Masteries and Totalities

As a scripture states, there was a certain monk who came to where the Buddha was, bowed his head at the Buddha's own feet, and withdrew to sit to one side, and said to the Buddha: World-Honored One, you have spoken of there being a realm of brightness, a realm of purity, the realm of the sphere of infinite space, the realm of the sphere of infinite consciousness, the realm of the sphere of nothingness, the realm of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, and the realm of cessation — with reference to what are these seven realms designated? The World-Honored One told him: it is with reference to darkness that the realm of brightness is designated; with reference to impurity that the realm of purity is designated; with reference to the destiny of form that the realm of the sphere of infinite space is designated; with reference to a boundary that the realm of the sphere of infinite consciousness is designated; with reference to what exists that the realm of the sphere of nothingness is designated; with reference to the existence of a body that the realm of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is designated; and with reference to the cessation of the existence of a body that the realm of cessation is designated. One asks: with reference to what matter did this monk ask his question, and with reference to what matter did the World-Honored One, in turn, answer him? The answer: here, this monk asked his question with the eight liberations veiled behind his own wording, and the Buddha, too, answered him with this same veiling. As for the realm of brightness: this refers to the first two liberations. As for the realm of purity: this refers to the third liberation. As for the realm of the four formless spheres: this refers to the four formless liberations. As for the realm of cessation: this refers to the liberation of the cessation of perception and feeling. One asks: for what reason did this monk pose his question with the eight liberations veiled behind his own wording?

It was because that monk, possessing few desires and being easily contented, wished to conceal his own wholesome qualities, not wishing others to know that he himself possessed such merit, and it was for this reason that he posed his question in this way. One asks: for what reason did the World-Honored One, in turn, answer with the eight liberations veiled behind his own wording? The answer: it was in order to fully satisfy that monk's own underlying wish — that is, that monk reflected as follows: were the Buddha to answer me with a veiled wording, would this not itself be excellent regarding the eight liberations? And it was on this account that the World-Honored One answered him with a veiled wording.

Here, as for it being with reference to darkness that the realm of brightness is designated: darkness refers to the desire realm's own craving for the color-sense-field, and, since the first two liberations serve as its antidote, it is with reference to this that they are established. As for it being with reference to impurity that the realm of purity is designated: impurity refers to the first two liberations, and, since the third liberation serves as its antidote, it is with reference to this that it is established. As for it being with reference to the destiny of form that the realm of the sphere of infinite space is designated: the destiny of form refers to the fourth dhyāna, and, since the fourth liberation serves as its antidote, it is with reference to this that it is established. As for it being with reference to a boundary that the realm of the sphere of infinite consciousness is designated: a boundary refers to the sphere of infinite space, since it abides at the very boundary of form, and, since the fifth liberation serves as its antidote, it is with reference to this that it is established. As for it being with reference to what exists that the realm of the sphere of nothingness is designated: what exists refers to the sphere of infinite consciousness, since it turns with the boundless aspect, and, since the sixth liberation serves as its antidote, it is with reference to this that it is established. As for it being with reference to the existence of a body that the realm of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is designated: the existence of a body refers to the sphere of nothingness, since it still possesses the body of birth and death, not being entirely without existence, and, since the seventh liberation serves as its antidote, it is with reference to this that it is established. As for it being with reference to the cessation of the existence of a body that the realm of cessation is designated: the cessation of the existence of a body refers to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, since it is capable of extinguishing the dharma of the existence of a body found within the sphere of nothingness, and, since the eighth liberation serves as its antidote, it is with reference to this that it is established. There are those who say: here, this monk posed his question with reference to becoming free of the defilement of the three realms, in brief and at length, veiled behind his own wording, and the World-Honored One, too, answered him with this same veiling. As for the realm of brightness: this displays, in brief, the preliminary-practice path of becoming free of the desire realm's own defilement — as for its being designated with reference to darkness: darkness refers to the desire realm's own craving for the five objects of desire, and, since the form realm's own preliminary practice serves as its antidote, it is with reference to this that it is established. As for the realm of purity: this displays, in brief, becoming free of the desire realm's own defilement. As for the realm of the sphere of infinite space: this displays, in brief, becoming free of the form realm's own defilement.

As for the realms of the spheres of infinite consciousness, nothingness, and neither-perception-nor-non-perception: these display, at length, becoming free of the formless realm's own defilement. As for the realm of cessation: this displays, in brief, becoming free of the formless realm's own defilement. There are those who say, here: as for the realm of brightness: this displays, in brief, becoming free of the desire realm's own defilement, since only the stage of not-yet-arrived cuts off the desire realm's own darkness.

As for the realm of purity: this displays, at length, becoming free of the form realm's own defilement, since all four dhyānas and the rest are named pure. As for the realm of the sphere of infinite space: this displays, in brief, becoming free of the form realm's own defilement. As for the realm of the latter three formless spheres: this displays, at length, becoming free of the formless realm's own defilement. As for the realm of cessation: this displays, in brief, becoming free of the formless realm's own defilement — the desire realm possessing only a single ground's own defilement, and it is for this reason that its antidote is displayed only in brief; the form and formless realms each possessing four grounds' own defilement, and it is for this reason that their antidote is displayed both at length and in brief. The Dārṣṭāntikas say: here, this monk posed his question with the eight attainments veiled behind his own wording, and the Buddha, too, answered him with this same veiling. Yet this scriptural passage's own wording has been altered by its reciters — that is, the realm of purity has been added, and the realm of extensiveness has been omitted. As for the realm of brightness: this refers to the first two dhyānas — as for its being designated with reference to darkness: darkness refers to the external hindrances taken as object, and, since the first two dhyānas serve as their antidote, it is with reference to this that they are established. As for the realm of purity: this refers to the third dhyāna. As for the realm of extensiveness: this refers to the fourth dhyāna. As for the realm of the four formless spheres: this refers precisely to the four formless spheres themselves.

