The Divine Eye, King Sarvadatta, and a Census of Every Realm

One might ask: when the divine eye becomes present, is the naturally born eye thereby cut off, or not? If it is cut off, how can this be reconciled with the Ābhidharmikas' own refusal to allow that ripening-produced matter, once cut off, can ever resume again? But if it is not cut off, then both the divine eye and the naturally born eye would be seeing forms at once — how could this fail to produce confusion? Answer: it should be said that it is not cut off, since ripening-produced matter, once cut off, never resumes — and it is for this very reason that the Venerable Ghoṣa raised precisely this question: when the divine eye becomes present, should the naturally born eye be said to be cut off, or not cut off? Answer: it should be said to be not cut off — the form realm's own great elements, together with the divine eye they produce, simply become present together at that very same location. One might then ask: if so, how can this fail to produce confusion, with both the divine eye and the naturally born eye seeing forms at once? Answer: when the divine eye arises, the naturally born eye abides as its own similar-class counterpart, and so no fault arises — exactly as, when any other kind of consciousness becomes present, the eye, though not itself cut off, does not thereby see form; the same holds true here. One might then ask: why do the two not see together? Answer: a single body never gives rise to two consciousnesses at once, and at that moment consciousness relies on the divine eye rather than on the naturally born eye. Another position holds that there is form which is not the naturally born eye's own object; the divine eye arises precisely in order to see that form, and so, at that moment, although the naturally born eye is not cut off, it simply has no function to perform, and this is why the two do not see together. Another position holds that the naturally born eye is indeed cut off when the divine eye arises. One might then ask: if so, how could ripening-produced matter, once cut off, ever resume again — would this not contradict the Ābhidharmikas' own position? Answer: cutting-off is of two kinds — temporary cutting-off and final, ultimate cutting-off. What is merely temporarily cut off can indeed resume again; only what is ultimately cut off cannot — hence no fault arises here. Another position holds that, at that moment, the naturally born eye ceases and the divine eye arises, and when the divine eye ceases the naturally born eye arises again — so that the eye-faculty within that body is never, even for an instant, altogether absent, and thus it cannot properly be said to have been "cut off" at all. Another position holds that the naturally born eye is indeed cut off at that moment, and no fault arises even so, since ripening-produced matter, once cut off, genuinely can resume again. How is this known to be so?

As the sūtra itself states: King Sarvadatta immediately raised his own hand and gouged out both his eyes to give to a brahmin, and by the power of his own supreme resolve, his eyes were restored intact. And as another sūtra states: at that time, Evil Conduct gouged out the eye of Good Conduct with an iron hook, and, again by the power of the Bodhisattva's supreme resolve, the eye was restored. The Prajñaptiśāstra states that in the hells there are mountains that crush sentient beings, shattering their bodies utterly, and yet, not long afterward, their faculties are restored again — and there is more than one such instance among the various hells. From this it is known that ripening-produced matter, once cut off, can indeed resume again. On this account, when the divine eye arises the naturally born eye is not extinguished, and there is likewise no sense in which ripening-produced matter, once cut off, resumes again. One might ask: how, then, is the passage already cited to be reconciled? Answer: it is not actually in conflict, since it carries a different meaning altogether. As for what is said of King Sarvadatta, this refers only to the fulfillment of his own intention to give, and it is on that basis that the account is given — in truth, his eyes were never actually gouged out at all. How, then, did the story actually unfold? Long ago, when the Buddha was still a Bodhisattva, he was once a king named Sarvadatta, capable of fulfilling the wishes of anyone who came to him seeking anything at all, and his fame spread throughout the heavens and among humankind alike. Śakra, lord of the gods, hearing of this, reflected to himself:

"this king gives so tirelessly and so generously — is he seeking the highest, unsurpassed awakening, or merely worldly fame, or a heavenly throne? If he seeks a heavenly throne, he may yet become my own rival; I ought to go and test him, to learn the true intention behind his giving." So Śakra transformed himself into the form of a brahmin, wearing a cap, his hair hanging loose, his body wrapped in gold, holding a golden staff, and came before the king, offering this blessing: "may you ever remain honored and supreme." The king said: "Brahmin, what have you come seeking?" He replied: "I have come precisely because I need the king's own eyes." The king offered him eyes made of four precious substances instead, but the brahmin refused, saying: "what use have I now for eyes such as these?" Hearing this, the king at once raised both his hands, intending to gouge out his own eyes.

Seeing that the king's resolve to give was utterly unwavering, Śakra stopped him and said: "what is it you truly seek, that you would give away something so difficult to give? Do you seek the throne of Śakra, of Brahmā, or of Māra? Or worldly fame and homage?" The king replied: "none of these is what I seek — only freedom from birth, old age, sickness, and death, only true and complete awakening, is my one aspiration." Hearing this, the heavenly lord resumed his original form and praised the king, saying: "truly you are a Bodhisattva, and before long you will surely attain unsurpassed awakening." And having spoken these words, he vanished at once. Thus, at that time, the king's eyes were in truth never actually gouged out at all. As for the sūtra concerning Good Conduct and Evil Conduct that was also cited, Good Conduct's own eye-faculty retained a further seed even then, and it was through the fulfillment of a supreme resolve, surpassing what had come before, that it was restored — and the same explanation applies equally to the case described among the various hells: without some further seed remaining, nothing could ever be regenerated at all.

