The Raft You Carry Out of Gratitude

Is whatever dharma is associated with the mindfulness awakening-factor associated with the investigation-of-dharma awakening-factor? 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 hold that there exists no genuine association at all, since the various minds and mental concomitants do not arise together. In order to put a stop to this intention, and to display that association is itself a genuinely existent thing, this treatise is composed. The answer: a tetralemma ought to be cast. Here, mindfulness and the investigation-of-dharma awakening-factor both pervade every ground and every undefiled mind, and it is for this reason that a lesser tetralemma ought to be cast. There is a dharma associated with mindfulness that is not associated with investigation-of-dharma — namely, the investigation-of-dharma awakening-factor itself, this referring to the own-nature of the investigation-of-dharma awakening-factor co-arising with mindfulness, which is associated with mindfulness but not with the investigation-of-dharma awakening-factor, since, by virtue of three conditions, an own-nature is never associated with its very own own-nature: first, since there could then not exist two distinct substances arising at one and the same time; second, since what precedes and what follows do not combine together; third, since no dharma whatsoever ever takes its own very substance as its own condition, but necessarily arises taking another substance as its condition. There is a dharma associated with investigation-of-dharma that is not associated with mindfulness — namely, the mindfulness awakening-factor itself, this referring to the own-nature of the mindfulness awakening-factor co-arising with investigation-of-dharma, which is associated with investigation-of-dharma but not with the mindfulness awakening-factor, the meaning of an own-nature not being associated with its very own own-nature being exactly as stated before. There is a dharma associated with both mindfulness and investigation-of-dharma — namely, whatever dharma is associated with both, this referring to whatever, apart from these same two own-natures, is otherwise associated with the mindfulness and investigation-of-dharma awakening-factors co-arising together — namely, the eight universal mental factors, the ten universal wholesome factors, and, according to the given ground and stage, initial and sustained inquiry and the like, together with mind itself. There is a dharma neither associated with mindfulness nor with investigation-of-dharma — namely, every remaining mind and mental concomitant, together with form, the unconditioned, and what is dissociated from mind, this referring to, excepting the undefiled minds and mental concomitants, every remaining contaminated mind and mental concomitant, together with the whole of form, the unconditioned, and what is dissociated from mind, constituting the fourth clause. Exactly as with the investigation-of-dharma awakening-factor, so too, applied to the effort, tranquility, concentration, and equanimity awakening-factors, and to right effort and right concentration, ought this same pattern to be understood — exactly as the mindfulness awakening-factor is compared against the investigation-of-dharma awakening-factor to cast a lesser tetralemma, so too, compared against the effort awakening-factor and so on up through right concentration, should this same pattern be understood. Is whatever dharma is associated with the mindfulness awakening-factor associated with the joy awakening-factor?

The answer: a tetralemma ought to be cast. Here, the mindfulness awakening-factor pervades every ground and every undefiled mind, while the joy awakening-factor pervades every undefiled mind but not every ground, and it is for this reason that a middling tetralemma ought to be cast. There is a dharma associated with mindfulness that is not associated with joy — namely, the joy awakening-factor itself, together with what is not associated with joy. As for what is associated with the mindfulness awakening-factor: this refers to the own-nature of the joy awakening-factor co-arising with mindfulness, which is associated with mindfulness but not with the joy awakening-factor, the meaning of an own-nature not being associated with its very own own-nature being exactly as stated before; together with whatever is associated with the mindfulness awakening-factor but not associated with joy — namely, whatever is associated with the mindfulness awakening-factor within the not-yet-arrived concentration, the intermediate dhyāna, and the latter two dhyānas and the former three formless attainments, which is associated with mindfulness but not with the joy awakening-factor, since every one of these grounds is entirely without joy. There is a dharma associated with joy that is not associated with mindfulness — namely, whatever mindfulness is associated with the joy awakening-factor, this referring to the own-nature of the mindfulness awakening-factor co-arising with joy, which is associated with joy but not with the mindfulness awakening-factor, the meaning of an own-nature not being associated with its very own own-nature being exactly as stated before. There is a dharma associated with both mindfulness and joy — namely, whatever dharma is associated with both, this referring to the mindfulness and joy awakening-factors co-arising together,

this referring to, apart from these same two own-natures, whatever else is otherwise associated, namely the eight universal mental factors, the ten universal wholesome factors, and, according to the given ground and stage, initial and sustained inquiry and the like, together with mind itself. There is a dharma neither associated with mindfulness nor with joy — namely, whatever mindfulness awakening-factor is not associated with joy, together with every remaining mind and mental concomitant, and whatever is dissociated from mind — this referring to whatever own-nature of the mindfulness awakening-factor within the not-yet-arrived concentration, the intermediate dhyāna, the latter two dhyānas, and the former three formless attainments is not associated with the joy awakening-factor, since every one of these grounds is entirely without joy, and this own-nature is likewise not associated with the mindfulness awakening-factor, since an own-nature is never associated with its own very own-nature; together with, excepting the undefiled minds and mental concomitants, every remaining contaminated mind and mental concomitant, together with the whole of form, the unconditioned, and what is dissociated from mind, constituting the fourth clause. Exactly as with the joy awakening-factor, so too, applied to right view and right intention, ought this same pattern to be understood — exactly as the mindfulness awakening-factor is compared against the joy awakening-factor to cast a middling tetralemma, so too, compared against right view and right intention, should this same pattern be understood. Is whatever dharma is associated with the mindfulness awakening-factor associated with right mindfulness? The answer: it is so. If a dharma is associated with right mindfulness, is that same dharma associated with the mindfulness awakening-factor?

