A New Nyāsa Opens

"By contemplating what does one enter the concentration of loving-kindness?" Answer: by contemplating giving happiness to sentient beings. "By contemplating what does one enter the concentration of compassion?" Answer: by contemplating relieving sentient beings of suffering. "By contemplating what does one enter the concentration of sympathetic joy?" Answer: by contemplating rejoicing over all sentient beings. "By contemplating what does one enter the concentration of equanimity?" Answer: by contemplating equanimity toward sentient beings. Question: does this passage speak of the aspect belonging to the immediately preceding condition, or does it speak of the aspect co-arisen with loving-kindness and the rest? If it speaks of the aspect belonging to the immediately preceding condition,

then what aspect does loving-kindness and the rest itself take once currently manifest? And if it speaks of the aspect co-arisen with loving-kindness and the rest, why does it say "by contemplating what does one enter the concentration of loving-kindness," and so on in full? Some hold: this passage speaks of the aspect belonging to the immediately preceding condition. Question: if so, then what aspect does loving-kindness and the rest itself take once currently manifest? Answer: it takes precisely these same four aspects — namely, giving happiness to sentient beings, and so on down to equanimity toward sentient beings. Others hold: this passage speaks of the aspect co-arisen with loving-kindness and the rest. Question: if so, why does it say "by contemplating what does one enter the concentration of loving-kindness," and so on in full? Answer: this passage uses the word "enter" to mean what has already been entered, using a word for what is near to speak of what is in fact more distant — just as one might ask a great king, "from where have you come?" even though he has, strictly speaking, already arrived, this too is a case of using the word "come" for what has already come; or as it is said that one enters correctly determined liberation from birth in dependence on the emptiness-concentration — this too is a case of using the word "enter" for what has already been entered, since the mundane-supreme-dharma stage is not itself associated with the emptiness-concentration; or as it is said that, upon entering correctly determined liberation from birth, one attains the mundane wisdom bordering on direct realization — this too is a case of using the word "enter" for what has already been entered, since it is only at the moment of the three kinds of class-knowledge patient acceptance that this wisdom is actually attained; or as it is said that, at the very moment of experiencing a pleasant feeling, one truly knows "I am experiencing a pleasant feeling," this too is a case of using the word "experience" for what has already been experienced, since there is no such thing as directly knowing a feeling at the very instant it is present; or as it is said that, having severed happiness and severed suffering, with joy and displeasure already having earlier subsided, one dwells fully in the fourth dhyāna, neither painful nor pleasant, its equanimity and mindfulness purified — this too is a case of using the word "severed" for what has already been severed, since the faculty of suffering is already severed at the very moment one becomes free from the defilement of the desire realm; or as it is said that an arhat's mind is liberated from the outflow of desire, liberated from the outflow of existence, and liberated from the outflow of ignorance — this too is a case of using the word "liberated" for what has already been liberated, since one is already liberated from the outflow of desire at the very moment one becomes free from the defilement of the desire realm. The very same holds here as well: the word "enter" is used for what has already been entered, and so there is no fault in this reading. Question: as for the aspect belonging to the immediately preceding condition of loving-kindness and the other immeasurables — does one take only this aspect, or does one also take other aspects besides? Answer: a beginning practitioner takes only these four aspects in order to draw forth loving-kindness and the rest; but one who has already brought the practice to completion may, as he wishes, also take the remaining aspects such as suffering and the like in order to draw forth loving-kindness and the rest — yet once loving-kindness and the rest has actually arisen, it takes only these same four aspects as before.

"Does loving-kindness sever any binding fetter?" Answer: no. "Do compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity sever any binding fetter?" Answer: no. Question: why do the four immeasurables fail to sever any defilement? Answer: because their aspect differs from what is required. That is, it is the nineteen aspects that are capable of severing defilement, and the immeasurables do not take those aspects — the immeasurables take only these four aspects, and severing defilement is not accomplished by means of these aspects. Furthermore, the immeasurables are a resolve-attention; only a true-reality attention is capable of severing defilement. Furthermore, the immeasurables are an attention of augmentation; only a non-augmenting attention is capable of severing defilement. Furthermore, the immeasurables take only the present as their object, whereas defilement can only be severed by a path that takes all three time-periods as its object, or that takes the unconditioned as its object. Furthermore, the immeasurables take sentient beings as their object, whereas defilement can only be severed by a path that takes the very notion of dharmas as its object. Furthermore, the immeasurables take only a partial object, whereas defilement can only be severed by a path that does not take merely a partial object. Furthermore, it is only the uninterrupted path that is capable of severing defilement, whereas the immeasurables are attained at the moment of the path of liberation. Question: if the immeasurables are incapable of severing defilement, how is a certain sūtra passage to be reconciled — namely, that loving-kindness, if practiced, cultivated, and repeatedly cultivated, is capable of severing hatred; that compassion, if practiced, cultivated, and repeatedly cultivated, is capable of severing the wish to harm; that sympathetic joy, if practiced, cultivated, and repeatedly cultivated, is capable of severing displeasure; and that equanimity, if practiced, cultivated, and repeatedly cultivated, is capable of severing craving and ill will? Answer: severing is of two kinds — first, temporary severing; second, final severing. The sūtra speaks of this temporary severing; the Abhidharma rules out final severing — and, understood in this way, the two accounts are both properly reconciled. Just as there is temporary severing and final severing, so too should it be understood that there is severing with a residue and severing without a residue, severing with a shadow and severing without a shadow, severing that still trails a binding tendency and severing free of any such tendency, severing that merely crushes the branches and leaves and severing that uproots the very root, severing that merely suppresses the manifest bond and severing that destroys the latent defilement itself.

"Does the pure first dhyāna sever any binding fetter?" Answer: no. And so on down to: "Does the pure sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception sever any binding fetter?" Answer: no.

