Twelve Sense-Fields, and What Is "The All"

Continuing the Fetters Aggregate within the Ten Gates Nyāsa, part three. That very same person, at the moment he sees a desire-realm color with a fourth-dhyāna eye, has a neutral-and-unobscured eye-consciousness arise with respect to that color; thereafter, if he is prone to regression, three kinds of discriminating mind-consciousness arise in the desire realm, and two kinds in each of the four dhyānas; if he is not prone to regression, two kinds arise in each of the desire realm and the fourth dhyāna, while only the wholesome kind arises in each of the first three dhyānas. At the moment he sees a first-dhyāna color, a neutral-and-unobscured eye-consciousness arises with respect to that color; thereafter, if he is prone to regression, two kinds of discriminating mind-consciousness arise in each of the desire realm and the latter three dhyānas, and three kinds in the first dhyāna; if he is not prone to regression, only the wholesome kind arises in each of the desire realm and the first three dhyānas, while two kinds arise in the fourth dhyāna. At the moment he sees a second-dhyāna color, a neutral-and-unobscured eye-consciousness arises with respect to that color; thereafter, if he is prone to regression, two kinds of discriminating mind-consciousness arise in each of the desire realm and the first, third, and fourth dhyānas, and three kinds in the second dhyāna; if he is not prone to regression, only the wholesome kind arises in each of the desire realm and the first three dhyānas, while two kinds arise in the fourth dhyāna. At the moment he sees a third-dhyāna color, a neutral-and-unobscured eye-consciousness arises with respect to that color; thereafter, if he is prone to regression, two kinds of discriminating mind-consciousness arise in each of the desire realm and the first, second, and fourth dhyānas, and three kinds in the third dhyāna; if he is not prone to regression, only the wholesome kind arises in each of the desire realm and the first three dhyānas, while two kinds arise in the fourth dhyāna. At the moment he sees a fourth-dhyāna color, a neutral-and-unobscured eye-consciousness arises with respect to that color; thereafter, if he is prone to regression, two kinds of discriminating mind-consciousness arise in each of the desire realm and the first three dhyānas, and three kinds in the fourth dhyāna; if he is not prone to regression, only the wholesome kind arises in each of the desire realm and the first three dhyānas, while three kinds arise in the fourth dhyāna. That very same person, once already free of the fourth dhyāna's own defilement, at the moment he sees, with any of the four dhyāna eyes, a color belonging to any of the five grounds, the neutral-and-unobscured eye-consciousness that arises with respect to that color, and the number of kinds of discriminating mind-consciousness across the five grounds that follow it, should be understood according to the corresponding pattern. Here, for one already free of the first dhyāna's own defilement and the rest, at the moment he sees any color with a desire-realm eye, the eye-consciousness and its own discrimination that arise with respect to that color are easily understood by the same pattern already given, and are therefore not stated again. As for an ordinary person born in the first dhyāna,

not yet free of the first dhyāna's own defilement, at the moment he sees a desire-realm color, two kinds of eye-consciousness arise with respect to that color, excluding the defiled kind; thereafter, three kinds of discriminating mind-consciousness arise in the desire realm, and two kinds in the first dhyāna. At the moment he sees a first-dhyāna color, three kinds of eye-consciousness arise with respect to that color; thereafter, two kinds of discriminating mind-consciousness arise in the desire realm, and three kinds in the first dhyāna. That very same person, once already free of the first dhyāna's own defilement, yet not yet free of the second dhyāna's own defilement, at the moment he sees a desire-realm color with a first-dhyāna eye, the eye-consciousness and its own discrimination that arise with respect to that color are exactly as stated at length before. At the moment he sees a first-dhyāna color, two kinds of eye-consciousness arise with respect to that color, and the discrimination that follows should be understood exactly as stated before. That very same person, at the moment he sees a desire-realm color with a second-dhyāna eye, has a neutral-and-unobscured eye-consciousness arise with respect to that color; thereafter, three kinds of discriminating mind-consciousness arise in the desire realm, and two kinds in each of the first two dhyānas. At the moment he sees a first-dhyāna color, a neutral-and-unobscured eye-consciousness arises with respect to that color; thereafter, two kinds of discriminating mind-consciousness arise in each of the desire realm and the second dhyāna, and three kinds in the first dhyāna. At the moment he sees a second-dhyāna color, a neutral-and-unobscured eye-consciousness arises with respect to that color; thereafter, two kinds of discriminating mind-consciousness arise in each of the desire realm and the first dhyāna, and three kinds in the second dhyāna. That very same person, once already free of the second dhyāna's own defilement, yet not yet free of the third dhyāna's own defilement, using an eye of any of the three grounds to see a color of the fourth ground,

or once already free of the third dhyāna's own defilement, yet not yet free of the fourth dhyāna's own defilement, or once already free of the fourth dhyāna's own defilement, using an eye of any of the four grounds to see a color of the fifth ground, the eye-consciousness and its own discrimination that arise with respect to that color should be understood exactly according to the pattern given before. As stated for an ordinary person born in the first dhyāna,

so too should that very same person, once born in the second, third, or fourth dhyāna, be stated at full length, in each and every case, according to the corresponding pattern.

Having thus stated the case for ordinary persons, as for the noble ones: one not yet free of the desire realm's own defilement, at the moment he sees a desire-realm color, three kinds of eye-consciousness arise with respect to that color; thereafter, three kinds of desire-realm discrimination arise with respect to it. That very same person, once born in the desire realm and already free of the desire realm's own defilement, yet not yet free of the first dhyāna's own defilement, at the moment he sees any color with a desire-realm eye, two kinds of eye-consciousness arise with respect to that color; thereafter, if he is prone to regression, three kinds of discriminating mind-consciousness arise in the desire realm, and two kinds in the first dhyāna; if he is not prone to regression, two kinds arise in each of the desire realm and the first dhyāna. That very same person, at the moment he sees a desire-realm color with a first-dhyāna eye, has a neutral-and-unobscured eye-consciousness arise with respect to that color; thereafter, two kinds of discriminating mind-consciousness arise in the first dhyāna, while, in the desire realm, if he is prone to regression, three kinds arise, and, if he is not prone to regression, two kinds arise. At the moment he sees a first-dhyāna color, a neutral-and-unobscured eye-consciousness arises with respect to that color; thereafter, three kinds of discriminating mind-consciousness arise in the first dhyāna,

