Five Aggregates, Newly Opened

Continuing the Fetters Aggregate within the Ten Gates Nyāsa, part four. One asks: how are the inner and outer sense-fields established — with reference to dharma, or with reference to a self? Whichever position is granted, what fault follows? Both alternatives carry a fault.

For what reason is this so? If established with reference to dharma, a dharma possesses no function of its own, and, among every dharma whatsoever, all alike devoid of function, how could the inner and outer sense-fields be established at all? If established with reference to a self, a self possesses no genuine nature at all, so how could the inner and outer sense-fields be established with reference to a self? The answer: they are established solely with reference to dharma, yet not with reference to every dharma — that is, the six consciousness-bodies are precisely the very place defiled and pure dharmas rely upon; whatever serves as the basis of the six consciousnesses is named an inner sense-field; whatever serves as their object is named an outer sense-field — and it is for this reason that the names inner and outer sense-field are established with reference to dharma. Further, whatever dharma is a faculty is established as an inner sense-field; whatever dharma is the meaning of a faculty's own object is established as an outer sense-field. Further, whatever dharma possesses an object is established as an inner sense-field; whatever dharma is itself an object is established as an outer sense-field. There are those who say: they are established with reference to a self — this self being precisely mind itself, since self-grasping relies upon it, this provisional name of 'self' being established with reference to this very mind, as the scripture states:

'By well subduing the self, the wise attain rebirth among the gods; one should well subdue the mind, for a subdued mind draws forth true happiness.' Since well subduing the mind is precisely well subduing the self, it is thereby known that the provisional name 'self' is established with reference to mind itself — and whatever this self relies upon is established as an inner sense-field, while whatever it takes as its object is established as an outer sense-field. Yet the names inner and outer are not themselves fixed and complete in every respect — that is, whatever is inner with reference to oneself is named outer with reference to another, and whatever is outer with reference to oneself is named inner with reference to another — and so, even while established with reference to this one single principle, the names inner and outer are not thereby rendered fully determinate.

As the scripture states: you monks ought to know, as things truly are, the six inner sense-fields. One asks: ought you not likewise to know the six outer sense-fields as things truly are? For what reason does the World-Honored One exhort knowing only the inner sense-fields? The answer: the World-Honored One wished his disciples, for the most part, to cultivate dhyāna through the inner gate, as the scripture states: you monks ought to observe your own inner faculties, and ought not to take an external object as your own condition. Further, the World-Honored One wished his disciples to cultivate dhyāna inwardly without any false increase at all, as the scripture states: you monks ought to cultivate concentration inwardly, and ought not to falsely increase the notions of permanence, happiness, self, and purity; you monks ought to cultivate concentration inwardly, observing, as things truly are, that every formation is impermanent, suffering, empty, and without self, its own cause, accumulation, arising, and condition — by these eight aspects of noble wisdom, one ought, at every time, to observe every state of existence. Further, the World-Honored One wished his disciples to cultivate an uncommon dhyāna inwardly, as the World-Honored One states: you monks ought to cultivate concentration inwardly, and ought not to cultivate every common dhyāna, namely, the contemplation of coarseness, suffering, obstruction, excellence, and separation — you monks ought to cultivate concentration inwardly, that is, you ought to cultivate an uncommon dhyāna, observing every state of existence as a sickness, as a boil, as an arrow, as an affliction and harm, as impermanent, as suffering, as empty, as without self — by these eight staffs of supreme reflection, one is capable of comprehensively subduing every state of rebirth whatsoever. Further, within this scripture, the exhortation to observe only the six inner sense-fields likewise exhorts observing the outer, since the inner serves as the very basis the outer relies upon — for what reason is this so? Because, from the existence of a self, there follows the existence of what belongs to a self; from the existence of a view of self, there follows the existence of a view of what belongs to a self; from the existence of five kinds of view of self, there follow fifteen kinds of view of what belongs to a self; from the existence of a grasping of self, there follows a grasping of what belongs to a self; from the existence of delusion regarding self, there follows delusion regarding what belongs to a self; from the existence of craving for self, there follows craving for what belongs to a self — and it is in order to nourish this inner self that one seeks external requisites and resources. Further, the World-Honored One wished his disciples to first cultivate the foundations of mindfulness with respect to inner dharmas — that is, a practitioner first takes an inner dharma as his object in cultivating the foundations of mindfulness, and, only once this has been perfected and completed, does he then take an external dharma as his object. It is owing to causes and conditions such as these, of every kind, that the World-Honored One exhorts knowing only the inner.

As the scripture states, there exist six inner sense-fields; a further scripture states that there exist six touch-fields. One asks: what distinction is there between these two sets of six fields? There are those who say: these two admit of no distinction whatsoever, for what reason? Because the six inner sense-fields are precisely the six touch-fields, and the six touch-fields are precisely the six inner sense-fields, the sound differing while the meaning remains undifferentiated. There are, further, those who say: a genuine distinction does indeed exist between them — that is, they differ in name, the very terms 'six inner sense-fields' and 'six touch-fields' themselves differing. Further, whatever is a same-class instance is named a touch-field; whatever is a counterpart-class instance is named an inner sense-field. Further, whatever dharma is capable of arising is named a touch-field; whatever dharma is incapable of arising is named an inner sense-field. Further, whatever possesses actual function is named a touch-field;

whatever possesses no function is named an inner sense-field. There are those who say: whatever is presently existent is named a touch-field; whatever is past or future is named an inner sense-field. Further, whatever has already arisen is named a touch-field; whatever has not yet arisen is named an inner sense-field. There are those who say:

whatever is past or present is named a touch-field; whatever is future is named an inner sense-field. Further, whatever mind and mental factor properly abides, relying upon its own basis, is named a touch-field; whatever mind and mental factor does not properly abide, relying upon its own basis, but merely turns in emptiness, is named an inner sense-field. Further, whatever meaning the eye and the other six sense-fields possess as the very basis of touch is named a touch-field; whatever meaning they possess as the basis of every other mind and mental factor is named an inner sense-field. The Venerable Pārśva says: the eye and the other six sense-fields, taken in their own nature, are named the six inner sense-fields; whenever some activity is performed with them, they are named the six touch-fields — exactly as a monk's own alms-bowl, when spoken of in its own nature, is named simply a bowl, but, when a monk actually makes use of it, is named a monk's bowl. The Venerable Pūrṇa says as follows: the eye and the other six sense-fields, taken in their own substance, are named the six inner sense-fields; whenever they serve as the basis of touch, they are named the six touch-fields — exactly as an iron bowl for ghee, when spoken of in its own substance, is named simply an iron bowl, but, when it actually holds ghee, is named an iron ghee-bowl. One asks: the eye and the other six sense-fields likewise serve as the basis of feeling and the rest — for what reason are they named only touch-fields, and not named feeling-fields and the rest? The answer: they ought indeed also to be named feeling-fields and the rest, and, where this is not so stated, one should understand that this carries a further meaning here. Further, when the scripture raises the superior and thereby implicitly displays the inferior — that is, among every mind and mental factor whatsoever, touch is the most superior of all, and, in speaking of the touch-field, one should understand that this likewise implicitly displays the name feeling-field and the rest. Further, mind and its mental factors take touch as their very life, being sustained by touch and drawn forth by touch, becoming presently manifest through the very force of touch, and it is for this reason that this is named the touch-field — that is, mind and its mental factors, dispersed and scattered across their own object, are gathered together and held in union by touch,

and, further, were there no touch at all, mind and its mental factors would resemble a corpse, incapable of making contact with their own object at all — it is entirely by the force of touch that they possess the very function of contacting an object, exactly as it is by the presence of the life-faculty that a body is capable of sensing touch, and it is for this reason that the eye and the rest are named only touch-fields. As the scripture states: the six inner sense-fields are named this shore; the six outer sense-fields are named that shore. One asks: what resemblance do the six inner and outer sense-fields bear to this shore and that shore, that this is spoken of in this way? The answer: because they serve as a near or a far basis or object for mind and its mental factors, resembling this shore and that shore, this is spoken of in this way — exactly as, with the two banks of a river, the nearer is named this shore, the farther that shore, so too do the six sense-fields, serving as basis for mind and its mental factors, being near, resemble this shore, while, serving as object, being far, resemble that shore. Further, it is because mind and its mental factors first enter and then cross over, exactly as this shore and that shore, that this is spoken of in this way — exactly as, for sentient beings, the place first entering a river is named this shore, while the place having already crossed the river is named that shore, so too, with respect to mind and its mental factors, whatever serves as basis, being like the first entry, is named this shore, while whatever serves as object, being like the having-already-crossed, is named that shore — and it is for this reason that the inner and outer sense-fields bear the names this shore and that shore. Further, the scripture states that tranquil nirvāṇa is named that shore; nirvāṇa is gathered solely within the outer sense-fields, and, since it already bears the name that shore, the six inner sense-fields thereby receive the name this shore. As the scripture states: the perishable aggregates are this shore; the cessation of the perishable aggregates is that shore — the perishable aggregates being precisely birth-and-death itself, and, since the six inner sense-fields are superior within birth-and-death, the six inner sense-fields receive the name this shore; and, since the six inner sense-fields already bear the name this shore, the six outer sense-fields thereby receive the name that shore. One asks: what, here, resembles a river, such that the six inner and outer sense-fields are said to resemble this shore and that shore? The answer: mind and its mental factors resemble a river, and it is for this reason that the inner and outer sense-fields resemble this shore and that shore — exactly as a raging river sweeps away both this shore and that shore, sentient and insentient things alike, all proceeding toward the great ocean, so too do mind and its mental factors, in exactly the same way, sweep away the sentient beings gathered within the inner and outer sense-fields, all proceeding equally toward the great ocean of birth, old age, sickness, and death. One asks: within this river, what serves as the boat or the raft? The answer: the eightfold noble path serves as its boat and raft, upon which a hundred thousand beings rely, crossing from this shore of the river to that shore, freely wandering as they please — so too, immeasurable, boundless sentient beings, relying upon the noble path, freely wander from this shore of birth-and-death to that shore of nirvāṇa, and it is for this reason that

the eightfold noble path is exactly like a boat and a raft.

As the scripture states, there exist the eight bases of mastery, and the ten totalities. One asks: since these eight and ten, too, are named processes, for what reason are there only twelve sense-fields at all? The answer: these eight and ten are, in every case, gathered within these twelve sense-fields, since their own nature, together with what co-arises with them and is associated with them, is gathered within this very mind-field and dharma-field.

As the scripture states, there exist the four formless processes, namely, the sphere of infinite space, the sphere of infinite consciousness, the sphere of nothingness, and the realm of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. One asks: for what reason does the World-Honored One speak of these four formless states using the term 'process'? The answer: it is in order to refute the outsiders' own grasping after liberation — that is, the outsiders hold that these four formless states are four kinds of nirvāṇa: first, they hold that the sphere of infinite space is named the nirvāṇa of bodilessness; second, they hold that the sphere of infinite consciousness is named the nirvāṇa of boundless intellect; third, they hold that the sphere of nothingness is named the nirvāṇa of pure accumulation; fourth, they hold that the realm of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is named the nirvāṇa of the worldly stūpa. It is in order to refute this outsider grasping after nirvāṇa that the four formless states are spoken of using the term 'process,' denoting a place of further rebirth, not a genuine liberation at all — true liberation alone being properly named nirvāṇa.

