Eight Liberations, One Tamer

What is the sphere of infinite space? The Prakaraṇapāda states: the sphere of infinite space is, altogether, of two kinds: attainment, and rebirth. If one is reborn there, the neutral-and-unobscured feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness — such, in general, is named the sphere of infinite space, and so on, up through, the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, stated in just the same way. Here, as for attainment: this refers to a formless concentration. As for rebirth: this speaks of birth within the formless realm — if one is reborn there, the neutral-and-unobscured feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness — this speaks of the ripening of those four aggregates. As a scripture states, transcending every notion of form, extinguishing every notion of resistance, and, no longer giving mental application to any manifold notion whatsoever, entering boundless space, one dwells having fully attained the sphere of infinite space. Here, as for transcending every notion of form: this refers to transcending the notion associated with eye-consciousness. One asks: at the very time one becomes free of the first dhyāna's own defilement, one has already transcended this notion — why, then, does it speak now of transcending every notion of form? The answer: this speaks with reference to exceeding its own basis. Exceeding is of two kinds: first, exceeding its own-nature; second, exceeding its own basis. At the time one becomes free of the first dhyāna's own defilement, exceeding its own-nature is named transcending; at the time one becomes free of the fourth dhyāna's own defilement, exceeding its own basis is named transcending it. Further, this speaks with reference to exceeding its own manifest activity — exceeding is of two kinds: first, the exceeding of cutting-off; second, the exceeding of non-manifest-activity. At the time one becomes free of the first dhyāna's own defilement, cutting off every notion of form is named transcending; at the time one becomes free of the fourth dhyāna's own defilement, its no longer being manifestly active is named transcending it.

Further, this speaks with reference to exceeding its own dwelling-place — exceeding is of two kinds: first, exceeding craving for desire; second, exceeding the dwelling-place. At the time one becomes free of the first dhyāna's own defilement,

exceeding that craving for desire is named transcending; at the time one becomes free of the fourth dhyāna's own defilement, exceeding that dwelling-place is named transcending it. Further, if one is reborn within the fourth dhyāna, eye-consciousness still draws forth a manifest craving for form, and it is for this reason that, at the time one becomes free of the fourth dhyāna's own defilement, it, too, is spoken of as transcending every notion of form, since it no longer draws forth any craving that takes form as its object. As for extinguishing every notion of resistance: this refers to extinguishing the notion associated with ear-, nose-, tongue-, and body-consciousness. One asks: at the very time one becomes free of the desire realm's own defilement, one has already extinguished the notions associated with nose- and tongue-consciousness; at the time one becomes free of the first dhyāna's own defilement, one has already become free of the notions associated with ear- and body-consciousness — why, then, does it speak now of extinguishing every notion of resistance? The answer: every one of the foregoing answers, each as is fitting, applies equally to this question as well. There are further masters who say: the notion associated with aversion is named the notion of resistance. One asks: at the very time one becomes free of the desire realm's own defilement, one has already extinguished every notion associated with aversion — why, then, does it speak now of extinguishing the notion of resistance? The answer: this speaks with reference to exceeding its own basis — that is, whatever basis is capable of giving rise to the notion of aversion, at the very time one now becomes free of the fourth dhyāna's own defilement, one entirely exceeds and transcends it, and it is for this reason that this is named extinguishing. One asks: for what reason does this not instead speak of extinguishing every notion of form and transcending the notion of resistance? The answer: this, too, could equally be spoken either way — the desire to present a differing wording is what gives rise to delight. Further, there are two gateways of desire and manifestation, and so on, stated at full length. As for no longer giving mental application to any manifold notion whatsoever: this refers to no longer causing the fourth dhyāna's own mind-consciousness-associated, manifold, disordered notions to be manifestly active. One asks: what is the meaning of a manifold notion?

The answer: this notion takes as its object the distinct characteristics of manifold locations — that is, when defiled, it takes the distinct characteristics of ten sense-fields as its object; when undefiled, it takes the distinct characteristics of twelve sense-fields as its object, and it is for this reason that this notion is named a manifold notion. One asks: for what reason does it speak of no longer giving mental application to a manifold notion? The answer: because a manifold notion, at the very time one becomes free of the fourth dhyāna's own defilement, serves as an especially great obstacle, binding one exactly as a violent jailer, the World-Honored One therefore states:

at the time one becomes free of the fourth dhyāna's own defilement, one ought not give mental application so as to give rise to a manifold notion — thus being able swiftly to become free of this defilement and enter boundless space. As for the sphere of infinite space: one asks, for what reason is this named the sphere of infinite space? Is it named so by its own-nature, or by its object? Suppose either is granted, what fault follows? Both alternatives carry a fault. For what reason is this so? If by its own-nature, the sphere of infinite space takes the four aggregates as its own-nature, and ought not to be named "space" at all; if by its object, the sphere of infinite space takes the four noble truths, and space and non-analytical cessation, as its object, so how could it be named solely the sphere of infinite space? The answer: one should say as follows — this is named neither by its own-nature nor by its object, but solely by its preliminary practice is it named the sphere of infinite space, exactly as the Prajñaptiśāstra states: by what preliminary practice does one cultivate the concentration of the sphere of infinite space? By what preliminary practice does one enter the concentration of the sphere of infinite space? A beginner in this practice ought first to reflect upon the characteristic of space found above a wall, above a tree, above a cliff, or above a house, and the like, and, having grasped this characteristic, through imagined, provisional conviction, observe and illuminate the characteristic of boundless space — it is by first reflecting upon the characteristic of boundless space in this way, and thereby cultivating this preliminary practice, gradually drawing forth the first formless concentration, that this is named the sphere of infinite space. Further, it is simply the very nature of things that the ground first removed from form is named the sphere of infinite space. Further, it is simply the very nature of things that the ground of the first liberation from form is named the sphere of infinite space — that is, a practitioner of yoga, first ascending toward a higher ground of form and becoming free of a lower ground of form's own defilement — at the time he becomes free of the fourth dhyāna's own defilement, he ascends toward the four aggregates of the sphere of infinite space and thereby becomes free of the fourth dhyāna's own defilement, first taking a higher ground as his object in the form of a notion of space, and only afterward drawing forth the path that becomes free of the lower ground's own defilement, exactly as a man climbing a tree first grasps a higher branch before releasing a lower one —

and, upon reaching the very tip of the tree, there being no higher branch left to grasp, he gives rise solely to the notion of space. Further, it is with reference to its own outflow that this concentration is named the sphere of infinite space — that is, a practitioner of yoga, emerging from this concentration, must certainly give rise to a resembling notion of space manifest before him. It has been heard that a monk, having emerged from this concentration,

then raised both his hands and groped about in empty space. Someone, seeing this, asked him: what are you searching for? The monk answered: I am searching for my own body.