while, in the desire realm, only the wholesome kind arises. That very same person, once already free of the first dhyāna's own defilement, yet not yet free of the second dhyāna's own defilement, at the moment he sees a desire-realm color with a first-dhyāna eye, has a neutral-and-unobscured eye-consciousness arise with respect to that color; thereafter, if he is prone to regression, three kinds of discriminating mind-consciousness arise in the desire realm, and two kinds in the first dhyāna; if he is not prone to regression, two kinds arise in the desire realm, while only the wholesome kind arises in the first dhyāna. At the moment he sees a first-dhyāna color, a neutral-and-unobscured eye-consciousness arises with respect to that color; thereafter, in the desire realm, only the wholesome kind arises, while, in the first dhyāna, if he is prone to regression, three kinds arise, and, if he is not prone to regression, only the wholesome kind arises. That very same person, at the moment he sees a desire-realm color with a second-dhyāna eye, has a neutral-and-unobscured eye-consciousness arise with respect to that color; thereafter, if he is prone to regression, three kinds of discriminating mind-consciousness arise in the desire realm, and two kinds in each of the first two dhyānas; if he is not prone to regression, two kinds arise in each of the desire realm and the second dhyāna, while only the wholesome kind arises in the first dhyāna. At the moment he sees a first-dhyāna color, a neutral-and-unobscured eye-consciousness arises with respect to that color; thereafter, in the desire realm, only the wholesome kind arises, while two kinds arise in the second dhyāna, and, in the first dhyāna, if he is prone to regression, three kinds arise, and, if he is not prone to regression, only the wholesome kind arises. At the moment he sees a second-dhyāna color, a neutral-and-unobscured eye-consciousness arises with respect to that color; thereafter, only the wholesome kind arises in each of the desire realm and the first dhyāna, while three kinds arise in the second dhyāna. That very same person, once already free of the second dhyāna's own defilement, yet not yet free of the third dhyāna's own defilement, using an eye of any of the three grounds to see a color of the fourth ground, or once already free of the third dhyāna's own defilement, yet not yet free of the fourth dhyāna's own defilement, or once already free of the fourth dhyāna's own defilement, using an eye of any of the four grounds to see a color of the fifth ground, the eye-consciousness and its own discrimination that arise with respect to that color should be understood according to the corresponding pattern. Here, for one already free of the first dhyāna's own defilement and the rest,

at the moment he sees any color with a desire-realm eye, the eye-consciousness and its own discrimination that arise with respect to that color are easily understood by the same pattern already given, and are therefore not stated again.

Having thus stated the case for a noble one born in the desire realm, that very same person, if born in the first dhyāna, not yet free of the first dhyāna's own defilement, at the moment he sees a desire-realm color,

has two kinds of eye-consciousness arise with respect to that color; thereafter, two kinds of first-dhyāna discrimination arise with respect to it. At the moment he sees a first-dhyāna color, three kinds of eye-consciousness arise with respect to that color; thereafter, three kinds of first-dhyāna discrimination arise with respect to it. That very same person, once already free of the first dhyāna's own defilement, yet not yet free of the second dhyāna's own defilement, at the moment he sees a desire-realm color with a first-dhyāna eye, the eye-consciousness and its own discrimination that arise with respect to that color should be understood exactly as stated before. At the moment he sees a first-dhyāna color, two kinds of eye-consciousness arise with respect to that color; thereafter, two kinds of discrimination arise in each of the first two dhyānas. That very same person, at the moment he sees a desire-realm or a first-dhyāna color with a second-dhyāna eye, has a neutral-and-unobscured eye-consciousness arise with respect to that color; thereafter, two kinds of discrimination arise in each of the first two dhyānas. At the moment he sees a second-dhyāna color, a neutral-and-unobscured eye-consciousness arises with respect to that color; thereafter, only the wholesome kind arises in the first dhyāna, while three kinds arise in the second dhyāna. That very same person, once already free of the second dhyāna's own defilement, yet not yet free of the third dhyāna's own defilement, at the moment he sees a desire-realm or a first-dhyāna color with a first-dhyāna eye, the eye-consciousness and its own discrimination that arise with respect to that color should be understood exactly as stated before. At the moment he sees a desire-realm or a first-dhyāna color with a second-dhyāna eye, has a neutral-and-unobscured eye-consciousness arise with respect to that color; thereafter, two kinds of discrimination arise in each of the first and third dhyānas, while only the wholesome kind arises in the second dhyāna. At the moment he sees a second-dhyāna color, a neutral-and-unobscured eye-consciousness arises with respect to that color; thereafter, only the wholesome kind arises in each of the first two dhyānas, while two kinds arise in the third dhyāna. That very same person, at the moment he sees a desire-realm or a first-dhyāna color with a third-dhyāna eye, has a neutral-and-unobscured eye-consciousness arise with respect to that color; thereafter, two kinds of discrimination arise in each of the first and third dhyānas, while only the wholesome kind arises in the second dhyāna. At the moment he sees a second-dhyāna color, a neutral-and-unobscured eye-consciousness arises with respect to that color; thereafter, only the wholesome kind arises in each of the first two dhyānas, while two kinds arise in the third dhyāna. At the moment he sees a third-dhyāna color, a neutral-and-unobscured eye-consciousness arises with respect to that color; thereafter, only the wholesome kind arises in each of the first two dhyānas, while three kinds arise in the third dhyāna. That very same person, once already free of the third dhyāna's own defilement, yet not yet free of the fourth dhyāna's own defilement, or once already free of the fourth dhyāna's own defilement, using an eye of any of the four grounds to see a color of the fifth ground, the eye-consciousness and its own discrimination that arise with respect to that color should be understood according to the corresponding pattern. As stated for a noble one born in the first dhyāna, so too should that very same person, once born in the second, third, or fourth dhyāna, be stated at full length, in each and every case, according to the corresponding pattern.

