The Wound Covered by Mindfulness

As scripture states: if one gives rise to sensual thought, hostile thought, or harmful thought, one thereby either harms oneself, harms another, or harms both — 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 Buddha told the monks: before I had realized complete, perfect enlightenment, I would, at times, give rise to sensual thought, hostile thought, or harmful thought, and, at times, give rise to the thought of renunciation, free of hostility and free of harm; though I gave rise to sensual thought, hostile thought, and harmful thought, I remained heedful, and thereupon reflected as follows: if one gives rise to sensual thought, hostile thought, or harmful thought,

one thereby either harms oneself, harms another, or harms both. Although scripture states this much, it does not analyze its meaning; scripture is the very root this treatise depends upon, and what it leaves unstated, this treatise should now state, and it is for this reason that this treatise is composed. How does sensual thought harm oneself? The answer: this refers to a certain kind of person who, giving rise to the entanglement of craving, thereby wearies his own body and mind, sets his own body and mind ablaze, heats his own body and mind, scorches his own body and mind, and, further, on account of these very conditions, is destined to undergo, throughout the long night of birth and death, ripened fruits that are neither loved, nor pleasant, nor joyful, nor delightful — this is called harming oneself. Here, "wearies the body and mind" and the rest display the equal-outflow fruit of sensual thought, since craving, hatred, delusion, and the rest are capable of driving one onward, wearying body and mind as though by blazing fire, capable of burning body and mind, causing heat and scorching. "Destined to undergo, throughout the long night," and the rest, displays the ripened fruit of sensual thought, since one is destined to undergo the undesired fruit of the evil destinies. How does sensual thought harm another? The answer: this refers to a certain kind of person who, giving rise to the entanglement of craving, gazes upon another man's wife; that husband, upon seeing this, gives rise to anger, resentment, bitterness, and distress — this is called harming another. One asks: does not the one who gazes also draw forth a suffering fruit for himself, such that this ought properly to be called harming both? Why, then, does this passage speak of it as harming another alone? The answer: the fault of mere gazing is light, and the husband is not yet able to inflict actual injury or insult upon him, and it is for this reason that this passage does not speak of it as harming both. How does sensual thought harm both? The answer: this refers to a certain kind of person who, giving rise to the entanglement of craving, defiles and abducts another man's wife; that husband, upon discovering this, thereupon strikes, binds, or takes the life of both the wife and the man, or seizes their wealth and treasure — this is called harming both. One asks: does not the husband who harms the other likewise draw forth a suffering fruit for himself, such that this ought properly to be called a threefold harm — why, then, is it called only a mutual harm?

The answer: that man, in the present life, meets with no punishment or censure, but rather receives praise, and it is for this reason that this passage does not speak of it in this way. Further, the husband, too, is himself "another," and it is for this reason that this is called a mutual harm.

How does hostile thought harm oneself? The answer: this refers to a certain kind of person who, giving rise to the entanglement of hatred, thereby wearies his own body and mind, sets his own body and mind ablaze, heats his own body and mind, scorches his own body and mind, and, further, on account of these very conditions, is destined to undergo, throughout the long night of birth and death, ripened fruits that are neither loved, nor pleasant, nor joyful, nor delightful —

this is called harming oneself. Here, the two fruits should be understood exactly as stated above. How does hostile thought harm another? The answer: this refers to a certain kind of person who, giving rise to the entanglement of hatred, takes the life of another — this is called harming another. One asks: does not the one who takes another's life likewise draw forth a suffering fruit for himself, such that this ought properly to be called harming both? Why, then, does this passage speak of it as harming another alone? The answer: taking the life of a brigand and the like brings, in the present, no censure or punishment, but rather receives praise, and it is for this reason that this passage does not speak of it in this way. How does hostile thought harm both? The answer: this refers to a certain kind of person who, giving rise to the entanglement of hatred, takes the life of another, and is himself, in turn, killed by that other — this is called harming both. One asks: does not one who kills a man capable of killing others likewise draw forth a suffering fruit for himself, such that this ought properly to be called a threefold harm — why, then, is it called only a mutual harm? The answer: one who slays such a killer is universally praised by the world, and meets, in the present, with no offense or suffering, and it is for this reason that this passage does not speak of it in this way. Further, that other, too, is himself "another," and it is for this reason that this is called a mutual harm. How does harmful thought harm oneself? The answer: this refers to a certain kind of person who, giving rise to the entanglement of harm, thereby wearies his own body and mind, sets his own body and mind ablaze, heats his own body and mind, scorches his own body and mind, and, further, on account of these very conditions, is destined to undergo, throughout the long night of birth and death, ripened fruits that are neither loved, nor pleasant, nor joyful, nor delightful — this is called harming oneself. Here, the two fruits should be understood exactly as stated above. How does harmful thought harm another? The answer: this refers to a certain kind of person who, giving rise to the entanglement of harm, strikes and binds another — this is called harming another. One asks: does not the one who strikes and binds another likewise draw forth a suffering fruit for himself, such that this ought properly to be called harming both? Why, then, does this passage speak of it as harming another alone? The answer: striking and binding an evil person is universally praised by the world, and meets, in the present, with no suffering, and it is for this reason that this passage does not speak of it in this way. How does harmful thought harm both? The answer: this refers to a certain kind of person who, giving rise to the entanglement of harm, strikes and binds another, and is himself, in turn, struck and bound by that other — this is called harming both; the question and answer here should be understood exactly as before. One asks: what is the inherent nature of these three unwholesome thoughts? The answer: sensual thought has as its inherent nature the investigative thought conjoined with craving, arising within the six consciousness-bodies of the desire realm's five sections;

hostile thought likewise has as its inherent nature the investigative thought conjoined with hatred, arising within the five sections and six consciousness-bodies. As for harmful thought, there are those who say: it has as its inherent nature the investigative thought conjoined with a certain portion of hatred, since harm is itself a portion of hatred. One asks: if that is so, then what distinction remains between hostile thought and harmful thought? The answer: hatred is of two kinds — first, the wish to take the life of sentient beings; second, the wish to strike and bind sentient beings; the former is named hostility, the latter is named harm. Further, hatred is again of two kinds:

first, that which arises with respect to an object that properly calls for hatred; second, that which arises with respect to an object that does not properly call for hatred; the former is named hostility, the latter is named harm. The investigative thought conjoined with these two is named hostile thought and harmful thought, and it is on this basis that a distinction exists. There are those who say: harmful thought has as its inherent nature the investigative thought conjoined with a certain portion of ignorance, since harm is itself a portion of ignorance, exactly as the Prajñaptiśāstra states: what is the condition by which delusion increases? It refers to the realm, perception, and thought of harm — whoever habitually cultivates and frequently engages in these gives rise to the investigative thought conjoined with them, which is named harmful thought. The verdict: it should be said that there exists a distinct mental factor named harm, which is neither hatred, nor ignorance, nor a latent tendency — its own inherent nature is drawn forth by hatred, is an equal-outflow of hatred, follows upon and arises after hatred, and is named a secondary affliction and a defilement, occurring solely on the mental ground, and solely abandoned by cultivation; the investigative thought conjoined with this is the very inherent nature of harmful thought. These three are unwholesome, and are therefore called unwholesome thoughts. Further, there are three wholesome thoughts: first, the thought of renunciation; second, the thought free of hostility; third, the thought free of harm. One asks: what is the inherent nature of these three wholesome thoughts? The answer: all three have as their inherent nature investigative thought conjoined with every wholesome mind — that is, whereas each of the three unwholesome thoughts arises separately, each possessing its own distinct inherent nature, not occurring together with every unwholesome mind, these three wholesome thoughts possess no separate inherent nature of their own, but are each conjoined with every wholesome mind alike.

One asks: if that is so, then what distinction remains among these three? The answer: their inherent nature is not distinct, yet their meaning does differ — since they serve as the immediate antidotes to the three unwholesome thoughts,

that is, the wholesome investigative thought that opposes sensual thought is named the thought of renunciation; that which opposes hostile thought is named the thought free of hostility; and that which opposes harmful thought is named the thought free of harm. As scripture states: before I had realized complete, perfect enlightenment, though I gave rise to sensual thought, hostile thought, and harmful thought, I remained heedful. One asks: if the Bodhisattva, at that time, was heedful, how could he still have given rise to these three unwholesome thoughts? The Venerable Vasumitra offers this explanation: the Bodhisattva, though he did give rise to these three unwholesome thoughts, nonetheless diligently cultivated wholesomeness, and it is for this reason called heedfulness. Further, though he gave rise to unwholesome thought, he was swiftly able to recognize it as unwholesome, and it is for this reason called heedfulness. Further, though he gave rise to it, he was immediately able to grow weary of it, to reject and relinquish it, and it is for this reason called heedfulness. Further, no sooner did he give rise to it than he was able to cultivate its own antidote, and it is for this reason called heedfulness. Further, no sooner had it arisen than he was able to cut off its cause, remove its support, and recognize the fault in its object, and it is for this reason called heedfulness. Further, affliction manifests before one on account of three causes and conditions: first, the power of its own cause; second, the power of its object; third, the power of applied effort. The Bodhisattva, giving rise to these three unwholesome thoughts, did so solely through the power of their own cause, being able to subdue the remaining two powers, and it is for this reason called heedfulness. The Great Virtuous One states: although the Bodhisattva gave rise to these thoughts, he was swiftly able to subdue and remove them,

exactly as a single drop of water, falling upon heated iron, is at once dispelled — this, too, is called heedfulness. The Venerable Pārśva states: no sooner had they arisen than he swiftly relinquished them, exactly as one rushing to extinguish a fire upon one's own head — this, too, is called heedfulness.

One asks: in what circumstances did the Bodhisattva give rise to these three unwholesome thoughts? The Venerable Pārśva states: through the power of their own cause, they arose in whatever circumstance happened to occur, without any fixed place being required for them to be censured — exactly as a blind man, stumbling and falling, or a foolish, confused person, wherever he happens to go, behaves in just this same way, with no fixed location involved. There are those who say: the Bodhisattva, having relinquished his throne as a wheel-turning king, leapt over the city wall and went forth, seeking unsurpassed enlightenment, and, in search of teachers and friends, arrived at Rājagṛha; in the early part of the day, he entered the city to beg for alms,

and hundreds and thousands of people surrounded him, gazing up at him, bowing, praising, their minds never sated. The Bodhisattva, in the midst of this, first gave rise to sensual thought; the crowd surrounding him having obstructed and delayed his begging for food, the fire of hunger tormented him, and he then gave rise to hostile thought; as his anger gradually subsided, harmful thought then arose in turn — yet, within an instant, he became aware of this and gave rise to profound shame. There are other masters who say: the Bodhisattva, having relinquished the city of Kapilavastu, relied upon a forest of quiet solitude, seeking unsurpassed enlightenment; his father, the king, thereupon sent five men of the Śākya clan to follow and attend upon him. Among these, some held the view that purity was attained through pleasurable conduct, and, seeing the Bodhisattva at first cultivate austerities, they departed; others held the view that purity was attained through austerities, and, later, seeing the Bodhisattva relinquish austerities, they, too, took their leave. At that time, there were two brahmin women, Nandā and Nandabalā, who, on account of offering him milk-porridge, and seeing that he had no attendant, remained to serve him; their hands were soft, and, as they touched and massaged the Bodhisattva, the Bodhisattva then gave rise to sensual thought toward them. He immediately reflected: could it be that, now that those who once attended me have abandoned me, a woman should come so near to me? — and thereupon gave rise to hostile thought toward his former attendants; as his anger gradually subsided, harmful thought then arose in turn — yet he swiftly became aware of this and gave rise to great shame. There are others who say: before the Bodhisattva went forth, his father, King Śuddhodana, betrothed five hundred maidens of jade-like beauty to him as consorts, hoping their delights would prevent his going forth; the Bodhisattva relinquished them and went forth nonetheless. Various kings then sent envoys demanding the maidens be returned to their own countries.

