4. The Perfection of Wisdom

Three Kinds of Wisdom ^{[This section seems to have been misplaced in the original translation and was included in the section on renunciation. I have moved it to its proper place.]}

The Analyses (Vibhaṅga) of the Abhidhamma, in the section on the Analysis of Knowledge (Ñāṇa-vibhaṅga), mentions three kinds of wisdom (paññā):

1. Knowledge of various kinds, whether low or noble, including various crafts and professions, etc., which are acquired through one’s own reasoning and not through asking others or hearing about it from them (cintā-maya-paññā). From cinta “thinking,” māyā “formed of,” hence, literally, wisdom formed of thinking.

This kind of wisdom includes not only thoughts on mundane affairs but also on things concerning Dhamma matters. Therefore, it comprises the knowledge of ordinary worldly things, such as carpentry, agriculture, etc., as well as the knowledge of things of a Dhamma nature, such as generosity, morality, concentration and insight meditation. The omniscience (sabbaññutā-ñāṇa) of the Buddhas may even be called wisdom arising from thought (cintā-maya-paññā), if one wishes to do so, because the Bodhisatta, as Prince Siddhattha had thought out by himself the practice leading to omniscience without hearing of it from anyone, and he became omniscient.

However, wisdom as the fourth perfection to be fulfilled by the Bodhisatta should be considered as only the group of fundamental knowledges necessary for the attainment of knowledge of the paths and fruitions state and omniscience. We are not concerned here with the group of wisdom which is acquired in the final existence of a Bodhisatta, entitling him to becoming a Buddha. Bodhisattas, fulfilling the perfection of wisdom before their last life, practised only up to the first part of the [1606] ninth stage, the knowledge of equanimity about formations (saṅkhārupekkhā-ñāṇa), out of the ten stages of insight (vipassanā). The final part of this knowledge of equanimity about formations leads on directly to the knowledge of the path. So, Bodhisattas do not attempt to go beyond the first part until their last life, for should they do so, they would have accordingly attained paths and fruitions and become noble ones (ariya) and passed into Nibbāna in those existences; they would not become a Buddha though. Therefore, it should be noted that as a Bodhisatta, the perfection of wisdom is fulfilled only up to the first part of the knowledge of equanimity about formations.

2. Knowledge gained by listening to the wise who talk either on their own or at one’s request when one is unable to think out or reason by oneself (suta-maya-paññā). From suta “hearing,” māyā “formed of,” hence, wisdom formed of hearing. Like wisdom arising from thinking (cintā-maya-paññā), this kind of wisdom is of a very extensive nature. The only difference between the two is that in the first wisdom is gained through one’s own thought or reasoning and in the second by hearing it from others.

3. The kind of wisdom gained at the time when one is actually experiencing the absorption (jhāna) or fruition (phala) states (bhāvanā-maya-paññā).

The Analyses (Vibhaṅga) in the Abhidhamma, in the chapter on the Analysis of Knowledge (Ñāṇa-vibhaṅga), gives types of wisdom in groups of one kind, two kinds, etc., up to ten kinds.

All these groups of wisdom, however, may be taken as coming under the three types of wisdom given above. For example, in the Analyses, after the group of the three kinds of wisdom: wisdom arising from thought (cintā-maya), and so on, are enumerated wisdom arising from giving (dāna-maya-paññā), wisdom arising from morality (sīla-maya-paññā) and wisdom arising from meditation (bhāvanā-maya-paññā).

Wisdom arising from giving is wisdom formed of generosity. Volition associated with generosity is of three kinds: volition that arises before, during and after the offering. The wisdom associated with these volitions in each case is wisdom arising from giving. Similarly, in the case of observance of morality, wisdom that arises with the intention: “I will observe the precepts,” wisdom that arises while observing them and wisdom that arises on reflection after observing the precepts are wisdom arising from morality.

