The Four Immeasurable Minds and the Formless Concentrations

Fascicle Six
Spoken by the Great Master Zhiyi of Tiantai, of the Sui dynasty
Recorded by his disciple Fashen
Revised and edited by his disciple Guanding
Explaining Dhyāna-Pāramitā's Cultivation and Realization, Topic 7, Part 2

Explaining the four immeasurable minds: this opens into five parts — first, clarifying their sequence; second, explaining their name; third, clarifying where they are cultivated; fourth, clarifying their cultivation and realization; and fifth, clarifying their merit.

First, explaining why the four immeasurable minds come after the four dhyānas: this is clarified with reference to two kinds of practitioner — worldly practitioners; and world-transcending practitioners.

Among ordinary, worldly practitioners, there are, in turn, three kinds. First, those who delight in a lofty, sovereign freedom, seeking to become the Great Brahmā King — such a person, although already having attained the four dhyānas, cultivates the immeasurable minds still further. Why is this? Because the four dhyānas alone belong only to the form realm, complete in their own self-cultivation, but shallow and slight in any merit that benefits others. Were one to be born into that heaven on the strength of the four dhyānas alone, one would not thereby rule as its king. But if one cultivates the four immeasurable minds, entering samādhi with the ten directions' own sentient beings as its object, loving-kindness and compassion embracing all universally, the mind of benefiting others thereby made great — the merit is correspondingly far greater. Reborn into that heaven on this strength, one is certain to become the Great Brahmā King, ruling there in sovereign freedom — hence, even having already attained the four dhyānas, one cultivates the four immeasurable minds still further.

Second, non-Buddhist practitioners: although they, too, attain the four dhyānas, they come to see a defect in the very presence of mind and consciousness, and, wishing to seek nirvāṇa as a thoughtless cessation, not knowing how to break through form, simply use a deviant wisdom to extinguish the mind instead, entering the concentration of no-thought.

Third, there are ordinary, non-Buddhist practitioners who grow entirely weary of form, as though it were a prison, and, single-mindedly breaking through form, cultivate the four formless concentrations. These, then, are ordinary practitioners who attain these same concentrations in common, yet whose aspirations and delights differ, each following their own habituation, their own objects of attachment differing from one another.

As for the Buddha's own disciples, there are two kinds of person, namely the two vehicles, lesser and greater. These two kinds of person, upon attaining the four dhyānas, go on to cultivate the immeasurable minds further as well: the practitioner of the lesser vehicle does so in order to regulate their own mind and increase merit, so that nirvāṇa may be more easily attained; the practitioner of the greater vehicle, wishing to liberate sentient beings, must necessarily take great compassion as the very root of this — hence, following the four dhyānas, the cultivation of the four immeasurable minds is now clarified.

Question: as the Mahāyāna treatise poses this very question: "Within the four dhyānas themselves, the four immeasurable minds, the ten totality-bases, and other such concentrations are already present — why, then, are they spoken of separately?" Answer: although these dharmas are indeed all already present within the four dhyānas, were they not spoken of separately, people would have no way of knowing their own particular merit. It is like a treasure kept within a sack: unless it is shown to someone, no one will ever know it is there. Wishing to display great merit, the four immeasurable minds are spoken of; being troubled by and weary of form as though it were a prison, the four formless concentrations are spoken of; not yet being free and at ease in contemplating one's own object within concentration, the eight stations of mastery are spoken of; where the path is obstructed and cannot be penetrated through, the eight liberations are spoken of; where the mind is not yet pliant and soft, unable to arise from one dhyāna and enter the next in due sequence, the nine sequential concentrations are spoken of; and where one is not yet able to illuminate every object at will, the ten totality-bases are spoken of."

Question: if the treatise says this, then should one who has now attained the four dhyānas also be understood to have thereby already attained the four immeasurable minds and the other such concentrations as well? Answer: this is spoken of with reference to a particular sense. If it is the uncontaminated four dhyānas that are said to already contain the four immeasurable minds, this is indeed without fault, since the uncontaminated dhyānas are already complete with every contemplative dharma-gate within them. But if it is the contaminated root dhyānas that are meant, then one should know that this is like speaking of butter as already present within milk.

Second, explaining the name of the four immeasurable minds: first, the immeasurable mind of loving-kindness — loving-kindness means holding sentient beings in loving regard, constantly seeking what brings them happiness, in order to benefit them. Second, the immeasurable mind of compassion — compassion means holding sentient beings in pitying regard, aware of the various bodily sufferings they undergo across the five realms. Third, the immeasurable mind of sympathetic joy — sympathetic joy means wishing sentient beings to attain delight through their own happiness. Fourth, the immeasurable mind of equanimity — equanimity means relinquishing these three preceding states of mind, simply holding sentient beings in mind without either aversion or attachment.

Taking these four dharmas as their object, four states of mind are spoken of, pervading the ten directions equally, without any division between them — hence they are named the immeasurable minds. Cultivating loving-kindness serves to remove the disturbance of anger among sentient beings; cultivating compassion serves to remove the disturbance of vexation among sentient beings; cultivating sympathetic joy serves to remove displeasure among sentient beings; and cultivating equanimity serves to remove aversion and attachment among sentient beings. The mark of these four concentrations' own graduated sequence will be explained below.

Third, clarifying where they are cultivated: this itself has two kinds — the general locus; and the particular locus.

First, as for the general locus: the four dhyānas and the intermediate dhyānas are all places where the four immeasurable minds may be cultivated, as the Exegetical Treatise says: "Loving-kindness is present within the form realm's root dhyānas, and within the intermediate dhyānas as well." The formless realm has no form, and so is unsuited to taking sentient beings as an object; and desire-realm concentration and the "not-yet-arrived" state are too shallow to sustain the cultivation of such merit.

Question: practitioners of sharp faculty within the desire realm and the "not-yet-arrived" state are able to use this very concentration to bring forth the true understanding of the path of vision and cultivation — why, then, can the four immeasurable minds not be cultivated there? Answer: it is the sharpness of wisdom directed at principle that allows this to be brought forth there. But supernormal powers, the immeasurable minds, and the like are matters of actual practice, and necessarily depend upon deep concentration; it is not that the desire realm and the "not-yet-arrived" state are entirely incapable of cultivating the immeasurable minds at all, only that, whenever they are brought forth there, they properly belong to the first dhyāna already — hence this is not spoken of separately.

As with the first dhyāna's five factors: the two factors of initial thought and sustained reflection, distinguishing the desire realm, make compassion easy to bring forth; the factor of joy makes sympathetic joy easy to bring forth; the factor of happiness makes loving-kindness easy to bring forth; and the factor of one-pointedness of mind makes equanimity easy to bring forth — hence these are spoken of as the proper places for their cultivation and realization.

Question: the fourth dhyāna and the intermediate dhyāna have no joy or happiness at all — how, then, can joy and happiness be given to sentient beings there? Answer: although there is no joy or happiness present within, one takes up the mark of another's outward joy and happiness as one's object, and bestows this happiness equally. It is like a practitioner free of desire, who, having no need of the five sense-objects for themselves, and no longer mingling with or stained by desire for these objects, may nonetheless, for the sake of great merit, still bestow the finest and most excellent pleasures of the five desires upon another person, all without the practitioner's own mind being stained by it in the least. Bestowing joy and happiness upon others within the fourth dhyāna is exactly the same. The "not-yet-arrived" state and the intermediate dhyāna may be understood by the same pattern.

Second, clarifying the particular locus: within the first dhyāna, initial thought and sustained reflection are its ruling factors, and deeply recognize the desire realm's own sentient beings and the mark of their suffering — hence compassion is easy to cultivate here. The second dhyāna has great joy present within it — hence sympathetic joy is easy to cultivate here. The third dhyāna has happiness pervading the whole body present within it — hence loving-kindness is easy to cultivate here. The fourth dhyāna is adorned with subtle equanimity — hence equanimity is easy to cultivate here. This, then, is a matter of each stage having its own particular convenience.

Question: if this is so, why does the Buddha say that abiding in the fourth dhyāna makes the four immeasurable minds easy to attain? Answer: the fourth dhyāna is named purity of mindfulness, attaining the unmoving concentration — within this stage, every merit of the Buddhadharma is easily accomplished, and so it is spoken of in this way.

Question: it was said above that compassion is practiced within the first dhyāna — does this not disrupt the proper sequence? Since loving-kindness comes first, should not loving-kindness be cultivated in the first dhyāna, compassion in the second, sympathetic joy in the third, and equanimity in the fourth — why is it not so? Answer: this follows whatever is most fitting to the sense at hand, not a fixed sequence. It is like the Buddha's ten chief disciples, each foremost in his own respect: if asked who is foremost in wisdom, the answer should be Śāriputra; but were one to answer according to seniority in ordination instead, this would be a serious error of sense.

Fourth, directly clarifying cultivation and realization. With reference to the four immeasurable minds, this itself has four parts: cultivating and realizing loving-kindness; cultivating and realizing compassion; cultivating and realizing sympathetic joy; and cultivating and realizing equanimity.

First, clarifying the cultivation and realization of loving-kindness: this opens into two parts. First, directly clarifying the method of cultivation: this is exactly as the Buddha says throughout the sūtras, everywhere: "There is a monk who, with a mind corresponding to loving-kindness, free of anger, free of resentment, free of enmity, free of vexation, vast and immeasurable, cultivates it well." What is meant by "a mind corresponding to loving-kindness"? As the Exegetical Treatise says: "Whenever one holds the ten directions' sentient beings in mind, wishing them to attain happiness, the dharma that arises within the mental factors is what is named loving-kindness." Being properly corresponding, one wishing to enter dhyāna-concentration should first make this vow: "May all sentient beings receive complete happiness — may I, within concentration, come to see this in every one of the aggregates of sensation, perception, formation, and consciousness." This is what is named the mental factor. Every bodily action, verbal action, and every activity not directly corresponding with the mind, this dharma taken together as a whole, is named loving-kindness. Since this dharma, in every case, takes loving-kindness as its ruling factor, it receives the name "loving-kindness" accordingly. It is like every mental factor being, in its own right, a cause and condition for a future life, and yet receiving its name simply from intention alone, since, among the various karmic actions, intention is the most powerful of all — this is the mark of a mind corresponding to loving-kindness.

