What Every Factor of Awakening Actually Is

Fifth Aggregate, the Great Elements: the Grasped Nyāsa, Chapter Four, Part Five. As for the four foundations of mindfulness: first, the foundation of mindfulness of the body; second, of feeling; third, of mind; fourth, of dharmas. Yet, speaking in the most general terms, this foundation of mindfulness is but a single thing — namely, among the mental factors, the single self-nature of wisdom; among the faculties, the wisdom-faculty; among the powers, the wisdom-power; among the awakening-factors, the discrimination-of-dharmas awakening-factor; among the path-factors, correct view. It may be divided into two — contaminated and uncontaminated; or into three — lower, middling, and upper; or into four — bound to the three realms, and unbound; or into five — bound to the three realms, and belonging to the trainee or the one beyond training;

— and so on, up through, if distinguished by continuum and by moment, it would admit of countless divisions. Question: why does the World-Honored One, in this particular context, open up what is few into many and gather what is many into few, speaking of only four kinds? Answer: the Buddha, on the basis of correct wisdom's own aspect and object, coarse or fine, establishes these four kinds. Question: if so, why does the sūtra elsewhere speak of contemplating the internal and the external together as twelve distinct kinds? Answer: since these never exceed four in kind, only four kinds are spoken of here — exactly as the seven-leaved tree and the seven lifetimes of a stream-enterer are likewise so. Question: this self-nature is wisdom — why, then, does the World-Honored One call it a "foundation of mindfulness"? Answer: it is by the power of mindfulness that wisdom comes to rest upon its object, and hence it is called a "foundation of mindfulness"; or, it is by the power of this wisdom that mindfulness comes to rest upon its object, and hence it is called a "foundation of mindfulness" — these two, mutually sustaining one another with respect to their object, surpassing every other dharma in this regard, are what give this its name. The foundations of mindfulness are explained more fully elsewhere.

As for the four right efforts: first, with respect to unwholesome, evil dharmas already arisen, giving rise to the wish to cut them off, exerting diligence, gathering the mind, and sustaining the mind; second, with respect to unwholesome, evil dharmas not yet arisen, doing so in order that they not arise, the rest explained as before; third, with respect to wholesome dharmas not yet arisen, doing so in order that they arise, the rest explained as before; fourth, with respect to wholesome dharmas already arisen, doing so in order that they remain firmly established, are never forgotten, and are doubly cultivated and expanded, the rest explained as before. Yet these right efforts, taken together, are but a single thing — namely, among the mental factors, the single self-nature of diligence; among the faculties, the diligence-faculty; among the powers, the diligence-power; among the awakening-factors, the diligence awakening-factor; among the path-factors, correct effort. They may be divided into two — contaminated and uncontaminated; into three — lower, middling, upper; into four — bound to the three realms, and unbound; into five — bound to the three realms, and belonging to the trainee or the one beyond training; and so on, up through, if distinguished by continuum and by moment, admitting of countless divisions. Question: why does the World-Honored One, in this context, open up what is few into many and gather what is many into few, speaking of only four kinds? Answer: the single substance of diligence, within a single instant, exercises differing functions, and it is on this basis that these four kinds are established — that is, with respect to unwholesome dharmas already or not yet arisen, cutting them off or preventing their arising; and, with respect to wholesome dharmas not yet or already arisen, giving rise to them or expanding them — exactly as a single lamp, in a single instant, performs four distinct functions at once: burning the wick, consuming the oil, heating the vessel, and dispelling darkness — just so is it here. Question: the Dharma-Aggregation treatise and the rest say that cutting off unwholesome dharmas already arisen already possesses all four in full — that is, with respect to unwholesome, evil dharmas already arisen, giving rise to the wish to cut them off, exerting diligence, gathering and sustaining the mind — since, at the very stage of cutting off what has already arisen, one is also thereby capable of preventing what has not yet arisen from arising, and of causing wholesome dharmas not yet arisen to arise, and those already arisen to remain and the rest; and, likewise, cultivating wholesome dharmas already arisen so that they remain firmly established and the rest — that is, with respect to wholesome dharmas already arisen, giving rise to the wish that they remain firmly established, are never forgotten, and are doubly cultivated and expanded, exerting diligence, gathering and sustaining the mind — since, at the very stage of cultivating wholesome dharmas already arisen, one is also thereby capable of cutting off unwholesome dharmas already arisen, preventing those not yet arisen from arising, and causing wholesome dharmas not yet arisen to arise as well — such that this would then amount to sixteen right efforts in all. Why, then, does this passage speak of only four? Answer: this is spoken with reference to the practitioner's own particular resolve at the very stage of preparatory practice — that is, one who has earlier given rise to a single resolve, upon reaching the stage of preparatory practice, comes to possess all four in full.

It is in just the same way, with reference to each of the four resolves in turn, that this is spoken at the stage of preparatory practice — yet, at the actual moment of preparatory practice, there are always precisely four, never more, and hence only four kinds are spoken of. Just as this is said with reference to resolve and preparatory practice, so too, in exactly the same way, should it be understood with reference to the practice of entering in, the practice of one's own basis, and the practice of resolute understanding. Having now explained their self-nature, we should explain why they are so named. Question: for what reason are these four called "right efforts"? Answer: because these four are capable of correctly cutting off. Question: this makes sense for the first two — but what of the latter two? Answer: they are named after the first, and hence no fault follows; or, all four alike carry the sense of "cutting off" — the first two cutting off the obstruction of affliction, the latter two cutting off the obstruction of what is knowable, since, in cultivating wholesome dharmas, one cuts off ignorance as well, and both a temporary and a permanent cutting-off alike deserve the name "cutting off." In some passages, these are instead called "correct exertions," since, spurred on without any inversion, they bring about a superior undertaking.