Here, "the pure first dhyāna" and so on refers to a fundamental ground, not a proximate-access ground. Question: why does the pure first dhyāna and the rest fail to sever any defilement?

Answer: although a lower ground's own defilement is indeed the kind of thing that can be severed, it is only once that defilement has already been severed that this pure dhyāna itself becomes currently manifest — there thus remains no defilement of a lower ground left for it to sever. As for its own ground's defilement, although this is indeed currently present and obtainable, this pure dhyāna is not itself the antidote for it, and so lacks the power to sever it — and the very same holds with respect to the grounds above it, which is why it fails to sever any defilement at all. Question: that it cannot sever a higher ground's defilement makes sense — but why can it not sever its own ground's defilement either? Answer: because it is itself bound by its own ground's very defilement, just as a person who is bound cannot untie himself. Furthermore, it is bound by the very same bond as its own ground's defilements, and so lacks the power to overcome them. Furthermore, it is intimately cherished by its own ground's own craving,

just as one does not abandon a dear friend even though he may be of lesser worth. Furthermore, it is inextricably interwoven with its own ground's defilement, arising in mutual, uninterrupted succession together with it, and so is incapable of severing it. Furthermore, its own ground's wholesome dharmas coexist with its own ground's defilement without ever begrudging or challenging one another, just like husband and wife; or like the son of an outcast associating with the son of a nobleman, neither showing the other any deference or apprehension — and it is for this reason that it cannot sever it. Furthermore, it is only the uninterrupted path that is capable of severing defilement, and a pure fundamental ground is not itself an uninterrupted path, and so cannot sever it. Furthermore, only a mind with no regard for a thing is capable of severing it, and this pure dhyāna does not hold its own ground's dharmas with no regard at all, and so cannot sever it. Question: why is it that a contaminated path cannot sever its own ground's defilement, or that of the grounds above, while an uncontaminated path can? Answer: because the uncontaminated path is itself an unfettered dharma, and is superior, without exception, to every contaminated dharma, and is therefore capable of severing it. Furthermore, a contaminated path takes only six aspects, being weary of the lower ground and delighting in its own ground, and so can sever only that much; whereas an uncontaminated path takes sixteen aspects, being weary of and turning away from every ground alike, and so is capable of severing them all without exception. Question: a contaminated path can also take sixteen aspects — why, then, is it incapable of severing them all without exception? Answer: although it does indeed learn to take on the very aspects of the noble path, it does so without genuine clarity, and so cannot sever defilement — just as a lion cub, though it may imitate its mother's actions, is not yet capable of actually killing prey.

"Do the first, second, and third liberations sever any binding fetter?" Answer: no. Question: why do these three fail to sever any defilement? Answer: because their aspect differs from what is required. That is, whatever aspect is capable of severing defilement is not the aspect that constitutes these first three liberations, and whatever aspect constitutes these first three liberations is not the aspect capable of severing defilement. Furthermore, these first three liberations are a resolve-attention; only a true-reality attention is capable of severing defilement. Furthermore, these first three liberations are an attention of augmentation; only a non-augmenting attention is capable of severing defilement. Furthermore, these first three liberations take a particular characteristic as their object, whereas defilement can only be severed by a path that takes a universal characteristic as its object. Furthermore, these first three liberations take only the present as their object, whereas defilement can only be severed by a path that takes all three time-periods as its object, or that takes the unconditioned as its object. Furthermore, these first three liberations take only a small portion of a single aggregate as their object, whereas defilement can only be severed by a path that takes the full five or four aggregates as its object, or that is not itself confined to the aggregates at all. Furthermore, these first three liberations take only a partial object, whereas defilement can only be severed by a path that does not take merely a partial object. Furthermore, it is only the uninterrupted path that is capable of severing defilement, whereas these first three liberations are attained at the moment of the path of liberation. "Does the liberation of the sphere of infinite space sever any binding fetter?" Answer: it may sever that of the sphere of infinite space, or the sphere of infinite consciousness, or the sphere of nothing-at-all, or the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, or it may sever none at all. As for severing that of the sphere of infinite space: this refers to the uninterrupted paths that, based on the liberation of the sphere of infinite space, become free from the defilement of the sphere of infinite space.

and so on down to severing that of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception: this refers to the uninterrupted paths that, based on the liberation of the sphere of infinite space, become free from the defilement of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. As for severing none at all: this refers to the preparatory, liberation, and further-advancing paths subsumed under the liberation of the sphere of infinite space, together with the mundane liberation of the sphere of infinite space. "Does the liberation of the sphere of infinite consciousness sever any binding fetter?" Answer: it may sever that of the sphere of infinite consciousness, or the sphere of nothing-at-all, or the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, or it may sever none at all. As for severing that of the sphere of infinite consciousness: this refers to the uninterrupted paths that, based on the liberation of the sphere of infinite consciousness, become free from the defilement of the sphere of infinite consciousness. As for severing that of the sphere of nothing-at-all, and so on down to severing that of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception:

this refers to the uninterrupted paths that, based on the liberation of the sphere of infinite consciousness, become free from the defilement of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. As for severing none at all: this refers to the preparatory, liberation, and further-advancing paths subsumed under the liberation of the sphere of infinite consciousness, together with the mundane liberation of the sphere of infinite consciousness. "Does the liberation of the sphere of nothing-at-all sever any binding fetter?" Answer: it may sever that of the sphere of nothing-at-all, or the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, or it may sever none at all.

As for severing that of the sphere of nothing-at-all: this refers to the uninterrupted paths that, based on the liberation of the sphere of nothing-at-all, become free from the defilement of the sphere of nothing-at-all. As for severing that of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception: this refers to the uninterrupted paths that, based on the liberation of the sphere of nothing-at-all, become free from the defilement of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.

