Mounting the Elephant to Tame It

One asks: it is already known that the arising, abiding, aging, and impermanence that arise together with supreme mundane dharma are themselves supreme mundane dharma — but is its attainment (得, prāpti) also supreme mundane dharma? Whichever one answers, what fault would follow? If its attainment, too, is supreme mundane dharma, then once the noble fruit is attained, the nirvedhabhāgīya factor ought to occur present again. But if its attainment is not supreme mundane dharma, then why is it that the attainment of the śramaṇa-fruit counts as the śramaṇa-fruit itself, while the attainment of supreme mundane dharma does not count as supreme mundane dharma? The answer: its attainment is certainly not supreme mundane dharma, since once the noble fruit is attained, the nirvedhabhāgīya factor never occurs present again. One then asks: why is it that the attainment of the śramaṇa-fruit counts as the śramaṇa-fruit, while the attainment of supreme mundane dharma does not count as supreme mundane dharma itself? The answer: the śramaṇa-fruit is defined by its being possessed — the attainment of the śramaṇa-fruit simply is the śramaṇa-fruit. Supreme mundane dharma, by contrast, is defined by its serving as the immediately-antecedent condition — and since its attainment cannot itself serve as that condition, nor does it accord with it the way the accompanying arising and the rest do, its attainment is not supreme mundane dharma. The same holds for the attainment of heat, summit, and forbearance — none of these, either, ever occurs present again once the noble state is attained.

Some hold instead: its attainment, too, is indeed supreme mundane dharma. One asks: if so, then once the noble fruit is attained, should not the nirvedhabhāgīya factor occur present again? The answer: granting that one portion of it occurs present again causes no difficulty — namely, the associated portion does not occur present again, while the dissociated portion does. The same holds for the attainment of heat, summit, and forbearance. Other masters say: only the attainment that arises together with it is supreme mundane dharma; the attainment that arises afterward is not, and so no such fault as above follows. The same holds for heat and the rest. The verdict: whether co-arising or arising afterward, no attainment at all is supreme mundane dharma, since it belongs to a different category altogether; the same holds for heat and the rest. The first position given above is therefore the sound one. One asks: why is it that the arising, abiding, aging, and impermanence that arise together with supreme mundane dharma are themselves supreme mundane dharma, while its attainment is not? The answer: arising and the rest share the very same result with it,

accompany it without ever separating from it, are constantly conjoined with it, occur neither before nor after it, and the marked and its mark are never once apart — for this reason, they too are supreme mundane dharma. Attainment, by contrast, does not share the same result with the dharma it attains; it does not accompany it; its nature is separate and unconjoined; it may occur before or after; and the attainment and what is attained can, at times, come apart — just as bark can, at times, come away from a tree. This is why attainment is not supreme mundane dharma.

The same holds for the attainment of heat, summit, and forbearance.

One asks: how many foundations of mindfulness does supreme mundane dharma count as, in the present? The answer: in the present, only one — the mixed-object foundation of mindfulness on dharmas; in the future, it counts as all four, since it resembles the path of seeing. One asks: how many conditions does supreme mundane dharma itself serve as? The answer: it serves as all four — the causal condition, the immediately-antecedent condition, the objective condition, and the dominant condition. As the causal condition: it is the causal condition for the dharmas associated with and co-arising with it, of the same kind and so on. As the immediately-antecedent condition: it is this condition for the forbearance of the dharma-knowledge of suffering. As the objective condition: it is this condition for the mind and mental factors able to take it as their object. As the dominant condition: excepting only itself, it is this condition for every other conditioned dharma. One asks: how many conditions does supreme mundane dharma itself have? The answer: it, too, has all four. It has a causal condition: the dharmas associated with and co-arising with it, of the same kind and so on. It has an immediately-antecedent condition: the already-arisen superior forbearance. It has an objective condition: the five aggregates of the desire realm. It has a dominant condition: every other dharma, excepting only itself.

One asks: although the root text does not state it in so many words, the meaning must surely require it — what, then, is "supramundane supreme dharma"? The answer: it is the forbearance of the dharma-knowledge of suffering, since this alone is able to uphold every noble path. Other masters say: it is the vajropama-samādhi ("diamond-like concentration"), since this alone is able to attain the result of full knowledge of the exhaustion of every fetter. Some say: it is the very first exhaustion-knowledge, since this alone is able to uphold every dharma belonging to one beyond training. Others say: it is unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening, since this is supreme among all conditioned dharmas. Others say still: it is the nirvāṇa-realm, since this is supreme among all conditioned and unconditioned dharmas. Some say: it is the very last moment of the noble path in an arhat — just as, in an ordinary being, the last moment of mind is named supreme mundane dharma, so too the very last, uncontaminated moment of mind in an arhat is named supramundane supreme dharma. Some say: it is simply an arhat's very last moment of mind — just as, in an ordinary being, the very last moment of mind is supreme mundane dharma, so too an arhat's very last moment of mind is supramundane supreme dharma. The verdict: this last position should not be maintained, since an arhat's very last moment of mind is not itself a supramundane dharma. Among all these positions, the first is the sound one, since it alone is able to uphold every noble path.