King Śuddhodana said: my son, having gone forth, is filled with sorrow and distress; seeing his own consorts brought him some comfort — I cannot, at this time, allow them to be sent home. The various kings, hearing this, each grew indignant, and together raised armies to march against him in punishment. The king, in his own fear, sent word to the Bodhisattva: it is on your account that I now sit facing this enmity. There are those who say instead that a deity came and reported this to the Bodhisattva. The Bodhisattva, upon hearing this, first gave rise to sensual thought toward his father, the king; then gave rise to hostile thought toward the five hundred kings; and then, toward their assembled armies, gave rise to harmful thought in turn — yet, within a short time, he became aware of this and gave rise to profound shame.

There are yet others who say: the Bodhisattva, while cultivating austerities after going forth, recalled the pleasures of the five senses he had once enjoyed, and gave rise to sensual thought; afterward, hearing that his own celestial lifespan had disordered his palace, he gave rise to hostile thought; and, toward those who had arranged his former marriage, he gave rise to harmful thought in turn — yet, within an instant, he became aware of this and gave rise to great shame.

There are yet others who say: while the Bodhisattva cultivated austerities for six years, the evil Māra followed him, wishing to create obstacles for him — at times manifesting a beautiful, alluring form, toward which the Bodhisattva gave rise to sensual thought; at times manifesting a fearsome, terrifying form, toward which the Bodhisattva gave rise to hostile thought; and at times manifesting a mocking, insulting form, toward which the Bodhisattva gave rise to harmful thought in turn — yet, after a short while, he felt deep regret and gave rise to profound shame.

The Venerable Ghoṣa offers this explanation: the Bodhisattva had earlier subdued the afflictions by means of the two kinds of wisdom belonging to the desire realm consisting in hearing and reflection; delighting in this wisdom, he gave rise to sensual thought; within an instant, becoming aware that this was itself an affliction, and coming to detest it, he gave rise to hostile thought; as this gradually subsided, he gave rise to harmful thought in turn; and, afterward, becoming aware of this, he gave rise to profound shame. The Great Virtuous One states: the Bodhisattva, dwelling in ancient times beneath the bodhi tree, during the first watch of the night, was approached and seduced by Māra's own daughters, and, at that time, the Bodhisattva briefly gave rise to sensual thought; during the middle watch of the night, Māra's own army came in full force to besiege and afflict him, and he briefly gave rise to hostile thought toward them; as this gradually subsided, he gave rise to harmful thought in turn — yet, within an instant, he became aware of this and entered at once into the concentration of loving-kindness, causing Māra's own troops to be shattered and put to rout. As scripture states: once the Bodhisattva had given rise to these three unwholesome thoughts, he came, of his own accord, to know that this was capable of self-harm, of harming others, and of harming both. One asks: how can the sensual thought, hostile thought, and harmful thought that the Bodhisattva gave rise to be capable of these three harms? The answer: although they possessed no genuine harmful function, this is spoken with reference to their own characteristic mark, since unwholesome thought necessarily bears the mark of these three harms. Further, when unwholesome thought arises, the matter of benefiting oneself grows distant, and it is therefore called self-harm; the matter of benefiting others grows distant, and it is therefore called harming others; the matter of benefiting both grows distant, and it is therefore called harming both. Further, when unwholesome thought arises, the matter of benefiting oneself is ruined, and it is therefore called self-harm; the matter of benefiting others is ruined, and it is therefore called harming others; the matter of benefiting both is ruined, and it is therefore called harming both. Further, when unwholesome thought arises, the mind that benefits oneself is stilled,

and it is therefore called self-harm; the mind that benefits others is stilled, and it is therefore called harming others; the mind that benefits both is stilled, and it is therefore called harming both. Further, when unwholesome thought arises, it takes hold of and confers its own fruit within one's own continuum, and it is therefore called self-harm; it causes donors, though they give the four requisites, to obtain no great fruit, and it is therefore called harming others; taking these two together, this is called harming both. Further, when unwholesome thought arises, it gives rise, within one's own continuum, to delusion regarding one's own nature and delusion regarding one's object, and it is therefore called self-harm;

it causes other donors' own giving to obtain no great fruit, and it is therefore called harming others; taking these two together, this is called harming both. Further, when unwholesome thought arises, it defiles one's own continuum, and it is therefore called self-harm; it defiles another's continuum, and it is therefore called harming others; taking these two together, this is called harming both. Further, when unwholesome thought arises, it causes one's own continuum to depart from the bliss of the noble ones, and it is therefore called self-harm; it likewise causes another to depart from it, and it is therefore called harming others; taking these two together, this is called harming both. The Venerable Vasumitra states: when unwholesome thought arises, it causes one's own continuum to grow distant from the fruit of liberation, and it is therefore called self-harm;

it causes one whom it might have converted to grow distant from the fruit of liberation, and it is therefore called harming others; taking these two together, this is called harming both. The Venerable Ghoṣa states:

when unwholesome thought arises, it causes one's own continuum to grow distant from its own superior virtues, and it is therefore called self-harm; it causes one whom it might have converted to grow distant from superior virtues, and it is therefore called harming others; taking these two together, this is called harming both. The Great Virtuous One states: when unwholesome thought arises, it prevents one from swiftly realizing omniscience and all-form knowledge, and it is therefore called self-harm; it causes one whom it might have converted to fail to swiftly obtain benefit, and it is therefore called harming others; taking these two together, this is called harming both. The Venerable Pārśva states: when unwholesome thought arises, it causes body and mind to burn with distress, and it is therefore called self-harm; it causes the loss of benefit for one whom it might have converted, and it is therefore called harming others;

taking these two together, this is called harming both. The Venerable Buddhadeva states: when unwholesome thought arises, it causes body and mind to become unwell, and it is therefore called self-harm;

it draws forth the censure of the deities, and it is therefore called harming others; taking these two together, this is called harming both.

