Two Monks, a Famous Dispute, and a Celebrated Catechism

One might ask: within this discussion, what exactly is meant by "perception," what by "subtle," and what by "very subtle"? One position holds that the spheres of infinite space and infinite consciousness are "perception"; the sphere of nothing-at-all is "subtle"; and the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is "very subtle." Another position holds that the spheres of infinite space, infinite consciousness, and nothing-at-all are all "perception," while the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is "subtle," and mind and mental factors serving as the immediately preceding condition for entering the attainment of cessation constitute the "very subtle." Still another position holds that the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is itself all three at once — "perception," "subtle," and "very subtle" together. Why is this so? Because that sphere itself admits of superior, middling, and inferior grades — its superior grade is "perception,"

its middling grade is "subtle," and its inferior grade is "very subtle." One might ask: if these three all belong to one and the same ground, what distinguishes them?

One position holds that they differ merely in name — this one is called "perception," this one "subtle," and this one "very subtle." Another position holds that they differ in grade as well — the superior grade is called "perception," the middling grade "subtle," and the inferior grade "very subtle." Another position holds that when "perception" or "subtle" mind becomes present, one is able to cultivate a noble path for the future, whereas when "very subtle" mind becomes present, one does not cultivate any such path. Another position holds that when "perception" or "subtle" mind becomes present, one of the four foundations of mindfulness is currently cultivated and all four are cultivated for the future; when "very subtle" mind becomes present, only the foundation of mindfulness with respect to dharmas is currently cultivated, and only three are cultivated for the future, excluding the foundation of mindfulness with respect to the body.

Another position holds that "perception" and "subtle" mind may each have been previously obtained or never yet obtained, whereas "very subtle" mind has only ever been never yet obtained.

One might ask, since one question naturally gives rise to another: why is the mind entering the attainment of cessation sometimes previously obtained and sometimes never yet obtained, while the mind of emergence is only ever previously obtained? Answer: the mind of entry depends on considerable preparatory effort and exertion, arising through the power of an intensely focused attention, and so it may be either previously obtained or never yet obtained; the mind of emergence, being the very opposite of this, is only ever previously obtained. Another position holds that the mind of entry has the capacity to spur onward, reinforce, and actually give rise to the attainment itself, and so it may be either previously obtained or never yet obtained; the mind of emergence, being the very opposite of this, is only ever previously obtained. Another position holds that the mind of entry is only ever contaminated, and so it may be either previously obtained or never yet obtained; the mind of emergence, being either contaminated or uncontaminated, is only ever previously obtained. One might ask, since one question naturally gives rise to another: why is the mind of entry only ever contaminated, while the mind of emergence may be either contaminated or uncontaminated? Answer: the mind of entry is conducive to the very cutting-off of mind itself, and so it is only ever contaminated — being neither firm nor forceful, lacking the power to abide for any length of time, and never itself giving rise to any subsequent mind without interruption, exactly like a rotten seed, it is thus exceptionally conducive to the cutting-off of mind. The mind of emergence, being the very opposite of this, may be either contaminated or uncontaminated. Another position holds that the mind of entry takes the attainment itself as calm and still, yet is not itself an uncontaminated path, since it takes what is conditioned as calm and still, and so it is only ever contaminated. Another position holds that this attainment is a sequential attainment, arising immediately after the mind of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception without interruption, and, since the noble path reaches at most only as far as the sphere of nothing-at-all, the mind of entry is therefore only ever contaminated.

One might ask: what does the mind of entering the attainment of cessation take as its object? And what does the mind of emergence take as its object? Answer: the mind of entry takes the attainment itself as its object; the mind of emergence does likewise. One might then ask: if the mind of entry takes the attainment as its object, and the mind of emergence does likewise, why does entering not immediately mean emerging, and emerging not immediately mean entering?

Answer: the mind of entry anticipates and wishes to enter; the mind of emergence anticipates and wishes to emerge — and it is through this very anticipation that no confusion between the two ever arises. Moreover, the mind of entry takes the future attainment as its object; the mind of emergence takes the past attainment as its object — and it is through this difference of object, too, that no confusion arises. One might ask: if the mind of entry takes the future attainment as its object, precisely how much of that future attainment does it take as its object? One position holds that it takes only the very first instant of the attainment as its object; another position holds that it takes as its object however many instants will actually go on to arise in succession. As the assessors conclude, it should be said that this mind of entry takes the future attainment as its object, yet it cannot be specified which particular instant it does or does not take as its object,

since the future attainment comprises many instants, none of which yet stand in any settled order before or after one another, existing instead in an undifferentiated, jumbled state. One might ask: if the mind of emergence takes the past attainment as its object, precisely how much of that past attainment does it take as its object? One position holds that it takes only the very last instant of the attainment as its object; another position holds that

it takes as its object however many instants actually did arise in succession. As the assessors conclude, it should be said that this mind of emergence takes the past attainment as its object, yet it cannot be specified which particular instant it does or does not take as its object, since the past attainment comprises many instants existing together in a jumbled, intermixed state.

