Twenty-Two Faculties, and Why Each One Rules Its Own Domain

Sixth Aggregate, the Faculties: the Faculty Nyāsa, Chapter One, Part One. The twenty-two faculties: the eye-faculty, ear-faculty, nose-faculty, tongue-faculty, body-faculty, female faculty, male faculty, life-faculty, mind-faculty, pleasure-faculty, pain-faculty, joy-faculty, displeasure-faculty, equanimity-faculty, faith-faculty, diligence-faculty, mindfulness-faculty, concentration-faculty, wisdom-faculty, the faculty of what is yet unknown but about to be known, the faculty of what is already known, and the faculty of complete knowledge. Of these twenty-two faculties, how many belong to the trainee, how many to the one beyond training, and how many to neither? And so on, in such chapter headings. Having now grasped this chapter heading and its explanatory meaning in full, we should next analyze it in full. Question: why does the Venerable author compose this treatise using precisely twenty-two faculties? 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. Others say: this ought not to be asked at all — the Venerable author relies on the sūtra's own statement of the twenty-two faculties, and that sūtra on the faculties is itself the very foundation of this treatise; composing a treatise in reliance on that sūtra, one ought not to demand its underlying reason, since the Venerable author, with respect to the Buddha's own stated twenty-two faculties, could not diminish them by even a single one to make twenty-one, nor increase them by even a single one to make twenty-three — for what the Buddha himself has taught admits of neither increase nor decrease, and hence cannot be increased or decreased, nor made more or fewer, nor added to or subtracted from; it should be understood that this holds equally for what is boundless and immeasurable, since what the Buddha teaches is boundless and immeasurable, admitting of no measure or boundary within it — "immeasurable" meaning its own significance is difficult to fathom, "boundless" meaning its own text is difficult to fully grasp — exactly as the great ocean itself is boundless and immeasurable, "immeasurable" referring to its depth, "boundless" to its breadth; the World-Honored One's own teaching should be understood in just the same way. Though hundreds of thousands of koṭis of niyutas of great treatise-masters, such as Śāriputra and the rest, have composed hundreds of thousands of treatises analyzing and explaining the meaning of even a single one of the Buddha's own sentences, they exhaust the very limits of their own faculty of understanding and still cannot reach its furthest boundary — and it is for this reason that the Venerable author's own choice ought not to be demanded an explanation for. Question: setting aside the Venerable author's own reason — why did the World-Honored One himself teach this sūtra? Answer: because he observed that those to be taught would attain benefit upon hearing this teaching. Further, this sūtra has its own particular occasion for arising.

There was a certain brahmin named Jyotiṣka, who came before the Buddha, and, rejoicing, exchanged greetings, then withdrew to sit to one side, saying to the Buddha, "How many faculties, when established, comprehensively subsume every faculty?" The Buddha said, "I teach twenty-two faculties, which comprehensively subsume every faculty. Should anyone deny this and speak instead of some further faculty, know that such speech is mere words without genuine meaning; and, were one to question them further on this, it would only give rise to greater confusion — for why is this? Because it lies outside their own proper domain." It was on account of this brahmin's own question that this sūtra was spoken, and hence one ought not to interrogate the Buddha's own underlying intention in speaking it. Question: setting aside the Buddha's own intention — why did the brahmin ask only about the faculties, and not about the aggregates, elements, sense-fields, and the rest? Answer: he asked according to whatever doubt he himself held, and this ought not to be demanded an explanation for; or, perhaps this brahmin was, by nature, given to careful reflection, and, upon hearing of anything, delighted in inquiring into it thoroughly — wishing to understand the meaning of "faculty," he had traveled comprehensively through all ninety-six heterodox paths, inquiring everywhere into the measure of the faculties — for instance, the Jain ascetics posit a single faculty, namely the life-faculty, said to pervade both internal and external objects alike, and it is on this very basis that they establish the prohibition against drinking cold water or cutting living grass, since they hold that these, too, possess life. Question: among the various outside paths, what do they hold to be the "faculty-endowed" dharma with respect to external objects? Answer: some hold that external objects possess a mind-faculty; some hold that external objects possess a life-faculty; some hold that external objects possess two faculties at once — on account of the mind-faculty, being called a "faculty-endowed dharma"; on account of the life-faculty, being called a "life-endowed dharma"; and some hold that external objects possess two faculties together, namely karma and mind, each spoken of accordingly. Further, as the heterodox teacher Pāraśarya himself taught: "The eye does not see form; the ear does not hear sound — this is called the noble cultivation of the faculties." Question: why is he named Pāraśarya? Answer: this is simply the name given him, and one ought not to ask the reason behind a given name, since names are assigned by convention and need not always carry genuine meaning. Others say: this is his own clan-name — for, among brahmins, there are the Kauṇḍinya clan, the Vātsa clan, the Śāṇḍilya clan, the Kauṇḍinya-proper clan, the Bhāradvāja clan, and the Pāraśarya clan. Others say: this refers to one of mixed birth — that is, born from a kṣatriya father and a brahmin mother, one is called Pāraśarya, exactly as the offspring of a donkey and a horse is called a mule — and, according to this final account, it is indeed his own clan-name. This teacher had a disciple named Uttara, who once came before the Buddha, and, rejoicing, exchanged greetings, then withdrew to sit to one side. The Buddha then asked him, "Does your own teacher Pāraśarya teach you the cultivation of the faculties in this way?" Uttara said, "My teacher has indeed taught this." The Buddha asked, "How does he teach it?" Uttara replied, "My teacher teaches it thus: 'the eye does not see form, the ear does not hear sound — this is called the noble cultivation of the faculties, since nothing at all is grasped.'" The Buddha at once raised an objection, saying, "If this were so, then the blind, too, ought to be called noble in the cultivation of the faculties, since they, too, fail to see form." At that time, Ānanda was standing at the Buddha's own side, fanning him, and he, too, at once raised a further objection, saying, "The deaf, too, ought then to be called noble in the cultivation of the faculties, since they, too, fail to hear sound." Question: even supposing there were outside-path teachers numbering in the hundreds of thousands of koṭis of niyutas, matching Śāriputra himself in wisdom and eloquence, the Buddha would still be capable of subduing every one of them alone — why, then, did the World-Honored One raise only the first objection, leaving the Venerable Ānanda to raise the second?

