The Arrow Shot Notch Into Notch

Should in-breath and out-breath be said to depend on body, or to depend on mind? And so on, as elaborated at length. One asks: why does the treatise take up this topic? The answer: it is in order to resolve a genuine doubt — that is, scripture states: the Buddha told the elder: this in-and-out breath is a bodily dharma, rooted in body, tied to body, operating in dependence on body. Yet the Prajñaptiśāstra states: why is it that a dead person's in-and-out breath no longer operates? Because in-and-out breath operates through the power of mind, and a dead person, having no mind, possesses only a body. This in-and-out breath is thus said, in one place, to depend on body, and, in another, to depend on mind — and one might come to doubt that these two statements are both incomplete in meaning, or, alternatively, that they are both complete in meaning — and it is in order to display the true, genuine intent of both statements that this treatise is composed.

Should in-breath and out-breath be said to depend on body, or to depend on mind? The answer: it should be said that they depend both on body and on mind, each as appropriate. What, exactly, is meant by "as appropriate"? Some say: this refers to the lower, middling, and upper grades, each as appropriate — that is, in-and-out breath in infancy is of the lower grade, in the prime of life is of the middling grade, and in old age is of the upper grade. There are yet others who say: it is through four factors that in-and-out breath is said to be "as appropriate," since in-and-out breath operates only through the presence of all four: first, possessing a body that breath depends upon; second, the wind-channels being open; third, the pores being open; fourth, a coarse mind belonging to the breath-stage manifesting before one. In-and-out breath necessarily requires the presence of all four of these factors together in order to operate, and it is on this account that it is said to be "as appropriate." In order to display this very meaning, it is further stated: if in-and-out breath depended only on body, and not at all on mind, then, in the state of the concentration of non-perception or the concentration of cessation, breath ought likewise to operate, since one there does possess a body that breath depends upon, and the wind-channels are indeed open, and the pores are indeed open — it is only that no coarse mind belonging to the breath-stage manifests before one, since one there is without mind altogether; though three of the four factors are present, one is lacking, and it is for this reason that breath does not operate. If in-and-out breath depended only on mind, and not at all on body, then sentient beings of the formless realm ought likewise to have in-and-out breath operating — yet that realm entirely lacks all four factors, and it is for this reason that breath does not operate there.

If in-and-out breath depended on both body and mind together but were not "as appropriate," then, within the eggshell or the mother's womb, at the kalala, arbuda, peśī, and ghana stages, the faculties not yet complete or mature, and also within the fourth dhyāna, breath ought likewise to operate. One asks: why does breath not operate at the kalala stage? The answer: because it is too sparse and thin at that stage — were breath to operate there, it would flow away and be lost. One asks: why does breath not operate at the arbuda, peśī, and ghana stages, the faculties not yet complete or mature? The answer: because, at that stage, the body's own wind-channels are not yet open, and the pores are not yet open — were breath to operate there, the body would disperse and be destroyed. Yet, within the eggshell or the mother's womb, from the kalala stage up through the stage of the faculties not yet complete or mature, at that time there is not yet any body that breath depends upon, the wind-channels are not yet open, and the pores are not yet open — only the coarse mind belonging to the breath-stage is present; though one of the four factors is present, three are lacking, and it is for this reason that breath does not operate. One asks: why does breath not operate within the fourth dhyāna? The answer: because mind, at that stage, is subtle — that is, in-and-out breath depends upon a coarse mind in order to operate, and, from the fourth dhyāna upward, the mind belonging to every stage is exceedingly subtle, and it is for this reason that breath does not operate. Further, because mind there operates through an inward gateway — that is, breath necessarily depends upon a mind operating through an outward gateway, and, from the fourth dhyāna upward, mind operates through an inward gateway, and it is for this reason that breath does not operate. Further, because mind there is engaged with inward matters — that is, breath necessarily depends upon a mind engaged with outward matters, and, from the fourth dhyāna upward, mind is engaged with inward matters, and it is for this reason that breath does not operate. Further, because of its own extreme quiescence — that is, breath necessarily depends upon an agitated, restless mind, just as a person walking along a road, when restless, stirs up the dust — if mind is restless, in-and-out breath thereby arises; and, from the fourth dhyāna upward, mind is exceedingly quiescent, and it is for this reason that breath does not operate. The Venerable Vasumitra explained it in this way: upon entering the fourth dhyāna, one's very support is thereby transformed — that is, the fourth dhyāna's own subtle great elements cause every pore to seal completely shut, without the slightest gap remaining, no longer capable of supporting breath — and it is for this reason that breath no longer operates there at that time. The Great Virtuous One stated: upon entering the fourth dhyāna, mind becomes unmoving; since mind is unmoving, the body, too, becomes unmoving; and, since the body is unmoving, breath no longer operates — for, upon entering that concentration, every moving dharma is stilled and extinguished. The Venerable Ghoṣa explained it in this way: upon entering the fourth dhyāna, every coarse heaviness is stilled and extinguished, and it is for this reason that breath no longer operates — that is, the desire realm possesses coarse sensual craving; the first dhyāna possesses applied and sustained thought; the second dhyāna possesses joy; the third dhyāna possesses bliss — and it is from these that bodily and mental coarse heaviness arises, and it is from this very coarse heaviness that in-and-out breath operates; the fourth dhyāna possesses none of these, and it is for this reason that breath does not operate there. In this way, if one, while still in a lower stage, enters the fourth dhyāna, one still possesses the body that breath depends upon, and the wind-channels remain open, yet the pores are not open, and no coarse mind belonging to the breath-stage manifests before one — though two of the four factors are present, two are lacking, and it is for this reason that breath does not operate. One asks: why does the treatise state only that entering the fourth dhyāna causes breath to no longer operate, without mentioning that being born in the fourth dhyāna does so as well? The answer: this is simply what the treatise's author intended, and so on, as stated at length. Further, it ought also to be stated that being born in the fourth dhyāna causes breath to no longer operate, and that this is not so stated should be understood as a matter left incomplete. Further, having already stated that entering that concentration has this effect, one should understand that being born there has this same effect as well, as scripture states: one first enters that dhyāna in this present life, and only afterward is reborn there. One asks: the fourth dhyāna, too, possesses the wind-element, since the four great elements are never mutually separated from one another — why, then, is it that one born there has no in-and-out breath operating? The answer: the fourth dhyāna, though it does possess the wind-element, this is not properly called "in-breath and out-breath," since, with respect to that body, it never actually goes in or out. Some say: one born there, though possessing the wind-element, lacks the four factors already stated above, and it is for this reason that this is not called "breath." Since in-and-out breath depends both on body and on mind, and operates "as appropriate," it is therefore the case that, from below the uninterrupted hell up through the heaven of universal purity, sentient beings whose faculties are complete and mature have in-and-out breath operating in dependence on body and mind. Here, "faculties complete and mature" means that the four factors already mentioned are complete — it does not mean that the eye and the other sense faculties are complete and mature. Since these four factors are what give rise to breath, they are called "faculties"; their completeness is called "full"; their ripeness, meaning their actual function, is precisely these four factors being complete and actually functioning — and it is on this account that it is said that the faculties are full and mature. Some say that the phrase "faculties full and mature" specifically distinguishes this from the stage within the womb or egg where the faculties are not yet full or mature, revealing the sense of the wind-channels being open and the pores being open; the two factors of body and mind are then separately explained immediately afterward. It should be understood, in this connection, that there is an in-breath, and there is an out-breath, and there is a stage possessing in-and-out breath, and a stage lacking in-and-out breath. "In-breath" refers to the breath-wind entering the body; "out-breath" refers to the breath-wind exiting the body. "A stage possessing in-and-out breath" refers to