One might ask: upon entering the attainment of cessation, exactly which mind and mental factors are extinguished — those of the past, the future, or the present? If those of the past, the past has already ceased — what further extinguishing could there be? If those of the future, the future has not yet arrived — how could it possibly be extinguished? And if those of the present, the present never abides even for an instant — how, then, could it be extinguished, since it would cease on its own even without the attainment's own power? Answer: it should be explained that it is the future that is extinguished. One might then ask: the future has not yet arrived — how could it possibly be extinguished? Answer: abiding within the present, one blocks the mind and mental factors of the future, preventing their continuity — and it is on this basis that this is called "extinguishing," exactly as blocking the roads into a city, shutting its gates, and raising its banners so that no one may enter or leave is called "clearing out the bandits" — the same holds true here. Another position holds that both the future and the present are extinguished together. One might then ask: the present never abides even for an instant — how, then, could it be extinguished? Answer: formerly, present mind and mental factors would cease only after first giving rise to some further, connected dharma in succession; now, this present mind and these mental factors cease without giving rise to any such connected dharma in succession at all — and by whose power does this occur? By the very power of the attainment's own extinguishing. One might ask: upon emerging from the attainment of cessation,

exactly which mind and mental factors become present? One position holds that whatever mind and mental factors of the future had previously been blocked and held back now become present.

Other masters hold instead that other, different mind and mental factors of the future now become present, since whatever had previously been blocked and held back from arising can never arise again afterward. As the assessors conclude, it should be said that mind and mental factors of the future do indeed arise, yet it cannot be specified precisely which do or do not arise,

since the future comprises many instants existing in an undifferentiated, jumbled state, none of which yet stand in any settled order before or after one another. One might ask: does this attainment of cessation admit of past possession or future cultivation? One position holds that this attainment has neither past possession nor future cultivation, exactly like the divine eye and the divine ear. If this position is accepted, then only the very first instant of the attainment is possessed as 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 admit of both past possession and future cultivation, exactly like the knowledge of others' minds and the knowledge of recollecting past abodes.

If this position is accepted, then the very first instant of the attainment 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. As the assessors conclude, it should be said, as in the first position, that this attainment has neither past possession nor future cultivation — for if one held that this attainment did admit of both, then, upon regressing from it and later giving rise to it once more, one ought properly to say that one has thereby regained what was previously obtained; yet in fact, when this attainment regresses and is later given rise to once more, this is called obtaining an attainment never before obtained — exactly as one who, without ever having committed a grave transgression, returns to lay life and later goes forth again, is said to obtain a moral discipline never before obtained; the same holds true here. One might ask: where can this attainment of cessation first arise? Answer: within the desire and form realms, never within the formless realm. If it is first given rise to at all, it is given rise to only within the desire realm; once given rise to there, should one regress from it and, at the end of that life, be reborn into the form realm, the lingering power of that earlier habituation can still bring it forth once more there — but this is not possible for any other being. How is this known to be so? As the sūtra itself states:

the Venerable Śāriputra addressed the assembly of monks, saying: "if a monk is complete in moral discipline, concentration, and wisdom, he is capable of repeatedly entering and emerging from the attainment of the cessation of feeling and perception. Whether or not he is able, in this very life or at the moment of death, to fully realize the Tathāgata's own noble intention, it is entirely possible that, at the end of this life, transcending the heavens of physical morsel-food, he will be reborn among the mind-made-body gods, and there, too, will be capable of repeatedly entering and emerging from this same attainment of the cessation of feeling and perception" — one should know this to be genuinely possible.

At that time, the Venerable Udāyin, who was present in that same assembly, said to the Venerable Śāriputra: "such a monk, reborn among the mind-made-body gods,

could never possibly be capable of repeatedly entering and emerging from the attainment of the cessation of feeling and perception — there is no such possibility at all." This same objection was repeated a second and a third time. One might ask: why did the Venerable Udāyin so repeatedly and stubbornly contradict the Venerable Śāriputra? Answer: his own doubt was not without some basis, for he reasoned to himself: "whoever has already obtained this attainment must already have become free from the contamination of the sphere of nothing-at-all, and, at the end of that life, ought properly to be reborn into the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, where it is simply impossible ever to give rise to this attainment again."

