The Sea Creature That Would Not Let Go

What is vision? And so on, stated at length. One asks: for what reason is this treatise composed? The answer: it is in order to put a stop to what other schools maintain, and to display the correct principle — that is, there are those who say: every conditioned dharma is itself of the very own-nature of vision, for what reason is this so? Because a sharp and forceful aspect is what is named "vision," and every conditioned dharma possesses a function whose own aspect is sharp and forceful, and it is for this reason that every conditioned dharma is of the very own-nature of vision. In order to put a stop to this intention, it is displayed that solely the eye faculty, and the wisdom of decisive discernment, are vision, not anything else. There are, further, those who say: the forbearance at the border of direct realization, too, is of the very own-nature of knowledge, as the Dārṣṭāntikas hold, who maintain as follows: at the very moment the undefiled eye of knowledge first falls upon its object, it is named "forbearance"; afterward, abiding within that object, it is named "knowledge" — exactly as a traveler along a road, upon reaching level ground, first pauses for a single thought-moment before then coming to abide there. The Great Virtuous One likewise says: the lower knowledge is named forbearance; the higher knowledge is named knowledge. In order to put a stop to this intention, it is displayed that the undefiled forbearance is vision, not knowledge. There are further those who say: the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising, too, are of the very own-nature of vision. In order to put a stop to this intention, it is displayed that these have set their own seeking to rest, no longer engaging in discernment, and are thereby knowledge, not vision. Further, it is because this Knowledge Aggregate ought to fully distinguish the very own-nature and the distinctions among vision, knowledge, and wisdom, these three, that this treatise is composed.

What is vision? The answer: the eye faculty, the five views, worldly right view, and the learner's and non-learner's own vision. One asks: for what reason is the eye faculty named vision? The answer: by virtue of four matters — first, because the noble ones speak of it thus; second, because worldly convention speaks of it thus; third, because the scripture speaks of it thus; fourth, because it is directly observed to be so in the world. As for the noble ones and worldly convention speaking of it thus: this refers to the fact that the various noble ones and the various worldly people alike say: my eye sees that person's own coming and going, walking, standing, sitting, and lying down, and the like — and, further, upon seeing a person stumble and fall into confusion, they alike say: since you saw it with your own eye, why did you act this way? As for the scripture speaking of it thus: this refers to the fact that the scripture states: once the eye has seen a form, one ought not to grasp at its overall sign, nor at its particular features; it, further, states: once the eye has seen a form, one ought to contemplate its impurity, reflecting properly upon it; it, further, states: once the eye has seen a form, whether pleasing or displeasing, one ought neither to crave it nor to feel aversion toward it; it, further, states: once the eye has seen a form, the three mental approaches of joy, sorrow, and equanimity arise; it, further, states: once the eye has seen a form, one ought not to feel elation or grief, but ought solely to abide in equanimity, right mindfulness, and right awareness. As for it being directly observed to be so in the world: this refers to the fact that it is directly observed in the world that whoever possesses a bright, clear eye sees without error, while whoever does not possess a bright, clear eye sees with error; and, further, it is directly observed in the world that whoever possesses the eye faculty is capable of seeing the various forms,

while whoever does not possess the eye faculty is incapable of seeing form; and, further, it is directly observed in the world that whatever the eye directly faces, it is capable of seeing that same form, while whatever it does not directly face, it is thereby incapable of seeing; and, further, it is directly observed in the world that, for the most part, one is incapable of seeing whatever form is obstructed, since the eye is itself subject to obstruction. The Venerable Vasumitra speaks as follows: for what reason is the eye faculty named vision? Because it is directly observed in the world that whoever possesses a pure eye says, I see purely, while whoever possesses an impure eye says, I see impurely. The Great Virtuous One speaks as follows: for what reason is the eye faculty named vision? Because the scripture states: what is grasped by the eye faculty and discerned by the eye-consciousness is named "what is seen," and worldly convention likewise holds this — and it is for this reason that the eye faculty is named vision. As for the five views: this refers to the view of self,

the extreme view, the wrong view, view-grasping, and clinging to precepts and vows. One asks: for what reason are these five named vision? The answer: by virtue of four matters — first, because of observing and gazing, this referring to being capable of observing and gazing upon whatever object is to be grasped. One asks: since these five, being deviant, distorted, and inverted, gaze in this same manner, how can they be named vision? The answer: although these are indeed a deviant, distorted, and inverted manner of gazing, they are nonetheless of the very own-nature of wisdom, and it is for this reason that they are named vision — exactly as a person's own eye faculty, although not clear and bright, is still capable of observing and gazing, and is likewise named vision. Second, because of decisive discernment, this referring to being capable of decisively discerning whatever object is to be grasped. One asks: since this occurs within a single moment, how can there be decisive discernment? The answer: it is because its own nature is sharp and forceful that the name "decisive discernment" is established. Third, because of firm clinging, this referring to firmly and perversely clinging to one's own object, incapable of being relinquished except by the very sword of the noble path — the Buddha and his disciples, using the sword of the noble path, cut off this same view's own tusk, and only afterward is it relinquished,

exactly as there exists a sea creature named śiśumāra, which, whatever it seizes in its jaws, clenches firmly and never relinquishes, requiring a sharp sword to cut through and sever its very tusk before it is finally released — the five views are just the same. Fourth, because of penetrating deeply, this referring to being sharp and penetrating deeply into its own object, exactly as a needle sinks into mud. Further, it is by virtue of two matters that these five are named vision — first, because of illuminating and gazing upon; second, because of seeking through discernment. Further, it is by virtue of three matters that these five are named vision — first, because they are associated with the very characteristic of vision; second, because they are capable of accomplishing the very matter of vision; third, because they are unobstructed with respect to their own object. Further, it is by virtue of three matters that these five are named vision — first, because of inclination; second, because of attachment; third, because of seeking. Further, it is by virtue of three matters that they are named vision — first, because of inclination; second, because of preparatory effort; third, because of ignorance. "Because of inclination" refers to the vision of one who has attained concentration; "because of preparatory effort" refers to the vision of one who reflects and reasons; "because of ignorance" refers to the vision of one who merely follows what he has heard.

