The King Who Wrote His Own Scripture

The animal destiny, too, possesses a birth-acquired knowledge capable of knowing another's mind and the like. How is this to be known as so? Long ago, there was a certain woman who, having set her own child down in a certain place, went about her own other affairs. At that time, a wolf came and carried her own child away. A passerby, pursuing it, said to that same wolf: for what reason do you now carry off another's own child? The wolf thereupon replied, saying: this same child's mother, across five hundred past lifetimes, has constantly harmed my own children, and I, too, across five hundred past lifetimes, have constantly harmed her own children — this enmity, repaid again and again, has not yet, even now, come to rest; were she genuinely capable of relinquishing it, I, too, would relinquish this same child. The passerby then said to this same child's mother: if you cherish your own child, you ought to relinquish your own mind of enmity. The woman replied, saying: I have already relinquished it. The wolf, observing the woman's own intention, found that she had, in fact, relinquished no enmity at all,

yet, fearing for the harm to her own child, had spoken falsely, claiming to have already relinquished it — and so it thereupon killed her own child, relinquished it, and departed. One asks: at what time does the animal destiny know another's mind and the like? The answer: at the very beginning, in the middle, and at the very end, it is, in every case, capable of knowing it. One asks: abiding in what kind of mind does it know another's mind and the like — the wholesome, the defiled, or the neutral-and-unobscured? The answer: all three kinds are capable of knowing it. One asks: is it while abiding in mental consciousness, or while abiding in the five sense-consciousnesses, that it knows another's mind and the like? The answer: solely while abiding in mental consciousness. One asks: is it while abiding in a deportment-related mind, a craft-related mind, or a ripening-born mind, that it knows another's mind and the like?

The answer: all three kinds are capable of knowing it, since it, too, manifestly gives rise to a craft-related mind, and its own ripening-born mind exists within mental consciousness as well — it is not like the hells, which are absolutely incapable of receiving any wholesome ripening fruit at all. The hungry-ghost destiny, too, possesses a birth-acquired knowledge capable of knowing another's mind and the like. How is this to be known as so? Long ago, there was a certain woman who, possessed by a ghost, grew emaciated and was on the verge of death. A spell-master asked this same ghost: for what reason do you now afflict this woman?

The ghost thereupon replied, saying: this same woman, across five hundred past lifetimes, has constantly taken my own life, and I, too, across five hundred past lifetimes, have constantly taken her own life — this enmity, repaid again and again, has not yet, even now, come to rest; were she genuinely capable of relinquishing it, I, too, would relinquish her. The spell-master thereupon said to this same woman:

if you cherish your own life, you ought to relinquish your own mind of enmity. The woman replied, saying: I have already relinquished it. The ghost, observing the woman's own intention, found that she had, in fact, relinquished no enmity at all, yet, fearing her own life would not be preserved, had spoken falsely, claiming to have already relinquished it — and so it thereupon cut off her own life, relinquished her, and departed. One asks: at what time does the hungry-ghost destiny know another's mind and the like? The answer: at the very beginning, in the middle, and at the very end, it is, in every case, capable of knowing it. One asks: abiding in what kind of mind does it know another's mind and the like — the wholesome, the defiled, or the neutral-and-unobscured? The answer: all three kinds are capable of knowing it. One asks: is it while abiding in mental consciousness, or while abiding in the five sense-consciousnesses, that it knows another's mind and the like? The answer: solely while abiding in mental consciousness. One asks: is it while abiding in a deportment-related mind, a craft-related mind, or a ripening-born mind, that it knows another's mind and the like? The answer: all three kinds are capable of knowing it, exactly as stated for the animal destiny.

The heavenly destiny, too, possesses a birth-acquired knowledge capable of knowing another's mind and the like, yet, being subtle, it is not separately discussed — the rest should be understood exactly as fully stated for the animal and hungry-ghost destinies. The human destiny possesses no birth-acquired knowledge capable of knowing another's mind and the like — for what reason is this so? Because it is not a fitting vessel there, being covered over and impaired by the superior knowledge that comes from beholding a sign or hearing speech, and being overshadowed by the knowledge of others' minds as a superknowledge, and by wish-knowledge, and the like. One asks: whichever destiny's own birth-acquired knowledge knows how many destinies' own minds? There are those who say: each knows solely its own kind. There are, further, those who say: the hell-destiny knows solely the hell-destiny;

the animal destiny knows two; the hungry-ghost destiny knows three; the heavenly destiny knows five. The *Prajñaptiśāstra* states that the nāga king Airāvata, who abides well, in knowing the minds of the gods, does so through an inferential-comparison knowledge, not through a birth-acquired knowledge. The verdict: it ought to be said that, among the four destinies, the birth-acquired knowledge of each knows all five destinies, this being consistent with principle. One asks: the human destiny, too, ought to possess the kind of inherent, connatural recollection-born knowledge capable of knowing another's mind and the like — for what reason is this not discussed? The answer: this ought indeed to be so discussed, and that it is not so discussed here should be understood to be a case whose meaning has been left over for elsewhere. Further, it is because this is rare that it is not discussed —

that is, within the human destiny, those who attain this same knowledge are exceedingly rare, and it is for this reason that it is not discussed. There are those who say: the kind of inherent, connatural recollection-born knowledge

is incapable of presently knowing another's mind and mental concomitants, and it is for this reason that it is not discussed here. There further exists a knowledge of others' minds that presently knows another's mind and mental concomitants — this referring to whatever knowledge is accomplished through cultivation, is the fruit of cultivation and relies upon cultivation as its support, and, once attained, is never lost, capable of presently knowing another's present mind and mental concomitants belonging to the desire or form realm, or his undefiled mind and mental concomitants — this is precisely the present knowledge of others' minds as a superknowledge, explained fully as before. There is that which is neither the knowledge of others' minds nor a presently knowing of another's mind and mental concomitants — this refers to whatever excludes the aforementioned characteristics; "characteristic" refers to what is thereby named, and so on, stated at length — this refers to, within the formations-aggregate, wholly excluding the knowledge of others' minds as a superknowledge across all three times, and excluding the present knowledge that comes from beholding a sign, from hearing speech, or from birth-acquisition, capable of presently knowing another's mind and mental concomitants,

together with the whole of the remaining formations-aggregate, and the whole of the four remaining aggregates, and the unconditioned dharma, constituting the fourth clause.

