Eighteen Elements, Broadly Taught

Continuing the Fetters Aggregate, opening the Ten Gates Nyāsa, part one. The twenty-two faculties, and so on, up through, the ninety-eight latent tendencies — these forty-two chapters, together with their own explanatory sense, having already been comprehended, ought now to be broadly analyzed. As for the twenty-two faculties: the eye-faculty, the ear-faculty, the nose-faculty, the tongue-faculty, the body-faculty, the female faculty, the male faculty, the life-faculty, the mind-faculty, the pleasure-faculty, the pain-faculty, the joy-faculty, the distress-faculty, the equanimity-faculty, the faith-faculty, the diligence-faculty, the mindfulness-faculty, the concentration-faculty, the wisdom-faculty, the faculty of 'I shall come to know,' the faculty of 'I already know,' and the faculty of one who fully knows — these shall be broadly analyzed later, within the Faculties Aggregate's own Faculties Nyāsa. As for the eighteen elements: the eye-element, the color-element, the eye-consciousness-element; the ear-element, the sound-element, the ear-consciousness-element; the nose-element, the smell-element, the nose-consciousness-element; the tongue-element, the taste-element, the tongue-consciousness-element; the body-element, the touch-element, the body-consciousness-element; the mind-element, the dharma-element, the mind-consciousness-element. This scripture on the elements is named both a brief teaching and a broad teaching: it is named a brief teaching when set against the great discourses, such as the Great Analogy Sutra, the Great Nirvāṇa Sutra, and the like; it is named a broad teaching when set against the scripture on the sense-fields. That scripture on the sense-fields is likewise named both a brief teaching and a broad teaching: it is named a brief teaching when set against the scripture on the elements; it is named a broad teaching when set against the scripture on the aggregates. That scripture on the aggregates is likewise named both a brief teaching and a broad teaching: it is named a brief teaching when set against the scripture on the sense-fields; it is named a broad teaching when set against the scripture stating that every sensation whatsoever is suffering, and the like. That scripture stating that every sensation whatsoever is suffering, and the like, is named only a brief teaching, never a broad one. There are those who say: this scripture on the elements and the rest are likewise each named both a brief teaching and a broad teaching, judged solely with reference to its own statement, not set against any other scripture — that is, the scripture on the elements broadly expounds matter and mind, while briefly expounding the mental factors, and it is for this reason that this holds. That scripture on the sense-fields is likewise named both a brief teaching and a broad teaching, judged solely with reference to its own statement, not set against any other scripture — that is, the scripture on the sense-fields broadly expounds matter, while briefly expounding mind and the mental factors. That scripture on the aggregates is likewise named both a brief teaching and a broad teaching —

judged solely with reference to its own statement, not set against any other scripture — that is, the scripture on the aggregates broadly expounds the mental factors, while briefly expounding matter and mind. That scripture stating that every sensation whatsoever is suffering is named only a brief teaching, never a broad one. Other masters say: this scripture on the elements is named a broad teaching, and likewise gathers within it every dharma whatsoever; those scriptures such as the Great Analogy Sutra and the Great Nirvāṇa Sutra, though named broad teachings, do not gather within them every dharma whatsoever. That scripture on the sense-fields, though it does gather within it every dharma whatsoever, is not itself a broad teaching, since it speaks only in middling terms. That scripture on the aggregates is not named a broad teaching, being itself a brief teaching,

and it likewise does not gather within it every dharma whatsoever, gathering only the conditioned, not the unconditioned. That scripture stating that every sensation whatsoever is suffering, and the like, is not named a broad teaching, being itself the very briefest teaching of all — though even within it there is what gathers every dharma whatsoever, as when it states that every dharma is empty and without self, and the like. Other masters say: there exists, in truth, no further brief-teaching scripture beyond this, as when the World-Honored One states that giving is of two kinds — first, the giving of the dharma; second, the giving of wealth — and scriptures of this kind; and there exists no further broad-teaching scripture beyond this, as with the Great Analogy Sutra, the Great Nirvāṇa Sutra, and scriptures of this kind. Although each of these various statements carries its own genuine sense, the Buddha, the World-Honored One, with respect to what is to be known, first gave a broad teaching and only afterward gave a brief one — that is, with respect to what is to be known, he first broadly taught the eighteen elements, and only afterward, on this very same basis, briefly taught them as the twelve sense-fields, and, further, on this very same basis, excluding the unconditioned dharmas, briefly taught them as the five aggregates. This is named the World-Honored One's own broad and brief teaching of the dharma. It is precisely on the basis of this broad and brief teaching of the dharma that the Buddha told the Venerable Śāriputra: with respect to the jewel of the dharma, I am capable of teaching it both broadly and briefly, yet one capable of understanding it is exceedingly difficult to find. And it is, further, on the basis of this broad and brief teaching of the dharma that the Venerable Śāriputra said to the Buddha:

World-Honored One, I pray only that the Thus-Come One teach the dharma both broadly and briefly — there will certainly then be one capable of understanding this very jewel of the dharma. With respect to a matter such as this, an analogy ought to be given: exactly as the sea-dragon-king, having long dwelt within the great ocean, gathers his own might and rises up into the empty sky, raising up great clouds that cover the whole of that empty realm, flashing lightning and thundering with a mighty roar, proclaiming to the whole world at large: I am about to send down rain! — every medicinal herb, every grass and tree, every thicket and forest, upon hearing such a sound, is struck with great terror, each thinking to itself: this great dragon-king, having long dwelt within the great ocean, gathering his own might, if he should now send down rain, there will be no end to it at all, and every one of us will surely be swept away and drowned. At that very time, the great earth alone, hearing this same sound, its own mind entirely untroubled and undoubting, its own face betraying no change at all, with an open, receptive heart, implores the sea-dragon-king, saying: I pray only that you release your own heart's desire and send down a mighty rain — though it should last a hundred thousand years, I myself am fully capable of receiving it all. The World-Honored One is exactly the same: in past times, before Śākyamuni Buddha, Dhvajottama, Ratnaśikhin, Dīpaṃkara, Praṇidhāna, and so on, at full length, up through the very last of them, Kāśyapa Buddha,

