The Answer Concludes, and the Ten Powers Explained

Challenging the Omniscient One Among the Forty Unshared Dharmas Chapter, Continued

As for your claim that "advanced age, noble lineage, family standing, and the like, ought to determine precedence among the elders," I shall now answer it: within the very dharma of the path, advanced age, noble lineage, family standing, and the like, bring no benefit to the path whatsoever. And why is this so? Being born within the Buddhadharma is itself what is called "noble lineage" and "being born into a good family"; counting the years since one received the full precepts is itself what is called "advanced age."

As for your claim that "advanced age ought to be revered" — is not going forth from home and receiving the precepts earlier itself the very thing that matters most?

And further, once the precepts have been received, there exists no difference whatsoever of caste or lineage among them. Every monk who has received the full precepts is thereby said to be born into the Buddha's own family — the prior distinction of a great or lesser family is thereby lost, and every name becomes a single family.

As for your claim concerning "upholding the precepts" — that one who went forth earlier, having upheld the precepts for a longer duration, guarding them across a longer span of time, with a greater count of years, therefore ought to hold precedence among the elders — this is exactly as stated within the very establishment of the precepts.

As for your claim that "one who upholds the precepts ought never to prostrate before one who has broken them," I shall now answer it: one who has broken the precepts ought not even to dwell together with others, let alone receive prostration and offering! Yet since they still call themselves a monk, one bows to them according to their own seniority, just as one bows before an image of a deity made of clay or wood, being mindful of the "true deity" it represents. The Buddha instructed that the younger ought to bow to the elder — according with the Buddha's own teaching in this way, one thereby attains merit regardless.

As for your claim that "on account of ascetic observance, one ought to show reverence," I shall now answer it: one who practices ascetic observance is, for five reasons, difficult indeed to properly distinguish: first, being foolish and without any real knowledge, craving to take up a difficult practice; second, being of dull faculties, hoping merely to gain profit from it; third, harboring evil intent, deceiving others; fourth, being deranged; fifth, genuinely reflecting: "The dharma of ascetic observance is praised by every buddha and every noble one together, since it accords with the very path to nirvāṇa."

These five kinds of person all practice this same dharma of ascetic observance, and genuine from counterfeit is difficult indeed to distinguish among them.

As for "vast learning": one of vast learning is likewise, just like the ascetic practitioner, difficult to properly distinguish. And why is this so? One may be of vast learning through delighting in the path, or one may be of vast learning through seeking gain and support — matters such as these are likewise difficult to distinguish.

And further, the Buddhadharma values practicing exactly as it has been taught, and does not value merely extensive reading or extensive recitation.

And further, as the Buddha states: "Practicing even a single phrase of the Dharma, able to benefit oneself, is itself what is called vast learning."

"Wisdom" is likewise so — should one be unable to practice exactly as it has been taught, of what use is wisdom at all?

It is for this reason that precedence among the elders is not determined on the basis of wisdom. Just as, in an everyday matter of this world, a younger brother, though of vast learning and great wisdom, is still not owed a bow by his own elder brother. It is for this reason that gaining offering and reverence first is not determined on the basis of wisdom. In just this way, though one may possess vast learning and wisdom, one still ought to bow before one who received the precepts earlier; should offering be given first to one of vast learning and wisdom instead, this would only give rise to contention and disorder.

As for the remaining matters — "attaining the fruit of the ascetic path, severing the fetters, attaining spiritual powers" — these are the very most difficult of all to know. Has this person attained the fruit, or not attained it? Have they severed many fetters, or few? Have they attained spiritual powers, or not? None of this can serve as the basis for precedence among the elders. Should several people equally attain "the fruit of the path, the severing of fetters, and spiritual powers," who among them, then, would hold precedence? It is for this reason that according with the Buddha's own teaching in practice is itself the very foremost basis of all.

As for your claim that "the Buddha gave rise to doubt over whether to teach the Dharma," I shall now answer it: the Buddha holds no doubt whatsoever even toward the profound Dharma itself — how much less, then, toward the mere question of whether it ought or ought not to be spoken! The Buddha never said: "I shall never teach the Dharma at all." He said only: "My own mind delights in tranquil solitude, and is not inclined toward taking up worldly activity" — and only afterward was there no fault in his teaching the Dharma.

Furthermore, followers of outside paths say: "The Buddha, being a great sage, is silent and free of idle proliferation — of what use, then, is it for him to gather a following and teach and transform them? Even should he teach and transform them, this could never be exhausted in full. It resembles mere discrimination — of what use is expounding the Dharma at all? Gathering and keeping disciples is itself a mark of craving attachment."

It is for this reason that the Buddha reflected to himself: "My own Dharma is exceedingly profound, its wisdom and skillful means immeasurable and boundless, and yet those capable of being liberated by it are few" — it was for this reason that he said to himself: "It would be better to remain silent."

And further, in order to forestall the very mockery of the outside paths, he caused the lord Brahmā himself to request that he teach the Dharma. At that very moment, the lord Brahmā and his own retinue addressed the Buddha, saying: "Sentient beings are indeed pitiable, yet among them there are those of sharp faculties, whose fetters are slight, easily transformed and liberated." It was for this reason that he accepted the request of the lord Brahmā and his own retinue. Just as a person who has obtained a great treasure ought to show it to others, every noble one, having attained the very benefit of the Dharma for themselves, ought likewise to benefit others.

As for what you have said, that "the Buddha did not know that Ārāḍa Kālāma and the other had already passed away, and yet wished to teach them the Dharma," I shall now answer it: the Buddha was not thinking of whether they had died or not died at all, but was thinking only of the fact that this person's own fetters were slight, and that they were capable of being transformed and liberated — and, according to wherever his own thought was directed, this very knowledge arose accordingly. It was for this reason that the Buddha first spoke of this himself, and only afterward was informed by a deva — this is, in principle, exactly as it ought to be.

And further, the Buddha, having earlier gone forth from home, had once lodged together with these two very persons; the devas and the people of this world might well have suspected that the Buddha had received his own sublime Dharma from them, or had attained the path elsewhere through them. Wishing to sever this very doubt, the Buddha thereupon proclaimed at once: "That person has declined so greatly as this — how could my sublime Dharma possibly have come from hearing it there?"

Extending this same reasoning, the matter of the five monks can likewise be understood — he was thinking only of the very cause and condition of their being capable of liberation, not of their actual place of dwelling; only afterward, thinking of their place of dwelling, did he come to know it at once. It is for this reason that one ought not to use this to refute the omniscient one.

As for your claim concerning "the uncertain prediction of the destruction of the city of Pāṭaliputra," I shall now answer it: the very destruction of this city depended upon causes and conditions that were themselves uncertain — to state a fixed prediction about an uncertain cause and condition would itself be the actual fault here.

And further, as I have already explained earlier, among the forty unshared dharmas, every buddha "skillfully knows what is undetermined" — one who has already accepted this earlier answer cannot then raise this very challenge again.

As for your claim concerning "the Buddha asking the monks, 'What were you gathered together to discuss?'" I shall now answer it: the Buddha, about to expound some gateway of the Dharma, asked in this way for that very purpose; or, wishing to establish some precept, bid them speak of it themselves; through various such purposes in expounding the Dharma, this very question carries no fault whatsoever. Even within this ordinary world, there exist those who ask though they already know — as when, seeing a person eating, one asks: "Are you eating?" Or, when the weather turns cold, one asks: "Is it cold?" The Buddha is likewise so, knowing and yet still asking, according with worldly custom, without any fault in this at all.