As scripture states, the Buddha told the monks: when I first attained buddhahood, I gave rise, for the most part, to two kinds of thought — namely, the thought of peace and security, and the thought of seclusion. One asks: what is the inherent nature of these two thoughts? The answer: the thought of peace and security has the thought of renunciation as its inherent nature; the thought of seclusion has the thought free of hostility and harm as its inherent nature. There are those who say the reverse. Further, the thought of peace and security serves as the antidote to sensual thought; the thought of seclusion serves as the antidote to hostile and harmful thought — there are those who say the reverse. Further, the thought of peace and security is conjoined with the wholesome root of non-greed; the thought of seclusion is conjoined with the wholesome roots of non-hatred and non-delusion — there are those who say the reverse. Further, the thought of peace and security serves as the antidote to thought conjoined with craving; the thought of seclusion serves as the antidote to thought conjoined with hatred and delusion — there are those who say the reverse. Further, the thought of peace and security is conjoined with loving-kindness and compassion; the thought of seclusion is conjoined with sympathetic joy and equanimity — there are those who say the reverse. Further, the thought of peace and security is conjoined with the knowledge of suffering and its origin; the thought of seclusion is conjoined with the knowledge of cessation and the path — there are those who say the reverse. Further, the thought of peace and security is conjoined with the concentrations of emptiness, and of suffering-and-origin wishlessness; the thought of seclusion is conjoined with the concentrations of signlessness, and of path-wishlessness — there are those who say the reverse. The Venerable Ghoṣa states: the investigative thought conjoined with seeing the faults of the turning-flow is named the thought of peace and security; the investigative thought conjoined with seeing the virtues of the returning-cessation is named the thought of seclusion. The Venerable Buddhadeva states the reverse: the investigative thought conjoined with seeing the virtues of the returning-cessation is named the thought of peace and security; the investigative thought conjoined with seeing the faults of the turning-flow is named the thought of seclusion. The Great Virtuous One states: the investigative thought conjoined with the intention of boundless benefit is named the thought of peace and security; the investigative thought conjoined with the intention of boundless happiness is named the thought of seclusion. The Venerable Pārśva states the reverse: the investigative thought conjoined with the intention of boundless happiness is named the thought of peace and security; the investigative thought conjoined with the intention of boundless benefit is named the thought of seclusion. The Venerable Vasumitra states: that which arises from the intention of boundless compassion is named the thought of peace and security; that which arises from the intention of boundless, gentle goodness is named the thought of seclusion. One asks: why, upon first attaining buddhahood, does one give rise, for the most part, to these two thoughts in particular?

The answer: it is because these two thoughts serve as the forerunner and purifying path of unsurpassed, perfect, complete enlightenment. Further, it is in order to counteract his own former enjoyment of sensual pleasure while a householder that, upon first attaining buddhahood, he gives rise, for the most part, to the thought of seclusion; and it is in order to counteract the profitless suffering of his own former cultivation of austerities that, upon first attaining buddhahood, he gives rise to the thought of peace and security. Further, upon first attaining buddhahood, rejoicing in his own newly-realized virtue, he gives rise, for the most part, to the thought of peace and security; and, wishing to bring liberation to others, he gives rise, for the most part, to the thought of seclusion. Is knowledge more numerous, or its object? And so on, at length. One asks: why is this treatise composed? The answer: it is composed in order to refute other schools and to reveal the correct meaning — that is, there are those who hold that there exists knowledge that takes no genuine object at all, as the Dārṣṭāntikas maintain, who say as follows: knowledge that takes an illusory event, a gandharva city, a whirling firebrand, or a mirage-deer as its object all takes a non-existent object; in order to block this position, and to reveal that every kind of knowledge takes a genuinely existent object, or, further, there are those who hold that there exists knowledge that takes no object, and objects that are taken by no knowledge; in order to block this position, and to reveal that every kind of knowledge is capable of taking an object, and that every kind of object is capable of being taken by knowledge, this treatise is composed. Further, it is in order to reveal that the outsiders' own distortion causes their object and knowledge to be discordant, while our own teaching, being free of distortion, causes object and knowledge to accord with one another, that this treatise is composed. Further, there are those who say that knowledge is more numerous than its object, since a single object may be taken by many kinds of knowledge — this treatise now wishes to reveal that objects are more numerous than knowledge, and it is on account of these causes and conditions that this treatise is composed. Is knowledge more numerous, or its object? The answer: objects are more numerous, not knowledge.

Why is this so? Knowledge, too, is itself an object — that is, knowledge subsumes only a small portion of a single realm, a single sense-field, and a single aggregate, while an object subsumes the full eighteen realms, twelve sense-fields, and five aggregates. There are those who say: knowledge is more numerous than its object. Why is this so? Just as a single instant of the very lowest grade of feeling belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is known by ten kinds of knowledge belonging to the desire realm — namely, the knowledge conjoined with the class of latent tendency pervasively operative in nine dissimilar realms, together with wholesome conventional knowledge — and known, likewise, by ten kinds of knowledge belonging up through the sphere of nothingness; and known by sixteen kinds of knowledge belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception itself — namely, the knowledge conjoined with eleven pervasively operative latent tendencies, together with the knowledge conjoined with craving, conceit, and ignorance abandoned by cultivation, and uncovered-undefined wholesome conventional knowledge — thus, in total, ninety-six kinds of knowledge, together with uncontaminated knowledge, ninety-seven kinds of knowledge in all, come to know this single instance of feeling,

and every other feeling and every other dharma should be understood accordingly in just the same principle — and it is on this account that one should know that knowledge is more numerous than its object. This position does not accord with correct principle. Why is this so? That knowledge's own associated, co-existent dharmas, and knowledge's own inherent nature, are themselves all objects as well — so that, even granting that knowledge is not itself an object, its object would already be more numerous than knowledge, how much more so when knowledge, too, is itself an object, and yet its object is still not thereby the more numerous. One asks: if knowledge, too, is an object, then what distinction remains between knowledge and object? The answer: that which is capable of knowing is knowledge; that which is known is object. Further, knowledge is solely non-material, invisible, non-resistant, conditioned, associated, possessing a basis, possessing an object, and possessing an aspect; object spans both material and non-material, visible and invisible, resistant and non-resistant, conditioned and unconditioned, associated and dissociated, possessing a basis and lacking one, possessing an object and lacking one, and possessing an aspect and lacking one. Further, knowledge is solely subsumed within the three time-periods and the three truths; object spans the three time-periods and what is beyond time, and is subsumed within the four truths — such, then, is the distinction between object and knowledge.

