The Diamond That Cuts Every Thread

The question: how does this come about? The answer: it is when the uninterrupted path, the vajropama-samādhi, is about to cease, and the path of liberation, the knowledge of exhaustion, is about to arise. When the uninterrupted path, the vajropama-samādhi, is actually ceasing, and the path of liberation, the knowledge of exhaustion, is actually arising — at that very moment, this is called the future mind of one beyond training, at the moment of its own arising, becoming liberated from every obstruction. Here, "the vajropama-samādhi about to cease" refers to the time when its characteristic of abiding is still in operation; "the knowledge of exhaustion about to arise" refers to the time immediately approaching the characteristic of arising. At that time, one is still called not-yet-liberated, since the determined operation across time within the continuum has not yet occurred. "The vajropama-samādhi actually ceasing" refers to the time when its characteristic of ceasing is in operation; "the knowledge of exhaustion actually arising" refers to the time when its characteristic of arising is actually in operation. At that time, one is called now becoming liberated, since the determined operation across time within the continuum does actually occur then. If the vajropama-samādhi has already ceased and the knowledge of exhaustion has already arisen, then, at that time, one is called already liberated. This passage, in speaking only of the stage of about-to-be-liberated, thereby reveals the moment of actual liberation. One asks: why is this called the vajropama-samādhi, the "diamond-like concentration"? The answer: there exists no affliction that it does not cut off, does not break, does not pierce, does not shatter — just as a diamond is such that there exists no iron, no ivory, no shell, no pearl, or stone, that it cannot cut off, break, pierce, or shatter. It is for this reason that this concentration is called "diamond-like." Suppose a sentient being still bound by every fetter were able to give rise to this concentration within his own body — at that moment, he would be able all at once to cut off every affliction of the three realms entirely. How is this known to be so? Because, when the vajropama-samādhi manifests before one, one thereby all at once realizes the cutting-off of every affliction abandoned by seeing and by cultivation across the three realms. One asks: this uninterrupted path takes the four aggregates, or the five aggregates, as its own nature — why, then, does the treatise speak of it only as a "concentration"? The answer: it is because concentration is the abundantly predominant factor here. Just as the path of seeing takes the five aggregates as its own nature, yet, because seeing is the abundantly predominant factor, it is called only "the path of seeing"; just as the conventional knowledge on the border of direct realization takes the four aggregates, or the five aggregates, as its own nature, yet, because knowledge is the abundantly predominant factor, it is called only "knowledge"; and just as the four modes of practice take the four aggregates, or the five aggregates, as their own nature, yet, because penetrating insight is the abundantly predominant factor, they are called only "modes of practice" — so too, although this path takes the four aggregates, or the five aggregates, as its own nature, concentration is here the abundantly predominant factor, and it is for this reason that it is called only the vajropama-samādhi. One asks: why is concentration the abundantly predominant factor in this path? The answer:

the very lowest grade of affliction belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is difficult to cut off, difficult to break, and exceedingly difficult to transcend, requiring a firm and solid concentration as its support, from which great diligence is then able to eliminate it — just as a man wishing to slay a great elephant must first secure his own footing, and only then unleash his martial force to accomplish the slaying. It is for this reason that concentration's function is the abundantly predominant factor in this path. Further, the very lowest grade of affliction belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is exceedingly subtle, obscure, and difficult to discern, requiring a superior concentration to render the mind clear and refined before it can be eliminated — just as a skilled archer, wishing to shoot the tip of a hair, must, by means of a skillful technique, render his mind clear and refined before his arrow, once loosed, will find its mark. It is for this reason that concentration's function is the abundantly predominant factor in this path. One asks: how many kinds of knowledge does this vajropama-samādhi possess? The answer: it possesses six kinds of knowledge — namely, the four kinds of subsequent knowledge, together with dharma-knowledge of cessation and dharma-knowledge of the path. Here, there is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of suffering, contemplates the formations belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, forming the aspect of impermanence, suffering, emptiness, or non-self, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship; there is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of origin, contemplates the cause of the formations belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, forming the aspect of cause, origin, arising, or condition, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship; there is one who, by means of dharma-knowledge of cessation, contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging to the desire realm, forming the aspect of cessation, quiescence, excellence, or deliverance, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship; there is one who, by means of dharma-knowledge of the path, contemplates the path belonging to the desire realm, forming the aspect of path, suchness, progress, or deliverance, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship; there is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of cessation, contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging to the first dhyāna, and so on up to contemplating the cessation of the formations belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, forming the aspect of cessation, quiescence, excellence, or deliverance, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship; and there is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of the path, contemplates the path belonging to the subsequent-knowledge class across the nine stages, forming the aspect of path, suchness, progress, or deliverance, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship. All of these alike are called the vajropama-samādhi.

This constitutes the brief exposition of this passage in the Vibhāṣā.

