaminated or an uncontaminated object as its condition; second, it may take a conditioned or an unconditioned object as its condition; third, it may be universally pervasive or non-pervasive; fourth, it may take its own realm or another realm as its object. Craving possesses only a contaminated object, a conditioned object, and is non-pervasive, taking only its own realm as its object, and it is for this reason that it is placed at the very head of the posterior limit's own dependent origination. There is yet a further meaning to this, to be explained at length below. "Clinging conditions becoming" means: if affliction is present, it is further able to give rise to karma that draws forth the fruit of a future existence — not that, in the absence of affliction, there could still be a case of birth arising from a mere condition. "Becoming conditions birth" means: if there is karma capable of drawing forth a future existence, that future existence will definitely arise — not that, in the absence of such drawing karma, birth could still arise.

"Birth conditions aging-and-death" means: wherever there is birth, there is necessarily aging-and-death. One asks: why is it that, among the three characteristic marks of conditioned existence, birth alone is established as a single, separate limb, while aging and death together are established as a single, combined limb? The Venerable Pārśva stated: the World-Honored One is able to skillfully discern the distinct functional differences among dharmas, a capacity no one else possesses, and so this matter need not be pressed as an objection. There are yet other masters who say: at the very moment dharmas arise, arising alone possesses genuine function, and it is for this reason that it is established as a single, separate limb; at the very moment dharmas cease, aging and impermanence together possess function, and it is for this reason that they are established as a single, combined limb. There are yet other masters who say: birth causes dharmas to continue on and increase, and it is for this reason that it is established as a single, separate limb; aging-and-death causes dharmas to no longer continue on or increase, and it is for this reason that they are established as a single, combined limb. There are yet others who say: birth causes dharmas to come together and function, and it is for this reason that it is established as a single, separate limb; aging-and-death causes dharmas to disperse and become without function, and it is for this reason that they are established as a single, combined limb. The Venerable Vasumitra explained it in this way: birth causes dharmas to pass from the future into the present, and it is for this reason that it is established as a single, separate limb; aging-and-death causes dharmas to pass from the present into the past, and it is for this reason that they are established as a single, combined limb. The Venerable Ghoṣa explained it in this way: birth's own function is superior, able to accomplish its task alone, and it is for this reason that it is established as a single, separate limb; aging-and-death's own function is inferior, accomplishing their task only together,

and it is for this reason that they are established as a single, combined limb — just as a person of great strength can accomplish a task alone, while one of lesser strength cannot. One asks: why is illness not established as its own limb of existence? The answer: it lacks the very characteristic proper to a limb of existence. Further, whatever dharma is present at every time, in every place, and for every being is established as a limb of existence; illness is not present at every time, in every place, or for every being, and it is for this reason that it is not established as a limb of existence — as the Venerable Vakkula himself declared:

"since I went forth from household life within the Buddha's own teaching, having now passed eighty years of age, I still cannot recall even the slightest headache, let alone any other bodily illness." He was born within the desire realm, in the continent of Jambudvīpa, and yet was virtually without even the slightest illness — how much less so, then, in other realms or other places. Since illness is not universal in this way, it is not established as a limb of existence. One asks: this sūtra states that aging-and-death conditions sorrow, lamentation, suffering, distress, and affliction — why, then, are sorrow and the rest not likewise established as their own limbs of existence? The answer: they, too, lack the very characteristic proper to a limb of existence — that is, sorrow and these other four scatter and destroy the very limbs of existence, just as frost or hail damages growing crops. Further, sorrow and the rest are not present at every time, in every place, or for every being, exactly like illness, and it is for this reason that they are not established as limbs of existence. One asks: this sūtra ought not to state that sorrow and the rest take only aging-and-death as their condition, since every one of the twelve limbs of existence, taken as condition, is able to give rise to them as well — why, then, does this sūtra mention only aging-and-death as their condition? The answer: this sūtra ought indeed to state that ignorance conditions the formations, together with sorrow and the rest, and so on, up through birth conditioning aging-and-death, together with sorrow and the rest — yet it does not so state, and this should be understood as a matter left incomplete. Further, this sūtra should be understood as revealing the beginning through its very ending — since aging-and-death, as condition, does give rise to sorrow and the rest, it should likewise be understood that ignorance, too, works in just the same way. Further, it is at the very stage of aging-and-death that sorrow and the rest arise most frequently, and it is for this reason that this stage alone is singled out for mention.

Further, whatever sorrow and the rest arise at the very stage of aging-and-death tend, for the most part, to be of the upper grade, and it is for this reason that this stage alone is singled out for mention. Further, those who commit evil karma, and those who break the pure moral precepts, most often give rise to sorrow and the rest specifically at this very stage, and it is for this reason that this stage alone is singled out for mention — as the sūtra states: if a man or a woman commits the three kinds of evil bodily, verbal, and mental conduct, or breaks the moral precepts, then, at the very moment of the approach of death, the sign of an evil destiny appears before them, just as, when the sun is about to set, the shadow of a great mountain's peak comes to cover their own body — and, at that very time, body and mind alike become terrified, giving rise to great suffering and anguish,

and so on, as elaborated at length — and it is for this reason that this sūtra speaks only of aging-and-death as their condition. One asks: does ignorance itself have a cause? Does aging-and-death itself have an effect?

