A Buddha Disguised as a Potter

The Buddha's ten powers have already been explained; next, the four kinds of fearlessness shall be explained. What are these four? First, the fearlessness of perfect and complete enlightenment. As the sūtra states: "I am one who has perfectly and completely awakened to all dharmas — should there exist, in the world, any ascetic, brahmin, god, demon, or Brahmā, who, relying on the Dharma, should raise an objection, or cause it to be recollected that there is no such thing as perfect and complete enlightenment with respect to these dharmas — there exists no such possibility; and, were there to exist such a possibility, I would, with respect to this matter, having correct vision grounded in nothing else, attain ease, free of any dread or fear, and would myself proclaim: I abide in the rank of the great sage, and, amid the great assembly, rightly roar the lion's roar and turn the great wheel of Brahmā, which no ascetic, brahmin, god, demon, or Brahmā in the world is able to turn back." Second, the fearlessness of the permanent exhaustion of contaminants. As the sūtra states: "I have already permanently exhausted every contaminant — should there exist, in the world, any ascetic, brahmin, god, demon, or Brahmā, who, relying on the Dharma, should raise an objection, or cause it to be recollected that there exists some contaminant not yet permanently exhausted — there exists no such possibility; and, were there to exist such a possibility," and so on, at length. Third, the fearlessness of proclaiming the obstructing dharmas. As the sūtra states: "I proclaim, for the sake of my disciples, dharmas capable of obstructing the path — defilement by them will certainly obstruct one's progress. Should there exist, in the world, any ascetic, brahmin, god, demon, or Brahmā, who, relying on the Dharma, should raise an objection, or cause it to be recollected that these obstructing dharmas, though defiling, do not in fact obstruct — there exists no such possibility; and, were there to exist such a possibility," and so on, at length.

Fourth, the fearlessness of proclaiming the path of emergence. As the sūtra states: "I proclaim, for the sake of my disciples, a path capable of leading to emergence — cultivating it, one will certainly emerge from suffering. Should there exist, in the world, any ascetic, brahmin, god, demon, or Brahmā, who, relying on the Dharma, should raise an objection, or cause it to be recollected that cultivating this path is unable to lead to emergence from suffering — there exists no such possibility; and, were there to exist such a possibility, I would, with respect to this matter, having correct vision grounded in nothing else, attain ease, free of any dread or fear, and would myself proclaim: I abide in the rank of the great sage, and, amid the great assembly, rightly roar the lion's roar and turn the great wheel of Brahmā, which no ascetic, brahmin, god, demon, or Brahmā in the world is able to turn back." One asks: what do these four kinds of fearlessness take as their own nature? The answer: they, too, take knowledge as their own nature. Why is this so? The first fearlessness is precisely the first power; the second fearlessness is precisely the tenth power; the third fearlessness is precisely the second power; and the fourth fearlessness is precisely the seventh power. Their own nature having now been explained, the reason for this shall now be stated. One asks: why are they called "fearlessness"? What is the meaning of "fearlessness"? The answer: the sense of being free of timidity is the meaning of "fearlessness"; the sense of being unshaken; the sense of valor; the sense of ease; the sense of purity; the sense of brightness;

the sense of being free of alarm — these constitute the meaning of "fearlessness." As for their realm: these four kinds of fearlessness, where contaminated, are bound to the three realms, and, where uncontaminated, are unbound. As for their stage: these four kinds of fearlessness, where contaminated, exist within eleven stages, and, where uncontaminated, exist within nine stages. As for their support: these four kinds of fearlessness are all supported by the great and heroic body of a human being of the desire realm, in Jambudvīpa, since it is only in dependence on this body that buddhahood is attained. As for their aspects: the first fearlessness possesses sixteen aspects, or other aspects. As for the second fearlessness: for those who hold that it is called "the fearlessness of the exhaustion of contaminants" because it takes the exhaustion of contaminants as its object, they say that it possesses the four aspects of cessation, or other aspects; for those who hold that it is called "the fearlessness of the exhaustion of contaminants" because it depends on a body in which the contaminants are exhausted, they say that it possesses the sixteen aspects, or other aspects. The third fearlessness possesses the eight aspects of suffering and origin, or other aspects.

The fourth fearlessness possesses the sixteen aspects, or other aspects. As for their objects: the first fearlessness takes all dharmas as its object. The second fearlessness, where it takes the exhaustion of contaminants as its object, takes the truth of cessation as its object, and, where it depends on a body in which the contaminants are exhausted, takes all dharmas as its object. The third fearlessness takes the truths of suffering and origin as its object. The fourth fearlessness takes only the four truths as its object. As for the establishments of mindfulness: the second fearlessness, where it takes the exhaustion of contaminants as its object, is the establishment of mindfulness with respect to dharmas, and, where it depends on a body in which the contaminants are exhausted, is all four establishments of mindfulness; the remaining three kinds of fearlessness are all the four establishments of mindfulness. As for the kinds of knowledge: the first and fourth kinds of fearlessness are both subsumed under all ten kinds of knowledge. The second fearlessness, where it takes the exhaustion of contaminants as its object, is subsumed under only six kinds of knowledge — namely, dharma-knowledge, subsequent knowledge, the knowledge of cessation, the knowledge of exhaustion, the knowledge of non-arising, and conventional knowledge — and, where it depends on a body in which the contaminants are exhausted, is subsumed under all ten kinds of knowledge. The third fearlessness possesses only eight kinds of knowledge, excepting the knowledge of cessation and of the path. As for their conjunction with concentration: the first and fourth kinds of fearlessness may be conjoined, or may not be conjoined, with the three concentrations. The second fearlessness, where it takes the exhaustion of contaminants as its object, may be conjoined, or may not be conjoined, with signlessness, and, where it depends on a body in which the contaminants are exhausted, may be conjoined, or may not be conjoined, with all three concentrations. The third fearlessness, taking suffering and origin as its object, may be conjoined, or may not be conjoined, with emptiness and wishlessness. As for their association with the faculties: taken together, all are associated with the three faculties — namely, pleasure, joy, and equanimity. As for past, future, and present: these four kinds of fearlessness all extend through all three time-periods. As for taking the past, future, and present as their object: the first and fourth kinds of fearlessness take the three time-periods, and what is beyond time, as their object. The second fearlessness, where it takes the exhaustion of contaminants as its object, takes what is beyond time as its object, and, where it depends on a body in which the contaminants are exhausted, takes the three time-periods, and what is beyond time, as its object. The third fearlessness takes only the three time-periods as its object. As for wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate: these four kinds of fearlessness are all wholesome. As for taking the wholesome, the unwholesome, and the indeterminate as their object: the second fearlessness, where it takes the exhaustion of contaminants as its object, takes only the wholesome as its object, and, where it depends on a body in which the contaminants are exhausted, takes all three as its object; the remaining three kinds of fearlessness all take all three as their object. As for being bound or unbound:

