Farther Than Earth From Sky

What is summit? The answer: a small measure of faith and affection arising toward the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Saṅgha. One asks: why is it named "summit"? The answer: because it is like the summit of a mountain — that is, just as a person atop a mountain's summit does not linger there for long: if no difficulty arises, he passes on over this mountain to reach yet another; but if difficulty arises, he retreats back down again —

the practitioner is exactly the same: reaching the stage of summit, he certainly does not linger there for long — if no difficulty arises, he advances on to forbearance; but if difficulty arises, he retreats back down and abides in heat instead. Some say this stage should instead be named "the lowest," since summit occupies the very lowest position among the nirvedhabhāgīya factors, with heat lying above it. Some say this "summit" should instead be named "the middle," since it lies below heat and above forbearance in the middle. The Venerable Ghoṣaka speaks as follows: the nirvedhabhāgīya factors are, in total, of two kinds — those bound to the desire realm, and those bound to the form realm. Among those bound to the desire realm, the lower is named heat and the higher is named summit; among those bound to the form realm, the lower is named forbearance and the higher is named supreme mundane dharma. Since summit is supreme among the nirvedhabhāgīya factors bound to the desire realm, it is named "summit." This position should not be maintained, however, since all four of these factors are, in fact, dharmas of the form realm, belonging to a stage of concentration and cultivation, bearing the aspect of noble conduct. One should instead say: the nirvedhabhāgīya factors are, in total, of two kinds — those subject to retrogression, and those not subject to it. Among those subject to retrogression, the lower is named heat and the higher is named summit; among those not subject to retrogression, the lower is named forbearance and the higher is named supreme mundane dharma. Since summit is supreme among the nirvedhabhāgīya factors subject to retrogression, it is named "summit." One asks: why is this faith called a "small measure"? The Venerable Ghoṣaka speaks as follows:

the desire realm is called "small," being itself inferior — and since this faith occurs while the practitioner is still classed as belonging to the desire realm, it is named a "small measure." Some say this faith should instead be named a "differing measure": "measure" here means the settled faith and endorsement that confirms something as true, and is thus called a "measure"; heat is the first such measure, summit the second — and since this second measure differs from the one before it, it is called a "differing measure." Some say this faith should instead be named a "brief measure," since one does not linger for long at the stage of summit — like dew hanging from a branch, which never remains in place for long.

One should instead say: this "summit" should simply be named a "small measure of faith," since it occurs at a stage still subject to retrogression, and delights in individually contemplating the Three Jewels. Here, "a small measure of faith arising toward the Buddha and the Saṅgha" refers to faith taking the truth of the path as its object; "a small measure of faith arising toward the Dharma" refers to faith taking the truth of cessation as its object. One asks: this wholesome root of summit fully contemplates the four noble truths through all sixteen aspects — why, then, does this passage speak only of taking cessation and the path as its object, and not suffering and origin? The answer: because the statement follows what is supreme — among the four truths, cessation and the path are supreme, since they lead one out of birth-and-death. Further: the two truths of cessation and the path are pure, stainless, free of fault, and subtle — they are what one can rightly believe in, what gives rise to faith, and what one takes refuge in; this is why they alone are singled out here. Further: the two truths of cessation and the path are not merely to be believed in, but also to be sought after, since they are difficult to realize and utterly delightful; suffering and origin are not like this, and this is why they are not mentioned.

Further: it is in order to give rise to the faith and delight of those being taught. If the Buddha were to teach them the truths of suffering and origin, they would think to themselves: since beginningless time, I have been disturbed and oppressed by these base afflictions, evil conduct, and their resulting fruit — how could I possibly take faith and delight in this? But if he teaches cessation and the path instead, they come to have deep faith and delight, unwilling ever to part from them — this is why cessation and the path alone are singled out here. Some say: with respect to the Buddha and the Saṅgha,

"a small measure of faith arising" refers to faith taking the truth of the path as its object; "a small measure of faith arising toward the Dharma" refers to faith taking the remaining three truths as its object, since summit does, after all, fully take all four noble truths as its object. One asks: taking cessation and the path as object is understandable enough, since these are what one can rightly believe in, what gives rise to faith, and what one takes refuge in,

and so worthy of faith and delight — but how can taking suffering and origin as object be understandable in the same way? The afflictions, evil conduct, and their resulting fruit are like filth, deeply repellent — one ought not to take faith and delight in them at all. The answer: faith is of two kinds — faith as endorsement, and faith as delight. Toward cessation and the path, one holds both kinds of faith at once; toward suffering and origin, though one holds no faith as delight, one does hold faith as endorsement — and so taking suffering and origin as object still gives rise to a kind of faith. It is like someone digging in the earth in search of water or treasure, who holds both kinds of faith at once: faith as endorsement, meaning belief that water or treasure does exist in the earth; and faith as delight, meaning belief that water and the rest are things to be joyfully desired. The Venerable Pārśva says: it is precisely in order to inspire disgust toward suffering and origin