Suppose either — what fault follows? If they do, then dependent origination ought to have thirteen or fourteen limbs. If they do not, then ignorance would be without a cause and aging-and-death without an effect, and they would then have to be unconditioned. The answer: it should be said that ignorance and aging-and-death do indeed possess a cause and an effect, and yet are still not, in their own right, separately established limbs of existence —

and so no fault of there being thirteen or fourteen limbs follows. Ignorance's own cause is improper attention; aging-and-death's own effect is sorrow, lamentation, suffering, distress, and affliction. There are yet other masters who say: ignorance does have a cause — namely, an earlier instance of ignorance; and aging-and-death does have an effect — namely, a later instance of aging-and-death — since past and future ignorance and aging-and-death each span countless moments, no fault of there being thirteen or fourteen limbs follows. There are yet other masters who say: ignorance has a cause — namely, a preceding instance of aging-and-death; and aging-and-death has an effect — namely, a subsequent instance of ignorance — since the present craving and clinging is precisely what becomes past ignorance, and the present name-and-form, six sense fields, contact, and feeling is precisely what becomes future aging-and-death — if one states that feeling conditions craving, one has thereby also stated that aging-and-death conditions ignorance — just as a chariot wheel turns, up and down, round and round, ending only to begin again, the limbs of existence continue on, beginningless, in exactly this same way. Though they do possess a cause and an effect, no fault of there being thirteen or fourteen limbs follows.

Further, the World-Honored One, for the sake of those he was teaching, established dependent origination in varying numbers, sometimes more and sometimes fewer, without any single fixed number. That is, in certain places, he speaks of a single dependent-origination-link — namely, calling every conditioned dharma together simply "dependent origination," as it is said: what is dependent origination? Every conditioned dharma. In certain places, he speaks of two dependent-origination-links — namely, cause and effect. In certain places, he speaks of three — namely, the three time-periods distinguished, or affliction, karma, and phenomenal-basis distinguished as three: ignorance, craving, and clinging are called "affliction"; the formations and becoming are "karma"; the remaining links are "phenomenal-basis." In certain places, he speaks of four — namely, ignorance, the formations, birth, and aging-and-death — the eight present links being subsumed into these four: craving and clinging subsumed into ignorance, becoming subsumed into the formations, consciousness subsumed into birth, and name-and-form, the six sense fields, contact, and feeling subsumed into aging-and-death. In certain places, he speaks of five — namely, craving, clinging, becoming, birth, and aging-and-death — the seven prior-limit links being subsumed into these five: ignorance subsumed into craving and clinging, the formations subsumed into becoming, consciousness subsumed into birth, and

name-and-form, the six sense fields, contact, and feeling subsumed into aging-and-death. In certain places, he speaks of six — namely, each of the three time-periods possessing its own cause and effect. In certain places, he speaks of seven — namely, ignorance, the formations, consciousness, name-and-form, the six sense fields, contact, and feeling — the posterior-limit's five links being subsumed into these seven: craving and clinging subsumed into ignorance, becoming subsumed into the formations, birth subsumed into consciousness, and aging-and-death subsumed into name-and-form, the six sense fields, contact, and feeling. In certain places, he speaks of eight — namely, the eight present links — the past-and-future four links being subsumed into these eight: ignorance subsumed into craving and clinging, the formations subsumed into becoming, birth subsumed into consciousness, and aging-and-death subsumed into name-and-form, the six sense fields, contact, and feeling. In certain places, he speaks of nine, as the Great Cause-and-Condition Discourse states. In certain places, he speaks of ten, as the City-Simile Sūtra states. In certain places, he speaks of eleven, as stated within the Knowledge-Matters. In certain places, he speaks of twelve, as stated in countless other sūtras.

Further, this twelve-linked dependent-origination-dharma is precisely affliction, karma, and suffering mutually serving as condition for one another in succession — that is, affliction gives rise to karma; karma gives rise to suffering; suffering gives rise to suffering; suffering gives rise to affliction; affliction gives rise to affliction; affliction gives rise to karma; karma gives rise to suffering. "Affliction gives rise to karma" refers to ignorance conditioning the formations; "karma gives rise to suffering" refers to the formations conditioning consciousness; "suffering gives rise to suffering" refers to consciousness conditioning name-and-form, up through contact conditioning feeling; "suffering gives rise to affliction" refers to feeling conditioning craving; "affliction gives rise to affliction" refers to

craving conditioning clinging; "affliction gives rise to karma" refers to clinging conditioning becoming; "karma gives rise to suffering" refers to becoming conditioning birth; "suffering gives rise to suffering" refers to birth conditioning aging-and-death.

Further, this twelve-linked dependent-origination-dharma possesses two continuities and three divisions. The two continuities refer to consciousness and birth, since these two continue rebirth onward. The three divisions refer to affliction, karma, and phenomenal-basis — ignorance, craving, and clinging are affliction; the formations and becoming are karma; the remaining links are phenomenal-basis. There are yet other masters who say: the two continuities refer to the formations and becoming, since these two continue on toward a future existence; the three divisions refer to the three time-periods. Further, these twelve limbs, subsumed together, form three groupings, called affliction, karma, and suffering — these three groupings, corresponding to their meaning, are also called the three accumulations, the three states of existence, and the three paths respectively, each to be understood according to its own proper correspondence.

