The Seven Noble Persons

Of the follower through faith, up through the both-liberated, how many of the eight kinds of knowledge does each attain, and how many does he not attain? 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 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 exists, in genuine truth, no nature of attainment or of non-attainment; in order to put a stop to this same holding, and to display that the nature of attainment, and of non-attainment, is decisively and genuinely real, this treatise is composed. One asks: for what reason does this discussion here, and the Concentration Aggregate afterward, both compose their treatise in reliance upon seven kinds of persons, while the preceding Fetters Aggregate's own Unwholesome Nyāsa composed its treatise in reliance upon solely five kinds of persons? The answer: it is because the treatise's own compiler wished it to be so —

and so on, stated at length. Further, the preceding Fetters Aggregate composed its treatise in reliance upon whoever possesses fetters, and it is thereby that it did not speak of the latter two kinds of persons.

This discussion, and the Concentration Aggregate, compose their treatise in reliance upon whoever possesses knowledge and concentration, and it is thereby that they, too, speak of the latter two kinds. Further, the preceding Fetters Aggregate takes "person" as its chapter-heading, and "affliction" as its gateway, and it is thereby that it did not speak of the latter two kinds; this discussion, and the Concentration Aggregate, take "person" as their chapter-heading, and "knowledge and concentration" as their gateway, and it is thereby that they, too, speak of the latter two kinds — that is, although the wisdom-liberated and the both-liberated are without affliction, they nonetheless possess knowledge and concentration, and it is thereby that all seven kinds of persons are fully stated. The seven kinds of persons are broadly distinguished exactly as within the preceding Fetters Aggregate's own Unwholesome Nyāsa. The answer: as for the follower through faith, with respect to the eight kinds of knowledge, he may attain one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, or eight, since the meaning is not fixed — that is, at the time of the forbearance regarding the dharma-cognition of suffering, whoever is without the knowledge of others' minds attains one; whoever possesses the knowledge of others' minds attains two — if he has not yet become free of the desire realm's own defilement and enters right determinacy, he does not attain the knowledge of others' minds, and is thereby named "without the knowledge of others' minds" — he attains solely a single kind, worldly knowledge; if he has already become free of the desire realm's own defilement and enters right determinacy, he attains the knowledge of others' minds, and is thereby named "possessing the knowledge of others' minds" — he attains the two kinds of knowledge, worldly knowledge and the knowledge of others' minds. At the time of the forbearance of the dharma-cognition of suffering and the forbearance of the subsequent cognition of suffering, whoever is without the knowledge of others' minds attains three; whoever possesses the knowledge of others' minds attains four — within these two mind-moments, if he does not attain the knowledge of others' minds, he attains solely three, namely, dharma-cognition, the knowledge of suffering, and worldly knowledge; if he attains the knowledge of others' minds, he then attains four, namely, the preceding three together with the knowledge of others' minds. What is stated hereafter, regarding the further increase of knowledge, should be understood in accordance with what precedes. As for the follower through the dharma, too, being just the same — exactly as the follower through faith may attain one, up through eight — this is because these two noble ones share the same ground, the same path, the same support, and the same freedom from defilement, differing solely in faculty: the follower through faith is gathered within the dull faculties; the follower through the dharma is gathered within the sharp faculties. As for the one resolved through faith, with respect to the eight kinds of knowledge, he may attain seven or eight — namely, without the knowledge of others' minds, seven; with the knowledge of others' minds, eight — that is, if he has not yet become free of the desire realm's own defilement, he does not attain the knowledge of others' minds, and thereby attains solely seven; if he has already become free of the desire realm's own defilement, he, too, attains the knowledge of others' minds, and thereby attains all eight in full. As for one who has arrived at insight, too, being just the same as the one resolved through faith — he may attain seven, or attain all eight in full.

These two noble ones, too, share the same ground, the same path, the same support, and the same freedom from defilement, differing solely in faculty, exactly as should be understood in accordance with what precedes. As for the bodily witness, the wisdom-liberated, and the both-liberated, all attaining these eight kinds of knowledge in full: this is because these three noble ones have all already become free of the desire realm's own defilement, and thereby attain all eight kinds of knowledge in full.

Of the follower through faith, up through the both-liberated, of the eight kinds of knowledge, how many does each attain belonging to the past, how many belonging to the future, and how many belonging to the present? One asks: for what reason is this treatise composed? The answer: it is in order to put a stop to what other schools maintain, and to display the correct principle — that is, there are those who hold that the past and the future are both without any genuine substance whatsoever; in order to put a stop to this same holding, and to display that they genuinely possess substance. Further, although it was already stated above, in general, that eight kinds of knowledge are attained, it had not yet been distinguished, by way of the three times, how many or how few — it is now wished to state this, and it is thereby that this treatise is composed. The answer: as for the follower through faith, with respect to the eight kinds of knowledge: at the time of the forbearance of the dharma-cognition of suffering, whoever is without the knowledge of others' minds attains, belonging to the past and the future, one; belonging to the present, none. Whoever possesses the knowledge of others' minds attains, belonging to the past and the future, two; belonging to the present, none. The meaning of "belonging to the present, none," whether without or possessing the knowledge of others' minds, is exactly as stated before —

one refers to worldly knowledge; two refers to worldly knowledge and the knowledge of others' minds. Since forbearance is not itself knowledge, there is, in every case, none belonging to the present. At the time of the dharma-cognition of suffering: whoever is without the knowledge of others' minds attains, belonging to the past, one — namely, worldly knowledge; belonging to the future, three — namely, dharma-cognition, the knowledge of suffering, and worldly knowledge; belonging to the present, two — namely, dharma-cognition and the knowledge of suffering. Whoever possesses the knowledge of others' minds attains, belonging to the past, two; belonging to the future, four; belonging to the present, two — belonging to the past and the future, the knowledge of others' minds is added; belonging to the present, it is not added, since, within the path of seeing, the knowledge of others' minds is decisively incapable of manifesting in the present, and is likewise not cultivated. What is stated hereafter, regarding the further increase of knowledge, should be understood in accordance with what precedes. As for the follower through the dharma, too, being just the same — these two noble ones' own ground, and the rest, are set forth at length exactly as before. As for the one resolved through faith, with respect to the eight kinds of knowledge: without the knowledge of others' minds, belonging to the future, seven; with the knowledge of others' minds, belonging to the future, eight; belonging to the past, if already ceased and not lost; belonging to the present, if presently manifest —

belonging to the past, if already ceased, and not lost through attaining a fruit, sharpening the faculties, or retrogression, it is then still attained; if not yet ceased, or if already ceased by virtue of these same three conditions,

it is then no longer attained — this speaks of undefiled knowledge, or of the knowledge of others' minds, not of worldly knowledge, since worldly knowledge is decisively attained belonging to both the past and the future. Belonging to the present, either one, or two, or three — if within a mindless state, none whatsoever is attained. As for one who has arrived at insight, too, being just the same as should be understood in accordance with what precedes. As for the bodily witness, and the other two, exactly as the text fully states. "Already ceased, and not lost" refers to the fact that, if already ceased, and not lost by virtue of sharpening the faculties, and the rest, or through retrogression, it is then still attained.

