Knowing a Feeling as It Really Is

If one, entering the fixed nature of the noble ones, is within the four mind-moments each of the direct realizations of suffering and origin, and the three mind-moments of the direct realization of the path, the dharma-mindfulness-foundation is cultivated in the present, and four are cultivated in the future; a single mode of activity is cultivated in the present, and four are cultivated in the future — this being same-class cultivation, not different-class. Within the four mind-moments of the direct realization of cessation,

the dharma-mindfulness-foundation is cultivated in the present, and this very same one alone is cultivated in the future, since it is not the case that the initial uncontaminated observation of the cessation of the aggregates is able to cultivate the path that takes the aggregates as its object; hence a single mode of activity is cultivated in the present, and four are cultivated in the future — this being same-class cultivation, not different-class, since the power of the newly attained uncontaminated disposition has not yet grown extensive. At the subsequent cognition of the path, the dharma-mindfulness-foundation is cultivated in the present, and four are cultivated in the future — this being both same-class and different-class cultivation; a single mode of activity is cultivated in the present, and sixteen are cultivated in the future, since the force of the already-attained uncontaminated disposition has now grown extensive. From this point onward, whenever any noble one gives rise to a wholesome root never before attained, causing it to manifest before the mind,

he cultivates, in the future, all four mindfulness-foundations with their sixteen modes of activity — excepting only the wisdom accomplished through hearing or reflection, and the extremely subtle mind of entering the attainment of cessation.

As for every other ordinary worldling, he, moreover, possesses no noble mode of activity at all — and it is for this reason that, from this point onward, only how many mindfulness-foundations are cultivated is stated, without stating the modes of activity.

If ordinary worldlings, at the stage of the effortful path of becoming free of the defilement of the desire realm, any one of the four mindfulness-foundations is cultivated in the present, and four are cultivated in the future; within the nine uninterrupted paths and nine paths of liberation, the dharma-mindfulness-foundation is cultivated in the present, and four are cultivated in the future. The same holds, from becoming free of the defilement of the desire realm, up through becoming free of the defilement of the third dhyāna. As for becoming free of the defilement of the fourth dhyāna: if the fourth dhyāna itself is taken as the effortful practice, then, at the stage of that effortful path, any one of the four mindfulness-foundations is cultivated in the present, and four are cultivated in the future. If the proximate stage of the sphere of infinite space is taken as the effortful practice, then, for those who hold that this proximate ground has a distinct object, at the stage of that effortful path, any one of the four mindfulness-foundations is cultivated in the present, and four are cultivated in the future; within the nine uninterrupted paths and eight paths of liberation, the dharma-mindfulness-foundation is cultivated in the present, and four are cultivated in the future; and, at the ninth path of liberation, the dharma-mindfulness-foundation is cultivated in the present, and three are cultivated in the future, excepting the mindfulness-foundation of the body. For those who hold that this proximate ground takes only a comprehensive object, then, at the stage of that effortful path and within the nine uninterrupted paths and eight paths of liberation, the dharma-mindfulness-foundation is cultivated in the present, and this very same one alone is cultivated in the future; and, at the ninth path of liberation, the dharma-mindfulness-foundation is cultivated in the present, and three are cultivated in the future, excepting the mindfulness-foundation of the body. The same holds, from becoming free of the defilement of the fourth dhyāna, up through becoming free of the defilement of the sphere of nothing-whatsoever, the distinguishing feature being the exclusion of the mindfulness-foundation of the body. As for ordinary worldlings giving rise to the contemplation of impurity, mindfulness of breathing, the mindfulness-foundation of the body, the first three liberations, the eight bases of vanquishing, the first eight totality-bases, and drawing forth the superknowledges of supernatural travel, the divine eye, and the divine ear: the mindfulness-foundation of the body is cultivated in the present, and four are cultivated in the future; and, giving rise to any one of the latter three mindfulness-foundations, it is cultivated in the present, and four are cultivated in the future. Giving rise to the four immeasurables and drawing forth the superknowledge of the recollection of former abodes, the dharma-mindfulness-foundation is cultivated in the present, and four are cultivated in the future. Drawing forth the superknowledge of the cognition of others' minds, the mindfulness-foundation of mind, or any one of the mindfulness-foundations of feeling, mind, and dharmas, is cultivated in the present, and four are cultivated in the future. If one gives rise to the formless liberations and the latter three mindfulness-foundations, any one of the latter three mindfulness-foundations is cultivated in the present, and three are cultivated in the future, excepting the mindfulness-foundation of the body. If one gives rise to the spheres of infinite space and infinite consciousness, and the totality-bases, the dharma-mindfulness-foundation is cultivated in the present, and three are cultivated in the future, excepting the mindfulness-foundation of the body. This, then, is the distinction in what is cultivated at the stage of the ordinary worldling. As for noble ones, at every stage of the effortful path of becoming free of the defilement of the desire realm, up through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, any one of the four mindfulness-foundations is cultivated in the present, and four are cultivated in the future; within every uninterrupted path and path of liberation, the dharma-mindfulness-foundation is cultivated in the present, and four are cultivated in the future. For one liberated by conviction who refines his own faculty into one who has arrived through insight, or one liberated dependent on time who refines his own faculty into the unshakeable type, at every stage of the effortful path, any one of the four mindfulness-foundations is cultivated in the present, and four are cultivated in the future; within every uninterrupted path and path of liberation, the dharma-mindfulness-foundation is cultivated in the present, and four are cultivated in the future. If noble ones give rise to the contemplation of impurity, mindfulness of breathing, the mindfulness-foundation of the body, the first three liberations, the eight bases of vanquishing, the first eight totality-bases, and draw forth the superknowledges of supernatural travel, the divine eye, and the divine ear, and give rise to the unimpeded understanding of expression, the mindfulness-foundation of the body is cultivated in the present, and four are cultivated in the future. If one engages in the mixed cultivation of dhyāna, and for those who hold that every dharma is of ultimate significance,

