What Grasps, What Is Grasped, and What Grounds a View
Fascicle 138 continues the exhaustive causal ledger for contaminated and uncontaminated dharmas and the conditioned and unconditioned, works through the nourishment of faculties across every absorption, and undertakes a rich definitional study of “grasped,” “conducive to grasping,” and a “ground of views,” including the famous six grounds of views from the Snake-Simile Sūtra. 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 138 continues the Grasped Nyāsa (執受納息第四之二). Terms established across fascicles 93–137 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. The Concordance Ledger Continues: Cause-Bound and Cause-Free Dharmas
Fascicle 138 opens by continuing the exhaustive causal ledger begun in fascicle 137, now applied to dharmas concordant with the associated cause against those that are not — cause-concordant dharmas (essentially, mind and its mental factors) turning out to serve as all four conditions toward one another, while cause-non-concordant dharmas (form, the unconditioned, and dissociated formations) lack the object-condition entirely toward each other, since they possess no object of their own to take.
大種蘊第五中執受納息第四之二因相應法。與因相應法。為幾緣。答因。等無間。所緣。增上。因者。五因。謂相應。俱有。同類。遍行。異熟。等無間者。謂因相應法等無間。因相應法現在前。所緣者。謂因相應法。與因相應法。為所緣。增上者。謂不礙生。及唯無障。因相應法。與因不相應法為幾緣。答因等無間增上。因者四因。謂俱有。同類。遍行。
Fifth Aggregate, the Great Elements: the Grasped Nyāsa, Chapter Four, Part Two. Cause-concordant dharmas, with respect to cause-concordant dharmas, serve as how many conditions? Answer: causal, immediately-preceding, object, and predominant. As for the causal condition: five causes, namely the associated cause, co-existent cause, same-class cause, universally-active cause, and ripening cause. As for the immediately-preceding condition: cause-concordant dharmas, immediately following which, cause-concordant dharmas manifest in the present. As for the object-condition: cause-concordant dharmas, taken as object by cause-concordant dharmas. As for the predominant condition: not obstructing arising, and being simply without obstruction. Cause-concordant dharmas, with respect to cause-non-concordant dharmas, serve as how many conditions? Answer: causal, immediately-preceding, predominant. As for the causal condition: four causes, namely the co-existent cause, same-class cause, universally-active cause,
異熟。等無間者。謂因相應法等無間。因不相應法現在前。即無想等至。滅盡等至。是心心所等無間法故。增上者如前說。非所緣者。因不相應法無所緣故。因不相應法。與因不相應法。為幾緣。
— and ripening cause. As for the immediately-preceding condition: cause-concordant dharmas, immediately following which, cause-non-concordant dharmas manifest in the present — namely, the attainment of non-perception and the attainment of cessation, since these are dharmas immediately following mind and mental factors. As for the predominant condition: as already explained. As for lacking the object-condition: because cause-non-concordant dharmas lack any object at all. Cause-non-concordant dharmas, with respect to cause-non-concordant dharmas, serve as how many conditions?
答因。增上。因者四因。謂俱有同類。遍行。異熟。增上者如前說。因不相應法。與因相應法。為幾緣。答因。所緣。增上。因者。四因。謂俱有。同類。遍行。異熟。所緣者。謂因不相應法。
Answer: causal and predominant. As for the causal condition: four causes, namely the co-existent cause, same-class cause, universally-active cause, and ripening cause. As for the predominant condition: as already explained. Cause-non-concordant dharmas, with respect to cause-concordant dharmas, serve as how many conditions? Answer: causal, object, predominant. As for the causal condition: four causes, namely the co-existent cause, same-class cause, universally-active cause, and ripening cause. As for the object-condition: cause-non-concordant dharmas,
與因相應法。為所緣。增上者如前說。非等無間者。因不相應法非等無間緣故。
— taken as object by cause-concordant dharmas. As for the predominant condition: as already explained. As for lacking the immediately-preceding condition: because cause-non-concordant dharmas are not an immediately-preceding condition.
That cause-non-concordant dharmas specifically lack the object-condition, rather than any of the other three, is a small but precise diagnostic: the very thing that makes mind and mental factors distinctive — their capacity to take an object at all — is exactly the capacity this ledger shows form and the unconditioned to be missing, confirming through pure causal bookkeeping a distinction the tradition draws on independent grounds.
2. Six More Pairs: Object, Form, Visibility, Resistance
The same exhaustive method now runs through pair after pair of contrasting categories — dharmas with and without an object, with and without form, visible and invisible, resistant and non-resistant — each time specifying precisely which conditions and which of the six fundamental causes apply, revealing consistent patterns: formless dharmas achieve the full four-condition relationship with themselves that dharmas possessing form never can, since resistant, form-possessing things can never serve as an immediately-preceding condition for one another.
有所緣法。與有所緣法。為幾緣。答因等無間所緣增上。因者五因。謂相應。俱有。同類。遍行。異熟。等無間者。謂有所緣法等無間。有所緣法現在前。所緣者。謂有所緣法。與有所緣法。為所緣。增上者如前說。有所緣法。與無所緣法。為幾緣。答因等無間增上。因者四因。謂俱有。同類。遍行。異熟。等無間者。謂有所緣法等無間。無所緣法現在前。即無想等至。滅盡等至。是心心所等無間法故。增上者如前說。非所緣者。無所緣法無所緣故。無所緣法。與無所緣法。為幾緣。答因。增上。因者四因。謂俱有。同類。遍行。異熟。增上者如前說。無所緣法。與有所緣法。為幾緣。答因所緣增上。因者四因。謂俱有。同類。遍行。異熟。所緣者。謂無所緣。與有所緣法。為所緣。增上者如前說。非等無間者。無所緣法非等無間緣故有色法。與有色法。為幾緣。答因增上。因者三因。謂俱有。同類。異熟。增上者如前說。有色法。與無色法。為幾緣。答因所緣增上。因者三因。謂俱有。同類。異熟。所緣者。謂有色法。與無色法。為所緣。增上者如前說。非等無間者。以有色法非等無間緣故。無色法。與無色法。為幾緣。答因等無間所緣增上。因者五因。謂相應等五。等無間者。謂無色法等無間。無色法現在前。所緣者。謂無色法。與無色法為所緣。增上者如前說。無色法。與有色法。為幾緣。答因。增上。因者四因。謂俱有同類。遍行。異熟。增上者如前說。有見無見有對無對說亦如是。差別者。有見法。與有見法。為二因。謂同類。異熟。
Dharmas possessing an object, with respect to dharmas possessing an object, serve as how many conditions? Answer: causal, immediately-preceding, object, predominant. As for the causal condition: five causes, namely the associated cause, co-existent cause, same-class cause, universally-active cause, and ripening cause. As for the immediately-preceding condition: dharmas possessing an object, immediately following which, dharmas possessing an object manifest in the present. As for the object-condition: dharmas possessing an object, taken as object by dharmas possessing an object. As for the predominant condition: as already explained. Dharmas possessing an object, with respect to dharmas lacking an object, serve as how many conditions? Answer: causal, immediately-preceding, predominant. As for the causal condition: four causes, namely the co-existent cause, same-class cause, universally-active cause, and ripening cause. As for the immediately-preceding condition: dharmas possessing an object, immediately following which, dharmas lacking an object manifest in the present — namely, the attainment of non-perception and the attainment of cessation, since these are dharmas immediately following mind and mental factors. As for the predominant condition: as already explained. As for lacking the object-condition: because dharmas lacking an object have no object at all. Dharmas lacking an object, with respect to dharmas lacking an object, serve as how many conditions? Answer: causal and predominant. As for the causal condition: four causes, namely the co-existent cause, same-class cause, universally-active cause, and ripening cause. As for the predominant condition: as already explained. Dharmas lacking an object, with respect to dharmas possessing an object, serve as how many conditions? Answer: causal, object, predominant. As for the causal condition: four causes, namely the co-existent cause, same-class cause, universally-active cause, and ripening cause. As for the object-condition: dharmas lacking an object, taken as object by dharmas possessing an object. As for the predominant condition: as already explained. As for lacking the immediately-preceding condition: because dharmas lacking an object are not an immediately-preceding condition. Dharmas possessing form, with respect to dharmas possessing form, serve as how many conditions? Answer: causal and predominant. As for the causal condition: three causes, namely the co-existent cause, same-class cause, and ripening cause. As for the predominant condition: as already explained. Dharmas possessing form, with respect to formless dharmas, serve as how many conditions? Answer: causal, object, predominant. As for the causal condition: three causes, namely the co-existent cause, same-class cause, and ripening cause. As for the object-condition: dharmas possessing form, taken as object by formless dharmas. As for the predominant condition: as already explained. As for lacking the immediately-preceding condition: because dharmas possessing form are not an immediately-preceding condition. Formless dharmas, with respect to formless dharmas, serve as how many conditions? Answer: causal, immediately-preceding, object, predominant. As for the causal condition: five causes, namely the associated cause and the other four. As for the immediately-preceding condition: formless dharmas, immediately following which, formless dharmas manifest in the present. As for the object-condition: formless dharmas, taken as object by formless dharmas. As for the predominant condition: as already explained. Formless dharmas, with respect to dharmas possessing form, serve as how many conditions? Answer: causal and predominant. As for the causal condition: four causes, namely the co-existent cause, same-class cause, universally-active cause, and ripening cause. As for the predominant condition: as already explained. Discussion of visible and invisible, and resistant and non-resistant dharmas, proceeds in exactly the same way, differing only in that visible dharmas, with respect to visible dharmas, serve as two causes, namely the same-class cause and the ripening cause,
Running six entirely separate contrasting pairs through the identical four-condition template, rather than treating each as a special case requiring its own fresh analysis, reveals something quietly reassuring about this system's own internal consistency: the same small set of causal relationships, correctly identified once, turns out to generate the right answer for category after category without needing to be reinvented each time.
