The Seven Stations of Skill

Are the fetters cut off by dharma-cognition witnessed as cessation by dharma-cognition itself? And so on, stated at length. One asks: for what reason is this treatise composed? The answer: it is in order to put a stop to what other schools maintain, and to display the correct principle — that is, there are those who hold that the unimpeded path cuts off the various fetters' own attainment, while the path of liberation witnesses that same cessation's own attainment, as the foreign treatise-masters hold; in order to put a stop to this same intention, and to display that the unimpeded path is itself capable of cutting off the various fetters' own attainment, and also witnessing that same cessation's own attainment — for were it so that the unimpeded path solely cuts off the fetters' own attainment, while it is solely the path of liberation that is capable of witnessing that same cessation's own attainment, this would then contradict the following statement: that the fetters cut off by dharma-cognition are witnessed as cessation by dharma-cognition, and the like. For if it is by the dharma-cognition of cessation and of the path that one ultimately becomes free of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's own defilement, then he takes dharma-cognition as the unimpeded path, and subsequent cognition as the path of liberation — how, then, could it be said that the fetters cut off by dharma-cognition are witnessed as cessation by dharma-cognition itself? It is for this reason that it should be understood that the unimpeded path is capable of cutting off the various fetters' own attainment, and likewise witnessing that same cessation's own attainment — this principle cannot be contradicted. It is by virtue of this same cause and condition that this treatise is composed. Are the fetters cut off by dharma-cognition witnessed as cessation by dharma-cognition itself? The answer: the fetters cut off by dharma-cognition

are witnessed as cessation by dharma-cognition itself — that is, in accordance with however many fetters dharma-cognition, serving as the unimpeded path, cuts off, this same unimpeded path is precisely what witnesses that same cessation, in that same amount. There is a fetter whose cessation is witnessed by dharma-cognition, that fetter not being cut off by dharma-cognition — this referring to a fetter either cut off by forbearance, or cut off by some other kind of knowledge, whose cessation is nonetheless witnessed by dharma-cognition. Exactly as the stream-enterer, having, by way of the worldly path, cut off the first grade, up through the fifth grade, of the desire realm's own fetters, further takes dharma-cognition as the unimpeded path, cutting off the sixth grade, and attains the fruit of the once-returner — at that time, the unimpeded path's own dharma-cognition witnesses the cessation of the fetters bound to the three realms and abandoned by seeing, already cut off by forbearance, and also witnesses the cessation of the desire realm's own first five grades of fetters abandoned by cultivation, already cut off by worldly knowledge. The once-returner, having, by way of the worldly path, cut off the seventh and eighth grades of the desire realm's own fetters, further takes dharma-cognition as the unimpeded path, cutting off the ninth grade, and attains the fruit of the non-returner — at that time, the unimpeded path's own dharma-cognition witnesses the cessation of the fetters bound to the three realms and abandoned by seeing, already cut off by forbearance, and also witnesses the cessation of the desire realm's own first eight grades of fetters abandoned by cultivation, already cut off by worldly knowledge. The non-returner, having, by way of the worldly path or subsequent cognition, become free of the first dhyāna's defilement up through the sphere of nothingness's own defilement, and having, by way of subsequent cognition, cut off the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's own first eight grades of fetters, further takes dharma-cognition as the unimpeded path, cutting off the ninth grade, and attains the fruit of the non-learner — at that time, the unimpeded path's own dharma-cognition

witnesses the cessation of the fetters bound to the three realms and abandoned by seeing, already cut off by forbearance, and also witnesses the cessation of the desire realm's own fetters abandoned by cultivation, already cut off by worldly knowledge, and the cessation of the seven grounds' own fetters abandoned by cultivation, cut off by subsequent cognition and worldly knowledge, and the cessation of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's own first eight grades of fetters abandoned by cultivation, cut off by subsequent cognition. Such fetters as these have their cessation witnessed by dharma-cognition, while the fetters themselves are not cut off by dharma-cognition. Are the fetters cut off by subsequent cognition witnessed as cessation by subsequent cognition itself? The answer: the fetters cut off by subsequent cognition are witnessed as cessation by subsequent cognition itself — that is, in accordance with however many fetters subsequent cognition, serving as the unimpeded path, cuts off, this same unimpeded path is precisely what witnesses that same cessation, in that same amount. There is a fetter whose cessation is witnessed by subsequent cognition,

that fetter not being cut off by subsequent cognition — this referring to a fetter either cut off by forbearance, or cut off by some other kind of knowledge, whose cessation is nonetheless witnessed by subsequent cognition. Exactly as the various noble ones, having, by way of dharma-cognition or the worldly path, become free of the desire realm's own defilement up through the sphere of nothingness's own defilement, and having, by way of dharma-cognition, cut off the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's own first eight grades of fetters, further cut off the ninth grade by way of subsequent cognition, and attain the fruit of the non-learner — at that time, the unimpeded path's own subsequent cognition witnesses the cessation of the fetters bound to the three realms and abandoned by seeing, already cut off by forbearance, and also witnesses the cessation of the eight grounds' own fetters abandoned by cultivation, already cut off by dharma-cognition and worldly knowledge, and the cessation of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's own first eight grades of fetters abandoned by cultivation, cut off by dharma-cognition. Such fetters as these have their cessation witnessed by subsequent cognition, while the fetters themselves are not cut off by subsequent cognition. Are the fetters cut off by the knowledge of suffering witnessed as cessation by the knowledge of suffering itself? The answer: the fetters cut off by the knowledge of suffering are witnessed as cessation by the knowledge of suffering itself — that is, in accordance with however many fetters the knowledge of suffering, serving as the unimpeded path, cuts off, this same unimpeded path is precisely what witnesses that same cessation, in that same amount. There is a fetter whose cessation is witnessed by the knowledge of suffering, that fetter not being cut off by the knowledge of suffering — this referring to a fetter either cut off by forbearance, or cut off by some other kind of knowledge, whose cessation is nonetheless witnessed by the knowledge of suffering. Exactly as the stream-enterer, having, by way of the worldly path, or the knowledge of accumulation, of cessation, or of the path, cut off the first grade, up through the fifth grade, of the desire realm's own fetters, further takes the knowledge of suffering as the unimpeded path, cutting off the sixth grade — at that time, the unimpeded path's own knowledge of suffering witnesses the cessation of the fetters bound to the three realms and abandoned by seeing, already cut off by forbearance, and also witnesses the cessation of the desire realm's own first five grades of fetters abandoned by cultivation, already cut off by worldly knowledge, and the knowledge of accumulation, of cessation, and of the path. The once-returner, having, by way of the worldly path, and the knowledge of accumulation, of cessation, and of the path, cut off the seventh and eighth grades of the desire realm's own fetters, further takes the knowledge of suffering as the unimpeded path, cutting off the ninth grade, and attains the fruit of the non-returner — at that time, the unimpeded path's own knowledge of suffering witnesses the cessation of the fetters bound to the three realms and abandoned by seeing, already cut off by forbearance, and also witnesses the cessation of the desire realm's own first eight grades of fetters abandoned by cultivation, already cut off by worldly knowledge, and the knowledge of accumulation, of cessation, and of the path.