It is for this reason that ripening-produced matter, once cut off, has no way of resuming again — and it follows from this that, when the divine eye is present, the naturally born eye is not cut off.

One might ask: for one who cultivates the divine eye while born in the desire realm, does the divine eye likewise arise for one born in the form realm? One position holds that it does not, since in the form realm the naturally born eye already sees exactly as much as the cultivated eye ever could, with no distinct additional function for the cultivated eye to perform, and so it does not arise there. Another position holds that it does indeed arise and become present there. One might then ask: what further use could there be in its arising, given that the naturally born eye already accomplishes the very same seeing? Answer: it arises in order to indulge one's mastery of supernormal wisdom for its own sake; moreover, the intermediate-state body is not an object the naturally born eye can ever see, and so the divine eye arises specifically in order to observe the distinctive features of the intermediate state. One might then ask: which is superior — the divine eye cultivated while born in the desire realm, or the one cultivated while born in the form realm? Answer: the one arising in the desire realm is superior in its own sharpness — the divine eye arising for a Buddha, a solitary buddha, or a supreme śrāvaka is exceptionally sharp in its function, sharper than anything that could ever become present through birth in the form realm. The one arising in the form realm is superior in what it depends upon — since the body it relies upon there is vast and exceptionally excellent, the divine eye that arises from it is composed of very many atomic particles, of a kind that could never arise within the desire realm at all. Thus each of the two arisings carries its own superiority and its own inferiority, each in a different respect.

One might ask: what distinguishes the cultivated divine eye from the naturally born eye? Answer: in name alone they already differ, one being called the "divine eye" and the other the "naturally born eye."

Another position holds that their very substance also differs — the naturally born eye possesses both its own similar-class counterpart and a dissimilar counterpart, whereas the cultivated divine eye possesses only its own similar-class counterpart; moreover, the naturally born eye may be either nourished-and-grown or ripening-produced, whereas the cultivated divine eye is only ever nourished-and-grown. Another position holds that their causes also differ —

namely, the naturally born eye is the fruit of karma, whereas the cultivated divine eye is the fruit of cultivation. One might ask: is the naturally born eye not itself also, in part, a fruit of cultivation? Answer: a portion of it is indeed a fruit of cultivation, and a portion is the ripening-fruit of naturally-born wisdom, whereas the divine eye is solely a fruit of cultivation. Another position holds that the divine eye only ever becomes present through the power of effortful preparatory application and attention, whereas the naturally born eye does not. Another position holds that their fruits also differ — the naturally born eye serves as basis for wholesome, defiled, or neutral consciousness alike, whereas the cultivated divine eye serves as basis only for neutral consciousness. Another position holds that their objects also differ — the naturally born eye cannot see the intermediate state, whereas the cultivated divine eye can. Another position holds that their function also differs — the cultivated divine eye's function, compared to the naturally born eye's, is blazing, subtle, and supremely excellent, pure, bright, swift, and fine, and it is on these grounds that the distinction is drawn. One might ask: how many resultant supernormal powers can arise within a single thought-moment? Those who hold that there is no transformation-work left lingering behind, and that the divine eye and divine ear have no similar-class counterpart, hold that within a single thought-moment only a single resultant supernormal power ever arises — namely, whichever one of the five penetrations happens to be in play. Those who hold that there can be lingering transformation-work, yet that the divine eye and divine ear still have no similar-class counterpart, hold that within a single thought-moment two resultant supernormal powers can arise — namely, the resultant power of supernormal locomotion together with whichever one of the remaining four happens to be in play.

Those who hold that there can be lingering transformation-work, and that the divine eye and divine ear do have a similar-class counterpart, hold that within a single thought-moment four resultant supernormal powers can arise — namely, the resultant power of supernormal locomotion, the divine eye, the divine ear, and whichever one of the remaining two happens to be in play, namely the knowledge of others' minds or the knowledge of recollecting past abodes, since their respective objects are each separate and distinct and cannot arise together. On this account, it is this second position that should be understood as correct, since transformation-work can indeed be left lingering, while the divine eye and divine ear fixedly have no similar-class counterpart at all, becoming present only precisely at the moment they are actually put to use.

