Subsumption and Correlation

How many dhyānas and the like does the perception of impermanence, and the rest, subsume? Answer: the perception of impermanence subsumes the four dhyānas, the four formless spheres, and the four liberations — and so on at length. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: in order to refute other schools' positions and to make plain our own — just as the Vibhajyavādin masters grant that a dharma may be subsumed by something belonging to another's own-nature while denying that it can be subsumed by its own self-nature, this treatise is composed precisely in order to refute that view and to establish instead that a dharma is subsumed by its own self-nature, and never by something belonging to another's. Question: why does this passage not also state that a given perception subsumes itself? Answer: some hold that this is simply what the author of the treatise intended, and so on at length. Others hold: this passage ought instead to ask, "how many perceptions, and the like, does the perception of impermanence, and the rest, subsume?" — with the answer being that the perception of impermanence subsumes the perception of impermanence, and so on down to the perception that nothing in the world is delightful subsuming the perception that nothing in the world is delightful; this is indeed what ought to be said, and if it is not said here, one should understand that this meaning is nevertheless implicitly present. Others hold: this passage intends only to establish what has not yet been established — that a perception subsumes itself needs no separate establishing, and so it is not stated. Question: if so, then the passage below, too, ought not to state that the first dhyāna, and the rest, subsumes the first dhyāna, and the rest. Some hold: a dhyāna, and the like, subsumes many dharmas, and its own essence is not identical with those many dharmas — the meaning of self-nature subsuming itself is not something that needs stating, since a perception is merely a single dharma, and so no objection arises. Others hold: strictly speaking, the passage below, too, ought not to state that a dhyāna, and the like, subsumes a dhyāna, and the like — yet it does so state, precisely in order to display a variety of wordings and a variety of formulations, since a variety of wordings and formulations adorns the meaning and thereby makes it easier to understand. Others hold: this is done in order to display a pair of approaches, a pair of abbreviated accounts, a pair of successive stages, a pair of torches, a pair of illuminations, a pair of lights, and a pair of textual reflections — just as it is not stated here that a perception subsumes a perception, so too it ought equally not to be stated later that a dhyāna subsumes a dhyāna, and the like; and just as it is stated later that a dhyāna subsumes a dhyāna, and the like, so too it ought equally to be stated here that a perception subsumes a perception — the intention being to make both of these two formulations mutually intelligible, and so the two passages are composed to cast reciprocal light upon each other. Others hold: this passage distinguishes the meaning of subsumption from the meaning of correlation — with respect to a perception paired against itself, there is only the meaning of subsumption, and no meaning of correlation, and so it is not stated here. This is not correct, however, since with respect to knowledge and concentration, too, one ought equally not to state that there is no correlation. Rather, it should be said: a perception's own self-nature is unmixed, and so its subsumption is easily understood, and is therefore not stated; whereas knowledge and concentration are sometimes mixed in their own self-nature, or mixed in their own aspect, and so their subsumption is difficult to understand, and it is therefore stated. As for the perception of impermanence subsuming the four dhyānas: this is stated only in general terms, for although every dhyāna has the nature of all five aggregates, this perception of impermanence subsumes only the aggregate of perception, and none of the other aggregates — and, within the aggregate of perception itself, it subsumes only the perception of impermanence, and none of the other perceptions.

Within the perception of impermanence itself, its past subsumes its past, its future subsumes its future, its present subsumes its present, its contaminated subsumes its contaminated,

its uncontaminated subsumes its uncontaminated, its trainee-status subsumes its trainee-status, its non-trainee-status subsumes its non-trainee-status, its neither-trainee-nor-non-trainee status subsumes its neither-trainee-nor-non-trainee status, its regression-prone status subsumes its regression-prone status, and so on clear through its unshakeable status subsuming its unshakeable status; and, among these, whatever belongs to the first dhyāna subsumes the first dhyāna, and so on clear through whatever belongs to the fourth dhyāna subsuming the fourth dhyāna — it is for this reason that the passage states, in general terms, that it subsumes the four dhyānas. Just as it is said to subsume the four dhyānas, so too it subsumes the four formless spheres and the four liberations, the only difference being that the four formless spheres and the four formless liberations have the nature of the four aggregates alone. The remaining perceptions should each be understood accordingly, following the same pattern — yet every one of these perceptions has perception itself as its own self-nature, and so none of them subsumes knowledge, concentration, or the eighth liberation. Question: the perception of impermanence, too, extends to what is fettered to the desire realm — why, then, does this passage not mention this? Answer: some hold that it ought to be mentioned, and that its not being mentioned here should be understood as an implicit remainder of meaning. Others hold: the perception of impermanence, when it occurs in the desire realm, belongs only to the preparatory practice, not to the fundamental stage, and since this passage speaks only of the fundamental stage, it is not mentioned. Others hold: this Concentration Aggregate speaks only of dharmas belonging to the stage of concentration itself, and so the desire realm is not mentioned. Others hold: this passage poses its question by pairing the ten perceptions specifically against the dhyānas and the like, and since the desire realm is not itself a dhyāna or the like, it is not mentioned — and the same reasoning explains why the remaining perceptions likewise do not mention it.