One asks: how many kinds of this vajropama-samādhi exist, depending on which stage? There is a position that holds: depending on the not-yet-arrived stage, there are fifty-two. That is, depending on the not-yet-arrived stage: there is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of suffering, contemplates the formations belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship; there is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of origin, contemplates the cause of the formations belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship; there is one who, by means of dharma-knowledge of cessation, contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging to the desire realm, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship; there is one who, by means of dharma-knowledge of the path, contemplates the path belonging to the desire realm, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship — thus these four kinds of knowledge possess sixteen aspects. There is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of cessation, contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging to the first dhyāna, or, alternatively, on up to contemplating the cessation of the formations belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship — thus these eight kinds of knowledge possess thirty-two aspects, which, added to the previous sixteen, makes forty-eight. There is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of the path, contemplates the path belonging to the subsequent-knowledge class across the nine stages, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship — thus this one kind of knowledge possesses four aspects, which, added to the previous forty-eight, makes fifty-two vajropama-samādhis. Just as for the not-yet-arrived stage, so too, on up to the fourth dhyāna, is it exactly the same. Depending on the sphere of boundless space, there are twenty-eight. That is, depending on the sphere of boundless space: there is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of suffering, contemplates the formations belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship; there is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of origin, contemplates the cause of the formations belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship — thus these two kinds of knowledge possess eight aspects. There is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of cessation, contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging to the sphere of boundless space, or, alternatively, on up to contemplating the cessation of the formations belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship — thus these four kinds of knowledge possess sixteen aspects, which, added to the previous eight, makes twenty-four. There is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of the path, contemplates the path belonging to the subsequent-knowledge class across the nine stages,

forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship — thus this one kind of knowledge possesses four aspects, which, added to the previous twenty-four, makes twenty-eight vajropama-samādhis. Depending on the sphere of boundless consciousness, there are twenty-four vajropama-samādhis — that is, excepting the four aspects belonging to the contemplation of the cessation of the formations of the sphere of boundless space, the remainder is exactly as stated for the sphere of boundless space. Depending on the sphere of nothing-whatsoever, there are twenty vajropama-samādhis — that is, excepting the four aspects belonging to the contemplation of the cessation of the formations of the sphere of boundless consciousness, the remainder is exactly as stated for the sphere of boundless consciousness.

There are other masters who say: depending on the not-yet-arrived stage, there are eighty vajropama-samādhis. That is, depending on the not-yet-arrived stage: there is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of suffering, contemplates the formations belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship.

There is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of origin, contemplates the cause of the formations belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, forming any one of the four aspects,

and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship. There is one who, by means of dharma-knowledge of cessation, contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging to the desire realm, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship; there is one who, by means of dharma-knowledge of the path, contemplates the path belonging to the desire realm, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship — thus these four kinds of knowledge possess sixteen aspects. There is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of cessation, either contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging to the first dhyāna, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship, or, alternatively, on up to contemplating the cessation of the formations belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship — thus these eight kinds of knowledge possess thirty-two aspects, which, added to the previous sixteen, makes forty-eight. There is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of the path, either contemplates the path belonging to the first dhyāna, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship, or, alternatively, on up to contemplating the path belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship — thus these eight kinds of knowledge possess thirty-two aspects, which, added to the previous forty-eight, makes eighty vajropama-samādhis. Just as for the not-yet-arrived stage, so too, on up to the fourth dhyāna, is it exactly the same. Depending on the sphere of boundless space, there are forty vajropama-samādhis — that is, depending on the sphere of boundless space: there is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of suffering, contemplates the formations belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship.

There is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of origin, contemplates the cause of the formations belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, forming any one of the four aspects,

and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship — thus these two kinds of knowledge possess eight aspects. There is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of cessation, contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging to the sphere of boundless space, or, alternatively, on up to contemplating the cessation of the formations belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship — thus these four kinds of knowledge possess sixteen aspects, which, added to the previous eight, makes twenty-four. There is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of the path, either contemplates the path belonging to the sphere of boundless space, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship, or, alternatively, on up to contemplating the path belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship — thus these four kinds of knowledge possess sixteen aspects, which, added to the previous twenty-four, makes forty vajropama-samādhis. Depending on the sphere of boundless consciousness, there are thirty-two vajropama-samādhis — that is, excepting the eight aspects belonging to the contemplation of the cessation and the path of the formations of the sphere of boundless space, the remainder is exactly as stated for the sphere of boundless space. Depending on the sphere of nothing-whatsoever, there are twenty-four vajropama-samādhis — that is, excepting the eight aspects belonging to the contemplation of the cessation and the path of the formations of the sphere of boundless consciousness, the remainder is exactly as stated for the sphere of boundless consciousness.

The Venerable Ghoṣa states as follows: depending on the not-yet-arrived stage, there are thirteen vajropama-samādhis. That is, within the path of seeing there are the four forbearances belonging to the subsequent-knowledge class; within the path of cultivation, there are nine uninterrupted paths involved in departing from the affliction abandoned by cultivation belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. This constitutes the thirteen vajropama-samādhis. Just as for the not-yet-arrived stage, so too, on up to the fourth dhyāna, is it exactly the same. Depending on the sphere of boundless space, on up to the sphere of nothing-whatsoever, there are, in every case, only nine vajropama-samādhis — that is, excepting the four forbearances of the subsequent-knowledge class, the remainder is exactly as stated for the not-yet-arrived stage.

