Four Truths, One View, and Why the Higher Realms Feel No Pain

Sixth Aggregate, the Faculties: the Faculty Nyāsa, Chapter One, Part Four. Of these twenty-two faculties, how many are cut off by seeing suffering? And so on, in full. Question: why compose this further treatise? Answer: the earlier discussion refuted the claim that cutting-off is exclusively sudden, yet did not yet refute the claim that direct realization is exclusively sudden, nor did it yet make clear that direct realization proceeds gradually — it is in order to now refute and clarify this that this treatise is composed. Others say: the earlier discussion did in fact already refute sudden direct realization and make clear gradual direct realization, but not with full clarity — it is in order to make this fully clear that this treatise is composed. Others say: the reason for composing this treatise is to distinguish the five classes of affliction and their five corresponding antidotes. The five classes of affliction are: what is cut off by seeing suffering, up through what is cut off by cultivation; the five antidotes are: patient acceptance and knowledge with respect to suffering, up through patient acceptance and knowledge with respect to the path. Of these twenty-two faculties, how many are cut off by seeing suffering, how many by seeing its origin, how many by seeing its cessation, how many by seeing the path, how many by cultivation, and how many are uncuttable? Answer: nine are cut off by cultivation, three are uncuttable,

and ten require further distinction. The nine cut off by cultivation are the seven form-faculties and the life- and pain-faculties. The three uncuttable ones are the three uncontaminated faculties.

The ten requiring further distinction are the mind-faculty, the four feeling-faculties, and the faith-faculty and the remaining four. The mind-faculty may be cut off by seeing suffering, or by seeing its origin, cessation, or the path, or by cultivation, or may be uncuttable. What is meant by cut off by seeing suffering? The mind-faculty of one following faith or following the Dharma, cut off by the patient acceptance at the very edge of the direct realization of suffering. What is this, more precisely? The mind-faculty associated with the twenty-eight underlying tendencies cut off by seeing suffering. What is meant by cut off by seeing its origin? The mind-faculty of one following faith or following the Dharma, cut off by the patient acceptance at the very edge of the direct realization of origin. What is this, more precisely? The mind-faculty associated with the nineteen underlying tendencies cut off by seeing origin. What is meant by cut off by seeing its cessation? The mind-faculty of one following faith or following the Dharma, cut off by the patient acceptance

at the very edge of the direct realization of cessation. What is this, more precisely? The mind-faculty associated with the nineteen underlying tendencies cut off by seeing cessation. What is meant by cut off by seeing the path? The mind-faculty of one following faith or following the Dharma, cut off by the patient acceptance at the very edge of the direct realization of the path. What is this, more precisely? The mind-faculty associated with the twenty-two underlying tendencies cut off by seeing the path. What is meant by cut off by cultivation? The mind-faculty of the trainee, having already traversed the path of seeing, cut off by cultivation.

What is this, more precisely? The mind-faculty associated with the ten underlying tendencies cut off by cultivation, together with the undefiled contaminated mind-faculty. What is meant by uncuttable? The uncontaminated mind-faculty. As with the mind-faculty, so too with the equanimity-faculty. The pleasure-faculty may be cut off by seeing suffering, or by seeing its origin, cessation, or the path, or by cultivation, or may be uncuttable. What is meant by cut off by seeing suffering? The pleasure-faculty of one following faith or following the Dharma, cut off by the patient acceptance at the very edge of the direct realization of suffering. What is this, more precisely? The pleasure-faculty associated with the nine underlying tendencies cut off by seeing suffering. What is meant by cut off by seeing its origin? The pleasure-faculty of one following faith or following the Dharma, cut off by the patient acceptance at the very edge of the direct realization of origin. What is this, more precisely? The pleasure-faculty associated with the six underlying tendencies cut off by seeing origin. What is meant by cut off by seeing its cessation? The pleasure-faculty of one following faith or following the Dharma, cut off by the patient acceptance at the very edge of the direct realization of cessation. What is this, more precisely? The pleasure-faculty associated with the six underlying tendencies cut off by seeing cessation. What is meant by cut off by seeing the path? The pleasure-faculty of one following faith or following the Dharma, cut off by the patient acceptance at the very edge of the direct realization of the path. What is this, more precisely? The pleasure-faculty associated with the seven underlying tendencies cut off by seeing the path. What is meant by cut off by cultivation? The pleasure-faculty of the trainee, having already traversed the path of seeing, cut off by cultivation. What is this, more precisely? The pleasure-faculty associated with the five underlying tendencies cut off by cultivation, together with the undefiled contaminated pleasure-faculty. The five underlying tendencies are: desire-realm craving and ignorance, and form-realm craving, conceit, and ignorance. What is meant by uncuttable? The uncontaminated pleasure-faculty. The joy-faculty may be cut off by seeing suffering, or by seeing its origin, cessation, or the path, or by cultivation, or may be uncuttable. What is meant by cut off by seeing suffering?