these four kinds of fearlessness, where contaminated, are bound to the three realms, and, where uncontaminated, are unbound. As for taking what is bound or unbound as their object: the first and fourth kinds of fearlessness take what is bound to the three realms, and what is unbound, as their object. The second fearlessness, where it takes the exhaustion of contaminants as its object, takes what is unbound as its object, and, where it depends on a body in which the contaminants are exhausted, takes what is bound to the three realms, and what is unbound, as its object. The third fearlessness takes only what is bound to the three realms as its object. As for belonging to a learner, one beyond training, or neither: these four kinds of fearlessness, where uncontaminated, belong to one beyond training, and, where contaminated, belong to one who is neither a learner nor beyond training. As for taking as their object what belongs to a learner, one beyond training, or neither: the first and fourth kinds of fearlessness take all three as their object. The second fearlessness, where it takes the exhaustion of contaminants as its object, takes as its object only what belongs to one who is neither a learner nor beyond training, and, where it depends on a body in which the contaminants are exhausted, takes all three as its object. The third fearlessness takes as its object only what belongs to one who is neither a learner nor beyond training. As for what is abandoned by seeing, abandoned by cultivation, or neither: these four kinds of fearlessness, where contaminated, are abandoned by cultivation, and, where uncontaminated, are neither abandoned by seeing nor by cultivation. As for taking as their object what is abandoned by seeing, abandoned by cultivation, or neither: the first and fourth kinds of fearlessness take all three as their object. The second fearlessness, where it takes the exhaustion of contaminants as its object, takes as its object what is neither abandoned by seeing nor by cultivation, and, where it depends on a body in which the contaminants are exhausted, takes all three as its object. The third fearlessness takes as its object what is abandoned by seeing and by cultivation. As for taking a name or a meaning as their object:

the second fearlessness, where it takes the exhaustion of contaminants as its object, takes only meaning as its object, and, where it depends on a body in which the contaminants are exhausted, takes both name and meaning as its object; the remaining three kinds of fearlessness all take both name and meaning as their object. As for taking one's own continuum, another's continuum, or what is not a continuum, as their object: the first and fourth kinds of fearlessness take all three as their object. The second fearlessness, where it takes the exhaustion of contaminants as its object, takes as its object what is not a continuum, and, where it depends on a body in which the contaminants are exhausted, takes all three as its object. The third fearlessness takes as its object one's own continuum and another's continuum. As for being obtained through preparatory effort or through obtaining freedom from defilement: these four kinds of fearlessness may all be said to be obtained through preparatory effort, being obtained through the accumulation of superior preparatory effort across three incalculable eons, and may all be said to be obtained through obtaining freedom from defilement, being obtained, at the moment of the knowledge of exhaustion, through freedom from the defilement of the peak of existence. One asks: what is the preparatory effort for these four kinds of fearlessness? The answer: this preparatory effort is of two kinds: first, proximate preparatory effort, referring to the aids to penetration and the like; second, distant preparatory effort, referring to the initial resolve for enlightenment that never turns back, and the like. As already explained, the ten powers and the four kinds of fearlessness — since each single power subsumes all four kinds of fearlessness, and each single kind of fearlessness subsumes all ten powers — there would then exist forty powers and forty kinds of fearlessness. Yet what was earlier stated, that the first fearlessness is precisely the first power, the second fearlessness precisely the tenth power, the third fearlessness precisely the second power, and the fourth fearlessness precisely the seventh power, was stated with reference to what is most manifestly apparent; in actual truth, the Blessed One accomplishes forty powers and forty kinds of fearlessness, though, speaking with reference to the fundamental root, it is merely said that he accomplishes ten powers and four kinds of fearlessness. One asks: if the ten powers subsume the four kinds of fearlessness, and the four kinds of fearlessness subsume the ten powers, then what distinction is there between power and fearlessness? There are those who say: these two possess no distinction whatsoever, since they mutually subsume one another. There are those who say: these two do possess a distinction, if only in name, this very naming itself constituting the distinction — that is, one is named "power," and the other "fearlessness." Further, firmness and strength is power; valorous resolve is fearlessness. Further, abiding steadfast is power; being unshakable is fearlessness. Further, being unsubduable is power; being free of timidity is fearlessness. Further, benefiting oneself is power; benefiting others is fearlessness. Further, gathering in oneself is power; gathering in others is fearlessness. Further, not being overcome by another is power; being able to overcome another is fearlessness. Further, not being subdued by another is power; being able to subdue another is fearlessness.

Further, the knowledge of one's own particular characteristic is power; the knowledge of shared characteristics is fearlessness. Further, knowledge is power; eloquence is fearlessness. Further, cause is power; fruit is fearlessness. Further, penetrating a matter oneself is power; being able to expound it to others is fearlessness. Further, penetrating its meaning is power; penetrating its wording is fearlessness. Further, unobstructed understanding of meaning is power; unobstructed skill in verbal expression is fearlessness.

Further, unobstructed understanding of meaning brought to ultimate clarity is power; unobstructed skill in verbal expression brought to ultimate clarity is fearlessness.