Just as with the perception of impermanence, so too with the perception of impermanence-as-suffering, of suffering-as-non-self, of death, of severance, of dispassion, and of cessation — all seven occur within the eight equipoises and extend across both the contaminated and the uncontaminated. Because these seven perceptions differ in their object and their aspect, they do not subsume the first three liberations, the eight bases of vanquishing,

the ten totality-bases, or the immeasurables. The perception of impurity subsumes the third and fourth dhyānas and the first two liberations. Question: the perception of impurity occurs within all four dhyānas alike — why, then, does this passage speak only of its subsuming the third and fourth dhyānas? Answer: it ought indeed also to be said that it subsumes the first and second dhyānas,

and its not being so stated should be understood as an implicit remainder of meaning. Others hold: once it is said that this perception subsumes the first two liberations, one should already understand that it subsumes the first two dhyānas as well, since the first two liberations belong to the first two dhyānas. Others hold: this passage cites the latter in order to make evident the former, citing the ground free of joy in order to make evident the ground that still possesses joy. Others hold: the first and second dhyānas simply have no perception of impurity, and it is for this reason that it is not mentioned — why so? Because both of those grounds possess the joy-faculty, and every joy-faculty operates by way of a joyful, delighted aspect, whereas the perception of impurity operates by way of a weary, dejected aspect, and these two aspects cannot both operate within a single mind at once. Question: if so, then within which ground do the first two liberations subsumed by this perception occur? Answer: within the two proximate-access grounds, not within the fundamental ground itself.

since it, too, is contrary to the feeling of joy. Question: if so, then the passage below, too, ought not to state that the first two dhyānas subsume the first two liberations and the first four bases of vanquishing. Answer: that passage, in speaking of the dhyāna itself, subsumes its attendant retinue as well — just as one speaks of a city subsuming its outlying suburbs too. Question: if so, then it ought not to be said that the perception of impurity subsumes the third dhyāna, either, since that ground, too, has pleasant feeling, which is likewise contrary to the perception of impurity. Answer: the phrase "third dhyāna" here likewise subsumes its own attendant retinue, and not the fundamental ground itself, and so no fault arises. If so, then this passage, too, ought equally to say that the perception of impurity subsumes the first and second dhyānas, since you yourself grant that there is no difference, in either case, once located within the proximate-access ground. According to this latter account, then, within the fundamental ground of the first and second dhyānas themselves,

there, too, exist the perception of impurity and the first two liberations. Were one to hold that they do not, then no one could ever become free from that ground's own defilement, since that ground possesses an overwhelming joy that sets the mind leaping and stirring — and were there no perception of impurity and no first two liberations to suppress it, how could any yoga practitioner possibly become free from that ground's own defilement? Furthermore, on that view, there could likewise be no patient acceptance or knowledge of suffering and of origin there, since these, too, operate by way of a weary aspect — and, by the same reasoning, there could likewise be no perception of impermanence or of impermanence-as-suffering there either. Question: how can the joy-faculty itself operate by way of a weary aspect? Answer: it is precisely because one is capable of freely growing weary that joy, too, arises — and, at the very moment that joy arises, one is, with respect to that same object, weary of it as well, just as, at the moment of vanquishing an enemy, one is both weary of the struggle and joyful at once. Some hold: just as a king and his generals and soldiers, having crushed their enemy, share together in joy and happiness, so too does the practitioner, having crushed the desire realm by means of the perception of impurity and the like, share in joy and happiness within the first dhyāna and beyond. Others hold:

within the first dhyāna, the first two liberations and the perception of impurity serve as the antidote for the nose- and tongue-consciousness of the desire realm; within the second dhyāna, the first two liberations and the perception of impurity serve as the antidote for the eye-, ear-, and body-consciousness of the first dhyāna — and it is for this reason that the first two liberations and the perception of impurity certainly exist within the first and second dhyānas, though this passage, for the sake of brevity, simply does not state that the perception of impurity subsumes the first and second dhyānas. Others hold: the perception of impurity genuinely occurs within all four dhyānas, yet this passage speaks only of its subsuming the third and fourth dhyānas because the third dhyāna possesses the most excellent pleasant feeling found anywhere in saṃsāra, and the fourth dhyāna possesses the most excellent pliancy and bliss found anywhere in saṃsāra — being so difficult to grow weary of and so difficult to relinquish, the perception of impurity is spoken of specifically with respect to these,

whereas the first and second dhyānas possess no such bliss, and so its subsuming them is not mentioned. Question: why does this passage say that the perception of impurity subsumes only the first two liberations, and not the first four bases of vanquishing as well? Answer: the perception of impurity, being the initial, general contemplation one cultivates, resembles the first two liberations, and so subsumes them; the bases of vanquishing, being a more particularized contemplation arising afterward, are not thereby subsumed. The same holds for the perception of impurity in relation to the perception of loathing food. Question: the perception of loathing food is not itself of the nature of a liberation — how, then, can it too subsume the first two liberations? Answer: strictly speaking, this passage ought only to say that the perception of loathing food subsumes the third and fourth dhyānas, and its saying "just as with the perception of impurity" is meant only to display that the perception of loathing food takes the perception of impurity as its own preparatory practice — in speaking of the perception of loathing food together with its preparatory practice, the passage therefore says "just as with the perception of impurity." Others hold: the perception of loathing food and the perception of impurity are intermingled and mutually draw each other forth, and so do genuinely stand in a relation of mutual subsumption, and it is for this reason that the passage says it subsumes them just as the perception of impurity does. Others hold: the perception of loathing food, too, operates by way of the aspect of impurity — as when it is said that, upon receiving cooked rice, one forms the perception of maggots,