If the wisdom arising from giving and wisdom arising from morality have been deduced through one’s process of thinking and reasoning, then it is to be classed as wisdom arising from thought (cintā-maya-paññā); if it has been gained through hearing from others, they are to be included in wisdom arising from hearing (suta-maya-paññā). Other kinds of wisdom can similarly be classified under the same three headings of wisdom arising from thought (cintā-maya-paññā), and so on.

The teaching: Accomplishing the perfection of wisdom by learning from the wise (paripucchanto budhaṁ janaṁ, paññā-pāramitaṁ gantvā) in the Chronicles of the Buddhas (Buddha-vaṁsa, Bv 2.134) clearly indicates that the Buddha regards wisdom arising from hearing (suta-maya-paññā) as being the basic wisdom. This is because in this world, one who has not yet acquired basic wisdom cannot know anything through thinking it through for himself; he has to learn it first from the wise by listening to them. Therefore, the Buddha has expounded that one who wishes to fulfil the perfection of wisdom should first acquire knowledge from the wise before he can have any basic wisdom. In brief, wisdom through hearing (suta-maya-paññā) should be acquired before wisdom through thinking (cintā-maya-paññā).

The commentaries, such as the Abundance of Meaning (Aṭṭha-sālinī, DsA), describe the innumerable lives of the Bodhisatta, for example, as the wise men Vidhura, Mahā Govinda, Kudāla, Araka, Bodhi the wandering ascetic, Mahosadha, etc., when he had to fulfil the perfection of wisdom. In these lives, the Bodhisatta had already acquired basic wisdom; he also possessed, and therefore he had, wisdom arising from thought (cintā-maya-paññā). As his basic wisdom, it was already great enough so that acquiring wisdom arising from hearing was no longer his chief concern in those existences.

Four Kinds of Wise Person

The Discourse about Poets (Kavi-sutta, AN 4.231) describes four kinds of wise persons (kavi):

1. One who is capable of knowing a given matter by thinking it out for himself is called wise in thinking (cintā-kavi), a wise man of original thinking. It is the province of such persons to sing verses lauding those deserving praise. Thus, one wise in thinking, is one who composes poems relying solely on his own thinking.

2. One who puts into verse what one knows through hearing is called wise in hearing (suta-kavi).

3. One who does not know through his original thinking or through learning from others but interprets the meaning of a difficult point based upon the knowledge he already possesses of similar problems is called wise in meaning (attha-kavi), a wise man who explains meaning. He writes verses based on a given subject-matter.

4. One who, without having recourse to thinking out himself, or listening to others, or referring to what is already known, has the ability to penetrate at once the meaning of a given subject is called wise in improvisation (paṭibhāna-kavi), a wise man of ready speech, like Ven. Vaṅgīsa during the Buddha’s time.

Wisdom is a separate mental concomitant, one of the ultimate realities. In the Enumeration of Phenonema (Dhamma-saṅgaṇī), various names, such as the faculty of wisdom (paññindriya), wisdom (paññā), being wise (pajānanā), etc., are given to wisdom because it is the characteristic of the Abhidhamma to give complete details of everything that should be taught about each subject. The principal term for wisdom is the faculty of wisdom (paññindriya), made up of the words wisdom (paññā) and faculty (indriya).

It is called wisdom (paññā) because it is conducive to understanding in all aspects the four truths or the three characteristics of impermanence (anicca), suffering (dukkha) and non-self (anatta).

It is called faculty (indriya), a controlling or governing faculty, because it can overcome ignorance (avijjā) and delusion (moha), or because it dominates in understanding real nature. Wisdom (paññā) has the characteristic of creating light. Just as darkness is dispelled as soon as light appears in a dark room, even so, where ignorance blinds us, as soon as wisdom appears, ignorance is dispelled enabling us to see clearly. Therefore, the Buddha has said (SN 1.13): There is no light like wisdom (natthi paññāsamā ābhā).

