The Four Great Elements

Fifth Aggregate, the Great Elements: the Great-Elements-and-Derivatives Nyāsa, Chapter One, Part One. Among the sense-fields produced by the great elements, how many are visible, and how many invisible? Having now grasped this chapter heading and its explanatory meaning in full, we should next explain it in full. Question: why compose this treatise? Answer: in order to analyze the meaning of the sūtra. For the sūtra says: all form whatsoever is either the four great elements themselves, or what is produced by the four great elements. Though the sūtra speaks in this way, it does not explain in full which of the sense-fields produced by the great elements

— are visible and how many are invisible, and so on in full — and this sūtra is the very root this treatise depends upon, and what it has not explained should now be explained, and so this treatise is composed. Some say: this treatise is composed in order to refute the position of other masters — for within this very school there are two treatise-masters, Buddhadeva and Dharmatrāta. Buddhadeva teaches that form is nothing but the great elements themselves, and that mental factors are nothing but the mind itself — his position being that derived form is merely a distinct configuration of the great elements, and that mental factors are merely a distinct configuration of the mind. Why does he say this? On the basis of the sūtra — for the sūtra says: within the fleshy mass of the eye, whatever solidity and class of solidity is individually appropriated as one's own is called the internal earth-element; and so on, up through whatever motion and class of motion is individually appropriated as one's own being called the internal wind-element — and it is on the basis of this sūtra passage that he holds derived form to be nothing but the great elements. The sūtra further says: what is concentration? It is the one-pointedness of a wholesome mind — and it is on this basis that he holds mental factors to be nothing but the mind itself. Question: how, then, does he account for the establishment of the elements, sense-fields, and aggregates? Answer: his position is that, among the four great elements, some serve as the seeing and some as the seen, and so on, up through some serving as the touching and some as the touched — those that serve as seeing are established as the eye-element, those that serve as seen are established as the form-element, and so on, up through those that serve as touching being established as the body-element, and those that serve as touched being established as the touch-element. Within the mind, some depend on the eye faculty, and so on, up through some depending on the mental faculty — that which depends on the eye faculty is established as the eye-consciousness element, and so on, up through that which depends on the mental faculty being established as the mental-consciousness element; and it is precisely the six consciousness-bodies, immediately having ceased, that are established as the mental element. As for the mind's own distinct configurations, some are called feeling, some perception, some volition — and, together with the three unconditioned dharmas, these are established as the dharma-element. The sense-fields are treated the same way. As for the aggregates: the four great elements are established as the aggregate of form, and the mind's distinct configurations, called feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness, are established as the remaining four aggregates. Question: how, then, does he reconcile this with the sūtra's own statement that all form whatsoever is either the four great elements themselves, or what is produced by the four great elements? Answer: his position is that even the sound called "derived" has, apart from the four great elements, no distinct cause of its own — the term "derived" is applied to the great elements themselves. How is this known? As the sūtra says: bhikṣus, you should know that contact arises from two conditions — namely, the eye and form, and so on, up through the mind and dharmas. There are said to be six fields of contact, which are what was previously made, what was previously produced — I call this precisely former karma. You should know that the unlearned ordinary being, through this contact, experiences pleasant or painful feeling; and it is through this that is produced, or through some one of these, that this occurs — there is no seventh field of contact, apart from these prior six, within which the term "derived" could be established; rather, the term "derived" is applied to precisely these prior six themselves. The earlier sūtra passage is likewise so — there is no "derived" apart from the great elements; the term "derived" is applied to the great elements themselves. This is no objection to me — the various Abhidharma masters say that the sūtra he cites carries a distinct hidden intent, and cannot be cited as proof against the sūtra passage cited earlier. In that sūtra, the earlier statement of the six fields of contact refers, with hidden intent, to the stage where the faculties are not yet clear, while the later statement, "through this that is produced, or some one of these," refers, with hidden intent, to the stage where the faculties have already become clear — just as there is a stage without and a stage with clarity, so too there is a stage without and a stage with discrimination, a stage not yet manifest and a stage already manifest, a stage not yet expressible and a stage already expressible, and this should be understood in the same way. Moreover, "the six fields of contact" refers to the stage of intermediate existence, while "through this that is produced" and the rest refer to the stage of basic existence. The Venerable Ghoṣa explains: the sūtra's earlier statement of the six fields of contact refers, with hidden intent, to the stage where the faculties are not deficient, while its later statement, "through this that is produced" and the rest, refers, with hidden intent, to the stage where the faculties are deficient. The Venerable Pārśva says: "there are six fields of contact" refers, with hidden intent, to the desire realm; "through this that is produced" refers, with hidden intent, to the form realm; and "or some one of these" refers, with hidden intent, to the formless realm. Such is the meaning of that sūtra — how, then, could it prove anything about the term "derived form" spoken of in the earlier sūtra passage? Moreover, if the term "derived" carried no distinct meaning of its own, how would another sūtra passage be reconciled — as when it is said that the Venerable Pūrṇa told the Venerable Ānanda, "You should know, venerable one, that whatever self-grasping there is, by what is it produced? It is produced by form, or by feeling, perception, volition, or consciousness — self-grasping is precisely the view of a real self"? If the term "derived" carried no distinct meaning, how could the view of a real self simply be identical with form and the rest? Rather, apart from form and the rest, there exists a distinct self-grasping — and hence it is known that the sūtra's own "derived form" does not mean the great elements themselves. Question: if, apart from the great elements, there does exist a distinct derived form, how is the sūtra passage cited above, concerning earth-element and the rest existing within the fleshy mass of the eye, to be reconciled? Answer: that sūtra passage speaks of the great elements the eye-faculty depends upon, not the essential nature of the eye itself; moreover, that sūtra speaks of what the world commonly calls the fleshy mass "the eye," not of the eye-faculty proper,