and so on at length — and it is for this reason that it, too, subsumes the first two liberations, since both operate by way of contemplating the visible-form sphere as impure. Question: if the perception of loathing food and the perception of impurity both operate by way of contemplating the visible-form sphere as impure, then what difference is there between the perception of loathing food and the perception of impurity that the World-Honored One himself taught? Answer: in essence, there is truly no difference between them, and it is only because of a difference in the particular craving each counteracts that the two perceptions are established as distinct — that is, the perception of impurity counteracts sexual craving, while the perception of loathing food counteracts craving for coarse food. The verdict: this account should not be given, since the Buddha established these ten perceptions each as genuinely distinct from one another; moreover, craving for coarse food arises with respect to coarse food itself, whose nature belongs to the spheres of smell, taste, and touch — and if one grants that this perception counteracts that particular craving, how can it then also be said, in the same breath, that it subsumes the first two liberations precisely because it, like the perception of impurity, contemplates the visible-form sphere? It should therefore be understood that the first account given above is the sound one. Because these two perceptions differ in the object and aspect they take, and in the ground to which they belong, they do not subsume the remaining liberations, the bases of vanquishing, the totality-bases, or the immeasurables. The perception that nothing in the world is delightful subsumes the third and fourth dhyānas. Question: this perception, too, occurs within the first and second dhyānas — why, then, does this passage not mention its subsuming them? Answer: strictly speaking, this passage ought to say that it subsumes all four dhyānas, and its speaking only of its subsuming the latter two should be understood as an implicit remainder of meaning. Others hold: this passage cites the latter in order to make evident the former. Others hold: the upper two dhyānas are grounds of especially excellent, delightful quality, possessing the most excellent pleasant feeling and the most excellent pliancy and bliss — and it is precisely with respect to such grounds that this perception is said to exist, in order to display that the practitioner, even within a ground of such excellent bliss, is nevertheless still capable of giving rise to the perception that nothing there is delightful,

how much more so, then, elsewhere — and it is for this reason that this passage speaks only of its subsuming these two grounds. Others hold: the first dhyāna is stirred by the wind of investigation and reflection, and the second dhyāna is swept along by the water of intense joy — and so, although the perception of impurity, of loathing food, and that nothing in the world is delightful do exist there too, they are not clear and distinct; the latter two dhyānas, being free of these disturbances, are therefore the ones said to subsume this perception. Because this perception differs in the object and aspect it takes, and in the ground to which it belongs, it does not subsume any of the liberations, the bases of vanquishing, the totality-bases, or the immeasurables.

How many dhyānas, and the like, does the first dhyāna, and the rest, subsume? Answer: the first dhyāna subsumes the first dhyāna, the four immeasurables, the first two liberations, the first four bases of vanquishing, eight kinds of knowledge, and the three concentrations. The second dhyāna subsumes the second dhyāna, the four immeasurables, the first two liberations, the first four bases of vanquishing, eight kinds of knowledge, and the three concentrations. The third dhyāna subsumes the third dhyāna, three immeasurables, eight kinds of knowledge, and the three concentrations. The fourth dhyāna subsumes the fourth dhyāna, three immeasurables, the pure liberation, the last four bases of vanquishing, the first eight totality-bases, eight kinds of knowledge, and the three concentrations. Because each of these four dhyānas has, as its own nature, the five aggregates belonging to its own fundamental ground, each is capable of subsuming the excellent qualities proper to all these categories — and it should be understood that all of this is subsumption by one's own self-nature, never subsumption by something belonging to another's.

How many immeasurables, and the like, does loving-kindness, and the rest, subsume? Answer: loving-kindness subsumes loving-kindness and mundane wisdom, and so on clear through equanimity subsuming equanimity and mundane wisdom. Because each of the four immeasurables has, as its own nature, the aggregates conascent with it, each is capable of subsuming mundane wisdom, since together they take sentient beings in general as their object; being contaminated, none of them subsumes the liberations, the bases of vanquishing, the totality-bases, or the knowledge of others' minds; and none of them subsumes any of the remaining kinds of knowledge, or the three concentrations.

How many formless spheres, and the like, does the sphere of infinite space, and the rest, subsume? Answer: the sphere of infinite space subsumes the sphere of infinite space, together with its own liberation, its own totality-base, six kinds of knowledge, and the three concentrations. The sphere of infinite consciousness subsumes the sphere of infinite consciousness, together with its own liberation, its own totality-base, six kinds of knowledge, and the three concentrations. The sphere of nothing-at-all subsumes the sphere of nothing-at-all, together with its own liberation, six kinds of knowledge, and the three concentrations. The sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception subsumes the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, together with its own liberation, the liberation of the cessation of perception and feeling, and mundane wisdom. Because each of these four formless spheres has, as its own nature, the four aggregates belonging to its own fundamental ground, each is capable of subsuming every one of these excellent qualities. The six kinds of knowledge referred to exclude dharma-knowledge and the knowledge of others' minds, since these two do not depend upon any formless ground.

