Five Trees That Choke a Forest

There are four floods — namely, the desire-flood, the existence-flood, the view-flood, and the ignorance-flood. One asks: what is the inherent nature of these four floods? The answer: they have one hundred and eight factors as their inherent nature — that is, the desire-flood has, as its inherent nature, twenty-nine factors belonging to the desire realm: namely, five of greed, five of hatred, five of conceit, and four of doubt, together with ten of entanglement. The existence-flood has, as its inherent nature, twenty-eight factors belonging to the form and formless realms: namely, ten of greed, ten of conceit, and eight of doubt. The view-flood has, as its inherent nature, thirty-six factors belonging to all three realms: namely, twelve views within each of the desire, form, and formless realms.

The ignorance-flood 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 four floods 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 floods? What is the meaning of "flood"? The answer: the sense of sweeping and surging, the sense of rising and pouring forth, and the sense of plunging and drowning — these are the meaning of "flood." That the sense of sweeping and surging is the meaning of flood refers to the fact that these very afflictions sweep sentient beings along, causing them to wander through the realms, the destinies, and the states of birth. That the sense of rising and pouring forth is the meaning of flood refers to the fact that

these very afflictions rise and pour forth upon sentient beings, causing them to wander through the realms, the destinies, and the states of birth. That the sense of plunging and drowning is the meaning of flood refers to the fact that these very afflictions plunge sentient beings downward and drown them, causing them to wander through the realms, the destinies, and the states of birth. One asks: if the sense of plunging and drowning is the meaning of flood, then the fetters pertaining to the higher portion ought not to be floods at all, since these cause beings to proceed toward a higher rebirth. The answer: the sense of "pertaining to the higher portion" differs from the sense of "flood" — that is, the fetters pertaining to the higher portion are established with reference to realm and stage, since these cause beings to proceed toward a higher realm and stage; the floods are established with reference to the path of liberation, since, though one may be reborn even at the very peak of existence, one nonetheless remains submerged within birth and death, never reaching liberation or the noble path. The Venerable Ghoṣa likewise states: though one may dwell for a long time in the higher realms, one is nonetheless swept away and drowned by the floods, since one's own wholesome category continues to decline. The Venerable Vātsīputra states as follows: it is because affliction operates here with especially predominant, repeated force, exactly like a flood, that it is named a flood. One asks: why is view established as its own separate flood, yet not established as its own separate contaminant, among the yokes and graspings? The Venerable Pārśva states: the Buddha knows the nature, characteristics, power, and function of every dharma — whatever dharma is fit to be separately established, he separately establishes it; if it is not so fit, he establishes it jointly, and this ought not to be pressed as an objection. Further, the various views, being light and restless in their own aspect, keen and sharp, do not accord with the sense of detaining and dwelling, and are therefore established jointly with the other, duller afflictions as the desire-contaminant and the existence-contaminant; being in accord with the sense of sweeping and the rest, they are therefore separately established as their own flood, yoke, and grasping — exactly as, when a single cart is yoked to two oxen, if both oxen are equally restless, the cart is certain to be destroyed,

while, if one ox is slow and the other swift, each restraining the other, no harm follows — and it is for this reason that view is not separately established as its own contaminant. Further, view's own nature is restless and agitated, according with the dharma of freedom from defilement, not according with the sense of detaining and dwelling, and it is for this reason that it is established jointly with the other, duller afflictions as a contaminant; being in accord with the sense of sweeping and the rest, it is therefore separately established as a flood and a yoke. One asks: if view's own restless agitation accords with the dharma of freedom from defilement, it ought not to be established as a flood or yoke at all, since floods and the rest accord with the sense of plunging and drowning? The answer: it is in order to rebuke the outsiders' own attachment to their views that view is separately established as a flood and the rest — that is, the outsiders, following whatever view or tenet arises within them, mistakenly search after their own object, and thereby sink ever deeper into birth and death, with no prospect of ever emerging from it, exactly as an aged elephant, mired in a swamp, only sinks the deeper the more it struggles to move. The Vibhajyavādin masters state that there are four contaminants — namely, the desire-contaminant, the existence-contaminant, the view-contaminant, and the ignorance-contaminant; with respect to that school's own tenet, no further question or answer is required here. There are four yokes — namely, the desire-yoke, the existence-yoke, the view-yoke, and the ignorance-yoke. This yoke's own inherent nature is exactly as explained for the floods, though its meaning differs — that is, the sense of "flood" is the sense of drowning; the sense of "yoke" is the sense of union — that is, once sentient beings have already been swept away and drowned by the four floods, they are further bound and constrained by the four yokes, thereby able to shoulder the heavy suffering of birth and death, exactly as an ox is fitted with a yoke, tied fast with a harness-strap, and is thereby able to draw a heavy load. It is for this reason that, wherever "flood" is spoken of, "yoke" is spoken of immediately afterward, since their meanings are so closely related. There are four graspings — namely, the grasping of desire, the grasping of view, the grasping of clinging to rules and vows, and the grasping of self-doctrine. One asks: what is the inherent nature of these four graspings? The answer: they have one hundred and eight factors as their inherent nature — that is, the grasping of desire has, as its inherent nature, thirty-four factors belonging to the desire realm: namely, five of greed, five of hatred, five of conceit, five of ignorance, and four of doubt, together with ten of entanglement. The grasping of view has, as its inherent nature, thirty factors belonging to all three realms: namely, ten views within each of the desire, form, and formless realms. The grasping of clinging to rules and vows has, as its inherent nature, six factors belonging to all three realms: namely, two factors of clinging to rules and vows within each of the desire, form, and formless realms. The grasping of self-doctrine has, as its inherent nature, thirty-eight factors belonging to the form and formless realms: namely, ten of greed, ten of conceit, ten of ignorance, and eight of doubt — and it is on this account that these four graspings 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 graspings? The answer: it is on account of three matters that they are named graspings — first, holding fast; second, gathering up; third, selecting. Further, it is on account of two matters that they are named graspings — first, being capable of kindling karma; second, their aspect being keen and sharp. "Capable of kindling karma" refers to the fact that grasping causes the karmic fire of sentient beings across the five destinies to blaze without cease; "aspect keen and sharp" refers to the fact that every grasping's own aspect is exceedingly swift and forceful. One asks: what is the meaning of "grasping"? The answer: the sense of firewood is the meaning of grasping — exactly as fire, taking firewood as its condition, is able to blaze, so too is it with sentient beings — affliction serving as the condition, karma is thereby able to blaze forth and flourish. Further, the sense of wrapping and enclosing is the meaning of grasping — exactly as a silkworm spins its own cocoon, wrapping and enclosing itself,

