The Bird's Shadow on the Water

There are seven latent tendencies — namely, the latent tendency of desire-craving, the latent tendency of hatred, the latent tendency of existence-craving, the latent tendency of conceit, the latent tendency of ignorance, the latent tendency of view, and the latent tendency of doubt. One asks: what is the inherent nature of these seven latent tendencies? The answer: they have ninety-eight factors as their inherent nature — that is, the latent tendencies of desire-craving and hatred each span the five sections of the desire realm, making ten factors; the latent tendency of existence-craving spans the five sections within each of the form and formless realms, making ten factors; the latent tendencies of conceit and ignorance each span the five sections within all three realms, making thirty factors; the latent tendency of view spans twelve within each of the three realms, making thirty-six factors; and the latent tendency of doubt spans the four sections within each of the three realms, making twelve factors — and it is on this account that these seven latent tendencies have ninety-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 latent tendencies? What is the meaning of ‘latent tendency’? The answer: the sense of subtlety, the sense of increasing, and the sense of following-and-binding — these are the meaning of ‘latent tendency.’ That the sense of subtlety is the meaning of latent tendency refers to the fact that the aspect of these seven — desire-craving and the rest — is itself especially subtle, exactly as seven ultimate atoms together compose a single subtle particle of matter. That the sense of increasing is the meaning of latent tendency refers to the fact that these seven — desire-craving and the rest — universally increase with respect to every subtle contaminated thing whatsoever, down to a single ultimate atom, or within the span of a single instant, these seven — desire-craving and the rest — all increase there. That the sense of following-and-binding is the meaning of latent tendency refers to the fact that it follows exactly as a bird's shadow follows it through the sky, or as a fish follows something through the water — a bird flying refers to a bird in flight; a fish swimming refers to a fish in water. Should a bird, relying on the strength of its own wings, seek to cross a great ocean, a fish within the water, skillfully reading the signs, might reason as follows: no bird in flight is capable of crossing this great ocean, save only the swift and mighty king of garuḍas —

and, thereupon pursuing its shadow, waits until the bird tires and falls into the water, at which point the fish swallows it. Latent tendencies operate in just this way — in every state, they forever obtain manifestation and irrational attention; and, once they have manifested before the mind, one thereupon receives an outflow-fruit or a ripened fruit. Further, that the sense of subtlety is the meaning of latent tendency is spoken with reference to their own inherent nature; that the sense of increasing is the meaning of latent tendency is spoken with reference to their function; that the sense of following-and-binding is the meaning of latent tendency is spoken with reference to their own possession. Further, that the sense of subtlety is the meaning of latent tendency is spoken with reference to their own inherent nature; that the sense of increasing is the meaning of latent tendency is spoken with reference to the mental continuum;

that the sense of following-and-binding is the meaning of latent tendency is spoken with reference to the firmness of habitual energy. Further, that the sense of subtlety is the meaning of latent tendency is spoken with reference to a past latent tendency; that the sense of increasing is the meaning of latent tendency is spoken with reference to a present latent tendency; that the sense of following-and-binding is the meaning of latent tendency is spoken with reference to a future latent tendency. Further, that the sense of subtlety is the meaning of latent tendency is spoken with reference to their aspect; that the sense of increasing is the meaning of latent tendency is spoken with reference to their binding of an object; that the sense of following-and-binding is the meaning of latent tendency is spoken with reference to their binding through association. Further, that the sense of subtlety and the sense of increasing are the meaning of latent tendency is spoken with reference to an associated latent tendency; that the sense of following-and-binding is the meaning of latent tendency is spoken with reference to a dissociated latent tendency. One asks: latent tendencies are all associated with mind and the rest — how, then, can it be said that this is spoken with reference to what is dissociated? The answer: here, it is with reference to possession that the name latent tendency is established, since one possesses the latent tendency, and it is therefore named a latent tendency. The masters of the outer regions state as follows: it is on account of four matters that they are named latent tendencies — namely, the sense of subtlety, the sense of penetrating entry, the sense of increasing, and the sense of following-and-binding — these are the meaning of latent tendency. That the sense of subtlety is the meaning of latent tendency refers to the fact that the own-nature and aspect of desire-craving and the rest are both especially subtle. That the sense of penetrating entry is the meaning of latent tendency refers to the fact that desire-craving and the rest penetrate into the mental continuum with nothing left uncovered, exactly as oil pervades sesame seed, or fat pervades a lump of meat, with nothing left uncovered. That the sense of increasing is the meaning of latent tendency refers to the fact that desire-craving and the rest, within the mental continuum, increase progressively, exactly as an infant grows through its wet-nurse. That the sense of following-and-binding is the meaning of latent tendency refers to the fact that