Question: what is the difference between "evil" and "unwholesome"? Answer: "evil" refers to what is obscured-yet-neutral; "unwholesome" refers to what is genuinely unwholesome. Some say:

— "evil" refers to the defiled dharmas of the form and formless realms, and a portion of the desire realm's own defiled dharmas; "unwholesome" refers to the greater portion of the desire realm's own defiled dharmas. Others say: "evil" refers to the desire realm's own view of a real self and extreme-grasping view; "unwholesome" refers to every other affliction of the desire realm. Question: why are already-arisen evil and unwholesome dharmas said to be "cut off," while those not yet arisen are said to be "prevented from arising"? Answer: what has already arisen already exercises its own function within one's own continuum, and hence is said to be "cut off"; what has not yet arisen has not yet exercised any function within one's own continuum, and hence is said to be "prevented from arising." Others say: what has already arisen has already obstructed the noble path within one's own continuum, and hence is said to be "cut off"; what has not yet arisen has not yet obstructed the noble path within one's own continuum, and hence is said to be "prevented from arising."

Others say: what has already arisen has already taken and given its own result within one's own continuum, and hence is said to be "cut off"; what has not yet arisen has not yet

— taken or given its own result within one's own continuum, and hence is said to be "prevented from arising." Others say: what has already arisen has already taken its own outflow-result and its own ripening-result within one's own continuum, and hence is said to be "cut off"; what has not yet arisen has not yet taken its own outflow-result and ripening-result within one's own continuum, and hence is said to be "prevented from arising." Others say: what has already arisen has already repaid its own same-class cause and universally-active cause within one's own continuum, and hence is said to be "cut off"; what has not yet arisen has not yet repaid its own same-class cause and universally-active cause within one's own continuum, and hence is said to be "prevented from arising." Others say: what has already arisen has already burned and afflicted within one's own continuum, and hence is said to be "cut off"; what has not yet arisen has not yet burned or afflicted within one's own continuum, and hence is said to be "prevented from arising." Others say: what has already arisen has already given rise to reproach, has already stained and defiled, has already stuck and mired, and has already fallen into evil intention within one's own continuum, and hence is said to be "cut off";

what has not yet arisen has not yet given rise to reproach, has not yet stained or defiled, has not yet stuck or mired, and has not yet fallen into evil intention within one's own continuum, and hence is said to be "prevented from arising." Question: whatever wholesome dharma is cultivated, arises and perishes as swiftly as it does, with no single moment ever remaining stationary past its own arising — how, then, can it be said that a wholesome dharma already arisen is caused to "remain firmly established, never forgotten, and doubly cultivated and expanded"? Answer: it should be understood that this refers to wholesome dharmas of two portions — the portion conducive to abiding, and the portion conducive to further progress. "Caused to remain firmly established, never forgotten" refers to the portion conducive to abiding; "doubly cultivated and expanded" refers to the portion conducive to further progress — both spoken of, with reference to the continuum's own successive progress, as "remaining established" and the rest, and hence no fault follows. Others say: this refers to wholesome dharmas of three grades — lower, middling, and upper. "Caused to remain firmly established, never forgotten" refers to relying on the lower-grade wholesome root to advance to the middling grade; "doubly cultivated and expanded" refers to relying on the middling-grade wholesome root to advance to the upper grade — though any single moment, once arisen, immediately perishes, this is spoken of with reference to the continuum as a whole.

These right efforts number four within the desire realm, and likewise four within the form and formless realms. Question: the desire realm can indeed be said to possess four, on account of its own unwholesome, evil dharmas — but how can the higher realms, too, be said to possess four? Answer: though they lack the corresponding faults in full, they do possess the corresponding virtues in full. Others say: though they lack what is to be treated, they do possess what treats it. Question: this makes sense for the not-yet-attained stage — but what of the higher grounds? Answer: there are several kinds of antidote — the antidote of abandonment, the antidote of cutting-off, the antidote of sustaining, the antidote of distancing, and the antidote of aversion-and-destruction. The higher grounds, though lacking the antidote of abandonment and of cutting-off, do possess the remaining antidotes. Question: this makes sense for the dhyānas — but what of the formless realm? Answer: the formless realm, though lacking the antidote of aversion-and-destruction, does possess the antidote of sustaining and of distancing.

These right efforts are possessed in full, four each, by both the trainee and the one beyond training alike. Question: this makes sense for the trainee, who indeed possesses unwholesome, evil dharmas — but what of the one beyond training?