Why is it named "supreme mundane dharma"? — and so on, as explained at length. One asks: why was this further passage composed? The answer: although the essential nature of supreme mundane dharma has already been explained above, the reason behind its very name has not yet been explained, and this is now taken up. It is like a person universally acclaimed as supreme — reason demands that one also explain

the reason behind that person's very acclaim — is it their clan, their form, their strength, their wealth and rank, or their entourage that makes them acclaimed as supreme? It is exactly the same here, and this is why the passage was composed. Why is it named "supreme mundane dharma"? The answer: because this mind and its mental factors are, in relation to every other mundane dharma, the utmost, the supreme, the highest, the most honored, the foremost, and the finest — for this reason it is named supreme mundane dharma. Is this mind and these mental factors named "foremost," in relation to every other mundane dharma, because they are wholly supreme, or only partially supreme? Suppose either — what fault would follow? If named "foremost" because wholly supreme, then does it truly surpass the conventional wisdom bordering direct realization? Yet the conventional wisdom cultivated bordering direct realization is itself a close attendant of the path of seeing, sharing in the exceptional power of the path of seeing's own wisdom — this dharma is not like that. Again, does it truly surpass the mixed cultivation of the dhyānas? Yet that attainment, and the rebirth it brings about, are not shared even by ordinary beings — this dharma is not like that. Again, does it truly surpass the wholesome root cultivated at the moment of the very first exhaustion-knowledge? Yet when that is cultivated, the basis is purified, free of every obstruction — this dharma is not like that. Again, does it truly surpass the three concentrations — emptiness upon emptiness, wishlessness upon wishlessness, signlessness upon signlessness? Yet those are able to turn away in disgust even from the noble path itself, let alone from what is merely contaminated — this dharma is not like that. If named "foremost" because only partially supreme, then heat, summit, and forbearance, too, ought equally to be named "foremost," since each surpasses the wholesome roots of the stage directly below it. Some hold instead: this dharma is named "foremost" because it is wholly supreme, but only with respect to its ability to open the gate of the noble path, not with respect to everything whatsoever — for the conventional wisdom bordering direct realization and the rest, though they have the superior qualities described above, are all powerless to open the gate of the noble path, while this dharma alone can do so.

It is therefore wholly supreme in this one respect. Others say: this dharma is named "foremost" because it surpasses every other thing — for the conventional wisdom bordering direct realization, and every other excellent quality, all come to be precisely through it. Why is this? Because, without this dharma opening the gate of the noble path, those excellent qualities could not even be cultivated in their own substance, let alone put to excellent use — only once this dharma opens the gate of the noble path can their substance be cultivated at all, and their excellent use follow. Since all those excellent qualities come to be through this dharma, it therefore surpasses every other thing. Other masters say: this dharma is named "foremost" because it is only partially supreme. One asks: if so, then heat and the rest, too, ought equally to be named "foremost," since each surpasses the wholesome roots of the stage directly below it. The answer: heat and the rest are not supreme in either of two respects at once — for every mundane wholesome dharma falls, in total, into two divisions: that belonging to ordinary beings, and that belonging to noble ones. Supreme mundane dharma, though not named supreme in relation to a noble one's own conventional wisdom and the rest, is nonetheless supreme, within the division belonging to ordinary beings, over every meditative attainment, every immeasurable, every liberation, every mastery-basis, every totality-basis, up to whatever is foremost among them, over volition and the contemplation of impurity, the mindfulness of breathing, and every foundation of mindfulness,

over the threefold-meaning contemplation, skill in the seven bases, and heat, summit, and forbearance themselves — in every one of these, it is supreme; heat and the rest are not. This is why it alone is called supreme mundane dharma. One asks: in what sense, exactly, is it named "foremost"? The answer: because it is itself supreme; because it is able to draw forth what is foremost; because it attains the foremost result; because it advances toward the foremost nature — this is the sense of "foremost." Some hold instead: it is able to subdue the very summit of existence — this is the sense of "foremost." Other masters say: it is an ordinary being's very last moment of mind, and, like the very tip of a tall banner, has nothing above it — this is the sense of "foremost."

One asks: among the terms stated here — utmost, supreme, highest, honored, foremost, finest — what difference is there among them? Some say: there is no difference at all; each merely praises and restates the single sense of "foremost." Others say: there is indeed a difference — beginning simply with their names: this one is named "utmost," and so on, up to "finest." Further, they differ with reference to the various wholesome roots: set against the wisdom born of learning, it is named "utmost"; against the wisdom born of reflection, "supreme"; against the contemplation of impurity, the mindfulness of breathing, and the foundations of mindfulness, "highest"; against heat, "honored"; against summit, "foremost"; against forbearance, "finest." Further, they differ with reference to the stage they depend on: depending on the stage of proximate concentration, it is named "utmost"; on the first dhyāna, "supreme"; on the intermediate dhyāna, "highest"; on the second dhyāna, "honored"; on the third dhyāna, "foremost"; on the fourth dhyāna, "finest." Further, they differ according to distinct senses of meaning: because it reaches the very summit, it is named "utmost"; because it belongs to the superior grade, "supreme"; because it brings about auspiciousness, "highest"; because its substance advances upward, "honored"; because its nature is firm and stable, "foremost"; because it fulfills every aspiration, "finest." Further, they differ according to distinct functions of its substance: because it is able to serve as the immediately-antecedent condition for the forbearance of the dharma-knowledge of suffering, it is named "utmost";