even unto bringing about its own death within it, so too is it with sentient beings — giving rise to affliction, they wrap and enclose themselves, and, within this very enclosure, injure and lose their own wisdom-life, wandering onward until they fall into the evil destinies. Further, the sense of injury is the meaning of grasping — exactly as a sharp, poisoned thorn, repeatedly piercing the body, causes the body to be ruined, so too is it with sentient beings — the poisoned thorn of affliction, repeatedly piercing the Dharma-body, causes the Dharma-body to be ruined. One asks: why is ignorance separately established as its own contaminant, flood, and yoke, yet not separately established as its own grasping? The Venerable Pārśva states: the Buddha knows the nature, characteristics, power, and function of every dharma — whatever dharma is fit to be separately established, he separately establishes it; if it is not so fit, he establishes it jointly, and this ought not to be pressed as an objection. Further, it was already stated above that a dharma is named a grasping on account of three matters — namely, holding fast, gathering up, and selecting; ignorance, though it possesses the first two, lacks the third,

since ignorance, being dark and benighted, is incapable of selecting among dharmas, and is therefore not separately established as a grasping. Further, it was already stated above that a dharma is named a grasping on account of two matters — namely, being capable of kindling karma, and its aspect being keen and sharp; ignorance, though capable of kindling karma, does not possess a keen, sharp aspect, and is therefore not separately established as a grasping, since ignorance is dull and sluggish, incapable of resolving and determining any dharma. One asks: why are four of the five views combined and established as a single grasping of view, while the remaining one is separately established as the grasping of clinging to rules and vows? The Venerable Pārśva states: the Buddha knows the nature, characteristics, power, and function of every dharma — whatever, among the views, is fit to be separately established, he separately establishes it; if it is not so fit, he establishes it jointly, and this ought not to be pressed as an objection. Further, it was already stated above that a dharma is named a grasping on account of two matters — namely, being capable of kindling karma, and its aspect being keen and sharp; sentient beings across the five destinies, through clinging to rules and vows, kindle their own karma with a force surpassing that of the other four views, and it is for this reason that it is separately established as a grasping. The Venerable Ghoṣa states as follows: sentient beings across the five destinies, through clinging to rules and vows, kindle their own karma with a force that is especially swift, especially weighty, and especially intimate, surpassing that of the other four views, and it is for this reason that it is separately established as a grasping. Further, it is because clinging to rules and vows opposes and runs contrary to the noble path, keeping one at a distance from liberation, that it is separately established as a grasping — "opposing and running contrary to the noble path" refers to the fact that, through clinging to rules and vows, one relinquishes the true, noble path, mistakenly supposing that manifold irrational austerities are capable of attaining purity — such as abstaining from food and drink, lying upon ashes, lying upon a pestle, turning to follow the sun, subsisting on air or water alone, or eating only fruit, or only vegetables, or wearing tattered garments, or going entirely naked — clinging to the notion that such practices as these are capable of attaining purity. "Keeping one at a distance from liberation" refers to the fact that, the more one cultivates such austerities along this mistaken path, the further one is kept from liberation. Further, it is because clinging to rules and vows deceives both the inward and the outward paths that it is separately established as a grasping — "deceiving the inward path" refers to the mistaken clinging to washing for purity, or to the undertaking and upholding of the twelve ascetic virtues, as capable of realizing purity; "deceiving the outward path" refers to clinging to every kind of irrational austerity, as already stated, as capable of attaining purity. The Venerable Ghoṣa likewise states: this clinging to rules and vows brings forth, in the present, a suffering fruit as fierce as a blazing fire, and deceives both paths as though bewitching an infant, and it is for this reason that it is separately established as a grasping. One asks: why is this called the "grasping of self-doctrine"? Is it named for its own aspect, or for its own object?

If it is named for its own aspect, then the view of the perishable aggregation of self ought properly to be named the grasping of self-doctrine, since it is precisely this view's own aspect that operates in terms of a self. If it is named for its own object, then, since every dharma is without self, how could it possibly be called the grasping of self-doctrine? The answer: it is named neither for its own aspect nor for its own object, since either would incur the fault just stated — rather, the desire realm's own afflictions, excepting view, are established as the grasping of desire, while the afflictions of the form and formless realms, excepting view, are established as the grasping of self-doctrine. One asks: why is this so? The answer: the desire realm's own afflictions operate in dependence on sexual desire, in dependence on external objects, in dependence on requisites, and in dependence on another's own body, and it is for this reason that they are established as the grasping of desire; the afflictions of the form and formless realms, standing in contrast to these, operate in dependence on what is internal, and it is for this reason that they are established as the grasping of self-doctrine. Further, the desire realm's own afflictions, when drawing forth an internal body, require sexual desire, require an external object, require requisites, and require a second party, and it is for this reason that they are established as the grasping of desire; the afflictions of the form and formless realms, when drawing forth an internal body, stand in contrast to these,

