Brahma-Merit, Immeasurable

One asks: what is the preliminary practice for these four immeasurables? The answer: the preliminary practice arises by taking seven kinds of sentient being as its object. As for these seven kinds of sentient being: this refers to dividing every sentient being of the desire realm into three distinct categories — the hostile, the beloved, and the neutral — the hostile and the beloved each further divided into three, namely, inferior, middling, and superior, the neutral beings being gathered together as a single, undifferentiated kind. Among these seven kinds of sentient being as one's object, if one wishes to cultivate loving-kindness, one first takes the beloved category as one's object,

and, among the beloved category, one first takes the superior grade as one's object. As for a superior beloved: this refers to one's own father, mother, preceptor, or instructor, or any other person deserving of honor and respect, one of great wisdom and broad learning, a fellow practitioner of the holy life. Toward this superior beloved sentient being as one's object, one reflects as follows: how might I cause this kind of sentient being to attain such pleasure as this? Yet the mind is stubborn and difficult to subdue, having become habituated in this way since beginningless time — toward sentient beings who have shown one great kindness, an evil disposition arises effortlessly and grows, while a wholesome disposition, though given rise to through mental application, is unable to remain. One must, further, rouse oneself vigorously, reflecting on this great kindness, forcing the mind to remain fixed there, exactly as a mustard seed, cast at the tip of an awl, may momentarily adhere but finds it difficult to remain — only through prolonged, unceasing practice does this preliminary practice come to be accomplished, and it is only by a skillful application of force that the seed, once cast, comes to remain fixed there. So too, a practitioner, with respect to a superior beloved, must diligently cultivate and practice the very intention of bestowing pleasure, and only after a long span of time does this intention come to stand firm. Once the intention of bestowing pleasure toward a superior beloved has come to stand firm, one next cultivates this same intention of bestowing pleasure toward a middling beloved; once this has been accomplished, one next cultivates this same intention of bestowing pleasure toward an inferior beloved; once this has been accomplished, one next cultivates it toward the neutral category, then toward an inferior enemy, then toward a middling enemy, and, last of all, toward a superior enemy, cultivating this same intention of bestowing pleasure toward each in turn. Gradually practicing in this way, until the moment of its full completion, one comes to bestow this same intention of pleasure equally and continuously upon every sentient being of the desire realm without exception — exactly as toward a superior beloved, so too toward a superior enemy — and it is at this point that the cultivation of loving-kindness is named complete. The sequence for cultivating compassion and sympathetic joy follows in just the same way, though the intention differs — removing suffering, or rejoicing and comforting: how might I cause this kind of sentient being to become free of such suffering as this? — this being the intention of compassion; may this kind of sentient being attain pleasure and become free of suffering — is this not truly delightful? — this being the intention of sympathetic joy. When one wishes to cultivate equanimity, one first takes the neutral category as one's object,

giving rise, toward it, to the intention of setting all aside, since a neutral being is easiest to set aside — taking a beloved being as object gives rise to attachment, taking an enemy as object gives rise to aversion, and it is for this reason that one first cultivates equanimity by taking what lies between the two as one's object. Having set aside the neutral category, one next sets aside an inferior enemy, then a middling enemy, then a superior enemy,

then an inferior beloved, then a middling beloved, and, last of all, a superior beloved — setting aside the enemy first and the beloved last, since a mind of aversion is more easily set aside than a mind of affection. Gradually practicing in this way, until the moment of its full completion, one comes to bestow this same intention of setting all aside, equally and continuously, upon every sentient being of the desire realm without exception, admitting of no further discrimination whatsoever, exactly as one holds a scale evenly, or takes every sentient being as one's object exactly as one views an entire forest as a single whole, and it is at this point that the cultivation of equanimity is named complete.

One asks: what kind of sentient being is capable of cultivating the immeasurables? The answer: the disposition of sentient beings is, broadly speaking, of two kinds: first, one who delights in seeking out another's faults;

second, one who delights in seeking out another's merits. Whoever delights in seeking out another's faults is, for the most part, unable to cultivate the four immeasurables, for what reason is this so? Because even an arhat's own faults can still be sought out and found by such a one — he was once, at an earlier time, not without some flaw or gap, and it is on this account that we now belittle and disparage him — so who, holding such an attitude, could possibly perform a beneficial deed for another? Whoever delights in seeking out another's merits is, for the most part, able to cultivate the four immeasurables, for what reason is this so? Because even one who has cut off his own wholesome roots can still have his merits sought out and found by such a one — he was once, at an earlier time, one who cultivated much wholesome karma, and it is on this account that he now attains rebirth in an honored family, with a form and appearance dignified and pleasing to behold, his very words carrying an awe-inspiring dignity that all who hear them receive with respect, his wisdom and broad learning admired and looked up to by all — I ought to perform a beneficial deed for him.

One asks: what is the sequence of these four immeasurables? Do they arise exactly as stated, or does some other sequence exist? There are those who say: they arise exactly as stated — that is, a practitioner of yoga first wishes to bestow benefit upon every sentient being of the desire realm; bestowing benefit is precisely the characteristic of loving-kindness, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks of loving-kindness as first. Next, he wishes to remove decline and loss from every sentient being of the desire realm; removing decline and loss is precisely the characteristic of compassion, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks of compassion as second. Once these sentient beings have already obtained benefit and become free of decline and loss, one ought next to give rise to rejoicing and comfort with respect to them; rejoicing and comforting them is precisely the characteristic of sympathetic joy, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks of sympathetic joy as third. Having already given rise to rejoicing and comfort with respect to sentient beings, one ought next to set them all equally aside; setting all equally aside is precisely the characteristic of equanimity, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks of equanimity as fourth.