because it surpasses every wholesome root of an ordinary being, "supreme"; because it eclipses every conventional wholesome root, "highest"; because it is able to secure superior virtue, "honored"; because it has no second division, "foremost"; because it resembles the uncontaminated, "finest." Further, they differ according to distinct marks and functions: because it is an ordinary being's very last moment of mind, like the very tip of a tree, it is named "utmost"; because it is able to open the gate of the noble path, "supreme"; because its faculty is keen and sharp, "highest"; because it is supreme among all the nirvedhabhāgīya factors, "honored"; because it subdues every affliction as an enemy, "foremost"; because it draws forth a desirable result, "finest." Other masters say:

these six terms are differentiated by each explaining the one before it — that is, because it is "utmost," it is named "foremost"; because it is "supreme," it is named "utmost"; because it is "highest," it is named "supreme"; because it is "honored," it is named "highest"; because it is "foremost," it is named "honored"; because it is "finest," it is named "foremost." It is on this basis that it is named supreme mundane dharma.

Further: this mind and its mental factors serve, without interval, to relinquish the nature of an ordinary being and gain the nature of a noble one, to relinquish a wrong nature and gain the right nature, and to enter the certainty of rightness that leaves birth behind — it is on this basis, too, that it is named supreme mundane dharma. As for "relinquishing the nature of an ordinary being": this means that this mind and its mental factors are able to relinquish the nature of an ordinary being. One asks: what, exactly, is it that relinquishes the nature of an ordinary being — supreme mundane dharma, or the forbearance of the dharma-knowledge of suffering? Whichever one answers, what fault would follow? If supreme mundane dharma itself is what relinquishes the nature of an ordinary being, how can it relinquish that very nature while still abiding within it? If the forbearance of the dharma-knowledge of suffering is what relinquishes it, at what stage does this occur — while it is arising, or once it has ceased? If it relinquishes that nature while arising, how could a factor not yet complete already have such an effect? If it relinquishes that nature only once it has ceased, then that nature would already have been relinquished beforehand — so what, then, would be left for it to relinquish? Some hold as follows:

Supreme mundane dharma itself relinquishes the nature of an ordinary being. One asks: but since this is itself a dharma belonging to an ordinary being, how can it relinquish that very nature while abiding within it? The answer: to abide within that nature while relinquishing it causes no difficulty at all — just as a trainer mounts an elephant to train an elephant, mounts a horse to train a horse, boards a boat to steer a boat, boards a chariot to drive a chariot; just as a warrior who has overcome an enemy first mounts that very enemy in order to slay him; just as a woodcutter first climbs the tree in order to fell it. Supreme mundane dharma is exactly the same: it relies on the very nature of an ordinary being in order to relinquish it. Others hold instead: the forbearance of the dharma-knowledge of suffering itself relinquishes the nature of an ordinary being — that is, it relinquishes the nature of an ordinary being precisely while it is arising, and, at the very moment it ceases, it is able to cut off the ten latent tendencies of the desire realm cut off by seeing suffering — just as a lamp, at the moment it is lit, produces light and dispels darkness, and, at the moment it is extinguished, has burned its wick, heated its vessel, and used up its oil. One asks: how could a factor not yet complete already have such a future effect — one single dharma performing two functions at once? Does this not strain reason?

The answer: nothing here contradicts the meaning, and granting it causes no difficulty at all.

Every dharma capable of a future effect falls, in total, into three classes: internal dharmas, like the forbearance of the dharma-knowledge of suffering; external dharmas, like the light of the sun; and dharmas both internal and external, like the marks of arising. That a single lamp serves many functions is commonly known to the world — what difficulty, then, could there be in the forbearance of the dharma-knowledge of suffering having two functions? Other masters say: supreme mundane dharma and the forbearance of the dharma-knowledge of suffering together relinquish the nature of an ordinary being, mutually assisting one another. That is, although supreme mundane dharma is constantly opposed to the nature of an ordinary being, its own power is too weak to relinquish it alone; by this, it draws forth the forbearance of the dharma-knowledge of suffering, and the two together, aiding each other's strength, relinquish the nature of an ordinary being — just as a frail person relies on a strong companion,

and, aiding one another's strength, together they overcome an enemy. On this basis, supreme mundane dharma is like the uninterrupted path, and the forbearance of the dharma-knowledge of suffering is like the liberation path, in relinquishing the nature of an ordinary being. This is why the possession of that nature ceases together with supreme mundane dharma, while its non-possession arises together with the forbearance of the dharma-knowledge of suffering. As for "gaining the nature of a noble one": this means that this mind and its mental factors are able to attain the forbearance of the dharma-knowledge of suffering — and since this alone is able to uphold every noble dharma, it is provisionally said to be "the nature of a noble one." Although every other noble path, too, is subsumed under the nature of a noble one, it is not itself attained by supreme mundane dharma, and so is not spoken of here. Some say: it is the path of seeing entirely that constitutes the nature of a noble one. Other masters say: every noble path whatsoever constitutes the nature of a noble one — for otherwise, the path of cultivation and the path beyond training would fail to possess the nature of a noble one at all, and it would then be improper to call them noble. One asks: supreme mundane dharma is only able to draw forth the attainment of the forbearance of the dharma-knowledge of suffering — it cannot even attain the dharma-knowledge of suffering itself,

let alone anything further — so how can it be said to "gain the nature of a noble one" at all? The answer: every noble path that brings about a noble one is named "the nature of a noble one"; because supreme mundane dharma is of the very same kind, its attainment of even one portion of it is likewise called "attaining" it — just as one might speak of "burning a robe" when only a portion of the cloth has actually burned.

