The Terminal Feeling at Death

When one experiences a pleasant bodily feeling, a painful bodily feeling, a neither-painful-nor-pleasant bodily feeling, or a painful mental feeling, one knows it as it really is by a single cognition alone — namely, the conventional cognition — since every bodily feeling and every painful mental feeling is exclusively contaminated, and hence only the conventional cognition arises to know it as it really is. When one experiences a pleasant mental feeling or a neither-painful-nor-pleasant mental feeling, one knows it as it really is by these four cognitions — namely, the cognition of the Dharma, the subsequent cognition, the conventional cognition, and the cognition of the path — since these two mental feelings extend to both the contaminated and the uncontaminated, and are hence known by four cognitions, to be explained at length as above. Question: here, what is named bodily feeling, and what is named mental feeling? Answer: feeling that occurs within the five sense-consciousness bodies is named bodily feeling; feeling that occurs at the stage of mind is named mental feeling. Furthermore, feeling without discrimination is named bodily feeling; feeling with discrimination is named mental feeling. Furthermore, feeling that takes a self-characteristic object is named bodily feeling; feeling that takes an object of both self- and shared-characteristic is named mental feeling. Furthermore, feeling that takes a present object is named bodily feeling; feeling that takes an object belonging to any of the three times, or to no time at all, is named mental feeling. Furthermore, feeling that takes a single discrete thing as its object is named bodily feeling; feeling that takes either a single discrete thing or a combination of things as its object is named mental feeling. Furthermore, feeling that settles upon its object only once is named bodily feeling; feeling that settles upon its object again and again is named mental feeling. Furthermore, feeling that operates spontaneously with respect to its object is named bodily feeling; feeling that operates through deliberation is named mental feeling. Furthermore, feeling whose support is form and whose object is form is named bodily feeling;

feeling whose support is not form, and whose object is either form or non-form, is named mental feeling.

Just as with form and non-form, so, too, is it to be explained at length with resistant and non-resistant, aggregated and non-aggregated, and combined and uncombined. The Venerable Vasumitra said: as the Buddha states, at that time he experiences two kinds of feeling — namely, bodily feeling and mental feeling. What is bodily feeling?

What is mental feeling? Answer: there is, in fact, no feeling that is bodily feeling — every feeling alike is mental feeling, since it is invariably conjoined with mind. Yet feeling that operates in reliance on the five [sense] faculties is named bodily feeling, since the body is invariably its predominant condition; feeling that operates in reliance on the mental faculty is named mental feeling, since mind is invariably its predominant condition. He further says: there is no feeling that is bodily feeling — every feeling alike is mental feeling, since it is conjoined with mind. Yet feeling that operates in reliance on the three faculties that take an object in direct contact is named bodily feeling, since it invariably forms a perception,

while feeling that operates in reliance on the three faculties that take an object not in direct contact is named mental feeling, since it does not invariably form a perception. The Bhadanta said: is whatever is bodily feeling thereby also mental feeling? Answer: whatever is bodily feeling is indeed also mental feeling; but there is what is mental feeling yet not bodily feeling — that is, whatever speculates about external matters, forms a mark internally, and, with respect to a given matter, grasps at a person, or takes the form subsumed under the dharma-sphere, the formations dissociated from mind, or the mark of the unconditioned —

feeling of this class is entirely named mental feeling, since it operates by discriminating with respect to an object that does not truly exist. This, then, is what distinguishes bodily feeling from mental feeling.

When one experiences a pleasant feeling with relish, a painful feeling with relish, a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling with relish, or a painful feeling without relish, one knows it as it really is

by a single cognition alone — namely, the conventional cognition — since every feeling with relish, and painful feeling without relish, is contaminated, and hence only the conventional cognition arises to know it as it really is. When one experiences a pleasant feeling without relish or a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling without relish, one knows it as it really is by four cognitions — namely, the cognition of the Dharma, the subsequent cognition, the conventional cognition, and the cognition of the path — since these two kinds of feeling without relish extend to both the contaminated and the uncontaminated, and are hence known by four cognitions, to be explained at length as above. Here, "relish" refers to the nature of craving's own delight and attachment — feeling that serves as a resting-place for that craving is named feeling with relish. Some say: "relish" refers to the nature of clinging and attachment belonging to every affliction — feeling that serves as a resting-place for these is named feeling with relish; feeling that does not serve as a resting-place for craving, or for every affliction, is named feeling without relish. Question: if so, then every painful feeling ought to be named "with relish," since all of it is able to serve as a resting-place for craving or for every affliction. And, as the Prakaraṇapāda states, what is the dharma with relish? It is every contaminated dharma. What is the dharma without relish? It is every uncontaminated dharma. Why, then, is it said here that there exists a painful feeling without relish? Answer: although painful feeling is contaminated, it does possess a small measure of the nature of a basis without relish, and it is with reference to this that painful feeling is spoken of as having a basis without relish — that is, it possesses a nature that runs contrary to affliction, and does not mix with affliction. Other masters say: although painful feeling is entirely contaminated, there exists a kind that is able to draw forth an uncontaminated feeling without relish, in accordance with ultimate significance, and it is with reference to this that painful feeling without relish is spoken of, since it is able temporarily to subdue every relish.