Further, this twelve-linked dependent-origination-dharma possesses a root, a stem, branches, leaves, flowers, and fruit, resembling a great tree.

Here, the root refers to ignorance and the formations; the stem refers to consciousness and name-and-form; the branches refer to the six sense fields; the leaves refer to contact and feeling; the flowers refer to craving, clinging, and becoming; the fruit refers to birth and aging-and-death. This twelve-linked dependent-origination tree sometimes bears flowers and fruit, and sometimes bears neither flowers nor fruit — bearing flowers and fruit refers to ordinary beings and those still in training; bearing neither flowers nor fruit refers to arhats. One asks: of these twelve limbs, how many are momentary, and how many continuous? The answer: two are momentary — namely, consciousness and birth; every other limb is continuous. One asks: of these twelve limbs, how many are defiled, and how many undefiled? Some say: five are defiled —

namely, ignorance, consciousness, craving, clinging, and birth; the rest span both defiled and undefiled. The verdict: this position ought not to be maintained, since this passage speaks of positional dependent origination — it should instead be said: all twelve limbs span both defiled and undefiled. Among the five limbs just named,

mind and mental factors are solely defiled, while the rest span both defiled and undefiled. Some say: at the consciousness and birth limbs, mind and mental factors are definitely defiled, while every other limb is indeterminate. One asks: of these twelve limbs, how many are a ripening, and how many not a ripening? Some say: five are not a ripening, seven are a ripening. The verdict: this position ought not to be maintained, since this passage speaks of positional dependent origination — it should instead be said: all twelve limbs span both being and not being a ripening, yet, at the moments of ignorance, consciousness, craving, clinging, and birth, mind and mental factors are definitely not a ripening, while every other limb spans both. Some say: at the consciousness and birth limbs, mind and mental factors are definitely not a ripening, while every other limb is indeterminate. One asks: of these twelve limbs, how many possess a ripening, and how many lack one?

Some say: the formations and becoming limbs definitely possess a ripening; every other limb spans both. The verdict: this position ought not to be maintained.

This passage speaks of positional dependent origination — it should instead be said: all twelve limbs span both. One asks: of these twelve limbs, how many belong to the desire realm, how many to the form realm, and how many to the formless realm? Some say: the desire realm possesses all twelve limbs complete; the form realm possesses eleven, excluding name-and-form; the formless realm possesses ten, excluding name-and-form and the six sense fields. For the form realm, it should instead be said that consciousness conditions the six sense fields, since there is no time there when the four material faculties have not yet arisen. For the formless realm, it should instead be said that consciousness conditions contact, since it possesses no material form and no five material faculties at all. The verdict: it should instead be said that all three realms possess all twelve limbs complete. One asks: in the form realm, at the moment of birth, every faculty arises all at once —

how, then, can there be a name-and-form stage there at all? And the formless realm possesses no material form and no five faculties at all — how, then, can there be a name-and-form and six-sense-fields stage there? The answer: although the form realm's own five faculties do indeed arise all at once, since birth has only just occurred, these faculties are not yet sharp and keen, and so, at that stage, they are still subsumed under the name-and-form limb alone. The formless realm, though lacking material form and the five faculties, does still possess a "name" and a mental faculty — it should accordingly be said that consciousness conditions name, name conditions the mental sense-field, and the mental sense-field conditions contact — and it is for this reason that all three realms possess all twelve limbs complete.

Further, a similar limb of existence, in turn, causes a similar limb of existence to continue — that is, the desire realm's own limb of existence causes the desire realm's own limb of existence to continue, and the form and formless realms are exactly the same — with the sole exception of the feeling stage, at which point it becomes possible for a dissimilar limb of existence to be caused to continue instead.

That is, for one born in the desire realm who has not yet become free of desire's own defilement, giving rise to the desire realm's own craving, clinging, and becoming manifest before him, drawing forth a future birth and aging-and-death, such a being possesses, in the present, one instance of craving, one of clinging, and one of becoming, and, in the future, one instance of birth and one of aging-and-death. For one already free of desire's own defilement but not yet free of the first dhyāna's own defilement,