Why did the World-Honored One not himself prevent this? Answer: the Buddha, observing a certain sign appearing in Ānanda's own throat, knew that he wished to raise an objection of his own, and hence refrained from stopping him — for the Buddha, in ages past, across three incalculable eons, while diligently cultivating the bodhisattva path, never once suppressed even another's own gift for eloquent speech, let alone that of his own disciple — how much less, then, having now attained Buddhahood, would he suppress another's eloquence? Further, the Buddha, knowing full well that whatever he himself might say and whatever Ānanda might say would be entirely equal, without the slightest difference, neither more nor less, saw no reason to prevent it. Further, it reveals that both teacher and disciple alike are capable of subduing others — for only when both teacher and disciple alike are capable of subduing an opponent is one properly said to have subdued them thoroughly, and it was for this reason that the Buddha did not prevent it.

Further, the Buddha wished to leave that heretic with no further words at all — that is, had the World-Honored One raised only the first objection, with Ānanda raising no second one, that heretic might then have returned to his own assembly and said, with lingering arrogance, "Though I was defeated by that teacher, I was not defeated by his disciple; though he was able to subdue me, his own teacher was not the one who did so." But, since the World-Honored One raised the first objection, and Ānanda then raised the second, that heretic was left to abandon his arrogance entirely, thinking, "If even the disciple was capable of subduing us, how much more so the teacher himself — even were my own teacher to come forward, he could not withstand this, let alone the rest of us." Further, the Buddha wished to fulfill this brahmin's own secret wish — for the brahmin had thought to himself, "Among all the mighty champions of debate, is there truly none who can surpass the ascetic Gautama, subduing and refuting every disputant without ever faltering — the most honored among all the great debaters of every age, whom even the greatest masters of the past could never withstand, let alone we ourselves? Should this teacher's own disciple engage me in debate, would it not be fitting for me to offer my own reply?" The Buddha, always fulfilling the deepest wish of those he taught, drew him forward exactly according to his own secret thought, and hence did not prevent Ānanda's own objection.

Further, the Buddha made Ānanda his own witness in this matter of doctrine, since that heretic assembly held Ānanda in deep trust and respect, on account of his own dignified appearance and his own mastery of the treatises on Sanskrit grammar and phonetics — the Buddha's own intention being to let them question one whom they themselves trusted, to test for themselves whether their own teacher's doctrine was truly correct — and, since Ānanda spoke up at that very moment, the Buddha did not prevent it. Further, the Buddha wished to demonstrate that he himself harbors no anxiety over any rival — for the heretics feared that some disciple might surpass their own teacher, and hence suppressed their disciples' own eloquence, but the Buddha has no such concern; even were there disciples numbering in the hundreds of thousands of koṭis of niyutas, matching Śāriputra himself in eloquence and wisdom, none could ever raise an objection equal to the Buddha's own, let alone surpass him.

