Abodes of Pleasure, Immeasurable Minds

Further, relinquishing joy, abiding in equanimity, possessed of correct mindfulness and correct wisdom, experiencing pleasure with the body, the nobles are able to speak of abiding in equanimity, one dwells having fully attained the third dhyāna — this is named the third heavenly path. As for relinquishing joy: one asks, at the time one attains the third dhyāna, one altogether relinquishes every contaminated dharma of the second dhyāna — why, then, does it speak only of relinquishing joy? The answer: joy stands foremost; altogether relinquishing every contaminated dharma of the second dhyāna, it is spoken of in this way. Further, joy is difficult to cut off, difficult to break, and difficult to cross over, and it is for this reason that it is singled out. Further, joy possesses many faults, being blazing and firmly entrenched, and it is for this reason that it is singled out. Further, at the time one becomes free of the second dhyāna's own defilement, joy serves as an especially great obstacle, binding one exactly as a violent jailer, and it is for this reason that it is singled out. Further, practitioners of yoga cultivate the third dhyāna specifically in order to counteract joy, and it is for this reason that it is singled out. Further, practitioners of yoga, abhorring and detesting joy, altogether relinquish the second dhyāna, and it is for this reason that it is singled out. Further, joy does not exist within any higher ground where any other remaining dharma might yet be found, and it is for this reason that joy alone is singled out. It is owing to causes and conditions such as these, of every kind, that only the relinquishing of joy is spoken of. As for abiding in equanimity, correct mindfulness, and correct wisdom: equanimity refers to equanimity of formations; correct mindfulness refers to superior, wholesome mindfulness; correct wisdom refers to superior, wholesome wisdom. As for experiencing pleasure with the body: body refers to the mental body. There are those who say: at the time the mind possesses pleasure, this also causes the physical body composed of the great elements to possess a delightful pleasure — this, then, is the pleasure associated with mental consciousness, named experiencing pleasure with the body. As for the nobles are able to speak of abiding in equanimity: the nobles refers to the buddhas and the noble disciples, who are able to speak of this to others and are themselves able to abide in equanimity. One asks: the nobles ought to speak of equanimity with respect to every ground alike — why does it speak only of the third dhyāna? The answer: the third dhyāna alone possesses both kinds of obstacle, one belonging to another ground and one to its own, and it is for this reason that it alone is singled out. As for the obstacle belonging to another ground: this refers to the second dhyāna's own joy, which drowns and destabilizes exactly as a rākṣasa, capable of causing a practitioner of yoga to decline from becoming free of the second dhyāna's own defilement, and it is for this reason that it is said one should relinquish it, lest one be obstructed by this joy. As for the obstacle belonging to its own ground: this refers to the third dhyāna's own pleasure, the very supreme pleasure among the pleasures of birth and death, by which practitioners of yoga become attached and cease to seek the superior, sublime merit of the higher grounds, and it is for this reason that it is said, for the sake of practitioners of yoga newly undertaking this practice, that this pleasant feeling is an obstacle, and one ought not to become attached to it. Further, the Buddha and his disciples ought to speak to others of the third dhyāna's own obstacles and faults, belonging to both its own ground and to another, urging others to relinquish them, and it is for this reason that it is named the nobles are able to speak of abiding in equanimity — that is, speaking to others of the third dhyāna, that it possesses a supreme, pleasant feeling capable of causing sentient beings to become attached and confused, ceasing to seek the superior, sublime merit of the higher grounds, saying: you should abide in correct mindfulness and correct knowledge, and not be obstructed by this pleasure; and speaking, too, to others of the second dhyāna, that it possesses a supreme feeling of joy capable of causing sentient beings to be drowned and destabilized, declining from becoming free of the second dhyāna's own defilement, saying: you should abide in correct mindfulness and equanimity, and not be obstructed by this joy — exactly as an experienced caravan-leader tells new merchants of the faults present in every city and town, saying: in such-and-such a city, in such-and-such a town, there are many prostitutes, gamblers, swindlers, taverns, and bandits, and you ought to guard against them from afar, lest you lose your own wealth and goods. As for one dwells having fully attained the third dhyāna: this refers to having obtained, acquired, and attained the possession of the third dhyāna's own wholesome five aggregates, this obtaining, acquiring, and attaining of possession being named dwelling having fully attained.

Further, pleasure cut off, pain cut off, joy and sorrow already submerged as before, feeling neither painful nor pleasurable, equanimity and mindfulness purified, one dwells having fully attained the fourth dhyāna — this is named the fourth heavenly path. As for pleasure cut off: one asks, at the time one attains the fourth dhyāna, one altogether relinquishes every contaminated dharma of the third dhyāna — why, then, does it speak only of pleasure cut off? The answer: pleasure stands foremost; altogether relinquishing every contaminated dharma of the third dhyāna, it is spoken of in this way.