As for "relinquishing a wrong nature": this means that this mind and its mental factors are able to relinquish three kinds of wrong nature — first, a wrong nature of karma; second, a wrong nature of destiny; and third, a wrong nature of view. The wrong nature of karma refers to the five acts of immediate retribution; the wrong nature of destiny refers to the three evil destinies; the wrong nature of view refers to the five inverted views. One asks: at this stage, the wrong nature of karma and of destiny have not actually been eliminated beforehand — it is only at the knowledge in conformity with the path that the wrong nature of view is relinquished and this process reaches completion — so how can it be said that this stage relinquishes all three wrong natures at once? The answer: this stage is called "relinquishing" on the basis of three distinct conditions: first, it is called "relinquishing" because one no longer commits such acts — this concerns the wrong nature of karma; second, it is called "relinquishing" because one no longer proceeds toward such destinies — this concerns the wrong nature of destiny; third, it is called "relinquishing" because one no longer engages in such views — this concerns the wrong nature of view. One asks: but these three conditions are already fully present at the stage of superior forbearance — why, then, is it only at this later stage that relinquishing the wrong natures is spoken of? The answer: it is because this stage breaks their underlying basis that relinquishing them is spoken of here. One then asks: what is meant by their "underlying basis"? The answer: it is the ethically-neutral, non-obscuring nature of an ordinary being — for it is this nature of an ordinary being that every affliction depends on, harming sentient beings and causing them to undergo suffering in birth-and-death, just as a lion king, relying on an ethically-neutral, non-obscuring den, is able to prey upon every kind of animal. Since supreme mundane dharma is able to relinquish this underlying nature of an ordinary being that the afflictions depend on, it is said to "relinquish" them.

Other masters say: the forbearance of the dharma-knowledge of suffering is itself the counteragent to these wrong natures, and supreme mundane dharma draws it forth and brings it into being — hence it, too, is said to "relinquish" them. One asks: the wrong natures of karma and of destiny are cut off by the path of cultivation — how, then, can the forbearance of the dharma-knowledge of suffering serve as their counteragent? The answer: the forbearance of the dharma-knowledge of suffering serves as five kinds of counteragent: the counteragent of relinquishing, of cutting off, of upholding, of not-committing, and of not-proceeding. As the counteragent of relinquishing: it is able to relinquish the nature of an ordinary being. As the counteragent of cutting off: it is able to cut off the ten latent tendencies of the desire realm cut off by seeing suffering. As the counteragent of upholding: it is able to uphold every noble path that follows it. As the counteragent of not-committing: it is able to ensure one never again commits the five acts of immediate retribution. As the counteragent of not-proceeding: it is able to ensure one never again proceeds toward the three evil destinies. As for "gaining the right nature":

this means that this mind and its mental factors are able to attain the forbearance of the dharma-knowledge of suffering — and since this alone is able to uphold every right dharma, it is provisionally said to be "the right nature." Although every other noble path, too, is subsumed under the right nature, it is not itself attained by supreme mundane dharma, and so is not spoken of here. Some say: it is the path of seeing entirely that constitutes the right nature. Other masters say: every noble path whatsoever constitutes the right nature — for otherwise, the path of cultivation and the path beyond training would fail to possess the right nature at all, and it would then be improper to call them noble. One asks: supreme mundane dharma is only able to draw forth the attainment of the forbearance of the dharma-knowledge of suffering — it cannot even attain the dharma-knowledge of suffering itself, let alone anything further — so how can it be said to "gain the right nature" at all? The answer: because every noble path is free of inversion, every one of them constitutes the right nature; because supreme mundane dharma is of the very same kind, its attainment of even one portion of it is likewise called "attaining" it — just as one might speak of "burning a robe" when only a portion of the cloth has actually burned.

As for "entering the certainty of rightness that leaves birth behind": this means that this mind and its mental factors are able to enter the path of seeing. One asks: every noble path is equally the right nature and equally leaves birth behind — why, then, does this passage speak of the path of seeing alone? The answer: every affliction, or every craving, prevents wholesome roots from maturing, and causes the fault of nourishing further existence to arise — and although all of this is called "birth," it is with respect to what is cut off by seeing that the sense of "birth" spoken of here is most pronounced, since the path of seeing alone serves as its final, complete counteragent. This is why the path of seeing alone is said to "leave birth behind." Every incorrect view can only be finally and completely cut off by the path of seeing, and this is why it is called "the right nature." Supreme mundane dharma gives rise to it without interval — hence it is said to "enter the certainty of rightness that leaves birth behind."

