Susīma's Own Story

Are the dharmas associated with the knowledge of accumulation associated with the knowledge of cessation? The answer: this is not so. Suppose the dharmas associated with the knowledge of cessation — are these associated with the knowledge of accumulation? The answer: this, too, is not so. The same holds with respect to the knowledge of the path, and the emptiness and signless concentrations, 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 accumulation 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 accumulation, not with wishlessness — this referring to the wishlessness associated with the knowledge of accumulation, that is, the wishlessness concentration co-arising with the knowledge of accumulation. This is associated with the knowledge of accumulation, not with wishlessness, since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature. There is a dharma associated with wishlessness, not with the knowledge of accumulation — this referring to the knowledge of accumulation, and what is associated with the knowledge of accumulation, not associated with wishlessness.

Here, the knowledge of accumulation refers to the wishlessness co-arising with the knowledge of accumulation — this is associated with wishlessness, not with the knowledge of accumulation, since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature; and what is associated with the knowledge of accumulation, not associated with wishlessness, refers to what is associated with wishlessness within the aggregation co-arising with the forbearance of suffering, the knowledge of suffering, the forbearance of accumulation, and the knowledge of accumulation — this wishlessness is associated with the knowledge of accumulation, not with wishlessness, since it belongs to a different aggregation. There is a dharma associated with both the knowledge of accumulation and wishlessness — this referring to what is associated with both. What dharma is this? It refers to what is associated with both, within the aggregation co-arising with the knowledge of accumulation, excluding the knowledge of accumulation and wishlessness themselves, every other mind and mental concomitant — namely, 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 accumulation nor wishlessness — this referring to the wishlessness not associated with the knowledge of accumulation, and so on, stated at length. Here, the wishlessness not associated with the knowledge of accumulation refers to the wishlessness within the aggregation co-arising with the forbearance of suffering, the knowledge of suffering, the forbearance of accumulation, and the knowledge of the path — this is not associated with the knowledge of accumulation, 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. 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 — 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.

As for this same knowledge of accumulation 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 — that is, exactly as dharma-cognition is set against the three undefiled faculties, and the rest, so, too, should this same knowledge of accumulation be set against the three undefiled faculties, and the rest, set forth at length in just the same way.

Are the dharmas associated with the knowledge of cessation associated with the knowledge of the path? The answer: this is not so. Suppose the dharmas associated with the knowledge of the path — are these associated with the knowledge of cessation? The answer: this, too, is not so. The same holds with respect to the emptiness and wishlessness concentrations, since they do not belong to the same mind-moment.

Their aspects differ, and their object differs. Are the dharmas associated with the knowledge of cessation associated with the signless concentration? The answer: a tetralemma ought to be cast, since the meaning is not fixed. There is a dharma associated with the knowledge of cessation, not with signlessness — this referring to the signlessness associated with the knowledge of cessation, that is, the signless concentration co-arising with the knowledge of cessation. This is associated with the knowledge of cessation, not with signlessness, since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature.

There is a dharma associated with signlessness, not with the knowledge of cessation — this referring to the knowledge of cessation, and what is associated with the knowledge of cessation, not associated with signlessness. Here, the knowledge of cessation refers to the signlessness co-arising with the knowledge of cessation — this is associated with signlessness, not with the knowledge of cessation, since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature; and what is associated with the knowledge of cessation, not associated with signlessness, refers to what is associated with signlessness co-arising with the forbearance of cessation — this is associated with the knowledge of cessation, not with signlessness, being of a different aggregation. There is a dharma associated with both the knowledge of cessation and signlessness — this referring to what is associated with both. What dharma is this? It refers to what is associated with both, within the aggregation co-arising with the knowledge of cessation, excluding the knowledge of cessation and signlessness themselves, every other mind and mental concomitant — namely, 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 cessation nor signlessness — this referring to the signlessness not associated with the knowledge of cessation, and so on, stated at length. Here, the signlessness not associated with the knowledge of cessation refers to the signlessness co-arising with the forbearance of cessation —

this is not associated with the knowledge of cessation, being of a different aggregation; nor is it associated with signlessness, 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 wishlessness, 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. As for this same knowledge of cessation 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 — that is, exactly as dharma-cognition is set against the three undefiled faculties, and the rest, so, too, should this same knowledge of cessation be set against the three undefiled faculties, and the rest, set forth at length in just the same way.

