Are Conditions Even Real?

Fifth Aggregate, the Great Elements: the Great-Elements-and-Derivatives Nyāsa, Chapter One, Part Five. As the sūtra says: the householder Ugra told the Buddha, "World-Honored One, once, while I myself, ladle in hand, was giving food and drink to the community, a deity in the sky spoke to me, saying, 'Householder, you should know — this one has the fruit of arhatship; this one approaches arhatship; this one has the fruit of non-returning; this one approaches non-returning; this one has the fruit of once-returning; this one approaches once-returning; this one has the fruit of stream-entry; this one approaches stream-entry; this one keeps the precepts purely; this one violates them.' Though I heard these words at that time, I examined myself and found no partiality in my own mind, and gave to the assembly of monks with an equal heart throughout." Question: who was this deity, and for what reason did it come to speak to the householder? Some say: it was a deity of Māra's own host, wishing to create an obstacle to the householder's own wholesome practice. Others say: it was a ghost, seeking to confuse the householder with false words. Other masters say: it was a deity the householder regularly made offerings to, who came into the sky to show him the distinctions among the various fields of merit. Others, further, say:

— this was a deity who had been the householder's own relative in a past life, reborn among the gods, come to guide the householder with truthful words. Question: if this was the householder's own past relative, how could it know one approaching stream-entry, given that the path of seeing occurs too swiftly to be its object? Answer: "approaching stream-entry" is of two kinds — the conventional, and the ultimate. Attaining the wholesome roots conducive to liberation is called the conventional; already having entered the path of seeing is called the ultimate. It is the conventional approacher who falls within that deity's own range; even the ultimate approacher is not fully known even by Śāriputra and others like him, let alone by that deity — what the deity indicated was only the conventional kind, since such a one is still capable of receiving the householder's own offered food. There is, however, another sūtra passage that does speak of the ultimate approacher — as when the World-Honored One told Bāhiya, "Were there a bhikṣu doubly liberated, and were I to tell him, 'Come, use your own body to serve as a footbridge for me across this muddy channel' — Bāhiya, listen, what do you think? Upon hearing my command, would he refuse? When about to step upon him, would he draw back? When actually being trodden upon, would he flinch?" Bāhiya answered, "He would not." The World-Honored One then told Bāhiya, "Set aside the doubly liberated — were there a bhikṣu liberated through wisdom alone, were I to tell him," and so on in full; "set aside the wisdom-liberated, and speak of the body-witness; set aside the body-witness, and speak of the view-attainer; set aside the view-attainer, and speak of one resolved through faith; set aside one resolved through faith, and speak of one following the Dharma; set aside one following the Dharma, and speak of one following faith" — the Buddha asking, and Bāhiya answering, each in turn just as before. Some say: this sūtra, too, speaks only of the conventional approacher to the fruit of stream-entry, since one in the very midst of the path of seeing is incapable of hearing and receiving the Buddha's own spoken meaning. The verdict: it is better to say this passage speaks of the ultimate approacher, since it speaks of one following faith and one following the Dharma specifically. Question: while abiding in the path of seeing, one is incapable of receiving anything, the Buddha's own spoken meaning included, since one's mind admits of no other object at that time — how, then, could the World-Honored One address him with such words? Answer: the World-Honored One spoke according to that person's own aspiration, there being no actual instance of this occurring, spoken only for the sake of analysis — for, were one within the path of seeing to have a differently-directed mind capable of receiving the Tathāgata's own spoken meaning, he would necessarily have already left the path of seeing to carry out what was commanded. The Buddha's own intent was to rebuke Bāhiya, saying,

— "even one abiding in the path of seeing would still obey my command — how much more should you, so far removed from every virtue, give rise to a mind of resistance against me?" — and it is for this reason that this passage speaks of the ultimate approacher. Question: why did the householder, though he heard the deity's words, still give with an equal heart throughout the assembly? Some say: the entire assembly had been gathered by this single sound of his own gong, and he reflected, "All of these were gathered here by this one sound of my own gong — it would not be fitting to give unequally among them." Others say: the assembly, receiving this food and drink, alike have their hunger and thirst removed, without distinction, and he reflected, "I give food and drink in order to remove hunger and thirst — just as an arhat, receiving my offering, has his hunger and thirst removed,

— so too does a fully-fettered ordinary being, receiving my offering, have his removed in just the same way — it would not be fitting to give unequally among them." Others say: the householder's original intent in giving food and drink to the community was solely to benefit others, and he reflected, "I give food and drink in order to benefit others, not to benefit myself —

— just as an arhat, receiving my food and drink, obtains benefit from it, so too does one who has violated the precepts — and hence I should now give with an equal heart." Others say:

