Retaining and Releasing Life

Fourth Aggregate, Karma: the Own-Karma Nyāsa, Chapter Five, Part Three. What is meant by a bhikṣu "retaining much life-formation"? And so on in full. Question: why compose this treatise? Answer: in order to analyze the meaning of the sūtra. For the sūtra says: at that time the Blessed One retained much life-formation and released much life-span-formation. It is also in order to analyze the meaning of the Vinaya. For the Vinaya says: Mahāprajāpatī, foremost among them, together with five hundred bhikṣuṇīs, retained much life-formation and released much life-span-formation. Though the sūtra and the Vinaya say this much, they have not analyzed the causes and conditions of retaining and releasing — and this sūtra and this Vinaya passage are the very root this treatise depends upon,

— and what they have not explained should now be explained, and so this treatise is composed. Moreover, every treatise composed exists in order to analyze the particular and general characteristics of all existing dharmas, and this is no different here — this need not be raised as an objection.

What is meant by a bhikṣu "retaining much life-formation"? Answer: it means that an arhat, having attained supernormal powers and mastery over his own mind, gives a gift of robes, of a bowl, or of any of the various requisites proper to a renunciant's livelihood, to the community of monks or to a particular individual, and, having given this gift, makes a vow and enters at once the boundary state of the fourth dhyāna. Rising from this absorption, he reflects in thought and declares aloud, "Whatever karma of mine is capable of bringing about a ripening-fruit of wealth, may it now instead bring about a ripening-fruit of longevity" — and at that moment, the karma that was capable of bringing about a ripening-fruit of wealth instead comes to bring about a ripening-fruit of longevity. Question: for what reason does he retain much life-formation? Answer: retaining much life-formation rests, in brief, on two grounds — benefiting others, and sustaining the Buddhadharma. As to benefiting others: this means that, in teaching his disciples to cultivate their contemplative practice, he carefully observes whether, for as long as he himself remains alive, these disciples will attain the excellent Dharma or not,

— and whether, should his own life come to an end, there would be anyone else capable of properly showing them the true path from the false. If he sees that there would be no one capable of this, he then retains his life-formation. As to sustaining the Buddhadharma: this means that, in overseeing matters such as the making of Buddha images and the building of monastic dwellings, he carefully observes whether, for as long as he himself remains alive, these undertakings will be accomplished or not, and whether, should his own life come to an end, there would be anyone else skilled enough to accomplish them. If he sees that there would be no one capable of this, he then retains his life-formation. He may also foresee that some king, minister, elder, or the like is about to destroy the Buddhadharma, and carefully observe whether, for as long as he himself remains alive, there would be some means of preventing this destruction, and whether, should his own life come to an end, there would be anyone else skilled enough to sustain the Dharma. If he sees that there would be no one capable of this, he then retains his life-formation. As to retaining life-formation by giving robes, a bowl, and the like to the community or to an individual — this is grounded in the sūtra's own teaching, where the World-Honored One said that a donor capable of giving another these five things — what is called giving in five respects — will thereby, in return, obtain five corresponding fruits: longevity, beauty, strength, happiness, and eloquence. He carefully observes whether giving to the community as a whole, or giving to a particular individual, will obtain the greater fruit, and, seeing which will obtain the greater fruit, gives accordingly — and so, giving robes, a bowl, or any of the various requisites proper to a renunciant's livelihood to the community or to an individual, and, having given this gift, makes a vow and enters at once the boundary state of the fourth dhyāna. Rising from this absorption, he reflects in thought and declares aloud, "Whatever karma of mine is capable of bringing about a ripening-fruit of wealth, may it now instead bring about a ripening-fruit of longevity" — and at that moment, the karma that was capable of bringing about a ripening-fruit of wealth instead comes to bring about a ripening-fruit of longevity.

Question: in principle, a ripening-fruit of wealth cannot actually become a ripening-fruit of longevity — why then does the text say that karma capable of bringing about a ripening-fruit of wealth instead comes to bring about a ripening-fruit of longevity? Answer: it is not the substance of the fruit that is converted, but the force of the karma — that is, through the power of the boundary absorption following the gift, karma capable of bringing about a ripening-fruit of wealth is redirected to bring about a ripening-fruit of longevity instead; though both remain, in principle, convertible, at this particular moment he simply disregards the fruit of wealth and seeks only the fruit of longevity. Other masters say: there is karma that had already been set to bring about a ripening-fruit of longevity, yet obstructed by some calamity — and, through the power of the boundary absorption following this gift, that calamitous obstruction is dissolved, and the ripening of longevity arises; though both remain convertible, at this moment he simply disregards the fruit of wealth and seeks only the fruit of longevity. Others say: there is karma that had already been set to bring about a ripening-fruit of longevity, yet not with certainty — and it is through the power of the boundary absorption following this gift that the karma set to bring about longevity is made to deliver its fruit with certainty. Still others hold that it is through the power of this giving and absorption that some remainder of longevity-ripening from a past life is drawn forth — that is, an arhat may have some remaining longevity-ripening left over from some other existence, and it is through the power of the boundary absorption following this gift that this remainder is drawn forth and made to manifest — the inconceivable power of absorption causing what was long since interrupted to resume once more.

