Sixteen Aspects, One Voice

As a scripture states, the noble truth of suffering should be fully known by wisdom. The Abhidharma states: what is fully known by knowledge refers to every dharma whatsoever. One asks: if every dharma whatsoever is what is to be fully known, as the Abhidharma states, why does the scripture speak only of suffering as what should be fully known by wisdom? The answer: the scripture relies solely upon transmundane wisdom in stating that the noble truth of suffering is what should be fully known; the Abhidharma relies, in general, upon both mundane and transmundane wisdom, stating that every dharma whatsoever is what is to be fully known — and exactly as with mundane and transmundane, contaminated and undefiled, bound and freed, joined and unjoined, so too should this be understood in the corresponding manner. Further, the scripture relies solely upon the wisdom of near full knowledge in stating that the noble truth of suffering is what should be fully known; the Abhidharma relies upon the wisdom of both near and distant full knowledge in stating that every dharma whatsoever is what is to be fully known — and exactly as with near and distant, so too should proximate pressure and non-proximate pressure, joined and unjoined, be understood in the corresponding manner. Further, the scripture relies solely upon the wisdom that observes the shared characteristic in stating that the noble truth of suffering is what should be fully known; the Abhidharma relies, in general, upon the wisdom that observes both the particular and the shared characteristic, stating that every dharma whatsoever is what is to be fully known — and exactly as with the wisdom of the particular and the shared characteristic, so too should the cognition of the particular and the shared characteristic, and the mental application toward the particular and the shared characteristic, be understood in the corresponding manner. Further, the scripture relies solely upon wisdom not shared with outsiders in stating that the noble truth of suffering is what should be fully known; the Abhidharma relies, in general, upon wisdom both shared and not shared with outsiders, stating that every dharma whatsoever is what is to be fully known. Further, the scripture speaks with reference to the time of direct realization in stating that the noble truth of suffering is what should be fully known; the Abhidharma speaks with reference to the time of practicing the truths in stating that every dharma whatsoever is what is to be fully known. Further, the scripture speaks with reference to provisional cognition in stating that the noble truth of suffering is what should be fully known; the Abhidharma speaks with reference to ultimate cognition in stating that every dharma whatsoever is what is to be fully known. One asks: what is the meaning of provisional cognition? The answer: relying on the fruit's own coarse and evident, easily seen nature, it is provisionally said that suffering should be fully known; relying on the fact that the cause of birth-and-death does not continue, it is provisionally said that accumulation should be forever cut off; relying on the fact that it possesses both qualities and is not present within the body, it is provisionally said that cessation should be verified; relying on the fact that it is the path capable of forever cutting off every affliction, it is provisionally said that the path should be cultivated — such, then, is named the meaning of provisional cognition, provisional names being established, not because they exhaust the principle. The Venerable Pārśva says: the World-Honored One spoke only of suffering as what should be fully known, since one might otherwise suppose that suffering alone is what should be fully known, and it is for this reason that, within the Abhidharma, it is stated that every dharma whatsoever is what is to be fully known.

The World-Honored One spoke only of accumulation as what should be forever cut off, since one might otherwise suppose that accumulation alone is what should be forever cut off, and it is for this reason that, within the Abhidharma, it is stated that every contaminated dharma whatsoever should be forever cut off. The World-Honored One spoke only of cessation as what should be verified, since one might otherwise suppose that cessation alone is what should be verified, and it is for this reason that, within the Abhidharma, with reference to the attainment of verification, it is stated that every wholesome dharma whatsoever should be verified. The World-Honored One spoke only of the path as what should be cultivated, since one might otherwise suppose that the path alone is what should be cultivated, and it is for this reason that, within the Abhidharma, it is stated, in general, that every wholesome conditioned dharma whatsoever should be cultivated. This, then, displays that the scripture's own meaning is not fully explicit; the Abhidharma is a statement of fully explicit meaning. Further, it is in order to bring about the forever cutting off of the very road of birth and death that the Buddha speaks only of suffering as what should be fully known — that is, the view of self is the very root of the sixty-two views one may resort to; the resorted-to view is the root of every remaining affliction; every remaining affliction is the root of karma; karma, in turn, is the root of ripening; and, in dependence upon ripening, every wholesome, unwholesome, and karmically neutral dharma is generated and grows, and it is by this that the wheel of birth and death turns without end — at the time suffering is fully known, the view of self is cut off, and, the view of self being cut off, the road of birth and death is severed, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of suffering as what should be fully known. Further, it is in order to bring about the forever cutting off of the five views of self and the fifteen views of what belongs to a self that the Buddha speaks only of suffering as what should be fully known. Further, it is in order to bring about the forever cutting off of the view of self and the extreme view, and in order to attain the concentrations of emptiness and wishlessness, that the Buddha speaks only of suffering as what should be fully known. Further, since beginningless time, every kind of sentient being, with respect to the five grasping-aggregates, gives rise to the notion of a self, a sentient being, a life, one who is born, and one who nourishes and is repeatedly drawn into existence — who is capable of cutting off these every evil, inverted notions, causing one to attain the notion of the dharma? It is precisely the full knowing of suffering, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of suffering as what should be fully known. Further, since beginningless time, with respect to the aggregates that are suffering, impermanent, empty, and without self, one gives rise to the notion of permanence, pleasure, self, and purity — who is capable of cutting off these every distorted notions, causing one to attain the undistorted notion? It is precisely the full knowing of suffering, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of suffering as what should be fully known. Further, since beginningless time, every kind of sentient being,