Here, eye-consciousness relying upon its own ground's own eye, taking a lower ground's own color as its object, admits of two kinds, excluding the defiled kind; taking its own ground's own color as its object, it admits of three kinds. If relying upon an upper ground's own eye, it is solely neutral-and-unobscured. A wholesome or a defiled eye-consciousness arises only, and precisely, in the very ground it belongs to, this being of necessity bound up with the ground of its own rebirth. A wholesome discriminating mind-consciousness is capable of taking as object anything belonging to its own ground or to a ground above or below it; a defiled discriminating mind-consciousness is capable of taking as object only what belongs to its own ground or to a ground above it; a neutral-and-unobscured discriminating mind-consciousness is capable of taking as object only what belongs to its own ground or to a ground below it. A wholesome or a defiled discriminating mind-consciousness may arise in a ground below its own rebirth, but not in a ground above it; a neutral-and-unobscured discriminating mind-consciousness arises only, and precisely, in the very ground it belongs to, this too being of necessity bound up with the ground of its own rebirth. The discriminating mind-consciousness that arises just after eye-consciousness is not confined to a single lifetime alone, since, even after many further lifetimes have passed, it can still arise by taking that same previously seen color as its object. One asks: for what reason does one born in the latter three dhyānas still remain capable of manifesting a first-dhyāna eye-consciousness at all?

The Dārṣṭāntikas say: who ever said that one born in the latter three dhyānas is capable of manifesting the first dhyāna's own eye-consciousness and the rest? Rather, the latter three dhyānas possess their own eye-consciousness and the rest, relying upon their own ground's own faculty to discern their own lower object — were this not so, how could one born in an upper ground employ some skillful expedient to draw forth the first dhyāna's own eye-consciousness and the rest and cause them to become presently manifest? The compilers say: this ought not to be said. One should say as follows: the latter three dhyānas possess no eye-consciousness and the rest at all, for what reason? Because they lack investigation and reflection, the five sense-consciousnesses of eye and the rest ever arising in association with investigation and reflection. One asks: for what reason does one born in the latter three dhyānas not draw forth the desire realm's own eye-consciousness and the rest to become presently manifest, drawing forth only the first dhyāna's own consciousness instead? There are those who say: the desire realm being inferior, one born in a superior ground has no wish to draw forth its own eye-consciousness and the rest to become presently manifest. Other masters say: this is because their own realm-binding differs — that is, the eye-consciousness and the rest bound to the desire realm do not share the very same realm-binding as an upper ground's own faculty, whereas the first dhyāna's own consciousness, though not sharing the very same ground as an upper ground's own faculty, does share the very same realm, and it is for this reason that it can still arise by relying upon it. Others, further, say: the desire realm's own eye-consciousness and the rest are neither the fruit of cultivation nor the fruit of supernormal attainment, and it is for this reason that they cannot become manifest by relying upon an upper ground's own faculty; the first dhyāna's own eye-consciousness and the rest are indeed the fruit of cultivation and the fruit of supernormal attainment, and it is for this reason that they too can become manifest by relying upon an upper ground's own faculty. There are yet others who say: the desire realm's own eye-consciousness and the rest belong to no fixed realm, no ground of cultivation, and no ground of freedom from defilement, and it is for this reason that they cannot become manifest by relying upon an upper ground's own faculty; the first dhyāna's own eye-consciousness and the rest do belong to a fixed realm, a ground of cultivation, and a ground of freedom from defilement, and it is for this reason that they too can become manifest by relying upon an upper ground's own faculty. It is owing to causes and conditions such as these, of every kind, that one born in the latter three dhyānas is capable of giving rise to the first dhyāna's own eye-consciousness and the rest, yet never to the desire realm's own. Exactly as stated for eye-consciousness relying upon the faculties of the various grounds to discern the colors of the various grounds, and for the number of kinds of the three forms of discrimination drawn forth within mind-consciousness thereafter, so too should the ear-consciousness and the rest be understood, according to the corresponding pattern.

One asks: does whoever possesses the eye-element likewise possess the color-element? The answer: whoever possesses the eye-element does indeed possess the color-element; there is a case of possessing the color-element without possessing the eye-element — that is, one born in the desire realm who has not yet attained an eye, or who has attained one and then lost it. As for not yet having attained an eye: this refers to the kalala stage and the rest, and to one born blind. As for having attained one and then lost it: this refers to one whose eye, once attained, has since decayed, or been gouged out, or been eaten by worms, or been destroyed by some other cause. One asks: does whoever possesses the eye-element likewise possess the eye-consciousness-element? The answer: this ought to be cast as a tetralemma. There is a case of possessing the eye-element without possessing the eye-consciousness-element — that is, one born in the second, third, or fourth dhyāna, for whom the eye-consciousness-element is not presently manifest. There is a case of possessing the eye-consciousness-element without possessing the eye-element — that is, one born in the desire realm who has not yet attained an eye, or who has attained one and then lost it. There is a case of possessing both the eye-element and the eye-consciousness-element — that is, one born in the desire realm who has already attained an eye and not lost it, or one born in the first dhyāna, or one born in the second, third, or fourth dhyāna for whom the eye-consciousness-element is presently manifest. There is a case of possessing neither the eye-element nor the eye-consciousness-element — that is, one born in the formless realm. One asks: does whoever possesses the color-element likewise possess the eye-consciousness-element? The answer: whoever possesses the eye-consciousness-element does indeed possess the color-element; there is a case of possessing the color-element without possessing the eye-consciousness-element — that is, one born in the second, third, or fourth dhyāna, for whom the eye-consciousness-element is not presently manifest.

