The Wish-Fulfilling Jewel

For what reason is time-bound mental liberation named "cherished"? The answer: the arhat liberated in time constantly, with respect to this same dharma, earnestly guards it, cherishing and treasuring it, storing it carefully away, lest, meeting with some condition, he should retrogress and lose this same dharma — exactly as a one-eyed man, together with his own kin and friends, earnestly guards his own eye, cherishing and treasuring it, storing it carefully away, lest, meeting with cold, heat, dust, or clouding, this same single eye should come to further ruin — this, too, is just the same, and it is for this reason that it is named cherished. That is, one of dull faculty, with respect to his own very own virtue, is, by his own nature, more inclined to cherish and treasure it than one of sharp faculty, exactly as women, with respect to their own sons and daughters, are, by their own inborn nature, more tenderly loving than men. Further, the arhat liberated in time, not yet having attained self-mastery with respect to his own liberation, must employ a great deal of effort before it manifests in the present;

once it has already manifested in the present, he rejoices in it and treasures it dearly, and it is for this reason that it is named cherished. The unshakeable-dharma arhat, having already attained self-mastery with respect to his own liberation, employs but little effort before it manifests in the present, and, although it manifests in the present, this is not accompanied by the same intense feeling, and it is for this reason that it is not named cherished. Further, the arhat liberated in time's own virtue admits of retrogression; fearing this same retrogression, he repeatedly causes it to manifest in the present, and it is for this reason that it is named cherished; the unshakeable-dharma arhat's own virtue admits of no retrogression; not fearing retrogression, he does not repeatedly cause it to manifest in the present, and it is for this reason that it is not named cherished. Further, the arhat liberated in time realizes the path through the augmentation of faith, and it is for this reason that it is named cherished; the unshakeable-dharma arhat realizes the path through the augmentation of wisdom, and it is for this reason that it is not named cherished. Further, the arhat liberated in time is, by nature, for the most part gentle and compliant, and people, for the most part, cherish and delight in him, and it is for this reason that it is named cherished; the unshakeable-dharma arhat is, by nature, for the most part firm and unyielding, and people do not cherish and delight in him, and it is for this reason that it is not named cherished — exactly as, among the people of the present age, those whose own nature is not sharp are, for the most part, soft and gentle, and people delight in drawing close to them, while those whose own nature is not dull are, for the most part, firm and forceful, and people do not draw close to them. Further, the arhat liberated in time is without the wholesome roots that grow weary of and turn away from the noble path, and it is for this reason that it is named cherished; the unshakeable-dharma arhat possesses the wholesome roots that grow weary of and turn away from the noble path, and it is for this reason that it is not named cherished — as for the wholesome roots that grow weary of and turn away from the noble path: this refers to the wholesome roots associated with the emptiness-emptiness, wishlessness-wishlessness, and signless-signless concentrations. Although the base treatise's own text does not raise this as a question and answer, its meaning is genuinely present, and it ought now to be so stated. One asks: for what reason is unshakeable liberation named "unshakeable"? The answer: because its own substance is supremely excellent, it is thereby named unshakeable — exactly as, in the present age, supremely excellent food and drink, clothing, and ornaments are spoken of as "unshakeable," since they are not swayed or measured against anything inferior. Further, craving and the other afflictions cause sentient beings' own body and mind to become agitated and unsteady, causing their own wholesome roots to become weakened and scattered, and it is for this reason that this is named "shaken"; the unshakeable-dharma arhat is not shaken by afflictions such as these, and it is for this reason that he is named unshakeable. Further, craving and the other afflictions

cause sentient beings, within their own various stages, to become fixed neither in superiority nor in inferiority, and it is for this reason that this is named "shaken"; the unshakeable-dharma arhat is not shaken by afflictions such as these, and it is for this reason that he is named unshakeable, exactly as a valiant, formidable person, whom no enemy can move, is named unshakeable. Further, the unshakeable-dharma arhat, with respect to his own every virtue, assuredly never retrogresses or loses it, and it is for this reason that he is named unshakeable, exactly as a skilled archer, whose arrow assuredly strikes the target, is named unshakeable. Exactly as the scripture states: the Buddha said to Śāriputra: if there exist monks and nuns who have accomplished the maṇi-jewel of unshakeable mental liberation, they are capable of cutting off unwholesome dharmas and of cultivating wholesome dharmas. One asks: for what reason is unshakeable mental liberation named the maṇi-jewel?

The answer: because unshakeable mental liberation is firm and solid, supremely excellent, without fault, luminously clear, without stain, pure, hard to obtain, and worthy of being cherished and delighted in, it is named the maṇi-jewel. Further, it is because unshakeable mental liberation is capable of shattering the darkness of ignorance that it is named the maṇi-jewel — exactly as a luminous maṇi-jewel, placed within a dark chamber, is capable of shattering that same darkness, performing the work of illumination, so too does the maṇi-jewel of unshakeable mental liberation, placed within one's own continuum, shatter the darkness of ignorance, performing the work of illumination. Further, it is because unshakeable mental liberation is capable of removing the dust and defilement of the afflictions that it is named the maṇi-jewel — exactly as a water-purifying maṇi-jewel, placed within turbid water, causes that same water to become clear and pure, so too does the maṇi-jewel of unshakeable mental liberation, placed within one's own continuum, remove every dust and defilement of the afflictions. Further, it is because unshakeable mental liberation is well and firmly established that it is named the maṇi-jewel — exactly as a square-based maṇi-jewel, wherever it is placed, remains well and firmly established,

