Four Goddesses Aniruddha Could Not See as Impure

What is meant by "abiding in face-to-face mindfulness"? The answer: the practitioner of meditative observation fixes mindfulness between the eyebrows, contemplating the corpse as livid and discolored, or as bloated and swollen,

or as festering and oozing, or as broken apart, or as marked with strange redness, or as being devoured, or as scattered and separated, or as reduced to white bone, or as a jumbled heap of bones — these are what is called abiding in face-to-face mindfulness. One asks: why is mindfulness fixed specifically between the eyebrows? The answer: the practitioner of meditative observation first, in dependence on this very location, gives rise to noble bliss, which then gradually pervades the whole body — and it is for this reason that mindfulness is fixed there between the eyebrows, exactly as one indulging in sensual desire first gives rise to desire-pleasure at the male or female organ, which then gradually pervades the whole body; this is exactly the same. There is also a version of the text that speaks of "fixing mindfulness on light and darkness" — "light" here refers to the eye, that is, mindfulness is said to be fixed at the bridge of the nose. There is a further version that speaks of "fixing mindfulness at the hairline." There is a further version that speaks of "fixing mindfulness at the tip of the nose." There is a version that speaks of "abiding in mindfulness conjoined with non-greed" — this is speaking of abiding in mindfulness conjoined with calm-abiding. There are also those who speak of "abiding in mindfulness conjoined with clarity" — this is speaking of abiding in mindfulness conjoined with insight. The practitioner of meditative observation, fixing mindfulness in this way between the eyebrows and the rest, contemplates such marks of the corpse as livid discoloration — this very practice is the contemplation of unattractiveness, and it is this that is here called abiding in face-to-face mindfulness. One asks: why does this passage speak only of the contemplation of unattractiveness as face-to-face mindfulness, and not of the contemplation of the distinct elements through mindfulness of the breath? The answer: this passage, too, ought properly to speak of the contemplation of the distinct elements through mindfulness of the breath as face-to-face mindfulness, and that this is not so stated should be understood as a matter of surplus meaning left implicit. Further, one should understand that this passage speaks only of the initial contemplation — that is, the contemplation of unattractiveness is the very first among the contemplations, and, in speaking of the first, the middle and the later are thereby understood to be spoken of as well. Further, one should understand that this passage speaks with reference to what applies to the majority — that is, the majority of practitioners of meditative observation rely on the gateway of the contemplation of unattractiveness in order to enter the noble path, rather than on the contemplation of the distinct elements through mindfulness of the breath, and it is for this reason that this passage speaks of it in particular. The Venerable Ghoṣa states as follows: every mindfulness induced by proper attention in accordance with reality is called face-to-face mindfulness, not the contemplation of unattractiveness alone; yet the Venerable Kātyāyanīputra, following scripture, speaks in particular of the contemplation of unattractiveness as face-to-face mindfulness, since scripture states: there are monks who, dwelling in a forest retreat, or beneath a tree, or within a quiet chamber, sit cross-legged, holding the body upright, abiding in correct aspiration, and abiding in face-to-face mindfulness, in order to cut off desire and greed, becoming free of desire and greed, their minds thereby abiding in great stability; and, just as this holds for cutting off desire and greed, so too should it be understood to hold for cutting off hatred, torpor and drowsiness, restlessness and worry, and doubt. Among the five hindrances, desire and greed is the heaviest, and further stands foremost among them, and it is for this reason that this passage speaks of it in particular — its immediate antidote is the contemplation of unattractiveness; once desire and greed is cut off, every other hindrance is thereby cut off as well, and it is for this reason that this passage does not separately name the immediate antidote for each of the others as face-to-face mindfulness.

One asks: when a practitioner of meditative observation fixes mindfulness between the eyebrows, at that time, in which stage should this be said to abide? The answer: the stage of transcending applied attention. Yet the practice of the contemplation of unattractiveness among yoga practitioners, taken as a whole, comprises three stages: first, the stage of initial practice; second, the stage of already-ripened cultivation; third, the stage of transcending applied attention. Those who cultivate this contemplation are, moreover, of three kinds: first, those who delight in brevity; second, those who delight in expansiveness; third, those who delight in both expansiveness and brevity together. Among these, for the one who delights solely in brevity —

that practitioner first goes to a charnel ground and observes the marks of a corpse — livid discoloration and the rest. Having properly grasped these marks, he retires and sits in a single place, contemplating those marks once more. If his mind grows scattered and unclear, he again goes to the charnel ground and, as before, observes and properly grasps the marks. In this way, he continues until, once his mind is clear and no longer scattered, he swiftly returns to his own dwelling place, washes his feet, takes his seat, sits cross-legged, harmonizing body and mind so as to be free of every hindrance, recollecting and contemplating the marks previously grasped, and, by the power of resolute conviction, transferring them onto his own body — beginning from livid discoloration all the way through to a jumbled heap of bones.