it follows exactly as a bird's shadow follows it through the sky, or as a fish follows something through the water. Further, that the sense of subtlety is the meaning of latent tendency is spoken with reference to their own inherent nature; that the sense of penetrating entry is the meaning of latent tendency is spoken with reference to association; that the sense of increasing is the meaning of latent tendency is spoken with reference to their aspect; that the sense of following-and-binding is the meaning of latent tendency is spoken with reference to their own possession. One should know the latent tendencies through three matters — first, through their own inherent nature; second, through their fruit; third, through the person. Through their own inherent nature: the latent tendency of desire-craving is like eating a fragrant lotus-root; the latent tendency of hatred is like eating something pungent and biting; the latent tendency of existence-craving is like a wet-nurse's own garment; the latent tendency of conceit is like a haughty, arrogant person; the latent tendency of ignorance is like one who is blind; the latent tendency of view is like one who has lost the way; the latent tendency of doubt is like one standing at a forked road. Through their fruit: should the latent tendency of desire-craving be habituated, cultivated, and much practiced, one will be reborn among pigeons, sparrows, mandarin ducks, and the like; should the latent tendency of hatred be habituated, cultivated, and much practiced, one will be reborn among bees, scorpions, poisonous snakes, and the like; should the latent tendency of existence-craving be habituated, cultivated, and much practiced, one will be reborn within the form or formless realms; should the latent tendency of conceit be habituated, cultivated, and much practiced, one will be reborn into a lowly, base lineage; should the latent tendency of ignorance be habituated, cultivated, and much practiced, one will be reborn into a foolish, blind lineage; should the latent tendency of view be habituated, cultivated, and much practiced, one will be reborn into a lineage of outsiders; should the latent tendency of doubt be habituated, cultivated, and much practiced, one will be reborn into a remote, uncivilized lineage. Through the person: the latent tendency of desire-craving is exemplified by Nanda and the like; the latent tendency of hatred is exemplified by the raging Aṅgulimāla and the like; the latent tendency of existence-craving is exemplified by Ārāḍa Kālāma, Udraka Rāmaputra, and the like; the latent tendency of conceit is exemplified by proud ascetics and the like; the latent tendency of ignorance is exemplified by Uruvilvā Kāśyapa and the like; the latent tendency of view is exemplified by Sunakṣatra and the like; the latent tendency of doubt is exemplified by Māluṅkyaputra and the like. One asks: why are envy and stinginess not established as latent tendencies? The answer: these two possess no mark of a latent tendency whatsoever.

Further, latent tendencies are subtle, while these two are coarse and agitated. Further, latent tendencies are light and slight, while these two are especially heavy. Further, latent tendencies are keen and sharp, while these two occur again and again. Further, latent tendencies are root afflictions, while these two are but the outflow of affliction — that is, envy is the outflow of hatred,

and stinginess is the outflow of desire-craving. Further, a latent tendency's own habitual energy is firm and lasting, exactly as, when timber from a mountainside is burned upon a given plot of ground, that ground remains hot for a long while even after the fire has been extinguished; these two possess no such firm and lasting habitual energy, exactly as, when grass or birch-bark is burned upon a given plot of ground, that ground grows cold the very moment the fire is extinguished.

Further, a latent tendency is difficult to subdue, while these two are easily subdued, and it is for this reason that these two are not established as latent tendencies. The remaining entanglements and defilements should be understood, by analogy with these two, in just the same way.

There are nine fetters — namely, the fetter of craving, the fetter of hatred, the fetter of conceit, the fetter of ignorance, the fetter of view, the fetter of grasping, the fetter of doubt, the fetter of envy, and the fetter of stinginess. One asks: what is the inherent nature of these nine fetters? The answer: they have one hundred factors as their inherent nature — that is, the fetters of craving, conceit, and ignorance each span the five sections within all three realms, making forty-five factors; the fetter of hatred belongs solely to the five sections of the desire realm, making five factors; the fetter of view has eighteen factors — 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, while wrong view spans the four sections within each of the three realms, making twelve factors; and the fetter of grasping has eighteen factors —

that is, view-clinging spans the four sections within each of the three realms, making twelve factors, while clinging to rules and vows belongs to what is abandoned by seeing suffering and the path within each of the three realms, making six factors; the fetter of doubt spans the four sections within each of the three realms, making twelve factors; and the fetters of envy and 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 nine fetters have one hundred 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.’ Everything else has already been explained at length within the discussion of the three fetters. The general sense of the fetters having now been treated, their own particular inherent natures, one by one, shall now be explained at length. What is the fetter of craving? It refers to the craving belonging to all three realms — this craving belonging to all three realms being, among the nine fetters, jointly established as a single fetter of craving; among the seven latent tendencies, it is established as two latent tendencies, that is, the craving of the desire realm is named the latent tendency of desire-craving, and the craving of the form and formless realms is named the latent tendency of existence-craving; and, within other scriptures, it is established as three cravings, namely, craving for the desire realm, craving for the form realm, and craving for the formless realm. One asks: what is the distinction among these three approaches? The answer: those whom the World-Honored One converts possess faculties of three grades — for those of sharp faculties, he speaks of a single fetter of craving; for those of middling faculties, he speaks of two latent tendencies; for those of dull faculties, he speaks of craving belonging to the three realms. Further, those whom the World-Honored One converts possess three kinds of cultivation — for those newly taking up the practice, he speaks of a single fetter of craving; for those already accomplished in cultivation, he speaks of two latent tendencies; for those who have transcended mere attention, he speaks of craving belonging to the three realms. Further, those whom the World-Honored One converts possess three kinds of preference —