As the scripture states, there exist, further, two processes: first, the process of non-percipient beings; second, the realm of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. One asks: for what reason does the World-Honored One speak of these two processes? The answer: it is in order to refute the outsiders' own notion of liberation — that is, the outsiders give rise to a notion of liberation with respect to these two processes,

and it is in order to refute this notion that the Buddha names these two a place of further rebirth, not a genuine liberation at all. Further, it is in order to refute the outsiders' own notion of non-return — that is, the outsiders give rise to a notion of non-return with respect to these two processes, and it is in order to refute this notion that the Buddha names these two processes of regression and return, since, falling from these processes, one regresses and returns to every realm, every destiny, and every mode of birth, circulating through birth-and-death without any respite at all. Further, it is in order to refute the outsiders' own notion of indestructibility —

that is, the outsiders hold that these two processes are a genuine liberation, never again to be dispersed or destroyed, and it is in order to refute this grasping that the Buddha states that these two are themselves places of dispersal and destruction — that is, falling from them, one is dispersed toward every realm, every destiny, and every mode of birth, circulating through birth-and-death without any respite at all: falling from the heaven of non-percipient beings, one certainly falls, dispersed, into rebirth in the desire realm; falling from the realm of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, if one is not a noble one, one falls, dispersed, into rebirth in a lower ground. Further, it is because these two processes possess so vast and lengthy a lifespan that the outsiders grasp them as liberation — among every place of rebirth an ordinary person alone ever receives, none possesses so vast and lengthy a lifespan as the heaven of non-percipient beings, whose own lifespan is five hundred great aeons; among every place of rebirth received by any sentient being whatsoever, none possesses so vast and lengthy a lifespan as the realm of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, whose own lifespan is eighty thousand great aeons — and it is in order to dispel the outsiders' own grasping after liberation here that the Buddha names these two a place of further rebirth, not a genuine liberation at all. Further, the Buddha, elsewhere, speaks using two names —

first, an abode of sentient beings; second, a station of consciousness. With respect to these same two processes as well, he likewise speaks using two names — first, an abode of sentient beings; second, a process — and it is for this reason that, with respect to these two, he speaks using the term 'process,' referring to a place of rebirth. Further, the Buddha states that every station of consciousness is certainly an abode of sentient beings, yet there exists an abode of sentient beings that is not a station of consciousness — and, since these two processes are meant to display precisely this latter case, the term 'process' is used, this being precisely the meaning of a place where sentient beings dwell.

As the scripture states: the Venerable Śāriputra went to where the Buddha was and spoke as follows: Great Virtuous One, World-Honored One, the establishment of the various processes admits of nothing more supreme than this — namely, the twelve sense-fields, gathering within them every dharma whatsoever. This is the World-Honored One's own knowledge and vision, leaving nothing whatsoever further to be known or seen — were there any ascetic or brahmin who realized some dharma to be known surpassing the World-Honored One's own, there could be no such case whatsoever. One asks: how could the Venerable Śāriputra possibly know that these twelve sense-fields gather within them every dharma whatsoever, such that he praised the Buddha, saying that the establishment of the various processes admits of nothing more supreme than this? The answer: he knew this through instruction — that is, Śāriputra, having attained the four confirmed purities, held decisive faith in whatever the Buddha taught, and had once heard the World-Honored One state that the twelve sense-fields gather within them every dharma whatsoever, and it is by this that he came to know it. One asks: did the Venerable Śāriputra, with respect to the twelve sense-fields, possess only the wisdom of instruction, and not the wisdom of direct realization at all?

The answer: he possessed the wisdom of direct realization as well — that is, Śāriputra was likewise capable of directly and correctly realizing each and every one of the twelve sense-fields himself. One asks: if both the Buddha and Śāriputra are capable of directly and correctly realizing each and every one of the twelve sense-fields, what distinction is there between the Buddha and Śāriputra? The answer: the Buddha is capable of directly realizing, with respect to these twelve sense-fields, both their own particular characteristic and their shared characteristic, each and every one; the Venerable Śāriputra, with respect to these twelve sense-fields, is capable of directly realizing only their shared characteristic, each and every one, being not yet capable of directly and truly realizing their own particular characteristic in every case — that is, there exist countless distinctions of process, all gathered within these twelve sense-fields, and yet Śāriputra still requires another to reveal them to him before he is capable of knowing them. Further, the Venerable Śāriputra, with respect to the twelve sense-fields, directly realizes each and every one only by being drawn along through another's own instruction; the Buddha, with respect to the twelve sense-fields, directly realizes each and every one entirely through his own self-awakening, not relying upon another's instruction at all.

Further, the Buddha, with respect to the twelve sense-fields, is complete in omniscience and in omniscience of every kind; the Venerable Śāriputra, with respect to the twelve sense-fields, possesses only omniscience, not omniscience of every kind. Further, the Buddha, with respect to the twelve sense-fields, does not rely upon the six consciousnesses in order to realize that there are precisely this many and no more;

the Venerable Śāriputra, with respect to the twelve sense-fields, must rely upon the six consciousnesses before he is capable of realizing that there are precisely this many and no more — that is, Śāriputra thought as follows: every consciousness-body whatsoever numbers only six kinds, and each of these six certainly possesses its own basis and its own object; this basis and this object certainly number twelve in all,

and it is for this reason that the twelve sense-fields neither increase nor decrease.

