The Garland of Concentration

Among the four inversions, how many has every stream-enterer already cut off, and how many has he not yet cut off? The answer: he has already cut off all of them. One asks: for what reason is this treatise composed? The answer: it is in order to put a stop to what other schools maintain, and to display the correct principle — that is, there are those who say: there exist twelve inversions, eight abandoned solely by seeing, four pervading both seeing and cultivation, as the Vibhajyavādins hold. One asks: upon what standard does this same school rely in making this claim? The answer: they rely upon the scripture — that is, the scripture states: with respect to what is impermanent, giving rise to the notion, the mind, and the view of permanence is an inversion of notion, of mind, and of view; with respect to suffering, giving rise to pleasure; with respect to non-self, giving rise to self; with respect to what is impure, giving rise to the notion, the mind, and the view of purity, is an inversion of notion, of mind, and of view — and it is thereby known that every inversion whatsoever numbers twelve kinds. Among these, eight kinds are abandoned solely by seeing — that is, within permanence and within self, each takes three; within purity, each takes solely the inversion of view. Four kinds pervade both seeing and cultivation — that is, within pleasure and within purity, each takes the two inversions of notion and of mind. Here, whatever is abandoned by seeing is only finally and completely cut off at the very moment the forbearance regarding suffering, a subsequent cognition, manifests in the present; whatever is abandoned by cultivation is only finally and completely cut off at the very moment the vajra-like concentration manifests in the present. In order to put a stop to this same intention, and to display that every inversion is solely of four kinds, solely abandoned by seeing, this treatise is composed — that is, this same question states: among the four inversions, how many has every stream-enterer already cut off, and how many has he not yet cut off — this already puts a stop to there being twelve kinds of inversion; the answer, further, states that he has already cut off all of them — this already puts a stop to there being any inversion pervading cultivation, since there exists no dharma abandoned by cultivation that the stream-enterer has not already cut off. Further, were there twelve kinds of inversion, some pervading cultivation, this would then contradict the scripture — exactly as the scripture states: the Buddha said to the monks: whoever is inverted by the four inversions, you should know, is an ignorant, ordinary being. Since this same scripture already states that there exist four inversions, it should thereby be understood that the inversions do not number twelve; since it already states that there is one who is inverted by them,

you should know that he is an ignorant, ordinary being — it should thereby be understood that the inversions are not abandoned by cultivation. One asks: if the inversions number solely four kinds, then how is one to properly reconcile the scripture cited by the Vibhajyavādins? The answer: notion and mind, these two, are, in genuine truth, not themselves an inversion at all — it is because they draw near to the inversion, and are associated with the inversion, that they, too, are named an inversion. One asks: if this is so, then feeling and the other mental concomitants, too, ought to be named an inversion, since their own meaning resembles that of mind and notion. The answer: worldly convention speaks of the name "inversion" solely with respect to mind and notion, these two — not with respect to feeling, volition, and the rest — and it is for this reason that the text speaks solely of the inversion of mind and of notion, since the Buddha teaches the dharma in accordance with worldly convention.

One asks: what is the very own-nature of these four inversions? The answer: they take view as their own-nature. One asks: if this is so, then, among the five views, how many are their own-nature? The answer: they take, as their own-nature, two and a half of the views abandoned by seeing suffering — that is, the whole of the view of self and of view-grasping, together with the view of permanence among the extreme view.

The remaining two and a half views are not the own-nature of the inversions — that is, the whole of wrong view and of clinging to precepts and vows, together with the view of annihilation among the extreme view. There are those who say: these four inversions take, as their own-nature, a single portion of each of three of the five views — that is, within the view of self, the view of "I" is the own-nature of the inversion of self, not the view of "mine"; within the extreme view, the view of permanence is the own-nature of the inversion of permanence, not the view of annihilation; within view-grasping, the clinging, abandoned by seeing suffering, to pleasure and to purity is the own-nature of the inversion of pleasure and of purity, not any other portion of view-grasping. One asks: for what reason is it solely these that constitute the inversions?

The answer: it is by virtue of three matters that an inversion is established — first, being of the very nature of decisive discernment; second, being a false augmentation; third, being a unilateral inversion. Wrong view and the view of annihilation, although they are indeed of the very nature of decisive discernment and are unilateral inversions, are nonetheless not a false augmentation, since they turn by way of destroying a genuine matter. Clinging to precepts and vows, although it is indeed of the very nature of decisive discernment and is a false augmentation, is nonetheless not a unilateral inversion, since it, too, turns, in a small part, upon a genuine matter — that is, the path belonging to the form realm is capable of purifying existence within the desire realm; the path belonging to the formless realm is capable of purifying existence within the form realm; a path belonging to a ground above is capable of purifying a ground below — this being similar in meaning to the undefiled path's own cutting off of defilement and witnessing of cessation. This, then, is named the inversions' own own-nature, own substance, own inherent nature, and own characteristic.

