Ānanda Witnesses the Massacre of the Śākya Clan

As for speaking the term "signless" with respect to the path of seeing: this is exactly as it is said — Maudgalyāyana does not speak of a sixth signless dwelling. What, precisely, is this sixth signless dwelling? It refers to the fact that the follower through faith and the follower through the dharma cannot be posited as dwelling here or there — cannot be posited as dwelling within the forbearance regarding suffering, a dharma-cognition, and so on, up through the forbearance belonging to the subsequent cognition of the path. One asks: for what reason is the path of seeing named signless? The answer: the path of seeing is swift, giving rise to no fixed mental resolve at all, and cannot be posited as dwelling here or there. As for speaking the term "signless" with respect to unshakeable mental liberation: this is exactly as it is said — Venerable Gautama, you should know that craving, aversion, and delusion are themselves signs; unshakeable mental liberation is the very supreme signlessness. One asks: for what reason is unshakeable mental liberation named signless? The answer: every affliction whatsoever is named a sign; this same mind is not thrown into disorder by affliction, affliction attaining no self-mastery with respect to this same mind, this same mind attaining self-mastery with respect to affliction, and it is for this reason that it is named signless. As for speaking the term "signless" with respect to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception: this is exactly as it is said — I have repeatedly engaged in preparatory effort, employing much diligent effort, and have attained the signless mental concentration; one ought not, with respect to it, to delight in and become attached to it. This speaks of not giving rise to the relished concentration of the very peak of existence, giving rise solely to the pure concentration. One asks: for what reason is the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception named signless? The answer: it possesses no clear, manifest notion; it likewise possesses no sign of the absence of notion — it possesses solely a dim, dull, unclear notion, its own subtle activity turning

exactly like hesitation, and it is for this reason that it is named signless. As for speaking the term "signless" directly with respect to the signless concentration itself: this is exactly as it is stated here — the three concentrations spoken of here are the emptiness, wishlessness, and signless concentrations, since, within the object taken by these, there exist none of the ten signs.

Exactly as the scripture states: at one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the Deer Mother's own vihāra, east of the city of Śrāvastī. The Venerable Ānanda came before the Buddha, bowed with his own head at the Buddha's own two feet, and addressed the Buddha, saying: I recollect that, at one time, the Buddha was dwelling in the Śākya clan's own Mekhalu grove, and, in person, from the Bhagavān, heard this same meaning — that I dwell much in the emptiness concentration, and so on, stated at length. Have I properly received and upheld this same meaning, or not? The Buddha addressed him, saying:

you have indeed properly received and upheld it, without any discrepancy from what was said. One asks: if he had properly received and upheld it, he ought not to have given rise to any hesitation — since hesitation had arisen, how can this be called properly receiving and upholding it? The answer: although hesitation did indeed arise, he did not thereby fall into wrong discrimination, and, since he had not entirely forgotten it, this, too, is named properly receiving and upholding it. One asks: the Venerable Ānanda, foremost in hearing and upholding, having received the Tathāgata's own eighty thousand dharma-aggregates, was, by the very vessel of his own right mindfulness, capable of upholding every one of them — how, then, could he give rise to doubt with respect to a single phrase? The answer: it was because his own mind, at the time of hearing this same dharma, was afflicted with sorrow. As for the very cause and condition of this: it is that King Virūḍhaka, exceedingly foolish and confused, destroyed the city of Kapilavastu and slaughtered the Śākya clan; once he had slaughtered the Śākya clan, on the second day thereafter, the Venerable Ānanda, taking a single monk with him, entered that same city. This same city, in former days, had been like a wondrous celestial palace; at that very time, it had become like a mound of graves — every one of its own towers and watch-posts, and its parapets and battlements, together with its every window and lattice, had been utterly destroyed; exactly like a row of jeweled trees, there was not one that had not been broken and toppled; its clear springs and pools had become mingled with mud and blood; the wild geese, mandarin ducks, peacocks, parrots, and jīvañjīva birds, and the like, all pressed and afflicted by smoke and flame, had scattered and taken flight into the empty sky. The various small girls and boys, having lost their own fathers and mothers, followed after Ānanda, weeping and wailing in grief, each recounting the loss of their own parents and kin. Ānanda further came to the Sow's Pond, where he saw the various members of the Śākya clan whom the foolish king had, the day before, buried half their own body and ground to death with an iron mill — those who bore witness to the noble truths and died numbered seventy-seven thousand. The Venerable Ānanda, having witnessed this same matter, gave rise to the utmost sorrow and affliction. Afterward, he beheld the Bhagavān, his own faculties tranquil and at leisure, his own awareness and wisdom abiding unmoved, exactly like a mountain, his own mind and thought at perfect ease, still holding his own stone bowl, his own mindfulness gathered and calm, exactly as though carrying a vessel of oil, his own faculties gentle and compliant, exactly like a jeweled steed, gazing straight ahead and walking with dignified composure, entering the city to observe the conditioned dharmas' own ruin and impermanence. At that time, Ānanda, observing the Bhagavān's own countenance, found his own majestic radiance all the more flourishing, his own visage warm and joyful; having seen this, he thought to himself: the Bhagavān and I alike have had our own native land and kinsmen destroyed and lost, no different in this respect — yet the Bhagavān remains tranquil and unmoved, exactly like a mountain, while my own body and mind are given over to the utmost suffering and affliction. The Buddha, knowing his own thought, said to Ānanda: it is because I dwell much in the emptiness concentration. Where you give rise to a notion of a city, I give rise to a notion of wilderness; where you give rise to a notion of kinsmen, I give rise to a notion of an ordinary person; where you give rise to a notion of sentient beings, I give rise to a notion of a complete dharma, and it is for this reason that I remain tranquil and unmoved, exactly like a mountain. The Buddha, knowing that the mind of Ānanda and the assembly of monks was, in this same place, incapable of cultivating the wholesome, thereupon gradually proceeded onward to the city of Śrāvastī, dwelling for a time in the Deer Mother's own vihāra.