Question: is the life-formation thus retained drawn forth precisely by the power of giving, or by the power of absorption? If by the power of giving, there should be no need to enter absorption; if by the power of absorption, there should be no need to give. Some say it is by the power of giving; others say it is by the power of absorption. According to this last account: it is by both together — for though one may give abundantly, without entering absorption he could never draw forth the fruit of longevity, and though one may enter absorption repeatedly, without giving he could equally never draw forth the fruit of longevity; rather, the power of giving is what enables the power of absorption to become decisive, and hence it is said that both are required together. What is meant by a bhikṣu "releasing much life-span-formation"? Answer: it means that an arhat, having attained supernormal powers and mastery over his own mind, gives a gift just as before, and, having given this gift, makes a vow and enters at once the boundary state of the fourth dhyāna. Rising from this absorption, he reflects in thought and declares aloud, "Whatever karma of mine is capable of bringing about a ripening-fruit of longevity, may it now instead bring about a ripening-fruit of wealth" — and at that moment, the karma that was capable of bringing about a ripening-fruit of longevity instead comes to bring about a ripening-fruit of wealth. Question: for what reason does he release much life-span-formation? Answer: because both his own benefit and the benefit of others are already complete. Having already attained the wisdom of exhaustion, his own benefit is called complete; and, with respect to benefiting others, if he still has the capacity for it, once that task is accomplished he then returns to final quiescence, while if he no longer has the capacity for it, this too is called complete. Others say:

— he regards his own body with the same weariness one feels toward a vessel of poison, and hence wishes to cast it aside — as it is said in a verse:

"The pure conduct is well established, The noble path already well cultivated — When life is spent, one rejoices, As one who casts off a vessel of poison." As to releasing life-span-formation by giving robes, a bowl, and the like to the community or to an individual — this is grounded in the sūtra's own teaching, where the World-Honored One said that the grounds for meritorious deeds are, in brief, of three kinds: the ground of giving, the ground of moral discipline, and the ground of cultivation — and that practicing, cultivating, and frequently engaging in the ground of giving brings about a great fruit of wealth, and so on in full. He carefully observes whether giving to the community as a whole, or giving to a particular individual, will obtain the greater fruit, and, seeing which will obtain the greater fruit, gives accordingly — and so, giving robes, a bowl, or any of the various requisites proper to a renunciant's livelihood to the community or to an individual, and, having given this gift, makes a vow and enters at once the boundary state of the fourth dhyāna. Rising from this absorption, he reflects in thought and declares aloud, "Whatever karma of mine is capable of bringing about a ripening-fruit of longevity, may it now instead bring about a ripening-fruit of wealth" — and at that moment, the karma that was capable of bringing about a ripening-fruit of longevity instead comes to bring about a ripening-fruit of wealth. Question: in principle, a ripening-fruit of longevity cannot actually become a ripening-fruit of wealth — why then does the text say that karma capable of bringing about a ripening-fruit of longevity instead comes to bring about a ripening-fruit of wealth? Answer: it is not the substance of the fruit that is converted, but the force of the karma — that is, through the power of the boundary absorption following the gift, karma capable of bringing about a ripening-fruit of longevity is redirected to bring about a ripening-fruit of wealth instead; though both remain, in principle, convertible, at this particular moment he simply disregards the fruit of longevity and seeks only the fruit of wealth. Other masters say: there is karma that had already been set to bring about a ripening-fruit of wealth, yet obstructed by some calamity — and, through the power of the boundary absorption following this gift, that calamitous obstruction is dissolved, and the ripening of wealth arises; though both remain convertible, at this moment he simply disregards the fruit of longevity and seeks only the fruit of wealth. Others say: there is karma that had already been set to bring about a ripening-fruit of wealth, yet not with certainty — and it is through the power of the boundary absorption following this gift that the karma set to bring about wealth is made to deliver its fruit with certainty. Still others say: there is karma that had already been set to bring about a ripening-fruit of wealth, yet coarse rather than fine — and it is through the power of the boundary absorption following this gift

— that the coarse karma is made instead to bring about a fine fruit — that is, though this karma had originally been set to bring about a coarse fruit over a long span, now, through the power of this giving, absorption, and vow, it is made instead to bring about a fine fruit here and now. Still others hold that it is through the power of this giving and absorption that some remainder of wealth-ripening from a past life is drawn forth — that is, an arhat may have some remaining wealth-ripening left over from some other existence, and it is through the power of the boundary absorption following this gift that this remainder is drawn forth and made to manifest — the inconceivable power of absorption causing what was long since interrupted to resume once more.

Question: is this wealth-ripening drawn forth precisely by the power of giving, or by the power of absorption? If by the power of giving, there should be no need to enter absorption; if by the power of absorption, there should be no need to give. Some say it is by the power of giving; others say it is by the power of absorption. According to this last account: it is by both together — for though one may give abundantly, without entering absorption he could never draw forth the fruit of wealth, and though one may enter absorption repeatedly, without giving he could equally never draw forth the fruit of wealth; rather, the power of giving is what enables the power of absorption to become decisive, and hence it is said that both are required together. Question: if beings' fruits of longevity and wealth are not fixed, then retaining or releasing them may well be possible — but if both are already fixed, how could they be retained or released at all? Answer: it is merely that a set limit is established, with nothing capable of exceeding it — just as a skilled physician's prognosis of a set limit admits of nothing beyond it, so too here. The Venerable Ghoṣa explains it this way: that arhat, by giving rise to the power of the boundary fourth absorption, draws forth the great elements of the form realm and causes them to manifest within his own body — and, since these great elements may either accord with or oppose the life-formation, it is on this account that he either retains or releases it. Others say: that arhat, by the power of this mastery over absorption, shifts away the enduring force of the faculties and great elements produced by his former karma, and draws in instead the enduring force of the faculties and great elements arisen from this never-before-exercised power of absorption. This account, however, is mistaken, since the life faculty exists distinctly, its own-nature being something other than the faculties and great elements.

The sūtra says that the World-Honored One retained much life-formation and released much life-span-formation — what is the meaning of this? Some say that the buddhas, the World-Honored Ones, give up a third portion of their lifespan. Others say that the buddhas, the World-Honored Ones, give up a fifth portion. According to the theory that the buddhas give up a third portion, the World-Honored Śākyamuni's own destined lifespan would have been one hundred and twenty years, of which he gave up the final forty, receiving only eighty. Question: at the time the Buddha appeared in the world, the people of this continent did not live beyond a hundred years — why then would the World-Honored Śākyamuni's own lifespan be one hundred and twenty? Answer: just as the Buddha's own beauty, strength, lineage, wealth, following, and wisdom surpass those of other beings, so too his lifespan ought to exceed that of the general populace. According to the theory that the buddhas give up a fifth portion, the World-Honored Śākyamuni's own destined lifespan would have been a hundred years, of which he gave up the final twenty, receiving only eighty. Question: the buddhas' beauty, strength, lineage, wealth, following, and wisdom surpass those of other beings — why then would their lifespan be merely equal to that of the general populace?