Within this heap of bones, he first contemplates the bones of the feet, then the ankle bones, then the shin bones, then the knee bones, then the thigh bones, then the hip bones, then the waist bones, then the spinal bones, then the rib bones, then the shoulder-blade bones, then the arm bones, then the elbow bones, then the wrist bones, then the hand bones, then the shoulder bones, then the neck bones, then the jaw bones, then the tooth bones, and finally the skull. Having, by the power of resolute conviction, contemplated such marks of impurity as these, he fixes mindfulness between the eyebrows and abides there, calm and still. He then further turns this mindfulness to enter the mindfulness-foundation of the body, and, proceeding onward from there, enters the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas — this is called the completion of the contemplation of unattractiveness for one who delights in brevity. For the one who delights solely in expansiveness: that practitioner first goes to a charnel ground and observes the marks of a corpse, livid discoloration and the rest, exactly as broadly explained above, proceeding onward until, having fixed mindfulness between the eyebrows, he settles and rests there — he then further turns this mindfulness, first contemplating the skull, then the tooth bones, and proceeding onward until, finally, he contemplates the bones of the feet. Having, by the power of resolute conviction, contemplated his own bones, he further contemplates external bones lying beside his own bones, gradually pervading a single bed, a single room, a single monastery, a single garden, a single village, a single field, a single river-region, a single kingdom, proceeding onward all the way to the shore of the great ocean, pervading the whole earth, until his mind's own eye and every place is filled with a jumbled heap of bones. He then gradually contracts this again, until he contemplates only the bones of his own body; within this, he gradually removes the bones of the feet, proceeding onward until, finally, he contemplates only the skull. Having, by the power of resolute conviction, contemplated such marks of impurity as these, he fixes mindfulness between the eyebrows and abides there, calm and still. He then further turns this mindfulness to enter the mindfulness-foundation of the body, and, proceeding onward from there, enters the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas — this is called the completion of the contemplation of unattractiveness for one who delights in expansiveness. For the one who delights in both expansiveness and brevity together: that practitioner first goes to a charnel ground and observes the marks of a corpse, livid discoloration and the rest, exactly as broadly explained above, proceeding onward all the way to the shore of the great ocean, pervading the whole earth, until his mind's own eye and every place is filled with a jumbled heap of bones. He then gradually contracts this, proceeding onward until, finally, he contemplates only the skull, fixing mindfulness between the eyebrows and briefly resting there.

He then repeatedly expands and contracts this contemplation as before, until it becomes thoroughly ripened, at which point he fixes mindfulness between the eyebrows and abides there, calm and still. He then further turns this mindfulness to enter the mindfulness-foundation of the body, and, proceeding onward from there, enters the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas — this is called the completion of the contemplation of unattractiveness for one who delights in both expansiveness and brevity together. One asks: why is it that, while cultivating this contemplation of unattractiveness, one repeatedly expands and contracts the impure object in this way? The answer: it is in order to display that the contemplating mind has attained mastery — that is, it is only one who has attained mastery over the object who is able to repeatedly expand and contract his contemplation of it in this way; were he without such mastery, he would possess no such capacity at all. Further, the yoga practitioner reflects as follows: from beginningless birth and death onward, my mind, disturbed by affliction, has taken the impure to be pure; now, having observed the impure exactly as it truly is, I wish to make this thoroughly ripened through repeated expansion and contraction. Further, it is in order to display the great strength of his own wholesome roots — that is, it is meant to show that, having taken hold of but a slight mark of impurity, he is nonetheless able gradually to expand it until it pervades the whole earth, and then to contract it again until he observes only a small portion — is this not indeed a display of great strength over his object? Further, the yoga practitioner thereby displays his own great strength, and so repeatedly expands and contracts his contemplation of the object — that is, from beginningless time, held fast by the power of sensual craving, he was unable to freely expand and contract his contemplation of the impure object; now, having subdued sensual craving and attained mastery, he is able to repeatedly expand and contract his contemplation of the impure object. It is for this reason that, within this topic, four alternatives ought to be formulated: there is a case where the contemplation of unattractiveness has a small object but not a small mastery — namely, when he merely contemplates impurity repeatedly with respect to his own body alone. There is a case where the contemplation of unattractiveness has a small mastery but not a small object — namely, when he gives rise, however briefly, to a perception of impurity pervading the whole earth, yet is unable to repeatedly contemplate it in this way. There is a case where the contemplation of unattractiveness has both a small object and a small mastery — namely, when he gives rise, however briefly, to a perception of impurity with respect to his own body alone, and is unable to repeatedly contemplate it in this way. There is a case where the contemplation of unattractiveness has neither a small object nor a small mastery — namely, when he is able to repeatedly contemplate impurity pervading the whole earth. There are, further, four more alternatives: there is a case where the contemplation of unattractiveness has an immeasurable object but not an immeasurable mastery — namely, the second case just given above. There is a case where the contemplation of unattractiveness has immeasurable mastery but not an immeasurable object — namely, the first case just given above. There is a case where the contemplation of unattractiveness has both an immeasurable object and immeasurable mastery — namely, the fourth case just given above. There is a case where the contemplation of unattractiveness has neither an immeasurable object nor immeasurable mastery — namely, the third case just given above. One asks: when cultivating these three kinds of contemplation of unattractiveness, up to what point is one said to be in the stage of initial practice, up to what point in the stage of already-ripened cultivation, and up to what point in the stage of transcending applied attention? The answer: for the one who delights solely in brevity, everything from going to the charnel ground to observe the marks of a corpse, livid discoloration and the rest, broadly as stated, up through transferring them by the power of resolute conviction onto his own body, from livid discoloration all the way to the heap of bones, is called the stage of initial practice. Everything from, within the heap of bones, first contemplating the bones of the feet, broadly as stated, up through finally contemplating the skull, and, within this, further removing half and then contemplating half, and further removing a further portion and contemplating only that remaining portion, is called the stage of already-ripened cultivation. Everything from, having, by the power of resolute conviction, contemplated such marks of impurity, fixing mindfulness between the eyebrows and abiding there, calm and still, turning this mindfulness onward to enter the mindfulness-foundation of the body and, proceeding onward, the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas, is called the stage of transcending applied attention. For the one who delights solely in expansiveness: everything from going to the charnel ground to observe the marks of a corpse, livid discoloration and the rest, broadly as stated, up through gradually contracting this until he contemplates only the bones of his own body, is called the stage of initial practice. Everything from, within this, gradually removing the bones of the feet, proceeding onward through finally contemplating the skull, and, within this, further removing half and then contemplating half,

