The Eye That Sees by Daylight, the Eye That Sees by Night

"Ignorance conditions the formations" and "clinging conditions becoming" — what difference is there between these two? The answer: "ignorance conditions the formations" has already been explained at length above — this speaks of that karma's own condition,

the World-Honored One states, as a single affliction — namely, ignorance. "Clinging conditions becoming" has already been explained at length above — this speaks of that karma's own condition, the World-Honored One states, as every affliction — namely, the various kinds of clinging. This, then, is the difference between the two. One asks: why does the treatise take up this topic once more? The answer: it has already been stated above that the karma given rise to differs in substance — the earlier karma belongs to a past life, the later karma to the present life; the earlier karma has already given its fruit, the later karma has not yet given its fruit; the earlier karma is called "old," the later karma "new" — yet it has not yet been stated why the very condition that gives rise to this karma likewise differs in substance, and it is in order to state this that the present passage is composed. One asks: why is it that the past karma's own condition is named only as ignorance, while the present karma's own condition is named as every affliction? The answer: at the time past karma was created, many matters were not directly witnessed, and so could not be known, and it is for this reason that only ignorance is named as its condition — that is, the realm, the destiny, the mode of birth, the continent, the developmental stage, the basis, the preparatory effort, the motivating affliction, the continuum, and the object involved are all unknowable. "Realm" refers to the three realms — one does not know in which realm this past karma was created. "Destiny" refers to the five destinies — one does not know in which destiny this past karma was created. "Mode of birth" refers to the four modes of birth — one does not know through which mode of birth this past karma was created. "Continent" refers to the four continents — one does not know upon which continent this past karma was created. "Developmental stage" refers to the ten embryonic stages, kalala and the rest — one does not know at which developmental stage this past karma was created. "Basis" refers to the basis of the ten wholesome and unwholesome paths of action — one does not know upon which basis this past karma was created. "Preparatory effort" refers to the preparatory effort arising from a sentient being or from a non-sentient thing — one does not know through which preparatory effort this past karma was created. "Motivating affliction" refers to craving, hatred, delusion, and the rest — one does not know through which motivating affliction this past karma was created. "Continuum" refers to a male or a female continuum — one does not know upon which continuum this past karma was created. "Object" refers to past, future, or present, or to form, sound, scent, taste, touch, or dharmas — one does not know what object the mind took in creating this past karma. Although these matters were not directly witnessed and so cannot be known, ignorance is nonetheless always present at the very stage of giving rise to karma, and it is for this reason that ignorance alone is named, in general, as its condition. At the time present karma is created, many matters are directly witnessed, and so can be known, and it is for this reason that every affliction is fully named as its condition. Further, past karma has already grown old and worn, has already been made use of, and has already given its fruit — this karma possessing no further vigor, and being unclear — and it is for this reason that only ignorance is named as its condition. Present karma has not yet grown old and worn, has not yet been made use of, and has not yet given its fruit — this being new karma, possessing vigor, and being extremely clear — and it is for this reason that every affliction is named as its condition. Further, past karma is subtle and difficult to perceive,

whether by oneself or by another, and it cannot be known which specific affliction gave rise to it — yet the arising of affliction necessarily involves ignorance, and it is for this reason that only ignorance is named as its condition. Present karma is coarse and manifest, easily perceived, whether by oneself or by another, and it can be known which specific affliction gave rise to it, and it is for this reason that every affliction is fully named as its condition. Further, past karma's own nature is not sharp and forceful, its own characteristic dim and obscure, according with ignorance, and it is for this reason that only ignorance is named as its condition. Present karma's own nature is sharp and forceful, its own characteristic bright and manifest, according with every kind of clinging, and it is for this reason that every affliction is fully named as its condition. One asks: as for the karma performed by an arhat, is it to be called "ignorance conditions the formations," or is it to be called "clinging conditions becoming"? The answer: it is called neither "ignorance conditions the formations" nor "clinging conditions becoming," since that karma has neither ignorance nor clinging present within it. Yet, once that karma's own fruit has already ripened,

it should be understood as subsumed within the portion of the formations-limb; if its fruit has not yet ripened, it should be understood as subsumed within the portion of the becoming-limb, being of that same general kind — yet it is, in truth, not actually included among the twelve limbs of existence themselves.

Is there a case of "the formations" conditioned by ignorance but not by wisdom? And so on, as elaborated at length. One asks: why does this present passage take up ignorance and wisdom together as its topic? The answer: this is simply what the treatise's author intended, and so on, as stated at length. Further, these two are alike each a root-dharma — that is, the very root of the defiled class of dharmas is ignorance, while the very root of the pure class of dharmas is wisdom. Further, these two are alike each a leading dharma — as it is said: ignorance is the leader, ignorance is the forerunner, giving rise to countless kinds of evil, unwholesome dharmas, together with the shamelessness and lack of conscience proper to that same kind; wisdom is the leader, wisdom is the forerunner, giving rise to countless kinds of pure, wholesome dharmas, together with the heightened shame and conscience proper to that same kind. Further, wisdom and ignorance serve as each other's proximate antidote — that is, ignorance is wisdom's own proximate antidote, and wisdom is ignorance's own proximate antidote. Further, wisdom and ignorance are mutually opposed to one another — that is, ignorance opposes wisdom, and wisdom opposes ignorance. Further, wisdom and ignorance, though not mutually inclusive of one another, do share mutually inclusive objects —