Further, the Venerable Śāriputra, although he does indeed directly realize each and every one of the twelve sense-fields, must first reflect upon what the Buddha has taught before he can do so — that is, the Buddha first taught the names of the twelve sense-fields, and only afterward analyzed each of them, one by one, in accordance with these names. Once the World-Honored One had already analyzed eleven of the sense-fields, Śāriputra, at that time, thought to himself: whatever dharma is not gathered within the preceding eleven sense-fields must certainly be gathered within the very last, the dharma-field — and it was for this reason that he then said: Great Virtuous One, World-Honored One, the establishment of the various processes admits of nothing more supreme than this, namely, the twelve sense-fields, gathering within them every dharma whatsoever. The World-Honored One directly realizes the characteristic of the twelve sense-fields

without needing to reflect upon any teaching taught by another at all. Although Śāriputra, too, is capable of directly realizing the characteristic of the twelve sense-fields, he differs greatly indeed from the Buddha's own wisdom in this respect, and it is for this reason that the Buddha alone is called the Unsurpassed, Most Honored One.

As for the five aggregates: the form aggregate, the feeling aggregate, the perception aggregate, the formations aggregate, and the consciousness aggregate. One asks: for what reason is this treatise composed? The answer: in order to broadly analyze the meaning of a certain scripture. That is, a scripture states that there exist five aggregates, form, and so on, up through, consciousness, and, although it states this much, it does not analyze this 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: what is the form aggregate? The answer: as the scripture states, whatever form there is whatsoever is, in every case, the four great elements and what is derived from the four great elements. A further scripture states: what is the form aggregate? Whatever form there is whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, whether inner or outer, whether coarse or fine, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near — all such form, gathered together in a single grouping, is named the form aggregate, and so on, up through, the consciousness aggregate, stated at full length in exactly the corresponding manner. The Abhidharma states as follows: what is the form aggregate? It refers to the ten form-processes, together with the portion of form gathered within the dharma-process — this being named the form aggregate. One asks: what distinction of meaning is there among these three statements? The answer: each is meant to put a stop to what some other school maintains. One asks: as for the sutra's own statement that whatever form there is whatsoever is, in every case, the four great elements and what is derived from the four great elements — what school's own statement is this meant to put a stop to? The answer: this is meant to put a stop to what Buddhadeva and others maintain — that is, the Buddha, foreseeing that, in a future age, Buddhadeva and others would come to hold that there exists no derived matter separate from the four great elements at all, spoke thus, in order to put a stop to this very intent, stating that whatever form there is whatsoever is, in every case, the four great elements and what is derived from the four great elements, thereby displaying that there does exist derived matter apart from the great elements. One asks: as for the further scripture's own statement that whatever form there is whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, and so on, at full length — what school's own statement is this meant to put a stop to? The answer: this is meant to put a stop to what a certain outsider maintains — that is, while the Buddha was in the world, there was an outsider who had gone forth from the household, named Daṇḍajaṭin, who denied outright that the past and the future exist at all, and it was in order to put a stop to this very intent that the World-Honored One stated that whatever form there is whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, and so on, at full length, thereby displaying that past and future form and the rest do indeed exist. One asks: as for the Abhidharma's own statement that the form aggregate refers to the ten form-processes, together with the portion of form gathered within the dharma-process — what school's own statement is this meant to put a stop to? The answer: this is meant to put a stop to what the Dārṣṭāntikas maintain — that is, the Dārṣṭāntikas deny outright that there exists any form at all gathered within the dharma-process. This Venerable Dharmatrāta, moreover, states that whatever form there is whatsoever is, in every case, the basis and the object of the five sense-consciousness-bodies — how, then, could there be any form that is not the basis and object of the five sense-consciousness-bodies at all? It was in order to put a stop to this very intent that the Abhidharma states: what is the form aggregate? It refers to the ten form-processes, together with the portion of form gathered within the dharma-process. One asks: if the form gathered within the dharma-process is genuinely, actually existent, how, then, is the Venerable Dharmatrāta's own statement to be reconciled? The answer: this need not necessarily be explained away at all, since it is not drawn from the Tripiṭaka. Were it necessary to explain it away regardless, his own statement ought properly to be corrected as follows: whatever form there is whatsoever is the basis of the five consciousnesses, and the object of the six consciousnesses — the form gathered within the dharma-process, although it is not the basis or object of the five consciousnesses, is still gathered within the object taken by mind-consciousness. Further, the form gathered within the dharma-process arises by relying upon the four great elements, and so, on the basis of what it relies upon, it is spoken of as gathered within the object taken by the body-consciousness — and it is for this reason that the Venerable one's own statement, too, incurs no fault at all.