It is for this reason that the four immeasurables arise exactly as stated. Others, further, say: these four immeasurables arise first as compassion, next as loving-kindness, next as sympathetic joy, and last as equanimity — that is, a practitioner of yoga first wishes to remove decline and loss from every sentient being of the desire realm; next wishes to bestow benefit upon them; next gives rise to deep rejoicing and comfort with respect to them; and, last of all, sets them equally aside. The Venerable Saṃghavasu speaks as follows: compassion and sympathetic joy mutually restrain one another — if compassion arises first, joy must certainly follow, since compassion lowers the mind, requiring joy to spur it upward;

if joy arises first, compassion must certainly follow, since joy raises the mind, requiring compassion to restrain it. The compilers say: one should say as follows — the four immeasurables do not arise exactly as stated, for what reason is this so? Because a practitioner giving rise to contemplation arises according to his own pleasure — there exists a practitioner of contemplation who first gives rise to loving-kindness, then compassion, then sympathetic joy, and only afterward gives rise to equanimity, and so on, stated at full length, up through,

there exists a practitioner of contemplation who first gives rise to equanimity, then sympathetic joy, then compassion, and only afterward gives rise to loving-kindness. There exists, further, an indeterminate case, where a practitioner of contemplation attains loving-kindness and no other, and so on, stated at full length, up through, there exists a practitioner of contemplation who attains equanimity and no other. There exists, further, an indeterminate case where the four immeasurables are not entered in forward sequence, or entered in reverse sequence, or entered by forward transcendence, or entered by reverse transcendence, exactly as with the pervasive liberations, masteries, and totalities. One asks: if one has not yet given rise to the first dhyāna's own immeasurable, is one capable of giving rise to the second dhyāna's own immeasurable? And so on, up through, if one has not yet given rise to the third dhyāna's own immeasurable, is one capable of giving rise to the fourth dhyāna's own immeasurable?

There are those who say: one is not capable, since the first dhyāna's own immeasurable serves as the very gateway of preliminary practice, the ladder and stairway, for the second dhyāna's own immeasurable, and so on, up through, the third dhyāna's own immeasurable serves as the very gateway of preliminary practice, the ladder and stairway, for the fourth dhyāna's own immeasurable. There are those who say: one is indeed capable — that is, a practitioner of contemplation, if he possesses mastery in dependence upon a given ground, may, in dependence upon that very ground, first give rise to its immeasurable — since, even without having given rise to a lower ground's own undefiled noble path, he may still give rise to a higher ground's own undefiled noble path, how much more so with the four immeasurables, which he ought certainly to be capable of giving rise to.

One asks: is it swifter to give rise to a higher ground's own immeasurable after a lower ground's own, or swifter to give rise to a lower ground's own immeasurable after a higher ground's own? The answer: it is swifter to give rise to a lower ground's own immeasurable after a higher ground's own, not swifter to give rise to a higher ground's own immeasurable after a lower ground's own — exactly as, having first learned the Brahmī script, it is swifter afterward to learn the Kharoṣṭhī script, not swifter to learn the Brahmī script after first learning the Kharoṣṭhī script. One asks: immediately upon the first dhyāna's own immeasurable, is one capable of giving rise directly to the second dhyāna's own immeasurable? And so on, up through, immediately upon the third dhyāna's own immeasurable, is one capable of giving rise directly to the fourth dhyāna's own immeasurable? And this question, too, should be asked following the reverse sequence. There are those who say: one is not capable, since one must certainly first cultivate one's own ground's own preliminary practice before it can be drawn forth and manifest before one. There are those who say: one is indeed capable — that is, one who has already thoroughly cultivated and matured this practice may give rise to it through but a single preliminary practice, or even without any preliminary practice at all, being capable of passing through every ground, whether higher or lower, and giving rise to the immeasurable there. One asks: immediately upon the immeasurable of loving-kindness and the like, is one capable of giving rise directly to the immeasurable of compassion and the like? The answer: as the Concentration Aggregate states, by contemplating what does one enter the attainment of loving-kindness, and so on? It refers to sentient beings who are to be given pleasure, and so on, up through, by contemplating what does one enter the attainment of equanimity? It refers to sentient beings who are to be set aside. There are those who say: this passage speaks of the immeasurables' own co-arising aspect. Others, further, say: this passage speaks of the immeasurables' own condition of immediately preceding continuity. If one speaks in the former way, then immediately upon the immeasurable of loving-kindness and the like, one is indeed capable of giving rise to the immeasurable of compassion and the like; if one speaks in the latter way, then immediately upon the immeasurable of loving-kindness and the like, one is not capable of giving rise to the immeasurable of compassion and the like, each of the four preliminary practices possessing its own distinct character, manifesting before one only after its own corresponding preliminary practice. It should be understood that mental application is, broadly speaking, of three kinds: first, mental application toward a particular characteristic; second, mental application toward a shared characteristic; third, mental application through resolved conviction. As for mental application toward a particular characteristic: this refers to reflecting that earth bears the characteristic of solidity, water the characteristic of moisture, fire the characteristic of warmth, and wind the characteristic of motion, and every such reflection as this. As for mental application toward a shared characteristic:

this refers to the co-arising mental application found within the sixteen noble aspects, and the like. As for mental application through resolved conviction: this refers to the co-arising mental application found within the contemplation of impurity, mindfulness of breathing, the liberations, the masteries, the totalities, and the like. One asks: among these three kinds, with which does the co-arising mental application of these four immeasurables belong? The answer: solely with mental application through resolved conviction, since they arise through an imagined, provisional construction.

