阿毘達磨俱舍論

CHAPTER 7: ANALYSIS OF KNOWLEDGE

Part 26

The preceding chapter discussed receptivity and knowledge, right view and right knowledge. The question raised here is whether receptivity is not knowledge, and whether right knowledge is not right view.

[The undefiled receptivities are not knowledge;

Knowledge of exhaustion and knowledge of non-arising are not views;

The other undefiled understandings are both;

All defiled understandings are knowledge; six (defiled) understandings are views by nature.]

Treatise: The eight kinds of undefiled receptivity that constitute part of the Path of Seeing (ābhisamayāntika) are by nature not knowledge, because at the moment of receptivity, the latent tendency of doubt (vicikitsā) that each receptivity must eliminate has not yet been eliminated. Knowledge, by contrast, has the character of certainty (niścita) and arises only when doubt has been eliminated. These eight kinds of receptivity are all views (darśana), because they possess the nature of examination.

In contrast to the undefiled receptivities, which are views but not knowledge, the knowledge of exhaustion (kṣayajñāna) and the knowledge of non-arising (anutpādajñāna)—the two kinds of knowledge that constitute awakening (bodhi)—are not views, because they neither possess the nature of examination nor have the character of seeking.

Apart from the receptivities and the two kinds of knowledge mentioned above, the other undefiled understandings, or noble understandings (ārya), are both views and knowledge. They are views because they possess the nature of examination, and they are knowledge because they are free from doubt. These are the eight knowledges belonging to direct realization (abhisamaya), such as knowledge of suffering (duḥkhe jñāna), and so forth [and also all kinds of understanding from the undefiled Path of Cultivation up to the knowledge of exhaustion].

All defiled (sāsrava), or mundane (laukikī), understandings are knowledge [that is, the understandings corresponding to the five sensory consciousnesses, such as eye-consciousness (cakṣurvijñāna), and so forth, as well as those associated with mental consciousness].

There are six kinds of defiled understanding that are both knowledge and view. These comprise the forms of mental consciousness associated with the five afflictions (kleśa) that have the nature of views [such as the view of a real personality (satkāyadṛṣṭi), and so forth], while the sixth is wholesome understanding, also called “mundane right view” (laukikī-samyagdṛṣṭi).

(Question) How many kinds of knowledge are there?

The stanza answers:

[There are ten knowledges, comprising two kinds,

Distinguished as defiled and undefiled.

The defiled kind is called mundane;

The undefiled kinds are Dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge.

Mundane knowledge takes all objects as its objects;

Dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge

Respectively take the Desire Realm and the higher realms as their objects,

With the truths of suffering and so forth as their objects.]

Treatise: There are ten knowledges in all, but in summary there are only two kinds: defiled or mundane knowledge (laikika), and undefiled or supramundane knowledge (lokottara).

Defiled knowledge is “knowledge conforming to worldly convention” (sāṃvṛta), or worldly conventional knowledge (lokasaṃvṛtijñāna). Why is this so? Because this kind of knowledge generally (prāyeṇa) takes as its objects (ālambate) conventionally existent things such as jars, garments, men, women, and so forth. [The word “generally” is used here because this kind of knowledge also takes as its objects the real characteristics of things, namely their specific characteristics and common characteristics.]

Undefiled knowledge is divided into two kinds: Dharma-knowledge (dharmajñāna) and subsequent knowledge (avayajñāna). Together with the preceding kind, these constitute three kinds of knowledge: mundane knowledge, Dharma-knowledge, and subsequent knowledge.

Of these, mundane knowledge has as its objects all conditioned and unconditioned dharmas.

Dharma-knowledge has as its objects the truth of suffering, the truth of its origin, the truth of cessation, and the truth of the path in the Desire Realm.

Subsequent knowledge has as its objects the truth of suffering, the truth of its origin, and so forth, in the Form Realm and the Formless Realm.

[Dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge, according to their different objects,

Are established under the four names of suffering and so forth;

All are knowledge of exhaustion and knowledge of non-arising;

At first, they are only subsequent knowledge of suffering and subsequent knowledge of its origin.]

Treatise: When considered according to the differences among the truths, these two knowledges constitute four distinct knowledges: knowledge of suffering (duḥkhajñāna) [including Dharma-knowledge of suffering (duḥkhe dharmajñāna) and subsequent knowledge of suffering (duḥkhenvayajñāna)], knowledge of origin (samudayajñāna), knowledge of cessation (nirodhajñāna), and knowledge of the path (mārgajñāna), because these two knowledges take the truth of suffering, the truth of origin, and so forth as their objects.

In an arhat, when Dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge—which are divided into four kinds according to their different objects—do not have the nature of view (darśana), they are called the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising.

At the moment when the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising first arise (prathamodite), they have the nature of subsequent knowledge of suffering (duḥkhānvayajñāna) and subsequent knowledge of origin (samudayānvayajñāna), because they take the skandhas at the Summit of Existence (bhavāgra) as their objects under the aspects of suffering and origin. Therefore, these two knowledges share the same objects.

The knowledge of exhaustion immediately follows the vajra-like samādhi (vajropamasamādhi). The knowledge of non-arising immediately follows the knowledge of exhaustion.

(Question) Can the vajra-like samādhi share the same objects with these two knowledges at the moment when they arise?

(Answer) When it takes the truth of suffering and the truth of origin as its objects, the objects are shared; but when it takes the truth of cessation and the truth of the path as its objects, the objects are distinct.

[Dharma-knowledge, subsequent knowledge, knowledge of the path, and mundane knowledge

Constitute knowledge of another’s mind;

With regard to a higher plane, faculties, or person,

And with regard to the past and future, it cannot know.

Dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge cannot cognize one another.

Śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, and Buddhas,

In this order, cognize

Two, three, and all moments of the Path of Seeing.]

Treatise: Knowledge of another’s mind (paracittajñāna) arises from four knowledges: Dharma-knowledge, subsequent knowledge, knowledge of the path, and mundane knowledge. The objects of this kind of knowledge are very clearly defined: knowledge of another’s mind cannot cognize a mind belonging to a higher plane, to one with higher faculties, or to a higher person (pudgala), nor can it cognize the past or future.

When a mind is said to be higher, this is considered in terms of the plane (bhūmi), the faculties, or the person.

The knowledge of another’s mind possessed by a noble one of weak faculties—that is, a noble one of the type who is liberated through faith (śraddhādhimukta) or liberated on occasion (samayavimukta)—cannot cognize the mind of a noble one of sharp faculties—that is, a noble one of the type who has attained through view (dṛṣṭprāpta) or is liberated irrespective of occasion (asamayavimukta).

The knowledge of another’s mind possessed by a lower noble one cannot cognize the mind of a higher noble one; that is, in ascending order: a non-returner, an arhat, a pratyekabuddha, and a perfectly awakened Buddha (samyaksaṃbuddha).

When another’s mind belongs to the past or future, knowledge of another’s mind cannot cognize it, because knowledge of another’s mind takes only present objects as its objects.

(Question) In other cases, can another’s mind escape knowledge of another’s mind?

(Answer) When knowledge of another’s mind has the nature of Dharma-knowledge, it cannot know another’s mind that has the nature of subsequent knowledge; and when knowledge of another’s mind has the nature of subsequent knowledge, it likewise cannot know another’s mind that has the nature of Dharma-knowledge.

(Question) Why?

(Answer) Because these two kinds of knowledge separately take as their objects the counteractive dharmas pertaining to the Desire Realm and to the higher realms.

There is no knowledge of another’s mind on the Path of Seeing; that is, while a practitioner is proceeding along the Path of Seeing, the practitioner does not possess knowledge of another’s mind, because the Path of Seeing lasts only a very short time and the seeing of the truths occurs extremely rapidly. Nevertheless, another’s mind on the Path of Seeing can still be an object of knowledge of another’s mind [on other paths].

When a practitioner wishes to rely upon knowledge of another’s mind to know a particular mind of another on the Path of Seeing, preparatory practice (prayoga) must be cultivated.

When a śrāvaka practitioner cultivates the knowledge of others’ minds in order to know the mind of a practitioner who is on the path of seeing, he can know only the first two moments—the receptivity to the Dharma-knowledge of suffering (duḥkhedharmajñānakṣānti) and the Dharma-knowledge (dharmajñāna)—but cannot know the subsequent moments, such as the receptivity to the subsequent knowledge of suffering, and so forth, because the cognition of the minds belonging to the subsequent category (anvaya) during the path of seeing requires an entirely different preparatory practice.

Therefore, if at that point this śrāvaka begins a new preparatory practice in order to cognize the minds belonging to the subsequent category, then the practitioner whom he is observing will already have reached the fifteenth moment by the time this new preparatory practice—which lasts only thirteen moments for the śrāvaka—has ended. Thus, the entire interval between the second and sixteenth moments escapes this śrāvaka’s knowledge of others’ minds (Vibhāṣā, 100, 2).

Under the same circumstances, a pratyekabuddha knows only three moments: the first two moments together with the eighth moment [the subsequent knowledge of arising]; for after cognizing the first two moments, the preparatory practice required for the pratyekabuddha’s cognition of minds belonging to the subsequent category is very slight (mṛdu = alpa). Other masters maintain that a pratyekabuddha cognizes the first two moments and the fifteenth moment.

As for the Buddha, if he wishes to know the mind of another practitioner during every moment of the path of seeing, he can know it without any preparatory practice.

(Question) What are the characteristics of the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising?