Does every recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge presently recollect and know every matter of former abodes? The answer: a tetralemma ought to be cast. Here, the recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge pervades all three times, while presently recollecting and knowing every matter of former abodes exists solely in the present — yet this pervades both the recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge and what is not the recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge, and it is for this reason that there are four clauses. There is a recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge that is not a presently recollecting and knowing of every matter of former abodes — namely, the past and future recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge, since this possesses the characteristic of the recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge, yet lacks the very function of presently recollecting and knowing every matter of former abodes — that is, with respect to the past, its own function has already ceased; with respect to the future, it does not yet possess any function at all. There is a presently recollecting and knowing of every matter of former abodes that is not the recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge — namely, such cases as these: there is one who has attained the inherent, connatural recollection-born knowledge, or who has attained a birth-acquired knowledge of this same kind, capable of presently recollecting and knowing every matter of former abodes. As for the inherent, connatural recollection-born knowledge's own presently recollecting and knowing former-abode matters: this exists solely within the human destiny, since the remaining four destinies possess no such knowledge at all.

As for the birth-acquired knowledge's own presently recollecting and knowing former-abode matters: this exists, for instance, within the hells, and so on — what, precisely, is this matter? Even within the hells, exactly as the scripture states, the hell-beings say to one another: how strange — we have brought this upon ourselves! We, in the past, once heard the various ascetics and brāhmaṇas speak of the calamities of desire, capable of drawing forth a fearsome future matter, telling us we ought to cut it off — although we heard this, we did not believe or heed it, and it is now, on account of that same desire, that we receive this intense suffering. One asks: at what time do they recollect their own former-abode matters? The answer: at the very moment of first being born within the hells, before yet undergoing suffering — once they have already begun to undergo suffering, they are incapable even of recollecting a matter that ceased just before, how much less capable of recollecting and knowing a matter long since past. One asks: abiding in what kind of mind do they recollect their own former-abode matters? The answer: abiding in the wholesome, the defiled, and the neutral-and-unobscured, they are, in every case, capable of recollecting and knowing it; among the six consciousnesses, this exists solely within mental consciousness; among the three kinds of neutral-and-unobscured, it exists solely within the deportment-related kind. One asks: how many lifetimes is this same birth-acquired knowledge capable of recollecting and knowing? The answer: it is capable of recollecting and knowing a single lifetime — that is, the very one from which the being passed away to be reborn here. There are those who say: it knows even up to five hundred lifetimes. The animal destiny, too, possesses a birth-acquired knowledge capable of presently recollecting and knowing former-abode matters — exactly as the scripture states, there was a Conch-Voiced Dog, once, in a former life, a wandering ascetic named Dautiya, who, recollecting his own former-abode matters, caused his own son to ascend a seat, be fed, and be shown hidden treasure, everything proceeding exactly according to what he indicated. One asks: at what time does it recollect its own former-abode matters? The answer: at the very beginning, in the middle, and at the very end, it is, in every case, capable of recollecting and knowing it. One asks: abiding in what kind of mind does it recollect its own former-abode matters? The answer: abiding in the wholesome, the defiled, and the neutral-and-unobscured, it is, in every case, capable of recollecting and knowing it; among the six consciousnesses, this exists solely within mental consciousness; among the three kinds of neutral-and-unobscured, it pervades all three kinds. One asks: how many lifetimes is this same birth-acquired knowledge capable of recollecting and knowing? There are those who say: it recollects solely a single lifetime — that is, the very one from which the being passed away to be reborn here. The verdict: it ought to be said that it is capable of recollecting many lifetimes, exactly as the wolf recollected and knew the matter of five hundred lifetimes. The hungry-ghost destiny, too, possesses a birth-acquired knowledge capable of presently recollecting and knowing former-abode matters — exactly as a verse states:

In my former life, I amassed rare treasure, through lawful means, or through unlawful ones — another now enjoys its wealth and pleasure, while I alone endure this poverty and suffering. One asks: at what time does it recollect its own former-abode matters? The answer: at the very beginning, in the middle, and at the very end, it is, in every case, capable of recollecting and knowing it. One asks: abiding in what kind of mind does it recollect its own former-abode matters? The answer: abiding in the wholesome, the defiled, and the neutral-and-unobscured, it is, in every case, capable of recollecting and knowing it; among the six consciousnesses, this exists solely within mental consciousness; among the three kinds of neutral-and-unobscured, it pervades all three kinds. One asks: how many lifetimes is this same birth-acquired knowledge capable of recollecting and knowing? There are those who say: it recollects solely a single lifetime — that is, the very one from which the being passed away to be reborn here. The verdict: it ought to be said that it is capable of recollecting many lifetimes, exactly as the hungry ghost recollected and knew the matter of five hundred lifetimes. The heavenly destiny, too, possesses a birth-acquired knowledge capable of presently recollecting and knowing former-abode matters — exactly as a verse states:

I once gave the Jetavana as an offering, and thereby merited the great dharma-king's own abiding there, where the noble and virtuous saṅgha received its use — and it is for this reason that my own heart rejoices. One asks: at what time does it recollect its own former-abode matters? The answer: at the very beginning, in the middle, and at the very end, it is, in every case, capable of recollecting and knowing it. One asks: abiding in what kind of mind does it recollect its own former-abode matters? The answer: abiding in the wholesome, the defiled, and the neutral-and-unobscured, it is, in every case, capable of recollecting and knowing it; among the six consciousnesses, this exists solely within mental consciousness; among the three kinds of neutral-and-unobscured, it pervades all three kinds. One asks: how many lifetimes is this same birth-acquired knowledge capable of recollecting and knowing? There are those who say: it recollects solely a single lifetime — that is, the very one from which the being passed away to be reborn here. The verdict: it ought to be said that it is capable of recollecting many lifetimes. The human destiny possesses no birth-acquired knowledge for recollecting former-abode matters, since it is not a fitting vessel there, being covered over and impaired by the inherent, connatural recollection-born knowledge and the like, and being overshadowed by the recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge as a superknowledge, and by wish-knowledge, and the like.