One asks: as for the immeasurable of loving-kindness wishing to bestow pleasure upon another, precisely which kind of pleasure does it take as its object to bestow upon sentient beings? There are those who say: it takes as its object the pleasure found within the third dhyāna, wishing to bestow this upon sentient beings, since, among the pleasures of birth and death, this is the very finest. If one speaks in this way, then whoever has not yet attained the third dhyāna ought to be incapable of giving rise to the immeasurable of loving-kindness at all. Others, further, say: he has, in some other former life, once experienced the pleasure found within the third dhyāna,

and now, relying once more upon the third dhyāna, gives rise to the knowledge of recollecting past abodes, taking this once-experienced pleasure as its object, wishing to bestow it upon sentient beings. If one speaks in this way,

then whoever has not yet attained the third dhyāna's own knowledge of recollecting past abodes ought to be incapable of giving rise to the immeasurable of loving-kindness at all. Others, further, say: it takes as its object whatever pleasures are experienced in the immediately preceding moment, wishing to bestow these upon sentient beings — such as the pleasure of food and drink, or the pleasure of riding in a carriage, or the pleasure of clothing, or the pleasure of a bed and seat,

or every other kind of proximately experienced pleasure — taking these various pleasures as its object, wishing to bestow them upon sentient beings. The Venerable Vasumitra speaks as follows: it takes as its object the very characteristic of pleasure experienced by sentient beings, wishing to cause sentient beings to experience this same pleasure forever. If one speaks in this way, loving-kindness ought to be incapable of universally taking every sentient being as its object,

for what reason is this so? Because not every sentient being possesses pleasure. He speaks, further, as follows: it takes as its object the characteristic of the pleasure-faculty arising within sentient beings, wishing to cause sentient beings to experience this same pleasure forever. If one speaks in this way, loving-kindness ought to be incapable of universally taking every sentient being as its object, for what reason is this so? Because not every sentient being, at every stage, constantly has the pleasure-faculty manifest before it. He speaks, further, as follows: it takes as its object the varied characteristics of pleasure experienced by sentient beings — such as food and drink, riding in a carriage, clothing, and a bed and seat, and the like — wishing to cause sentient beings to experience this same pleasure forever. If one speaks in this way, loving-kindness ought to be incapable of universally taking every sentient being as its object, for what reason is this so? Because not every sentient being obtains such implements of pleasure as these. The Great Virtuous One says: at the very stage of preliminary practice, one takes as its object whatever pleasure of sentient beings one has formerly seen, and, with a heart of compassionate pity, gives rise to the resolved conviction and wish that every sentient being of the desire realm, equally and without exception, might attain such pleasure as this, and, by this cause and condition, come to experience a superior pleasure. The intent expressed here is this: a practitioner of yoga, dwelling near a village or town, or in a forest-dwelling place, in the early part of the day, dons his robe and takes up his bowl, entering the nearby village or town to beg for food in accordance with the dharma.

Along the way, he sees sentient beings enjoying only superior pleasure — riding upon elephants, horses, carriages, and palanquins, their bodies adorned with every kind of jewel, attended by servants and guards, music and praise sung in their honor, fragrant flowers arrayed before them, experiencing the utmost delight, exactly like the sons of the gods. He sees, too, sentient beings enjoying only extreme suffering — lacking clothing, their hair disheveled, their bodies foul and unclean, their hands and feet cracked and chapped, carrying a broken clay bowl as they wander begging, oppressed by hunger and poverty, exactly like hungry ghosts. Having seen these things, he swiftly returns to his own dwelling, gathers up his robe, washes his feet, and sits in the cross-legged posture, making his body and mind soft and pliant, bringing them to ease, becoming free of every obstruction and hindrance, and thereby capable, recollecting the pleasure and suffering he formerly witnessed, of giving rise, toward every kind of sentient being, to a compassionate pity, wishing that all might attain the very pleasure he has witnessed. One asks: since the sentient beings taken as object do not all, in fact, attain this pleasure, how can this contemplation of loving-kindness fail to be a distortion? The answer: it arises together with the intention of benefit, arises together with the intention of ease and comfort, arises together with the intention of taming and goodness, arises together with the intention of compassionate pity, arises together with wise reflection, is associated with wholesome roots, is associated with shame and moral dread, is wholesome by its very own-nature, is capable of subduing every affliction, and is far removed from every affliction, and it is for this reason that it is not named a distortion. Others, further, say: even were it to be named a distortion, this, too, would raise no fault. One asks: if it is named a distortion, ought it not then to become unwholesome? The answer: distortion is of two kinds: first, distortion of own-nature; second, distortion of object — only when both kinds of distortion are present together is something named unwholesome. The contemplation of the immeasurable of loving-kindness, although it possesses a distortion with respect to its object, does not possess a distortion of its own-nature, and it is for this reason that it is not unwholesome. The Venerable Vasumitra speaks as follows: the contemplation of the immeasurable of loving-kindness, although it is not capable of causing the sentient beings taken as object to all, in fact, attain a superior pleasure, nonetheless takes as its object the very implements of pleasure genuinely belonging to those sentient beings, and it is for this reason that it is not a distortion. He speaks, further, as follows: it takes as its object the pleasure-faculty genuinely belonging to sentient beings, and it is for this reason that it is not a distortion. He speaks, further, as follows: cultivating this preliminary practice is capable of subduing the entanglement of hatred, and it is for this reason that it is not a distortion. The Great Virtuous One says: this contemplation of loving-kindness is capable of running contrary to a mind of hatred, and it is for this reason that it is not a distortion. One asks: does this immeasurable of loving-kindness take a single sentient being as its object, wishing to bestow pleasure upon him, or does it take many sentient beings as its object, wishing to bestow pleasure upon them? The answer: this immeasurable of loving-kindness, at the time it is first being cultivated, takes many sentient beings as its object, wishing to bestow pleasure upon them, since one cultivates the mind of loving-kindness by taking sentient beings as a whole as one's object; only once it has already reached full completion does it take, at will, either a single sentient being or many as its object, wishing to bestow pleasure upon them, with complete freedom and mastery. Exactly as this question-and-answer analysis applies to the immeasurable of loving-kindness, so too should it be understood, in the corresponding manner, for compassion.

As a scripture states, a mind accompanied by loving-kindness, free of hostility, free of opposition, free of vexation, free of harm, vast, expansive, and immeasurable, well cultivated and practiced, bestows pleasure through resolved conviction pervading the first direction, the second direction, the third direction, and the fourth direction, above and below, whether vertically or horizontally, taking this entire world as its object, pervading every portion, pervading every place, taking every sentient being as its object, a mind accompanied by loving-kindness, bestowing pleasure through resolved conviction, pervading, one dwells having fully attained it — and so on, stated at full length. One asks: this immeasurable of loving-kindness takes sentient beings as its object — for what reason, then, does the scripture speak of pervading a single direction, and the rest? The answer: this scripture ought to say pervading the eastern direction, and the rest, taking the sentient beings found there as its object, yet, in speaking of pervading a single direction, and the rest, it speaks of sentient beings using the language of direction, exactly as one raises up a vessel to indicate the object contained within it.