The answer: it is so — this being because the mindfulness awakening-factor is itself precisely right mindfulness, and it is for this reason that this same clause of identity ought to be cast.

Is whatever dharma is associated with the investigation-of-dharma awakening-factor associated with the effort awakening-factor? The answer: a tetralemma ought to be cast. Here, investigation-of-dharma and the effort awakening-factor both pervade every ground and every undefiled mind, and it is for this reason that a lesser tetralemma ought to be cast. There is a dharma associated with investigation-of-dharma that is not associated with effort — namely, the effort awakening-factor itself, this referring to the own-nature of the effort awakening-factor co-arising with investigation-of-dharma, which is associated with investigation-of-dharma but not with the effort awakening-factor, an own-nature never being associated with its very own own-nature. There is a dharma associated with effort that is not associated with investigation-of-dharma — namely, the investigation-of-dharma awakening-factor itself, this referring to the own-nature of the investigation-of-dharma awakening-factor co-arising with effort, which is associated with effort but not with the investigation-of-dharma awakening-factor, the meaning of an own-nature not being associated with its very own own-nature being exactly as stated before. There is a dharma associated with both investigation-of-dharma and effort — namely, whatever dharma is associated with both, this referring to, apart from these two own-natures, whatever else is otherwise associated with the investigation-of-dharma and effort awakening-factors co-arising together — namely, the nine universal mental factors, the nine universal wholesome factors, and, according to the given ground and stage, initial and sustained inquiry and the like, together with mind itself. There is a dharma neither associated with investigation-of-dharma nor with effort — namely, every remaining mind and mental concomitant, together with form, the unconditioned, and what is dissociated from mind, this referring to, excepting the undefiled minds and mental concomitants, every remaining contaminated mind and mental concomitant, together with the whole of form, the unconditioned, and what is dissociated from mind, constituting the fourth clause. Exactly as with the effort awakening-factor, so too, applied to the tranquility, concentration, and equanimity awakening-factors, and to right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration, ought this same pattern to be understood — exactly as investigation-of-dharma is compared against the effort awakening-factor to cast a lesser tetralemma, so too, compared against these remaining branches, should this same pattern be understood. Is whatever dharma is associated with the investigation-of-dharma awakening-factor associated with the joy awakening-factor? The answer: a tetralemma ought to be cast. Here, the investigation-of-dharma awakening-factor pervades every ground and every undefiled mind, while the joy awakening-factor pervades every undefiled mind but not every ground —

and it is for this reason that a middling tetralemma ought to be cast, the full explanation of the four clauses to be understood exactly as stated before. Exactly as with the joy awakening-factor, so too, applied to right view and right intention, ought this same pattern to be understood — exactly as investigation-of-dharma is compared against the joy awakening-factor to cast a middling tetralemma, so too, compared against right view and right intention, should this same pattern be understood. Is whatever dharma is associated with the effort awakening-factor associated with the tranquility awakening-factor? The answer: a tetralemma ought to be cast. Here, effort and the tranquility awakening-factor both pervade every ground and every undefiled mind, and it is for this reason that a lesser tetralemma ought to be cast, the full explanation of the four clauses to be understood exactly as stated before. Exactly as with the tranquility awakening-factor, so too, applied to the concentration and equanimity awakening-factors, and to right mindfulness and right concentration, ought this same pattern to be understood — exactly as effort is compared against the tranquility awakening-factor to cast a lesser tetralemma, so too, compared against these remaining branches, should this same pattern be understood. Is whatever dharma is associated with the effort awakening-factor associated with right effort? The answer: it is so. If a dharma is associated with right effort, is that same dharma associated with the effort awakening-factor? The answer: it is so — this being because the effort awakening-factor is itself precisely right effort, and it is for this reason that this same clause of identity ought to be cast. Is whatever dharma is associated with the joy awakening-factor associated with the tranquility awakening-factor? The answer: a tetralemma ought to be cast. Here, the joy awakening-factor pervades every undefiled mind but not every ground, while the tranquility awakening-factor pervades every undefiled mind and every ground as well, and it is for this reason that a middling tetralemma ought to be cast, the full explanation of the four clauses to be understood exactly as stated before. Exactly as with the tranquility awakening-factor, so too, applied to the concentration and equanimity awakening-factors, and to right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration, ought this same pattern to be understood — exactly as joy is compared against the tranquility awakening-factor to cast a middling tetralemma, so too, compared against these remaining branches, should this same pattern be understood. Is whatever dharma is associated with the joy awakening-factor associated with right view? The answer: a tetralemma ought to be cast. Here, the joy awakening-factor pervades every undefiled mind but not every ground, while right view pervades every ground but not every undefiled mind,