There is a recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge that also presently recollects and knows every matter of former abodes — this referring to whatever knowledge is accomplished through cultivation, is the fruit of cultivation and relies upon cultivation as its support, and, once attained, is never lost, capable of presently recollecting and knowing every matter of former abodes, together with their various characteristic-forms and utterances — this is precisely the present recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge as a superknowledge, explained fully as before. There is that which is neither the recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge nor a presently recollecting and knowing of every matter of former abodes — this refers to whatever excludes the aforementioned characteristics; "characteristic" refers to what is thereby named, and so on, stated at length — this refers to, within the formations-aggregate, wholly excluding the recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge as a superknowledge across all three times, and excluding the present inherent, connatural recollection-born knowledge and birth-acquired knowledge, capable of presently recollecting and knowing former-abode matters, together with the whole of the remaining formations-aggregate, and the whole of the four remaining aggregates, and the unconditioned dharma, constituting the fourth clause.

Does every recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge know another's own past aggregates, sense-fields, and elements, together with the continuum of his own mind? The answer: a tetralemma ought to be cast. Here, the first clause is the recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge that takes one's own continuum as its object; the second clause is the wish-knowledge, together with the preparatory effort of the recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge, that takes another's continuum as its object; the third clause is the recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge that takes another's continuum as its object; the fourth clause is the wish-knowledge, together with the preparatory effort of the recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge, that takes one's own continuum as its object. This, then, is the brief Vibhāṣā given at this point. There is a recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge that does not know another's own past aggregates, sense-fields, and elements, together with the continuum of his own mind — this referring to whatever knowledge is accomplished through cultivation, is the fruit of cultivation and relies upon cultivation as its support, and, once attained, is never lost, knowing one's own former life's own past aggregates, sense-fields, and elements, together with the continuum of one's own mind — this is precisely the recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge that takes one's own continuum as its object, taking as its object one's own former-abode matters belonging to a past life. There is a knowing of another's own past aggregates, sense-fields, and elements, together with the continuum of his own mind, that is not the recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge — this referring to whatever knowledge is accomplished through cultivation, is the fruit of cultivation and relies upon cultivation as its support, and, once attained, is never lost, knowing another's own present-life past aggregates, sense-fields, and elements, together with the continuum of his own mind — this is precisely the wish-knowledge, together with the preparatory effort of the recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge, that takes another's continuum as its object, taking as its object another's own past matter belonging to the present life. There is a recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge that also knows another's own past aggregates, sense-fields, and elements, together with the continuum of his own mind — this referring to knowledge that is accomplished through cultivation, is the fruit of cultivation and relies upon cultivation as its support, and, once attained, is never lost, knowing another's own former life's own past aggregates, sense-fields, and elements, together with the continuum of his own mind — this is precisely the recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge that takes another's continuum as its object, taking as its object another's own former-abode matters belonging to a past life. There is that which is neither the recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge nor a knowing of another's own past aggregates, sense-fields, and elements, together with the continuum of his own mind — this referring to whatever knowledge is accomplished through cultivation, is the fruit of cultivation and relies upon cultivation as its support, and, once attained, is never lost, knowing one's own present-life own past aggregates, sense-fields, and elements, together with the continuum of one's own mind — this is precisely the wish-knowledge, together with the preparatory effort of the recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge, that takes one's own continuum as its object, taking as its object one's own past matter belonging to the present life. Here, wish-knowledge takes solely this present life's own past contaminated dharmas as its object; the recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge takes solely a former life's own past contaminated dharmas as its object;

the preparatory effort of the recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge, too, takes solely this present life's own past contaminated dharmas as its object, whereas wish-knowledge, in general, pervades all three times —

here, it takes solely what takes this present life's own past contaminated dharmas as its object. One asks: as for the inherent, connatural recollection-born knowledge spoken of before, what does it take as its own-nature? The answer: it takes wisdom as its own-nature. This is named the inherent, connatural recollection-born knowledge's own own-nature, own substance, own inherent nature, and own characteristic. Having already stated its own-nature, what it is so named for ought now to be stated. One asks: for what reason is it named the inherent, connatural recollection-born knowledge? What, precisely, is the meaning of "inherent, connatural recollection-born knowledge"?