and it is for this reason that they are established as the grasping of self-doctrine. Further, the desire realm's own afflictions, when drawing forth an internal body, depend solely on an unsettled state, their cause lying, for the most part, in an external gateway and external matters, and it is for this reason that they are established as the grasping of desire; the afflictions of the form and formless realms, when drawing forth one's own body, depend solely on a settled, concentrated state, their cause lying, for the most part, in an internal gateway and internal matters, and it is for this reason that they are established as the grasping of self-doctrine. Further, the desire realm's own afflictions are incapable of drawing forth a vast, expansive bodily form or a long, enduring lifespan, and it is for this reason that they are established as the grasping of desire; the afflictions of the form and formless realms are capable of drawing forth a vast, expansive bodily form — exactly as, in Akaniṣṭha Heaven, the body's own height reaches sixteen thousand yojanas — and are likewise capable of drawing forth a long, enduring lifespan — exactly as, in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, the lifespan reaches eighty thousand great eons — and it is for this reason that these afflictions are established as the grasping of self-doctrine. One asks: why do the desire-contaminant, the desire-flood, the desire-yoke, and the grasping of desire all subsume the entanglements as well, while the existence-contaminant and the rest do not subsume them at all? There are those who say: the existence-contaminant, up through the grasping of self-doctrine, likewise subsume the entanglements — as the Prakaraṇapāda states, 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 — and so the existence-flood, the existence-yoke, and the grasping of self-doctrine ought likewise to subsume the entanglements. It should be said as follows: the entanglements of the higher realms are so few, and so lacking in freedom of operation, that they are not spoken of as the existence-contaminant, up through the grasping of self-doctrine; those of the desire realm, though numerous, are, with respect to what is abandoned by seeing, not complete in number, and are likewise lacking in freedom of operation, and it is for this reason that this passage speaks broadly of only the ten entanglements, without separately naming each of the five sections. One asks: why does this passage not speak of the secondary afflictions and defilements as contaminants and the rest? There are those who say: these, too, are spoken of as subsumed within the desire-contaminant and the rest — as 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, and so on, at length — "secondary affliction" here referring precisely to the defilements. It should be said as follows: the defilements are so coarse, and so lacking in stability, that they are not spoken of as contaminants and the rest; faithlessness, indolence, and heedlessness, too, being so light in their fault, are not spoken of as contaminants and the rest. As scripture states: these four graspings have ignorance as their cause, ignorance as their gathering-source, arising from ignorance, and belonging to the very class of ignorance. One asks: every other scripture states that craving is the condition for grasping — why, then, does this scripture state it in just this way? The answer: it is with reference to the proximate cause that craving is spoken of as the condition for grasping; it is with reference to the distant cause that ignorance is spoken of as the cause of grasping, and so on — exactly as a proximate cause and a distant cause may be present in one place but not another, may be currently manifest or not currently manifest, and this very class of homogeneous being may differ from every other class of homogeneous being, this same principle should be understood accordingly. Further, it is with reference to the homogeneous cause that craving is spoken of as the condition for grasping; it is with reference to the homogeneous, all-pervading cause that ignorance is spoken of as the cause of grasping, and so on. Further, it is in order to refute the outsiders' own false and mistaken clinging that ignorance is spoken of as the cause of grasping, and so on — that is, the outsiders, though they relinquish their own households, possessing no grasping and no accumulation, nonetheless diligently cultivate austerities, yet, through the power of their own lack of wisdom, remain attached to their own views and tendencies, falling into a perilous, evil path with no prospect of ever emerging from it, and it is for this reason that ignorance is spoken of as the cause of grasping, and so on. One asks: craving, too, is already subsumed within the grasping of desire and the rest — why, then, does this passage further speak of craving as the condition for grasping? The answer: it is the very first arising of the latent tendency of greed that is named craving; once it has further increased, it is named grasping, and it is for this reason that no contradiction follows. Further, it is the lower grade of the latent tendency of greed that is named craving; the middling and superior grades are named grasping, and it is for this reason that no contradiction follows.

There are four bodily ties — namely, the bodily tie of covetous desire, the bodily tie of hatred, the bodily tie of clinging to rules and vows, and this bodily tie of dogmatic attachment to what is real. One asks: what is the inherent nature of these four bodily ties? The answer: they have twenty-eight factors as their inherent nature — that is, the bodily ties of covetous desire and hatred, each spanning the five sections of the desire realm, together make ten factors; the bodily tie of clinging to rules and vows, spanning two sections within each of the three realms, makes six factors; and this bodily tie of dogmatic attachment to what is real, spanning four sections within each of the three realms, makes twelve factors — and it is on this account that these four bodily ties have twenty-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 bodily ties? What is the meaning of "bodily tie"? The answer: the sense of binding the body, and the sense of causing conception, are the meaning of bodily tie. That the sense of binding the body is the meaning of bodily tie refers to the fact that these four kinds, within birth and death, bind a sentient being's own body, binding it, binding it equally, and binding it pervasively — as the Saṃgītiparyāya states: the bodily tie of covetous desire, not yet cut off, not yet fully understood, serves, with respect to this or that body, this or that form, and this or that acquisition, as its own cause, its own condition, its own binding, its own equal binding, its own pervasive binding, and its own continuity of connection — exactly as a garland-maker, or his own disciple, gathers together every manner of flower in one place, and, with a cord, binds them into every manner of garland, the cord and the garland serving as cause, as condition, as binding, as equal binding, as pervasive binding, and as continuity of connection for one another — and the remaining three bodily ties should be understood broadly in just the same way. That the sense of causing conception is the meaning of bodily tie refers to the fact that, as scripture states, it is through the union of three matters that entry into the mother's womb is achieved: first, that both father and mother possess a defiled mind; second, that the mother is free of illness and the timing is right; third, that a gandharva stands presently before them — at that time, the gandharva's own mind of craving and of hatred manifests before it in alternation, and it is thereby that conception is achieved, and it is for this reason that the sense of causing conception is the meaning of bodily tie. One asks: if the sense of binding the body and the rest is the meaning of bodily tie, then every other affliction, too, possesses this same sense — why, then, is it not established as a bodily tie? There are those who say: 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 — whatever dharma is fit to be established as a bodily tie, he establishes it as such; if it is not so fit, he does not so establish it, and this ought not to be pressed as an objection. The Venerable Ghoṣa states as follows: the Buddha knows that these four bind a sentient being's own body, binding it, and binding it pervasively, with a force especially swift, especially weighty, and especially intimate, surpassing that of every other affliction, and it is for this reason that they alone are established. Further, these four bodily ties bind two classes of body more than does any other affliction,