Are the dharmas associated with the knowledge of the path associated with the emptiness concentration? The answer: this is not so. Suppose the dharmas associated with the emptiness concentration — are these associated with the knowledge of the path? The answer: this, too, is not so. The same holds with respect to the signless concentration, since they do not belong to the same mind-moment, their aspects differ, and their object differs. Are the dharmas associated with the knowledge of the path 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 the path, not with wishlessness — this referring to the wishlessness associated with the knowledge of the path, that is, the wishlessness co-arising with the knowledge of the path. This is associated with the knowledge of the path, not with wishlessness, since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature. There is a dharma associated with wishlessness, not with the knowledge of the path — this referring to the knowledge of the path, and what is associated with the knowledge of the path, not associated with wishlessness. Here, the knowledge of the path refers to the wishlessness co-arising with the knowledge of the path — this is associated with wishlessness, not with the knowledge of the path, since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature; and what is associated with the knowledge of the path, not associated with wishlessness, refers to what is associated with wishlessness within the aggregation co-arising with the forbearance of suffering, the knowledge of suffering, the forbearance of accumulation, the knowledge of accumulation, and the forbearance of the path — this is associated with the knowledge of the path, not with wishlessness, being of a different aggregation. There is a dharma associated with both the knowledge of the path and wishlessness — this referring to what is associated with both. What dharma is this? It refers to what is associated with both, within the aggregation co-arising with the knowledge of the path, excluding the knowledge of the path and wishlessness themselves, every other mind and mental concomitant — namely, 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 the path nor wishlessness — this referring to the wishlessness not associated with the knowledge of the path, and so on, stated at length. Here, the wishlessness not associated with the knowledge of the path refers to the wishlessness within the aggregation co-arising with the forbearance of suffering, the knowledge of suffering, the forbearance of accumulation, the knowledge of accumulation, and the forbearance of the path — this is not associated with the knowledge of the path, being of a different aggregation; nor is it associated with wishlessness, 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 — 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. As for this same knowledge of the path 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 — that is, exactly as dharma-cognition is set against the three undefiled faculties, and the rest, so, too, should this same knowledge of the path be set against the three undefiled faculties, and the rest, set forth at length in just the same way.

Are the dharmas associated with the emptiness concentration associated with the wishlessness concentration? The answer: this is not so. Suppose the dharmas associated with the wishlessness concentration — are these associated with the emptiness concentration? The answer: this, too, is not so. The same holds with respect to signlessness, since they do not belong to the same mind-moment, their aspects differ, or their object differs. Are the dharmas associated with the emptiness concentration 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 emptiness, not with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" — this referring to what is associated with emptiness 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 emptiness co-arising with the faculty of having already known or the faculty of complete knowledge — this is associated with emptiness, not with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," being of a different aggregation. There is a dharma associated with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," not with emptiness — this referring to the emptiness 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, emptiness. Here, the emptiness gathered within the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" refers to the emptiness 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 emptiness, 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, emptiness, 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 wishlessness or signlessness — this is associated with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," not with emptiness, being of a different aggregation. There is a dharma associated with both emptiness and the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" — this referring to what is associated with the emptiness gathered within the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known." What dharma is this? It refers to this same aggregation's own eight faculties, and what is associated with them, and every other mental concomitant that is not a faculty. There is a dharma associated with neither emptiness nor the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" — this referring to the emptiness not gathered within the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," and so on, stated at length. Here, the emptiness not gathered within the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" refers to the emptiness within the aggregation co-arising with the faculty of having already known or the faculty of complete knowledge — this is not associated with emptiness, 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," being of a different aggregation. And every other mind and mental concomitant not gathered within, and not associated with, emptiness and the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" refers to what is, within the aggregation co-arising with wishlessness or signlessness, gathered within the faculty of having already known or the faculty of complete knowledge, 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. As for this same emptiness set against the faculty of having already known and of complete knowledge, this should be understood in the same way — that is, exactly as the emptiness concentration is set against the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," through a tetralemma, so, too, should it be set against the faculty of having already known and of complete knowledge. Are the dharmas associated with the emptiness concentration 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 emptiness, not with mindfulness — this referring to the mindfulness limb of enlightenment associated with emptiness, that is, the mindfulness co-arising with the emptiness concentration. This is associated with emptiness, not with mindfulness, since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature. There is a dharma associated with mindfulness, not with emptiness — this referring to the emptiness, and what is associated with emptiness, not associated with mindfulness. Here, emptiness refers to the emptiness concentration co-arising with the mindfulness limb of enlightenment — this is associated with mindfulness, not with emptiness, since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature; and what is associated with emptiness, not associated with mindfulness, refers to what is associated with the mindfulness limb of enlightenment within the aggregation co-arising with wishlessness or signlessness — this is associated with mindfulness, not with emptiness, being of a different aggregation. There is a dharma associated with both emptiness and mindfulness — this referring to what is associated with both. What dharma is this? It refers to what is associated with both, within the aggregation co-arising with emptiness, excluding emptiness and mindfulness themselves, every other mind and mental concomitant — namely, the eight great-ground dharmas, the ten great wholesome-ground dharmas, initial and sustained inquiry, and mind. There is a dharma associated with neither emptiness nor mindfulness — this referring to the mindfulness not associated with emptiness, and so on, stated at length. Here, the mindfulness not associated with emptiness refers to the mindfulness limb of enlightenment within the aggregation co-arising with wishlessness or signlessness — this is not associated with emptiness, being of 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 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. As for this same emptiness set against the discrimination-of-dharmas, diligence, tranquility, and equanimity limbs of enlightenment, and right view, right diligence, and right mindfulness, this should be understood in the same way — that is, exactly as the emptiness concentration is set against the mindfulness limb of enlightenment, through a tetralemma, so, too, should it be set against all the rest.