Wisdom has the characteristic of perceiving things with discrimination. Just as a clever physician discerns which food is suitable for his patient and which food is not, so when wisdom arises, it enables one to distinguish between what is meritorious and what is not. Wisdom also has the characteristic of penetrating real nature as it is. It may be likened to an arrow which, shot by a clever archer, penetrates the target unerringly.

An important point to note with regard to this characteristic of wisdom: Genuine wisdom is knowing a thing as it really is, and such a knowledge is blameless. That is why in the Collection of Meaning in the Abhidhamma (Abhidhammattha-saṅgaha), the mental concomitant of wisdom (paññā-cetasika) is included in the beautiful (sobhaṇa) types of mental concomitants.

The Birth Story about the Courtesan Sulasā

In Bārāṇasī, a courtesan by the name of Sulasā saved the life of the robber Sattuka who was about to be executed. She made him her husband, and they lived together. Wanting to possess her jewellery, the robber persuaded her to put on her jewelled ornaments, which were worth 100,000 pieces of money, and she went up a mountain with him. On reaching the top of the mountain, he told her to take off all her jewellery and prepared to kill her. Then Sulasā thought to herself: “He is sure to kill me, I must strike first and kill him by a ruse.” So she begged him: “My dear, even though you are going to kill me, I lose no love for you. Nearing my death, may I pay my respects to you from the four quarters, [1608] front, back and the sides?” Not suspecting her stratagem, the robber allowed her to do so. After paying respects to the robber, who was standing on the edge of a precipice, from the front and the sides, she went behind him and pushed him over the precipice with all her might and killed him. The Bodhisatta, who was a Deva then, living in the mountain, remarked:

Na hi sabbesu ṭhānesu puriso hoti paṇḍito;
itthī pi paṇḍitā hoti tattha tattha vicakkhaṇā.

Not in all circumstances is the man the wise one; a woman is also wise and farsighted.

Some raise the question as to whether it is proper for the Bodhisatta to praise Sulasā as being wise. Sulasā’s intention to kill the robber is a matter of committing a wrong deed of killing and cannot be associated with wisdom (paññā-cetasika).

In reply to that, some say that Sulasā’s knowledge was not true wisdom (paññā). Of the three kinds of knowledge: knowledge through perception (saññā), knowledge through consciousness (viññāṇa) and knowledge through wisdom (paññā). Sulasā’s was knowledge through consciousness only, that is to say, through exercise of imagination. That knowledge through consciousness has been referred to, here, as wisdom (paññā).

Others wrongly assert that of the two views: Wrong view (micchā-diṭṭhi) and right view (sammā-diṭṭhi), Sulasā had wrong view and the Bodhisatta was referring to her view as wisdom (paññā) and not praising her because of the faculty of wisdom, and, therefore, it is not against Abhidhamma. Both these answers, taking consciousness (viññāṇa) and view (diṭṭhi) as wisdom (paññā) contrary to the principles of Abhidhamma, are entirely wrong.

Sulasā’s knowledge that she would defeat the robber, if she adopted a ruse, was true knowledge and was, therefore, wisdom. One should not doubt whether genuine wisdom can be involved in matters connected with evil actions. For example, it is blameless to know discriminatingly about alcoholic drinks which should not be indulged in, and which lead to immoral actions, as to which ones contain more or less alcohol, how much each costs, what will happen if one drinks them, etc. It begins to be immoral only from the moment one thinks of drinking the intoxicant.

Similarly, one can make a thorough study of all the various views and beliefs in the world without any exception, differentiating between what is correct and reasonable and what is wrong. Thus, studying and getting to know about them as they really are, whether right or wrong, is entirely faultless. Only when one misconstrues a wrong view to be a right view is one at fault.

So in Sulasā’s case, knowing: “I will defeat him, if I use a ruse,” is knowing rightly; it is knowing through wisdom and therefore blameless. But, since the moment of her decision to kill her husband by means of a stratagem, her action had become blameworthy, immoral. It is only with reference to the correct knowledge which initially arose in her, before the deed of killing, that the Bodhisatta praised her, saying she is wise.

