Entering the Womb Aware

Is there a case of suddenly attaining the flavor-associated four dhyānas all at once? Answer: there is — this refers to someone whose craving for the form realm has been exhausted who, upon the arising of an affliction, regresses into the desire realm or the Brahmā world, or who, dying in the formless realm, is reborn in the desire realm or the Brahmā world. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: although the preceding passage has already explained attainment and relinquishment, it has not yet distinguished gradual from sudden — this treatise now wishes to display the distinction between the gradual and the sudden. Furthermore, the preceding passage explained matters by cross-referencing the three categories (flavor-associated, pure, uncontaminated) against one another, whereas this treatise now wishes to explain each category purely on its own terms, and it is for this reason that it is composed. "Sudden" means simultaneous; "gradual" means occurring one after another in succession. This passage shows that the flavor-associated four dhyānas are suddenly attained all at once on two occasions — namely, the moment of regression and the moment of rebirth. "Regression" refers to someone whose craving for the form realm has been exhausted; "rebirth" refers to someone dying in the formless realm — such a person, upon regressing into the desire realm or the Brahmā world through the arising of an affliction, or upon being reborn in the desire realm or the Brahmā world, attains all four flavor-associated dhyānas simultaneously at once. Is there a case of suddenly relinquishing the flavor-associated four dhyānas all at once? Answer: no, since there is no case of simultaneously becoming free from the defilement of all four grounds at once. Is there a case of gradually attaining the flavor-associated four dhyānas? Answer: there is — this, too, occurs gradually on two occasions, namely regression and rebirth. "Regression" refers to someone whose craving for the form realm has been exhausted who, upon the arising of an affliction, regresses successively through each dhyāna one after another from the bottom up; "rebirth" refers to someone dying in the formless realm who is reborn successively in each dhyāna-ground one after another from the bottom up — such a person attains the flavor-associated four dhyānas gradually, one after another. Is there a case of gradually relinquishing the flavor-associated four dhyānas? Answer: there is, since one necessarily first becomes free from the first dhyāna's own defilement, and only afterward, in succession, becomes free from the fourth dhyāna's own defilement. Is there a case of suddenly attaining the pure four dhyānas all at once? Answer: no, since there is no case of someone who did not previously possess any of the pure four dhyānas at all now attaining all four simultaneously at once. Is there a case of suddenly relinquishing the pure four dhyānas all at once?

Answer: there is — this refers to someone whose craving for Śubhakṛtsna has been exhausted who, upon the arising of an affliction, regresses into the desire realm, or who, dying in the desire realm or the Brahmā world, is reborn in the formless realm. This passage shows that the pure four dhyānas are suddenly relinquished all at once on two occasions — namely, the moment of regression and the moment of transcending the realm and ground — and the correspondence between these should be worked out accordingly. Is there a case of gradually attaining the pure four dhyānas? Answer: there is — this refers to someone who first attains the first dhyāna upon becoming free from the desire realm's own defilement, and only afterward, in succession, attains the fourth dhyāna upon becoming free from the third dhyāna's own defilement. As for dying in the formless realm and being reborn successively in each of the four dhyānas from the bottom up, although this, too, could be called "gradual attainment,"

since, in that case, one attains one dhyāna while relinquishing another at the very same time, this is not what is meant here. Is there a case of gradually relinquishing the pure four dhyānas? Answer: there is — this, too, occurs gradually on two occasions, namely the moment of regression and the moment of transcending the realm and ground. "Regression" refers to gradually regressing, one ground after another from the bottom up, through the arising of an affliction; "transcending the realm and ground" refers to being gradually reborn, one ground after another, from a lower ground up to a higher one. As for being reborn successively in each lower dhyāna-ground one after another from an upper dhyāna, although this, too, could be called "gradual relinquishment," since, in that case, one relinquishes one dhyāna while attaining another at the very same time, this is not what is meant here. Is there a case of suddenly attaining the uncontaminated four dhyānas all at once? Answer: there is — this refers to someone who, based on the fourth dhyāna, enters correctly determined liberation from birth, or who attains the fruit of arhatship. Some hold that this passage does not refer to attaining the fruit of arhatship, since one would already have attained the uncontaminated four dhyānas while still at the trainee stage; yet it should indeed be said here to refer to attaining the fruit of arhatship, since everything attained at the trainee stage is entirely relinquished, and the non-trainee's own uncontaminated four dhyānas are then suddenly attained all at once. Is there a case of suddenly relinquishing the uncontaminated four dhyānas all at once? Answer: there is — this refers to a noble one whose craving for Śubhakṛtsna has been exhausted who, upon the arising of an affliction, regresses into the desire realm. Although one who has attained the fruit and refined his faculties, and who does not himself give rise to an affliction of the desire realm, does also, at the moment of regression, suddenly relinquish the uncontaminated four dhyānas all at once, he regains them again at that very same instant, and it is for this reason that this case is not mentioned here. Is there a case of gradually attaining the uncontaminated four dhyānas? Answer: there is, since a noble one becoming free from a lower ground's own defilement, or giving rise to the path of the excellent fruit, attains them gradually. Is there a case of gradually relinquishing the uncontaminated four dhyānas?

