The Rescuing Dharma

As a scripture states, the Venerable Śāriputra spoke as follows: every wholesome dharma that arises is gathered within the four noble truths, and proceeds toward the four noble truths.

One asks: granting that the three conditioned truths may be spoken of as arising, the truth of cessation, being unconditioned, possesses no meaning of arising at all — how, then, can it be said that every wholesome dharma that arises is gathered within the four truths? The answer: the intent of this scripture is that every wholesome dharma that arises is, without exception, gathered within the four noble truths; it does not say that each and every one of the four truths, individually, gathers in every wholesome dharma that arises. What fault, then, does this raise against principle? Further, arising is of two kinds: first, arising through possessing an own-nature; second, arising through arising from conditions. As for arising through possessing an own-nature: this word "arising" displays the substance itself, not the meaning of cessation or destruction. As for arising through arising from conditions: this word "arising" wishes to display the meaning of arising from conditions. Among wholesome dharmas, whatever possesses both these kinds of arising is gathered within the three conditioned truths; whatever possesses only arising through an own-nature is gathered within the truth of cessation, and it is for this reason that the scripture's own statement, too, raises no contradiction with principle. Further, arising is of two kinds: first, arising of operative function; second, arising of that which is obtained. Among wholesome dharmas, whatever possesses both these kinds of arising is gathered within the three conditioned truths; whatever possesses only the arising of that which is obtained is gathered within the truth of cessation, since analytical cessation, although it does not itself arise, is nonetheless something obtained, and this obtaining is itself a form of arising. The Venerable Pārśva says: this scripture speaks of the forbearances and the knowledges as "what is generated" as wholesome — these forbearances and knowledges are, each as is fitting, gathered within the four noble truths, though not said to be comprehensively gathered within all of them. As for speaking of "proceeding toward the truths": this refers to the meaning of taking a truth as one's object — that is, the forbearance and knowledge of suffering, gathered within the truth of the path, take the truth of suffering as their object; the forbearance and knowledge of accumulation, gathered within the truth of the path, take the truth of accumulation as their object; the forbearance and knowledge of cessation, gathered within the truth of the path, take the truth of cessation as their object; the forbearance and knowledge of the path, gathered within the truth of the path, take the truth of the path as their object.

As a scripture states, the Buddha told the monks: every Thus-Come One, Worthy of Offerings, Perfectly and Fully Awakened One, speaks of a rescuing dharma, namely, the four noble truths, proclaiming and expounding the dharma of the four noble truths in order to rescue sentient beings out of birth and death. One asks: for what reason is this rescuing dharma spoken of? The answer: it is in order to display that the very meaning of rescue is achieved specifically by one's own diligent cultivation of the path, and not by another's cultivation. How is this known to be so? Because a scripture states it — as the scripture states, there was a brahmin named Dṛḍhika, who came to where the Buddha was, and, having arrived, bowed his head at the World-Honored One's own two feet, joined his palms in reverence, and spoke this verse:

'I bow my head to this one among men, the truly courageous brahmin; with pure eyes, surveying all, may you remove my own doubt.' One asks: what meaning does this verse now wish to display? The answer: that brahmin, being lazy by his own nature, held that another's cultivation of the path could remove his own confusion, and it was for this reason that he addressed the Buddha with these affectionate verses, wishing to display that the World-Honored One, a heavenly brahmin riding upon a courageous vow, had come to be born among men in order to rescue sentient beings, having already cultivated the noble path, and wishing only that the Buddha, out of compassion, would remove his own doubt and confusion. The World-Honored One then spoke this verse in reply:

'As for freeing you from your own doubt, I truly possess no power of my own to do so; you must yourself behold the supreme dharma, and only then will you cross over the flood.' The intent of this verse now is that the World-Honored One wished to display that there exists no such thing as another's cultivation of the path cutting off one's own confusion — for, were there such a thing, then, at the very time I myself sat beneath the tree cultivating the noble path, every sentient being's own affliction ought to have been cut off, since I possess great compassion toward every one of them; and yet the confusion of sentient beings was not thereby cut off all at once.

It is for this reason that there exists no such thing as another's path cutting off one's own confusion, exactly as, when another takes medicine, one's own illness is not thereby removed — one must oneself take the medicine, and only then does one's own illness come to be healed. It is by this that it is known that it is specifically one's own cultivation of the path that achieves the meaning of rescue, and not another's cultivation, and it is for this reason that the World-Honored One speaks of the rescuing dharma. This rescuing dharma is precisely the four noble truths, and it is spoken in order to cause sentient beings to rely upon it in cultivating the path, to behold the four noble truths, and to cut off their own doubt and confusion. One asks: what is the meaning of the word "rescue"? The answer: it is because one draws sentient beings forth from a perilous and difficult place and sets them down in a level and even place that it is named rescue. As for the perilous and difficult place: this refers to the nature of an ordinary being, exactly as a deep pit, ravine, mountain cliff, or other such fearsome place. As for the level and even place: this refers to the nature of a noble one, exactly as a great royal highway. It is by the Buddha's own proclaiming of the dharma of the four noble truths that sentient beings are drawn forth from the ordinary being's own utterly perilous and difficult place, and set down within the noble one's own utterly level and even place — meaning that they are caused to enter the path and to attain the fruit of the path — and it is for this reason that it is named rescue. Further, it is because one draws them forth from an equal place and leads them into a true nature that it is named rescue. As for the equal place: this refers to supreme mundane dharma. As for the true nature: this refers to the forbearance of the dharma-knowledge of suffering. It is by the Buddha's own proclaiming of the dharma of the four noble truths that sentient beings are led from supreme mundane dharma into the forbearance of the dharma-knowledge of suffering, and it is for this reason that it is named rescue. Further, it is because one draws sentient beings forth from a place of great suffering and sets them down in a place of great happiness that it is named rescue. As for the place of great suffering: this refers to birth and death. As for the place of great happiness: this refers to nirvāṇa. It is by the Buddha's own proclaiming of the dharma of the four noble truths that sentient beings are led out of birth and death and caused to attain great nirvāṇa, and it is for this reason that it is named rescue. One asks: for what reason are the four truths named rescuing dharma, and not the elements, the sense-fields, or the aggregates? The answer: contemplating the four noble truths, one enters the path, attains the fruit, becomes free of defilement, and exhausts the contaminants; contemplating the elements, sense-fields, or aggregates does not accomplish this. Further, contemplating the four noble truths causes those to be converted to draw near to entering the noble path and to draw near to directly realizing the dharma-body; contemplating the elements, sense-fields, or aggregates is a distant preliminary practice — that is, among a practitioner's own distant preliminary practices, at the initial stage of habitual cultivation, one contemplates the eighteen elements; at the stage already thoroughly practiced, one contemplates the twelve sense-fields; at the stage that transcends mental application, one contemplates the five aggregates; and only within the near preliminary practices of heat, summit, forbearance, and the rest does one then contemplate the four truths, thereby being able to enter the noble path and directly realize the fruit and the dharma-body — and it is for this reason that only the four truths are named rescuing dharma.