As has been said above, we should distinguish clearly between the knowledge about evil on one hand and the commission of evil such as killing on the other. If one persists in the belief that knowledge about evil is not true wisdom, one would make the error of thinking that the great omniscience of the Buddha itself is not free from blemish.

Through his supreme wisdom, the Buddha knows all there is to know, everything moral or immoral, hence the name of omniscience. If true wisdom has nothing to do with anything evil, then the Buddha would have no knowledge whatsoever of evil things; indeed, the Buddha’s wisdom is very extensive, infinite and is thus known as omniscience.

In brief, the Buddha knows everything, good or evil. But since he has uprooted all latent defilements, he has no desire to commit anything evil, not to say of the actual deed. Thus reflecting on the attributes of knowing everything that is evil, of having abandoned what should be abandoned and of refraining from doing any evil, we should develop faith in the Buddha.

Again, we should also examine the story of the wise Mahosadha as described in the Birth Story about the Tunnel [1609] (Umaṅga-jātaka, Ja 542). In this story, Cūḷanī Brahmadatta, with rulers of his vassal states, surrounded and attacked the royal city of King Videha, who had as his right-hand man the wise Mahosadha. Mahosadha masterminded the defense of the city by devising various stratagems. These tactics were aimed at deceiving the enemy hordes, breaking down their morale, and ultimately forcing them to retreat in all directions in a disorderly rout. Should we opine that deceptive measures adopted by Mahosadha, not being moral undertakings, do not count as wisdom, there would be no occasion for the Bodhisatta to fulfil the perfection of wisdom. As a matter of fact, all the strategems employed by Mahosadha are the products of the Bodhisatta’s wisdom. The Buddha has therefore specifically mentioned the story of Mahosadha as an example of how the Bodhisatta had fulfilled his perfection of wisdom.

In view of what has been said, it should be noted that in the story of Sulasā, the mountain Deva praised Sulasā as a wise person because she indeed had wisdom.

The Kinds of Wisdom

The definition of “wisdom” given in the commentaries, such as the Abundance of Meaning (Aṭṭha-sālinī, DsA) etc., as the knowledge of, or the knowledge leading to, full comprehension of the four noble truths and the three characteristics refers to the highest (ukkaṭṭha) type of wisdom. There are also certain types of wisdom which are much lower.

The commentary on the Abhidhamma Analyses (Vibhaṅga), in expounding on wisdom arising from thought (cintā-maya-paññā) and wisdom arising from hearing (suta-maya-paññā), describes the kinds of wisdom involved in “manual labour in earning one’s livelihood” (kammāyatana) and in “skills for earning one’s livelihood” (sippāyatana). Each is again divided into two kinds, lower and higher. Carpentry is an example of a lower type of manual labour. Farming and trading are of a higher type. Mat-making, weaving, etc. are lower forms of skill for earning one’s living, and writing, calculating, etc. are higher forms of skill for earning one’s living.

The essential distinction between the forms of livelihood is that when manual labour is done for the sake of livelihood without taking special training, it is of the manual labour in earning one’s livelihood type and when skill for earning a livelihood is acquired after special training, it is called skills for earning one’s livelihood. When special training is for skill in vocal accomplishments, it is called study of the arts and sciences (vijjāṭṭhāna).

When we discriminate one fire from another, our discrimination is not based on the quality of the fuel used for burning but on the quantity of the fuel, and we say “a small fire” or “a big fire.” So also in the case of wisdom, discrimination should be done not on the basis of the quality of what is known, but rather on the basis of the degree or extent of what is known and we should speak of wisdom as “weak” or “powerful,” in other words, “simple” or “profound.” We should not restrict ourselves to higher forms of knowledge as expounded in the commentary, but also recognize the lower forms as wisdom.