The non-returner, having, by way of the worldly path, or the knowledge of accumulation, of cessation, and of the path, become free of the first dhyāna's own defilement up through the sphere of nothingness's own defilement, and having, by way of the knowledge of accumulation, of cessation, and of the path, cut off the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's own first eight grades of fetters, further takes the knowledge of suffering as the unimpeded path, cutting off the ninth grade, and attains the fruit of the non-learner — at that time, the unimpeded path's own knowledge of suffering witnesses the cessation of the fetters bound to the three realms and abandoned by seeing, already cut off by forbearance, and also witnesses the cessation of the eight grounds' own fetters abandoned by cultivation, already cut off by worldly knowledge and the knowledge of accumulation, of cessation, and of the path, and the cessation of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's own first eight grades of fetters abandoned by cultivation, cut off by the knowledge of accumulation, of cessation, and of the path. Such fetters as these have their cessation witnessed by the knowledge of suffering, while the fetters themselves are not cut off by the knowledge of suffering. Exactly as it is said of the knowledge of suffering, so, too, should it be understood of the knowledge of accumulation, of cessation, and of the path. One asks: what distinction is there between the preceding approach and this same approach? The answer: whoever wishes to hold that the unimpeded path cuts off the various fetters' own attainment, while the path of liberation witnesses that same cessation's own attainment, holds that the preceding approach displays the unimpeded path's own function, while this same approach displays the path of liberation's own function; whoever wishes to hold that the unimpeded path is capable of cutting off the various fetters' own attainment, and also witnessing that same cessation's own attainment, holds that the preceding approach displays the unimpeded path's being capable of both cutting off the various fetters' own attainment and witnessing that same cessation's own attainment, while this same approach displays solely the unimpeded path's witnessing the various fetters' own cessation's attainment — exactly as cutting off the fetters' own attainment and witnessing that same cessation's attainment is exactly like relinquishing fault and cultivating virtue, relinquishing what is without meaning and attaining what possesses meaning, relinquishing the inferior and attaining the supreme and wondrous,

relinquishing the suffering of craving and defilement, and witnessing the bliss of tranquility — this, too, should be understood in the same way. Further, the preceding approach displays the cutting-off of the conditioned; this same approach displays the witnessing of the unconditioned. Further, the preceding approach displays a sudden cutting-off; this same approach displays a repeated cutting-off. Further, the preceding approach displays that, at the very time of cutting-off, one thereby witnesses; this same approach displays that one first cuts off and afterward witnesses. This, then, is what is termed the distinction between the preceding approach and this same approach. Of the eye faculty, up through the desire realm's own latent affliction of ignorance abandoned by cultivation, how many, among the ten kinds of knowledge, know each? And so on, stated at length. One asks: for what reason is this treatise composed? The answer: it is in order to put a stop to what other schools maintain, and to display the correct principle — that is, there are those who hold that there exist various forms of cognitive discernment possessing no object whatsoever, exactly as one grasps at an illusion, a gandharva's own city, a reflection in a mirror, the moon in water, a shadow, a mirage, a deer's own thirst-vision, or a whirling firebrand — every such variety of cognitive discernment being, in every case, without any genuinely real object; in order to put a stop to this same holding, and to display that every form of cognitive discernment genuinely possesses an object. There are, further, those who hold that there exists a capable-knowing knowledge that does not know what is to be known, and that there exists an object of what is to be known that is not known by any knowledge; in order to put a stop to this same holding, and to display that there exists no capable-knowing knowledge that fails to know what is to be known, and no object of what is to be known that is not known by any knowledge, it is by virtue of this same cause and condition that this treatise is composed.

If one asks about what is gathered, one ought to reply having carefully reflected in accordance with the eighteen elements; if one asks about consciousness, one ought to reply having carefully reflected in accordance with the twelve sense-fields; if one asks about the latent afflictions, one ought to reply having carefully reflected in accordance with the five categories; if one asks about knowledge, one ought to reply having carefully reflected in accordance with the four noble truths — dharmas such as these are easy to display, easy to set forth. Since this treatise here asks about knowledge, one ought to reply having carefully reflected in accordance with the four noble truths. Now, every dharma whatsoever is, in brief, of five kinds — namely, what is gathered within the four truths, and what is not gathered within them. Here, whatever is gathered within the truth of suffering, of accumulation, and of the path, belonging to the three realms, is each of two kinds — namely, associated, and not associated; whatever is gathered within the truth of cessation, and whatever is not gathered within the truths, is each of solely one kind — namely, not associated. As for what is gathered within the desire realm's own truth of suffering and of accumulation: the associated dharmas are known by seven kinds of knowledge, excluding subsequent cognition, the knowledge of cessation, and of the path; the not-associated dharmas are known by six kinds of knowledge, excluding subsequent cognition, the knowledge of others' minds, of cessation, and of the path. As for what is gathered within the form realm's own truth of suffering and of accumulation: the associated dharmas are known by seven kinds of knowledge, excluding dharma-cognition, the knowledge of cessation, and of the path; the not-associated dharmas are known by six kinds of knowledge, excluding dharma-cognition, the knowledge of others' minds, of cessation, and of the path. As for what is gathered within the formless realm's own truth of suffering and of accumulation: both the associated and the not-associated dharmas are known by six kinds of knowledge, excluding dharma-cognition, the knowledge of others' minds, of cessation, and of the path. Whatever is gathered within the truth of cessation is known by six kinds of knowledge, excluding the knowledge of others' minds, of suffering, of accumulation, and of the path. As for what is gathered within the truth of the path: the associated dharmas are known by seven kinds of knowledge, excluding the knowledge of suffering, of accumulation, and of cessation; the not-associated dharmas are known by six kinds of knowledge, excluding the knowledge of others' minds, of suffering, of accumulation, and of cessation. Whatever is not gathered within the truths is known by a single kind of knowledge — namely, worldly knowledge. This, then, is what is termed, in this place, the brief Vibhāṣā. As for the eye faculty being known by seven kinds of knowledge here, and the rest: in accordance with the direction already given before, its characteristics should be known accordingly. One asks: for what reason is it named knowledge? The answer: it is capable of knowing what is to be known, and it is thereby named knowledge. One asks: for what reason is it named what is to be known? The answer: it is what is known by knowledge, and it is thereby named what is to be known. The Venerable Ghoṣa speaks as follows: it is capable of weighing, and it is thereby named knowledge; it is what is weighed, and it is thereby named what is to be known — this should be understood in the same way as capable of measuring and what is measured. The Venerable Pārśva says: it is capable of knowing, and it is thereby named knowledge; whatever dharma is knowledge's own domain of activity, its own object, its own grasped matter, is named what is to be known. Knowledge and what is to be known are established in mutual correlation with one another, and it is thereby that there exists no knowledge that fails to know what is to be known, and no object of what is to be known that is not known by any knowledge —