This scripture, further, states: taking this entire world as its object, pervading every portion, pervading every place, taking every sentient being as its object, a mind accompanied by loving-kindness, bestowing pleasure through resolved conviction, pervading, one dwells having fully attained it. One asks: this immeasurable of loving-kindness, in taking sentient beings as its object, does it observe them by the boundary of a spatial region, or does it observe them by the boundary of sentient beings themselves? Suppose either is granted, what fault follows? Both alternatives carry a fault. For what reason is this so? If it observes them by the boundary of a spatial region, why does the scripture speak of taking this entire world as its object, pervading every portion, pervading every place, taking every sentient being as its object? If it observes them by the boundary of sentient beings themselves, why does one not separately attain the very boundary of the ocean of sentient beings? There are those who say: this observes them by the boundary of a spatial region.

One asks: if so, this well resolves the difficulty raised afterward — how, then, is the difficulty raised before to be resolved? The answer: it should be understood that this speaks of a partial totality, not an absolute totality — that is, the word "all" is, broadly speaking, of two kinds: first, a partial totality; second, an absolute totality — this scripture speaks only of a partial totality, and it is for this reason that this raises no contradiction with principle. Others, further, say: this observes them by the boundary of sentient beings themselves. One asks: if so, this well resolves the difficulty raised before — how, then, is the difficulty raised afterward to be resolved? The answer: although one does not separately attain the very boundary of sentient beings, one may still attain it in a comprehensive, collective sense, exactly as the four modes of birth gather in every sentient being without exception, there existing no sentient being whatsoever that is not gathered within the four modes of birth. There are those who say: the Buddha observes them by the boundary of sentient beings themselves, while everyone else observes them by the boundary of a spatial region. Other masters say: the Buddha and the solitary-realizers alike observe them by the boundary of sentient beings themselves, while the disciples and ordinary beings observe them only by the boundary of a spatial region. The compilers say: one should say as follows — this is not fixed, since the four immeasurables are all imaginative constructions, all associated with mental application through resolved conviction — there may be a case where all observe by the boundary of sentient beings themselves, and there may be a case where all observe by the boundary of a spatial region.

As the World-Honored One states, monks, you should know, it is because I cultivated a mind of loving-kindness for seven years that, for seven cycles of the world's contraction and expansion, I did not come to be reborn in this world — at the time the world contracted, I was reborn among the gods of pure radiant light; once the world had already re-expanded, I was reborn within the empty palace of Brahmā, becoming the Great Brahmā King, my majestic virtue possessing complete mastery, being, throughout a thousand worlds, alone and unrivaled. Afterward, coming once more to be reborn within the desire realm, I became Śakra, lord of the gods, thirty-six times over, and, throughout countless ages, became a wheel-turning monarch, fully possessing the four kinds of army and accomplishing the seven treasures, ruling the world by the dharma, and being, further, named the dharma-king. As for this scripture's own speaking of seven years: the Buddha's true intent speaks of seven rainy seasons having passed — that is, in a former, victorious age, there was a bodhisattva named Great Courage, who, within central India, was a great king of a great country, ruling and governing all by his own great authority and kindness. Yet that land, at that time, suffered much from heat, and, not far from the capital city, there was a great forest, its ground elevated and cool, its flowers and fruit flourishing, its grass and trees a lush green, its springs and pools clear and cold. At that time, the people of that country, during the four months of the rainy season,

for the most part abandoned their cities and towns, coming to this place to escape the heat, each pursuing whatever activity he pleased. At that time, the bodhisattva king entrusted the affairs of state and of the cities and towns to his great ministers, and likewise went to this forest, dwelling in an elevated, tranquil place, and, becoming free of the desire realm's own defilement, cultivated the four immeasurables, never once growing slack or idle throughout the four months of the rainy season. Once the rainy season had passed and the climate had gradually turned cool, the people within the forest each returned to their own cities and towns to resume their own activities, and, at that time, the bodhisattva, too, emerged from the forest and returned to the royal capital, where he established a great dharma-offering, extensively cultivating the merit of giving, offering food and drink, clothing, fragrant flowers, elephants, horses, carriages and palanquins, dwellings and servants, lamps and bedding, and medicine, to renunciants and to brahmins, to the poor and the sick, to those without kin, to travelers from afar, and to every kind of petitioner — and, having completed this act of giving, he then upheld the pure precepts. In this way, he went back and forth between the forest and the city through six such cycles.

Upon the seventh cycle, once the rainy season had passed, there are those who say his lifespan came to its end, and he was reborn among the gods of pure radiant light; there are those who say that, the very time of the world's contraction having arrived, the bodhisattva's own life came to its end, and he was reborn among the gods of pure radiant light — and it is thereby known that these seven years refer to seven rainy seasons. One asks: the four immeasurable concentrations the bodhisattva cultivated are bound to the form realm, and it may indeed be on this account that he was reborn among the gods of pure radiant light and within the heaven of Brahmā — but how could he, further, become Śakra and a wheel-turning monarch? How could karma bound to the form realm possibly draw forth a fruit within the desire realm? The answer: the bodhisattva, at that time, gave rise to three kinds of immeasurable — first, bound to the desire realm, by which he was able to become Śakra, lord of the gods, and a wheel-turning monarch;

