Two Mindless Attainments, Fully Compared

One might ask: what is the intrinsic nature of the attainment of no-perception? Answer: the formations aggregate dissociated from mind constitutes its intrinsic nature, since it is included within that aggregate. As for its realm, it is bound to the form realm.

As for its ground, it is found within the fundamental fourth dhyāna. One might ask: why do the lower grounds not possess this attainment? Answer: they are simply not the fitting field or vessel for it, and so on, as explained at length before. Moreover, the attainment of no-perception extinguishes mind and mental factors, and the lower grounds are simply not conducive to such an extinguishing. One might then ask: why is the fourth dhyāna conducive to the extinguishing of mind and mental factors, while the lower grounds are not? Answer: whoever wishes to enter this attainment first gives rise to a wholesome desire-realm mind, then enters the first dhyāna, then the second, then the third, and only afterward the fourth; and within the fourth dhyāna itself, moving from its superior grade of mind to its middling grade, and from its middling grade to its inferior grade, it is precisely the severing of this inferior grade of mind that constitutes entry into the attainment of no-perception — exactly as a woman spinning thread from raw wool first removes the coarser strands and spins only the finer ones, until, as the very last of the wool runs out, she finally snaps it off with her own hand. Entering the attainment of no-perception should be understood in just the same way —

moving from coarse to fine, until finally extinguished altogether — and it is for this reason that this attainment is found only within the fourth dhyāna. Moreover, every lower ground carries feelings of joy and displeasure whose own aspect is coarse and agitated, difficult to bring to a final halt, whereas the fourth dhyāna alone carries only the neutral feeling, whose own aspect is subtle, and thus easy to bring to a final cutting-off — and it is for this reason that the lower grounds lack the attainment of no-perception. One might ask: why does the formless realm also lack this attainment? Answer: only ordinary beings, mistakenly holding the view that this attainment constitutes the very extinguishing-nirvāṇa itself, actually cultivate it as such — yet the formless realm possesses no ripening-fruit of no-perception for such an ordinary being to mistake it for, and so the attainment of no-perception is likewise absent there. Moreover, every ordinary being fears utter annihilation, and since the formless realm's own dharmas are already formless, extinguishing mind there as well would seem, to such a being, tantamount to complete annihilation itself — precisely what such a being most dreads — and it is for this reason that the formless realm lacks the attainment of no-perception. One might ask: where, exactly, can this attainment of no-perception arise? One position holds that it arises only in the desire realm, since the desire-realm mind's own force is especially keen and powerful.

