The Nāga-Roar Beside the Mandākinī Pool

Does one who cultivates the empty thereby cultivate the wishless? — and so on at length. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: it is in order to refute the denial of the past and future two times, and the position that there is no future cultivation, displaying that the past and future times exist and that there is indeed future cultivation, that this treatise is composed. Cultivation is of four kinds: first, cultivation as attainment; second, cultivation as habituation; third, cultivation as counteraction; and fourth, cultivation as elimination. Here, the treatise is composed with reference to two of these kinds of cultivation,

namely, cultivation as attainment and cultivation as habituation. Does one who cultivates the empty thereby cultivate the wishless? And does one who cultivates the wishless thereby cultivate the empty? Answer: a full tetralemma must be formed. There is a case of cultivating the empty but not the wishless — that is, one in whom the already-attained empty is currently manifesting before the mind; this refers to the Buddha, or a pratyekabuddha, or a śrāvaka, who, for the sake of dwelling in the bliss of the present life and the like, gives rise to the already-attained empty concentration, causing it to manifest before the mind — at that moment, its own force does not even extend so far as the very next moment of its own kind, let alone being able to cultivate any further future merit; yet this very act of manifesting before the mind is itself cultivation as habituation. There is a case of cultivating the wishless but not the empty — that is, one in whom the already-attained wishless is currently manifesting before the mind. If the not-yet-attained wishless is currently manifesting before the mind, one does not thereby cultivate the empty. "One in whom the already-attained wishless is currently manifesting before the mind" is to be explained as before.

"One in whom the not-yet-attained wishless is currently manifesting before the mind, who does not thereby cultivate the empty" refers to one within the path of seeing, within the four mind-moments of the direct realization of origin and the three mind-moments of the direct realization of the path — since, within the path of seeing, the counteraction is fixed and determinate, and is an unshared counteraction, it does not cultivate a differing truth. There is a case of cultivating both — that is, one in whom the not-yet-attained empty is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby also cultivates the wishless if the not-yet-attained wishless is currently manifesting before the mind, or cultivates the empty if the not-yet-attained signless, or the not-yet-attained conventional cognition, is currently manifesting before the mind. "One in whom the not-yet-attained empty is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby also cultivates the wishless" refers 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; or one who, relying on the empty concentration, becomes free of the defilement of the desire realm, and so on up to the sphere of nothing-whatsoever, or takes the empty as his effortful practice — in every case, within the uninterrupted path and the path of liberation of that effortful practice, and, in becoming free of the defilement of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, excepting the very last path of liberation; or one who, relying on the empty concentration, is one liberated by conviction who refines his own faculty into one who has arrived through insight, or takes the empty as his effortful practice — in every case, within the uninterrupted path and the path of liberation of that effortful practice — and one liberated dependent on time who refines his own faculty into the unshakeable type, excepting the very last path of liberation; or one who, relying on the empty concentration, is within the first and last mind-moments of the mixed cultivation of dhyāna;

or one who, relying on the empty concentration, gives rise to the mindfulness-foundations, the formless liberations, or the unimpeded understandings of meaning and eloquence — some say only the unimpeded understanding of meaning — in whom, at such a time, the not-yet-attained empty is currently manifesting before the mind, and who thereby also cultivates the wishless. "One in whom the not-yet-attained wishless is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby also cultivates the empty" refers to one who, relying on the wishless concentration, enters the fixed nature of the noble ones within the four mind-moments of the direct realization of suffering, or at the moment of the subsequent cognition of the path; or one who, relying on the wishless, becomes free of the defilement of the desire realm, and so on up to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, or takes the wishless as his effortful practice, in every case within the uninterrupted path and the path of liberation of that effortful practice; or one who, relying on the wishless, is one liberated by conviction who refines his own faculty into one who has arrived through insight, or one liberated dependent on time who refines his own faculty into the unshakeable type, or takes the wishless as his effortful practice, in every case within the uninterrupted path and the path of liberation of that effortful practice; or one who, relying on the wishless, is within the first and last mind-moments of the mixed cultivation of dhyāna; or one who gives rise to the uncontaminated superknowledge of the cognition of others' minds; or one who, relying on the wishless, gives rise to the mindfulness-foundations, the formless liberations, or the unimpeded understandings of meaning and eloquence — in whom, at such a time, the not-yet-attained wishless is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby also cultivates the empty. "One in whom the not-yet-attained signless is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates the empty and the wishless" — this does not occur within the path of seeing, but does occur within the path of cultivation and the path of the non-trainee. That is, one who, relying on the signless, becomes free of the defilement of the desire realm, and so on up to the sphere of nothing-whatsoever, or takes the signless as his effortful practice, in every case within the uninterrupted path and the path of liberation of that effortful practice, and, in becoming free of the defilement of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, excepting the very last path of liberation; or one who, relying on the signless, is one liberated by conviction who refines his own faculty into one who has arrived through insight, or takes the signless as his effortful practice, in every case within the uninterrupted path and the path of liberation of that effortful practice, and one liberated dependent on time who refines his own faculty into the unshakeable type, excepting the very last path of liberation; or one who, relying on the signless, is within the first and last mind-moments of the mixed cultivation of dhyāna; or one who, relying on the signless, gives rise to the mindfulness-foundations or the unimpeded understanding of meaning — in whom, at such a time, the not-yet-attained signless is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates the empty and the wishless. "One in whom the not-yet-attained conventional cognition is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates the empty and the wishless" refers to a noble one who, by means of the mundane path, becomes free of the defilement of the desire realm, and so on up to the sphere of nothing-whatsoever, or takes the mundane path as his effortful practice, in every case within the uninterrupted path and the path of liberation of that effortful practice, and, in becoming free of the defilement of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, and one liberated by conviction who refines his own faculty into one who has arrived through insight, and one liberated dependent on time who refines his own faculty into the unshakeable type, taking the mundane path as his effortful practice, within the intermediate mind-moment of that effortful practice's own mixed cultivation of dhyāna, drawing forth the five superknowledges' own preparatory paths, the five uninterrupted paths and two paths of liberation, and the path of liberation of the contaminated superknowledge of others' minds; or one who gives rise to the immeasurables, the mundane liberations, the bases of vanquishing, the totality-bases, the contemplation of impurity, mindfulness of breathing, the mundane mindfulness-foundations, the seven bases of skill, the threefold contemplation, the mundane unimpeded understandings, non-contention, wish-knowledge, or terminal cognition; or the empty-within-the-empty, the wishless-within-the-wishless, or the signless-within-the-signless; or one entering the attainment of cessation with the subtle mind of perception — in whom, at such a time, the not-yet-attained conventional cognition is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates both the empty and the wishless.

