The Three Groupings and the Five Superknowledges

Is every indeterminate being thereby without wisdom, bound to ignorance? — and so on at length. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: it is in order to analyze the meaning of a sūtra passage — that is, as a sūtra states, among sentient beings there are those who are fixed and those who are indeterminate, those who are possessed of wisdom and bound to illumination, and those who are without wisdom and bound to ignorance; although the sūtra speaks in this way, it does not analyze how these categories are mutually included or differ from one another — that sūtra is the root on which this treatise depends,

and what that sūtra leaves unsaid must now be stated in full, and it is for this reason that this treatise is composed. Question: is every indeterminate being thereby without wisdom, bound to ignorance? Answer: every indeterminate being is indeed without wisdom, bound to ignorance; but there is one who is without wisdom, bound to ignorance, yet is not indeterminate — namely, one who is wrongly fixed. Question: is every fixed being thereby possessed of wisdom, bound to illumination? Answer: every being possessed of wisdom, bound to illumination, is indeed fixed; but there is one who is fixed, yet is not possessed of wisdom, bound to illumination — namely, one who is wrongly fixed. Here, "without wisdom" refers to the foolish ordinary worldling, who lacks the noble wisdom; "possessed of wisdom" refers to the noble ones, who possess the noble wisdom. How is this known to be so? Because a sūtra states it — as a sūtra states, the Buddha told the monks:

"what do you think — among those who know as it really is the noble truth of suffering, the noble truth of the origin of suffering, the noble truth of the cessation of suffering, and the noble truth of the path leading to the cessation of suffering, and those who do not know these as they really are — which of these, here, are to be called possessed of wisdom?" The monks said to the Buddha: "as I understand the meaning of what the Buddha has said, those who know as they really are the noble truth of suffering, and so on up to the noble truth of the path leading to the cessation of suffering, are to be called possessed of wisdom — not those who do not know them as they really are." By this it is known that the noble ones are possessed of wisdom, and ordinary worldlings are without wisdom; those possessed of wisdom are bound to illumination, since illumination is their basis, while those without wisdom are bound to ignorance, since ignorance is their basis. "Every indeterminate being is without wisdom, bound to ignorance" means that every indeterminate being is necessarily an ordinary worldling, and every ordinary worldling, being without wisdom, is subsumed under "bound to ignorance." "There is one who is without wisdom, bound to ignorance, yet is not indeterminate — namely, one who is wrongly fixed" means that one wrongly fixed is likewise necessarily an ordinary worldling, but, being fixed in a wrong nature, is not named indeterminate. "Every being possessed of wisdom, bound to illumination, is indeed fixed" means that the noble ones, being fixed in a right nature, are named fixed.

Is every indeterminate being thereby one who does not possess the awakening-factors? Answer: every indeterminate being does indeed not possess the awakening-factors; but there is one who does not possess the awakening-factors, yet is not indeterminate — namely, one who is wrongly fixed, since he is an ordinary worldling fixed in a wrong nature. Is every fixed being thereby one who possesses the awakening-factors? Answer: every being who possesses the awakening-factors is indeed fixed; but there is one who is fixed yet does not possess the awakening-factors — namely, one who is wrongly fixed, to be explained as before. There are three groupings: first, the grouping fixed in a wrong nature; second, the grouping fixed in a right nature; and third, the indeterminate grouping. The grouping fixed in a wrong nature refers to one who has accomplished the five deeds of immediate retribution; the grouping fixed in a right nature refers to one who has accomplished the dharmas of the trainee or the non-trainee; and the indeterminate grouping refers to one who has accomplished only the remaining contaminated dharmas together with the unconditioned — these are named the intrinsic natures of the three groupings. As to realm: the grouping fixed in a wrong nature is a portion of one realm, namely the desire realm; the grouping fixed in a right nature is a portion of all three realms, and the indeterminate grouping likewise. As to destiny: the grouping fixed in a wrong nature is a portion of one destiny, namely the human; the grouping fixed in a right nature is a portion of two destinies, namely human and heavenly; and the indeterminate grouping is the whole of three destinies — namely hell, animal, and hungry ghost — together with a portion of two destinies, namely human and heavenly. As to birth: the grouping fixed in a wrong nature is a portion of one kind of birth, namely womb-birth; the grouping fixed in a right nature is a portion of two kinds of birth, namely womb-birth and miraculous birth; and the indeterminate grouping is the whole of two kinds of birth, namely egg-birth and moisture-birth, together with a portion of the remaining two kinds of birth. Some say: the grouping fixed in a wrong nature is a portion of three kinds of birth, excepting miraculous birth, while the grouping fixed in a right nature is a portion of four kinds of birth, and the indeterminate grouping likewise. As to sphere: some say the grouping fixed in a wrong nature is a portion of three spheres, the grouping fixed in a right nature is the whole of five spheres together with a portion of twenty-four spheres, and the indeterminate grouping is the whole of five spheres together with a portion of twenty-four spheres. According to this latter view, since formations occupy forty spheres in all, the indeterminate grouping is the whole of eleven spheres together with a portion of twenty-four spheres. The Dārṣṭāntikas say that all three groupings exist all the way from the hell of uninterrupted torment up to the peak of existence — they say that the dharma of final nirvāṇa is named the grouping fixed in a right nature, the dharma of not attaining final nirvāṇa is named the grouping fixed in a wrong nature, and what is undetermined is named the indeterminate grouping. Assessment: the earlier explanation is preferable. This account has been given with reference to the Saṃgītiparyāya; according to the Prajñaptiśāstra, however, the grouping fixed in a wrong nature refers to the five deeds of immediate retribution, together with their causes, their effects, their outflows, their retributions, and the person who accomplishes those dharmas; the grouping fixed in a right nature refers to the dharmas of the trainee and the non-trainee, together with their causes, their effects, their outflows, and the person who accomplishes those dharmas; and the indeterminate grouping refers to every remaining dharma, together with its causes, its effects, its outflows, its retributions, and the person who accomplishes those dharmas — these are named the intrinsic natures of the three groupings. As to realm, this is as already explained above. As to destiny: the grouping fixed in a wrong nature is a portion of two destinies, namely hell and human, and the grouping fixed in a right nature is likewise a portion of two destinies, namely human and heavenly.

The indeterminate grouping is the whole of two destinies, namely animal and hungry ghost, together with a portion of three destinies, namely hell, human, and heavenly. As to birth: the grouping fixed in a wrong nature is a portion of two kinds of birth, namely womb-birth and miraculous birth; the grouping fixed in a right nature is a portion of four kinds of birth, and the indeterminate grouping likewise. The analysis by sphere is to be understood correspondingly. The Vinaya states that the World-Honored One, beneath the bodhi tree, established every sentient being into three groupings —

that is, saying, "exactly so many are named the grouping fixed in a wrong nature, exactly so many are named the grouping fixed in a right nature, and exactly so many are named the indeterminate grouping." Question: was this established with reference to a delimitation of sentient beings, or with reference to a delimitation of dharmas? If with reference to sentient beings, then how is this not tantamount to fathoming the very outer limit of the ocean of sentient beings? If with reference to dharmas, then a śrāvaka, too, would be able to establish it in just this way — what, then, distinguishes the Buddha from a śrāvaka? Some say: it was established with reference to sentient beings. Question: if so, then how is this not tantamount to fathoming the very outer limit of the ocean of sentient beings? Answer: there is no fault even in saying that the Buddha fathoms the very outer limit of the ocean of sentient beings, since this is grasped only in its general character, not in each particular — that is, it is grasped simply as, "every sentient being does not go beyond the four kinds of birth." Some say: it was established with reference to dharmas. Question: if so, then a śrāvaka, too, would be able to establish it in just this way — what, then, distinguishes the Buddha from a śrāvaka?