and it is for this reason that they alone are established — that is, the first two bodily ties bind a householder's own body more than does any other affliction, and the latter two bind a renunciant's own body more than does any other affliction — one should understand this exactly as one understands the distinction between having a household and lacking one, having attachment and lacking it, having accumulation and lacking it, having family and lacking it, lacking renunciation and having it. Further, these four bodily ties bind the bodies of all three realms more than does any other affliction, and it is for this reason that they alone are established — that is, the first two bodily ties bind the body of the desire realm more than does any other affliction, and the latter two bind the bodies of the form and formless realms more than does any other affliction. Further, these four bodily ties give rise to two roots of contention more than does any other affliction, and it is for this reason that they alone are established — that is, the first two bodily ties give rise to the root of contention through craving, and the latter two give rise to the root of contention through view — as scripture states, a brahmin holding a vessel and a staff went to where the Venerable Mahākātyāyana was, and asked him, saying: for what cause and condition do kṣatriyas contend with kṣatriyas, brahmins with brahmins, vaiśyas with vaiśyas, and śūdras with śūdras? The Venerable One answered: it is through the root of contention of craving, hatred, and desire that they contend with and strive against one another. The brahmin further asked: for what cause and condition do those who have gone forth, possessing no household, no attachment, and no accumulation, still contend face to face? The Venerable One answered: it is through the root of contention of clinging to rules and vows, and of this dogmatic attachment to what is real, that they contend with and strive against one another — and, just as with these two roots of contention, so too should the two extremes, the two arrows, the two forms of playful contention, and the two graspings of self be understood in just the same way. There are yet others who say: this passage displays, as it were, a gateway, an abbreviation, and an entryway, and it is for this reason that only four are spoken of — that is, every affliction is either solely abandoned by seeing, or spans both what is abandoned by seeing and by cultivation;

when the latter two bodily ties are spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what is solely abandoned by seeing; when the first two bodily ties are spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what spans both what is abandoned by seeing and by cultivation. Further, every affliction is either all-pervading or not all-pervading; when the latter two bodily ties are spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what is all-pervading; when the first two bodily ties are spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what is not all-pervading. Further, every affliction is either of the nature of view or not; when the latter two bodily ties are spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what is of the nature of view; when the first two bodily ties are spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what is not of the nature of view. Further, every affliction either manifests solely in an ordinary being, or manifests in both ordinary beings and noble ones alike; when the latter two bodily ties are spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what manifests solely in an ordinary being; when the first two bodily ties are spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what manifests in both ordinary beings and noble ones alike. Further, every affliction operates either through a joyful aspect or through a sorrowful aspect;

when hatred's own bodily tie is spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what operates through a sorrowful aspect; when the remaining three bodily ties are spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what operates through a joyful aspect. Further, every affliction is either bound solely to the desire realm, or spans all three realms; when the first two bodily ties are spoken of,

one should understand this to broadly indicate what is bound solely to the desire realm; when the latter two bodily ties are spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what spans all three realms — and it is thus, through gateway, abbreviation, and entryway, that scripture speaks only of these four bodily ties. There are five hindrances — namely, the hindrance of covetous desire, the hindrance of hatred, the hindrance of torpor and drowsiness, the hindrance of restlessness and worry, and the hindrance of doubt. One asks: what is the inherent nature of these five hindrances? The answer: they have thirty factors belonging to the desire realm as their inherent nature — that is, the hindrances of covetous desire and hatred, each spanning the five sections of the desire realm, together make ten factors; torpor and restlessness, each spanning the five sections across all three realms, and each spanning both wholesome and undefined as well as unwholesome, established as a hindrance only in their unwholesome aspect, together make ten factors; drowsiness, spanning the five sections of the desire realm alone, and spanning wholesome, unwholesome, and undefined, established as a hindrance only in its unwholesome aspect, makes five factors; worry, abandoned solely by cultivation within the desire realm, spanning both wholesome and unwholesome, established as a hindrance only in its unwholesome aspect, makes a single factor; and doubt, spanning four sections across all three realms, spanning both unwholesome and undefined, established as a hindrance only in its unwholesome aspect, makes four factors — and it is on this account that these five hindrances have thirty factors belonging to the desire realm as their inherent nature. One asks: what is the characteristic mark of a hindrance? The Venerable Vasumitra offers this explanation: a dharma's own inherent nature is itself its characteristic mark, and its characteristic mark is itself its own inherent nature, since the inherent nature and characteristic mark of every dharma are never separate from one another. Further, indulging in and seeking after every kind of desire is the characteristic of covetous desire; harboring hatred toward sentient beings is the characteristic of hatred; the sinking and submersion of body and mind is the characteristic of torpor; the agitation and restlessness of body and mind is the characteristic of restlessness; causing the mind to grow dim and contracted is the characteristic of drowsiness; causing the mind to shift toward regret is the characteristic of worry;