giving rise to the first dhyāna's own craving, clinging, and becoming manifest before him, drawing forth a future birth and aging-and-death, such a being possesses, in the present, two instances of craving, two of clinging, and two of becoming, and, in the future, two of birth and two of aging-and-death. And so it continues, up through one already free of the sphere of nothingness's own defilement but not yet free of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's own defilement, giving rise to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's own craving, clinging, and becoming manifest before him, drawing forth a future birth and aging-and-death — such a being possesses, in the present, nine instances of craving, nine of clinging, and nine of becoming, and, in the future, nine of birth and nine of aging-and-death. Such a being, passing away from the desire realm, is reborn in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception: what was formerly that sphere's own present craving and clinging is now, in retrospect, past ignorance; what was formerly its own present becoming is now past formations; what was formerly its own future birth is now present consciousness; what was formerly its own future aging-and-death is now present name, mental faculty, contact, and feeling. As for every other stage's own limbs, whether formerly present or future, belonging to another realm, these are now neither past, future, nor present at all. Why is this? Because cause and effect, considered relative to one another in succession, are precisely what allows "existence" to be spoken of at all, and, with respect to that other realm, cause and effect are no longer both actually possessed there — and so they are neither past, future, nor present. When that being, passing away from the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, is reborn in the sphere of nothingness: what was formerly that sphere's own present craving and clinging is now past ignorance; what was formerly its own present becoming is now past formations; what was formerly its own future birth is now present consciousness; what was formerly its own future aging-and-death is now present name, mental faculty, contact, and feeling. As for every other stage's own limbs, whether formerly present or future, belonging to another realm, these, too, are now neither past, future, nor present, for the very same reason. When that being, passing away from the sphere of nothingness, and continuing on in succession, is eventually reborn once more in the desire realm: what was formerly the desire realm's own present craving and clinging is now past ignorance; what was formerly its own present becoming is now past formations; what was formerly its own future birth is now present consciousness; what was formerly its own future aging-and-death is now present name-and-form, the six sense fields, contact, and feeling. As for every other stage's own limbs, whether formerly present or future, belonging to another realm, these, too, are now neither past, future, nor present, for the very same reason.

Further, for one born in the desire realm, whose faculties are complete, capable of performing and drawing forth a karma that will lead to a future existence — at the very moment the ignorance stage manifests before him,

one limb is present, namely ignorance, while every other limb is future. From the ignorance stage to the formations stage, two limbs are present, namely ignorance and the formations, while the rest are future. From the formations stage to the consciousness stage, two limbs are past, namely ignorance and the formations, one limb is present, namely consciousness, while the rest are future. From the consciousness stage to the name-and-form stage, two limbs are past, namely ignorance and the formations, two limbs are present, namely consciousness and name-and-form, while the rest are future. And so it continues, up through the stage from clinging to becoming, at which point two limbs are past, namely ignorance and the formations, eight limbs are present, namely consciousness through becoming, and two limbs are future, namely birth and aging-and-death. From the becoming stage to the birth stage,

ten limbs are past, namely ignorance through becoming, one limb is present, namely birth, and one limb is future, namely aging-and-death. From the birth stage to the aging-and-death stage, ten limbs are past, namely ignorance through becoming, and two limbs are present, namely birth and aging-and-death. The Venerable Pūrṇāśa explained it in this way: at the moment the ignorance-and-formations stage manifests before him, two limbs are present, namely ignorance and the formations, and ten limbs are future —

eight belonging to the very next life, namely consciousness through becoming, and two belonging to the third life, namely birth and aging-and-death. At the moment the birth-and-aging-and-death stage manifests before him, two limbs are present, namely birth and aging-and-death, and ten limbs are past — eight belonging to the immediately preceding life, namely consciousness through becoming, and two belonging to the life before that, namely ignorance and the formations. At the moment the stage from consciousness through becoming manifests before him, eight limbs are present, namely consciousness through becoming, two limbs are past, namely ignorance and the formations, and two limbs are future, namely birth and aging-and-death. Just as this has been explained for one born in the desire realm, one born in the form or formless realm should be understood in the very same way. Further, in the various sūtras, the Buddha, teaching dependent origination for the sake of those he taught, sometimes uses cause as the gateway, sometimes effect as the gateway, and sometimes both together as the gateway. One asks: for whom does he teach dependent origination through the gateway of cause, and so on for effect and for both together? The answer: for those deluded about cause, he teaches through the gateway of cause; for those deluded about effect, he teaches through the gateway of effect; for those deluded about both cause and effect, he teaches through the gateway of both together. Further, for beginning practitioners, he teaches through the gateway of effect; for those who have transcended ordinary mental application, he teaches through the gateway of cause; for those already habituated to this practice, he teaches through the gateway of both together. Further, for those who delight in brevity, he teaches through the gateway of cause; for those who delight in elaboration, he teaches through the gateway of effect; for those who delight in both, he teaches through the gateway of both together. Further, for those of sharp faculties, he teaches through the gateway of cause; for those of dull faculties, he teaches through the gateway of effect; for those of middling faculties, he teaches through the gateway of both together. One asks: if it is for those of dull faculties that dependent origination is taught through the gateway of effect, so that such a person may thereby come to understand it, why, then, does the Bodhisattva in his very last body, whose own faculties are the most supreme among all sentient beings, contemplate dependent origination through the gateway of effect? The answer: past Bodhisattvas, more numerous than the sands of the Ganges, have all contemplated dependent origination through the gateway of effect, and future Bodhisattvas will do likewise — and it is for this reason that the present Bodhisattva, in his very last body, also contemplates it in this same way. Further, the Bodhisattva also contemplates ignorance conditioning the formations, proceeding onward in succession, up through birth conditioning aging-and-death — this forward contemplation being practiced by him even more than by the two vehicles — and, at certain times, he also practices backward contemplation, and so it cannot be said that he contemplates only through the gateway of effect. Further, the Bodhisattva directly perceives the sufferings of old age, sickness, and death, and reflects: by what condition do this old age, sickness, and death exist? He comes to know that it is by the existence of birth. He further reflects: by what condition does birth exist? He comes to know that it is by the existence of becoming — and so on, as elaborated at length — it is because he first sees the effect that he contemplates in this way. Further, there are pure-abode gods who, in order to arouse in the Bodhisattva a mind of weariness toward existence, manifest before him the signs of old age, sickness, and death; the Bodhisattva, upon seeing these, becomes weary of existence and goes forth from household life, and, having gone forth, continues to follow what he had first seen, contemplating dependent origination through the gateway of effect. Further, this accords with the sequence of direct realization itself — that is, when the Bodhisattva later undergoes direct realization of the truths, he first contemplates the truth of suffering; now, in learning this same direct realization in advance, he likewise first contemplates the effect. Further, it was already stated earlier that, for beginning practitioners, dependent origination is taught through the gateway of effect — the Bodhisattva, too, is a beginning practitioner, and so he contemplates dependent origination through the gateway of effect. Although the Bodhisattva has, across countless aeons, already cultivated the contemplation of dependent origination, it is only in his very last body that he first newly gives rise to this particular contemplation, and it is for this reason that he is called a beginning practitioner. Further, in a past aeon, when the Bodhisattva was first a beginning practitioner, he contemplated dependent origination through the gateway of effect; now, though thoroughly habituated, he still contemplates dependent origination through the gateway of effect, exactly as he did at the very beginning of his practice — just as a person who has climbed a certain tree many times will, upon climbing it again, still climb it starting from the root. Further, this is in order to display the burning-away of the tree of birth-and-death — just as a person burning a tree first burns its branches and leaves before reaching its root, the Bodhisattva is exactly the same, contemplating dependent origination through the gateway of effect, so that wherever he directs his contemplation, it never arises again. The Venerable Pārśva states: it is not that the Bodhisattva's own contemplation of dependent origination through the gateway of effect makes him "dull-faculty" — rather, there are, in general, two kinds of practitioner: one who follows craving in his practice, and one who follows view in his practice. One who follows craving in his practice contemplates dependent origination through the gateway of effect, and, relying on the wishless concentration, enters into the certainty of rightness;