One asks: what is the meaning of the word "noble" in "noble truth"? Is it named noble truth because it is wholesome, because it is undefiled, or because it is possessed by the nobles? Suppose either is granted, what fault follows? All three carry a fault. For what reason is this so? If it is named noble truth because it is wholesome, then, among the four, only the latter two could be named noble truth, since only they are wholesome — the former two, being common to all three moral qualities, how could they, too, be named noble truth? If it is named noble truth because it is undefiled, then, among the four, only the latter two could be named noble truth, since only they are undefiled — the former two, being contaminated, how could they be named noble truth? If it is named noble truth because it is possessed by the nobles, then, since ordinary beings, too, possess it, how could it be named noble truth uniquely? As it is said, who possesses the truths of suffering and accumulation? Every sentient being does. Who possesses the truth of cessation? Whoever is not fully bound does.

The answer: one should say as follows — it is named noble truth because it is possessed by the nobles. One asks: if so, this resolves well the first two difficulties raised — how, then, is the third difficulty raised to be resolved? The answer: a noble one possesses all four in full, which an ordinary being does not. One asks: yet there also exist nobles who do not possess all four in full, such as one who is fully bound — at the very first mind-moment of the path of seeing, he does not yet possess the truth of cessation at that time. The answer: this is but a brief span of time, unlike an ordinary being — that is, one who is fully bound, at the very first mind-moment of the path of seeing, although he does not yet possess all four, will, afterward, most certainly come to possess all four in full; an ordinary being, however, at no time whatsoever possesses all four in full, and it is for this reason that suffering and the rest are uniquely named noble truth. Further, among the class of the nobles there exist those who possess all four in full, and it is for this reason that it is named noble truth; among the class of ordinary beings there exists no one who possesses all four in full, and it is for this reason that they possess no such truth at all. Further, whoever's own continuum bears the very seal of the noble dharma is thereby given the name of a noble one,

and it is his own truth that is named noble truth. Further, whoever has already attained the moral discipline beloved of the nobles is thereby named a noble one, and it is his own truth that is named noble truth. Further, whoever has already attained noble wisdom is thereby named a noble one, and it is his own truth that is named noble truth. Further, whoever has already attained noble tranquility and insight is thereby named a noble one, and it is his own truth that is named noble truth. Further, whoever has already attained the noble wealth is thereby named a noble one, and it is his own truth that is named noble truth. Further, whoever has already entered the noble womb is thereby named a noble one, and it is his own truth that is named noble truth. Further, whoever has already attained the noble limbs of enlightenment and limbs of the path is thereby named a noble one, and it is his own truth that is named noble truth. The Venerable Saṃghavasu speaks as follows: while the Buddha was in the world, ordinary beings and nobles once raised a dispute between themselves — the ordinary beings saying that the formations are permanent, pleasurable, pure, and possessed of a self; the nobles saying that the formations are impermanent, suffering, empty, and without self. The ordinary beings said that their own statement was the truth; the nobles, too, said that their own statement was the truth. In order to settle this dispute, they went together to where the Buddha was and asked the Buddha to decide the matter. The Buddha spoke as follows: the nobles' own statement is the truth; the other statement is not the truth, for what reason is this so? Because the nobles, with respect to suffering and the rest, directly know, see, and perceive them, and what they state is thereby the truth, while ordinary beings are not so — and it is for this reason that the four truths belong solely to the nobles, and not to ordinary beings at all, and it is for this reason that they are named noble truth. The Venerable Vasumitra says as follows: these four truths are penetrated solely by the nobles' own noble wisdom, and it is for this reason that they are named noble truth.

One asks: what is the noble truth of suffering? The answer: as a scripture states, the suffering of birth, the suffering of old age, the suffering of sickness, the suffering of death, the suffering of meeting with what is not loved, the suffering of separation from what is loved, and the suffering of not obtaining what one seeks — in brief, the suffering of the five grasping-aggregates in every respect — this is named the noble truth of suffering. It should be understood that, here, being joined with birth is named the suffering of birth; being joined with the characteristic of abiding and change is named the suffering of old age; being joined with oppression and affliction is named the suffering of sickness; being joined with cessation is named the suffering of death; being joined with meeting what is not loved is named the suffering of meeting with what is not loved; being joined with separation from what is loved is named the suffering of separation from what is loved.

Being joined with the lack of freedom and the failure to obtain what one desires is named the suffering of not obtaining what one seeks. Every such suffering as this is gathered within the contaminated grasping-aggregates, and it is for this reason that it is named, in brief, the suffering of the five grasping-aggregates in every respect. Further, birth is the very field and foundation upon which every suffering rests, and it is for this reason that it is named the suffering of birth; old age is capable of causing the beloved prime of youth to decline and change, and it is for this reason that it is named the suffering of old age; sickness is capable of damaging and destroying beloved ease and comfort, and it is for this reason that it is named the suffering of sickness.