the desire realm and the three lower dhyānas. "A stage lacking in-and-out breath" refers to the fourth dhyāna and the four formless spheres. Being born within a stage possessing in-and-out breath, if a mind belonging to a stage lacking in-and-out breath manifests before one, breath does not then operate. Being born within a stage lacking in-and-out breath, if a mind belonging to a stage possessing in-and-out breath manifests before one, breath likewise does not then operate. Being born within a stage possessing in-and-out breath, and having a mind belonging to a stage possessing in-and-out breath manifest before one, if this is not "as appropriate," breath still does not then operate. Only when one is born within a stage possessing in-and-out breath, and a mind belonging to a stage possessing in-and-out breath manifests before one, in the appropriate way — only then does breath actually come to operate.

One asks: is in-and-out breath bound to whichever stage the body is bound to, or to whichever stage the mind is bound to? Some say: it is bound according to the body's own stage. Those masters who hold that in-and-out breath is bound according to the body's own stage explain it in this way: for one born in the desire realm, if a desire-realm mind manifests before him, his desire-realm body's own desire-realm breath follows the course of that very desire-realm mind, and this very mind takes it as its object. If a first-dhyāna mind then manifests before that same being, his desire-realm body's own desire-realm breath follows the course of that very first-dhyāna mind, and this very mind takes it as its object. One asks: if that is so, how is the Prajñaptiśāstra to be reconciled with this, which states that desire-realm breath ceases at the very last uninterrupted path of becoming free of the desire realm's own defilement? The answer: desire-realm breath sometimes follows the course of a desire-realm mind, and sometimes follows the course of a first-dhyāna mind — when it follows the course of a desire-realm mind, it ceases at that very time; when it follows the course of a first-dhyāna mind, it manifests before one at that very time. Further, that passage speaks with reference to non-selective cessation, and so no real contradiction follows. If that same being's second- or third-dhyāna mind then manifests before him, his desire-realm body's own desire-realm breath follows the course of that very second- or third-dhyāna mind,

and this very mind takes it as its object. For one born in the first dhyāna: if a first-dhyāna mind manifests before him, his first-dhyāna body's own first-dhyāna breath follows the course of that very first-dhyāna mind, and this very mind takes it as its object. If a desire-realm mind then manifests before that same being, his first-dhyāna body's own first-dhyāna breath follows the course of that very desire-realm mind, yet this is not taken as an object by that mind. If a second- or third-dhyāna mind then manifests before that same being, his first-dhyāna body's own first-dhyāna breath follows the course of that very second- or third-dhyāna mind, and this very mind does take it as its object. For one born in the second dhyāna: if a second-dhyāna mind manifests before him, his second-dhyāna body's own second-dhyāna breath follows the course of that very second-dhyāna mind, and this very mind takes it as its object. If a desire-realm or first-dhyāna mind then manifests before that same being, his second-dhyāna body's own second-dhyāna breath follows the course of that very desire-realm or first-dhyāna mind, yet this is not taken as an object by that mind. If a third-dhyāna mind then manifests before that same being, his second-dhyāna body's own second-dhyāna breath follows the course of that very third-dhyāna mind,

and this very mind does take it as its object. For one born in the third dhyāna: if a third-dhyāna mind manifests before him, his third-dhyāna body's own third-dhyāna breath follows the course of that very third-dhyāna mind, and this very mind takes it as its object.

