Naiṣkramyabhūmi: The Stage of Renunciation

[III.] The Stage of Renunciation

What is the stage of renunciation?

Answer: the going to dispassion by the worldly path, the going to dispassion by the supramundane path, and the requisites for these two — gathered into one, this is called the stage of renunciation.

What is going to dispassion by the worldly path?

When someone here sees grossness in the realm of desire, and sees peacefulness in the first dhyāna — both as a meditative attainment and as a [corresponding] mode of rebirth — born of seclusion, accompanied by joy and pleasure: so seeing, abiding much in that, he attains dispassion toward the [desire-realm] personality, and attains the first dhyāna. So, above each dhyāna, he becomes a seer of grossness in all the lower stages and a seer of peacefulness in all the upper stages; so seeing, abiding much in that, he attains dispassion all the way up to the sphere of nothingness, And he attains the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. The going to dispassion by the worldly path goes no higher, no further than this.

What is the going to dispassion by the supramundane path?

When someone here, having seen good persons, learned in the noble dharmas, truly knows suffering as suffering, origin as origin, cessation as cessation, path as path, endowed with the trainee’s knowing-and-vision; thereafter, cultivating the higher path, he disjoins and releases himself from the dharmas of the three realms — those to be abandoned by [the path of] vision and [the path of] cultivation — and thus passes beyond the three realms. This is called going to dispassion by the supramundane path.

What, then, are the requisites?

Namely: endowment-from-self, endowment-from-others, wholesome dharma-desire, restraint of virtue, [restraint of] sense-faculties, knowing the right measure in food, application to wakefulness in the early and late watches of the night, dwelling with full awareness, association with good friends, hearing-and-reflection on the true dharma, [practice] without obstacle, generosity, the ornament of the recluse — these dharmas are called the requisites for going to worldly and supramundane dispassion. Of these, endowment-from-self, endowment-from-others, and wholesome dharma-desire — their division is to be understood as before, namely as stated [in the gotrabhūmi] regarding the lesser supporting condition for the perfecting of the seed.

What is restraint of virtue?

When someone here dwells endowed with virtue, [and so on through the standard formula] up through undertaking the precepts of training.

How, again, does he dwell endowed with virtue?

[As above,] up through undertaking the precepts of training.

How [more concretely] does he dwell endowed with virtue?

When, in the precepts undertaken, his bodily action is unimpaired, his conduct unbroken, his conduct unrent — thus is he endowed with virtue.

How is he restrained by the restraint of the Prātimokṣa?

The seven categories of virtue conducive to liberation are called the restraint of the Prātimokṣa. These same restraints, divided by category, are many. Here, however, taking the monastic [bhikṣu] restraint specifically, [the text] says ‘restrained by the restraint of the Prātimokṣa.’

How is he endowed with proper conduct?

When, with respect to deportment, duties-to-be-performed, or application to the wholesome side, he is endowed with conduct that conforms to the world and does not transgress the world, conforms to the Vinaya and does not transgress the Vinaya. [First,] conduct grounded in deportment.

How does he avoid transgressing the world and avoid transgressing the Vinaya [in this respect]?

He walks where one should walk, and walks as one should walk — [walking] in such a way that he is not blamed by the world, by the good, by the properly engaged, by the noble ones, by his co-religionists, by the Vinaya-holders, by those trained in Vinaya; he is not censurable, not in a position to be reproached. As with walking, so with standing, sitting, and lying down — [the same applies]. [Second,] conduct grounded in duties-to-be-performed. How does he avoid transgressing the world, [how does he avoid] transgressing the Vinaya? — [These] are called the duties-to-be-performed: putting on the robe, disposing of excrement and urine, [the use of] water and the tooth-stick, entering the village, taking and bringing back alms-food, eating, the cleaning and putting away of the bowl, the washing of the feet, the laying out of the lodging — and, in summary, bowl-work and robe-work. Whatever else is of this kind is called a duty-to-be-performed. These, as appropriate — wherever they are to be performed and however they are to be performed — he performs there and in that manner, such that he is not criticized by worldlings, not censured; by the Vinaya-holders and those trained in Vinaya, he is not blameworthy, not censured; by the properly engaged co-religionists [likewise]. Thus conduct grounded in duties-to-be-performed is conduct that does not transgress the world and does not transgress the Vinaya.

[Third,] conduct grounded in application to the wholesome side.

How is this non-transgressive of the world and non-transgressive of the Vinaya?

The wholesome side is said to be: attending and serving the recitation-teachers, looking after the sick, mutually arousing compassionate mind, the exchange of consents [chanda-dāna], inquiry, hearing of Dharma, adroitness in service, performing bodily and verbal duties toward co-religionists, rousing others to the wholesome side, teaching Dharma, entering retreat, sitting cross-legged — these and other such dharmas are called application to the wholesome side. He, accordingly — as has been proclaimed, wherever it is to be performed — performs it in just that way, such that he is not blameworthy, not censured by worldlings, by Vinaya-holders, by those trained in Vinaya, by the properly engaged, by noble persons, or by his co-religionists. This is called conduct grounded in application to the wholesome side, [conduct] non-transgressive of world and Vinaya. One endowed with such modes of conduct is called endowed with proper conduct. Thus he is endowed with proper conduct.

And how is he endowed with proper resort?

Five are the non-resorts for a monk.

What five?

A cowherd settlement, a prostitute’s house, a tavern, the royal household, and fifth a caṇḍāla quarter. He who avoids these non-resorts rejected by the Tathāgata, and who at the right time frequents elsewhere — the blameless resort — is endowed with proper resort.

How does he see danger in the slightest fault?

‘Slightest fault’ is so called [for the following reasons]. Very minor are those precepts of training in which transgression and rising-out [from transgression] are recognized [as small]. Transgression of those [minor precepts] is the slightest fault. Again, since rising-out from such transgression is accomplished with little difficulty, it is therefore called slightest.

How, then, does he see danger [in it]?

He reflects: ‘On account of this transgression I might become unfit for attaining what has not yet been attained, for realizing what has not yet been realized, for directly realizing what has not yet been directly realized; I might go to the lower realms, might become one bound for the lower realms; I would reproach myself, or the Teacher would reproach me, or the deities, or the wise, or my co-religionists would censure me as acting contrary to Dharma; and in all directions and intermediate directions an evil reputation would arise about me’ — through [reflection on] the visible-here-and-now consequences and the after-state consequences, and through the distinguished dharmas obstructed by them, he becomes one who sees danger. By this [seeing of danger] he does not violate even those very minor precepts of training even for the sake of life — under any circumstance. If at some time, on some occasion, through forgetfulness he transgresses, he quickly, very quickly makes amends according to Dharma and rises out [of the transgression]. Thus he sees danger in the slightest fault.

How does he train by undertaking the precepts of training?

Answer: Previously, when receiving the Prātimokṣa-restraint by the fourth formal act of motion at his full ordination, he heard the formulation of only a few precepts; the further hundred-odd precepts of the Prātimokṣa-sūtra he received only by way of pledge, [saying] ‘I shall acquire them in all respects.’ Having heard from his preceptor and instructor the Prātimokṣa-sūtra recited in the regular half-monthly recitation, by which [recitation] the Prātimokṣa-restraint [is understood] through the undertaking of all the trainings — though his understanding had not yet become developed [in detail]: those precepts previously undertaken by way of pledge he now undertakes through developed skill [in their actual content], [doing so] on the basis previously proclaimed, [namely] from the preceptor or instructor, as before. And having thus undertaken [them] through skilled awakening, he trains as instructed, neither lessening nor adding. In those precepts of training proclaimed in the Teacher’s place [i.e., authoritatively transmitted], he is a non-perverted grasper both as to meaning and as to letter. Thus he trains by undertaking the precepts of training. — Such, in this much, is the detailed division of the restraint of virtue.

What, then, is the summary meaning?

This summary meaning has just three marks. [That is,] the aggregate of virtue is elucidated by the Blessed One under three marks: the mark of non-loss, the mark of own-nature, and the mark of own-nature-with-its-qualities. How so? — In that he says ‘he dwells endowed with virtue,’ by this the non-loss mark of the restraint of virtue is declared.

In that he says ‘restrained by the restraint of the Prātimokṣa,’ by this the own-nature mark is declared. Again, in that he says ‘endowed with proper conduct and proper resort,’ by this — taking him in further [comparison] — the quality-mark of the Prātimokṣa-restraint so undertaken is declared. For when others observe his fullness of conduct and resort, those without confidence gain confidence, and those already confident become still more so; those with confidence perform acts grounded in confidence. And they do not defile their minds, they do not send forth blame. For one endowed with virtue and endowed with proper conduct and resort, this is the quality and benefit dependent on others; in the opposite case, it would instead be his fault. Again, in that he says ‘seeing danger in the slightest faults, he undertakes the precepts of training,’ by this the mark of the quality-and-benefit under self-predominance is declared. For what reason? Because this person, endowed with proper conduct and resort, [already] gains the quality-and-benefit dependent on others. Moreover, [were he to] ruin virtue, by that cause, by that condition, he would be reborn in the lower realms, or would become unfit for the attainment of the not-yet-attained, [as detailed] above. Now since he sees danger in the slightest fault — still more in the gross — and trains by undertaking the precepts of training, by that cause, by that condition, at the breaking up of the body he is reborn in a happy destiny, or becomes fit for the attainment of the not-yet-attained, [as] above. For this reason [the foregoing] is called the quality-and-benefit under self-predominance of the restraint of virtue.

Another mode [of summary]: in brief, the Blessed One has elucidated [under three rubrics] undertaken-virtue, leading-out virtue, and the cultivation of virtue. In that he says, ‘he dwells endowed with virtue,’ by this undertaken-virtue is declared. Again, in that he says, ‘restrained by the restraint of the Prātimokṣa,’ by this leading-out virtue [nairyāṇika] is declared. For the virtue subsumed under the Prātimokṣa-restraint is called the training in higher virtue [adhiśīla]. And on the basis of the training in higher virtue, he cultivates the training in higher mind [adhicitta] and the training in higher wisdom [adhiprajñā] — and thus is led out toward the destruction of all suffering. He is led out [from saṁsāra by this means]. That is, on the basis of higher virtue, taking it as forerunner — therefore the Prātimokṣa-restraint is called leading-out virtue. Again, in that he says, ‘endowed with proper conduct and resort, seeing danger in the slightest fault, undertaking the precepts of training,’ by this the cultivation of virtue is declared. By these modes that Prātimokṣa-restraint-virtue is to be cultivated, and so cultivated, it becomes well cultivated. Thus this single restraint of virtue is to be understood as set forth by a six-mode teaching.

This restraint of virtue is to be understood as ruined by ten modes, and conversely, by ten causes, [as] perfected.

By what ten causes is it ruined?

It is ill-grasped from the very beginning; it is excessively slack; it is excessively strict; it is gripped by heedlessness and indolence; it is wrongly resolved; it is gripped by deficiency of conduct. Here, how is virtue ill-grasped from the very beginning? When someone here goes forth under pressure from a king, or under pressure from thieves, or distressed by debt, or distressed by fear, or in fear for his livelihood — not for the sake of asceticism, not for the sake of brahminhood [brāhmaṇya], not for the calming of self, not for the restraint of self, not for the final nirvāṇa of self — thus from the very beginning virtue is ill-grasped.

How is it excessively slack?

When someone here is shameless, with weak remorse, loose, doing loosely what is taught in the training — this is excessive slackness.

How is it excessively strict?

When someone here is an ill-grasper, feeling regret in the wrong place — feeling regret in cases where good action should be done; without proper occasion, he produces with respect to others either a contemptuous attitude or a denouncing one — and reports [the supposed faults] to them. Thus it is excessively strict.

How is it gripped by heedlessness and indolence?

When someone here, with respect to the past, has fallen into transgression, and through forgetfulness has not atoned for a single [transgression] according to Dharma; as with the past, so with the future and the present — whatever transgression he has fallen into, through forgetfulness none is atoned for according to Dharma; and he does not, in advance, undertake intense effort for the sake of non-transgression in the future, [resolving] ‘Let me act in such a way that, acting and dwelling [so], I would not commit transgression’ — yet so he acts, so he dwells, such that he commits transgression. Endowed with this heedlessness connected with the past limit, the future limit, and the middle limit — along with heedlessness about what should have been done earlier — he holds dear the pleasure of sleep, lying down, and resting on the side; he becomes unskilled, lazy, lacking energy [to rise up]; he does not perform bodily service for his wise co-religionists. Thus engaged, he is gripped by heedlessness and indolence.

How is it wrongly resolved?

When someone here lives the holy life having resolved: ‘By this virtue, observance, austerity, holy life, I shall become a god or some [other] kind of divine being,’ desirous of gain and honor. He seeks gain and honor from others; he yearns for gain and honor. Thus it is wrongly resolved.

How is it gripped by deficiency of conduct?

When someone here, having undertaken either deportment, or duties-to-be-performed, or application to the wholesome side, transgresses the world and transgresses the Vinaya, [as detailed] above — thus it is gripped by deficiency of conduct.

How is it gripped by deficiency of livelihood?

[Damaged/Conjectural]: When someone here has great desires, is discontented, hard to satisfy, and hard to support, and seeks robes by non-Dharma, not by Dharma — and seeks alms-food, lodging, medicine, [and other] requisites by non-Dharma, not by Dharma; and for the sake of robes, alms-food, lodging, medicine, [and other] requisites — for the sake of generating regard [for himself in others] — he displays to others a contrived, deliberately composed deportment: non-restless faculties, non-fickle faculties, peaceful faculties, by which others, having generated regard for his qualities, think [that things] should be given, [things] should be done — namely, robes, alms-food, lodging, medicine, [and other] requisites. He becomes clamorous, talkative, brazen, frivolous, taking note of [people’s] names and clans; he is much-learned, a Dharma-holder, and from a gain-motive alone he speaks Dharma to others — what was spoken by the disciples, or his own qualities, whether actual or falsely attributed — making himself the speaker. Or he induces others to speak [on his behalf]; or, being in need of a robe or some other recluse's requisite, whether much or excellent, he displays an inferior robe even when it has not been damaged, [thinking]: ‘Faithful brāhmaṇas and householders, noticing trouble with his robe, will think that a plentiful and fine robe should be given.’ As with the robe, so with any other recluse’s requisite — when he does not obtain it at will from faithful brāhmaṇa-householders, or when the enjoyments are non-existent or not present — by importunity he begs, pressing them and speaking harshly. Or, having obtained an inferior thing when [better] enjoyments are present, he derogates that gain, depreciates it, and in front of the giver-patron speaks thus: ‘Ho, son of good family, there are sons of good family and daughters [of good family] in your vicinity — of lower clan and poorer than you — who nevertheless give thus and so, finely, pleasingly. Why do you, though of higher clan and other [advantages], not give as pleasingly? Why are you not a pleasing giver, a giver of fine, non-meager gifts?’ He who by such modes — relying on hypocrisy, on talkative chatter [lapanā], on insinuation [naimittikatā], on extortion [naiṣpeṣikatā], on gain-seeking-by-gain [lābhena lābha-niścikīrṣā] — seeks robes, alms-food, lodging, medicine, [and other] requisites from others, he [does so] by non-Dharma — and what is by non-Dharma is for him wrong livelihood. Thus that virtue is gripped by deficiency of livelihood.

How is it fallen into the two extremes?

When someone here is bent on the pleasure of sense-desires, supremely attached to them. He uses the robes, alms-food, lodging, medicine, [and other] requisites — obtained either by Dharma or by non-Dharma — without seeing the danger, without knowing the escape. This is called one extreme. And again, here someone is bent on self-mortification; in manifold ways he scorches and torments himself. He undertakes severe vows: one whose resort is thorns, an ash-taker, one whose resort is the pestle, one whose resort is the plank, a squatter applied to the squatting-renunciation practice, a fire-attendant — up to three times [a day] he tends the fire; a water-immerser — up to three times [a day] he immerses in water; standing on one foot, he turns with the sun. Such, or any other such kind of application to self-mortification — this is called the second extreme. Thus it is fallen into the two extremes.

How is it not leading out [aniḥsaraṇika]?

When someone here clings to virtue or observance by [wrong] view: ‘By this very virtue or observance there will be purification, release, leading out.’ All the virtue of those outside [the Buddha’s dispensation] — even well-guarded, even well-purified — by such [a wrong-view] purification is called not-leading-out. Thus it is not-leading-out.

