How the True Dharma Will Perish

Once the Dharma-wheel has been turned, the earth-deities cry out, and this proclamation is passed on in succession — and so on at length. Question: within that assembly there were also other classes of deities who likewise cried out to one another — why is it said that the earth-deities alone cried out? Answer: because it was the earth-deities who cried out first. Question: why did the earth-deities cry out first? Answer: because they dwell closest to wherever the Buddha is. Furthermore, it is because they have constantly guarded and attended the Buddha — that is, from the time he dwelt in the womb as a bodhisattva, through his birth, his crossing over the city wall to go forth, his cultivation of austerities, and on up to his attaining Buddhahood and turning the Dharma-wheel, they had constantly guarded and attended him, allowing no hindrance to arise. Now, seeing the Tathāgata having turned the Dharma-wheel, they leapt for joy, congratulating themselves that the labor they had long expended had now come to its full fruition, and it is for this reason that they were the first to cry out and proclaim it.

Furthermore, although other classes of deities were likewise present in that assembly, it was the earth-deities, being of a naturally excitable disposition, who therefore cried out first — just as, among a crowd today, those of an excitable disposition are the ones most given to shouting; it is the same in this case. Furthermore, the earth-deities are by nature given to rejoicing, and, beholding so rare an event, were overcome with such great joy that they were the first to cry out. Furthermore, this follows the natural order of near to far — that is, the earth-deities cry out first, then the space-deities, then the hosts of the Four Great Heavenly Kings, and so on in succession, until, within a single brief moment, the sound reaches the Brahmā world. Question: sound is of a momentary nature — arising in one place, it must perish in that very place — how, then, can it be said to reach the Brahmā world? Answer: this is said with reference to the meaning of successive transmission — that is, once the earth-deities have cried out, the space-deities cry out in turn, and this proclamation is passed on in succession, clear up to the Brahmā heaven, just as a flame is passed from lamp to lamp, growing and spreading in succession. Some say: at the time the Dharma-wheel was turned, countless hosts of deities had all gathered together, and, having heard the Dharma, each returned to his own abode and proclaimed it to his own kind, and it is with reference to this successive proclamation that the sound is said to reach the Brahmā world. Some say:

at that time there was no fixed order of precedence among those who cried out at all; it is simply that the one relating this account follows the natural convention of narrating things in sequence, and it is for this reason that it is said, "the earth-deities cried out first," and so on at length.

As the sūtra states, when a wheel-turning king appears in the world, the sound reaches the Paranirmita-vaśavartin heaven; when the Buddha turns the Dharma-wheel for Kauṇḍinya and the rest, the sound reaches the Brahmā world; and when the Buddha attains unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening, the sound reaches the Akaniṣṭha heaven. Question: why are there these three distinct measures? Answer: when a wheel-turning king appears in the world, he instructs sentient beings in the ten wholesome courses of action, and this dharma is bound to ripen into its fruit specifically among the heavens of the desire realm; the hosts of the six desire-realm heavens all rejoice, thinking, "our own following will before long increase," and it is for this reason that, when a wheel-king appears, the sound reaches the Paranirmita-vaśavartin heaven. The Brahmā king had entreated the Buddha to turn the Dharma-wheel, and, hearing that the Buddha has done so, rejoices deeply and gives himself over to sympathetic joy, and it is for this reason that, when the Dharma-wheel is turned, the sound reaches the Brahmā world. The devas of the Pure Abodes had awakened the bodhisattva, causing him to cross over the city wall and go forth in search of unsurpassed wisdom, and, hearing that the bodhisattva has attained unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening, are overcome with the deepest joy and consolation, and it is for this reason that, at the moment he first becomes a Buddha, the sound reaches the Akaniṣṭha heaven. Furthermore, a wheel-turning king is one who still partakes of sensual pleasure, and so, when he appears in the world, the sound extends only throughout the desire realm, not reaching any ground free of desire; when the Buddha turns the Dharma-wheel, there is, within that single assembly, a hierarchy of the honored and the humble, the superior and the inferior, and this matter extends only as far as the Brahmā world, and it is for this reason that, when the Dharma-wheel is turned, the sound reaches the Brahmā heaven; only the Tathāgata's own renown is so lofty and far-reaching that it extends everywhere without exception, and it is for this reason that, at the moment the Buddha attains unsurpassed awakening, its sound pervades every place it is fitting to reach, clear up to the Akaniṣṭha heaven — and, were there even a sentient being at the very peak of existence possessed of an auditory consciousness, the sound would penetrate there as well, since the Tathāgata has, for so long, cultivated the very karma of renown itself. Furthermore, among the various classes of sentient beings who create and augment the karma of great renown, there are superior, middling, and inferior degrees — the inferior being exemplified by the wheel-turning king, the middling by Kauṇḍinya and the rest, and the superior by the Buddha himself — and it is for this reason that the sound reaches near or far accordingly. Furthermore, among the various classes of sentient beings who create and augment the karma of pure honor, there are likewise superior, middling, and inferior degrees — the inferior being exemplified by the wheel-turning king, the middling by Kauṇḍinya and the rest,

and the superior by the Buddha himself — and it is for this reason that the sound reaches near or far accordingly. The Venerable Vasumitra states: among the various classes of sentient beings, the bodily, verbal, and mental karma of reverently praising one's own parents, teachers and elders, ascetics, brahmins, the Buddha, pratyekabuddhas, and the Buddha's own disciples is likewise of superior, middling, and inferior degree — the inferior being exemplified by the wheel-turning king, the middling by Kauṇḍinya and the rest, and the superior by the Buddha himself — and it is for this reason that the sound reaches these three different places in three different measures.