Death is capable of severing and extinguishing a beloved lifespan, and it is for this reason that it is named the suffering of death; when an unloved object meets with the body, it gives rise to a host of sufferings, and it is for this reason that it is named the suffering of meeting with what is not loved; when a beloved object becomes distant from the body, it gives rise to a host of sufferings, and it is for this reason that it is named the suffering of separation from what is loved; when what one seeks as one's own desired matter fails to be fulfilled, it gives rise to a host of sufferings, and it is for this reason that it is named the suffering of not obtaining what one seeks. Every such suffering as this is gathered within the contaminated grasping-aggregates, and it is for this reason that it is named, in brief, the suffering of the five grasping-aggregates in every respect. One asks: the suffering of the five grasping-aggregates is vast and extensive in its own measure — for what reason, then, is it named brief? The answer: although suffering is vast and extensive, it is spoken of briefly, and it is for this reason that it is named brief — that is, the suffering of the five grasping-aggregates is exceedingly numerous, and cannot be spoken of at length; wishing to cause those to be converted to give rise, in every case, to weariness and disenchantment, it is spoken of briefly instead. It is exactly as when a certain man possesses many faults and evils that cannot be spoken of at length; asked about them, one may only answer, in brief, that he is an extremely evil man — the words being brief, yet the faults being exceedingly extensive. This, too, is just the same, and it is for this reason that it is named, in brief, the suffering of the five grasping-aggregates.

One asks: is there, or is there not, pleasure within the aggregates? Suppose either is granted, what fault follows? Both alternatives carry a fault. For what reason is this so? If there is indeed pleasure within the aggregates, why are they named the truth of suffering, rather than the truth of pleasure? If there is utterly no pleasure within the aggregates at all, how is a certain scripture's own statement to be reconciled — as the scripture states, Mahānāma, you should know, were form solely possessed of suffering and lacking pleasure whatsoever, were it not accompanied by pleasure and did not give rise to joy and happiness, then, being free of pleasure, sentient beings ought not, for the sake of pleasure, give rise to craving and attachment toward form; it is precisely because form possesses both suffering and pleasure, is indeed accompanied by pleasure and does give rise to joy and happiness, and is not free of pleasure, that sentient beings, for the sake of pleasure, give rise to craving and attachment toward form — and so on, at full length, up through, consciousness, as well. A further passage, too, states that the three feelings are each definitely established, without any mutual confusion — namely, pleasurable feeling, painful feeling, and neither-painful-nor-pleasurable feeling. And a further scripture states: the path depends upon its provisions, and nirvāṇa depends upon the path — it is by the very pleasure of the path that the pleasure of nirvāṇa is attained. Given, then, that the path is itself pleasure, how can it be said that the aggregates contain no pleasure at all?

The answer: one should say as follows — within the aggregates there does indeed exist a small measure of pleasure, since, among the aggregates, suffering is abundant and pleasure is scant, and, the scant being outweighed by the abundant, they are simply named the aggregate of suffering — exactly as, when a single drop of honey is placed within a jar of poison, the scant being outweighed by the abundant, it is simply named a jar of poison. The aggregates, too, are just the same — pleasure being scant and suffering abundant, they are named solely the truth of suffering. There are those who say: within the aggregates there is utterly no pleasure at all, and it is for this reason alone that they are named the truth of suffering.

One asks: what is the noble truth of the accumulation of suffering? The answer: as a scripture states, whatever craving there is, and craving for further existence, craving accompanied by delight, and delighting in this and in that — this is named the noble truth of the accumulation of suffering. One asks: every contaminated dharma capable of serving as a cause is gathered within the truth of accumulation — for what reason, then, does the World-Honored One speak of the truth of accumulation as craving alone, and nothing further? The answer: with respect to designating the noble truth of accumulation, craving's own force and function are especially strong, surpassing every other contaminated dharma, and it is for this reason that craving alone, and nothing further, is spoken of as accumulation — and yet every contaminated dharma is indeed the truth of accumulation, exactly as, in designating the formations-aggregate, volition, being foremost among them, alone is spoken of, and yet every associated and dissociated formation, in reality, belongs to the formations-aggregate — it is for just this reason that craving alone is spoken of as the truth of accumulation. Further, craving is the very root cause of every suffering across the three times, the road and the very thread by which it is able to serve as the condition for arising, and, its own power of giving rise and of accumulating being especially strong, the truth of accumulation is spoken of with reference to it alone. Further, craving is especially capable of repeatedly drawing forth the fruit of suffering, and it is for this reason that it alone is spoken of, as a verse states:

'Exactly as a tree whose root has not been uprooted, though hewn down again and again, still grows anew, so too, so long as the latent tendency of craving remains uncut, one repeatedly experiences every kind of suffering.' Further, craving, with respect to a sentient being, is capable both of burning and of moistening, and it is for this reason that it alone is spoken of — at the time it serves as cause it moistens, at the time it bears fruit it burns, exactly as a drop of scalding oil, falling upon the body, is capable both of burning and of moistening. Craving, with respect to a sentient being, is just the same. Further, craving is capable of arising exactly as a corpse-raising ghoul is capable of summoning forth the karma of rebirth, and it is for this reason that it alone is spoken of — exactly as, wherever water exists, a corpse-raising ghoul is capable of raising up a corpse, so too, wherever craving exists within the body, the karma capable of drawing forth rebirth is present. Further, craving is capable of gathering in every matter, sentient and insentient, internal and external, and it is for this reason that it alone is spoken of. As for gathering in the sentient:

it is by craving's own force that one gathers in wife, children, and servants, and matters such as elephants, horses, cattle, sheep, camels, and donkeys. As for gathering in the insentient: it is by craving's own force that one gathers in palaces, dwellings, treasures and wealth, and grain and wheat and the like. Further, craving is capable of nourishing and growing the male body and the female body, and it is for this reason that it alone is spoken of — that is, sentient beings, by craving's own force, are able rightly to provide for father, mother, teacher, and elder, and are able to nourish and raise wife, children, servants, friends, and kinsfolk, even down to birds and beasts, who, by craving's own force, snatch living creatures from one valley and carry them to another to nourish and raise their own young. Further, by the force of craving, one wishes to obtain a future birth's own body — from wishing to obtain, hope arises; from hope, one then seeks it out; and from seeking it out, one obtains the body of a future birth, and it is for this reason that craving alone is spoken of. Further, craving is capable of moistening every existence of birth and death, preventing it from withering away, and it is for this reason that it alone is spoken of, exactly as water is capable of moistening trees and medicinal herbs, preventing them from withering away. Further, craving is capable of moistening consciousness so that it gives rise to the sprout of a further existence — that is, it is by craving's own power that entry into the mother's womb is achieved, moistening the seed and the blood so that they remain lodged within the womb, and it is for this reason that it alone is spoken of. Further, whatever support, object, or aspect is capable of giving rise to craving, that same support, object, and aspect is capable of giving rise to every other affliction as well, exactly as, wherever the king of fish goes to dwell, every lesser fish follows along with him — this, too, is just the same, and it is on this account that craving is named the king of the afflictions, and it is for this reason that it alone is spoken of. Further, if within a given continuum there exists craving, then every other affliction, too, gathers within it, exactly as a garment dampened with moisture is easily clung to by dust and grime, and it is for this reason that craving alone is spoken of as the truth of accumulation.

Further, if within a given continuum there exists the water of craving, then every other affliction, too, delights in dwelling there, exactly as, wherever water exists, fish, shrimp, and frogs all delight in dwelling, and it is for this reason that it alone is spoken of. Further, craving is like a blazing fire, capable of burning everything, and, further, like salt water, drunk without ever being satisfied, and it is for this reason that it alone is spoken of — exactly as, when every kind of thing whatsoever is cast into a blazing fire, all of it is utterly burned up, with no time of satisfaction; and exactly as a thirsty man, drinking salt water, only grows thirstier the more he drinks, with no time of being satisfied — so too, within the body, whoever has not become free of craving finds no satisfaction whatsoever in his own attachment and craving toward objects. Further, craving is capable of joining together sentient beings who are distinct and different, preventing them from remaining distinct, and it is for this reason that it alone is spoken of, exactly as water joins together distinct grains of sand and the like, preventing them from separating. Further, craving causes the wholesome dharmas of sentient beings to grow rough and incapable, and moistens sentient beings so that they become attached and unable to escape, and it is for this reason that it alone is spoken of — that is, sentient beings, by craving's own force, find the wholesome dharmas they cultivate growing rough and incapable, and are moistened so that they become attached to their own place within birth and death, unable to rise above it, exactly as flies, bees, and the like, landing upon ghee, oil, or honey, or upon a moistened hide and the like, find their own wings and feet glued fast, unable to fly into the open sky. Further, craving, with respect to a sentient being, acts differently at the stage of cause and at the stage of fruit, and it is for this reason that it alone is spoken of — that is, the craving that arises, at the stage of cause, is compliant, exactly like a good friend; at the stage of fruit, it does harm, exactly like a wicked enemy, exactly as merchants, entering the sea to gather treasure, arrive at an island where they encounter a rākṣasī, who first shows them a pleasing countenance, speaking every kind of affectionate word, and, with courtesy and service, asks to become their wife.

Only later, once she has won their trust, does she lure them by artifice into an iron city, there to drink their blood and eat their flesh, gradually consuming them entirely until nothing but bones remain. Craving, this rākṣasī, is just the same — first causing sentient beings to delight in wrongdoing, and afterward causing them to fall into an evil destiny and undergo every kind of extreme suffering. Further, craving is the very cause of arising, and it is for this reason that it alone is spoken of, as a scripture states: karma is the cause of birth, craving is the cause of arising, and birth and death thereby circulate. Further, craving is difficult to cut off and to become free of, and it is for this reason that it alone is spoken of, exactly as a man who unexpectedly encounters two rākṣasas, one appearing in a mother's form, difficult to escape from, the other appearing in an enemy's form, easy to escape from — so too, a sentient being not yet free of desire and defilement has two afflictions that repeatedly manifest: one is desire and craving, difficult to cut off and to become free of; the other is hatred and aversion, easy to cut off and to become free of. Further, craving manifests repeatedly, subtly, and is difficult to perceive, and it is for this reason that it alone is spoken of, exactly as a skilled turner's own sharp instrument leaves behind a cut so fine as to be difficult to know. Further, craving, within the limbs of dependent origination, gradually establishes three, and it is for this reason that it alone is spoken of — that is, at its initial arising, it is named craving; at the stage where it has grown and expanded, it is named grasping; and, when its fruit is obtained after death, it is named ignorance.

Further, among ten defiling dharmas, craving stands foremost, and it is for this reason that it alone is spoken of, as a scripture states: the Buddha told Ānanda: conditioned by craving is seeking; conditioned by seeking is obtaining; conditioned by obtaining is accumulating; conditioned by accumulating is craving-attachment; conditioned by craving-attachment is clinging; conditioned by clinging is stinginess; conditioned by stinginess is grasping; conditioned by grasping is guarding; conditioned by guarding is taking up sword and staff, quarreling, deceiving, flattering, and despising —

giving rise to boundless kinds of evil, unwholesome dharma. Further, craving, among the eight defiled meditative attainments, exerts an especially strong force, and it is for this reason that it alone is spoken of — as it is said, is the taste associated with the first dhyāna tasted while one abides in absorption, or tasted only once one has emerged from absorption? One should say: it is tasted only once one has emerged from absorption, not tasted while one abides in absorption — and so on, at full length, up through, the taste associated with the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, likewise. Further, the Buddha says that craving and desire bind ordinary beings exactly as a cord binds a bird, and it is for this reason that it alone is spoken of. Further, the Buddha says that craving and desire are like a net, like a vine, entangling one so that escape is difficult, and it is for this reason that it alone is spoken of.

