Two Jailers, Three Watchmen

There are five fetters — namely, the fetter of greed, the fetter of hatred, the fetter of conceit, the fetter of envy, and the fetter of stinginess. One asks: what is the inherent nature of these five fetters? The answer: they have thirty-seven factors as their inherent nature — that is, the fetter of greed and the fetter of conceit each span the five sections within all three realms, making thirty factors; the fetter of hatred spans the five sections of the desire realm, making five factors; and the fetter of envy and the fetter of stinginess each belong solely to what is abandoned by cultivation within the desire realm, making two factors — and it is on this account that these five fetters have thirty-seven 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 fetters? What is the meaning of ‘fetter’? The answer: the sense of binding, the sense of joining to suffering, and the sense of mixing in poison — these are the meaning of ‘fetter.’ This is explained at length above, within the discussion of the three fetters. One asks: why are only these five established as fetters? The answer: others, too, ought properly to be so spoken of, and that they are not so spoken of 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 is fit to be established as a fetter, he establishes it as such; whatever 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: this passage speaks only of the afflictions that, confused about form and the other objects, bind the mind through their own specific characteristic, as fetters — greed, hatred, and conceit alone being afflictions confused about their object through a specific characteristic are therefore established as fetters; the five views and doubt, being afflictions confused about principle through a shared characteristic, and ignorance, though it spans confusion about both principle and object, being for the most part confused about principle, are therefore not established as fetters. The two entanglements of envy and stinginess likewise are but afflictions confused about their object, causing disturbance to both of the two assemblies and to two destinies, and, their fault being manifold, are therefore also established as fetters; the remaining entanglements and defilements, possessing no such matter, are therefore not established as fetters. The Venerable Ghoṣa likewise states: these five, with respect to their object, bind the mind with especially heavy force, and are therefore established as fetters. The Venerable Buddhadeva states as follows: these five, with respect to their object, manifest again and again, disturbing both oneself and others, their fault being especially grave, and are therefore established as fetters.

the remaining afflictions, possessing no such matter, are not established as fetters. There are five fetters pertaining to the lower portion — namely, the lower-portion fetter of covetous desire, the lower-portion fetter of hatred, the lower-portion fetter of the view of the perishable aggregation of self, the lower-portion fetter of clinging to rules and vows, and the lower-portion fetter of doubt. One asks: what is the inherent nature of these five lower-portion fetters? The answer: they have thirty-one factors as their inherent nature — that is, the lower-portion fetters of covetous desire and hatred each span the five sections of the desire realm, making ten factors; the lower-portion fetter of the view of the perishable aggregation of self, belonging to what is abandoned by seeing suffering within all three realms, makes three factors; the lower-portion fetter of clinging to rules and vows, belonging to what is abandoned by seeing suffering and the path within all three realms, makes six factors; and the lower-portion fetter of doubt, spanning the four sections within all three realms, makes twelve factors — and it is on this account that these five lower-portion fetters have thirty-one 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 fetters pertaining to the lower portion? What is the meaning of ‘pertaining to the lower portion’? The answer: it is because these five fetters manifest in the lower realm, because they are abandoned within the lower realm, because they cause rebirth within the lower realm, and because they bring forth an outflow-fruit and a ripened fruit within the lower realm, that they are named fetters pertaining to the lower portion — ‘the lower realm’ referring to the desire realm. One asks: if this is so, then every affliction whatsoever is a manifestation within the lower realm, since, while the body abides in the desire realm, every affliction is capable of arising there. The sixty-four latent tendencies are all abandoned within the lower realm — thirty-six belonging to the desire realm, and twenty-eight belonging solely to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, capable of being abandoned only once one abides within the desire realm; thirty-six latent tendencies thus bind one to rebirth within the lower realm, since, whenever any one of the desire realm’s own thirty-six latent tendencies manifests before the mind, it causes the continued succession of rebirth within the desire realm; thirty-four latent tendencies are capable of bringing forth an outflow-fruit and a ripened fruit within the lower realm, since the desire realm’s own thirty-four latent tendencies are unwholesome, capable of serving as the cause of a ripened fruit; and two latent tendencies are capable of bringing forth solely an outflow-fruit within the lower realm, since the desire realm’s own view of the perishable aggregation of self and extreme view, being indeterminate, are incapable of bringing forth a ripened fruit. On this reasoning, every affliction whatsoever ought to be named a fetter pertaining to the lower portion — why, then, does the Blessed One speak only of these five as fetters pertaining to the lower portion, and not of the remaining afflictions? The answer: others, too, ought properly to be so spoken of, and that they are not so spoken of 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 lower-portion fetter, he establishes it as such; whatever 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 five manifest within the lower realm,