Answer: it is because he was born at a time when the general lifespan itself was that measure. It is on this account that the sūtra speaks of "releasing life-span-formation" as giving up forty years, or twenty years, and of "retaining life-formation" as retaining a further three months. Question: why did the World-Honored One retain and release precisely these measures of life-formation and life-span-formation, neither more nor less? Answer: because the buddhas' own tasks were thereby brought to excellent completion — it being at precisely this measure of time that their tasks reached excellent completion that neither more nor less was needed. Others say: it is simply the nature of things that the buddhas, the World-Honored Ones, release and retain precisely these measures of life, no more and no less. Others say: it is in order to show that the buddhas, the World-Honored Ones, are not attached to life, and can thus cast it off early, unlike other beings, who, being attached to life, cannot cast it off — lest anyone doubt whether the Buddha, too, in diligently seeking final quiescence, remains attached to life as they do,

— he releases life-span-formation, so as to show himself different from ordinary beings in this respect; and, since the work of converting beings had not yet reached its end, he further retained three months' worth of life. Others say: it is in order to show that the buddhas, the World-Honored Ones, are firmly established in the noble lineage that he releases life-span-formation — that is, just as the World-Honored One feels deep contentment with respect to existence and its requisites, so too with respect to life itself. Others say: the World-Honored One releases life-span-formation in order to avoid the stage of old-age decline, and, since the work of converting beings had not yet reached completion, he further retained three months — as when Udāyin, once massaging the Buddha's limbs, noticed something unusual, and said to the Buddha, "World-Honored One, your limbs are now slack, and your faculties show change —

— your countenance has changed from before." If this is already so now, how much more so were he to live beyond eighty — and hence he released much life-span-formation in order to avoid old-age decline. Others say: it is in order to show his mastery over absorption that the Buddha, the World-Honored One, retains and releases his own life, as the World-Honored One himself said, "Having well cultivated the four bases of supernormal power, I could, if I wished, remain for a full eon, or even longer than an eon, exactly as I willed." Others say: it is in order to show that the buddhas, the World-Honored Ones, are capable of subduing every Māra that they retain and release life — that is, at the moment of realizing supreme, wondrous awakening, he had already subdued two Māras, the divine Māra and the Māra of affliction; and now, at the moment of entering the realm of nirvāṇa, he subdues two further Māras, the Māra of the aggregates and the Māra of death — releasing much life-span-formation in order to subdue the Māra of the aggregates, and retaining much life-formation in order to subdue the Māra of death. Question: what distinction is there between "life-formation" and "life-span-formation"? Some say there is none, as the *Prakaraṇapāda* explains: what is the life faculty? It is the lifespan across the three realms —

— and hence there is no distinction here. Others say: the two are indeed distinct, if only in name — one being called "life-formation," the other "life-span-formation." Others say: that by which one lives is called life-formation, and that by which one dies is called life-span-formation. Others say: what is retained is called life-formation, and what is released is called life-span-formation.

Others say: what is capable of further arising is called life-formation, and what is not capable of further arising is called life-span-formation. Others say: what abides only briefly is called life-formation, and what abides for a full lifespan is called life-span-formation. Others say: what belongs to one's present class-nature is called life-formation, and what belongs to a different class-nature is called life-span-formation. Others say: the fruit of cultivation is called life-formation, and the fruit of karma is called life-span-formation. Others say: the fruit of undefiled karma is called life-formation, and the fruit of karma with outflow is called life-span-formation. Others say: the fruit of knowledge is called life-formation, and the fruit of ignorance is called life-span-formation. Others say: the fruit of newly created karma is called life-formation, and the fruit of long-standing karma is called life-span-formation. Others say: the fruit of karma presently delivering its result is called life-formation, and the fruit of karma not yet delivering its result is called life-span-formation. Others say: the fruit of near karma is called life-formation, and the fruit of distant karma is called life-span-formation. The Venerable Ghoṣa explains it this way: the fruit of karma ripening in the present life is called life-formation,

— while the fruit of karma ripening in the next life, in some later life, or with indeterminate ripening, is called life-span-formation — this is the distinction between life-formation and life-span-formation. Question: what is the significance of the word "much" in "much life-formation"? Answer: the word "much" shows that what is retained or released is not a single instant; the word "formation" shows that what is retained or released is an impermanent dharma. Question: in what place is life-formation or life-span-formation retained or released? Answer: within the desire realm, not the other realms; within the human destiny, not the other destinies; and across three continents, not the northern continent. Question: who is capable of retaining or releasing life-formation or life-span-formation? Answer: it is the noble ones, not ordinary beings; the non-learners, not the learners; those liberated not through time, not those liberated in time; and it may be either a man or a woman.

What is meant by mental derangement? And so on in full. Question: why compose this treatise? Answer: in order to explain the sūtra and the Vinaya. For the sūtra says: the brahmin woman Vāsiṣṭhī, having lost her six sons, became deranged in mind and ran about naked in the streets, and, upon seeing the World-Honored One, regained her original mind. And the Vinaya says: Śrīvatsa, on account of mental derangement, committed countless improper acts unbefitting a renunciant, contrary to the Dharma. The Vinaya further says: one oppressed by painful feeling, or mentally deranged, or still in the initial stage of training, incurs no offense whatsoever. Though the sūtra and the Vinaya say this much, they have not explained it in full, and it is now, in order to explain it in full, that this treatise is composed.