Furthermore: the practitioner, at the outset of cultivation, uses a mind of pure mindfulness to take up the mark of an outwardly loved one's own happiness — if it is a parent or a sibling, taking up whichever one is most beloved, fixing the mind single-mindedly upon them. Should some other thought arise, one gathers the mind back in, making the mental image entirely clear and distinct, seeing the mark of this loved one's own happiness. This loving regard of mind is then extended, in turn, to neutral persons and even to enemies, and to the remaining five realms as well, following the same pattern. Furthermore: the practitioner, cultivating in this way, should, even upon seeing various wholesome or unwholesome states, or matters arising from within the various dhyānas, take up none of them at all — simply contemplating, single-mindedly, the mark of the loved one's own happiness, mind following mind in unbroken continuity. This, in brief, describes the method for cultivating loving-kindness.

Second, clarifying the mark of the loving-kindness concentration's own arising. The practitioner, through the pure power of dhyāna-concentration, wisdom, merit, and wholesome roots, holding sentient beings single-mindedly in loving-kindness in this way, samādhi is thereby brought forth. Through the power of this samādhi, one sees, within the concentrated mind, the mark of the loved one's own happiness, body and mind delighted, countenance at ease, entirely clear and distinct. Having seen the loved one attain happiness in this way, one next sees the same for a neutral person, and then even for an enemy as well. Within the concentrated mind, one sees a single person; then one sees ten people, a thousand, ten thousand, a hundred million; a single village; a single country; a single Jambudvīpa; a single set of the four continents; and, further still, every sentient being throughout the worlds of the ten directions, all alike receiving happiness.

The practitioner, seeing others receiving happiness within concentration, while the inward concentration itself grows ever deeper, corresponding with what is seen without, deep and unmoving — this is named the mind corresponding with loving-kindness. This is precisely the corresponding dharma of sensation, perception, formation, and consciousness, the aggregates, sense-bases, and elements, exactly as already described above. Question: within the concentration corresponding with loving-kindness, when sentient beings are seen, is it exactly as described above, seen gradually, one at a time up through ten, or are they all seen together, all at once? Answer: practitioners' own faculties differ — gradual, sudden, or unfixed.

As for the single mind corresponding with loving-kindness: loving-kindness, being a mental factor, is able to remove the mind's own turbidity — namely, the afflictions of anger, resentment, stinginess, and craving. It is like a clear-water pearl placed into turbid water: the water is thereby made clear at once. As for being free of anger, free of resentment, free of enmity, and free of vexation: toward sentient beings, whether for some cause or condition, or for none at all, the initial arising of ill will is named anger; anger, growing and deliberating further, held fixed within the mind without yet being resolved, is named resentment, also called enmity; and, once the mind has become fixed on it, with no fear or restraint left, wishing to harm the other, this is named vexation. Through the power of loving-kindness, removing, relinquishing, and leaving behind these three matters is what is named being free of anger, free of resentment, free of enmity, and free of vexation. These qualities are given here in praise of loving-kindness's own merit.

As for "vast and immeasurable": distinguished single-mindedly, this carries two kinds of name. In terms of loving-kindness's own object: taking a single direction as its object is "vast"; taking all four directions is "great"; and taking the four intermediate directions together with above and below is "immeasurable." Furthermore: breaking through anger and resentment is named "vast"; breaking through enmity is named "great"; and breaking through vexation is named "immeasurable." Loving-kindness taking a loved one as its object is "vast"; taking a neutral person as its object is "great"; and taking an enemy as its object, gaining the greater merit thereby, is named "immeasurable." Furthermore: because the object is narrow, it is named "vast"; because the object is small, it is named "great"; and because the object has become truly boundless, it is named "immeasurable."

As for "cultivated well": this means loving-kindness of mind made secure and firm. Merely first attaining loving-kindness is not yet named cultivating it well; loving-kindness confined only to loving certain sentient beings, only to those one already likes, only to benefiting a single sentient being, or only to sentient beings in a single direction, cannot be named cultivating it well either. The practitioner, among these nine kinds of person — the highest, middle, and lowest grade of loved one; the highest, middle, and lowest grade of neutral person; and the lowest, middle, and highest grade of enemy — holds love and aversion exactly equal, with no distinction at all between them, extending this loving regard even to sentient beings across all five realms, viewing each with this same single mind of loving-kindness as though they were one's own father, one's own mother, one's own sibling, child, nephew or niece, or close friend, constantly seeking what is good for them, wishing to bring them benefit and peace — such a mind as this, pervading all ten directions completely, is what is named cultivating it well. Furthermore: bestowing upon sentient beings only the happiness of the desire realm cannot be named cultivating it well; bestowing only the happiness of the first dhyāna cannot be named cultivating it well; bestowing only the happiness of the second dhyāna cannot be named cultivating it well either. Only if one is able to bestow, in full completeness, the happiness of the desire realm all the way through the happiness of the third and fourth dhyānas, is this named cultivating it well.

Loving-kindness of this kind is named loving-kindness that takes sentient beings as its object. This may be practiced by an ordinary person, or by a trainee who has not yet exhausted the contaminants, cultivating this compassion in order to regulate the mind, gaining great merit, and thereby entering the uncontaminated.

As for loving-kindness that takes dharma as its object: arhats who have exhausted every contaminant, pratyekabuddhas, and buddhas — these noble ones, having broken through the mark of self and other, and extinguished the mark of sameness and difference, contemplate only the continuous arising of things through causes and conditions. When holding sentient beings in loving-kindness, they see only the continuity of causes and conditions combining together — the empty five aggregates are themselves precisely what "sentient being" refers to, and it is these five aggregates that are held in mind. Sentient beings, not knowing that this dharma is empty, constantly wish single-mindedly to attain happiness; the noble ones, taking pity on them, allow them to attain happiness according to their own wish, for the sake of this same conventional dharma — hence this is named loving-kindness that takes dharma as its object.

As for objectless loving-kindness: this loving-kindness belongs only to the buddhas. Why is this? The buddhas do not dwell within the nature of either the conditioned or the unconditioned, do not rely upon high or low, past, future, or present, and know that all causes and conditions are unreal, inverted and illusory — hence the mind has nothing at all that it takes as an object. The Buddha, because sentient beings do not know the true mark of all dharmas, and so come and go through the five realms, the mind clinging to dharmas, discriminating, taking up and rejecting — through this very wisdom of the true mark of all dharmas, causes sentient beings to attain it as well: this is objectless loving-kindness. It is like giving relief to the poor: one might give them wealth and goods, gold, silver, and jewels; or one might give them a wish-fulfilling spirit-jewel instead. Loving-kindness that takes sentient beings as its object, loving-kindness that takes dharma as its object, and objectless loving-kindness are exactly the same in this respect. This sense is given at length within the Mahāyāna treatise.

Furthermore: loving-kindness that takes sentient beings as its object sees only the mark of happiness received as a karmic result; loving-kindness that takes dharma as its object sees the mark of happiness received through the various dharma-gates and nirvāṇa itself; and objectless loving-kindness sees the mark that all things alike share the same buddha-nature, permanent, blissful, and equal. Furthermore: loving-kindness that takes sentient beings as its object belongs to the root dhyānas; loving-kindness that takes dharma as its object belongs, for the most part, to the special-excellences, the thorough-and-bright contemplation, the liberations, and the other uncontaminated dhyānas; and objectless loving-kindness belongs, for the most part, to the Śūraṅgama, the Lotus samādhi, and the nine kinds of dhyāna.

Second, explaining the cultivation and realization of compassion: this itself has two parts.

First, directly clarifying the method of cultivating compassion, as the Buddha says: "There is a monk who, with a mind corresponding to compassion, free of anger, free of resentment, free of enmity, free of vexation, vast and immeasurable, cultivates it well." As for the mind corresponding with compassion: the practitioner, within the concentration of loving-kindness, constantly holds the wish to give sentient beings happiness; arising from this concentration of loving-kindness, one nonetheless still sees sentient beings undergoing various kinds of bodily and mental suffering, and a mind of pity arises, reflecting: "Sentient beings are worthy of loving regard — may they not have to undergo these various kinds of bodily and mental suffering." One reflects further still: "I have, until now, been without eyes — throughout the five realms, loved ones, neutral persons, and enemies alike all undergo these various kinds of bodily and mental suffering, and yet I, neither knowing nor seeing it, have spent the long night in idleness, never giving rise to a mind that would rescue them." Having reflected in this way, one then makes this vow: "Should there be sentient beings undergoing various kinds of suffering, may I, within concentration, come to see this in every case, and diligently apply myself to rescuing and protecting them."

Having made this vow, one then enters dhyāna-concentration, using the pure mind of concentration and mindfulness to first take up the mark of a single loved one's own suffering, fixing the mind upon it as its object. Should some other thought arise, one gathers the mind back in, making the mental image entirely clear and distinct, the mind full of pity, compassionate regard without limit — extending, in this way, to a neutral person, an enemy, one to be hated, then to a single direction, and, further still, to all ten directions; to a single realm, and, further still, to all five realms, following the same pattern. This, in brief, describes the method for cultivating compassion.