At that time, once Ānanda's own sorrow and suffering had somewhat abated, he came before the Buddha and addressed the Buddha, saying: I recollect that, at one time, and so on, stated at length. It was on account of this that this Venerable One, at the very time of hearing this same dharma, his own mind being afflicted with sorrow, gave rise to this same doubt. One asks: the Buddha's own statement, "I dwell much in the emptiness concentration" —

in which emptiness does he dwell much? There are those who say: he dwells much in the emptiness of no activity, since this same emptiness accords with the four deportments — that is, if there is one deportment present,

the remaining three are then empty, and it is for this reason that this same emptiness is the one the Buddha dwells much in. The verdict: it ought to be said that he dwells in the emptiness of inherent nature, observing the dharmas' own inherent nature as empty and without self, and it is for this reason that, although he witnesses ruin and change, he is not afflicted with sorrow. At that time, the various monks, hearing the Bhagavān state that he dwells much in the emptiness concentration, thereupon suspected that this was a concentration unique to the Buddha alone. The Buddha, knowing their own intention, said to Ānanda: were there a monk who, too, wished to dwell much in this same emptiness concentration, he ought to remove the notion of a city and the notion of sentient beings, giving rise to a notion of wilderness — were he capable of this, he would be no different from myself. One asks: for what reason did the Bhagavān urge the various monks first to remove these same two notions? The answer: it is because these same two notions cause the various monks to give rise to sorrow and affliction. The Bhagavān, at this, further said to Ānanda: were there any other monk who, too, wished to dwell much in this same emptiness concentration, he ought to remove the notion of sentient beings and the notion of wilderness, giving rise to a notion of earth — were he capable of this, he would be no different from myself. In just the same way, were there any further monk, he ought to remove the notion of wilderness and the notion of earth, giving rise to a notion of the sphere of infinite space; and so on, up through, were there any further monk, he ought to remove the notion of the sphere of infinite consciousness and the notion of the sphere of nothingness, giving rise to a notion of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception — were he capable of this, he would be no different from myself. Were he, further, capable of removing the notion of the sphere of nothingness and the notion of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he would then be capable of ultimately dwelling much in the notion of emptiness. One asks: for what reason does the Bhagavān, at every stage, gradually diminish the preceding single notion and gradually augment the following single notion, rather than urging the removal of every preceding notion all together? The answer: every buddha of the past, exceeding the sands of the river Gaṅgā in number, has, in every case, spoken in this same sequence. Further, it is in order to prevent the text spoken from becoming disordered — were one to urge the removal of every preceding notion all together, the text would thereby become disordered, and, since the various buddhas' own teaching of the dharma must never be disordered, they gradually diminish the preceding single notion and gradually augment the following single notion. Further, it is in order to prevent the text spoken from becoming repetitive — were one to urge the removal of every preceding notion all together, the text would thereby become repetitive, and, since the various buddhas' own teaching of the dharma must never be repetitive, it is spoken of in this way. Further, it is in order that the text spoken should be concise — were one to urge the removal of every preceding notion all together, the text would then become excessively elaborate, and, since the various buddhas' own teaching of the dharma must be concise, it is spoken of in this way. Further, it is in order to display that the very method of debate ought to proceed in this manner — that is, the treatise-masters of ancient times, whenever they engaged in debate, if they took up a following position, necessarily relinquished the preceding one; the Bhagavān, being himself the unsurpassed master of debate, thereby speaks in accordance with the very method of debate. One asks: here, what matter, precisely, do the notion of a city, and so on, up through the notion of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, each display? The answer: the notion of a city displays the notion taking the city of Kapilavastu as its object; the notion of sentient beings displays the notion taking the Śākya clan as its object; the notion of wilderness displays the notion taking the Nyagrodha grove as its object, together with the notion taking the place where monks cultivate the wholesome as its object; the notion of earth displays the notion of scattered form — for what reason is this so? Wherever there is form, there is the suffering of severed hands, feet, ears, nose, and other bodily parts; the notion of the sphere of infinite space displays precisely the notion of the sphere of infinite space, and so on, up through, the notion of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception displays precisely the notion of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. Further, the notion of a city displays the fifteen views of what belongs to self; the notion of sentient beings displays the five views of self; the notion of wilderness displays the notion capable of taking the sphere of space as its object; the notion of earth displays the object taken — namely, the sphere of space; the four formless notions display their own counteraction. Further, the notion of a city displays the receptacle world of the desire realm; the notion of sentient beings displays the sentient world of the desire realm; the notion of wilderness displays the former two dhyānas; the notion of earth displays the latter two dhyānas; the four formless notions display their own counteraction. Further, the notion of a city

displays, in general, the desire realm — for what reason is this so? Because the desire realm is defiled and mixed, exactly like a city, exactly as a verse states:

Whoever is capable of subduing the city, of piercing words, of abuse, of bondage, and of harm, whom pleasure and pain cannot move, is named a monk, exactly like a mountain. As for the notion of sentient beings: this displays the first dhyāna — for what reason is this so? Within the first dhyāna's own ground, there still exist the distinctions of ruler and minister, noble and base, among its own multitude of sentient beings. As for the notion of wilderness: this displays the second and third dhyānas — for what reason is this so? Being free of initial and sustained inquiry and of joy is named the noble silence. As for the notion of earth: this displays the fourth dhyāna — for what reason is this so? That same ground possesses the totality of earth. The four formless notions display their own counteraction. That same scripture, further, states: the Buddha said to Ānanda: entering, in this way, the unsurpassed emptiness concentration, one becomes capable of swiftly exhausting every outflow, realizing the undefiled liberation without preparatory effort. One asks: what, precisely, is named liberation with preparatory effort, and liberation without preparatory effort?