Further, "because of inclination" refers to the vision of one whose own inclination is corrupted; "because of preparatory effort" refers to the vision of one whose own preparatory effort is corrupted; "because of ignorance" refers to the vision of one in whom both are corrupted — and it is for this reason that these five, too, are named vision. As for worldly right view: this refers to the wholesome wisdom associated with mental consciousness, which, being of the very own-nature of vision, is thereby named vision. As for the learner's own vision: this refers to the learner's own undefiled wisdom. As for the non-learner's own vision: this refers to the non-learner's own right view — these two, too, being both of the very own-nature of vision, are thereby named vision. It should be understood that, here, the five views, with respect to their object, are like seeing form on a misty night;

worldly right view, with respect to its object, is like seeing form on a clear night; the learner's own vision, with respect to its object, is like seeing form on a misty day; the non-learner's own vision, with respect to its object, is like seeing form on a clear day.

What is knowledge? The answer: the wisdom associated with the five sense-consciousnesses, together with, excepting the undefiled forbearance, the remaining wisdom associated with mental consciousness. Here, the wisdom associated with the five sense-consciousnesses is of three kinds — first, wholesome; second, defiled; third, neutral-and-unobscured. "Wholesome" refers solely to innate wholesomeness; "defiled" refers solely to what is associated with craving, aversion, and delusion abandoned by cultivation; "neutral-and-unobscured" refers to what is born of ripening, together with a small portion co-arising with deportment, craft, and the all-pervading-fruit mind. The remaining wisdom associated with mental consciousness is likewise of three kinds — first, wholesome; second, defiled; third, neutral-and-unobscured. The wholesome is of two kinds — first, contaminated; second, undefiled. The contaminated wholesome is of three kinds — first, attained through preparatory effort; second, attained through becoming free of defilement; third, innate. "Attained through preparatory effort" refers to the wisdom accomplished through hearing, the wisdom accomplished through thinking, and the wisdom accomplished through cultivation. The wisdom accomplished through hearing refers to properly discerning the text and its meaning in accordance with principle. The wisdom accomplished through thinking refers to the contemplation of impurity, the mindfulness of breathing, and the applications of mindfulness, and the like. The wisdom accomplished through cultivation refers to heat, summit, forbearance, the supreme worldly dharma, and the worldly, conventional knowledge belonging to the border of direct realization,

the immeasurables, the liberations, the masteries, the totalities, and the like. "Attained through becoming free of defilement" refers to the dhyānas, the immeasurables, the formless attainments, the liberations, the masteries, the totalities, and the like. "Innate" refers to the wholesome naturally attained upon birth within that ground. The undefiled is of two kinds — first, the learner's own; second, the non-learner's own. The learner's own refers to the learner's own eight kinds of knowledge; the non-learner's own refers to the knowledge of exhaustion, the knowledge of non-arising, and the non-learner's own right view and knowledge. The defiled refers to what is associated with the afflictions and secondary afflictions abandoned by seeing and by cultivation. The neutral-and-unobscured refers to what co-arises with the mind born of ripening, of deportment, of craft, and of the all-pervading fruit.

What is wisdom? The answer: the wisdom associated with the six consciousnesses. This is of three kinds — namely, wholesome, defiled, and neutral-and-unobscured, exactly as fully stated before, with the following distinction: the eight undefiled forbearances, too, are gathered within wisdom, since investigation-of-dharma pervades all of them, and every mind whatsoever, together with what accompanies it, does indeed possess wisdom. Having already stated the very own-nature of these three — vision, knowledge, and wisdom — their own mutual relationships of overlap and non-overlap ought now to be distinguished. Is every vision knowledge?

The answer: a tetralemma ought to be cast, since vision and knowledge, in their own-nature, differ in breadth and narrowness. There is vision that is not knowledge — namely, the eye faculty and the undefiled forbearance. One asks: for what reason is the eye faculty not named knowledge? The answer: the eye faculty possesses form, whereas knowledge does not possess form. Further, the eye faculty is not associated with anything, possesses no support, no object, no aspect, and no alertness — knowledge is not so. One asks: for what reason is the undefiled forbearance not knowledge? The answer: because, with respect to the truth being observed, the undefiled forbearance, although it forbears, has not yet reached a final decision; although it observes, has not yet fully scrutinized; although it seeks, has not yet reached its ultimate completion; although it examines, has not yet fully comprehended; although it directly realizes, has not yet re-examined — solely engaging in effort and preparatory activity without cease — and it is for this reason that it is not named knowledge. Further, the very meaning of "decisiveness" is the very meaning of "knowledge"; forbearance co-arises together with the very doubt yet to be cut off, not having reached the utmost decisiveness with respect to the object seen, and it is for this reason that it is not named knowledge. The Venerable Vasumitra speaks as follows: although forbearance genuinely endures with respect to the noble truths, it has not yet fully scrutinized and known them, and it is for this reason that it is not named knowledge. The Great Virtuous One speaks as follows: it is only once the very matter of vision has reached its ultimate completion that the name "knowledge" is established; at the initial moment of forbearance, the very matter of vision has not yet reached its ultimate completion, and it is for this reason that, although the undefiled forbearance is not named knowledge, it is nonetheless genuinely knowledge. The Venerable Wu speaks as follows: repeated observation is named knowledge — from beginningless time, with respect to the four noble truths, there has never been a single moment of noble wisdom that has already observed them, and, since forbearance's own arising constitutes the very first, initial observation, it is not yet named knowledge; although the wisdom co-arising with the five sense-consciousnesses is incapable of repeatedly observing its own object, yet, since form and the like, as objects, have, from beginningless time, already given rise to measureless contaminated wisdom-observations of them, it is, according to its own kind, already named a repeated observation, and it is for this reason that it, too, is named knowledge — every remaining contaminated knowledge that does not repeatedly take the same object as its own should be understood according to this same pattern, and no objection ought to be raised.