he accumulated the very provisions of merit and wisdom, and, ascending into the very emptiness of nirvāṇa-with-residue, he raises up the great cloud of compassion, covering the whole world entirely, sending forth the lightning-flash of surpassing wisdom, illuminating all things everywhere, and, in a voice fearless as the very emptiness of no-self, proclaims to every one of his own disciples, Śāriputra and the rest at large: with respect to the jewel of the dharma, I am capable of teaching it both broadly and briefly, yet one capable of understanding it is exceedingly difficult to find. At that time, every one of his own disciples, excepting only Śāriputra, upon hearing the Buddha speak these words, gave rise to fear and trepidation, each thinking to himself: the Buddha has attained a body of names, phrases, and syllables the like of which has never before existed — were he to teach it for our own sake, I fear we could never understand it at all. Only Śāriputra, across sixty aeons having cultivated wisdom and vision, sharp, forceful, and utterly complete, exactly like the great earth itself, upon hearing the Buddha speak these words, his own mind entirely untroubled and undoubting, his own face betraying no change at all, capable of being entirely without fear, thereupon implored the Buddha, saying: I pray only that the Thus-Come One teach the dharma both broadly and briefly — there will certainly then be one capable of understanding this very jewel of the dharma. One asks: there ought also to exist a dharma that lies beyond the domain of every disciple or solitary-realizer whatsoever — for what reason, then, did Śāriputra, without any fear at all, make such a request as this? The answer: he requested only what a disciple is capable of knowing, not what only the Buddha himself is capable of knowing — a disciple's own domain is not the Buddha's own domain, a disciple's own conduct is not the Buddha's own conduct, and what a disciple's own faculty can reach is not what the Buddha's own faculty can reach, and it is for this reason that this raises no contradiction with reason at all. Further, he made this request precisely because he already knew that the Buddha had granted his permission — that is, Śāriputra thought to himself as follows: the World-Honored One's own compassion, in whatever dharma he teaches, must certainly be carefully weighed, and must certainly bring genuine benefit; he sends down the very rain of the dharma only upon a fitting vessel, and the rain of the dharma he sends down is never squandered in vain; whatever words he utters must rely upon a fitting vessel for the dharma — were it not a fitting vessel, he would never utter such words at all. Since the World-Honored One already knows that I myself am just such a vessel, capable of receiving this much, he has spoken these very words —

and it is by this that I know the World-Honored One has already granted his own permission for my request. It is for this reason that the Venerable one made his request of the Buddha entirely without fear.

One asks: for the sake of what kind of sentient being to be converted does the Buddha teach the aggregates, the sense-fields, and the elements, in these three broad and brief forms? The answer: the Buddha teaches according to whatever each being to be converted is ignorant of.

That is, for one ignorant of the elements, he teaches the eighteen elements; for one ignorant of the sense-fields, he teaches the twelve sense-fields; for one ignorant of the aggregates, he teaches the five aggregates. Further, those the World-Honored One converts are, in brief, of three kinds: first, those just beginning their own practice; second, those already long habituated to it; third, those who have transcended mere conceptual application. For those just beginning their own practice, he teaches the eighteen elements; for those already long habituated to it, he teaches the twelve sense-fields; for those who have transcended mere conceptual application, he teaches the five aggregates. Further, those the World-Honored One converts possess three kinds of faculty, namely, dull, middling, and sharp — for those of dull faculty, he teaches the eighteen elements; for those of middling faculty, he teaches the twelve sense-fields; for those of sharp faculty, he teaches the five aggregates. Further, those the World-Honored One converts possess three kinds of wisdom: first, the wisdom that opens the way; second, the wisdom that expounds; third, the wisdom that draws one onward. For those possessing the wisdom that opens the way, he teaches the five aggregates; for those possessing the wisdom that expounds, he teaches the twelve sense-fields; for those possessing the wisdom that draws one onward, he teaches the eighteen elements. Further, those the World-Honored One converts possess three kinds of preference, namely, for the broad, the middling, and the brief — for those who prefer the broad, he teaches the eighteen elements; for those who prefer the middling, he teaches the twelve sense-fields; for those who prefer the brief, he teaches the five aggregates. Further, those the World-Honored One converts possess three kinds of prideful indolence: first, pride in one's own lineage; second, pride in one's own wealth; third, pride in one's own life. For those prideful in their own lineage, he teaches the eighteen elements, since the very meaning of clan and lineage is precisely the meaning of an element, there being no real distinction whatsoever between noble and base among the various kinds. For those prideful in their own wealth, he teaches the twelve sense-fields, since the very meaning of a gate of arising is precisely the meaning of a sense-field, whatever arises there being certain to soon scatter and be exhausted. For those prideful in their own life, he teaches the five aggregates,

since the very meaning of accumulation is precisely the meaning of an aggregate, every conditioned accumulation being certain to soon scatter and cease. Further, those the World-Honored One converts possess three kinds of ignorance: first, ignorance regarding matter and mind together; second, ignorance regarding matter alone; third, ignorance regarding the mental factors. For one ignorant regarding matter and mind together, he teaches the eighteen elements, since, within this teaching on the elements, matter and mind are expounded broadly, while the mental factors are expounded briefly. For one ignorant regarding matter alone, he teaches the twelve sense-fields, since, within this teaching on the sense-fields, matter is expounded broadly, while mind and the mental factors are expounded briefly. For one ignorant regarding the mental factors, he teaches the five aggregates, since, within this teaching on the aggregates, the mental factors are expounded broadly, while matter and mind are expounded briefly. Further, for one who conceives of a self, he teaches the eighteen elements, since, within one single body, there exist many distinct elements, there being no single self at all; for one ignorant regarding what a thing depends upon and what it takes as its object, he teaches the twelve sense-fields, since discriminating consciousness possesses six distinct supports and six distinct objects; for one prideful with self-conceit, he teaches the five aggregates, since the body possesses nothing but the five aggregates' own arising and ceasing, affording no occasion at all for relying upon it to give rise to self-conceit. It is for the sake of sentient beings to be converted such as these that the Buddha teaches the aggregates, the sense-fields, and the elements, in these three broad and brief forms.