that cessation and the path are praised — since cessation and the path are peaceful, still, and beautiful, bringing to rest and counteracting the base, filthy dharmas of suffering and origin, just as someone battered by wind and rain praises a sheltering house. Thus faith can arise toward all four truths alike. Yet with respect to the truth of the path specifically, not everyone holds both kinds of faith at once: a faith-follower holds both kinds of faith toward the path of a dharma-follower — endorsing it, and delighting in it as well — while a dharma-follower holds only the one kind of faith toward the path of a faith-follower, endorsing it without delighting in it. One released through faith-based resolve holds both kinds of faith toward the path of one who has arrived at view, while one who has arrived at view holds only the one kind of faith toward the path of faith-based resolve. One liberated not-in-due-time holds both kinds of faith toward the path of one liberated in-due-time, while one liberated in-due-time holds only the one kind toward the path of not-in-due-time liberation. A buddha holds both kinds of faith toward the buddha-path, but only the one kind toward the paths of the two lesser vehicles; a pratyekabuddha holds both kinds of faith toward both of the two higher paths, but only the one kind toward the śrāvaka path; and a śrāvaka holds both kinds of faith toward all three paths alike. Here, the venerable one, wishing to establish the preceding point, further cites a sutra passage — as when the World-Honored One said to the young brahmin disciple of Pārāyaṇa:

"If, toward the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Saṅgha, / a small measure of faith should arise — young scholar, know that one / has already attained the dharma of summit." One asks: this wholesome root of summit contemplates the four noble truths through all sixteen aspects — why, then, did the World-Honored One, in speaking to this young brahmin scholar, teach faith in the Three Jewels specifically? The answer: because he was confused and lacked faith with respect to the Three Jewels, yet the Three Jewels are rare and difficult to encounter — wishing to bring him to faith and understanding,

the Buddha taught him accordingly. Some say: this young scholar, oppressed by suffering, came seeking a way out, and approached the Buddha, who then spoke this verse:

"Sentient beings oppressed by suffering, not knowing the way out, come to the Buddha; / may you, out of compassion, teach the removal of every affliction, as one scorched by heat enters a cool pool." There is no way out of suffering surpassing the Three Jewels — this is why the Buddha taught faith in the Three Jewels here. Some say: it is in order to make those being taught give rise to deep faith and reverence within the Buddha's own teaching that the Buddha taught a small measure of faith arising toward the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Saṅgha. Had the Buddha instead taught the four noble truths directly, the sentient beings being taught would have thought: what use is there in placing deep faith and reverence in such things as afflictions, evil conduct, inverted views, and the resulting truths of suffering and origin? But when the Buddha taught the treasures of the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Saṅgha instead, they leapt with joy and gave rise to deep faith and reverence. Some say: it is simply in accordance with what a practitioner delights in individually contemplating at each stage — that is, a practitioner delights in individually contemplating the aggregates at the stage of heat, in individually contemplating the Three Jewels at the stage of summit, and in individually contemplating the truths at the stage of forbearance; this is why faith in the Three Jewels is spoken of specifically at the stage of summit.

As the World-Honored One said to Ānanda: I shall now teach you about summit, and about falling from summit — that is, a noble disciple, contemplating and examining the five aggregates of grasping, formed, conditioned, and dependently arisen, comes to see: this is impermanent, suffering, empty, without self — and, precisely in the midst of this contemplation and examination, there is forbearance, there is view, there is aspiration, there is understanding, and there is the forbearance of careful reflective view — this is what is called summit. One asks: why did the World-Honored One, in speaking to the young Pārāyaṇa disciple, teach faith as summit, while, in speaking to newly ordained monks, he taught wisdom as summit instead? The answer: the Buddha thoroughly understands the characteristics of dharmas and thoroughly understands the capacities of his listeners — whatever ought to be taught to a given person, he teaches accordingly; no one else has this ability, and so the question should not even be raised of anyone but him.

Further: Pārāyaṇa's disciple was still at the stage of a beginning practitioner, not yet habituated to the practice, not yet having attained calm-abiding, not yet having entered the noble teaching, not yet having cultivated it stage by stage — everything he did still depended on external conditions; hearing a deity praise the Buddha's virtues, he came to have faith in the Buddha and approached him. At that time, the World-Honored One, following an outflow of summit itself, taught faith as summit. The newly ordained monks were the opposite of this, and so the Buddha taught them summit's own essential nature directly. Further: the Buddha teaches according to whatever each listener lacks — Pārāyaṇa's disciple had wisdom but lacked faith, and so the Buddha taught him faith as summit; the newly ordained monks had faith but lacked wisdom, and so the Buddha taught them wisdom as summit. Further: it is in order to stop flattery-and-crookedness on the one hand, and foolishness on the other — Pārāyaṇa's disciple was of the brahmin caste, and though he possessed intelligence, he lacked pure faith; wisdom without faith fosters flattery and crookedness, and it was to stop this crookedness that the Buddha taught faith as summit. The newly ordained monks were of the Śākya clan, and though they possessed pure faith, they lacked wisdom; faith without wisdom fosters foolishness, and it was to stop this foolishness that the Buddha taught wisdom as summit. Further: among those the World-Honored One taught, some had sharp faculties and some had dull faculties — to those of sharp faculties, he taught faith as summit; to those of dull faculties, he taught wisdom as summit. The same distinction should be understood to apply between the power of cause and the power of condition, the power of internal factors and the power of external factors, the power of proper internal reflection and the power of hearing the dharma externally from another, the power of a continuum reinforced by freedom from delusion, and the power of a continuum reinforced by freedom from greed.