so too does the maṇi-jewel of unshakeable mental liberation, placed within one's own continuum, remain well and firmly established, assuredly free of any retrogression or loss. Further, it is because unshakeable mental liberation is capable of removing the poverty of noble wealth that it is named the maṇi-jewel — exactly as a priceless maṇi-jewel, placed within a dwelling, is capable of drawing forth wealth and treasure, removing every poverty and want, so too does the maṇi-jewel of unshakeable mental liberation, placed within one's own continuum, draw forth noble wealth, removing the poverty of virtue. Further, it is because unshakeable mental liberation is capable of benefiting every sentient being that it is named the maṇi-jewel — exactly as a wish-fulfilling gem, placed atop a lofty banner, rains down, according to one's own wish, every manner of treasured thing, providing relief to a hundred thousand impoverished beings, so too does the Bhagavān, with the maṇi-jewel of unshakeable mental liberation placed atop the lofty banner of heedfulness, rain down the treasure of the true dharma, according to each sentient being's own distinct delight, causing measureless, boundless sentient beings to be freed from the suffering of birth-and-death, their own wholesome roots brought to full completion. It is by virtue of such various causes and conditions as these that unshakeable mental liberation is named the maṇi-jewel. One asks: if unshakeable mental liberation possesses such supreme qualities as these, then for what reason does the Bhagavān speak of unshakeable mental liberation as a dharma neither decreasing nor increasing? The answer: this is spoken with reference to an equal treatment of every practitioner — that is, were there, in the east, measureless sons of kṣatriyas, in the south, measureless sons of brāhmaṇas, in the west, measureless sons of vaiśyas, and in the north, measureless sons of śūdras, all of whom came and took refuge with me, shaved off their own hair and beard, donned the kāṣāya robe, and, with genuine faith, left the household for the homeless life, and, with respect to unshakeable mental liberation, personally bore witness to it and abided fully therein — or were this not so — this same unshakeable mental liberation would, in either case, neither decrease nor increase. Further, this is spoken with reference to the boundlessness of the noble teaching's own virtues — that is, within the noble teaching there exist boundless virtues, not solely unshakeable mental liberation — even were this same unshakeable mental liberation to depart, it would not thereby decrease, and, were it to arrive, it would not thereby increase. Further, this is spoken with reference to the boundlessness of the Buddha's own virtues — that is, within the Buddha's own body there exist boundless virtues, not solely unshakeable mental liberation — even were this same unshakeable mental liberation, hypothetically, to depart, it would not thereby decrease, and, were it, hypothetically, to arrive, it would not thereby increase. Further, this is stated in order to remove a certain doubt held by the multitude — that is, Mahāmaudgalyāyana, on the night of the poṣadha recitation, expelled the monk from Campā, causing him to leave the assembly. At that time, a certain monk gave rise to a doubting thought, wondering whether this would cause the monastic assembly to become diminished — and it was for this reason that the Bhagavān stated: even were one possessing unshakeable mental liberation, that supreme, virtuous forest amid the assembly, to be expelled, my own monastic assembly would still not thereby decrease;

were he, instead, to arrive, the assembly would likewise not thereby increase — how much less, then, could a monk who has broken the precepts and violated the rules, ruining every deportment and departing from every pure dharma, cause the pure assembly to either decrease or increase? Further, it is because unshakeable mental liberation cannot retrogress that it is named "without decrease"; it is because it is incapable of further advancement that it is named "without increase" — and it is for this reason that, although unshakeable mental liberation possesses such supreme qualities, the Buddha nonetheless speaks of it as a dharma neither decreasing nor increasing.

Is every time-bound mental liberation associated with the knowledge of exhaustion? And so on, stated at length. One asks: for what reason is this treatise composed? The answer: it is in order to bring resolution to those who harbor doubt — that is, there are those who, having heard it said that the arhat liberated in time cultivates solely the knowledge of exhaustion and the non-learner's own right view, thereupon doubt that the unshakeable-dharma arhat, too, cultivates solely these same two; there are, further, those who, having heard it said that the unshakeable-dharma arhat cultivates the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising, together with the non-learner's own right view, thereupon doubt that the arhat liberated in time, too, cultivates these same three kinds. Wishing to remove this same doubt, and to display that the arhat liberated in time cultivates solely two kinds, while the unshakeable-dharma arhat fully cultivates all three kinds, this treatise is composed. Further, although the own-nature of these two liberations has already been stated, their own relationships of overlap and non-overlap have not yet been stated, and, wishing now to state this, this treatise is composed. Here, time-bound mental liberation, compared against association with the knowledge of exhaustion, yields a tetralemma; unshakeable mental liberation, compared against association with the knowledge of non-arising, yields a clause conforming to what follows — every one of these should be understood exactly according to the base treatise's own text.

One asks: what kind of arhat cultivates solely the knowledge of exhaustion and the non-learner's own right view, these two undefiled forms of wisdom? What kind of arhat fully cultivates the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising, together with the non-learner's own right view, these three undefiled forms of wisdom? The answer: there is the arhat whose mind is well liberated, but who is not well liberated in wisdom; there is the arhat whose mind and wisdom are both well liberated — the former cultivates solely two, the latter fully cultivates three. Further, there is the arhat whose own force of cause, force of preparatory effort, and force of heedfulness are all narrow and small; there is the arhat whose own force of cause, force of preparatory effort, and force of heedfulness are all vast and great — the former cultivates solely two, the latter fully cultivates three. Further, there is the arhat who practices calm-abiding conduct; there is the arhat who practices insight conduct — the former cultivates solely two, the latter fully cultivates three; the same holds for the two conducts, the two pleasures, the two desires, and the two lovings. Further, there is the arhat who cultivates tranquility first and thereby enters the noble path; there is the arhat who cultivates insight first and thereby enters the noble path — the former cultivates solely two, the latter fully cultivates three. Further, there is the arhat who, by means of tranquility, cultivates the mind, and, in reliance upon insight, attains liberation; there is the arhat who, by means of insight, cultivates the mind, and, in reliance upon tranquility, attains liberation — the former cultivates solely two, the latter fully cultivates three. Further, there is the arhat who has attained inward tranquility of mind, yet has not attained the supreme-wisdom observation of dharmas; there is the arhat who has attained inward tranquility of mind and has also attained the supreme-wisdom observation of dharmas — the former cultivates solely two, the latter fully cultivates three. Further, exactly as the scripture states: two causes and two conditions are capable of giving rise to right view — first, hearing another's own voice from without;