One asks: this name, the eighteen elements, numbers eighteen — but how many are there in real substance? The answer: this element's own real substance is, in some cases, seventeen, in others, twelve.

If the six consciousnesses are spoken of, the mind-element is thereby lost, since, apart from the six consciousness-bodies, there exists no separate mind-element at all — and it is for this reason that this name, the eighteen elements, has, in real substance, seventeen. If the mind-element is spoken of, the six consciousnesses are thereby lost, since, apart from this mind-element, there exist no separate six consciousnesses at all — and it is for this reason that this name, the eighteen elements, has, in real substance, twelve. Exactly as with name and substance, so too should it be understood with designation and substance, distinct characteristic of name and distinct characteristic of substance, distinct nature of name and distinct nature of substance, distinct differentiation of name and of substance, distinct establishment of name and of substance, and distinct cognition of name and of substance. One asks: if this name, the eighteen elements, numbers eighteen, while its own substance is, in some cases, seventeen, in others, twelve, how, then, are the eighteen elements established at all? The answer: it is by three matters that the eighteen are established — first, by basis; second, by dependent; third, by object. By basis, the six inner elements are established,

namely, the eye-element, up through the mind-element. By dependent, the six consciousness-elements are established, namely, the eye-consciousness-element, up through the mind-consciousness-element. By object, the six outer elements are established, namely, the color-element, up through the dharma-element. One asks: if it is because basis, dependent, and object each number six that

the eighteen elements are established with this distinction, then an arhat's own very last thought-moment ought not to be a mind-element at all, since, relying upon it, no subsequent consciousness can ever arise. The answer: this too is indeed a mind-element — the fact that, relying upon it, no subsequent consciousness can arise, is not because that very moment itself constitutes any obstruction, but because some other condition obstructs it, and it is for this reason that no subsequent consciousness arises there; were some other condition present instead, it too would serve as a basis, exactly as, when some other condition prevents a sprout and the like from arising, this hardly means that rich, fertile soil is thereby no longer the very basis for a sprout and the like.

These eighteen elements are complete across the past, future, and present alike. One asks: the past may indeed possess these eighteen elements, since the six consciousness-bodies, the very moment they cease without interruption, are named the mind-element — but how could the future and the present likewise possess all eighteen elements? The answer: these eighteen elements are established with reference to their own characteristic, and each of the three times possesses its own eighteen elemental characteristics. Were future and present consciousness to possess no characteristic of the mind-element at all, then past consciousness too ought to possess none, since a characteristic, once it exists, never turns into something else entirely.

One asks: the immediately-preceding condition does not yet exist in the future — present and past, too, ought then not to be established at all. Yet, since this is indeed established, the mind-element ought to be established in exactly the same way.

The answer: the immediately-preceding condition is established with reference to its own function, and, since no immediately-preceding condition-dharma exists in the future at all, no immediately-preceding condition can be established there — and, even were one to be established, for whom would this condition's own function even apply? These eighteen elements, by contrast, are established with reference to their own characteristic — even though, in the future, no consciousness yet exists to serve as a basis in actual function, there is already a consciousness there capable of having a basis established for it, and it is for this reason that the two cases cannot be taken as parallel at all. An arhat's own very last thought-moment, though it is not an immediately-preceding condition, is nevertheless a mind-element, and this same principle should be understood accordingly. Elsewhere, in a further scripture, the World-Honored One himself speaks of the simile of the akṣa-seed cluster, and, having spoken this very simile, tells the monks: within a sentient being's own body there exist many elemental natures — these too are gathered within these eighteen elements, being gathered within basis, dependent, and object.

And, further, the Buddha, within the Sutra on Many Elements, speaks of a distinction of sixty-two elements — these too are gathered within these eighteen elements, being gathered within these very same three matters of basis and the rest. One asks: for what reason does the World-Honored One teach the assembly these sixty-two elements? The answer: it is in order to counter the outsiders' own view of self as their own root, there being sixty-two distinct courses of view. And, further, the World-Honored One tells Śakra, Lord of the Gods: Kauśika, you should know, the world possesses every kind of manifold element, each according to its own particular conception, and each clings to it accordingly, and, according to each one's own clinging, each speaks of it accordingly, each saying that this alone is real and every other view is mere folly and falsehood — these too are gathered within these eighteen elements, being gathered within these very same three matters of basis and the rest. There are those who say: every view spoken of in that scripture, expressed through the term 'element,' is gathered solely within this dharma-element. The Venerable Vāmalabdha says as follows: it is by four matters that the eighteen elements are established — first, by own-nature; second, by product; third, by agent; fourth, by aggregate-differentiation. By own-nature, the color-element, up through the dharma-element, are established. By product, the eye-consciousness-element, up through the mind-consciousness-element, are established. By agent, the eye-element, up through the mind-element, are established. By aggregate-differentiation, the eighteen elements are established — that is, the form-aggregate's own differentiation establishes ten elements and a portion of an eleventh; the consciousness-aggregate's own differentiation establishes the seven mind-elements; the remaining three aggregates are gathered within a single dharma-element. This is named the own-nature of the various elements. Having already spoken of the own-nature of the elements — their own substance, own character, and inherent nature — the very reason for this shall now be stated. One asks: why is it named an element? What is the meaning of 'element'? The answer: the meaning of lineage and clan is precisely the meaning of an element; the meaning of segment, of portion, of piece, of distinct characteristic, of dissimilarity, and of boundary, is precisely the meaning of an element; the meaning of manifold cause is precisely the meaning of an element; and the grammarians say that it is named an element on account of its flowing, on account of its sustaining, and on account of its nourishing. It should be understood that, here, the meaning of lineage and clan being precisely the meaning of an element is exactly as a single mountain contains many distinct lineages of ore — gold, silver, copper, iron, tin, lead, pewter, cinnabar, malachite, and every other kind of stone, chalk, clay, and the rest, each a distinct kind of lineage — so too, within a single continuous body, there exist eighteen distinct lineages of element. As for the meaning of segment being precisely the meaning of an element: this is exactly as, when segments of material are arranged in sequence, they receive every kind of distinct name — arranging segments of timber and the like in sequence yields the name palace, terrace, pavilion, or hall; arranging segments of āmalaka fruit and the like in sequence yields the name amalaka preserve; arranging segments of bamboo strips and the like in sequence yields the name canopy or fan; arranging segments of bone and flesh and the like in sequence yields the name male or female —