3. Contaminated and Uncontaminated: Where the Causal Condition Breaks Down
A pivotal asymmetry emerges when contaminated and uncontaminated dharmas are cross-examined: contaminated dharmas can serve as an immediately-preceding condition and object-condition for uncontaminated ones (since a contaminated mind can indeed precede, and even take as its object, an uncontaminated one, as when patient acceptance and knowledge of suffering arise), yet can never serve as their causal condition, and the reverse holds equally — since a cause functions like a seed, and a contaminated dharma can never be the seed from which something genuinely uncontaminated grows, nor can the uncontaminated ever seed the contaminated.
餘皆如前說。有漏法。與有漏法。為幾緣。答因等無間所緣增上。
— with all else exactly as already explained. Contaminated dharmas, with respect to contaminated dharmas, serve as how many conditions? Answer: causal, immediately-preceding, object, predominant.
因者五因。謂相應等五。等無間者。謂有漏法等無間。有漏法現在前。所緣者。謂有漏法。與有漏法。為所緣。增上者如前說。有漏法與無漏法。為幾緣。答等無間所緣增上。等無間者。謂有漏法等無間。無漏法現在前。所緣者。謂有漏法。與無漏法為所緣。即苦集忍智品心心所法。增上者如前說。非因者。以因如種子。非有漏法。與無漏法為種子故。無漏法。與無漏法為幾緣。答因等無間所緣增上。因者三因。謂相應。俱有。同類。等無間者。謂無漏法等無間。無漏法現在前。所緣者。謂無漏法。與無漏法。為所緣。即滅道忍智品心心所法。增上者如前說。無漏法。與有漏法。為幾緣。答等無間。所緣。增上。等無間者謂無漏法等無間。有漏法現在前。所緣者。謂無漏法。與有漏法。為所緣。增上者如前說。非因者。以因如種子。非無漏法。與有漏法為種子故。有為法。與有為法。為幾緣。答因等無間所緣增上。因者五因。謂相應等五。等無間者。謂有為法等無間。有為法現在前。所緣者。謂有為法。與有為法。為所緣。增上者如前說。有為法。與無為法。為幾緣。答無。無為法。與無為法。為幾緣。答無。無為法。與有為法。為幾緣。答所緣。增上。所緣者。謂無為法。與有為法。為所緣。增上者如前說。問何故有為法。有因有緣。無為法。無因無緣耶。答諸有為法性羸劣故。藉諸因緣。無為法強盛不藉因緣。如劣者依他。
As for the causal condition: five causes, namely the associated cause and the other four. As for the immediately-preceding condition: contaminated dharmas, immediately following which, contaminated dharmas manifest in the present. As for the object-condition: contaminated dharmas, taken as object by contaminated dharmas. As for the predominant condition: as already explained. Contaminated dharmas, with respect to uncontaminated dharmas, serve as how many conditions? Answer: immediately-preceding, object, predominant. As for the immediately-preceding condition: contaminated dharmas, immediately following which, uncontaminated dharmas manifest in the present. As for the object-condition: contaminated dharmas, taken as object by uncontaminated dharmas — namely, the mind and mental factors belonging to the patient-acceptance and knowledge with respect to suffering and its origin. As for the predominant condition: as already explained. As for lacking the causal condition: because a cause is like a seed, and contaminated dharmas are never a seed for uncontaminated dharmas. Uncontaminated dharmas, with respect to uncontaminated dharmas, serve as how many conditions? Answer: causal, immediately-preceding, object, predominant. As for the causal condition: three causes, namely the associated cause, co-existent cause, and same-class cause. As for the immediately-preceding condition: uncontaminated dharmas, immediately following which, uncontaminated dharmas manifest in the present. As for the object-condition: uncontaminated dharmas, taken as object by uncontaminated dharmas — namely, the mind and mental factors belonging to the patient-acceptance and knowledge with respect to cessation and the path. As for the predominant condition: as already explained. Uncontaminated dharmas, with respect to contaminated dharmas, serve as how many conditions? Answer: immediately-preceding, object, predominant. As for the immediately-preceding condition: uncontaminated dharmas, immediately following which, contaminated dharmas manifest in the present. As for the object-condition: uncontaminated dharmas, taken as object by contaminated dharmas. As for the predominant condition: as already explained. As for lacking the causal condition: because a cause is like a seed, and uncontaminated dharmas are never a seed for contaminated dharmas. Conditioned dharmas, with respect to conditioned dharmas, serve as how many conditions? Answer: causal, immediately-preceding, object, predominant. As for the causal condition: five causes, namely the associated cause and the other four. As for the immediately-preceding condition: conditioned dharmas, immediately following which, conditioned dharmas manifest in the present. As for the object-condition: conditioned dharmas, taken as object by conditioned dharmas. As for the predominant condition: as already explained. Conditioned dharmas, with respect to the unconditioned, serve as how many conditions? Answer: none. The unconditioned, with respect to the unconditioned, serves as how many conditions? Answer: none. The unconditioned, with respect to conditioned dharmas, serves as how many conditions? Answer: object and predominant. As for the object-condition: the unconditioned, taken as object by conditioned dharmas. As for the predominant condition: as already explained. Question: why do conditioned dharmas possess both cause and condition, while the unconditioned possesses neither cause nor condition? Answer: conditioned dharmas, being weak in their own nature, depend upon various causes and conditions; the unconditioned, being strong and robust, does not depend upon causes and conditions — just as the weak depend upon another, while the strong do not depend upon anything.
The single missing causal condition between the contaminated and the uncontaminated is, in miniature, this entire tradition's account of what liberation actually requires: proximity, sequence, and even shared attention are not enough to produce freedom from defilement — only a genuinely different kind of seed, belonging to an entirely separate causal lineage, can ever bear that particular fruit.
4. Why the Unconditioned Needs No Cause: Four Images of Strength and Weakness
A cascade of vivid analogies explains why conditioned dharmas depend on causes and conditions while the unconditioned depends on none at all: the weak lean on another for support while the strong stand alone; a reaper needs a sickle and a digger needs a spade, but one who does nothing needs no tool at all; a traveler needs provisions but one who stays home needs none; and, most vividly, the conditioned resembles both a king and a king's own retinue, bound together in mutual need, while the unconditioned resembles only the king himself, never needing a retinue to be what it already is.
強者不依。此亦如是。有說。諸有為法有作用故假諸因緣。無為法無作用故不假因緣。如刈者須鎌。掘者須鍤。無所作者則無所須。
It is the very same here. Others say: conditioned dharmas possess function, and hence rely on causes and conditions; the unconditioned lacks function, and hence does not rely on causes and conditions — just as one who reaps requires a sickle, and one who digs requires a spade, while one who does nothing requires nothing at all.
此亦如是。有說諸有為法行世取果作用。了境故須因緣。無為法無如是事故不須因緣。如遠行者則須資糧。不行不須。此亦如是。有說。有為如王亦如眷屬故有因緣無為如王不如眷屬故無因緣。如王王眷屬。富貴者富貴者眷屬。帝釋帝釋眷屬。當知亦爾。
It is the very same here. Others say: conditioned dharmas, in traversing the world, take up their own results and exercise their own function of discerning objects, and hence require causes and conditions; the unconditioned has no such affairs, and hence does not require causes and conditions — just as one who travels far requires provisions, while one who does not travel requires none. It is the very same here. Others say: the conditioned is like a king, and also like a king's retinue, and hence has cause and condition; the unconditioned is like a king, yet unlike a king's retinue, and hence lacks cause and condition — just as a king and a king's own retinue, a wealthy and eminent person and that person's own retinue, and Śakra and Śakra's own retinue, should all be understood in just the same way.
That four entirely independent images — strength versus weakness, tool versus idle hand, traveler versus one who stays put, king versus retinue — all converge on describing the very same asymmetry between the conditioned and the unconditioned suggests this distinction runs deeper than any single metaphor could capture: self-sufficiency, in this tradition's own view, is simply what it looks like from every conceivable angle to no longer need anything at all.
5. The Five Kinds of Continuity, and Why Nothing Ever Obstructs the Unconditioned
A subtle clarification insists that, whenever a conditioned dharma fails to arise, the obstacle is always some other conditioned dharma, never the unconditioned itself, which serves only as an unobstructing predominant condition throughout. This opens into a precise fivefold taxonomy of "continuity" itself — intermediate-state, rebirth-state, phase, dharma, and moment continuity — each describing a different scale at which one thing gives way to the next, from an entire lifetime's transition between death and rebirth down to the succession of a single moment's own aggregates into the next.