How many liberations, and the like, does the first liberation, and the rest, subsume? Answer: the first, second, and third liberations subsume the first, second, and third liberations, together with mundane wisdom. The liberation of the sphere of infinite space subsumes the liberation of the sphere of infinite space, together with its own totality-base, six kinds of knowledge, and the three concentrations. The liberation of the sphere of infinite consciousness subsumes the liberation of the sphere of infinite consciousness, together with its own totality-base, six kinds of knowledge, and the three concentrations. The liberation of the sphere of nothing-at-all subsumes the liberation of the sphere of nothing-at-all, together with six kinds of knowledge and the three concentrations. The liberation of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception subsumes the liberation of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, together with mundane wisdom. The liberation of the cessation of perception and feeling subsumes the liberation of the cessation of perception and feeling. Because the first three liberations here all have, as their own nature, the five aggregates conascent with them, they are capable of subsuming mundane wisdom; being the initial, general contemplation, they do not subsume the bases of vanquishing or the totality-bases; being contaminated, they do not subsume any of the remaining kinds of knowledge or the three concentrations; and, taking visible form as their object, they do not subsume the knowledge of others' minds. Each of the four formless liberations, by contrast, has, as its own nature, the four aggregates of the wholesome preparatory practice belonging to its own ground, and so each is capable of subsuming the last two totality-bases and the six kinds of knowledge and the three concentrations.

How many bases of vanquishing, and the like, does the first basis of vanquishing, and the rest, subsume? Answer: the first basis of vanquishing subsumes the first basis of vanquishing and mundane wisdom, and so on clear through the eighth basis of vanquishing

subsuming the eighth basis of vanquishing and mundane wisdom. Because each of these eight bases of vanquishing has, as its own nature, the five aggregates conascent with it, each is capable of subsuming mundane wisdom; being an intermediate contemplation, none of them subsumes the totality-bases; being contaminated, none of them subsumes any of the remaining kinds of knowledge or the three concentrations; and, taking visible form as their object, none of them subsumes the knowledge of others' minds. How many totality-bases, and the like, does the first totality-base, and the rest, subsume? Answer: the first totality-base subsumes the first totality-base and mundane wisdom, and so on clear through the tenth totality-base subsuming the tenth totality-base and mundane wisdom. Because each of these ten totality-bases has, as its own nature, the five aggregates or the four aggregates conascent with it, each is capable of subsuming mundane wisdom; being contaminated, none of them subsumes any of the remaining kinds of knowledge or the three concentrations; and, taking visible form as their object, and belonging to differing grounds, none of them subsumes the knowledge of others' minds.

How many kinds of knowledge, and the like, does dharma-knowledge, and the rest, subsume? Answer: dharma-knowledge subsumes dharma-knowledge, and a portion of five other kinds of knowledge — and so on at length. As for dharma-knowledge subsuming dharma-knowledge: dharma-knowledge occurs within six grounds — namely, the stage of proximate access, the meditative interval, and the four dhyānas — and the stage of proximate access subsumes the stage of proximate access, and so on clear through the fourth dhyāna subsuming the fourth dhyāna. Furthermore, dharma-knowledge occurs within three paths — namely, the path of seeing, the path of cultivation, and the path beyond training — and the path of seeing subsumes the path of seeing, and so on clear through the path beyond training subsuming the path beyond training. Furthermore, dharma-knowledge takes the four truths as its object — the dharma-knowledge of suffering subsumes the dharma-knowledge of suffering, and so on clear through the dharma-knowledge of the path subsuming the dharma-knowledge of the path. Furthermore, dharma-knowledge occurs within four stages — namely, the path of preparatory practice, the immediately-preceding path, the path of liberation, and the path of advancement — and the path of preparatory practice subsumes the path of preparatory practice, and so on clear through the path of advancement subsuming the path of advancement. Furthermore, dharma-knowledge falls within the three time-periods — its past subsumes its past, its future subsumes its future, its present subsumes its present, and, within this, clear down to this very instant subsuming this very instant,

and that instant subsuming that instant. Because this passage speaks only in general terms, it says merely that dharma-knowledge subsumes dharma-knowledge. As for dharma-knowledge subsuming a portion of five other kinds of knowledge: dharma-knowledge also subsumes a portion of the knowledge of others' minds and of the knowledge of each of the four truths. The knowledge of others' minds extends across both the contaminated and the uncontaminated, and dharma-knowledge subsumes only its uncontaminated portion,

and, among the uncontaminated, there is both dharma-knowledge and class-knowledge, and dharma-knowledge subsumes only the dharma-knowledge portion, which is why it is said to be "a portion." The knowledge of each of the four truths likewise extends across both dharma-knowledge and class-knowledge,