As for severing none at all: this refers to the preparatory, liberation, and further-advancing paths subsumed under the liberation of the sphere of nothing-at-all, together with the mundane liberation of the sphere of nothing-at-all. "Do the liberation of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, and the liberation of the cessation of feeling and perception, sever any binding fetter?" Answer: no, since the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception has no uncontaminated attainment at all. "Does the first basis of totality sever any binding fetter?" Answer: no. And so on down to: "Does the eighth basis of totality sever any binding fetter?" Answer: no — the reasons here are as stated above for the first three liberations. "Does the first totality-base sever any binding fetter?" Answer: no. And so on down to: "Does the tenth totality-base sever any binding fetter?" Answer: no — here, the first eight are as with the eight bases of totality, and the remaining two, as appropriate, are likewise as stated above.

"Does dharma-knowledge sever any binding fetter?" Answer: it may sever that of the desire realm, the form realm, the formless realm, or it may sever none at all. As for severing that of the desire realm: this refers to the uninterrupted paths in which any one of the four kinds of dharma-knowledge becomes currently manifest, becoming free from the defilement of the desire realm. As for severing that of the form realm, or the formless realm: this refers to the uninterrupted paths in which either the dharma-knowledge of cessation or of the path becomes currently manifest, becoming free from the defilement of the form or formless realm. As for severing none at all: this refers to the preparatory, liberation, and further-advancing paths subsumed under dharma-knowledge. "Do dharma-knowledge and class-knowledge together sever any binding fetter?" Answer: they may sever that of the form realm, the formless realm, or they may sever none at all. As for severing that of the form realm or the formless realm: this refers to the uninterrupted paths in which any one of the four kinds of class-knowledge becomes currently manifest, becoming free from the defilement of the form or formless realm. As for severing none at all: this refers to the preparatory, liberation, and further-advancing paths subsumed under class-knowledge. "Do class-knowledge and the mind-reading knowledge together sever any binding fetter?" Answer: no. Question: why does the mind-reading knowledge fail to sever any defilement? Some hold: the mind-reading knowledge takes a single thing as its object, whereas defilement can only be severed by a path that does not take merely a single thing as its object. Others hold: the mind-reading knowledge takes a particular characteristic as its object, whereas defilement can only be severed by a path that takes a universal characteristic as its object. Others hold: the mind-reading knowledge takes only the present as its object, whereas defilement can only be severed by a path that takes all three time-periods as its object, or that takes the unconditioned as its object. Others hold:

the mind-reading knowledge takes only mind and mental factors as its object, whereas defilement can only be severed by a path that takes the four aggregates, or the five aggregates, or the unconditioned, as its object.

Others hold: the mind-reading knowledge takes only another's own mental continuum as its object, whereas defilement can only be severed by a path that takes both one's own and another's continuum as its object, or an object that is not itself a continuum at all. Others hold: it is only the uninterrupted path that is capable of severing defilement, whereas the mind-reading knowledge is attained at the moment of the path of liberation. "Does mundane wisdom sever any binding fetter?" Answer: it may sever that of the desire realm, the form realm, the formless realm, or it may sever none at all. As for severing that of the desire realm: this refers to the mundane uninterrupted paths that become free from the defilement of the desire realm. As for severing that of the form realm: this refers to the mundane uninterrupted paths that become free from the defilement of the form realm. As for severing that of the formless realm:

this refers to the mundane uninterrupted paths that become free from the defilement of the lower three formless spheres. As for severing none at all: this refers to the mundane wisdom subsumed under the preparatory, liberation, and further-advancing paths, together with every other desire-realm wholesome mundane wisdom, every fundamental ground's own wholesome mundane wisdom, and every defiled or unobscured-neutral mundane wisdom. Just as with mundane wisdom, so too with the knowledges of suffering, origin, cessation, and the path, and with the concentrations of emptiness, wishlessness, and signlessness — the only difference being that these uncontaminated knowledges and concentrations are all capable of severing across all nine grounds alike, yet incapable of severing all five categories without exception. Among them, the knowledge of the four truths is capable of severing the defilement abandoned by cultivation across all nine grounds; the emptiness-concentration is capable of severing the defilement abandoned by seeing suffering, together with that abandoned by cultivation, across all nine grounds; the wishlessness-concentration is capable of severing the defilement abandoned by seeing suffering, origin, and the path, together with that abandoned by cultivation, across all nine grounds; and the signlessness-concentration is capable of severing the defilement abandoned by seeing cessation, together with that abandoned by cultivation, across all nine grounds — this being their uninterrupted-path function, which differs from what was stated for mundane wisdom above; and, as for severing none at all, this refers, in their case, only to the preparatory, liberation, and further-advancing paths subsumed under them, and nothing else. Question: if these three concentrations too are capable of severing defilement, how is a certain sūtra passage to be reconciled — namely, that the Buddha states: "Monks, I say that it is through knowing and through seeing that the outflows are exhausted"; and that he further states: "My noble disciples sever the enemy of defilement with the sword of wisdom"? Some hold: only wisdom is capable of severing defilement, while the remaining awakening-factors merely assist that severing, and are hence loosely spoken of as "severing" as well. According to this latter account, the four or five aggregates conascent with wisdom are all, in this sense, capable of severing defilement, since it is precisely a universal-characteristic mindfulness-foundation that severs defilement — and the Buddha, on various occasions, praised wisdom, or praised concentration, or praised some other factor, always for the sake of benefiting other sentient beings. "Where is the ripening-fruit of loving-kindness experienced?" — and so on in full. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: this is simply what the author of this treatise intended — and so on in full. Furthermore, it is composed in order to check what others maintain — that is, some hold that no wholesome or unwholesome dharma has a ripening-fruit at all; others hold that every conditioned dharma has a ripening-fruit; and others hold that every unwholesome dharma, and every contaminated wholesome dharma, is certain to have a ripening-fruit. It is in order to check these various divergent positions, and to make clear that only unwholesome and contaminated wholesome dharmas are certain to have a ripening-fruit, while whether that fruit is actually obtained remains uncertain, that this treatise is composed. There are, however, two kinds of certainty at issue here: first, the certainty of there being a ripening-fruit at all; second, the certainty of actual rebirth. As for the certainty of there being a ripening-fruit: every unwholesome dharma and every contaminated wholesome dharma indeed has a ripening-fruit. As for the certainty of actual rebirth: if that ripening-fruit actually results in rebirth, one speaks of the Brahma-world and the like; if it does not result in rebirth, one speaks of "no place of rebirth at all." This, then, is the brief exegesis on this passage. "Where is the ripening-fruit of loving-kindness experienced?"