and, in just this same way, arranging the eye and the rest in sequence yields the very segments named a sentient being, a youth, and the like. As for the meaning of portion being precisely the meaning of an element:

this refers to the fact that, within a male's own body, there exist eighteen portions, and likewise for a female — these being precisely the eighteen elements. As for the meaning of piece being precisely the meaning of an element: this refers to the fact that, within a male's own body, there exist eighteen pieces, and likewise for a female — these being precisely the eighteen elements. As for the meaning of distinct characteristic being precisely the meaning of an element: this refers to the fact that the eye-element's own characteristic differs, up through the mind-consciousness-element's own characteristic differing. As for the meaning of dissimilarity being precisely the meaning of an element: this refers to the fact that the eye-element does not resemble any other element, up through the mind-consciousness-element not resembling any other element. As for the meaning of boundary being precisely the meaning of an element: this refers to the fact that the eye-element's own boundary differs from the remaining seventeen elements, up through the mind-consciousness-element's own boundary differing from the remaining seventeen elements. As for the meaning of manifold cause being precisely the meaning of an element: this refers to the fact that it is owing to this that the eye-element exists, yet it is not owing to this very same thing that the mind-consciousness-element exists, and so on, up through: it is owing to this that the mind-consciousness-element exists, yet it is not owing to this very same thing that the eye-element exists. As for the grammarians' own statement that it is named an element on account of its flowing: this refers to the fact that these various elements flow across the three realms, the five destinies, and the four modes of birth, revolving through birth and death. As for its being named an element on account of its sustaining: this refers to the fact that these various elements sustain their own nature. As for its being named an element on account of its nourishing: this refers to the fact that these various elements nourish another's own nature.

It is for this reason that the meaning of lineage and clan is precisely the meaning of an element, and so on, up through: it is named an element on account of its nourishing.

Having now broadly stated the very reason for the name 'element,' each of the elements' own characteristics shall now be stated in turn. One asks: what is the eye-element? The answer: whatever eye has already, is presently, or is about to, see color, together with its own class, is named the eye-element. As for having already seen color: this refers to a past eye. As for presently seeing color:

this refers to a present eye. As for being about to see color: this refers to a future eye. As for its own class: the masters of this country say there are four kinds. First, an eye of the past counterpart-class — this refers to an eye-element that, without seeing color, has already ceased. Second, an eye of the present counterpart-class —

this refers to an eye-element that, without seeing color, is presently ceasing. Third, an eye of the future counterpart-class — this refers to an eye-element that, without seeing color, is about to cease. Fourth, an eye-element that will, in the end, never arise at all in the future. The masters of foreign lands say there are five kinds, the first three being as stated above, while an eye-element that will, in the end, never arise at all in the future is further divided into two kinds — first, one belonging to a being possessing consciousness; second, one belonging to a being lacking consciousness. The former masters of foreign lands agree with this country's own account; the former masters of this country agree with the foreign lands' own account.

Every eye that sees color is, with respect to the very sentient being possessing it, named a same-class eye, and, with respect to every other sentient being, is likewise named a same-class eye; every eye that does not see color is, with respect to the very sentient being possessing it, named a counterpart-class eye, and, with respect to every other sentient being, is likewise named a counterpart-class eye. There are those who say: every eye that sees color is, with respect to the very sentient being possessing it, named a same-class eye, and, with respect to every other sentient being, is named a counterpart-class eye; every eye that does not see color is, with respect to the very sentient being possessing it, named a counterpart-class eye, and, with respect to every other sentient being, is likewise named a counterpart-class eye. There are yet others who say: every eye that sees color is, with respect to the very sentient being possessing it, named a same-class eye, and, with respect to every other sentient being, is neither a same-class nor a counterpart-class eye at all; every eye that does not see color is, with respect to the very sentient being possessing it, named a counterpart-class eye, and, with respect to every other sentient being, is neither a same-class nor a counterpart-class eye at all. This position ought not to be held,

