Four Masters, Four Truths

The Sarvāstivādins possess four great treatise-masters, each establishing, in his own distinct way, a difference regarding the three times — namely, the Venerable Dharmatrāta speaks of a difference of class,

the Venerable Ghoṣa speaks of a difference of aspect, the Venerable Vasumitra speaks of a difference of state, and the Venerable Buddhadeva speaks of a difference of relativity. As for speaking of a difference of class: he holds that, as dharmas turn through the three times, it is by a difference of class, not a difference of substance — exactly as, when a golden vessel is broken and made into some other object, its shape differs while its visible color does not differ, and exactly as, when milk and the like are transformed into curd and the like, their taste and force are relinquished, but not their visible color — so too, when these dharmas pass from the future state into the present state, although they relinquish the future class and obtain the present class, that dharma's own substance is neither obtained nor relinquished; and, further, when they pass from the present state into the past state, although they relinquish the present class and obtain the past class, that dharma's own substance, too, is neither obtained nor relinquished. As for speaking of a difference of aspect: he holds that, as dharmas turn through the three times, it is by a difference of aspect, not a difference of substance — each dharma of a given time possessing all three temporal aspects, one aspect genuinely conjoined, the other two not thereby separated, exactly as a man, at the very moment he is genuinely enamored of one woman's form,

is not, with respect to every other woman's form, thereby said to be free of desire. So too, these dharmas, while abiding in the past state, are genuinely conjoined with the past aspect, and are not, with respect to the remaining two temporal aspects, thereby said to be separated from them; while abiding in the future state, they are genuinely conjoined with the future aspect, and are not, with respect to the remaining two temporal aspects, thereby said to be separated from them; and, while abiding in the present state, they are genuinely conjoined with the present aspect, and are not, with respect to the remaining two temporal aspects, thereby said to be separated from them. As for speaking of a difference of state: he holds that, as dharmas turn through the three times, it is by a difference of state, not a difference of substance — exactly as a single counting-rod, placed in the ones position, is named one, placed in the tens position, is named ten, and placed in the hundreds position, is named a hundred, the rod's own substance remaining undifferentiated through every position it passes through — so too, these dharmas, passing through the states of the three times, although they obtain three distinct names, remain, in their own substance, undifferentiated. This master's own establishment of the three times incurs no confusion whatsoever, since it is by operative function that the distinction of the three times is established — that is, a conditioned dharma not yet possessing operative function is named the future time; precisely possessing operative function is named the present time; its operative function already ceased is named the past time. As for speaking of a difference of relativity: he holds that, as dharmas turn through the three times, it is by their prior and posterior mutual relativity that their names differ — exactly as one and the same woman, relative to her mother, is named a daughter, and, relative to her own daughter, is named a mother, her own substance remaining undifferentiated, yet, owing to this difference of relativity, obtaining the distinct names of daughter and mother — so too, these dharmas, relative to what comes after, are named past; relative to what comes before, are named future; and, relative to both at once, are named present. This master's own establishment of the three times does incur confusion, for what reason is this so? Because, through this prior-and-posterior mutual relativity, each single time itself already contains all three times within it — that is, within the past time itself, an earlier and a later moment are respectively named its own past and future,

while its middle moment is named its own present; and the future time, too, ought to be just the same in kind. Further, a dharma of the present time, though occupying but a single moment, being relative to what comes after, relative to what comes before, and relative to both at once, would thereby have to become three times all at once — how could this possibly accord with correct principle? As for the theory of a difference of aspect: the three times it establishes, too, incur confusion, since each single dharma of a given time is, on that theory's own admission, conjoined with all three temporal aspects. As for the theory of a difference of class: to speak of some "class" apart from a dharma's own nature is likewise contrary to principle — every conditioned dharma, passing from the future time into the present time, would have to have its prior class cease, and, passing from the present time into the past time, would have to have its posterior class arise

— and how could it accord with correct principle that the past should be said to arise, and the future to cease? It is for this reason that only the third theory establishes the three times correctly, since it is precisely at the time a formation may possess operative function that this theory locates its own distinction.

There exist, further, three kinds of dharma: wholesome, unwholesome, and karmically neutral dharmas. One asks: what is a wholesome dharma? The answer: the wholesome five aggregates, together with analytical cessation. One asks: what is an unwholesome dharma? The answer: the unwholesome five aggregates. One asks: what is a karmically neutral dharma? The answer: the karmically neutral five aggregates, together with space and non-analytical cessation. Every remaining point of meaning is stated at full length exactly as in the earlier Unwholesome Nyāsa.

There exist, further, three kinds of dharma: dharmas bound to the desire realm, dharmas bound to the form realm, and dharmas bound to the formless realm. One asks: what is a dharma bound to the desire realm? The answer: the five aggregates bound to the desire realm. One asks: what is a dharma bound to the form realm? The answer: the five aggregates bound to the form realm. One asks: what is a dharma bound to the formless realm? The answer: the four aggregates bound to the formless realm. Every remaining point of meaning is likewise stated at full length exactly as in the earlier Unwholesome Nyāsa. There exist, further, three kinds of dharma: the dharma of the learner, the dharma of the non-learner, and the dharma that is neither the learner's nor the non-learner's. One asks: what is the dharma of the learner? The answer: the five aggregates of the learner. One asks: what is the dharma of the non-learner? The answer: the five aggregates of the non-learner. One asks: what is the dharma that is neither the learner's nor the non-learner's? The answer: the contaminated five aggregates, together with the three unconditioned dharmas. One asks: what is the meaning of these three — the learner and the rest?