Further, accumulation is power; making use of what is accumulated is fearlessness. Further, being oneself abundant in wealth is like power; being able to distribute it to others is like fearlessness. Further, being versed in medical prescription is like power; being able to actually cure illness is like fearlessness. Further, clarity of wisdom is power;

not being intimidated by another's objection is fearlessness. Such, then, is the distinction between power and fearlessness. Fearlessness has now been explained; great compassion shall next be explained. One asks: what does great compassion take as its own nature? The answer: it takes knowledge as its own nature. There are those who say: great compassion possesses its own distinct nature, not subsumed under knowledge. Those who hold this position say: great compassion is knowledge, possessing no distinct substance apart from it, since it is through knowing remedy and illness that it heals and cures. Its own nature having now been explained, the reason for this shall now be stated. One asks: why is it called "great compassion"? What is the meaning of "great compassion"? The answer: it is called great compassion because it rescues sentient beings from their superior suffering and hardship —

that is, it rescues and delivers them out from the great suffering and hardship of the hells, the animal realm, and the realm of hungry ghosts, and establishes them in the joy and happiness of the human and heavenly realms. Further, it is called great compassion because it draws sentient beings forth out of a superior mire — that is, sentient beings, sunk within the great mire of affliction, are, through the hand of the true Dharma extended to them, drawn forth out of it and established upon the noble path and its fruits. Further, it is called great compassion because it confers upon sentient beings a superior benefit — that is, it teaches sentient beings to cut off the three kinds of evil conduct and to cultivate the three kinds of excellent conduct, planting the seed of noble and prosperous happiness, thereby obtaining the fruit of noble and great happiness, a form and appearance beautiful and pleasing to behold, a body fine and soft, radiant and pure, whether as a wheel-turning king, or as Śakra, or as a lord of demons, or as Brahmā, and so on, in turn, even up to rebirth in the peak of existence; or else planting the seed of the three vehicles, thereby drawing forth the enlightenment and nirvāṇa of the three vehicles — all of this being accomplished through the power of great compassion. Further, it is called great compassion because it is obtained at a great price — that is, at every time and in every place, relinquishing and giving away everything one holds dear, one's own body, one's wealth, and even one's wife and children, so as to rescue sentient beings from their poverty, suffering, and hardship; fully upholding the pure precepts, willing rather to relinquish one's own body and life than ever to transgress them; being struck, reviled, humiliated, having one's limbs cut away, even to the point of death, without ever giving rise to anger or resentment; engaging in diligent and austere practice without ever pausing even for a moment; forever dwelling in stillness, single-mindedly cultivating meditative absorption; and, for the sake of superior wisdom, seeking the Dharma without ever growing weary — it is only when the provisions of merit and wisdom accumulated at so great a price are thus brought to perfect completion that one attains such a pure great compassion, able to rescue every kind of suffering and hardship, unlike the two lesser vehicles, who may obtain their own fruit through as little as a single meal given, a single night's precept upheld, or the contemplation of a single four-line verse. Further, it is called great compassion because it is obtained through great exertion — that is, it is necessarily only after passing through three incalculable great eons, cultivating a hundred thousand difficult and austere practices, that one attains such boundless great compassion, unlike a śrāvaka of the very sharpest faculties, who, after merely sixty eons of cultivating such exertion, attains enlightenment, or a pratyekabuddha of the very sharpest faculties, who, after merely a hundred eons of cultivating such exertion, attains enlightenment. Further, it is called great compassion because it arises in dependence on a great body — that is, this great compassion necessarily depends upon a body adorned with the thirty-two marks of a great being, its limbs ornamented with the eighty minor marks, its body the color of true gold, its constant halo extending a full fathom, its crown invisible to any who might look upon it — sentient beings who encounter it never fail to gain benefit; great compassion depends upon just such a superior body,

unlike the merit obtained by the two lesser vehicles, which is able to manifest even in dependence upon a stunted and unlovely body, its limbs incomplete, its faculties deficient, possessing no majestic dignity whatsoever.

Further, it is called great compassion because it relinquishes great bliss in order to rescue great suffering and hardship — that is, the Blessed One relinquishes the superior, surpassing, blazing, boundless, and measureless great bliss of the unique buddha-dharmas, traversing perilous places beyond hundreds of thousands of koṭis of great oceans and encircling mountain ranges, journeying throughout the ten directions to rescue sentient beings from suffering and to bring about their ease — all of this being accomplished through the power of great compassion. Further, it is called great compassion because, for the sake of delivering countless sentient beings difficult to transform, he undertakes difficult and greatly toilsome tasks — that is, although the Buddha dwells in a position of the utmost nobility, for the sake of sentient beings he becomes, at times, a potter, at times a merchant, at times a strongman, at times a hunter, at times a performer, at times a seller of garlands,

or a lessor of boats and rafts, undertaking all such humble and varied roles as these in order to rescue and deliver the various beings to be transformed; or he takes Ānanda and travels through the five destinies, benefiting sentient beings without pause, day or night; or, for the sake of delivering Aṅgulimāla, he lengthens or shortens the very expanse of the earth, near or far, as needed,