There is a case of cultivating neither. That is, one in whom the already-attained signless is currently manifesting before the mind does not thereby cultivate the empty or the wishless if the not-yet-attained signless is currently manifesting before the mind; and one in whom the already-attained conventional cognition is currently manifesting before the mind does not thereby cultivate the empty or the wishless if the not-yet-attained conventional cognition is currently manifesting before the mind; nor does any ordinary worldling, in a defiled or neutral mind, or one within the attainment of no-perception or of cessation, or reborn in the heaven of no-perception. "One in whom the already-attained signless is currently manifesting before the mind" is to be explained as before. "One in whom the not-yet-attained signless is currently manifesting before the mind, who does not thereby cultivate the empty or the wishless" refers to one within the path of seeing, within the four mind-moments of the direct realization of cessation, who does not thereby cultivate the empty or the wishless, as already explained. "One in whom the already-attained conventional cognition is currently manifesting before the mind" is to be explained as before. "One in whom the not-yet-attained conventional cognition is currently manifesting before the mind, who does not thereby cultivate the empty or the wishless" refers to a noble one whose wisdom is accomplished through hearing or reflection, entering the attainment of cessation with the extremely subtle mind. As for "every ordinary worldling": since the three concentrations spoken of here are exclusively uncontaminated, and ordinary worldlings possess none of these at all, there is no possibility of cultivation for them. As for "a defiled mind": a defiled mind is of a nature conducive to regression, conjoined with heaviness and indolence; only a mind of a nature conducive to advancement, conjoined with buoyancy and diligence, is capable of cultivation. As for "a neutral mind": a neutral mind is not firm, not stable, not substantial, feeble like a rotten seed; only a firm, stable, substantial, and vigorous mind is capable of cultivation. As for "within the attainment of no-perception or of cessation": these lack mind altogether, and only a state possessing mind is capable of cultivation. As for "reborn in the heaven of no-perception": some say that, once reborn there, one never gives rise to a wholesome mind at any time; some say that, although one may give rise to a wholesome mind there, it does not serve as a basis for cultivation. Although every ordinary worldling has already been excluded above, the attainment of no-perception and the heaven of no-perception are excluded once again separately, since that heaven is held in worldly esteem, and there might otherwise be doubt as to whether cultivation occurs there — and it is for this reason that neither the empty nor the wishless is cultivated at such a time.

Does one who cultivates the empty thereby cultivate the signless? And does one who cultivates the signless thereby cultivate the empty? Answer: a full tetralemma must be formed. There is a case of cultivating the empty but not the signless —