The answer: "born" refers to the various contaminated dharmas of a former life; "knowledge" refers to this present life's own knowledge, capable of knowing that same former life; "recollection" refers to the supreme mindfulness co-arising with this same knowledge; the term "inherent, connatural" distinguishes this from what is attained through cultivation — that is, this same inherent knowledge, by the force of its own supreme mindfulness, knows the various contaminated dharmas of a former life, and it is for this reason that it is named the inherent, connatural recollection-born knowledge. Further, it is by abiding in an inherent mind, through the force of its own supreme mindfulness, that this same knowledge is given rise to, knowing the various contaminated dharmas of a former life, and it is for this reason that it is named the inherent, connatural recollection-born knowledge — as for "inherent mind": this refers to the wholesome, the defiled, and the neutral-and-unobscured, which are not attained through cultivation, and it is for this reason that they are named inherent. Further, "inherent nature" refers to the very own-nature of the various dharmas — this being precisely the very own-nature of the various contaminated dharmas of a former life; this same knowledge, by the force of mindfulness, knows this same inherent nature's own arising, and it is for this reason that it is named the inherent, connatural recollection-born knowledge. Further, "inherent nature" refers to the very own-nature of a former stage — this being precisely the very own-nature of the contaminated dharmas of a former life; this same knowledge, by the force of mindfulness, knows this same inherent nature's own arising, and it is for this reason that it is named the inherent, connatural recollection-born knowledge. One asks: this same knowledge's own co-arising dharmas are of many kinds — for what reason does it speak solely of "recollection"? The answer: because the force of mindfulness predominates — exactly as the four applications of mindfulness, the mindfulness of breathing, and the recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge, although taking wisdom as their own substance, are, because the force of mindfulness predominates, named applications of mindfulness and the rest; exactly as subduing the perception of form, although its own substance is wisdom, is, because the force of perception predominates, named subduing the perception of form — this, too, is just the same: although its own substance is wisdom, it is, because the force of mindfulness predominates, named the inherent, connatural recollection-born knowledge. One asks: within which realm does this same inherent, connatural recollection-born knowledge exist? The answer: it exists solely within the desire realm. One asks: within which destiny does this same inherent, connatural recollection-born knowledge exist? The answer: it exists solely within the human destiny — for what reason is this so? It is solely within the desire realm's own human destiny that one is capable of creating the supreme karma that draws forth and attains this same knowledge; further, within the human destiny, wisdom is sharp and forceful, surpassing every other destiny. One asks: by the force of what karma is this same inherent, connatural recollection-born knowledge drawn forth and given rise to? There are those who say: whatever sentient being delights in speaking words of loving-kindness, causing another to rejoice, draws forth this same knowledge by the force of that same karma. There are, further, those who say:

whatever sentient being delights in relaying good news, causing another's own mind to be joyful and his own body to attain ease, draws forth this same knowledge by the force of that same karma. There are further teachers who say: whatever sentient being, seeing another in terror and fear, skillfully comforts and reassures him, providing him refuge and causing him to attain fearlessness, draws forth this same knowledge by the force of that same karma. There are, further, those who say: whatever sentient being, seeing another in sorrow and distress, opens and instructs him through the dharma, causing him to attain freedom from sorrow, draws forth this same knowledge by the force of that same karma. There are, further, those who say: whatever sentient being, seeing a narrow and perilous place, cultivates and widens it, causing those who come and go to encounter no hardship, draws forth this same knowledge by the force of that same karma, on account of having, while dwelling within his own mother's womb, undergone no suffering of being cramped and confined. There are, further, those who say: whatever sentient being gives to another every manner of excellent, delicious food and drink draws forth this same knowledge by the force of that same karma. The verdict: it ought to be said that whatever sentient being does not create karma that afflicts and harms another, but constantly performs deeds that benefit another, by virtue of this same karma, while dwelling within his own mother's womb, is not pressed and afflicted by wind, heat, phlegm, or fever, and the like, and, when later emerging from the womb, undergoes no suffering of being cramped and confined, and it is for this reason that he becomes capable of recollecting his own former-abode matters — it is for this reason that this is spoken of in this way: whatever sentient being, while dwelling within his own mother's womb, and at the very moment of emerging from the womb, does not undergo the suffering of the various sicknesses and of being cramped and confined, ought, in every case, to be capable of recollecting the matters of a past life, only, on account of the mother's own sickness, and the suffering of being cramped and confined, it is entirely forgotten. One asks: at which of the beginning, the middle, or the end is this same inherent, connatural recollection-born knowledge supreme? The answer: this is not fixed — that is, there are those for whom it is supreme at the very time of birth, exactly as Śiśubāla and the like, who, at the very moment of birth, spoke thus: within this house, is there now any wealth or property, that I might, according to my own wish, distribute it in charity? There are those for whom it is supreme during the middle years, exactly as the Venerable Rāṣṭrapāla and the like. There are those for whom it is supreme during old age, exactly as Ambāṣṭha and the like, stated fully as the scripture states. One asks: how many lifetimes is this same inherent, connatural recollection-born knowledge capable of recollecting? There are those who say: it is capable solely of recollecting a single lifetime — that is, the very one from which the being passed away to be reborn here. There are those who say: this is capable of recollecting two lifetimes, or even up to seven lifetimes — exactly as, within Rājagṛha, there was a butcher named Gajja, who was, in his youth, a childhood friend of King Ajātaśatru; he had once addressed the crown prince, saying: once you ascend the throne, what boon will you grant me? The prince replied, saying: I shall grant whatever you ask. Afterward, Ajātaśatru murdered his own father and set himself upon the throne, and Gajja thereupon petitioned the king for his boon. The king then told him: ask as you wish. Gajja addressed him, saying: I ask that Your Majesty permit me to slaughter freely, alone, throughout Rājagṛha.

