The Leprous Insect's Own Blindness

There are three unwholesome roots — namely, the unwholesome root of greed, the unwholesome root of hatred, and the unwholesome root of delusion. One asks: what is the inherent nature of these three unwholesome roots? The answer: they have fifteen factors as their inherent nature — that is, the unwholesome roots of greed and hatred, each spanning the five sections of the desire realm, together make ten factors,

and the unwholesome root of delusion, spanning the four sections of the desire realm together with a portion of what is abandoned by seeing suffering, makes five factors — that is, the delusion bound to the desire realm and abandoned by seeing origin, cessation, and the path, and by cultivation, is, in its entirety, unwholesome, and is established as an unwholesome root; the delusion abandoned by seeing suffering, by contrast, is of ten kinds — namely, the five views, doubt, and the ignorance associated with craving, hatred, and conceit, together with the unique, non-shared ignorance as a tenth. Among these ten, eight are unwholesome, and are therefore established as an unwholesome root; the ignorance associated with the view of the perishable aggregation of self and the extreme views is undefined, and is therefore not an unwholesome root. One asks: "root" carries the sense of "cause" — since the ignorance associated with the view of the perishable aggregation of self and the extreme views is itself the cause of every unwholesome dharma, why is it not established as an unwholesome root? The answer: it is only when a dharma's own substance is itself unwholesome, and is capable of serving as the cause of every unwholesome dharma, that it is established as an unwholesome root — the ignorance associated with the view of the perishable aggregation of self and the extreme views, though it is indeed the cause of every unwholesome dharma, is itself undefined in substance, and is therefore not an unwholesome root. It is on this basis that these three unwholesome roots have fifteen factors as their inherent nature. Their inherent nature having now been explained, the reason for their name shall now be explained. One asks: why are they named unwholesome roots? What is the meaning of "unwholesome root"? The answer: the sense of being able to generate, to nourish, to increase, to augment, to draw together, to sustain, and to cause the growth of every unwholesome dharma — this is the meaning of unwholesome root. The Venerable Vasumitra states as follows: the sense of serving as the cause, the seed, the transformative agent, the subsequent-transformative agent, the co-arising agent, and the drawing-together agent of every unwholesome dharma — this is the meaning of unwholesome root. The Great Virtuous One states: the sense of serving as the foundation, the planting agent, the transformative agent, the subsequent-transformative agent, and the drawing-together agent of every unwholesome dharma — this is the meaning of unwholesome root. One asks: if the meaning of being the cause of the unwholesome is the meaning of unwholesome root, then formations of unwholesome aggregates already arisen serve as the cause of unwholesome aggregates not yet arisen but yet to arise; the ten unwholesome karma-paths already arisen serve as the cause of unwholesome karma-paths not yet arisen but yet to arise; and the thirty-four unwholesome latent tendencies already arisen serve as the cause of unwholesome latent tendencies not yet arisen but yet to arise — every such unwholesome dharma as this ought then equally to be established as an unwholesome root — why, then, does this passage speak only of three unwholesome roots? The Venerable Vasumitra offers this explanation: this is because the Blessed One, observing what those he was converting were fit to hear, gave a somewhat abbreviated teaching. The Venerable Pārśva states: the Buddha knows the nature, characteristics, power, and function of every dharma in a way no other being can — whatever dharma is fit to be established as an unwholesome root, he establishes as such, and this ought not to be pressed as an objection.

The Venerable Ghoṣa offers this explanation: the Great Teacher knows that these three — greed, hatred, and delusion — are, among every cause of the unwholesome, especially weighty and especially proximate in their own power and function, and it is for this reason that they alone are established as roots. Further, among unwholesome dharmas, these three are the most supreme, their own name and meaning being most preeminent, and it is for this reason that they alone are established as roots. Further, among unwholesome dharmas, these three are the most difficult to cut off, to break, and to transcend, and it is for this reason that they alone are established as roots. Further, among unwholesome dharmas, these three carry the weightiest, the most numerous, and the most abundant faults, and it is for this reason that they alone are established as roots. Further, these three stand as the near obstructions to the three wholesome roots, being the very foremost enemies of those three wholesome roots, and it is for this reason that they alone are established as unwholesome roots. Further, at the moment of becoming free from desire's own defilements, these three create the very greatest hindrance and obstruction, exactly as a jailer guarding a prison, and it is for this reason that they alone are established as unwholesome roots. Further, among unwholesome dharmas, these three stand foremost, exactly as a valiant general stands at the very front of the army — it is by their own force that every other unwholesome dharma is able to arise and grow, and it is for this reason that they alone are established as roots. Further, among unwholesome dharmas,

these three serve as their cause, their root, their guide, their gathering-point, their condition, their transformative agent, their agent of accomplishment, their master, and their very foundation, and it is for this reason that they are established as roots — "cause" refers to their being like a seed; "root" refers to their being firm and stable; "guide" refers to their being able to draw forth; "gathering-point" refers to their being able to generate; "condition" refers to their being able to assist; "transformative agent" refers to their being able to bring forth; "agent of accomplishment" refers to their being able to nourish and increase; "master" refers to their being able to take hold and receive; and "foundation" refers to their being able to serve as a support. Further, it is because these three dharmas are fully equipped with five distinguishing conditions that they are established as unwholesome roots, no other dharma being so equipped — that is, these three dharmas span all five sections, pervade all six consciousnesses, are of the nature of a latent tendency, are capable of drawing forth coarse bodily and verbal karma, and, at the moment of cutting off the wholesome roots, serve as the strong, applied effort behind it. "Spanning all five sections" refers to spanning what is abandoned by seeing suffering, and so on, up through what is abandoned by cultivation,

this thereby excluding the five views and doubt. "Pervading all six consciousnesses" refers to being conjoined with eye-consciousness, and so on, up through mental consciousness, this thereby excluding conceit, since conceit, though of the nature of a latent tendency, is confined to mental consciousness alone. "Being of the nature of a latent tendency" refers to the fact that the unwholesome root of greed is of the nature of the latent tendency of desire-craving; the unwholesome root of hatred is of the nature of the latent tendency of hatred; and the unwholesome root of delusion is of the nature of the latent tendency of ignorance — this thereby excludes every entanglement, secondary affliction, and defilement. "Capable of drawing forth coarse bodily and verbal karma" is as scripture states:

greed, hatred, and delusion give rise to every kind of coarse, evil bodily, verbal, and mental karma. "At the moment of cutting off the wholesome roots, serving as the strong, applied effort behind it" is as the Prajñaptiśāstra states:

