A Knowledge That Never Arrives

What is a predominant wholesome root of the desire realm? What is a subtly co-arising wholesome root? 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. As the sūtra states: he still possesses a subtly co-arising wholesome root, not yet cut off, from which there will further arise wholesome dharmas, and it is on this account that he will attain purification — yet, having said this much, the sūtra does not discriminate its meaning fully, nor does it state what is meant by a predominant wholesome root of the desire realm, or what is meant by a subtly co-arising wholesome root. That sūtra is the fundamental basis upon which this treatise depends, and whatever it has left undiscriminated ought now to be discriminated fully, and it is for this reason that this treatise is composed. One asks: why does this passage not speak of the middling grade of wholesome root? The answer: this is simply because the author of the treatise intended it so, and so on, at length. Further, that it ought to be stated but is not stated here should be understood as a matter of surplus meaning left implicit. Further, having already spoken of the first and the last, the middle is thereby already indicated as well — exactly as, in speaking of first and last, or superior and inferior, or entering and emerging, or the beginning of preparatory effort and its ultimate completion, this same principle should be understood to apply.

Further, this passage speaks only of whatever is coarse, manifest, easily understood, easily designated, easily displayed, and easily expressed; the middling grade is not so, and it is for this reason that it is not spoken of here. Further, the middling grade is already subsumed within the superior and inferior grades, and is therefore not separately mentioned. Further, the superior and inferior grades are rare and extraordinary in the world, and it is for this reason that they alone are mentioned; the middling grade is exceedingly common, and, not being extraordinary, is omitted and not mentioned in brief. One asks: why does this passage speak only of the wholesome roots of the desire realm, and not of the form or formless realms? The answer: this is simply because the author of the treatise intended it so, and so on, at length. Further, that it ought to be stated but is not stated here should be understood as a matter of surplus meaning left implicit. Further, the wholesome roots of the form and formless realms take the wholesome roots of the desire realm as their gateway, their preparatory basis, and the path by which one enters into them; in speaking of the latter, the former ought to be understood as thereby already spoken of as well, and it is for this reason that they are not separately mentioned. Further, this passage speaks only of the proximate antidote — that is, the two unwholesome roots spoken of just before this passage have, as their proximate antidote, precisely these two wholesome roots of the desire realm, and it is for this reason that this passage speaks of them in particular. Further, the subtle wholesome root that increases within the desire realm is easily manifest, easily understood, and easily designated, and it is for this reason that this passage speaks of it; although the predominant wholesome roots of the form and formless realms are likewise easily manifest, easily understood, and easily designated, their subtle wholesome roots are not so, and it is for this reason that they are not spoken of here — since the higher two realms admit of no sense of "cutting off wholesome roots," their subtle wholesome roots are correspondingly difficult to designate. What is a predominant wholesome root of the desire realm? The answer: it refers to the conventional knowledge on the border of direct realization belonging to the desire realm, obtained by the Bodhisattva at the moment of entering correct and determined progress, and the wholesome roots of non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion belonging to the desire realm, obtained by the Tathāgata at the moment of attaining the knowledge of exhaustion — such wholesome roots as these, being supreme among all the wholesome roots bound to the desire realm, are accordingly called "predominant." What is a subtly co-arising wholesome root? The answer: it refers to whichever wholesome root is the very last to be relinquished at the time wholesome roots are cut off, this relinquishing itself being called "the cutting off of wholesome roots" — such a wholesome root as this, subsumed within the very lowest grade of the innately born wholesome roots bound to the desire realm, is accordingly called "subtly co-arising." One asks: why does this passage compare the wholesome roots obtained at the moment of the knowledge of exhaustion against the conventional knowledge on the border of direct realization, in order to work out their distinction?

There are those who say: this passage does not, in fact, compare the wholesome roots obtained at the moment of the knowledge of exhaustion against the conventional knowledge on the border of direct realization; rather, it compares the conventional knowledge on the border of direct realization against itself, in order to work out its distinction — that is, the conventional knowledge on the border of direct realization belonging to a śrāvaka is inferior, that belonging to a pratyekabuddha is middling, and that belonging to a bodhisattva is supreme. And it compares the wholesome roots obtained at the moment of the knowledge of exhaustion against themselves, in order to work out their distinction — that is, the wholesome roots obtained at the moment of the knowledge of exhaustion belonging to a śrāvaka are inferior, those belonging to a pratyekabuddha are middling, and those belonging to a Tathāgata are supreme. There are other masters who say: this passage does indeed compare the wholesome roots obtained at the moment of the knowledge of exhaustion against the conventional knowledge on the border of direct realization, in order to work out their distinction — that is, a bodhisattva's own conventional knowledge on the border of direct realization is inferior, while the wholesome roots obtained at the moment of the knowledge of exhaustion are supreme; and the same holds for the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha. Further, a bodhisattva's own conventional knowledge on the border of direct realization surpasses a pratyekabuddha's own wholesome roots obtained at the moment of the knowledge of exhaustion; and a pratyekabuddha's own conventional knowledge on the border of direct realization surpasses a śrāvaka's own wholesome roots obtained at the moment of the knowledge of exhaustion. There are others who say: this passage does not, in fact, intend to work out any distinction between these two at all, but rather clarifies that these two are, in truth, equal, with no difference between them — that is, both alike are attained by transcending the peak of existence, the conventional knowledge on the border of direct realization being attained by transcending the acquisition of the peak of existence's own affliction abandoned by seeing, and the wholesome roots obtained at the moment of the knowledge of exhaustion being attained by transcending the acquisition of the peak of existence's own affliction abandoned by cultivation. One asks: the two vehicles, too, attain these — why, then, does this passage not mention them? The answer: they are unable to transcend the habitual traces of the peak of existence's own affliction abandoned by seeing and by cultivation, and it is for this reason that their attainment is not called "predominant." There are yet others who say: this passage does not, in fact, intend to speak either of a distinction or of an equality between these two, but rather speaks only of the bodhisattva's own conventional knowledge on the border of direct realization belonging to the desire realm, and the Tathāgata's own wholesome roots of the desire realm obtained at the moment of the knowledge of exhaustion, as being the predominant wholesome roots of the desire realm, since these surpass what is attained by the two vehicles. One asks: if so, then do the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha possess no predominant wholesome roots of their own at all? The answer: theirs, too, in turn, are called "predominant" when compared against whatever lies below them, but not when compared against the vehicle above them.