The answer: liberated in time is named liberation with preparatory effort; liberated beyond time is named liberation without preparatory effort. Further, within the continuum of the preceding five kinds of arhat lineage, this is named liberation with preparatory effort; within the continuum of the unshakeable-dharma lineage arhat, this is named liberation without preparatory effort. Further, whoever relies upon the not-yet-arrived concentration, the intermediate dhyāna, or the lower three formless grounds is named liberation with preparatory effort; whoever relies upon the four fundamental dhyānas is named liberation without preparatory effort. This, then, is the distinction between these two kinds of liberation.

There exist three doubled concentrations — namely, the emptiness-of-emptiness concentration, the wishlessness-of-wishlessness concentration, and the signless-of-signless concentration. The *Prajñaptiśāstra* states: what is the emptiness-of-emptiness concentration? There is a certain monk who reflects that the contaminated formations of clinging are, every one of them, empty; observing that these same contaminated formations of clinging are empty, impermanent, never unchanging, and without self and without what belongs to self — reflecting in this way, immediately and without interruption, he further gives rise to mind and mental concomitants, reflecting that this same preceding observation of emptiness, too, is itself empty; observing that this same observation of emptiness, too, is empty, impermanent, never unchanging, and without self and without what belongs to self — exactly as a person, having gathered a great quantity of firewood, sets it ablaze with fire, and, holding a long pole, stirs and clears it away, wishing to cause it all to be entirely consumed, and, once he knows it is about to be entirely consumed, casts this same held pole, too, into the fire, causing it to be burned along with the rest. What is the wishlessness-of-wishlessness concentration? There is a certain monk who reflects that the contaminated formations of clinging are, every one of them, impermanent; observing that these same contaminated formations of clinging are neither permanent nor eternal, being subject to change — reflecting in this way, immediately and without interruption, he further gives rise to mind and mental concomitants, reflecting that this same preceding observation of impermanence, too, is itself impermanent; observing that this same observation of impermanence, too, is neither permanent nor eternal, being subject to change — the simile is exactly as stated before. What is the signless-of-signless concentration? There is a certain monk who reflects that cessation through discernment is, entirely, tranquil and quiescent; observing that this same relinquishing of every support, the exhaustion of craving, freedom from attachment, cessation, and nirvāṇa — reflecting in this way, immediately and without interruption, he further gives rise to mind and mental concomitants, reflecting that this same observation of tranquility, too, is itself tranquil; observing that this same non-analytical cessation, too, is tranquil, since it, too, is free of the clamorous dharmas of birth and the rest — the simile is exactly as stated before. It should be understood that the meaning stated by that same treatise is this: one first gives rise to the emptiness concentration, observing the five aggregates of clinging as empty; afterward, one gives rise to the emptiness-of-emptiness concentration, observing that this same preceding observation of emptiness, too, is empty — since whoever observes emptiness is, too, himself empty. One first gives rise to the wishlessness concentration, observing the five aggregates of clinging as impermanent; afterward, one gives rise to the wishlessness-of-wishlessness concentration, observing that this same preceding observation of wishlessness, too, is itself impermanent — since whoever observes impermanence is, too, himself impermanent. One first gives rise to the signless concentration, observing cessation through discernment as tranquil; afterward, one gives rise to the signless-of-signless concentration, observing that this same observation of signlessness, too, is itself tranquil — since whoever observes tranquility is, too, himself tranquil, this same non-analytical cessation, too, being tranquil, since the three conditioned characteristics are all, every one, tranquil — exactly as a caṇḍāla, gathering firewood to cremate a corpse, holds a long pole, stirring and clearing it so as to cause it all to be entirely consumed, and afterward burns this same pole as well — this, too, is just the same. One asks: at what time is this doubled concentration attained? There are those who say: it is attained within the path of seeing, exactly as, at the very time of attaining the worldly knowledge belonging to the border of direct realization, this, too, is attained. There are, further, those who say: it is attained within the path of cultivation, exactly as, at the very time a noble one, having become free of defilement, gives rise to a transformative mind, this, too, is attained. There are, further, those who say: it is attained at the very moment of the knowledge of exhaustion, exactly as, at the very moment of the knowledge of exhaustion, one cultivates and attains the three realms' own contaminated wholesome roots, this, too, being attained. The verdict: it ought to be said that, whoever is capable of attaining this same concentration, it is precisely at the very moment of becoming free of the defilement of the peak of existence that he attains this same doubled concentration — not everyone is capable of attaining it. Whoever has attained it must, afterward, engage in preparatory effort before it manifests in the present; the Buddha requires no preparatory effort at all; the solitary-realizer requires a middling grade of preparatory effort; the disciple requires a middling or superior grade of preparatory effort.

One asks: after how many kinds of knowledge does this same doubled concentration manifest in the present? The answer: it manifests in the present after four kinds of knowledge — namely, dharma-cognition, subsequent cognition, the knowledge of suffering, and the knowledge of cessation — this being the general statement. If stated separately: the desire realm's own doubled concentration manifests in the present after three kinds of knowledge — namely, dharma-cognition, the knowledge of suffering, and the knowledge of cessation. The form and formless realms' own doubled concentration manifests in the present after three kinds of knowledge — namely, subsequent cognition, the knowledge of suffering, and the knowledge of cessation. The desire realm's own doubled concentration manifests in the present after a noble path gathered within the not-yet-arrived concentration; the doubled concentration belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception manifests in the present after a noble path gathered within the sphere of nothingness;

the doubled concentration belonging to every remaining ground manifests in the present after a noble path gathered within that same ground.

As for the realm these three doubled concentrations belong to: they pervade all three realms. As for ground: they exist within eleven grounds — namely, the not-yet-arrived concentration, the intermediate dhyāna, the four fundamental dhyānas, the four fundamental formless attainments, and the desire realm. As for what they rely upon as support: they rely solely upon a body belonging to the desire realm.