Answer: it may be experienced in the Brahma-world, among the gods of pure radiance, among the gods of universal purity, among the gods of vast fruit, or it may result in no place of rebirth at all. As for the Brahma-world through the gods of vast fruit: this refers to cases where the ripening-fruit of the immeasurable of loving-kindness, belonging to any of the four dhyānas, actually results in rebirth. As for no place of rebirth at all: this refers to cases where the ripening-fruit of the immeasurable of loving-kindness, belonging to any of the four dhyānas, falls short of resulting in rebirth. The very same holds for compassion and equanimity, since these too extend across all four dhyānas alike. "Where is the ripening-fruit of sympathetic joy experienced?" Answer: it may be experienced in the Brahma-world, among the gods of pure radiance, or it may result in no place of rebirth at all. As for the Brahma-world or the gods of pure radiance: this refers to cases where the ripening-fruit of the immeasurable of sympathetic joy, belonging to the first or second dhyāna, actually results in rebirth. As for no place of rebirth at all: this refers to cases where the ripening-fruit of the immeasurable of sympathetic joy, belonging to the first or second dhyāna, falls short of resulting in rebirth. "Where is the ripening-fruit of the pure first dhyāna experienced?" Answer: it may be experienced in the Brahma-world, or it may result in no place of rebirth at all. As for the Brahma-world: this refers to cases where the ripening-fruit of the wholesome contaminated first dhyāna actually results in rebirth. As for no place of rebirth at all: this refers to cases where the ripening-fruit of the wholesome contaminated first dhyāna falls short of resulting in rebirth. Just as with the pure first dhyāna, so too with the pure second dhyāna, and so on clear through the pure sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception — the only difference being that each speaks of its own respective name. "Where is the ripening-fruit of the first and second liberations experienced?" Answer: it may be experienced in the Brahma-world, among the gods of pure radiance, or it may result in no place of rebirth at all — this is explained just as for the immeasurable of sympathetic joy, since both are likewise confined to the first two dhyāna grounds. "Where is the ripening-fruit of the pure liberation experienced?" Answer: it may be experienced among the gods of vast fruit, or it may result in no place of rebirth at all. As for the gods of vast fruit: this refers to cases where the ripening-fruit of the pure liberation actually results in rebirth. As for no place of rebirth at all: this refers to cases where the ripening-fruit of the pure liberation falls short of resulting in rebirth. "Where is the ripening-fruit of the liberation of the sphere of infinite space, clear through the liberation of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, experienced?" Answer: it may be experienced in that very same ground, or it may result in no place of rebirth at all. As for that very same ground: this refers to cases where the ripening-fruit of each of the four grounds' own contaminated liberation actually results in rebirth. As for no place of rebirth at all:

this refers to cases where the ripening-fruit of each of the three grounds' own uncontaminated liberation, or of each of the four grounds' own contaminated liberation, falls short of resulting in rebirth. "Where is the ripening-fruit of the liberation of the cessation of feeling and perception experienced?" Answer: it may be experienced in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, or it may result in no place of rebirth at all — this is explained just as for the liberation of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. "Where is the ripening-fruit of the first four bases of totality experienced?" Answer: it may be experienced in the Brahma-world, among the gods of pure radiance, or it may result in no place of rebirth at all — this is explained just as for the first and second liberations. "Where is the ripening-fruit of the last four bases of totality experienced?" Answer: it may be experienced among the gods of vast fruit,

or it may result in no place of rebirth at all — this is explained just as for the pure liberation. Just as with these last four bases of totality, so too with the first eight totality-bases. "Where is the ripening-fruit of the last two totality-bases experienced?" Answer: it may be experienced in that very same ground, or it may result in no place of rebirth at all — this is explained just as for the pure first two formless attainments. "Where is the ripening-fruit of the mind-reading knowledge experienced?" Answer: it may be experienced in the Brahma-world, among the gods of pure radiance, among the gods of universal purity, among the gods of vast fruit, or it may result in no place of rebirth at all. As for the Brahma-world through the gods of vast fruit: this refers to cases where the ripening-fruit of each of the four dhyānas' own contaminated mind-reading knowledge actually results in rebirth. As for no place of rebirth at all: this refers to cases where the ripening-fruit of the uncontaminated mind-reading knowledge, or of the contaminated mind-reading knowledge, falls short of resulting in rebirth. "Where is the ripening-fruit of mundane wisdom experienced?" Answer: it may be experienced in the desire realm, the form realm, the formless realm, or it may result in no place of rebirth at all. As for the desire realm through the formless realm: this refers to cases where the ripening-fruit of each of the three realms' own contaminated wholesome and unwholesome mundane wisdom actually results in rebirth. As for no place of rebirth at all: this refers to cases where the ripening-fruit of each of the three realms' own neutral mundane wisdom, or of contaminated wholesome or unwholesome mundane wisdom, falls short of resulting in rebirth. The remaining uncontaminated knowledges have no ripening-fruit at all, and so are not spoken of here.