When one experiences a pleasant feeling with an addictive basis, a painful feeling with an addictive basis, a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling with an addictive basis, or a painful feeling with a renunciate basis, one knows it as it really is by a single cognition alone — namely, the conventional cognition — since every feeling with an addictive basis, and painful feeling with a renunciate basis, is contaminated, and hence only the conventional cognition arises to know it as it really is. When one experiences a pleasant feeling with a renunciate basis or a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling with a renunciate basis, one knows it as it really is by these four cognitions — namely, the cognition of the Dharma, the subsequent cognition, the conventional cognition, and the cognition of the path — to be explained as before. Here, "addiction" refers to the nature of craving's own attachment — feeling that serves as a resting-place for that craving is named feeling with an addictive basis. Some say: "addiction" refers to the nature of clinging belonging to every affliction — feeling that serves as a resting-place for these is named feeling with an addictive basis; painful feeling that does not serve as a resting-place for craving, or for every affliction, is named feeling with a renunciate basis. Question: if so, then every painful feeling ought to be named "with an addictive basis," since all of it is able to serve as a resting-place for craving or for every affliction. And, as the Prakaraṇapāda states, what is the dharma with an addictive basis? It is every contaminated dharma. What is the dharma with a renunciate basis? It is every uncontaminated dharma. Why, then, is it said here that there exists a painful feeling with a renunciate basis? Answer: although painful feeling is contaminated, it does possess a small measure of the nature of a renunciate basis,

and it is with reference to this that painful feeling with a renunciate basis is spoken of — that is, it possesses a nature that runs contrary to affliction, and does not mix with affliction. Other masters say: although painful feeling is entirely contaminated, there exists a kind that is able to draw forth an uncontaminated feeling with a renunciate basis, in accordance with ultimate significance, and it is with reference to this that painful feeling with a renunciate basis is spoken of, since it is able temporarily to subdue every addiction.

As it is said, one, having a mind with craving, knows as it really is that one has a mind with craving — and so on at length. There are two senses in which a mind is named "with craving": first, that craving is mixed together with it; and second, that it is bound by craving. Some say: here, the treatise is composed with reference to a mind with craving in the sense of being mixed with it. Some say: here, the treatise is composed with reference to both senses of a mind with craving. Why is this? Because, were the treatise composed with reference solely to the sense of being mixed with craving, then a contaminated wholesome mind,

