Do Atoms Ever Touch?
Fascicle 132 works through deep atomistic puzzles about touching, gaps, and visibility, refutes those who deny the past and future are real, and builds an exhaustive combinatorial matrix of possession across the three time periods and the desire and form realms — closing with a puzzle about which state of mind can summon a higher realm's own elements into a desire-realm body. This page carries Ru-Yi's complete translation.
Translation Method
The Chinese source is Xuánzàng's seventh-century translation of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (阿毘達磨大毘婆沙論), preserved in the Taishō canon (T1545, vol. 27) via the CBETA digital edition — public domain text, translated directly from the Chinese. The English wording throughout is Ru-Yi's own, and the reading notes are original, grounded in standard Sarvāstivāda scholarship rather than a specific named commentator's lecture transcript.
Fascicle 132 continues the Condition Nyāsa (緣納息第二之二). This fascicle is unusually dense with formulaic combinatorial matrices, characteristic of the treatise's own exhaustive style — the translation preserves this repetitive structure faithfully rather than smoothing it away, since the repetition itself is part of how the argument is made. Terms established across fascicles 93–131 recur here and are not re-explained at each occurrence.
Classical text is set in the left-hand column below, our English in the right.
1. How Can Hard Become Soft Without Betraying Its Own Nature? And Do the Elements Leave Gaps?
Fascicle 132 opens with a pair of physics puzzles. First: how can water freeze into unyielding ice, or gold melt into flowing liquid, without any dharma "abandoning its own characteristic"? The answer applies the treatise's own established mechanism — hard and non-hard both already exist, dormant, in the future, and the arising condition simply causes one to cease and the other to take its place. Second: does a mass of the great elements contain gaps between them? Competing views hold either that gaps exist but the space-element itself conceals them, like a woman hidden in a thicket, or that there are no gaps at all, the elements pressing together in unbroken continuity while still never merging into a single substance, since each retains its own distinct function.
大種蘊第五中緣納息第二之二問若堅不堅物轉相作者。諸法云何不捨自相。云何相作。如水性軟至冬凝結。斧斫猶難金等性堅。若置炎鑪便銷如水。如是等豈非諸法捨自相耶。答非諸堅物轉作不堅。亦非不堅轉成堅物。然堅不堅法住未來世。若遇堅緣。則不堅法滅堅法續生。遇不堅緣則堅法滅不堅續生。餘亦如是。故無諸法捨自相過。
Fifth Aggregate, the Great Elements: the Condition Nyāsa, Chapter Two, Part Two. Question: if hard and non-hard substances can transform into one another, how do dharmas avoid abandoning their own characteristic — and how, exactly, does this transformation occur? Water, soft by nature, freezes solid in winter, resisting even an axe, like the hardness of gold and the rest; yet, placed over a blazing fire, gold too melts and flows like water — do such transformations not amount to dharmas abandoning their own characteristic? Answer: it is not that a hard substance itself is transformed into something non-hard, nor that a non-hard substance is transformed into something hard. Rather, both the hard dharma and the non-hard dharma already exist within the future, and, when the condition for hardness is met, the non-hard dharma ceases and the hard dharma arises in succession; when the condition for non-hardness is met, the hard dharma ceases and the non-hard dharma arises in succession — and likewise for every other such case. Hence there is no fault of any dharma abandoning its own characteristic.
問大種等聚中有間隙不。設爾何失。二俱有過。若有間隙寧不相離。間隙若無何不成一。答有說。此有間隙空界於中相雜住故。問若爾。云何名不相離。答空界於中能自隱匿。令於諸物見不相離。
Question: within a mass composed of the great elements, are there gaps between them? Either way, what fault would follow — both possibilities show difficulty. If there are gaps, how are the elements not thereby separated? But if there are no gaps at all, why do they not simply merge into a single substance? Answer: some say there are indeed gaps, within which the element of space intermingles. Question: if so, how can the elements still be called inseparable? Answer: the element of space, within these gaps, conceals itself, causing every object to appear inseparable,
如叢中女自蔽其身。有說。此無間隙展轉相逼無間住故。問若爾。
— just as a woman hidden within a thicket conceals herself from view. Others say: there are no gaps at all — the elements press against one another continuously, dwelling without any interval whatsoever. Question: if so,
云何不成一耶。答雖無間隙而不成一。如蘊處界三世等中。間隙雖無而不成一。彼亦如是。又大種等自體作用。各各異故不可成一。
— why do they not simply merge into a single substance? Answer: though there is no gap between them, they still do not merge into a single substance — just as the aggregates, sense-fields, and elements, or the three time periods, though having no gap between them, still do not merge into a single entity, so too it is here. Moreover, the great elements each possess their own distinct essential substance and function, and hence cannot merge into a single substance.
The recurring "dormant in the future, cause and effect merely substituted" mechanism, now applied to something as visually dramatic as ice melting into water, shows how far this tradition is willing to push a single metaphysical commitment: even the most ordinary observed transformation in the physical world is reanalyzed as strict substitution between pre-existing possibilities, never a a single substance genuinely changing what it is.
2. Do Atoms Ever Actually Touch? A Meditation on Drifting Dust
A precise atomistic puzzle asks whether atoms genuinely touch one another at all — resolved firmly in the negative, since touching would require either total contact (collapsing distinct atoms into one) or partial contact (implying atoms have distinguishable parts, which by definition they cannot). What holds an aggregated mass together despite this non-touching is instead the wind-element's own cohesive power. A four-way analysis then catalogues touching and non-touching as cause and effect in every combination, closing with the quietly beautiful image of drifting dust motes, continuing their own kind in perpetual non-contact.
問諸極微互相觸不。設爾何失。二俱有過。若相觸者寧不成一。或成有分。若不相觸擊時應散或應無聲。答應作是說。極微互不相觸。若觸則應或遍或分。遍觸則有成一體過。分觸則有成有分失。
Question: do atoms touch one another? Either way, what fault would follow — both possibilities show difficulty. If they touch, how do they not merge into a single substance, or else acquire distinguishable parts? But if they do not touch, then, when struck together, they ought either to scatter apart, or produce no sound at all. Answer: it should be said that atoms do not touch one another — for, were they to touch, this touching would have to be either total or partial: total touching would incur the fault of merging into a single substance, and partial touching would incur the fault of acquiring distinguishable parts,
然諸極微更無細分。問聚色相擊寧不散耶。答風界攝持故令不散。
— yet atoms possess no finer parts whatsoever. Question: when aggregated masses of form strike one another, why do they not simply scatter apart? Answer: it is the wind-element's own power of cohesion that prevents them from scattering.