Another position holds that it can arise throughout the desire realm and the first three dhyānas alike, since the lingering power of a preparatory effort once cultivated in memory can likewise bring it forth. Still another position holds that it can arise even within the fourth dhyāna itself, excepting only the no-perception heaven — lest cause and its own ripening-fruit press too closely upon one another, since a being who dies out of that very attainment would otherwise have to be reborn straight back into the desire realm from which it came. One might ask: who, exactly, gives rise to this attainment of no-perception? Answer: only ordinary beings give rise to it, since it is brought about through the perception of transcendence, and noble ones, already free of any conditioned dharma's own claim to genuine transcendence, never form such a perception at all. One might ask: once this attainment has been given rise to, can one who has given rise to it still enter the path of seeing afterward? One position holds that one cannot, since this attainment belongs specifically to ordinary beings — for if one who has given rise to this attainment could still enter the path of seeing afterward, there would then exist noble ones who possess this attainment, and it could no longer properly be called an "ordinary being's attainment" at all. Another position holds that one who has given rise to this attainment can indeed still enter the path of seeing afterward. One might then ask: if so, how can it still be called an "ordinary being's attainment"? Answer: although a noble one may indeed possess it, such a noble one never actually brings it into active function again — it is with reference to active function that it is called an "ordinary being's attainment." It is for this very reason that the Venerable Ghoṣa states: a person who has obtained this attainment and who then proves capable of entering the fixed state of correct destiny should be said to have relinquished this attainment, since, having grown utterly wearied of it, that person never again brings it into active function; and, at the end of that life, such a person is reborn into the fourth dhyāna, since that ground alone can properly receive such a being. It should be understood, as the assessors conclude, that this latter account already given is the correct one. One might ask: is this attainment of no-perception obtained through preparatory effort, or through freedom from contamination? Answer: it is obtained through preparatory effort, not through freedom from contamination, since it is not obtained at the very moment one becomes free from the contamination of the third dhyāna. Were it instead obtained through freedom from contamination, a noble one, too, upon becoming free from the contamination of the third dhyāna, would have to obtain it as well — in which case it could no longer properly be called an "ordinary being's attainment" at all. One might ask: can this attainment of no-perception also be said to have past and future cultivation? One position holds that it cannot, since this can only be true of an attainment possessing mind, never of one that is mindless. If this position is accepted, then only its very first instant is possessed in the present; every subsequent instant is possessed as both past and present; and once one has emerged from the attainment, only the past remains possessed. Another position holds that this attainment does have future cultivation, since every dharma obtained through preparatory effort does possess future cultivation — and this attainment, after all, is necessarily obtained through the very power of an intense, effortful attention, so how could it possibly lack future cultivation? If this position is accepted, then its very first instant is possessed as both future and present; every subsequent instant is possessed across all three times; and once one has emerged from the attainment, both past and future remain possessed. One might ask: if this attainment truly does admit of obtaining and cultivation in the manner of an attainment possessing mind, then when a noble one, at the ninth uninterrupted path in becoming free from the contamination of the third dhyāna, obtains the fourth dhyāna together with its own retinue, that noble one ought also to obtain this attainment at the very same moment — in which case it could no longer properly be called an "ordinary being's attainment" at all. Answer: as already explained, this attainment is obtained only through preparatory effort, and it is for this reason that neither ordinary beings nor noble ones ever obtain it at the moment of becoming free from the contamination of the third dhyāna — only ordinary beings, once already free from that contamination, subsequently obtain it through their own further preparatory effort, and so no fault arises here. On this account, the first position should be preferred: only an attainment possessing mind can have future cultivation; this attainment, being mindless, has no such future cultivation, and, by the very same reasoning, has no past cultivation to speak of either — exactly as with the vows of individual liberation. One might ask: can this attainment of no-perception ever regress? Answer: it cannot. How is this known to be so? It has been heard that a certain monk once obtained the attainment of no-perception; upon emerging from that attainment, his every faculty was perfectly calm, and his every action, deportment, speech, manner of dress, and manner of eating and drinking were all carried out with the utmost care and deliberation. A certain arhat who had previously obtained the knowledge of aspiration, seeing this, reflected to himself: "this good man will surely attain some superior dharma — let me observe the precise limit of what he has realized." Having reflected thus, he entered concentration and, through the power of the knowledge of aspiration, perceived that this monk had obtained the attainment of no-perception. He then rose from concentration and said to the monk: "what you have realized is exceedingly unwholesome — how could you, having encountered the very treasure-store of the Buddha's own merit, cast it aside and mistakenly seize instead upon this dung-heap of an attainment, cultivated by the heretics? You ought at once to abandon it entirely." Hearing this, the monk resolved in his own mind to abandon it — yet the attainment, having already taken hold of him, could not be cast off; even when he finally gave up the monastic path altogether and returned to lay life, still he could not be rid of it, and, at the end of that life, he was reborn into the no-perception heaven. From this it is known that this attainment can never regress. The Dṛṣṭāntikas hold instead that it can indeed regress, since every karma without exception admits of being turned aside — even the karma of immediate retribution, they hold, can, given a sufficiently powerful condition, likewise be turned aside, for if the karma of immediate retribution truly could not be turned aside, then no one could ever surpass the very first level of existence at all. It should be understood, as the assessors conclude, that the account already given is the correct one. One might ask: does this attainment of no-perception serve to draw forth a new class of rebirth, or merely to bring one's present class of rebirth to full completion? Answer: it merely brings one's present class of rebirth to full completion; it cannot itself draw forth a new class of rebirth, since a class of rebirth is drawn forth by karma alone, and this attainment is not itself karma. One might ask: does this attainment ripen its fruit within this very life, in the immediately following life, or only in some later life still further beyond, or does it ripen indeterminately? Answer: it ripens its fruit only in the immediately following life, never within this very life, nor in some later life still further beyond, nor indeterminately. It does not ripen within this very life, since one must first cultivate this attainment elsewhere and only then, having already been reborn into the no-perception heaven, does its fruit actually come to pass. It does not ripen in some later life still further beyond, since this attainment is sharp and swift, giving its fruit without delay. And it does not ripen indeterminately, since it can never regress. One might ask: in precisely what place, and through precisely what kind of ripening-fruit, is this fruit actually received? Answer: it is received within the no-perception heaven itself, as the ripening-fruit of the five aggregates there. "How many faculties cease upon entering the attainment of cessation, and so on, as stated at length?" One might ask: why raise this discussion at all? Answer: to block a rival school's own position and to make clear this treatise's own view. The Dṛṣṭāntikas and the Vibhajyavādins hold that a subtle mind does not cease even within the attainment of cessation, arguing as follows: no sentient being is ever altogether without form, and no attainment is ever altogether without mind — for if an attainment truly involved no mind whatsoever, the life-faculty would thereby be cut off, and this ought properly to be called death, not merely "abiding in attainment." To block this position and to make clear that the attainment of cessation genuinely involves no mind at all, the present discussion is raised. Another school holds that, although this attainment genuinely involves no mind, it can nonetheless become present the very moment one becomes free from the contamination of form, since it shares the same ground with that contamination. To block this position and to make clear that the attainment of cessation can become present only once one has become entirely free from the contamination of the sphere of nothing-at-all — since it fixedly requires the mind of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as its own immediately preceding condition — the Venerable Vasumitra accordingly states as follows: what, then, is the attainment of cessation? It is the state in which, for one who has already become free from the contamination of the sphere of nothing-at-all, mind and mental factors cease, preceded by an attention directed toward the stilling of perception itself — this, and this alone, is what is called the attainment of cessation. It is for this very reason that the present discussion is raised. "How many faculties cease upon entering the attainment of cessation?" Answer: seven — the mind-faculty, equanimity, and faith with its four companions. "To which realm are the mind and mental factors that cease here bound?" Answer: to the formless realm — though this, too, is spoken only in terms of realm and category, comprehensively; in truth, it is bound exclusively to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. "How many faculties become present upon emerging from the attainment of cessation?" Answer: seven or eight — seven if emerging with a contaminated mind, eight if emerging with an uncontaminated mind. That is to say, if one emerges with the mind of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, seven faculties become present, exactly as already described; if one emerges with the mind of the sphere of nothing-at-all, eight faculties become present — the preceding seven plus whichever one of the already-known and the faculty of complete knowledge applies. "To which realm are the mind and mental factors that become present here bound?" Answer: to the formless realm, or else unbound — if one emerges with the mind of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, they are bound to the formless realm;