Answer: a śrāvaka's establishing it depends on having heard it from the Buddha, whereas the Buddha, without a teacher, is able to establish it entirely of himself — this is what distinguishes them. Some say: with respect to the trichiliocosm and the past thousand years, it was established with reference to sentient beings; with respect to every other world-system and every other time, it is established with reference to dharmas. Question: if the Buddha had already established all sentient beings into the three groupings beneath the bodhi tree, why does it also say that, six times each day and night, he surveys the world with the Buddha-eye? Answer: although the three groupings had already been established earlier, their particular stages had not yet been observed — who, at what time, passes from the grouping fixed in a wrong nature into the indeterminate grouping, and who, at what time, passes from the indeterminate grouping into the grouping fixed in a wrong nature or the grouping fixed in a right nature. It is in order to know this that he further surveys with the Buddha-eye, day and night.

Some say: it is in order to display that the Buddha, at every moment of time, constantly delights in reflecting on how to benefit others. Some say: it is in order to display that the World-Honored One's mind, suffused with great compassion, is never indolent or weary. The Venerable Vasumitra said: there are sentient beings who repeatedly come from other world-systems to be reborn in this land —

since they had not been established previously, he now surveys them with the Buddha-eye and establishes them anew. The Venerable Buddhadeva said: the Buddha takes the Dharma as his own teacher, and it is in order to honor and serve the Dharma that he surveys the world with the Buddha-eye six times each day and night. The Venerable Ghoṣa said:

the Buddha wishes to display that what he himself has done is thorough and exact, and it is for this reason that, although he has already established the groupings, he surveys them once again.

Does one who possesses the awakening-factors thereby possess the uncontaminated dharmas? Answer: one who possesses the awakening-factors does indeed possess the uncontaminated dharmas,

since the awakening-factors are themselves uncontaminated. There is one who possesses the uncontaminated dharmas yet does not possess the awakening-factors — namely, every ordinary worldling, since every ordinary worldling possesses cessation not through deliberate discernment, and, upon becoming free of the defilement of whatever grade, also possesses cessation through discernment. Is there any who does not possess the awakening-factors and thereby does not possess the uncontaminated dharmas? Answer: there is no one who does not possess the uncontaminated dharmas, since one necessarily possesses cessation not through deliberate discernment; but there is one who does not possess the awakening-factors — namely, every ordinary worldling, since every ordinary worldling necessarily does not possess the conditioned uncontaminated dharmas.

Does one who attains the awakening-factors thereby attain the uncontaminated dharmas? Answer: one who attains the awakening-factors does indeed attain the uncontaminated dharmas; there is one who attains the uncontaminated dharmas yet does not attain the awakening-factors — namely, every ordinary worldling. Question: it may well be said that one attains the awakening-factors, since, upon entering the fixed nature of the noble ones, one attains what one had never before attained; but how can it be said that one attains the uncontaminated dharmas, given that there has never been a time when one did not already possess cessation not through deliberate discernment? Some say:

this passage ought to speak only of attaining the awakening-factors, and ought not to speak of attaining the uncontaminated dharmas. Some say: here, the uncontaminated dharmas are of two kinds — first, the awakening-factors, and second, cessation through discernment. Upon entering the fixed nature of the noble ones, one attains the awakening-factors; upon becoming free of the defilement of whatever grade, one attains cessation through discernment —

since an ordinary worldling, across the eight grounds, attains cessation through discernment upon becoming free of the defilement of whatever grade abandoned by seeing and by cultivation — and it is for this reason that this is said. Some say: here, the uncontaminated dharmas are of three kinds — first, the awakening-factors; second, cessation through discernment; and third, cessation not through deliberate discernment. Upon entering the fixed nature of the noble ones, one attains the awakening-factors; upon becoming free of the defilement of whatever grade, one attains cessation through discernment; and at whatever moment, one attains cessation not through deliberate discernment. Question: does not an ordinary worldling already possess cessation not through deliberate discernment from the very outset — why, then, is it said that he attains it? Answer: although he already possesses it from the outset, it may nevertheless still be said that he attains it with reference to a stage of further advancement — just as, whether by giving, or by observing precepts, or by hearing, or by reflection, or by the contemplation of impurity, mindfulness of breathing, or the mindfulness-foundations, or by the heat, summit, patience, or supreme mundane dharma stages, and so on, he causes the dharmas of the wretched destinies and the like to attain cessation through discernment. Furthermore, considered in terms of its own class of dharma, it ought not to be said that he attains it; but considered in terms of a particular instance, it may indeed be said that he attains it, since, moment by moment, he attains it separately with respect to each particular instance. Does one who relinquishes the awakening-factors thereby relinquish the uncontaminated dharmas? Answer: there is no total relinquishing of the awakening-factors, nor is there any total relinquishing of the uncontaminated dharmas, since a noble one never reverts to being an ordinary worldling, and no sentient being fails to possess cessation not through deliberate discernment; yet it is not the case that there is no relinquishing of a partial portion, and it is for this reason that it is said there is no total relinquishing. Does one who regresses from the awakening-factors thereby regress from the uncontaminated dharmas? Answer: there is no total regression from the awakening-factors, nor is there any total regression from the uncontaminated dharmas — the meaning is to be explained as before. Furthermore, it is in order to refute the Mahāsāṃghikas' claim that the fruit of stream-entry can regress, and to refute the Dārṣṭāntikas' denial that there is any dharma of cessation not through deliberate discernment, that this is said: there is no total relinquishing or total regression from the awakening-factors or the uncontaminated dharmas. Is every dharma not yet abandoned thereby not yet fully understood? — and so on at length. Here, the treatise is composed with reference to two kinds of full understanding: first, full understanding by cognition; and second, full understanding by abandonment. As to full understanding by cognition, some say it refers exclusively to uncontaminated cognition; some say it extends to both contaminated and uncontaminated cognition. Those who hold that it refers exclusively to uncontaminated cognition say that, at the direct realization of suffering, one is named as having fully understood the five kinds of abandoned dharmas by full understanding through cognition, and is named as having severed the dharmas abandoned by seeing suffering by full understanding through abandonment; and the same holds at the direct realization of origin, differing only in that its own truth is spoken of. At the direct realization of cessation, one is named as having fully understood the truth of cessation by full understanding through cognition, and is named as having severed the dharmas abandoned by seeing cessation by full understanding through abandonment; and the same holds at the direct realization of the path, differing only in that its own truth is spoken of. Within the path of cultivation, whatever cognition arises, with respect to whatever object it takes, one is named as having fully understood it by full understanding through cognition, and, with respect to whatever it abandons, one is named as having severed it by full understanding through abandonment — this, here, is the brief Vibhāṣā account. Is every dharma not yet abandoned thereby not yet fully understood? Answer: every dharma not yet fully understood is indeed not yet abandoned, since it is necessarily by cognitive knowledge that one becomes able to abandon it. There is a case of not yet being abandoned yet not being "not yet fully understood" — that is, what has already been fully understood by full understanding through cognition, yet has not already been abandoned by full understanding through abandonment — this refers to one in whom the cognition of suffering has already arisen but the cognition of origin has not yet arisen: with respect to the four kinds of abandoned dharmas, he has already fully understood them by full understanding through cognition, but has not already abandoned them by full understanding through abandonment; one in whom the cognition of origin has already arisen but the cognition of cessation has not yet arisen, with respect to the three kinds of abandoned dharmas; one in whom the cognition of cessation has already arisen but the cognition of the path has not yet arisen, with respect to the two kinds of abandoned dharmas; and one in whom the cognition of the path has already arisen but who has not yet become free of the defilement abandoned by cultivation, with respect to the one kind of abandoned dharma — in each case, he has already fully understood it by full understanding through cognition, but has not already abandoned it by full understanding through abandonment.