one who follows view in his practice contemplates dependent origination through the gateway of cause, and, relying on the emptiness concentration, enters into the certainty of rightness — with the sole exception of the Bodhisattva. Although the Bodhisattva is one who follows craving in his practice, contemplating dependent origination through the gateway of effect, he is nonetheless able to rely on the emptiness concentration to enter into the certainty of rightness. It may therefore be asked: is there a case of one who follows craving in his practice, contemplating dependent origination through the gateway of effect, who nonetheless relies on the emptiness concentration to enter into the certainty of rightness? The answer: there is — namely, every Bodhisattva.

As the sūtra states: the Buddha told the monks: before I attained complete enlightenment, dwelling alone in a quiet place, I reflected as follows: sentient beings in the world, though constantly oppressed by the suffering of birth and old age and death, do not know how to truly escape this suffering. I further thought: given the existence of what does old age and death exist? What is old age and death's own condition? Having thought this, I then gave rise to direct realization: because birth exists, old age and death exist; this old age and death takes birth as its condition. I further thought: given the existence of what does birth exist? What is birth's own condition? Having thought this, I then gave rise to direct realization: because becoming exists, birth exists; this birth takes becoming as its condition. And so it continued, until I further thought:

given the existence of what does name-and-form exist? What is name-and-form's own condition? Having thought this, I then gave rise to direct realization: because consciousness exists, name-and-form exists; this name-and-form takes consciousness as its condition. I further thought: given the existence of what does consciousness exist? What is consciousness's own condition? Having thought this, I then gave rise to direct realization: because name-and-form exists, consciousness exists; this consciousness takes name-and-form as its condition. I then thought: my own contemplation, having reached this point, at consciousness, should now turn back. Why is this? Because name-and-form conditions consciousness, and consciousness conditions name-and-form; name-and-form conditions the six sense fields — and so on, as elaborated at length. One asks: at the time the Bodhisattva contemplated this dependent origination, he had not yet attained the true, uncontaminated wisdom of the path of seeing — how, then, can it be said that he gave rise to "direct realization"? The answer: at that time, he had not yet attained true, actual direct realization; it is because, through worldly conventional wisdom, he directly perceived dependent origination, resembling direct realization, that the name "direct realization" is applied. One asks: why did the Bodhisattva, in his backward contemplation of dependent origination, turn back only upon reaching consciousness — was this because his own wisdom's power was exhausted, or because its proper object-domain was exhausted? Suppose either — what fault follows? If his wisdom's power was exhausted, this would not accord with reason, since the Bodhisattva's own wisdom and vision are boundless. If it was because its object-domain was exhausted, this too is unreasonable, since the formations and ignorance had not yet even been contemplated at that point. The answer: it should be said that it was neither because his wisdom's power was exhausted, nor because its object-domain was exhausted, but simply because the Bodhisattva had already contemplated the formations and ignorance beforehand — that is, having earlier contemplated becoming, he had thereby already contemplated the formations; having earlier contemplated craving and clinging, he had thereby already contemplated ignorance. One asks: having earlier contemplated aging-and-death, he had thereby already contemplated name-and-form, the six sense fields, contact, and feeling; having earlier contemplated birth, he had thereby already contemplated consciousness — so, with respect to name-and-form and the rest, he ought not to contemplate them again. The answer: the earlier contemplation was brief, the later one detailed; the earlier was a summary, the later a specific breakdown — no fault of redundant contemplation follows. One asks: if that is so, then birth and consciousness show no such distinction between brief and detailed — why, then, does he contemplate them again? The answer: it is out of weariness and dread toward birth that he contemplates it a second time, and so no fault follows — that is, our own World-Honored One, while still a Bodhisattva, weary of old age, sickness, and death, scaled the city wall and went forth from household life, reflecting: by what does this suffering of old age and death exist? He then directly perceived that it exists through the rebirth-linking mind. He further reflected: by what does this mind arise? He came to know it is through karma. He further reflected: from what does this karma arise? He knew it is from affliction. He further reflected: in dependence on what does affliction arise? He came to know it is in dependence on the phenomenal-basis. He further reflected: through what does this phenomenal-basis operate? He came to know that this operation is through the rebirth-linking mind. The Bodhisattva then thought: every calamity arises entirely through this mind, and so he gave rise to a profound weariness and dread toward it — and it is for this reason that, though there is no distinction of brief and detailed here, he still contemplates it a second time, this turning-back at consciousness belonging to just this very point. One asks: since ignorance is already a brief summary of what came before, why is it not likewise contemplated again? The answer: because it is separated by the formations-link — that is, contemplating dependent origination must necessarily proceed in sequence, and one cannot leap over the formations-link to contemplate ignorance out of order. Some say: when he earlier contemplated becoming conditioning birth, he had already contemplated karma and name-and-form; afterward, when he contemplates name-and-form conditioning consciousness, he is contemplating the ripened name-and-form — and, were he also to contemplate the formations conditioning consciousness, he would likewise be contemplating karma and name-and-form, no different from before, and so there is no redundant contemplation. There are yet other masters who say: when he earlier contemplated becoming conditioning birth, he had already contemplated the distant condition; afterward, when he contemplates name-and-form conditioning consciousness, he is contemplating the proximate condition — and, were he also to contemplate the formations conditioning consciousness,