Second, clarifying the mark of the compassion concentration's own arising. The practitioner, through the purity of merit, wisdom, and wholesome roots, contemplating in this way, samādhi is thereupon brought forth; one sees, within concentration, the mark of the loved one's own suffering, entirely clear and distinct, the mind full of compassionate pity, wishing to rescue and protect them. Having seen the loved one undergoing suffering, and a mind of pity having arisen, one next sees the same for a neutral person and an enemy, and, further still, for sentient beings throughout the ten directions and all five realms undergoing suffering. The practitioner, seeing others undergoing suffering within the concentrated mind, while the inward mind of pity, arising from the concentration of compassion, grows ever deeper and more secure, the concentrated mind corresponding with what is seen without, deep and unmoving — this is named the mind corresponding with compassion. Free of anger, free of resentment, free of enmity, free of vexation, vast and immeasurable — all exactly as already described above.

As for "cultivated well": within the concentration of compassion, not merely seeing a loved one undergo suffering and feeling deep pity for them, but extending this, all the way through the nine kinds of person, neutral and enemy alike, and to every being undergoing suffering throughout the ten directions and the five realms, feeling pity and offering rescue and protection with a mind held perfectly equal throughout — this is what is named cultivating it well. Furthermore: if, seeing one undergoing suffering, pity arises, but toward one experiencing happiness, or one experiencing neither suffering nor happiness, no such pitying regard arises at all, this cannot be named cultivating it well; only if, seeing all three kinds of person, one recognizes that each, in their own way, is equally undergoing suffering, and holds pity for them without any distinction, is this named cultivating it well. Furthermore: seeing sentient beings across the five realms as undergoing differing kinds of suffering is not named cultivating it well; seeing that the suffering they undergo is, at root, not different at all, and holding pity for them equally, is what is named cultivating it well. It may also, however, be said the other way: seeing sentient beings across the five realms as undergoing a single, uniform kind of suffering is not named cultivating it well; being able to properly distinguish the differing kinds of suffering sentient beings across the five realms actually undergo is what is named cultivating it well. This, in brief, describes the mark of cultivating it well.

Question: sentient beings across the five realms have differing karmic results, their suffering and happiness differing accordingly — beings in the three lower realms undergo, for the most part, suffering as their karmic result; beings in the human realm receive suffering and happiness in roughly equal measure; and beings in the heavenly realms receive, for the most part, happiness as their karmic result. How, then, can the causes and conditions of practicing loving-kindness lead one to see all beings alike receiving happiness, while the causes and conditions of practicing compassion lead one to see all beings alike undergoing suffering — is this not itself a form of inverted, deluded thinking? Answer: this does not follow; this is, rather, precisely the path to genuine understanding.

The practitioner, wishing to study this immeasurable mind of loving-kindness, should first make this vow: "May all sentient beings receive every kind of happiness." Taking up the mark of a person receiving happiness, gathering the mind and entering concentration, one thereby comes to see sentient beings all receiving happiness. It is like starting a fire by friction: using soft grass and dried cattle-dung at first, the fire's own strength gradually grows greater, until it is able to burn even what is thoroughly damp. The great mind of loving-kindness, at its first arising, is exactly the same: the fire, at its very first kindling, reaches only a loved one, but, as the mind of loving-kindness grows ever wider, enemy and loved one alike are seen equally, all receiving happiness, with no mark of suffering left at all.

Furthermore: every sentient being, turning through the five realms, has suffering and happiness that are themselves never fixed — though there be happiness for the moment, great suffering is bound to follow later; and though there be great suffering now, happiness is bound to be attained later as well. Though this has not yet actually come to pass, it is nonetheless bound to occur. Hence the practitioner, using this mind of genuine understanding, takes every being as receiving happiness alike, without falling into any inverted, deluded thinking at all. The minds of compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity are exactly the same in this respect.

Third, explaining the cultivation and realization of sympathetic joy: this itself has two parts.

First, directly clarifying the method of cultivating sympathetic joy, as the Buddha says: "There is a monk who, with a mind corresponding to sympathetic joy, free of anger, free of resentment, free of enmity, free of vexation, vast and immeasurable, cultivates it well." As for the mind corresponding with sympathetic joy: the practitioner, having entered the concentration of compassion, the mind grieves over how every sentient being has, throughout the long night, been oppressed by every kind of suffering and affliction — how, then, should I go about rescuing and delivering them, so that these very sentient beings may pass from suffering into happiness, and, from happiness, give rise to delight? At this point, one deeply contemplates that, although sentient beings undergo suffering and affliction, this suffering is itself illusory, originally absent and only now present, and so easily removed and extinguished.

Why is this? It is like a person suffering from illness: should they encounter the right medicine, they are cured at once, and, further supplied with clothing and food, immeasurable happiness follows. Furthermore: it is like a person burning with fever, the body suffering greatly — should they obtain cool, refreshing water, the suffering of the fever is extinguished at once, and joy and happiness arise instead. It is like a person presently suffering poverty and hardship, and, through this very cause and condition, committing wrongdoing out of stinginess and greed — should they be given precious treasure, and taught to practice generosity and cultivate goodness, they would, in the present, be freed from poverty's own hardship, body and mind rejoicing, and, in the world to come, long enjoy peace and happiness. Furthermore: it is like people in the world, deluded and inverted, bound up in affliction, undergoing every kind of suffering — should they hear the uncontaminated, pure, wondrous Dharma, and practice accordingly as it is taught, the illness of affliction is removed, and dhyāna-concentration, wisdom, and the happiness of nirvāṇa are thereby obtained at once. Through such various causes and conditions as these, suffering has no fixed nature of its own, and so is easily removed and extinguished, allowing happiness and delight to be attained.

The practitioner, having made this contemplation, then makes this vow: "May every suffering of every sentient being be entirely removed and extinguished, that they may receive happiness and delight — may I come to see this, in every case, within concentration." Having made this vow, one then enters dhyāna-concentration, using a mind of pure mindfulness to take up a loved one, freed from suffering and receiving the mark of happiness and delight, contemplating this single-mindedly, making the mental image entirely clear and distinct, seeing the mark of the loved one receiving joy and happiness, the mind delighted, rejoicing beyond measure. One then extends this to a neutral person, an enemy, and, further still, to sentient beings throughout the ten directions and the five realms receiving this same joy, the mind giving rise to delight. This, in brief, describes the method for cultivating sympathetic joy.

Second, clarifying the mark of the sympathetic-joy concentration's own arising. The practitioner, having cultivated in this way, through the power of mindfulness, wisdom, merit, and wholesome roots, taking up this object, samādhi is thereupon brought forth through its own power; one sees, within concentration, spontaneously and without effort, the mark of the loved one, freed from suffering, receiving happiness and delight, entirely clear and distinct — within this samādhi, the mind's own delight beyond all description; and, further still, sentient beings throughout the ten directions and the five realms receiving this same delight, exactly the same. The practitioner, seeing others receiving delight within samādhi, while the inward mind remains unmoved, concentration gradually growing ever deeper — this is named the mind corresponding with sympathetic joy. Free of anger, free of resentment, free of enmity, free of vexation, vast and immeasurable, and the sense of "cultivated well" — all exactly as already described within loving-kindness.

Question: loving-kindness gives sentient beings happiness, and sympathetic joy gives sentient beings delight — what, then, is the actual difference between happiness and delight? Answer: as the Mahāyāna treatise says, bodily happiness is named "happiness," and mental happiness is named "delight." Corresponding with the five sense-consciousnesses is named "happiness"; corresponding with mind-consciousness is named "delight." Happiness arising from the five sense-objects is named "happiness"; happiness arising from the dharma-object is named "delight." Furthermore: within the desire realm, correspondence with the five consciousnesses is named "happiness"; within the first dhyāna, correspondence with the three consciousnesses is named "happiness"; within the third dhyāna, every kind of happiness whatsoever is named "happiness"; and, within both the desire realm and the first dhyāna, correspondence with mind-consciousness specifically is named "happiness" as well. Within the second dhyāna, every kind of happiness whatsoever is named "delight." Coarse happiness is named "happiness"; fine happiness is named "delight." At the time of its cause, it is named "happiness"; at the time of its result, it is named "delight." At the very moment happiness is first attained, this is named "happiness"; a delighted mind arising within, its mark of happiness manifesting without, delight leaping up — this is named "delight." Correspondence with the happiness-faculty is named "happiness"; correspondence with the joy-faculty is named "delight." Such various distinctions as these mark the difference between the marks of delight and happiness.

Question: if this is so, why are loving-kindness and sympathetic joy not spoken of in direct sequence with one another? Answer: when practicing loving-kindness, one holds sentient beings in loving regard exactly as one would one's own newborn child, the mind wishing to give them happiness; and, emerging from the concentration of loving-kindness, one nonetheless still sees sentient beings undergoing every kind of suffering, a deep and loving regard wishing to draw out this suffering and bring them to peace and happiness instead. This should follow the pattern of happiness first, delight afterward, with compassion set between them — hence sympathetic joy is not spoken of in direct sequence right after loving-kindness. It is like a mother: though she constantly holds her child in mind, wishing them peace and happiness, this alone is not yet named delight; but later, seeing the child fall ill, her own mind is consumed with anguish and grief — and, once the illness is cured, and the family's own fortune is entrusted to the child, great delight follows. Hence sympathetic joy is spoken of only after compassion.

Question: why is it that, discussed in terms of dhyāna, delight is the coarser of the two, while, discussed in terms of the immeasurable minds, delight is instead the finer? Answer: within dhyāna, concentration itself is what is most prized — a tranquil, still mind of happiness supports concentration, and so is considered superior there. Within the immeasurable minds, however, the mind takes sentient beings as its object, and delight arising through the cause and condition of sentient beings is considered superior there instead — hence it is the finer of the two in this context. Furthermore: the practitioner's concentration, still shallow at the outset, can only take sentient beings as its object through happiness. Why is this? Because, were one to take up the mark of delight too soon, the mind would scatter and become difficult to gather in; only later, as samādhi as its object gradually deepens, can delight leap up without the mind becoming scattered or disordered — hence it is considered the finer of the two here.