how is it that the cutting-off of the wholesome roots comes about, and through what aspect does this cutting-off occur? It refers to a certain kind of person who is of an extremely sharp, keen disposition toward greed, hatred, and delusion, and so on, at length — these two citations together explain the meaning of "unwholesome root." One asks: overreaching wrong view, too, is capable of cutting off the wholesome roots — why, then, is it not established as an unwholesome root? The answer: at the moment of the applied effort behind cutting off the wholesome roots, and at the very moment of their actual severance, these three alone are supreme, and it is therefore that they alone are established as roots; wrong view is supreme only at the moment of the actual severance, not at the stage of applied effort, and it is therefore not established as a root — that is, every undertaking, whether inward or outward, whether defiling or purifying, is difficult at the stage of applied effort, yet easy once it reaches its own culmination — exactly as, when the various bodhisattvas, witnessing the world afflicted by old age, sickness, and death, first give rise to the mind of unsurpassed, perfect enlightenment for the sake of rescuing sentient beings, they thereupon, across three incalculable eons, cultivate hundreds of thousands of difficult and arduous practices, without any hindrance and without ever regressing — the very first arising of the mind of enlightenment is exceedingly difficult to attain, quite unlike the later moments of the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising, when the wholesome dharmas of the three realms yet to come are cultivated with comparative ease — and it is for this reason that wrong view is not an unwholesome root.

Further, at the moment of cutting off the wholesome roots, these three serve both as the transformative agent and as the subsequent-transformative agent, and it is for this reason that they are established as roots; wrong view is neither the transformative agent nor the subsequent-transformative agent, and it is therefore not established as a root. There are those who say: at the moment of cutting off the wholesome roots, greed and hatred serve only as the transformative agent, while delusion also serves as the subsequent-transformative agent, and it is for this reason that they are established as roots; wrong view serves only as the subsequent-transformative agent, not as the transformative agent, since its own culminating moment is easy, and it is therefore not established as a root. Further, one should understand that wrong view's own capacity to cut off the wholesome roots is, in every case, due to the power of greed, hatred, and delusion, and it is for this reason that only greed and the other two are established as roots — that is, the unwholesome roots first subdue and overcome the wholesome dharmas, causing them to lose their own power, becoming feeble and diminished, and it is only afterward that wrong view is capable of cutting off the wholesome roots. Further, it was already stated above that whatever dharma is fully equipped with these five conditions is established as an unwholesome root; wrong view is not so — that is, it belongs only to four sections, and, though associated with mental consciousness and of the nature of a latent tendency, it is nonetheless incapable of drawing forth coarse bodily and verbal karma, since a mind abandoned by seeing does not serve as the proximate cause and the instant-by-instant drawing-forth cause of bodily and verbal karma, nor does it serve as the strong, applied effort at the moment of cutting off the wholesome roots, and it is for this reason that wrong view is not an unwholesome root. By means of these five conditions stated above, every other unwholesome dharma is, in every case, excluded — that is, the unwholesome aggregate of material form possesses none of these five conditions at all;

the unwholesome aggregates of feeling, perception, and consciousness, together with the aggregate of formations associated with mind that is neither a latent tendency nor an entanglement nor a defilement, though they do span all five sections, pervade all six consciousnesses, and are capable of drawing forth coarse bodily and verbal karma, nonetheless lack the remaining two conditions; the unwholesome aggregate of formations dissociated from mind, though it spans all five sections, lacks the remaining four conditions; among the latent tendencies, the five views and doubt, though of the nature of a latent tendency, lack the remaining four conditions; conceit, though it spans all five sections, is of the nature of a latent tendency, and is capable of drawing forth coarse bodily and verbal karma, nonetheless lacks the remaining two conditions; among the ten entanglements, torpor, restlessness, shamelessness, and lack of moral dread, though they span all five sections, pervade all six consciousnesses, and are capable of drawing forth coarse bodily and verbal karma, nonetheless lack the remaining two conditions; drowsiness, though it spans all five sections, lacks the remaining four conditions; and anger, concealment, worry, envy, and stinginess, though they too are capable of drawing forth coarse bodily and verbal karma, lack the remaining four conditions; flattery, deception, arrogance, harmfulness, and resentment, being equal-outflows of affliction, are named defilements, and, though they too are capable of drawing forth coarse bodily and verbal karma, lack the remaining four conditions — and it is on this account that none of these are established as unwholesome roots. Further, greed, hatred, and delusion, being the predominant root-gathering of karma, are established as unwholesome roots — as scripture states: Kālāma, you should know that greed, hatred, and delusion are the root-gathering of karma — one should understand that this scripture speaks with reference to predominance, since no other dharma is predominant in this way, and none other is therefore established as a root. Further, greed, hatred, and delusion, once exhausted, cause karma likewise to be exhausted, and it is for this reason that they are established as roots — as scripture states: because greed, hatred, and delusion are exhausted, karma, too, is thereupon exhausted — this scripture, too, speaks with reference to this predominant sense. Further, greed, hatred, and delusion mutually draw one another forth, mutually assisting one another,

and it is for this reason that they are established as roots — as scripture states: greed is able to give rise to hatred, hatred is able to give rise to greed, and ignorance assists them both — one should understand that these, too, arise from greed and hatred in turn. Further, it is because these three are most abundantly latent within the three feelings that they are established as unwholesome roots, no other dharma being so — as it is said, greed is latent within pleasant feeling, hatred is latent within painful feeling, and delusion is latent within neutral feeling. One asks: within each and every feeling, every latent tendency is, in fact, present — why, then, does this passage speak in this particular way? The answer: this is spoken with reference to what applies to the greater portion — that is, greed is, for the greater part, latent within pleasant feeling; hatred is, for the greater part, latent within painful feeling; and delusion is, for the greater part, latent within neutral feeling. Further, greed arises in dependence on pleasant feeling, taking pleasant feeling as its own root, giving rise to manifold evil conduct and drawing forth manifold suffering fruits; hatred arises in dependence on painful feeling, taking painful feeling as its own root, giving rise to manifold evil conduct and drawing forth manifold suffering fruits; and delusion arises in dependence on neutral feeling, taking neutral feeling as its own root, giving rise to manifold evil conduct and drawing forth manifold suffering fruits — and it is on this account that this is stated in just this way. Further, it is because the Buddha spoke of these three through the language of opposition and accord that they are established as unwholesome roots, no other dharma being so — as scripture states: sentient beings of every kind, through the force of opposition and accord, give rise for the most part to strife and contention — exactly as the host of gods and the asuras, through the force of opposition and accord, repeatedly give rise to strife and contention, and exactly as Rāma and Rāvaṇa, and the like, on account of Sītā, gave rise to manifold strife and contention, thereby slaying countless sentient beings — one should know that all such cases as these arise through the force of opposition and accord. "Opposition" refers to hatred; "accord" is named craving.