As for their aspect: the emptiness concentration possesses two aspects; the emptiness-of-emptiness concentration possesses solely the emptiness aspect — for what reason is this so?

It is solely with the emptiness aspect that it manifests in the present after the noble path.

One asks: for what reason does this same concentration manifest in the present, after the noble path, solely with the emptiness aspect? The answer: because the emptiness aspect runs counter to existence, causing sentient beings swiftly to relinquish birth-and-death; this same doubled emptiness concentration, growing weary of and turning away from the noble path, is capable, even, of relinquishing the noble path itself, how much more so of relinquishing birth-and-death, and it is for this reason that it manifests in the present, after the noble path, solely with the emptiness aspect. One asks: for what reason does this same concentration not take the non-self aspect? The answer: were one to see the various dharmas as without self, without seeing them as empty, then, although he would grow weary of birth-and-death, this would not be especially heightened.

Were he to see them as empty, then his own force of weariness toward birth-and-death would be especially heightened — exactly as a person traveling a road alone, upon encountering a companion, although he knows this companion does not truly belong to him, does not thereby feel any great sorrow, while, afterward, at some other time, parting from him, he then feels the utmost sorrow and distress — and it is for this reason that the emptiness aspect is superior to the non-self aspect in generating weariness toward birth-and-death, and it is on account of this that this same concentration does not take the non-self aspect. The wishlessness concentration possesses ten aspects; the wishlessness-of-wishlessness concentration possesses solely the impermanence aspect — for what reason is this so? It is solely with the impermanence aspect that it manifests in the present after the noble path. One asks: for what reason does this same concentration manifest in the present, after the noble path, solely with the impermanence aspect? The answer: because the impermanence aspect runs counter to existence, causing sentient beings swiftly to relinquish birth-and-death; this same doubled wishlessness concentration, growing weary of and turning away from the noble path, is capable, even, of relinquishing the noble path itself, how much more so of relinquishing birth-and-death, and it is for this reason that it manifests in the present, after the noble path, solely with the impermanence aspect. One asks: for what reason does this same concentration not take the suffering aspect? The answer: because the noble path is not suffering.

One asks: for what reason does this same concentration not take the four aspects belonging to accumulation as its object? The answer: because the noble path is incapable of drawing forth the three forms of existence. One asks: for what reason does this same concentration not take the four aspects belonging to the path as its object? The answer: were this same concentration to take the aspect belonging to the path as its object, one ought then to delight in the noble path, not grow weary of and turn away from it. The signless concentration possesses four aspects; the signless-of-signless concentration possesses solely the tranquility aspect — for what reason is this so? It is solely with the tranquility aspect that it manifests in the present after the noble path. One asks: for what reason does this same concentration not take the cessation aspect? The answer: cessation is of two kinds — first, non-analytical cessation; second, the cessation of impermanence. Were this same concentration to take the cessation aspect, it would then be unclear as to which cessation it takes as its object. One asks: if this is so, then this same concentration ought likewise not to take the tranquility aspect, since tranquility, too, is of two kinds — first, non-analytical cessation; second, cessation through discernment. Were this same concentration to take the tranquility aspect, would it, too, not then be unclear as to which tranquility it takes as its object? The answer: there exists a place where two cessations are spoken of; there exists no place where two tranquilities are spoken of, and it is for this reason that these two cases ought not to be treated as parallel. Further, the meaning of "cessation" admits of much overlap; the meaning of "tranquility" admits of little overlap — that is, cessation is of three kinds, while tranquility is of solely two. Were this same concentration, further, not to take the tranquility aspect, then what further aspect could it possibly take? One asks: for what reason does this same concentration not take the wondrous aspect? The answer: because non-analytical cessation is not a wondrous dharma — for what reason is this so? The *Prakaraṇapāda* states: what is a wondrous dharma? It refers to the wholesome, undefiled dharma; non-analytical cessation, being neutral, is thereby not a wondrous dharma. One asks: for what reason does this same concentration not take the aspect of freedom? The answer: because non-analytical cessation is not a dharma of freedom — for what reason is this so? The *Prakaraṇapāda* states: what is a dharma of freedom? It refers to the desire realm's own wholesome precepts, together with every wholesome attainment born of renunciation belonging to the form and formless realms, the learner's own dharmas, the non-learner's own dharmas, and cessation through discernment — this same concentration's own object, non-analytical cessation, is without the characteristic of a dharma of freedom as stated there. As for the object of this same doubled concentration: as for the emptiness-of-emptiness and wishlessness-of-wishlessness concentrations, there are those who say: each takes separately as its object the very last moment of the noble path; there are those who say: each takes separately as its object the concentration co-arising with the very last moment of the noble path; there are those who say: each takes, all together, the continuum of the noble path as its object; there are those who say: each takes, all together, the concentration co-arising with the continuum of the noble path as its object. The signless-of-signless concentration takes non-analytical cessation as its object. As for the applications of mindfulness: they, in every case, co-arise solely with the application of mindfulness on dharmas.