then giving rise to the unimpeded understanding of meaning, the unimpeded understanding of eloquence, wish-knowledge, terminal concentration, the formless liberations, and entering the attainment of cessation with the extremely subtle mind of perception, any one of the four mindfulness-foundations is cultivated in the present, and four are cultivated in the future. If one gives rise to the four immeasurables, the superknowledge of the recollection of former abodes, and, for those who hold that only nirvāṇa is of ultimate significance, giving rise to the unimpeded understanding of meaning, the unimpeded understanding of the Dharma, non-contention, the latter two totality-bases, and the empty-within-the-empty, the wishless-within-the-wishless, and the signless-within-the-signless, the dharma-mindfulness-foundation is cultivated in the present, and four are cultivated in the future. If one draws forth the superknowledge of the cognition of others' minds, the mindfulness-foundation of mind, or any one of the mindfulness-foundations of feeling, mind, and dharmas, and gives rise to any one of the latter three mindfulness-foundations, it is cultivated in the present, and four are cultivated in the future. This, here, is the brief Vibhāṣā account.

Does one who cultivates the mindfulness-foundation of the body thereby cultivate that of feeling? And does one who cultivates the mindfulness-foundation of feeling thereby cultivate that of the body? Answer: a full tetralemma must be formed. There is a case of cultivating the mindfulness-foundation of the body but not of feeling — that is, one in whom the already-attained mindfulness-foundation of the body is currently manifesting before the mind: since, when a dharma already attained manifests before the mind, its force does not extend so far as the future, one does not thereby cultivate the mindfulness-foundation of feeling; yet this very manifesting before the mind is itself cultivation as habituation, and it is for this reason that it is said to cultivate the mindfulness-foundation of the body. Question: there is also a case of the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of the body currently manifesting before the mind, not thereby cultivating that of feeling — as when the not-yet-before-attained mindfulness-foundation of the body accomplished through hearing or reflection is currently manifesting before the mind — why is this case 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: here, the treatise is composed with reference to the mindfulness-foundation accomplished through cultivation — there being no case at all in which the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of the body accomplished through cultivation is currently manifesting before the mind without thereby cultivating the mindfulness-foundation of feeling, and it is for this reason that this case is not spoken of. There is a case of cultivating the mindfulness-foundation of feeling but not of the body — that is, one in whom the already-attained mindfulness-foundation of feeling is currently manifesting before the mind does not thereby cultivate the body if the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of feeling is currently manifesting before the mind; or one in whom the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of mind or of dharmas is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates feeling but not the body. "One in whom the already-attained mindfulness-foundation of feeling is currently manifesting before the mind" is to be explained as before. "One in whom the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of feeling is currently manifesting before the mind, who does not thereby cultivate the body" refers to one of the ordinary worldlings who, becoming free of the defilement of the sphere of infinite space and so on up to the sphere of nothing-whatsoever, takes the mindfulness-foundation of feeling as his effortful practice — at the stage of that effortful path, or, among ordinary worldlings, when giving rise to the formless liberations by way of the mindfulness-foundation of feeling — in whom, at such a time, the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of feeling is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates feeling but not the body. "One in whom the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of mind is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates feeling but not the body" refers to one of the ordinary worldlings who, becoming free of the defilement of the sphere of infinite space and so on up to the sphere of nothing-whatsoever, takes the mindfulness-foundation of mind as his effortful practice — at the stage of that effortful path, or, among ordinary worldlings, when giving rise to the formless liberations by way of the mindfulness-foundation of mind — in whom, at such a time, the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of mind is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates feeling but not the body. "One in whom the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of dharmas is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates feeling but not the body" refers to one of the ordinary worldlings who, at the very last path of liberation of becoming free of the defilement of the fourth dhyāna, or, becoming free of the defilement of the sphere of infinite space and so on up to the sphere of nothing-whatsoever, relying on a lower root ground, gives rise to the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas as his effortful practice — at the stage of that effortful path — or, relying on a higher proximate ground as his effortful practice, for those who hold that the formless proximate ground has a distinct object, taking the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas as his effortful practice — at the stage of that effortful path, and within the nine uninterrupted paths and nine paths of liberation — or, for those who hold that the formless proximate ground takes only a comprehensive object, only at the ninth path of liberation — or one of the ordinary worldlings who gives rise to the formless liberation by way of the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas,

and gives rise to the latter two totality-bases — in whom, at such a time, the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of dharmas is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates feeling but not the body. There is a case of cultivating both — that is, one in whom the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of the body is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates the body; or one in whom the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of feeling is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates the body; or one in whom the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of mind or of dharmas is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates both the body and feeling. "One in whom the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of the body is currently manifesting before the mind" refers to one at the stage of the increasing heat and the increasing summit, in whom the mindfulness-foundation of the body is currently manifesting before the mind,