問諸有為法有時不生誰作留難。為有為法。無為法耶。答諸有為法為作留難。非無為法。以無為法恒與有為作能作因。及增上緣。於生不生俱無障故。如泉池側師子口等。水不流時自有餘緣非此為障。問諸無為法。與有為法作增上緣及所緣緣。於能緣不能緣作增上緣。有勝劣不。答增上緣義等無差別。若緣不緣皆無障故。所緣緣義則有差別。於能緣者作所緣緣。於不能緣。則便不作諸纏所纏續地獄有。乃至廣說。所說有聲義有多種。如結蘊廣說。此中說續眾同分。有情數五蘊名有。然相續有五。一中有相續。二生有相續。三分位相續。四法相續。五剎那相續。中有相續者。謂死有蘊滅。中有蘊起。中有續死有名中有相續。生有相續者。謂中有蘊滅生有蘊起。生有續中有名生有相續。分位相續者。謂羯邏藍位蘊滅頞部曇位蘊起。乃至中年位蘊滅老年位蘊起。皆以後位續前位名分位相續。法相續者。謂善法等無間。染或無記法現在前。染法等無間。善或無記法現在前。無記法等無間。善或染法現在前。皆以後法續前法名法相續。剎那相續者。初剎那蘊等無間。第二剎那蘊現在前。後剎那續前剎那名剎那相續。此五皆入二相續中。謂法相續剎那相續。皆不離法及剎那故。界分別者。欲界具五。色界有四除分位。無色界有三又除中有。趣分別者。地獄有四除分位。餘趣具五。生分別者。一切具五。於此五相續中。依二相續而作論。謂中有生有。
Question: when conditioned dharmas sometimes fail to arise, what is it that creates this obstacle — conditioned dharmas, or the unconditioned? Answer: it is conditioned dharmas that create this obstacle, never the unconditioned, since the unconditioned always serves conditioned dharmas as an efficient cause and as a predominant condition, presenting no obstacle whatsoever to either their arising or their non-arising — exactly as, at the side of a spring or pool, a lion's-mouth water-outlet or the like, when water is not presently flowing, this is due to some other condition, not because the outlet itself is obstructing it. Question: when unconditioned dharmas serve conditioned dharmas as a predominant condition and as an object-condition, is there any difference in superiority between serving as a predominant condition for something capable of taking it as object and for something incapable of doing so? Answer: with respect to the predominant condition, the meaning is equal, without any difference, since, whether taken as object or not, there is no obstruction either way. With respect to the object-condition, however, there is indeed a difference — for something capable of taking it as object, it serves as an object-condition; for something incapable of doing so, it does not. "Bound by every kind of entanglement, continuing on into hellish existence" — and so on, in full. The word "existence," as used here, carries several distinct meanings, as fully explained in the Aggregation Nyāsa. Here, it speaks of the continuation of a class-nature — the five aggregates belonging to a sentient being are called "existence." Yet "continuity" itself is of five kinds: first, intermediate-state continuity; second, rebirth-state continuity; third, phase continuity; fourth, dharma continuity; fifth, moment continuity. "Intermediate-state continuity" means that, once the death-state's own aggregates have perished, the intermediate-state's own aggregates arise, the intermediate state continuing on from the death state — this is called intermediate-state continuity. "Rebirth-state continuity" means that, once the intermediate state's own aggregates have perished, the rebirth-state's own aggregates arise, the rebirth state continuing on from the intermediate state — this is called rebirth-state continuity. "Phase continuity" means that, once the aggregates of the kalala stage have perished, the aggregates of the arbuda stage arise, and so on, up through, once the aggregates of middle age have perished, the aggregates of old age arising — every case in which a later phase continues on from an earlier phase is called phase continuity. "Dharma continuity" means that, immediately following a wholesome dharma, a defiled or neutral dharma manifests in the present; immediately following a defiled dharma, a wholesome or neutral dharma manifests in the present; immediately following a neutral dharma, a wholesome or defiled dharma manifests in the present — every case in which a later dharma continues on from an earlier dharma is called dharma continuity. "Moment continuity" means that, immediately following the aggregates of the first moment, the aggregates of the second moment manifest in the present — a later moment continuing on from an earlier moment is called moment continuity. All five of these are, in fact, subsumed under two kinds of continuity — namely, dharma continuity and moment continuity — since none of them ever departs from dharmas and moments themselves. As for their distribution by realm: the desire realm possesses all five; the form realm possesses four, excepting phase continuity; the formless realm possesses three, further excepting intermediate-state continuity as well. As for their distribution by destiny: hell possesses four, excepting phase continuity; the remaining destinies possess all five. As for their distribution by birth: every kind of birth possesses all five. Among these five kinds of continuity, this treatise relies upon two specifically in composing itself — namely, intermediate-state continuity and rebirth-state continuity.
Distinguishing five entirely different scales of "continuity," from an entire rebirth down to a single instant, and then showing that all five ultimately reduce to just two — dharma continuity and moment continuity — is a small demonstration of this tradition's own preferred method: multiply distinctions first, in order to see clearly, and only then discover which of them were, all along, simply the same underlying pattern appearing at different magnifications.
6. Rebirth's Own Puzzle: Why Only One Condition Is Named, Not Two
A genuinely sharp logical puzzle asks why the treatise describes newly-obtained faculties and great elements at the moment of rebirth as serving only a single predominant condition for the accompanying mind, when, if that very mind takes those same faculties and elements as its own object, it would seem to require a second, object-condition as well. Three competing resolutions converge on the same underlying point: the predominant relationship between faculties and mind is fixed and mutual, sustaining one another regardless of what object happens to be taken, while the object-condition is merely incidental, since rebirth-linking consciousness can arise by taking any of a variety of objects — and it is the fixed, defining relationship, not the variable one, that the treatise chooses to name.
諸纏所纏續地獄有。最初所得諸根大種。彼諸根大種。與彼心心所法為幾緣。答一增上。即彼心心所法。與彼諸根大種為幾緣答一增上。諸纏所纏續傍生有鬼有人有天有。最初所得諸根大種。彼諸根大種。與彼心心所法為幾緣。答一增上。即彼心心所法。與彼諸根大種為幾緣。答一增上。問若彼心心所法。不緣彼諸根大種而結生者。可說彼諸根大種。與彼心心所法。但一增上。若彼心心所法。
"Bound by every kind of entanglement, continuing on into hell-existence" — the very first faculties and great elements obtained there: these faculties and great elements, with respect to that mind and its mental factors, serve as how many conditions? Answer: a single predominant condition. And that mind and its mental factors, with respect to those faculties and great elements, serve as how many conditions? Answer: a single predominant condition. "Bound by every kind of entanglement, continuing on into the existence of an animal, a ghost, a human, or a god" — the very first faculties and great elements obtained there: these faculties and great elements, with respect to that mind and its mental factors, serve as how many conditions? Answer: a single predominant condition. And that mind and its mental factors, with respect to those faculties and great elements, serve as how many conditions? Answer: a single predominant condition. Question: if that mind and its mental factors, without taking those faculties and great elements as their own object, nevertheless bind rebirth, then it can indeed be said that those faculties and great elements, with respect to that mind and its mental factors, serve merely as a single predominant condition. But if that mind and its mental factors,
緣彼諸根大種。而緣生者。彼諸根大種。與彼心心所法便為二緣。
— do take those faculties and great elements as their own object, and it is by taking them as object that rebirth is bound, then those faculties and great elements, with respect to that mind and its mental factors, would then serve as two conditions —
謂所緣增上。何故定答但一增上。答亦應說二而不說者當知此義有餘。有說此中說決定者。謂增上緣則定。所緣緣不定。是以不說。
— namely, the object-condition and the predominant condition. Why, then, does the treatise definitively answer with only a single predominant condition? Answer: it ought properly to have said "two," and its failure to do so should be understood as a matter left with some further, supplementary account. Some say: this passage speaks of what is definite — that is, the predominant condition is definite, while the object-condition is not, and hence it is not mentioned.
有說此中說互有者。謂根大種與心心所展轉為增上緣。是以則說非心心所與根大種為所緣緣。是故不說。有說此中說相資者。謂彼根大與心心所更互相資增上義勝。所緣不爾。隨緣何法皆得起故。是以不說。
Others say: this passage speaks of what is mutual — that is, the faculties and great elements, and the mind and its mental factors, mutually serve one another as a predominant condition, and hence this alone is stated; the mind and mental factors do not, however, mutually serve as an object-condition for the faculties and great elements, and hence this is not stated. Others say: this passage speaks of what mutually sustains — that is, the faculties and great elements, and the mind and its mental factors, mutually sustain one another, and the sense of "predominant" here is the more prominent one; the object-condition is not like this, since rebirth can arise by taking any of a variety of objects, and hence this is not stated.
Choosing to name only the relationship that never varies, while leaving the merely possible one unstated, reflects a quiet editorial principle running throughout this treatise: what a passage states is not always the complete list of everything technically true, but often the single relationship doing the real defining work — with the rest left, deliberately, as a matter the careful reader is trusted to fill in.