What is falling from summit? — and so on, as explained at length. One asks: why does this passage speak only of falling from summit, and not falling from heat? The answer: wherever a passage ought to state something yet does not, one should understand that its meaning is left for elsewhere. Further: by stating that the superior can fall, the inferior is already shown to be capable of it as well — that is, if the wholesome root of summit, itself superior, can still retrogress, how much more so the wholesome root of heat, itself inferior? Some say: this should not even be questioned — the venerable one does not state the reasons for falling from heat simply because the sutras themselves do not state them; that is, the sutras speak only of falling from summit, never of falling from heat, and the venerable one, composing this treatise in dependence on the sutras,

should therefore not be faulted for this. Some say: at the moment one retrogresses from summit, great distress arises, whereas retrogressing from heat does not produce this — this is why it alone is discussed. It is like someone who discovers a buried treasure, finds it filled with jewels, and, overjoyed, thinks to himself: I have now forever cut off the root of poverty — but just as he reaches to take it, it suddenly vanishes again, and he is thrown into great distress. The practitioner is exactly the same: abiding at the stage of summit, reflecting that he will soon enter the stage of forbearance and permanently abandon the evil destinies, he gives rise to great joy — but if he then falls back from this summit and returns to abiding in heat, he falls into great distress, having lost this excellent benefit. Suppose, instead, that one advances from the stage of heat and attains summit — one is still not yet able to permanently abandon the evil destinies, and so retrogressing from that stage produces no great distress. Some say: abiding at the stage of summit involves many more difficulties than abiding at the stage of heat, and this is why it alone is singled out for discussion. Hence it is said: across three particular moments, karma and the afflictions pose the very greatest difficulty to the practitioner. First, at the moment of passing from summit into forbearance, the karma and afflictions capable of drawing one into the evil destinies pose the very greatest difficulty — meaning that the practitioner, once entered into the stage of forbearance, will certainly never again undergo rebirth in any evil destiny, and so thinks: in whose body, then, would I now experience the ripening of this karma? Second, at the moment a noble one becomes free of the desire realm's own defilement, the karma and afflictions capable of drawing one back into the desire realm pose the very greatest difficulty —

meaning that the practitioner, having become free of the desire realm's own defilement, will certainly never again undergo rebirth within the desire realm, and so thinks: in whose body, then, would I now experience the ripening of this karma? Third, at the moment one attains arhatship, the karma and afflictions capable of drawing one into any further existence pose the very greatest difficulty — meaning that the practitioner, having attained arhatship, will certainly never again undergo any birth-and-death whatsoever, and so thinks: in whose body, then, would I now experience the ripening of this karma? Some say: summit alone is discussed because it is itself the very borderline between advancement and retrogression, whereas heat does not occupy this borderline, and this is why falling from heat is not discussed. Some say: abiding at the stage of summit, one is on the verge of gaining a great benefit, comparable to how a noble one who has attained the dharma of never falling gains forbearance — an ordinary being is exactly the same. Like Śroṇa Koṭikarṇa, who, across ninety-one aeons and twenty koṭis of lifetimes, never once fell into an evil destiny — at the very moment of retrogressing from summit, this great benefit is lost, and this is why falling from summit alone is discussed; falling from heat carries no such loss, and this is why it is not discussed.

What is falling from summit? The answer: it is when a certain kind of person, having drawn near to good friends, heard the true dharma, applied thorough and proper reflection, come to have faith that the Buddha's awakening and the dharma are well taught, that the saṅgha cultivates excellent practice, that form is impermanent, that feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness are impermanent, and having well established the truth of suffering and well established the truths of origin, cessation, and the path — at some other time, no longer draws near to good friends, no longer hears the true dharma, no longer applies thorough and proper reflection,

and, with respect to the conventional faith he had already attained, it retrogresses, is destroyed, shifts away, and is lost — this is what is called falling from summit. One asks: why was this further passage composed? The answer: although summit's own essential nature has already been explained above, how it is gained and how it is lost has not yet been explained, and this is now taken up. "Drawing near to good friends" means associating with wholesome companions. "Hearing the true dharma" means attentively listening to teaching properly drawn from the dharma, one that reproaches the cycle of existence, praises its cessation, and accords with the practice of yoga. "Thorough and proper reflection" means one's own inner, correct understanding. "Having faith that the Buddha's awakening and the dharma are well taught, that the saṅgha cultivates excellent practice" reveals faith in the Three Jewels. "Form is impermanent... consciousness is impermanent" reveals faith in the five aggregates. "Well established the truth of suffering... well established the truths of origin, cessation, and the path" reveals faith in the four truths. Here, faith in the Buddha's awakening, extending through faith in the well-established truth of the path, together reveal practice in accordance with the dharma — and this, together with the preceding three, reveals the four factors of stream-entry. This is what is called "gaining summit." One asks: for what kind of sentient beings being taught did the Buddha reveal the Three Jewels specifically at the stage of summit?

And for what kind did he reveal the five aggregates, and for what kind the four truths? The answer: for those confused about the Three Jewels, he revealed the Three Jewels; for those confused about the aggregates, he revealed the five aggregates; for those confused about the truths, he revealed the four truths. Further: for beginning practitioners, he revealed the Three Jewels; for those already habituated to practice, he revealed the five aggregates; for those whose attention had already transcended ordinary application, he revealed the four truths. Further: for those of dull faculties, he revealed the Three Jewels; for those of middling faculties, he revealed the five aggregates; for those of sharp faculties, he revealed the four truths. Further: for those whose besetting fault was doubt, he revealed the Three Jewels;

for those whose besetting fault was pride in a self, he revealed the five aggregates; for those whose discerning wisdom was impaired by wrong views, he revealed the four truths. Others say: for those who delight in breadth, he revealed the Three Jewels; for those who delight in brevity, he revealed the four truths; for those who delight in both breadth and brevity, he revealed the five aggregates. These are the three kinds of distinction in whom the teaching was for. Having explained the gaining of summit, what, then, is the losing of summit? "At some other time" means at a time of distraction;

"No longer drawing near to good friends" means instead associating with evil companions. "No longer hearing the true dharma" means attentively listening to teaching improperly drawn, one that praises the cycle of existence and reproaches its cessation, contrary to the practice of yoga. "No longer applying thorough and proper reflection" means one's own inner, incorrect understanding.