and a neutral, unobscured mind, and the like, ought likewise to be named a mind free of craving; yet these, too, are in fact a mind with craving, since they are bound by craving. Just as with a mind with craving, so, too, should it be understood with a mind with hatred, and the rest. Here, it is because a mind is bound by craving that it is named a mind with craving, and it is because craving is counteracted that it is named a mind free of craving — this explanation is preferable, namely, that it is bound by craving that it is named a mind with craving, and it is because craving is counteracted that it is named a mind free of craving. Were it said, instead, that it is because a mind is conjoined with craving that it is named a mind with craving, and because it is not conjoined with craving that it is named a mind free of craving, then a mind conjoined with some other affliction, not conjoined with craving, ought likewise to be named a mind free of craving; yet this, too, is in fact a mind with craving, since it is bound by craving. Were it said that it is because a mind is conjoined with craving that it is named a mind with craving, and it is because craving is counteracted that it is named a mind free of craving, then a defiled mind not conjoined with craving, and a portion of the neutral, unobscured wholesome mind, ought to be neither a mind with craving nor a mind free of craving; yet these, too, are in fact a mind with craving, since they are bound by craving. One, having a mind with craving, knows as it really is that one has a mind with craving, by a single cognition alone — namely, the conventional cognition. One, having a mind free of craving, knows as it really is that one has a mind free of craving, by these four cognitions — namely, the cognition of the Dharma, the subsequent cognition, the conventional cognition, and the cognition of the path — all to be explained as before. It is because a mind is bound by hatred that it is named a mind with hatred, and it is because hatred is counteracted that it is named a mind free of hatred, to be explained at length as with craving. One, having a mind with hatred, knows as it really is that one has a mind with hatred, by a single cognition alone — namely, the conventional cognition — to be explained as before. One, having a mind free of hatred, knows as it really is that one has a mind free of hatred, by these three cognitions — namely, the cognition of the Dharma, the conventional cognition, and the cognition of the path. Here, this is spoken with reference to the proximate counteraction, and hence the subsequent cognition is not mentioned, since the path belonging to the class of the subsequent cognition is not the proximate counteraction for the desire realm; the rest is to be explained as before. It is because a mind is bound by delusion that it is named a mind with delusion, and it is because delusion is counteracted that it is named a mind free of delusion — this explanation is preferable, namely, that it is because a mind is bound by delusion that it is named a mind with delusion, and it is because delusion is counteracted that it is named a mind free of delusion. Were it said, instead, that it is because a mind is conjoined with delusion that it is named a mind with delusion, and because it is not conjoined with delusion that it is named a mind free of delusion, then a portion of the neutral, unobscured wholesome mind ought likewise to be named a mind free of delusion; yet this, too, is in fact named a mind with delusion, since it is bound by delusion. Were it said that it is because a mind is conjoined with delusion that it is named a mind with delusion, and it is because delusion is counteracted that it is named a mind free of delusion, then a portion of the neutral, unobscured wholesome mind ought to be neither a mind with delusion nor a mind free of delusion; yet this, too, is in fact a mind with delusion, since it is bound by delusion. One, having a mind with delusion, knows as it really is that one has a mind with delusion, by a single cognition alone — namely, the conventional cognition. One, having a mind free of delusion, knows as it really is that one has a mind free of delusion, by these four cognitions — namely, the cognition of the Dharma, the subsequent cognition, the conventional cognition, and the cognition of the path — to be explained as before. As for "a defiled mind": this refers to a defiled mind, since it is conjoined with affliction. As for "an undefiled mind": this refers to a wholesome mind, since it runs contrary to affliction. Some say: a wholesome mind and a neutral, unobscured mind are both alike named an undefiled mind, since neither is conjoined with affliction. One knows as it really is a defiled mind by a single cognition alone — namely, the conventional cognition. One knows as it really is an undefiled mind by these 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 mind with delusion and the mind free of delusion above. As for "a contracted mind": this refers to a wholesome mind, since it gathers itself in briefly with respect to its object. As for "a scattered mind": this refers to a defiled mind, since it races and scatters with respect to its object. One knows as it really is a contracted mind by these four cognitions — namely, the cognition of the Dharma, the subsequent cognition, the conventional cognition, and the cognition of the path. One knows as it really is a scattered mind by a single cognition alone — namely, the conventional cognition — each correspondingly to be explained as before. Masters outside Kashmir say: "a contracted mind" refers to a mind conjoined with sleep, since it is said that a mind contracted is named sleep — as it is said, what is sleep? It is that which, possessing dreams, is unable to sustain the body and mind, its nature being one of contraction. Question: if so, then how is what is stated here to be reconciled — as it is said, one knows as it really is a contracted mind by these four cognitions, and so on at length? Answer: this passage ought instead to be stated as follows: one knows as it really is a contracted mind, a scattered mind, or a low mind by a single cognition alone — namely, the conventional cognition; one knows as it really is an uplifted mind by these four cognitions, as already stated. Assessment: this ought not to be said in this way,

since, were it said in this way, then a defiled mind conjoined with sleep ought likewise to be named a contracted mind, on account of being conjoined with sleep, and would also be named a scattered mind, on account of being defiled — and it should therefore be understood that the earlier explanation is preferable. As for "a low mind": this refers to a defiled mind, since it is conjoined with indolence. As for "an uplifted mind": this refers to a wholesome mind, since it is conjoined with diligence. One knows as it really is a low mind by a single cognition alone — namely, the conventional cognition. One knows as it really is an uplifted mind by these four cognitions — namely, the cognition of the Dharma, the subsequent cognition, the conventional cognition, and the cognition of the path — to be explained as before. As for "a small mind": this refers to a defiled mind, since it is habituated by only a small class of birth. As for "a great mind": this refers to a wholesome mind, since it is habituated by a great class of birth. Question: it is presently observed that immeasurable sentient beings commit evil, while few sentient beings habituate the wholesome — how, then, can a defiled mind be said to be habituated by only a small class of birth? Answer: here, "small" is not named with reference to the number of its kind, but rather with reference to the smallness of pure dharmas — that is, what is habituated by a birth possessing few pure dharmas is named a small mind, and what is habituated by a birth possessing many pure dharmas is named a great mind. It is for this reason that, throughout the entire ocean of birth-and-death, only the Buddha, who cultivates wholesome dharmas extensively, is named great — not every sentient being. Some say: a defiled mind is obtained at little cost, and hence is named small; a wholesome mind is obtained at great cost, and hence is named great — that is, a defiled mind, from a small cause and a small effort, is able to give rise to boundless improper mental applications, causing affliction and evil conduct to arise like a flowing river, whereas a wholesome mind is not so: even were one to relinquish hundreds and thousands of treasures, it may or may not arise. Some say: a defiled mind possesses few roots, and hence is named small; a wholesome mind possesses many roots, and hence is named great — that is, a defiled mind may possess only a single root, or at most two, whereas a wholesome mind is invariably complete with all three roots. Some say: a defiled mind involves the concomitant operation of fewer aggregates, and hence is named small; a wholesome mind involves the concomitant operation of more aggregates, and hence is named great — that is, a defiled mind operates concomitantly with only three aggregates, whereas a wholesome mind operates concomitantly with either three or four aggregates.