and it is for this reason that a greater tetralemma ought to be cast. There is a dharma associated with joy that is not associated with right view — namely, whatever right view is associated with the joy awakening-factor, together with whatever is not associated with right view. As for what is associated with the joy awakening-factor: this refers to the own-nature of right view co-arising with the joy awakening-factor, which is associated with the joy awakening-factor but not with right view, an own-nature never being associated with its very own own-nature; together with whatever is not associated with right view yet is associated with the joy awakening-factor — namely, the own-nature of the joy awakening-factor co-arising with the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising within the first two dhyānas, which is associated with the joy awakening-factor but not with right view, since it belongs to a separate mental grouping. There is a dharma associated with right view that is not associated with joy — namely, whatever joy awakening-factor is associated with right view, together with whatever is not associated with the joy awakening-factor. As for what is associated with right view: this refers to the own-nature of the joy awakening-factor co-arising with right view, which is associated with right view but not with the joy awakening-factor, the meaning of an own-nature not being associated with its very own own-nature being exactly as stated before; together with whatever is not associated with the joy awakening-factor yet is associated with right view — namely, whatever own-nature of right view within the not-yet-arrived concentration, the intermediate dhyāna, the latter two dhyānas, and the former three formless attainments is associated with right view but not with the joy awakening-factor, since every one of these grounds is entirely without joy. There is a dharma associated with both joy and right view — namely, whatever dharma is associated with both, this referring to the joy awakening-factor and right view co-arising together, this referring to, apart from these two own-natures, whatever else is otherwise associated, namely the eight universal mental factors, the ten universal wholesome factors, and, according to the given ground and stage, initial and sustained inquiry and the like, together with mind itself. There is a dharma neither associated with joy nor with right view — namely, whatever joy awakening-factor is not associated with right view, together with whatever right view is not associated with the joy awakening-factor, and every remaining mind and mental concomitant, and what is dissociated from mind. As for whatever joy awakening-factor is not associated with right view: this refers to whatever own-nature of the joy awakening-factor within the not-yet-arrived concentration, the intermediate dhyāna, the latter two dhyānas, and the former three formless attainments is not associated with right view, since every one of these grounds is entirely without joy, and this own-nature is likewise not associated with the joy awakening-factor, an own-nature never being associated with its very own own-nature. As for whatever right view is not associated with the joy awakening-factor: this refers to the own-nature of the joy awakening-factor co-arising with the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising within the first two dhyānas, which is not associated with right view, since it belongs to a separate mental grouping, and this own-nature is likewise not associated with the joy awakening-factor, an own-nature never being associated with its very own own-nature; together with every remaining mind and mental concomitant — namely, whatever is not associated with right view within the not-yet-arrived concentration, the intermediate dhyāna, the latter two dhyānas, and the former three formless attainments, together with whatever mind and mental concomitants co-arise with the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising within the first two dhyānas, together with every remaining contaminated mind and mental concomitant, and the whole of form, the unconditioned, and what is dissociated from mind, constituting the fourth clause. Exactly as with right view, so too, applied to right intention, ought this same pattern to be understood — exactly as the joy awakening-factor is compared against right view to cast a greater tetralemma, so too, compared against right intention, should this same pattern be understood.

Is whatever dharma is associated with the tranquility awakening-factor associated with the concentration awakening-factor? The answer: a tetralemma ought to be cast. Here, tranquility and the concentration awakening-factor both pervade every ground and every undefiled mind, and it is for this reason that a lesser tetralemma ought to be cast, the full explanation of the four clauses to be understood exactly as stated before.

Exactly as with the concentration awakening-factor, so too, applied to the equanimity awakening-factor and to right mindfulness, right concentration, ought this same pattern to be understood — exactly as tranquility is compared against the concentration awakening-factor to cast a lesser tetralemma, so too, compared against these remaining branches, should this same pattern be understood. Is whatever dharma is associated with the tranquility awakening-factor associated with right view? The answer: a tetralemma ought to be cast. Here, the tranquility awakening-factor pervades every ground and every undefiled mind, while right view pervades every ground but not every undefiled mind, and it is for this reason that a middling tetralemma ought to be cast, the full explanation of the four clauses to be understood exactly as stated before. Exactly as with right view, so too, applied to right intention, ought this same pattern to be understood — exactly as tranquility is compared against right view to cast a middling tetralemma, so too, compared against right intention, should this same pattern be understood.

Is whatever dharma is associated with the concentration awakening-factor associated with the equanimity awakening-factor? The answer: a tetralemma ought to be cast. Here, concentration and the equanimity awakening-factor both pervade every ground and every undefiled mind, and it is for this reason that a lesser tetralemma ought to be cast, the full explanation of the four clauses to be understood exactly as stated before.

Exactly as with the equanimity awakening-factor, so too, applied to right effort and right mindfulness, ought this same pattern to be understood — exactly as concentration is compared against the equanimity awakening-factor to cast a lesser tetralemma, so too, compared against these remaining branches, should this same pattern be understood. Is whatever dharma is associated with the concentration awakening-factor associated with right view? The answer: a tetralemma ought to be cast. Here, the concentration awakening-factor pervades every ground and every undefiled mind, while right view pervades every ground but not every undefiled mind, and it is for this reason that a middling tetralemma ought to be cast, the full explanation of the four clauses to be understood exactly as stated before. Exactly as with right view, so too, applied to right intention, ought this same pattern to be understood — exactly as concentration is compared against right view to cast a middling tetralemma, so too, compared against right intention, should this same pattern be understood.

Is whatever dharma is associated with the concentration awakening-factor associated with right concentration? The answer: it is so. If a dharma is associated with right concentration, is that same dharma associated with the concentration awakening-factor? The answer: it is so — this being because the concentration awakening-factor is itself precisely right concentration, and it is for this reason that this same clause of identity ought to be cast.

Is whatever dharma is associated with the equanimity awakening-factor associated with right view? And so on, stated at length. Here, the equanimity awakening-factor, compared against right view and right intention, yields a middling tetralemma; compared against right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration, yields a lesser tetralemma. Right view, compared against right intention, yields a greater tetralemma; compared against right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration, yields a middling tetralemma. Right intention, compared against right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration, yields a middling tetralemma.

Right effort, compared against right mindfulness and right concentration, yields a lesser tetralemma. Right mindfulness, compared against right concentration, yields a lesser tetralemma. Every such case ought to be understood by the same pattern already established before.

What is worldly right view? And so on, stated at length. One asks: for what reason is this treatise composed? The answer: it is in order to distinguish the profound, hidden meaning within the various scriptures — that is, the scripture states: whoever possesses an augmented worldly right view will never fall into an evil destiny, even were he to pass through a hundred thousand lifetimes.