Question: sound exists in the higher grounds as well — why, then, does the sound reach only as far as the Brahmā world when the Dharma-wheel is turned? Answer: because it is only up to that ground that the manifest form of vocal karma, sound, extends. Furthermore, it is only up to that ground that verbal activity extends — "verbal activity" referring to initial and sustained investigation. Furthermore, it is only up to that ground that an auditory consciousness can be present, not in any of the higher grounds. Some say: it is only up to the Brahmā world that one can give rise, complete and in full, to wholesome, defiled, and unobscured-neutral speech together with its manifest vocal form, not in any of the higher grounds.

Furthermore, it is only up to the Brahmā world that one can give rise, complete and in full, to a wholesome, defiled, or unobscured-neutral auditory consciousness manifesting before the mind, not in any of the higher grounds. Some say: the sound reaches, at the time the Dharma-wheel is turned, only as far as there is a differentiation among sentient beings. Furthermore, the sound reaches only as far as marks the boundary of a trichiliocosm. Some say: the Brahmā world is the place most honored by the sentient beings of this world, and it is for this reason that, when the Dharma-wheel is turned, the sound reaches only that far.

Some further say: the devas of the higher grounds, too, are named "Brahmā," and hence, when it is said that the sound reaches the Brahmā world at the turning of the Dharma-wheel, this does not refer only to the ground of the first dhyāna.

Question: is every dharma the Buddha teaches named the Dharma-wheel? Answer: it is not. Only what causes one to enter the path of seeing is named the Dharma-wheel. Question: if so, then many, upon hearing the Buddha's teaching, enter the path of seeing — why, then, are not all of these named the Dharma-wheel? Answer: although every one of these is indeed the Dharma-wheel, it is specifically the very first and the very last to attain true understanding who are spoken of as the Dharma-wheel — the first referring to Kauṇḍinya and the rest, and the last referring to Subhadra.

Question: is the place where every Buddha turns the Dharma-wheel fixed, or not? If it is fixed, how is the account of the Buddha Dīpaṃkara's own past life to be reconciled, where it is said that the Buddha Dīpaṃkara turned the true Dharma-wheel at Mount Hāritāla, in the city of Dīpavatī, and so on at length? And if it is not fixed, how is the verse spoken by Dharmasubhūti to be reconciled? As it is said:

"One ought to recall the past Buddhas — in this very palace of Kāśi, the sages' own debating-ground, the Deer Park — they too first turned the wondrous Dharma."

Some say: it should rather be said that the place of turning the Dharma-wheel is fixed. Question: if so, how is the account of the Buddha Dīpaṃkara's own past life to be reconciled? Answer: this need not necessarily be reconciled at all. Why is this? Because this account is not stated in the Sūtra, the Vinaya, or the Abhidharma, but is merely a traditional account, and traditional accounts may be either so or not so. Yet, if one insists on reconciling it, it should be understood that the ancient city of Dīpavatī is none other than the present Vārāṇasī, and that the ancient Mount Hāritāla is none other than the present Deer Park of the Sages. Now, according to this view — that the place where the Buddha turns the Dharma-wheel is fixed — it is said that there are four fixed places and two unfixed places. The four fixed places are: the place of the Bodhi tree; the place of turning the Dharma-wheel; the place of descending from heaven; and the place of displaying the great miracle. The two unfixed places are: the Buddha's own birthplace, and the place of his parinirvāṇa. How is it known that the place of the Bodhi tree is fixed? Answer: it has been heard that, once, in the past, there was a wheel-turning king who, leading his fourfold army, flew through the air and, upon reaching a point above the Bodhi tree, found his own wheel-treasure come to a halt, unable to proceed further. The king, alarmed, reflected: "could I now be about to lose my own kingship, or even my life?" At that time, the deity of the Bodhi tree addressed the king, saying: "Great King, do not be alarmed — you shall lose neither your kingship nor your life. Does Your Majesty not see the Bodhi tree below? Beneath it lies the vajra seat, upon which every bodhisattva alike realizes unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening. If Your Majesty wishes to pass by, you may avoid this place and proceed by another route." The king thereupon descended and made every kind of offering to the Bodhi tree, then departed by another route. It is on account of this event that the place of the Bodhi tree is known to be fixed. That the place of turning the Dharma-wheel is fixed is shown by the verse of Dharmasubhūti already cited above. How, further, is it known that the place of descending from heaven is fixed? Answer: it has been heard that, after the Buddha had passed from the world, some calamity arose at this place, and all the monks abandoned it, whereupon tīrthika practitioners of other schools came to dwell there instead. Later, when the monks came to reclaim the place, they said to the tīrthikas: "this is the place where our own teacher descended from heaven — you must vacate it at once." The tīrthikas replied: "this has long been our own dwelling-place." On account of this, the two parties came into fierce dispute; the elders, householders, and officials dwelling in the nearby city came to settle the quarrel, but were unable to do so, and even when the king himself attempted to settle it, he too could not resolve it. At that time the monks said to the tīrthikas: "let us now, together with you, each make a solemn declaration, and let there appear a miraculous sign showing to whom this place truly belongs." The tīrthikas agreed to this. They made their own declaration first, but no sign appeared at all. The monks then made their own solemn, truthful declaration: "if this place is indeed where every Tathāgata alike ascends to the Trāyastriṃśa heaven to teach the Dharma to his own departed mother, and descends again after three months, then let a miraculous sign now appear." At that moment, upon a great stone pillar standing at that very place, a stone lion suddenly roared aloud. The tīrthikas, terrified, at once fled and abandoned the place. From the lion's own mouth there further issued a garland of every kind of jeweled flower, winding entirely around the stone pillar. The assembled onlookers, witnessing this, exclaimed in wonder at so unprecedented a marvel, and it was thereupon that the monks came to dwell there once more,

