744 Groundless Paths welfares, but one has not yet attained the state of, from the perspective o f those to be guided, o n e s accomplishing the welfare o f sentient beings during subsequent attainment equaling the one o f a buddha This state is only attained on the tenth bhiimi, on which the third type o f the path o f familiarization as aspiration exists However, from the perspective o f relinquishment and realization, the accom plishm ent o f the welfare o f beings on the tenth bhiimi does not equal the one o f a buddha because this is made clear in the sütras through the examples o f a minute particle and the earth, respectively (the same is said in Uttaratantra 1.78, which compares the two with the am ount o f water in a hoofprint and in the ocean, respectively) 475 XVIII.74ab 476 PGSD (pp 180-81) defines the path o f familiarization as dedication as “the maháyána subsequent clear realization that consists o f the subsequent attainments o f dedicating the roots o f virtue o f oneself and others to perfect enlightenm ent.” In terms o f its boundary lines, it is twofold—existing on the impure and pure bhümis In terms o f its objects, as listed in the sütras, it is twelvefold (CZ, pp 69 -8 1) The definition o f dedication in general is “being congruently associated with the resolve that one’s own and others’ roots o f virtue cause the accomplishing o f a special fruition.” It is tw ofold—dedication for higher realms and nirvána, with the latter sisting o f the dedications in the hínayána and the maháyána, respectively The roots o f virtue to be dedicated consist o f all those that are accum ulated in the three times The levels to which they are dedicated are threefold—m undane levels, the levels o f the hínayána, and unsurpass able enlightenment In terms o f special dedication, said virtues are dedicated by way o f being embraced by the prajñá that is free from the three spheres The purpose o f dedicating in this way is to make virtues inexhaustible and increase them further The witnesses o f dedication are all buddhas and bodhisattvas in the three times, to whom one prays so that one’s dedication will be accomplished 477 PGSD (p 182) defines the path o f familiarization as rejoicing as “the maháyána subse quent clear realization that consists o f the subsequent attainments o f perfectly cultivating the joy about the roots o f virtue o f oneself and others, which is congruently associated with the feeling o f mental bliss.” It is twofold in terms o f the impure and pure bhümis 478 PGSD (pp 181-82) says that aspiration, dedication, and rejoicing are not m utually exclusive because all types o f contaminated maháyána paths o f familiarization are included in the path o f familiarization as aspiration For all o f them are paths o f familiarization that are embraced by the resolve o f striving for enlightenment However, the three are not coextensive because aspiration and dedication, which are congruently associated with the feeling o f equa nimity, are not the path o f familiarization as rejoicing According to MPZL (p 80), the paths o f familiarization as aspiration, dedication, and rejoicing, respectively, are the causes that produce the accum ulation o f merit during subsequent attainment that has not arisen yet, let the already arisen merit not decline, and increase that undeclined merit Similarly, SBZ (pp 316 -1 ) says that the reason for teaching the contaminated subsequent attainment o f the path o f familiar ization through the triad o f aspiration, dedication, and rejoicing is as follows In general, the practice o f subsequent attainment includes infinitely m any m undane and supramundane paths (such as the páramitás and the four immeasurables) However, aspiration gives rise to the path in one’s mind stream through bringing together all paths o f subsequent attainment (such as the páramitás) Through dedication, all paths arise through being dedicated to the k n ow ledge o f all aspects and thus not decline Through rejoicing, said paths as well as the roots o f virtue of others not only not decline, but increase further as the causes o f the knowledge o f all aspects In this way, these three gather the accum ulations during subsequent attainment 479 PGSD (p 182) defines the path o f familiarization as accom plishm ent as “the maháyána subsequent clear realization that consists o f the remedies that relinquish the cognitive obscura tions, which are the factors to be relinquished through familiarization.” It is equivalent to the Notes 745 uninterrupted paths o f the mahayana path o f familiarization In terms o f its boundary lines, it is tw ofold—existing on the impure and pure bhumis In terms o f relinquishment, it is also tw o fold—the paths o f familiarization as accom plishm ent that directly relinquish the seeds o f the factors to be relinquished through familiarization and their im pregnations o f negative tenden cies, respectively 480 CZ, pp 291 -92 481 This m eans that the above quote is taken as a probative argument with subject (the purities o f form, prajnaparamita, and fruition), predicate (these three being one), and reason (because they not exist as two and so on) 482 PGSD (pp 182-84) defines th e pure path o f familiarization as “the mahayana subsequent clear realization that consists o f the sustaining remedies for the cognitive obscurations which are the factors to be relinquished