in order to subdue him and only then transform him. Although he has long since accomplished a superior sense of shame and moral dread, he nonetheless manifests, for the sake of sentient beings, the mark of a concealed sheath, causing them, upon seeing it, to cease their slander, so that countless sentient beings, hearing of it, all come to be transformed by him. Although he has long since cut off all restlessness and frivolity, he nonetheless manifests, for the sake of sentient beings, a broad and long tongue, extending even up to the hairline and covering the whole of his face, causing sentient beings, on this account, to receive the Buddha's own transforming influence — such deeds as these, boundless and measureless, are all accomplished through the power of great compassion. Further, it is called great compassion because it stirs even great equanimity into motion — that is, the Buddha accomplishes two great dharmas: first, great equanimity; second, great compassion. When the Buddha abides in the dharma of great equanimity, even should every sentient being throughout the ten directions, all at once, blow great horns and strike great drums, or manifest thunderclaps, flashing lightning, and thunderbolts, with every mountain and the great earth itself overturning and shaking, none of this is able to cause the Buddha so much as to raise his mind to look or listen. Yet when the Buddha gives rise to the dharma of great compassion, it strikes the very mountain of great equanimity and causes it to tremble, and even causes his body, composed of the boundless strength of Nārāyaṇa, to be stirred, just as a fierce great wind sends a small blade of grass tumbling this way and that, so as to accomplish superior deeds of benefit and ease for every sentient being — it is by virtue of meanings such as these that it is called great compassion. As for the realm of this great compassion: it belongs solely to the form realm. As for its stage: it exists solely within the fourth dhyāna. As for its support: it is supported solely by the great and heroic body of a human being of the desire realm, in Jambudvīpa, since it is only in dependence on this body that great compassion is attained. As for its aspect: it is not the sixteen aspects, but some other aspect. As for its object: it takes, without restriction, the dharmas and sentient beings of the three realms as its object. As for the establishment of mindfulness: it is only the establishment of mindfulness with respect to dharmas. As for the kind of knowledge: it is only conventional knowledge. As for conjunction with concentration: it is not conjoined with any of the three concentrations. As for association with the faculties: it is associated with the faculty of equanimity. As for past, future, and present: it extends through all three time-periods. As for taking the past, future, and present as its object: it takes the three time-periods as its object. As for wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate: it is solely wholesome. As for taking the wholesome, the unwholesome, and the indeterminate as its object: it takes all three as its object. As for being bound or unbound: it is bound solely to the form realm. As for taking what is bound or unbound as its object: it takes what is bound to the three realms as its object. As for belonging to a learner, one beyond training, or neither: it belongs solely to one who is neither a learner nor beyond training. As for taking as its object what belongs to a learner, one beyond training, or neither: it takes as its object only what belongs to one who is neither a learner nor beyond training. As for what is abandoned by seeing, abandoned by cultivation, or neither: it is solely abandoned by cultivation. As for taking as its object what is abandoned by seeing, abandoned by cultivation, or neither:

it takes as its object what is abandoned by seeing and by cultivation. As for taking a name or a meaning as its object: it takes both name and meaning as its object. As for taking one's own continuum, another's continuum, or what is not a continuum, as its object: although it takes without restriction both one's own and another's continuum as its object, it takes another's continuum as its object far more often. As for being obtained through preparatory effort or through obtaining freedom from defilement: it may be said to be obtained through preparatory effort, being obtained through the accumulation of superior preparatory effort across three incalculable eons; and it may be said to be obtained through obtaining freedom from defilement, being obtained, at the moment of the knowledge of exhaustion, through freedom from the defilement of the peak of existence.

One asks: what is meant by the preparatory effort for great compassion? The answer: this preparatory effort is of two kinds: first, proximate preparatory effort, referring to the aids to penetration and the like;

second, distant preparatory effort, referring to the initial resolve for enlightenment that never turns back, and the like. One asks: under which power is this great compassion subsumed? The answer: it is subsumed under the power of the knowledge of what is possible and what is not,

since the majority of the Blessed One's unique virtues are subsumed within the power of the knowledge of what is possible and what is not. One asks: what distinction is there between compassion and great compassion? The answer: one should know that there are, in brief, eight distinctions. First, a distinction in nature: compassion takes the wholesome root of non-hatred as its own nature; great compassion takes the wholesome root of non-delusion as its own nature. Second, a distinction in aspect: compassion forms the aspect of the suffering-of-suffering; great compassion forms the aspect of all three kinds of suffering. Third, a distinction in object: compassion takes only the desire realm as its object; great compassion takes, without restriction, the three realms as its object. Fourth, a distinction in the stage it depends upon: compassion depends, without restriction, upon ten stages — namely, the four dhyānas, the four approach-stages, the dhyāna-interval, and the stage of the desire realm; great compassion exists only within the fourth dhyāna. Fifth, a distinction in support: compassion is supported, without restriction, by the bodies of the three vehicles and of ordinary beings alike; great compassion is supported solely by the body of a buddha. Sixth, a distinction in how it is realized: compassion is obtained at the time of departing from the affliction of the desire realm, up through that of the third dhyāna; great compassion is obtained only at the time of departing from the affliction of the peak of existence. Seventh, a distinction in rescue: compassion merely hopes and wishes to rescue; great compassion actually accomplishes the task of rescue. Eighth, a distinction in compassionate regard: compassion's compassionate regard is not impartial; great compassion's compassionate regard is impartial. Such, then, is the distinction between compassion and great compassion. The Buddha's great compassion has now been explained; the three foundations of mindfulness shall next be explained. What are these three? First, when the Buddha expounds the Dharma, if his disciples listen and receive it with reverence and put it into practice exactly as instructed, the Tathāgata, with respect to them, gives rise neither to a joyful mind nor to any exultation, but rather gives rise only to great equanimity, abiding in mindfulness and correct awareness, teaching and instructing them as is fitting. Second, when the Buddha expounds the Dharma, if his disciples do not listen and receive it with reverence, and do not put it into practice as instructed, the Tathāgata, with respect to them, gives rise to no resentment or hatred, his mind free of any disappointment, yet without abandoning his own responsibility toward them, but rather gives rise only to great equanimity, abiding in mindfulness and correct awareness, teaching and instructing them as is fitting. Third, when the Buddha expounds the Dharma, if a portion of his disciples listen and receive it with reverence and put it into practice as instructed, while another portion do not listen and receive it with reverence and do not put it into practice as instructed, the Tathāgata, with respect to them, gives rise neither to a joyful mind nor to resentment or hatred, but rather gives rise only to great equanimity, abiding in mindfulness and correct awareness. These three kinds of unique foundation of mindfulness should likewise be understood to be subsumed within the power of the knowledge of what is possible and what is not; their meaning should be reflected upon and discriminated fully in accordance with principle. One asks: of these eighteen unique buddha-dharmas, how many are able to serve as a superior support for the act of teaching the Dharma? The answer: excepting the three foundations of mindfulness, the remaining fifteen are all able to serve as a superior support for the act of teaching the Dharma. Why is this so? It is because the Buddha, through the ten powers, is able to establish his own thesis; through the four kinds of fearlessness, he is able to refute another's thesis; and through great compassion, the desire to expound the Dharma arises —