As for your claim that "praising himself while disparaging others shows he is not omniscient," I shall now answer it: the Buddha holds no craving toward his own body, no craving toward offering; he bears no anger toward others; he possesses no excessive pride. The reason he himself said "I am the very foremost within this world" is that there exist sentient beings of faith, whose own faculties are sharp and keen, who, upon hearing this, relinquish an evil friend and take the Buddha as their own teacher instead — and this person shall thereby attain peace and security across a long span of time; it was for this very reason that the Buddha praised himself.

Furthermore, there exist those who seek the very foremost, joyful path, and yet remain indolent, unable to apply diligent effort — it was for this reason that the Buddha said: "Within this unsurpassed benefit, one ought never to remain indolent. I am, within this world, the very foremost guide, skillfully expounding the true Dharma — you ought to apply diligent effort, and you shall thereby attain the fruit of the path." Through causes and conditions such as these, he praised himself — not for the sake of exalting himself, or holding another in contempt.

As for "reproaching an evil person," this is done for the sake of causing an evil dharma to be removed and extinguished, not out of hatred or anger toward sentient beings. There exist those who seek benefit in accordance with the Dharma, their own mind pure and upright, and yet who have become entangled with an evil friend — wishing to cause them to depart far from this very entanglement, he reproaches and reviles it. Even before attaining buddhahood, he still gave his own marrow and brain to another in giving — how much more so, then, once he had accomplished buddhahood, would he simply reproach and revile without cause?

As for your claim that "the Buddha's own Dharma contradicts itself from beginning to end," I shall now answer it: within the Buddhadharma, there exists no matter of "contradiction between beginning and end" whatsoever — it is only because you yourselves fail to understand the true meaning of the Buddhadharma that you take it to be a contradiction. As for this very path to nirvāṇa: since the extinction of the Buddha Kāśyapa, no one has expounded it, and no one has attained it — it is for this reason that he said, "I have newly attained the path"; and, in some other place, further said, "I have attained the very same ancient path." This very path is the path attained by Dīpaṃkara and every other past buddha, namely, "the eightfold noble path, able to reach nirvāṇa" — since it is a single path, through a single cause and condition, it is called "the ancient path." It is for this reason that one should know the Buddha has accomplished omniscience.

Question: As for what is meant by "omniscient" — how, exactly, is this to be understood? Is it called "omniscient" because one knows everything whatsoever?

Answer: "The omniscient one knows what is knowable."

"What is knowable" refers to the five treasuries of dharma: the past, the future, the present, what transcends the three times, and what cannot be expressed; that by which these five treasuries are known is called "knowing." It is for this reason that both the knowing and what is known are together called "the totality."

Question: To call "knowing what is knowable" the very meaning of "omniscient" does not hold! And why is this so? This would make these into a single dharma, since the knowable and the knowing of it would themselves become one and the same. Just as, in ordinary speech, one says: "This person knows sharply, that person knows dully" — implying knowing and the object known remain genuinely distinct.

Answer: Should "the totality" be a single, undivided thing, then cold and heat, though mutually contrary, ought likewise to be a single thing; light and darkness, suffering and joy, and every other mutually contrary matter, ought likewise to be a single thing. Yet this is simply not so. It is for this reason that one cannot say "the totality is entirely one."

Question: What you yourself maintain suffers this same fault. Should "what is knowable" be a single, undivided thing, then suffering and joy, and the like, ought likewise to be a single thing — and yet they genuinely are not.

Answer: I have never said that "everything knowable is a single, undivided thing"; it is you who maintain that "the totality is entirely one" — it is for this reason that I do not share this same fault with you.

Furthermore, in claiming that we "share the same fault," you have thereby revealed that your own position contains this very fault. Should a person themselves admit to a fault within their own position, they have thereby already conceded the argument. Since you yourself know your own position contains this fault, you ought not to go on attributing this same fault to another — it is for this reason that your claim of "sharing the same fault" does not hold.

Furthermore, should one claim that "knowing and what is knowable are a single, undivided dharma," one ought then to be able to use "what is knowable itself" to know a vase, a robe, and every other such object; and yet, in truth, one makes use of knowing to know every object. Should one claim that "a vase, a robe, and the like are, with respect to knowing, no different from it," then a vase or a robe ought itself to be able to know an object, since there would then be no difference between them — yet, in truth, one makes use of knowing to know every object.

Since there exist faults such as these at every turn, one cannot say "the totality is entirely one."

Furthermore, knowing and what is known are two distinct things, together called "the totality"; through knowing every dharma, in this sense, one is called the Thus Come One, and called the omniscient one.

This omniscient one, on account of the vajra samādhi, is precisely why this vajra samādhi is genuinely established. Your earlier claim, that "the vajra samādhi cannot be established, and omniscience cannot be established," therefore does not hold!

Skillfully Knowing What Is Undetermined Among the Forty Unshared Dharmas Chapter

As for "skillfully knowing what is undetermined": every dharma not yet arisen, not yet emerged, not yet accomplished, not yet fixed, not yet distinguished — within this very domain, the Thus Come One's own wisdom attains its own particular power.

As the Buddha's own Sūtra on Distinguishing Karma states: "The Buddha told Ānanda: 'There may be a person whose bodily karma is wholesome, whose verbal karma is wholesome, and whose mental karma is wholesome, and yet, at the end of their life, this person falls into hell; there may be a person whose bodily karma is unwholesome, whose verbal karma is unwholesome, and whose mental karma is unwholesome, and yet, at the end of their life, this person is reborn among the devas.' Ānanda addressed the Buddha, saying: 'Why is this so?' The Buddha said: 'This may occur because this person's own past-life causes and conditions of offense and merit have already ripened, while their present-life causes and conditions of offense and merit have not yet ripened; or because, at the very moment of death, right view or wrong view, a wholesome or unwholesome mind, arises — and the mind at the very moment of death carries exceedingly great power.'"

And further, the Sūtra to Śuka states: "The young brahmin Śuka addressed the Buddha, saying: 'Gautama! Do brahmin householders, dwelling in white robes, who are able to cultivate merit and roots of goodness, surpass those who have gone forth from home — how is this matter to be understood?' The Buddha said: 'I cannot give a fixed answer to this. Should a renunciant fail to cultivate what is wholesome, they would then be inferior to the householder. Should the householder be able to cultivate what is wholesome, they would then surpass the renunciant.'"

And further, the Great Nirvāṇa Sūtra states: "The city of Pāṭaliputra shall be destroyed through one of three matters — whether by flood, by fire, or through a plot between those within and those outside it."

And further, on account of the naked ascetic Pārāyaṇa, it is said: "Should this naked ascetic Pārāyaṇa fail to relinquish these very words, this very mind, and this very wrong view, there is no possibility whatsoever of his coming directly before me. Whether his own leather cord is severed, or his own body is severed, he shall in the end never come before the Buddha."