Answer: there is, since a noble one whose craving for Śubhakṛtsna has been exhausted, upon gradually regressing through the arising of an affliction of a lower ground one after another, gradually relinquishes the uncontaminated four dhyānas. Is there a case of suddenly attaining the flavor-associated four formless spheres all at once? Answer: there is — this refers to an arhat who, upon the arising of an affliction of the desire realm, the form realm, or the sphere of infinite space, regresses; here, there is no possibility of attaining them all at once through rebirth. Is there a case of suddenly relinquishing the flavor-associated four formless spheres all at once? Answer: no, exactly as explained above. Is there a case of gradually attaining the flavor-associated four formless spheres? Answer: there is — here, at the moment of regression, one gradually attains across all four, while at the moment of rebirth, one gradually attains across only three. Is there a case of gradually relinquishing the flavor-associated four formless spheres? Answer: there is, exactly as explained above. Is there a case of suddenly attaining the pure four formless spheres all at once? Answer: no, since there is no case of someone who did not previously possess any of the pure four formless spheres at all now attaining all four simultaneously at once. Question: at the moment of attaining the fruit and refining one's faculties, there is indeed a sudden cultivation with respect to both the pure four dhyānas and the pure four formless spheres — why, then, is the answer "no" given both in the discussion of the dhyānas above and here for the formless spheres? Answer: in both cases, these were already possessed beforehand and never relinquished, and one now merely attains a small additional portion of them, which is therefore not what is meant here by "attainment." Is there a case of suddenly relinquishing the pure four formless spheres all at once? Answer: there is — this refers to someone whose craving for the sphere of nothing-at-all has been exhausted who, upon the arising of an affliction, regresses into the desire or form realm; here, there is no possibility of relinquishment through transcending the realm and ground. Is there a case of gradually attaining the pure four formless spheres? Answer: there is, exactly as explained above.

Is there a case of gradually relinquishing the pure four formless spheres? Answer: there is — here, at the moment of regression, one gradually relinquishes across all four, while at the moment of transcending the ground, one gradually relinquishes across only three. Is there a case of suddenly attaining the uncontaminated three formless spheres all at once? Answer: there is — this refers to the moment of attaining the fruit of arhatship. Although a non-trainee refining his faculties likewise attains them all at once, this is not a distinct category, and it is for this reason not separately mentioned — moreover, that case, too, is simply called "the moment of attaining the fruit of arhatship," and so is not separately stated. Is there a case of suddenly relinquishing the uncontaminated three formless spheres all at once? Answer: there is — this refers to a noble one whose craving for the sphere of infinite consciousness has been exhausted who, upon the arising of an affliction, regresses into the desire or form realm; the explanation is exactly as above. Is there a case of gradually attaining the uncontaminated three formless spheres? Answer: there is, since becoming free from a lower ground's own defilement, or giving rise to the path of the excellent fruit, occurs gradually. Is there a case of gradually relinquishing the uncontaminated three formless spheres? Answer: there is,

since a noble one whose craving for the sphere of infinite consciousness has been exhausted, upon gradually regressing through the arising of an affliction of a lower ground one after another, gradually relinquishes the uncontaminated three formless spheres.

By which level of concentration are bodily and verbal manifest and unmanifest action eliminated? Answer: bodily and verbal manifest action is eliminated by the first dhyāna or the stage of proximate access; bodily and verbal unmanifest action is eliminated by the four dhyānas or the stage of proximate access. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: in order to refute those who hold that manifest and unmanifest action is not genuinely real, and to make plain that manifest and unmanifest action is indeed genuinely real; and also in order to refute the view that bodily and verbal manifest action extends clear through the fourth dhyāna, and unmanifest action clear through the peak of existence — this treatise now wishes to display that bodily and verbal manifest action extends only clear through the Brahmā world, and unmanifest action only clear through the fourth dhyāna, and it is for this reason that it is composed. Question: why do the upper three dhyānas have no bodily or verbal manifest action? Answer: bodily and verbal manifest action arises together with investigation and reflection — wherever investigation and reflection are found in a given ground, bodily and verbal manifest action is also found there. A sūtra states: "having investigated, one then speaks — one does not speak without having investigated"; and bodily manifestation, too, should likewise be understood as occurring only after investigation, never without it. Since investigation and reflection have ceased in the upper three dhyānas, there is no bodily or verbal manifest action there. Question: why do the upper grounds lack investigation and reflection? Answer: investigation and reflection are coarse, agitated, and not tranquil, whereas the upper grounds are subtle and tranquil. Question: why does bodily and verbal unmanifest action extend only up through the fourth dhyāna, and not into the upper grounds? Answer: wholesome unmanifest action serves as the antidote for unwholesome unmanifest action, and unwholesome unmanifest action exists only in the desire realm — the formless realm is too far removed from the desire realm in all four respects for it to exist there. Others hold: the form realm, clear through the fourth dhyāna, is capable of feeling revulsion toward the desire realm's own evil deeds, whereas the upper grounds are not. Others hold: unmanifest action depends upon the physical body's own great elements, and, since the formless realm has no physical body or great elements, it likewise has no unmanifest action. Here, bodily and verbal manifest action may be wholesome, unwholesome, or neutral. The unwholesome is fettered to the desire realm, and is eliminated by the stage of proximate access; the wholesome and the neutral are fettered to the desire realm or the first dhyāna. That fettered to the desire realm is eliminated by the stage of proximate access; that fettered to the first dhyāna is eliminated by the first dhyāna's own stage of proximate access, the meditative interval, or the second dhyāna's own proximate-access ground. The term "stage of proximate access" here extends to all eight proximate-access grounds together with the meditative interval, since none of these has actually reached the fundamental level of concentration itself. As for the concentration spoken of in this passage, some hold that it refers to the uncontaminated concentration alone; others hold that it refers to both the contaminated and uncontaminated concentration together. If it refers to the uncontaminated concentration alone, then the term "stage of proximate access" here denotes the stage of proximate access and the meditative interval; if it refers to both the contaminated and uncontaminated together, then the term "stage of proximate access" here denotes the stage of proximate access, the meditative interval, and the second dhyāna's own proximate-access ground. Furthermore, as for the "elimination" spoken of in this passage, some hold that it refers generally to generic-type elimination; others hold that it refers exclusively to final elimination. If it refers generally to generic-type elimination, then the term "stage of proximate access" here subsumes all three grounds, and, within the stage of proximate access, subsumes both the contaminated and the uncontaminated, since this is capable of eliminating bodily and verbal manifest action fettered to the desire realm and the first dhyāna.