Therefore, one who wishes to fulfil the perfection of wisdom should do so irrespective of the standard of wisdom, whether low or high, and regarding things unknown, one should approach the wise for learning from them. Therefore, it is said in the Chronicles of the Buddhas (Buddha-vaṁsa, Bv 2.134): Questioning the wise, he accomplishes the perfection of wisdom (paripucchanto budhaṁ janaṁ, paññā-pāramitaṁ gantvā).”

Seven Ways of Developing Wisdom

The Dispeller of Delusion (Sammoha-vinodanī, PTS 276) commentary to the Abhidhamma Analyses (Vibhaṅga), gives seven ways of developing wisdom in the chapter on the foundations of steadfast mindfulness (satipaṭṭhāna):

There are five faculties which control consciousnesses and mental concomitants of beings:

Each of these has its own function: Faith enables one to give devoted attention to the object of reverence; energy gives support and encouragement enabling one to exert and strive hard; mindfulness keeps track of the object of attention; concentration prevents distraction of mind; and wisdom enables one to see and understand. These faculties must be kept in balance, for if one is in excess, the others would suffer and fail to do their functions.

If the faith faculty is too strong, the other four faculties are bound to be weak; consequently, the energy faculty cannot exercise its function of giving support and encouragement to exertion; the mindfulness faculty cannot fulfil its task of minding the object of attention; the concentration faculty cannot prevent distraction of mind; and the wisdom faculty fails to discern. When the faith faculty is in excess, an attempt should be made to moderate it and bring it into line with the others, either by reflecting on the Dhamma that will normalise it or avoiding reflecting on the Dhamma that will promote and strengthen it.

If the energy faculty is too strong, the faith faculty will not be able to perform its function; the rest of the faculties also cannot perform their respective functions. This excess of energy should be corrected by developing tranquillity. The same holds true in the case of each of the remaining faculties.

What is particularly praised by the wise and virtuous is balancing faith with wisdom and concentration with energy. If one is strong in faith and weak in wisdom, one will have faith in unworthy ones to no purpose.

Being weak in wisdom, one is unable to discern critically who is deserving of reverence and who is not; mistaking what is not true “Buddha, Dhamma, Saṅgha” for the genuine ones, one’s devotion is then of no avail and fruitless.

Mistaken belief of those who wrongly devote themselves to a false Buddha or a false Dhamma is not true faith but only a wrong and harmful conclusion (micchādhimokkha).

If wisdom is strong and faith is weak, one will miss the correct path and follow the wrong one, which leads to the side of cunning. To bring such a person to the right path is as hard to cure as a patient suffering from the ill-effects of wrong medicine. For example, these are two kinds of giving: the gift of volition (cetanā-dāna) and a gift of material objects (vatthu-dāna). A person who has cunning ways of thinking might consider that it is only volition, not the material objects, that would be fruitful in the future; therefore, it is not necessary to actually offer material things as gifts (dāna); thinking to give gifts of volition are sufficient. Such a person, who fails to do meritorious deeds of alms giving, because of his cunning, would be reborn in the lower planes of existence.

Only when faith and wisdom are in balance can one have proper faith in deserving ones, and with the absence of cunning, there can develop many advantages. Energy and concentration should also be in balance; when energy is weak and concentration strong, idleness (kosajja) will result: without any activities but assuming an air of calmness as if in good concentration, one is overwhelmed by indolence.

When energy is strong and concentration weak, there will be agitation and excitement but no steadiness. Overwhelmed by restlessness (uddhacca), one may be distracted with the thought: “If this work does not yield any good result as [1611] expected, it will not be suitable for me. I would abandon it and try something else.”

When energy and concentration are in equilibrium, idleness (kosajja) and restlessness (uddhacca) get no chance to arise; the balancing of these two leads to the quick attainment of absorption (jhāna).