The other said: your own body is right there upon the bed — why do you search for your own body elsewhere? It is for this reason that, emerging from this attainment, a notion of empty space arises — this very notion being the outflow of the preceding concentration. As for one dwells having fully attained: this refers to having obtained, acquired, and attained the possession of the sphere of infinite space's own wholesome four aggregates, this obtaining, acquiring, and attaining of possession being spoken of using the words "dwelling having fully attained," and it is for this reason that this is named the sphere of infinite space.

What is the sphere of infinite consciousness? As a scripture states, transcending every sphere of infinite space entirely, entering boundless consciousness, the sphere of infinite consciousness,

one dwells having fully attained it — this is named the sphere of infinite consciousness. One asks: for what reason is this named the sphere of infinite consciousness? Is it named so by its own-nature, or by its object? Suppose either is granted, what fault follows? Both alternatives carry a fault. For what reason is this so? If by its own-nature, the sphere of infinite consciousness takes the four aggregates as its own-nature, and ought not to be named solely the sphere of infinite consciousness; if by its object, the sphere of infinite consciousness, too, takes the four noble truths, and space and non-analytical cessation, as its object, and it, too, ought not to be named solely the sphere of infinite consciousness. The answer: one should say as follows — this is named neither by its own-nature nor by its object,

but solely by its preliminary practice is it named the sphere of infinite consciousness, exactly as the Prajñaptiśāstra states: by what preliminary practice does one cultivate the concentration of the sphere of infinite consciousness? By what preliminary practice does one enter the concentration of the sphere of infinite consciousness? A beginner in this practice ought first to reflect upon the characteristic of the six kinds of pure consciousness — of the eye, and the rest — and, having grasped this characteristic, through imagined, provisional conviction, observe and illuminate the characteristic of boundless consciousness — it is by first reflecting upon the characteristic of boundless consciousness in this way, and thereby cultivating this preliminary practice, gradually drawing forth the second formless concentration, that this is named the sphere of infinite consciousness. Further, it is with reference to its own outflow that this concentration is named the sphere of infinite consciousness — that is, a practitioner of yoga, emerging from this concentration, must certainly give rise to a resembling characteristic of consciousness manifest before him, abiding with delight in the characteristic of consciousness. As for one dwells having fully attained: this refers to having obtained, acquired, and attained the possession of the sphere of infinite consciousness's own wholesome four aggregates, this obtaining, acquiring, and attaining of possession being spoken of using the words "dwelling having fully attained," and it is for this reason that this is named the sphere of infinite consciousness.

What is the sphere of nothingness? As a scripture states, transcending every sphere of infinite consciousness entirely, entering nothingness, one dwells having fully attained the sphere of nothingness — this is named the sphere of nothingness. One asks: for what reason is this named the sphere of nothingness? The answer: it is because, here, there exists neither a self nor what belongs to a self. One asks: within every ground there exists neither self nor what belongs to a self — why, then, is this ground alone named the sphere of nothingness? The answer: no remaining ground is capable of causing the grasping of self and the grasping of what belongs to self to become as weakened, as thinned, and as diminished in force as within this ground, and it is for this reason that this ground alone is named the sphere of nothingness. Further, this ground possesses no genuinely real, permanent, constant, unchanging dharma, subduing the view of permanence more thoroughly than every remaining ground, and it is for this reason that this ground alone is named the sphere of nothingness. Further, this ground possesses no destination, no refuge, no dwelling or house capable of serving as a shelter, vanquishing arrogance, indolence, and negligence more thoroughly than every remaining ground, and it is for this reason that this ground alone is named the sphere of nothingness. Further, within this ground there exists no boundless aspect, this being the very first relinquishing of that aspect, and it is for this reason that this ground alone is named the sphere of nothingness. The Venerable Vasumitra speaks as follows: within this concentration there turns no aspect of what is grasped or of what grasps, exactly as it is said, there is neither a self that possesses a location, a time, or an object belonging to it, nor is there any location, time, or object that belongs to a self, and it is for this reason that this ground alone is named the sphere of nothingness. As for one dwells having fully attained: this refers to having obtained, acquired, and attained the possession of the sphere of nothingness's own wholesome four aggregates, this obtaining, acquiring, and attaining of possession being spoken of using the words "dwelling having fully attained," and it is for this reason that this is named the sphere of nothingness. One asks: for what reason does the Buddha speak of the sphere of nothingness alone as named "relinquishment"?

The answer: relinquishment refers to the noble path, since it is capable of ultimately relinquishing — among the grounds that possess the noble path, this one comes last, and it is for this reason that this ground alone is established with the name of relinquishment. The Venerable Vasumitra speaks as follows: this ground draws near to the relinquishing of imagined, provisional conviction's own boundless aspect, being coarser in its own observation, and it is for this reason that it alone is established with the name of relinquishment.

The Great Virtuous One says: this ground relinquishes the very operative function of mental application, the mind and mental factors possessed of a boundless aspect, abiding without any further operative function whatsoever, and it is for this reason that it alone is named relinquishment.