How is it fallen from the undertaking?

When someone here is wholly, entirely shameless, indifferent — [though] he [stands] within the ascetic life — of evil virtue, evil dharma, inwardly rotten, oozing, of impure-water-mixed-up nature, of conch-shell-rattle conduct, not a recluse but claiming to be a recluse, not a celibate but claiming to be celibate — thus it is fallen from the undertaking. By these ten causes virtue is ruined — this is called by the Blessed One the ruin of virtue. Moreover, the practice [of virtue] too was stated by the Blessed One. Now among these [ten] causes, [the ruin] is to be understood [especially] from two: namely, from not-leading-out and from falling-from-the-undertaking — and also from the other causes; [all] these are to be understood as the ruin of virtue. From these very causes set on the dark side, by their reverse — by the bright-side causes — the fullness of virtue is to be understood, and [likewise] the purification of virtue. In some places, again, the Blessed One speaks of virtue by the word ‘root.’ As said: ‘He is one whose root is well-established, delighting in the calming of the mind, connected and disconnected from the seen-and-unseen, noble and evil’ — so the verse.

In some places it is spoken of by the word ‘ornament.’ As stated: ‘A monk or nun endowed with the ornament of virtue abandons the unwholesome, cultivates the wholesome.’ In some places it is spoken of by the word ‘ointment.’ Where he says: ‘A monk or nun endowed with the ointment of virtue,’ [the rest] as before. In some places it is spoken of by the word ‘scent.’ ‘There is that giving which is a kind of scent, whose scent reaches downwind, against the wind, [and] both with and against the wind.’ In some places it is spoken of by the word ‘good conduct’ [sucarita]. Where he says: ‘The fruit of good bodily conduct is to be desired in the visible-here-and-now and in the after-state; likewise of good verbal conduct.’ In some places it is spoken of by the word ‘restraint.’ Where he says: ‘The giver, the donor, becomes endowed with virtue, established in restraint, grounded in scriptural learning and view, seeing the fruit.’ And it is said: ‘He dwells endowed with virtue, restrained by the restraint of the Prātimokṣa,’ [as elaborated above] in detail.

For what reason did the Blessed One speak of virtue by the word ‘root’?

Because the meaning of ‘root’ is the meaning of establishment, the meaning of basis. This very virtue is the establishment, the basis, for the arising and attainment of all worldly and supramundane pure, blameless, supreme, distinguished, pleasant-fruited dharmas; therefore it is spoken of by the word ‘root.’ Just as the earth is the establishment, the basis, for the arising of grasses, shrubs, herbs, and trees, just so [is] virtue, [as detailed] above.

For what reason is virtue declared by the word ‘ornament’?

Answer: Those other adornments — necklaces, bracelets, armlets, rings, garlands of gold and silver — only as long as one is young, youthful, with dark hair, possessing the freshness of youth, do those adornments, when put on him, [actually] adorn. But not so for one aged, old, weak, octogenarian or nonagenarian, broken-toothed, gray-haired — on such a one those adornments, put on, appear on the contrary as if mocking [him]. In sickness, in loss of wealth, in loss of kin — when these befall — he does not shine [in such adornments]. Virtue, however, is an adornment for all [people], at all times. Therefore it is spoken of by the word ‘ornament.’

For what reason is virtue spoken of by the word ‘ointment’?

Here, the great wholesome, blameless undertaking of virtue removes the bodily and mental burning caused by every undertaking of evil [contrary to] virtue — as for one scorched by heat in the great-summer-burning time, sandal ointment or camphor ointment [removes the burning]. For this reason virtue is spoken of by the word ‘ointment.’

For what reason is virtue called ‘scent’?

For a virtuous individual, in all directions and intermediate directions, fair fame, repute, voice, [and] eulogy go forth — just as, of various kinds of root-scents, sap-scents, or flower-scents, when wafted in the directions, an agreeable scent goes forth. For this reason virtue is spoken of by the word ‘scent.’

For what reason is virtue called ‘good conduct’?

‘This conduct leads to ease, this conduct leads to heaven, leads to good destinies.’ Therefore it is called good conduct.

For what reason is virtue called ‘restraint’?

This dharma has cessation [of unwholesome dharmas] as its own-nature, has the mark of cessation, has abstention as its own-nature. Therefore it is called by the word ‘restraint.’ Of this restraint of virtue, the threefold review is the sign of purification.

What threefold?

Namely: review of bodily action, review of verbal action, review of mental action. Reviewing these [three kinds of] action, he purifies the restraint of virtue. Whatever action he intends to perform with the body, that he reviews [thus]: ‘Is this bodily action of mine harmful to myself or others, unwholesome, giving rise to suffering, with painful result? Or is this bodily action of mine non-harmful to myself and others, wholesome, giving rise to ease, with pleasant result?’ If, reviewing thus, he knows: ‘this bodily action of mine is harmful to myself or another, unwholesome, giving rise to suffering, with painful result,’ then, having so reviewed, he does not engage in it; that action he does not do, does not perform. If, again, he knows: ‘this bodily action of mine is non-harmful, wholesome,’ [the rest] as before, that he does — that bodily action he does not withhold, but performs. Even an action that, taking up the past, has already been done by him through the body — that too he repeatedly reviews: ‘Was this [action] of mine harmful?’ [the rest] as before. [He reviews it] with [the help of] wise co-religionists. If, reviewing thus, he knows: ‘this action of mine is harmful,’ [the rest] as before, in the presence of wise co-religionists he withholds, he performs [appropriately]. Even an action that, taking up the past, has already been done by him through the body — that too he repeatedly reviews: ‘Was this [action] of mine harmful?’ [the rest] as before. [He reviews it] with [the help of] wise co-religionists. If, reviewing thus, he knows: ‘this action of mine is harmful,’ [the rest] as before, in the presence of wise co-religionists he confesses, [and] makes amends according to Dharma. If, on the other hand, reviewing thus, he knows: ‘this bodily action of mine is non-harmful,’ [the rest] as before, by that very joy and gladness he dwells, day and night, much in training. Thus that bodily action of his is well reviewed and well purified, namely, in past, future, and present times. As with bodily action, so verbal action is to be understood. Mind arises dependent on past formations; mind arises dependent on future and present formations. That mind he repeatedly reviews: ‘Is this mind of mine harmful?’ [the rest] as before, up through: he does not produce [it]; he withholds, does not perform, that mental action. Conversely, on the bright side, he produces [it], does not withhold, [but] performs that mental action. Thus that mental action is by him reviewed [and] well purified, namely, in past, future, and present times. For what reason? In past time, in future time, and in present time, whatever recluses or brahmins, having reviewed and purified bodily, verbal, and mental action, have lived extensively [in this way] — all of them have done so by such review and purification, as was said by the Blessed One concerning the Venerable Rāhula: ‘Bodily action, then verbal action, and also mental action, Rāhula — repeatedly review [them], remembering the instruction of the Buddhas.

This is the work of the recluse — train in this, Rāhula. For one training therein, there is only good, not evil.’

Here, that he investigates ‘bodily action, verbal action, mental action — is this harmful for me?’ [the rest] as before — this is the review. And that some [actions] he withholds and confesses, some he performs, and by that very joy and gladness — training day and night — he dwells much [in training] — this is called purification. Of the restraint of virtue thus purified, ten benefits are to be understood.

What ten?

[1] Here a virtuous one, free of regret, gains gladness; in a gladdened [mind] joy arises; with a joyful mind the body is tranquilized; with tranquilized body he feels pleasure; with pleased mind, the mind is concentrated; with concentrated mind he knows as it truly is, sees as it truly is; knowing-and-seeing as it truly is, he grows weary [of saṁsāra]; wearied, he becomes dispassionate; dispassionate, he is liberated; for one liberated, the knowing-and-seeing of liberation arises; [and so on] up through: he attains final nirvāṇa in the nirvāṇa-element without remainder. [Thus] a virtuous individual, by way of the purity of virtue, gains non-regret, and by gradual progression [proceeds] up to the going to nirvāṇa — this is the first benefit of virtue. [Damaged/Conjectural]: [2] Further, a virtuous individual, when the time of death is present, [reflects]: ‘good has been done by me, well [done]; good conduct of body, speech, [and] mind [has been done by me]; bad conduct of body [etc.] has not been done by me,’ [the rest] as before. ‘Such is the destiny of those who have done merit, done wholesome deeds, done deeds [out of] fearfulness about evil — to that destiny shall I, after death, go.’ He gains this second [kind of] non-regret, [which leads] to a happy destiny. For a non-regretful individual, death is good, the time of death is good, the after-state is good. This is the second benefit of virtue.

[3] Further, of the virtuous individual, fair fame, repute, voice, [and] eulogy go forth. This is the third benefit of virtue.

[4] Further, the virtuous individual sleeps comfortably and wakes comfortably, with body and mind free from burning. This is the fourth benefit of virtue. [5] Further, the virtuous individual, even when asleep, is guarded by the deities. This is the fifth benefit of virtue.

[6] Further, the virtuous individual is not suspicious, not afraid of [any] evil from outside, not of terrified mind. This is the sixth benefit of virtue.

[7] Further, the virtuous individual — even when openings [for attack] are sought by killers [and] enemies — is guarded; knowing always ‘this individual is such [a virtuous one],’ they fall either into friendship with him or into a neutral disposition. This is the seventh benefit of virtue.

[8] Further, even when openings [for attack] are sought by [hostile] yakṣas of long standing or by amanuṣyas dwelling there, he is guarded — namely, by making that very virtue predominant. This is the eighth benefit of virtue.

[9] Further, the virtuous individual, by Dharma [and] with little hardship, gains from others robes, alms-food, lodging, medicine, [and other] requisites — that is, on account of virtue, he is honored [and] esteemed by kings, royal ministers, townsmen, country-folk, the wealthy, the chiefs, [and] caravan leaders. This is the ninth benefit of virtue.

[10] Further, [as] above, all his vows succeed. If he wishes, [saying]: ‘In the realm of desire, may I be born in the company of great kṣatriya-mahāsāla families, or great brāhmaṇa-mahāsāla families, or great householder-mahāsāla families, or among the deities of the Four Great Kings, the Trāyastriṁśa, Yāma, Tuṣita, Nirmāṇarati, or Paranirmitavaśavartin; or, because of the purity of well-undertaken virtue and through entering the dhyānas, may I dwell at ease in the visible-here-and-now; and may I be born in the company of the form-realm deities and dwell [there]’ — this aspiration and vow of the virtuous, lust-free one succeeds. If he wishes, [Damaged/Conjectural]: ‘[the eight] liberations [vimokṣa] may I attain and dwell [in them]’; or ‘in the company of the formless-realm deities may I be born,’ [the rest] as before.

If he wishes, ‘may I attain nirvāṇa as the ultimate end,’ he attains [it].

[This occurs] because his virtue is purified in that direction, and because he is dispassionate in every respect. This is to be understood as the tenth benefit of virtue.

[Thus] the virtue-aggregate has been set forth by [its] division; the ruin and the fullness [of virtue] have been set forth; the synonyms have been set forth; the review constituting purification has been set forth, [and] the benefit has been set forth.

This wholly complete restraint of virtue, included among the requisites, has been declared, set forth, opened up, [and] made manifest — in it sons of good family, desirous of their own good and of asceticism and brahminhood [brāhmaṇya], should train.

Summary verse: The division is to be known as threefold, the fullness as tenfold, the synonyms as six-fold; the purification is held as threefold, the benefit as tenfold — such is the restraint of virtue.

What is restraint of the senses?

When someone here dwells with guarded sense-doors, with mindfulness guarded, with alert mindfulness — [as elaborated in the standard formula].

How does he dwell with guarded sense-doors, with mindfulness guarded?

[And how] with alert mindfulness — [as elaborated] up through: he guards the mind-faculty by means of the mind-faculty. He attains [the state] thus. Thus he dwells with guarded sense-doors.

How, then, is his mindfulness guarded?

When someone here, taking the very [practice of] guarded sense-doors as predominant, holds firmly to what has been heard, reflected upon, or cultivated. And by that, he attains a mindfulness whose predominant ground is hearing, reflection, and cultivation. Of that mindfulness once attained — so that it is not forgotten, is firmly grasped, is not lost — he applies effort and practice, from time to time, on that same teaching he heard, and he applies effort and practice in reflecting on it and cultivating it. He does not let his application drop. Thus, of the mindfulness born from hearing, reflection, and cultivation, the guarding is performed from time to time through the practice of those very three. Thus he becomes one of guarded mindfulness.

How does he have alert mindfulness?

He becomes one constantly active in that very mindfulness. And one acting toward going-forth. Of these, nityakāritā (constant action) is what is called sātatya-kāritā (continual action). Niryāṇa-kāritā (action toward going-forth) is what is called satkṛtya-kāritā (action done with respect). He who acts thus — continually and with respect — is called one of alert mindfulness. He thus has guarded mindfulness. Thus he does not lose that mindfulness. He thus has alert mindfulness. Thus in that very unlost mindfulness he attains the establishment of power. By which he becomes able and fit for the overcoming of forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles, dharmas.

How is his mind guarded by mindfulness?

Depending on the eye and forms, there arises eye-consciousness; immediately after eye-consciousness there arises discriminative mind-consciousness; by that discriminative mind-consciousness, one is drawn toward pleasing forms and turns away from displeasing forms. Taking [the discriminative mind-consciousness] itself as predominant, he guards [the mind] against the unwise discrimination that produces defilement, so that defilement does not arise. Likewise, depending on ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind together with their respective objects, mind-consciousness arises. And that mind-consciousness, accompanied by unwise discrimination, produces defilement, by which one is drawn toward pleasing dharmas and turns away from displeasing dharmas. He guards that mental state against the unwise discrimination that produces defilement — and thus defilement does not arise in him. Thus he becomes one whose mind is guarded by mindfulness.

How is he one who maintains a balanced state?

‘Balanced state’ here means: equanimity, wholesome or indeterminate. Having guarded that mental state from the unwise discrimination that produces defilement, he settles it in wholesome equanimity or in indeterminate equanimity. Therefore he is called one who maintains a balanced state. Thus he becomes one who maintains a balanced state.

And how, again, does he guard the mental state from the unwise discrimination that produces defilement?

He does not become a seizer of signs. In those forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles, and dharmas he does not become a seizer of secondary features — that on account of which evil unwholesome dharmas would flow into his mind. If, even so, through lapse of mindfulness or through the strength of his defilements, sign-seizing or secondary-feature-seizing arises despite his avoidance, and the evil unwholesome dharmas — ill-grasped — indeed follow upon them, he then applies the mind to their restraint. By these two modes, the mental state is guarded from the unwise discrimination that produces defilement.

And how, having guarded the mental state by these two modes, does he settle it in wholesome or indeterminate equanimity?

By two modes again.

Which two?

As [the standard formula] says: ‘he guards the eye-faculty, attains restraint by the eye-faculty,’ and just as ‘he guards the eye-faculty, attains restraint by the eye-faculty,’ so for the ear, nose, tongue, and body — and he guards the mind-faculty, attains restraint by the mind-faculty. By these two modes, he settles that mental state in wholesome or indeterminate equanimity.

How, with respect to the forms cognizable by the eye, does he not become a seizer of signs?

‘Seizing of sign’ here means: of the form which is the range of eye-consciousness, becoming a seizer of that range by means of eye-consciousness. That is what it means to become a seizer of signs. Namely, with respect to forms cognizable by the eye — and likewise with respect to objects cognizable by ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind — the sign is a further class [of object]. If, then, he avoids that range — [the range] of eye-consciousness too — he does not become a seizer of signs in forms cognizable by the eye, and likewise in dharmas cognizable by ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind-consciousness.

How does he not become a seizer of secondary features?

