The Views Aggregate Opens

There are four mindfulness-foundations — namely, the mindfulness-foundations of the body, of feeling, of mind, and of dharmas. Such chapter headings as this, once their meaning has been grasped, are to be analyzed at length. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: it is in order to explain the meaning of a sūtra passage — as a sūtra states, there are four mindfulness-foundations, namely the mindfulness-foundation of the body, and so on up to the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas; although the sūtra speaks in this way, it does not analyze whether one who cultivates the mindfulness-foundation of the body thereby cultivates that of feeling, and so on at length — that sūtra is the root on which this treatise depends, and what it leaves unanalyzed must now be stated in full, and it is for this reason that this treatise is composed. Now, the Buddha spoke of three kinds of mindfulness-foundation: first, the mindfulness-foundation of intrinsic nature; second, the mixed mindfulness-foundation; and third, the mindfulness-foundation of objective support. Where is the mindfulness-foundation of intrinsic nature spoken of? Answer: as a sūtra states, there is a single path leading to the purification of sentient beings, transcending grief and sorrow — namely, the four mindfulness-foundations. What are the four? Contemplating the body by way of the body as a mindfulness-foundation, and so on up to contemplating dharmas by way of dharmas as a mindfulness-foundation. Where, further, is the mixed mindfulness-foundation spoken of? Answer: as a sūtra states — if it is said that the accumulation of wholesome dharmas is precisely the four mindfulness-foundations, this is the correct statement, for why is this? Because the accumulation of wholesome dharmas, pure and perfectly complete, is precisely the four mindfulness-foundations alone. What are the four? Contemplating the body by way of the body, and so on at length. Where, further, is the mindfulness-foundation of objective support spoken of? Answer: as a sūtra states — if it is said that every dharma is precisely the four mindfulness-foundations, this is the correct statement, for why is this? Because that which fully subsumes every dharma is precisely the four mindfulness-foundations alone. What are the four? Contemplating the body by way of the body as a mindfulness-foundation, and so on at length. Here, the topic-sentences of these three sūtras, each in its own order, speak separately of the mindfulness-foundation of intrinsic nature, the mixed mindfulness-foundation, and the mindfulness-foundation of objective support; while the explanatory sentences all speak of the mindfulness-foundation of intrinsic nature,

since the words "contemplate by way of" all indicate wisdom alike. Question: why is it that the World-Honored One, in the topic-sentences, speaks now of the mindfulness-foundation of intrinsic nature, now of the mixed mindfulness-foundation, and now of the mindfulness-foundation of objective support, yet, in the explanatory sentences, speaks only of the mindfulness-foundation of intrinsic nature? Answer: it is in order that the ultimate mindfulness-foundation should suffer no loss or corruption. Mindfulness-foundation is of two kinds: first, ultimate; and second, conventional. The mindfulness-foundation of intrinsic nature is the ultimate; the rest are conventional. The ultimate mindfulness-foundation can never, at any time, be lost or corrupted, and it is for this reason that the Buddha, in the explanatory sentences, speaks throughout of intrinsic nature. Some say: it is by the power of the mindfulness-foundation of intrinsic nature that the mixed and the objective-support kinds are named mindfulness-foundation at all. Some say: it is in order to display that all three kinds of mindfulness-foundation alike have wisdom as their intrinsic nature — that is, this single nature of wisdom, when it operates through the aid of conjoined dharmas mixed together with it, is precisely what is named the mixed mindfulness-foundation; and when, by the power of its objective support, it is able to observe comprehensively, it is precisely what is named the mindfulness-foundation of objective support. Since the Buddha, in the sūtras, spoke of these three kinds of mindfulness-foundation, the Ābhidharmikas, too, everywhere compose their treatises with reference to these three kinds of mindfulness-foundation. How is this known to be so? As it is said: what is the mindfulness-foundation of the body? It is the wisdom that takes the body as its object; and so on up to: what is the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas? It is the wisdom that takes dharmas as its object — this is what is meant by speaking of the locus of the mindfulness-foundation of intrinsic nature, and this is precisely what the sūtra states as "there is a single path," and so on at length. As it is said: what is the mindfulness-foundation of the body? It is the contaminated and uncontaminated wholesomeness produced by the path predominantly concerned with the body; and so on up to: what is the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas? It is the contaminated and uncontaminated wholesomeness produced by the path predominantly concerned with dharmas — this is what is meant by speaking of the locus of the mixed mindfulness-foundation, and this is precisely what the sūtra states as "the accumulation of wholesome dharmas is precisely the four mindfulness-foundations," and so on at length. As it is said: what is the mindfulness-foundation of the body? It is the ten form-spheres together with the form subsumed under the dharma-sphere. What is the mindfulness-foundation of feeling? It is the six classes of feeling. What is the mindfulness-foundation of mind? It is the six classes of consciousness. What is the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas? It is whatever is not subsumed under the feeling-aggregate and is not form, within the dharma-sphere — this is what is meant by speaking of the locus of the mindfulness-foundation of objective support, and this is precisely what the sūtra states as "every dharma" —

is precisely the four mindfulness-foundations. Thus what the Abhidharma states accords with the sūtra, and it is for this reason that this treatise, too, is composed here with reference to the three kinds of mindfulness-foundation.