although oppressed and pressed down by the aggregates, exactly as bearing a heavy burden, still craves and clings to the aggregates, exactly as an infant, although struck and scolded and pressed down by his own wet-nurse, still clings to her — wishing to cause sentient beings to cut off their own craving and clinging to the aggregates, the Buddha speaks only of suffering as what should be fully known. Further, since beginningless time, every kind of sentient being, owing to affliction, evil conduct, and distortion, has caused mind and mental factors to be crooked and twisted toward their object — who is capable of making them straight? It is precisely the full knowing of suffering, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of suffering as what should be fully known. Further, a practitioner of yoga, once he has fully known suffering, is thereby able to abide in an undistorted, settled mind — even supposing he has already directly realized the noble truth of suffering and has not yet directly realized the remaining noble truths, were a person to ask him: are these five grasping-aggregates suffering, or are they pleasure? He would answer: they are solely suffering, exactly like a burning-hot ball of iron. Were he further asked: are the grasping-aggregates permanent, or impermanent? He would answer: they are impermanent, most certainly not abiding even a single further moment. Were he further asked: are the grasping-aggregates pure, or impure? He would answer: they are impure, exactly like a heap of filth. Were he further asked: do the grasping-aggregates possess a self, or are they without self? He would answer: they are without self, neither an agent nor an experiencer being obtainable anywhere at all, being solely an empty aggregation of formations — and this freedom from distortion comes from the full knowing of suffering, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of suffering as what should be fully known. Further, the grasping-aggregates, in their own nature, are like a sickness, incapable of settling; like a boil, capable of oppressing; like an arrow, capable of harming; like a blade, capable of wounding and cutting;

like poison, capable of killing; like fire, capable of burning; like an enemy, giving no benefit; like a border town, forever assailed and disturbed by every kind of karmic and afflictive bandit — and it is precisely one who is capable of knowing this that is the full knowing of suffering, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of suffering as what should be fully known. Further, a practitioner of yoga, once he has fully known suffering, is named one who has encountered the true Buddha's own appearance in the world, is named one who has entered the ultimate, principled true dharma, is named a genuine renunciant, is named one who genuinely enjoys the true dharma's own wealth and treasure without any obstruction whatsoever, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of suffering as what should be fully known. Further, a practitioner of yoga, once he has fully known suffering, is named one who relinquishes what was formerly taken as object and obtains what was never before taken as object, is named one who relinquishes what is shared and obtains what is not shared, is named one who relinquishes the mundane and obtains the transmundane, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of suffering as what should be fully known. Further, a practitioner of yoga, once he has fully known suffering, opens the gate of the noble path never before opened, and is thereby able to relinquish the nature of an ordinary being never before relinquished, and to attain the nature of a noble one never before attained, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of suffering as what should be fully known. Further, a practitioner of yoga, once he has fully known suffering, relinquishes a name and obtains a name, relinquishes an element and obtains an element, relinquishes a nature and obtains a nature. As for relinquishing a name and obtaining a name: this refers to relinquishing the name of an ordinary being and obtaining the name of a noble one. As for relinquishing an element and obtaining an element: this refers to relinquishing the portion of the ordinary being's own element and obtaining the portion of the noble one's own element. As for relinquishing a nature and obtaining a nature: this refers to relinquishing the ordinary being's own species-nature and obtaining the noble one's own species-nature, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of suffering as what should be fully known. Further, a practitioner of yoga, once he has fully known suffering, obtains mind and obtains the cause of mind, obtains suffering and obtains the cause of suffering, obtains brightness and obtains the cause of brightness, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of suffering as what should be fully known. Further, a practitioner of yoga, once he has fully known suffering, relinquishes the five common classes and obtains the eight common classes — as for the five common classes: this refers to the common class of the five acts of immediate retribution; as for the eight common classes: this refers to the common class of the four who proceed toward a fruit and the four who attain a fruit — and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of suffering as what should be fully known. Further, a practitioner of yoga, once he has fully known suffering, relinquishes the nature of an ordinary being, exactly like willow-catkin down, and abides in the nature of buddha-dharma, exactly like the banner of Indra, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of suffering as what should be fully known. Further, a practitioner of yoga, once he has fully known suffering, is named one who, for the very first time, attains the purity of faith through the dharma, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of suffering as what should be fully known. Further, a practitioner of yoga, once he has fully known suffering, is named one who, for the very first time, attains what is impossible, as a scripture states: there exists no possibility whatsoever that one who has seen the noble truths would then take another's life, or transgress the precepts he has undertaken, and so on, stated at full length — and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of suffering as what should be fully known. Further, a practitioner of yoga, once he has fully known suffering, is named one who, for the very first time, enters the great ocean of the dharma, ascends the great mountain of the dharma, vanquishes the great hostile enemy, and mounts the great throne of the dharma, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of suffering as what should be fully known. Further, suffering should be fully known, but not entirely forever cut off; accumulation should be forever cut off, and ought not merely to be fully known; cessation should be verified, and ought not merely to be fully known; the path should be cultivated, and ought not merely to be fully known, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of suffering as what should be fully known. Further, with respect to all four noble truths, each ought to be fully known, yet, since suffering comes first among them, only suffering is spoken of.

As a scripture states, the noble truth of the accumulation of suffering should be forever cut off by wisdom. The Abhidharma states: what should be forever cut off refers to every contaminated dharma whatsoever. If it is said that craving alone is the truth of accumulation, one ought to ask: if every contaminated dharma whatsoever should be forever cut off, as the Abhidharma states, why does the World-Honored One speak only of craving as what should be forever cut off, and not every other contaminated dharma? This should be answered exactly as before, where craving was said to be accumulation. One asks: if it is said that every contaminated dharma's own cause is the truth of accumulation, one ought to ask: the truth of suffering, too, ought then to be forever cut off — why does it speak only of accumulation as what should be forever cut off? The answer: it is for the sake of relinquishing suffering that the Buddha speaks in this way: if you wish to relinquish every suffering, you should forever cut off accumulation — accumulation being forever cut off, suffering then does not arise, and this is named genuinely relinquishing suffering. Further, it is for the sake of relinquishing the fruit that the Buddha speaks in this way: if you wish to relinquish the fruit of suffering, you should forever cut off its cause;