second, proper mental application within. If it is hearing another's own voice from without that predominates, one cultivates solely two; if it is proper mental application within that predominates, one fully cultivates three. Further, exactly as the scripture states: there are four dharmas that accomplish a great deal — first, drawing near a good person; second, hearing the true dharma; third, proper mental application; fourth, practice in accordance with the dharma. If the former two predominate, one cultivates solely two; if the latter two predominate, one fully cultivates three. Further, one of dull faculty cultivates solely two; one of sharp faculty fully cultivates three — exactly as with dull and sharp faculty, so too should this be understood with the force of condition and the force of cause, the outer portion's own force and the inner portion's own force, and the knowledge said to come from hearing. Further, if it is the wholesome root of non-attachment that predominates, one cultivates solely two; if it is the wholesome root of non-delusion that predominates, one fully cultivates three. Further, if one exhausts the three realms' own fetters by means of the knowledge of cessation and of the path, one cultivates solely two; if one exhausts the three realms' own fetters by means of the knowledge of suffering and of accumulation, one fully cultivates three. Further, if one exhausts the three realms' own fetters by means of the signless and the wishlessness concentrations, one cultivates solely two; if one exhausts the three realms' own fetters by means of the emptiness, suffering, accumulation, and wishlessness concentrations, one fully cultivates three. Here, the time-bound-mental-liberation arhat's own vajra-like concentration exists solely for a single moment, while his own knowledge of exhaustion flows and continues for a long span of time; emerging from the knowledge of exhaustion, he either gives rise to the non-learner's own right view, or gives rise to a worldly mind. The unshakeable-mental-liberation arhat's own vajra-like concentration and knowledge of exhaustion exist solely for a single moment, while his own knowledge of non-arising flows and continues for a long span of time; emerging from the knowledge of non-arising, he either gives rise to the non-learner's own right view, or gives rise to a worldly mind. Every arhat fully cultivates the non-learner's own right view in its entirety, yet not every one of them presently manifests it.

One asks: what distinction is there between the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising? The answer: even the very name is already a distinction — that is, this is named the knowledge of exhaustion; this is named the knowledge of non-arising. Further, the cause is the knowledge of exhaustion; the fruit is the knowledge of non-arising. Further, that which has already acted is the knowledge of exhaustion; that which is nurtured and grown by this same cause is the knowledge of non-arising. Further, whatever is not yet attained and is now attained, or has already been attained and is now attained, is the knowledge of exhaustion; whatever is solely not yet attained and is now attained is the knowledge of non-arising. Further, whatever is gathered within either the path of liberation or the path of further advancement is the knowledge of exhaustion; whatever is gathered solely within the path of further advancement is the knowledge of non-arising. Further, that in reliance upon which the five kinds of arhat are established is the knowledge of exhaustion; that in reliance upon which the single kind of arhat is established is the knowledge of non-arising. Further, both the dull-faculty and the sharp-faculty attain the former; solely the sharp-faculty attains the latter. These, then, are the distinctions. One asks: what knowledge is the very first knowledge of exhaustion? There are those who say: it is the subsequent cognition of suffering — for what reason is this so? The various practitioners of yoga observe the fruit of birth-and-death and thereby enter the noble path; it is upon observing the fruit of birth-and-death that the noble path reaches its full completion — exactly as, when a poisoned arrow strikes some beast or bird, the poison first enters through the very wound, and, gradually spreading throughout the entire body, performs its own work of poisoning, and, at the very moment of death, again exits through that same wound — the noble path, too, is just the same. There are, further, those who say: it is the subsequent cognition of accumulation — for what reason is this so? The various practitioners of yoga observe the fruit of birth-and-death and thereby enter the noble path; it is upon observing the cause of birth-and-death that the noble path reaches its full completion, since the whole of birth-and-death is gathered within fruit and cause, first fully comprehending the fruit, and afterward fully comprehending the cause, whereupon the path of birth-and-death is cut off and no longer continues, this being named the very limit of suffering.