Further, the Buddha says that craving and desire are deep and vast, difficult to cross, exactly like the great ocean, and it is for this reason that it alone is spoken of. Further, the Buddha says that craving and desire are long and far-reaching, like a river, difficult to trace back to its source, and it is for this reason that it alone is spoken of, as a scripture states, speaking of a long river as a simile for the three kinds of craving — namely, craving for the desire realm, craving for the form realm, and craving for the formless realm. Further, since the Buddha says that craving and desire are difficult to cut off, difficult to break, and difficult to cross over, it is for this reason that it alone is spoken of. Further, since the Buddha says that craving and desire possess many faults, being blazing and firmly entrenched, it is for this reason that it alone is spoken of. Further, since the Buddha says that craving and desire are capable of causing distinctions of realm, of ground, and of category, and are capable of generating and growing every affliction, it is for this reason that it alone is spoken of. It is owing to causes and conditions such as these, of every kind, that, among contaminated dharmas, the World-Honored One singles out craving alone and speaks of it as the noble truth of accumulation — and yet the noble truth of accumulation is not gathered within craving alone.

One asks: what is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering? The answer: as a scripture states, that very craving, and craving for further existence, craving accompanied by delight, and delighting in this and in that — its exhaustion without remainder, its relinquishment, its expulsion, its being utterly finished, its becoming free of it, its cessation, its stilling, and its submergence — this is named the noble truth of the cessation of suffering. One asks: having already stated that the exhaustion without remainder and the rest of these various cravings is named the truth of cessation, then accumulation, too, is thereby ceased — how, then, does the scripture speak only of the cessation of suffering? The answer: this ought indeed to speak, too, of the cessation of accumulation,

and its not doing so is simply an incomplete statement. Further, having already spoken of the cessation of suffering, one should understand that the cessation of the truth of accumulation, too, is already implied, since suffering and accumulation are a single matter. Further, if one speaks of the cessation of suffering, one should understand that the truth of accumulation, too, is already known to have ceased, since it is only once both a cause and its fruit have ceased that cessation can truly be said to occur. Further, it is for the sake of those to be converted, who delight in the cessation of suffering specifically, that only the cessation of suffering is spoken of — that is, those to be converted feel a stronger weariness toward suffering than toward accumulation, and, having been oppressed by suffering since beginningless time, now, upon hearing the Buddha speak of the noble truth of the cessation of suffering, give rise to joy, saying: how truly wonderful it is that this wretched, evil suffering should be utterly extinguished! And, by the strength of this very joy, they swiftly seek to directly realize cessation. It is owing to causes and conditions such as these, of every kind, that the World-Honored One speaks only of the noble truth of the cessation of suffering, and does not speak of it as the noble truth of the cessation of accumulation. One asks: what is the noble truth of the path proceeding toward the cessation of suffering? The answer: as a scripture states, the eightfold noble path, namely, right view, up through, right concentration — this is named the noble truth of the path proceeding toward the cessation of suffering. One asks: this, too, ought to speak of the path proceeding toward the cessation of accumulation —

why does it speak only of the path proceeding toward the cessation of suffering? The answer: this, too, ought indeed to speak of the path proceeding toward the cessation of accumulation, and its not doing so is simply an incomplete statement. Further, having already spoken of the path proceeding toward the cessation of suffering, one should understand that the path proceeding toward the cessation of accumulation, too, is already implied, since suffering and accumulation are not two separate matters. Further, if one speaks of the path proceeding toward the cessation of suffering, one should understand that the path proceeding toward the cessation of accumulation, too, is already known, since it is only once the cause has ceased that the fruit, too, comes to cease. Further, it is for the sake of those to be converted, who delight in the cessation of suffering and the path leading to it, that this is stated in this way — that is, those to be converted, whose weariness toward suffering runs deep, hearing that this path is capable of proceeding toward the cessation of suffering, give rise to the greatest joy,

and, by this, are swiftly able to cultivate the preliminary practice of the path. It is for this reason that only the path proceeding toward the cessation of suffering is spoken of. Further, this is spoken in order to display that the noble path is capable solely of blocking suffering and causing it forever not to arise again — that is, suppose one were to question the path directly: do you have the power to make a cause not a cause, or a fruit not a fruit? The path would answer: I cannot. Yet, whatever causes and conditions are capable of generating suffering, I am capable of counteracting them, so that suffering does not arise — and it is for this reason that only the path proceeding toward the cessation of suffering is spoken of.

Further, this is in order to put a stop to slander directed against the path — that is, there exist those who, as children of only seven or eight years of age, attain the fruit of the non-learner, and yet do not die until a lifespan of a hundred years has run its course, and, in the interval, undergo every kind of suffering, such as the suffering of the four hundred and four diseases and the like, and worldly people, seeing this, then slander the path, saying: this noble path is incapable of exhausting suffering. It is for this reason that the World-Honored One speaks as follows:

the noble path is capable of extinguishing every suffering of a further existence. It is owing to causes and conditions such as these, of every kind, that the World-Honored One speaks only of the path proceeding toward the cessation of suffering, and does not speak of it as the path proceeding toward the cessation of accumulation.

One asks: for what reason does the World-Honored One speak first of the truth of suffering, and, only at the very last, speak of the truth of the path? The answer: this accords with the sequence of ordinary phrasing, that is, speaking in this way accords with the sequence of ordinary phrasing.

Further, if one speaks in this way, it accords with the sequence in which it is spoken, retained, and upheld, and no other sequence would do so.