— the householder gave with an equal heart in order to avoid attachment and aversion, reflecting, "Should I give unequally, some among the community might give rise to attachment or aversion toward me on that account, bringing about an undesired result, and I would thereby become their own enemy — how, then, could I be called a truly pure donor?" Others say: the householder followed the Buddha's own teaching, reflecting, "The Tathāgata has always taught that showing partial devotion and reverence toward a single person carries five faults — and if even one fault ought not to be risked, how much less all five?" Others say: the householder gave without hoping for reward, reflecting, "The ripening-fruit of giving is experienced only within the desire realm — and, should I die and be reborn in the form realm, the fruit of my giving would then bring me no benefit at all; and, even were there benefit, I should not seek it for its own sake, let alone when there is none — and hence I should simply give with an equal heart." Others say: the householder revered renunciants, reflecting, "Though I have become free of the desire realm's defilement and attained the fruit of non-returning, I am still unable to give up my own household relations and possessions — yet renunciants, though they may still be fully fettered, are capable of giving up, relinquishing, and refraining from accumulating household relations and property, undertaking the Buddha's own precepts and practicing them for their entire lives, in pure, complete, undefiled conduct; and, should any of them, through a lapse of mindfulness, violate a precept, they still feel deep shame over it, and constantly aspire to purity —

— whereas, remaining a householder, I myself am incapable of this — and hence I should give with an equal heart toward them all." Others say: the householder valued the outward form of renunciation, reflecting, "Renunciants, with shaved heads and dyed robes, share an outward form resembling the Buddha's own — and, whether precept-keeping or precept-violating, this same outward form alike causes the world, upon seeing it, to generate merit, serving as a field of merit for all — and hence I should give with an equal heart among them." Others say: the householder felt gratitude for the Buddha's own kindness, reflecting,

— "Relying on the Buddha's own Dharma, I have obtained forbearance and wisdom, and, with the vajra club and sword, have shattered the twenty peaks of the mountain of self-view, severed the boundless root of the evil destinies, set a definite limit on my own future existence and set out toward nirvāṇa, purified my wisdom-eye with respect to the four truths, exhausted the lower-portion fetters, and emerged from the mire of desire —

— and hence I ought not to give with a partial mind toward the Buddha's own disciples." Others say: the householder wished to show that his own attained wisdom was so firm and unshakable that it could not be swayed, reflecting, "My wisdom is firm and steadfast — how could it be lightly overturned by a mere deity's words?" — and it was in order to display this steadfastness in his own giving toward the community that he came to tell the Buddha of this matter.

As the sūtra says: the Buddha told Ānanda that two acts of giving food yield equal, undifferentiated fruit — first, when the bodhisattva, having received that food, went on to realize unsurpassed, perfect awakening; and second, when the Tathāgata, having received that food, entered the great realm of nirvāṇa without remainder. Question: the first recipient still had greed, hatred, and delusion, while the second recipient had already exhausted them — why, then, is the resulting fruit of giving undifferentiated? Answer: it is on account of the excellence of either the donor's intention or the field, whichever predominates in each case — the Buddha speaks of the undifferentiated fruit with reference to whichever of these two predominates. As to the first: the two sisters, Nandā and Nandabalā, having heard that the bodhisattva, upon receiving sixteen portions of sweet milk-porridge, would certainly attain unsurpassed, perfect awakening, were filled with joy and gave rise to an especially exalted intention,

— and offered the milk-porridge to the bodhisattva. The bodhisattva, having eaten it, that very night subdued Māra's army and achieved perfect awakening — and, upon hearing this, the sisters rejoiced all the more, giving rise to an even more exalted intention. Though the field they gave to was not, at that moment, itself supreme, it was on account of their exalted intention that they obtained a supreme fruit. As to the second: Cunda, at the time the Buddha was about to enter nirvāṇa, saw the Buddha's own body showing slight signs of decline, and, hearing that he would soon enter nirvāṇa, was so overcome with longing and grief that his mind became disturbed, unable to summon an equally exalted intention — yet it was on account of the supreme field itself that he obtained a supreme fruit. It is with reference to this that the Buddha speaks of the undifferentiated fruit. Some say: this was spoken in order to forestall any regret arising in Cunda's own mind — as that sūtra says, the Buddha told Ānanda, "Should this Cunda, the craftsman's son, whether prompted by another or reflecting on his own, come to feel regret over his own act of giving food, thinking that he had failed to make the most of a rare and precious opportunity" — such a rare opportunity being the final offering made just before a buddha's own entry into nirvāṇa — "then, should he feel such regret, you should console him with six considerations: that the causes and conditions of giving food are capable of bringing about long life, beauty, strength, happiness, renown, wealth, and eminent office —