that is, one in whom the already-attained empty is currently manifesting before the mind does not thereby cultivate the signless if the not-yet-attained signless is currently manifesting before the mind, and one in whom the not-yet-attained wishless is currently manifesting before the mind cultivates the empty but not the signless. "One in whom the already-attained empty is currently manifesting before the mind" is to be explained as before. "One in whom the not-yet-attained empty is currently manifesting before the mind, who does not thereby cultivate the signless" refers 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. "One in whom the not-yet-attained wishless is currently manifesting before the mind, who cultivates the empty but not the signless" refers to one who, relying on the wishless, enters the fixed nature of the noble ones within the four mind-moments of the direct realization of suffering. There is a case of cultivating the signless but not the empty — that is, one in whom the already-attained signless is currently manifesting before the mind does not thereby cultivate the empty if the not-yet-attained signless is currently manifesting before the mind. "One in whom the already-attained signless is currently manifesting before the mind" is to be explained as before. "One in whom the not-yet-attained signless is currently manifesting before the mind, who does not thereby cultivate the empty" refers to one within the path of seeing, within the four mind-moments of the direct realization of cessation. There is a case of cultivating both — that is, one in whom the not-yet-attained empty is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates the signless; or one in whom the not-yet-attained signless is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates the empty; or one in whom the not-yet-attained wishless, or the not-yet-attained conventional cognition, is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates both the empty and the signless. "One in whom the not-yet-attained empty is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates the signless" refers to one who, relying on the empty concentration, becomes free of the defilement of the desire realm, and so on up to the sphere of nothing-whatsoever, to be explained at length exactly as before, together with the cultivation of the wishless. "One in whom the not-yet-attained signless is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates the empty" refers to one who, relying on the signless concentration, becomes free of the defilement of the desire realm, and so on up to the sphere of nothing-whatsoever, or takes the signless as his effortful practice — in every case, within the uninterrupted path and the path of liberation of that effortful practice, and, in becoming free of the defilement of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, excepting the very last path of liberation; or one who, relying on the signless, refines his own faculty into one who has arrived through insight, or takes the signless as his effortful practice, in every case within the uninterrupted path and the path of liberation of that effortful practice, and one liberated dependent on time who refines his own faculty into the unshakeable type, excepting the very last path of liberation; or one who, relying on the signless, is within the first and last mind-moments of the mixed cultivation of dhyāna; or one who, relying on the signless, gives rise to the mindfulness-foundations, the formless liberations, or the unimpeded understanding of meaning — in whom, at such a time, the not-yet-attained signless is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby also cultivates the empty. "One in whom the not-yet-attained wishless is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates the empty and the signless" refers to one at the moment of the subsequent cognition of the path, or one who, relying on the wishless concentration, becomes free of the defilement of the desire realm, and so on up to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, to be explained at length exactly as before, together with the cultivation of the empty. "One in whom the not-yet-attained conventional cognition is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates the empty and the signless" refers to a noble one who, by means of the mundane path, becomes free of the defilement of the desire realm, and so on up to the sphere of nothing-whatsoever, to be explained at length exactly as before, together with the cultivation of the empty and the wishless. There is a case of cultivating neither. That is, one in whom the already-attained wishless is currently manifesting before the mind does not thereby cultivate the empty or the signless if the not-yet-attained wishless is currently manifesting before the mind; and one in whom the already-attained conventional cognition is currently manifesting before the mind does not thereby cultivate the empty or the signless if the not-yet-attained conventional cognition is currently manifesting before the mind; nor does any ordinary worldling, in a defiled or neutral mind, or one within the attainment of no-perception or of cessation, or reborn in the heaven of no-perception. "One in whom the already-attained wishless is currently manifesting before the mind" is to be explained as before. "One in whom the not-yet-attained wishless is currently manifesting before the mind, who does not thereby cultivate the empty or the signless" refers to one within the path of seeing, within the four mind-moments of the direct realization of origin and the three mind-moments of the direct realization of the path.

"One in whom the already-attained conventional cognition is currently manifesting before the mind" is to be explained as before. "One in whom the not-yet-attained conventional cognition is currently manifesting before the mind, who does not thereby cultivate the empty or the signless" refers to a noble one whose wisdom is accomplished through hearing or reflection, entering the attainment of cessation with the extremely subtle mind. "Every ordinary worldling," and so on up to "reborn in the heaven of no-perception," is to be explained as before.

Does one who cultivates the wishless thereby cultivate the signless? And does one who cultivates the signless thereby cultivate the wishless? Answer: a full tetralemma must be formed. There is a case of cultivating the wishless but not the signless — that is, one in whom the already-attained wishless is currently manifesting before the mind does not thereby cultivate the signless if the not-yet-attained wishless, or the not-yet-attained empty, is currently manifesting before the mind.

"One in whom the already-attained wishless is currently manifesting before the mind" is to be explained as before. "One in whom the not-yet-attained wishless is currently manifesting before the mind, who does not thereby cultivate the signless" refers to one who, relying on the wishless, enters the fixed nature of the noble ones within the four mind-moments each of the direct realizations of suffering and origin, and the three mind-moments of the direct realization of the path. "One in whom the not-yet-attained empty is currently manifesting before the mind, who does not thereby cultivate the signless" refers 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. There is a case of cultivating the signless but not the wishless — that is, one in whom the already-attained signless is currently manifesting before the mind does not thereby cultivate the wishless if the not-yet-attained signless is currently manifesting before the mind. "One in whom the already-attained signless is currently manifesting before the mind" is to be explained as before. "One in whom the not-yet-attained signless is currently manifesting before the mind, who does not thereby cultivate the wishless" refers to one within the path of seeing, within the four mind-moments of the direct realization of cessation. There is a case of cultivating both — that is, one in whom the not-yet-attained wishless is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates the signless; or one in whom the not-yet-attained signless is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates the wishless; or one in whom the not-yet-attained empty, or the not-yet-attained conventional cognition, is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates both the wishless and the signless — each to be explained at length, in whatever way is fitting, exactly as before. There is a case of cultivating neither. That is, one in whom the already-attained empty and the already-attained conventional cognition are currently manifesting before the mind does not thereby cultivate the wishless or the signless if the not-yet-attained conventional cognition is currently manifesting before the mind; nor does any ordinary worldling, in a defiled or neutral mind, or one within the attainment of no-perception or of cessation, or reborn in the heaven of no-perception — this, too, to be explained at length, in whatever way is fitting, exactly as before.