there is no knowledge without something known, and no known without knowledge. Exactly as it is said of the notion of impermanence: if habituated, if cultivated, if made much of, it is capable of removing every craving for the desire realm, craving for form, craving for the formless, restlessness, the pride of self, and ignorance, and so on, stated at length. One asks: for what reason is this treatise composed? The answer: it is in order to broadly distinguish the meaning of the scripture — that is, the scripture states that the notion of impermanence, if habituated, if cultivated, if made much of, is stated at length exactly as before. Although the scripture makes this same statement, it does not distinguish its own meaning — the scripture is this treatise's own relied-upon root,

and whatever it has not yet stated ought now to be stated, and it is thereby that this treatise is composed. One asks: for what reason does the Bhagavān speak this same scripture? The answer: there exist sentient beings whose own mind is much given to sloth, who do not diligently exert themselves, relinquishing the various wholesome yokes — it is in order to urge and spur them onward that this same scripture is spoken. Further, it is in order to urge learners to relinquish craving for future existence that this same scripture is spoken — that is, the Bhagavān spoke of the matter of Maitreya's own future becoming a buddha, and there were learners who thought to themselves: may I, too, behold that same becoming a buddha, before I enter complete nirvāṇa. The Buddha therefore said to them: you, at present, having various requisites that suit your own pleasure for a short time, thereby crave future existence; were you, instead, lacking in requisites and conditions, pressed by suffering, you would then feel no delight whatsoever in any existence — at that time, you ought to cultivate this same notion of impermanence, ultimately exhausting every outflow and entering complete nirvāṇa. It is for this reason that you ought not to crave future existence. It is for the sake of learners, therefore, that the Buddha speaks this same scripture.

As for the fact that the notion of impermanence, if habituated, if cultivated, if made much of, is capable of removing every craving for the desire realm: this same notion ought to be said to be associated with dharma-cognition — namely, the dharma-cognition of suffering. This same notion ought to be said to possess both initial and sustained inquiry — namely, co-arising with initial and sustained inquiry within the not-yet-arrived concentration. This same notion ought to be said to be associated with the equanimity faculty — namely, co-arising with the equanimity faculty within the not-yet-arrived concentration. This same notion ought to be said to be accompanied by wishlessness — namely, the suffering-and-wishlessness association. This same notion ought to be said to take what is bound to the desire realm as its object — namely, taking the desire realm's own five aggregates as its object. As for its being capable of removing every craving for form: this same notion ought to be said to be associated with subsequent cognition — namely, the subsequent cognition of suffering. This same notion ought to be said to either possess both initial and sustained inquiry — namely, co-arising with initial and sustained inquiry within the not-yet-arrived concentration and the first dhyāna — or to lack initial inquiry while possessing solely sustained inquiry — namely, co-arising with solely sustained inquiry within the intermediate dhyāna — or to lack both initial and sustained inquiry — namely, existing within the latter three dhyānas. This same notion ought to be said either to be associated with the pleasure faculty — namely, existing within the third dhyāna — or to be associated with the joy faculty — namely, existing within the first two dhyānas — or to be associated with the equanimity faculty — namely, existing within the not-yet-arrived concentration, the intermediate dhyāna, and the fourth dhyāna.

This same notion ought to be said to be accompanied by wishlessness — namely, the suffering-and-wishlessness association. This same notion ought to be said to take what is bound to the form realm as its object — namely, taking the form realm's own five aggregates as its object. As for its being capable of removing every craving for the formless: this same notion ought to be said to be associated with subsequent cognition — namely, the subsequent cognition of suffering — either possessing both initial and sustained inquiry, or lacking initial inquiry while possessing solely sustained inquiry, or lacking both initial and sustained inquiry, associated with the pleasure, joy, or equanimity faculties, and accompanied by wishlessness, taking what is bound to the formless realm as its object — exactly as with the preceding notion capable of removing craving for form, with this distinction: this same notion may either lack both initial and sustained inquiry — namely, existing within the latter three dhyānas and the first three formless attainments — or be associated with the equanimity faculty — namely, existing within the not-yet-arrived concentration, the intermediate dhyāna, the fourth dhyāna, and the first three formless attainments — taking what is bound to the formless realm as its object — namely, taking the formless realm's own four aggregates as its object. As for its being capable of removing every restlessness, pride of self, and ignorance: this same notion ought to be said to be associated with dharma-cognition and subsequent cognition — namely, the dharma-cognition and subsequent cognition of suffering. This same notion ought to be said either to possess both initial and sustained inquiry,

or lack initial inquiry while possessing solely sustained inquiry, or lack both initial and sustained inquiry, associated with the pleasure, joy, or equanimity faculties, and accompanied by wishlessness — all exactly as stated for the preceding notion capable of removing craving for the formless. This same notion ought to be said either to take what is bound to the desire realm as its object — namely, taking the desire realm's own five aggregates as its object — or to take what is bound to the form realm as its object —

namely, taking the form realm's own five aggregates as its object — or to take what is bound to the formless realm as its object — namely, taking the formless realm's own four aggregates as its object.