Moreover, he had failed to grasp the Venerable Śāriputra's own true intention, and it was for this reason that he openly contradicted him, again and again, three times over. One might ask: what, exactly, was the Venerable Śāriputra's own true intention, and why did the Venerable Udāyin fail to grasp it? Answer: Śāriputra was speaking of rebirth into the form realm; Udāyin understood him to mean rebirth into the formless realm. Śāriputra was speaking of one who has regressed from the attainment; Udāyin understood him to mean one who has not regressed. It was through this failure of mutual understanding that the threefold contradiction arose. One might ask: why did the Venerable Śāriputra not simply enlighten him directly, rather than allowing such a persistent and repeated contradiction to stand? Answer: the Venerable Śāriputra reflected: "who could possibly enlighten one so foolishly convinced of his own rightness?" Another position holds that the Venerable Śāriputra did indeed wish to enlighten him, but, seeing the objection repeated three times over, simply let the matter rest — exactly as in the Discourse on the Simile of the Arrow, where a great many overly confident monks each boasted before the Buddha, saying, "my own birth is already exhausted," and so on, as stated at length, and the Buddha, though at that time wishing to teach the dharma of overcoming conceit, likewise let the matter rest once the monks' own boasting would not cease — for if the World-Honored One himself, endowed with universal, all-encompassing great compassion, could still let a matter rest even in the case of the conceited, how much more so the Venerable Śāriputra? Another position holds that the Venerable Śāriputra reflected: "this very matter now under discussion will surely reach the Buddha's own ears, and the Buddha will then rebuke Udāyin and Ānanda over it, so that this admonition may endure for a thousand generations, ensuring that the ignorant never again dare to contradict what the wise have said." The Venerable Śāriputra further reflected: "this monk has now openly contradicted me three times before this entire assembly, and not a single one of my fellow practitioners of the holy life has come forward to affirm what I have said — I ought now to go before the Buddha himself and have this matter properly settled." Having reflected thus, he at once went to where the Buddha was, bowed his head at the Buddha's own two feet, withdrew, and sat to one side, and addressed the assembly of monks: "if a monk is complete in moral discipline, concentration, and wisdom," and so on, exactly as stated at length before.

At that time, Udāyin was also present in that same assembly, and again repeated the very same contradiction as before. The Venerable Śāriputra at that moment reflected: "he has deliberately contradicted what I have said even in the Teacher's own presence, and still no fellow practitioner of the holy life has come forward to praise what I have said — I shall now simply remain silent." And so the Venerable Śāriputra fell silent. The Buddha then said to Udāyin: "what, exactly, do you mean by 'mind-made-body gods'? Do you not mean to speak of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception?" He answered that this was indeed what he meant. The World-Honored One then said: "you are a foolish man, blind and lacking the eye of wisdom — how could you presume to debate such a profoundly subtle point of Abhidharma with a senior monk?" Having thus rebuked Udāyin directly before the assembly, the Buddha then further rebuked the Venerable Ānanda, saying: "you saw this foolish man troubling and vexing a senior monk — why did you simply let it pass, without ever rebuking him yourself?" Having delivered this rebuke, the World-Honored One then withdrew into his own quiet chamber and sat there in tranquil stillness. One might ask: Udāyin was indeed at fault, and so the World-Honored One rebuked him — but what fault did the Venerable Ānanda commit, that he too should be rebuked? Answer: Udāyin was a fellow-resident disciple under Ānanda's own instruction, and it was for this reason that the Buddha rebuked Ānanda for failing to teach him properly. Furthermore, Udāyin belonged to Ānanda's own body of followers, and it was for this reason that the Buddha rebuked Ānanda for failing to instruct him in accordance with the Dharma. Furthermore, the Venerable Ānanda himself, as one responsible for a body of followers, was rebuked by the Buddha precisely on this account: "how could you not know what is spoken in accordance with the Dharma and what is not?" Furthermore, what the masters of Abhidharma discuss is exceedingly profound, understood by very few — none but the Buddha and Śāriputra themselves, save that Ānanda, too, through the power of his own vast learning, understood it — and it was for this reason that the Buddha rebuked him: "knowing this meaning as you did, why did you not praise what the senior monk had said, so as to gather in a fellow companion of the Dharma?" It is for reasons such as these that the Buddha delivered this rebuke. From this episode it is thus known that the attainment of cessation is first given rise to only within the desire realm;

should one regress from it and be reborn into the form realm, one can still bring it forth once more there — but no other being can.