And further, the Simile of the Raft Sūtra states: "This Dharma of mine is exceedingly profound, and I expound it through skillful means, so as to make it shallow and easily understood. Should there be one of upright mind, practicing exactly as taught, they attain one of two benefits: either exhausting every outflow in this very life, or, should they fail to exhaust every outflow, attaining the path of non-return."

And further, within the Ekottarika Āgama's own Sūtra to Śakalika, it states: "The Buddha told Ānanda: 'Should a person deliberately give rise to a karmic deed, there exists no possibility of attaining the path without undergoing its recompense — whether undergone in this present life, undergone in the very next birth, or undergone at some later time.'"

And further, within the Ekottarika Āgama's own Aparāṇa Sūtra, it states: "The Buddha told the monks: 'Every evil person, upon death, either becomes an animal or falls into hell; every good person's own place of birth is either among the devas or among humans.'"

And further, within the Sūtra to Prince Abhaya, it states: "Prince Abhaya addressed the Buddha, saying: 'Might something the Buddha says cause another to become angry?' The Buddha said: 'Prince! This matter is undetermined. The Buddha may, out of a mind of pity, cause another person to become angry, so that they might thereby plant a wholesome cause and condition. Just as a wet-nurse, using a bent finger, hooks out some foul object from a small child's own mouth — though this causes injury, it brings no genuine harm.'"

And further, within the Abhidharma, it states: "Sentient beings are of three kinds: those belonging to the undetermined group, those who fall into wrong determination, and those who fall into right determination."

Among these very five treasuries of dharma, there exist thousands upon thousands of kinds of undetermined matters such as these.

Question: Should a person's own wisdom itself be undetermined, without any resolute mind, so that within some matter it is sometimes so and sometimes not so, this person could not be called omniscient. The omniscient one is one whose words never contradict themselves, whose words are resolute, whose words are clear and distinct — it is for this reason that skillfully knowing what is undetermined ought not to be called an unshared dharma of the Buddha at all.

Answer: An undetermined matter, being sometimes so and sometimes not so, depends entirely upon the particular causes and conditions involved — within this very domain, one ought never to speak of it as fixed.

And further, should one give a fixed answer regarding a matter that is genuinely undetermined, this could not be called omniscient at all. It is for this reason that, within an undetermined matter, one must necessarily make use of an undetermined wisdom — it is for this very reason that there exists this unshared dharma of undetermined wisdom.

Furthermore, should a person claim fixed knowledge within every dharma without exception, this person has thereby fallen into the very heresy of absolute determinism. Should every dharma be absolutely fixed, then whatever one might undertake would require no human effort or skillful means to be accomplished at all. As the verse says: "Should what is fine and what is foul already be fixed, then human effort ought likewise be fixed — requiring no cause or condition, no skillful means, and no cultivation whatsoever."

Furthermore, it is directly observable that one who fails to guard and protect their own body encounters manifold suffering; while one who guards and protects their own body attains peace and benefit. And further, just as, within matters of undertaking various kinds of work, one undergoes weariness and hardship, and only afterward attains various fruits of wealth and joy in recompense; there are, further, those who, in this present life, remain quiet and undertake nothing whatsoever, and yet still attain this very fruit in recompense.

It is for this reason that there exist undetermined matters such as these; it is for the sake of knowing these very undetermined matters that there exists this very undetermined wisdom.

Question: You claim that "guarding oneself or not guarding oneself, exerting effort or not exerting effort, still results in an undetermined outcome" — yet there exist those who delight in guarding themselves and yet still encounter suffering and affliction, and those who fail to guard themselves and yet do not encounter suffering and affliction. And further, there are those who diligently exert themselves to the point of exhaustion and yet fail to obtain any fruit for their effort, and those who fail to exert any diligent effort and yet still obtain this very fruit — this matter is indeed undetermined.

Answer: What you have said here only confirms my own very meaning of "undetermined" — namely, "should there exist an undetermined matter, there must correspondingly exist an undetermined wisdom." I have never said that "should a person fail to guard themselves, they must necessarily undergo suffering in every case." Nor have I said that "apart from any effort or deed whatsoever, a fruit in recompense may still arise." There exist those who, though they genuinely apply effort, are, on account of a past-life obstruction of offense, unable to receive this very joy. I have never said that "this holds true in every single case without exception" — it is for this reason that your own challenge here does not hold.

This is called every buddha's own unique possession, within every undetermined matter, of a complete and undetermined wisdom.

As for "knowing the formless realms": the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha know sentient beings reborn within the formless realms, and their own dharma, only in part. Every buddha, every world-honored one, entirely and completely knows every sentient being and every dharma within the formless realms.

Within these very formless realms, a certain number of sentient beings are reborn in this very place, and a certain number in that place; a certain number are reborn within the first formless absorption, and a certain number within the second. A certain number are reborn within the third, and a certain number within the fourth.

A certain number of sentient beings have already dwelt there for such-and-such a span of time; a certain number shall, after such-and-such a span of time, retrogress and fall away; a certain number possess a lifespan that reaches its own outer limit at such-and-such a span of time.

A certain number of sentient beings possess a fixed and certain lifespan; a certain number possess a lifespan that is not fixed or certain.

A certain number of sentient beings, having ended their own life within the desire realm, come to be reborn here; a certain number, having ended their own life within the form realm, come to be reborn here; a certain number, having ended their own life within the formless realm itself, return once more to be reborn here.

A certain number of sentient beings, having ended their own life among humans, thereupon come to be reborn here; a certain number, having ended their own life among the devas, thereupon come to be reborn here.

These very sentient beings, ending their own life here in turn, are reborn either within the desire realm, the form realm, or the formless realm itself.

These very sentient beings, ending their own life here, are reborn either within the path of the devas, the path of humans, the path of the asuras, or within the path of hell, the animal realm, or the realm of hungry ghosts.

These very sentient beings, entering nirvāṇa within that very place — a certain number of them are, in every case, ordinary beings.

A certain number of sentient beings are the Buddha's own noble disciples; a certain number are ordinary disciples.

A certain number of sentient beings accomplish the śrāvaka vehicle; a certain number accomplish the pratyekabuddha vehicle; a certain number accomplish the Great Vehicle entirely.

A certain number of sentient beings fail to accomplish the śrāvaka vehicle; a certain number fail to accomplish the pratyekabuddha vehicle, and fail to accomplish the Great Vehicle as well.

A certain number of sentient beings practice cessation; a certain number do not practice cessation.

A certain number of sentient beings advance upward; a certain number are the disciples of a particular buddha.

Every buddha further knows: this very absorption receives its own flavor, that very absorption does not receive its own flavor. This one is wholesome, that one is indeterminate. This absorption severs, from within itself, a certain number of fetters. This absorption is superior, that one middling, that one inferior. To speak briefly of every formless absorption: only every buddha, through the wisdom of all modes, is entirely able to distinguish among them — whether great or small, whether deep or shallow, whether associated or dissociated with mind, whether bearing a fruit in recompense or not, and every other such distinction. This is called every buddha's own complete and entire knowledge of the formless absorptions.

As for "penetrating the dharma of cessation": every pratyekabuddha and every arhat, whether they have already passed into extinction or are presently doing so, every buddha fully penetrates this very matter.