Of the follower through faith, up through the both-liberated, when dharma-cognition, up through the knowledge of the path, manifests in the present, how many kinds of knowledge manifest in the present? One asks: for what reason is this treatise composed? The answer: it is in order to put a stop to what other schools maintain, and to display the correct principle — that is, there are those who hold that the various kinds of knowledge, though each individually capable of manifesting in the present, are incapable of manifesting as two at once; in order to put a stop to this same holding, and to display that a kind of knowledge's manifestation in the present may be one, or two, or even three kinds. There are, further, those who hold that, at the time of entering direct realization, all four truths are observed at once, and all four kinds of knowledge arise all at once; in order to put a stop to this same holding, and to display that, at the time of direct realization, each truth is observed separately, there being no sense in which two truth-specific kinds of knowledge arise together at once, how much less several. There are, further, those who hold that many consciousnesses co-arise, and many kinds of knowledge arise side by side; in order to put a stop to this same holding, and to display that a single sentient being, within a single moment, gives rise to solely a single consciousness, and that the very substance of knowledge is likewise so, it is by virtue of this same cause and condition that this treatise is composed. The answer: as for the follower through faith, at the time dharma-cognition manifests in the present,

two kinds of knowledge manifest in the present — namely, dharma-cognition and the knowledge of suffering — and so on, stated at length, up through, at the time the knowledge of the path manifests in the present, two kinds of knowledge manifest in the present — namely, the knowledge of the path and dharma-cognition. "Two" here refers to the fact that, within the position of the path of seeing, at the time the seven kinds of knowledge manifest in the present, within each single moment, though the very substance of knowledge is one, it is spoken of, in meaning, as two — that is, by virtue of what it counteracts, it is named either dharma-cognition or subsequent cognition; by virtue of its aspect, it is named either the knowledge of suffering, up through the knowledge of the path.

As for the follower through the dharma, too, being just the same — these two noble ones' own ground, and the rest, are set forth at length exactly as before. As for the one resolved through faith, at the time dharma-cognition manifests in the present, either two or three kinds of knowledge manifest in the present — namely, dharma-cognition and the knowledge of suffering, two — and so on, stated at length, up through, at the time the knowledge of the path manifests in the present, either two or three kinds of knowledge manifest in the present.

As for "the knowledge of the path, not the knowledge of others' minds, two; the knowledge of others' minds, three": as for "the knowledge of the path, not the knowledge of others' minds, two; the knowledge of others' minds, three" — this refers to the fact that, within the position of the path of cultivation, at the time the various kinds of knowledge manifest in the present, within each single moment, though the very substance of knowledge is one, it is spoken of, in meaning, as two, or spoken of as three — that is, at the time undefiled knowledge manifests in the present: if it is the knowledge of suffering, of accumulation, or of cessation, or the knowledge of the path not gathered within the knowledge of others' minds, it is spoken of, in meaning, solely as two — namely, by virtue of what it counteracts, it is named either dharma-cognition or subsequent cognition; by virtue of its aspect, it is named either the knowledge of suffering, up through the knowledge of the path. If it is the knowledge of the path gathered within the knowledge of others' minds, it is then spoken of, in meaning, as three — namely, by virtue of what it counteracts, it is named either dharma-cognition or subsequent cognition; by virtue of its aspect, it is named the knowledge of the path; by virtue of preparatory effort, it is named the knowledge of others' minds. At the time contaminated knowledge manifests in the present: if it is not the knowledge of others' minds, it is then solely a single kind of knowledge — namely, worldly knowledge; if it is the knowledge of others' minds, it is then spoken of, in meaning, as two — namely, by virtue of its own inherent nature, it is named worldly knowledge; by virtue of preparatory effort, it is named the knowledge of others' minds. As for one who has arrived at insight, and the bodily witness, too, being just the same, this is because their stages are equal, and the various kinds of knowledge manifesting in the present are, in meaning, thereby alike. As for the wisdom-liberated, at the time dharma-cognition manifests in the present, either two or three kinds of knowledge manifest in the present — namely, dharma-cognition and the knowledge of suffering — not the knowledge of exhaustion or of non-arising, two; the knowledge of exhaustion, or the knowledge of non-arising, three — and so on, stated at length, up through, at the time the knowledge of the path manifests in the present, either two or three kinds of knowledge manifest in the present — namely, the knowledge of the path and dharma-cognition — not the knowledge of exhaustion, of non-arising, or of others' minds, two; the knowledge of exhaustion, or of non-arising, or of others' minds, three. "The knowledge of the path and the knowledge of dharma-cognition — not the knowledge of exhaustion, of non-arising, or of others' minds, two; the knowledge of exhaustion, or of non-arising, or of others' minds, three" refers to the fact that, within the position of the non-learner, at the time the various kinds of knowledge manifest in the present, within each single moment, though the very substance of knowledge is one, it is spoken of, in meaning, as two, or spoken of as three — that is, at the time undefiled knowledge manifests in the present: if it is the knowledge of suffering, of accumulation, or of cessation, not gathered within the knowledge of exhaustion or of non-arising, and the knowledge of the path not gathered within the knowledge of exhaustion, of non-arising, or of others' minds, it is spoken of, in meaning, solely as two — namely, by virtue of what it counteracts, it is named either dharma-cognition or subsequent cognition; by virtue of its aspect, it is named either the knowledge of suffering, up through the knowledge of the path. If it is the knowledge of suffering, of accumulation, or of cessation, gathered within the knowledge of exhaustion or of non-arising, and the knowledge of the path gathered within the knowledge of exhaustion, of non-arising, or of others' minds, it is then spoken of, in meaning, as three —