— since the ordinary world's conception of "the eye" operates with reference to this fleshy mass. The Venerable Ghoṣa likewise explains: the world applies the name "eye faculty" to the great elements, since these serve as what the eye faculty depends upon. Other masters say: the sūtra passage he cites poses no difficulty for our own position at all — that sūtra merely says that earth-element and the rest exist within the fleshy mass of the eye; it does not say that earth-element and the rest are themselves the eye-faculty — what difficulty, then, does it pose? The Venerable Dharmatrāta holds that, apart from the great elements, there does exist a distinct derived form, yet holds that mental factors are nothing but the mind itself. Yet he further holds that two things among what is called form are not actually real entities — namely, derived touch and the form included within the dharma-sense-field — establishing the aggregates, sense-fields, and elements as the Abhidharma school does otherwise. This, too, is mistaken, since derived touch, like other derived forms, ought equally to exist as a distinct entity.

— for, without form included within the dharma-sense-field, unmanifest precept-restraint and the like ought not to exist at all. It is in order to refute the positions of these two masters that this treatise is composed. Others say: it is in order to refute the position of the outside paths — for the outside paths hold that there are five great elements, namely the previous four together with space; and, in speaking here of only four, the text makes clear that space is not a great element. Question: why is space not established as a great element? The Venerable Vasumitra explains it this way:

— it is because space lacks the characteristic mark of a great element. That is, having increase and decrease is the mark of a great element, while having neither increase nor decrease is the mark of space; having both harm and benefit is the mark of a great element, while having neither harm nor benefit is the mark of space; having both rise and decline is the mark of a great element, while having neither rise nor decline is the mark of space — and hence space is not established as a great element. The Venerable Ghoṣa explains it this way: space and the great elements each carry a distinct mark — that is, the great elements found within a being's own body are, for the most part, produced by the ripening of past karma, while space, in its own nature, has no such sense of being karmically ripened, and hence space is not established as a great element. The Great Virtuous One explains: though space is great, its own nature is not a "seed," since it is incapable of generating anything; while other conditioned dharmas, though capable of serving as a "seed," are not themselves "great," their own characteristic not being all-pervading — and hence space is not established as a great element.

It is in order to refute such attachments of the outside paths, and to display our own school's position, that this treatise is composed. Other masters say: this treatise is composed not merely to refute others' attachments and display our own school's position, but simply because, within the proper sequence of the Dharma's own categories, this matter needed to be made clear at this point. Question: why does this treatise first analyze the great elements and what is derived from them? Answer: it is simply the intention of the treatise's own author — that is, the master who composed the base treatise, following his own preference without contradicting the proper sequence of the Dharma's categories, chose to analyze the great elements and their derivatives first. Others say: it is because beings contemplate these two as the gateway into the true nectar-gate of the Buddhadharma — the first being the contemplation of impurity, the second being mindfulness of breathing; the contemplation of impurity contemplates derived form, while mindfulness of breathing contemplates the great elements. Others say: if one contemplates the great elements and derived form, one may, by stages, realize the three kinds of awakening — of a buddha, a pratyekabuddha, or a śrāvaka — that is, if one contemplates this with superior wisdom, one gives rise to a superior application of mindfulness of the body, and, from this, in turn, a superior application of mindfulness of feeling, then of mind, then of dharmas, then gives rise to the mixed-object stage, then heat, summit, forbearance, and the supreme mundane dharma,