One might ask: why is it that, upon rebirth in the form realm, one can first give rise to the dhyānas and formless attainments, but not the attainment of cessation? Answer: the dhyānas are first given rise to through three conditions — the power of cause, the power of karma, and the power inherent to natural law. By the power of cause is meant that, in some prior life, one has already drawn near to giving rise to and extinguishing this very dhyāna before; by the power of karma is meant that the karma determining a fixed retribution proper to that ground has already been accumulated and increased, on the very point of yielding its fruit; by the power inherent to natural law is meant that, when a world-system is destroyed, the beings of the lower grounds must invariably be reborn into a higher one. The formless attainments are first given rise to through two conditions — the power of cause and the power of karma, in the very same senses already described — but not through the power inherent to natural law, since no world-system destruction ever occurs above the fourth dhyāna. The attainment of cessation, however, is first given rise to through only a single condition — the power of verbal transmission, since it is only within the desire realm that a Buddha's own teaching can be heard, and it is through this alone that it can be brought forth and made present — never through the power of cause, since in no prior life has one ever drawn near to giving rise to and extinguishing this attainment before; never through the power of karma, since this attainment is not itself karmic in nature; and never through the power inherent to natural law, since no world-system destruction ever occurs within the formless realm. One might ask: why can this attainment be given rise to upon rebirth in the desire or form realm, but never in the formless realm? Answer: the life-faculty operates in dependence on two things — form, and mind. This attainment, being mindless, cuts off mind as it arises; for one reborn in the desire or form realm giving rise to this attainment, although mind itself is cut off, the life-faculty still operates in dependence on form; but for one reborn in the formless realm, form is already absent, and were such a being to give rise to this attainment, both form and mind would be absent together, leaving the life-faculty with nothing whatsoever to depend upon, and it would therefore have to be cut off — which would properly be called death, not the entering of an attainment. It is for this reason that this attainment is never given rise to by one reborn in the formless realm. One might ask: after regressing from this attainment and dying, can one be reborn into any of the three lower formless realms? One position holds that one cannot. Why is this so? After regressing from this attainment, only two possible destinations remain — the place capable of giving rise to this attainment, and the place that receives this attainment's own ripening-fruit. The form realm, though not the place that receives this attainment's own ripening-fruit, is indeed the place capable of giving rise to it; the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, though not the place capable of giving rise to it, is indeed the place that receives its ripening-fruit; the three lower formless realms possess neither of these two features, and so, after regressing from this attainment, one can never be reborn into any of them. Another position holds that one can indeed be reborn there — yet one so reborn cannot then be called either a bodily witness or one liberated in both respects. If this position is accepted, it accords well with what the Vibhāṣā itself states, as follows:

of the four pure formless attainments, a bodily witness may possess either just one or all four. What does "just one" mean? It refers to one reborn in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. What does "all four" mean? It refers to one reborn in the desire or form realm. Exactly as with a bodily witness, so too with one liberated in both respects — the three lower formless realms, since one reborn there could never possess the attainment of cessation, could never earn either of these two names there. As the assessors conclude, the first position given above should be understood as correct.

One might ask: for how long can one remain within the attainment of cessation? Answer: for a being of the desire realm, whose every faculty and whose very body are sustained by physical morsel-food, remaining within the attainment for too long, though the body suffers no harm while actually in the attainment, will cause the body to disintegrate the moment one emerges from it — and so one should remain within this attainment only for a limited span, never exceeding seven full days and nights at the very most, since physical morsel-food is by then entirely exhausted. How is this known to be so? It has been heard that, in a certain monastery, a monk obtained the attainment of cessation. As mealtime approached, he put on his robes, took up his begging bowl, and went to the dining hall — but the striking of the wooden gong that day was somewhat delayed, and this monk, being diligent, reflected to himself: "why should I let this time pass in vain, cultivating nothing wholesome?" — and, without considering what might follow, he made a vow and entered the attainment of cessation, intending to emerge the moment the gong was struck. But at that very time, some calamity befell that monastery, and the assembled monks all scattered to other places; three full months passed before the calamity was finally resolved, and the monks gathered once more at the monastery. The very instant the gong was struck,

that monk emerged from his attainment — and died on the spot. There was, moreover, another monk who had likewise obtained the attainment of cessation, and who habitually went out begging for alms. Early one morning, he put on his robes and took up his begging bowl, intending to go into the village, when he encountered a heavy rainstorm, and, fearing it would spoil the color of his robes, paused briefly to wait it out. He then reflected to himself:

"why should I let this time pass in vain, cultivating nothing wholesome?" — and, without considering what might follow, he made a vow and entered the attainment of cessation, intending to emerge the moment the rain stopped. Some say the rain continued for half a month; others say it continued for a full month before finally stopping. When he emerged from his attainment, he too died on the spot. From this it is known that, for a being born in the desire realm, remaining within this attainment for too long, though the body suffers no harm while actually in the attainment, will cause it to disintegrate the moment one emerges — and so one should remain within this attainment only for a limited span, never exceeding seven full days and nights at the very most. Beings of the form realm, whose every faculty and whose very body are not sustained by physical morsel-food at all, may remain within this attainment for half an eon, or a full eon, or even longer still.

One might ask: if a monk enters the attainment of cessation without having made any specific vow about when to emerge, how, then, does he come to emerge from it at all? Answer: it is simply the natural course of things that he should emerge, exactly as with any attainment possessing mind. Moreover, should that monk wish to eat or attend to bodily needs, then, although remaining within the attainment causes no actual harm, emerging from it becomes necessary precisely in order to avoid such distress — and it is for this reason that he must, of necessity, emerge from the attainment. One might ask: can an ordinary being enter the attainment of cessation? The Venerable Vasumitra says that one cannot, since the sūtra itself describes this as an attainment belonging to noble ones — for if an ordinary being could indeed enter it, it would then also have to be called an "ordinary being's attainment." Another position holds that an ordinary being must necessarily delight in a higher ground and become free from a lower ground's own contamination, exactly like an inchworm advancing forward, and, since the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception has no still higher ground for an ordinary being to delight in, no ordinary being is ever capable of becoming free from that sphere's own contamination — and if one has not become free from the very contamination cut off by seeing there, one can certainly never be capable of entering the attainment of cessation; it is for this reason that ordinary beings can never enter this attainment. Another position holds that, the further an ordinary being progresses into any given attainment, the more his body and mind settle into a corresponding repose, and it is precisely this settled repose that causes his own preparatory effort to grow slack and lax — and it is for this reason that he is incapable of entering the attainment of cessation. The Venerable Bhadanta states: an ordinary being cannot enter the attainment of cessation, since, the further an ordinary being progresses into any given attainment, the more firmly entrenched his own view of self becomes, filling him with dread at the very thought of this ultimate, final cessation and giving rise to the perception of a bottomless pit — and it is for this reason that he is incapable of entering the attainment of cessation.