Further, this is spoken in dependence upon the sequence of direct realization — that is, sequence is, broadly speaking, of three kinds: first, the sequence of arising; second, the sequence of ease of statement; third, the sequence of direct realization. As for the sequence of arising: this refers to the four foundations of mindfulness, the four dhyānas, the four formless attainments, and the like — a practitioner of yoga first gives rise to mindfulness of the body, and it is for this reason that it is spoken of first, and so on, up through, last of all gives rise to mindfulness of dharmas, and it is for this reason that it is spoken of last; the dhyānas and formless attainments are stated at full length in just the same way. As for the sequence of ease of statement: this refers to the four right efforts, the four bases of supernormal power, the five faculties, the five powers, the seven limbs of enlightenment, and the eight limbs of the path, and the like — although the four right efforts exist simultaneously, yet, for ease of statement, one speaks first of cutting off evil and only afterward of cultivating the wholesome; and, within cutting off evil, one speaks first of cutting off evil already arisen, and only afterward of blocking evil not yet arisen; and, within cultivating the wholesome, one speaks first of giving rise to the wholesome not yet arisen, and only afterward of increasing the wholesome already arisen — if one speaks in this way, the phrasing flows lightly and easily; the four bases of supernormal power and the rest are stated at full length in just the same way. As for the sequence of direct realization: this refers to the four noble truths — a practitioner of yoga, at the stage of direct realization, first directly realizes suffering, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks of it first; next directly realizes accumulation, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks of it next; next directly realizes cessation, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks of it next; and only afterward directly realizes the path, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks of it last.

One asks, on account of this discussion raising a further discussion: for what reason, when a practitioner enters direct realization, does he first directly realize suffering, and only at the very last directly realize the path? The answer: this depends on coarseness and subtlety — that is, among the four truths, the truth of suffering is the coarsest, and it is for this reason that it is directly realized first, proceeding by degrees up through the truth of the path, which is the subtlest, and it is for this reason that it is directly realized last, exactly as, in learning archery, one first shoots at a coarse object, proceeding by degrees until one is able to shoot even the tip of a hair. Further, the delusion regarding suffering is capable of sustaining the delusion regarding accumulation, and so on, up through, the delusion regarding cessation is capable of sustaining the delusion regarding the path — if the delusion regarding suffering has not yet been removed, one can, in the end, never remove the delusion regarding accumulation, and so on, up through, if the delusion regarding cessation has not yet been removed, one can, in the end, never remove the delusion regarding the path, and it is for this reason that suffering is directly realized first, and, at the very last, the path is directly realized. Further, the delusion regarding suffering is capable of drawing forth the delusion regarding accumulation, and so on, up through, the delusion regarding cessation is capable of drawing forth the delusion regarding the path — if the delusion regarding suffering has not been blocked,

one can, by no means, block the delusion regarding accumulation, and so on, up through, if the delusion regarding cessation has not been blocked, one can, by no means, block the delusion regarding the path, and it is for this reason that suffering is directly realized first, and, at the very last, the path is directly realized. Further, the contemplation of the truth of suffering is capable of drawing forth the contemplation of the truth of accumulation, and so on, up through, the contemplation of the truth of cessation is capable of drawing forth the contemplation of the truth of the path — if the contemplation of the truth of suffering has not yet arisen, one can, by no means, give rise to the contemplation of the truth of accumulation, and so on, up through, if the contemplation of the truth of cessation has not yet arisen, one can, by no means, give rise to the contemplation of the truth of the path, and it is for this reason that suffering is directly realized first, and, at the very last, the path is directly realized. Further, the contemplation of the truth of suffering is the very cause, road, and thread by which the contemplation of the truth of accumulation is able to serve as the condition for its arising, and so on, up through, the contemplation of the truth of cessation is the very cause, road, and thread by which the contemplation of the truth of the path is able to serve as the condition for its arising — if the contemplation of the truth of suffering has not yet arisen, one can, by no means, give rise to the contemplation of the truth of accumulation, and so on, up through, if the contemplation of the truth of cessation has not yet arisen, one can, by no means, give rise to the contemplation of the truth of the path, and it is for this reason that suffering is directly realized first, and, at the very last, the path is directly realized. Further, the contemplation of the truth of suffering is the very preliminary-practice basis, gateway, and foundation of the contemplation of the truth of accumulation, and so on, up through, the contemplation of the truth of cessation is the very preliminary-practice basis, gateway, and foundation of the contemplation of the truth of the path — if the contemplation of the truth of suffering has not yet arisen, one can, by no means, give rise to the contemplation of the truth of accumulation, and so on, up through, if the contemplation of the truth of cessation has not yet arisen, one can, by no means, give rise to the contemplation of the truth of the path, and it is for this reason that suffering is directly realized first, and, at the very last, the path is directly realized. The Venerable Pārśva says: a practitioner of yoga, having already come to know that the five grasping-aggregates are like a sickness, like a boil, like an arrow, and the like, next seeks out their cause, and thereby comes to know this is the truth of accumulation; next seeks out where they are absent, and thereby comes to know this is the truth of cessation; and only afterward seeks the antidote, and thereby comes to know this is the truth of the path — exactly as a weak and feeble man, whose body has been afflicted by sickness and the like, oppressed by suffering, gives rise to this reflection: from what cause does this sickness and the rest of mine arise?

And comes to know that it arises from wind, heat, phlegm, or the like. He then further reflects: when might I come to be cured? And comes to know the moment its exhaustion and cessation will occur. He then further reflects: through what means might I come to be cured? And comes to know through taking medicine and the like — it is owing to causes and conditions such as these that suffering is directly realized first, and, at the very last, the path is directly realized. Further, a practitioner of yoga, coming to know that the five grasping-aggregates possess many faults, next seeks out their cause, next seeks out their cessation, and only afterward seeks the antidote — exactly as a man whose son habitually commits robbery gives rise to this reflection: because of whom has my son come to commit this evil? And comes to know it is because of evil companions. He then further reflects: at what time will my son's own conduct come to be reformed and made good? And comes to know the moment this reforming will occur. He then further reflects: who is it that will cause him to become reformed and good? And comes to know it is by a good companion — it is owing to causes and conditions such as these that suffering is directly realized first, and, at the very last, the path is directly realized.