and it is through these three that the act of teaching the Dharma is accomplished. The three foundations of mindfulness possess no such capacity, but rather, when expounding the Dharma, give rise, with respect to the assembly of disciples, to neither sorrow nor joy, but instead give rise to great equanimity, abiding in mindfulness and correct awareness — and it is for this reason that they are called a unique dharma. As the sūtra states: the Tathāgata accomplishes seven kinds of excellent quality. What are these seven? First, knowing the Dharma; second, knowing its meaning; third, knowing the proper time; fourth, knowing the proper measure; fifth, knowing oneself;

sixth, knowing the assembly; seventh, knowing the superiority and inferiority of a person's own faculties. One asks: of these seven excellent qualities, by which and by how many kinds of knowledge is each constituted? The answer: all seven of these are of the nature of conventional knowledge. There are those who say: knowing the Dharma, knowing the proper measure, and knowing the assembly, these three, are of the nature of conventional knowledge alone. Knowing meaning is, for those who hold that only nirvāṇa is the ultimate truth, constituted by six kinds of knowledge — namely, dharma-knowledge, subsequent knowledge, the knowledge of cessation, the knowledge of exhaustion, the knowledge of non-arising, and conventional knowledge; for those who hold that all dharmas are the ultimate truth, it is constituted by all ten kinds of knowledge. Knowing the proper time and knowing oneself are constituted by eight kinds of knowledge, excepting the knowledge of cessation and the knowledge of another's mind. Knowing the superiority and inferiority of a person's own faculties is constituted by nine kinds of knowledge, excepting the knowledge of cessation. There are other masters who say that knowing the proper time is likewise constituted by nine kinds of knowledge, excepting the knowledge of cessation. The verdict: although what has been said above does possess a certain principle, the sūtra nonetheless states that all seven of these are of the nature of conventional knowledge, since they all know a matter of fact, which differs from case to case. One asks: under which power are these seven excellent qualities subsumed? The answer: they are all subsumed under the power of the knowledge of what is possible and what is not.

As the sūtra states: the Tathāgata accomplishes five kinds of noble knowledge with respect to concentration. What are these five? First, there arises in him an inwardly realized knowledge, knowing that this concentration is noble and free of defilement; second, there arises in him an inwardly realized knowledge, knowing that this concentration is not one the foolish draw near to, but is one praised by the wise; third, there arises in him an inwardly realized knowledge, knowing that this concentration brings ease both in the present and hereafter; fourth, there arises in him an inwardly realized knowledge, knowing that this concentration is quiescent and subtle, being the path of stilling, causing the mind to become single-pointed and to attain realization; fifth, there arises in him an inwardly realized knowledge,

knowing that he enters this concentration through correct mindfulness, and emerges from it through correct mindfulness. One asks: of these five kinds of noble knowledge with respect to concentration, by which and by how many kinds of knowledge is each constituted? The answer: all five of these are of the nature of conventional knowledge. There are those who say: all are constituted by eight kinds of knowledge, excepting the knowledge of cessation and the knowledge of another's mind. The Venerable Ghoṣa states as follows: all are constituted by six kinds of knowledge, excepting the knowledge of suffering, of origin, of cessation, and of another's mind. Those who hold this latter position — what they say, although it does possess a certain principle, the sūtra nonetheless states that all five of these are of the nature of conventional knowledge, since they all know a matter pertaining to concentration, which differs from case to case. One asks: under which power are these five kinds of noble knowledge with respect to concentration subsumed? The answer: they are all subsumed under the power of the knowledge of what is possible and what is not. With this, the digression occasioned by the explanation of bodily strength has now come to its conclusion.

What is analytical cessation, and so on, at length? One asks: why is this treatise composed? The answer: it is composed in order to refute other schools and to reveal the correct meaning — that is, there are those who hold that analytical cessation, non-analytical cessation, and the cessation of impermanence do not truly possess any real substance at all, as the Dārṣṭāntikas maintain; this treatise, in order to refute that position, reveals that all three kinds of cessation do possess a real substance. Further, there are those who hold that these three kinds of cessation are all unconditioned, as the Vibhajyavādins maintain; this treatise, in order to refute that position, reveals that the first two cessations are unconditioned, while the cessation of impermanence is conditioned, and it is for this reason that this treatise is composed. What is analytical cessation? The answer: every cessation that constitutes a freedom from bondage —

that is, the cessation of dharmas that also attains freedom from bondage, and the acquisition of that freedom from bondage — this is called analytical cessation. What is non-analytical cessation? The answer: every cessation that does not constitute a freedom from bondage — that is, the cessation of dharmas that neither attains nor acquires freedom from bondage — this is called non-analytical cessation. What is the cessation of impermanence? The answer: the scattering, breaking, ruin, loss, and decline of formations — this is called the cessation of impermanence. Here, although the words "scattering," "breaking," "ruin," "loss," and "decline" differ in their letters, they alike reveal the cessation of impermanence. Further, this speaking of formations as "scattering" and the rest does not mean that they are scattered like grain or beans being sent off to some other place, but only reveals that, through the cessation of impermanence, they no longer possess any function. Further, this speaking of "scattering" and the rest does not reveal that the formations' own inherent nature is itself destroyed, but only reveals that formations, through the cessation of impermanence, no longer possess any function —

that is, a conditioned dharma's own inherent nature exists forever, since, through the characteristic of arising, it possesses a function that comes into operation, while, through the characteristic of ceasing, it no longer possesses any function — and it is this that is called "scattering," "breaking," "ruin," "loss," and "decline."

What distinction is there between non-analytical cessation and the cessation of impermanence? The answer: non-analytical cessation is a liberation, not brought about through the power of analysis, from epidemic disease, calamity and misfortune, sorrow and vexation, various demonic affairs, and the suffering dharmas belonging to the operation of worldly time, but is not a subduing or cutting-off of craving and desire; the cessation of impermanence is the scattering, breaking, ruin, loss, and decline of formations. Such, then, is the distinction between these two cessations. Here, "liberation from epidemic disease, calamity and misfortune, sorrow and vexation, various demonic affairs, and suffering dharmas" reveals the contaminated dharma's own non-analytical cessation; "liberation from dharmas belonging to the operation of worldly time" reveals the uncontaminated dharma's own non-analytical cessation; and "not a subduing or cutting-off of craving and desire" reveals its distinction from analytical cessation.