Are the dharmas associated with the emptiness concentration associated with the joy limb of enlightenment? The answer: a tetralemma ought to be cast, since the meaning is not fixed. There is a dharma associated with emptiness, not with joy — this referring to the joy associated with emptiness, and to what is associated with emptiness, not associated with joy. Here, the joy associated with emptiness refers to the joy limb of enlightenment within the aggregation co-arising with emptiness — this is associated with emptiness, not with joy, since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature; and what is associated with emptiness, not associated with joy, refers to what is associated with the emptiness concentration within the not-yet-arrived concentration, the intermediate dhyāna, the latter two dhyānas, and the first three formless grounds — this is associated with emptiness, not with joy, belonging to a different ground. There is a dharma associated with joy, not with emptiness — this referring to the joy associated with emptiness, and to what is associated with joy, not associated with emptiness. Here, the joy associated with emptiness refers to the emptiness concentration within the aggregation co-arising with joy — this is associated with joy, not with emptiness, since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature; and what is associated with joy, not associated with emptiness, refers to what is associated with joy within the aggregation co-arising with wishlessness or signlessness — this is associated with joy, not with emptiness, being of a different aggregation. There is a dharma associated with both emptiness and joy — this referring to what is associated with both, that is, within the aggregation co-arising with emptiness, belonging to the first two dhyānas, excluding emptiness and joy themselves, 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 emptiness nor joy — this referring to the emptiness not associated with joy, and so on, stated at length.

Here, the emptiness not associated with joy refers to the emptiness within the aggregation co-arising with wishlessness or signlessness — this is not associated with emptiness, since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature; nor is it associated with joy, being of a different aggregation. The joy not associated with emptiness refers to the emptiness concentration within the not-yet-arrived concentration, the intermediate dhyāna, the latter two dhyānas, and the first three formless grounds — this is not associated with emptiness, since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature; nor is it associated with joy, belonging to a different ground. And every other mind and mental concomitant refers to what is, within the not-yet-arrived concentration, the intermediate dhyāna, the latter two dhyānas, and the first three formless grounds, within the aggregation co-arising with wishlessness or 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. As for this same emptiness set against right intention, this should be understood in the same way — that is, exactly as the emptiness concentration is set against the joy limb of enlightenment, through a tetralemma, so, too, should it be set against right intention. Are the dharmas associated with the emptiness concentration associated with the concentration limb of enlightenment? The answer: whatever dharmas are associated with emptiness are, in every case, also associated with concentration, since every emptiness concentration is itself precisely gathered within the concentration limb of enlightenment. There is a dharma associated with concentration, not with emptiness — this referring to what is associated with concentration not gathered within emptiness. What dharma is this? It refers to what is associated with the concentration limb of enlightenment within the aggregation co-arising with wishlessness or signlessness — this is associated with concentration, not with emptiness, being of a different aggregation. As for this same emptiness set against right concentration, this should be understood in the same way — that is, exactly as the emptiness concentration is set against the concentration limb of enlightenment, via the preceding form of clause.

As for this same emptiness set against right concentration, this should be understood in the same way; exactly as the emptiness concentration is set against wishlessness and signlessness at the outset, so, too, should it be set against them at the close — that is, exactly as the emptiness concentration is set against wishlessness and signlessness at the outset, so, too, at the close, it should be broadly stated in the same way, with this difference: exactly as the emptiness concentration is set against the joy limb of enlightenment and right intention, so, too, should it be set against wishlessness and signlessness at the close against the joy limb of enlightenment, right view, and right intention.

Are the dharmas associated with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" associated with the faculty of having already known? The answer: this is not so. Suppose the dharmas associated with the faculty of having already known — are these associated with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known"? The answer: this, too, is not so. The same holds with respect to the faculty of complete knowledge, for what reason is this so?

Because they do not belong to the same mind-moment, each belonging to its own separate stage. Are the dharmas associated with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" 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 the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," not with mindfulness — this referring to the mindfulness gathered within the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," that is, the mindfulness 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 the mindfulness limb of enlightenment, 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 the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" — this referring to what is associated with mindfulness 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 mindfulness within the aggregation co-arising with the faculty of having already known or the faculty of complete knowledge —

this is associated with mindfulness, not with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," being of a different aggregation. There is a dharma associated with both the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" and mindfulness — this referring to what is associated with the mindfulness gathered within the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known." What dharma is this? It refers to this same aggregation's own remaining eight 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 faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" nor mindfulness — this referring to the mindfulness not gathered within the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known,"

and so on, stated at length. Here, the mindfulness not gathered within the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" refers to the mindfulness within the aggregation co-arising with the faculty of having already known or the faculty of complete knowledge — this is not associated with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," being of 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 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. As for this same faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" set against the discrimination-of-dharmas, diligence, and concentration limbs of enlightenment, and right view, right diligence, right mindfulness, and right concentration, this should be understood in the same way —