As for the kinds of knowledge: they, in every case, co-arise solely with worldly knowledge. As for concentration: this is itself precisely the contaminated concentration, not the undefiled 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-of-emptiness and wishlessness-of-wishlessness concentrations, if belonging to the past or the present, take the past as their object; if belonging to the future, then, for whoever wishes to hold that each takes separately as its object the very last moment of the noble path, or the concentration co-arising with it, they say that what presently manifests takes the present as its object, while whatever else belongs to the future takes the three times as its object; for whoever wishes to hold that each takes, all together, the continuum of the noble path as its object, or the concentration co-arising with it, they say that what presently manifests takes the past and the present as its object, while whatever else belongs to the future takes the three times as its object. There are further teachers who say: the doubled emptiness and wishlessness concentrations take, all together, every noble path as their object, and they say that whatever belongs to any of the three times takes the three times as its object. The signless-of-signless concentration takes solely what is free of time as its object. 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 first two take solely the wholesome as their object; the last takes solely the neutral as its object. As for being bound to the three realms, or unbound: they, in every case, pervade being bound to the three realms. As for taking as object what is bound to the three realms, or unbound: they, in every case, take solely what is unbound as their object. As for the learner, the non-learner, and neither: they are, in every case, neither the learner nor the non-learner. As for taking the learner, the non-learner, and neither as object: the first two take solely the non-learner as their object; the last takes solely neither as its object. As for abandoned by seeing or by cultivation, or not to be abandoned: they are, in every case, abandoned by cultivation. As for taking as object what is abandoned by seeing, by cultivation, or not to be abandoned: they, in every case, take solely what is not to be abandoned as their object. As for taking a name or a meaning as object: they, in every case, take solely a meaning as their object. As for taking one's own continuum, another's continuum, or what is not a continuum, as object: the first two take solely their own continuum as their object; the last 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 are, in every case, solely not previously attained. One asks: in which place, and by whom, are these three doubled concentrations given rise to? The answer: they are given rise to within the desire realm, not within the form or formless realm. They are given rise to within the human destiny, not within any other destiny. They are given rise to within the three continents, not within the northern continent. Within the three continents, both women and men alike are capable of giving rise to them, not eunuchs and the like. The Venerable Ghoṣavarman speaks as follows: solely Jambudvīpa is capable of giving rise to them, not the other continents; solely a male body is capable of giving rise to them, not a female body — for what reason is this so? This same concentration relies solely upon a strong, supreme body, and it is solely the male body of Jambudvīpa that is strong and supreme.

The verdict: it should be understood that the position stated first here accords with principle, since, within the three continents, both women and men alike are strong and supreme — exactly as a man of Jambudvīpa attains self-mastery equally with respect to both mind and concentration, so too do the men of the eastern and western continents, and the women of this same continent, likewise attain self-mastery equally with respect to both mind and concentration, and it is for this reason that all are, alike, strong and supreme. One asks: what kind of person is capable of giving rise to these same concentrations? The answer: the noble one is capable of giving rise to them, not the ordinary being; the non-learner is capable of giving rise to them, not the learner; one liberated beyond time is capable of giving rise to them, not one liberated in time — for what reason is this so? It is solely one who has attained self-mastery in concentration, and possesses a body free of affliction, who becomes capable of giving rise to these same concentrations. Every ordinary being, and one whose faith has been transformed into resolve, lack both of these two matters entirely. One who has arrived at insight, although he has indeed attained self-mastery in concentration, still possesses affliction within his own body. One liberated in time, although his own body is without affliction, has not yet attained self-mastery in concentration. And it is for this reason that none of these are capable of giving rise to this same concentration; it is solely one liberated beyond time, possessing both of these two matters in full, who is capable of giving rise to this same concentration.

One asks: at what point in time does this same concentration exist? Is it at the very first moment, or throughout the entire continuum? If it is this same concentration at the very first moment, then what concentration is it named at every subsequent moment? If it is this same concentration throughout the entire continuum, then how is one to reconcile this with what the *Vijñānakāya* states — exactly as it is said:

is there any dharma that is worldly, contaminated, involving clinging, gathered within the aggregates of clinging, arising through an internal cause, chosen and produced, solely wholesome in nature, bound to the desire realm,

fixed in being given rise to, immediately and without interruption, from the undefiled, taking an undefiled dharma as its object, being solely a dharma unique to the noble ones, not shared with the ordinary being? The answer: there is —

namely, the desire realm's own bound emptiness-of-emptiness, wishlessness-of-wishlessness, and signless-of-signless concentrations. There are those who say: solely the very first moment is gathered within this same concentration. One asks: if this is so, then what concentration is every subsequent moment of the continuum named? The answer: this is a wholesome root resembling this same concentration, not gathered within this same concentration.

There are, further, those who say: the entire continuum, all together, is this same concentration. One asks: if this is so, then how is one to reconcile this with what the *Vijñānakāya* states? The answer: that same treatise speaks, in general, of this same concentration's own genus — that is, although this same concentration continues across many moments, before and after, it is nonetheless entirely gathered within a single genus of this same concentration, since it is given rise to, immediately and without interruption, from the undefiled, and it is for this reason that this does not contradict that same treatise. If stated separately, the very first moment of concentration arises immediately and without interruption from the undefiled, taking an undefiled dharma as its object; every subsequent moment, although it does not arise immediately and without interruption from the undefiled, nonetheless takes the undefiled as its object.

One asks: at what time does this same doubled concentration manifest in the present? There are those who say: it is only as one approaches nirvāṇa that this same concentration is given rise to — that is, the arhat, as he approaches complete nirvāṇa, again gives rise to the noble path, and, immediately following this same noble path, this same concentration manifests in the present; once he has emerged from this same concentration, he then enters complete nirvāṇa, no longer giving rise to this same concentration, nor to the noble path, ever again. The verdict: it ought to be said that whoever has attained this same concentration manifests it in the present whenever he wishes, this being nowise fixed. One asks: does this same concentration manifest in the present immediately following the noble path? Does the noble path arise immediately following this same concentration? The answer: this same concentration does not give rise to the noble path immediately following it — for what reason is this so? Because it grows weary of the noble path. There are those who say: this same concentration, too, gives rise to the noble path immediately following it. One asks: if this same concentration, immediately following it, gives rise to the noble path, then how can it be said that it grows weary of the noble path? The answer: although this same concentration is indeed capable of growing weary of and turning away from the noble path, it is not so capable to the same degree that the noble path is capable of growing weary of and turning away from this same concentration; the noble path, although it is indeed capable of growing weary of and turning away from this same concentration, still gives rise to this same concentration immediately following it — since this same concentration, too, is capable of growing weary of and turning away from the noble path, how could the noble path not, in turn, manifest in the present immediately following it? The verdict: it ought to be said that this same concentration manifests in the present immediately following the noble path; this same concentration does not give rise to the noble path immediately following it, since there would be no purpose in doing so — it is by virtue of this that it should be understood that the position stated first here accords with principle.