One asks: does whoever fails to possess the eye-element likewise fail to possess the color-element? The answer: whoever fails to possess the color-element does indeed fail to possess the eye-element; there is a case of failing to possess the eye-element without failing to possess the color-element — that is, one born in the desire realm who has not yet attained an eye, or who has attained one and then lost it. One asks: does whoever fails to possess the eye-element likewise fail to possess the eye-consciousness-element? The answer: this ought to be cast as a tetralemma. There is a case of failing to possess the eye-element without failing to possess the eye-consciousness-element — that is, one born in the desire realm who has not yet attained an eye, or who has attained one and then lost it. There is a case of failing to possess the eye-consciousness-element without failing to possess the eye-element — that is, one born in the second, third, or fourth dhyāna, for whom the eye-consciousness-element is not presently manifest. There is a case of failing to possess both the eye-element and the eye-consciousness-element — that is, one born in the formless realm. There is a case of failing to fail to possess either the eye-element or the eye-consciousness-element — that is, one born in the desire realm who has already attained an eye and not lost it, or one born in the first dhyāna, or one born in the second, third, or fourth dhyāna for whom the eye-consciousness-element is presently manifest. One asks: does whoever fails to possess the color-element likewise fail to possess the eye-consciousness-element? The answer: whoever fails to possess the color-element does indeed fail to possess the eye-consciousness-element; there is a case of failing to possess the eye-consciousness-element without failing to possess the color-element — that is, one born in the second, third, or fourth dhyāna, for whom the eye-consciousness-element is not presently manifest.

One asks: does whoever does not yet possess the eye-element, upon coming to possess it, likewise come to possess the color-element? The answer: whoever does not yet possess the color-element, upon coming to possess it, likewise comes to possess the eye-element, and the reverse holds equally. There is a case of not yet possessing the eye-element, upon coming to possess it, without thereby possessing the color-element — that is, one born in the desire realm who gradually attains the eye-element. One asks: does whoever does not yet possess the eye-element, upon coming to possess it, likewise come to possess the eye-consciousness-element? The answer: this ought to be cast as a tetralemma. There is a case of not yet possessing the eye-element, upon coming to possess it, without thereby possessing the eye-consciousness-element — that is, one who, dying in the formless realm, is reborn in the second, third, or fourth dhyāna, or one born in the desire realm who gradually attains the eye-element. There is a case of not yet possessing the eye-consciousness-element, upon coming to possess it, without thereby possessing the eye-element — that is, one born in the second, third, or fourth dhyāna, for whom the eye-consciousness-element becomes presently manifest, or one who, dying from that state, is reborn in the desire realm or the first dhyāna. There is a case of not yet possessing the eye-element, upon coming to possess it, together with thereby possessing the eye-consciousness-element —

that is, one who, dying in the formless realm, is reborn in the desire realm or the first dhyāna. There is a case of the eye-element not failing to be possessed, upon coming to possess it, without thereby possessing the eye-consciousness-element —

this referring to whatever is excluded from the foregoing cases. One asks: does whoever does not yet possess the color-element, upon coming to possess it, likewise come to possess the eye-consciousness-element? The answer: this ought to be cast as a tetralemma. There is a case of not yet possessing the color-element, upon coming to possess it, without thereby possessing the eye-consciousness-element — that is, one who, dying in the formless realm, is reborn in the second, third, or fourth dhyāna. There is a case of not yet possessing the eye-consciousness-element, upon coming to possess it, without thereby possessing the color-element — that is, one born in the second, third, or fourth dhyāna, for whom the eye-consciousness-element becomes presently manifest, or one who, dying from that state, is reborn in the desire realm or the first dhyāna. There is a case of not yet possessing the color-element, upon coming to possess it, together with thereby possessing the eye-consciousness-element —

that is, one who, dying in the formless realm, is reborn in the desire realm or the first dhyāna. There is a case of the color-element not failing to be possessed, upon coming to possess it, without thereby possessing the eye-consciousness-element — this referring to whatever is excluded from the foregoing cases.

One asks: does whoever possesses the eye-element, upon coming to fail to possess it, likewise come to fail to possess the color-element? The answer: this ought to be cast as a tetralemma. There is a case of possessing the eye-element, upon coming to fail to possess it, without thereby failing to possess the color-element — that is, one born in the desire realm who has already attained an eye and then loses it. There is a case of possessing the color-element, upon coming to fail to possess it, without thereby failing to possess the eye-element — that is, one lacking an eye in the desire realm who dies and is reborn in the formless realm. There is a case of possessing the eye-element, upon coming to fail to possess it, together with thereby failing to possess the color-element — that is, one possessing an eye in the desire realm who dies and is reborn in the formless realm, or one who dies in the form realm and is reborn in the formless realm. There is a case of the eye-element not being possessed, upon coming to fail to possess it, without thereby failing to possess the color-element — this referring to whatever is excluded from the foregoing cases. One asks: does whoever possesses the eye-element, upon coming to fail to possess it, likewise come to fail to possess the eye-consciousness-element? The answer: this ought to be cast as a tetralemma. There is a case of possessing the eye-element, upon coming to fail to possess it, without thereby failing to possess the eye-consciousness-element — that is, one born in the desire realm who has already attained an eye and then loses it, or one who dies in the second, third, or fourth dhyāna and is reborn in the formless realm. There is a case of possessing the eye-consciousness-element, upon coming to fail to possess it, without thereby failing to possess the eye-element — that is, one lacking an eye in the desire realm who dies and is reborn in the formless realm, or one who dies in the desire realm or the first dhyāna and is reborn in the second, third, or fourth dhyāna, or one who, abiding in that very state, has already had the eye-consciousness-element presently manifest and then cease. There is a case of possessing the eye-element, upon coming to fail to possess it, together with thereby failing to possess the eye-consciousness-element — that is, one possessing an eye in the desire realm who dies and is reborn in the formless realm, or one who dies in the first dhyāna and is reborn in the formless realm. There is a case of the eye-element not being possessed, upon coming to fail to possess it, without thereby failing to possess the eye-consciousness-element — this referring to whatever is excluded from the foregoing cases. One asks: does whoever possesses the color-element, upon coming to fail to possess it, likewise come to fail to possess the eye-consciousness-element? The answer: this ought to be cast as a tetralemma. There is a case of possessing the color-element, upon coming to fail to possess it, without thereby failing to possess the eye-consciousness-element — that is, one who dies in the second, third, or fourth dhyāna and is reborn in the formless realm. There is a case of possessing the eye-consciousness-element, upon coming to fail to possess it, without thereby failing to possess the color-element — that is, one who dies in the desire realm or the first dhyāna and is reborn in the second, third, or fourth dhyāna, or one who, abiding in that very state, has already had the eye-consciousness-element presently manifest and then cease. There is a case of possessing the color-element, upon coming to fail to possess it, together with thereby failing to possess the eye-consciousness-element — that is, one who dies in the desire realm or the first dhyāna and is reborn in the formless realm. There is a case of the color-element not being possessed, upon coming to fail to possess it, without thereby failing to possess the eye-consciousness-element — this referring to whatever is excluded from the foregoing cases.