Scriptures such as this, although they speak of the various kinds of worldly right view, do not fully explain them; scripture is the very root this treatise relies upon, and, what it has not explained, this treatise now ought to distinguish. Further, although the preceding treatise has already generally stated vision, knowledge, and wisdom, these three, it has not yet separately stated what worldly right view is, and what worldly right knowledge is — the preceding treatise is the very root this one relies upon, and, what it has not stated, this treatise now ought to state. Further, 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 wholesome, contaminated wisdom associated with mental consciousness is not, in every case, itself vision, as the Dārṣṭāntikas hold, who maintain as follows: whatever wholesome wisdom of the mental ground is drawn forth by the five sense-consciousnesses and is capable of giving rise to manifestation-karma, together with whatever wholesome wisdom of the mental ground exists at the very moment of the end of life, are both not of the very own-nature of vision — for what reason is this so? Vision is capable of discrimination; the wholesome wisdom of the mental ground drawn forth by the five sense-consciousnesses, exactly like the five sense-consciousness bodies themselves, is incapable of discrimination, and it is for this reason that it is not of the very own-nature of vision; vision arises through an inward gateway, capable of giving rise to manifestation-karma, whereas the wholesome wisdom of the mental ground turns by way of an outward gateway, and it is for this reason that it, too, is not of the very own-nature of vision; vision's own function is strong and forceful, whereas the wholesome wisdom at the very moment of the end of life has a force that is feeble and inferior, and it is for this reason that it, too, is not of the very own-nature of vision. One asks: how does this same school reconcile this with what the scripture states — namely, that, at the very moment of the end of life, the wholesome mind and mental concomitants proceed together with right view? They answer as follows: the Bhagavān speaks of this with reference to the mental continuum's wholesome mind and right view co-arising as one approaches the very moment of the end of life, not that there exists right view active at the very stage of dying itself. In order to put a stop to this same intention, and to display that, together with mental consciousness, every wholesome wisdom whatsoever is gathered within the very own-nature of vision, it is for these various causes and conditions that this treatise is composed.

What is worldly right view? The answer: the contaminated wholesome wisdom associated with mental consciousness. This 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 — here, the distinctions include the contemplation of impurity, the mindfulness of breathing, and the like, together with the various applications of mindfulness, and the wisdom co-arising with heat, summit, forbearance, and the supreme worldly dharma, and the like. "Attained through becoming free of defilement" refers to the wisdom co-arising with the dhyānas, the immeasurables, the formless attainments, the liberations, the masteries, and the totalities, and the like. "Innate" refers to the wholesome wisdom naturally attained upon birth within that ground. Every such variety of worldly right view is boundless in its distinctions, exactly as the great oceans' own drops of water are without measure — here, only a brief, general account of worldly right view is given. What is worldly right knowledge? The answer: the wholesome wisdom associated with the five sense-consciousnesses, together with the contaminated wholesome wisdom associated with mental consciousness. As for the wholesome wisdom associated with the five sense-consciousnesses: this refers to the wholesome wisdom associated with eye-consciousness,

and so on, up through the wholesome wisdom associated with body-consciousness. The wholesome wisdom associated with eye-consciousness refers to whatever wholesome wisdom associated with eye-consciousness arises through beholding one's own parents, the various buddhas, solitary-realizers, bodhisattvas, and disciples, one's own personal teacher and preceptor, and every remaining venerable fellow practitioner of the pure conduct, and the like. The wholesome wisdom associated with ear-consciousness refers to whatever wholesome wisdom associated with ear-consciousness arises through listening to whatever wholesome speech one's own parents, personal teacher and preceptor, and every remaining venerable fellow practitioner of the pure conduct, and the like, possess, and through listening to the Tripiṭaka dharma-teaching of the various buddhas and noble disciples. The wholesome wisdom associated with the nose, tongue, and body-consciousness refers to whatever wholesome wisdom associated with these three consciousnesses arises at the very time of partaking of solid food — this is not something every being is capable of giving rise to at all, since it is necessarily the practitioner engaged in contemplation, observing the very solid food he partakes of, who becomes capable of giving rise to it at the very time of partaking. The contaminated wholesome wisdom associated with mental consciousness is stated fully as before.

Having already stated the own-nature of worldly right view and worldly right knowledge, their own relationships of overlap and non-overlap ought now to be stated. Is every worldly right view worldly right knowledge? The answer: every worldly right view is indeed worldly right knowledge. There is worldly right knowledge that is not worldly right view — namely, the wholesome wisdom associated with the five sense-consciousnesses, since here, worldly right view must, with respect to its own object, reach a fully scrutinized decision, whereas the wisdom co-arising with the five sense-consciousnesses is not named vision, exactly as already stated before. Does worldly right view gather in worldly right knowledge, and does worldly right knowledge gather in worldly right view? The answer: worldly right knowledge gathers in worldly right view; worldly right view does not gather in worldly right knowledge. What does it fail to gather in? Namely, the wholesome wisdom associated with the five sense-consciousnesses — here, the very substance of right knowledge is broad, while right view is narrow, exactly as what is greater gathers in what is lesser, not what is lesser gathering in what is greater.