The joy-faculty of one following faith or following the Dharma, cut off by the patient acceptance at the very edge of the direct realization of suffering. What is this, more precisely? The joy-faculty associated with the seventeen underlying tendencies cut off by seeing suffering. These seventeen underlying tendencies are: those of the desire realm excepting hatred and doubt, together with all those of the form realm. What is meant by cut off by seeing its origin? The joy-faculty of one following faith or following the Dharma, cut off by the patient acceptance at the very edge of the direct realization of origin. What is this, more precisely? The joy-faculty associated with the eleven underlying tendencies cut off by seeing origin. What is meant by cut off by seeing its cessation? The joy-faculty of one following faith or following the Dharma, cut off by the patient acceptance at the very edge of the direct realization of cessation. What is this, more precisely? The joy-faculty associated with the eleven underlying tendencies cut off by seeing cessation. What is meant by cut off by seeing the path? The joy-faculty of one following faith or following the Dharma, cut off by the patient acceptance at the very edge of the direct realization of the path. What is this, more precisely? The joy-faculty associated with the twelve underlying tendencies cut off by seeing the path. What is meant by cut off by cultivation? The joy-faculty of the trainee, having already traversed the path of seeing, cut off by cultivation. What is this, more precisely? The joy-faculty associated with the six underlying tendencies cut off by cultivation, together with the undefiled contaminated joy-faculty. The six underlying tendencies are: those of the desire realm excepting hatred, together with all those of the form realm. What is meant by uncuttable? The uncontaminated joy-faculty. The displeasure-faculty may be cut off by seeing suffering,

or by seeing its origin, cessation, or the path, or by cultivation. What is meant by cut off by seeing suffering? The displeasure-faculty of one following faith or following the Dharma, cut off by the patient acceptance at the very edge of the direct realization of suffering. What is this, more precisely? The displeasure-faculty associated with the four underlying tendencies cut off by seeing suffering. These four underlying tendencies are: desire-realm wrong view, hatred, doubt, and ignorance.

What is meant by cut off by seeing its origin? The displeasure-faculty of one following faith or following the Dharma, cut off by the patient acceptance at the very edge of the direct realization of origin. What is this, more precisely?

The displeasure-faculty associated with the four underlying tendencies cut off by seeing origin. What is meant by cut off by seeing its cessation? The displeasure-faculty of one following faith or following the Dharma, cut off by the patient acceptance at the very edge of the direct realization of cessation. What is this, more precisely? The displeasure-faculty associated with the four underlying tendencies cut off by seeing cessation. What is meant by cut off by seeing the path? The displeasure-faculty of one following faith or following the Dharma, cut off by the patient acceptance at the very edge of the direct realization of the path. What is this, more precisely? The displeasure-faculty associated with the four underlying tendencies cut off by seeing the path. What is meant by cut off by cultivation? The displeasure-faculty of the trainee, having already traversed the path of seeing, cut off by cultivation. What is this, more precisely?

The displeasure-faculty associated with the two underlying tendencies cut off by cultivation, together with the undefiled displeasure-faculty. The two underlying tendencies are: desire-realm hatred and ignorance. The faith-faculty and the remaining four may be cut off by cultivation, or may be uncuttable. What is meant by cut off by cultivation? The contaminated faith-faculty and the remaining four.

What is meant by uncuttable? The uncontaminated faith-faculty and the remaining four.

Having now distinguished the faculties with respect to being cut off by seeing suffering and the rest, we should next explain the meaning of these terms themselves. Question: why is something called cut off by seeing suffering, up through cut off by cultivation? Answer: whatever dharma has a fixed, determinate antidote, and a fixed, determinate object of that antidote, is called cut off by seeing suffering, up through cut off by seeing the path; whatever dharma lacks such a fixed antidote, or a fixed object of that antidote, is called cut off by cultivation. Others say: whatever dharma has a fixed location for its antidote, and a fixed object, is called cut off by seeing suffering, up through cut off by seeing the path; whatever dharma lacks a fixed location for its antidote, or a fixed object, is called cut off by cultivation. Others say: whatever dharma has the patient acceptance and knowledge with respect to suffering as its antidote is called cut off by seeing suffering, up through whatever dharma has the patient acceptance and knowledge with respect to the path as its antidote being called cut off by seeing the path; whatever dharma has any of the further kinds of knowledge as its antidote is called cut off by cultivation. Others say: whatever dharma is cut off by the patient acceptance with respect to suffering is called cut off by seeing suffering, up through whatever dharma is cut off by the patient acceptance with respect to the path being called cut off by seeing the path; whatever dharma is cut off by any of the further kinds of knowledge is called cut off by cultivation.