namely, by virtue of what it counteracts, it is named either dharma-cognition or subsequent cognition; by virtue of its aspect, it is named either the knowledge of suffering, up through the knowledge of the path;

by virtue of the matter being accomplished, it is named the knowledge of exhaustion; by virtue of the cause being fully complete, it is named the knowledge of non-arising; by virtue of preparatory effort, it is named the knowledge of others' minds. At the time contaminated knowledge manifests in the present: if it is not the knowledge of others' minds, it is then solely a single kind of knowledge — namely, worldly knowledge; if it is the knowledge of others' minds, it is then spoken of, in meaning, as two —

namely, by virtue of its own inherent nature, it is named worldly knowledge; by virtue of preparatory effort, it is named the knowledge of others' minds. One asks: for what reason do the very substances of the knowledge of exhaustion, of non-arising, and of the knowledge of others' minds not intermingle with one another? The answer: the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising are not of the very nature of vision, while the knowledge of others' minds is of the very nature of vision, and it is thereby that they do not intermingle. The very aspects given rise to by the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising, moreover, differ from one another — that is, "suffering, this I have already known," and the like, are the aspects given rise to by the knowledge of exhaustion; "it is not to be known again," and the like, are the aspects given rise to by the knowledge of non-arising — and it is thereby, too, that they do not intermingle. As for the both-liberated, too, being just the same, this is because their stages are equal. Of the follower through faith, up through the both-liberated, of the three concentrations, how many does each attain, and how many does he not attain? 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 very substance of the three concentrations is solely one, though spoken of, in meaning, as three; in order to put a stop to this same holding, and to display that these three each possess their own distinct inherent nature, this treatise is composed. The answer: as for the follower through faith, with respect to the three concentrations: at the time the forbearance of the dharma-cognition of cessation has not yet arisen, he attains two; once it has arisen, he attains three — that is, before the forbearance of the dharma-cognition of cessation presently manifests, he attains solely the two, emptiness and wishlessness;

at the time of the forbearance of the dharma-cognition of suffering, both are cultivated at once. Once the forbearance of the dharma-cognition of cessation has arisen, and so on, up through the forbearance of the subsequent cognition of the path presently manifesting, he attains all three in every case, further attaining signlessness as well. As for the follower through the dharma, too, being just the same — these two noble ones' own ground, and the rest, are set forth at length exactly as before. As for the one resolved through faith, up through the both-liberated, attaining all three of these concentrations, since they have already, in every case, attained them in full.

Of the follower through faith, up through the both-liberated, of the three concentrations, how many does each attain belonging to the past, how many belonging to the future, and how many belonging to the present? The answer: as for the follower through faith, with respect to the three concentrations: if entering right determinacy by way of emptiness, at the time of the forbearance of the dharma-cognition of suffering, belonging to the past, none; belonging to the future, two; belonging to the present, one — and so on, stated at length, up through, at the time of the forbearance of the subsequent cognition of the path, belonging to the past, two; belonging to the future, three; belonging to the present, one — that is, if entering right determinacy by way of emptiness: throughout the very first mind-moment of seeing suffering, belonging to the past, none; throughout the four mind-moments of seeing suffering, belonging to the present, one — namely, emptiness, throughout the latter three of these same mind-moments — and throughout the very first mind-moment of seeing accumulation, belonging to the past, one — namely, emptiness, throughout the latter three mind-moments of seeing accumulation; throughout the very first mind-moment of seeing cessation, belonging to the past, two — namely, emptiness and wishlessness, throughout each of the four mind-moments of seeing suffering and of seeing accumulation; belonging to the future, two — namely, emptiness and wishlessness, throughout the four mind-moments of seeing cessation; belonging to the present, one — namely, signlessness, throughout the four mind-moments of seeing accumulation; throughout the three mind-moments of seeing the path, belonging to the present, one — namely, wishlessness, throughout the latter three mind-moments of seeing cessation. Throughout the three mind-moments of seeing the path, belonging to the past, all three are, in every case, possessed in full; throughout the four mind-moments of seeing cessation and the three mind-moments of seeing the path, belonging to the future, all three, too, are, in every case, possessed in full. If entering right determinacy by way of wishlessness, this, too, should be understood in the same way, with this distinction: belonging to the past, decisively none; emptiness alone possesses solely one, or two; throughout each of the four mind-moments of seeing suffering and of seeing accumulation, and the three mind-moments of seeing the path, belonging to the present, all are, in every case, one — namely, wishlessness. One asks: what kind of person enters right determinacy by way of emptiness, and what kind of person enters right determinacy by way of wishlessness? The answer: if he is the view-conduct type, he enters right determinacy by way of emptiness; if he is the craving-conduct type, he enters right determinacy by way of wishlessness — excepting solely the bodhisattva, who, although he is of the craving-conduct type, nonetheless enters right determinacy by way of emptiness. Further, the view-conduct type is, moreover, of two kinds —

whoever clings to the view of self enters right determinacy by way of the non-self aspect; whoever clings to the view of what belongs to self enters right determinacy by way of the emptiness aspect. Every craving-conduct type, too, is of two kinds — whoever has an increase of the pride of self enters right determinacy by way of the impermanence aspect; whoever has an increase of sloth enters right determinacy by way of the suffering aspect. Further, whoever is of sharp faculties, for the greater part, enters right determinacy by way of emptiness; whoever is of dull faculties, for the greater part, enters right determinacy by way of wishlessness — this, exactly as sharp and dull faculties, up through opening up knowledge and expounding knowledge, should be understood in the same way. As for whoever enters right determinacy by way of wishlessness: he either relies upon wishlessness or signlessness in becoming free of the three realms' own defilement — his entire aggregate's own continuum being exhausted, emptiness never presently manifesting.