— and that I myself have personally heard this from the World-Honored One: two acts of giving food yield equal, undifferentiated fruit — first, when the bodhisattva, having received that food, went on to realize unsurpassed, perfect awakening; and second, when the Tathāgata, having received that food, entered the great realm of nirvāṇa without remainder. You should further tell Cunda that, should he feel regret over his own act of giving food, he would thereby fail to make the most of just such a rare and precious opportunity — like the milk-porridge offered to the bodhisattva just before he became a buddha, this excellent merit he has generated should never be regretted, for this very reason it is said that the two fruits are undifferentiated." Others say: both moments alike sustain a body about to become free of defilement, since eating accomplishes the function of nutriment precisely at the moment of digestion — and, just as the Buddha achieved perfect awakening in the latter part of that night, that food's own digestion coincided with his awakening; and it was likewise so with his nirvāṇa — and hence the two acts of giving food are said to yield undifferentiated fruit. Others say: at the first reception of food, he attained the Buddha's own Dharma; at the second, he made use of that same Dharma — this is spoken of in the same way as attainment and cultivation. Others say: at the first reception, he entered every dhyāna, liberation, concentration, and attainment; at the second, he likewise entered every dhyāna, liberation, concentration, and attainment. Others say: at the first reception, he crossed the river of affliction; at the second, he crossed the river of birth-and-death. Others say: at the first reception, he dried up the ocean of affliction; at the second, he dried up the ocean of birth-and-death — and it is spoken of in this same way for uprooting the tree of affliction and the tree of birth-and-death, for breaking the mountain of affliction and the mountain of birth-and-death, and for transcending the basis of affliction and the basis of birth-and-death. Others say: at the first reception, he abandoned the truth of origin; at the second, he abandoned the truth of suffering. Others say: at the first reception, he realized and entered the truth of the path; at the second, he realized and entered the truth of cessation. Others say: at the first reception, he abandoned origin and entered the path; at the second, he abandoned suffering and entered cessation. Others say: at the first reception, he transcended every contaminant; at the second, he transcended every dharma conducive to the contaminants.

Others say: at the first reception, he transcended the four floods; at the second, he transcended the dharmas conducive to those floods — and this same pattern of "transcending the thing itself" and "transcending what is conducive to it" is spoken of likewise for the yokes and what is conducive to the yokes, for the clingings and what is conducive to the clingings, for the bodily bonds and what is conducive to the bodily bonds, and for the hindrances and what is conducive to the hindrances. Others say:

— at the first reception, he defeated two Māras — the Māra of affliction, and the sovereign-deva Māra; at the second reception, he likewise defeated two further Māras — the Māra of the aggregates, and the Māra of death. Others say: at the first reception, he entered the great realm of nirvāṇa with remainder; at the second, he entered the great realm of nirvāṇa without remainder. It is on the basis of such various causal accounts as these that the Buddha teaches that the two acts of giving food yield equal, undifferentiated fruit.

Fifth Aggregate, the Great Elements: the Condition Nyāsa, Chapter Two, Part One. With how many conditions do the great elements relate to the great elements? And so on, in such chapter headings. Having now grasped this chapter heading and its explanatory meaning in full, we should next analyze it in full.

Question: why compose this treatise? Answer: in order to refute the position of the Dṛṣṭāntikas, who hold that the essential nature of condition is not truly, really existent. Question: why do they say this? Answer: on the basis of the sūtra, for the sūtra says: ignorance conditions volitional formations — yet the resulting formations show varied characteristics, while ignorance itself has a single, uniform characteristic; how, then, could a single, uniform ignorance, serving as condition, give rise to formations of varied characteristics, were condition truly real? A certain venerable master likewise says that "condition" is merely a name arbitrarily established by various treatise-masters, its essential nature not truly real. It is in order to refute this position, and to show that the essential nature of every condition is truly, really existent, that this treatise is composed. For, were the essential nature of condition not truly real, then no dharma whatsoever would be truly real, since causal-condition subsumes every conditioned dharma, immediately-preceding-condition subsumes past and present mind and mental factors other than an arhat's own final mind-aggregate, and object-condition and predominant-condition subsume every dharma without exception. Moreover, were the essential nature of condition not truly real, the profundity of the various dharmas could not be established at all — for, without contemplating dharmas through causes and conditions, their own nature would appear coarse, shallow, and easy to know; but, contemplated through causes and conditions, their meaning proves more profound than the four great oceans, knowable to a buddha alone, beyond the fathoming of any other. Moreover, were the essential nature of condition not truly real, the three kinds of awakening could not be established at all — for it is through contemplating causes and conditions with superior wisdom that one attains a buddha's own awakening, with middling wisdom that one attains a pratyekabuddha's awakening, and with inferior wisdom that one attains a śrāvaka's awakening. And, were the essential nature of cause and condition not truly real, the three grades of wisdom could not be established at all — for inferior wisdom would then remain permanently inferior,

— middling wisdom permanently middling, and superior wisdom permanently superior, there being no real force of condition capable of causing increase or decrease — and, were this so, there could be no such thing as a teacher instructing a disciple, and the very natures of teacher and disciple could never change at all. The Venerable Ghoṣa likewise says: were condition not truly real, a teacher could never cause a disciple's own understanding and wisdom to change, turning inferior into middling and middling into superior, there being no condition of cultivation capable of bringing about such growth — and hence the teaching relationship between teacher and disciple could never be accomplished at all,