that is, exactly as the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" is set against the mindfulness limb of enlightenment, so, too, should it be set against the discrimination-of-dharmas limb of enlightenment, and the rest. Are the dharmas associated with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" associated with the joy limb of enlightenment? The answer: a tetralemma ought to be cast, since the meaning is not fixed. There is a dharma associated with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," not with joy — this referring to the joy 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, joy. Here, the joy gathered within the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" refers to the joy 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 joy, 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, joy, refers to what is associated with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" within the not-yet-arrived concentration and the third and fourth dhyāna grounds — this is associated with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," not with joy, belonging to a different ground. There is a dharma associated with joy, not with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" — this referring to what is associated with joy 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 joy within the aggregation co-arising with the faculty of having already known or the faculty of complete knowledge — this is associated with joy, not with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," being of a different aggregation. There is a dharma associated with both the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" and joy — this referring to what is associated with the joy gathered within the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known." What dharma is this? It refers to this same aggregation's own remaining eight 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 faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" nor joy — this referring to the joy not gathered within the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," and so on, stated at length. Here, the joy not gathered within the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" refers to the joy within the aggregation co-arising with the faculty of having already known or the faculty of complete knowledge — this is not associated with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," being of a different aggregation; nor is it associated with joy, 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, joy and the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," refers to what is, within the not-yet-arrived concentration, the intermediate dhyāna, and the latter two dhyānas and the first three formless grounds, 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 — 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. Are the dharmas associated with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" associated with the tranquility limb of enlightenment? The answer: a tetralemma ought to be cast, since the meaning is not fixed. There is a dharma associated with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," not with tranquility — this referring to the tranquility associated 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 tranquility, since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature. There is a dharma associated with tranquility, not with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" — this referring to what is not associated with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," associated with tranquility. What dharma is this? It refers to what is associated with tranquility within the aggregation co-arising with the faculty of having already known or the faculty of complete knowledge — this is associated with tranquility, not with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," being of a different aggregation. There is a dharma associated with both the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" and tranquility — this referring to what is associated with the tranquility associated with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known." What dharma is this? It refers to the ten great-ground dharmas, the nine great wholesome-ground dharmas, initial and sustained inquiry, and mind. There is a dharma associated with neither the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" nor tranquility — this referring to the tranquility not associated with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" — that is, the tranquility within the aggregation co-arising with the faculty of having already known or the faculty of complete knowledge — this is not associated with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," being of a different aggregation; nor is it associated with tranquility, since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature. And the remaining mind and mental concomitants refer to 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. As for this same faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" set against the equanimity limb of enlightenment, this should be understood in the same way — that is, exactly as the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" is set against the tranquility limb of enlightenment, through a tetralemma, so, too, should it be set against the equanimity limb of enlightenment. Are the dharmas associated with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" associated with right intention? The answer: a tetralemma ought to be cast, since the meaning is not fixed. There is a dharma associated with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," not with right intention — this referring to the right intention associated with 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 associated with right intention. Here, the right intention associated with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" refers to the right intention 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 right intention, 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 associated with right intention, refers to what is associated with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" within the intermediate dhyāna and the latter three dhyāna grounds — this is associated with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," not with right intention, being of a different aggregation. There is a dharma associated with right intention, not with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" — this referring to what is associated with right intention, 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 right intention within the aggregation co-arising with the faculty of having already known or the faculty of complete knowledge — this dharma is associated with right intention, not with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," being of a different aggregation. There is a dharma associated with both the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" and right intention — this referring to what is associated with the right intention gathered within the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known." What dharma is this? It refers to the ten great-ground dharmas, the ten great wholesome-ground dharmas, initial and sustained inquiry, and mind. There is a dharma associated with neither the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" nor right intention — this referring to the right intention not gathered within the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," and so on, stated at length. Here, the right intention not gathered within the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" refers to the right intention within the aggregation co-arising with the faculty of having already known or the faculty of complete knowledge — this is not associated with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known," being of a different aggregation; nor is it associated with right intention, 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 intermediate dhyāna and the latter three dhyāna grounds, 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 — 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. As for this same faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" set against what follows, and the faculty of having already known and of complete knowledge set against what follows, these should be understood in the same way, with this difference: the faculty of complete knowledge set against right view requires a different tetralemma from what precedes. There is a dharma associated with the faculty of complete knowledge, not with right view —

this referring to the right view gathered within the faculty of complete knowledge, and what is associated with right view, not gathered within, and not associated with, the faculty of complete knowledge. Here, the right view gathered within the faculty of complete knowledge refers to the right view within the aggregation co-arising with the faculty of complete knowledge — this is associated with the faculty of complete knowledge, not with right view, since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature; and what is associated with right view, not gathered within, and not associated with, the faculty of complete knowledge, refers to what is associated with right view within the aggregation co-arising with the knowledge of exhaustion or of non-arising — this is associated with the faculty of complete knowledge, not with right view, being of a different aggregation. There is a dharma associated with right view, not with the faculty of complete knowledge — this referring to what is associated with right view not gathered within the faculty of complete knowledge. What dharma is this? It refers to what is associated with right view within the aggregation co-arising with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" or the faculty of having already known — this is associated with right view, not with the faculty of complete knowledge, being of a different aggregation. There is a dharma associated with both the faculty of complete knowledge and right view — this referring to what is associated with the right view gathered within the faculty of complete knowledge. What dharma is this? It refers to this same aggregation's own remaining eight 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 faculty of complete knowledge nor right view — this referring to the right view not gathered within the faculty of complete knowledge, and so on, stated at length. Here, the right view not gathered within the faculty of complete knowledge refers to