Having already stated their own-nature, what they are so named for ought now to be stated. One asks: for what reason are they named inversions? What, precisely, is the meaning of "inversion"? The answer: it is because they turn inverted with respect to the coarse truth-principle that they are named inversions — it is on account of this that the four inversions are abandoned solely by seeing suffering. One asks: for what reason are the four inversions abandoned solely by seeing suffering? The answer: because they turn solely with respect to the domain of suffering, and it is at the very moment of seeing the truth of suffering that they are thereby eternally cut off. Further, because they turn solely with respect to the domain of the fruit, and it is at the very moment of seeing the fruit that they are thereby eternally cut off. Further, these four inversions are, in part, themselves the view of self, and, in part, dependent upon the view of self; at the very moment the view of self is cut off, the rest, too, are thereby cut off along with it, their own counteraction being the same, and it is on account of this that the four inversions are abandoned solely by seeing suffering. Further, the truth of suffering is coarse and manifest, and the fault of being deluded and mistaken with respect to it is exceedingly grave, censured by the noble ones, and it is for this reason that an inversion is established there; the remaining three truths are subtle and hidden, and the fault of being deluded and mistaken with respect to them is not exceedingly grave, not greatly censured, and no inversion is established there — exactly as a person who stumbles in broad daylight upon level ground is, in common, censured and mocked by the world, unlike one who stumbles at night in a perilous place. Further, once the various practitioners of yoga have already directly realized suffering, their own mind is without inversion, and it is for this reason that, at the very moment of seeing suffering, every inversion is cut off — even were one, having already seen suffering, not yet to have seen the remaining three, and were to emerge from this same contemplation, were someone then to ask him: are these five aggregates of clinging permanent, or impermanent? — he would necessarily and decisively answer that they are, in every case, impermanent, since they do not abide even a single moment longer; were one, further, to ask him: are these five aggregates of clinging pleasant, or suffering? — he would necessarily and decisively answer that they are, in every case, suffering, exactly like a heated iron ball; were one, further, to ask him: are these five aggregates of clinging pure, or impure? — he would necessarily and decisively answer that they are, in every case, impure, exactly like a heap of filth; were one, further, to ask him: do these five aggregates of clinging possess a self, or are they without self? — he would necessarily and decisively answer that they are, in every case, without any self at all, certainly without any agent, without anyone to command an agent, and without any experiencer, without anyone to command an experiencer, being solely a gathering of empty formations — and it is for this reason that the four inversions are abandoned solely by seeing suffering, since, at the very moment of the subsequent cognition of suffering, every one of them has already been cut off.

One asks: if this is so, then there likewise exist those who follow through faith or through the dharma who have already cut off these same four inversions — for what reason, here, does the text not speak of them, but speak solely of every stream-enterer having already cut them off? The answer: this ought indeed to be so stated, and that it is not so stated here should be understood to be a case whose meaning has been left over for elsewhere. Further, those who follow through faith or through the dharma possess a differentiated characteristic — there is one who has already cut them off entirely, this referring to one in whom the subsequent cognition of suffering has already arisen; there is one who has not yet cut them off entirely, this referring to one in whom the subsequent cognition of suffering has not yet arisen — and it is for this reason that they are not spoken of here; every stream-enterer possesses no such differentiated characteristic, having already cut them off without exception, and it is for this reason that they are spoken of here. Further, it is in order to bring resolution to those who harbor doubt that the stream-enterer is specifically singled out and spoken of — that is, the stream-enterer still keeps a wife and children, dwells upon fine bedding, holds and caresses women, adorns himself with fine garments, applies fragrance and flowers, and commands his own servants, whipping and binding various sentient beings, appearing, in this respect, no different from any other ordinary being — those who observe this give rise to doubt as to whether he has genuinely cut off the inversions, and it is for this reason that it is stated that he has already cut off the inversions. The same principle should be applied, without further separate discussion, to the once-returner. As for those who follow through faith or through the dharma, even a contaminated wholesome mind scarcely manifests in the present for them, how much less a defiled or neutral-and-unobscured one — there being no doubt whatsoever with respect to them, they are not spoken of here.

One asks: when the stream-enterer or the once-returner gives rise to a defiled craving with respect to the objects of the five desires, does he give rise to a notion of pleasure and of purity, or does he give rise to a notion of suffering and of impurity?

Suppose either were so — what fault would there be? If he gives rise to a notion of pleasure and of purity, how could this fail to be an inversion? If he gives rise to a notion of suffering and of impurity, how could he then give rise to a defiled craving with respect to that same object? The answer: it ought to be said that he gives rise to a notion of pleasure and of purity. One asks: if this is so, then for what reason is this not an inversion? The answer: it was earlier stated that it is by virtue of three matters that an inversion is established; the notion of pleasure and of purity that the stream-enterer or the once-returner gives rise to with respect to an object, although it is indeed a false augmentation, is nonetheless not of the very nature of decisive discernment, since it is not of the nature of view, and is likewise not a unilateral inversion, since there exists some small genuine matter to it. Further, whatever notion of pleasure and of purity arises with respect to the truth-principle is gathered within the inversions, and every stream-enterer and once-returner has already cut it off entirely; whatever notion of pleasure and of purity arises with respect to an object is not gathered within the inversions, and the stream-enterer and once-returner have not yet cut it off entirely, this still being capable of manifesting in the present. There are those who say: when the stream-enterer or the once-returner gives rise to a defiled craving with respect to the objects of the five desires, he gives rise, toward them, solely to a notion of suffering and of impurity. One asks: if this is so, then for what reason does he give rise to a defiled craving? The answer: although he indeed knows the object to be suffering and impure, yet, from beginningless time, having been habituated to affliction, his own body and mind burning and pressed by a searing pain, he, without being aware of it, gives rise to a defiled craving with respect to that same object — exactly as there was a brāhmaṇa's son, fond of purity and pleasure, whose own finger once happened to touch something impure, and who went to a blacksmith, requesting that it be purified with fire. The blacksmith said to him: fortunately, there exists ash and the like, capable of washing it with pure water — how could you possibly bear the pain of requesting it be forged clean with fire? The brāhmaṇa said: washing with ash and water is incapable of making it genuinely pure — it must be purified for me with fire. Thereupon the blacksmith, with heated iron tongs, gripped his own finger. At that time, the brāhmaṇa, pressed by a searing pain, without being aware of it, shook his own hand and placed his own finger inside his own mouth — although he had, all along, genuinely known his own finger to be impure, pressed by the pain, he was unaware of placing it within his own mouth — the stream-enterer and the once-returner's own defiled craving, too, is just the same. Further, although they indeed know the object to be suffering and impure, yet, from beginningless time, having been habituated to affliction, their own body and mind burning and pressed by a searing pain, they give rise to a defiled craving with respect to that same object in order to bring this same pain to rest — exactly as one of feeble and weak constitution, his own body afflicted with a suppurating sore, its own pain difficult to bear, is told by a physician: you may apply moist dog dung, and the pain may then be brought to rest — this same person, upon hearing this, swiftly takes it and applies it; although he indeed genuinely knows dog dung to be impure, he takes it and applies it in order to bring the pain to rest — the stream-enterer and the once-returner's own defiled craving, too, is just the same. And it is for this reason that, although they give rise to a notion of suffering and of impurity, they nonetheless give rise to a defiled craving with respect to the objects of the five desires. Among the three concentrations of emptiness, wishlessness, and signlessness, how many does every stream-enterer possess as already accomplished belonging to the past, how many belonging to the future, and how many belonging to the present? One asks: for what reason is this treatise composed? The answer: it is in order to put a stop to what other schools maintain, and to display the correct principle — that is, there are those who say: the past and the future possess no genuine own-nature at all; there are, further, those who say: there exists no genuine nature of accomplishing or not accomplishing. In order to put a stop to this same intention, and to display that the past and the future do indeed genuinely exist, and that the nature of accomplishing and the rest do indeed genuinely exist, this treatise is composed. The answer: every future one is accomplished; every past one, if it has already ceased and not been lost, is accomplished; every present one, if it is presently manifest, is accomplished. Here, "every future one is accomplished" refers to the fact that he fully accomplishes all three as a matter belonging to the future. "Every past one, if it has already ceased and not been lost" refers to the fact that, whichever one, two, or three of them have already ceased, not through the transformation of faculty, is, once lost, then accomplished belonging to the past to that same extent. "Every present one, if it is presently manifest" refers to the fact that, if any one whatsoever is presently manifest, he thereby accomplishes a single one belonging to the present. At the very first moment of the subsequent cognition of the path, he does not accomplish any one of them belonging to the past, since not even a single moment has yet arisen and ceased —