If a desire-realm, first-dhyāna, or second-dhyāna mind then manifests before that same being, his third-dhyāna body's own third-dhyāna breath follows the course of that very desire-realm, first-dhyāna, or second-dhyāna mind, yet this is not taken as an object by that mind. Those masters who hold that in-and-out breath is bound according to the body's own stage explain that desire-realm breath is taken as an object by minds of four stages; first-dhyāna breath is taken as an object by minds of three stages; second-dhyāna breath is taken as an object by minds of two stages; and third-dhyāna breath is taken as an object only by the third-dhyāna mind itself. One asks: if in-and-out breath is bound according to the body's own stage, how is the Prajñaptiśāstra to be reconciled with this, which asks why a dead person's own in-and-out breath no longer operates, and answers that in-and-out breath operates through the power of mind, and a dead person, having no mind, possesses only a body? The answer: this reveals that in-and-out breath operates by following mind, never truly departing from mind, and it is for this reason that it is stated in this way — it does not thereby state that this breath is bound according to mind's own stage. There are yet other masters who say: it is bound according to mind's own stage. Those masters who hold that in-and-out breath is bound according to mind's own stage explain it in this way: for one born in the desire realm, if a desire-realm mind manifests before him, his desire-realm body's own desire-realm breath follows the course of that very desire-realm mind, and this very mind takes it as its object. If a first-, second-, or third-dhyāna mind then manifests before that same being, his desire-realm body's own first-, second-, or third-dhyāna breath follows the course of that very first-, second-, or third-dhyāna mind, and this very mind takes it as its object. For one born in the first dhyāna: if a first-dhyāna mind manifests before him, his first-dhyāna body's own first-dhyāna breath follows the course of that very first-dhyāna mind, and this very mind takes it as its object. If a desire-realm mind then manifests before him, his first-dhyāna body's own desire-realm breath follows the course of that very desire-realm mind, and this very mind takes it as its object. If a second- or third-dhyāna mind then manifests before that same being, his first-dhyāna body's own second- or third-dhyāna breath follows the course of that very second- or third-dhyāna mind, and this very mind takes it as its object. For one born in the second dhyāna: if a second-dhyāna mind manifests before him, his second-dhyāna body's own second-dhyāna breath follows the course of that very second-dhyāna mind, and this very mind takes it as its object. If a desire-realm or first-dhyāna mind then manifests before that same being, his second-dhyāna body's own desire-realm or first-dhyāna breath follows the course of that very desire-realm or first-dhyāna mind, and this very mind takes it as its object. If a third-dhyāna mind then manifests before that same being, his second-dhyāna body's own third-dhyāna breath follows the course of that very third-dhyāna mind, and this very mind takes it as its object. For one born in the third dhyāna: if a third-dhyāna mind manifests before him, his third-dhyāna body's own third-dhyāna breath follows the course of that very third-dhyāna mind, and this very mind takes it as its object. If a desire-realm, first-, or second-dhyāna mind then manifests before that same being, his third-dhyāna body's own desire-realm, first-, or second-dhyāna breath follows the course of that very desire-realm, first-, or second-dhyāna mind, and this very mind takes it as its object. Those masters who hold that in-and-out breath is bound according to mind's own stage explain that desire-realm breath

is taken as an object only by a desire-realm mind, up through third-dhyāna breath being taken as an object only by a third-dhyāna mind. One asks: if in-and-out breath is bound according to mind's own stage, how is the sūtra to be reconciled with this, which states that the Buddha told the elder that this in-and-out breath is a bodily dharma, rooted in body, tied to body, operating in dependence on body? The answer: this reveals that in-and-out breath operates through the power of the body, never truly departing from the body, and it is for this reason that it is stated in this way —

it does not thereby state that this breath is bound according to the body's own stage. The verdict: since this in-and-out breath is bound according to the body's own stage, being itself a portion of the body, the earlier position stated is sound. One asks: as for in-and-out breath's own wind, does it enter first, or exit first? The answer: it should be said that it enters first — that is, this breath-wind first enters through the mouth and nose, flowing to the throat, then from the throat flowing to the heart and chest, then from the heart and chest flowing to the navel-wheel, then from the navel-wheel gradually flowing and dispersing throughout every limb and joint. Some say: it exits first — that is, within the navel-wheel there arises a breath-wind that flows and disperses both upward and downward, opening every pore, and only then finally exits to the outside. The verdict: this position ought not to be maintained, since breath-wind itself is unable to open the pores; it should instead be said that there is a karma-generated wind that opens the pores, and, once the pores are opened, only then does breath-wind enter and exit through them. One asks: within the womb or the egg, at which developmental stage does breath-wind begin to operate? The answer: only once the material faculties and the six sense fields are complete does breath-wind begin to operate — that is, at the very moment one is about to be born, breath-wind first enters; once breath-wind has entered, one is then called "already born"; at the moment one is about to die, breath-wind departs last, never entering again, and one is then called "already dead" — and it is through this that the very boundary between birth and death can be observed. There are yet other masters who say: at the very moment one is about to be born, breath-wind first exits; once breath-wind has exited, one is then called "already born"; at the moment one is about to die, breath-wind enters last, never exiting again, and one is then called "already dead" — as it is said: how can I keep myself constantly alive, so that my own in-breath always manages to come back out again? For one who is about to enter the fourth dhyāna, breath-wind exits last, never entering again, and this is called "having entered concentration"; when about to exit that concentration, breath-wind first enters, and, once breath-wind has entered, this is called "having exited concentration." There are yet other masters who say: for one who is about to enter the fourth dhyāna, breath-wind enters last, never exiting again, and this is called "having entered concentration"; when about to exit that concentration, breath-wind first exits, and, once breath-wind has exited, this is called "having exited concentration." The verdict: it is the earlier position stated here that is sound. One asks: is this in-and-out breath something belonging to a sentient being, or something not belonging to a sentient being? The answer: it belongs to a sentient being. One asks: is this in-and-out breath appropriated, or unappropriated? The answer: it is unappropriated — although the body does contain appropriated wind, in-and-out breath itself is unappropriated. One asks: is this in-and-out breath something nourished,

is it a ripening, or is it an equal-outflow? The answer: it is solely an equal-outflow — although the body does contain ripening-produced wind and nourished wind,

in-and-out breath itself is solely an equal-outflow, as the sūtra states: the Buddha told Ānanda: if, like an arrow shot in succession, notch after notch, one regulates in-and-out breath so that it never becomes disordered, one should know that this is called "supreme food." One asks: why does the World-Honored One call in-and-out breath "food"?