— then gives rise to the path of seeing, and so on, up through the path of the non-learner, all at the superior grade — at that time such a one is called a superior good person, and realizes unsurpassed, perfect awakening. If one contemplates this with middling wisdom, one gives rise to a middling application of mindfulness of the body, and so on in full, up through giving rise to the path of the non-learner, all at the middling grade — at that time such a one is called a middling good person, and realizes the middling awakening of a pratyekabuddha. If one contemplates this with inferior wisdom, one gives rise to an inferior application of mindfulness of the body, and so on in full, up through giving rise to the path of the non-learner, all at the inferior grade — at that time such a one is called an inferior good person, and realizes the inferior awakening of a śrāvaka. Others say: contemplating the great elements and derived form enables one to subdue every form of arrogance — that is, beings give rise to various kinds of arrogance on account of their appearance, lineage, wealth, mastery, retinue, and the like; before contemplating the great elements and the rest, whichever of these presently manifests exerts a powerful, overwhelming force, but, once one has contemplated them, one becomes able to subdue it — for why is this? The great elements and their derivatives present in the body of a wheel-turning king are the very same as those present in the body of a dog, and it is through contemplating this that arrogance is abandoned. It is for reasons such as these that this aggregate analyzes the great elements and their derivatives first.

The sūtra says that all form whatsoever is either the four great elements themselves, or what is produced by the four great elements. The phrase "whatsoever" carries, in general, two senses — the sense of "with remainder," and the sense of "without remainder." As to the sense of "with remainder": as when it is said in ordinary speech, "Whatever food there is, I wish to eat all of it" —

— this means only that one wishes to eat whatever small portion one happens to obtain. As to the sense of "without remainder": as when it is said in ordinary speech, "Whatever dharmas there are, I wish to know all of them" — this means wishing to know the characteristics of every dharma without exception. The phrase "whatsoever" as used here shows, without exception, every kind of form — that is, form whatsoever is, in general, of two kinds: the four great elements, and derived form; apart from these, there exists no third essential nature of form at all. Question: why are the great elements exactly four? The Venerable Pārśva says: this ought not to be demanded at all, for why is this? Whether one increases or decreases their number, doubt arises equally either way —

— and hence doubt is not, by itself, a reason to contradict the proper form of the Dharma; one simply follows the sacred teaching, which speaks of exactly four kinds. Other masters say: were their number reduced below four, their function would be deficient; were it increased beyond four, the excess would be of no use — just as a square bed or seat needs exactly four legs. Question: why are they called "great elements"? Answer: they are great, and they are seeds — hence they are called great elements, as one speaks of a "great earth" or a "great king": the meaning is distinct, but the essential nature is the same, and this ought to be understood as a compound expressing an inherent function. Question: what is the sense of "great"? And what is the sense of "seed"? Answer: being capable of decrease, increase, harm, and benefit, and having an essential nature that arises and ceases — this is the sense of "seed"; having an essential nature, characteristic, form, and measure that pervades every region and direction, and accomplishing great deeds — this is the sense of "great." Question: how do these four accomplish great deeds? Answer: by serving as the basis for the great aggregation and derivation of form, causing it to be destroyed or brought into being — this is their great deed. It is on this account that they are exactly four, neither fewer nor more — for a decrease would prevent this great deed from being accomplished, while an increase beyond this would be of no further use to the deed. Question: why are other dharmas not called "great elements"?

Answer: because no other dharma bears this mark of a great element — that is, unconditioned dharmas are great but not seeds, while other conditioned dharmas are seeds but not great,

— and hence only these four earn the name "great elements."