One asks: the conventional knowledge on the border of direct realization is attained only after one has already entered correct and determined progress — why, then, does the passage speak of attaining it "at the moment of entering"? The answer: in principle, it ought to say that this is attained only after one has already entered, yet, in speaking of it as attained "at the moment of entering," this refers to what has, in fact, already entered, spoken of, in a manner drawing the distant near, as though it were happening now — exactly as it is said, "Great King, whence do you now come?" — though he has, in fact, already come, it is nonetheless said that he "now comes"; exactly as it is said, "at the moment of experiencing a pleasant feeling, one truly knows that one experiences a pleasant feeling," though this, too, refers to a feeling already experienced, yet spoken of as "at the moment of experiencing"; exactly as it is said, "cutting off suffering, cutting off pleasure, one enters the fourth dhyāna," though this, too, refers to suffering already cut off, yet spoken of as "cutting off"; exactly as it is said, "contemplating what dharma does one enter the attainment of loving-kindness," though this, too, refers to what has already been entered, yet spoken of as "entering"; exactly as it is said, "the arhat's mind is liberated from the contaminant of desire, the contaminant of existence, and the contaminant of ignorance," though this, too, with respect to the contaminant of desire, refers to what has already been liberated, yet spoken of as "liberated" — so too is it here: what has, in fact, already entered is spoken of as "at the moment of entering." There are yet others who say: it ought properly to be said that the Bodhisattva attains the conventional knowledge on the border of direct realization at the very moment of entering correct and determined progress, since every truth's own first knowledge is called "correct and determined progress," and every forbearance is called "entering" — that is, at the very moment the subsequent-knowledge forbearances of suffering, origin, and cessation give rise to the subsequent knowledges of suffering, origin, and cessation, one is said to attain the conventional knowledge on the border of direct realization — exactly as, at the very moment the vajropama-samādhi manifests before one, one is said to attain the knowledge of exhaustion; so too is it here. One asks: why is this knowledge called "on the border of direct realization"? The answer: it directly realizes the border of suffering, the border of origin, and the border of cessation, and it is through attaining this knowledge that it is called "on the border of direct realization." There are those who say: this knowledge is cultivated incidentally by yogic practitioners while they contemplate the noble truths, and it is for this reason that it is called "on the border of direct realization" — exactly as an object found near a village is called "the village's border." The Venerable Ghoṣa states as follows: this knowledge lies near to direct realization, and it is for this reason that it is called "on the border of direct realization." One asks: the mundane wholesome dharma cultivated on the border of direct realization takes the four aggregates, or the five aggregates, as its own nature — why, then, does the passage speak of it only as "conventional knowledge"? The answer: it is because knowledge is here the predominant factor that it is called "knowledge" — exactly as the path of seeing takes the five aggregates as its own nature, yet, because seeing is the predominant factor, it is called "seeing"; exactly as the vajropama-samādhi takes the four aggregates, or the five aggregates, as its own nature, yet, because concentration is the predominant factor, it is called "concentration"; exactly as the four modes of practice take the four aggregates, or the five aggregates, as their own nature, yet, because penetrating insight is the predominant factor, they are called "modes of practice" — so too is it here. One asks: with respect to the border of direct realization of suffering, which is superior — the conventional knowledge of the desire realm, or that of the form realm? The answer: that of the form realm is superior, since its realm is superior — and the same holds for the border of direct realization of origin and of cessation as well. One asks: with respect to the border of direct realization of origin, which is superior — the conventional knowledge of the desire realm, or, with respect to the border of direct realization of suffering, that of the form realm? The answer: that of the desire realm is superior, since its support is superior; that of the form realm is superior, since its realm is superior. As with suffering compared to cessation, so too should this be understood. One asks: with respect to the border of direct realization of suffering, which is superior — the conventional knowledge of the desire realm, or, with respect to the border of direct realization of origin, that of the form realm? The answer: that of the form realm is superior, since it is superior in two respects — first, its realm, and second, its support. As with suffering compared to cessation, and origin compared to cessation, so too should this be understood. One asks: with respect to the border of direct realization of suffering, which is superior — the conventional knowledge of the desire realm, or, with respect to the border of direct realization of origin, that of the desire realm? The answer: that on the border of direct realization of origin is superior, since its support is superior. As with suffering compared to cessation, and origin compared to cessation, so too should this be understood; and, just as with the desire realm, so too with the form realm. One asks: why is this conventional knowledge on the border of direct realization not cultivated at the time of dharma-knowledge? The answer: dharma-knowledge is, at that time, neither a field nor a vessel for it, and so on, at length. Further, this knowledge is cultivated on the border of direct realization, and it is for this reason that it is called "conventional knowledge on the border of direct realization"; were it cultivated at the time of dharma-knowledge as well, it ought to be called "conventional knowledge in the midst of direct realization," not "on the border." Further, this knowledge was earlier said to be attained by transcending the peak of existence's own affliction abandoned by seeing; it is not at the time of dharma-knowledge that this transcendence occurs, and it is for this reason that this knowledge is not cultivated then. Further, it is at the moment when what is to be accomplished with respect to each single truth has already been accomplished, and preparatory effort has come to rest, that this knowledge is cultivated; while abiding in dharma-knowledge, there remains much yet to be accomplished, and preparatory effort has not yet come to rest — that is, at the time of dharma-knowledge, although one knows the suffering of the desire realm, one does not yet know the suffering of the form and formless realms; although one has cut off the origin of the desire realm, one has not yet cut off the origin of the form and formless realms; although one has realized the cessation of the desire realm, one has not yet realized the cessation of the form and formless realms — and it is for this reason that this knowledge is not cultivated at the time of dharma-knowledge. Further, it is at the moment when direct realization with respect to each single truth reaches its own ultimate completion, and one has finished seeing what is to be cut off by this seeing, that this knowledge is cultivated; while abiding in dharma-knowledge, no such completion has yet occurred, and it is for this reason that this knowledge is not cultivated then. One asks: why is this knowledge not cultivated at the time of subsequent knowledge of the path? The answer: subsequent knowledge of the path is, at that time, neither a field nor a vessel for it, and so on, at length. Further, this knowledge is a member of the path of seeing's own family, belonging to the path of seeing, whereas subsequent knowledge of the path belongs to the path of cultivation, and it is for this reason that this knowledge is not cultivated then. Further, this knowledge is a member of the path leading toward a fruit, belonging to the path leading toward a fruit, whereas subsequent knowledge of the path is the path of the fruit itself, and it is for this reason that this knowledge is not cultivated then. Further, this knowledge is cultivated within the continuum of a faith-follower or a dharma-follower; at the time of subsequent knowledge of the path, one's continuum is instead that of one resolutely convicted through faith or one who has arrived through vision, and it is for this reason that this knowledge is not cultivated then. Further, this knowledge is called "on the border of direct realization" because the word "border" applies to three truths — exactly as it is said, "the border of the suffering of the perishable aggregation of self-view, the border of the origin of the perishable aggregation of self-view, the border of the cessation of the perishable aggregation of self-view" — yet it is never said, "the border of the path of the perishable aggregation of self-view," and it is for this reason that this knowledge is not cultivated at the time of subsequent knowledge of the path. One asks, following upon this discussion, a further question of its own: why does the word "border" apply to three truths, but not to the truth of the path? The answer: it is because there exists a capacity to know all suffering, to cut off all origin, and to realize all cessation, yet there exists no capacity to cultivate the entire path — even a buddha's own cultivation of the path, whether actually cultivated or merely cultivated in potential, is never exhausted, and it is for this reason that the word "border" does not apply to it. Further, if a truth is such that both the contaminated and the uncontaminated path are alike able to accomplish something with respect to it, the word "border" applies to it; the truth of the path is such that only the uncontaminated path is able to accomplish anything with respect to it, and it is for this reason that the word "border" does not apply to it — and the same should be understood to hold for the contaminated and uncontaminated paths, the mundane and transcendent paths, and the tasted and untasted paths, the path dependent on attachment and the path dependent on renunciation. Further, the truth of suffering is existent and is itself a fruit, and it is with respect to it that the word "border" applies — that is, the truths of suffering and origin are existent and are themselves fruits; the truth of cessation, though not itself existent, is nonetheless a fruit;