One asks: why does this passage speak only of the distinction between non-analytical cessation and the cessation of impermanence, without speaking of analytical cessation? The answer: this is simply because the author of the treatise intended it so, and so on, at length. Further, this passage ought properly to state the matter as follows: what distinction is there among analytical cessation, non-analytical cessation, and the cessation of impermanence? The answer: analytical cessation is the cessation of a contaminated dharma brought about through the power of analysis; non-analytical cessation is a liberation, not brought about through the power of analysis, from epidemic disease, and so on, exactly as stated above; the cessation of impermanence is the scattering, breaking, ruin, loss, and decline of formations. Further, analytical cessation is liberation, and possesses the characteristic of freedom from bondage; non-analytical cessation is liberation, but does not possess the characteristic of freedom from bondage; the cessation of impermanence is neither liberation nor does it possess the characteristic of freedom from bondage. Further, analytical cessation is obtained with respect to a contaminated dharma existing in the three time-periods; non-analytical cessation is obtained with respect to a future conditioned dharma that will never arise; the cessation of impermanence operates with respect to every dharma in the present. Further, analytical cessation is wholesome, and its acquisition is likewise wholesome; non-analytical cessation is indeterminate, and its acquisition is likewise indeterminate; the cessation of impermanence extends to all three, and its acquisition likewise extends to all three. Further, analytical cessation is uncontaminated, and its acquisition extends to both the contaminated and the uncontaminated; non-analytical cessation is uncontaminated, and its acquisition is contaminated alone; the cessation of impermanence extends to both kinds, and its acquisition likewise extends to both. Further, analytical cessation is unbound,

and its acquisition may be bound to the form realm, or bound to the formless realm, or unbound; non-analytical cessation is unbound, and its acquisition is bound only to the three realms; the cessation of impermanence is bound to the three realms, or unbound, and its acquisition, too, is bound to the three realms, or unbound. Further, analytical cessation is neither belonging to a learner nor beyond training, and its acquisition may belong to a learner, or to one beyond training, or to neither; non-analytical cessation is neither belonging to a learner nor beyond training, and its acquisition, too, belongs only to one who is neither a learner nor beyond training;

the cessation of impermanence extends to all three, and its acquisition, too, extends to all three. Further, analytical cessation is neither abandoned by seeing nor by cultivation; its acquisition may be abandoned by cultivation, or may be neither; non-analytical cessation is neither abandoned by seeing nor by cultivation, and its acquisition, too, is abandoned only by cultivation; the cessation of impermanence extends to all three, and its acquisition, too, extends to all three. Further, analytical cessation and non-analytical cessation are both undefiled, and their acquisition, too, is undefiled in both cases; the cessation of impermanence extends to both defiled and undefiled, and its acquisition likewise extends to both — and the same holds for blameworthy and blameless, and for subject to retrogression and not subject to retrogression. Further, analytical cessation possesses no ripened fruit, and its acquisition may possess a ripened fruit, or may not; non-analytical cessation possesses no ripened fruit, and its acquisition, too, possesses no ripened fruit; the cessation of impermanence extends to both, and its acquisition, too, extends to both. Further, analytical cessation is the fruit of the path; its acquisition may be both the path and the fruit of the path, or may be neither the path nor the fruit of the path; non-analytical cessation is neither the path nor the fruit of the path, and its acquisition, too, is neither the path nor the fruit of the path; the cessation of impermanence may be the path but not the fruit of the path, or may be both the path and the fruit of the path, or may be neither, and its acquisition, too, is likewise so. Further, analytical cessation is subsumed under the truth of cessation, and its acquisition is subsumed under the three truths, excepting the truth of cessation; non-analytical cessation is not subsumed under any of the truths, and its acquisition is subsumed under two truths, namely suffering and origin; the cessation of impermanence is subsumed under three truths, excepting the truth of cessation, and its acquisition, too, is likewise so. One ought to distinguish these differences fully in just this way; that it is not done so here is because it has already been stated above — that is, analytical cessation constitutes freedom from bondage, while non-analytical cessation and the cessation of impermanence do not constitute freedom from bondage, and it is because both of the latter alike do not constitute freedom from bondage that their distinction needs to be worked out. There are those who say: the two latter cessations are both obtained without exertion, and it is for this reason that their distinction needs to be worked out, whereas analytical cessation, being obtained through exertion, differs from both, and so there is no need to state it.

One asks: it is already known that analytical cessation takes freedom from bondage as its own substance — one ought now to explain why it is called "analytical cessation." The answer: "analysis" refers to wisdom, and "cessation" is its fruit —

it is the cessation obtained through analysis, and it is for this reason that it is called "analytical cessation." Further, it is only through unremitting toil, unremitting preparatory effort, and unremitting exertion in the analytical discernment of dharmas that this cessation is attained, and it is for this reason that it is called "analytical cessation." Further, it is through the repeated, analytical discernment of suffering and the rest that cessation is attained, and it is for this reason that it is called "analytical cessation" — that is, forbearance with respect to suffering and knowledge of suffering analytically discern the truth of suffering, and, with respect to the dharmas abandoned by seeing suffering, cessation is attained; forbearance with respect to origin and knowledge of origin analytically discern the truth of origin, and, with respect to the dharmas abandoned by seeing origin, cessation is attained; forbearance with respect to cessation and knowledge of cessation analytically discern the truth of cessation, and, with respect to the dharmas abandoned by seeing cessation, cessation is attained; forbearance with respect to the path and knowledge of the path analytically discern the truth of the path, and, with respect to the dharmas abandoned by seeing the path, cessation is attained; and, through the repeated analytical discernment of the noble truth of suffering and the rest by means of the knowledge of suffering and the rest, cessation is attained with respect to the dharmas abandoned by cultivation, and it is for this reason that it is called "analytical cessation." One asks: is analytical cessation's own inherent nature a single entity, or is it many entities? There are those who say: it is a single entity.