Question: what is the meaning of "made" or "derived"? Is it the sense of cause, or the sense of condition? Either way, what would be the fault? Both possibilities show their own difficulty. If it is the sense of cause, the four great elements possess none of the five kinds of cause with respect to derived form — how, then, could they be said to produce form? If it is the sense of condition, then, apart from derived form's own essential nature, every other dharma without exception already serves as its predominant condition — how, then, could it be said that only the great elements are what derived form is "derived" from? Answer: it should be said that "derived" carries the sense of cause. Question: but the great elements possess none of the five kinds of cause with respect to derived form — how, then, can this be the sense of cause? Answer: though they indeed lack all five of the usual kinds of cause — the same-class cause and the rest — there exists, apart from these, a further five distinct kinds of causal sense: the generative cause, the dependent cause, the establishing cause, the sustaining cause, and the nourishing cause,

— and it is through these that the great elements are capable of producing derived form. Other masters say: "derived" carries the sense of condition. Question: but, apart from derived form's own essential nature, every other dharma already serves as its predominant condition — how, then, can it be said that it is derived only from the great elements? Answer: the sense of predominant condition itself comes in degrees — some close, some distant; some near, some far;

— some joined, some unjoined; some belonging to this same birth, some belonging to a different birth. Whatever is close, near, and joined, belonging to this same birth, is called "cause"; whatever is distant, far, and unjoined, belonging to a different birth, is called merely "condition." It is on this basis that the great elements are said to serve as both the cause and the predominant condition of derived form,

— and there is no contradiction in this.

Question: what are the respective characteristics and functions of earth, water, fire, and wind? Answer: solidity is earth's characteristic, and support is earth's function; moisture is water's characteristic, and cohesion is water's function; heat is fire's characteristic, and ripening is fire's function; motion is wind's characteristic, and growth is wind's function. Question: earth has the characteristic of solidity, yet also the characteristic of form in general; and so on, up through wind having the characteristic of motion, yet also the characteristic of form in general — how can a single dharma have two characteristics at once? Answer: it can, and there is no fault in this, since, by this same principle, many characteristics may be established within a single dharma — just as a single dharma with outflow may be characterized as like a disease, like a boil, and so on in full, up through the hundred and forty phrases describing its various afflictive characteristics, all without fault — so too here.

Other masters say: characteristic is of two kinds — own-characteristic, and shared characteristic. The characteristics of solidity, moisture, heat, and motion are own-characteristics; the characteristic of form in general is a shared characteristic. These two kinds of characteristic do not conflict with one another, and there is no fault in establishing both within a single dharma.

Question: are these four great elements never, at any time, separated from one another? Answer: this is so. How is this known? As the Sūtra on Entering the Womb says:

— the Buddha told Ānanda: at the initial kalala stage, if there were an earth-element without a water-element, the embryo would dry out and scatter — but, since it does not scatter, this is because it is held together by water; if there were a water-element without an earth-element, it would simply flow away — but, since it does not flow away, this is because it is supported by earth; if there were earth and water without a fire-element, it would putrefy and rot — but, since it does not rot, this is because it is ripened by fire; and if there were these three elements without a wind-element, it would fail to grow — but, since it does grow, this is because it is set in motion by wind. Question: how, then, is another sūtra passage to be reconciled, which speaks of the earth-element becoming disturbed,

— sometimes bringing a being to death, sometimes causing a being to suffer torments approaching death, and so on likewise for the water, fire, and wind elements? Answer: this passage speaks of the disturbance caused when any one of the great elements becomes disproportionately increased — it does not mean that the four elements are ever, at any time, actually separated from one another.

Question: how many classes does each of these four great elements have? Answer: there are four classes — ripening-born, nourishment-grown, outflow, and transformation-born.

Other masters say: there are three classes — ripening-born, nourishment-grown, and outflow — with transformation-born included within nourishment-grown. Others say: there are two classes — ripening-born and nourishment-grown — with transformation-born included within nourishment-grown, and outflow included within both ripening-born and nourishment-grown. The verdict: among the three preceding accounts, the middle account of three classes is the better one, since there exist great elements not included within either of the two classes alone.

Question: does a single instance of the four great elements produce only one atom of derived form, or is it capable of producing many? If it produces only one, how does this not amount to four causes yielding a single effect — for the principle of many causes yielding few effects ought not to hold here? But if it is capable of producing many, then a single instance of the four great elements would produce derived form consisting of many atoms — how, then, could these fail, upon mutual comparison, to bear a co-existent-cause relationship to one another, since the Abhidharma school holds that resistant derived forms, upon mutual comparison, bear no co-existent-cause relationship at all?

To grant this would contradict the Abhidharma school's own position. Answer: it should be said that a single instance of the four great elements is capable of producing only one atom of derived form. Question: how, then, does this not amount to four causes yielding a single effect? Answer: there is no fault in few effects arising from many causes, since instances of this very pattern are observed in the world. "Four causes, one effect" is in no way contrary to reason. Some say it produces many. Question: if so, then a single instance of the four great elements produces derived form of many atoms — how, then, could these fail, upon mutual comparison, to bear a co-existent-cause relationship? Answer: since they do not share a single effect, they bear no co-existent-cause relationship, for dharmas bearing a co-existent-cause relationship must necessarily share one and the same effect — this fails to establish a genuine cause, since the very premise remains in doubt. The verdict: the account given first is the better one.