One asks: this same concentration is incapable of cutting off any affliction, nor is it capable of drawing forth any supreme virtue — for what reason, then, do the noble ones repeatedly give rise to it? The answer: it is by virtue of four causes and conditions that they repeatedly give rise to it — first, in order to abide in the very bliss of the present dharma; second, in order to play freely amid their own virtue; third, in order to review what they have themselves already accomplished; fourth, in order to make use of their own noble wealth. Further, this same concentration's own function is subtle and hidden, and only one who has attained self-mastery in concentration becomes capable of causing it to manifest in the present, and it is for this reason that they repeatedly give rise to it. As for whether one who plays freely, and observes the supreme, has, with respect to every path, already cultivated it and already brought it to rest, and so on, stated at length —

cultivation is of four kinds — first, attainment-cultivation; second, habituation-cultivation; third, counteraction-cultivation; fourth, elimination-cultivation. Attainment-cultivation and habituation-cultivation refer to every wholesome, conditioned dharma; counteraction-cultivation and elimination-cultivation refer to every contaminated dharma. The Western teachers say that cultivation is of six kinds — namely, the preceding four kinds, together with two further kinds of cultivation — first, guarding-cultivation; second, analytical-cultivation. As for guarding-cultivation: this refers to guarding one's own faculties, exactly as the scripture states: whoever, with respect to these same six faculties, skillfully subdues, skillfully conceals, skillfully guards, skillfully restrains, and skillfully cultivates them, is capable of drawing forth a future bliss. As for analytical-cultivation: this refers to analyzing one's own bodily form, exactly as the scripture states: within this same body, there exist hair, body-hair, nails, and teeth, and so on, stated at length. The teachers of this land say that these latter two kinds are gathered within counteraction-cultivation and elimination-cultivation, and that every cultivation whatsoever thereby numbers solely four kinds — it is with reference to the preceding two kinds that this treatise is composed. Yet these four kinds of cultivation, when distinguished across every dharma, ought to yield a tetralemma. There is a dharma that is the former two kinds of cultivation, not the latter two — namely, the undefiled, conditioned dharma. There is a dharma that is the latter two kinds of cultivation, not the former two — namely, the defiled and the neutral-and-unobscured conditioned dharma. There is a dharma that is both the former two kinds of cultivation and the latter two — namely, the wholesome, contaminated dharma. There is a dharma that is neither the former two kinds of cultivation nor the latter two — namely, the unconditioned dharma. One asks: what, precisely, is the meaning of "cultivation"? The answer: the meaning of infusing and drawing forth is the meaning of cultivation; the meaning of habituated learning is the meaning of cultivation; the meaning of causing to become bright and pure is the meaning of cultivation. Of the conditioned, wholesome dharmas, whatever belongs to the present is displayed through habituation-cultivation; whatever belongs to the future is displayed through attainment-cultivation. Whatever belongs to the present is, through habituation, attained, and it is thereby named cultivation; whatever belongs to the future is, solely through attainment, and it is thereby named cultivation. Whatever belongs to the present is, through use, and it is thereby named cultivation; whatever belongs to the future is, through being drawn forth, and it is thereby named cultivation. Whatever belongs to the present is, through being present in the body, and it is thereby named cultivation; whatever belongs to the future is, through the arising of attainment, and it is thereby named cultivation. Whatever belongs to the present is, through manifesting in the present, and it is thereby named cultivation; whatever belongs to the future is, through being accomplished, and it is thereby named cultivation. Whatever belongs to the present is, through genuinely performing the matter to be performed,

and it is thereby named cultivation; whatever belongs to the future is, exactly as granting a wish from afar, and it is thereby named cultivation. Have every one of the various paths belonging to the past, in every case, already been cultivated and already brought to rest? The answer: every one of the various paths belonging to the past has, in every case, already been cultivated and already brought to rest. As for "already cultivated": this refers to past wholesome dharmas, since they already possess both attainment-cultivation and habituation-cultivation. As for "already brought to rest": this refers to the fact that the very matter accomplished by the past dharma has already come to rest. There is a path that has already been cultivated and already brought to rest, that is not past — this referring to a path belonging to the future that has already been cultivated and already been brought to rest, exactly as the contemplation of impurity, and so on, up through, at the very moment the knowledge of exhaustion manifests in the present, is capable of cultivating measureless future moments of wholesome, conditioned dharmas. As for this same cultivated dharma:

from the second moment onward, it is, in every case, named already cultivated, since it already possesses attainment-cultivation; it is likewise named already brought to rest, since the very matter to be accomplished has already been completed — and yet it is neither past, present, nor future. Do the various paths belonging to the future, then, in every case, not yet have been cultivated and not yet been brought to rest? The answer: a tetralemma ought to be cast, since the meaning is not fixed. There is a path belonging to the future that has not yet not-been-cultivated and not-yet-been-brought-to-rest — this referring to a path belonging to the future that has already been cultivated and already been brought to rest, this being exactly as stated just before. There is a path that has not yet been cultivated and not yet been brought to rest, that is not future — this referring to a not-previously-attained path's own very first manifestation in the present, this referring to a not-previously-attained contemplation of impurity, and so on, up through, the knowledge of exhaustion, genuinely manifesting in the present — this has not yet been cultivated, since it presently possesses attainment-cultivation and habituation-cultivation; it has likewise not yet been brought to rest, since it is genuinely performing the very matter to be performed — and yet it is not future, being present. There is a path belonging to the future that has not yet been cultivated and not yet been brought to rest — this referring to a path belonging to the future that has not yet been cultivated and not yet been brought to rest, this referring to the contemplation of impurity, and so on, up through, at the very moment the knowledge of exhaustion manifests in the present, being capable of cultivating measureless future moments of wholesome, conditioned dharmas — as for this same cultivated dharma, at its very first moment, it is named not yet cultivated, since it is only now presently attaining cultivation; it is likewise named not yet brought to rest, since it is genuinely performing the very matter to be performed — this same cultivated path still remaining within the future. There is a path that is neither future nor not-yet-cultivated-and-not-yet-brought-to-rest — this referring to a path belonging to the past, and a previously attained path presently manifesting in the present. As for a path belonging to the past: it has already been cultivated and already been brought to rest, exactly as already stated before.