Others say: whatever dharma is cut off through contemplating the truth of suffering is called cut off by seeing suffering, up through whatever dharma is cut off through contemplating the truth of the path being called cut off by seeing the path; whatever dharma is cut off through contemplating either the truth of suffering, or the truths of origin, cessation, or the path, or through contemplating no truth at all, is called cut off by cultivation. Others say: whatever dharma is contrary to seeing the truth of suffering is called cut off by seeing suffering, up through whatever dharma is contrary to seeing the truth of the path being called cut off by seeing the path; whatever dharma is contrary to seeing all four truths at once is called cut off by cultivation.

Of these twenty-two faculties, how many are "view," and how many are not? And so on, in full. Question: why compose this treatise? Answer: in order to refute the claim that every dharma whatsoever is, by its very nature, "view" — for some hold that whatever exercises a sharp, penetrating function is thereby called "view," since every dharma, with respect to its own particular undertaking, exercises some sharp, penetrating function, and hence all alike deserve the name "view." It is in order to refute this attachment, and to show that, among all dharmas, only the eye-faculty and a small portion of wisdom are properly called "view," and nothing else, that this treatise is composed.

Of these twenty-two faculties, how many are "view," and how many are not? Answer: one is view; seventeen are not view; four require further distinction. The one that is view is the eye-faculty. The seventeen that are not view are the six remaining form-faculties, the life-faculty, the mind-faculty, the four feeling-faculties, and the faith-faculty and the remaining four. The four requiring further distinction are wisdom and the three uncontaminated faculties. The wisdom-faculty may be view, or not view. What is meant by view? The wisdom-faculty associated with mental-consciousness, excepting what is subsumed under the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising. What is meant by not view? The remaining wisdom-faculty — namely, that associated with the five sense-consciousnesses, together with whatever is subsumed under the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising. The faculty of what is yet unknown but about to be known may be view, or not view. What is meant by view? The wisdom-faculty subsumed under the faculty of what is yet unknown but about to be known. What is meant by not view? The remaining faculties subsumed under it — namely, the other eight faculties. As with the faculty of what is yet unknown but about to be known, so too with the faculty of what is already known. The faculty of complete knowledge may be view, or not view. What is meant by view? The wisdom-faculty subsumed under the faculty of complete knowledge, excepting what is subsumed under the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising. What is meant by not view? The remaining faculties subsumed under it — namely, the other eight faculties — together with whatever is subsumed under the knowledge of exhaustion and of non-arising.

Having now distinguished the faculties with respect to being view and the rest, we should next explain the meaning of view itself. Question: why is something called "view"? What is the meaning of "view"? Answer: on account of four conditions it is called view — first, being capable of observing; second, engaging in inference and determination; third, holding firmly and grasping tightly; fourth, penetrating deeply into its own object. "Capable of observing" refers to view's own self-nature. Question: what, then, does a wrong view, or an inverted view, actually observe? Answer: it is precisely for this reason that we speak of view's own self-nature —

that is, though a wrong or inverted view is indeed wrong or inverted, it nonetheless remains, in its own self-nature, a kind of view-wisdom, and hence is said to be "capable of observing," exactly as anyone who sees anything at all, whatever it may be, is thereby called "capable of observing," unlike one who is blind. "Engaging in inference and determination" refers to being capable of inferring and reaching a fixed conclusion. Question: how could such inference occur within the span of a single instant?

Answer: because its own nature is sharp and swift, it is spoken of as "inferring." "Holding firmly and grasping tightly" refers to the various view-tendencies clinging so obstinately and firmly that nothing short of the power of the noble path is capable of dislodging them. "Penetrating deeply into its own object" refers to a sharp, forceful entry into its object, exactly as a needle sinks into soft mud. Others say: it is on account of two conditions that something is called view — first, its own nature of clear illumination; second, its own nature of inference and measurement. Others say: it is on account of three conditions — first, bearing the mark of view; second, accomplishing the function of view; third, being unobstructed with respect to its object. Others say: it is on account of three conditions — first, one's own underlying intention; second, one's own attachment; third, one's own inference and determination. Others say: it is on account of three conditions — first, one's own underlying intention; second, one's own preparatory effort; third, one's own lack of true knowledge. "One's own underlying intention" refers to a corrupted intention; "one's own preparatory effort" refers to a corrupted effort;

"one's own lack of true knowledge" refers to both being corrupted at once. Further, "one's own underlying intention" refers to one who cultivates concentration; "one's own preparatory effort" refers to one engaged in discursive investigation; "one's own lack of true knowledge" refers to one who merely follows what he has heard.