Is there any fetter abandoned by the empty that is not abandoned by the wishless or the signless? — and so on at length. There are two kinds of determination: first, determination by counteraction; and second, determination by function. Here, the treatise is composed with reference to determination by counteraction, not determination by function. Why is this?

There is no rational basis for two concentrations to function at the same moment, let alone three. Is there any fetter abandoned by the empty that is not abandoned by the wishless or the signless? Answer: there is not, since there exists no such class of fetter counteracted solely by the empty. Is there any fetter abandoned by the wishless that is not abandoned by the empty or the signless? Answer: there is — namely, the fetters abandoned by seeing origin and by seeing the path are severed by the wishless, since these are counteracted solely by the wishless. Is there any fetter abandoned by the signless that is not abandoned by the empty or the wishless? Answer: there is — namely, the fetters abandoned by seeing cessation are severed by the signless, since these are counteracted solely by the signless. Is there any fetter abandoned by both the empty and the wishless that is not abandoned by the signless? Answer: there is — namely, the fetters abandoned by seeing suffering are severed by the empty and the wishless together, since these are counteracted solely by the empty and the wishless. Is there any fetter abandoned by both the empty and the signless that is not abandoned by the wishless? Answer: there is not, since there exists no such class of fetter counteracted solely by the empty and the signless and not by the wishless. Is there any fetter abandoned by both the wishless and the signless that is not abandoned by the empty? Answer: there is not, since there exists no such class of fetter counteracted solely by the wishless and the signless and not by the empty.

Is there any fetter abandoned by the empty, the wishless, and the signless together? Answer: there is — namely, the fetters abandoned by cultivation belonging to the trainee's own noble tracks, severed by the empty, the wishless, and the signless together — that is, precisely the fetters abandoned by cultivation across all three realms in a noble one, since these are counteracted by all three concentrations together. Is there any fetter that is abandoned, yet is not abandoned by the empty, the wishless, or the signless? Answer: there is — namely, the fetters abandoned in an ordinary worldling, that is, the fetters abandoned by seeing and by cultivation, across the desire realm and up to the sphere of nothing-whatsoever, in ordinary worldlings, since these are counteracted by the mundane path. Question: are these fetters not also counteracted by the empty, the wishless, and the signless? Answer: they are indeed so counteracted, but only in a noble one, not in an ordinary worldling — and, since the case in question concerns an ordinary worldling, it is said that they are not abandoned by the empty and the rest. Some say: the earlier passage was composed with reference to determination by counteraction, whereas this passage is composed with reference to determination by function — since the three concentrations definitely have no function at all within an ordinary worldling's own mental continuum, it is said that his fetters are not abandoned by the empty and the rest. Question: if so, then, within a noble one's own mental continuum, the fetters abandoned by cultivation across the desire realm and up to the sphere of nothing-whatsoever are also severed by the mundane path — why, then, is it said only that they are severed by the empty and the rest? Answer: the earlier passage ought also to have said that those fetters are severed by the mundane path as well — what, then, is the intention behind its not saying so? It should be understood that, since a noble one's own attainment is made manifest by the uncontaminated path, the mundane path is not mentioned; whereas, since an ordinary worldling has no uncontaminated path at all, the matter is spoken of with reference to the mundane path alone — and it is for this reason that the earlier statement involves no difficulty.

With what mental application does one enter the fixed nature of the noble ones? — 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 that any single one of the three concentrations is able to bring about entry into the fixed nature of the noble ones; it is in order to refute this, displaying that only one of two specific concentrations, and not the signless, is able to do so, that this treatise is composed. Others further say that only the signless concentration is able to bring about entry into the fixed nature of the noble ones, as the Dharmaguptaka school holds — they say that it is by means of the signless concentration, giving rise to a tranquil mental application toward nirvāṇa, that one enters the fixed nature of the noble ones. It is in order to refute this position, displaying that the signless concentration alone is unable to bring about entry into the fixed nature of the noble ones, that this treatise is composed. With what mental application does one enter the fixed nature of the noble ones? Answer: with the mental application of impermanence, or of suffering, or of emptiness, or of non-self — and it is by this that the position that any of the three concentrations, or the signless alone, is able to bring about such entry is refuted. Here, the mental applications of impermanence and of suffering are conjoined with the wishless concentration, while the mental applications of emptiness and of non-self are conjoined with the empty concentration. Question: why do only these modes of activity bring about entry into the fixed nature of the noble ones, and not others? Answer: there are two kinds of one who enters the fixed nature of the noble ones: first, one whose conduct is dominated by craving; and second, one whose conduct is dominated by views. One dominated by craving enters by relying on the wishless; one dominated by views enters by relying on the empty. The bodhisattva, although his conduct is dominated by craving, is nevertheless able to enter the fixed nature of the noble ones by relying on the empty. One dominated by craving is further of two kinds: one in whom self-conceit predominates, and one in whom indolence predominates. One in whom self-conceit predominates enters by means of the mode of activity of impermanence; one in whom indolence predominates enters by means of the mode of activity of suffering. One dominated by views is likewise of two kinds: one in whom the view of self predominates, and one in whom the view of what belongs to self predominates. One in whom the view of self predominates enters by means of the mode of activity of non-self; one in whom the view of what belongs to self predominates enters by means of the mode of activity of emptiness. It is for this reason that only these four modes of activity are employed. Question: with the dharmas of which stage are these four modes of activity conjoined? Some say: with the supreme mundane dharma, since it is said that one thereby enters the fixed nature of the noble ones. Some say: with the patient acceptance of the cognition of the Dharma of suffering. Question: if so, why is it spoken of as "entering"? Answer: this is spoken of by naming what has already entered as "entering," applying a term for the distant to what is near — just as one asks, "great king, from where have you come?" and he, though already arrived, is still named as "coming"; it is the same in this case. Question: at that moment there are also other mental factors present — why, then, is only mental application spoken of? Answer: because mental application alone is able to draw forth mind and its mental factors. Some say: mental application accords most closely with entering the fixed nature of the noble ones.