for those who prefer brevity, he speaks of a single fetter of craving; for those who prefer elaboration, he speaks of craving belonging to the three realms; and for those who prefer both brevity and elaboration, he speaks of two latent tendencies. Further, the sense of joining to suffering is the meaning of fetter — since the craving belonging to all three realms alike joins sentient beings to suffering, not to pleasure, a single fetter of craving is thereby established. The sense of increasing is the meaning of latent tendency — since the desire realm's own craving increases through an external gateway, while the form and formless realms' own craving increases through an internal gateway, two latent tendencies are thereby established. The sense of being defiled by an object is the meaning of craving — since the objects one is defiled by and attached to differ between the desire, form, and formless realms, craving belonging to the three realms is thereby established. What is the fetter of hatred? It refers to the wish to injure a sentient being. One asks: if one also wishes to injure a non-sentient thing, this, too, ought to be hatred — why, then, is this not spoken of? The answer: this is spoken with reference to what predominates, that is, this fetter of hatred, for the most part, wishes to injure a sentient being, and only rarely a non-sentient thing, and it is for this reason that this is not spoken of. Further, this is spoken with reference to what is grave, that is, the offense of wishing to injure a sentient being is especially grave, unlike that of a non-sentient thing, and it is for this reason that this is not spoken of. Further, this is spoken with reference to the root case, that is, this fetter of hatred must first wish to injure a sentient being, and only afterward comes to arise with respect to a non-sentient thing as well, and it is for this reason that this is not spoken of. Further, this is spoken with reference to conception, that is, should hatred arise with respect to a non-sentient thing, the conception of a sentient being arises there as well, and it is for this reason that this passage speaks only of its arising with respect to a sentient being. What is the fetter of conceit? It refers to the seven kinds of conceit — first, conceit; second, excessive conceit; third, conceit exceeding conceit; fourth, self-conceit; fifth, overweening conceit; sixth, deficient conceit; seventh, wrong conceit. Conceit refers to holding, with respect to one's inferior, that one is superior, or, with respect to one's equal, that one is equal, thereby causing the mind to become elevated. Excessive conceit refers to holding, with respect to one's equal, that one is superior, or, with respect to one's superior, that one is equal, thereby causing the mind to become elevated. Conceit exceeding conceit refers to holding, with respect to one's superior, that one is superior, thereby causing the mind to become elevated. Self-conceit refers to holding, with respect to the five appropriated aggregates, that they are a self or belong to a self, thereby causing the mind to become elevated. Overweening conceit refers to holding, with respect to a superior quality not yet attained, that one has already attained it, thereby causing the mind to become elevated. Deficient conceit refers to holding, with respect to another who greatly surpasses oneself, that one is only slightly inferior, thereby causing the mind to become elevated. Wrong conceit refers to holding, with respect to one who in truth possesses no quality whatsoever, that one possesses such a quality. These seven kinds of conceit are together named the fetter of conceit. What is the fetter of ignorance?

It refers to the ignorance belonging to all three realms — this being a well-stated definition, since, were it instead stated as ignorance taking all three realms as its object, this would then fail to subsume the ignorance that takes the uncontaminated as its object. What is the fetter of view? It refers to the three views — namely, the view of the perishable aggregation of self, the extreme view, and wrong view — together named the fetter of view. What is the fetter of grasping? It refers to the two graspings — namely, view-clinging and clinging to rules and vows — together named the fetter of grasping.

One asks: why, among the five views, are three established as the fetter of view, while two are established as the fetter of grasping? The answer: at the time of their joining to suffering, this is on account of their grammatical gender being alike,

that is, the first three views alike carry a feminine grammatical name, while the latter two alike carry a masculine grammatical name, since ‘view’ is a feminine-gender term, while ‘grasping’ is a masculine-gender term. Further, at the time of their joining to suffering, this is on account of their factors being equal in number, that is, the fetter of view and the fetter of grasping each subsume eighteen factors. Further, this is likewise on account of their subsumed latent tendencies being equal in number, that is, the fetter of view and the fetter of grasping each subsume eighteen among the ninety-eight latent tendencies. Further, the first three views involve estimation but not appropriation, and are therefore jointly established as the fetter of view; the latter two views involve both estimation and appropriation, and are therefore jointly established as the fetter of grasping. Further, the first three views alike estimate their object, and are therefore jointly established as the fetter of view; the latter two views alike estimate a view, and are therefore jointly established as the fetter of grasping. What is the fetter of doubt? It refers to hesitation with respect to the truths. One asks: why does this passage speak of hesitation specifically with respect to the truths? The answer: it is in order to bring the one who doubts to a settled resolution.

Suppose a person, seeing some upright object at a distance, gives rise to hesitation: is it a post, or is it a person? Or suppose the object is indeed a person: is it male, or is it female? Or suppose one sees two roads and gives rise to hesitation: is this the road to be traveled, or is it not? Or suppose one sees two robes or two bowls and likewise gives rise to hesitation: is this mine, or does it belong to another? Should one doubt whether such cases as these are the true fetter of doubt, it is in order to bring that very doubt to a settled resolution that this passage now makes clear that such hesitation is merely, by its own nature, an unobscured, indeterminate false cognition belonging to the desire realm, and not the true fetter of doubt at all — the true fetter of doubt being hesitation with respect to the four truths of suffering and the rest. What is the fetter of envy? It refers to a mind of jealous resentment. What is the fetter of stinginess? It refers to a mind of miserly guardedness. One asks: why does this passage speak of the distinct characteristics of these two? The answer: it is in order to bring the one who doubts to a settled resolution, that is, worldly people mistake envy for stinginess, and mistake stinginess for envy. Mistaking envy for stinginess: as when, seeing another obtain something good, one's own mind gives rise to jealous resentment, and one thereupon mistakes this for stinginess — yet, in truth, jealous resentment is envy, not stinginess. Mistaking stinginess for envy: as when, seeing another guard his own wife and the like with miserly care, one thereupon mistakes this for envy — yet, in truth, miserly guardedness is stinginess, not envy. It is in order to bring that doubt to a settled resolution that this passage speaks of the distinct characteristics of envy and stinginess. One asks: why, among the ten entanglements, are only stinginess and envy established as fetters? The answer: it is only these two entanglements that possess the mark of a fetter; the rest, possessing no mark of a fetter, are therefore not established as fetters. Further, it is in order to reveal the first through the latter that only these two are spoken of —