The answer: because it is able to both harm and benefit — that is, just as supremely fine food benefits the body, so too does regulating in-and-out breath through skillful means; and just as coarse, poor food harms the body, so too does regulating in-and-out breath without skillful means — and it is for this reason that the World-Honored One calls it "food." One asks: what is the meaning of "like an arrow shot in succession, notch after notch"? The answer: it is like shooting a later arrow at an earlier one, the later arrow's own notch striking the earlier arrow's own notch — this is the meaning intended here. Some say: this passage merely reveals the sense of unbroken succession between what precedes and follows, not the sense of a later arrow actually striking an earlier one, nor definitely meaning it as later-arrow-strikes-earlier-arrow, as the sūtra states: there is bringing in, there is taking out, there is mindfulness of bringing-in and taking-out, there is cultivating mindfulness of bringing-in and taking-out. Here, "bringing in" refers to the in-breath; "taking out" refers to the out-breath, as the Prajñaptiśāstra states: drawing wind inward is called "bringing in"; drawing wind outward is called "taking out" — just as a blacksmith's bellows, opening and closing, causes wind to enter and exit accordingly — this, too, is exactly the same. Some say: the out-breath is called "bringing in," the in-breath is called "taking out." There are yet other masters who say: warm breath is called "bringing in," cool breath is called "taking out." There are yet others who say: the upper breath is called "bringing in," the lower breath is called "taking out." The verdict: it is the first position stated here that is sound.

The mindfulness capable of taking this breath as its object is called "mindfulness of bringing-in and taking-out"; and this very mindfulness, together with its associated and co-existent dharmas, when cultivated, practiced, and made much of, is called "cultivating mindfulness of bringing-in and taking-out." One asks: what is this mindfulness-of-breathing's own very substance? The answer: wisdom is its own substance — yet, within this grouping, since the power of mindfulness is heightened, it is named "mindfulness," just as the four foundations of mindfulness, and the mindfulness of past lives innately arising, though wisdom is their own substance,

since, within that grouping, the power of mindfulness is heightened, it is likewise named "mindfulness," just as, excluding the perception of form, wisdom is such a substance, yet, since the power of perception is heightened within that grouping, it is named "perception" — this is exactly the same. If including its accompanying retinue, the four or five aggregates constitute this mindfulness-of-breathing's own substance.

As for its realm: the desire and form realms, not the formless realm. As for its stage: five stages — namely, the desire realm, the dhyāna-intermediate stage, and the proximate stages of the three lower dhyānas. Those masters who hold that the three lower fundamental dhyāna-stages, too, possess the equanimity faculty, say that this mindfulness spans eight stages — namely, the aforementioned five, together with the three lower fundamental dhyānas themselves. As for its support: only the desire realm, not the form or formless realm. There are yet other masters who say: it depends on the desire and form realms, not the formless realm, though, when first arising, it necessarily depends on the desire realm. As for its aspect: not a noble aspect. As for its object:

the breath-wind. As for its status as a foundation of mindfulness: it is a preparatory practice for the body-foundation-of-mindfulness, not the fundamental foundation-of-mindfulness itself; if speaking loosely of the four foundations of mindfulness in general, it is the body-foundation-of-mindfulness, since it takes material dharmas as its object. One asks: why does scripture state that mindfulness of breathing spans all four foundations of mindfulness? The answer: because it is able to give rise to all four foundations of mindfulness, and it is for this reason that it is spoken of in this way. One asks: the contemplation of impurity, too, is able to give rise to all four foundations of mindfulness — why, then, is it not likewise said to span all four? The answer: there is also a sūtra stating that this contemplation of impurity spans all four foundations of mindfulness — as it is said: if one contemplates the bluish-black discoloration, the pus and decay, the worms devouring the corpse, and the like, this is called the body-foundation-of-mindfulness; and it is further said: if one contemplates the feeling present within this, capable of drawing forth pure craving and also capable of bringing it to rest, this is called the feeling-foundation-of-mindfulness; and it is further said: if one contemplates the mind free of harmful intent, showing compassion toward all beings everywhere, this is called the mind-foundation-of-mindfulness; and it is further said: if one contemplates the cutting-off of craving, hatred, and delusion, being freed from defilement, giving rise to clear knowledge, and the exhaustion of every suffering, this is called the dharma-foundation-of-mindfulness. One asks: though this one sūtra does state that the contemplation of impurity spans all four foundations of mindfulness, countless sūtras state that mindfulness of breathing spans all four foundations of mindfulness, while the contemplation of impurity is not so described — what is the intended meaning of this? The answer: it is because mindfulness of breathing's own basis is thoroughly habituated, firm, and reliable — even should one lose mindfulness and affliction manifest before one, one can swiftly rely upon it to subdue every affliction and give rise to the four foundations of mindfulness, just as a person, terrified of a bandit, swiftly flees back to the safety of a city — since the great elements' own characteristic is fixed and determinate. The contemplation of impurity, by contrast, is not thoroughly habituated in this way, its own nature not firm and reliable, and there may be times when, having lost mindfulness, affliction manifests before one and one is unable to rely upon it to swiftly subdue affliction and give rise to the four foundations of mindfulness, since the characteristic of derived form is not fixed — and it is for this reason that countless sūtras state that mindfulness of breathing spans all four foundations of mindfulness, while the contemplation of impurity is not so described. Further, mindfulness of breathing augments the very perception of emptiness, which is the very root of insight, and it is for this reason that it can swiftly give rise to the four foundations of mindfulness, and it is for this reason that this is singled out for mention. The contemplation of impurity, by contrast, augments the perception of a sentient being, as it is said: are these bones a woman's or a man's? — this itself obstructing the perception of emptiness — and it is unable to swiftly give rise to the four foundations of mindfulness, and it is for this reason that this is not mentioned. Further, mindfulness of breathing's own object is near at hand, without manifold characteristics, without any fixed sequence, arising spontaneously without dependence on any notion of a sentient being — and it is for this reason that it can swiftly give rise to the four foundations of mindfulness, and it is for this reason that this is singled out for mention. The contemplation of impurity is exactly the opposite of this, and it is for this reason that this is not mentioned. Further, mindfulness of breathing arises only within the inner path, not shared with outside religious teachers, and it is for this reason that it can swiftly give rise to the four foundations of mindfulness, and it is for this reason that this is singled out for mention. The contemplation of impurity, by contrast, is also cultivated by outside religious teachers, and is unable to swiftly give rise to the four foundations of mindfulness, and it is for this reason that this is not mentioned. This mindfulness of breathing is, with respect to knowledge, solely worldly-conventional knowledge; with respect to concentration, it is not concentration itself; with respect to the faculties it is co-existent with, it is solely the equanimity faculty; with respect to associated time-periods, it spans all three time-periods; with respect to its object's time-period, it takes the past as object when taking the past, the present as object when taking the present, and the future as object when taking the future if the dharma has not yet arisen, or all three time-periods as object if the dharma has already arisen; with respect to wholesome, unwholesome, or undefined, it is solely wholesome; with respect to the object it takes as wholesome, unwholesome, or undefined, it takes only the undefined as its object; with respect to being bound or unbound, it is bound to the desire and form realms; with respect to the object it takes as bound or unbound, it takes only what is bound to the desire and form realms as its object; with respect to belonging to a learner, one beyond training, or neither, it is solely neither a learner's nor one beyond training's; with respect to the object it takes as belonging to a learner, one beyond training, or neither, it takes only what belongs to neither as its object; with respect to being abandoned by seeing, cultivation, or not abandoned at all, it is solely abandoned by cultivation;