What is mental derangement? Answer: it means being driven to derangement of mind by the force of four conditions. First, a non-human being manifests a terrifying form,

— and, upon encountering it, one is struck with terror, deranging the mind — that is, a non-human being transforms itself into some terrifying form of an elephant, horse, camel, ox, sheep, or the like, and appears before the person, deranging his mind. Question: has this person never before seen elephants or horses? Why, then, is he now struck with terror upon seeing one? Answer: though he has seen such things before, this time it is at the wrong time, in the wrong place, or on the wrong path, that he suddenly sees it. "At the wrong time" means seeing an elephant or horse in the middle of the night, and thinking, "Why should an elephant or horse come to me now?" — being certain that this must be a non-human being come to do him harm, and, on account of this terror, his mind becomes deranged. "In the wrong place" means seeing an elephant or horse in a hall, chamber, or similar dwelling, and thinking, "Why should there be an elephant or horse here?" — being certain that this must be a non-human being come to do him harm, and, on account of this terror, his mind becomes deranged. "On the wrong path" means seeing an elephant or horse among the graves, on a path elephants and horses never travel, and thinking, "Why should there be an elephant or horse here?" — being certain that this must be a non-human being come to do him harm, and, on account of this terror, his mind becomes deranged. Second, a non-human being strikes one's limbs in anger, deranging the mind through the force of painful feeling — that is, in some place where a great assembly gathers or dwells, one, with a careless and disrespectful mind, discards excrement or urine there,

— or engages in impure conduct within the dwellings of buddhas, pratyekabuddhas, or śrāvakas, and a good spirit, angered by this, strikes his limbs — for a person's limbs each contain a point no larger than a mustard seed, and, when this point is struck, the mind at once becomes deranged. Third, conflict among the great elements deranges the mind — that is, one who eats an excess of walnuts, sesame seeds, and the like brings on a feverish or windy disturbance, and, the great elements falling into conflict, the mind becomes deranged. Fourth, the ripening of past karma deranges the mind — that is, one who formerly, out of gleeful delight, spread terrifying rumors and caused others distress; or dug pits and traps to make beings fall in; or set loose a fierce fire to burn mountains and marshes; or used force to compel others to drink wine; or willfully misconstrued the meaning of the sūtras — karma such as this deranges the mind, though this derangement is not itself a ripening-fruit, but only arises out of the ripening of such evil karma,

— since evil karma does not directly bring about a ripening within the mental sphere itself. Others say: derangement arises from five conditions, the first four as explained above, with grief and sorrow as the fifth — that is, on account of losing a beloved child or the like, grief and anguish entangle the mind, giving rise to derangement.

Question: in what place does this mental derangement occur? Answer: it occurs within the desire realm, not the form or formless realms; yet it does not occur in hell, since the minds of hell-beings are already constantly deranged there — the phrase "mental derangement" implying only an occasional, not a constant, state. It occurs among ghosts and animals, and also among humans and gods, except in Uttarakuru, since that continent lacks the predominant fruit of unwholesome karma. Question: who has this mental derangement, and who does not? Answer: both noble ones and ordinary beings may have it — among the noble ones, this extends to every kind except the buddhas themselves, for a buddha has no mental derangement, no impairment of speech, no severing of a vital point, and no gradual loss of life. An ordinary being's derangement may arise from all five conditions; a noble one's derangement arises only from conflict among the great elements, since a noble one has no terror, being beyond the five fears; is never struck by a non-human being out of anger, having no impure conduct to provoke it; and has no ripening of past evil karma either, since determinate karma must already have been fully experienced before one enters the noble path, while indeterminate karma has already been transformed and dissolved by the power of the noble path; nor does a noble one have grief or sorrow, having realized the true nature of dharmas.

Others say: a noble one's derangement arises from two conditions — conflict among the great elements, and being struck by a non-human being. Question: a noble one has already obtained the restraint of non-doing, and so certainly has no impure conduct — why then would a non-human being feel anger toward him? Answer: those non-human beings who have faith in the Buddhadharma revere and honor the noble ones, and would never trouble or strike them; but those without faith harbor hatred and envy toward the noble ones, and, watching for an opportunity, do trouble and strike them — and hence even a noble one may be struck by a non-human being.

Question: abiding in what kind of mind does derangement occur? Answer: it occurs while abiding in a mind with outflow, not an undefiled mind, and while abiding in mental consciousness, not the five sense-consciousnesses. Question: if so,

— then how does one come to see two moons and the like? Answer: all such experiences are the discrimination of mental consciousness alone; no such deranged apprehension occurs among the five sense-consciousnesses. Question: is derangement spoken of with reference to a mind not yet deranged, or to a mind already deranged? Answer: it is spoken of neither with reference to a mind not yet deranged, nor to a mind already deranged. Rather, both a deranged mind-moment and a non-deranged mind-moment exist within the future, and, when conditions for derangement are met, the non-deranged mind-moment ceases and the deranged mind-moment arises; when conditions against derangement are met, the deranged mind-moment ceases and the non-deranged mind-moment arises.

Question: if the mind is deranged, is it also distracted? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is a mind that is deranged but not distracted — namely, an undefiled mind belonging to one who is deranged. There is a mind that is distracted but not deranged — namely, a defiled mind belonging to one who is not deranged. There is a mind that is both deranged and distracted — namely, a defiled mind belonging to one who is deranged. There is a mind that is neither deranged nor distracted — namely, an undefiled mind, presently manifesting, belonging to one who is not deranged.

Which dharma, when associated with an entanglement, is always unwholesome? Answer: shamelessness and non-remorse. Question: there are ten kinds of entanglement — why does the text speak only of shamelessness and non-remorse? Answer: this is simply the intention of the treatise's own author, and so on in full. Others say: these two alone are always unwholesome,

— and also accompany every unwholesome mind without exception. Anger, concealment, stinginess, and envy, though always unwholesome, do not accompany every unwholesome mind; torpor and restlessness, though they accompany every unwholesome mind, are not exclusively unwholesome, being common to both unwholesome and neutral natures; drowsiness and remorse are neither exclusively unwholesome, nor do they accompany every unwholesome mind, since drowsiness is common to all three moral natures and remorse to two. One should understand that no mind free of ill will toward wrongdoing operates in the presence of these two. Every unwholesome mind contains shamelessness and non-remorse, and shamelessness and non-remorse always accompany an unwholesome mind, the two never separating from one another — and hence these two alone are singled out for mention. Here one might equally ask which dharma, when associated with a wholesome mind, is always wholesome — the answer being shame and remorse, since shame and remorse always accompany a wholesome mind, never separating from it. That this is not stated explicitly is not because these two alone are exclusively wholesome in nature, but because they pervade every wholesome mind without exception.