**The Concentration Aggregate, the Second Nyāsa — the Object-Condition Nyāsa, Part One** "There are eight attainments — namely, the four dhyānas and the four formless attainments; and there are three attainments — namely, flavor-associated, pure, and uncontaminated." Among these, the first seven each comprise all three kinds, while the eighth comprises only two, excluding the uncontaminated. Such chapter-headings and their explanatory glosses, once grasped, call for full analysis. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: in order to check other schools and to make clear our own position. For there are those who hold —

that the eight attainments do not encompass every attainment; and others who hold that an "attainment" properly refers only to the pure and the uncontaminated, never the flavor-associated; and others who hold —

that the desire realm and the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception too have an uncontaminated attainment; and others who hold that there is no such thing as "possessing" an attainment at all. It is in order to check these various divergent claims, and to make clear that the eight attainments do encompass every attainment, and that there is indeed such a thing as "possessing" an attainment, that this treatise is composed. Question: if the eight attainments encompass every attainment, how is a certain passage in the Vinaya to be reconciled — namely, that the attainment the Buddha himself enters is a thing whose very name is unknown even to every śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha; that the attainment a pratyekabuddha enters is unknown to every śrāvaka; that what Śāriputra enters is unknown to every other śrāvaka; and that what Mahāmaudgalyāyana enters is unknown to every śrāvaka save Śāriputra himself — why, then, does this treatise say that the eight attainments encompass every attainment? Answer: there is indeed no attainment whatsoever that falls outside the eight attainments; it is simply that, owing to the difference in each person's own lineage and wisdom, the very attainments they enter and exit differ in their relative excellence or inferiority, and the inferior one is simply incapable of fathoming the superior one's own attainment — and it is for this reason that the passage speaks as it does. It is for this same reason that it is said: at the moment of his own final nirvāṇa, the Buddha entered the attainment of unshakeable brilliance; Śāriputra, at the moment of his own final nirvāṇa, entered the attainment of the lion's stretching; Mahāmaudgalyāyana, at the moment of his own final nirvāṇa, entered the attainment of the fragrant elephant's turning; and the Venerable Ānanda, at the moment of his own final nirvāṇa, entered the attainment of the whirlwind — all owing to the very difference in each one's own faculties and wisdom, such that even at the moment of final nirvāṇa, the attainment each one enters likewise differs. Question: what is the difference between "concentration" (samādhi) and "attainment" (samāpatti)? Answer: some hold that concentration has a single thing as its own substance, while attainment has the five aggregates as its substance. Others hold that concentration lasts a single instant, while attainment continues on. Others hold that every concentration is indeed an attainment, yet there exists an attainment that is not a concentration — namely, the attainment of no-perception and the attainment of cessation. Others hold that there also exists a concentration that is not an attainment — namely, a concentration associated with an unconcentrated mind. On this basis, a full tetralemma should be formed: there is an attainment that is not a concentration — namely, the two mindless concentrations; there is a concentration that is not an attainment — namely, a concentration associated with an unconcentrated mind; there is that which is both an attainment and a concentration — namely, every concentration accompanied by a mind; and there is that which is neither an attainment nor a concentration — namely, every case excluded from those just described. The first dhyāna is of three kinds — namely, flavor-associated, pure, and uncontaminated. "Flavor-associated" refers to that which is associated with craving, since craving is capable of binding the mind so that it flows continuously toward its object, its own characteristic being so closely aligned with concentration that it alone receives this special name — the remaining causes and conditions are as already explained above. "Pure" means wholesome and contaminated; "uncontaminated" means the noble path. Question: a wholesome contaminated concentration has defilement, has turbidity, has poison, has thorns, has outflows, has faults — how, then, can it be named "pure"? Answer: although it is not pure in the final, ultimate sense, it is nonetheless named "pure" on account of possessing a partial purity — that is, it is not mixed with defilement, it stands opposed to defilement, it draws forth the ultimate purity of the uncontaminated, it accords with the noble path, and it belongs to the retinue of the uncontaminated. Question: the uncontaminated attainment is purity in the ultimate sense — why, then, is it not itself named "pure"? Some hold: it ought to have been so named, and its omission should be understood as an incompleteness in the text. Others hold: the term "pure" is reserved for what is contaminated precisely because that usage is universally understood, whereas naming the uncontaminated "pure"

would not be universally understood in the same way — and it is for this reason that the term is applied selectively. Others hold: names are assigned according to what is most distinctive about a thing — a wholesome contaminated concentration is, first and foremost, opposed to defiled dharmas,

and so its own quality of purity is what is most eminent about it, and it is accordingly named "pure"; whereas the noble path severs the outflows, and so its own quality of being uncontaminated is what is most eminent about it, and it is accordingly named "uncontaminated." Just as the first dhyāna is of three kinds, so too, clear through the sphere of nothing-at-all, is each of three kinds. The sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, however, has only two kinds, excluding the uncontaminated,

since neither the desire realm nor the peak of existence has a noble path at all. Question: why do these two grounds lack the noble path? Answer: because they are neither a proper field nor a proper vessel for it — and so on in full. Furthermore, the desire realm is not a ground of concentration, not a ground of cultivation, and not a ground of freedom from defilement, while the peak of existence is dull, torpid, and feeble — only a ground that is a ground of concentration, of cultivation, and of freedom from defilement, and that is clear, sharp, and vigorous, can possess the noble path. Others hold: agitation predominates in the desire realm, while torpid stillness predominates at the peak of existence — only a ground free of excessive agitation and excessive torpid stillness can possess the noble path. Others hold: the desire realm is scattered, while the peak of existence is caught in hesitation — only a ground that is tranquil and decisive can possess the noble path. Others hold: the desire realm and the peak of existence are the lower and upper extremes, while the noble path dwells in the middle, never at an extreme. Others hold: the desire realm and the peak of existence each constitute a root, and it is precisely because they are a root that they lack the noble path — that is, taking saṃsāra itself as a tree, one may either place its root below with its trunk and the rest above, or place its root above with its trunk and the rest below. Taken as the root of clamorous disorder, the desire realm is spoken of as the lower root, since it alone contains all five destinies in full; taken as the root of what is hardest to leave behind, the peak of existence is spoken of as the upper root, since its own root is the very last to be abandoned.