Those who hold this position say: depending on the not-yet-arrived stage, there are one hundred sixty-four vajropama-samādhis. That is, depending on the not-yet-arrived stage: there is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of suffering, contemplates the formations belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship; there is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of origin, contemplates the cause of the formations belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship; there is one who, by means of dharma-knowledge of cessation, contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging to the desire realm, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship; there is one who, by means of dharma-knowledge of the path, contemplates the path belonging to the desire realm, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship — thus these four kinds of knowledge possess sixteen aspects. There is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of cessation,

either contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging to the first dhyāna, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship, or, alternatively, on up to contemplating the cessation of the formations belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship — thus these eight kinds, taken four ways, make thirty-two, which, added to the previous sixteen, makes forty-eight. Then, there is one who contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the first and second dhyānas, or contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the second and third dhyānas, or contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the third and fourth dhyānas, or contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the fourth dhyāna and the sphere of boundless space, or contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the spheres of boundless space and boundless consciousness, or contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the spheres of boundless consciousness and nothing-whatsoever, or contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the sphere of nothing-whatsoever and the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception —

each such contemplation forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtaining the fruit of arhatship — thus these seven kinds, taken four ways, make twenty-eight, which, added to the previous forty-eight, makes seventy-six. Then, there is one who contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the first three dhyānas, or contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the second, third, and fourth dhyānas, or contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the third and fourth dhyānas and the sphere of boundless space, or contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the fourth dhyāna and the spheres of boundless space and boundless consciousness, or contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the spheres of boundless space, boundless consciousness, and nothing-whatsoever, or contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the spheres of boundless consciousness, nothing-whatsoever, and neither-perception-nor-non-perception, each such contemplation forming any one of the four aspects,

and thereby obtaining the fruit of arhatship — thus these six kinds, taken four ways, make twenty-four, which, added to the previous seventy-six, makes one hundred. Then, there is one who contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to all four dhyānas, or contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the second dhyāna on up through the sphere of boundless space, or contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the third dhyāna on up through the sphere of boundless consciousness, or contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the fourth dhyāna on up through the sphere of nothing-whatsoever, or contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the sphere of boundless space on up through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, each such contemplation forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtaining the fruit of arhatship — thus these five kinds, taken four ways, make twenty, which, added to the previous one hundred, makes one hundred twenty. Then, there is one who contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to all four dhyānas and the sphere of boundless space, or contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the second dhyāna on up through the sphere of boundless consciousness, or contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the third dhyāna on up through the sphere of nothing-whatsoever, or contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the fourth dhyāna on up through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, each such contemplation forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtaining the fruit of arhatship — thus these four kinds, taken four ways, make sixteen,

which, added to the previous one hundred twenty, makes one hundred thirty-six. Then, there is one who contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the first dhyāna on up through the sphere of boundless consciousness, or contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the second dhyāna on up through the sphere of nothing-whatsoever, or contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the third dhyāna on up through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, each such contemplation forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtaining the fruit of arhatship — thus these three kinds, taken four ways, make twelve, which, added to the previous one hundred thirty-six, makes one hundred forty-eight. Then, there is one who contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the first dhyāna on up through the sphere of nothing-whatsoever, or contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the second dhyāna on up through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, each such contemplation forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtaining the fruit of arhatship — thus these two kinds, taken four ways, make eight, which, added to the previous one hundred forty-eight, makes one hundred fifty-six. Then, there is one who contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the first dhyāna on up through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship — these four, added to the previous one hundred fifty-six, make one hundred sixty. Then, there is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of the path, contemplates the path belonging to the subsequent-knowledge class across the nine stages, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship — these four, added to the previous one hundred sixty, make one hundred sixty-four vajropama-samādhis. Just as for the not-yet-arrived stage, so too, on up to the fourth dhyāna, is it exactly the same. Depending on the sphere of boundless space, there are fifty-two vajropama-samādhis. That is, depending on the sphere of boundless space: there is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of suffering, contemplates the formations belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship; there is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of origin, contemplates the cause of the formations belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship — thus these two kinds of knowledge possess eight aspects. There is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of cessation, contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging to the sphere of boundless space, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship, or, alternatively, on up to contemplating the cessation of the formations belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship — thus these four kinds, taken four ways, make sixteen, which, added to the previous eight, makes twenty-four. Then, there is one who contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the spheres of boundless space and boundless consciousness, or contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the spheres of boundless consciousness and nothing-whatsoever, or contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the sphere of nothing-whatsoever and the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, each such contemplation forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship —

thus these three kinds, taken four ways, make twelve, which, added to the previous twenty-four, makes thirty-six. Then, there is one who contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the spheres of boundless space, boundless consciousness, and nothing-whatsoever, or contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the spheres of boundless consciousness, nothing-whatsoever, and neither-perception-nor-non-perception, each such contemplation forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship — thus these two kinds, taken four ways, make eight, which, added to the previous thirty-six, makes forty-four. Then, there is one who contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the sphere of boundless space on up through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship — these four, added to the previous forty-four, make forty-eight. Then, there is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of the path, contemplates the path belonging to the subsequent-knowledge class across the nine stages, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship — these four, added to the previous forty-eight, make fifty-two vajropama-samādhis. Depending on the sphere of boundless consciousness, there are thirty-six vajropama-samādhis. That is, depending on the sphere of boundless consciousness: there is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of suffering, contemplates the formations belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship; there is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of origin, contemplates the cause of the formations belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship — thus these two kinds of knowledge possess eight aspects. There is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of cessation, contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging to the sphere of boundless consciousness, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship, or, alternatively, on up to contemplating the cessation of the formations belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship — thus these three kinds, taken four ways, make twelve, which, added to the previous eight, makes twenty. Then, there is one who contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the sphere of boundless consciousness and the sphere of nothing-whatsoever, or contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the sphere of nothing-whatsoever and the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, each such contemplation forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship — thus these two kinds, taken four ways, make eight, which, added to the previous twenty, makes twenty-eight. Then, there is one who contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the sphere of boundless consciousness on up through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship — these four, added to the previous twenty-eight, make thirty-two. Then, there is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of the path, contemplates the path belonging to the subsequent-knowledge class across the nine stages, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship — these four, added to the previous thirty-two, make thirty-six vajropama-samādhis. Depending on the sphere of nothing-whatsoever, there are twenty-four vajropama-samādhis. That is, depending on the sphere of nothing-whatsoever: there is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of suffering, contemplates the formations belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship; there is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of origin, contemplates the cause of the formations belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship — thus these two kinds of knowledge possess eight aspects. There is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of cessation, contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging to the sphere of nothing-whatsoever, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship, or contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship, or contemplates the cessation of the formations belonging jointly to the sphere of nothing-whatsoever and the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship — thus these three kinds, taken four ways, make twelve, which, added to the previous eight, makes twenty. Then, there is one who, by means of subsequent knowledge of the path, contemplates the path belonging to the subsequent-knowledge class across the nine stages, forming any one of the four aspects, and thereby obtains the fruit of arhatship — these four, added to the previous twenty, make twenty-four vajropama-samādhis. Here, one who depends on a formless absorption never gives rise to dharma-knowledge, nor does he take the suffering and origin, or the cessation, belonging to a lower stage as his object, since a formless absorption takes only its own stage and stages above it as its object. Everything stated above concerned the vajropama-samādhi of one born in the desire realm. For one born into either of the two higher realms, one should understand accordingly how many arise, in the manner appropriate to that case. That is, one born into either of the two higher realms never gives rise to dharma-knowledge, since he is averse to the suffering and origin belonging to a lower stage and has no wish to contemplate them again — and, not contemplating the lower suffering and origin, he likewise does not contemplate the lower cessation and path, since the knowledge of cessation and the knowledge of the path both take the knowledge of suffering and origin as their own foremost basis. If one is born into a higher stage, one does not depend on a lower stage in departing from any remaining affliction, since a higher stage possesses its own superior concentration surpassing the lower — except for one born into the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, who, lacking any uncontaminated concentration of his own stage, must necessarily depend on the lower sphere of nothing-whatsoever to give rise to an uncontaminated concentration in departing from any remaining affliction. If one is born into a higher stage of the form realm, one likewise never takes the suffering, origin, or cessation belonging to a lower stage of the form realm as one's object, since one is averse to that lower suffering and origin — exactly as stated for dharma-knowledge. The question: should an unliberated mind be spoken of as becoming liberated, and should an already-liberated mind likewise be spoken of as becoming liberated? The answer: an already-liberated mind should indeed be spoken of as becoming liberated. One asks: why is this treatise composed? The answer: it has already been stated above that mind becomes liberated from craving, hatred, and delusion, and it has further been stated that the future mind of one beyond training, at the moment of its own arising, becomes liberated from every obstruction — yet it has not yet been stated whether an unliberated mind should be spoken of as becoming liberated, and whether an already-liberated mind should likewise be spoken of as becoming liberated. It is in order to state this that this treatise is now composed. One asks: how is this mind called "already liberated"? The answer: it is, by its own inherent nature, liberated from craving, hatred, and delusion. One asks: if it is already liberated from craving, hatred, and delusion, then why does the treatise further speak of "now becoming liberated"? The answer: with reference to affliction, it is called "already liberated"; with reference to its determined operation across time within the continuum, it is called "now becoming liberated," since it is only at this present stage that it is first able to operate across time within the continuum in this determined way. Those who have not penetrated this meaning raise the following objection: if it is already liberated, it ought not to be spoken of as becoming liberated; if it is becoming liberated, it ought not to be spoken of as already liberated — to speak of an already-liberated mind as "becoming liberated" does not accord with principle. Although, by the meaning already given above, this objection has already been dispelled, further evidence is now adduced to resolve it. As the sūtra states: "Great King, whence do you now come?" — though he has, in fact, already come, it is nonetheless said that he "now comes." The same holds here as well, and this ought not to be raised as an objection. In this connection, the author of the treatise, wishing to make this meaning clear, further cites another sūtra to turn the question back upon the objector. One should now ask the objector this: as the Blessed One has stated,

"If one has cut off craving without remainder, like a lotus standing in water, a monk casts off this shore and that, like a serpent sloughing off its old skin" — do you accept that this is a well-spoken teaching? He will answer: it is so. Then, what is your own view — is it said "cast off" of one who has already cast off, or of one who has not yet cast off?