7. Growing a Body Through Meditation: Abundant Food or Refined Food?
A charming pair of regional similes captures the difference between how the four dhyānas and the four formless attainments each nourish and augment a meditator's own faculties and great elements: dhyāna-based nourishment is abundant but not especially refined, like the hearty, plentiful food of the northwestern kingdom of Bāhlīka, while formless-attainment nourishment is refined but not abundant, like the delicate cuisine of central India — a distinction that repeats, in parallel, between contaminated and uncontaminated nourishment as well.
生欲界入有漏初靜慮。乃至非想非非想處。長養諸根增益大種。彼諸根大種與彼心心所法為幾緣。答一增上。即彼心心所法與彼諸根大種為幾緣。答一增上。問彼心心所法。若緣餘法而入定者可如所說。若即緣彼諸根大種而入定者則有二緣。何故乃說但一增上。答應說而不說者當知此義有餘。有說。此中說決定者。所緣不定是故不說。有說。此中說互有者。所緣不爾是故不說。有說。此中說相資者。謂心心所與彼根大更互相資增上義勝。所緣不爾隨緣何法。
For one born in the desire realm who enters the contaminated first dhyāna, up through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, nourishing and growing the faculties, and augmenting and increasing the great elements — these faculties and great elements, with respect to that mind and its mental factors, serve as how many conditions? Answer: a single predominant condition. And that mind and its mental factors, with respect to those faculties and great elements, serve as how many conditions? Answer: a single predominant condition. Question: if that mind and mental factors, entering absorption by taking some other dharma as object, can be explained as already stated — but if they enter absorption precisely by taking those very faculties and great elements as their own object, then there would be two conditions. Why, then, does the treatise say only a single predominant condition? Answer: it ought properly to have said this, and its failure to do so should be understood as a matter left with some further, supplementary account. Some say: this passage speaks of what is definite — the object-condition being indefinite, and hence not stated. Others say: this passage speaks of what is mutual — the object-condition not being so, and hence not stated. Others say: this passage speaks of what mutually sustains — that is, the mind and mental factors, and those very faculties and great elements, mutually sustain one another, and the sense of "predominant" here is the more prominent one; the object-condition is not like this, since it can arise by taking any of a variety of objects,
皆得生起是故不說。問入諸靜慮長益根大與入無色差別云何。答靜慮長益多而非妙。如縛喝國食無色長益妙而非多。如中印度食。
— and hence this is not stated. Question: what is the difference between the nourishing and increasing of the faculties and great elements that occurs upon entering the various dhyānas, and that which occurs upon entering the formless attainments? Answer: the nourishment and increase from the dhyānas is abundant but not especially refined — like the food of the kingdom of Bāhlīka; the nourishment and increase from the formless attainments is refined but not abundant — like the food of central India.
Reaching for regional cuisine to explain the difference between two kinds of meditative nourishment is a lovely reminder that this tradition never loses its taste for the concrete: an abstract distinction between abundance and refinement becomes immediately graspable the moment it is mapped onto the genuinely different eating cultures of two real parts of the ancient world.
8. The Same Pattern, Confirmed for Every Realm and Every Kind of Absorption
The identical nourishment analysis is now confirmed systematically for every remaining combination — a desire-realm being entering uncontaminated absorption, a form-realm being entering either contaminated or uncontaminated dhyāna or formless attainment — each time yielding the same single predominant condition, the same silence on the object-condition, and the same abundant-versus-refined distinction, closing out this portion of the ledger with full symmetrical coverage.
生欲界入無漏初靜慮。乃至無所有處。長養諸根增益大種。彼諸根大種與彼心心所法為幾緣。答一增上。即彼心心所法與彼諸根大種為幾緣。答一增上。此中不說所緣緣義。及靜慮無色長益差別。如前應知。問入有漏靜慮。無色長益根大。與入無漏差別云何。答有漏長益多而非妙。無漏長益妙而非多二喻如前。
For one born in the desire realm who enters the undefiled first dhyāna, up through the sphere of nothing-whatsoever, nourishing and growing the faculties, and augmenting and increasing the great elements — these faculties and great elements, with respect to that mind and its mental factors, serve as how many conditions? Answer: a single predominant condition. And that mind and its mental factors, with respect to those faculties and great elements, serve as how many conditions? Answer: a single predominant condition. This passage does not state the sense of the object-condition, nor the difference in nourishment and increase between the dhyānas and the formless attainments, which should be understood exactly as before. Question: what is the difference between the nourishment and increase of the faculties and great elements from entering contaminated dhyāna or formless attainment, and from entering the uncontaminated kind? Answer: contaminated nourishment and increase is abundant but not especially refined; uncontaminated nourishment and increase is refined but not abundant — the same two similes as before apply.
生色界入有漏初靜慮。乃至非想非非想處。長養諸根。增益大種。
For one born in the form realm who enters the contaminated first dhyāna, up through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, nourishing and growing the faculties, and augmenting and increasing the great elements —
彼諸根大種與彼心心所法為幾緣。答一增上。即彼心心所法與彼諸根大種為幾緣。答一增上。生色界入無漏初靜慮。乃至無所有處。
these faculties and great elements, with respect to that mind and its mental factors, serve as how many conditions? Answer: a single predominant condition. And that mind and its mental factors, with respect to those faculties and great elements, serve as how many conditions? Answer: a single predominant condition. For one born in the form realm who enters the uncontaminated first dhyāna, up through the sphere of nothing-whatsoever,
長養諸根。增益大種。彼諸根大種與彼心心所法為幾緣。答一增上。即彼心心所法與彼諸根大種為幾緣。答一增上。此中不說所緣。及靜慮無色。有漏無漏長益差別皆如前說有執受是何義。答此增語所顯墮自體法。無執受是何義。答此增語所顯非墮自體法。然多處說有執受言。謂此中說有執受是何義。謂墮自體法契經復說。
nourishing and growing the faculties, and augmenting and increasing the great elements — these faculties and great elements, with respect to that mind and its mental factors, serve as how many conditions? Answer: a single predominant condition. And that mind and its mental factors, with respect to those faculties and great elements, serve as how many conditions? Answer: a single predominant condition. This passage does not state the sense of the object-condition, nor the difference between the dhyānas and the formless attainments, nor between the contaminated and uncontaminated kinds of nourishment and increase — all exactly as already explained. What is meant by "grasped"? Answer: this is a designation referring to dharmas that fall within one's own self-substance. What is meant by "ungrasped"? Answer: this is a designation referring to dharmas that do not fall within one's own self-substance. Yet the term "grasped" is used in many different passages — that is, this present passage speaks of what "grasped" means, referring to
Working through every remaining permutation, even once the underlying pattern is already thoroughly established, is this treatise's own insistence that a principle asserted for one case is not yet the same as a principle verified for all of them — thoroughness here functions less as redundancy than as a kind of intellectual honesty, refusing to let any single unexamined combination stand as an assumption rather than a demonstrated fact.
9. What Does 'Grasped' Even Mean? Five Scriptures, Five Answers
A rich definitional inquiry opens: the single technical term "grasped" turns up across at least five separate scriptural and treatise sources, each apparently meaning something slightly different — a verse describing the grasped aggregate of suffering that draws forth birth, old age, sickness, and death; a sūtra on the unlearned ordinary being's long cultivation of a grasped self; another on the body's grasped nature even in its briefest moment; the Prakaraṇapāda's account of a small portion of nine sense-fields; and the Vijñānakāya's identification of the grasped aggregate as loving-kindness's own object — with this present passage adding a sixth sense, the five aggregates comprising one's own inner body specifically.
有執受苦蘊 便引生眾苦謂生苦老苦 病苦及死苦有經復說。無聞異生長夜修治有執受我餘經復說。況於此身暫停住中有執受。品類足說。九處少分名有執受。識身論說。有執受蘊是慈所緣。問如是諸說義有何異。答此中說內身所攝五蘊名有執受。
the following verse: "The aggregate of suffering that is grasped in turn draws forth every further suffering — namely, the suffering of birth, the suffering of old age, the suffering of sickness, and the suffering of death." There is a further sūtra that says: an unlearned ordinary being, through the long night of time, cultivates and maintains a grasped self. Yet another sūtra says: how much more so, then, with respect to this body, which is grasped even for the briefest span it endures. The Prakaraṇapāda says: a small portion of nine sense-fields is called "grasped." The Vijñānakāya says: the aggregate that is grasped is what loving-kindness takes as its object. Question: what difference in meaning is there among these various accounts? Answer: this present passage says that the five aggregates comprising one's own inner body are called "grasped."