Further, pleasure is difficult to cut off, difficult to break, and difficult to cross over, and it is for this reason that it is singled out. Further, pleasure possesses many faults, being blazing and firmly entrenched, and it is for this reason that it is singled out. Further, at the time one becomes free of the third dhyāna's own defilement, pleasure serves as an especially great obstacle, binding one exactly as a violent jailer, and it is for this reason that it is singled out. Further, practitioners of yoga cultivate the fourth dhyāna specifically in order to counteract pleasure, and it is for this reason that it is singled out. Further, practitioners of yoga, abhorring and detesting pleasure, altogether relinquish the third dhyāna, and it is for this reason that it is singled out. Further, pleasure does not exist within any higher ground where any other remaining dharma might yet be found, and it is for this reason that pleasure alone is singled out. It is owing to causes and conditions such as these, of every kind, that only the cutting off of pleasure is spoken of. As for pain cut off: one asks, at the time a practitioner becomes free of the desire realm's own defilement, the faculty of pain has already been cut off — why, then, does it speak of pain being cut off only now, at the time one becomes free of the third dhyāna's own defilement? The answer: this speaks of what has already been cut off, using the name cut off in reference to what is, in fact, a distant matter, exactly as one who has already come is still spoken of using the word come, as it is said: great king, from what place have you come? And exactly as one who has already become liberated is still spoken of using the word liberated, as it is said: it is by this that one knows and sees that the mind is liberated from the contaminant of desire, the contaminant of existence, and the contaminant of ignorance — at the time one becomes free of desire's own defilement, the mind is already liberated from the contaminant of desire; only at the time one becomes free of the defilement of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is the mind liberated from the contaminants of existence and of ignorance. And exactly as one who has already entered is still spoken of using the word enter, as it is said: the Bodhisattva enters the true nature, freed from birth, and thereby attains the worldly wisdom at the very margin of direct realization. And exactly as one who has already experienced is still spoken of using the word experience, as it is said: at the time one experiences a pleasant feeling, one truly knows one experiences a pleasant feeling — there existing no one who, in the present moment, genuinely knows himself to be experiencing it, and it is thereby known that this speaks of what has already been experienced, using the word experience. Here, too, it is just the same — what has already been cut off is spoken of using the word cut off, this speaking of a distant matter using a proximate expression. Further, this speaks with reference to the exhaustion of a paired dharma, and it is for this reason that both are spoken of as cut off together — as for a paired dharma: this refers to pain and pleasure; at the time one becomes free of desire's own defilement, although pain has already been exhausted, pleasure has not yet been exhausted; only now, having become free of the third dhyāna's own defilement, are pain and pleasure both exhausted together, and it is for this reason that both are spoken of as cut off together. Further, as for pleasure cut off: this refers to cutting off the third dhyāna's own faculty of pleasure. As for pain cut off: this refers to cutting off the mind and mental factors associated with it. Further, as for pleasure cut off: this refers to cutting off the third dhyāna's own faculty of pleasure. As for pain cut off: this refers to cutting off the third dhyāna's own inhalation and exhalation, the noble ones giving rise to a notion of pain with respect to inhalation and exhalation surpassing the notion of pain that ordinary beings give rise to with respect to the uninterrupted hell itself. Further, as for pleasure cut off: this refers to cutting off the third dhyāna's own faculty of pleasure. As for pain cut off: this refers to cutting off that very same faculty of pleasure, as it is said: being impermanent is itself suffering. As for joy and sorrow already submerged as before: at the time one becomes free of desire's own defilement, the faculty of sorrow has already been submerged; at the time one becomes free of the second dhyāna's own defilement, the faculty of joy, too, has already been submerged, and it is for this reason that it is said that now joy and sorrow are already submerged as before. As for neither painful nor pleasurable: this refers to the feeling that is neither painful nor pleasurable. As for the purity of equanimity: this refers to equanimity of formations. As for the purity of mindfulness: this refers to wholesome mindfulness. One asks: the lower grounds, too, possess undefiled equanimity and mindfulness — why, then, does it speak only of the fourth dhyāna's own purity of equanimity and mindfulness? The answer: the fourth dhyāna's own equanimity and mindfulness are together free of eight disturbing matters, and it is for this reason that they are named pure — pain, pleasure, sorrow, joy, inhalation, exhalation, applied thought, and sustained thought are named the eight disturbing matters, and, none of these being present here, it alone is named pure. Further, the fourth dhyāna is free of both internal and external calamities, and it is for this reason that it is named pure; the lower three dhyānas possess both internal and external calamities, and are not named pure — that is, the first dhyāna possesses, internally, the fire of applied and sustained thought, and, externally, is thereby burned by the calamity of fire; the second dhyāna possesses, internally, the water of utmost joy, and, externally, is thereby dissolved by the calamity of water; the third dhyāna possesses, internally, the wind of inhalation and exhalation, and, externally, is thereby buffeted by the calamity of wind; the fourth dhyāna possesses none of these three calamities, and it is for this reason that it is said to be pure. Further, the fourth dhyāna's own supporting body and vessel are untouched by the three calamities; its mindfulness is free of forgetfulness, and its equanimity is free of every disturbance, unlike the lower grounds, and it is for this reason that it is said to be pure. Further, the fourth dhyāna is free of every affliction and secondary affliction, and it is for this reason that its equanimity and mindfulness alone are said to be pure, and not any other — that is, there exists an equanimity and mindfulness free of every affliction but not of every secondary affliction, namely, the undefiled equanimity and mindfulness of the lower three dhyānas; there exists an equanimity and mindfulness free of secondary afflictions but not of every affliction, namely, the fourth dhyāna's own contaminated equanimity and mindfulness; there exists an equanimity and mindfulness free of both every affliction and every secondary affliction, namely, the fourth dhyāna's own undefiled equanimity and mindfulness; and there exists an equanimity and mindfulness free of neither affliction nor secondary affliction, namely, the lower three dhyānas' own contaminated equanimity and mindfulness, together with every equanimity and mindfulness of the desire realm — it should be understood that, here, secondary affliction refers precisely to the eight disturbing matters stated above.

Further, the fourth dhyāna's own supporting physical body is clear, pure, bright, and clean, exactly like a lamp's own light, and its equanimity and mindfulness, depending upon it, are thereby pure as well. Further, the fourth dhyāna is a perfect and complete support, the most excellent among every support, being the ultimate ground, the most honored among every ground, and it is for this reason that its equanimity and mindfulness, too, are named pure. Further, the fourth dhyāna is named the concentration of stillness, its own force and power pervading its entire supporting body, and it is for this reason that its equanimity and mindfulness, too, are named pure. Further, the fourth dhyāna is the very support relied upon by seven kinds of attainment, since, both below and above it, there exist three undefiled concentrations, and it is by this that its equanimity and mindfulness, too, are named pure. Further, the fourth dhyāna possesses two matters that are vast — first, its own locations; second, its own wholesome roots — and it is for this reason that its equanimity and mindfulness, too, are named pure. Further, bodhisattvas more numerous than the sands of the Ganges have relied upon the fourth dhyāna to enter the true nature freed from birth, and to directly realize unsurpassed, perfect enlightenment, and it is for this reason that its equanimity and mindfulness, too, are named pure. Further, three kinds of practitioners of yoga rely upon the fourth dhyāna to enter the true nature freed from birth, to attain the fruit, and to exhaust the contaminants — namely, the buddhas, the solitary-realizers, and the disciples — and it is for this reason that its equanimity and mindfulness, too, are named pure. Further, within the fourth dhyāna, the great elements and the derived form, the visible color and the shape, are all of the utmost sublimity and excellence, and it is for this reason that its equanimity and mindfulness, too, are named pure. Further, in dependence upon the fourth dhyāna, the knowledge of recollecting past abodes is capable of taking as its object the past abodes of the desire realm and of all four dhyānas alike, and it is for this reason that its equanimity and mindfulness, too, are named pure. It is owing to causes and conditions such as these, of every kind, that the fourth dhyāna's own equanimity and mindfulness alone are named pure. As for one dwells having fully attained the fourth dhyāna: this refers to having obtained, acquired, and attained the possession of the fourth dhyāna's own wholesome five aggregates, this obtaining, acquiring, and attaining of possession being named dwelling having fully attained.