As the sūtra states: "Monks! Ninety-one kalpas before this present fortunate kalpa, the Buddha Vipaśyin appeared; and, in the thirty-first kalpa, two buddhas appeared — the first named Śikhin, the second named Viśvabhū. Within this present fortunate kalpa, the buddhas Krakucchanda, Kanakamuni, and Kāśyapa have appeared." Such is the great knowledge and vision every buddha holds of the buddhas of ages past. This same sūtra ought further to state: "And every one of their own śrāvaka disciples, having passed into extinction and entered nirvāṇa without residue, and every pratyekabuddha as well, named Accomplished, named Flower-Marked, named Seeing the Dharma, named the Casket of the Dharma, named Delighting in Vision, named Undefiled, and named Without Attainment." Every one of these pratyekabuddhas, having entered nirvāṇa without residue, the Buddha fully penetrates and knows.

Furthermore, one not yet passed into extinction, still abiding within nirvāṇa with residue, whose own conditions for further rebirth have already been entirely exhausted, penetrating this very matter is likewise called penetrating the knowledge of cessation. As the sūtra states: "The Buddha told Ānanda: I know this person entirely, without the slightest obscurity whatsoever; this person shall certainly exhaust every inward dharma, and, at the end of their life, shall enter nirvāṇa." This is likewise called knowing cessation.

And further, toward some other person, penetrating the four noble truths, and being able to know this very matter, is likewise called knowing cessation.

As the sūtra states: "Why should I not, through some skillful means, cause this person to attain, in this very place, liberation through the exhaustion of every outflow?" As the Buddha told Ānanda: "You delight in meditative concentration, you delight in severing the fetters" — this is likewise called penetrating the knowledge of cessation.

As the Buddha told Śāriputra: "I know nirvāṇa, I know the path that leads to nirvāṇa, and I know which sentient beings shall reach nirvāṇa." Sūtras such as these ought to be cited here in full; this is called every buddha's own penetrating knowledge of cessation.

As for "skillfully knowing what is dissociated from mind and formless dharmas": the underlying tendency toward the roots of goodness within the precepts, wholesome and unwholesome moral discipline, and every other such dharma dissociated from mind, formless in nature, the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha are unable to penetrate, while every buddha is skillfully able to penetrate them, as clearly as if they stood directly before his own eyes. This is because he has accomplished the very foremost power of wisdom within every dharma dissociated from mind.

Question: Wholesome and unwholesome moral discipline are themselves dharmas of form — why, then, do you call them "formless"?

Answer: Wholesome and unwholesome moral discipline are each of two kinds: the active and the non-active. The active is a dharma of form; the non-active is formless. This very non-active, formless dharma, the Buddha, through his own unshared power, is able to know directly and immediately, while every other being knows it only through inference.

Question: Does every buddha skillfully know only what is dissociated from mind and formless, while failing to skillfully know what is associated with mind?

Answer: Should one already penetrate what is dissociated from mind, what is associated with mind requires no further discussion at all. Just as a person able to strike even the very finest hair with an arrow need not be discussed for their ability to strike a coarser object.

Furthermore, among the seven hundred dharmas dissociated from mind, the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha, through the sixth consciousness, are able to know seven of them: first, name; second, mark; third, meaning; fourth, impermanence; fifth, arising; sixth, non-arising; seventh, transcendence. The Buddha, through this same sixth consciousness, is entirely able to know all of them.

The Buddha knows the very marks of the four noble truths, and further knows every worldly, conventional dharma — it is for this reason that it is said that every buddha skillfully knows what is dissociated from mind, and every formless dharma.

As for "the pāramitā of power": within every knowable dharma, without any remainder, attaining this very power of the wisdom of all modes, assisted and brought to accomplishment through the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, and the four abodes of merit.

And further, having genuinely attained the ten powers, the Buddha is thereby able to accomplish the pāramitā of power. This very power, attained and increased at the sixteenth moment of mind, and this omniscience itself, remains constantly present within the Buddha's own body, right up until nirvāṇa without residue. Through this very matter, he attains unobstructed wisdom within every dharma whatsoever.

As for "the pāramitā of unobstructed wisdom": dharma, meaning, expression, and eloquence — within these four dharmas, his own power is immeasurable, penetrating them entirely without obstruction.

As the sūtra states: "The Buddha told the monks: 'The Thus Come One's own four kinds of disciple have accomplished the very foremost power of mindfulness, power of wisdom, and power of forbearance. Just as a skilled archer, shooting at a leaf upon a tree, passes through it without any difficulty — these very disciples, coming to challenge me with questions concerning the four foundations of mindfulness, I, without ever once resting, apart only from eating, drinking, attending to bodily needs, and sleeping, across a full hundred years, the Thus Come One constantly answers them, this very eloquent wisdom never once exhausted.'"

The Buddha, within this very passage, speaks of his own wisdom through the mark of possessing few desires. Suppose that every fine grain of dust filling the four continents of a great trichiliocosm were each, in turn, made into a further great trichiliocosm equal in number to this very count of dust grains, and that every one of these worlds were filled entirely with sentient beings each equal to Śāriputra, each equal to a pratyekabuddha, all of them having accomplished wisdom and eloquence, their own lifespan spanning as many great kalpas as this very count of dust grains — should every one of these persons, on account of the four foundations of mindfulness, challenge the Thus Come One with questions for the entire span of their own lives, the Thus Come One would still, through this very meaning of the four foundations of mindfulness, answer every one of their questions, his own words and meaning never repeating themselves, this very eloquence never exhausted.

As for "unobstructed wisdom regarding the Dharma": skillfully able to distinguish the very name of every dharma, penetrating this without any obstruction whatsoever.

As for "unobstructed wisdom regarding meaning": penetrating the very meaning of every dharma without any obstruction whatsoever.

As for "unobstructed wisdom regarding expression": according with every kind of sentient being, through every kind of expression, causing them to understand this very meaning, penetrating this without any obstruction whatsoever.

As for "unobstructed eloquence": at the very moment of question and answer, skillfully and adeptly expounding the Dharma, this eloquence never once exhausted.

Every other noble one is unable to reach the very limit of this; only every buddha is able to reach this very limit in full — it is for this reason that this is called the pāramitā of unobstructed wisdom.

As for "the pāramitā of complete answers": amid every question and challenge whatsoever, the Buddha is skillfully able to answer completely. And why is this so? Within these four kinds of question and answer, there is never any confusion, since he skillfully knows their own true meaning, being complete in the pāramitā of never distorting this meaning, and delighting in fully knowing every sentient being's own nature, conduct, and inclination.

As Śāriputra addressed the Buddha, saying: "World-Honored One! The Buddha expounds the wholesome dharma for the sake of others, and, among these very persons, many attain realization; having attained this realization, their own mind is free of thirsting craving. Being free of this very craving, they receive nothing whatsoever from this world; having received nothing, their own mind is inwardly extinguished. The Buddha, within the wholesome dharma, holds this very unsurpassed matter entirely, knowing it without any remainder whatsoever — there exists none more supreme than this."

Question: You have spoken of four kinds of question and answer — what, exactly, are these four?

Answer: First, a definitive answer; second, an analytical answer; third, a counter-question answer; fourth, a set-aside answer.