This same scripture further states: at that time, this monk, having heard what the Buddha stated, rejoiced and received it with reverence, and again said to the Buddha: World-Honored One, the realm of brightness, up through the realm of cessation — by what concentration are these obtained? The Buddha told the monk: such realms as these are obtained through their own conduct's own further concentration. The monk, having heard this, rejoiced and received it with reverence, and, bowing to the Buddha, departed. There are those who say, here, that the monk was asking about the attainment of the realm; others, further, say that he was asking about the cutting off of the realm.

If he was asking about the attainment of the realm, the intent of his question was this: by what concentration are these various realms' own substances obtained? The Buddha's own intent in answering was this: the realm of brightness, up through the realm of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, are obtained through their own conduct's own concentration. As for their own conduct's own concentration: this refers to their own respective preliminary stage — that is, it is by one's own respective preliminary stage becoming free of a lower ground's own defilement that one's own ground's own liberation is obtained — that is, it is by the first dhyāna's own preliminary stage becoming free of the desire realm's own defilement that the first two liberations are obtained; it is by the fourth dhyāna's own preliminary stage becoming free of the third dhyāna's own defilement that the pure liberation is obtained; it is by the sphere of infinite space's own preliminary stage becoming free of the fourth dhyāna's own defilement that the liberation of the sphere of infinite space is obtained, and so on, up through, it is by the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's own preliminary stage becoming free of the sphere of nothingness's own defilement that the liberation of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is obtained. Only the realm of cessation is obtained through a further concentration — as for this further concentration: this refers to a concentration that possesses a further support, namely, the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception itself, since it is the very root concentration of every state of existence. There are those who say this is named the concentration of superior existence, since, among every state of existence, this is the most supreme. Others, further, say this is named the concentration of the cessation of perception and feeling, since it is by this very concentration that one enters and emerges from the cessation of perception and feeling — it is by this concentration that the eighth liberation is obtained.

If he was asking about the cutting off of the realm, the intent of his question was this: by what concentration are these various realms' own cutting-off obtained? The Buddha's own intent in answering was this: the realm of brightness, up through the realm of the sphere of nothingness, are obtained through their own conduct's own further concentration. As for their own conduct's own concentration: this refers to their own respective preliminary stage, that is, a contaminated concentration. As for this further concentration: this refers to every undefiled concentration. The desire realm, up through the sphere of nothingness, all obtain their own cutting-off, becoming free of defilement, through both of these two kinds of concentration. The realm of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is obtained solely through this further concentration, since it is only the undefiled concentration that is capable of becoming free of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's own defilement, thereby obtaining its own cutting-off.

It is for this reason that the realm of cessation, too, is obtained solely through this further attainment — this further attainment referring to the cessation of the existence of a body, namely, nirvāṇa itself, since, at the time of final nirvāṇa, the relinquishing of the attainment of cessation is spoken of as cutting-off, and it is by this further attainment of nirvāṇa that this cutting-off is obtained, and it is for this reason that it is said to be obtained through this further attainment.

As for the eight masteries: first, possessing an internal notion of form, one observes a small quantity of external form; second, possessing an internal notion of form, one observes a large quantity of external form; third, lacking any internal notion of form, one observes a small quantity of external form; fourth, lacking any internal notion of form, one observes a large quantity of external form. As for lacking an internal notion of form, observing every kind of external form — blue, yellow, red, and white —

this is, further, of four kinds, and it is in this way that these eight kinds are named the eight masteries. One asks: what is the own-nature of these eight masteries? The answer: the wholesome root of non-greed serves as their own-nature, counteracting greed; if one further takes the associated dharmas that turn along with it, then, within the desire realm, four aggregates serve as their own-nature, and, within the form realm, five aggregates serve as their own-nature. Such, then, is named the own-nature of the masteries — 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 a mastery? What is the meaning of mastery? The answer: it is because it masters its own object that it is named mastery. Further, it is because it masters every affliction that it is named mastery — although a practitioner of contemplation is not, in every case, able to master every object he takes, still, if he gives rise to no affliction with respect to his own object, this, too, is named mastery, exactly as a scripture states, since it is superior with respect to this domain, it is named mastery. As for the realm of these eight masteries: all belong to the form realm. As for their ground: the first four masteries exist within the first two dhyānas, the stage of not-yet-arrived, and the intermediate dhyāna; the latter four masteries exist within the fourth dhyāna. As for what they depend upon: all arise in dependence upon a body of the desire realm. As for their aspect: every one of them lacks a clear, distinct aspect.