One might ask: can a Bodhisattva enter the attainment of cessation? The Venerable Vasumitra says that he cannot, since the sūtra itself describes this as an attainment belonging to noble ones —

for if a Bodhisattva could indeed enter it, it would then also have to be called an "ordinary being's attainment." Another position holds that a Bodhisattva must necessarily delight in a higher ground and become free from a lower ground's own contamination, exactly like an inchworm advancing forward, exactly as already explained at length above. Another position holds that a Bodhisattva can indeed enter this attainment, since every Bodhisattva seeks omniscience itself, searching it out in every possible place — and were he incapable of entering this attainment, how could he then be said to be searching out every possible place at all? The Venerable Bhadanta states:

that a Bodhisattva cannot enter the attainment of cessation, since, although every Bodhisattva has subdued his own view of self and feels no dread at this ultimate, final cessation, giving rise to no perception of a bottomless pit, he nonetheless wishes to broadly cultivate the perfection of wisdom, and his mind therefore takes no delight in entering the attainment of cessation, lest the perfection of wisdom itself be interrupted or obstructed — so that, although genuinely capable of it, he does not actually enter it in practice. This is spoken with reference to a Bodhisattva who has not yet entered the ranks of the noble ones.

One might ask: given that a Bodhisattva, throughout every one of his prior classes of rebirth, has never once given rise to the attainment of cessation, does he, within the very class of rebirth in which he finally attains Buddhahood, first give rise to the attainment of cessation and only afterward attain unsurpassed, complete awakening, or does he first attain unsurpassed, complete awakening and only afterward give rise to the attainment of cessation? If he first gives rise to the attainment of cessation, how, then, can it be said that he has not yet given rise to any aspiration for it? And how could it be said that he has not yet given rise to any dissimilar-class mind? And how could it be said that omniscience is obtained within the span of thirty-four mind-moments? But if he first attains unsurpassed, complete awakening, how, then, can the Bodhisattva be called "one whose training is complete"? And how could it be said that, upon obtaining the knowledge of exhaustion, his task is well accomplished? And how could it be said that, once the knowledge of exhaustion has arisen, he is liberated in both respects? Answer: the foreign masters hold that every Bodhisattva first gives rise to the attainment of cessation and only afterward attains unsurpassed, complete awakening. One might ask: how, then, can it be said that he has not yet given rise to any aspiration for it? Answer: on their account, every Bodhisattva, having already become free from the contamination of the sphere of nothing-at-all, forms precisely this fixed aspiration: "without ever rising from this very seat, relying on the fourth dhyāna, I shall enter the fixed state of correct destiny, attain the fruit of non-returning, give rise to the attainment of cessation, and thereby realize unsurpassed, complete awakening" — and, exactly as he has reflected, he goes on to realize every one of these in turn; it is on this basis that he is said to have "not yet given rise to any aspiration for it," meaning simply that this was not some newly formed intention at that very moment. One might ask: how, then, can it be said that he has not yet given rise to any dissimilar-class mind? Answer: on their account, who could possibly say that the Bodhisattva never gives rise to a dissimilar-class mind at all? The Bodhisattva does indeed have such minds — and even granting this statement causes no real difficulty, since it does not actually contradict the fixed aspiration already formed at the outset. One might ask: how, then, can it be said that omniscience is obtained within the span of thirty-four mind-moments? Answer: on their account, this is spoken with reference to uncontaminated mind alone, without regard to the mind of entering or emerging from the attainment of cessation. The Vaibhāṣika masters of Kashmir hold instead that every Bodhisattva first attains unsurpassed, complete awakening and only afterward gives rise to the attainment of cessation. One might ask: how, then, can the Bodhisattva be called "one whose training is complete"? Answer: this is spoken with reference to the completeness of his own faculties and of his own fruit, not with reference to the completeness of any attainment — what fault could there possibly be in this? One might ask: how, then, could it be said that, upon obtaining the knowledge of exhaustion, his task is well accomplished? Answer: this refers to the removal of an obstruction. Another position holds that it has as its substance the absence of the lower forms of ignorance; another position holds that it has as its substance a mastery over the attainments; another position holds that it has as its substance the very obtaining of every attainment. If it is held to have as its substance the absence of the lower forms of ignorance, then, on this account, the World-Honored One, upon obtaining the knowledge of exhaustion, had already cut off every form of ignorance without exception, and had already generated the very antidote-knowledge corresponding to it, and it is on this basis that he is said to have "removed the obstruction" in this sense. If it is held to have as its substance a mastery over the attainments, then, on this account, the World-Honored One, upon obtaining the knowledge of exhaustion, achieved complete mastery over entering and emerging every dhyāna, liberation, concentration, and attainment without exception, and it is on this basis that he is said to have "removed the obstruction" in this sense. If it is held to have as its substance the very obtaining of every attainment, then, on this account, the World-Honored One, upon obtaining the knowledge of exhaustion, had already obtained every dhyāna, liberation, concentration, and attainment without exception, and it is on this basis that he is said to have "removed the obstruction" in this sense — and it is therefore rightly said that his task was well accomplished. One might ask: how, then, could it be said that, once the knowledge of exhaustion has arisen, he is liberated in both respects? Answer: it is precisely because he has already obtained the mind of entering and emerging that very attainment that he is called "liberated in both respects," not because he has obtained the attainment's own substance for the very first time — it is on this same principle that he is likewise said to have obtained freedom from contamination, since he no longer needs to bring it forth again through any further preparatory effort afterward. It is in this way that the Bodhisattva, within a span of thirty-four mind-moments, attains unsurpassed, complete awakening. One might ask: what, precisely, is meant by these "thirty-four mind-moments"? Answer: the Bodhisattva, having first become free from the contamination of the sphere of nothing-at-all, afterward relies on the fourth dhyāna to enter the fixed state of correct destiny; within the path of seeing there are fifteen mind-moments, and the class-knowledge of the path constitutes the sixteenth — this marks the preparatory approach for cutting off the peak of existence's own contamination; becoming free from the contamination of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception then involves a further nine uninterrupted paths and nine paths of liberation —