One might ask: the desire realm's own transformed forms are of four kinds, corresponding respectively to the fruits of the first through fourth dhyānas — can the divine eye obtained in dependence on the first dhyāna see all four of these kinds of form at once? One position holds that it can see all four, since every one of them belongs equally to the desire realm's own domain of visible form. Another position holds that it sees only the fruit of the first dhyāna and none of the others, since a cause's own superiority ought to be matched by an equally restricted object. The divine eye obtained in dependence on the second dhyāna can see the fruits of the first and second dhyānas alone and none of the others; the divine eye obtained in dependence on the third dhyāna can see the fruits of the first three dhyānas alone; and the divine eye obtained in dependence on the fourth dhyāna can see the fruits of all four dhyānas at once. On this latter account, the first position ought to be understood as correct — the divine eye obtained in dependence on the first dhyāna can see the desire realm's own first-dhyāna-level forms, and so on, up through the divine eye obtained in dependence on the fourth dhyāna being able to see the desire realm's own fourth-dhyāna-level forms. One might ask: given that the divine eye obtained in dependence on the fourth dhyāna can see the desire realm's own forms belonging to all four dhyāna-levels at once, does the very same eye that sees the desire realm's own form also see the forms of the other levels, or does it instead give rise to a separate eye for each different level's forms? If the very same eye that sees the desire realm's own form also sees the forms of the other levels, how could a single eye possibly see both coarse and subtle objects at once? And if it instead gives rise to a separate eye for each different level's forms, then the fourth-dhyāna divine eye ought to be of five distinct kinds, each seeing only the form belonging to its own single level — in which case it ought not to be said that a single level's divine eye takes all five levels as its object at all. Some hold that it is indeed the very same eye that sees the desire realm's own form that also sees the forms of the other levels. One might then ask: how could a single eye possibly see both coarse and subtle objects at once? Answer: no fault arises here at all — exactly as, in looking at a great mountain, one sees both coarse and subtle forms simultaneously, seeing coarse form as one sees a great tree with a thousand branches and subtle form as one sees the fine grass growing between them, so too, what fault could there be in a single fourth-dhyāna eye seeing the forms of all five levels at once? Other masters hold instead that the eye seeing the desire realm's own form differs from the eye seeing each of the other levels' forms in turn. One might then ask: if so, would the fourth-dhyāna divine eye not then have to be of five distinct kinds, each seeing only the form of its own single level — in which case it ought not to be said that a single level's divine eye takes all five levels as its object? Answer: there is no fault even in holding that a single level's divine eye comprises five distinct kinds, since, considered by way of level and category, one can still speak comprehensively of a single eye taking all five levels as its object, without this in any way denying that what is actually seen within each differs from case to case — exactly as explained in the Concentration Aggregate. "The divine eye drawn from the first dhyāna — at its very furthest reach, what realm's own form can it see?" Answer: up to and including whatever is bound to the Brahmā-world. "The divine eye drawn from the second dhyāna — at its very furthest reach, what realm's own form can it see?"

Answer: up to and including whatever is bound to the Ābhāsvara heaven. "The divine eye drawn from the third dhyāna — at its very furthest reach, what realm's own form can it see?" Answer: up to and including whatever is bound to the Śubhakṛtsna heaven. "The divine eye drawn from the fourth dhyāna — at its very furthest reach, what realm's own form can it see?" Answer: up to and including whatever is bound to the Bṛhatphala heaven. One might ask: and how far laterally can it see? One position holds it is exactly the same as its upward reach; another holds that lateral sight actually extends further still. On this account, that passage speaks only of the upper boundary and says nothing at all about lateral objects — lateral sight, depending on the strength of the underlying faculty, remains genuinely indeterminate, sometimes reaching further and sometimes not, exactly as explained elsewhere.

The Prajñaptiśāstra states: just as the Heaven of the Four Great Kings can, through wisdom and through sight, fully understand human beings, while human beings cannot do the same in return toward the Heaven of the Four Great Kings — except for one who has attained cultivation, supernormal power, or the assistance of another's power — so too, up through the Heaven of Controlling Others' Emanations in relation to human beings, the very same pattern holds. One might ask: since the Heaven of the Four Great Kings and the like also fall within a human being's own visual range, being bound to the very same realm, why can they not be seen? Answer: it is simply because they lie at too great a distance; should one obtain supernormal power, one could indeed travel there and see them oneself, or, through another's power, be brought there and observe them. One might ask: could such a heavenly being, coming here, then see a human being? Answer: yes, it could — and if so, why does that passage not mention this case? Answer: because its own visual range there is comparatively small, it goes unmentioned; furthermore, this case is already implicitly included under "the assistance of another's power," and so is not separately stated. That same treatise further states: just as the Brahmā-Multitude Heaven can, through wisdom and through sight, fully understand human beings, while human beings cannot do the same in return — except for one who has attained cultivation, supernormal power, or the assistance of another's power — so too, up through the Akaniṣṭha heaven in relation to human beings, the very same pattern holds. One might ask: as for that treatise's excepting "one who has attained cultivation," this much is understandable — but how can it also except one with supernormal power or the assistance of another's power? For even one who reaches that heaven through supernormal power or another's assistance still cannot see it without the divine eye, while one who possesses the divine eye can see it even without ever reaching that heaven at all. Answer: that passage ought properly to have excepted only "one who has attained cultivation," and as for why it further adds these other two exceptions as well, there is a separate consideration behind it — it is speaking specifically with reference to the Brahmā-heavens and the like of other, distant world-systems, whose own forms are likewise the very object of the divine eye drawn from this world's own first dhyāna and so forth, yet which lie at too great a distance to be seen even by one who has already obtained that divine eye, unless one possesses supernormal power oneself or is brought there through another's power, at which point the divine eye can finally be used to see them.