the right view within the aggregation co-arising with the faculty of "I shall come to know what is not yet known" or the faculty of having already known — this is not associated with the faculty of complete knowledge, being of a different aggregation;

nor is it associated with right view, since an inherent nature is not associated with its own inherent nature. And every other mind and mental concomitant refers to 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. As for the mindfulness limb of enlightenment, up through right mindfulness, set against what follows, this is set forth at length exactly as within this same aggregate's own opening nyāsa. Exactly as it is said: monks, I shall now speak for you of the forty-four matters of knowledge — you should listen closely and attend to it well, 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, as the scripture states: the Buddha said to the monks: I shall now speak for you of the forty-four matters of knowledge — you should listen closely, and so on, stated at length. 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: the Bhagavān, of old, relying upon this same preparatory effort as gateway and as path, certified the attainment of unsurpassed, complete awakening — he now further speaks of this same matter to show it to his disciples, saying: if you, too, are capable of not relinquishing this same gateway and path of preparatory effort, you will, before long, attain the everlasting exhaustion of every outflow. Exactly as an elder, by virtue of this same skillful means, gathers precious wealth and thereby enjoys wealth and happiness, and further, by virtue of this same skillful means, teaches his own sons and grandsons, telling them,

"If you, too, are capable of not relinquishing this same skillful means, you will surely gain precious wealth, and likewise enjoy wealth and happiness" — the Bhagavān, too, is just the same. What, precisely, are the forty-four matters of knowledge? Namely, the knowledge of old-age-and-death, the knowledge of old-age-and-death's own arising, the knowledge of old-age-and-death's own cessation, and the knowledge of the path proceeding toward old-age-and-death's own cessation. In just the same way, the knowledge of birth, of existence, of clinging, of craving, of sensation, of contact, of the six sense-fields, of name-and-form, of consciousness, and of formations, the knowledge of formations' own arising, the knowledge of formations' own cessation,

and the knowledge of the path proceeding toward formations' own cessation — this, then, is named the forty-four matters of knowledge. One asks: for what reason, here, does it not speak of the knowledge of ignorance, and the rest?

The answer: it ought indeed to be spoken of, and that it is not spoken of here should be understood to be a case whose meaning has been left over for elsewhere. Further, if a dharma is gathered within a link, and takes a link as its cause, and is a link's own fruit, it is spoken of here. Ignorance, although it, too, is gathered within a link, does not take a link as its cause,

nor is it a link's own fruit, and it is thereby not spoken of here. Further, if, in reliance upon this same dharma, all four kinds of knowledge are given rise to, it is spoken of here; in reliance upon ignorance, solely three kinds of knowledge are given rise to, since the knowledge of accumulation taking the link as its object is not given rise to, and it is thereby not spoken of here. As for these same matters of knowledge — the knowledge of old-age-and-death, and the rest — ought it to be said that they are dharma-cognition, up through the knowledge of the path? The answer: it ought to be said that the knowledge of old-age-and-death is four kinds of knowledge — namely, dharma-cognition, subsequent cognition, worldly knowledge, and the knowledge of suffering — and so on, stated at length. Here, as for the knowledge of old-age-and-death being four kinds of knowledge: dharma-cognition knows the desire realm's own old-age-and-death; subsequent cognition knows the form and formless realms' own old-age-and-death; worldly knowledge and the knowledge of suffering both know the old-age-and-death belonging to all three realms. Exactly as the knowledge of suffering has four kinds of knowledge, so, too, should the knowledge of accumulation, of cessation, and of the path be understood. Exactly as sixteen matters of knowledge are given rise to in reliance upon old-age-and-death, so, too, up through in reliance upon formations, should be understood in the same way — there being, in this way, altogether one hundred and seventy-six matters of knowledge. Were one to distinguish by continuum and by moment, there would then exist measureless and boundless matters of knowledge. Here, the Bhagavān, in reliance upon the eleven links and the distinctions among the four truths, each gives rise to four kinds of knowledge, and it is thereby that he speaks solely of forty-four matters of knowledge.

Of these forty-four matters of knowledge, how many are contaminated, and how many are undefiled? The answer: all of them, in every case, pervade both the contaminated and the undefiled. How many take the contaminated as their object, and how many take the undefiled? The answer: twenty-two take the contaminated as their object; twenty-two take the undefiled as their object. How many are conditioned, and how many are unconditioned? The answer: all of them are conditioned. How many take the conditioned as their object, and how many take the unconditioned? The answer: thirty-three take the conditioned as their object; eleven take the unconditioned as their object.