and causing the mind's own operation to hesitate and remain undecided is the characteristic of doubt. Their inherent nature and characteristic having now been explained, the reason for their name shall now be explained. One asks: why are they named hindrances? What is the meaning of "hindrance"? The answer: the sense of obstruction, the sense of covering, the sense of breaking, the sense of ruining, the sense of falling, and the sense of lying prone — these are the meaning of "hindrance." Here, the sense of obstruction is the meaning of hindrance, referring to the fact that it obstructs the noble path, and obstructs the wholesome roots that prepare for the noble path, and it is therefore named a hindrance. The sense of covering, up through the sense of lying prone, is the meaning of hindrance, as scripture states: there are five kinds of great tree whose seeds, though small, grow branches and trunks of such great size that they cover over every lesser tree, causing their branches and trunks alike to break, to ruin, to fall, and to lie prone, no longer able to bring forth flower or fruit. What are these five? The first is named kaṇṭakī;

the second is named kambala; the third is named aśvatthagandha; the fourth is named udumbara; and the fifth is named nyagrodha — so too do sentient beings' own mind-trees within the desire realm, covered over by these five hindrances, break, ruin, fall, and lie prone, unable to give growth to the flowers of the seven factors of enlightenment or the fruits of the four śramaṇa-attainments,

and it is for this reason that the sense of covering and the rest is the meaning of hindrance. One asks: if the sense of obstructing the noble path and its preparatory wholesome roots is the meaning of hindrance, then every other affliction, too, possesses this same sense — why, then, does the Blessed One not name them hindrances as well? There are those who say: 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 — whatever dharma possesses the mark of a hindrance, he establishes it as such; whatever dharma does not possess this mark, he does not so establish it, and this ought not to be pressed as an objection. The Venerable Ghoṣa states as follows: the Buddha knows that these five are capable of obstructing the noble path and its preparatory wholesome roots, their power and function especially swift, especially weighty, and especially intimate, surpassing that of every other dharma, and it is for this reason that they alone are established as hindrances. Further, these five hindrances both obstruct at the time of their own cause, and obstruct at the time of their own fruit, and it is for this reason that they alone are established as hindrances — obstructing at the time of their own cause refers to the fact that, whenever any one of these five manifests before one, the mind is unable even to give rise to a contaminated wholesome or undefined state, how much less so the noble path; obstructing at the time of their own fruit refers to the fact that, through these five hindrances, one falls into the evil destinies, thereby obstructing every meritorious quality altogether.

Further, these five hindrances arise, for the most part, before sentient beings of the desire realm, their own aspect exceedingly subtle, unlike every other affliction — that is, conceit, wrong view, and the like rarely arise among sentient beings of the desire realm; how could a hell-being, for instance, possibly give rise to the conceit of supposing his own suffering superior to another's? And how could a creature of the animal realm, such as a toad, foolish and benighted, possibly give rise to any of the various wrong views? — and it is on this account that the Venerable Ghoṣa has stated: though every other affliction, too, obstructs the noble path, these five arise again and again, their aspect exceedingly subtle, and it is for this reason that they alone are established as hindrances. Further, these five obstruct concentration and the fruit of concentration, surpassing every other affliction, and it is for this reason that they alone are established as hindrances. Further, these five are capable of obstructing freedom from the defilements of all three realms, the nine paths of comprehensive knowledge, and the four fruits of śramaṇahood, surpassing every other affliction, and it is for this reason that they alone are established as hindrances.

Further, covetous desire causes one to remain far from the dharma of renouncing every desire; hatred causes one to remain far from every wholesome dharma; torpor and drowsiness cause one to remain far from insight; restlessness and worry cause one to remain far from calm-abiding — and, having thereby been kept far from these — from the renunciation of desire and evil, and from insight and calm-abiding — one is then wounded and vexed at heart by the arrow of doubt, uncertain whether there truly exists a fruit for evil, unwholesome karma, or whether there does not, and, on account of this uncertainty, one creates every manner of evil karma, and it is for this reason that these five are established as hindrances. Further, covetous desire and hatred ruin the aggregate of discipline; torpor and drowsiness ruin the aggregate of wisdom; restlessness and worry ruin the aggregate of concentration — and, having thereby ruined these three aggregates, one is then wounded and vexed at heart by the arrow of doubt in just the same way, and it is for this reason that these five are established as hindrances. Further, covetous desire and hatred obstruct the aggregate of discipline; torpor and drowsiness obstruct the aggregate of wisdom; restlessness and worry obstruct the aggregate of concentration —