Of these twenty-two faculties, how many are accompanied by discursive thought and investigation? And so on, in full. Question: why compose this treatise? Answer: in order to refute the claim made by the Dṛṣṭāntikas, who say that discursive thought and investigation extend from the desire realm all the way up to the Peak of Existence — for why is this? Because, they say, the sūtra itself states that the coarse nature of mind is discursive thought, and the fine nature of mind is investigation, and mind's own coarse and fine nature extends all the way up to the Peak of Existence. The Great Virtuous One says: the Ābhidharmikas hold that discursive thought and investigation are the coarse and fine nature of mind — and this coarse-and-fine nature, being relative, is indeed found all the way up to the Peak of Existence — and yet they claim that discursive thought and investigation exist only within the desire realm and the Brahma-world; this, he says, is a poor account, not a good one. The Ābhidharma treatise-masters reply: our own account is a good one, not a poor one, since coarse-and-fine nature is spoken of, according to context, in more than one way — that is, as it is said, entanglement is coarse and underlying tendency is fine, and here discursive thought and investigation are neither coarse nor fine, since both alike are of neither the nature of entanglement nor of underlying tendency; as it is said, the form aggregate is coarse and the four remaining aggregates are fine, and here discursive thought and investigation are both alike fine, since both are subsumed under the formations aggregate; as it is said, the desire realm is coarse and the first dhyāna is fine, and here discursive thought and investigation are both alike either coarse or fine, since both alike are found within both of these two grounds; as it is said, the first dhyāna is coarse and the second dhyāna is fine, and here discursive thought and investigation are both alike coarse, since coarse-and-fine nature is spoken of, according to context, in more than one way — and it is on this basis that discursive thought and investigation do not extend all the way up to the Peak of Existence, for, were discursive thought and investigation said to extend to the Peak of Existence, then there would be no basis for distinguishing three separate grounds at all. The Dṛṣṭāntikas say: from the desire realm all the way up to the Peak of Existence, all three moral natures — wholesome, defiled, and neutral — are present, and every defiled dharma in every ground alike is accompanied by discursive thought and investigation; only the wholesome and neutral kinds differ across three separate grounds. If this were so, however, why does the sūtra say that, once discursive thought and investigation have ceased, one enters the second dhyāna, born of concentration, filled with joy and happiness, free of discursive thought and investigation? They reply: this speaks only of wholesome discursive thought and investigation, not the defiled kind. This, however, is unreasonable — for why would the sūtra speak only of extinguishing wholesome discursive thought and investigation, and not the defiled kind, when it is the defiled kind, rather, that ought properly to be extinguished first, since it is necessarily cut off at the very moment of becoming free of that ground's own defilement, abandoned only once one has transcended that entire realm and ground? The Dṛṣṭāntikas are, in truth, giving a genuinely poor account here. It is in order to refute their own intention, and to show that discursive thought and investigation exist only within these first two grounds, that this treatise is composed.

Of these twenty-two faculties, how many are accompanied by discursive thought and investigation, how many are without discursive thought yet still accompanied by investigation, and how many are without either? Answer: two are accompanied by discursive thought and investigation; eight are without either; twelve require further distinction. The two accompanied by discursive thought and investigation are the pain- and displeasure-faculties. The eight without either are the seven form-faculties and the life-faculty. The twelve requiring further distinction are the mind-faculty, the three remaining feeling-faculties, the faith-faculty and the remaining four, and the three uncontaminated faculties. The mind-faculty may be accompanied by discursive thought and investigation, or without discursive thought yet still accompanied by investigation, or without either. What is meant by accompanied by discursive thought and investigation? The mind-faculty associated with attention accompanied by discursive thought and investigation. What is this, more precisely? The mind-faculty belonging to the desire realm and the first dhyāna. What is meant by without discursive thought yet still accompanied by investigation? The mind-faculty associated with attention that lacks discursive thought yet is still accompanied by investigation. What is this, more precisely? The mind-faculty belonging to the intermediate stage of dhyāna.

What is meant by without either? The mind-faculty associated with attention lacking both discursive thought and investigation. What is this, more precisely? The mind-faculty belonging to the second dhyāna up through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.