The answer: by the very path free of craving, hatred, and delusion, still to be learning the cutting-off of craving, hatred, and delusion, is the meaning of the learner; by the very path free of craving, hatred, and delusion,

no longer learning the cutting-off of craving, hatred, and delusion, this cutting-off already having been learned, is the meaning of the non-learner; whatever is opposite to both of these is the meaning of neither the learner's nor the non-learner's. Further, by the very path free of craving, still to be learning the cutting-off of craving and of what is not craving's own matter, is the meaning of the learner — as for cutting-off of craving, this refers to the learner's own path, excluding the non-learner's path; as for what is not craving's own matter, this refers to excluding the worldly path. By the very path free of craving, no longer learning the cutting-off of craving, this already having been learned, and likewise no longer engaging what is not craving's own matter, is the meaning of the non-learner — as for the path free of craving, no longer learning the cutting-off of craving, this refers to excluding the learner's path; as for what is not craving's own matter, this refers to excluding the worldly path. Whatever is opposite to both of these is the meaning of neither the learner's nor the non-learner's. Further, still to be learning the cutting-off of affliction and still to be learning the direct realization of the truths is the meaning of the learner; no longer learning the cutting-off of affliction, this already having been learned, and likewise no longer learning the direct realization of the truths, this already having been directly realized, is the meaning of the non-learner; whatever is opposite to both of these is the meaning of neither the learner's nor the non-learner's. Further, still to be learning the cutting-off of the two kinds of seeking — namely, the seeking for desire and the seeking for existence — and to be learning the fulfillment of the one kind of seeking, namely, the seeking for the holy life, is the meaning of the learner; no longer learning the cutting-off of the two kinds of seeking, this already having been learned, and no longer learning the fulfillment of the one kind of seeking, this already having been fulfilled, is the meaning of the non-learner; whatever is opposite to both of these is the meaning of neither the learner's nor the non-learner's. Further, if within a given continuum there exists the possession of affliction, and there likewise exists the possession of the undefiled path, and one is still learning the cutting-off of affliction, this is the meaning of the learner; if within a given continuum there exists no possession of affliction, yet there exists the possession of the undefiled path, one no longer learning the cutting-off of affliction, this already having been learned, this is the meaning of the non-learner; whatever is opposite to both of these is the meaning of neither the learner's nor the non-learner's. Further, if within a given continuum craving has not yet been become free of, and there exists the possession of the undefiled path, and one is still learning the cutting-off of craving and desire, this is the meaning of the learner; if within a given continuum craving has already become free of, and there exists the possession of the undefiled path, one no longer learning the cutting-off of craving and desire, this already having been learned, this is the meaning of the non-learner; whatever is opposite to both of these is the meaning of neither the learner's nor the non-learner's. Further, being gathered within the path of seeing and the path of cultivation is the meaning of the learner; being gathered within the path of the non-learner is the meaning of the non-learner; whatever is opposite to both of these is the meaning of neither the learner's nor the non-learner's. Further, being gathered within the grounds of seeing and of cultivation is the meaning of the learner; being gathered within the ground of the non-learner is the meaning of the non-learner; whatever is opposite to both of these is the meaning of neither the learner's nor the non-learner's. Further, being gathered within the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" and the faculty of "having already come to know" is the meaning of the learner; being gathered within the faculty of "having come to know fully" is the meaning of the non-learner; whatever is opposite to both of these is the meaning of neither the learner's nor the non-learner's. Further, the undefiled path within the continuum of the five kinds of noble one — the faith-follower, the dharma-follower, resolve-through-faith, attainment-through-vision, and the body-witness — is the meaning of the learner; the undefiled path within the continuum of the two kinds of noble one — one liberated through wisdom and one liberated in both respects — is the meaning of the non-learner; whatever is opposite to both of these is the meaning of neither the learner's nor the non-learner's. Further, the undefiled path within the continuum of the seven kinds of noble one — the four who are proceeding toward a fruit and the first three fruits themselves — is the meaning of the learner;

the undefiled path within the continuum of the one kind of noble one who has attained the fourth fruit is the meaning of the non-learner; whatever is opposite to both of these is the meaning of neither the learner's nor the non-learner's.

Further, the undefiled path within the continuum of the eighteen kinds of noble one who are learners is the meaning of the learner; the undefiled path within the continuum of the nine kinds of noble one who are non-learners is the meaning of the non-learner; whatever is opposite to both of these is the meaning of neither the learner's nor the non-learner's. One asks: for one abiding in the fruit of the learner, up until he has not yet given rise to the path of the superior fruit, how can his undefiled path still be named the path of a learner? The answer: because the learner's own underlying resolve has not yet come to rest, that very undefiled path, too, still obtains the name of a learner's path.

There exist, further, three kinds of dharma: dharma abandoned by seeing, dharma abandoned by cultivation, and dharma subject to no further cutting-off. One asks: what is dharma abandoned by seeing? The answer: whatever is cut off by the forbearance at the very margin of direct realization, belonging to the faith-follower and the dharma-follower. What, further, does this refer to? It refers to the eighty-eight latent tendencies abandoned by seeing, together with the mind and mental factors associated with them, and the dissociated formations they co-arise with — this is named dharma abandoned by seeing. One asks: what is dharma abandoned by cultivation? The answer: whatever is abandoned by cultivation in the learner's own path of vision. What, further, does this refer to? It refers to the ten latent tendencies abandoned by cultivation, together with the bodily and verbal karmic action associated with and co-arisen with them, the dissociated formations they co-arise with, and every undefiled contaminated dharma — this is named dharma abandoned by cultivation. One asks: what is dharma subject to no further cutting-off? The answer: the undefiled five aggregates, together with the three unconditioned dharmas. Every remaining point of meaning is stated at full length exactly as in the earlier Unwholesome Nyāsa. As for the four truths: this refers to the truth of suffering, the truth of its accumulation, the truth of its cessation, and the truth of the path. One asks: for what reason is this treatise composed? The answer: it is in order to analyze at length the meaning of a certain scripture.