Fourth, explaining the cultivation and realization of equanimity: this too has two parts.

First, directly clarifying the method of cultivating equanimity, as the Buddha says: "There is a monk who, with a mind corresponding to equanimity, free of anger, free of resentment, free of enmity, free of vexation, vast and immeasurable, cultivates it well." As for the mind corresponding with equanimity: the practitioner, emerging from the concentration of sympathetic joy, reflects within: "If loving-kindness gives sentient beings happiness, compassion wishes to draw out their suffering, and sympathetic joy brings them delight, and yet I still reckon myself as able to benefit them, unable to forget these two matters, this is not yet the superior practice. It is like a loving father who benefits his own child without seeking any gratitude or reward in return — only this is called true parental affection. Furthermore: sentient beings attain happiness through many causes and conditions, not through myself alone; to say that I myself am able to give them happiness would be to overstate my own part in it. Furthermore: loving-kindness's giving of happiness is itself only a matter of skillful understanding — sentient beings do not, in truth, actually attain happiness in any fixed sense at all, and to take this as literally real would itself be a form of inverted thinking. Furthermore: these very sentient beings, undergoing suffering and happiness, give rise to worry and delight in turn — and this arising of worry and delight is itself nothing but a fetter, difficult to be liberated from. I now wish to give them the pure, wholesome dharma instead, and should not remain dwelling in these three states of mind. Furthermore: although I hold loving-kindness and compassion toward them, this brings them no true benefit in itself — I should now relinquish these three states of mind, and instead practice the various wholesome dharmas that truly benefit sentient beings."

Having reflected in this way, one relinquishes these three states of mind, and, with a single mind, makes this vow: "May all sentient beings attain this same subtle equanimity, adorned in its fullness — may I come to see this in every case." Having made this vow, one then enters dhyāna-concentration, using a mind of pure mindfulness to take up the mark of a loved one experiencing neither suffering nor happiness, fixing the mind single-mindedly upon this. Should some other thought arise, one gathers the mind back in, making the mental image entirely clear and distinct, seeing this person before one experiencing neither suffering nor happiness — extending this, in the same sequence, to a neutral person, an enemy, and, further still, to every sentient being throughout the ten directions and the five realms, all alike experiencing neither suffering nor happiness, the mind held perfectly equal throughout. This, in brief, describes the method for cultivating equanimity.

Second, clarifying the mark of the equanimity concentration's own arising. The practitioner, having cultivated in this way, through the power of right mindfulness, merit, and wholesome roots, taking up this object, samādhi is thereupon brought forth; within concentration, without any further application of effort, one sees, spontaneously and of its own accord, the mark of the loved one experiencing neither suffering nor happiness, entirely clear and distinct. Within this dhyāna-concentration, although sentient beings are seen, the mind holds neither aversion nor attachment toward them, and the same holds, further still, for sentient beings throughout the ten directions and the five realms. The practitioner, at this point, sees every sentient being alike bearing this same mark of equanimity within this concentration, samādhi opening and unfolding, utterly unmoved, deep, subtle, and secure, the mind at peace, equal throughout without any duality at all — this is named the mind corresponding with equanimity. Free of anger, free of resentment, free of enmity, free of vexation, vast and immeasurable, and the sense of "cultivated well" — all exactly as already described above.

Question: within the previous three states of mind, merit is bound to be present, but this equanimity, giving sentient beings neither suffering nor happiness, what benefit does it actually bring? Answer: the practitioner reflects: "When sentient beings pass from suffering into happiness, and then lose this happiness once more, this loss is itself a form of suffering — a trouble and a burden in every case. But attaining a state of neither suffering nor happiness, the mind remains at peace, free of affliction from beginning to end." Since equanimity thus truly benefits them, the merit gained through it is correspondingly great as well.

Furthermore: the practitioner, while practicing loving-kindness and sympathetic joy, may, at times, give rise to a mind of attachment; and, while practicing compassion, may, at times, give rise to a mind of grief and sorrow. Because of this craving and sorrow, the resulting merit is correspondingly thin and slight. Entering this state of equanimity, one removes this very fault of craving, free of every such affliction — one should know that the merit gained through practicing equanimity is exceedingly great. Furthermore: the practitioner, within this state of equanimity, is able to perform every kind of beneficial action toward sentient beings — hence the merit gained is increased all the more. This concludes, in brief, the immeasurable mind of equanimity.

Question: within compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity, why is loving-kindness's own distinction between taking dharma as its object and being objectless not spoken of again? Answer: the sense follows the same pattern already seen within loving-kindness, and may be readily understood — there is no need to repeat it here.

Question: among these four immeasurable minds, happiness is divided into two kinds, happiness and delight — why, then, are compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity not likewise each divided into two? Answer: happiness is what every sentient being cherishes and loves, and so it is divided into two; suffering is neither loved nor desired, and so it is not divided into two in the same way.

Question: when the four immeasurable minds make their vow and enter concentration to see sentient beings, is this a truly real seeing, or merely a seeing through mental imagination? Answer: seeing is of two kinds: one who has attained the immeasurable mind together with the heavenly eye sees truly and really; but one who merely uses understanding and mental recollection, taking sentient beings as an object in order to enter samādhi, upon actually realizing this samādhi, through the very power of the samādhi, sees them while within it, but no longer sees them once having emerged from it. This is the power of samādhi's own understanding, not a truly real seeing.

Question: in realizing the four immeasurable minds, why are their factors, substance and function, depth, and progress and regression not distinguished, the way they were for the four dhyānas? Answer: at the moment the immeasurable minds are realized, it is not that this sense is entirely absent either — it is simply that, there being no definite text addressing it, it is not necessary to distinguish it here.

Fifth, explaining the merit of the four immeasurable minds: this itself has two parts — merit in this present life; and merit in the life to come.

First, as for merit in this present life: as the Buddha says in the Āgamas: "One who enters the samādhi of loving-kindness attains five kinds of merit in this present life: entering fire, one is not burned; encountering poison, one does not die; struck by weapons, one is not wounded; one never dies an untimely death; and one is protected and guarded by wholesome spirits." Because of benefiting immeasurable sentient beings, one attains immeasurable merit in turn.

Second, as for merit in the life to come: one who cultivates the four immeasurable minds well, should they be born into the form realm, for the most part becomes a Brahmā king, since the immeasurable minds embrace sentient beings so broadly. Should this attainment be reached within the first dhyāna, one becomes king of the first dhyāna's heaven, and the same holds, further still, all the way through the fourth dhyāna as well.

Question: the Tripiṭaka speaks only of the first dhyāna's own heaven as bearing the title Lord of the Sahā World, the Great Brahmā King — why, then, is it now said that Brahmā kings are present all the way through the fourth dhyāna as well? Answer: the Yingluo Sūtra, in clarifying the four dhyānas, states that a Brahmā king is present within each and every one of the four dhyānas' own heavens.

Question: if this is so, why does the Buddha say that the karmic reward of loving-kindness is birth in the Brahmā heaven specifically? Answer: because the Brahmā heaven's own beings are widely honored, universally heard of, and universally known. The Buddha, while in the land of India, was constantly surrounded by many brāhmaṇas, and the brāhmaṇa teaching holds that every merit whatsoever should ultimately aim at rebirth in the Brahmā heaven; hence, hearing that practicing loving-kindness leads to birth in the Brahmā heaven, many among them, upon hearing this, came to believe and follow the teaching, cultivating and practicing the dharma of loving-kindness — hence it is said, for this very reason, that practicing loving-kindness leads to birth in the Brahmā heaven.

Furthermore: every heaven that has severed lustful desire is named, in general, "Brahmā" — and so speaking of "Brahmā" already encompasses the four dhyānas and the four formless concentrations together, just as, among the five precepts' own moral codes, speaking of the single precept against false speech alone is already understood to encompass the other three related precepts as well. Furthermore: if the four immeasurable minds are cultivated within any of the four dhyānas, one is bound to be reborn according to that very dhyāna. Since one is thus reborn according to whichever dhyāna the immeasurable minds were cultivated within, and the merit involved is itself great, the karmic result, too, should correspondingly differ — how, then, could one possibly be reborn into that heaven with no distinction at all between ruler and ruled? Furthermore, as the Buddha says in the Humane Kings Sūtra, there are eighteen Brahmā heavens, and these, too, should have their own distinction between ruler and ruled. It is also said that there is a Great Tranquil King present within the fourth dhyāna as well; and, as for why the Buddha, within the Tripiṭaka, speaks only of the first dhyāna as having a Great Brahmā King, this is because the first dhyāna alone still has initial thought and sustained reflection present within it — and so, although it still involves language, it is convenient for it to serve as the ruling lord over the realms below; the higher stages have no such need for this, and so are not separately named.

Question: if this is so, why does the Buddha then speak of the four immeasurable minds' merit in this other way — that loving-kindness, cultivated well, has its merit reaching its utmost in the Heaven of Universal Purity; compassion, cultivated well, has its merit reaching its utmost in the sphere of boundless space; sympathetic joy, cultivated well, has its merit reaching its utmost in the sphere of boundless consciousness; and equanimity, cultivated well, has its merit reaching its utmost in the sphere of nothingness — how, then, can it also be said that loving-kindness's own karmic result leads to birth in the Brahmā heaven? Answer: the Buddhadharma is inconceivable, spoken of in whatever way suits whichever sentient beings are to be delivered by it at the time. Furthermore: arising from the concentration of loving-kindness, one enters the third dhyāna easily; arising from the concentration of compassion, one turns toward the sphere of boundless space easily; arising from the concentration of sympathetic joy, one enters the sphere of boundless consciousness easily; and arising from the concentration of equanimity, one enters the sphere of nothingness easily.