The king thereupon told him: for what reason do you now seek this evil boon? Are you not afraid of the suffering to come? The butcher addressed the king, saying: every good and evil deed is without any fruit whatsoever — what is there to fear? The king thereupon told him: how do you know this? Gajja addressed the king, saying: I recollect six past lifetimes, during which I constantly practiced slaughter within this very Rājagṛha; in my final lifetime, I was born among the Trāyastriṃśa gods, enjoying abundant pleasure there, and, passing away from that same heaven, came to be born here, becoming, in my childhood, a friend to Your Majesty — it is thereby known that good and evil most certainly have no fruit at all. The king, hearing this, gave rise to doubt, and thereupon went and reported it to the Buddha. The Buddha said to the king: this matter is not false — yet this same butcher had once offered a single meal to a solitary-realizer, and had, at that time, given rise to the wrong resolve: may I constantly, throughout Rājagṛha, slaughter freely and alone, and afterward attain rebirth in heaven — and it was by the force of this same supreme karma that his own wish bore fruit accordingly. This same prior supreme karma's own fruit having now been exhausted, he will, after seven more days, most certainly come to the end of his own life and be reborn in the Howling Hell, receiving, in sequence, the fruit of suffering for his own earlier karma of slaughter — and it is for this reason that this same knowledge knows, at its utmost, seven lifetimes. There are, further, those who say: this same knowledge is, at its utmost, capable of recollecting the matter of five hundred lifetimes — that is, there was a certain monk who recollected that, across five hundred past lifetimes, he had fallen into the hungry-ghost destiny; recollecting the suffering of hunger and thirst he had undergone there, sweat poured over his own entire body, and a deep terror and distress arose within his own mind, and he thereupon set every other matter to rest, blazing forth in diligent effort, and, after a long span of time had passed, attained the fruit of stream-entry. He thereupon reflected as follows: I have, from that time onward, relied upon the various monks' own giving and provision of requisites, causing my own terror to have already been eternally extinguished — I ought now to go about seeking every manner of bodily requisite, so as to repay this earlier kindness. Having reflected in this way, he went everywhere seeking out the various bodily requisites; at that time, the various monks, seeing this, said to him: you formerly had few needs — why, now, do you have so many? He then, for their sake, fully recounted this same former matter. There was, further, a certain monk who recollected that, across five hundred past lifetimes, he had fallen into the hell-destiny; recollecting the suffering of the hells he had undergone there, blood flowed from every one of his own pores, and his own body and garments became constantly foul and unclean, and every day he went to the water to bathe and wash his own clothing, so that the assembly took him to consider water itself a purifying thing. He thereupon set every other matter to rest, blazing forth in diligent effort, and, after a long span of time had passed, attained the fruit of arhatship, and, afterward, no longer bathing or washing his own clothing so frequently, the assembly, puzzled, questioned him about it, and he, too, for their sake, fully recounted this same former matter. It is by virtue of this that it is known that this same knowledge is, at its utmost, capable of recollecting five hundred lifetimes. There are further teachers who say: this same knowledge is capable of knowing the matters of a past kalpa's own destruction and formation — that is, the Buddha, in a past age, while yet a bodhisattva, in order to transform sentient beings, gave rise to a great vow, and, at one time, was once the caṇḍāla king named Three-Hooks, thoroughly versed in every treatise and incantation; at that time, Ānanda was that same king's own son, named Lion-Ear,

whose own countenance was upright and handsome, unrivaled in the world. At that time, Śāriputra was a brāhmaṇa named Pond-Firm, thoroughly versed in the illuminating treatises and their own related lore; he had a single daughter named Chaste-and-Pure, whose own countenance was upright and dignified, delighted in by all who beheld her. At that time, the king came before this same brāhmaṇa's own place, seeking marriage for his own son. Pond-Firm, greatly indignant, addressed the king, saying: among every one of your own lineages, you are the very basest and lowest; I am a brāhmaṇa, most venerated among every lineage — for what reason have you come here, thereby insulting me? The king then said to the brāhmaṇa: the nobility or baseness of a lineage, too, is never permanently fixed —

for what reason do you now suddenly exalt yourself in this way? Have you ever heard of who created the Brāhmī letters, the various brāhmaṇa scriptures? Pond-Firm replied, saying: I have heard that, in ancient times, there was a brāhmaṇa named Brahmā, and it was he who created them. The king said: that same Brahmā, at that time, was none other than myself. Have you, further, ever heard of who created the Kharoṣṭhī letters? The brāhmaṇa said: I have heard that, in ancient times, there was a great sage named Kharoṣṭha, and it was he who created them. The king said: that same great sage, at that time, was none other than myself. The king further asked: have you ever heard of who composed the various Vedic treatises, and their own related worldly scriptures? The brāhmaṇa said: it is precisely thus and so — these various schools' own treatises were composed by this or that brāhmaṇa sage. The king further replied: were you aware that all of these were, in former times, none other than my own names? How is it, then, that you now exalt yourself while scorning me? Pond-Firm thereupon, one by one, examined and verified every one of the king's own claims, and found them to be genuinely true, not mistaken, and, his own heart deeply moved with reverence and admiration, thereupon consented to the marriage. It is by virtue of this that it is known that this same knowledge is capable of recollecting even the very matters of a past age's own kalpa formation and destruction.

Exactly as the scripture states: the Buddha said to the town's chieftain: I myself recollect that, across ninety-one kalpas up to the present, with respect to the field of pure precepts, I have never once neglected to give food and drink, and the like, nor do I recollect ever having, for the sake of food and drink, damaged or violated the precepts. One asks: does the Bhagavān recollect and know this same matter by means of the recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge, or by means of the inherent, connatural recollection-born knowledge? Suppose either were so — what fault would there be? If he recollects and knows this same matter by means of the recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge, then for what reason does he recollect solely ninety-one kalpas and no more? If he recollects and knows this same matter by means of the inherent, connatural recollection-born knowledge, then for what reason was it earlier stated that this same knowledge, according to some, recollects solely a single lifetime, according to others, recollects two, or even up to seven lifetimes, according to others, recollects five hundred lifetimes, and, according to others, recollects the matter of a kalpa's own formation and destruction — yet it was never stated that it is capable of recollecting ninety-one kalpas? The answer: it ought to be said that the Bhagavān recollects and knows this same matter by means of the recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge. One asks: if this is so, then for what reason does he recollect solely ninety-one kalpas and not more? The answer: he is, in genuine truth, capable of recollecting far more, yet states solely this same measure. One asks: if this is so, then for what reason does he not speak of recollecting more? The Venerable Pārśva speaks as follows: every such statement, whether of recollecting more or of recollecting less, gives rise to doubt and questioning alike — and it is for this reason that he speaks of the matter according to what is fitting, this being in no way contrary to principle, and this ought not to be pressed as an objection. Further, it is from that same point onward that the seven buddhas of the world are established, and it is for this reason that he singles out this same period and speaks of it. Further, it is from that same point onward that he cultivated the karma of the major and minor marks, and it is for this reason that he singles out this same period and discusses it. Further, it is from that same point onward that his own course of karma became pure, no longer falling into any evil destiny, constantly receiving a male body, and constantly recollecting his own former abodes, and it is for this reason that he singles out this same period and speaks of it. There are, further, those who say: the Bhagavān recollects and knows this same matter by means of the inherent, connatural recollection-born knowledge. One asks: if this is so, then for what reason was it earlier stated that some say it recollects solely a single lifetime, and so on, up through, some say it recollects the matter of a kalpa's own formation and destruction, without ever stating that it is capable of recollecting ninety-one kalpas? The answer: what was stated earlier speaks of how much other persons are capable of recollecting, without speaking of the Buddha — were the Buddha to be spoken of, he, too, would be capable of recollecting still more.