the truth of the path is neither existent nor a fruit, and it is for this reason that the word "border" does not apply to it, since the word "border" is never spoken with reference to the truth of the path, and it is for this reason that this knowledge is not cultivated at the time of subsequent knowledge of the path. Further, ever since the beginningless, unknowable point of origin, mundane paths have already, in the past, made some claim with respect to these three truths, thinking, "this is the path" — now, when subsequent knowledge of the path manifests before one, and one beholds the true path, one thereby feels shame before it, and it is for this reason that this knowledge is not cultivated then, exactly as, when a village or town has not yet established a headman, one who esteems himself may proclaim himself headman, but, once a true headman is established, this self-esteeming one, in shame, departs — so too is it here.

Further, the conventional knowledge on the border of direct realization is existent and is itself a fruit; the truths of suffering and origin are existent and are themselves fruits; the truth of cessation, though not itself existent, is nonetheless a fruit, and it is for this reason that, upon beholding it, one cultivates conventional knowledge; the truth of the path is neither existent nor a fruit, and it is for this reason that, upon beholding it, one does not cultivate this knowledge. Further, the truths of suffering and origin possess boundless faults and defects, while the truth of cessation possesses boundless excellent benefits, and it is for this reason that, upon beholding them, one cultivates conventional knowledge; the truth of the path possesses neither boundless faults and defects nor boundless excellent benefits, and it is for this reason that, upon beholding it, one does not cultivate this knowledge. Further, since beginningless time, mundane knowledge has already possessed some capacity with respect to these three truths — that is, a capacity to know, to cut off, and to realize, though not to its ultimate completion, since it possesses no such capacity with respect to the peak of existence; now, having attained direct realization of these three truths, since this is brought to its ultimate completion, one thereby rejoices, exactly as when an acquisition long consented to at last actually manifests before one, and it is for this reason that one cultivates it then. Since beginningless time, however, one has possessed no such capacity whatsoever with respect to the noble truth of the path, since one has never cultivated it — and it is for this reason that, at the time of the path of seeing, this knowledge is not cultivated. Further, at the time of directly realizing the truths of suffering, origin, and cessation, one has not yet beheld the true path, and mundane knowledge still supposes itself to be the path, and it is for this reason that one cultivates it then; at the time of directly realizing the noble truth of the path, one has beheld the true path, and this mundane knowledge, knowing itself not to be the true path, is thereupon no longer cultivated — the simile of the crow and the peacock should be stated here. Further, at the time of beholding these three truths, one has not yet permanently cut off the wrong view that slanders the path, nor permanently cut off the attachment to precepts and vows that mistakes what is not the path for the path, and it is for this reason that mundane forms of knowledge still proclaim themselves the path, and one cultivates it then; once one has beheld the truth of the path, all of this is permanently cut off, and it is for this reason that this mundane knowledge is no longer cultivated. One asks: when one attains the subsequent knowledge of the path, does this conventional knowledge on the border of direct realization, too, get relinquished, exactly as the path of seeing is then relinquished?