Furthermore: the mind of loving-kindness vows that sentient beings attain happiness, and so its own karmic result naturally receives happiness in turn — and, among the three realms, the Heaven of Universal Purity is the very happiest of all, hence its merit is said to reach its utmost there. The mind of compassion contemplates sentient beings growing old, falling ill, and being harmed, a mind of pity arising in the practitioner — how, then, might they be freed from suffering? If the inward suffering is removed, outward suffering returns; and if the outward suffering is removed instead, inward suffering returns in its place. The practitioner reflects: "Wherever there is a body, there is suffering; only where there is no body at all can there be freedom from suffering." Since empty space is able to break through form entirely, its merit is said to reach its utmost in the sphere of boundless space. The mind of sympathetic joy wishes to give sentient beings happiness — and one whose mind and consciousness attain happiness gains a mind freed from the body, like a bird escaping its cage; in the sphere of boundless space, although the mind has already escaped the body, it remains bound to the sphere of space itself, still unable to move freely — whereas, within every dharma whatsoever, mind and consciousness are already present, and consciousness itself is boundless and free; hence sympathetic joy's merit reaches its utmost in the sphere of boundless consciousness. The mind of equanimity relinquishes both suffering and happiness among sentient beings, and so attains the true dharma of what is called the sphere of nothingness; hence equanimity's own merit reaches its utmost in the sphere of nothingness.

If the merit of the four immeasurable minds is explained in this way, this holds only because the noble ones' own wisdom and skillful means are themselves free and unobstructed — it does not hold for ordinary people. Why is this? Ordinary people, abiding within the first dhyāna all the way through the fourth, cultivate the four immeasurable minds and receive their karmic result according to whichever dhyāna they cultivated them in, unable to skillfully enter the formless realm and cultivate the four immeasurable minds there as well.

Furthermore: the Buddha, knowing that future disciples would be of dull faculty, clinging to distinctions among dharmas, and so might mistakenly describe the mark of the four immeasurable minds — these four immeasurable minds, as known by the noble ones, take sentient beings as their object, and so are contaminated; and, since they take only the desire realm as their object, they are absent within the formless realm. Why is this? Because the formless realm does not take the desire realm as its object at all. In order to sever such a mistaken view as this, the four immeasurable minds are spoken of as they are here; within the formless realm, too, the four immeasurable minds broadly take the ten directions' sentient beings as their object, and so it is not said again separately that they fail to take the formless realm as their object. Those who speak in this way, for the most part, are describing loving-kindness that takes dharma as its object, and objectless loving-kindness.

Furthermore: should the practitioner, within loving-kindness that takes sentient beings as its object, become fully complete, entering also loving-kindness that takes dharma as its object and objectless loving-kindness, then, at this point, the immeasurable mind that takes sentient beings as its object is itself the Mahāyāna. Furthermore: the bodhisattva, having given rise to the bodhi-mind and practicing the bodhisattva path, should know and realize this very immeasurable mind that takes sentient beings as its object as well, even though it is, in itself, a practice of the ordinary person. Having realized it, through the unfindable emptiness of non-attachment, and skillful means, one is thereby able to be complete in every wholesome dharma within this very concentration, liberating all sentient beings — this is precisely the practice of the bodhisattva path. Furthermore: the contemplative merit within the four immeasurable minds is itself manifold; wishing to discuss the remaining matters further would exceed what can be given here in full.

Next, following the four immeasurable minds, the concentration of no-thought should be explained. Why is this? There are non-Buddhist practitioners who grow deeply weary of the arising and ceasing of conditioned mind and consciousness, wishing to seek nirvāṇa as a still, permanent happiness; yet, lacking true wisdom, and not knowing the truth of the matter, upon attaining the fourth dhyāna, they fail to perceive the fault present within its own subtle form, and are aware only of mind and consciousness's own arising and ceasing as illusory and false, growing weary of and troubled by this very mind. Not knowing how to break through form and sever the bondage of form, they simply use a deviant wisdom to extinguish the mind directly instead — corresponding with this deviant dharma, the mind free of any thought at all, they take this to be the realization of nirvāṇa.

Since the bondage of form has not, in fact, been severed at all, when their life ends, they are reborn into the heaven of no-thought instead — still nothing more than birth-and-death within the form realm, never actually attaining liberation — also called a "guest heaven." This is comparable to the anāgāmin who cultivates the five-grade dhyāna of habituation: since the form realm's own discursive delusion has not yet been entirely exhausted, they, too, take temporary lodging within the form realm, likewise called a "guest heaven." Since this concentration of no-thought is itself a deviant dharma, and not something a disciple of the Buddha would ever cultivate, it is given here only in brief, for the sake of completeness in clarifying the concentrations of the three realms, simply to show and make known the marks of the deviant and the correct.

Third, explaining the four formless concentrations. The four formless concentrations are: the sphere of boundless space; the sphere of boundless consciousness; the sphere of nothingness; and the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception. Here, these four concentrations are explained in two parts: a general explanation; and a particular explanation.

First, the general explanation: the previous four dhyānas and the four immeasurable-mind concentrations are all present in dependence on form-dharma; these present four concentrations, however, are all present in dependence on formless dharma, taking their very name from their own object — hence they are called the formless concentrations. Hence the sūtra says: "The four emptinesses extinguish the path of form, mind after mind mutually depending on one another" — also called the four concentrations of emptiness. Having no shape and no substance, their meaning is the same as empty space itself — hence they are named the four concentrations of emptiness, also called the four spheres of the concentration of emptiness.

These four kinds of concentrated mind are also named "spheres," since these four kinds of concentrated mind take the very object contemplated as their own sphere — just as the foundations of mindfulness, the stations of mastery, and the totality-bases all likewise take their name from the object contemplated. The mark of the four concentrations of emptiness' own sequence will be clarified below. As for why they are not named "dhyāna": having already received their own name earlier, it would not be proper to establish this same name again, and so a more excellent name is established here instead. Furthermore: these four formless attainments are themselves deficient in the substance of a grove-of-factors, and so cannot be named "dhyāna."

Question: the Yingluo Sūtra says: "The five factors serve as the cause, and silence serves as the substance of concentration" — how, then, does this apply here? Answer: this is simply establishing factors as a matter of convenient sense, not the same as the four dhyānas' own complete accomplishment of the dharma of a grove-of-factors — hence the various sūtras and treatises, in general, do not speak of factors being present here at all.

Second, explaining the sphere of boundless space in particular: this opens into three parts — explaining the name; cultivation; and the mark of realization.

First, explaining the name: as for why it is named the concentration of the sphere of space, this concentration is the very first to leave the three kinds of form behind, the mind taking empty space as its object, corresponding, at this point, with formlessness itself — hence it is named the concentration of empty space. This sphere of space, together with the three formless attainments above it, all belong to the samādhi without initial thought or sustained reflection, noble silence, joined with equanimity — hence the Mahāyāna treatise says: "Having attained the concentration of the sphere of space, free of both suffering and happiness, the mind grows ever further."

Question: if it is empty space's own formlessness that gives the concentration of emptiness its name, then the dhyānas already discussed above also involve a perception of emptiness — why, then, are they not named the concentration of empty space as well? Answer: this does not follow. Within those six stages, it is simply that, upon entering concentration, the mind grows fine, no longer perceiving the mark of coarse form, and so is taken, in one's own mind, to be "empty" — but, in truth, one has not yet actually been able to contemplate form directly, break it apart, and sever the bondage of form. Hence, within those concentrations, form is at times seen and at times not seen — unlike the concentration of emptiness, which leaves the mark of form behind entirely and permanently. Hence, although those six stages of concentration do involve a mark resembling emptiness, they are not named the concentration of empty, formless space.

Second, clarifying the method for cultivating the sphere of space. Within this, there are two parts: clarifying the object to be cultivated; and clarifying the mind that does the cultivating.

First, clarifying the object to be cultivated: this itself is of two kinds — the object that obstructs; and the object that accomplishes concentration. First, as for the obstructing object: the practitioner wishing to enter the sphere of space must extinguish three kinds of form: visible form with resistance; invisible form with resistance; and invisible form without resistance. Hence the sūtra says: "Passing beyond every mark of form, extinguishing the mark of resistance, no longer taking up any of the various marks, one enters the sphere of boundless space." The Mahāyāna treatise says: "'Passing beyond every mark of form' means breaking through visible form with resistance; 'extinguishing the mark of resistance' means breaking through invisible form with resistance; and 'no longer taking up any of the various marks' means extinguishing invisible form without resistance." Every form-dharma whatsoever numbers no more than eleven: the five sense-objects, the five sense-faculties, and a small portion of the sense-base of dharma, this last being itself a form-dharma-object. As the Abhidharma says: "Where one sense perceives it, all ten of the others do as well — hence it is said to have resistance." The small portion of the dharma-sense-base is invisible and without resistance. The practitioner wishing to enter the concentration of the sphere of space must break through these three kinds of form — these three kinds of form are precisely the obstructing object. Second, as for the object that accomplishes concentration: empty space, taken as the object of wisdom, is the very means by which concentration is entered — this is precisely the object that accomplishes concentration.

Second, clarifying the mind that does the cultivating: this itself has two parts — reproach and praise; and analytic contemplation.

As for reproach and praise: the practitioner wishing to seek the concentration of the sphere of space should deeply reflect on the faults and offenses of the dharma of form — namely, that, wherever there is a bodily form, there is, within it, hunger, thirst, illness, urination and defecation, filth and impurity, coarse heaviness and repugnance, deception and falsity, every such suffering; and, without it, cold, heat, weapons and rods, fetters and chains, punishment, every such suffering as well. Obtained as a karmic result through the coming together of causes and conditions from past lives, this very body is the root of every manner of suffering, and cannot be relied upon or clung to. Furthermore: every form-dharma whatsoever binds the mind, denying it freedom — it is itself the very prison of the mind, causing the mind to suffer affliction, with nothing in it worth craving or delighting in. This, in brief, describes the mark of reproaching form's own faults and offenses. As for praise: one praises empty, formless space as free of these very faults, vast, open, and at peace — this stage being still and tranquil, free of every affliction and trouble. What is clarified here, reproach and praise, is precisely the mark of cultivating the six practices, understood by the same pattern as before.