and it is for this reason that the place of the Buddha's descent from heaven is known to be fixed. How, further, is it known that the place of displaying the great miracle is fixed? Answer: it has been heard that the tīrthikas, having been pursued by the Buddha through six great cities and finding nowhere to make a stand, at last gathered together to challenge the Tathāgata to a contest of supernormal powers. The Buddha refused every time, until at last, upon reaching the city of Śrāvastī, he finally granted his permission and displayed his supernormal powers there, whereupon countless tīrthikas took refuge in the Buddha and went forth — and it is on account of this that the place of displaying the great miracle is known to be fixed. Some say: the place where every Buddha turns the Dharma-wheel is not fixed at all. Why is this? Because, had Rudraka Rāmaputra's son and Ārāḍa Kālāma not already died, would the Buddha then have abandoned the country of Magadha to travel instead to Vārāṇasī? It should therefore be understood that it is simply wherever the very first one fit to hear the Dharma happens to be found that the Dharma-wheel is turned. Question: if so, how is the verse of Dharmasubhūti to be reconciled? Answer: this need not necessarily be reconciled at all. Why is this? Because this account is not stated in the Sūtra, the Vinaya, or the Abhidharma, but is merely literary verse — and the composition of literary verse may sometimes add to, and sometimes subtract from, the facts. Yet, if one insists on reconciling it, it may be that, in the past, some Buddha did indeed first turn the Dharma-wheel at this very place, though this was not so for every Buddha, and hence it is not fixed as a rule. Now, according to this view — that the place where the Dharma-wheel is turned is not fixed —

it is said that there are three fixed places and three unfixed places. The three fixed places are: the place of the Bodhi tree; the place of descending from heaven; and the place of displaying the great miracle. The three unfixed places are: the birthplace; the place of turning the Dharma-wheel; and the place of parinirvāṇa. As it is said, the Buddha, at the Deer Park, the sages' own debating-ground, in Vārāṇasī, turned the true Dharma-wheel for Kauṇḍinya and the rest. Question: why is it named Vārāṇasī? Answer: this is the name of the river, and, not far from it, a royal city was built, and it is for this reason that this city, too, is named Vārāṇasī. Question: why is it named "the sages' own debating-ground"? Answer: according to the view that every Buddha alike turns the Dharma-wheel fixedly at this place, it is said that the Buddha is himself the most supreme of sages, and that it is at this very place that every Buddha first turns the Dharma-wheel, and hence it is named the sages' own debating-ground. According to the view that not every Buddha turns the Dharma-wheel fixedly at this place, it should rather be said to be "the sages' own dwelling-place" — that is, when a Buddha appears in the world, it is inhabited by the great sage who is the Buddha, together with the host of noble sage-disciples; when no Buddha appears in the world, it is inhabited by pratyekabuddha sages; and, when there are no pratyekabuddhas either, it is inhabited by worldly sages possessed of the five superknowledges — and, since this place has constantly been, is now, and will always be dwelt in by sages, it is named the sages' own dwelling-place. Some say: it should rather be named "the sages' own falling-place",

since, in the past, five hundred sages, flying through the air, arrived here and, encountering a condition for regression, all fell to the ground together at this very spot. Question: why is it named the Deer Park?

Answer: because deer constantly roam and dwell within this forest, it is named the Deer Forest; and, since a king named Brahmadatta once bestowed this forest upon a herd of deer, it is named the Deer Park. It is just as with the elder Kalandaka, who dug a pool within the Bamboo Grove at Rājagṛha and bestowed it upon the Kalandaka birds, letting them play there freely, on account of which it was named the Kalandaka Pool — it is the same in this case, and hence it is named the Deer Park.

What is the true Dharma? Answer: the uncontaminated faculties, powers, awakening-factors, and path-factors. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: in order to elucidate the meaning of a sūtra passage — as a verse states:

"The Buddhas of the three times are able to break through every sorrowful poison; all of them revere the true Dharma, abiding constantly in the very nature of the Dharma."

A sūtra further states that there are two kinds of persons able to sustain the true Dharma — those who expound it, and those who practice it. The Vinaya states, "my own true Dharma ought to abide for a thousand years, or even longer than that; yet, on account of allowing women to go forth, it is reduced by five hundred years." Although the World-Honored One speaks, in various passages, of the true Dharma, he does not explain the matter — what is the true Dharma? Since that 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. Question: are the contaminated faculties, powers, and path-factors themselves the true Dharma? If they are, why are they not mentioned here? And if they are not, why is it that the uncontaminated is the true Dharma while the contaminated is not? Some say: they too are the true Dharma. Question: why, then, are they not mentioned here? Answer: where something ought to be stated yet is not stated, it should be understood that there is a further reason. Furthermore, the contaminated faculties and the rest are the preparatory practice for the uncontaminated; when the fundamental itself is spoken of, the preparatory practice is already subsumed under it, and hence is not separately mentioned. Furthermore, the contaminated faculties and the rest, being the preparatory practice for the uncontaminated, are themselves also named "uncontaminated," and hence are already subsumed under what was spoken of before. Some say: the contaminated faculties and the rest are not the true Dharma at all. Question: why is it that the uncontaminated is the true Dharma while the contaminated is not? Answer: because contaminated dharmas carry faults, and only what is free of fault can be named the true Dharma. Furthermore, what is pure and praiseworthy is named the true Dharma; contaminated dharmas run contrary to this, and hence are not the true Dharma. Furthermore, the true Dharma is able to lead one eternally out of birth-and-death and attain parinirvāṇa; the contaminated is not so, and hence is not named the true Dharma. Question: are the mindfulness-foundations, the right exertions, and the bases of supernormal power likewise the true Dharma? If they are, why are they not mentioned here? And if they are not, why is it that the faculties, powers, awakening-factors, and path-factors are the true Dharma while the mindfulness-foundations and the rest are not? Answer: they too are the true Dharma. Question: if so, why are they not mentioned here? Answer: where something ought to be stated yet is not stated, it should be understood that there is a further reason. Furthermore, were the faculties and the rest to be mentioned, this would accord with this particular passage's own emphasis, whereas mentioning the mindfulness-foundations and the rest would not accord with this passage's own emphasis, and hence they are not mentioned. Furthermore, the mindfulness-foundations, the right exertions, and the bases of supernormal power are all likewise subsumed under what is spoken of here — that is, the four mindfulness-foundations are subsumed under the wisdom faculty, the wisdom power, the awakening-factor of discrimination of dharmas, and right view; the four right exertions are subsumed under the diligence faculty, the diligence power, the awakening-factor of diligence, and right effort; and the four bases of supernormal power are subsumed under the concentration faculty, the concentration power, the awakening-factor of concentration, and right concentration.