if one emerges with the mind of the sphere of nothing-at-all, they are unbound. It is precisely on this basis that the attainment of cessation is shown to involve, without any doubt, no mind whatsoever — for, upon entering the attainment,

the passage speaks only of the faculties and of mind and mental factors ceasing, never of their arising; while upon emerging from the attainment, the passage speaks only of the faculties and of mind and mental factors arising, never of their ceasing.

One might ask: what is the intrinsic nature of the attainment of cessation? Answer: the formations aggregate dissociated from mind constitutes its intrinsic nature, since it is included within that aggregate. As for its realm, it is bound to the formless realm; as for its ground, it is found within the fundamental sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. One might ask: why do the lower grounds not possess this attainment? Answer: they are simply not the fitting field or vessel for it, and so on, as explained at length before. Moreover, the attainment of cessation extinguishes an exceedingly subtle mind and mental factors, and the lower grounds are simply not conducive to the extinguishing of such an exceedingly subtle mind. One might then ask: why is the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception conducive to the extinguishing of such an exceedingly subtle mind, while the lower grounds are not? Answer: whoever wishes to enter this attainment first gives rise to a wholesome desire-realm mind, then enters the first dhyāna, then the second, and so on in turn up through the sphere of nothing-at-all, and only afterward the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; and within that sphere itself, moving from its superior grade of mind to its middling grade, and from its middling grade to its inferior grade, it is precisely the severing of this inferior grade of mind that constitutes entry into the attainment of cessation — the simile already given earlier should be understood to apply here in just the same way — and it is for this reason that this attainment is found only within the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. Moreover, every lower ground is called "having perception," its own aspect coarse and agitated, difficult to bring to a final halt, whereas this ground alone is called "neither perception nor non-perception," its own aspect subtle, and thus easy to bring to a final stilling — and it is for this reason that the lower grounds lack the attainment of cessation. Another position holds that, since both of these two mindless attainments are established at the very outer edge of their own respective realm, the attainment of no-perception is established at the outer edge of the realm possessing form, while the attainment of cessation is established at the outer edge of the formless realm. Another position holds that, since both of these two mindless attainments are established at the very outer edge of their own respective ground, the attainment of no-perception is established at the outer edge of a ground possessing form, while the attainment of cessation is established at the outer edge of a formless ground. Another position holds that, since both of these two mindless attainments are established at the very outer edge of their own respective aggregation,

the attainment of no-perception is established at the outer edge of the aggregation of matter produced by the great elements, while the attainment of cessation is established at the outer edge of the aggregation of mind and mental factors. Another position holds that

every ground carries two kinds of excess — an excess of craving, and an excess of dwelling-place. In the first dhyāna, the excess of craving refers to that ground's own noble path, while the excess of dwelling-place refers to the second dhyāna; and so on, up through the sphere of nothing-at-all, whose excess of craving refers to the noble path of its own ground and of every ground below it, and whose excess of dwelling-place refers to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. That final sphere's own excess of craving refers to the noble path of every ground below it, and its excess of dwelling-place refers to the attainment of cessation itself. Were the lower grounds to possess the attainment of cessation, every one of those lower grounds would then carry three kinds of excess, or at least two, while the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception alone would carry only a single kind — and, lest such an uneven imbalance be allowed to stand, the attainment of cessation is therefore never found in the lower grounds at all. Another position holds that this attainment is established as a "liberation" for two reasons — first, because it turns away from every object whatsoever, and second, because it cuts off the very outermost, final grade of mind. Were the lower grounds to possess the attainment of cessation, it would then fail to turn away from every object whatsoever, since the objects of the grounds above it would not yet have been turned away from, nor could it properly be said to cut off the very outermost, final grade of mind, since cutting off a merely intermediate grade of mind is not the same as cutting off the final one. Another position holds that this attainment marks the very final position within the sequential order of attainments, and must therefore be entered immediately following the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception without exception — and it is for reasons such as these that the lower grounds lack the attainment of cessation, and only the peak of existence possesses it. As the World-Honored One himself declared: what, then, is called the attainment of cessation? It is the state in which, having transcended every sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception entirely, one dwells fully in it, having realized in one's own body the cessation of perception and feeling. One might ask: the attainment of cessation is itself bound to the very sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception — why, then, does the Buddha speak of "transcending every sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception" at all? Answer: although it is indeed bound to that very sphere, it is superior in its own calm stillness, and it is for this reason that the Buddha speaks of it as "transcending" that sphere — exactly as a hermitage on the edge of a village, though still technically within the village's own boundary, may nonetheless be said, on account of its own stillness, to lie apart from the village altogether. Moreover, there are two kinds of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception — one possessing mind, and one without mind. "Transcending every sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception" is spoken with reference to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception that possesses mind; "having realized in one's own body the cessation of perception and feeling, one dwells fully in it" is spoken with reference to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception that is without mind — exactly as with possessing mind and being without mind, so too, mutatis mutandis, should be understood associated and dissociated, having a basis and having no basis, having an aspect and having no aspect, having attention and having no attention, and having an object and having no object.