There is knowledge that is not vision — namely, the wisdom associated with the five sense-consciousness bodies, the knowledge of exhaustion, the knowledge of non-arising, and, excepting the five views and worldly right view, the remaining contaminated wisdom associated with mental consciousness. One asks: for what reason is the wisdom associated with the five sense-consciousness bodies not vision? The answer: a sharp, forceful aspect that penetrates deeply into its own object is what is named vision; the wisdom associated with the five sense-consciousness bodies possesses no sharp, forceful aspect, and is incapable of penetrating deeply into its own object, and it is for this reason that it is not named vision. Further, vision is capable of discriminating, whereas that wisdom is incapable of discriminating; vision is capable of taking both the particular and the general characteristic as its object, whereas that wisdom is capable of taking only the particular characteristic as its object; vision is capable of taking the three times and the unconditioned as its object, whereas that wisdom is capable of taking only the present as its object; vision is capable of repeatedly taking hold of its object, whereas that wisdom is capable of taking hold of its object only within a single moment; vision deliberates upon and observes its own object, whereas that wisdom does not. It is by virtue of such various causes and conditions as these that the wisdom associated with the five sense-consciousness bodies is not named vision. One asks: for what reason are the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising not vision? The answer: these two knowledges possess no sharp, forceful aspect, and do not penetrate deeply into their own object. Further, vision engages in effort and preparatory activity without cease, whereas these two knowledges are not so, exactly like a bird that has come to rest, and it is for this reason that they are not named vision. Further, seeking and examining is what is named vision, whereas these two knowledges are not so, and it is for this reason that they are not named vision. It is by virtue of this that the Venerable Ghoṣa speaks as follows: the very task accomplished by the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising has already been completed, with no further supreme matter left to pursue, and it is for this reason that they are not named vision. There are those who say: every undefiled wisdom is, altogether, of two kinds — first, capable of counteracting evil views; second, capable of counteracting ignorance. Whatever is capable of counteracting evil views is named vision; the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising is capable solely of counteracting ignorance, and it is for this reason that it is not named vision. There are, further, those who say: every undefiled wisdom is, altogether, of three kinds — first, capable solely of counteracting evil views; second, capable solely of counteracting ignorance; third, capable of counteracting both evil views and ignorance together. Whatever is capable solely of counteracting evil views is vision, not knowledge — this referring to the undefiled forbearance belonging to the border of direct realization; whatever is capable solely of counteracting ignorance is knowledge, not vision — this referring to the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising; whatever is capable of counteracting both together is both knowledge and vision — this referring to every remaining undefiled wisdom. The Venerable Vasumitra speaks as follows: discernment is named vision; the very task accomplished by the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising has reached its ultimate completion, and, no longer engaging in discernment, it is for this reason not named vision. There are, further, those who say: seeking is named vision; the very task accomplished by the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising has already been completed, and, no longer seeking, it is for this reason not named vision. There are, further, those who say: were the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising of the very own-nature of vision, then every arhat ought to possess solely the non-learner's own nine branches, excepting the branch of right knowledge — yet the Bhagavān has said that every arhat possesses the non-learner's own ten branches, and it is for this reason that the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising is not vision. One asks: exactly as worldly right view and the learner's and non-learner's own vision, although indeed themselves knowledge, are nonetheless named vision, so too, if the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising, although indeed themselves also vision, were named knowledge — what fault would there be in this? The answer: exactly as, at the very time of first cultivating the preparatory contemplation, worldly right view, although possessing the very own-nature of both knowledge and vision, is established as the branch of right view, not the branch of right knowledge; exactly as, once having entered the learner's own stage, the learner's own eight kinds of knowledge, although possessing the very own-nature of both knowledge and vision, are established as the branch of right view, not the branch of right knowledge; exactly as, once having reached the non-learner's own stage, the non-learner's own right view, although possessing the very own-nature of both knowledge and vision, is established as the branch of right view, not the branch of right knowledge — so too, were the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising likewise to possess the very own-nature of both knowledge and vision, it ought likewise to be established as the branch of right view, not the branch of right knowledge, and every arhat would then possess solely the non-learner's own nine branches, thereby directly contradicting what the Bhagavān has said, that every arhat possesses the non-learner's own ten branches. The Great Virtuous One speaks as follows: the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising is certainly of the very own-nature of vision, being of the very own-nature of decisive discernment. One asks: if this is so, then the arhat ought to possess solely nine branches. The answer: two branches exist solely within the non-learner's own ground — namely, right liberation and right knowledge; the remaining eight branches pervade both the learner's and the non-learner's own ground — namely, the remaining eight branches. Although the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising is indeed vision, the very task it accomplishes has already reached its ultimate completion, differing from the preceding learner's own stage, and it is for this reason that it is separately established as its own branch, and this ought not to be raised as a challenge. The verdict: one ought to say that the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising is knowledge, not vision, since the task to be accomplished has already been completed, and, with respect to the four noble truths, it no longer seeks or engages in preparatory effort, this activity having come to rest. As for the remaining contaminated wisdom associated with mental consciousness, excepting the five views and worldly right view: this is of two kinds —

first, defiled; second, neutral-and-unobscured. The defiled refers to the wisdom associated with craving, aversion, conceit, doubt, and the ignorance not shared with others.

The neutral-and-unobscured refers to the wisdom co-arising with the mind born of ripening, of deportment, of craft, and of the all-pervading fruit. One asks: for what reason is the wisdom associated with craving and the rest, belonging to the mental ground, not vision? The answer: this wisdom possesses no sharp, forceful aspect, and is incapable of penetrating deeply into its own object. Further, it is covered over and impaired by two afflictions together — these two afflictions being whichever one of craving, aversion, conceit, or doubt, together with the ignorance associated with it.