問豈不風界能飄散耶。答有能飄散。如壞劫時。有能攝持。如成劫時。問若不觸者。即相擊時云何發聲。答即由此因故使聲發。若相觸者。如何發聲。謂諸極微體相觸者。手等相和體應相糅。中無間隙如何發聲。尊者世友作如是說。若諸極微互相觸者。彼應得住至後剎那。大德說言。實不相觸。但於合集無間生中。隨世俗諦假名相觸。問諸是觸物。為是觸為因故生。為非觸為因故生。諸非觸物。為非觸為因故生。為是觸為因故生。答有時是觸為因生於非觸。謂和合物正離散時。有時非觸為因生於是觸。謂離散物正和合時。有時是觸為因生於是觸。謂和合物復和合時。有時非觸為因生於非觸。謂向遊塵同類相續。
Question: does the wind-element not also scatter things apart? Answer: it may indeed scatter things apart, as at the destruction of an eon, or hold things together, as at the formation of an eon. Question: if atoms do not touch, then, when struck together, how does sound arise? Answer: it is precisely on account of this very non-touching that sound is able to arise — for, were they truly to touch, how could sound arise at all? For, were atoms' own substances actually to touch one another, then, when hands and the like come together, their substances would have to blend together as one, with no gap remaining between them — how, then, could any sound be produced? The Venerable Vasumitra explains it this way: were atoms truly to touch one another, they would have to remain fixed in place, persisting into the very next instant. The Great Virtuous One says: they truly do not touch at all — it is only within their continuous, uninterrupted aggregation that they are conventionally, provisionally spoken of as "touching." Question: is whatever is touching produced by touching as its cause, or by non-touching as its cause? And is whatever is not touching produced by non-touching as its cause, or by touching as its cause? Answer: sometimes touching serves as the cause producing non-touching — as when an aggregated object is in the very process of dispersing apart; sometimes non-touching serves as the cause producing touching — as when a dispersed object is in the very process of coming together; sometimes touching serves as the cause producing touching — as when an already-aggregated object aggregates further still; and sometimes non-touching serves as the cause producing non-touching — as with drifting motes of dust, continuing on in their own similar succession.
The image of dust motes drifting through a sunbeam, illustrating "non-touching producing non-touching," is a rare moment of pure visual poetry inside an otherwise rigorously analytical passage — a fitting emblem for the atoms this whole discussion concerns, themselves invisible, weightless, and never quite making contact with anything, including each other.
3. Are Atoms Visible? And Why Past and Future Must Be Real
A brief dispute over whether atoms are visible or invisible — the Venerable Ghoṣa saying visible to the wisdom-eye alone, the Abhidharma masters insisting invisible to any physical or divine sight — gives way to a much larger undertaking: refuting an unnamed school that denies the reality of the past and future altogether, and an outside path that inverts causation entirely, claiming a river's forward surge proves later moments force earlier ones into being. The refutation shows this inversion would collapse every ordinary causal relationship — parents born from children, seeds sprouting from shoots, results preceding the acts that produce them.
問極微當言可見不可見耶。答尊者妙音作如是說。極微當言可見。
Question: should atoms be said to be visible, or invisible? Answer: the Venerable Ghoṣa explains that atoms should be said to be visible,
慧眼境故。阿毘達磨諸論師言。極微當言不可見非肉天眼所能見故。此中不依慧眼作問。以於諸法無差別故。頗有過去大種造過去色耶。乃至廣說。問何故作此論。答欲止他義顯己義故。謂有餘部撥無去來說現在世是無為法。欲止彼意顯有去來。亦明現在是有為法。廣如前說。復有外道。依世現喻執有為法後為前因。彼作是言。現見泉水前為後逼令其涌流。如是諸法由未來法逼令現在。復由現法逼令過去。故有為法後為前因。今欲止彼外道所說。顯有為法前能生後非後前因。不爾便違內外緣起。謂世父母應從子生。眼色應從眼識而起。應無明等從行等生。種等應從芽等而起。先受苦樂報後造善惡業。先得菩提然後修行。既未作而得應已作而失。若爾便無得解脫理。又欲遮說大種造色必同世者。顯有異世。由此因緣故作斯論。諸有對所造色。及隨心轉無表色。隨在何世即彼世大種造。謂過去造過去現在造現在。未來造未來。若表所起諸無表色。復有三類造時不等。謂初剎那如有對等。各為同世大種所造。
— being the object of the wisdom-eye specifically. The various Abhidharma treatise-masters say that atoms should be said to be invisible, being incapable of being seen by the physical or divine eye — for this question is not asked with reference to the wisdom-eye, since, with respect to the wisdom-eye, no dharma differs from any other in this regard. Is there past great-element production of past form? And so on in full. Question: why compose this treatise? Answer: in order to refute others' positions and display our own. For there is another school that denies the reality of the past and the future, holding that the present alone is truly conditioned — and it is in order to refute this view, and to show that the past and future are real, and that the present too is conditioned, that this treatise is composed, as explained in full before. There is, moreover, an outside path that, on the basis of an analogy drawn from observing worldly phenomena, holds that a conditioned dharma's later moment serves as cause for its earlier moment — arguing thus: "We observe that a spring's water is forced forward by what comes after it, surging in a continuous flow — just so, every dharma is forced into the present by a future dharma, and forced into the past by a present dharma, and hence a conditioned dharma's later moment serves as cause for its earlier moment." It is now in order to refute this outside path's own claim, and to show instead that a conditioned dharma's earlier moment is capable of generating its later moment, never the reverse, that this treatise is composed — for, were it otherwise, this would contradict causal origination both within and beyond the person: parents would then be born from their own children, the eye and form would arise from eye-consciousness, ignorance and the rest would arise from formations and the rest, seeds would arise from sprouts, and one would experience the fruit of pleasure or pain before creating the wholesome or unwholesome karma that causes it, and would attain awakening before undertaking the practice that leads to it — one would obtain a result before ever performing the act that produces it, and would lose what one has not yet even done — and, were this so, there could be no rational path to liberation at all. Moreover, this treatise is composed in order to refute the claim that the great elements and the derived form they produce must always necessarily belong to the same time period, and to show that they may indeed belong to different time periods. It is on account of these causes and conditions that this treatise is composed. Resistant derived form, and unmanifest form that follows the mind, are each produced by great elements belonging to that same time period in which they themselves occur — that is, past form is produced by past elements, present form by present elements, and future form by future elements. Unmanifest form arisen from manifest expression, however, is of three further kinds, each produced at a different time — the very first instant, like resistant form, is produced by great elements of the same time period,
The outside path's causal inversion, however strange it sounds stated abstractly, is refuted not by abstract argument but by simply following it to its logical conclusion across every domain at once — biology, perception, agriculture, karma, and the path to awakening — showing that a single mistaken reading of a flowing spring, taken seriously, would make the entire observable order of cause and effect impossible.
4. A Three-Stage Rule for Which Vintage of Elements Sustains an Unbroken Precept
An intricate rule governs which great elements — past, present, or future — produce a given instance of derived form: ordinary resistant form and meditation-linked unmanifest form always match their own time period exactly, but manifest-triggered unmanifest form (the ongoing precept-restraint launched by an initial act of expression) follows a subtler three-stage pattern, its first instant matching the triggering elements' own time, its later instants drawing increasingly on past, and eventually all three time periods together, as the restraint's own continuity becomes progressively independent of the moment that first launched it.
第二剎那若在過現。俱為過去大種所造。若在未來通為現未大種所造。後諸剎那過現如前。若在未來通為三世大種所造。所以者何。
— but the second instant, whether it falls in the past or the present, is produced solely by past great elements; if it falls in the future, it is produced by either present or future great elements; and every subsequent instant follows this same pattern for the past and present, while, if it falls in the future, it may be produced by great elements of all three time periods. For why is this?