Answer: though he lacks the corresponding faults, he does possess the corresponding virtues. Others say: though he lacks what is to be treated, he does possess what treats it — namely, the several kinds of antidote already explained above; though he lacks the antidote of abandonment and of cutting-off, he possesses the rest. Question: under which right effort is the diligence that takes nirvāṇa as its object subsumed? Some say: it is subsumed under the first right effort, since cutting-off is itself nirvāṇa. Others say:

it is subsumed under the second right effort, since nirvāṇa is itself non-arising. Others say: it is subsumed under the third right effort, since, at the time of taking nirvāṇa as object, wholesome dharmas arise. Others say: it is subsumed under the fourth right effort, since, at the time of taking nirvāṇa as object, wholesome dharmas increase. According to this final account, all four right efforts alike are involved, since taking nirvāṇa as object accomplishes all four functions at once — that is, at the very moment of taking as object the very nature of analytical cessation belonging to every dharma, one thereby causes every unwholesome, evil dharma already arisen to be cut off, those not yet arisen to be prevented from arising, and every mundane and supramundane wholesome dharma —

— not yet arisen to arise, and already arisen to remain firmly established and expand.

As for the four bases of supernormal power: first, the basis of supernormal power accomplished through the concentration of aspiration and the formation of exertion; second, the basis of supernormal power accomplished through the concentration of diligence and the formation of exertion;

third, the basis of supernormal power accomplished through the concentration of mind and the formation of exertion; fourth, the basis of supernormal power accomplished through the concentration of investigation and the formation of exertion. Question: what is meant by "supernormal," and what is meant by "basis"? Some say: concentration itself is called "supernormal," while aspiration and the other three are called "basis," since it is by these four dharmas that concentration is grasped and set into motion. Question: concentration has many co-existent and associated dharmas — why, then, are only these four alone called its "basis"? Answer: it is because these four are especially conducive to concentration — that is, among the co-existent and associated dharmas, these four are the most effective in nourishing and benefiting concentration. Others say:

concentration is both "supernormal" and "basis," while aspiration and the other three are "basis" only, not "supernormal" — exactly as discrimination-of-dharmas is both an awakening and an awakening-factor, while the remaining six are merely factors, not awakening itself; exactly as correct view is both the path and a path-factor, while the remaining seven are merely factors, not the path itself; exactly as abstaining from eating outside the proper time is both a fast and a factor of the fast, while the remaining seven are merely factors, not the fast itself — it is the very same here. Question: if concentration is both "supernormal" and "basis," then either only one such basis ought to be established, or five — why, then, does the passage speak of four? Answer: it is concentration alone that is established as the "basis of supernormal power," yet, since it arises from four distinct causes, it is spoken of as four — that is, at the very stage of preparatory practice, concentration may be brought forth and drawn into manifestation through the power of aspiration, and so on, up through being drawn forth through the power of investigation; and, since these four dharmas each successively intensify during the stage of preparatory practice, causing concentration to arise, a single concentration, though attained as one, is thus established under four distinct kinds at once. Having now explained their self-nature, we should explain why they are so named. Question: for what reason are these four called "bases of supernormal power"? Answer: whatever is thought of, sought after, wished for, or aspired to, all comes about exactly as one wills, and hence is called "supernormal"; and, since it is these four that draw forth this supernormal power, they are called its "basis." Yet this supernormal function is, in brief, of two kinds: one, delighted in by the mundane world; the other, delighted in by noble ones. Dividing one into many, and combining many into one — this is what the mundane world delights in. Not dwelling in a favorable perception with respect to whatever is agreeable in the world, and not dwelling in an unfavorable perception with respect to whatever is disagreeable in the world, but abiding, with respect to both the agreeable and the disagreeable alike, in equanimity, correct mindfulness, and correct awareness — this is what noble ones delight in. There are, further, three kinds of supernormal function: first, bodily locomotion; second, resolved understanding; third, mental force. "Bodily locomotion" refers to lifting the entire body and soaring through empty space, exactly like a flying bird, or like an immortal figure painted flying upon a wall. "Resolved understanding" refers to resolving what is distant into what is near, by whose power one might, while remaining on this very continent, reach out and touch the sun and moon with one's own hand, or, in the time it takes to bend and extend one's arm, arrive at Akaniṣṭha. "Mental force" refers to the eye-consciousness itself reaching to the summit of the form realm, or rising further still to Akaniṣṭha, or ranging sideways across boundless world-systems. Question: of these three supernormal functions, who possesses how many? Some say: śrāvakas possess one, namely bodily locomotion; solitary-realized buddhas possess two, excepting mental force; only the Buddha, the World-Honored One, possesses all three in full. Others say: ordinary beings possess one, namely bodily locomotion; the two vehicles possess two, excepting mental force — yet the śrāvaka's own capacity is manifested through bodily locomotion, the solitary-realized buddha's own through resolved understanding,

and the Buddha alone possesses all three in full, his own capacity manifested through mental force. There are, further, five kinds of supernormal function: first, karmic; second, ripening-based; third, transformative; fourth, virtue-endowed; fifth, aspiration-based. "Karmic" supernormal function refers to that of an intermediate-state being and the like. "Ripening-based" supernormal function refers to that of a flying bird and the like. "Transformative" supernormal function refers to that which relies on dhyāna, dividing one into many, combining many into one, and so forth. "Virtue-endowed" supernormal function refers to the four bases of supernormal power themselves. "Aspiration-based" supernormal function refers to that of gods and nāgas and the like — "gods" here referring to the gods of the desire realm. Among these five kinds of supernormal function, it is the virtue-endowed kind that is spoken of here. As the sūtra says: bhikṣus, you should know that the basis of supernormal power accomplished through the concentration of aspiration and the formation of exertion is cultivated in dependence upon seclusion, dependence upon dispassion, dependence upon cessation, and inclines toward equanimity — the same being said for the concentration of diligence, of mind, and of investigation as well. What, in this passage, is meant by "seclusion" and the rest? Some say: this refers to that very same concentration — that is, if one relies on that concentration itself as one's own object in cultivating the basis of supernormal power, this is called "seclusion" and the rest on account of two conditions at once, namely one's own resolve and one's own object;

If one relies on some other dharma as one's own object in cultivating the basis of supernormal power, this is called "seclusion" and the rest on account of only a single condition, namely one's own resolve, not one's own object.