or, becoming free of the defilement of the desire realm and so on up to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, taking the mindfulness-foundation of the body as his effortful practice — at the stage of that effortful path — or one liberated by conviction who refines his own faculty into one who has arrived through insight, or one liberated dependent on time who refines his own faculty into the unshakeable type, taking the mindfulness-foundation of the body as his effortful practice — at the stage of that effortful path — or one who gives rise to the contemplation of impurity, mindfulness of breathing, the mindfulness-foundation of the body, the first three liberations, the eight bases of vanquishing, or the first eight totality-bases, draws forth the superknowledges of supernatural travel, the divine eye, or the divine ear, or gives rise to the unimpeded understanding of expression, or engages in the mixed cultivation of dhyāna by way of the mindfulness-foundation of the body — for those who hold that every dharma is of ultimate significance, one who gives rise to the unimpeded understanding of meaning or the unimpeded understanding of eloquence by way of the mindfulness-foundation of the body, or wish-knowledge, terminal concentration, the formless liberations, or entering the attainment of cessation with the extremely subtle mind of perception — in whom, at such a time, the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of the body is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates both the body and feeling. "One in whom the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of feeling is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates the body" refers to one at the stage of the increasing heat and the increasing summit, in whom the mindfulness-foundation of feeling is currently manifesting before the mind, or, becoming free of the defilement of the desire realm and so on up to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, taking the mindfulness-foundation of feeling as his effortful practice — at the stage of that effortful path — or one liberated by conviction who refines his own faculty into one who has arrived through insight, or one liberated dependent on time who refines his own faculty into the unshakeable type, taking the mindfulness-foundation of feeling as his effortful practice — at the stage of that effortful path — or one who, drawing forth the superknowledge of the cognition of others' minds, has the mindfulness-foundation of feeling currently manifesting before the mind, or who engages in the mixed cultivation of dhyāna by way of the mindfulness-foundation of feeling — for those who hold that every dharma is of ultimate significance, one who gives rise to the unimpeded understanding of meaning or the unimpeded understanding of eloquence by way of the mindfulness-foundation of feeling, or wish-knowledge, terminal concentration, the formless liberations, or entering the attainment of cessation with the extremely subtle mind of perception — in whom, at such a time, the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of feeling is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates both the body and feeling. "One in whom the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of mind is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates the body and feeling" refers to one at the stage of the increasing heat and the increasing summit, in whom the mindfulness-foundation of mind is currently manifesting before the mind, or, becoming free of the defilement of the desire realm and so on up to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, taking the mindfulness-foundation of mind as his effortful practice — at the stage of that effortful path — or one liberated by conviction who refines his own faculty into one who has arrived through insight, or one liberated dependent on time who refines his own faculty into the unshakeable type, taking the mindfulness-foundation of mind as his effortful practice — at the stage of that effortful path — or one who, drawing forth the superknowledge of the cognition of others' minds, has the mindfulness-foundation of mind currently manifesting before the mind, or who engages in the mixed cultivation of dhyāna by way of the mindfulness-foundation of mind — for those who hold that every dharma is of ultimate significance, one who gives rise to the unimpeded understanding of meaning or the unimpeded understanding of eloquence by way of the mindfulness-foundation of mind, or wish-knowledge, terminal concentration, the formless liberations, or entering the attainment of cessation with the extremely subtle mind of perception — in whom, at such a time, the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of mind is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates both the body and feeling. "One in whom the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of dharmas is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates the body and feeling" refers to one at the stage of the initial heat, taking the three truths, or the increasing heat, taking the four truths, in whom the dharma-mindfulness-foundation is currently manifesting before the mind; or one at the stage of the initial or increasing summit, taking the four truths, in whom the dharma-mindfulness-foundation is currently manifesting before the mind; or one at every stage of patient acceptance and of the supreme mundane dharma; or one entering the fixed nature of the noble ones, within the four mind-moments each of the direct realizations of suffering, origin, and the path; or one, becoming free of the defilement of the desire realm and so on up to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, taking the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas as his effortful practice — throughout every stage of that effortful path, uninterrupted path, and path of liberation — or one liberated by conviction who refines his own faculty into one who has arrived through insight, or one liberated dependent on time who refines his own faculty into the unshakeable type, taking the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas as his effortful practice — throughout every stage of that effortful path, uninterrupted path, and path of liberation — or one who, drawing forth the superknowledge of the cognition of others' minds, has the dharma-mindfulness-foundation currently manifesting before the mind, or, drawing forth the superknowledge of the recollection of former abodes, gives rise to the four immeasurables, or who engages in the mixed cultivation of dhyāna by way of the dharma-mindfulness-foundation — for those who hold that every dharma is of ultimate significance, one who gives rise to the unimpeded understanding of meaning by way of the dharma-mindfulness-foundation; for those who hold that only nirvāṇa is of ultimate significance, one who gives rise to the unimpeded understanding of meaning, the unimpeded understanding of the Dharma, non-contention, the latter two totality-bases, and the empty-within-the-empty, the wishless-within-the-wishless, and the signless-within-the-signless; or one who gives rise to the unimpeded understanding of eloquence by way of the dharma-mindfulness-foundation, or wish-knowledge, terminal concentration, the formless liberations, or entering the attainment of cessation with the extremely subtle mind of perception — in whom, at such a time, the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of dharmas is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates both the body and feeling. There is a case of cultivating neither.