— the teacher remaining permanently a teacher, and the disciple likewise. It is on the basis of reasoning such as this that condition's own essential nature is known to be determinately, truly real. Question: if condition is truly real, how is the sūtra passage cited by the Dṛṣṭāntika masters to be reconciled? Answer: though ignorance is single, its own function is manifold — this manifold function, serving as condition, gives rise to formations of varied characteristics, since a conditioned dharma, depending on the many conditions it relies upon, admits of countless distinct functional aspects — just as a single person may possess five distinct skills without any contradiction, so too it is here. Others say: this treatise is composed in order to show that every conditioned dharma's own essential nature is inherently feeble, incapable of arising by itself, necessarily relying on other conditions, possessing no real autonomous action and no genuine self-mastery. Here, "essential nature" refers to a dharma's own intrinsic substance,

— or, alternatively, this shows that the essential nature of the produced dharmas is itself feeble — being feeble, they depend on four conditions, or three, or two, before they can arise at all; there is no dharma that arises relying on only a single condition, let alone none at all — just as one who is gravely ill must depend on four, three, or two supports,

— in order to move and function at all, there being no dharma that relies on even a single support alone, let alone none whatsoever. Or, alternatively, this shows that the very essential nature of the generative causes and conditions themselves is feeble — being feeble, it is only through four, three, or two conditions combining together that a dharma can be produced at all, just as several feeble people, whether four, three, or two, combining their efforts, are capable of accomplishing a single task. As the sūtra says: form is impermanent, and form's own causes and conditions are likewise impermanent by nature — how, then, could form, arisen from what is impermanent, itself be permanent? It is because every conditioned dharma's own nature is feeble that it is incapable of arising by itself, having no power capable of self-generation — and, since it cannot generate itself, it must rely on something else to arise, requiring the power of conditions before it can arise at all. And, since it relies on something else, it possesses no genuine action of its own — that is, no dharma ever intends, or thinks, "I ought to act upon this, and let this act upon me" — and, lacking action, it likewise possesses no genuine self-mastery, since, with respect to "let me not arise" or "let me not cease," no conditioned dharma has any autonomous power at all. Others say: this treatise is composed in order to dispel the specific delusion concerning dependent origination — that is, delusion arising from hearing that ignorance conditions formations, and so on, up through birth conditioning old age and death, and thereupon supposing that this alone constitutes the whole of dependent origination — whereas it is now, in order to establish with certainty that every internal and external dharma without exception arises dependent on conditions, that this treatise is composed.

With how many conditions do the great elements relate to the great elements? Answer: causal-condition, and predominant-condition. As to causal-condition: this is of two kinds — co-existent cause and same-class cause. Elements arising together, mutually compared, serve as co-existent cause for one another; elements arising earlier and later serve as same-class cause for one another. As to predominant-condition: this means not obstructing arising, or merely being without any hindrance. This is stated with reference to their general category as a whole. Yet the four great elements themselves 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 dharma sense-field. The elements basing the eye sense-field serve as causal-condition for the elements basing the eye sense-field, and as mere predominant-condition for the elements basing any other sense-field; and so on likewise, up through the elements basing the dharma sense-field serving as causal-condition for the elements basing the dharma sense-field, and as mere predominant-condition for the elements basing any other sense-field. The great elements basing the eye sense-field themselves further divide into two — the left and the right — with the elements basing the left serving as causal-condition for the elements basing the left, and as mere predominant-condition for the elements basing the right;