Some say: a defiled mind has fewer accompanying retinue-factors, and hence is named small; a wholesome mind has more accompanying retinue-factors, and hence is named great — that is, a defiled mind possesses no future cultivation, whereas a wholesome mind does possess future cultivation. Some say: a defiled mind has a weaker counteraction, and hence is named small; a wholesome mind has a stronger counteraction, and hence is named great — just as, in a single moment, the patient acceptance of the cognition of the Dharma of suffering arises, able all at once and permanently to sever the ten latent tendencies abandoned by seeing suffering in the desire realm, and the like —

this single force is superior to that of all those latent tendencies combined, just as a single mighty warrior is able to subdue a thousand men — yet there is no single moment of a defiled mind's arising that possesses any such power. Furthermore, whatever serves as the leader among defiled minds is lacking in eye and foot — that leader being precisely ignorance, as it is said that, with ignorance as the leader, as the antecedent cause, boundless kinds of unwholesome and evil dharmas arise, together with their own class, shamelessness and lack of conscience; whereas whatever serves as the leader among wholesome minds is complete with eye and foot — that leader being precisely illumination, as it is said that, with illumination as the leader, as the antecedent cause, boundless kinds of wholesome dharmas arise, together with their own class, a sense of shame and of conscience. Furthermore, unwholesome dharmas habituated from beginningless time are permanently severed by a mere momentary habituation of the wholesome — just as a room in which darkness has accumulated for a long time is instantly dispelled by the momentary shining of a lamp's light, or just as a notion of "no salt," habituated for a long time, is instantly relinquished the moment one tastes salt; it is the same here — whereas there is no such case of the unwholesome severing the wholesome. Furthermore, the wholesome is able either permanently to subdue, or permanently to sever, the unwholesome, whereas the unwholesome is not able to do the same to the wholesome. It is for reasons such as these that a defiled mind is named small and a wholesome mind is named great. One knows as it really is a small mind by a single cognition alone — namely, the conventional cognition. One knows as it really is a great mind by these four cognitions — namely, the cognition of the Dharma, the subsequent cognition, the conventional cognition, and the cognition of the path — all to be explained as before. As for "an agitated mind": this refers to a defiled mind, since it is conjoined with restlessness. As for "an unagitated mind": this refers to a wholesome mind, since it is conjoined with calm-abiding. One knows as it really is an agitated mind by a single cognition alone — namely, the conventional cognition. One knows as it really is an unagitated mind by these four cognitions — namely, the cognition of the Dharma, the subsequent cognition, the conventional cognition, and the cognition of the path — all to be explained as before. As for "a non-tranquil mind": this refers to a defiled mind, since it is invariably clamorous and turbulent. As for "a tranquil mind": this refers to a wholesome mind, since it turns its back on clamor and turbulence. One knows as it really is a non-tranquil mind by a single cognition alone — namely, the conventional cognition. One knows as it really is a tranquil mind by these four cognitions — namely, the cognition of the Dharma, the subsequent cognition, the conventional cognition, and the cognition of the path — all to be explained as before. As for "a non-concentrated mind": this refers to a defiled mind, since it is conjoined with distraction. As for "a concentrated mind": this refers to a wholesome mind, since it turns its back on distraction. One knows as it really is a non-concentrated mind by a single cognition alone — namely, the conventional cognition. One knows as it really is a concentrated mind by these four cognitions — namely, the cognition of the Dharma, the subsequent cognition, the conventional cognition, and the cognition of the path — all to be explained as before. As for "a non-cultivated mind": this refers to a mind that is neither cultivation as attainment nor cultivation as habituation. As for "a cultivated mind": this refers to a mind that is cultivation as attainment, as habituation, or both, or either one. One knows as it really is a non-cultivated mind by a single cognition alone — namely, the conventional cognition. One knows as it really is a cultivated mind by these four cognitions — namely, the cognition of the Dharma, the subsequent cognition, the conventional cognition, and the cognition of the path — all to be explained as before. As for "a non-liberated mind": this refers to a mind that is neither liberated in its own intrinsic nature nor liberated in its own continuum. As for "a liberated mind": this refers to a mind that is liberated in its own intrinsic nature, or in its own continuum, or both, or either one. One knows as it really is a non-liberated mind by a single cognition alone — namely, the conventional cognition. One knows as it really is a liberated mind by these four cognitions — namely, the cognition of the Dharma, the subsequent cognition, the conventional cognition, and the cognition of the path — all to be explained as before.