the cause being forever cut off, the fruit of suffering does not arise, and this is named genuinely relinquishing the fruit. Further, it is in order to halt the flow of suffering that the Buddha speaks in this way — exactly as whoever wishes to halt a flowing stream must dam its own source, so too, wishing to halt the flow of suffering, one should forever cut off accumulation. Further, by forever cutting off accumulation, one thereby harms the shared cause and becomes free of the shared bond, obtains the undefiled attainment of freedom from binding, and extinguishes the universally-pervasive cause reaching all the way to the peak of existence, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of accumulation as what should be forever cut off. Further, if the cause is cut off, the fruit, too, follows and is cut off; if the cause is extinguished, the fruit, too, follows and is extinguished; if the cause is relinquished, the fruit, too, follows and is relinquished; if the cause is expelled, the fruit, too, follows and is expelled, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of accumulation as what should be forever cut off. Further, the World-Honored One, wishing to cause every kind of sentient being to relinquish the heavy burden of the aggregates, speaks in this way — exactly as, were there a man bearing a heavy burden through a perilous and difficult place, who stumbled and fell, oppressed by his burden, wishing to be free of it but with no means to do so, and another person were to tell him: if you wish to be free of this burden, you should cut its own cord, and only then can you be freed of it — so too, sentient beings, bearing the heavy burden of the aggregates, pass through every perilous and difficult place of birth and death, oppressed by the heavy burden of the aggregates, and the Buddha tells them: if you wish to be free of the heavy burden of the aggregates, you should forever cut off accumulation — accumulation, once cut off, and the burden of the aggregates is thereby shed. Further, it is in response to the outsiders that the Buddha speaks in this way — that is, the outsiders, oppressed by the fruit of suffering, although wearied by that fruit, do not cut off its cause, exactly as a foolish dog chases after a clod of earth thrown at it rather than the person who threw it — and it is for this reason that the Buddha tells them: if you are wearied of suffering, you should forever cut off accumulation — the cause of accumulation, once cut off, the fruit of suffering does not arise, and one thereby attains liberation. Further, accumulation draws forth the lower, middling, and upper fruit of the three realms — if accumulation is forever cut off, the fruit of suffering does not arise, and it is for this reason that the World-Honored One tells every kind of sentient being: if you are wearied of suffering, you should forever cut off accumulation. Further, accumulation is capable of generating and growing three kinds of suffering's own fruit — if accumulation is forever cut off, these do not generate and grow, and it is for this reason that the World-Honored One tells every kind of sentient being: if you are wearied of these three kinds of suffering, you should forever cut off accumulation. Further, accumulation is capable of generating and growing four kinds of suffering's own birth — if accumulation is forever cut off, these do not generate and grow, and it is for this reason that the World-Honored One tells every kind of sentient being: if you are wearied of these four kinds of suffering, you should forever cut off accumulation. Further, accumulation is capable of generating and growing five kinds of suffering's own destiny — if accumulation is forever cut off, these do not generate and grow, and it is for this reason that the World-Honored One tells every kind of sentient being: if you are wearied of these five kinds of suffering, you should forever cut off accumulation. Further, suffering ought merely to be relinquished, and ought not to be cut off, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of accumulation as what should be forever cut off. It is owing to causes and conditions such as these, of every kind, that the World-Honored One speaks only of accumulation as what should be forever cut off.

As a scripture states, the noble truth of the cessation of suffering should be verified by wisdom. The Abhidharma states: what should be attained through verification refers to every wholesome dharma whatsoever. One asks: if every wholesome dharma whatsoever should be verified, as the Abhidharma states, why does the World-Honored One speak only in this way, that cessation should be verified? The answer: cessation bears the very characteristic of liberation and freedom from binding, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of cessation as what should be verified. Further, cessation possesses no location and no basis whatsoever, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of cessation as what should be verified. Further, cessation, although it is a cause, possesses no fruit; cessation, although it is a fruit, possesses no cause, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of cessation as what should be verified. Further, cessation, although it is a cause, possesses no cause of its own; cessation, although it is a fruit, possesses no fruit of its own, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of cessation as what should be verified. Further, cessation is the very agent of making, yet possesses no agent of making; is a condition, yet possesses no condition; is a departure, yet possesses no departure of its own,

and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of cessation as what should be verified. Further, cessation causes the aggregates to be non-existent, without itself being a changeable dharma, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of cessation as what should be verified.

Further, cessation is capable of stilling the three fallings and blocking the four, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of cessation as what should be verified. Further, cessation is the single-flavored, vast fruit of the path, capable of purifying the four castes, and is named the unsurpassed dharma, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of cessation as what should be verified. Further, cessation alone, being undefiled, admits of two kinds; being neither the learner's nor the non-learner's, admits of three kinds; being gathered within a single truth, admits of being gathered within three truths; being unbound alone, admits of three kinds; being uncut off alone, admits of two kinds, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of cessation as what should be verified. Further, cessation is wholesome, yet is also permanent; is wholesome, yet is also removed from the world; is wholesome, yet is also removed from the aggregates; is wholesome, yet possesses no three grades; is wholesome, yet possesses no earlier or later, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of cessation as what should be verified. Further, cessation is the renunciant's own fruit, yet is not itself a renunciant; is the brahmin's own fruit, yet is not itself a brahmin; is the holy life's own fruit, yet is not itself the holy life; is the path's own fruit, yet is not itself the path, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of cessation as what should be verified. Further, it is in order to verify cessation that one verifies the conditioned wholesome, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of cessation as what should be verified. It is owing to causes and conditions such as these, of every kind, that the Buddha speaks only of cessation as what should be verified.