he would likewise be contemplating the distant condition, no different from before, and so there is no redundant contemplation — just as with proximate and distant, so too should here and there, currently present and not currently present, and this class of homogeneous being and another class of homogeneous being, each be understood in the very same way. There are yet others who say: when he earlier contemplated becoming conditioning birth, he had already contemplated the birth-life condition; afterward, when he contemplates name-and-form conditioning consciousness, he is contemplating the simultaneously-arising condition —

and, were he also to contemplate the formations conditioning consciousness, he would likewise be contemplating the birth-life condition, no different from before, and so there is no redundant contemplation. There are yet others who say: it is in order to avoid the fault of infinite regress that he does not contemplate it again — that is, when he earlier contemplated aging-and-death, he had already contemplated this very life's own name-and-form, six sense fields, contact, and feeling; when he earlier contemplated birth, he had already contemplated this very life's own consciousness; when he later contemplates name-and-form, the six sense fields, contact, and feeling, he is contemplating the second life before this one's own aging-and-death; when he later contemplates consciousness, he is contemplating the second life before this one's own birth — and, were he also to contemplate ignorance and the formations, he would then have to contemplate the third life before this one, and, if so, he would then also have to contemplate a fourth life, and so on and on without end — and it is for this reason that he does not contemplate ignorance and the formations again. The Venerable Vasumitra explained it in this way: why does his contemplation turn back precisely upon reaching consciousness? Because consciousness delights in dwelling within a consciousness-abode — that is, consciousness has no desire to depart from a consciousness-abode, and a consciousness-abode is precisely name-and-form — and so, having contemplated consciousness, he contemplates name-and-form once more. He further explained: it is because consciousness and name-and-form mutually serve as condition for one another. He further explained: it is because these two mutually serve as cause and effect for one another in succession. The Great Virtuous One stated: why does his contemplation turn back precisely upon reaching consciousness? Because, once past the consciousness-link, there is no further object to be taken — just as an inchworm, crawling to the very tip of a blade of grass, finding nothing further above to grasp, thereupon retreats back down; contemplating mind is exactly the same, properly reaching only as far as consciousness, since nothing beyond it lies within its own proper domain, and it therefore retreats back. The Venerable Pārśva states: why does his contemplation turn back precisely upon reaching consciousness? Because the object itself turns back — that is, it was earlier stated that consciousness conditions name-and-form; now it is further stated that name-and-form conditions consciousness — what was formerly the cause has now, in turn, become the effect,

the object itself having turned back, the mind, too, turns back accordingly. The Venerable Ghoṣa explained it in this way: why does his contemplation turn back precisely upon reaching consciousness? Because consciousness is the very root of the manifold sufferings of birth and death — that is, our Bodhisattva, wearied by the suffering of birth and death, sought out the world's own old age, sickness, and death,