That is, one in whom the already-attained mindfulness-foundation of mind and of dharmas is currently manifesting before the mind does not thereby cultivate the body or feeling if the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of dharmas is currently manifesting before the mind; nor does any defiled mind, or neutral mind, or one within the attainment of no-perception or of cessation, or reborn in the heaven of no-perception. "One in whom the already-attained mindfulness-foundation of mind and of dharmas is currently manifesting before the mind" is to be explained as before. "One in whom the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of dharmas is currently manifesting before the mind, who does not thereby cultivate the body or feeling" refers to one at the stage of the initial heat, taking the truth of cessation as its object; or one entering the fixed nature of the noble ones, within the four mind-moments of the direct realization of cessation; or one of the ordinary worldlings who, becoming free of the defilement of the fourth dhyāna and so on up to the sphere of nothing-whatsoever, for those who hold that the formless proximate ground takes only a comprehensive object, taking a higher proximate ground as his effortful practice — throughout the stages of that effortful path and within the nine uninterrupted paths and eight paths of liberation — in whom, at such a time, the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of dharmas is currently manifesting before the mind, who does not thereby cultivate the body or feeling. As for "every defiled mind": a defiled mind is always of a nature conducive to regression, conjoined with heaviness and indolence; only a mind of a nature conducive to advancement, conjoined with buoyancy and diligence, is capable of cultivation. As for "a neutral mind": a neutral mind is, by its own nature, feeble, decayed, and withered; only a mind abiding in strength, firmness, and superiority is capable of cultivation. As for "within the attainment of no-perception or of cessation": these lack mind altogether, and only one possessing mind is capable of cultivation. As for "reborn in the heaven of no-perception": some say that, once reborn there, one never gives rise to a wholesome mind at any time; some say that, although one may give rise to it, it does not serve as a basis for cultivation, since it is unable to cultivate a future dharma — and it is for this reason that, at such a time, the body and feeling are not cultivated. Question: there is also a case of the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of mind currently manifesting before the mind, not thereby cultivating the body or feeling — as when the not-yet-before-attained mindfulness-foundation of mind accomplished through hearing or reflection is currently manifesting before the mind — why is this case 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: what is spoken of here is that there is no case, when a never-before-attained mindfulness-foundation is currently manifesting before the mind, capable of cultivating the future, that fails to cultivate the body or feeling — there being no case at all in which a never-before-attained mindfulness-foundation of mind is currently manifesting before the mind, capable of cultivating the future, without cultivating the body or feeling, and it is for this reason that this case is not spoken of. Question: if so, then every scattered wholesome mind, too, ought to be spoken of — why is only a defiled or a neutral mind spoken of? 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: this is not settled and is difficult to state definitively — that is, were one to speak of it as "cultivating," it would lack the force to cultivate the future; and were one to speak of it as "not cultivating," its own manifesting before the mind would still be subsumed under cultivation as habituation,

and it is for this reason that, with respect to both cultivating and not cultivating in this case, nothing at all is said. Just as with the mindfulness-foundations of the body and of feeling, so, too, should it be understood with the mindfulness-foundations of the body and of mind, since the future cultivation or non-cultivation of the mindfulness-foundations of feeling and of mind must always occur together.

Does one who cultivates the mindfulness-foundation of the body thereby cultivate that of dharmas? And does one who cultivates the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas thereby cultivate that of the body? Answer: a full tetralemma must be formed. There is a case of cultivating the mindfulness-foundation of the body but not of dharmas — that is, one in whom the already-attained mindfulness-foundation of the body is currently manifesting before the mind, to be explained as before. There is a case of cultivating the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas but not of the body — that is, one in whom the already-attained mindfulness-foundation of dharmas is currently manifesting before the mind does not thereby cultivate the body if the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of dharmas is currently manifesting before the mind; or one in whom the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of feeling or of mind is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates dharmas but not the body. "One in whom the already-attained mindfulness-foundation of dharmas is currently manifesting before the mind" is to be explained as before. "One in whom the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of dharmas is currently manifesting before the mind, who does not thereby cultivate the body" refers to one at the stage of the initial heat, taking the truth of cessation as its object; or one entering the fixed nature of the noble ones, within the four mind-moments of the direct realization of cessation; or one of the ordinary worldlings who, becoming free of the defilement of the fourth dhyāna, for those who hold that the proximate ground of the sphere of infinite space takes only a comprehensive object, taking that ground as his effortful practice — throughout the stages of that effortful path and within the nine uninterrupted paths and nine paths of liberation — or one of the ordinary worldlings who, becoming free of the defilement of the sphere of infinite space and so on up to the sphere of nothing-whatsoever, taking the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas as his effortful practice — throughout every stage of that effortful path, uninterrupted path, and path of liberation — or one of the ordinary worldlings who gives rise to the formless liberation by way of the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas, and gives rise to the latter two totality-bases — in whom, at such a time, the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of dharmas is currently manifesting before the mind, who does not thereby cultivate the body. "One in whom the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of feeling is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates dharmas but not the body" is to be explained as with the previous case of the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of feeling not thereby cultivating the body. "One in whom the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of mind is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates dharmas but not the body" is to be explained precisely as with feeling. There is a case of cultivating both — that is, one in whom the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of the body is currently manifesting before the mind,