The verdict: it ought to be said that the very first knowledge of exhaustion is both the subsequent cognition of suffering and the subsequent cognition of accumulation — if the subsequent cognition of suffering arises, then, at that same moment, the subsequent cognition of accumulation does not arise; if the subsequent cognition of accumulation arises, then, at that same moment, the subsequent cognition of suffering does not arise. Exactly as the scripture states: the various arhats genuinely know, in accordance with reality, of themselves: my birth is already exhausted; the pure conduct is already established; what needed to be done is already done; I do not receive further existence. Here, as for "my birth is already exhausted": the term "birth" carries many meanings — there is a "birth" that displays entering the mother's womb; there is a "birth" that displays emerging from the mother's womb; there is a "birth" that displays the five aggregates at a given stage; there is a "birth" that displays a small portion of the formations-aggregate dissociated from mind; and there is a "birth" that displays the four aggregates of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. As for the "birth" that displays entering the mother's womb: this is exactly as it is said, what is birth? It refers to this or that sentient being being born, arising, coming forth, and manifesting within this or that common class of existence. As for the "birth" that displays emerging from the mother's womb: this is exactly as it is said, the bodhisattva, at the very moment of his own birth, at once walked seven steps. As for the "birth" that displays the five aggregates at a given stage: this is exactly as it is said, there is a birth conditioned by existence. As for the "birth" that displays a small portion of the formations-aggregate dissociated from mind: this is exactly as it is said, what is birth? It refers to the arising of the aggregates. As for the "birth" that displays the four aggregates of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception: this is exactly as is stated here, "my birth is already exhausted." One asks: which birth, precisely, is this that is exhausted — the past, the future, or the present? If it is the past birth that is exhausted, the past birth has already ceased — what further remains to be exhausted? If it is the future birth that is exhausted, the future birth has not yet arrived — what, then, is exhausted? If it is the present birth that is exhausted, the present birth does not abide — what need is there to exhaust it? The answer: it ought to be said that it is the birth belonging to all three times that is exhausted — for what reason is this so? Here, since the term "birth" already displays the four aggregates of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, the various practitioners of yoga generally observe the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's own four aggregates across all three times, and, becoming free of defilement with respect to them, cause the cause and effect of birth to no longer be accomplished at all. The Great Virtuous One speaks as follows: as for the statement "my birth is already exhausted" — exactly as the Bhagavān states, the sage observes the exhaustion of birth — this, too, ought to be separately inquired into in just this same way, and it ought to be answered that it is the future birth that is exhausted, since the practitioner, upholding the precepts and vows and diligently cultivating the pure conduct, does so entirely in order to obstruct and halt birth belonging to the future age, causing it not to arise — exactly as a person facing three kinds of peril: first, what has already been undergone; second, what is presently being undergone; third, what is yet to be undergone. Whatever has already been undergone, since it has already been undergone, need no longer be obstructed and halted; whatever is presently being undergone, since it is presently being undergone, cannot be obstructed and halted; whatever is yet to be undergone ought to be obstructed and halted, whether through wealth, or through the force of kinship and friendship, or through some other expedient means — the practitioner, too, is just the same: since past births have already ceased, they need not be obstructed and halted; since present births are presently being undergone, they cannot be obstructed and halted; it is future births, through the cultivation of correct preparatory effort, that are obstructed and halted, causing them to never again arise, and it is for this reason that this is spoken of as "exhausted." As for "the pure conduct is already established": this refers to the fact that the undefiled conduct has already been established. One asks: is it the learner's own pure conduct that is established, or the non-learner's own pure conduct? The answer: it is the learner's own pure conduct that is established, not the non-learner's own — for what reason is this so? The non-learner's own pure conduct is only now, at this very point, being established. As for "what needed to be done is already done": this refers to the fact that every affliction has already been cut off, every task has already reached its ultimate completion, and every path has already been obstructed and blocked. Further, every realm, destiny, and birth, and aging, sickness, and death, have all ultimately been exhausted, and it is for this reason that this is named what needed to be done is already done. As for "I do not receive further existence": this displays the knowledge of non-arising. One asks: not every arhat attains the knowledge of non-arising — for what reason, then, do every one of the various scriptures, at their very opening, state that the arhat does not receive further existence? There are those who say: the Buddha, within the scripture, speaks according to whoever happens to possess it, yet the compilers, in compiling the canon, uniformly placed it at the very opening of the scripture. There are, further, those who say: the compilers of the dharma had all attained wish-knowledge, unobstructed understanding, and other such supreme virtues, and, observing that, at the very time the Bhagavān spoke the various scriptures, if, among the assembly of arhats, there existed one who possessed the knowledge of non-arising, they would then likewise speak of him as not receiving further existence, while if there existed none who possessed the knowledge of non-arising, they would then not speak of not receiving further existence — yet those who later recited and upheld the canon did not skillfully distinguish this, and it is for this reason that it came to be uniformly recited at the very opening of every scripture. The Venerable Ghoṣa speaks as follows: every arhat is without any further existence whatsoever, and it is for this reason that it is uniformly stated that they do not receive further existence — it is not stated that the knowledge of non-arising itself is what constitutes not receiving further existence, and it is for this reason that there is no contradiction here. The Venerable Pārśva speaks as follows: whoever has not yet cut off, and not yet fully comprehended, every affliction is, in every case, not spoken of as having his own birth already exhausted, the pure conduct already established, what needed to be done already done, and not receiving further existence; whoever has already cut off, and already fully comprehended, every affliction is, in every case, generally spoken of as having his own birth already exhausted, and so on, up through, not receiving further existence.

One asks: as for "my birth is already exhausted," and so on, up through "I do not receive further existence" — each of these, in turn, ought to be said to be which specific knowledge? There are those who say: "my birth is already exhausted" is the knowledge of exhaustion; "the pure conduct is already established, what needed to be done is already done, I do not receive further existence" is the knowledge of non-arising. There are, further, those who say: "my birth is already exhausted, the pure conduct is already established" is the knowledge of exhaustion; "what needed to be done is already done, I do not receive further existence" is the knowledge of non-arising. There are, further, those who say: "my birth is already exhausted, the pure conduct is already established, what needed to be done is already done" is the knowledge of exhaustion; "I do not receive further existence" is the knowledge of non-arising. One asks: the unshakeable-dharma arhat, upon the very first arising of the knowledge of exhaustion, necessarily and without interruption gives rise to the knowledge of non-arising within a single moment — there is not even the possibility of two moments of the knowledge of exhaustion arising without interruption before the knowledge of non-arising arises, how much less the possibility of three moments of the knowledge of exhaustion before the knowledge of non-arising afterward arises — how, then, can it now be said that "my birth is already exhausted, the pure conduct is already established, what needed to be done is already done" is the knowledge of exhaustion, while "I do not receive further existence" is the knowledge of non-arising? The answer: it is with respect to the very own-nature of the knowledge of exhaustion, occurring within a single moment, that it is figuratively spoken of as three, not that there are genuinely three separate moments, and it is thereby not contrary to principle. The Venerable Pārśva speaks as follows: here, this fourfold clause does not speak of the knowledge of exhaustion or of non-arising, nor does it speak of the non-learner's own right view — it is simply, in general, praising and describing how every arhat's own birth is entirely exhausted, the pure conduct established, what needed to be done done, and no further existence received, these four kinds having no separately distinct own-nature at all. There are those who say: here, "my birth is already exhausted" is the knowledge of exhaustion; "the pure conduct is already established" is the knowledge of the path; "what needed to be done is already done" is the knowledge of cessation; "I do not receive further existence" is the knowledge of non-arising. There are those who say: here, "my birth is already exhausted" is the knowledge of accumulation; "the pure conduct is already established" is the knowledge of the path; "what needed to be done is already done" is the knowledge of cessation; "I do not receive further existence" is the knowledge of suffering. There are those who say: here, "my birth is already exhausted" is the full comprehension of accumulation; "the pure conduct is already established" is the full comprehension of the path; "what needed to be done is already done" is the full comprehension of cessation; "I do not receive further existence" is the full comprehension of suffering. There are those who say: here, "my birth is already exhausted" is the observation of accumulation; "the pure conduct is already established" is the observation of the path; "what needed to be done is already done" is the observation of cessation; "I do not receive further existence" is the observation of suffering. There are those who say: here, "my birth is already exhausted" is the witnessing of accumulation; "the pure conduct is already established" is the witnessing of the path; "what needed to be done is already done" is the witnessing of cessation; "I do not receive further existence" is the witnessing of suffering. There are those who say: here, "my birth is already exhausted" is the cutting off of accumulation; "the pure conduct is already established" is the cultivation of the path; "what needed to be done is already done" is the witnessing of cessation; "I do not receive further existence" is the knowing of suffering. There are those who say: here, "my birth is already exhausted" is the relinquishing of the cause; "the pure conduct is already established" is the attaining of the path; "what needed to be done is already done" is the witnessing of the fruit; "I do not receive further existence" is the knowing of the matter. There are those who say: here, "my birth is already exhausted" is the wishlessness of accumulation; "the pure conduct is already established" is the wishlessness of the path; "what needed to be done is already done" is the signlessness of cessation; "I do not receive further existence" is the wishlessness and the emptiness of suffering.