He will answer: it is said "cast off" of one who has already cast off. Then hear what I have to say: if one has already cast off, it ought not to be said "cast off"; if it is said "cast off," it ought not to be that one has already cast off — to speak of one who has already cast off as "casting off" does not accord with principle. Here, the author of the treatise turns the question back upon the objector so as to let him resolve it for himself — this is what is meant by "answered in his own terms," resolving the matter exactly as the objector himself would understand it. Now, within this verse, the first two lines reveal the sense of "already cast off": having already cut off affliction, one abides within the world with a mind that clings to nothing, just like the lotus; the latter two lines reveal the sense of "now casting off": not dwelling upon this shore or that — the six sense faculties or the six sense objects — just like the serpent sloughing off its skin without any lingering attachment. In speaking of a past matter with a present-tense expression, the sūtra thus commits no fault whatsoever, and the same holds here as well: although one has already become liberated, to speak of it as "now becoming liberated" is likewise without fault. To establish this same point further, the author again cites another sūtra to turn the question back upon the objector. Further, the Blessed One has stated:

"Having cut off pride, well settled in himself, of wholesome mind, liberated in every way, dwelling alone, undistracted, he crosses over death and reaches the far shore" — do you accept that this is a well-spoken teaching? He will answer: it is so. Then, what is your own view — is it said "arrived" of one who has already arrived, or of one who has not yet arrived?

He will answer: it is said "arrived" of one who has already arrived. Then hear what I have to say: if one has already arrived, it ought not to be said "arrived"; if it is said "arrived," it ought not to be that one has already arrived — to speak of one who has already arrived as "arriving" does not accord with principle. The intent of this resolution should be understood exactly as before: within this verse, the first two lines reveal the sense of "already arrived," and the latter two lines reveal the sense of "now arriving." In speaking of a past matter with a present-tense expression, the sūtra thus commits no fault whatsoever, and the same holds here as well.

It is therefore concluded: since that case accords with principle, this case likewise holds — thereby revealing that this, too, is "answered in his own terms," urging the objector to properly discriminate the intended meaning within the sūtras. The treatise further states: one should therefore properly discriminate the meaning of the sūtras — as the Blessed One has stated:

"The beast returns to forest and marsh, the bird returns to open sky, the noble one returns to nirvāṇa, the dharma returns to discrimination" — by these four kinds, one arrives at one's own proper resting-place and thereby attains ease. It is for this reason that the wise ought to properly discriminate the meaning within the sūtras, rather than simply taking the literal wording at face value and resting content with that. Were one to rest content with the literal wording alone, this would make the noble teaching contradict itself from one passage to the next, and would likewise give rise, within one's own mind, to a distorted grasp of its meaning. As the Blessed One has stated: "Monks, you should know: renunciation depends on dispassion; dispassion, on liberation; liberation, on nirvāṇa."

and so on, at length. One asks: why is this treatise composed? The answer: it is composed in order to fully discriminate the meaning of this sūtra passage. That is, the sūtra states, "renunciation depends on dispassion," and so on, at length, yet, having said this much, does not explain it fully — what is meant by "renunciation depends on dispassion," and so on, up through "what is meant by 'liberation depends on nirvāṇa'"? Since the sūtra is the fundamental basis upon which this treatise depends, whatever it has left unexplained ought now to be discriminated fully, and it is for this reason that this treatise is composed. As the Blessed One has stated: "Monks, you should know: renunciation depends on dispassion; dispassion, on liberation; liberation, on nirvāṇa." One asks: within a single mental cluster, renunciation, dispassion, and liberation are all simultaneously present together — why, then, does the sūtra speak only of "renunciation depends on dispassion" and "dispassion depends on liberation," and not also of "dispassion depends on renunciation" or "liberation depends on dispassion"? The answer: it is because the sense in which one gives rise to what follows in due accordance is here the more predominant sense. That is, although these three dharmas do indeed arise together, renunciation, with respect to giving rise to dispassion in due accordance, is the predominant sense, while dispassion, with respect to giving rise to renunciation in due accordance, is the subordinate sense; dispassion, with respect to giving rise to liberation in due accordance, is the predominant sense, while liberation, with respect to giving rise to dispassion in due accordance, is the subordinate sense — exactly as contact and sensation, though arising together, are spoken of only as "contact conditions sensation," and never as "sensation conditions contact." The same holds true here as well. Here, "depends on" is of two kinds: first, the sense of generating; second, the sense of attaining. The sense of generating refers to "renunciation depends on dispassion" and "dispassion depends on liberation"; the sense of attaining refers to "liberation depends on nirvāṇa" — it is for this reason that, in this passage, a clause expressing a subsequent result is formed. One asks: whatever is a "dependence," is it also a "condition"? The answer: whatever is a condition is likewise a dependence; but there exist cases that are a dependence yet not a condition — namely, depending on liberation, one thereby attains nirvāṇa. Further, "depends on" is of two kinds: first, according with what is fitting; second, resembling. "According with what is fitting" refers to "renunciation depends on dispassion" and

"dispassion depends on liberation"; "resembling" refers to "liberation depends on nirvāṇa." What, then, is renunciation? The answer: aversion and repugnance toward all formations, on the part of one beyond training, is called renunciation. One asks: renunciation, too, pertains equally to the stage of a learner and to the stage of one neither a learner nor beyond training — why, then, does this passage speak only of one beyond training?