and further removing a further portion and contemplating only that remaining portion, is called the stage of already-ripened cultivation. Everything from, having, by the power of resolute conviction, contemplated such marks of impurity, fixing mindfulness between the eyebrows and abiding there, calm and still, and so on, at length, is called the stage of transcending applied attention. For one who delights in both expansiveness and brevity together: everything from going to the charnel ground to observe the marks of a corpse, livid discoloration and the rest, broadly as stated, up through repeatedly expanding and contracting as before, and, at the very end, gradually contracting this until he contemplates only the bones of his own body, is called the stage of initial practice. Everything from, within this, gradually removing the bones of the feet, proceeding onward through finally contemplating the skull, and, within this, further removing half and then contemplating half, and further removing a further portion and contemplating only that remaining portion, is called the stage of already-ripened cultivation. Once thoroughly ripened, fixing mindfulness between the eyebrows and abiding there, calm and still, and so on, at length, is called the stage of transcending applied attention. There are those who say: for the one who delights solely in brevity, everything from going to the charnel ground to observe the marks of a corpse, livid discoloration and the rest, broadly as stated, up through transferring them by the power of resolute conviction onto his own body, from livid discoloration all the way to the heap of bones, is likewise called the stage of initial practice. Everything from, within the heap of bones, first contemplating the bones of the feet, broadly as stated, up through finally contemplating the skull, is likewise called the stage of already-ripened cultivation. Having, by the power of resolute conviction, contemplated such marks of impurity, fixing mindfulness between the eyebrows and abiding there, calm and still, and so on, at length, is likewise called the stage of transcending applied attention. For the one who delights solely in expansiveness: everything from going to the charnel ground to observe the marks of a corpse, livid discoloration and the rest, broadly as stated, up through fixing mindfulness between the eyebrows and briefly resting there, is likewise called the stage of initial practice. Having briefly rested, then further turning this mindfulness to first contemplate the skull, broadly as stated, up through finally contemplating the skull once more, is likewise called the stage of already-ripened cultivation. Having, by the power of resolute conviction, contemplated such marks of impurity, fixing mindfulness between the eyebrows and abiding there, calm and still, and so on, at length, is likewise called the stage of transcending applied attention. For one who delights in both expansiveness and brevity together: everything from going to the charnel ground to observe the marks of a corpse, livid discoloration and the rest, broadly as stated, up through fixing mindfulness between the eyebrows and briefly resting there, is likewise called the stage of initial practice. Having briefly rested, repeatedly expanding and contracting as before, up through thorough ripening, is likewise called the stage of already-ripened cultivation. Once thoroughly ripened, fixing mindfulness between the eyebrows and abiding there, calm and still, and so on, at length,

is likewise called the stage of transcending applied attention. There are yet other masters who say: for all three kinds of cultivators of this contemplation just described, everything from going to the charnel ground, broadly as stated, up through fixing mindfulness between the eyebrows and abiding there, calm and still, belongs, without exception, to both the stage of initial practice and the stage of already-ripened cultivation, the distinction between them being this: in the stage of initial practice, the mind, throughout this interval, is subject to scatteredness; in the stage of already-ripened cultivation, the mind, throughout this interval, is free of scatteredness. If, having turned this mindfulness, one further contemplates the skull, whether to the left, the right, behind, or before, giving rise to a perception of impurity, entering the mindfulness-foundation of the body, and, proceeding onward, the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas, this alone is called the stage of transcending applied attention. There are yet others who say: for all three of the delighting-in-brevity, delighting-in-expansiveness, and delighting-in-both kinds, everything from going to the charnel ground, broadly as stated, up through fixing mindfulness between the eyebrows and abiding there, calm and still, belongs, without exception, to all three stages, the distinction between them being this: in the stage of initial practice, the mind is both scattered and unclear; in the stage of already-ripened cultivation, though the mind is no longer scattered, it is not yet clear; in the stage of transcending applied attention, the mind is neither scattered nor unclear, and has attained clarity. Further, the stage of initial practice, being of an inferior grade, proceeds sluggishly and encounters many obstacles; the stage of already-ripened cultivation, being of a middling grade, proceeds somewhat more sharply, yet still encounters obstacles; the stage of transcending applied attention, being of a superior grade, proceeds swiftly and encounters no obstacle whatsoever — such, then, are their distinctions.

One asks: what is the inherent nature of the contemplation of unattractiveness? The answer: it has the wholesome root of non-greed as its inherent nature. Those who cultivate concentration say: it has wisdom as its inherent nature. Why is this so? Because scripture serves as the measure — as scripture states, having seen form with the eye, one contemplates it as impure, reflecting in accordance with reality, and so on, at length; and contemplation is itself of the nature of wisdom. There are yet other masters who say: it has weariness as its inherent nature, since it takes weariness as its object. The verdict: this contemplation of unattractiveness has the wholesome root of non-greed as its inherent nature, not wisdom, and not weariness. Why is this so? Because it serves as the antidote to greed. One asks: how, then, is what was earlier stated from scripture to be reconciled? The answer: it is because it is associated with wisdom that it is spoken of as "contemplation," yet its own substance is the wholesome root of non-greed, this being the immediate antidote to the craving that takes form as its object. If one includes its accompanying factors, then the four aggregates, or the five aggregates, together constitute its inherent nature.