Is knowledge more numerous, or consciousness? And so on, at length. One asks: why is this treatise composed? The answer: it is composed in order to refute other schools and to reveal the correct meaning —

that is, there are those who hold that consciousness and knowledge are two dharmas that are forever mutually associated, forbearance itself being knowledge; in order to block this position, and to reveal that every kind of knowledge is associated with consciousness, while not every kind of consciousness is associated with knowledge, since the uncontaminated forbearances are not themselves of the nature of knowledge; or, further, there are those who hold that knowledge is solely uncontaminated, and consciousness solely contaminated, the two never being mutually associated; in order to block this position, and to reveal that both consciousness and knowledge span both the contaminated and the uncontaminated, and do possess a genuine sense of association. There are yet other masters who hold that knowledge is simply a distinct stage of consciousness itself, and that knowledge and consciousness possess no genuine sense of association; in order to block this position, and to reveal that consciousness and knowledge possess distinct substances and functions, and do possess a genuine sense of association, this treatise is composed. Is knowledge more numerous, or consciousness? The answer: consciousness is more numerous, not knowledge. Why is this so? Every kind of knowledge is associated with consciousness, but not every kind of consciousness is associated with knowledge, since consciousness associated with forbearance is not associated with knowledge. One asks: why are the uncontaminated forbearances not knowledge? The answer: they have not yet repeatedly observed the object they behold — that is, from beginningless time, one has never yet, with respect to the four noble truths, beheld them with genuine, uncontaminated wisdom; now, although one beholds them for the first time, one has not yet observed them repeatedly, and it is for this reason that this is not named knowledge, since it is only when wisdom of the same kind repeatedly observes its object that it becomes knowledge — no sentient being, from beginningless time, has failed to repeatedly observe every dharma with contaminated wisdom, and it is for this reason that every kind of contaminated wisdom is subsumed within knowledge. Further, forbearance, with respect to the noble truths, only weighs and provisionally accepts them, not yet having reached their culmination, and is therefore not subsumed within knowledge. Further, forbearance occurs together with the very attainment that is to abandon doubt, and is therefore not subsumed within knowledge; and even granting that it does not occur together with that attainment, it still belongs to that same class, since a contaminated uninterrupted path is not a genuine antidote — though it occurs together with the attainment that abandons doubt, it is nonetheless knowledge. It is because the uncontaminated forbearances are not subsumed within knowledge that consciousness is said to be more numerous. Further, consciousness subsumes seven realms, a single sense-field, and a single aggregate; knowledge is subsumed only within a portion of a single realm, a single sense-field, and a single aggregate, and it is for this reason that knowledge is fewer.

Is contaminated conduct more numerous, or uncontaminated conduct? And so on, at length. One asks: why is this treatise composed? The answer: it is composed in order to refute other schools and to reveal the correct meaning — that is, there are those who hold that the Buddha's own birth-body is uncontaminated, as the Mahāsāṃghikas maintain, who say as follows: scripture states that the Tathāgata, born within the world, and grown to maturity within the world, whether in motion or at rest, is never defiled by any worldly dharma — and it is thereby known that the Tathāgata's own birth-body, too, is uncontaminated. In order to block this position, and to reveal that the Buddha's own birth-body is decisively contaminated — for, were the Buddha's own birth-body uncontaminated, then no woman of matchless beauty ought ever to give rise to craving toward the Buddha's body, Aṅgulimāla ought never to have given rise to hatred toward it, the arrogant ought never to have given rise to conceit toward it, and the ascetics of Uruvilvā ought never to have given rise to delusion toward it — yet, since craving, hatred, conceit, and delusion were indeed all given rise to on his account, the Buddha's own birth-body is decisively not uncontaminated. One asks: if that is so, then how is the scripture cited by that school to be explained? The answer: that scripture speaks with reference to the Dharma-body — as for the statement that the Tathāgata is born within the world and grown to maturity within the world, this speaks with reference to the birth-body; as for the statement that, whether in motion or at rest, he is never defiled by any worldly dharma, this speaks with reference to the Dharma-body — and there is, accordingly, no contradiction. Further, this is spoken with reference to non-conformity — that is, the eight worldly dharmas conform to the world, and sentient beings, too, conform to them, and are therefore said to be defiled by them; the eight worldly dharmas conform to the Tathāgata, yet the Buddha does not conform to them, and it is for this reason that he is said to be undefiled. Further, the Tathāgata's own birth-body, though contaminated, transcends the eight worldly dharmas, and is therefore said to be undefiled. One asks: gain and the other worldly dharmas, too, the Tathāgata surely possesses — why, then, is he said to transcend them? Gain refers to the Great Elder of compassionate valor, who, on a single day, offered him three hundred million complete garments; loss refers to his entering the great village of Sāla and returning with an empty begging bowl, unable to obtain alms; disgrace refers to the brahmin woman Ciñcā and to Sundarī, whose slanders against the Buddha spread throughout the sixteen great kingdoms; praise refers to the fact that, at the Tathāgata's birth, the sound of it reached the Heaven of Those Who Control Others' Transformations, that, upon his attaining buddhahood, the sound reached Akaniṣṭha Heaven, and that, when he turned the wheel of the Dharma, the sound reached the Brahmā-world; renown refers to the brahmin Bhāradvāja, who, with five hundred verses, praised the Buddha directly before him, and to the power-debating outsiders such as Upāli and other great debaters, who, with hundreds of thousands of verses, gazed upon and praised the Buddha, and to the Venerable Ānanda, who, with joined palms, praised the Buddha's every rare and wondrous dharma, and to the Venerable Śāriputra, who reverently praised the Buddha's every unsurpassed dharma — all such as these; blame refers to the brahmin Bhāradvāja, who had earlier, with five hundred verses, reviled the Buddha directly before him; suffering refers to the fact that the Tathāgata, at times, suffered pain in his back, and was wounded in the toe by gravel and thorns, and the like; and pleasure refers to the fact that the Tathāgata possessed the bliss of tranquility, and, within birth and death, the most supreme feeling of pleasure. How, then, does the Blessed One transcend these eight worldly dharmas? The answer: though the Tathāgata encounters gain and the other three favorable dharmas, he does not give rise to any lofty joy or craving attachment on their account;