who thereby cultivates dharmas; or one in whom the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of dharmas is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates the body; or one in whom the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of feeling or of mind is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates both the body and dharmas. "One in whom the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of the body is currently manifesting before the mind" is to be explained as with the previous case of the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of the body. "One in whom the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of dharmas is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates the body" is to be explained as with the previous case of the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of dharmas thereby cultivating the body and feeling. "One in whom the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of feeling or of mind is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates both the body and dharmas" refers to

one at the stage of the increasing heat and the increasing summit, in whom the mindfulness-foundation of feeling or of mind is currently manifesting before the mind, or, becoming free of the defilement of the desire realm and so on up to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,

taking the mindfulness-foundation of feeling or of mind as his effortful practice — at the stage of that effortful path — or one liberated by conviction who refines his own faculty into one who has arrived through insight, or one liberated dependent on time who refines his own faculty into the unshakeable type, taking the mindfulness-foundation of feeling or of mind as his effortful practice — at the stage of that effortful path — or one who, drawing forth the superknowledge of the cognition of others' minds, has the mindfulness-foundation of feeling or of mind currently manifesting before the mind, or who engages in the mixed cultivation of dhyāna by way of the mindfulness-foundation of feeling or of mind — for those who hold that every dharma is of ultimate significance, one who gives rise to the unimpeded understanding of meaning or the unimpeded understanding of eloquence by way of the mindfulness-foundation of feeling or of mind, or wish-knowledge, terminal concentration, the formless liberations, or entering the attainment of cessation with the extremely subtle mind of perception — in whom, at such a time, the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of feeling or of mind is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates both the body and dharmas. There is a case of cultivating neither — that is, one in whom the already-attained mindfulness-foundation of feeling or of mind is currently manifesting before the mind does not thereby cultivate the body or dharmas, nor does any defiled mind, or neutral mind, or one within the attainment of no-perception or of cessation, or reborn in the heaven of no-perception — all to be explained as before.

Does one who cultivates the mindfulness-foundation of feeling thereby cultivate that of mind? And does one who cultivates the mindfulness-foundation of mind thereby cultivate that of feeling? Answer: a full tetralemma must be formed. There is a case of cultivating the mindfulness-foundation of feeling but not of mind — that is, one in whom the already-attained mindfulness-foundation of feeling is currently manifesting before the mind. There is a case of cultivating the mindfulness-foundation of mind but not of feeling — that is, one in whom the already-attained mindfulness-foundation of mind is currently manifesting before the mind — all to be explained as before. There is a case of cultivating both — that is, one in whom the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of the body, of feeling, or of mind is currently manifesting before the mind, or one in whom the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of dharmas is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates both feeling and mind. "One in whom the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of the body is currently manifesting before the mind" is to be explained as with every previous case of the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of the body. "One in whom the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of feeling or of mind is currently manifesting before the mind" is to be explained as with every previous case of the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of feeling or of mind. "One in whom the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of dharmas is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates feeling and mind" is to be explained as with every previous case of the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of dharmas thereby cultivating some other mindfulness-foundation. There is a case of cultivating neither — that is, one in whom the already-attained mindfulness-foundation of the body and of dharmas is currently manifesting before the mind does not thereby cultivate feeling or mind if the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of dharmas is currently manifesting before the mind; nor does any defiled mind, or neutral mind, or one within the attainment of no-perception or of cessation, or reborn in the heaven of no-perception. "One in whom the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of dharmas is currently manifesting before the mind, who does not thereby cultivate feeling or mind" is to be explained as with every previous case of the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of dharmas not thereby cultivating some other mindfulness-foundation; the rest is to be explained as before.

Does one who cultivates the mindfulness-foundation of feeling thereby cultivate that of dharmas? And does one who cultivates the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas thereby cultivate that of feeling? Answer: a full tetralemma must be formed. There is a case of cultivating the mindfulness-foundation of feeling but not of dharmas — that is, one in whom the already-attained mindfulness-foundation of feeling is currently manifesting before the mind, to be explained as before. There is a case of cultivating the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas but not of feeling — that is, one in whom the already-attained mindfulness-foundation of dharmas is currently manifesting before the mind does not thereby cultivate feeling if the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of dharmas is currently manifesting before the mind. "One in whom the already-attained mindfulness-foundation of dharmas is currently manifesting before the mind" is to be explained as before. "One in whom the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of dharmas is currently manifesting before the mind, who does not thereby cultivate feeling" is to be explained as with every previous case of the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of dharmas not thereby cultivating some other mindfulness-foundation. There is a case of cultivating both — that is, one in whom the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of the body, of feeling, or of mind is currently manifesting before the mind, or one in whom the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of dharmas is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates feeling. "One in whom the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of the body is currently manifesting before the mind" is to be explained as with every previous case of the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of the body. "One in whom the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of feeling or of mind is currently manifesting before the mind" is to be explained as with every previous case of the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of feeling or of mind. "One in whom the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of dharmas is currently manifesting before the mind, who thereby cultivates feeling" is to be explained as with every previous case of the not-yet-attained mindfulness-foundation of dharmas thereby cultivating some other mindfulness-foundation. There is a case of cultivating neither — that is, one in whom the already-attained mindfulness-foundation of the body and of mind is currently manifesting before the mind does not thereby cultivate feeling or dharmas; nor does any defiled mind, or neutral mind, or one within the attainment of no-perception or of cessation, or reborn in the heaven of no-perception — all to be explained as before. Just as with the mindfulness-foundations of feeling and of dharmas, so, too, should it be understood with the mindfulness-foundations of mind and of dharmas, since the future cultivation or non-cultivation of the mindfulness-foundations of feeling and of mind must always occur together.