As it is said, there is an internal hindrance of sensual desire — and so on at length. In this noble teaching, "internal" is of two kinds: first, named internal because it is subsumed under the internal spheres, as it is said, these six internal spheres, and so on at length; and second, named internal because it is subsumed under one's own mental continuum, as it is said, dwelling in the contemplation of the body by way of the body internally, and so on at length. Here, the treatise is composed with reference to the internal as one's own continuum, not the internal as a sphere. Why is this? Were the treatise composed with reference to the internal as a sphere, it ought not to speak of an internal hindrance of sensual desire, and the like, since the hindrance of sensual desire and the rest are all subsumed under the external dharma-sphere. Yet, although these belong to an external sphere, they are named internal on account of being subsumed under one's own mental continuum. As it is said, there is an internal hindrance of sensual desire — one knows as it really is that there is an internal hindrance of sensual desire by a single cognition alone — namely, the conventional cognition. Here, "there is" means that the hindrance of sensual desire is currently manifest and obtainable within one's own mental continuum, or that one has not yet become free of it and possesses it, or that its counteraction has not yet arisen. As for this being known by a single cognition: since it is contaminated, only the conventional cognition arises, and it is thereby known as it really is. One knows as it really is that there is no internal hindrance of sensual desire by these three cognitions — namely, the cognition of the Dharma, the conventional cognition, and the cognition of the path. Here, "there is none" means that the hindrance of sensual desire is not currently manifest and obtainable within one's own mental continuum, or that one has already become free of it and lost it, or that its counteraction has already arisen. As for this being known by these three cognitions: the hindrance of sensual desire, being bound exclusively to the desire realm, has as its proximate counteraction a path that does not belong to the class of the subsequent cognition. As for an internal hindrance of sensual desire not yet arisen thereafter arising — one knows this as it really is by a single cognition alone, namely, the conventional cognition. Here, "not yet arisen thereafter arising" means that, on account of this or that cause and this or that condition, the internal hindrance of sensual desire arises. As for this being known by a single cognition: this is to be explained as before. As for it having arisen thereupon being severed, and, once severed, never again arising — one knows this as it really is by these three cognitions — namely, the cognition of the Dharma, the conventional cognition, and the cognition of the path. Here, "having arisen, thereupon being severed" means that the counteraction to it has already arisen, and the hindrance of sensual desire is severed; "once severed, never again arising" means either that it will never arise again at all, or that, up until one regresses from that counteraction, it does not arise. As for this being known by these three cognitions, this is to be explained as before. Just as with the hindrance of sensual desire, so, too, should it be understood with the hindrances of ill will, sloth-and-torpor, restlessness-and-remorse, and doubt, since these, too, are all bound to the desire realm.