One asks: is the inherent, connatural recollection-born knowledge capable of recollecting and knowing any matter of the intermediate state? There are those who say: it is incapable of recollecting and knowing this — for what reason is this so? Because the matter of the intermediate state, being exceedingly subtle, is not the object of this same knowledge. The verdict: it ought to be said that the inherent, connatural recollection-born knowledge, too, is capable of recollecting and knowing the matter of the intermediate state — for what reason is this so? Were it incapable of recollecting and knowing it, then this same knowledge's own object would thereby become mixed and uneven, knowing a portion while not knowing a portion. One asks: since the bodhisattva, in his former lives, already possessed the inherent, connatural recollection-born knowledge, does he, too, still possess it within his own very final life? Suppose either were so — what fault would there be? If he possesses it, then how is it that he requires the force of external conditions, not solely the force of his own superior causes? If he does not possess it, then how is it that the bodhisattva does not thereby regress and decline? The answer: it ought to be said that the bodhisattva, even within his own very final body, still possesses the inherent, connatural recollection-born knowledge. One asks: if this is so, then how is it that he requires the force of external conditions, not solely the force of his own superior causes? The answer: it is not that he is without the force of external conditions at all — it is because he possesses the force of an internal cause, and possesses sharp faculties, that he is said to possess the force of an internal cause, that is, this same bodhisattva, among the faculties and natures of every sentient being, is the very most supreme, and this is what is meant by possessing the force of a cause. Further, who has ever said the bodhisattva is without the force of external conditions at all? There were the Pure Abode gods who manifested old age, sickness, and death, awakening within the bodhisattva a mind wearied of birth-and-death — is this not the force of a condition? And there was the deer-park maiden who, for the bodhisattva's own sake, spoke a verse in praise of nirvāṇa, awakening within the bodhisattva a mind delighting in nirvāṇa — this, too, is the force of a condition. Exactly as it states:

Before long, you shall attain tranquil bliss as your own mother, freedom from sorrow as your own father, and quiescence as your own wife. Having seen and heard such matters as these, the bodhisattva, his own weariness and delight thereby increased, went over the city wall and left the household life. Further, in past lives, there existed measureless buddhas who, for the bodhisattva's own sake, spoke of the provisions for awakening — every such matter as these is named the force of a condition. There are those who say: the bodhisattva, within his own very final body, no longer possesses the inherent, connatural recollection-born knowledge. One asks: if this is so, then how is it that he does not thereby regress and decline? The answer: although he no longer possesses this same knowledge, he possesses a supreme recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge, together with wish-knowledge and the like, and it is for this reason that he does not regress and decline. The verdict: it should be understood that the position stated first here accords with principle, since he has constantly possessed this same knowledge from the very ninety-one-kalpa mark onward.

What is time-bound mental liberation? 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: the Buddha said to Ānanda: monks ought not to delight in gathering together, indulging in idle discourse — were they to delight in gathering together and indulge in idle discourse, that they should thereby realize time-bound mental liberation and unshakeable mental liberation, this would be impossible; were the various monks not to delight in gathering together, and not to indulge in idle discourse, that they should thereby realize these same two liberations, this would indeed be possible. Although the scripture speaks in this way, it does not fully explain its own meaning — it does not state the own-nature of these same two liberations, nor the causes and conditions for their attainment; although the Faculties Aggregate has already stated the causes and conditions for their attainment, it has not displayed their own own-nature, and this treatise now wishes to display it. 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: time-bound mental liberation belongs to the learner, still having something further to accomplish; unshakeable mental liberation belongs to the non-learner, having nothing further to accomplish. In order to put a stop to this same intention, and to display that both liberations belong to the non-learner, having nothing further to accomplish, this treatise is composed. There are, further, those who say: time-bound mental liberation is contaminated; unshakeable mental liberation is undefiled.

In order to put a stop to this same intention, and to display that both liberations are undefiled, this treatise is composed. There are, further, those who wish to hold that time-bound mental liberation is conditioned, while unshakeable mental liberation is unconditioned. In order to put a stop to this same intention, and to display that both liberations are conditioned, this treatise is composed — it is by virtue of such causes and conditions as these that this treatise is composed. What is time-bound mental liberation? The answer: it is the arhat liberated in time's own knowledge of exhaustion, or the resolve associated with the non-learner's own right view, whether already resolved or yet to be resolved. What is unshakeable mental liberation? The answer: it is the unshakeable-dharma arhat's own knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising, or the resolve associated with the non-learner's own right view, whether already resolved or yet to be resolved. Here, the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising, and the resolve associated with the non-learner's own right view,