The answer: it is not relinquished. Why is this so? The dharma of relinquishment differs between a contaminated and an uncontaminated path — that is, an uncontaminated path is relinquished on account of three conditions: first, retrogression; second, attainment of the fruit; third, refining the faculties. A contaminated path is relinquished on account of four conditions: first, retrogression; second, transcending one's own realm and stage; third, cutting off wholesome roots; fourth, relinquishing the class of homogeneous being. At the time of subsequent knowledge of the path, none of the four conditions for relinquishing a contaminated path are present, and it is for this reason that

this knowledge is not relinquished at that time. Further, the subsequent knowledge of the path and the path of seeing stand in mutual opposition, in both actual manifestation and possession alike, and it is for this reason that the latter is relinquished at that time; the conventional knowledge on the border of direct realization, though standing in opposition to it in actual manifestation, does not stand in opposition to it in possession, and it is for this reason that it is not relinquished at that time. One asks: why does this knowledge never manifest during the path of cultivation? The answer: this conventional knowledge on the border of direct realization is a member of the path of seeing's own family, belonging to the path of seeing, and it is for this reason that it can never possibly manifest during the path of cultivation. Further, this knowledge is a member of the path leading toward a fruit, belonging to the path leading toward a fruit, whereas the path of cultivation carries the fruit itself along with it, and it is for this reason that this knowledge does not manifest then. Further, this knowledge depends on the continuum of a faith-follower or a dharma-follower; within the path of cultivation, no such continuum exists, and it is for this reason that this knowledge does not manifest then. Further, although this knowledge does not stand in opposition to the path of cultivation in possession, it does stand in opposition to it in actual manifestation, and it is for this reason that it does not arise then. Further, this knowledge closely resembles the path of seeing in its object and its aspect, and it is for this reason that it can never possibly manifest at the stage of the path of cultivation. As for the realm of this conventional knowledge on the border of direct realization: it belongs solely to the desire and form realms. One asks: why does this knowledge not belong to the formless realm? The answer: the formless realm is, with respect to this knowledge, neither a field nor a vessel, and so on, at length. Further, whichever realm possesses the path of seeing also possesses this knowledge; the formless realm possesses no path of seeing, and it is for this reason that this knowledge, too, is absent there. One asks, following upon this discussion, a further question of its own: why does the formless realm possess no path of seeing? The answer: the formless realm is, with respect to the path of seeing, neither a field nor a vessel, and so on, at length. Further, whichever realm possesses the aspect that takes all dharmas as its object under the aspect of non-self also possesses the path of seeing; the formless realm possesses no such aspect taking all dharmas as its object under the aspect of non-self, and it is for this reason that it possesses no path of seeing. Further, whichever realm possesses the wholesome root that practices the truths also possesses the path of seeing; the formless realm possesses no wholesome root that practices the truths, and it is for this reason that it possesses no path of seeing. Further, whichever realm possesses the aids to penetration also possesses the path of seeing; the formless realm possesses no aids to penetration, and it is for this reason that it possesses no path of seeing. Further, whichever realm possesses both forbearance and knowledge also possesses the path of seeing; the formless realm possesses knowledge but not forbearance, and it is for this reason that it possesses no path of seeing. Further, whichever realm possesses both dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge also possesses the path of seeing; the formless realm, although it possesses subsequent knowledge, lacks dharma-knowledge, and it is for this reason that it possesses no path of seeing. Further, whichever realm possesses calming and insight in equal balance, or insight predominant, also possesses the path of seeing; within the formless realm, calming predominates, not insight, and it is for this reason that it possesses no path of seeing. Further, whichever realm possesses the all-pervading knowledge also possesses the path of seeing; the formless realm possesses no all-pervading knowledge, and it is for this reason that it possesses no path of seeing. Since it possesses no path of seeing, the mundane knowledge cultivated there is likewise absent. Further, were this knowledge to exist within the formless realm, it would, being incapable of being cultivated, thereby be of no use whatsoever, and it is for this reason that it is absent there — for the cultivation of this knowledge necessarily depends on the path of seeing, and the path of seeing is able to cultivate only its own stage and those below it, never those above; even were this knowledge to exist there, it could not be cultivated in any case. And, given that the formless realm possesses no cause for the path of seeing, whatever corresponds to each such cause is likewise the very reason this knowledge is absent there. As for its stage: this knowledge exists across seven stages — namely, the desire realm, the not-yet-arrived stage, the dhyāna-interval, and the four dhyānas. If one enters correct and determined progress in dependence on the not-yet-arrived stage, one cultivates the path of seeing belonging to one stage, and this conventional knowledge on the border of direct realization belonging to two stages. If one enters correct and determined progress in dependence on the first dhyāna, one cultivates the path of seeing belonging to two stages, and this conventional knowledge belonging to three stages. If one enters correct and determined progress in dependence on the dhyāna-interval, one cultivates the path of seeing belonging to three stages, and this conventional knowledge belonging to four stages. If one enters correct and determined progress in dependence on the second dhyāna, one cultivates the path of seeing belonging to four stages, and this conventional knowledge belonging to five stages. If one enters correct and determined progress in dependence on the third dhyāna, one cultivates the path of seeing belonging to five stages, and this conventional knowledge belonging to six stages. If one enters correct and determined progress in dependence on the fourth dhyāna, one cultivates the path of seeing belonging to six stages, and this conventional knowledge belonging to seven stages. As for its support: this knowledge is supported by a body of the desire realm, not of the form or formless realms. One asks: does this knowledge depend on the body of an ordinary being,

or on the body of a noble one? Suppose either is granted — what fault would follow? If it depends on the body of an ordinary being, why is it not called "an ordinary being's dharma"? And if it depends on the body of a noble one, why does it not manifest before a noble one? There are those who say: this knowledge depends neither on the body of an ordinary being nor on the body of a noble one, possessing no support whatsoever. The verdict: that position ought not to be maintained — how could something be called a wholesome root and yet possess no support at all? It ought rather to be said: it depends on the body of a noble one, since it is cultivated and attained in dependence on the body of a faith-follower or a dharma-follower. One asks: if so, then why does it not manifest before one?