and though the Tathāgata encounters loss and the other three unfavorable dharmas, he does not give rise to any lowly sorrow or hatred on their account — and it is on account of this transcendence that he is said to be undefiled, not because "undefiled" is here established in the sense of being uncontaminated — exactly as Mount Sumeru, resting upon its golden wheel, cannot be shaken by the fierce winds blowing from all eight directions, so too are all buddhas: abiding in pure discipline, the eight worldly dharmas are unable to shake them. It is in order to block a rival school's own mistaken tenet, and to reveal correct principle, that this treatise is composed. Is contaminated conduct more numerous, or uncontaminated conduct? The answer: contaminated conduct is the more numerous, not uncontaminated conduct. Why is this so? Contaminated conduct subsumes ten sense-fields and a portion of two further sense-fields; uncontaminated conduct is subsumed only within a portion of two sense-fields. There are those who say: uncontaminated conduct is the more numerous, not contaminated conduct. Why is this so? Just as a single instant of material form belonging to the very lowest grade bound to the desire realm is taken as the object of four kinds of uncontaminated wisdom — namely, the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering, the dharma-knowledge of suffering, the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of origin, and the dharma-knowledge of origin — and every other material form and every other dharma should be understood accordingly in just the same principle, and, further, there exist every other uncontaminated dharma besides — it is on this account that uncontaminated conduct is decisively the more numerous. There are yet other masters who say: contaminated conduct is the more numerous. Why is this so? Just as a single instance of uncontaminated conduct is taken as the object of four kinds of contaminated dharma — namely, wrong view, doubt, ignorance, and wholesome conventional knowledge — and every other uncontaminated conduct should be understood accordingly in just the same principle, and, further, there exist every other contaminated dharma besides — it is on this account that contaminated conduct is decisively the more numerous. The verdict: it should be said that, although both contaminated and uncontaminated conduct are alike boundless, this treatise's own master, speaking with reference to the sense-fields they subsume, states that contaminated conduct is the more numerous, not uncontaminated conduct.

Further, although this treatise's own master does not directly pose the question of whether conditioned or unconditioned dharmas are the more numerous, the sense of this question nonetheless properly arises: is the conditioned more numerous, or the unconditioned? The answer: the conditioned is the more numerous, not the unconditioned. Why is this so? The conditioned subsumes eleven sense-fields and a portion of a further sense-field; the unconditioned is subsumed only within a portion of a single sense-field. The verdict: it should be said that the unconditioned is the more numerous, not the conditioned. Why is this so? For every contaminated dharma that exists, there exists a corresponding substance of analytical cessation; and for every uncontaminated path that exists, there exists a corresponding substance of non-analytical cessation — and, further, there exist, besides these, however many further substances correspond to the sheer abundance of contaminated dharmas that exist, together with the non-analytical cessations and space — and it is on this account that the unconditioned is the more numerous, not the conditioned. Yet, following the pattern of the previous discussion, this, too, is spoken with reference to the sense-fields subsumed, and it is for this reason that the unconditioned is said to be the fewer in number. What is meant by "conduct fulfilled"? And so on, at length. One asks: why is this treatise composed? The answer: it is composed in order to analyze the meaning of scripture — that is, scripture states that the Buddha's own disciples possess fulfilled discipline, fulfilled concentration, fulfilled wisdom, fulfilled conduct, and fulfilled protection, yet, though scripture states this much, it does not analyze its meaning, nor does it state what "conduct fulfilled" or "protection fulfilled" actually mean;

scripture is the very root this treatise depends upon, and what it leaves unstated, this treatise should now state, and it is for this reason that this treatise is composed. What is meant by "conduct fulfilled"? The answer: it refers to the bodily restraint, verbal restraint, and purity of livelihood belonging to the non-learner. One asks: learners, and those who are neither learners nor non-learners, likewise possess restraint — why, then, does this passage speak only of the non-learner? The answer: this is spoken with reference to what is superior — that is, both the dharma and the person of the non-learner are superior, and it is for this reason that this passage speaks of it in particular.

Further, whatever restraint is not undermined by any corresponding non-restraint is spoken of within this passage — the learner and the rest are not so. The non-learner's own bodily karma is named bodily restraint; the non-learner's own verbal karma is named verbal restraint; the non-learner's own bodily and verbal karma, taken together, are named purity of livelihood — this being precisely right action, right speech, and right livelihood. Scripture speaks of discipline under various names — at times calling it śīla, at times calling it conduct, at times calling it a foot, and at times calling it a basket.

The word śīla carries the sense of coolness — that is, evil is capable of causing body and mind to burn with distress, while discipline is capable of bringing ease and comfort, and it is for this reason called coolness; further, evil is capable of drawing forth the burning distress of the evil destinies, while discipline draws forth the good destinies, and it is for this reason called coolness. Further, śīla carries the sense of peaceful sleep — that is, one who upholds discipline attains peaceful, restful sleep, and constantly experiences wholesome dreams, and it is for this reason called śīla. Further, śīla carries the sense of habitual practice — since one constantly habituates wholesome dharmas, it is for this reason called śīla. Further, śīla carries the sense of attaining concentration — that is, one who upholds discipline finds it easy for his mind to attain concentration, and it is for this reason called śīla. Further, śīla carries the sense of a ford or crossing-place, as a certain verse states:

"The pool of the Buddhadharma is cool and clear; discipline serves as its very ford — the noble ones bathe there, their bodies unwetted, and thereby attain the virtues of the further shore." Further, śīla carries the sense of an ornament — there exist ornaments fitting for the young but not for the mature or the elderly; there exist ornaments fitting for the mature but not for the young or the elderly; and there exist ornaments fitting for the elderly but not for the young or the mature — discipline, by contrast, adorns the body fittingly at all three stages of life alike, as a certain verse states:

"Discipline is the very ornament of the body, fitting alike for the young, the mature, and the elderly — dwelling in faith and wisdom is a treasure that no thief can ever steal." Further, śīla carries the sense of a bright mirror — that is, exactly as a bright, clear mirror reflects one's own image within it, so too, abiding in pure discipline, the image of the absence of self is reflected there. Further, śīla carries the sense of a stairway, as the Venerable Aniruddha has said: it is by treading the stairway of discipline that I ascend to the unsurpassed palace of wisdom. Further, śīla carries the sense of predominance — that the Buddha holds such majesty and power throughout the great trichiliocosm is entirely the power of discipline. In ancient times, within this very country of Kaśmīra, there lived a poisonous dragon named Fearless, whose nature was violent and cruel, causing much harm; not far from where he dwelt stood a monastery repeatedly troubled and vexed by this dragon. Within that monastery lived five hundred great arhats, who together deliberated, entering into concentration in an effort to drive the dragon away by the full force of their own supernormal power, yet were unable to do so. There then came, from elsewhere, an arhat, and the resident monks related to him what had occurred. This newly arrived arhat went to where the dragon dwelt, and, snapping his fingers, said: worthy one, withdraw to a distance — and, hearing his voice, the dragon at once withdrew far away. The other arhats, astonished, asked him: by what power of concentration did you drive this dragon away? He answered the assembly, saying: I did not enter concentration, nor did I call forth any supernormal power — it is simply through my own guarding of discipline that I possess this power; I guard even the lightest transgression as though it were the gravest prohibition, and it is on this account that even so fearsome a dragon fled in terror. It is on this basis that śīla carries the sense of predominance. Further, śīla carries the sense of being foremost, as the head is foremost — that is, exactly as one possessing a head is thereby able to see forms, hear sounds, smell scents, taste flavors, feel tangibles, and know dharmas, so too, one possessing discipline is thereby able to see the form of the four noble truths, hear the never-before-heard sound of the body and the rest, smell the fragrance of the thirty-seven factors of enlightenment, taste the tranquil savor of renunciation and the distancing from complete, perfect enlightenment, feel the touch of meditative absorption, liberation, concentration, and attainment, and know the particular and shared characteristics of the aggregates, sense-fields, and elements — and it is for this reason that śīla carries the sense of being foremost, as the head is foremost. Scripture calls discipline "conduct" because the world commonly speaks of discipline as conduct — the world, seeing one who upholds discipline, says that he possesses conduct, and, seeing one who breaks discipline, says that he lacks conduct; further, purely upholding discipline is itself the very root of every conduct, capable of leading to nirvāṇa, and it is for this reason called conduct. Scripture calls discipline a "foot" because it is capable of leading one to the good destinies and to nirvāṇa — exactly as one possessing feet is able to avoid danger and peril and arrive at a place of safety, so too, one possessing pure discipline is able to transcend the evil destinies and be born among gods and humans, or to cross over birth and death and reach the shore of nirvāṇa, and it is for this reason called a foot. Scripture calls discipline a "basket" because it upholds and sustains every meritorious quality — that is, one who upholds discipline thereby upholds and sustains his own merit, preventing it from receding or scattering, exactly as a basket holds a treasure within it. The Venerable Ghoṣa states as follows: discipline is named "unbreakable." Why is this so? Exactly as one whose feet are unbroken is thereby able to travel freely to a place of safety, so too, one who possesses pure discipline is likewise able to reach nirvāṇa in just this way. Within this discussion, the non-learner's own bodily and verbal pure discipline is named conduct fulfilled, since this is discipline at its very utmost. What is meant by "protection fulfilled"? The answer: it refers to the non-learner's own restraint of the faculties. One should understand that, in this context, the faculties are what is protected, and it is through the power of mindfulness and wisdom that the eye and the other faculties are protected from giving rise to any fault with respect to their objects, exactly as a hook restrains an elephant, preventing it from running wild — and it is for this reason that the non-learner's own correct mindfulness and correct awareness are named protection fulfilled, as a certain verse states:

"The manifold floods of this world correct mindfulness alone is able to guard against; and, should one wish to cut them off entirely, this achievement belongs to correct awareness alone." One asks: what is the inherent nature of the restraint of the faculties, and of the non-restraint of the faculties, respectively?

The answer: the restraint of the faculties has correct mindfulness and correct awareness as its inherent nature. How is this known to be so? Because scripture serves as the measure. As scripture states:

a deity said to a monk: you ought not, at this time, open your own festering wound. The monk replied: I shall cover it. The deity further said:

this wound and its discharge are no small matter — with what could you possibly cover it? The monk replied: I shall cover it with correct mindfulness and correct awareness. The deity said: excellent — this is indeed a true covering. It is thereby known that these two, mindfulness and awareness, are the very restraint and protective covering of the faculties, since their sense so closely resembles it; the non-restraint of the faculties, established in contrast to this, is therefore forgetful mindfulness and incorrect awareness. One asks: if correct mindfulness and correct awareness are themselves the restraint of the faculties, then how is what scripture states to be reconciled — as it is said, it is on account of the fulfillment of mindfulness and wisdom that the restraint of the faculties is fulfilled — does this not amount to saying that a thing's own fulfillment is caused by that very same thing's own fulfillment? The answer: mindfulness and wisdom are of two kinds: first, as cause; second, as fruit. As cause, they are named mindfulness and wisdom; as fruit, they are named the restraint of the faculties.

Further, mindfulness and wisdom are again of two kinds: first, innate wholesomeness; second, wholesomeness attained through applied practice. Innate wholesomeness is named mindfulness and wisdom; wholesomeness attained through applied practice is named the restraint of the faculties. Further, mindfulness and wisdom are again of two kinds: first, unsettled wholesomeness; second, settled wholesomeness. Unsettled wholesomeness is named mindfulness and wisdom; settled wholesomeness is named the restraint of the faculties. Further, mindfulness and wisdom are again of two kinds: first, mundane wholesomeness; second, supramundane wholesomeness.