[That is, with respect to] forms cognizable by the eye. ‘Seizing of secondary feature’ here means: in those very forms cognizable by the eye, the range of the discriminative mind-consciousness that arises immediately along with eye-consciousness — when [that range tends] toward lust, toward hatred, or toward delusion — he avoids that range, does not produce that object for that mind-consciousness — and thus he does not become a seizer of secondary features in forms cognizable by the eye, or in dharmas cognizable by ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind. This is the further class of sign-seizing and secondary-feature-seizing. Concretely: sign-seizing is when, having brought to presence the attention born from it, he sees with the eye the forms that have appeared. And the seizing of secondary features [proceeds as follows]: Those same forms that have appeared to the eye: having brought to presence the attention born from them, he sees them, but further, hears about them from another in a follow-up way: ‘Such are these forms — these eye-cognizable forms’ — and the names, words, and letters that follow upon those [reports], making them predominant, relying on them, established in them, this person discriminates the eye-cognizable forms in accord with what he has heard. This is called seizing of secondary features. As with eye-cognizable forms, so it is to be understood with dharmas cognizable by ear, nose, tongue, body, mind. Such sign-seizing and secondary-feature-seizing — when there is some [form] on account of which, with respect to which, and by means of which as the predominant condition, his evil unwholesome dharmas flow into his mind: where there is such a cause, such an occasion, such a predominant condition for evil unwholesome dharmas to flow into the mind, the sign-seizing, the secondary-feature-seizing, the unwise seizing — that which is the cause, the occasion, the predominant condition for his evil unwholesome dharmas to flow into the mind: that very form of sign-seizing and secondary-feature-seizing he avoids.

What are evil unwholesome dharmas?

Lust, and the bodily, verbal, and mental misconduct produced by lust; hatred and delusion, and the bodily, verbal, and mental misconduct produced by [hatred and] delusion — these are called evil unwholesome dharmas.

How do they ‘flow into the mind’?

Mind-consciousness arises with some object — it goes [there], it follows along. Associated with that object of mind-consciousness, the bodily-, verbal-, and mental-misconduct-producing lust, hatred, and delusion arise, go, follow along. Therefore they are said to ‘flow into the mind.’

Thus, the defilement that would arise — through sign-seizing or secondary-feature-seizing — in eye-cognizable forms (and so on up to mind-cognizable dharmas) does not arise for one who avoids sign-seizing and secondary-feature-seizing. If, even so, through lapse of mindfulness or through the strength of his defilements, evil unwholesome dharmas arise even while he is dwelling alone — taking previously seen eye-cognizable forms as predominant, or taking previously experienced dharmas cognizable by ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind as predominant — once they have arisen he withstands them, abandons them, purifies them, and puts an end to them. Therefore he is said to apply himself to their restraint. On forms toward which the eye is [properly] to be directed, and on dharmas cognizable by ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind toward which the mind is [properly] to be directed, to those he directs [his faculties], in such a way that he is not defiled. Thus the mind-faculty is guarded by him from that defilement. Therefore it is said: ‘he guards the mind-faculty.’ On forms cognizable by the eye toward which the eye-faculty is not to be directed, and on dharmas cognizable by ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind toward which the mind-faculty is not to be directed — to those he does not direct [his faculties] at all, in any way. Therefore it is said: ‘he attains restraint by the eye-faculty,’ and so on up through ‘he attains restraint by the mind-faculty.’ This much is the detailed exposition of sense-restraint, to be understood. In summary: by what one restrains, from what one restrains, how one restrains, and what the restraint itself is — all this gathered into one is called restraint of the senses.

By what does he restrain?

By guarded mindfulness — by that he restrains.

What does he restrain?

He restrains the eye-faculty; he restrains the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-faculty. This is what he restrains.

From what does he restrain?

From pleasing and displeasing forms, sounds, and so on up through dharmas — from these he restrains.

How does he restrain?

He does not become a seizer of signs, does not become a seizer of secondary features — that on account of which evil unwholesome [dharmas would arise]; he attains restraint [from them]. Thus he restrains.

And what is the restraint itself?

That by which he is one whose mind is guarded by mindfulness, and one who maintains a balanced state — this is called restraint. A further summary meaning: the means of restraint, the object to be restrained, and the restraint itself — these gathered into one are called restraint of the senses.

What is the means of restraint?

What is meant by [the standard formula]: ‘he becomes one of guarded mindfulness, alert mindfulness; seeing forms with the eye, he does not become a seizer of signs, does not become a seizer of secondary features — up through: cognizing dharmas with the mind, he does not become a seizer of signs, does not become a seizer of secondary features’ — ‘that on account of which evil unwholesome dharmas would flow into the mind, to their restraint he applies himself; he guards the faculty, attains restraint by the faculty.’ This is called the means of restraint.

What is the object to be restrained?

Eye-and-form, and so on up through mind-and-dharmas — this is called the object to be restrained.

And what is the restraint itself?

What [the formula] expresses by: ‘he is one whose mind is guarded by mindfulness, one who maintains a balanced state’ — this is called restraint. This restraint of the senses is, in brief, of two kinds: that grounded in the power of reflective discrimination (pratisaṁkhyāna-bala), and that grounded in the power of cultivation (bhāvanā-bala). Of these, the one grounded in the power of reflective discrimination is that by which he sees danger in the sense-objects, but does not yet remove that danger, does not yet abandon it. The one grounded in the power of cultivation is that by which he sees danger in the sense-objects and also removes that danger, abandons it. By sense-restraint grounded in the power of reflective discrimination, the obsession of defilement that takes sense-objects as its object does not arise, does not come to manifest — but he does not yet abandon, does not yet eradicate, the latent tendency settled in the [karmic] basis. By sense-restraint grounded in the power of cultivation, that same obsession of defilement does not arise, does not come to manifest — and at all times he also abandons the latent tendency settled in the [karmic] basis, eradicates it [at the root]. This is the distinction; this is the import. This [non-arising and non-manifestation of defilement] is the [shared] negative work of both kinds of sense-restraint — that grounded in reflective discrimination and that grounded in cultivation. The sense-restraint grounded in the power of reflective discrimination belongs to the path of requisites (saṁbhāra-mārga). The sense-restraint grounded in the power of cultivation, by contrast, is to be understood as falling within the dispassion-stage proper.

What is knowing the right measure in food?

When someone here takes food with [proper] reflection — not for frivolity, not for adornment, not for embellishment, [as elaborated in the standard formula] above.

How does he take food with [proper] reflection?

‘Reflection’ here refers to that wisdom by which he sees the danger in solid food, and seeing the danger, having grasped the fault — and grasping the fault — he eats.

What, again, is that danger-seeing?

[It is the danger seen] in that very solid food by way of the consequence of consumption, the consequence of transformation, or the consequence of seeking.

What is the consumption-consequence danger [in food]?

When someone here, at the time of taking food endowed with color, endowed with smell, endowed with taste, very fine — of that food just put into the mouth, ground by the apparatus of the teeth, made wet by the flowing of saliva, and wrapped in saliva — at the time when it has rolled down through the throat-tube, that former, original agreeableness, the agreeable taste — that he wholly, entirely abandons, and [the food] reaches another transformation, and in that transformation underway, it appears like vomit. And [as for] that very state — if the consumer-individual were to attend to its appearance, to recollect it, his desire to enjoy [it] would in no way remain, [not] even with respect to [as-yet] untransformed, fine food. What more is to be said of that [later] state? By these manifold modes, by this sequence, with food-consumption as the predominant [factor], this beautiful color is altered, and danger appears, [the food] coming under [the category of] the unclean. This is called the consumption-consequence danger, namely, in food.

What is the transformation-consequence danger in food?

When he has taken that food and is satisfied, [and] when it undergoes transformation — in the middle watch of the night or in the last watch — it then generates and increases blood, flesh, sinew, bone, skin, and many other [tissues], [as well as] impure substances in this body. And in part, having undergone further transformation, it descends to the lower [part of the body], [the elimination of] which during the day must be attended to with distaste. And what is touched by him [in this elimination] — the hand or the foot, or some other limb or sub-limb — has thereafter to be hidden from outsiders, guarded both from himself and from others. And on that account [of food] arise in his body many bodily afflictions, namely: tumor, boil, eczema, itching, leprosy, skin-disease, pallor-disease, fever, cough, swelling, consumption, epilepsy, intestinal infection, jaundice, [disease of the] blood, [and] bile-fistula — these and other such bodily afflictions arise in the body. Or what was eaten goes bad, on account of which cholera appears in his body. This is called the danger of transformation, namely, in food.

What, then, is the seeking-consequence danger in food?

The seeking-consequence danger is of many kinds: caused by gathering, caused by guarding, caused by loss of affection, caused by insatiability, caused by lack of autonomy, and caused by misconduct. What is the danger in food caused by gathering? When someone here, for the sake of food, on account of food, struck by cold in the cold, struck by heat in the heat, makes effort, strives, exerts himself — by farming, by cattle-tending, by trade, or by writing, calculating, measuring, accounting, [the use of] seals [mudrā], [and] by manifold arts and crafts, for the attainment or increase of food not yet attained. As with food, so with food’s cause. For him, exerting and striving thus, that work-undertaking fails; he on that account grieves, [is] exhausted, laments, beats his chest, wails: ‘Misfortune has come upon me; alas, my exertion is fruitless.’ This is the danger arising from gathering — namely, in food. If he succeeds, then by reason of guarding [his gains] he becomes intensely anxious: ‘May my enjoyments not be taken by kings or by thieves; may they not be burned by fire; may they not be washed away by water; may my buried treasures not be lost; may my poorly applied [investments] not collapse; may unloved heirs not obtain them; may household discord not arise; [may there be no one] who would bring those enjoyments to ruin’ — this is the danger arising from guarding, namely, in food.

What is the danger caused by loss of affection?

When, by reason of food, on account of food, the mother speaks ill of the son, the son of the mother, the father of the son, the son of the father, brother of sister, sister of brother, companion of companion — much more one person against another person. They are mutually opposed, fallen into dispute; even great brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, [and] householder-mahāsālas, on account of food — thus opposed and fallen into dispute — strike each other with the hand, [strike each other] with clod, with stick, with weapon. This is called the danger caused by loss of affection. What is the danger caused by insatiability? When consecrated kṣatriya kings, discontent in their own villages, market-towns, kingdoms, [and] capitals, deploy on both sides in fortified battle-arrays — with conches sounded, drums beaten, arrows shot, manifold [weapons drawn] — there they meet together with frenzied horses, with frenzied elephants, with chariots, [and] with foot-soldiers they clash. By arrows or by spears their limbs are cut off, [and] they go to their death; or they suffer a pain nearly equal to death. This is called the danger caused by insatiability — or whatever else is of such kind.

What is the danger caused by lack of autonomy [asvātantrya]? When the king’s men storm fortified cities, they are doused with boiling oil, with boiling fat, with boiling cow-dung ash, with molten copper, with molten iron — [or] by arrows and spears their limbs are cut off, [and] they go to their death; or they suffer a pain nearly equal to death. This is called the danger caused by lack of autonomy — or whatever else is of such kind.

What is the danger caused by misconduct?

When by someone, on account of food, much bodily misconduct has been done [and] accumulated — and likewise verbal and mental [misconduct] — and when he becomes bodily afflicted, suffering, gravely ill, his prior bodily, verbal, and mental misconduct, like the shadow of mountains or mountain peaks in the evening, hangs over him, bears down on him, looms over him. It occurs to him: ‘Evil has been done by me; merit has not been done by me, [whether] by body, speech, [or] mind. The destiny of those who have done evil — to that destiny shall I, after death, go.’ Remorseful, he dies, and dying in such an [evil] manner, he is reborn in the lower realms — namely in the hells, the animal-realm, [or] the ghost-realm. This is called the danger caused by misconduct. Thus it occurs to him: ‘This food, in its seeking, is dangerous; in its consumption too, [is] dangerous; and once consumed, [its] transformation is dangerous.’

Yet there is for this food some slight benefit. What, then, is that?

‘This body sustained by food stands depending on food, not without food’ — this is the benefit. ‘Thus this food-sustained body, standing for a long time, stands [even] up to a hundred years, or somewhat longer when well looked after; and there is also its [possible] cessation in the meanwhile.’ Those who undertake practice merely for body-maintenance are not well-practiced; those who are content with mere body-maintenance are not truly content, and they do not experience the full, blameless benefit of food. But those who are not content with mere body-maintenance, and who, relying on that very body-maintenance, undertake practice for the fulfillment of the holy life — they are well-practiced, and they experience the full, blameless benefit. ‘It would not be fitting for me to dwell content with only this slight, inferior share of food’s benefit. It would not be fitting for me to fall into the class of fools, into Dharma-commonality with fools.’ Having thus known the wholly complete danger in food, with [proper] reflection he becomes a seer of danger and seeker of escape — for the sake of escape from food itself. It occurs to him: ‘These donor-patrons, having gathered their enjoyments with difficulty, undergoing great seeking-caused danger, as though pressing out their own skin, flesh, and blood, give [food] to us. These [patrons] give out of compassion, seeking a distinguished fruit. For this alms-food thus received by us, the fitting mode of use would be this: that, having established myself in such self-restraint, I should consume it so that their acts of service become very fruitful, of great benefit, great glory, [and] great extension; and that, like the moon, I should approach their families — withdrawn in body, withdrawn in mind, possessed of moral shame, non-brazen, non-self-aggrandizing, non-deprecating-of-others, with mind well-clear and glad at my own gain, and equally with clear and glad mind at another’s gain — and with such a mind I would again approach their families. How could this be proper for one gone forth [into the homeless life], [going] among others’ families: ‘let others give me food’ — honoringly, not without honor; plentifully, not scantily; finely, not crudely; swiftly, not slowly; properly. [I should resolve:] if, while I am walking thus and approaching families, others do not give, on their account I should not sully myself with a mind of resentment or a mind of hostility, and further, on that account, with the breaking up of the body, I should not encounter the dejection of rebirth in the lower realms — namely, by taking that very resentful and hostile mind as predominant. [And if] they give without honor rather than with honor, scantily rather than plentifully, crudely, not finely; slowly, not swiftly — [I should not] on that account sully myself with a mind of resentment and hostility,’ [the rest] as elaborated above. ‘And relying on this morsel-made food, I should practice in such a way, and should know that very measure by which there would neither be cessation of the life-faculty, nor would I be worn out by alms-food, and there would be support for the holy life; and likewise, while I stand in the state of a recluse, the state of one gone forth, this mode of using alms-food too would be pure and blameless.’ By these modes he, with [proper] reflection, takes food.

What, again, is food?

[There are] four [kinds of] food: morsel-made [food], contact, mental volition, [and] consciousness. In this context, morsel-made food is intended. And what is that? Namely: barley-meal or cakes or rice or porridge, ghee, oil, syrup, meat, fish, dried meat, salt, milk, curd, butter — these and other such kinds of substances which, made into morsels, are eaten. Therefore it is called morsel-made. ‘He takes [it]’ [means] he eats; partakes of, takes, chews, devours, tastes, drinks, sucks — these are synonyms. ‘Not for frivolity’ — that is, [it is] those who enjoy sense-pleasures [who do otherwise], is the meaning. They take food in such a way [thinking]: ‘by [this] food, we — of pleased body, satisfied body, with evening time at hand or when night has passed — with crowned-haired, ribbon-armed, girdled, breast-cup-breasted women, sporting [and] taking pleasure, will display elation and play.’ ‘Frivolity,’ in the noble Dharma-Vinaya, is what consists of evil, unwholesome dharmas connected with sensual lust, connected with intercourse — the applied thoughts by which, being enjoyed and gnawed at [in the mind], one becomes of unrestrained senses, of unrestrained mind, of swift mind, of leaping mind, of unsettled mind, of un-calmed mind. They, taking food in this excessive [way], are said to ‘take food for frivolity.’ The learned noble disciple, however, possessing the power of reflection, seeing the danger [and] knowing the escape, enjoys [food] — not in the way those enjoyers of sense-pleasures enjoy [it]. Therefore he says: ‘not for frivolity, not for intoxication, not for adornment, not for embellishment.’ Now, [as for] how those enjoyers of sense-pleasures take food: ‘Today we have taken food — namely, plentifully and to satisfaction in accord with [our] strength and capacity: smooth, strengthening, fattening, complexion-enhancing, smell-endowed, taste-endowed [food]. When the kindled-state [of digestion] arises [and] when night has departed, we shall be able, [being] fit, to do exercise — namely by tarka or atatī, by jolting, by yāmāyāma, by ulloṭhana, by digging the earth, by arm-exercise, by foot-pressing, by leaping, by jumping. [Doing] external exercise [and] much [other] exercise, depending on it we shall become strong, with well-exercised limbs, long-time healthy, and for a long time our youth will continue, [and] the disfiguring [process of] aging will not swiftly overcome the body. And we shall live longer, and in plentiful eating we shall be fit, and what we eat will be well digested, and the diminution of the doṣas [bodily humors] will be effected.’ Thus they enjoy [food] for intoxication with health, intoxication with youth, intoxication with life. It further occurs to them: ‘Having exercised, we shall make bathing-arrangements — namely, with clean water we shall wash our limbs, and with washed limbs we shall dress our hair, and, having anointed the body with various ointments, [we shall] with various cloths, with various garlands, with various ornaments adorn the body.’ That bathing, dressing, [and] anointing — this is called their adornment. And of those so adorned, the wearing of cloths, garlands, [and] ornaments — this is called embellishment. Enjoying [food] for adornment, for embellishment — thus enjoying, thus intoxicated by pride, adorned, with embellished limbs, at midday time, at evening time, at meal time, thirsty and hungry, with great delight, great joy, great pleasure, not seeing the danger, not knowing the escape, they take food as obtained, up to: again and again for frivolity, for adornment, for embellishment. The learned noble disciple, however, possessing the power of reflection, seeing the danger [and] knowing the escape, enjoys [food] — but not in the way those enjoyers of sense-pleasures enjoy [it]. ‘[I shall not abandon this food] otherwise than by abandonment-through-non-establishment [aniṣṭha-prahāṇa] — [that is,] I shall continue to use it [while not establishing-attachment to it].’ ‘Only for the sustaining of this body’ — that, depending on the eating or non-eating [of which], the maintenance of life and body-sustenance [proceed] — is what is so called. ‘I, having taken this food, shall live, shall not die,’ thus [thinking] he eats. Therefore he says: ‘only for the sustaining of this body.’