that is, among the ten entanglements, envy and stinginess are placed last; and, by speaking of the last two as fetters, the first eight are thereby already made manifest. Further, it is because envy and stinginess alone stand independent and free of the two that they are established as fetters, unlike the remaining entanglements — ‘standing independent’ referring to manifesting through their own power alone; ‘free of the two’ referring to being solely and exclusively unwholesome. Anger and concealment, though these two entanglements are likewise capable of standing independent and are likewise free of the two, nonetheless resemble a latent tendency, and are thereby overshadowed and eclipsed by the very mark of a latent tendency, their own mark failing to become manifest, and are therefore not established as fetters — it is on this very account that the masters of the outer regions state that these two are, in fact, of the nature of a latent tendency. Torpor and restlessness, being incapable of standing independent, arising instead through another's power, are likewise not free of the two, being either unwholesome or indeterminate. Drowsiness and worry, though they too stand independent, are not free of the two, since drowsiness spans the wholesome, the unwholesome, and the indeterminate, and worry, too, spans the wholesome and the unwholesome by its own nature. Shamelessness and lack of moral dread, though free of the two, do not stand independent. It is only envy and stinginess that stand independent and are free of the two, differing thereby from the mark of a latent tendency, and it is for this reason that they alone are established as fetters. Further, it is because envy and stinginess are the most base and contemptible, deeply worthy of loathing and censure, that they are established as fetters. Further, it is because envy and stinginess are, by their own nature, especially sordid and corrupt, standing in opposition to right principle, that they are established as fetters — that is, another's own flourishing and superiority brings no loss whatsoever to oneself; for what reason, then, does one give rise to baseless jealous resentment toward him? And though one might amass a hundred thousand precious treasures, one is, in the end, incapable of carrying even a single coin onward into the next life; for what reason, then, does one obstinately guard one's own possessions with miserly care, refusing to give to another? Further, it is on account of two dharmas that sentient beings, within birth and death, undergo manifold disgrace and humiliation — first, lacking authority and virtue; second, being utterly impoverished. Lacking authority and virtue comes from abundant jealous resentment; being utterly impoverished comes from abundant miserly stinginess. Should one lack authority and virtue and be utterly impoverished, even one's own father and mother, brothers, wife and children, and servants will hold one in contempt — how much more so those who are not one's own kin? It is for this reason that, among the ten entanglements, these two alone are established as fetters. Further, envy and stinginess, with respect to sentient beings of the desire realm, are exactly like a prison's own jailers and its patrolling guards — exactly as when a condemned man is confined within a prison, two jailers guard him, never permitting him to escape,

while a further park, cleanly kept and beautifully adorned, is likewise guarded by two men, never permitting entry into it — the prison being likened to the evil destinies, and the park being likened to the human and heavenly destinies, the jailers and the patrolling guards being likened to envy and stinginess. That sentient beings of the desire realm remain confined within the prison of the evil destinies, unable to escape, and are further denied entry into the park of the human and heavenly destinies, is on account of the obstruction of these two fetters, envy and stinginess — exactly as scripture states: at that time, Śakra, lord of the gods, went to where the Buddha was, and put to him this question: on account of which fetter is it that gods, humans, nāgas, and asuras and the rest so often wage war? The World-Honored One told him: on account of envy and stinginess. One asks: sentient beings of every kind either possess all nine fetters, or six, or three, or none whatsoever — those who possess all nine are the ordinary beings still fully bound; those who possess six are the ordinary beings already free of the desire realm's own defilement, and the noble ones not yet free of the desire realm's own defilement; those who possess three are the noble ones already free of the desire realm's own defilement; and those possessing none whatsoever are the arhats, who possess neither these two fetters nor even a single one. For what reason, then, does the Buddha say that it is on account of envy and stinginess that gods, humans, nāgas, and the rest so often wage war? The answer: that scripture speaks only of what those of wealth and eminence so often actually manifest, not of what they possess — that is, Śakra, foremost among the two classes of gods, so often wages war with the asura hosts on account of envy and stinginess, and it is for this reason that this passage speaks only of these two fetters. Further, it is in order to rebuke Śakra himself that the Buddha speaks of these two fetters within that scripture — that is, among the gods there is the flavor of sudhā, surpassing anything the asuras possess, while, within the asura palaces, there are maidens of surpassing beauty, surpassing anything the gods possess; the gods, stingy over their own flavor, envy the asuras' beautiful women, while the asuras, stingy over their own women, envy the gods' fine flavor — the gods, for the sake of beautiful women, go to the asuras' own dwelling, and the asuras, for the sake of fine flavor, in turn go to the gods' own palace, and it is for this reason that the gods and the asuras, on account of the fetters of envy and stinginess, so often wage war. At that time, Śakra and the asuras, having only just finished doing battle, his own mind still fearful, came to where the Buddha was, and put to him this very question: on account of which fetter is it that gods, humans, nāgas, and asuras and the rest so often wage war? — his own intent being to ask on account of which fetter the gods and the asuras so often wage war with one another. It is for this reason that the Buddha told him: on account of envy and stinginess — the Buddha's own intent being to tell him: you gods, and you asuras, so often wage war on account of the fetters of envy and stinginess,

and it is for this reason that envy and stinginess are your own affliction, and your own heavy burden as well, injuring you, and that you ought swiftly to relinquish them. One asks: why are the six defilements not fetters? The answer: their own mark is coarse and agitated — whatever mark is subtle, its binding firm and lasting, may be established as a fetter; the defilements' own mark is coarse and agitated, their binding not firm, and it is for this reason that they are not established as fetters.

There are ninety-eight latent tendencies — namely, thirty-six latent tendencies bound to the desire realm, and thirty-one latent tendencies bound to each of the form and formless realms.