Other masters say: this refers to tranquil nirvāṇa itself — that is, if one relies on tranquil nirvāṇa as one's own object in cultivating the basis of supernormal power, this is called "seclusion" and the rest on account of two conditions at once, namely one's own resolve and one's own object; if one relies on some other dharma as one's own object in cultivating the basis of supernormal power, this is called "seclusion" and the rest on account of only a single condition, namely one's own resolve, not one's own object. Others, further, say: this refers to both concentration itself and tranquil nirvāṇa together — that is, if one relies on either of these two as one's own object in cultivating the basis of supernormal power, this is called "seclusion" and the rest on account of two conditions at once, namely one's own resolve and one's own object; if one relies on some other dharma as one's own object in cultivating the basis of supernormal power, this is called "seclusion" and the rest on account of only a single condition, namely one's own resolve, not one's own object. It should be understood that, in this context, "dependence upon seclusion" refers to the first dhyāna; "dependence upon dispassion" refers to the second dhyāna; "dependence upon cessation" refers to the third dhyāna; "inclining toward equanimity" refers to the fourth dhyāna.

As the sūtra says: bhikṣus, you should know — what is meant by "lifespan"? It is the four bases of supernormal power. Question: why are the bases of supernormal power called "lifespan"?

Answer: because it is in dependence on these that one's lifespan is never interrupted — that is, while abiding within concentration, one's lifespan is never cut off. Others say: it is in dependence on these that one is freed from the calamity of a shortened lifespan —

— that is, while abiding within concentration, one is far removed from any calamity to one's own lifespan. Others say: it is in dependence on these that one gains mastery over one's own lifespan — as the sūtra says: should any bhikṣu or bhikṣuṇī practice, cultivate, and repeatedly cultivate the four bases of supernormal power, then, should such a one wish to remain alive for a full eon, or even longer, this remains entirely within their own free control — and it is on this account that the bases of supernormal power are called "lifespan."

As the sūtra says: there was once a certain brahmin who came to visit the Venerable Ānanda, and, with every manner of friendly and delighted greeting, withdrew to sit to one side, asking Ānanda, "For what reason do you diligently cultivate the holy life under the ascetic Gautama?" Question: why did this brahmin ask such a question? Answer: he had once been a close friend of Ānanda's, and knew well that the Venerable One had long been of a passionate temperament, formerly given over entirely to attachment among the five sensual pleasures — and hence he came to test him, wishing to determine whether he cultivated the holy life in order to cut off craving, or in order to obtain some superior sensual pleasure instead, and it was for this reason that he asked this question. Ānanda replied, "I dwell diligently cultivating the holy life under the Buddha in order to cut off craving." Question: diligently cultivating the holy life cuts off all seven underlying tendencies — why, then, does he speak only of "cutting off craving"? Answer: the Venerable Ānanda, likewise knowing that this brahmin was of a passionate temperament, deeply attached to sensual desire, and wishing to draw him gently toward the Dharma, intended by this to say: if you yourself are bound by craving and wish to gain release from it,

you would do well to abandon the household life and come to the World-Honored One, diligently cultivating the pure holy life just as I myself do — and it was for this skillful reason that he answered, "I do so in order to cut off craving." The brahmin said, "Does the ascetic Gautama truly possess a path capable of cutting off craving?" Ānanda said, "Truly he does — have no doubt of it. Should you, too, come and cultivate concentration, you would be capable of cutting off craving as well." The brahmin then requested, "I beg you to explain this to me, that my mind may open, and I shall surely then commit my life to it." The Venerable One told him, "Only our World-Honored One, through his own true knowledge and vision, has taught the four bases of supernormal power — relying on these and cultivating them, one swiftly departs from the entanglement of craving." Question: if one who cultivates any single one of the thirty-seven factors of enlightenment — the foundations of mindfulness and the rest — is thereby capable of cutting off craving, why does he speak only of cultivating the four bases of supernormal power? Answer: this is because they serve as the most immediate antidote to the fetter of craving — that is, one possessed of craving scatters and disperses across every kind of object, and concentration alone is capable of serving as the most immediate antidote to precisely this. The brahmin further said, "As you yourself have said, the bases of supernormal power are boundless — how, then, could their cultivation ever be completed?" Question: why did the brahmin say this? Answer: the brahmin's own meaning was this — since these four bases of supernormal power have their own substance pervading both the stage of the trainee and the stage beyond training alike, would this not then mean they are boundless, and, if boundless, how could their cultivation ever be completed? And, if never completed, how could craving ever actually be cut off?