Moreover, there are two kinds of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception — one defiled, and one undefiled. "Transcending every sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception" is spoken with reference to the defiled kind; "having realized in one's own body the cessation of perception and feeling, one dwells fully in it" is spoken with reference to the undefiled kind — exactly as with defiled and undefiled, so too, mutatis mutandis, should be understood cut off by seeing and cut off by cultivation. Moreover, there are two kinds of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception — one already obtained before, and one never yet obtained. "Transcending every sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception" is spoken with reference to what has already been obtained before; "having realized in one's own body the cessation of perception and feeling, one dwells fully in it" is spoken with reference to what has never yet been obtained — exactly as with already obtained and never yet obtained, so too, mutatis mutandis, should be understood shared with others and not shared with others. Moreover, there are two kinds of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception — one obtained through freedom from contamination, and one obtained through preparatory effort. "Transcending every sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception" is spoken with reference to what is obtained through freedom from contamination; "having realized in one's own body the cessation of perception and feeling, one dwells fully in it" is spoken with reference to what is obtained through preparatory effort. Moreover, speaking in terms of transcending grounds in their proper sequential order, "having transcended every sphere of nothing-at-all, entering the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, one dwells fully in it" is spoken with reference to transcending the craving belonging to the lower grounds; "transcending every sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, having realized in one's own body the cessation of perception and feeling, one dwells fully in it" is spoken with reference to transcending the dwelling-place possessing mind that belongs to one's own ground. One might ask: can it truly be said of the ones beyond training that they have "transcended every sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception," given that even they still carry, with respect to the peak of existence, both of the two kinds of excess — craving and dwelling-place? And can it be said of trainees that they carry only a single kind of excess with respect to that same peak — how, then, could it be said of them that they have "transcended every sphere" at all? Answer: "every" is itself of two kinds — an unrestricted "every," and a partial "every." Here, the trainee's own case is spoken of with reference to the partial sense, and so no fault arises. Another position holds that this passage speaks only with reference to transcending the dwelling-place — for although trainees have not yet transcended every cultivation-cuttable craving belonging to the peak of existence, they are nonetheless able to transcend the peak's own dwelling-place possessing mind in its entirety. Another position holds that this passage speaks with reference to a merely temporary transcendence — meaning that trainees, at least temporarily, transcend every state possessing mind at the peak of existence, emerging from what possesses mind and entering what is without mind.

One might ask: within this attainment, which extinguishes every mind and mental factor without exception, why does the passage speak specifically of "perception and feeling" ceasing, rather than mentioning "mind" and the rest by name? Answer: the Dṛṣṭāntikas hold that this attainment, though genuinely possessing mind, extinguishes only perception and feeling. One might ask: rather than posing this question to them directly, why is the question instead posed to those who hold that this attainment involves no mind at all — why should the latter also speak in this particular way?

Answer: speaking of the cessation of perception and feeling makes clear that everything else likewise ceases as well, since no other associated dharma could ever arise apart from perception and feeling themselves. Another position holds that the passage here names only what is most excellent, since perception and feeling are the most excellent among every class of mind — and, once what is most excellent has ceased, everything else follows it into cessation as well. Another position holds that the passage here reveals a gateway, reveals a summary, and reveals a point of entry — for within any given cluster of mind, some things possess the character of a faculty and some do not; mentioning feeling already makes clear whatever possesses the character of a faculty, and mentioning perception already makes clear whatever does not — exactly as with possessing the character of a faculty and not possessing it, so too, mutatis mutandis, should be understood illuminated and unilluminated, directly observed and not directly observed, what ought to be examined and what ought not to be examined, excellent and not excellent, honored and not honored, and superior and not superior.