That is, a scripture states that there exist four noble truths, and, although it states this much, it does not analyze this at any length — 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, then, is the own-nature of these four truths? The Abhidharma treatise-masters say: the five grasping-aggregates are the truth of suffering; the contaminated cause is the truth of its accumulation; that very analytical cessation is the truth of cessation; the dharma of the learner and the non-learner is the truth of the path. The Dārṣṭāntikas say: name-and-form is the truth of suffering; karma and affliction are the truth of its accumulation; the exhaustion of karma and affliction is the truth of cessation;

tranquility and insight are the truth of the path. The Vibhajyavādins say as follows: if a dharma bears the eight aspects of suffering, it is suffering and it is the truth of suffering; every remaining contaminated dharma is suffering but not the truth of suffering. Craving that draws a further existence is accumulation and it is the truth of accumulation; every remaining craving and every remaining contaminated cause is accumulation but not the truth of accumulation. The exhaustion of craving that draws a further existence is cessation and it is the truth of cessation; the exhaustion of every remaining craving and of every remaining contaminated cause is cessation but not the truth of cessation. The learner's eightfold noble path is the path and it is the truth of the path; every remaining dharma of the learner and every dharma whatsoever of the non-learner is the path but not the truth of the path.

Holding this, they say: every arhat possesses only the two truths of suffering and of cessation, and does not possess the two truths of accumulation and of the path, for what reason is this so? Because every arhat has already utterly exhausted the very craving that draws a further existence, and, at the time he attains the fruit of arhatship, has already relinquished the learner's own eightfold noble path. The Venerable Ghoṣa says as follows: whether it be the five aggregates falling within one's own continuum, or the five aggregates falling within another's continuum, or the aggregates belonging to sentient beings and the aggregates belonging to what is not sentient — every one of these, without exception, is suffering, and is the truth of suffering. Yet when a practitioner of yoga gives rise to direct realization,

he observes only the five aggregates falling within his own continuum as suffering, and does not observe the five aggregates falling within another's continuum, or the aggregates belonging to what is not sentient, as suffering.

For what reason is this so? Because it is the oppressive aspect that constitutes the direct realization of suffering, and the aggregates falling within another's continuum, and the aggregates belonging to what is not sentient, are not oppressive with respect to one's own continuum. The Jñānaprasthāna itself states as follows: it is precisely the aggregates within one's own continuum that oppress one to the utmost, and not the aggregates within another's continuum, or the aggregates belonging to what is not sentient, since neither another, apart from one's own body, nor what is not sentient, is capable of oppressing one at all — for, in the absence of one's own body, what could another, or what is not sentient, possibly oppress? It is for this reason that, at the time of direct realization, one observes only the five aggregates falling within one's own continuum as suffering, and nothing further. As for whatever is the cause of the five aggregates falling within one's own continuum, or the cause of the five aggregates falling within another's continuum, or the cause of the aggregates belonging to sentient beings and of the aggregates belonging to what is not sentient — every one of these, without exception, is accumulation, and is the truth of accumulation. Yet when a practitioner of yoga gives rise to direct realization, he observes only the cause of the five aggregates falling within his own continuum as accumulation, and does not observe the cause of the five aggregates falling within another's continuum,

or the cause of the aggregates belonging to what is not sentient, as accumulation. As for whatever is the exhaustion of the five aggregates falling within one's own continuum, or the exhaustion of the five aggregates falling within another's continuum, or the exhaustion of the aggregates belonging to sentient beings and of the aggregates belonging to what is not sentient — every one of these, without exception, is cessation, and is the truth of cessation. Yet when a practitioner of yoga gives rise to direct realization, he observes only the exhaustion of the five aggregates falling within his own continuum as cessation, and does not observe the exhaustion of the five aggregates falling within another's continuum, or the exhaustion of the aggregates belonging to what is not sentient, as cessation. As for whatever is the antidote to the five aggregates falling within one's own continuum, or the antidote to the five aggregates falling within another's continuum, or the antidote to the aggregates belonging to sentient beings and to the aggregates belonging to what is not sentient — every one of these, without exception, is the path, and is the truth of the path. Yet when a practitioner of yoga gives rise to direct realization,

he observes only the antidote to the five aggregates falling within his own continuum as the path, and does not observe the antidote to the aggregates falling within another's continuum, or to the aggregates belonging to what is not sentient, as the path. Others who hold this say: whether it be the five aggregates falling within one's own continuum, or the five aggregates falling within another's continuum, or the aggregates belonging to sentient beings and the aggregates belonging to what is not sentient — every one of these, without exception, is suffering, and is the truth of suffering, and, when a practitioner of yoga gives rise to direct realization, he observes every one of these, without exception, as suffering. One asks: since it is the oppressive aspect that constitutes the direct realization of suffering, and the aggregates falling within another's continuum, and the aggregates belonging to what is not sentient, are indeed not oppressive with respect to one's own continuum, for what reason does a practitioner of yoga giving rise to direct realization still observe these, too, as suffering? The answer: even granting that they fail to oppress him with respect to his own continuum, he still observes them as suffering, for what reason is this so? Because, since beginningless time, with respect to every kind of suffering whatsoever, ignorance has arisen, and, in order to serve as an antidote to this, wisdom ought to arise with respect to every one of them without exception;

since beginningless time, with respect to every kind of suffering whatsoever, doubt has arisen, and, in order to serve as an antidote to this, certainty ought to arise with respect to every one of them without exception; and since beginningless time, with respect to every kind of suffering whatsoever, slander has arisen, and, in order to serve as an antidote to this, faith ought to arise with respect to every one of them without exception — and it is for this reason that one ought to observe every one of them, without exception, as suffering, and how much more so, given that these, too, are indeed capable of oppressing one with respect to one's own continuum, for what reason is this so? Because, were one struck or touched by another, great suffering, too, would thereby arise — is this not oppression?