Ānanda told him, "These are not, in fact, boundless." The brahmin then said, "I beg you to explain this to me." Ānanda told him, "Let me now ask you a question, and you may answer freely, as you see fit. What do you think — have you yourself ever, out of desire, gone to a park to wander and enjoy yourself?" The brahmin said, "I have." Ānanda asked further, "Once you had entered the park and finished your enjoyment there, did you not then, out of desire, wish to return home again?" The brahmin said, "I did." Ānanda asked further, "Were the desire you felt at these two different times — entering, and returning — not themselves different from one another?" The brahmin said, "They were." The Venerable One then told him, "Just as your own desire differed between these two moments, entering the park and leaving it, so too do the bases of supernormal power differ between the stage of the trainee and the stage beyond training — what is cultivated at the trainee's stage is cultivated in order to cut off craving; what is cultivated at the stage beyond training is cultivated for the sake of present, visible ease. Since what is cultivated differs according to the stage, this does not at all mean it is boundless — how, then, could you say that its cultivation could never be completed?" Upon hearing this, the brahmin rejoiced, and, giving rise to a pure and sincere mind, took refuge in the Buddha, went forth from the household life, and cultivated the holy life.

As for the five faculties: faith-faculty, diligence-faculty, mindfulness-faculty, concentration-faculty, and wisdom-faculty. The five powers are likewise so. Each of these five, corresponding to its own name, has as its self-nature a single one of the mental factors. Having now explained their self-nature, we should explain why they are so named. Question: for what reason are these five called "faculties," and called "powers"? Answer: because they are capable of giving rise to wholesome dharmas, they are called "faculties"; because they are capable of breaking evil dharmas, they are called "powers." Others say: what cannot be shaken is called a "faculty"; what is capable of overcoming another is called a "power." Others say: the sense of increasing, superior function is what "faculty" means; the sense of being unable to be subdued is what "power" means. If distinguished by position, the lower position is called "faculty," the higher position "power"; but, in genuine substance, every single position possesses both senses at once. These two are explained more fully elsewhere.

As for the seven awakening-factors: first, the mindfulness awakening-factor; second, the discrimination-of-dharmas awakening-factor; third, the diligence awakening-factor; fourth, the joy awakening-factor; fifth, the tranquility awakening-factor; sixth, the concentration awakening-factor; seventh, the equanimity awakening-factor. Discrimination-of-dharmas is itself wisdom; joy is itself the joy-faculty; equanimity refers to formational-equanimity.

The remaining four each have, corresponding to their own name, a single one of the mental factors as their self-nature. Having now explained their self-nature, we should explain why they are so named. Question: why are these seven called "awakening-factors"? Answer: "awakening" refers to ultimate awakening — namely, the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising; or, alternately, to genuine, as-it-truly-is awakening — namely, uncontaminated wisdom itself. These seven are portions of that very awakening, and hence are called its "factors." Discrimination-of-dharmas is both an awakening and a factor; the remaining six are factors only, not awakening itself. These seven are explained more fully elsewhere.

As for the eight path-factors: correct view, correct intention, correct speech, correct action, correct livelihood, correct effort, correct mindfulness,

and correct concentration. Correct view is itself wisdom; correct intention is itself discursive thought; correct speech, action, and livelihood are the unmanifest bodily and verbal form arising, in accordance with the mind's own turning, from the three faculties; the remaining three each have, corresponding to their own name, a single mental factor as their own nature. Having now explained their self-nature, we should explain why they are so named. Question: why are these eight called "path-factors"? Answer: because what is traveled leads through to its destination, it is called the "path"; these eight are portions of that path, and hence are called its "factors." Correct view is both the path and a factor of it; the remaining seven are factors only, not the path itself. This, too, is explained more fully elsewhere.

As for the four dhyānas: the first dhyāna, and so on, up through the fourth dhyāna. Some say: dhyānas associated respectively with discursive thought, joy, happiness, and equanimity correspond, in order, to these four. These are, in turn, of two kinds: one, cultivation-attained; the other, birth-attained. As for the cultivation-attained kind, it is precisely that ground's own one-pointedness of mind.

— and, if its accompanying factors are included as well, it is the nature of five aggregates. As for the birth-attained kind, it is the remaining five aggregates bound to that particular ground. Having now explained their self-nature, we should explain why they are so named. Question: for what reason are these four called "dhyāna"? Answer: "still" means tranquil; "contemplative" means deliberative — it is because, within these four grounds, concentration and wisdom are held in equal balance that they are called "dhyāna"; wherever either is lacking, this name does not apply. These four are explained more fully elsewhere.

As for the four immeasurables: loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity. Loving-kindness has as its self-nature the wholesome root of non-hatred, associated with the intention of bestowing happiness. Compassion has as its self-nature the wholesome root of non-hatred, associated with the intention of removing suffering. Others say: its self-nature is non-harming. Sympathetic joy has as its self-nature the joy-faculty, associated with the intention of rejoicing and consoling. Others say: its self-nature is the mental factor of delight among the wholesome mental factors. Equanimity has as its self-nature the wholesome root of non-craving, associated with the intention of even-mindedness. Having now explained their self-nature, we should explain why they are so named. Question: why are these called "immeasurable"? Answer: because these four take immeasurable sentient beings as their object, give rise to immeasurable wholesome dharmas, and bring forth immeasurable superior results. These four are more fully explained elsewhere as well. As for the four formless attainments: the sphere of boundless space, up through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. These, too, are of two kinds: one, cultivation-attained; the other, birth-attained. As for the cultivation-attained kind, it is precisely that ground's own one-pointedness of mind, and, if its accompanying factors are included, it is the nature of four aggregates. As for the birth-attained kind,

it is the remaining four aggregates bound to that particular ground. Having now explained their self-nature, we should explain why they are so named. Question: why are these four called "formless"?