through familiarization.” It is equivalent to the paths o f libera tion o f the mahayana path o f familiarization As for taking the above quote from the sutras as a probative argument, the subject in question is the path o f liberation that is taught explicitly here as the pure path o f familiarization It is fourfold in terms o f ¿ravakas, pratyekabuddhas, bodhisattvas, and buddhas, but the one to be taught primarily here is the m ahayana path o f liberation As for the predicate, w hen the paths o f liberation are pure o f their respective stains, their objects (such as form) are also pure o f their respective stains and the seeing o f the true nature o f these objects is also pure o f its respective stains As for the reason, with a m ind that accords with the facts on e cannot analyze any difference between the paths o f liberation o f the mahayana path o f familiarization being pure o f their respective stains and the seeing o f the true nature o f their objects being pure o f its respective stains, neither through a difference in substance in terms o f specifically characterized p h en om en a, nor through distinct isolates in term s o f generally char acterized phenom ena As for the particular explanation o f the pure fruition, its definition is “the qualities o f the paths o f liberation, or the reality o f cessation, o f being free from the seeds o f the respective factors to be relinquished through the power o f the uncontam inated uninterrupted paths.” This is equivalent to the fruitions o f the approach o f virtuous effort The definitions o f the pure fruitions o f ¿ravakas, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas, respectively, are “the quali ties o f the paths o f liberation, or the reality o f cessation, in the m ind streams o f those in the lesser yana, those in the middling yana, and noble bodhisattvas.” The definition o f the pure fruition o f buddhas is “the qualities o f realization or relinquishment o f having exhaustively relinquished the two obscurations, including their latent tendencies.” In brief, the path o f libera tion o f the second bhum i represents a pure fruition because it is the sustaining rem edy o f being free from its respective obscurations through the uninterrupted path that is its specific cause 483 PGSD (pp 175-76) explains the following on the physical supports o f the arising o f the path o f familiarization For pratyekabuddhas, it is certain to arise in a physical support within the desire realm For ¿ravakas, the support o f the new arising o f their path o f familiarization is on e within the desire or form realms, while the support o f sustaining an already arisen path o f familiarization can also be on e in the formless realm For bodhisattvas, the support is certain to be on e within the desire or form realms and not one in the formless realm because the lat ter is not a suitable support o f the direct operation o f the enlightened activity o f mahayana noble ones As for the mental supports, the new arising o f the path o f familiarization o f the hlnayana can rely on any o f the six grounds o f dhyana, while the mental support o f sustain ing an already arisen path o f familiarization can also be a state o f m ind in the formless realm For ¿ravakas on the path o f familiarization can m anifest the meditative absorption o f cessation through relying on the actual m editative absorption o f the Peak o f Existence The path o f famil iarization o f bodhisattvas m ainly relies on the actual fourth dhyana because calm abiding and superior insight are properly balanced in it, which makes it easy to practice the path However, it is not that the path o f familiarization o f bodhisattvas does not rely on the states o f m ind o f 746 Groundless Paths the formless realm at all because the actual formless meditative absorption whose nature consists o f the last m om ent o f the special path o f the meditative equipoise o f the first bhüm i functions as the direct cause for the second bhümi Though the first m om en t o f the m ahàyàna path o f familiarization is definitely a meditative equipoise, its direct cause can be both the special path o f the meditative equipoise o f the first bhümi and the special path o f the subsequent attainment o f that bhümi 484 PGSD (pp 185 and 187) says that the knowledge o f entities that is the main topic o f the third chapter o f the AA must be the remedial knowledge o f entities o f bodhisattvas because those to be guided for w hom this chapter is mainly taught must be those with the mahàyàna disposition As for the reasons for teaching the knowledge o f entities after the knowledge o f the path, through understanding that the knowledge o f entities o f bodhisattvas is one in nature with its cause, the knowledge o f the path, it is understood that it is the actual cause o f the knowledge o f all aspects and that the paths o f the hlnayàna represent the antagonistic factors of, that is, the places o f going astray from, this knowledge o f entities o f bodhisattvas Therefore, it is explained here by differentiating the hlnayàna and mahàyàna knowledges o f entities In brief, without knowing all entities to be adopted and rejected, the paths o f all three yànas are not known prop erly The definition o f the knowledge o f entities o f not abiding in samsàric existence and peace is “the knowledge o f mahàyàna noble ones