As with the mind-faculty, so too with the equanimity-faculty, the faith-faculty and the remaining four, and the three uncontaminated faculties. The pleasure-faculty may be accompanied by discursive thought and investigation, or without either. What is meant by accompanied by discursive thought and investigation? The pleasure-faculty associated with attention accompanied by discursive thought and investigation. What is this, more precisely? The pleasure-faculty belonging to the desire realm and the first dhyāna. What is meant by without either? The pleasure-faculty associated with attention lacking both discursive thought and investigation. What is this, more precisely? The pleasure-faculty belonging to the third dhyāna. As with the pleasure-faculty, so too with the joy-faculty — yet with this distinction: the second dhyāna's own joy-faculty, too, is called "without either."

Having now distinguished the faculties with respect to discursive thought and investigation, we should next explain the meaning of these terms themselves. Question: what is meant by "accompanied by discursive thought and investigation," "without discursive thought yet still accompanied by investigation," and "without either"? Answer: whatever dharma co-exists with discursive thought and investigation, is associated with them, arises concomitantly with them, and turns together with them, is called "accompanied by discursive thought and investigation." Whatever dharma does not co-exist with discursive thought, but co-exists only with investigation, is not associated with discursive thought but only with investigation, does not arise concomitantly with discursive thought but only with investigation, discursive thought having already been stilled while investigation still turns together with it, is called "without discursive thought yet still accompanied by investigation." Whatever dharma co-exists with neither discursive thought nor investigation, is associated with neither, arises concomitantly with neither, discursive thought and investigation both having already been stilled, is called "without either." Others say: whatever dharma involves genuine searching and genuine scrutiny is called "accompanied by discursive thought and investigation"; whatever dharma lacks genuine searching yet still involves genuine scrutiny is called "without discursive thought yet still accompanied by investigation"; and whatever dharma lacks both genuine searching and genuine scrutiny is called "without either."

Of these twenty-two faculties, how many are associated with the pleasure-faculty? And so on, in full. Question: why compose this treatise? Answer: in order to refute a rival doctrine and establish our own — for the Dṛṣṭāntikas say that mind and mental factors arise one after another in strict sequence, never simultaneously. The Great Virtuous One says: mind and mental factors arise one by one, in succession, exactly as a narrow path allows no two people to pass abreast, let alone many at once. Others, further, say: whatever dharma arises through the power of another dharma is said to be "associated" with that other dharma, and nothing else — that is, since mind is capable of giving rise to further mind and to mental factors alike, mind and mental factors are said to be associated with mind; but, since mental factors are capable of giving rise only to further mental factors, mental factors, too, are said to be mutually associated with one another — yet, since mental factors are incapable of giving rise to mind itself, mind is not said to be associated with mental factors. Others, further, hold that every dharma is associated only with its own self-substance, arguing that "association" means precisely a thoroughgoing mutual combination, and that there is no further thoroughgoing combination beyond a thing's own relation to itself — and hence they say that a dharma's own self-substance is "associated" only with itself, and with nothing else. Others hold that a dharma's own self-substance, with respect to itself, is neither associated nor not associated — not associated, since a thing cannot observe itself; not not-associated, since it is nonetheless a thoroughgoing combination. It is in order to refute these various differing claims, and to show that mind and mental factors arise together at a single moment, mutually associated with one another, never merely a matter of a self-substance regarding itself in relation to something else,

that this treatise is composed. Of these twenty-two faculties, how many are associated with the pleasure-faculty, how many with the pain-faculty, how many with the joy-faculty, how many with the displeasure-faculty, and how many with the equanimity-faculty? Answer: the pleasure-, joy-, and equanimity-faculties are each associated, in part, with nine faculties; the pain- and displeasure-faculties are each associated, in part, with six faculties. As for the pleasure-, joy-, and equanimity-faculties being each associated, in part, with nine faculties — this refers to the mind-faculty, the faith-faculty and the remaining four, and the three uncontaminated faculties. Question: how is it that pleasure, joy, and equanimity are associated only "in part" with these nine? Answer: the mind-faculty and the faith-faculty and the remaining four are generally associated with all five feeling-faculties, yet, since only three of these five feelings are being considered here, it is said to be "in part"; the three uncontaminated faculties have many dharmas as their own self-nature, and, excepting the feeling itself, are associated with the remaining dharmas, and hence, too, are said to be "in part." As for the pain- and displeasure-faculties being each associated, in part, with six faculties — this refers to the mind-faculty and the faith-faculty and the remaining four. Question: how is it that pain and displeasure are associated only "in part" with these six? Answer: these six faculties are generally associated with all five feeling-faculties, yet, since only displeasure and pain are being considered here, it is said to be "in part." Question: why does this passage ask only about association with feeling, and not about association with the other mental factors? 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: every dharma ultimately converges upon feeling, and it is for this reason that the question is asked about it specifically. Others say: a single feeling bears many faculty-aspects at once —