One asks: why does this passage not speak of delusion here? The answer: delusion is itself subsumed within both of these two portions — having already spoken of opposition and accord, delusion is thereby already spoken of as well,

since, were sentient beings not deluded by ignorance, they would not create evil even with respect to the wondrous objects of heaven, how much less so with respect to the objects of the human realm or the evil destinies — and yet, giving rise to strife and contention, they create every kind of evil karma, and, on account of this, wander onward, undergoing suffering without end. Further, this scripture briefly displays, as it were, a gateway or a stairway, stating that there are only three unwholesome roots because every affliction is subsumed within one of three categories — the category of greed, the category of hatred, and the category of delusion — exactly as scripture states:

the Buddha told the brahmin: if sentient beings, their minds defiled by twenty-one afflictions, nonetheless cling to the notion that they possess a genuinely real, pure dharma capable of attaining ultimate purity, they will fall into the evil destinies and undergo a lowly body — the Great Virtuous One Dharmatrāta, in explaining this scripture, subsumes every affliction within these same three categories —

namely, the categories of greed, hatred, and delusion — speaking of one member of a category is to speak of that entire category, exactly as one speaks of the category of greed, the category of hatred, and the category of delusion; so too should the category of intimacy, the category of enmity, and the neutral category, the category of benefactors, the category of adversaries, and the category of neither, and the category of the agreeable, the category of the disagreeable, and the category of neither, all be understood in just the same way. Further, it is because these three unwholesome roots give rise to the ten evil karma-paths, causing beings to fall into the ten evil places, that this passage speaks of them in particular. How do these three unwholesome roots give rise to the ten evil karma-paths? As scripture states: the taking of life is of three kinds — namely, that arising from greed, that arising from hatred, and that arising from delusion — and so on, up through wrong view, should be understood in just the same way; the Prajñaptiśāstra likewise states that the three unwholesome roots are the very cause and foundation from which the ten evil karma-paths arise and grow. How do these cause beings to fall into the ten evil places? As scripture states: the karma-path of taking life, if habitually practiced, cultivated, and frequently engaged in, is capable of causing sentient beings to fall into the hell-destiny, the destiny of beasts, or the realm of hungry ghosts, and so on, broadly, up through wrong view being exactly the same; the Prajñaptiśāstra likewise states that the karma-path of taking life, if habitually practiced, cultivated, and frequently engaged in — in its very highest grade, causes one to fall into the hell of unintermittent suffering; in the grade slightly less severe, into the great blazing-heat hell; in the grade slightly less severe still, into the blazing-heat hell; then into the great wailing hell, the wailing hell, the crushing-together hell, the black-rope hell, and the reviving hell, in successively descending grades of severity; the still less severe grade causes one to fall into the destiny of beasts; and the very least severe grade causes one to fall into the realm of hungry ghosts — and so on, broadly, up through wrong view being exactly the same. Further, whatever the Blessed One has named an "inward filth" is established as an unwholesome root, no other dharma being so — as scripture states: there are three inward filths — namely, greed, hatred, and delusion; and, just as with "inward filth," so too should "inward enemy," "inward resentment," and "inward thief" be understood in just the same way. Further, whatever the Blessed One has spoken of as admitting increase or decrease is established as an unwholesome root, no other dharma being so — as scripture states: what is meant by the increase of greed, the increase of hatred, and the increase of delusion; what is meant by the decrease of greed, the decrease of hatred, and the decrease of delusion — no other affliction is spoken of in terms of increase or decrease, and it is for this reason that no other affliction is established as an unwholesome root. Further, whatever the Blessed One has spoken of as the very cause and condition for genuine spiritual decline is established as an unwholesome root, no other dharma being so — as it is said: monks and nuns, and the like, who observe within themselves that greed, hatred, and delusion are on the increase,

ought thereby to know for themselves that they are declining with respect to their wholesome dharmas. Further, whatever the Buddha has spoken of as an affliction-obstruction is established as an unwholesome root, no other dharma being so —

as it is said: what is meant by an affliction-obstruction? It refers to a certain kind of person in whom greed, hatred, and delusion manifest again and again, predominant and fierce. Further, whatever the Blessed One has spoken of as dust is established as an unwholesome root, no other dharma being so — as scripture states: there are three kinds of dust — namely, greed, hatred, and delusion; and, just as with "dust," so too should "root-sprout," "filth-and-impurity," "fever-and-distress," "poisoned-arrow," "fire," "thorn," "blade-poison," and "abscess-and-disease" be understood in just the same way — and it is on account of these manifold reasons that the three unwholesome roots are established.

One asks: how do these three unwholesome roots actually manifest? The answer: if the mind gives rise to greed, hatred does not thereby arise; if the mind gives rise to hatred, greed does not thereby arise;

yet, whenever either of these two minds arises, delusion is necessarily and invariably present as well. Why is this so? Greed's own aspect and hatred's own aspect stand in mutual opposition to one another, while delusion does not stand in opposition to either; greed's own aspect is one of joy, hatred's own aspect is one of sorrow, while the aspect of ignorance stands in opposition to neither. Further, when greed manifests, it causes the body to increase and be sustained, nourishing the body; when hatred manifests, it causes the body to diminish and be ruined, damaging the body; delusion, with respect to these two, stands in opposition to neither. Further, when greed arises, it causes the body to grow soft and supple, at ease and content, delighting in its object — if one loves a given object, one gazes upon it day and night, never satisfied; when hatred arises, it causes the body to grow coarse and rough, rigid and hard, turning away from its object in aversion — if one despises a given object, one is unwilling even to lift one's eyes to look upon it; delusion, with respect to these two matters, stands in opposition to neither.

These three unwholesome roots all alike span the five sections and pervade the six consciousnesses. Why is this so? Were an unwholesome root confined solely to what is abandoned by seeing, then whatever is unwholesome and abandoned by cultivation ought to arise without any root at all; were an unwholesome root confined solely to what is abandoned by cultivation, then whatever is unwholesome and abandoned by seeing ought to arise without any root at all —

and it is for this reason that an unwholesome root must decisively span all five sections. Were an unwholesome root confined solely to the mental ground, then whatever unwholesome dharma occurs within the five sense-consciousnesses ought to arise without any root at all; were an unwholesome root confined solely to the five sense-consciousnesses, then whatever unwholesome dharma occurs on the mental ground ought to arise without any root at all — and it is for this reason that an unwholesome root must decisively pervade all six consciousnesses. If any unwholesome mind arises together with greed, it is said to "possess a root" by virtue of two roots — namely, greed itself, together with the ignorance associated with it. If any unwholesome mind arises together with hatred, it is said to "possess a root" by virtue of two roots — namely, hatred itself, together with the ignorance associated with it. Every other unwholesome mind arising together with some other affliction is said to "possess a root" by virtue of a single root alone — namely, ignorance itself.