"With respect to the conventional faith he had already attained, it retrogresses, is destroyed, shifts away, and is lost" means that the conventional faith, an outflow of summit itself, already attained precisely at the stage of summit, retrogresses, is destroyed, shifts away, and is lost.

Here, the venerable one, wishing to establish the meaning of falling from summit, further cites a sutra passage as evidence — as when the Buddha, speaking again to the same young Pārāyaṇa disciple, said:

"Whoever, having gained these three dharmas, / then loses them again — I say that such a one, / know it well, is named one who has fallen from summit." One asks: what, precisely, is falling from summit's own essential nature? The answer: falling from summit's own essential nature is non-possession — an ethically-neutral, non-obscuring factor dissociated from mind, subsumed under the aggregate of volitional formations. Some say: the time of having faith is named "gaining summit," and the time of lacking faith is named "falling from summit" — on this view, lack of faith itself is falling-from-summit's own essential nature. Some say: it is the entangling afflictions that cause one to fall from summit — on this view, every defiled dharma is falling-from-summit's own essential nature. Some say: whatever dharma accords with the retrogression of that faith is named falling from summit — on this view, every dharma whatsoever is falling-from-summit's own essential nature,

since, at the moment of falling from summit, every dharma serves as a dominant condition for that falling. The Dārṣṭāntikas say: this is merely a provisional expression, without any real essential nature of its own — that is, within one's own continuum, having first possessed summit and now come to lose it, this is spoken of as "falling from summit." How could one possibly go searching for falling-from-summit's own essential nature? It is like a person who possesses wealth and is therefore called rich — if a thief robs him, he is then called poor. Someone asks him: what is the essential nature of your poverty? He replies: "I once had a great deal of precious wealth; now it has been stolen from me, and I am simply called poor — what essential nature could there possibly be to this?" Or again, it is like a person who was once clothed, but whose clothes were then seized by a thief, leaving him exposed. Someone asks him: what is the essential nature of your present exposure? He replies: "I once had clothes; now a thief has seized them, and I simply remain exposed — what essential nature could there possibly be to this?" Or again, it is like a person whose clothing has become worn and torn. Someone asks him: what is the essential nature of your clothing's being worn and torn? He replies: "My clothing was once whole; now it has become worn and torn, and is simply called 'torn clothing' — what essential nature could there possibly be to this?"

The practitioner is exactly the same: having first possessed summit and now come to lose it, this is called falling from summit, with no separate essential nature of its own. The verdict: the first position given is the sound one. This is, in fact, subsumed under "and whatever further dharmas of this kind there may be" among the dissociated factors — since the formations dissociated from mind are themselves of many varieties.

What is heat? — and so on, as explained at length. One asks: why is it named "heat"? The answer: as wisdom turns toward its object, a superior wisdom arises, and heat, once produced, is able to burn the very fuel of every affliction — this is why it is named "heat," just as when fire-sticks are rubbed together, upper and lower depending on one another, fire arises, and once heat is produced, it is able to burn the fuel and the rest. Some say: because every state of existence depends on the wisdom that engages it — once this "existence-engaging" wisdom's heat is produced, it is able to cause every state of existence to wither and wilt entirely — this is why it is named "heat," just as in summer, when flowers are gathered into a heap, the heat the flowers themselves generate causes them to wither away on their own. Or again, it is like a heap of dung and soil gathered in summer,

in which heat arises and causes the pile to rot away on its own. Some say: because the aggregates depend on the wisdom that engages them — once this "aggregate-engaging" wisdom's heat is produced, it is able to burn the very forest of the aggregates, causing it to be permanently extinguished — this is why it is named "heat," just as when bamboo and reeds rub against one another, heat arises and is able to burn that whole forest down to ash. The Venerable Ghoṣaka speaks as follows: it is on the basis of seeking liberation that this wholesome root arises, serving as the sun's own forerunning sign before the noble path's own rising, and this is why it is named "heat," just as the first light of dawn appears before the sun itself rises. Further: it is on the basis of seeking liberation that this wholesome root arises, serving as the fire's own forerunning sign before the noble path's own kindling — and this is why it is named "heat," just as smoke appears before a fire is about to be lit.