Whoever possesses worldly right view, does he possess this same worldly right knowledge? The answer: it is so. If one possesses worldly right knowledge, does he possess this same worldly right view? The answer: it is so. One asks: who possesses worldly right view and right knowledge? The answer: whoever has not cut off his own wholesome roots — this is the general statement, yet there exist differences in how many. That is, there is one who possesses solely the desire realm's own worldly right view and knowledge; there is one who possesses solely the form realm's own; there is one who possesses solely the formless realm's own; there is one who possesses the desire and form realms' own; there is one who possesses the form and formless realms' own; there is one who possesses the three realms' own worldly right view and knowledge — exactly as stated for the three realms, so too should this be understood for the nine grounds, in varying, appropriate amounts. Whatever worldly right view has already been cut off and fully comprehended, has that same worldly right knowledge likewise already been cut off and fully comprehended? The answer: it is so. If that same worldly right knowledge has already been cut off and fully comprehended, has that same worldly right view likewise already been cut off and fully comprehended? The answer: it is so. One asks: who has already cut off and fully comprehended worldly right view and right knowledge? The answer: every arhat — this is the general statement, yet there exist differences in how many,

that is: the ordinary being or noble one who has already become free of the sphere of nothingness' own defilement has already cut off and fully comprehended the eight grounds' own worldly right view and right knowledge; and so on, up through, the ordinary being or noble one who has already become free of the desire realm's own defilement but not yet free of the first dhyāna's own defilement has already cut off and fully comprehended a single ground's own worldly right view and right knowledge.

Since this worldly right view and right knowledge are themselves contaminated, one ought fully to inquire into their own analysis through the five gateways of concentration, gathering-in, possession, and cutting-off.

One asks: for what reason are these named "worldly"? Is it because they are subject to change and ruin that they are named worldly, or is it because they are the very basis of craving that they are named worldly? If it is because they are subject to change and ruin that they are named worldly, then the noble path, too, being subject to change and ruin, ought likewise to be named worldly; if it is because they are the very basis of craving that they are named worldly, then they are likewise the very basis of aversion and delusion — why single out craving alone? The answer: it ought to be said that it is because they are subject to change and ruin that they are named worldly. One asks: if this is so, then the noble path, too, being subject to change and ruin, ought likewise to be named worldly. The answer: whatever, subject to change and ruin, is capable of continuing the various forms of existence and causing existence to grow and increase is named worldly; the noble path, although subject to change and ruin, is incapable of continuing the various forms of existence, but rather causes the various forms of existence to diminish, and it is for this reason that it is not named worldly. Further, whatever, subject to change and ruin, causes birth-and-death to revolve without end, aging, sickness, and death continuing on without cease, is named worldly; the noble path, although subject to change and ruin, does not cause birth-and-death to revolve without end, but rather cuts off aging, sickness, and death, causing them to cease continuing, and it is for this reason that it is not named worldly. Further, whatever, subject to change and ruin, is a practice proceeding toward suffering and accumulation, and is likewise a practice proceeding toward existence and the world's own aging, sickness, and death and their own accumulation, is named worldly; the noble path, although subject to change and ruin, is not a practice proceeding toward suffering and accumulation, nor a practice proceeding toward existence and the world's own aging, sickness, and death and their own accumulation, and it is for this reason that it is not named worldly. Further, whatever, subject to change and ruin, is the very location of the view of self, the location of inverted views, the location of craving, the location of the latent tendencies, and the very ground upon which craving, aversion, and delusion establish themselves,

possessing defilement, possessing poison, possessing fault, possessing a thorn, being turbid, being tainted, following along with existence, following along with the truths of suffering and accumulation, is named worldly; the noble path, although subject to change and ruin, runs counter to all of this, and it is for this reason that it is not named worldly. There are, further, those who say: it is because they are the very basis of craving that they are named worldly. One asks: if this is so, then they are likewise the very basis of aversion and delusion — why single out craving alone? The answer: although these are indeed likewise the very basis of aversion and delusion, craving is the foremost and most supreme among them, and it is for this reason that it alone is singled out and spoken of. The scripture, however, states that it is because of being subject to change and ruin that they are named worldly — exactly as the scripture states: the venerable Fengshan came before the Buddha, bowed with his head at the Buddha's own two feet, and addressed the Buddha, saying: Bhagavān, what, precisely, is the meaning of what is spoken of as "worldly"? The Buddha addressed Fengshan, saying: it is because of being subject to change and ruin that it is named worldly. The venerable Fengshan further addressed the Buddha, saying: what, precisely, is meant by being subject to change? The Buddha addressed Fengshan, saying: the eye sense-field is subject to change; the form sense-field is subject to change; and so on, up through, the mind sense-field is subject to change; the dharma sense-field is subject to change —

and it is because of being subject to change that it is named worldly. One asks: for what reason does the Bhagavān speak of the twelve sense-fields as being subject to change and thereby named worldly, and not speak of other dharmas in this way? The answer: observing the very persons receiving his teaching, he judged it fitting for them to hear the phrase "the sense-fields are worldly" in order for them to attain genuine understanding, and it is for this reason that he singled out the sense-fields and spoke of them — exactly as, in other scriptures, the aggregates of clinging and the like are spoken of as "worldly," this same scripture, too, being just the same. Further, the teaching on the twelve sense-fields is a teaching given in the middle, gathering the dharmas within it in their entirety, and it is for this reason that these alone are singled out and spoken of. One asks: is whatever is subject to change and ruin, in every case, worldly? The answer: a tetralemma ought to be cast. There is what is worldly yet not subject to change and ruin — namely, the past and future truths of suffering and accumulation. There is what is subject to change and ruin yet not worldly — namely, the present truth of the path. There is what is both worldly and subject to change and ruin — namely, the present truths of suffering and accumulation. There is what is neither worldly nor subject to change and ruin — namely, the past and future truth of the path, together with the whole of the unconditioned. One asks: what distinction is there between "change" and "ruin"? The answer: "change" displays the subtle, impermanent dharma; "ruin" displays the coarse, impermanent dharma. Further, "change" displays momentary impermanence; "ruin" displays the impermanence of a common class of continuity.