As for their object: all take every form-sense-field of the desire realm as their object. One asks: if so, how is a certain scriptural statement to be reconciled? The Venerable Aniruddha, dwelling within a certain monastery in Śrāvastī, was once approached by four delightful goddesses, who came and stood before his own seat, saying: we possess complete mastery over the transformation of the four colors, and are able to conjure whatever color is desired, entertaining ourselves at will, in whatever way pleases the mind — even garments and adornments we are able to manifest — we beg only that you accept us, that we might attend and serve you. The Venerable Aniruddha reflected as follows: I ought to take them as my object and give rise to the contemplation of impurity. Having reflected in this way, he entered the first dhyāna, yet, taking them as his object, he was unable to give rise to any notion of impurity whatsoever, and so on, up through, entering, at the very last, the fourth dhyāna, he still, taking them as his object, was unable to give rise to any notion of impurity. He further reflected: these goddesses' own bodies possess every kind of varied color, confusing and disturbing the mind —

were they to manifest a single, uniform color alone, I might then be able to give rise to the contemplation of impurity toward them. Having reflected in this way, he said to them: sisters, you spoke before of possessing complete mastery over the transformation of the four colors — I ask only that you all manifest a blue color for my sake. The goddesses, receiving this instruction, at once manifested a blue color, yet, taking them as his object, he was still unable to give rise to any notion of impurity. He further reflected: since they possess complete mastery over the transformation of the four colors, were they to manifest some other color instead, I might then be able to take this as my object and give rise to the contemplation of impurity. Having reflected in this way, he said to them: I ask that you manifest a yellow color. The goddesses at once manifested a yellow color for him, yet, taking them as his object, he was still unable to give rise to any notion of impurity.

He further said to the goddesses: manifest a red color for me — and, taking them as his object, he was still unable to give rise to any notion of impurity. He further reflected: among every color, white is most conducive to the contemplation of impurity — I shall cause them all to manifest a white color. Having reflected in this way, he said to them: I ask that you manifest a white color. The goddesses, once again, manifested a white color for him, yet, taking them as his object, he was still unable to give rise to any notion of impurity. The Venerable Aniruddha reflected as follows: the color of these heavenly beings is so exquisite and sublime that it cannot possibly be overcome — and, at this, he closed his eyes and sat in silence. The goddesses, knowing that the venerable one's own mind held no defiled attachment whatsoever, looked at one another in shame, and suddenly vanished. At that time, the venerable one's own concentration was unable to overcome that very objective domain, nor was that objective domain able to overcome the venerable one's own concentration, exactly as two strongmen of equal force, contending with one another, are each unable to overcome the other — this, too, is just the same. How, then, is what this scripture states to be reconciled? The answer: although the Venerable Aniruddha was unable to overcome the color of these heavenly beings, Śāriputra and others, of sharp faculties and superior concentration, are all capable of overcoming it. One asks: is there anyone at all capable of giving rise to the contemplation of impurity by taking the Buddha's own bodily color as object? There are those who say: no one is capable of this, since the Buddha's own bodily color is radiant, brilliant, pure, and free of any blemish whatsoever, there being no one capable of taking it as object and giving rise to any notion of impurity. There are those who say: no ordinary being, disciple, or solitary-realizer is capable of taking any buddha's own bodily color as object and giving rise to a notion of impurity —

only the Buddha, the World-Honored One, is capable of taking a buddha's own bodily color as object and giving rise to a notion of impurity. There are those who further say: the contemplation of impurity is of two kinds:

first, observing the very faults of form; second, observing form's own dependent origination. As for observing the very faults of form: this is incapable of taking the Buddha as object and giving rise to a notion of impurity. As for observing form's own dependent origination: this, too, is capable of taking the Buddha as object and giving rise to a notion of impurity. There are those who further say: the contemplation of impurity is of two kinds: first, turning with respect to a particular characteristic; second, turning with respect to a shared characteristic. As for turning with respect to a particular characteristic: this is incapable of taking the Buddha as object and giving rise to a notion of impurity. As for turning with respect to a shared characteristic:

this, too, is capable of taking the Buddha as object and giving rise to a notion of impurity. One asks: does the contemplation of impurity exist within the mental ground alone, or does it exist within the five sense-consciousnesses as well? The answer: it exists within the mental ground alone, not within the five sense-consciousnesses. One asks: if so, how is a certain scriptural statement to be reconciled — as it is said, having seen a color with the eye, one contemplates its impurity accordingly and reflects upon it correctly and in accordance with principle, and so on, stated at full length, up through, having felt a touch with the body, one contemplates its impurity accordingly and reflects upon it correctly and in accordance with principle? The answer: it is because the five sense-consciousness-bodies serve as the very expedient means that draws forth the contemplation of impurity that it is spoken of in this way, exactly as the mental process that immediately follows sense-perception genuinely belongs to the mental ground alone, though drawn forth by the five sense-consciousnesses, and this, too, should be understood in the corresponding manner. One asks: since the contemplation of impurity takes only the form-sense-field as its object, ought this passage not to state merely that, having seen a color with the eye, one contemplates its impurity accordingly and reflects upon it correctly and in accordance with principle — why, then, does it also say that, having heard a sound with the ear, and so on, stated at full length, up through, having felt a touch with the body, one reflects upon it correctly and in accordance with principle? The answer: exactly as the contemplation of impurity is capable of subduing craving for form, so too is it capable of subduing craving for the remaining four objects, and it is for this reason that it is spoken of in this way, and this, too, raises no contradiction with principle. There are those who say: having seen a color with the eye, and so on, stated at full length, up through, having felt a touch with the body — each and every one of these is capable of drawing forth the contemplation of impurity that takes form as its object, and it is for this reason that it is spoken of in this way. Others, further, say: it is not that the contemplation of impurity itself arises by taking sound and the rest as its object, but that there exists a further, distinctly superior impure aspect capable of taking sound and the rest as its object and giving rise to the notion of their own impurity. There are those who further say: a practitioner of yoga first takes the form-sense-field as his object and cultivates the contemplation of impurity, and, once this has already become mature, only afterward takes sound and the rest as his object, giving rise to a notion of weariness and disenchantment, thereby overcoming that very objective domain — if he is capable of overcoming it, this is good; if he is not capable of overcoming it, he then returns once more to taking the form-sense-field as his object and gives rise to the contemplation of impurity, exactly as one who practices combat for a living, sustaining his own life by it, emerges from his own stockade to do battle with another — if he prevails over his opponent, this is good; if he does not prevail, he returns once more into his stockade — this, too, is just the same, and it is for this reason that this raises no contradiction. There are further masters who say: this scripture does not, in fact, speak of the contemplation of impurity arising by taking color and the rest as its object at all, but merely speaks of giving rise to a notion of weariness and disenchantment with respect to color and the rest — once this contemplation has already reached its full completion, it is even capable of wearying one of mind and mental factors themselves, and it is for this reason that that scripture states that, having cognized a dharma with the mind, one contemplates its impurity accordingly and reflects upon it correctly and in accordance with principle — and it is for this reason that the word "impurity" here displays a notion of weariness and disenchantment, not the contemplation of impurity itself. It is for this reason that the eight masteries take solely every form-sense-field of the desire realm as their object. As for the foundation of mindfulness: these eight are joined solely with the foundation of mindfulness of the body. As for the kind of knowledge: all are joined solely with worldly, conventional knowledge.

As for concentration: none are joined with any concentration. As for association with the faculties: all, in general, are associated solely with the joy- and equanimity-faculties. As for past, future, and present: all pervade the three times. As for taking as object what spans the three times: these eight masteries, 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. As for wholesome, unwholesome, or neutral: all are solely wholesome. As for taking as object what is wholesome, unwholesome, or neutral: all take as their object all three moral qualities. As for being bound to the three realms, or unbound: all are solely bound to the form realm. As for taking as object what is bound to the three realms, or unbound: all take as their object solely what is bound to the desire realm. As for being the learner's, the non-learner's, or neither: all are solely neither the learner's nor the non-learner's. As for taking as object what is the learner's, the non-learner's, or neither: all take as their object solely what is neither the learner's nor the non-learner's. As for being abandoned by seeing, abandoned by cultivation, or subject to no further cutting-off:

all are solely abandoned by cultivation. As for taking as object what is abandoned by seeing, abandoned by cultivation, or subject to no further cutting-off: all take as their object solely what is abandoned by cultivation. As for taking as object a name or a meaning: all take as their object solely a meaning. As for taking as object one's own continuum, another's continuum, or neither: the first two masteries take as their object both one's own and another's continuum; as for the latter six — 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. As for being attained through preliminary practice or through the attainment of freedom from defilement: all are attained through both. As for being attained through the attainment of freedom from defilement: those existing within the first dhyāna are attained at the time one becomes free of the desire realm's own defilement; those existing within the second dhyāna are attained at the time one becomes free of the first dhyāna's own defilement; those existing within the fourth dhyāna are attained at the time one becomes free of the third dhyāna's own defilement, and, only afterward, through preliminary practice, do they manifest before one. As for being attained through preliminary practice: it is by means of preliminary practice that they are attained, and it is likewise by means of preliminary practice that they manifest 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 them through preliminary practice nor manifesting them before him through preliminary practice. As for being formerly attained or never before attained: all are attained through both — 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 masteries' own shared characteristics — their own particular characteristics shall now be stated at length. As for possessing an internal notion of form, observing a small quantity of external form, whether fair or foul, and, with respect to these various forms, mastering both knowledge and vision — this is the first mastery. Here, as for possessing an internal notion of 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 external 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. As for small: this refers to two kinds of smallness — first, a small object; second, a small mastery. As for fair: this refers to a blue, yellow, red, or white color that is not marred or spoiled. As for foul: this refers to a blue, yellow, red, or white color that is marred and spoiled. As for mastering both knowledge and vision with respect to these various forms: this refers to the fact that, in order to tame craving for desire, to cut off and destroy craving for desire, and to transcend craving for desire, one gives rise, with respect to these various forms, to a mastery of knowledge and vision, mastering and overcoming these forms — that is, gathering them in and taming them, exactly as a great householder, or the son of a great householder, gathers in and tames his own various servants and attendants,