Question: for what kind of sentient being does the World-Honored One teach the mindfulness-foundation of intrinsic nature, and so on up to, for what kind of sentient being does he teach the mindfulness-foundation of objective support? Answer: it is precisely for the three kinds of sentient being ignorant, respectively, of each of the three kinds of mindfulness-foundation, that he teaches the three kinds of mindfulness-foundation — that is, for one ignorant of the mindfulness-foundation of intrinsic nature, he teaches the mindfulness-foundation of intrinsic nature, and so on up to, for one ignorant of the mindfulness-foundation of objective support, he teaches the mindfulness-foundation of objective support. Furthermore, sentient beings differ in their practice — namely, the beginner and the rest: for the beginner, he teaches the mindfulness-foundation of objective support; for one who has already habituated his practice, he teaches the mixed mindfulness-foundation; and for one who has already transcended mere mental application, he teaches the mindfulness-foundation of intrinsic nature.

Furthermore, sentient beings differ in their aspiration — namely, for the extensive, the abbreviated, and the middling: for one who delights in the abbreviated, he teaches the mindfulness-foundation of intrinsic nature; for one who delights in the middling, he teaches the mixed mindfulness-foundation; and for one who delights in the extensive, he teaches the mindfulness-foundation of objective support. Furthermore, sentient beings differ in their faculties — namely, the keen, the middling, and the dull: for the keen-facultied, he teaches the mindfulness-foundation of intrinsic nature; for the middling-facultied, he teaches the mixed mindfulness-foundation; and for the dull-facultied, he teaches the mindfulness-foundation of objective support. Furthermore, sentient beings differ in their wisdom — namely, wisdom born of disclosure, wisdom born of analysis, and wisdom born of guidance: for wisdom born of disclosure, he teaches the mindfulness-foundation of intrinsic nature; for wisdom born of analysis, he teaches the mixed mindfulness-foundation; and for wisdom born of guidance, he teaches the mindfulness-foundation of objective support. It is for the sake of converting sentient beings of these various kinds that the Buddha taught these three kinds of mindfulness-foundation.

Question: of these three mindfulness-foundations, which one severs affliction? Answer: only the mixed mindfulness-foundation is able to sever affliction, and none other. Question: why is the mindfulness-foundation of intrinsic nature unable to sever affliction? Answer: because wisdom alone, apart from its aids, is unable to sever affliction. Question: why is the mindfulness-foundation of objective support unable to sever affliction? Answer: because its mental application is diffuse and scattered — only a mental application that takes its object comprehensively and in summary form is able to sever affliction. Question: why is the mixed mindfulness-foundation able to sever affliction? Answer: because it is complete with two conditions — namely, that it is aided by its supporting factors, and that its mental application takes its object comprehensively and in summary form. Question: if so, then cultivating the other mindfulness-foundations ought to be useless. Answer: they are able to draw forth the mixed mindfulness-foundation, and are therefore not useless. Some say: severance is of two kinds — first, temporary severance; and second, final severance. Cultivating the other mindfulness-foundations is able to bring about temporary severance, and is therefore not useless. The mixed mindfulness-foundation is, moreover, of three further kinds — namely, distinguished as accomplished through hearing, through reflection, and through cultivation. Question: of these three, which one is able to sever affliction? Answer: only that accomplished through cultivation is able to sever affliction, and none other. Question: why is that accomplished through hearing unable to sever affliction? Answer: because it necessarily operates upon its meaning only by depending on a name — only a path that operates upon its meaning without depending on a name is able to sever affliction. Question: why is that accomplished through reflection unable to sever affliction? Answer: because this mental application is subsumed under a ground not fixed in concentration — only a path subsumed under a ground fixed in concentration is able to sever affliction.

Question: why is that accomplished through cultivation able to sever affliction? Answer: because it is complete with two conditions — namely, that it operates upon its meaning without depending on a name, and that it is subsumed under a ground fixed in concentration. Question: if so, then cultivating the other two kinds ought to be useless. Answer: they are able to draw forth that accomplished through cultivation — that is, that accomplished through hearing is able to draw forth that accomplished through reflection, and that accomplished through reflection is able to draw forth that accomplished through cultivation, and that accomplished through cultivation is able to sever affliction — and they are therefore not useless. Some say: severance is of two kinds, to be explained at length as before. The mindfulness-foundation accomplished through cultivation is, moreover, of four further kinds — namely, of the body, of feeling, of mind, and of dharmas. Question: of these four, which one is able to sever affliction? Answer: the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas is able to sever affliction, and none other. Question: why are the first three mindfulness-foundations unable to sever affliction? Answer: because they are subsumed under a mental application directed at self-characteristics alone — only a path subsumed under a mental application directed at shared characteristics is able to sever affliction. Some say: because each of them takes each single aggregate separately as its object — only a path that takes the four or five aggregates comprehensively as its object, or that takes what is apart from any aggregate, is able to sever affliction. Question: if so, then cultivating the first three kinds ought to be useless. Answer: they are able to draw forth the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas — that is, the mindfulness-foundation of the body is able to draw forth that of feeling, that of feeling is able to draw forth that of mind, and that of mind is able to draw forth that of dharmas, and the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas is able to sever affliction — and they are therefore not useless. Some say: it is necessary first to analyze the aggregates individually, and only afterward is one able to take them comprehensively as object and sever affliction,