— and likewise the elements basing the right serve as causal-condition for the elements basing the right, and as mere predominant-condition for the elements basing the left. The elements basing the left eye further divide into two — nourishment-grown and ripening-born — with nourishment-grown serving as causal-condition for nourishment-grown, and as mere predominant-condition for ripening-born; and ripening-born serving as causal-condition for ripening-born, and as mere predominant-condition for nourishment-grown. Ripening-born elements themselves further divide into two — the ripening of wholesome karma and the ripening of unwholesome karma — with wholesome-karma-ripening serving as causal-condition for wholesome-karma-ripening, and as mere predominant-condition for unwholesome-karma-ripening; and likewise for unwholesome-karma-ripening in reverse. Wholesome-karma-ripening elements themselves further divide into two — those of gods and those of humans — with divine elements serving as causal-condition for divine elements, and as mere predominant-condition for human elements; and likewise for human elements in reverse. Divine elements themselves further divide into two — those of the desire realm and those of the form realm — with desire-realm elements serving as causal-condition for desire-realm elements, and as mere predominant-condition for form-realm elements; and likewise for form-realm elements in reverse. Form-realm elements themselves further divide into four — the first dhyāna up through the fourth — with first-dhyāna elements serving as causal-condition for first-dhyāna elements, and as mere predominant-condition for the elements of the other dhyānas; and likewise up through the fourth dhyāna. Unwholesome-karma-ripening elements themselves further divide into three — hell, the animal realm, and the ghost realm — with hell-elements serving as causal-condition for hell-elements, and as mere predominant-condition for the other two; and likewise for the animal and ghost realms. As explained for ripening-born, so too for nourishment-grown; as explained for left and right, so too throughout; as explained for the elements basing the eye sense-field, so too up through the elements basing the dharma sense-field — the sole difference being that, for the five external sense-fields, one must further consider the distinction between one's own body and another's, and between sentient and insentient, according to what is fitting. Question: within the very same destiny and ground, mutually compared across different places, is there causal-condition or not? Answer: some say there is not — but this cannot be right, since there must be great elements that are, for that continuum, entirely novel — namely, the great elements belonging to the Five Pure Abodes, never before arisen in that continuum's own beginningless round of birth-and-death. Derived form, in its own eleven varieties, should be understood in full according to this same pattern as the great elements above. With how many conditions do the great elements relate to derived form? Answer: causal-condition, and predominant-condition. As to causal-condition: this is of five kinds — the generative, dependent, establishing, sustaining, and nourishing causes. As to predominant-condition: this means not obstructing arising, or merely being without any hindrance. Some say the great elements serve as same-class cause for derived touch — but this cannot be right, since the great elements and derived touch are not of the same class. With how many conditions does derived form relate to derived form? Answer: causal-condition, and predominant-condition. As to causal-condition: this is of three kinds — co-existent, same-class, and ripening cause. As to predominant-condition: this means not obstructing arising, or merely being without any hindrance. This is stated with reference to the general category as a whole; stated with distinctions, one should reflect according to the pattern already given for the great elements above. With how many conditions does derived form relate to the great elements? Answer: causal-condition, and predominant-condition. As to causal-condition: this is of one kind only — ripening-cause. As to predominant-condition: this means not obstructing arising, or merely being without any hindrance. Some say derived touch serves as same-class cause for the great elements — but this cannot be right, since derived touch and the great elements are not of the same class.

With how many conditions do the great elements relate to mind and mental factors? Answer: object-condition, and predominant-condition. As to object-condition: this means serving as the object for body-consciousness and its associated factors, and for mental-consciousness and its associated factors — body-consciousness and its associated factors take only the particular own-characteristic as their object, while mental-consciousness and its associated factors take both the particular own-characteristic and the shared characteristic. As to predominant-condition: as explained before. With how many conditions do mind and mental factors relate to mind and mental factors?

Answer: causal-condition, immediately-preceding-condition, object-condition, and predominant-condition. As to causal-condition: this is of five kinds — associated, co-existent, same-class, universally-pervasive, and ripening cause. As to immediately-preceding-condition: this means that, immediately following mind and mental factors, further mind and mental factors presently manifest. As to object-condition: this means mind and mental factors serving as the object for further mind and mental factors. As to predominant-condition: as explained before. With how many conditions do mind and mental factors relate to the great elements? Answer: causal-condition, and predominant-condition. As to causal-condition: this is of one kind only — ripening-cause. As to predominant-condition: as explained before. With how many conditions do the great elements relate to the eye sense-field? Answer: causal-condition, and predominant-condition. As to causal-condition: this is of five kinds — the generative and the other four. As to predominant-condition: as explained before. With how many conditions does the eye sense-field relate to the eye sense-field? Answer: causal-condition, and predominant-condition. As to causal-condition: this is of one kind only — same-class cause.

As to predominant-condition: as explained before. With how many conditions does the eye sense-field relate to the great elements? Answer: predominant-condition alone, its meaning as explained before. As with the eye sense-field, so too the ear, nose, tongue, and body sense-fields, and the smell and taste sense-fields. With how many conditions do the great elements relate to the form sense-field? Answer: causal-condition, and predominant-condition. As to causal-condition: this is of five kinds — the generative and the other four. As to predominant-condition: as explained before. With how many conditions does the form sense-field relate to the form sense-field? Answer: causal-condition, and predominant-condition. As to causal-condition: this is of two kinds — same-class and ripening cause. As to predominant-condition: as explained before. With how many conditions does the form sense-field relate to the great elements? Answer: causal-condition, and predominant-condition. As to causal-condition: this is of one kind only — ripening-cause. As to predominant-condition: as explained before. As with the form sense-field,