that is, a single feeling is divided among five distinct faculties, unlike any other dharma — and hence the question is asked only about feeling. Others say: the possession of the various feelings involves no genuine contradiction,

yet their actual manifestation does involve contradiction, and it is for this specific reason that the question is asked about feeling — "possession without contradiction" meaning that a single sentient being possesses all five feelings at once; "manifestation involving contradiction" meaning that a single sentient being, within a single instant, cannot give rise to two feelings at once, let alone many. Others say: since feeling is the very hub of the wheel of dependent origination, it is for this reason that the question is asked about it specifically. Others say: apart from feeling, what further question would there even be to ask? Were one to ask about the faith-faculty and the remaining four, or the three uncontaminated faculties, these are exclusively wholesome, and hence do not carry the sense of being associated with everything alike; were one to ask about the life-faculty and the other seven, these are exclusively neutral, and, moreover, are not themselves associated with anything at all. Question: if so, why does the passage not ask about the mind-faculty? Answer: it is precisely by reference to the mind-faculty that the very notion of "association" is established in the first place, and hence one cannot, in turn, ask about what is associated with mind itself — and it is for this reason that this passage asks only about the meaning of association with feeling, since feeling's own self-nature is never associated with itself. Further, it is only by means of some other dharma that feeling itself is being asked about here. Having now distinguished the faculties with respect to their association with feeling, we should next explain the meaning of association itself. Question: why is something called "association"? What is the meaning of "association"? Answer: the sense of equality is the meaning of association. Question: among the various clusters of mind, mental factors are sometimes many and sometimes few — how, then, can they be called "equal"? Answer: this refers to the desire realm having many, the form realm fewer; the form realm having many, the formless realm fewer; the wholesome having many, the unwholesome fewer; the unwholesome having many, the neutral fewer; the obscured-neutral having many, the unobscured-neutral fewer. Question: how, then, is the sense of equality the meaning of association? Answer: it is on account of an equality of underlying matter that they are called "equal" — that is, within a single cluster of mind, were there to be two feelings, or two perceptions, and so forth, this could indeed be called unequal; but, within a single cluster of mind, just as there is exactly one feeling, so too is there exactly one perception, and so forth — and it is on this account that they are called "equal." Others say: there are five distinct senses of equality that constitute the meaning of association —

equality of basis, equality of object, equality of aspect, equality of time, and equality of underlying matter. The remaining meaning is explained fully, as in the Aggregation Nyāsa's very first chapter. Of these twenty-two faculties, how many are bound to the desire realm? And so on, in full. Question: why compose this treatise? Answer: in order to refute a rival doctrine and establish our own — for some hold that the form realm, too, possesses the male and female faculties, arguing that wherever a form-body exists, both the male and female faculty can be found there as well — it is in order to refute this attachment, and to show that the male and female faculties exist only within the desire realm, that this treatise is composed. Others, further, say that the pleasure- and pain-faculties can be found across five grounds — namely, the desire realm and the four dhyānas — holding that wherever an embodied being exists, both pain and pleasure are to be found — it is in order to refute this attachment, and to show that the pain-faculty exists only within the desire realm, and the pleasure-faculty only within the first three grounds, that this treatise is composed. Others, further, say that the joy- and displeasure-faculties can be found across nine grounds, from the desire realm all the way up to the Peak of Existence, holding that wherever mind exists, both joy and displeasure are to be found, since all three realms and nine grounds alike possess mind — and, further, that even the desire realm's own impure, contemptible body still gives rise to joy at union and displeasure at separation, so how much more should the higher realms, whose bodies are utterly pure and subtle, like the very flame of a lamp, their minds free of every turbid affliction, like a cool and tranquil pool, likewise experience joy and displeasure at union and separation? It is in order to refute this attachment, and to show that displeasure exists only within the desire realm, and joy only up through the second dhyāna, with neither present in any higher ground, that this treatise is composed.