Question: how do the great elements and derived form actually sit together? Are the great elements below and derived form above, or the great elements above and derived form below, or do the great elements and derived form sit intermixed, with the great elements outside and derived form in the middle? Whichever is granted, what fault would follow? Every option carries some difficulty. If the great elements are below and derived form above, then derived form close to the great elements could indeed take the great elements as its producing cause, but how could derived form at some remove take the great elements as its cause at all? If the great elements are above and derived form below, then derived form ought instead to be the cause of the great elements, and the great elements ought not to be the cause of derived form. If the great elements and derived form sit intermixed, with the great elements outside and derived form in the middle, then, when something is cut through, one ought to see gaps, as when a lotus stem is severed. Some say: the great elements lie below, since this is how a cause and its dependent dharma ought to be arranged. Question: if so, then derived form close by can indeed be said to be produced, but how is derived form at some remove produced? Answer: it is not said that all the great elements of an entire tree lie beneath it, producing derived form throughout — rather, it is said that, in each and every part of the tree, the great elements lie below and derived form above, in that particular locality. Some hold that the two sit intermixed, with the great elements outside and derived form in the middle. Question: if so, then, when something is cut through, one ought to see gaps, as when a lotus stem is severed. Answer: though gaps do exist, they cannot be seen, since the great elements themselves are invisible — what gaps one does see are simply derived form itself. Question: internal and external phenomena each show their own distinct character — internal phenomena's distinctness meaning that, when hundreds or thousands of beings gather together in one place, each shows a distinct bearing and form; external phenomena's distinctness meaning, for instance, fruits, stones, and the like,

— being sometimes blue, yellow, red, or white, their scent, taste, and other characteristics each distinct. Is this distinctness on account of a difference in karma, a difference in the great elements, or a difference in derived form? Answer: it is on account of all three together — on the basis of the ripening-cause, it is said to be on account of a difference in karma; on the basis of the generative, dependent, establishing, sustaining, and nourishing causes, it is said to be on account of a difference in the great elements; and on the basis of the same-class cause, it is said to be on account of a difference in derived form. Question: how does external phenomena's distinctness come about through a difference in karma? Answer: if beings practice excellent conduct, they bring about external phenomena whose form appears smooth and upright, and whose color, scent, taste, and touch are all fine and excellent; if beings practice evil conduct, they bring about external phenomena whose form appears jagged and twisted,

— and whose color, scent, taste, and touch are all coarse and foul. Question: fruits, stones, and the like each show a distinct character — blue, yellow, red, white, differing in shape and appearance — yet some are alike — through what power does this come about? Answer: through the power of all three factors together, though the great elements exert the strongest influence — that is, wherever the great elements are unevenly balanced, various distinct colors, shapes, and the like arise; wherever they are evenly balanced, the results resemble one another.

Question: where in the body are the various sounds spoken by beings' mouths produced by the great elements? Some say: they are produced by the great elements near the throat.

Others say: they are produced by the great elements near the heart. Others say: they are produced by the great elements near the navel. The verdict: speaking generally, this sound is produced by the great elements throughout every part of the body; speaking specifically, soft, quiet speech-sounds should be said to be produced by the great elements near the throat, while shouting, roaring, and crying-out sounds should be said to be produced by the great elements throughout the whole body, since one can plainly observe the entire body shaking when such sounds are made.

Question: is there any form that is neither the four great elements themselves, nor produced by the four great elements? Answer: there is — namely, one, two, or three of the great elements alone. This, though it is indeed form, is not "the four great elements," since it consists of only one, two, or three of them; nor is it "produced by the four great elements," since the great elements are never themselves produced. Question: why are the great elements never produced? Answer: because that which produces and that which is produced have distinct natures, cause and effect being different; because that which accomplishes and that which is accomplished have distinct natures — and just as with the accomplisher and the accomplished, so too with the drawer-forth and the drawn-forth, the generator and the generated, the maker and the made, the combiner and the combined, the transformer and the transformed, and the characterizer and the characterized — one should understand these in just the same way. Others say: were the great elements themselves derived form, would three of them together produce the fourth, or would all four together produce one? If three produce the fourth, their essential nature and function would be deficient — how could they then produce anything?