As for "a definitive answer": as when a certain monk asked the Buddha: "World-Honored One! Is there any form that is permanent, never subject to change? World-Honored One! Is there any feeling, perception, mental formation, or consciousness that is permanent, never subject to change?" The Buddha answered: "Monk! There exists no form that is permanent and never subject to change; there exists no feeling, perception, mental formation, or consciousness that is permanent and never subject to change." An answer such as this is called a definitive answer.

As for "an analytical answer": as when the brahmin Potaliputta asked Sāmaṇḍikā: "Should a person deliberately commit a karmic deed of body, speech, or mind, what fruit and recompense do they undergo?" Sāmaṇḍikā gave the definitive answer: "Should a person deliberately commit a karmic deed of body, speech, or mind, they undergo a recompense of suffering." Yet this question actually required an analytical answer; this same brahmin later came and asked the Buddha this very same matter, and the Buddha answered: "Potaliputta! Should a person deliberately commit a karmic deed of body, speech, or mind, this very deed may bring a recompense of suffering, or a recompense of joy, or a recompense of neither suffering nor joy. An unwholesome deed brings a recompense of suffering; a wholesome deed brings a recompense of joy; a neutral deed brings a recompense of neither suffering nor joy." Sūtras such as these all give an analytical answer.

As for "a counter-question answer": as when the brahmin Senika questioned the Buddha, the Buddha said: "I shall instead question you in turn — answer exactly as you yourself think. Senika! What do you yourself think — is form itself the Thus Come One? Are feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness themselves the Thus Come One?" He answered: "No, World-Honored One!" "Apart from form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness — is the Thus Come One found there instead?" He answered: "No, World-Honored One!" Sūtras such as these ought to be cited here at greater length; this is called a counter-question answer.

As for "a set-aside answer": this refers to the fourteen kinds of wrong view — namely: the world is eternal; the world is not eternal; the world is both eternal and not eternal; the world is neither eternal nor not eternal. The world has a boundary; the world has no boundary; the world both has and lacks a boundary; the world neither has nor lacks a boundary. The Thus Come One exists after his own extinction; the Thus Come One does not exist after his own extinction; the Thus Come One both exists and does not exist after his own extinction; the Thus Come One neither exists nor does not exist after his own extinction. The body is itself identical with the soul; the body is distinct from the soul.

Should every sentient being described above, possessing wisdom and eloquence equal to a great pratyekabuddha, question the Buddha through these very four kinds of question, the Buddha, in every case, answers according to what is fitting for that very question, neither more nor less than what is called for — it is for this reason that the Buddha is said to be complete in the pāramitā of complete answers.

As for "none whatsoever are able to harm the Buddha": having attained the dharma of never being killed, none are able to sever the Buddha's own body or any single limb or joint — his own existence or passing is entirely within his own mastery.

As the sūtra states: "Should any person seek, through some skillful means, to harm the Buddha, there exists no possibility of this whatsoever."

Question: Is the Buddha's own lifespan fixed, or is it undetermined?

Answer: There are those who say: "It is undetermined." Should the Buddha's own lifespan be fixed, what difference would there then be between him and every other being whose own lifespan is likewise fixed? And in truth, the Buddha's own lifespan is undetermined, and yet none are able to harm him at all — this alone is the very rare and remarkable thing.

There are those who say: "The Buddha's own lifespan is fixed." Though every other being's own lifespan may likewise be fixed, their own hand, foot, ear, or nose can still be severed — no such thing is possible for the Buddha.

Question: Why, then, is the Buddha's own invulnerability to harm considered an unshared dharma?

Answer: Every buddha is inconceivable, yet this can be understood through an analogy. Suppose every sentient being throughout every world of the ten directions possessed great power, and suppose there existed a single māra possessing power equal to all of them combined, and suppose, further, that every single sentient being throughout the ten directions possessed power equal to this very evil māra, and all of them together wished to harm the Buddha — they would still be unable to so much as move a single hair upon the Buddha's own body, let alone actually cause him harm!

Question: If this is truly so, how, then, was Devadatta able to wound the Buddha at all?

Answer: This very matter has already been answered earlier. The Buddha wished to demonstrate to sentient beings the very mark of the threefold poison — Devadatta, though he upheld the precepts and cultivated wholesome conduct, nonetheless committed a great evil through craving attachment to gain and support.

And further, he wished to make known that the Buddha's own mind, toward every human and every deva alike, holds no difference whatsoever — regarding Devadatta and his own son Rāhula alike with compassion and pity, just as one regards one's own left and right eye equally. The Buddha constantly taught an equal mind toward all, and, at this very moment, manifested this equanimity directly. The devas and humans, beholding this, gave rise to a mind of wonder at this very rare event, and their own faith and delight increased all the more.

And further, the long-lived devas, seeing that the Buddha had, in a former life, committed an evil deed, and thinking that, should this not now be undergone, one might conclude that an evil deed brings no recompense at all — the Buddha, wishing to sever this very wrong view, manifested undergoing this recompense himself.

Furthermore, the Buddha, toward suffering and joy alike, holds no difference of mind whatsoever, being free of any thought of "I" or "mine," since he has reached ultimate emptiness; his own every faculty is tamed and gentle, incapable of being altered by circumstance; he requires no skillful means whatsoever to depart from suffering and receive joy.

As the Bodhisattva Basket states: "The Buddha, through skillful means, manifested undergoing this very matter — this ought to be thoroughly understood." This is called the Buddha's own unshared dharma of being incapable of being killed or harmed.

As for "teaching that is never empty": whatever every buddha speaks is, in every case, followed by a genuine fruit and recompense — it is for this reason that every buddha's own teaching is never empty.

And why is this so? Before every buddha teaches the Dharma, he first observes the sentient being's own origin and circumstance in full, where their own mind now rests, whether their own fetters are thick or thin, knows what merit they have accumulated from a former life, beholds the strength of their own faculties and disposition, and knows the very place and season of their own obstruction.

Some ought to be liberated through a gentle teaching; some through a teaching that addresses suffering directly; some, further, ought to be liberated through a combination of gentle and difficult teaching.

Some require only a brief prompting to be liberated; some require an extensive, detailed analysis.

There are those liberated through the aggregates, the sense-bases, the elements, and the twelve links of dependent origination.

Some enter through the gateway of faith, some through the gateway of wisdom.

This person ought to be liberated by the Buddha himself; that person ought to be liberated by a śrāvaka; another person ought to be liberated through some other cause and condition.

This person ought to accomplish the śrāvaka vehicle; that person ought to accomplish the pratyekabuddha vehicle; another ought to accomplish the Great Vehicle.

This person has, over a long time, cultivated craving; that person has cultivated anger; another has cultivated delusion; this person has cultivated both craving and anger; that person has cultivated both craving and delusion — each and every one distinguished in just this way.

This person has fallen into the view of annihilationism; that person has fallen into the view of eternalism; this person clings greatly to the view of self; that person cultivates greatly the view of extremes; another cultivates greatly the grasping of precepts and vows, or the grasping of views.

This person cultivates greatly arrogance; that person cultivates greatly self-abasement and flattery; another's own mind holds much doubt and regret.

This person delights in mere eloquence; another values true meaning and principle; some delight in profound meaning, and some delight only in shallow matters.

This person has, in a former life, already gathered the dharmas that assist the path; that person is gathering them only in this present life.

This person gathers only the roots of goodness that bring merit in recompense; that person gathers only the roots of goodness that penetrate reality directly.