One asks: every noble path is capable of cutting off the fetters — for what reason does this discussion speak solely of the notion of impermanence? The answer: this same term "notion," here, displays every noble path.

That is, the Buddha, at various times, displays every noble path by way of the term "sensation," the term "notion," the term "volition," the term "mind," the term "lamp," the terms faith, diligence, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom, the terms raft and ferry, the terms mountain and stone, the term water, the term flower, and the terms loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity, stated at length exactly as before — here, too, it is just the same, and ought not to be pressed with an objection. One asks: the notion of impermanence is capable of counteracting solely two categories — namely, what is abandoned by seeing suffering, and what is abandoned by cultivation — for what reason, here, does it say it is capable of removing every craving, and the rest, belonging to all three realms? The answer: here, it ought solely to be said that it is capable of removing the craving, and the rest, belonging to the three realms — it ought not to say "every"; yet it says "every" because "every" is of two kinds — namely, a partial "every," and a total "every." Here, it speaks solely of a partial "every" —

namely, what is abandoned by seeing suffering and by cultivation, not anything else. Further, the Buddha speaks this same scripture for the noble ones — they have already eternally cut off what is abandoned by seeing, and he urges them to cultivate this same notion of impermanence, causing them to cut off every one of the three realms' own fetters abandoned by cultivation, and it is thereby without fault. One asks: the notion of impermanence is capable of counteracting seven latent afflictions — for what reason, here, does it speak solely of cutting off craving, pride, and ignorance? The answer: because these three kinds pervade all three realms, and pervade all five categories, it is for this reason that they are singled out and spoken of; the five views and doubt, although they pervade the three realms, do not pervade the five categories; aversion, although it pervades the five categories, does not pervade the three realms — and it is thereby that they are not spoken of. Further, because these three kinds pervade the three realms, and both the ordinary being and the noble one are alike capable of manifesting them in the present, it is for this reason that they are singled out and spoken of; the five views and doubt, although they pervade the three realms, are, among the noble ones, decisively never manifest in the present; aversion, although both the ordinary being and the noble one are alike capable of manifesting it in the present, does not pervade the three realms, and it is thereby that it is not spoken of. One asks: for what reason is craving distinguished by the three realms, while restlessness and the rest are not so distinguished? The answer: these, too, ought to be distinguished by the three realms — that they are not so distinguished should be understood to be a case whose meaning has been left over for elsewhere. Further, it is in order to display varied statements and varied texts, adorning the meaning, so as to give rise to delight in those who uphold and retain it, that it is so. Further, it is in order to display two approaches, two summaries, and so on, stated at length. Further, craving is heavy, difficult to cut off, difficult to break, possessing many faults, and it is thereby singled out and distinguished. Further, it is by virtue of craving that the various realms, the various grounds, and the various categories are distinguished, and it is thereby singled out and distinguished. One asks: cultivating the notion of impermanence is capable of removing seven kinds of pride — for what reason does this discussion speak solely of removing the pride of self? The answer: this discussion speaks solely of the proximate counteraction — that is, the notion of impermanence is the pride of self's own proximate counteraction, exactly as the scripture states: if the various monks cultivate the notion of impermanence, they are thereby capable of drawing forth the notion of non-self; if they abide in the notion of impermanence and of non-self, they are thereby capable of cutting off the pride of self, swiftly exhausting every outflow. One asks: for what reason, among every secondary affliction, does this discussion speak solely of restlessness? The answer: among the secondary afflictions, whatever possesses an increased fault is solely restlessness — that is, it pervades the three realms, being gathered within the very nature of an entanglement; torpor, although it possesses these same two meanings, exists within the upper realms and accords with the meditative attainments, and its fault is thereby not increased, and it is for this reason that this discussion singles out restlessness alone and speaks of it. Exactly as it is said: there are the seven stations of skill and the threefold contemplation, capable of, within this same dharma and vinaya, swiftly exhausting every outflow — how are there seven? Namely, rightly knowing form, form's arising, form's cessation, the path proceeding toward form's cessation, form's gratification, form's danger, and form's escape; rightly knowing sensation, notion, volition, and consciousness should likewise be understood in the same seven ways. Is this same knowledge to be termed dharma-cognition, up through the knowledge of the path? And so on, stated at length. One asks: for what reason is this treatise composed? The answer: it is in order to broadly distinguish the meaning of the scripture — that is, the scripture states:

Monks, you should know, there are the seven stations of skill and the threefold contemplation, stated at length exactly as before. Although the scripture makes this same statement, it does not distinguish its own meaning — the scripture is this treatise's own relied-upon root, and whatever it has not yet stated ought now to be stated, and it is thereby that this treatise is composed. One asks: for what reason does the Bhagavān speak this same scripture? The answer: there are learners who have already entered the path of seeing, dwelling within the path of cultivation, vexed by the afflictions abandoned by cultivation — the Bhagavān, wishing to cause them to cultivate their own counteraction, said to them: you have already attained the noble path — why do you not rely upon it to cut off the remaining afflictions? Exactly as a mighty warrior, vexed by an enemy, is told by another: since you are, indeed, mighty and strong, why would you not slay your enemy, and instead be vexed by him?

Further, there are learners who, having already attained the first fruit, do not undertake preparatory effort toward the subsequent, superior fruits; and even should they undertake preparatory effort, they do not know it as it genuinely is.

The Bhagavān, wishing to cause them to give rise to superior preparatory effort, said to them: if you are capable of not relinquishing the very preparatory efforts by which you first attained stream-entry, before long you will decisively attain the ultimate exhaustion of the outflows. It is for the sake of these same learners that the Buddha speaks this same scripture.

As for rightly knowing form being four kinds of knowledge — namely, dharma-cognition, subsequent cognition, worldly knowledge, and the knowledge of suffering: here, dharma-cognition knows the fruit belonging to form within the desire realm; subsequent cognition knows the fruit belonging to form within the form realm; worldly knowledge knows the fruit belonging to every form; the knowledge of suffering knows the fruit belonging to contaminated form as impermanent, suffering, empty, and without self.