for how could there exist an eye that is neither a same-class nor a counterpart-class eye at all? One should say as follows: of these three positions, the first is the reasonable one. One asks: is it, then, by making use of another's own eye that one is capable of seeing color? The answer: who ever said that one is capable of seeing color by making use of another's own eye? One asks: if there is no such thing as making use of another's own eye to see color, how could it be that, with respect to every other sentient being, the eye by which one being sees color is likewise named a same-class eye? The answer: because the very function proper to an eye-faculty remains ever fixed and constant — the eye-element's own function refers precisely to its capacity to see color, and, exactly as an eye, its own function toward color already having ceased, is still spoken of as a same-class eye, so too, whether with respect to oneself or to another, this same-class name never undergoes any alteration at all. Though there is no such thing as making use of another's own eye to see color, an eye possessing this very function is ever named a same-class eye — and it should be understood that this holds equally for an eye presently ceasing or about to cease. One asks: a same-class eye is capable of seeing color; a counterpart-class eye is incapable of seeing color — how, then, could a color-seeing eye be the same-class counterpart of a non-color-seeing eye, and a non-color-seeing eye be the counterpart-class counterpart of that very color-seeing eye? The answer: because these two eyes, this one and that one, serve as cause for one another — that is, a color-seeing eye serves as cause for a non-color-seeing eye, and a non-color-seeing eye likewise serves as cause for a color-seeing eye. Further, because these two eyes mutually generate one another — that is, a color-seeing eye is capable of generating a non-color-seeing eye, and a non-color-seeing eye is, in turn, capable of generating a color-seeing eye. Further, because these two eyes mutually draw one another forth — that is, a color-seeing eye is capable of drawing forth a non-color-seeing eye, and a non-color-seeing eye is, in turn, capable of drawing forth a color-seeing eye. Further, because these two eyes mutually turn into one another — that is, a color-seeing eye is capable of turning into a non-color-seeing eye, and a non-color-seeing eye is, in turn, capable of turning into a color-seeing eye. Further, because these two eyes mutually sustain one another's continuity — that is, a color-seeing eye is capable of sustaining the continuity of a non-color-seeing eye, and a non-color-seeing eye is, in turn, capable of sustaining the continuity of a color-seeing eye. Further, a color-seeing eye and a non-color-seeing eye are both, alike, gathered within one and the same element, one and the same sense-field, one and the same faculty, sharing one and the same nature of seeing — and it is for this reason that a color-seeing eye is the same-class counterpart of a non-color-seeing eye, and a non-color-seeing eye is, in turn, the same-class counterpart of that very color-seeing eye. Exactly as with the eye-element, so too with the ear-, nose-, tongue-, and body-elements, the distinctions of kind between same-class and counterpart-class all resembling one another in every case.

One asks: what is the color-element? The answer: whatever color the eye has already, is presently, or is about to, see, together with its own class, is named the color-element. As for having already been seen:

this refers to a past color. As for presently being seen: this refers to a present color. As for being about to be seen: this refers to a future color. As for its own class: there are four kinds of counterpart-class color. First, a color of the past counterpart-class — this refers to a color-element that, without being seen by the eye, has already ceased. Second, a color of the present counterpart-class — this refers to a color-element that, without being seen by the eye, is presently ceasing. Third, a color of the future counterpart-class — this refers to a color-element that, without being seen by the eye, is about to cease. Fourth, a color-element that will, in the end, never arise at all in the future. There is, further, a color-element that is a same-class color with respect to one sentient being, and is likewise a same-class color with respect to two, three, four, and so on, up through, a hundred thousand sentient beings — that is, this very color-element is seen by one sentient being's own eye, and is likewise seen by the eye of two, three, four, and so on, up through, a hundred thousand sentient beings, exactly as a hundred thousand people together behold the very same new moon. This color-element is, with respect to whoever gives rise to an eye-consciousness taking it as object, named a same-class color; with respect to whoever does not give rise to an eye-consciousness taking it as object, it is named a counterpart-class color. And, further, exactly as when there is, within an assembly, a certain dancing girl, her own countenance correct and fine, adorned with every ornament — this color-element is, with respect to whoever gives rise to an eye-consciousness taking her as object, named a same-class color, while, with respect to whoever does not give rise to such an eye-consciousness, this very same color-element is named a counterpart-class color; and, further, exactly as when a dharma-teacher ascends the high seat to expound the dharma, his own words clear and eloquent, his own appearance dignified and fine — this color-element is, with respect to whoever gives rise to an eye-consciousness taking him as object, named a same-class color, while, with respect to whoever does not give rise to such an eye-consciousness, this very same color-element is named a counterpart-class color. There is, further, a color-element that is a counterpart-class color with respect to one sentient being, and is likewise a counterpart-class color with respect to two, three, four, and so on, up through, a hundred thousand sentient beings — that is, this very color-element lies concealed within some hidden place, incapable of being seen by countless sentient beings. There is, further, a color-element that the eyes of every sentient being whatsoever fail to see — this very color-element is, at every single time, named a counterpart-class color, exactly as the color at the very center of Mount Sumeru, and the color at the very bottom of the great ocean within the great earth, which not a single sentient being has ever seen at all. One asks: is such a color not, then, the very domain of the divine eye? The answer: though such color is indeed the domain of the divine eye, since it serves no purpose at all, it is not observed by it. Further, the divine eye is not manifest at every single time, and it is for this reason that such color exists which the divine eye does not see. One asks: is such a color not, then, the very domain of a Buddha's own eye? The answer: though such color is indeed the domain of a Buddha's own eye, since it serves no purpose at all, the Buddha does not observe it. Further, a Buddha does not appear in the world at every single time — exactly as, at present, there is no Buddha, and hence no Buddha-eye at all — and it is for this reason that such color exists which no Buddha-eye ever sees.

One asks: for what reason is a color-seeing eye, with respect to the very sentient being possessing it, named a same-class eye, and, with respect to every other sentient being, likewise named a same-class eye — while a seen color is, with respect to whoever sees it, named a same-class color, and, with respect to whoever does not see it, named a counterpart-class color? The answer: it is possible for a single color-element to be seen by many sentient beings at once, since there is no such thing as a single eye-element being made use of by two sentient beings — that is, given a color-element seen by one sentient being, it is entirely possible for two, three, four, and so on, up through, a hundred thousand sentient beings likewise to see it, this being a case of shared seeing; whoever does see it has this color-element named, with respect to himself, a same-class color; whoever does not see it has this color-element named, with respect to himself, a counterpart-class color.