o f directly realizing that samsàra, nirvána, and what is between not exist by any nature o f their own.” Its instances consist o f all the knowledges o f mahàyàna noble ones The definition o f the knowledge o f entities o f abiding in samsàric existence and peace is “the knowledge o f hlnayàna noble ones o f not realizing this.” Its instances consist o f all the know ledges o f hlnayàna noble ones The mahàyàna k n ow ledge o f entities is also called the “knowledge o f entities o f not abiding in the extrem es o f either samsàric existence or peace.” For through great prajnà, bodhisattvas not abide in the extreme o f samsàra and, through great compassion, they not abide in the extreme o f nirvána The hlnayàna kn ow l edge o f entities is called “the knowledge o f entities o f abiding in the extremes o f both samsàric existence and peace” because the followers o f the hlnayàna cling to samsàra as what is to be rejected and nirvána as what is to be adopted MCG (fols 73b.6-75a.2) states that the entities with regard to which the know ledge o f entities cuts through superimpositions consist o f skan dhas, dhàtus, and àyatanas The realization o f éràvakas is to know that all o f these are merely em pty o f a personal identity The realization o f the mahàyàna is to know them as freedom from reference points because they are em pty o f both identities The first six am ong the nine points o f the knowledge o f entities (not abiding, or abiding, in samsàra or nirvána; being close to, or distant from, the fruitional mother; and being remedial or antagonistic factors) describe the differences between the hlnayàna and the m ahàyàna knowledges o f entities, while the last three (trainings, equality o f the trainings, and path o f seeing) describe the actual path o f the mahàyàna knowledge o f entities Prajnàpàramità is the wisdom o f samsàra and nirvána (or the three times) being equal in the expanse o f the nature o f p henom ena—great equality That this great equality does not abide in either extrem e o f samsàra (entities) and nirvána (nonentities) is called “the knowledge o f entities,” “sugata heart,” and “dharmadhàtu.” Therefore, the cognizing subject that focuses on this is called “the knowledge o f the path.” From the perspective o f not abiding in the extrem e o f nirvána, it is called “great com passion” and, from the perspective o f not abiding in the extreme o f samsàra, “prajnàpàramità.” Through realizing this just as it is, it is impossible to abide in either o f these two extremes On the other hand, the path o f the éràvakas that is to be relinquished here apprehends samsàra as an entity and nirvána as the extinction that is the nonentity o f the five skandhas having ceased This mistaken m ode o f apprehension does not go beyond the sphere o f m inds and mental factors and thus not beyond the objects o f the three realms Therefore, m ind does not cease, whereas the remedial knowledge o f entities o f bodhisattvas represents the subsequent attainment o f m ind having ceased through realiz ing profound equality MPZL (pp -9 ) says that one should not conflate entities (seem ing Notes 747 phenom ena such as the skandhas) and the k now ledge o f entities, which realizes the true nature o f these entities It is the latter that constitutes the first o f the nine points that define the k n ow l edge o f entities It must be explained according to the intention o f the sütras and the great treatises as being only a feature that defines the knowledge o f entities, but without grasping the essential points o f the knowledge o f entities and the knowledge o f the path, one should not explain the profound intention o f prajñápáramitá to others W hat is primarily explained in this chapter here through the detailed division o f the knowledge o f entities is the explicit teaching on the u n com m on knowledge o f entities o f bodhisattvas The reasons for explaining this are that, according to the sütras, šrávakas, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas must all attain their respective forms o f enlightenm ent through practicing prajñápáramitá and that the know ledge o f entities is presented with regard to šrávakas and pratyekabuddhas, while the knowledge of the path is presented with regard to bodhisattvas Thus, it is taught that šrávakas and pratyek abuddhas only possess the particular instance o f prajñápáramitá that is the mere knowledge o f entities, but not the knowledge o f the path or the knowledge o f all aspects Therefore, the šrávakas possess the particular knowledge o f entities that is the mere clear realization o f per sonal identitylessness, but lack the k now ledge o f entities o f realizing that these entities lack any phenom enal identity The pratyekabuddhas possess the particular knowledge o f entities o f additionally realizing that, am ong phenom ena, apprehended objects lack any identity, but they still lack the clear realization that is the com plete know led ge o f entities (that is, realizing both types o f identitylessness fully) This presentation is well known am ong all Indian and Tibetan scholars as being the intention o f the prajñápáramitá sütras and the AA It also eliminates the presentation o f those who say that the knowledge o f entities is nothing but the realization o f personal identitylessness Thus, šrávakas and pratyekabuddhas possess m erely the com m on