Although this is four kinds, it is established as a single skillful station, since all four alike observe one and the same fruit belonging to form. As for rightly knowing form's arising being four kinds of knowledge — namely, dharma-cognition, subsequent cognition, worldly knowledge, and the knowledge of accumulation: here, dharma-cognition knows the cause belonging to form within the desire realm; subsequent cognition knows the cause belonging to form within the form realm; worldly knowledge knows the cause belonging to every form; the knowledge of accumulation knows the cause, the arising, and the condition belonging to contaminated form. Although this is four kinds, it is established as a single skillful station, since all four alike observe one and the same cause belonging to form. As for rightly knowing form's cessation being four kinds of knowledge — namely, dharma-cognition, subsequent cognition, worldly knowledge, and the knowledge of cessation: here, dharma-cognition knows the cessation belonging to form within the desire realm; subsequent cognition knows the cessation belonging to form within the form realm; worldly knowledge knows the cessation belonging to every form; the knowledge of cessation knows the cessation belonging to contaminated form as tranquil, wondrous, and freed. Although this is four kinds, it is established as a single skillful station, since all four alike observe one and the same cessation belonging to form. As for rightly knowing the path proceeding toward form's cessation being four kinds of knowledge — namely, dharma-cognition, subsequent cognition, worldly knowledge, and the knowledge of the path: here, dharma-cognition knows the counteracting path belonging to form within the desire realm; subsequent cognition knows the counteracting path belonging to form within the form realm; worldly knowledge knows the counteracting path belonging to every form; the knowledge of the path knows the counteracting path belonging to contaminated form, as a path, a proceeding, and an escape.

Although this is four kinds, it is established as a single skillful station, since all four alike observe one and the same path belonging to form. As for rightly knowing form's gratification being four kinds of knowledge — namely, dharma-cognition, subsequent cognition, worldly knowledge, and the knowledge of accumulation: here, all four kinds of knowledge alike know form's own gratification, exactly as should be understood from what precedes. Although this is four kinds, it is established as a single skillful station,

since all four alike observe one and the same arising belonging to form. As for rightly knowing form's danger being four kinds of knowledge — namely, dharma-cognition, subsequent cognition, worldly knowledge, and the knowledge of suffering: here, all four kinds of knowledge alike know form's own danger, exactly as should be understood from what precedes. Although this is four kinds, it is established as a single skillful station, since all four alike observe one and the same suffering belonging to form.

As for rightly knowing form's escape being four kinds of knowledge — namely, dharma-cognition, subsequent cognition, worldly knowledge, and the knowledge of cessation: here, all four kinds of knowledge alike know form's own escape, exactly as should be understood from what precedes. Although this is four kinds, it is established as a single skillful station, since all four alike observe one and the same cessation belonging to form. As for rightly knowing sensation, notion, volition, and consciousness likewise being seven kinds each, this should be understood exactly as stated for the observation of form. One asks: if this is so, then thirty-five stations of skill ought to be stated, or a measureless number of stations of skill — for what reason does it say seven? The answer: observing each single aggregate individually, each possesses these same seven, not exceeding the number seven, and it is thereby said that there are seven. Exactly as another scripture states: every stream-enterer, at most, is reborn seven times more — were this stated separately for each of the two destinies and each of the two kinds of existence, it ought to number twenty-eight, that is, the human destiny possessing seven, and the heavenly destiny possessing seven —

within humankind, seven, and within the heavens, seven — and yet, since it does not exceed the number seven, it is named by the number seven. Exactly as another scripture states there exist two dharmas — namely, the eye and forms, up through the mind and mental phenomena; and exactly as another scripture states that the turning of the wheel of dharma, thrice turned, possesses twelve aspects — these, since they do not exceed two and twelve respectively, are named accordingly — this, too, is just the same. The Venerable Pārśva says: this scripture ought to state "rightly knowing form, up through consciousness; rightly knowing form's arising, up through consciousness's arising; rightly knowing form's cessation, up through consciousness's cessation; rightly knowing the path proceeding toward form's cessation, up through the path proceeding toward consciousness's cessation; rightly knowing form's gratification, up through consciousness's gratification; rightly knowing form's danger, up through consciousness's danger; rightly knowing form's escape, up through consciousness's escape" — were it stated in this way, there would be solely seven stations of skill, not thirty-five, nor a measureless number. Further, if stated briefly, there are seven stations of skill; if stated at length, there are thirty-five, or a measureless number — the scripture, stating it briefly, thereby has solely seven, exactly as a brief or extended account, a general or particular account, an undistinguished or distinguished account, a sudden or gradual account, should be understood in the same way. Further, for those of sharp faculties, the seven stations of skill are spoken of; for those of dull faculties, the thirty-five, or measureless kinds, are spoken of — exactly as sharp and dull faculties, the force of cause and the force of condition, the force of an internal portion and the force of an external portion, the force of internal reflection and the force of hearing the dharma externally, opening up knowledge and expounding knowledge, should be understood in the same way. Further, relying upon near observation, the seven stations of skill are spoken of; relying upon distant observation, the thirty-five, or measureless kinds, are spoken of — exactly as near and distant, what presses close and what does not, what is present and what is not present, this same class of sentient being and another class of sentient being, should be understood in the same way. Further, relying upon undefiled observation, the seven stations of skill are spoken of; relying upon contaminated observation, the thirty-five, or measureless kinds, are spoken of — exactly as the contaminated and the undefiled, the worldly and the transcendent, bondage and liberation, being bound and being unbound, should be understood in the same way. Further, relying upon the time of direct realization, the seven stations of skill are spoken of; relying upon the time of observation, the thirty-five, or measureless kinds, are spoken of. Further, relying upon observation of the general characteristic, the seven stations of skill are spoken of; relying upon observation of the particular characteristic, the thirty-five, or measureless kinds, are spoken of — exactly as observation of the general and of the particular characteristic, awareness of the general and of the particular characteristic, attention to the general and of the particular characteristic, should be understood in the same way.