And if all four together produce one, then the earth-element and the rest would be producing the earth-element and the rest — incurring the fault of a thing's own nature observing its own nature. Rather, every dharma takes the nature of something other than itself as its condition in order to accomplish anything, never its own essential nature — and it is on this account that the great elements are never called "derived."

The four great elements each come in eleven varieties — namely, that which serves as the basis of the eye sense-field, and so on, up through that which serves as the basis of the body sense-field, and that which serves as the basis of the form sense-field, and so on, up through that which serves as the basis of the dharma sense-field. Derived form likewise comes in eleven varieties — namely, the eye sense-field, and so on, up through the body sense-field, and the form sense-field, and so on, up through the dharma sense-field.

Question: the great elements serving as the basis of the eye sense-field are capable of producing how many kinds of derived form — and so on, up through how many kinds of derived form the great elements serving as the basis of the dharma sense-field are capable of producing? Answer: it should be said that the great elements serving as the basis of the eye sense-field produce only the eye sense-field, and so on, up through the great elements serving as the basis of the dharma sense-field producing only the dharma sense-field. Some hold that the great elements serving as the basis of the eye sense-field are capable of producing three kinds — namely, the eye sense-field, the body sense-field, and the touch sense-field — and likewise for the great elements serving as the basis of the ear, nose, and tongue sense-fields; that the great elements serving as the basis of the body sense-field are capable of producing two kinds — namely, the body sense-field and the touch sense-field — and likewise for the great elements serving as the basis of the form, sound, smell, taste, and dharma sense-fields; and that the great elements serving as the basis of the touch sense-field produce only the touch sense-field. Still others hold that every kind of great element is capable of producing form, sound, and touch, and that the great elements of the desire realm all produce smell and taste as well — on this view, the great elements serving as the basis of the eye sense-field are capable of producing seven kinds — namely, the eye sense-field, the body sense-field, and the form, sound, smell, taste, and touch sense-fields — and likewise for the great elements serving as the basis of the ear, nose, and tongue sense-fields; that the great elements serving as the basis of the body sense-field are capable of producing six kinds — namely, the body sense-field and the form, sound, smell, taste, and touch sense-fields — and likewise for the great elements serving as the basis of the dharma sense-field; and that the great elements serving as the basis of the form sense-field are capable of producing five kinds — namely, the form sense-field and the sound, smell, taste, and touch sense-fields — and likewise for the great elements serving as the basis of the sound, smell, taste, and touch sense-fields. Other masters hold that the great elements serving as the basis of the eye sense-field are capable of producing all eleven kinds, and so on likewise, up through the great elements serving as the basis of the dharma sense-field. The verdict: among these various accounts, the first is the better one — that is, the great elements serving as the basis of the eye sense-field produce only the eye sense-field, and so on, up through the great elements serving as the basis of the dharma sense-field producing only the dharma sense-field.

Question: how can great elements of differing characteristic produce derived form of the same characteristic? Answer: this is said with reference to a distinct purpose, and there is no fault in it — that is, with reference to a distinct purpose, great elements of differing characteristic are said to produce derived form of the same characteristic; and, with reference to a distinct purpose, great elements of the same characteristic are said to produce derived form of differing characteristic;

— with reference to a distinct purpose, great elements of differing characteristic are said to produce derived form of differing characteristic; and, with reference to a distinct purpose, great elements of the same characteristic are said to produce derived form of the same characteristic. As to great elements of differing characteristic producing derived form of the same characteristic, said with reference to a distinct purpose — this means that the great elements bearing the characteristics of solidity, moisture, heat, and motion,

— produce derived form bearing the characteristic of touch. Others say: these also produce visible derived form, and the rest. As to great elements of the same characteristic producing derived form of differing characteristic, said with reference to a distinct purpose — this means that great elements bearing the characteristic of touch produce all eleven kinds of derived form. As to great elements of differing characteristic producing derived form of differing characteristic, said with reference to a distinct purpose — this means that the great elements bearing the characteristics of solidity, moisture, heat, and motion produce all eleven kinds of derived form. As to great elements of the same characteristic producing derived form of the same characteristic, said with reference to a distinct purpose — this means that great elements bearing the characteristic of touch produce derived form bearing the characteristic of touch. Others say: these also produce visible derived form, and the rest.