As a scripture states, the noble truth of the path proceeding toward the cessation of suffering should be cultivated by wisdom. The Abhidharma states: what should be cultivated refers to every conditioned wholesome dharma whatsoever. One asks: if every conditioned wholesome dharma whatsoever should be cultivated, as the Abhidharma states, why does the World-Honored One speak only in this way, that the noble path should be cultivated? The answer: the noble path should be cultivated, and ought not to be forever cut off, unlike every other wholesome dharma, which admits of being both cut off and cultivated, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of the noble path as what should be cultivated. Further, the noble path admits solely of the cultivation of attainment and of practice, unlike every other wholesome dharma, which possesses all four kinds of cultivation — namely, of attainment, of habituation, of antidote, and of removal — and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of the noble path as what should be cultivated. Further, the noble path possesses both the wholesome and the undefiled, two noble aspects, unlike every other wholesome dharma, which possesses only the wholesome, noble aspect, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of the noble path as what should be cultivated. Further, the noble path should be cultivated, yet does not itself take craving and the other afflictions as its own object of cutting-off, unlike every other wholesome dharma, which is both cultivated and also takes affliction as its own object of cutting-off, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of the noble path as what should be cultivated. Further, the noble path should be cultivated as an exit, never a submersion, unlike every other wholesome dharma, which, although it too should be cultivated, may be either an exit or a submersion — that is, exiting the desire realm, one may still submerge into the first dhyāna, and so on, up through, exiting the sphere of nothingness, one may still submerge into the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception — and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of the noble path as what should be cultivated. One asks: one who has attained the noble path, having already become free of desire's own defilement, is born within the first dhyāna, and so on, up through, having become free of the defilement of the sphere of nothingness, is born within the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception — how, then, is the noble path an exit, never a submersion? The answer: although this is indeed the case, the noble path does not draw forth any ripening-fruit whatsoever, unlike every other wholesome dharma, which is capable of drawing forth a ripening-fruit, and it is for this reason that the noble path alone is named an exit. Further, cultivating the noble path diminishes every state of existence, harms every state of existence, and destroys every state of existence, while cultivating every other wholesome dharma nourishes and grows every state of existence, benefits and sustains every state of existence, and upholds every state of existence, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of the noble path as what should be cultivated. Further, cultivating the noble path cuts off the continuity of birth, old age, sickness, and death that circulates through existence, causing it not to continue, while cultivating every other wholesome dharma continues the very circulation of birth, old age, sickness, and death through existence, without ever breaking it off, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of the noble path as what should be cultivated. Further, cultivating the noble path proceeds toward the very conduct that finally extinguishes the worldly birth, old age, sickness, and death of a state of existence subject to suffering, while cultivating every other wholesome dharma proceeds toward the very conduct of the circulating accumulation of the worldly birth, old age, sickness, and death of a state of existence subject to suffering, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of the noble path as what should be cultivated. Further, cultivating the noble path is not the matter of the view of self, up through, is not gathered within the truths of suffering and accumulation, while cultivating every other wholesome dharma is the matter of the view of self,

up through, is gathered within the truths of suffering and accumulation, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of the noble path as what should be cultivated. Further, cultivating the noble path is not the cause of the continuity of birth, old age, sickness, and death of any realm, destiny, or birth, while cultivating every other wholesome dharma is the cause of the continuity of birth, old age, sickness, and death of every realm, destiny, and birth, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of the noble path as what should be cultivated. Further, cultivating the noble path brings the continuity of birth, old age, sickness, and death of every realm, destiny, and birth entirely to an end, while cultivating every other wholesome dharma leaves this continuity of birth, old age, sickness, and death of every realm, destiny, and birth without end, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of the noble path as what should be cultivated. Further, the noble path alone is lovable and possesses a lovable fruit, is joyful and possesses a joyful fruit, is agreeable and possesses an agreeable fruit, is delightful and possesses a delightful fruit, is pleasurable and possesses a pleasurable fruit, unlike every other wholesome dharma, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of the noble path as what should be cultivated. Further, the noble path is the renunciant and the renunciant's own fruit, is the brahmin and the brahmin's own fruit, is the holy life and the holy life's own fruit, is the path and the path's own fruit, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of the noble path as what should be cultivated.

Further, cultivating the noble path definitely proceeds toward nirvāṇa, while cultivating every other wholesome dharma proceeds toward no fixed destination, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks only of the noble path as what should be cultivated.

It is owing to causes and conditions such as these, of every kind, that the Buddha speaks only of the noble path as what should be cultivated.