One asks: if this is so, then the wisdom associated with the ignorance not shared with others ought to be vision, since it arises associated with a single affliction alone. The answer: this ignorance is of two kinds — first, the ignorance not shared with others abandoned by seeing, whose own covering obstruction is especially heavy, surpassing that of the two afflictions together; second, the ignorance not shared with others abandoned by cultivation, associated with entanglements and defilements arising through its own force — since this same ignorance stands independently, it is capable of covering over and impairing wisdom exactly as craving and aversion do, and it is for this reason that the wisdom associated with it, exactly like that associated with craving and the rest, is likewise not named vision. One asks: for what reason is neutral-and-unobscured wisdom not vision? The answer: this wisdom possesses no sharp, forceful aspect, and is incapable of penetrating deeply into its own object. Further, this wisdom's own force is exceedingly feeble, and it is for this reason that it is not named vision, since only what possesses genuine force, firm and strong with respect to its own object, is thereby named vision. One asks: it may well be reasonable that the wisdom born of ripening and of deportment possesses feeble force, but the wisdom of craft, and the wisdom associated with the all-pervading-fruit mind, possess strong and vigorous force — how, then, are these not vision? The answer: although the wisdom of craft does indeed possess the most strong and vigorous force, exactly as Viśvakarman, the god of craft, and the like, whose own accomplished works arise from a knowledge as though wished for, it is nonetheless covered over and impaired by wrong livelihood, and it is for this reason that it is not named vision — that is, every matter of craft arises with the desire to sustain one's own life as its very cause; and, although the mental states of craft, together with their own concomitants, are, at the very moment they manifest, themselves undefiled, they are nonetheless drawn forth and given rise to by the very force of wrong livelihood, and it is said that being thereby covered over and impaired by wrong livelihood is precisely the very meaning of being covered over and impaired by craving. Even were it not covered over and impaired by craving, its own force would still be shallow and fleeting, its own aspect inferior and dull, incapable of penetrating deeply into its own object, and it is for this reason that it is not named vision. Further, the wisdom of craft turns exactly like doubt, incapable of reaching a decision with respect to its own object — for what reason is this so? Even the most skillful craftsman, in performing his own work of craft, if criticized and censured by another, thereby falls into hesitation,

The wisdom of the all-pervading fruit, too, possesses no sharp, forceful aspect with respect to its own object, being incapable of penetrating deeply into its own object, and, being drawn forth by the very force of a prior concentration, turns spontaneously, without seeking with respect to its own object, and it is for this reason that it is not named vision. Further, the wisdom of the all-pervading fruit is drawn forth and given rise to on account of the very matter transformed through prior repeated habituation, exactly as with the habituated wisdom of craft, and it is for this reason that it is not named vision. Further, the four kinds of neutral-and-unobscured wisdom, born of ripening and the rest, all possess feeble force, and, exactly as they do not constitute the wholesome nor the defiled, they likewise do not constitute vision. There is vision that is also knowledge — namely, the five views and worldly right view, together with, excepting the undefiled forbearance and the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising, the remaining undefiled wisdom, this being precisely the learner's own eight kinds of knowledge, and the non-learner's own right view — this same undefiled wisdom, together with the aforementioned five views and worldly right view, all possess the two characteristics of both vision and knowledge together, and are thereby gathered within the third clause.

There is that which is neither vision nor knowledge — this refers to whatever excludes the aforementioned characteristics; "characteristic" refers to what is thereby named. Whatever dharma is expressed by the preceding three clauses is, in every case, named a "characteristic"; whatever excludes these constitutes the fourth clause. As for the dharma expressed by this fourth clause — what, precisely, is it? This refers to, within the form-aggregate, whatever excludes the eye faculty, the remaining form; within the formations-aggregate, whatever excludes wisdom, the remaining formations; together with the whole of the three remaining aggregates, and the unconditioned dharma, all constituting the fourth clause.

Is every vision wisdom? The answer: a tetralemma ought to be cast, since vision and wisdom, in their own-nature, differ in breadth and narrowness. There is vision that is not wisdom — namely, the eye faculty, since it is capable of observing and gazing, yet is itself of the very own-nature of form. There is wisdom that is not vision — namely, the wisdom associated with the five sense-consciousness bodies, the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising, and, excepting the five views and worldly right view, the remaining contaminated wisdom associated with mental consciousness, since these are of the very own-nature of investigation-of-dharma, yet not of discernment — stated fully as before. There is vision that is also wisdom — namely, excepting the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising, the remaining undefiled wisdom, together with the five views and worldly right view, this being precisely the undefiled forbearance, the learner's own eight kinds of knowledge, and the non-learner's own right view, and the like, since these are capable of discernment, and are of the very own-nature of investigation-of-dharma, thereby possessing both characteristics together. There is that which is neither vision nor wisdom — this refers to whatever excludes the aforementioned characteristics; "characteristic" refers to what is thereby named, exactly as fully stated before. Is every knowledge wisdom? The answer: every knowledge is indeed wisdom, since whatever is capable of a fully scrutinized decision is, in every case, of the very nature of investigation-of-dharma. There is wisdom that is not knowledge — namely, the undefiled forbearance, since it observes the truth as its object for the very first time, not yet having reached a fully scrutinized decision.

Does vision gather in knowledge, and does knowledge gather in vision? And so on, stated at length. Here, there exist two kinds of tetralemma; one kind, being fixed by the two clauses of the preceding question, should have its own characteristic understood accordingly.

Whoever possesses vision, does he possess this same knowledge? And so on, stated at length. Here, among these three — vision, knowledge, and wisdom — if one possesses any single one, he necessarily possesses the remaining two as well, and it is for this reason that every such clause is answered in this same way. One asks: who possesses vision, knowledge, and wisdom? The answer: every sentient being without exception — this is the general statement, yet there exist differences in how many. That is, one who has cut off his own wholesome roots possesses the three realms' own vision, knowledge, and wisdom abandoned by seeing; he possesses the three realms' own defiled knowledge and wisdom abandoned by cultivation; he possesses the desire realm's own neutral-and-unobscured knowledge and wisdom. One who has not cut off his own wholesome roots, yet has not yet attained the form realm's own wholesome mind, possesses the three realms' own vision, knowledge, and wisdom abandoned by seeing; he possesses the three realms' own defiled knowledge and wisdom abandoned by cultivation; he possesses the desire realm's own wholesome vision, knowledge, and wisdom;