Answer: because these four grounds transcend every dharma possessing form, contradict and negate every dharma possessing form, and permit no form whatsoever to arise within them — and hence they are called "formless." These four, too, are explained more fully elsewhere.

As for the eight liberations: first, having form, one contemplates forms — the liberation; second, lacking any perception of form within, one contemplates form without — the liberation; third, the pure liberation, bodily witnessed and fully abiding in it; fourth, the liberation of the sphere of boundless space; and so on, up through, seventh, the liberation of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; eighth, the liberation of the cessation of feeling and perception, bodily witnessed and fully abiding in it. Here, the first three have as their self-nature the wholesome root of non-craving, and, if their accompanying factors are included, the nature of five aggregates. The next four have as their self-nature the four aggregates of the preparatory wholesome dharmas belonging to that same ground's own fundamental level. Some say: they also have as their self-nature the eight liberation-paths belonging to that ground's own access-stage.

The very last liberation has as its self-nature the attainment of the cessation of feeling and perception. Having now explained their self-nature, we should explain why they are so named.

Question: why are these called "liberation"? Answer: they liberate one from whatever obstructs each of them in turn. The remaining meaning is explained more fully elsewhere.

As for the eight stations of mastery: first, having form within, one contemplates a small amount of form without — and so on, in full; second, having form within, one contemplates a great amount of form without — and so on, in full; third, lacking form within, one contemplates a small amount of form without — and so on, in full; fourth, lacking form within, one contemplates a great amount of form without — and so on, in full. Contemplating blue, yellow, red, and white further gives four more kinds. All eight of these have as their self-nature the wholesome root of non-craving,

— and, if their accompanying factors are included, the nature of five aggregates. Having now explained their self-nature, we should explain why they are so named. Question: why are these called "stations of mastery"? Answer: because they subdue their own object and destroy craving, they are called "stations of mastery." The fuller meaning is explained elsewhere.

As for the ten totalities: contemplating, respectively, blue, yellow, red, and white; earth, water, fire, and wind — these together make the first eight; ninth, the sphere of boundless space;

tenth, the sphere of boundless consciousness. Of these, the first eight have as their self-nature the wholesome root of non-craving, and, if their accompanying factors are included, the nature of five aggregates. The latter two totalities have as their self-nature the four aggregates of that ground's own contaminated preparatory wholesome states, associated with resolved understanding. Having now explained their self-nature, we should explain why they are so named. Question: why are these called "totalities"? Answer: because their object is vast and comprehensive, and their resolved understanding boundless, they are called "totalities." The remaining meaning is explained elsewhere.

As for the eight kinds of knowledge: dharma-knowledge, class-knowledge, mundane knowledge, knowledge of others' minds, suffering-knowledge, origin-knowledge, cessation-knowledge, and path-knowledge — excluding the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising, since these are confined to a particular stage. All eight have as their self-nature wisdom among the mental factors. Having now explained their self-nature, we should explain why they are so named. Question: why are these called "knowledge"? Answer: because they scrutinize their own object with determinate certainty, they are called "knowledge." The remaining meaning is explained more fully elsewhere.

As for the three concentrations: first, the empty; second, the wishless; third, the signless. All three have as their self-nature concentration itself among the mental factors, common to both the contaminated and the uncontaminated — this passage, however, speaks only of the uncontaminated gateway to liberation. Among these, an uncontaminated concentration associated together with the two aspects of emptiness and non-self is called the empty concentration; an uncontaminated concentration associated together with the ten aspects of impermanence, suffering, cause, origin, arising, condition, path, correctness, practice, and deliverance is called the wishless concentration; an uncontaminated concentration associated together with the four aspects of cessation, tranquility, excellence, and departure is called the signless concentration. Having now explained their self-nature, we should explain why they are so named. Question: why are these called "concentration"? Answer: because they hold the mind evenly, concentrating it upon a single object, thereby accomplishing what they set out to do, they are called "concentration." This is explained more fully elsewhere. As for the four fruits of the ascetic life: the fruit of stream-entry, of the once-returner, of the non-returner, and of arhatship. Each of these four has, as its self-nature, two kinds of dharma — one unconditioned, one conditioned. As for the unconditioned fruit: the fruit of stream-entry has as its self-nature the analytical cessation of what is cut off by seeing across the three realms; the fruit of the once-returner has as its self-nature the analytical cessation of what is cut off by seeing across the three realms, together with the first six grades cut off by cultivation within the desire realm; the fruit of the non-returner has as its self-nature the analytical cessation of what is cut off by seeing across the three realms, together with what is entirely cut off by cultivation within the desire realm; the fruit of arhatship has as its self-nature the analytical cessation of what is cut off by both seeing and cultivation across the three realms. As for the conditioned fruit: each, as fitting, has as its self-nature the five uncontaminated aggregates. Having now explained their self-nature, we should explain why they are so named. Question: why are these called "fruits of the ascetic life"? Answer: one who, without any inversion, exerts vigorous effort to extinguish defiled dharmas is called an "ascetic"; what is thereby drawn forth and realized by every such ascetic is called the "fruit of the ascetic life." This, too, is explained more fully elsewhere.