There being no such thing as a single eye-element being made use of by two sentient beings, how much less could it be shared among many at all, being altogether exclusive — whoever makes use of this eye and is thereby capable of seeing color has this eye named, with respect to himself, a same-class eye; as for every other sentient being, whether their own eye sees color or does not see color, this eye is, with respect to them, likewise said to possess this very same function, since an eye, being altogether exclusive, possesses a characteristic that remains ever fixed and constant at every single time. Exactly as with the color-element, so too with the sound-, smell-, taste-, and touch-elements, the distinctions of kind between same-class and counterpart-class all resembling one another in every case. On this point, however, there are those who wish to hold that one smells, tastes, and feels only the smells, tastes, and textures found within one's own body alone — they say as follows: the smell-, taste-, and touch-elements, according to conventional truth, are exactly as stated for the color-element — that is, people in the world speak in just this way, saying:

the very fragrance you smell, we too smell it; the very flavor you taste, we too taste it; the very texture you feel, we too feel it. According to ultimate truth, the smell-, taste-, and touch-elements are exactly as stated for the eye-element — that is, the smell-element smelled by one sentient being cannot be smelled by any other; the taste-element tasted by one sentient being cannot be tasted by any other; the touch-element felt by one sentient being cannot be felt by any other. One asks: if a single touch-element is pressed and touched together by the bodies of two sentient beings, each from one of its own sides, is this not, then, a case of shared possession, exactly as stated for the color-element, according to ultimate truth? The answer: such a touch-element as this is composed of many atoms gathered together in a single place — the two bodies pressing and touching it each obtain one of its own sides, there being no shared possession involved at all — and so, according to ultimate truth, this remains exactly as stated for the eye-element. The smell-, taste-, and touch-elements should be understood accordingly, following this same principle. There are, further, those who wish to hold that one may also smell, taste, and feel the smells, tastes, and textures belonging to another, or to something not itself sentient — they say as follows: the smell-, taste-, and touch-elements, whether already made use of or presently being made use of, are, according to conventional truth, exactly as stated for the color-element — that is, people in the world speak of a shared possession. According to ultimate truth, they are exactly as stated for the eye-element — that is, what is made use of by one cannot be obtained by any other. As for the smell-, taste-, and touch-elements not yet made use of,

according to ultimate truth, there is likewise a sense of shared possession, exactly as stated for the color-element — that is, while still future and about to arrive in the present, there is a sense in which many people share possession of it together. If one follows the former position, one ought to say as follows: the smell-, taste-, and touch-elements, according to conventional truth, are exactly as stated for the color-element, while, according to ultimate truth, they are exactly as stated for the eye-element. If one follows the latter position, one ought to say as follows: the smell-, taste-, and touch-elements, whether already made use of or presently being made use of, are, according to conventional truth, exactly as stated for the color-element, while, according to ultimate truth, they are exactly as stated for the eye-element; as for those not yet made use of, according to ultimate truth, one may likewise properly say that they are exactly as stated for the color-element. It is for this reason that every treatise says: exactly as with the color-element, so too with the sound-, smell-, taste-, and touch-elements, since smell, taste, and touch admit of shared possession.

One asks: what is the eye-consciousness-element? The answer: eye-consciousness, arising conditioned by the eye and by color, is named the eye-consciousness-element. One asks: at the moment eye-consciousness arises, every dharma whatsoever, excepting its own nature, serves as a condition for it — for what reason, then, does this passage speak only of the eye and color as its conditions? The answer: this speaks here only with reference to its own increasingly superior conditions — that is, whichever dharma serves as the basis and the object of eye-consciousness is spoken of here: the eye is the basis of eye-consciousness; color is the object of eye-consciousness,

and it is for this reason that these alone are singled out; every other dharma is not treated in this same way. Further, whichever dharma serves as the proximate dominant condition of eye-consciousness is spoken of here: the eye and color serve as the proximate dominant condition of eye-consciousness, surpassing eye-consciousness's own arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing, and it is for this reason that these alone are singled out. Further, whichever dharma serves as the exclusive, superior condition of eye-consciousness is spoken of here: the eye and color serve as the exclusive, superior condition of eye-consciousness, surpassing eye-consciousness's own arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing, and it is for this reason that these alone are singled out. One asks: eye-consciousness, too, arises conditioned by color — for what reason, then, is it named eye-consciousness, and not named color-consciousness?