The stanza replies:

[Regarding the Four Noble Truths,

Knowing, “I have known,” and so forth,

And, “There is no further need to know,” and so forth,

Are the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising.]

Explanation: The Root Treatise (Mūlaśāstra) says: “What is the knowledge of exhaustion? When one knows for oneself, ‘I have fully understood suffering, I have eliminated arising, I have actualized cessation, and I have cultivated the path,’ and therefrom arise understanding (jñāna, knowledge), seeing (darśana, vision), clarity (vidyā, illumination), awakening (bodhi), comprehension (budhi), discernment (prajñāna), luminosity (āloka), and insight (vipaśyanā), this is called the knowledge of exhaustion.

What is the knowledge of non-arising? When one knows for oneself, ‘I have fully understood suffering, and there is no further need to understand suffering…; I have cultivated the path, and there is nothing further to cultivate,’ and therefrom arise understanding, and so forth, this is called the knowledge of non-arising.”

(Question) Can such cognition occur through uncontaminated knowledge?

(Answer) The masters of Kaśmīr explain: Following the two uncontaminated knowledges are two “subsequently acquired knowledges”: “I have fully understood suffering…,” and “I have fully understood suffering, and there is no further need to understand suffering.” It is by virtue of the characteristics of these two subsequently acquired knowledges that the Root Treatise gives the above definitions of the two uncontaminated knowledges. [It is precisely for this reason that the Root Treatise says: “Therefrom arise” (tad upādāya)…]

Other masters maintain that through uncontaminated knowledge the practitioner can know suffering, arising, and so forth.

(Question) It was previously said that the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising are not kinds of vision (darśana, dṛṣṭi); why, then, can the Root Treatise define them as vision (darśana)?

(Answer) The Root Treatise says “vision” according to conventional usage (bhāṣyākṣepāt), employing the same form that was used in the definitions of the other kinds of knowledge, such as the knowledge of suffering. Or, because of their manifest character (pratyakṣvṛttitvāt), these two knowledges are understood as vision. It is precisely because of this manifest character that the Root Treatise says: “Whatever is knowledge (jñāna) is also vision (darśana).”

Thus, there are ten knowledges in all: Dharma-knowledge, subsequent knowledge, conventional knowledge, knowledge of others’ minds, knowledge of suffering, knowledge of arising, knowledge of cessation, knowledge of the path, knowledge of exhaustion, and knowledge of non-arising.

(Question) How do these knowledges subsume one another?

(Answer) Conventional knowledge (saṃvṛtijñāna) constitutes one knowledge, namely subsequently acquired knowledge, and a part of another knowledge, [namely the contaminated part of the knowledge of others’ minds].

Dharma-knowledge constitutes one knowledge and a part of seven knowledges, namely the part pertaining to the Desire Realm of the knowledge of suffering, the knowledge of arising, the knowledge of cessation, the knowledge of the path, the knowledge of others’ minds, the knowledge of exhaustion, and the knowledge of non-arising.

The same applies to subsequent knowledge, except that “the part pertaining to the Desire Realm” is replaced by “the part pertaining to the two higher realms.”

The knowledge of suffering constitutes one knowledge and a part of four knowledges, namely the part that takes the Truth of Suffering as its object within Dharma-knowledge, subsequent knowledge, the knowledge of exhaustion, and the knowledge of non-arising.

The knowledge of arising and the knowledge of cessation are explained in the same way.

The knowledge of the path constitutes one knowledge and a part of five knowledges: Dharma-knowledge, subsequent knowledge, the knowledge of exhaustion, the knowledge of non-arising, and the knowledge of others’ minds.

The knowledge of others’ minds constitutes one knowledge and a part of four knowledges: Dharma-knowledge, subsequent knowledge, the knowledge of the path, and conventional knowledge.

The knowledge of exhaustion constitutes one knowledge and a part of six knowledges: Dharma-knowledge, subsequent knowledge, the knowledge of suffering, the knowledge of arising, the knowledge of cessation, and the knowledge of the path.

The same applies to the knowledge of non-arising.

(Question) Why are the two categories of contaminated and uncontaminated knowledge established as ten knowledges?

The stanza replies:

[By intrinsic nature and antidote,

By aspect, and by aspect and object,

By preparatory practice, completion, and the fullness of causes,

They are established as ten knowledges.]

Explanation: By intrinsic nature (svabhāvatas), as in the case of conventional knowledge, because this kind of knowledge is not knowledge of ultimate reality (aparamārthajñānatvāt, not being the nature of knowledge of the ultimate truth).

By antidote, as in the case of Dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge: the first counteracts the Desire Realm, while the second counteracts the higher realms.

By aspect (ākāratas), as in the case of the knowledge of suffering and the knowledge of arising; these two knowledges have the same object (pañcopadānaskandhas) but differ in their aspects.

By aspect and object (ālambana), as in the case of the knowledge of cessation and the knowledge of the path; these two knowledges differ both in their aspects and in their objects.

By preparatory practice, as in the case of the knowledge of others’ minds. This kind of knowledge, of course, also knows mental factors (caittas), but the preparatory practice itself takes the mind (citta) as its object. Although this knowledge also knows mental factors, because it is designated on the basis of the preparatory practice, it is called only the knowledge of others’ minds.

Because “what had to be done has been completed” (kṛtakṛtyatvāt), it is called the knowledge of exhaustion: this is the first kind of knowledge to arise in a continuum in which “what had to be done has been completed.” [The knowledge of non-arising also arises in this continuum, but later.]

By the fullness of causes, as in the case of the knowledge of non-arising, because this knowledge takes all uncontaminated knowledges as its causes [that is, homogeneous causes (sabhāgahetu)], including the knowledge of exhaustion.

(Question) It was said above that the whole of Dharma-knowledge [that is, all the knowledges that take the Four Truths as their objects, on both the path of seeing and the path of cultivation] counteracts the whole Desire Realm [that is, it obstructs all five groups of afflictions abandoned through seeing and through cultivation]. Does any part of it also counteract the higher realms?

The stanza replies:

[Dharma-knowledge regarding cessation and the path,

At the stage of the path of cultivation,

Also counteracts the afflictions

Of the higher realms that are abandoned through cultivation.

Subsequent knowledge cannot counteract the Desire Realm.]

Explanation: The Dharma-knowledge of cessation (nirodhe dharmajñāna) and the Dharma-knowledge of the path (mārge dharmajñāna), attained on the path of cultivation, are capable of counteracting all three realms; that is, these two kinds of knowledge can obstruct the afflictions of the two higher realms that are abandoned through cultivation.

Category-knowledge (anvayajñāna) does not counteract the Desire Realm. Among all the aspects [of the truths] (the truth of suffering, and so forth), no kind of Category-knowledge can counteract the afflictions (kleśa) belonging to the Desire Realm.

(Question) What modes of activity do these ten knowledges have?

The verse answers:

[Dharma-knowledge and Category-knowledge

Each have sixteen modes of activity;

Conventional knowledge is likewise,

Together with other modes of activity;

Each of the four knowledges of the truths has four modes of activity;

The uncontaminated cognition of another’s mind

Has only the four established by knowledge of the path;

If contaminated, it apprehends only specific characteristics;

Whether contaminated or uncontaminated,

It apprehends only a single entity;

Knowledge of exhaustion and knowledge of non-arising have fourteen modes of activity,

For they lack the modes of emptiness and non-self.]

Treatise: Dharma-knowledge and Category-knowledge have sixteen modes of activity. These sixteen modes of activity will be explained below.

Conventional knowledge also has these sixteen modes of activity and additionally has other modes of activity, because it apprehends specific characteristics, common characteristics, and so forth.

Because knowledge of suffering, knowledge of origination, knowledge of cessation, and knowledge of the path cognize the modes of activity belonging specifically to their respective kinds of truth, each knowledge has four modes of activity.

The uncontaminated (anāsrava) part of the cognition of another’s mind cognizes the modes of activity belonging to its own kind of truth and therefore has four modes of activity in all. Indeed, this uncontaminated part of the cognition of another’s mind is constituted by knowledge of the path.

When contaminated in nature, the cognition of another’s mind apprehends the specific characteristics of its objects of cognition (jñeya), namely, the minds and mental factors of others. Its modes of activity correspond to these specific characteristics and therefore are not included among the sixteen modes of activity.

Whether uncontaminated or contaminated (ubhayam api tu), the cognition of another’s mind cognizes only a single entity.

When it cognizes a mind (citta), the cognition of another’s mind does not cognize a mental factor (caitta); when it cognizes a certain mental factor [such as the mental factor of feeling (vedanā), for example], it cannot cognize another mental factor.

(Question) If so, why did the Blessed One (Bhagavat) say: “The practitioner correctly knows the kind of mind accompanied by craving (sarāga) as ‘a mind accompanied by craving’”?

(Answer) Because the practitioner cannot know the mind and its mental factor (a mind accompanied by craving, and so forth) at the same time, just as one cannot apprehend a cloth and its stain at the same time.

The expression “accompanied by craving” has two meanings: A mind is called “accompanied by craving” because it is associated with craving (saṃsṛṣṭasarāgatā), since that mind is commingled with craving (rāgasaṃsṛṣṭa); or because it is bound by craving (saṃyuktasarāgatā), since that mind is connected with craving (rāgasaṃyukta).

A mind “associated with craving,” that is, one that is actually prey to craving, comprises both senses of “accompanied by craving”: it is both commingled with craving and connected with craving.

All other contaminated minds are merely connected with craving.