諸有依表發起律儀及不律儀非二無表。初剎那頃表無表色。與此及餘能造大種現在俱滅。滅至第二剎那以後表及大種俱在過去。諸無表色有在過去。有在未來。有在現在。是謂此處略毘婆沙頗有過去大種造過去色耶。答有。謂過去一切有對所造色。隨心轉無表。表所起無表。唯為過去大種所造。頗有過去大種造未來色耶。答有。
Whatever restraint, non-restraint, or neither-restraint-nor-non-restraint unmanifest form arises in dependence on manifest expression, at the very first instant, ceases together, in the present, with both this manifest expression and every other great element capable of producing it; and, once ceased, from the second instant onward, both the manifest expression and its producing great elements have already passed into the past — while the unmanifest form itself may exist in the past, the future, or the present. This is the summarized exegesis of this passage. Is there past great-element production of past form? Answer: there is — namely, every past resistant derived form, every past mind-following unmanifest form, and every past manifest-triggered unmanifest form, are produced solely by past great elements. Is there past great-element production of future form? Answer: there is —
謂有未來表所起無表。唯為過去大種所造。頗有過去大種造現在色耶。答有。謂有現在表所起無表。唯為過去大種所造。頗有未來大種造未來色耶。答有。謂未來一切有對所造色。隨心轉無表。及有未來表所起無表。唯為未來大種所造。頗有未來大種造過去現在色耶。答無。謂無果先因後理故。頗有現在大種造現在色耶。答有。
— namely, some future manifest-triggered unmanifest form is produced solely by past great elements. Is there past great-element production of present form? Answer: there is — namely, some present manifest-triggered unmanifest form is produced solely by past great elements. Is there future great-element production of future form? Answer: there is — namely, every future resistant derived form, every future mind-following unmanifest form, and some future manifest-triggered unmanifest form, are produced solely by future great elements. Is there future great-element production of past or present form? Answer: there is not, since there is no principle by which a fruit could precede its own cause. Is there present great-element production of present form? Answer: there is —
謂現在一切有對所造色。隨心轉無表。及有現在表所起無表。唯為現在大種所造。頗有現在大種造過去色耶。答無。謂無果先因後理故。頗有現在大種造未來色耶。答有。謂有未來表所起無表。唯為現在大種所造。諸隨心轉無表。是等流。無執受有情數攝。彼能造大種是長養。無執受有情數攝。諸表所起無表。是等流。無執受有情數攝。彼能造大種是等流。有執受有情數攝。諸隨心轉無表。有二種。一靜慮律儀所攝。二無漏律儀所攝。此各有七。謂離害生命。乃至離雜穢語。靜慮律儀所攝七種。共一四大種所造。無漏律儀七種亦爾。諸表所起無表有三種。一律儀所攝。二不律儀所攝。
— namely, every present resistant derived form, every present mind-following unmanifest form, and some present manifest-triggered unmanifest form, are produced solely by present great elements. Is there present great-element production of past form? Answer: there is not, since there is no principle by which a fruit could precede its own cause. Is there present great-element production of future form? Answer: there is — namely, some future manifest-triggered unmanifest form is produced solely by present great elements. Every mind-following unmanifest form is of the outflow class, subsumed within beings lacking sentient appropriation, and the great elements capable of producing it are of the nourishment-grown class, likewise subsumed within beings lacking sentient appropriation. Every manifest-triggered unmanifest form is of the outflow class, subsumed within beings lacking sentient appropriation, and the great elements capable of producing it are of the outflow class, subsumed within beings possessing sentient appropriation. Mind-following unmanifest form is of two kinds — that included within dhyāna restraint, and that included within undefiled restraint — each of these further dividing into seven, namely, abstaining from taking life, and so on, up through abstaining from idle chatter. The seven kinds included within dhyāna restraint are all produced by a single instance of the four great elements together; and likewise for the seven kinds of undefiled restraint. Manifest-triggered unmanifest form is of three kinds — that included within restraint, that included within non-restraint,
三非律儀非不律儀所攝。律儀所攝復有七種。謂離害生命。乃至離雜穢語。如是七種各一四大種所造。離害生命復有二種。謂表無表。此二各一四大種所造。有餘師說。此表無表共一四大種所造。
— and that included within neither restraint nor non-restraint. The kind included within restraint further divides into seven, namely, abstaining from taking life, and so on, up through abstaining from idle chatter — each of these seven kinds is produced by its own single instance of the four great elements. Abstaining from taking life further divides into two — the manifest and the unmanifest — each of these two produced by its own single instance of the four great elements. Other masters say: this manifest and unmanifest form are produced together by a single, shared instance of the four great elements,
故彼問言頗有一四大種造二處色耶。答有。謂色處法處。及聲處法處。尊者妙音亦作是說。阿毘達磨諸論師言。彼說非理。不可一四大種造麁細二果。是故如前所說者好。如離害生命。表與無表各一四大種所造。如是乃至離雜穢語亦爾。不律儀所攝亦有七種。謂害生命乃至雜穢語。非二所攝有二七種。謂害生命離害生命。乃至雜穢語離雜穢語。此諸七種各一四大種所造。如是諸七各復有二。謂表無表。此亦各一四大種造。餘師說等如前應知。若成就過去大種。彼過去所造色耶。乃至廣說。問何故作此論。答欲止撥無去來二世。及說成就不成就體非實有者。意顯去來世。及成就等是實有法。故作此論。若成就過去大種。彼過去所造色耶。答無成就過去大種。有成就過去所造色。謂諸聖者住胎藏中。若生欲界住律儀。
— asking accordingly, is there a single instance of the four great elements capable of producing form belonging to two different sense-fields at once? Answer: there is — namely, the form and dharma sense-fields together, and the sound and dharma sense-fields together. The Venerable Ghoṣa likewise says this. The various Abhidharma treatise-masters say: this account is unreasonable, since a single instance of the four great elements cannot produce both a coarse and a fine fruit at once — hence the account given earlier is the better one. As with abstaining from taking life, whose manifest and unmanifest forms are each produced by their own single instance of the four great elements, so too likewise up through abstaining from idle chatter. Non-restraint likewise has seven kinds — taking life, and so on, up through idle chatter. What is included within neither has two further sets of seven — taking life and abstaining from taking life, and so on, up through idle chatter and abstaining from idle chatter — each of these seven kinds produced by its own single instance of the four great elements, and each of these further dividing into manifest and unmanifest, each likewise produced by its own single instance. The remaining masters' accounts should be understood according to the pattern already given. If one possesses past great elements, does one possess past derived form? And so on in full. Question: why compose this treatise? Answer: in order to refute those who deny the reality of the past and future, and those who hold that the very nature of possession and non-possession is not truly real — the intent being to show that the past and future are real, and that possession and the rest are real dharmas as well, that this treatise is composed. If one possesses past great elements, does one possess past derived form? Answer: no one possesses past great elements, yet there is one who possesses past derived form — namely, noble ones within the womb; or one reborn in the desire realm living in a state of restraint,
That an ongoing precept-restraint's dependence on its own originating elements loosens progressively over time — matching them exactly at first, then drawing only on the past, then eventually on all three time periods — models something genuinely apt about how a vow actually functions: the initial commitment matters decisively at the moment it is made, but its continued life increasingly draws on accumulated momentum rather than remaining tethered to that single founding instant.
5. The Great Combinatorial Matrix Begins: Past Elements, Past Form
The now-familiar exhaustive tetralemma matrix returns, this time cross-tabulating possession of past great elements against possession of past derived form across every developmental stage and realm — establishing, among other things, that trainees reborn in the formless realm possess past derived form only if they had already both attained and let go of some undefiled path before their rebirth there, a qualification the treatise carefully specifies rather than leaving implicit.