What is the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception? As a scripture states, transcending every sphere of nothingness entirely, entering the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, one dwells having fully attained it — this is named the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. One asks: for what reason is this named the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception? The answer: this ground possesses no clear, manifest characteristic of perception, and likewise possesses no characteristic of no perception whatsoever, and it is for this reason that it is named the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. As for possessing no clear, manifest characteristic of perception: this is unlike the seven grounds that possess the attainment of perception. As for likewise possessing no characteristic of no perception whatsoever: this is unlike the attainment of no perception, or the attainment of cessation. It is because this ground's own perception is dim, dull, weak, and feeble, neither clear nor decisive, that it is named the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. As for one dwells having fully attained: this refers to having obtained, acquired, and attained the possession of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's own wholesome four aggregates, this obtaining, acquiring, and attaining of possession being spoken of using the words "dwelling having fully attained," and it is for this reason that this is named the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.

One asks: for what reason do the desire realm and the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception lack any undefiled path whatsoever? The answer: it is not owing to being a genuine vessel — that is, these two grounds are not the very basis relied upon by the undefiled path, and it is on account of not being this vessel that the undefiled path does not exist within these two grounds. Further, it is owing to cutting off the very root of existence — that is, these two grounds are the very root and basis of existence, and the undefiled path is precisely what cuts off this root and basis of existence, and it is for this reason that the undefiled path does not exist within these two grounds. Further, it is owing to cutting off both extremes —

that is, these two grounds are the very lower and upper extreme, and the undefiled path is capable of cutting off both extremes, abiding in the middle way, and it is for this reason that it does not exist within these two grounds. Further, the desire realm possesses no concentration, being neither a ground of cultivation nor a ground for becoming free of defilement, while the peak of existence is dim, dull, undecided, and resembles doubt — the undefiled path must certainly depend upon the concentrated realm, cultivating a ground of freedom from defilement that is clear, sharp, and decisive, and it is for this reason that it does not exist within these two grounds. Further, within the desire realm, restlessness is predominant, while within the ground of the peak of existence, stillness is predominant, and neither is the very basis relied upon by the undefiled path.

One asks: for what reason does the World-Honored One speak of every formless attainment using the word "transcending," while the dhyānas are not so spoken of? The answer: the Buddha, with respect to the dhyānas, too, speaks of transcending —

as the World-Honored One tells Udāyin: monks, secluded from desire and unwholesome dharmas, possessed of applied and sustained thought, born of seclusion, possessed of joy and pleasure, one enters and dwells having fully attained the first dhyāna — I say that this, too, is a fire, and is also something to be cut off, and is also something to be transcended, and so on, up through, the fourth dhyāna, too, is just the same. One asks: only a single scripture speaks of the dhyānas as something to be transcended, while every remaining scripture speaks of the formless as something to be transcended — what is the intent of this? The answer: within the dhyānas there exist manifold, distinct, and dissimilar characteristics, and it is for this reason that they are not spoken of as transcended; the formless is not so, and it is for this reason that it alone is spoken of as transcended. Further, within the dhyānas there exist distinct characteristics of the faculties, distinct characteristics of feeling, and distinctly characterized mind and mental factors, and it is for this reason that they are not spoken of as transcended; the formless is not so, and it is for this reason that it alone is spoken of as transcended. Further, within the dhyānas there exist many kinds of merit, many kinds of superior advantage, and it is for this reason that they are not spoken of as transcended; the formless is not so, and it is for this reason that it alone is spoken of as transcended. Further, the dhyānas are coarse, evident, clear, and directly perceived, and it is for this reason that they are not spoken of as transcended; the formless is subtle, hidden, unclear, and not directly perceived, and it is for this reason that it alone is spoken of as transcended. Further, the dhyānas pervasively take their own ground, and the grounds above and below it, as their object, and it is for this reason that they are not spoken of as transcended; the formless is capable of taking only its own ground, and the grounds above it, as its object, and it is for this reason that it alone is spoken of as transcended. Further, the dhyānas, although one neither dies within nor is reborn into the grounds above and below, nonetheless admit of coming and going between them — that is, by supernormal power, one may travel from a lower ground to a higher, or come from a higher ground to a lower — and it is for this reason that they are not spoken of as transcended; the formless grounds possess no such meaning as this, and it is for this reason that they alone are spoken of as transcended.

Further, the dhyānas admit of an intermingling with the grounds above and below them — that is, within a lower ground, a higher ground's own dharma may manifest before one, and, within a higher ground, a lower ground's own dharma may manifest before one — and, given this intermingling, they are not spoken of as transcended; the formless grounds possess no such meaning as this, and it is for this reason that they alone are spoken of as transcended. Further, one born within a higher dhyāna may still give rise to a lower ground's own dharma, such as the various consciousness-bodies, transformation-mind, and the like, and it is for this reason that they are not spoken of as transcended; one born within a higher formless ground certainly does not give rise to any lower ground's own contaminated dharma whatsoever, and it is for this reason that they alone are spoken of as transcended. Further, one born within a higher dhyāna possesses a lower ground's own dharma that may still obtain constant, continuous manifestation, such as transformation-mind and the like, and it is for this reason that they are not spoken of as transcended; one born within a higher formless ground certainly possesses no lower ground's own contaminated dharma that could possibly obtain such continuous manifestation, and it is for this reason that they alone are spoken of as transcended. It is owing to causes and conditions such as these, of every kind, that the Buddha speaks of the formless using the word "transcending," while the dhyānas are not so spoken of.