How many belong to the past, how many to the future, and how many to the present? The answer: all of them, in every case, pervade the three times. How many take the past as their object, how many the future, and how many the present? The answer: thirty-three take the three times as their object; eleven take what is free of time as their object. If distinguished by position, exactly as within the Miscellaneous Aggregate, it ought to be said: three take the past as their object — namely, the knowledge of formations, the knowledge of formations' own arising, and the knowledge of consciousness's own arising; three take the future as their object — namely, the knowledge of old-age-and-death, the knowledge of old-age-and-death's own arising, and the knowledge of birth; sixteen take the present as their object — namely, the knowledge of birth's own arising, the knowledge of existence, the knowledge of existence's own arising, the knowledge of clinging, the knowledge of clinging's own arising, the knowledge of craving, the knowledge of craving's own arising, the knowledge of sensation, the knowledge of sensation's own arising,

the knowledge of contact, the knowledge of contact's own arising, the knowledge of the six sense-fields, the knowledge of the six sense-fields' own arising, the knowledge of name-and-form, the knowledge of name-and-form's own arising, and the knowledge of consciousness; eleven take the three times as their object; eleven take what is free of time as their object. One asks: since such matters of knowledge as these are incapable of causing one to enter right determinacy, to attain a fruit, to become free of defilement, or to exhaust the outflows, for what reason do the noble ones cultivate and cause them to manifest in the present? The answer: it is by virtue of four conditions — first, in order to abide in the very bliss of the present dharma; second, in order to play freely amid their own virtue; third, in order to review what they have themselves already accomplished; fourth, in order to make use of their own noble wealth.

Exactly as it is said: monks, I shall now speak for you of the seventy-seven matters of knowledge — you should listen closely and attend to it well, 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, set forth at length exactly as before. One asks: for what reason does the Bhagavān speak this same scripture? The answer: the Bhagavān, of old, relying upon this same preparatory effort as gateway and as path, set forth at length exactly as before. What, precisely, are the seventy-seven matters of knowledge? Namely, the knowledge that birth conditions old-age-and-death; the knowledge that it is not the case that, without birth, there is old-age-and-death; the knowledge that past birth conditions old-age-and-death; the knowledge that it is not the case that, without birth, there is old-age-and-death; the knowledge that future birth conditions old-age-and-death; the knowledge that it is not the case that, without birth, there is old-age-and-death; and the knowledge of the abiding of dharmas — fully knowing that this is impermanent, conditioned, fabricated by mental volition, arisen through conditions, an exhausting dharma, a diminishing dharma, a detaching dharma, an extinguishing dharma. Exactly as seven kinds of knowledge are given rise to in reliance upon birth conditioning old-age-and-death, so, too, up through in reliance upon ignorance conditioning formations, should be understood in the same way — there thereby existing seventy-seven matters of knowledge. One asks: for what reason, here, does it not speak of the knowledge of what ignorance itself is conditioned by? The answer: it ought indeed to be spoken of, and that it is not spoken of here should be understood to be a case whose meaning has been left over for elsewhere. Further, if a dharma is gathered within a link, and takes a link as its cause, and is a link's own fruit, it is spoken of here. Ignorance, although it, too, is gathered within a link, does not take a link as its cause, nor is it a link's own fruit, and it is thereby not spoken of here. Further, if, in reliance upon this same dharma, the seven kinds of knowledge taking a link as their object are given rise to, it is spoken of here; in reliance upon what ignorance itself is conditioned by, the seven kinds of knowledge taking a link as their object are not given rise to, and it is thereby not spoken of here.

As for these same matters of knowledge — the knowledge that birth conditions old-age-and-death, and the rest, the seventy-seven matters of knowledge — ought it to be said that they are dharma-cognition, up through the knowledge of the path? The answer: it ought to be said that the knowledge that birth conditions old-age-and-death, and the rest — the preceding six kinds of knowledge — are all, in every case, four kinds of knowledge — namely, dharma-cognition, subsequent cognition, worldly knowledge, and the knowledge of accumulation; the seventh, the knowledge of the abiding of dharmas,

is solely a single kind, worldly knowledge. Exactly as the seven kinds of knowledge that birth conditions old-age-and-death are given rise to, so, too, up through the seven kinds of knowledge that ignorance conditions formations, should be understood in the same way. Here, dharma-cognition knows that the desire realm's own birth conditions old-age-and-death, and the rest; subsequent cognition knows that the form and formless realms' own birth conditions old-age-and-death, and the rest; worldly knowledge and the knowledge of accumulation both know that the birth belonging to all three realms conditions old-age-and-death, and the rest. One asks: having already stated that birth conditions old-age-and-death, and the rest, for what reason does it further state that it is not the case that, without birth, there is old-age-and-death, and the rest? The answer: a treatise is of two kinds — the first establishes one's own tenet; the second puts a stop to another school's tenet. As for establishing one's own tenet: exactly as the well-spoken-dharma school establishes the well-spoken-dharma tenet, the ill-spoken-dharma school establishes the ill-spoken-dharma tenet, the school of correct reasoning establishes the tenet of correct reasoning, and the Vibhajyavādin school establishes the Vibhajyavādin tenet. As for putting a stop to another school's tenet: exactly as the well-spoken-dharma school puts a stop to the ill-spoken-dharma tenet, the ill-spoken-dharma school puts a stop to the well-spoken-dharma tenet, the school of correct reasoning puts a stop to the Vibhajyavādin tenet, and the Vibhajyavādin school puts a stop to the tenet of correct reasoning. Were it stated solely that birth conditions old-age-and-death, and the rest, there might then be those who give rise to doubt, wishing to raise a discussion, saying: this principle need not necessarily be so — it is in order to settle this same doubt, and to display that this principle is decisively fixed, that it further states that it is not the case that, without birth, there is old-age-and-death, and the rest. Here, knowing that birth conditions old-age-and-death is four kinds of knowledge — namely, dharma-cognition, subsequent cognition, worldly knowledge, and the knowledge of accumulation; knowing that it is not the case that, without birth, there is old-age-and-death, is, too, four kinds of knowledge, there thereby being eight kinds of knowledge in total.