As it is said, there is an internal fetter of the eye — one knows as it really is that there is an internal fetter of the eye by a single cognition alone, namely, the conventional cognition. Here, too, the treatise is composed with reference to the internal as one's own continuum, not the internal as a sphere, to be explained at length as already stated above. "There is" likewise means that the fetter of the eye is currently manifest and obtainable within one's own mental continuum, or that one has not yet become free of it and possesses it, or that its counteraction has not yet arisen — as for this being known by a single cognition, this is to be explained as before. One knows as it really is that there is no internal fetter of the eye by these four cognitions — namely, the cognition of the Dharma, the subsequent cognition, the conventional cognition, and the cognition of the path. Here, "there is none" likewise means that the fetter of the eye is not currently manifest and obtainable within one's own mental continuum, or that one has already become free of it and lost it, or that its counteraction has already arisen. As for this being known by these four cognitions: the internal fetter of the eye, being bound to the desire and form realms, has as its proximate counteraction a path belonging to the class of both the cognition of the Dharma and the subsequent cognition. As for an internal fetter of the eye not yet arisen thereafter arising — one knows this as it really is by a single cognition alone, namely, the conventional cognition. Here, "not yet arisen thereafter arising" means that, on account of this or that cause and this or that condition, the internal fetter of the eye arises — as for this being known by a single cognition, this is to be explained as before. As for it having arisen thereupon being severed, and, once severed, never again arising — one knows this as it really is by these four cognitions — namely, the cognition of the Dharma, the subsequent cognition, the conventional cognition, and the cognition of the path. Here, "having arisen, thereupon being severed" means that the counteraction to it has already arisen, and the internal fetter of the eye is severed; "once severed, never again arising" means either that it will never arise again at all, or that, up until one regresses from that counteraction, it does not arise — as for this being known by these four cognitions, this is to be explained as before. Just as with the fetter of the eye, so, too, should it be understood with the fetters of the ear, the body, and the mind, since their proximate counteraction, too, belongs to the class of both the cognition of the Dharma and the subsequent cognition. The fetters of the nose and the tongue are to be explained as with the hindrances, since these, too, are bound exclusively to the desire realm. As it is said, there is an internal mindfulness awakening-factor — one knows as it really is that there is an internal mindfulness awakening-factor by these four cognitions — namely, the cognition of the Dharma, the subsequent cognition, the conventional cognition, and the cognition of the path. Here, "there is" means that the mindfulness awakening-factor is currently manifest and obtainable within one's own mental continuum, or that one already possesses it and has attained it, or that the obstruction it counteracts has already been severed. As for this being known by these four cognitions: some say that, here, the true mindfulness awakening-factor is known by three cognitions — namely, the cognition of the Dharma, the subsequent cognition, and the cognition of the path — while the similar mindfulness awakening-factor is known by a single cognition alone — namely, the conventional cognition. Some say: here, only the true mindfulness awakening-factor is spoken of, and this is known by four cognitions — that is, the conventional cognition knows it without full clarity, while the cognition of the Dharma, the subsequent cognition, and the cognition of the path know it with full clarity. One knows as it really is that there is no internal mindfulness awakening-factor by a single cognition alone, namely, the conventional cognition. Here, "there is none" means that the mindfulness awakening-factor is not currently manifest and obtainable within one's own mental continuum, or that one does not yet possess it and has not attained it, or that the obstruction it counteracts has not yet been severed — as for this being known by a single cognition, this is as already stated. As for a mindfulness awakening-factor not yet arisen thereafter arising,

having arisen, abiding without forgetting, causing it to become perfectly complete, redoubled, and vastly extended, and bearing witness through cognition — one knows this as it really is by these four cognitions — namely, the cognition of the Dharma, the subsequent cognition, the conventional cognition, and the cognition of the path. Here, "not yet arisen thereafter arising" means that, on account of this or that cause and this or that condition, the internal mindfulness awakening-factor arises. As for "having arisen, abiding without forgetting," and the rest: question — since a given dharma arises and, in that same instant, ceases, and, after that very moment, it necessarily does not abide — how can it be said that, having arisen, it abides without forgetting, and the rest? Answer: what is spoken of here are two kinds of wholesome root — namely, that conducive to abiding, and that conducive to further advancement. "Having arisen, abiding without forgetting" refers to the wholesome root conducive to abiding; "having arisen, causing it to become perfectly complete, redoubled, and vastly extended" refers to the wholesome root conducive to further advancement. As for the four cognitions, this is to be explained as before. Just as with the mindfulness awakening-factor, so, too, should it be understood with the awakening-factors of investigation of dharmas, diligence, joy, pliancy, concentration, and equanimity, since these are of the same class. Question: the joy awakening-factor is precisely feeling, already contemplated earlier within the mindfulness-foundation of feeling — why, then, is it contemplated once again here? Answer: earlier, it was contemplated through the approach of the mindfulness-foundation of feeling; here, it is contemplated through the approach of the mindfulness-foundation of dharmas. Furthermore, earlier it was contemplated alone; here, it is contemplated together with the other awakening-factors. Furthermore, earlier its own self-characteristic was contemplated; here, its shared characteristic is contemplated. Furthermore, earlier both the contaminated and the uncontaminated were contemplated; here, only the uncontaminated is contemplated. Some say:

here, too, both the contaminated and the uncontaminated are contemplated, since both the true and the similar awakening-factors are contemplated comprehensively.

As it is said, one, contemplating in turn one's own increase of craving, hatred, and delusion — and so on at length. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: it is in order to analyze the meaning of a sūtra passage — as a sūtra states, when monks and nuns, contemplating in turn, observe their own increase of craving, they should know that this is what the Buddha names the regression of wholesome dharmas, and the same holds for hatred and delusion; although the sūtra speaks in this way, it does not analyze at length what constitutes an increase of craving, and so on up to delusion — that sūtra is the root on which this treatise depends, and what it leaves unanalyzed must now be analyzed, and it is for this reason that this treatise is composed. What constitutes an increase of craving, hatred, and delusion? Answer: where there is the weak entanglement of craving, hatred, and delusion, the middling arises; where there is the middling, the superior arises — this is named increase. Here, some say:

the treatise is composed with reference to the increase of craving, hatred, and delusion as observed in the world. As for the increase of craving: as when a man, at the stage of boyhood, gives rise to the weak entanglement of craving;