and this, altogether, constitutes the span of thirty-four mind-moments through which the Bodhisattva attains unsurpassed awakening.

As the sūtra itself relates: the lay devotee Viśākha once went to where the nun Dharmadinnā was, and asked her: "Noble One, when monks are said to enter the attainment of cessation, do they think, 'I shall now enter the attainment of cessation'?" The nun Dharmadinnā replied to Viśākha: "when monks enter the attainment of cessation, they never actually think, 'I am now entering it,' or 'I shall soon enter it.' Rather, it is through having previously trained and disciplined the mind that the mind gradually becomes subtle, inclining naturally toward that very entry." One might ask: at the very moment one is about to enter the attainment, does one not first spread out a rope-bed, then wash one's feet, sit cross-legged, straighten one's body, and fix one's mindfulness, and only afterward actually enter the attainment — and, in the midst of all this, does one not think, even then, 'I am now entering the attainment of cessation,' or 'I shall soon enter it'? Answer: during the more distant preparatory stage, such thoughts may indeed occur — but from the moment a wholesome desire-realm mind gives way, without interruption, to the first dhyāna, and so on in turn until one gradually enters the attainment of cessation itself, during this immediately proximate preparatory stage, one never actually thinks, 'I am now entering it,' or 'I shall soon enter it,' at all. Viśākha then asked further: "Noble One, when monks are said to emerge from the attainment of cessation, do they think, 'I shall now emerge from the attainment of cessation'?" The nun Dharmadinnā replied to Viśākha: "when monks emerge from the attainment of cessation, they never actually think,

'I am now emerging,' or 'I shall soon emerge.' Rather, it is through the life-faculty, warmth, and the six sense-bases serving as conditions, together with whatever original vow was made beforehand to emerge — or else through being troubled by hunger, thirst, or the need to relieve oneself, since remaining within the attainment causes no actual harm while emergence becomes necessary precisely to avoid such distress — that one emerges from the attainment of cessation, as a simple matter of natural course." Viśākha asked further: "Noble One, when monks enter the attainment of cessation, which formation ceases first — the bodily formation, the verbal formation, or the mental formation?" The nun Dharmadinnā replied: "when monks enter the attainment of cessation, the verbal formation ceases first,

then the bodily formation, and finally the mental formation." One might ask: that the mental formation ceases upon entering the attainment of cessation is understandable enough — but what of the bodily and verbal formations? For upon passing from the first dhyāna into the second, the verbal formation has already ceased, and upon passing from the third dhyāna into the fourth, the bodily formation has already ceased — so how, then, can it be said that the bodily and verbal formations cease specifically upon entering the attainment of cessation at all? Answer: entering the attainment of cessation encompasses both a more distant and a more proximate stage — the bodily and verbal formations cease during the more distant stage, while the mental formation ceases during the more proximate stage;