One asks: if so, then, at the moment one realizes the analytical cessation of the dharmas abandoned by seeing, does one thereby also realize the analytical cessation of the dharmas abandoned by cultivation? If one does also realize it, then the subsequent antidote belonging to the path of cultivation would become useless; if one does not also realize it, then how could a single entity be realized in one part and not realized in another? There are those who say: it is two entities — first, the analytical cessation of the dharmas abandoned by seeing; second, the analytical cessation of the dharmas abandoned by cultivation. One asks: if so, then, at the moment one realizes the analytical cessation of the dharmas abandoned by seeing suffering, does one thereby also realize the analytical cessation of the dharmas abandoned by seeing origin, cessation, and the path? If one does also realize it, then the subsequent antidote would become useless; if one does not also realize it, then how could a single entity be realized in one part and not realized in another? There are those who say: it is five entities — that is, the analytical cessation of the dharmas abandoned by seeing has four entities, and the analytical cessation of the dharmas abandoned by cultivation has one entity. One asks: if so, then, at the moment one realizes the analytical cessation of the dharmas of the desire realm abandoned by seeing and by cultivation, does one thereby also realize the analytical cessation of the dharmas of the form and formless realms abandoned by seeing and by cultivation? If one does also realize it, then the subsequent antidote would become useless; if one does not also realize it, then how could a single entity be realized in one part and not realized in another? There are those who say that analytical cessation has eleven entities — that is, the analytical cessation of the dharmas abandoned by seeing has eight entities, and the analytical cessation of the dharmas abandoned by cultivation has three entities. One asks: if so, then, at the moment one realizes the analytical cessation of the very highest grade of the dharmas of the desire realm abandoned by cultivation, does one thereby also realize the analytical cessation of the remaining eight grades of the dharmas of the desire realm abandoned by cultivation? If one does also realize it, then the subsequent antidote would become useless; if one does not also realize it, then how could a single entity be realized in one part and not realized in another? The same challenge applies equally to the nine grades of the dharmas of the form and formless realms abandoned by cultivation. There are those who say:

analytical cessation has thirty-five entities — that is, the analytical cessation of the dharmas abandoned by seeing has eight entities, and the analytical cessation of the dharmas abandoned by cultivation, nine in each of the three realms, has twenty-seven entities, which, added to the previous eight, makes thirty-five. One asks: if so, then, at the moment one realizes the analytical cessation of the dharmas of the first dhyāna abandoned by cultivation, does one thereby also realize the analytical cessation of the dharmas of the latter three dhyānas abandoned by cultivation? If one does also realize it, then the subsequent antidote would become useless; if one does not also realize it, then how could a single entity be realized in one part and not realized in another? The same challenge applies equally to the dharmas of the four formless stages abandoned by cultivation. There are those who say that analytical cessation has eighty-nine entities — that is, the analytical cessation of the dharmas abandoned by seeing has eight entities, and the analytical cessation of the dharmas abandoned by cultivation, nine in each of the nine stages, has eighty-one entities, which, added to the previous eight, makes eighty-nine. One asks: if so, then, given that the dharmas abandoned by seeing possess, across the three realms and nine stages, four categories and nine grades of distinction in each, how can analytical cessation possess only eight kinds? And given that the dharmas abandoned by seeing and by cultivation possess, in each single stage, each single category, and each single grade, many distinct kinds, how can analytical cessation possess only a single kind? The verdict: it ought to be said that, corresponding to however many entities of contaminated dharma there are, there are just that many entities of analytical cessation as well, since, corresponding to however many entities there are of the matter to which one is bound, there are just that many entities of freedom from bondage as well. One asks: it is already known that analytical cessation exists in a number corresponding to the matter to which it is bound — when sentient beings realize analytical cessation, do they realize one and the same cessation in common, or does each realize a separate one? Suppose either is granted — what fault would follow? Both alternatives carry a fault: if they realize one and the same cessation in common, then how could nirvāṇa be called a dharma not held in common? And, further, if this were so, then, at the moment one sentient being attains nirvāṇa, every sentient being ought likewise to attain it; and, if so, then liberation ought to occur spontaneously, without any need for exertion. If, on the other hand, each realizes a separate cessation,

then how could nirvāṇa be called a dharma not of the same kind? And how, further, is what the sūtra states to be reconciled? As it is stated: the Tathāgata's liberation is no different from the liberation of every other arhat. The answer: it ought to be said that, when sentient beings realize analytical cessation, they all realize one and the same cessation in common. One asks: if so, then how could nirvāṇa be called a dharma not held in common? The answer: although the substance of nirvāṇa is, in reality, held in common, it is, with reference to its acquisition, spoken of as "not held in common," since the acquisition constituting freedom from bondage arises separately within each single sentient being's own continuum. One asks: if, when one sentient being attains nirvāṇa, why do all other sentient beings not likewise attain it? The answer: whoever possesses, within his own body, the acquisition of nirvāṇa is called one who has attained nirvāṇa; where this is absent, it is not so — and it is for this reason that there is no fault of every sentient being attaining nirvāṇa at the very same moment. There are other masters who say: when sentient beings realize analytical cessation, each realizes a separate cessation. One asks: if so, then how could nirvāṇa be called a dharma not of the same kind? The answer: this is stated in order to exclude the homogeneous cause, since analytical cessations possess no homogeneous cause and are therefore called "not of the same kind" — it is not that sentient beings possess no distinct analytical cessations of their own, mutually resembling one another. One asks: dharma-forbearance with respect to suffering likewise possesses no homogeneous cause — should this, too, then, be called a dharma "not of the same kind"? Why is it that every conditioned dharma is called "of the same kind," while only nirvāṇa is said to be "not of the same kind"? The answer: although dharma-forbearance with respect to suffering possesses no homogeneous cause, it is nonetheless able to serve as a homogeneous cause for other dharmas, and it is for this reason that it, too, is called "of the same kind"; nirvāṇa is not so. Further, conditioned dharmas are alike subsumed under the same three categories — the aggregates, the elements, and the sense-fields; alike fall within the three time-periods; alike possess arising and ceasing; alike admit of inferior, middling, and superior grades; alike possess an earlier and a later; alike arise from a cause; and alike are able to generate a fruit — and it is for this reason that they are called "of the same kind." Nirvāṇa is not so, and it is for this reason that it is called "not of the same kind." Further, among all dharmas, nirvāṇa alone is both wholesome and permanent; no other dharma is so, and it is for this reason that it alone is called "not of the same kind" — that is, every other dharma is either wholesome but not permanent, or permanent but not wholesome, or neither of the two; nirvāṇa alone possesses both qualities, wholesome and permanent, together, and it is for this reason that it alone is called a dharma "not of the same kind." One asks: how, then, is what the sūtra states to be reconciled? As it is stated: the Tathāgata's liberation is no different from the liberation of every other arhat. The answer: although the liberation attained within the bodies of the three vehicles differs, it is called "no different" because it is alike wholesome and permanent. Further, this statement reveals that, within a single continuum, the paths of all three vehicles alike realize liberation — that is, when compared to the liberation realized within another's body, though each differs, within a single body, the natures of all three vehicles alike realize liberation, since, whichever vehicle one relies upon to give rise to the noble path, one is thereby able to realize this very nirvāṇa. The verdict: that position ought not to be maintained. It ought rather to be said: sentient beings, universally, within each and every contaminated dharma, alike realize one and the same substance of analytical cessation —