If it refers exclusively to final elimination, then the term "stage of proximate access" here likewise subsumes all three grounds, but, within the stage of proximate access, subsumes only the uncontaminated, since this is capable of eliminating bodily and verbal manifest action fettered to the first dhyāna. It is for this reason that it is said that bodily and verbal manifest action is eliminated by the first dhyāna or the stage of proximate access.

Bodily and verbal unmanifest action may be wholesome or unwholesome. The unwholesome is fettered to the desire realm, and is eliminated by the stage of proximate access; the wholesome is fettered to the desire realm and the four dhyānas, or is unfettered. That fettered to the desire realm is eliminated by the stage of proximate access; that fettered to the first dhyāna is eliminated by the first dhyāna's own stage of proximate access, the meditative interval, or the second dhyāna's own proximate-access ground; and so on clear through that fettered to the fourth dhyāna, which is eliminated by the four dhyānas' own stage of proximate access, the meditative interval, or the proximate-access ground of the sphere of infinite space. As for the concentration spoken of in this passage, if it refers to the uncontaminated concentration alone, then the term "stage of proximate access" here denotes the stage of proximate access and the meditative interval; if it refers to both the contaminated and uncontaminated together, then the term "stage of proximate access" here denotes the stage of proximate access, the meditative interval, and the four upper proximate-access grounds. Furthermore, as for the "elimination" spoken of in this passage, if it refers to generic-type elimination, then the term "stage of proximate access" here subsumes the stage of proximate access, the meditative interval, and the four upper proximate-access grounds, and, within the stage of proximate access, subsumes both the contaminated and the uncontaminated, since this is capable of eliminating bodily and verbal unmanifest action fettered to the desire realm clear through the fourth dhyāna. If it refers to final elimination, then the term "stage of proximate access" here subsumes only the stage of proximate access, the meditative interval, and the proximate-access ground of the sphere of infinite space, and, within the stage of proximate access, subsumes only the uncontaminated, since this is capable of eliminating bodily and verbal unmanifest action fettered to the fourth dhyāna. It is for this reason that it is said that bodily and verbal unmanifest action is eliminated by the four dhyānas or the stage of proximate access. Manifest and unmanifest action is explained at length in the Karma Aggregate.

By which level of concentration are the three kinds of misconduct, the three kinds of good conduct, the three unwholesome roots, and the three wholesome roots eliminated? Answer: by the stage of proximate access. Here, the three kinds of misconduct are fettered to the desire realm, and are eliminated by the stage of proximate access; the two kinds of good conduct — bodily and verbal — are fettered to the desire realm and the four dhyānas, or are unfettered. That fettered to the desire realm

is eliminated by the stage of proximate access; that fettered to the first dhyāna is eliminated by the first dhyāna's own stage of proximate access, the meditative interval, or the second dhyāna's own proximate-access ground; and so on clear through that fettered to the fourth dhyāna, which is eliminated by the four dhyānas' own stage of proximate access, the meditative interval, or the proximate-access ground of the sphere of infinite space. Mental good conduct is fettered to all nine grounds, or is unfettered. That fettered to the desire realm is eliminated by the stage of proximate access; that fettered to the first dhyāna

is eliminated by the first dhyāna's own stage of proximate access, the meditative interval, or the second dhyāna's own proximate-access ground; and so on clear through that fettered to the sphere of nothing-at-all,

which is eliminated by the seven fundamental grounds' own stage of proximate access, the meditative interval, or the proximate-access ground of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; that fettered to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception itself is eliminated by the seven fundamental grounds' own stage of proximate access and the meditative interval. Because this passage speaks of the three kinds of good conduct as the proximate antidote for the three kinds of misconduct,

it therefore says only that they are eliminated by the stage of proximate access. The three unwholesome roots are fettered to the desire realm, and are eliminated by the stage of proximate access. The three wholesome roots are fettered to all nine grounds, or are unfettered, and the concentration by which each is eliminated should be understood exactly as explained for mental good conduct above. Here, too, the passage speaks of the three wholesome roots as the proximate antidote for the three unwholesome roots,

and it therefore says only that they are eliminated by the stage of proximate access. The three kinds of misconduct, clear through the three wholesome roots, are explained at length in the Karma Aggregate and elsewhere. By which level of concentration are the four kinds of ignoble speech, the four kinds of noble speech, the four modes of birth, the four types of entering the womb, and the four abodes of consciousness eliminated? Answer: the four kinds of ignoble speech, the four kinds of noble speech, birth from the womb, from an egg, and from moisture, and the four types of entering the womb are eliminated by the stage of proximate access; birth by transformation and the last three abodes of consciousness are eliminated by the seven fundamental grounds or the stage of proximate access; the form-realm abode of consciousness is eliminated by the four dhyānas or the stage of proximate access. As for the four kinds of ignoble speech: they are saying one has seen what one has not seen, saying one has heard what one has not heard, saying one has sensed what one has not sensed, and saying one has known what one has not known. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: in order to elucidate the meaning of a sūtra passage — for a sūtra states,