moreover, the entire span from entering the first dhyāna all the way up through entering the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is itself called "entering the attainment of cessation," since this whole progression is undertaken specifically for the sake of entering it, and it is precisely because each of these grounds becomes present in turn along the way that no fault arises here. Viśākha asked further: "Noble One, when monks emerge from the attainment of cessation, which formation arises first — the bodily formation, the verbal formation, or the mental formation?" The nun Dharmadinnā replied: "when monks emerge from the attainment of cessation, the mental formation arises first, then the bodily formation, and finally the verbal formation." One might ask: that the mental formation arises first upon emerging from the attainment of cessation is understandable enough — but what of the bodily and verbal formations? For upon passing from the fourth dhyāna back into the third, the bodily formation has only then begun to arise, and upon passing from the second dhyāna back into the first, the verbal formation has only then begun to arise — so how, then, can it be said that the bodily and verbal formations arise specifically upon emerging from the attainment of cessation at all? Answer: emerging from the attainment of cessation likewise encompasses both a more proximate and a more distant stage —

the mental formation arises during the more proximate stage, while the bodily and verbal formations arise during the more distant stage; moreover, the entire span from the attainment of cessation itself all the way to entering the first dhyāna is itself called "emerging from the attainment of cessation." Viśākha asked further: "Noble One, when monks emerge from the attainment of cessation, toward what does their mind incline, toward what does it draw near, and into what is it on the very verge of entering?" The nun Dharmadinnā replied: "when monks emerge from the attainment of cessation, their mind inclines toward detachment, draws near to detachment, and is on the very verge of entering detachment." One might ask: what, exactly, is this passage referring to as "detachment"? One position holds that the attainment of cessation itself is called "detachment." If this reading is accepted, then, on their account, when one emerges with a mundane mind, the mind inclines toward, draws near to, and is on the verge of entering detachment on the strength of two conditions taken together — the very intention behind the emergence, and the object taken. When one emerges with an uncontaminated mind associated with the knowledge of suffering or of origin, the mind inclines toward, draws near to, and is on the verge of entering detachment on the strength of a single condition alone — namely, the object taken, not the intention behind the emergence. And when one emerges with a mind associated with the knowledge of cessation or of the path, the mind inclines toward, draws near to, and is on the verge of entering detachment neither on the strength of the intention behind the emergence nor on the strength of the object taken. Another position holds that nirvāṇa itself is called "detachment." If this reading is accepted, then, on their account, when one emerges with a mundane mind, the mind inclines toward, draws near to, and is on the verge of entering detachment neither on the strength of the intention behind the emergence nor on the strength of the object taken. When one emerges with an uncontaminated mind associated with the knowledge of suffering, origin, or the path, the mind inclines toward, draws near to, and is on the verge of entering detachment on the strength of a single condition alone — namely, the intention behind the emergence, not the object taken. And when one emerges with a mind associated with the knowledge of cessation, the mind inclines toward, draws near to, and is on the verge of entering detachment on the strength of two conditions taken together — the intention behind the emergence, and the object taken. Still another position holds that both the attainment of cessation and nirvāṇa itself are together called "detachment." If this reading is accepted, then, on their account, whether one emerges with a mundane mind or with an uncontaminated mind associated with the knowledge of suffering, origin, or cessation, taken together, the mind inclines toward, draws near to, and is on the verge of entering detachment on the strength of two conditions taken together — the intention behind the emergence, and the object taken — while, if one emerges with a mind associated with the knowledge of the path, the mind inclines toward, draws near to, and is on the verge of entering detachment on the strength of a single condition alone — namely, the intention behind the emergence, not the object taken.

Viśākha asked further: "Noble One, when monks emerge from the attainment of cessation, how many kinds of contact do they touch?" The nun Dharmadinnā replied to Viśākha: "they touch three kinds of contact — the contact of the immovable, the contact of nothing-at-all, and the contact of the signless." One might ask: what distinguishes these three kinds of contact? The Venerable Vasumitra explains it as follows: the spheres of infinite space and infinite consciousness constitute the contact of the immovable; the sphere of nothing-at-all constitutes the contact of nothing-at-all; and the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception constitutes the contact of the signless. Another position holds that emptiness itself is the contact of the immovable;

the wishless is the contact of nothing-at-all; and the signless is the contact of the signless. Another position holds that only uncontaminated nothing-at-all, taking nirvāṇa as its object, genuinely carries all three names at once — being uncontaminated, it is called the contact of the immovable; being included within the sphere of nothing-at-all, it is called the contact of nothing-at-all; and, taking nirvāṇa as its object, it is called the contact of the signless. The Venerable Bhadanta states: when monks emerge from the attainment of cessation, if they give rise to the mind of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception and no other dissimilar-class mind, this should be said to touch the contact of the signless; if they give rise to a dissimilar-class mind belonging to the sphere of nothing-at-all, this should be said to touch the contact of nothing-at-all; and if they give rise to a dissimilar-class mind belonging to the sphere of infinite consciousness, this should be said to touch the contact of the immovable — and by this same principle, the remaining five attainments possessing perception should likewise be understood accordingly, namely the sphere of infinite space and the four dhyānas. It is by this same sequence, then, that one enters the attainment of cessation, and it is by this same sequence, in reverse, that one emerges from it — exactly as one falls asleep by a certain sequence and wakes by that same sequence in reverse, or wakes by a certain sequence and falls asleep by that same sequence in reverse; the same principle applies here as well.