若住不律儀。若住非律儀非不律儀。先有身語表不失。若生色界。
— or of non-restraint, or of neither restraint nor non-restraint, who formerly had manifest bodily or verbal expression and has not lost it; or one reborn in the form realm,
若諸學者生無色界。問亦有學者。生無色界不成就過去所造色。謂彼先在欲色界時。未起未滅諸無漏道。命終生無色界。都不成就過去所造色。如何乃說。若諸學者。生無色界成就過去所造色耶。答依成就者作如是說。謂有學者先欲色界。已起已滅諸無漏道。彼成就過去所造色故。有說。彼在欲色界時。必已起滅諸無漏道。如勝進道必起現前。無有住果而命終故。
— or trainees reborn in the formless realm. Question: there are also trainees reborn in the formless realm who do not possess past derived form — namely, one who, while formerly in the desire or form realm, had neither given rise to nor extinguished any undefiled path, and, dying, was reborn in the formless realm, possessing no past derived form at all — how, then, can it be said that trainees reborn in the formless realm possess past derived form? Answer: this is said only with reference to those who do possess it — that is, a trainee who, while formerly in the desire or form realm, had already given rise to and already extinguished some undefiled path, thereby possesses past derived form. Others say: while in the desire or form realm, he must necessarily have already given rise to and extinguished some undefiled path, since the path of further advancement must necessarily manifest before him, there being no case of one abiding in a fruit who dies without this.
The careful qualification about which formless-realm trainees actually possess past derived form — only those who had already cycled through an undefiled path beforehand — shows the treatise unwilling to let a general statement stand in for a claim true only of some, rather than all, members of a named category, even at the cost of considerable added complexity.
6. Why the Elements Themselves Are Never 'Possessed' Across Time
A striking asymmetry emerges: unlike derived form, the great elements themselves are never possessed across past or future time, only in the present moment of their actual manifestation. Competing explanations converge on the elements' own karmically neutral, feeble nature — likened to briefly handling a fragrant flower, whose scent lingers, versus touching ordinary wood, whose faint trace vanishes the instant contact ends — and, more strikingly, on the absurd consequence that would follow otherwise: a being reborn into any single destiny would thereby possess the great elements of all five destinies at once, dissolving the very distinctness between them.
若成就過去大種。彼未來大種耶。答無成就過去未來大種。問何故無成就過去未來大種耶。答由彼大種但有爾所成就勢力剎那現前則有成就。已滅未現無成就者。謂諸大種與成就得必同一世。今時彼得不現在前故不成就。有說。大種習氣不堅。故無成就去來世者。
If one possesses past great elements, does one possess future great elements? Answer: no one possesses either past or future great elements. Question: why is there no possession of past or future great elements? Answer: because the great elements' own power of possession extends only to the present instant when they actually manifest — once ceased or not yet manifest, there is no possession, since the great elements and the possession-obtaining that accompanies them must necessarily belong to one and the same time period, and, at present, that obtaining does not manifest with respect to past or future elements, and hence there is no possession. Others say: the great elements' own habitual imprint is not firm, and hence there is no possession of them across past or future time,
以是羸劣無記性故。謂善惡等習氣堅牢。故有成就去來世者。劣無記法則不如是。如暫執持極香花物。雖加洗拭習氣猶隨。非如執持餘木石等。手纔放捨此氣便無。有說。若成就去來世大種者。則一趣成就五趣大種。如是一身即五趣身。是則趣壞所依亦壞。欲令無如是過。是故大種不成就去來。問如生一趣。成就五趣諸業煩惱。
— being feeble, neutral in nature. Wholesome and unwholesome dharmas' own habitual imprints, being firm and stable, do admit of possession across past and future time — but feeble, neutral dharmas are not like this. It is like briefly holding some strongly fragrant flower — even after washing one's hands, the scent still lingers — unlike holding an ordinary piece of wood or stone, whose scent, the moment one lets go, vanishes at once. Others say: were the great elements possessed across past and future time, then a being reborn into a single destiny would thereby possess the great elements of all five destinies at once, making a single body simultaneously the body of all five destinies — and this would destroy the very distinctness of the destinies, and destroy the very basis of embodiment itself. In order to avoid this fault, the great elements are therefore never possessed across past or future time. Question: just as one reborn into a single destiny still possesses the karma and afflictions belonging to all five destinies,
而非趣壞。此亦應然。答以異熟果故說諸趣差別。不以業煩惱故。
— without this destroying the distinctness of the destinies, ought not the same reasoning apply here as well? Answer: the distinctness of the destinies is established with reference to their ripening-fruit specifically, not with reference to karma and affliction;
然諸大種或有是異熟果者。則有趣壞及所依壞過失。故彼非難。
— and, since some among the great elements are themselves a ripening-fruit, were they possessed across time, this would indeed incur the fault of destroying both the destinies and the very basis of embodiment — and hence this is no valid objection.
The reductio about a single body simultaneously belonging to all five destinies at once is a vivid demonstration of how much cosmological weight rests on this one technical distinction: without denying the great elements cross-temporal possession specifically, the entire coherence of rebirth into one determinate destiny rather than a blurred composite of all five would collapse.
7. Completing the Matrix: Past, Present, and Future Cross-Examined
The combinatorial exercise continues exhaustively across every remaining pairing — past derived form against future great elements, future derived form, present great elements, and present derived form — each worked out through the same careful embryonic-stage and restraint-state specificity established throughout this fascicle-series, confirming at every turn that only derived form, never the great elements themselves, can be possessed outside the strict present moment.
若成就過去大種。彼未來所造色耶。答無成就過去大種。有成就未來所造色。謂諸聖者住胎藏中。若生欲界得色界善心。若生色界。
If one possesses past great elements, does one possess future derived form? Answer: no one possesses past great elements, yet there is one who possesses future derived form — namely, noble ones within the womb; or one reborn in the desire realm who has attained a form-realm wholesome mind; or one reborn in the form realm,
若諸聖者生無色界。以彼定成就未來所造色故若成就過去大種。彼現在大種耶。答無成就過去大種。有成就現在大種。謂生欲色界。
— or noble ones reborn in the formless realm, since these necessarily possess future derived form. If one possesses past great elements, does one possess present great elements? Answer: no one possesses past great elements, yet there is one who possesses present great elements — namely, one reborn in the desire or form realm,
無有生欲色界不成就大種故。若成就過去大種。彼現在所造色耶。
— since there is no one reborn in the desire or form realm who fails to possess the great elements. If one possesses past great elements, does one possess present derived form?