distinguish this from the learner and from the contaminated; "the mind's resolve" refers to the present; "already resolved" refers to the past; "yet to be resolved" refers to the future — this, in turn, distinguishes it from the unconditioned liberation, displaying that both liberations take solely the resolve associated with the non-learner's own undefiled mind as their own-nature. Yet, among all dharmas, solely two are the very own-nature of liberation — that is, among the unconditioned dharmas, cessation through discernment is the very own-nature of liberation; among the conditioned dharmas, the resolve gathered within the universal mental factors is the very own-nature of liberation. This same resolve is of two kinds — first, defiled, this referring to whatever is associated with craving and the rest, named wrong resolve; second, undefiled — wait, rather, not defiled, this referring to whatever is associated with non-attachment and the rest, named right resolve. This same right resolve is, further, of two kinds — first, contaminated, this referring to the resolve associated with the contemplation of impurity, the mindfulness of breathing, the immeasurables, the liberations, the masteries, the totalities, and the like; second, undefiled, this referring to the learner's and the non-learner's own resolve. As for the learner's own resolve: this refers to the resolve gathered within the four approaches and the three fruits — this being precisely the resolve associated with the forbearance regarding suffering, a dharma-cognition, up through the vajra-like concentration. As for the non-learner's own resolve: this refers to the resolve gathered within the fruit of arhatship — this being precisely the resolve associated with the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising, and the non-learner's own right view. This same non-learner's own resolve is, further, of two kinds — first, time-bound mental liberation, this referring precisely to the resolve gathered within the fruit of the five kinds of arhat, likewise named liberated in time; second, unshakeable mental liberation, this referring to the resolve gathered within the fruit of the unshakeable-dharma arhat, likewise named liberated beyond time. These two liberations are each, further, of two kinds — first, named mind-liberation, since it is free of craving; second, named wisdom-liberation, since it is free of ignorance. One asks: if the non-learner's own resolve is named mind-liberation because it is free of craving, and is named wisdom-liberation because it is free of ignorance, then how is one to reconcile this with what the *Saṅgītiparyāya* states?

Exactly as it states: what is mind-liberation? It refers to the wholesome root of non-attachment counteracting craving; what is wisdom-liberation? It refers to the wholesome root of non-delusion counteracting ignorance. The answer: the *Saṅgītiparyāya* ought rather to have stated: what is mind-liberation? It refers to the resolve associated with the wholesome root of non-attachment; what is wisdom-liberation? It refers to the resolve associated with the wholesome root of non-delusion. That it ought to have been so stated, and was not, should be understood to carry a separate underlying intent — that is, it displays resolve in reliance upon the wholesome root: if, in reliance upon non-attachment, one's own mind is liberated from craving, this same associated resolve is named mind-liberation; if, in reliance upon non-delusion, one's own wisdom is liberated from ignorance, this same associated resolve is named wisdom-liberation — and it is for this reason that, here, both mind-liberations alike take the non-learner's own resolve as their own-nature. This is named the very own-nature of liberation, its own substance, own inherent nature, and own characteristic.

Having already stated its own-nature, what it is so named for ought now to be stated. One asks: for what reason is it named liberated in time? What, precisely, is the meaning of "liberated in time"? The answer: because this same liberation depends upon a given time to be attained. Although there are many kinds of "time," there are, in brief, six kinds — first, the time of obtaining good clothing; second, the time of obtaining good food;

third, the time of obtaining good bedding; fourth, the time of obtaining a good dwelling-place; fifth, the time of obtaining good dharma-teaching; sixth, the time of obtaining a good companion. Depending upon the time of obtaining good clothing refers to the fact that he must obtain fine, soft, pure, and excellent clothing before he attains liberation — were this not so, then he would not attain liberation. Depending upon the time of obtaining good food refers to the fact that he must obtain excellent food and drink, ghee, honey, and the like, before he attains liberation — were this not so, then he would not attain liberation. Depending upon the time of obtaining good bedding refers to the fact that he must obtain a thick, soft bed and coverlet, and the like, before he attains liberation — were this not so, then he would not attain liberation. Depending upon obtaining a good dwelling-place refers to the fact that he must obtain a tranquil dwelling-place and an excellent chamber before he attains liberation — were this not so, then he would not attain liberation. Depending upon the time of obtaining good dharma-teaching refers to the fact that he must obtain instruction and guidance suited to principle and to the occasion before he attains liberation — were this not so, then he would not attain liberation. Depending upon the time of obtaining a good companion refers to the fact that he must obtain a companion possessing supreme virtue and conduct, of a gentle and pliant nature, easy to dwell together with, before he attains liberation — were this not so, then he would not attain liberation. One asks: for what reason is it named liberated beyond time? What, precisely, is the meaning of "liberated beyond time"? The answer: because this same liberation does not depend upon a given time to be attained — the "time" here being exactly the same six kinds as stated before. As for not depending upon the time of obtaining good clothing: this refers to the fact that, even upon obtaining a discarded rag robe, he is still capable of swiftly attaining liberation, superior to time-bound liberation —

even upon obtaining a robe worth a hundred thousand pieces of gold. As for not depending upon the time of obtaining good food: this refers to the fact that, even upon obtaining coarse, poor food and drink, he is still capable of swiftly attaining liberation, superior to time-bound liberation — even upon obtaining food of a hundred flavors. As for not depending upon the time of obtaining good bedding: this refers to the fact that, even upon obtaining a rough bed of stone in a remote, humble place, he is still capable of swiftly attaining liberation, superior to time-bound liberation — even upon obtaining a supremely excellent bed and coverlet. As for not depending upon the time of obtaining a good dwelling-place: this refers to the fact that, even upon obtaining a noisy, clamorous place and a poor dwelling, he is still capable of swiftly attaining liberation, superior to time-bound liberation — even upon obtaining a tranquil, excellent dwelling-place, wearied of that same clamor, swiftly entering concentration. As for not depending upon the time of obtaining good dharma-teaching: this refers to the fact that, even upon obtaining instruction and guidance contrary to principle and unsuited to the occasion, he is still capable of swiftly attaining liberation, superior to time-bound liberation — even upon obtaining instruction and guidance suited to principle and to the occasion, wearied of what is spoken, swiftly entering concentration. As for not depending upon the time of obtaining a good companion: this refers to the fact that, even upon dwelling together with one lacking virtue and conduct, of an obstinate, perverse nature, difficult to dwell together with, he is still capable of swiftly attaining liberation, superior to time-bound liberation — even upon dwelling together with one possessing virtue and conduct, and the like, wearied of that same coarseness, swiftly entering concentration.