As for the follower through the dharma, too, being just the same — these two noble ones' own ground, and the rest, are set forth at length exactly as before. As for the one resolved through faith, up through the both-liberated, with respect to the three concentrations, all belonging to the future, three; belonging to the past, if already ceased, and not lost; belonging to the present, if presently manifest — all this should be understood in accordance with what precedes. Of the follower through faith, up through the both-liberated, at the time the emptiness, wishlessness, or signless concentration manifests in the present, how many kinds of knowledge manifest in the present? The answer: as for the follower through faith, at the time the emptiness concentration manifests in the present, either two, or none — and so on, stated at length, up through, the both-liberated, too, being just the same, this refers to the fact that, within the path of seeing, at the time of forbearance, there is no knowledge; at the time of knowledge, there are two kinds of knowledge; within the path of cultivation, at the time of the knowledge of suffering, of accumulation, or of cessation, there are two kinds of knowledge;

at the time of the knowledge of the path, either two or three kinds of knowledge. Within the non-learner's path, at the time of the knowledge of suffering, of accumulation, or of cessation: if gathered within the non-learner's own right view, each single one possesses two kinds of knowledge; if not gathered within the non-learner's own right view, each single one possesses three kinds of knowledge. As for the knowledge of the path: if not gathered within the non-learner's own right view, it possesses three kinds of knowledge; if it is the knowledge of others' minds gathered within the non-learner's own right view, it, too, possesses three kinds of knowledge; if it is not the knowledge of others' minds, it possesses solely two kinds of knowledge. One asks: for what reason are the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising not associated with the emptiness concentration? The answer: because their aspects differ — that is, the emptiness aspect is not the aspect of the knowledge of exhaustion or of non-arising; if it is the aspect of the knowledge of exhaustion or of non-arising, it is not the emptiness aspect. Further, the emptiness concentration is associated with vision; the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising are not of the very nature of vision. Further, the emptiness concentration's own inherent nature is supreme meaning, and the aspect it gives rise to, too, is supreme meaning; the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising, although their own inherent nature, too, is supreme meaning, the aspect they give rise to is not supreme meaning — that is, this same knowledge, afterward, gives rise to the reflection: "my own birth is already exhausted," and the like — this is an aspect possessing a self, being gathered within worldly convention, not supreme meaning.

Of the follower through faith, up through the both-liberated, at the time the three undefiled faculties, the seven limbs of enlightenment, or the eight limbs of the path, whichever is fitting, manifests in the present, how many kinds of knowledge manifest in the present? The answer: as for the follower through faith, at the time the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" manifests in the present, either two, or none — and so on, stated at length, up through, the both-liberated, too, being just the same, this refers to the fact that, within the path of seeing, at the time of the eight forbearances, there is, in every case, no knowledge; at the time of the seven kinds of knowledge, each possesses two kinds of knowledge; within the path of cultivation, at the time of the knowledge of suffering, of accumulation, or of cessation, each possesses two kinds of knowledge; at the time of the knowledge of the path, either two or three kinds of knowledge. Within the non-learner's path, the knowledge of suffering, of accumulation, of cessation, and of the path, all either possess two or three kinds of knowledge, understood exactly as before. One asks: this discussion, when it repeatedly speaks of the wisdom-liberated, states that he gives rise to the knowledge of others' minds — yet this same arising decisively relies upon the fundamental dhyānas; if the wisdom-liberated, too, is capable of presently manifesting a fundamental dhyāna, would this not then contradict the Susīma Sūtra? That same sūtra states that the wisdom-liberated is incapable of presently manifesting a fundamental dhyāna. The answer: the wisdom-liberated is of two kinds — the first is partial; the second is total. The partially wisdom-liberated, with respect to the four dhyānas, is capable of giving rise to one, two, or three; the totally wisdom-liberated, with respect to the four dhyānas, is, in every case, incapable of giving rise to any of them. This treatise here speaks of the partially wisdom-liberated, and it is thereby that he is capable of giving rise to the knowledge of others' minds.

The Susīma Sūtra speaks of the totally wisdom-liberated, who, with respect to the four dhyānas, is, in every case, incapable of giving rise to any of them — these two statements are, in this way, both well reconciled. It is on account of this that the partially wisdom-liberated is capable of even giving rise to the equipoise of the peak of existence, and the like, but is incapable of attaining the attainment of cessation; were he to attain the attainment of cessation, he would then be named the both-liberated. Are the dharmas associated with dharma-cognition associated with subsequent cognition? 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 mind and mental concomitants each arise on their own, one by one, there being no meaning of mutual association; in order to put a stop to this same holding, and to display that mind and its mental concomitants necessarily co-arise at once, there being a meaning of mutual association. There are, further, those who hold that mind and its mental concomitants are associated in succession, one before, one after; there are, further, those who hold that a dharma's own inherent nature is associated with its own inherent nature; in order to put a stop to this same holding, and to display that what is mutually associated necessarily co-arises at once, each possessing a distinct own-substance, this treatise is composed. Here, the various dharmas, by virtue of three conditions, mutually intersect and display association with one another —