Another position holds that perception and feeling are precisely what every yogin most despises and wearies of — for it is through the power of feeling that sentient beings are wearied by the toils of the form realm, and through the power of perception that they are wearied by the toils of the formless realm, and it is for this reason that the World-Honored One speaks of the cessation of perception and feeling specifically. Another position holds that perception and feeling are the two most excellent factors across both realms — feeling being most excellent within the form realm, and perception most excellent within the formless realm. Another position holds that it is through indulging in the pleasure of feeling, and through clinging to the distortions of perception, that sentient beings are made to circle endlessly through birth and death, undergoing every manner of suffering and affliction. Another position holds that perception and feeling each establish their own separate aggregate and their own separate station of consciousness. Another position holds that perception and feeling are together capable of giving rise to the two afflictions of craving and views — craving arising through the power of feeling, and views arising through the power of perception — and that these two stand at the very head of every affliction whatsoever. Another position holds that perception and feeling are the two roots of contention — through feeling, one becomes attached to sensual pleasures, causing householders to fall into every manner of dispute; through perception, one becomes attached to views, causing renunciants to fall into every manner of dispute — exactly as with these two roots of contention, so too, mutatis mutandis, should be understood the two extremes, the two arrows, the two kinds of idle proliferation, and the two kinds of what is "mine." Another position holds that the practitioner, despising feeling and perception above all else, therefore enters the attainment of cessation, and it is for this very reason that the Buddha speaks only of the cessation of these two dharmas. As the Prajñaptiśāstra states: what, then, is the preparatory arising of the attainment of cessation? It is when a beginning practitioner, with respect to every formation whatsoever, makes no further preparatory effort at all, no longer wishing to reflect on anything belonging to the notion of "mine," resolving:

"whatever perception and feeling have not yet arisen, let them not arise; whatever have already arisen, let them swiftly cease." If, at that time, whatever perception and feeling had not yet arisen do not arise, and whatever had already arisen do cease, this is what is called "cessation." One might ask: how can this cessation still be called an "attainment"? Answer: with respect to this dharma of cessation, being free of any obstruction, free of any turning away, and possessing genuine mastery, one directly witnesses it presently, realizing it within one's own person — and it is on this basis that it is called an "attainment." It is for this reason that the World-Honored One states that this cessation itself lasts but a single instant, while the attainment continues on in unbroken succession. One might ask: an "attainment" is so called because it brings the mind into a state of equanimity — how, then, can this term be applied here, where no mind is present at all? Answer: "attainment" is of two kinds — bringing mind into equanimity, and bringing the great elements into equanimity. Although the attainment of no-perception and the attainment of cessation both cut off the very continuity of an equanimous mind, they nonetheless draw forth an equanimous state of the great elements to become present, and it is on this basis that they too are called "attainments."

One might ask: why, among the two mindless attainments, is only the attainment of cessation established as a "liberation," and not the attainment of no-perception? The Venerable Bhadanta explains: the Buddha, having thoroughly and completely mastered the very substance, characteristics, and function of every dharma without exception, understood this as no one else ever could — whatever dharma genuinely carries the character of liberation, he duly established as such;

whatever does not, he did not so establish. Furthermore, the attainment of cessation is found only among internal, noble dharmas, and it is for this reason that it is established as a "liberation"; the attainment of no-perception is found only among external, ordinary dharmas, and it is for this reason that it is not so established — exactly as with internal and external dharmas, so too, mutatis mutandis, should be understood the noble one and the ordinary being. Furthermore, the attainment of cessation is found only within the continuum of one who turns away from defilement and toward purity, and it is for this reason that it is established as a "liberation"; the attainment of no-perception is found only within the continuum of one who turns away from purity and toward defilement, and it is for this reason that it is not so established — exactly as with turning away from defilement toward purity and turning away from purity toward defilement, so too, mutatis mutandis, should be understood turning away from birth-and-death toward it and turning away from cyclic existence toward it.

Furthermore, the attainment of cessation is found only within the continuum of one who turns away from the view of self and toward the view of emptiness, and it is for this reason that it is established as a "liberation"; the attainment of no-perception is found only within the continuum of one who turns away from the view of emptiness and toward the view of self, and it is for this reason that it is not so established. Furthermore, as already explained, the attainment of cessation is established as a "liberation" for two reasons — turning away from every object whatsoever, and cutting off the very outermost, final grade of mind — while the attainment of no-perception possesses neither of these two features, and it is for this reason that it is not so established. Furthermore, the attainment of cessation is found only within the continuum of those who obstruct every realm, every destiny, and every mode of birth, and it is for this reason that it is established as a "liberation"; the attainment of no-perception —

is found only within the continuum of those who fail to obstruct every realm, every destiny, and every mode of birth, and it is for this reason that it is not so established. Furthermore, "liberation" means turning one's back on every mode of existence — the attainment of cessation turns its back on every realm, every destiny, and every mode of birth, on the flow of birth-and-death, and on ignorance itself, whereas the attainment of no-perception does none of these things.

It is for reasons such as these that, among the two mindless attainments, only the attainment of cessation is established as a "liberation," and not the attainment of no-perception.

One might ask: what is the difference between the attainment of no-perception and the attainment of cessation? Answer: their very names already differ, one being called the attainment of no-perception and the other the attainment of cessation. Furthermore, their realms also differ — the attainment of no-perception is bound to the form realm, while the attainment of cessation is bound to the formless realm. Furthermore, their grounds also differ — the attainment of no-perception is found within the fourth dhyāna, while the attainment of cessation is found within the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. Furthermore, their continuities also differ — the attainment of no-perception belongs to the continuum of ordinary beings, while the attainment of cessation belongs to the continuum of noble ones. Furthermore, upon entering the attainment of no-perception one forms the perception of transcendence, while upon entering the attainment of cessation one forms the perception of stilling. Furthermore, upon entering the attainment of no-perception one is wearied only by perception, while upon entering the attainment of cessation one is wearied by both perception and feeling alike. Furthermore, upon entering the attainment of no-perception one wishes only to extinguish perception, while upon entering the attainment of cessation one wishes to extinguish both feeling and perception together. Furthermore, upon entering the attainment of no-perception one extinguishes mind and mental factors bound to the form realm, while upon entering the attainment of cessation one extinguishes mind and mental factors bound to the formless realm. Furthermore, upon entering the attainment of no-perception one —