There exist sixteen aspects that arise taking the four noble truths as their object. As for taking the truth of suffering as object, there are four aspects: first, suffering; second, impermanence; third, emptiness; fourth, no-self. As for taking the truth of accumulation as object, there are four aspects: first, cause; second, accumulation; third, arising; fourth, condition. As for taking the truth of cessation as object, there are four aspects: first, cessation; second, calm; third, sublimity; fourth, freedom. As for taking the truth of the path as object, there are four aspects: first, path; second, suchness; third, conduct; fourth, deliverance. One asks: these sixteen aspects possess sixteen names — how many real substances do they possess? There are those who say: there are sixteen names, but only seven real substances — that is, the four aspects taking the truth of suffering as object possess four names and, correspondingly, four substances; the four aspects taken toward each of the three remaining truths possess four names apiece, yet each set possesses only a single substance. One asks: for what reason do the four aspects taking suffering as object possess four names and, correspondingly, four substances, while this is not so for the remaining three truths? The answer: the aspects taken toward suffering are the near antidote to the four distortions, exactly as the four distortions themselves possess four distinct names and substances; the aspects arising with respect to the remaining three truths are not the near antidote to the four distortions, and it is for this reason that, although their names number four, their substance is but one. The compilers say: one should say as follows — the sixteen aspects possess sixteen names together with sixteen substances alike, exactly as name and substance, provisional name and provisional substance, distinct characteristic in name and distinct characteristic in substance, distinct nature in name and distinct nature in substance, distinction in name and distinction in substance, establishment in name and establishment in substance, and cognition in name and cognition in substance should all be understood in the corresponding manner. One asks: as for the word "aspect," what is its own-nature? The answer: its own-nature is wisdom — it should be understood that, here, wisdom is the aspect, and is both what actively engages and what is engaged. The mind and mental factors associated with wisdom, although not themselves the aspect, are nonetheless what actively engages and what is engaged. The dissociated formations co-arisen with wisdom, and every other existent dharma, although neither the aspect nor what actively engages, are nonetheless what is engaged. There are those who say: as for the word "aspect," its own-nature is, in general, every mind and mental factor whatsoever. If one speaks in this way, then every mind and mental factor is the aspect, and is both what actively engages and what is engaged; every remaining dharma, although not itself the aspect and not what actively engages, is nonetheless what is engaged. Others, further, say: as for the word "aspect," its own-nature is, in general, every dharma whatsoever. If one speaks in this way, then every associated dharma, too, is the aspect, and is both what actively engages and what is engaged; every dissociated dharma, although it, too, is the aspect and is what is engaged, is nonetheless not what actively engages. The compilers say: one should say as follows — as for the word "aspect," its own-nature is wisdom, exactly as first stated. Such, then, is named the aspect's own own-nature — its 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 aspect? What is the meaning of aspect? The answer: discriminating and turning with respect to every object is the meaning of aspect. One asks: for what reason is it named suffering, and so on, at full length, up through, for what reason is it named deliverance? The answer: wounding and afflicting, oppressive exactly as bearing a heavy burden, contrary to the noble mind, and it is for this reason that it is named suffering. Owing to two conditions, it is named impermanence: first, owing to its own activity; second, owing to its own belonging to conditions. As for owing to its own activity: every conditioned dharma is capable of having an activity for but a single moment, and, at the second moment, is no longer capable of having any activity at all.

As for owing to its own belonging to conditions: every conditioned dharma belongs to and depends upon a convergence of conditions, only thereby possessing any activity at all. Contrary to the view of self, it is for this reason named emptiness. Contrary to the view of self, it is for this reason named no-self. Exactly as a seed's own dharma, it is for this reason named cause. Being capable of causing an equal manifestation, it is for this reason named accumulation. Causing continuity to arise, it is for this reason named arising. Being capable of accomplishing something, it is for this reason named condition — exactly as the convergence of clay, potter's wheel, cord, water, and every such condition accomplishes a jar and the like. The grasping-aggregates being forever exhausted, it is for this reason named cessation. The conditioned characteristic being stilled, it is for this reason named calm. Being wholesome and being permanent, it is for this reason named sublime.

Being utterly, supremely tranquil, it is for this reason named freedom, since this freedom is itself a departure, not something that itself possesses a departure. Being contrary to and harming the deviant path, it is for this reason named path. Being contrary to and harming what is unprincipled, it is for this reason named suchness. Proceeding toward the palace of nirvāṇa, it is for this reason named conduct. Being capable of forever transcending and crossing over, it is for this reason named deliverance, since this is itself the very nature of deliverance, not the nature of submersion. Further, being oppressed by what is coarse and heavy, it is for this reason named suffering. Its own nature being incomplete, it is for this reason named impermanence. Internally free of any agent, doer, experiencer, or one who causes another to do or to experience, it is for this reason named emptiness. Its own nature lacking any freedom of its own, it is for this reason named no-self. Drawing forth every state of existence, it is for this reason named cause. Causing existence to manifest equally, it is for this reason named accumulation. Being capable of nourishing and producing, it is for this reason named arising. Possessing what is brought about, it is for this reason named condition.

Its own nature failing to continue, exhausting every continuity, it is for this reason named cessation. The three fires being forever stilled, it is for this reason named calm. Being freed from every calamity, it is for this reason named sublime. Emerging from every fault, it is for this reason named freedom. Being the very road of emergence, it is for this reason named path. Being capable of according with the correct principle, it is for this reason named suchness.

Being capable of correctly proceeding forward, it is for this reason named conduct. Forever transcending birth and death, it is for this reason named deliverance.

One asks: there exist four aspects that observe the fruit of birth and death — for what reason is this fruit named solely the truth of suffering, and not the truth of impermanence, emptiness, or no-self? The answer: it, too, ought to be spoken of as the truth of impermanence and the rest, and its not being so spoken of is simply an incomplete statement. Further, having already spoken of it as the truth of suffering, one should understand that it has already been spoken of as the truth of impermanence, emptiness, and no-self as well, since their characteristic is the same. Further, the characteristic of suffering is not shared, only the contaminated dharma being suffering, and nothing further, and it is for this reason that it is named the truth of suffering; impermanence and the remaining two are shared characteristics of the remaining truths as well — that is, the characteristic of impermanence belongs to all three of the remaining truths, and the characteristics of emptiness and no-self pervade every dharma whatsoever,

and it is for this reason that this is not named the truth of impermanence and the rest. Further, suffering is contrary to every state of existence, and sentient beings, hearing it, are able to relinquish birth and death, and it is for this reason that it is named the truth of suffering.