That same person, having become free of the defilement of the desire realm but not yet free of the defilement above it, with respect to the dharmas abandoned by cultivation in the form and formless realms; and having become free of the defilement of the form realm but not yet free of the defilement above it, with respect to the dharmas abandoned by cultivation in the formless realm — in each case, he has already fully understood them by full understanding through cognition, but has not already abandoned them by full understanding through abandonment. Is every dharma already abandoned thereby already fully understood? Answer: every dharma already abandoned is indeed already fully understood — that is, in one in whom the cognition of suffering has already arisen but the cognition of origin has not yet arisen, with respect to the one kind of abandoned dharma, he has already fully understood it by full understanding through cognition, and has already abandoned it by full understanding through abandonment; in one in whom the cognition of origin has already arisen but the cognition of cessation has not yet arisen, with respect to the two kinds of abandoned dharma; in one in whom the cognition of cessation has already arisen but the cognition of the path has not yet arisen, with respect to the three kinds of abandoned dharma; and in one in whom the cognition of the path has already arisen but who has not yet become free of the defilement abandoned by cultivation, with respect to the four kinds of abandoned dharma — in each case, he has already fully understood it by full understanding through cognition, and has already abandoned it by full understanding through abandonment. That same person, having become free of the defilement of the desire realm but not yet free of the defilement above it, with respect to the dharmas abandoned by seeing across the three realms together with the dharmas abandoned by cultivation in the desire realm; having become free of the defilement of the form realm but not yet free of the defilement above it, with respect to the dharmas abandoned by seeing across the three realms together with the dharmas abandoned by cultivation in the desire and form realms; and one in whom the cognition of exhaustion has already arisen, with respect to the dharmas abandoned by seeing and by cultivation across all three realms — in each case, he has already fully understood them by full understanding through cognition, and has already abandoned them by full understanding through abandonment. There is a case of already being fully understood yet not already abandoned — that is, what has already been fully understood by full understanding through cognition, yet has not already been abandoned by full understanding through abandonment — this refers to one in whom the cognition of suffering has already arisen but the cognition of origin has not yet arisen, with respect to the four kinds of abandoned dharma, and so on, to be explained at length as above. Those who hold that full understanding through cognition extends to both contaminated and uncontaminated cognition say that, at the stage of the wholesome roots conducive to penetration, one is named as having fully understood the five kinds of abandoned dharmas by full understanding through cognition, though not named as having severed them by full understanding through abandonment; the stages of the path of seeing and the path of cultivation are as already explained.

Question: is it not the case that, already at the stage of the mindfulness-foundations, every dharma is already named fully understood? Answer: although it, too, is named fully understood, it does not count as advancement. Here, what is spoken of as advancement is that whose mode of activity is the same as that of the noble path. Some say: whether it is the wisdom accomplished through hearing, through reflection, or through cultivation, or the heat, summit, patience, or supreme mundane dharma stages, since each fully understands the self-characteristics and the shared characteristics of contaminated phenomena, all of these are named full understanding through cognition — this, here, is the brief Vibhāṣā account. Is every dharma not yet abandoned thereby not yet fully understood? Answer: every dharma not yet fully understood is indeed not yet abandoned,

since one first attains full understanding through cognition with respect to it, and only afterward attains full understanding through abandonment with respect to it. There is a case of not yet being abandoned yet not being "not yet fully understood" — that is, what has already been fully understood by full understanding through cognition, yet has not already been abandoned by full understanding through abandonment — this refers to one in whom the wholesome roots conducive to penetration have already arisen but the path of seeing has not yet arisen,

with respect to the five kinds of abandoned dharma: he has already fully understood them by full understanding through cognition, but has not already abandoned them by full understanding through abandonment — the rest is to be explained at length as above. Is every dharma already abandoned thereby already fully understood? Answer: every dharma already abandoned is indeed already fully understood, to be explained as before. There is a case of already being fully understood yet not already abandoned — that is, what has already been fully understood by full understanding through cognition, yet has not already been abandoned by full understanding through abandonment — this refers to one in whom the wholesome roots conducive to penetration have already arisen, and so on, to be explained at length as above. Although an ordinary worldling does have abandonment, it is not full understanding through abandonment, and it is for this reason that this is not spoken of, since it is not attested by full understanding through cognition — full understanding through cognition being exclusively the mode of activity of a noble one.

Is there any who, in this present life, whose eye has not seen form, and, in reliance upon what dharma, gives rise to the divine eye? — and so on at length. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: it is in order to settle a lingering doubt definitively. As the Prajñaptiśāstra states: what is the effortful practice for the superknowledge that directly witnesses death and rebirth, and how is the superknowledge that directly witnesses death and rebirth given rise to? That is, the beginner practitioner, having already well cultivated the mundane concentration and attained mastery over it, causing it to manifest before the mind, and, wishing to give rise to the divine-eye superknowledge, first takes hold of the mark of a clear mirror's surface, or of the sun, moon, planets, constellations, medicinal herbs, lamps, candles, or gems, or of any luminous mark, or of the mark of a great mass of fire blazing across many cities and towns for many leagues, its flames roaring — having taken hold of this mark, by the power of a mental application of assumed representation, he is able, even in a state where nothing is seen, to give rise to light; through the continuation of this resolute conviction, the divine eye is given rise to; at times, right at the locus of the ordinary eye, the pure divine eye — composed of the great elements of the form realm — arises, able to see every manner of form, whether fair or foul, and so on at length. A doubt might therefore arise as follows: is there any who, in this present life, whose eye has not seen form, who is thereby simply unable to give rise to the divine eye? It is in order to settle this doubt definitively, displaying that, although his eye has not seen form in this present life, he, too, is nevertheless able to give rise to the divine eye, that this treatise is composed. The Prajñaptiśāstra further states: what is the effortful practice for the divine-ear superknowledge, and how is the divine-ear superknowledge given rise to? That is, the beginner practitioner, having already well cultivated the mundane concentration and attained mastery over it, causing it to manifest before the mind, and, wishing to give rise to the divine-ear superknowledge, first takes hold of the sound of elephants, horses, or chariots, or of bells, drums, conch-shells, flutes, pipes, songs, chants, or recitations, or of the sound produced by the four great elements striking against one another — having well taken hold of such marks of sound, by the power of a mental application of assumed representation, he is able, even at a time apart from hearing, to give rise to these sounds; through the continuation of this resolute conviction, the divine ear is given rise to; at times, right at the locus of the ordinary ear, the pure divine ear — composed of the great elements of the form realm — arises, able to hear every manner of sound, whether of humans or of non-humans, and so on at length. From this, a further doubt might arise as follows: is there any who, in this present life, whose ear has not heard sound, who ought thereby to be unable to give rise to the divine ear? It is in order to settle this doubt definitively, displaying that, although his ear has not heard sound in this present life, he, too, is nevertheless able to give rise to the divine ear, that this treatise is composed. Is there any who, in this present life, whose eye has not seen form, and, in reliance upon what dharma, gives rise to the divine eye? Answer: as in the case of one who attains the recollection of his own intrinsic birth, in whom, in a former life, the eye had once seen form — he, in reliance upon this, gives rise to the divine eye. Is there any who, in this present life, whose ear has not heard sound, and, in reliance upon what dharma, gives rise to the divine ear? Answer: as in the case of one who attains the recollection of his own intrinsic birth, in whom, in a former life, the ear had once heard sound — he, in reliance upon this, gives rise to the divine ear. Question: is there not also one who has attained the cognition of the recollection of former abodes, who is likewise able to give rise to the divine eye and divine ear — why, then, is this not spoken of here? Answer: that this ought to be spoken of, yet is not spoken of, should be understood as having a further significance to it. Some say: it is spoken of here only with respect to one born blind who can give rise to the divine eye, and one born deaf who can give rise to the divine ear — the cognition of the recollection of former abodes is able to give rise only to that class of person's divine eye, not the divine ear. Why is this?