that is, there are dharmas that, by virtue of mutual gathering, mutually intersect, exactly as knowledge with knowledge; there are, further, dharmas that, by virtue of mutual association, mutually intersect, exactly as knowledge with concentration; there are, further, dharmas that, by virtue of both mutual gathering and mutual association, mutually intersect, exactly as knowledge with a faculty or a limb of enlightenment or of the path. This, then, is what is termed, in this place, the brief Vibhāṣā. Are the dharmas associated with dharma-cognition associated with subsequent cognition? The answer: this is not so. Suppose the dharmas associated with subsequent cognition — are these associated with dharma-cognition? The answer: this, too, is not so. For what reason is this so? Because they do not belong to the same mind-moment, and their own object differs. The same holds with respect to worldly knowledge as well — for what reason is this so? Because they do not belong to the same mind-moment, and the contaminated and the undefiled aggregations each differ. Are the dharmas associated with dharma-cognition associated with the knowledge of others' minds? The answer: a tetralemma ought to be cast, since the meaning is not fixed. There is a dharma associated with dharma-cognition, not with the knowledge of others' minds — this referring to what is associated with dharma-cognition, not gathered within the knowledge of others' minds. What dharma is this? It refers to what is associated with the dharma-cognition of suffering, of accumulation, and of cessation, and what is associated with the dharma-cognition of the path not gathered within the knowledge of others' minds. There is a dharma associated with the knowledge of others' minds, not with dharma-cognition — this referring to what is associated with the knowledge of others' minds, not gathered within dharma-cognition. What dharma is this? It refers to what is associated with the knowledge of others' minds gathered within subsequent cognition or worldly knowledge. There is a dharma associated with both dharma-cognition and the knowledge of others' minds — this referring to what is associated with the knowledge of others' minds gathered within dharma-cognition. What dharma is this? It refers to the nine great-ground dharmas, the ten great wholesome-ground dharmas, initial and sustained inquiry, and mind, associated with this same dharma. There is a dharma associated with neither dharma-cognition nor the knowledge of others' minds — this referring to dharma-cognition and the knowledge of others' minds themselves, and every other mind and mental concomitant not gathered within, and not associated with, dharma-cognition or the knowledge of others' minds, and form, the unconditioned, and dharmas dissociated from mind. Here, dharma-cognition and the knowledge of others' minds themselves are excluded, since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature; and "every other mind and mental concomitant not gathered within, and not associated with, dharma-cognition or the knowledge of others' minds" excludes both what is not gathered within their own inherent nature and what is not associated with them, taking every other mind and mental concomitant. What dharma is this? It refers to the aggregation associated with subsequent cognition or the knowledge of others' minds not gathered within the knowledge of suffering, of accumulation, or of cessation, or with subsequent cognition, and gathered within class the knowledge of the path, the aggregation associated with an undefiled forbearance, and every contaminated mind and mental concomitant not associated with the knowledge of others' minds — all these are, in every case, neither associated with dharma-cognition nor with the knowledge of others' minds, since form, the unconditioned, and dharmas dissociated from mind possess no object whatsoever. The same holds, in the same way, with respect to the knowledge of suffering, of accumulation, of cessation, and of the path, and right view — exactly as the tetralemma is cast for dharma-cognition set against the knowledge of others' minds, so, too, should it be cast for this same dharma-cognition set against the knowledge of suffering, of accumulation, of cessation, and of the path, and against right view among the eight limbs of the path.

Are the dharmas associated with dharma-cognition associated with the emptiness concentration? The answer: a tetralemma ought to be cast. Here, dharma-cognition is associated with all three concentrations; the emptiness concentration is associated with two kinds of knowledge and two kinds of forbearance. The two kinds of knowledge are: the knowledge of suffering belonging to dharma-cognition, and the knowledge of suffering belonging to subsequent cognition.

The two kinds of forbearance are: the forbearance of the dharma-cognition of suffering, and the forbearance of the subsequent cognition of suffering. It is for this reason that a broad tetralemma is cast here. There is a dharma associated with dharma-cognition, not with emptiness — this referring to what is associated with dharma-cognition, and to what is associated with dharma-cognition, not associated with emptiness. Here, what is associated with dharma-cognition, not associated with emptiness, refers to the emptiness co-arising with dharma-cognition — this is associated with dharma-cognition, not with emptiness, since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature; and what is associated with dharma-cognition, not associated with emptiness, refers to what is associated with dharma-cognition co-arising with wishlessness or signlessness. There is a dharma associated with emptiness, not with dharma-cognition — this referring to dharma-cognition associated with emptiness, and to what is associated with emptiness, not associated with dharma-cognition. Here, dharma-cognition associated with emptiness refers to the dharma-cognition co-arising with emptiness — this is associated with emptiness, not with dharma-cognition, since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature; and what is associated with emptiness, not associated with dharma-cognition, refers to the subsequent cognition of suffering, and what is associated with the emptiness concentration co-arising with the forbearance of suffering. There is a dharma associated with both dharma-cognition and emptiness — this referring to what is associated with both. What is associated with both refers to, within the aggregation co-arising with dharma-cognition and emptiness, excluding these two own inherent natures, every other mind and mental concomitant. What dharma is this? It refers to the eight great-ground dharmas, the ten great wholesome-ground dharmas, initial and sustained inquiry, and mind, associated with both. There is a dharma associated with neither dharma-cognition nor emptiness — this referring to dharma-cognition not associated with emptiness, emptiness not associated with dharma-cognition, and every other mind and mental concomitant not gathered within, and not associated with, dharma-cognition or emptiness, and form, the unconditioned, and dharmas dissociated from mind. Here, dharma-cognition not associated with emptiness refers to the subsequent cognition of suffering, and the emptiness concentration co-arising with the forbearance of suffering — this is not associated with dharma-cognition, since it belongs to a different aggregation; nor is it associated with emptiness, since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature. Emptiness not associated with dharma-cognition refers to the dharma-cognition co-arising with wishlessness or signlessness — this is not associated with emptiness, since it belongs to a different aggregation; nor is it associated with dharma-cognition, since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature. And "every other mind and mental concomitant not gathered within, and not associated with, dharma-cognition or emptiness" does not gather them in, excluding what is not associated with these two own inherent natures, excluding what is associated with these two, taking every other mind and mental concomitant. What dharma is this? It refers to the aggregation associated with wishlessness or signlessness, not associated with dharma-cognition, and every contaminated mind and mental concomitant. As for form, the unconditioned, and dharmas dissociated from mind: these refer to every form, the unconditioned, and dharma dissociated from mind — these are, in every case, neither associated with dharma-cognition nor with emptiness, since they possess no object whatsoever. The same holds, in the same way, with respect to wishlessness, signlessness, the joy limb of enlightenment, and right intention — exactly as this broad tetralemma is cast for dharma-cognition set against emptiness, so, too, should it be cast for this same dharma-cognition set against wishlessness, signlessness, the joy limb of enlightenment, and right intention.

Are the dharmas associated with dharma-cognition associated with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known"? The answer: a tetralemma ought to be cast, since the meaning is not fixed. There is a dharma associated with dharma-cognition, not with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" — this referring to what is associated with dharma-cognition, not gathered within the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known." What dharma is this? It refers to what is associated with dharma-cognition gathered within the faculty of having already known, or the faculty of complete knowledge — this is associated with dharma-cognition, not with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," since it belongs to a different aggregation. There is a dharma associated with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," not with dharma-cognition — this referring to dharma-cognition gathered within the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," and what is associated with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," not gathered within, and not associated with, dharma-cognition. Here, dharma-cognition gathered within the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" refers to the dharma-cognition within the aggregation co-arising with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" — this is associated with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," not with dharma-cognition,

since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature; and what is associated with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," not gathered within, and not associated with, dharma-cognition, refers to what is associated with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," within the aggregation co-arising with subsequent cognition or an undefiled forbearance — this is associated with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," not with dharma-cognition, since it belongs to a different aggregation. There is a dharma associated with both dharma-cognition and the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" — this referring to what is associated with dharma-cognition gathered within the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known." What dharma is this? It refers to the remaining eight faculties, and what is associated with them, and to every other mental concomitant that is not a faculty.