One asks: "root" is spoken of in many different places — in some places, the view of the perishable aggregation of self is spoken of as a root; in some places, the Blessed One himself is spoken of as a root; in some places, desire is spoken of as a root; in some places, heedfulness is spoken of as a root; and in some places, one's own inherent nature is spoken of as a root — what distinction is there in meaning among these various uses of "root"? The answer: speaking of the view of the perishable aggregation of self as a root is spoken with reference to the various views and their own tendencies, since it is on account of grasping at a self and what belongs to a self that the sixty-two views and their tendencies arise and grow. Speaking of the Blessed One as a root is spoken with reference to the Dharma he teaches, since it is the Buddha alone who is capable of teaching every wondrous gateway to the Dharma concerning defilement, purification, bondage, liberation, the turning of the flow, and the returning of cessation. Speaking of desire as a root is spoken with reference to the gathering of wholesome dharmas, since it is only through desire that wholesome dharmas can be gathered together at all. Speaking of heedfulness as a root is spoken with reference to the guarding of wholesome dharmas, since it is through heedfulness that wholesome dharmas are guarded and protected — those who are heedless, though they possess wholesome dharmas, nonetheless allow them to decline and fall away. Speaking of one's own inherent nature as a root is spoken with reference to not relinquishing one's own substance, since every dharma takes its own inherent nature as its root, never losing its own substance thereby. One asks: if that is so, then even unconditioned dharmas ought to be named as "possessing a root." The answer: were one to speak with reference to this same meaning, it would involve no fault whatsoever to say that unconditioned dharmas, too, possess a root. There are those who say: the sense in which some places speak of one's own inherent nature as a root is spoken with reference to the homogeneous cause, since the homogeneous cause serves as the homogeneous cause for a dharma of the same class not yet arisen but yet to arise. One asks: would not the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering, and its co-arisen dharmas, then have to be named "without a root"? The answer: although these possess no homogeneous cause, they nonetheless serve as the homogeneous cause for other dharmas — unconditioned dharmas are not so. There are those who say: the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering, and its co-arisen dharmas, though they possess no homogeneous cause, nonetheless possess a co-existent cause through mutual association, and are therefore not without a root. The verdict: it should be said that, within this passage, "inherent nature" is what is meant by "own substance" — there exists no place in which "cause" itself is named "inherent nature."

There are three contaminants — namely, the desire-contaminant, the existence-contaminant, and the ignorance-contaminant. One asks: what is the inherent nature of these three contaminants? The answer: they have one hundred and eight factors as their inherent nature — that is, the desire-contaminant has, as its inherent nature, forty-one factors belonging to the desire realm: namely, five of greed, five of hatred, five of conceit, twelve of view, four of doubt, and ten of entanglement. The existence-contaminant has, as its inherent nature, fifty-two factors belonging to the form and formless realms: namely, ten of greed, ten of conceit, twenty-four of view, and eight of doubt.

The ignorance-contaminant has, as its inherent nature, fifteen factors belonging to all three realms — namely, the ignorance belonging to each of the five sections within the desire, form, and formless realms — and it is on this account that these three contaminants have one hundred and eight factors as their inherent nature. The Prakaraṇapāda states: what is the desire-contaminant? It refers to every fetter, binding, latent tendency, secondary affliction, and entanglement of the desire realm, excepting ignorance — this is called the desire-contaminant. What is the existence-contaminant? It refers to every fetter, binding, latent tendency, secondary affliction, and entanglement of the form and formless realms, excepting ignorance — this is called the existence-contaminant. What is the ignorance-contaminant? It refers to the absence of knowledge with respect to the three realms — this is called the ignorance-contaminant. This statement accords with correct principle; yet, were one to hold that it is only ignorance taking the three realms as its object that is named the ignorance-contaminant, this would then fail to subsume the uncontaminated-object-taking ignorance. One asks: are bodily and verbal misconduct themselves secondary afflictions, or not? Suppose either — what fault follows? If they are secondary afflictions, why does this passage not speak of them? If they are not secondary afflictions, then how is what the Vijñānakāya states to be reconciled — as it is said, bodily and verbal misconduct are unwholesome, yet are neither a fetter, nor a binding, nor a latent tendency; they are a secondary affliction, yet not an entanglement; they ought to be relinquished, ought to be abandoned, ought to be cut off, and ought to be fully understood, since they are capable of giving rise to the ripened fruit of future suffering? There are those who say: bodily and verbal misconduct are indeed secondary afflictions. One asks: if that is so, then why does this passage not speak of them? The answer: this ought indeed to be spoken of, and that it is not spoken of should be understood as a matter of surplus meaning left implicit. Further, whatever dharma is both a secondary affliction and an entanglement is spoken of within this passage; bodily and verbal misconduct, though they are secondary afflictions, are not entanglements, and it is for this reason that they are not spoken of here. There are yet other masters who say: bodily and verbal misconduct are not secondary afflictions. One asks: then how is what the Vijñānakāya states to be reconciled? The answer: the Vijñānakāya ought properly to state that bodily and verbal misconduct are unwholesome, are neither a fetter, a binding, a latent tendency, a secondary affliction, nor an entanglement, and so on, at length; yet that treatise states that they are subsumed within the latent tendencies and afflictions because bodily and verbal misconduct are themselves vexed and troubled by the secondary afflictions, and are therefore also called secondary afflictions. One asks: if that is so, then they, too, are bound by the fetters, up through entangled by the entanglements, and ought therefore also to be called a fetter, up through an entanglement? The answer: this, too, ought in principle to be so, and that it is not so stated should be understood as a matter of surplus meaning left implicit. Further, that treatise wishes to display a different manner of hearing and a different manner of expression, since, through differing expression, the meaning becomes more easily understood. Further, that treatise wishes to display two gateways, two abbreviated approaches, two stairways, two ladders, two torches, two lights, two texts, and two reflections — through these gateways and the rest, both senses remain consistent: exactly as that treatise's own inherent nature is not itself a fetter and the rest, and is therefore called "not a fetter" and the rest, so too, not being of the inherent nature of a secondary affliction either, it ought to be called "not a secondary affliction"; and exactly as it is vexed and troubled by the secondary afflictions, and is therefore called a secondary affliction, so too, being bound by the fetters, up through entangled by the entanglements, it ought also to be called a fetter, up through an entanglement — that treatise simply displays these two gateways, each expressing one side, both senses remaining consistent throughout. It is on this account that the three contaminants have one hundred and eight factors as their inherent nature. Their inherent nature having now been explained, the reason for their name shall now be explained. One asks: why are they named contaminants? What is the meaning of "contaminant"? The answer: the sense of detaining and dwelling, the sense of soaking and storing, the sense of flowing forth, the sense of restraining and holding fast, the sense of bewitching and confusing, and the sense of intoxicating and disordering — these are the meaning of "contaminant." That the sense of detaining and dwelling is the meaning of contaminant refers to the fact that it is these very contaminants that cause sentient beings to be detained and to dwell within the desire, form, and formless realms. That the sense of soaking and storing is the meaning of contaminant refers to the fact that, exactly as a seed stored within a moist vessel is thereby able to sprout, so too, within the vessel of a sentient being's own afflictions, the seed of karma, once stored, is thereby able to give rise to future existence. That the sense of flowing forth is the meaning of contaminant refers to the fact that, exactly as water flows forth from a spring, or milk flows forth from a breast, so too do the contaminants flow forth from a sentient being through the gateway of the six sense-bases. That the sense of restraining and holding fast is the meaning of contaminant refers to the fact that, exactly as a person restrained and held fast by another is unable to travel freely to the four directions as he wishes, so too are sentient beings, restrained and held fast by their own afflictions, made to circle endlessly through the realms, the destinies, and the states of birth, unable to proceed freely toward the realm of nirvāṇa. That the sense of bewitching and confusing is the meaning of contaminant refers to the fact that, exactly as a person bewitched and confused by a spirit speaks what ought not to be spoken, does what ought not to be done, and thinks what ought not to be thought, so too do sentient beings, bewitched and confused by their own afflictions, give rise to the three kinds of misconduct of body, speech, and mind. That the sense of intoxicating and disordering is the meaning of contaminant refers to the fact that, exactly as a person who drinks too much wine made from roots, stems, branches, leaves, or fruit becomes intoxicated and disordered, failing to discern what ought and ought not to be done, without shame or moral dread, distorted and heedless, so too do sentient beings, drinking the wine of their own afflictions, fail to discern what ought and ought not to be done, without shame or moral dread, distorted and heedless. The grammarians state: the word āsrava —