because one born deaf possesses no cognition of the recollection of former abodes at all, since this cognition can arise in him only by being taught by another — and it is for this reason that it is not spoken of here.

Question: why does the divine eye exist only within the four root dhyānas, and not within their proximate stages? Answer: because these are not its field, nor its vessel — and so on at length. Furthermore, if a given ground possesses the concentration that serves as the basis of superknowledge, then it possesses the divine eye; the proximate stages possess no concentration serving as the basis of superknowledge, and hence possess no divine eye. Furthermore, if a given ground possesses the concentration subsumed under the [dhyāna-]factors, then it possesses the divine eye; the proximate stages are not so. Some say:

if a given ground possesses the path of practice conducive to the pleasant attainment of superknowledge, then it possesses the divine eye; the proximate stages are not so. The divine eye, thus considered, may be spoken of as simply one — namely, the divine eye itself; or as two — namely, already attained and not yet attained; or as three — namely, weak, middling, and superior; or as four — namely, the fruits of the four dhyānas; or as six — namely, weak, middling, and superior, each further divided into already attained and not yet attained; or as eight — namely, the fruits of the four dhyānas, each further divided into already attained and not yet attained; or as nine — namely, weakest-of-the-weak up through superior-of-the-superior; or as twelve — namely, the fruits of the four dhyānas, each further divided into weak, middling, and superior; or as eighteen — namely, weakest-of-the-weak up through superior-of-the-superior, each further divided into already attained and not yet attained; or as twenty-four — namely, the four dhyānas, each further divided into the aforementioned six; or as thirty-two — namely, sixteen attained by birth and sixteen attained by cultivation; some say: the fruits of the four dhyānas, each further divided into weak, middling, and superior, making twelve, and each of these further divided into five grades of the fruit of mixed cultivation of dhyāna, making twenty, together totaling thirty-two; or as thirty-six — namely, the fruits of the four dhyānas, each further divided into weakest-of-the-weak up through superior-of-the-superior;

or as seventy-two — namely, the four dhyānas, each further divided into the aforementioned eighteen. Were one to reckon by continuity and by moment, there would be an immeasurable number; here, it is simply spoken of as a single divine eye, taken as a whole — and the same holds for the divine ear as for the divine eye. Question: why can an atypical-class divine eye or ear manifest before the mind,

while no atypical-class divine nose, tongue, or body can ever manifest before the mind? Answer: the eye and ear faculties each take an object not in direct contact with them, and, wishing to see or hear at a distance, an atypical-class divine eye or ear thereby manifests before the mind; the nose, tongue, and body faculties, however, take only an object in direct contact, and, since an atypical class serves no distinct function for them, none ever manifests. Some say: were an atypical-class nose or tongue faculty to manifest before the mind, it would be mocked by the world — how could such a person have a doubled nose or two tongues? And were an atypical-class body faculty to manifest, it, too, would be mocked by the world — how could such a person, like a pair of twins, have two bodies? It is for this reason that the nose and the rest possess no atypical class at all. Furthermore, the left and right of the divine eye are necessarily of the same superior or inferior grade and class —

that is, it is never the case that the left is inferior while the right is superior, or the reverse. And, whenever it manifests before the mind, it is necessarily complete in every respect — never blind, never impaired, and never dizzied or blurred, nor of that same atypical class merely in appearance. The rest is to be explained at length as in the Faculties Aggregate, in the Contact Nyāsa.

Question: why is it that, when an ordinary worldling regresses, both the fetters abandoned by seeing and those abandoned by cultivation increase, whereas, when a disciple of the World-Honored One regresses, only the fetters abandoned by cultivation increase? Answer: an ordinary worldling severs the fetters abandoned by seeing by means of this very path, and severs the fetters abandoned by cultivation by means of this very same path — and hence, when he regresses, both classes of fetter increase together. A disciple of the World-Honored One severs the fetters abandoned by seeing by means of this path, and, with respect to this path, definitely does not regress; he severs the fetters abandoned by cultivation by means of a different path, and, with respect to that different path, may either regress or not regress. Were a disciple of the World-Honored One to sever the fetters abandoned by seeing by means of this very path, and to sever the fetters abandoned by cultivation by means of this very same path, he, too, would have no regression at all. Why is this treatise composed? Answer: it is in order to refute the position of those who deny the very existence of a nature capable of regression, displaying that regression truly does exist, that this treatise is composed. Here, every attainment is spoken of, under the name "increase," as an accumulated arising — and it is for this reason that, in some places, an attainment is spoken of as a "proximate arising," since it arises in proximity to that dharma. As the Prajñaptiśāstra states: when an ordinary worldling's own latent tendency of sensual craving arises, five dharmas arise together with it — first, the latent tendency of sensual craving itself; second, the proximate arising of the latent tendency of sensual craving; third, the latent tendency of ignorance; fourth, the proximate arising of the latent tendency of ignorance; and fifth, restlessness. Here, "an ordinary worldling severs the fetters abandoned by seeing by means of this very path, and severs the fetters abandoned by cultivation by means of this very same path" means that he uses the ninefold-graded path to sever the fetters abandoned by seeing and by cultivation simultaneously, and hence, when he regresses, both classes of fetter arise together. "A disciple of the World-Honored One severs the fetters abandoned by seeing by means of this path" means that he uses the single-graded path to sever the fetters abandoned by seeing, and, with respect to this path, definitely does not regress; "he severs the fetters abandoned by cultivation by means of a different path" means that he uses the ninefold-graded path to sever the fetters abandoned by cultivation, and, with respect to that different path, may either regress or not regress. "Were a disciple of the World-Honored One to sever the fetters abandoned by seeing by means of this very path, and to sever the fetters abandoned by cultivation by means of this very same path, he, too, would have no regression at all" means that, were he to use the single-graded path to sever the fetters abandoned by seeing and by cultivation simultaneously, he, too, would have no regression at all,