and it is for this reason that this is named a mastery of knowledge and vision. As for this being the first mastery: first refers to the fact 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 mastery. Exactly as with the first mastery, so too should the second mastery be understood, differing only in that this second mastery observes a large quantity of external form — a large quantity being, likewise, of two kinds: first, a large object; second, a large mastery — every remaining point being as stated before. As for lacking any internal notion of form, observing a small quantity of external form, whether fair or foul, and, with respect to these various forms, mastering both knowledge and vision — this is the third mastery. Here, 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 — every remaining point being as stated before. Exactly as with the third mastery, so too should the fourth mastery be understood, differing only in that this fourth mastery observes a large quantity of external form, still lacking any internal notion of form. Observing external form as blue, blue-tinted, blue in appearance, blue in radiance, immeasurable, immeasurably pure and sublime, delightful, pleasing, and irresistible, exactly like the udumbara flower, or the color of blue-dyed garments in Vārāṇasī, giving rise, with respect to these various forms, to a mastery of knowledge and vision and to a notion just as described — this is the fifth mastery. Here, as for lacking an internal notion of form, observing external form: the meaning is as stated before. As for blue: this refers to every blue color, whether great or small, spoken of in general as blue. As for blue-tinted: this refers to that same blue color as illuminated and taken in by the eye, being the very objective domain of the eye's own function, and it is for this reason that it is named blue-tinted. As for blue in appearance: this refers to that same blue color, once discerned by eye-consciousness, further drawing forth mental consciousness to discriminate it as well, and it is for this reason that it is named blue in appearance. As for blue in radiance: this refers to that same blue color's own light, shining and radiant, and it is for this reason that it is named blue in radiance. As for immeasurable: this refers to that same blue color's own vast, boundless extent, and it is for this reason that it is named immeasurable. As for immeasurably pure and sublime: this refers to the fact that, exactly as that blue color is vast and boundless in extent, its own pure, sublime characteristic, too, is boundless, and it is for this reason that it is named immeasurably pure and sublime. As for delightful: this refers to the fact that this blue color is joyful and pleasing, causing the mind to rejoice and delight, and it is for this reason that it is named delightful. As for pleasing: this refers to the fact that this blue color is lovable and enjoyable — taking this as one's object, one no longer wishes for anything further, and it is for this reason that it is named pleasing. As for irresistible: this refers to the fact that this blue color causes the mind to bear it patiently, according and conforming to it, and it is for this reason that it is named irresistible. As for its being exactly like the udumbara flower, or the color of blue-dyed garments in Vārāṇasī: this speaks of that supremely blue color, cited here as an analogy. As for giving rise, with respect to these various forms, to a mastery of knowledge and vision: the meaning is as stated before. As for giving rise to a notion just as described: this refers to giving rise, with respect to that blue color, to a notion exactly as already described, the notion of blue thus manifesting before one — this is the fifth mastery, its own meaning likewise being as stated before. Exactly as the mastery of blue has been stated, so too should the masteries of yellow, red, and white be understood — differing only in that the mastery of yellow should be stated as resembling the karṇikāra flower, the mastery of red as resembling the bandhujīvaka flower at the very hour of its blossoming, and the mastery of white as resembling the star Uṣas over Vārāṇasī — the analogies of yellow, red, and white garments each to be stated according to their own kind. One asks: among the four visible colors, which is supreme? The Venerable Vasumitra speaks as follows: white is supreme, since the world universally speaks of it as auspicious, exactly as, among the four directions, the east is supreme, being likewise auspicious — white, too, is just the same. The Great Virtuous One says: taking a white color as one's object causes the mind to become clear and pure, since it does not accord with torpor and drowsiness, and is capable of sustaining the body, and it is for this reason that it is supreme.

As for the ten totalities: this refers to the totality of blue, yellow, red, white, earth, water, fire, wind, the sphere of infinite space, and the sphere of infinite consciousness. One asks: what is the own-nature of these ten totalities? The answer: the first eight totalities take the wholesome root of non-greed as their own-nature, counteracting greed; if one further takes the associated dharmas that turn along with it, then, within the desire realm, four aggregates serve as its own-nature, and, within the form realm, five aggregates serve as its own-nature. The latter two totalities both take four aggregates as their own-nature. Such, then, is named the own-nature of the totalities — 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 a totality? What is the meaning of a totality? The answer: it is owing to two conditions that it is named a totality —

first, owing to being uninterrupted; second, owing to being vast and expansive. As for owing to being uninterrupted: this refers to the fact that mental application involving resolved conviction toward pure blue and the rest is not intermixed with anything else, and it is for this reason that it is named uninterrupted. As for owing to being vast and expansive: this refers to the fact that mental application involving resolved conviction toward blue and the rest takes an object whose own characteristic is boundless, and it is for this reason that it is named vast and expansive. The Great Virtuous One says: its object is broad and expansive, admitting of no gap or interruption whatsoever, and it is for this reason that it is named a totality.