— so too are the sound and touch sense-fields alike, though speaking generally, their specific details differ. That is: the great elements relate to the sound sense-field as causal-condition and predominant-condition, causal-condition being of five kinds — the generative and the other four — and predominant-condition as explained before. The sound sense-field relates to the sound sense-field as causal-condition and predominant-condition, causal-condition being of one kind only — same-class cause — and predominant-condition as explained before. The sound sense-field relates to the great elements as causal-condition and predominant-condition, causal-condition being of one kind only — ripening-cause — and predominant-condition as explained before. The great elements relate to the touch sense-field as causal-condition and predominant-condition, causal-condition being of seven kinds — the generative and the other four, together with co-existent and same-class cause — and predominant-condition as explained before. The touch sense-field relates to the touch sense-field as causal-condition and predominant-condition, causal-condition likewise being of these same seven kinds, and predominant-condition as explained before. The touch sense-field relates to the great elements as causal-condition and predominant-condition, causal-condition being of two kinds — co-existent and same-class cause — and predominant-condition as explained before. With how many conditions do the great elements relate to the mind sense-field? Answer: object-condition, and predominant-condition. As to object-condition: this means serving as object for body-consciousness and mental-consciousness — body-consciousness takes only the particular own-characteristic, while mental-consciousness takes both the particular own-characteristic and the shared characteristic; and, as to whether body-consciousness takes its object singly or in multiplicity, this is explained in full as before. With how many conditions does the mind sense-field relate to the mind sense-field? Answer: causal-condition, immediately-preceding-condition, object-condition, and predominant-condition. As to causal-condition: this is of three kinds — same-class, universally-pervasive, and ripening cause. As to immediately-preceding-condition: this means that, immediately following the mind sense-field, the mind sense-field presently manifests. As to object-condition: this means the mind sense-field serving as object for the mind sense-field. As to predominant-condition: as explained before. This is stated with reference to the general category as a whole; yet the mind sense-field itself comes in six varieties, namely eye-consciousness, and so on, up through mental-consciousness. Here, eye-consciousness relates to eye-consciousness as causal-condition, immediately-preceding-condition, and predominant-condition, but not as object-condition — causal-condition being of two kinds, same-class and ripening cause; immediately-preceding-condition meaning that, immediately following eye-consciousness, eye-consciousness presently manifests; and predominant-condition as explained before; not object-condition, since eye-consciousness takes only form as its object, and eye-consciousness itself is not form. As with eye-consciousness's relation to eye-consciousness, so too its relation to ear-, nose-, tongue-, and body-consciousness. Eye-consciousness relates to mental-consciousness as causal-condition, immediately-preceding-condition, object-condition, and predominant-condition — causal-condition being of two kinds, same-class and ripening cause; immediately-preceding-condition meaning that, immediately following eye-consciousness,

— mental-consciousness presently manifests; object-condition meaning that eye-consciousness serves as object for mental-consciousness; and predominant-condition as explained before. As eye-consciousness relates to each of the six consciousnesses, so too do ear-, nose-, tongue-, and body-consciousness each relate to all six. Mental-consciousness relates to mental-consciousness as causal-condition, immediately-preceding-condition, object-condition,

— and predominant-condition — causal-condition being of three kinds, same-class, universally-pervasive, and ripening cause; immediately-preceding-condition meaning that, immediately following mental-consciousness, mental-consciousness presently manifests; object-condition meaning mental-consciousness serving as object for mental-consciousness; and predominant-condition as explained before.

Mental-consciousness relates to eye-consciousness as causal-condition, immediately-preceding-condition, and predominant-condition, but not as object-condition — causal-condition being of these same three kinds, same-class, universally-pervasive, and ripening cause; immediately-preceding-condition meaning that, immediately following mental-consciousness, eye-consciousness presently manifests; and predominant-condition as explained before; not object-condition, since eye-consciousness takes only form as its object, and mental-consciousness is not form. As mental-consciousness relates to eye-consciousness, so too does it relate to each of the other consciousnesses. Question: can the five sense-consciousnesses — eye and the rest — arise in direct, immediate succession with one another? Answer: the various masters of meditative practice say that the five sense-consciousnesses cannot arise in direct, immediate succession with one another, since each of them arises only immediately following mental-consciousness. The various Abhidharma treatise-masters say that the five sense-consciousnesses can indeed arise in direct, immediate succession with one another, since otherwise this would contradict the Faculties Aggregation's own teaching, which says that the pain faculty relates to the pain faculty as causal-condition, immediately-preceding-condition, and predominant-condition, but not as object-condition. With how many conditions does the mind sense-field relate to the great elements? Answer: causal-condition, and predominant-condition. As to causal-condition: this is of one kind only — ripening-cause. As to predominant-condition: as explained before. With how many conditions do the great elements relate to the dharma sense-field? Answer: causal-condition, object-condition, and predominant-condition. As to causal-condition: this is of seven kinds — the generative and the other four, together with co-existent and same-class cause. As to object-condition: this means serving as object for the mental factors associated with body-consciousness and mental-consciousness. As to predominant-condition: as explained before. With how many conditions does the dharma sense-field relate to the dharma sense-field? Answer: causal-condition, immediately-preceding-condition, object-condition, and predominant-condition. As to causal-condition: this is of five kinds — associated cause and the other four. As to immediately-preceding-condition: this means that, immediately following the dharma sense-field, the dharma sense-field presently manifests. As to object-condition: this means the dharma sense-field serving as object for the dharma sense-field. As to predominant-condition: as explained before. With how many conditions does the dharma sense-field relate to the great elements? Answer: causal-condition, and predominant-condition. As to causal-condition: this is of three kinds —

— co-existent, same-class, and ripening cause. As to predominant-condition: as explained before.