Some masters think that when the sutra speaks of a “mind accompanied by craving,” it means only a mind associated with craving. According to them, it is precisely a mind that counteracts craving (rāgapratipakṣa) that is called a mind “free from craving” (vigatarāga). For if a mind not actually associated with craving were called a mind “free from craving,” then a mind associated with other afflictions (hatred, and so forth) would also have to be called a mind “free from craving,” because it is not associated with craving.

(Objection) According to the preceding position, an unobscured-neutral mind would not be “accompanied by craving,” because it is not associated with craving; nor would it be “free from craving,” because it does not counteract craving. Consequently, one must accept the position of the other Ābhidhārmikas: a mind is “accompanied by craving” because it is connected with craving (rāgasaṃyuktatā), because it is linked to craving, and not necessarily because it is commingled with craving (saṃsṛṣṭa, saṃprayukta). The cases of “accompanied by delusion” and “free from delusion” (samoha) are explained in the same way.

The Vaibhāṣika masters say: A wholesome mind is a concentrated mind (saṃkṣipta), because it is not separated from its object. A defiled mind is a distracted mind (vikṣipta), because it is associated with distraction.

The Western masters (Gandhāra) say: A mind associated with torpor (middha) is a concentrated mind; other defiled minds are distracted minds.

The Vaibhāṣika masters do not accept the preceding position: If this were so, one mind—a defiled mind associated with torpor—would be both concentrated and distracted at the same time. Moreover, the preceding position contradicts the Fundamental Treatise (Jñānaprasthāna, 15, 9). The Fundamental Treatise says: “The practitioner clearly knows a concentrated mind by means of all four knowledges: Dharma-knowledge, Category-knowledge, conventional knowledge, and knowledge of the path” (Vibhāṣā, 190, 5).

A defiled mind is a sunken mind (līna), because it is associated with indolence (kausīdya).

A wholesome mind is an exerted mind (pragṛhīta), because it is associated with right effort (samyakpradhāna).

A defiled mind is a narrow mind (amahadgata), because it is commonly favored by lesser persons [those of little purity]. A wholesome mind is an expansive mind (mahādgata), because it is commonly favored by noble persons. Alternatively, the defiled and wholesome minds are called narrow and expansive on the basis of the narrowness or expansiveness of their roots, value, attendant dharmas (parivāra), concomitant dharmas (anuparivarta), and power.

Indeed, ⁽¹⁾ a defiled mind is narrow because it has narrow roots, namely, only two roots: delusion (moha) together with either hatred (dveṣa) or craving (lobha); whereas a wholesome mind is always associated with three wholesome roots; ⁽²⁾ a defiled mind is of little value because it can be acquired without effort, whereas a wholesome mind is of greater value because much effort is required to acquire it; ⁽³⁾ a defiled mind has few attendant dharmas because it is not accompanied by the acquisition of a future mind of the same kind, whereas a wholesome mind has many attendant dharmas because it is accompanied by the acquisition of a future mind of the same kind;

⁽⁴⁾ a defiled mind has few concomitant dharmas because it is surrounded only by the three skandhas of feeling, perception, and formations, whereas a wholesome mind has many concomitant dharmas because material dharmas are also present (dhyānānāsravasaṃvara); ⁽⁵⁾ a defiled mind has little power because wholesome roots that have been severed must arise again, whereas a wholesome mind has great power because the receptivity to Dharma-knowledge of suffering completely abandons all ten latent tendencies.

For these reasons, a defiled mind is called narrow and a wholesome mind is called expansive.

A defiled mind is a restless mind (sa-uttara), because it is associated with restlessness (auddhatya); a wholesome mind is a mind without restlessness (anuttara), because it counteracts restlessness.

A tranquil mind (vyupaśānta) and an untranquil mind (avyupaśānta) are explained in the same way as above.

A defiled mind is an unconcentrated mind (asamāhita), because it is associated with distraction (vikṣepa); a wholesome mind is a concentrated mind, because it counteracts distraction.

A defiled mind is an uncultivated mind (abhāvita), because it completely lacks the two kinds of cultivation, namely, “cultivation through acquisition” (pratilambha) and “cultivation through repeated practice” (niṣevaṇābhāvanā); a wholesome mind is a cultivated mind, because it possesses both kinds of cultivation.

A defiled mind is an unliberated mind because its intrinsic nature is not liberation and the continuum upon which it depends for its arising is also not liberated; a wholesome mind can be liberated both in terms of its intrinsic nature and in terms of the continuum.

The above is the explanation of the Vaibhāṣika masters.

(Sautrāntika) This explanation does not accord with the scriptures and does not address the distinct meanings of the terms (padārthānām arthaviṣeṣaḥ; the distinctions among the meanings of the expressions).

i. (Question) Why does it not accord with the scriptures?

(Answer) The sutra says: “What is an inwardly contracted mind?—It is a mind accompanied by torpor and sleepiness (styāna-middha) (sahagata = saṃprayukta), or one inwardly accompanied by calm abiding (saṃnirodha) but not insight (vipaśyana). What is an outwardly distracted mind?—It is a mind directed toward the five objects, or one inwardly accompanied by insight but not calm abiding.” [This passage shows that a mind associated with sleepiness (middha) is a contracted mind (saṃkṣipta).]

(Vaibhāṣika) If a mind associated with sleepiness is contracted, then when a defiled mind—that is, a distracted mind—is associated with sleepiness, would it not be both distracted and contracted?

(Sautrāntika) You did indeed raise this point above, but it is unreasonable. In truth, it cannot be definitively maintained that a defiled mind associated with sleepiness is distracted.

(Vaibhāṣika) To say this is to contradict the Fundamental Treatise.

(Sautrāntika) That may be so. But it is better to contradict a treatise than to contradict a sutra.

ii. (Question) Why does the preceding explanation fail to address the distinct meanings of the terms?

(Answer) Because it merely describes the characteristics of different kinds of mind—such as distracted and sluggish minds, and contracted and agitated (pragṛhīta) minds—without setting forth the distinctions among them.

(Vaibhāṣika) It is quite mistaken to claim that we do not address the distinct meanings of the terms. Although “defilement” is a characteristic common to distracted minds and the rest, we nevertheless set forth the particular faults of the different kinds of defiled mind. Likewise, although all wholesome minds share the characteristic of being wholesome, we have set forth the particular qualities of their different kinds.

(Sautrāntika) The distinct meanings of the terms have still not been established correctly, because you have not answered the objection that your doctrine contradicts the scriptures. [Indeed, the sutra says that a mind accompanied by torpor and sleepiness is distracted. A mind associated with sleepiness (middha) and defiled through association with torpor (styāna) is also distracted and cannot be wholesome, because torpor is included among the universal great defilements (kleśamahābhūmikas).

Moreover, [according to the position held by the Vaibhāṣika masters], if the sutra, in speaking of a sluggish mind, intended to designate an agitated mind (uddha), it should not have presented the two separately. For the sutra distinguishes them when it says: “When the mind is sluggish, or there is concern that it may become sluggish, it is not the proper time to cultivate the awakening factors of pliancy (praśrabdhi), concentration (samādhi), and equanimity (upekṣā). When the mind is agitated, or there is concern that it may become agitated, it is not the proper time to cultivate the awakening factors of investigation of dharmas (dharmavicaya), vigor (vīrya), and joy (prīti).”

(Vaibhāṣika) Then, does the cultivation of the awakening factors occur separately or not? [Must it be believed that the awakening factors of pliancy, concentration, and equanimity can be cultivated only at one particular time, and that those of investigation of dharmas, vigor, and joy are cultivated at another?]

(Sautrāntika) It is not so. By “cultivate,” the sutra means “directing attention” or “taking as an object” (manasikāraṇa = ālambanīkaraṇa), not “bringing into immediate presence” (saṃmukhībhāva).

(Vaibhāṣika) A mind in which indolence (kauśīdya) is predominant (adhikam) and restlessness (auddhatya) is diminished (nyagbhāvena) is called sluggish. A mind in which restlessness is predominant and indolence is diminished is called agitated. Thus these two kinds of mind are inherently different, and the sutra can present them separately without contradicting our doctrine. Nevertheless, insofar as both faults, indolence and restlessness, are simultaneously present in a single mind, it may be said that a sluggish mind is also an agitated mind.

(Sautrāntika) We do not wish to reject a sutra that contains an implicit meaning; but that is not the sutra’s intention [when it calls a mind in which indolence is predominant, and so forth, a sluggish mind].

Regarding the doctrine that all minds bound by craving (rāgasaṃyukta, bound by craving) are minds with craving (sarāga), we ask: What does the expression “bound by craving” mean?

1. If a mind is “bound by craving,” and is therefore called “with craving,” because the acquisition of this kind of craving continues in the continuum in which that mind has arisen (rāgaprāptyanubandhāt, accompanied by the acquisition of craving), then the mind of a noble one whose cultivation is not yet complete, or the mind of a trainee, would have to be called a mind “with craving” even when it is uncontaminated, because craving (rāga) has not yet been completely abandoned from the continuum of the trainee (śaikṣasaṃtāne rāgas sāvaśeṣatvāt).

2. If a mind is “bound by craving” and is called “with craving” merely because it has served as the object (ālambana) of the “craving latent within it” (anuśayanarāgālambanatvāt), then even the uncontaminated mind of an arhat would be “with craving,” because it can still serve as the object of another person’s craving.

If you do not admit that the mind of an arhat can serve as the object of another person’s craving, then for what reason is that mind called contaminated?

Will you say that this mind is contaminated not because it serves as the object of another person’s craving, but only because it is the object of a “defilement having a common object” (sāmānyakleśa, a defilement apprehending general characteristics)? If so, this mind should not be called “with craving,” but “with delusion” (samoha), because it serves as the object of another person’s deluded mind.