are abandoned within the lower realm, bind one to rebirth within the lower realm, and bring forth their fruit within the lower realm, with a power and function especially swift, especially weighty, and especially intimate, surpassing that of every other affliction, and it is for this reason that they alone are established as fetters pertaining to the lower portion. Further, ‘lower’ carries two senses — namely, lower with respect to realm, and lower with respect to being. ‘Lower with respect to realm’ refers to the desire realm; ‘lower with respect to being’ refers to the ordinary being. Because the first two fetters possess an especially grave fault, one does not thereby transcend the desire realm; because the latter three fetters possess an especially grave fault, one does not thereby transcend the state of an ordinary being — and it is for this reason that these five alone are established as fetters pertaining to the lower portion. Further, ‘lower’ carries two senses — namely, lower with respect to stage, and lower with respect to being. ‘Lower with respect to stage’ refers to the desire realm; ‘lower with respect to being’ refers to the ordinary being. Because the first two fetters possess an especially grave fault, one does not thereby emerge from the lower stage; because the latter three fetters possess an especially grave fault, one does not thereby emerge from the state of a lower being — and it is for this very reason that only these five are spoken of as fetters pertaining to the lower portion. Further, these five, with respect to sentient beings of the desire realm, are exactly like a prison’s own jailers and its patrolling guards, and it is for this reason that they alone are established as fetters pertaining to the lower portion — that is, the first two fetters are exactly like the jailers, and the latter three are exactly like the patrolling guards. It is exactly as when a condemned man is confined within a prison: two jailers forever guard him, never permitting him to escape, while three further men serve continually as patrolling guards; should that man, through the strength of friends or of wealth, injure the jailers and make his escape, fleeing far away, the three patrolling guards will nonetheless seize him and bring him back, shutting him once more within the prison. Here, the prison is likened to the desire realm; the condemned man is likened to the foolish, ordinary being; the two jailers are likened to the first two fetters; and the three patrolling guards are likened to the latter three fetters. Should an ordinary being, through the contemplation of impurity, injure his own covetous desire, and further, through the contemplation of loving-kindness, injure his own hatred, thereby becoming free of desire, proceeding up through the sphere of nothing-at-all, and being reborn within the first dhyāna, up through the very peak of existence — his own view of the perishable aggregation of self, clinging to rules and vows, and doubt will nonetheless seize him and bring him back, placing him once more within the desire realm. The Venerable Ghoṣa likewise states: because the first two fetters remain uncut and not yet fully understood, one does not emerge from the desire realm; because the latter three remain uncut and not yet fully understood, one is brought back to rebirth within the desire realm, and it is for this reason that these five alone are spoken of as fetters pertaining to the lower portion. The Venerable Vātsīputra likewise states: it is because one is bound by the first two that one does not transcend the desire realm, and because the latter three remain uncut that one is brought back down into the desire realm, and it is for this reason that these five alone are established as fetters pertaining to the lower portion. Further, this passage displays, as it were, a gateway, an abbreviation, and an entryway, and it is for this reason that these five alone are spoken of as fetters pertaining to the lower portion — that is, every affliction either belongs solely to one section, or spans two sections,

or spans four sections, or spans all five sections — when the view of the perishable aggregation of self is spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what belongs solely to one section; when clinging to rules and vows is spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what spans two sections; when doubt is spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what spans four sections; and when covetous desire and hatred are spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what spans all five sections. In just the same way, one should understand the distinctions between what is solely abandoned by seeing and what spans both seeing and cultivation, what is all-pervading and what is not, what manifests solely in the ordinary being and what spans both the ordinary being and the noble one, and what operates through a joyful aspect and what operates through a sorrowful aspect. Further, among the afflictions spanning both what is abandoned by seeing and by cultivation, only greed and hatred stand independently, pervading all six consciousnesses; among the afflictions solely abandoned by seeing, only the view of the perishable aggregation of self and its companions operate as the leading, foremost factor — and it is for this reason that these five alone are established as fetters pertaining to the lower portion. Further, should one ask why the first two fetters are established as pertaining to the lower portion, this should be answered at length exactly as in the discussion of the unwholesome roots; should one ask why the latter three fetters are so established, this should be answered at length exactly as in the discussion of the three fetters — and it is by means of these two questions and answers that every other affliction is together excluded. One asks: why are the secondary afflictions not fetters pertaining to the lower portion? The answer: these, too, ought properly to be fetters pertaining to the lower portion, and that they are not so spoken of 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. There are yet others who say: it is whatever binds one to rebirth within the lower realm and among lower beings that is established as pertaining to the lower portion; the secondary afflictions, being incapable of binding one to rebirth, are therefore not established as fetters pertaining to the lower portion.

As scripture states: you should each uphold the five fetters pertaining to the lower portion that I have just now set forth. At that time, within the assembly, Māluṅkyaputta at once rose from his seat, bared one shoulder, set his right knee upon the ground, and, bowing toward the Blessed One with palms joined, addressed him, saying: World-Honored One, I have already upheld the five fetters pertaining to the lower portion as spoken by the World-Honored One. The World-Honored One asked him: how have you upheld them? He replied: covetous desire is precisely the entanglement of the mind by the latent tendency of desire-craving — this is a fetter pertaining to the lower portion, as the World-Honored One has already set forth, and I have already upheld it thus; and so on, at length, up through the fetter of doubt, in just the same way. The Buddha said: foolish men, outsiders, and heretical students, hearing what you have just said, will surely rebuke and refute you — exactly as a sick infant, lying upon its back on a bed, is as yet incapable of comprehending form and the other objects of desire, still less capable of manifesting the entanglement of covetous desire in its mind, and yet still possesses the latent tendency of desire-craving; and so on, at length, up through the fetter of doubt, in just the same way. One asks: since the five fetters pertaining to the lower portion, exactly as the Buddha himself has spoken them, were what Māluṅkyaputta fully upheld, how could he still be rebuked? The answer: it is the meaning he grasped, not the name he grasped, that is rebuked; it is the understanding he held, not the term he held, that is rebuked; the meaning of what he stated is rejected, but its name is not rejected — that is, this venerable one stated that only an affliction actually arisen is to be named a fetter pertaining to the lower portion, and not one that has not arisen; the Buddha states that an affliction, so long as it has not yet been cut off, is to be named a fetter pertaining to the lower portion, whether or not it has actually manifested. Further, that venerable one stated that only when an affliction is actually manifesting is it to be named a fetter pertaining to the lower portion; the Buddha states that even mere possession, without present manifestation, may likewise be named a fetter pertaining to the lower portion. Further, that venerable one stated that only when an affliction is actually present is it to be named a fetter pertaining to the lower portion; the Buddha states that it may be so named across all three time periods alike. Further, that venerable one stated that only when an affliction is actually entangling the mind is it to be named a fetter pertaining to the lower portion; the Buddha states that it may be so named whether in the state of entanglement or in the state of a mere latent tendency — as it is said, the entanglement and the latent tendency of covetous desire, so long as they have not yet been properly and thoroughly cut off, are named a fetter pertaining to the lower portion; and so on, at length, up through the fetter of doubt, in just the same way. There are five fetters pertaining to the higher portion — namely, the higher-portion fetter of craving for form, the higher-portion fetter of craving for the formless, the higher-portion fetter of restlessness, the higher-portion fetter of conceit, and the higher-portion fetter of ignorance. One asks: what is the inherent nature of these five higher-portion fetters? The answer: they have eight factors as their inherent nature — that is, craving for form is precisely the craving abandoned by cultivation within the form realm, making one factor; craving for the formless is precisely the craving abandoned by cultivation within the formless realm, making one factor;