By contemplating formations bound to which realm does one enter the fixed nature of the noble ones? — and so on at length. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: it is in order to refute the Venerable Dharmatrāta's own claim that one enters the fixed nature of the noble ones by contemplating the formations of all three realms all at once, and also in order to refute the position that one enters the fixed nature of the noble ones by contemplating nirvāṇa, that this treatise is composed. Question: by contemplating formations bound to which realm does one enter the fixed nature of the noble ones? Answer: those bound to the desire realm — and it is by this that both of the aforementioned positions are refuted. Question: why does one contemplate only formations bound to the desire realm in order to enter the fixed nature of the noble ones? Answer: because the suffering of the desire realm is coarse, manifest, and easy to observe. Some say: because the suffering of the desire realm is currently possessed within one's own mental continuum. Some say: because formations bound to the desire realm are complete with all three kinds of suffering — and it is for this reason that the Ābhidharmikas hold that one enters the fixed nature of the noble ones by observing the three kinds of suffering with respect to formations, unlike the Dārṣṭāntikas, who hold that one enters solely by observing the suffering of conditioned existence itself with respect to formations. Here, disagreeable formations are named the suffering of suffering; agreeable formations are named the suffering of change; and formations conducive to equanimity are named the suffering inherent in formations. Some say: because the suffering of the desire realm presently oppresses and afflicts the practitioner, provoking the utmost aversion and revulsion, he first observes it in order to enter the fixed nature of the noble ones. Question: nirvāṇa, too, is the object of the utmost delight — why does one not observe it in order to enter the fixed nature of the noble ones? Answer: sentient beings' own aversion to suffering is more powerful than their delight in nirvāṇa. Why is this? Because suffering presently oppresses them, whereas nirvāṇa is not presently manifest — just as there is no sentient being who does not fear suffering, yet there are some who do not crave pleasure. Question: taking which truth as its object does patient acceptance, afterward, enable one to enter the fixed nature of the noble ones?

Some say: taking the truth of the path as its object. According to this latter view: taking the truth of suffering as its object — to be explained at length as in the very first section of the Miscellaneous Aggregate.

Should the cognition of exhaustion be said to contemplate the body by way of the body as a mindfulness-foundation? — and so on up to, should it be said to contemplate dharmas by way of dharmas as a mindfulness-foundation? Answer: it should be said that the cognition of exhaustion contemplates either the body by way of the body, or feeling, mind, or dharmas by way of dharmas, as a mindfulness-foundation — and the same holds for the cognition of non-arising. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: in order to settle a lingering doubt definitively — that is, a doubt may arise as follows: since the cognitions of exhaustion and of non-arising are not of the nature of view, they ought likewise not to be of the nature of a mindfulness-foundation. It is in order to establish definitively that these two cognitions, though not of the nature of view, are nevertheless of the nature of a mindfulness-foundation, that this treatise is composed. Furthermore, the Aggregate of Views analyzes the mindfulness-foundation whose own nature is view; this present Concentration Aggregate now analyzes the mindfulness-foundation not of the nature of view, and it is for this reason that this treatise is composed. Furthermore, since the stage of effortful practice speaks of cultivating the mindfulness-foundations, there is reason for this treatise,

since it might be supposed that the stage of the non-trainee possesses no mindfulness-foundation at all; it is now in order to clarify that the stage of the non-trainee does indeed possess the mindfulness-foundations that this treatise is composed. Furthermore, a sūtra states that the cognitions of exhaustion and of non-arising take birth and further existence as their object; there is reason for this treatise, since it might be supposed that these cognitions take only birth and further existence as their object; it is now in order to display that they take every dharma as their object, excepting only space and cessation not through deliberate discernment, that this treatise is composed. Furthermore, there is a position holding that the cognitions of exhaustion and of non-arising take only the five aggregates collectively as their object; it is in order to refute this position, displaying that the cognitions of exhaustion and of non-arising may take either the five aggregates collectively, or else take them individually, as their object, that this treatise is composed. "The cognition of exhaustion should be said to contemplate the body by way of the body as a mindfulness-foundation" refers to taking the form-aggregate as its object; "to contemplate feeling by way of feeling" refers to taking the feeling-aggregate as its object; "to contemplate mind by way of mind" refers to taking the consciousness-aggregate as its object; and "to contemplate dharmas by way of dharmas" refers to taking the perception-aggregate, the formations-aggregate, and cessation through discernment as its object. This last statement refers to the dharma-mindfulness-foundation taking its object without admixture; where the dharma-mindfulness-foundation takes its object with admixture, it may take the five aggregates two at a time, three at a time, four at a time, or all five collectively at once. Taking two at a time means: form together with feeling as its object, form together with perception, form together with formations, form together with consciousness, feeling together with perception, feeling together with formations, feeling together with consciousness, and perception together with formations.