As for the five penetrations: first, the penetration of supernormal locomotion; second, the penetration of the divine eye; third, the penetration of the divine ear; fourth, the penetration of others' minds; fifth, the penetration of recollecting past lives. All five have wisdom as their self-nature. Having now explained their self-nature, we should explain why they are so named. Question: why are these called "penetrations"? Answer: because they comprehend their own object without any inversion, their own excellent function unobstructed, they are called "penetrations." As for their realm: four are bound only to the form realm;

the penetration of others' minds is bound to the form realm, or unbound. As for their ground: they exist within the four fundamental dhyāna-grounds, never in the access-stages, nor in the formless realm.

For why is this? Wherever a ground possesses the superior concentration underlying the five penetrations, that ground possesses the five penetrations; the access-stages and the formless realm lack this superior concentration underlying the five penetrations, and hence lack these penetrations. Others say: wherever a ground's own calming and its own insight are held in equal balance, that ground possesses the five penetrations; the access-stages and the formless realm each lack one or the other, and hence lack the five penetrations. As for what they depend upon: all depend upon a body in the desire or form realm. As for their own aspect: all four are of the unclear, indistinct aspect; the penetration of others' minds, if contaminated, is likewise of the unclear aspect, but, if uncontaminated, takes on the fourfold aspect of the path. As for their object: the penetration of supernormal locomotion takes the desire and form realms as its object,

either all four sense-fields or two; the penetration of the divine eye takes the form sense-field of the desire and form realms as its object; the penetration of the divine ear takes the sound sense-field of the desire and form realms as its object;

the penetration of others' minds takes as its object mind and mental factors bound to the desire or form realm, or unbound; the penetration of recollecting past lives takes as its object the five aggregates of the desire and form realms. As for the foundation of mindfulness: the first three are solely the foundation of mindfulness of the body; the penetration of others' minds is three foundations of mindfulness, excepting the body; the penetration of recollecting past lives is solely the foundation of mindfulness of dharmas.

As for the kind of knowledge: four are solely mundane knowledge; the penetration of others' minds, if contaminated, is mundane knowledge and knowledge of others' minds; if uncontaminated, is dharma-knowledge, class-knowledge, and path-knowledge. As for whether accompanied by concentration: four are not accompanied by concentration; the penetration of others' minds, if contaminated, is likewise not accompanied by concentration; if uncontaminated, is accompanied by the path and the wishless concentration. As for their associated faculty: speaking according to kind, they are associated with three faculties — the pleasure-faculty, the joy-faculty, and the equanimity-faculty. As for time: all five fall within the three times; the first four, when past, take the past as their object; when present, take the present as their object; when future, if arisen, take the future as their object; if not arisen, take all three times as their object. The penetration of recollecting past lives,

when past or present, takes the past as its object; when future, takes all three times as its object. As for their moral nature: the penetrations of the divine eye and divine ear are neutral, taking all three moral natures as their object. The penetration of supernormal locomotion is wholesome, taking the neutral as its object. The remainder are wholesome, taking all three moral natures as their object. As for their being bound to the desire realm and the rest: four are form-realm-bound, taking what is bound to the desire and form realms as their object. The penetration of others' minds is form-realm-bound, or unbound, taking what is bound to the desire and form realms, or unbound, as its object. As for trainee and the rest: four are neither trainee nor beyond training, taking what is neither trainee's nor beyond training's own as their object. The penetration of others' minds is trainee, beyond training, or neither, taking what is trainee's, beyond training's, or neither's own as its object. As for cut off by seeing and the rest: three are cut off by cultivation, taking what is cut off by cultivation as their object. The penetration of others' minds is cut off by cultivation, or uncuttable, taking what is cut off by seeing or cultivation, or uncuttable, as its object. The penetration of recollecting past lives is cut off by cultivation, taking what is cut off by seeing or cultivation as its object. As for taking a name or a meaning as object: the penetration of recollecting past lives takes both name and meaning as its object;

the remaining four take only meaning as their object. As for taking one's own or another's continuum as object: the penetration of others' minds takes only another's continuum as its object; the remaining four take both one's own and another's continuum, as well as what belongs to no continuum, as their object. As for whether attained through preparatory practice or through freedom from defilement: question — are these five penetrations attained through preparatory practice, or through freedom from defilement?

If attained through preparatory practice, how is the Consciousness-Aggregation treatise's own statement to be reconciled — as it says, if one presently possesses the knowledge of others' minds, does one also possess it in the past and future? Answer: yes, one does. But if attained through freedom from defilement, how is what this present aggregation-treatise says elsewhere to be reconciled — as it says that, by the uninterrupted path realizing the penetration of supernormal locomotion, of the foundations of mindfulness, one is cultivated in the present, four in the future, and so on — implying that this is not something already attained beforehand, but only now beginning to be cultivated in the future? Some say: they are attained through preparatory practice alone. Question: then how is the Consciousness-Aggregation treatise's own statement to be reconciled? Answer:

that passage ought properly to have said: if one presently possesses the knowledge of others' minds, one will definitely possess it in the future; as for the past, if it has already ceased without being lost, one possesses it; if it has not yet ceased, or has ceased but been lost, one does not possess it — and its failure to say this should be understood as a matter of concise, general summary, on account of the underlying momentum of the passage itself. Others say: they are attained through freedom from defilement alone.