What is heat? The answer: if there is even a slight faith and affection toward the true dharma and discipline — since faith itself is here named "affection," it is called "faith-affection." Faith-affection toward the true dharma refers to faith taking the truth of the path as its object; faith-affection toward the discipline refers to faith taking the truth of cessation as its object. One asks: this wholesome root of heat fully takes the four noble truths as its object through all sixteen aspects — why, then, does this passage speak only of taking cessation and the path as object, and not suffering and origin? The answer: because the statement follows what is supreme — among the four truths, cessation and the path are supreme, since they lead one out of birth-and-death; the rest is as explained at length under summit. Some say: faith-affection toward the true dharma refers to faith taking the remaining three truths as its object; faith-affection toward the discipline refers to faith taking the truth of cessation as its object, since heat does, after all, fully take all four noble truths as its object. One asks: taking cessation and the path as object is understandable, since these are what one can rightly believe in, what gives rise to faith, and what one takes refuge in, and so worthy of faith and affection — but how can taking suffering and origin as object be understandable in the same way? The afflictions, evil conduct, and their resulting fruit are like filth, deeply repellent — one ought not to take faith and affection in them at all. The answer: faith is of two kinds — faith as endorsement, and faith as affection. Toward cessation and the path, one holds both kinds of faith at once; toward suffering and origin, though one holds no faith as affection, one does hold faith as endorsement, and so taking suffering and origin as object still gives rise to a kind of faith — the rest is explained at length as under summit. One asks: does everyone who holds even a slight faith and affection toward the true dharma and discipline thereby attain heat? The answer: no. Why is this? Because heat is a wholesome root of the form realm, belonging to a stage of concentration and cultivation, subsumed under all sixteen aspects — what is spoken of here is precisely this kind of faith and affection, not any other kind of faith and affection, and this is why the answer is no.

Here, the venerable one cites a sutra passage as evidence — as when the World-Honored One said, of the two monks Aśvaka and Punarvasu: these two foolish men are as far removed from my true dharma and discipline as the great earth is from the sky. These two foolish men possess not even the smallest fraction of heat within my true dharma and discipline. Although this sutra passage has since been lost, the author of the treatise, by the power of his own wisdom of aspiration, draws on it here as evidence. One asks: this wholesome root of heat is itself supreme and subtle, abiding at a stage of stillness — why, then, did the World-Honored One name it "the smallest fraction"? The answer: because, measured against every other nirvedhabhāgīya factor, this is the very smallest of all, and so it earns the name "smallest fraction." Some say: because it is a wholesome root not shared with ordinary observation within the true dharma and discipline, the very last and slightest such root to arise, it is called "the smallest fraction." One asks: is everyone who has not yet attained the wholesome root of heat reproached and cast out in the same way as these two? The answer: no. Why is this? Because those the World-Honored One taught are, in total, of three kinds: those who take delight in the Buddha's teaching; those whose delight in the Buddha's teaching has faded; and those who take no delight in the Buddha's teaching at all. These two monks held no delight whatsoever in the Buddha's true teaching, and this is why the Buddha reproached and cast them out — anyone of this same kind is likewise reproached and cast out, but not everyone else who has simply not yet attained the wholesome root of heat. Some say: these two monks had renounced their own family attachments and taken refuge with the Buddha to go forth as monastics, yet held not the slightest faith or affection within the true dharma and discipline capable of being embraced by it — this is why the Buddha reproached and cast them out, not everyone else who has simply not yet attained the wholesome root of heat. In that very sutra, the World-Honored One first said to the two monks Aśvaka and Punarvasu: I shall now teach you a fourfold teaching — do you wish to know it? I leave it to your own will. The two monks replied: what use would we now have for knowing your teaching? One asks: what, here, is meant by "the fourfold teaching"? Some say it is the four noble truths. Why is this?

Because they, not seeing the truths, committed evil conduct. Some say it is the four foundations of mindfulness. Why is this? Because they, through inverted views, committed evil conduct. Some say it is the four right exertions. Why is this? Because they, through laziness, committed evil conduct. Some say it is the four bases of supernormal power. Why is this? Because they, lacking these superior virtues, committed evil conduct. Some say it is the four noble lineages. Why is this? Because they, coveting material gain, committed evil conduct. Some say it is the four śramaṇa-fruits. Why is this? Because they, not having actually attained the four śramaṇa-fruits, yet claiming to have attained them, committed evil conduct. Some say it is the four immeasurables. Why is this? Because they, overcome by greed, hatred, and envy, committed evil conduct. Some say it is the four dhyānas. Why is this? Because they, overcome by the afflictions of the desire realm, committed evil conduct. Some say it is the four skills — skill regarding the elements, skill regarding the sense fields, skill regarding dependent origination, and skill regarding what is and is not possible. Why is this? Because they, ignorant of cause and effect, committed evil conduct. Some say it is precisely the four kinds of nirvedhabhāgīya wholesome root.

Why is this? Because the Buddha stated that these two men possessed not even the smallest fraction of heat. Some say it is precisely the four dharma-footprints stated in the Ekottarikāgama: first, the dharma-footprint of non-greed; second, the dharma-footprint of non-hatred; third, the dharma-footprint of right mindfulness; and fourth, the dharma-footprint of right concentration. Some say it is precisely the fourfold teaching stated in the Saṃyuktāgama, as its own verse states:

"In the noble teaching, right speech is foremost; / second, ever-loving speech, keeping far from what is unloving; / third, ever-truthful speech, free of falsehood; / fourth, speech ever in accord with the dharma, keeping far from what is not." On this last reading, the four noble truths remain the correct answer, since these two were ignorant of the truths' own principle, turning their backs on the noble teaching. One asks: the Buddha, deeply understanding that these two were not fit vessels to receive the teaching — why, then, did he still offer it, leaving it to their own will? The answer: it was in order to demonstrate the Buddha's own freedom from fault, lest anyone say he had failed to teach them, and so they went on to commit evil conduct and destroy themselves through no fault of the Buddha's own. This is why the Tathāgata raised his hand and declared: every act of teaching lies within my own power to perform — but if you yourselves refuse to receive it, and go on to practice wrongly of your own accord, bringing about your own ruin, this is no fault of mine. Some say: it was in order to stop the Śākya clan's own loss of faith — for if the Buddha had not offered the teaching, leaving it to their will, then countless members of the Śākya clan would have lost faith, thinking: how can this claim be sustained, that toward his own kinsmen he harbors stinginess and jealousy, unwilling to teach them, fearing they might resemble himself? By the Buddha's offering the teaching and leaving it to their own will, this loss of faith among the Śākya clan was averted. Some say: it was in order to stop the outside schools from slandering the Buddha's karma — for if the Buddha had not offered the teaching in this way, countless outside teachers would have slandered him, saying: how can one be called possessed of great compassion, who teaches only those disciples who are compliant and reverent, and refuses to teach those who are defiant and disrespectful? By the Buddha's offering the teaching and leaving it to their own will, this slander from the outside schools was averted. Some say: it was in order to let them themselves come to know that the fault lay with them — the Buddha, with gentle words, reproached them, saying: from the beginning until now, you have constantly committed evil conduct; I have constantly taught you, yet you have never once believed and received it; now, once again, I wish to teach you the essentials of the dharma, and you say, "what use would we have for knowing your teaching?" — your own fault, then, is its own witness. Some say: it was in order to let them plant a wholesome root for some later time — the Buddha knew that these two, though unable in the present to receive his true dharma, would, after death, be reborn among the nāgas, and would then themselves recall: the one of great compassion once offered me his true dharma, and I did not receive it; now, reborn in this evil destiny, I undergo such suffering and affliction — and from this, a wholesome root of remorse would arise together with it, and by this cause, they would swiftly be freed from that evil destiny. Some say: it was in order to protect the Buddha's teaching from being destroyed — the Buddha knew that these two, after death, would be reborn among the nāgas, and, driven by extreme suffering, would think to themselves:

"From where did I pass away to be reborn here?" — and would then recall, on their own, that they had come from the human realm. They would further think to themselves: "What karma did I commit in the past?" — and would then see, on their own, that they had once gone forth as monastics but, unable to practice rightly, had fallen into this present state. They would next think: "It is because the Buddha did not teach me that I am now reborn in this evil place" — and, giving rise to anger and resentment, would wish to return to the human realm, destroy stūpas, ruin monasteries, kill monks and nuns, and cause the Tathāgata's teaching to be utterly annihilated, without remainder. At just that moment, by the Buddha's own spiritual power, an image of the Tathāgata would stand before them,

and declare to them: Aśvaka and Punarvasu, I shall now teach you a fourfold teaching — do you wish to know it? I leave it to your own will. At that, the two venomous dragons would themselves recall: the Buddha once spoke to me in exactly this same way, and at that time I did not receive it — the fault was my own, not the Tathāgata's. By this cause, their entanglement of anger would then subside, and they would give rise to deep shame and remorse, and go on to protect and uphold the Buddha's teaching. It is for all these various reasons

that the Buddha offered his true dharma, leaving it to their own will. One asks: why did the two men say, "what use would we now have for knowing your teaching"? The answer: they themselves knew that they had committed such evil conduct that they were no longer fit vessels for the true dharma, and so spoke these words — reflecting to themselves: if we are not even fit vessels for a discourse on rebirth in the heavens, how much less for the most subtle discourse on liberation? Some say: they themselves knew that they had repeatedly violated the precepts, that their evil conduct and afflictions had damaged their own continuum beyond repair — just as a scorched brick or tile can never be made to sprout, so too was it impossible that they, hearing the teaching, could ever sprout the shoot of liberation — and this is why they said, "what use would we now have for knowing your teaching?" Some say: they themselves knew that they had committed and accumulated karma fixed to ripen in an evil destiny, and this is why they spoke these words. Some say: evil signs had already appeared in their own bodies — that is, they themselves saw, at the tips of their ten fingers, ten streams of water about to flow out, and thought to themselves: we are certainly bound for rebirth among the nāgas — at such a moment, what further use would there be in knowing the World-Honored One's true dharma? — and this is why they spoke as they did. Some say: the Buddha had already prophesied of these two that they had planted the wholesome root of pratyekabuddha-awakening, and would certainly become pratyekabuddhas in a future life; they themselves thought: in this present life, we shall certainly never be able to enter the certainty of rightness, attain the fruit, or exhaust the contaminants — and this is why they said, "what use would we now have for knowing your teaching?"

On this basis, the World-Honored One further stated: these two foolish men are as far removed from my true dharma and discipline as the great earth is from the sky. These two foolish men possess not even the smallest fraction of heat within my true dharma and discipline. If disciples are able to support their teacher with wealth and food and dwell together with him, they still ought not to answer him with harsh words of refusal — how much more so should this be true of those who cannot even offer him this shared support, yet still speak such defiant words? One asks: there are many kinds of "discipline" — discipline of time, discipline of place, discipline of lineage, discipline of family, discipline of knowledge, discipline of penalty, discipline of transgression, noble discipline, discipline over greed, discipline over hatred, and discipline over delusion. Which discipline is meant here? Some say: this passage means the discipline of penalty. Others say: this passage means the discipline of transgression. Others say still:

this passage means noble discipline. On this last reading, this passage means discipline over greed, hatred, and delusion. One asks: why does the venerable one analyze supreme mundane dharma through seven gates, summit through only two, and forbearance and heat through their essential nature alone? The answer: it is simply what the author of the treatise intended; the treatise was composed following his own intention, sometimes briefly and sometimes at length, and this should not be pressed further. Further: just as supreme mundane dharma is analyzed through seven gates, the remaining three ought likewise to be analyzed through seven gates each — just as the Western masters analyze all four nirvedhabhāgīya factors together through seventeen gates — and this treatise ought to do the same, analyzing all four together through seven gates; and the fact that it does not should be understood as an instance where the text leaves something for elsewhere. Further: supreme mundane dharma is subtle, hard to see, and hard to perceive, being neither distinct nor directly evident — this is why it receives a sevenfold analysis, while the remaining three, not being like this, are treated only briefly. Further: supreme mundane dharma is subject to many slanders,

and this is why a sevenfold analysis is used to stop them; the remaining three, not being subject to such slanders, are analyzed only briefly. Further: supreme mundane dharma lasts for exactly a single moment, and its own characteristics are hard to grasp, requiring extensive analysis; the remaining three occur in continuous succession, and are therefore treated only briefly.

Such, then, are the four nirvedhabhāgīya factors: heat, summit, forbearance, and supreme mundane dharma. One asks: what is the essential nature of these four? The answer: all four have the five aggregates as their essential nature. The Venerable Ghoṣaka speaks as follows: the nirvedhabhāgīya factors are of two kinds, those bound to the desire realm and those bound to the form realm. Among those bound to the desire realm, the lower is named heat and the higher is named summit — these two have only four aggregates as their essential nature, since the desire realm has no accompanying form. Among those bound to the form realm, the lower is named forbearance and the higher is named supreme mundane dharma — these two have all five aggregates as their essential nature, since the form realm does possess accompanying form. On this treatise's own view, all four of these wholesome roots belong to the form realm, to a stage of concentration and cultivation, bearing the aspect of noble conduct — and so all four have all five aggregates as their essential nature alike. One asks: if all four belong to the form realm alike, how are the four distinguished from one another? The answer: although these four wholesome roots share the same realm, they differ in whether they can be shaken or not, whether they involve difficulty or not, whether they can be cut off or not, whether they can be deliberated over or not, and whether they can retrogress or not: whichever can be shaken, involves difficulty, can be cut off, can be deliberated over, and can retrogress — the lower and middle grade of this is named heat, the higher grade named summit; whichever cannot be shaken, involves no difficulty, cannot be cut off, cannot be deliberated over, and cannot retrogress — the lower and middle grade of this is named forbearance, the higher grade named supreme mundane dharma. Thus these four, though sharing the same realm and the same five aggregates as their essential nature, nonetheless differ from one another — just as one speaks of "own-nature," "own substance," "own entity," and "characteristic-portion" all referring to the same underlying thing, "original nature" should be understood in the same way. The essential nature having now been explained, the reason for the name should next be explained. One asks: why are these named "nirvedhabhāgīya," "factors conducive to penetration"? The answer: "penetration" refers to the noble path itself; these four factors are conducive to it — and among all factors conducive to it, these four are supreme — this is why they are named "factors conducive to penetration." These same four are also named "practicing the truths," also named "cultivating and refining," and also named "wholesome roots." "Practicing the truths" means traversing the four truths through the sixteen aspects, impermanence and the rest. "Cultivating and refining" means: in seeking the noble path, one cultivates and refines the vessel of one's own body, removing filth and evil, and drawing forth the noble path — just as a farmer, seeking a harvest, cultivates and refines the soil of his field, removing weeds; the case here is exactly the same. "Wholesome roots" means: the noble path and nirvāṇa are the truest wholesome things, and these four serve as their initial foundation and footing — this is why they are named "roots."

One asks: into how many grades are these four wholesome roots divided? The answer: three grades in total — lower, middle, and upper. Heat is the lower grade; summit is the middle grade; forbearance and supreme mundane dharma are the upper grade. Some say: heat has two grades, lower-lower and lower-middle; summit has three grades, lower-upper, middle-lower, and middle-middle; forbearance has three grades, middle-upper, upper-lower, and upper-middle; and supreme mundane dharma has only one grade, upper-upper. If subsumed under the three broad grades, heat is lower alone, summit is lower-and-middle, forbearance is middle-and-upper, and supreme mundane dharma is upper alone. The Venerable Ghoṣaka states: heat has three grades, summit has six grades, forbearance has eight grades, and supreme mundane dharma has only the single grade upper-upper. If subsumed under the three broad grades: heat is lower alone, summit is lower-and-middle, forbearance spans all three, and supreme mundane dharma is upper alone. The Venerable Buddhadeva states: heat has three grades — lower-lower, lower-middle, lower-upper; summit has three grades — middle-lower, middle-middle, middle-upper; forbearance has two grades — upper-lower, upper-middle; and supreme mundane dharma has only the single grade upper-upper. If subsumed under the three broad grades, this follows the same pattern as the first position given. The Venerable Vasumitra states: heat has three grades — lower-lower, lower-middle, lower-upper; summit has two grades — middle-lower, middle-middle; forbearance has three grades — middle-upper, upper-lower, upper-middle; and supreme mundane dharma has only the single grade upper-upper. If subsumed under the three broad grades, heat is lower alone, summit is middle alone, forbearance is middle-and-upper, and supreme mundane dharma is upper alone.