There is a dharma associated with neither dharma-cognition nor the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" — this referring to dharma-cognition not gathered within the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," and every other mind and mental concomitant not gathered within, and not associated with, dharma-cognition and the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," and form, the unconditioned, and dharmas dissociated from mind. Here, dharma-cognition not gathered within the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" refers to the dharma-cognition within the aggregation co-arising with the faculty of having already known, or the faculty of complete knowledge — this is not associated with dharma-cognition, since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature; nor is it associated with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," since it belongs to a different aggregation. And "every other mind and mental concomitant not gathered within, and not associated with, dharma-cognition and the faculty of 'I shall come to know what is not yet known'" refers to every mind and mental concomitant, not gathered within, and not associated with, dharma-cognition, within the aggregation co-arising with the faculty of having already known, or the faculty of complete knowledge, and every contaminated mind and mental concomitant.

All these are, in every case, neither associated with dharma-cognition nor with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," being of a different aggregation. As for form, the unconditioned, and dharmas dissociated from mind: these are, in every case, mutually dissociated, possessing no object whatsoever. The same holds, in the same way, with respect to the faculty of having already known and of complete knowledge, exactly as this tetralemma is cast for dharma-cognition set against the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," so, too, should it be cast for this same dharma-cognition set against the faculty of having already known and of complete knowledge.

Are the dharmas associated with dharma-cognition associated with the mindfulness limb of enlightenment? The answer: a tetralemma ought to be cast, since the meaning is not fixed. There is a dharma associated with dharma-cognition, not with mindfulness — this referring to the mindfulness limb of enlightenment associated with dharma-cognition — this is associated with dharma-cognition, not with mindfulness, since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature. There is a dharma associated with the mindfulness limb of enlightenment, not with dharma-cognition — this referring to dharma-cognition, and what is associated with the mindfulness limb of enlightenment, not associated with dharma-cognition. Here, "dharma-cognition" refers to the dharma-cognition co-arising with the mindfulness limb of enlightenment — this is associated with the mindfulness limb of enlightenment, not with dharma-cognition, since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature; and "what is associated with the mindfulness limb of enlightenment, not associated with dharma-cognition" refers to what is associated with the mindfulness limb of enlightenment within the aggregation co-arising with an undefiled forbearance or subsequent cognition — this is associated with the mindfulness limb of enlightenment, not with dharma-cognition, since it belongs to a different aggregation.

There is a dharma associated with both dharma-cognition and mindfulness — this referring to what is associated with both, that is, within the aggregation co-arising with dharma-cognition, excluding dharma-cognition and mindfulness themselves, every other mind and mental concomitant associated with both. What, then, is this? It refers to the eight great-ground dharmas, the ten great wholesome-ground dharmas,

initial and sustained inquiry, and mind. There is a dharma associated with neither dharma-cognition nor mindfulness — this referring to the mindfulness limb of enlightenment not associated with dharma-cognition, and every other mind and mental concomitant, and form, the unconditioned, and dharmas dissociated from mind. Here, the mindfulness limb of enlightenment not associated with dharma-cognition refers to the mindfulness limb of enlightenment within the aggregation co-arising with an undefiled forbearance or subsequent cognition — this is not associated with dharma-cognition, since it belongs to a different aggregation; nor is it associated with mindfulness, since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature. And "every other mind and mental concomitant" refers to what is not undefiled mind or mental concomitants, but is solely contaminated mind and mental concomitants. As for form, the unconditioned, and dharmas dissociated from mind: these refer to every form, the unconditioned, and dharma dissociated from mind — these are, in every case, mutually dissociated, possessing no object whatsoever. The same holds, in the same way, with respect to the diligence, tranquility, concentration, and equanimity limbs of enlightenment, right diligence, right mindfulness, and right concentration, exactly as this tetralemma is cast for dharma-cognition set against the mindfulness limb of enlightenment, so, too, should it be cast for this same dharma-cognition set against the diligence limb of enlightenment, up through right concentration. Are the dharmas associated with dharma-cognition associated with the discrimination-of-dharmas limb of enlightenment? The answer: whatever dharmas are associated with dharma-cognition are, in every case, also associated with the discrimination-of-dharmas limb of enlightenment, since dharma-cognition is itself precisely gathered within the discrimination-of-dharmas limb of enlightenment. There is a dharma associated with the discrimination-of-dharmas limb of enlightenment, not with dharma-cognition — this referring to what is associated with the discrimination-of-dharmas limb of enlightenment, not gathered within dharma-cognition. What dharma is this? It refers to what is associated with the discrimination-of-dharmas limb of enlightenment within the aggregation co-arising with an undefiled forbearance or subsequent cognition — this is associated with the discrimination-of-dharmas limb of enlightenment, not with dharma-cognition, since it belongs to a different aggregation. Exactly as this is cast for dharma-cognition set against what follows, so, too, is it for subsequent cognition set against what follows — exactly as dharma-cognition set against subsequent cognition, up through right concentration, so, too, is subsequent cognition set against the knowledge of others' minds, up through right concentration. Are the dharmas associated with the knowledge of others' minds associated with worldly knowledge? The answer: a tetralemma ought to be cast, since the meaning is not fixed. There is a dharma associated with the knowledge of others' minds, not with worldly knowledge — this referring to what is associated with the knowledge of others' minds not gathered within worldly knowledge. What dharma is this? It refers to what is associated with the undefiled knowledge of others' minds. There is a dharma associated with worldly knowledge, not with the knowledge of others' minds — this referring to what is associated with worldly knowledge not gathered within the knowledge of others' minds. What dharma is this? It refers to what is associated with the wholesome, defiled, or neutral-and-unobscured worldly knowledge not gathered within the knowledge of others' minds. There is a dharma associated with both the knowledge of others' minds and worldly knowledge — this referring to what is associated with the worldly knowledge gathered within the knowledge of others' minds. What dharma is this? It refers to the nine great-ground dharmas, the ten great wholesome-ground dharmas, initial and sustained inquiry, and mind, associated with this same dharma. There is a dharma associated with neither the knowledge of others' minds nor worldly knowledge — this referring to the knowledge of others' minds and worldly knowledge themselves, and every other mind and mental concomitant not gathered within, and not associated with, the knowledge of others' minds and worldly knowledge, and form, the unconditioned, and dharmas dissociated from mind. Here, the knowledge of others' minds and worldly knowledge themselves are excluded, since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature. And "every other mind and mental concomitant not gathered within, and not associated with, the knowledge of others' minds and worldly knowledge" refers to what is not gathered within them, excluding what is associated with the same inherent nature, excluding what is associated with both. What dharma is this? It refers to the aggregation co-arising with an undefiled forbearance, the knowledge of suffering, of accumulation, or of cessation, and the knowledge of the path not gathered within the knowledge of others' minds, and every contaminated mind and mental concomitant not associated with the knowledge of others' minds — these are, in every case, mutually dissociated, being of a different aggregation. As for form, the unconditioned, and dharmas dissociated from mind: these are, in every case, mutually dissociated, possessing no object whatsoever. The same holds, in the same way, with respect to the knowledge of the path, the discrimination-of-dharmas limb of enlightenment, and right view, exactly as this tetralemma is cast for the knowledge of others' minds set against worldly knowledge, so, too, should it be cast for this same knowledge of others' minds set against the knowledge of the path, the discrimination-of-dharmas limb of enlightenment, and right view. Are the dharmas associated with the knowledge of others' minds associated with the knowledge of suffering? The answer: this is not so. Suppose the dharmas associated with the knowledge of suffering — are these associated with the knowledge of others' minds? The answer: this, too, is not so. The same holds with respect to the knowledge of accumulation, of cessation, the emptiness and signless concentrations, and the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," since they do not belong to the same mind-moment, or since their aspects differ, or since their object differs.