初契經說續眾同分。有情數五蘊名有執受。次契經說無始時來身見事五蘊。名有執受。後契經說。內身所攝色蘊。名有執受。品類足說一剎那。九處少分名有執受。識身論說一剎那。五蘊少分名有執受。有說品類足。識身論說一剎那有情數。九處少分名有執受。有說。二論說一剎那有根所攝。九處少分名有執受。有說。二論說一剎那異熟所攝。九處少分名有執受。是名差別。問慈何故但緣色。
The first sūtra says that the five aggregates belonging to a sentient being, continuing the class-nature, are called "grasped." The next sūtra says that the five aggregates that are the object of the view of a real self, since beginningless time, are called "grasped." The final sūtra says that the form-aggregate comprising one's own inner body is called "grasped." The Prakaraṇapāda says that, within a single instant, a small portion of nine sense-fields is called "grasped." The Vijñānakāya says that, within a single instant, a small portion of the five aggregates is called "grasped." Some say: the Prakaraṇapāda and the Vijñānakāya say that, within a single instant, a small portion of nine sense-fields belonging to a sentient being is called "grasped." Others say: these two treatises say that, within a single instant, a small portion of nine sense-fields included among the faculties is called "grasped." Others say: these two treatises say that, within a single instant, a small portion of nine sense-fields included among the ripening-results is called "grasped." These, then, are the differences among these various accounts. Question: why does loving-kindness take only form as its object?
答初修時緣色。成時緣五蘊。西方師說。有執受有四種。一身有執受。二相續有執受。三眾同分有執受。四世俗施設有執受。身有執受者。謂初經所說有執受。苦蘊相續有執受者。如說我有根身相續執受。眾同分有執受者。如說我有根身眾同分執受。世俗施設有執受者。如說我執受如是重擔。如是事業。此中說內身五蘊名有執受。此所不攝法是無執受問如前所說。有執受無執受其相云何。答有說。若與血肉筋骨相雜住者名有執受。與此相違名無執受。有說。於彼斫刺破裂時。生苦痛捨擔名有執受。與此相違名無執受。
Answer: at the very beginning of its cultivation, it takes form as its object; once it is complete, it takes the five aggregates as its object. The Western masters say: "grasped" is of four kinds — first, bodily grasped; second, continuity-grasped; third, class-nature grasped; fourth, conventionally-designated grasped. "Bodily grasped" refers to what the first sūtra above describes as the grasped aggregate of suffering. "Continuity-grasped" is as when it is said, "I have a root-based body, continuing and grasped." "Class-nature grasped" is as when it is said, "I have a root-based body, of a class-nature grasped." "Conventionally-designated grasped" is as when it is said, "I grasp such-and-such a heavy burden, such-and-such an undertaking." This present passage speaks of the five aggregates comprising one's own inner body as "grasped" — whatever is not subsumed under this is "ungrasped." Question: as already explained above, what are the specific marks of the grasped and the ungrasped? Answer: some say: whatever is intermixed with, and dwells together with, blood, flesh, sinew, and bone is called "grasped"; the opposite of this is called "ungrasped." Others say: whatever, when cut, pierced, or torn, gives rise to painful feeling, is called "grasped"; the opposite of this is called "ungrasped."
That a single ordinary-sounding word like "grasped" turns out to carry at least six distinct technical senses across the canon, each precise and non-interchangeable, is a striking demonstration of how much this tradition's own philosophical vocabulary resists casual, everyday reading: a term any beginning student might assume is self-explanatory turns out to require an entire comparative apparatus just to be used correctly.
10. Two Masters' Precise Definitions of 'Grasped'
Two named authorities offer rival, exhaustively precise definitions of what makes something "grasped": the Venerable Ghoṣa requires a dharma to be already-arisen, not-yet-perished, belonging to a sentient being, resistant, and not among what can be heard — each clause methodically excluding one specific rival category, from the future and past down to the sound sense-field itself. The Venerable Vātsīputra offers a parallel but distinct formula, requiring spatial location, sentient ownership, bodily attachment, resistance, and the capacity to be physically pulled or pushed.
尊者妙音作如是說。若法已生未滅有情數。是有對非所聞名有執受。已生者簡未來。未滅者遮過去。有情數者遮非有情數。是有對者遮意處法處。非所聞者遮聲處。與此相違名無執受。尊者左取作如是言。若法有方分。有情數繫屬身。是有對可牽可斥名有執受。
The Venerable Ghoṣa explains it this way: whatever dharma has already arisen, has not yet perished, belongs to a sentient being, is resistant, and is not among what can be heard, is called "grasped." "Already arisen" excludes the future; "not yet perished" excludes the past; "belongs to a sentient being" excludes what does not belong to a sentient being; "is resistant" excludes the mental sense-field and the dharma sense-field; "is not among what can be heard" excludes the sound sense-field — the opposite of all this is called "ungrasped." The Venerable Vātsīputra explains it this way: whatever dharma has a spatial location, belongs to a sentient being, is bound up with the body, is resistant, and can be pulled toward or pushed away, is called "grasped."
有方分者遮過去未來。有情數者。遮非有情數。繫屬身者。遮身所出。謂髮毛等。是有對者。遮意處法處。可牽可斥者。遮聲處。與此相違名無執受。
"Has a spatial location" excludes the past and future; "belongs to a sentient being" excludes what does not belong to a sentient being; "bound up with the body" excludes what merely issues forth from the body, such as hair and the like; "is resistant" excludes the mental sense-field and the dharma sense-field; "can be pulled toward or pushed away" excludes the sound sense-field — the opposite of all this is called "ungrasped."
Watching two respected masters independently construct nearly identical five-clause definitions, each clause engineered to exclude one specific troublesome edge case, shows this tradition's own commitment to definitional completeness: a good technical definition here is judged not by its elegance alone but by how systematically it can be shown to rule out every category that ought not to qualify.
11. Counting Grasped Sense-Fields Across Realms
A precise quantitative accounting settles exactly how many of the twelve sense-fields count as grasped in each realm: for a desire-realm being, a portion of nine sense-fields is grasped, while sound, mind, and dharmas remain entirely ungrasped; for a form-realm being, lacking smell and taste altogether, only seven sense-fields carry any grasped portion at all, with the same three fields remaining wholly ungrasped.
問十二處中。幾有執受。幾無執受。答若生欲界九處少分。是有執受。三處全。九處少分。是無執受。三處謂聲處意處法處。若生色界七處少分。是有執受。三處全。七處少分。是無執受。三處如前說。
Question: among the twelve sense-fields, how many are grasped, and how many ungrasped? Answer: for one born in the desire realm, a small portion of nine sense-fields is grasped; three sense-fields entirely, together with a small portion of the same nine, are ungrasped — the three sense-fields being sound, mind, and dharmas. For one born in the form realm, a small portion of seven sense-fields is grasped; three sense-fields entirely, together with a small portion of the same seven, are ungrasped — the three sense-fields as already explained.
That the count of grasped sense-fields shrinks automatically from nine to seven simply because form-realm beings lack an entire category of sensory experience is a clean illustration of how tightly this system's categories track actual physiology: the abstract concept of "grasped" is never assigned independently of what a given kind of body can actually sense in the first place.
12. Thirty-Six Parts of the Body, Sorted Grasped and Ungrasped
An unusually concrete inventory sorts the traditional thirty-six impure substances of the body one by one into grasped and ungrasped categories: hair, nails, and teeth are grasped; skin, gall, brain, and blood are grasped only while fresh, ungrasped once decayed; the internal organs, bones, sinews, and marrow are uniformly grasped; while every excreted or discharged substance — pus, phlegm, tears, sweat, urine, and the rest — is uniformly ungrasped, regardless of freshness.
問於此身中。三十六種諸不淨物。幾有執受。幾無執受。答髮毛爪齒根有執受。餘無執受。皮膽腦血生有執受。朽無執受。骨肉筋脈心肺脾腎肝腸胃膜脂髓腦胲生熟二藏皆有執受。膏膿淡飲洟唾淚汗屎尿塵垢皆無執受順取是何義。答此增語所顯。有漏法非順取是何義。答此增語所顯無漏法。問何故有漏法名順取。答有說。此法從取生。能生取故名順取。有說。此法從取轉。能轉取故名順取。有說。此法取所引能引取故名順取。有說。此法取所長養。能長養取故名順取。有說。此法取所增廣。增廣於取故名順取。此增廣言顯滋蔓義。有說。此法繫屬於取。故名順取。如屬王者名為順王。由內無我。若有問言。汝屬於誰。答言屬取。有說。諸取於此法中。
Question: among the thirty-six impure substances within this body, how many are grasped, and how many ungrasped? Answer: hair, body-hair, nails, teeth, and roots are grasped; the rest are ungrasped. Skin, gall, brain, and blood are grasped while fresh, ungrasped once decayed. Bone, flesh, sinew, blood-vessel, heart, lungs, spleen, kidneys, liver, intestines, stomach, membrane, fat, marrow, brain-matter, and the fresh and cooked digestive organs are all grasped. Fat-oil, pus, phlegm, saliva, mucus, tears, sweat, feces, urine, and grime are all ungrasped. What is meant by "conducive to grasping"? Answer: this is a designation referring to contaminated dharmas. What is meant by "not conducive to grasping"? Answer: this is a designation referring to uncontaminated dharmas. Question: why are contaminated dharmas called "conducive to grasping"? Answer: some say: this dharma arises from grasping, and is capable of giving rise to grasping, and hence is called "conducive to grasping." Others say: this dharma proceeds from grasping, and is capable of setting grasping in motion, and hence is called "conducive to grasping." Others say: this dharma is drawn forth by grasping, and is capable of drawing forth grasping, and hence is called "conducive to grasping." Others say: this dharma is nourished by grasping, and is capable of nourishing grasping, and hence is called "conducive to grasping." Others say: this dharma is expanded by grasping, expanding grasping in turn, and hence is called "conducive to grasping" — the word "expanded" here expressing the sense of spreading and proliferating. Others say: this dharma is bound up with grasping, and hence is called "conducive to grasping," exactly as one who belongs to a king is called "conducive to the king" — since there is, in truth, no inner self, were one asked, "To whom do you belong?" the answer would have to be, "I belong to grasping." Others say: it is within this dharma that every kind of grasping —
The single qualifying clause on skin, gall, brain, and blood — grasped only while fresh, ungrasped once decayed — quietly captures something the rest of the list states only implicitly: "grasped" here tracks not a substance's own fixed identity but its living relationship to the sentient being it currently belongs to, a relationship that can lapse the moment decay sets in, even while the substance itself remains physically unchanged.