whatever has already arisen and ceased is relinquished upon attaining the fruit. He accomplishes all three belonging to the future, since all three are fully attained through cultivation. He accomplishes a single one belonging to the present — namely, the wishlessness concentration belonging to the path, since this has already ceased and has not been lost. If the emptiness concentration is presently manifest, he accomplishes a single one belonging to the past — namely, wishlessness; he accomplishes all three belonging to the future, and a single one belonging to the present —

namely, emptiness, since this has already ceased and has not been lost. If the signless concentration is presently manifest, he accomplishes two belonging to the past — namely, emptiness and wishlessness; he accomplishes all three belonging to the future, and a single one belonging to the present — namely, signlessness. If any one of the three concentrations whatsoever is presently manifest, he accomplishes all three belonging to the past and to the future, and a single one belonging to the present — namely, whichever one is presently manifest.

There exist three concentrations — namely, emptiness, wishlessness, and signlessness. Yet concentration might, alternatively, be spoken of as a single thing — this referring to, among the mental concomitants, what, within the universal mental factors, is named concentration, and, further, is named the faculty of concentration among the five faculties, the power of concentration among the five powers, the concentration awakening-factor among the seven awakening-factors, and right concentration among the eight path-branches. It might, alternatively, be spoken of as two things — namely, the contaminated and the undefiled concentration, or the bound and the liberated, or the bound and the unbound concentration. It might, alternatively, be spoken of as three things — this referring to what is spoken of here. It might, alternatively, be spoken of as four things — this referring to what is bound to the three realms, and what is unbound. It might, alternatively, be spoken of as five things — this referring to what is bound to the three realms, and what belongs to the learner or the non-learner — stated fully at length. Were one to distinguish it according to a given continuum's own moments,

then there would exist measureless concentrations. One asks: if this is so, then for what reason does the Bhagavān establish three kinds of concentration, adding one and subtracting immeasurably many others? The answer: it is by virtue of three conditions that solely three are established — first, on account of counteraction; second, on account of mental resolve; third, on account of object. As for on account of counteraction: this refers to the fact that the emptiness concentration is the immediate counteraction to the view of self. One asks: the emptiness concentration possesses the two aspects of emptiness and of non-self; the view of self possesses the two aspects of self and of what belongs to self — with which aspect does it counteract which aspect?

The answer: it counteracts the aspect of self by means of the non-self aspect; it counteracts the aspect of what belongs to self by means of the emptiness aspect. Further, it counteracts the five aspects of the view of self by means of the non-self aspect; it counteracts the fifteen aspects of the view of what belongs to self by means of the emptiness aspect. Exactly as it counteracts the aspects of the view of self and of the view of what belongs to self, so too should it be understood to counteract, in just the same way, the aspects of the view of one's own self and of what belongs to one's own self, of "I" belonging to "I," and of "mine" belonging to "mine." Further, it counteracts the craving for self by means of the non-self aspect; it counteracts the craving for what belongs to self by means of the emptiness aspect.

Exactly as it counteracts the craving for self and the craving for what belongs to self, so too should it be understood, in just the same way, to counteract the craving for one's own self and for what belongs to one's own self, the delusion regarding self and regarding what belongs to self, and the delusion regarding one's own self and regarding what belongs to one's own self, and the like. Further, it counteracts the aspect of clinging to the aggregates as self by means of the non-self aspect; it counteracts the aspect of clinging that there exists a self within the aggregates by means of the emptiness aspect. Exactly as it counteracts the aspect of clinging to the aggregates as self and of clinging that there exists a self within the aggregates, so too should it be understood, in just the same way, to counteract the clinging to the sense-fields as self, and that there exists a self within the sense-fields, and the clinging to the elements as self, and that there exists a self within the elements — whether in general or in particular, each aspect should be understood in just the same way. As for on account of mental resolve: this refers to the fact that the various practitioners cultivating the wishlessness concentration resolve their own mind not to wish for any dharma belonging to the three realms of existence.