both alike taking the four noble truths as their object, both alike taking the contaminated and the uncontaminated as their object, both alike taking the conditioned and the unconditioned as their object. Yet the word "the formations" itself carries a meaning that is sometimes broad and sometimes narrow — as it is said: "ignorance conditions the formations." The various Abhidharma masters say that this passage speaks of positional dependent origination, and so this word "formations" here means the five aggregates of clinging. The Venerable Ghoṣa states that this word "formations" here means karma alone — as it is said: "performing harmful action," where this word "action" means unwholesome karma; as it is said: "performing harmless action," where this word "action" means wholesome karma; as it is said: "performing conditioned actions," where this word "action" means volition alone; as it is said: "form, mind, mental factors, dissociated formations, and the unconditioned," where this word "action" means the dissociated-formations aggregate; as it is said: "the aggregates of form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness," where this word "action" broadly means both the associated and the dissociated formations aggregate; as it is said: "the aggregates of clinging of form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness," where this word "action" means only the contaminated, associated-and-dissociated formations aggregate; as it is said: "bodily action, verbal action, and mental action," where,

there, "bodily action" means the in-breath and out-breath; "verbal action" means applied and sustained thought; "mental action" means perception and volition — so that, there, this word "action" means one whole aggregate, together with a small portion of two further aggregates. As it is said: "meritorious action, demeritorious action, and imperturbable action," where this word "action" means contaminated, wholesome-or-unwholesome karma.

As it is said: "among the formations there are five faults — they are fearful, dreadful, and painful to the touch, lacking a self and what belongs to a self; the wise do not see these formations as offering any means of escape from the formations themselves." Some say that this word "formations" here means unwholesome dharmas, since it is said that these formations are fearful, dreadful, and painful to the touch; some say that this word "formations" here means the five aggregates of clinging, since it is said that these formations lack a self and what belongs to a self, and that the wise do not see these formations as offering any means of escape from the formations themselves. As it is said: "all formations are impermanent, dharmas subject to arising and ceasing." Some say that this word "formations" here means every conditioned dharma, confirmed by the third phrase's own reference to arising and ceasing. Some say that this word "formations" here means only the five aggregates of clinging, confirmed by the fourth phrase's own reference to their quiescence as bliss, since the very term "quiescent bliss" used there reveals specifically the non-selective cessation alone, not every uncontaminated dharma in general. As it is said: "blameworthy action, blameless action," where this word "action" means wholesome-or-unwholesome karma. As it is said: "the three kinds of good conduct, the three kinds of evil conduct," where this word "action" means wholesome-or-unwholesome karma, together with craving, hatred, and wrong view, or non-craving, non-hatred, and right view. As it is said: "all formations are impermanent, all dharmas are without self, nirvāṇa is quiescence," where this word "formations" means every conditioned dharma. In this present passage, too, this word "the formations" means every conditioned dharma —

since both wisdom and ignorance alike are able to serve as its condition.

Is there a case of "the formations" conditioned by ignorance but not by wisdom? The answer: there is none. Why is this? Because "the formations," so defined here, takes only ignorance as its condition, never wisdom. Is there a case of "the formations" conditioned by wisdom but not by ignorance? The answer: there is none. Why is this? Because "the formations," so defined here, takes only wisdom as its condition, never ignorance. Is there a case of "the formations" conditioned by both ignorance and wisdom together? The answer: there is. Why is this? Because the various kinds of "the formations" number eleven in total — the desire realm has four: wholesome, unwholesome, covered-undefined, and uncovered-undefined; the form realm has three —

wholesome, covered-undefined, and uncovered-undefined; the formless realm likewise has three, exactly as the form realm; together with uncontaminated formations, this makes eleven kinds in total. Here, the desire realm's own wholesome formations have neither wisdom nor ignorance as their cause, but do possess three conditions — the immediately-antecedent, the object, and the dominant condition. Unwholesome formations have ignorance as four of their causes — namely, the correspondence-cause, the co-existent-cause, the homogeneous-cause,

and the universally-pervasive-cause — and also possess all four conditions. Wisdom is not their cause, but does provide two conditions — the object and the dominant condition. The desire realm's own covered-undefined formations have ignorance as four of their causes, exactly as already stated, and also possess all four conditions. Wisdom is not their cause, but does provide only one condition — the dominant condition.

The desire realm's own uncovered-undefined formations, excluding ignorance's own ripening, do not have ignorance as their cause, but do possess three conditions, excluding the causal condition. Wisdom is not their cause, but does provide only one condition — the dominant condition. Ignorance's own ripening has ignorance as one of its causes — namely, the ripening-cause — and also possesses three conditions, excluding the object-condition, since ignorance's own ripening is not included within the mental sense-field. Wisdom is not its cause, but does provide only one condition — the dominant condition. The form realm's own wholesome formations have neither wisdom nor ignorance as their cause, but do possess three conditions, excluding the causal condition. The form realm's own covered-undefined formations have ignorance as four of their causes — namely, the correspondence-cause, the co-existent-cause, the homogeneous-cause, and the universally-pervasive-cause — and also possess all four conditions. Wisdom is not their cause, but does provide two conditions — the object and the dominant condition. The form realm's own uncovered-undefined formations do not have ignorance as their cause, but do possess three conditions, excluding the causal condition. Wisdom is not their cause, but does provide only one condition — the dominant condition. Just as has been stated for the form realm's own three kinds of formations, the formless realm's own three kinds should be understood in exactly the same way. Uncontaminated formations, excluding the very first instance of wisdom together with the acquisitions co-obtained with it, do not have ignorance as their cause, but do possess two conditions — the object and the dominant condition. Wisdom serves as three of their causes — namely, the correspondence-cause, the co-existent-cause, and the homogeneous-cause — and also possess all four conditions. The very first instance of wisdom does not have ignorance as its cause, but does possess two conditions — the object and the dominant condition; wisdom, too, is not its cause, but does provide only one condition — the dominant condition. The acquisitions co-obtained together with the very first instance of wisdom have neither wisdom nor ignorance as their cause, but do possess only one condition — the dominant condition. This, then, is the abbreviated Vibhāṣā treatment of this topic here. It is therefore soundly established, in principle, that every kind of "the formations" can indeed take both wisdom and ignorance as its condition, since the dominant-condition is never absent anywhere.