One asks: does this discussion speak of attention to the particular characteristic, or attention to the common characteristic? Suppose either — what fault would there be? If it speaks of attention to the particular characteristic, then how is what is stated here to be reconciled? As it is said: the seven stations of skill and the threefold contemplation are capable of, within this same dharma and vinaya,

swiftly exhausting every outflow — it is not attention to the particular characteristic that is capable of exhausting the outflows. If it speaks of attention to the common characteristic, then how is what is stated here to be reconciled? As it is said: rightly knowing form, up through rightly knowing consciousness. The answer: it ought to be said that this discussion genuinely speaks of attention to the particular characteristic. One asks: if this is so, then how is it capable of swiftly exhausting the outflows? The answer: this same attention to the particular characteristic is capable of drawing forth attention to the common characteristic; that same attention to the common characteristic is capable of swiftly exhausting the outflows — it is by reliance upon a chain of causes that it is so stated. There are, further, those who say: this discussion genuinely speaks of attention to the common characteristic.

One asks: if this is so, then how is what this same scripture states to be reconciled? As it is said: rightly knowing form, up through rightly knowing consciousness. The answer: this same scripture ought to state: rightly knowing the aggregates, the aggregates' arising, the aggregates' cessation, the path proceeding toward the aggregates' cessation, the aggregates' gratification, the aggregates' danger, and the aggregates' escape — and, though stated differently, it should be understood that the time of speaking and the time of direct realization differ. Exactly as the Buddha, for the Four Heavenly Kings, first spoke the four noble truths in the noble language, and two understood while two did not, and the like, as already stated before — it is thereby known that the time of speaking and the time of direct realization differ, that is, at the time of speaking, he speaks of each separately; at the time of direct realization, one directly realizes them all together. One asks: what distinction is there between the seven stations of skill and the threefold contemplation? The answer: the name itself is the distinction — that is, one is named the seven stations of skill, the other is named the threefold contemplation. There are those who say: the seven stations of skill are undefiled; the threefold contemplation is contaminated. One asks: if this is so, then how is what is stated here to be reconciled? As it is said: rightly knowing form is four kinds of knowledge — namely, dharma-cognition, subsequent cognition, worldly knowledge, and the knowledge of suffering, and the like. The answer: this same worldly knowledge, although it, too, may indeed be present, does not presently manifest. Further, these same seven stations of skill are the aspect belonging to the noble ones, and are spoken of as undefiled, but genuinely pervade the contaminated as well; as against the threefold contemplation, which is not the aspect belonging to the noble ones, being solely contaminated, it is thereby named undefiled by contrast. One asks: is one capable of entering the threefold contemplation by way of the seven stations of skill? The answer: one is not capable of this, since the seven stations of skill are an undefiled aspect, while the threefold contemplation is a contaminated aspect. There are, further, those who say: the seven stations of skill pervade both the contaminated and the undefiled; the threefold contemplation is solely contaminated. One asks: is one capable of entering the threefold contemplation by way of the seven stations of skill? The answer: one is capable of this,

though requiring much exertion of effort, much giving rise of attention, much undertaking of preparatory effort — that is, rightly knowing form, up through rightly knowing consciousness, and rightly knowing form's danger, up through consciousness's danger, one thereby enters the observation of the aggregates; rightly knowing form's arising, up through consciousness's arising, and rightly knowing form's gratification, up through consciousness's gratification, one thereby enters the observation of the sense-fields; rightly knowing form's cessation, up through consciousness's cessation, and rightly knowing form's escape, up through consciousness's escape, one thereby enters the observation of the elements.

Although one is, in this way, capable of entering the threefold contemplation by way of the seven stations of skill, this requires much exertion of effort, much giving rise of attention, much undertaking of preparatory effort.

One asks: the threefold contemplation comes first, the seven stations of skill come after — for what reason does the Bhagavān speak first of the seven stations of skill, and afterward of the threefold contemplation?

The answer: although the threefold contemplation comes first and the seven stations of skill come after, the reason he speaks first of the seven stations of skill and afterward of the threefold contemplation is that both the speaking and the text thereby accord with one another. Further, in this same sequence of speaking, both the one who speaks and the one who receives it thereby accord with one another. Further, were it stated in this way, both the text and the meaning would thereby be complete; were one, instead, to speak first of the threefold contemplation and afterward of the seven stations of skill, then, although the meaning would be complete, the text would not be complete. The Venerable Ghoṣa speaks as follows: whatever ought to be spoken of first is spoken of first; whatever ought to be spoken of afterward is spoken of afterward — in neither case is there any fault. This is because the threefold contemplation occupies two distinct positions: the first lies before the path of seeing; the second lies before the path of cultivation.

The one lying before the path of seeing is not spoken of here; the one lying before the path of cultivation is what is spoken of here — exactly as the path of seeing and the path of cultivation, the ground of seeing and the ground of cultivation, the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" and the faculty of "having already known," should be understood in the same way. The Venerable Pārśva says: this discussion speaks of four grounds — namely, the ground of practice, the ground of seeing, the ground of cultivation, and the ground of the non-learner. Speaking of the seven stations of skill and the threefold contemplation speaks of the ground of practice; rightly knowing form, form's arising, form's cessation, and the path proceeding toward form's cessation, and so on, up through consciousness likewise, speaks of the ground of seeing; rightly knowing form's gratification, form's danger, and form's escape, and so on, up through consciousness likewise, speaks of the ground of cultivation; swiftly exhausting every outflow speaks of the ground of the non-learner. One asks: for what reason does the path of seeing speak of four stations of skill, while the path of cultivation states solely three stations of skill? The answer: because the path of seeing's own domain is fixed, and what it counteracts is fixed, unlike the path of cultivation. Further, because the path of seeing's own object is fixed, and what it counteracts is fixed, unlike the path of cultivation. Further, because, within the path of seeing, one first attains the seeing of the truths, first attains direct realization, while, within the path of cultivation, one has already attained the seeing of the truths, has already attained direct realization. Further, because, within the path of seeing, one first attains the noble lineage, first attains the noble aspects, while, within the path of cultivation, one has already attained the noble lineage, has already attained the noble aspects. One asks: for what reason, among these seven stations of skill, are the first three truths each stated twice, while the truth of the path is stated only once? The answer: because the truth of the path is repeatedly distinguished elsewhere — that is, rightly knowing form, up through consciousness: this same rightly-knowing is, in every case, the truth of the path; rightly knowing form's arising, up through consciousness's arising, form's cessation up through consciousness's cessation, and the path proceeding toward form's cessation up through the path proceeding toward consciousness's cessation, form's gratification up through consciousness's gratification, form's danger up through consciousness's danger, form's escape up through consciousness's escape — this same rightly-knowing, too, is, in every case, the truth of the path; since it is already repeatedly distinguished with respect to the truth of the path, it is not stated a second time. Further, there is already-arisen suffering and not-yet-arisen suffering; already-arisen suffering's own cause and not-yet-arisen suffering's own cause; already-arisen suffering's own cessation and not-yet-arisen suffering's own cessation — such dharmas as these are, solely by the truth of the path, capable of being known, cut off, and witnessed, and it is thereby that, in stating the three truths, the path has already, thereby, been stated. Further, there is proximate suffering and distant suffering; proximate suffering's own cause and distant suffering's own cause; proximate suffering's own cessation and distant suffering's own cessation — such dharmas as these are, solely by the truth of the path, capable of being known, cut off, and witnessed, and it is thereby that, in stating the three truths, the path has already, thereby, been stated. Further, the three truths possess a boundary, and it is for this reason that they are stated twice; the truth of the path is without boundary, and it is for this reason that it is stated only once. One asks: since this discussion has arisen, a further discussion arises — for what reason are the three truths said to possess a boundary, while the truth of the path is said to be without boundary? The answer: suffering can be exhaustively known; accumulation can be exhaustively cut off; cessation can be exhaustively witnessed; the path cannot be exhaustively cultivated, and it is thereby that they differ. The remaining meaning is stated at length, exactly as within the section on the worldly knowledge belonging to the very border of direct realization. Further, the preceding four stations of skill speak of the position belonging to the path of seeing, since the path of seeing necessarily observes all four truths in full, and it is thereby that all four are fully stated; the latter three stations of skill speak of the position belonging to the path of cultivation,