As a scripture states, there exist four kinds of superior mental abodes of pleasure within the present dharma. One asks: for what reason is this named a superior mental abode? The answer: here, mind refers precisely to concentration — lacking concentration, no great force and power is possessed, and no great matter can be accomplished, and one cannot be like the four root dhyānas — and it is for this reason that this alone is named a superior mental abode. Further, among the four dhyānas there exist immeasurable kinds of superior mental merit — such as the immeasurable liberations, masteries, and totalities, unobstructed understanding, freedom from dispute, the knowledge of aspiration, and the concentration at the very limit — and it is for this reason that this alone is named a superior mental abode. Further, practitioners of yoga, in dependence upon the four dhyānas, experience the mind's own pleasure through immeasurable gateways — namely, the gateways of every merit already stated, and the three concentrations of emptiness, emptiness-of-emptiness, and the rest — and it is for this reason that this alone is named a superior mental abode.

Further, these four dhyānas are gathered within the conduct common to both, and it is for this reason that this alone is named a superior mental abode. One asks: among the four dhyānas there exists, too, what is capable of drawing forth a later pleasure and merit — why, then, does it speak only of an abode of pleasure within the present dharma? The answer: this, too, ought to be spoken of as an abode of pleasure within a later dharma, and its not being so spoken of should be understood as an incomplete statement in this scripture. Further, if this is spoken of as an abode of pleasure within the present dharma, one should understand that an abode of pleasure within a later dharma has already been spoken of as well, since the pleasure of a later dharma is obtained by taking the pleasure of the present dharma as its cause,

as a scripture states, one first cultivates that attainment here, and only afterward is born there. Further, the abode of pleasure within a later dharma depends upon and belongs to the abode of pleasure within the present dharma; the abode of pleasure within the present dharma does not depend upon or belong to the abode of pleasure within a later dharma, and it is for this reason that speaking only of the abode of pleasure within the present dharma has already spoken of that other as well. Further, the abode of pleasure within the present dharma serves as the very gateway of preliminary practice for the abode of pleasure within a later dharma — if this has already been spoken of, that, too, has already been spoken of. Further, the abode of pleasure within the present dharma is the cause; the abode of pleasure within a later dharma is the fruit — if the cause has already been spoken of, the fruit, too, has already been spoken of, and exactly as with cause and fruit, so too should the agent of making and what is made, what generates and what is generated, what accomplishes and what is accomplished, what continues and what is continued, what draws forth and what is drawn forth, and what turns and what is turned

and what characterizes and what is characterized, be understood in the corresponding manner. Further, the pleasure of the present dharma is near, while the pleasure of a later dharma is distant — if the near has already been spoken of, the distant, too, has already been spoken of, and exactly as with the near and the distant, so too should proximate pressure and non-proximate pressure, joined and unjoined, this body's own common class and another body's own common class, be understood in the corresponding manner. Further, the abode of pleasure within the present dharma, whether for the foolish or the wise, whether for insiders or outsiders, whether through correct or through deviant observation, is something all alike believe to exist, and it is for this reason that it alone is singled out; the abode of pleasure within a later dharma has those who do not believe in it, such as the outsiders, and it is for this reason that it is not spoken of. Further, every kind of fool, for the most part, craves the pleasure of the present, and does not seek the pleasure of what is to come, and, among present pleasures, craves the trifling pleasure of desire, not seeking the vast, expansive, sublime pleasure that is free of desire.

The World-Honored One, wishing to cause them to relinquish the trifling pleasure of desire and attain the four dhyānas' own vast, expansive, sublime pleasure, speaks in this way: if you seek a vast pleasure, you should relinquish the pleasure of desire and cultivate the four dhyānas, and it is for this reason that only the abode of pleasure within the present dharma is spoken of. Further, at the very time the four dhyānas manifest before one, one certainly experiences a present pleasure, and it is for this reason that they alone are singled out; a later pleasure is not fixed, since one may decline and be reborn below, or advance and be reborn above, or attain final nirvāṇa, and it is for this reason that this is not spoken of. It is owing to causes and conditions such as these, of every kind, that the World-Honored One speaks only of the four dhyānas as named an abode of pleasure within the present dharma — the preliminary stages and the formless attainments, too, possess a meaning of pleasure, yet, since they are gathered within the path still bound up with suffering, they are not spoken of.