Is there a case of "the formations" that take neither ignorance nor wisdom as their condition? The answer: there is none. Why is this? Because no sentient being, since time immemorial, has ever failed, at some point, to slander the noble path itself as not the true path — and, having first slandered the path in this way, that being, at some later time, creates and increases karma that brings about the fruit of ruling a vast dominion of land,

or, at some later time, creates and increases karma that brings about the fruit of becoming a lesser king, or, at some later time, creates and increases karma that brings about the fruit of becoming a great king, or, at some later time, creates and increases karma that brings about the fruit of becoming a Wheel-Turning Monarch — by this cause, by this condition, and by that very noble path, in a chain of succession, one comes to obtain the vast dominion's own cities, towns, villages, people and non-people, livestock, grain crops, medicinal herbs, trees, and forests, all flourishing and thriving in abundance. In this way, the four conditions of that earlier mind serve, for the later mind, only as a single dominant-condition. Here, what is properly meant is that the uncontaminated noble path itself, and the wrong view that slanders that very path, are both able to serve as a condition for every contaminated wholesome karma and its fruit — revealing that every kind of "the formations" is never without wisdom and ignorance as its condition, since, through the dominant-condition, considered relative to one another in succession, there is never a case of its complete absence. "Karma that brings about the fruit of ruling a vast dominion of land" means karma capable of bringing about mastery and rulership over a vast dominion's own mountains, forests, rivers, seas, gardens, groves, and medicinal herbs, for one's own free use and enjoyment. "Karma that brings about the fruit of becoming a lesser king" means karma capable of bringing about occupying the rank of a lord over a fortified town. "Karma that brings about the fruit of becoming a great king" means karma capable of bringing about occupying the rank of a lord over an entire river-plain region. "Karma that brings about the fruit of becoming a Wheel-Turning Monarch" means karma capable of bringing about occupying a position of mastery over an entire continent, possessing the wheel-treasure and the rest, like the divine son Kurśāṇa-mūrdhaja and others. There are yet others who say: "karma that brings about the fruit of becoming a lesser king" means karma capable of bringing about occupying the rank of a lord over a river-plain region; "karma that brings about the fruit of becoming a great king" means karma capable of bringing about occupying the rank of a lord over an entire land-mass; "karma that brings about the fruit of becoming a Wheel-Turning Monarch" means karma capable of bringing about occupying a position of mastery over two continents and the like. There are yet others who say: "karma that brings about the fruit of becoming a lesser king" means karma capable of bringing about occupying the rank of a lord over an entire land-mass; "karma that brings about the fruit of becoming a great king" means karma capable of bringing about occupying the rank of a lord over two or three continents; "karma that brings about the fruit of becoming a Wheel-Turning Monarch" means karma capable of bringing about occupying the rank of a lord over all four continents.

There are yet others who say: "karma that brings about the fruit of becoming a lesser king" means karma capable of bringing about occupying the rank of a king appointed by a Wheel-Turning Monarch himself; "karma that brings about the fruit of becoming a great king" means karma capable of bringing about occupying the rank of a Wheel-Turning Monarch's own crown prince; "karma that brings about the fruit of becoming a Wheel-Turning Monarch" means karma capable of bringing about occupying the very position of a Wheel-Turning Monarch himself. There are yet other masters who say: "karma that brings about the fruit of becoming a lesser king" means karma capable of bringing about occupying the position of the Wheel-Turning King's own crown prince before his anointing; "karma that brings about the fruit of becoming a great king" means karma capable of bringing about occupying the position of the Wheel-Turning King's own crown prince after his anointing; "karma that brings about the fruit of becoming a Wheel-Turning Monarch" means karma capable of bringing about occupying the very position of a Wheel-Turning Monarch himself. "By this cause" means by the very wholesome karma thereby created; "by this condition" means by the very wrong view slandering the path; "by that very noble path" means by the very noble path thereby slandered. By this cause and condition, and by that very noble path, in a chain of succession, one comes to obtain every internal and external ripening fruit and dominant fruit belonging to sentient and non-sentient beings alike, within a vast dominion of land. What, exactly, is this matter? Just as the outside religious teachers, wearied by the world's own rise and fall, and further wearied by the suffering of encountering what one hates and being separated from what one loves, feeling that household life confines them like a prison, thereupon go forth from home. Having gone forth, seeking liberation, they undertake all manner of improper austerities, holding them to be pure and capable of realizing liberation. Yet the more they rely upon this mistaken ascetic path, the further they drift from the true noble path — and, being far from the noble path in this way, they fail to realize liberation, and so they reflect: though liberation does indeed exist, there must be no true path to it — for, were there such a path, why could I not attain it?

I have practiced such difficult ascetic exercises for so very long, yet have still not attained it — and so I know there is no true path at all. Having thus slandered the path, they abandon what they had previously upheld, and reflect further: even those who cultivate merit still fail to find true ease and mastery amid birth and death — how much more so, then, those who cultivate no merit at all! Having reflected thus, they seek wealth and treasure through every manner of skillful means, holding a great charitable assembly, and, on that occasion, make a vow: may this merit of mine bring about mastery over the land and its internal and external possessions, whether as a lesser king, a great king, or a Wheel-Turning Monarch, ruling and governing freely, obtaining every fruit exactly as I have wished. And, further, just as those within the true teaching, too, wearied by the world's own rising and falling life-span and wealth and status, and further wearied by the suffering of encountering what one hates and being separated from what one loves, feeling that household life confines them like a prison, revolving through birth and death and undergoing intense suffering, thereupon, for the sake of liberation, go forth from home. Having gone forth, desiring little and content with what they have, they diligently undertake ascetic practice, never sleeping through the first or last watch of the night, relying on a mountain cliff, sitting in the small or large seven-limbed cross-legged posture, body upright, mind still in meditation, from the setting of the sun to its rising, single-mindedly contemplating the very sign of concentration they have received, blazing forth in diligent effort across a long span of time — yet, owing to two causes and conditions, still fail to attain the noble path: first, their wholesome roots are not yet ripe; second, they give rise to a mistaken preparatory effort. As for "wholesome roots not yet ripe": that is, relying on the Buddha's own teaching, at the very swiftest, it takes three lifetimes to attain liberation — in the first life, one plants the very seed capable of liberation; in the second life, one cultivates it to full ripeness; in the third life, once it has already ripened, one draws forth the noble path itself, thereby realizing liberation. Such a person had not yet, in an earlier life, planted this very seed capable of liberation, and so, in this present life, his wholesome roots are not yet ripe. As for "giving rise to a mistaken preparatory effort": that is, he upholds and practices an inverted antidote — and it is for these reasons that he fails to attain the noble path. He thereupon reflects: though liberation does indeed exist, there must be no true path to it —