Excepting "one who has attained cultivation" reveals the case of one who has obtained the divine eye; the latter two clauses reveal the causal means of actually reaching that place — hence what that treatise states carries this separate consideration behind it. That same Prajñaptiśāstra further states: within the first dhyāna there are three heavenly abodes — the Brahmā-Multitude, the Brahmā-Purohita, and the Great Brahmā. One might ask: can these three heavens see one another? Answer: they can see one another. One might ask: how, then, is what the sūtra states to be reconciled — namely, that the Great Brahmā possesses a body such as that of a young boy, which lies beyond the Brahmā-Multitude Heaven's own visual range? Answer: it does indeed fall within their visual range, yet the Great Brahmā, through his own supernormal power, screens himself so that they cannot see him. Within the second dhyāna there are three heavenly abodes — the Lesser Light, the Immeasurable Light, and the Radiant Light. One might ask: can these three heavens see one another? Answer: they can see one another. Within the third dhyāna there are three heavenly abodes — the Lesser Purity, the Immeasurable Purity, and the Universal Purity. One might ask: can these three heavens see one another? Answer: they can see one another. Within the fourth dhyāna there are eight heavenly abodes — the Cloudless, the Merit-Born, the Vast Fruit, the Not-Falling, the Without-Heat, the Well-Appearing, the Well-Seeing, and the Akaniṣṭha. One might ask: can these eight heavens see one another? Answer: they can see one another, all being bound alike to the very same realm.

The Dharma-Aggregate treatise states: around the eye there is at times a portion where the form realm's own great elements produce the divine eye, purely and presently manifest — and through this divine eye one can see the distinctive forms lying in front, behind, to the left, to the right, below, and above. Seeing what lies in front, behind, to the left, and to the right means that one is not obstructed by walls of stone and the like; seeing what lies below means that one is not obstructed by earth or water and the like; seeing what lies above means that one is not obstructed by cloud or mist and the like. One might ask: can this divine eye see the forms of all ten directions all at once, in a single instant? One position holds that it can, since the divine eye's own faculty, luminous and utterly clear, naturally radiates in every direction at once, exactly as a maṇi-jewel radiates its light on every side without exception. Another position holds that it cannot see them all at once, in a single instant. One might then ask: how, then, is the Dharma-Aggregate's own statement to be reconciled? Answer: that passage speaks only of there being no obstruction in any direction — it does not claim that all directions are seen simultaneously, in a single instant. An ordinary eye, such as a human being's, can only ever observe whatever lies directly in the direction it faces; to see anything in another direction, one must turn, look up, or look down before seeing it. The divine eye is not like this — facing in a single direction, it can see wherever it wishes without needing to turn at all, and it is on this basis that it is said to "see" in every direction above and below — not that all ten directions are seen at one and the same instant.

Some hold that seeing occurs through the purity of mind itself. One might ask: this "purity" that is spoken of is simply faith, a mental factor associated with mind — this is not itself the substance of seeing at all, so how could it enable seeing? Answer: this is spoken with implicit reference to the mental faculty's own freedom from turbulence — when the mental faculty does not scatter outward and is free of every turbulence, it enables the eye-faculty to see form with genuine clarity, and it is on this basis that the statement is made. Some hold that seeing occurs through resolute conviction. One might ask: this "resolute conviction" that is spoken of is likewise a mental factor associated with mind — this too is not itself the substance of seeing, so how could it enable seeing? Answer: this is established with reference to the yogin's own settled intention — a yogin generates precisely this intention, wishing that in a single thought-moment he might see the forms of all ten directions; yet what actually accomplishes the seeing of form is not resolute conviction itself. Moreover, the Prajñaptiśāstra states as follows: whoever now abides in the attainment of the totality of blue, upon rising from that attainment, sees everything as blue;

and, having dwelt for a long time within a forest of blue trees, one who then emerges into some other place likewise sees everything there as blue — and it is on this basis that the statement "seeing occurs through resolute conviction" is made. Some hold that the human eye-faculty is itself simply transformed into the divine eye, thereby becoming capable of seeing without obstruction — this is the position established by the Sāṃkhya heretics. They hold that the divine eye that arises is simply the human eye itself, made luminous and pure through repeated cultivation, surpassing its former state, and given the name "divine" on that basis — exactly as, in central India, one who walks amid a forest of blue trees may, after ten days, or through however much repeated exposure, come to see everything one looks upon as blue; cultivating the divine eye, on their account, works in just the same way. But if this were so, then one born blind ought never to be able to cultivate this divine penetration at all — yet this directly contradicts both the noble teaching and what is plainly observed. Moreover, if a dharma is impermanent, how could it ever simply "transform" into something else? Every divine eye is said to be entirely "non-resistant," since walls of stone and the like can never obstruct it. One might ask: with regard to whatever form the divine eye sees, is there any resistance there or not? If there is resistance, why is it called "non-resistant"? And if there is no resistance, how could it possibly come to rest upon that form at all? Answer: with regard to whatever form it sees, resistance should indeed be affirmed. One might then ask: if so, why is it called "non-resistant"? Answer: "resistance" is of two kinds — resistance as object, and resistance as obstruction. Considered as resistance-as-object, the divine eye may indeed be called "resistant," since it can never exceed its own proper objective range; considered as resistance-as-obstruction, the divine eye is called "non-resistant," since walls of stone and the like can never obstruct it. This distinction is drawn strictly with reference to its functioning upon its object; considered purely in terms of its own substance, it too belongs to the class of resistance-as-obstruction, being itself composed of atomic particles. Moreover, among the various objects within a divine eye's own range, a yogin retains a genuine mastery, freely choosing what to see — toward whatever he wishes to see, there is resistance; toward whatever he does not wish to see, there is no resistance at all.