One asks: cause precedes fruit, and this accords with the natural sequence — for what reason, then, does a practitioner first directly realize suffering, and only afterward directly realize accumulation? The answer: this accords with the sequence proper to knowing suffering and to cutting off accumulation. One asks: knowing suffering and cutting off accumulation accord with what sequence? The answer: this accords with the sequence of the ordinary world's own felling of a tree — that is, whoever fells a tree first cuts off its branches and the like, and only afterward pulls out its root; felling the tree of birth and death, too, follows this same sequence — first knowing suffering, exactly as cutting off the branches and the like, and only afterward cutting off accumulation, exactly as pulling out the tree's own root. One asks: the path precedes cessation, and this accords with the natural sequence — for what reason, then, does a practitioner first directly realize cessation, and only afterward directly realize the path?

The answer: this accords with the sequence proper to directly realizing cessation and to cultivating the path. One asks: directly realizing cessation and cultivating the path accord with what sequence? The answer: this accords with the sequence of what is proceeded toward and what proceeds toward it — that is, were one to speak first of cultivating the path and only afterward of directly realizing cessation, one would not know what this path is a path toward; were one to speak first of directly realizing cessation and only afterward of cultivating the path, one would already know that this path is the path proceeding toward cessation — exactly as, were a man to ask another to show him the way, and the other, in turn, were to ask him which way he means, and the man were to answer that he asks after the way to a certain city, the other would then answer that this is indeed the way there — speaking first of directly realizing cessation, and only afterward of cultivating the path,

should be understood in just the same way, raising up cessation first in order to display the path, in accordance with this same sequence. Further, a practitioner of yoga first cuts off the delusion regarding the three truths by way of the path that takes those three truths as its object, and only afterward cuts off the delusion regarding the truth of the path by way of the path that takes the truth of the path as its object, and it is for this reason that cessation is directly realized first, and the path only afterward, exactly as a man who first looks upon another's face, coming to know whether it is fair or unsightly, and only afterward, wishing to know his own face's own fairness or unsightliness, takes up a mirror to look upon it — it is owing to a cause and condition such as this that cessation is directly realized first, and the path only afterward. One asks: at the time of directly realizing a truth, does one observe its own particular characteristic, or does one observe a characteristic shared in common? Suppose either is granted, what fault follows? Both alternatives carry a fault. For what reason is this so? If one observes its own particular characteristic, then, since every dharma's own particular characteristics are boundlessly distinct, there ought to be no one who ever brings the direct realization of the truths to completion at all —

consider merely the earth-element's own particular characteristic, boundlessly distinct in itself: one's observation would never be exhausted before life itself came to its end, let alone being able to observe every remaining particular characteristic besides. If one observes a characteristic shared in common, how is it that the four truths are not directly realized all at once, and, further, at what time is a truth's own particular characteristic observed by genuine wisdom at all? If one is incapable of observing a truth's own particular characteristic, how can one be named one who directly realizes the truths at all? The answer: one should say as follows — one observes a characteristic shared in common. One asks: how, then, are the four truths not directly realized all at once? The answer: at the time of direct realization, although one observes a characteristic shared in common, one does not thereby directly realize every shared characteristic whatsoever — that is, one directly realizes only a small portion of the shared characteristic, since every particular and shared characteristic is itself boundlessly distinct. Consider that even the great element of earth is named both a particular characteristic and a shared characteristic — named a particular characteristic with reference to the three other great elements; named a shared characteristic since every portion of the earth-element alike bears the characteristic of solidity. The derived form composed from the great elements likewise, this form-aggregate, too, is named both a particular characteristic and a shared characteristic — named a particular characteristic with reference to the four remaining aggregates; named a shared characteristic since every form alike bears the characteristic of change and obstruction. And it is precisely the five grasping-aggregates combined that compose the truth of suffering — this truth of suffering, too, is likewise named both a particular characteristic and a shared characteristic — named a particular characteristic with reference to the three remaining truths; named a shared characteristic since every aggregate alike bears the characteristic of oppression. To contemplate this shared characteristic of oppression is precisely to contemplate the characteristics of suffering, impermanence, emptiness, and no-self, and this is itself named the direct realization of the truth of suffering. Such direct realization, when set against the truths, is named the observation of a particular characteristic; when set against the aggregates, is named the observation of a shared characteristic. It is because it is set against the aggregates and named the observation of a shared characteristic that, at the time of direct realization, it is named the observation of a shared characteristic; it is because it is set against the truths and named the observation of a particular characteristic that the four truths are not directly realized all at once. Further, one truth is not four, and four truths are not one, and it is for this reason that the four truths are not directly realized all at once. Further, one aspect is not four, and four aspects are not one, and it is for this reason that the four truths are not directly realized all at once. Further, the contaminated and the undefiled each bear their own distinct characteristic, and it is for this reason that the four truths are not directly realized all at once. Further, the conditioned and the unconditioned each bear their own distinct characteristic, and it is for this reason that the four truths are not directly realized all at once. Further, that which is the fruit and its cause, and that which realizes and what is realized, are each distinct, and it is for this reason that the four truths are not directly realized all at once. Further, since the four noble truths differ either in characteristic or in nature, there exists no meaning by which they could be directly realized all at once. Further, the very organ and meaning of what cognizes and what is cognized, and the object and the possessor of the object of the aspect, are each distinct, and it is for this reason that the four truths are not directly realized all at once. Further, even a single truth, taken alone, is not directly realized all at once — how much less could the four truths be directly realized all at once — that is, at the stage of direct realization, one first observes the desire realm's own suffering separately, and only afterward observes the form and formless realms' own suffering together; first observes the desire realm's own accumulation separately, and only afterward observes the form and formless realms' own accumulation together; first observes the desire realm's own cessation separately, and only afterward observes the form and formless realms' own cessation together; and first observes the desire realm's own path separately, and only afterward observes the form and formless realms' own path together, and it is for this reason that there exists no meaning of directly realizing the four noble truths all at once.