And were empty-space-borne wood, stone, or tile to fall upon one's own body, great suffering, too, would thereby arise — is this not oppression? Since there does indeed exist this sense in which one's own continuum is oppressed, it is for this reason that, at the time of direct realization, one, too, observes these as suffering. As for whatever is the cause of the five aggregates falling within one's own continuum, or the cause of the five aggregates falling within another's continuum, or the cause of the aggregates belonging to sentient beings and of the aggregates belonging to what is not sentient — every one of these, without exception, is accumulation, and is the truth of accumulation, and, when a practitioner of yoga gives rise to direct realization, he observes every one of these, without exception, as accumulation. As for whatever is the exhaustion of the five aggregates falling within one's own continuum, or the exhaustion of the five aggregates falling within another's continuum, or the exhaustion of the aggregates belonging to sentient beings and of the aggregates belonging to what is not sentient — every one of these, without exception, is cessation, and is the truth of cessation, and, when a practitioner of yoga gives rise to direct realization, he observes every one of these, without exception, as cessation. As for whatever is the antidote to the five aggregates falling within one's own continuum, or the antidote to the five aggregates falling within another's continuum, or the antidote to the aggregates belonging to sentient beings and to the aggregates belonging to what is not sentient — every one of these, without exception, is the path, and is the truth of the path, and, when a practitioner of yoga gives rise to direct realization, he observes every one of these, without exception, as the path. Such, then, is named the own-nature of the four truths — their own thing, own substance, own characteristic, own portion, and own inherent nature.

Own-nature has already been discussed; what is to be discussed next shall now be stated. One asks: for what reason is it named truth? What is the meaning of truth? The answer: the meaning of the real is the meaning of truth — the meaning of what is genuine, the meaning of what accords with reality, the meaning of what is undistorted, and the meaning of what is free of falsehood, are all the meaning of truth. One asks: if the meaning of the real, up through the meaning of what is free of falsehood, is the meaning of truth, then space and non-analytical cessation, too, possess the meaning of the real, up through the meaning of what is free of falsehood — for what reason, then, does the World-Honored One not establish them as truths? The answer: whatever dharma is suffering, is the cause of suffering, is the exhaustion of suffering, or is the antidote to suffering, the World-Honored One establishes as a truth; space and non-analytical cessation are neither suffering, nor the cause of suffering, nor the exhaustion of suffering, nor the antidote to suffering, and it is for this reason that the World-Honored One does not establish them as truths. Further, whatever dharma is an aggregate, is the cause of an aggregate, is the exhaustion of an aggregate, or is the antidote to an aggregate, is established as a truth; space and non-analytical cessation are neither an aggregate, nor the cause of an aggregate, nor the exhaustion of an aggregate, nor the antidote to an aggregate, and it is for this reason that they are not established as truths. Further, whatever dharma is a sickness, is the cause of a sickness, is the exhaustion of a sickness, or is the antidote to a sickness, is established as a truth; space and non-analytical cessation are neither a sickness, nor the cause of a sickness, nor the exhaustion of a sickness, nor the antidote to a sickness, and it is for this reason that they are not established as truths. Further, whatever dharma is a boil, an arrow, an affliction, a harm, or a fault, is the cause of a boil, an arrow, an affliction, a harm, or a fault, is the exhaustion of a boil, an arrow, an affliction, a harm, or a fault, or is the antidote to a boil, an arrow, an affliction, a harm, or a fault, is established as a truth; space and non-analytical cessation are none of these whatsoever, and it is for this reason that they are not established as truths. Further, whatever dharma is a heavy burden, is what bears a heavy burden, is the exhaustion of a heavy burden, or is the antidote to a heavy burden, is established as a truth; space and non-analytical cessation are none of these whatsoever, and it is for this reason that they are not established as truths. Further, whatever dharma is this shore, that shore, a river, or a boat and raft, is established as a truth; space and non-analytical cessation are none of these whatsoever, and it is for this reason that they are not established as truths. Further, whatever dharma is suffering, is the cause of suffering, is the path, or is the fruit of the path, is established as a truth; space and non-analytical cessation are neither suffering, nor the cause of suffering,

nor the path, nor the fruit of the path, and it is for this reason that they are not established as truths. Further, whatever dharma possesses the nature of a cause and the nature of a fruit is established as a truth; space and non-analytical cessation lack the nature of a cause and the nature of a fruit, and it is for this reason that they are not established as truths. Further, space and non-analytical cessation, being undefiled, are not the truth of suffering or of accumulation; being karmically neutral, they are not the truth of cessation; being unconditioned, they are not the truth of the path. Further, space and non-analytical cessation, not falling within the world, are not any of the three truths; being karmically neutral, they are not the truth of cessation. Further, space and non-analytical cessation, not being of the own-nature of an aggregate, are not any of the three truths; being karmically neutral, they are not the truth of cessation. Further, space and non-analytical cessation, not conforming to suffering, are not any of the three truths; being karmically neutral, they are not the truth of cessation. Further, whatever dharma is the object of wrong view or of undefiled wisdom is established as a truth; space and non-analytical cessation are not the object of wrong view or of undefiled wisdom, and it is for this reason that they are not established as truths. Further, whatever dharma is the object of ignorance or of knowledge is established as a truth; space and non-analytical cessation are not the object of ignorance or of knowledge, and it is for this reason that they are not established as truths. Further, whatever dharma is a matter of defilement or a matter of purification is established as a truth; space and non-analytical cessation are not a matter of defilement or a matter of purification, and it is for this reason that they are not established as truths. Further, whatever dharma is a matter to be welcomed or a matter to be shunned is established as a truth; space and non-analytical cessation are not a matter to be welcomed or a matter to be shunned, and it is for this reason that they are not established as truths. Further, whatever dharma is a matter for the mental application of welcoming or the mental application of shunning is established as a truth; space and non-analytical cessation are not a matter for the mental application of welcoming or the mental application of shunning, and it is for this reason that they are not established as truths.