As a scripture states, these four kinds of superior mental abodes of pleasure within the present dharma, those who cultivate concentration, repeatedly entering and emerging from them, should correctly understand — the tranquil liberations that transcend every form, the four formless attainments, those who cultivate concentration, repeatedly entering and emerging from them, should correctly proclaim. One asks: for what reason does the World-Honored One urge correct understanding with respect to the four dhyānas, yet urge correct proclamation with respect to the four formless attainments? The answer: the dhyānas are coarse, evident, clear, and easily seen, and those who cultivate concentration, having emerged from them, still delight in wishing to enter them again, and it is for this reason that the Buddha tells them: if you wish to enter them again, you should correctly understand the characteristics of entering and emerging from concentration, lest you err and lose your way. The formless attainments are subtle, their own characteristics hidden and difficult to see, and those who cultivate concentration, having emerged from them, do not delight in entering them again, and it is for this reason that the Buddha tells them: if you do not delight in entering them again, you should correctly proclaim to others the characteristics of entering and emerging from concentration, lest you forget them. Further, among the four dhyānas there exist many kinds of distinct, meritorious characteristics, and those who cultivate concentration, having emerged from them, still delight in wishing to enter them again, and it is for this reason that the Buddha tells them: if you delight in entering them again, you should correctly understand the characteristics of entering and emerging from concentration, lest you err and lose your way. Within the formless concentrations there exist no such many kinds of distinct, meritorious characteristics, and those who cultivate concentration, having emerged from them, do not delight in entering them again, and it is for this reason that the Buddha tells them: if you do not delight in entering them again, you should correctly proclaim to others the characteristics of entering and emerging from concentration, lest you forget them. Further, within the four dhyānas, the faculties, feelings, and mental factors possess many distinct characteristics, and those who cultivate concentration, having emerged from them, still delight in wishing to enter them again, and it is for this reason that the Buddha tells them: if you delight in entering them again, you should correctly understand the characteristics of entering and emerging from concentration, lest you err and lose your way. Within the formless concentrations, the faculties, feelings, and mental factors possess no such many distinct characteristics, and those who cultivate concentration, having emerged from them, do not delight in entering them again, and it is for this reason that the Buddha tells them: if you do not delight in entering them again, you should correctly proclaim to others the characteristics of entering and emerging from concentration, lest you forget them. Further, within the four dhyānas there exist immeasurable kinds of merit and benefit, and those who cultivate concentration, having emerged from them, still delight in wishing to enter them again, and it is for this reason that the Buddha tells them: if you delight in entering them again, you should correctly understand the characteristics of entering and emerging from concentration, lest you err and lose your way. Within the formless concentrations there exist no such immeasurable kinds of merit and benefit, and those who cultivate concentration, having emerged from them, do not delight in entering them again, and it is for this reason that the Buddha tells them: if you do not delight in entering them again, you should correctly proclaim to others the characteristics of entering and emerging from concentration, lest you forget them. Further, within the four dhyānas there exists a wisdom of comprehensive illumination, capable of taking as its object both its own ground and the grounds above and below it, and those who cultivate concentration, having emerged from them, still delight in wishing to enter them again, and it is for this reason that the Buddha tells them: if you delight in entering them again, you should correctly understand the characteristics of entering and emerging from concentration, lest you err and lose your way. Within the formless concentrations there exists no such wisdom of comprehensive illumination, being capable of taking as its object only its own ground and the grounds above it, not the grounds below, and those who cultivate concentration, having emerged from them, do not delight in entering them again, and it is for this reason that the Buddha tells them: if you do not delight in entering them again, you should correctly proclaim to others the characteristics of entering and emerging from concentration, lest you forget them. It is owing to causes and conditions such as these, of every kind, that the Buddha urges correct understanding with respect to the dhyānas, yet urges correct proclamation with respect to the four formless attainments.

As a scripture states, the four dhyānas possess four advantages; the four formless attainments possess only a single advantage. One asks: for what reason do the dhyānas possess four advantages, while the formless attainments possess only a single advantage? The answer: it is precisely owing to the various causes and conditions already stated that the dhyānas and the formless attainments differ in their own advantage. Here, further, there exist two further, unshared answers — that is, among the dhyānas there exist three kinds of concentration: first, possessing both applied and sustained thought; second, lacking applied thought but possessing only sustained thought; third, lacking both applied and sustained thought; among the formless attainments there exists only the one kind that lacks both applied and sustained thought. Further, among the four dhyānas there exist three kinds of feeling — namely, joy, pleasure, and equanimity; among the formless attainments there exists only the feeling of equanimity — and it is for this reason that the dhyānas possess four advantages, while the formless attainments possess only a single advantage. One asks: what distinction is there among the dhyānas' own advantages? The answer: they differ in name alone — that is, one is named dhyāna, the other is named advantage. Further, the dhyānas are of three kinds — wholesome, defiled, and neutral-and-unobscured — while the advantage is solely wholesome. Further, the dhyānas are of two kinds — contaminated and undefiled — while the advantage is solely undefiled. Further, the dhyānas are either bound to the form realm or unbound, while the advantage is solely unbound. Further, the dhyānas are either the learner's, the non-learner's, or neither the learner's nor the non-learner's, while the advantage is solely the learner's or the non-learner's. Further, the dhyānas are either abandoned by seeing, abandoned by cultivation, or subject to no further cutting-off, while the advantage is solely subject to no further cutting-off. Further, the dhyānas span both the defiled and the undefiled, while the advantage is solely undefiled. Further, the dhyānas span both the ripening and the non-ripening, while the advantage is solely non-ripening. Further, the dhyānas are gathered within three truths, excepting the truth of cessation, while the advantage is gathered solely within the truth of the path. Such, then, is the distinction of the dhyānas' own advantages.

As a scripture states, within the first dhyāna, the faculty of sorrow is extinguished; within the second dhyāna, the faculty of pain is extinguished. One asks: it is at the time one becomes free of desire's own defilement that both sorrow and pain are cut off —

why, then, does the scripture speak in this way? The answer: this speaks with reference to the exceeding of an antidote — that is, at the very stage of becoming free of desire's own defilement, although the faculty of pain has already been cut off,

it is not yet named the exceeding of pain's own antidote; only at the time one becomes free of the first dhyāna's own defilement is pain's own antidote exceeded, and it is for this reason that it is said that pain is extinguished there — as for the antidote to pain: this refers to the first dhyāna. Further, this speaks with reference to exceeding both the lineage and the very basis of pain — that is, at the very stage of becoming free of desire's own defilement, although the faculty of pain has already been cut off, one has not yet exceeded pain's own basis and lineage; only at the time one becomes free of the first dhyāna's own defilement does one exceed pain's own basis and lineage, and it is for this reason that it is said that pain's own basis and lineage are extinguished — as for the basis and lineage: this refers to the various consciousness-bodies. One asks: at the very stage of becoming free of desire's own defilement, although the faculty of sorrow has already been cut off, one has not yet exceeded its own antidote's basis, or its own lineage — ought one not, then, to say that sorrow is extinguished in the first dhyāna? The answer: sorrow's own antidote, basis, and lineage all reside within mind-consciousness, and, since it shares the very same mind-consciousness as the faculty of sorrow itself, at the very moment it is genuinely cut off, its extinguishing is thereby already spoken of; pain's own basis and lineage do not share the very same consciousness as its antidote, and it is for this reason that only once its antidote's basis and lineage are exceeded is pain's own extinguishing spoken of. There are those who say:

as for the second dhyāna's own extinguishing of the faculty of pain: this refers to the ceasing of applied and sustained thought, since it is with respect to applied and sustained thought that the nobles give rise to a notion of pain surpassing the notion of pain that ordinary beings give rise to with respect to the suffering of hell, and it is for this reason that this is named the faculty of pain. There exists a further scripture that speaks of the four dhyānas as being like a bed and seat. One asks: for what reason does the World-Honored One speak of the four dhyānas as being like a bed and seat? The answer: it is because they possess the nature of being lofty and supreme, and the nature of receiving and sustaining. As for the nature of being lofty and supreme: this is spoken with reference to the desire realm, since the four dhyānas transcend the desire realm. As for the nature of receiving and sustaining: this is spoken with reference to the wholesome dharmas, since dhyāna receives and sustains many wholesome dharmas. Further, the noble ones, wearied to the utmost by the long road of birth and death since beginningless time, take a brief rest within dhyāna, exactly as one wearied by a long road briefly settles upon a bed and seat, and it is for this reason that the dhyānas are spoken of using the words bed and seat.

There exists a further scripture that speaks of the four dhyānas as being like a cool breeze. One asks: for what reason does the World-Honored One speak of the four dhyānas as being like a cool breeze? The answer: this is because they are capable of stilling the heat of karma and affliction — that is, the first dhyāna is capable of stilling the heat of every kind of unwholesome karma and affliction of the desire realm; the second dhyāna is capable of stilling the heat of karma and affliction associated with the first dhyāna's own applied and sustained thought; the third dhyāna is capable of stilling the heat of karma and affliction associated with the second dhyāna's own utmost joy; the fourth dhyāna is capable of stilling the heat of karma and affliction associated with the third dhyāna's own utmost pleasure, and it is for this reason that the dhyānas are said to be like a cool breeze.

There exists a further scripture that speaks of the four dhyānas as being like fine food and drink. One asks: for what reason does the World-Honored One speak of the four dhyānas as being like food and drink? The answer: this is because they possess the meaning of being able to sustain the dharma-body — exactly as the fine food and drink found within villages and towns are all sent to the royal city to nourish and grow those who are honored and supreme, so too does every kind of superior, sublime, wholesome root gather within dhyāna to nourish and grow the dharma-body, and it is for this reason that the dhyānas are said to be like fine food and drink.

There exists a further scripture in which the Buddha, for the sake of a certain brahmin, speaks of the fourth dhyāna as named the ultimate track. One asks: for what reason does the World-Honored One set aside the first three dhyānas for this brahmin and speak of the fourth dhyāna alone as the ultimate track? The answer: there was a certain brahmin who heard that the Buddha fully possessed the knowledge and vision of all things,

and further heard that every buddha, without exception, relies upon the fourth dhyāna to directly realize unsurpassed, perfect enlightenment, every one of them designating the fourth dhyāna as the ultimate track. He reflected as follows: if the Buddha designates the fourth dhyāna as the ultimate track, he must certainly, fully possess the knowledge and vision of all things. Having reflected in this way, he came to question the World-Honored One. The Buddha, knowing his own intent, therefore spoke only of the fourth dhyāna as the ultimate track. Hearing this, the brahmin was certain in his faith that the Buddha fully possessed the knowledge and vision of all things. The Buddha further told this brahmin: the fourth dhyāna is the Thus-Come One's own track, is what the Buddha practices, and what the Buddha frequents — exactly as a wild elephant, at midday in summer, emerging from a dense forest thicket, sees a certain place,

its ground fertile and moist, its flowers and fruit flourishing, its flowing springs and bathing pools clear and beautiful, its variegated flowers gleaming and delightful, and, seeing this, gives rise to joy, and, with its own tusks, digs into the ground, settling its feet there — the World-Honored One, too, is just the same: within the fourth dhyāna, equanimity of formations manifests before him, and he digs into the very ground of what is to be known, settling the feet of his own wisdom there. It should be understood that, here, as for the Thus-Come One's own track: this speaks of the fourth dhyāna's own ultimate tranquility. As for what the Buddha practices:

this speaks of the fourth dhyāna's own ultimate insight. As for what the Buddha frequents: this speaks, in general, of the fourth dhyāna's own ultimate tranquility and insight together.

There exists a further scripture that speaks of the four dhyānas as all being abodes of pleasure. One asks: for what reason does the World-Honored One speak of the four dhyānas as being abodes of pleasure? The answer: the root dhyānas are easily manifested before one, and it is for this reason that they are named abodes of pleasure, unlike the preliminary stages and the formless attainments, which are difficult to manifest before one. For what reason is this so? Sentient beings, bound by the desire realm's own karma and affliction, find it exceedingly difficult to draw forth the stage of not-yet-arrived and cause it to manifest before them,

exactly as one bound tightly behind the back finds it exceedingly difficult to free himself. Sentient beings, too, are just the same, bound by the desire realm's own karma and affliction, and, wishing to free themselves from this binding, drawing forth the stage of not-yet-arrived is exceedingly difficult — cultivating the contemplation of impurity or mindfulness of breathing for ten or even twelve years, some being able to draw forth the stage of not-yet-arrived, others not, and it is for this reason that it is exceedingly difficult. Yet, having already become free of the desire realm's own defilement, giving rise to the first dhyāna requires no such exertion, and it manifests easily. From the first dhyāna, wishing further to draw forth the intermediate dhyāna requires much exertion of effort, one kind of mental factor ceasing and a different kind of mental factor arising,