Second, clarifying analytic contemplation. The practitioner, within the fourth dhyāna, should reflect: "My present concentration relies upon a body of the desire realm, complete with form-dharma — why, then, do I not see it directly?" Having reflected in this way, one should single-mindedly and closely contemplate every pore and the nine bodily orifices of one's own body, the space-element within the body entirely empty and porous throughout, just like a fine silk gauze, inward and outward freely interpenetrating; and also like a plantain trunk, layer upon layer with nothing solid at its core. Contemplating in this way, one comes to see this directly. Having seen it, one should further and more closely observe, seeing the body as though it were a sieve, a steaming-basket, or a spider's web, growing gradually more and more insubstantial, the bodily parts entirely exhausted, until neither the body nor the five faculties are seen at all. Just as the inward body is thus exhausted, so too is outward form. Why is this? Because the inward body's own four subtle elements and four great elements, every form-dharma present, are no different at all from the outward body's own four subtle elements and four great elements, every form-dharma present there as well.

Furthermore: the practitioner, contemplating in this way, the eye's own seeing of form broken down — this is named "passing beyond form." The ear's sound, the nose's fragrance, the tongue's flavor, and the body's own tactile sensing all broken down as well — this is named "extinguishing the mark of resistance." No longer discriminating among the remaining two kinds of form, nor among the various forms not directly instructed by the senses — this is named "no longer taking up any of the various distinct marks." Once every form-dharma has thus been extinguished, one simply fixes the mind single-mindedly on emptiness, holding this mindfulness of emptiness without relinquishing it — at this point, the concentration of form passes away and is extinguished, while the concentration of emptiness has not yet arisen; there is, in the interval, an intermediate dhyāna present here as well. At this point, one must take great care not to fall into worry or regret, but instead apply oneself diligently, holding the mind single-mindedly on emptiness, until the difficulty of form is finally overcome. This, in brief, describes the method for cultivating this dhyāna-concentration.

Second, clarifying the realization of the concentration of empty space: this too has six parts — the mark of realization; clarifying whether factors are present or absent; substance and function; depth; progress and regression; and merit.

First, clarifying the mark of realization: the practitioner, holding the mind single-mindedly on emptiness without relinquishing it, the mind grows indistinct, abiding of its own accord, spontaneously, within emptiness as its object. This, too, resembles the mark of the "not-yet-arrived" state already described above. Afterward, the mind opens out, corresponding with emptiness, bright and pure, free of both suffering and happiness, this state growing ever further — within this deep concentration, one sees only empty space itself, with no mark of form present at all. Although taking boundless empty space as its object, the mind is free of any scattering. Freed now from the bondage of form, mind and consciousness are clear and still, unobstructed and at ease — like a bird within a cage, the cage broken open, able to fly forth freely. The realization of the concentration of empty space is exactly the same.

Furthermore: having attained the concentration of the sphere of space, one has passed entirely beyond the form realm — hence this is named "passing beyond every mark of form." The dharma of emptiness sustains the mind, and the various forms are no longer able to arise at all — hence this is named "extinguishing the mark of resistance." Having attained this excellent, wondrous sphere of space, one is decisively able to relinquish the dharma of form, the mind no longer dwelling on or longing for it — hence this is named "no longer taking up any of the various marks." Hence the sūtras, for the most part, use this very sense to clarify the realization of the concentration of the sphere of space.

Second, clarifying whether factors are present or absent: the various other sūtras and treatises, in clarifying the four formless concentrations, generally do not establish any factors for them at all; only the Yingluo Sūtra says: "Within the four concentrations of emptiness, five factors serve as the cause, and the sixth, the mind of noble silence, serves as the substance of concentration, the expedient path being the same, substance and function resembling one another." Following what the Yingluo Sūtra says, then, the concentration of empty space does indeed have five factors. These five factors, as the sūtra states, are: conception; guarding; correctness; contemplation; and one-pointedness of mind. But, whereas the four dhyānas already discussed above all had visibly distinct marks of their own factors, this concentration of emptiness has no such distinctly realized, branching dharma of its own — this is likely, then, spoken with reference to the expedient means for cultivating emptiness, factors established here only as a matter of convenient sense, hence the sūtra's own qualification: "the expedient path being the same, substance and function resembling one another." As for why the other sūtras and treatises generally do not establish factors here at all: this must be because, in its own substance, there is no distinctly realized, grove-of-factors-like mark of accomplishment present; and, as for why the Yingluo Sūtra speaks of factors being present, this, for the most part, is spoken with reference to expedient means and to sense alone.

As for establishing factors with reference to expedient means, what is the sense of this? First, conception: while cultivating the concentration of emptiness, conceiving of the body as though it were a sieve or a steaming-basket. Second, guarding: this is precisely the factor of relinquishing, relinquishing the three kinds of mark of form; "guarding" also means maintaining and protecting, warding off the three kinds of form, not allowing them to break through the mind of emptiness. Third, correctness: this means being free of deviance — cultivating the concentration of emptiness here is what is correct; were one instead to dwell on the mark of form, this would be deviant. Fourth, contemplation: contemplating and penetrating right mindfulness, breaking through the three kinds of form, penetrating the principle of emptiness. Fifth, if the contemplating mind abides within empty space, free of any scattering, this is named the factor of one-pointedness of mind.

Explaining the general sense of "factor": this means the sense of branching apart — because these five dharmas branch apart from one another, not being a single unity, they are named "factors." Discussed with reference to the expedient means of cultivation, the sense of the factors should properly be exactly as given here; but the Buddha's own intent is difficult to know for certain, and, there being no definite text on the matter, this cannot be judged with full certainty. Alternatively, it may be that, at the very moment the concentration of emptiness is realized, five factors are established there as a matter of sense as well. Why is this? Because the sūtra likewise says: "The five factors serve as the cause, and the sixth, the mind of noble silence, serves as the substance of concentration." Here, establishing factors with reference to cultivating emptiness leaves cause and effect, substance and function, somewhat obscured and inconvenient to explain; but, if factors are instead established with reference to the moment emptiness is actually realized, in accordance with their own sense, this, too, seems entirely coherent and readily seen — examined closely, this may be resolved for oneself, and need not be explained further here.

Third, as for substance and function: the first five factors serve as the cause, and the sixth, the mind of noble silence, serves as the effect; after this effect, the five factors arise once more, serving then as the function, with noble silence itself as the substance — exactly the same pattern as already given for the four dhyānas. Question: it was just said that there are no distinctly realized factors here at all — how, then, can this be treated the same as the dhyānas above? Answer: this simply uses the expedient-means sense of the factors as a corresponding parallel, obscured and revealed by the same pattern in turn — and this, too, should be without fault in its own sense.

Fourth, as for depth: upon first attaining the concentration of empty space, one leaves the three kinds of form behind, the mind corresponding with the ten directions' own empty space; afterward, as this concentration arises anew, one becomes aware once more of mind and consciousness growing bright and pure, the perception of emptiness itself growing ever broader, concentration itself growing ever deeper. Aware, at first, of shallowness and narrowness, and now of gradually growing breadth and depth — proceeding in this way all the way through nine grades, understood by the same pattern as already given.

Fifth, as for progress and regression: attaining the concentration of empty space likewise involves four differing kinds of practitioner — those prone to regression, those who abide, those who progress, and those who penetrate through — following the same pattern as already given within the four dhyānas above; this is not explained again here at length.

Sixth, clarifying merit: this too has both shared and distinct merit. The shared merit is as already described above. As for the distinct merit of freedom from fault: it is only beginning with this very concentration of emptiness that one is finally able to gain freedom from the fault of the three kinds of form. As for the distinct merit of a wholesome mind: having gained freedom from form and realized emptiness, one attains further excellent qualities still — faith, reverence, shame, remorse, and the other such merits.

Second, explaining the concentration of the sphere of consciousness: this too has three parts — explaining the name; the method of cultivation; and the mark of realization.

First, explaining the name: as for why it is named the sphere of consciousness, one relinquishes emptiness and takes consciousness as one's object instead, taking consciousness itself as one's sphere, receiving its name, properly speaking, from the very object taken — hence it is named the sphere of consciousness.

Second, the method of cultivation: this is of two kinds — reproaching and disparaging the sphere of space, praising the sphere of consciousness instead; and contemplating and breaking through the sphere of space, fixing the mind on consciousness as its object. What is meant by reproaching the concentration of emptiness? The practitioner knows that the concentration of the sphere of space corresponds with emptiness — but empty space is boundless, and, the mind taking empty space as its object, this object being so vast, the mind readily scatters, able to break apart concentration itself. Furthermore: empty space is itself an external dharma, and, taking an external dharma as the object through which one enters concentration, this concentration arises from something external, and so is not truly secure, carrying many faults — this is what is meant by reproaching the concentration of the sphere of space, in favor of the sphere of consciousness. Since consciousness, by contrast, is an internal dharma, taking this internal dharma as the object through which one enters concentration, this concentration is, for the most part, still and secure — hence the sphere of consciousness is praised instead.

Second, as for contemplating and breaking through the sphere of space: one contemplates that the very sensation, perception, formation, and consciousness taken as the object of emptiness are themselves like an illness, like a boil, like a wound, like a thorn — impermanent, suffering, empty, and without self, arisen only through the coming together of causes and conditions, deceptive and unreal. This is precisely the contemplation of the eight noble lineages. The first four serve as the antidote method, and are thus the contemplation of phenomenal conduct; the latter four, impermanence and the rest, are the contemplation of the truths and principle taken as their object.