the syllable srava carries the sense of flowing, and the syllable ā carries the sense of a boundary or limit, exactly as one speaks of the rain of Pāṭaliputra, or of giving wealth and food unto the Caṇḍāla — the syllable ā, in this sense, reveals a range extending from this point to that point — and it is in just this sense that these afflictions cause sentient beings to flow onward, wandering all the way up to the very peak of existence, and are therefore named contaminants.

One asks: if the sense of detaining and dwelling is the meaning of contaminant, then karma, too, possesses the capacity to detain — as scripture states, two causes and two conditions detain sentient beings, causing them to dwell long within birth and death — namely, affliction and karma — since it is on account of affliction and karma serving as their own seed that birth and death become so difficult to cut off, to break, and to extinguish; there exist those who, at eight or ten years of age, have already permanently cut off every affliction and attained arhatship, and yet, through the sheer force of karma alone, still remain within birth and death, some to the age of ninety, some even to a hundred years — why, then, does this passage speak only of affliction as a contaminant, and not of karma as well? The answer: this ought indeed to be spoken of, and that it is not spoken of should be understood as a matter of surplus meaning left implicit. Further, karma's own capacity is not fixed — that is, there exists karma that detains sentient beings, causing them to dwell long within birth and death, and there exists karma that instead serves as a sentient being's own antidote to birth and death and affliction; affliction is not so, and it is for this reason that affliction alone is named a contaminant. Further, karma takes affliction as its own root — that is, there decisively exists no case of one who relinquishes his own karma without first cutting off affliction, and it is for this reason that affliction alone is spoken of as a contaminant. Further, karma is drawn forth by the power of affliction, and it is for this reason that only affliction is spoken of as a contaminant, not karma — that there exist cases in which affliction is exhausted and yet the lifespan continues is likewise due to the residual force of affliction, exactly as a lump of clay thrown against a wall, though it has dried, may still fail to fall, this being due to the residual force of its earlier moisture. Further, it is because affliction is exhausted that one enters final nirvāṇa, not because karma is exhausted, and it is for this reason that karma is not a contaminant — the karma of every arhat, though piled up like a mountain, no longer continues into any further aggregates once final nirvāṇa is attained. One asks: why is it that every affliction of the desire realm, excepting ignorance, is established as the desire-contaminant, while every affliction of the form and formless realms, excepting ignorance, is established as the existence-contaminant, and the ignorance of all three realms is established as the ignorance-contaminant? The answer: it was already stated above that the sense of detaining and dwelling is the meaning of contaminant — the reason sentient beings of the desire realm come to dwell within the desire realm is that their own minds are set upon desire, delighting in desire, admiring desire, hoping for desire, seeking desire, searching for desire, and indulging in desire, and it is for this reason that every affliction of the desire realm, excepting ignorance, is established as the desire-contaminant. The reason sentient beings of the form and formless realms come to dwell within the form and formless realms is that their own minds are set upon existence, delighting in existence, admiring existence, hoping for existence, seeking existence, searching for existence, and indulging in existence, and it is for this reason that every affliction of the form and formless realms, excepting ignorance, is established as the existence-contaminant. The reason sentient beings of all three realms come to set their minds upon, and indulge in, desire and existence, and thereby dwell within the three realms, is, in every case, due to the power of their own lack of knowledge, and it is for this reason that the ignorance of all three realms is established as the ignorance-contaminant. Further, sentient beings of the desire realm, though they too may seek existence, for the most part seek desire, and it is for this reason that every affliction of the desire realm, excepting ignorance, is established as the desire-contaminant; sentient beings of the form and formless realms seek existence entirely, and never seek desire at all — there are those who say that, though they too may seek desire, they for the most part seek existence, and it is for this reason that every affliction of the form and formless realms, excepting ignorance, is established as the existence-contaminant. The reason sentient beings of all three realms, for the most part, seek desire and existence is, in every case, due to the power of their own lack of knowledge, and it is for this reason that the ignorance of all three realms is established as the ignorance-contaminant. Further, whatever realm possesses both formation and dissolution, the affliction born of that realm, excepting ignorance, is established as the desire-contaminant; whatever realm possesses formation but no dissolution, the affliction born of that realm, excepting ignorance, is established as the existence-contaminant — the three dhyānas, though they too possess both formation and dissolution, the fourth dhyāna and the formless realm possess formation without dissolution, and it is for this reason spoken of with reference to what applies to the greater portion. Whether a realm possesses both formation and dissolution, or possesses formation without dissolution, sentient beings dwell there, in every case, through the power of their own lack of knowledge, and it is for this reason that the ignorance of all three realms is established as the ignorance-contaminant. There are yet other masters who explain only the reason for establishing the existence-contaminant, saying: to dwell in this state of existence while seeking that further state of existence, or to dwell in that state of existence without seeking this one — it is on this basis that those afflictions, excepting ignorance, are established as the existence-contaminant. The Dārṣṭāntika masters establish only two contaminants — namely, the ignorance-contaminant and the existence-craving-contaminant — since these serve as the root of the two extremes of dependent origination, ignorance being the root of dependent origination with respect to the prior extreme, and existence-craving being the root of dependent origination with respect to the posterior extreme. One asks: how, then, do they explain scripture's own statement of three contaminants? The answer: they hold that existence-craving is itself of two kinds — first, unwholesome; second, undefined; some possessing a ripened fruit, some possessing none; some drawing forth two fruits, some drawing forth only one; some associated with shamelessness and lack of moral dread,