and dharma-knowledge subsumes only its dharma-knowledge portion, which is why it is said to be "a portion." As for class-knowledge subsuming class-knowledge and a portion of five other kinds of knowledge: this should be understood just as with dharma-knowledge above, the only difference being that class-knowledge occurs within nine grounds. As for the knowledge of others' minds subsuming the knowledge of others' minds: the knowledge of others' minds occurs within the four fundamental dhyānas — the first dhyāna subsumes the first dhyāna, and so on clear through the fourth dhyāna subsuming the fourth dhyāna. Furthermore, the knowledge of others' minds extends across both the contaminated and the uncontaminated — its contaminated portion subsumes its contaminated portion, and its uncontaminated portion subsumes its uncontaminated portion. Furthermore, the knowledge of others' minds has both a dharma-knowledge and a class-knowledge aspect — its dharma-knowledge subsumes its dharma-knowledge, and its class-knowledge subsumes its class-knowledge. Furthermore, the knowledge of others' minds belongs to trainees, non-trainees, or neither — its trainee-portion subsumes its trainee-portion, and so on clear through its neither-trainee-nor-non-trainee portion subsuming its neither-trainee-nor-non-trainee portion. Furthermore, the knowledge of others' minds falls within the three time-periods — its past subsumes its past, its future subsumes its future, its present subsumes its present, and, within this, clear down to this very instant subsuming this very instant, and that instant subsuming that instant. Because this passage speaks only in general terms,

it is said only that the knowledge of others' minds subsumes the knowledge of others' minds. As for its subsuming a portion of four other kinds of knowledge: the knowledge of others' minds also subsumes a small portion of dharma-knowledge, of class-knowledge, of mundane wisdom, and of the knowledge of the path. Dharma-knowledge and class-knowledge each take the four truths as their object, and the knowledge of others' minds subsumes only a small portion of that which takes the truth of the path as its object, which is why it is called "a portion." Mundane wisdom occurs within eighteen grounds — namely, the desire realm, the meditative interval, the four dhyānas, the four formless spheres, and their proximate-access grounds — and the knowledge of others' minds subsumes only its portion within the four dhyānas. Within the four dhyānas, mundane wisdom may be wholesome, defiled, or neutral-and-unobstructed, and the knowledge of others' minds subsumes only its wholesome portion. Within the wholesome, there is that attained by birth, that perfected through hearing, and that perfected through cultivation, and the knowledge of others' minds subsumes only that perfected through cultivation. Within that perfected through cultivation, there is the path of preparatory practice, the immediately-preceding path, the path of liberation, and the path of advancement, and the knowledge of others' minds subsumes only the path of advancement. Within the path of advancement, there is that conforming to regression, that conforming to abiding, that conforming to advancement, and that conforming to penetration, and the knowledge of others' minds subsumes only that conforming to abiding. Within that conforming to abiding, there is what takes the past, the future, the present, or what lies outside the three time-periods as its object, and the knowledge of others' minds subsumes only what takes the present as its object. Within what takes the present as its object, there is what takes one's own continuum or another's continuum as its object, and the knowledge of others' minds subsumes only what takes another's continuum as its object. Within what takes another's continuum as its object, there is what takes mind and mental factors as its object and what takes the five aggregates as its object, and the knowledge of others' minds subsumes only what takes mind and mental factors as its object. Within what takes mind and mental factors as its object, there is what takes a single dharma as its object and what takes many dharmas as its object, and the knowledge of others' minds subsumes only what takes a single dharma as its object. Within what takes a single dharma as its object, there is what is itself the knowledge of others' minds and what is not, and the knowledge of others' minds subsumes only what is itself the knowledge of others' minds. It is by reason of this succession of narrowings that it is called "a portion." The knowledge of the path occurs within nine grounds — namely, the stage of proximate access, the meditative interval, the four dhyānas, and the three lower formless spheres — and the knowledge of others' minds subsumes only its portion within the four dhyānas. Within the four dhyānas, there is the path of seeing, the path of cultivation, and the path beyond training, and the knowledge of others' minds subsumes only the path of cultivation and the path beyond training. Within these two, there is the path of preparatory practice, the immediately-preceding path, the path of liberation, and the path of advancement, and the knowledge of others' minds subsumes only the path of advancement. Within the path of advancement, there is what takes the past, the future, or the present as its object, and the knowledge of others' minds subsumes only what takes the present as its object. Within what takes the present as its object, there is what takes one's own continuum or another's continuum as its object, and the knowledge of others' minds subsumes only what takes another's continuum as its object. Within what takes another's continuum as its object, there is what takes mind and mental factors as its object and what takes the five aggregates as its object, and the knowledge of others' minds subsumes only what takes mind and mental factors as its object. Within what takes mind and mental factors as its object, there is what takes a single dharma as its object and what takes many dharmas as its object, and the knowledge of others' minds subsumes only what takes a single dharma as its object. Within what takes a single dharma as its object, there is what is itself the knowledge of others' minds and what is not, and the knowledge of others' minds subsumes only what is itself the knowledge of others' minds. It is by reason of this same succession of narrowings that it, too, is called "a portion." As for mundane wisdom subsuming mundane wisdom: mundane wisdom occurs within eighteen grounds, as stated above — the desire realm subsumes the desire realm, and so on clear through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception subsuming the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. Furthermore, mundane wisdom may be wholesome, defiled, or neutral-and-unobstructed — its wholesome portion subsumes its wholesome portion, and so on clear through its neutral-and-unobstructed portion subsuming its neutral-and-unobstructed portion. Within the wholesome, there is that attained through preparatory practice, that attained through freedom from defilement, and that attained by birth — that attained through preparatory practice subsumes that attained through preparatory practice,