restlessness, conceit, and ignorance, each belonging to the form and formless realms and abandoned by cultivation, together make six factors — and it is on this account that these five higher-portion fetters have 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 fetters pertaining to the higher portion? What is the meaning of ‘pertaining to the higher portion’? The answer: the sense of causing one to proceed upward, the sense of causing one to turn toward what is higher, and the sense of causing the continued succession of a higher rebirth — these are the meaning of ‘pertaining to the higher portion.’ One asks: if the sense of proceeding upward and the rest is the meaning of ‘pertaining to the higher portion,’ then the fetters pertaining to the higher portion ought not to be floods at all, since plunging and drowning is the meaning of ‘flood.’ The answer: the sense of ‘flood’ differs from the sense of ‘pertaining to the higher portion’ — 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 rebirth; 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. One asks: why are the form realm’s and the formless realm’s own cravings each separately established as their own higher-portion fetter, while the remaining three are jointly established across both realms as a single fetter? The answer: the remaining three, too, ought properly to be separately established with reference to realm, and that they are not so established 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, the World-Honored One wishes to display two gateways, two abbreviated approaches, two stairways, two ladders, two lights, two torches, two texts, and two reflections — exactly as craving, with reference to realm, is separately established as two fetters, restlessness, conceit, and ignorance, too, ought each to be separately established as two; and exactly as restlessness and the rest are jointly established across the two realms as one, craving, too, ought to be established in just the same way — thus the fetters pertaining to the higher portion ought properly to number either eight throughout, or four throughout; it is in order to display these two gateways, up through these two reflections, each mutually illuminating the other, that this passage speaks in just this way. Further, craving causes beings to differ by realm, to differ by stage, and to differ by section, and craving alone is capable of increasing every affliction whatsoever; craving possesses an object of craving, and is spoken of as possessing manifold faults, and it is for this reason that, with reference to realm, it is separately established as two fetters; restlessness and the other two, possessing no such matter,

are jointly established across the two higher realms as a single fetter. One asks: why are only afflictions abandoned by cultivation established as fetters pertaining to the higher portion? The answer: it is precisely what causes one to proceed toward a higher rebirth that is named ‘pertaining to the higher portion’; fetters abandoned by seeing likewise cause one to fall downward, and are therefore not established as fetters pertaining to the higher portion. Further, it is precisely what a superior person practices that is named ‘pertaining to the higher portion’ — the superior person being the noble one, not the ordinary being; fetters abandoned by seeing arise solely in the ordinary being, and are therefore not established as fetters pertaining to the higher portion. Among the noble ones, it is solely the fetters arisen in the non-returner that are established as pertaining to the higher portion. One asks, a further question arising from this discussion: why are the fetters arisen in the stream-enterer and the once-returner not pertaining to the higher portion? The answer: ‘pertaining to the higher portion’ refers to what causes one to proceed toward a higher rebirth; the fetters arisen in the stream-enterer and the once-returner likewise cause a lower rebirth, and are therefore not established as fetters pertaining to the higher portion. Further, it is the fetters arisen in one who has both transcended the realm and attained the fruit that are established as pertaining to the higher portion; the stream-enterer and the once-returner, though they have indeed attained the fruit, have not transcended the realm, and it is for this reason that the fetters arisen in them are not pertaining to the higher portion. Further, it is the fetters arisen in one who has both transcended the realm and utterly cut off the unwholesome afflictions that are established as pertaining to the higher portion; the stream-enterer and the once-returner, lacking both of these two matters,