With how many conditions do the great elements relate to the eye faculty? Answer: causal-condition, and predominant-condition — causal-condition being of five kinds, the generative and the other four; predominant-condition as explained before. With how many conditions does the eye faculty relate to the great elements? Answer: predominant-condition alone, its meaning as explained before. As with the eye faculty, so too the ear, nose, tongue, body, and the male and female faculties. With how many conditions do the great elements relate to the life faculty? Answer: predominant-condition alone, its meaning as explained before. With how many conditions does the life faculty relate to the great elements? Answer: predominant-condition alone, its meaning as explained before. With how many conditions do the great elements relate to the mind faculty? Answer: object-condition, and predominant-condition, both meanings as explained before. With how many conditions does the mind faculty relate to the great elements?

Answer: causal-condition, and predominant-condition — causal-condition being of one kind only, ripening-cause; predominant-condition as explained before. As with the mind faculty, so too the faculties of pleasure, pain, joy, displeasure, equanimity, faith, effort, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom. With how many conditions do the great elements relate to the faculty of "I shall come to know"? Answer: object-condition, and predominant-condition. As to object-condition: this means the great elements serving as object for the forbearance and wisdom regarding suffering, the forbearance and wisdom regarding its origin, and their associated faculties.

As to predominant-condition: as explained before. With how many conditions does the faculty of "I shall come to know" relate to the great elements? Answer: predominant-condition alone, its meaning as explained before. As with the faculty of "I shall come to know," so too the faculties of "I already know" and "I have fully known." Question: for the great elements paired with the sense-fields, the questions and answers number three, so why, for the great elements paired with the faculties, do the questions and answers number only two? Answer: it is simply the intention of the treatise's own author — the treatise was composed following his own preference, and, so long as this does not contradict the proper form of the Dharma, this ought not to be demanded as an objection. Others say: this is a matter left with a further, supplementary account. Others say:

— it is in order to adorn the meaning with a variety of wording and a variety of expression, making it easier to understand. Others say: this passage displays a graduated sequence, from broad to brief — first four questions, then three, then two — since, once the fuller account has been given earlier, the later portion may be inferred accordingly, the wording gradually abbreviated to avoid excessive repetition. Others say: this passage displays two mutually illuminating gateways and summaries, and so on in full. Others say: the faculties are already subsumed within the sense-fields — once the sense-fields have been explained, the faculties are thereby already explained as well, and hence this third question is not asked for them.

Question: does form have same-class cause with respect to other form? Answer: the masters of the West, and the Venerable Dṛṣṭāntika, say that form has no same-class cause with respect to other form; the Abhidharma masters say that form does have same-class cause with respect to other form — this has already been analyzed in full within the earlier Miscellaneous Aggregate's own treatment of same-class cause.

Why is it that the four great elements, though arising, persisting, and ceasing together as a single unit, are not called "conjoined," while mind and mental factors, likewise arising, persisting, and ceasing together as a single unit, are called "conjoined"? Answer: the four great elements may increase or decrease relative to one another, whereas mind and mental factors do not admit of this. Here, "arising" means the arising-characteristic giving rise to what arises; "persisting" means the persisting-characteristic sustaining what persists, together with the changing-characteristic that alters it; "ceasing" means the ceasing-characteristic bringing about what ceases. Question: every conditioned dharma has its own individual arising, persisting, and ceasing — why, then, is it said that they undergo "a single arising, a single persisting, a single ceasing"? Answer: there is a reason for saying each has its own individual arising, persisting, and ceasing — namely, that each severally possesses its own distinct characteristics, and hence these are not a single characteristic; and there is a reason for saying they undergo a single arising, persisting, and ceasing together — namely, that they never depart from occupying one and the same instant, arising, persisting, and ceasing all within that same single moment. Question: do the great elements' own substance genuinely increase or decrease? Either way, what fault would follow? Both possibilities show difficulty:

— if their substance does increase or decrease, how could they remain inseparable, for why is this? For, in a solid object, if earth-atoms far outnumber water, fire, and wind, then, should earth-atoms be reduced to the same quantity as water and the rest, the excess would then have to be separated off — and likewise for a moving object; yet, if there were no increase or decrease at all, water, stone, and the like ought never to show any distinction of hard or soft. Answer: it should be said that the great elements' own substance does genuinely increase and decrease. Question: if so, how can they still be called inseparable? Answer: though they increase and decrease, they remain inseparable, since they continue mutually to support one another and jointly accomplish their shared task — just as, in a solid object, though earth-atoms far outnumber water, fire, and wind, earth-atoms apart from water and the rest are nevertheless incapable of accomplishing their own function — and likewise for a moving object,