and they are therefore not useless. Some say: severance is of two kinds, to be explained at length as before. The mindfulness-foundation of dharmas is, moreover, of two further kinds: first, taking its object with admixture; and second, taking its object without admixture. If it takes the perception-aggregate and the formations-aggregate, together with the unconditioned, as its object, this is named taking its object without admixture; if, with respect to the five aggregates, it takes them two at a time, three at a time, four at a time, or all five collectively, together with the unconditioned, this is named taking its object with admixture. Question: which of these mindfulness-foundations of dharmas, here, is able to sever affliction? Answer: both alike are able to sever affliction — that is, if it takes the truths of suffering, origin, and the path as its object, the path that severs affliction is the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas taking its object with admixture;

if it takes the truth of cessation as its object, the path that severs affliction is the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas taking its object without admixture.

Here, mindfulness-foundation may be spoken of as simply one — namely, the mental factor of wisdom among the universal grounds, the faculty of wisdom, the power of wisdom, right view, and the awakening-factor of investigation of dharmas; or as two — namely, contaminated and uncontaminated, bound and freed, fettered and unfettered; or as three — namely, the weak, middling, and superior grades, or that accomplished through hearing, reflection, and cultivation; or as four — namely, of the body, of feeling, of mind, and of dharmas; or as five — namely, bound to the three realms, together with the trainee's and the non-trainee's; or as six — namely, contaminated and uncontaminated, each further divided into weak, middling, and superior grades; or as eight — namely, of the body, of feeling, of mind, and of dharmas, each further divided into contaminated and uncontaminated; or as nine — namely, weakest-of-the-weak up through superior-of-the-superior; or as twelve — namely, of the body, of feeling, of mind, and of dharmas, each further divided into weak, middling, and superior grades; there is, further, another distinct account of twelve, as a sūtra states: dwelling in the contemplation of the body by way of the body internally, dwelling in the contemplation of the body by way of the body externally, and dwelling in the contemplation of the body by way of the body both internally and externally — as with the three kinds for the body, so, too, up through dharmas; or as eighteen — namely, contaminated and uncontaminated, each further divided into weakest-of-the-weak up through superior-of-the-superior; or as twenty-four — namely, of the body, of feeling, of mind, and of dharmas, each of whose weak, middling, and superior grades is further divided into contaminated and uncontaminated; or as thirty-six — namely, of the body, of feeling, of mind, and of dharmas, each further divided into weakest-of-the-weak up through superior-of-the-superior; there is, further, another distinct account of thirty-six, as a sūtra states: dwelling in the perception of repugnance with respect to the internal body, dwelling in the perception of non-repugnance with respect to the internal body, and dwelling, with respect to the internal body, in equanimity that is free of both, together with right mindfulness and right awareness — as with the internal body, so, too, with the external body and with the internal-and-external body; as there are nine with respect to the body, so, too, up through dharmas; or as seventy-two — namely, the mindfulness-foundation of the body, contaminated and uncontaminated, each further divided into weakest-of-the-weak up through superior-of-the-superior — as the mindfulness-foundation of the body has eighteen, so, too, up through the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas. Were one to distinguish by continuity and by moment, there would be an immeasurable number of mindfulness-foundations. Question: if so, why does the World-Honored One, with respect to the single, speak of the four mindfulness-foundations at length, yet, with respect to the immeasurable, speak of the four mindfulness-foundations only in brief? Answer: it is in order to counteract the four inverted views — that is, in order to counteract the inverted view of the impure as pure, he teaches the mindfulness-foundation of the body; in order to counteract the inverted view of suffering as pleasure, he teaches the mindfulness-foundation of feeling; in order to counteract the inverted view of the impermanent as permanent, he teaches the mindfulness-foundation of mind; and in order to counteract the inverted view of non-self as self, he teaches the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas. Some say: it is in order to counteract the four nutriments — that is, in order to counteract the nutriment of edible food, he teaches the mindfulness-foundation of the body; in order to counteract the nutriment of contact, he teaches the mindfulness-foundation of feeling; in order to counteract the nutriment of consciousness, he teaches the mindfulness-foundation of mind; and in order to counteract the nutriment of volitional intention, he teaches the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas. Some say: it is in order to counteract the four consciousness-stations — that is, in order to counteract the consciousness-station approaching form, he teaches the mindfulness-foundation of the body;