kinds o f the knowledge o f entities that serve as the rem edies for their particular obscurations (respectively, just the afflictive obscurations and the afflictive obscurations plus one half o f the cognitive obscurations), whereas only bodhisattvas possess the u n co m m on knowledge o f enti ties that serves as the com p lete rem edy for the cognitive obscurations Therefore, this chapter determines the distinctions between the com m o n and the u n com m on knowledges o f entities The uncom m on know ledge o f entities o f bodhisattvas is taught in detail by way o f its nature, distinctive features, factors to be relinquished and remedies, trainings, and the path o f seeing of clearly realizing it In this w ay, one should not think that the knowledge o f entities is nothing but the knowledge o f entities that consists o f the path o f šrávakas and is to be relinquished by bodhisattvas 485 PGSD (p 189) defines the knowledge o f entities that is close to the fruitional m other as “the k n ow ledge o f noble bodhisattvas o f being skilled in the m eans o f accom plishing the fruitional mother.” Its instances are the maháyána paths o f seeing and familiarization The definition o f the kn ow ledge o f entities that is distant from the fruitional m other is “the k n ow l edge o f hínayána noble ones o f not being skilled in the m eans o f accomplishing the fruitional mother.” Its instances are the hínayána paths o f seeing, familiarization, and nonlearning 486 Conze 1973, p 84 487 CZ, pp 57-58 488 Samyutta Nikaya III 141-42 489 IV.21 490 Verses 46 -4 491 The three paths are the twelve links o f dependent origination, grouped in three categories: affliction (links 1, 8, 9), karma (links and 10), and arising (the rem aining seven links) 492 1.35-37 748 Groundless Paths 493 Lines IV.66ab 494 IV.90 495 D 4049, fol 100b.6-7 496 PGSD (pp 187-88) says that ¿ravakas and pratyekabuddhas lack the realization o f p h e nomenal identitylessness because this lack is established through b oth scripture and reasoning The Mahdsannipataratnaketudharani says: Those who always regard the three realms as being identityless, Substanceless, and without an autonom ous agent, And cultivate the according poised readiness Will be liberated from all migrations The Lahkavatarasutra states, “N ot to realize signlessness means not realizing the enlighten ment o f the mahayana, but it does not mean not realizing the enlightenm ent o f ¿ravakas.” The Ghanavyuhasutra says: Because o f not destroying the existence o f phenom enal entities Sravakas clearly realize this As for the reasonings, if ¿ravakas and pratyekabuddhas realized phenom enal identitylessness, it would follow that the hlnayana is not a path that lacks both special m eans and prajna because it possesses the prajha o f realizing emptiness If this is accepted, it stands in contradiction to the following passages Prajndparamitdsamcayagdtha XVI.5d says: Through being without means and lacking prajha, they fall into fravakahood AA V.lOab states: Realizations being deficient Due to falling into existence or peace Also, it would follow that it is untenable to explain blind people not perceiving the sun and the followers o f the hlnayana not perceiving emptiness free from reference points, respectively, as an example and its corresponding m eaning because ¿ravakas and pratyekabuddhas possess the prajha o f directly realizing emptiness If this is accepted, it contradicts Uttaratantra 1.153 saying: The ultimate o f the self-arisen ones Is to be realized through confidence alone Those without eyes not see The bright and radiant disk o f the sun Also, it would follow that the explanation o f the followers o f the hlnayana lacking the four hap pinesses o f intending the welfare o f others, achieving the means for that, realizing the vastness o f all phenom ena there are, and realizing em ptiness is not tenable because they possess the prajna o f realizing emptiness If this is accepted, it contradicts Mahaydnasutrdlamkara IV.21 (see PSD above) 497 This and the following quotes are found on pp 299-301 in CZ 498 PGSD (pp 189-91) defines the remedial knowledge o f entities as “the knowledge o f mahayana noble on es o f not b eing b o u n d by clinging to characteristics in term s o f the charac teristics o f the triad o f ground, path, and fruition.” The definition o f the k now ledge o f entities that is an antagonistic factor is “the know ledge o f hlnayana noble ones that is bound by such clinging.” That the m ahayana knowledge o f entities is not bound by said clinging to characteris tics in terms o f ground, path, and fruition is because it, through the power o f directly realizing that ground, path, and fruition lack any nature o f their own, is able to relinquish said clinging, ... direct operation o f the enlightened activity o f mahayana noble ones As for the mental supports, the new arising o f the path o f familiarization o f the hlnayana can rely on any o f the six grounds... familiarization o f bodhisattvas does not rely on the states o f m ind o f 746 Groundless Paths the formless realm at all because the actual formless meditative absorption whose nature consists o f the last... from the fruitional m other is ? ?the k n ow l edge o f hínayána noble ones o f not being skilled in the m eans o f accomplishing the fruitional mother.” Its instances are the hínayána paths o f