Perception together with consciousness, and formations together with consciousness. Taking three at a time means: form, feeling, and perception together; form, feeling, and formations together; form, feeling, and consciousness together;

form, perception, and consciousness together; form, formations, and consciousness together; feeling, perception, and formations together; feeling, perception, and consciousness together; feeling, formations, and consciousness together; and perception, formations, and consciousness together. Taking four at a time means: form, feeling, perception, and formations together; form, feeling, perception, and consciousness together; form, feeling, formations, and consciousness together; form, perception, formations, and consciousness together; and feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness together. And taking all five collectively means: form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, all together at once. As for the unconditioned dharma of cessation through discernment: if it is taken as the object of the contaminated dharma-mindfulness-foundation, it, too, is taken together with form and the other aggregates as a combined object — but what is spoken of here is the uncontaminated, and hence it takes its object without admixture alone. What difference is there between the bliss of any uncontaminated first dhyāna and the bliss of the awakening-factor of pliancy and the rest? Answer: there is no difference. What difference is there between the bliss of any uncontaminated second dhyāna and the bliss of the awakening-factor of pliancy and the rest? Answer: there is no difference. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: it is in order to refute the position that the first two dhyānas possess an uncontaminated pleasure-faculty, displaying that these two grounds possess no uncontaminated pleasure-faculty at all, that this treatise is composed — for, were there such a faculty, one ought not to answer that there is no difference here. Why is this? Because the bliss of the awakening-factor of pliancy and the rest has pliancy itself, among the great grounds of wholesome dharmas, as its intrinsic nature, whereas the uncontaminated pleasure-faculty has feeling itself, among the universal grounds, as its intrinsic nature; furthermore, the bliss of the awakening-factor of pliancy and the rest is subsumed under the formations-aggregate, whereas the uncontaminated pleasure-faculty is subsumed under the feeling-aggregate — these two kinds of bliss would thus indeed differ, and yet it is said that there is no difference. It should therefore be understood that whatever uncontaminated bliss exists on those two grounds is precisely the bliss of pliancy, and that the uncontaminated pleasure-faculty is not possessed on those grounds at all.

Does one who rises from an equipoise thereby rise from its objective support? — and so on at length. There are five kinds of rising: first, by ground; second, by mode of activity; third, by objective support; fourth, by a mind of a different class; and fifth, by moment. Here, the treatise is composed with reference to only two kinds of rising — namely, ground and objective support. Does one who rises from an equipoise thereby rise from its objective support? And does one who rises from an objective support thereby rise from the equipoise? Answer: a full tetralemma must be formed. There is a case of rising from the equipoise but not from the objective support — that is, one who, contemplating a given mark, enters the first dhyāna, and then, contemplating that very same mark, enters the second dhyāna. Here, "objective support" is spoken of in terms of "mark" — for instance, taking the form-aggregate as one's object, one enters the first dhyāna, and, immediately thereafter, taking the form-aggregate as one's object, the second dhyāna manifests before the mind — and likewise for taking any other aggregate as one's object. This is named rising from the equipoise but not from the objective support. Question: the second dhyāna, too, is itself an equipoise — why, then, is it spoken of as a "rising"? Answer: because the ground differs — and it is for this reason that the earlier passage speaks of the treatise being composed with reference to two kinds of rising, namely, ground and objective support. There is a case of rising from the objective support but not from the equipoise — that is, one who, contemplating a given mark, enters the first dhyāna, and, without rising from the first dhyāna, then contemplates a different mark — for instance, taking the form-aggregate as one's object, one enters the first dhyāna, and, immediately thereafter, taking the feeling-aggregate as one's object, the first dhyāna manifests before the mind once more — and likewise for taking any other aggregate as one's object. This is named rising from the objective support but not from the equipoise. There is a case of rising from both the equipoise and the objective support — that is, one who, contemplating a given mark, enters the first dhyāna, and then, contemplating a different mark, enters the second dhyāna — for instance, taking the form-aggregate as one's object, one enters the first dhyāna, and, immediately thereafter, taking the feeling-aggregate as one's object, the second dhyāna manifests before the mind — and likewise for taking any other aggregate as one's object. This is named rising from both the equipoise and the objective support. There is a case of rising from neither the equipoise nor the objective support — that is, one who, contemplating a given mark, enters the first dhyāna and abides therein for a long span of time — for instance, taking the form-aggregate as one's object, the first dhyāna's own continuous stream manifests before the mind for a long span of time — and likewise for taking any other aggregate as one's object, and likewise whether the object is an aggregate or something other than an aggregate, and likewise from the first dhyāna up through the sphere of nothing-whatsoever. There is, further, another distinct meaning. Does one who rises from an equipoise thereby rise from its own mode of activity? Answer: a full tetralemma must be formed. There is a case of rising from the equipoise but not from the mode of activity — that is, one who, with a given mode of activity, enters the first dhyāna, and then, with that very same mode of activity, enters the second dhyāna — for instance, with the mode of activity of impermanence,