Question: what precisely distinguishes the great elements from derived form? The Venerable Vasumitra explains it this way: the great elements are cause, derived form is effect; the great elements are that which generates, derived form is that which is generated; the great elements are the support, derived form is that which is supported; the great elements are that which characterizes, derived form is that which is characterized; the great elements are that which combines, derived form is what arises from the combination; the great elements are that which establishes, derived form is that which is established. The Great Virtuous One explains: the characteristics of solidity, moisture, heat, and motion are the great elements; any form that has the great elements as its cause, yet lacks the great elements' own defining characteristics, is derived form. Other masters say: the great elements are like Śakra, derived form like his host of gods; the great elements are like a sovereign, derived form like his retinue; the great elements are like a king, derived form like his ministers; the great elements are like the disk of the sun or moon, derived form like sunlight or moonlight; the great elements are like a tree's own trunk, derived form like its branches; the great elements are like a wall, derived form like its shadow; the great elements are like a lamp's flame, derived form like the light it casts; the great elements are like a lotus root, derived form like the lotus flower; the great elements are like a mirror, derived form like the reflected image — and hence the Venerable Timira says:

"The faculties arise from the great elements, As light arises from a lamp's flame; As the lotus flower arises from its root, As reflected images arise from a mirror." The Abhidharma masters say: the great elements are invisible, while derived form may be visible or invisible; the great elements have resistance, while derived form may or may not; the great elements always have outflow, while derived form may or may not; the great elements are always morally neutral, while derived form may be wholesome, unwholesome, or neutral;

— the great elements are bound to the desire and form realms, while derived form may be bound to the desire and form realms, or entirely unbound; the great elements are neither trainee nor adept, while derived form may be trainee, adept, or neither; the great elements are cut off only by cultivation, while derived form may be cut off by cultivation or not cut off at all; the great elements are subsumed under the truths of suffering and origin, while derived form may also be subsumed under the truth of the path; the great elements have no ripening-fruit of their own, while derived form may or may not; the great elements are never defiled, while derived form may be defiled or undefiled; the great elements are never karma, while derived form may be karma or not — such distinctions between the great elements and derived form extend across countless further dimensions. Among the real entities of the touch sense-field, there are eleven — namely, the four great elements, together with seven kinds of derived touch. The seven kinds of derived touch are: smoothness, roughness, lightness, heaviness, cold, hunger, and thirst. Smoothness means being fine and soft; roughness means being coarse and rigid; lightness means being incapable of being weighed; heaviness means being capable of being weighed; cold means that which, pressing upon one, gives rise to a desire for warmth; hunger means that which, pressing upon one, gives rise to a desire for food; and thirst means that which, pressing upon one, gives rise to a desire for drink. Question: does the increase of which great element bring about smoothness, and so on through thirst? Some say: it is not on account of the disproportionate increase of any one great element that smoothness and the rest arise, but simply on account of a difference in the great elements' own kind — some naturally give rise to the fruit of smoothness, others to the fruit of thirst, and so on. Other masters say: an increase of water and fire brings about smoothness; an increase of earth and wind brings about roughness; an increase of fire and wind brings about lightness; and an increase of earth and water brings about heaviness — and, on this basis, the Prajñaptiśāstra poses this very question:

— for what reason is the body light and supple while alive, yet heavy and rigid once dead? Answer: while alive, fire and wind have not yet subsided, and hence the body is light and supple; once dead, fire and wind within the body have already subsided, and hence it becomes heavy and rigid. An increase of water and wind brings about cold; an increase of wind brings about hunger,

— that is, an increase of wind agitates and digests food, giving rise to the sensation of hunger, prompting the desire to eat; and an increase of fire brings about thirst — that is, an increase of fire parches and digests drink, giving rise to the sensation of thirst, prompting the desire to drink.

Question: among these eleven touch-entities, at most how many can jointly serve as the condition that gives rise to a single instance of body-consciousness? Some say: each one individually and separately gives rise to its own instance of body-consciousness,

— since each of the eleven has its own distinct characteristic and function. Other masters say: at most five can jointly give rise to a single instance of body-consciousness — namely, the four great elements together with any one of smoothness and the rest. Still others say: all eleven together can also give rise to a single instance of body-consciousness. Question: but do not the five sense-consciousnesses take only their own particular characteristic as object?