Further, the Buddha wished to demonstrate that he himself has cut off every trace of stinginess with regard to the Dharma — for the heretics do not permit their own disciples to debate with others, lest those disciples thereby gain greater fame, respect, and material offerings for themselves; the Buddha is not so — even were the entire world to gain boundless fame and profit thereby, the Buddha would not harbor the slightest trace of jealousy, and it was for this reason that he did not prevent what Ānanda said. Further, the Buddha wished to demonstrate that his own disciples, too, are capable of surpassing others — for the heretics fear that their own disciples, debating with others, might suffer defeat and disgrace, whereas the World-Honored One's own disciples are never anything but superior to others, and, when engaged in debate, only further illuminate the Tathāgata's own correct Dharma all the more brightly, and hence he did not prevent it. Further, the Buddha wished to demonstrate that, within his own well-taught Dharma, meaning and text are perfectly complete, with no divergence of view whatsoever — for, within the heretics' own poorly-taught doctrines, text and meaning stand at odds, teacher and disciple holding differing views, so that whatever is established, stated, or understood by the teacher differs from that of the disciple in every case; within the Buddha's own correct Dharma, there is no such fault — whatever is established, stated, or understood, disciple and teacher alike share a single, identical flavor. It was for reasons such as these that, in confronting that heretic, the Buddha and Ānanda each raised a single objection in turn. Question: if the heretics were to grant that the blind and the deaf, too, are noble in the cultivation of the faculties, how would this then constitute a genuine objection? Answer: this is indeed a great objection, and, moreover, a general refutation of every fault of the heretics, one none of them is capable of answering — for, were you to grant that the blind and the deaf, too, deserve the name "noble in the cultivation of the faculties," why, then, would you yourselves abandon the household life, diligently practicing the holy life day and night? You need only destroy your own eyes and ears, and you could then call yourselves noble in the cultivation of the faculties! It is for this reason that the objection stated above is indeed a great one, a wholesale rebuke of every heretic school alike. Further, the Vaiśeṣika school teaches that there are five faculties — nose, tongue, eye, body, and ear. The Sāṃkhya school teaches eleven faculties — five faculties of sensation, five faculties of action, and mind. The five faculties of sensation are the eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body faculties; the five faculties of action are the faculties of speech, hand, foot, and the organs of excretion and generation; "mind," as the eleventh, is the mind-faculty. Others, further, speak of a hundred and twenty faculties — that is, eye, ear, and nose, each doubled, making six; tongue, body, mind, life, and the five feeling-faculties; faith and the remaining four faculties, making twenty in total; twenty faculties multiplied across the six destinies makes a hundred and twenty — this school holding the asuras to be a sixth destiny. Others say: "faculty" here carries the sense of "sovereign," and this school teaches that there are a hundred and twenty such sovereigns, exactly as there is a sovereign of the gods, a sovereign of the nāgas, a sovereign of the asuras, and a sovereign of humans — and it is only by fully undergoing all one hundred and twenty of these stations, in a supremely excellent body, that liberation is finally attained. The brahmin Jyotiṣka, hearing these various, mutually inconsistent accounts of the faculties, grew doubtful and confused, unable to determine which, if any, was the genuinely true teaching. He then heard that, within the palace of the Śākya clan, a great son had been born, endowed with the thirty-two marks of a great man and the eighty minor excellent characteristics, his body a true golden color, his own aura extending a full fathom in every direction, so that all who beheld him rejoiced, never tiring of the sight; that this son had renounced his own position as a wheel-turning king, leaped over the city wall, and gone forth from the household life; that, through diligent and arduous practice, he had attained unsurpassed, complete awakening, becoming one who knows all, sees all, has cut through every net of doubt, and bestows certainty upon all, capable of reaching the very bottom of every possible question — and, hearing all this, he came at once before the Buddha, and, sitting to one side, said to him, "Many ascetics speak of the faculties — how many faculties, when established, comprehensively subsume every faculty?" Question: why did the brahmin not describe, in his own question to the Buddha, the various differing accounts of the faculties he had already heard elsewhere, but simply asked this question directly? Answer: he harbored a certain unwholesome suspicion, fearing that the Buddha might simply select whichever account, among those already taught by others, seemed best, and hence he posed his question in this general form instead. The Buddha, in reply to his question, said, "I teach twenty-two faculties, which comprehensively subsume every faculty. Should anyone deny this and speak instead of some further faculty," and so on, in full, up through, "because it lies outside their own proper domain." Question: why did the World-Honored One go on to say, "should anyone deny this and speak instead of some further faculty, know that such speech is mere words without genuine meaning; and, were one to question them further on this, it would only give rise to greater confusion — for why is this? Because it lies outside their own proper domain"? Answer: he wished to make clear that everything the brahmin had previously heard, from a single faculty up through a hundred and twenty faculties, was without genuine substance, meaning to say: I myself, who know all and see all, am still incapable of diminishing even a single one of these twenty-two faculties to make twenty-one, or of increasing even a single one to make twenty-three — how much less, then, could the heretics, with their own distorted, ignorant views, ever succeed in adding to or subtracting from the faculties, speaking of one, or of a hundred and twenty? It was for this very reason that the brahmin had come before the Buddha, asking only about the meaning of the faculties specifically, not about the aggregates, elements, and the rest. Question: these twenty-two faculties are named as twenty-two — but how many genuine substances do they actually possess? Answer: the Ābhidharmikas say: named twenty-two, their genuine substance is seventeen, since the male and female faculties, and the three uncontaminated faculties, possess no separate substance of their own. Question: why do the male and female faculties possess no separate substance of their own? Answer: these two are simply subsumed under the body-faculty — as it is said, what is the female faculty? A small portion of the body-faculty. What is the male faculty? A small portion of the body-faculty. Question: why, likewise, do the three uncontaminated faculties possess no separate substance of their own? Answer: these three are simply subsumed under nine faculties — namely, the mind-faculty; the pleasure-, joy-, and equanimity-faculties;

and the faith-faculty and the remaining four. These same nine faculties, at one stage, are called the faculty of what is yet unknown but about to be known; at another stage, are called the faculty of what is already known; at yet another stage, are called the faculty of complete knowledge — these being, respectively, the stage of the path of seeing, the stage of the path of cultivation, and the stage of the path beyond training. Further, within the continuum of one following faith or following the Dharma, they are called the faculty of what is yet unknown but about to be known; within the continuum of one who is resolved-through-faith, attained-through-vision, or a bodily witness, they are called the faculty of what is already known; within the continuum of one liberated-through-wisdom or liberated-in-both-respects, they are called the faculty of complete knowledge. Since these same nine faculties, gathered together, are simply spoken of in three ways according to stage, they possess no separate substance of their own, and it is for this reason that the twenty-two faculties, though named as twenty-two, possess a genuine substance of only seventeen. The Venerable Dharmatrāta explains it this way: named twenty-two, their genuine substance is fourteen — that is, the aforementioned five, together with the life- and equanimity-faculties and the concentration-faculty, possess no separate genuine substance. Question: why does he say the life-faculty possesses no genuine substance?