and some not associated with these. The unwholesome kind, possessing a ripened fruit, drawing forth two fruits, and associated with shamelessness and lack of moral dread, is established as the desire-contaminant,

and it is on account of this very craving that every other affliction of the desire realm, excepting ignorance, is likewise named the desire-contaminant. The undefined kind, possessing no ripened fruit, drawing forth only one fruit, and not associated with shamelessness and lack of moral dread, is established as the existence-contaminant, and it is on account of this very craving that every other affliction of the form and formless realms, excepting ignorance, is likewise named the existence-contaminant. One asks: why is it that, on account of craving, every other affliction, excepting ignorance, is named the desire-contaminant and the existence-contaminant? The answer: it is because craving is so difficult to cut off, to break, and to transcend, carrying such weighty, numerous, and abundant faults, capable of causing distinctions of realm, of stage, and of section — it is through the very force of craving that every affliction arises, and so on, broadly, as the faults of craving are elsewhere explained at length, and it is on this account that, through craving, every other affliction receives the name of these two contaminants. One asks: why is the ignorance of all three realms established as its own separate ignorance-contaminant? The Venerable Pārśva states: the Buddha's own knowledge of the nature, characteristics, power, and function of every dharma is without any error whatsoever — whatever dharma is fit to be established as its own separate contaminant, he establishes it as such; whatever dharma is not fit to be so established, he establishes it jointly together with others — and this ought not to be pressed as an objection. Further, it was already stated above that the sense of detaining and dwelling is the meaning of contaminant — no affliction detains sentient beings, causing them to dwell long within birth and death, in the way that ignorance does, and it is for this reason that it alone is established as its own separate contaminant. The Venerable Ghoṣa offers this explanation: the Buddha knows that ignorance detains sentient beings, causing them to dwell long within birth and death, with a force so swift, so weighty, and so intimately close, surpassing that of every other affliction, and it is for this reason that it alone is established as its own separate contaminant. Further, it is because, on account of ignorance, one gives rise to craving, hatred, and delusion with respect to whatever is to be known, that it alone is established as its own separate contaminant.

Further, it is on account of ignorance that sentient beings fail to know the prior extreme, fail to know the posterior extreme, fail to know both the prior and posterior extremes together, fail to know what is internal, fail to know what is external, fail to know both together, fail to know karma, fail to know its fruit, fail to know both together, fail to know wholesome conduct, fail to know unwholesome conduct, fail to know cause, fail to know the dharmas that arise from a cause, fail to know the Three Jewels of Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha, fail to know suffering, its origin, cessation, and the path, fail to know wholesome and unwholesome dharmas, fail to know what is blameworthy and what is blameless, fail to know what ought and ought not to be cultivated, and fail to know what is superior and what is inferior, what is black and what is white — with respect to dependent origination and its arising, taken both generally and individually, and with respect to the six contact-bases, they possess no genuine knowledge or insight at all, dwelling instead in dark obscurity and delusion, and it is for this reason that ignorance alone is established as a contaminant. Further, it is because ignorance is so difficult to relinquish, and carries so great a fault, that it alone is established as its own separate contaminant — craving, though difficult to relinquish, does not carry so great a fault; hatred, though it carries a great fault, is not so difficult to relinquish; conceit and the rest possess neither of these qualities to this same degree, and are therefore jointly established together as contaminants rather than separately. Further, it is because scripture speaks of ignorance as the very foremost among every evil that it alone is established as a contaminant — as it is said, ignorance, standing foremost and preceding every other affliction, gives rise to boundless kinds of unwholesome, evil dharmas, and, within these, to shamelessness and lack of moral dread as well. Further, it is because ignorance's own substance is exceedingly weighty, and the karma it performs is exceedingly weighty, that it alone is established as its own separate contaminant — that its own substance is exceedingly weighty means that it is associated with every affliction, and also occurs unassociated with any; that the karma it performs is exceedingly weighty means that it performs its karma jointly together with every other affliction, and also performs its karma entirely on its own — no other affliction is capable of this. Further, it is because scripture speaks of ignorance as the very root of the evil destinies that it alone is established as its own separate contaminant, as it is said:

"whoever falls headlong into the evil destinies, whether in this world or another, has ignorance as their root, and craving as their cause." Further, it is because scripture names ignorance a leprous insect that it alone is established as its own separate contaminant — as scripture states: monks, you should know that the true "leprous insect" is precisely ignorance — that is, there exists a poisonous creature named the leprous insect, which is itself blind from birth, whose offspring, too, are born blind, and which, should it sting another, causes that other to become blind as well; ignorance, too, is exactly the same — being itself blind and benighted, it causes every dharma associated with it likewise to become blind and benighted, and, wherever it arises within a given sentient being's own continuum, it causes that being, too, to become blind and benighted. Further, ignorance, though present within all three realms, gives rise to delusion with respect to only a single realm at a time as its object — that is, the four aggregates of the formless realm, though present across nine stages, give rise to delusion with respect to only a single stage at a time as their object — namely, the four aggregates of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, though present across nine grades, give rise to delusion with respect to only a single grade at a time as their object — namely, the four aggregates belonging to the very lowest grade of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception — and it is for this reason that it alone is established as its own separate contaminant. One asks: ought not every other pervasive latent tendency belonging to another realm or stage likewise, each individually, to be established as its own separate contaminant, exactly as ignorance is? The answer: it is because ignorance is so disproportionately abundant that it alone is established as its own separate contaminant — that is, there exist nine kinds of pervasive latent tendency belonging to another realm or stage that take ignorance as their object — namely, the seven kinds associated with wrong view and the rest, together with two unshared kinds; wrong view, the view of grasping, and doubt each possess only two such kinds, while the clinging to rules and vows possesses only a single kind, and this ought not to be pressed as an objection. Further, it is because ignorance stands foremost among every affliction, its own reach being universal and all-pervasive, that it alone is established as its own separate contaminant — "foremost" refers to the fact that, covered over by ignorance, one takes no delight in the four noble truths, finds no forbearance for them, remains benighted and confused, failing to understand them — exactly as a starving man, having first eaten some coarse food and filled his belly with it, thereafter, though he later encounters every manner of fine delicacy, no longer finds them delectable, so too do sentient beings, ignorance's own coarse food having long accumulated within their minds, thereafter, though they later encounter the delectable food of the four truths, fail to find it delectable —