As for this contemplation of unattractiveness, with respect to realm, it belongs solely to the desire and form realms, since the formless realm possesses no contemplation of unattractiveness taking material dharmas as its object. With respect to stage, it belongs to ten stages — namely, the desire realm, the intermediate stage of the first dhyāna, and the four dhyānas together with their four proximate stages. With respect to its basis, it depends solely on a body belonging to the desire realm, since a body belonging to the form or formless realms does not give rise to this contemplation. With respect to aspect, it is not among the sixteen aspects. With respect to its object, it takes solely the visible-form sense-field belonging to the desire realm as its object. One asks: does this contemplation of unattractiveness take the whole of the desire realm's visible-form sense-field as its object, or only a portion of it? The answer: it takes the whole of the desire realm's visible-form sense-field as its object. One asks: if that is so, then how is what scripture states to be reconciled? As scripture states: the Venerable Aniruddha, while sitting in meditation beneath a tree within a certain forest, after the first watch of the night had passed, was approached by four heavenly maidens, all named Delightful, of surpassing beauty and refinement, who came before the Venerable One, joined their palms in reverence, bowed their heads at his two feet, and withdrew to stand to one side, saying to the Venerable One: we, four heavenly maidens, are able, with respect to four matters, to transform ourselves at will — first, we are able, at will, to transform ourselves into whatever wondrous form-bodies with whatever features you should find pleasing, and we would all be able to delight and attend upon you; second, we are able, at will, to transform ourselves into every kind of wondrous garment; third, we are able, at will, to transform ourselves into every kind of wondrous adornment;

fourth, we are able, at will, to transform ourselves into every kind of wondrous flower, incense, food, and every implement of sensual pleasure — would the Venerable One be able to accept us? At that time, the Venerable One reflected as follows: these four maidens have come specifically to disturb and vex me by their appearance — I ought now to give rise to a contemplation of unattractiveness toward them.

Having so reflected, he entered the first dhyāna, yet was unable to give rise to it; proceeding onward, he entered even the fourth dhyāna, yet was still unable to give rise to it. He then thought as follows: these four heavenly maidens possess so many varied colors that I am unable to contemplate them as impure — were they to take on but a single, uniform color,

I would surely be able to contemplate them so. He thereupon said to them: sisters, could you all manifest blue-colored bodies for me? At that time, the heavenly maidens manifested blue-colored bodies, yet the Venerable One was still unable to contemplate them as impure; he had them manifest yellow, and then red, and was still unable. He again thought: were they to take on a white color, in accordance with the perception of a skeleton, were they able to manifest a white color for me, I would surely then be able to contemplate them as impure. He accordingly said to them: sisters, manifest your bodies as white for me once more — and they did so, yet he was still unable to contemplate them as impure, since the heavenly maidens' own forms and colors were so fresh and radiant, resembling wondrous light, that it was difficult to give rise to weariness toward them. One asks: why did the Venerable Aniruddha have the goddesses transform themselves through blue, yellow, red, and white in succession?

The answer: he wished to observe the marks of each color's own alteration and ruin. Further, a shifting alteration of color more readily gives rise to weariness. Further, blue accords with the perception of livid discoloration; yellow accords with the perception of festering pus; red accords with the perception of strange redness; white accords with the perception of bare bone. Further, blue, yellow, red, and white are the very root of every color, and, being free of any dispute, he had them transform through these in succession, testing his own mind again and again to see whether weariness could be given rise to or not. The Venerable Aniruddha, knowing that their forms were so wondrous that he could not contemplate them so as to give rise to a perception of impurity, thereupon closed his eyes and sat in silence.

The goddesses, knowing that the Venerable One's mind harbored no defiled attachment whatsoever, felt shame and reverence, bowed at his feet, and suddenly vanished — exactly as when two strong wrestlers, grappling with one another, sense that their strength is evenly matched and release their hold, withdrawing from the contest; the goddesses and Aniruddha should be understood in just the same way. Given this, then, how can it be said that the contemplation of unattractiveness is able to take the whole of the desire realm's visible-form sense-field as its object? The answer: Aniruddha alone was unable to give rise to a perception of impurity universally with respect to the whole of the desire realm's visible-form sense-field; there exist others who are able to do so, and no contradiction follows — such as the Buddha, pratyekabuddhas, and Śāriputra, and other sharp-facultied śrāvakas, all of whom are able to contemplate it so. One asks: is there any contemplation of unattractiveness capable of taking the Buddha's own form-body as its object? There are those who say: there exists no one capable of this, since the Buddha's own form is so subtle and wondrous, so utterly fresh and radiant, resembling pure light, that it cannot possibly give rise to weariness.

There are yet other masters who say: the Buddha alone is capable of taking his own form as the object of such a contemplation; no one else is capable of this. There are also those who say: the contemplation of unattractiveness is of two kinds — first, that which arises with respect to form itself; second, that which arises with respect to the faults of form. That which arises with respect to form itself is capable of taking the Buddha's own body as its object; that which arises with respect to the faults of form is incapable of taking the Buddha as its object. There are yet others who say: the contemplation of unattractiveness is of two kinds — first, that whose object is a shared characteristic; second, that whose object is a particular characteristic. That whose object is a shared characteristic is capable of taking the Buddha's own body as its object; that whose object is a particular characteristic is incapable of taking the Buddha as its object. With respect to this contemplation of unattractiveness, as regards mindfulness-foundation: it is conjoined with the mindfulness-foundation of the body. There are those who say: this is not a root mindfulness-foundation, but may only be a preparatory practice for the mindfulness-foundation of the body. As regards knowledge: it is conjoined with conventional knowledge. As regards concentration: it is not conjoined with concentration proper. As regards conjunction with the faculties: it is, broadly speaking, conjoined only with the three faculties — namely, bliss, joy, and equanimity. As regards the three time-periods: it spans all three — that which is past takes the past as its object; that which is present takes the present as its object; that which is future and belongs to a dharma capable of arising takes the future as its object, while that belonging to a dharma incapable of arising takes all three time-periods as its object. As regards wholesome, unwholesome, or undefined: it is wholesome, and takes all three kinds as its object. As regards bound or unbound: it is bound to the desire and form realms, and takes what is bound to the desire realm as its object. As regards learner, non-learner, or neither: it is neither a learner's nor a non-learner's, and takes what is neither a learner's nor a non-learner's as its object. As regards abandoned by seeing, by cultivation, or by neither: it is abandoned by cultivation, and takes what is abandoned by cultivation as its object. As regards taking an object versus taking a meaning: it takes only a meaning as its object. As regards its own continuum, another's continuum, or neither: it takes both its own and another's continuum as its object. As regards whether it is attained through applied practice, through freedom from defilement, or innately: it may be attained through applied practice, or through freedom from defilement, but not innately. As for attainment through freedom from defilement, this refers to what is attained at the very moment of becoming free from defilement.