Answer: the life-faculty is subsumed under the aggregate of formations dissociated from mind, and he holds that this aggregate itself possesses no genuine substance at all. Question: why, further, does he say the equanimity-faculty possesses no separate substance? Answer: he holds that, apart from painful and pleasant feeling, there exists no genuinely separate neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling at all — for why is this? Every feeling that exists is either pleasant or painful; were it neither pleasant nor painful, how could it even be called "feeling" at all? Question: if so, how is the sūtra's own teaching of three kinds of feeling to be reconciled? Answer: he explains it this way: pleasant and painful feeling each admit of upper and lower grades, of sharp and dull, of agitated and calm — whatever is of the upper, sharp, agitated kind is called pleasant or painful feeling; whatever is of the lower, dull, calm kind is called neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling — its own substance remaining indeterminate, turning as doubt itself turns. Question: why does he further say the concentration-faculty, too, possesses no separate substance? Answer: he holds that, apart from mind itself, there exists no genuinely separate substance of concentration at all — as it is said, what is concentration? The one-pointedness of mind itself. It is on this basis that these faculties are named twenty-two, with a genuine substance of fourteen. The Venerable Buddhadeva explains it this way: named twenty-two, their genuine substance is but a single one — namely, the mind-faculty alone. He holds that every conditioned dharma possesses only two basic natures — the great elements, and mind; apart from the great elements, there is no derived form; apart from mind, there are no mental factors — every form is simply a variation of the great elements, and everything formless is simply a variation of mind — and it is for this reason, on his account, that the genuinely real faculty is but a single one. According to what is truly correct, however, one should follow the first account: named twenty-two, with a genuine substance of seventeen — as with name, so too with substance; as with designated name, so too with designated substance; as with distinguishing name, so too with distinguishing substance; as with differing nature by name, so too with differing nature by substance; as with separate nature by name, so too with separate nature by substance; as with distinction by name, so too with distinction by substance; as with realization by name, so too with realization by substance — it should be understood accordingly. This, then, is the self-nature of the faculties, their own substance, their own characteristic marks. Having now explained their self-nature, we should explain why they are so named. Question: why are they called "faculties"? What is the meaning of "faculty"? Answer: the sense of predominance is the meaning of "faculty"; the sense of illumination is the meaning of "faculty"; the sense of manifestation is the meaning of "faculty"; the sense of being delightful to observe is the meaning of "faculty"; the sense of dignity is the meaning of "faculty"; the sense of the supreme is the meaning of "faculty"; the sense of the superior is the meaning of "faculty"; the sense of sovereignty is the meaning of "faculty." Question: if the sense of predominance is the meaning of "faculty," then, since every conditioned dharma exercises mutual predominance over one another, and every unconditioned dharma is predominant with respect to the conditioned, should not every dharma whatsoever then be established as a "faculty"? Why does the World-Honored One establish only these twenty-two? The Venerable Pārśva says: the Buddha, having fully penetrated the ultimate nature of every dharma, alone truly knows each dharma's own substance, characteristic marks, and function, in a way others cannot — whatever dharma genuinely bears the mark of a faculty is established as such; whatever does not, is not — and this ought not to be demanded a further reason. Others say: the predominant condition itself comes in lower and upper grades, inferior and superior — only the superior grade is established as a "faculty"; the inferior grade is not. Others say: though every dharma indeed possesses the sense of a predominant condition, not every dharma possesses, in addition, the sense of illumination, manifestation, and the rest, up through sovereignty, the way these twenty-two faculties specifically do. Just as, among all sentient beings, though each indeed exercises some mutual predominance over the rest, some nonetheless stand out as supreme — as, within the realm of ghosts, King Yama is supreme; within the animal realm, the lion-king is supreme; within a village, its own headman is supreme; within a kingdom, its own king is supreme; among the four continents, the wheel-turning king is supreme; within the desire realm, Īśvara-deva is supreme; within a thousand-world-system, the Brahmā-king is supreme; and, within the three realms altogether, the Buddha alone is supreme, uniquely called the Dharma-king among all sentient beings, without peer or equal — so too, though every dharma alike possesses the sense of a predominant condition, not every one of them possesses, in addition, the sense of predominance, illumination, and the rest, up through sovereignty, the way these twenty-two faculties specifically do — and it is for this reason that the Buddha teaches only these twenty-two faculties, and no more.