13. Why Contaminated Dharmas Are Called 'Conducive to Grasping': Nine Explanations
A dazzling cascade of nine separate etymological explanations unpacks why every contaminated dharma earns the name "conducive to grasping" — arising from grasping and generating it in turn, proceeding from it and setting it in motion, being drawn forth by it, nourished by it, expanded by it, bound to it as a subject belongs to a king, or serving as the place where craving, conceit, view, doubt, hatred, and delusion are born and grow, cling like grime to something oily, and delight to dwell like a fish content in water.
將生已生。將執已執。將住已住。故名順取。有說。諸取於此法中。將長養已長養故名順取。有說。諸取於此法中。將增廣已增廣。故名順取。有說。諸取於此堅著。如濕膩物塵垢隨著。故名順取。有說。諸取於此樂住。如魚蝦蟇樂處水中。故名順取有說。此法為取舍宅安立足處。故名順取。謂依此法。一切愛慢見疑瞋癡。
— is about to arise and has already arisen, is about to take hold and has already taken hold, is about to settle and has already settled, and hence it is called "conducive to grasping." Others say: it is within this dharma that every kind of grasping is about to be nourished and has already been nourished, and hence it is called so. Others say: it is within this dharma that every kind of grasping is about to expand and has already expanded, and hence it is called so. Others say: it is to this dharma that every kind of grasping firmly clings, exactly as grime clings to something moist and oily, and hence it is called so. Others say: it is in this dharma that every kind of grasping delights to dwell, exactly as a fish or a frog delights to dwell in water, and hence it is called so. Others say: this dharma serves grasping as a house to dwell in, and a firm footing to stand upon, and hence it is called so — that is, it is in dependence on this dharma that every kind of craving, conceit, view, doubt, hatred, and delusion,
諸纏垢等皆生長故。諸有漏法由同分取。得順取名非異分取。謂欲界法由欲界取。色界法由色界取。無色界法由無色界取。初靜慮地法。由初靜慮地取。乃至非想非非想地法。由非想非非想地取。以有漏法界地無雜故。若依相續則有雜義。謂由自身取他身法得順取名。由他身取自身法得順取名。若不爾外法應非順取。外無取故。
— together with every kind of entanglement and defilement, is generated and grows. Every contaminated dharma earns the name "conducive to grasping" through grasping of its own same category, never through grasping of a different category — that is, desire-realm dharmas are conducive to grasping through desire-realm grasping, form-realm dharmas through form-realm grasping, formless-realm dharmas through formless-realm grasping; the first dhyāna's own dharmas are conducive to grasping through the first dhyāna's own grasping, and so on, up through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's own dharmas being conducive to grasping through that same sphere's own grasping — since contaminated dharmas, with respect to realm and ground, are never intermixed. Yet, considered in terms of a continuum, there is indeed a sense of intermixing — that is, dharmas belonging to another's body may earn the name "conducive to grasping" through one's own body's grasping, and dharmas belonging to one's own body may earn this name through another's body's grasping — for, were this not so, external dharmas would then fail to be "conducive to grasping" at all, since external things possess no grasping of their own.
The startling admission buried inside this etymology — that, since there is no genuine inner self, the honest answer to "whom do you belong to?" is simply "I belong to grasping" — quietly reframes the entire chain of nine explanations as variations on a single, unsettling insight: what feels like personal ownership over one's own contaminated experience is, examined closely, closer to grasping itself owning the person than the reverse.
14. The Same Pattern for 'Conducive to Fetters'
A brief, efficient parallel closes out the two etymological terms together: "conducive to fetters" designates contaminated dharmas in exactly the same way "conducive to grasping" did, and its full explanation is simply left to follow the identical pattern already worked out in complete detail just above, with no need to repeat the reasoning.
順結是何義。答此增語所顯。有漏法非順結是何義。答此增語所顯無漏法。廣釋順結非順結義如前順取。非順取說。
What is meant by "conducive to fetters"? Answer: this is a designation referring to contaminated dharmas. What is meant by "not conducive to fetters"? Answer: this is a designation referring to uncontaminated dharmas. The full explanation of what is and is not conducive to fetters proceeds exactly as already explained above for what is and is not conducive to grasping.
Explicitly declining to re-explain a pattern already given in full, rather than padding the text with needless repetition, is itself a small courtesy to the reader: this treatise, capable of extraordinary exhaustiveness when a genuinely new distinction is at stake, is equally willing to be economical the moment a question has already been fully answered.
15. What Is a 'Ground of Views'? The Kātyāyana Sūtra's Own Account
A further technical term, "ground of views," receives the same treatment: contaminated dharmas in general, further specified through the Kātyāyana sūtra's own fivefold breakdown of view-related terminology — views themselves (the five wrong views), their grounds (what they take as object), their entanglements (their actual manifestation), their arising-cause, their cessation, and, finally, the Buddha's own complete knowledge and vision of all of these at once.
見處是何義。答此增語所顯。有漏法非見處。是何義。答此增語所顯無漏法。然見處聲說有多處謂此中說。見處是何謂有漏法俱。迦捺陀契經復說。諸所有見諸所有見處。諸所有見纏。諸所有見等起。諸所有見損害。世尊一切悉知悉見。此中見者謂五見。見處者謂見所緣。見纏者謂見現行。見等起者謂見因。見損害者謂見滅。
What is meant by a "ground of views"? Answer: this is a designation referring to contaminated dharmas. What is meant by what is not a ground of views? Answer: this is a designation referring to uncontaminated dharmas. Yet the term "ground of views" is used in several different passages — that is, this present passage speaks of what a ground of views means, saying that it is contaminated dharmas together with — the Kātyāyana sūtra further says: whatever views there are, whatever grounds of those views there are, whatever entanglements of those views there are, whatever arising-causes of those views there are, whatever destructions of those views there are — the World-Honored One knows and sees all of these entirely. Here, "views" refers to the five views; "grounds of views" refers to what views take as their object; "entanglements of views" refers to the actual manifestation of views; "arising-causes of views" refers to the cause of views; "destructions of views" refers to the cessation of views;
世尊一切悉知悉見者謂見對治。有作是說。見見處見纏謂苦諦。見等起謂集諦。見損害謂滅諦。世尊一切悉知悉見謂道諦。阿羅揭陀喻經。復說有六見處。謂諸所有色。若過去若未來若現在廣說。乃至苾芻。應以正慧觀彼一切非我我所。勿起我慢。諸所有受。乃至廣說。諸所有想。乃至廣說。諸有見聞覺知若得若求。意隨尋伺。
"the World-Honored One knows and sees all of these entirely" refers to the antidote to views. Some say: "views," "grounds of views," and "entanglements of views" refer to the truth of suffering; "arising-causes of views" refers to the truth of origin; "destructions of views" refers to the truth of cessation; "the World-Honored One knows and sees all of these entirely" refers to the truth of the path. The Alagaddūpama-sūtra further speaks of six grounds of views, saying: whatever form there is, whether past, future, or present, and so on, in full, up through, "Bhikṣus, one should observe all of this with correct wisdom as not being oneself, and not belonging to oneself, and should not give rise to the conceit of self." Whatever feeling there is, and so on, in full. Whatever perception there is, and so on, in full. Whatever is seen, heard, sensed, or known, whatever is obtained or sought after, whatever the mind pursues through discursive and investigative thought,
Mapping this fivefold vocabulary of views directly onto the four noble truths — views and their grounds and entanglements as suffering, their arising as origin, their cessation as cessation, and the Buddha's complete knowledge as the path — shows this tradition's own recurring instinct to locate every specialized technical vocabulary within the single, foundational framework everything else in the system ultimately answers to.
16. Six Grounds of Views from the Snake-Simile Sūtra
A second scriptural source, the well-known Snake-Simile Sūtra, offers its own famous sixfold list of "grounds of views": the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness (the last covering everything seen, heard, sensed, known, obtained, sought, or pursued through discursive thought), together with every view asserting either a permanent, unchanging self and world or, at the opposite extreme, the view that one will simply cease to exist — each urged to be observed, with correct wisdom, as neither being nor belonging to any genuine self.