One asks: does he, then, not wish even for the noble path itself? The answer: although he is indeed not entirely without any wish for the noble path, he nonetheless resolves his own mind not to wish for the noble path belonging to the three realms of existence, since it depends upon existence, and it is for this reason that he does not wish for it either. He further resolves his own mind not to wish for the noble path belonging to the five aggregates, since it is itself an aggregate, and it is for this reason that he does not wish for it either. He further resolves his own mind not to wish for the noble path belonging to the three times, since it falls within time, and it is for this reason that he does not wish for it either. He further resolves his own mind not to wish for the noble path amid manifold suffering, since it continues on in succession together with suffering, and it is for this reason that he does not wish for it either. One asks: if this is so, then for what reason does he cultivate the noble path at all? The answer: it is in order to proceed toward nirvāṇa that he cultivates the noble path — that is, the practitioner reflects as follows: by what means is the ultimate nirvāṇa proceeded toward and realized? Having reflected thus, he decisively knows that it must necessarily be by means of the noble path, and it is for this reason that, although he does not wish for it, he must nonetheless still cultivate it, exactly as one crossing a raging torrent must necessarily rely upon a boat or a raft. As for on account of object: this refers to the fact that the signless concentration takes as its object what is free of ten signs — that is, free of the signs of form, sound, scent, flavor, and touch, together with the three signs of existence and of male and female. Further, "aggregate" is named "sign"; this concentration takes as its object what is free of every aggregate's own sign, and it is for this reason that it is named signless. Further, "age" is named "sign"; "prior" and "posterior" are named "sign"; "superior," "middling," and "inferior," and the like, are named "sign"; this concentration takes as its object what is free of the sign of age and the like, and it is for this reason that it is named signless. There are those who say: the three concentrations are all established through a distinction of counteraction —

that is, the emptiness concentration is the immediate counteraction to the view of self; the wishlessness concentration is the immediate counteraction to clinging to precepts and vows; the signless concentration is the immediate counteraction to doubt — it is by leading with these that they counteract every affliction. There are, further, those who say: the three concentrations are all established through a distinction of aspect — that is, the emptiness concentration possesses the two aspects of emptiness and of non-self; the wishlessness concentration possesses the four aspects of suffering and of impermanence, together with those belonging to accumulation and the path; the signless concentration possesses the four aspects of cessation — and it is for this reason that solely three kinds of concentration are established. The *Prajñaptiśāstra*, in an initial statement, says as follows: the emptiness concentration is emptiness, not wishlessness or signlessness; the wishlessness concentration is wishlessness, not emptiness or signlessness; the signless concentration is signlessness, not emptiness or wishlessness — for what reason is this so? Because these three possess distinct aspects. That same treatise, in a subsequent statement, then says as follows: the emptiness concentration is emptiness, and is also wishlessness, but not signlessness; the wishlessness concentration is wishlessness, and is also emptiness, but not signlessness; the signless concentration is solely signlessness, not emptiness or wishlessness. One asks: for what reason do emptiness and wishlessness mutually possess one another, while signlessness alone stands independent? The answer: this is on account of a distinction of sameness and difference at the very time of first attainment — that is, if one enters right determinacy freed from birth in dependence upon the emptiness concentration, then, during the four moments of the direct realization of suffering, he cultivates wishlessness as well; if one enters right determinacy freed from birth in dependence upon the wishlessness concentration, then, during the four moments of the direct realization of suffering, he cultivates emptiness as well — and it is for this reason that emptiness and wishlessness mutually possess one another, while signlessness is cultivated, at its very first attainment, solely by itself, not by any other. Further, this is on account of a distinction of sameness and difference in their own initial counteraction — that is, at the very time of their own initial counteraction, emptiness and wishlessness alike are capable of counteracting the affliction and the like abandoned by seeing suffering; signlessness, at the very time of its own initial counteraction, is uniquely capable of counteracting the affliction and the like abandoned by seeing cessation. That same treatise further states as follows: the emptiness concentration is emptiness, and is also wishlessness and signlessness; the wishlessness concentration is wishlessness, and is also emptiness and signlessness; the signless concentration is signlessness, and is also emptiness and wishlessness. One asks: for what reason does each one of these three fully possess all three? The answer: each one's own substance possesses three meanings — that is, each one of these is neither permanent, nor eternal, nor unchanging, and is without self and without what belongs to self, and it is thereby, in every case, named empty;

each is unwilling to give rise to and increase craving, aversion, delusion, and the rest, and future existence, and it is thereby, in every case, named wishless; each is free of the seven signs of form, sound, scent, flavor, touch, and male and female, and it is thereby, in every case, named signless.

This, then, is named the three concentrations' own own-nature, own substance, own inherent nature, and own characteristic. Having already stated their own-nature, what they are so named for ought now to be stated. One asks: for what reason are they named concentration? What, precisely, is the meaning of "concentration"? The answer: it is by virtue of three conditions that it is named concentration — first, on account of being equalized; second, on account of gathering and holding; third, on account of a similar continuity. As for on account of being equalized: this refers to the fact that, from beginningless time, the afflictions, evil conduct, wrong view, and inversions have caused the mind and its concomitants to turn askew and warped with respect to their object; it is by the force of this same concentration that the mind and its concomitants turn correctly, straightforwardly, and equally with respect to their object, and it is for this reason that it is named concentration. As for on account of gathering and holding: this refers to the fact that, from beginningless time, the mind and its concomitants have scattered and dispersed with respect to their object;

it is by the force of this same concentration, through skillful means, that they are gathered and held, causing them to abide upon a single object, and it is for this reason that it is named concentration. As for on account of a similar continuity: this refers to the fact that, from beginningless time, the mind and its concomitants have continued in a mixture of wholesome, defiled, and neutral-and-unobscured varieties of differing kind; it is by the force of this same concentration that, before and after, a single kind alone, solely wholesome, continues, and it is for this reason that it is named concentration. Further, it is by virtue of three conditions that it is named concentration — that is, on account of abiding upon a single object; on account of continuing in abiding; and on account of correct, careful reflection. Further, it is by virtue of three conditions that it is named concentration — that is, on account of being capable of sustaining the body so as to be equalized; on account of gathering the various wholesome dharmas so as to keep them from scattering; on account of being capable of causing the wholesome mind to turn equally. Further, it is by virtue of three conditions that it is named concentration — that is, on account of never relinquishing its own object; on account of sustaining and holding every manner of supreme, wholesome dharma; on account of causing calm-abiding and insight to abide upon a single object and turn equally. The Venerable Vasumitra speaks as follows: for what reason is it named concentration? Because it gathers and holds every manner of wholesome mind and mental concomitant, causing them, with respect to a single object, to continue equally, it is thereby named equal holding. He, further, says: because it is capable of holding what is equal, it is named equal holding — exactly as one capable of holding an infant is named a holder; whoever is capable of holding water is named a holder of water; whoever is capable of holding a balance-scale is named a holder of the scale — this, too, is just the same, since it is capable of holding every manner of supreme, equal dharma, it is thereby named equal holding. The Great Virtuous One speaks as follows: this same equal holding is also named equal attainment,

this being, further, of many kinds — that is, the attainment of wholesome dharmas; the attainment of unwholesome dharmas; the attainment of neutral dharmas; the nine sequential attainments;

and the pairwise mutual meeting of any two, which is likewise named an attainment. Within this same meaning, it is spoken of solely with respect to holding the wholesome mind and its concomitants, causing them to continue equally, that the name equal holding is applied — the unwholesome, the neutral, and the rest are not what is spoken of here.