This person ought swiftly to attain the path; that person shall attain it only after a long time.

The Buddha, having first observed and carefully weighed all of this, expounds the Dharma exactly according to what is fitting for this very liberation, and thereby liberates them. It is for this reason that every one of his teachings, without exception, is never empty.

As the sūtra states: "The World-Honored One first knows and sees, and only then teaches the Dharma — he never teaches without first knowing and seeing."

As for "never in error, never mistaken": every buddha's own teaching of the Dharma is never in error, never mistaken.

"Never in error" refers to his own words and their own meaning never once diverging from one another.

"Never mistaken" refers to never losing this very meaning. Never losing the very cause and condition of the path — this is why it is called "never mistaken."

Never erring regarding the cause and condition of the very fruit of the path — this is why it is called "never in error."

Neither falling short — this is why it is called "never mistaken"; nor going too far — this is why it is called "never in error."

Through penetrating the fourfold unobstructed wisdom, through constantly maintaining a harmonious mindfulness and tranquil wisdom, through departing far from every view of annihilationism, eternalism, causelessness, and wrong causation — within whatever Dharma he expounds, he never causes a person to fall into confusion or distress, and whatever he says at the beginning and at the end never contains any fault of mutual contradiction. According with this very meaning, the sūtra ought to be cited here at greater length, as the sūtra states: "Monks! In expounding the Dharma for you, it is good in its beginning, good in its middle, and good in its end, its words good, its meaning good, pure and undivided, without any admixture whatsoever, fully expounding the holy life in its entirety."

As for "teaching the Dharma through rare and marvelous matters": that whoever is taught and transformed by it attains the fruit of the path at once — this itself is called rare and marvelous.

Should there be some answer given, or some prediction made, it invariably proves true without any variance — this too is rare and marvelous.

The Buddha has spoken of a path unmixed with any affliction, able to sever every affliction — this too is rare and marvelous.

Whatever the Buddha speaks always brings benefit, never empty words — this too is rare and marvelous.

Should a person, within the Buddhadharma, diligently apply effort, thereby able to sever every unwholesome dharma and increase every wholesome dharma — this too is rare and marvelous.

Furthermore, there are three rare and marvelous things: manifesting spiritual power is rare and marvelous; speaking of another's own mind before they reveal it themselves is rare and marvelous; and teaching and transforming others at all is rare and marvelous — teaching the Dharma through these very three rare and marvelous things is what is called "teaching through rare and marvelous matters."

As for "the very foremost guide among every noble one": every buddha knows every sentient being's own mental conduct and inclination, whether their own fetters are deep or shallow, whether their own faculties are sharp or dull, and whether their own wisdom is superior, middling, or inferior; through this very skillful and complete knowledge, he is the very foremost guide among every noble one.

And further, being skillfully able to know the very marks of the four noble truths, skillfully knowing the general and particular marks of every dharma; and further, through the very cause and condition of his teaching never being empty, never in error, never mistaken, he is the very foremost guide among every noble one.

Question: The fourfold assembly is likewise able to expound the Dharma, refuting the outside paths and bringing others into the Buddhadharma — why, then, is the Buddha alone called the foremost guide?

Answer: Let me explain this through an analogy. Suppose every sentient being possessed wisdom and power equal to a pratyekabuddha — should these very sentient beings fail to receive the Buddha's own intent, there would exist no possibility whatsoever of their liberating even a single person. Should these persons expound the Dharma, they would be unable to sever even the very slightest fraction of a fetter belonging to the formless realm.

Should the Buddha himself wish to liberate sentient beings, whatever he says causes even those of wrong view among the outside paths, every nāga and yakṣa, and every other being unable to understand the Buddha's own words, to come to understand them entirely — beings such as these are thereby able to transform immeasurable further sentient beings in turn.

Even the present-day assembly of śrāvakas, causing sentient beings to abide within the four fruits, is itself entirely a manifestation of the Thus Come One's own mark as the foremost guide — it is for this reason that the Buddha is called the foremost guide, an unshared dharma among every noble one.

As for "the four things requiring no guarding": every buddha requires no guarding of his own karma of body, no guarding of his own karma of speech, no guarding of his own karma of mind, and no guarding of his own means of livelihood. And why is this so? These four matters require no guarding whatsoever from another's own scrutiny, since he never gives rise to the thought: "I fear that another might come to know something of my own body, speech, mind, or livelihood." And why is this so?

Because, across a vast span of time, he has cultivated every kind of pure karma; because he has, in every case, skillfully seen, known, and severed every dharma of the afflictions; because he has accomplished every root of goodness beyond compare; because his own wholesome conduct, and every conduct fit to be practiced, contains nothing whatsoever open to reproach; because he is complete in the very practice of the pāramitā of equanimity.

"Equanimity" refers to, upon the eye beholding form, relinquishing both sorrow and joy alike, and, extending through the mind and mental objects, being likewise so. The Vāhitya-Uttara Sūtra and similar scriptures ought to be cited here.

As for "the four fearlessnesses":

Question: Fearlessness is itself a single dharma — why, then, is it spoken of as four?

Answer: Because there exists no doubt or fear within these four particular matters, it is spoken of as four.

First: as the Buddha told the monks: "I myself declare, with utter sincerity: 'I am the omniscient one.'" Within this very claim, should there exist any ascetic, brahmin, deva, māra, or Brahmā, or any other wise person of this world, who, in accordance with the Dharma, might challenge this, saying: "You do not know this dharma" — I, regarding this very challenge, do not perceive even the slightest mark of fear whatsoever; and, perceiving no such mark, I attain peace and fearlessness. This is the first fearlessness, since I truly and fully know every dharma without exception.

Second: I myself declare, with utter sincerity: "Every one of my own outflows is exhausted." Should any ascetic, brahmin, deva, māra, or Brahmā say: "These outflows are not exhausted" — I do not perceive even the slightest mark of this whatsoever; and, perceiving no such mark, I attain peace and fearlessness. This is the second fearlessness, since I have skillfully severed every affliction, together with every habitual residue of the afflictions.

Third: I have spoken of "the dharmas that obstruct the path." Within this very teaching, should there exist any ascetic, brahmin, deva, māra, or Brahmā, or any other wise person of this world, who, in accordance with the Dharma, might challenge this, saying: "Though one makes use of these dharmas, they do not actually obstruct the path" — I do not perceive, regarding this very challenge, even the slightest mark of fear whatsoever; and, perceiving no such mark, I attain peace, free of any doubt or fear. This is the third fearlessness, since I skillfully know the dharmas that obstruct liberation.

Fourth: the very path I myself have taught, should one practice it exactly as taught, leads to the exhaustion of suffering. Should there exist any ascetic, brahmin, deva, māra, or Brahmā, or any other wise person of this world, who, in accordance with the Dharma, might challenge this, saying: "Though this dharma is practiced exactly as taught, it is unable to reach the very path that exhausts suffering" — I hold, regarding this very challenge, no mark of fear whatsoever; and, perceiving no such mark, I attain peace, free of any doubt or fear. This is the fourth fearlessness, since I skillfully know the very path that reaches the exhaustion of suffering.

These very four fearlessnesses all transcend the mark of dread, a startled mind, and hair standing on end — it is for this reason that they are called fearlessness.