the fetters arisen in them are not pertaining to the higher portion. Further, it is the fetters arisen in one who has both transcended the realm and utterly cut off the lower-portion fetters that are named pertaining to the higher portion; the stream-enterer and the once-returner, lacking both of these two matters, have fetters that are not pertaining to the higher portion. Further, the fetters pertaining to the higher portion and those pertaining to the lower portion each have a distinct basis — if, within a given body, the higher-portion fetters arise, then the lower-portion fetters certainly do not arise there; if the lower-portion fetters arise, then the higher-portion fetters certainly do not arise there. Within the body of the stream-enterer or the once-returner, the lower-portion fetters remain capable of arising, and it is for this reason that the higher-portion fetters certainly do not arise there. Further, it is the fetters arisen in one who no longer performs deeds resembling those of an ordinary being that are established as pertaining to the higher portion; the stream-enterer and the once-returner still manifest deeds resembling those of an ordinary being, and it is for this reason that the fetters arisen in them are not pertaining to the higher portion. What, then, are these deeds resembling those of an ordinary being that they perform? Namely, delighting in and clinging to variegated colors and to bodily adornment, to incense and flowers, accepting and keeping gold, silver, and every kind of precious ornament, employing servants and dependents, and even administering corporal punishment; likewise sharing a single bed with a man or a woman, touching another’s body, and giving rise to the notion of its softness and smoothness; and, further, acting without shame or restraint, engaging in conduct contrary to celibacy — these are named deeds resembling those of an ordinary being. Further, it is the one who will no longer be conceived as a drop of blood, an oval clot, and gradually take form, entering the mother’s womb and dwelling between the raw and ripened receptacles, whose fetters are named pertaining to the higher portion; the stream-enterer and the once-returner remain capable of this very matter, and it is for this reason that the fetters arisen in them are not pertaining to the higher portion — exactly as that scripture states: Citra the householder declared to his kinsmen and friends: you should each know that I will surely no longer be conceived as a drop of blood, an oval clot, and gradually take form, entering the mother’s womb and dwelling between the raw and ripened receptacles, since I have already forever cut off the five fetters pertaining to the lower portion, and will never again turn back to receive a rebirth within the desire realm. The Venerable Ghoṣa likewise states: to be liberated from the fetters of covetous desire and of hatred — this is what I mean by liberation from the matter of entering the womb. One asks: among the fetters pertaining to the higher portion, is restlessness, by its own inherent nature, a fetter, or is it not? Suppose it were granted either way — what fault would follow? If it is a fetter, how, then, is the Prakaraṇapāda to be reconciled, as it is said there: what is the class of fetters? It refers to the nine fetters. What is the class of non-fetters? It refers to every dharma excepting the nine fetters. If it is not a fetter, how, then, is what this scripture states to be reconciled, as it is said: what are the five fetters pertaining to the higher portion? They are craving for form, craving for the formless, restlessness, conceit, and ignorance. The answer: it should be said that it is indeed a fetter. One asks: how, then, is the Prakaraṇapāda to be reconciled? The answer: the masters of the outer regions recite this passage differently — that is, their recitation states: what is the class of fetters? It refers to the nine fetters, together with restlessness among the fetters pertaining to the higher portion.

What is the class of non-fetters? It refers to every dharma excepting the nine fetters and restlessness among the fetters pertaining to the higher portion. One asks: why do the masters of Kashmir not recite it in that way? The answer: this, too, ought properly to be recited in that way, and that it is not so recited carries a further, distinct intent — this being that whether restlessness itself is or is not a fetter remains, by its own nature, undetermined. That is, restlessness, in one part of its nature, is a fetter — namely, that belonging to the two higher realms; in another part of its nature, it is not a fetter — namely, that belonging to the desire realm. In one respect, it is a fetter — namely, that arisen in the noble one; in another respect, it is not a fetter — namely, that arisen in the ordinary being. In one state, it is a fetter — namely, that arisen in a noble one who has already become free of desire’s own defilement; in another state, it is not a fetter — namely, that arisen in a noble one who has not yet become free of desire’s own defilement. One asks: why is restlessness belonging to the two higher realms a fetter, while that belonging to the desire realm is not a fetter? The answer: this is because the desire realm is not a realm of concentration, not a stage of cultivation, and not a stage of freedom from defilement,

lacking superior concentration and wisdom capable of perceiving restlessness as a matter of disturbance, and it is for this reason that it is not established as a fetter there. The form and formless realms are realms of concentration, stages of cultivation, and stages of freedom from defilement, possessing superior concentration and wisdom capable of perceiving restlessness as a matter of disturbance, and it is for this reason that it is established as a fetter there — exactly as, near a village or town, even a loud sound causes no disturbance, while, in a forest hermitage, even a faint sound is felt as a disturbance. Further, the desire realm possesses many irrational afflictions, such as anger and resentment, which conceal and obstruct restlessness, preventing it from being clearly perceived, and it is for this reason that it is not established as a fetter there; the form and formless realms possess no such abundance of irrational afflictions concealing and obstructing restlessness, and, restlessness thereby being clearly perceived, it is established as a fetter there — exactly as, near a village or town, monks of unwholesome conduct, though numerous, go unnoticed, while, in a forest hermitage, monks of unwholesome conduct, though few, are readily noticed. One asks: torpor and restlessness both span all three realms, both pervade all six consciousnesses, both span all five sections, and both accompany every defiled mind alike — for what reason, then, is restlessness established as pertaining to the higher portion, and not torpor? The answer: it is because that restlessness is especially keen, especially weighty, and especially manifold in its fault that the Buddha establishes it as a fetter pertaining to the higher portion; it is likewise on this account that it is established among the ten universal mental factors; it is further on this account that the Prakaraṇapāda, as recited by the masters of the outer regions, states, what is the class of fetters? It refers to the nine fetters, together with restlessness among the fetters pertaining to the higher portion; it is further on this account that the Aggregate of Fetters, above, has already discussed what is the specific latent tendency of ignorance, and what is the specific entanglement of restlessness; and it is further on this account that the Prajñaptisāstra states that, when the ordinary being’s own latent tendency of desire-craving arises, five dharmas arise together with it — first, the latent tendency of desire-craving; second, the latent tendency of desire-craving that arises in its train, some reciting this as the augmentation of the latent tendency of desire-craving; third, the latent tendency of ignorance; fourth, the latent tendency of ignorance that arises in its train, some reciting this as the augmentation of the latent tendency of ignorance; and fifth, restlessness — torpor not being so, and it is for this reason that it is not established as pertaining to the higher portion. Further, it is because restlessness’s own entangling aspect is bright and keen, its operation swift, disturbing concentration and wisdom whether of the five limbs or the four limbs, that the Buddha establishes it as a fetter pertaining to the higher portion; torpor’s own aspect is dim and dull, resembling concentration itself, and thereby capable of according with concentration, since one afflicted by torpor is capable of swiftly generating concentration, and it is for this reason that it is not established as a fetter pertaining to the higher portion. Further, torpor, being itself an outflow of ignorance, while ignorance is itself already a fetter pertaining to the higher portion,