and so on clear through that attained by birth subsuming that attained by birth. There is, further, that conforming to regression, and so on clear through that conforming to penetration — that conforming to regression subsumes that conforming to regression, and so on clear through that conforming to penetration subsuming that conforming to penetration. There is, further, the path of preparatory practice, and so on clear through the path of advancement — the path of preparatory practice subsumes the path of preparatory practice, and so on clear through the path of advancement subsuming the path of advancement. There is, further, the past, the future, and the present — the past subsumes the past, and so on clear through the present subsuming the present, and, within this, clear down to this very instant subsuming this very instant, and that instant subsuming that instant. Because this passage speaks only in general terms, it says that mundane wisdom subsumes mundane wisdom. As for its subsuming a portion of one other kind of knowledge: mundane wisdom also subsumes a portion of the knowledge of others' minds,

since the knowledge of others' minds extends across both the contaminated and the uncontaminated, and mundane wisdom subsumes only its contaminated portion, which is why it is called "a portion." As for the knowledge of suffering subsuming the knowledge of suffering: the knowledge of suffering occurs within nine grounds, within three paths, within four stages, falls within the three time-periods, and falls within a given instant — whatever ground, path, time-period, or instant it belongs to, it subsumes precisely that same ground, path, time-period, and instant; and because this passage speaks only in general terms, it says that the knowledge of suffering subsumes the knowledge of suffering. As for its subsuming a portion of two other kinds of knowledge: the knowledge of suffering also subsumes a portion of dharma-knowledge and of class-knowledge — dharma-knowledge and class-knowledge each take the four truths as their object, and the knowledge of suffering subsumes only their portion that takes the truth of suffering as its object, which is why it is called "a portion." The same holds, exactly as with the knowledge of suffering, for the knowledge of origin subsuming the knowledge of origin and a portion of two other kinds of knowledge, and for the knowledge of cessation subsuming the knowledge of cessation and a portion of two other kinds of knowledge. As for the knowledge of the path subsuming the knowledge of the path: this, too, should be understood exactly as with the knowledge of suffering. As for its subsuming a portion of three other kinds of knowledge: the knowledge of the path also subsumes a portion of dharma-knowledge, of class-knowledge, and of the knowledge of others' minds — dharma-knowledge and class-knowledge each take the four truths as their object, and the knowledge of the path subsumes only their portion that takes the truth of the path as its object; the knowledge of others' minds extends across both the contaminated and the uncontaminated, and the knowledge of the path subsumes only its uncontaminated portion, which is why it is called "a portion." How many concentrations, and the like, does the emptiness-concentration, and the rest, subsume? Answer: emptiness subsumes emptiness, wishlessness subsumes wishlessness, and signlessness subsumes signlessness. The emptiness-concentration takes the truth of suffering as its object and operates by way of two aspects; the wishlessness-concentration takes three truths as its object and operates by way of ten aspects; the signlessness-concentration takes the truth of cessation as its object and operates by way of four aspects. Within these, each and every aspect occurs within nine grounds, within three paths, within four stages, falls within the three time-periods, and falls within a given instant — whatever aspect, ground, path, time-period, or instant it belongs to, it subsumes precisely that same aspect, ground, path, time-period, and instant; and because this passage speaks only in general terms, it says that emptiness subsumes emptiness, and so on clear through signlessness subsuming signlessness. Although all three concentrations do in fact extend to the contaminated as well, this passage speaks of them specifically as gates to liberation, and so subsumes only their uncontaminated portion.

Just as with subsumption, so too is it with "attainability": it is precisely because a given self-nature is attainable with respect to itself that this constitutes the very meaning of subsumption — that is, a self-nature, with respect to itself, is existent,

a self-nature, with respect to itself, is real; a self-nature, with respect to itself, is actually present, is not other, is not external, is not separate, is not to be liberated from, admits of no distinction, is not empty, is not non-existent, is not adventitious, is not distant, is not two, and is not in dispute.

All such characteristics are, in themselves, precisely what "attainability" means, and it is on this basis that every dharma's own self-nature subsumes itself — not in the manner of a hand grasping food, or a finger grasping clothing, but rather in the sense that every dharma, hemming in its own self-nature, keeps that self-nature from ever ultimately abandoning itself, and it is for this reason that this relation is named subsumption. Certain other masters hold that this kind of self-nature-subsumption is of four kinds — namely, subsumption by distinct sense-element, by distinct thing, by distinct instant, and by distinct continuum. As for subsumption by distinct sense-element:

this refers to the eye-element subsuming the eye-element, and so on clear through the dharma-element subsuming the dharma-element. As for subsumption by distinct thing: this refers to the fact that, within the dharma-element, there are seven distinct things — namely, form, feeling, perception, formations, and the three unconditioned dharmas — and form subsumes form, and so on clear through non-analytical cessation subsuming non-analytical cessation. As for subsumption by distinct instant: this refers to the fact that, within form, there is the past, the future, and the present, and the past subsumes the past, and so on clear through the present subsuming the present. As for subsumption by distinct continuum: this refers to the fact that present form may fall within one's own continuum or within another's continuum, and one's own continuum subsumes one's own continuum, while another's continuum subsumes another's continuum. From this same underlying principle, the rest should be understood accordingly, and it is for this reason that the passage says that attainability, too, is just the same as subsumption, since the meaning of subsumption and the meaning of attainability are one and the same. How many dhyānas, and the like, does the perception of impermanence, and the rest, correlate with? Answer: the perception of impermanence is correlated with the four dhyānas, the four formless spheres, the four liberations, four kinds of knowledge, and one concentration — and so on at length. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: in order to refute those who, being confused about correlated dharmas, cling to the view that a correlated dharma is not genuinely real, and in order to make plain that a correlated dharma is indeed genuinely real, this treatise is composed. As for the perception of impermanence being correlated with the four dhyānas: each of the four dhyānas has the nature of all five aggregates, and this perception is correlated with two of those aggregates entirely, and with a portion of one further aggregate. As for its being correlated with the four formless spheres and the four formless liberations: the four formless spheres and the four formless liberations all have the nature of the four aggregates, and this perception is correlated with two of those aggregates entirely, and with a portion of one further aggregate. As for its being correlated with four kinds of knowledge: this refers to its being correlated with dharma-knowledge, class-knowledge, mundane wisdom, and the knowledge of suffering. As for its being correlated with one concentration: this refers to its being correlated with the wishlessness-concentration, which takes suffering as its object. As for the statement that "the same holds for the perception of impermanence-as-suffering, of suffering-as-non-self, of death, of severance, of dispassion, and of cessation": this is said on the basis that all of these are likewise correlated with four kinds of knowledge and one concentration, the number being the same, which is why it says "the same holds." Among these, the case that is entirely identical is the perception of death; the case where the aspect differs but the name is the same is the perception of impermanence-as-suffering, where the name of the associated knowledge is the same; the remaining cases differ — the perception of suffering-as-non-self is correlated instead with the emptiness-concentration; and, among those where only the number is the same while everything else differs, there are the perception of severance, of dispassion, and of cessation, which are correlated instead with the knowledge of cessation and the signlessness-concentration. As for the perception of impurity being correlated with the last two dhyānas, the first two liberations, and mundane wisdom: this perception is in fact correlated with all four dhyānas, and its being said to be correlated only with the last two dhyānas should be understood just as explained in the discussion of subsumption above. As for the statement that "the same holds for the perception of impurity and the perception of loathing food":

this perception, too, is in fact not correlated with the first two liberations, and its being said to be correlated with them should be understood just as explained in the discussion of subsumption above. As for the perception that nothing in the world is delightful being correlated with the last two dhyānas and mundane wisdom: this perception, too, is correlated with all four dhyānas, and its being said to be correlated only with the last two should likewise be understood just as explained in the discussion of subsumption above. How many dhyānas, and the like, does the first dhyāna, and the rest, correlate with? Answer: the first dhyāna is correlated with the first dhyāna, the four immeasurables, the first two liberations, the first four bases of vanquishing, eight kinds of knowledge, and the three concentrations. The second dhyāna is correlated with the second dhyāna, the four immeasurables, the first two liberations, the first four bases of vanquishing, eight kinds of knowledge, and the three concentrations. The third dhyāna is correlated with the third dhyāna, three immeasurables, eight kinds of knowledge, and the three concentrations. The fourth dhyāna is correlated with the fourth dhyāna, three immeasurables, the pure liberation, the last four bases of vanquishing, the first eight totality-bases, eight kinds of knowledge, and the three concentrations. Because each of these four dhyānas has, as its own nature, the five aggregates belonging to its own ground, and because, within each single ground, the four aggregates arising together are mutually correlated with one another, it is said that the first dhyāna is correlated with the first dhyāna, and so on clear through the fourth dhyāna being correlated with the fourth dhyāna — this does not mean that a self-nature is correlated with that very same self-nature. Furthermore, because each single dhyāna subsumes many dharmas, each is capable of being correlated with the excellent qualities belonging to the immeasurables and the rest. The "three immeasurables" excludes the immeasurable of joy, since the latter two dhyānas lack the joy-faculty; those, however, who hold that the immeasurable of joy does not have joyful feeling as its own self-nature likewise say that it is correlated with joyful feeling, and so, on that view, those two grounds possess only three immeasurables.

How many immeasurables, and the like, does loving-kindness, and the rest, correlate with? Answer: loving-kindness is correlated with loving-kindness and mundane wisdom, and so on clear through equanimity being correlated with equanimity and mundane wisdom. Although loving-kindness and the rest have non-hatred and other wholesome roots as their own self-nature, this passage speaks in terms of the self-nature together with its correlated concomitants taken as a whole, treating them jointly as the very substance of loving-kindness and the rest — and it is on this basis that loving-kindness is said to be correlated with loving-kindness, and so on clear through equanimity being correlated with equanimity, which is simply the meaning of the four conascent aggregates being mutually correlated with one another. How many formless spheres, and the like, does the sphere of infinite space, and the rest, correlate with? Answer: the sphere of infinite space is correlated with the sphere of infinite space, together with its own liberation, its own totality-base, six kinds of knowledge, and the three concentrations. The sphere of infinite consciousness is correlated with the sphere of infinite consciousness, together with its own liberation, its own totality-base, six kinds of knowledge, and the three concentrations. The sphere of nothing-at-all is correlated with the sphere of nothing-at-all, together with its own liberation, six kinds of knowledge, and the three concentrations. The sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is correlated with the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, together with its own liberation and mundane wisdom.