Question: if the sense of predominance is the meaning of "faculty," then who, precisely, is predominant, and with respect to what? Answer: the eye-faculty is predominant with respect to four matters — first, adorning one's own body; second, nurturing and sustaining one's own body; third, serving as the basis for consciousness and the rest; fourth, performing its own unique function. "Adorning one's own body" means that, though one may possess a beautifully formed body in every other respect, should the eye-faculty be missing, people would find no pleasure in looking upon it — hence, with respect to adorning the body, this is predominant. "Nurturing and sustaining one's own body" means that, through the eye-faculty, one sees agreeable and disagreeable forms, and, thereby avoiding danger and approaching safety, causes the body to endure for long. "Serving as the basis for consciousness and the rest" means that eye-consciousness and its associated dharmas arise in dependence upon it. "Performing its own unique function" means that only the eye-faculty is capable of seeing form, no other faculty being so capable. The ear-faculty is predominant with respect to four matters as well — first, adorning one's own body; second, nurturing and sustaining one's own body; third, serving as the basis for consciousness and the rest; fourth, performing its own unique function. "Adorning one's own body" means that, though one may possess a beautifully formed body in every other respect, should the ear-faculty be missing, people would find no pleasure in looking upon it — hence, with respect to adorning the body, this is predominant. "Nurturing and sustaining one's own body" means that, through the ear-faculty, one hears agreeable and disagreeable sounds, and, thereby avoiding danger and approaching safety, causes the body to endure for long. "Serving as the basis for consciousness and the rest" means that ear-consciousness and its associated dharmas arise in dependence upon it. "Performing its own unique function" means that only the ear-faculty is capable of hearing sound, no other faculty being so capable.

Other masters say: the eye-faculty is supreme for nurturing and sustaining the physical body; the ear-faculty is supreme for nurturing and sustaining the Dharma-body — as it is said:

[Verse]: "Just as one with clear-seeing eyes is able to avoid a visible present danger, so too one wise in the world is able to escape a coming misfortune before it strikes. Through hearing much, one comes to know the Dharma; through hearing much, one departs from wrongdoing; through hearing much, one abandons what is without meaning; through hearing much, one attains nirvāṇa." Others, further, say: the eye-faculty and the ear-faculty are both alike capable of nurturing and sustaining both the physical body and the Dharma-body — the nurturing of the physical body being as already explained; as for the nurturing of the Dharma-body: it is through the eye-faculty that one draws near to a good and wise friend, and through the ear-faculty that one hears the correct Dharma — and it is through this that one is thereby able to give rise to proper, careful attention, and, in accordance with the Dharma, practice accordingly, thereby drawing ever nearer, in due course, to the realization of nirvāṇa itself. It is for this reason that the sūtra says: O brahmin of Brahmā-like lifespan, do not destroy these two faculties —

— namely, the eye and the ear. Question: why, among the entire cluster of faculties, does the sūtra speak only of not destroying these two? Answer: it is by way of the eye and the ear that one, at the very time the Buddha appears in the world, finds the road and the gateway by which to enter the Buddha's own teaching; and it is likewise by way of the eye and the ear that, upon encountering the Buddha, one is able to infer by comparison that this is indeed the Buddha — as it is said: bhikṣus, if you are unable to know the Buddha's own mind directly, you should seek it in two places — first, in what is heard; second, in what is seen — and it is for this reason that the sūtra speaks specifically of not destroying these two faculties. The nose-, tongue-, and body-faculties are each likewise predominant with respect to four matters — first, adorning one's own body; second, nurturing and sustaining one's own body; third, serving as the basis for consciousness and the rest; fourth, performing their own unique function. "Adorning one's own body" means that, though one may possess a beautifully formed body in every other respect, should any of these three faculties be missing, people would find no pleasure in looking upon it. "Nurturing and sustaining one's own body" means that, through these three faculties, one partakes of solid food, causing the body to endure for long, since solid food consists precisely of smell, taste, and touch. "Serving as the basis for consciousness and the rest" means that nose-consciousness and its associated dharmas arise in dependence upon the nose-faculty; tongue-consciousness and its associated dharmas arise in dependence upon the tongue-faculty; body-consciousness and its associated dharmas arise in dependence upon the body-faculty. "Performing their own unique function" means that only the nose is capable of smelling, only the tongue is capable of tasting, and only the body is capable of feeling touch, no other faculty being so capable.

The mind-faculty is predominant with respect to two matters — first, being capable of continuing a subsequent existence; second, being self-sovereign in its own turning. "Being capable of continuing a subsequent existence" is as it is said: were consciousness not to lodge within the mother's own womb, could the kalala-stage embryo ever come to be formed? No, World-Honored One, it could not. "Being self-sovereign in its own turning" is as it is said:

[Verse]: "It is by mind that the world is drawn along, and it is likewise by mind that the world is wearied; the mind alone gives rise to every dharma whatsoever, and turns freely, entirely of its own accord." Others say: the mind-faculty is predominant with respect to defilement and purity — as it is said, because mind is defiled, sentient beings are defiled; because mind is purified, sentient beings are purified. The male and female faculties are predominant with respect to two matters — first, differentiating sentient beings from one another; second, differentiating their distinguishing marks. "Differentiating sentient beings from one another" means that it is by means of these two faculties that sentient beings come to be differentiated into the male and female kind. "Differentiating their distinguishing marks" means that it is by means of these two faculties that bodily shape and form, voice, the breasts, and the rest come to differ between them —

for, at the very beginning of the eon, there was as yet no distinction between male and female at all; only later, once a small amount of derived form had gradually arisen there, did the male and female kind, and their differing bodily forms and appearances, come to be — with visible differences then arising in shape, speech, clothing, food, and manner of use as well. Others say: these two faculties are predominant with respect to defilement and purity. As for being predominant with respect to defilement:

this is not with respect to sexual desire itself, since there is no doubt about that — rather, it is that, should these two faculties be destroyed or lacking, one becomes incapable of committing a genuine breach of discipline, or any of the five heinous deeds, and likewise incapable of cutting off one's own wholesome roots. As for being predominant with respect to purity: should these two faculties be destroyed or lacking, one becomes incapable of undertaking any of the precepts of proper restraint whatsoever, incapable of becoming free from the defilement of the three realms, and incapable of planting the very seeds of any of the three vehicles. The life-faculty is predominant with respect to two matters — first, making it possible to speak of "having faculties" at all; second, keeping the faculties in unbroken continuity — for it is only while the life-faculty remains present that one can be said to "have faculties" at all, and it is this same life-faculty that keeps the other faculties continuing on, uninterrupted. Others say: the life-faculty is superior with respect to four matters — first, continuing the class-nature; second, sustaining the class-nature; third, nurturing and protecting the class-nature; fourth, keeping the class-nature from ever being interrupted. The five feeling-faculties are predominant with respect to the defiled class of dharmas, since it is through the very power of feeling that sentient beings, driven in every direction, wander bound by iron chains, hooked and snared along treacherous roads, scaling mountains and crossing valleys, crawling and stumbling as they go, or plunge into the great ocean itself, facing every manner of terror — whirlpools and eddies, crocodiles, black winds and whirlwinds, hidden reefs and sandbars, falling into the palace of evil nāgas,

the island of the rākṣasīs, the peril of Kumbhīra, the danger of bandits, and every such calamity besides — all of these alike caused by feeling. Question: how, then, could even uncontaminated feeling be predominant with respect to the defiled class of dharmas? Answer: at the very time one first undertakes the preparatory practice, and at the very moment one first enters the path, one is likewise predominant with respect to the defiled class of dharmas — that is, the practitioner, seeking that very feeling, must still seek out food, clothing, and every other necessity, and it is through this same effort that defilement, too, can still arise. Others say: feeling is predominant with respect to both defilement and purification alike. As for pleasant feeling: it is predominant with respect to defilement, since, as it is said, craving continues to increase in dependence upon pleasant feeling; it is predominant with respect to purification, since, as it is said, through pleasure the mind becomes concentrated. As for painful feeling: it is predominant with respect to defilement, since, as it is said, hatred continues to increase in dependence upon painful feeling; it is predominant with respect to purification, since, as it is said, suffering serves as a basis for faith. As for neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling: it is predominant with respect to defilement, since, as it is said, ignorance continues to increase in dependence upon neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling; it is predominant with respect to purification, since, as it is said, the six kinds of equanimity dependent on renunciation. The faith-faculty and the remaining four faculties are predominant with respect to the class of pure dharmas — as it is said:

[Verse]: "Faith, once arisen, is able to take refuge, crossing over the great flood of heedlessness; diligence is able to remove suffering; wisdom is able to bring about purification." It is further said: my noble disciples, endowed with faith, possess the strength of Iṣīkā-grass itself, able to abandon the unwholesome and cultivate the wholesome. The Buddha further told Ānanda: diligence is able to attain awakening. It is further said: my noble disciples, endowed with the power of diligence, abandon the unwholesome and cultivate the wholesome. It is further said: mindfulness is able to pervade and protect everything at once; my noble disciples, endowed with mindfulness's own protection, abandon the unwholesome and cultivate the wholesome. It is further said: what is settled is the correct path, and what is unsettled is the wrong path — a settled mind attains liberation, not an unsettled one; a settled mind is capable of knowing the arising and perishing of the aggregates. It is further said: my noble disciples, endowed with the threefold garland of concentration, are able to depart from the unwholesome and cultivate the wholesome. It is further said:

[Verse]: "Wisdom is supreme in the world, leading one toward correct discernment; it is able to know every dharma correctly, and to exhaust the suffering of old age and death." It is further said: among all dharmas, wisdom is supreme. It is further said: sister, my noble disciples are able, with the very sword of wisdom, to cut through every fetter, bond, underlying tendency, entanglement, and defilement. As for the faculty of what is yet unknown but about to be known: it is predominant with respect to seeing what has not yet been seen among the truths. As for the faculty of what is already known: it is predominant with respect to removing the fault of affliction, once the truths have already been seen. As for the faculty of complete knowledge: it is predominant with respect to attaining present, visible ease, once the fault of affliction has already been removed. It is on account of each of these being predominant, in its own respective place and manner, that they are each called a "faculty."

The Venerable Ghoṣavarman explains it this way: mind alone is the single faculty of ultimate-truth status, being internal, pervasive, and possessing an object.

"Internal" means it is subsumed under an internal sense-field; "pervasive" means it extends from the great hell of uninterrupted torment all the way up to the Peak of Existence; "possessing an object" means it takes every dharma whatsoever as its object. The remaining faculties, such as the eye and the rest, do not possess this same combination of qualities, and hence are not established as faculties of ultimate-truth status — that is, the eye and the other four, though subsumed under an internal sense-field, are neither pervasive nor possess an object of their own; the life-faculty, though pervasive, is neither an internal sense-field nor possesses an object of its own; painful, pleasant, displeasure, and joy, though each possesses an object, are neither pervasive nor internal; equanimity, faith, and the rest, though pervasive and possessing an object, are not internal sense-fields; and the three uncontaminated faculties are as already explained for the nine faculties above. Question: if mind alone is the faculty of ultimate-truth status, why, then, are the remaining twenty-one still called "faculties"? Answer: because they serve the mind-faculty as its basis, as its support, as its defiling agent, as its purifying agent, and as its purifying stage, they too are called "faculties." Who, then, serves as its basis?