One asks: what is the feeling aggregate? The answer: the six bodies of feeling, namely, feeling born of eye-contact, and so on, up through, feeling born of mind-contact — both the scripture and the Abhidharma alike state this. One asks: what is the perception aggregate? The answer: the six bodies of perception, namely, perception born of eye-contact, and so on, up through, perception born of mind-contact — both the scripture and the Abhidharma alike state this. One asks: what is the formations aggregate? The answer: the scripture states that this refers to the six bodies of volition, namely, volition born of eye-contact, and so on, up through, volition born of mind-contact. The Abhidharma states that this formations aggregate is, in brief, of two kinds, namely, associated formations and dissociated formations, and so on, at full length. One asks: for what reason does the World-Honored One, among both the associated and the dissociated formations, single out volition alone as the formations aggregate, rather than any other formation? The answer: volition, among the dharmas that establish the very notion of the formations aggregate, stands foremost of all,

volition being capable of leading and drawing forth, sustaining and nourishing, every formation — and it is for this reason that the Buddha singles it out, exactly as craving, among the dharmas that establish the truth of accumulation, stands foremost of all, craving being capable of leading and drawing forth, sustaining and nourishing, every accumulation — and it is for this reason that the Buddha singles it out. Further, to construct and to act is precisely what is meant by a formation, and volition alone possesses the very nature of construction and action, no other dharma being so — and it is for this reason that the Buddha singles out volition as the formations aggregate.

One asks: what is the consciousness aggregate? The answer: the six consciousness-bodies, namely, eye-consciousness, up through, mind-consciousness — both the scripture and the Abhidharma alike state this. Such, then, is named the own-nature of the various aggregates — their own substance, own character, and inherent nature.

Having already spoken of the own-nature of the aggregates, the very reason for this shall now be stated. One asks: why is it named an aggregate? What is the meaning of 'skandha'? The answer: the meaning of a heap is precisely the meaning of an aggregate; the meaning of a combination is precisely the meaning of an aggregate; the meaning of an accumulation is precisely the meaning of an aggregate; the meaning of an abbreviation is precisely the meaning of an aggregate. Whatever is designated according to the three times is precisely a designation of aggregate; whatever is a plural term is precisely a term for aggregate. As for the meaning of a heap being precisely the meaning of an aggregate: this refers to the fact that whatever form there is whatsoever, whether past, future, or present,

and so on, at full length, up through, whether far or near, all of this, taken together as a single heap, is established as the form aggregate, and so on, up through, the consciousness aggregate's own meaning of a heap should likewise be understood in exactly the corresponding manner. As for the meaning of a combination being precisely the meaning of an aggregate: this refers to the fact that whatever form there is whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, and so on, at full length, up through, whether far or near, all of this, taken together as a single combination, is established as the form aggregate, and so on, up through, the consciousness aggregate's own meaning of a combination should likewise be understood in exactly the corresponding manner. As for the meaning of an accumulation being precisely the meaning of an aggregate: exactly as every kind of different thing, taken together as a single accumulation, is named a mixed accumulation of things, so too are these various forms, taken together as a single accumulation, established as the form aggregate, and so on, up through, the consciousness aggregate's own meaning of an accumulation should likewise be understood in exactly the corresponding manner. As for the meaning of an abbreviation being precisely the meaning of an aggregate: this refers to the fact that whatever form there is whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, and so on, at full length, up through, whether far or near, all of this, taken together and abbreviated into a single place, is established as the form aggregate, and so on, up through, the consciousness aggregate's own meaning of an abbreviation should likewise be understood in exactly the corresponding manner. One asks: can the various forms of the past, future, and present genuinely be abbreviated and gathered together at all? The answer: although their own substance cannot genuinely be abbreviated and gathered together, their own name can indeed be abbreviated and gathered together, and so on, up through, the consciousness aggregate should be understood likewise. One asks: granting this, ought not the unconditioned, too, be established as an aggregate,

since its own name, too, can be abbreviated and gathered together? The answer: every conditioned dharma possesses actual function, and it is for this reason that it possesses the meaning of an abbreviated gathering — although its own substance, at certain times, cannot be abbreviated and gathered together, its own name can still be abbreviated and gathered together, and thereby established as the form aggregate and the rest. Every unconditioned dharma possesses no function at all, and it is for this reason that it possesses no meaning of an abbreviated gathering — although its own name, too, could be abbreviated and gathered together, it still cannot be established as an aggregate at all. As for whatever is designated according to the three times being precisely a designation of aggregate: this refers to the fact that the form aggregate can indeed be designated as existing across the three times, and so on, up through, the consciousness aggregate likewise can be so designated. As for whatever is a plural term being precisely a term for aggregate: exactly as much wealth is named a wealth-aggregate, much grain is named a grain-aggregate, and a large army is named an army-aggregate — even though a great multitude of people, standing shoulder to shoulder, does not itself become a single thing, it is still, on account of sharing one and the same undertaking, named an army — so too, however many koṭis or nayutas of atoms of form there may be, however far apart from one another they may lie, since they share the same nature, they are combined together and established as the form aggregate, and so on, up through, the consciousness aggregate's own countless thought-moments, however far apart from one another they may lie, since they share the same nature, are likewise combined together and established as the consciousness aggregate. One asks: if a plural term is precisely a term for aggregate, is there, then, any such thing as a single atom that could itself be named the form aggregate? There are those who say: a single atom cannot be established as the form aggregate — establishing the form aggregate requires a great many atoms. There are, further, those who say: since each and every atom individually possesses the very characteristic of an aggregate, each may also, separately, be established as the form aggregate in its own right — for, were a single atom to possess no characteristic of the form aggregate at all, then a great many gathered together ought likewise to possess none. The Abhidharma masters say: were one to consider the provisional aggregate, one ought to say as follows — a single atom is a portion of a single element, a single sense-field, and a single aggregate; were one not to consider the provisional aggregate, one ought to say as follows — a single atom is itself a single element, a single sense-field, and a single aggregate — exactly as, when a person takes a single grain of rice from a heap of grain, and another person asks him what he has taken, if he has the heap of grain in mind, he ought to answer: I have taken a single grain of rice from the heap of grain; if he does not have the heap of grain in mind, he ought to answer: I am now gathering grain — and so on, up through, this same question and answer should be understood likewise for the consciousness aggregate's own single thought-moment.