According to us, however, none of the foregoing explanations is valid. For the knowledge of another’s mind (paracittajñāna) does not take as its object the acquired dharmas present in another person’s continuum. Therefore, when another’s mind is known to be “with craving,” it is not “with craving” because it is “bound by craving” (rāgasaṃyukta), if this expression is used in the sense of being accompanied (sahita) by the acquisition of craving; for such an acquisition would have to be present in a continuum in which the acquisition of that craving had not yet been eliminated.

Nor does the knowledge of another’s mind know the craving that takes the other’s mind as its object, or the craving that serves as the object of the other’s mind.

Therefore, a mind cannot be called “with craving” merely because it is bound by craving (rāgasaṃyoga) in either of the two senses explained above.

(Objection) If so, what is a mind “with craving”?

(Treatise Master) The intent of the sutra must be determined. A “mind with greed” (sarāga) is not a mind connected with greed (rāgasaṃyukta), but a mind associated with greed (rāgasaṃprayukta), that is, a mind in which greed is actually present. A mind free from greed (vigatarāga) is a mind not associated with greed, even when that mind is accompanied by the acquisition of greed.

(Objection) The expression “free from greed” cannot have this meaning, because another sutra says that a mind free from greed, free from hatred (vigatadveṣa), and free from delusion (vigatamoha) does not fall back into the three realms. Yet if this mind were accompanied by the acquisition of greed, and so forth, it would necessarily fall back into the three realms.

(Treatise Master) When the above sutra speaks of a “mind free from greed” (vigatarāga citta), it refers to a mind not accompanied by the acquisition of greed (vigatarāgaprāpti).

(Objection) Have we not already refuted this position of yours? Indeed, we have said that if a mind not associated with greed (rāgeṇa asaṃprayuktam) is called “free from greed,” meaning a mind in which greed is not actually active, then every mind associated with another affliction should likewise be called “free from greed.” Yet a mind associated with hatred is not said to be a mind “free from greed.”

(Treatise Master) It is not incorrect to call a mind not associated with greed “free from greed.” Nevertheless, a mind not associated with greed but associated with hatred is not designated “free from greed”; it is designated only as a “mind with hatred” (sadveṣa), in order to make clear its distinctive characteristic of being associated with hatred.

(Question) Can the knowledge of another’s mind apprehend the object of another’s mind? Can it apprehend the mode by which another’s mind cognizes its object?

(Answer) It cannot. When another’s mind is known, the object of that mind is not perceived; nor is the mode by which that mind cognizes its object perceived. One knows only that another’s mind is defiled (kliṣṭa), and so forth, but does not know that objects such as blue, and so forth, have caused that mind to become defiled. Were this otherwise, the knowledge of another’s mind would take material form (rūpa), and so forth, as its object and would therefore no longer be knowledge of another’s mind (paracittajñāna). Moreover, the knowledge of another’s mind would take itself as its object, because the person whose mind is being known by us could at the same time know our own mind.

The knowledge of another’s mind has certain definite characteristics: It knows only the particular characteristic of a real entity (dravya-svalakṣaṇa), not a common characteristic that exists conventionally (saṃvṛtisat-sāmānyalakṣaṇa). It knows only present mind and mental factors (citta-caitta), not material form (rūpa), belonging to the Desire Realm and the Form Realm, not to the Formless Realm, and not to the past or future.

It also knows minds that are undefiled and belong to the same class as itself (sabhāga): that is, if it is undefiled, the knowledge of another’s mind can know undefiled minds and mental factors; if it is defiled, it knows only defiled minds and mental factors. It is incompatible with the Path of Seeing and the uninterrupted path, with the concentration on emptiness (śūnyatāsamādhi) and the signless concentration (ānimittasamādhi), and with the Knowledge of Exhaustion and the Knowledge of Non-Arising.

Other cases are not excluded: thus, the knowledge of another’s mind may be compatible with the Path of Cultivation—the path of liberation and the path of special progress—with the wishless concentration (apraṇihitasamādhi), and so forth.

The exposition of the knowledge of another’s mind ends here.

The Knowledge of Exhaustion and the Knowledge of Non-Arising each have fourteen modes, excluding the mode of emptiness (śūnya) and the mode of non-self (anātmaka). Indeed, although these two kinds of knowledge belong to “ultimate truth” (pāramārthika), they nevertheless participate in “conventional truth” (saṃvṛti); hence, they are far removed from the modes of emptiness and non-self. When the practitioner emerges from the insight contemplation (vipaśyanā) in which these two kinds of knowledge belonging to ultimate truth have been realized, through the power of these knowledges, subsequently arisen knowledges (pṛṣṭhajāta), or subsequently acquired knowledge, which belong to conventional truth, can arise: “For me, birth has been exhausted; the holy life has been cultivated;

what had to be done has been accomplished; I know there will be no further existence after this” (kṣīṇā me jātiḥ uṣitaṃ brahmacaryaṃ, kṛtaṃ karaṇīyam, nāparam asmād bhavaṃ prajānāmi).

Thus, the Knowledge of Exhaustion and the Knowledge of Non-Arising participate in the conventional (layoḥ saṃvṛtibhajanam), not through their own essential nature (na mukhyavṛttyā), but through what proceeds from them.

(Question) Are there any undefiled modes beyond the above sixteen modes?

The stanza answers:

[There are no undefiled modes beyond these sixteen modes.

Other masters say that there are, on the authority of the Root Treatise.]

Treatise: The masters of Kaśmīr say that there are no undefiled modes beyond these sixteen. The masters of foreign regions (bāhya), however, maintain the contrary view. This is because the Root Treatise (Mūlaśāstra) says: “Can the dharmas belonging to the Desire Realm be discerned by a mind not bound to any realm?—They can; they may be discerned as impermanent, suffering, empty, non-self, cause, analogous cause, proximate cause, distinct cause; as having this characteristic (sthāna); and as having this basis (vastu).”

Thus, the modes expressly indicated by the phrases “having this characteristic” and “having this basis” (asty etat sthānam, asty etad vastu) must be regarded as two additional undefiled modes added to the eight modes pertaining to suffering and its origin.

According to the masters of Kaśmīr, the Root Treatise does not teach these two additional modes. Rather, the above phrase should be understood as meaning: “…it is fitting (asty ayaṃ yogaḥ) that an undefiled mind discern these dharmas as impermanent…”

The masters of foreign regions reply that the above explanation cannot be accepted. For if the expressions used in the Root Treatise were not intended to indicate undefiled modes but were merely a simple syntactical construction, the Root Treatise should also have employed the same manner of expression in another passage, where it says: “Can the dharmas belonging to the Desire Realm be discerned by a mind that is abandoned through the Path of Seeing?—They can; one may cling to them, hate them, become conceited concerning them, be deluded about them, or wrongly discern them as self and belonging to self (kāyadṛṣṭi); as eternal or annihilated (antagrāhadṛṣṭi); as without cause, without agency, or nonexistent (mithyādṛṣṭi); as exalted, excellent, or supreme (dṛṣṭiparāmarśa);

as pure, liberating, or leading to deliverance (śīlavrataparāmarśa); or discern them with fear, indecision, and doubt (vicikitsā).” This passage should have contained the phrase asty etat sthānam…, if these words merely meant asty ayaṃ yogaḥ, in the sense that “it is necessarily the case that a mind abandoned through the Path of Seeing will regard these dharmas as self, belonging to self, and so forth.”

(Question) How many real entities (dravya) do the sixteen modes (ākāra) constitute? What is a mode? What is that which performs the mode, and what is that upon which the mode is performed?

The stanza answers:

[The modes constitute sixteen real entities.

Their nature is wisdom;

That which performs the mode: dharmas possessing objects;

That upon which the mode is performed: all existent dharmas.]

Treatise: Some masters maintain that although the aspects have as many as sixteen different names, in reality (dravyatas) there are only seven. The four aspects of the truth of suffering are all truly distinct (four in both name and reality). Although the aspects of each of the other truths have four different names, each truth has only one real dharma (four in name but one in reality): Cause (hetu), origin (samudaya), arising (prabhava), and condition (pratyaya) all have the same meaning and constitute only one aspect, just as Śakra, Indra, and Puraṃdara are different names for the same person.

Yogins separately contemplate the four aspects of the truth of suffering and one particular aspect (ekaikam) among the aspects of cause (hetu), and so forth, with respect to each of the remaining three truths.

The Vaibhāṣika masters, however, maintain that the sixteen aspects truly exist [because they must each be contemplated individually].

i. In the case of the truth of suffering (duḥkhasatya):

1. Impermanent (anitya), because its arising depends upon conditions (pratyayādhīnatvāt = pratyayapratibaddhajanmatvāt).

2. Suffering (duḥkha), because its nature is inherently afflictive (pīḍanātmakatvāt).

3. Empty (śūnya), because it is contrary to the view of what belongs to a self (ātmīyadṛṣṭivipakaṣa).

4. Not-self (anātmaka), because it is contrary to the view of self (ātmadṛṣṭi).

ii. In the case of the truth of origin (samudayasatya):

1. Cause (hetu), because it has the nature of a seed (bījadharmayogena). This cause is a remote cause. The word yoga is equivalent to nyāga.

2. Origin (samudaya), because it has the capacity to bring about arising (prādurbhāvayogena). This is a proximate cause (saṃnikṛṣṭa), namely, the cause from which a dharma directly arises (utpadyate) or originates (samudeti).