However, the mindfulness-faculty can never be in excess; there may be only its shortage. In the text, it is likened to salt, a necessary ingredient of all food preparations, or to a prime minister who attends to all the royal business. Therefore, while maintaining the maximum possible mindfulness, the faculties in each of the two pairs: faith and wisdom, energy and concentration, should be kept in perfect balance with each other. Excess of any is a disadvantage. In this connection, Ven. U Budh has made the following comment in his Assistance with Steadfast Mindfulness (Mahā-satipaṭṭhāna-nissaya):

Excess of faith leads to over-enthusiasm; excess of wisdom leads to craftiness; excess of energy leads to restlessness; excess of concentration leads to mental weariness; but there is never an excess of mindfulness.

Concerning both items 4 and 5 the commentator is only describing the developments of the highest (ukkaṭṭha) type of wisdom. In item 4 a person without wisdom means one who cannot discern penetratingly the group of phenomena, such as the aggregates and the bases; a person with penetrating knowledge of such phenomena can only be one who is of great wisdom. But there are those who, though not possessing wisdom to discern such subtle phenomena as aggregates and bases, know ordinary matters concerning the practice of Dhamma: “It is proper to make such an offering; it is not proper to do so; precepts should be observed thus, they should not be observed otherwise.” They also know matters concerning worldly living: “This act will prolong one’s life; this act will shorten one’s life.” Such persons cannot be said to be entirely devoid of wisdom. One should cultivate association with them too.

In item 5 also, by defining a wise person as one who is possessed of the 50 characteristics of the knowledge of arising and falling (udayabbaya-ñāṇa), the commentator is referring by way of excellence (ukkaṭṭha-naya) only to the wise who are most highly advanced in insight meditation.

But with regard to acquiring knowledge, the Buddha had expounded in the Chronicles of the Buddhas (Buddha-vaṁsa): “Taking the example of a monastic going on alms round to all the houses in serial order without discrimination, a learner should approach whoever can answer his questions, regardless of his social or educational status. Therefore, he should avoid only a totally ignorant one and approach all who can help him in his quest of knowledge.”

In short, avoiding only those who are completely incapable of answering any questions, one should associate with those who can furnish him with even the slightest information he is seeking. [1612]

According to the Chronicles of the Buddhas (Buddha-vaṁsa), in acquiring wisdom, one should first ask and learn from the wise to develop wisdom through hearing (suta-maya-paññā). Then, if one is not clear about any point, one should reflect on it and think about it, and thus develop wisdom by means of thinking (cintā-maya-paññā).

In the discourse to the Kālāmas (Kesa-mutti-sutta, AN 3.66), the Buddha was told by them that many teachers visited their place, that all of these visiting teachers praised only their own doctrines, denouncing and condemning others and that they had doubt and perplexity as to which doctrine to accept and follow. The Buddha’s reply to them may be summarized as “you should accept the doctrine which you find, after due consideration, to be free of fault.”

This discourse shows that one should first acquire wisdom through hearing (suta-maya-paññā) by listening to the talks of teachers and then think over which doctrine is blameless by using wisdom by means of thinking (cintā-maya-paññā).

Moreover, in the Long Birth Story about Dhammapāla (Mahā-Dhammapāla-jātaka, Ja 447), when the great teacher of Takkasilā went in person to the village of Dhammapāla to find out why the young people of the village did not die before the end of their lifespan, Mahā Dhammapāla, the village headman, who would be reborn as King Suddhodana in times to come, replied: “We listen to all who come and teach. After listening, we ponder upon their teaching. We do not heed what the immoral persons teach, instead we forsake them. We accept only the teachings of the moral persons with which we are delighted and which we follow. Therefore, in our village, the young ones never die before the end of their lifespan.”

This Birth Story (Jātaka) also clearly shows that one acquires wisdom first by means of wisdom through hearing (suta-maya-paññā) and then accepts only what is confirmed to be true by wisdom by means of thinking (cintā-maya-paññā).

Associating with the Wise

The expression “associating with the wise” does not mean merely approaching a wise person and staying with him day and night. It implies learning and acquiring some knowledge from the person who is possessed of wisdom.