Knowing past and future birth conditions old-age-and-death, too, each possesses eight kinds of knowledge, there thereby being twenty-four kinds of knowledge in total. As for the seventh, the knowledge of the abiding of dharmas, this is solely a single kind, worldly knowledge, and it is thereby that, adding it to the preceding, there are twenty-five kinds of knowledge in total. Exactly as it is with knowing that birth conditions old-age-and-death, so, too, up through knowing that ignorance conditions formations, should be understood in the same way — there being, in this way, altogether two hundred and seventy-five kinds of knowledge. Were one to distinguish by continuum and by moment, there would then exist measureless and boundless matters of knowledge. Here, the Bhagavān, in reliance upon the eleven links and the distinctions among the three times, each gives rise to seven kinds of knowledge, and it is thereby that he speaks solely of seventy-seven matters of knowledge. One asks: for what reason does it not speak of knowing the present? There are those who say: of the seven, the first two already refer to knowing the present. There are, further, those who say: of the seven, the first two pervade knowing all three times — since the past and the future are difficult to fully know, a separate statement of knowing them is made; the present is not thus, and it is thereby that no separate statement is made of it. Of these seventy-seven matters of knowledge, how many are contaminated, and how many are undefiled? The answer: eleven — the knowledge of the abiding of dharmas — are solely contaminated, since they are gathered solely within the very nature of worldly knowledge; the remaining sixty-six kinds of knowledge pervade both the contaminated and the undefiled, being gathered within the four kinds of knowledge. There are those who say: all of them, in every case, pervade both the contaminated and the undefiled. How many take the contaminated as their object, and how many the undefiled? The answer: all of them take the contaminated as their object. How many are conditioned, and how many unconditioned? The answer: all of them are conditioned, since there decisively exists no substance of knowledge that is unconditioned. How many take the conditioned as their object, and how many the unconditioned? The answer: all of them take the conditioned as their object. How many belong to the past, how many to the future, and how many to the present? The answer: all of them, in every case, pervade the three times. How many take the past as their object, how many the future, and how many the present? The answer: for whoever wishes to hold that, of the seven, the first two take solely the present as their object, they say: twenty-two take the past as their object; twenty-two take the future as their object; twenty-two take the present as their object; eleven take the three times as their object. For whoever wishes to hold that, of the seven, the first two pervade taking the three times as their object, they say: twenty-two take the past as their object; twenty-two take the future as their object; thirty-three take the three times as their object. This same knowledge is incapable of causing one to enter right determinacy, and the rest, by virtue of four conditions, cultivated and caused to manifest in the present, the meaning being exactly as stated before.

One asks: for what reason is the seventh named the knowledge of the abiding of dharmas? The answer: "dharma" refers to the fruit; "abiding" refers to the cause — it is because it knows the cause upon which the fruit-dharma abides

that it is named the knowledge of the abiding of dharmas — that is, knowing the cause upon which the lower, middling, and upper fruits of the three realms abide is named the knowledge of the abiding of dharmas. This same knowledge knows solely the particular characteristic of the cause, not the aspect belonging to the noble ones, and it is thereby gathered solely within worldly knowledge. There are those who say: this pervades four kinds of knowledge — namely, dharma-cognition, subsequent cognition, worldly knowledge, and the knowledge of accumulation. One asks: if this is so, then for what reason does it say it is solely a single kind, worldly knowledge? The answer: it genuinely does pervade the undefiled — it is solely spoken of here as contaminated, since it, for the greater part, knows the particular characteristic of the cause. There are, further, those who say: the preceding six kinds of knowledge are named the knowledge of causes,

and the knowledge given rise to taking these same six as their object is named the knowledge of the abiding of dharmas — this same knowledge knows the path, not the cause of accumulation, and is likewise gathered within four kinds of knowledge — namely, dharma-cognition, subsequent cognition, worldly knowledge, and the knowledge of the path. One asks: if this is so, then for what reason does it state it in this way — "fully knowing that this is impermanent, conditioned, fabricated by mental volition, arisen through conditions, an exhausting dharma, a diminishing dharma, a detaching dharma, an extinguishing dharma" — since the undefiled could hardly be named a detaching dharma? The answer: here, it ought solely to state "fully knowing that this is impermanent, conditioned," up through "an extinguishing dharma," and ought not to state "a detaching dharma"; yet it does state "a detaching dharma" in order to display that the noble ones, too, grow weary even of the undefiled, and do not give rise to delight in it, and it is thereby that it speaks of "a detaching dharma." There are, further, those who say: the preceding knowledge of causes is itself precisely four kinds of knowledge; the knowledge that now knows that same knowledge is named the knowledge of the abiding of dharmas — this same knowledge of the abiding of dharmas, knowing that same worldly knowledge, is also named knowing a detaching dharma. The verdict: it should be understood that the position stated first here is the good one.