Further: every affliction, or every craving, that prevents wholesome roots from maturing and causes the fault of nourishing further existence to arise, is all called "birth"; once the path of seeing arises, it crushes their power, so that they can no longer bring about the fault of nourishing further existence in this heightened way — this is why the path of seeing alone is named "leaving birth behind." The sense of "entering the certainty of rightness" is as already explained above. On this basis, the Venerable Ghoṣaka speaks as follows: when a sentient being's wholesome roots have matured, they are able to enter the path of seeing — this is why the path of seeing is named "leaving birth behind." Further: the afflictions cut off by seeing cause sentient beings to fall into the evil destinies and undergo the most severe suffering, just as raw food, lingering long in the body, produces all manner of extreme distress — this is why these afflictions are called "birth," and, since the path of seeing is able to extinguish them, it is named "leaving birth behind"; the sense of "entering the certainty of rightness" is again as explained above. Further: identity-view and the like are obstinate and difficult to subdue, like a wild, untamable beast, and are therefore called "birth"; since the path of seeing is able to extinguish them, it is named "leaving birth behind"; the sense of "entering the certainty of rightness" is again as explained above. Further: "birth," here, points to the very nature of an ordinary being, since it is able to give rise to violent and evil afflictions and karma; the path of seeing relinquishes this nature, and so is said to "leave birth behind" — the rest as explained above. Further: the afflictions cut off by seeing and by cultivation, taken together, mutually reinforce one another and draw forth endless further birth; once the path of seeing arises, it crushes their power, so that they can no longer bring about the fault of endless birth — this is why the path of seeing alone is called "leaving birth behind" — the rest as explained above. Further: within an ordinary being's own person, the afflictions and evil karma are extremely unruly, and are therefore called "birth"; every practitioner of yoga sinks amid them, and the path of seeing draws them out and establishes them in the rank of the noble ones — hence it is named "leaving birth behind" — the rest as explained above. Further: the afflictions cut off by seeing are like a root stock, giving rise to endless faults; the path of seeing permanently uproots them — hence it is named "leaving birth behind" —

the rest as explained above. Other masters say: this passage should instead read "enters the certainty of fixed rightness" — why is this? Because it is precisely at this moment that one emerges from the undetermined group and enters the group of fixed rightness. Further: at that very moment, the practitioner relinquishes the nature of an ordinary being, the basis of the wrongly-fixed group, and enters the path of seeing, the basis of the rightly-fixed group — this is why it is named "entering the certainty of fixed rightness." Further: at that very moment, the practitioner relinquishes membership in the five classes and enters membership in the eight classes. The five classes are the classes shared by every ordinary being, on the basis of which the five acts of immediate retribution can be committed; the eight classes are the classes shared by every noble one, on the basis of which the four progressing-toward and four abiding-in fruits can be attained. At that moment, the practitioner relinquishes the wrongly-fixed portion and enters the rightly-fixed portion — this is why it is named "entering the certainty of fixed rightness." Further: the path of seeing thereby entered does not belong to the wrongly-fixed group, and is therefore named "the certainty of rightness"; it also does not belong to the undetermined group, and is therefore named "fixed." Some say: this term (niyāma) indicates "entering the rightness that sustains," since the word niyāma also carries the sense of "sustaining" — just as cattle and horses are kept within a guarded feeding-ground, sustaining that herd and keeping it from straying, every practitioner of yoga is exactly the same: once abiding in the path of seeing, one never again strays, and this is why supreme mundane dharma is said to "enter the rightness that sustains." The Dārṣṭāntika masters say as follows: this term indicates "entering the rightness that is freed from bondage," since the syllable yāma also carries the sense of "bondage," while ni- indicates restraint, and also carries the sense of "freedom" — every noble path is permanently freed from bondage, and this is named niyāma — the rest as explained above. The grammarians say: this term indicates "entering the rightness that no longer proceeds," since the syllable yāma also carries the sense of "proceeding," while ni- indicates restraint, and also carries the sense of "not" —

every practitioner of yoga, once they have attained the noble path, never again proceeds toward the destiny of the unwholesome — this is why the noble path is named niyāma — the rest as explained above. Others say: this passage should instead read "enters the rightness that accords with reason," since every noble path accords with reason, and is therefore named "according with reason" — the rest as explained above. Others say further: this passage should instead read "from the stage of equipoise, entering rightness." The stage of equipoise is precisely the moment of supreme mundane dharma; "rightness" points to the forbearance of the dharma-knowledge of suffering and the rest. Supreme mundane dharma is able, from its own stage, to enter the path of seeing — hence it is called "entering." One asks: is everything that belongs to the stage of equipoise also "rightness"? The answer: this should be answered with the second of the four alternatives — that is, every instance of rightness is equipoise, but there is equipoise that is not rightness, and this latter case is precisely supreme mundane dharma itself.