since a disciple of the World-Honored One's own fetters abandoned by seeing never regress, and cannot be severed simultaneously with the others yet regress separately from them. Furthermore, a disciple of the Buddha, back when he was still an ordinary worldling, used the ninefold-graded path to sever the fetters abandoned by seeing and by cultivation simultaneously, and now, too, does not regress, being held firm by both paths together. Furthermore, an ordinary worldling severs the fetters abandoned by seeing and by cultivation simultaneously by means of the path of cultivation, and hence, when he regresses, both classes of fetter arise together; a disciple of the World-Honored One severs the fetters abandoned by seeing by means of the path of seeing, and, with respect to this path, definitely does not regress, while he severs the fetters abandoned by cultivation by means of the path of cultivation, and, with respect to this path, may either regress or not regress — the rest follows the explanation given above. Furthermore, an ordinary worldling severs the fetters abandoned by seeing and by cultivation simultaneously by means of cognition, and hence, when he regresses, both classes of fetter arise together; a disciple of the World-Honored One severs the fetters abandoned by seeing by means of patient acceptance, and, with respect to this path, definitely does not regress, while he severs the fetters abandoned by cultivation by means of cognition, and, with respect to this path, may either regress or not regress — the rest follows the explanation given above. Furthermore, an ordinary worldling, without directly observing the truths, severs the fetters abandoned by seeing and by cultivation simultaneously, and hence, when he regresses, both classes of fetter arise together; a disciple of the World-Honored One directly observes the truths in severing the fetters abandoned by seeing, and, with respect to this path, definitely does not regress, while he severs the fetters abandoned by cultivation either by directly observing the truths or without doing so, and, with respect to this path, may either regress or not regress — the rest follows the explanation given above. Furthermore, an ordinary worldling uses a path both arisen and not-yet-arisen to sever the fetters abandoned by seeing and by cultivation simultaneously, and hence, when he regresses, both classes of fetter arise together; a disciple of the World-Honored One uses a not-yet-arisen path to sever the fetters abandoned by seeing, and, with respect to this path, definitely does not regress, while he uses a path both arisen and not-yet-arisen to sever the fetters abandoned by cultivation, and, with respect to this path, may either regress or not regress — the rest follows the explanation given above. Furthermore, an ordinary worldling uses a path lacking vigorous keenness to sever the fetters abandoned by seeing and by cultivation simultaneously, and hence, when he regresses, both classes of fetter arise together; a disciple of the World-Honored One uses a path of vigorous keenness to sever the fetters abandoned by seeing, and, with respect to this path, definitely does not regress, while he uses a path lacking vigorous keenness to sever the fetters abandoned by cultivation, and, with respect to this path, may either regress or not regress — the rest follows the explanation given above. Some say: an ordinary worldling uses the contaminated path to sever the fetters abandoned by seeing and by cultivation simultaneously, and hence, when he regresses, both classes of fetter arise together; a disciple of the World-Honored One uses the uncontaminated path to sever the fetters abandoned by seeing, and, with respect to this path, definitely does not regress, while he uses either the contaminated or the uncontaminated path to sever the fetters abandoned by cultivation, and, with respect to this path, may either regress or not regress — yet this position holds that whatever is severed by means of the uncontaminated path definitely does not regress. Question: if so, then there ought to be no one who regresses from the fruit of arhatship, since the fetter belonging to the peak of existence is severed only by the uncontaminated path. Answer: if an arhat has previously severed the fetters abandoned by cultivation across the lower eight grounds by means of the contaminated path, he may indeed still regress, since his own root is not firm and stable; but if he has previously severed them by means of the uncontaminated path, he definitely does not regress, since his own root is firm and stable. Question: why is there no one who regresses from the path of seeing? Answer: because its own root is firm and stable. What is this root? It refers to whatever giving, observance of precepts, cultivation, or attending to the affairs of the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha; whatever tending to the old and the sick, or recitation of the sacred word; whatever expounding the Dharma to others with proper mental application; or whatever cultivation of the contemplation of impurity, mindfulness of breathing, the mindfulness-foundations, the threefold contemplation, the seven bases of skill, or the heat, summit, patience, and supreme mundane dharma stages a seeker of liberation possesses — all of these are named the root of the path of seeing. Some say: the path of seeing is so vigorous and swift that it is able, by a single grade of path, to sever fetters of all nine grades at once, and it is for this reason that it does not regress. Some say: the path of seeing manifests its patient acceptances and cognitions in but a single moment, and it is for this reason that it does not regress. Some say: were the path of seeing to admit of regression, then the very brahmacarya one has cultivated could not be relied upon at all, since to regress from the path of seeing would be to become an ordinary worldling once again. Question: it has been said that, when a noble one severs the fetters abandoned by cultivation by means of a different path, he may, with respect to that different path, either regress or not regress — who, then, regresses, and who does not? Answer: one liberated dependent on time regresses; the unshakeable type does not regress. Furthermore, one of dull faculties regresses; one of keen faculties does not regress. Furthermore, one who severs by the strength of an internal cause does not regress; one who severs by the strength of an external condition regresses. Some say: one who severs by taking the contemplation of impurity as his effortful practice regresses; one who severs by taking mindfulness of breathing as his effortful practice does not regress. Some say: if one severs the fetters abandoned by cultivation across the lower eight grounds by means of the mundane path, he may regress; if by means of the transmundane path, he does not regress — just as a tower whose foundation is precarious may topple, while one that is firm does not.

Question: why can the upper three fruits regress, but not the fruit of stream-entry? Answer: the fetters abandoned by cultivation arise dependent on a real basis — that is, there are both pure marks and impure marks — and, through improper mental application, when one contemplates a pure mark, one thereupon regresses from the contemplation of impurity; the fetters abandoned by seeing, however, arise dependent on no real basis at all, since there is not a single dharma that is a self or what belongs to a self, capable of causing one, through contemplation, to regress from the view of non-self. Question: why is this treatise composed?

Answer: it is in order to refute the Mahāsāṃghikas' claim that the fruit of stream-entry can regress, displaying that the fruit of stream-entry definitely does not regress, that this treatise is composed. "The fetters abandoned by cultivation arise dependent on a real basis" means that what is grasped at — hair, body-hair, nails, and the like — is not without some small worldly portion of a pure mark; and, when one applies improper mental application in reflecting on this, one thereupon regresses from the contemplation of impurity one has cultivated, giving rise once again to the fetters abandoned by cultivation previously severed. "The fetters abandoned by seeing arise dependent on no real basis" means that the mark of a self or of what belongs to a self, which is grasped at, does not exist at all, ultimately — hence a sūtra states: "dharmas have no agency, nor is there any sentient being, life-principle, nurturer, person, agent, or experiencer; it is only within the accumulation of formations that there is no self at all — just as an empty fist deceives little children, while the wise, having penetrated it, see it as it truly is, an open hand." It is for this reason that, once one has seen non-self, there is definitely no regression at all, and hence no one ever loses or regresses from the fruit of stream-entry.