As a scripture states, the sphere of infinite space has a lifespan of twenty thousand aeons; the sphere of infinite consciousness has a lifespan of forty thousand aeons; the sphere of nothingness has a lifespan of sixty thousand aeons; the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception has a lifespan of eighty thousand aeons. One asks: for what reason does the formless realm's own measure of lifespan sometimes double, sometimes increase by half, and sometimes increase only by a small portion? The answer: exactly as a ripening-cause possesses just so much force, so too does it, in turn, receive just so much of a ripening-fruit. Further, the spheres of infinite space and of infinite consciousness possess both the boundless aspect and every remaining aspect — that is, the sphere of infinite space's own boundless aspect draws forth a lifespan of twenty thousand aeons, and its every remaining aspect likewise draws forth a lifespan of twenty thousand aeons; the sphere of infinite consciousness's own boundless aspect draws forth a lifespan of forty thousand aeons, and its every remaining aspect likewise draws forth a lifespan of forty thousand aeons — above this, there exists no further boundless aspect, only every remaining aspect, and it is for this reason that their own lifespan does not double downward from what precedes it. Yet the sphere of nothingness possesses, distinctly, a superior, excellent contemplative practice that subdues the notions of self and of what belongs to a self, differing from every remaining ground, and it is by this wholesome quality that it draws forth a lifespan of twenty thousand aeons, and it is for this reason that the lifespan drawn forth by every remaining aspect, too, doubles again and again. Further, the spheres of infinite space and of infinite consciousness possess tranquility and insight — that is, the sphere of infinite space's own tranquility draws forth a lifespan of twenty thousand aeons, and its insight likewise draws forth a lifespan of twenty thousand aeons; the sphere of infinite consciousness's own tranquility draws forth a lifespan of forty thousand aeons, and its insight likewise draws forth a lifespan of forty thousand aeons — above this, there exists no further superior insight, only tranquility, and it is for this reason that their own lifespan does not double downward from what precedes it, the rest being as stated before. Further, the four formless grounds each lack the many kinds of merit found elsewhere, and each, in turn, equally possesses a lifespan of twenty thousand aeons; the upper three formless attainments, having become free of the ground just below them, possess this to a greater or lesser degree, and it is for this reason that their own lifespan doubles again and again — that is, the sphere of infinite consciousness, having already become free of the one formless ground just below it, draws forth a lifespan of twenty thousand aeons, which, added to the original twenty thousand, becomes forty thousand aeons; the sphere of nothingness, having already become free of the two formless grounds below it, draws forth a lifespan of forty thousand aeons, which, added to the original twenty thousand, becomes sixty thousand aeons; the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, having already become free of the three formless grounds below it, draws forth a lifespan of sixty thousand aeons, which, added to the original twenty thousand, becomes eighty thousand aeons.

As for the eight liberations: first, the liberation of observing every form while still possessing form; second, the liberation of observing external form while lacking any internal notion of form; third, the liberation of the pure, verified through the body, one dwells having fully attained it; fourth, transcending every notion of form, extinguishing every notion of resistance, and, no longer giving mental application to any manifold notion whatsoever, entering boundless space, one dwells having fully attained the liberation of the sphere of infinite space; fifth, transcending every sphere of infinite space entirely, entering boundless consciousness, one dwells having fully attained the liberation of the sphere of infinite consciousness; sixth, transcending every sphere of infinite consciousness entirely, entering nothingness, one dwells having fully attained the liberation of the sphere of nothingness; seventh, transcending every sphere of nothingness entirely, entering the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, one dwells having fully attained this liberation; eighth, transcending every sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception entirely, entering the cessation of perception and feeling, verified through the body, one dwells having fully attained this liberation. One asks: what is the own-nature of these eight liberations? The answer: the first three liberations take the wholesome root of non-greed as their own-nature, every one of them 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. The four formless liberations all take four aggregates as their own-nature. The liberation of the cessation of perception and feeling takes the dissociated formations-aggregate as its own-nature. Such, then, is named the own-nature of the liberations — their own thing, own substance, own characteristic, own portion, and own inherent nature. Own-nature has already been discussed; what is to be discussed next shall now be stated. One asks: for what reason is it named liberation? What is the meaning of liberation? The answer: the meaning of turning away from and abandoning is the meaning of liberation. One asks: if it is named liberation because it turns away from and abandons, which liberation turns away from and abandons which mind? The answer: the first two liberations turn away from and abandon the mind of craving for form; the third liberation turns away from and abandons the mind of the contemplation of impurity; the four formless liberations each turn away from and abandon the mind of their own next lower ground; the liberation of the cessation of perception and feeling turns away from and abandons every mind that possesses any object whatsoever — and it is for this reason that the meaning of turning away from and abandoning is the meaning of liberation. The Venerable Vasumitra speaks as follows: the mind, with respect to affliction, is liberated and purified, and it is for this reason that it is named liberation. The Great Virtuous One says: it is by the power of resolved conviction that liberation is attained, and it is for this reason that it is named liberation. The Venerable Pārśva says: it is because there exists something to be turned away from and relinquished that it is named liberation.

As for the realm of these eight liberations: the first three liberations belong to the form realm; the first three formless liberations, when contaminated, belong to the formless realm, and, when undefiled, are unbound; the latter two liberations belong to the formless realm. As for their ground: the first two liberations exist within the first two dhyānas, the stage of not-yet-arrived, and the intermediate dhyāna — every remaining ground, too, possesses a resembling wholesome root, yet these are not established as the first two liberations, for what reason is this so? The desire realm's own distraction is too weak in its own power of turning away, and it is for this reason that the first two liberations are not established there. It is in order to turn away from and abandon the mind of craving for form drawn forth by the consciousness-body within the desire realm and the first dhyāna that the first two liberations are established within the first two dhyānas; the second and third dhyānas possess no such mind of craving for form drawn forth by the consciousness-body, and it is for this reason that the third and fourth dhyānas do not establish the first two liberations. The third liberation exists within the fourth dhyāna — a lower ground, too, possesses a resembling wholesome root, yet this is not established as the third liberation, for what reason is this so? The pure liberation is established in order to turn away from and abandon the mind of the contemplation of impurity — were it within a lower ground, it would be overwhelmed by the very power of the contemplation of impurity, and, being neither expansive nor clear, it is not established there. Although the third dhyāna lacks the first two impure liberations, it is still deluded and disturbed by its own supreme pleasure, and, being neither expansive nor clear, it is not established there either. The fourth liberation exists within the sphere of infinite space.