Should it be said that the mindfulness-foundation of contemplating the body by way of the body is the cognition of the Dharma? — and so on at length. Question: this passage ought to have spoken of cultivation first — why is this? Because it is only once an intrinsic nature exists that it can be cultivated at all — what, then, is the intention behind not speaking of it first? Answer: the Abhidharma ought to be sought through its characteristic marks, not through sequence — since the Abhidharma's true purpose is to analyze the nature and characteristics of every dharma, provided only that its meaning is not contravened, there is no fault whether a given point is stated first or later. Other masters say: it is in order to display that what is analyzed here is exclusively the mindfulness-foundation accomplished through cultivation, not that accomplished through hearing or reflection, and the like, that

cultivation is spoken of first, and intrinsic nature is clarified only afterward. Should it be said that the mindfulness-foundation of contemplating the body by way of the body is the cognition of the Dharma? It should — namely, that which knows what is bound to the desire realm and a portion of the uncontaminated form. Should it be said to be the subsequent cognition? It should — namely, that which knows what is bound to the form realm and a portion of the uncontaminated form. As for why the cognition of others' minds is not spoken of: the cognition of others' minds knows mind and mental factors, whereas the mindfulness-foundation of the body, being of the dharma of form, knows only form dharmas, and hence it is not spoken of. Should it be said to be the conventional cognition? It should — namely, that which knows every form. Should it be said to be the cognition of suffering? It should — namely, that which knows contaminated form under the modes of activity of impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-self. Should it be said to be the cognition of origin? It should — namely, that which knows contaminated form under the modes of activity of cause, origin, arising, and condition. As for why the cognition of cessation is not spoken of: the cognition of cessation knows only the unconditioned dharma, whereas the mindfulness-foundation of the body knows conditioned dharmas, and hence it is not spoken of. Should it be said to be the cognition of the path? It should — namely, that which knows uncontaminated form under the modes of activity of the path, suchness, practice, and egress. As for why the cognitions of exhaustion and of non-arising are not spoken of here: this is the Views Aggregate, and hence only the cognitions that are of the nature of view are spoken of — those two cognitions, not being of the nature of view, are for this reason not spoken of. Its intrinsic nature having now been clarified,

its ground is next to be clarified. Should it be said to be conjoined with initial inquiry and sustained investigation? It should — namely, relying on the stage not yet attained and the first dhyāna. Should it be said to be without initial inquiry, possessing only sustained investigation? It should — namely, relying on the intermediate dhyāna-stage. Should it be said to be without both initial inquiry and sustained investigation? It should — namely, relying on the upper three dhyānas and the four formless attainments. Its ground having now been clarified, its conjunction is next to be clarified. Should it be said to be conjoined with the pleasure-faculty? It should — namely, relying on the third dhyāna. Should it be said to be conjoined with the joy-faculty? It should — namely, relying on the first and second dhyānas. Should it be said to be conjoined with the equanimity-faculty? It should — namely, relying on the stage not yet attained, the intermediate dhyāna-stage, the fourth dhyāna, and the four formless attainments. Its conjunction having now been clarified, its mode of activity is next to be clarified. Should it be said to be conjoined with the empty concentration? It should — namely, taking up two modes of activity. Should it be said to be conjoined with the wishless concentration? It should —

namely, taking up ten modes of activity. As for why it is not said to be conjoined with the signless concentration: this is to be explained as with the case of the cognition of cessation not being spoken of. Its mode of activity having now been clarified, its objective support is next to be clarified. Should it be said to take as its object what is bound to the desire and form realms? It should — namely, taking suffering and origin as its object. Should it be said to take as its object what is unfettered? It should — namely, taking the path as its object. As for the mindfulness-foundation of contemplating feeling by way of feeling: should it be said to be the cognition of the Dharma? It should — namely, that which knows what is bound to the desire realm and a portion of the uncontaminated feeling. Should it be said to be the subsequent cognition? It should — namely, that which knows what is bound to the form and formless realms and a portion of the uncontaminated feeling. Should it be said to be the cognition of others' minds? It should — namely, that which knows the feeling bound to the desire and form realms, and a portion of the uncontaminated feeling, of another's own mental continuum, currently manifesting before the mind. Should it be said to be the conventional cognition? It should — namely, that which knows every feeling. Should it be said to be the cognition of suffering? It should — namely, that which knows contaminated feeling under the four modes of activity of impermanence and the rest. Should it be said to be the cognition of origin? It should — namely, that which knows contaminated feeling under the four modes of activity of cause and the rest. As for why the cognition of cessation is not spoken of,

this is because the mindfulness-foundation of feeling knows only conditioned dharmas. Should it be said to be the cognition of the path? It should — namely, that which knows uncontaminated feeling under the four modes of activity of the path and the rest. As for why the remaining cognitions are not spoken of, this is to be explained as before. Its intrinsic nature having now been clarified, its ground, conjunction, and mode of activity are all to be explained as before. Its objective support is next to be clarified.