conceals and obstructs torpor, preventing it from being clearly perceived — and it is for this reason that torpor is not pertaining to the higher portion. One asks: the higher realms, too, possess the three of flattery, deceit, and pride — why, then, are these not established as fetters pertaining to the higher portion? The answer: these defilements, being coarse and agitated, easily subside, their binding power being feeble, and it is for this reason that they are not established among the company of fetters — it is on precisely this account. The Venerable Pārśva states: the Buddha knows the nature, characteristics, power, and function of every dharma — whatever is fit to be established as a fetter, he establishes it as such;

whatever is not so fit, he does not so establish it, and this ought not to be pressed as an objection. The Venerable Ghoṣa likewise states: flattery, deceit, pride, and the rest, being coarse and agitated, easily subside, not according with the sense of ‘fetter,’ and are therefore not established as fetters — it being only a small part, among all the latent tendencies and entanglements, that can be established as fetters.

There are five views — namely, the view of the perishable aggregation of self, the extreme view, wrong view, view-clinging, and clinging to rules and vows. One asks: what is the inherent nature of these five views?

The answer: they have thirty-six factors as their inherent nature — that is, the view of the perishable aggregation of self and the extreme view each belong to what is abandoned by seeing suffering within all three realms, making six factors; wrong view and view-clinging each span the four sections within all three realms, making twenty-four factors; and clinging to rules and vows belongs to what is abandoned by seeing suffering and the path within all three realms, making six factors — and it is on this account that these five views have thirty-six 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 views? What is the meaning of ‘view’? The answer: it is on account of four matters that they are named views — first, thoroughgoing seeing; second, calculating estimation; third, firm clinging; fourth, deep penetration into their object. ‘Thoroughgoing seeing’ refers to the fact that they are capable of thoroughgoing seeing, and are therefore named views. One asks: since this seeing is itself both erroneous and inverted, how can it be named seeing? The answer: though erroneous and inverted, its own nature is nonetheless wisdom, capable of perceiving its object, and it is therefore also named seeing — exactly as a person’s seeing of an object, whether clear or dim, is alike named seeing. ‘Calculating estimation’ refers to the fact that they are capable of calculating estimation, and are therefore named views. One asks: within the span of a single instant, how can there be calculating estimation? The answer: their own nature being especially keen, they are nonetheless capable of calculating estimation. ‘Firm clinging’ refers to the fact that they are capable of firm clinging, and are therefore named views — this seeing clings, with respect to its object, in a manner perverse and unyielding, incapable of being relinquished except by the sword of noble wisdom; it is only when the Buddha, or a disciple of the Buddha, wields the sword of noble wisdom and severs the very sprout of that view that it can thereby be relinquished — exactly as there exists a sea creature named Śiśumāra, whose bite, once fastened upon a thing, cannot be loosed except by a blade — that is, should it fasten its bite upon grasses, trees, and the like, only by severing the very sprout can it be made to release its hold — as it is said in a verse:

What the fool holds fast to,
what the great fish has seized in its jaws,
what the Śiśumāra has bitten —
none but a blade can loose it.

‘Deep penetration into their object’ refers to the fact that, their own nature being especially keen, they penetrate deeply into their object, exactly as a needle sinks into mud, and are therefore named views. Further, it is on account of two matters that they are named views — first, observant seeing; second, resolute estimation. Further, it is on account of three matters that they are named views — first, possessing the mark of seeing; second, accomplishing their own function; third, being unobstructed with respect to their object. Further, it is on account of three further matters that they are named views — first, intention;

second, attachment; third, thorough investigation. Further, it is on account of yet three further matters that they are named views — first, intention; second, application;

third, ignorance. ‘On account of intention’ refers to one whose own intention is corrupted; ‘on account of application’ refers to one whose own application is corrupted; ‘on account of ignorance’ refers to one in whom both are corrupted. Further, ‘on account of intention’ refers to one who cultivates concentration wrongly; ‘on account of application’ refers to one who investigates wrongly; ‘on account of ignorance’ refers to one who hears the Dharma wrongly.

The general sense of the views has now been explained; their particular senses, one by one, shall now be explained. One asks: why is it named the view of the perishable aggregation of self? The answer: this view operates with respect to an existing body, and is therefore named the view of the perishable aggregation of self. One asks: the other views, too, operate with respect to an existing body — ought they, then, also to be so named? The answer: this view operates with respect to one’s own body, not another’s, and with respect to an existing body, not a non-existing one, and is therefore named the view of the perishable aggregation of self; the other views operate with respect to one’s own body or another’s, and with respect to an existing body or a non-existing one, and are therefore not named the view of the perishable aggregation of self. ‘Operating with respect to one’s own body’ refers to an object belonging to one’s own realm and stage; ‘operating with respect to another’s body’ refers to an object belonging to another’s realm and stage; ‘operating with respect to an existing body’ refers to an object that is contaminated, or an object that is conditioned;