he possesses the desire realm's own neutral-and-unobscured knowledge and wisdom. One who has already attained the form realm's own wholesome mind, yet not yet become free of the desire realm's own defilement, possesses the three realms' own vision, knowledge, and wisdom abandoned by seeing; he possesses the three realms' own defiled knowledge and wisdom abandoned by cultivation; he possesses the desire and form realms' own wholesome vision, knowledge, and wisdom; he possesses the desire realm's own neutral-and-unobscured knowledge and wisdom. One who has already become free of the desire realm's own defilement, yet not yet attained the formless realm's own wholesome mind: if born within the desire realm, he possesses the form and formless realms' own vision, knowledge, and wisdom abandoned by seeing; he possesses the form and formless realms' own defiled knowledge and wisdom abandoned by cultivation; he possesses the desire and form realms' own wholesome vision, knowledge, and wisdom; he possesses the desire and form realms' own neutral-and-unobscured knowledge and wisdom. If born within the form realm, he does not possess the desire realm's own wholesome vision, knowledge, and wisdom; the rest he possesses exactly as stated for one born within the desire realm. One who has already attained the formless realm's own wholesome mind, yet not yet become free of the form realm's own defilement: if born within the desire realm, he possesses the form and formless realms' own vision, knowledge, and wisdom abandoned by seeing; he possesses the form and formless realms' own defiled knowledge and wisdom abandoned by cultivation; he possesses the three realms' own wholesome vision, knowledge, and wisdom; he possesses the desire and form realms' own neutral-and-unobscured knowledge and wisdom. If born within the form realm, he does not possess the desire realm's own wholesome vision, knowledge, and wisdom; the rest he possesses exactly as stated for one born within the desire realm. One who has already become free of the form realm's own defilement, born within the desire realm, possesses the formless realm's own vision, knowledge, and wisdom abandoned by seeing; he possesses the formless realm's own defiled knowledge and wisdom abandoned by cultivation; he possesses the three realms' own wholesome vision, knowledge, and wisdom; he possesses the desire and form realms' own neutral-and-unobscured knowledge and wisdom. If born within the form realm, he does not possess the desire realm's own wholesome vision, knowledge, and wisdom; the rest he possesses exactly as stated for one born within the desire realm. If born within the formless realm, he does not possess the desire and form realms' own wholesome vision, knowledge, and wisdom, nor does he possess the desire and form realms' own neutral-and-unobscured knowledge and wisdom. If a mind born of ripening manifests in the present, he then possesses the formless realm's own neutral-and-unobscured knowledge and wisdom; if a mind born of ripening does not manifest in the present, he then likewise does not possess the formless realm's own neutral-and-unobscured knowledge and wisdom; the rest he possesses exactly as stated for one born within the desire realm. Such is the case for the ordinary being.

As for a noble one: one who follows through faith or through the dharma, with the knowledge of suffering not yet having arisen, not yet free of the desire realm's own defilement, possesses the three realms' own vision, knowledge, and wisdom abandoned by seeing; he possesses the three realms' own defiled knowledge and wisdom abandoned by cultivation; he possesses the desire and form realms' own wholesome vision, knowledge, and wisdom; he possesses the desire realm's own neutral-and-unobscured knowledge and wisdom; he possesses the undefiled vision and wisdom. This same person, already free of the desire realm's own defilement, yet not yet free of the form realm's own defilement, possesses the form and formless realms' own vision, knowledge, and wisdom abandoned by seeing; he possesses the form and formless realms' own defiled knowledge and wisdom abandoned by cultivation. If he has not yet attained the formless realm's own wholesome mind, he possesses the desire and form realms' own wholesome vision, knowledge, and wisdom; if he has already attained the formless realm's own wholesome mind, he possesses the three realms' own wholesome vision, knowledge, and wisdom; he possesses the desire and form realms' own neutral-and-unobscured knowledge and wisdom; he possesses the undefiled vision and wisdom. This same person, already free of the form realm's own defilement, possesses the formless realm's own vision, knowledge, and wisdom abandoned by seeing; he possesses the formless realm's own defiled knowledge and wisdom abandoned by cultivation; he possesses the three realms' own wholesome vision, knowledge, and wisdom; he possesses the desire and form realms' own neutral-and-unobscured knowledge and wisdom; he possesses the undefiled vision and wisdom. As for one with the knowledge of suffering already having arisen, but the knowledge of accumulation not yet having arisen, not yet free of the desire realm's own defilement: he possesses the three realms' own vision, knowledge, and wisdom belonging to seeing accumulation, cessation, and the path; he possesses the three realms' own defiled knowledge and wisdom abandoned by cultivation; he possesses the desire and form realms' own wholesome vision, knowledge, and wisdom; he possesses the desire realm's own neutral-and-unobscured knowledge and wisdom; he possesses the undefiled vision, knowledge, and wisdom. This same person, already free of the desire realm's own defilement, yet not yet free of the form realm's own defilement, possesses the form and formless realms' own vision, knowledge, and wisdom belonging to seeing accumulation, cessation, and the path abandoned by seeing; he possesses the form and formless realms' own defiled knowledge and wisdom abandoned by cultivation. If he has not yet attained the formless realm's own wholesome mind,

he possesses the desire and form realms' own wholesome vision, knowledge, and wisdom; if he has already attained the formless realm's own wholesome mind, he possesses the three realms' own wholesome vision, knowledge, and wisdom; he possesses the desire and form realms' own neutral-and-unobscured knowledge and wisdom; he possesses the undefiled vision, knowledge, and wisdom. This same person, already free of the form realm's own defilement, possesses the formless realm's own vision, knowledge, and wisdom belonging to seeing accumulation, cessation, and the path abandoned by seeing; he possesses the formless realm's own defiled knowledge and wisdom abandoned by cultivation; he possesses the three realms' own wholesome vision, knowledge, and wisdom; he possesses the desire and form realms' own neutral-and-unobscured knowledge and wisdom; he possesses the undefiled vision, knowledge, and wisdom. As for one with the knowledge of accumulation already having arisen, but the knowledge of cessation not yet having arisen, not yet free of the desire realm's own defilement: he possesses the three realms' own vision, knowledge, and wisdom belonging to seeing cessation and the path abandoned by seeing; he possesses the three realms' own defiled knowledge and wisdom abandoned by cultivation; he possesses the desire and form realms' own wholesome vision, knowledge, and wisdom; he possesses the desire realm's own neutral-and-unobscured knowledge and wisdom;

he possesses the undefiled vision, knowledge, and wisdom. This same person, already free of the desire realm's own defilement,