If saṃsāra's tree is taken according to the root of clamorous disorder, then the desire realm is its root, the four dhyānas its trunk, the three formless spheres its branches,

and the peak of existence its twigs and leaves. If it is taken instead according to the root of what is hardest to leave behind, then the peak of existence is its root, the three formless spheres its trunk, the four dhyānas its branches, and the desire realm its twigs and leaves. It is for this reason that the desire realm and the peak of existence are each said to constitute a root — and it is precisely because each constitutes a root that neither possesses the noble path.

"Is there ever a case of possessing a flavor-associated first dhyāna, without possessing its pure or uncontaminated counterpart?" Answer: yes — namely, one whose craving for the desire realm is not yet exhausted, since one whose craving for a lower ground is not yet exhausted must necessarily still possess craving for the ground above it, and must necessarily not yet have attained that higher ground's own fundamental pure or uncontaminated attainment. "Is there ever a case of possessing a pure first dhyāna, without possessing its flavor-associated or uncontaminated counterpart?" Answer: yes — namely, an ordinary worldling born in the desire realm or the Brahma-world, whose craving for the Brahma-world is exhausted, who, born in that very ground or a lower one, has his craving for that ground exhausted — such a one must necessarily possess that ground's own pure attainment, and must necessarily not possess that ground's own flavor-associated attainment; and, being an ordinary worldling, he does not possess the uncontaminated attainment either. "Is there ever a case of possessing an uncontaminated first dhyāna, without possessing its flavor-associated or pure counterpart?"

Answer: yes — namely, a noble one born above the Brahma-world, since a noble one born in a higher ground must necessarily possess that lower ground's own uncontaminated attainment, and must necessarily not possess that lower ground's own flavor-associated or pure attainment, since the flavor-associated has already been severed, and the pure is relinquished the moment one crosses over to a different realm or ground. Question: one born in a higher ground also possesses that lower ground's own transformation-fruit mind — why, then, is it said that he does not possess that lower ground's own pure attainment? Some hold: the unobscured-neutral too may properly be called "pure," yet it is not spoken of here, since it is itself a higher ground's own fruit, and so is not called that lower ground's own "pure" attainment; furthermore, this passage speaks only of what can actually be obtained in every ground alike, and since the transformation-fruit mind does not exist in the formless realm, it is for this reason not mentioned here. According to this latter account, "pure concentration" in this passage refers specifically to contaminated wholesome dharmas, and so this poses no real objection. "Is there ever a case of possessing both the flavor-associated and the pure first dhyāna, without possessing the uncontaminated?" Answer: yes — namely, an ordinary worldling born in the desire realm, whose craving for the desire realm is exhausted but whose craving for the Brahma-world is not yet exhausted, and one born in the Brahma-world whose craving for the Brahma-world is not yet exhausted.

That is, one who, born in that very ground or a lower one, has not yet exhausted his craving for that ground must necessarily possess that ground's own flavor-associated and pure attainment; and, being an ordinary worldling, he does not possess the uncontaminated attainment. "Is there ever a case of possessing both the flavor-associated and the uncontaminated first dhyāna, without possessing the pure?" Answer: no, since whoever possesses that ground's own flavor-associated and uncontaminated attainment must necessarily also possess that ground's own pure attainment. "Is there ever a case of possessing both the pure and the uncontaminated first dhyāna,

without possessing the flavor-associated?" Answer: yes — namely, a noble one born in the desire realm or the Brahma-world, whose craving for the Brahma-world is exhausted — that is, a noble one who, born in that very ground or a lower one, has that ground's own craving exhausted, must necessarily possess that ground's own pure and uncontaminated attainment, without possessing the flavor-associated. "Is there ever a case of possessing all three — the flavor-associated, the pure, and the uncontaminated first dhyāna — at once?" Answer: yes — namely, a noble one born in the desire realm, whose craving for the desire realm is exhausted but whose craving for the Brahma-world is not yet exhausted, and one born in the Brahma-world whose craving for the Brahma-world is not yet exhausted — that is, a noble one who, born in that very ground or a lower one, has the lower ground's own craving exhausted

yet has not yet exhausted this ground's own craving, must necessarily possess all three of this ground's own kinds of attainment. "Is there ever a case of not possessing a flavor-associated first dhyāna, and also not possessing its pure or uncontaminated counterpart?" Answer: yes — namely, a noble one born in the desire realm or the Brahma-world, whose craving for the Brahma-world is exhausted. Passages such as these are found stated in the base treatise itself, and, as appropriate, the full complementary set opposite to "possession" should likewise be worked out in detail. Question: one whose craving for the Brahma-world is exhausted also fails to possess the pure attainment conforming to regression from the first dhyāna — why is this not stated here? Some hold: it ought to have been stated, and its omission should be understood as an incompleteness in the text. Others hold: this passage speaks specifically of failing to possess something in its entirety — such a one, although he fails to possess the attainment conforming to regression, does possess the remainder of the pure attainment, and it is for this reason that it is not stated.