Having now explained the general name of the various aggregates, their own sequence shall next be analyzed. One asks: for what reason does the World-Honored One speak first of the form aggregate, up through, last of all, the consciousness aggregate? 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 five aggregates, the form aggregate is the coarsest, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks of it first; among the remaining four aggregates, the feeling aggregate is the coarsest, and it is for this reason that it is spoken of next after form. One asks: the four aggregates of feeling and the rest possess no spatial location and no physical substance at all — how, then, could they be said to possess coarseness or fineness? The answer: although they possess no spatial location and no physical substance,

coarse and fine names are still established with reference to their own aspect — exactly as the world commonly says: my hand or foot hurts; my head or belly hurts; my limbs and joints hurt —

this very pain being precisely feeling itself, since feeling, like form, admits of being designated in this way. Among the formless aggregates, feeling is spoken of as the coarsest; among the remaining three aggregates, perception is the coarsest, since a perception of male or female is so easily discerned, and it is for this reason that it is spoken of next after feeling; among the remaining two aggregates, the formations aggregate's own characteristic is coarser, since the characteristics of craving, hatred, delusion, and the rest are so easily discerned, and it is for this reason that it is spoken of next after perception; the consciousness aggregate is the subtlest of all, taking its object as an undifferentiated whole, so difficult to discern, and it is for this reason that it is spoken of last of all.

Further, since beginningless time, men and women have delighted in one another's own form, and it is for this reason that form is spoken of first; delighting in one another's own form leads, through craving for its own pleasurable taste, to feeling, and it is for this reason that feeling is spoken of next; this craving for pleasurable taste arises through a distorted perception, and it is for this reason that perception is spoken of next; this distorted perception gives rise to affliction, and it is for this reason that the formations are spoken of next;

every affliction whatsoever arises by relying upon consciousness, defiling every consciousness in turn, and it is for this reason that consciousness is spoken of last. Further, there are two contemplations of form that serve as the very gate of ambrosia into the Buddha's own teaching, namely, the contemplation of impurity and the mindfulness of breathing, and it is for this reason that form is spoken of first; having already contemplated form, one becomes capable of seeing the fault in feeling, and it is for this reason that feeling is spoken of next; having already seen the fault in feeling, one's own perception becomes free of distortion, and it is for this reason that perception is spoken of next; once perception is free of distortion, affliction no longer arises, and it is for this reason that the formations are spoken of next; being free of affliction, consciousness thereby becomes pure, and it is for this reason that consciousness is spoken of last. Further, the form aggregate is like a vessel, serving as the very basis and object the formless aggregates rely upon, and it is for this reason that it is spoken of first; feeling is like food and drink, being the very object properly craved, and it is for this reason that it is spoken of next; perception is like a seasoning, since, through distorted perception, one comes to crave and cling to every feeling, and it is for this reason that it is spoken of next; the formations are like the cook, since every affliction and karma is capable of construction and action, and it is for this reason that they are spoken of next; consciousness is like the one who eats, being capable of discerning its own object, and it is for this reason that it is spoken of last. Further, this sequence is spoken of with reference to realm and ground — that is, within the desire realm, the exquisite characteristics of desirable form are so evident, and it is for this reason that form is spoken of first; within the dhyānas, the characteristics of joy, happiness, and the rest of feeling are so evident, and it is for this reason that feeling is spoken of next; within the first three formless spheres, the characteristics of the perception of space and the rest are so evident, and it is for this reason that perception is spoken of next; within the peak of existence, volition's own characteristic is the most supreme and evident of all, and it is for this reason that the formations are spoken of next; form and the rest, these four, are precisely the four stations of consciousness, and, consciousness being what relies upon them, it is spoken of last of all. One asks: since the five aggregates, being all conditioned, ought each equally to be named a formation, for what reason is only one of them alone given the exclusive name formation? The answer: exactly as the eighteen elements, though every one of them is indeed dharma, nonetheless has the name dharma-element established for only one of them alone, and so on, at full length, up through, the three jewels and the three refuges, though every one of them is indeed dharma, 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 five aggregates are all, indeed, formations, there is no fault whatsoever in establishing the name formations aggregate for only one of them alone. Further, the formations aggregate possesses but a single name, while every other aggregate possesses two names — as for a single name, this refers to a name held in common, since all five aggregates are indeed formations; 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 whatever is needed by the remaining four aggregates to be made easy to understand by displaying this exclusive name. The formations aggregate 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 formations aggregate.

Further, the very characteristic of arising belonging to every formation is gathered solely within this aggregate, and it is for this reason that this alone is named the formations aggregate. Further, the four characteristics of the conditioned are the very seal and emblem stamped upon every formation whatsoever, distinguishing the conditioned from the unconditioned, and, since these characteristics themselves are gathered solely within this aggregate, this alone is named the formations aggregate. Further, the name-body, the phrase-body, and the syllable-body, which express, display, and reveal the nature, characteristics, and distinct functions of every formation, making them easy to understand, are, all three, gathered solely within this aggregate, and it is for this reason that this alone is named the formations aggregate. Further, the liberation-gate of emptiness, which realizes that every formation is empty and without self, is gathered within this aggregate, and it is for this reason that this alone is named the formations aggregate.