Namely, the eye and the other four faculties. Who serves as its support? Namely, the life-faculty. Who serves as its defiling agent?

Namely, the five feeling-faculties. Who serves as its purifying agent? Namely, the faith-faculty and the remaining four. Who serves as its purifying stage? Namely, the three uncontaminated faculties, corresponding respectively to the stage of seeing, the stage of cultivation, and the stage beyond training. Question: why, further, do the male and female faculties come to be called "faculties" at all? Answer: because they generate sentient beings, generate desire and pleasure, restrain affliction, and serve as a basis for defilement.

"Generate sentient beings" refers to the generation of womb-born and egg-born beings alike. "Generate desire and pleasure" means that, in this very region, desire-born pleasure first arises, only afterward pervading the entire body — exactly as a noble one's own joy, first arising near the space between the eyebrows, only afterward pervades the whole body in the same way. "Restrain affliction" means that this very disposition is capable of temporarily suppressing affliction for a time. "Serve as a basis for defilement" means that defiled consciousness, together with its associated dharmas, depends upon this very basis — for, elsewhere, the body-faculty gives rise to three kinds of consciousness at once, but here, in this specific region, only defiled consciousness ever arises, never any other kind; and, whenever this consciousness does arise, it is invariably accompanied by craving, since it functions here only in the mode of intimate approach. The Venerable Saṃghavasu explains it this way: six faculties alone are of ultimate-truth status — namely, the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and life-faculties — since these are the very root of a sentient being's own existence. Question: if life and the other five are faculties of ultimate-truth status, why, then, are the remaining sixteen still called "faculties"? Answer: because they serve life and the other five as their seed, their defiling agent, their purifying agent, and their purifying stage, they too are called "faculties." Who serves as their seed? Namely, the mind-faculty. Who serves as their defiling agent? Namely, the five feeling-faculties. Who serves as their purifying agent? Namely, the faith-faculty and the remaining four. Who serves as their purifying stage? Namely, the three uncontaminated faculties, corresponding respectively to the stage of seeing, the stage of cultivation, and the stage beyond training. Question: why, then, do the male and female faculties, too, come to be called "faculties"? Answer: desire-realm sentient beings take desire itself as their own seed, and desire itself as their own crop —

and this depends on precisely these two faculties for its own existence, and it is for this reason that these two are also called "faculties." The Venerable Ghoṣa explains it this way: eight faculties, life and the rest together with the male and female faculties, are of ultimate-truth status, since these are the very root of a sentient being's own existence. Question: if life and the other seven are faculties of ultimate-truth status, why, then, are the remaining fourteen still called "faculties"? Answer: because they serve life and the other seven as their seed, their defiling agent, their purifying agent, and their purifying stage, they too are called "faculties" — explained fully, exactly as above.

Question: since the body-faculty's own subtle particles pervade the entire body equally, why is it that only this one particular region is specifically named the female or male faculty? To this the Venerable Vasumitra replies: it is because this particular region alone is capable of manifesting and displaying that a being is female or male, and it is for this reason that this region alone is called the female or male faculty. Question: but does a person possessing both organs at once also thereby display both? Answer: this cannot be so displayed, since such a nature remains genuinely indeterminate — it is precisely for this reason that such a being is said to be neither female nor male. Others say: this is the very region where beings "turn" into rebirth, and where beings "return" out of it — the six heterodox teachers, such as Pūraṇa and the rest, are called "those who turn"; the śrāvakas, the solitary-realized buddhas, and the Tathāgata himself are called "those who return." The Venerable One [the author] says: this region is capable of generating great sages and seers, the wise, the well-tamed,

and those easy to live alongside — and it is for this reason that it is called the male or female faculty, also spoken of as "the displaying one."

Having now explained the general reason underlying the faculties as a whole, we should show, in turn, each faculty's own particular characteristic. Question: what is the eye-faculty? Answer: that which has already seen form, now sees form, will see form, and whatever else belongs to this same class — this is called the eye-faculty. "Has already seen form" refers to the eye in the past; "now sees form" refers to the eye in the present; "will see form" refers to the eye in the future — this describes one's own particular instance; "and whatever else belongs to this same class" refers to this same class more broadly. The eye is explained more fully, as in the Elements chapter, and, up through the mind-faculty, each is explained in just the same way. Question: what is the female faculty? Answer: a small portion of the body-faculty. What is the male faculty? Answer: a small portion of the body-faculty. What is the life-faculty? Answer: the lifespan belonging to the three realms. What is the pleasure-faculty? Answer: bodily and mental ease arising in dependence on an agreeable, pleasing contact, included among the balanced kind of feeling — this is called the pleasure-faculty. What is the pain-faculty? Answer: bodily pain arising in dependence on a disagreeable, unpleasant contact, included among the unbalanced kind of feeling — this is called the pain-faculty. What is the joy-faculty? Answer: mental delight arising in dependence on an agreeable, pleasing contact, included among the balanced kind of feeling — this is called the joy-faculty. What is the displeasure-faculty? Answer: mental distress arising in dependence on a disagreeable, unpleasant contact, included among the unbalanced kind of feeling — this is called the displeasure-faculty. What is the equanimity-faculty? Answer: bodily and mental equanimity arising in dependence on a neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant contact, included among neither the balanced nor the unbalanced kind of feeling — this is called the equanimity-faculty. What is the faith-faculty?