The answer: it ought indeed to be said that this pertains to a learner's stage, and to the stage of one neither a learner nor beyond training, as well; that this is not so stated should be understood as a matter of surplus meaning left implicit. Further, this passage speaks with reference to what is most superior — that is, in speaking of what is most superior among dharmas, the dharma of one beyond training is superior; in speaking of what is most superior among sentient beings, the sentient being beyond training is superior — and it is for this reason that the passage speaks of one beyond training. Further, in speaking of what is ultimate, the initial and intermediate stages are already understood to be implied as well, and it is for this reason that the two are not separately mentioned. Further, the dharma of one beyond training is the very root of every wholesome dharma, and it is for this reason that it alone is singled out for mention — that is, every wholesome dharma depends upon the dharma of one beyond training for its own growth and increase. Further, if there is renunciation with no further delight, dispassion with no further attachment, liberation with no further bondage, and wisdom with no further ignorance, this passage speaks of it. Further, if there is renunciation that renounces no further, dispassion that grows dispassionate no further, and liberation that becomes liberated no further, this passage speaks of it. Further, if renunciation and the rest have been perfectly cultivated to completion, this passage speaks of it. The Venerable Ghoṣa states as follows: it is because the dharma of one beyond training is, in every case, superior and without fault, that it alone is singled out for mention. The Great Virtuous One says: whatever concerns realm, destiny, birth, aging, sickness, and death being entirely exhausted — this passage speaks of it; the stage of a learner and the rest are not so, and it is for this reason that they are not mentioned. One asks: as for the nature of renunciation — is it wisdom, or is it non-greed?

Suppose it were granted to be either — what fault would follow? If it is wisdom, then how is the passage that follows to be reconciled? As it is stated:

"What is meant by 'renunciation depends on dispassion'? The answer: if, in association with renunciation, there is non-greed and freedom from measureless greed, non-hatred and freedom from measureless hatred, and non-delusion and freedom from measureless delusion as wholesome roots — this is called 'renunciation depends on dispassion.'" Here, non-greed and non-hatred may well be granted, but what of non-delusion? Non-delusion is itself precisely wisdom —

how, then, could wisdom stand in association with wisdom itself, such that the passage speaks of "renunciation in association with the wholesome root of non-delusion"? And if renunciation's nature is non-greed, then how is the passage that follows to be reconciled? As it is stated: "What is meant by 'renunciation depends on dispassion'? The answer: if, in association with renunciation, there is non-greed and freedom from measureless greed," and so on, at length. Here, non-hatred and non-delusion may well be granted, but what of non-greed? If renunciation is itself non-greed, then how could the passage speak of "non-greed" as standing "in association with" renunciation, since a thing's own inherent nature admits of no association with itself? And how, further, is what is stated in the Chapter on Views to be reconciled? As it is there stated: "There is a case in which one is capable of renunciation but not capable of dispassion — namely, the forbearance and knowledge concerning suffering and origin, which do not cut off any affliction; and there is a case in which one is capable of renunciation and also capable of dispassion — namely, the forbearance and knowledge concerning suffering and origin that do cut off affliction." Here, this is speaking of wisdom, not of the nature of non-greed — how, then, can non-greed be said to constitute the very substance of renunciation? There are those who hold: renunciation takes wisdom as its own nature. Suppose this is granted — then how is what is stated afterward to be reconciled? As it is stated: "What is meant by 'renunciation depends on dispassion'? The answer: if, in association with renunciation, there is non-greed and freedom from measureless greed," and so on, at length. The answer: this passage ought properly to have spoken only of non-greed and non-hatred, and ought not to have spoken of non-delusion; it is the reciter who, through the momentum of habitual recitation, has spoken in this way by mistake. There are other masters who hold: renunciation takes non-greed as its own nature. Suppose this is granted — then how is what is stated afterward to be reconciled? As it is stated:

"What is meant by 'renunciation depends on dispassion'?" and so on, at length. The answer: this passage ought properly to have spoken only of non-hatred and non-delusion, and ought not to have spoken of non-greed; and that it does speak of non-greed is meant to reveal the basis of dependence — that is, there are cases in which mind becomes liberated from greed in dependence on non-greed; there are cases in which mind becomes liberated from hatred in dependence on non-hatred; there are cases in which mind becomes liberated from delusion in dependence on non-delusion; there are cases in which mind becomes liberated from two of these in dependence on non-greed, and so on, up through cases in which mind becomes liberated from two of these in dependence on non-delusion; there are cases in which mind becomes liberated from all three in dependence on non-greed, and so on, up through cases in which mind becomes liberated from all three in dependence on non-delusion. This passage, in particular, is revealing the case in which mind becomes liberated from all three in dependence on non-greed —