asking what their very root might be, and came to know it is the rebirth-linking mind. He further inquired what draws forth this very mind, and came to know it is karma. He further inquired what gives rise to this very karma, and came to know it is affliction. He further inquired in dependence on what this affliction arises, and came to know it is the phenomenal-basis. He further inquired what this phenomenal-basis's very root might be, and came to know it is the rebirth-linking mind. He then reflected: this rebirth-linking mind is forever the very root of the manifold sufferings of birth and death, deeply worthy of being wearied by — and, having reached this point, he turned back to cultivate the genuine antidote itself. The Venerable Śrīlāta stated: why does his contemplation turn back precisely upon reaching consciousness? Because the future birth can already be inferred by comparison — that is, having earlier contemplated becoming conditioning birth, he knew that the present birth is the very root of manifold suffering; having then further contemplated name-and-form conditioning consciousness, he knew that the past birth, too, is the very root of manifold suffering — he thereupon reflected: the manifold sufferings of birth and death, whether present or past, take birth as their very root — the future must be exactly the same, and so there is no further need to contemplate any other object — and it is for this reason that his contemplation turns back precisely upon reaching consciousness, since every limb of existence, without exception, spans all three time-periods, thereby confirming the very meaning the Venerable Pūrṇāśa had already established — as it is said: at the moment the ignorance-and-formations stage manifests before him, two limbs are present, and so on, as elaborated at length. As the sūtra states: the Buddha told the monks: I, at that time, reflected as follows: given the non-existence of what does old age and death not exist? Given the ceasing of what does old age and death cease? Having thought this, I then gave rise to direct realization: because birth does not exist, old age and death do not exist; because birth ceases, old age and death cease. And so it continued, until I further thought: given the non-existence of what does the formations not exist? Given the ceasing of what does the formations cease? Having thought this, I then gave rise to direct realization: because ignorance does not exist, the formations do not exist; because ignorance ceases, the formations cease; because the formations cease, consciousness ceases — and so on, as elaborated at length. One asks: for what reason does the Bodhisattva, within the portion concerned with the forward flow of saṃsāra, contemplate only ten limbs, while, within the portion concerned with its reverse cessation, he contemplates all twelve limbs in full? The answer: the Bodhisattva, detesting and abhorring the forward flow of saṃsāra, therefore contemplates only ten limbs; delighting in and cherishing its reverse cessation, he therefore contemplates all twelve limbs in full.

Further, the portion concerned with the forward flow contains many faults and defects, drawing the mind away with inferior force, and so he contemplates only ten limbs; the portion concerned with reverse cessation contains many virtues and merits,

drawing the mind with superior force, and so he contemplates all twelve limbs in full. In the various sūtras, dependent origination is sometimes compared to a lamp, sometimes to a mass of fire,

and sometimes to a city. One asks: why does the World-Honored One compare dependent origination to a lamp, to a mass of fire, and to a city? The answer: he speaks according to whatever those he was teaching had directly witnessed — that is, for those among his hearers who had directly witnessed a lamp, he used the simile of a lamp to reveal dependent origination; for those who had directly witnessed a mass of fire, he used the simile of a mass of fire; for those who had directly witnessed a city, he used the simile of a city. Further, if those he was teaching, upon hearing the lamp-simile, understood dependent origination, the Buddha spoke of it as like a lamp; if, upon hearing the mass-of-fire simile, they understood it, he spoke of it as like a mass of fire; if, upon hearing the city-simile, they understood it, he spoke of it as like a city. Further, if those he was teaching possessed a lower grade of craving and clinging, the Buddha then taught them that dependent origination is like a lamp; if they possessed a middling grade of craving and clinging, he taught that it is like a mass of fire; if they possessed an upper grade of craving and clinging, he taught that it is like a city — and, just as with these three grades of craving and clinging, so too should the three faculties and the three kinds of delight in teaching be understood in the very same way. As the World-Honored One states: ignorance conditions the formations, clinging conditions becoming, and so on, as elaborated at length. One asks: why does the treatise take up this topic? The answer: it is in order to analyze the meaning of scripture — that is, scripture states that ignorance conditions the formations, and clinging conditions becoming, yet, though stated this way, it is not further elaborated at length — this scripture being the very root this treatise depends upon,

what that scripture leaves unexplained, this treatise should now explain. Further, it is in order to resolve a genuine doubt — that is, since the formations and becoming are, in substance, both alike karma,

one might doubt that their very substance is not, in fact, distinct — and it is in order to display this very distinction that this treatise is composed. How does ignorance condition the formations, and how does clinging condition becoming? The answer: "ignorance conditions the formations" reveals that karma, created and increased in an earlier, different life, obtains its ripening in this present existence, and has already been experienced as ripening. "Clinging conditions becoming" reveals that karma, created and increased in this present life, obtains its ripening in a future existence. "This reveals karma" means that the World-Honored One is here disclosing and revealing every unwholesome and contaminated-wholesome karma, whether already created or presently being created. "In an earlier, different life" reveals that this karma, within an earlier life's own different class of homogeneous being, has already been exhausted, ceased, departed, and transformed. "Created and increased" reveals that this karma's own arising is complete, born from affliction, capable of obtaining its fruit. "Obtains its ripening in this present existence" reveals that this karma draws forth every ripening fruit of this present life. "And has already been experienced as ripening" reveals that this karma has already experienced every ripening fruit of a former life — whatever wholesome or unwholesome karma was created and increased in a former life, whether its ripening fruit is now ripening or has already ripened, should be understood as belonging entirely within the scope of the formations-link. "In this present life" reveals that this karma is created and increased only within this present life's own class of homogeneous being, not within any other life. "Obtains its ripening in a future existence" reveals that this karma draws forth every ripening fruit of a future life — whatever wholesome or unwholesome karma is created and increased in this present life, whose fruit has not yet ripened within this very life, should be understood as belonging entirely within the scope of the becoming-link. One asks: why is it that karma performed in a past life, whose fruit has already ripened, is called "the formations," while karma performed in the present life, whose fruit within this life has not yet ripened, is called "becoming"?