in order to counteract the consciousness-station approaching feeling, he teaches the mindfulness-foundation of feeling; in order to counteract the consciousness abiding there, he teaches the mindfulness-foundation of mind; and in order to counteract the consciousness-station approaching perception and approaching formations, he teaches the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas. Some say: it is in order to counteract the five aggregates — that is, in order to counteract the form-aggregate, he teaches the mindfulness-foundation of the body; in order to counteract the feeling-aggregate, he teaches the mindfulness-foundation of feeling; in order to counteract the consciousness-aggregate, he teaches the mindfulness-foundation of mind; and in order to counteract the perception-aggregate and the formations-aggregate, he teaches the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas. Some say: it is in order to counteract four kinds of non-cultivation — that is, in order to counteract the non-cultivation of the body, he teaches the mindfulness-foundation of the body; in order to counteract the non-cultivation of moral discipline, he teaches the mindfulness-foundation of feeling; in order to counteract the non-cultivation of mind, he teaches the mindfulness-foundation of mind; and in order to counteract the non-cultivation of wisdom, he teaches the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas. Some say: it is because they accord with the same dharma as the four cultivations that the four mindfulness-foundations are taught — that is, because it accords with the same dharma as the cultivation of the body, he teaches the mindfulness-foundation of the body; because it accords with the same dharma as the cultivation of moral discipline, he teaches the mindfulness-foundation of feeling; because it accords with the same dharma as the cultivation of mind, he teaches the mindfulness-foundation of mind; and because it accords with the same dharma as the cultivation of wisdom, he teaches the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas. Question: what is the intrinsic nature of mindfulness-foundation — is it mindfulness, or is it wisdom? If it is mindfulness, then how is the following statement to be reconciled — as it is said, contemplating the body by way of the body, and so on at length? If it is wisdom, then why is it named mindfulness-foundation? And how, too, is the following sūtra statement to be reconciled — as it is said, where should the faculty of mindfulness be observed? In the four mindfulness-foundations. Answer: it should be said that wisdom is its intrinsic nature. Question: if so, then why is it named mindfulness-foundation? Answer: because mindfulness, with respect to this, abides, abides equally, and abides individually — and it is for this reason that it is named mindfulness-foundation, just as the place where an elephant, a horse, or the like abides is named the abode of the elephant, the horse, or the like; it is the same here. Some say: it is by the power of mindfulness that this is able, with respect to its object, to give rise to a differentiated and extensive function without loss or corruption, and it is for this reason that it is named mindfulness-foundation. Some say: it is by the power of mindfulness that this yogic practitioner carefully records his object, so that, having forgotten the objective realm, he is able to recall it once again, and it is for this reason that it is named mindfulness-foundation. Some say: this practitioner, with respect to his object, first establishes mindfulness and only afterward contemplates it; and, with respect to his object, having first penetrated it, he afterward establishes mindfulness in order to guard it — just like a gatekeeper — and it is for this reason that it is named mindfulness-foundation. Some say: this practitioner, with respect to his objective realm, first grasps and holds it by mindfulness, and only afterward contemplates it by wisdom, severing affliction thereby — just as a farmer first gathers up the grass and the like with his left hand, and only afterward cuts it with the sickle held in his right hand; it is the same here, and it is for this reason that it is named mindfulness-foundation. Some say: this yogic practitioner, clad in the armor of mindfulness, wielding the sword and staff of wisdom upon the continuum of his own mind, stands in the very battle-array of birth-and-death, and, rather than being subdued by the enemy of affliction, is able to subdue it instead — and it is for this reason that it is named mindfulness-foundation. Some say: it is in order to forestall the fault of grasping at an intrinsic nature that it is named mindfulness-foundation — for, were it named wisdom-foundation, this would indeed incur the fault of grasping at an intrinsic nature. Some say: it is in order to display that it is not intrinsic nature alone that is able to perform this function that it is named mindfulness-foundation. It is for reasons such as these that it is named only mindfulness-foundation, and not wisdom-foundation. Question: how, then, is the sūtra's own statement to be reconciled — as it is said, where should the faculty of mindfulness be observed? In the four mindfulness-foundations. Answer: this is said because the faculty of mindfulness has a predominant function at the stage of the mindfulness-foundations — just as the faculty of faith has a predominant function at the stage of the four factors of pure confidence, the Buddha likewise says: where should the faculty of faith be observed? In the four factors of pure confidence. In just the same way, the faculty of diligence is observed in the four right efforts, the faculty of concentration in the four dhyānas, and the faculty of wisdom in the four noble truths — and it is for this reason that the World-Honored One, further, also says: where should the faculty of wisdom be observed? In the four noble truths. It is the same here. This, then, is the intrinsic nature of mindfulness-foundation.