yet not yet free of the form realm's own defilement, possesses the form and formless realms' own vision, knowledge, and wisdom belonging to seeing cessation and the path abandoned by seeing; he possesses the form and formless realms' own defiled knowledge and wisdom abandoned by cultivation. If he has not yet attained the formless realm's own wholesome mind, he possesses the desire and form realms' own wholesome vision, knowledge, and wisdom; if he has already attained the formless realm's own wholesome mind, he possesses the three realms' own wholesome vision, knowledge, and wisdom; he possesses the desire and form realms' own neutral-and-unobscured knowledge and wisdom; he possesses the undefiled vision, knowledge, and wisdom. As for one with the knowledge of cessation already having arisen, but the knowledge of the path not yet having arisen, not yet free of the desire realm's own defilement: he possesses the three realms' own vision, knowledge, and wisdom belonging to seeing the path abandoned by seeing; he possesses the three realms' own defiled knowledge and wisdom abandoned by cultivation; he possesses the desire and form realms' own wholesome vision, knowledge, and wisdom; he possesses the desire realm's own neutral-and-unobscured knowledge and wisdom; he possesses the undefiled vision, knowledge, and wisdom. This same person, already free of the desire realm's own defilement, yet not yet free of the form realm's own defilement, possesses the form and formless realms' own vision, knowledge, and wisdom belonging to seeing the path abandoned by seeing; he possesses the form and formless realms' own defiled knowledge and wisdom abandoned by cultivation. If he has not yet attained the formless realm's own wholesome mind, he possesses the desire and form realms' own wholesome vision, knowledge, and wisdom; if he has already attained the formless realm's own wholesome mind, he possesses the three realms' own wholesome vision, knowledge, and wisdom; he possesses the desire and form realms' own neutral-and-unobscured knowledge and wisdom; he possesses the undefiled vision, knowledge, and wisdom. This same person, already free of the form realm's own defilement, possesses the formless realm's own vision, knowledge, and wisdom belonging to seeing the path abandoned by seeing; he possesses the formless realm's own defiled knowledge and wisdom abandoned by cultivation; he possesses the three realms' own wholesome vision, knowledge, and wisdom; he possesses the desire and form realms' own neutral-and-unobscured knowledge and wisdom; he possesses the undefiled vision, knowledge, and wisdom.

As for one who follows through faith transformed into resolve, or one who has arrived at insight, not yet free of the desire realm's own defilement: he possesses the three realms' own defiled knowledge and wisdom abandoned by cultivation; he possesses the desire and form realms' own wholesome vision, knowledge, and wisdom; he possesses the desire realm's own neutral-and-unobscured knowledge and wisdom; he possesses the undefiled vision, knowledge, and wisdom. This same person, already free of the desire realm's own defilement, yet not yet attained the formless realm's own wholesome mind: if born within the desire realm, he possesses the form and formless realms' own defiled knowledge and wisdom abandoned by cultivation;

he possesses the desire and form realms' own wholesome vision, knowledge, and wisdom; he possesses the desire and form realms' own neutral-and-unobscured knowledge and wisdom; he possesses the undefiled vision, knowledge, and wisdom. If born within the form realm, he does not possess the desire realm's own wholesome vision, knowledge, and wisdom; the rest he possesses exactly as stated for one born within the desire realm. This same person, already attained the formless realm's own wholesome mind, yet not yet free of the form realm's own defilement: if born within the desire realm, he possesses the form and formless realms' own defiled knowledge and wisdom abandoned by cultivation; he possesses the three realms' own wholesome vision, knowledge, and wisdom; he possesses the desire and form realms' own neutral-and-unobscured knowledge and wisdom; he possesses the undefiled vision, knowledge, and wisdom. If born within the form realm, he does not possess the desire realm's own wholesome vision, knowledge, and wisdom; the rest he possesses exactly as stated for one born within the desire realm. This same person, already free of the form realm's own defilement: if born within the desire realm, he possesses the formless realm's own defiled knowledge and wisdom abandoned by cultivation; he possesses the three realms' own wholesome vision, knowledge, and wisdom;

he possesses the desire and form realms' own neutral-and-unobscured knowledge and wisdom; he possesses the undefiled vision, knowledge, and wisdom. If born within the form realm, he does not possess the desire realm's own wholesome vision, knowledge, and wisdom; the rest he possesses exactly as stated for one born within the desire realm. If born within the formless realm, he does not possess the desire and form realms' own wholesome vision, knowledge, and wisdom, nor does he possess the desire and form realms' own neutral-and-unobscured knowledge and wisdom. If a mind born of ripening manifests in the present, he then possesses the formless realm's own neutral-and-unobscured knowledge and wisdom; if a mind born of ripening does not manifest in the present, he then likewise does not possess the formless realm's own neutral-and-unobscured knowledge and wisdom; the rest he possesses exactly as stated for one born within the desire realm. As for the arhat: if born within the desire realm, he possesses the three realms' own wholesome vision, knowledge, and wisdom;

he possesses the desire and form realms' own neutral-and-unobscured knowledge and wisdom; he possesses the undefiled vision, knowledge, and wisdom. If born within the form realm, he possesses the form and formless realms' own wholesome vision, knowledge, and wisdom; he possesses the desire and form realms' own neutral-and-unobscured knowledge and wisdom; he possesses the undefiled vision, knowledge, and wisdom. If born within the formless realm, and a mind born of ripening does not manifest in the present, he possesses the formless realm's own wholesome vision, knowledge, and wisdom; he possesses the undefiled vision and knowledge and wisdom.

If a mind born of ripening manifests in the present, he likewise possesses the formless realm's own neutral-and-unobscured knowledge and wisdom.

Whatever vision has already been cut off and fully comprehended, has that same knowledge likewise already been cut off and fully comprehended? The answer: it is so. If that same knowledge has already been cut off and fully comprehended, has that same vision likewise already been cut off and fully comprehended? The answer: it is so.

Whatever vision has already been cut off and fully comprehended, has that same wisdom likewise already been cut off and fully comprehended? The answer: it is so. If that same wisdom has already been cut off and fully comprehended, has that same vision likewise already been cut off and fully comprehended? The answer: it is so. Whatever knowledge has already been cut off and fully comprehended, has that same wisdom likewise already been cut off and fully comprehended? The answer: it is so. If that same wisdom has already been cut off and fully comprehended, has that same knowledge likewise already been cut off and fully comprehended? The answer: it is so. For what reason is this so? Because the stages of cutting off and full comprehension for these three — vision, knowledge, and wisdom — are, in every case, alike. One asks: who has already cut off and fully comprehended vision, knowledge, and wisdom? The answer: every arhat — this speaks of the ultimate cutting-off and full comprehension. The learner and the ordinary being possess these in varying amounts, not fixed. That is, the arhat has already cut off and fully comprehended the three realms' own vision, knowledge, and wisdom in their entirety. As for the non-returner: if he has already become free of the sphere of nothingness' own defilement,