This, then, has ninety-eight factors as its own inherent nature; the name and meaning of latent tendency have already been explained above. One asks: for what reason does this passage speak of these ninety-eight latent tendencies? The answer: it is simply because the treatise's own author intended it so — since the root treatise's own master composes his treatise according to his own intent, without contradicting the true characteristics of the dharmas, and this ought not to be pressed as an objection. Further, it is in order to check the intent of those monks attached to the mere letter of the text — that is, there are monks who, clinging to the letter, departing from what scripture itself states, would never dare to speak further, saying: who possesses wisdom surpassing the Buddha's own? The Buddha spoke only of seven kinds of latent tendency — how, then, can one forcibly augment this to ninety-eight? It is in order to check this very intent that the seven latent tendencies are here elaborated into ninety-eight — that is, with reference to their distinctions of aspect, realm, and section. Among the seven latent tendencies, the latent tendency of desire-craving, on account of its distinction of section, becomes five; the latent tendency of hatred, likewise. The latent tendency of existence-craving, on account of its distinction of realm, becomes two; on account of its distinction of section, becomes five; on account of both distinctions of realm and section, becomes ten. The latent tendency of conceit, on account of its distinction of realm, becomes three; on account of its distinction of section, becomes five; on account of both distinctions of realm and section, becomes fifteen — the latent tendency of ignorance, likewise. The latent tendency of view, on account of its distinction of realm, becomes three; on account of its distinction of aspect, becomes five; on account of its distinction of section, becomes twelve; on account of the distinctions of aspect, realm, and section together, becomes thirty-six. The latent tendency of doubt, on account of its distinction of realm, becomes three; on account of its distinction of section, becomes four; on account of both distinctions of realm and section, becomes twelve. It is for this reason that the seven latent tendencies, on account of their distinctions of aspect, realm, and section, become the ninety-eight latent tendencies — and, though elaborated or abbreviated, they differ in this respect alone, their own essential nature remaining undifferentiated.

Of the three fetters, up through the ninety-eight latent tendencies, how many are unwholesome, and how many indeterminate? One asks: for what reason is this discourse composed? The answer: it is in order to check other schools' own tenets and to make manifest the correct meaning — that is, there are those who say that every affliction whatsoever is unwholesome, since it is held together by a lack of skillful means, as the Dārṣṭāntikas maintain; it is in order to check this very intent that this passage makes manifest that, among the afflictions, some are unwholesome and some are indeterminate. Were it the case that afflictions are unwholesome simply because they are held together by a lack of skillful means, then this very lack of skillful means itself ought not to be unwholesome, since it is not held together by a further lack of skillful means — this lack of skillful means being precisely ignorance itself, and ‘held together’ carrying the sense of association, and a thing's own essence not being associated with itself — and it is for this reason that this lack of skillful means ought not to be unwholesome. There are further those who wish to hold that every affliction of the desire realm is unwholesome, while every affliction of the form and formless realms is indeterminate; it is in order to check this very intent that this passage makes manifest that the desire realm's own view of the perishable aggregation of self and extreme view, together with the ignorance associated with them, are likewise indeterminate. There are yet others who say:

this passage is composed in order to display the meaning of its own gateway — that is, it was already stated above, why is it that a chapter-heading is established first, here? It is in order to display the meaning of the various gateways, since, were no chapter-heading established, the meaning of the gateway would have no means of becoming manifest, exactly as a painter is incapable of painting upon empty space; the chapter-heading having now been established, the meaning of the gateway ought now to be displayed. The answer: among the three fetters, one is indeterminate — namely, the view of the perishable aggregation of self. One asks: for what reason is the view of the perishable aggregation of self indeterminate? The answer: whatever dharma is, by its own nature, shamelessness or lack of moral dread, or is associated with shamelessness or lack of moral dread, or is the co-arisen or outflow fruit of shamelessness or lack of moral dread, is unwholesome; the view of the perishable aggregation of self is not, by its own nature, shamelessness or lack of moral dread, is not associated with shamelessness or lack of moral dread, and is not the co-arisen or outflow fruit of shamelessness or lack of moral dread, and is therefore indeterminate. Further, this view of the perishable aggregation of self does not wholly corrupt one's own intention, and is therefore not unwholesome, since it is not associated with shamelessness or lack of moral dread, and therefore does not wholly corrupt one's own intention. Further, this view does not contradict giving, discipline, and cultivation, that is, one who clings to a self reasons as follows: through giving, I shall become wealthy and content; through upholding discipline, I shall be reborn in heaven; through cultivating concentration, I shall attain liberation —

and it is for this reason that it is indeterminate. Further, this view of the perishable aggregation of self is confused solely about one's own body, and does not oppress or trouble another, and it is for this reason that it is indeterminate — that is, one who clings to a self, upon seeing form with the eye, declares, I see form; this form is mine, and so on, at length, up through, upon cognizing a dharma with the mind, declares, I cognize this dharma; this dharma is mine — though, with respect to his own body, he holds this inverted view, he does not thereby trouble another, and it is for this reason that it is indeterminate. Further, this view of the perishable aggregation of self has no ripened fruit, and it is for this reason that it is indeterminate. The Venerable Vasumitra states as follows: this view of the perishable aggregation of self is incapable of giving rise to coarse bodily or verbal karma, and it is for this reason that it is indeterminate. One asks: some unwholesome afflictions, too, are incapable of giving rise to coarse bodily or verbal karma — ought these, then, also to be indeterminate? The answer: greed, hatred, delusion, and conceit, once increased to their fullest, are certainly capable of giving rise to coarse bodily or verbal karma; this view of the perishable aggregation of self, even once increased to its fullest, remains incapable of giving rise to coarse bodily or verbal karma, and it is for this reason that it is indeterminate. Further, this view of the perishable aggregation of self does not cause sentient beings to fall into the evil destinies, and it is for this reason that it is indeterminate. One asks: some unwholesome afflictions, too, do not cause a fall into the evil destinies — ought these, then, also to be indeterminate? The answer: an unwholesome affliction, once increased to its fullest, certainly causes sentient beings to fall into the evil destinies; this view of the perishable aggregation of self, even once increased to its fullest, never causes a fall into the evil destinies, and it is for this reason that it is indeterminate. Further, this view is incapable of bringing forth an undesirable fruit, and it is for this reason that it is indeterminate. One asks: since this view causes the continued succession of further existence, and further existence is itself subsumed within the undesirable fruit, how can it be incapable of bringing forth an undesirable fruit? As scripture states: monks, you should know, I have never once praised the arising of further existence — for what reason is this so? Because, should even a single instant of further existence arise, this constitutes an increase of suffering, and suffering is itself subsumed within the undesirable fruit.