with respect to the object it takes as abandoned by seeing, cultivation, or not at all, it takes only what is abandoned by cultivation as its object; with respect to taking an object by name or by meaning, it takes only by meaning; with respect to taking an object belonging to its own continuum, another's continuum, or no continuum at all, it takes only its own continuum as its object. Further, this mindfulness of breathing should be understood through six causes: first, counting; second, following; third, fixing; fourth, contemplating; fifth, turning; sixth, purifying. Counting is of five kinds: full counting, diminished counting, increased counting, disordered counting, and pure counting. "Full counting" means counting from one up to ten. "Diminished counting" means counting what should be two as though it were one. "Increased counting" means counting what should be one as though it were two. "Disordered counting" means counting past ten. There are yet other masters who say: mistaking an in-breath for an out-breath, or an out-breath for an in-breath, is called "disordered counting." There are yet others who say: counting without any fixed sequence at all is called "disordered counting." "Pure counting" means counting five in-breaths as five in-breaths, and five out-breaths as five out-breaths. One asks: should one count the in-breath first, or the out-breath first?

The answer: one counts the in-breath first, and the out-breath afterward, since, at the moment of birth, breath enters, while, at the moment of death, breath exits. Further, contemplating in this way keeps body and mind at ease and free of any inverted view; further, contemplating in this way reveals that, in the process of birth and death, breath enters first and exits afterward, free of any inverted view. "Following" means binding the mind to follow the breath from outside inward — that is, from the mouth and nose flowing to the throat, then from the throat flowing to the heart and chest, then from the heart and chest flowing to the navel-wheel, and so on in succession, all the way to the very toes, the mind following it throughout; the mind then follows the breath from inside outward — half a sesame-seed's length, a whole sesame-seed's length,

half a barley-grain's length, a whole barley-grain's length, half a finger-joint's length, a whole finger-joint's length, half a finger's length, a whole finger's length, half a hand-span's length, a whole hand-span's length, half a cubit's length, a whole cubit's length,

half a fathom's length, a whole fathom's length, and so on, as elaborated at length, according to the strength of one's own faculties, the breath traveling near or far, the mind following it throughout. "Fixing" means observing the breath-wind first resting in the mouth and nose, next resting in the throat, next resting in the heart and chest, next resting in the navel-wheel, and so on in succession, all the way to finally resting in the toes, the mind abiding and contemplating it wherever the breath comes to rest. Some say: "fixing" means the mind abiding, contemplating the breath as pervading the entire body, like a thread running through a string of pearls. "Contemplating" means that, if this breath-wind reaches the mouth and nose, one is able to closely observe and contemplate it there; if it reaches the throat, one likewise closely observes and contemplates it there; and so on in succession, all the way to the toes, where one likewise closely observes and contemplates it. Having contemplated the breath-wind in this way, one then further reflects: within this mass of wind there are the four great elements; these four great elements give rise to every derived form; this derived form is precisely the very support upon which mind and its mental factors depend — a practitioner proceeding in this way,