for, were there such a path, why could I not attain it? I have practiced such diligent ascetic exercises for so very long, yet have still not attained it — and so I know there is no true path at all. Having thus slandered the path, he abandons what he had previously upheld, and reflects further: even those who cultivate merit still fail to find true ease and mastery amid birth and death — how much more so, then, those who cultivate no merit at all! Having reflected thus, he seeks wealth and treasure through every manner of skillful means, holding a great charitable assembly, tending to and serving the sick, honoring and supporting the virtuous, whether performing these acts himself or urging others to do them, and, upon seeing such acts performed, rejoicing in them — cultivating every kind of merit, blazing forth without weariness. On the occasion of this merit, he makes a vow: may this merit of mine bring about mastery over the land and its internal and external possessions, whether as a lesser king, a great king, or a Wheel-Turning Monarch, ruling and governing freely, obtaining every fruit exactly as I have wished. Having then come to occupy that royal position, he governs the realm according to the true Dharma, causing every internal and external possession to flourish and thrive abundantly. Were it not for the wrong view that slanders the path, no such thing could ever have arisen at all — and so that very noble path serves, for this wrong view, as a proximate dominant-condition. Were it not for that very wrong view, no mind of giving, arising together with wholesomeness, could ever have arisen either — and so that defiled dharma serves, for the undefiled dharma, as a proximate dominant-condition. Were it not for that meritorious giving, no royal rank could ever have been obtained — and so, if there were no royal rank, no internal or external possessions could ever have flourished — and so a sentient being's own dharmas serve, for these external things, as a proximate dominant-condition. As for "the four conditions of the earlier mind" — that is, the mind arising together with wrong view possesses all four conditions in full: its associated and co-existent dharmas are its causal condition;

doubt and the rest are its immediately-antecedent condition; the noble path itself is its object-condition; every other dharma, excluding its own self-nature, is its dominant-condition. As for "for the later mind, it serves only as a single dominant-condition" — that is, the earlier mind's own four conditions, relative to the later mind arising together with giving, serve only as a single dominant-condition. One asks: does the later mind arising together with giving also possess all four conditions? The causal condition refers to its own associated and co-existent dharmas; the immediately-antecedent condition refers to the mind and mental factors immediately preceding it; the object-condition refers to the very thing relinquished and the one who receives the gift; the dominant-condition refers to every other dharma, excluding its own self-nature. In just this same way, the later mind's own four conditions, relative to the earlier mind, likewise serve only as a single dominant-condition.

Why does this present passage not state this as well? The answer: it ought also to be stated, and that it is not so stated should be understood as a matter left incomplete. Some say: since the earlier can be inferred from the later by the very same principle, it is therefore not restated. There are yet other masters who say: the earlier mind serving as condition for the later accords with the proper meaning, while the later serving as condition for the earlier does not, and it is for this reason that this is not stated. One asks: the later mind's own four conditions are already entirely subsumed within the earlier mind's own four conditions, since its dominant-condition, excluding only its own self-nature, includes every other dharma — why, then, does the treatise state that the earlier mind's own four conditions serve, for the later mind, only as a single dominant-condition? The answer: this should be understood as speaking specifically of the proximate dominant-condition — that is, the earlier wrong-view's own proximate dominant-condition does not enter into the later mind's own causal-condition-and-the-rest content;

rather, the earlier mind's own three other conditions are entirely subsumed within the later mind's own broader dominant-condition, this not entering into the earlier mind's own content in return — just as stated elsewhere for the eye-consciousness's own four conditions: its associated and co-existent dharmas are its causal-condition; the immediately preceding mind and mental factors are its immediately-antecedent condition; visible form is its object-condition; the eye is its dominant-condition —

just as it is said there that this speaks only of the proximate dominant-condition, so too should this present case be understood — and so no fault follows. There are yet others who say: within the earlier wrong-view mind's own dominant-condition, there does, in strict truth, exist the later mind's full set of four conditions as well; yet, since the dominant-condition's own meaning is broad and pervasive, present everywhere, it is for this reason singled out alone for mention. One asks: if that is so, then the later mind, too, ought to be subsumed within the earlier mind's own dominant-condition — yet it has already been stated that the earlier mind's own four conditions serve, for the later mind, as its dominant-condition — would this not then mean that a single self-nature serves as its own dominant-condition, thereby contradicting this school's own basic tenet? The answer: this should be understood as speaking of the earlier mind's own four conditions serving, for the later mind, only as a single dominant-condition, excluding its own self-nature — and, since this was not restated here, it is only because it had already been stated earlier — that is, in the immediately preceding portion of this very same nyāsa, within this very same fascicle, it was already stated that every consciousness, excluding its own self-nature, serves as an efficient-cause for everything else, and it is for this reason that it is not restated here. If even the wording of some other treatise, some other chapter, some other day's own discourse could still properly serve as evidence here, how much more so, then, should the wording of this very treatise, this very chapter, and the immediately preceding day's own discourse serve as evidence. There are yet others who say: this present passage speaks specifically of the proximate dominant-condition, and so no fault follows.