3. Arising (prabhava), or the successive continuum of cause and effect, because it forms a continuity (prabandhayogena, saṃtatiyogena): seed, sprout, stalk, and so forth.

4. Condition (pratyaya), because it brings an effect to completion through the conjunction of causes and effects (abhiniṣpādanayogena); for example, the totality (sāmagrī) of the contributing conditions (pratyaya)—clay, axle, wheel, cord, water, and so forth—in the making of a pot.

iii. In the case of the truth of cessation (nirodhasatya):

1. Cessation (nirodha), because it extinguishes (kṣaya) the [contaminated] skandhas.

2. Peaceful (sānta), because it extinguishes the three fires of greed, hatred, and delusion.

3. Sublime (praṇīti), because affliction is no more (nirupadravatvāt) (upadrava = duḥkha).

4. Deliverance (niḥsaraṇa), because it is free from all causes of affliction (sarvāpakṣālaviyuktatvāt = sarvaduḥkhakāraṇavimuktatvāt).

iv. In the case of the truth of the path (mārgasatya):

1. Path (mārga), because the practitioner travels along this path (gamanārthena) to reach nirvana.

2. Right principle (nyāya), meaning conformity with correct reasoning or practical efficacy, because it is appropriate (yogayukta), that is, upapattiyukta or upāyayukta, being fully endowed with valid reasons and skillful means.

3. Practice (pratipad), meaning attainment, because the truth of the path assists in correct attainment (samyakpratipādanārthena), meaning that the practitioner attains nirvana by virtue of this quality.

4. Leading forth (nairyāṇika), meaning complete departure (atyantaṃ niryāṇāya prabhavati), because the truth of the path enables the practitioner to pass forever to the other shore.

Another explanation:

i.1. Impermanent, because it is not ultimate (anātyantika).

2. Suffering, because it resembles a burden.

3. Empty, because there is no person (puruṣa).

4. Not-self, because it does not conform to the will.

ii.1. Cause (hetu), because it is that from which something proceeds (āgamnayogena); the verbal root hi has the meaning of gati; hetu means hinoty asmāt.

2. Origin, because there is an emergence (unmajjana): A dharma may be regarded as though emerging (unmajjatīva) from the future.

3. Arising, because it brings forth arising.

4. Condition is the basis, that is, the principal factor in the activity that brings forth arising.

iii.1. Cessation, because there is the ending of the preceding suffering of disintegration and the noncontinuation of the subsequent suffering of disintegration.

2. Peaceful, because it is free (vimukta) from the three marks of the conditioned (saṃskṛtalakṣaṇas).

3. Sublime, because it is ultimately wholesome (paramārthaśubha, wholesome in the ultimate sense).

4. Deliverance, because it is absolutely secure.

iv.1. Path, because it is contrary to the false path (mithyāmārga).

2. Right principle, because it is contrary to “what is not right principle.”

3. Practice, because it does not conflict with the palace of nirvana (nirvāṇapurāvirodhanārthena).

4. Leading forth, because it casts off the three kinds of existence, that is, existence in the three realms.

Since the explanations given by earlier masters are not identical, we shall present a third explanation:

i.1. Impermanent, because it arises and ceases.

2. Suffering, because it is contrary to the noble mind.

3. Empty, because there is no self.

4. Not-self, because it is not a self.

ii.1. The four aspects of the second truth—cause, origin, arising, and condition—are explained by the sutra: “The five aggregates of clinging (upādānaskandhas), that is, the contaminated skandhas, have desire as their root (chandamūlaka), desire as their origin (chandasamudaya), desire as their kind (chandajātīya), and desire as their source of arising (chandaprabhava).” This means that the five aggregates of clinging have desire (= craving, tṛṣṇā) as their root (mūla), or initial cause; as their producing cause; as their specifying cause (chandajatīya = chandapratyaya); and as their proximate cause (prabhava). The only difference between the sutra and the Root Treatise is that the treatise places the aspect of condition last rather than the aspect of arising.

(Question) How do these four kinds of aspects differ?

(Answer) A. Four states or forms (avasthā) of desire (chanda) must be distinguished: ⁽¹⁾ desire for one’s undifferentiated present self-existence (asmīty abhedena or ātmabhāvacchanda), that is, the feeling one experiences toward oneself when thinking, “I exist,” without distinguishing anything apart from the present “I” and without thinking of the past or future “I”; ⁽²⁾ desire for one’s undifferentiated future renewed existence (syām ity abhedena punarbhavacchandaḥ), that is, the desire for a later renewed existence without any further definite specification; ⁽³⁾ desire for a particular future renewed existence (itthaṃ syām ity abhedena punarbhavacchandaḥ), that is, the desire for a certain kind of existence in the future;

⁽⁴⁾ desire at the time of linking to renewed birth (pratisaṃdhibhandhacchanda or karmābhisaṃskāracchanda), that is, the desire to be born again, a desire that brings a particular kind of karma to completion.

The first kind of desire is the initial cause (ādikāraṇa) of suffering—just as a seed is the initial cause of a fruit—and is therefore called cause (hetu).

The second kind of desire leads to a later renewed existence—just as the production of sprouts, stalks, and so forth is a causal process (samudaya) leading to the fruit—and is therefore called origin (samudaya), that is, the cause that brings something forth.

The third kind of desire is the cause that determines the characteristics of suffering—just as fields, water, fertilizer, and so forth determine the characteristics of the fruit with respect to its flavor [sweet, bitter, and so forth] (vīrya), the transformation that occurs as it ripens (vipāka), and its functions (prabhāva)—and is therefore called condition (pratyaya), that is, the cause that differentiates the various kinds.

The fourth kind of desire is the cause that brings forth the fruit—just as a flower is a cause of the fruit—and is therefore called arising (prabhava).

The fourth kind of desire is the direct cause (sākṣād dhetuḥ); the other three kinds are indirect causes (pāraṃparyeṇa hetavaḥ).

B. Furthermore (atha ca), the sutra also speaks of two groups of “five courses of craving” (tṛṣṇāvicāritas), that is, five forms of craving, and two groups of “four courses of craving”; all of these are the four kinds of desire mentioned above. The first two groups of desire have five modes; the last two groups have four modes.

a. When one thinks, “I exist” (asmi), the general ātmbhāvacchanda (general desire for personal existence) arises, that is, “a general attachment to one’s own self.” This has five modes: “I exist thus” (itthaṃ asmi), “I exist as [I did before]” (evaṃ asmi), “I exist otherwise” (anyathāsmi), “I am something that exists” (sad asmi), and “I am something that does not exist” (asad asmi).

b. When one thinks, “I shall exist” (bhaviṣyāmi), the general punarbhavacchanda (general desire for future existence) arises, that is, “the general craving to exist again.”

This also has five modes: “I shall exist thus” (itthaṃ bhaviṣyāmi), “I shall exist as [I did before]” (evaṃ bhaviṣyāmi), “I shall exist otherwise” (anyathā bhaviṣyāmi), “I shall be something that exists” (sad bhaviṣyāmi), and “I shall be something that does not exist” (asad bhaviṣyāmi).

c. The particular kind of () (particular desire for future existence) will arise. This has four modes: “May I exist” (), “may I exist thus” (), “may I exist as [I did before]” (), and “may I exist otherwise” ().

d. The kind of punarbhavacchanda (the desire that arises at the time when the self is grasped as undergoing renewed birth) will arise.

This has four modes: “Surely I must exist” (api nu syāṃ), “surely I must exist thus” (apīthaṃ syāṃ), “surely I must exist as [I did before]” (apy evaṃ syāṃ), and “surely I must exist otherwise” (apy anyathā syāṃ).

The first kinds of desire are the initial causes of suffering; therefore, they are called causes (hetu)… The remainder is as above.

iii.

1. Cessation, because it cuts off the cycle of continuity.

2. Peace, because it brings every kind of suffering to an end (uparama), as it is said: “Bhikshus, all conditioned formations (saṃskāras) are suffering; nirvana alone is absolutely peaceful” (Saṃyukta, 17, 16).

3. Sublime, because nothing is higher (anuttara).

4. Liberation, because there is no regression (avivartya).

iv.

1. Path, because it is the true path.

2. Right, because it is genuine.

3. Practice, because it is determinate or certain (pratiniyata): this means that one proceeds only upon this path and not upon any other, as it is said: “This path leads to purification; other teachings (other views) do not lead there.”

4. Deliverance, because it leads eternally beyond the three realms of existence (bhāva).

[Fourth explanation]:

i. Furthermore, in order to remedy those who hold the views of permanence (nitya), pleasure (sukha), belonging to a self (ātmīya), and self (ātman), the four aspects of impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-self were established.

ii. 1. Cause counteracts the wrong view that “there is no cause” (nāsti hetuḥ).

2. Origination counteracts the wrong view that “there is only one cause” (a single cause)—namely, the Great Lord (īśvara) or the primordial principle (pradhāna).

A cause is an aggregation (samudayo hetuḥ).

3. Arising counteracts the wrong view of transformation (pariṇāmadṛṣṭi), namely, the doctrine that existence (bhāva)—which had already existed previously—undergoes transformation: existence begins anew.

4. Condition counteracts the wrong view that the world was created by a sentient being possessing cognition (buddhipūrvakṛtadṛṣṭi; the view that cognition precedes creation): these things arise from causes such as these; they arise from a great many causes.

iii. 1. Cessation counteracts the wrong view that “there is no liberation.”