Exactly as the eye-element, the color-element, and the eye-consciousness-element, set reciprocally against one another, yield these twelve discourses, so too should the ear-element, the sound-element, and the ear-consciousness-element, set reciprocally against one another, and, up through, the mind-element, the dharma-element, and the mind-consciousness-element, set reciprocally against one another, each likewise yield their own twelve discourses. This, however, speaks only of a same-class instance set against a same-class instance, or a counterpart-class instance set against a counterpart-class instance. As for a same-class instance set against a counterpart-class instance, one should say as follows: the eye-element, the color-element, and the eye-consciousness-element admit of five kinds of threefold discourse; the ear-element, the sound-element, and the ear-consciousness-element admit of four kinds of threefold discourse; the nose-element, the smell-element, and the nose-consciousness-element admit of three kinds of threefold discourse;

the tongue-element, the taste-element, and the tongue-consciousness-element admit of two kinds of threefold discourse; the body-element, the touch-element, and the body-consciousness-element admit of one kind of threefold discourse. Each and every one of these should be understood according to its own corresponding pattern.

As for the twelve sense-fields: the eye-field, the color-field, the ear-field, the sound-field, the nose-field, the smell-field, the tongue-field, the taste-field, the body-field, the touch-field, the mind-field, and the dharma-field. One asks: for what reason is this treatise composed? The answer: in order to broadly analyze the meaning of a certain scripture. That is, the scripture states: there was a brahmin named Janapada who came to where the Buddha was, and, having arrived, bowed his head to the World-Honored One's own two feet, and, with palms joined in reverence, inquired after the Buddha's own health, and then withdrew and sat to one side,

and said to the Buddha: Gautama, you constantly teach the assembly about 'the all' — what, then, is 'the all'? On what basis is this very term 'the all' established? The Buddha told the brahmin Janapada: what I speak of as 'the all' is precisely the twelve sense-fields, namely, the eye-field, and so on, up through, the dharma-field.

It is precisely by this measure that the Thus-Come One establishes 'the all.' Were there any ascetic or brahmin who were to say: I am capable of setting aside what the Buddha speaks of as 'the all,' and separately establish some further term for 'the all' — such a person would possess mere words, devoid of any real meaning at all, and, were he questioned in turn about it, he would be utterly unable to explain himself,

and, upon later reflecting carefully upon it himself, would only grow the more confused and perplexed, for what reason? Because it lies beyond his own proper domain entirely. Although the scripture states this much, it does not itself analyze its own meaning in any further detail — this scripture being the very root upon which this treatise depends, and, since it does not itself state what remains to be stated, this treatise now wishes to state it, and it is for this reason that this treatise is composed. One asks: were one to say that 'the all' refers to the eighteen elements; or were one to say that 'the all' refers to the five aggregates together with the unconditioned; or were one to say that 'the all' refers to the four truths together with space and non-analytical cessation; or were one to say that 'the all' refers to name and form — would such statements as these, too, be mere words, devoid of any real meaning? The answer: here, it is the meaning that is ruled out, not the wording — that is, only the designation in meaning is ruled out, not the designation in wording. The Buddha's own intent, in speaking thus, was that the very nature of every dharma whatsoever is, without exception, gathered within these twelve sense-fields — and, were someone to say: I am capable of establishing some further dharma, separately, not gathered within these twelve sense-fields at all — such a person would possess mere words, devoid of any real meaning.

It is not the Buddha's own intent to say that there exists no further teaching whatsoever, distinguishing name, form, and the rest, beyond the twelve sense-fields — rather, it is that the Buddha's own teaching of the twelve sense-fields is the most supreme and excellent of all, surpassing every other teaching. One asks: for what reason is this teaching the most supreme and excellent? The answer: because it speaks in a middling way, while still gathering within it every dharma whatsoever. The teaching on the eighteen elements, although it too gathers within it every dharma whatsoever, speaks too broadly, and is difficult to uphold and retain; the teaching on the five aggregates is not merely too brief, and difficult to fully comprehend,

it likewise fails to gather within it every dharma whatsoever, since the aggregates do not gather within them the three unconditioned dharmas. Only the Buddha's own teaching on the twelve sense-fields exhausts every dharma whatsoever, being neither too broad nor too brief, and it is for this reason that it is said to be the most supreme and excellent of all. It is for this reason that it is said: whoever wishes to observe the nature and characteristics of every dharma ought to rely upon this very teaching of the twelve sense-fields — for, relying upon this teaching of the twelve sense-fields to observe the nature and characteristics possessed by every dharma, one thereby gives rise to the twelve lights of cognition regarding one's own objects, and further manifests the twelve reflected images of their own real meaning, exactly as a person who polishes twelve bright mirrors and hangs them in every direction — were he to step within their midst, his own twelve reflected images would at once appear. Within each and every sentient being's own body, these twelve sense-fields are to be found. One asks: if, within a single body, there exist twelve sense-fields, how, then, are these twelve sense-fields established? The answer: because their own nature and function each differ — that is, although the twelve sense-fields exist within a single body, their own twelve distinct natures and functions differ from one another, and are not mutually intermingled — exactly as, within a single chamber, there might be twelve performers, each skilled in a different art, who, though sharing that one same chamber, each possess their own twelve distinct natures and functions. Further, the twelve sense-fields are established by two matters: first, by basis, namely, the eye and the rest, six in number; second, by object, namely, color and the rest, six in number. Further, the twelve sense-fields are established by three matters: first, by own-nature; second, by basis; third, by object. By own-nature, the eye-field, up through the dharma-field, are established; by basis, the eye-field, up through the mind-field, are established; by object, the color-field, up through the dharma-field, are established. This is named the own-nature of the various sense-fields — their own substance, own character, and inherent nature.