One asks: if the meaning of the undistorted is the meaning of truth, then the four kinds of distortion ought not to be gathered within truth at all, for what reason is this so? Because they proceed by way of distortion. The answer: it is owing to a further condition that they are established as a distortion, yet it is owing to a further condition that they are gathered within truth — that is, it is owing to three conditions that something is established as a distortion: first, because it involves a decisive judgment; second, because it involves augmentation; third, because it is one-sidedly inverted — yet, since it is existent, since it is real, and since it accords with real characteristics, it is gathered within truth. Further, it is with respect to what is impermanent that permanence is conceived, with respect to what is suffering that pleasure is conceived, with respect to what is impure that purity is conceived, and with respect to what is without self that self is conceived, and it is on this account that it is established as a distortion; yet, since it possesses the nature of a cause and the nature of a fruit, it is gathered within truth. One asks: if the meaning of what is free of falsehood is the meaning of truth, then every false utterance ought not to be gathered within truth at all,

for what reason is this so? Because it proceeds by way of falsehood. The answer: it is owing to a further condition that it is established as false speech, yet it is owing to a further condition that it is gathered within truth — that is, it is owing to contradicting one's own thought, so as to deceive another, that it is established as false speech,

yet it is owing to a further condition that it is gathered within truth — that is, since it is existent, since it is real, and since it accords with real characteristics. Further, it is owing to a further condition that false speech is established: that is, saying one has not seen when one has seen, and saying one has seen when one has not seen; saying one has not heard when one has heard, and saying one has heard when one has not heard; saying one has not sensed when one has sensed, and saying one has sensed when one has not sensed; saying one has not known when one has known, and saying one has known when one has not known — yet it is owing to a further condition that it is gathered within truth, that is, since it possesses the nature of a cause and the nature of a fruit. It is for this very reason that the meaning of the real, up through the meaning of what is free of falsehood, is the meaning of truth. One asks: are these four noble truths established with real entities as their basis, with cause and fruit as their basis, or with direct realization as their basis? Suppose either is granted, what fault follows? All three carry a fault. For what reason is this so?

If they are established with real entities as their basis, there ought to be only three truths — that is, since suffering and accumulation possess no distinct substance of their own, they ought to be combined into one; cessation would then be the second, and the path the third — hence three truths. If they are established with cause and fruit as their basis, there ought to be five truths — that is, since a contaminated dharma's cause and fruit are distinct, this is already established as two, and the undefiled path, too, possesses a cause and a fruit, and ought likewise to be divided into two, with cessation as the fifth — hence five truths. If they are established with direct realization as their basis, there ought to be eight truths — that is, a practitioner of yoga, entering the stage of direct realization, first observes the desire realm's own suffering separately, and only afterward observes the form and formless realms' own suffering together; first observes the cause of the desire realm's own formations separately, and only afterward observes the cause of the form and formless realms' own formations together; first observes the cessation of the desire realm's own formations separately, and only afterward observes the cessation of the form and formless realms' own formations together; and first observes the antidote to the desire realm's own formations separately, and only afterward observes the antidote to the form and formless realms' own formations together — hence eight truths. The answer: one should say as follows —

these four noble truths are established on the basis of cause and fruit. One asks: if so, there ought to be five truths, not four. The answer: the noble path's own cause and fruit are combined and established as one, and it is for this reason that there are four truths, not five — that is, the undefiled path's own nature as cause and its own nature as fruit are both alike the very conduct that proceeds toward the final cessation of the worldly birth, old age, sickness, and death of a state of existence subject to suffering, and it is for this reason that they are combined and established as one. One asks: if so, then a contaminated dharma's own nature as cause and its own nature as fruit, too, are both alike the very conduct that proceeds toward the worldly birth, old age, sickness, and death and the circulating accumulation of a state of existence subject to suffering, and ought likewise to be combined into one, so that there ought to be only three truths. The answer: although this is so, an aspect may be either distinct or shared, and it is for this reason that the noble truths are established as exactly four — that is, with respect to a contaminated dharma's own nature as fruit, there are four aspects: first, suffering; second, impermanence; third, emptiness; fourth, no-self. With respect to a contaminated dharma's own nature as cause, there are four aspects: first, cause; second, accumulation; third, arising; fourth, condition. With respect to the undefiled path's own nature as cause and its own nature as fruit, there are, altogether, only four shared aspects: first, path; second, suchness; third, conduct; fourth, deliverance. There are those who say: it is owing to three conditions that the four truths are established — first, real entity; second, cause and fruit; third, slander and faith. As for real entity: this refers to the fact that these four truths' own real entities are of two kinds — first, contaminated; second, undefiled. As for cause and fruit: this refers to the fact that a contaminated entity possesses the nature of cause and of fruit — its nature as fruit establishes the truth of suffering, its nature as cause establishes the truth of accumulation. Among undefiled entities there are two kinds: first, possessing the nature of cause and possessing the nature of fruit; second, possessing the nature of fruit but lacking the nature of cause. That which possesses the nature of cause and possesses the nature of fruit establishes the truth of the path; that which possesses the nature of fruit but lacks the nature of cause establishes the truth of cessation. One asks: for what reason are a contaminated entity's own nature as cause and its own nature as fruit each established as their own separate truth, while the undefiled path's own nature as cause and its own nature as fruit are combined and established as a single truth? The answer: this depends on whether the slander and the faith directed toward them are separate or shared, for what reason is this so? Because, with respect to a contaminated entity's own nature as cause and its own nature as fruit, a separate slander arises with respect to each — one slandering, with respect to the nature as fruit, that it is not truly suffering; the other slandering, with respect to the nature as cause, that it is not truly accumulation. And, further, with respect to a contaminated entity's own nature as cause and its own nature as fruit, a separate faith arises with respect to each — one believing, with respect to the nature as fruit, that it is truly suffering; the other believing, with respect to the nature as cause, that it is truly accumulation. With respect to the undefiled path's own nature as cause and its own nature as fruit, only a single, shared slander arises, namely, slandering that it is not the path, and only a single, shared faith arises, namely, believing that it is the path — and it is for this reason that it is by these three conditions that the four truths are established. Others, further, say: it is on the basis of direct realization that the four truths are established. One asks: if so, the noble truths ought to be eight, not four. The answer: the truths are four, not eight, since their aspect is shared — that is, the desire realm's own suffering, and the form and formless realms' own suffering, although each is directly realized separately, yet share the identical truth of suffering, and, since the aspect observed regarding suffering and the rest is shared, they are combined and established as one. The desire realm's own formations' cause, and the form and formless realms' own formations' cause, although each is directly realized separately, yet share the identical truth of accumulation, and, since the aspect observed regarding cause and the rest is shared, they are combined and established as one. The desire realm's own formations' cessation, and the form and formless realms' own formations' cessation, although each is directly realized separately, yet share the identical truth of cessation, and, since the aspect observed regarding cessation and the rest is shared, they are combined and established as one. The desire realm's own formations' antidote, and the form and formless realms' own formations' antidote, although each is directly realized separately,