Its intrinsic nature having now been explained, its rationale is next to be explained. Why is it named mindfulness-foundation, and what is the meaning of "mindfulness-foundation"? Answer: mindfulness, with respect to this, abides, abides equally, and abides individually — to be explained at length as before. Its rationale having now been explained in general, each particular rationale is next to be explained. Question: why is it named the mindfulness-foundation of the body? Answer: this mindfulness-foundation takes the body as its object, and it is for this reason that it is named the mindfulness-foundation of the body. Question: the other mindfulness-foundations, too, take the body as their object in some sense — that is, the mindfulness-foundation of feeling takes the six classes of feeling-bodies as its object, the mindfulness-foundation of mind takes the six classes of consciousness-bodies as its object, and the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas takes the six classes of perception-bodies, the six classes of volition-bodies, and the like as its object — why, then, are they not all named the mindfulness-foundation of the body? Answer: what is spoken of here as "taking the body as its object" refers to taking the physical body as its object; the other mindfulness-foundations take as their object what is not the physical body, and hence are not named the mindfulness-foundation of the body. Some say: that which takes as its object what is coarse, manifest, and easily seen — the visibly manifest body — is named the mindfulness-foundation of the body; the other mindfulness-foundations take as their object what is subtle, hidden, difficult to see, and difficult to perceive — not the visibly manifest body — and hence are not named the mindfulness-foundation of the body. Some say: that whose object is a body composed of an aggregation of atoms is named the mindfulness-foundation of the body; the object of the other mindfulness-foundations is not a body composed of an aggregation of atoms, and hence they are not named the mindfulness-foundation of the body. Some say:

that which, in taking the body as its object, is such that the knower and the known arise simultaneously, is named the mindfulness-foundation of the body; the others, although they, too, take the body as their object in some sense, are such that the knower and the known do not arise simultaneously, and hence are not named the mindfulness-foundation of the body — although, within the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas, there is a case of simultaneous arising, this, being rare, is not spoken of. Just as it is named the mindfulness-foundation of the body because it takes the body as its object, so, too, it is named the mindfulness-foundation of feeling because it takes feeling as its object, the mindfulness-foundation of mind because it takes mind as its object, and the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas because it takes dharmas as its object.

Question: since everything alike is dharma, and everything alike is nothing but dharma, why is only this single one named the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas, and not the others? Answer: although everything alike is dharma, only one is established as "the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas" — just as the eighteen elements are all alike dharma, yet only one is established as "the dharma-element," and the twelve spheres are all alike dharma, yet only one is established as "the dharma-sphere"; and, just as with the dharma-element and the dharma-sphere, so, too, with the cognition of dharmas, the awakening-factor of investigation of dharmas, the recollection of the Dharma, the pure confidence in the Dharma, the unimpeded understanding of the Dharma, the Dharma-jewel, and taking refuge in the Dharma. Some say: the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas has one name,

while the other mindfulness-foundations have two names. Some say: the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas has a name shared in common, while the other mindfulness-foundations have both a shared and an unshared name. Some say:

every conditioned dharma arises from being generated, and generation is precisely its own object, and hence it is named the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas. Some say: every dharma is made manifest by a name, and a name is precisely its own object, and hence it is named the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas. Some say: the conditioned characteristics are the very insignia of every conditioned dharma, and, since these characteristics, stamped upon them, fall within its own object, it is named the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas. Some say: the liberation-gate of emptiness realizes the very dharma-nature of every dharma, and, since this emptiness is subsumed within its own object, it is named the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas. Question: if so, then the view of the perishable aggregates, too, realizes the personhood of every dharma — why, then, is it not on this basis that the name is established? Answer: that is not a true realization, whereas this is a true realization,

and hence there is no fault in this. Some say: wisdom is able to analyze the self-characteristic and shared characteristic of every dharma, to establish the self-characteristic and shared characteristic of every dharma, to damage the ignorance regarding [causal] events and the ignorance regarding the object, and to operate among every dharma without increase or decrease — and, since this wisdom is subsumed within its own object, it is named the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas. Some say: the truth of cessation, nirvāṇa, is the ultimate dharma, permanently abiding and unchanging, and, since this dharma is subsumed within its own object, it is named the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas. Some say: this mindfulness-foundation is able to take many dharmas as its object — namely, form and non-form, conjoined and non-conjoined, having a support and lacking a support, having a mode of activity and lacking a mode of activity, having an object and lacking an object, having awakening and lacking awakening — and it is for this reason that it is named the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas. Some say: the mindfulness-foundation of the body takes the body as its object, but does not take the wisdom that takes the body as its object as its object; the mindfulness-foundation of feeling takes feeling as its object, but does not take the wisdom that takes feeling as its object as its object; the mindfulness-foundation of mind takes mind as its object, but does not take the wisdom that takes mind as its object as its object; whereas the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas takes the body as its object and also takes the wisdom that takes the body as its object as its object, and takes feeling, mind, and dharmas as its object and also takes the wisdom that takes feeling, mind, and dharmas as its object as its object — and it is for this reason that only this one is named the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas. Some say: the mindfulness-foundation of the body takes the body as its object, but does not take the arising, aging, and impermanence of the body as its object,