Having already spoken of the own-nature of the sense-fields, the very reason for this shall now be stated. One asks: why is it named a sense-field? What is the meaning of 'āyatana'? The answer: the meaning of a gate of birth, the meaning of a path of birth, the meaning of a storehouse, the meaning of a granary, the meaning of a warp, the meaning of a place of slaughter, the meaning of a field, the meaning of a pool, the meaning of a stream, the meaning of an ocean, the meaning of whiteness, and the meaning of purity — these should be understood as the meaning of a sense-field. As for the meaning of a gate of birth being precisely the meaning of a sense-field: this is exactly as, within a city or a town, every kind of good is produced, thereby nourishing and growing every sentient being's own body — so too, within this basis and this object, every kind of mind and mental factor is produced, thereby nourishing and growing the very continuity of defilement and purity. As for the meaning of a path of birth being precisely the meaning of a sense-field: this is exactly as, along a road, every kind of good passes through in transit, thereby nourishing and growing every sentient being's own body — so too, within this basis and this object, every kind of mind and mental factor passes through in transit, thereby nourishing and growing the very continuity of defilement and purity. As for the meaning of a storehouse being precisely the meaning of a sense-field:

this is exactly as, within a treasury, gold, silver, and every other kind of precious thing is accumulated and stored — so too, within this basis and this object, every dharma of mind and mental factor is accumulated and stored. As for the meaning of a granary being precisely the meaning of a sense-field: this is exactly as, within a granary, rice, wheat, and every other kind of grain is accumulated and stored — so too, within this basis and this object, every dharma of mind and mental factor is accumulated and stored. As for the meaning of a warp being precisely the meaning of a sense-field: this is exactly as, upon the warp-threads of a loom, every kind of weft is interwoven — so too, upon this basis and this object, every kind of mind and mental factor is spread out throughout. As for the meaning of a place of slaughter being precisely the meaning of a sense-field: this is exactly as, upon a battlefield, a hundred thousand heads are severed and made to fall to the ground — so too, within this basis and this object, countless kinds of mind and mental factor are destroyed and undone by the very destruction of impermanence. As for the meaning of a field being precisely the meaning of a sense-field: this is exactly as, within a field, countless kinds of seedling and crop grow and flourish — so too, within this basis and this object, every kind of mind and mental factor grows and flourishes. As for the meaning of a pool being precisely the meaning of a sense-field: this is exactly as when it is asked:

'From what pool does the water emerge? At what place is the path impassable? At what place is the world gathered in, its suffering and happiness alike entirely exhausted?' The World-Honored One replied:

'The eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind, and every other sense-field — these gather in name and form, leaving nothing whatsoever left over. It is from this very pool that the water emerges; at this very place the path is impassable; at this very place the world is gathered in, its suffering and happiness alike entirely exhausted.' As for the meaning of a stream being precisely the meaning of a sense-field: this is exactly as when it is asked:

'The various sense-fields are about to overflow their banks — by what means can this be held in check? And, once they have already overflowed from there, who is capable of damming them once again?' The World-Honored One replied:

'The various sense-fields are about to overflow their banks — correct mindfulness is capable of holding this in check; and, once they have already overflowed from there, pure wisdom is capable of damming them once again.' As for the meaning of an ocean being precisely the meaning of a sense-field: this is exactly as the World-Honored One states, monks, you should know, sentient beings take the eye itself as an ocean, the various colors presently before them as its own crashing waves — whoever is capable of restraining and controlling himself amid these waves of color is thereby capable of crossing over the very ocean of the eye, and of escaping every kind of perilous danger, such as whirlpools and rākṣasa-demons — and so on, at full length, up through mind and its dharma, in exactly the corresponding manner. As for the meaning of whiteness being precisely the meaning of a sense-field: this refers to the fact that the eye and the other sense-fields are coarse, evident, and clear. As for the meaning of purity being precisely the meaning of a sense-field: this refers to the fact that the eye and the other sense-fields are genuine, real, and limpid. Such, then, are the meanings from gate of birth up through purity. Outside treatises name this term 'purolna' — as the wandering outsider Mākandika states: Gautama declares that every 'purolna' comes to be gathered within my own incantations and formulas. The term 'purolna' carries two distinct senses: first, the sense of a root; second, the sense of an agent — since the twelve sense-fields serve as the very root of mind and its mental factors, and are likewise capable of setting mind and its mental factors into motion. Having now broadly stated the very reason for the name 'sense-field,' each of the sense-fields' own characteristics shall now be stated in turn. One asks: what is the eye-field? The answer: whatever eye has already, is presently, or is about to, see color, together with its own class, is named the eye-field — the phrase 'having already seen color' and the rest being exactly as already explained within the discussion of the elements, and so on, up through, the mind-field should be understood likewise. One asks: what is the color-field? The answer: whatever color the eye has already, is presently, or is about to, see, together with its own class, is named the color-field — the phrase 'having already been seen' and the rest being exactly as already explained within the discussion of the elements, and so on, up through, the dharma-field should be understood likewise. One asks: if the ten sense-fields of form, together with a portion of the dharma-field, are all, in their own substance, form, for what reason is only this one alone named the color-field? The answer: it is only this one sense-field whose own characteristic of color is so coarse, evident, and manifest, so easy to see and easy to make out, and it is for this reason that it alone is named the color-field, no other sense-field being so, and it is for this reason that a separate name is established for it. Further, it is only this one sense-field that serves as the domain of two kinds of eye, namely, the fleshly eye and the divine eye, and it is for this reason that it is named the color-field, no other sense-field being so, and it is for this reason that a separate name is established for it. Further, it is only this one sense-field that serves as the domain of three kinds of eye, namely, the fleshly eye, the divine eye, and the noble eye of wisdom, and it is for this reason that it is named the color-field, no other sense-field being so, and it is for this reason that a separate name is established for it. Further, it is only this one sense-field that serves as the domain of two kinds of eye, and the object taken by eye-consciousness itself, and it is for this reason that it is named the color-field — it is for this reason that the Venerable Ghoṣa says as follows: whatever is the domain of two kinds of eye, and the object taken by eye-consciousness, receives the name color-field, no other sense-field being so. Further, whatever admits of coarseness or fineness, length or shortness, and a discernible spatial location, here or there, receives the name color-field, no other sense-field being so, and it is for this reason that they are not the color-field. Further, whatever possesses a large outward form, and is capable of being accumulated and easily discerned, receives the name color-field, no other sense-field being so, and it is for this reason that they are not the color-field. Further, whatever is capable of being planted and of growing, and is easily discerned in this respect, receives the name color-field,