One asks: for what reason is it named the knowledge of exhaustion? Is it named the knowledge of exhaustion because it takes exhaustion as its object, or is it named the knowledge of exhaustion because it arises within a body in which the afflictions are exhausted?

Suppose either were so — what fault would there be? If it is named the knowledge of exhaustion because it takes exhaustion as its object, then the knowledge of exhaustion ought to take solely the noble truth of cessation as its object, and ought not to be said to take all four noble truths as its object. If it is named the knowledge of exhaustion because it arises within a body in which the afflictions are exhausted, then the knowledge of non-arising and the non-learner's own right view, too, ought to be named the knowledge of exhaustion, since these, too, arise within a body in which the afflictions are exhausted. The answer: it ought to be said that it is solely because it arises within a body in which the afflictions are exhausted that it is named the knowledge of exhaustion. One asks: if this is so, then the knowledge of non-arising and the non-learner's own right view, too, ought to be named the knowledge of exhaustion. The answer: it is only if it arises within a body in which the afflictions are exhausted, and does so both initially and pervasively, that it is named the knowledge of exhaustion — the non-learner's own right view, although it is indeed pervasive, is not initial; the knowledge of non-arising is not pervasive,

since one liberated in time does not possess it, and it is likewise not initial, since it necessarily manifests in the present only after the knowledge of exhaustion. There are those who say: it is because it takes exhaustion as its object that it is named the knowledge of exhaustion. One asks: it takes the four truths as its object — how can it be said to take solely exhaustion as its object? The answer: it is because exhaustion is itself supreme that the name "knowledge" is applied to it alone — that is, among the four truths, the truth of cessation is itself supreme, being of the very nature of nirvāṇa, being wholesome and eternal, and it is in reliance upon this that the very name of the knowledge capable of taking it as object is established, and it is for this reason that it is named the knowledge of exhaustion.

One asks: is there any undefiled wisdom apart from the sixteen kinds of noble aspect? Suppose either were so — what fault would there be? If there is, then why does the *Vijñānakāya* not speak of it? If there is not, then how is one to reconcile this with what the *Prakaraṇapāda* states — exactly as it is said, what is the knowledge of exhaustion? It refers to: I have already known suffering, already cut off accumulation, already witnessed cessation, already cultivated the path — which of these sixteen aspects does each of these belong to? It, further, states, what is the knowledge of non-arising? It refers to: I have already known suffering and will no longer come to know it, and so on, up through, I have already cultivated the path and will no longer come to cultivate it — which of these sixteen aspects does each of these belong to? And how is one to reconcile this with what the *Saṅgītiparyāya* states — exactly as it is said, I have already exhausted the outflow of desire, the outflow of existence, and the outflow of ignorance, is the knowledge of exhaustion; that they will no longer arise is the knowledge of non-arising — which of these sixteen aspects does each of these belong to? And how is one to reconcile this with this treatise's own Views Aggregate — exactly as it is said, at the very moment of experiencing pleasant feeling, one genuinely knows, in accordance with reality, that one is experiencing pleasant feeling — which of these sixteen aspects does this belong to? And how is one to reconcile this with what the scripture states — exactly as it is said, my birth is already exhausted, and so on, up through, I do not receive further existence — which of these sixteen aspects does this belong to? The answer: it ought to be said that there exists no separate undefiled wisdom apart from the sixteen aspects. One asks: if this is so, then how does one properly reconcile the *Vijñānakāya* and the *Prakaraṇapāda*? The answer: "I have already known suffering and will no longer come to know it" is the four aspects of suffering; "I have already cut off accumulation and will no longer come to cut it off" is the four aspects of accumulation; "I have already witnessed cessation and will no longer come to witness it" is the four aspects of cessation; "I have already cultivated the path and will no longer come to cultivate it" is the four aspects of the path. One asks: how is one to reconcile this with the *Saṅgītiparyāya*? The answer: knowing that the three outflows are exhausted, and will no longer arise, is these same six aspects — namely, suffering, impermanence, and the four aspects belonging to accumulation. One asks: how is one to reconcile this with this treatise's own Views Aggregate? The answer: its own intention there does not speak of knowing the experience of pleasant feeling — it speaks solely of knowing the path, this being precisely these same four aspects of the path, and the like. One asks: how is one to reconcile this with what the scripture states? The answer: this is spoken of for five reasons — first, on account of preparatory effort; second, on account of counteraction; third, on account of function; fourth, on account of continuity; fifth, on account of the person. As for on account of preparatory effort:

that is, at the very time of his own earlier preparatory effort, the practitioner of yoga gave rise to this same thought: I shall exhaust every birth, and so on, up through, I shall not receive further existence.

As for on account of counteraction: that is, the practitioner of yoga cultivates such a counteraction as this, causing every birth to be exhausted, and so on, up through, causing no further existence to be received.