乃至廣說。諸有此見。有我有有情有世間。常恒凝住無變易法正如是住。乃至廣說。諸有此見。我應不有。我應非有。我當不有。我當非有。苾芻應以正慧觀彼一切非我我所。勿起我慢。苾芻應於如是見處取處等。隨觀察無我我所。若能如是則於世間無所執受。乃至廣說。此中諸所有色受想者。即色受想蘊。諸有此見有我有情。
— and so on, in full. Whatever view there is that "there is a self, there is a sentient being, there is a world, permanent and abiding, without change, fixed and remaining exactly as it stands," and so on, in full. Whatever view there is that "I shall not exist, I shall no longer be, I shall come not to exist, I shall come not to be" — bhikṣus should observe all of this with correct wisdom as not being oneself, and not belonging to oneself, and should not give rise to the conceit of self. Bhikṣus should, with respect to these grounds of views and grasping and the rest, correspondingly observe the absence of self and of what belongs to self — and, if one is capable of observing in this way, one then has nothing whatsoever grasped with respect to the world, and so on, in full. Here, "whatever form, feeling, and perception there is" refers to the form, feeling, and perception aggregates; "whatever view there is that there is a self, that there is a sentient being,"
乃至廣說。諸有此見我應不有。乃至廣說者。謂行蘊諸有見聞覺知等。謂識蘊。問見聞覺知其義已具。若得若求意隨尋伺。更何所顯。答前廣今略。前別今總。前開今合。前漸今頓。是謂所顯防諸漏經復作是說。於六見處不正思惟。則於內身隨起一執。諦故住故我有我諦故。住故我無我。我見我。我見無我無我見我。或此有我。有有情。有命者。有生者。有養者。有補特伽羅。有意生。有摩納婆。或無曾當現。於彼彼處已作未作諸善惡業受異熟果。問如是四處說見處聲有何差別。答有說。此中所說見處顯一切有漏法。
and so on, in full, "whatever view there is that I shall not exist," and so on, in full, refers to the formations aggregate; "whatever is seen, heard, sensed, or known," and so on, refers to the consciousness aggregate. Question: the meaning of "seen, heard, sensed, or known" has already been given in full — what further does "obtained or sought after, the mind pursuing through discursive and investigative thought" reveal? Answer: the earlier phrase is expansive, this one concise; the earlier is particular, this one general; the earlier is opened out, this one drawn together; the earlier is gradual, this one sudden — this, then, is what is revealed. The sūtra on guarding against every outflow further says: through incorrect attention with respect to the six grounds of views, one then gives rise, within one's own inner body, to one of these various graspings — "since it is true, since it abides, I exist"; "since it is true, since it abides, I do not exist"; "I see a self," "I see a non-self," "a non-self sees a self"; or, "this self exists, this sentient being exists, this life exists, this born-one exists, this nurtured-one exists, this person exists, this mind-born-one exists, this youth exists"; or that there is neither past nor future nor present at all, and that, in this place or that place, good and evil karma once performed or not yet performed will bring forth their ripening-result. Question: among these four passages, each speaking of a "ground of views," what difference is there in meaning? Answer: some say: this present passage's own "ground of views" refers to every contaminated dharma altogether.
Placing the view of eternal selfhood and the view of the self's own future annihilation side by side, as equally mistaken "grounds of views" rather than as opposites where only one could be wrong, is a hallmark of this tradition's own middle path: both eternalism and its apparent opposite, nihilism, turn out to share the very same underlying error of treating a self as genuinely there to either persist or perish in the first place.
17. Reconciling Four Scriptural Accounts of the Same Term
Four separate scriptural passages, each speaking of a "ground of views," are now carefully compared and reconciled, following the treatise's characteristic method: this present passage and the Kātyāyana sūtra speak broadly of every contaminated dharma, while the Snake-Simile Sūtra's own account is narrower, restricted specifically to the view of a real self and the extreme-grasping view — a narrowing that repeats, by the very same pattern, across six further paired distinctions: associated versus dissociated, form versus formless, defiled versus undefiled, cut off by seeing versus by cultivation, moral quality, and presence or absence of a ripening-result.
初經所說見處。總顯五見。第二經所說見處。顯見及離見法。第三經所說見處。顯有身見邊執見。有說。此及初二經所說見處。總顯五取蘊。第三經所說見處。但顯行蘊少分。有說。此及初二經。通顯相應不相應法。第三經。唯顯相應法。如相應不相應。有所依無所依。有行相無行相。有所緣無所緣。有警覺無警覺亦爾。有說此及初二經。通顯有色無色法。第三經。唯顯無色法。如有色無色。
The first sūtra's own "ground of views" refers to the five views specifically, together with the dharmas that depart from views. The second sūtra's own "ground of views" refers specifically to the view of a real self and the extreme-grasping view. Others say: this present passage, together with the first two sūtras, refers broadly to both associated and dissociated dharmas; the third sūtra refers only to associated dharmas — exactly as with associated and dissociated, so too with having-a-basis and lacking-a-basis, having-an-aspect and lacking-an-aspect, having-an-object and lacking-an-object, and being-alert and not-being-alert. Others say: this present passage, together with the first two sūtras, refers broadly to both dharmas possessing form and formless dharmas; the third sūtra refers only to formless dharmas — exactly as with form and formlessness, so too with
有見無見。有對無對亦爾。有說。此及初二經通顯染不染法。第三經。唯顯染法。如染不染。有罪無罪。有覆無覆。黑白。纏非纏。
visibility and invisibility, and resistance and non-resistance. Others say: this present passage, together with the first two sūtras, refers broadly to both defiled and undefiled dharmas; the third sūtra refers only to defiled dharmas — exactly as with defiled and undefiled, so too with blameworthy and blameless, obscured and unobscured, black and white, and entangling and non-entangling.
亦爾。有說。此及初二經。通顯見修所斷法。第三經。唯顯見所斷法。如見所斷。修所斷。無事有事。忍對治。智對治亦爾。有說。
Others say: this present passage, together with the first two sūtras, refers broadly to dharmas cut off by seeing and by cultivation alike; the third sūtra refers only to dharmas cut off by seeing — exactly as with cut off by seeing and by cultivation, so too with having-a-basis and having-no-basis, and the antidote through patient acceptance and the antidote through knowledge.
此及初二經。通顯善不善無記法。第三經。唯顯無記法。有說。此及初二經。通顯有異熟無異熟法。第三經。唯顯無異熟法。
Others say: this present passage, together with the first two sūtras, refers broadly to wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral dharmas alike; the third sūtra refers only to neutral dharmas. Others say: this present passage, together with the first two sūtras, refers broadly to dharmas with and without a ripening-result; the third sūtra refers only to dharmas without a ripening-result.
Running the identical broad-versus-narrow comparison across six entirely separate technical dimensions at once, rather than settling for a single explanation, shows this treatise treating textual reconciliation itself as a discipline worth doing thoroughly: two passages that use the same word are never simply declared synonymous until their precise scope has been checked along every axis that might actually distinguish them.
18. The Two-Part Test for What Counts as a Ground of Views
A closing technical refinement asks a pointed question: if wrong view alone, or some subset of the five views, defines what counts as a "ground of views," shouldn't cessation and the path themselves qualify too, since wrong view can certainly take them as its own mistaken object? The treatise resolves this by requiring two conditions at once — being an object taken by view, and serving as a genuine ground for the underlying tendencies, or, in a second version, an associated ground — with cessation and the path satisfying only the first requirement, and hence properly excluded.
問諸有漏法。由何見故說名見處。答有說。由有身見邊執見故說為見處。此二但緣自地境故。有說。由四見故謂除邪見。由此四種有漏緣故。如是說者。由五見故得見處名。問若爾滅道應名見處邪見境故。答見處有二。一所緣處。二隨眠處。具此二義乃名見處。滅道雖是邪見所緣處。非隨眠處故不名見處。有說。見處有二。一所緣處。二相應處。具此二義。立見處名。滅道雖是見所緣處。非相應處。由此不得名為見處若法是內彼法內處攝耶。乃至廣說。問何故作此論。答彼作論者意欲爾故。隨彼意欲而作論。但不違法相便不應責。有作是說。為止他宗顯己義故。謂有異宗說內外法皆非實有。今遮彼意。明內外法皆是實有故作斯論。然內外法差別有三。
Question: on the basis of which view are contaminated dharmas called a "ground of views"? Answer: some say: it is on the basis of the view of a real self and the extreme-grasping view that they are called a ground of views, since these two alone take only their own ground as object. Others say: it is on the basis of four views — excepting wrong view — that they are called so, since these four kinds have contaminated objects. According to this final account, it is on the basis of all five views that the name "ground of views" is obtained. Question: if so, should cessation and the path then also be called a ground of views, being wrong view's own object? Answer: a "ground of views" requires two things at once — first, being an object taken; second, being a ground for the underlying tendencies — and only when both conditions are met does the name "ground of views" properly apply. Cessation and the path, though they are indeed objects that wrong view takes, are not a ground for the underlying tendencies, and hence are not called a "ground of views." Others say: a "ground of views" requires two things — first, being an object taken; second, being an associated ground — and only when both conditions are met does the name apply. Cessation and the path, though they are indeed objects that views take, are not an associated ground, and hence cannot be called a "ground of views." Is an internal dharma necessarily subsumed under an internal sense-field? And so on, in full. Question: why compose this treatise? Answer: it is simply the intention of the treatise's own author, that this order be followed — 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. Some say: it is in order to refute a rival doctrine, and to establish our own — for there is a rival doctrine holding that neither internal nor external dharmas are genuinely real, and it is to refute this view, and to make clear that internal and external dharmas are both genuinely real, that this treatise is composed. Yet the distinction between internal and external is, in fact, of three kinds:
Requiring two independent conditions rather than one, specifically to keep cessation and the path from being wrongly classified as a "ground of views" merely because a confused mind can misapprehend them, is a careful piece of definitional engineering: the treatise would rather add a second clause than let liberation itself accidentally fall under a category built to describe what keeps beings bound.