As it is said: "it is by relying on and abiding in this attainment of cessation that one no longer receives the future suffering of birth, old age, and death, and no longer gives rise to their accumulation." One might ask: this attainment of cessation cannot itself actually cut off any affliction — how, then, can such a statement be made? Answer: one should examine the true intention behind this statement. A trainee, upon emerging from the attainment of cessation, reflects as follows: "within this attainment of cessation, mind and mental factors are extinguished, stilled, and altogether inoperative even for the briefest instant, and even this already carries such calm, subtle stillness — how much more so nirvāṇa itself, where every conditioned formation is permanently extinguished, permanently stilled, and never again operative at all!" and it is on the strength of this very reflection that he goes on to cut off every remaining affliction, extinguish the aggregates of his own continuity, and enter the realm of nirvāṇa without remainder. One beyond training, likewise emerging from the attainment of cessation, reflects in just the same way, and so on, as stated at length, going on to extinguish the aggregates of his own continuity and enter the realm of nirvāṇa without remainder on the strength of this same reflection. It is with this hidden intention in mind that this statement is made — it does not mean that the attainment of cessation is itself actually capable of cutting off any affliction.

The Prajñaptiśāstra states: there is one who vows to enter the attainment of cessation but does not vow to emerge from it; there is one who vows to emerge from the attainment of cessation but does not vow to enter it;

there is one who vows both to enter and to emerge; and there is one who vows neither to enter nor to emerge. Here, "vowing to enter the attainment of cessation but not vowing to emerge" refers to a case such as one who makes precisely this vow: "I shall now enter the attainment of cessation," without also making the vow, "I shall now emerge from the attainment of cessation" — whichever one of the four attainments possessing perception happens to become present, he enters the attainment of cessation and then, from the attainment of cessation, emerges, whichever one of the four attainments possessing perception happens to become present. "Vowing to emerge from the attainment of cessation but not vowing to enter" refers to a case such as one who does not make the vow, "I shall now enter the attainment of cessation,"

but does make the vow, "I shall now emerge from the attainment of cessation" — whichever one of the four attainments possessing perception happens to become present, he enters the attainment of cessation and then, from the attainment of cessation, emerges, whichever one of the four attainments possessing perception happens to become present.

"Vowing both to enter the attainment of cessation and to emerge from it" refers to a case such as one who makes precisely this vow: "I shall now enter the attainment of cessation," and also makes the vow, "I shall now emerge from the attainment of cessation" — whichever one of the four attainments possessing perception happens to become present, he enters the attainment of cessation and then, from the attainment of cessation, emerges, whichever one of the four attainments possessing perception happens to become present. "Vowing neither to enter the attainment of cessation nor to emerge from it" refers to a case such as one who does not make the vow, "I shall now enter the attainment of cessation," nor the vow, "I shall now emerge from the attainment of cessation" — whichever one of the four attainments possessing perception happens to become present, he enters the attainment of cessation and then, from the attainment of cessation, emerges, whichever one of the four attainments possessing perception happens to become present. One might ask: making a vow both to enter and to emerge, and simply making a vow to enter alone, are both readily understandable, since whoever enters an attainment must, of necessity, eventually emerge from it — but how can it possibly make sense to vow neither to enter nor to emerge, or to vow to emerge alone, without ever having wished to enter in the first place? For surely one would never enter an attainment one had no wish to enter at all. Answer: in every one of these four cases, one genuinely wishes both to enter and to emerge — the distinction being drawn instead on the basis of whether one has genuine mastery over the mind of entering or the mind of emerging. That is to say, some have genuine mastery over the mind of entry but not over the mind of emergence, and it is such a person who vows to emerge but does not vow to enter; some have genuine mastery over the mind of emergence but not over the mind of entry,

and it is such a person who vows to enter but does not vow to emerge; some have genuine mastery over both the mind of entry and the mind of emergence together, and it is such a person who vows neither to enter nor to emerge; and some have genuine mastery over neither the mind of entry nor the mind of emergence, and it is such a person who vows both to enter and to emerge. One might ask: which four attainments are meant by these "four attainments possessing perception"? Answer: the four formless attainments. One might ask: why, upon emerging from the attainment of cessation, does the passage speak only of giving rise to the four formless attainments? Answer: because these four formless attainments alone, upon emerging from the attainment of cessation, can be exited either in reverse sequential order or in a reverse leaping order — that is to say, if one emerges from the attainment of cessation with the mind of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, and then gives rise to the mind of the sphere of nothing-at-all, this is a reverse sequential emergence; if one instead gives rise to the mind of the sphere of infinite consciousness, this is a reverse leaping emergence. If one emerges from the attainment of cessation with the mind of the sphere of nothing-at-all, and then gives rise to the mind of the sphere of infinite consciousness, this is a reverse sequential emergence;

and if one instead gives rise to the mind of the sphere of infinite space, this is a reverse leaping emergence — and it is for this reason that the passage speaks specifically of these four formless attainments alone.