One asks: why is supreme mundane dharma equipoise, but not rightness itself? The answer: since beginningless time, the mind and its mental factors have been disturbed by the afflictions, evil conduct, and inverted views, and so have become crooked; supreme mundane dharma subdues and removes these, causing the mind and its mental factors to turn upright — hence it is named "equipoise." Yet, being contaminated and still accompanied by the latent tendencies, it is not named "rightness." Further: buddhas, pratyekabuddhas, and the śrāvaka lineage are all alike at this very stage, abiding at its very highest grade — hence it is named "equipoise" — the rest as explained above. Further: it is named "equipoise" because of the equality of its manifestation, since every practitioner, at this stage, manifests it for exactly a single moment alike. Further: supreme mundane dharma occupies a middle position, like the string of a hanging scale, and is therefore named "equipoise" — just as, when a scale weighs an object, the string hangs suspended in the middle, and if the weight leans to one side or the other, the balance tips unevenly: supreme mundane dharma is exactly the same, occupying the position between the noble and the ordinary — if the forbearance of the dharma-knowledge of suffering has already arisen, it tips decisively toward the noble side; if the superior forbearance is only just now ceasing, it tips decisively toward the ordinary side; hence this alone is the stage of true equipoise. One asks: at that very moment, is one still classed among ordinary beings — why, then, is it named "abiding in the stage of equipoise"? The answer: although one is, at that moment, still among the class of ordinary beings, one has turned away from the destiny of ordinary beings and seeks the rank of the noble — hence it is named "equipoise"; no other stage is like this. Further: supreme mundane dharma and the forbearance of the dharma-knowledge of suffering are equal in four respects, and this is why it is named "equipoise": first, equal in stage — the very stage on which the forbearance of the dharma-knowledge of suffering arises is exactly the stage on which supreme mundane dharma occurs; second, equal in faculty — whatever faculty the forbearance of the dharma-knowledge of suffering is associated with, supreme mundane dharma is associated with the very same; third, equal in aspect — whatever aspect the forbearance of the dharma-knowledge of suffering takes, supreme mundane dharma takes the very same aspect; and fourth, equal in object — whatever object the forbearance of the dharma-knowledge of suffering arises taking, supreme mundane dharma arises taking the very same object. The Venerable Vasumitra speaks as follows: one recitation names it "entering the certainty of rightness that leaves birth behind" — because every noble path permanently extinguishes inversion, it is named "rightness"; because it separates one from and blocks off birth, it is likewise named "leaving birth behind" — that is, since beginningless time, the two portions of affliction cut off by seeing and by cultivation have been mutually intertwined, producing evil deeds through their obstinate nature, and this is why they are called "birth"; once the path of seeing arises, it cuts off one portion of them, causing their mutual intertwining to be permanently severed; supreme mundane dharma serves as the immediately-antecedent condition for this one portion, and this is why it is called "entering." Another recitation names it "entering the certainty of fixed rightness" — because, at the stage of the path of seeing, the uncontaminated continues without interruption, and can never again be broken off, it is named "fixed"; this is not so at any later stage — the rest as explained above.

It should be said that supreme mundane dharma belongs to the desire realm — and so on, as explained at length. One asks: why was this further passage composed? The answer: although the reason behind its very name has already been explained, which realm it belongs to has not yet been analyzed, and this is now taken up — just as when someone is called supreme, and the reason for their supremacy has already been given, but the country or city they dwell in remains unknown; it is exactly the same here, and this is why the passage was composed. Further: it is in order to stop the differing positions of other schools. The Mahāsāṃghikas hold that supreme mundane dharma extends to both the desire and form realms — why is this? Because they hold that wherever a stage possesses the conventional wisdom bordering direct realization, that stage possesses supreme mundane dharma. The Vātsīputrīyas hold that supreme mundane dharma extends to both the form and formless realms — why is this? Because they hold that wherever a stage possesses any noble path, that stage possesses supreme mundane dharma. The Mahīśāsakas hold that supreme mundane dharma extends to all three realms — why is this? Because they hold that wherever a stage possesses the wholesome root cultivated at the moment of exhaustion-knowledge, that stage possesses supreme mundane dharma. The Dharmaguptakas hold that supreme mundane dharma extends to all three realms and also to none of them — why is this? Because they hold that, since supreme mundane dharma is called "mundane," it extends to all three realms, and since it is called "foremost," it also extends to what is unbound to any realm. Within that very same school, there is also a further, distinct position: that supreme mundane dharma belongs to none of the three realms, nor is it unbound to them — why is this? Because they hold that, since it is called "foremost," it does not belong to the three realms, and since it is called "mundane," it is also not unbound to them. It is in order to stop these various distinct positions of other schools, and to make clear this treatise's own position, that this passage was composed. Should it be said that supreme mundane dharma belongs to the desire realm, the form realm, or the formless realm? The answer: it should be said that it belongs to the form realm — this indicates that supreme mundane dharma belongs to the form realm alone. Though this much has been stated, the reason behind it should further be explained. Why should this dharma not be said to belong to the desire realm? The answer: it is not that a path of the desire realm is able to cut off the hindrances and restrain the entanglements,

so that the entanglements of the desire realm no longer manifest — rather, it is a path of the form realm that is able to cut off the hindrances and restrain the entanglements, so that the entanglements of the desire realm no longer manifest. If it were the case that a path of the desire realm were able to cut off the hindrances and restrain the entanglements, so that the entanglements of the desire realm no longer manifest, then supreme mundane dharma should indeed be said to belong to the desire realm. But it is not a path of the desire realm that is able to cut off the hindrances and restrain the entanglements in this way — rather, it is a path of the form realm. This is why supreme mundane dharma should not be said to belong to the desire realm. Here, the phrase "cutting off, restraining, no longer manifesting" indicates the sense of permanently cutting off, restraining, and never manifesting again — since a path of the desire realm is unable to permanently cut off the hindrances and restrain the entanglements so that they never manifest again, there is no supreme mundane dharma there; the form realm is otherwise, and so supreme mundane dharma exists there. One asks: why is there no path in the desire realm able to permanently cut off and restrain, never to manifest again, while the form realm has one? The answer: the desire realm is not a stage of concentration, not a stage of cultivation, not a stage free of defilement — hence it has no path able to permanently cut off and restrain, never to manifest again; the form realm is a stage of concentration, a stage of cultivation, a stage free of defilement — hence it has such a path. Further: in the desire realm, the unwholesome roots are strong and the wholesome roots weak, and so it lacks this path; in the form realm, the wholesome roots are strong and there are no unwholesome roots, and so it has this path. Further: in the desire realm, what is unwholesome has a superior, nourishing cause, while what is wholesome does not; in the form realm, what is wholesome has a superior, nourishing cause, and there is nothing unwholesome. Further: in the desire realm, what is unwholesome is like a powerful host, while what is wholesome is like a powerless guest; in the form realm, what is wholesome is like a powerful host, and there is nothing unwholesome. Further: in the desire realm, what is unwholesome is able to cut off the wholesome roots,