since the noble path cultivated within the position belonging to the path of cultivation is itself precisely the truth of the path, which need not necessarily observe the four noble truths in full, and it is thereby that solely three kinds are stated. Further, every worthy and noble one alike grows weary of suffering and accumulation, delighting in nirvāṇa; the noble path is not thus, and it is for this reason that the Bhagavān states the three truths twice, and the truth of the path only once. One asks: for what reason, within the path of seeing, is the truth of suffering spoken of first, and the truth of accumulation spoken of afterward, while, within the path of cultivation, the truth of accumulation is spoken of first, and the truth of suffering spoken of afterward? The answer: within the path of seeing, it is stated in reliance upon the sequence of direct realization; within the path of cultivation, it is stated in reliance upon the sequence of cause and effect, and it is thereby stated in this way. Further, within the path of seeing, it is stated in reliance upon the sequence of seeing; within the path of cultivation, it is stated in reliance upon the sequence of speaking, and it is thereby stated in this way, since the sequence of seeing proceeds from effect first to cause afterward, while the sequence of speaking proceeds from cause first to effect afterward. Further, the Buddha, relying upon the path of cultivation, for the sake of those whose conduct is craving, speaks the dharma of cutting off craving, saying in this way: you ought first to observe the various aggregates' own gratification; having observed this same gratification, you then see this same gratification's own danger; having seen this same danger, you are then capable of swiftly escaping from it. Further, within the position belonging to the path of cultivation, one has already, with respect to birth-and-death, reached a certain measure and limit, and does not, therefore, grow weary of suffering to any great extent, but, because affliction disturbs and muddies the mind, grows weary of affliction to a great extent —

and, among the various afflictions, since craving operates repeatedly, one grows weary of craving for the greater part; it is for this reason that, within the path of cultivation, one first observes craving's own gratification, next observes craving's own danger, and afterward observes craving's own escape. Further, craving, in the present, is most capable of drawing the mind to race after its various objects; craving, with respect to the future, is most capable of moistening existence, causing it never to be cut off — it is for this reason that the various noble ones, whose weariness toward craving is intensified, within the position belonging to the path of cultivation, first observe craving's own gratification, next observe craving's own danger, and afterward observe craving's own escape. One asks: for what reason does the Bhagavān cause those whom he converts to repeatedly observe the object of what is to be known? The answer: from beginningless time, they have been confused with respect to the object of what is to be known, losing the correct path, sinking and drowning within birth-and-death, undergoing every manner of suffering; the Bhagavān, wishing to cause them to awaken to the object of what is to be known and proceed toward the correct path, transcend and emerge from birth-and-death, and be freed of every manner of suffering, therefore causes them to repeatedly observe the object of what is to be known. What is essential here refers to the seven stations of skill and the threefold contemplation. One asks: what distinction is there between speaking first of arising and then of gratification? The answer: the name itself is the distinction — that is, one is named the arising of form, and the like; the other is named the gratification of form, and the like. Further, arising pervades the six consciousnesses; gratification belongs solely to the mental ground. Further, arising pervades both the defiled and the undefiled; gratification is solely defiled. Further, arising pervades the three realms; gratification belongs solely to the desire realm. Further, arising pervades karma and affliction; gratification belongs solely to affliction. Further, arising pervades every affliction; gratification is solely craving — this, then, is the distinction. One asks: is the arising of the aggregates one, or is there a difference? Suppose either — what fault would there be? If it is one, then how is what the scripture states to be reconciled? As it is said: because of delight-arising, there is form's own arising; because of contact-arising, there is the three aggregates' own arising; because of name-and-form-arising, there is consciousness's own arising. If there is a difference, then how is what the *Prajñaptiśāstra* states to be reconciled? As it is said: this same craving, whether past, future, or present, is, in every case, the cause of suffering, the root of suffering, the path of suffering, the very origin of suffering, the maker of suffering, the birth of suffering, the condition of suffering, the possession of suffering — suffering's own arising, and suffering's own coming-to-be. The answer: it ought to be said that there is a separate condition by which the aggregates' own arising is one, and a separate condition by which the aggregates' own arising is different — that is, in reliance upon the distant cause, the aggregates' own arising is one; in reliance upon the proximate cause, the aggregates' own arising is different — exactly as, in reliance upon what is distant and what is near, what is there and what is here, what does not presently press and what does presently press, this same body's own class and another body's own class, should be understood in the same way. Further, the scripture speaks of three kinds of arising as being different — first, the arising of affliction; second, the arising of suffering; third, the arising of karma. As for "because of delight-arising, there is form's own arising": this speaks of the arising of affliction. As for "because of contact-arising, there is the three aggregates' own arising": this speaks of the arising of suffering. As for "because of name-and-form-arising, there is consciousness's own arising": this speaks of the arising of karma, since this same scripture speaks of karma as "name-and-form." Exactly as it is said: affliction, suffering, and karma; the arising of affliction; suffering has affliction;