the mindfulness-foundation of feeling takes feeling as its object, but does not take the arising, aging, and impermanence of feeling as its object; the mindfulness-foundation of mind takes mind as its object, but does not take the arising, aging, and impermanence of mind as its object; whereas the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas takes the body as its object and also takes the arising, aging, and impermanence of the body as its object, and takes feeling, mind, and dharmas as its object and also takes the arising, aging, and impermanence of feeling, mind, and dharmas as its object — and it is for this reason that only this one is named the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas. Some say: it is precisely at this point that these yogic practitioners' own notion of a self and notion of a single unity are both brought to rest, and the notion of dharmas, the notion of differentiation, is perfectly accomplished through cultivation, and it is for this reason that it is named the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas — that is, the yogic practitioner, having analyzed the body, then conceives of feeling as the self; having analyzed feeling, he then conceives of mind as the self; having analyzed mind, he then conceives of dharmas as the self; and, having analyzed dharmas, he then knows that all of it is without self, that a sentient being is nothing but an empty aggregation of formations — and it is precisely at this point that the notion of dharmas is perfected, and it is for this reason that it is named the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas. The rationale for each of the mindfulness-foundations having now been explained, their order is next to be explained. Why does the World-Honored One first speak of the mindfulness-foundation of the body, and so on up to, only afterward, speak of the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas? Answer: it is in order to display what accords —

that is, if the order is displayed in just this way, then it accords with the written word and with speech. Some say: it is in order that the account should accord — that is, if the order is composed in just this way, then it accords with both the teacher's own account and the disciple's own reception of it. Some say: this follows the order of arising,

Order is of three kinds: first, the order of arising; second, the order of exposition; and third, the order of direct realization. The order of arising is exemplified by this account of mindfulness-foundations, and by the dhyānas, the immeasurables, the formless attainments, the liberations, the bases of vanquishing, and the totality-bases, and the like. The order of exposition is exemplified by the right efforts, the bases of supernatural power, the faculties, the powers, the awakening-factors, and the path-factors, and the like. The order of direct realization is exemplified by the four noble truths. Since the yogic practitioner first gives rise to the mindfulness-foundation of the body, the Buddha speaks of it first; and, since he gives rise to the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas only afterward, the Buddha speaks of it only afterward. Question: since the discussion has arisen, let a further discussion arise from it — why do yogic practitioners first give rise to the mindfulness-foundation of the body, and so on up to, only afterward, give rise to the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas? Answer: this follows the order from coarse to subtle — that is, among the five aggregates, the form-aggregate is the coarsest, and hence it is contemplated first, giving rise to the mindfulness-foundation of the body; and, among the four formless aggregates, the feeling-aggregate is the coarsest, and hence it is contemplated next, giving rise to the mindfulness-foundation of feeling. Question: feeling and the rest have no spatial location — how, then, can coarseness or subtlety be posited of them? Answer: although they have no spatial coarseness or subtlety, they do have a coarseness or subtlety of mode of activity, and this, too, can be posited. Here, the mode of activity of feeling is coarse, as when one says, "my hand or foot hurts," or says, "I feel such-and-such suffering" — hence, although the aggregates of feeling and the rest are not form, coarseness and subtlety are posited of them just as with form. Among the four formless aggregates, the consciousness-aggregate is the subtlest; yet mind-mindfulness-foundation, arising from contemplating consciousness, is given rise to before contemplating the perception- and formations-aggregates — this is because the perception- and formations-aggregates are posited together with nirvāṇa, the subtlest dharma of all, and it is for this reason that they are contemplated last, giving rise to the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas. Some say: from the beginninglessly unknowable point of origin, the male has taken on female form, and the female has taken on male form — this is the very locus where defilement is generated; hence, form is contemplated first, giving rise to the mindfulness-foundation of the body. Attachment to and defilement by this form comes from craving the pleasure of feeling, hence feeling is contemplated next, giving rise to the mindfulness-foundation of feeling. Craving for pleasure comes from the mind's own lack of subjugation, hence mind is contemplated next, giving rise to the mindfulness-foundation of mind. The mind's lack of subjugation comes from affliction not yet having been severed, hence dharmas are contemplated last, giving rise to the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas. Some say: because form can be posited as having increase and decrease, and as having a similar, continuous succession of grasping and releasing, form is contemplated first, giving rise to the mindfulness-foundation of the body; in the course of contemplating form, bodily pliancy and mental pliancy arise, and, on the strength of these arising first, pleasurable feeling is drawn forth, hence feeling is contemplated next, giving rise to the mindfulness-foundation of feeling; in the course of contemplating feeling, discernment of the ultimate objective realm is drawn forth, hence consciousness is contemplated next, giving rise to the mindfulness-foundation of mind; he then reflects as follows: wherever mind arises, mental factors arise as well — hence dharmas are contemplated last, giving rise to the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas. Some say: ignorance regarding the body is able to sustain ignorance regarding feeling, and so on up to, ignorance regarding mind is able to sustain ignorance regarding dharmas; it is not the case that, without first overturning ignorance regarding the body, one is able to overturn ignorance regarding feeling, and so on up to, it is not the case that, without first overturning ignorance regarding mind, one is able to overturn ignorance regarding dharmas — and it is for this reason that the four mindfulness-foundations arise in this order. Some say: non-ignorance regarding the body is able to draw forth non-ignorance regarding feeling, and so on up to, non-ignorance regarding mind is able to draw forth non-ignorance regarding dharmas; it is not the case that, without non-ignorance regarding the body first arising, non-ignorance regarding feeling is able to arise, and so on up to, it is not the case that, without non-ignorance regarding mind first arising, non-ignorance regarding dharmas is able to arise — and it is for this reason that the four mindfulness-foundations arise in this order.