Further, if this is stated with reference to the causal condition alone, then, with reference to that meaning, three alternatives should be formulated instead; it is only because the earlier discussion was framed with reference to all four conditions together that only the case of "both together" resulted. Is there a case of "the formations" conditioned by ignorance but not by wisdom? The answer: there is.

This refers to ignorance's own ripening, and every defiled formation. Here, ignorance's own ripening has ignorance as one of its causes, namely the ripening-cause; wisdom is not its cause. Defiled formations have ignorance as four of their causes — namely, the correspondence-cause, the co-existent-cause, the homogeneous-cause, and the universally-pervasive-cause; wisdom is not their cause.

Is there a case of "the formations" conditioned by wisdom but not by ignorance? The answer: there is — namely, excluding the very first instance of wisdom, every other uncontaminated formation. That is, every other uncontaminated formation has wisdom as three of its causes — namely, the correspondence-cause, the co-existent-cause, and the homogeneous-cause; ignorance is not its cause. Is there a case of "the formations" conditioned by both ignorance and wisdom? The answer: there is none. Why is this? Because wisdom and ignorance are separated by too great a distance — there is certainly no single instance of "the formations" that takes both as its cause at once, just as it is said in a verse:

"Space and the great earth are separated by a great distance; the near and far shores of the ocean are likewise far apart; the place where the sun rises and the place where it sets are likewise far apart; the true Dharma and false teachings are farther apart still, than the farthest of the far." Is there a case of "the formations" conditioned by neither ignorance nor wisdom? The answer: there is — namely, excluding ignorance's own ripening, every other uncovered-undefined formation, together with the very first instance of wisdom's own contaminated wholesome formations. One asks: what, exactly, is meant here by "excluding ignorance's own ripening"? The answer: this refers to the desire realm's own thirty-four latent tendencies, together with their associated and co-existent arising and the rest, and the ripening these bring about — this, then, is what is meant by "ignorance's own ripening." Some say: the desire realm's own thirty-four unwholesome latent tendencies' own acquisition, together with the ripening it brings about, is also called "ignorance's own ripening," since the acquisition and what is acquired share the very same fruit. There are yet other masters who say: the ripening brought about by unwholesome bodily and verbal karma is also called "ignorance's own ripening," since what gives rise to an act and the act itself share the very same fruit. The verdict: neither of these positions is sound — an acquisition and what is acquired, or what gives rise to an act and the act itself, considered relative to one another, are never a co-existent-cause for one another, and do not share the very same fruit; a latent tendency's own acquisition, and the ripening brought about by bodily and verbal karma, are therefore not "ignorance's own ripening" — and so it is the first position stated that is sound in principle. As for "every other uncovered-undefined formation," this refers to every wholesome dharma's own ripening, every unwholesome bodily and verbal karma's own ripening together with its arising and the rest, every unwholesome acquisition's own ripening together with its arising and the rest, every nourished material form together with its various acquisitions and arising and the rest, every equal-outflow dharma together with its various acquisitions and arising and the rest, and every dharma associated with, or co-existent with, the deportment-related, craft-based, or transformation-fruit mind, together with the bodily and verbal karma thereby given rise to and its various acquisitions and arising and the rest — every one of these formations has neither wisdom nor ignorance as its cause,

yet is still not without a cause altogether — some have four causes, some three, some two, each to be explained according to its own proper principle. "The very first instance of wisdom" refers to the presently-manifesting forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering. Ignorance is not its cause, since it possesses an uncontaminated nature; wisdom, too, is not its cause, whether co-existent with it or preceding it —

since it has no prior instance of wisdom co-existent with or preceding it. Yet it is still not without a cause altogether, since it possesses a correspondence-cause and a co-existent-cause. One asks: the acquisitions co-obtained together with the very first instance of wisdom likewise have neither wisdom nor ignorance as their cause, yet are still not without a cause altogether, since their co-arising and the rest are able to serve as a co-existent-cause for them — why, then, is this fourth alternative not stated, and why is the earlier second alternative not excluded accordingly? The answer: this, too, ought to be stated, and that earlier alternative, too, ought to be excluded; that it is not stated in this way should be understood as a matter this discussion leaves incomplete. Some say: this case has already been subsumed within the second alternative, since it is a dharma co-existent with the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering. The verdict: that position ought not to be maintained, since an acquisition and what is acquired are never a co-existent-cause for one another, as already stated above — and so the earlier position stated is sound. In accordance with this very meaning, a further question-and-answer arises: is there a case, within the span of a single moment, of twenty-four acquisitions arising together with the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering, of the very same kind as that very forbearance, and yet having no causal relationship with the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering at all? The answer: there is — namely, for one who, relying on the fourth dhyāna, enters into the certainty of rightness: at the very moment the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering manifests before him, the acquisitions of six stages, each possessing four aspects, belonging to the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering, all manifest together at once — and these have no causal relationship with the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering at all. "Contaminated wholesome formations" refers to every contaminated wholesome five-aggregate — wisdom and ignorance are neither its cause, yet it is still not without a cause altogether, having either three causes or two, each to be explained according to its own proper principle. It is on this account that it is said: with reference to the causal condition, the pairing of ignorance, wisdom, and the formations admits of three alternatives.