suffering gives rise to affliction; the path of suffering and karma should be understood in the same way. Further, the scripture speaks of three kinds of time as being different — first, the time of accumulation; second, the time of enjoyment; third, the time of guarding. As for "because of delight-arising, there is form's own arising": this speaks of the time of accumulation. As for "because of contact-arising, there is the three aggregates' own arising": this speaks of the time of enjoyment. As for "because of name-and-form-arising, there is consciousness's own arising": this speaks of the time of guarding. Further, this discussion here speaks separately of three kinds of time as being different — first, the time of approaching union; second, the time of actual union; third, the time of non-separation. As for "because of delight-arising, there is form's own arising": this speaks of the time of approaching union. As for "because of contact-arising, there is the three aggregates' own arising": this speaks of the time of actual union. As for "because of name-and-form-arising, there is consciousness's own arising": this speaks of the time of non-separation. Further, this same scripture speaks of three kinds of existence as being different — first, intermediate existence; second, basic existence; third, rebirth existence.

As for "because of delight-arising, there is form's own arising": this speaks of intermediate existence. As for "because of contact-arising, there is the three aggregates' own arising": this speaks of basic existence. As for "because of name-and-form-arising, there is consciousness's own arising": this speaks of rebirth existence. Further, as for "because of delight-arising, there is form's own arising": this speaks of a name that takes form as its condition. As for "because of contact-arising, there is the three aggregates' own arising": this speaks of a name that takes name as its condition. As for "because of name-and-form-arising, there is consciousness's own arising": this speaks of a name-and-form that takes name as its condition. Further, it is because craving seeks after every future existence's own bodily portion and own self that the Bhagavān speaks of delight-arising giving rise to form's own arising; contact is capable of nourishing and augmenting mind and mental concomitants, sustaining and drawing them forward so as to cause them to presently manifest, and it is thereby that the Bhagavān speaks of contact-arising giving rise to the three aggregates' own arising; consciousness, relying upon name-and-form, grows and expands broadly, and it is thereby that the Bhagavān speaks of name-and-form-arising giving rise to consciousness's own arising. One asks: what distinction is there between speaking first of suffering, and then of danger? The answer: the name itself is the distinction — that is, one is named the suffering of form, and the like; the other is named the danger of form, and the like. Further, suffering pervades the three sensations; danger belongs solely to painful sensation. Further, suffering pervades both the defiled and the undefiled; danger is solely defiled. Further, suffering pervades the three realms; danger belongs solely to the desire realm. Further, suffering pervades karma, affliction, and suffering; danger belongs solely to affliction.

Further, suffering pervades every affliction; danger belongs solely to craving — this, then, is the distinction. As for form, up through consciousness's own cessation, and form, up through consciousness's own escape — what distinction is there between these? The answer: if it is by virtue of this same craving that the various forms are given rise to and arise, its cutting-off is named form's own cessation; if it is by virtue of some further craving that takes form as its object and broadens and expands, its cutting-off is named form's own escape, and so on, stated at length. One asks: for what reason does this discussion ask about the cessation of form, and the rest, yet answer with the cessation of craving, and the rest?

The answer: because the cause is cut off, the fruit follows in being cut off; because the cause ceases, the fruit follows in ceasing; because the cause is brought to rest, the fruit follows in being brought to rest; relinquishing the cause, one thereby also relinquishes the fruit;

spitting out the cause, the fruit, too, is spat out. If the path is cut off, then the various states of existence do not continue; form, and the rest, having eternally ceased, one then reaches the very limit of suffering — it is for this reason that, though the question asks about the cessation of form, and the rest, the answer speaks of the cessation of craving, and the rest. One asks: for what reason, here, does the already-arisen craving's own cutting-off get named cessation, while the not-yet-arisen craving's own cutting-off gets named escape?

The answer: already-arisen affliction and karma have already accomplished their own matter, have already obstructed the noble path, have already seized their own fruit, have already yielded their own fruit, have already served as a cause of the same kind and a universally operative and ripening cause, have already seized their own naturally-flowing and ripened fruit, have already, with respect to their own continuum, produced defilement, produced bondage, produced the matter of suffering — such affliction and karma can solely be cut off and brought to cessation, but cannot be escaped from, and it is thereby named cessation. Not-yet-arisen affliction and karma are the reverse of the above, and, being capable of being escaped from, are thereby named escape — exactly as the three matters of suffering: first, already experienced; second, presently being experienced; third, to be experienced in the future. What has already been experienced, and what is presently being experienced, cannot be escaped from; what is yet to be experienced may, by one's own strength, or by another's strength, or by the strength of wealth and material goods, be escaped from. One asks: for what reason, here, is craving spoken of three times, while the remaining afflictions and karma are spoken of only twice? The answer: because craving is difficult to cut off, difficult to break, difficult to transcend, possessing many faults, and is greatly to be censured, it is thereby spoken of three times — exactly as thieves, women, and other evil dharmas, having been generally censured and abhorred, are afterward separately censured and abhorred once more. Further, it is by virtue of the force of craving that realms differ, grounds differ, and categories differ — every affliction whatsoever arises because of craving, and grows because of craving, and it is thereby spoken of three times. One asks: for what reason, in these various places, through various kinds of questioning, is the truth of cessation repeatedly distinguished, and not the others? The answer: because this same truth of cessation, among every dharma, is the most supreme and most wondrous, and, among the four noble truths, is likewise the most supreme and wondrous, it is thereby distinguished the more. One asks: for what reason, here, is only the distinction between cessation and escape asked about and distinguished in question and answer, and not the distinction between arising and gratification, or suffering and danger? The answer: those two distinctions, too, ought to be stated — that they are not stated here should be understood to be a case whose meaning has been left over for elsewhere. Further, this discussion here displays what follows by way of what precedes — that is, having asked and answered, distinguishing the distinction between cessation and escape, it should be understood that the preceding two distinctions, too, ought to be stated in the same way. Further, because the truth of cessation is most supreme, it alone is singled out and distinguished; suffering and accumulation, not being supreme, are not so distinguished.