The advice “do not associate with the fool,” given as one of the blessings in the Discourse on the Blessings (Maṅgala-sutta, Khp 5, Snp 2.4), does not necessarily prevent staying with a foolish person. One may even live with him for the purpose of coaxing and persuading him onto the right path. In such a case, one is not going against the advice of the Discourse on the Blessings. An example is the sojourn of the Buddha in the Uruvelā Grove in the company of ascetics of wrong view to help them abandon their wrong path.

Thus, only when one accepts the view and follows the practices of a foolish person is one said to be associating with a fool. Likewise, the advice given in the Discourse on the Blessings exhorting one to associate with the wise is well taken, not by merely keeping company with him but only when one acquires some form of knowledge from him, be it only a little.

Herein, wisdom is like fire, which burns all inflammable things, whether big or small. Depending on the size of what is burning, fire is said to be a small fire or a big one. In the same way, wisdom knows everything there is to know; it is called small, manifest or profound depending on what is known as small, manifest or profound. The Dhamma, which is the resort of profound wisdom, comprises aggregates, bases, etc. The wisdom which arises from the knowledge of these profound subjects is what is meant by profound wisdom. Such profound wisdom is as numerous as there are profound phenomena. An analytical review of all these numerous profound phenomena leads to the development of wisdom.

In all four postures of lying, sitting, standing and walking, one should be only inclined to the development of wisdom. Having such a mind is one of the causes of developing wisdom.

A summary in verse by U Budh, of the seven ways of developing wisdom:

The Qualities of Wisdom

1. When wisdom takes a predominant place in performing multifarious functions, it acquires the name of one of the four predominance-conditions (vimaṁsādhipati).

2. Forming the constituent parts of the 22 controlling faculties are four different faculties which are concerned with wisdom: the wisdom that is included in the 39 mundane consciousnesses associated with knowledge (loka-ñāṇa-sampayutta-citta) is called the faculty of wisdom (paññindriya); the wisdom accompanying the consciousness that arises with the path at the first stage of Awakening, the path of Stream-entry (Sotāpatti-magga), is known as the faculty that senses: “I will know the unknown” (anaññātaññassāmītindriya); the wisdom that arises with the fruition state of an Arahat (Arahatta-phala) is called the faculty of one with perfect knowledge (aññātāvindriya); the wisdom that is associated with the six intermediate supermundane consciousnesses that comes between the Stream-enterer (Sotāpanna) and Arahat (Arahatta-phala) stages is termed the faculty of knowledge (aññindriya).

The wisdom that should be fulfilled as a perfection is concerned only with mundane consciousness; thus it is included in the thirteen kinds of moral consciousness (kusala-ñāṇa-sampayutta-citta) of the 39 worldly knowledges (loka-ñāṇa-sampayutta-citta).

The five controlling faculties (indriya) are included in the 37 constituents of Awakening (Bodhipakkhiya-dhamma), one of them is the faculty of wisdom (paññindriya); this faculty of wisdom is of two kinds: mundane and supermundane. The supermundane kind is not included in the perfection of wisdom developed by a Bodhisatta. Only the wisdom that is associated with mundane moral consciousness which arises while undertaking purification of morality and purification of mind previous to the attainment of the path and fruition states is the perfection of wisdom fulfilled by Bodhisattas.

3. Similarly, in the other four constituents of Awakening are included factors of wisdom (paññā) under different names. Thus, in the five powers (bala), it is known as the power of wisdom (paññā-bala); in the four psychic powers (iddhi-pāda), as accomplishment by examination (vīmaṁsiddhi-pāda); in the seven factors of Awakening (Bojjhaṅga) as investigation of Dhamma (Dhamma-vicaya-sambojjhaṅga); and in the eight constituents of the noble path (ariya-maggaṅga) as right view (samma-diṭṭhi).

As with the faculty of wisdom (paññindriya), these various factors of wisdom, under different names, are developed at two different levels: mundane and supermundane. Contemplating on these special qualities of wisdom, may you fulfil the perfection of wisdom to its highest possible stage. [1614]