extinguishes the mind and mental factors of the fourth dhyāna, while upon entering the attainment of cessation one extinguishes the mind and mental factors of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. Furthermore, the attainment of no-perception draws forth a ripening-fruit bound to the form realm, while the attainment of cessation draws forth a ripening-fruit bound to the formless realm. Furthermore, the attainment of no-perception draws forth a ripening-fruit specifically within the fourth dhyāna, while the attainment of cessation draws forth a ripening-fruit specifically within the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. Furthermore, the attainment of no-perception only ripens its fruit in the immediately following life,

while the attainment of cessation may ripen its fruit in the immediately following life or in some later life still further beyond, or may ripen indeterminately — hence they differ in this respect as well. The Venerable Vasumitra himself raised precisely this question: what is the difference between the attainment of no-perception and the attainment of cessation? Answer: one is called the attainment of no-perception, and the other the attainment of cessation — this is already one difference. Their realms, grounds, continuities, weariness, and what they extinguish, together with their respective ripening-fruits, all differ as well, exactly as explained at length above. Moreover, an ordinary being who enters the attainment of no-perception draws forth the fruit of the no-perception heaven, while a noble one who enters the attainment of cessation draws forth the fruit of the peak of existence. Moreover, the attainment of no-perception causes ordinary beings to receive a ripening-fruit bound to the form realm, while the attainment of cessation causes trainees to receive a ripening-fruit bound to the formless realm and causes those beyond training to receive an outflow-fruit bound to the formless realm as well.

These, then, are the differences between the attainment of no-perception and the attainment of cessation.

One might ask: among the eight liberations, why does the World-Honored One speak only of the third and the eighth as "realized in one's own body," and none of the others — as the sūtra itself states: "the pure liberation, realized in one's own body"; "the liberation of the cessation of perception and feeling, realized in one's own body"? Answer: in certain other sūtras, the World-Honored One does in fact speak of every one of the eight liberations as "realized in one's own body" — as in the Great Causation Sūtra, where the Buddha, for each of the eight liberations in turn, speaks of it as "dwelling fully in it, realized in one's own body." One might ask: although a few sūtras do speak of all eight liberations as "realized in one's own body," the majority of sūtras speak of only these two by that name — why is this so? Answer: these two liberations, among all eight, carry the very most excellent name and meaning, and it is for this reason that they alone are singled out for special mention. Another position holds that these two liberations alone are realized through the very exertion of preparatory effort. Another position holds that each of these two is established at the very outer edge of its own respective realm — the pure liberation at the outer edge of the form realm, and the liberation of the cessation of perception and feeling at the outer edge of the formless realm. Another position holds that each of these two is established at the very outer edge of its own respective ground — the pure liberation at the outer edge of the fourth dhyāna, and the liberation of the cessation of perception and feeling at the outer edge of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. Another position holds that the pure liberation is established at the outer edge of the aggregation of matter produced by the great elements, while the liberation of the cessation of perception and feeling is established at the outer edge of the aggregation of mind and mental factors. Another position holds that although the pure liberation does take on the pure aspect of form as its object, no affliction arises through it, and it is precisely because of this exceptional quality that the World-Honored One establishes it under the name "realized in one's own body." As for the liberation of the cessation of perception and feeling, it is precisely because it involves no mind that it is located within the body rather than the mind, arising through the body's own power rather than through the power of mind,

and it is for this reason that the World-Honored One speaks of it as "realized in the body." Another position holds that wherever the sūtras speak of any of the eight liberations as "realized in one's own body," this designation is in every such case borrowed from these two liberations alone, and it is for reasons such as these that only these two are called "realized in one's own body, dwelling fully in it." The phrase "dwelling fully in it" is itself used across many different contexts in the sūtras — sometimes applied to a mere portion of the form aggregate, sometimes to the entire wholesome five aggregates, sometimes to the wholesome four aggregates, sometimes to a portion of the formations aggregate dissociated from mind, and sometimes to the extinguishing-nirvāṇa itself. As for its application to a mere portion of the form aggregate, this is exemplified by a verse which states:

"dwelling fully in excellent wisdom and the noble teaching, dwelling fully in moral discipline, every one of these entirely wholesome, a treasure-store of manifold merit." As for its application to the wholesome five aggregates, this is exemplified by the statement that one "dwells fully in" the first dhyāna and so on through the fourth dhyāna. As for its application to the wholesome four aggregates, this is exemplified by the statement that one "dwells fully in" the sphere of infinite space and so on through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. As for its application to a portion of the formations aggregate dissociated from mind, this is exemplified, among these very eight liberations, by the statement that one "dwells fully in" the liberation of the cessation of perception and feeling, realized in one's own body. And as for its application to the extinguishing-nirvāṇa itself, this is exemplified by the statement that one "dwells fully in" nirvāṇa, realized in one's own body.