Were one to hand delicious, fine food and drink to a small child, and, if one told him it was bitter, he would cast it far away, while, if one told him it was impermanent and the rest, he would feel no impulse to cast it away at all — it is for this reason that this is not named the truth of impermanence and the rest. Further, birth and death being suffering is something the foolish and the wise alike believe together, and the outsiders, hearing it, do not slander it either, while, hearing of impermanence and the rest, some fail to give rise to faith, and it is for this reason that it is named the truth of suffering, and not impermanence and the rest. Further, since what knows and what is known are thereby easily distinguished, it is named solely the truth of suffering, and not impermanence and the rest — that is, the World-Honored One speaks of there being a knowledge of suffering, and it is for this reason that what is thereby known is named solely the truth of suffering, exactly as with knowledge and what is known,

cognition and what is cognized, faculty and the meaning of a faculty, aspect and its object, and what possesses an object and its object — this, too, should be understood in the corresponding manner. Further, this name, truth of suffering, is what has been handed down of old, being an ancient text and phrase — every buddha of the past, more numerous than the sands of the Ganges, has designated this truth using the name suffering, and the present Buddha, too, does likewise, and it is for this reason that this ought not to be questioned. Further, among this truth's own four aspects, the aspect of suffering comes first, and it is for this reason that the World-Honored One names it solely the truth of suffering. One asks: there exist four aspects that observe the cause of birth and death — for what reason is this cause named solely the truth of accumulation, and not the truth of cause, arising, or condition? The answer: it, too, ought to be spoken of as the truth of cause, of arising, and of condition, and its not being so spoken of is simply an incomplete statement. Further, having already spoken of it as the truth of accumulation, one should understand that it has already been spoken of as the truth of cause, arising, and condition as well, since their characteristic is the same. Further, since what knows and what is known are thereby easily distinguished, it is named solely the truth of accumulation, and not cause, arising, or condition — that is, the World-Honored One speaks of there being a knowledge of accumulation, and it is for this reason that what is thereby known is named solely the truth of accumulation, exactly as with knowledge and what is known, cognition and what is cognized, and the rest, this, too, should be understood in the corresponding manner. Further, this name, truth of accumulation, is what has been handed down of old, being an ancient text and phrase — every buddha of the past, more numerous than the sands of the Ganges, has designated this truth using the name accumulation, and the present Buddha, too, does likewise, and it is for this reason that this ought not to be questioned. Further, the characteristic of accumulation exists only within a contaminated dharma, drawing forth and accumulating birth and death, and not within the undefiled, while the characteristics of cause, arising, and condition exist within the undefiled as well, the noble path, too, being named a cause, an arising, and a condition — accumulation, being unshared, is thereby established with the name of a truth, and it is for this reason that the World-Honored One names it solely the truth of accumulation. One asks: there exist four aspects that observe nirvāṇa — for what reason is nirvāṇa named solely the truth of cessation, and not the truth of calm, sublimity, or freedom? The answer: it, too, ought to be spoken of as the truth of calm, sublimity, and freedom, and its not being so spoken of is simply an incomplete statement. Further, having already spoken of it as the truth of cessation, one should understand that it has already been spoken of as the truth of calm, sublimity, and freedom as well, since their characteristic is the same. Further, since what knows and what is known are thereby easily distinguished, it is named solely the truth of cessation, and not calm, sublimity, or freedom — that is, the World-Honored One speaks of there being a knowledge of cessation, and it is for this reason that what is thereby known is named solely the truth of cessation, exactly as with knowledge and what is known, cognition and what is cognized, and the rest, this, too, should be understood in the corresponding manner. Further, the name of cessation, being unshared, is thereby established with the name of a truth, the name of cessation alone displaying the very meaning of ultimate extinguishing, while the name of calm is easily confused with concentration, and sublimity and freedom are easily confused with the path, and it is for this reason that it is not named the truth of calm, sublimity, or freedom. Further, this name, truth of cessation, is what has been handed down of old, being an ancient text and phrase — every buddha of the past, more numerous than the sands of the Ganges, has designated this truth using the name cessation, and the present Buddha, too, does likewise, and it is for this reason that this ought not to be questioned. Further, among this truth's own four aspects, the aspect of cessation comes first, and it is for this reason that the World-Honored One names it solely the truth of cessation. One asks: there exist four aspects that observe the noble path — for what reason is the noble path named solely the truth of the path, and not the truth of suchness, conduct, or deliverance? The answer: it, too, ought to be spoken of as the truth of suchness, conduct, and deliverance, and its not being so spoken of is simply an incomplete statement. Further, having already spoken of it as the truth of the path, one should understand that it has already been spoken of as the truth of suchness, conduct, and deliverance as well, since their characteristic is the same. Further, since what knows and what is known are thereby easily distinguished, it is named solely the truth of the path, and not suchness, conduct, or deliverance — that is, the World-Honored One speaks of there being a knowledge of the path, and it is for this reason that what is thereby known is named solely the truth of the path, exactly as with knowledge and what is known, cognition and what is cognized, and the rest, this, too, should be understood in the corresponding manner. Further, the name of the path solely displays the very meaning of the road proceeding toward nirvāṇa, and it is thereby established with the name of a truth, exactly as suchness is easily confused with correct principle, conduct pervades even the contaminated, and deliverance pervades even nirvāṇa itself, and it is for this reason that this is not named the truth of suchness, conduct, or deliverance. Further, this name, truth of the path, is what has been handed down of old, being an ancient text and phrase — every buddha of the past, more numerous than the sands of the Ganges, has designated this truth using the name path,

and the present Buddha, too, does likewise, and it is for this reason that this ought not to be questioned. Further, among this truth's own four aspects, the aspect of the path comes first, and it is for this reason that the World-Honored One names it solely the truth of the path.