Further, it is in reliance upon a narrow, small path that liberation is attained, and it is for this reason that it is named liberated in time — as for the narrow, small path: this refers to the fact that, were it at its most rapid, the wholesome roots would be planted in the first life, brought to maturity in the second life, and liberation attained in the third life, this not being determined for the remainder. It is in reliance upon a vast, great path that liberation is attained, and it is named liberated beyond time — as for the vast, great path: this refers to the fact that, were it at its slowest, within the disciple vehicle, liberation would be attained after the passage of sixty kalpas; exactly as with Śāriputra; within the solitary-realizer vehicle, liberation would be attained after the passage of a hundred kalpas, exactly as with the rhinoceros-horn-like solitary-realizer; within the buddha vehicle, liberation would be attained after the passage of three incalculable kalpas. Further, it is in reliance upon a feeble, inferior path that liberation is attained, and it is for this reason that it is named liberated in time — as for the feeble, inferior path: this refers to the fact that, with respect to the preparatory effort of the wholesome category conducive to liberation, one is incapable of constantly and earnestly cultivating it — if he cultivates it during the first portion of the day, he is then incapable of cultivating it during the middle and latter portions; if he cultivates it during the first portion of the night, he is then incapable of cultivating it during the middle and latter portions — although he is capable of cultivating it intermittently, he is incapable of doing so earnestly. It is in reliance upon a strong, supreme path that liberation is attained, and it is for this reason that it is named liberated beyond time — as for the strong, supreme path: this is the very opposite of what was stated above. Further, it is in reliance upon a path whose own calm-abiding aspect predominates that liberation is attained, and it is for this reason that it is named liberated in time; it is in reliance upon a path whose own insight aspect predominates that liberation is attained, and it is for this reason that it is named liberated beyond time. Further, it is in reliance upon a path capable of being swayed and overturned that liberation is attained, and it is for this reason that it is named liberated in time — as for a path capable of being swayed and overturned: this refers to the fact that the path one has cultivated can be swayed and overturned by whether one's own circumstances are agreeable or disagreeable, beneficial or harmful, and by whether one's own requisites are pleasant or painful. It is in reliance upon a path incapable of being swayed and overturned that liberation is attained, and it is for this reason that it is named liberated beyond time — as for a path incapable of being swayed and overturned: this is the very opposite of what was stated above. Further, it is in reliance upon the path belonging to five kinds of inherent lineage

that liberation is attained, and it is for this reason that it is named liberated in time — as for the path belonging to five kinds of inherent lineage: this refers to the retrogressible-dharma lineage's own path, up through the penetrating-dharma lineage's own path. It is in reliance upon the path belonging to a single kind of inherent lineage that liberation is attained, and it is for this reason that it is named liberated beyond time — as for the path belonging to a single kind of inherent lineage:

this refers to the unshakeable-dharma lineage's own path. This, then, is what is meant by speaking of the five kinds of lineage's own arhats as liberated in time, and of the unshakeable-dharma lineage's own arhat as liberated beyond time. One asks, arguing from what has already been discussed to raise a further discussion: for what reason are the preceding five kinds of arhat gathered together and jointly established as the single category of liberated in time,

while the sixth kind of arhat is separately established as its own single category of liberated beyond time? The answer: there is a separate reason for this — those liberated in time are many, those liberated beyond time are few, that is, in reliance upon lineage, the preceding five lineages are designated as arhats liberated in time, while the sixth lineage is named liberated beyond time. There is a separate reason why those liberated in time are few, and those liberated beyond time are many — that is, in reliance upon vehicle, it is designated that solely the disciple vehicle possesses arhats liberated in time, while all three vehicles alike possess arhats liberated beyond time. There is a separate reason why the two liberations are equal — that is, both liberations alike are free of affliction, both alike being gathered within the noble path present in a pure, non-learner's own body. Further, it is because liberated-in-time is inferior that five kinds are designated for it; it is because liberated-beyond-time is supreme that a single kind is established for it — exactly as, in the world today, kings, great ministers, elders, and householders, those of wealth and eminence, are exceedingly few in number, while the poor and lowly are exceedingly many; and exactly as, in the world, buddhas and solitary-realizers, and disciples who have reached the very ultimate, are exceedingly few in number, while every remaining disciple is exceedingly many; and exactly as, in the world, the intelligent and wise are few, and the foolish and confused are many; and exactly as, in the world, those who do good are few, and those who do evil are many; and exactly as, in the world, those of right view are few, and those of wrong view are many; and exactly as, in the world, those of dignified appearance are few, and those of ugly appearance are many; and exactly as, in the world, those of gentle, pliant nature are few, and those of obstinate, unyielding nature are many — in just the same way, the preceding five kinds of arhat, being inferior, are jointly named liberated in time, while the sixth kind of arhat, being supreme, is separately named liberated beyond time. Further, the preceding five kinds of arhat are easily obtained in the world, and it is for this reason that they are jointly established under a single name, liberated in time; the sixth kind of arhat is difficult to obtain in the world, and it is for this reason that it is separately established under its own single name, liberated beyond time — exactly as, among the people of the present age, those who go to a distant land and to the land of Siṃhala and return are exceedingly few, while those who go to a nearby village and return are exceedingly many — this, too, is just the same. Further, the preceding five kinds of arhat do not employ a great deal of effort, do not undertake a great deal of preparatory effort,

and do not exert a great deal of mental application in attaining what they attain, and it is for this reason that they are jointly established under a single name, liberated in time; the sixth kind of arhat is the very opposite of the above, and it is for this reason that it is separately established under its own single name, liberated beyond time. Further, the preceding five kinds of arhat admit of both increase and decrease, and it is for this reason that they are jointly established under a single name, liberated in time; the sixth kind of arhat admits of neither increase nor decrease, and it is for this reason that it is separately established under its own single name, liberated beyond time — here, "increase" refers to advancement; "decrease" refers to retrogression.