As for a previously attained path presently manifesting in the present: this refers to the fact that, since it already possesses attainment-cultivation, it is named already cultivated, and, since the very matter to be accomplished has already been completed, it is named already brought to rest — this being precisely a previously attained contemplation of impurity, and the like, presently manifesting in the present. One asks: this same path, being presently manifest, and presently possessing habituation-cultivation, and genuinely performing the very matter to be performed, ought to be named not yet cultivated and not yet brought to rest — how can it be said that it is not not-yet-cultivated and not-yet-brought-to-rest? The answer: although, in reliance upon habituation-cultivation, one ought to state that it is solely the past path that is gathered within this same clause, yet, in reliance upon attainment-cultivation, the present, previously attained path, too, is spoken of as belonging to this same clause. Are all present paths genuinely being cultivated? The answer: every present path is genuinely being cultivated — that is, if it is a not-previously-attained path presently manifest, it is, by virtue of possessing both attainment-cultivation and habituation-cultivation, named genuinely being cultivated; if it is a previously attained path presently manifest, it is, solely by virtue of habituation-cultivation, named genuinely being cultivated. There is a path that is genuinely being cultivated, that is not present — this referring to a not-previously-attained path's own very first manifestation in the present, the future path of that same category that it thereby cultivates. Yet category is of four kinds — first, cultivation-category; second, restraint-category; third, realm-category; fourth, resemblance-category. As for cultivation-category: this is exactly as it is stated here — a not-previously-attained path's own very first manifestation in the present, the future path of that same category that it thereby cultivates. Here, there are those who say: the contaminated path takes the contaminated path as its own category; the undefiled path takes the undefiled path as its own category. The verdict: it ought to be said that the contaminated path takes both the contaminated and the undefiled path as its own category; the undefiled path takes both the undefiled and the contaminated path as its own category — for what reason is this so? Each single instance of manifesting in the present alike cultivates both of these two kinds of future path, and it is by the force of this same instance that whatever future path is thereby cultivated can, in every case, be spoken of as belonging to that same category. As for restraint-category: this is exactly as the Karma Aggregate states — if one accomplishes a past precept, does he also accomplish this same category's own future and present precept? Here, restraint takes restraint as its own category; the restraint of individual liberation takes the restraint of individual liberation as its own category; the restraint of dhyāna takes the restraint of dhyāna as its own category; the undefiled restraint takes the undefiled restraint as its own category; the preparatory effort of restraint takes the preparatory effort of restraint as its own category; the subsequent arising of restraint takes the subsequent arising of restraint as its own category; among these, manifestation takes manifestation as its own category; non-manifestation takes non-manifestation as its own category. As for realm-category: this is exactly as the Faculties Aggregate states — if one accomplishes this same category, does the eye faculty, too, then accomplish this same category's own body faculty? Here, if it is a dharma belonging to this same realm, it, in turn, takes a dharma belonging to this same realm as its own category — that is, the desire realm's own dharma takes the desire realm's own dharma as its own category; the form realm's own dharma takes the form realm's own dharma as its own category; the formless realm's own dharma takes the formless realm's own dharma as its own category. As for resemblance-category: this is exactly as the Vinaya states — the Venerable Vatsa, with his own left hand emitting light, and with his own right hand distributing bedding and the like, gathered together monks of resembling category,

that is, causing those who uphold the sūtras to dwell together with those who uphold the sūtras; those who uphold the Vinaya to dwell together with those who uphold the Vinaya; those who uphold the Abhidharma to dwell together with those who uphold the Abhidharma; those who dwell in the wilderness to dwell together with those who dwell in the wilderness — causing the various monks of resembling category to dwell together in a single place, whether discoursing together or together in silence, mutually according with one another in cultivating the various wholesome dharmas, free of sorrow and affliction. The scripture likewise states: the various classes of sentient beings, each of resembling category within their own respective realm, take mutual delight in one another — the evil delighting in evil, the good delighting in good. Among these four categories, this treatise relies solely upon cultivation-category in composing its own discussion — that is, at the very moment the contemplation of impurity, and so on, up through the knowledge of exhaustion, manifests in the present, it becomes capable of cultivating measureless future moments of wholesome, conditioned dharmas; as for this same cultivated dharma, at its very first moment, it is genuinely being attained-cultivated, yet is not present, being within the future.

Here, the present is set against genuinely being cultivated. One asks: if one speaks solely in reliance upon attainment-cultivation, a tetralemma ought to be cast — that is, there is what is present, that is not genuinely being cultivated,

this referring to a previously attained path presently manifesting in the present; there is what is genuinely being cultivated, that is not present, this referring to a future path's own very first moment; there is what is present, that is also genuinely being cultivated, this referring to a not-previously-attained path presently manifesting in the present; there is what is neither present nor genuinely being cultivated, this referring to a path belonging to the past, or to the future, that has already been cultivated and already been brought to rest — this refers, in general, to both attainment-cultivation and habituation-cultivation together, and it is for this reason that the present is set against genuinely being cultivated, giving solely a clause conforming to what precedes as its answer, since a present path necessarily possesses habituation-cultivation, and it is thereby named genuinely being cultivated.