Every divine eye's own light is intensified and drawn forth by its own supernormal light. One might ask: when the divine eye wishes to see form within darkness, how can it manage to see at all? Some hold that this occurs because the supernormal power itself draws forth a light by which that form is seen — but this cannot be correct, since, prior to actually obtaining supernormal power, one would then be altogether unable to cultivate the divine eye in the first place. The correct position holds instead: at the very first drawing forth of the penetration, if one is apart from light one cannot see form; but once the penetration reaches its full completion, even apart from light one can still see form. One might ask: both supernormal power and the divine eye involve light — what, then, distinguishes them? Answer: supernormal power's own light may be either intrinsic or produced through transformation, whereas the divine eye's own light is only ever intrinsic. Some hold instead that the divine eye's own light may be either intrinsic or produced through transformation, whereas supernormal power's own light is only ever produced through transformation.

Throughout the sūtras and the Vinaya alike, it is said that the Bodhisattva possesses a ripening-produced divine eye, capable of seeing, day and night alike, to a distance of one yojana in every direction. One might ask: what the Bodhisattva possesses as a ripening-produced eye is in truth not actually the divine eye at all — why, then, is this name given to it? Answer: because the Bodhisattva's own eye-faculty, in both substance and function, is so exceptionally excellent, the world's own custom of borrowing the term "divine" for anything exceptional is applied here as well. One might ask: other sentient beings, too, are capable of seeing distant objects — mountains, the sun, the moon, and the like — while the Bodhisattva sees only to a distance of one yojana in every direction; how, then, can this be called superior at all? Answer: whatever those other beings are capable of seeing, the Bodhisattva is likewise capable of seeing to that same distance of one yojana in every direction — this is stated specifically with reference to the case of an unobstructed view. That is to say, in an unobstructed location, other sentient beings can indeed see far, yet in an obstructed location they cannot even see an object resting in the palm of their own hand — whereas the Bodhisattva is not like this, seeing thoroughly and completely to a distance of one yojana in every direction, in both obstructed and unobstructed locations alike. Moreover, although other sentient beings can see far, they see only coarse objects, never fine ones,

whereas the Bodhisattva is not like this, seeing clearly even down to the very tip of a single hair, to that same distance of one yojana in every direction. Moreover, although other sentient beings can see far, they see only by day, never by night, whereas the Bodhisattva is not like this, seeing equally by day and by night, to that same distance of one yojana in every direction. Another position holds that, compared to whatever distance other sentient beings can see, the Bodhisattva's own range simply exceeds it by one further yojana — and it is on this basis that the statement is made. One might ask: given that the Bodhisattva possesses eyes as pure and penetrating as these, capable of seeing that a woman's body is filled through and through with impurity, for what reason, then, did he still engage in acts of sensual attachment? The Venerable Vasumitra says: the Bodhisattva's own afflictions were not yet severed, not yet fully known for what they are, and so he remained, even then, deluded by his own ignorance — one should not press the question further, exactly as one would not think to interrogate someone ignorant or blind for having fallen into a pit. Another position holds that, at the very moment of the Bodhisattva's own sensual attachment, he simply was not contemplating impurity, and whenever he did contemplate impurity, he was not, at that same moment, engaged in attachment. Another position holds that the Bodhisattva, in some former life, had planted the karmic seed of a supremely excellent capacity for enjoyment, such that whatever he did come to enjoy, he simply did not perceive as impure, while whatever he did not come to enjoy, he did perceive as impure. On this last account, the Bodhisattva possessed a keen and penetrating wisdom, skilled at discerning the precise difference between virtue and fault — and since a woman's body, too, may genuinely possess both virtues and faults at once, whenever the Bodhisattva contemplated such virtues, he surpassed every being still attached to desire in doing so, and whenever he contemplated such faults, he surpassed every practitioner of the contemplation of impurity in doing so — and it was through contemplating those very virtues that attachment could still arise.