At what point should one say that the true Dharma abides? Answer: for as long as those who practice the Dharma abide. At what point should one say that the true Dharma has perished? Answer: at the point when those who practice the Dharma perish. Question: why is this treatise composed again? Answer: in order to elucidate the meaning of a sūtra passage — for a sūtra states: "Kāśyapa, you should know that the Dharma and Vinaya the Tathāgata has awakened to and expounded cannot be destroyed by the element of earth, water, fire, or wind; yet there will arise in the world a certain kind of person, of evil desires and evil conduct, accomplished in evil dharmas, who declares the non-Dharma to be the Dharma and the Dharma to be the non-Dharma, declares the non-Vinaya to be the Vinaya and the Vinaya to be the non-Vinaya — and it is such a person who will be able to destroy, without remainder, the true Dharma I have accumulated over three incalculable eons." Although the sūtra speaks in this way, it does not explain the matter — at what point should one say that the true Dharma abides, and at what point that it has perished? Since that 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.

Here, there are two kinds of true Dharma: first, the conventional true Dharma; and second, the ultimate true Dharma. The conventional true Dharma refers to names, phrases, and syllables — that is, the Sūtra-piṭaka, the Vinaya-piṭaka, and the Abhidharma-piṭaka. The ultimate true Dharma refers to the noble path — that is, the uncontaminated faculties, powers, awakening-factors, and path-factors. Those who practice the Dharma are likewise of two kinds: first, those who uphold the teaching; and second, those who uphold its realization. Those who uphold the teaching are those who read, recite, and explain the Sūtra and the rest; those who uphold its realization are those who are able to cultivate and realize the uncontaminated noble path. If those who uphold the teaching remain in unbroken continuity, they are able to cause the conventional true Dharma to abide for a long time; if those who uphold its realization remain in unbroken continuity, they are able to cause the ultimate true Dharma to abide for a long time. Should these come to an end, the true Dharma itself then perishes. Hence a sūtra states: "my own true Dharma does not abide dependent upon walls, pillars, or the like, but abides only dependent upon the unbroken continuum of sentient beings who practice the Dharma." Question: why did the World-Honored One not definitively state the exact span of time the Dharma would abide? Answer: it is in order to display that the true Dharma abides for a longer or shorter time depending on those who practice the Dharma — that is, if those who practice the Dharma engage in proper practice constantly, just as in the time when the Buddha was still in the world, or as in the time not long after his passing, then the Buddha's own true Dharma will abide constantly in the world without ever perishing; whereas, if there are none who so practice the true Dharma, then that true Dharma will swiftly perish. As the Buddha told Ānanda: "within my own well-taught Dharma and Vinaya, had women not been allowed to go forth, my own true Dharma would have abided for a thousand years, or even longer than that; but, on account of allowing women to go forth, my own true Dharma is thereby reduced by five hundred years." Question: if the true Dharma still abides for the full span of a thousand years, why did the World-Honored One speak in this way? Answer: this is spoken with an implicit reference to the firmness of liberation — that is, had women not been allowed to go forth, liberation itself would have remained firm for the full thousand years, whereas now, in the latter five hundred years, only moral discipline, learning, and concentration remain firm, not liberation — and all of this is simply the fault of having allowed women to go forth. Other masters say: this is spoken with an implicit reference to whether the eight weighty rules are practiced — that is, had women been allowed to go forth without being made to observe the eight weighty rules, the Buddha's own true Dharma would have been reduced to abiding for only five hundred years; but, since the Buddha caused them to observe the eight weighty rules, the true Dharma abides in the world for the full thousand years after all.

Question: how, precisely, will the Tathāgata's own true Dharma come to perish? Answer: when the Tathāgata's true Dharma is about to perish, there will arise in this Jambudvīpa three kings — one king possessed of righteousness, and two kings without righteousness. The one possessed of righteousness will be born in the east, majestic and compassionate, subduing the five regions of India.

Those two without righteousness will be born among the mleccha barbarians, both by nature stubborn and cruel, despising the Buddha's Dharma, and will join forces with one another, invading and encroaching from the west, gradually penetrating into India and advancing as far as the east, resolved to bring great ruin upon the Buddha's Dharma — wherever they go, destroying stūpas, ruining monasteries, killing monks of great learning and firm discipline, none escaping them, and burning the scriptures without a single one left remaining. At that time, the king in the east, hearing that the mleccha barbarian kings had encroached upon India and were advancing gradually toward the east, led his own troops out to give them battle. Those kings' own armies were at once routed and put to flight, and the two kings were captured and their lives ended. He then at once dispatched envoys in every direction, summoning every ascetic and every son of the Śākyas, inviting them all to gather and dwell together within his own kingdom: "I shall, for the rest of my life, supply and offer you robes, food and drink, bedding and seats, and medicine, and everything else you require, so that you shall lack for nothing." Thereupon every monk throughout the whole of Jambudvīpa gathered together in the country of Kauśāmbī.