The Vinaya states: the World-Honored One, on a certain occasion, first spoke the four noble truths to the four heavenly kings in the noble language — among the four heavenly kings, two were able to comprehend it, and two were not. The World-Honored One, out of compassion, wishing to benefit them, then spoke the four noble truths using the vernacular of a border country of southern India — namely, eḍimeḍi, taṭabu, and ṭadaśra. Among the two remaining heavenly kings, one was able to comprehend it, and one was not. The World-Honored One, out of compassion, wishing to benefit him, then further spoke the four noble truths using a certain Mleccha language — namely, maśatuśasaṃgrahamaśasavatrāviraciti. At that time, all four heavenly kings attained comprehension. One asks: is the Buddha, in speaking the four noble truths using the noble language, capable of causing every one of those to be converted to attain understanding, or not? Suppose either is granted, what fault follows? Both alternatives carry a fault. For what reason is this so? If it is said that he is capable, then why, upon hearing it spoken in the noble language, did the latter two heavenly kings fail to understand it? If it is said that he is not capable, then how is a certain verse's own statement to be reconciled — as a verse states:

'The Buddha, with a single sound, expounds the dharma, and sentient beings, each according to their own kind, attain understanding — every one of them saying that the World-Honored One is speaking their own language, uniquely expounding its varied meaning just for them.' As for a single sound: this refers to the Brahmā-voice. Were a person from Cīna to come and sit within the assembly, he would say that the Buddha is expounding the meaning in the sound of Cīna. So too, were people from Rekha, Kāśmīra, Falana, Darada, Malaka, or such places as Bhakṣu, Tukhāra, or Bāhīka to come and sit within the assembly, each would say that the Buddha is uniquely expounding the sound and meaning of his own country just for him, and, hearing it, each, according to his own kind, attains understanding. Further, were one given to craving to come and sit within the assembly,

he would hear the Buddha expounding the meaning of the contemplation of impurity; were one given to hatred to come and sit within the assembly, he would hear the Buddha expounding the meaning of the contemplation of loving-kindness and compassion; were one given to delusion to come and sit within the assembly, he would hear the Buddha expounding the meaning of the contemplation of dependent origination — and one given to conceit and the like should be understood in the corresponding manner. Given that this verse states things in this way, how can it be said that the Buddha, speaking the four noble truths in the noble language, fails to cause every one of those to be converted, without exception, to attain understanding? There are those who say: the Buddha, speaking the four noble truths in the noble language, is indeed capable of causing every one of those to be converted, without exception, to attain understanding. One asks: if so, why, then, did the latter two heavenly kings, hearing it spoken in the noble language, fail to understand? The answer: those four heavenly kings' own underlying intentions differed, and, in order to fulfill each of their own intentions, the Buddha spoke differently — that is, two of the heavenly kings reflected as follows: were the Buddha to speak the four noble truths to me in the noble language, I would be able to receive and practice it. The third heavenly king reflected as follows: were the Buddha to speak the four truths to me in the vernacular of a border country of southern India, I would be able to receive and practice it. The fourth heavenly king reflected as follows: were the Buddha to speak the four truths to me using a certain Mleccha language, I would be able to receive and practice it — and it is for this reason that the World-Honored One spoke in accordance with each of their own intentions. Further, the World-Honored One wished to display that he is skilled in understanding every kind of speech and sound, and it is for this reason that he spoke in this way — that is, there were those who gave rise to the doubt that the Buddha is capable only of speaking the noble language, and is not necessarily at ease in every other kind of speech, and, in order to settle this doubt, the Buddha spoke the dharma using every kind of speech and sound, displaying that he is at ease in the speech of every region, and that whatever essential dharma he speaks is, upon hearing it, received and practiced by all. Further, some of those to be converted are converted in dependence upon the Buddha's own unaltered bodily form and speech, while others are converted in dependence upon the Buddha's own altered bodily form and speech. As for those converted in dependence upon the Buddha's own unaltered bodily form and speech: were he to alter his form and speech in teaching them the dharma, they would be unable to understand it — as it is said, the Buddha, in the kingdom of Magadha, in order to liberate the elder Pañcaśikha, walked twelve yojanas on foot, and, by this, seventy thousand sentient beings all attained the seeing of the truths — every one of them being converted in dependence upon the Buddha's own unaltered bodily form and speech; had he altered his form and speech in teaching them the dharma, these sentient beings ought not to have seen the truths at all. As for those converted in dependence upon the Buddha's own altered bodily form and speech: were he not to alter his form and speech in teaching them the dharma, they, too, would be unable to understand it, and it is for this reason that the World-Honored One employed three kinds of speech in expounding the four noble truths to the four heavenly kings. Others, further, say: the Buddha, speaking the four noble truths with a single sound, does not thereby cause every one of those to be converted, without exception, to attain understanding — the World-Honored One, although possessed of self-mastery and supernormal power, is nonetheless incapable of overriding the objective domain,

exactly as he is incapable of causing the ear to see color, or the eye to hear sound. One asks: if so, how is the verse cited before to be reconciled? The answer: it need not necessarily be reconciled, since it is not part of the Tripiṭaka — verses of praise for the Buddha, in general, often exceed the truth, exactly as the Vibhajyavādins praise the World-Honored One as constantly abiding in concentration, well-established in mindfulness and correct knowledge, and, further, praise the Buddha as eternally without sleep, being free of every hindrance — exactly as such praises of the Buddha do not, in reality, match his own words, so too is the verse cited before, and it is for this reason that it need not be reconciled. Further, the Thus-Come One's own speech pervades every acoustic domain, and, whatever he wishes to speak, he is capable of producing — that is, were the Buddha to speak in the language of Cīna, it would surpass what even one born and raised in Cīna itself could speak, and so on, up through, were he to speak in the language of Bāhīka, it would surpass what even one born and raised entirely within that country could speak, since the Buddha's own speech pervades every acoustic domain, and it is for this reason that this verse speaks in this way. Further, the Buddha's own speech is light, swift, and quick to turn, so that, although it is many kinds of speech, it is regarded as occurring all at one time — that is, the Buddha, having spoken in the language of Cīna, without interruption then speaks in the language of the country of Rekha, and so on, up through, then speaks in the language of Bāhīka, and, owing to the swiftness of this turning, all of it is regarded as occurring at one time, exactly as a whirling firebrand, though not itself a wheel, is perceived as a wheel.

The verse cited before, too, is without contradiction on this account. Further, although the Thus-Come One's own speech is of many kinds, since it is equally beneficial, it is spoken of as a single sound.