it is for this reason that it states, "if, in association with renunciation, there is non-greed and freedom from measureless greed," and so on, at length — this does not mean that there exists some separate wholesome root of non-greed standing in association with renunciation itself. One asks: how, then, is what is stated in the Chapter on Views to be reconciled? The answer: renunciation is not itself forbearance or knowledge, yet it is because it stands in association with forbearance and knowledge that these are given the name "renunciation" — that passage speaks with reference to their standing intermixed in association, thereby describing the nature of "that which is capable of renunciation." The verdict: there exists a distinct dharma called renunciation, which is neither wisdom nor non-greed, but rather a mental factor standing in association with mind — this is the position adopted below. There further exist other mental factors of this same class standing in association with mind. As for the Chapter on Views' statement that the forbearance and knowledge concerning suffering and origin are themselves called "capable of renunciation" — this is because that forbearance and knowledge stand in association with renunciation, and are thus spoken of as "capable of renunciation," and not because this describes renunciation's own inherent nature. What this passage refers to is uncontaminated renunciation specifically. Contaminated renunciation, by contrast, refers to the contemplation of impurity, mindfulness of breathing, the three meanings of the establishments of mindfulness, and the contemplation of the seven proper objects,

warmth, summit, forbearance, and the supreme mundane dharma standing in association with it, in whatever manner is appropriate, together with the conventional knowledge on the border of direct realization standing in association with it, in whatever manner is appropriate, and further together with the remaining contaminated dhyānas, the formless absorptions, the immeasurables, the liberations, the spheres of mastery, and the spheres of totality, contemplated as sickness, as a tumor, as an arrow, and so forth, standing in association, in whatever manner is appropriate, with these measureless aspects. This passage indicates only a rough sample of this. To indicate it in full would exceed even the four great oceans. One asks: whatever is an object of renunciation, is that object also thereby renounced? The answer: this ought to be set out in four alternatives. There is that which is an object of renunciation but not itself renounced — namely, uncontaminated renunciation itself. There is that which is itself renounced but not an object of renunciation — namely, every remaining contaminated dharma other than contaminated renunciation. There is that which is both an object of renunciation and itself renounced — namely, contaminated renunciation. There is that which is neither an object of renunciation nor itself renounced — namely, every remaining uncontaminated dharma other than uncontaminated renunciation. The aspect of non-self, which takes every dharma as its object, though it does take an object of renunciation as its object, is nonetheless an aspect of delight, and does not stand in association with renunciation, exactly as already explained above. What, then, is meant by "renunciation depends on dispassion"? The answer: if, in association with renunciation, there is non-greed and freedom from measureless greed, non-hatred and freedom from measureless hatred, non-delusion and freedom from measureless delusion, as wholesome roots — this is called "renunciation depends on dispassion." Here, the word "measureless" indicates that the superior grade's own power pervades everywhere, and it is for this reason that it is called "measureless."

Further, whatever pervades the object in whatever manner is appropriate is called "measureless." Further, greed, hatred, and delusion take what pertains to sentient beings as their object, whereas non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion here take what does not pertain to sentient beings as their object as well, being dharmas held in common — and it is for this reason that they are called "measureless." There are those who hold: this passage ought properly to have spoken only of the wholesome root of non-greed, since this wholesome root serves as the proximate antidote to the defilement of greed, and is thus called "dispassion"; that it also speaks of non-hatred and non-delusion is due to the reciter's mistaken habit of reciting them along with it.

There are other masters who say: although non-hatred and non-delusion are not, strictly speaking, dispassion itself, they nonetheless assist dispassion, and it is for this reason that they, too, are mentioned. There are yet others who say: the word "defilement" here refers broadly to every affliction whatsoever, and the word "dispassion" thus broadly encompasses every conditioned wholesome dharma; it is simply on account of what is strongest among these that the passage speaks only of non-greed and freedom from measureless greed, and so forth. What, then, is meant by "dispassion depends on liberation"? The answer: if, in association with dispassion, there is a mind that already has resolved conviction, now resolves conviction, or will resolve conviction — this is called "dispassion depends on liberation." Here, "liberation" refers to resolved conviction as its own nature, one of the mental factors belonging to the class held in common by all minds. Now, among all dharmas, there are two kinds of liberation: first, the unconditioned, namely non-selective cessation; second, the conditioned, namely resolved conviction. This latter, too, is of two kinds: first, defiled, namely wrong resolved conviction; second, undefiled, namely correct resolved conviction.