he has already cut off and fully comprehended the three realms' own vision, knowledge, and wisdom abandoned by seeing, together with the eight grounds' own vision, knowledge, and wisdom abandoned by cultivation; and so on, up through, if he has not yet become free of the first dhyāna's own defilement, he has already cut off and fully comprehended the three realms' own vision, knowledge, and wisdom abandoned by seeing, together with the desire realm's own vision, knowledge, and wisdom abandoned by cultivation. As for the once-returner and the stream-enterer: they have already cut off and fully comprehended the three realms' own vision, knowledge, and wisdom abandoned by seeing. As for one who follows through faith or through the dharma: if the knowledge of cessation has already arisen but the knowledge of the path has not yet arisen, he has already cut off and fully comprehended the three realms' own vision, knowledge, and wisdom abandoned by seeing suffering, accumulation, and cessation; if the knowledge of accumulation has already arisen but the knowledge of cessation has not yet arisen, he has already cut off and fully comprehended the three realms' own vision, knowledge, and wisdom abandoned by seeing suffering and accumulation; if the knowledge of suffering has already arisen but the knowledge of accumulation has not yet arisen, he has already cut off and fully comprehended the three realms' own vision, knowledge, and wisdom abandoned by seeing suffering. Such is the case for the noble one. As for the various ordinary beings: if he has already become free of the sphere of nothingness' own defilement, he has already cut off and fully comprehended the eight grounds' own vision, knowledge, and wisdom abandoned by both seeing and cultivation; and so on, up through, if he has already become free of the desire realm's own defilement but not yet free of the first dhyāna's own defilement, he has already cut off and fully comprehended a single ground's own vision, knowledge, and wisdom abandoned by both seeing and cultivation. Such is named the analysis of these three — vision, knowledge, and wisdom — through the five gateways of concentration, gathering-in, possession, and cutting-off.

Is every right view the investigation-of-dharma awakening-factor? And so on, stated at length. One asks: for what reason is this treatise composed? The answer: the preceding treatise is the very root this one relies upon — that is, the preceding treatise states as follows: what is vision? What is knowledge? What is wisdom? Although it speaks in this way, it has not yet distinguished how right view and right knowledge, with respect to the investigation-of-dharma awakening-factor, differ in breadth and narrowness, and, wishing now to distinguish this, this treatise is composed. Now, within this very Abhidharma Jñānaprasthāna, there exists a fixed pattern: if the path-branches are distinguished after the awakening-factors, then the path-branches are solely undefiled, since the seven awakening-factors are solely undefiled; if the path-branches are distinguished before the awakening-factors, then the path-branches pervade both the contaminated and the undefiled.

Here, since the path-branches are distinguished before the awakening-factors, it should be understood that the path-branches pervade both the contaminated and the undefiled. Such is the brief Vibhāṣā given at this point — the wise ought to distinguish it further accordingly.

Is every right view the investigation-of-dharma awakening-factor? The answer: a tetralemma ought to be cast, since right view and the investigation-of-dharma awakening-factor, in their own-nature, differ in breadth and narrowness.

There is right view that is not the investigation-of-dharma awakening-factor — namely, worldly right view, since it is the various awakening-factors that assist genuine, direct awakening, and these are solely undefiled. There is the investigation-of-dharma awakening-factor that is not right view — namely, the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising, since these are not of the very own-nature of vision. There is right view that is also the investigation-of-dharma awakening-factor — namely, excepting the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising, the remaining undefiled wisdom, this being precisely the eight forbearances belonging to the border of direct realization, together with the learner's own eight kinds of knowledge, and the non-learner's own right view — these three kinds possessing both characteristics together. There is that which is neither right view nor the investigation-of-dharma awakening-factor — this refers to whatever excludes the aforementioned characteristics; "characteristic" refers to what is thereby named, exactly as fully stated before. As for what this is, precisely: this refers to, within the formations-aggregate, whatever excludes the wholesome wisdom associated with mental consciousness, the remaining formations-aggregate, together with the whole of the four remaining aggregates, and the unconditioned dharma, all constituting the fourth clause. Is every right knowledge the investigation-of-dharma awakening-factor? The answer: a tetralemma ought likewise to be cast, since right knowledge and the investigation-of-dharma awakening-factor, too, differ in breadth and narrowness. There is right knowledge that is not the investigation-of-dharma awakening-factor — namely, worldly right knowledge, since it lacks the very characteristic of an awakening-factor. There is the investigation-of-dharma awakening-factor that is not right knowledge — namely, the undefiled forbearance, since it lacks the very characteristic of knowledge. There is right knowledge that is also the investigation-of-dharma awakening-factor — namely, excepting the undefiled forbearance, the remaining undefiled wisdom, this being precisely the learner's own eight kinds of knowledge, together with the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising, and the non-learner's own right view, these possessing both characteristics together. There is that which is neither right knowledge nor the investigation-of-dharma awakening-factor — this refers to whatever excludes the aforementioned characteristics; "characteristic" refers to what is thereby named, exactly as fully stated before. As for what this is, precisely: this refers to, within the formations-aggregate, whatever excludes the wholesome wisdom associated with the six consciousnesses, the remaining formations-aggregate, together with the whole of the four remaining aggregates, and the unconditioned dharma, all constituting the fourth clause. One asks: for what reason does this treatise speak solely of how right view and right knowledge, with respect to the investigation-of-dharma awakening-factor, differ in breadth and narrowness, and not speak of how the remaining path-branches, with respect to the remaining awakening-factors, differ in breadth and narrowness? The answer: this is simply because the compiler of the treatise's own intention was thus, and so on, stated at length. Further, here, too, ought it to be said whether whatever is right effort

is also the effort awakening-factor. The answer: whatever is the effort awakening-factor is likewise right effort; there is right effort that is not the effort awakening-factor —