One asks: if, upon retrogressing from a higher fruit, one dwells in a lower fruit, is the lower fruit thereby attained, named attainment-cultivation? The answer: it is named attainment, not cultivation. One asks: were he then, again advancing, to attain the fruit from which he had retrogressed, would the higher fruit he thereby attains be named attainment-cultivation, or not? The answer: if it belongs to the past, it is named attainment, not cultivation; if it belongs to the future, it is named attainment-cultivation. One asks: for what reason is what belongs to the past named attainment, not cultivation, while what belongs to the future is named attainment-cultivation? The answer: if the present path serves as its own cause, it may then be spoken of as attainment-cultivation; the present path bears no meaning of being the cause of anything past, and it is for this reason that a path belonging to the past is named attainment, not cultivation. One asks: at the very time of retrogressing from the higher fruit and dwelling within the lower fruit, the future, undefiled fruit thereby attained does indeed possess a present, undefiled attainment —

for what reason, then, is it not named cultivation? The answer: if the present cause draws it forth through further advancement, thereby attaining the future, it may then be named cultivation; at the very time of retrogressing and dwelling within the lower fruit, the present, undefiled attainment, although it is indeed the cause of that same future fruit, is nonetheless not a matter of further advancement, and it is for this reason that it is not named cultivation, since it is not through the present attainment that one cultivates that same future fruit,

but rather it is solely through retrogression itself that this same attainment manifests in the present.

There exist eight kinds of knowledge — namely, dharma-cognition, and so on, up through, the knowledge of the path. And such chapters as these, together with their own explanatory meaning — having already comprehended them, they ought now to be fully explained in turn. One asks: for what reason does the Venerable compiler compose this treatise in reliance upon these eight kinds of knowledge? The answer: the various compilers of treatises, composing their own treatise according to their own wish, ought not to be pressed with an objection, and it is thereby that the compiler of the base treatise, according to his own wish, without contravening the characteristics of the dharmas, composes this same treatise. Elsewhere, too, he composes his treatise in reliance upon eight kinds of knowledge, exactly as, earlier, within the Fetters Aggregate, and, afterward, within the Concentration Aggregate, and the rest. There are places where he composes his treatise in reliance solely upon a single moment's own knowledge, exactly as stated within the Miscellaneous Aggregate's own Knowledge Nyāsa —

is there, then, a single knowledge capable of knowing every dharma whatsoever? The answer: there exists no such place. There are places where he composes his treatise in reliance solely upon two kinds of knowledge, exactly as within the immediately preceding nyāsa, and the Faculties and Concentration Aggregates. There are places where he composes his treatise in reliance solely upon four kinds of knowledge, exactly as within the later portion of the Faculties Aggregate. There are places where he composes his treatise fully in reliance upon ten kinds of knowledge — that is, the compiler of the base treatise, with respect to the domain of what is to be known, having fully and thoroughly penetrated both its particular and its general characteristic, composes his own treatise according to his own wish, whether in brief or at length, without contravening the characteristics of the dharmas, and thereby ought not to be pressed with an objection. Further, one ought not to press an objection against the compiler of the treatise's own intention — that is, these eight kinds of knowledge were themselves spoken of by the Buddha; this same compiler of the base treatise composes his own treatise in reliance upon the scripture; the scripture speaks of eight kinds of knowledge, admitting of neither increase nor decrease — the Venerable compiler is incapable of reducing them by even one, saying seven, or increasing them by one, saying nine — for what reason is this so? Because whatever the various buddhas state admits of neither increase nor decrease. Further, whatever the various buddhas state is measureless and boundless, since its own meaning is measureless and its own text is boundless,

exactly as the great ocean's own water is measureless and boundless, since its own depth is measureless and its own breadth is boundless — even were the Venerable Śāriputra and the other great treatise-masters, numbering more than a hundred thousand niyutas, to appear in the world all at the same time, and, in order to explain the meaning of merely two phrases of the Buddha's own scripture, to compose a hundred thousand koṭis of treatises, their own wisdom would still, in the end, be incapable of exhausting the very boundary of the meaning of these same two phrases, how much less could the compiler of the base treatise possibly increase or decrease anything with respect to the meaning of the Buddha's own eight kinds of knowledge. One asks: within his own scripture, the Buddha sometimes speaks of two kinds of knowledge, sometimes of four kinds, sometimes of eight kinds, and sometimes of ten kinds — for what reason does the Venerable compiler, here, rely solely upon eight kinds of knowledge in composing his own treatise? The answer: it is because these eight kinds of knowledge are a middling account, gathering in every kind of knowledge in its entirety, and it is for this reason that his own treatise is composed in reliance upon them — that is, speaking of two kinds and the like is, in every case, a brief account, not gathering in every kind of knowledge in its entirety; the scripture on the ten kinds of knowledge, although it does gather in every kind of knowledge in its entirety, is nonetheless an elaborate account — it is solely these eight kinds of knowledge that gather in every kind of knowledge in its entirety while remaining a middling account, and it is for this reason that his own treatise relies particularly upon them. Further, these eight kinds of knowledge exist, alike, within the body of the learner and the non-learner, and within the body of one who is defiled and one who is undefiled, and it is for this reason that his own treatise relies particularly upon them; the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising exist solely within the non-learner's own body, and solely within the body of one who is undefiled, and it is for this reason that his own treatise does not rely upon them. Further, these eight kinds of knowledge, in every case, pervade the very own-nature of both knowledge and vision, and it is for this reason that his own treatise relies particularly upon them; the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising do not pervade the very own-nature of vision, and it is for this reason that his own treatise does not rely upon them. Further, these eight kinds of knowledge are repeatedly cultivated and given rise to, and it is for this reason that his own treatise relies particularly upon them; the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising are not repeatedly cultivated and given rise to, and it is for this reason that his own treatise does not rely upon them. It is by virtue of such various causes and conditions as these that this treatise relies solely upon these eight kinds of knowledge in composing its own discussion.