How does he take food ‘for its support’?

Continuation [yāpana] is twofold: there is the difficult and there is the not-difficult.

What is difficult continuation?

When, from [improper] food, hunger or weakness arises, or suffering, severe illness; or [when] he seeks alms-food by non-Dharma, not by Dharma; [when he is] enjoying with attachment, with clinging, with greed, with binding, with infatuation, with fixation, with fixation-state; or [when] his body becomes heavy, unworkable, unfit for [pursuit of] abandonment, by which his mind is [only] slowly concentrated; or [when] in-and-out breaths proceed with difficulty; or [when] sloth-and-torpor envelops the mind — this is called difficult continuation.

What is non-difficult continuation?

When, [from] taking such food, no hunger or weakness arises, [and these] do not become abundant — [nor] suffering, [nor] severe illness; or [when] he seeks alms-food by Dharma, not by non-Dharma; or [when he] enjoys without attachment, without clinging, without greed, without binding, without fixation, without fixation-state; and his body does not become heavy, becomes workable, fit for [pursuit of] abandonment, by which his mind is swiftly concentrated; [when] in-and-out breaths proceed with little difficulty; [when] sloth-and-torpor does not envelop the mind — this is called non-difficult continuation. There, by the difficult continuation, life-maintenance occurs, but it is a faulty and defiled maintenance of the body. By the less-difficult continuation, life-maintenance occurs of the body and it is blameless, undefiled. There, the learned noble disciple avoids the faulty, defiled continuation, [and] turns toward [and] resorts to the blameless, undefiled continuation. Therefore he says: ‘for support.’ That blameless, undefiled continuation which was earlier described — how does he maintain it? Answer: ‘[This eating] is for the stilling of hunger, for the supporting of the holy life; old feelings I shall abandon and new ones I shall not produce. I shall have continuation, strength, comfort, blamelessness, [and] ease of contact.’ Thus resorting [to this reflection], he arranges a blameless, undefiled continuation.

And how, again, does he take food ‘for the stilling of hunger’?

When the meal-time has come and hunger has arisen, in enjoying [food] he enjoys just that measure [needed] for the removal of that very hunger-obsession and hunger-weakness, such that for him, having eaten, hunger-weakness does not afflict [him] at the untimely time — at evening time, or when night has passed, on the next day, [until] the meal-time has come. Thus he takes food for the stilling of hunger.

How does he take food ‘for the supporting of the holy life’?

He enjoys such a measure, takes such food, that for him, applied to the wholesome side, [whether] in the visible-here-and-now, immediately after eating or on that very day, the body is not heavy, and is workable, [and] fit for [pursuit of] abandonment, by which his mind is swiftly concentrated, in-and-out breaths proceed with little difficulty, sloth-and-torpor does not envelop the mind, by which he becomes fit and capable, [and] swiftly [becomes fit] for the attainment of the not-yet-attained, for the realization of the not-realized, for directly realizing what has not yet been directly realized. Thus he eats for the supporting of the holy life.

How does he eat [under the rubric of] ‘old feelings I shall abandon’?

When, with respect to the past, he has eaten either out of measure, or unwholesomely, or [eaten what is] undigested — by which manifold bodily affliction has arisen in him, namely itching, leprosy, skin-disease, pallor-disease — [as elaborated] above, and on that account there arise in him bodily feelings — painful, intense, harsh, biting, disagreeable — [then,] for the calming of that affliction and the calming of those painful feelings caused by it, seeing what is wholesome, what is suitable, what is favorable, what is conformable, by the method prescribed by the physician he uses medicine, and eats food in conformity [with the prescription], by which the abandonment of that arisen affliction and the painful feelings caused by it occurs. Thus he takes food [thinking] ‘old feelings I shall abandon.’ With respect to the present, [being] healthy, well, [and] strong, he does not eat out of measure, [nor anything] unwholesome [or] undigested in the body, [so that] with respect to his future state — tomorrow or the day after — cholera would not arise in his body, nor any other bodily affliction arise — namely itching, leprosy, skin-disease, pallor-disease — [as elaborated] above, on account of which bodily feelings would arise [as] above. Thus also [under the rubric] ‘new feelings I shall not produce’ — he eats.

How [is the rubric] ‘continuation shall be for me’?

[And] ‘complexion and comfort and blamelessness and ease of contact [shall be for me]’ — [thus] he eats. That, having eaten, he lives — thus there is continuation. That hunger-weakness is removed — thus his complexion is [maintained]. That he abandons old feelings and does not produce new ones — thus there is his comfort. That he seeks alms-food by Dharma, unattached, unclinging — [as elaborated] above — thus there is [his] blamelessness. That, for one who has eaten, the body is not heavy, is workable, fit for [pursuit of] abandonment — [as elaborated] above — thus there is his ease of contact. Therefore he says: ‘with reflection he takes food, not for frivolity, not for intoxication, not for adornment,’ [the rest] as elaborated above. — This is the detailed division of knowing the right measure in food. What is the summary meaning? Answer: what and what he enjoys, and how he enjoys [it]. Namely, morsel-made food: barley-meal, cakes, rice, porridge, [as elaborated] above.

How does he enjoy [it]?

With reflection he enjoys [it], not for frivolity, not for intoxication, not for adornment, [as elaborated] above. Further, another summary meaning: he enjoys [food] taken hold of by the antidote, avoiding the extreme of sense-pleasure, and avoiding the extreme of self-mortification — for the supporting of the holy life. [How is the sense-pleasure extreme avoided?] When he says, ‘with reflection he takes food,’ by this the sense-pleasure-extreme is avoided; [also when] he says ‘not for frivolity, not for intoxication, not for adornment, not for embellishment.’

How is the self-mortification extreme avoided?

When he says: ‘for the stilling of hunger; old feelings I shall abandon and new ones I shall not produce; I shall have continuation, strength, and comfort.’

How does he enjoy [food] for the supporting of the holy life?

When he says: ‘for the supporting of the holy life, and blamelessness, and ease of contact will be for me.’ Further, another summary meaning: this [taking of food] is twofold — eating and non-eating. Non-eating: when, completely, entirely, in every way, he does not enjoy anything, and, not eating, dies. Eating is twofold: balanced eating and unbalanced eating. Balanced eating: [eating] neither too little nor too much, not unwholesome, not defiled by what is undigested. Unbalanced eating: [eating] either too little or too much; [or] he enjoys [what is] undigested, unwholesome, or defiled. By balanced eating — by non-too-little eating — unarisen hunger-and-weakness he does not produce, [and] arisen [hunger-and-weakness] he abandons. In non-too-much eating, by balanced eating, the body does not become heavy, unworkable, unfit for [pursuit of] abandonment, [as elaborated] above. By digested eating — by balanced eating — he abandons old feelings and does not produce new ones; thus there is his continuation, strength, and comfort. By undefiled eating, [and] by balanced eating, there is blamelessness and ease of contact. Too-little eating: that by which he barely lives. Too-much eating: that by which his body is overburdened and what is eaten is not digested in time. By undigested eating, cholera lodges in the body, or some other bodily affliction arises. As with undigested eating, so with unwholesome eating. The distinction in unwholesome eating is this: the doṣa [humoral imbalance] increases, or a harsh affliction touches him. By defiled eating, [the meaning is that] having sought alms-food by non-Dharma, he enjoys [it] with attachment, [with] clinging, [as elaborated] above. Whoever, then, enjoys balanced eating and avoids unbalanced eating is therefore called ‘acting evenly with regard to food’ [bhojane samakārī]. This even-acting with regard to food is declared, made manifest, opened up, [and] proclaimed by these modes — namely, ‘with reflection he takes food, not for frivolity, not for intoxication, not for adornment, not for embellishment,’ [as elaborated] above. In that he first says, ‘with reflection he takes food, not for frivolity, not for intoxication, not for adornment, not for embellishment, only for the sustaining of this body, for its support,’ — by this much, non-eating is rejected. Again, when he says, ‘for the stilling of hunger, for the supporting of the holy life,’ [and so on] up through ‘ease of contact’ — by this unbalanced eating is rejected.

How is unbalanced eating — and specifically too-much eating — rejected?

When he first says ‘for the supporting of the holy life,’ by this too-much eating is rejected. When he says: ‘old feelings I shall abandon and new ones I shall not produce,’ by this the undigested-eating-state and the unwholesome-eating-state are rejected. When he says, ‘I shall have continuation and strength,’ by this he indicates [the right amount, neither] the too-little-eating-state, and rejects the too-much-eating-state. When he says, ‘comfort will be for me,’ by this he indicates the digested-eating-state. When he says, ‘comfort will be for me,’ he also indicates the wholesome-eating-state. When he says, ‘blamelessness will be for me, and ease of contact,’ he indicates the undefiled-eating-state. He who, having sought alms-food by non-Dharma, enjoys [it] with attachment, [with] clinging, [as elaborated] above — he enjoys [defiled food], and faulty for him is [his] eating. For one applied to the wholesome side — in seclusion, in yoga, in mental engagement, in recitation, in reflection on the meaning — those very evil, unwholesome thoughts flow into the mind, which conduct his mental continuum oriented toward that [defilement], leaning toward that, abundant in that, by which there is for him no ease-of-contact-dwelling. And this ease-of-contact-dwelling is twofold: [first,] by avoidance of too-much-eating, by which the body does not become heavy, unworkable, unfit for [pursuit of] abandonment, [as elaborated] above; by the other [aspect] — non-making of relish — by which there is no non-ease-of-contact-dwelling caused by thought-disturbance. Such being the case, all these terms become explanatory of acting evenly with regard to food. This is called knowing the right measure in food, in detail and in brief.

• What is application to wakefulness in the early and late watches of the night?
• What is the early [watch]?
• What is the late watch?
• What is application to wakefulness?
• What is application to wakefulness-yoga?

Here, the early watch is the evening period: taking its start from sunset, it is the first part of the night, a little more than one watch. [Now] this application to wakefulness — [the text describes it] when it says: ‘by day, by walking and sitting, he purifies the mind of obscuring dharmas; having purified [the mind], washing his feet outside the dwelling, entering the dwelling, he lies down on the right side, foot placed on foot, perceiving light, mindful, fully aware, attending to the perception of rising; in the last watch of the night, rising lightly, very lightly, by walking and sitting he purifies the mind of obscuring dharmas.’ This is the application of the wakefulness-yoga. When [the practitioner] hears of the wakefulness-yoga of the Blessed Buddha’s disciples, he there becomes desirous of training: ‘Just as it [really] is, taking up this wakefulness-yoga authorized by the Buddhas, I shall accomplish the application to wakefulness’ — that desire, [that] energy, [that] effort, [that] vigor, advance, beginning of [the] stamina-stance, enthusiasm, lifting-up, non-turning-back of mind, [and] mental gathering [saṁgraha] — [Damaged/Conjectural: all these are] blameless [marks of right effort].

How, by walking and sitting, does he purify the mind of obscuring dharmas?

[On the terms used:] ‘Day’ — is taken as the period from the sun’s rising up to its setting. ‘Walking’ means extended back-and-forth movement on a wide, prepared piece of ground, [as] a bodily practice. ‘Sitting’ — is when someone here sits on a couch, on a stool, on a grass-mat, folding the legs cross-wise, having set the body upright, establishing mindfulness to the fore. ‘Obscurations’ means: the five hindrances [nīvaraṇa]. Obscuring dharmas are those that stand in [the same] place as the hindrances. What other obscuration-place dharmas [are there]? Sense-desire, ill-will, sloth-and-torpor, restlessness-and-regret, doubt; the perception of attractiveness, the sign of resistance, [mental] darkness, recollection of kin, country, [or] recreation, past laughter, play, sound, gatherings; and [unwise reflection on] the three times — [that is,] unwise dharma-reflection that pertains to the three times.

From these, how, by walking, does he purify the mind?

[And] from how many [does he so purify it]?

From sloth-and-torpor and from the [other] obscuration that is the food of sloth-and-torpor he purifies [the mind]. The light-sign [āloka-nimitta] is by him well, thoroughly grasped, well attended to, well savored, well penetrated. He, with mind accompanied by light, accompanied by radiance — under cover or in the open, while walking on the walking-path — by some clarifying object brightens the mind, uplifts it, gladdens it — namely, by recollection of the Buddha, [recollection of the] Dharma, [the] Saṅgha, virtue, generosity, [and the] deities. Or [he draws on] those dharmas which he has heard, grasped, [and] retained that concern the danger of sloth-and-torpor — namely, [from the twelve aṅgas:] sūtra, geya, vyākaraṇa, gāthā, udāna, nidāna, avadāna, itivṛttaka, jātaka, vaipulya, adbhuta-dharma, [and] upadeśa — wherein, in many ways, sloth-and-torpor is censured and deplored, and the abandonment of sloth-and-torpor is praised, eulogized, commended. Those [passages], in detail, he recites with his voice, or he proclaims them to others, or reflects on their meaning, weighs them, examines them; or he gazes around at the directions, or fixes his gaze on the four constellations of stars and planets, [or] moistens the face with water. Thus his obsession by sloth-and-torpor, when unarisen, does not arise; and when arisen, departs. Thus by him the mind is purified of that obscuring dharma.

By sitting, from which obscuring dharmas does he purify the mind?

From sense-desire, ill-will, restlessness-and-regret, doubt, and the [other] dharmas that feed them. When the obsession of sense-desire has arisen, for its dispelling — or when it has not arisen, for its remoteness — sitting cross-legged, having set the body upright, having established mindfulness to the fore, he attends to the dark-livid, the festering, the worm-eaten, the swollen, the chewed, the bloody, the bone, the skeleton, or some other excellent sign of concentration; or [he draws on] those dharmas which, [touching on] the abandonment of sense-lust itself, have been grasped for the abandonment of sense-lust, retained, mastered by voice, examined by mind, well penetrated by view — namely sūtra, geya, vyākaraṇa, [as elaborated] above: those [passages] which in many ways censure and depreciate sense-lust, sense-desire, sensual attachment, sensual compulsion, sensual fixation, deplore them, and praise the abandonment of sense-lust in many ways, eulogize [and] commend [it]. To those very dharmas — sitting thus — he attends wisely; thus his unarisen sense-desire-obsession does not arise, and arisen sense-desire-obsession departs. Now in [the case of] ill-will, this is the distinction: sitting thus, with a mind accompanied by loving-kindness — free of enmity, free of opposition, free of harm, vast, become great, boundless, well cultivated — resolving on one direction, having brought it to mind, having attained [the state], he dwells; Likewise the second, the third, the fourth — upward, downward, sideways, the entire endless world — having recollected, having remembered, he attains-and-abides. The rest, as before. In the case of auddhatya-kaukṛtya (agitation-and-remorse), this is the distinction: thus seated, he establishes the mind inwardly, he fixes it; he purifies, well-purifies [it]; he makes it one-pointed; he concentrates [it]. The rest, as before. In the case of vicikitsā (doubt), this is the distinction: sitting thus, to the past he does not unwisely attend, to the future and the present he does not unwisely attend [in such manner as]: ‘Was I in the past? Was I not in the past?