The answer: this knowledge stands in mutual opposition, in actual manifestation, with the path of seeing, and it is for this reason that it can never possibly arise so long as one remains at the stage of the path of seeing — although, were the path of seeing, at the stage of the path of seeing, to fail to manifest before one for even a single instant, this knowledge would then arise; yet, since the path of seeing admits of no momentary interruption whatsoever, this knowledge can never possibly manifest before one. One asks: if it never manifests before one, then how can it be said to depend on the body of a faith-follower or a dharma-follower? The answer: that body is of two kinds: first, the support of the path of seeing; second, the support of the conventional knowledge on the border of direct realization. The path of seeing is acquired, and is also present within the body and possessed, and is also actually manifest before one, with respect to the body that is the path of seeing's own support; the conventional knowledge on the border of direct realization is acquired with respect to that same body, but is neither possessed nor actually manifest before one. The conventional knowledge on the border of direct realization is acquired, and is also present within the body and possessed, and is also actually manifest before one, with respect to the body that is its own support; the path of seeing is acquired with respect to that same body, but is neither possessed nor actually manifest before one. Were the body that supports this conventional knowledge to be actually manifest at the stage of the path of seeing, then this knowledge, too, would be possessed and actually manifest before one, while the path of seeing would be possessed only in the future. Yet, at the stage of the path of seeing, one must necessarily give rise to the body that supports the path of seeing, and it is for this reason that the path of seeing, too, is possessed and actually manifest before one — this knowledge, in that case, being possessed only in the future. Were one, at the stage of the path of seeing, not to give rise to the body that supports the path of seeing, then there would be no path of seeing at all, and one's beholding of the noble truths would thereby fail to occur, so that one would then not even be a noble one at all — and it is for this reason that one must necessarily give rise to the body that supports the path of seeing. On account of this, the acquisition belonging to that other body constitutes a non-analytical cessation, and it is for this reason that this knowledge can never, in the end, arise then. As for its aspects: this knowledge, taken in total, possesses twelve aspects — that is, what is cultivated on the border of direct realization of suffering forms the four aspects of suffering; what is cultivated on the border of direct realization of origin forms the four aspects of origin; what is cultivated on the border of direct realization of cessation forms the four aspects of cessation. As for its object: this knowledge takes the three truths across the three realms as its object — what is cultivated on the border of direct realization of suffering takes the truth of suffering across the three realms as its object; what is cultivated on the border of direct realization of origin takes the truth of origin across the three realms as its object; what is cultivated on the border of direct realization of cessation takes the truth of cessation across the three realms as its object. One asks: does this take its object comprehensively, or does it take its object separately? The answer: it takes its object separately — that is, one of the desire realm takes, as is appropriate, the three truths of the desire realm as his object; one of the form realm takes, as is appropriate, the three truths of the form and formless realms as his object. There are those who say: it takes its object comprehensively — that is, one of the desire realm takes, as is appropriate, the three truths across all three realms as his object, and the same holds for one of the form realm. Those who hold this latter position are to be preferred, since, just as with uncontaminated knowledge, the dharma-portion and the subsequent-portion each take their own separate object. As for the establishments of mindfulness: what this knowledge cultivates on the border of direct realization of suffering and of origin extends to all four establishments of mindfulness; what it cultivates on the border of direct realization of cessation is only the establishment of mindfulness with respect to dharmas. As for the kind of knowledge: this knowledge is solely conventional knowledge. As for concentration: this knowledge is not conjoined with any of the three concentrations. As for its association with the faculties: this knowledge is, in total, associated with the three faculties — namely, pleasure, joy, and equanimity. As for past, future, and present: this knowledge belongs solely to the future; what is cultivated on the border of direct realization of suffering and of origin takes the three time-periods as its object; what is cultivated on the border of direct realization of cessation takes what is beyond time as its object. As for wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate: this knowledge is solely wholesome; what is cultivated on the border of direct realization of suffering and of origin, belonging to the desire realm, takes all three as its object, and, belonging to the form realm, takes the wholesome and the indeterminate as its object; what is cultivated on the border of direct realization of cessation takes only the wholesome as its object. As for being bound or unbound: this knowledge is bound to the desire and form realms; what is cultivated on the border of direct realization of suffering and of origin, belonging to the desire realm, takes what is bound to the desire realm as its object, and, belonging to the form realm, takes what is bound to the form and formless realms as its object; what is cultivated on the border of direct realization of cessation takes what is unbound as its object. As for belonging to a learner, one beyond training, or neither:

this knowledge belongs to neither a learner nor one beyond training, and takes as its object what belongs to neither a learner nor one beyond training. As for what is abandoned by seeing, abandoned by cultivation, or neither: this knowledge is solely abandoned by cultivation; what is cultivated on the border of direct realization of suffering and of origin takes as its object what is abandoned by seeing and by cultivation; what is cultivated on the border of direct realization of cessation takes as its object what is neither abandoned by seeing nor by cultivation.

As for taking a name or a meaning as its object: what this knowledge cultivates on the border of direct realization of suffering and of origin takes both name and meaning as its object; what it cultivates on the border of direct realization of cessation takes only meaning as its object. As for taking one's own continuum, another's continuum, or what is not a continuum, as its object: what this knowledge cultivates on the border of direct realization of suffering and of origin takes as its object both one's own continuum and another's; what it cultivates on the border of direct realization of cessation takes as its object what is not a continuum. As for being obtained through preparatory effort, through obtaining freedom from defilement, or innately obtained at birth: this knowledge is obtained solely through preparatory effort. As for whether it arises from hearing, from reflection, or from cultivation: this knowledge, belonging to the desire realm, arises from reflection, not from hearing, since reflection is here superior; nor does it arise from cultivation, since it is not fixed. Belonging to the form realm, it arises from cultivation, not from hearing, since cultivation is here superior; nor does it arise from reflection, since that realm possesses no wisdom of reflection — were one there to reflect, one would thereby enter concentration, and it is for this reason that this knowledge belongs to the mental ground. As for whether it exists on the mental ground or among the five sense-consciousnesses: this knowledge exists solely on the mental ground, not among the five sense-consciousnesses, since the five sense-consciousnesses possess no wholesome dharma gained through preparatory effort. One asks: does this knowledge possess a ripened fruit, or does it possess none? The answer: it does possess a ripened fruit, since it is wholesome and contaminated.