答無成就過去大種。有成就現在所造色。謂生欲色界。無有生欲色界不成就所造色故若成就過去所造色。彼未來大種耶。答無成就未來大種。有成就過去所造色。謂諸聖者住胎藏中。若生欲界住律儀。若住不律儀。若住非律儀非不律儀。先有身語表不失。若生色界若諸學者。生無色界。若成就過去所造色。彼未來所造色耶。答應作四句。有成就過去所造色。非未來所造色。謂生欲界住律儀。
Answer: no one possesses past great elements, yet there is one who possesses present derived form — namely, one reborn in the desire or form realm, since there is no one reborn in the desire or form realm who fails to possess derived form. If one possesses past derived form, does one possess future great elements? Answer: no one possesses future great elements, yet there is one who possesses past derived form — namely, noble ones within the womb; or one reborn in the desire realm living in a state of restraint, non-restraint, or neither restraint nor non-restraint, who formerly had manifest bodily or verbal expression and has not lost it; or one reborn in the form realm; or trainees reborn in the formless realm. If one possesses past derived form, does one possess future derived form? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is one who possesses past derived form but not future derived form — namely, one reborn in the desire realm living in a state of restraint,
不得色界善心。若住不律儀。若住非律儀非不律儀。先有身語表不失。有成就未來所造色。非過去所造色。謂阿羅漢生無色界。有成就過去所造色。亦未來所造色。謂諸聖者住胎藏中。若生欲界得色界善心。若生色界。若諸學者生無色界。有非成就過去所造色。亦非未來所造色。謂處卵㲉。若諸異生住胎藏中。若生欲界。住非律儀非不律儀。先無身語表。設有而失。若諸異生生無色界。
— without having attained a form-realm wholesome mind, or of non-restraint, or of neither restraint nor non-restraint, who formerly had manifest expression and has not lost it. There is one who possesses future derived form but not past derived form — namely, arhats reborn in the formless realm. There is one who possesses both past and future derived form — namely, noble ones within the womb; or one reborn in the desire realm who has attained a form-realm wholesome mind; or one reborn in the form realm; or trainees reborn in the formless realm. There is one who possesses neither past nor future derived form — namely, one within the eggshell; or an ordinary being within the womb; or one reborn in the desire realm living in a state of neither restraint nor non-restraint, without manifest expression, whether never having had it or having had it and lost it; or ordinary beings reborn in the formless realm.
若成就過去所造色。彼現在大種耶。答應作四句。有成就過去所造色。非現在大種。謂諸學者生無色界。有成就現在大種。非過去所造色。謂處卵㲉。若諸異生住胎藏中。若生欲界住非律儀非不律儀。先無身語表。設有而失。有成就過去所造色。亦現在大種。謂諸聖者住胎藏中。若生欲界住律儀。若住不律儀。若住非律儀非不律儀。先有身語表不失。若生色界有非成就過去所造色。亦非現在大種。謂阿羅漢若諸異生生無色界。若成就過去所造色。彼現在所造色耶。答應作四句。有成就過去所造色。非現在所造色。謂諸學者生無色界。有成就現在所造色。非過去所造色。謂處卵㲉。若諸異生住胎藏中。若生欲界住非律儀非不律儀。先無身語表。設有而失。有成就過去所造色。亦現在所造色。謂諸聖者住胎藏中。若生欲界住律儀。若住不律儀。若住非律儀非不律儀。先有身語表不失。若生色界有非成就過去所造色。亦非現在所造色。謂阿羅漢。
If one possesses past derived form, does one possess present great elements? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is one who possesses past derived form but not present great elements — namely, trainees reborn in the formless realm. There is one who possesses present great elements but not past derived form — namely, one within the eggshell; or an ordinary being within the womb; or one reborn in the desire realm living in a state of neither restraint nor non-restraint, without manifest expression, whether never having had it or having had it and lost it. There is one who possesses both past derived form and present great elements — namely, noble ones within the womb; or one reborn in the desire realm living in a state of restraint, non-restraint, or neither restraint nor non-restraint, who formerly had manifest expression and has not lost it; or one reborn in the form realm. There is one who possesses neither past derived form nor present great elements — namely, arhats, or ordinary beings, reborn in the formless realm. If one possesses past derived form, does one possess present derived form? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is one who possesses past derived form but not present derived form — namely, trainees reborn in the formless realm. There is one who possesses present derived form but not past derived form — namely, one within the eggshell; or an ordinary being within the womb; or one reborn in the desire realm living in a state of neither restraint nor non-restraint, without manifest expression, whether never having had it or having had it and lost it. There is one who possesses both — namely, noble ones within the womb; or one reborn in the desire realm living in a state of restraint, non-restraint, or neither restraint nor non-restraint, who formerly had manifest expression and has not lost it; or one reborn in the form realm. There is one who possesses neither — namely, arhats,
若諸異生。生無色界。過去已捨故。現在無色身故。
— or ordinary beings, reborn in the formless realm, since past derived form has already been given up, and there is no present material body at all.
Watching the same single asymmetry — elements only ever present, form spanning all three times — get re-confirmed independently across seven separate pairwise comparisons is not mere redundancy: each comparison tests the rule against a genuinely different combination of circumstances, and its survival through all of them is what actually earns it the status of a settled principle rather than an untested assumption.
8. Future Elements, Future Form, and the Present's Own Tidy Symmetry
The matrix concludes its temporal sweep with future great elements against future and present derived form, before landing on the cleanest case of all: present great elements and present derived form imply one another perfectly, without exception, since neither can exist without the other actually functioning as its cause or fruit in that very same instant.
若成就未來大種。彼未來所造色耶。答無成就未來大種。有成就未來所造色。謂諸聖者住胎藏中。若生欲界得色界善心。若生色界若諸聖者生無色界。若成就未來大種。彼現在大種耶。答無成就未來大種。有成就現在大種。謂生欲色界。無有生欲色界不成就大種故。若成就未來大種。彼現在所造色耶。答無成就未來大種。有成就現在所造色。謂生欲色界。無有生欲色界不成就現在所造色故。
If one possesses future great elements, does one possess future derived form? Answer: no one possesses future great elements, yet there is one who possesses future derived form — namely, noble ones within the womb; or one reborn in the desire realm who has attained a form-realm wholesome mind; or one reborn in the form realm; or noble ones reborn in the formless realm. If one possesses future great elements, does one possess present great elements? Answer: no one possesses future great elements, yet there is one who possesses present great elements — namely, one reborn in the desire or form realm, since there is no one reborn there who fails to possess the great elements. If one possesses future great elements, does one possess present derived form? Answer: no one possesses future great elements, yet there is one who possesses present derived form — namely, one reborn in the desire or form realm, since there is no one reborn there who fails to possess present derived form.
若成就未來所造色。彼現在大種耶。答應作四句有成就未來所造色非現在大種。謂諸聖者生無色界。有成就現在大種。非未來所造色。謂處卵㲉。若諸異生住胎藏中。若生欲界不得色界善心。有成就未來所造色。亦現在大種。謂諸聖者住胎藏中。若生欲界得色界善心。若生色界有非成就未來所造色。亦非現在大種。謂諸異生生無色界。若成就未來所造色。彼現在所造色耶。答應作四句。有成就未來所造色。非現在所造色。謂諸聖者生無色界。有成就現在所造色。非未來所造色。謂處卵㲉。若諸異生住胎藏中。若生欲界不得色界善心。有成就未來所造色。亦現在所造色。謂諸聖者住胎藏中。若生欲界得色界善心。若生色界。有非成就未來所造色。亦非現在所造色。謂諸異生生無色界若成就現在大種。彼現在所造色耶。答如是。設成就現在所造色。彼現在大種耶。答如是。以非現在大種無果故。亦非現在所造色無因故。
If one possesses future derived form, does one possess present great elements? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is one who possesses future derived form but not present great elements — namely, noble ones reborn in the formless realm. There is one who possesses present great elements but not future derived form — namely, one within the eggshell; or an ordinary being within the womb; or one reborn in the desire realm who has not attained a form-realm wholesome mind. There is one who possesses both — namely, noble ones within the womb; or one reborn in the desire realm who has attained a form-realm wholesome mind; or one reborn in the form realm. There is one who possesses neither — namely, ordinary beings reborn in the formless realm. If one possesses future derived form, does one possess present derived form? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is one who possesses future derived form but not present derived form — namely, noble ones reborn in the formless realm. There is one who possesses present derived form but not future derived form — namely, one within the eggshell; or an ordinary being within the womb; or one reborn in the desire realm who has not attained a form-realm wholesome mind. There is one who possesses both — namely, noble ones within the womb; or one reborn in the desire realm who has attained a form-realm wholesome mind; or one reborn in the form realm. There is one who possesses neither — namely, ordinary beings reborn in the formless realm. If one possesses present great elements, does one possess present derived form? Answer: it is so. And if one possesses present derived form, does one possess present great elements? Answer: it is so as well, since there is no case of present great elements lacking a fruit, nor of present derived form lacking a cause.