One might ask: how many kinds does this attainment of cessation itself comprise? One position holds that it comprises four — that brought forth by one still bound by every fetter, that brought forth by one free from the upper three grades of contamination, that brought forth by one free from the middle three grades, and that brought forth by one free from the lower three grades, each a genuinely distinct kind in its own right. Another position likewise holds that it comprises four —

namely, that brought forth by one free from the sixth, seventh, eighth, or ninth grade of contamination respectively, each counted as a single kind — for, on this account, one still bound by every fetter, up through one free from only the fifth grade of contamination, is simply incapable of bringing forth this attainment at all. Another position holds that this attainment comprises nine kinds — that brought forth by one free from the very uppermost grade of contamination, and so on down to that brought forth by one free from the very lowest grade, since, on this account, only one still bound by every fetter is incapable of bringing it forth. Another position holds that this attainment comprises ten kinds — that brought forth by one still bound by every fetter, and so on down through that brought forth by one free from the very lowest grade of contamination. One might ask: if one still bound by every fetter can indeed bring forth this attainment, why can ordinary beings of every kind not do so as well? Answer: binding fetters are of two kinds — those cut off by seeing, and those cut off by cultivation; at the peak of existence, one who lacks the binding fetters cut off by seeing but still possesses those cut off by cultivation can bring forth this attainment, whereas one who still possesses both kinds of binding fetters together cannot. On this account, the attainment of cessation should be understood to comprise eleven kinds altogether — that brought forth by one still bound by every fetter, that brought forth by one free from the very uppermost grade, and so on down through that brought forth by one free from the very lowest grade, together with that brought forth by a time-liberated arhat who has refined his own faculties to attain the immovable type. One might ask: do these eleven kinds differ in their own underlying substance, or not? One position holds that they do not differ in substance, differing only through the distinct stages at which they are brought forth. One might then ask: if so, why are they said to number eleven at all? Answer: it is precisely on account of these distinct stages, not on account of any difference in substance. Another position holds that these eleven kinds do indeed differ in their own underlying substance, each distinct kind corresponding to the distinct stage at which it is brought forth. One might then ask: if so, in what does the actual difference consist between what is brought forth by one still bound by every fetter, and so on, up through what is brought forth by a time-liberated arhat who has refined his own faculties to attain the immovable type? Answer: there are cases in which one still bound by every fetter first brings forth the attainment of cessation, and then, advancing further to cut off yet another grade of contamination, brings it forth once again — at which point what was first obtained is indeed obtained, yet no longer present in the body, possessed yet not currently manifest, while what is newly obtained is both obtained and present in the body, possessed and currently manifest alike. And so it continues, up through the case of one advancing all the way to the immovable type through the refinement of faculties following time-liberation, at which point whatever was obtained at every prior stage is indeed obtained, yet no longer present in the body, possessed yet not currently manifest,

while what is now obtained at this immovable stage is both obtained and present in the body, possessed and currently manifest alike. It is on this basis that these eleven kinds should be understood to differ genuinely in their own underlying substance from one another.

One might ask: does this attainment admit of superior, middling, and inferior grades, or not? If it does, how is the Prajñaptiśāstra's own statement to be reconciled — namely, that this cessation admits of no distinction whatsoever? And if it does not, how could the attainment brought forth by a Buddha, a solitary buddha, and a śrāvaka fail to carry any distinction of superiority and inferiority among them? One position holds that this attainment admits of no superior, middling, or inferior grades at all.

One might ask: if the Prajñaptiśāstra's own statement — that this cessation admits of no distinction — has already been successfully reconciled, how, then, could the attainment brought forth by a Buddha, a solitary buddha, and a śrāvaka fail to carry any distinction of superiority and inferiority? Answer: in its own substance, there is indeed no superiority or inferiority, since the very cessation of mind and mental factors constitutes its intrinsic nature in every single case alike — yet a distinction is nonetheless drawn on the basis of the preparatory effort involved, since a Buddha brings forth this attainment without any preparatory effort at all, a solitary buddha brings it forth through only a lesser degree of preparatory effort, and a śrāvaka brings it forth through either a middling or a greater degree. On this account, the attainment of cessation should indeed be understood to admit of superior, middling, and inferior grades, distinguished by category. One might ask: the attainments brought forth by the three vehicles do carry genuine differences of superiority and inferiority — this much has already been successfully reconciled — but how, then, is the Prajñaptiśāstra's own statement that this cessation admits of no distinction to be reconciled? Answer: this is spoken with reference to the sense in which the capacity to extinguish mind and mental factors admits of no distinction whatsoever — yet, since the attainment of cessation is itself a conditioned dharma, it must, exactly like every other conditioned dharma, admit of superior, middling, and inferior grades, corresponding to the distinct stages proper to distinct faculties and capacities — namely, what a Buddha obtains is the very highest grade,

what a solitary buddha obtains is the middling grade, and what a śrāvaka obtains is the lowest grade. Among śrāvakas themselves there are further many distinctions: within the stage of the trainee, that brought forth by one still bound by every fetter is the very lowest of the low, up through that brought forth by one who has cut off eight grades of contamination, which is the very highest of the high; within the stage of the one beyond training, that brought forth by one of the regressive-type disposition is the very lowest of the low, up through that brought forth by one who, through training, attains the immovable disposition, which is the highest of the low grade; and that brought forth by one who originally already possessed the immovable disposition from the outset is the middling grade of the high.