"the four kinds of ignoble speech are saying one has seen what one has not seen, and so on at length" — although the sūtra speaks in this way, it does not explain the matter at length; and since the sūtra serves as the very foundation this treatise relies upon, what it leaves unexplained ought now to be explained, and it is for this reason that this treatise is composed. What is meant by "saying one has seen what one has not seen" as a form of ignoble speech? Answer: whatever is not apprehended by the eye and not cognized by eye-consciousness is called "not seen," and this not-seen thing is spoken of as "not seeing." If someone, with respect to what he has not seen, forms the perception of not having seen it, and another person asks him, "have you indeed seen this matter?" — and he, whether for his own sake, for another's sake, or for the sake of fame and gain, then conceals this perception, this acceptance, and this intention, and answers, "I have seen it" — this is called "saying one has seen what one has not seen" as a form of ignoble speech. There is, furthermore, a similar case in which one forms the perception of having not seen with respect to what one has indeed seen, and yet says "I have seen it," which likewise constitutes ignoble speech. Question: why does the passage state this case separately as well? Answer: in order to display something rare and unusual — as when it is asked, is there a case of saying one has seen what one has indeed seen, that nevertheless, just like saying one has seen what one has not seen,

constitutes a form of ignoble speech? Answer: there is — this refers to a case in which someone, with respect to a matter he has indeed seen, forms the perception of not having seen it, and another person asks him, "have you indeed seen this matter?" — and he, whether for his own sake, for another's sake, or for the sake of fame and gain, then conceals this perception, this acceptance, and this intention, and answers, "I have seen it" — at that very moment, this constitutes ignoble speech exactly like saying one has seen what one has not seen, and it, too, is therefore likewise named "saying one has seen what one has not seen" as a form of ignoble speech.

Just as "saying one has seen what one has not seen" as a form of ignoble speech has been explained at length, so too should "saying one has heard what one has not heard," "saying one has sensed what one has not sensed," and "saying one has known what one has not known" be explained at length in exactly the same way. There is, furthermore, another four kinds of ignoble speech: saying one has not seen what one has seen, saying one has not heard what one has heard, saying one has not sensed what one has sensed, and saying one has not known what one has known. What is meant by "saying one has not seen what one has seen" as a form of ignoble speech? Answer: whatever is apprehended by the eye and cognized by eye-consciousness is called "the seen," and this seen thing is spoken of as "seeing." If someone, with respect to what he has seen, forms the perception of having seen it, and another person asks him, "have you indeed seen this matter?" — and he, whether for his own sake, for another's sake, or for the sake of fame and gain, then conceals this perception, this acceptance, and this intention, and answers, "I have not seen it" — this is called "saying one has not seen what one has seen" as a form of ignoble speech. There is, furthermore, a similar case in which one forms the perception of having seen with respect to what one has indeed not seen, and yet says "I have not seen it," which likewise constitutes ignoble speech.