One might ask: to what distance can a Wheel-Turning King's own eyes see? Answer: a king who rules over all four continents can see, in every direction, to a distance of four krośas; a king who rules over only a single continent can see, in every direction, to a distance of one krośa. One might ask: to what distance can a treasurer-minister's own eyes see? Answer: the treasurer-minister of a king ruling four continents can see three krośas; the treasurer-minister of a king ruling a single continent can see half a krośa. As the sūtra itself relates: a Wheel-Turning King, once wishing to test the extent of his treasurer's own power, went boating for pleasure upon the river Gaṅgā, and commanded his treasurer, saying, "I now require treasure." The minister respectfully assented, asking that he be allowed to withdraw and prepare it. The king, displeased, said, "I require it this very instant." The treasurer, alarmed, at once plunged both his hands into the water and stirred it about, and immediately drew forth every manner of precious jewel to present to the king, saying further, "take whatever you require, my lord, and whatever you do not require I shall return to the water." One might ask: since the Wheel-Turning King's own eyes are superior even to his treasurer's, why did he not simply retrieve the treasure himself, rather than having his minister do so? Answer: it is simply the proper manner for one who is honored and supreme to act in this way — exactly as other venerable elders, though perfectly capable of knowing for themselves where their own food, clothing, and requisites are kept, still do not retrieve these things with their own hands; the same principle applies here as well. Other masters hold instead that every Wheel-Turning King has, across former lives, accumulated the specific karma that draws attendant ministers to himself, and that this karma has now come to fruition — so that whatever he requires, an attendant is always on hand to provide it, and were the king to retrieve such things himself, that very karma would go to waste. One might then ask, since one question naturally gives rise to another: what, precisely, is this karma that draws attendant ministers to a Wheel-Turning King? Answer: honoring one's parents and teachers, following their instruction in accordance with the Dharma without ever transgressing it — this is precisely that karma; whoever has previously cultivated karma of this kind will draw to himself many attendants, each ready to fulfill whatever he desires. One might ask: it has been heard that a certain stretch of the river Gaṅgā's own water reaches a depth of one full yojana — how, then, could the treasurer's hand possibly have reached its very bottom to retrieve those jewels? Answer: it was through the overwhelming power of the Wheel-Turning King's own karma that the treasure was made to rise upward of its own accord. Another position holds that yakṣas, gandharvas, and the like brought the treasure and placed it in his hands. Another position holds that ten thousand divine spirits perpetually attend upon the treasurer-minister, serving him, and it was they who brought the treasure and placed it in his hands. One might ask: why did the treasurer declare to the king that whatever was not required would be returned to the water? Answer: to make manifest the inconceivable nature of the king's own karmic fruit — whatever is required can be obtained wherever one happens to be, quite unlike ordinary beings, who, fearing for their own life and its necessities, must accumulate and store up provisions over a long span of time.

One might ask: how many world-systems can the divine eye of a śrāvaka, a solitary buddha, or a Buddha each see? Answer: a śrāvaka's divine eye, without any effortful preparatory application, sees a small thousand-world-system; with effortful preparatory application, it sees a medium thousand-world-system. A solitary buddha's divine eye, without any effortful preparatory application, sees a medium thousand-world-system; with effortful preparatory application, it sees a great thousand-world-system. The World-Honored One's own divine eye, without any effortful preparatory application, sees a great thousand-world-system; with effortful preparatory application, it can see immeasurable, boundless world-systems without limit. The divine ear and the other supernormal penetrations follow this very same pattern.

"How many faculties are possessed in the hells, and so on, as stated at length?" One might ask: why does this passage speak only of the very greatest and the very least number possessed, and not of every intermediate position as well? Answer: the composer of this treatise simply intended it so, and so on, as explained at length before. Another position holds that this is meant to avoid the fault of an unwieldy, jumbled text — were every intermediate position spelled out in full, the text would become so cluttered as to be genuinely unmanageable to master, and it is for this reason that only the outer boundaries, greatest and least, are given. "How many faculties are possessed in the hells? And so on, up through: how many faculties are possessed by animals, and by each of the eight kinds of noble persons from the faith-follower through the one liberated in both respects?" Answer: in the hells, the greatest number is nineteen and the least is eight. The nineteen are every faculty except the three uncontaminated ones — that is, the seven form-faculties in full, for one whose wholesome roots remain unsevered. The eight are the body-, life-, and mind-faculties together with the five feeling-faculties — that is, for one who has already lost the other six form-faculties and has severed the wholesome roots. Among animals, the greatest number is nineteen and the least is thirteen. The nineteen are every faculty except the three uncontaminated ones, that is, one who possesses all seven form-faculties; the thirteen are the body-, life-, and mind-faculties, the five feeling-faculties, and faith with its four companions — that is, one gradually approaching death who has already relinquished the other six form-faculties. Exactly as with animals, so too with the realm of hungry ghosts. Among those who have severed their wholesome roots, the greatest number is thirteen and the least is eight. The thirteen are every faculty except one of the sexual faculties, and except faith with its four companions and the three uncontaminated faculties; the eight are the body-, life-, and mind-faculties together with the five feeling-faculties — that is, one gradually approaching death, or already within the hells, who has already lost the other six form-faculties. Among those fixed in the wrong-destiny group, the greatest number is nineteen and the least is eight — the nineteen exactly as described for the hells' own greatest number, the eight exactly as described for the least number among those who have severed their wholesome roots, having already lost the six form-faculties while in the hells. Among those fixed in the correct-destiny group, the greatest number is nineteen and the least is eleven — the nineteen being every faculty except one of the sexual faculties and the two uncontaminated knowledge-faculties, that is, a noble one whose faculties remain unimpaired and who has not yet become free of desire, the eleven being the life-, mind-, and three feeling-faculties, faith with its four companions, and one uncontaminated faculty — that is, a noble one born in the formless realm. Among those fixed in neither group, the greatest number is nineteen and the least is eight, exactly as described for the wrong-destiny group's own greatest number, and for the severed-wholesome-roots group's own least number, together with those born in the formless realm. An ordinary being possesses the life-, mind-, and equanimity-faculties, together with faith and its four companions. In Jambudvīpa, the greatest number is nineteen and the least is eight. The nineteen are those of dual sexual form, excepting the three uncontaminated faculties, together with noble ones not yet free of desire, excepting one of the sexual faculties and the two uncontaminated knowledge-faculties; the eight are the body-, life-, and mind-faculties together with the five feeling-faculties — that is, one who has severed the wholesome roots and is gradually approaching death, exactly as in Jambudvīpa. Videha and Godānīya are exactly the same. Uttarakuru's greatest number is eighteen and its least is thirteen. The eighteen are every faculty except one of the sexual faculties and the three uncontaminated ones; the thirteen are the body-, life-, and mind-faculties, the five feeling-faculties, and faith with its four companions — that is, one gradually approaching death, since that continent has no emasculated men, paṇḍakas, those without genital form, those of dual form, those who have severed their wholesome roots, and none fixed in the wrong-destiny group, the correct-destiny group, or already free of contamination. Among the Heaven of the Four Great Kings, the greatest number is nineteen and the least is seventeen. The nineteen are every faculty except one of the sexual faculties and the two uncontaminated knowledge-faculties, that is, noble ones not yet free of desire; the seventeen are every faculty except one of the sexual faculties, the displeasure-faculty, and the three uncontaminated faculties, that is, ordinary beings already free of desire. Exactly as with the Heaven of the Four Great Kings, so too with the Heaven of the Thirty-Three, up through the Heaven of Controlling Others' Emanations. The Brahmā-Multitude Heaven's greatest number is sixteen and its least is fifteen. The sixteen exclude the two sexual faculties, two of the feeling-faculties, and the two uncontaminated knowledge-faculties —