The king held a grand five-year assembly, day after day making every kind of offering to them. Yet the monks, having thereby received such abundant support, and many of them having gone forth in the first place merely to sustain their own livelihood, were unable to diligently read and recite the scriptures, and took no delight in dwelling alone in meditative reflection; by day they gathered in crowds, gossiping about worldly affairs in noisy confusion, and by night, indolent and given over to sleep, they remained entirely unmindful — and, on account of this, they grew ever more lax and negligent toward the Buddha's own instructions, failing to observe them at all. At that time, throughout the whole of Jambudvīpa, there remained only two who truly practiced the Dharma: one an arhat named Surata, and the other a Tripiṭaka master named Śikha, also called Panthaka, who served as the head of the assembly — and it was on this very day that the true Dharma was about to perish. In the first part of that day, the king of Kauśāmbī, together with five hundred elders of pure faith, together built five hundred monasteries; and, having already heard that the Dharma was about to perish, they raised their hands and deliberated together, saying: "at his own parinirvāṇa, the Buddha entrusted the Dharma to two groups of disciples — the householders, and those who have gone forth. Let it not be said that it is now on account of us householder disciples that the monks are left wanting, and that it is our own failure to provide for them that has caused the true Dharma to perish — rather, it is on account of you, our fellow disciples who have gone forth, having no proper practice, that the true Dharma is caused to perish." Some say: just as, in the etiquette of receiving a guest, one prepares an abundant feast both at the beginning and at the end of the visit, so too, both at the true Dharma's first appearance and at its final perishing, an especially abundant provision of support and offerings is made. Some say: they reflected as follows: "so long as the Buddha's Dharma has not yet perished, the world still possesses a field of merit without measure; once the Buddha's Dharma has perished, the world will possess only a field of merit that is measured and limited — let us, then, while fortunate enough that the Buddha's Dharma has not yet perished, together seize this very moment to do what ought now to be done." Some say: Śākyamuni, when he was still a bodhisattva, having seen that past Buddhas' own true Dharma perished on account of a lack of material support, or on account of the outbreak of plague and disease, at once made a vow: "may I, when I become a Buddha, never let such circumstances cause my own Dharma to perish entirely" — and it is for this reason that, although the Dharma does in the end perish, its material support remains abundant and its dwelling-places continue to increase and expand right up to that very moment. That very night, within the monastery, countless monks had all gathered together for the poṣadha rite. The one appointed to please the assembly requested that the head of the assembly, the Tripiṭaka master Śikha, expound the prātimokṣa to them in full; the Tripiṭaka master consented, but wished to recite it only in brief. At that time the arhat Surata rose from his seat, bared one shoulder, paid reverent homage to the Tripiṭaka master, and, joining his palms, said: "I beg only that the elder expound the Tripiṭaka to the assembly in full." The Tripiṭaka master replied: "who, within this assembly, is able to fully carry out the prātimokṣa precepts, that he should request me to expound them in full?" The arhat said: "just as, when the Buddha was still in the world, the monks were able to carry out every training-point to its very furthest extent, I too am able to carry out every one of them — if this is what is meant by one able to fully carry them out, I beg you to expound them in full." At these words, the disciples of the Tripiṭaka master were filled with great anger, and rebuked him, saying: "what manner of monk is this, who, before the whole assembly, defies our own teacher and refuses his instruction?" — and they thereupon together took the life of that arhat, and it was from this moment that the ultimate true Dharma perished. At that time, there were devas, nāgas, and yakṣas who deeply revered that arhat, and, filled with great fury, they killed the Tripiṭaka master in turn. Some say: it was instead that arhat's own disciples who, to avenge him, took the Tripiṭaka master's life. Some say: it was the king himself who, hearing that the arhat had been killed without cause, was overcome with grief and remorse, and killed the Tripiṭaka master — and it was from this moment that the conventional true Dharma perished. At that time, both kinds of true Dharma in the world, the ultimate and the conventional, perished together. For seven full days and nights thereafter, heaven and earth remained shrouded in darkness, and yet the world still did not know that the true Dharma had already perished. Why is this? Because the Buddha, in a past life as a bodhisattva, had loved to conceal others' faults, and never once exposed what others themselves had kept hidden — and it is on account of this very karma that, for seven days after the Dharma's perishing, no one at all knew of it. Once seven days had passed, the great earth quaked, falling stars rained down fire and burned in every direction, and, in the sky, a heavenly drum sounded forth a roar of terrible dread; the retinue of Māra rejoiced greatly, spreading a great white canopy across the sky, and, from within the sky, there resounded a great voice, proclaiming: "the true Dharma of the great sage Śākyamuni is, from this moment on, forever extinguished.