What is brought forth by a pāramitā-śrāvaka is the very highest of the high. And within each single disposition, further distinctions of superior, middling, and inferior faculty produce their own further gradations — and it is for reasons such as these that the attainment of cessation admits of so many distinct grades. One might ask: how many distinct entities constitute the very substance of this attainment of cessation? One position holds that this attainment is constituted by a single entity alone, since the moment cessation itself becomes present is precisely what is meant by "mindless." One might then ask: how can a single instant of cessation becoming present already be called "mindless"?

Answer: exactly as a single instant of feeling becoming present is already called "having feeling," a single instant of perception becoming present is already called "having perception," and a single instant of consciousness becoming present is already called "having consciousness," so too a single instant of cessation becoming present is already called "mindless" — what fault could there possibly be in this? Another position holds that this attainment is constituted by eleven distinct entities, since it is constituted by the ten great-class factors found universally in every mind, together with the ceasing of mind itself. Another position holds that this attainment is constituted by twenty-one distinct entities, since it is constituted by the ten great-class factors found universally in every mind, the ten great wholesome-class factors found universally in every wholesome mind, together with the ceasing of mind itself. On this account, however many mental factors are thereby extinguished, that very same number of entities becomes present to constitute this attainment's own substance. One might ask: given that this attainment's own substance is as just described, what, then, is its own characteristic mark? Answer: its own substance is itself its characteristic mark, and its characteristic mark is itself its own substance, since no dharma can ever be separated from its own substance and have its characteristic mark spoken of apart from it. It is for this reason that the Venerable Vasumitra states as follows: this attainment of cessation has liberation itself as its characteristic mark — hence it is said that, for one abiding in this attainment, mind and mental factors are liberated, superiorly liberated, and supremely superiorly liberated; freed from bondage, superiorly freed from bondage, and supremely superiorly freed from bondage. One might ask: this attainment cannot itself actually cut off any affliction —

so how, then, can it be said that, for one abiding in this attainment, mind and mental factors are "liberated," and so on? Answer: for one abiding in this attainment, mind and mental factors are only temporarily liberated, up through being only temporarily supremely superiorly freed from bondage — it is in this qualified sense that the statement is made, not in the sense that this attainment is itself capable of cutting off any affliction whatsoever.

There is a further teaching that runs as follows: if a dharma takes the subtle perception as its cause and the ever-subtler perception as its immediately preceding condition, and does not co-arise with that perception, this is not a case of non-possession — this, then, is what is called "liberation." One might ask: what dharma does this passage actually describe? One position holds that it describes the attainment of cessation itself. If this reading is accepted, then this passage means that this attainment takes the subtle perception as its own cause — namely, a single cause, the homogeneous cause — and that the ever-subtler perception likewise serves as its immediately preceding condition — namely, again a single cause, the homogeneous cause, which also serves as its immediately preceding condition. If this reading is accepted, then the passage ought to have continued: "if a dharma takes the subtle perception as its cause and the ever-subtler perception as its immediately preceding condition, it ought not to be said that it does not co-arise with that perception" — since this very attainment of cessation is, at that moment, actually and presently manifest before one; and it ought instead to be said that this is not a case of non-possession, since, while abiding in this attainment, one genuinely possesses the attainment itself. Another position holds that this passage describes instead the very mind of emergence from the attainment. If this reading is accepted, then this passage means that this mind of emergence takes the subtle perception as its own cause — namely, a single cause, the homogeneous cause — and that the ever-subtler perception likewise serves as its immediately preceding condition — namely, again a single cause, the homogeneous cause, which also serves as its immediately preceding condition. If this reading is accepted, then the passage ought to have continued: "if a dharma takes the subtle perception as its cause and the ever-subtler perception as its immediately preceding condition, it ought to be said that it does not co-arise with that perception" — since, while actually abiding within the attainment, this very mind of emergence is not yet currently manifest before one; and it ought to be said that this is not a case of non-possession, since, while abiding within the attainment, one still genuinely possesses this very mind of emergence — and it is from this that it can further be known that this mind of emergence was itself already obtained beforehand. Still another position holds that this passage describes instead the very mind of entering the attainment. If this reading is accepted, then this passage means that this mind of entry takes the perception itself as its own cause — namely, a single cause, the homogeneous cause — and that the subtle perception likewise serves as its immediately preceding condition — namely, again a single cause, the homogeneous cause, which also serves as its immediately preceding condition. If this reading is accepted, then the passage ought to have continued: "if a dharma takes perception itself as its cause and the subtle perception as its immediately preceding condition, it ought to be said that it does not co-arise with that perception" — since, while actually abiding within the attainment, this very mind of entry is not yet currently manifest before one; and it ought to be said that this is not a case of non-possession, since, while abiding within the attainment, one still genuinely possesses this very mind of entry.