yet share the identical truth of the path, and, since the aspect observed regarding the path and the rest is shared, they are combined and established as one — it is for this reason that, establishing the truths on the basis of direct realization, they are exactly four, neither increased nor decreased.

One asks: what characteristic does each of suffering, accumulation, cessation, and the path respectively bear? The Venerable Pārśva says: oppression is the characteristic of suffering; giving rise to and growing is the characteristic of accumulation; tranquility is the characteristic of cessation; deliverance is the characteristic of the path. The Venerable Vasumitra says as follows: circulation is the characteristic of suffering; that which is capable of causing circulation is the characteristic of accumulation; the ceasing of circulation is the characteristic of cessation; the reverting of circulation is the characteristic of the path. He states, further: birth's own basis circulating is the characteristic of suffering; that which is capable of causing birth's own basis to circulate is the characteristic of accumulation; birth's own basis coming to rest is the characteristic of cessation; that which is capable of extinguishing birth's own basis is the characteristic of the path. The Great Virtuous One says: the very name of a truth is established upon a genuinely existent matter, namely, the five grasping-aggregates — exactly as an extremely heated iron ball, drawn forth from a furnace, is followed and pursued by fire's own force even after leaving the furnace, being as hot as fire itself, so too, these five grasping-aggregates, sunk in the ocean of suffering, mingled with suffering and abiding there, are pervaded by the three kinds of suffering and turn along with suffering — exactly as suffering itself has come together to form them, precisely like the iron ball — and it is because they are joined with suffering, exactly as an iron ball is joined with fire, that being joined with suffering is the characteristic of the truth of suffering.

So too, this very aggregate of suffering arises from affliction, is transformed by karma, and circulates through the destinies, continuing without beginning, and it is for this reason that giving rise to and circulating is the characteristic of the truth of accumulation. It is because this affliction and this karma have become utterly free of it that one no longer circulates through the destinies' own rebirth, and it is for this reason that no longer circulating is the characteristic of the truth of cessation.

It is because one cultivates pure moral discipline and concentration, correctly observing arising and ceasing, and is thereby capable of cutting off the cause of existence and of directly realizing the exhaustion of existence, that being capable of cutting off and of directly realizing is the characteristic of the truth of the path.

One asks: if there are four truths, for what reason does the World-Honored One speak of there being one truth, as a verse states:

'There is one truth, with no second; concerning this, sentient beings are in doubt; those who separately speak of various truths — I say that among them there is no true renunciant.' The intent of this verse is to say that there exists only one truth; the outsiders, still in doubt, speak separately of many — the Buddha says that within their own dharma there exists no renunciant fruit of the path.

Since the renunciant fruit of the path depends upon this one truth alone. The Venerable Pārśva says: as for speaking of one truth, this means that each of the four noble truths is, in itself, only one — there being only a single truth of suffering, with no second suffering; only a single truth of accumulation, with no second accumulation; only a single truth of cessation, with no second cessation; and only a single truth of the path, with no second path — and it is on this account that one truth is spoken of, without contradicting the statement of four. Further, as for speaking of one truth, this refers to the one truth of cessation, spoken in order to put a stop to every other liberation — that is, the outsiders speak of four liberations: first, the liberation of bodilessness, namely, the sphere of infinite space; second, the liberation of boundless intellect, namely, the sphere of infinite consciousness; third, the liberation of pure accumulation, namely, the sphere of nothingness; fourth, the liberation of the world's own stūpa, namely, the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. The Buddha says: these are not genuine liberation or renunciation at all, being still within formless existence; the true liberation is only the single truth of cessation, ultimate nirvāṇa. Further, as for speaking of one truth, this refers to the one truth of the path, spoken in order to put a stop to every other truth of the path — that is, the outsiders speak of many truths of the path, such as holding self-starvation to be the path, or holding lying in ashes to be the path.

Or holding the following of the sun's own course to be the path, or holding the drinking of wind, the drinking of water, the eating of fruit, or the eating of vegetables to be the path, or holding the exposing of the body to be the path, or holding the lying upon thorns and brambles to be the path, or holding the never lying down to be the path, or holding the wearing of worn-out, discarded robes to be the path, or holding the swallowing of various medicines while abstaining from food to be the path. The Buddha says: these are not the true path — they are a deviant and heretical path, a false and deceptive path, a fraudulent and pretentious path.