Should it be said to take as its object what is bound to the three realms? It should — namely, taking suffering and origin as its object. Should it be said to take as its object what is unfettered? It should — namely, taking the path as its object. As with feeling, so, too, with mind, since these two share the same objective support at every occurrence. As for the mindfulness-foundation of contemplating dharmas by way of dharmas: should it be said to be the cognition of the Dharma? It should — namely, that which knows formations bound to the desire realm, together with their cause and their cessation, and every dharma belonging to the class of the cognition of the Dharma. Should it be said to be the subsequent cognition? It should — namely, that which knows formations bound to the form and formless realms, together with their cause and their cessation, and every dharma belonging to the class of the subsequent cognition. Should it be said to be the cognition of others' minds? It should — namely, that which knows the mental factors — apart from feeling and mind — bound to the desire and form realms, and a portion of the uncontaminated, of another's own mental continuum, currently manifesting before the mind. Should it be said to be the conventional cognition? It should — namely, that which knows every dharma. Should it be said to be the cognition of suffering? It should — namely, that which knows the five aggregates of grasping under the four modes of activity of impermanence and the rest. Should it be said to be the cognition of origin? It should — namely, that which knows the contaminated cause under the four modes of activity of cause and the rest. Should it be said to be the cognition of cessation? It should — namely, that which knows cessation through discernment under the four modes of activity of cessation and the rest. Should it be said to be the cognition of the path? It should — namely, that which knows the uncontaminated five aggregates under the four modes of activity of the path and the rest. As for why the remaining cognitions are not spoken of, this, too, is to be explained as before. Its intrinsic nature having now been clarified, its ground and conjunction are as already explained. Its mode of activity is next to be clarified. Should it be said to be conjoined with the empty and the wishless concentrations? It should, to be explained as before as well. Should it be said to be conjoined with the signless concentration? It should — namely, taking up four modes of activity. Its mode of activity having now been clarified, its objective support is next to be clarified. Should it be said to take as its object what is bound to the three realms? It should — namely, taking suffering and origin as its object.

Should it be said to take as its object what is unfettered? It should — namely, taking cessation and the path as its object.

As it is said, when one experiences a pleasant feeling, one knows as it really is, "I experience a pleasant feeling" — this by four cognitions, and so on at length. Question: why is it that, here, the mindfulness-foundations of feeling, of mind, and of dharmas are each analyzed a second time, while the mindfulness-foundation of the body is analyzed only once? Answer: this is simply because the author of the treatise intended it so,

and so on at length. Some say: here, too, the World-Honored One ought likewise to have said, when one walks, stands, and so on, one knows as it really is, "I am walking, I am standing," and so on, by these four cognitions, and so on at length — what, then, is the intention behind his not saying so? Answer: whatever dharma is subtle, difficult to see, difficult to perceive, and unclear, and not manifestly seen, is analyzed a second time; the mindfulness-foundation of the body, being coarse and manifest, and hence manifestly seen, is for this reason not analyzed a second time. Some say:

whatever, in reliance upon that dharma, gives rise to various dissimilar and differing marks of textual expression, and to a differing cognition, is analyzed a second time as with the mindfulness-foundation of the body; whatever, when analyzed, involves no difference of textual expression and no difference of cognition, is for this reason not analyzed a second time. Question: when one experiences a pleasant feeling, one does not thereby know it as it really is; and when one knows it as it really is, one is not thereby experiencing a pleasant feeling — why is this? Because, when one experiences a pleasant feeling, that feeling is present, and it is not at that very moment that one is able to know it as it really is,

since it does not accord with cognition, there being no case of two classes of mind operating together. When one knows it as it really is, that feeling has already passed into the past or lies in the future, and it is not at that moment named "experiencing a pleasant feeling," since it no longer has any function. The same holds, correspondingly, for painful feeling and for neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. Why, then, does the Buddha say that, when one experiences a pleasant feeling, one knows as it really is, "I experience a pleasant feeling," and so on? Some say: here, it ought to have been said instead: having experienced a pleasant feeling, one knows as it really is, "I have already experienced a pleasant feeling"; having experienced a painful feeling or a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, one knows as it really is, "I have already experienced a painful feeling or a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling" — what, then, is the intention behind not saying it in this way? It should be understood that, here, what has already been experienced is named "experiencing," applying a term for the present to what has already occurred in the past — just as one asks, "great king, from which direction have you come?" and, though he has already arrived, this is still spoken of by naming it "coming"; or as it is said that the bodhisattva, upon entering the fixed nature of the noble ones, attains the conventional cognition bordering on direct realization —

this, too, is spoken of by naming what has already entered as "entering"; it is the same in this case. The Venerable Vasumitra said: feelings that lie in the past or the future cannot be experienced at all, and, even in the present, they merely operate according to their own intrinsic nature and likewise cannot be experienced — how, then, can it be said that one experiences pleasure or pain? It should be understood that this is spoken with reference to observing the continuous succession of pleasant or painful circumstances — that is, observing the continuous succession of pleasant circumstances, one says, "I experience pleasure"; observing the continuous succession of painful circumstances, one says, "I experience pain."

Furthermore, this is spoken with reference to observing the continuous succession of the causes and conditions of pleasure and pain — that is, observing the continuous succession of causes and conditions that gather and sustain, one says, "I experience pleasure"; observing the continuous succession of causes and conditions that harm and injure, one says, "I experience pain." Furthermore, in the midst of the continuous operation of these feelings in succession, one repeatedly gives rise to a mental consciousness taking that objective realm as its object, and thereupon judges whether this is beneficial or harmful to its own basis, and it is on this account that one says, "I now experience pleasure or pain." The Bhadanta said: it is with reference to the continuous operation of the great elements underlying pleasant or painful feeling that one judges this to be "feeling," and it is on this account that one says, "I now experience pleasure or pain."