What is the Buddha's teaching? And so on in full. Question: why compose this treatise? Answer: in order to put a stop to the notion of "Buddha's teaching" arising with regard to what is not the Buddha's teaching.

As, nowadays, there are those who say, "I teach the Buddha's teaching, I hear the Buddha's teaching," though the notion of "Buddha's teaching" arises in them with regard to what is not the Buddha's teaching at all — and it is in order to put a stop to this notion, and to show that only what the Buddha himself taught is the true Buddha's teaching, while what others teach is not, that this treatise is composed. Question: why is it that people nowadays say, "I teach the Buddha's teaching, I hear the Buddha's teaching"? Answer: they say this on the basis of the root and origin of what they teach — that is, the dharmas of defilement and purity, bondage and liberation, birth-and-death and nirvāṇa, cause and effect, and the rest, presently being taught, all have their root and origin in what the Buddha himself taught. Others say: they say this on the basis of resemblance — that is, the Buddha formerly taught others through this same sequence of name-body, phrase-body, and syllable-body,

— and they, too, now teach others through this same sequence of name-body, phrase-body, and syllable-body. Others say: they say this on the basis of conformity — that is, the Buddha formerly taught others through such a conforming sequence of name-body, phrase-body, and syllable-body, and they, too, now teach through this same conforming sequence. Others say: they say this on the basis of a shared capacity to accomplish the task — that is, just as one who personally heard the essential Dharma from the Buddha himself might thereby enter the noble path, attain its fruit, become free of defilement, and exhaust every contaminant, so too one who hears what is taught today may accomplish this same task.

What is the Buddha's teaching? Answer: it is the Buddha's own speech, utterance, verbal expression, discourse, vocal sound, the course of speech, verbal karma, and manifest verbal karma — this is what is called the Buddha's teaching. Question: why is the Buddha's teaching solely manifest speech, and not unmanifest karma? Answer: because it is called the Buddha's teaching precisely insofar as it gives rise to correct understanding in another — and correct understanding arises in another only through manifest karma, never through unmanifest karma. Others say: the Buddha's teaching is apprehended by the ear-consciousness, and, since no unmanifest karma can be apprehended by the ear-consciousness, unmanifest karma is not the Buddha's teaching. Others say: the Buddha's teaching is apprehended by two consciousnesses, while unmanifest karma is apprehended by only one, and hence it is not the Buddha's teaching. Others say: the World-Honored One, across three incalculable eons, diligently practiced austerities in search of the Buddha's own manifest speech, and has now brought this quest to fulfillment — it is not unmanifest karma, since the Buddha, the World-Honored One, in ages past, diligently practiced austerities before countless perfectly awakened ones, seeking unsurpassed wisdom, teaching the Dharma to others, seeking the aggregates, sense-fields, and elements by means of the aggregates, sense-fields, and elements, in an unbroken succession, until he now attained buddhahood himself, and now teaches the essential Dharma to all beings, that they may abandon birth-and-death and attain final nirvāṇa —

— and all of this is accomplished through the Buddha's own manifest verbal karma, and hence the Buddha's teaching is solely the Buddha's own manifest speech.

Question: what, then, is the essential nature of the Buddha's teaching — is it verbal karma, or is it name and the rest? If it is verbal karma, how is a later passage to be reconciled, which says: what is called the Buddha's teaching? — namely, name-body, phrase-body, and syllable-body, arranged in sequence, ordered in sequence, joined in sequence. And how is the verse to be reconciled, which says that desire is the cause of verse, that syllable is precisely the letter, that verse operates by way of name, and that the composer relies upon it? But if it is name and the rest, how is this earlier passage to be reconciled, which says, what is the Buddha's teaching? —

— namely, the Buddha's speech, and so on through manifest speech — this is what is called the Buddha's teaching. Answer: it should be said that verbal karma is its essential nature. Question: if so,

— how is the later passage to be reconciled, which says, what is called the Buddha's teaching? — namely, name-body, phrase-body, and so on in full? Answer: this later passage is meant to show the Buddha's teaching's own function, not to reveal its essential nature — that is, the sequential arrangement, ordering, and joining of name-body, phrase-body, and syllable-body is the function of the Buddha's teaching. Question: how, then, is the verse to be reconciled? Answer: some operations proceed by way of name, others by way of meaning —

— and this passage here speaks only of the operation by way of name. Others say: the essential nature of the Buddha's teaching is indeed name and the rest. Question: if so, how is this passage to be reconciled, which says, what is the Buddha's teaching? — namely, the Buddha's speech, and so on in full? Answer: it is said this way on the basis of successive causation, just as, in ordinary generation, children and grandchildren arise from one another in succession — that is, speech gives rise to name, and name is capable of revealing meaning. According to this final account: verbal karma is the essential nature of the Buddha's teaching, since it is the Buddha's own intended meaning, and it is this that others hear.