One asks: why is it named "ignorance"? What does "ignorance" actually mean? The answer: the sense of not penetrating, not comprehending, and not understanding is the very meaning of "ignorance." One asks: if that is so, then every dharma other than ignorance, too, fails to penetrate, comprehend, or understand — why, then, are these not also called "ignorance"? The answer: whatever fails to penetrate, comprehend, or understand, taking delusion as its own characteristic, is ignorance; every other dharma is not so, and so is not ignorance. One asks: why is it named "wisdom"? What does "wisdom" actually mean? The answer: the sense of being able to penetrate, comprehend, and understand is the very meaning of "wisdom." One asks: if that is so, then contaminated wisdom, too, is able to penetrate, comprehend, and understand — why, then, is it not also called "wisdom"? The answer: only penetration, comprehension, and understanding capable of truly and thoroughly penetrating the four noble truths is properly called "wisdom" — every contaminated wisdom, though it does penetrate, comprehend, and understand, cannot truly and thoroughly penetrate the four noble truths, and so is not called "wisdom," just as heat, summit, forbearance, and supreme mundane dharma, the four aids to penetration, though capable of vigorously investigating the four noble truths, have not yet truly penetrated them, and so are not called "wisdom." Further, only penetration, comprehension, and understanding capable of ultimately, completely penetrating the four noble truths is properly called "wisdom" — every contaminated wisdom, though it does penetrate, comprehend, and understand, cannot ultimately, completely penetrate the four noble truths, and so is not called "wisdom."

Further, only penetration, comprehension, and understanding capable of decisively penetrating the four noble truths is properly called "wisdom" — every contaminated wisdom, though it does penetrate, comprehend, and understand, cannot decisively penetrate the four noble truths, and so is not called "wisdom." Further, only penetration, comprehension, and understanding capable of, having once seen the four noble truths, never again failing to see them, having once known them, never again failing to know them, having once directly realized them, never again being overcome by ignorance, hesitation, or mistaken wisdom, is properly called "wisdom."

Every contaminated wisdom, though it does penetrate, comprehend, and understand, cannot achieve this with respect to the four noble truths, and so is not called "wisdom." Further, only penetration, comprehension, and understanding capable of cutting off what is to be cut off, so that it can never again grow or increase in strength, is properly called "wisdom" — every contaminated wisdom, though it does penetrate, comprehend, and understand, lacks this power, and so is not called "wisdom." Further, only penetration, comprehension, and understanding capable of destroying every form of existence is properly called "wisdom" — every contaminated wisdom, though it does penetrate, comprehend, and understand, only increases existence further, and so is not called "wisdom." Further, only penetration, comprehension, and understanding capable of cutting off the continuity of existence and the continuity of aging-and-death is properly called "wisdom," able to bring the cycle of birth and death to its ultimate cessation — every contaminated wisdom, though it does penetrate, comprehend, and understand, lacks any such power, and so is not called "wisdom." Further, only penetration, comprehension, and understanding capable of proceeding toward the activity that extinguishes suffering, and toward the activity that extinguishes the arising, existence, and aging-and-death of the mundane world, is properly called "wisdom" — every contaminated wisdom, though it does penetrate, comprehend, and understand, proceeds instead toward the activity that accumulates suffering, and toward the activity that accumulates the arising, existence, and aging-and-death of the mundane world, and so is not called "wisdom."

Further, only penetration, comprehension, and understanding that is not a basis for identity-view, not a basis for a latent tendency, not a basis for inverted view, not craving, hatred, delusion, or conceit, not a resting-place for these, free of taint, impurity, and turbidity, and not falling under the truths of suffering and origin, is properly called "wisdom" — every contaminated wisdom, though it does penetrate, comprehend, and understand, is exactly the opposite of all this, and so is not called "wisdom." Further, only penetration, comprehension, and understanding in which no ignorance whatsoever remains is properly called "wisdom" — every contaminated wisdom, though it does penetrate, comprehend, and understand, still retains ignorance within it, and so is not called "wisdom." Further, a healing incantation is called a "clarity" — just as, in the world, a person possessed by a ghost or spirit can be healed through such an incantation's own clarity, so too is the noble path able to heal every sentient being's own affliction-sickness, and it is for this reason that it is called "wisdom" — every contaminated wisdom is unable to heal affliction-sickness to its ultimate completion, and so is not called "wisdom." Further, every contaminated wisdom accords with both of two opposing camps, since, toward both camps alike, it serves as three conditions — and so it is called neither "wisdom" nor "ignorance," just as a person who accords equally with both an enemy and a friend is, relative to that other person, neither truly a friend nor truly an enemy — the case here is exactly the same. Further, contaminated wisdom's own class of dharma is able to slander true wisdom, and so is not called "wisdom" — contaminated wholesome wisdom, though it accords with wisdom, is nonetheless able to give rise to the wrong view that slanders the path, exactly like a rebellious minister, and so is not called "wisdom." Further, every uncontaminated wisdom illuminates the four noble truths with perfect clarity and purity, exactly as the eye, in the light of day, sees every visible form and image — and it is for this reason that it is called "wisdom"; every contaminated wisdom's own seeing of the four noble truths is not clear or pure,

exactly as the eye, in the darkness of night, sees every visible form and image — and it is for this reason that it is not called "wisdom."

One asks: excluding wisdom-caused dharmas and non-wisdom dharmas, how many elements, sense fields, and aggregates does every remaining dharma belong to? The answer: one element, one sense field, and one aggregate. Here, "excluding wisdom-caused dharmas" refers to every other uncontaminated wisdom, excluding the very first instance of wisdom; "non-wisdom dharmas" refers to every contaminated dharma, and every other uncontaminated dharma excluding wisdom; "every remaining dharma" refers to the very first instance of wisdom itself — belonging to one element, one sense field, and one aggregate, namely the dharma-element, the dharma-sense-field, and the formations-aggregate. One asks: excluding mind-caused dharmas and non-mind dharmas, how many elements, sense fields, and aggregates does every remaining dharma belong to? The answer: two elements, one sense field, and one aggregate. Here, "excluding mind-caused dharmas" refers to every other uncontaminated mind, excluding the mind associated with the presently-manifesting forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering; "non-mind dharmas" refers to the eleven sense fields; "every remaining dharma" refers to the mind associated with the presently-manifesting forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering — belonging to two elements, one sense field, and one aggregate, namely the mental element and the mental-consciousness element, the mental sense-field, and the consciousness-aggregate.