second, bound to the first dhyāna, by which he was able to become the Great Brahmā King; third, bound to the second dhyāna, by which he was able to be reborn among the gods of pure radiant light. Further, although the desire realm possesses no root immeasurable, it does possess the mind of entering and emerging from the immeasurable, and it is this that draws forth the ripening-fruit of a wheel-turning monarch or of Śakra, while the root immeasurable draws forth rebirth among the gods of pure radiant light or as the Great Brahmā King. Further, although the desire realm possesses no ultimate immeasurable, it does possess the preliminary practice for it, and it is by this that he was able to become Śakra, lord of the gods, and a wheel-turning monarch, the ultimate immeasurable being capable of drawing forth the fruit of the Brahmā King or of the gods of pure radiant light. Further, the desire realm fully possesses every wholesome root's own resembling seed, up through, even possessing a resembling attainment of cessation — it is by possessing the immeasurable's own resembling wholesome root that he was able to become a wheel-turning monarch or Śakra, lord of the gods; it is by possessing the immeasurable's own genuine, real wholesome root that he was able to be reborn within the Brahmā heaven or among the gods of pure radiant light. Further, it was by the bodhisattva's own cultivation of the immeasurables within the forest that he was reborn among the gods of pure radiant light or became the Brahmā King;

it was by his returning to the royal capital and establishing the great dharma-offering that he became a wheel-turning monarch; it was by his upholding the precepts that he became Śakra, lord of the gods. Further, this scripture speaks of three matters of merit — namely, giving, moral discipline, and cultivation — as that scripture states, monks, you should know, I recall that, in the past, I performed three kinds of karma and thereby obtained three kinds of fruit, and it is by means of these that I now possess great, majestic virtue —

namely, giving, taming, and stillness. Giving is precisely the matter of merit through giving; taming is precisely the matter of merit through moral discipline; stillness is precisely the matter of merit through cultivation. The matter of merit through giving draws forth the wheel-turning monarch; the matter of merit through moral discipline draws forth Śakra, lord of the gods; the matter of merit through cultivation draws forth the Great Brahmā King, or the gods of pure radiant light. As a scripture states, there exist three matters of merit — first, the matter of merit through the nature of giving,

this referring to offering food and drink, clothing, and fragrant flowers, stated at full length, up through, and medicine, to renunciants, brahmins, and the like; second, the matter of merit through the nature of moral discipline, this referring to abstaining from taking life, from taking what is not given, from sexual misconduct, from false speech, and from intoxicating drink, and the like; third, the matter of merit through the nature of cultivation, this referring to a mind accompanied by loving-kindness, free of hostility, free of opposition, free of vexation, free of harm, stated at full length as before,

compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity accompanying the mind, stated at full length in the corresponding manner. One asks: the form and formless realms possess many wholesome roots — why does it speak only of these four immeasurables as the matter of merit through cultivation? The answer: the world gives rise to the very notion of merit only with respect to a matter that benefits another; among the wholesome roots of the form and formless realms, none possess the wish to benefit another in the way the four immeasurables do, and it is for this reason that these alone are singled out as the matter of merit through cultivation. Further, the world gives rise to the very notion of merit with respect to the fruit of merit; among these wholesome roots, none are capable of drawing forth so vastly beneficial a fruit as the immeasurables, and it is for this reason that these alone are singled out. Further, these four immeasurables, and the fruit they obtain, are firm and durable, difficult to destroy, and it is for this reason that they alone are named merit, as a verse states:

'Merit is not burned by fire, nor can wind shatter it; merit is not dissolved by water, and is capable of purifying and sustaining the world. Merit is capable of standing against a king or a bandit, courageously resisting them, and is invaded by neither man nor spirit; merit, in the end, suffers no loss, exactly like a firm and hidden treasury, and, by its own determinate power, is able to draw forth pleasure both in this world and in the next.' One asks: demerit, too, is not burned by fire, and the rest — why, then, does this passage speak only of merit?

The answer: although demerit, too, is not itself burned by fire, and the rest, the fruit of demerit is indeed destroyed by fire, and the rest; the merit of these four immeasurables, and the fruit thereby obtained, are, across the past, future, and present, destroyed by neither fire nor any such thing.

As a scripture states, the Buddha told the monks: among the disciples of Sunetra, whichever, with respect to every rule of training, were perfectly complete in every respect and in every kind, upon the destruction of the body and the ending of life, were reborn within the Brahmā world; whichever, with respect to every rule of training, were not perfectly complete in every respect and in every kind, upon the destruction of the body and the ending of life, were reborn either in the Heaven of Free Enjoyment of Others' Emanations, or in the Heaven of Delight in Transformation, or in the Tuṣita Heaven, or in the Yāma Heaven, or in the Heaven of the Thirty-Three, or in the Heaven of the Four Great Kings, or were born into a great kṣatriya family, or a great brahmin family, or a great householder's family, or any one of the great, wealthy, and eminent families, being born into such honored and superior families as these, abounding in wealth and treasure, their storehouses filled to overflowing, possessing great lineage and many kinsfolk, servants and attendants, elephants, horses, carriages and palanquins,