no other sense-field being so, and it is for this reason that they are not the color-field — this planting and growing spanning both the external and the internal portion: the external portion's own planting refers to the sowing of the seed; its own sprouting refers to the emergence of the shoot; its own growth refers to the stage of stalk, leaf, flower, and fruit. The internal portion's own planting refers to the kalala stage; its own sprouting refers to the arbuda stage; its own growth refers to the peśī, ghana, praśākhā, and later stages. Further, whatever admits of being designated with a directional nature receives the name color-field, no other sense-field being so, and it is for this reason that they are not the color-field — every directional nature whatsoever being designated solely with reference to the color-field, and to no other sense-field at all. Further, whatever admits of being designated with a yojana-measure of distance receives the name color-field, no other sense-field being so, and it is for this reason that they are not the color-field — every yojana-measure whatsoever being designated solely with reference to the color-field, and to no other sense-field at all. Further, whatever is capable of covering over every other material dharma, exactly as a turban or a cap does, receives the name color-field, no other sense-field being so, and it is for this reason that they are not the color-field — only the color-field being capable of comprehensively covering over every other material dharma, and no other sense-field being so. Further, whatever sense-field possesses both a shape-based and a hue-based color receives the name color-field, no other sense-field being so, and it is for this reason that they are not the color-field. Further, whatever sense-field possesses twenty or twenty-one kinds of color receives the name color-field, no other sense-field being so, and it is for this reason that they are not the color-field.

One asks: for what reason is it named the touch-field? Is it named the touch-field because it is touchable, or is it named the touch-field because its own substance is touch itself, or is it named the touch-field because it is the very object taken by touch? Whichever position is granted, what fault follows? All three carry a fault. For what reason is this so? If it is named the touch-field because it is touchable,

then, since atoms never actually touch one another at all, however they may be arranged, how could the touch-field genuinely be touchable at all? If it is named the touch-field because its own substance is touch itself, then, since the derived matter produced by the great elements is not, in itself, the very nature of touch, how could the touch-field's own substance genuinely be touch itself? If it is named the touch-field because it is the very object taken by touch, then, since this too serves as the object of every other mind and mental factor besides touch, how could it be said to be the object taken by touch alone? The answer: one should say as follows — this is named the touch-field because it is touchable. One asks: since atoms never actually touch one another at all, however they may be arranged, how could the touch-field genuinely be touchable at all? The answer: this is stated with reference to conventional truth, not with reference to ultimate truth — that is, the world commonly says that whatever object is received by the eye is named visible; whatever object is received by the ear is named audible; whatever object is received by the nose is named smellable; whatever object is received by the tongue is named tasteable; whatever object is received by the body is named touchable; whatever object is received by the mind is named knowable — and it is for this reason that it is named the touch-field, on account of being touchable. Further, it is named the touch-field because it serves as the condition for generating body-consciousness, as the scripture states: body-touch, serving as condition, generates body-consciousness — this being the very mind that discerns its own object, in the sense of ultimate truth, and it is for this reason that this object is named the touch-field. Further, this is named the touch-field, and is likewise named the nourishing-field, since it nourishes and grows every other material dharma, causing it to increase and flourish — exactly as whatever increases joy is named the joy-field, so too, since this is capable of nourishing and growing, it is named the nourishing-field.

The Venerable Vasumitra says as follows: do atoms, however they may be arranged, actually touch one another? The answer: they do not actually touch one another at all — were they to touch, they ought then to persist right up to a second thought-moment. The Great Virtuous One says: every atom whatsoever, in reality, never actually touches another — it is merely on account of there being no interval or gap between them that the provisional designation 'touching' is established. There are those who say: atoms, however they may be arranged, in reality neither actually touch one another, nor are they even without an interval or gap — it is merely that, dwelling together and abiding in close mutual proximity, the provisional designation 'touching' is established.

One asks: since the substance of the twelve sense-fields is nothing other than dharmas, for what reason does only one of them alone bear the name dharma-field? The answer: although the substance of all twelve sense-fields is indeed dharmas,

there is no fault whatsoever in establishing the name dharma-field for only one of them alone, there being a precedent for this. Exactly as with the eighteen elements, whose substance, though every one of them is indeed dharmas, nonetheless has the name dharma-element established for only one of them alone; and exactly as with the ten kinds of cognition, which, though every one of them does indeed take dharma as its object, nonetheless has the name dharma-cognition established for only one of them alone; and exactly as with the seven factors of awakening, which, though every one of them is indeed capable of discerning dharma, nonetheless has the name the discernment-of-dharma awakening-factor established for only one of them alone; and exactly as with the six recollections, which, though every one of them does indeed take dharma as its object, nonetheless has the name recollection-of-dharma established for only one of them alone; and exactly as with the four foundations of mindfulness, which, though every one of them does indeed take dharma as its object, nonetheless has the name the dharma foundation of mindfulness established for only one of them alone; and exactly as with the four confirmed purities, which, though every one of them does indeed take dharma as its object, nonetheless has the name confirmed purity in the dharma established for only one of them alone; and exactly as with the four unobstructed understandings, which, though every one of them does indeed take dharma as its object, nonetheless has the name unobstructed understanding of dharma established for only one of them alone; and exactly as with the three jewels and the three refuges, whose substance, though it too is indeed dharma throughout, nonetheless has the name the jewel of the dharma and the refuge in the dharma established for only one of them alone — so too is it here: although the substance of the twelve sense-fields is indeed dharmas throughout, there is no fault whatsoever in establishing the name dharma-field for only one of them alone. Further, the dharma-field possesses but a single name, while every other sense-field possesses two names — as for a single name, this refers to a name held in common, since all twelve sense-fields are indeed dharmas; as for two names, this refers to a name held in common, together with a name held exclusively — the name held in common being as stated above, while the name held exclusively refers to names such as the eye-field, established in order to make things easy to understand by displaying this exclusive name. The dharma-field possesses no further exclusive name of its own, and it is for this reason that only its name held in common is displayed, and it is for this reason that it is named the dharma-field.