Within these eight kinds of contemplation, there is, in turn, a general sense and a particular sense. The general sense: using these eight dharmas to contemplate the concentration of the sphere of space as a whole, the four aggregates combining together to produce this very concentration, worthy of concern and without any reality of its own. The particular sense: using these eight dharmas, the first four serve as the antidote, contemplating each of the four aggregates' own particular matter — illness treating the aggregate of sensation; boil treating the aggregate of perception; wound treating the aggregate of formation; and thorn treating the aggregate of consciousness. Furthermore, the latter four, impermanence and the rest, correspondingly contemplate each of the four aggregates' own principle: impermanence contemplating the aggregate of consciousness; suffering contemplating the aggregate of sensation; emptiness contemplating the aggregate of perception; and no-self contemplating the aggregate of formation. Through this twofold contemplation of phenomenal conduct and principle, general and particular, contemplating that the sphere of space's own phenomenal conduct and principle hold nothing worth craving or delighting in, the mind readily grows weary of it, quickly able to relinquish and leave it behind — properly applying the sense found within the foundations of mindfulness, this particular correspondence may be traced and understood.

Question: in leaving the four dhyānas behind, only three expedient means were spoken of — why, then, in leaving the four concentrations of emptiness behind, are the eight noble lineages spoken of instead? Answer: the concentrations of emptiness are already fine and subtle, and, were the noble lineages' own contemplation not spoken of here, their fault would be difficult to perceive. Question: if this is so, ordinary people, lacking the eight noble lineages, how could they possibly leave these concentrations behind at all? Answer: properly cultivating the six practices is likewise able to achieve this, only not as quickly as the eight noble lineages. Question: if, even in cultivating the contaminated dhyānas, one is able to use the eight noble lineages, how, then, does this differ from the uncontaminated? Answer: what is used here, the eight noble lineages, is simply for the sake of quickly leaving the lower stage behind and cultivating the stage above it — one is not thereby able to directly and deeply contemplate one's own present stage and bring forth uncontaminated wisdom from it — this is how it differs from the truly uncontaminated.

Next, clarifying fixing the mind on consciousness as its object. The practitioner, having properly recognized the fault of the concentration of emptiness, the mind no longer delighting in it, thereupon relinquishes the sphere of space, fixing the mind single-mindedly instead on the present mind and consciousness as its object, moment to moment never departing from it. The same holds for the future and the past as well — constantly holding consciousness in mind, wishing to correspond fully with consciousness itself, applying effort with single-minded devotion, not counting the days or months that pass, holding the mind single-mindedly on consciousness with no other thought at all.

Question: past consciousness has already ceased, future consciousness has not yet arrived, and present consciousness does not remain fixed even for a moment — how, then, can one possibly take it as an object and enter concentration through it at all? Answer: the dharma of mind and consciousness is, in truth, exactly as this question describes — although the mind and consciousness of the three periods of time cannot, in themselves, be found, they can nonetheless still be recollected and retained. It is like an angry thought from the past, already ceased and no longer able to be found again, and yet still able to be recollected and known; or like one who has attained the wisdom of knowing others' minds, thereby able to know another's mind across all three periods of time as well — every dharma, though empty, is nonetheless not simply annihilated. How much more, then, could one's own mind and consciousness across the three periods of time, taken as one's own object, fail to serve as the very cause for entering concentration? Reasoning this through, one finds that there is indeed a genuine sense in which taking consciousness as an object allows one to enter concentration.

Hence the practitioner, holding the mind single-mindedly on consciousness as its object, the concentration of emptiness thereupon passes away, while the concentration of consciousness has not yet arisen — an intermediate stage is present here as well, following the same pattern as already given. Question: if this is so, should the mark of this intermediate dhyāna also be explained here? Answer: this has already been explained above, and its sense may be readily seen there.

Third, the mark of realization: this too has six senses — the mark of realization; clarifying the factors; substance and function; depth; progress and regression; and merit.

First, the mark of this concentration's own arising: the practitioner, holding the mind single-mindedly on consciousness as its object, the mind grows indistinct, abiding of its own accord, spontaneously, within consciousness as its cause and object. Afterward, the mind opens out, corresponding with consciousness, the concentrated mind unmoving; and, within this concentration, one sees nothing else at all, only the present mind and consciousness, moment to moment never remaining still, the concentrated mind entirely clear, the scope of consciousness itself vast and expansive, measureless and boundless — and, within this same concentration, one also recollects the measureless, boundless consciousness of the past, already ceased, and the measureless, boundless consciousness of the future, yet to arise, all manifesting within this very concentration, corresponding with the dharma of consciousness itself. The dharma of consciousness sustains the mind, with no thought of scattering at all. This concentration is secure, pure, and still, mind and consciousness bright and sharp — beyond what words can convey.

Question: the practitioner has not yet attained the three supernormal penetrations — how, then, can the mind across the three periods of time be known at all? Answer: this is the very power of samādhi itself, following the same pattern as already given for the four immeasurable minds, and its sense may be understood accordingly.

Second, clarifying the factors: as the Yingluo Sūtra says, "the four concentrations of emptiness' own five factors, the expedient path being the same, their function resembling one another" — following the same pattern as the sphere of space, this need not be explained again here. Third, substance and function, and depth, progress and regression, and merit, all these, too, may be understood by the same pattern, and are not separately explained here.

Third, explaining the sphere of nothingness: this too has three parts — explaining the name; clarifying the method of cultivation; and clarifying the mark of realization.

First, explaining the name: as for the sphere of nothingness, when cultivating this concentration, one makes use of no internal or external state at all. The external state is called "space"; the internal state is called "mind" — relinquishing the cause of both these states at the very outset of cultivation, this concentration receives its name — hence it is called the sphere of nothingness. It is also named the sphere of the small; also named the sphere of nothing whatsoever; and also named the sphere of no-thought — these three names are all taken from the substance of the concentration itself.

Second, clarifying the method for cultivating the concentration of the sphere of nothingness: this is of two kinds — reproach and praise; and analytic contemplation.

What is meant by reproaching the sphere of consciousness? The practitioner deeply understands the fault of the sphere of consciousness. Why is this? The mind of this concentration corresponds with the dharma of consciousness, and, within this concentration, the mind takes consciousness as its object — the consciousness of the past, present, and future all being measureless and boundless; and, the mind taking a boundless object, this very vastness of object causes the mind to scatter, breaking apart concentration itself. Furthermore: taking emptiness as the object through which one previously entered concentration is named an "external" concentration; taking consciousness as the object through which one now enters concentration is named an "internal" concentration — but, whether relying on the internal or the external, neither is truly still. If one relies on the inner mind, taking mind as the object through which mind itself enters concentration, this concentration still depends upon the mind of the three periods of time for its arising, and so is not truly real. Only where there is no sphere of mind and consciousness at all present is the mind free of any reliance whatsoever — only this is properly named secure. Knowing this, one praises the sphere of nothingness instead.

Second, as for analytic contemplation: one contemplates that the very consciousness taken as an object, sensation, perception, formation, and consciousness, is itself like an illness, like a boil, like a wound, like a thorn, impermanent, suffering, empty, and without self, arisen only through the coming together of causes and conditions, deceptive and unreal, the sense of this exactly as already explained above. Knowing this, one relinquishes the sphere of consciousness, and fixes the mind instead on the sphere of nothingness. The sphere of nothingness, having nothing at all to rely upon, and taking mind and consciousness as an object now stilled and sought no further from within, makes use of no dharma of mind and consciousness whatsoever, knowing that the dharma of nothingness is neither empty nor consciousness, an unconditioned dharma-object with no discrimination present in it at all. Knowing this, one stills the mind, holding in mind the dharma of nothingness — at this point, the concentration of consciousness passes away, while the concentration of the small has not yet arisen; in this interval, the mark of realization is exactly as already described above.

Question: some say that, in cultivating the sphere of nothingness, one takes up a small portion of consciousness and takes this as the object through which one enters concentration — what should be made of this? Answer: this does not follow. One should relinquish everything entirely, simply holding in mind the dharma of nothingness — hence it is named the sphere of nothingness. As for why it is also spoken of as the sphere of "the small": this is simply because the mind-faculty, corresponding with the dharma-object of nothingness, gives rise to this sphere of "the small" — it is not that one takes a small portion of consciousness as the object through which one enters concentration that it comes to be named the sphere of "the small."

Third, clarifying the mark of realization: this too has six parts — directly clarifying the mark of realization; clarifying the factors; clarifying substance and function; depth; progress and regression; and merit.

First, clarifying the mark of the concentration of nothingness's own arising: the practitioner, within the intermediate stage, the mind free of worry or regret, applies effort with single-minded devotion, unflagging. The mind, single-mindedly pure within, empty, with nothing at all to rely upon, no dharma seen at all, still and secure, the mind free of any agitation whatsoever — this is the mark of realizing the concentration of nothingness. Entering this concentration, one is tranquil, utterly still, no thought arising at all — not even the mark of mind itself is seen, how much less any other dharma? Free of all discrimination whatsoever — this is named the concentration of the sphere of nothingness, also named the concentration of no-thought in this further, correct sense. Second, clarifying the factors; third, clarifying substance and function; fourth, clarifying depth; fifth, progress and regression; and sixth, merit — all follow the same pattern as already described above.

Fourth, explaining the concentration of neither perception nor non-perception: this too has three parts — explaining the name; the method of cultivation; and the mark of realization.

First, explaining the name: as for "neither perception nor non-perception," this is explained differently by different sources. Some say: this concentration is named the contemplation of one thing retained and one thing relinquished — as for "not perception," this means not coarse perception, this being what is relinquished, coarse perception; as for "not non-perception," this means not the absence of fine perception, this being what is retained, fine perception.