One asks: the view of the perishable aggregates as a real self, too, is capable of grasping every formation as a self or as belonging to a self, and this view, too, is gathered within this very aggregate — how, then, does this aggregate not instead bear the name the self-aggregate? 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 formation at all, and it is for this reason that this aggregate is not given the name self at all; the liberation-gate of emptiness, by contrast, realizes the true character of formation itself, and it is for this reason that this aggregate, on the strength of this very gate, bears the name formation. Further, the very wisdom that discriminates the own-characteristic and the shared characteristic of every formation, that establishes the own-characteristic and the shared characteristic of every formation, and that breaks through both the delusion regarding a formation's own nature and the delusion regarding its own object, understanding every formation exactly as it is, neither adding to it nor subtracting from it — this wisdom, too, is gathered solely within this aggregate, and it is for this reason that this alone is named the formations aggregate, no other aggregate being so, and it is for this reason that a separate name is established for it. Further, this aggregate gathers within it a great many formations, and it is for this reason that it is named the formations aggregate — as for gathering within it a great many formations, this refers to the fact that, within this very aggregate, there exist associated formations and dissociated formations; formations possessing a support and formations without one; formations possessing an object and formations without one; formations possessing an aspect and formations without one; formations possessing alertness and formations without one — no other aggregate being so, and it is for this reason that a separate name is established for it. Further, formation means precisely construction and action, and, among the conditioned dharmas, volition alone, capable of construction and action, stands supreme, volition being gathered solely within this formations aggregate, and it is for this reason that this formations aggregate alone bears the name formation.

One asks: among the mental factors such as those universally present with every state of mind, for what reason are feeling and perception alone established as separate aggregates, while every other mental factor is not separately established in this way? The Venerable Pārśva says: only the Buddha fully penetrates the nature, characteristic, and distinct function of every dharma whatsoever — whatever dharma is fit to be independently established as an aggregate is thereby independently established as an aggregate; whatever dharma is not fit to be independently established as an aggregate is instead established jointly as one shared aggregate — and it is for this reason that this ought not to be questioned at all.

Further, the World-Honored One wished to adorn his own meaning with varied characteristics and varied phrasing, and it is for this reason that he spoke thus — that is, were the Buddha to adorn his own meaning with varied characteristics and varied phrasing, those he converts would delight in receiving and upholding it, never growing weary. Further, the World-Honored One wished to manifest two gateways, two summaries, two stages, two rungs, two torches, two lights, two radiances, and two shadows, and it is for this reason that he spoke thus — that is, exactly as feeling and perception are each separately established as their own aggregate, every other mental factor ought likewise to be separately established; and exactly as every other mental factor is jointly established as the formations aggregate, feeling and perception, too, ought likewise to be jointly established as a single aggregate — were this so, there would then be either countless aggregates, or else only three; but, in order to manifest these two gateways, and so on, up through, these two shadows, the aggregates number exactly five, neither decreasing nor increasing. Further, the World-Honored One wished to display the essentials of a twofold gateway of dharma, and it is for this reason that feeling and perception alone are separately established as aggregates — that is, among the mental factors, some belong to the very nature of a root faculty, others do not; if it is said that feeling is separately established as an aggregate, one should understand that this has already stated the mental factor belonging to the nature of a root faculty; if it is said that perception is separately established as an aggregate, one should understand that this has already stated the mental factor not belonging to the nature of a root faculty —

exactly as the nature of a root faculty and the nature of not being a root faculty, so too should luminous nature and non-luminous nature, manifestly visible nature and non-manifestly visible nature, and the nature of joyful contemplation and of non-joyful contemplation, be understood likewise.

Exactly as excellent nature and non-excellent nature, so too should superior nature and non-superior nature, forceful nature and non-forceful nature, and dominant nature and non-dominant nature, be understood likewise. Further, feeling and perception, these two dharmas, are each manifested by one of the two realms, and it is for this reason that they are separately established as aggregates — that is, the feeling aggregate is manifested by the form realm, since joy, happiness, and the rest of feeling are heightened there; the perception aggregate is manifested by the formless realm, since the perception of space and the rest is heightened there. Further, on account of these two dharmas, practitioners of yoga become weary of these two realms, and it is for this reason that they are separately established as aggregates — that is, by the very power of feeling, practitioners of yoga become weary of the form realm; by the very power of perception, practitioners of yoga become weary of the formless realm. Further, sentient beings, addicted to pleasant feeling and grasping at distorted perception, circulate through birth-and-death, undergoing every kind of severe suffering, and it is in order to cause them to understand the fault of these two that feeling and perception are separately established as aggregates. Further, feeling and perception, these two dharmas, serve as the very cause that gives rise to the root of the two disputes, surpassing every other dharma in this respect, and it is for this reason that they are separately established as aggregates — that is, feeling is capable of giving rise to the root of the dispute of craving; perception is capable of giving rise to the root of the dispute of view — and, exactly as they are capable of giving rise to the root of these two disputes, so too should their capacity to give rise to the two defilements, the two extremes, the two arrows, the two forms of conceptual proliferation, and the two notions of what belongs to a self, be understood likewise. Further, feeling and perception, these two dharmas, alone establish their own separate station of consciousness, and it is for this reason that they alone are independently established as aggregates,

while every other mental factor is gathered together and established as a single, shared station of consciousness, and it is for this reason that they are jointly established as a single aggregate. Further, practitioners of yoga, wearied and repelled by feeling and perception, enter the attainment of cessation, and it is for this reason that these two are separately established as aggregates, as the Prajñaptiśāstra states: how does one, through the aid to practice, attain the attainment of cessation? By what expedient does one give rise to the attainment of cessation? That is, one first cultivating this practice, applying no effort at all with respect to any formation whatsoever, and reflecting upon nothing at all, merely gives rise to this thought: on account of what not yet having arisen do feeling and perception come to arise? On account of what having already arisen do feeling and perception then cease? Having given rise to this thought, he is capable of knowing, as things truly are, that it is on account of the attainment of cessation not yet having arisen that feeling and perception come to arise, and that, once the attainment of cessation has arisen, feeling and perception then cease — and, having known this, becoming wearied and repelled by these two dharmas, feeling and perception, up through their no longer arising at all, he thereby attains the attainment of cessation.