One asks: in what place is this knowledge's ripened fruit received? The answer: one of the desire realm receives it within the desire realm; one of the form realm receives it within the form realm; one of the first dhyāna receives it within the first dhyāna, and so on, up through one of the fourth dhyāna, who receives it within the fourth dhyāna. One asks: this may well hold for a śrāvaka, since he may indeed possess a continuum within the form realm — but how could this possibly hold for the Buddha and for pratyekabuddhas, since neither the Buddha nor a pratyekabuddha could ever possess a continuum within the form realm in which to receive this ripened fruit? The answer: that person, belonging to the lineage destined for buddhahood or for pratyekabuddha-hood, once, in an earlier existence, likewise possessed a continuum of aggregates, elements, and sense-fields within the form realm, and it is with reference to that earlier continuum, in due course, that this ripened fruit is received. One asks: if so, then how could a cause possessed within the continuum of a noble one come to obtain its fruit within the continuum of an ordinary being? The answer: to grant that a cause and its fruit may be related in this way carries no fault whatsoever — exactly as the Chapter on Karma states: if one possesses both kinds of bondage — that abandoned by seeing and that abandoned by cultivation together — one is thereby liable to proceed to an evil destiny; a stream-enterer possesses only the bondage abandoned by cultivation, lacking the bondage abandoned by seeing, and it is for this reason that he does not proceed to an evil destiny. On this basis, an evil destiny has two kinds of cause: first, the fetters abandoned by seeing; second, the fetters abandoned by cultivation. The fetters abandoned by cultivation that a stream-enterer still possesses are indeed a cause of an evil destiny — is this not, then, precisely a case of a cause possessed within the continuum of a noble one obtaining its fruit within the continuum of an ordinary being? And so this statement, too, carries no fault whatsoever — though this holds only where cause and fruit are not of the same class of arising; where they are of the same class of arising, no such case exists. There are yet others who say:

the Buddha and pratyekabuddhas, too, possess a continuum of aggregates, elements, and sense-fields within the form realm exactly as a śrāvaka does, and it is with reference to that continuum, in due course, that this knowledge's ripened fruit is received. The verdict: neither of these positions ought to be maintained. It ought rather to be said: the conventional knowledge on the border of direct realization is contaminated and indeterminate in the sense of karmic recording, and it is for this reason that it is said to possess a ripened fruit, yet it possesses no sense of having ever previously been experienced, nor of ever being experienced in the future — and it is for this reason that one ought not to press the objection of needing to receive its ripened fruit within some particular body. One asks: is there a case in which two noble ones, born together within the very same stage, one possesses the conventional knowledge on the border of direct realization while the other does not? The answer: there is — namely, one who entered correct and determined progress in dependence on the first dhyāna, and another who entered correct and determined progress in dependence on the second dhyāna, both of whom, at the end of their lives, are alike reborn into the second dhyāna. The one who depended on the first dhyāna does not possess this knowledge, since it is relinquished through transcending one's own stage; the one who depended on the second dhyāna does possess it, since, being reborn within his own stage, it is not relinquished. One asks: is there a case in which two arhats, abiding together within the very same stage, one possesses the conventional knowledge on the border of direct realization while the other does not?

The answer: there is — namely, one who, in an earlier time, entered correct and determined progress in dependence on the first dhyāna, and another who entered correct and determined progress in dependence on the second dhyāna, both of whom, at the end of their lives, are alike reborn into the second dhyāna, and, while abiding in the intermediate state, attain the fruit of arhatship. The one who depended on the first dhyāna does not possess this knowledge, since it is relinquished through transcending one's own stage; the one who depended on the second dhyāna does possess it, since, being reborn within his own stage, it is not relinquished. One asks: the śrāvaka, the pratyekabuddha, and the Tathāgata alike, at the moment of attaining the knowledge of exhaustion, all cultivate the wholesome roots of all three realms across the nine stages — why, then, does this passage speak only of the Tathāgata's own wholesome roots of the desire realm, and not of the others? The answer: although, in truth, all alike attain them, this passage, wishing to speak of the predominant wholesome roots of the desire realm specifically, does not speak of the two vehicles, nor of what is attained in the other stages. One asks: do all arhats, at the moment of attaining the knowledge of exhaustion, cultivate the wholesome roots of all three realms across the nine stages? The answer: this is not fixed. If one is born in the desire realm, at the moment of attaining the knowledge of exhaustion, one is able to cultivate all three realms across the nine stages in the future; if one is born in the first dhyāna, at the moment of attaining the knowledge of exhaustion, one is able to cultivate two realms across the eight stages in the future, since one does not cultivate the lower, contaminated stage; and so on, in this way, up through: if one is born in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, at the moment of attaining the knowledge of exhaustion, one is able to cultivate only a single realm, a single stage, in the future. This passage speaks of the wholesome roots here in particular, since they are supreme, yet, in reality, one cultivates the full four aggregates, or five aggregates, in every case.

One asks: are these cultivated wholesome roots obtained through preparatory effort, through obtaining freedom from defilement, or innately obtained at birth? The answer: they are obtained both through obtaining freedom from defilement and through preparatory effort, since they are obtained at the moment of departing from the defilement of the peak of existence, and since the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha, too, attain them through their own preparatory effort actually manifesting before them; they are not innately obtained at birth, since this would not be their most excellent mode of attainment.