And further, since his majestic virtue remains supreme even within a great assembly, this too is called fearlessness.

And further, since he skillfully knows every question and answer, this too is called fearlessness. The Sūtra of the Gathering of the Devas ought to be cited here at greater length.

Question: Should the Buddha be truly omniscient, he ought to be entirely fearless within every dharma whatsoever — why, then, does the text speak only of these four?

Answer: This briefly names the essential points, so as to open up the very subject at hand; every remaining case is likewise so.

As for the Buddha's own ten powers: "power" refers to that which supports and assists, a force and momentum that can never be exhausted, which nothing whatsoever is able to weaken or destroy. Though spoken of under ten separate names, it is, in truth, a single wisdom — it is called "ten powers" solely because it takes ten distinct matters as its own objects. The Buddha's own wisdom takes every matter whatsoever as its own object, and ought therefore to possess immeasurable power — yet, since these ten powers alone already suffice to liberate sentient beings, only these ten are spoken of. Once these ten powers are opened up and explained, every remaining matter can likewise be understood.

As for the first power: the resolute, penetrating wisdom regarding what is, and what is not, the cause of any given dharma, is called the first power.

As the Buddha states: "Should a deranged person, refusing to relinquish these very words, refusing to relinquish this wrong view, refusing to relinquish this very mind, come before the Buddha — there exists no possibility of this whatsoever." As the Buddha told Ānanda: "That two buddhas should appear in this world at the very same time is impossible; that a single buddha should appear in this world is indeed possible." This very statement was spoken with respect to a single buddha-world; in truth, throughout the immeasurable, boundless worlds of the ten directions, hundreds of thousands of myriads of koṭis of countless buddhas appear in this world at the very same time.

And the sūtra further states: "That an evil karma of body, speech, or mind should bring a sublime and pleasant fruit in recompense is impossible; that a wholesome karma of body, speech, or mind should bring a sublime and pleasant fruit in recompense is indeed possible." Sūtras such as these, drawn from the five treasuries of dharma, ought to be cited here at greater length.

As for the second power: toward every karmic deed and every dharma of experience belonging to the past, the future, and the present, the Buddha truly and accurately distinguishes them, knowing their own place, their own particular matter, and their own fruit in recompense.

Should the Buddha wish to know every sentient being's own past karma, and the recompense of this past karma, he is immediately able to know it.

There may be karma belonging to the past whose recompense lies in the present. There may be karma belonging to the past whose recompense lies in the future. There may be karma belonging to the past whose recompense likewise lies in the past.

There may be karma belonging to the past whose recompense lies in both the past and the future. There may be karma belonging to the past whose recompense lies in both the past and the present. There may be karma belonging to the past whose recompense lies in both the future and the present.

There may be karma belonging to the past whose recompense lies in the past, the future, and the present all together.

There may be karma belonging to the present whose recompense lies in the present. There may be karma belonging to the present whose recompense lies in the future. There may be karma belonging to the present whose recompense lies in both the present and the future.

There may be karma belonging to the future whose recompense lies in the future. There exist distinctions such as these.

As for "the dharma of experience," there are four kinds of experience: experiencing joy now, and suffering in a life to come; experiencing suffering now, and joy in a life to come; experiencing joy now, and joy in a life to come; experiencing suffering now, and suffering in a life to come.

As for "place," this refers to the very time and location in which the karma occurs, and further to knowing the very place where this karma undergoes its recompense.

As for "matter," this refers to whether it follows from a particular cause and condition, whether it follows from one of the three unwholesome roots, whether it is largely self-produced, or largely produced through another — wholesome and unwholesome causes and conditions such as these, the Buddha knows entirely.

As for "recompense," this refers to knowing that every karmic deed possesses its own particular recompense — a wholesome deed may lead to rebirth in a good place, or to the attainment of nirvāṇa itself; an unwholesome deed leads to rebirth in one of the various evil places.

The Buddha entirely knows the very origin and full extent of every such karma's own causes and conditions, whether belonging to himself or to another — since his own power of wisdom within this domain never once retrogresses, it is called a "power."

As for the third power: the Buddha truly and accurately knows every mark of defilement and purity within meditative absorption, liberation, and samādhi.

"Absorption" refers to the four dhyānas. "Concentration" refers to the four formless absorptions, the four immeasurable states of mind, and every such state, all called concentration.

"Liberation" refers to the eight liberations.

"Samādhi" refers to every concentration apart from the absorptions and liberations already named, all together called samādhi.

There are those who say: the three gates of liberation, together with concentration accompanied by both initial and sustained thought, concentration accompanied by sustained thought alone, and concentration free of both, are what is called samādhi.

There are those who say: concentration is the lesser term, and samādhi the greater — it is for this reason that every concentration attained by any buddha or bodhisattva whatsoever is called samādhi.

These four categories are all subsumed within the very pāramitā of meditative absorption in its entirety.

"Defilement" refers to receiving and grasping at this very flavor of concentration; "purity" refers to not receiving or grasping at this flavor.

Furthermore, "defilement" refers to a concentration accompanied by outflows; "purity" refers to a concentration free of outflows.

The distinctions among samādhi, liberation, and the like should be understood in just this same way as the distinctions drawn for meditative absorption.

As for the fourth power: truly and accurately knowing the superior and inferior faculties belonging to another sentient being, or another person.

"Another sentient being" refers to the ordinary being. "Another person" refers to the stream-enterer and every other noble one.

There are those who say: "sentient being" refers to the ordinary being and every trainee still in training, since their own afflictions are not yet exhausted; "another person" refers to the arhat and the like, since their own afflictions are already exhausted.

There are those who say: "sentient being" and "person" refer to the very same thing, and the name alone differs.

"Faculties" refers to faith, diligence, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom, not the faculty of the eye and the like.

"Superior" refers to being sharp and keen, capable of attaining the path. "Inferior" refers to being obscured and dull, incapable of receiving the path.

The Buddha, regarding whether these two kinds of faculty are superior or inferior in any given being, truly and accurately knows this, without any error whatsoever.

As for the fifth power: truly and accurately knowing another sentient being's own, or another person's own, particular inclination and delight.

"Inclination and delight" refers to whatever a being values and is drawn toward — as when a certain person values material wealth and worldly pleasure, while another values merit and the wholesome dharma — the Buddha truly and accurately knows this very matter.

As for the sixth power: truly and accurately knowing the manifold and immeasurable natures existing throughout this world.

"Manifold nature" refers to natures mixed together in ten thousand different forms.

"Immeasurable nature" refers to, within each and every single nature, immeasurable further kinds of distinction.

"Nature" refers to what, carried forward from a former life, the mind has constantly practiced and made use of, becoming a fixed nature through this constant delight in its own practice and cultivation — the Buddha truly and accurately knows both of these, whether wholesome or unwholesome in nature.

As for the seventh power: truly and accurately knowing the very path that leads to every place.

"The path that leads to every place" refers to the very path able to attain every merit whatsoever, and this path is thereby called "the path that leads to every place." This refers to the fivefold samādhi, or the fivefold knowing samādhi, or the eight limbs of the noble path, or every dharma subsumed within the noble path, or the four bases of spiritual power. As the sūtra states: "Monk! Skillfully cultivating and studying the four bases of spiritual power, there exists no benefit that cannot be attained." There are those who say this refers to the four dhyānas. As the sūtra states: "Monk! Having attained the four dhyānas, one's own mind abides securely within a single place, pure, every affliction removed, every obstruction extinguished, tamed and gentle, fit for use, no longer subject to any further movement or change."