As for attainment through applied practice, this refers to what is attained through the actual undertaking of practice — the Buddha requires no applied practice; pratyekabuddhas require only lesser applied practice; śrāvakas may require either middling or superior applied practice; ordinary beings require superior applied practice to manifest it before them. As regards whether previously attained or not previously attained: it spans both previously attained and not previously attained — noble ones, and bodhisattvas in their final existence, span both; every other ordinary being has only previously attained it. As regards whether arisen from hearing, reflection, or cultivation: it spans all three. As regards whether it occurs on the mental ground or within the five sense-consciousness bodies: it occurs solely on the mental ground. One asks: if that is so, then how is what scripture states to be reconciled — as scripture states, having seen form with the eye, one contemplates it as impure, reflecting in accordance with reality, and so on, at length? The answer: the five consciousnesses serve as the gateway through which mental consciousness is drawn forth to give rise to the contemplation of unattractiveness, and it is on this account that scripture speaks in this way — yet the contemplation of unattractiveness occurs solely within mental consciousness, exactly as mental proximate-conduct occurs solely on the mental ground, though likewise drawn forth by the five consciousnesses; and scripture likewise states that, having seen form with the eye, and so on, up through having known dharmas with the mind, one gives rise to the six kinds of mental proximate-conduct — of joy, of sorrow, and of equanimity — this, too, being exactly the same. One asks: does this contemplation of unattractiveness also take sound, scent, taste, and touch as its object, or dharmas? The answer: it takes solely form as its object, not any of the other five. One asks: if that is so, then how is what scripture states to be reconciled — as scripture states, having seen form with the eye, and so on, up through having known dharmas with the mind, one contemplates it as impure, reflecting in accordance with reality? The answer: it is because the contemplation of unattractiveness is drawn forth through the gateway of all six consciousnesses that scripture speaks in this way; yet the contemplation of unattractiveness takes only form as its object, not the others. Further, this is spoken of with reference to a general antidote — that is, though the contemplation of unattractiveness takes only form as its object, it is nonetheless capable of counteracting craving for all six kinds of objects, exactly as one covered over by craving for form cultivates the contemplation of unattractiveness and thereby subdues and removes it, so too does one covered over by craving for sound and the rest likewise cultivate this same contemplation and thereby subdue and remove it — and it is for this reason that scripture speaks in this way. Further, one first gives rise to the contemplation of unattractiveness with respect to the visible-form sense-field, growing weary and disgusted with forms, and afterward becomes weary and disgusted, too, with the sound and the rest that depend upon form — this weariness toward sound and the rest, though itself a different contemplation, not the contemplation of unattractiveness proper, is nonetheless drawn forth by the contemplation of unattractiveness, and is therefore also named the contemplation of unattractiveness. Further, one first cultivates the contemplation of unattractiveness with respect to the visible-form sense-field until it has become thoroughly ripened, and afterward wishes to become weary and disgusted with other objects as well — if one is able to do so, this is good; if unable, one returns once more to the visible-form sense-field and gives rise there to the contemplation of unattractiveness, exactly as, when about to go to war, one first secures one's own encampment before going forth to battle — if victorious, this is good; if not victorious, one returns once more to the encampment; this, too, is exactly the same, and it is for this reason that it is said that the contemplation of unattractiveness takes only form as its object, not the others. Further, one first gives rise to the contemplation of unattractiveness with respect to the visible-form sense-field, and afterward gives rise to a further kind of weariness-contemplation with respect to sound and the rest — this latter contemplation shares the same aspect of weariness as the former, and it is for this reason that it, too, is called the contemplation of unattractiveness. Further, the contemplation of unattractiveness is of two kinds — first, the root kind; second, the equal-outflow kind. The root kind takes solely the visible-form sense-field as its object; the equal-outflow kind broadly takes sound and the rest, and even every contaminated mind and mental factor, as its object. The Abhidharma speaks only of the root contemplation of unattractiveness, and it is for this reason that it states that it takes the visible-form sense-field as its object; scripture speaks broadly of both the root and the equal-outflow contemplation of unattractiveness, and it is for this reason that it states that, having seen form with the eye, and so on, up through having known dharmas with the mind, one contemplates it as impure, reflecting in accordance with reality. One asks: who is able to give rise to this contemplation of unattractiveness? The answer: both noble ones and ordinary beings are alike able to give rise to it before them; among noble ones, it spans every stage, both learner and non-learner alike. One asks: where does this contemplation of unattractiveness arise? The answer: only in the three human continents is it able to first manifest before one — among the gods, there exist no marks such as livid discoloration, and it is for this reason that the six desire-heavens are able only to manifest it in a later stage, not to first give rise to it. There are those who say: both its first arising and its later manifestation belong solely to the human destiny, since the six desire-heavens possess no such impure marks as livid discoloration, and it is for this reason that it never manifests there at all. One asks: when one contemplates a room and the like as filled with bones, what does this contemplation of unattractiveness take as its object? There are those who say: it takes the bones of one's own body as its object. There are yet other masters who say:

it takes the bones formerly seen within a charnel ground as its object. There are also those who say: it takes the empty space within the room and the like as its object. The verdict: it should be said that this is conjoined with the applied attention of resolute conviction through provisional imagination, and with non-greed — it takes whatever object one pleases, involving no fault whatsoever. One asks: this contemplation takes what is entirely not a heap of bones and the like as a heap of bones and the like — how, then, can it fail to be a distorted perception? The answer: this is because it is wholesome, being induced by proper attention in accordance with reality,