Because each of these four formless spheres has, as its own nature, the four aggregates belonging to its own ground, and because, within each single ground, the four aggregates arising together are mutually correlated with one another, it is said that the sphere of infinite space is correlated with the sphere of infinite space, and so on clear through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception being correlated with the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. Furthermore, because each single formless sphere subsumes many dharmas, each is capable of being correlated with the other excellent qualities described above. The six kinds of knowledge here should be understood just as explained in the discussion of subsumption above.

How many liberations, and the like, does the first liberation, and the rest, correlate with? Answer: the first, second, and third liberations are correlated with the first, second, and third liberations, together with mundane wisdom. The liberation of the sphere of infinite space is correlated with the liberation of the sphere of infinite space, together with its own totality-base, six kinds of knowledge, and the three concentrations. The liberation of the sphere of infinite consciousness is correlated with the liberation of the sphere of infinite consciousness, together with its own totality-base, six kinds of knowledge, and the three concentrations. The liberation of the sphere of nothing-at-all is correlated with the liberation of the sphere of nothing-at-all, together with six kinds of knowledge and the three concentrations. The liberation of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is correlated with the liberation of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, together with mundane wisdom. The liberation of the cessation of perception and feeling has no correlation at all. Although the first three liberations here all have non-greed as their wholesome-root self-nature, this passage speaks in terms of the self-nature together with its correlated concomitant dharmas taken jointly as a whole, and it is on this basis that the first, second, and third liberations are said to be correlated with the first, second, and third liberations, which is simply the meaning of the four conascent aggregates being mutually correlated with one another. The four formless liberations should be understood just as with the four formless spheres above. Although the liberation of the cessation of perception and feeling does indeed involve many dharmas that, like mind and its mental factors, are inseparable and arise simultaneously together, it lacks any shared basis, object, or aspect in common, and so has no correlation at all.

How many bases of vanquishing, and the like, does the first basis of vanquishing, and the rest, correlate with? Answer: the first basis of vanquishing is correlated with the first basis of vanquishing and mundane wisdom, and so on clear through the eighth basis of vanquishing being correlated with the eighth basis of vanquishing and mundane wisdom. Although these eight bases of vanquishing all have non-greed as their self-nature, this passage speaks in terms of the self-nature together with its correlated concomitant dharmas taken jointly as a whole, and it is on this basis that the first basis of vanquishing is said to be correlated with the first basis of vanquishing,

and so on clear through the eighth basis of vanquishing being correlated with the eighth basis of vanquishing.

How many totality-bases, and the like, does the first totality-base, and the rest, correlate with? Answer: the first totality-base is correlated with the first totality-base and mundane wisdom, and so on clear through the tenth totality-base being correlated with the tenth totality-base and mundane wisdom. Although the first eight totality-bases have non-greed as their self-nature,

this passage speaks in terms of the self-nature together with its correlated concomitant dharmas taken jointly as a whole, whereas the last two totality-bases have, as their nature, the four aggregates arising together as a whole.

It is for this reason that it is said that the first totality-base is correlated with the first totality-base, and so on clear through the tenth totality-base being correlated with the tenth totality-base. How many concentrations, and the like, does dharma-knowledge, and the rest, correlate with? Answer: dharma-knowledge is correlated with a portion of the three concentrations — and so on at length. As for dharma-knowledge being correlated with a portion of the three concentrations: this knowledge is not correlated with the portion of the three concentrations conjoined with class-knowledge or with any patient acceptance, which is why it is called "a portion." As for the statement that "the same holds for class-knowledge": this knowledge, likewise, is not correlated with the portion of the three concentrations conjoined with dharma-knowledge or with any patient acceptance, which is why it says "the same holds." As for the knowledge of others' minds being correlated with a portion of one concentration: this knowledge is not correlated with the concentrations conjoined with the knowledge of suffering, of origin, or of cessation, nor with the portion of the knowledge of the path not subsumed under the knowledge of others' minds, nor with any concentration conjoined with patient acceptance, which is why it is called "a portion" — that is, it means being correlated with only a portion of the wishlessness-concentration that takes the path as its object. As for the statement that "the same holds, according to the knowledge of others' minds, for the knowledge of origin, of cessation, and of the path": this is said on the basis that the number is the same, which is why it says "the same holds" — yet, in fact, the knowledge of origin is correlated only with a portion of the wishlessness-concentration that takes origin as its object; the knowledge of cessation is correlated only with a portion of the signlessness-concentration; and the knowledge of the path is correlated only with a portion of the wishlessness-concentration that takes the path as its object — in every case excluding the concentration conjoined with patient acceptance. As for the knowledge of suffering being correlated with a portion of two concentrations: this knowledge is correlated only with the emptiness-concentration conjoined with knowledge, and with the wishlessness-concentration conjoined with the knowledge of suffering, which is why it is called "a portion." As for why the passage on the three concentrations themselves does not separately state their own correlation: this is because it has already been fully explained with respect to all the preceding categories above, and because, within its own category, a dharma has no correlation with itself.