And every such path as this is not what any good person ought to practice at all, but is rather what every evil person practices — the truly pure path refers to the single truth of the path, namely, the noble eightfold path itself, right view and the rest. Further, as for speaking of one truth, this refers to the one truth of cessation, since it forever relinquishes every suffering of birth and death; and, further, as for speaking of one truth, this refers to the one truth of the path, since it is capable of cutting off every cause of birth and death. In a further scripture, two truths are spoken of: the conventional truth, and the ultimate truth. One asks: what is the meaning of these two truths, the conventional and the ultimate? There are those who say:

among these four truths, the first two truths are the conventional truth, since male and female, walking and standing, and vessels and clothing and the like — every such conventional matter as is evident to the world — are all gathered within the two truths of suffering and accumulation; the latter two truths are the ultimate truth, since every genuine, transmundane merit is gathered within the two truths of cessation and the path. Others, further, say: among these four truths, the first three truths are the conventional truth, since the truths of suffering and accumulation possess conventional matters, in the manner already stated, and the Buddha speaks of the truth of cessation as like a city, like a palace, or like the far shore — every such conventional designation as this existing within the truth of cessation, it is for this reason that the truth of cessation, too, is named conventional; only the single truth of the path is the ultimate truth, since no conventional designation exists within it. Others, further, say: all four truths are gathered within the conventional truth, since the first three truths possess conventional matters, in the manner already stated, and the truth of the path, too, possesses various conventional matters, since the Buddha speaks of the truth of the path using the names "renunciant" and "brahmin"; only the single principle that every dharma is empty and without self is the ultimate truth, since every conventional matter is utterly cut off within emptiness and no-self. The compilers say: one should say as follows — all four truths possess both the conventional and the ultimate. As for the truth of suffering and the truth of accumulation possessing the conventional truth: this is in the manner already stated. As for the truth of suffering possessing the ultimate truth: this refers to the principle that suffering is impermanent, empty, and without self. As for the truth of accumulation possessing the ultimate truth: this refers to the principle of cause, accumulation, arising, and condition.

As for the truth of cessation possessing the conventional truth: the Buddha speaks of the truth of cessation as like a garden, like a forest, and like the far shore, and the rest. As for the truth of cessation possessing the ultimate truth: this refers to the principle of cessation, tranquility, sublimity, and deliverance. As for the truth of the path possessing the conventional truth: this refers to the Buddha's speaking of the path as like a boat and raft, like a rocky mountain, like a ladder or stairway, like a tower or belvedere, like a flower, and like water. As for the truth of the path possessing the ultimate truth: this refers to the principle of the path, conduct, deliverance, and emergence. It is because all four truths are said to possess both the conventional and the ultimate truth that the conventional and the ultimate together gather within them the eighteen elements, the twelve sense-fields, and the five aggregates — space and non-analytical cessation, too, being gathered within these same two truths.

One asks: is the conventional nature within what is conventional existent because of the ultimate, or non-existent because of the ultimate? Suppose either is granted, what fault follows? Both alternatives carry a fault.

For what reason is this so? If the conventional nature within what is conventional is existent because of the ultimate, there ought to be only a single truth, namely, the ultimate truth.

If the conventional nature within what is conventional is non-existent because of the ultimate, there ought likewise to be only a single truth, namely, the ultimate truth. The answer: one should say as follows — the conventional nature within what is conventional is existent because of the ultimate. If the conventional nature within what is conventional were non-existent because of the ultimate, then the Buddha's own statement of the two truths ought not to be genuine, and yet the Buddha's own statement of the two truths is indeed genuine — and it is for this reason that the conventional nature within what is conventional is existent because of the ultimate. One asks: if so, there ought to be only a single truth, namely, the ultimate truth. The answer: in reality there is indeed only a single truth, namely, the ultimate truth. One asks: if so,

for what reason are two truths established? The answer: it is in dependence upon a distinguishing condition that two truths are established, not in dependence upon a real entity; if one depends upon a real entity, there is only a single truth, namely, the ultimate truth; it is in dependence upon a distinguishing condition that the two are established — depending upon this condition, one establishes the conventional truth; not depending upon this condition, one does not establish the ultimate truth; depending upon this condition, one establishes the ultimate truth; not depending upon this condition, one does not establish the conventional truth — exactly as a single feeling possesses four conditions as its nature: depending upon this condition, one establishes it as a causal condition; not depending upon this condition, one may go so far as to establish it as a predominant condition; depending upon this condition, one may go so far as to establish it as a predominant condition; not depending upon this condition, one does not establish it, up to and including, as a causal condition. And exactly as a single feeling possesses six causes as its nature: depending upon this condition, one establishes it as an associated cause; not depending upon this condition, one may go so far as to establish it as an efficient cause; depending upon this condition, one may go so far as to establish it as an efficient cause; not depending upon this condition, one does not establish it, up to and including, as an associated cause — so too are the two truths, established in dependence upon a distinguishing condition, not in dependence upon a real entity. One asks: may the conventional and the ultimate, too, be designated as each being its own single, unmixed matter? The answer: this, too, may be designated. What, then, is this matter? The Venerable Vasumitra says as follows: the name that expresses is the conventional; the dharma expressed is the ultimate. He says, further: the name that accords with what the world states is the conventional; the name that accords with what the noble ones state is the ultimate. The Great Virtuous One says: the statement, arising from a mind free of falsehood, that expounds a sentient being, a vessel, clothing, and the like, is the conventional truth; the statement, arising from a mind free of falsehood, that expounds conditionality, dependent origination, and the like, is the ultimate truth. The Venerable Dharmatrāta says: the own-nature of a name is the conventional — this is a portion of the truths of suffering and accumulation; the own-nature of the meaning is the ultimate — this is a portion of the truths of suffering and accumulation, together with the remaining two truths and the two unconditioned dharmas.