having the wholesome root of non-greed as its own inherent nature, and because it draws forth the superior applied practice of the noble path, subdues the afflictions, and brings forth a beloved fruit — though it does not correspond to reality exactly as it is, it is nonetheless not a distorted perception. There are those who say: this contemplation of unattractiveness may also be called a distorted perception, since it perceives what is not impure as impure. One asks: if that is so, then why is it not thereby unwholesome? The answer: it is on account of two conditions that a dharma is called unwholesome — first, distortion with respect to its object; second, distortion of its own inherent nature. This contemplation of unattractiveness, though distorted with respect to its object, is not distorted in its own inherent nature, and it is for this reason that it is not unwholesome. Further, it is on account of two further conditions that a dharma is called unwholesome — first, distortion with respect to its object; second, distortion of intention. This contemplation of unattractiveness, though distorted with respect to its object, is not distorted in its intention, and it is for this reason that it is not unwholesome. Further, scripture states that there are five directly-seen attainments. What are the five? There are monks who observe their own bodies exactly as they truly are, filled from foot to crown with every kind of impurity — namely, hair, fur, nails, teeth, dirt and dust, skin, flesh, bone, marrow, sinew, and vein; liver, lung, spleen, and kidney; the large and small intestines, the stomach, the gallbladder, the raw and ripened receptacles, bile and phlegm, heart and belly; excrement, urine, mucus, saliva, sweat, tears, pus, blood, fat, marrow, brain, and membrane — just as a certain man observes a granary filled within with hemp seed, rice, beans, and every kind of mixed substance, this is exactly the same; this is called the first directly-seen attainment. There are further monks who observe their own bodies exactly as they truly are, filled from foot to crown with every kind of impurity, hair and fur and the rest, broadly as stated above, and who further observe the removal of skin, flesh, blood, and the rest, contemplating only the skeleton, consciousness moving about within it — this is called the second directly-seen attainment. There are further monks who observe their own bodies exactly as they truly are, filled from foot to crown with every kind of impurity, hair and fur and the rest, broadly as stated above, and who further observe the removal of skin, flesh, blood, and the rest, contemplating only the skeleton, consciousness moving about within it, this abiding pertaining both to the present life and to future lives — this is called the third directly-seen attainment. There are further monks who observe their own bodies exactly as they truly are, filled from foot to crown with every kind of impurity, hair and fur and the rest, broadly as stated above, and who further observe the removal of skin, flesh, blood, and the rest, contemplating only the skeleton, consciousness moving about within it, this abiding not pertaining to the present life but only to future lives — this is called the fourth directly-seen attainment. There are further monks who observe their own bodies exactly as they truly are, filled from foot to crown with every kind of impurity, hair and fur and the rest, broadly as stated above, and who further observe the removal of skin, flesh, blood, and the rest, contemplating only the skeleton, consciousness moving about within it, this abiding pertaining neither to the present life nor to future lives — this is called the fifth directly-seen attainment. One asks: what is the inherent nature of these five directly-seen attainments? There are those who say: they have wisdom as their inherent nature, since it is said that one observes them exactly as they truly are. There are yet other masters who say: they have concentration as their inherent nature, since they are termed "attainments."

The verdict: it should be said that they have non-greed as their inherent nature, since observing impurity serves as the antidote to craving; the reason they are spoken of as "observation" and as "attainment" is that this arises from those states and gives rise to those states in turn, and because it is conjoined together with both concentration and wisdom. Having already explained their inherent nature, their reason for being so named shall now be explained. One asks: why are they called "directly-seen" attainments? The answer: "directly-seen" refers to the eye — it is because these are drawn forth through the eye's seeing of form that the name "directly-seen" is established; and, since they are attained in dependence on this attainment and are themselves capable of giving rise to further attainment, or since they are conjoined with attainment, they are named "attainments." One asks: among these five, do the latter four not also take consciousness as their object — how, then, can it be said that "directly-seen" refers to the eye? The answer: it is through the eye's directly seeing of impure things that these five directly-seen attainments are drawn forth in succession — that the latter four are also able to take consciousness as their object involves no contradiction to this principle. One asks: who possesses these five directly-seen attainments? The answer: the first and second are possessed by both ordinary beings and noble ones alike; the third is possessed by stream-enterers and once-returners; the fourth is possessed by non-returners; the fifth is possessed by arhats. As scripture states, Śāriputra said: the directly-seen attainment that the Blessed One has attained penetrates without remainder to the entirety of what is to be known, and is therefore called unsurpassed, since no other ascetic or brahmin is able to match it. One asks: why is it that these five kinds of contemplation of unattractiveness, as attained by the Blessed One, are called unsurpassed? The answer: it is because they are able to subdue every object whatsoever that they are called unsurpassed. There are those who say: it is because they observe exactly in accordance with reality that they are called unsurpassed — that is, one observes hair as hair, and fur as fur, and so on, at length. The verdict: this position ought not to be maintained, for, were it so maintained, this would suggest that the Blessed One's own contemplation of unattractiveness takes many objects, while implying that an ordinary contemplation of unattractiveness takes but few — since real hair, fur, and the rest subsume only a small portion of the desire realm's own material dharmas. It should rather be said that the earlier position is sound: it is because it is able to subdue every object whatsoever that it is called unsurpassed. Śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas are unable, in total, to subdue every visible-form sense-field so as to see it all as impure — Aniruddha himself was unable to contemplate the goddesses' own forms as impure, and it is only the Buddha who is capable of contemplating his own form as impure, no one else being capable of this. Further, the Blessed One has stated: did Mahāmaudgalyāyana not speak of a sixth "signless-abiding" one? And so on, at length. One asks: why is this treatise composed? The answer: it is composed in order to broadly analyze the meaning of scripture — that is, scripture states that the Blessed One was once dwelling at Śrāvastī, in the Jeta Grove, in Anāthapiṇḍada's park, when, after the first watch of the night had passed, three Brahmās, radiant in splendor, came to where the Buddha was, and, having arrived, bowed their heads at the Blessed One's two feet, and withdrew to stand to one side. At that time, one of the Brahmās came forward and said to the Buddha: Great Sage, you should know that, in the country of Sāketa, many nuns have this very night passed away — having spoken thus, he withdrew to stand to one side. A second Brahmā then came forward and said to the Buddha: Great Sage, you should know that,