2. Peace counteracts the wrong view that “liberation is suffering.”

3. Sublime counteracts the wrong view that “the bliss of meditative absorptions (dhyānas) and attainments (samāpattis) is sublime.”

4. Liberation counteracts the wrong view that “liberation must be subject to regression and is not permanent.”

iv. The aspects of Path, Right, Practice, and Deliverance counteract the wrong views that “there is no noble path,” “a wrong path is the noble path,” “there is another noble path,” and “the noble path is still subject to regression.”

The essential nature of the aspects (ākāras) is precisely wisdom (prajñāna).

However, we say that, if this were so, wisdom—that is, cognition capable of cognizing dharmas—would have no aspects, because wisdom cannot be associated (saṃprayukta) with wisdom. Therefore, according to the Sautrantikas, it is accurate to say that an aspect is the manner in which mind and mental factors (citta-caitta) “apprehend” (grahaṇa) their objects.

Wisdom and all dharmas “having an object” (sālamba) are capable of cognizing.

All existent dharmas are cognized by dharmas having an object.

Thus, there are altogether three groups of differing scope: 1. Wisdom is an aspect, is capable of cognizing, and is cognized; 2. The other minds and mental factors associated with wisdom are capable of cognizing and are cognized; 3. All other dharmas, conditioned or unconditioned, are only cognized.

The aspects of the ten knowledges have now been explained; next comes the discussion of their essential nature, the grounds on which they are based, and the bodily realms upon which they depend.

[Conventional knowledge has all three moral qualities; the other nine knowledges are only wholesome;

Conventional knowledge rests upon all grounds;

Knowledge of another’s mind rests only upon four grounds;

Dharma knowledge rests upon six grounds;

The remaining seven knowledges rest upon nine grounds.

They manifest through bodily bases;

Knowledge of another’s mind depends upon the Desire Realm and the Form Realm;

Dharma knowledge depends only upon the Desire Realm;

The remaining eight knowledges depend upon all three realms.]

Treatise: Conventional knowledge has all three moral qualities: wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate. The other nine knowledges are only wholesome.

Conventional knowledge exists upon all grounds, from the Desire Realm up to the Summit of Existence (naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñānāyatara).

Dharma knowledge is attained in the four meditative absorptions (dhyānas), the preliminary concentration (anāgamya), and the intermediate concentration (dhyānāntara).

Subsequent knowledge (anvayajñāna) is attained on the six grounds just mentioned, together with the three immaterial concentrations.

Taken as a whole, the six knowledges of suffering, origination, cessation, path, exhaustion, and non-arising are attained upon the nine grounds mentioned above; when regarded as part of Dharma knowledge (dharmajñāna), they are attained only upon six grounds; when regarded as part of subsequent knowledge, they are attained upon nine grounds.

Knowledge of another’s mind (paracittajñāna) is attained only in the four meditative absorptions and nowhere else.

Beings in the Desire Realm and the Form Realm can manifest (saṃmukhībhāva) knowledge of another’s mind.

Dharma knowledge can be manifested only by a being belonging to the Desire Realm, not by beings in the Form Realm or the Formless Realm.

The other knowledges are manifested in all three realms. What are the other knowledges?—They are the remaining eight knowledges after excluding knowledge of another’s mind and Dharma knowledge.

The grounds upon which the knowledges are attained, and the realms to which beings capable of attaining those knowledges belong, have now been explained. Next comes the explanation of the relationship between the knowledges and the four foundations of mindfulness.

[All the knowledges are included within the foundations of mindfulness.

Knowledge of cessation is the last foundation of mindfulness;

Knowledge of another’s mind is included in the last three foundations of mindfulness;

The remaining eight knowledges are the four foundations of mindfulness.]

Treatise: The knowledge of cessation is the foundation of mindfulness of dharmas (dharmasaṃṛtyupasthāna).

When the knowledge of others’ minds takes another person’s mind as its object, it necessarily also takes feeling (vedanā), perception (saṃjñā), and formations (saṃskāras) as its objects.

Apart from the knowledge of cessation and the knowledge of others’ minds, the remaining eight knowledges may have the nature of any of the four foundations of mindfulness. [Indeed, the knowledge of suffering sometimes takes the body, and so forth, as its object; the knowledge of the path, when it takes anāsravasaṃvara as its object, is the foundation of mindfulness of the body.]

(Question) How many knowledges are objects of the other knowledges?

The verse answers:

[The knowledges take one another as objects.

The knowledge of dharmas, subsequent knowledge, and knowledge of the path each have nine;

The knowledge of suffering and knowledge of arising each have two;

Four knowledges have ten; the knowledge of cessation has none.]

Treatise: The knowledge of dharmas takes nine knowledges as its objects, excluding subsequent knowledge (anvayajñāna).

Subsequent knowledge likewise takes nine knowledges as its objects, excluding the knowledge of dharmas.

The knowledge of the path also takes nine knowledges as its objects, excluding conventional knowledge (lokasaṃvṛtijñāna), because that knowledge does not constitute a part of the path.

The knowledge of suffering and the knowledge of arising take conventional knowledge and the contaminated portion of the knowledge of others’ minds as their objects.

Conventional knowledge, the knowledge of others’ minds, the knowledge of exhaustion, and the knowledge of non-arising take all ten knowledges as their objects.

No knowledge is an object of the knowledge of cessation; the sole object of this knowledge is cessation through discernment (pratisaṃkhyānirodha).

(Question) How many dharmas serve as objects for the ten knowledges? How many dharmas are objects of each?

The verse answers:

[There are altogether ten classes of objects:

The dharmas of the three realms, uncontaminated dharmas,

And unconditioned dharmas; each class has two.

Conventional knowledge takes ten as its objects; the knowledge of dharmas takes five;

Subsequent knowledge takes seven; the knowledges of suffering and arising take six;

The knowledge of cessation takes one; the knowledge of the path takes two;

The knowledge of others’ minds takes three;

The knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising each take nine.]

Treatise: Conditioned dharmas are divided into eight classes: dharmas of the Desire Realm, dharmas of the Form Realm, dharmas of the Formless Realm, and uncontaminated dharmas; each of these may be associated or not associated with mind (saṃprayukta, viprayukta).

Unconditioned dharmas are divided into two classes: wholesome (kuśala) and morally indeterminate (avyākṛta).

(Question) Among these ten classes, which are the objects of the ten knowledges?

(Answer) ⁽¹⁾ Conventional knowledge takes all ten classes as its objects; ⁽²⁾ the knowledge of dharmas takes five classes as its objects: the two classes of Desire Realm dharmas, associated or not associated with mind; the two classes of uncontaminated dharmas—the path—associated or not associated with mind; and wholesome unconditioned dharmas; ⁽³⁾ subsequent knowledge takes seven classes as its objects: the two classes of Form Realm dharmas, the two classes of Formless Realm dharmas, the two classes of uncontaminated dharmas, and wholesome unconditioned dharmas; ⁽⁴⁾–⁽⁵⁾ the knowledge of suffering and the knowledge of arising take six classes as their objects, namely the two classes of dharmas in each of the three realms;

⁽⁶⁾ the knowledge of cessation takes only wholesome unconditioned dharmas as its object; ⁽⁷⁾ the knowledge of the path takes the two classes of uncontaminated dharmas as its objects; ⁽⁸⁾ the knowledge of others’ minds takes three classes as its objects: dharmas associated with mind in the Desire Realm, in the Formless Realm, and uncontaminated dharmas; ⁽⁹⁾–⁽¹⁰⁾ the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising take nine classes as their objects, excluding morally indeterminate unconditioned dharmas.

(Question) Is it possible to know all dharmas by means of only one knowledge?

(Answer) It is not possible.

[Conventional knowledge, excluding its own class,

Takes all dharmas as its objects

Under the aspect of non-self,

And is accomplished through learning and reflection.]

Treatise: When a single moment of conventional knowledge (saṃvṛtijñāna) knows all dharmas as non-self, the following are excluded from among all dharmas: ⁽¹⁾ its own entity, namely this very moment of conventional knowledge, because that which cognizes cannot be the object of this very cognition (viṣayiviṣayabhedāt); ⁽²⁾ the mental factors associated with this knowledge, because they share the same object (ekālambanatvāt); and ⁽³⁾ the dharmas not associated with mind that accompany (sahabhū, co-arise with) this knowledge, such as the marks of conditioned phenomena, because they are too proximate.

This kind of “universally object-taking” conventional knowledge belongs only to the Desire Realm (= tac ca kāmadhātvacaram eva) and is the kind of knowledge accomplished through learning (śrutamayī) and reflection (cintāmayī), not through cultivation (bhāvanāmayī). Knowledge “accomplished through cultivation” always takes a specific plane as its object. Were this not so, detachment from all planes would have to be attained simultaneously.

(Question) How many knowledges are possessed by persons of different classes?

The verse answers:

[An ordinary being and a noble one on the path of seeing

At the first moment necessarily possess one knowledge;

At the second moment they necessarily possess three knowledges;

At each of the following four moments, one more knowledge is added.

On the path of cultivation, they necessarily possess seven knowledges;

When freed from desire, the knowledge of others’ minds is added;

A trainee of dull faculties and one of sharp faculties

Necessarily possess nine and ten knowledges.]

Treatise: An ordinary being possesses only conventional knowledge; upon becoming detached [from the Desire Realm], the ordinary being possesses the knowledge of others’ minds. As for a noble one who has not previously become detached by means of the conventional path before entering the path of seeing, at the moment when receptivity to the knowledge of dharmas concerning suffering arises, that noble one possesses only one knowledge, conventional knowledge, because receptivity (kṣānti) is not knowledge (jñāna).