Question: why is it that a pure concentration is relinquished upon crossing over to a different realm or ground, while the uncontaminated is not? Answer: a pure concentration is itself contaminated, and so falls squarely within a given realm and ground; being reborn in a higher realm, one grows weary of the lower, and, having no further use for it, one relinquishes it. The uncontaminated attainment, however, although it too falls within a given ground, does not fall within any particular realm; being reborn in a higher realm, one does not grow weary of the lower, and so, although one may have no further use for it, one does not relinquish it.

"Is there ever a case of attaining a flavor-associated first dhyāna, without attaining its pure or uncontaminated counterpart?" Answer: yes — namely, at the moment of regressing from one's exhausted craving for the Brahma-world, and at the moment of dying in the Brahma-world or above and being reborn in the desire realm. Question: at the moment of regressing from one's exhausted craving for the Brahma-world, one also attains the pure attainment conforming to regression from the first dhyāna — why is this not stated here? Some hold: it ought to have been stated, and its omission should be understood as an incompleteness in the text. Others hold: this passage speaks specifically of attaining something in its entirety — such a one attains only a partial portion of it, and it is for this reason that it is not stated. "Is there ever a case of attaining a pure first dhyāna, without attaining its flavor-associated or uncontaminated counterpart?"

Answer: yes — namely, at the moment an ordinary worldling's craving for desire is exhausted, since it is at the ninth path of liberation, at the moment of becoming free from the defilement of desire, that one attains the fundamental pure first dhyāna. "Is there ever a case of attaining an uncontaminated first dhyāna, without attaining its flavor-associated or pure counterpart?" Answer: yes — namely, based on a dhyāna or the meditative interval, at the moment of entering correctly determined liberation from birth, and at the moment of attaining the arhat's fruit. Question: one who enters correctly determined liberation from birth also attains a pure first dhyāna — namely, the mundane wisdom bordering on direct realization — why is this not stated here? Some hold: it ought to have been stated, and its omission should be understood as an incompleteness in the text. Others hold: this passage speaks specifically of attaining something in its entirety — such a one attains only a partial portion of it, and it is for this reason that it is not stated. Others hold: during the very state of entering correctly determined liberation from birth, this is, for the most part, not actually attained — it is attained only across three particular instants — and it is for this reason that it is not stated. Others hold: it is precisely at the moment the mundane-supreme-dharma stage ceases and the patient acceptance of the knowledge of suffering-in-the-Dharma arises that one is named as entering correctly determined liberation from birth, and, at that very moment, one attains only the uncontaminated, and so the pure is not mentioned. Question: at the moment of attaining the arhat's fruit, one has already, earlier, attained the uncontaminated first dhyāna — namely, at the moment of entering correctly determined liberation from birth — why, then, does this passage speak once again of attaining the uncontaminated? Answer: strictly speaking, this passage ought to have spoken only of the moment of entering correctly determined liberation from birth, and ought not to have spoken of attaining the arhat's fruit as well — yet it speaks as it does precisely in order to make clear that, although the uncontaminated was indeed attained earlier, this earlier attainment was only the trainee's own uncontaminated, not yet the non-trainee's — and it is for this reason that it speaks once again of attaining it. Question: if so, then the very same ought to be said of the moment one gives rise to the binding defilement of the Brahma-world or above and thereby regresses from the arhat's fruit, since at that very moment one once again attains the trainee's own uncontaminated. Answer: in principle, this too ought to have been stated, and its omission should be understood thus: the uncontaminated is itself an excellent quality, and it is fitting to point out its attainment at a moment of advancement, but not fitting to point it out at a moment of regression — and it is for this reason that it is not stated. Question: if so, then at the moment of attaining a trainee's fruit, and at the moment a follower-through-faith refines his faculties into becoming a follower-through-vision, one likewise attains a superior uncontaminated attainment in both cases —

why is this not stated here? Answer: because what one had before was already the trainee's own uncontaminated, and what one attains now is likewise the trainee's own — and it is for this reason that it is not stated; for the very same reason, refining one's faculties as a non-trainee is likewise not mentioned. Question: at the moment of attaining the arhat's fruit, one also attains countless contaminated wholesome dharmas — why is it not said that one also attains the pure? Some hold: it ought to have been stated, and its omission should be understood as an incompleteness in the text. Others hold: the uncontaminated relinquishes what was attained earlier in favor of what is attained now, and it is for this reason that its attainment is spoken of; the contaminated, however, does not relinquish what was attained earlier in favor of what is attained now, and it is for this reason that its attainment is not spoken of. Others hold: what is attained now is called "pure" in just the same sense as what was attained earlier — there being no real difference in meaning between the two — unlike the trainee and the non-trainee, which do carry a genuine difference, and it is for this reason that it is not mentioned. Others hold: although it is indeed attained, it is not mentioned because it is not fixed — that is, one who attains the arhat's fruit while born in the desire realm or the Brahma-world does attain it, whereas one born in a higher ground does not. Others hold: this passage speaks specifically of attaining something in its entirety — such a one attains only a partial portion of it, and it is for this reason that it is not stated. "Is there ever a case of attaining both the flavor-associated and the pure first dhyāna, without attaining the uncontaminated?" Answer: yes — namely, at the moment of dying in the Brahma-world or above and being reborn in the Brahma-world, since both are attained together at the moment of taking on the intermediate-existence body. "Is there ever a case of attaining both the flavor-associated and the uncontaminated first dhyāna, without attaining the pure?" Answer: no. Question: at the moment an arhat gives rise to the binding defilement of the Brahma-world and thereby regresses, he attains both of these together — why, then, does this passage say "no"? Answer: it ought properly to be said "yes," and this is exactly the case just described — and its saying "no" should be understood as an incompleteness in the text. Others hold: "attaining the uncontaminated first dhyāna" here means specifically what one did not possess before and now comes to possess — since one already possessed it before, its attainment is not mentioned here. Others hold: as already stated above, the uncontaminated is itself an excellent quality, and it is fitting to point out its attainment at a moment of advancement, but not fitting to point it out at a moment of regression, and it is for this reason that it is not mentioned. "Is there ever a case of attaining both the pure and the uncontaminated first dhyāna, without attaining the flavor-associated?" Answer: yes —

namely, at the moment a noble one's craving for the desire realm is exhausted, since both are attained together at the moment of attaining the non-returner's fruit. "Is there ever a case of attaining all three — the flavor-associated, the pure, and the uncontaminated first dhyāna — at once?" Answer: no. Question: at the moment of giving rise to the binding defilement of the Brahma-world and thereby regressing from the arhat's fruit, all three are attained together — why is this not stated?