Answer: with respect to wholesome dharmas born of seclusion and dispassion, one's faithful conviction, approval, patient acceptance, aspiration, delight, and purity of mind — this is called the faith-faculty. The diligence-, mindfulness-, concentration-, and wisdom-faculties are explained fully in the text elsewhere. Question: what is the faculty of what is yet unknown but about to be known? Answer: one who has not yet seen the truths, has not yet directly realized them — this refers to the wisdom and wisdom-faculty belonging to any trainee, together with whatever other faculties accompany it; one following faith or following the Dharma, with respect to the four noble truths not yet directly realized, becoming able to directly realize them — this is called the faculty of what is yet unknown but about to be known. Here, "not yet having seen the four noble truths" is why one is called "not yet having seen the truths"; "not yet having directly realized them" is why one is called "not yet having directly realized"; "the wisdom and wisdom-faculty belonging to any trainee" refers to the wisdom-faculty itself, together with whatever other faculties accompany it; "becoming able to directly realize the four noble truths not yet directly realized" refers to the remaining eight faculties — altogether, these nine faculties together are called the faculty of what is yet unknown but about to be known. Question: among these nine faculties, why is the wisdom-faculty mentioned twice, while the remaining faculties are mentioned only once, collectively? Answer: because wisdom's own name carries a superior meaning — that is, among this entire cluster of faculties, wisdom stands foremost, exactly as a king stands foremost within a kingdom, or a headman foremost within a village — the other faculties are not so. Others say: it is because wisdom serves as the very forerunner — as it is said, bhikṣus, whenever wholesome dharmas arise, clarity itself serves as their forerunner, clarity serving as their prior cause,

and it is from this that shame and moral dread, too, are in turn drawn forth. Others say: it is because wisdom alone possesses all three kinds of direct realization at once — that is, wisdom possesses all three: the direct realization of seeing, of the object, and of the underlying matter itself. Dharmas associated with wisdom possess only two of these three, excepting the direct realization of seeing, since they are not themselves of the nature of wisdom.

Dharmas that merely accompany wisdom, without being wisdom themselves, possess only a single kind of direct realization — namely, of the underlying matter, and no other, since they are not themselves of the nature of wisdom, and possess no object of their own. Others say: wisdom, upon seeing affliction, does not allow it to dwell for long — exactly as a burrow-dwelling creature, once seen by a person, at once retreats back into its own burrow. Others say: wisdom illuminates one's own continuum without interruption, so that affliction can never invade it — exactly as, when a lamp burns within a house, a thief can steal nothing from it. Others say: wisdom is capable of illuminating every dharma at once, whereas the sun, the moon, and the rest illuminate only a single realm, a single place, a single aggregate, or but a small portion of a single era at a time — wisdom, by contrast, is able to illuminate, universally and at once, the eighteen elements, the twelve sense-fields, the five aggregates, the three times, and the unconditioned besides. Others say: without wisdom, one remains bound; with wisdom, one is set free. Others say: wisdom brings one into the Buddha's own teaching with the deepest possible joy — that is, within the Buddha's own teaching, understanding itself is what is most highly prized, and hence whoever possesses wisdom, beholding this wondrous jeweled Dharma, delights in it exactly as a sighted person, reaching a shore strewn with treasure, rejoices at what he sees before him — whereas, lacking wisdom, though one may have entered the Buddha's own teaching, one perceives nothing there at all, and dwells forever after in sorrow, exactly as a person born blind, arriving at that very same place of gathered treasure, whose own grief is only redoubled by it. Others say: the wisdom-faculty is like a general, like a guide, like an eye, like a head; it is both awakening and an awakening-factor at once, both the path and a path-factor at once. Others say: wisdom is able to guide the remaining factors of enlightenment so that they never go astray — exactly as a sighted person leads a group of the blind safely along the correct road — it is the very same here. Others say: wisdom cuts through every fetter and bond exactly like a sharp blade — as it is said, sister, my noble disciples are able, with the very sword of wisdom, to cut through every fetter, bond, underlying tendency, entanglement, and defilement. Others say: wisdom is like a lofty tower or palace — as the Venerable Aniruddha himself said, I dwell relying upon precepts, abiding in precepts, and thereby ascend to the unsurpassed tower and palace of wisdom itself. Others say: wisdom is capable of establishing every dharma's own specific and general characteristics at once, capable of discerning every dharma's own specific and general characteristics, breaking through both the delusion regarding one's own inner substance and the delusion regarding one's outer object, never once straying, whether by excess or by deficiency, with respect to any dharma whatsoever. Others say: wisdom is what the Buddhas themselves cherish and revere above all else — for the Buddha does not cherish or revere a sentient being's own physical beauty, strength, lineage, wealth, honor, or worldly sovereignty, but cherishes and reveres wisdom alone, since wisdom alone is capable of realizing every virtue there is. Others say: wisdom alone is capable of manifesting that the Buddha himself has no equal whatsoever — that is, physical beauty, strength, lineage, wealth, honor, and worldly sovereignty are none of them capable, on their own, of manifesting that the Buddha is the most supremely honored being of all; only wisdom is capable of manifesting this,

since omniscience belongs to the Buddha alone, and to no other faculty whatsoever. It is through causes and conditions such as these, without limit, that the wisdom-faculty is distinguished from every other faculty in this way.