As for the eighth power: should one direct one's own mind toward knowing one's own past lives, one is thereby immediately able to know this very matter.

Should the Buddha wish to be mindful of his own past lives, and of every sentient being's own past lives, immeasurable and boundless as they are, he knows every matter concerning them entirely, with nothing whatsoever left unknown.

Across kalpas as numerous as the sands of the Ganges — where was this person born? Their own name, their own noble or lowly status, their own food and drink, their own livelihood, their own suffering and joy, their own conduct and deeds undertaken, their own fruit and recompense undergone, where their own mind was directed, and from where they originally came — matters such as these, he knows entirely.

As for the ninth power: through the heavenly eye, purer than the human eye, beholding sentient beings throughout the six destinies, undergoing rebirth according to their own karma.

A śrāvaka of great spiritual power, through the heavenly eye, beholds a small chiliocosm, and further beholds every sentient being's own moment of birth and moment of death within it.

A lesser pratyekabuddha beholds a thousand small chiliocosms, and beholds every sentient being's own moment of birth and moment of death within them.

A pratyekabuddha of middling power beholds a million small chiliocosms, and beholds every sentient being's own moment of birth and moment of death within them.

A pratyekabuddha of great power beholds a great trichiliocosm, and beholds every sentient being's own destination in birth and in death within it.

Every buddha, every world-honored one, beholds immeasurable, boundless, inconceivable worlds, and further beholds every sentient being's own moment of birth and moment of death within them.

As for the tenth power: the outflow of desire, the outflow of existence, and the outflow of ignorance — every outflow entirely exhausted, every affliction, together with its own habitual residue, entirely extinguished — this is called the tenth power.

As for "unobstructed liberation": liberation is of three kinds: first, liberation from the obstruction of the afflictions; second, liberation from the obstruction of meditative concentration; third, liberation from the obstruction of every dharma whatsoever.

Among these, an arhat liberated through wisdom alone attains liberation from the obstruction of the afflictions; an arhat liberated in both ways, together with a pratyekabuddha, attains liberation from the obstruction of the afflictions and liberation from the obstruction of every meditative absorption.

Only every buddha possesses this liberation complete in all three respects — namely, liberation from the obstruction of the afflictions, liberation from the obstruction of every meditative absorption, and liberation from the obstruction of every dharma whatsoever. Since he possesses these three kinds of liberation together in full, the Buddha is called "unobstructed liberation," this liberation constantly arising together with his own mind, right up until nirvāṇa without residue, at which point it comes to rest.

These forty unshared dharmas have been briefly opened up as a gateway into the Buddhadharma, spoken for the sake of causing sentient beings to understand them.

Those left unspoken are immeasurable and boundless. Namely: first, constantly never departing from wisdom; second, knowing the proper time without ever losing it; third, extinguishing every habitual residue whatsoever; fourth, attaining the pāramitā of concentration; fifth, every merit supreme beyond compare; sixth, practicing the pāramitā according to whatever is fitting; seventh, none able to see the very crown of his head; eighth, none equal to him; ninth, none able to surpass him;

tenth, the very foremost within this world; eleventh, attaining the path without hearing it from another; twelfth, one whose teaching never regresses; thirteenth, should anyone falsely claim to be a buddha, they could never actually come to stand before the true Buddha; fourteenth, one whose own dharma never retrogresses; fifteenth, one who has attained great compassion;

sixteenth, one who has attained great loving-kindness; seventeenth, the very foremost one worthy of trust and acceptance; eighteenth, the very foremost in renown and support;

nineteenth, no teacher who has ever dwelt together with the Buddha is equal to him; twentieth, no teacher has ever gathered a following of disciples equal to the Buddha's own; twenty-first, his own dignified, upright form brings delight to the very foremost of those who behold it; twenty-second, none whom the Buddha employs are ever able to bring harm;

twenty-third, whoever the Buddha wishes to liberate suffers no injury whatsoever; twenty-fourth, at the very moment a thought first arises, he is able to sever the fetter of discursive thought; twenty-fifth, whoever is capable of being liberated, he never once misses the proper moment; twenty-sixth, through the sixteenth moment of wisdom, he attains unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening; twenty-seventh, the very foremost field of merit within this world; twenty-eighth, emitting immeasurable radiance; twenty-ninth, his own conduct unlike that of any other being; thirtieth, the mark of a hundred kinds of merit; thirty-first, immeasurable, boundless roots of goodness; thirty-second, the very moment of entering the womb; thirty-third, the very moment of birth; thirty-fourth, the very moment of attaining the path to buddhahood; thirty-fifth, the very moment of turning the wheel of the Dharma; thirty-sixth, the very moment of relinquishing his own extended lifespan; thirty-seventh, at the very moment of entering nirvāṇa, able to shake the great trichiliocosm itself; thirty-eighth, disturbing the immeasurable, boundless palaces of every māra, stripping them of their own majesty, causing them all to tremble in fear;

thirty-ninth, every guardian deva-king of the world, Śakra, the lord of Yāma, the lord of Tuṣita, the lord of Nirmāṇarati, the lord of Paranirmitavaśavartin, the lord Brahmā, and every deva of the pure abodes, gathering together at the very same moment to request that he turn the wheel of the Dharma;

fortieth, the Buddha's own body firm and unshakeable as Nārāyaṇa's own; forty-first, establishing the very first precept where none had existed before; forty-second, whatever he undertakes, his own power surpassing every other being's; forty-third, while the bodhisattva dwells within the womb, his own mother holds no defiled attachment toward any man whatsoever; forty-fourth, possessing the very power to rescue and liberate every sentient being.

The Buddha's own unshared dharmas are, in truth, immeasurable and countless, such as these. Since expounding them all would obstruct every other matter, there is no need to explain them at greater length. Though the śrāvaka's own dharma resembles the Buddhadharma, they differ in their own superiority and inferiority, and a genuine distinction remains between them.

Furthermore, to summarize: every dharma belonging to every buddha, in its entirety, is immeasurable, boundless, and inconceivable, the very foremost rarity, something no sentient being whatsoever is able to share. Suppose that every great trichiliocosm throughout the ten directions, beyond every count, were filled entirely with sentient beings each possessing wisdom equal to the great lord Brahmā, equal to a great pratyekabuddha, equal to Śāriputra himself, and suppose all of this combined wisdom, gathered together, were given to a single person — even then, there would exist no possibility whatsoever of this person approaching even the very smallest fraction of the Buddha's own forty unshared dharmas.

Should this be measured against even a single one of these dharmas, it would fail to reach even one part in a hundred thousand myriad koṭis of it — every buddha possesses power and merit immeasurable and boundless, precisely such as this. And why is this so? Across countless great kalpas, abiding securely within the four abodes of merit, deeply practicing the six pāramitās, skillfully able to complete every dharma practiced by the bodhisattva in full — since this is shared with no other sentient being whatsoever, its own fruit and recompense is likewise shared with none.

Fascicle 11 of the Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā Śāstra