‘operating with respect to a non-existing body’ refers to an object that is uncontaminated, or an object that is unconditioned. One asks: the extreme view, too, operates with respect to one’s own body, not another’s, and with respect to an existing body, not a non-existing one — ought this, then, also to be named the view of the perishable aggregation of self? The answer: though both senses are indeed present, the earlier of the two was what gave rise to the name; the later, separately established name follows a further, distinct sense — that is, this view specifically clings to the two extremes of annihilation and eternalism, and, in accordance with this further sense, it is named the extreme view. Further, this view, operating with respect to an existing body, clings to a self and to what belongs to a self, and is therefore named the view of the perishable aggregation of self; the other views, though they too operate with respect to an existing body, do not cling to a self and to what belongs to a self, and are therefore not so named. Further, this view, operating with respect to an existing body, generates the aspect of a self and of what belongs to a self, and is therefore named the view of the perishable aggregation of self; the other views, though they too operate with respect to an existing body, do not generate the aspect of a self and of what belongs to a self, and are therefore not so named. Further, this view, operating with respect to an existing body, conceives of a self as agent and a self as experiencer, and is therefore named the view of the perishable aggregation of self; the other views, though they too operate with respect to an existing body, do not conceive of a self as agent and a self as experiencer, and are therefore not so named. Further, this view, operating with respect to an existing body, accords with giving, discipline, and cultivation, and is therefore named the view of the perishable aggregation of self; the other views, though they too operate with respect to an existing body, do not accord with giving, discipline, and cultivation, and are therefore not so named. Further, this view, operating with respect to an existing body, does not contradict karma and its fruit, and is therefore named the view of the perishable aggregation of self; the other views, though they too operate with respect to an existing body, do contradict karma and its fruit, and are therefore not so named. The Venerable Vasumitra states as follows: this view operates solely with respect to one’s own body, and is therefore named the view of the perishable aggregation of self — the five appropriated aggregates themselves being named one’s own body. One asks: for what reason are the appropriated aggregates named one’s own body? The answer: because they are made by the power of one’s own causes and conditions, and because they are the fruit obtained through one’s own karma and afflictions. The corresponding question and answer regarding the extreme view should be understood exactly as above. One asks: why is it named the extreme view? The answer: this view clings to two extremes, and is therefore named the extreme view — that is, it operates with respect to the two extremes of annihilation and eternalism, exactly as scripture states: Kātyāyana, if one, through right wisdom, truly knows and sees the arising of the world, one does not cling to the world as non-existent — for to cling to it as non-existent is precisely the view of annihilation, that is, should one, upon seeing a later body arise, thereupon conceive the thought, since this being, having died here, is reborn there, it is surely not annihilation. If one, through right wisdom, truly knows and sees the ceasing of the world, one does not cling to the world as existent — for to cling to it as existent is precisely the view of eternalism, that is, should one, upon seeing the aggregates, elements, and sense fields succeed one another, each distinct from the last, thereupon conceive the thought, since this being both arises and ceases, it is surely not eternal. Further, this view’s own object of clinging is utterly base at the extreme, and is therefore named the extreme view — that is, the outsiders’ own clinging to the existence of a real self is already foolish and vile enough in itself; how much more so their further clinging to that self as annihilated or as eternal, which is not itself base at the extreme? Further, this view’s own object of clinging is utterly distant at the extreme, and is therefore named the extreme view — that is, the outsiders’ own clinging to the existence of a real self is already distant at the extreme from the principle of non-self; how much more so their further clinging to that self as annihilated or as eternal, which is not itself distant at the extreme? Further, this view’s own clinging operates through the aspect of the two extremes, and is therefore named the extreme view — that is, it operates through the aspect of clinging to annihilation and to eternalism, exactly as scripture states: monks, you should know, I do not dispute with the world, but the world disputes with me. One asks: what is the meaning of what this scripture states? The Venerable Vasumitra states as follows:

the World-Honored One definitively speaks of the existence of both cause and fruit — that is, whenever the Buddha encountered an eternalist outsider, who taught that dharmas possess a fruit but no cause, since, lacking a cause, their own nature exists eternally, the World-Honored One would say to him: your claim that there is a fruit, I, too, teach that there is; your claim that there is no cause is a foolish doctrine. Whenever the World-Honored One encountered a nihilist outsider, who taught that dharmas possess a cause but no fruit, since, lacking a fruit, they will come to be utterly annihilated in the future, the World-Honored One would say to him: your claim that there is a cause, I, too, teach that there is; your claim that there is no fruit is a foolish doctrine. The Buddha, with respect to these two doctrines, grants each its own single side, while abandoning both annihilation and eternalism, teaching instead the middle path, and it is for this reason that he states: I do not dispute with the world, but the world disputes with me.

Further, the World-Honored One is one who discourses in accordance with the Dharma, while the outsiders are those who discourse contrary to the Dharma; one who discourses in accordance with the Dharma is, by its very nature, free of dispute,

while one who discourses contrary to the Dharma is, by its very nature, subject to dispute. Further, the Buddha, with respect to worldly convention, accords with the world, while the world, with respect to ultimate truth, does not accord with the Buddha. Further, the World-Honored One has thoroughly cut off the two roots of dispute — the two roots of dispute being craving and view — and, the Buddha having already forever cut these off, it is said that he is free of dispute,

while the world, not having cut these off, is said to be subject to dispute. The Great Virtuous One states: the World-Honored One is one who discourses in accordance with principle, while the outsiders are those who discourse contrary to principle; one who discourses in accordance with principle is, by its very nature, free of dispute, while one who discourses contrary to principle is, by its very nature, subject to dispute — exactly as a horse, traversing a perilous path, takes steps now rising, now falling,