The answer: there does indeed exist a scripture stating that this is named color-consciousness, as it states: consciousness arises conditioned by the color-element, and so on, up through: consciousness arises conditioned by the dharma-element. One asks: there is but a single scripture stating this, while every other scripture, without exception, speaks of eye-consciousness — why, then, do they not speak of it as color-consciousness instead? The answer: the eye is internal, and it is for this reason named only eye-consciousness; color is external, and it is for this reason not named color-consciousness. Further, the eye is the basis, and it is for this reason named only eye-consciousness; color is the object, and it is for this reason not named color-consciousness. Further, the eye is a faculty, and it is for this reason named only eye-consciousness; color is the meaning of a faculty's own object, and it is for this reason not named color-consciousness. Further, the eye possesses a domain, and it is for this reason named only eye-consciousness; color is itself the domain, and it is for this reason not named color-consciousness. Further, the eye is exclusive, and it is for this reason named only eye-consciousness; color is shared, and it is for this reason not named color-consciousness. Further, every act of naming follows the very basis a thing depends upon, in order to display the distinction of what is thereby named — the eye, being the very faculty a consciousness depends upon, is for this reason named only eye-consciousness, and so on, up through: the mind, being the very faculty mind-consciousness depends upon, is for this reason named only mind-consciousness. Exactly as sound is named solely with reference to what it depends upon, in order to display the distinction of what is thereby named — a sound arising by depending upon a drum is named only a drum-sound; a sound arising by depending upon a conch is named only a conch-sound — so too should this be understood with sounds depending upon a harp and the like. One asks: the six consciousnesses, the eye and the rest, all arise depending upon mind — for what reason, then, are the first five not named mind-consciousness? The answer: whichever dharma serves as an unmixed, exclusive, undisturbed basis for a consciousness is named that consciousness's own basis — the eye, being the unmixed, exclusive, undisturbed basis of eye-consciousness, is for this reason named eye-consciousness, and so on, at full length, up through: the body, being the unmixed, exclusive, undisturbed basis of body-consciousness, is for this reason named body-consciousness. The mind is a mixed, shared, disturbed basis for the five sense-consciousnesses, and it is for this reason that the first five are not named mind-consciousness. One asks: granting this, ought mind-consciousness, too, not to be named mind-consciousness at all? The answer: mind-consciousness possesses no further unmixed, exclusive, undisturbed basis besides mind itself, as the first five consciousnesses do, and it is for this reason that it alone is named mind-consciousness. By this same reasoning, this ought to be cast as a tetralemma: there is a dharma that is the basis of eye-consciousness but not its immediately-preceding condition — this refers to a co-arising eye. There is a dharma that is the immediately-preceding condition of eye-consciousness but not its basis — this refers to every mental factor that has just ceased without interruption. There is a dharma that is both the basis of eye-consciousness and its immediately-preceding condition — this refers to the mind-element that has just ceased without interruption.

There is a dharma that is neither the basis of eye-consciousness nor its immediately-preceding condition — this refers to whatever is excluded from the foregoing cases; and so on, up through, this same tetralemma holding equally for body-consciousness. If a dharma is the basis of mind-consciousness, it is likewise its immediately-preceding condition; there is a dharma that is the immediately-preceding condition of mind-consciousness yet not its basis — this refers to every mental factor that has just ceased without interruption. The Venerable Vasumitra likewise says as follows: eye-consciousness, too, arises conditioned by color — for what reason, then, is eye-consciousness not named color-consciousness? The answer: the eye is the basis of eye-consciousness; color is not so. Further, the eye is the superior condition of eye-consciousness; color is not so. Further, the eye belongs solely to its own continuous series; color is indeterminate in this respect. Further, the eye is always proximate; color is indeterminate in this respect. Further, the eye is always internal; color is indeterminate in this respect. Further, the eye is exclusive; color is not so. Further, the eye always possesses sentient appropriation; color is indeterminate in this respect. Further, the eye admits of both benefit and harm, and consciousness follows accordingly; color is not so. One asks: if color, too, admits of both benefit and harm, and consciousness likewise follows accordingly, and if, in the absence of color, eye-consciousness fails to arise, ought it not, then, likewise be named color-consciousness? The answer: this cannot be taken as a parallel case at all, for what reason? Because, given an eye-faculty, though one color should perish, eye-consciousness can still arise by taking some other color as its object; but, in the absence of an eye-faculty, though there be many colors continuously presently manifest, eye-consciousness simply fails to arise at all — and it is for this reason that eye-consciousness's own benefit and harm follows the faculty, not the color. Further, the eye admits of a lower, middling, or upper grade, and consciousness follows accordingly; color is not so. Further, the eye is exclusive; color is indeterminate in this respect — there is a case of one color-element conditioning eye-consciousness belonging to two realms, but no case of a single eye belonging to one realm generating eye-consciousness belonging to two realms; there is a case of one color-element belonging to one destiny conditioning eye-consciousness belonging to all five destinies, but no case of an eye belonging to one destiny generating eye-consciousness belonging to even two destinies, how much less to more.

There is a case of one color-element belonging to one mode of birth conditioning eye-consciousness belonging to all four modes of birth, but no case of an eye belonging to one mode of birth generating eye-consciousness belonging to even two modes of birth, how much less to more. Further, the eye is the superior, dominant condition of eye-consciousness; color is not so. The Great Virtuous One says: whenever the eye is obstructed, consciousness too is obstructed; whenever the eye is unobstructed, consciousness too is unobstructed — and it is for this reason that it is named eye-consciousness, not color-consciousness. One asks: if color, too, is obstructed, consciousness is likewise obstructed, since eye-consciousness fails to arise in the absence of an object-color. The answer: color exists in great multiplicity, while the eye exists but singly — these cannot be taken as parallel cases at all. That is, given an eye, though one color should perish, taking a second color as its object, eye-consciousness can still arise; should this second color also perish, taking a third color as its object, eye-consciousness can still arise, and so on, with each subsequent perishing, consciousness continuing to arise by taking some other color as its object in just the same way. But should the eye-faculty within a single body be destroyed, then, even were countless myriads of colors presently manifest before it, no eye-consciousness taking them as object could ever arise at all — and it is for this reason that eye-consciousness is not named color-consciousness; and so on, up through, this same principle holding equally for body-consciousness. One asks: there is a scriptural passage stating 'color known by the eye' — what is the intent of this? For every color is known solely by eye-consciousness, the eye-faculty itself being incapable of discerning color at all. The answer: this speaks of what the dependent accomplishes in terms of the basis, and so this raises no contradiction with reason at all — that is, the Buddha, the World-Honored One, at times speaks of what the dependent accomplishes in terms of the basis, and, at other times, speaks of what the basis accomplishes in terms of the dependent. As for speaking of what the dependent accomplishes in terms of the basis: this is exactly as that scripture states, 'color known by the eye.' As for speaking of what the basis accomplishes in terms of the dependent: this is exactly as stated in a certain other place, that what is received by eye-consciousness, what is discerned by eye-consciousness, is named what is seen. Further, that scripture ought properly to state 'color known by eye-consciousness,' and it is owing to the reciter's own error that it states merely 'color known by the eye.' Further, that scripture ought properly to state 'color known by eye-consciousness,' but, abbreviating what lies in between, it states merely 'color known by the eye,' exactly as one speaks of an 'ox-cart' or a 'cessation-through-discernment,' and the like. Further, that scripture speaks with reference to the most excellent instrument involved, and so this raises no contradiction with reason at all — exactly as one speaks, with reference to the most excellent instrument involved, of a performer, a dyer, or a scribe, so too is it here. That is, exactly as, at the moment music is performed, although there exist musical instruments, and every performing boy and girl, together with every other assistant, it is the master of the performance alone who receives this very name, since he is the most excellent instrument involved; and, further, exactly as, at the moment cloth is dyed, it is not that there exists no basin of water, no dyer, no assistant, and yet it is that very dyed color which alone receives this very name, since it is the most excellent instrument involved; and, further, exactly as, at the moment of writing, it is not that there exists no ink and water, no vessel to hold the ink, no scribe, no leaf, and yet it is the brush, being the most excellent instrument, that alone receives this very name — so too is it here: although there exist many instruments of cognition at the moment color is known, such as empty space and light, it is the eye, being the most excellent, that alone receives this very name, and it is for this reason that that scripture speaks of 'color known by the eye.' Further, the eye is precisely that upon which the knowing of color depends, and it is for this reason that that scripture speaks of 'color known by the eye' — exactly as one speaks of a road as the very place merchants and their companions ought to travel, though that road is, in truth, merely the place the feet ought to travel, those merchants and companions being that which the feet themselves depend upon, and it is for this reason that they alone receive this very name. So too is it here. Exactly as with the eye-consciousness-element,