Question: why does the passage state this case separately as well? Answer: in order to display something rare and unusual — as when it is asked, is there a case of saying one has not seen what one has indeed not seen, that nevertheless, just like saying one has not seen what one has seen, constitutes a form of ignoble speech? Answer: there is — this refers to a case in which someone, with respect to a matter he has indeed not seen, forms the perception of having seen it, and another person asks him, "have you indeed seen this matter?" — and he, whether for his own sake, for another's sake, or for the sake of fame and gain, then conceals this perception, this acceptance, and this intention, and answers, "I have not seen it" — at that very moment, this constitutes ignoble speech exactly like saying one has not seen what one has seen, and it, too, is therefore likewise named "saying one has not seen what one has seen" as a form of ignoble speech. Just as "saying one has not seen what one has seen" as a form of ignoble speech has been explained at length, so too should "saying one has not heard what one has heard," "saying one has not sensed what one has sensed," and "saying one has not known what one has known" be explained at length in exactly the same way. Question: as thus explained, there would then be eight kinds of ignoble speech, or even sixteen — why does the passage speak of only four? Answer: because the matters they depend upon number only four — that is, every kind of ignoble speech arises with respect to a matter of seeing, hearing, sensing, or knowing, and it is for this reason that only four are spoken of. Furthermore, the passage speaks in an abbreviated way of only four, though the full account would have eight or sixteen. Furthermore, the passage speaks in a general way of only four, though the specific account would have eight or sixteen — and just as this holds for the general versus the specific, so too should it be understood for the undifferentiated versus the differentiated, the non-comprehensive versus the comprehensive statement, the statement without variation versus the one with variation, and the sudden versus the gradual statement. Question: what is the self-nature of ignoble speech? Answer: false and deceptive speech is its self-nature. Question: why is this kind of speech called "ignoble"? Answer: it is called ignoble because it is unwholesome. Furthermore, it is called ignoble because it manifests within the mental continuum of an ignoble person. Furthermore, it is called ignoble because it is something an ignoble person has mastered. Furthermore, it is called ignoble because it is something an ignoble person speaks. Furthermore, it is called ignoble because it is through this very speech that one comes to be called ignoble. The Saṅgītiparyāya states: why is it called ignoble? Answer: because it draws forth an undesirable, unpleasant, unenjoyable, displeasing, and unwelcome result, it is called ignoble — this displays its outflow result. Furthermore, because it invites an undesirable, unpleasant, unenjoyable, displeasing, and unwelcome ripening, it is called ignoble — this displays its ripening result. This ignoble speech may be subsumed under non-restraint, or under neither restraint nor non-restraint; as a course of action, it is exclusively unwholesome. Question: is there a case of ignoble speech that is not a course of action, being instead neutral and fettered to the form realm? Answer: there is — as with the words Mahābrahmā spoke to the monk Aśvajit, and the like: although these, too, are called ignoble speech, they are not subsumed under the ignoble speech discussed here, since the matter spoken of here may be either mistaken or not mistaken, but the perception behind it is necessarily mistaken. Arhats and pratyekabuddhas, too, sometimes say they have seen what they have not seen, and the like, yet this, too, is not subsumed under the ignoble speech discussed here, since it is not spoken with a concealed perception — as when a person, perceiving a tree-stump as a man, says he has seen a man; or as when the Venerable Maudgalyāyana predicted a son would be born, and yet a daughter was later born; or when he said, "while abiding in the concentration on the sphere of nothing-at-all, I heard, within Mandākinī Lake, many nāgas and elephants shaking their trunks and trumpeting" — one should understand that all such statements are not false speech, since, although the matter itself was mistaken, the perception behind it was not mistaken. Only the Buddha, the World-Honored One, is entirely free of any such mistaken statement, having eternally uprooted every habitual trace of ignorance, and directly comprehending the objects of all three time-periods before him. As for the four kinds of noble speech: they are saying one has not seen what one has not seen, saying one has not heard what one has not heard, saying one has not sensed what one has not sensed, and saying one has not known what one has not known. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: in order to elucidate the meaning of a sūtra passage — for a sūtra states the four kinds of noble speech, namely, saying one has not seen what one has not seen, and so on at length; although the sūtra speaks in this way, it does not explain the matter at length, and this treatise now wishes to explain it, and it is for this reason that it is composed. What is meant by "saying one has not seen what one has not seen" as a form of noble speech? Answer: the meaning of "not seen" is exactly as explained above. If someone, with respect to what he has not seen, forms the perception of not having seen it, and another person asks him, "have you indeed seen this matter?" — and he, neither for his own sake, nor for another's sake, nor for the sake of fame and gain, then, truthfully and at once, without concealing this perception, this acceptance, or this intention,

answers, "I have not seen it" — this is called "saying one has not seen what one has not seen" as a form of noble speech. There is, furthermore, a similar case in which one forms the perception of having not seen with respect to what one has indeed seen, and, saying "I have not seen it," this likewise constitutes noble speech. Question: why does the passage state this case separately as well? Answer: in order to display something rare and unusual — as when it is asked, is there a case of saying one has not seen what one has indeed seen, that nevertheless, just like saying one has not seen what one has not seen, constitutes a form of noble speech? Answer: there is — this refers to a case in which someone, with respect to a matter he has indeed seen, forms the perception of not having seen it, and another person asks him, "have you indeed seen this matter?" — and he, neither for his own sake, nor for another's sake, nor for the sake of fame and gain, then, truthfully and at once, without concealing this perception, this acceptance, or this intention, answers, "I have not seen it" — at that very moment, this constitutes noble speech exactly like saying one has not seen what one has not seen, and it, too, is therefore likewise named "saying one has not seen what one has not seen" as a form of noble speech. Just as "saying one has not seen what one has not seen" as a form of noble speech has been explained at length, so too should "saying one has not heard what one has not heard," "saying one has not sensed what one has not sensed," and "saying one has not known what one has not known" be explained at length as forms of noble speech in exactly the same way. There is, furthermore, another four kinds of noble speech:

saying one has seen what one has seen, saying one has heard what one has heard, saying one has sensed what one has sensed, and saying one has known what one has known. What is meant by "saying one has seen what one has seen" as a form of noble speech? Answer: the meaning of "seeing" is exactly as explained above. If someone, with respect to a matter he has seen, forms the perception of having seen it, and another person asks him, "have you indeed seen this matter?" — and he, neither for his own sake,