As for the realm of these ten totalities: the first eight totalities belong to the form realm; the latter two totalities belong to the formless realm. As for their ground: the first eight totalities exist within the fourth dhyāna; the ninth totality exists within the sphere of infinite space; the tenth totality exists within the sphere of infinite consciousness. For what reason is this so? Because the pure liberation exists within the fourth dhyāna, and it is by means of this that one is able to enter the latter four masteries; these latter four masteries, in turn, are able to enter the first eight totalities — here, the liberation merely grasps, in general, the pure characteristic with respect to its object, being not yet able to discriminate blue, yellow, red, and white; the latter four masteries, though able to discriminate blue, yellow, red, and white, are not yet able to give rise to the boundless aspect; the first four totalities are not only able to discriminate blue, yellow, red, and white, but are also able to give rise to the boundless aspect — that is, observing blue and the rest as boundless, one by one, and further reflecting on what blue and the rest depend upon, coming to know that they depend upon the great elements; next observing earth and the rest as boundless, one by one, and further reflecting on what this perceived form's own vastness depends upon, coming to know that it depends upon space; next giving rise to the sphere of infinite space, and further reflecting on what is capable of perceiving this, and who serves as its support, coming to know that it depends upon vast consciousness; next giving rise to the sphere of infinite consciousness — this very consciousness that is thereby depended upon possesses no further, distinct support of its own, and it is for this reason that no further totality is established above it. As for what these depend upon: the first eight totalities arise solely in dependence upon a body of the desire realm; the latter two totalities arise in dependence upon a body of all three realms alike. As for their aspect: all ten give rise to the boundless aspect. As for their object: the first eight totalities take solely the desire realm's own form-sense-field as their object; the latter two totalities each take their own ground's own four aggregates as their object. As for the foundation of mindfulness: the first eight totalities are joined with the foundation of mindfulness of the body; the latter two totalities are joined with the foundation of mindfulness of dharmas. As for the kind of knowledge: all are joined solely with worldly, conventional knowledge. As for concentration: none are joined with any concentration. As for association with the faculties: all are associated solely with the equanimity-faculty. As for past, future, and present: all pervade the three times. As for taking as object what spans the three times: the first eight totalities, 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 latter two totalities each take as their object what spans the three times.

As for wholesome, unwholesome, or neutral: all are solely wholesome. As for taking as object what is wholesome, unwholesome, or neutral: the first eight totalities take as their object all three moral qualities; the latter two totalities take as their object what is wholesome or neutral. As for being bound to the three realms, or unbound: the first eight totalities are solely bound to the form realm; the latter two totalities are solely bound to the formless realm. As for taking as object what is bound to the three realms, or unbound: the first eight totalities take as their object solely what is bound to the desire realm; the latter two totalities take as their object solely what is bound to the formless realm. As for being the learner's, the non-learner's, or neither: all are solely neither the learner's nor the non-learner's. As for taking as object what is the learner's, the non-learner's, or neither: all take as their object solely what is neither the learner's nor the non-learner's. As for being abandoned by seeing, abandoned by cultivation, or subject to no further cutting-off: all are solely abandoned by cultivation. As for taking as object what is abandoned by seeing, abandoned by cultivation, or subject to no further cutting-off: the first eight totalities take as their object solely what is abandoned by cultivation; the latter two totalities take as their object what is abandoned by both seeing and cultivation. As for taking as object a name or a meaning: all take as their object solely a meaning. As for taking as object one's own continuum, another's continuum, or neither: as for the first eight totalities — 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 latter two totalities take as their object both one's own and another's continuum together. As for being attained through preliminary practice or through the attainment of freedom from defilement: all are attained through both. As for being attained through the attainment of freedom from defilement: the first eight totalities are attained at the time one becomes free of the third dhyāna's own defilement; the ninth totality is attained at the time one becomes free of the fourth dhyāna's own defilement; the tenth totality is attained at the time one becomes free of the sphere of infinite space's own defilement, and, only afterward, through preliminary practice, do they manifest before one. As for being attained through preliminary practice: it is by means of preliminary practice that they are attained, and it is likewise by means of preliminary practice that they manifest 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 them through preliminary practice nor manifesting them before him through preliminary practice. As for being formerly attained or never before attained: all are attained through both — 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.

One asks: what is the preliminary practice for these ten totalities? The answer: the first four totalities take eye-consciousness as their preliminary practice, and, once fully accomplished, take the four form-sense-fields of blue, yellow, red, and white as their object. The middle four totalities take body-consciousness as their preliminary practice, and, once fully accomplished, take the four touch-sense-fields of earth, water, fire, and wind as their object. There are those who say: the first seven totalities take eye-consciousness as their preliminary practice, while only the single totality of wind takes body-consciousness as its preliminary practice, for what reason is this so? The totalities of earth, water, and fire take shape and visible color as their object, while the totality of wind takes the touch-sense-field of a moving nature as its object. Others, further, say: all eight totalities take eye-consciousness as their preliminary practice, for what reason is this so? The totality of wind, too, takes color as its object — exactly as the world speaks of an east wind, a south wind, a west wind, a north wind, a dusty wind, a dustless wind, a viśvambhara wind, a vairambha wind, a wind-wheel wind, and the like — and it is for this reason that the totality of wind, too, takes the color-sense-field as its object. The sphere of infinite space takes space as its preliminary practice; the sphere of infinite consciousness takes consciousness as its preliminary practice.