One asks: within this ground, which dharma is liberation, and which is not liberation? The answer: every preliminary-practice path becoming free of the fourth dhyāna's own defilement —

the nine uninterrupted paths and the eight liberation-paths, together with innately acquired wholesome dharma and the like, are not liberation; every remaining conditioned wholesome dharma is liberation. The fifth liberation exists within the sphere of infinite consciousness.

One asks: within this ground, which dharma is liberation, and which is not liberation? The answer: every preliminary-practice path becoming free of the sphere of infinite space's own defilement —

the nine uninterrupted paths and the eight liberation-paths, together with innately acquired wholesome dharma and the like, are not liberation; every remaining conditioned wholesome dharma is liberation. The sixth liberation exists within the sphere of nothingness. One asks: within this ground, which dharma is liberation, and which is not liberation? The answer: every preliminary-practice path becoming free of the sphere of infinite consciousness's own defilement, the nine uninterrupted paths and the eight liberation-paths, together with innately acquired wholesome dharma and the like, are not liberation; every remaining conditioned wholesome dharma is liberation. The seventh liberation exists within the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. One asks: within this ground, which dharma is liberation, and which is not liberation? The answer: every preliminary-practice path becoming free of the sphere of nothingness's own defilement, the nine uninterrupted paths and the eight liberation-paths, together with innately acquired wholesome dharma and the like, are not liberation; every remaining conditioned wholesome dharma is liberation. The liberation of the cessation of perception and feeling exists within the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. As for what these depend upon: the first three liberations arise in dependence upon a body of the desire realm; the liberation of the cessation of perception and feeling arises in dependence upon a body of the desire or form realm; the remaining four liberations arise in dependence upon a body of any of the three realms. As for their aspect: the first two liberations bear the aspect of impurity; the third liberation bears the aspect of purity; the four formless liberations bear the sixteen aspects, or other aspects; the liberation of the cessation of perception and feeling bears no aspect at all. As for their object: the first three liberations take the desire realm's own form-sense-field as their object; the fourth liberation takes the four formless attainments, and their cause and their cessation, and every portion of the knowledge of the corresponding class — whether the four formless attainments and this portion of knowledge, or the non-analytical cessation together with space, whether reckoned as a single thing or as many things — as its object, every one of these being taken as its object; the fifth liberation takes the latter three formless attainments, and their cause and their cessation, and every portion of the knowledge of the corresponding class — whether the latter three formless attainments and this portion of knowledge, or the non-analytical cessation together with space, whether reckoned as a single thing or as many things — as its object, every one of these being taken as its object; the sixth liberation takes the latter two formless attainments, and their cause and their cessation, and every portion of the knowledge of the corresponding class — whether the latter two formless attainments and this portion of knowledge, or the non-analytical cessation together with space, whether reckoned as a single thing or as many things — as its object, every one of these being taken as its object; the seventh liberation takes the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, and its cause and its cessation, and every portion of the knowledge of the corresponding class — whether the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception and this portion of knowledge, or the non-analytical cessation together with space, whether reckoned as a single thing or as many things — as its object, every one of these being taken as its object; the liberation of the cessation of perception and feeling possesses no object whatsoever. There are those who say: the liberation of the sphere of infinite space, too, takes the fourth dhyāna's own non-analytical cessation as its object, every remaining object being as stated before, and so on, up through, the liberation of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, too, takes the sphere of nothingness's own non-analytical cessation as its object, every remaining object being as stated before. As for the foundation of mindfulness: the first three liberations are joined with the foundation of mindfulness of the body; the four formless liberations are joined with all four foundations of mindfulness; the liberation of the cessation of perception and feeling, if considered with reference to its own own-nature and its own mixed foundation of mindfulness, ought to be said not to be joined with any foundation of mindfulness at all; if considered with reference to the foundation of mindfulness taken as its object, it ought to be said to be the foundation of mindfulness of dharmas. As for the kind of knowledge: the first three liberations are joined with worldly, conventional knowledge; the first three formless liberations are joined with all six kinds of knowledge — namely, the knowledge of suffering, of accumulation, of cessation, of the path, the knowledge of subsequent application, and worldly, conventional knowledge; the liberation of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is joined with worldly, conventional knowledge; the liberation of the cessation of perception and feeling is joined with no knowledge whatsoever.