As for the realm the three concentrations belong to: if contaminated, they belong to the three realms; if undefiled, they are unbound to any realm. As for ground: if contaminated, they exist within eleven grounds; if undefiled, they exist within nine grounds. As for what they rely upon as support: they rely upon a continuum belonging to the three realms. As for their aspect: the emptiness concentration possesses two aspects; the wishlessness concentration possesses ten aspects; the signless concentration possesses four aspects. One asks: does every emptiness concentration turn while taking the emptiness aspect? The answer: a tetralemma ought to be cast. There is an emptiness concentration that does not turn while taking the emptiness aspect — this referring to the emptiness concentration that turns while taking the non-self aspect. There is a turning while taking the emptiness aspect that is not the emptiness concentration — this referring to whatever dharma associated with the emptiness concentration turns while taking the emptiness aspect. There is an emptiness concentration that also turns while taking the emptiness aspect — this referring to the emptiness concentration that turns while taking the emptiness aspect. There is what is neither the emptiness concentration nor a turning while taking the emptiness aspect — this referring, if one speaks solely of this same kind, to whatever dharma associated with the emptiness concentration turns while taking the non-self aspect; if one does not speak solely of this same kind, this refers to whatever excludes the aforementioned characteristics. Exactly as with the tetralemma for turning, so too should it be understood for having already turned and for being about to turn. Exactly as with the tetralemma for the emptiness aspect, so too should it be understood for the non-self aspect. In this way, the emptiness concentration possesses six tetralemmas; the wishlessness concentration possesses thirty tetralemmas; the signless concentration possesses twelve tetralemmas — in this way, the three concentrations together possess forty-eight tetralemmas. As for their object: the emptiness concentration, if contaminated, takes every dharma as its object;

if undefiled, it takes solely the truth of suffering as its object. The wishlessness concentration takes three truths as its object, excepting cessation. The signless concentration takes solely the truth of cessation as its object. As for the applications of mindfulness they belong to: the emptiness and wishlessness concentrations each co-arise with all four applications of mindfulness; the signless concentration co-arises solely with the application of mindfulness on dharmas.

As for the kinds of knowledge: the emptiness concentration co-arises with four kinds of knowledge — namely, dharma-cognition, subsequent cognition, the knowledge of suffering, and worldly knowledge; the wishlessness concentration co-arises with seven kinds of knowledge, excepting the knowledge of cessation; the signless concentration co-arises with four kinds of knowledge — namely, dharma-cognition, subsequent cognition, the knowledge of cessation, and worldly knowledge. As for concentration: this is itself precisely concentration. As for the faculties they are associated with: they are associated with three faculties — namely, pleasure, joy, and equanimity. As for the three times: they belong to the three times. As for taking the three times as object: the emptiness concentration, if contaminated, takes as its object the three times and what is free of time; if undefiled, together with the wishlessness concentration, it takes the three times as its object. The signless concentration takes as its object what is free of time. As for wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral: they are, in every case, wholesome. As for taking the wholesome, the unwholesome, and the neutral as object: the emptiness and wishlessness concentrations take all three kinds as their object; the signless concentration takes solely the wholesome as its object. As for being bound to the three realms, or unbound:

if contaminated, they are bound to the three realms; if undefiled, they are unbound. As for taking as object what is bound to the three realms, or unbound: the emptiness concentration, if contaminated, takes as its object what is bound to the three realms, or unbound; if undefiled, it takes as its object solely what is bound to the three realms. The wishlessness concentration takes as its object what is bound to the three realms, or unbound. The signless concentration takes as its object solely what is unbound. As for the learner, the non-learner, and neither: they pervade all three kinds. As for taking the learner, the non-learner, and neither as object: the emptiness concentration, if contaminated, takes all three kinds as its object; if undefiled, it takes solely neither as its object. The wishlessness concentration takes all three kinds as its object. The signless concentration takes solely neither as its object. As for abandoned by seeing or by cultivation, or not to be abandoned: if contaminated, they are, in every case, abandoned by cultivation; if undefiled, they are, in every case, not to be abandoned. As for taking as object what is abandoned by seeing, by cultivation, or not to be abandoned: the emptiness concentration, if contaminated, takes all three kinds as its object; if undefiled, it takes solely what is abandoned by seeing or by cultivation as its object. The wishlessness concentration takes all three kinds as its object. The signless concentration takes solely what is not to be abandoned as its object. As for taking a name or a meaning as object: the emptiness and wishlessness concentrations pervade taking both a name and a meaning as object; the signless concentration takes solely a meaning as its object. As for taking one's own continuum, another's continuum, or what is not a continuum, as object: the emptiness concentration, if contaminated, takes all three kinds as its object; if undefiled, together with the wishlessness concentration, it takes solely one's own or another's continuum as its object. The signless concentration takes solely what is not a continuum as its object. As for attainment through preparatory effort, or through freedom from defilement: they pervade both kinds. As for previously attained, or not previously attained: they pervade both kinds.