that is, noble ones there; the fifteen exclude the two sexual faculties, two of the feeling-faculties, and all three uncontaminated faculties — that is, ordinary beings there. Exactly as with the Brahmā-Multitude Heaven,

so too with the Ābhāsvara heaven. The Śubhakṛtsna heaven's greatest number is sixteen, exactly as already described, and its least is fourteen — excluding the two sexual faculties, three of the feeling-faculties, and all three uncontaminated faculties — that is, ordinary beings there. The Bṛhatphala heaven's greatest number is sixteen,

exactly as already described, and its least is thirteen — excluding the two sexual faculties, four of the feeling-faculties, and all three uncontaminated faculties — that is, ordinary beings there. The intermediate state's greatest number is nineteen and its least is thirteen. The nineteen are those of dual sexual form, excepting the three uncontaminated faculties, together with noble ones not yet free of desire, excepting one of the sexual faculties and the two uncontaminated knowledge-faculties; the thirteen are those who have severed their wholesome roots, excepting one of the sexual faculties, faith with its four companions, and the three uncontaminated faculties, together with ordinary beings of the Bṛhatphala heaven, excepting the two sexual faculties, four of the feeling-faculties, and all three uncontaminated faculties. Every one of the formless realms has a greatest number of eleven and a least of eight.

The eleven are the life-, mind-, and three feeling-faculties, faith with its four companions, and one uncontaminated faculty — that is, noble ones there; the eight are the life-, mind-, and equanimity-faculties, together with faith and its four companions — that is, ordinary beings there. Among faith-followers, the greatest number is nineteen and the least is thirteen. The nineteen exclude one of the sexual faculties and the two uncontaminated knowledge-faculties — that is, one who has not yet become free of desire and now abides on the path of seeing; the thirteen are the body-, life-, and mind-faculties, the four feeling-faculties, faith with its four companions, and one uncontaminated faculty —

that is, one who has already become free of desire, gradually approaching death, and who now enters the path of seeing. One might ask: why is it that this particular position can enter the path of seeing at all? Answer: this is precisely the craving-inclined type, who throughout an entire lifetime remains ever wearied by birth-and-death, and, when the very moment of death arrives, is struck by painful feeling, and it is this very weariness, intensifying all the more, that makes it possible to enter the path of seeing.

Exactly as with faith-followers, so too with dharma-followers. Among those resolved through faith, the greatest number is nineteen and the least is eleven. The nineteen exclude one of the sexual faculties and the two uncontaminated knowledge-faculties — that is, one resolved through faith who is not yet free of desire; the eleven are the life-, mind-, and three feeling-faculties, faith with its four companions, and one uncontaminated faculty — that is, one resolved through faith born in the formless realm. Exactly as with those resolved through faith, so too with those who have attained right view. Among those who have realized the body, the greatest number is eighteen and the least is eleven. The eighteen exclude one of the sexual faculties, the displeasure-faculty, and the two uncontaminated knowledge-faculties — that is, one who has realized the body while still in the desire realm; the eleven are exactly as described for the least number among those resolved through faith. Exactly as with those who have realized the body, so too with those liberated through wisdom and those liberated in both respects, except that one who has realized the body possesses the already-known faculty, while the two kinds liberated possess the faculty of complete knowledge.