among those many nuns, some attained final nirvāṇa with residue remaining — having spoken thus, he withdrew to stand to one side. A third Brahmā then came forward and said to the Buddha: Great Sage, you should know that, among those many nuns, some attained final nirvāṇa without any residue remaining — having spoken thus, he withdrew to stand to one side.

At that time, the three Brahmās, joining their palms in reverence, circled the Buddha three times, bowed at his two feet, and then suddenly vanished. When dawn broke the following morning, the Blessed One came to where the assembly of monks was, spread out his seat, and sat down, telling the assembly of monks: last night, after the first watch had passed, three Brahmās, radiant in splendor, came to where I was, and so on, at length, up through their suddenly vanishing. At that time, the venerable Mahāmaudgalyāyana, present within that very assembly, thought as follows: which Brahmā possesses such wisdom and insight, able to know who abides with residue remaining and who without? Having had this thought, he entered into meditative absorption,

and, in the time it takes a strong man to bend and extend his arm, vanished from the Jeta Grove and arrived within the Brahmā-world, emerging not far from the Brahmā Tiṣya. Rising from his absorption, he adjusted his robes and went to where the Brahmā Tiṣya was, asking him this question: which Brahmā possesses such wisdom and insight, able to know who abides with residue remaining and who without? One asks: Mahāmaudgalyāyana's own superior wisdom and insight surpassed that of the Brahmā Tiṣya by many myriads of times — why, then, did he go to question the Brahmā Tiṣya in particular? The answer: Mahāmaudgalyāyana, though he already knew, deliberately asked, exactly as the Buddha, too, at times, though already knowing, deliberately asks. One asks: there existed Brahmās superior even to the Brahmā Tiṣya — why, then, did he question only the Brahmā Tiṣya? The answer: this particular Brahmā had originally been a fellow disciple dwelling together with Mahāmaudgalyāyana, and, being on familiar terms with him, he questioned him in particular. Further, this Brahmā Tiṣya abided in the fruit of non-returning, while other Brahmās in that assembly remained unaware of this — Mahāmaudgalyāyana, wishing to reveal this virtue of his and cause the other Brahmās to hold him in reverence and esteem, therefore questioned him in particular. At that time, the Brahmā Tiṣya answered the Venerable One, saying: it is the Brahmās of the retinue of Brahmā who possess such wisdom and insight, able to know who abides with residue remaining and who without. Mahāmaudgalyāyana further asked him: do all the Brahmās of that retinue alike possess such superior wisdom and insight? Tiṣya answered: not all of them possess this superior wisdom and insight — if a Brahmā of that retinue is not satisfied with his own heavenly longevity, wondrous form, and renown, and does not truly know what surpasses and transcends these, he does not possess this wisdom; if a Brahmā of that retinue is satisfied with his own heavenly longevity, wondrous form, and renown, and does truly know what surpasses and transcends these, he does possess this wisdom. The Venerable One further asked: how do these gods come to know who abides with residue remaining and who without? Tiṣya answered: if there is a monk who has attained arhatship and is liberated in both respects, those Brahmās of the retinue think as follows: this venerable one is liberated in both respects — up until he still possesses a body, gods and humans alike are able to see him; once his body has perished and his life has ended, no one is able to see him any longer. If there is a monk who has attained arhatship, yet is not liberated in both respects but is liberated through wisdom alone, those Brahmās of the retinue think as follows: this venerable one is liberated through wisdom alone — up until he still possesses a body, gods and humans alike are able to see him; once his body has perished and his life has ended, no one is able to see him any longer.

If there is a monk who is neither an arhat, nor liberated in both respects, nor liberated through wisdom alone, but who is a body-witness, those Brahmās of the retinue think as follows: this venerable one is a body-witness — he should cultivate the superior faculties and draw near to good spiritual friends, and, should he obtain suitable dwelling and requisites, he will surely exhaust the contaminants and realize the uncontaminated liberation of mind and wisdom, personally realizing and abiding in its full attainment within this very life, and himself coming to know: my own births are exhausted, the pure conduct has been established, what was to be done has been done, and I shall undergo no further existence. If there is a monk who, though not a body-witness, is one who has attained through view, those Brahmās of the retinue think as follows: this venerable one is one who has attained through view — he should cultivate the superior faculties and draw near to good spiritual friends, and so on, at length, up through undergoing no further existence. If there is a monk who, though not one who has attained through view, is one liberated through faith,

those Brahmās of the retinue think as follows: this venerable one is one liberated through faith — he should cultivate the superior faculties, and so on, at length, up through undergoing no further existence. Having spoken these words, the Brahmā Tiṣya fell silent and remained still. One asks: why did Tiṣya not go on to speak of the faith-follower and the dharma-follower?