namely, worldly right effort; and so on up through: is whatever is right concentration also the concentration awakening-factor? The answer: whatever is the concentration awakening-factor is likewise right concentration; there is right concentration that is not the concentration awakening-factor — namely, worldly right concentration. This ought indeed to be so stated, and that it is not stated here should be understood to be a case whose meaning has been left over for elsewhere. Further, what is spoken of here displays only the very beginning and the very end, the middle being abbreviated, and it is for this reason that it is spoken of in this way — the very beginning refers to right view; the very end refers to right knowledge, exactly as, when speaking of a beginning and an end, one speaks of the initial entry and the ultimate crossing-over; the same should be understood of preparatory effort and its ultimate completion. Further, whatever dharma, compared in this way, fully satisfies all four clauses is spoken of here; whatever dharma, compared in this way, admits only of a clause conforming to what follows, is not spoken of here. Further, within this very Knowledge Aggregate, whatever dharma is of the very own-nature of vision, knowledge, or wisdom is thereby distinguished, since it belongs to the very category of knowledge; effort, mindfulness, and concentration do not belong to the category of knowledge, and it is for this reason that they are not spoken of here. As for each of the seven awakening-factors and the eight branches of the path, when each one manifests in the present, how many awakening-factors and how many path-branches manifest in the present at that same time? One asks: for what reason is this treatise composed? The answer: it is in order to put a stop to what other schools maintain, and to display the correct principle — that is, there are those who say: the various mental concomitants arise in strict succession, not all at one and the same time, as the Dārṣṭāntikas hold. The Great Virtuous One, too, says: the various mental concomitants arise in strict succession, not all at one and the same time, exactly as a great many merchants, passing along a single narrow road, must necessarily pass through one by one, neither two together nor many together — the various mental concomitants, too, are just the same,

each one, individually and separately, being given rise to by its own characteristic of arising, and there certainly being no meaning of arising together, combined, at one and the same time. One asks: in reliance upon what standard does he make this same claim? The answer: he relies upon the standard of authoritative teaching — that is, the scripture states: if, at that very moment, one's own mind sinks, or fears sinking, then cultivating three awakening-factors is named cultivating at the wrong time — this referring to tranquility, concentration, and equanimity; cultivating three awakening-factors is named cultivating at the right time — this referring to investigation-of-dharma, effort, and joy. If, at that very moment, one's own mind is agitated, or fears agitation, then cultivating three awakening-factors is named cultivating at the wrong time — this referring to investigation-of-dharma, effort, and joy; cultivating three awakening-factors is named cultivating at the right time — this referring to tranquility, concentration, and equanimity. He thereby says: since the awakening-factors do indeed admit of cultivation at the right time and at the wrong time, it is thereby known that the mental concomitants arise in strict succession, not all arising at one and the same time. There is, further, another scripture that states: Śāriputra said: with respect to the concentration of the seven awakening-factors, I am genuinely capable of abiding within it freely, according to my own will — that is, should I wish to abide within this same awakening-factor's own concentration during the first portion of the day, I am then genuinely capable of abiding there; should I wish to abide within this same awakening-factor's own concentration during the middle portion of the day, I am then genuinely capable of abiding there; should I wish to abide within this same awakening-factor's own concentration during the latter portion of the day, I am then genuinely capable of abiding there. He thereby says: since Śāriputra is indeed capable of abiding within any of the seven awakening-factors according to his own wish, it is thereby known that the mental concomitants arise in strict succession, not all arising at one and the same time, this principle being certain and decided.

In order to put a stop to this intention, it is displayed that the various mental concomitants do indeed arise at one and the same time, and it is for this reason that this treatise is composed. One asks: if the various mental concomitants do indeed arise at one and the same time, how is one to reconcile this with the scripture cited above? The answer: the earlier scripture, speaking of cultivating three awakening-factors at the right time and at the wrong time, proves only that the mental concomitants need not necessarily arise one by one in strict succession, not that three awakening-factors are not cultivated at one and the same time — it thereby proves that the various mental concomitants do indeed arise together at one and the same time. One asks: if the various awakening-factors, depending on whichever ground they rely upon, arise together, either six or seven at once, then for what reason does the scripture speak of cultivating at the right time and at the wrong time as involving only three of each kind? The answer: it is spoken of in this way with reference to the fact that the calm-abiding aspect's and the insight aspect's own awakening-factors possess a function that increases and decreases — that is, three awakening-factors belong to the calm-abiding aspect; three awakening-factors belong to the insight aspect. If, at the very moment the calm-abiding aspect's own awakening-factors increase, causing one's own mind to sink downward, then, at that very moment, one ought to cultivate the insight aspect's own awakening-factors, spurring the mind and causing it to be lifted upward, and, since one is cultivating the calm-abiding aspect at that time, it is said to be the wrong time. If, at the very moment the insight aspect's own awakening-factors increase, causing one's own mind to be agitated and lifted,

then, at that very moment, one ought to cultivate the calm-abiding aspect's own awakening-factors, restraining the mind and causing it to be lowered, and, since one is cultivating the insight aspect at that time, it is said to be the wrong time — although the various awakening-factors do indeed arise at one and the same time, their own function possesses increase and decrease, and it is for this reason that only three of each kind are spoken of. Further, at the very moment one enters the noble path, this differs according to which of the calm-abiding or insight aspect one relies upon, and it is for this reason that it is spoken of in this way — that is, if one who enters the noble path in dependence upon the calm-abiding aspect's own awakening-factors ought to cultivate the calm-abiding aspect's own awakening-factors, restraining the mind and causing it to be lowered, and, since one is cultivating the insight aspect at that time, it is said to be the wrong time; if one who enters the noble path in dependence upon the insight aspect's own awakening-factors ought to cultivate the insight aspect's own awakening-factors, spurring the mind and causing it to be lifted, and, since one is cultivating the calm-abiding aspect at that time, it is said to be the wrong time. There are further teachers who say the very opposite of this — that is, if one who enters the noble path in dependence upon the calm-abiding aspect's own awakening-factors, his own mind tends mostly to sink downward, he ought to cultivate the insight aspect's own awakening-factors, spurring the mind and causing it to be lifted, and, since one is cultivating the calm-abiding aspect at that time, it is said to be the wrong time; if one who enters the noble path in dependence upon the insight aspect's own awakening-factors, his own mind tends mostly to be agitated and lifted, he ought to cultivate the calm-abiding aspect's own awakening-factors, restraining the mind and causing it to be lowered, and, since one is cultivating the insight aspect at that time, it is said to be the wrong time. Although the various awakening-factors' own very substance arises together at one and the same time, their own function possesses moments of increase and decrease, and it is for this reason that what the scripture states does not contradict their arising together, but only contradicts their arising one by one in strict succession.