Some say: contemplation of the body is able to draw forth contemplation of feeling, and so on up to, contemplation of mind is able to draw forth contemplation of dharmas; it is not the case that, without contemplation of the body first arising, contemplation of feeling is able to arise —

to be explained at length as above. Some say: contemplation of the body, in relation to contemplation of feeling, serves as its cause, its root, its eye, its path, its gradual approach, its efficient agent, its condition for arising, its origination, and its co-arising — and the same holds for contemplation of feeling in relation to contemplation of mind, and contemplation of mind in relation to contemplation of dharmas; the rest is as already explained. Some say:

contemplation of the body, in relation to contemplation of feeling, serves as its effortful practice, its gateway, and its basis — and so on up to contemplation of mind in relation to contemplation of dharmas; the rest is as already explained.

Some say: contemplation of the body, in relation to contemplation of feeling, serves as its support and its trace — and so on up to contemplation of mind in relation to contemplation of dharmas; the rest is as already explained. Question: if so, then what does contemplation of the body itself take as its support and its trace? Answer: it takes the already-attained mark of calm-abiding as its support and its trace — as it is said, since he has already attained an unshakeable calm-abiding, the mark of bodily pliancy, gathering and accumulating from the feet up to the crown of the head, on this account is able to give rise to the mindfulness-foundation of the body, and so on up to the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas. Some say: it is by analyzing the various spheres within his own mental continuum that he gives rise to the four mindfulness-foundations — that is, the yogic practitioner, wishing first to know the form-spheres, first analyzes the ten form-spheres together with the form subsumed under the dharma-sphere,

and it is for this reason that he gives rise to the mindfulness-foundation of the body first; next, within the dharma-sphere, he analyzes the various feelings, and hence gives rise to the mindfulness-foundation of feeling next; next, within the dharma-sphere, he analyzes the perception- and formations-aggregates together with the three unconditioned, and hence gives rise to the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas next. He then further reflects as follows: apart from these, what else is there? And, knowing as it really is that there remains the mind-sphere, he thereupon analyzes the mind-sphere, and hence gives rise to the mindfulness-foundation of mind last. Among yogic practitioners, one who contemplates by way of self-characteristics gives rise to the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas first and the mindfulness-foundation of mind afterward; one who contemplates by way of shared characteristics gives rise to the mindfulness-foundation of mind first and the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas afterward — and it is for this reason that the four mindfulness-foundations arise in this order. Question: does one first give rise to the mindfulness-foundation taking an internal object, or does one first give rise to the mindfulness-foundation taking an external object? Either way, what difficulty follows? If one first gives rise to the mindfulness-foundation taking an internal object, how is the following sūtra statement to be reconciled —

as it is said, a newly trained monk, complete with pure moral discipline and perfected aspiration, who wishes swiftly to remove and sever sensual craving and aversion, should go to a secluded path leading to a charnel ground and skillfully take hold of the mark there, whether it be discolored and livid, or festering and putrid, and so on at length? And, if one first gives rise to the mindfulness-foundation taking an external object, how, then, is the following, further sūtra statement to be reconciled — as it is said, first dwelling in the contemplation of the body by way of the body internally, and next externally, and so on at length? Answer: it should be said that one first gives rise to the mindfulness-foundation taking an internal object. Why is this? Because, where there is a self, there is what belongs to a self; where there is grasping at a self, there is grasping at what belongs to a self; where there is a view of self, there is a view of what belongs to a self; and, since there are five views of self, there are fifteen views of what belongs to a self;

and, where there is ignorance regarding self, there is ignorance regarding what belongs to a self; and, where there is craving for self, there is craving for one's possessions — since it is in order to nourish the inner self that one seeks after external provisions.

Question: if so, then how is the previously cited sūtra passage to be reconciled? Answer: that passage speaks of the effortful practice preliminary to mindfulness-foundation, not of the root mindfulness-foundation itself. How is this known to be so? That very sūtra passage states that, having skillfully taken hold of the mark, one should swiftly return to one's original place and call to mind the mark previously taken hold of; if one is able to do so, this is good, and, if one is not able to do so, one should go once again to the charnel ground, once again skillfully take hold of the mark, and hasten back to one's original place, wash one's feet, enter one's chamber, spread one's seat, and sit down, causing the mark taken hold of to become clear and manifest before the mind by the power of resolute mental application — this is named the effortful practice preliminary to mindfulness-foundation. It is only when the mark taken hold of externally is placed upon the internal body,

and one contemplates it there, that this is named entering the root mindfulness-foundation. Some say: that sūtra passage speaks of the superior mental application of a fruit already attained, not of the stage of mindfulness-foundation.

How is this known to be so? That very sūtra passage states that, once this newly trained monk has attained the mind of the trainee, he may go to the secluded path as he wishes, should he wish to do so — here, "newly trained monk" refers precisely to the stream-enterer and the once-returner. It is thereby known that that sūtra passage speaks of the superior mental application of a fruit already attained, not of the stage of mindfulness-foundation.