Answer: own-characteristic is of two kinds — the own-characteristic of a particular entity, and the own-characteristic of a sense-field category. With reference to the own-characteristic of a particular entity, it is said that all eleven kinds of touch jointly give rise to body-consciousness; with reference to the own-characteristic of a sense-field category, it is said that the five sense-consciousness-bodies each take only their own category's characteristic as object — and hence there is no contradiction. According to this account: taking eleven entities jointly gives rise to body-consciousness, just as taking the twenty-some kinds of entity within the form sense-field jointly gives rise to eye-consciousness — this should be understood the same way here. Hence the five sense-consciousness-bodies may take either the general or the particular as their object without incurring the fault of the five consciousnesses taking a shared category-characteristic as object — many particular entities' own-characteristics may be taken by a single consciousness at once, though not distinctly articulated within it. Question: does the great-elements basis underlying the five physical sense-faculties themselves ever give rise to body-consciousness? Some say: it does not — just as the five physical sense-faculties themselves cannot be touched, and hence do not give rise to body-consciousness, the great elements they depend upon ought reasonably to be the same. Question: if so, then why is it said that these are "known by body-consciousness"? Answer: this is said with reference to their intrinsic nature — they may serve as an object of body-consciousness in some future moment, though there is no case of them actually giving rise to a present instance of body-consciousness. Others say: apart from the great elements underlying the body faculty itself, all the others are indeed capable of giving rise to body-consciousness — it is only the great elements underlying the body faculty itself that, being too immediately proximate, cannot give rise to body-consciousness in that very faculty; yet, since they can serve as the object of another person's body-consciousness, they too may properly be called "known by body-consciousness." Question: of these eleven kinds of touch, how many exist in the desire realm, and how many in the form realm? Answer: two exist solely in the desire realm — namely, hunger and thirst; the remaining nine are common to both the desire and form realms. Question: if the form realm has the touch-entity of heaviness, how is this reconciled with what the Prajñaptiśāstra says — that the robe of Uttarakuru weighs one liang, the robe of the Heaven of the Four Great Kings half a liang, the robe of the Heaven of the Thirty-Three one zhu, the robe of the Yāma heaven half a zhu, the robe of Tuṣita heaven a quarter of a zhu, the robe of the Nirmāṇarati heaven an eighth of a zhu, and the robe of the Paranirmita-vaśavartin heaven a sixteenth of a zhu — implying that the robes of every heaven above these are entirely unweighable? Some say: though a single robe in the form realm may be unweighable, other objects there may still be weighable;

others say: though a single robe in that realm may be unweighable, many robes gathered together do become weighable — just as a fine thread or a light strand of down, gathered together in quantity, becomes heavy.

Question: if the form realm has the touch-entity of cold, why does the Prajñaptiśāstra further say that the cold and warmth ordinarily knowable to humans and to the gods of the desire realm do not exist at all in the higher realm? Answer: cold is of two kinds — one beneficial, one harmful. That realm lacks the harmful kind,

— but still possesses the beneficial kind. And as for that same passage's statement that all cold and warmth are entirely absent in the higher realm — how could this statement be taken to mean that heat-touch, too, is absent from that realm? Were this so, the great elements there would possess only three functions, not four — yet, since they are in no way deficient in function, and remain capable of producing form, both cold and warmth do exist in the form realm. Question: are the two touch-entities of hunger and thirst nourishment-grown, outflow, or ripening in nature? The masters of the West, in Gandhāra, say: they are common to nourishment-grown and outflow, never ripening, since food and drink are capable of interrupting them, and the Ābhidharmikas do not accept that a ripening-born form, once interrupted, can resume. Others say: hunger and thirst are also common to the ripening-born kind, since their nature is only temporarily interrupted by food and drink, never permanently interrupted. Interruption is of two kinds — permanent interruption, and temporary interruption; what is permanently interrupted cannot resume, but this is not the case with temporary interruption — just as, in hell, when a body-part is temporarily severed, ripening-born form, once interrupted there, still resumes and regenerates. The treatise-masters of Kashmir say: even at the moment of being full, hunger and thirst are, in fact, still not interrupted at all — they are merely rendered imperceptible by the obstruction of food and drink, and, once digestion is complete, become perceptible once more. Question: if these are indeed of the ripening kind, are they the fruit of wholesome or of unwholesome karma? Answer: they are the fruit of both — hence a wealthy person's hunger and thirst are the fruit of wholesome karma, while a poor person's hunger and thirst are the fruit of unwholesome karma. Question: in what part of the body do the great elements produce hunger and thirst? Some say: they are produced by the great elements near the belly, as the Sūtra on Entering the Womb explains — that, within the mother's womb, at a certain stage, near the navel, a subtle wind first arises within that being, and it is the great elements in that very place that are capable of producing hunger and thirst. Other masters say: the great elements throughout the entire body are capable of producing hunger and thirst, since the whole body is disturbed and agitated at such a time.