One asks: are these cultivated wholesome roots those arisen from hearing, from reflection, or from cultivation? The answer: all three kinds exist — those belonging to the desire realm arise from hearing and from reflection; those belonging to the form realm arise from hearing and from cultivation; those belonging to the formless realm arise solely from cultivation. One asks: why does the conventional knowledge on the border of direct realization not arise from hearing, while the wholesome roots cultivated at the moment of the knowledge of exhaustion do arise from hearing? The answer: the former is a member of the path of seeing's own family, being entirely keen and sharp, cultivated by the swift path, and it is for this reason that it does not arise from hearing; the latter is a member of the knowledge of exhaustion's own family, and, since the knowledge of exhaustion has already ceased seeking further, being a leisurely, unhurried path, it is thereby able freely to cultivate every kind of wholesome dharma gained through preparatory effort. One asks: do these wholesome roots exist on the mental ground, or among the five sense-consciousnesses? The answer: they exist solely on the mental ground, since the five sense-consciousnesses possess no wholesome dharma gained through preparatory effort — although there does exist a wholesome dharma innately obtained at birth, this is not what is here cultivated, and it is for this reason that this belongs solely to the mental ground. One asks: if this wholesome root belongs solely to the mental ground, then how is what the Prajñaptiśāstra states to be reconciled? As it is stated: once an arhat has attained the knowledge of exhaustion, do the dharmas of the six constant abidings exist, or do they not? If they exist, in what manner do they exist? If they do not exist, in what manner do they not exist? Suppose they do exist — how many are possessed as belonging to the past, how many to the future, and how many to the present? The answer: they do exist — that is, once an arhat has seen a visible form with the eye, he neither rejoices nor grieves, his mind forever abiding in equanimity, possessed of mindfulness and correct awareness, and so on, at length, up through: once he has cognized a dharma with the mind, he neither rejoices nor grieves, his mind forever abiding in equanimity, possessed of mindfulness and correct awareness. Once that arhat has attained the knowledge of exhaustion, if the first wholesome eye-consciousness to arise manifests before him, he then possesses one belonging to the past, six belonging to the future, and one belonging to the present — and, once this ceases, it is not relinquished. If a wholesome ear-consciousness then arises and manifests before him, he possesses two belonging to the past, six belonging to the future, and one belonging to the present — and, once this ceases, it is not relinquished — and so on, up through: if a wholesome mental consciousness arises and manifests before him, he possesses six belonging to the past, six belonging to the future, and one belonging to the present. There are others who say: if the first wholesome eye-consciousness to arise manifests before him, he then possesses none belonging to the past, but merely six belonging to the future and one belonging to the present — and, once this ceases, it is not relinquished. If a wholesome ear-consciousness then arises and manifests before him, he possesses one belonging to the past, six belonging to the future, and one belonging to the present — and, once this ceases, it is not relinquished — and so on, up through: if a wholesome mental consciousness arises and manifests before him, he possesses five belonging to the past, six belonging to the future, and one belonging to the present; and, should a further wholesome mental consciousness, or some other consciousness, then arise and manifest before him, he possesses six belonging to the past, six belonging to the future, and one belonging to the present. One asks: how is what is thus stated to be reconciled with the position that this wholesome root belongs solely to the mental ground? The answer: what is here spoken of concerns what arises and ceases within the body already purified through the exhaustion of contaminants, and does not speak of what has arisen and ceased since the beginningless cycle of birth and death — and so what is stated here carries no conflict whatsoever with the wholesome roots cultivated at the moment of the knowledge of exhaustion. There are others who say: the dharmas of the six constant abidings, too, belong solely to the mental ground, since the passage speaks of one who, having seen a visible form with the eye, and so on, up through having cognized a dharma with the mind, neither rejoices nor grieves, his mind forever abiding in equanimity, possessed of mindfulness and correct awareness. One asks: if so, then why does the passage further speak of possessing one belonging to the present at the moment a wholesome eye-consciousness and the rest actually manifest before him? The answer: one should understand that this refers to the preparatory effort of constant abiding, not to constant abiding's own substance, and it is for this reason that there is no conflict. One asks: what do the dharmas of the six constant abidings take as their own nature? The answer: they take mindfulness and wisdom as their own nature. How is this known to be so? As the sūtra states: every arhat's mind is well liberated, possessing the six constant abidings. What are these six? It is that, having seen a visible form with the eye, and so on, up through having cognized a dharma with the mind, one neither rejoices nor grieves, one's mind forever abiding in equanimity, possessed of mindfulness and correct awareness. If one also includes what stands in association with them and arises together with them, then they take the four aggregates, or the five aggregates, as their own nature. Their own nature having now been explained, the reason for this shall now be stated.

One asks: why are they called "constant abidings"? What is the meaning of "constant abiding"? The answer: every arhat forever abides in this state, never once relinquishing or departing from it, and it is for this reason that it is called "constant abiding." One asks: do all arhats alike possess these six dharmas of constant abiding? There are those who say: not all arhats alike possess these six — that is, it is only one of unshaken, untimed liberation, who has already attained the ultimate boundary of the fourth dhyāna, together with the knowledge of aspiration, who possesses these six. The verdict:

it ought to be said that every arhat alike possesses these six. How is this known to be so? These six constant abidings all take, as their own substance, the mindfulness and wisdom present within the body purified through the exhaustion of contaminants, and there exists no arhat who fails to possess this mindfulness and wisdom. One asks: in which realm and stage do these six constant abidings exist? There are those who say: these six exist within the desire and form realms, in only two stages — namely, the desire realm and the first dhyāna — since it is only the mental ground that enters and exits together with wholesome eye-consciousness and the rest, and it is for this reason that they do not exist in the higher stages. There are other masters who say: they exist across five stages — namely, the desire realm and the four dhyānas — since the mental consciousness of these five stages alike enters and exits together with the eye-consciousness and the rest. The verdict: it ought to be said that they exist throughout the three realms, across all eleven stages — namely, the desire realm, the not-yet-arrived stage, the dhyāna-interval, the four dhyānas, and the four formless spheres — since mindfulness and wisdom on the mental ground pervade every stage. One asks: do these six constant abidings admit of a distinction of superior, middling, and inferior grade? The answer: they do — that is, the Tathāgata's own is the superior grade, a pratyekabuddha's is the middling grade, and a śrāvaka's is the inferior grade. Further, one of the unshaken lineage possesses the superior grade, one of the retrogressing lineage possesses the inferior grade, and the remaining four lineages possess the middling grade. One asks: if the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha, too, alike possess these six dharmas of constant abiding, why is it said that the three establishments of mindfulness are a dharma unique to the Buddha alone? The answer: the Buddha forever expounds the essentials of the Dharma for the assembly, guiding and governing sentient beings, and it is for this reason that this passage speaks of him in particular; the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha have no such task, and it is for this reason that they are not said to possess it. Further, although the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha do possess a small portion of this, it is not brought to its ultimate completion, and it is for this reason that it is not established as belonging to them. Further, the dharmas of the six constant abidings and the three establishments of mindfulness are established through different means — the three establishments of mindfulness are established with reference to the assembly, while the dharmas of the six constant abidings are established with reference to the object — since it is easy to give rise to neither joy nor grief with respect to a mere object, but difficult to do so with respect to an assembly of people, and it is for this reason that the śrāvaka and the like possess the six constant abidings but do not possess the three establishments of mindfulness. One asks: why is it only at the moment of attaining the knowledge of exhaustion that one all at once cultivates the wholesome roots of the three realms in the future, and not at any other time? The answer: it is at that moment that the afflictions of the three realms are permanently exhausted, with nothing further remaining to be done, requiring only the mundane mind of entering and exiting concentration in order to make use of the various concentrations, and it is for this reason that it is at this time that one cultivates the wholesome roots of the three realms. Further, it is at this time that one permanently relinquishes every mass of affliction never before relinquished, and, for the very first time, attains every mass of merit never before attained, and it is for this reason that one is able all at once to cultivate the wholesome roots of the three realms. Further, it is at this time that the mind attains its own sovereign mastery, as though ascending to the rank of a king, the crown of liberation bound upon his head, an auspicious white silk sash upon him, so that the wholesome roots of the three realms all come to pay him homage — exactly as, when a king ascends the throne, the crown bound upon his head, every land in the realm comes to pay him tribute. Further, it is at this time that one is able to vanquish the very enemy of affliction never before vanquished, and the wholesome roots of the three realms all come to offer their congratulations — exactly as, when someone in a great assembly proves able to subdue a mighty enemy no one else could ever subdue, the whole assembly joins in congratulation. Further, it is at this time that liberation reaches its own ultimate completion, and one is thereby able incidentally to cultivate the wholesome roots of the three realms — that is, from the path of seeing, gradually, up through the vajropama-samādhi, liberation is not yet complete, and one is able to cultivate only a small corresponding portion; once one attains the knowledge of exhaustion, liberation being complete, one is thereby able incidentally to cultivate the wholesome roots of the three realms — exactly as when a person irrigates his fields: once one plot is filled, the water enters the next, and so on, until every plot is filled, at which point the water overflows and spreads throughout every other place as well. Further, it is at this time that the very bonds of affliction are exhausted, and the wholesome roots of the three realms all thereby attain liberation, their function growing vigorous and abundant, and it is for this reason that one cultivates them all at once — that is, since beginningless time, the wholesome dharmas of the three realms have forever been bound by affliction, never attaining their own sovereign mastery, possessing no functioning power; and it is for this reason that one is unable to cultivate them in their fullness. If a practitioner, at the time of departing from the desire realm's own defilement, attains but a small liberation, much bondage still remains, and so on, up through: at the time of departing from the eighth grade of the peak of existence's own affliction, though much has been liberated, a small bondage still remains; only once one departs from the ninth grade of the peak of existence's own affliction do every one of the bonds upon the wholesome roots of the three realms become entirely cut off, and one thereby attains sovereign mastery, and it is for this reason that all are cultivated at once — exactly as with a silken thread and the like, bound ninefold: cutting one or two, up through cutting eight of the bonds, the bundle does not yet come apart, but, once the ninth is cut, the bundle then falls apart — so too is it here. Further, since beginningless time, the wholesome dharmas of the three realms have all alike been afflicted by the peak of existence's own affliction, and, though many skillful means have been applied, one has never yet been able to cut it off; now, having exhausted it entirely, one is thereby able to cultivate them all at once. Further, the power of the vajropama-samādhi grows fierce and forceful, able permanently to extinguish every affliction whatsoever, and the knowledge of exhaustion it draws forth is likewise able, all at once, to attain every kind of liberation, and it is for this reason that, at this stage, one is able to cultivate the wholesome roots of the three realms in their entirety. An arhat of timed liberation, at the moment of attaining the knowledge of exhaustion, is able to cultivate two kinds of knowledge across thirty aspects — namely, fourteen aspects of the knowledge of exhaustion, excepting emptiness and non-self, and the sixteen aspects of the right view and knowledge of one beyond training; and, in each of the four dhyānas, the not-yet-arrived stage, and the dhyāna-interval, he fully cultivates both dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge, thirty aspects each; and, within the three formless spheres, he cultivates only subsequent knowledge, thirty aspects. An arhat of unshaken, untimed liberation, at the moment of attaining the knowledge of exhaustion, is able to cultivate three kinds of knowledge across forty-four aspects — namely, fourteen aspects each of the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising, and the sixteen aspects of the right view and knowledge of one beyond training; and, in each of the four dhyānas, the not-yet-arrived stage, and the dhyāna-interval, he

fully cultivates both dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge, forty-four aspects each; and, within the three formless spheres, he cultivates only subsequent knowledge, forty-four aspects. This constitutes the cultivation of uncontaminated wholesome roots.