When one regresses from the upper three fruits, one attains the uncontaminated faculties, powers, awakening-factors, and path-factors that had previously been attained — and so on at length. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: it is in order to refute the Venerable Śarmadatta's claim that, upon regressing from the fruit of arhatship, one attains only the future dharma of the trainee previously relinquished, and not the past, since the past can, after all, never again manifest before the mind. It is now in order to display that, upon regressing from the fruit of arhatship, one attains both the past and future dharma of the trainee previously relinquished — since, although the past cannot manifest before the mind, it can nevertheless still be possessed — that this treatise is composed on this account. When one regresses from the upper three fruits, should the uncontaminated faculties, powers, awakening-factors, and path-factors thereby attained be said to be attained as already-attained-before, or as never-before-attained? Answer: it should be said that they are attained as already-attained-before — that is, they had been relinquished when the fruit was first attained, and are now attained once again upon regression, since it is only through further advancement that any noble path never before attained is attained.

When one dies in the formless realm and is reborn in the desire realm, one attains the aggregates, elements, and spheres thereby possessed — and so on at length. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: it is likewise in order to refute the Venerable Śarmadatta's claim that, when one dies in the formless realm and is reborn in the desire realm, one attains only the future dharma previously relinquished, and not the past, since the past can, after all, never again manifest before the mind. It is now in order to display that, when one dies in the formless realm and is reborn in the desire realm, one attains both the past and future dharma previously relinquished, that this treatise is composed. Were it not so, then, from the moment one dies in the formless realm and, upon rebirth in the desire realm, first forms the connective link of a new existence, one ought to possess only the birth-and-death of two time periods; yet there is no sentient being who possesses the birth-and-death of only two time periods, since one necessarily possesses the contaminated dharmas of all three time periods. When one dies in the formless realm and is reborn in the desire realm, should the aggregates, elements, spheres, wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral dharmas, the faculties, fetters, bonds, latent tendencies, and secondary afflictions thereby possessed be said to be attained as already-attained-before, or as never-before-attained? Answer: it should be said that the wholesome and defiled dharmas are attained as already-attained-before, while the retributive dharmas are attained as never-before-attained. As to "the wholesome and defiled dharmas are attained as already-attained-before": "wholesome" refers to the four aggregates of innate wholesomeness — some say it also includes the four aggregates accomplished through habituated hearing and reflection; these wholesome dharmas, having previously been relinquished on account of passing beyond that realm and ground, are now attained once again upon returning to that same realm and ground. "Defiled" refers to the four aggregates of the unwholesome and the obscured-neutral; these defiled dharmas, having previously been relinquished on account of becoming free of that defilement, are now attained once again upon returning to that same realm and ground. Question: the four aggregates of deportment and of craft, when habituated, ought likewise to be attained — why is this not stated? Answer: that this ought to be stated, yet is not stated, should be understood as having a further significance to it. Some say: within the unobscured-neutral dharmas, the greater part is not attained — namely, the whole of the retribution-born and the superknowledge-fruit classes, together with a small remaining portion — and hence, although a small portion is attained, it, too, is not stated. Other masters say: even the habituated portion is not attained at all, since it is too feeble. As to "the retributive dharmas are attained as never-before-attained": this means that, from beginningless time, they have never before been attained, and are possessed only in the present. Question: the nutriment-derived aggregates, too, are attained as never-before-attained — why is this not stated? Answer: that this ought to be stated, yet is not stated, should be understood as having a further significance to it. Furthermore, once retribution has been spoken of, the nutriment-derived aggregates should be understood as having already been spoken of as well, since the nutriment-derived aggregates guard and protect the retributive aggregates — just as one person guards another, or one wall guards another wall, the two necessarily accompanying each other. At that moment, there are also outflow dharmas attained as never-before-attained — such as the nature of an ordinary worldling and the like — but, being few, these, too, are not stated. When one dies in the formless realm and is reborn in the form realm, should the aggregates, elements, spheres, wholesome and neutral dharmas, the faculties, fetters, bonds, latent tendencies, and secondary afflictions thereby possessed be said to be attained as already-attained-before, or as never-before-attained? Answer: it should be said that the wholesome and defiled dharmas are attained as already-attained-before, while the retributive dharmas are attained as never-before-attained. As to "the wholesome and defiled dharmas are attained as already-attained-before": "wholesome" refers to the four aggregates of innate wholesomeness together with the five aggregates of effortful wholesomeness; these wholesome dharmas, having previously been relinquished on account of passing beyond that realm and ground, are now attained once again upon returning to that same realm and ground. "Defiled" refers to the four aggregates of the obscured-neutral; these defiled dharmas, having previously been relinquished on account of becoming free of that defilement, are now attained once again upon returning to that same realm and ground. Within the unobscured-neutral dharmas, the four aggregates of the superknowledge-fruit class are likewise attained as already-attained-before, but, being few, are not stated. The nutriment-derived and outflow dharmas are to be explained as before. When one dies in the form realm and is reborn in the desire realm, the aggregates, elements, spheres, and the rest thereby possessed are as explained for one who dies in the formless realm and is reborn in the desire realm — the interpretation here, too, should be understood as before.

When, in reliance upon the first dhyāna, one gives rise to the path of supernatural travel, to what furthest place can one travel? Answer: as far as the Brahmā world. When, in reliance upon the first dhyāna, one gives rise to the path of the divine ear, sound bound to what furthest realm can one hear? Answer: as far as the Brahmā world. When, in reliance upon the first dhyāna, one gives rise to the path of the cognition of others' minds, mind and mental factors bound to what furthest realm can one know? Answer: as far as the Brahmā world. When, in reliance upon the first dhyāna, one gives rise to the path of the recollection of former abodes, events of former abodes bound to what furthest realm can one recall? Answer: as far as the Brahmā world. When, in reliance upon the first dhyāna, one gives rise to the path of the divine eye, form bound to what furthest realm can one see? Answer: as far as the Brahmā world. And the same holds, each according to its own stage, to be explained at length in just the same way, from reliance upon the first dhyāna up through reliance upon the fourth dhyāna. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: in order to settle a lingering doubt definitively — as the Sūtra and Vinaya state, one possessed of superknowledge moves his body with mastery as far as the Brahmā world; a doubt might therefore arise that mastery over movement by superknowledge extends only as far as the Brahmā world, and not to any higher ground. It is in order to settle this doubt definitively, stating that superknowledge arising in reliance upon the fourth dhyāna extends as far as the Vast Fruit heaven, or even the Peak of Form, with mastery over movement of the body, that this treatise is composed.