The answer: if a given person falls within his own domain of perception, he speaks of him; the faith-follower and the dharma-follower do not fall within the domain of the Brahmā Tiṣya's own perception, and it is for this reason that he did not speak of them. Why is this so? If the mind-reading knowledge that knows one on the path of seeing must, without exception, first give rise to the uncontaminated dharma-knowledge-forbearance — and, for one born into the higher realms, the uncontaminated dharma-knowledge never manifests before him — the faith-follower and dharma-follower therefore do not fall within the domain of the Brahmā Tiṣya's own perception. Further, if a given person belongs to a class capable of appearing within the Brahmā-heaven, he speaks of him; the faith-follower and dharma-follower possess no such class capable of appearing within the Brahmā-heaven, and it is for this reason that he did not speak of them. At that time, the Venerable Mahāmaudgalyāyana, having heard the Brahmā Tiṣya expound the Dharma in these words, rejoiced and leapt with joy, displaying his own instruction and guidance, praising and rejoicing in what he had heard, and, taking his leave with due courtesy, entered into meditative absorption once more, and, in the time it takes a strong man to bend and extend his arm, vanished from the Brahmā-world and suddenly appeared once more within the assembly of monks in the Jeta Grove. Rising from his absorption, he went to where the Buddha was, bowed his head at the Blessed One's two feet, and withdrew to sit to one side,

relating to the Blessed One everything that had occurred above. The Buddha then asked him: Mahāmaudgalyāyana, did the Brahmā Tiṣya not speak of a sixth one who abides without any sign at all? Mahāmaudgalyāyana answered: just so, Blessed One. Having spoken these words, he rose at once from his seat, bowed his head at the Buddha's feet, and, joining his palms in reverence, said to the Buddha: now is indeed the fitting time — may the Blessed One, for the sake of the assembly, expound who this sixth one who abides without any sign is, that the assembly of monks, having heard it, may receive and uphold it. The Buddha told Mahāmaudgalyāyana: listen closely, listen closely, and reflect most well upon it — I shall now explain this for you. If there is a monk who no longer gives further thought to any sign whatsoever, and personally realizes and fully abides in the signless mental concentration, this is called the sixth one who abides without any sign. Although scripture states this much, it does not analyze its meaning; scripture is the very root this treatise depends upon, and what it does not state, this treatise now wishes to state. Further, there are those who, failing to understand that scripture's own meaning, thereupon hold that entering the certainty of rightness by taking the truth of cessation as one's object is what is called the path of seeing's own "signless abiding," since it is solely within the truth of cessation that no signs whatsoever are found — in order to block this position, and to reveal that the path of seeing does not take cessation alone as its object, this treatise is composed. Who is this sixth one who abides without any sign? The answer: the faith-follower and the dharma-follower are named the sixth one who abides without any sign.

One asks: how is it known that the faith-follower and dharma-follower are named the sixth one who abides without any sign? The answer: every noble one, taken together, is of seven kinds; the Brahmā Tiṣya had already spoken of five kinds, without yet speaking of the faith-follower and dharma-follower — and it is thereby known that these two together form the sixth one who abides without any sign. Why is this so? These two are, in their signlessness, incapable of being established or designated as being here or there — whether the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering, or the dharma-knowledge of suffering itself, and so on, at length, up through the forbearance for the subsequent-knowledge of the path — and it is on account of their being, in their signlessness, incapable of being established or designated as being here or there that they are named the sixth one who abides without any sign. One asks: why are these two combined and established as a single one? The answer: this very scriptural passage states that these two are alike signless, incapable of being established or designated. Further, these two alike do not give rise to any dissimilar mind. Further, these two alike possess the fifteen mind-moments. Further, these two alike manifest the same class of mind. Further, these two are alike a swift path. Further, these two alike do not give rise to any settled intention. Further, these two are alike a subtle path. Further, these two are alike dharmas incapable of being established or designated. Further, these two are alike a path difficult to perceive. Further, these two are alike not directly seen. One asks: are these two, then, not directly seen by anyone at all? The answer: this is not so — although not directly seen by śrāvakas or pratyekabuddhas, they are directly seen by the Blessed Buddha. Further, these two are alike with respect to stage, path, category, and freedom from defilement, and it is on this account that they are combined and established as one. One asks: since the first five are not subsumed under "signless abiding," why does this passage speak of this as the sixth "signless abiding"?

The answer: "signless abiding" is the sixth among the kinds of noble one, and it is for this reason called the sixth signless abiding — it is not that "signless abiding" is, in total, of six kinds, of which this is merely called "the sixth." This is exactly as, elsewhere, it is said that a tiger has slain the fifth one, not that the previous four were also called tigers, and yet what is slain, taken together, is of five kinds, the fifth of which is named "tiger" — this is exactly the same. And, again, as elsewhere it is said, the sixth predominant king, not that the previous five were also called kings, and yet what is predominant, taken together, is of six kinds, the sixth of which is called king — this, too, is exactly the same. "Signless abiding" is the sixth; it is not that all six are called "signless abiding." Yet the term "signless" itself carries many meanings — it is spoken of, at times, as emptiness, at times, as signlessness proper, at times, as the unshakeable liberation of mind, and at times, as the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, its full explanation being found in the Jñānaprasthāna. Here, "signless" properly refers to the meaning of the path of seeing, exactly as explained above, and also to the fact that it is exceedingly swift and difficult to know — that is, even a śrāvaka's mind-reading knowledge, at its utmost application, is able to know only two mind-moments — namely, the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering and the mind conjoined with the dharma-knowledge of suffering; if he wishes to know the third, he must instead come to know the sixteenth. A pratyekabuddha's mind-reading knowledge, at its utmost application, is able to know only four mind-moments — namely, the first two mind-moments, together with the forbearance for the subsequent-knowledge of cessation and the mind conjoined with the subsequent-knowledge of cessation. There are those who say: a pratyekabuddha is able to know only three mind-moments — namely, the first two, together with the mind conjoined with the subsequent-knowledge of origin. Only the Buddha's own mind-reading knowledge is able to know all of these in due succession, one after another — and it is for this reason that the path of seeing is named "signless."