this being in accordance with what was stated earlier, that analytical cessation exists in a number corresponding to the matter to which it is bound, and it is for this reason that what was stated earlier accords with principle and is to be preferred. One asks: with respect to external objects, is analytical cessation likewise realized there, or not? Suppose either is granted — what fault would follow? If one holds that the substance of analytical cessation is likewise realized there,

then, since there exists no sense of "possession" with respect to an external dharma, how could one "possess" that analytical cessation? And how, further, is what the sūtra states to be reconciled? As it is stated: the Venerable Śāriputra has said: "I have cut off every craving and attained inner liberation." If analytical cessation is not attained with respect to external objects, then how is what the sūtra states to be reconciled? As it is stated: it is through the cutting-off of all formations that it is called the realm of cutting-off; it is through the dispassion regarding all formations that it is called the realm of dispassion; it is through the cessation of all formations that it is called the realm of cessation. The answer: it ought to be said that analytical cessation is likewise attained with respect to external objects. One asks: if so, then, given that there exists no sense of "possession" with respect to an external dharma, how could analytical cessation be attained there? The answer: although there exists no "possession" with respect to an external dharma, there is nonetheless an "attainment" of analytical cessation with respect to it — exactly as one does not "possess" the past and future life faculty and the other seven faculties, and yet there is a realized "attainment" of analytical cessation with respect to them; the same holds for external objects as well — what contradiction is there in this? One asks: how, then, is what the sūtra states to be reconciled? As it is stated: the Venerable Śāriputra has said: "I have cut off every craving and attained inner liberation." The answer: this is stated because it is with respect to the inner aggregates that liberation is attained — one should thereby understand that liberation is likewise attained with respect to what is external. Further, the liberation of external objects is obtained in dependence on what is inner, and is therefore also called "inner" — that is, it is only through cultivating the path within one's own inner body that it is attained. Further, the acquisition of the liberation of external objects is itself something inner, and is therefore also called "inner" — that is, the acquisition of that liberation is subsumed under the inner aggregates. Further, it is through cutting off inner affliction that one attains that cessation, and it is therefore also called "inner" — that is, whatever analytical cessation exists with respect to external objects is attained only through cutting off the inner affliction that binds them — and it is for this reason that the sūtra speaks of "attaining inner liberation." There are other masters who say: with respect to external objects, no analytical cessation whatsoever is to be attained, since it is only through cutting off the afflictions and bonds that bind that analytical cessation is attained. One asks: if so, then how is what the sūtra states to be reconciled?

As it is stated: it is through the cutting-off of all formations that it is called the realm of cutting-off, and so on, at length. The answer: that sūtra ought properly to state: it is through the cutting-off of formations that it is called the realm of cutting-off, and so on, at length; it ought not to say "all," and, in speaking of "all," one should understand that it speaks of "all" in a partial sense — that is, "all" is of two kinds: first, all in a partial sense; second, all in a complete sense. That sūtra speaks only of "all" in the partial sense. There are those who say: although analytical cessation does exist with respect to external objects, it cannot be attained. The verdict: that position ought not to be maintained — one ought rather to say that it does not exist at all, rather than say that it exists yet cannot be attained, since, if it cannot in any case be attained, what use would there be in positing such a useless cessation at all? One ought rather to say: it both exists and is attained. Why is this so? Every contaminated dharma, since beginningless time, has been bound by affliction and has not attained liberation; if the affliction is cut off, then, through that freedom from bondage, liberation is attained — exactly as a person who has been bound, once released, is called "liberated," and not the rope and the rest. Since liberation is thus realized with respect to what was bound, liberation is likewise attained with respect to external objects as well. Were it not so, this would contradict what the Prakaraṇapāda states. As it is stated: what is meant by "a dharma to be realized through attainment"? The answer: every wholesome dharma. If, with respect to external objects, though analytical cessation exists, it cannot be attained, then there would exist a wholesome dharma that is not realized through attainment, which would directly contradict that statement — and it is therefore the case that, with respect to what is external as well, analytical cessation does exist and can be attained. One asks: is analytical cessation's own nature identical to the aggregates, or is it the mere absence of the aggregates?

If it were identical to the aggregates, then sentient beings ought, from the very beginning, already to be liberated, since they have all, from the very beginning, already possessed the aggregates. If it were the mere absence of the aggregates, then how could one diligently cultivate the noble path for the sake of this absence? The answer: it ought to be said that analytical cessation is neither identical to the aggregates, nor is it the mere absence of the aggregates, but rather is a distinct nature obtained within the contaminated aggregates.