Further, "change" displays the impermanence of the internal portion; "ruin" displays the impermanence of the external portion. Further, "change" displays the impermanence of what belongs to sentient beings; "ruin" displays the impermanence of what does not belong to sentient beings — exactly as one speaks of a dwelling being ruined, or a granary and the like being ruined. What is undefiled vision? And so on, stated at length. One asks: for what reason is this treatise composed? The answer: although the preceding treatise has already generally stated vision, knowledge, and wisdom, these three, it has not yet separately stated what undefiled vision is, and what undefiled knowledge is — the preceding treatise is the very root this one relies upon, and, what it has not stated, this treatise now ought to state. Further, although the preceding treatise has already stated worldly vision and knowledge, it now wishes to display their own immediately neighboring counteracting dharma, and it is for this reason that this treatise is composed. What is undefiled vision? The answer: excepting the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising, the remaining undefiled wisdom. What, precisely, is this? This refers to the eight undefiled 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. What is undefiled knowledge? The answer: excepting the undefiled forbearances, the remaining undefiled wisdom. What, precisely, is this? This refers to the learner's and non-learner's own eight kinds of knowledge. Having already stated the own-nature of undefiled vision and knowledge, their own relationships of overlap and non-overlap ought now to be displayed. Is every undefiled vision undefiled knowledge? The answer: a tetralemma ought to be cast. There is undefiled vision that is not undefiled knowledge — namely, the undefiled forbearances, since these possess the characteristic of vision but not the characteristic of knowledge. There is undefiled knowledge that is not undefiled vision — namely, the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising, since these possess the characteristic of knowledge but not the characteristic of vision. There is undefiled vision that is also undefiled knowledge — namely, excepting the undefiled forbearances and the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising, the remaining undefiled wisdom. What, precisely, is this? This refers to the learner's own eight kinds of knowledge, and the non-learner's own right view, these possessing both the characteristic of vision and the characteristic of knowledge. There is that which is neither undefiled vision nor undefiled knowledge — this refers to whatever excludes the aforementioned characteristics; "characteristic" refers to what is thereby named, exactly as fully stated before. What, precisely, is this? This refers to, within the formations-aggregate, whatever excludes the undefiled wisdom, the remaining formations-aggregate, together with the whole of the four remaining aggregates, and the unconditioned dharma, constituting the fourth clause. The overlap between undefiled vision and undefiled knowledge, as a gathering-in tetralemma, should be understood exactly according to this same fixed pattern. Whoever possesses undefiled vision, does he possess this same undefiled knowledge? The answer: whoever possesses undefiled knowledge possesses undefiled vision as well; there is one who possesses undefiled vision without possessing undefiled knowledge — namely, at the very moment the forbearance regarding suffering, a dharma-cognition, manifests in the present, since, at that very moment, one has not yet cultivated undefiled knowledge. This treatise's own compiler, skillfully knowing the distinctions among the various dharmas' own natures and characteristics, states each and every one separately, even down to a single mind-moment, when it ought to be stated, and states nothing at all, even were its measure to exceed the four great oceans' own waters, when it ought not to be stated — what is stated, whether at length or in brief, is determined solely by observing where it proves useful. One asks: for what reason does this treatise speak only of the questions of concentration, gathering-in, and possession, but not speak of cutting-off? The answer: whatever possesses defilement is cut off; the undefiled, being without defilement, is thereby not spoken of as cut off — exactly as a garment or a vessel and the like require washing only if they possess some defilement, not if they are already free of defilement, and it is for this reason that the undefiled ought not to be spoken of as cut off. One asks: if the undefiled dharma ought not to be cut off, then how is one to reconcile this with what the scripture states — exactly as it is said: monks, were you to understand my own teaching of the simile of the raft, even the dharma itself ought to be relinquished, how much more so what is not the dharma — this same "dharma" should be understood as referring precisely to the undefiled path. The answer: cutting-off is of two kinds — first, cutting off through the exhaustion of craving; second, cutting off through relinquishment. The noble path, although it does not undergo cutting-off through the exhaustion of craving, does indeed undergo cutting-off through relinquishment, since, at the very time of complete nirvāṇa, this same path is relinquished —

that is, the various monks, having earlier relied upon the noble path to attain the exhaustion of every outflow, and being mindful of repaying its own kindness, repeatedly cultivate and give rise to the noble path so that it manifests in the present; afterward, being pressed by the many sufferings of the world's own four hundred and four diseases,

the Buddha addresses them, saying: you monks, having already relied upon the noble path to accomplish what needed to be accomplished, ought now to relinquish it and enter the nirvāṇa without remainder,

exactly as a person, having relied upon a raft to cross a river, being mindful of repaying its own kindness, still carries it upon his own shoulders — another person tells him: you have already relied upon this to cross the river; you may now relinquish it and go freely on your way — the monk, too, is just the same.

One asks: here, what, precisely, is "dharma," and what is "non-dharma"? The answer: the inner teaching's own words are the dharma; the outer teaching's own words are the non-dharma — the inner teaching's own words display emptiness and non-self, according with nirvāṇa, capable of causing the eternal cutting-off of aging, sickness, and death, and this, too, ought still to be relinquished, how much more so the various words of the outer teaching, which turn their back on emptiness and non-self, run counter to nirvāṇa, and are capable of causing the world's own aging, sickness, and death to increase and continue.