nor for another's sake, nor for the sake of fame and gain, then, truthfully and at once, without concealing this perception, this acceptance, or this intention, answers, "I have seen it" — this is called "saying one has seen what one has seen" as a form of noble speech. There is, furthermore, a similar case in which one forms the perception of having seen with respect to what one has indeed not seen, and, saying "I have seen it," this likewise constitutes noble speech. Question: why does the passage state this case separately as well? Answer: in order to display something rare and unusual — as when it is asked, is there a case of saying one has seen what one has indeed not seen, that nevertheless, just like saying one has seen what one has seen, constitutes a form of noble speech? Answer: there is — this refers to a case in which someone, with respect to a matter he has indeed not seen, forms the perception of having seen it, and another person asks him, "have you indeed seen this matter?" — and he, neither for his own sake, nor for another's sake, nor for the sake of fame and gain, then, truthfully and at once, without concealing this perception, this acceptance, or this intention, answers, "I have seen it" — at that very moment, this constitutes noble speech exactly like saying one has seen what one has seen, and it, too, is therefore likewise named "saying one has seen what one has seen" as a form of noble speech. Just as "saying one has seen what one has seen" as a form of noble speech has been explained at length, so too should "saying one has heard what one has heard," "saying one has sensed what one has sensed," and "saying one has known what one has known" be explained at length as forms of noble speech in exactly the same way. Question: as thus explained, there would then be eight kinds of noble speech, or even sixteen — why does the passage speak of only four? Answer: because the matters they depend upon number only four — that is, every kind of noble speech arises with respect to a matter of seeing, hearing, sensing, or knowing, and it is for this reason that only four are spoken of. Furthermore, the passage speaks in an abbreviated way of only four, though the full account would have eight or sixteen. Furthermore, the passage speaks in a general way of only four, though the specific account would have eight or sixteen — and just as this holds for the general versus the specific, so too should it be understood for the undifferentiated versus the differentiated, the non-comprehensive versus the comprehensive statement, the statement without variation versus the one with variation, and the sudden versus the gradual statement. Question: what is the self-nature of noble speech? Answer: true speech is its self-nature. Question: why is this kind of speech called "noble"? Answer: it is called noble because it is wholesome. Furthermore, it is called noble because it manifests within the mental continuum of a noble one. Furthermore, it is called noble because it is something a noble one has mastered. Furthermore, it is called noble because it is something a noble one speaks. Furthermore, it is called noble because it is through this very speech that one comes to be called noble. The Saṅgītiparyāya states: why is it called noble? Answer: because it draws forth a desirable, pleasant, enjoyable, pleasing, and welcome result, it is called noble — this displays its outflow result. Furthermore, because it invites a desirable, pleasant, enjoyable, pleasing, and welcome ripening, it is called noble — this displays its ripening result. This noble speech may be subsumed under restraint, or under neither restraint nor non-restraint; as a course of action, it is exclusively wholesome. The four kinds of ignoble speech are fettered only to the desire realm, and are eliminated by the stage of proximate access; the four kinds of noble speech are fettered to the desire realm or the first dhyāna. That fettered to the desire realm is eliminated by the stage of proximate access; that fettered to the first dhyāna is eliminated by the first dhyāna's own stage of proximate access, the meditative interval, or the second dhyāna's own proximate-access ground. Here, however, since the passage speaks of the four kinds of noble speech as the proximate antidote for the four kinds of ignoble speech, it therefore says only that they are eliminated by the stage of proximate access.

Among the four modes of birth, birth from the womb, from an egg, and from moisture are fettered only to the desire realm, and are therefore eliminated by the stage of proximate access. Birth by transformation is eliminated by the seven fundamental grounds or the stage of proximate access, since birth by transformation is fettered to all nine grounds. That fettered to the desire realm is eliminated by the stage of proximate access; that fettered to the first dhyāna is eliminated by the first dhyāna's own stage of proximate access, the meditative interval, or the second dhyāna's own proximate-access ground; and so on clear through that fettered to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, which is eliminated by the seven fundamental grounds' own stage of proximate access and the meditative interval. As for the concentration spoken of in this passage, if it refers to the uncontaminated concentration alone, then the term "stage of proximate access" here denotes the stage of proximate access and the meditative interval; if it refers to both the contaminated and uncontaminated together, then the term "stage of proximate access" here denotes the stage of proximate access, the meditative interval, and the seven upper proximate-access grounds. Furthermore, as for the "elimination" spoken of in this passage, if it refers to generic-type elimination, then the term "stage of proximate access" here subsumes the stage of proximate access, the meditative interval, and the seven upper proximate-access grounds, and, within the stage of proximate access, subsumes both the contaminated and the uncontaminated, since this is capable of eliminating birth by transformation fettered to the desire realm clear through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. If it refers to final elimination, then the term "stage of proximate access" here denotes only the stage of proximate access and the meditative interval, and, within the stage of proximate access, subsumes only the uncontaminated, since this is capable of eliminating birth by transformation fettered to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. It is for this reason that it is said that birth by transformation is eliminated by the seven fundamental grounds or the stage of proximate access. The four modes of birth are explained at length in the Great Elements Aggregate.

As for the four types of entering the womb: there is entering the mother's womb without clear awareness, and likewise abiding in it and emerging from it without clear awareness — this is the first type of entering the womb. There is entering the mother's womb with clear awareness, but abiding in it and emerging from it without clear awareness — this is the second type of entering the womb. There is entering the mother's womb with clear awareness, and likewise abiding in it with clear awareness, but emerging from it without clear awareness — this is the third type of entering the womb. There is entering the mother's womb with clear awareness, and likewise abiding in it and emerging from it with clear awareness — this is the fourth type of entering the womb. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: in order to elucidate the meaning of a sūtra passage — for a sūtra states that there are four types of entering the mother's womb, and so on at length; although the sūtra speaks in this way, it does not explain the matter at length, and since the sūtra serves as the very foundation this treatise relies upon,