"When the eye-faculty through the wisdom-faculty each reach full and exhaustive knowledge, how many faculties reach full and exhaustive knowledge at that same moment?" Answer: when the eye-faculty reaches full and exhaustive knowledge, this extends up to the point of becoming free from the contamination of form — at that point, five faculties reach full and exhaustive knowledge. Full and exhaustive knowledge here means this is the very fruit of that faculty's own craving having been cut off; the five faculties said to reach full and exhaustive knowledge are named because the eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body faculties are all permanently cut off precisely when one becomes free from the contamination of form. Although thirteen faculties are, in some sense, cut off at that very stage, only these five ever reach a truly final, ultimate cutting-off there. Exactly as with the eye-faculty, so too with the ear, nose, tongue, and body faculties. When the female faculty reaches full and exhaustive knowledge, this extends up to the point of becoming free from the contamination of desire — at that point, four faculties reach full and exhaustive knowledge.

These are the male, female, displeasure, and pain faculties. Although nineteen faculties are, in some sense, cut off at that very stage, only these four ever reach a truly final, ultimate cutting-off there. Exactly as with the female faculty, so too with the male, pain, and displeasure faculties. When the life-faculty reaches full and exhaustive knowledge, this extends up to the point of becoming free from the contamination of the formless realm — at that point, eight faculties reach full and exhaustive knowledge —

namely, the life-, mind-, and equanimity-faculties, and faith with its four companions. Exactly as with the life-faculty, so too with the mind-, equanimity-, and faith-faculties and its four companions. When the pleasure-faculty reaches full and exhaustive knowledge,

this extends up to the point of becoming free from the contamination of the Śubhakṛtsna heaven, at which point the pleasure-faculty itself reaches full and exhaustive knowledge. When the joy-faculty reaches full and exhaustive knowledge, this extends up to the point of becoming free from the contamination of the Ābhāsvara heaven, at which point the joy-faculty itself reaches full and exhaustive knowledge.

"When the eye-faculty through the wisdom-faculty each reach cessation and are realized, how many faculties reach cessation and are realized at that same moment?" Answer: when the eye-faculty reaches cessation and is realized, this extends up to the point of becoming free from the contamination of form — at that point, five faculties reach cessation and are realized; extending up to arhatship, nineteen faculties reach cessation and are realized. The five are the eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body faculties; the nineteen are every faculty except the three uncontaminated ones. Exactly as with the eye-faculty, so too with the ear, nose, tongue, and body faculties. When the female faculty reaches cessation and is realized, this extends up to the point of becoming free from the contamination of desire — at that point, four faculties reach cessation and are realized; extending up to arhatship, nineteen faculties reach cessation and are realized. The four are the male, female, displeasure, and pain faculties; the nineteen are exactly as already described. Exactly as with the female faculty, so too with the male, pain, and displeasure faculties. When the life-faculty reaches cessation and is realized, this extends up to arhatship —

at which point nineteen faculties reach cessation and are realized, exactly as already described. Exactly as with the life-faculty, so too with the mind-, equanimity-, and faith-faculties and its four companions. When the pleasure-faculty reaches cessation and is realized,

this extends up to the point of becoming free from the contamination of the Śubhakṛtsna heaven, at which point the pleasure-faculty itself reaches cessation and is realized; extending up to arhatship, nineteen faculties reach cessation and are realized, exactly as already described. One might ask: what is the distinction between these two gateways — full and exhaustive knowledge, and cessation together with realization? Answer: some hold that the uninterrupted path is what cuts off the fettered obtaining, while the path of liberation realizes the obtaining of freedom from fetters — for these, the full-knowledge gateway corresponds to the very function of the uninterrupted path, and the cessation-and-realization gateway corresponds to the very function of the path of liberation. Others hold that the uninterrupted path both cuts off the fettered obtaining and also realizes the obtaining of freedom from fetters — for these, the full-knowledge gateway corresponds to the cutting-off of the fettered obtaining, while the cessation-and-realization gateway corresponds to the realizing of the obtaining of freedom from fetters — and just as the fettered obtaining is cut off while the freedom-from-fetters obtaining is realized, so too, in just the same way, should be understood the removing of fault and the cultivating of virtue, the abandoning of what is inferior and the realizing of what is sublime, the relinquishing of what is meaningless and the obtaining of what is meaningful, and the exhausting of craving's own oil so as to receive the bliss of one no longer feverish with desire.

Others hold that the full-knowledge gateway corresponds to what is not yet cut off becoming cut off, while the cessation-and-realization gateway corresponds to what is not yet realized becoming realized.

Others hold that the full-knowledge gateway corresponds to the very first realization, while the cessation-and-realization gateway corresponds to a renewed, subsequent realization. Others hold that the full-knowledge gateway corresponds to the realization occurring precisely at the moment of cutting-off, while the cessation-and-realization gateway corresponds to the realization occurring once the cutting-off has already been completed. This, then, is the full range of distinctions between full-and-exhaustive-knowledge and cessation-and-realization.