As a scripture states, the Buddha told the monks: this noble truth of suffering I had never heard before; with respect to this dharma, applying my mind wisely and correctly, there thereby arose the eye, the knowledge, the brightness, and the awareness. This noble truth of suffering should be fully known by wisdom — I had never heard this before, and so on, stated at full length. This noble truth of suffering has already been fully known by wisdom — I had never heard this before, and so on, stated at full length. The truths of accumulation, cessation, and the path are stated at full length in the corresponding manner. As for this noble truth of suffering I had never heard before, and the rest: this displays the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known." As for this noble truth of suffering should be fully known by wisdom, and the rest: this displays the faculty of "having already come to know." As for this noble truth of suffering has already been fully known by wisdom, and the rest: this displays the faculty of "having come to know fully." The truths of accumulation, cessation, and the path each display these same three faculties, and should be understood in the corresponding manner. The Great Virtuous Dharmatrāta speaks as follows: reflecting upon this scripture, my whole body's own hair stands on end — since whatever the Buddha states must certainly accord with its own meaning and definitely possess its own proper sequence, yet this very scripture, out of sequence, speaks first of the faculty of having come to know fully, and only afterward speaks of the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" — and neither the Buddha, nor a solitary-realizer, nor any of the disciples could possibly possess such a sequence of contemplative practice as this, since, after the faculty of having come to know fully, how could the very first undefiled faculty arise all over again? If one must relinquish this scripture, this, too, would hardly accord with principle.

The Buddha spoke this first, with the five monks foremost among his listeners, and eighty thousand gods, hearing this teaching, all attained the dharma — and if one wishes not to relinquish the scripture, one again violates its own proper sequence, and it is for this reason that reflecting upon this scripture makes my whole body's own hair stand on end. And yet, though the Great Virtuous One speaks in this way, he does not, in the end, relinquish the scripture, but merely reverses its own wording, saying as follows: this scripture ought to read: this noble truth of suffering — I had never heard this before, and so on, stated at full length. The truths of accumulation, cessation, and the path are stated at full length in the corresponding manner. This noble truth of suffering should be fully known by wisdom; this noble truth of accumulation should be forever cut off by wisdom; this noble truth of cessation should be verified by wisdom; this noble truth of the path should be cultivated by wisdom — I had never heard this before, and the rest, stated at full length as before. This noble truth of suffering has already been fully known by wisdom; this noble truth of accumulation has already been forever cut off by wisdom; this noble truth of cessation has already been verified by wisdom; this noble truth of the path has already been cultivated by wisdom —

I had never heard this before, and the rest, stated at full length as before. If one speaks in this way, the proper sequence is not lost, according with the sequence of direct realization, though not according with the scripture's own stated wording. The Abhidharma treatise-masters say: one ought not so readily to reverse this scripture's own wording — the countless great treatise-masters of the past, sharp of faculty and vastly learned, surpassing even the Great Virtuous One himself, did not dare to reverse this scripture's own wording, how much less should the present Great Virtuous One so readily reverse it? One ought merely to seek out this scripture's own intent — that is, one who expounds the dharma relies upon two kinds of sequence: first, the sequence that accords with the sequence proper to expounding the dharma, exactly as this scripture states it; second, the sequence that accords with the sequence proper to direct realization, exactly as the Great Virtuous One states it. The Venerable Pārśva says: this scripture does not, in fact, speak of the three undefiled faculties at all, but speaks only of how the Bodhisattva, beneath the bodhi tree, while still within the desire realm, by the power of wisdom accomplished through hearing and reflection, practiced the four truths. One asks: the World-Honored One himself states, it is by this very contemplation that I attained unsurpassed, perfect enlightenment — how, then, could mere hearing and reflection accomplish enlightenment? The answer: the Bodhisattva, by the power of this wisdom accomplished through hearing and reflection, subjugated and removed every delusion regarding the four noble truths, and, by this, was certain to go on to directly realize unsurpassed enlightenment, and it is for this reason that it is said that it was by this that enlightenment was attained — exactly as a man whose face was once covered by a damp hide, and who, having later removed it, covers his face instead with a thin silk veil, this obstruction being so slight that it may be said there is no obstruction at all. It is for this reason that this scripture does not, in fact, speak of the three undefiled faculties.

As a scripture states, the Buddha told the monks: with respect to the four noble truths, I gave rise to the eye, the knowledge, the brightness, and the awareness, through three turnings and twelve aspects. One asks: this ought then to have twelve turnings and forty-eight aspects — why does it speak only of three turnings and twelve aspects? The answer: although the contemplation of each single truth possesses, in itself, three turnings and twelve aspects, the total does not exceed three turnings and twelve aspects, and it is for this reason that it is spoken of in this way, exactly as a stream-enterer, who is bound by at most seven further rebirths, and the seven excellent places together with the two dharmas, and the like. Here, the eye refers to the forbearance of dharma-knowledge; the knowledge refers to the various dharma-knowledges; the brightness refers to the forbearances of the knowledge of subsequent application; the awareness refers to the various knowledges of subsequent application. Further, the eye is the meaning of observing and seeing; the knowledge is the meaning of resolving and deciding; the brightness is the meaning of illuminating and comprehending; the awareness is the meaning of alertness and inspection.

One asks: with respect to these four noble truths, if something is cut off by own-nature, is it thereby also cut off by way of its object? The answer: this should be cast as a tetralemma. There is what is cut off by own-nature but not cut off by way of its object — this refers to taking the undefiled truths of suffering and accumulation as object, and to every contaminated dharma that lacks an object of its own. There is what is cut off by way of its object but not cut off by own-nature — this refers to taking the contaminated noble path as object. There is what is cut off both by own-nature and by way of its object — this refers to taking the contaminated truths of suffering and accumulation as object. There is what is cut off neither by own-nature nor by way of its object — this refers to taking the undefiled noble path as object, and to the truth of cessation, which possesses no object of its own at all.