This, too, is of two kinds: first, contaminated, namely that standing in association with the contemplation of impurity, mindfulness of breathing, and the like; second, uncontaminated, namely that standing in association with the dharma-forbearance of suffering and the rest. This, too, is of two kinds: first, belonging to a learner, namely that arising within the continua of the four approachers and the three fruit-attainers, the seven kinds of noble persons; second, belonging to one beyond training, namely that arising within the continuum of the fruit of arhatship. This, too, is of two kinds: first, timed liberation of mind, namely that arising within the continua of the first five kinds of disposition; second, unshakable liberation of mind, namely that arising within the continuum of the unshakable disposition. The liberation of one beyond training, further, is of two kinds: first, liberation of mind, namely liberation through departing from craving; second, liberation of wisdom, namely liberation through departing from ignorance. One asks: if this liberation takes resolved conviction as its own substance, then how is what the Prajñapti-śāstra states to be reconciled? As it is there stated: "What is meant by 'liberation of mind through departing from craving'? It is the wholesome root of non-greed serving as the antidote to craving. What is meant by 'liberation of wisdom through departing from ignorance'? It is the wholesome root of non-delusion serving as the antidote to ignorance." Resolved conviction is not included among these three wholesome roots — how, then, can it be said that liberation of mind and liberation of wisdom are these two wholesome roots? The answer: that passage ought properly to have stated: "What is meant by 'liberation of mind through departing from craving'? It is the resolved conviction standing in association with the wholesome root of non-greed. What is meant by 'liberation of wisdom through departing from ignorance'? It is the resolved conviction standing in association with the wholesome root of non-delusion" — that it is not so stated should be understood as a matter of surplus meaning left implicit in that passage. Further, liberation of mind and liberation of wisdom are, in truth, not themselves wholesome roots at all, but, because they stand in association with wholesome roots, they are spoken of by the name of these wholesome roots. Further, this passage is revealing the basis on which liberation depends: liberation of mind depends on the wholesome root of non-greed for its own growth and increase, since the wholesome root of non-greed serves as the antidote to craving, through which liberation of mind is thereby accomplished; and liberation of wisdom depends on the wholesome root of non-delusion for its own growth and increase, since the wholesome root of non-delusion serves as the antidote to ignorance, through which liberation of wisdom is thereby accomplished —

this speaks, with reference to that upon which it depends, of the substance that it accompanies, and is thus without contradiction. What, then, is meant by "liberation depends on nirvāṇa"? The answer: if craving has been permanently cut off, hatred has been permanently cut off, delusion has been permanently cut off — every affliction whatsoever has been permanently cut off — this is called "liberation depends on nirvāṇa." One asks: the cutting off of any single dharma, such as the view of self and the rest, is likewise a kind of nirvāṇa — why, then, does this passage speak of the permanent cutting off of craving, and so on, up through the permanent cutting off of every affliction whatsoever? The answer: although the cutting off of each single dharma is indeed, in that respect, a kind of nirvāṇa, this passage speaks only of complete and perfect nirvāṇa, and so this objection ought not to be pressed. Further, the name "nirvāṇa" belongs solely to one beyond training; while still at the stage of a learner, not yet complete, one is not called "having attained nirvāṇa" — it is for this reason that the passage speaks as it does. One asks: for what reason is it called nirvāṇa? The answer: because affliction has been extinguished, it is called nirvāṇa. Further, because the three fires have been stilled, it is called nirvāṇa. Further, because the three characteristics have become quiescent, it is called nirvāṇa. Further, because it has departed from all foulness, it is called nirvāṇa. Further, because it has departed from every destiny of rebirth, it is called nirvāṇa. Further, "vāna" means a dense thicket, and "nir" means emerging — because one emerges from the dense thicket of the aggregates, it is called nirvāṇa. Further, "vāna" means weaving, and "nir" means not — because it is not woven, it is called nirvāṇa: just as, where there is thread, there is something woven, but where there is none, there is not — so too, one who still possesses karma and affliction thereby weaves the fabric of birth-and-death, while one beyond training, possessing neither karma nor affliction, weaves no such fabric, and it is for this reason that this is called nirvāṇa. Further, "vāna" means future existence, and "nir" means without — because there is no further existence to come, it is called nirvāṇa. Further, "vāna" means bondage, and "nir" means release — because it is released from bondage, it is called nirvāṇa. Further, "vāna" means every suffering and hardship of birth-and-death, and "nir" means transcendence — because it transcends every suffering and hardship of birth-and-death, it is called nirvāṇa. One asks: what distinction is there among renunciation, dispassion, liberation, and nirvāṇa? The answer: aversion and repugnance is called renunciation; the absence of any further craving is called dispassion; a mind free of defilement is called liberation; the permanent relinquishing of the heavy burden is called nirvāṇa. Further, disparaging affliction is called renunciation; disparaging evil conduct is called dispassion; freedom from bondage with respect to one's objects is called liberation; the permanent quiescence of all the aggregates is called nirvāṇa. Further, reproaching the desire realm is called renunciation; departing from the form realm is called dispassion; escaping the formless realm is called liberation; attaining permanent quiescence is called nirvāṇa. Further, renouncing what is abandoned by seeing is called renunciation; departing from what is abandoned by cultivation is called dispassion; arriving at the fruit of one beyond training is called liberation; realizing permanent cessation is called nirvāṇa. The Venerable Ghoṣa states as follows: renunciation is the thin stage; dispassion is the stage of departing from desire; liberation is the stage of one beyond training; nirvāṇa is the fruit of every stage. The Venerable Kātyāyanīputra, in accordance with the meaning of the sūtras, states as follows: restraint of the faculties, restraint through precepts, freedom from regret, joy, ease, and concentration — these constitute the stage of practice; true wisdom and vision constitute the stage of seeing;

renunciation is the thin stage, dispassion is the stage of departing from desire, liberation is the stage of one beyond training, and nirvāṇa is the fruit of every stage. These are the four distinctions among renunciation, dispassion, liberation, and nirvāṇa.