while, traveling a level road, it walks without deviation or error. Further, the Buddha is one who sees meaning, sees the Dharma, sees what is wholesome, and sees with a gentle, subdued nature, and it is for this reason that he is said to be free of dispute, while the world, not being so, is said to be subject to dispute. One asks: why is it named wrong view? The answer: it is because of its erroneous estimation that it is named wrong view. One asks: if so, all five views involve erroneous estimation — why is this one alone spoken of as wrong view? The answer: it is with reference to its own distinct aspect that this name is established — the distinct aspect being that it possesses no positive aspect at all. Were the name not established with reference to this, then all five kinds ought equally to be named wrong view, since all five views involve erroneous estimation; but, since possessing no positive aspect is an especially grave fault, it is with reference to this alone that the name ‘wrong view’ is established. Further, should erroneous estimation also destroy the very basis of action, it is named wrong view; the remaining four views, though involving erroneous estimation, do not destroy the basis of action, and are therefore separately named. Further, should erroneous estimation slander cause and fruit, it is named wrong view; the remaining four views, though involving erroneous estimation, do not slander cause and fruit, and are therefore separately named. Further, should erroneous estimation stand in the utmost contradiction to giving, discipline, and cultivation, it is named wrong view; the other views are not so, and are therefore separately named. Further, should erroneous estimation also slander the perfect awakening of the past, future, and present, and the three refuges, it is named wrong view; the other views are not so, and are therefore separately named. Further, should erroneous estimation destroy the two forms of kindness, it is named wrong view; the other views are not so, and are therefore separately named — the two forms of kindness being the kindness of the Dharma and the kindness of one’s birth. Destroying the kindness of the Dharma refers to denying that there is giving, that there is what is cherished, that there are offerings, that there is virtuous conduct, that there is unwholesome conduct, that there is the ripened fruit of virtuous and unwholesome karma, that there is this world, and that there is another world. Destroying the kindness of one’s birth refers to denying that there is a father, that there is a mother, that there are spontaneously born beings, and that there are truly arhats, rightly attained and rightly conducted, and so on, at length.

Further, should erroneous estimation give rise to two forms of enmity, it is named wrong view; the other views are not so, and are therefore separately named. Giving rise to two forms of enmity refers to:

first, giving rise to enmity toward the Dharma; second, giving rise to enmity toward one’s own birth. Giving rise to enmity toward the Dharma refers to declaring that there is no giving, and so on, at length; giving rise to enmity toward one’s own birth refers to declaring that there is no father and no mother, and so on, at length. Further, should erroneous estimation destroy direct perception itself, it is named wrong view; the other views are not so, and are therefore separately named — exactly as a person, having fallen into a pit of blazing fire, deceives the world by declaring that he experiences pleasure there, a being of wrong view is exactly the same, dwelling amid every manner of suffering aggregate, element, and sense field, with a mind entangled by wrong view, declaring that he experiences no suffering at all — such a declaration as this is named the destruction of direct perception. Further, should erroneous estimation be named savage and evil, it is named wrong view — exactly as scripture states: monks, you should know, whatever bodily karma, verbal karma, intention, aspiration, or conduct belongs to those of wrong view, in accordance with the power of that view, together with every deed of its own kind, is capable of bringing forth a fruit that is unlovable, undesirable, unpleasant, and disagreeable — and for what reason is this so? Because that wrong view is itself a savage and evil view. The remaining four views, though involving erroneous estimation, are not savage and evil, and are therefore separately named. One asks: why is it named view-clinging? The answer: this clings to the views, and is therefore named view-clinging.

One asks: this generally grasps at the five appropriated aggregates — why, then, is it named solely view-clinging? The answer: it is because, on the strength of the views, it generally grasps at the five aggregates, that it is named solely view-clinging. Further, on the strength of what aspect is the name view-clinging established? The answer: whether one grasps at a view, or grasps at another aggregate, holding it to be supreme, the name view-clinging is established. Further, this ought properly to be named the clinging of view and the rest; omitting the word ‘and the rest,’ it is named solely view-clinging. Further, this predominantly grasps at views, and is therefore named view-clinging. One asks: why is it named clinging to rules and vows? The answer: this clings to rules and vows, and is therefore named clinging to rules and vows. One asks: this generally grasps at the five appropriated aggregates — why, then, is it named solely clinging to rules and vows? The answer: it is because, on the strength of rules and vows, it generally grasps at the five aggregates, that it is named solely clinging to rules and vows. Further, it is on the strength of its own aspect that it is named clinging to rules and vows — that is, whether one clings to rules and vows, or clings to another aggregate, holding it to be capable of purification, it is named clinging to rules and vows. Further, this view ought properly to be named the clinging of rules and vows and the rest; omitting the word ‘and the rest,’ it is named solely clinging to rules and vows. Further, this predominantly clings to rules and vows, and is therefore named clinging to rules and vows. One asks: why are both of these two views alike named ‘clinging’? The answer: it is because both of these views operate through the aspect of grasping and clinging that both alike are named ‘clinging’ — that is, the view of the perishable aggregation of self clings to a self and to what belongs to a self, the extreme view clings to annihilation or to eternalism, and wrong view clings to non-existence; grasping at these views, holding them to be supreme, it is therefore named view-clinging; grasping at rules and vows, holding them capable of attaining purity, it is therefore named clinging to rules and vows. Further, the first three views, their own power and function of estimating their object being especially keen, are therefore named ‘view’; the latter two, their own power and function of clinging to and appropriating their object being especially keen, are therefore named ‘clinging.’