taking the breath as his starting point, gradually comes to be able to contemplate all five aggregates of clinging in succession. "Turning" means turning from this contemplation of in-and-out breath to give rise to the body-foundation-of-mindfulness, proceeding onward in succession, all the way to giving rise to the dharma-foundation-of-mindfulness. "Purifying" spans from heat all the way to the stage beyond training. Some say: the four aids to penetration are likewise subsumed within "turning"; "purifying" begins from the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering, all the way to the stage beyond training — since affliction is still present, this is not yet called "purified"; only once the knowledge of exhaustion arises is it then called "purified." There are yet others who say: from the stage of the four foundations of mindfulness all the way to the vajropama-samādhi, all of this is subsumed within "turning" — since affliction is still present, this is not yet called "purified"; only once the knowledge of exhaustion arises is it then called "purified." Further, within this scheme, "counting" accomplishes two tasks: first, being able to count the in-breath and out-breath; second, being able to relinquish craving and attachment. Relying on "following," one accomplishes two tasks: first, being able to follow the in-breath and out-breath; second, being able to relinquish ordinary going-forth in favor of true renunciation. Relying on "fixing," one accomplishes two tasks: first, being able to fix and settle the breath; second, being able to abide in concentrated absorption. "Contemplating" accomplishes two tasks: first, being able to contemplate the in-breath and out-breath; second, being able to grasp the characteristics of mind and its mental factors without any omission. "Turning" accomplishes two tasks: first, being able to turn from the contemplation of breath; second, being able to enter the contemplation of the truths. Some say: "turning" accomplishes two tasks: first, being able to relinquish the nature of an ordinary being; second, being able to attain noble nature. Some say: "turning" accomplishes two tasks: first, being able to relinquish affliction; second, being able to purify wisdom and vision. "Purifying" accomplishes two tasks: first, being able to contemplate the noble truths; second, being able to enter the noble path. Some say: "purifying" accomplishes two tasks: first, being able to relinquish affliction; second, being able to purify wisdom and vision. There are yet others who say: "purifying" accomplishes two tasks: first, being able to realize the nirvāṇa-realm with residue remaining; second, being able to realize the nirvāṇa-realm without residue remaining. There are yet other masters who say: "purifying" accomplishes two tasks: first, being able to realize dwelling in present bliss; second, being able to realize both nirvāṇa-realms. One asks: of these six kinds of mindfulness of breathing, how many belong to the category of calm-abiding, and how many to the category of insight? Some say: the first three belong to calm-abiding, the latter three to insight. There are yet others who say: the first three belong to insight, the latter three to calm-abiding. As these various sayings show, this matter is not fixed — some hold all six belong entirely to calm-abiding, some hold all six belong entirely to insight.

Just as the Bhagavān, within a sūtra, spoke a verse for the sake of those he was teaching:

"Skillfully cultivating mindfulness of breathing to its fullness, gradually training in accordance with the Buddha's own teaching, one is able to illuminate the world with brilliant clarity, just as the sun emerges from a bank of heavy clouds." One asks: in this verse, as for "mindfulness of breathing brought to its fullness" — who, exactly, is called "full," and who "not full"? Some say: only the Buddha is called "full"; both the pratyekabuddha and the śrāvaka are called "not full." There are yet other masters who say: both the Buddha and the pratyekabuddha are called "full"; the śrāvaka is "not full."

There are yet others who say: even within the śrāvaka vehicle, one who has reached the far shore is also called "full"; every other śrāvaka is called "not full." There are yet others who say: those beyond training within all three vehicles are all called "full"; those still in training are called "not full." There are yet others who say: noble ones are called "full"; ordinary beings are called "not full." As these various sayings show, whoever fully possesses the six causes stated above is called "full"; whoever does not fully possess them is called "not full."

As the sūtra states: the Buddha told the monks: I wish to sit in meditative seclusion for two months — you need not come to inquire after me, except to bring food or to attend the recitation of the precepts. Thereupon the World-Honored One entered his own chamber and sat in meditative seclusion. One asks: why did the World-Honored One remain in seclusion for so long? The answer: every Buddha, past and future, more numerous than the sands of the Ganges, has, by the very nature of things, always done exactly the same. The Venerable Vasumitra stated as follows: it was in order to teach the gods a certain secret Dharma. Some say: it was in order to cut off the laxity and negligence of indolent monks. Some say: it was in order to observe the monks who were ill. Some say: it was in order to teach the wondrous Dharma to sentient beings of another realm. Some say: it was in order to spur on monks who had grown weary of ascetic practice and had become negligent. Some say: it was out of compassion for the sentient beings he would teach in the future — that is, sentient beings of a future age, upon hearing of this very event, would reflect: if the Tathāgata himself still sits in such prolonged seclusion, how much more should we ourselves do the same? Some say: it was in order to forestall the slander of outside religious teachers — that is, various outside teachers slandered the Buddha, saying: this Gautama delights in busy, crowded places, loving much talk and discourse, forsaking the bliss of quiet solitude and stillness — and it was in order to put an end to this and every similar slander that he remained in seclusion for so long. Some say: it was in order to sustain the very tree of the qualities that are limbs of enlightenment — just as, once a tree has been planted, it still requires ongoing care and cultivation, so too does the tree of the limbs of enlightenment, though already brought to full completion, still require a long period of seclusion to sustain and uphold it. Some say: it was in order to receive the bliss of the wondrous Dharma. Some say: it was in order to contemplate the wondrous dharmas he himself had already realized. Some say: it was in order to sustain the body that had labored through such difficult ascetic practice. Some say: it was in order to demonstrate that, though he had long ago already attained unsurpassed enlightenment, he still held it in the very same deep reverence as at the moment he first realized it.

The Great Virtuous One stated: it was owing to two causes and conditions that the Tathāgata remained in seclusion for two months — first, in order to himself receive the bliss of the great Dharma; second, out of compassion for sentient beings. The Venerable Pārśva states: it was in order to arouse in others a thirst and yearning for the Dharma — as that same sūtra states: once the two months had passed, the World-Honored One then arose from his seclusion, went out to an open place, spread out his seat, and sat down, manifesting a certain sign, so as to cause the monks to come to where the Buddha was. One asks: what sign did the World-Honored One manifest at that time? Some say: he caused the earth to tremble slightly. There are yet other masters who say:

he emitted a supreme radiant light. There are yet others who say: he uttered a Brahma-voice. There are yet others who say: he manifested transformed monks surrounding him on every side, paying their respects and attending upon him. At that time, the monks, seeing this, recognized that the Buddha had arisen from his seclusion, and, deeply ashamed, thought: why did we not come to the Buddha sooner? — and so they informed one another, and together went to where the Buddha was. Having arrived, they bowed at the World-Honored One's own feet, inquired after his well-being, and withdrew to sit to one side. The World-Honored One then told them: should any outside religious teacher come and ask you, "into what concentration did your own great teacher enter during his two months of seclusion?" — you should answer them: he entered mindfulness of breathing. One asks: the various outside teachers do not even know the very name "mindfulness of breathing," let alone its own substance — why, then, did the World-Honored One speak in this way? The answer: it was in order to draw in and gather those outside teachers, and the sentient beings taught by their own teaching, into the Buddha's own Dharma — that is, there were outside teachers, and sentient beings taught by the doctrines those teachers held, who, upon hearing that the World-Honored One had entered mindfulness of breathing during his own two months of seclusion, gave rise to a mind of wonder, and came to where the Buddha was; the Buddha then taught them the Dharma, and they, trusting it, took it up and practiced it accordingly. Further, it was in order to protect newly ordained monks, so that they would not turn their backs on the Buddha's own teaching — that is, there were monks who, having only just entered the Buddha's own teaching and begun to study mindfulness of breathing, did not yet hold it in proper reverence, and wished to return to outside teachings, seeking some other doctrine instead; but, on account of the Buddha's own words here, when those outside teachers then came to where the Buddha was, showing reverence and receiving the Dharma, these very monks' own minds were thereby kept from retrogressing. One asks: at the time of his own seclusion, the Buddha entered every dhyāna, every liberation, every concentrated absorption, and every attainment alike — why, then, does the sūtra speak only of his entering mindfulness of breathing? The answer: although he did indeed enter every dhyāna, liberation, concentrated absorption, and attainment alike, mindfulness of breathing is the very foremost among them, and it is for this reason that this alone is singled out for mention. Further, every dhyāna, liberation, concentrated absorption, and attainment is itself an accompanying member, preceding or following mindfulness of breathing, and it is for this reason that the World-Honored One speaks specifically of mindfulness of breathing.

As the sūtra states: the Buddha told the monks: I have been mindful of my own in-and-out breath, and I know that I have been mindful of my own in-and-out breath. I have been mindful of my own short in-and-out breath, and I know that I have been mindful of my own short in-and-out breath. I have been mindful of my own long in-and-out breath, and I know that I have been mindful of my own long in-and-out breath.

I have been aware of my own in-and-out breath pervading my whole body, and I know that I have been aware of my own in-and-out breath pervading my whole body. I have stilled the bodily activity of my own in-and-out breath, and I know that I have stilled the bodily activity of my own in-and-out breath. One asks: with respect to in-and-out breath, is the short breath experienced first, or the long breath first? The answer: the short breath is experienced first, the long breath afterward. How is this known to be so? As the Prajñaptiśāstra states: when the Bodhisattva first entered concentration, his own breath was swift and rapid; only once he had dwelt long in that concentration did his breath become calm and settled — just as a person carrying a heavy load along a treacherous path breathes swiftly and rapidly, but, upon later reaching level ground, breathes calmly and steadily — and it is for this reason that in-and-out breath is short at first, and long afterward. One asks: this contemplation observes the breath-wind entering through the nose and exiting again through the nose — why, then, does the sūtra speak of being aware of the breath pervading the whole body? The answer: before mindfulness of breathing has been perfected, one contemplates the breath entering and exiting through the nose alone; once mindfulness of breathing has been perfected, one contemplates the breath permeating the body's own pores, exactly like the fibers running through a lotus root, the breath-wind pervading and moving through them everywhere. One asks: if that is so, why does this not then count as having exited concentration? The answer: because both the underlying intention and the preparatory effort involved remain unceased — just as, in the Bodhisattva's own case, though he practiced this very same contemplation, he did not thereby exit concentration, since his own underlying intention and preparatory effort likewise remained unceased, and so no fault follows. The Venerable Vasumitra explained it in this way: just as one contemplates the entire body, composed of the great elements and derived form, as impermanent, suffering, empty, without self, like a sickness, like a boil, like an arrow, and impure, without ever relinquishing this contemplation, so too, taking the breath-wind as one's object of awareness, this should not be called "exiting concentration" — the case here is exactly the same. "Stilling the bodily activity" means causing the breath-wind to become gradually more and more subtle, until it no longer arises at all. It should be understood that, in this passage, "being mindful of in-and-out breath" is the general statement,

while "being mindful of short in-and-out breath" and the rest are the specific instances. Further, "being mindful of in-and-out breath" corresponds to the desire realm's own mindfulness of breathing; "being mindful of short breath" corresponds to the first dhyāna; "being mindful of long breath" corresponds to the second dhyāna; "being aware of the breath pervading the whole body" corresponds to the third dhyāna; "stilling the bodily activity" corresponds to the fourth dhyāna.

That same sūtra further states: I have been aware of joy in my own in-and-out breath, and I know that I have been aware of joy in my own in-and-out breath. I have been aware of bliss in my own in-and-out breath, and I know that I have been aware of bliss in my own in-and-out breath. I have been aware of mental activity in my own in-and-out breath, and I know that I have been aware of mental activity in my own in-and-out breath.