The answer: the undesirable fruit spoken of here belongs to the class of suffering-of-suffering; the undesirable fruit spoken of by that scripture spans all three classes of suffering. This view of the perishable aggregation of self causes the continued succession of existence, which does not belong to the class of suffering-of-suffering, and no contradiction therefore follows. Further, though this view of the perishable aggregation of self does give rise to further existence, which serves as the root of suffering-of-suffering and is spoken of as an increase of suffering, it does not thereby serve as a ripening cause for that suffering, and it is for this reason that it is indeterminate. The Great Virtuous One states as follows: this view of the perishable aggregation of self is an inverted clinging, an unsettling error, and a species of stupidity, and is therefore unwholesome — were the view of the perishable aggregation of self not unwholesome, what further dharma could then be named unwholesome, exactly as the World-Honored One states, up through stupidity itself, all these are unwholesome? This statement is not tenable, since not serving as a ripening cause is not the criterion at issue — were the view of the perishable aggregation of self entirely unwholesome, the form and formless realms would then possess suffering-of-suffering; yet, when the World-Honored One states that, up through stupidity itself, all these are unwholesome, this is spoken with reference to their lacking skillful means, not to their capacity to bring forth an undesirable fruit. Two require distinction — namely, clinging to rules and vows and the fetter of doubt are either unwholesome or indeterminate. One asks: what is the sense of ‘requiring distinction’? The answer: it is because they require analysis that they are said to require distinction, that is, of these latter two fetters, one portion is unwholesome and one portion is indeterminate, and it is for this reason that they require distinction. The Vibhajyavādins state as follows: the two fetters in question ought to be answered as requiring distinction, not as uniformly one or the other, and it is for this reason that it is said that these two require distinction — that is, these two fetters, within the desire realm, are unwholesome, while, within the form and formless realms, they are indeterminate. One asks: for what reason are the form and formless realms' own afflictions indeterminate? The answer: whatever dharma is, by its own nature, shamelessness or lack of moral dread, or is associated with shamelessness or lack of moral dread, or is the co-arisen or outflow fruit of shamelessness or lack of moral dread, is unwholesome; the form and formless realms' own afflictions are not so, and are therefore indeterminate. Further, the form and formless realms' own afflictions do not wholly corrupt one's own intention, and are therefore not unwholesome, since, not being associated with shamelessness or lack of moral dread, they do not wholly corrupt one's own intention. Further, the form and formless realms' own afflictions have no ripened fruit, and are therefore indeterminate. One asks, a further question arising from this discussion: for what reason do the form and formless realms' own afflictions have no ripened fruit? The answer: because they are suppressed by the four-limbed and five-limbed concentrations, exactly as a poisonous snake, suppressed by a spell or incantation, is incapable of causing harm — this, too, is exactly the same. Further, the higher realms possess no vessel for such ripening — were those afflictions to possess a ripened fruit, this would have to be an unpleasant feeling, and an unpleasant feeling is necessarily bound to the desire realm alone; it would then be untenable for the higher realms' own afflictions to ripen as something bound to the desire realm, and it is for this reason that those afflictions are certainly without a ripened fruit. Further, that wrong view and the rest are not utterly inverted, arising instead with respect to something merely resembling the truth in part, and, not troubling another, are therefore merely indeterminate — that is, that wrong view slanderously declares that there is no such thing as suffering, and yet the two higher realms do possess something resembling pleasure; the higher realms' own view-clinging holds those very aggregates to be foremost, and yet those aggregates do possess something resembling the foremost; and that clinging to rules and vows holds those very aggregates to be capable of purification, and yet those aggregates do possess something resembling the capacity for purification, that is, the form realm's own path is capable of purifying the desire realm, and the formless realm's own path is capable of purifying the form realm — and it is for this reason that those afflictions are certainly not unwholesome. The Venerable Vasumitra states as follows: the higher realms' own afflictions are incapable of giving rise to coarse bodily or verbal karma, and it is for this reason that they are indeterminate.

One asks: some unwholesome afflictions, too, are incapable of giving rise to coarse bodily or verbal karma — ought these, then, also to be indeterminate? The answer: an unwholesome affliction, once increased to its fullest, is certainly capable of giving rise to coarse bodily or verbal karma; the higher realms' own afflictions, even once increased to their fullest, remain incapable of giving rise to coarse bodily or verbal karma, and it is for this reason that they are indeterminate. Further, the higher realms' own afflictions do not cause sentient beings to fall into the evil destinies, and it is for this reason that they are indeterminate. One asks: some unwholesome afflictions, too, do not cause a fall into the evil destinies — ought these, then, also to be indeterminate? The answer: an unwholesome affliction, once increased to its fullest, certainly causes sentient beings to fall into the evil destinies;