There are, further, those who say: whoever properly upholds the collection of names, phrases, and syllables is the dharma; whoever does not properly uphold the collection of names, phrases, and syllables is the non-dharma — whoever properly upholds it ought still to be relinquished, how much more so whoever does not properly uphold it. The Venerable Ghoṣa speaks as follows:

whoever properly upholds the Āgama is the dharma; whoever does not properly uphold the Āgama is the non-dharma — whoever properly upholds it ought still to be relinquished, how much more so whoever does not properly uphold it. The Venerable Pārśva says: proper mental application is the dharma; improper mental application is the non-dharma — proper mental application ought still to be relinquished, how much more so improper mental application. Further, shame and moral dread are the dharma; the absence of shame and of moral dread is the non-dharma. The three wholesome roots are the dharma; the three unwholesome roots are the non-dharma. The four applications of mindfulness are the dharma; the four inversions are the non-dharma. The five faculties are the dharma; the five hindrances are the non-dharma. The six recollections are the dharma; the six bodies of craving are the non-dharma. The seven awakening-factors are the dharma; the seven latent tendencies are the non-dharma. The eight path-branches are the dharma; the eight wrong branches are the non-dharma. The nine sequential attainments are the dharma; the nine fetters are the non-dharma. The ten wholesome courses of action are the dharma; the ten unwholesome courses of action are the non-dharma. These various dharmas of purification, too, ought still to be relinquished, how much more so those various dharmas of defilement.

What is wrong view? And such chapters as these, together with their own explanatory meaning — having already comprehended them, they ought now to be fully explained in turn. One asks: for what reason is this treatise composed?

The answer: it is in order to distinguish the meaning of the scripture — that is, the scripture states: monks, you should know that whoever holds wrong views, in accordance with what he holds, gives rise to bodily and verbal karma, and to intentions, aspirations, and vows, all of which belong to that same kind — every such dharma is, without exception, capable of summoning forth what is unlovable, unpleasant, contrary to one's own wish, and disagreeable in its own result — for what reason is this so? Because this wrong view is itself a vehement, evil view. Although the scripture speaks in this way, it does not distinguish its own meaning; scripture is the very root this treatise relies upon, and, what it has not stated, this treatise now ought to state. Further, although the preceding treatise has already generally stated vision, knowledge, and wisdom, these three, it has not yet separately stated what wrong view is, and what wrong knowledge is — the preceding treatise is the very root this one relies upon, and, what it has not stated, this treatise now ought to state, and it is for this reason that this treatise is composed. What is wrong view? The answer: if not formally established, then all five views are named wrong view — that is, if the distinctions among the names and aspects of the view of self and the rest, these five views, are not formally established, then these same five views are, without exception, named wrong view, since all of them decisively discern their own object in a deviant manner. If formally established, then solely the view holding that there exists no giving, no fond regard,

no sacrificial offering, no good conduct, no evil conduct, and no fruit or ripening of good or evil conduct is named wrong view — that is, if the distinctions among the names and aspects of the view of self and the rest, these five views, are formally established, then solely whatever turns without any aspect at all is uniquely named wrong view, since it is the very extreme among evil views — exactly as one speaks of tasting butter, or of an especially wicked caṇḍāla, and the like. What is wrong knowledge? The answer: the defiled wisdom associated with the six consciousnesses.