— just as many villages, cooperating on a single shared task, though differing in the number of people involved, remain mutually dependent and inseparable. Question: mind and mental factors, too, admit of increase and decrease in their own substance — why, then, is it said that they do not? For instance, mental factors, across the three realms, the three moral natures, and the contaminated and uncontaminated, occur in greater or lesser number within a given mental aggregate. Answer: it is on account of the equal number of instances that this is not called increase or decrease — were there, within a single moment of mind, two instances of perception but only one of feeling, this could indeed be called increase or decrease; but, within a single moment of mind, there is only ever one instance of perception, one of feeling, and so on, and hence this differs from the great elements. Others say: the great elements' own substance never increases or decreases at all. Question: how, then, do stone and the like show a distinction of hard or soft? Answer: it is on account of the great elements' own functional strength increasing or diminishing — that is, though, in a solid object, the atoms of the four great elements may be equal in substance and number, earth's own functional strength there is increased, and so on likewise for a moving object — just as, when a small measure of salt is mixed with a small measure of flour and placed upon the tongue, the sensation produced by the salt is vivid while that produced by the flour is faint, so too it is here; just as water mixed evenly with vinegar illustrates a produced tongue-sensation, and the point of a needle against a bird's feather illustrates a produced body-sensation, explained in full likewise. Question: mind and mental factors, too, differ in the strength of their function — as with a sharp faculty like Aṅgulimāla's, or a dull one like a serpent's — why, then, is it said that this does not hold for them? Answer: because the great elements' own functional strength is coarse and evident, its increase or diminishment easy to discern, and hence it is spoken of in this way — mind and mental factors are not like this, and it is on this account that the great elements are not called "conjoined."

Moreover, mind and mental factors always have an object, whereas the four great elements have no object at all — and a dharma lacking an object can never properly be called "conjoined," for why is this? Mind and mental factors have a basis, a mode of apprehension, and a capacity for awakening awareness, and hence necessarily have an object — and, having an object, they are constantly conjoined and never separate. The great elements are the opposite of this, having no object at all — and, lacking an object, though inseparable, they are not called conjoined. "Inseparable" is of two kinds — first, the great elements are inseparable in that they jointly produce a single instance of form; second, mind and mental factors are inseparable in that they jointly take a single object. Though the five aggregates alike occupy a single body, without these two specific relations, this alone does not make them inseparable in the relevant sense — and it is for this reason that the great elements are not called "conjoined."

Question: how is it known that the four great elements are always inseparable from one another? Answer: because each element's own characteristic and function can be found within every kind of aggregate mass. That is, within a solid mass, earth's own characteristic is directly evident, and this point is beyond dispute; yet, within this same mass, were there no water-element, gold, silver, tin, and the like could never be melted down at all, and, without water, the mass would simply scatter apart; were there no fire-element, striking stones together would produce no fire at all, and, without fire, nothing could ripen to maturity but would simply rot and decay; were there no wind-element, there would be no motion at all, and, without wind, there would be no growth at all.

Within a liquid mass, water's own characteristic is directly evident, and this point is beyond dispute; yet, within this same mass, were there no earth-element, ice could never form even in the depths of severe cold, and, without earth, boats and the like ought to sink; were there no fire-element, there would be no warm season at all, and, without fire, the mass would simply rot and decay; were there no wind-element, there would be no motion at all, and, without wind, there would be no growth at all. Within a warm mass, fire's own characteristic is directly evident, and this point is beyond dispute; yet, within this same mass, were there no earth-element, a lamp's or torch's own flame could never be guided or redirected at all, and, without earth, nothing could be held or supported; were there no water-element, no flowing fuel could ever gather at all, and, without water, the flame could never properly coalesce; were there no wind-element, there would be no motion at all, and, without wind, there would be no growth at all. Within a moving mass, wind's own characteristic is directly evident, and this point is beyond dispute; yet, within this same mass, were there no earth-element, an obstruction such as a wall could never turn the wind's own motion back at all, and, without earth, nothing could be held or supported; were there no water-element, there would be no cool breeze at all, and, without water, the mass would simply scatter apart; were there no fire-element, there would be no warm breeze at all, and, without fire, it would simply rot and decay. Question: these four great elements each bear mutually different, seemingly contrary characteristics — how, then, can they arise together, at one and the same time, remaining forever inseparable?

The Venerable Vasumitra explains it this way: having different characteristics and being mutually contrary are two entirely separate causal matters, and not every pair of dharmas differing in characteristic is thereby necessarily mutually contrary as well. There are dharmas which, though differing in characteristic, are not mutually contrary, and such dharmas may indeed arise together at one and the same time, remaining forever inseparable — as with the four great elements themselves, together with smell, taste, touch, and the colors blue, yellow, and the rest. But there are also dharmas which, differing in characteristic, are also genuinely mutually contrary — and such dharmas can never, at one and the same time, arise together remaining inseparable — as with firewood and fire, hail and a ripening crop, Rāhu and the full disk of the moon, medicine and disease, and light and darkness.