and constantly experiencing delight. One asks: if so, Sunetra ought then to surpass the World-Honored One himself, for what reason is this so? Because Sunetra's own disciples, perfectly complete with respect to the rules of training, attain rebirth in the Brahmā world, while those not perfectly complete are reborn in the six heavens of desire, or attain wealth and eminent pleasure among human beings — while the World-Honored One's own disciples, perfectly complete with respect to the rules of training, attain rebirth in heaven or liberation, while those not perfectly complete fall into the evil destinies and undergo every kind of extreme suffering — how could this possibly accord with reason? The answer: one ought not to measure the Buddha against Sunetra, for what reason is this so? Because even the very lowest among the Buddha's own disciples, one who has attained the fruit of stream-entry, still surpasses Sunetra, let alone any of the more venerable disciples. And, further, this very World-Honored One, in his own former bodhisattva stage, was a teacher of brahmacārins named Sunetra, and one ought not to measure the World-Honored One against that former self. One asks: could it be that he surpassed the Buddha at the bodhisattva stage, yet has since become inferior, having become a buddha? The answer: it is not that he surpassed the Buddha, but merely that a distinct intent is involved here — that is, this Sunetra delighted in cultivating the brahma-abidings, and his disciples, too, sought rebirth in the Brahmā world, and it was for this reason that he set forth for them the method of cultivating the brahma-abidings. Among his disciples, whoever delighted in cultivating the brahma-abidings, if he gave rise to the brahma-abidings in full completion, was, upon the destruction of the body and the ending of life, reborn within the Brahmā world; whoever, among his disciples, delighted in cultivating the brahma-abidings, yet gave rise to the brahma-abidings without full completion, was, upon the destruction of the body and the ending of life, reborn in one of the six heavens of desire, or among human beings, within an honored and superior family, experiencing great delight, according to the measure of his own merit. And, further, in that superior age, people were, all of them, purely wholesome, and even those who did not cultivate the preliminary practice for the immeasurables still attained rebirth in heaven or among human beings and experienced pleasure — how much more so, then, one who did cultivate the preliminary practice for the immeasurables, that he should fail to attain rebirth in heaven or among human beings and experience pleasure. The Buddha, for the sake of his disciples' own attainment of nirvāṇa, established the rules of training belonging to the prātimokṣa's own moral discipline — and whichever of his disciples did not transgress this discipline, did not break these rules of training, did not overstep the established bounds, or cross beyond their proper limits, attained rebirth in heaven and the verification of liberation; whichever of his disciples transgressed this discipline, broke these rules of training, overstepped the established bounds, and crossed beyond their proper limits, upon the ending of life, fell into the evil destinies. Sunetra's own disciples, with respect to the rules of training belonging to the four brahma-abidings, were either complete or incomplete in their cultivation; the World-Honored One's own disciples, with respect to the rules of training belonging to the prātimokṣa's own moral discipline, either upheld or transgressed them, and it is for this reason that he and the Buddha ought not to be measured against one another. That same scripture, further, states: at that time, Sunetra reflected as follows — I ought not to be reborn in the very same place as my own disciples; I should cultivate a superior loving-kindness and be reborn among the gods of pure radiant light instead. Having reflected in this way, he swiftly cultivated and gave rise to the second dhyāna's own superior loving-kindness, and, at the ending of his life, was reborn among the gods of pure radiant light. One asks: the bodhisattva Sunetra, already drawing near to the very stage of buddhahood, ought certainly to have already become free of both kinds of stinginess, of wealth and of dharma — for what reason, then, did he cultivate the second dhyāna's own superior loving-kindness for his own sake, to be reborn in that higher heaven, while teaching his disciples only the method of the first dhyāna's own four brahma-abidings, causing them to be reborn in the Brahmā world alone? The answer: he observed what was fitting to his disciples' own faculties, and it was for this reason that he taught them only the first dhyāna. Further, these disciples of his were brahmins, who, throughout the long night of saṃsāra, had set their minds upon and sought after the Brahmā world, and it was for this reason that he taught them only the cause for rebirth in the Brahmā world. Further, at a time when no buddha is present in the world, no one is capable of giving rise to any of the immeasurables belonging to the latter three dhyānas at all, save only a bodhisattva drawing near to the very stage of buddhahood. One asks: the immeasurable of a higher ground is brighter, purer, and more sublime and excellent than that of a lower ground — why, then, did he speak of the second dhyāna's own immeasurable as "superior loving-kindness"? The answer: it is superior when set against the first dhyāna that it is so named. Further, it surpasses the immeasurable his own disciples cultivated, and it is for this reason that it is named superior loving-kindness. Further, what Sunetra cultivated was never before attained, surpassing what had formerly been attained, and it is for this reason that it is named superior loving-kindness. Further, at a time when no buddha is present in the world, no one is capable of giving rise to any of the immeasurables belonging to the latter three dhyānas — only Sunetra was capable of giving rise to the second dhyāna's own immeasurable, and it is for this reason that it is named superior. It is for this reason that the Venerable Ghoṣa speaks as follows:

no ordinary being is capable of giving rise to the immeasurables belonging to any of the upper three grounds; it is only by the Buddha's own power that the World-Honored One's disciples, too, are able to give rise to them. One asks: for what reason are the immeasurables named brahma-abidings? The answer: the Brahmā world exists at the very first stage where this can be fully possessed — that is, although the stage of not-yet-arrived comes first of all, it does not fully possess them, since it lacks joy; the second dhyāna, although it does fully possess them, is not the very first stage, and the higher grounds lack them entirely — it is only the first dhyāna, the very dwelling-place of the Brahmā gods, that fully possesses them at the very first stage, and it is for this reason that they are named brahma-abidings. Further, it is because they counteract what is not brahma-like that they are named brahma-abidings — what is not brahma-like refers precisely to the affliction of the desire realm, and, within the first dhyāna, loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity serve as its near antidote, and it is for this reason that they are named brahma-abidings. Further, it is because they counteract what is not the holy life that they are named brahma-abidings — what is not the holy life refers to the matter of sexual desire, and, within the first dhyāna, loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity serve as its near antidote, and it is for this reason that they are named brahma-abidings. Further, it is because whoever cultivates the holy life may obtain this within his own body that they are named brahma-abidings. Further, brahma refers to the World-Honored One, since loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity are what the Buddha has established, and it is for this reason that they are named brahma-abidings. Further, brahma refers to the Brahmā-voice, since loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity are what the Brahmā-voice proclaims, and it is for this reason that they are named brahma-abidings. Further, it is by cultivating these four that one attains rebirth in the Brahmā heaven, becoming the Great Brahmā King, and it is for this reason that they are named brahma-abidings. Further, since, among the merits of the Brahmā heaven, these four immeasurables are the most supreme, the most honored, they are named brahma-abidings. One asks: what distinction is there between a brahma-abiding and an immeasurable? There are those who say: there is no distinction whatsoever, the four brahma-abidings simply being the four immeasurables. Others, further, say:

there is indeed a distinction — that is, the name alone differs, this one being named brahma-abiding, that one being named immeasurable. Further, counteracting what is not brahma-like is named brahma-abiding; counteracting idle proliferation is named immeasurable. Further, counteracting what is not the holy life is named brahma-abiding; counteracting the conduct of idle proliferation is named immeasurable. Further, whoever cultivates the holy life may obtain this within his own body, and it is named brahma-abiding; whoever is free of idle proliferation may obtain this within himself, and it is named immeasurable. Further, counteracting a lack of faith is named brahma-abiding; counteracting negligence is named immeasurable. Further, whatever exists within the Brahmā world is named brahma-abiding; whatever exists within a higher ground is named immeasurable. Further, whatever exists within the stage of not-yet-arrived and within the Brahmā world is named brahma-abiding; whatever exists within a higher ground is named immeasurable. Further, whatever exists within the stage of not-yet-arrived and within the Brahmā world is named brahma-abiding, and is also named immeasurable; whatever exists within a higher ground is named only immeasurable.