and, having thereby obstructed these three aggregates, one is then wounded and vexed at heart by the arrow of doubt in just the same way, and it is for this reason that these five are established as hindrances — just as this is said with reference to ruining and obstructing the three aggregates, so too should ruining and obstructing the three trainings, the three cultivations, and the three purities be understood in just the same way. There are yet others who say: this passage displays, as it were, a gateway, an abbreviation, and an entryway, and it is for this reason that only these five are established as hindrances — that is, every affliction is either confined to a single section, or spans four sections, or spans all five sections; when worry is spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what is confined to a single section; when the hindrance of doubt is spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what spans four sections; when every other hindrance is spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what spans all five sections. Further, every affliction is either solely abandoned by seeing, solely abandoned by cultivation, or spans both what is abandoned by seeing and by cultivation; when the hindrance of doubt is spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what is solely abandoned by seeing; when worry is spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what is solely abandoned by cultivation; when every other hindrance is spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what spans both what is abandoned by seeing and by cultivation. Further, every affliction is either of the nature of a latent tendency or not; when covetous desire, hatred, and the hindrance of doubt are spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what is of the nature of a latent tendency; when torpor, drowsiness, restlessness, and worry are spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what is not of the nature of a latent tendency. Further, every affliction is either all-pervading, not all-pervading, or spans both; when the hindrance of doubt is spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what is all-pervading; when covetous desire, hatred, and worry are spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what is not all-pervading; when torpor, restlessness, and drowsiness are spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what spans both. Further, every affliction either manifests solely in an ordinary being, or manifests in both ordinary beings and noble ones alike; when doubt and worry are spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what manifests solely in an ordinary being; when every other hindrance is spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what manifests in both ordinary beings and noble ones alike. Further, every affliction operates either through a joyful aspect, through a sorrowful aspect, or through both; when covetous desire is spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what operates through a joyful aspect; when hatred, worry, and doubt are spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what operates through a sorrowful aspect; when torpor, drowsiness, and restlessness are spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what spans both — and it is thus, through gateway, abbreviation, and entryway, that scripture establishes only these five hindrances. One asks: the term "hindrance" names five, yet how many genuine substances does it comprise? The answer: it comprises seven distinct substances — that is, the hindrance of covetous desire has one name and one substance; hatred and the hindrance of doubt should be understood in just the same way; torpor and drowsiness, one hindrance, has one name yet two substances; restlessness and worry should be understood in just the same way — and just as name is compared against substance, so too should designation be compared against designated substance, distinct characteristic against distinct characteristic-substance, distinct nature against distinct nature-substance, and discrimination against discriminated substance, and understanding against understood substance, all be understood in just the same way.

One asks: why are covetous desire, hatred, and doubt each separately established as their own individual hindrance, while torpor and drowsiness, and restlessness and worry, are each combined in pairs and established as a single hindrance? The Venerable Pārśva states: the Buddha knows the nature, characteristics, power, and function of every dharma — whatever dharma is fit to be separately established as a hindrance, he separately establishes it; if it is not so fit, he establishes the two jointly, and this ought not to be pressed as an objection. Further, whatever is both of the nature of a latent tendency and of the nature of an entanglement is separately established as its own hindrance; whatever is of the nature of an entanglement alone, not of a latent tendency, is jointly established with another as a single hindrance. Further, whatever is a complete affliction is separately established as its own hindrance; whatever is not a complete affliction is jointly established with another as a single hindrance — an affliction complete in all five senses of fetter, binding, latent tendency, secondary affliction, and entanglement is named a complete affliction. Further, it is on account of three matters that two are jointly established as a single hindrance — namely, first, sharing a single food; second, sharing a single antidote; third, sharing an equal capacity to bear a burden. Here, "sharing a single food and a single antidote" refers to the fact that the hindrance of covetous desire takes a pure, wondrous appearance as its food, and the contemplation of unattractiveness as its antidote, and it is on account of this single food and single antidote that it is separately established as its own hindrance; the hindrance of hatred takes a hateful appearance as its food, and the contemplation of loving-kindness as its antidote, and it is on account of this single food and single antidote that it is separately established as its own hindrance; the hindrance of doubt takes the characteristics of the three time-periods as its food, and the contemplation of dependent origination as its antidote, and it is on account of this single food and single antidote that it is separately established as its own hindrance; the hindrance of torpor and drowsiness takes five dharmas as its food —

first, dejection; second, displeasure; third, yawning; fourth, imbalance in food; fifth, weakness of mind — and takes insight as its antidote, and it is on account of this shared food and shared antidote that the two are jointly established as a single hindrance. The hindrance of restlessness and worry takes four kinds of thought as its food — first, thought of one's own family; second, thought of one's own homeland; third, thought of immortality; fourth, recollection of past pleasures — and takes calm-abiding as its antidote, and it is on account of this shared food and shared antidote that the two are jointly established as a single hindrance. "Sharing an equal capacity to bear a burden" refers to the fact that covetous desire, hatred, and doubt are each individually capable of bearing the full weight of a single hindrance, and are therefore separately established as their own hindrance, while torpor and drowsiness together are needed to bear the full weight of a single hindrance, and are therefore jointly established — exactly as, within a town, if a single person is capable of accomplishing a given task, he alone is made to accomplish it, while, if two people together are needed to accomplish a single task, they are made to accomplish it jointly; and exactly as, among rafters and beams, a strong one is used singly, while a weak one requires a pair — this, too, is exactly the same. One asks: why do these five hindrances occur in just this particular order? The answer: this order accords with both the wording and the exposition. Further, this order accords with both the one who bestows the teaching and the one who receives it. Further, it is because the five hindrances arise in just this order that the Blessed One taught them in just this order — it is on this basis that the Venerable Vasumitra has stated: upon obtaining a pleasing object, covetous desire first arises; upon losing that pleasing object, hatred next arises; once that object has been lost, the mind grows weak and feeble, and torpor next arises; through torpor, the mind grows dim and troubled, and drowsiness next arises; awakening from this, restlessness next arises; once restlessness has arisen, worry is drawn forth in turn; and, from worry, doubt is further drawn forth — and it is on this account that these five hindrances occur in just this order. One asks: the Buddha states that the distinctions among the hindrances number ten in total — how are these five divided into ten? The answer: it is on account of three matters that the five are divided into ten — first, internal versus external; second, one's own substance; third, wholesome versus unwholesome. "Internal versus external" refers to the fact that there exists a hindrance of covetous desire that arises taking what is internal as its object, and a hindrance of covetous desire that arises taking what is external as its object, thereby forming two hindrances; and there exists a hindrance of hatred that is hatred's own substance, and a hindrance of hatred that is the cause and condition of hatred, thereby forming two hindrances. "One's own substance" refers to the fact that there exists a hindrance of torpor, a hindrance of drowsiness, a hindrance of restlessness, and a hindrance of worry, this one portion thereby forming four.