Or who was I in the past?

How was I in the past?

Who shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Being what shall I be?

From where has this being come?

Falling from here, whither shall he go?’ Having avoided such unwise attention, he attends wisely [to] past, future, [and] present. He sees only dharmas, only a [bare] thing — the real as real, the unreal as unreal — only cause, only effect; he does not superimpose what does not exist, [and] does not destroy what does exist, does not depreciate [it]. He knows the real as real, namely as impermanent, as suffering, as empty, as non-self — [seeing] impermanent, suffering, empty, non-self dharmas [as such]. He, thus wisely attending, is without doubt and without indecision about the Buddha, [without doubt] about the Dharma, the Saṅgha, suffering, origin, cessation, path, cause, [and] about dependently-originated dharmas — without doubt, without indecision. The rest [is to be understood] as above. Now, regarding ill-will, it should be said: the [counter-]dharmas grasped by him with respect to resistance and the resistance-sign, [and grasped] for its abandonment, [as detailed] above; regarding restlessness-and-regret, it should be said: the [counter-]dharmas grasped, with respect to restlessness-and-regret, [and grasped] for its abandonment, [as elaborated] above; regarding doubt, it should be said: those [counter-]dharmas grasped by him with respect to doubt, [and grasped] for its abandonment, [as elaborated] above. By this [practice], the mind is purified of the sense-desire-hindrance, [and] of the ill-will-, sloth-and-torpor-, restlessness-and-regret-, [and] doubt-hindrances, and of the obscuring dharmas that are their food. Therefore he says: ‘by walking and sitting he purifies the mind of obscuring dharmas.’ And this is the dharma-predominant [purification of mind from obscuring dharmas]. There is also the self-predominant and world-predominant purification of mind from obscuring dharmas.

What is the self-predominant?

When, on the arising of some particular hindrance, recognizing its unsuitability for oneself, he does not accommodate the arisen hindrance — he abandons, dispels, puts an end to [it, thinking]: ‘Let me not be known on account of that hindrance as a maker of mental corruption, a maker of wisdom-weakness, [as one] on the side of dejection.’ Thus, making the self predominant, he purifies the mind from the obscuring dharmas.

How, making the world predominant, does he purify the mind from obscuring dharmas?

Here, when a hindrance has arisen for him, or its time of arising is present, it occurs to him: ‘If I should produce an unarisen hindrance, the Teacher would reproach me, and the deities, the wise, [and] my co-religionists would censure me, regarding [it] as non-Dharma.’ [Thus,] making the world predominant, he purifies the mind from the obscuring dharmas. Here, when a hindrance has arisen for him, or its time of arising is present, it occurs to him: ‘If I should produce an unarisen hindrance, the Teacher would reproach me, and the deities, the wise, [and] my co-religionists would censure me, regarding [it] as non-Dharma.’ He, making the world predominant, does not produce an unarisen hindrance; and when [one] has arisen, for the sake of guarding his lodging and seat, he will again conform to worldly conduct. [In this way,] in the first watch of the night, by walking and sitting, he purifies the mind of obscuring dharmas. Having purified the mind of obscuring dharmas, washing his feet outside the dwelling, [and] having washed, entering the dwelling, he lies down — only for the [re-]invigoration of his own native great elements [dhātu], [thinking]: ‘This body, when [thus] replenished, will be more workable and more amenable in the continuous, one-sided application to the wholesome.’

For what reason does he lie down on [his right] side?

Because it shares a nature with the lion.

What, here, is the same-nature?

The lion, among all animals of the animal-womb, is the boldest, the most enthusiastic, of firm valor. The monk too, applied to wakefulness, with aroused energy, dwells bold, enthusiastic, of firm valor. Hence for him the lion-couch is appropriate — not the ghost-couch, the deity-couch, nor the sense-pleasure-enjoyer’s couch — for they [whose couches those are] are all indolent, of low vigor, of slow strength and valor. Moreover, this is dharma-nature: for one who lies down on the right side in lion-fashion, there is not such scattering of the limbs, no forgetfulness of mindfulness for one [thus] sleeping, and he does not sleep deeply, and he does not see evil dreams. For one who lies down otherwise, the contrary faults are to be understood. Therefore he says: ‘he lies down on the right side.’ The light-sign is by him well grasped, well attended to, well savored, well penetrated. Just attending to it, with mind accompanied by light, he lies down, and for him, even sleeping, the mind does not enter a darkened state. Thus, perceiving light, he lies down.

How, mindful, does he lie down?

Those dharmas heard by him, reflected on, cultivated, wholesome, connected with meaning — their consequence is mindfulness, [continuing] up to the time of sleep, such that, even while he sleeps, those very dharmas speak to him as if [he were] awake, and the mind moves abundantly in those very dharmas. Thus, as it were by mindfulness, with mindfulness, with wholesome mind, he lies down — or [at least] with indeterminate [non-defiled] mind. Thus, mindful, he lies down.

How, fully aware, does he lie down?

For him, sleeping thus mindfully, when at any time, by some secondary defilement, mental defilement occurs, of that arising defilement he is rightly fully aware; he does not accommodate, he abandons, he penetrates [it], he turns the mind back [from it]. Therefore he is said to lie down fully aware.

How, attending to the perception of rising, does he lie down?

He lies down having made the mind held [steady] by energy, with well-awakened, well-uplifted, well-gladdened mind, just like a forest deer; he does not, completely, entirely, leave the mind plunged in [sloth], [nor] oriented to it, nor abundant in it. It occurs to him: ‘Oh, may I in every respect, in every way, accomplish the wakefulness authorized by the Buddhas!’ And for its accomplishment he dwells with hope, with relish, with application, with desire, and is intensely yoked. Moreover, it occurs to him: ‘Just as today, for the sake of wakefulness with aroused energy, I have dwelt — and, for the cultivation of wholesome dharmas, skilled, non-lazy, endowed with [the capacity for] rising — tomorrow at dawn, when night has gone forth, in still greater measure I shall dwell with aroused energy, endowed with [the capacity for] rising.’ Now, by [the first kind of] rising-perception he [avoids] sleeping deeply, by which he is able, lightly very lightly at rising-time, to rise — not waking after the time has passed. By the second [kind of] rising-perception, he arranges the lion-couch authorized by the Buddhas, neither subtracting nor adding [from it]. By the third [kind of] rising-perception, the desire [for wakefulness-yoga] he does not let slacken. When forgetfulness arises, in each subsequent moment he applies himself to renewed undertaking. Thus, attending to the rising-perception, he lies down. He, in the last watch of the night, lightly very lightly waking, purifies the mind of obscuring dharmas. ‘The last watch’ is [also] said to be the late-night, somewhat-more-than-a-watch portion. He, perceiving light, mindful, fully aware, attending to the perception of rising, having let the middle watch — [also] somewhat-more-than-a-watch — pass in torpor, in [proper] time he rises up. [Thus] at that time he rises up, [being] workable-bodied. Having risen, not overcome by strong sloth-and-torpor obsession, by which there would be in his rising slowness, sluggishness, [or] laziness and indolence; rather, in the absence of that slowness, sluggishness, laziness and indolence, his rising is lightly, very lightly, by mere effort, without [internal] battle. The purification from the obscuring dharmas is to be understood as above. This much is the detailed division of application to wakefulness in the early and late watches of the night.

What are the summary meanings?

Here, for the person applied to wakefulness-yoga, there are four right tasks.

Which four?

[1] As long as he is awake, he does not let go of the wholesome side, [remaining] in continuous, one-sided cultivation of wholesome dharmas; [2] and at the [proper] time he lies down, not out of time; [3] and while sleeping, with mind undefiled he lets torpor descend, not with defiled mind; [4] and at the [proper] time he wakes, [and] does not overstep the rising-time. Taking up these four right tasks, the application to wakefulness has been taught by the Blessed One to the disciples.

How, again, is it taught?

When he first says: ‘by day, by walking and sitting, he purifies the mind of obscuring dharmas; thus in the first watch of the night,’ by this the first right task is declared, namely: as long as he is awake, he does not let go of the wholesome side, [remaining] in continuous, one-sided cultivation of wholesome dharmas. When he then says: ‘washing the feet outside the dwelling, entering the dwelling, he lies down on the right side, foot placed on foot,’ by this the second right task is declared, namely: at the [proper] time he lies down, not out of time. When he then says: ‘perceiving light, mindful, fully aware, attending to the perception of rising, he lies down,’ by this the third right task is declared, namely: with mind undefiled he lets torpor descend, not with defiled mind. When he then says: ‘in the last watch of the night, lightly very lightly waking, he purifies the mind of obscuring dharmas,’ by this the fourth right task is declared, namely: at the [proper] time he wakes, [and] does not overstep the rising-time. Thus where it is said ‘perceiving light, mindful, fully aware, attending to the rising-perception, he lies down,’ from [these] two causes, with mind undefiled he lets torpor descend — namely, by mindfulness and full awareness; [and] from two further causes he wakes in time, [and] does not overstep the time — namely, by perception of light and perception of rising.

How, again, having grasped a wholesome object, does he [go to] sleep?

By full awareness, [namely] that, when his mind has fallen away from the wholesome object [and] become defiled, he rightly knows [this] lightly very lightly. Thus by these two causes his sleep is undefiled. And by perception of light and perception of rising, he does not sleep deeply, [and] his torpor-obsession does not become far-going. Thus by these two causes he wakes in time, [and] does not overstep the rising-time. This, then, is the summary meaning of wakefulness-application: [the preceding] detailed analysis, and this summary meaning. This is called the wakefulness-application of the first and last watches of the night.

[Next:] dwelling with full awareness [saṁprajāna-vihāritā]. What is it?

When someone here dwells with full awareness in setting forth and returning, in looking ahead and looking around, in bending and stretching [the limbs], in wearing the saṅghāṭi-robe and [carrying the] bowl, in eating, drinking, chewing, tasting, in sitting, lying, [and] waking, in speaking, in silence, in the dispelling of sleep-fatigue — he dwells with full awareness.

• What is setting forth?
• What is returning?
• What is dwelling with full awareness in setting forth and returning?

Setting forth: when someone here approaches a village or another village, a family or another family, a dwelling or another dwelling. Returning: when someone here returns from another village or from a village, from another village, from a family, from another family, from a dwelling, from another dwelling. [Now,] dwelling with full awareness [in setting forth and returning]: Setting forth, he rightly knows ‘I am setting forth’; ‘here I should set forth, here I should not set forth’ — he rightly knows; ‘this is for me a time of approach, this is not a time of approach’ — he rightly knows. This is called for him full awareness. He, endowed with that full awareness, setting forth, knows ‘I am setting forth’; where he should set forth, there he sets forth, and at the [proper] time he sets forth, not out of time, [and] as he should set forth, with such conduct, with such deportment, he sets forth. This is called for him dwelling with full awareness, namely in setting forth and returning.

What is looking ahead, what is looking around?

What is dwelling with full awareness in looking ahead and looking around?

For him, [while engaged] in the previously proclaimed dharmas of setting forth and returning, that seeing of forms with the eye which, without prior thought, without prior desire, occurs in between — this is called looking ahead. When, having approached [a sight], with prior thought, with prior effort, with prior intent, [there is] the seeing of forms with the eye — namely of kings, of kings’ ministers, townsmen, country-folk, brāhmaṇas, the wealthy, chiefs, caravan-leaders; or of other recluse-places, of huts, of pavilions, of stalls, of palaces, of mansion-stories; or again, the seeing of other worldly spectacles — this is called looking around. When he rightly knows looking-ahead and looking-around by their specific characteristics, [and] how one should look ahead, how one should look around — this too he rightly knows. This is called for him full awareness. He, endowed with that full awareness, if looking around, knows ‘I am looking around’; what should be looked at ahead or around, that he looks at; when one should look ahead or around, then he looks ahead, [then he] looks around; as one should look ahead or around, so he looks ahead, [so he] looks around. This is called for him dwelling with full awareness, namely in looking ahead and looking around.

What is bending, what is stretching, what is dwelling with full awareness in bending and stretching?

He, thus looking ahead and looking around, preceded by setting forth and preceded by returning, whether he bends his feet or stretches [them], or bends his arms, stretches [them], or bends his hands, stretches [them] — thus whichever limb or sub-limb he bends or stretches — this is called bending and stretching. If he knows bending-and-stretching by their specific characteristics, [and] what should be bent, what should be stretched, he rightly knows; when one should bend, when one should stretch — that too he rightly knows; as one should bend, as one should stretch — that too he rightly knows. This is called for him full awareness. He, endowed with that full awareness, [when] bending [or] stretching, knows: ‘I am bending, I am stretching’; what should be bent or stretched, that he bends [or] stretches; when one should bend [or] stretch, then he bends [or] stretches. This is called for him dwelling with full awareness, namely in bending and stretching.

What is wearing the saṅghāṭi?

What is wearing robes? What is carrying the bowl? What is dwelling with full awareness in wearing the saṅghāṭi and robes, and carrying the bowl?

[Now,] dwelling with full awareness: that uppermost robe of his — of sixty patches or of ninety patches, double-stitched or single-stitched — this is called saṅghāṭi; using it as a covering is its use, [and] properly wearing it is called wearing. And that middle [robe], the smaller [robe], the determined robe, [or] the extra robe — or the determined [robe], or the extra robe fit for assignment — these are called robes; using them as coverings is their use, [and] properly wearing them is called wearing. And that determined vessel, whether iron or earthenware, for alms-food — this is called the bowl; carrying it is its use, [and] properly carrying it is called carrying. If, [furthermore,] he rightly knows this saṅghāṭi, robe, [and] bowl, [along with their] wearing or carrying, by their specific characteristics; [and] what wearing or carrying of saṅghāṭi, robe, [or] bowl is allowable or not allowable, that too he rightly knows; when the saṅghāṭi, robe, [or] bowl should be worn or carried, [that] he rightly knows; as it should be worn or carried, that too he rightly knows. This is called for him full awareness. He, endowed with that full awareness, if he wears the saṅghāṭi or robe, or carries the bowl, he knows, ‘I am wearing or carrying [it]’; what should be worn or carried, he wears or carries; when it should be worn or carried, then he wears or carries [it]; as it should be worn or carried, so he wears or carries [it]. This is called for him dwelling with full awareness, namely in wearing the saṅghāṭi and robe, and carrying the bowl.

• What is eaten?
• What is drunk?
• What is chewed?
• What is tasted?
• What is dwelling with full awareness in eating, drinking, chewing, [and] tasting?

Whatever use of alms-food [there is] — all that is called ‘eaten.’ Its further division is twofold: chewed and tasted. Chewed: barley-meal or cakes, rice or porridge, or some other prepared food — variously cooked, edible, life-sustaining — this is called chewed, as something eaten and not drunk.

What is tasted?

Namely milk, curd, butter, ghee, oil, honey, syrup, meat, fish, dried meat, salt, forest-fruit, or [other] kinds of edibles — this is called tasted, as something eaten and also drunk.

What is drunk: candied juice, sugary juice, rice-water, curd-whey, sour gruel, buttermilk, or even water — this is called drunk. If he rightly knows what is eaten, drunk, chewed, [and] tasted by their specific characteristics; [and] what should be eaten, drunk, chewed, [or] tasted — that too he rightly knows; when it should be eaten, drunk, chewed, [or] tasted — that too he rightly knows; as it should be eaten, drunk, chewed, [or] tasted — that too he rightly knows. This is called for him full awareness. He, endowed with that full awareness — when eating, drinking, chewing, [or] tasting — knows, ‘I am eating, drinking, chewing, [or tasting]’ — what should be eaten, drunk, [or] chewed, that he eats, [and so on] up through tasting; when it should be eaten, [and so on] up through tasted — then he eats, [up through] tastes; as it should be eaten, [and so on] up through tasted — so he eats, [and so on] up through tastes. This is called for him, [and so on] up through, dwelling with full awareness, namely in eating, drinking, chewing, [and] tasting.

• What is going, what is standing, what is sitting,
• what is lying down,
• what is being awake,
• what is speaking, what is being silent,
• [and] what is the dispelling of sleep-fatigue?