Another explanation says: the sphere of consciousness discussed earlier has perception present; the sphere of nothingness has no perception at all. Here, both of these two kinds of perception are simultaneously removed — "not perception" dispels the sphere of consciousness's own presence of perception, and "not non-perception" dispels the sphere of nothingness's own absence of perception.

A further explanation says: as for "not having perception," this is because, within this concentration, no mark or appearance whatsoever is seen. As for saying "neither perception nor non-perception": the practitioner might reflect: if it were an absolute absence of perception, this would be like wood or stone, without any awareness at all — how, then, could it possibly know that it is without perception? Hence it is said to be "not without perception" either.

Question: within "neither perception nor non-perception," perception is, in truth, genuinely present — how, then, can it be said to be "without perception"? Answer: this "non-perception" is itself made up of the four aggregates together — how, then, could it possibly be said to be entirely absent? It is simply that an ordinary person, entering this concentration, the aggregates, sense-bases, and elements being so fine, fails to perceive them, and so says there is "no perception" present. Within the Buddhadharma, it is said that the four aggregates together make up this concentration, but, following its own original name, it is still spoken of as "neither perception nor non-perception." There is also an explanation that says: spoken of with reference to the ordinary person, it is said to be "without perception"; spoken of with reference to the Buddhadharma, it is said to be "not without perception" — taken together, it is thus spoken of as "neither perception nor non-perception."

Second, the method of cultivation: this too has two parts — reproach and praise; and analytic contemplation.

As for reproach: one deeply understands the fault within the concentration of no-thought — this concentration of nothingness resembles delusion, resembles intoxication, resembles sleep, resembles darkness, ignorance covering it over, nothing at all perceived clearly, nothing in it worth loving or delighting in — hence the Mahāyāna treatise says: "Observing the sphere of consciousness as a wound, as an arrow; observing the sphere of nothingness as delusion — both are themselves illnesses of the mind, not a truly still place at all. There is a further, more subtle concentration, named 'neither perception,' where this place is truly secure, free of every such fault — I shall now seek it out."

Second, clarifying analytic contemplation. The practitioner, at this point, closely contemplates that there is nothing at all truly taken as an object — sensation, perception, formation, and consciousness are themselves like an illness, like a boil, like a wound, like a thorn, impermanent, suffering, empty, and without self, deceptive and unreal, arisen only through the coming together of causes and conditions, not truly existent at all. Having contemplated in this way, one relinquishes and leaves this behind, the mind now contemplating what is neither existent nor nonexistent.

What dharma is "not existent"? The mind is said to be "not existent." Why is this? Sought throughout the past, present, and future, it can nowhere be found at all, having no form or mark, and no location either — hence it should be known as "not existent." How, then, is it "not nonexistent"? If it were said to be simply nonexistent, how could it then be named "unconditioned" at all? The mind is itself unconditioned; apart from mind, there is nonexistence. If mind itself were nonexistent, it could not be named "mind" at all, since it would then have no awareness and no object whatsoever; and if mind is not nonexistent, then there is no further, separate "nonexistence" to speak of either. Why is this? Nonexistence is not, in itself, self-subsisting — it is spoken of only in order to break through existence; and, once existence is gone, nonexistence, too, is gone along with it — hence it is said to be "neither existent nor nonexistent."

Contemplating in this way, seeing neither existence nor nonexistence, the mind held single-mindedly on this very object, taking up no other matter at all — this is named cultivating the concentration of neither perception nor non-perception. Continuing in this way, relying on what is neither existent nor nonexistent, holding this in mind constantly without relinquishing it, the concentration of nothingness thereupon passes away and is extinguished of itself, while the concentration of neither perception nor non-perception has not yet arisen; in this interval, the same holds as already described above.

Third, clarifying the mark of realization: this too has six parts — directly clarifying the mark of realization; clarifying the factors; clarifying substance and function; depth; progress and regression; and merit.

First, clarifying the mark of realization: the practitioner, single-mindedly devoted, applying effort without pause, the mind now abiding spontaneously within this object; afterward, suddenly, a truly genuine concentration is brought forth, seeing no mark of either existence or nonexistence at all, indistinct and utterly still, the mind free of any agitation whatsoever, tranquil and pure, resembling the very mark of nirvāṇa itself. This concentration is subtle and wondrous, unsurpassed within the three realms; non-Buddhist practitioners, realizing it, take it to be the middle way, the true mark, nirvāṇa itself, permanent, blissful, possessing self, and pure — clinging to this very dharma with attachment, and cultivating nothing further. Were they to contemplate it correctly, however, they would see it is like an inchworm crawling to the very tip of a branch, unable to advance any further, and forced to turn back the way it came. As the sūtra says: "When an ordinary person realizes this dharma of concentration, it is like a bird tied by a rope — once the rope has run its length, the bird is pulled back again." This is because they do not know that this concentration is itself made up of the four aggregates combining together, with no fixed nature of its own.

And although such a person is free of coarse afflictions here, they are nonetheless still complete with ten kinds of subtle affliction — and, not knowing this, they take the state to be truly real. Non-Buddhist practitioners, entering this concentration, see neither existence nor nonexistence, and yet become aware of a mind that seems able to know this very neither-existence-nor-nonexistence — and, reckoning this very mind to be the true, imperishable spirit-self, they say that this spirit-self is exceedingly subtle, and cannot be shown to lack the capacity to know. A disciple of the Buddha, by contrast, knows that this, too, is nothing but the four aggregates combining together, deceptive and unreal, simply a state of mind occurring within it — and so knows there is no separate, knowing spirit-self present here at all.

Furthermore: the previous sphere of space breaks through form, and so is called "emptiness"; the sphere of consciousness breaks through emptiness, and so is called "consciousness," and consciousness is spoken of as having perception. The sphere of nothingness breaks through consciousness, and so is without consciousness, and this absence of consciousness is spoken of as "no perception." This present concentration breaks through nothingness itself, and so is spoken of as "not without perception" — hence it is called "neither perception nor non-perception." This concentration, relative to the mundane world, is evenly balanced, neither sinking nor rising — wisdom, concentration, emptiness, and existence all held in perfect equilibrium; this concentration is secure, the very most exalted and excellent within the mundane world, something ordinary, equalizing wisdom is unable to break through — hence the Ābhidharma masters say: "This alone is forever contaminated."

Furthermore: "no-thought" carries three distinct senses: the concentration of the heaven of no-thought; the concentration of neither perception nor non-perception; and the concentration of the cessation of sensation and perception. The non-Buddhist practitioner without any proper skillful means, extinguishing the mind, enters the concentration of the heaven of no-thought; the ordinary, non-Buddhist practitioner with some skillful means, extinguishing the mind, enters the concentration of neither perception nor non-perception; and the Buddha's own disciple, extinguishing the mind, enters the concentration of the cessation of sensation and perception instead.

Question: the sphere of nothingness is also named the concentration of no-thought — why, then, is it not included among these three kinds of extinguished mind? Answer: it is because it does not properly extinguish the mental factors present even within nothingness itself, and so is not counted among the subtle ones. Furthermore: within the form realm, the heaven of no-thought is the very utmost; within the formless realm, neither perception nor non-perception is the very utmost. Within the Buddhadharma itself, there is properly the cessation of sensation and perception — the sphere of nothingness, among these three, is, in every case, not the superior concentration, and so is not taken as one of the three. Second, clarifying the factors; third, substance and function; fourth, depth; fifth, progress and regression; and sixth, merit — their sense may be understood by the same pattern as already given.

Prajñā extinguishes every dharma and yet is able to give rise to every dharma as well — just as, proceeding from the first dhyāna onward, sorrow is extinguished, all the way through neither perception nor non-perception extinguishing even the very perception of the sphere of nothingness, all of this is precisely the preliminary expedient means within prajñā itself, extinguishing every dharma in order to enter emptiness. Because these dharmas are thus extinguished, later, superior dharma is able to be brought forth in turn — and, since prajñā itself is able to give rise to the ten thousand dharmas, these twelve gates of dhyāna are all encompassed within prajñā's own essential nature.

Question: the bodhisattva, practicing the path to bodhi, enters the emptiness of the true mark itself, not even grasping at emptiness there — how, then, can it now be said that, following this unreal, inverted emptiness of the formless attainments, four distinct kinds are still distinguished? Answer: as the Exegetical Treatise explains in its own discussion of the meaning of the four emptinesses: "Practiced together with the wisdom of the true mark of all dharmas, these four formless attainments are free of any inversion at all — this is precisely the four formless attainments as understood within the Mahāyāna." Question: what, then, is this wisdom of the true mark of all dharmas? Answer: it is precisely that all dharmas are, of their own nature, empty.

Question: form-dharmas, combining together, are distinguished as empty through their own causes and conditions — but how, then, can these formless attainments be said to be empty as well? Answer: form is what the eye sees and the ear hears — even this coarse matter can be shown to be empty; how much more, then, could what is invisible, without any resistance at all, and unfelt as either suffering or happiness, fail to be empty as well? Furthermore: form, analyzed down even to the finest particle, is entirely scattered and dissolved, returning to emptiness — and this very mind and its mental factors, examined across days, months, seasons, and even down to a single thought-moment, cannot be found at all either. This is what is truly meant by the emptiness of the four formless attainments.

The bodhisattva, having known this, is nonetheless still able to distinguish every kind of particular mark as well, and, through great compassion and skillful means, acts for the sake of all sentient beings without becoming attached to any of it. Dedicating this very merit toward bodhi, complete in the whole of the Buddhadharma, bestowing it universally upon sentient beings — this is precisely the practice of the bodhisattva path.
The Shi Chan Boluomi Cidi Famen, Fascicle Six, ends here.