The answer: karma performed in a past life, whose fruit has already ripened, has already grown old and worn, already been made use of, already given its fruit, already accomplished its task, possessing no further power capable of drawing forth any further ripening of future existence — yet, having already been performed and already having passed on, it is called "the formations." Karma performed in the present life, whose fruit within this life has not yet ripened, is exactly the opposite of this, and so it is called "becoming." There are yet other masters who say: karma performed in a past life, whose fruit has already ripened, is old karma, and so is called "the formations";

karma performed in the present life, whose fruit within this life has not yet ripened, is new karma, and so is called "becoming." There are yet other masters who say: karma performed in a past life, whose fruit has already ripened, has already given its fruit, and so is called "the formations"; karma performed in the present life, whose fruit within this life has not yet ripened, has not yet given its fruit, and so is called "becoming." One asks: what difference is there between "creating" and "increasing"? Some say: these two are without difference, since the karma-substance they each display is without difference.

Others say: these two do indeed differ — that is, the very name differs, one being called "creating," the other "increasing."

Further, the meaning, too, differs — that is, there is a case where a single good or evil deed gives rise to a good or evil destiny, and there is a case where three good or evil deeds give rise to a good or evil destiny. As for the case of a single deed: during the preparatory stage, there is only "creating"; once the deed reaches completion, both "creating" and "increasing" are present together. As for the case of three deeds: performing one or two of the three is only "creating," while performing all three together brings both "creating" and "increasing." Further, there is a case where a single uninterrupted-retribution karma causes one to fall into hell, and a case where all five uninterrupted-retribution karmas cause one to fall into hell — for a single one, the preparatory stage is only "creating," while its completion brings both; for the five, performing up to four of them is only "creating," while performing all five brings both — and the ten wholesome and unwholesome paths of action should be understood in the very same way. Further, there is a case where many separate karmas together bring about a single resulting existence, as with the bodhisattvas, who, through thirty-two hundred-merit-deeds, bring about their very final body — performing up to thirty-one hundred-merit-deeds is only "creating," while completing all thirty-two hundred-merit-deeds brings both. Further, karma performed with deliberate intention brings both; karma performed without deliberate intention is only "creating." Further, karma performed after prior deliberation brings both; karma performed impulsively is only "creating." Further, karma involving a preparatory effort brings both; karma without any preparatory effort is only "creating." Further, karma fixed as to its three time-periods of ripening brings both; karma whose time of ripening is not fixed is only "creating." Further, karma fixed as to the place of its own ripening brings both; karma whose place of ripening is not fixed is only "creating." Further, karma fixed to definitely bring about its fruit brings both; karma not fixed to definitely bring about its fruit is only "creating." Further, unwholesome karma received in a bad destiny brings both; unwholesome karma received among humans or gods is only "creating"; wholesome karma received among humans or gods brings both; wholesome karma received in a bad destiny is only "creating." Further, unwholesome karma escorted by unwholesome karma brings both; unwholesome karma escorted by wholesome karma is only "creating"; wholesome karma escorted by wholesome karma brings both; wholesome karma escorted by unwholesome karma is only "creating." Further, unwholesome karma present within a body holding wrong views and deluded about cause and effect brings both; unwholesome karma present within a body holding right views and not deluded about cause and effect is only "creating" — wholesome karma is exactly the reverse. Further, unwholesome karma present within a body that has broken both its precepts and its views brings both; unwholesome karma present within a body that has broken its precepts but not its views is only "creating"; wholesome karma present within a body possessing both precepts and views intact brings both; wholesome karma present within a body lacking precepts but possessing views is only "creating." Further, unwholesome karma present within a body whose preparatory effort and whose underlying intention are both corrupted brings both; unwholesome karma present within a body whose preparatory effort is corrupted but whose underlying intention is not is only "creating"; wholesome karma present within a body possessing both a sound preparatory effort and a sound underlying intention brings both; wholesome karma present within a body possessing a sound underlying intention but lacking a sound preparatory effort is only "creating." Further, if, once a karma is performed, it is neither relinquished, nor renounced, nor countered by any antidote, it brings both; if, once performed, it can be relinquished, renounced, and countered by an antidote, it is only "creating." Further, if a karma is constantly recollected with full awareness across all three time-periods, it brings both; if not, it is only "creating." Further, if, once a karma is performed, no regret or change of heart follows, it brings both; if regret or a change of heart follows, it is only "creating." Further, if, once a karma is performed, it is constantly remembered, it brings both; if it is not constantly remembered, it is only "creating." Further, if a karma's own task is brought to full completion, it brings both; if not brought to completion, it is only "creating." Further, if a karma is performed repeatedly, it brings both; if not performed repeatedly, it is only "creating." Further, if, once a karma is performed, one rejoices in it, praises it, and dedicates it toward its fruit, it brings both; if not, it is only "creating." Further, karma performed with a clear and lucid mind brings both; karma performed without such clarity is only "creating." All such distinctions as these constitute the very difference between the two.