a coarse mental factor ceasing and a subtle mental factor arising, that which is joined with applied thought ceasing and that which is joined with sustained thought arising, and it is for this reason that the intermediate dhyāna, too, is difficult to give rise to, exactly as a man splitting wood with wood must exert much effort before it finally splits. Giving rise to the first dhyāna's own ground-level mental factors is, in just the same way, difficult; the preliminary stages of the latter three dhyānas are difficult to give rise to, while their root attainments are easy to give rise to, exactly as with the first, and this should be understood accordingly. One asks: having already become free of a lower ground's own defilement, giving rise to a formless attainment, too, is not exceedingly difficult — why, then, is this not named an abode of pleasure? The answer: although one has become free of the lower ground's own defilement, since the formless attainments are exceedingly subtle, giving rise to them, too, is difficult, being easier when giving rise to a dhyāna than to them. Further, since the formless realm possesses no form whatsoever, not everyone believes in its existence, and it is for this reason that a practitioner wishing to give rise to that attainment, too, finds it exceedingly difficult — as it is said, when the elder Nakhalomaka came and told the Venerable Ānanda: we who dwell at home have, throughout the long night, been attached to the five objects of desire belonging to form and the rest; hearing of the formless realm, we give rise to the utmost alarm and dread, as though facing a deep pit — how could there exist a sentient being altogether without form? — and it is because this is so difficult to believe that giving rise to it is exceedingly difficult. Further, it is in dependence upon the four dhyānas that becoming free of defilement is easily accomplished, unlike the preliminary stages and the rest, and it is for this reason that they are named abodes of pleasure — exactly as two men both travel to the very same place, one by land, the other by boat: although both arrive there alike, the one who travels by boat is not thereby made to labor, unlike the one who travels by land. So too, some sentient beings become free of defilement in dependence upon dhyāna, others in dependence upon the preliminary stages or the formless attainments — although both alike become free of defilement, whoever relies upon dhyāna is not thereby made to labor, unlike those who rely upon the preliminary stages and the rest, and it is for this reason that dhyāna alone obtains the name of an abode of pleasure. Further, only the dhyānas possess both kinds of pleasure together, and it is for this reason that they are named abodes of pleasure — first, the pleasure of feeling; second, the pleasure of tranquil ease. The first three dhyānas each possess both pleasures in full; the fourth dhyāna, although it lacks the pleasure of feeling, possesses a pleasure of tranquil ease whose own force and function are vast and expansive, surpassing the pleasure of the first two dhyānas; the preliminary stages and the formless attainments, although they, too, possess a pleasure of tranquil ease, do not possess it in this vast and expansive measure, and it is for this reason that they are not named pleasurable. Further, pleasure is of two kinds: first, host pleasure;

second, guest pleasure. As for host pleasure: this refers to the pleasure that arises when one dhyāna gives rise to that very same dhyāna. As for guest pleasure: this refers to the pleasure that arises when one dhyāna gives rise to a formless abiding. Abiding within a dhyāna's own ground, one fully possesses both kinds of pleasure, and it is for this reason that it is named an abode of pleasure; abiding within a formless ground, one does not fully possess both kinds of pleasure, and it is for this reason that it is not named an abode of pleasure — the preliminary stages, not being supreme, do not obtain this name either. Further, only within the four dhyānas is there a pleasure free of every harm, its own force and function vast and expansive, unlike the preliminary stages and the rest, and it is for this reason that they are named abodes of pleasure,

as a scripture states, wherever there exists no harm whatsoever, this is named pleasure. Further, at the very time the root dhyānas manifest before one,

the great elements they nourish and grow spread throughout the entire body, causing the body to be filled with delight, and it is for this reason that they are named abodes of pleasure; at the time the preliminary-stage attainments and the like manifest before one, the great elements they nourish and grow arise only at the edge of the mind, without utterly filling one with delight, and it is for this reason that they are not named abodes of pleasure. There are those who say: at the time the preliminary-stage attainments and the like manifest before one,

the great elements they nourish and grow, although they, too, spread throughout the body, the function of this nourishing and growing does not equal that of the root dhyānas manifesting before one in nourishing and growing the great elements, and it is for this reason that they are not named abodes of pleasure — exactly as two men bathe together in the very same pool, one entering the water with his own body, the other merely sprinkling water upon himself with his hand: although both alike bathe, the one who enters the water gains the superior benefit of moistening, unlike the one who merely sprinkles water with his hand. Further, within the four dhyānas, tranquility and insight are equal in strength, and it is for this reason that they are named abodes of pleasure; within the preliminary-stage concentrations, insight is strong and tranquility is weak; within the formless concentrations, tranquility is strong and insight is weak, and neither is named an abode of pleasure. Further, within the four dhyānas, diligence and tranquility turn in equal balance, and it is for this reason that they are named abodes of pleasure — although the force of diligence is strong across every ground, within dhyāna it is restrained by tranquility, and it is for this reason that they turn in equal balance,

while, within every other ground, this is not so, and it is for this reason that they are not named abodes of pleasure. Further, within the four dhyānas, freedom from defilement can be obtained through the cutting-off of superior equanimity, and it is for this reason that they are named abodes of pleasure — that is, at the time one becomes free of defilement, there are two kinds of cutting-off: first, the cutting-off of superior equanimity; second, the cutting-off requiring exertion of effort. Becoming free of the various defilements in dependence upon the preliminary stages or the formless attainments is named the cutting-off requiring exertion of effort, being exceedingly difficult; becoming free of the various defilements in dependence upon a root dhyāna is named the cutting-off of superior equanimity, proceeding effortlessly of its own accord — exactly as two men both travel toward the very same destination, one riding a fine horse, the other riding a poor horse: the one riding the fine horse arrives at his destination with no difficulty whatsoever, while the one riding the poor horse arrives only with great difficulty. Further, within the four dhyānas, freedom from defilement can be obtained through a path requiring no exertion of effort, and it is for this reason that they are named abodes of pleasure; the preliminary stages and the formless attainments possess a path requiring exertion of effort, and, although freedom from defilement can still be obtained, they are not named abodes of pleasure — exactly as a great crowd of people together crosses a great river, some relying upon a bundle of grass, some upon a floating gourd, some upon a raft, some upon a boat: whoever relies upon a boat proceeds effortlessly, with ease, and arrives safely at the far shore, while whoever relies upon the other things arrives at the far shore only through fear and difficulty. Sentient beings, too, are just the same, crossing the river of affliction — some relying upon dhyāna, some upon another ground — although all alike cross from this shore of birth and death to that shore of nirvāṇa, whoever relies upon dhyāna crosses safely and with ease, and it is for this reason that dhyāna alone is named an abode of pleasure, unlike whoever relies upon the preliminary stages or the formless attainments. It is owing to causes and conditions such as these, of every kind,

that the four dhyānas alone are named abodes of pleasure. Exactly as they are named abodes of pleasure, so too are they named abodes of contact, and abodes together.