As for concentration: the first three liberations and the latter two liberations are not joined with any concentration; the first three formless liberations are joined with all three concentrations, or are not joined with any concentration at all. As for association with the faculties: the first two liberations are associated with the joy- and equanimity-faculties; the liberation of the cessation of perception and feeling is not associated with any faculty at all; the remaining five liberations are all associated with the equanimity-faculty. As for past, future, and present: all pervade the three times as their object — as for the three times: the first three liberations, when past, take a past object; when present, take a present object; when future, if capable of arising, take a future object; if incapable of arising, take an object spanning the three times. The four formless liberations take as their object what spans the three times, and what transcends time altogether. The liberation of the cessation of perception and feeling possesses no object whatsoever. As for wholesome, unwholesome, or neutral: these are, in every case, solely wholesome. As for taking as object what is wholesome, unwholesome, or neutral: the first three liberations take as their object all three moral qualities; the four formless liberations take as their object solely what is wholesome or neutral; the liberation of the cessation of perception and feeling possesses no object whatsoever. As for being bound to the three realms, or unbound: the first three liberations are solely bound to the form realm; the latter two liberations are solely bound to the formless realm; the first three formless liberations, when contaminated, are bound to the formless realm, and, when undefiled, are unbound. As for taking as object what is bound to the three realms, or unbound: the first three liberations take as their object solely what is bound to the desire realm; the four formless liberations take as their object both what is bound to the formless realm and what is unbound; the liberation of the cessation of perception and feeling possesses no object whatsoever. As for being the learner's, the non-learner's, or neither: the first three liberations and the latter two liberations are solely neither the learner's nor the non-learner's; the first three formless liberations take as their object all three kinds. As for taking as object what is the learner's, the non-learner's, or neither: the first three liberations take as their object solely what is neither the learner's nor the non-learner's; the four formless liberations take as their object all three kinds; the liberation of the cessation of perception and feeling possesses no object whatsoever. As for being abandoned by seeing, abandoned by cultivation, or subject to no further cutting-off: the first three liberations and the latter two liberations are solely abandoned by cultivation; the first three formless liberations, when contaminated, are abandoned by cultivation, and, when undefiled, are subject to no further cutting-off. As for taking as object what is abandoned by seeing, abandoned by cultivation, or subject to no further cutting-off: the first three liberations take as their object solely what is abandoned by cultivation; the four formless liberations take as their object all three kinds; the liberation of the cessation of perception and feeling possesses no object whatsoever. As for taking as object a name or a meaning: the first three liberations take as their object solely a meaning; as for the four formless liberations — if it is held that the formless realm, too, possesses name, then they take as their object both name and meaning; if it is held that the formless realm possesses no name, then they take as their object solely a meaning; the liberation of the cessation of perception and feeling possesses no object whatsoever. As for taking as object one's own continuum, another's continuum, or neither: the first liberation takes as its object both one's own and another's continuum; as for the second and third liberations — there are those who say they take as their object solely another's continuum; there are those who say they take as their object both one's own and another's continuum; the four formless liberations take as their object all three kinds; the liberation of the cessation of perception and feeling possesses no object whatsoever. As for being attained through preliminary practice or through the attainment of freedom from defilement: the liberation of the cessation of perception and feeling is solely attained through preliminary practice; the remaining seven liberations are attained through both preliminary practice and through the attainment of freedom from defilement. As for being attained through the attainment of freedom from defilement: the liberation of the first dhyāna's own ground is attained at the time one becomes free of the desire realm's own defilement, and so on, up through, the liberation of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is attained at the time one becomes free of the sphere of nothingness's own defilement, and, only afterward, through preliminary practice, does it manifest before one. As for being attained through preliminary practice: it is by means of preliminary practice that it is attained, and it is likewise by means of preliminary practice that it manifests before one — the disciple, either through a middling or through a superior preliminary practice; the solitary-realizer, through a lesser preliminary practice; the Buddha, neither attaining it through preliminary practice nor manifesting it before him through preliminary practice. As for being formerly attained or never before attained: the liberation of the cessation of perception and feeling is solely never before attained; the remaining seven liberations are both formerly attained and never before attained — every noble one, and every ordinary being abiding within an internal dharma, being both; an ordinary being of an external dharma being solely formerly attained. Such, then, has been stated of the liberations' own shared characteristics — their own particular characteristics shall now be stated at length. As for observing every form while still possessing form, this is the first liberation. As for still possessing form: this refers to one who still possesses, has not yet become free of, has not yet relinquished, and has not yet removed, an internal, distinct notion of form. As for observing every form: this refers to one who, in order to become free of, relinquish, and remove an internal, distinct notion of form, through mental application involving resolved conviction, observes every external form — whether blue and discolored, or festering, or bloated, or reduced to a skeleton of bones — this being the first liberation, first meaning that, in the order of its own name, it comes first, or that, in entering this concentration, its own sequence comes first — meaning that, at the time of entering this concentration, every wholesome form, feeling, perception, formation, and consciousness present is, in general, named liberation. As for lacking any internal notion of form, observing external form, this is the second liberation. As for lacking an internal notion of form: this refers to one who has already become free of, has already relinquished, and has already removed an internal, distinct notion of form. As for observing external form: this refers to one who, not in order to become free of, relinquish, or remove an internal, distinct notion of form, but through mental application involving resolved conviction, still observes every external form — whether blue and discolored, and the rest, stated at full length as before. The second, and "liberation," too, are stated as before. One asks: at the time one observes external form, does one possess an internal notion of form, or does one, at the time one observes external form, lack any internal notion of form? Suppose either is granted, what fault follows? Both alternatives carry a fault. For what reason is this so? If, at the time one observes external form, one possesses an internal notion of form, how can a single mind give rise to two distinct understandings at once? If it were to give rise to two understandings, there would then have to be two substances — one mind possessing two substances contradicts principle. If, at the time one observes external form, one lacks any internal notion of form, then how is what is stated here to be reconciled — namely, that lacking an internal notion of form, one observes external form? The answer: one should say as follows — at the time one observes external form, one lacks any internal notion of form. One asks: if so, this well reconciles the difficulty raised before — how, then, is what is stated here to be reconciled? The answer: this speaks with reference to the practitioner's own anticipated resolve — that is, the practitioner first forms this resolve: were I, while lacking an internal notion of form, to observe external form — and it is with reference to this that the World-Honored One speaks in this way,

that lacking an internal notion of form, one observes external form. Further, this speaks with reference to the practitioner's own prior discriminating cultivated practice — that is, the practitioner first forms this same discriminating cultivated practice: were I, while lacking an internal notion of form, to observe external form — and it is for this reason that it is spoken of in this way. Further, here, the text of this passage speaks with reference to a settled implication — that is, if, while lacking an internal notion of form, its implication must certainly extend to observing external form as well; if, at the time one observes external form, its implication must certainly extend to lacking an internal notion of form as well. Further, here, the text of this passage speaks jointly of the preliminary-practice wholesome root together with it — as for lacking an internal notion of form: this speaks of the preliminary-practice wholesome root; as for observing external form: this speaks of the ultimate wholesome root. Further, as for lacking an internal notion of form: this speaks with reference to its own support; as for observing external form: this speaks with reference to its own object. As for the liberation of the pure, verified through the body, one dwells having fully attained it, this is the third liberation. One asks: is this pure liberation itself precisely the observing of every form while still possessing form, or is it itself precisely the lacking of any internal notion of form, observing external form? If it is precisely the observing of every form while still possessing form, what distinction is there between this and the first liberation? If it is precisely the lacking of any internal notion of form, observing external form, what distinction is there between this and the second liberation? The answer: one should say as follows — this pure liberation is precisely the lacking of any internal notion of form, observing external form. One asks: if so, what distinction is there between this and the second liberation? The answer: they differ in name alone — that one is named the second, this one is named the third. Further, they differ, too, in ground — that one exists within the first two dhyānas, this one exists within the fourth dhyāna. Further, they differ, too, in continuum — the second liberation may depend upon either the continuum of an inner or an outer path, while the pure liberation depends solely upon the continuum of the inner path. Further, the second liberation bears the aspect of impurity, while the pure liberation bears the aspect of purity. Further, the second liberation counteracts craving for form, while the pure liberation counteracts the contemplation of impurity. Further, the second liberation is attained through a lesser preliminary practice and a lesser exertion of effort, while the pure liberation is attained through a greater preliminary practice and a greater exertion of effort. Further, the second liberation's own own-nature is bright and pure, while its object is not bright and pure — its own-nature is superior and sublime, while its object is not superior and sublime; the pure liberation's own own-nature and object are both alike bright and pure, both alike superior and sublime. Such, then, is the distinction between the second and the third. One asks: for what reason does a practitioner of contemplation cultivate this pure liberation?