That the present moment alone yields a perfectly symmetric, exceptionless equivalence — while every comparison involving the past or future required careful, qualified tetralemmas — suggests something almost structural about presence itself: only in the actual moment of manifestation do cause and effect become so tightly bound that neither can occur without the other, a tightness time itself seems to loosen once a dharma recedes into memory or awaits arrival.
9. The Condition-Catalog Returns: A Nine-Way Time Matrix
The Condition Nyāsa's own four-condition framework now applies across every temporal pairing of the great elements and derived form — past-to-past, past-to-future, past-to-present, and so on through all nine possible combinations of the three time periods — each specified with precisely which causes and predominant-condition apply, extending the systematic rigor already seen for realm and sense-field into the dimension of time itself.
過去大種與過去大種為幾緣。答因。增上。因者二因。謂俱有。同類。俱生互相望為俱有因。前生與後生為同類因。增上者。謂不礙生。及唯無障。過去大種與過去所造色為幾緣。答因。增上。因者五因。謂生因。依因。立因。持因。養因。增上者。如前說。過去所造色與過去所造色為幾緣。答因。增上。因者三因。謂俱有同類。異熟。增上者如前說。過去所造色與過去大種為幾緣。答因。
With how many conditions do past great elements relate to past great elements? Answer: causal-condition, and predominant-condition. As to causal-condition: this is of two kinds — co-existent and same-class cause. Elements arising together, mutually compared, serve as co-existent cause; elements arising earlier and later serve as same-class cause. As to predominant-condition: this means not obstructing arising, or merely being without hindrance. With how many conditions do past great elements relate to past 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: as explained before. With how many conditions does past derived form relate to past 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: as explained before. With how many conditions does past derived form relate to past great elements? Answer: causal-condition,
增上。因者一因。謂異熟因。增上者如前說。
— and predominant-condition. As to causal-condition: this is of one kind only — ripening-cause. As to predominant-condition: as explained before.
過去大種與未來大種為幾緣。答因。增上。因者一因。謂同類因。
With how many conditions do past great elements relate to future great elements? Answer: causal-condition, and predominant-condition. As to causal-condition: this is of one kind only — same-class cause.
增上者如前說。未來大種與未來大種為幾緣。答因。增上。因者一因。謂俱有因。增上者如前說。未來大種與過去大種為幾緣。答一增上。增上義如前說。過去大種與未來所造色為幾緣。答因。增上。因者五因。謂生等五。增上者如前說。未來所造色與未來所造色為幾緣。答因。增上。因者二因。謂俱有因。異熟因。增上者如前說。未來所造色與過去大種為幾緣。答一增上。增上義如前說。
As to predominant-condition: as explained before. With how many conditions do future great elements relate to future great elements? Answer: causal-condition, and predominant-condition. As to causal-condition: this is of one kind only — co-existent cause. As to predominant-condition: as explained before. With how many conditions do future great elements relate to past great elements? Answer: predominant-condition alone, its meaning as explained before. With how many conditions do past great elements relate to future derived form? 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 future derived form relate to future derived form? Answer: causal-condition, and predominant-condition. As to causal-condition: this is of two kinds — co-existent and ripening cause. As to predominant-condition: as explained before. With how many conditions does future derived form relate to past great elements? Answer: predominant-condition alone, its meaning as explained before.
過去大種與現在大種為幾緣。答因。增上。因者一因。謂同類因。
With how many conditions do past great elements relate to present great elements? Answer: causal-condition, and predominant-condition. As to causal-condition: this is of one kind only — same-class cause.
增上者如前說。現在大種與現在大種為幾緣。答因。增上。因者。
As to predominant-condition: as explained before. With how many conditions do present great elements relate to present great elements? Answer: causal-condition, and predominant-condition. As to causal-condition:
有說。此中依剎那現在為論故唯一因。謂俱有因。有說。此中通依剎那分位。一生現在為論故。有二因。謂俱有同類。增上者如前說。現在大種與過去大種為幾緣。答一增上。增上義如前說。過去大種與現在所造色為幾緣。答因。增上。因者五因。生等五。增上者如前說現在所造色與現在所造色為幾緣。答因。增上。因者。有說。此中依剎那現在為論故唯一因。謂俱有因。有說。此中通依剎那分位。一生現在為論故。有三因。謂俱有。同類。異熟。增上者如前說。現在所造色與過去大種為幾緣。答一增上增上義如前說。
— some say: this passage speaks with reference to the present as a single instant only, and hence causal-condition is of one kind — co-existent cause alone. Others say: this passage speaks with reference to the present more broadly, as the entire span of a single birth's present phase, and hence causal-condition is of two kinds — co-existent and same-class cause. As to predominant-condition: as explained before. With how many conditions do present great elements relate to past great elements? Answer: predominant-condition alone, its meaning as explained before. With how many conditions do past great elements relate to present derived form? 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 present derived form relate to present derived form? Answer: causal-condition, and predominant-condition. As to causal-condition: some say this passage speaks with reference to the present as a single instant only, and hence causal-condition is of one kind — co-existent cause alone. Others say: this passage speaks with reference to the present more broadly, as the entire span of a single birth's present phase, and hence causal-condition is of three kinds — co-existent, same-class, and ripening cause. As to predominant-condition: as explained before. With how many conditions does present derived form relate to past great elements? Answer: predominant-condition alone, its meaning as explained before.
That causal-condition itself narrows or vanishes depending on which two time periods are being compared — full five-cause richness between elements and their own-time derived form, but mere predominant-condition once past meets future directly — encodes a precise claim about causal reach: genuine productive power operates cleanly within or adjacent to a single time period, while relationships spanning distant times survive only in the thinnest, most permissive sense of "not obstructing."
10. Completing the Catalog, and a Dispute Over What 'Present' Really Means
The nine-way temporal matrix concludes, closing with a genuine scholarly dispute over how to understand "present-to-present" comparison itself: does it mean a single indivisible instant, admitting only co-existent cause, or the entire extended span of a birth's present phase, admitting co-existent and same-class cause together? The treatise settles this by simply checking which reading its own prior answer actually confirms — the broader, extended-span reading alone matches what was already stated.
過去所造色與未來大種為幾緣。答因。增上。因者一因。謂異熟因。增上者如前說未來大種與過去所造色為幾緣。答一增上。增上義如前說。過去所造色與未來所造色為幾緣。答因。增上。因者二因。謂同類。異熟。增上者如前說。未來所造色與過去所造色為幾緣。答一增上。增上義如前說。
With how many conditions does past derived form relate to future 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 future great elements relate to past derived form? Answer: predominant-condition alone, its meaning as explained before. With how many conditions does past derived form relate to future derived form? 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 future derived form relate to past derived form? Answer: predominant-condition alone, its meaning as explained before.