Of these twenty-two faculties, how many are bound to the desire realm, how many to the form realm, how many to the formless realm, and how many are unbound? Answer: four are bound to the desire realm; three are unbound; fifteen require further distinction. The four bound to the desire realm are the male, female, pain-, and displeasure-faculties. The three unbound are the three uncontaminated faculties. The fifteen requiring further distinction are the five remaining form-faculties, the life- and mind-faculties, the three remaining feeling-faculties, and the faith-faculty and the remaining four. The eye-faculty may be bound to the desire realm, or to the form realm. What is meant by bound to the desire realm? The eye-faculty produced by desire-realm-bound great elements. What is meant by bound to the form realm? The eye-faculty produced by form-realm-bound great elements. As with the eye-faculty, so too with the ear-, nose-, tongue-, and body-faculties. The life-faculty may be bound to the desire realm, the form realm, or the formless realm. What is meant by bound to the desire realm? Desire-realm-bound lifespan. What is meant by bound to the form realm? Form-realm-bound lifespan. What is meant by bound to the formless realm? Formless-realm-bound lifespan. The mind-faculty may be bound to the desire realm, the form realm, the formless realm, or unbound. What is meant by bound to the desire realm? The mind-faculty associated with desire-realm-bound attention. What is meant by bound to the form realm? The mind-faculty associated with form-realm-bound attention. What is meant by bound to the formless realm? The mind-faculty associated with formless-realm-bound attention. What is meant by unbound? The mind-faculty associated with uncontaminated attention.

As with the mind-faculty, so too with the equanimity-faculty and the faith-faculty and the remaining four. The pleasure-faculty may be bound to the desire realm, the form realm, or unbound.

What is meant by bound to the desire realm? The pleasure-faculty associated with desire-realm-bound attention. What is meant by bound to the form realm? The pleasure-faculty associated with form-realm-bound attention. What is meant by unbound? The pleasure-faculty associated with uncontaminated attention. As with the pleasure-faculty, so too with the joy-faculty.

Question: why does the form realm lack the male and female faculties? Answer: it is neither their proper field nor their proper vessel — and so on, in full. Others say: it is in order to abandon the male and female faculties altogether that beings cultivate the various dhyānas and are reborn in the form realm — were the form realm, too, to possess these two faculties, there would then be no reason to seek rebirth there at all. If whatever exists in a lower ground were always also found in a higher one, there would then be no basis for establishing any gradual process of elimination at all; and, lacking any gradual process of elimination, there could then be no ultimate, final elimination either, since a gradual process of elimination is precisely what leads to an ultimate, final one; and, lacking any ultimate elimination, there could then be no liberation at all; and, lacking liberation, there could then be no genuine departure from existence at all — and, in order to avoid the many faults that would follow from this, the form realm lacks the male and female faculties. Others say: the male and female faculties are drawn forth by solid food — as the sūtra says, at the very beginning of the eon, people possessed no male or female faculty, their bodily shape showing no difference at all; only later, once they came to feed on the very flavor of the earth, did the male and female faculties arise, and it was from this that a difference in male and female form first came about — the form realm, being free of solid food, hence lacks these two faculties. Others say: the male and female faculties have a function specifically within the desire realm, not within the form realm, and hence the form realm lacks them.

Question: the nose- and tongue-faculties, too, have no function there — how, then, do they still exist? Answer: the nose- and tongue-faculties do indeed have a function there, namely, contributing to bodily dignity and beauty — the male and female faculties, by contrast, carry no such sense of dignity and beauty, being instead a source of shame and disgrace. Question: are the gods of the form realm male, or female? If either, what fault follows? If female, they ought to possess the female faculty; if male, they ought to possess the male faculty; and if neither, this would then contradict the sūtra's own statement,

as it is said, a woman's body cannot become a Great Brahmā and the like, without denying that a male body can. Answer: it should be said that they are, in fact, all male. Question: is it not the case that such beings do not possess the male faculty at all? Answer: though they lack the male faculty, they still possess every other mark of a mature man, and are capable of becoming free of defilement, and hence are called male — exactly as the sūtra says that every fruit and every approach toward it is called "a mature man," not thereby denying that women, too, undertake the approaches and abide in the fruits — it should be understood that this, too, is on account of their capacity for freedom from defilement that they are called "mature men." The Vinaya likewise says: the Buddha, holding Mahāprajāpatī's own bones in both hands,

told the assembly of bhikṣus, "Listen carefully, all of you — every woman's own nature is fickle and inconstant, full of jealousy, flattery, and stinginess; yet Mahāprajāpatī alone, though a woman, was free of every fault common to women, accomplishing what a mature man accomplishes, and attaining what a mature man attains —