The answer: it is in order to test whether his own wholesome root is complete or incomplete — that is, a practitioner of contemplation reflects as follows: although I contemplate the impure aspect and give rise to no affliction,

I do not yet know whether my own wholesome root has already come to be complete. If, contemplating the pure aspect, no affliction arises, then I shall know that my own wholesome root has already come to be complete — and it is for this reason that he contemplates the pure aspect and cultivates the pure liberation. Further, a practitioner of contemplation, contemplating the impure aspect, finds his own mind sunk in gloom, and his own wholesome quality fails to increase; in order to cause his own wholesome quality to further advance, he further contemplates the pure aspect and cultivates the pure liberation — exactly as one who wanders among graves, repeatedly contemplating a corpse's own filth, finds his own mind sunk in gloom, and his own wholesome quality fails to increase; in order to cause his own wholesome quality to further advance, he observes a wondrous garden and grove, flowing springs and pools, or wanders through a city or town, observing every wondrous matter there, causing his own mind to delight and rejoice, and thereby able to cultivate a superior, wholesome quality — this, too, is just the same, and it is for this reason that he contemplates the pure aspect. Further, a practitioner of contemplation, having long contemplated impurity, finds his own mind coming to delight and cling to it, and his own wholesome quality fails to increase; in order to cause his own wholesome quality to advance, he relinquishes the contemplation of impurity and cultivates the pure liberation.

Further, a practitioner of contemplation wishes to display that his own mind is firm and sturdy, never regressing — that is, taking a pure object as his object, no affliction arises, let alone taking any other object as his object — and it is for this reason that he contemplates the pure aspect and cultivates the pure liberation. Further, a practitioner of contemplation displays that his own wholesome root possesses great force and power — that is, taking a pure object as his object, no affliction arises, let alone taking any other object as his object — and it is for this reason that he contemplates the pure aspect and cultivates the pure liberation. Further, this displays that the pure liberation is not something every kind of sentient being is capable of cultivating and giving rise to — only one whose exquisite conviction delighted in purity has died from the heaven of pure deities and come to be reborn among human beings is capable of cultivating and giving rise to it, and it is for this reason that a practitioner of contemplation cultivates the pure liberation.

It has been heard that there was a monk who, in the latter part of the day, came to where the Buddha was, seeking a fine dwelling. The Buddha instructed Ānanda to give him a fine dwelling. Ānanda, receiving this instruction, gave it to him. The monk said: it should be well swept and cleaned, hung with silk banners and canopies, incense burned and flowers scattered, a soft couch and bedding spread, and fine pillows arranged — only then shall I accept it; otherwise, I shall not use it. Ānanda accordingly reported all this in full to the Buddha, and the Buddha said: whatever he asks for, all of it should be given to him. Ānanda thereupon prepared and furnished it in full. The monk, having received it, in the first part of the night gave rise to the pure liberation, and, by this, in due sequence, gave rise to every remaining liberation as well, forever exhausting his own contaminants and becoming an arhat, and, further cultivating the preliminary practice, drew forth supernormal power, and, in the early morning, rode upon this supernormal power and departed. Ānanda, afterward, went to that very dwelling, and, not seeing the monk there, saw only the bed and seat, and went at once to report this to the Buddha. The Buddha told Ānanda: do not think lightly of him — last night, he gave rise to the pure liberation and every remaining liberation, becoming an arhat and drawing forth supernormal power, and has already departed this very morning.

Yet this monk, from an exquisite conviction that delighted in purity, had died from the heaven of pure deities and come to be reborn among human beings — had he not obtained a pure, exquisite dwelling, he would have been unable to cultivate the third liberation at all, let alone attain the ultimate fruit and supernormal power. It is by this that it is known that this pure liberation is not something every kind of sentient being is capable of cultivating and giving rise to — only one who delights in purity is capable of giving rise to it. The third, and "liberation," too, are stated as before. The four formless liberations are stated exactly as the four formless attainments themselves are stated. The liberation of the cessation of perception and feeling shall be extensively distinguished later, within the Faculties Aggregate. Their number and their status as liberation should be understood in accordance with what has already been stated before. One asks: for what reason is only a small portion of the dhyāna's own wholesome root established as liberation, while every wholesome root of the formless ground is established as liberation? The answer: the dhyānas are coarse, evident, clear, and directly seen, and it is for this reason that only a small portion of their wholesome root is established as liberation; the formless is subtle, hidden, unclear, and not directly seen, and it is for this reason that the root ground, as a whole, is established as liberation. Further, within the dhyānas there exist manifold, distinct, and dissimilar dharmas, and it is for this reason that only a small portion of their wholesome root is established as liberation; the formless is not so, and it is for this reason that it is established as a whole. Further, within the dhyānas there exist distinctly characterized faculties, feelings, and mind and mental factors, and it is for this reason that only a small portion of their wholesome root is established as liberation; the formless is not so, and it is for this reason that it is established as a whole. Further, the dhyānas possess many kinds of merit and superior advantage, and it is for this reason that only a small portion of their wholesome root is established as liberation; the formless is not so, and it is for this reason that it is established as a whole. Further, the dhyānas pervasively take their own ground, and the grounds above and below it, as their object, and it is for this reason that only a small portion of their wholesome root is established as liberation; the formless can take only its own ground, and the grounds above it, and not below, as its object, and it is for this reason that it is established as a whole. Further, the liberation of the dhyānas is solely contaminated, and it is for this reason that it is separately established; the liberation of the formless spans both the contaminated and the undefiled, and it is for this reason that it is established as a whole. One asks, on account of this discussion raising a further discussion: for what reason is the liberation of the dhyānas solely contaminated, while the liberation of the formless spans both the contaminated and the undefiled? The answer: the five gateways already stated above equally apply here as well, and this raises a further, unshared answer — that is, whatever liberation exists within the dhyānas is associated solely with mental application through resolved conviction, while whatever liberation exists within any of the formless attainments is, for the most part, associated with genuine mental application, and it is for this reason that they are not alike.