Exactly as the Bhagavān stated: Susīma, you should know, there first exists the knowledge of the abiding of dharmas, and afterward there exists the knowledge of nirvāṇa. One asks: here, which, precisely, is the knowledge of the abiding of dharmas, and which is the knowledge of nirvāṇa? There are those who say: the knowledge of accumulation is the knowledge of the abiding of dharmas; the knowledge of cessation is the knowledge of nirvāṇa. There are, further, those who say: the knowledge of suffering and of accumulation is the knowledge of the abiding of dharmas; the knowledge of cessation and of the path is the knowledge of nirvāṇa. There are, further, those who say: the knowledge of suffering, of accumulation, and of the path is the knowledge of the abiding of dharmas; the knowledge of cessation is the knowledge of nirvāṇa. One asks: if this is so, then for what reason does it say that the knowledge of the abiding of dharmas exists first, and the knowledge of nirvāṇa exists afterward? The answer: although there exists a knowledge of the abiding of dharmas that comes after the knowledge of nirvāṇa, there also exists a knowledge of the abiding of dharmas that comes before the knowledge of nirvāṇa, and it is thereby stated in this way. There are, further, those who say: the knowledge of turning and flowing on is the knowledge of the abiding of dharmas; the knowledge of turning back and ceasing is the knowledge of nirvāṇa. Further, the knowledge of dependent origination is the knowledge of the abiding of dharmas; the knowledge of dependent origination's own cessation is the knowledge of nirvāṇa. Further, the knowledge of birth-and-death is the knowledge of the abiding of dharmas; the knowledge of birth-and-death's own cessation is the knowledge of nirvāṇa. There are further teachers who say: the knowledge belonging to the approach ground is the knowledge of the abiding of dharmas; the knowledge belonging to the fundamental ground is the knowledge of nirvāṇa. How is this known to be so? The scripture serves as the standard — that is, exactly as the scripture states: there were certain outside sectarians who gathered together and discussed, saying: before the Buddha appeared in the world, we gained the greater part of fame and material support; since the Buddha's own appearance in the world, fame and material support have been suddenly cut off, exactly as, once the sun has already risen, the light of torches is thereby hidden away. What skillful means might there be to restore our own fame and material support to what they once were? Yet Gautama possesses two superior things — namely, his own well-versed scriptures and treatises, and his own dignified, upright form. Although his own form is difficult to steal, his own scriptures and treatises are easy to pilfer. Among our own assembly there is Susīma, whose mindfulness and wisdom are firm and strong, capable of stealing that same dharma — were we to attain that same dharma, our own fame and material support would then be restored to what they once were. Having thus discussed together, they told Susīma of this — he, by virtue of two conditions, accepted the assembly's own request: first, his affection for his own kinsmen and friends; second, his own wholesome roots having ripened. He thereupon set out from the city of Rājagṛha, proceeding to the Bamboo Grove vihāra, and said to the monks there: I wish to go forth from the household life. At that time, the various monks brought word of this to the Buddha; the Buddha, knowing his own faculties and disposition, sent the various monks to bring him across, causing him to go forth and receive the full precepts. Not long afterward, he recited the texts of the Tripiṭaka, though understanding little of their meaning, and secretly thought to himself: now is precisely the time to benefit my own kinsmen and friends — and he thereupon set out from the Bamboo Grove, wishing to return to the city of Rājagṛha. Yet the Buddha possesses the all-illuminating, dharma-protecting divine eye, constantly observing the world to see who might attempt such a theft. At that time, there were five hundred worthy ones, before whom Susīma proclaimed his own virtue, saying: my own birth is already exhausted, the holy conduct has already been established, what was to be done has already been done, I do not undergo any further existence. Susīma said: upon which concentration, sirs, does your own certified attainment rely — is it the first dhyāna, or is it, up through, the sphere of nothingness? The various monks said: our own certified attainment relies upon none of these. Susīma said: if it relies upon none of these, then how is it attained? The various monks said: we are all, in every case, wisdom-liberated. Susīma, having heard this, was bewildered and did not know what was meant, and thereupon thought to himself: were my own kinsmen and friends to ask me of this same meaning, what, then, would I say? — and he returned to where the Buddha was, to ask this same meaning. The Bhagavān said to him: Susīma, you should know, there first exists the knowledge of the abiding of dharmas, and afterward there exists the knowledge of nirvāṇa. Susīma said: I do not now know which is the knowledge of the abiding of dharmas, and which is the knowledge of nirvāṇa. The Buddha said: whether you know it or do not know it, the dharma is, nonetheless, necessarily so. At that time, Susīma did not accomplish his original intention; yet those same five hundred worthy ones, relying upon the not-yet-arrived concentration, having attained the exhaustion of the outflows, only afterward became capable of giving rise to the fundamental attainments. It is by virtue of this that it is known that the knowledge belonging to the approach ground is the knowledge of the abiding of dharmas; the knowledge belonging to the fundamental ground is the knowledge of nirvāṇa.