Mundane wholesomeness is named mindfulness and wisdom; supramundane wholesomeness is named the restraint of the faculties. Further, mindfulness and wisdom are again of two kinds: first, belonging to a learner; second, belonging to a non-learner. That belonging to a learner is named mindfulness and wisdom; that belonging to a non-learner is named the restraint of the faculties. Further, mindfulness and wisdom are again of two kinds: first, belonging to a dull-facultied lineage; second, belonging to a sharp-facultied lineage. That belonging to a dull-facultied lineage is named mindfulness and wisdom; that belonging to a sharp-facultied lineage is named the restraint of the faculties — and it is on this account that this position does not contradict what scripture states. There are those who say: the restraint of the faculties has heedfulness as its inherent nature; the non-restraint of the faculties has heedlessness as its inherent nature. There are yet other masters who say: the restraint of the faculties has the six constant abidings as its inherent nature; the non-restraint of the faculties has the afflictions and karma that these very six constant abidings serve as the antidote to as its inherent nature. There are also those who say: the restraint of the faculties has as its inherent nature the state of not having yet possessed, with respect to the six faculties, the dharmas already cut off and already fully understood, together with the state of possessing the path that serves as their antidote; the non-restraint of the faculties has as its inherent nature the state of possessing, with respect to the six faculties, the dharmas not yet cut off and not yet fully understood, together with the state of not yet possessing the path that serves as their antidote. There are yet others who say: the restraint of the faculties has as its inherent nature the growth and expansion of every wholesome, excellent conduct that occurs when the dharmas of the six faculties have already been cut off and already been fully understood; the non-restraint of the faculties has as its inherent nature the growth and expansion of every unwholesome, evil conduct that occurs when the dharmas of the six faculties have not yet been cut off and not yet been fully understood. There are those who say: the restraint of the faculties has every wholesome dharma as its inherent nature; the non-restraint of the faculties has every defiled dharma as its inherent nature. There are yet others who say:

the restraint of the faculties has every wholesome dharma, together with every uncovered-undefined dharma that accords with the wholesome, as its inherent nature; the non-restraint of the faculties has every defiled dharma, together with every uncovered-undefined dharma that accords with defilement, as its inherent nature. In ancient times, within this very country of Kaśmīra, there was a monastery named Auspicious Lineage, where two arhats once dwelt, both having realized the three knowledges, both endowed with the eight liberations, and both having attained unobstructed understanding — they were teachers of the Dharma, and were themselves blood brothers, sons of a brahmin father named Nandin. Both of them stated as follows: the restraint of the faculties and the non-restraint of the faculties both have restraint and non-restraint, subsumed within the uncovered-undefined aggregate of formations dissociated from mind, as their inherent nature. One asks: if both of these are subsumed within the uncovered-undefined aggregate of formations dissociated from mind, then what distinction remains between these two inherent natures? The answer: whatever accords with defilement is named non-restraint;

whatever accords with purity is named restraint — such, then, is their distinction. The verdict: among all these various positions, the first stated is sound, since scripture states that mindfulness and wisdom are able to protect the faculties.

Further, this very same mindfulness and wisdom, depending on the stage in question, may also earn the name "cutting-off restraint," established under a variety of names according to its various stages. Let us first speak of the cutting-off restraint belonging to the contaminated: with respect to dharmas of the desire realm abandoned by seeing and by cultivation, it is the stage of preparatory approach that is capable of freeing one from the desire realm's own contaminated defilements, and, within its nine uninterrupted paths, the two dharmas of mindfulness and wisdom serve as the cutting-off restraint. With respect to dharmas of the first dhyāna abandoned by seeing and by cultivation, it is the proximate stage of the second dhyāna that is capable of freeing one from the first dhyāna, and, within its nine uninterrupted paths, the two dharmas of mindfulness and wisdom serve as the cutting-off restraint — and so on, up through dharmas of the sphere of nothingness abandoned by seeing and by cultivation, where it is the proximate stage of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception that is capable of freeing one from the sphere of nothingness, and, within its nine uninterrupted paths, the two dharmas of mindfulness and wisdom serve as the cutting-off restraint. As for the cutting-off restraint belonging to the uncontaminated: with respect to dharmas of the desire realm abandoned by seeing and by cultivation, it is the stage of preparatory approach that is capable of freeing one from the desire realm, and, within its uncontaminated uninterrupted paths, the two dharmas of mindfulness and wisdom serve as the cutting-off restraint. With respect to dharmas of the first dhyāna abandoned by seeing and by cultivation, it is by depending on the stage of preparatory approach, the intermediate stage, and the first dhyāna itself that one is freed from these three stages of the first dhyāna, and, within their uncontaminated uninterrupted paths, the two dharmas of mindfulness and wisdom serve as the cutting-off restraint. With respect to dharmas of the second dhyāna abandoned by seeing and by cultivation, it is by depending on the aforementioned three stages together with the second dhyāna itself that one is freed from the second dhyāna, and, within the uncontaminated uninterrupted paths of these four stages, the two dharmas of mindfulness and wisdom serve as the cutting-off restraint. With respect to dharmas of the third dhyāna abandoned by seeing and by cultivation, it is by depending on the aforementioned four stages together with the third dhyāna itself that one is freed from the third dhyāna, and, within the uncontaminated uninterrupted paths of these five stages, the two dharmas of mindfulness and wisdom serve as the cutting-off restraint. With respect to dharmas of the fourth dhyāna abandoned by seeing and by cultivation, together with dharmas of the formless realm abandoned by seeing, it is by depending on the aforementioned five stages together with the fourth dhyāna itself that one is freed from the fourth dhyāna and the rest, and, within the uncontaminated uninterrupted paths of these six stages, the two dharmas of mindfulness and wisdom serve as the cutting-off restraint. With respect to dharmas of the sphere of infinite space abandoned by cultivation, it is by depending on the aforementioned six stages together with the sphere of infinite space itself that one is freed from the sphere of infinite space, and, within the uncontaminated nine uninterrupted paths of these seven stages, the two dharmas of mindfulness and wisdom serve as the cutting-off restraint. With respect to dharmas of the sphere of infinite consciousness abandoned by cultivation, it is by depending on the aforementioned seven stages together with the sphere of infinite consciousness itself that one is freed from the sphere of infinite consciousness, and, within the uncontaminated nine uninterrupted paths of these eight stages, the two dharmas of mindfulness and wisdom serve as the cutting-off restraint.

With respect to dharmas of the sphere of nothingness and the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception abandoned by cultivation, it is by depending on the aforementioned eight stages together with the sphere of nothingness itself that one is freed from these two spheres, and, within the uncontaminated nine uninterrupted paths of these nine stages, the two dharmas of mindfulness and wisdom serve as the cutting-off restraint.