What is dwelling with full awareness in going, standing, sitting, lying down, being awake, speaking, being silent, [and] in the dispelling of sleep-fatigue?

When someone here walks on the walking-path, or approaches co-religionists, or sets out on a journey — this is called for him going. When someone here stands on the walking-path, or stands in front of co-religionists, preceptors, instructors, gurus, [or] persons occupying the place of guru — this is called standing. When someone here sits or settles on a couch, stool, [or] grass-mat, folding the legs cross-wise, having set the body upright, having established mindfulness to the fore — this is called sitting. When someone here, washing the feet outside the dwelling, entering the dwelling, lies down on the right side in lion-fashion, foot placed on foot, on couch, stool, or grass-mat, in forest, foot of tree, [or] empty hut — this is called lying [down]. When someone here by day, by walking and sitting, purifies the mind of obscuring dharmas, [and] likewise in the first watch and the last watch of the night — this is called being awake. When someone here, so applied to wakefulness, recites [and] masters dharmas not yet recited — namely sūtra, geya, vyākaraṇa, [as elaborated] above; and of the recited dharmas he establishes familiarity by voice — namely, in detail, by recitation; or proclaims them to others in detail; [and] from time to time greets [and] exchanges friendly speech with wise co-religionists, or with householders [and] others — only for the [proper] securing of requisites — this is called speaking. When someone here — of the dharmas heard, mastered, [and] mentally examined — alone, secluded, reflects on the meaning, weighs, examines [them]; or, withdrawn, establishes the mind inwardly, tames it, calms it, pacifies it, unifies it, concentrates it; or applies himself in yoga to insight — this is called being silent. When someone here, when summer-time has come, in the burning heat of the hottest summer, is afflicted by heat, or becomes weary, for one fatigued there arises out-of-time sleep-fatigue, the desire to sleep — this is called sleep-fatigue. And he, regarding going and so on up through the dispelling of sleep-fatigue, rightly knows each by its specific characteristic; where one should go, [and so on] up to: where sleep-fatigue should be dispelled — that too he rightly knows; when it should be gone to, [and so on] up to: when sleep-fatigue should be dispelled — that too he rightly knows; how one should go, [and so on] up to: how sleep-fatigue should be dispelled — that too he rightly knows. This is called for him full awareness. He, endowed with that full awareness, going, [and so on] up to: dispelling sleep-fatigue, knows ‘I am going, [and so on] up to: I am dispelling sleep-fatigue’; where he should go, and where the sleep-fatigue should be dispelled, there he goes, [and] there he dispels the sleep-fatigue; as he should go, as the sleep-fatigue should be dispelled, so he goes, so [and so on] up to he dispels the sleep-fatigue. This is called for him [dwelling with full awareness].

What is the sequence and cultivation of dwelling with full awareness? When someone here, depending on whichever village or market-town he dwells in, it occurs to him: ‘This village or market-town is to be approached by me for alms. Having gone for alms, I should return again to the dwelling. There are in this village or town families that are not to be approached by me.

And what are they?

Namely: a cowherd settlement, a tavern, a prostitute’s house, the royal household, a caṇḍāla quarter, or families wholly hostile [or] not [worth] returning to. And there are families to be approached by me — namely, kṣatriya-mahāsāla families, brāhmaṇa-mahāsāla families, market-town families, country families, wealthy families, chief families, [and] caravan-leader families — [these] are to be approached, but not too late in the evening, not at the wrong time, not when the donor-patrons are busy with work, not when [they are] engaged in play or pleasure or adornment, not when devoted to village-affairs, not when angry. And I should approach in such a way that, approaching, I would not encounter a raging elephant, a raging horse, a fierce horse, a fierce cow, [or] a fierce dog; would not tread on dense undergrowth or thorny barricades, would not fall into a pit, a muddy pool, a precipice, not into refuse-water, not into cesspits. Like the moon I should approach the families, possessing moral shame, non-brazen, withdrawn in body, withdrawn in mind, not desiring gain, not desiring honor. As I am clear-minded [and] glad at my own gain, so I should be clear-minded [and] glad at another’s gain — non-self-aggrandizing, non-other-deprecating, of compassionate mind, of pitying mind. And thus again I should approach. How is this to be obtained by one gone forth, [going] in others’ families — that others should give me, or not give, [and so on] up through swiftly, not slowly,’ [as elaborated] above. ‘Having approached, in receiving [I] should observe due measure, and not for the sake of gain should I make hypocrisy; talkative chatter, insinuation, extortion, gain-seeking-by-gain should not be made; and that gain should be enjoyed unattached, unclinging, ungreedy, unbinding, unbeguiled, unfixated, [and] not fallen into fixation. And [as for] those forms which in approaching or having approached are [normally] to be seen, only some of those are to be looked at; toward those not [proper] to be seen, one should be with eyes [merely] raised, with well-collected senses; toward those that are [proper] to be seen, [one should be] with well-established mindfulness.

What kind of forms are not to be looked at?

Namely: a dancer, a comedian, a jester, or another obscuring [performer] engaged in dance, song, music; likewise especially a young, fine-complexioned, lust-arousing woman — and [in general] those forms whose seeing would harm the holy life, would be an obstacle to the holy life, would conduce to the manifestation of evil, unwholesome thoughts.

What kind of forms are to be seen?

Namely: the aged, old, decrepit, of wheezing breath, of forward-bowed body, leaning on a staff, of trembling body; or one afflicted, suffering, gravely ill, with swollen feet, swollen hands, swollen belly, swollen face, pale, eczema-ridden, scabies-ridden, leprous, suffering, of struck-down limbs; or [one] dead, time-gone, one-day dead, two-days dead, seven-days dead, devoured by crows, ospreys, vultures, dogs, [or] jackals, eaten by various animal-creatures; or [a corpse being] carried — placed on a bier with canopy spread above, with a great crowd behind, weeping, lamenting, with hair scattered and loosed, in sorrow, in suffering, in lamentation, in dejection, in distress — these are what should be seen; and other such forms are to be seen, [namely] those that conduce to the support of the holy life and to the manifestation of wholesome thoughts. One should not approach with shaking body, shaking arms, [or] shaking head; not with raised voice; not with the hand hanging loosely, not with shoulder-shaking. One should not sit on a seat without permission, without examining the seat; not laying the whole body upon it, not [with] foot on foot, not [with] thigh on thigh, not [with] feet contracted, not [with] feet spread, not with [the body] covered up, not [in a] high-handed [manner], not with fingers spread, not cross-legged — having put on the robe round about, not too high, not too low, not on the side of the chin, not as a palmyra-fan, not as a snake-board. One should not cover [the bowl] with a porridge-lump; one should not present the bowl when food is not yet brought, nor [act improperly] with regard to chewable and edible [items]; one should not place the bowl on uncovered ground or in a precipitous, sloping place; the alms-food should be enjoyed carefully. One should not cover the soup with rice, [nor] enjoy [it] with the soup engaged on the rice — [eating] not too thick, not too thin, with round morsels of food, not licking the hand, not licking the bowl, not slurping the hand, not slurping the bowl, not breaking [up] the morsel — [thus] alms-food should be enjoyed.

‘And when I have returned to the dwelling from those families, having come and again gone out, by day or by night, I should walk on a private walking-path, not on another’s, [on one] not entrusted [to others], uninvited [by others to use], unallotted [to others]; with body unfatigued, body unwearied, with mind restrained from agitation, applied to the wholesome side, accompanied by attention, with faculties turned inward, with mind not going outward, not too swiftly, not too restlessly, not solely engaged in going-and-returning — going from time to time, standing from time to time. Thus in his own dwelling, in his own group, in his own hut, in the appointed place, the private place — not in another’s place, [which is] not entrusted, uninvited — thus on couch or stool or grass-mat, in forest or at the foot of a tree or [in an] empty hut, one should sit, folding the legs cross-wise, having set the body upright, having established mindfulness to the fore. In the middle watch of the night one should sleep, and the day and first watch [of the night] should be passed on the wholesome side, and thus one should sleep, perceiving light, mindful, fully aware, attending to the perception of rising. In the last watch of the night, lightly very lightly waking, application should be made to study or recitation, or to abandonment, retreat, [or] Dharma-reflection — and the worldly-doctrine mantras should be avoided, [those] of varied letters, varied words and phrases, connected with meaninglessness, which lead not to higher knowledge, not to awakening, not to nirvāṇa. Those dharmas, however, spoken by the Tathāgata, deep, of deep appearance, connected with emptiness, conforming to this-conditioned-arising — those should be grasped with respect, firmly, stably, well grasped, not destroyed, for the accomplishment of [meditative] practice, not for gain and honor; and those dharmas should be well mastered by voice. And one should not pass time in company, in love of work, in love of speech; from time to time, with established mindfulness, having met co-religionists, one should speak with them, converse, awaken them — being of the inquiring sort, a seeker of what is wholesome, with a non-accusatory mind, of measured speech, of suitable speech, of calm speech.

Having spoken a Dharma-talk to others, in the desire for silence, evil unwholesome thoughts should not be excessively entertained, and one should not be applied to unwise dharma-reflection. Thus many dharmas of this kind have been grasped by him, retained, well mastered by voice, examined by mind, well penetrated by view. Thus he becomes much-learned.

How is he an attainer [of meditative states]?

He becomes a gainer of the perception of impermanence, of the perception of suffering in the impermanent, of the perception of non-self in suffering, of the perception of food as repugnant, of the perception of the bloody, of the perception of the scattered, of the perception of the bone, [and] of the perception that reviews emptiness. He becomes a gainer of the first dhyāna, [the] second, third, [and] fourth; of the sphere of infinity of space, infinity of consciousness, nothingness, neither-perception-nor-non-perception; of loving-kindness, compassion, [Damaged/Conjectural: sympathetic joy, and equanimity]; of the fruit of stream-entry, once-returning, non-returning, [and] of the two-sphere [super-]knowledge; of past-life knowledge, divine ear, decease-and-rebirth knowledge, mind-reading, arhatship, [and] the eight liberations of meditation. He is capable and competent to admonish others by the three wonders: the wonder of psychic power, the wonder of mind-reading, the wonder of admonition. Thus he is an attainer.

How is he compassionate?

Toward others he is full of compassion, full of pity, desirous of their welfare, desirous of their benefit, [their] ease, [their] ease-of-contact, [their] security from bondage. Thus he is compassionate.

How is he of unwearying mind?

He demonstrates [the teaching], an exhorter, a gladdener, an arouser, a knower of the four assemblies, skilled in Dharma-teaching, non-lazy, endowed with [the capacity for] rising, of aroused energy, of aroused-energy nature. Thus he is of unwearying mind.

How is he patient?

Abused, he does not abuse in return; angered [against], he does not anger in return; disputed against, he does not dispute [back]; disparaged, he does not disparage [in return]. Through such [reciprocal] giving-and-receiving-of-blows, he becomes equanimous; even in deep bondage, imprisonment, beating, threatening, [or] cutting, he [counts] himself at fault, and follows up the result of [his prior] action; he is not angry with others, nor does he bear a latent tendency [of anger]. Thus disregarded, deprecated, [or] despised, he does not falter, has no [other] intention than [for] the goal — and he is patient of cold, heat, hunger, thirst, gnats, mosquitoes, wind, sun, creeping creatures, [patient] of ill-spoken [words] from others, of ill-arrived [hardships], of falling-out [strife]; of bodily painful feelings — intense, harsh, sharp, disagreeable, life-threatening — he is patient, of accommodating nature. Thus is he patient.

How is he confident?

Of unshrinking mind, in an assembly he teaches Dharma with unfaltering voice, without lapse of mindfulness or [of] inspiration; and fear arising from timidity does not arise in him, does not come upon him; nor does sweat from trembling pour from him, except from illness or fatigue. Thus he is confident.

How is he endowed with the speech-faculty?

He is endowed with noble speech: sweet, articulate, clear, pleasing to hear, agreeable, non-clinging, sufficient. Thus he is endowed with the speech-faculty, speaking well. He, endowed with these eight causes, becomes an admonisher, a reminder, an advisor, an instructor, [and] a Dharma-teacher.

How is he an admonisher?

Namely, [for failure] in higher virtue by [pointing out] virtue-failure, in misconduct by [pointing out] conduct-failure, he admonishes by what is seen, by what is heard, by what is suspected, by what is real, not by what is unreal; in [proper] time, not out of time; connected with meaning, not unconnected with meaning; gently, not harshly; with friendliness, not with hostility. Thus he is an admonisher.

How is he a reminder?

He reminds [the other] of a transgression, or of the Dharma, or of its meaning.

How does he remind of a transgression?

When someone who has fallen into a transgression [no longer] remembers [it], he reminds him: ‘Friend, in such a place, in such a matter, in such a manner, at such a time, you fell [into transgression].’ Thus he reminds of the transgression.

How does he remind of Dharma?

When someone, alone, [tries to] recall the dharmas [previously] heard, grasped — wishes to recall — namely sūtra, geya, vyākaraṇa, [as elaborated] above — [but] does not recall [them], he reminds him, gives him the prompting, or the asking-and-inquiring [that draws it out]. Thus he reminds of dharmas.

How does he remind of the meaning of Dharma?

When someone forgets the meanings, he reminds him, refreshes [his memory], makes [the meaning] manifest, teaches, proclaims; and what is wholesome, connected with meaning, connected with the holy life, long since done, long since spoken — of that too he reminds. Thus he is a reminder.

How is he an advisor?

In [matters of] seclusion, retreat, yoga, mental engagement, [and] calm-and-insight, from time to time he sets in motion appropriate admonition, and from time to time engages in connected talk — namely, talk that leads to the dispelling of hindrances of the mind: virtue-talk, wisdom-talk, liberation-talk, talk of few-desires, talk of the knowing-and-seeing of liberation, contentment-talk, abandonment-talk, dispassion-talk, cessation-talk, decrease-talk, non-mixing-talk, [and] this-conditioned-arising-conforming talk. Thus he is an advisor.

How is he an instructor?

Being the teacher in the dispensation of the well-instructed Teacher [in matters of] Dharma and Vinaya, or [being] a preceptor, or a co-religionist, or a guru, or a person occupying the place of a guru — in any matter of [the disciple’s] overstepping or transgression, knowing of it, from time to time he chastens [him], [and] prescribes a punishment, and reproaches him; and again, by Dharma, at the [proper] time he accepts [his] conciliation, propriety, [and] resolution; and he is a healer in what should be done and not done, in good conduct and misconduct, in conducted and unconducted [matters] — he instructs and disciplines. Thus he is an instructor.

How is he a Dharma-teacher?

From time to time he gives the preliminary-action talk — namely, [the talks on] generosity, virtue, heaven, the danger in sense-pleasures, the escape, [and on] the dharmas on the side of purification, [all] of which he proclaims in detail. From time to time he gives talk connected with the four noble truths, [talk] taking up suffering, origin, cessation, [and Damaged/Conjectural: the path] — for the maturation of beings, for their de-defilement, for their purification, for the long endurance of the true Dharma — with suitable words and letters, accompanied [by the right context], conforming [to the audience], conforming to the occasion, suitable, befitting, auspicious, equipped with the limbs and requisites of alert mindfulness; and he gives that talk at the [proper] time, respectfully, in due sequence, gladdening, pleasing, encouraging, not depressing — suitable, accompanied [appropriately], unscattered, in accord with Dharma, in accord with the assembly, of friendly mind, beneficial mind, compassionate mind, not depending on gain, honor, [or] praise; he does not exalt himself, [and] does not deprecate others. Thus he is a Dharma-teacher. He who is endowed with these eight factors and is thus from time to time an admonisher, reminder, advisor, [and] instructor — therefore he is called a good friend [kalyāṇa-mitra]. This much is the detailed division of association with good friends [kalyāṇa-mitratā].

What is the summary meaning?

If this friend, helper, compassionate one is, from the start, desirous of [the disciple’s] welfare and desirous of [his] ease, and knows that very welfare-and-ease as it truly is, [being] unperverted, of unperverted view, capable and skilled in means — namely, for the accomplishment of that welfare-and-ease, for its conferral — and is skilled, not lazy, endowed with [the capacity for] rising, of aroused-energy nature, namely, taking up that very conferral of welfare-and-ease, [then,] wholly perfect by these four causes, he is in brief to be understood as the good friend. And this is the summary meaning of association with good friends.