Should the Buddha's teaching be said to be wholesome, or neutral? And so on in full. Question: why compose this treatise once more? Answer: the earlier treatise, though it showed the essential nature of the Buddha's teaching, did not yet show what gives rise to it — and it is in order to show this that this treatise is now composed. Should the Buddha's teaching be said to be wholesome, or neutral? Answer: it may be either wholesome or neutral. What is wholesome teaching? It is the speech, and so on through manifest speech, taught by the Buddha with a wholesome mind. What is neutral teaching? It is the speech, and so on through manifest speech, uttered by the Buddha with a neutral mind. Question: within the Buddha's teaching, what is wholesome, and what is neutral? Answer: the Abhidharma and Sūtra collections are, for the most part, wholesome, while the Vinaya collection is, for the most part, neutral — as when the World-Honored One said, "The door should be kept closed," or, "Robes and bowls should be placed on the bamboo rack or the dragon-tooth hook" — sayings such as these are all neutral. Others say: whatever the Buddha's teaching addresses the object of conversion should be known as wholesome, while whatever addresses some incidental matter is neutral — as when the World-Honored One told Ānanda, "Go and see whether it is raining, and why there is such loud noise in the garden" — sayings such as these are all neutral. Others say: whatever the Buddha's teaching is spoken with deliberate effort should be known as wholesome, while whatever is spoken spontaneously is neutral. Others say: whatever the Buddha's teaching is embraced by the [ten] powers, the [four] fearlessnesses, and the rest should be known as wholesome, while whatever is not embraced by these is neutral.

When a śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha utters speech with a wholesome mind, it may equally reach completion on either a wholesome or a neutral mind; when he utters speech with a neutral mind, it may equally reach completion on either a neutral or a wholesome mind. When a buddha utters speech with a wholesome mind, it reaches completion only on a wholesome mind; when he utters speech with a neutral mind, it may equally reach completion on either a neutral or a wholesome mind — but there is definitely no case of speech uttered with a wholesome mind reaching completion on a neutral mind, since the buddhas' teaching of the Dharma only ever increases, never decreases, and the karma a buddha performs is definitely never subject to decline.

What is called the Buddha's teaching? And so on in full. Question: why compose this treatise once more? Answer: the earlier treatise, though it showed the essential nature of the Buddha's teaching,

— did not yet show the Buddha's teaching's own function, and it is now, in order to show this, that this treatise is composed.

What is called the Buddha's teaching? Answer: it is name-body, phrase-body, and syllable-body, arranged in sequence, ordered in sequence, joined in sequence — this shows the Buddha's teaching's own function in general. Sūtra, geya, vyākaraṇa, gāthā, udāna, nidāna, avadāna, itivṛttaka, jātaka, vaipulya, adbhutadharma, upadeśa — what is called what? Answer: it is name-body, phrase-body, and syllable-body, arranged in sequence, ordered in sequence, joined in sequence — this shows the distinct functions of the Buddha's teaching. What is sūtra? It is the scattered prose passages found within the scriptures, as when it is said that all conditioned things are impermanent, that all dharmas are without self, that nirvāṇa is tranquil, and so on. Question: what is the meaning of "sūtra"? Answer: this carries, in brief, two senses — the sense of gathering together, and the sense of adjudicating. As to the sense of gathering together: the Buddha's own speech is capable of holding meaning together, as a thread holds a garland of flowers — just as one who strings a garland uses a thread to bind flowers into a crown for people's heads, so that they do not scatter for a long while, so too the gathering-together aspect of the Buddha's teaching crowns the minds of beings, so that they are not forgotten for a long while. As to the sense of adjudicating: the Buddha's own speech is capable of cutting through and settling meaning, as a carpenter's ink-line does — just as a craftsman's ink-line, applied to various materials, makes it easy to distinguish straight from crooked, removing the crooked and retaining the straight, so too the adjudicating aspect of the Buddha's teaching makes it easy to distinguish right from wrong, removing evil and retaining good. What is geya? It is when, within the scriptures, on the basis of a scattered prose passage spoken before, a verse is afterward composed summarizing it and chanted aloud — that is, the summarizing passages, the summarizing chapters, and the like. As when the World-Honored One told the assembly of bhikṣus, "I say that knowledge and vision are capable of exhausting every contaminant; that there is no such thing as exhausting the contaminants without knowledge and vision" — the World-Honored One, having spoken this passage in scattered prose, then composed it once more into a verse, and chanted:

"With knowledge and vision, the contaminants are exhausted; Without them, this cannot be so. When one penetrates the arising and ceasing of the aggregates, The mind is liberated from affliction." What is vyākaraṇa? It is when, within the scriptures, disciples question the Tathāgata and he explains in reply, or the Tathāgata questions a disciple and receives his explanation in reply, or one disciple questions another and receives his explanation in reply — and the same holds when converted gods and the like pose questions and receive explanations. It includes the four kinds of question-and-explanation found within the scriptures, as well as explanations of what has been realized, of one's place of future birth, and the like. What is gāthā? It is when, within the scriptures, a verse stands closed and complete in itself, restating nothing spoken before — the solitary verses and the like, as in the verse that says:

"Growing close to what one loves or hates alike Gives rise to craving and to hatred — And so the wise avoid both equally, Walking alone, as solitary as a rhinoceros's horn." What is udāna? It is when, within the scriptures, the World-Honored One speaks spontaneously on the occasion of some joyful or sorrowful matter. As to speaking on the occasion of a joyful matter — once, upon seeing a wild elephant-king, the Buddha spontaneously uttered this verse:

"The elephant-king dwells in the open wilderness, At ease, his mind free of sorrow — The wise one dwells in the quiet forest, Wandering free, his will at peace." As to speaking on the occasion of a sorrowful matter — once, upon seeing an old husband and wife, the Buddha spontaneously uttered this verse:

"In youth they did not cultivate the pure conduct, And lost the noble treasure — Now they are like two old cranes, Together guarding a single dried-up pond." What is nidāna? It is when, within the scriptures, something is spoken in response to some particular occasion or circumstance — the various occasions behind the Arthavarga and the like. As the Vinaya explains: it was on account of Sudhanakumāra and others first committing an offense that the World-Honored One gathered the assembly of bhikṣus and established a training rule.