Such, then, has been stated of the totalities' own shared characteristics — their own particular characteristics shall now be briefly stated. With respect to every blue thing, whether above, below, or to the side,

without duality, without measure, giving rise to a single notion of blue — this is the first totality. As for every blue thing: this refers to every blue color, whether small or great, spoken of in general as blue. As for above: this refers to the upper direction. As for below: this refers to the lower direction. As for to the side: this refers to the four directions and the four intermediate directions. As for without duality: this refers to a pure blue characteristic, mixed with nothing else whatsoever. As for without measure: this refers to being without any boundary or limit. As for giving rise to a single notion of blue: this refers to giving rise, through mental application involving resolved conviction, to a single notion of blue with respect to every place whatsoever. As for this being the first totality: first refers to the fact 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 a totality. Exactly as with the totality of blue, this should be stated at full length,

up through the totality of the sphere of infinite consciousness, in just the same way, differing only in that the latter two totalities ought not to be spoken of using the word "form" at all, but ought instead to be spoken of solely as the aggregates of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness. One asks: the first eight totalities may indeed admit of an above and a below, since the object they take possesses a spatial location — but how can the latter two totalities, which take space and consciousness as their object, possibly be said to possess an above or a below, given that their own object possesses no spatial location, whether above or below, at all? The answer: although the latter two totalities' own object possesses no above or below by way of spatial location, the concentration they depend upon does admit of three grades, and it is on this basis that an above and a below may still be spoken of — the upper referring to depending upon a superior grade of concentration; the lower referring to depending upon an inferior grade of concentration; and, further, as for speaking of "to the side": this refers to depending upon a middling grade of concentration. Further, a practitioner of contemplation's own body dwells within some location that is itself above or below, and it is on this basis, too, that above, below, and to the side may be spoken of — that is, as for their own respective location: whoever is lower dwells among human beings;

whoever is higher dwells among the Four Great Heavenly Kings, and so on, up through, the Heaven of Free Enjoyment of Others' Emanations, each, in mutual comparison, serving as lower, middling, or upper — the upper being named upper; the lower being named lower; and the middling being named to the side.

One asks: for what reason does the third dhyāna alone lack any liberation, mastery, or totality? The answer: it is not a genuine vessel for these, and so on, stated at full length. Further, it is in order to counteract the craving for form drawn forth by the consciousness-body within the desire realm and the first dhyāna that the first two dhyānas establish the impure liberation and mastery that take form as their object; the second and third dhyānas possess no such craving for form drawn forth by the consciousness-body, and it is for this reason that the third and fourth dhyānas do not establish this impure liberation and mastery that takes form as its object. The first three dhyānas possess applied and sustained thought, joy and pleasure, and the disturbing matter of inhalation and exhalation, and it is for this reason that the pure liberation does not exist there — the latter four masteries and the first eight totalities, taking a pure and sublime object and being capable of subduing affliction, being an especially difficult matter, must certainly depend upon an undisturbed ground before they can be accomplished at all. Further, the third dhyāna is distant from the desire realm, yet, among the dhyānas, is not itself the most supreme, and it is for this reason that it possesses no liberation, mastery, or totality. Further, the third dhyāna, exactly like the third formless attainment, possesses no abundance of merit, and it is for this reason that it possesses no liberation and the rest — that is, the spheres of infinite space and of infinite consciousness possess the merit of the boundless aspect; the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception possesses the merit of the attainment of cessation; the sphere of nothingness possesses neither the boundless aspect nor the attainment of cessation, and it is for this reason that this ground's own merit is diminished — the third dhyāna, exactly like that ground, likewise possesses no merit of liberation, mastery, or totality. Further, the third dhyāna possesses the very supreme experience of pleasure among the pleasures of birth and death, capable of causing a practitioner to become deeply attached and confused, and it is for this reason that it possesses no liberation, mastery, or totality. One asks: if so, it ought then to possess none of the remaining merits either, such as the immeasurables, the superknowledges, and the rest. The answer: to say that its merit is diminished is not to say that it is entirely without merit whatsoever — were this ground to possess none of the immeasurables and the rest, this dhyāna would then be utterly without merit at all. Further, the immeasurables, taking sentient beings in general as their object, comprehensively pervading through wisdom, range freely within this ground, and it is thereby that it comes to possess the merit of liberation, mastery, and totality; taking form and the rest individually as their object, subduing every affliction, being a matter especially difficult to accomplish, this is why it lacks this merit here.

As a scripture states, one who has attained the totality of earth's own concentration reflects as follows: earth itself is my very self; my very self is itself earth; earth and my self are without duality, without distinction. One who has attained the concentration of every remaining totality, each according to its own object, is stated in just the same way. One asks: whoever has attained the concentration of a totality

must certainly have already become free of the third dhyāna's own defilement, and the view of self he thereby gives rise to must certainly belong to the fourth dhyāna. Yet, if the view of self belongs to the fourth dhyāna,

it must certainly take solely the fourth dhyāna's own earth and the like, among the first eight totalities, as its object — how, then, can it be said that it takes the desire realm's own form-sense-field alone as its object, and yet is said to share the identical object as this view of self, which takes earth and the like as its object? There are those who say: here, the very word "attained" is spoken with reference to one who has not, in fact, yet attained that concentration, exactly as one who is not a renunciant may still be spoken of as a renunciant, or one who is not a brahmin may still be spoken of as a brahmin — that is, by means of the hearing-and-reflection wisdom of the desire realm, a beginner practices and cultivates earth and the like as a totality, yet is not yet capable of cutting off the desire realm's own affliction, and has not yet attained the root totality of earth and the like — and it is for this reason that, taking earth and the like as his object, he may still give rise to a view of self. There are those who say: this simply retains the old name in speaking of it, and this, too, raises no contradiction — exactly as a certain king, although he has already lost his own royal position, may still be addressed, retaining his old name, as "king" — so too, one who formerly attained the totality of earth and the like, though he has now declined and lost it, is still named one who has attained it, and it is his giving rise to a view of self within the desire realm, taking the desire realm's own earth and the like as his object and conceiving of a self there, that raises no contradiction with principle. There are those who further say: this speaks with reference to swiftly entering and emerging from the totality's own view of self,