what it leaves unexplained ought now to be explained, and it is for this reason that this treatise is composed. What is meant by entering the mother's womb without clear awareness, and likewise abiding in it and emerging from it without clear awareness? Answer: this is of two kinds. As for one of meager merit: at the moment of entering the womb, he gives rise to a distorted perception and a distorted resolve, seeing the sky overcast and gloomy, bitterly cold, with wind and rain, and a noisy, disorderly crowd of many people gathered together, and he thinks, "I shall now enter into such a thicket of thorny brush," or a dense forest, a grass-hut, or a leaf-hut, or take shelter beside such a wall or beneath such a tree, in order to escape the wind and rain and the surrounding clamor — and, having thought this, he immediately sees his own body going there. While abiding in the womb, he likewise gives rise to just such a distorted perception and resolve, thinking, "I am now dwelling for a brief while in such a thicket, grass-hut, leaf-hut, or beside such a wall or beneath such a tree." And, when emerging from the womb, he likewise has just such a distorted perception and resolve, thinking, "I am now emerging from such a thicket, grass-hut, or leaf-hut," or, "I am now leaving from beside such a wall or from beneath such a tree." As for one of great merit: at the moment of entering the womb, he, too, gives rise to a distorted perception and a distorted resolve, seeing the sky overcast and gloomy, bitterly cold, with wind and rain, and a noisy, disorderly crowd of many people gathered together, and he thinks, "I should enter into this garden park," or amid a grove of flowers, or ascend into a stately hall, or climb up into a tower or pavilion, in order to escape the wind and rain and the surrounding clamor — and, having thought this, he immediately sees his own body entering the garden, or even climbing up into the pavilion. While abiding in the womb, he likewise gives rise to just such a distorted perception and resolve, thinking, "I am now dwelling, seated cross-legged, in such a garden park, grove of flowers, hall, or pavilion." And, when emerging from the womb, he likewise has just such a distorted perception and resolve, thinking, "I am now emerging from such a garden park," or even, "descending from such a tower or pavilion." This is called the first type — entering the mother's womb without clear awareness, and likewise abiding in it and emerging from it without clear awareness. What is meant by entering the mother's womb with clear awareness, but abiding in it and emerging from it without clear awareness? Answer: there is one of great merit who, at the moment of entering the mother's womb,

does not give rise to any distorted perception or distorted resolve, and is fully capable of knowing for himself, "I am now entering the mother's womb" — yet, while abiding in and emerging from the womb, he lacks this clear awareness, exactly as explained at length above. This is called the second type — entering the mother's womb with clear awareness, but abiding in it and emerging from it without clear awareness. What is meant by entering the mother's womb with clear awareness, and likewise abiding in it with clear awareness, but emerging from it without clear awareness? Answer: there is one of great merit who, at the moment of entering and while abiding in the mother's womb, gives rise to no distorted perception or distorted resolve at all, and is fully capable of knowing for himself, "I am now entering the mother's womb," and, "I am now abiding in the mother's womb" — yet, at the moment of emerging, he lacks this clear awareness, exactly as explained at length above. This is called the third type — entering the mother's womb with clear awareness, and likewise abiding in it with clear awareness, but emerging from it without clear awareness. What is meant by entering the mother's womb with clear awareness, and likewise abiding in it and emerging from it with clear awareness? Answer: there is one of great merit who, at the moment of entering, while abiding in, and at the moment of emerging from the mother's womb, gives rise to no distorted perception or distorted resolve at all, and is fully capable of knowing for himself, "I am now entering the mother's womb," "I am now abiding in the mother's womb," and "I am now emerging from the mother's womb." This is called the fourth type — entering the mother's womb with clear awareness, and likewise abiding in it and emerging from it with clear awareness. Question: which type of entering the womb belongs to which kind of being? Answer: some hold: the fourth type of entering the womb belongs to the Bodhisattva; the third type belongs to the pratyekabuddha; the second type belongs to the wheel-turning king; and the first type belongs to every other sentient being. Others hold: the fourth type of entering the womb belongs to the Bodhisattva; the third type belongs to the pratyekabuddha; the second type belongs to the perfection-attaining śrāvaka; and the first type belongs to every other sentient being. Others hold: the fourth type of entering the womb belongs to the Bodhisattva; the third type belongs to the pratyekabuddha; the second type belongs to the stream-enterer and the once-returner; and the first type belongs to every other sentient being. Others hold: among sentient beings, there are those who seek excellent wisdom and whose karma is also pure; those who seek excellent wisdom but whose karma is not pure; those whose karma is pure but who do not seek wisdom; and those who neither seek wisdom nor have pure karma. The first kind of being undergoes the last type of entering the womb; the second kind of being undergoes the third type; the third kind of being undergoes the second type; and the last kind of being undergoes the first type. That is, when the first kind of being enters the mother's womb, the mother's belly remains calm and free of any disturbing contact; while abiding in the mother's womb, the womb is spacious, pure, and untroubled; and when emerging from the mother's womb, the birth-passage opens smoothly without any constriction — and so, throughout entering, abiding, and emerging, he never loses mindfulness. As for the second kind of being,

at the moment of entering the womb and while abiding in it, he likewise remains calm and does not lose mindfulness as explained above; but, at the moment of emerging, since the birth-passage is narrow and constricting, he loses mindfulness at that point. As for the third kind of being: at the moment of entering the womb, he likewise experiences no disturbing contact, and remains calm and does not lose mindfulness as explained above; yet, while abiding in the womb, the womb is cramped and afflicted by impurity, and, at the moment of emerging, the birth-passage is narrow and extremely constricting, and so he loses mindfulness during both the abiding and the emerging. As for the fourth kind of being: at the moment of entering the mother's womb, the mother's belly is agitated, and he is frightened and uneasy,

and, while abiding in and emerging from the womb, he is likewise afflicted as explained above — and so he loses mindfulness at all three moments. Furthermore, some hold that all four types of entering the womb belong to the Bodhisattva alone: among these accounts, some hold that the fourth type of entering the womb belongs to the Bodhisattva in his third incalculable eon of practice; the third type belongs to the Bodhisattva in his second incalculable eon; the second type belongs to the Bodhisattva in his first incalculable eon; and the first type belongs to the Bodhisattva prior even to that.

Others hold: the fourth type of entering the womb belongs to the Bodhisattva in his very last existence — that is, at the moment of dying in Tuṣita Heaven and descending to be born in the palace of King Śuddhodana.