At the moment of the knowledge of dharmas concerning suffering, the noble one possesses conventional knowledge, the knowledge of dharmas, and the knowledge of suffering.

After the second moment, at each of the next four relevant moments one further knowledge is added: at the fourth moment, subsequent knowledge concerning suffering, subsequent knowledge is added; at the sixth moment, the knowledge of dharmas concerning arising, the knowledge of arising is added; at the tenth moment, the knowledge of dharmas concerning cessation, the knowledge of cessation is added; and at the fourteenth moment, the knowledge of dharmas concerning the path, the knowledge of the path is added.

Thus, upon reaching the knowledge of dharmas concerning the path, the practitioner possesses seven knowledges.

For a noble one who had already become detached by means of the conventional path before entering the path of seeing, the knowledge of others’ minds must be added. An arhat who is liberated on occasion (samayavimukta) possesses nine knowledges, with the addition of the knowledge of exhaustion; an arhat who is liberated irrespective of occasion (asamayavimukta) additionally possesses the knowledge of non-arising.

(Question) How many knowledges does a practitioner acquire simultaneously—that is, cultivate all at once—at the various stages of the path of seeing, the path of cultivation, and so forth?

The verse answers:

[On the path of seeing, when receptivity or knowledge arises,

Future receptivities and knowledges of the same kind are also cultivated;

At the three subsequent knowledges, there is additionally cultivated

The conventional knowledge at the boundary of direct realization:

It is incapable of arising and belongs to its own plane and the lower planes;

At suffering and arising it comprises the four foundations of mindfulness,

At cessation, the final foundation of mindfulness;

It has the aspects of its respective truth and takes that truth as its object;

It is attained only through preparatory practice.]

Treatise: Concerning the fifteen moments of the path of seeing:

On the path of seeing, future receptivities and knowledges are successively acquired as their corresponding receptivities and knowledges arise.

Whatever kind of receptivity or knowledge arises or becomes manifest (saṃukhībhūta), receptivities and knowledges of that same kind are also acquired and cultivated (bhāvita). For example, when the practitioner gives rise to receptivity to the knowledge of dharmas concerning suffering, the practitioner also cultivates future receptivities of the same kind (tajjātīya) and thereby comes to possess future receptivities of that same kind. [And so it continues up to receptivity to subsequent knowledge concerning the path.] The four aspects of this kind of receptivity—impermanence and so forth—are also acquired when any one of these aspects arises.

(Question) Why, on the path of seeing, are only knowledges and aspects of the same kind as the knowledges and aspects that arise cultivated or acquired?

(Answer) When the patience of knowledge of the Dharma concerning suffering arises, one acquires (pratilābdha) the lineage (gotra)—that is, the seed or cause—of this patience, as well as the lineages of its four aspects; but one does not acquire the lineages of the knowledge of the Dharma concerning suffering, and so forth. Regarding the aspects, it is held that the four aspects of each truth are of the same class (sabhāga), because they share the same object (tulyālambanatā): when any one of these aspects is attained and brought forth (saṃmukhībhūta), the lineages of the other aspects are also acquired.

On the Path of Seeing, the practitioner acquires conventional knowledge (saṃvṛtijñāna) at the moment of subsequent knowledge concerning suffering, origination, and cessation—subsequent knowledge concerning suffering, subsequent knowledge concerning origination, and subsequent knowledge concerning cessation—but not at the moment of knowledge of the Dharma, because knowledge of the Dharma does not contemplate each truth in its entirety, but only the portion of each truth pertaining to the Desire Realm.

This conventional knowledge is called “knowledge at the limit of direct realization” (abhisamayāntika jñāna), because conventional knowledge is cultivated (acquired) at the final point in the contemplation of each truth, at the concluding limit of direct realization.

(Question) Why does the practitioner not acquire conventional knowledge at the moment of knowledge of the Path—that is, at the sixteenth moment of direct realization, the first moment of the Path of Cultivation?

(Answer) a. Because the Path (mārga) has not previously been directly realized (abhisamita) by a mundane path under the aspects of the Path—such as principle (nyāya), and so forth. Thus, there is no prior direct realization of it.

b. Because the Path cannot be directly realized in its entirety. Suffering, origination, and cessation can respectively be fully understood, abandoned, and realized (sākṣātkṛta) in their entirety; but the Path cannot be cultivated (bhāvita = saṃmukhīkṛta) in its entirety in this manner. Certainly, of a practitioner on the Path of Seeing, it cannot be said that at the “limit of direct realization of the truth of suffering” and the “limit of direct realization of the truth of origination” they have completely abandoned origination and completely realized cessation; nevertheless, this will occur for them at a future time. The Path is different, because it has a great many distinct lineages—the śrāvaka, the pratyekabuddha, and the Fully Awakened One.

According to one view, because conventional knowledge belongs to the retinue of the Path of Seeing, whereas the sixteenth moment of “direct realization”—subsequent knowledge concerning the Path—is part of the Path of Cultivation, knowledge at the limit of direct realization is not acquired at this moment.

This argument is invalid, because there is no basis for the assertion that conventional knowledge does not accompany the Path of Cultivation.

Conventional knowledge is of a kind incapable of arising at any moment. This knowledge does not arise while the practitioner is absorbed in contemplation, nor when the practitioner emerges from contemplation. On the one hand, this knowledge is incompatible with direct realization; on the other hand, a mind outside direct realization is too coarse and agitated.

(Question) If so, how can it be said that conventional knowledge is acquired and that conventional knowledge is cultivated (bhāvita)?

(Sarvāstivādins) Because it had never previously been acquired and is now acquired for the first time.

(Question) How can it be acquired if it does not arise?

(Sarvāstivādins) It is said to be acquired because one obtains it, not because it must necessarily arise.

(Explanation) “It is acquired because it is obtained” is an expression never before heard. Thus, you still have not explained why conventional knowledge is cultivated. This matter should be understood according to the explanations of the earlier masters, namely, the masters of the Sautrāntika school.

According to these masters, conventional knowledge is cultivated or acquired through the power of the noble Path (āryamārga = the Path of Seeing). After emerging from contemplation of the noble Path, a kind of conventional knowledge arises that takes the truths as its object and is far more distinguished (viśiṣṭatara) than the conventional knowledge existing before the noble Path was attained. To say that the practitioner acquires this conventional knowledge through the Path of Seeing means that the practitioner acquires a supporting basis (āśraya) capable of bringing forth this conventional knowledge. It is like acquiring gold ore and nevertheless saying that one has acquired gold.

The Vaibhāṣika masters do not accept this view. They hold that the conventional knowledge called “at the limit of direct realization” is a “non-arising dharma.”

When the Path of Seeing belonging to a certain plane (bhūmi) is manifested, one acquires for the future conventional knowledge belonging to that plane or to a lower plane. This means that if the Path of Seeing is attained in dependence upon the preparatory stage (anāgamya), one acquires for the future only a Path of Seeing belonging to that plane—the preparatory stage—and acquires for the future conventional knowledge belonging to two planes, namely, the preparatory stage and the Desire Realm.

This continues up to the following: if the Path of Seeing is manifested in dependence upon the fourth dhyāna, one acquires for the future the Path of Seeing belonging to six planes—the preparatory stage, the intermediate dhyāna, and the four dhyānas—and acquires conventional knowledge belonging to seven planes, namely, the preceding six together with the Desire Realm.

If conventional knowledge is cultivated at the final point of suffering and origination—that is, at the moments of subsequent knowledge concerning suffering and subsequent knowledge concerning origination—then conventional knowledge may have as its nature any of the four establishments of mindfulness. If conventional knowledge is cultivated at the final point of cessation—that is, at the moment of subsequent knowledge concerning cessation—then it consists only of the last establishment of mindfulness, the establishment of mindfulness of dharmas.

When conventional knowledge is cultivated at the limit of direct realization of a particular truth (tatsatyābhisamayānte), conventional knowledge possesses only the aspects of that truth (tatsatyākāram eva) and also takes that very truth as its object (ālambanam asya tad eva).

When acquired through the power of the Path of Seeing, conventional knowledge is acquired only through preparatory practice (prayogalābhika, prāyogika), not innately (upapattilabhya), nor through detachment (vairāgya).

These knowledges are so called because knowledge (jñāna) is the predominant factor. If the accompanying dharmas (parivāra) are also included, knowledge comprises the four skandhas in the Desire Realm and the five skandhas in the Form Realm, the additional one being dhyānasaṃvaralakṣaṇarūpa.

(Question) How many knowledges are cultivated at the various stages of the Path of Cultivation?

The stanza answers:

[At the first moment of the Path of Cultivation,

Six or seven knowledges are cultivated;

On the uninterrupted path for abandoning the eighth plane,

And on the other paths of those “possessing desire,”

And on the eight paths of liberation at the Summit of Existence,

Seven knowledges are cultivated in every case;

On the higher uninterrupted path and on the remaining paths,

Six and eight knowledges, respectively, are cultivated.]

Treatise: At the sixteenth moment—subsequent knowledge concerning the Path—for a practitioner who has not become detached from the Desire Realm, there is the “cultivation,” that is, the acquisition and attainment, of two subsequent knowledges in the present; and there is the cultivation for the future of six knowledges: knowledge of the Dharma, subsequent knowledge, and the four knowledges concerning the truths.

For a practitioner who has become detached from the Desire Realm, at the moment of attaining subsequent knowledge concerning the Path, the cultivation of knowledge of others’ minds is added, making a seventh knowledge.