"No one shall ever again enter the fixed nature of the noble ones; the wondrous gate of the deathless is now forever closed; great suffering and darkness fill the entire world, and there is no one left to rescue or guide anyone at all." Some say that, at that moment, every moral restraint, formal act, and ritual boundary was thereby relinquished; according to this view, from this point on, no further ritual boundaries or formal acts of ordination could ever again be performed, though those already in existence at that time were not thereby relinquished. In the case of some Buddhas, the true Dharma perishes even before their own parinirvāṇa; in the case of others, it perishes seven days after their parinirvāṇa; yet, in the case of our own World-Honored One, Śākyamuni, the true Dharma does not perish until a full thousand years after his parinirvāṇa. Where it is said that the true Dharma perishes before a Buddha's parinirvāṇa, or seven days after it, this is spoken with reference to there being no one left able to enter the fixed nature of the noble ones — this is what is named its perishing; whereas, in the case of the Tathāgata Śākyamuni, the perishing of the true Dharma is spoken of with reference to the severance of the deathless realm — for, although the deathless realm still remains among the gods, it is with reference to its perishing among humans that this perishing is named. Question: why is it that, for some past Buddhas, the true Dharma perished even before their own parinirvāṇa, for others it perished seven days after, while for the Buddha Śākyamuni it does not perish until a full thousand years have passed? Answer: past Buddhas possessed a vastly long lifespan, and, during their own lifetime, whatever needed to be accomplished with respect to their true teaching had, for the most part, already been fully accomplished, and hence their Dharma perished swiftly. Our own World-Honored One, Śākyamuni, however, appeared in an age of a mere hundred-year lifespan, so brief that, even at the time of his own parinirvāṇa, much of what needed to be accomplished with respect to his true teaching remained unaccomplished; and so, clear up to a thousand years afterward, there remain those who plant wholesome roots, those whose roots ripen, and those who attain liberation — and it is for this reason that his true Dharma takes so long a time before it finally perishes. Some say: the disciples of past Buddhas cherished tranquility-meditation over insight-meditation, and, on account of this attachment to tranquility-meditation, constantly abided in quiescent stillness, taking no delight in transmitting and expounding the twelvefold division of scripture and the rest, and hence their Dharma perished swiftly; whereas our own World-Honored One's disciples cherish insight-meditation over tranquility-meditation, and, on account of this attachment to insight-meditation, dwell largely in careful observation, all delighting in transmitting the twelvefold division of scripture and the rest — and it is for this reason that his true Dharma takes so long a time before it finally perishes. Question: once the true Dharma has perished, can no one attain the noble fruits at all? Answer: there can still be those who, from the fruit of stream-entry, attain the fruit of once-return; from the fruit of once-return, attain the fruit of non-return; and from the fruit of non-return, attain the fruit of arhatship — it is only that there is no longer anyone who, from the stage of the wholesome roots conducive to penetration, enters the fixed nature of the noble ones for the very first time — and it is on this account alone that the true Dharma is named as having perished.

If one first enters the uncontaminated first dhyāna — and so on at length. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: in order to refute rival schools and display our own position — that is, some say there is no future cultivation; some say the noble path is unconditioned; and some say the noble path is a single, undifferentiated thing. It is in order to refute these positions, displaying that there is indeed future cultivation, and that the noble path is conditioned and not a single, undifferentiated thing, that this treatise is composed.

Were there no future cultivation, then virtuous qualities would have no meaning of increase, and the Buddha, at the moment of the knowledge of exhaustion, ought not to possess omniscience in full. Were the noble path unconditioned, it could not be cultivated at all, since an unconditioned dharma is not something that can be cultivated. Were the noble path a single, undifferentiated thing, there would be no distinction across the three times, and the sūtras ought not to speak of Buddhas across the three times. Question: if the noble path is conditioned and not a single, undifferentiated thing, why does a sūtra state, "I have realized the ancient path, which is one and without a second"? Answer: this is said on account of five causal conditions — namely, the similarity of effortful practice, the similarity of mode of activity, and so on, to be explained at length as in the Jñānaprasthāna. If one first enters the uncontaminated first dhyāna, then, by attaining this, one attains every other uncontaminated mind and mental factor as well — to which of the three times do these belong? Answer: the future. If one first enters, and so on up to, the uncontaminated sphere of nothing-whatsoever, then, by attaining this, one attains every other uncontaminated mind and mental factor as well — to which of the three times do these belong? Answer: the future. Here, "first" is of four kinds: first, the first moment of entering the fixed nature of the noble ones;

second, the first moment of attaining a fruit; third, the first moment of becoming free of defilement; and fourth, the first moment of changing one's faculty — to be explained at length as in the Jñānaprasthāna. "Attainment," at the moment of future arising, is what is meant here; once it reaches the present, it is named "already attained." Hence "attainment" here refers precisely to the moment of arising.

To what time does arising belong? — and so on at length. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: in order to refute rival schools and display our own position — that is, the Dārṣṭāntikas hold that a conditioned dharma possesses only two temporal states: the state of not-yet-arisen, and the state of already-arisen, and that, apart from these, there is no such thing as the very moment of arising or the very moment of ceasing. It is in order to display that there truly is such a moment of arising and of ceasing that this treatise is composed. Furthermore, it is in order to refute the position that denies the past and future altogether, holding the present alone to be unconditioned — for it is now stated that the future possesses arising and the present possesses ceasing, thereby displaying that the past and future are not non-existent, and that the present is itself conditioned, that this treatise is composed. Furthermore, it is in order to refute the position that a conditioned dharma merely transforms, now hidden and now manifest, while its own substance neither arises nor ceases — for it is now stated that arising belongs to the future and ceasing to the present, thereby displaying that a conditioned dharma does not merely transform but truly does arise and cease, that this treatise is composed. To what time does arising belong?

Answer: the future. To what time does ceasing belong? Answer: the present — since the future is named the very moment of arising, the present is named the very moment of ceasing, the present is named the already-arisen, and the past is named the already-ceased.

Within the Concentration Aggregate, the Single Practice Nyāsa, section five, part one begins. The three concentrations — namely, the empty, the wishless, and the signless — and so on at length. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: in order to elucidate the meaning of a sūtra passage — for a sūtra states that there are three concentrations, namely the empty, the wishless, and the signless. Although the sūtra speaks in this way, it does not explain the matter — does one who possesses the empty thereby possess the wishless? — and so on. Since that 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. Furthermore, it is in order to refute the denial of the nature of non-possession, which holds that the nature of possession alone is a merely conventional existent, and, wishing to display that both the nature of possession and of non-possession are alike real existents, that this treatise is composed. Furthermore, it is in order to refute the denial of the past and future two times, which holds the present alone to be unconditioned, displaying that the two times exist and that the present, too, is conditioned, that this treatise is composed.