One asks, on account of this discussion raising a further discussion: for what reason does a practitioner first observe the desire realm's own suffering separately, and only afterward observe the form and formless realms' own suffering together? The answer: this depends upon a coarse and a subtle aspect in giving rise to direct realization — the desire realm's own suffering being coarse, it is directly realized first; the form and formless realms' own suffering being subtle, it is directly realized only afterward. One asks: if so, the form realm's own suffering, being coarse, ought to be directly realized first, and the formless realm's own suffering, being subtle, ought to be directly realized only afterward — how, then, are the two realms' own suffering observed together, all at once? The answer: since both are gathered within the ground of concentration, they are directly realized together — that is, the desire realm's own suffering, not being gathered within the ground of concentration, is observed separately first, while the form and formless realms' own suffering, both being gathered within the ground of concentration, are observed together only afterward. Further, the desire realm's own suffering is grasped together with the body in the present moment, and it is for this reason that it is observed separately first; the form and formless realms' own suffering is not grasped together with the body, and is not present in this sense, and it is for this reason that it is observed together only afterward. Further, the desire realm's own suffering is presently felt as oppressive, exactly as bearing a heavy burden, and it is for this reason that it is observed separately first; the form and formless realms' own suffering is not presently felt as oppressive in the manner of bearing a heavy burden, and it is for this reason that it is observed together only afterward. Further, the desire realm's own suffering presently afflicts the practitioner exactly as a present enemy, and it is for this reason that it is observed separately first; the form and formless realms' own suffering does not afflict the practitioner in the manner of a present enemy, and it is for this reason that it is observed together only afterward. Further, the desire realm's own suffering is near, and it is for this reason that it is observed separately first; the form and formless realms' own suffering is distant, and it is for this reason that it is observed together only afterward — and exactly as with near and distant, so too should proximate pressure, whether joined or unjoined, whether gathered or ungathered, with this very body's own common class and another body's own common class, be understood in the corresponding manner. Further, the desire realm's own suffering is presently seen, and it is for this reason that it is observed separately first; the form and formless realms' own suffering is not presently seen, and it is for this reason that it is observed together only afterward. One asks: at the stage of entering direct realization, if the form and formless realms' own suffering is not presently seen, how can it be named directly realized at all? The answer: there are two kinds of being presently seen: first, being presently seen through grasping; second, being presently seen through freedom from defilement. At the stage of entering direct realization, with respect to the desire realm's own suffering, both kinds of being presently seen are possessed, and it is for this reason that it is named directly realized; with respect to the form and formless realms' own suffering, only being presently seen through freedom from defilement is possessed, and it is for this reason that it, too, is named directly realized — exactly as a merchant who carries two loads of goods, one carried upon his own body, the other carried by another on his behalf: the load carried upon his own body is possessed of both kinds of being presently seen, first, knowing its weight through being presently seen, and, second, knowing its goods through being presently seen; the load carried by another on his behalf possesses only the one kind of being presently seen, namely, knowing its goods through being presently seen. Further, the desire realm's own suffering is of three kinds — wholesome, unwholesome, and karmically neutral — and it is for this reason that it is observed separately first; the form and formless realms' own suffering is of only two kinds — wholesome and karmically neutral — and it is for this reason that it is observed together only afterward. Further, a practitioner possesses the nature of an ordinary being with respect to the desire realm, and it is for this reason that he observes the desire realm's own suffering separately first; he does not possess the nature of an ordinary being with respect to the form and formless realms, and it is for this reason that he observes the form and formless realms' own suffering together only afterward — the dharma being simply so, that whoever possesses the nature of an ordinary being with respect to a given realm accordingly observes that realm's own suffering first. Further, with respect to the desire realm's own suffering, slander arises first, and it is for this reason that it is directly realized separately first, giving rise to faith regarding it; with respect to the form and formless realms' own suffering, slander arises only afterward, and it is for this reason that it is directly realized together only afterward, giving rise to faith regarding it. It is owing to causes and conditions such as these, of every kind, that one observes the desire realm's own suffering separately first, and observes the form and formless realms' own suffering together only afterward — and the direct realization of the three remaining truths should be understood, according to this same principle, in the corresponding manner.

One asks: if one directly realizes the truths by way of their shared characteristic, then, at what time is a truth's own particular characteristic observed by genuine wisdom at all? If one is incapable of observing a truth's own particular characteristic, how can one be named one who directly realizes the truths at all? The answer: it is not that genuine wisdom, with respect to every particular characteristic, observes them by way of their own particular characteristic, that this is named the direct realization of the truths; rather, it is that genuine wisdom, with respect to every particular characteristic, observes them by way of their shared characteristic, that this is named the direct realization of the truths. Further, with respect to a truth's own particular and shared characteristic, there exists no separate ignorance regarding each — at the time of directly realizing the truths, both are cut off all at once, and, although one observes the shared characteristic, one may nonetheless genuinely be said to directly and truly realize every truth's own particular characteristic as well. Further, suffering, impermanence, and the rest are named a truth's own particular characteristic; yet, with respect to the aggregates, this same characteristic is itself named a shared characteristic — and it is for this reason that, in observing suffering and the like with respect to the truths, this is itself named the direct realization of both the particular and the shared characteristic at once. The aggregates' own particular characteristics are boundlessly distinct, and observing them could never cut off any affliction whatsoever, and it is for this reason that, at the stage of direct realization, they are not observed each separately. One asks: at the time of entering direct realization, since one already observes the aggregates as a whole, why, then, does one not observe the truths as a whole as well? The answer: at the time of entering direct realization, one contemplates the very principle of the four truths, cutting off the afflictions that are deluded with respect to each truth's own particular characteristic — there existing no single affliction that is deluded with respect to all four truths taken together as a whole, and it is for this reason that the four truths are not directly realized as a whole all at once. Within the aggregates, however, there does exist a delusion that is confused with respect to them as a whole, and it is for this reason that, with respect to the aggregates, a direct realization of them as a whole is indeed attained. Further, the aggregates' own particular characteristic is not itself the principle of the truths — this having already been understood since beginningless time, one need not contemplate it again — whereas a truth's own particular characteristic has not been understood since beginningless time, and it is for this reason that one now, with respect to each of them, gives rise to a separate direct realization.