"Wholesome versus unwholesome" refers to the fact that doubt with respect to what is wholesome and what is unwholesome is divided into two hindrances — and it is on account of these three matters that the five are divided into ten. Each of these ten is individually capable of obstructing penetrating wisdom, enlightenment, and nirvāṇa, and each is therefore named a hindrance. One asks: among the seven latent tendencies, there are conceit, ignorance, and wrong view — why does the Blessed One not establish these as hindrances? The answer: conceit is not a hindrance, since the sense of "hindrance" is the sense of concealing and covering the mind, while conceit spurs the mind onward, causing it to become elevated, and it is therefore not established as a hindrance. As for why ignorance is not established as a hindrance, it is because "hindrance" is named on account of the sense of equally bearing a burden, while ignorance's own aspect is one of concealing and covering, its own burden-bearing weight being disproportionate, not according with this sense of equal burden-bearing, and it is therefore not so established. As for why wrong view, within this class, is not a hindrance, it is because "hindrance" is named on account of its capacity to destroy wisdom, and view is itself wisdom — wisdom, by its own inherent nature, cannot destroy that same inherent nature, and it is therefore that wrong view is not wisdom's own hindrance.

One asks, arising from this very discussion: a hindrance is capable, altogether, of destroying every conditioned, wholesome dharma — why, then, does this passage speak only of a hindrance destroying wisdom? The answer: it is because wisdom is supreme that this passage speaks only of destroying wisdom — that is, in speaking of destroying wisdom, the supreme, it is thereby already spoken that every conditioned, wholesome dharma whatsoever is destroyed as well, since, if even the supreme can be overcome, how much more so every lesser dharma — exactly as one who is capable of subduing an enemy of a thousand men, how could every lesser adversary fail to be subdued by him as well? One asks: why are the various afflictions of the form and formless realms not hindrances? The answer: it is because they do not possess the characteristic mark of a hindrance that they are not established as hindrances. Further, a hindrance is capable of obstructing freedom from the defilements of all three realms, the nine paths of comprehensive knowledge, and the four fruits of śramaṇahood; the various afflictions of the form and formless realms possess no such capacity, and it is for this reason that they are not established as hindrances. Further, a hindrance is capable of obstructing concentration and the fruit of concentration; the various afflictions of the form and formless realms possess no such capacity, and it is for this reason that they are not established as hindrances. Further, a hindrance is capable of obstructing the three paths, the three faculties, the three kinds of restraint, the three kinds of enlightenment, the three wisdoms, the three aggregates, the three trainings, the three cultivations, and the three purities; the various afflictions of the form and formless realms possess no such capacity, and it is for this reason that they are not established as hindrances. The three paths refer to the path of seeing, the path of cultivation, and the path beyond further training. The three faculties refer to the faculty of coming to know what was not yet known, the faculty of already knowing, and the faculty of having fully known. The three kinds of restraint refer to the restraint of individual liberation, the restraint of meditative absorption, and the uncontaminated restraint. The three kinds of enlightenment refer to the enlightenment of the śrāvaka, the enlightenment of the pratyekabuddha, and the unsurpassed enlightenment.

The three wisdoms refer to the wisdom consisting in hearing, the wisdom consisting in reflection, and the wisdom consisting in cultivation. The three aggregates refer to the aggregate of discipline, the aggregate of concentration, and the aggregate of wisdom; the three trainings, the three cultivations, and the three purities should be understood in just the same way. Further, a hindrance is solely unwholesome; the various afflictions of the form and formless realms are all undefined, and are therefore not established as hindrances. One asks, arising from this very discussion: why is it that only the unwholesome, and not the undefined, is established as a hindrance? The answer: it is because a hindrance obstructs the wholesome category that it is named a hindrance — as scripture states, the wholesome category refers to the four mindfulness-foundations; that which stands as its near obstruction refers to the evil category — the evil category being precisely the five hindrances. One asks: shamelessness and lack of moral dread, being solely unwholesome, pervading every unwholesome mind alike — why are these not established as hindrances?

There are those who say: 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 — whatever dharma is fit to be established as a hindrance, he establishes it as such; if it is not so fit, he does not so establish it, and this ought not to be pressed as an objection. The Venerable Vasumitra states as follows: shamelessness and lack of moral dread, though co-present with every unwholesome mind, are solely unwholesome, and yet, at the very moment of creating evil, one who is without shame and without moral dread possesses manifold skillful means, the sense of obstruction and concealment thereby remaining unmanifest, and it is for this reason that they are not established as hindrances. The Venerable Ghoṣa likewise states: shamelessness and lack of moral dread, though their own power and function are predominant with respect to the unwholesome karma performed, do not manifest the sense of obstruction and concealment, and are therefore not established as hindrances. The Venerable Buddhadeva states: shamelessness and lack of moral dread, though they obstruct the aggregate of discipline, do so with a power and function falling short of that of covetous desire and hatred;

though they obstruct the aggregate of concentration, they fall short of restlessness and worry; and though they obstruct the aggregate of wisdom, they fall short of torpor and drowsiness — and it is for this reason that they are not established as hindrances. One asks: why are the two fetters of envy and stinginess not hindrances?