and, on account of this failure to delight in it, doubt arises in turn, wondering whether this is suffering or not, and so on, up through whether this is the path or not — thus does ignorance draw forth and give rise to doubt, and every doubt, in turn, draws forth some settled conclusion; if one encounters correct teaching, one arrives at a correct settled conclusion, and thereby comes to know that there is suffering, up through that there is a path; if one encounters mistaken teaching, one arrives at a mistaken settled conclusion, and thereby comes to suppose that there is no suffering, up through that there is no path — and it is thus that doubt draws forth and gives rise to wrong view, whereupon one reflects further: if the four truths do not exist, then a self and what belongs to a self must decisively exist — and it is thus that this wrong view draws forth and gives rise to the view of the perishable aggregation of self.

One then further reflects: is this self and what belongs to a self permanent, or subject to annihilation? — if one perceives what it grasps as resembling, continuous succession, one then supposes it to be permanent, this being precisely the view of permanence; if one perceives what it grasps as subject to alteration and ruin, discontinuous, one then supposes it to be subject to annihilation, this being precisely the view of annihilation — and it is thus that this view of the perishable aggregation of self draws forth and gives rise to the extreme views. One then, with respect to one of these three views, in whichever case one has settled upon, supposes that purity, liberation, and true renunciation are thereby attained — this being precisely the clinging to rules and vows — and it is thus that the extreme views draw forth and give rise to the clinging to rules and vows.

One then further reflects: since these three views have thus attained purity, liberation, and true renunciation, they must therefore be supreme — this being precisely the view of grasping — and it is thus that the clinging to rules and vows draws forth and gives rise to the view of grasping. One then delights in one's own view and detests another's view, and, weighing one's own view against another's, gives rise to pride on this account — thus does ignorance, among every latent tendency it draws forth, stand foremost of all. It is through the latent tendencies that the ten entanglements are, in turn, drawn forth — namely, anger and envy, being equal-outflows of hatred; concealment, which some say is an equal-outflow of craving, while other masters say it is an equal-outflow of delusion, though it ought properly to be said that it is an equal-outflow of both, since one may conceal one's own wrongdoing either out of craving for reputation and gain, or out of sheer ignorance; torpor, drowsiness, and lack of moral dread, being equal-outflows of delusion; restlessness, stinginess, and shamelessness, being equal-outflows of craving; and worry, being an equal-outflow of doubt. The latent tendencies likewise draw forth six defilements — namely, harmfulness and resentment, being equal-outflows of hatred; vexation, being an equal-outflow of the view of grasping; deception and arrogance, being equal-outflows of craving; and flattery, being an equal-outflow of the five views — thus does ignorance, standing foremost, draw forth and give rise to the entanglements and defilements in turn. "Universal" refers to the fact that ignorance may be found anywhere, from the hell of unintermittent suffering all the way up to the very peak of existence; and, further, it is fully possessed at the stage of the ordinary being, the stage of seeing, and the stage of cultivation alike; and, further, it gives rise to delusion with respect to both the particular and the shared characteristics of every dharma.

"All-pervading" does not mean that a single instant of ignorance arises taking all five sections as its object, serving as the cause of all five sections, and underlying and increasing all five sections at once — this, too, is called all-pervading only because ignorance, pervading every place, arises in a manner homogeneous throughout;

that is, whatever arises together with an all-pervading latent tendency is itself named all-pervading; whatever arises together with a non-all-pervading latent tendency is named non-all-pervading — and this same principle should be understood to apply as well to one's own realm and another realm, one's own stage and another stage, a contaminated and an uncontaminated object, and a conditioned and unconditioned object. Being associated and united together with every affliction, exactly as grease is found intermixed within a lump of dough, or oil within a stalk of hemp, this, too, is named all-pervading — and it is because ignorance is fully equipped with these three meanings stated above that it alone is established as its own separate contaminant, as scripture states: it arises from improper attention.

The desire-contaminant, the existence-contaminant, and the ignorance-contaminant — whatever has not yet arisen thereupon arises, and whatever has already arisen redoubles and further expands. One asks: however many afflictions arise,

that same number of afflictions likewise ceases — since, after a single instant, they decisively do not persist — how, then, can this passage state that the three contaminants, once arisen, redouble and expand?

The answer: this is spoken with reference to a gradual increase across the lower, middling, and superior grades — that is, once a lower grade has arisen, it serves as the condition for a middling grade; once a middling grade has arisen,

it serves as the condition for a superior grade, and it is on this account that this is so stated. Further, this is spoken with reference to the condition of immediate succession — that is, once a lower-grade affliction has arisen, it serves as the immediately-succeeding condition for a middling grade; once a middling-grade affliction has arisen, it serves as the immediately-succeeding condition for a superior grade, and it is on this account that this is so stated. Further, this is spoken with reference to the homogeneous, all-pervading cause — that is, once a lower-grade affliction has arisen, it serves as two kinds of cause for a middling grade; once a middling-grade affliction has arisen, it serves as two kinds of cause for a superior grade, and it is on this account that this is so stated. Further, this is spoken with reference to the taking-hold and conferring of a fruit — that is, once a lower-grade affliction has arisen, it is capable of taking hold of and conferring a middling-grade fruit; once a middling-grade affliction has arisen, it is capable of taking hold of and conferring a superior-grade fruit, and it is on this account that this is so stated. The Venerable Vasumitra offers this explanation: it is not that the afflictions themselves increase in sheer quantity that this is called redoubling and expanding, but rather that, once they have arisen, they no longer fall back into their former, not-yet-arisen state, and it is on this account that this is so stated. Further, this is spoken with reference to the fact that, once arisen, they no longer fall back into the future time-period, and it is on this account that this is so stated. Further, this is spoken with reference to their repeated arising — that is, once a given affliction has arisen, one further gives rise to improper attention, and, failing to rely on any antidote, a second such affliction arises, and then a third, and so on, up through hundreds and thousands, and it is on this account that this is so stated. Further, this is spoken with reference to their gradual intensification — that is, once a lower-grade affliction has arisen, one further gives rise to improper attention, and, failing to rely on any antidote, a middling-grade affliction arises, followed in turn by a superior-grade affliction, each growing progressively more intense, and it is on this account that this is so stated. Further, this is spoken with reference to their following after their object as it shifts — that is, once an affliction taking a given form or other such object as its condition has arisen, one, on that basis, further gives rise to improper attention, and, failing to rely on any antidote, further gives rise to further afflictions taking sound and the rest as their object,