immediately after the first dhyāna, the second dhyāna manifests before the mind with that same mode of activity of impermanence, and likewise for any other mode of activity. There is a case of rising from the mode of activity but not from the equipoise — that is, one who, with a given mode of activity, enters the first dhyāna, and, without rising from the first dhyāna, then adopts a different mode of activity —

for instance, with the mode of activity of impermanence, immediately after the first dhyāna, the first dhyāna manifests before the mind once more, but now with the mode of activity of suffering, and likewise for any other mode of activity. There is a case of rising from both the equipoise and the mode of activity — that is, one who, with a given mode of activity, enters the first dhyāna, and then, with a different mode of activity, enters the second dhyāna — for instance, with the mode of activity of impermanence, immediately after the first dhyāna, the second dhyāna manifests before the mind with the mode of activity of suffering, and likewise for any other mode of activity.

There is a case of rising from neither the equipoise nor the mode of activity — that is, one who, with a given mode of activity, enters the first dhyāna and abides therein for a long span of time — for instance, with the mode of activity of impermanence, the first dhyāna's own continuous stream manifests before the mind for a long span of time with that same mode of activity, and likewise for any other mode of activity, and likewise from the first dhyāna up through the sphere of nothing-whatsoever. There is, further, another distinct meaning. Does one who rises from a mode of activity thereby rise from its objective support? Answer: a full tetralemma must be formed. There is a case of rising from the mode of activity but not from the objective support — that is, one who, with a given mode of activity, contemplates a given mark, and then, without abandoning that mark, adopts a different mode of activity — for instance, taking the form-aggregate as one's object with the mode of activity of impermanence, immediately thereafter one takes the form-aggregate as one's object once more, but now with the mode of activity of suffering, manifesting before the mind, and likewise for taking any other aggregate with any other mode of activity. There is a case of rising from the objective support but not from the mode of activity — that is, one who, with a given mode of activity, contemplates a given mark, and then, with that very same mode of activity, contemplates a different mark — for instance, taking the form-aggregate as one's object with the mode of activity of impermanence, immediately thereafter one takes the feeling-aggregate as one's object, manifesting before the mind with that same mode of activity of impermanence, and likewise for taking any other aggregate with any other mode of activity. There is a case of rising from both the mode of activity and the objective support — that is, one who, with a given mode of activity, contemplates a given mark, and then, with a different mode of activity, contemplates a different mark — for instance, taking the form-aggregate as one's object with the mode of activity of impermanence, immediately thereafter one takes the feeling-aggregate as one's object, manifesting before the mind with the mode of activity of suffering, and likewise for taking any other aggregate with any other mode of activity. There is a case of rising from neither the mode of activity nor the objective support — that is, one who, with a given mode of activity, contemplates a given mark, and abides therein for a long span of time — for instance, taking the form-aggregate as one's object with the mode of activity of impermanence, its own continuous stream manifests before the mind for a long span of time, and likewise for taking any other aggregate with any other mode of activity, and likewise whether the object is an aggregate or something other than an aggregate.

As it is said, "monks, up to the attainment of perception, one is able to reach the noble aim" — a disciple of the World-Honored One reborn in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception attains the fruit of arhatship in reliance upon which concentration? Answer: the sphere of nothing-whatsoever. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: in order to settle a lingering doubt definitively —

that is, as a sūtra states, "there are seven bases of concentration; I declare that, in reliance upon them, one is able to exhaust every contaminant" — namely, the first dhyāna, and so on up to the sphere of nothing-whatsoever. A sūtra further states, "monks, up to the attainment of perception, one is able to reach the noble aim" — "the attainment of perception" referring to the four dhyānas and three of the formless attainments, and "reaching the noble aim" referring to being able to give rise to cognition, sever affliction, cultivate the path, and exhaust the contaminants. A doubt might therefore arise as follows: since the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception possesses no noble path at all, if a disciple of the World-Honored One is reborn there, in reliance upon what does he exhaust his contaminants — could it be that such a one attains arhatship without recourse to the noble path at all? It is in order to settle this doubt definitively that it is stated that he attains the fruit of arhatship in reliance upon the sphere of nothing-whatsoever. Furthermore, it is in order to refute the Vibhajyavādins' claim that there can be an arhat right at the very peak of existence — they hold that a disciple of the World-Honored One reborn in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, at the moment of his death, has his affliction, karma, and lifespan all three exhausted simultaneously, attaining arhatship without recourse to the noble path at all.