and it is for this reason that this, too, raises no contradiction — that is, one who has formerly attained the totality of earth and the like, afterward, in a swift decline, gives rise to a view of self within the desire realm, taking the desire realm's own earth and the like as his object and conceiving of a self there, and then swiftly regains the fourth dhyāna's own totality of earth and the like once more — exactly as Devadatta, who had formerly attained dhyāna, by the power of supernormal power over the domain, transformed himself into a small child, adorned with a golden thread and secular robes, his hair arranged in five topknots,

and sat playfully upon the lap of Prince Ajātaśatru, causing the prince to know that this was, in fact, the Venerable Devadatta. At that time, Ajātaśatru, filled with tender affection, embraced and played with him, and, kissing him, placed his own spittle into the child's mouth. Devadatta, greedy for gain and offering, thereupon swallowed this spittle, and it was for this reason that the Buddha rebuked him, saying: you are one who eats a dead body's own spittle. At the very moment he swallowed the spittle, he at once declined from his own dhyāna, and swiftly regained it once more, causing the very transformed body he had made to continue playing upon the prince's lap exactly as before — the view of self arising through a totality, too, should be understood in the corresponding manner. There are further masters who say: here, this refers to a view of self that grasps the fourth dhyāna's own earth and the like as a self — the first eight totalities, too, taking the fourth dhyāna's own earth and the like as their object. One asks: do the first eight totalities not, in fact, take the desire realm's own color as their object? The answer: they take both the desire realm's own color and the fourth dhyāna's own color as their object. One asks: the gods of the form realm are of a single, uniform white color — how, then, can one take them as object and conceive of blue and the rest with respect to them? The answer: although the sentient beings of the form realm are of a single, uniform white color, insentient matter there, too, possesses blue and the rest. The compilers say: one ought not to speak in this way — if a view of self were associated and co-arisen with the eight totalities, one might then raise the difficulty of how a single associated, co-arisen dharma could take either the fourth dhyāna or the desire realm as its object; yet a view of self is never, in fact, associated with, or co-arisen with, the eight totalities, and it is for this reason that this difficulty ought not to be raised at all — and yet the same single sentient being who is said to conceive of a self is also named one who has attained concentration, since, owing to his own view of self, he is named one who conceives of a self, and, owing to his own totality, he is named one who has attained concentration. His own view of self grasps the fourth dhyāna's own earth and the like as a self, while his own eight totalities take the desire realm's own color as their object, these not occurring at the very same time, and it is thereby that this scripture is well reconciled — this view of self and these eight totalities merely sharing the very same supporting body, while their own object differs.

As a scripture states, there exists the concentration of earth and the rest, and there exists the totality of earth and the rest. One asks: what distinction is there between the concentration of earth and the rest and the totality of earth and the rest? The answer: the concentration of earth and the rest exists within the desire realm and the four dhyānas; the totality of earth and the rest exists solely within the fourth dhyāna. Further, at the stage of preliminary practice, it is named the concentration of earth and the rest; once fully accomplished, it is named the totality of earth and the rest. Further, at the stage of cause, it is named the concentration of earth and the rest; at the stage of fruit, it is named the totality of earth and the rest. Further, if it gives rise to only a partial understanding, it is named the concentration of earth and the rest; if it gives rise to a fully pervasive understanding, it is named the totality of earth and the rest. Such, then, is the distinction.

One asks: what distinction is there among liberation, mastery, and totality? The answer: they differ in name alone — that one is named liberation, this one is named mastery, and that other one is named totality. Further, an inferior-grade wholesome root is named liberation; a middling-grade wholesome root is named mastery; a superior-grade wholesome root is named totality. Further, a small wholesome root is named liberation; a great wholesome root is named mastery; an immeasurable wholesome root is named totality. Further, that which is solely a cause is named liberation; that which is solely a fruit is named totality; that which spans both cause and fruit is named mastery. Further, that which is capable of turning away and abandoning is named liberation; that which is capable of mastering and overcoming its object is named mastery; that which is capable of expanding its own object is named totality. Further, that which merely gives rise to resolved conviction is named liberation; that which is capable of subduing affliction is named mastery; that which, with respect to its own object, admits of no duality and no measure, is named totality. Further, if one has attained liberation, one has not necessarily already attained mastery or totality;

if one has attained mastery, one has certainly already attained liberation, though not necessarily already attained totality; if one has attained totality, one has certainly already attained both liberation and mastery, for what reason is this so? Because one enters mastery from liberation, and enters totality from mastery. Such, then, is the distinction among liberation, mastery, and totality.

Here, the eight kinds of knowledge, the three concentrations, and the three further concentrations shall be extensively distinguished later, within the Knowledge Aggregate. The three fetters, up through the ninety-eight latent tendencies, have already been extensively distinguished at the very beginning of this aggregate.