What was previously [given as] the detailed division, and what [is here] the summary meaning — this is called association with good friends.

What is hearing-and-reflection on the true dharma?

By ‘true dharma’ is meant: that which has been declared by the Buddhas and the disciples of Buddhas — the rightly-gone good persons — taught, set forth, opened up, and proclaimed.

What, again, is that?

Namely sūtra, geya, vyākaraṇa, [and the rest of the twelve, as elaborated above]. The twelvefold word-genre is called true dharma.

What is sūtra?

Whatever talks were given by the Blessed One, here and there, taking up the conduct of various trainable persons — talks connected with the aggregates, with the elements, with combinations of elements, with the sense-bases, with dependent origination, with food and truth, or with disciples, solitary buddhas, and tathāgatas; or connected with the foundations of mindfulness, the right exertions, the bases of psychic power, the faculties, the powers, the awakening-factors, the factors of the path; or talks given on unattractiveness, on mindfulness of breathing, on the training, on serene clear faith — those very talks, taken up by the council-makers for the long endurance of the teaching and arranged in due order, joined in due order, with appropriate sequences of names, words, and letters — that is, in such a way as to indicate the relevant meanings, which are wholesome, meaningful, and joined with the practice of the Buddha — these are called sūtra.

What is geya?

[A discourse] at whose conclusion verses are sung [in summary], together with sūtras whose meaning still requires interpretation (neyārtha) — this is called geya.

What is vyākaraṇa?

[A discourse] in which, regarding disciples who have passed away, their [next] rebirth is predicted, together with sūtras whose meaning is final (nītārtha) — this is called vyākaraṇa.

What is gāthā?

What is not spoken in prose, but composed in metrical lines — of two, three, four, five, or six feet — this is called gāthā.

What is udāna?

[A discourse] spoken by way of indication, without announcing a person's name and lineage — [but] proclaiming [it], spoken for the continuance in time of the true dharma and of the teaching. This is called udāna.

What is nidāna?

[A discourse] spoken by way of indication, with a person's name and lineage announced; and the vinaya-connected Prātimokṣa-sūtra with its origin and occasioning cause — this is called nidāna.

What is avadāna?

[A discourse] given with a parable, by which parable the present matter is illuminated — this is called avadāna.

What is vṛttaka (itivṛttaka)?

Whatever is connected with past undertakings (pūrva-yoga) — this is called vṛttaka.

What is jātaka?

Where the bodhisattva-conducts and difficult deeds of the Blessed One, in his successive births in the past, here and there, are recounted — this is called jātaka.

What is vaipulya?

Where the bodhisattvas' path is taught — for supreme, perfect awakening, for the perfecting of the ten powers and the unobstructed knowledge — this is called vaipulya.

What are the wonderful dharmas?

Where the special qualities of the Buddhas, the disciples of Buddhas, monks, nuns, female probationers, male novices, female novices, male lay-followers, [and] female lay-followers — both their shared qualities and the distinctive qualities particular to each — are declared as wondrous and marvelous, these are called wonderful dharmas.

What are upadeśas?

All the mātṛkās, the abhidharma, and the digests drawn from the sūtras. Sūtra-commentary is called upadeśa. And this twelvefold word-genre [maps to the three baskets]: there is sūtra, there is vinaya, there is abhidharma. When [the source] first says: ‘sūtra, geya, vyākaraṇa, gāthā, udāna, avadāna, vṛttaka, jātaka, vaipulya, wonderful dharmas’ — this [group of ten] is the sūtra-piṭaka. When it then says: ‘nidāna’ — this is called the vinaya-piṭaka. When it then says: ‘upadeśas’ — this is called the abhidharma-piṭaka. This twelvefold scripture, subsumed under the three baskets, taught by the rightly-gone good persons, is called the true dharma. And the hearing of it is the hearing of the true dharma.

And what again is hearing?

When someone here is a sūtra-bearer (sūtra-dhara), or a vinaya-bearer, or a mātṛkā-bearer, or a sūtra-vinaya-bearer, or a sūtra-abhidharma-bearer, or a vinaya-mātṛkā-bearer — this is called hearing of the true dharma. And that hearing, again, is twofold: hearing of the letter and hearing of the meaning.

What is reflection?

When someone here, alone and secluded, [takes up] those very dharmas as heard — having set aside the six matters that are unthinkable (namely: reflection on self, on the being, on the world, on the karmic-results of beings, on the meditator's domain accessible only to meditators, and on the Buddha's domain accessible only to Buddhas) — he reflects on them by their own characteristic and by their general characteristic. That reflection, again, is twofold: by way of enumeration (joined with the enumeration-procedure for dharma), and by way of weighing (by reasoning, examining merits and faults). If he reflects on the aggregate-connected teaching. If he reflects on some particular previously-settled teaching, by these two he reflects.

How again is form said?

‘Ten form-sense-bases.’ And that form included in the dharma-sense-base — that is the form-aggregate; the three feelings are the feeling-aggregate. The six perception-bodies are the perception-aggregate. The six bodies of volition are the formations-aggregate. The six consciousness-groups are the consciousness-aggregate. Thus, by way of enumeration-and-counting, he reflects on the aggregates with progressive subdivision; the entry-procedure for this enumeration-mode of reflection is to be understood as boundless.

How does he reflect on the aggregate-teaching by way of examining reasoning?

He examines by four reasonings. Which four? Namely: the reasoning of dependence, the reasoning of cause-and-effect, the reasoning of demonstration-of-arising, and the reasoning of dharma-nature.

What is the reasoning of dependence?

Dependence is twofold: dependence-of-arising (utpatty-apekṣā) and dependence-of-designation (prajñapty-apekṣā). Of these, dependence-of-arising: the causes and conditions on which the manifestation of the aggregates depends. In that arising of the aggregates, those causes and conditions are depended upon. [Dependence-of-designation:] the sequences of names, words, and letters on which the designation of the aggregates depends. In that designation of the aggregates, those sequences of names, words, and letters are depended upon. This is called dependence-of-arising in the aggregates and dependence-of-designation. Whichever is the dependence-of-arising, and whichever is the dependence-of-designation — that is the reasoning, the procedure, the means for [the practitioner's grasp of] aggregate-arising and aggregate-designation; therefore it is called the reasoning of dependence. Reasoning of cause-and-effect: the engagement of the so-arisen aggregates, by means of their own cause and their own condition, in performing their respective proper functions — for example: by the eye, forms are to be seen; by the ear, sounds are to be heard; and so on up to: by the mind, dharmas are to be cognized. [Conversely:] form is to stand in the eye's range; sound in the ear's range; and so on through dharmas in the mind's range — and whatever else is of this kind. Wherever, among the dharmas, the mutual cause-and-effect counterparts thus apply — that procedure, that means — is called reasoning of cause-and-effect.

What is the reasoning of demonstration-of-arising?

[The propositions:] ‘the aggregates are impermanent, dependently arisen, suffering, empty, non-self’ — these he examines by three means of valid cognition: namely, reliable scripture, direct perception, and inference. By these three demonstration-yoked means of valid cognition, which grip the hearts of the wise, delineation and demonstration are made — namely, of the impermanence, dependent-arising, suffering, emptiness, [and non-self] of the aggregates. This is called the reasoning of demonstration-of-arising.

What is the reasoning of dharma-nature?

By what reason are these aggregates as they are, the world-arrangement as it is? By what reason is earth marked by hardness, water by fluidity, fire by heat, wind by motion?

[By what reason are] the aggregates impermanent, [and] by what reason is nirvāṇa peaceful?

[Likewise:] form is marked by being-formed; feeling by experiencing, perception by conceiving, formations by forming, consciousness by cognizing. This is the nature of these dharmas; their own-nature is just this. This is dharma-nature, and this very dharma-nature itself is the reasoning, the procedure, the means here. [Whether one asks:] Could this be so, or otherwise, or not at all — in every case, dharma-nature alone is the reasoning, [the explanation that] falls back on dharma-nature itself. [It serves] for the mind to contemplate, for the mind to assent — this is called the reasoning of dharma-nature. Thus by these four reasonings the aggregate-teaching is examined. And whatever other teaching too — when, by these two modes (enumeration and examining-by-reasoning) it is rightly contemplated — that teaching's [contemplation] is called hearing-and-reflection on the true dharma.

What is non-obstacle?

Non-obstacle is twofold: the inward and the outward. What follows will state the inward and outward obstacles; and by their reverse, non-obstacle is to be understood.

What, then, is the inward obstacle?

When someone has previously made merit, and by the well-doneness of those merits is now a gainer — from time to time — of life-conforming requisites, namely robes, alms-food, lodging, medicine, and provisions: in the very midst of these, intense and prolonged lust arises, intense and prolonged hatred, intense and prolonged delusion. Or, again, he has previously committed actions that lead to illness, by which he is now full of illness — in this very life he moves about in an unbalanced way; his wind, bile, phlegm, or cholera frequently rises and persists in his body. He becomes [over-]heavy in food, of much business, much to do, frequently in large gatherings. Or fond of work, fond of speech, fond of sleep, fond of company, or self-aggrandizing, fickle, heedless, dwelling in a bad place. Such are the inward obstacles, to be understood.

What are the outward obstacles?

Even so, when he depends on non-good persons from whom he does not, from time to time, gain conforming admonition and instruction; or when he dwells in a bad region — where, when he tries to settle in to dwell, by day there is a fierce, abundant sun-glare, and by night loud noise, the clamor of a great crowd; or sharp contact of wind and sun, or even fear of humans — such are the outward obstacles, to be understood. Such, then, is the detailed division.

What is the summary meaning?

In brief, obstacle is threefold: the obstacle of application (prayoga), the obstacle of seclusion (prāvivekya), and the obstacle of retreat (pratisaṁlayana). Of these, the obstacle of application: that obstacle which, when present and manifest, makes him incapable and unfit — completely, entirely — for any application to the wholesome side.

And what is that?

When he becomes afflicted, gravely ill — his wind, bile, phlegm, or cholera frequently rising and persisting in his body; or when a scorpion bites him, or a centipede, or a human harasses him, or a non-human; or when he is not a gainer of robes, alms-food, lodging, medicine, and provisions — such is the obstacle of application, to be understood.

What is the obstacle of seclusion?

When he becomes [over-]heavy in food, of much business, much to do, much to attend to; when he becomes fond of work and delights in it, his mind bent on those various duties; when he becomes fond of speech, and though capable and fit for seclusion, abandonment, retreat, and cultivation, he is content with mere recitation and study, fond of sleep, seized by sloth-and-torpor, of lazy disposition, cherishing the pleasure of sleep, the pleasure of [lying on the] side, the pleasure of reclining; when he becomes fond of company with householders and renouncers, engaging in king-talk, or thief-talk, food-talk, drink-talk, gossip about possessions, courtesans, streets, the countryside, tales about great ministers, sea-stories — passing the time with such useless talk, delighting in it, frequently in large gatherings, his mind scattered over those various matters, distracted; when he becomes fond of association, and when separated from those householders and renouncers he undergoes separation-grief; when he becomes fond of conceptual proliferation, delighting in proliferation — taking the lead in occasions for backsliding, but in matters of seclusion one who has laid down the burden — such are the dharmas to be understood as the obstacle of seclusion: [dharmas] by which, when present and manifest, it is not easy to dwell in remote lodgings in forests and woods, or at the foot of trees, or in empty huts.

What is the obstacle of retreat?

‘Retreat’ here means śamatha (calm) and vipaśyanā (insight). There is the obstacle of calm and the obstacle of insight. Of these, the obstacle of calm [comes from two things:] heedlessness and dwelling in a bad place. When, in the heedless, sloth-and-torpor wraps the mind round, or he savors mere [premature] calm, or inclines the mind toward slackness, or there is a darkened state of mind — and as for [obstacles arising] from dwelling in a bad place, by some human conflict from outside [interfering].

And what is the obstacle of insight?

Namely, self-aggrandizement and fickleness. Of these, self-aggrandizement: when [he thinks] ‘I am of high family, gone forth, undejected — and others are not so,’ he exalts himself, takes himself up, and deprecates others. Likewise [thinking], ‘I am gone forth from a wealthy family, undejected; I am handsome, well-favored, pleasing; I am much-learned, of much accumulation; I am of fair speech, endowed with the faculty of speech — and other monks are not so’ — he exalts himself, takes himself up, and deprecates others. Holding himself up [thus, he thinks of others:] ‘these monks, elders, experienced ones, ones who have entered deeply into the holy life’ — and so he does not, from time to time, inquire of them, does not question them. And they, in turn, do not from time to time open up to him the unopened points, do not clarify the points already opened, do not — by wisdom, well and rightly — penetrate and proclaim the deep meaning-words to him, [which would lead] up through the purification of knowledge-and-vision. Thus that self-aggrandizement of his becomes an obstacle — namely, an obstacle to insight. Further, when he gains only a slight, scant, mere knowledge-and-vision, a mere ease-of-contact dwelling, and by that mere knowledge, that mere vision, he exalts himself, takes himself up, and being thus self-aggrandizing, is content with that much and does not strive further — thus too an obstacle is made for him through self-aggrandizement: namely, an obstacle to insight. Or, again, fickle — of unpeaceful faculties, restless faculties, arrogant faculties; corrupted in mind, speaking what is well-spoken yet doing what is ill-done — he does not firmly reflect on the dharmas, does not reflect resolutely. By this he does not bring insight to fullness, does not purify it — thus fickleness too becomes his obstacle, namely an obstacle to insight. [In sum:] two dharmas are obstacles to calm — namely, heedlessness and dwelling in a bad place. Two dharmas are obstacles to insight — namely, self-aggrandizement and fickleness. Whatever is the obstacle to calm, and whatever is the obstacle to insight — this together is called the obstacle to retreat. And this is the summary meaning of obstacle. This summary meaning together with the previous detailed division — gathered into one is called obstacle. And by the reverse of this obstacle, non-obstacle is to be understood: the absence, departure, non-presence, and non-occurrence of these obstacles is what is called non-obstacle.

What is generosity?

That blameless gift which one gives for the sake of adorning the mind, for the sake of refining the mind, for the sake of the requisites of yoga, and for the attainment of the highest good. Here [the structure of the analysis is]: who gives, to whom does one give, what does one give, by what does one give, how does one give, why does one give — by [answering all of] which, his giving becomes blameless.

Answer: the giver — the patron — gives. A giver (dātṛ) is the one whose own thing is given; when that [thing] belongs to one who wants to give, not to one who does not want to give, he is called a patron (dāna-pati).

And to whom does one give?

Answer: one gives to four [kinds of recipient]: the suffering, the helpful, the dear, and the distinguished. Of these, ‘the suffering’ means: the pitiable, travelers, beggars, the blind, the deaf, the helpless, those without recourse, those lacking life-requisites — and others of such kind. Helpers are: mother and father, those who nurture and rear one, or those who deliver one from a forest-wilderness, from famine, from fear of enemy armies, from bondage, or from sickness; and those who counsel one's welfare, counsel one's ease, bring about welfare and ease, help in matters that have arisen, share one's joys, share one's sorrows, and do not abandon one in danger — these and others of such kind are the helpers.

Who are the dear?

Acquaintances toward whom one feels love, respect, or devoted speech — those one greets, knows well, holds beloved — and others of such kind. These are called the dear.

Who are the distinguished?

Recluses and brahmins reckoned as good — the non-harming, those who delight in non-harming; the lust-free and those practicing for the subduing of lust; the hatred-free and those practicing for the subduing of hatred; the delusion-free and those practicing for the subduing of delusion. These and others of such kind are called the distinguished.

What, then, does one give?

In brief, one gives a thing reckoned as either sentient or non-sentient. One gives the [appropriate] thing.

What is the sentient-reckoned thing?

Namely the giving of son, female slave, male slave, worker, attendant, elephant, horse, cow, sheep, fowl, woman, man, boy, or girl — or other such things. Or with respect to one's own body — hand, foot, head, flesh, blood, fat, and so on — he offers these. This [self-giving] too is a sentient-reckoned gift, [the kind] in which bodhisattvas are seen [to engage]; but it is not the gift intended in the present context. [Here intended is rather:] all those [sentient beings] over whom he has lordship, mastery, and effective power, and whom he is fit to bestow on others. Bestowing them, he makes himself blameless: [the gift is given in such a way that] others do not corrupt their minds on its account, by way of its condition; and those beings bestowed on others are not afflicted by them — this is called the blameless gift of sentient-things.