過去所造色與現在大種為幾緣。答因。增上。因者一因。謂異熟因。增上者如前說。現在大種與過去所造色為幾緣。答一增上。增上義如前說。過去所造色與現在所造色為幾緣。答因。增上。因者二因。謂同類。異熟。增上者如前說。現在所造色與過去所造色為幾緣。答一增上。增上義如前說。
With how many conditions does past derived form relate to present 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 present great elements relate to past derived form? Answer: predominant-condition alone, its meaning as explained before. With how many conditions does past derived form relate to present derived form? 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 present derived form relate to past derived form? Answer: predominant-condition alone, its meaning as explained before.
未來大種與未來所造色為幾緣。答因。增上。因者五因即生等五。
With how many conditions do future great elements relate to future derived form? Answer: causal-condition, and predominant-condition. As to causal-condition: this is of five kinds — the generative and the other four.
增上者如前說。未來所造色與未來大種為幾緣。答因。增上。因者一因。謂異熟因。增上者如前說。
As to predominant-condition: as explained before. With how many conditions does future derived form relate to future 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.
未來大種與現在大種為幾緣。答一增上。增上義如前說。現在大種與未來大種為幾緣。答因。增上。因者一因。謂同類因。增上者如前說。未來大種與現在所造色為幾緣。答一增上增上義如前說。現在所造色與未來大種為幾緣。答因。增上。因者一因。謂異熟因。
With how many conditions do future great elements relate to present great elements? Answer: predominant-condition alone, its meaning as explained before. With how many conditions do present great elements relate to future great elements? 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 do future great elements relate to present derived form? Answer: predominant-condition alone, its meaning as explained before. With how many conditions does present derived form relate to future great elements? Answer: causal-condition, and predominant-condition. As to causal-condition: this is of one kind only — ripening-cause.
增上者如前說。
As to predominant-condition: as explained before.
未來所造色與現在大種為幾緣。答一增上。增上義如前說。現在大種與未來所造色為幾緣。答因。增上。因者五因。謂生等五。增上者如前說。未來所造色與現在所造色為幾緣。答一增上。增上義如前說。現在所造色與未來所造色為幾緣。答因。增上。因者二因。
With how many conditions does future derived form relate to present great elements? Answer: predominant-condition alone, its meaning as explained before. With how many conditions do present great elements relate to future derived form? 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 future derived form relate to present derived form? Answer: predominant-condition alone, its meaning as explained before. With how many conditions does present derived form relate to future derived form? Answer: causal-condition, and predominant-condition. As to causal-condition: this is of two kinds —
謂同類。異熟。增上者如前說現在大種與現在所造色為幾緣。答因。增上。因者五因。謂生等五。增上者如前說。現在所造。色與現在大種為幾緣。答因。增上。因者一因。謂異熟因。增上者如前說。諸說此中依剎那分位。一生現在。為論者。則符此答。諸說此中但依剎那現在。為論者。則應答言。但一增上。便與本論答不相應若成就欲界繫大種。彼欲界繫所造色耶。答如是。設成就欲界繫所造色。彼欲界繫大種耶。答如是。以無成就欲界繫大種而非果故。亦無成就欲界繫所造色而非因故。若成就欲界繫大種。彼色界繫大種耶。答應作四句。有成就欲界繫大種。非色界繫大種。謂生欲界。色界大種不現在前。有成就色界繫大種。非欲界繫大種。謂生色界。不作欲界化。不發欲界語。有成就欲界繫大種。亦色界繫大種。謂生欲界。色界大種現在前。若生色界。作欲界化。發欲界語。有非成就欲界繫大種。亦非色界繫大種。謂生無色界。若成就欲界繫大種。彼色界繫所造色耶。答應作四句。有成就欲界繫大種。非色界繫所造色。謂生欲界。不得色界善心。有成就色界繫所造色。非欲界繫大種。謂生色界。不作欲界化。不發欲界語。有成就欲界繫大種。亦色界繫所造色。謂生欲界。得色界善心。若生色界作欲界化。發欲界語。有非成就欲界繫大種。亦非色界繫所造色。謂生無色界。
— same-class and ripening cause. As to predominant-condition: as explained before. With how many conditions do present great elements relate to present derived form? 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 present derived form relate to present 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. Those who hold that this passage speaks with reference to the present more broadly, as the entire span of a single birth's present phase, find their view confirmed by this very answer — for those who hold that this passage speaks with reference to the present as a single instant only ought instead to answer merely "predominant-condition alone," which would fail to accord with the base treatise's own stated answer here. If one possesses desire-realm-bound great elements, does one possess desire-realm-bound derived form? Answer: it is so. And if one possesses desire-realm-bound derived form, does one possess desire-realm-bound great elements? Answer: it is so as well, since there is no case of possessing desire-realm-bound great elements without their fruit, nor of possessing desire-realm-bound derived form without its cause. If one possesses desire-realm-bound great elements, does one possess form-realm-bound great elements? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is one who possesses desire-realm-bound great elements but not form-realm-bound great elements — namely, one reborn in the desire realm without form-realm great elements presently manifest. There is one who possesses form-realm-bound great elements but not desire-realm-bound great elements — namely, one reborn in the form realm who neither performs desire-realm-style transformation nor utters desire-realm-style speech. There is one who possesses both — namely, one reborn in the desire realm with form-realm great elements presently manifest, or one reborn in the form realm who performs desire-realm-style transformation and utters desire-realm-style speech. There is one who possesses neither — namely, one reborn in the formless realm. If one possesses desire-realm-bound great elements, does one possess form-realm-bound derived form? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is one who possesses desire-realm-bound great elements but not form-realm-bound derived form — namely, one reborn in the desire realm who has not attained a form-realm wholesome mind. There is one who possesses form-realm-bound derived form but not desire-realm-bound great elements — namely, one reborn in the form realm who neither performs desire-realm-style transformation nor utters desire-realm-style speech. There is one who possesses both — namely, one reborn in the desire realm who has attained a form-realm wholesome mind, or one reborn in the form realm who performs desire-realm-style transformation and utters desire-realm-style speech. There is one who possesses neither — namely, one reborn in the formless realm.
Resolving a genuine interpretive dispute by checking which reading the treatise's own earlier answer happens to confirm is a small but telling piece of internal textual discipline: rather than arguing the question in the abstract, the dispute is settled empirically, against the treatise's own prior commitments, treating the base text's own wording as evidence to be consulted rather than merely interpreted freely.
11. Desire Realm and Form Realm: A Tighter Equivalence
Shifting from time to realm, the matrix establishes that desire-realm-bound great elements and desire-realm-bound derived form imply one another perfectly, with no exception — a tighter relationship than anything seen across time. The comparison to the form realm proves looser: possessing desire-realm elements does not guarantee possessing form-realm elements, nor the reverse, each requiring the specific manifestation of meditative attainment, transformation-magic, or desire-realm-style speech to bridge the gap between realms.
若成就欲界繫所造色彼色界繫大種耶。答應作四句。有成就欲界繫所造色。非色界繫大種。謂生欲界。色界大種不現在前。有成就色界繫大種。非欲界繫所造色。謂生色界不作欲界化。不發欲界語。
If one possesses desire-realm-bound derived form, does one possess form-realm-bound great elements? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is one who possesses desire-realm-bound derived form but not form-realm-bound great elements — namely, one reborn in the desire realm without form-realm great elements presently manifest. There is one who possesses form-realm-bound great elements but not desire-realm-bound derived form — namely, one reborn in the form realm who neither performs desire-realm-style transformation nor utters desire-realm-style speech.