Answer: at that moment, only a partial portion of the pure is attained, and it is for this reason that it is not stated; the uncontaminated case is as explained above.

Question: what is the difference between "attainment" and "possession"? Some hold: the very name already differs — one is named "attainment," the other "possession." Others hold:

coming to possess what one did not possess before is called "attainment"; continuing to possess what one already possessed before is called "possession." Others hold: the very first instance of coming to possess something is called "attainment"; every repeated instance thereafter is called "possession." Others hold: coming to possess something one did not previously possess is called "attainment"; continuing to possess something one already previously possessed is called "possession." Others hold:

coming to stand in a binding relationship where none existed before is called "attainment"; continuing to stand in a binding relationship that already existed before is called "possession." Others hold: the very first instance of attaining something is called "attainment"; continuing, once attained, without interruption, is called "possession." Others hold: the very first securing of something is called "attainment"; continuing, once secured, without loss, is called "possession" — and it is for this reason that "attainment" occurs only at the very first instant, while "possession" spans both the first instant and every instant thereafter. Such, then, is the difference between the two. "Is there ever a case of relinquishing a flavor-associated first dhyāna, without relinquishing its pure or uncontaminated counterpart?" Answer: yes — namely, at the moment one's craving for the Brahma-world is exhausted. Passages such as these are found stated in the base treatise itself, and, as appropriate, the full complementary set opposite to "attainment" should likewise be worked out in detail. Question: at the moment one's craving for the Brahma-world is exhausted, one also relinquishes the pure attainment conforming to regression — why is this not stated? Answer: this passage speaks specifically of relinquishing something in its entirety — such a one relinquishes only a partial portion of it, and it is for this reason that it is not stated. Question: at the moment of attaining a fruit, at the moment of refining one's faculties, and at the moment of regression, there is, in every case, only the relinquishing of the uncontaminated first dhyāna and nothing else — why is this not stated here? Some hold: it ought to have been stated, and its omission should be understood as an incompleteness in the text. Others hold: this passage speaks specifically of relinquishing something without ever attaining it again — such a one, having relinquished it, comes to attain it once again, and it is for this reason that it is not stated. Question: what is the difference between "relinquishing" and "not possessing"? Answer: the very name already differs — one is named "relinquishing," the other "not possessing" — and, in every other respect, the full complementary set opposite to "attainment" and "possession," as explained above, should likewise be worked out in detail.

"Is there ever a case of regressing from a flavor-associated first dhyāna, without regressing from its pure or uncontaminated counterpart?" Answer: no, since relinquishing a defilement is never itself called "regression." "Is there ever a case of regressing from a pure first dhyāna, without regressing from its flavor-associated or uncontaminated counterpart?" Answer: yes — namely, at the moment an ordinary worldling regresses from his exhausted craving for the desire realm.

"Is there ever a case of regressing from both the pure and the uncontaminated first dhyāna, without regressing from the flavor-associated?" Answer: yes — namely, at the moment a noble one regresses from his exhausted craving for the desire realm.

"Is there any further kind of regression besides these?" Answer: no. Question: at the moment of giving rise to the binding defilement of the upper two realms and thereby regressing from the non-trainee's fruit, and at the moment of regressing from one's own lineage-determination, there is, in every case, only the regression from the uncontaminated first dhyāna and nothing else — why is this not stated here? Some hold: it ought to have been stated, and its omission should be understood as an incompleteness in the text. Others hold: this passage speaks specifically of regressing from something without ever attaining it again — such a one, although he regresses, comes to attain it once again, and it is for this reason that it is not stated. Question: what is the difference between "relinquishing" and "regressing"? Some hold: the very name already differs — one is named "relinquishing," the other "regressing." Others hold: "relinquishing" spans both a moment of advancement and a moment of regression, while "regressing" applies only to a moment of regression. Others hold: "relinquishing" spans both a moment of diminishment and a moment of increase, while "regressing" applies only to a moment of diminishment. Others hold: "relinquishing" spans both a higher and a lower state, while "regressing" applies only to a lower state. Others hold: "relinquishing" spans both a flourishing and a declining state, while "regressing" applies only to a declining state. Others hold: "relinquishing" spans all three of the flavor-associated and the rest, while "regressing" applies only to the remaining two, excluding the flavor-associated. Others hold: "relinquishing" spans both sharp and dull faculties, while "regressing" applies only to dull faculties. Such, then, is the difference between "relinquishing" and "regressing."

It should accordingly be understood that this discussion involves six kinds of possession, six kinds of non-possession, five kinds of attainment, three kinds of relinquishment, and two kinds of regression, all in order to clarify the differences among the flavor-associated, the pure, and the uncontaminated as applied to the first dhyāna. As it is said, "the first dhyāna, and so on down to the sphere of nothing-at-all, should be explained in just the same way" — this is only a general statement, and the specific differences within it should be understood according to their own proper principles. The sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, lacking all three kinds, is not displayed in the same fashion — yet, with respect to the two kinds it does possess, the very same pattern as above should likewise be understood accordingly.