What is the non-sentient-reckoned thing?

Namely: wealth-things, grain-things, and land-things. Of these, wealth-things: gems, pearls, beryl, conch-shell, stone, coral, agate, gold, silver, copper, right-spiraling [shells]; or any other such jewel, gold, silver, cloth, vessel or furniture, fragrance, or garland — this is called wealth.

What is grain?

Whatever is food or drink: barley, rice, wheat, jujube, horse-gram, sesame, beans, sugar-cane juice, grape juice — or any other such thing. This is called grain.

What is the land-thing?

Namely: a field, a house, a shop, the establishment of a merit-hall or a monastery — or any other such thing. This is called land-thing. [All of these] — the sentient-reckoned thing and the [non-sentient-reckoned thing] — these are what one gives.

By what does one give?

By volition accompanied by non-greed — that is, mental conditioning, mental action — and by the bodily action produced therefrom, and the verbal action, for the relinquishment of [whatever] thing, [whether external] or in one's own continuum: by these one gives.

How does one give?

One gives with faith; with scriptural tradition as one's view, seeing the fruit, one gives respectfully; with humble mind, with one's own hand, with both hands; without contempt, at the right time; in such a way that the gift will be of use to others, without injuring [those others] in the giving; by dharma, by proper means, without violence — having accumulated [the gift] rightly, one gives what is pure, what is fine, what is allowable; [gives in such a way] that others are not made blameworthy [by accepting it], nor is oneself [made blameworthy by giving it]; one gives frequently; having disciplined the stain of stinginess and the stain of hoarding, one gives the gift; with glad mind before the giving, with mind clarified during the giving, and one is not remorseful afterward. Thus one gives.

Why does one give?

Answer: one gives out of compassion — namely, to the suffering; out of gratitude — namely, to the helpers; with love, respect, and devotion — namely, to the dear; with the prayer for worldly and otherworldly distinction — namely, to the distinguished. Therefore [in this way alone] is it said that ‘one gives.’ By these modes — for him, whether householder or renouncer — for the sake of adorning the mind, for the sake of refining the mind, for the sake of the requisites of yoga, for the attainment of the highest good, that gift becomes blameless. This is called generosity.

What is the ornament of the recluse [śramaṇālaṅkāra]?

When someone here is of faith, non-deceitful, of little affliction, of aroused-energy nature, wise, of few desires, content, easily maintained, easily supported, endowed with ascetic qualities [dhutaguṇa], pleasing, knowing measure, endowed with the dharmas of noble persons, endowed with the dharmas of the wise, endowed with the marks of the wise, patient, gentle, [and] lovely.

How is he of faith?

Full of serenity [śraddhā as confident clarity], full of meaning-imagining [conviction in the value of the goal], full of release-aspiration, and willing in wholesome dharmas. He is serene toward the Teacher, does not doubt, does not waver; he honors the Teacher, esteems, respects, [and] worships [him]; having honored, esteemed, respected, [and] worshiped, depending on him, he dwells [in practice]. As toward the Teacher, so toward the Dharma, toward co-religionists, toward the training, toward admonition-and-instruction, toward conciliation, toward heedfulness, toward concentration — thus he is of faith.

How is he non-deceitful?

He is straight, of straight nature; he reveals himself as he truly is in the presence of the Teacher, the wise, [and his] co-religionists — thus he is non-deceitful.

How is he of little affliction?

Of healthy nature, he is endowed with an evenly-conditioned stomach, not too hot, not too cold, unafflicted, naturally pleasant, by [the function of] which his eaten, drunk, chewed, [and] tasted [foods] are properly digested — thus he is of little affliction.

How is he of aroused-energy nature?

With endurance he dwells, with energy, enthusiastic, of firm valor, not one who has laid down the burden in wholesome dharmas — skilled, not lazy, endowed with [the capacity for] rising; he is a doer of bodily service for [his] wise co-religionists — thus he is of aroused energy.

How is he wise?

He is endowed with both mindfulness and intellect, of non-dull faculty, non-deluded faculty, alert, capable of understanding the meaning of well-spoken and ill-spoken dharmas, endowed with innate intellect, [and] endowed with applied intellect. Thus he is wise.

How is he of few desires?

Endowed with however many qualities — beginning with the state of few-desires — he does not seek to be known by others [for them]: ‘Let others not know me as of few desires, or as endowed with such qualities.’ Thus he is of few desires.

How is he content?

With whatever robes, alms-food, [or] lodging [he obtains], he is satisfied, content; whether obtaining inferior or fine robes, he does not long [for more], [and] does not become anxious; and having obtained, he enjoys [them] unattached, unclinging, [as elaborated] above.

As with robes, so with alms-food [and] lodging. — How is he easily maintained?

Only he himself is to be maintained by him, not others — such as children or [household] men, or others on whose account he would undertake seeking [more], and [whom] other donor-patrons would [come to] see as ‘hard to maintain.’ Not [being] thus, he is easily maintained.

How is he easily supported?

Even with little he gets along, even with inferior he gets along — thus he is easily supported.

How is he endowed with ascetic qualities?

He is an alms-food taker [piṇḍapātika], a sequential alms-food taker [sāvadāna-piṇḍapātika], a one-seat eater [ekāsanika], an after-meal-only refuser [khalupaścādbhaktika], a three-robe wearer [traicīvarika], a felt-wearer [nāmatika], a refuse-rag wearer [pāṁsukūlika], a forest-dweller [āraṇyaka], a tree-root dweller [vṛkṣamūlika], an open-air dweller [ābhyavakāśika], a cemetery dweller [śmāśānika], a sitter [naiṣadyika, one who does not lie down], an any-bed acceptor [yāthāsaṁstarika]. These [are] the twelve ascetic qualities, with reference to alms-food, robes, [and] lodging — or [counted as] thirteen. [Counted as thirteen,] the alms-food-taker quality, when divided, becomes twofold: [Damaged/Conjectural]: the [plain] alms-food-taker [who eats] as obtained, and the sequential alms-food-taker who, having begged from house to house, from family to family, and having completed the round, enjoys the alms-food as obtained, as suitable — not approaching families with raised expectation [thinking]: ‘There I shall obtain fine chewable and edible food, enough to satisfy me.’ When alms-food-taking is taken without distinction [as a single quality], they become twelve; when the [twofold] division is taken, thirteen.

Now, what is one-seat-eating?

Seated in one [single] seat, however much should be enjoyed, that much he enjoys; once risen from that seat, he does not [again] enjoy [food the same day]. This is called one-seat-eating.

What is after-meal-refusing [khalupaścādbhaktika]?

Seated for a meal, he does not [begin to] enjoy [it] until he has accepted all the food, [i.e.,] until he knows ‘I shall be able to maintain myself [with this much]’; when he knows ‘beyond this no further food shall be needful for me,’ then, having put aside everything [else, refusing more], he begins to enjoy [what he has]. Thus he is an after-meal refuser.

How is he a three-robe wearer?

With [just] three robes he gets along — saṅghāṭi, upper robe, [and] inner robe; he does not keep more than three robes — thus he is a three-robe wearer.

How is he a felt-wearer [nāmatika]?

Whatever robe he wears — three robes or extra robes — all that he wears is woolen, not anything else. Thus he is a felt-wearer.

How is he a refuse-rag wearer [pāṁsukūlika]?

Whatever robe has been left by others, discarded — on the road, in the lane, at the crossroads, at a junction, on the path or off-path; mixed with feces, mixed with urine, [or] mingled with feces, urine, pus, blood, [or] mucus — from which he removes what is impure, [and,] taking the [usable] substance, cleansing [it], sewing [it], dyeing [it], wears [it] — thus he is a refuse-rag wearer.

How is he a forest-dweller [āraṇyaka]?

He dwells in remote forest-thicket lodgings, those distant from villages and market-towns — thus he is a forest-dweller.

How is he a tree-root dweller [vṛkṣamūlika]?

He makes his abode at the foot of a tree, depending on a tree-root. Thus he becomes a vṛkṣamūlika (tree-root dweller).

How does he become an ābhyavakāśika (open-sky dweller)?

He arranges his dwelling in the open sky, in an exposed, open place. Thus he becomes an ābhyavakāśika.

How does he become a śmāśānika (charnel-ground dweller)?

He makes his abode in a cemetery, [the place] where the dead are carried out — thus he is a cemetery dweller.

How is he a sitter [naiṣadyika]?

On couch, stool, [or] grass-mat, he passes the time [only] by sitting, not leaning his back or side against a couch, stool, wall, tree-root, grass-mat, or leaf-mat — thus he is a sitter.

How is he an any-bed acceptor [yāthāsaṁstarika]?

Wherever — on grass-mat or leaf-mat — he prepares the bed: whatever grass-mat or leaf-mat has been once arranged, just so he uses [it as] the bed, he does not change it, he [merely] arranges [it as it is] — thus he is an any-bed acceptor. Why are these called ‘ascetic qualities’ [dhutaguṇa, lit. ‘shaken-off qualities’]? Namely, just as wool or cotton, when shaken [dhuta], becomes loose, and at that time is soft, light, [and] workable — namely for spinning thread or for stuffing cotton — just so, for someone here, by lust for alms-food the mind is attached to alms-food, joined together [with it]; [and] by lust for robes, lust for lodging, the mind is attached, joined together [with them]. He, by these ascetic qualities, purifies [it], straightens [it], makes [it] soft, workable, straightforward, controllable — namely for the dwelling of the holy life; therefore they are called ‘ascetic qualities.’

Now, for the abandonment of lust for plentiful food in alms-food, he becomes a one-seat eater. For the abandonment of lust for plentiful food, he becomes an after-meal refuser. For the abandonment of lust for fine robes, he becomes a felt-wearer. For the abandonment of lust for fine robes, he becomes a three-robe wearer. For the abandonment of lust for soft-contact robes, he becomes a refuse-rag wearer. Lust for lodging is fourfold, namely: contact-lust [for soft surfaces], shelter-lust, lust for side-comfort and lying-down comfort, [and] lust for spread, coverlet, [and] covering. Now, for the abandonment of association-lust, he becomes a forest-dweller. For the abandonment of shelter-lust, he becomes a tree-root dweller [or] an open-air dweller, [or] becomes a cemetery dweller. Moreover, cemetery-dwelling is [also] for the abandonment of lust [arising] through torpor. For the abandonment of lust for side-comfort and lying-down comfort, he becomes a sitter. For the abandonment of lust for spread, coverlet, [and] covering, he becomes an any-bed acceptor. — Thus he is endowed with ascetic qualities.

How is he pleasing?

He is endowed with pleasing setting-forth-and-returning, looking ahead, looking around, bending and stretching, [and] wearing of saṅghāṭi, robes, [and] bowl — thus he is pleasing.

How is he knowing the right measure?

When faithful brāhmaṇa-householders provide for him as one gone forth — namely with robes, alms-food, lodging, medicine, [and other] requisites — in receiving them, he knows the measure. Thus he is knowing the right measure.

How is he endowed with the dharmas of noble persons?

Gone forth from a high family, or from a wealthy family, handsome, well-favored to see, pleasing, much-learned, endowed with abundant requisites, [Damaged/Conjectural]: [or being] a gainer of some kind of mere knowledge, mere vision, [or] mere ease-of-contact dwelling — by these he does not exalt himself, nor deprecate others; he practices Dharma in accordance with Dharma — thus he is endowed with the dharmas of noble persons. — How is he endowed with the marks of the wise? The fool is action-marked, [and] the wise [too] is action-marked. How [so]? The fool is an ill-thought-out thinker, an ill-spoken speaker, an ill-done-doer. The wise, on the other hand, is a well-thought-out thinker, a well-spoken speaker, a well-done-doer. Thus he is endowed with the marks of the wise.

How is he patient?

Abused, he does not abuse in return; angered [against], he does not anger in return; disputed [against], he does not dispute [back]; reviled, he does not revile in return. He, [in such cases,] is patient. Of cold, heat, hunger, thirst, gnats, mosquitoes, wind, sun, [and] creeping creatures’ contacts; of ill-spoken [words] from others, of ill-arrived [hardships], [and] of [hostile] paths of speech; of bodily feelings — painful, intense, harsh, biting, disagreeable, life-threatening — he is patient, of accommodating nature. Thus he is patient.

How is he gentle?

When [he is] endowed with friendly bodily action, with friendly verbal action, [and] friendly mental action — in the presence of the Teacher, the wise, [and his] co-religionists — [being] a sharer of common enjoyments and not a separate-enjoyer, he eats openly as a sharer [at meals], with gains lawful, Dharma-obtained, [whatever is] bowl-gone or bowl-included [he shares]; [he is] sharing in virtue and sharing in view. He, endowed with these six conciliatory dharmas — making one dear, respected, [and] esteemed — becomes pleasant to live with, of non-harming nature, and the wise rejoice in him, [as do his] co-religionists, of one resolve. Thus he is gentle.

How is he lovely?

Free from frowning, of open-faced complexion, accompanied by a smile, the first to greet, of dear speech, of welcoming disposition [saṁgraha-śīla], of composed bearing. Thus he is lovely. He, endowed with these dharmas, is desirous of Dharma, desirous of [the] qualities, not desirous of gain, honor, fame, [or] eulogy. He is not endowed with the wrong view of superimposing [what does not exist], nor with [the wrong view] of depreciating [what does exist]; what is not the Dharma he does not superimpose [onto Dharma], what is the Dharma he does not depreciate. Whatever there is of speech and chatter — letters, signs, words, [and] phrases connected with worldly doctrine — [he recognizes:] ‘that is meaningless,’ and knowing this, he avoids it from afar; [Damaged/Conjectural]: he does not delight in it, does not take pleasure in it; on this account he wears a self-disciplining robe. Association with householders he avoids — [as] defilement-increasing; with the noble he associates — [as] knowledge-purifying. He does not make [overly close] friend-families, [nor] accept [such ties], [knowing:] ‘on account of which there will arise, in many modes, scatter [and] busyness; or, through their further change, [their] becoming otherwise, will arise sorrow, lamentation, suffering, dejection, distress.’ And the defilements and secondary defilements as they arise he does not accommodate, [but] abandons, dispels, [and] puts an end to [them], [thinking:] ‘lest from that, on that account, there arise either present-life suffering or future-life suffering.’ And he does not let the [donors’] arising of faith fall away [through misconduct]. Of unbroken virtue, of unfallen vow, he enjoys what is given in faith, and he does not reject what is given in faith; [nor] does he reject the training. He is a seeker of his own faults and slip-ups, a concealer of [his own] good, a revealer of [his own] evil. In others’ faults and slip-ups he does not engage; he does not fall into transgression, [not] even for the sake of [his] life; and if fallen, lightly very lightly he makes amends according to Dharma. In duties to be done he is skilled, non-lazy, a self-doer, not seeking bodily service from others. And he has confident conviction in the inconceivable greatness of the Buddhas and Buddha-disciples, and in the deep teaching, [and] does not reject [it]: ‘The Tathāgatas alone are the knowers, seers, beholders — not I.’ Having seen thus, he does not himself become fixed in view-clinging, a wrong-grasper, [or] one whose counsel is hard to relinquish. He, endowed with these qualities, so dwelling, so training, adorned with the ornament of the recluse, shines — just as some young man of vital nature, an enjoyer of sense-pleasures, bathed and anointed, [Damaged/Conjectural: clothed in clean garments], adorned with various ornaments, shines — namely with necklaces, bracelets, ring on the finger, or garland of gold and silver — just so he, adorned with the various recluse-ornament qualities, shines, glows, blazes. Therefore it is called ornament of the recluse. This is called the ornament of the recluse.

Summary verse: Endowment-from-self, endowment-from-others, [wholesome dharma-]desire, virtue, sense-faculty [restraint], food, wakefulness, dwelling with full awareness, and likewise hearing-and-reflection on the true dharma, non-obstacle, generosity, and the ornament [of the recluse] last.

Faith, non-deceit, little affliction, energy, wisdom, few desires, contentment, ease of being cared for, ease of support, the ascetic qualities, pleasingness, knowing-measure, patience, gentleness, loveliness.

[Here ends] the first yoga-position, comprised within the Śrāvakabhūmi of the Yogācārabhūmi.