It is owing to causes and conditions such as these, of every kind, that feeling and perception are separately established, each as its own single aggregate.

One asks: for what reason is the unconditioned not established as an aggregate? The answer: lacking the very characteristic of an aggregate, it is not established as an aggregate — that is, an aggregate possesses the characteristic of a heap or an accumulation, and, the unconditioned lacking this characteristic, it is not established as an aggregate. Further, the unconditioned is precisely the very place where an aggregate is ultimately extinguished, and it is for this reason that it is not established as an aggregate — exactly as the place where a jar or a garment is ultimately destroyed is not itself named a jar or a garment. Further, every conditioned dharma is associated with arising and ceasing, possessing a cause and a condition, and thereby attaining the very characteristic of the conditioned, and so may properly be established as an aggregate; every unconditioned dharma is not associated with arising and ceasing, possessing neither cause nor condition, and thereby failing to attain the characteristic of the conditioned, and so is not established as an aggregate. Further, every conditioned dharma belongs to a cause, belongs to a condition, and can be established as an aggregate through the very convergence of cause and condition; every unconditioned dharma is the opposite of this, and so is not established as an aggregate. Further, every conditioned dharma is brought forth by birth, worn down by old age, and destroyed by impermanence, and so may properly be established as an aggregate;

every unconditioned dharma is the opposite of this, and so is not established as an aggregate. Further, every conditioned dharma flows through the world, possessing the very function of taking a fruit and of bestowing a fruit, and of discerning its own object, and so may properly be established as an aggregate; every unconditioned dharma is the opposite of this, and so is not established as an aggregate. Further, every conditioned dharma falls within the three times, is associated with suffering, possesses an earlier and a later period, and admits of a lower, middling, or upper grade, and so may properly be established as an aggregate; every unconditioned dharma is the opposite of this, and so is not established as an aggregate. Further, every unconditioned dharma possesses none of the characteristics of the five aggregates, and so cannot be placed within these five aggregates, nor can it be established as a sixth aggregate, since it possesses no characteristic of a heap or an accumulation and the rest at all. Further, an aggregate possesses the very characteristic of construction, and every unconditioned dharma possesses no such characteristic of construction at all, and so is not established as an aggregate. Further, an aggregate is produced from something else, and every unconditioned dharma is not produced from anything else at all, and so is not established as an aggregate. It is owing to causes and conditions such as these, of every kind, that the unconditioned is not an aggregate.

As the scripture states, there exist five kinds of merit-aggregate, namely, the aggregate of moral discipline, the aggregate of concentration, the aggregate of wisdom, the aggregate of liberation, and the aggregate of the knowledge and vision of liberation. One asks: there ought then to be ten aggregates in all — how, then, does it speak of only five? The answer: these aggregates such as moral discipline and the rest are all gathered within these very five aggregates of form and the rest, and it is for this reason that the aggregates number only five. As the scripture states: the Venerable Ānanda addressed the monks, saying as follows: I have personally received, from the Buddha's own presence, eighty thousand dharma-aggregates, and, from the various monks, have received and transmitted a further two thousand. One asks: since the World-Honored One speaks of so vast a multitude of dharma-aggregates, how could it be said that there are only these five, form and the rest?

The answer: these many dharma-aggregates are all gathered within these very five aggregates of form and the rest, and it is for this reason that the aggregates number only five. One asks: within which aggregate are these various dharma-aggregates themselves gathered? There are those who say: every dharma-aggregate takes speech as its own nature, and this position holds that they are gathered within this form aggregate. Other masters say: every dharma-aggregate is named according to its own nature, and this position holds that they are gathered within this formations aggregate — and it is for this reason that the World-Honored One speaks of only these five aggregates.

One asks: what is the actual measure of each and every one of these dharma-aggregates? There are those who say: there exists a treatise on the dharma-aggregates comprising six thousand verses, and each and every dharma-aggregate is of that same measure. Others, further, say: exactly as the World-Honored One speaks of the aggregates, the sense-fields, the elements, food, dependent origination, the truths, the jewels, the foundations of mindfulness, the right exertions, the bases of supernormal power, the faculties, the powers, the awakening-factors, and the path-factors — each and every such gateway of dharma constitutes a single dharma-aggregate in its own right, and one cannot fix in advance any determinate number of verses for it at all. The Venerable Ghoṣa says as follows: each and every dharma-aggregate comprises five hundred and five thousand, five hundred and fifty verses of text. Other masters say: each and every dharma-aggregate comprises one hundred and fifty-five thousand, five hundred and fifty verses of text. Others, further, say: each and every dharma-aggregate comprises only fifteen thousand, five hundred and fifty verses of text. The compilers say: none of these positions ought to be held. One should say as follows: those to be converted possess eighty thousand kinds of conduct, and it is in order to counteract these eighty thousand kinds of conduct that the World-Honored One taught eighty thousand dharma-aggregates —

and it is by relying upon these eighty thousand dharma-aggregates taught by the Buddha that all these sentient beings entered the Buddha's own teaching, each accomplishing what needed to be accomplished, and each reaching the very end of the path.