19. A New Topic: Three Ways to Draw the Line Between Inner and Outer
The fascicle turns to an entirely fresh distinction, opening with a rival doctrine's claim that neither internal nor external dharmas are genuinely real, which this treatise sets out to refute. Before doing so, it carefully distinguishes three entirely separate senses in which something can count as "internal" or "external" — by continuum (one's own body versus another's or the inanimate), by sense-field (what mind depends upon versus what it merely takes as object), and by sentience itself (belonging to a sentient being or not) — with this passage relying specifically on the first of these three.
一相續內外。謂在自身名為內。在他身及非有情數名為外。二處內外。謂心心所所依名內。所緣名外。三情非情內外。謂有情數法名內。非有情數法名外。此中但依相續。為論。
first, internal and external by continuum — that is, what exists within one's own body is called "internal," while what exists within another's body, or is not a sentient being at all, is called "external"; second, internal and external by sense-field — that is, what mind and mental factors depend upon is called "internal," while what they take as their object is called "external"; third, internal and external by sentient-versus-insentient — that is, dharmas belonging to a sentient being are called "internal," while dharmas not belonging to a sentient being are called "external." This present passage relies specifically on the first of these, internal and external by continuum, in composing its treatise.
Pausing to distinguish three genuinely independent senses of "internal" before proceeding to use just one of them is a small but important act of philosophical hygiene: much confusion in ordinary speech about what counts as "inside" versus "outside" a person comes precisely from silently sliding between these three different criteria without ever noticing the switch.
20. The Full Tetralemma: When Inner Doesn't Match 'Internal,' and Outer Doesn't Match 'External'
A precise closing tetralemma, drawn directly from the classic foundations-of-mindfulness formula, shows that being "internal" by continuum and being "subsumed under an internal sense-field" are not actually the same thing: one's own external objects, like one's own visible form, are internal by continuum yet not an internal sense-field, since mind does not depend on them; while another person's own sense-faculties are an internal sense-field for that person yet external by continuum from one's own perspective — with the identical, mirrored tetralemma then worked out for the external case as well.
若法是內。彼法內處攝耶。答應作四句。有法是內。非內處攝。如說於內受內法住。修法觀。彼法是內者在自身故。非內處攝者。非心心所所依故。應知此中亦攝自身色等五境。有法內處攝非是內。
Is an internal dharma necessarily subsumed under an internal sense-field? Answer: this should be worked out as a tetralemma. There is a dharma that is internal, yet not subsumed under an internal sense-field — as when it is said, "dwelling in the contemplation of dharmas with respect to inner feelings and inner dharmas, cultivating the contemplation of dharmas." That dharma is "internal" since it exists within one's own body; it is "not subsumed under an internal sense-field" since it is not what mind and mental factors depend upon — one should understand that this also includes the five external objects, such as one's own form and the rest. There is a dharma that is subsumed under an internal sense-field, yet is not itself internal —
如說於外身外心住。修心觀。彼法內處攝者。是心心所所依故。非內者非在自身故。應知此中亦攝他身眼耳鼻舌。有法是內。亦內處攝。如說於內身內心住。修心觀彼法是內者。在自身故。亦內處攝者。心心所所依故。應知此中亦攝自身眼耳鼻舌。有法非是內非內處攝。如說於外受外法住。修法觀彼法非內者。非在自身故。非內處攝者。非心心所所依故。應知此中亦攝他身等色等五境若法是外彼法外處攝耶。答應作四句。有法是外非外處攝。如說於外身外心住。修心觀彼法是外者。在他身故。非外處攝者。非唯心心所所緣故。應知此中亦攝他身眼耳鼻舌。有法外處攝非外。如說於內受內法住。修法觀。彼法外處攝者。唯心心所所緣故。非外者。非在他身。及非有情數故。應知此中亦攝自身色等五境。有法是外亦外處攝。如說於外受外法住。修法觀。彼法是外者。在他身及非有情數故。亦外處攝者。唯心心所所緣故。應知此中亦攝他身等色等五境。有法非外非外處攝。如說於內身內心住。修心觀。彼法非外者。非在他身。及非有情數故。非外處攝者。非唯心心所所緣故。
— as when it is said, "dwelling in the contemplation of mind with respect to outer bodies and outer minds, cultivating the contemplation of mind." That dharma is "subsumed under an internal sense-field" since it is what mind and mental factors depend upon; it is "not internal" since it does not exist within one's own body — one should understand that this also includes another's eye, ear, nose, and tongue. There is a dharma that is both internal and subsumed under an internal sense-field — as when it is said, "dwelling in the contemplation of mind with respect to inner bodies and inner minds, cultivating the contemplation of mind." That dharma "is internal" since it exists within one's own body; it is "also subsumed under an internal sense-field" since it is what mind and mental factors depend upon — one should understand that this also includes one's own eye, ear, nose, and tongue. There is a dharma that is neither internal nor subsumed under an internal sense-field — as when it is said, "dwelling in the contemplation of dharmas with respect to outer feelings and outer dharmas, cultivating the contemplation of dharmas." That dharma "is not internal" since it does not exist within one's own body; it "is not subsumed under an internal sense-field" since it is not what mind and mental factors depend upon — one should understand that this also includes another's form and the rest, the five external objects. Is an external dharma necessarily subsumed under an external sense-field? Answer: this, too, should be worked out as a tetralemma. There is a dharma that is external, yet not subsumed under an external sense-field — as when it is said, "dwelling in the contemplation of mind with respect to outer bodies and outer minds, cultivating the contemplation of mind." That dharma "is external" since it exists within another's body; it "is not subsumed under an external sense-field" since it is not merely what mind and mental factors take as their object — one should understand that this also includes another's eye, ear, nose, and tongue. There is a dharma that is subsumed under an external sense-field, yet is not itself external — as when it is said, "dwelling in the contemplation of dharmas with respect to inner feelings and inner dharmas, cultivating the contemplation of dharmas." That dharma "is subsumed under an external sense-field" since it is merely what mind and mental factors take as their object; it "is not external" since it does not exist within another's body, nor is it something not belonging to a sentient being at all — one should understand that this also includes one's own form and the rest, the five objects. There is a dharma that is both external and subsumed under an external sense-field — as when it is said, "dwelling in the contemplation of dharmas with respect to outer feelings and outer dharmas, cultivating the contemplation of dharmas." That dharma "is external" since it exists within another's body, or is not a sentient being at all; it "is also subsumed under an external sense-field" since it is merely what mind and mental factors take as their object — one should understand that this also includes another's form and the rest, the five external objects. There is a dharma that is neither external nor subsumed under an external sense-field — as when it is said, "dwelling in the contemplation of mind with respect to inner bodies and inner minds, cultivating the contemplation of mind." That dharma "is not external" since it does not exist within another's body, nor is it something not belonging to a sentient being at all; it "is not subsumed under an external sense-field" since it is not merely what mind and mental factors take as their object —
應知此中亦攝自身眼耳鼻舌。
— one should understand that this also includes one's own eye, ear, nose, and tongue.
That the classic meditation instruction to contemplate "the body internally, the body externally" turns out to rest on this precise, four-way logical distinction is a reminder that even the most familiar, frequently repeated formulas in this tradition's own practice literature carry a fully worked-out technical apparatus underneath them: what sounds like simple meditative instruction is, on inspection, built from exactly the same rigorous machinery as everything else in this treatise.
Fascicle 138 Complete
This closes fascicle 138 of Ru-Yi's translation, drawn from the treatise's true CBETA boundary. Fascicle 138 continues the Grasped Nyāsa (執受納息第四之二): the exhaustive causal ledger for cause-concordant and cause-non-concordant dharmas, contaminated and uncontaminated dharmas, and the conditioned and unconditioned; the rebirth-linking puzzle of why only a single predominant condition is named; the nourishment of faculties and elements across every dhyāna and formless attainment; an extensive definitional study of what “grasped,” “conducive to grasping,” and a “ground of views” each mean across multiple scriptural sources, including the famous six grounds of views from the Snake-Simile Sūtra; and a closing tetralemma distinguishing what is internal by continuum from what is subsumed under an internal sense-field. Fascicle 139 continues within this same nyāsa (執受納息第四之三).