What is avadāna? It is the many various parables and similes spoken within the scriptures, such as the Long Parable, the Great Parable, and the like — as the keeper of the Vinaya explains regarding the Great Nirvāṇa. What is itivṛttaka? It is the account, within the scriptures, of matters seen or heard from an earlier age — as when it is said that, in the past, there was a great royal capital named Fragrant-Grass, whose king was named Sudarśana, and that, in the past, there was a buddha named Vipaśyin, who taught his disciples in this manner; and that, in the past, there were buddhas named Śikhin, Viśvabhū, Krakucchanda, Kanakamuni, and Kāśyapa, who each taught their disciples in this manner, and so on. What is jātaka? It is the account, within the scriptures, of the various births the Buddha himself passed through in the past — the birth-stories of the bear, the deer, and the rest, as when the Buddha, on account of Devadatta, told the accounts of five hundred past births, and so on.

What is vaipulya? It is the broad and detailed exposition, within the scriptures, of various profound teachings of the Dharma — as in the sūtra of five and of three, the Brahmajāla, the Māyājāla, the aggregates and sense-fields, the great causal chain, and the like. The Venerable Pārśva says: it is the Prajñāpāramitā literature in particular that is called vaipulya here, on account of its vast application. What is adbhutadharma?

It is the account, within the scriptures, of the exceedingly rare and marvelous matters concerning the Three Jewels and the like. Other masters say: it is the disciples' own praise of the World-Honored One's rare and marvelous virtues — as when Śāriputra praised the World-Honored One's unsurpassed virtues, and the Venerable Ānanda praised the World-Honored One's exceedingly rare Dharma. What is upadeśa? It is the teaching, within the scriptures, that adjudicates and settles what is spoken in silence, what is spoken at length, and the like. It is also as when the Buddha, having once taught a scripture in brief, entered a quiet chamber and remained in silent retreat for a long while, and the great śrāvakas, gathering together in one place, each explained the Buddha's own teaching through various different wordings and interpretations of its meaning.

What is called writing? And so on in full. Question: why compose this treatise? Answer: in order to bring certainty to those in doubt — that is, since this treatise has extensively analyzed the essential natures and distinctions of ultimate matters, one might doubt that its author is skilled only in ultimate truth and unfamiliar with conventional matters, and it is in order to show that the author of this treatise is equally well versed in both ultimate and conventional truth that this treatise is composed.

What is called writing? Answer: it is the bodily karma that is properly transformed, together with the skillful wisdom it depends upon. Here, "writing" does not mean the characters produced, but only the capacity capable of producing characters — it is called writing because it is capable of forming characters. "Bodily karma properly transformed" indicates the resulting effect, namely the aggregate of form; "the skillful wisdom it depends upon" indicates the generative cause, namely the four mental aggregates — and so these five aggregates together constitute the own-nature of writing.

What is called number? Answer: it is the mental karma that is properly transformed, together with the skillful wisdom it depends upon. Here, "number" does not mean the counted quantities of rice, sesame, and the like — a hundred, a thousand, and so forth — but only the capacity capable of counting; it is called number because it is capable of counting.

Among the Buddha's disciples, the Venerable Ānanda was skilled in the art of number beyond all others. Once, going out to beg for alms, holding his robe and bowl, he made his way toward the city of Vaiśālī. At that time, before the city gate, there stood a follower of another path who, seeing Ānanda from a distance, secretly thought to himself, "I have heard that this renunciant is foremost in the art of number — let me now put this to the test, and see whether it is true." Near the city gate stood a great tree, its branches and leaves luxuriant, called the nyagrodha. The heterodox ascetic approached, pointed at the tree, and asked, "Do you know how many leaves are on this tree?" The venerable one looked up, and, without hesitation, answered:

"This tree now has so many hundreds of thousands of leaves" — and, having said this, entered the city. Afterward, the ascetic thought to himself, "By what means might I verify whether his answer is true or false?", and, taking a few of the leaves, hid them away. When Ānanda came out of the city again, the ascetic asked him once more, "Sir, the number you gave before — was it exact?" Ānanda replied, "I have already told you." The ascetic said, "Please tell me once more." The venerable one looked at the tree, and, without hesitation, answered, "There were previously so many — now there are so many fewer." The ascetic, delighted, thanked him and exclaimed, "Foremost in knowledge of number — truly, only such a man could be trusted!"

So too, as when Pārāyaṇa, upon merely glimpsing the Buddha's chin, at once declared, "This must certainly be one who has forty fine teeth" — instances of such skill in number are indeed numerous. "Mental karma properly transformed" indicates the resulting effect; "the skillful wisdom it depends upon" indicates the generative cause — and so these four mental aggregates together constitute the own-nature of number.

What is called calculation? Answer: it is the verbal karma that is properly transformed, together with the skillful wisdom it depends upon. Here, "calculation" does not mean the calculated units — one, ten, a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand, a hundred million, and the like — but only the capacity capable of calculating; it is called calculation because it is capable of calculating. "Verbal karma properly transformed" indicates the resulting effect, namely the aggregate of form; "the skillful wisdom it depends upon" indicates the generative cause, namely the four mental aggregates — and so these five aggregates together constitute the own-nature of calculation.

What is called a seal? Answer: it is the bodily karma that is properly transformed, together with the skillful wisdom it depends upon. Here, "seal" does not mean the impression produced, but only the capacity capable of producing an impression; it is called a seal because it is capable of forming an impression. "Bodily karma properly transformed" indicates the resulting effect, namely the aggregate of form; "the skillful wisdom it depends upon" indicates the generative cause, namely the four mental aggregates — and so these five aggregates together constitute the own-nature of a seal. What is called poetry? Answer: it is the verbal karma that is properly transformed, together with the skillful wisdom it depends upon. Here, "poetry" does not mean the verses recited, but only the capacity capable of forming verse; it is called poetry because it is capable of forming verse. "Verbal karma properly transformed" indicates the resulting effect, namely the aggregate of form; "the skillful wisdom it depends upon" indicates the generative cause, namely the four mental aggregates — and so these five aggregates together constitute the own-nature of poetry. Question: among the various verses, which count as poetry, and which do not? Some say: the Buddha's own speech is not poetry, while other speech is poetry. Others say: teaching within the Dharma is not poetry, while teaching outside it is poetry. According to this final account:

— what corresponds in wording and meaning, and is capable of bringing genuine benefit, is not called poetry; poetry means the reverse of this — mere worldly verse.