One asks: for what reason does the World-Honored One speak of the eight liberations using the language of direction? The answer: this observes the fitness of those to be converted, exactly as, with respect to the four truths, the language of the four directions is used. One asks: what resemblance is there between liberation and direction? The answer: liberation and direction alike number eight. One asks: yet there are, in fact, ten directions — how, then, can this resemblance hold?

The answer: exactly as the method of taming an elephant relies solely upon eight directions, not upon the directions of above and below, so too is this resemblance found here. Further, exactly as a man standing upon level ground sees only the eight directions, so too does a correctly settled mind cultivate the eight liberations. Further, exactly as one relies upon the eight directions to be able to tame a dragon-elephant, so too is liberation just the same — one relies upon eight preliminary practices for it to manifest before one, removing the very obstacle to liberation. The Venerable Ghoṣa speaks as follows: direction and liberation share three points of resemblance and differ in three points.

As for the three points of resemblance: first, exactly as one who tames an elephant must proceed toward a direction before he can tame the elephant, so too must the World-Honored One proceed toward liberation before he can tame those to be converted. Second, exactly as one who tames an elephant, within a single span of time, proceeds toward only a single direction and tames a single elephant, so too does the World-Honored One, within a single span of time, rely upon only a single kind of liberation to tame a single one to be converted. Third, exactly as one who tames an elephant, causing the elephant being tamed to proceed toward a single direction, thereby draws it far from every other direction, so too does the World-Honored One, causing one to be converted to give rise to a single liberation manifest before him, thereby cause every remaining liberation to remain far off, without manifest activity. As for the three points of difference: first, exactly as one who tames an elephant must proceed toward a direction before he can tame the elephant, the World-Honored One is not so — sitting upright in a single place, he is still able to cause those to be converted to give rise to liberation. Second, exactly as one who tames an elephant, within a single span of time, proceeds toward only a single direction and tames a single elephant, the World-Honored One is not so — within a single span of time, he causes many of those to be converted to give rise to many liberations. Third, exactly as one who tames an elephant, causing the elephant being tamed to proceed toward a single direction, thereby draws it far from every other direction, the World-Honored One is not so — causing one to be converted to give rise to a single liberation manifest before him, every remaining liberation, by virtue of having already been accomplished, still remains near. Further, the Buddha, wishing to display that he himself is the most excellent tamer, therefore speaks of liberation using the language of direction. It has been heard that King Prasenajit, the ruler of Kośala, ordered elephant-catchers to capture a great, wild elephant, and had an elephant-tamer, in accordance with the method of taming elephants, skillfully tame and subdue it. Once the elephant had been tamed, the king and the elephant-keeper together rode it out on a hunting excursion. At that time, the elephant being ridden caught sight of a herd of female elephants, and, his own desire blazing fiercely, he at once broke into a wild chase.

The elephant-keeper exhausted every skill in an attempt to turn him back, yet could not succeed, and both the king and the elephant-keeper suffered injury from this. Coming, by chance, upon a tree to cling to, they were able to save their own lives and return to the palace. The king reproached the elephant-keeper and handed him over for legal punishment. At that time, the elephant-tamer said to the great king: that elephant is, in genuine truth, tamed — I only ask that the king allow me to demonstrate this. At that time, the elephant's own desire had already subsided, and it swiftly returned to the palace of its own accord. The elephant-keeper, seeing this, led it before the king, and then placed a burning-hot ball of iron upon the crown of its head, gently saying to it: this is the very last stage of your own taming — you should endure and accept it. If you do not endure and accept it, I shall certainly, in due sequence, tame you once more through every one of your own former, painful trials.

The elephant, hearing this, endured it without moving, exactly like a mountain, even as the burning-hot iron ball scorched the crown of its head, exactly as one might scorch a strip of birch bark. The king, seeing this, marveled and exclaimed in wonder, and ordered the iron ball to be removed, and said to the elephant-keeper: this elephant, being already tamed, why did it act as it did before? The elephant-keeper knelt and answered: I am capable of taming the body, but I am not capable of taming the mind.

The king asked: is there, then, anyone at all capable of taming the mind? The elephant-keeper answered: there is — namely, the World-Honored One, who is capable of taming every sentient being's own sickness of body and mind alike. The king, hearing this with delight, at once took the elephant-keeper along with him, riding the very elephant that had now been tamed, and went to where the Buddha was. He saw the World-Honored One, surrounded by many hundreds of thousands of people, expounding the dharma.

He came forward, bowed at the Buddha's own feet, and withdrew to sit to one side, and the Buddha thereupon expounded a most profound dharma for the king, one that no solitary-realizer or disciple could ever know, and then told the monks: exactly as one who tames an elephant, at the very time he genuinely tames the elephant, proceeds toward only a single one of the eight directions in taming it — and the taming of a horse, an ox, and the like is just the same — the unsurpassed tamer, at the time he tames those to be converted, relies all at once upon all eight directions in taming them, these eight directions here serving as a simile for the eight liberations.

It is for this reason that, in order to display that the World-Honored One is the most excellent tamer, the eight liberations are spoken of using the language of direction.