The answer: this, too, ought properly to be named a hindrance, and that it is not so named should be understood as a matter of surplus meaning left implicit. There are those who say: this is the Blessed One, for the sake of those he was converting, giving an abbreviated teaching. The Venerable Pārśva states: the Buddha knows the nature, characteristics, power, and function of every dharma — whatever dharma is fit to be established as a hindrance, he establishes it as such; if it is not so fit, he does not so establish it, and this ought not to be pressed as an objection. The Venerable Vasumitra states as follows: envy and stinginess trouble both of two destinies, and both of the two assemblies, whether renunciant or householder, and it is for this reason that they are established as fetters instead; yet their own sense of obstruction and concealment is not intensified, and it is for this reason that they are not established as hindrances. The Venerable Ghoṣa likewise states: with envy and stinginess, the sense of hindrance is not manifest, and they are therefore not established as hindrances. The Venerable Buddhadeva states as follows: envy and stinginess obstruct discipline, concentration, and wisdom with a power and function falling short of covetous desire, hatred, and the other hindrances, and they are therefore not established as hindrances. One asks: why are the two entanglements of anger and concealment not hindrances? The answer: this, too, ought properly to be named a hindrance, and that it is not so named should be understood as a matter of surplus meaning left implicit.

There are those who say: this is the Tathāgata, for the sake of those he was to liberate, giving an abbreviated teaching. The Venerable Pārśva states: the Buddha knows the nature, characteristics, power, and function of every dharma — whatever dharma is fit to be established as a hindrance, he establishes it as such; whatever is not fit, he does not establish it as a hindrance, and this ought not to be pressed as an objection. The Venerable Vasumitra states as follows: anger and concealment, with respect to the sense of obstructing and concealing the mind, are not manifest, and are therefore not established as hindrances. The Venerable Ghoṣa likewise states: anger and concealment, with respect to the sense of obstruction, are not predominant, and are therefore not established as hindrances. The Venerable Buddhadeva states as follows: anger and concealment, in their power to obstruct the aggregate of discipline and the rest, fall short of covetous desire and the other hindrances, and are therefore not established as hindrances. The Western masters state as follows: anger and concealment possess no distinct substance of their own, and are therefore not separately established as hindrances. One asks: why are the six defilements not hindrances? The answer: this, too, ought properly to be named a hindrance, and that it is not so named should be understood as a matter of surplus meaning left implicit. There are those who say: this is the Tathāgata, for the sake of those he was to liberate, giving an abbreviated teaching. The Venerable Pārśva states: the Buddha knows the nature, characteristics, power, and function of every dharma — whatever dharma is fit to be established as a hindrance, he establishes it as such; whatever is not fit, he does not establish it as a hindrance, and this ought not to be pressed as an objection. The Venerable Vasumitra states: the six defilements, their own aspect being coarse and agitated, do not accord with the sense of "hindrance," and are therefore not established as hindrances. The Venerable Ghoṣa likewise states: the six defilements do not accord with the mark of a hindrance, and are therefore not established as hindrances — subtle, repeated occurrence being the very mark of a hindrance. The Venerable Buddhadeva states as follows: the six defilements' own power to obstruct discipline, concentration, and wisdom falls short of covetous desire and the other hindrances, and they are therefore not established as hindrances. As scripture states:

covered by the hindrance of ignorance and bound by the fetter of craving, both the foolish and the wise alike come to acquire this present, consciousness-endowed body. One asks: ignorance is capable both of covering and of binding, and the fetter of craving, too, is capable both of binding and of covering — why, then, does this passage speak only of ignorance as covering, and craving's fetter as binding? The answer: both ought properly to be spoken of in both ways, and that this is not so spoken of should be understood as a matter of surplus meaning left implicit. Further, it is in order to make the meaning stated more easily understood that this passage employs a variety of wording and a variety of expression. Further, that scripture wishes to display two gateways, two abbreviated approaches, two stairways, two ladders, two lights, two torches, two texts, and two reflections, as it is said:

were ignorance itself spoken of as covering, then craving's fetter, too, ought equally to be spoken of as covering; and, as it is said, were craving's fetter spoken of as binding, then ignorance, too, ought equally to be spoken of as binding — it is in order to display these two gateways and the rest, each mutually illuminating the other, that this passage speaks in just this way. Further, it was already stated above that covering is the meaning of hindrance — no other affliction covers and obstructs the eye of wisdom in the way that ignorance does, and it is for this reason that this passage speaks only of covering by ignorance. Binding is the meaning of fetter — no other affliction binds sentient beings, causing them to wander through birth and death, in the way that craving's fetter does, and it is for this reason that this passage speaks only of being bound by craving's fetter. Sentient beings of every kind, blinded by ignorance and bound by the fetter of craving, are unable to proceed toward the ultimate realm of nirvāṇa — here, one ought to relate the parable of the two mad bandits. In ancient times, there were two bandits who forever dwelt upon a perilous road; whenever they seized a traveler, one would throw dirt into his eyes, and the other would bind his hands and feet — that man, now blind and bound as well, was unable to make his escape; sentient beings, too, are exactly the same, blinded by ignorance and bound by the fetter of craving, unable to proceed toward the ultimate realm of nirvāṇa, and thereby wandering through birth and death, forever undergoing suffering and distress. The Venerable Ghoṣa likewise states: blinded by ignorance and bound by the fetter of craving, sentient beings are thereby able to create every kind of evil, unwholesome karma. Further, this is spoken with reference to what is predominant — that is, ignorance's own function of covering is predominant, and craving's fetter's own function of binding is predominant. Further, this is spoken with reference to what applies to the greater portion — that is, ignorance is, for the greater part, capable of covering, and craving's fetter is, for the greater part, capable of binding.