As for the four immeasurables: first, loving-kindness; second, compassion; third, sympathetic joy; fourth, equanimity. One asks: for what reason does the immeasurables' own discussion immediately follow the dhyānas' own discussion? The answer: the dhyānas draw forth the four immeasurables. Further, the dhyānas and the immeasurables mutually draw each other forth further still. Further, since the four immeasurables are the supreme merit found within the dhyānas. One asks: what is the own-nature of these four immeasurables? The answer: loving-kindness and compassion both take the wholesome root of non-hatred as their own-nature, counteracting hatred; if one further takes the associated dharmas that turn along with it, then four aggregates or five aggregates serve as its own-nature — four aggregates within the desire realm, five aggregates within the form realm. One asks: if loving-kindness and compassion both take the wholesome root of non-hatred as their own-nature, counteracting hatred, then what kind of hatred does loving-kindness counteract,

and what kind of hatred does compassion counteract? The answer: loving-kindness counteracts the hatred of taking life; compassion counteracts the hatred of striking and beating. Further, loving-kindness counteracts hatred that arises with respect to what warrants hatred; compassion counteracts hatred that arises with respect to what does not warrant hatred. There are those who say: the immeasurable of loving-kindness takes the wholesome root of non-hatred as its own-nature, counteracting hatred; the immeasurable of compassion takes non-harming as its own-nature, counteracting harming. Sympathetic joy takes the joy-faculty as its own-nature; if one further takes the associated dharmas that turn along with it, then, within the desire realm, four aggregates serve as its own-nature, and, within the form realm, five aggregates serve as its own-nature. One asks: if the immeasurable of sympathetic joy takes the joy-faculty as its own-nature, how is a certain statement of the Prakaraṇapāda to be reconciled — as it states, what is the immeasurable of sympathetic joy? It refers to joy, and the feeling, notion, formations, and consciousness associated with joy, together with whatever bodily and verbal karmic action it gives rise to, and whatever dissociated formations it gives rise to — every one of these is named sympathetic joy. How, then, could a feeling of joy be associated with feeling itself? The answer: that passage ought to state: joy, and the notion, formations, and consciousness associated with joy,

and it ought not to say feeling, and, if it says feeling, this is a copyist's error. Further, that treatise speaks, in general, of the five aggregates as the immeasurable of sympathetic joy's own own-nature — although the feeling of joy is not itself associated with feeling, every remaining mind and mental factor is indeed associated with feeling, and it is for this reason that it is spoken of in this way, and this, too, raises no contradiction with principle. Other masters say: this immeasurable of sympathetic joy takes rapture as its own-nature, rapture's own substance not being feeling, but a distinct mental factor associated with mind. Others, further, say:

rapture may be obtained within the very same class as the faculty of joy. There are those who say: the faculty of joy gives rise, afterward, to rapture, since rapture is drawn forth by the power of joy.

If one speaks in this way, this immeasurable of sympathetic joy, too, is associated with feeling, and this, too, raises no contradiction with principle. Equanimity takes the wholesome root of non-greed as its own-nature, counteracting greed; if one further takes the associated dharmas that turn along with it, then, within the desire realm, four aggregates serve as its own-nature, and, within the form realm, five aggregates serve as its own-nature.

Such, then, is named the own-nature of the immeasurables. One asks: what characteristic do these four immeasurables respectively bear? The answer: own-nature is itself characteristic; characteristic is itself own-nature, since own-nature and characteristic are not separate from one another. The Venerable Vasumitra speaks as follows: bestowing benefit is the characteristic of loving-kindness;

removing decline and loss is the characteristic of compassion; rejoicing in another's attainment is the characteristic of sympathetic joy; forgetting all distinction in equanimity is the characteristic of equanimity.

Own-nature and characteristic of the immeasurables have already been discussed; what is to be discussed next shall now be stated. One asks: for what reason is it named immeasurable? What is the meaning of immeasurable? The answer: it is because it universally takes sentient beings as its object and counteracts immeasurable afflictions of idle proliferation that it is named immeasurable. One asks: idle proliferation is of two kinds — first, the idle proliferation of craving;

second, the idle proliferation of view. Which immeasurable counteracts which idle proliferation? The answer: the immeasurables are not capable of cutting off any affliction whatsoever, but are only capable of subduing it, or of causing it to become distant. At times, all four counteract craving; at times, all four counteract view. If one speaks with reference to the near antidote of each of the four, one should say that loving-kindness and compassion are the near antidote to the idle proliferation of view, since those given to view are, for the most part, given to hatred; sympathetic joy and equanimity are the near antidote to the idle proliferation of craving, since those given to craving are, for the most part, given to attachment. There are those who say: loving-kindness and compassion are the near antidote to the idle proliferation of craving; sympathetic joy and equanimity are the near antidote to the idle proliferation of view. Further, it is because it universally takes sentient beings as its object and counteracts immeasurable afflictions of negligence that it is named immeasurable — that is, the four immeasurables are capable of serving as the near antidote to the desire realm's own afflictions of negligence. Further, these four are the very vast, playful domain of the noble ones, and it is for this reason that they are named immeasurable, exactly as a wealthy and eminent person possesses immeasurable kinds of vast, playful domains — namely, gardens, palaces, towers and pavilions, hunting grounds, and the like. Further, these four are capable of taking immeasurable sentient beings as their object, generating immeasurable merit and drawing forth immeasurable fruit, and it is for this reason that they are named immeasurable.