Are the dharmas associated with the knowledge of others' minds associated with the wishlessness concentration? The answer: a tetralemma ought to be cast, since the meaning is not fixed.

There is a dharma associated with the knowledge of others' minds, not with wishlessness — this referring to the wishlessness associated with the knowledge of others' minds, and to what is associated with the knowledge of others' minds, not associated with wishlessness. Here, the wishlessness associated with the knowledge of others' minds refers to the wishlessness co-arising with the knowledge of others' minds — this is associated with the knowledge of others' minds, not with wishlessness, since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature; and what is associated with the knowledge of others' minds, not associated with wishlessness, refers to

what is associated with the contaminated knowledge of others' minds. This is associated with the knowledge of others' minds, not with wishlessness, since it belongs to a different aggregation. There is a dharma associated with wishlessness, not with the knowledge of others' minds — this referring to the knowledge of others' minds associated with wishlessness, and what is associated with wishlessness, not associated with the knowledge of others' minds.

Here, the knowledge of others' minds associated with wishlessness refers to the knowledge of others' minds co-arising with wishlessness — this is associated with wishlessness, not with the knowledge of others' minds, since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature; and what is associated with wishlessness, not associated with the knowledge of others' minds, refers to the wishlessness of suffering, of accumulation, and to the wishlessness of the path not associated with the knowledge of others' minds — this is associated with wishlessness, not with the knowledge of others' minds, since it belongs to a different aggregation. There is a dharma associated with both the knowledge of others' minds and wishlessness — this referring to what is associated with both, that is, within the aggregation co-arising with the undefiled knowledge of others' minds, excluding the knowledge of others' minds and the wishlessness concentration, every other mind and mental concomitant. What dharma is this? It refers to the eight great-ground dharmas, the ten great wholesome-ground dharmas, initial and sustained inquiry, and mind. There is a dharma associated with neither the knowledge of others' minds nor wishlessness — this referring to the knowledge of others' minds not associated with wishlessness, wishlessness not associated with the knowledge of others' minds, and every other mind and mental concomitant, and form, the unconditioned, and dharmas dissociated from mind. Here, the knowledge of others' minds not associated with wishlessness refers to the suffering-and-accumulation wishlessness, and the wishlessness of the path not associated with the knowledge of others' minds — this is not associated with the knowledge of others' minds, since it belongs to a different aggregation; nor is it associated with wishlessness, since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature. Wishlessness not associated with the knowledge of others' minds refers to the contaminated knowledge of others' minds — this is not associated with wishlessness, since it belongs to a different aggregation; nor is it associated with the knowledge of others' minds, since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature. And "every other mind and mental concomitant" refers to

what is within the aggregation co-arising with emptiness or signlessness, and every contaminated mind and mental concomitant not gathered within, and not associated with, the knowledge of others' minds.

These are, in every case, mutually dissociated, being of a different aggregation. As for form, the unconditioned, and dharmas dissociated from mind: these refer to every form, the unconditioned, and dharma dissociated from mind — these are, in every case, mutually dissociated, possessing no object whatsoever. The same holds, in the same way, with respect to the mindfulness, diligence, joy, tranquility, concentration, and equanimity limbs of enlightenment, and right intention, right diligence, right mindfulness, and right concentration, exactly as this tetralemma is cast for the knowledge of others' minds set against wishlessness, so, too, should it be cast for this same knowledge of others' minds set against these six limbs of enlightenment and four limbs of the path.

Are the dharmas associated with the knowledge of others' minds associated with the faculty of having already known? The answer: a tetralemma ought to be cast, since the meaning is not fixed. There is a dharma associated with the knowledge of others' minds, not with the faculty of having already known — this referring to what is associated with the knowledge of others' minds not gathered within the faculty of having already known. What dharma is this? It refers to what is associated with the knowledge of others' minds gathered within the faculty of complete knowledge, and the mind and mental concomitants associated with the contaminated knowledge of others' minds — this dharma is associated with the knowledge of others' minds, not with the faculty of having already known, being of a different aggregation. There is a dharma associated with the faculty of having already known, not with the knowledge of others' minds — this referring to the knowledge of others' minds gathered within the faculty of having already known, and what is associated with the faculty of having already known, not gathered within, and not associated with, the knowledge of others' minds. Here, the knowledge of others' minds gathered within the faculty of having already known refers to the undefiled knowledge of others' minds within the path of cultivation — this is associated with the faculty of having already known, not with the knowledge of others' minds,