Further, the very characteristic of arising belonging to every conditioned dharma is gathered solely within this sense-field, and it is for this reason that this alone is named the dharma-field. Further, the four characteristics of the conditioned are the very seal and emblem stamped upon every dharma whatsoever, distinguishing the conditioned from the unconditioned, and, since these characteristics themselves are gathered solely within this sense-field, this alone is named the dharma-field. Further, the name-body, the phrase-body, and the syllable-body, which express, display, and reveal the nature and characteristics of every dharma, making them easy to understand, are, all three, gathered solely within this sense-field, and it is for this reason that this alone is named the dharma-field. Further, exactly as a window or a lattice is named a wind-passage, since wind passes freely through it, so too is it here: this sense-field is named the dharma-field since it lets every dharma pass freely through it, every affliction, every karma, and every concentration and wisdom alike, being capable of generating every conditioned dharma whatsoever, and being capable of realizing, throughout, the unconditioned as well.

Further, the liberation-gate of emptiness, which penetrates the fact that every dharma is empty and without self, is gathered within this sense-field, and it is for this reason that it is named the dharma-field.

One asks: the view of the perishable aggregates as a real self, too, is capable of grasping every dharma as a self or as belonging to a self, and this view, too, is gathered within this very sense-field — how, then, does this sense-field not instead bear the name self-field? The answer: the view of the perishable aggregates as a real self is a false and empty grasping, an understanding that does not accord with the true character of any dharma at all, and it is for this reason that this sense-field is not given the name self at all; the liberation-gate of emptiness, by contrast, realizes the true character of dharma itself, and it is for this reason that this sense-field, on the strength of this very gate, bears the name dharma. Further, the cessation-through-discernment that is nirvāṇa is permanent, is wholesome, is unchanging and unaltering, and cannot be destroyed by birth, old age, sickness, or death, being the very dharma of ultimate truth — and, since this dharma is gathered solely within this sense-field, this alone is named the dharma-field. Further, the very wisdom that discriminates the own-characteristic and the shared characteristic of every dharma, that establishes the own-characteristic and the shared characteristic of every dharma, and that breaks through both the delusion regarding a dharma's own nature and the delusion regarding its own object, understanding every dharma exactly as it is, neither adding to it nor subtracting from it — this wisdom, too, is gathered solely within this sense-field, and it is for this reason that this alone is named the dharma-field, no other sense-field being so, and it is for this reason that a separate name is established for it.

Further, this sense-field gathers within it a great many dharmas, and it is for this reason that it is named the dharma-field — as for gathering within it a great many dharmas, this refers to the fact that, within this very sense-field, there exist dharmas possessing form and dharmas without form; associated dharmas and dissociated dharmas; dharmas possessing a support and dharmas without one; dharmas possessing an object and dharmas without one; dharmas possessing an aspect and dharmas without one; dharmas possessing alertness and dharmas without one; conditioned dharmas and unconditioned dharmas — no other sense-field being so, and it is for this reason that a separate name is established for it. Further, this sense-field stands opposite mind itself, and it is for this reason that it is named the dharma-field — that is, the eye and the other sense-fields each stand opposite only color and their own respective object, whereas only the mind-field stands opposite every dharma whatsoever, and it is precisely this standing opposite mind that earns it this separate, universal name. It is owing to causes and conditions such as these, of every kind, that, among the twelve sense-fields, one alone bears the name dharma-field.

Having now separately stated each and every one of the sense-fields' own characteristics, the very sequence of the sense-fields shall next be stated. One asks: for what reason does the World-Honored One speak first of the inner sense-fields, and only afterward of the outer? The answer: this is stated with reference to the sequence in which the six consciousnesses take their own basis and their own object. One asks: for what reason does the World-Honored One, among the six inner sense-fields, speak first of the eye-field, and so on, up through, last of the mind-field, while, among the six outer sense-fields, speaking first of the color-field, and so on, up through, last of the dharma-field? The answer: this is stated in accordance with the sequence of expression proper to language and phrasing itself. Further, this is stated in accordance with the sequence proper to the speaker, the listener, and the one who upholds the teaching. Further, this is stated in accordance with the sequence proper to coarseness and fineness — that is, among the six inner sense-fields, the eye-field is the coarsest, and it is for this reason that it is spoken of first, and so on, up through, the mind-field being the subtlest, and it is for this reason that it is spoken of last; among the six outer sense-fields, the color-field is the coarsest, and it is for this reason that it is spoken of first, and so on, up through, the dharma-field being the subtlest, and it is for this reason that it is spoken of last. Further, this is stated in accordance with the sequence proper to what is fixed and what is not fixed — that is, among the six inner sense-fields, the first five invariably take only a present object as their own, and it is for this reason that they are spoken of first, while the mind-field's own object is not fixed at all, and it is for this reason that it is spoken of last, since it takes as its object, whether generally or specifically, the three times together with the unconditioned. Among the first five sense-fields, the first four invariably take only derived matter as their own object, and it is for this reason that they are spoken of first, while the body-field's own object is not fixed at all, and it is for this reason that it is spoken of last, since it takes as its object, whether generally or specifically, both primary and derived matter. Among the first four sense-fields, whichever reaches its own object from the greatest distance, most swiftly, and most clearly is spoken of first, while whatever is the reverse of this is spoken of last.

This same sequence, stated with reference to the six inner sense-fields, holds likewise for the sequence of the six outer sense-fields. Further, this is stated in accordance with the sequence proper to the higher and lower placement of the sense-fields —

that is, within a single body, the eye-field is uppermost, the ear-field next below it, the nose-field next below that, the tongue-field next below that, while the body extends mostly below all these, and the mind, possessing no fixed spatial location at all, is spoken of last of all. This same sequence, stated with reference to the six inner sense-fields, should be understood to hold likewise for the six outer sense-fields. Further, this is stated in accordance with the sequence proper to the etiquette observed when sentient beings encounter one another — that is, at the very moment of encounter, they first behold one another, and next exchange words with one another,

and next offer incense and flowers, and next lay out food and drink, and next present fine and exquisite bedding and the like — and it is by this final stage that they come to a mutual understanding of one another's own intent.

Such, then, is the sequence of the twelve sense-fields.