As a sūtra states: dwelling in the contemplation of the body by way of the body internally, dwelling in the contemplation of the body by way of the body externally, and dwelling in the contemplation of the body by way of the body both internally and externally, and so on at length. Question: here, what is named the internal body, and the rest, and what is named the external body, and the rest? Answer: form subsumed under one's own mental continuum is named the internal body; form subsumed under another's mental continuum, together with form not classed among sentient beings, is named the external body — and the same holds, correspondingly, for internal and external dharmas. Feeling subsumed under one's own mental continuum is named internal feeling; feeling subsumed under another's mental continuum is named external feeling — and the same holds, correspondingly, for internal and external mind. Other masters say: form classed among sentient beings is named the internal body, and form not classed among sentient beings is named the external body — and the same holds, correspondingly, for internal and external dharmas; feeling and mind are as already explained above. The Venerable Pārśva says: the present is named internal, and the past, the future, and the unconditioned are named external.

Question: why is the present named internal, and the past, the future, and the unconditioned named external? Answer: because it is present dharmas, for the most part, that cause sentient beings to grasp at and become attached to them, and not the past, the future, or the unconditioned. Here, "dwelling in the contemplation of the body by way of the body internally" means dwelling in the contemplation of the self-characteristic of the internal body; "dwelling in the contemplation of the body by way of the body externally" means dwelling in the contemplation of the self-characteristic of the external body; and "dwelling in the contemplation of the body by way of the body both internally and externally" means

dwelling in the contemplation of the shared characteristic of the internal-and-external body — and so on up to dharmas, in just the same way. Some say: "dwelling in the contemplation of the body by way of the body internally" means dwelling in an extensive contemplation of the internal body; "dwelling in the contemplation of the body by way of the body externally" means dwelling in an extensive contemplation of the external body; and "dwelling in the contemplation of the body by way of the body both internally and externally" means dwelling in an abbreviated contemplation of the internal-and-external body — and so on up to dharmas, in just the same way. Some say: "dwelling in the contemplation of the body by way of the body internally" counteracts grasping at a self;

"dwelling in the contemplation of the body by way of the body externally" counteracts grasping at what belongs to a self; and "dwelling in the contemplation of the body by way of the body both internally and externally" counteracts grasping at both a self and what belongs to a self — and so on up to dharmas, in just the same way. As with grasping at a self and grasping at what belongs to a self, so, too, with the view of self and the view of what belongs to a self. Some say:

"dwelling in the contemplation of the body by way of the body internally" counteracts the five views of self; "dwelling in the contemplation of the body by way of the body externally" counteracts the fifteen views of what belongs to a self; and "dwelling in the contemplation of the body by way of the body both internally and externally" counteracts all twenty kinds of the view of the perishable aggregates — and so on up to dharmas, in just the same way.

As with the view of self and the view of what belongs to a self, so, too, with ignorance regarding self and ignorance regarding what belongs to a self. Some say: "dwelling in the contemplation of the body by way of the body internally" counteracts craving for self; "dwelling in the contemplation of the body by way of the body externally" counteracts craving for one's possessions; and "dwelling in the contemplation of the body by way of the body both internally and externally" counteracts both kinds of craving together — and so on up to dharmas, in just the same way. Question: at what point should the mindfulness-foundation of the body, and so on up to the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas, be said to be perfected? Answer: perfection is to be known by two conditions: first, analysis of the object; and second, the increase of wholesome roots. "Analysis of the object" means that, at a given time, one is able to analyze the object down to the very moment and the very atom, or is able to analyze the object solely by the moment. "The increase of wholesome roots" means proceeding from the inferior to give rise to the middling, and from the middling to give rise to the superior. It is by this that the perfection of mindfulness-foundation should be known. Some say: perfection should be known by the shifting of effortful practice — that is, the yogic practitioner first analyzes the body; having analyzed the body, he shifts the discerning wisdom that analyzed the body and next analyzes feeling; having analyzed feeling, he shifts the discerning wisdom that analyzed feeling and next analyzes mind; having analyzed mind, he shifts the discerning wisdom that analyzed mind and analyzes dharmas — just as a farmer channels water to irrigate his fields: once the first plot is full, he channels the water to irrigate the second; once the second is full, he channels it to irrigate the third; and once the third is full, he channels it to irrigate the fourth; it is the same here. Some say: perfection should be known by the accomplishment of the mark of enmity. The mark of enmity is of two kinds: first, that which causes one to cease delighting; and second, that which causes anger to arise. Here, only that which causes one to cease delighting is spoken of as the mark of enmity — that is, the yogic practitioner, having analyzed the body, thereupon ceases to delight in the body, yet still delights in feeling and the rest; having analyzed feeling, he once again ceases to delight in feeling, yet still delights in mind and the rest; having analyzed mind, he once again ceases to delight in mind, yet still delights in dharmas; and, having analyzed dharmas, he thereupon ceases to delight in any objective realm whatsoever — this should be understood, and it is at that moment that mindfulness-foundation is perfected.