What is called the various skilled crafts of the world? And so on in full. Question: why compose this treatise? Answer: in order to gather much meaning into few words — that is, were one to explain each of the various skilled crafts one by one in full, this would generate endless discussion, and it is in order to gather them all together under a brief, general account that this treatise is composed. What is called the various skilled crafts of the world? Answer: it is the wisdom that first undertakes the making of this or that craft, together with the skillful wisdom it depends upon. Here, the treatise does not analyze the object made, but only shows the capacity capable of making it. "Undertaking the making of this or that craft" indicates the resulting effect — the karma of body, speech, or mind, according to what is fitting; "the skillful wisdom it depends upon" indicates the generative cause — and so these aggregates, whether five or four, together constitute its own-nature.

In various places it speaks of "bodily comportment" and "that which gives rise to bodily comportment." Bodily comportment has, as its essential nature, the four sense-fields of form, smell, taste, and touch; that which gives rise to bodily comportment has, as its essential nature, the two sense-fields of mind and dharmas, which are capable of giving rise to it. The four consciousnesses of eye, nose, tongue, and body serve as the preparatory condition for bodily comportment,

— but not as that which gives rise to it. Mental consciousness serves both as the preparatory condition for bodily comportment and as that which gives rise to it. Further, the four consciousnesses of eye and the rest are capable of taking bodily comportment as their object,

— but are not capable of taking that which gives rise to bodily comportment as their object. Mental consciousness is capable of taking bodily comportment as its object, and is also capable of taking that which gives rise to it as its object — and, in some cases, the mental consciousness thereby drawn forth is capable of taking all twelve sense-fields as its object. In various places it likewise speaks of "the domain of skilled craft" and "that which gives rise to the domain of skilled craft." The domain of skilled craft has, as its essential nature, the five sense-fields of form, sound, smell, taste, and touch; that which gives rise to the domain of skilled craft has, as its essential nature, the two sense-fields of mind and dharmas, which are capable of giving rise to it. The five consciousnesses of eye and the rest serve as the preparatory condition for the domain of skilled craft, but not as that which gives rise to it. Mental consciousness serves both as the preparatory condition for the domain of skilled craft

— and as that which gives rise to it. Further, the five consciousnesses of eye and the rest are capable of taking the domain of skilled craft as their object, but are not capable of taking that which gives rise to the domain of skilled craft as their object. Mental consciousness is capable of taking the domain of skilled craft as its object, and is also capable of taking that which gives rise to it as its object — and, in some cases, the mental consciousness thereby drawn forth is capable of taking all twelve sense-fields as its object.

If one possesses the trainee's precepts, does one thereby possess the precepts of neither trainee nor adept? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is one who possesses the trainee's precepts but not the precepts of neither trainee nor adept — namely, a trainee reborn in the formless realm, since conventional precepts are given up upon crossing into a different realm or ground. There is one who possesses the precepts of neither trainee nor adept but not the trainee's precepts — namely, an arhat, or an ordinary being, reborn in the desire or form realm: every arhat within the desire or form realm definitely possesses the precepts of neither trainee nor adept, and definitely does not possess the trainee's precepts, having already given them up; while an ordinary being within the desire or form realm may possess the precepts of neither trainee nor adept, though every ordinary being definitely does not possess the trainee's precepts, not yet having obtained them.

There is one who possesses both the trainee's precepts and the precepts of neither trainee nor adept — namely, a trainee reborn in the desire or form realm: every trainee within the desire or form realm definitely possesses both the precepts of neither trainee nor adept and the trainee's precepts, not yet having given up either. There is one who possesses neither the trainee's precepts nor the precepts of neither trainee nor adept — namely, an arhat, or an ordinary being, reborn in the formless realm: an arhat reborn there definitely does not possess the trainee's precepts, having already given them up, and an ordinary being reborn there definitely does not possess them either, not yet having obtained them — and neither of these two possesses conventional precepts of any kind, since such precepts are given up upon crossing into a different realm or ground.

If one possesses the adept's precepts, does one thereby possess the precepts of neither trainee nor adept? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is one who possesses the adept's precepts but not the precepts of neither trainee nor adept — namely, an arhat reborn in the formless realm, since conventional precepts are given up upon crossing into a different realm or ground. There is one who possesses the precepts of neither trainee nor adept but not the adept's precepts — namely, a trainee, or an ordinary being, reborn in the desire or form realm: a trainee within the desire or form realm definitely possesses conventional precepts, and an ordinary being within the desire or form realm may possess conventional precepts, yet neither possesses the adept's precepts, neither having yet obtained them. There is one who possesses both the adept's precepts and the precepts of neither trainee nor adept — namely, an arhat reborn in the desire or form realm. There is one who possesses neither the adept's precepts nor the precepts of neither trainee nor adept — namely, a trainee, or an ordinary being, reborn in the formless realm: neither has yet obtained the adept's precepts, and both have already given up their conventional precepts.

Question: whatever is a precept, is it karma? Answer: whatever is a precept is indeed karma; but there is karma that is not a precept — namely, mental karma and the like. Question: wherever there is a precept, is there karma? Answer: wherever there is a precept, there is karma; but there may be a place where there is karma without any precept — namely, the formless realm and the like. Question: whoever possesses a precept, does he possess karma? Answer: whoever possesses a precept possesses karma; but there is one who possesses karma without possessing any precept — namely, an ordinary being reborn in the formless realm, and the like. Question: whoever has a precept, does he have karma? Answer: whoever has a precept has karma; but there is one who has karma without having any precept — namely, ordinary beings reborn in the formless realm, and the like.