at the stage of youth, he gives rise to the middling entanglement of craving; and at the stage of his prime, he gives rise to the superior entanglement of craving — and the same holds with respect to his own wife. As for the increase of hatred: as when men, quarreling back and forth, before uttering harsh words, give rise to the weak entanglement of hatred; upon uttering harsh words, they give rise to the middling entanglement of hatred; and, harboring a grudge and plotting harm, they give rise to the superior entanglement of hatred. As for the increase of delusion: as when a man, born into a heretical household, before having studied its texts and treatises, gives rise to the weak entanglement of delusion; having studied them but not yet penetrated their meaning, he gives rise to the middling entanglement of delusion; and, having thoroughly penetrated them, he gives rise to the superior entanglement of delusion. Some say: here, the treatise is composed with reference to the principle of relative comparison — that is, it is with reference to the inferior grade of the entanglement of craving that the middling is posited, and with reference to the middling that the superior is posited — and the same holds for hatred and delusion. Some say: here, the treatise is composed with reference to regression — that is, it is by regressing from the inferior grade of the entanglement of craving that the middling arises, and by regressing from the middling that the superior arises — and the same holds for hatred and delusion.

As it is said, one, contemplating in turn one's own decrease of craving, hatred, and delusion — and so on at length. Question: why is this further treatise composed? Answer: it is in order to analyze the remaining meaning stated in that same earlier sūtra — as that sūtra states, when monks and nuns, contemplating in turn, observe their own decrease of craving, they should know that this is what the Buddha names the non-regression of wholesome dharmas, and the same holds for hatred and delusion; although that sūtra speaks in this way, it does not analyze at length what constitutes a decrease of craving, and so on up to delusion — that sūtra is the root on which this treatise depends, and what it leaves unstated must now all be stated, and it is for this reason that this treatise is composed. What constitutes a decrease of craving, hatred, and delusion? Answer: where there is no longer the superior entanglement of craving, hatred, and delusion, the middling remains; where there is no longer the middling, the weak remains — this is named decrease. Some say: here, the treatise is composed with reference to the decrease of craving, hatred, and delusion as observed in the world. As for the decrease of craving: as when a man, at the stage of his prime, gives rise to the superior entanglement of craving; at middle age, he gives rise to the middling entanglement of craving; and in old age, he gives rise to the weak entanglement of craving — and the same holds with respect to his own wife.

As for the decrease of hatred: as when men, harboring a grudge back and forth and plotting harm against one another, give rise to the superior entanglement of hatred; when, in order to stir up a quarrel, they exchange messengers back and forth, they give rise to the middling entanglement of hatred; and, at the very moment of quarreling, they give rise to the weak entanglement of hatred. As for the decrease of delusion: as when a man, born into a heretical household and having studied its texts and treatises, at the moment of having already penetrated them, gives rise to the superior entanglement of delusion; upon hearing the Buddha's own word and letting it abide within his mind, he gives rise to the middling entanglement of delusion; and, upon giving rise to only a small measure of faith in the Buddha's own word, he gives rise to the weak entanglement of delusion. Some say: here, the treatise is composed with reference to the principle of relative comparison — that is, it is with reference to the superior grade of the entanglement of craving that the middling is posited, and with reference to the middling that the weak is posited — and the same holds for hatred and delusion. Some say: here, the treatise is composed with reference to becoming free of defilement — that is, it is by the decrease of the superior grade of the entanglement of craving that the middling arises, and by the decrease of the middling that the weak arises.

What is the terminal feeling at the moment of death? — and so on 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: Ānanda, you should know that, in ancient times, there was a wheel-turning king named Sunetra, who experienced a terminal feeling of just this kind —

just as a mighty warrior, having eaten excessively of rich food, falls into a sudden faint. A sūtra further states: I have now given rise to a fierce and injurious terminal feeling at the moment of death. Although the sūtra speaks in this way, it does not analyze what constitutes the terminal feeling at the moment of death, or at what point it should be said to occur,

and so on at length — and it is for this reason that this treatise is composed. Some say: the reason this treatise is composed is in order to refute the world's own tendency, with respect to what is not the terminal feeling at the moment of death,

to give rise to the notion of a terminal feeling at the moment of death — that is, as the world says, "I have already experienced the terminal feeling at the moment of death," or "I am now experiencing it," or "I shall experience it," giving rise to the notion of a terminal feeling at the moment of death with respect to what is not, in fact, that feeling at all. Why is this? Because it is only feeling such that, upon experiencing it, death follows shortly afterward, that is named the terminal feeling at the moment of death. What is the terminal feeling at the moment of death? Answer: it is that by which the vital point is severed and the life faculty is extinguished. Question: why is this feeling named "terminal, at the moment of death"? Answer: because it is this that leads one to the very brink of death, it is named the terminal feeling at the moment of death. Question: if so, then it ought to be said that the feeling named the terminal feeling at the moment of death is the very last feeling — it ought not to be said that it is that by which the vital point is severed. Why is this? Because, once the vital point has been severed, a full day and night may sometimes pass before death actually follows. Answer: the feeling of the severing of the vital point is itself also named the last feeling, since, once the vital point has been severed, death necessarily follows shortly afterward. Some say:

within a single class of common existence, there are two kinds of feeling — bodily feeling and mental feeling. The feeling of the severing of the vital point is the last of the bodily feelings; the feeling of the extinguishing of the life faculty is the last of the mental feelings.