Further, whatever has formerly been attained is named brahma-abiding; whatever has never before been attained is named immeasurable. Further, whatever is attained by those within the inner path is named brahma-abiding, and is also named immeasurable; whatever is attained by outsiders is named only brahma-abiding. Further, whatever is shared in common is named brahma-abiding; whatever is unshared is named immeasurable. It is for this reason that the Venerable Ghoṣa speaks as follows: a brahma-abiding is shared, since ordinary beings and the nobles alike compete for this dharma; an immeasurable is unshared, since the nobles alone, and not ordinary beings, compete for this dharma. Such, then, is the distinction between a brahma-abiding and an immeasurable.

The Buddha states that there exist four kinds of persons capable of generating brahma-merit. What are these four? There exists a certain kind of person who, in a place where no stūpa has ever before been erected, erects a stūpa for the Buddha's own relics — this is named the first kind of person capable of generating brahma-merit.

There exists, further, a certain kind of person who, in a place where no monastery has ever before been established, establishes a monastery for the Buddha's own disciples — this is named the second kind of person capable of generating brahma-merit. There exists, further, a certain kind of person who, the Buddha's own assembly of disciples having already been divided, causes it once more to become harmonious — this is named the third kind of person capable of generating brahma-merit. There exists, further, a certain kind of person who cultivates the four brahma-abidings — this is named the fourth kind of person capable of generating brahma-merit. The Dārṣṭāntikas say: a scripture such as this is not, in every respect, spoken by the Buddha,

and, among these, the first three do not, in every case, generate brahma-merit either, since the fruit thereby obtained is not alike — that is, were there a person who, at the very place of the Buddha's own birth, at the place of his attaining enlightenment, at the place of his turning the wheel of dharma, or at the place of his final nirvāṇa, erected a great memorial shrine adorned with every kind of jewel, while there were a further person who, at these very same places, merely heaped up sand and stone to make a small memorial shrine — how could the merit these two generate possibly be alike? And were there a person who, for the Buddha's own disciples, built a monastery, lofty, spacious, and finely adorned, such as the monasteries of Jetavana, of the Bamboo Grove, of the Great Forest, or of Andhavana, while there were a further person who, for the Buddha's own disciples, built only a small monastery as circumstances allowed — how could the merit these two generate possibly be alike? And were there a person who caused the assembly Devadatta had divided to become harmonious once more, while there were a further person who merely skillfully settled some minor dispute among the monks of Kauśāmbī — how could the merit these two generate possibly be alike? It is thereby known that this scripture is not, in every respect, spoken by the Buddha, nor do all four, in every case, generate brahma-merit — the scripture on the four brahma-abidings alone being genuinely spoken by the Buddha, these four brahma-abidings alone being genuine brahma-merit. The Abhidharma treatise-masters say:

a scripture such as this is, in every respect, spoken by the Buddha, and, among these, all four generate brahma-merit. One asks: could the fruit thereby obtained possibly be alike? The answer: since what is intended is equal, all four generate brahma-merit — that is, erecting, in a place where no stūpa has ever before been erected, a stūpa for the World-Honored One, the true Brahmā himself, whether great or small, generates brahma-merit alike; establishing, in a place where no monastery has ever before been established, a monastery for the Buddha's own disciples who cultivate the holy life, whether great or small, generates brahma-merit alike; when the Buddha's own assembly of disciples, whether great or small, has become divided and is thereby unable to cultivate the pure holy life together, causing it to become harmonious once more so that they may again cultivate the pure holy life together — whoever reconciles them generates brahma-merit alike; since what is intended is equal, then, among the first three, though the matters involved differ, the merit generated is not distinct. Further, since the benefit conferred is equal, all four generate brahma-merit,

exactly as cultivating the immeasurables is done for the sake of benefiting immeasurable sentient beings, so too does erecting, in a place where no stūpa has ever before been erected, a stūpa for the Buddha's own relics, likewise benefit immeasurable sentient beings — that is, in that very place, immeasurable hundreds of thousands of sentient beings make offerings with fragrant flowers, jeweled banners and canopies, and music, thereby giving rise to wholesome bodily, verbal, and mental karma, some planting the seed of an honored lineage, abounding in wealth and treasure, with a dignified form and appearance beloved and respected by all, endowed with great, majestic virtue and superior, wholesome seeds; some planting the seed of a wheel-turning monarch, or of Śakra, lord of the gods, or even of Māra, the lord of demons; some planting the seed of a disciple's, a solitary-realizer's, or a buddha's own enlightenment — thus benefiting immeasurable sentient beings. Exactly as cultivating the immeasurables is done for the sake of benefiting immeasurable sentient beings, so too does establishing, in a place where no monastery has ever before been established, a monastery for the Buddha's own disciples, likewise benefit immeasurable sentient beings — that is, in that very place, immeasurable hundreds of thousands of sentient beings

offer food and drink, bedding, medicine, and every kind of provision, whether for a single day, seven days, half a month, a month, or five years, or continuously without cease, thereby giving rise to wholesome bodily, verbal, and mental karma — the Buddha's own assembly of disciples, by this very cause and condition, receiving, reciting, reflecting upon, and expounding the meaning of the Tripiṭaka's own text, giving rise to the contemplation of impurity, or mindfulness of breathing, the individual and comprehensive foundations of mindfulness, or the stages of heat, summit, forbearance, and supreme mundane dharma, entering the true, decisive stage, attaining the fruit, and exhausting the contaminants — and it is by this very cause and condition that the donors and the rest, too, come to plant the seed of an honored lineage, and so on, stated at full length, up through, plant the seed of a disciple's, a solitary-realizer's, or a buddha's own enlightenment — thus benefiting immeasurable sentient beings.