the higher realms' own afflictions, even once increased to their fullest, never cause a fall into the evil destinies, and it is for this reason that they are indeterminate. Further, those afflictions are incapable of bringing forth an undesirable fruit, and it is for this reason that they are indeterminate. One asks: since those afflictions cause the continued succession of further existence, and further existence is itself subsumed within the undesirable fruit, how can they be incapable of bringing forth an undesirable fruit? As scripture states: monks, you should know, I have never once praised the arising of further existence — for what reason is this so? Because, should even a single instant of further existence arise, this constitutes an increase of suffering, and suffering is itself subsumed within the undesirable fruit. The answer: the undesirable fruit spoken of here belongs to the class of suffering-of-suffering; the undesirable fruit spoken of by that scripture spans all three classes of suffering. The higher realms' own afflictions cause the continued succession of existence, which does not belong to the class of suffering-of-suffering, and no contradiction therefore follows. The Great Virtuous One states as follows: were the higher realms' own afflictions indeterminate, what further dharma could then be named unwholesome, exactly as the World-Honored One states, whatever afflictions are capable of giving rise to karma, all these are unwholesome? This statement is not tenable — were those afflictions unwholesome, the form and formless realms would then possess suffering-of-suffering; yet, when the World-Honored One states that whatever afflictions are capable of giving rise to karma are all unwholesome, this is spoken with reference to evil karma specifically, and no contradiction therefore follows. The three unwholesome roots are solely unwholesome, since their own nature is itself unwholesome, and, further, they serve as the cause, the root, the pathway, the antecedent, the agent, the origin, the condition, the ground, the accumulation, and the co-arising source for every unwholesome dharma whatsoever. Among the three contaminants, one is indeterminate — namely, the existence-contaminant, on account of the various causes and conditions already stated above, since every affliction of the form and formless realms is indeterminate. Two require distinction — namely, the desire-contaminant is either unwholesome or indeterminate: shamelessness and lack of moral dread, and what is associated with them, are unwholesome — ‘shamelessness and lack of moral dread’ referring to the fact that their own nature is solely unwholesome; ‘and what is associated with them’ referring to the fact that, among the desire-contaminant's own thirty-four factors, together with a portion of three further factors, these too are unwholesome, ‘a portion of three further factors’ referring to the portion of torpor, drowsiness, and restlessness associated with them; the rest are indeterminate, namely, the desire-contaminant's own view of the perishable aggregation of self, extreme view, and the portion of three further factors are all indeterminate,

‘a portion of three further factors’ referring to the portion of torpor, drowsiness, and restlessness associated with the view of the perishable aggregation of self and the extreme view — these five dharmas, not being associated with shamelessness or lack of moral dread, are none of them unwholesome. One asks: shamelessness is not associated with shamelessness itself, nor is lack of moral dread associated with lack of moral dread itself — are these, then, indeterminate? The answer: though shamelessness is not associated with shamelessness itself, it is associated with lack of moral dread; and though lack of moral dread is not associated with lack of moral dread itself, it is associated with shamelessness — it is only when both are entirely unassociated that a thing is indeterminate. The ignorance-contaminant is either unwholesome or indeterminate: what is associated with shamelessness and lack of moral dread is unwholesome, that is, the desire realm's own ignorance abandoned by seeing its arising, its ceasing, the path, and by cultivation, is solely unwholesome; the ignorance associated with the three views, doubt, conceit, greed, and hatred abandoned by seeing suffering, together with the specific ignorance not shared with these, is likewise unwholesome; the rest are indeterminate, namely, that associated with the desire realm's own two views, together with every form and formless realm ignorance, being unassociated with shamelessness and lack of moral dread, are all indeterminate. One asks: why, among the ten entanglements, does this passage speak only of association with shamelessness and lack of moral dread? The answer: it is simply because the treatise's own author intended it so — since the treatise's own author composes his treatise according to his own intent, without contradicting the true characteristics of the dharmas, and this ought not to be pressed as an objection. Further, these two are solely unwholesome, and are universally associated with every unwholesome mind, and it is for this reason that this passage speaks of them specifically. Anger, concealment, envy, and stinginess, though solely unwholesome, are not universally associated with every unwholesome mind; torpor and restlessness, though universally associated with every unwholesome mind, are not solely unwholesome; drowsiness and worry possess neither of these two properties, and it is for this reason that this passage does not speak of them — the latent tendencies and the defilements should be understood, by analogy with these, in just the same way. Shamelessness and lack of moral dread alone possess both properties, and their own measure of relation to what is unwholesome is precisely equal, fitting together exactly as a box fits its own lid, and it is for this reason that this passage speaks of association specifically with these two. Among the four floods, one is indeterminate — namely, the existence-flood, whose sense has already been explained above. Three require distinction — namely, the desire-flood is either unwholesome or indeterminate: shamelessness and lack of moral dread, and what is associated with them, are unwholesome — ‘shamelessness and lack of moral dread’ referring to the fact that their own nature is solely unwholesome; ‘and what is associated with them’ referring to the fact that, among the desire-flood's own twenty-four factors, together with a portion of three further factors, these too are unwholesome, ‘a portion of three further factors’ referring to the portion of torpor, drowsiness, and restlessness associated with them; the rest are indeterminate, namely, that within the desire-flood associated with the view of the perishable aggregation of self and the extreme view, together with the portion of torpor, drowsiness, and restlessness, being unassociated with shamelessness and lack of moral dread, are all indeterminate. The view-flood is either unwholesome or indeterminate: the desire realm's own three views are unwholesome, namely, wrong view, view-clinging, and clinging to rules and vows, since these are associated with shamelessness and lack of moral dread; the desire realm's own remaining two views, together with the form and formless realms' own five views, are indeterminate, since these are unassociated with shamelessness and lack of moral dread. The ignorance-flood is either unwholesome or indeterminate: what is associated with shamelessness and lack of moral dread is unwholesome, that is, the desire realm's own ignorance abandoned by seeing its arising, its ceasing, the path, and by cultivation, is solely unwholesome; the ignorance associated with the three views, doubt, conceit, greed, and hatred abandoned by seeing suffering, together with the specific ignorance not shared with these, is likewise unwholesome; the rest are indeterminate, namely, that associated with the desire realm's own two views, together with every form and formless realm ignorance, being unassociated with shamelessness and lack of moral dread, are all indeterminate. The four yokes should be understood exactly as the four floods, since floods and yokes are equal in both name and substance. Among the four graspings, one is indeterminate — namely, the grasping of self-doctrine, whose sense has already been explained above. Three require distinction — namely, the grasping of desire is either unwholesome or indeterminate: shamelessness and lack of moral dread, and what is associated with them, are unwholesome — ‘shamelessness and lack of moral dread’ referring to the fact that their own nature is solely unwholesome; ‘and what is associated with them’ referring to the fact that, among the grasping of desire's own twenty-eight factors, together with a portion of four further factors, these too are unwholesome, ‘a portion of four further factors’ referring to the portion of torpor, drowsiness, restlessness, and ignorance associated with them; the rest are indeterminate, namely, that within the grasping of desire associated with the view of the perishable aggregation of self and the extreme view, together with the portion of torpor, drowsiness, restlessness, and ignorance, being unassociated with shamelessness and lack of moral dread, are all indeterminate. The grasping of view is either unwholesome or indeterminate: the desire realm's own two views, namely wrong view and the grasping of view, are unwholesome,