As for on account of function: that is, the practitioner of yoga performs such a function as this — namely, exhausting every birth, and so on, up through, not receiving further existence. As for on account of continuity: that is, the practitioner of yoga attains such a continuity as this, causing every birth to be exhausted, and so on, up through, not receiving further existence. As for on account of the person: that is, such a person as this is easy to see and easy to posit, described as having every birth exhausted, and so on, up through, not receiving further existence — and it is by virtue of these five conditions that the scripture speaks in this way: my birth is already exhausted, and so on, up through, I do not receive further existence. It is not the case that, within undefiled contemplation, there exists any such aspect as this,

this same discrimination necessarily arising only after these two kinds of knowledge. There are those who say: there is, indeed, undefiled wisdom apart from the sixteen aspects. One asks: if this is so, then how does one properly reconcile the *Prakaraṇapāda* and the rest —

as for the *Vijñānakāya* not speaking of it: the answer is that whatever aspect, presently possessing function, is capable of performing a supreme matter, that same treatise speaks of — whatever is not so, that same treatise does not speak of. Further, whatever aspect is capable of entering the noble path, attaining the fruit, becoming free of defilement, and exhausting the outflows, that same treatise speaks of — whatever is not so, that same treatise does not speak of. Further, whatever aspect exists across the preparatory-effort path, the uninterrupted path, the liberation path, and the path of further advancement, that same treatise speaks of; the aspects of every remaining undefiled wisdom exist solely within the distant preparatory-effort path and the distant path of further advancement, and it is for this reason that this same treatise does not speak of them. The verdict: it ought to be said that there exists no undefiled wisdom apart from the sixteen noble aspects.

What is the learner's own clarity? 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 — exactly as the scripture states: the Buddha said to a householder: exactly as you formerly, with the learner's own knowledge, vision, and clarity, observed the four noble truths, so too does this young Yaśas now, with the non-learner's own knowledge, vision, and clarity, observe the four noble truths, and it is for this reason that this young man will most certainly no longer delight in dwelling in the household life, raising up property and possessions, and receiving the pleasures of the five desires. 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, the world falsely clings to every manner of incantation and treatise as though it were genuine clarity — this referring to limb-lore, matter-lore, beast-lore, bird-lore, Gaulabhī-lore, Kṣaṇika-lore, Gāndhārī-lore, star-lore, crow-lore, peacock-lore, elephant-hook-lore, snake-charming incantations, fire-lore, water-lore, confusion-inducing lore, and the like, together with the various outside treatises — the world gives rise to the notion of genuine clarity with respect to these. In order to put a stop to this same intention, and to display that there exists, apart from these, a supreme, genuine clarity, this treatise is composed. What is the learner's own clarity? The answer: the learner's own wisdom, this referring to the undefiled wisdom belonging to the learner's own stage. What is the learner's own knowledge? The answer: the learner's own eight kinds of knowledge, this referring to the learner's own four kinds of dharma-cognition and four kinds of subsequent cognition. What is the non-learner's own clarity? The answer: the non-learner's own wisdom, this referring to every undefiled wisdom belonging to the non-learner's own stage. What is the non-learner's own knowledge? The answer: the non-learner's own eight kinds of knowledge, this referring to the non-learner's own four kinds of dharma-cognition and four kinds of subsequent cognition. One asks: for what reason is it named clarity? The answer: because it thoroughly penetrates and understands, it is named clarity. One asks: if this is so, then every wholesome, contaminated wisdom, too, thoroughly penetrates and understands — ought this, too, not be named clarity? The answer: only whatever is capable of thoroughly penetrating and understanding, and is also capable of discerning and directly realizing the four noble truths, is named clarity; every wholesome, contaminated wisdom, although capable of thoroughly penetrating and understanding, is incapable of discerning and directly realizing the four noble truths, and it is for this reason that it is not named clarity — exactly as the wisdom gathered within the conforming-to-penetration category, although exceedingly sharp and forceful, has not yet been able to discern and directly realize the four noble truths, has not yet been able to reach an ultimate, genuine, discerning direct realization of the truths. Further, only whatever is capable of thoroughly penetrating and understanding, and is not thrown into confusion by ignorance, hesitation, or wrong view, having already cut off the view of permanence and of doubt, no longer allowing them to arise, no longer augmenting the various realms of existence or aging, sickness, and death, not being a matter of the view of self, not falling within the domain of suffering and accumulation, not augmenting ignorance, and permanently free of the goblins and demons of affliction, is named clarity; every wholesome, contaminated wisdom, although capable of thoroughly penetrating and understanding, is without these remaining virtues, and it is for this reason that it is not named clarity. Further, every wholesome, contaminated wisdom is involved with both categories at once, and it is for this reason that it is not named clarity — that is, it serves as a threefold condition together with both clarity and ignorance alike, exactly as a person involved with both one's own enemy and one's own kin cannot, on that account, be definitively named a kinsman. Further, every wholesome, contaminated wisdom exists together with whatever slanders clarity, being gathered within the worldly category belonging to suffering and accumulation, and it is for this reason that it is not named clarity. One asks: if wholesome, contaminated wisdom is not named clarity, then how is one to reconcile this with what the scripture states — exactly as it is said, there exist three clarities: first, the clarity realized through the recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge; second, the clarity realized through the knowledge of death and rebirth; third, the clarity realized through the knowledge of the exhaustion of outflows? The latter of these may well be so, but how can the former two be? The answer: the former two, too, possess a small portion of the characteristic of clarity, and it is for this reason that they are figuratively named clarity — that is, they run counter to affliction, are unmixed with affliction, conform to the supreme-meaning clarity, and draw forth undefiled clarity, and it is for this reason that the Venerable Ghoṣa speaks as follows: among the three clarities, solely the knowledge of the exhaustion of outflows is the supreme-meaning clarity; the remaining two, being capable of drawing forth the supreme-meaning clarity, are figuratively given the name clarity. Further, the clarity realized through the recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge thoroughly penetrates and understands the dharmas of the prior limit; the clarity realized through the knowledge of death and rebirth thoroughly penetrates and understands the dharmas of the latter limit; the clarity realized through the knowledge of the exhaustion of outflows thoroughly penetrates and understands the very own-nature of nirvāṇa — and all three are, in this respect, spoken of as clarity. Further, the first clarity knows the dharmas of circulating onward belonging to the prior limit; the second clarity knows the dharmas of circulating onward belonging to the latter limit; the third clarity knows the dharmas of returning and ceasing — and all three are, in this respect, spoken of as clarity. Further, the first clarity removes ignorance of the prior limit; the second clarity removes ignorance of the latter limit; the third clarity removes ignorance of nirvāṇa — and all three are, in this respect, spoken of as clarity. Further, the first clarity removes delusion regarding the aggregates; the second clarity removes delusion regarding sentient beings; the third clarity removes delusion regarding dharmas — and all three are, in this respect, spoken of as clarity.