One asks: what differences are there among these four wholesome roots? The answer: the very grades just stated are themselves one such difference. Further, their names differ as well — this one is named heat, and so on, up through this one named supreme mundane dharma. Further: the foundations of mindfulness serve as the immediately-antecedent condition for heat; heat serves as the immediately-antecedent condition for summit; summit serves as the immediately-antecedent condition for forbearance; and forbearance serves as the immediately-antecedent condition for supreme mundane dharma — and just as this holds for their immediately-antecedent conditions and their entry into the path, the same holds for their preparatory efforts as well. Further: delighting in individually contemplating the aggregates is named heat; delighting in individually contemplating the Three Jewels is named summit; delighting in individually contemplating the truths is named forbearance — and from this, supreme mundane dharma is finally brought forth. Further: heat brings the lowest grade of ignorance regarding the truths to rest; summit, the middle grade; forbearance, the highest grade — and from this, supreme mundane dharma is brought forth. Further: heat brings the coarsest ignorance regarding the truths to rest; summit, the middle; forbearance, the subtlest — and from this, supreme mundane dharma is brought forth. Further: heat gives rise to the lowest grade of clarity regarding the truths; summit, the middle grade; forbearance, the highest grade — and from this, supreme mundane dharma is brought forth. Further: heat gives rise to the coarsest clarity regarding the truths; summit, the middle; forbearance, the subtlest — and from this, supreme mundane dharma is brought forth; and the same holds for the arising of confidence as for the arising of clarity. These, then, are the differences among the four.

Among the nirvedhabhāgīya wholesome roots, heat is both gained and lost — it is gained through preparatory effort, and it is lost either through retrogression, or through crossing to a different realm or stage, or through relinquishing one's own class of rebirth. Once heat is lost, one may still commit the acts of immediate retribution, cut off one's own wholesome roots, and fall into the evil destinies. What benefit, then, does it confer? It serves as a determinative cause for eventually reaching nirvāṇa — that is, one who has attained heat is like a fish that has swallowed a hook: it has already, irreversibly, attained the dharma bound for nirvāṇa. Summit, too, is both gained and lost — it is gained through preparatory effort, and it is lost either through retrogression, or through crossing to a different realm or stage, or through relinquishing one's own class of rebirth. Once summit is lost, one may still commit the acts of immediate retribution and fall into the evil destinies. What further benefit, then, does it confer? It confers the ability never, in the end, to cut off one's own wholesome roots. One asks: if that is so, then Devadatta ought never to have attained summit at all, since he gave rise to wrong view and cut off his own wholesome roots — how, then, is the verse's own statement to be reconciled with this? As it states:

"One known to the crowd of the foolish, / this one is named the loser of benefit; / every wholesome dharma of his utterly destroyed, / know that he has fallen from summit." This verse was spoken by the World-Honored One concerning Devadatta — and this would mean that Devadatta, having retrogressed from summit, went on to cut off his own wholesome roots. How, then, can it be said that once summit is lost, one certainly cannot cut off one's own wholesome roots? The answer: this speaks of "falling from summit" only with respect to one who never actually attained it and then retrogressed. Devadatta had already cultivated and attained heat, and was soon to attain summit, but, becoming attached to fame and gain, retrogressed and lost even heat, and then went on to cut off his own wholesome roots — since he ought to have attained summit but did not, he is spoken of as "one who has fallen from summit," not as one who had already attained it and then retrogressed. Some hold: the World-Honored One speaks of "summit" here in the sense that Devadatta, having committed evil against the Buddha, fell into an evil destiny — this is why it is called "falling from summit." Other masters say: the Buddha's own teaching is itself like a summit, and Devadatta, having destroyed the Buddha's teaching, thereby brought about his own fall — this is why it is called "falling from summit." Forbearance, too, is both gained and lost — it is gained through preparatory effort, and it is lost either through crossing to a different realm or stage, or through relinquishing one's own class of rebirth, but never through retrogression. What further benefit, then, does it confer? It confers the ability never, in the end, to retrogress, never to commit the acts of immediate retribution, and never to fall into the evil destinies. Supreme mundane dharma, too, is both gained and lost — it is gained through preparatory effort, and it is lost through crossing to a different realm or stage, but never through retrogression, nor through relinquishing one's own class of rebirth. What further benefit, then, does it confer? It is able to serve as the immediately-antecedent condition for entering the certainty of rightness.

Other masters say instead: heat is gained and lost as explained above; once heat is lost, one may still commit the acts of immediate retribution and fall into the evil destinies. What benefit, then, does it confer? It serves as a determinative cause for eventually reaching nirvāṇa, and confers the ability never, in the end, to cut off one's own wholesome roots. If that is so, then Devadatta ought never to have attained even heat, since he gave rise to wrong view and cut off his own wholesome roots. Summit, too, is gained and lost as explained above; once summit is lost, one may still fall into the evil destinies. What further benefit, then, does it confer? It confers the ability never to commit the acts of immediate retribution. Forbearance, too, is gained and lost as explained above. What further benefit, then, does it confer? It confers the ability never, in the end, to retrogress, never to fall into the evil destinies, and never to cling to a self. One asks: if that is so, then Upāli, Śrīgupta, Aṅgulimāla, and Satyavādin ought never to have attained forbearance, since they each clung to the existence of a self in order to contend against the Buddha. The answer: they wished only to engage in debate, and provisionally posited a self for the sake of argument — they did not, in truth, cling to it. Supreme mundane dharma's own gaining, losing, and the rest, are all exactly as explained above.