while what is wholesome cannot do the reverse; in the form realm, what is wholesome is able to cut off the unwholesome roots, and there is nothing unwholesome to obstruct it. Further: in the desire realm, conduct toward one another lacks mutual reverence and restraint, like that between husband and wife; in the form realm, conduct toward one another shares mutual reverence and restraint, like that between mother and child. Further: in the desire realm, conduct is utterly unrestrained, like a prince and a wealthy commoner's son sharing the very same prison cell; in the form realm, conduct is restrained, like a prince sharing a cell with a hardened criminal. Further: the wholesome roots of the desire realm are necessarily bound by the very same bondage as the afflictions of the desire realm, and so lack the power to cut them off; just as someone bound in chains cannot even free themselves, let alone harm another — the case here is exactly the same. The wholesome roots of the form realm, by contrast, being at a different stage from the afflictions of the form realm, share no such common bondage, and so are able to cut off even the afflictions of their own realm, let alone those of a lower one. Further: the wholesome roots of the desire realm are necessarily tainted by the craving of the desire realm, and cannot be permanently cast off — just as one cannot bear to abandon an intimate friend, however unworthy. The wholesome roots of the form realm, by contrast, are not tainted by the craving of the form realm, being at a different stage; they are thus able to permanently cut off even the craving of their own realm, let alone that they should be unable to cut off the cravings of a lower realm. Further: when a contaminated path cuts off the afflictions, it delights in cultivating its own stage while turning in disgust from the stage below it — since the desire realm has no lower stage to turn from in disgust, it has no path able to permanently cut off and restrain, never to arise again; the form realm has a lower stage to turn from in disgust, and so is able to have such a path.

Other masters say: here, the phrase "cutting off and restraining, not arising again" indicates instead the sense of temporarily cutting off and restraining, not arising again — since a path of the desire realm cannot even temporarily cut off the hindrances and restrain the entanglements so that they do not arise again, let alone permanently; hence there is no supreme mundane dharma there; the form realm is otherwise. One should understand the same distinction to apply to temporary versus permanent cutting-off-and-restraining as to having versus lacking a portion, having versus lacking a shadow, having versus lacking an attendant bondage, and breaking the branches and trunk versus uprooting the very root, and subduing the entanglements and defilements versus destroying the latent tendencies outright. One asks: granting that the desire realm lacks a path able to permanently cut off and restrain, never to arise again — does it also lack a path able to do so merely temporarily? The answer: although such a path does exist there, it cannot be relied upon. Why is this? Because it is not firm, does not endure long, does not flow continuously, is not dominant, is not sustained in succession, and does not persist for long; the mind, toward its object, grasps and releases in rapid succession, without the superior power to subdue the afflictions — hence it cannot enter the certainty of rightness that leaves birth behind. It is like duckweed floating on a pond's surface: when a frog or a small stone is thrown into it, the duckweed parts for a moment, but soon closes back together again. The desire realm is exactly the same: though it has a path able to temporarily cut off the hindrances and the rest, this cannot be relied upon, as explained at length above. In the form realm, by contrast, there exists not only the path able to permanently cut off and restrain, never to manifest again, but also the path able to temporarily cut off and restrain, and this latter path, too, can be deeply relied upon. Why is this? Because that path is firm, endures long, flows continuously, is dominant, is sustained in succession, and persists for long,

and the mind, toward its object, does not grasp and release in rapid succession; it has the superior power to subdue the afflictions, and so can advance into the certainty of rightness that leaves birth behind. It is like duckweed floating on a pond's surface: when a great elephant-sized boulder is thrown into it, the duckweed parts for a long time and can hardly close back together again. The form realm is exactly the same: it, too, has a path able to temporarily cut off the hindrances and the rest, and this can be relied upon, as explained at length above. One should therefore understand that the desire realm has no path able to cut off the hindrances and the rest, while the form realm does. On this basis, it should be said that supreme mundane dharma belongs to the form realm alone, and not to the desire realm. One asks: supreme mundane dharma is itself unable to cut off the fetters — why, then, does the passage say that only if a path of the desire realm were able to cut off the hindrances and restrain the entanglements would supreme mundane dharma be said to belong to the desire realm, and reason from this to its actual realm? The answer: although supreme mundane dharma cannot itself cut off the fetters, this wholesome root is supreme, subtle, and foremost, occupying a deep and remote position; it is fitting that it should share the very same stage as the path able to cut off the fetters, and so that path can be used as evidence for it. Further: supreme mundane dharma draws forth the path of seeing, and must necessarily share the very same stage as the path of seeing; since the path of seeing is able to cut off the afflictions, the fetter-cutting path can serve as evidence here too. Further: since supreme mundane dharma has already given rise to the deepest disgust toward the desire realm, it ought to share the very same stage as the path able to counteract the afflictions of the desire realm, and so that path can be adduced as evidence that this dharma exists there. One asks: if so, then supreme mundane dharma ought to exist only on the stage of proximate concentration, since only that stage is able to cut off the afflictions of the desire realm — it ought not to exist on any higher stage. The answer: there are two kinds of counteragent — the counteragent of cutting off, and the counteragent of weakening through disgust. The stage of proximate concentration possesses both counteragents with respect to the desire realm; the five higher stages, though lacking the counteragent of cutting off with respect to the desire realm, do possess the counteragent of weakening through disgust — and so supreme mundane dharma exists on those stages too. The Venerable Ghoṣaka speaks as follows: all six stages of the form realm possess both counteragents with respect to the afflictions of the desire realm.