Further, the first clarity knows how sentient beings, through such-and-such karma, die there and are born here, their own cause and effect continuing without break; the second clarity knows how sentient beings, through such-and-such karma, die here and are born there, their own cause and effect continuing without break; the third clarity knows how sentient beings, through such-and-such a path, are capable of exhausting every outflow, severing the very continuity of cause and effect — solely this same third kind is the supreme-meaning clarity; the preceding two kinds are worldly clarity. Further, these three clarities are all capable of according with weariness of and relinquishment of birth-and-death, all capable of drawing forth supreme virtue, and all capable of proceeding toward ultimate nirvāṇa, and it is for this reason that they are named clarity — yet what is genuinely clarity is solely undefiled wisdom. One asks: for what reason are three of the six superknowledges established as clarity, while three are not so established? The answer: the superknowledge of miraculous transformation turns exactly like a craft; the superknowledge of the divine ear is capable solely of grasping sound; the superknowledge of the knowledge of others' minds is capable solely of taking a particular characteristic as its object — these, lacking any supreme function, are not established as clarity; the latter three superknowledges all possess a supreme function, and it is for this reason that they are established as clarity.

As for this supreme function: this refers to the fact that all three are capable of according with weariness of and relinquishment of birth-and-death, all capable of drawing forth supreme virtue, and all capable of proceeding toward ultimate nirvāṇa. One asks: how is it that the latter three superknowledges all possess this supreme function? The answer: the fourth, the superknowledge of the recollection of former abodes, sees the matter of the prior limit and gives rise to a profound weariness and turning away; the fifth, the superknowledge of the knowledge of death and rebirth, sees the matter of the latter limit and gives rise to a profound weariness and turning away; the sixth, the superknowledge of the knowledge of exhaustion of outflows, having already grown weary and turned away, delights in nirvāṇa — and it is by virtue of this that all three are capable of according with weariness of and relinquishment of birth-and-death, and so on, up through, all capable of proceeding toward ultimate nirvāṇa. Further, the fourth superknowledge sees the matter of one's own decline in the prior limit and gives rise to a profound weariness and turning away; the fifth superknowledge sees the matter of another's decline in the latter limit and gives rise to a profound weariness and turning away; the sixth superknowledge, having already grown weary and turned away, delights in nirvāṇa — and it is by virtue of this that all three possess the preceding threefold supreme function. Further, the fourth superknowledge sees the various aggregates, elements, and sense-fields of the prior limit's own manifold continuity, and gives rise to a profound weariness and turning away; the fifth superknowledge sees the various aggregates, elements, and sense-fields of the latter limit's own manifold dissolution, and gives rise to a profound weariness and turning away; the sixth superknowledge, having already grown weary and turned away, delights in nirvāṇa — and it is by virtue of this that all three possess the preceding threefold supreme function. Further, the fourth superknowledge is capable of removing the view of permanence; the fifth superknowledge is capable of removing the view of annihilation; the sixth superknowledge, having already become free of both extremes, abides in the middle way — and it is by virtue of this that all three possess the preceding threefold supreme function. Further, the fourth superknowledge is capable of drawing forth the gateway of emptiness liberation; the fifth superknowledge is capable of drawing forth the gateway of wishlessness liberation; the sixth superknowledge is capable of drawing forth the gateway of signlessness liberation — and it is by virtue of this that all three possess the preceding threefold supreme function. It is by virtue of such various causes and conditions as these that the latter three superknowledges all possess a supreme function, and it is for this reason that, among the six superknowledges, these alone are established as clarity. The *Saṅgītiparyāya* states as follows: there exist three kinds of non-learner's clarity — first, the non-learner's own clarity realized through the recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge, this referring to the non-learner's own knowledge that knows the continuity of the various sentient beings' own conduct; second, the non-learner's own clarity realized through the knowledge of death and rebirth, this referring to the non-learner's own knowledge that knows the superiority or inferiority of the various sentient beings' own karma; third, the non-learner's own clarity realized through the knowledge of the exhaustion of outflows, this referring to the non-learner's own knowledge that knows the exhaustion of the outflows. One asks: the clarity realized through the knowledge of the exhaustion of outflows is itself a non-learner's own dharma, and so can indeed be spoken of as the non-learner's own knowledge — but the former two clarities are dharmas belonging to neither the learner nor the non-learner — how can these be spoken of as the non-learner's own knowledge? The answer: that same treatise ought to have stated: there exist three kinds of non-learner's clarity, and ought further to have said, non-learner's-person knowledge, and that it did not so state