so too with the ear-, nose-, tongue-, and body-consciousness-elements, the conditions for their arising, the reasons for their naming, and the reconciliation of scriptural meaning all resembling one another in every case. One asks: what is the mind-element? The answer: whatever mind has already, is presently, or is about to, discern a dharma, together with its own class, is named the mind-element. As for having already discerned a dharma: this refers to a past mind-element. As for presently discerning a dharma: this refers to a present mind-element. As for being about to discern a dharma: this refers to a future mind-element. As for its own class: this refers to a mind-element that will, in the end, never arise at all in the future — there existing no past or present mind-element that is ever a counterpart-class at all, since mind and its mental factors must, of necessity, rely upon an object in order to arise at all, and it is by this very same principle that a future mind-element yet to arise, too, must, of necessity, be a same-class mind. One asks: if the mind-element arises by taking any of the remaining seventeen elements as its object, is it thereby a same-class mind? The answer: it is indeed a same-class mind, exactly as the eye-element and the rest, possessing the very function of seeing and the like, must, of necessity, be a same-class instance — so too with the mind-element: whichever possesses the function of discernment is named a same-class instance.

One asks: what is the dharma-element? The answer: whatever dharma the mind has already, is presently, or is about to, discern, is named the dharma-element. As for having already been discerned by mind: this refers to whatever dharma-element has already been discerned by a past mind-element. As for presently being discerned by mind: this refers to whatever dharma-element is presently being discerned by a present mind-element.

As for being about to be discerned by mind: this refers to whatever dharma-element is about to be discerned by a future mind-element. One asks: does the dharma-element possess any counterpart-class at all?

The answer: it does not, for what reason? Because there exists no dharma whatsoever, past, future, or present, that is not discerned by boundless instances of mind-consciousness — there existing an instance of mind-consciousness that, arising within a single thought-moment, discerns every other dharma whatsoever, excepting only its own nature and whatever is associated with it or co-arisen alongside it. One asks: the remaining seventeen elements, too, are the very object discerned by mind-consciousness — ought they not, then, all likewise be same-class instances, in which case there would exist no counterpart-class at all? How, then, can it be said that there does exist a counterpart-class?

The answer: the remaining seventeen elements are not established as same-class or counterpart-class with reference to mind-consciousness at all, but rather with reference to each one's own particular faculty standing opposite its own particular object — that is, the eye standing opposite color, color standing opposite the eye, and so on, up through, the body standing opposite touch, touch standing opposite the body. One asks: granting this, then the mind-element and the mind-consciousness-element ought properly to establish their own same-class and counterpart-class solely with reference to the dharma-element alone — in which case, whatever arises by taking any of the remaining seventeen elements as its object ought not to be a same-class instance at all. The answer: this ought, in principle, to be exactly so — yet, since the mind-element and the mind-consciousness-element are alone capable of universally discerning every dharma whatsoever, their own same-class instances are established with reference to this very function of their own, exactly as the eye-faculty and the rest, possessing the very function of seeing and the like, are never established as any counterpart-class at all. Other masters say: the dharma-element comprehensively gathers within it every dharma whatsoever, since the remaining seventeen elements, too, are named dharmas, and it is for this reason that no such fault as this arises at all. This position ought not to be held, since, although the term 'dharma' applies universally, the dharma-element itself is genuinely distinct — and it is by this that the position stated earlier is the sound one. Here, one ought to raise the following tetralemma-style question and answer: is there a co-arisen dharma that is, in some respect, a same-class instance, and, in some respect, a counterpart-class instance? The answer: there is — namely, the arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing that occurs upon the seventeen counterpart-class elements, this being gathered within the dharma-element, and therefore ever named a same-class instance.

Is there an associated, co-arisen dharma that is, in some respect, a same-class instance, and, in some respect, a counterpart-class instance? The answer: there is — namely, the mental factors associated with a future, not-yet-arisen mind-element or mind-consciousness-element and the like, which are themselves counterpart-class instances, together with the matter that follows in their train, this being gathered within the dharma-element of the dissociated formations, and therefore ever named a same-class instance.