These same three concentrations are also named the three gates of liberation. One asks: what distinction is there between concentration and a gate of liberation? The answer: concentration pervades both the contaminated and the undefiled; a gate of liberation is solely undefiled. One asks: for what reason is a gate of liberation solely undefiled? The answer: it does not accord with principle for what is contaminated, and bound, to serve as a gate of liberation. One asks: in reliance upon what meaning is a gate of liberation established? Is it in reliance upon entering right determinacy freed from birth, or in reliance upon exhausting the outflows? Suppose either were so — what fault would there be? If a gate of liberation is established in reliance upon entering right determinacy freed from birth, then it ought to be solely the concentration associated with the forbearance regarding suffering, a dharma-cognition, that is named a gate of liberation. If a gate of liberation is established in reliance upon exhausting the outflows, then it ought to be solely the vajra-like concentration that is named a gate of liberation.

The answer: it ought to be said that it is in reliance upon both meanings together that a gate of liberation is established, and that a gate of liberation gathers, in general, every undefiled concentration whatsoever — that is, every noble path whatsoever is named entering right determinacy freed from birth; the very moment of attaining any noble path whatsoever is named entering; the very moment of cutting off any outflow whatsoever is named exhausting the outflows — the four paths all alike possess this same meaning of exhaustion. Exactly as, immediately following the supreme worldly dharma, at the very moment the forbearance regarding suffering, a dharma-cognition, manifests in the present, one attains the emptiness concentration, named entering right determinacy freed from birth; immediately following the direct realization of suffering, at the very moment the direct realization of accumulation manifests in the present, one attains the wishlessness concentration, likewise named entering right determinacy freed from birth; immediately following the direct realization of accumulation, at the very moment the direct realization of cessation manifests in the present, one attains the signless concentration, likewise named entering right determinacy freed from birth — the same should be understood for every remaining stage in which an undefiled concentration arises immediately following some other state. Within the stage of the path of seeing, each of the three undefiled concentrations arises separately, each separately exhausting a portion of the outflows; within the stage of the path of cultivation, all three undefiled concentrations arise together, all together exhausting the outflows; within the non-learner's own stage, all three undefiled concentrations arise together, all together warding off every outflow, this, too, being named exhausting the outflows — and it is for this reason that the three gates of liberation gather, in general, every undefiled concentration whatsoever. One asks: for what reason are they named gates of liberation? The answer: nirvāṇa is named liberation; it is in dependence upon these same three concentrations that one becomes capable of proceeding toward and witnessing liberation, and it is for this reason that they are named gates of liberation. Further, they are named gates of liberation exactly as one speaks of a shield — exactly as, at the very time of battle, one first uses a shield to ward off one's own foe, and afterward uses a sharp sword to sever the head of one's own enemy, causing him to fall upon the battlefield, proceeding wherever one wishes, so too does the practitioner, at the very time of doing battle with the enemy of affliction, first use the shield of the three gates of liberation to ward off the enemy of affliction,

and afterward use the sword of undefiled wisdom to sever the head of affliction's own state of accomplishment, causing it to fall into the ground of a state of non-accomplishment, proceeding, exactly as originally vowed, toward nirvāṇa. Exactly as the scripture states: concentration is the correct path; the unconcentrated is the deviant path — a concentrated mind attains liberation, not an unconcentrated one, and it is for this reason that the three undefiled concentrations are the gates of liberation, not any contaminated concentration. The *Prajñaptiśāstra* states that emptiness is of many kinds — that is, internal emptiness,

external emptiness, internal-and-external emptiness, the emptiness of the conditioned, the emptiness of the unconditioned, boundless emptiness, the emptiness of inherent nature, the emptiness of no activity,

the emptiness of supreme meaning, and the emptiness of emptiness — these ten kinds of emptiness are distinguished elsewhere, as in another place. One asks: for what reason do so many places distinguish emptiness at such length? The answer: it is because the emptiness aspect is the immediate counteraction to the twenty kinds of the view of self, and these same twenty kinds of the view of self are capable of serving as the very root of every affliction, causing one to flow onward through birth-and-death and fail to proceed toward nirvāṇa, this fault being especially severe, and it is for this reason that its own immediate counteraction is so often discussed. Exactly as the scripture states: if a noble disciple fully accomplishes the three concentrations as a garland, he is capable of cutting off every unwholesome dharma, and of cultivating and swiftly perfecting every wholesome dharma. One asks: for what reason does the scripture speak of concentration under the name of a garland? The answer: because its own nature is dignified and stately, and it is worthy of being cherished and delighted in — exactly as a youth who crowns his own head with a garland of flowers has a dignified and stately appearance, cherished and delighted in by all — so too do the noble ones, crowned with the garland of concentration, possess a dignified and stately virtue, revered and cherished by gods and humans alike. Further, exactly as, if a person's own head is crowned with a garland of flowers, no fierce wind can disturb his own hair, so too, if the noble ones are crowned with the garland of concentration, no supreme virtue of theirs can ever be disturbed by agitation. Further, exactly as, if a person's own head is crowned with a garland of flowers, wherever he travels he gains much excellence, so too, if the noble ones are crowned with the garland of concentration, they gain much virtue at every stage — "every stage" referring to entering right determinacy freed from birth,