有成就欲界繫所造色。亦色界繫大種。謂生欲界。色界大種現在前。若生色界。作欲界化。發欲界語。有非成就欲界所造色。亦非色界大種。謂生無色界。
There is one who possesses both — namely, one reborn in the desire realm with form-realm great elements presently manifest, or one reborn in the form realm who performs desire-realm-style transformation and utters desire-realm-style speech. There is one who possesses neither — namely, one reborn in the formless realm.
若成就欲界繫所造色。彼色界繫所造色耶。答應作四句。有成就欲界繫所造色。非色界繫所造色。謂生欲界不得色界善心。有成就色界繫所造色。非欲界繫所造色。謂生色界不作欲界化。不發欲界語。有成就欲界繫所造色。亦色界繫所造色。謂生欲界得色界善心若生色界作欲界化。發欲界語。有非成就欲界繫所造色。亦非色界繫所造色。謂生無色界。
If one possesses desire-realm-bound derived form, does one possess form-realm-bound derived form? Answer: a tetralemma should be constructed. There is one who possesses desire-realm-bound derived form but not form-realm-bound derived form — namely, one reborn in the desire realm who has not attained a form-realm wholesome mind. There is one who possesses form-realm-bound derived form but not desire-realm-bound derived form — namely, one reborn in the form realm who neither performs desire-realm-style transformation nor utters desire-realm-style speech. There is one who possesses both — namely, one reborn in the desire realm who has attained a form-realm wholesome mind, or one reborn in the form realm who performs desire-realm-style transformation and utters desire-realm-style speech. There is one who possesses neither — namely, one reborn in the formless realm.
That desire-realm elements and their own derived form share a perfect, unconditional equivalence — while the same two categories, compared across the boundary into the form realm, require an entire elaborate tetralemma to sort out — shows realm-crossing functioning as a genuinely harder boundary than anything within a single realm: possession behaves simply and symmetrically at home, and only grows complicated once a being's own attainments reach beyond it.
12. Which State of Mind Summons a Higher Realm's Elements into a Desire-Realm Body?
A final, concrete puzzle closes the fascicle: a desire-realm being who has attained form-realm-level wholesome mind possesses form-realm derived form without the form-realm elements themselves being currently manifest — so which state of mind actually causes those elements to manifest within a desire-realm body? Only a wholesome, meditative mind, or any of the three moral qualities of mind at once? The resolution favors all three, each through its own distinct mechanism: wholesome mind through the meditation-linked accompanying form it naturally produces, defiled mind through craving drawing out a higher realm's already-latent, co-present space-element form, and neutral mind through the transformation-produced form generated by supernatural creative acts.
若成就色界繫大種。彼色界繫所造色耶。答諸成就色界繫大種。彼定成就色界繫所造色。有成就色界繫所造色。非色界繫大種。謂生欲界。得色界善心。色界大種不現在前。問生欲界者。住色界何等心。令彼大種現在前。為一向住善。為三種耶。設爾何失。俱見其過。若一向住善心者。施設論說當云何通。如說住此無聞異生由起色貪纏所纏故。五蘊色有於現法中以取為緣趣當來有。若住三種心者。善心可爾。有隨轉色為彼果故。染及無記為有何果令彼現前。
If one possesses form-realm-bound great elements, does one possess form-realm-bound derived form? Answer: whoever possesses form-realm-bound great elements necessarily possesses form-realm-bound derived form; but there is one who possesses form-realm-bound derived form without possessing form-realm-bound great elements — namely, one reborn in the desire realm who has attained a form-realm wholesome mind, without form-realm great elements presently manifest. Question: one reborn in the desire realm, abiding in which kind of form-realm-level mind, causes those great elements to become presently manifest — is it only while abiding in a wholesome mind, or in all three kinds of mind? Either way, what fault would follow — both possibilities show difficulty. If it is only while abiding in a wholesome mind, how is the Prajñaptiśāstra's own statement to be reconciled, which says that an unlearned ordinary being, bound by the fetter of craving for form, has his five aggregates of desire-realm-bound form, in the present moment, serve, through clinging, as a condition for future existence? But if it is while abiding in any of the three kinds of mind, then, while a wholesome mind makes sense, since it produces the mind-following form as its own fruit, what fruit could the defiled or neutral mind possibly have, that would cause those elements to become presently manifest?
有作是說唯住善心。問施設論說當云何通。答彼說身中所增長色。
Some say: it is only while abiding in a wholesome mind. Question: how, then, is the Prajñaptiśāstra's own statement to be reconciled? Answer: that passage speaks only of form already grown within the body from past cultivation,
問若爾。彼說復云何通。如說住此無聞異生。由起無色貪纏所纏故四蘊無色。有於現法中以取為緣趣當來有。彼身亦有所增長色。何故不說。有作是說。應說而不說者。當知此義有餘。有說。起彼界纏時無增長色。是以不說。復有說者。住三種心。問善心可爾。有隨轉果故。餘二有何果令彼現前。答彼生欲界者。起色界善心時。
— not anything newly produced by the present defiled mind-moment. Question: if so, how is yet another passage to be reconciled, which says that an unlearned ordinary being, bound by the fetter of craving for the formless, has his four formless aggregates, without form, in the present moment, serve, through clinging, as a condition for future existence — where such a being's body, too, ought to have some grown form, yet none is mentioned? Some say: that this ought to be mentioned yet is not should be understood as a matter left with a further, supplementary account. Others say: at the moment of giving rise to a fetter belonging to that realm, there is simply no grown form to speak of, and hence it is not mentioned. Others, further, say: it is while abiding in any of the three kinds of mind. Question: a wholesome mind makes sense, since it has the mind-following form as its own fruit — but what fruit could the other two possibly have, that would cause those elements to become presently manifest? Answer: for one reborn in the desire realm, at the moment of giving rise to a form-realm wholesome mind,
由隨轉色故。令彼現前。起染污心時。由有彼地空界色。在此身中相雜住故。令彼現前。起無記心時。由有彼地化色。令彼現前故住三種心皆能起彼地大種。
— it is on account of the mind-following form that those elements become manifest; at the moment of giving rise to a defiled mind, it is because that ground's own space-element form is already intermixed and co-present within this very body that those elements become manifest; and at the moment of giving rise to a neutral mind, it is on account of that ground's own transformation-produced form that those elements become manifest — and hence abiding in any of these three kinds of mind is capable of causing that ground's own great elements to become presently manifest.
Assigning each of the three moral qualities of mind its own distinct causal mechanism for summoning a higher realm's elements — rather than forcing all three through a single explanatory channel — reflects the treatise's consistent refusal to flatten genuinely different phenomena into one convenient formula: wanting, cultivating, and creating turn out to reach across the boundary between realms by three entirely separate routes, unified only in the shared result they each independently produce.
Fascicle 132 Complete
This closes fascicle 132 of Ru-Yi's translation, drawn from the treatise's true CBETA boundary. Fascicle 132 continues the Condition Nyāsa (緣納息第二之二): deep atomistic puzzles about touching, gaps, and visibility, a refutation of those who deny the reality of the past and future, an intricate three-stage rule for which great elements sustain an ongoing precept-restraint, an exhaustive combinatorial matrix of possession across the three time periods and the desire and form realms, and a closing puzzle about which state of mind can summon a higher realm's own elements into a desire-realm body. Fascicle 133 continues within this same nyāsa.