It is not that the five higher stages' paths are unable to cut off the afflictions — it is only that, since the stage of proximate concentration has already cut them off first, they retain the power to cut off yet have nothing left to cut. It is like six people who share a single enemy, and together agree: wherever he is found, whoever finds him shall slay him — one of them finds and slays him first, and though the remaining five still have the power to slay him, there is nothing left for them to slay. Or again, it is like six people, each holding a lamp, entering a dark room one after another in sequence: when the first lamp enters, every bit of darkness is already dispelled, and though the rest still have the power to dispel darkness, there is no darkness left for them to dispel. Or again, it is like the sun's light in its early, middle, and late phases, every one of which is opposed to the darkness of night: when the sun first rises, the darkness is entirely dispelled, and though its light in the later phases still has the power to dispel darkness, there is no darkness left for it to dispel. The six stages are exactly the same: with respect to the afflictions of the desire realm, though every one of them is able to cut them off, as explained at length above. One asks: how is it known that the six stages of the form realm possess both counteragents with respect to the afflictions of the desire realm? They reply as follows: one who enters the path of seeing by relying on any of the five higher stages nonetheless attains, with respect to the desire realm, the direct realization of cutting off through discernment, since a distinct uncontaminated attainment of freedom from bondage arises there — if the five higher stages lacked the counteragent of cutting off with respect to the desire realm, this could not be the case. The verdict: this position should not be maintained, since those stages are, in the end, entirely unable to cut off the afflictions of the desire realm at all. Who ever said that those stages possess an uncontaminated attainment realizing, through discernment, the cutting off of the desire realm's afflictions — and on what basis, then, is this cited as evidence for the position in question?

The position given first, therefore, is the sound one. One asks, as a further question arising from this discussion: why is supreme mundane dharma itself unable to cut off the afflictions? The answer: at that very moment, supreme mundane dharma's wholesome root is still slight, and its dharma-body not yet grown, though it already possesses formidable power. Because its wholesome root is slight and its dharma-body not yet grown, it is unable to cut off the afflictions; because it already possesses formidable power, it is not itself overwhelmed by the afflictions — just as a lion cub, its body small and not yet grown, already possesses formidable power: because its body is small and not yet grown, it cannot yet prey upon other animals, but because it already possesses formidable power, it is not itself preyed upon by them. Others say: supreme mundane dharma lasts exactly a single moment, and this is why it cannot cut off the afflictions. One asks: the forbearance of the dharma-knowledge of suffering, too, lasts exactly a single moment — how, then, is it able to cut them off? The answer: although the forbearance of the dharma-knowledge of suffering lasts exactly a single moment, it arises in continuous succession, and this is why it is able to cut them off; supreme mundane dharma has no such continuous succession, and this is why it cannot. Other masters say: supreme mundane dharma belongs to the preparatory path, and this is why it cannot cut off the afflictions — only the uninterrupted path is able to do so. Within this general topic, a further distinction should be drawn. One asks: for what reason does supreme mundane dharma belong to the form realm alone? The answer: because the form realm alone is able to serve as the immediately-antecedent condition for all three paths, all three stages, and all three faculties, and is able to draw forth both the first class of dharma-knowledge and the following class of subsequent-knowledge — no other realm can do this; hence supreme mundane dharma belongs to the form realm alone. One asks: for what reason is supreme mundane dharma certainly not bound to the desire realm? The answer: the desire realm is not a realm of concentration, not a realm of cultivation, not a realm free of defilement — only a realm of concentration, of cultivation, and free of defilement can possess supreme mundane dharma at all. Further: the desire realm is a base realm, a coarse and heavy realm, an inferior realm — only an honored and superior realm, a subtle and light realm, a supreme and excellent realm, can possess supreme mundane dharma. Further: if supreme mundane dharma belonged to the desire realm, the fault of a dharma taking its own essential nature as its own object would follow — for if it belonged to the desire realm, then either it would take its own essential nature as its object, or it would be unable to take it as an object at all. If it took its own essential nature as its object, this would be an unreasonable fault, since an essential nature cannot grasp itself as its own object. If it were unable to take it as an object, this would contradict the root treatise,

as a later passage states: whatever object gives rise to the forbearance of the dharma-knowledge of suffering, that very same object gives rise to supreme mundane dharma. Since the forbearance of the dharma-knowledge of suffering universally takes the five aggregates of the desire realm as its object, the same should hold true here as well — and this is why supreme mundane dharma is certainly not bound to the desire realm.