It is in order to refute this position, displaying that their exhaustion is not simultaneous, and that arhatship must necessarily come by way of the noble path, that this treatise is composed. Question: why is it said only that one relies on the sphere of nothing-whatsoever,

and not any other ground? Answer: because this is the ground nearest to the peak of existence. Question: for one reborn in any of the lower grounds, there is likewise a nearest neighboring ground possessed of the uncontaminated — why, then, is it not said that one relies on that ground

to exhaust the contaminants? Answer: in the lower grounds, there is affliction belonging to that very ground itself, and the uncontaminated noble path of a higher ground can easily manifest before the mind rather than that of the lower ground itself. Why is this? Because the wholesome roots bound to the lower ground have already all been relinquished, making it difficult for the noble path of that very ground to arise, and hence there is no one who gives rise to it there and lets it manifest. It is not so for one reborn at the peak of existence: there is no noble path belonging to that very ground itself, and there is no higher ground to rely upon — and one cannot, without recourse to the noble path, exhaust the contaminants at all. It is for this reason that, although difficult in the lower grounds, the noble path does still arise there, whereas that noble path arises there by the strength of its own causal power, not through the power of effortful practice, manifesting briefly before the mind in order to sever the remaining afflictions, and, once the fruit of arhatship has been attained, even were one to remain alive for eighty thousand further eons, it would never arise again, since there would be no further use for it. As it is said, the Venerable Mahāmaudgalyāyana stated: "venerable ones, I myself recall that, while abiding in the concentration of the sphere of nothing-whatsoever,

I heard, from beside the Mandākinī pool, the roaring and other sounds of numerous nāgas and elephants." Did that venerable one hear this while still in concentration, or only after rising from it? Answer: he heard it after rising from concentration, not while still in it. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: in order to settle a lingering doubt definitively — for, as the Vinaya relates, the Venerable Mahāmaudgalyāyana told the monks: "venerable ones, I myself recall that, while dwelling on Vulture Peak Mountain, abiding in the concentration of the sphere of nothing-whatsoever, I heard, from beside the Mandākinī pool, the roaring and other sounds of numerous nāgas and elephants." At that time the monks said to one another: "this Mahāmaudgalyāyana, claiming for himself a superhuman attainment, must surely be mistaken — we ought together to refute him." Why is this?

"one who abides even in the first dhyāna does not hear sound at all, let alone one abiding in the concentration of the sphere of nothing-whatsoever" — and they thereupon reported the matter to the Buddha. The Buddha then told them: "you ought not to refute Mahāmaudgalyāyana — why is this? Because Mahāmaudgalyāyana spoke exactly as it appeared to him." Hence, although the Vinaya speaks in this way, it does not explain the matter, and a doubt may therefore arise as to whether that venerable one heard the sound while still in concentration. It is in order to settle this doubt definitively, displaying that that venerable one heard the sound only after rising from concentration, that this treatise is composed. Question: every other śrāvaka likewise knows that sound is not heard while in concentration, and hence no such statement has ever been made of them — how much more so, then, should Mahāmaudgalyāyana, the very foremost of śrāvakas, have known this — why, then, did he make such a statement before the assembly of monks, one that ought never to have been made at all? Some say: this need not necessarily be reconciled at all. Why is this? Because this is a spurious portion of the Vinaya — that is, after the Buddha's passing, spurious material was inserted into the Sūtra, spurious material into the Vinaya, and spurious material into the Abhidharma, and such spurious passages ought not to be interpreted at all. Some say: the ocean of concentration is exceedingly deep, and a śrāvaka, like a mere hare, cannot reach its very depths — only the Buddha is able to fathom it fully — and hence, although that venerable one spoke in this way, there is no fault in it. Question: did that venerable one himself not know that sound is not heard while in concentration? Why, then, did he speak in this way? Answer: that venerable one was so swift and masterful in entering and rising from concentration that, although he heard the sound only after rising from concentration, he formed the impression that he was still abiding within it — that is, he had previously entered the first dhyāna from a wholesome mind of the desire realm, and from the first dhyāna entered the second dhyāna, and so on in succession up to entering the sphere of nothing-whatsoever; and, rising from the sphere of nothing-whatsoever, he re-entered the sphere of consciousness, and so on in succession back down to entering the first dhyāna;

and, from there, a wholesome mind of the desire realm manifested before him, at which moment he heard the sound of the nāgas and elephants without giving rise to any deliberate discrimination; then, once again, from a wholesome mind of the desire realm, he entered the first dhyāna, and from the first dhyāna entered the second dhyāna, and so on in succession up to entering the sphere of nothing-whatsoever, and, rising from the sphere of nothing-whatsoever, re-entered the sphere of consciousness, and so on in succession back down to entering the first dhyāna, from which a wholesome mind of the desire realm again manifested before him. Not having examined the matter with careful discrimination, he then made this statement: "I myself recall having heard, while in the concentration of the sphere of nothing-whatsoever, the sound of the nāgas and elephants beside the Mandākinī pool." It was only with respect to two moments of mind that he actually gave rise to deliberate, discriminating awareness — namely, the mind at the very moment of first entering concentration, and the mind at the very moment of finally emerging from it — while, with respect to the succession of mental moments in between, he did not examine the matter with careful discrimination, and it was for this reason that he spoke as he did — and there is, in this, no fault at all.