Does one who possesses the empty concentration thereby possess the wishless? Answer: yes. And does one who possesses the wishless thereby possess the empty? Answer: yes — since these three concentrations are all attained at the same time, being counteractions to the very same thing. "Attained at the same time" means that, if one relies on the empty concentration to enter the fixed nature of the noble ones, one also attains the wishless within the four mind-moments of the direct realization of suffering; and if one relies on the wishless concentration to enter the fixed nature of the noble ones, one also attains the empty within those same four mind-moments, and likewise within the path of cultivation and the path of the non-trainee — if one attains either, one necessarily possesses both together. "Counteractions to the very same thing" means that both alike are able to counteract the afflictions abandoned by seeing suffering, as well as those abandoned by cultivation. Although, within the four mind-moments of the direct realization of origin on the path of seeing, and within the three mind-moments of the direct realization of the path, one attains the wishless but not the empty, yet, since the very first moment of transition from non-possession to possession necessarily brings both together at once, one thereafter constantly possesses both together. Does one who possesses the empty thereby possess the signless? Answer: if one has attained it — "attained" here meaning already attained — that is, once the patient acceptance of the cognition of the Dharma of cessation has arisen, one thereafter constantly possesses the signless. And does one who possesses the signless thereby possess the empty? Answer: yes, since, at the moment one comes to possess the signless, one has necessarily already attained the empty beforehand. Does one who possesses the wishless thereby possess the signless? Answer: if one has attained it. And does one who possesses the signless thereby possess the wishless? Answer: yes — this is to be explained exactly as with the empty in relation to the signless.

Does one who possesses the empty in the past thereby possess it in the future? Answer: yes. Question: at what stage is this said to hold? Answer: this is said with reference to one who, relying on the empty concentration, enters the fixed nature of the noble ones — within the three mind-moments of the direct realization of suffering, the four mind-moments each of the direct realizations of origin and of cessation, and the three mind-moments of the direct realization of the path — and up through attaining the fruit of stream-entry, and so on up to the fruit of arhatship; and likewise for one liberated by conviction who has refined his own faculty into one who has arrived through insight, and for the arhat liberated dependent on time who has refined his own faculty into the unshakeable type — in all these cases, that empty concentration, once arisen and ceased, is not lost. And does one who possesses the empty in the future thereby possess it in the past? Answer: if it has already ceased and is not lost, then one possesses it; if it has not yet ceased, or if, having ceased, it has been lost, then one does not possess it. Question: at what stage is each of these said to hold? Answer: that one possesses it if it has already ceased and is not lost is said with reference to the same stages already explained above. That one does not possess it if it has not yet ceased, or if, having ceased, it has been lost, is said with reference to one who, relying on the empty concentration, enters the fixed nature of the noble ones within the single mind-moment of the direct realization of suffering; or one who, relying on the wishless concentration, enters the fixed nature of the noble ones — within the four mind-moments each of the direct realizations of suffering, origin, and cessation, and the three mind-moments of the direct realization of the path — and up through attaining the fruit of stream-entry, and so on up to the fruit of arhatship; and likewise for one liberated by conviction who has refined his own faculty into one who has arrived through insight, and for one liberated dependent on time who has refined his own faculty into the unshakeable type, in whom the empty concentration has not yet arisen and ceased — where it has already arisen and ceased, it is lost on account of attaining a fruit or changing one's faculty. Does one who possesses the empty in the past thereby possess it in the present? Answer: only if it is currently manifesting before the mind — that is, provided one has not given rise to the wishless, or the signless, or a contaminated state of mind, and is not without any mind at all, is it said, "if it is currently manifesting before the mind." Question: at what stage is this said to hold? Answer: this is said with reference to one who, relying on the empty concentration, enters the fixed nature of the noble ones within the three mind-moments of the direct realization of suffering, and up through attaining the fruit of stream-entry, and so on up to the fruit of arhatship; and likewise for one liberated by conviction who has refined his own faculty into one who has arrived through insight, and for one liberated dependent on time who has refined his own faculty into the unshakeable type, in whom the empty concentration has already arisen and ceased without being lost, and is currently manifesting before the mind. And does one who possesses the empty in the present thereby possess it in the past? Answer: if it has already ceased and is not lost, then one possesses it; if it has not yet ceased, or if, having ceased, it has been lost, then one does not possess it. Question: at what stage is each of these said to hold? Answer: that one possesses it if it has already ceased and is not lost is said with reference to the same stages already explained above. That one does not possess it if it has not yet ceased, or if, having ceased, it has been lost, is said with reference to one who, relying on the empty concentration, enters the fixed nature of the noble ones within the single mind-moment of the direct realization of suffering,

and up through attaining the fruit of stream-entry, and so on up to the fruit of arhatship; and likewise for one liberated by conviction who has refined his own faculty into one who has arrived through insight, and for one liberated dependent on time who has refined his own faculty into the unshakeable type, in whom the empty concentration is currently manifesting before the mind, yet has not yet ceased, or, having already arisen and ceased, is lost on account of attaining a fruit or changing one's faculty. Does one who possesses the empty in the future thereby possess it in the present? Answer: only if it is currently manifesting before the mind — that is, provided one has not given rise to the wishless, or the signless, or a contaminated state of mind, and is not without any mind at all, is it said, "if it is currently manifesting before the mind." Question: at what stage is this said to hold? Answer: this is said with reference to one who, relying on the empty concentration, enters the fixed nature of the noble ones within the four mind-moments of the direct realization of suffering, and up through attaining the fruit of stream-entry, and so on up to the fruit of arhatship; and likewise for one liberated by conviction who has refined his own faculty into one who has arrived through insight, and for one liberated dependent on time who has refined his own faculty into the unshakeable type, in whom the empty concentration is currently manifesting before the mind. And does one who possesses the empty in the present thereby possess it in the future? Answer: yes. Question: at what stage is this said to hold? Answer: this is said with reference to the same stages already explained above.