Here, the defiled wisdom associated with the five sense-consciousnesses refers to the wisdom associated with craving and aversion; the defiled wisdom associated with mental consciousness refers to the five views, together with the wisdom associated with craving, aversion, conceit, and doubt, and with the ignorance not shared with others, together with the wisdom associated with the remaining entanglements and defilements — every such dharma, without exception, is named wrong knowledge. Having already stated the own-nature of wrong view and wrong knowledge, their own relationships of overlap and non-overlap ought now to be stated. Is every wrong view wrong knowledge? The answer: every wrong view is indeed wrong knowledge, since whatever decisively discerns in a deviant manner necessarily reaches a deviant, fully scrutinized decision. There is wrong knowledge that is not wrong view — namely, the defiled wisdom associated with the five sense-consciousnesses, this referring to the wisdom associated with craving and aversion, together with, excepting the five views, the remaining defiled wisdom associated with mental consciousness — this referring to the wisdom associated with craving, aversion, conceit, and doubt, and with the ignorance not shared with others, together with the wisdom associated with the remaining entanglements and defilements. Does wrong view gather in wrong knowledge, and does wrong knowledge gather in wrong view? The answer: wrong knowledge gathers in wrong view; wrong view does not gather in wrong knowledge. What does it fail to gather in? Namely, the defiled wisdom associated with the five sense-consciousnesses, together with, excepting the five views, the remaining defiled wisdom associated with mental consciousness, since these possess the characteristic of a fully scrutinized decision but not the characteristic of decisive discernment. Whoever possesses wrong view, does he possess this same wrong knowledge? The answer: whoever possesses wrong view possesses wrong knowledge as well, since wrong knowledge is broader and vision, too, is knowledge. There is one who possesses wrong knowledge without possessing wrong view — namely, at the very stage in which the knowledge in conformity with the path has not yet arisen. There is one who possesses wrong knowledge without possessing wrong view — namely, the stage of a learner's own having seen the path's own vestige, this being precisely once the knowledge in conformity with the path has already arisen, since every learner's own stage is named having seen the vestige of the path, having already, in full, seen the vestige of the four noble truths. This is the general statement, yet there exist differences in how many — that is, there is one who possesses wrong knowledge belonging to nine grounds; and so on, down to, there is one who possesses wrong knowledge belonging to a single ground alone; within each and every one of these grounds, there is one who possesses wrong knowledge of nine grades; and so on, down to, there is one who possesses wrong knowledge of a single grade alone. Whatever wrong view has already been cut off and fully comprehended, has that same wrong knowledge likewise already been cut off and fully comprehended? The answer: whatever wrong knowledge has already been cut off and fully comprehended has wrong view already cut off and fully comprehended as well; there is one whose wrong view has already been cut off and fully comprehended without his wrong knowledge having been so — namely, the learner's own having seen the path's own vestige. This is the general statement, yet there exist differences in how many — that is, there is one whose wrong knowledge belonging to nine grounds has not yet been cut off and fully comprehended; and so on, down to, there is one whose wrong knowledge belonging to a single ground alone has not yet been cut off and fully comprehended; within each and every one of these grounds, there is one whose wrong knowledge of nine grades has not yet been cut off and fully comprehended; and so on, down to, there is one whose wrong knowledge of a single grade alone has not yet been cut off and fully comprehended, since the defiled wrong knowledge is cut off across nine grades. What is right view? And so on, stated at length. One asks: for what reason is this treatise composed? The answer: it is in order to distinguish the meaning of the scripture — that is, the scripture states: whoever holds right views, in accordance with what he holds, gives rise to bodily and verbal karma, and to intentions, aspirations, and vows, all of which belong to that same kind — every such dharma is, without exception, capable of summoning forth what is lovable, pleasant, in accordance with one's own wish, and agreeable in its own result — for what reason is this so? Because this right view is itself a wholesome, excellent view. Although the scripture speaks in this way, it does not distinguish its own meaning; scripture is the very root this treatise relies upon, and, what it has not stated, this treatise now ought to state. Further, although the preceding treatise has already generally stated vision, knowledge, and wisdom, these three, it has not yet separately stated what right view is, and what right knowledge is — the preceding treatise is the very root this one relies upon, and, what it has not stated, this treatise now ought to state. Further, although the preceding treatise has already stated wrong view and wrong knowledge, it now wishes to state their own immediately neighboring counteracting dharma, and it is for this reason that this treatise is composed. What is right view? The answer: the wholesome wisdom associated with mental consciousness that is not gathered within the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising. This is of two kinds — first, contaminated; second, undefiled. The contaminated is precisely worldly right view, exactly as fully stated before. The undefiled refers to the undefiled forbearances, together with the learner's own eight kinds of knowledge, and the non-learner's own right view. What is right knowledge? The answer: the wholesome wisdom associated with the five sense-consciousnesses, together with the wholesome wisdom associated with mental consciousness that is not gathered within the undefiled forbearances. This is of two kinds — first, contaminated, this being precisely worldly right view; second, undefiled, this being precisely the learner's and non-learner's own eight kinds of knowledge.

Having already stated the own-nature of right view and right knowledge, their own relationships of overlap and non-overlap ought now to be stated. Is every right view right knowledge? The answer: a tetralemma ought to be cast. There is right view that is not right knowledge — namely, the undefiled forbearances, since these possess the characteristic of vision but not the characteristic of knowledge. There is right knowledge that is not right view — namely, the wisdom associated with the five sense-consciousnesses, together with the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising, since these possess the characteristic of knowledge but not the characteristic of vision. There is right view that is also right knowledge —

namely, the undefiled forbearances, together with, excepting these same forbearances and the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising, the remaining wholesome wisdom associated with mental consciousness. This is of two kinds — first, contaminated, this being precisely worldly right view; second, undefiled, this being precisely the learner's own eight kinds of knowledge, together with the non-learner's own right view — these two both possessing the characteristic of vision and the characteristic of knowledge together. There is that which is neither right view nor right knowledge — this refers to whatever excludes the aforementioned characteristics; "characteristic" refers to what is thereby named, exactly as fully stated before. This refers to, within the formations-aggregate, whatever excludes the various wholesome wisdom, the remaining formations-aggregate, together with the whole of the four remaining aggregates, and the unconditioned dharma, constituting the fourth clause. This overlap, as a gathering-in tetralemma, should be understood exactly according to this same fixed pattern. Whoever possesses right view, does he possess this same right knowledge? The answer: it is so. If one possesses right knowledge, does he possess this same right view? The answer: it is so. One asks: who possesses right view and right knowledge? The answer: whoever has not cut off his own wholesome roots — this is the general statement, yet there exist differences in how many. That is, there is one who possesses solely the desire realm's own two; there is one who possesses solely the form realm's own two; there is one who possesses solely the formless realm's own two; there is one who possesses solely the form realm's own two undefiled ones; there is one who possesses solely the formless realm's own two undefiled ones; there is one who possesses solely the desire and form realms' own two;

there is one who possesses solely the form and formless realms' own two; there is one who possesses the desire, form, and formless realms' own three; there is one who possesses the desire and form realms' own two undefiled ones; there is one who possesses the form and formless realms' own two undefiled ones; there is one who possesses the three realms' own two undefiled ones. Whatever right view has already been cut off and fully comprehended, has that same right knowledge likewise already been cut off and fully comprehended? The answer: it is so. If that same right knowledge has already been cut off and fully comprehended, has that same right view likewise already been cut off and fully comprehended? The answer: it is so. One asks: who has already cut off and fully comprehended right view and right knowledge? The answer: every arhat — this is the general statement, yet there exist differences in how many. That is, the ordinary being or learner who has already become free of the sphere of nothingness' own defilement has already cut off and fully comprehended the eight grounds' own right view and right knowledge; and so on, up through, the ordinary being or learner who has already become free of the desire realm's own defilement but not yet free of the first dhyāna's own defilement has already cut off and fully comprehended the whole of right view and right knowledge belonging to that same ground — speaking with reference to the ultimate, only the arhat possesses this in full.