The third type belongs to the Bodhisattva bound to just one more birth — that is, at the moment of dying in Jambudvīpa and being reborn in Tuṣita Heaven. The second type belongs to the Bodhisattva in the birth immediately preceding that one — that is, at the moment of dying in that prior existence and being reborn in Jambudvīpa to practice the holy life under Kāśyapa Buddha's own teaching. The first type belongs to the Bodhisattva prior even to that. The verdict: this account should not be given, since the Bodhisattva, ever since ninety-one eons ago, has continuously remembered his past lives, and, throughout the existence at death, the intermediate existence, the existence at rebirth, and the existence of an ordinary lifetime, has always been free of any distorted perception and has never lost mindfulness — and it is for this reason that the earlier account given above should be understood as the sound one. Question: at every stage of taking on the bond of rebirth, a defiled mind necessarily arises, and every defiled mind is necessarily associated with the absence of clear awareness — how, then, can it be said that one enters the mother's womb with clear awareness? Answer: the "clear awareness" spoken of here means simply the absence of any distorted perception or distorted resolve — it does not require the absence of association with ignorance altogether, and it is in this sense that it is called clear awareness. The Bodhisattva, however, at the moment of taking on the bond of rebirth, does indeed give rise to a craving attachment to his own embodied self and a craving attachment to his parents, and so he, too, has a defiled mind at that time. Question: if so, how does he differ from every other sentient being? Answer: as for every other sentient being, at the moment of about to enter the womb, he forms the perception of the father as not-father and the mother as not-mother — and it is because of this that a male being gives rise to hatred toward the father and craving toward the mother, forming the distorted perception that he is uniting with the mother,

while a female being gives rise to hatred toward the mother and craving toward the father, forming the distorted perception that she is uniting with the father — and it is through this very distorted perception that the bond of rebirth is taken on.

The Bodhisattva is not like this: at the moment of about to enter the womb, he forms the perception of the father as father and the mother as mother, thinking, "it is by depending on them that I shall increase my future aggregates, and, receiving an honored and excellent recompense within Jambudvīpa, shall thereby attain unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening, and so bring benefit to every sentient being" — and, having thought this, he then gives rise to an affectionate love for his parents, and it is through this that he takes on the bond of rebirth. It is for this reason that he is said to have clear awareness, meaning simply the absence of any distorted perception, and not necessarily the absence of all defilement. These four types of entering the womb are fettered only to the desire realm, and it is for this reason that they are eliminated only by the stage of proximate access.

Among the four abodes of consciousness, the last three abodes of consciousness are eliminated by the seven fundamental grounds or the stage of proximate access, since the last three abodes of consciousness are fettered to all nine grounds. That fettered to the desire realm

is eliminated by the stage of proximate access; that fettered to the first dhyāna is eliminated by the first dhyāna's own stage of proximate access, the meditative interval, or the second dhyāna's own proximate-access ground; and so on clear through that fettered to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, which is eliminated by the seven fundamental grounds' own stage of proximate access and the meditative interval. As for the concentration spoken of in this passage, if it refers to the uncontaminated concentration alone, then the term "stage of proximate access" here denotes the stage of proximate access and the meditative interval.

If it refers to both the contaminated and uncontaminated together, then the term "stage of proximate access" here denotes the stage of proximate access, the meditative interval, and the seven upper proximate-access grounds.

Furthermore, as for the "elimination" spoken of in this passage, if it refers to generic-type elimination, then the term "stage of proximate access" here subsumes the stage of proximate access, the meditative interval, and the seven upper proximate-access grounds, and, within the stage of proximate access, subsumes both the contaminated and the uncontaminated, since this is capable of eliminating the last three abodes of consciousness fettered to the desire realm clear through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. If it refers to final elimination, then the term "stage of proximate access" here denotes the stage of proximate access and the meditative interval, and, within the stage of proximate access, subsumes only the uncontaminated, since this is capable of eliminating the last three abodes of consciousness fettered to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. It is for this reason that it is said that they are eliminated by the seven fundamental grounds or the stage of proximate access. The form-realm abode of consciousness is eliminated by the four dhyānas or the stage of proximate access, since the form-realm abode of consciousness is fettered to five grounds. That fettered to the desire realm is eliminated by the stage of proximate access; and so on clear through that fettered to the fourth dhyāna, which is eliminated by the four dhyānas' own stage of proximate access, the meditative interval, or the proximate-access ground of the sphere of infinite space. As for the concentration spoken of in this passage, some hold that it refers to the uncontaminated concentration alone;

others hold that it refers to both the contaminated and uncontaminated together, each to be distinguished accordingly, exactly as explained above. Furthermore, as for the "elimination" spoken of in this passage, if it refers to generic-type elimination, then the term "stage of proximate access" here subsumes the stage of proximate access, the meditative interval, and the four upper proximate-access grounds, and, within the stage of proximate access, subsumes both the contaminated and the uncontaminated, since this is capable of eliminating the form-realm abode of consciousness fettered to the desire realm clear through the fourth dhyāna. If it refers to final elimination, then the term "stage of proximate access" here subsumes the stage of proximate access, the meditative interval, and the proximate-access ground of the sphere of infinite space, since this is capable of eliminating the form-realm abode of consciousness fettered to the fourth dhyāna. It is for this reason that it is said that the four abodes of consciousness are eliminated by the four dhyānas or the stage of proximate access. This is explained at length in the Great Elements Aggregate.