Question: then how is what was said earlier to be reconciled? Answer: that passage refers to the further refining and training of the factors of enlightenment, not to their very first attainment or cultivation — at that time, one merely causes what was already previously attained to become clearer and more excellent still. According to this final account, both accounts are correct: attainment through preparatory practice, and attainment through freedom from defilement alike — this present aggregation-treatise speaks only of attainment through preparatory practice; the Consciousness-Aggregation treatise speaks only of attainment through freedom from defilement — and thus both accounts are satisfactorily reconciled. Others say: within attainment through freedom from defilement itself, there is a kind already previously practiced, and a kind never previously practiced — the Consciousness-Aggregation treatise speaks of the previously-practiced kind; this present treatise speaks of the never-previously-practiced kind — and thus, too, both accounts are satisfactorily reconciled. As for attainment through freedom from defilement: that drawn forth by the first dhyāna is attained at the moment of becoming free from the desire realm's own defilement, and so on, up through that drawn forth by the fourth dhyāna being attained at the moment of becoming free from the third dhyāna's own defilement. Noble ones, and ordinary beings destined for a final rebirth, alike attain both the previously-practiced and the never-previously-practiced kinds; all others attain only the previously-practiced kind. Attainment through freedom from defilement still requires preparatory practice to actually manifest — the Buddha alone requires no preparatory practice; a solitary-realized buddha requires only lesser preparatory practice; a śrāvaka requires either middling or greater preparatory practice. And, whatever is attained at the very moment of the liberation-path accompanying freedom from defilement is attained through freedom from defilement;

whatever is attained at any other time is attained through preparatory practice. As for where they arise: they may arise in either the desire or the form realm; within the desire realm, only among humans and gods; among humans, only in the three continents; they may manifest within either a male or a female body; ordinary beings and noble ones, trainees and those beyond training, alike are capable of manifesting them.

Question: are the penetrations subsumed under the uninterrupted path, or under the liberation-path? If subsumed under the uninterrupted path, how is the sūtra's own statement to be reconciled?

As it says, dividing one into many, and combining many into one, and so on, in full — for a single instant of the uninterrupted path could hardly accomplish such a feat.

But if subsumed under the liberation-path, how is the Prakaraṇapāda's own statement to be reconciled? As it says: what is a "penetration"? Namely, the liberation-path belonging to wholesome wisdom, the divine eye, and the divine ear — but is not neutral wisdom, too, properly called a "penetration"? Answer: the penetrations are indeed subsumed under the liberation-path, exactly as the fruits of the ascetic life are subsumed under the liberation-path, never the uninterrupted path — it is the very same here. Question: how, then, is the Prakaraṇapāda's own statement to be reconciled? Answer: what that treatise means by "penetration" differs from what is meant here — there, it says that wholesome wisdom in general is called "penetration," since it says that every dharma alike is what is penetrated and understood; here, what is spoken of is superior wisdom specifically, called "penetration," and this penetration may be either wholesome or neutral. "Penetration" and "wholesome wisdom" form a tetralemma between them: there is what is "penetration" but not "wholesome wisdom" — namely, the divine eye and divine ear penetrations; there is what is "wholesome wisdom" but not "penetration" — namely, every other kind of wholesome wisdom besides the penetrations; there is what is both — namely, the remaining four penetrations; there is what is neither — namely, everything excluded from the foregoing.

Question: do these five penetrations arise in the very sequence in which they are spoken of, or not necessarily so? Some say: they do arise in this very sequence — that is, the penetration of supernormal locomotion arises first, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks of it first, and so on, up through the penetration of recollecting past lives arising last, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks of it last — that is, upon hearing that there are gods in the form realm, yet being unable to go there, one first gives rise to the penetration of supernormal locomotion, in order to go; and, having gone, yet being unable to see their form, one next gives rise to the penetration of the divine eye, in order to see; and, having seen, yet being unable to hear their speech, one next gives rise to the penetration of the divine ear, in order to hear; and, having heard, yet being unable to know their minds, one next gives rise to the penetration of others' minds, in order to know; and, having known their minds, yet not knowing whether one has ever encountered them in some past life, one finally gives rise to the penetration of recollecting past lives — and it is on the basis of this very sequence that the World-Honored One speaks of them in this order. According to this final account, however, there is no fixed sequence at all — that is, one may give rise first to the penetration of supernormal locomotion, or, alternately, first to the penetration of recollecting past lives, and so on; and there are those who attain only the penetration of supernormal locomotion, such as Devadatta and the like, and those who attain only the penetration of the divine eye, such as Aniruddha and the like — and hence none of these penetrations follows any fixed forward or reverse sequence, nor any fixed order of transcendence, exactly as with the various attainments, or as with the immeasurables, the liberations, the stations of mastery, and the totalities.

Question: when cultivating and giving rise to the penetration of supernormal locomotion and the penetration of the divine eye, both are accompanied by light — what difference is there between the two? Answer: as for the light drawn forth by cultivating the penetration of supernormal locomotion,

it may be either magically created, or naturally present of its own accord; as for the light drawn forth by cultivating the penetration of the divine eye, it is never magically created, but is naturally present of its own accord only.