One asks: is whatever is wisdom also wisdom's own cause? The answer: four alternatives should be formulated. There is a case of what is wisdom but not wisdom's own cause — namely, a future instance of wisdom. There is a case of what is wisdom's own cause but is not wisdom — namely, a past-or-present, uncontaminated formation, excluding uncontaminated wisdom, together with the dharmas associated with, and co-existent with, a future instance of wisdom. There is a case of what is both wisdom and wisdom's own cause — namely, a past-or-present instance of uncontaminated wisdom. There is a case of what is neither wisdom nor wisdom's own cause — if speaking of this same kind of dharma, this refers to a future uncontaminated acquisition, together with its arising and the rest; if not speaking of this same kind of dharma, this refers to every case excluded from those just described. One asks: is whatever is wisdom conditioned by wisdom as its cause? The answer: four alternatives should be formulated. There is a case of what is wisdom but not conditioned by wisdom as its cause —

namely, the very first instance of wisdom. There is a case of what is conditioned by wisdom as its cause but is not itself wisdom — namely, the dharmas associated with and co-existent with wisdom, and every other uncontaminated acquisition, excluding the very first one, together with its arising and the rest. There is a case of what is both wisdom and conditioned by wisdom as its cause — namely, every other instance of uncontaminated wisdom, excluding the very first. There is a case of what is neither wisdom nor conditioned by wisdom as its cause — if speaking of this same kind of dharma, this refers to the very first uncontaminated acquisition, together with its arising and the rest; if not speaking of this same kind of dharma, this refers to every case excluded from those just described. Further, there is the path of one who follows through faith, and the path of one who follows through the Dharma — the path of one who follows through faith serves as cause both for the path of one who follows through faith, and for the path of one who follows through the Dharma; the path of one who follows through the Dharma serves as cause only for the path of one who follows through the Dharma, never for the path of one who follows through faith, since the latter is inferior to it. There are yet others who say: the path of one who follows through faith likewise serves as cause only for the path of one who follows through faith, never for the path of one who follows through the Dharma, since, within the path of seeing, one who follows through faith never converts into one who follows through the Dharma. The verdict: this position ought not to be maintained —

since they share the very same continuum, and this is a genuinely attainable relationship, and, further, since it is itself a superior path — how could it possibly fail to serve as a cause? The earlier position stated is therefore sound. Further, there is the path of resolute faith and the path of vision-attained — the path of resolute faith serves as cause both for the path of resolute faith, and for the path of vision-attained;

the path of vision-attained serves as cause only for the path of vision-attained, never for the path of resolute faith, since the latter is inferior to it. Further, there is the path of timely liberation and the path of unshakable liberation — the path of timely liberation serves as cause both for the path of timely liberation, and for the path of unshakable liberation; the path of unshakable liberation serves as cause only for the path of unshakable liberation, never for the path of timely liberation, since the latter is inferior to it. Further, there is the path of seeing, the path of cultivation, and the path beyond training — the path of seeing serves as cause both for the path of seeing, and for the path of cultivation and the path beyond training;

the path of cultivation serves as cause both for the path of cultivation, and for the path beyond training, never for the path of seeing, since the latter is inferior to it; the path beyond training serves as cause only for the path beyond training, never for the paths of seeing or cultivation, since these are inferior to it. Further, there is the path of the śrāvaka, the path of the pratyekabuddha, and the path of the Buddha — the śrāvaka's own path serves as cause only for the śrāvaka's own path, never for either of the other two paths, since these are separated by too great a distance; the pratyekabuddha's own path serves as cause only for the pratyekabuddha's own path, never for the śrāvaka's own path, since the latter is inferior to it, and also being separated by too great a distance, nor for the Buddha's own path, being separated by too great a distance; the Buddha's own path serves as cause only for the Buddha's own path, never for either of the other two paths, since these are inferior to it, and also being separated by too great a distance. Further, the noble path is realized in dependence on both a male body and a female body — the noble path realized in dependence on a female body serves as cause both for the noble path realized in dependence on a female body, and for the noble path realized in dependence on a male body;

the noble path realized in dependence on a male body serves as cause only for the noble path realized in dependence on a male body, never for the noble path realized in dependence on a female body, since the latter is inferior to it. There are yet others who say: these two noble paths mutually serve as cause for one another, according to whichever is sharper or duller in a given case. The verdict: this position ought not to be maintained, since the superiority or inferiority of the male and female bodies is fixed and determinate,

and so the superiority or inferiority of the noble path realized in dependence on each is likewise fixed. There are yet other masters who say: these two noble paths never serve as cause for one another at all, since their respective categories differ. The verdict: this position, too, ought not to be maintained, since one who first enters the noble path in a female body, and later transforms into a male body, would then have his own arisen noble path left entirely without a cause — and it is for this reason that the position stated earlier is sound. There are yet others who say there is only a single path; there are yet others who say there are many paths. Those who say there is a single path hold that one does not say the path of seeing is itself the path of cultivation and the path beyond training, since these three paths genuinely differ — but, with respect to the noble path realized in dependence on a male or a female body, since the noble path within these two bodies is one and the same, they speak of a single path. Those who say there are many paths hold that the noble path within these two bodies is each separately distinct, since their respective categories differ. Those who say there are many paths further divide into two positions:

the first holds that the noble path realized in dependence on a female body, within a female body, is both attained, present within the body, actually possessed, and actually manifest; the noble path realized in dependence on a male body, within a female body, is attained but not present within the body, actually possessed but not actually manifest. The noble path realized in dependence on a male body, within a male body, is both attained, present within the body, actually possessed, and actually manifest; the noble path realized in dependence on a female body, within a male body, is neither attained, nor present within the body, nor actually possessed, nor actually manifest — since, once the noble path has been attained in dependence on a male body, there can never again be any occasion of taking on a female body afterward, and, further, since the support on which that female-body path depended is itself base and inferior. The second position holds that the noble path realized in dependence on a female body, within a female body, is both attained, present within the body, actually possessed, and actually manifest; the noble path realized in dependence on a male body, within a female body, is neither attained, nor present within the body, nor actually possessed, nor actually manifest —

since their respective categories differ. Within a male body, the same two paths should be understood in exactly the same way. The verdict: this position is unsound — one who has first attained the noble path in dependence on a female body, and later transforms into a male body, ought then to have to attain the path all over again — and so it is the position stated just before this one that is sound. In this same way, the path of seeing depends on nine kinds of body —

namely, humankind's three continents, excluding Uttarakuru, and the six heavens of the desire realm — these nine alone are all capable of entering the path of seeing. Those who say there is a single path hold that, though the path of seeing depends on these nine kinds of body, it is a single path, since these bodies belong to the very same category — that is, the very support these depend upon, whether male or female, belongs to the very same kind. Those who say there are many paths hold that the path of seeing depends on these nine kinds of body, each separately distinct, since their respective bases differ. Those who say there are many paths further divide into two positions: the first holds that the path of seeing realized in dependence on a Jambudvīpa body, within a Jambudvīpa body, is both attained, present within the body, actually possessed, and actually manifest; the path of seeing realized in dependence on any of the other eight kinds of body, within a Jambudvīpa body, is attained but not present within the body, actually possessed but not actually manifest. The second holds that the path of seeing realized in dependence on a Jambudvīpa body, within a Jambudvīpa body, is both attained, present within the body, actually possessed, and actually manifest; the path of seeing realized in dependence on any of the other eight kinds of body, within a Jambudvīpa body, is neither attained, nor present within the body, nor actually possessed, nor actually manifest. The verdict: this position is unsound — one who has attained the fruit of stream-entry in dependence on a Jambudvīpa body, and is later reborn elsewhere, ought then to have to attain the fruit all over again — yet no such thing occurs, and so it is the position stated just before this one that is sound. The path of seeing realized in dependence on each of the other eight kinds of body should be understood in exactly the same way. In this same way, the path of cultivation depends on bodies of all three realms. Those who say there is a single path hold that the path of cultivation, depending on bodies of all three realms, is a single path; those who say there are many paths hold that the path of cultivation, depending on bodies of all three realms, is each separately distinct. Those who say there are many paths further divide into two positions: the first holds that the path of cultivation realized in dependence on a desire-realm body, within a desire-realm body, is both attained, present within the body, actually possessed, and actually manifest; the path of cultivation realized in dependence on a body of the two higher realms, within a desire-realm body, is attained but not present within the body, actually possessed but not actually manifest. The second holds that the path of cultivation realized in dependence on a desire-realm body, within a desire-realm body, is both attained, present within the body, actually possessed, and actually manifest; the path of cultivation realized in dependence on a body of the form or formless realm, within a desire-realm body, is neither attained, nor present within the body, nor actually possessed, nor actually manifest. The verdict: this position is unsound — one who has attained the fruit of non-returning in dependence on a desire-realm body, and is later reborn in a higher realm, ought then to have to attain the fruit all over again — yet no such thing occurs, and so it is the position stated just before this one that is sound. The path of cultivation realized in dependence on a body of the higher realm should be understood in exactly the same way. The path beyond training belonging to both vehicles should likewise be understood according to this very same principle. In this same way, unsurpassed perfect enlightenment, depending on a Jambudvīpa body during the hundred-year era, up through depending on a body during the eighty-thousand-year era — those who say there is a single path hold that unsurpassed perfect enlightenment, in dependence on a hundred-year-era body, is precisely the very same as unsurpassed perfect enlightenment, up through in dependence on an eighty-thousand-year-era body; those who say there are many paths hold that

unsurpassed perfect enlightenment, in dependence on a hundred-year-era body, and up through in dependence on an eighty-thousand-year-era body, is each, in its own substance, separately distinct. Those who say there are many paths further divide into two positions: the first holds that unsurpassed perfect enlightenment realized in dependence on a hundred-year-era body, within a hundred-year-era body, is both attained, present within the body, actually possessed, and actually manifest; unsurpassed perfect enlightenment realized in dependence on any other era's body, within a hundred-year-era body, is attained but not present within the body, actually possessed but not actually manifest. The second holds that unsurpassed perfect enlightenment realized in dependence on a hundred-year-era body, within a hundred-year-era body, is both attained, present within the body, actually possessed, and actually manifest; unsurpassed perfect enlightenment realized in dependence on any other era's body, within a hundred-year-era body,

is neither attained, nor present within the body, nor actually possessed, nor actually manifest. One asks: if that is so, then why does the Prajñaptiśāstra state that every Buddha's own virtues are, in every case, entirely equal? The answer: it is on account of three matters — first, equality of practice, since every Buddha, across three incalculable aeons, cultivates the four perfections to their full completion in order to attain unsurpassed perfect enlightenment; second, equality of dharma-body, since every Buddha alike accomplishes the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, and every other boundless, supreme virtue; third, equality of benefit, since every single Buddha liberates countless, boundless sentient beings alike. Further, equality of faculty, since every Buddha alike abides in the very highest grade of faculty. Further, equality of precept, since every Buddha alike attains the very highest grade of precept. Further, equality of path, since every Buddha alike accomplishes the very highest grade of path. The verdict: it is the position stated just before this one that is sound, in accordance with the principle of shared kind.