Does one who possesses the empty in the past thereby possess it in both the future and the present? Answer: he possesses it in the future; as for the present, only if it is currently manifesting before the mind. Question: at what stage is this said to hold? Answer: this is said with reference to one who, relying on the empty concentration, enters the fixed nature of the noble ones within the three mind-moments of the direct realization of suffering, and up through attaining the fruit of stream-entry, and so on up to the fruit of arhatship; and likewise for one liberated by conviction who has refined his own faculty into one who has arrived through insight, and for one liberated dependent on time who has refined his own faculty into the unshakeable type, in whom the empty concentration has already arisen and ceased without being lost, and is also currently manifesting before the mind. And does one who possesses the empty in both the future and the present thereby possess it in the past? Answer: if it has already ceased and is not lost, then one possesses it; if it has not yet ceased, or if, having ceased, it has been lost, then one does not possess it. Question: at what stage is each of these said to hold? Answer: that one possesses it if it has already ceased and is not lost is said with reference to the same stages already explained above; that one does not possess it if it has not yet ceased, or if, having ceased, it has been lost, is as already explained above with the present in relation to the past. Does one who possesses the empty in the future thereby possess it in the past and the present? Answer: there is a case of possessing the empty in the future but not in the past or the present; a case of possessing it in the future and the past but not the present; a case of possessing it in the future and the present but not the past; and a case of possessing it in the future, the past, and the present all together. "Possessing the empty in the future but not in the past or the present" refers to one who has already attained the empty but it has not yet ceased — or, granting it has ceased, has been lost — and is not currently manifesting before the mind. Question: at what stage is this said to hold? Answer: this is said with reference to one who, relying on the wishless concentration, enters the fixed nature of the noble ones — within the four mind-moments each of the direct realizations of suffering, origin, and cessation, and the three mind-moments of the direct realization of the path — and up through attaining the fruit of stream-entry, and so on up to the fruit of arhatship; and likewise for one liberated by conviction who has refined his own faculty into one who has arrived through insight, and for one liberated dependent on time who has refined his own faculty into the unshakeable type, in whom the empty concentration has not yet arisen and ceased — or, having already arisen and ceased, is lost on account of attaining a fruit or changing one's faculty — and is not currently manifesting before the mind. "Possessing it in the future and the past but not the present" refers to one in whom the empty has already ceased and is not lost, yet is not currently manifesting before the mind. Question: at what stage is this said to hold? Answer: this is said with reference to one who, relying on the empty concentration, enters the fixed nature of the noble ones — within the four mind-moments each of the direct realizations of origin and cessation, and the three mind-moments of the direct realization of the path — and up through attaining the fruit of stream-entry, and so on up to the fruit of arhatship; and likewise for one liberated by conviction who has refined his own faculty into one who has arrived through insight, and for one liberated dependent on time who has refined his own faculty into the unshakeable type, in whom the empty concentration has already arisen and ceased without being lost, yet is not currently manifesting before the mind.

"Possessing it in the future and the present but not the past" refers to one in whom the empty is currently manifesting before the mind, yet has not yet ceased — or, granting it has ceased, has been lost. Question: at what stage is this said to hold?

Answer: this is said with reference to one who, relying on the empty concentration, enters the fixed nature of the noble ones within the single mind-moment of the direct realization of suffering, and up through attaining the fruit of stream-entry, and so on up to the fruit of arhatship; and likewise for one liberated by conviction who has refined his own faculty into one who has arrived through insight, and for one liberated dependent on time who has refined his own faculty into the unshakeable type, in whom the empty concentration has not yet arisen and ceased — or, having already arisen and ceased, is lost on account of attaining a fruit or changing one's faculty — yet is currently manifesting before the mind. "Possessing it in the past and the present" refers to one in whom the empty has already ceased and is not lost, yet is currently manifesting before the mind. Question: at what stage is this said to hold? Answer: this is said with reference to one who, relying on the empty concentration, enters the fixed nature of the noble ones within the three mind-moments of the direct realization of suffering, and up through attaining the fruit of stream-entry, and so on up to the fruit of arhatship; and likewise for one liberated by conviction who has refined his own faculty into one who has arrived through insight, and for one liberated dependent on time who has refined his own faculty into the unshakeable type, in whom the empty concentration has already arisen and ceased without being lost, and is also currently manifesting before the mind. And does one who possesses the empty in the past and the present thereby possess it in the future? Answer: yes — this refers to the same stages already explained above, since anyone who possesses the empty in both the past and the present necessarily possesses it in the future as well. Does one who possesses the empty in the present thereby possess it in the past and the future? Answer: he possesses it in the future; as for the past, if it has already ceased and is not lost, then he possesses it, and if it has not yet ceased, or if, having ceased, it has been lost, then he does not possess it. That he possesses it in the future is as already explained above with the present in relation to the future; that he possesses it in the past if it has already ceased and is not lost, and so on, is as already explained above with the present in relation to the past. And does one who possesses the empty in the past and the future thereby possess it in the present? Answer: only if it is currently manifesting before the mind — this is as already explained above with the future in relation to the present, the only difference being that here one necessarily also possesses it in the past. Just as this sixfold set of questions has been run through for the empty concentration, it should be understood that the same holds for the wishless and the signless as well, applying to each in whatever way is fitting, exactly as explained.