and it is on this account that this is so stated. The Great Virtuous One states: this is spoken with reference to the fact that, within a single state of existence, the entanglements manifest frequently — that is, for one still fully bound by every fetter, from the hell of unintermittent suffering all the way up to the very peak of existence, the afflictions are all equally matched to his own stage, without any increase or decrease; yet there does exist a distinction between their manifesting before one and their not manifesting before one — if one gives rise to improper attention, and fails to rely on any antidote, they manifest frequently before one; if one gives rise to proper attention, relying on an antidote, they do not so manifest — and it is on this account that this is so stated.

As scripture states: there are seven kinds of contaminant, capable of bringing harm and burning distress — namely, that abandoned by seeing, and so on, at length. One asks: in the ultimate sense, there are only three contaminants — namely, the desire-contaminant, the existence-contaminant, and the ignorance-contaminant — why, then, does this passage speak of seven contaminants? The answer: within this discussion, the word "contaminant" itself is used in a fuller sense as well, exactly as, in various scriptures, a given full or partial sense is used according to context, as broadly explained above. The Venerable Pārśva states: the Buddha, having taught the Dharma, was approached by a different group of those he was to convert, newly arrived within the assembly, and the Tathāgata, out of compassion for them, spoke once more, in different wording, of the seven contaminants, so that they, too, might come to understand. Further, the Buddha, having taught the three contaminants for the sake of the sharp-facultied, who had already understood, now teaches the seven contaminants once more for the sake of the dull-facultied — just as with the sharp-facultied and the dull-facultied, so too should teaching for those moved by the power of cause, the power of condition, internal power, external power, the power of one's own inward reflection, and the power of another's outward teaching of the Dharma, and teaching that opens up wisdom versus teaching that presupposes it, be understood in just the same way. The Venerable Pūrṇāśa offers this explanation: the Buddha, within this passage, speaks of two contaminants in the ultimate sense — namely, that abandoned by seeing and that abandoned by cultivation. The contaminant abandoned by seeing is spoken of under its own name; the contaminant abandoned by cultivation is spoken of with reference to its antidote, this antidote being of two kinds — namely, the suppressive antidote and the severing antidote — the first five of the seven being spoken of with reference to the suppressive antidote, and the very last being spoken of with reference to the severing antidote, and it is on this account that seven contaminants are spoken of.

As scripture states: one who, through correct knowledge and correct vision, attains the fruit of arhatship, his mind is thereby liberated from the desire-contaminant, the existence-contaminant, and the ignorance-contaminant. One asks: it is at the moment of becoming free from the desire realm's own defilements that the mind is liberated from the desire-contaminant, and it is at the moment of becoming free from the defilements of the very peak of existence that the mind is liberated from the existence-contaminant and the ignorance-contaminant — why, then, does the Buddha state that it is at the moment of attaining the fruit of arhatship, through correct knowledge and correct vision, that the mind is liberated from these three contaminants together? The answer: within this passage, the language of "liberation now" is used even with respect to what has, in fact, already been liberated earlier — this is speaking of what is, in truth, distant, using the language proper to what is near, exactly as one might ask, "where have you come from just now?" of someone who set out long before, or exactly as, in other passages, "already cut off" is spoken of as "cutting off," "already entered" is spoken of as "entering," and "already received" is spoken of as "receiving" — this, too, is exactly the same. Further, this is spoken with reference to the fact that freedom from the desire-contaminant and the existence-contaminant is, at that very moment, jointly and finally completed together. Further, this is spoken with reference to the fact that the single, unified attainment of the cutting-off of these three contaminants is realized at that very moment. Further, this is spoken with reference to the fact that the very gathering-cause of the contaminants is, at that moment, cut off. Further, this is spoken with reference to the fact that cessation is, at that moment, personally realized and witnessed — exactly as it is said that, at the moment of attaining the fruit of arhatship, the cessation of the ninety-eight latent tendencies is personally realized and witnessed. Further, this is spoken with reference to the fact that, at that moment, one attains the non-learner's own antidotal, direct knowledge with respect to these afflictions. Further, this is spoken with reference to the fact that, at that moment, one attains the non-learner's own freedom from their binding nature. Further, this is spoken with reference to the fact that, at that moment, one's own continuum of affliction is genuinely severed — that is, from beginningless time, one has again and again cut off the desire-contaminant, only to have the remaining two contaminants continue to arise; now, having cut off these remaining two contaminants as well, there is no further continuity of affliction whatsoever. Further, this is spoken with reference to the fact that, at that moment, the very conditions giving rise to these contaminants are cut off — that is, from beginningless time, these remaining two contaminants have served, in three distinct ways, as conditions for that first contaminant; now, having cut off these remaining two contaminants, their conditioning influence is permanently and decisively severed. Further, this is spoken with reference to a comprehensive weariness serving as the antidote — that is, at the very moment one realizes the fourth fruit, one comprehensively grows weary of all three contaminants together, reflecting: from beginningless time, I have been deceived and confused by these, my mind never once liberated — and now, having attained liberation, I give rise to profound weariness and renunciation with respect to them all at once. One asks: at that very moment, all five aggregates alike attain liberation — why, then, does this passage speak only of the mind's own liberation? The answer: mind is the most preeminent among the five aggregates, and it is for this reason that this passage speaks of it — that is, once the most preeminent has been spoken of, every other aggregate is thereby understood to have been spoken of as well, exactly as, when a king attains freedom, his own household and retinue are understood to have attained freedom together with him. Further, taking mind as the very head, this passage speaks, in summary, of all five aggregates attaining liberation together. Further, it is because mental factors are named for their dependence on mind, and the great-grounds dharmas are named for mind's own greatness, that this passage speaks only of mind. Further, it is because, at the very moment of the uninterrupted path that cultivates the knowledge of another's mind, one takes mind alone as one's object, that this passage speaks in just this way — mind's own manifold, preeminent qualities are broadly explained elsewhere, as in other passages.