As a scripture states, a renunciant brahmin altogether possesses three kinds of brahmin-truth. What are these three? There exists a renunciant brahmin who speaks as follows: no sentient being whatsoever ought to be harmed — such a statement as this is true, not false, and this is named the first brahmin-truth. There exists, further, a renunciant brahmin who speaks as follows: I do not belong to that one; that one does not belong to me — such a statement as this is true, not false, and this is named the second brahmin-truth. There exists, further, a renunciant brahmin who speaks as follows: whatever dharma possesses the nature of accumulation invariably possesses the nature of cessation — such a statement as this is true, not false, and this is named the third brahmin-truth. One asks: within this passage, who is meant by "brahmin," and what is meant by "truth"? The answer: the intent here is that a renunciant of another path is named a brahmin; among what he states,

the first three statements are truths; every remaining statement is false. As for no sentient being whatsoever ought to be harmed: this refers to the fact that no sentient being whatsoever ought to be killed. As for I do not belong to that one, that one does not belong to me: this refers to the fact that I do not belong to that one, nor does that one belong to me. As for whatever dharma possesses the nature of accumulation invariably possesses the nature of cessation: this refers to the fact that whatever possesses birth invariably returns to cessation. Others, further, say: the intent of this passage is that one who abides within the Buddha's own dharma is named a brahmin, and the very three statements already mentioned are named truths, spoken by the Buddha in response to outsiders — that is, there exist outsiders who claim of themselves that they alone are true brahmins, while performing sacrificial rites that kill oxen and sheep, and gathering together a great many creatures of every mixed kind to take their lives. The Buddha, in response to them, spoke thus: whoever harms another is no true brahmin; a true brahmin is one who harms no sentient being whatsoever. There exist, further, outsiders who claim of themselves that they alone are true brahmins, while diligently cultivating the holy life for the sake of being reborn in heaven and experiencing every sensual pleasure. The Buddha, in response to them, spoke thus: whoever cultivates the holy life for the sake of heaven's own sensual pleasure is no true brahmin; a true brahmin is one who cultivates the holy life with respect to every possession, entirely without attachment. There exist, further, outsiders who claim of themselves that they alone are true brahmins, while clinging to annihilationism or eternalism, deviating from the middle way. The Buddha, in response to them, spoke thus: whoever clings to annihilationism or eternalism is no true brahmin; a true brahmin is one who knows that whatever possesses the nature of accumulation invariably possesses the nature of cessation — being accumulation, it is not annihilation; being cessation, it is not eternal; being neither annihilation nor eternal, it accords with the middle way.

Further, the intent of this scripture is to speak of the very preliminary practice belonging to the three liberation-gates: no sentient being whatsoever ought to be harmed speaks of the preliminary practice of the emptiness liberation-gate; I do not belong to that one, that one does not belong to me speaks of the preliminary practice of the wishless liberation-gate; whatever dharma possesses the nature of accumulation invariably possesses the nature of cessation speaks of the preliminary practice of the signless liberation-gate. There are those who say: the intent of this scripture is to speak of these three liberation-gates in their proper sequence. Others, further, say: the intent of this scripture is to speak of three concentrations, namely, the empty, the wishless, and the signless, the three in their proper sequence. Others, further, say: the intent of this scripture is to speak of the aggregate of moral discipline, the aggregate of concentration, and the aggregate of wisdom, the three in their proper sequence — and exactly as with these three aggregates, so too should the three trainings and the three kinds of purity be understood, each in the corresponding manner.

As a scripture states, the Buddha told the monks: as for observing the four directions, this refers to observing the four truths. One asks: for what reason does the World-Honored One speak of the four noble truths using the language of direction? The answer: this observes the fitness of those to be converted for hearing it spoken this way — that is, there exist those to be converted who, hearing the four noble truths spoken using the language of direction, thereby readily awaken and enter — and it is for this reason that the Buddha, with respect to the truths, speaks using the language of direction, exactly as, in a further scripture, the Buddha, for the sake of those to be converted, speaks of the eight liberations using the language of direction, those to be converted, hearing this, thereby readily awakening and entering; this scripture, too, is just the same, and it is for this reason that, with respect to the four truths, the language of four directions is spoken. One asks: what resemblance is there between the four truths and the four directions, that the four truths should be spoken of using the language of the four directions? The answer: the four truths and the four directions are alike in number, and the like. One asks: with respect to which truth does the Buddha speak the language of which direction? The answer: the Buddha, with respect to the truth of suffering, speaks the language of the east; with respect to that same truth of accumulation, he speaks the language of the west, since, at the time of direct realization, one first observes the truth of suffering and next observes accumulation. There are those who say: the east is like accumulation, and the west is like suffering, since cause is spoken of first and fruit afterward, in due sequence. The Buddha, with respect to the truth of the path, speaks the language of the south, since the path and the south are both alike worthy of offerings; the Buddha, with respect to the truth of cessation, speaks the language of the north, since cessation and the north are both alike the most supreme.

As a scripture states, with respect to the four noble truths, one ought to know the faculty of wisdom. One asks: is this stated with reference to inclusion, or with reference to the object taken? If it is with reference to inclusion,

then the faculty of wisdom and the four truths do not mutually include one another at all — how, then, can it be said, with respect to the four truths, that one ought to know the faculty of wisdom? If it is with reference to the object taken, then every dharma whatsoever is its object — why single out the four truths alone in speaking this way? The answer: one should say as follows — this is stated neither with reference to inclusion nor with reference to the object taken; rather, at the time of establishing the four noble truths, the function of wisdom is most supreme, and it is for this reason that it is said, with respect to the four noble truths, one ought to know the faculty of wisdom — exactly as, at the time of establishing the four verifications of pure faith, the function of faith is most supreme, and it is for this reason that it is said, with respect to the four verifications of pure faith, one ought to know the faculty of faith; exactly as, at the time of establishing the four right efforts, the function of diligence is most supreme, and it is for this reason that it is said, with respect to the four right efforts, one ought to know the faculty of diligence; exactly as, at the time of establishing the four foundations of mindfulness, the function of mindfulness is most supreme, and it is for this reason that it is said, with respect to the four foundations of mindfulness, one ought to know the faculty of mindfulness; and exactly as, at the time of establishing the four bases of supernormal power, the function of concentration is most supreme, and it is for this reason that it is said, with respect to the four bases of supernormal power, one ought to know the faculty of concentration — so too is the case here. There are those who say: this is stated with reference to the object taken. One asks: since the faculty of wisdom is indeed capable of taking every dharma as its object, why single out the four truths alone in speaking this way? The answer: whatever dharma is taken as object by contaminated or undefiled wisdom is what is singled out and spoken of here; space and non-analytical cessation are taken as object solely by contaminated wisdom, and it is for this reason that they are not spoken of here.