Question: if so, then how is the statement of the Sūtra and Vinaya to be reconciled? Answer: wherever there exists bodily expression belonging to that very ground itself, the World-Honored One speaks of it; from the second dhyāna upward, there is no bodily expression belonging to that very ground itself, and hence it is not spoken of there. Some say: in that passage, the Buddha spoke of the very first higher ground he had attained, not of every ground he had attained. Some say: the term "Brahmā world" there subsumes all four dhyānas, since each possesses the pure concentration subsumed under its own factors. Question: since even the first dhyāna possesses vocal expression, one who gives rise to the divine ear in reliance upon the first dhyāna hears that very sound; but, since the higher grounds possess no vocal expression at all, what sound does one hear who gives rise to the divine ear in reliance upon the second dhyāna and above? Answer: just as one born in the first dhyāna gives rise to a mind and utters speech in reliance upon the karma of vocal expression belonging to the first dhyāna, so, too, one born in any of the upper three dhyānas likewise gives rise to a mind and utters speech in reliance upon the karma of vocal expression belonging to the first dhyāna — and it is precisely this that is heard by the divine ear of that ground. Some say: although the higher grounds possess no sound of vocal expression, there is nevertheless some other sound that is heard there, and hence there is no fault in this. Question: if one born in the desire realm gives rise to the divine-ear superknowledge in reliance upon the first dhyāna, is he able to hear the sound of vocal expression of the gods of the upper three dhyānas? Some say: he does not hear it, since the place is too distant, or the sound too subtle. Some say: if he applies the utmost mental application, he is indeed able to hear it, since it is a dharma of the same ground. Question: in reliance upon which dhyāna does one, giving rise to the superknowledge of supernatural travel, reach which place? Answer: one who gives rise to it in reliance upon the first dhyāna is able to reach the Brahmā world; and so on up to one who gives rise to it in reliance upon the fourth dhyāna, who is able to reach the Vast Fruit heaven or the Peak of Form. A śrāvaka, without deliberate mental application, reaches the very edge of a small chiliocosm, and, with deliberate mental application, the very edge of a medium dichiliocosm; a pratyekabuddha, without deliberate mental application, reaches the very edge of a medium dichiliocosm, and, with deliberate mental application, the very edge of a great trichiliocosm; the Buddha, without deliberate mental application, reaches the very edge of a great trichiliocosm, and, with deliberate mental application, is able to reach the very edge of boundless world-systems — and the same holds for the other three superknowledges as for the superknowledge of supernatural travel. The six superknowledges are explained at length in the Great Elements Aggregate.

If one attains the fruit of arhatship by contemplating suffering with respect to suffering, what suffering, bound to which realm, does he contemplate? Answer: suffering bound to the formless realm — this is stated generally, with reference to realm. If stated with reference to ground, it should be said: suffering bound to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception — namely, the subsequent cognition of suffering. If one attains the fruit of arhatship by contemplating origin with respect to origin, what origin, bound to which realm, does he contemplate? Answer: origin bound to the formless realm — this, too, is stated generally, with reference to realm. If stated with reference to ground, it should be said: origin bound to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception — namely, the subsequent cognition of origin. If one attains the fruit of arhatship by contemplating cessation with respect to cessation, the cessation of what formations, bound to which realm, does he contemplate? Answer: either bound to the desire realm, or bound to the form and formless realms — the cessation of formations being precisely the direct cognition of cessation and the subsequent cognition of cessation. If one attains the fruit of arhatship by contemplating the path with respect to the path, the path able to sever what formations, bound to which realm, does he contemplate? Answer: either bound to the desire realm, or bound to the form and formless realms — the path able to sever formations being precisely the direct cognition of the path and the subsequent cognition of the path. Thus these six cognitions, each with its own four modes of activity, constitute the uninterrupted path that severs the lowest grade of affliction of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, together with the vajra-like concentration — this vajra-like concentration being what is able to attain and realize the fruit of arhatship, to be explained at length as in the third Nyāsa of the Miscellaneous Aggregate. In severing the defilement abandoned by cultivation across the mixed form and formless realms, all six cognitions serve as the uninterrupted path — namely, the four subsequent cognitions together with the direct cognitions of cessation and of the path; this refers to the uncontaminated path. If it is the contaminated path, only the conventional cognition serves, since it does not pervade every case, and is therefore not what is spoken of here. When, in reliance upon the first dhyāna, one gives rise to the uninterrupted path of the subsequent cognition of suffering, there is a case of taking as its object only the suffering of its own ground, a case of taking as its object only the suffering of the second dhyāna, and so on up to a case of taking as its object only the suffering of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception — there is no combined taking of two grounds as object, and so on up to eight, since the ground is coarser or subtler and severance proceeds ground by ground; and the same holds for the subsequent cognition of origin as for the subsequent cognition of suffering. When one gives rise to the uninterrupted path of the subsequent cognition of cessation, there is a case of taking as its object only the cessation of formations of its own ground, a case of taking as its object only the cessation of formations of the second dhyāna, and so on up to a case of taking as its object only the cessation of formations of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception — there is a combined taking of two grounds as object, and so on up to eight, since these are equally subtle and refined, and all alike oppose defilement. When one gives rise to the uninterrupted path of the subsequent cognition of the path, it always takes as its object the path belonging to the class of subsequent cognition across all nine grounds, since these are mutual causes of one another, being of the same class. When one gives rise to the uninterrupted path of the direct cognition of cessation, it takes as its object only the cessation of formations of the desire realm. When one gives rise to the uninterrupted path of the direct cognition of the path, it always takes as its object the path belonging to the class of direct cognition across six grounds. The same holds, from reliance on the first dhyāna, up through reliance on the sphere of nothing-whatsoever; the difference being that, in reliance on the three formless attainments, the two direct cognitions do not exist, and do not take as their object the cessation of a lower ground. Here, no ground at all takes as its object the suffering or origin of a lower ground, since, once free of the defilement of the lower ground, giving rise to such an object would serve no purpose.

When, in reliance upon the first dhyāna, one gives rise to the uninterrupted path in becoming free of the defilement of the first dhyāna: the subsequent cognitions of suffering and origin take as their object only the suffering and origin of the first dhyāna. As to the subsequent cognition of cessation: there is a case of taking as its object only the cessation of formations of the first dhyāna; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the first and second dhyānas; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the first, second, and third dhyānas; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the first, second, third, and fourth dhyānas; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations from the first dhyāna up through the sphere of infinite space; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations from the first dhyāna up through the sphere of infinite consciousness; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations from the first dhyāna up through the sphere of nothing-whatsoever; and a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations from the first dhyāna up through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. The subsequent cognition of the path always takes as its object the path belonging to the class of subsequent cognition across all nine grounds. The direct cognition of cessation takes as its object only the cessation of formations of the desire realm. The direct cognition of the path always takes as its object the path belonging to the class of direct cognition across six grounds. When, in reliance upon the first dhyāna, one gives rise to the uninterrupted path in becoming free of the defilement of the second dhyāna: the subsequent cognitions of suffering and origin take as their object only the suffering and origin of the second dhyāna. As to the subsequent cognition of cessation: there is a case of taking as its object only the cessation of formations of the first dhyāna; a case of taking as its object only the cessation of formations of the second dhyāna; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the first and second dhyānas; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the second and third dhyānas; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the first, second, and third dhyānas; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the second, third, and fourth dhyānas; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the first, second, third, and fourth dhyānas; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations from the second dhyāna up through the sphere of infinite space; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations from the first dhyāna up through the sphere of infinite space; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations from the second dhyāna up through the sphere of infinite consciousness; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations from the first dhyāna up through the sphere of infinite consciousness; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations from the second dhyāna up through the sphere of nothing-whatsoever; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations from the first dhyāna up through the sphere of nothing-whatsoever; and a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations from the second dhyāna up through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception —

and a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations from the first dhyāna up through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. The subsequent cognition of the path, the direct cognition of cessation, and the direct cognition of the path are as already explained. When, in reliance upon the first dhyāna, one gives rise to the uninterrupted path in becoming free of the defilement of the third dhyāna: the subsequent cognitions of suffering and origin take as their object only the suffering and origin of the third dhyāna. As to the subsequent cognition of cessation: there is a case of taking as its object only the cessation of formations of the first dhyāna; a case of taking as its object only the cessation of formations of the second dhyāna; a case of taking as its object only the cessation of formations of the third dhyāna; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the first and second dhyānas; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the second and third dhyānas; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the third and fourth dhyānas; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the first, second, and third dhyānas; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the second, third, and fourth dhyānas; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the third and fourth dhyānas and the sphere of infinite space; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the first, second, third, and fourth dhyānas; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations from the second dhyāna up through the sphere of infinite space; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations from the third dhyāna up through the sphere of infinite consciousness; and a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations from the first dhyāna up through the sphere of infinite space —

a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations from the second dhyāna up through the sphere of infinite consciousness; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations from the third dhyāna up through the sphere of nothing-whatsoever; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations from the first dhyāna up through the sphere of infinite consciousness; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations from the second dhyāna up through the sphere of nothing-whatsoever; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations from the third dhyāna up through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations from the first dhyāna up through the sphere of nothing-whatsoever; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations from the second dhyāna up through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; and a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations from the first dhyāna up through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. The subsequent cognition of the path, the direct cognition of cessation, and the direct cognition of the path are as already explained. When, in reliance upon the first dhyāna, one gives rise to the uninterrupted path in becoming free of the defilement of the fourth dhyāna: the subsequent cognitions of suffering and origin take as their object only the suffering and origin of the fourth dhyāna. As to the subsequent cognition of cessation: there is a case of taking as its object only the cessation of formations of the first dhyāna, and so on up to a case of taking as its object only the cessation of formations of the fourth dhyāna; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the first and second dhyānas; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the second and third dhyānas; and a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the third and fourth dhyānas —

a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the fourth dhyāna and the sphere of infinite space; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the first, second, and third dhyānas; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the second, third, and fourth dhyānas; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the third and fourth dhyānas and the sphere of infinite space; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the fourth dhyāna and the spheres of infinite space and infinite consciousness; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations from the first dhyāna up through the fourth dhyāna; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations from the second dhyāna up through the sphere of infinite space; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations from the third dhyāna up through the sphere of infinite consciousness; and a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations from the fourth dhyāna up through the sphere of nothing-whatsoever — the combined taking as object of five, six, seven, and eight grounds is as already explained.

The subsequent cognition of the path, the direct cognition of cessation, and the direct cognition of the path are likewise as already explained. When, in reliance upon the first dhyāna, one gives rise to the uninterrupted path in becoming free of the defilement of the sphere of infinite space: the subsequent cognitions of suffering and origin take as their object only the suffering and origin of the sphere of infinite space. As to the subsequent cognition of cessation: there is a case of taking as its object only the cessation of formations of the first dhyāna, and so on up to a case of taking as its object only the cessation of formations of the sphere of infinite space; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the first and second dhyānas; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the second and third dhyānas; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the third and fourth dhyānas; and a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the fourth dhyāna and the sphere of infinite space —

a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the spheres of infinite space and infinite consciousness; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the first, second, and third dhyānas; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the second, third, and fourth dhyānas; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the third and fourth dhyānas and the sphere of infinite space; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the fourth dhyāna and the spheres of infinite space and infinite consciousness; and a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the spheres of infinite space, infinite consciousness, and nothing-whatsoever — the combined taking as object of four, five, six, seven, and eight grounds is as already explained. The subsequent cognition of the path, the direct cognition of cessation, and the direct cognition of the path are likewise as already explained. When, in reliance upon the first dhyāna, one gives rise to the uninterrupted path in becoming free of the defilement of the sphere of infinite consciousness: the subsequent cognitions of suffering and origin take as their object only the suffering and origin of the sphere of infinite consciousness. As to the subsequent cognition of cessation: there is a case of taking as its object only the cessation of formations of the first dhyāna, and so on up to a case of taking as its object only the cessation of formations of the sphere of infinite consciousness; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the first and second dhyānas —

a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the second and third dhyānas; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the third and fourth dhyānas; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the fourth dhyāna and the sphere of infinite space; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the spheres of infinite space and infinite consciousness; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the spheres of infinite consciousness and nothing-whatsoever; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the first, second, and third dhyānas; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the second, third, and fourth dhyānas; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the third and fourth dhyānas and the sphere of infinite space; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the fourth dhyāna and the spheres of infinite space and infinite consciousness; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the spheres of infinite space, infinite consciousness, and nothing-whatsoever; and a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the spheres of infinite consciousness, nothing-whatsoever, and neither-perception-nor-non-perception — the combined taking as object of four, five, six, seven, and eight grounds is as already explained. The subsequent cognition of the path, the direct cognition of cessation, and the direct cognition of the path are likewise as already explained. When, in reliance upon the first dhyāna, one gives rise to the uninterrupted path in becoming free of the defilement of the sphere of nothing-whatsoever: the subsequent cognitions of suffering and origin take as their object only the suffering and origin of the sphere of nothing-whatsoever. As to the subsequent cognition of cessation: there is a case of taking as its object only the cessation of formations of the first dhyāna, and so on up to a case of taking as its object only the cessation of formations of the sphere of nothing-whatsoever; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the first and second dhyānas; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the second and third dhyānas; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the third and fourth dhyānas; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the fourth dhyāna and the sphere of infinite space; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the spheres of infinite space and infinite consciousness; a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the spheres of infinite consciousness and nothing-whatsoever; and a case of taking as its object the cessation of formations of the spheres of nothing-whatsoever and neither-perception-nor-non-perception — the combined taking as object of three, four, five, six, seven, and eight grounds is as already explained. The subsequent cognition of the path, the direct cognition of cessation, and the direct cognition of the path are likewise as already explained. When, in reliance upon the first dhyāna, one gives rise to the uninterrupted path in becoming free of the defilement of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception: the subsequent cognitions of suffering and origin take as their object only the suffering and origin of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. As to the subsequent cognition of cessation: there is a case of taking as its object only the cessation of formations of the first dhyāna, and so on up to a case of taking as its object only the cessation of formations of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception — the combined taking as object of two, three, four, five, six, seven, and eight grounds is as already explained. The subsequent cognition of the path, the direct cognition of cessation, and the direct cognition of the path are likewise as already explained. In just this way, in reliance upon the second dhyāna, one gives rise to the uninterrupted path in becoming free of the defilement from the second dhyāna up through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; and so on up through reliance upon the sphere of nothing-whatsoever, giving rise to the uninterrupted path in becoming free of the defilement of the sphere of nothing-whatsoever and of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception — each, correspondingly, to be explained at length in just the same way. The distinguishing feature is that, in reliance upon the three formless attainments, the two direct cognitions do not exist, and one cannot take as object the cessation of a lower ground. Here, this has all been stated with reference to one born in the desire realm; if one is born in the form or formless realm, no direct cognition at all manifests, and, born in a higher ground there, one does not take as object the cessation of a lower ground. Just as with the uninterrupted path, so, too, with the path of liberation — excepting only that, in the path of liberation of becoming free of the lowest grade of defilement of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, only the subsequent cognitions of suffering and origin can possibly occur.