since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature; and what is associated with the faculty of having already known, not gathered within, and not associated with, the knowledge of others' minds, refers to the aggregation co-arising with the knowledge of suffering, of accumulation, or of cessation, within the path of cultivation, and the mind and mental concomitants within the aggregation co-arising with the knowledge of the path not gathered within the knowledge of others' minds —

this is associated with the faculty of having already known, not with the knowledge of others' minds, being of a different aggregation. There is a dharma associated with both the knowledge of others' minds and the faculty of having already known — this referring to what is associated with the knowledge of others' minds gathered within the faculty of having already known. What dharma is this? It refers to the undefiled knowledge of others' minds within the path of cultivation, and what is associated with it — namely, this same aggregation's own eight undefiled faculties, and what is associated with them, and every other mental concomitant that is not a faculty. There is a dharma associated with neither the knowledge of others' minds nor the faculty of having already known — this referring to the knowledge of others' minds not gathered within the faculty of having already known, and every other mind and mental concomitant not gathered within, and not associated with, the knowledge of others' minds and the faculty of having already known, and form, the unconditioned, and dharmas dissociated from mind. Here, the knowledge of others' minds not gathered within the faculty of having already known refers to the knowledge of others' minds gathered within the faculty of complete knowledge, and the contaminated knowledge of others' minds — this is not associated with the knowledge of others' minds, since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature; nor is it associated with the faculty of having already known, since it belongs to a different aggregation. And "every other mind and mental concomitant not gathered within, and not associated with, the knowledge of others' minds and the faculty of having already known" refers to the mind and mental concomitants within the aggregation co-arising with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," not gathered within, and not associated with, the knowledge of others' minds, the mind and mental concomitants within the aggregation co-arising with the faculty of complete knowledge, not gathered within, and not associated with, the knowledge of others' minds, and contaminated mind and mental concomitants — these are, in every case, mutually dissociated, being of a different aggregation. As for form, the unconditioned, and dharmas dissociated from mind: these refer to every form, the unconditioned, and dharma dissociated from mind — these are, in every case, mutually dissociated, possessing no object whatsoever. The same holds, in the same way, with respect to the faculty of complete knowledge, exactly as this tetralemma is cast for the knowledge of others' minds set against the faculty of having already known, so, too, should it be cast for this same knowledge of others' minds set against the faculty of complete knowledge. Are the dharmas associated with worldly knowledge associated with the knowledge of suffering, up through right concentration? The answer: this is not so. Suppose the dharmas associated with the knowledge of suffering, up through right concentration — are these associated with worldly knowledge? The answer: this, too, is not so. For what reason is this so? Because they do not belong to the same mind-moment, and because the knowledge of suffering, up through right concentration, are, in every case, undefiled.

Are the dharmas associated with the knowledge of suffering associated with the knowledge of accumulation? The answer: this is not so. Suppose the dharmas associated with the knowledge of accumulation — are these associated with the knowledge of suffering? The answer: this, too, is not so. The same holds with respect to the knowledge of cessation, of the path, and the signless concentration, since they do not belong to the same mind-moment, and their aspects differ, or their object differs. Are the dharmas associated with the knowledge of suffering associated with the emptiness concentration? The answer: a tetralemma ought to be cast, since the meaning is not fixed. There is a dharma associated with the knowledge of suffering, not with emptiness — this referring to the emptiness associated with the knowledge of suffering, and to what is associated with the knowledge of suffering, not associated with emptiness. Here, the emptiness associated with the knowledge of suffering refers to the emptiness concentration co-arising with the knowledge of suffering.

This is associated with the knowledge of suffering, not with emptiness, since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature; and what is associated with the knowledge of suffering, not associated with emptiness, refers to what is associated with the knowledge of suffering co-arising with wishlessness — this is associated with the knowledge of suffering, not with emptiness, being of a different aggregation. There is a dharma associated with the emptiness concentration, not with the knowledge of suffering — this referring to the knowledge of suffering associated with emptiness, and what is associated with emptiness, not associated with the knowledge of suffering. Here, the knowledge of suffering associated with emptiness refers to the knowledge of suffering co-arising with the emptiness concentration.

This is associated with emptiness, not with the knowledge of suffering, since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature; and what is associated with emptiness, not associated with the knowledge of suffering, refers to what is associated with the emptiness co-arising with the forbearance of suffering — this is associated with emptiness, not with the knowledge of suffering, being of a different aggregation. There is a dharma associated with both the knowledge of suffering and emptiness — this referring to what is associated with both. What dharma is this? It refers to what is associated with the emptiness co-arising with the knowledge of suffering, within the aggregation, excluding the knowledge of suffering and emptiness themselves, every other mind and mental concomitant, that is, the eight great-ground dharmas, the ten great wholesome-ground dharmas, initial and sustained inquiry, and mind. There is a dharma associated with neither the knowledge of suffering nor emptiness — this referring to the emptiness not associated with the knowledge of suffering, and so on, stated at length. Here, the emptiness not associated with the knowledge of suffering refers to the emptiness co-arising with the forbearance of suffering — this is not associated with the knowledge of suffering, being of a different aggregation; nor is it associated with emptiness, since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature. The knowledge of suffering not associated with emptiness refers to the knowledge of suffering co-arising with wishlessness — this is not associated with the knowledge of suffering, since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature; nor is it associated with emptiness, being of a different aggregation. And "every other mind and mental concomitant" refers to the mind and mental concomitants within the aggregation co-arising with the knowledge of suffering not associated with wishlessness, the mind and mental concomitants within the aggregation co-arising with signlessness, and every contaminated mind and mental concomitant — these are, in every case, mutually dissociated, being of a different aggregation. As for form, the unconditioned, and dharmas dissociated from mind: these refer to every form, the unconditioned, and dharma dissociated from mind — these are, in every case, mutually dissociated, possessing no object whatsoever. The same holds, in the same way, with respect to wishlessness, exactly as this tetralemma is cast for the knowledge of suffering set against emptiness, so, too, should it be cast for this same knowledge of suffering set against wishlessness. As for the knowledge of suffering set against the three undefiled faculties, the seven limbs of enlightenment, and the eight limbs of the path, this should be understood exactly as stated for dharma-cognition — exactly as dharma-cognition is set against the three undefiled faculties, and the rest, so, too, should this same knowledge of suffering be set against the three undefiled faculties, and the rest, set forth at length in just the same way.