should be understood to be because it arises within a non-learner's own body, and it is thereby to be understood as non-learner — the preceding two, too, are named non-learner. This is exactly as it is abbreviated with such things as an ox-cart. Exactly as the *Prajñaptiśāstra* states: there exist two kinds of concentration — first, noble; second, not noble. The noble is, further, of three kinds — first, wholesome and contaminated; second, undefiled; third, neutral-and-unobscured. Here, the wholesome, contaminated concentration is named noble on account of being wholesome, not on account of being undefiled; if it is the undefiled concentration, it is named noble both on account of being wholesome and on account of being undefiled; the neutral-and-unobscured concentration, although it is named neither on account of being wholesome nor on account of being undefiled, is nonetheless named noble because it arises within a noble one's own body — this, too, is just the same: because it arises within a non-learner's own body, it, too, is named non-learner, and non-learner's knowledge. One asks: the former two clarities exist for the learner as well — for what reason are they established solely at the non-learner's own stage? The answer: it is because, at the non-learner's own stage, the very meaning of clarity is supreme, that is, were one to speak of the dharma being supreme, then the non-learner's own dharma is supreme, not the learner's; were one to speak of the person being supreme, then the non-learner's own person is supreme, not the learner's. Further, the non-learner's own clarity is supreme, being unmixed with ignorance; the learner's own clarity is inferior, being mixed with ignorance, and it is for this reason that it is not established as clarity. There exist four kinds of supreme virtue — first, superknowledge; second, clarity; third, power; fourth, instructive guidance. Within the Tathāgata's own body, the knowledge of the exhaustion of outflows possesses all four of these meanings — that is, the superknowledge realized through the knowledge of the exhaustion of outflows, the clarity realized through the knowledge of the exhaustion of outflows, the power of the knowledge of the exhaustion of outflows, and instruction and guidance. Within the body of the solitary-realizer, the non-learner, and the disciple, the knowledge of the exhaustion of outflows possesses three of these meanings — that is, excepting the meaning of power, the remaining three are exactly as before. Within the Tathāgata's own body, the recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge and the knowledge of death and rebirth possess three of these meanings — that is, excepting instructive guidance, they possess superknowledge, clarity, and power. Within the body of the solitary-realizer, the non-learner, and the disciple, these same two preceding kinds of knowledge possess two of these meanings — that is, they are superknowledge and clarity, not power and not instructive guidance. Within the body of the learner and the ordinary being, these same two preceding kinds of knowledge possess solely the single meaning of superknowledge, none of the remaining three kinds. There are those who say: within the body of the arhat liberated in time, the knowledge of the exhaustion of outflows possesses solely two meanings — that is, superknowledge and instructive guidance, neither power nor clarity; the remaining two kinds of knowledge possess solely a single meaning — namely, superknowledge, not the remaining meanings. The superknowledge of miraculous transformation and the superknowledge of the knowledge of others' minds, within every body whatsoever, possess solely two meanings — that is, superknowledge and instructive guidance; the superknowledge of the divine ear, within every body whatsoever, possesses solely a single meaning — namely, superknowledge, not the remaining meanings. One asks: for what reason, within the Tathāgata's own body, is a certain knowledge established as a power, while, within the body of the disciple and the solitary-realizer, every knowledge whatsoever is not established as a power? The answer: the very meaning of power is the very meaning of being incapable of being subdued and being without obstruction; within the body of the disciple and the solitary-realizer, the various knowledges are still subdued by ignorance, and are still subject to obstruction, and it is for this reason that they are not named power. It has once been heard that the Buddha, together with the Venerable Śāriputra, was walking together in one place, when a certain sentient being came to that same place. The Buddha said to Śāriputra: you may observe when and where this same sentient being was formerly your own friend. At that time, Śāriputra, by means of the recollection-of-former-abodes knowledge belonging to the first dhyāna, and so on, up through the fourth dhyāna, observed him, yet was, in every case, incapable of seeing it,

and thereupon arose from his concentration and addressed the Buddha, saying: my own concentration's force of observation is incapable of seeing it. The Buddha said to Śāriputra: this same sentient being

was, that many kalpas ago in the past, your own friend — that place being so distant, it lies beyond the domain of the disciples and the solitary-realizers, and it is for this reason that you do not know it. The Buddha, at another time, was again walking together with Śāriputra in one place, when a certain person, meeting with some circumstance, died. The Buddha said to Śāriputra: you ought to observe where this same person will be reborn. At that time, Śāriputra, by means of the divine eye belonging to the first dhyāna, and so on, up through the fourth dhyāna, observed him, yet was, in every case, incapable of seeing it, and thereupon arose from his concentration and addressed the Buddha, saying: my own divine eye's observation is incapable of seeing it. The Buddha said to Śāriputra: this same person, at the end of his own life, is born within a certain world-system — that place being so distant, it lies beyond the domain of the disciples and the solitary-realizers, and it is for this reason that you do not know it. One asks: since the three vehicles' own exhaustion of outflows is, in fact, without any distinction, for what reason is the knowledge of the exhaustion of outflows a power for the two vehicles, and not so? The answer: the Buddha's own knowledge of the exhaustion of outflows is supreme, wondrous, sharp, and forceful, reaching what the disciples and the solitary-realizers can never reach — although both alike exhaust the outflows, there is, between them, a difference in swiftness, exactly as there are two persons who each fell a single tree: one is valiant and strong, employing a sharp axe; the other is feeble in strength, and, moreover, employs a dull axe — although both alike fell their own tree, there is, between them, a difference in swiftness,

and it is for this reason that the Buddha's own knowledge of the exhaustion of outflows is established as a power, while that of the two vehicles is not. Further, the two vehicles' own knowledge, though capable of exhausting the outflows, still retains residual habit, and it is for this reason that it is not named a power.

Further, the knowledge of the exhaustion of outflows is established as a power not in reliance upon its being capable of exhausting one's own outflows, but rather in reliance upon its being capable of causing another's own outflows to be exhausted — that is, the Buddha skillfully discerns that such-and-such a sentient being ought, in dependence upon the painful, slow practice-path, to attain the exhaustion of the outflows, and so on, up through, that such-and-such a sentient being ought, in dependence upon the pleasant, swift practice-path, to attain the exhaustion of the outflows, and, by means of this same skillful expedient, teaches the correct dharma accordingly, causing them all to attain the exhaustion of their own outflows, and it is for this reason that it is established as a power. The two vehicles are not so, and it is for this reason that it is not named a power.