attaining the fruit, becoming free of defilement, and eternally exhausting every outflow. Further, exactly as, when flowers are bound together with thread into a garland, this causes the many flowers to remain, for a long time, unscattered and undamaged, so too does this same supreme concentration sustain every virtue, causing it, though a long span of time may pass, never to be lost or damaged, and it is for this reason that this is named the garland of concentration. Further, exactly as, when the many flowers are strung together with thread, the world, with respect to this, together gives rise to the notion of a garland, so too do the noble ones, gathering every virtue together by means of the three concentrations, cause gods and humans alike to together give rise, with respect to this, to the notion of a garland of concentration. Further, exactly as, when the many flowers are strung together with thread and bound in a single place, the world, with respect to this, gives rise to the notion of a bound garland, so too does concentration gather every wholesome mind, binding it upon a single object, so that gods and humans alike, in every case, speak of the noble ones as binding a garland of concentration — and it is for this reason that concentration is illustrated through the simile of a garland. Exactly as the scripture states: the emptiness concentration is the elder's own dwelling place. One asks: for what reason does the Buddha state that the emptiness concentration is the elder's own dwelling place? The answer: it is because the elders, for the most part, dwell within this same emptiness concentration — that is, within the three realms, the Buddha is the foremost, supreme elder, for the most part dwelling within the emptiness concentration; the solitary-realizer is the second supreme elder, likewise for the most part dwelling within the emptiness concentration; the Venerable Śāriputra is the third supreme elder, likewise for the most part dwelling within the emptiness concentration; Mahāmaudgalyāyana and the other great disciples, too, are named elders, they, too, for the most part dwelling within the emptiness concentration, and it is for this reason that this same emptiness concentration is said to be the elder's own dwelling place. Further, the emptiness concentration is the dwelling place shared uniquely among those of the inner teaching — every one of the inner teaching is an elder; every one of the outside path is an infant — that is, within the inner teaching's own dharma, an eight-year-old is, too, named an elder, since he accomplishes the dharma of an elder's own virtue; within the outside path's own dharma, an eighty-year-old is, too, named an infant, since he accomplishes the dharma of an infant's own fault. One asks: how could the outside path be entirely without the wishlessness or the signless concentrations, such that solely emptiness is spoken of as their uncommon dharma? The answer: although the outside path's own dharma indeed lacks the genuine wishlessness or signless concentrations, it nonetheless possesses something resembling them — that is, the coarse aspect and the like resemble wishlessness; the tranquil aspect and the like resemble signlessness. Among the ninety-six kinds of outside-path teaching, there does not exist even a resemblance of an emptiness concentration, how much less the genuine article, and it is for this reason that solely the emptiness concentration is spoken of as the dharma uncommon to the inner teaching. Further, the emptiness concentration is capable of drawing forth the very dharma of the elder's own virtue, and it is thereby named the elder's own dwelling place — as for the elder's own dharma of virtue: this refers to the path, and the fruit of the path; the emptiness concentration is capable of drawing forth their own force in a manner supremely excellent, surpassing every other concentration, since it is the immediate counteraction to the view of self. Further, the emptiness concentration is capable of causing body and mind to abide firmly, unmoving, and it is thereby named the elder's own dwelling place — that is, sentient beings, up until the very moment they attain the emptiness concentration, have a body and mind that is agitated and unsteady, exactly like dust in the wind; once they have attained this same concentration, their own body and mind become unmoving, tranquil and settled, exactly like a mountain, and it is for this reason that the Venerable Ghoṣa speaks as follows: if one knows that every dharma is empty, without any self of its own,

then both body and mind, and even wisdom itself, become entirely unshaken and unstirred, body and mind tranquil and settled, and it is for this reason that this is named the elder's own dwelling place, and it is for this reason that emptiness is spoken of as the elder's own dwelling place. Further, the various practitioners of yoga, if they abide within the emptiness concentration, have a mind that abides firm, unmoved by whatever the world finds agreeable or disagreeable, lovable or unlovable, beneficial or harmful, and by whatever implement of pleasure or of pain — and it is for this reason that it is spoken of as the elder's own dwelling place, since one who is truly an elder has a mind that abides firm. How is this to be known as so?

Exactly as the scripture states: the Venerable Śāriputra's own birth-mother came to the end of her own life, and, at the same time, a fellow-dwelling disciple returned to lay life. There was a monk with gapped teeth who constantly harbored resentment against this same Venerable One in his own heart, and, hearing of this same matter, swiftly reported it to the Venerable Śāriputra, saying: your own mother has come to the end of her life, and your own disciple has returned to lay life — what is your own thought on this? Śāriputra said: my own mother's coming to the end of her life is simply the natural way of birth-and-death;

as for my own disciple returning to lay life, why should this be strange, among the ignorant and the foolish? The gap-toothed monk secretly thought to himself: although he consoles his own mind in this way, he must surely be inwardly consumed with anxiety. At that time, Śāriputra, dwelling much in emptiness, although he had heard this same matter, his own mind remained unmoved. During the first portion of the day, he donned his own robe, took up his own bowl, and, entering the city of Śrāvastī, went, in sequence, begging for alms; his meal already complete, he returned to the Jetavana, gathered up his own robe and bowl, and, having washed his own feet, placed his own sitting-cloth upon his own left shoulder, and, emerging from his own dwelling place, went to the Dark Forest, where he sat beneath a single tree and entered the divine abiding, reflecting as follows: does the world contain any lovable, wondrous form that, should it come to ruin and change, would cause me to give rise to sorrow, grief, and suffering? Carefully observing himself, he found there to be no such matter at all. During the latter portion of the day, he returned to the Jetavana. At that time, Ānanda, upon seeing Śāriputra, thereupon asked the Venerable One from where he had come. Śāriputra said: I have come from the Dark Forest. Ānanda further asked: while dwelling there, what concentration did the Venerable One enter? He answered: I entered the concentration possessing both initial and sustained inquiry. He further asked: while dwelling there, what did you reflect upon? At that time, Śāriputra fully gave the answer stated above. Ānanda thereupon asked Śāriputra, saying: the Venerable One has constantly said that, were the Bhagavān Buddha not to have appeared in the world, we would then be as though eyeless, and would die. The Buddha is the world's own lovable, wondrous form — were he, too, to come to ruin and change,

would the Venerable One not give rise to sorrow, grief, and suffering over this same matter? Śāriputra said: were there indeed such a matter, what sorrow or affliction could there be? I would simply reflect as follows: how swiftly the Bhagavān has entered final nirvāṇa — the world's own eye is extinguished; who, then, will be able to guide it? Ānanda praised him, saying: excellent, excellent, Venerable One! Having thoroughly cultivated the emptiness concentration, your own clinging to self and to what belongs to self, together with your own pride in self, and the rest, has already been cut off and fully comprehended, exactly as cutting off the very root of a grass or the very crown of a tāla tree, causing it never again to grow — even though the Bhagavān's own wondrous form should come to ruin and change, being itself a conditioned dharma, what affliction could there possibly be over this? It is by virtue of this that it is known that whoever abides within the emptiness concentration has a mind that abides firm, unmoved by whatever the world finds agreeable or disagreeable, and it is for this reason that it is spoken of as the elder's own dwelling place. The force of the wishlessness and the signless concentrations is not so, and it is for this reason that they are not spoken of as the elder's own dwelling place. Exactly as the scripture states: the Venerable Śāriputra was once dwelling within a certain forest in the kingdom of Kosala; at that time, there was an Ājīvika ascetic who likewise dwelt in that same forest, near the Venerable One, not far from the forest. Among the various villages and towns, there was, from time to time, a widely held festival held every four months; at that time, this same ascetic, making his rounds among the various villages and towns, gorged himself on pork and, giving free rein to his own desire, drank wine, and, secretly carrying what remained, returned to the forest, where he saw Śāriputra seated beneath a single tree. Confused by drink, he gave rise to a contemptuous thought: although the two of us alike have both gone forth into renunciation, I alone am wealthy and content, while he is poor and suffering — approaching the Venerable One, he thereupon spoke this same verse:

I have already gorged on wine and meat, and further secretly carry the remainder with me — the grass, trees, and mountains upon the earth I regard, every one, as a heap of gold. At that time, Śāriputra, having heard this, thought to himself: this dead outside-path follower possesses no shame or moral dread at all, and is capable of speaking this same verse without any scruple whatsoever — I, too, ought now to respond to him with a verse of my own. Having thought this, he thereupon spoke this same verse in reply:

I am forever gorged upon the signless, forever dwelling at the gateway of the emptiness concentration — the grass, trees, and mountains upon the earth I regard, every one, as a heap of spittle. Now, within this same verse, the Venerable Śāriputra gave voice to a lion's own roar, expounding the three gates of liberation — that is, within the first line, he expounds the gate of signless liberation; within the second line, he expounds the gate of emptiness liberation; within the latter two lines, he expounds the gate of wishlessness liberation. One asks: at that time, this same ascetic's own body and life still remained — for what reason does he lightly speak of him as "this dead outside-path follower"? The answer: it should be understood that the word "dead" points to something base and vile. Further, it is because this same ascetic was without the very life of wisdom that he is spoken of as dead.

Here, as for the signless concentration: the term "signless" is spoken with many meanings — that is, it may be spoken with respect to the emptiness concentration,

or it may, alternatively, be spoken with respect to the path of seeing, or with respect to unshakeable mental liberation, or with respect to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, or it may be spoken directly with respect to the signless concentration itself. As for speaking the term "signless" with respect to the emptiness concentration: this is exactly as the scripture states — there was a certain monk who had attained the signless mental concentration, yet, being of dull faculty, did not know what fruit or what excellence this same concentration possessed. He thought to himself: the Venerable Ānanda is constantly praised by the Buddha and his disciples — I ought to go and ask him. He, further, thought: the Venerable Ānanda skillfully understands the meaning of what is spoken — were I to ask him whether he has attained this same concentration I am now asking about, were he to answer that he has attained it, this would then manifest his own attained, supreme dharma, contrary to the practice of few desires; were he to say that he has not attained it, this would be a false, deceptive statement; were he to say anything else, this would then be troubling and disturbing to a senior monk, contrary to proper decorum. He, further, thought: I ought to follow the Venerable Ānanda about, and, should he ever speak of this same matter of concentration to another, I, too, would thereby come to hear it — and so he followed him for six full years, yet never once heard him speak of it. Harboring this same doubt for a long time, he at last, with head bowed, asked him: if there exists one who has attained the signless mental concentration, neither sinking nor rising, sustaining and holding every formation exactly as a dike holds back a pool, liberated, and, on account of this, abiding, and, abiding, on account of this, liberated — what fruit, the Buddha has said, does this same concentration possess, and what excellence? Ānanda, having heard this, thereupon asked him in turn: have you yourself attained this same concentration? This same monk thought to himself: what I have long deliberated over, I have now, at last, obtained — and he thereupon remained silent. Ānanda told him: the Buddha has said that this same concentration possesses the fruit of liberation, and the excellence of liberation — "liberation" refers to the arising of knowledge, the cultivation of the path, and the exhaustion of the outflows; you, too, before long, will attain this same matter. Here, "neither sinking" refers to the fact that the view of self has already been cut off; "nor rising" refers to the fact that the view of what belongs to self has already been cut off. Further, "neither sinking" refers to the fact that the five views of self have already been cut off; "nor rising" refers to the fact that the fifteen views of what belongs to self have already been cut off — the same should be understood for the view, and the craving, and the delusion, regarding self and one's own self, and regarding what belongs to self and to one's own self. Further, "neither sinking" refers to the fact that he has attained nirvāṇa; "nor rising" refers to the fact that he has relinquished birth-and-death. "Sustaining and holding every formation" refers to the fact that he engaged in much preparatory effort, employed much diligent effort, and, applying his own mind with the utmost excellence, attained this same concentration. "Exactly as a dike holds back a pool" refers to the fact that, exactly as water, issuing forth from a spring, flows and spreads throughout a pool, a dike holds it back, causing it not to flow away and scatter, so too does this same concentration, turning with respect to any single object, pervasively fill that same object, and thereupon abide there without scattering. "Liberated, and, on account of this, abiding" refers to the fact that this is abiding on account of its own liberation of own-nature; "liberation"

refers to liberation belonging to the continuum — this same concentration observes the aspect of being without self and without what belongs to self, and it is thereby named signless, though it is, in genuine truth, emptiness. It is because this same monk exclusively cultivated this same concentration that he became capable of, for the very first time, directly realizing right determinacy freed from birth, exhausting every outflow at the very last stage. The *Dharmamudrā-sūtra* states: whoever observes the signs of form, sound, scent, flavor, and touch, and relinquishes these same signs, is named the signless concentration — this same monk observed the sign of the object and relinquished the sentient-being sign, that is, taking the emptiness concentration to observe form and the like dharmas, relinquishing the sentient-being notion, since, within it, there exists no sign whatsoever of male or female, and the like. It is by virtue of this that the Venerable Ghoṣa speaks as follows: since the various sentient-being notions depend upon the very sign of an object, observing the sign of the object and relinquishing the sentient-being notion and the sign of male and female is what is named the signless concentration, though it is, in genuine truth, gathered within the very own-nature of the emptiness concentration.