As it is said, when one experiences a pleasant feeling, one knows as it really is, "I experience a pleasant feeling" — these four cognitions being the cognition of the Dharma, the subsequent cognition, the conventional cognition, and the cognition of the path. Question: why is the cognition of others' minds not spoken of here? Answer: the cognition of others' minds knows the mind and mental factors of another's own mental continuum, whereas what is here called "knowing as it really is" knows the mind and mental factors of one's own mental continuum, and hence it is not spoken of. Furthermore, the cognition of others' minds knows present mind and mental factors, whereas what is here called "knowing as it really is" knows past mind and mental factors. Furthermore, the cognition of others' minds knows only mind and mental factors, whereas what is here called "knowing as it really is" also knows the support and the object of mind and mental factors. Furthermore, the cognition of others' minds takes each single dharma as its object one at a time, whereas what is here called "knowing as it really is" also takes many dharmas comprehensively as its object all at once — and it is for these reasons that the cognition of others' minds is not spoken of. Question: further, why are the cognitions of suffering and of origin not spoken of here? Some say: these, too, ought to be spoken of here, and that they are not spoken of should be understood as having a further significance to it. Some say: the cognitions of suffering and of origin are cognitions whose mode of activity is aversion, whereas what is here called "knowing as it really is" is a cognition whose mode of activity is delight, and hence they are not spoken of. Some say: the cognitions of suffering and of origin take as their object what is to be shunned, whereas what is here called "knowing as it really is" takes as its object what is to be delighted in.

Some say: the cognitions of suffering and of origin operate by despising their object, whereas what is here called "knowing as it really is" operates by loving and delighting in its object. Some say: what is spoken of here is knowing as it really is the contaminated and uncontaminated mind and mental factors; yet the contaminated mind and mental factors have, from beginningless time, been known again and again, and, being coarse, near at hand, and easy to comprehend, when the conventional cognition arises, it is able to comprehend them without needing to await the arising of an uncontaminated cognition — and it is for this reason that there is no case of setting aside the conventional cognition in order to know them by the cognitions of suffering and of origin instead. The uncontaminated mind and mental factors, by contrast, have never been known before, and, being subtle and difficult to comprehend, it is only upon the arising of an uncontaminated cognition that one is able to know them.

It is for this reason that, here, the contaminated mind and mental factors are known as they really are by the conventional cognition alone, while the uncontaminated mind and mental factors are known as they really are by the remaining three cognitions — and it is on this account that the cognitions of suffering and of origin are not said to be present here. Some say: what is spoken of here is knowing as they really are the distinct particular instances of the contaminated and uncontaminated mind and mental factors. As for the contaminated: once the conventional cognition arises, one thereby knows them, and one does not further give rise to the cognitions of suffering and of origin, since these are difficult to give rise to, and, moreover, when they do arise, they know only the shared characteristic. As for the uncontaminated: since the conventional cognition arising is unable to know them, one thereupon gives rise to the cognition of the path — yet, although the arising of the cognition of the path does not, as with the former case, know each particular instance alone, it nevertheless knows the distinct particular matter by way of the shared characteristic, and hence there is the cognition of the path but not the cognitions of suffering and of origin. Some say: what is spoken of here is knowing as they really are the distinct modes of activity of the contaminated and uncontaminated mind and mental factors. Yet the contaminated mind and mental factors are, for the most part, not of a mode of activity that takes a truth as its object, and, even where such a mode of activity exists, it has not yet been well accomplished — and hence it is only by the conventional cognition, in a mode of activity not taking a truth as its object, that their distinct modes of activity are known as they really are. The uncontaminated mind and mental factors, by contrast, are entirely of a mode of activity that takes a truth as its object, and this has been extremely well accomplished — and hence it is, instead, by the cognition of the path, in a mode of activity taking a truth as its object, that their distinct modes of activity are known as they really are. It is for this reason that the cognitions of suffering and of origin are absent here. As for why the cognitions of exhaustion and of non-arising are not spoken of: this is the Views Aggregate, and hence only the cognitions that are of the nature of view are spoken of — those two cognitions, not being of the nature of view, are for this reason not spoken of. Here, "the cognition of the Dharma" refers to that which knows pleasant feeling belonging to the class of the cognition of the Dharma; "the subsequent cognition" refers to that which knows pleasant feeling belonging to the class of the subsequent cognition; "the conventional cognition" refers to that which knows contaminated pleasant feeling;

and "the cognition of the path" refers to that which knows uncontaminated pleasant feeling. Although there is no single instance of pleasant feeling known by all four cognitions at once — since a contaminated instance is known by only one cognition —

and an uncontaminated instance is known by three cognitions — it is nevertheless said, speaking generally, that pleasant feeling is known as it really is by four cognitions. Some say: uncontaminated pleasant feeling is in fact known by all four cognitions. When one experiences a painful feeling, one knows as it really is that one experiences a painful feeling by a single cognition alone — namely, the conventional cognition — since painful feeling, being exclusively contaminated, is known by the conventional cognition alone. When one experiences a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, one knows as it really is that one experiences a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling by four cognitions — namely, the cognition of the Dharma, the subsequent cognition, the conventional cognition, and the cognition of the path — to be explained as with the knowledge of pleasant feeling.