After the sixteenth moment, throughout the remainder of the Path of Cultivation and so long as the practitioner has not attained detachment, seven knowledges are cultivated on the path of preparation (prayogamārga), the uninterrupted path (ānantaryamārga), the path of liberation (vimuktimārga), and the path of special advancement (viśeṣamārga): knowledge of the Dharma, subsequent knowledge, the four knowledges concerning the truths, and conventional knowledge.

If one practices the mundane path, one cultivates mundane knowledge in the present. If one practices the supramundane path, one cultivates one of the four Dharma knowledges in the present. The remaining six knowledges are all cultivated for the future.

Seven knowledges, like the knowledges described above, are cultivated on the paths of uninterruptedness (ānantarya)—that is, the paths that eliminate the afflictions—comprised in:

1. The transcendence of seven stages, namely, detachment from the four dhyānas and the three formless concentrations: These stages are “transcended” when one becomes detached from them.

2. The attainment of five kinds of superknowledge (abhijñās), excluding the sixth;

3. Entry into immovability (akopyatā);

4. The mixed cultivation (ākīrṇabhāvanā) of trainees (śaikṣa).

If practitioners activate these paths by means of the mundane path (laukikamārga), they cultivate mundane knowledge in the present; if they follow the supramundane path (lokottaramārga), they cultivate in the present one of the four Class knowledges or one of the two Dharma knowledges—knowledge of cessation or knowledge of the path.

When immovability is attained (akopyatāprativedha), mundane knowledge is not cultivated because this knowledge does not counteract the Summit of Existence (bhavāgra). Here, knowledge of exhaustion is the seventh Class knowledge.

After becoming detached from the seven stages—that is, while on the first eight paths of liberation from the Summit of Existence—the practitioner cultivates for the future seven knowledges: Dharma knowledge, Class knowledge, the four knowledges of the truths, and knowledge of others’ minds. The practitioner does not cultivate mundane knowledge because this knowledge does not counteract the Summit of Existence.

In the present, the practitioner cultivates one of the four Class knowledges or one of the two Dharma knowledges—knowledge of cessation or knowledge of the path.

A trainee—in contrast to a non-trainee who has entered immovability—while on the path of liberation for the refinement of the faculties, that is, the third stage, cultivates six knowledges if not yet free from desire (vītarāga), that is, if not yet a non-returner. If free from desire, the trainee cultivates seven knowledges, knowledge of others’ minds being the seventh Class knowledge.

Other masters say that mundane knowledge is cultivated by those who are not yet free from desire as well as by those who are free from desire.

On the path of preparation, both classes cultivate this Class knowledge.

On the uninterrupted path for the refinement of the faculties, that is, the second stage, whether or not practitioners have attained detachment, they cultivate the same six knowledges as above. They do not cultivate mundane knowledge because the refinement of the faculties resembles the Path of Seeing; nor do they cultivate knowledge of others’ minds, because this knowledge is absent from all uninterrupted paths. Indeed, knowledge of others’ minds does not obstruct the afflictions.

On the uninterrupted path of detachment from the Summit of Existence, trainees cultivate six knowledges.

The ninth liberation from the Summit of Existence is called knowledge of exhaustion (kṣayajñāna). Therefore, the practitioner cultivates nine knowledges, excluding knowledge of non-arising.

At the moment when knowledge of exhaustion arises, immovable ones cultivate ten knowledges because at that time they attain knowledge of non-arising.

Practitioners who attain immovability through the refinement of the faculties also cultivate ten knowledges on the final path—that is, the ninth path of liberation—of the refinement of the faculties.

In cases not mentioned, only eight knowledges are cultivated.

(Question) What are the cases not mentioned?

(Answer) They are: ⁽¹⁾ the ninth path of liberation from the Desire Realm; ⁽²⁾ the paths of liberation from the seven stages, the five superknowledges, and the mixed cultivation of the Summit of Existence; ⁽³⁾ the first eight paths of liberation in the refinement of the faculties leading to immovability; and ⁽⁴⁾ the paths of preparation and the paths of special progress (viśeṣamārga) of one free from desire (anāgāmin).

On all these paths, eight knowledges are cultivated for the future, excluding knowledge of exhaustion and knowledge of non-arising.

The foregoing concerns the trainee.

In the case of a non-trainee, on the paths of preparation, liberation, and special progress associated with the five superknowledges and mixed cultivation, nine knowledges—excluding knowledge of non-arising—or ten knowledges are cultivated, according to whether the non-trainee is one liberated on occasion or one liberated irrespective of occasion. On the uninterrupted paths in the same cases—the five superknowledges and mixed cultivation—eight or nine knowledges are cultivated, knowledge of others’ minds being excluded in both cases.

However, on the paths of liberation associated with the two morally indeterminate superknowledges—divine vision and divine hearing—no knowledges are cultivated for the future because these paths are morally indeterminate.

In the case of an ordinary person, this occurs on the ninth path of liberation from the Desire Realm and the three dhyānas; on the path of preparation; on the paths of liberation associated with the three kinds of superknowledge (abhijñās); and in the attainment of qualities (guṇa) such as the four immeasurables (apramānas), the eight liberations (vimokṣas), and so forth. When all these paths are activated in the fundamental dhyānas—and not in the preparatory stages (sāmantakas)—the practitioner cultivates mundane knowledge and knowledge of others’ minds for the future, except in the aids to penetration (nirvedhabhāgīyas), because these aids to penetration form the retinue (parivāra) of the Path of Seeing.

In other cases, when a path never previously attained is attained, only mundane knowledge is cultivated for the future.

(Question) To which stage does the kind of knowledge (jñāna) cultivated on a mundane or supramundane path belong?

(Answer) Mundane knowledge cultivated for the future belongs either to the stage serving as the basis of that path or to the stage attained by means of that path.

As for undefiled (anāsrava) Class knowledge cultivated for the future, it belongs to the stage serving as the basis for the arising of that Class knowledge; however, this is not invariably so.

[On paths based upon and attaining this stage,

The defiled qualities of this stage may be cultivated;

Through detachment, attainment, and activation in this stage,

The undefiled qualities of this and lower stages may be cultivated;

Only the first knowledge of exhaustion can cultivate all

The defiled qualities of the nine stages:

One born in a higher stage does not cultivate lower stages;

A dharma previously attained is not said to be cultivated.]

Treatise: When practitioners follow paths—preparatory paths and so forth—of the two kinds, defiled and undefiled, in order to become detached from a stage, they cultivate undefiled knowledges. These knowledges belong to the stage that practitioners attain for the first time by means of these paths, to the stage serving as the basis of the path, or to a lower stage.

At the moment when knowledge of exhaustion arises, the qualities or virtues of all stages are cultivated, including defiled qualities such as the immeasurables (apramānas), the liberations (vimokṣas), and so forth. Indeed, when the bonds—that is, the attainments of the afflictions (kleśaprāpti)—are severed, all these qualities are present in a mind or body freed from the afflictions. Only then can they be said to “breathe”—or open out, or swell—like a bag (peḍā) when the cords binding it are cut. When an arhat has attained supreme sovereignty over his own mind (svacittādhirājyaprāpta), all wholesome dharmas come before him (pratyudgamana), just as all vassals come to offer tribute on the day of a king’s coronation.

(Question) Are all attained dharmas cultivated?

(Answer) The dharmas cultivated are those not previously attained. Dharmas that were attained and then lost and are now regained—that is, dharmas that arise again—are not called cultivated; this means that the practitioner has no attainment of the future dharma, because in the past this dharma was attained and relinquished.

(Question) Does “cultivation” (bhāvanā) mean “attainment” (pratilambha)?

(Answer) No. Cultivation is of four kinds: ⁽¹⁾ attainment; ⁽²⁾ repeated practice (niṣevaṇ, siṣevā); ⁽³⁾ antidotal cultivation (pratipakṣa); and ⁽⁴⁾ removal (vinirdhāvana).

(Question) On the basis of what dharmas are these four kinds established?

The verse answers:

[The cultivation of attainment and cultivation through practice

Are established on the basis of conditioned wholesome dharmas;

Relying upon contaminated dharmas

To establish counteractive cultivation and cultivation by elimination.]

Treatise: With respect to conditioned wholesome dharmas, in the future there is only cultivation by acquisition, whereas in the present there are both cultivation by acquisition and cultivation by practice. These two kinds of cultivation (bhāvanā) rely upon the first two kinds of effort (pradhānas): the effort to cause dharmas not yet arisen to arise, and the effort to increase dharmas that have already arisen.

With respect to contaminated dharmas, there are counteractive cultivation and cultivation by elimination. Both rely upon the last two kinds of effort: the effort to prevent dharmas not yet arisen from arising, and the effort to eliminate dharmas that have already arisen.

Thus, contaminated wholesome dharmas possess all four kinds of cultivation; uncontaminated dharmas possess the first two; and defiled (kliṣṭas) and morally indeterminate (avyākṛta) dharmas possess the last two.

The Vaibhāṣika masters of the Western region say that there are six kinds of cultivation: the four described above, together with “cultivation by restraint” (saṃvarabhāvanā) and “cultivation by contemplation” (vibhāvanābhāvanā).

The first is the cultivation of the faculties—the eye and so forth; the second is the cultivation of the body. As the scripture (Saṃyukta, 11, 14) states: “These six faculties are well restrained, well guarded…” and: “Within the body are hair of the head, body hair, and so forth.” The Vaibhāṣika masters of Kaśmīr maintain that these two kinds of cultivation are included within counteractive cultivation and cultivation by elimination.