There are six bodies of craving — namely, the body of craving born of eye-contact, and the bodies of craving born of ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact. Craving of this kind might equally be spoken of as a single kind — as, among the nine fetters, the craving belonging to all three realms is jointly established as a single fetter of craving. Or it might be spoken of as two kinds — as, among the seven latent tendencies, the craving of the desire realm is established as the latent tendency of desire-craving, and the craving of the form and formless realms is established as the latent tendency of existence-craving. Or it might be spoken of as three kinds — as scripture states, monks, you should know, the three rivers of craving are precisely the craving belonging to the three realms. Or it might be spoken of as four kinds — as scripture states, there are monks and nuns who, on account of robes, on account of food and drink, on account of bedding, and on account of existence or non-existence, give rise to craving as it arises, abide in it as it abides, and cling to it as it clings. Or it might be spoken of as five kinds — namely, the craving abandoned by seeing suffering, its arising, its ceasing, the path, and by cultivation. Or it might be spoken of as nine kinds — namely, the craving ranging from the highest of the high grades down to the lowest of the low grades. Or it might be spoken of as eighteen kinds — as in the eighteen modes of craving. Or it might be spoken of as thirty-six kinds — as in the thirty-six modes of craving.

Or it might be spoken of as one hundred and eight kinds — as in the one hundred and eight modes of craving. And, were one to distinguish craving by each single moment present within the body, there would be craving beyond all measure. One asks: for what reason does the World-Honored One, at times, elaborate craving as a single kind and the rest, and, at times, abbreviate its immeasurable kinds and the rest, speaking instead of six bodies of craving? The answer: this is with reference to its basis — that is, from a single kind of craving up through its immeasurable kinds, there is none that does not depend upon the six roots, the six gateways, the six stairways, the six ladders, the six tracks, the six pathways, and the six assemblies, issuing forth in correspondence with the six consciousnesses, and it is for this reason that only six are spoken of. One asks: hatred and ignorance, too, depend upon the six roots, and are elaborated at length, up through their correspondence with the six consciousnesses — for what reason, then, does the World-Honored One speak of six bodies of craving, yet does not speak of six bodies of hatred or six bodies of ignorance? The answer: these, too, ought properly to be so spoken of, and that they are not so spoken of should be understood as a matter of surplus meaning left implicit. Further, having already spoken of the bodies of craving, one should understand that the bodies of hatred and of ignorance, too, are thereby spoken of, since their own basis and the rest are the same. Further, craving spans all three realms and operates independently, pervading all six consciousnesses, and is therefore spoken of as a body; hatred, though it too operates independently, pervading all six consciousnesses, does not span all three realms, while ignorance, though it too spans all three realms, does not operate independently, pervading all six consciousnesses, and it is for this reason that these are not spoken of as bodies. Further, craving spans all three realms, operates independently, pervading all six consciousnesses, and is capable of manifesting in both the ordinary being and the noble one alike, and is therefore spoken of as a body; hatred, though it too operates independently, pervading all six consciousnesses, and is capable of manifesting in both the ordinary being and the noble one alike, does not span all three realms, while ignorance, though it too spans all three realms, and is capable of manifesting in both the ordinary being and the noble one alike, does not operate independently, pervading all six consciousnesses, and it is for this reason that these are not spoken of as bodies. Further, craving is capable of distinguishing every realm, every stage, and every section, and is likewise capable of increasing and augmenting every affliction whatsoever, and is therefore established as a body;

hatred and ignorance, possessing no such matter, are therefore not spoken of as bodies. One asks: why are they named bodies? The answer: it is because of the accumulation of manifold cravings that they are named bodies — that is, it is not a single moment’s craving born of eye-contact that is named the body of craving born of eye-contact; only a multitude of moments of craving born of eye-contact together are named the body of craving born of eye-contact, and so on, up through the body of craving born of mind-contact, in just the same way — exactly as a single elephant, standing alone, is not named an elephant army; only a multitude of elephants gathered together are named an elephant army, and the cavalry and infantry should be understood in just the same way. It is for this reason that only a multitude of cravings is named a body of craving. One asks: the view of the perishable aggregation of self and the rest, too, are subject to manifold accumulation — ought these, too, then, to be named bodies? Why is craving alone so spoken of? The answer: the view of the perishable aggregation of self and the rest, too, ought properly to be named bodies, and that they are not so spoken of should be understood as a matter of surplus meaning left implicit. Further, the view of the perishable aggregation of self and the rest belong solely to the mental stage, not to the five sense-consciousnesses, and are therefore not named bodies. One asks: shamelessness, lack of moral dread, torpor, and restlessness, too, pervade all six consciousnesses — why, then, are these not named bodies? The answer: these, too, ought properly to be named bodies, and that they are not so spoken of should be understood as a matter of surplus meaning left implicit. Further, it was already stated above that what spans all three realms and operates independently, pervading all six consciousnesses, is spoken of as a body; torpor and restlessness, though they span all three realms, do not operate independently, pervading all six consciousnesses, and are therefore not to be named bodies; shamelessness and lack of moral dread, lacking both of these two senses, are therefore not so named. Further, the latent tendency, being subtle in nature, with its own power and function increasingly strengthened, may be named a body; the entanglement and the defilement, being coarse and agitated, with their own power and function feeble, are therefore not so named. Further, it was already stated above that craving alone is capable of distinguishing every realm, every stage, and every section, and is therefore spoken of as a body; the view of the perishable aggregation of self and the rest, possessing no such sense, are not even named bodies — how much less the entanglements and defilements.