I have stilled the mental activity of my own in-and-out breath, and I know that I have stilled the mental activity of my own in-and-out breath. It should be understood that, here, "aware of joy" refers to contemplating the joy belonging to the first and second dhyānas; "aware of bliss" refers to contemplating the bliss belonging to the third dhyāna; "aware of mental activity" refers to contemplating perception and volition; "stilling mental activity" means causing mental activity to become gradually more and more subtle, until it no longer arises at all. That same sūtra further states: I have been aware of mind in my own in-and-out breath, and I know that I have been aware of mind in my own in-and-out breath. I have caused my own mind to rejoice in my in-and-out breath, and I know that I have caused my own mind to rejoice in my in-and-out breath. I have caused my own mind to be gathered and held in my in-and-out breath, and I know that I have caused my own mind to be gathered and held in my in-and-out breath. I have caused my own mind to be liberated in my in-and-out breath, and I know that I have caused my own mind to be liberated in my in-and-out breath. It should be understood that, here, "aware of mind" means contemplating the very substance of consciousness; as for "causing the mind to rejoice" and the rest — although the Buddha himself no longer needs to cause his mind to rejoice, to be gathered, or to be liberated, such things did occur for him during his time as a Bodhisattva, and it is for this reason that he contemplates them once more even now. That same sūtra further states: I have contemplated impermanence, cutting-off, dispassion, and cessation in my own in-and-out breath, and I know that I have contemplated impermanence, cutting-off, dispassion, and cessation in my own in-and-out breath. The Venerable Vasumitra explained it in this way: contemplating impermanence means contemplating the breath-wind's own impermanence; contemplating cutting-off means contemplating the cutting-off of the eight fetters; contemplating dispassion means contemplating the cutting-off of the craving-fetter; contemplating cessation means contemplating the cutting-off of every fettering dharma.

Some say: contemplating impermanence means contemplating the impermanence of the four great elements; contemplating cutting-off means contemplating the cutting-off of the ignorance-fetter; contemplating dispassion means contemplating the cutting-off of the craving-fetter; contemplating cessation means contemplating the cutting-off of every remaining fetter. Some say: contemplating impermanence means contemplating the impermanence of the physical body; contemplating cutting-off means contemplating the cutting-off of past fetters; contemplating dispassion means contemplating the cutting-off of present fetters; contemplating cessation means contemplating the cutting-off of future fetters. Some say: contemplating impermanence means contemplating the impermanence of the great elements and derived form and the rest; contemplating cutting-off means contemplating the cutting-off of painful feeling; contemplating dispassion means contemplating the cutting-off of pleasant feeling; contemplating cessation means contemplating the cutting-off of neutral feeling. The Great Virtuous One stated: contemplating impermanence means contemplating the impermanence of the five aggregates of clinging; contemplating cutting-off means contemplating the emptiness and selflessness of the five aggregates of clinging; contemplating dispassion means contemplating the suffering of the five aggregates of clinging;

contemplating cessation means contemplating the five aggregates of clinging as no longer operating, utterly quiescent. That same sūtra further states: this concentration of mine is still coarse and shallow — I should now enter some further, deeper and subtler concentration. One asks: which concentration, exactly, is this deeper, subtler one referred to here? Some say: the fourth dhyāna. Some say: the formless attainments. Some say: the concentration of cessation.

That same sūtra further states: at that time, there were three deities, of surpassing beauty and radiance greater than the deepest part of the night, who came to where I was. The first deity said: this one has already died. The second deity said: this one is about to die. The third deity said: this one is neither already dead nor about to die, but abides in a supreme concentration, quiescent in just this way. One asks: which particular deities were these, that they should offer such differing accounts? The answer: these were desire-realm deities, differing in the sharpness or dullness of their own faculties — that is, one of dull faculties thought as follows: this great ascetic has no in-and-out breath, his body does not stir at all, giving rise to no action whatsoever — he must already be dead. One of middling faculties thought as follows: this great ascetic still retains bodily warmth, his body has not yet begun to decay — though not yet dead, he is certainly about to die. One of sharp faculties had, in the past, already witnessed various Buddhas and noble disciples entering just such a concentration, their body and mind alike unmoving, only afterward to emerge from it again — and it was for this reason that this deity spoke as he did: this one is neither already dead nor about to die, and so on, as elaborated at length. That same sūtra further states: the Buddha told the monks: should anyone ask, what is meant by dwelling as a noble one, dwelling as a god, dwelling as Brahmā, dwelling as a Buddha, dwelling as a learner, dwelling as one beyond training — you should rightly answer as follows:

it is mindfulness of breathing. Why is this? Because this mindfulness of breathing is able to cause learners to realize what they have not yet realized, and is able to cause those beyond training to abide in the bliss of the present dharma. This mindfulness of breathing is not mixed with any affliction, and it is for this reason that it is called "dwelling as a noble one"; its own nature is bright and pure, and it is for this reason that it is called "dwelling as a god"; its own nature is quiescent, and it is for this reason that it is called "dwelling as Brahmā"; every Buddha abides in it for the most part, and it is for this reason that it is called "dwelling as a Buddha"; it is what a learner attains, and it is for this reason that it is called "dwelling as a learner"; it is what one beyond training attains, and it is for this reason that it is called "dwelling as one beyond training." A learner, through this mindfulness of breathing, attains a superior direct realization and cuts off affliction, and it is for this reason that it is called "realizing what has not yet been realized"; one beyond training, through this mindfulness of breathing, attains the unshakable liberation of mind, and it is for this reason that it is called "attaining the bliss of the present dharma." Some say: this mindfulness of breathing belongs to noble ones, being able to draw forth noble nature, and it is for this reason that it is called "dwelling as a noble one" — and so on, at length, up through: it belongs to one beyond training, being able to draw forth the nature of one beyond training, and it is for this reason that it is called "dwelling as one beyond training." A learner, through this, is able to realize the fruit of arhatship, and it is for this reason that it is called "realizing what has not yet been realized"; one beyond training, through this, abides in the four kinds of bliss, and it is for this reason that it is called "attaining the bliss of the present dharma." The four kinds of bliss are: first, the bliss of having gone forth from household life; second, the bliss of seclusion; third, the bliss of quiescence; fourth, the bliss of the threefold enlightenment. One asks: this mindfulness of breathing is itself neither a learner's nor one beyond training's own dharma — why, then, is it called a dwelling of a learner or of one beyond training? The answer: because it is present within the very bodies of learners and of those beyond training.