and the desire realm's remaining two views, together with the form and formless realms' own four views, are indeterminate — the desire realm's own two views being the view of the perishable aggregation of self and the extreme view, and the form and formless realms' own four views being the five views excepting clinging to rules and vows. Clinging to rules and vows is either unwholesome or indeterminate: within the desire realm, it is unwholesome, since it is associated with shamelessness and lack of moral dread; within the form and formless realms, it is indeterminate, since it is unassociated with shamelessness and lack of moral dread. Among the four bodily ties, two are unwholesome — namely, covetous desire and hatred; two require distinction — namely, clinging to rules and vows, and this bodily tie of dogmatic attachment to what is real: within the desire realm, they are unwholesome, since they are associated with shamelessness and lack of moral dread; within the form and formless realms, they are indeterminate, since they are unassociated with shamelessness and lack of moral dread. The five hindrances are solely unwholesome, since all are associated with shamelessness and lack of moral dread. Among the five fetters, three are unwholesome — namely, the fetters of hatred, envy, and stinginess; two require distinction — namely, the fetters of greed and conceit are either unwholesome or indeterminate: within the desire realm, they are unwholesome, since they are associated with shamelessness and lack of moral dread;

within the form and formless realms, they are indeterminate, since they are unassociated with shamelessness and lack of moral dread. Among the five fetters pertaining to the lower portion, two are unwholesome — namely, covetous desire and hatred; one is indeterminate — namely, the view of the perishable aggregation of self; two require distinction — namely, clinging to rules and vows and the fetter of doubt are either unwholesome or indeterminate: within the desire realm, they are unwholesome; within the form and formless realms, they are indeterminate. The five fetters pertaining to the higher portion are solely indeterminate, since they are unassociated with shamelessness and lack of moral dread. Among the five views, two are indeterminate — namely, the view of the perishable aggregation of self and the extreme view; three require distinction — namely, wrong view, view-clinging, and clinging to rules and vows are either unwholesome or indeterminate: within the desire realm, they are unwholesome; within the form and formless realms, they are indeterminate. Among the six bodies of craving, two are unwholesome — namely, the bodies of craving born of nose-contact and tongue-contact; four require distinction — namely, the bodies of craving born of eye-, ear-, and body-contact

are either unwholesome or indeterminate: within the desire realm, they are unwholesome; within the Brahmā world, they are indeterminate. The body of craving born of mind-contact is either unwholesome or indeterminate: within the desire realm, it is unwholesome; within the form and formless realms, it is indeterminate. Among the seven latent tendencies, two are unwholesome — namely, the latent tendencies of desire-craving and hatred; one is indeterminate — namely, the latent tendency of existence-craving; four require distinction — namely, the latent tendencies of conceit and doubt are either unwholesome or indeterminate: within the desire realm, they are unwholesome; within the form and formless realms, they are indeterminate. The latent tendency of ignorance is either unwholesome or indeterminate: what is associated with shamelessness and lack of moral dread is unwholesome, namely, the desire realm's own ignorance abandoned by seeing its arising, its ceasing, the path, and by cultivation, together with the ignorance abandoned by seeing suffering that is unassociated with the view of the perishable aggregation of self and the extreme view; the rest are indeterminate, namely, the desire realm's own ignorance associated with the view of the perishable aggregation of self and the extreme view, together with every form and formless realm ignorance. The latent tendency of view is either unwholesome or indeterminate: the desire realm's own three views are unwholesome, namely, wrong view, view-clinging, and clinging to rules and vows; the desire realm's own remaining two views, together with the form and formless realms' own five views, are indeterminate. Among the nine fetters, three are unwholesome — namely, the fetters of hatred, envy, and stinginess; six require distinction — namely, the fetters of craving, conceit, grasping, and doubt are either unwholesome or indeterminate: within the desire realm, they are unwholesome; within the form and formless realms, they are indeterminate. The fetter of ignorance is either unwholesome or indeterminate: what is associated with shamelessness and lack of moral dread is unwholesome; the rest are indeterminate,

in the sense already explained above. The fetter of view is either unwholesome or indeterminate: within the desire realm, one view is unwholesome, namely wrong view; the desire realm's own two views, namely the view of the perishable aggregation of self and the extreme view, together with the form and formless realms' own three views, are indeterminate. Among the ninety-eight latent tendencies, thirty-three are unwholesome, and sixty-four are indeterminate, and one requires distinction — namely, the desire realm's own latent tendency of ignorance abandoned by seeing suffering is either unwholesome or indeterminate: what is associated with shamelessness and lack of moral dread is unwholesome, namely, that unassociated with the view of the perishable aggregation of self and the extreme view; the rest is indeterminate, namely, that associated with the view of the perishable aggregation of self and the extreme view.