Exactly as cultivating the immeasurables is done for the sake of benefiting immeasurable sentient beings, so too does reconciling the Buddha's own assembly of disciples likewise benefit immeasurable sentient beings — that is, once the assembly has become divided, those who ought to enter the path of seeing, attain the fruit, and exhaust the contaminants, receiving, reciting, reflecting upon, and expounding the meaning of the Tripiṭaka's own text,

dwelling in solitary places and cultivating the contemplation of impurity or mindfulness of breathing and the rest, are altogether unable to accomplish any of these wholesome qualities whatsoever, and those who ought to plant the seed of enlightenment for any of the three vehicles are unable to plant it either, and it is by this that, throughout this entire great trichiliocosm, the wheel of the dharma fails to turn, and even the gods of the pure abodes, up through, give rise to a differing state of mind. Once the Buddha's own assembly of disciples has become harmonious once more, those who ought to enter the path of seeing, attain the fruit, and exhaust the contaminants, up through, those who ought to plant the seed of any of the three vehicles' own enlightenment, are all able to accomplish this, and it is by this that this entire great trichiliocosm's own wheel of the dharma turns once more, and even the gods of the pure abodes, up through, no longer give rise to any differing state of mind — thus benefiting immeasurable sentient beings. It is because the benefit conferred is equal that all four generate brahma-merit. The Venerable Vasumitra speaks as follows: erecting, in a place where no stūpa has ever before been erected, a stūpa for the Buddha's own relics, generates brahma-merit owing to four causes and conditions —

first, because one thereby relinquishes much wealth through a vast, expansive intention and aspiration; second, because one thereby causes immeasurable sentient beings to plant wholesome roots; third, because whatever is undertaken is thereby brought to wholesome completion; fourth, because one thereby establishes a place enshrining the Thus-Come One's own body and relics. Establishing, in a place where no monastery has ever before been established, a monastery for the Buddha's own disciples, generates brahma-merit owing to four causes and conditions — first, because one thereby relinquishes much wealth through a vast, expansive intention and aspiration; second, because one thereby causes immeasurable sentient beings to plant wholesome roots; third, because whatever is undertaken is thereby brought to wholesome completion; fourth, because one thereby causes the Buddha's own disciples, who otherwise have nowhere to rely upon, to obtain a place of reliance in which to cultivate wholesome karma. Causing the assembly, once divided, to become harmonious once more, generates brahma-merit owing to four causes and conditions — first, because one thereby relinquishes the four kinds of verbal misconduct; second, because one thereby gathers in the four kinds of excellent verbal conduct; third, because one thereby destroys what is contrary to the dharma; fourth, because one thereby establishes the true dharma. Whoever cultivates the four immeasurables generates brahma-merit owing to four causes and conditions — first, because one thereby departs from both opposition and compliance; second, because one thereby cuts off every hindrance; third, because one thereby attains the fruit of Brahmā; fourth, because one thereby belongs to Brahmā. It is owing to these four kinds that all four generate brahma-merit.

One asks: what is the measure of this brahma-merit? There are those who say: whatever karma is capable of drawing forth the fruit of a wheel-turning monarch — this much is named a single unit of brahma-merit. Other masters say: whatever karma is capable of drawing forth the fruit of Śakra, lord of the gods — this much is named a single unit of brahma-merit. There are those who say: whatever karma is capable of drawing forth the supreme fruit of the heavenly king of Free Enjoyment of Others' Emanations — this much is named a single unit of brahma-merit. Others, further, say: whatever karma is capable of drawing forth the fruit of the Brahmā King — this much is named a single unit of brahma-merit. There are those who further say: at the time the world reaches completion, whatever karma every sentient being possesses that is capable of drawing forth the superior fruit of the world's own completion — this much is named a single unit of brahma-merit. Others, further, say: setting aside the wholesome karma of a bodhisattva drawing near to the very stage of buddhahood, whatever karma every remaining sentient being possesses that is capable of drawing forth the superior fruit of wealth — this much is named a single unit of brahma-merit. Others, further, say: whatever brahma-merit the Great Brahmā King obtained when he first entreated the Buddha to turn the wheel of the true dharma — this much is named a single unit of brahma-merit. One asks: at what time did the Brahmā King obtain this brahma-merit? There are those who say: at the very moment he first resolved to go and entreat the Buddha,

it was at that very moment that he obtained this brahma-merit. Yet this master ought not to speak in this way, for, if one speaks in this way, he would obtain merit before he had even performed the karma at all. Others, further, say: it was at the very moment he genuinely entreated the Buddha that he obtained this brahma-merit. Yet this, too, ought not to be said in this way, for, at the very moment he genuinely entreated the Buddha, his own mind was a karmically neutral, unobscured mind of the desire realm — and a karmically neutral, unobscured mind possesses no ripening-fruit whatsoever, so how could this possibly be named brahma-merit? One should say as follows: the Great Brahmā King, having already entreated the Buddha, returned to his own Brahmā palace, and, afterward, the World-Honored One turned the wheel of the true dharma, whereupon the assembly of five monks and eighty thousand gods all attained the seeing of the truths, and, the various spirits proclaiming this news from one to another until the sound reached the Brahmā palace, the Brahmā King, hearing this, leapt for joy, reflecting as follows: it is by my own entreating the Buddha to turn the wheel of the true dharma that boundless kinds of sentient beings have been benefited — what I myself ought to have done, I have now, with this very thought, already accomplished — and it was at this very moment that the Brahmā King obtained his brahma-merit. The compilers say: among these various statements, every proposed measure of a single unit of brahma-merit is merely a way of praising this brahma-merit in words, and is not, in fact, an exact reckoning; in reality, this brahma-merit is immeasurable and boundless, since it is drawn forth by a vast, expansive intention and aspiration.