At what point should the terminal feeling at the moment of death be said to occur? Answer: precisely at the point at which the vital point is severed and the life faculty is extinguished. Question: why is this further treatise composed? Answer: the preceding passage stated the intrinsic nature of the terminal feeling at the moment of death, but had not yet clarified its stage — it is now in order to clarify this that this treatise is composed. Under what is the terminal feeling at the moment of death subsumed?

Answer: under the dharma-sphere. With how many kinds of consciousness is it conjoined? Answer: with the body-consciousness and the mind-consciousness — that is, the initial feeling of the severing of the vital point is conjoined with the body-consciousness, while the very last feeling is conjoined with the mind-consciousness. Question: how many of the great elements are able to sever the vital point? Answer: three — namely, water, fire, and wind. Question: why is the earth element unable to sever the vital point? Answer: because it is not its field, nor its vessel — and so on at length. Some say: it is a fierce and violent great element that is able to sever the vital point, and the earth element is not fierce and violent. Some say: whichever of the great elements is able to destroy the external portion of the world, serving as an external calamity, is also able to destroy the internal portion, severing the vital point; the earth element is unable to destroy the external portion, and hence cannot serve as an external calamity, and is likewise unable to destroy the internal portion, and hence cannot sever the vital point. Here, as for the water element severing the vital point: when one is about to die, the water-element within the body grows excessive, and, by its soaking and steeping, causes every sinew to rot; because the sinews rot, the joints come apart, and, because the joints come apart, death follows shortly afterward. As for the fire element severing the vital point:

when one is about to die, the fire-element within the body grows excessive, and, by its burning and scorching, causes every sinew to become charred; because the sinews become charred, the joints come apart, and, because the joints come apart, death follows shortly afterward. As for the wind element severing the vital point: when one is about to die, the wind-element within the body grows excessive, and, by its buffeting and battering, causes every sinew to shatter; because the sinews shatter, the joints come apart, and, because the joints come apart, death follows shortly afterward. There are also those who hold that the earth element, too, is able to sever the vital point — they say that, when one is about to die, the earth-element within the body grows excessive, causing every orifice and passage to become blocked, and, because these passages become blocked, the joints come apart, and, because the joints come apart, death follows shortly afterward. Question: in which locus does the severing of the vital point occur? Answer: within the desire realm, not within the form or formless realm. Within the desire realm, it does not occur in the hells, since there death is continual and unbroken; it does occur among animals and hungry ghosts; among humans, it occurs on three continents, but not on the northern continent of Uttarakuru; and it does not occur, either, among the gods of the desire realm, since their death is not the fruit of harm-causing karma.

Question: what kind of person experiences the severing of the vital point? Answer: both ordinary worldlings and noble ones experience it; among noble ones, the stream-enterer, the once-returner, the non-returner, the arhat, and the pratyekabuddha all experience it, excepting only the World-Honored One, who possesses no harm-causing karma at all. No Buddha, World-Honored One, ever experiences the severing of the vital point — his voice remains unimpaired, and there is no gradual dying, since the Buddha, the World-Honored One's, own faculties are extinguished all at once. There are arhats who experience the severing of the vital point, and there are those, such as a sheep-butcher, who do not — since the severing of the vital point is the fruit of harm-causing karma, whoever possesses harm-causing karma, even an arhat, experiences the severing of the vital point, whereas whoever lacks harm-causing karma, even a sheep-butcher and the like, has no such occurrence of the severing of the vital point at all.

Question: how are the joints arranged among and between the vital points? Answer: among the great and mighty beasts, such as the elephant, the horse, and the ox, the joints between the vital points are propped against one another and are, moreover, firm and solid. Among great nāga-strength beings, the joints are joined together like planks fitted end to end. Among Balasegandhi-strength beings, the joints are hooked together like iron hooks interlocking with one another. In the body of a Nārāyaṇa-strength being, the joints are chained together like an iron chain. In the Buddha's own body, the joints are coiled together, one upon another, like a coiled dragon.

As for every other sentient being, their joints are separate from one another and not firm at all, and it is for this reason that their own strength is the most inferior of all.