As for the realm of these four immeasurables: they exist within the desire and form realms. As for their ground: loving-kindness, compassion, and equanimity exist within seven grounds — namely, the desire realm, the four dhyānas, the stage of not-yet-arrived, and the intermediate dhyāna. There are those who say: they exist within ten grounds — namely, the four dhyānas, the four preliminary stages, the intermediate dhyāna, and the desire realm. The immeasurable of sympathetic joy exists within three grounds — namely, the desire realm and the first two dhyānas. Other masters say: the first two dhyānas possess no immeasurable of compassion, for what reason is this so? The first two dhyānas possess a supreme feeling of joy, its aspect turning as delight; the immeasurable of compassion turns with the aspect of sorrow — were the first two dhyānas to possess compassion, then, within a single mind, there would be both delight and sorrow at once, and this would contradict correct principle. One asks: if so, how do the first two dhyānas possess the undefiled weariness of disenchantment? The answer: undefiled disenchantment is associated with genuine mental application, and does not contradict joy — exactly as, the more genuinely one comes to cognize an object's own true characteristic, the more deeply one thereby gives rise to a joyful comfort with respect to it, and, the more one deeply gives rise to this joyful comfort with respect to an object, the more one thereby further delights in this very cognition — exactly as a man seeking treasure digs into the earth, and, the more he digs, the more treasure he thereby obtains, and, the more treasure he obtains, the more he thereby further delights in digging. Compassion, being associated with resolved mental application, is contrary to joy. The compilers say: one should say as follows — the first two dhyānas do possess the immeasurable of compassion. How is this known to be so? Because there exists a definitive scriptural authority for it — as the Concentration Aggregate states, the first two dhyānas gather within them the first two dhyānas' own four immeasurables, and the like, and it is thereby known that they do possess compassion. As for what these four immeasurables depend upon: they arise and manifest solely in dependence upon a body of the desire realm. As for their aspect: loving-kindness bears the aspect of bestowing pleasure; compassion bears the aspect of removing suffering; sympathetic joy bears the aspect of rejoicing and comforting; equanimity bears the aspect of setting aside. As for their object: they take solely the desire realm as their object, taking solely what is gathered together, taking solely what is combined, taking solely sentient beings —

that is, they take the five aggregates of the desire realm, or a portion of two aggregates, of sentient beings as their object — if the sentient beings in question abide with a mind of their own ground, then they take their five aggregates as object; if the sentient beings in question abide with a mind of another ground, or are without mind at all, then they take a portion of two aggregates as object. There are those who say: the first dhyāna's own immeasurables take sentient beings of the desire realm as their object; the second dhyāna's own immeasurables take sentient beings of the desire realm and of the first dhyāna as their object; the third dhyāna's own immeasurables

take sentient beings of the desire realm and of the first two dhyānas as their object; the fourth dhyāna's own immeasurables take sentient beings of the desire realm and of the lower three dhyānas as their object. Others, further, say: the first dhyāna's own immeasurables take sentient beings of the desire realm and of the first dhyāna as their object; the second dhyāna's own immeasurables take sentient beings of the desire realm and of the first two dhyānas as their object; the third dhyāna's own immeasurables take sentient beings of the desire realm and of the lower three dhyānas as their object; the fourth dhyāna's own immeasurables take sentient beings of the desire realm and of all four dhyānas as their object. There are further masters who say: the immeasurable of loving-kindness takes sentient beings of the desire realm and of the lower three dhyānas as its object, for what reason is this so? Because the immeasurable of loving-kindness turns with the aspect of bestowing pleasure, and it is only within these four grounds that a pleasant feeling exists. The immeasurable of compassion takes solely sentient beings of the desire realm as its object, for what reason is this so? Because the immeasurable of compassion turns with the aspect of removing suffering, and it is only within the desire realm that a painful feeling exists. The immeasurable of sympathetic joy takes sentient beings of the desire realm and of the first two dhyānas as its object, for what reason is this so? Because the immeasurable of sympathetic joy turns with the aspect of rejoicing and comforting, and it is only within these three grounds that a feeling of joy exists. The immeasurable of equanimity takes sentient beings of the desire realm and of all four dhyānas as its object, for what reason is this so? Because the immeasurable of equanimity turns with the aspect of setting aside,

and it is within every ground alike that a feeling of equanimity exists. The compilers say: among these various statements, the first statement is the sound one — namely, that all four take solely the desire realm as their object. As for the foundation of mindfulness: these four are associated solely with the foundation of mindfulness of dharmas. As for the kind of knowledge: these four are associated solely with worldly, conventional knowledge. As for concentration: these four are not associated with any concentration, being solely contaminated. As for association with the faculties: loving-kindness, compassion, and equanimity are associated with the joy, pleasure, and equanimity faculties; sympathetic joy is entirely not associated with the feeling-faculty — if one further takes into account what turns along with it, then sympathetic joy, too, is associated with the joy-faculty. As for past, future, and present: these four immeasurables pervade all three times — a past one takes a past object; a present one takes a present object; a future one, if capable of arising, takes as its object a future dharma incapable of arising. As for taking as object what spans the three times, or what is wholesome, unwholesome, or neutral: these four immeasurables are solely wholesome, and take as their object all three moral qualities. As for being bound to the desire realm, the form realm, or the formless realm: these four immeasurables, though bound to the desire and form realms, take as their object solely what is bound to the desire realm. As for being the learner's, the non-learner's, or neither: these four immeasurables are solely neither the learner's nor the non-learner's, and take as their object solely what is neither the learner's nor the non-learner's. As for being abandoned by seeing, abandoned by cultivation, or subject to no further cutting-off: these four immeasurables are solely abandoned by cultivation, taking as their object what is abandoned by both seeing and cultivation. As for taking as object a name or a meaning: these four immeasurables take as object both kinds. As for taking as object one's own continuum or another's continuum: these four immeasurables take as object solely another's continuum. As for being attained through preliminary practice or through the attainment of freedom from defilement: these four immeasurables are attained through both. It should be understood that, here, as for being attained through the attainment of freedom from defilement: this refers to the first dhyāna's own immeasurable being attained through becoming free of the desire realm's own defilement; the second dhyāna's own immeasurable being attained through becoming free of the first dhyāna's own defilement; the third dhyāna's own immeasurable being attained through becoming free of the second dhyāna's own defilement; the fourth dhyāna's own immeasurable being attained through becoming free of the third dhyāna's own defilement — or, further, attained through becoming free of the defilement of one's own ground or of a higher ground. As for being attained through preliminary practice: this refers to the fact that these four immeasurables, for the most part, manifest before one through preliminary practice — the Buddha alone manifesting them before him without any preliminary practice whatsoever; the solitary-realizer manifesting them before him through a lesser preliminary practice; the disciple manifesting them before him through a middling or superior preliminary practice; ordinary beings, their own lineage being manifold and unfixed, manifesting them variously. As for being formerly attained or never before attained: these four immeasurables are both — every noble one, and every ordinary being abiding within a subsequent existence, being both; every remaining ordinary being being solely formerly attained. There are those who say: every noble one, and every ordinary being abiding within an internal dharma, is both; an ordinary being of an external dharma is solely formerly attained.