and I therefore declare her to be a mature man as well." The gods of the form realm should be understood in exactly the same way — being capable of freedom from defilement, they, too, are called "mature men." A fourfold distinction should accordingly be made: there is one who is a mature man yet does not possess the male faculty — namely, the gods of the form and formless realms, and Mahāprajāpatī and the like; there is one who possesses the male faculty yet is not a mature man — namely, one of dual form; there is one who is both a mature man and possesses the male faculty — namely, every mature man who does possess the male faculty; and there is one who is neither a mature man nor possesses the male faculty — namely, everyone excluded from the foregoing. Whoever is genuinely female must possess the female faculty; there is, further, one who possesses the female faculty yet is not genuinely female — namely, one of dual form. Following the very sense drawn from the Vinaya passage cited above, the corresponding fourfold distinction for "female," too, should be worked out and explained in full, by analogy. Question: why do the higher realms lack the displeasure- and pain-faculties? Answer: it is neither their proper field nor their proper vessel — and so on, in full. Others say: it is in order to abandon the displeasure- and pain-faculties altogether that beings cultivate the various dhyānas and are reborn in the form realm — were the form realm, too,

to possess these two faculties, there would then be no reason to seek rebirth there at all. If whatever exists in a lower ground were always also found in a higher one, there would then be no basis for establishing any gradual process of elimination at all — explained fully, as before — and, in order to avoid such faults, the higher realms lack the displeasure- and pain-faculties. Others say: why do the higher realms lack the displeasure- and pain-faculties? Because these are faults unique to the desire realm alone — every realm and ground alike has its own unique virtues and its own unique faults; the desire realm's own unique fault is precisely the pain-faculty and the like, while its own unique virtue is its capacity to enter the path of seeing and the like — the virtues and faults of the higher realms should likewise be explained in full, ground by ground. Others say: the desire realm is a realm of fault — and it is precisely because it is a realm of fault that even its most exalted bodies still suffer pain,

as with the Buddha, the solitary-realized buddha, the śrāvaka, and the wheel-turning king alike; the higher realms are realms of virtue — and it is precisely because they are realms of virtue that even their most lowly bodies still remain free of suffering — exactly as, in a year of poor harvest, even the finest crop cannot escape calamity, while, in a year of bountiful harvest, even the coarsest weeds remain untouched by calamity —

the desire realm and the higher realms should be understood in exactly the same way. As for why the higher realms also lack displeasure: because every displeasure-faculty is given up at the moment of becoming free of desire, and, moreover, is the outflow-continuing result of a heavy form of ignorance — one reborn in the higher realms has already become free of this heavy ignorance, and hence the displeasure-faculty does not exist there.

Having now distinguished the faculties with respect to being bound to the desire realm and the rest, we should next explain the meaning of these terms themselves. Question: why is something called bound to the desire realm, to the form realm, or to the formless realm? Answer: whatever dharma is bound within the desire realm is called bound to the desire realm; whatever is bound within the form realm is called bound to the form realm; whatever is bound within the formless realm is called bound to the formless realm — exactly as an ox tied to a post is called "bound to the post" and the like. Others say:

whatever dharma is bound and attached to the "feet" of the desire realm is called bound to the desire realm; whatever is bound and attached to the "feet" of the form or formless realm is called bound to the form or formless realm — "feet" here referring to affliction, exactly as it is said, the Buddha's own boundless travels require no feet at all — who, then, could ever lead him anywhere against his will? — just as a person with feet is able to travel to the four directions, while one without feet cannot, so too, whoever possesses the "feet" of affliction is able to travel through every realm, every destiny, and every birth, turning through birth-and-death, while one lacking the "feet" of affliction cannot. Others say: whatever dharma is bound by the fetter of birth-and-death belonging to the desire realm is called bound to the desire realm; whatever is bound by the fetter of birth-and-death belonging to the form or formless realm is called bound to the form or formless realm. Others say: whatever dharma is stored away by the desire realm's own ālaya, and grasped by its own mamāyita, is called bound to the desire realm; whatever is stored away by the form or formless realm's own ālaya, and grasped by its own mamāyita, is called bound to the form or formless realm — "ālaya" here referring to craving, and "mamāyita" referring to views. Others say: whatever dharma is moistened by the desire realm's own craving, and grasped by its own views as "I" or "mine," is called bound to the desire realm; whatever is moistened by the form or formless realm's own craving, and grasped by its own views as "I" or "mine," is called bound to the form or formless realm. Others say: whatever dharma is joined together with the desire realm's own delight and desire is called bound to the desire realm; whatever is joined together with the form or formless realm's own delight and desire is called bound to the form or formless realm — "delight" here referring to craving,

and "desire" referring to views. Others say: whatever dharma is stained by the desire realm's own stain, poisoned by its own poison, and defiled by its own defilement, is called bound to the desire realm; whatever is stained by the form or formless realm's own stain, poisoned by its own poison, and defiled by its own defilement, is called bound to the form or formless realm — here, every affliction alike is called "defilement," not hatred specifically.