Cutting Off, and Growing Back

What is shame? What is moral dread? And so on, at length. One asks: why is this treatise composed? The answer: it is composed in order to fully discriminate the meaning of this sūtra passage. That is, the sūtra states that there exists shame and moral dread, yet, having said this much, does not discriminate it fully — what is meant by shame, and what is meant by moral dread? That sūtra is the fundamental basis upon which this treatise depends, and whatever it has left undiscriminated ought now to be discriminated fully. Further, this treatise is composed in order to bring those in doubt to a settled resolution —

that is, these two dharmas closely resemble one another in their mutual operation, and worldly sentient beings, upon seeing one who possesses shame, call him one who possesses moral dread, and, upon seeing one who possesses moral dread, call him one who possesses shame, as though these two possessed but a single substance; this treatise now wishes to reveal the distinction in their own inherent nature and characteristic, so that those in doubt may attain a settled understanding. Further, the foregoing has already spoken of shamelessness and lack of moral dread, without yet speaking of their own proximate antidotes; this treatise now wishes to speak of these proximate antidotes — namely, shame and moral dread. Further, these two dharmas are solely wholesome in nature, and are further posited as the predominant cause of wholesomeness generally, exactly as it is said: which mental cluster is wholesome in every case? It is that associated with shame and moral dread — this treatise now wishes to reveal their characteristic, so that they may be diligently cultivated. Further, these two dharmas protect and guard the world,

exactly as the Blessed One has stated: there are two bright dharmas capable of protecting and guarding the world — namely, shame and moral dread; were these two absent, there would then exist no wholesome destiny and no liberation — this treatise now wishes to reveal their characteristic, so that they may be diligently cultivated. Further, these two dharmas are able to bring about every manner of distinction among sentient beings — namely, parent and child, elder and younger brother, elder and younger sister, male and female, kinsfolk, noble and base, elder and junior; were these two absent, sentient beings would be exactly like oxen and sheep, possessing no such distinction of noble and base, elder and junior whatsoever — this treatise now wishes to reveal their characteristic, so that they may be diligently cultivated, and it is for this reason that this treatise is composed.

What is shame? The answer: whatever shame there is, whatever possession of shame there is, whatever divergent shame there is, whatever modesty there is, whatever possession of modesty there is, whatever divergent modesty there is, whatever respect there is, whatever possession of the characteristic of respect there is, whatever mastery there is, whatever possession of the characteristic of mastery there is — with respect to one who possesses such mastery, there arises a kind of awe — this is called shame. This treatise's own author, being skilled in the various wordings of the meaning, expresses this through a variety of wordings, though its substance is not thereby distinct. One asks: do the various distinct terms spoken of in this passage reveal its own inherent nature, or do they reveal its aspect, or do they reveal its object? There are those who say: this reveals shame's own inherent nature. One asks: if so, then what is shame's own aspect? The answer: it is like the aspect of any wholesome mind and mental factor generally — this aspect, too, is of this same kind, since it stands in association with them. One asks: what is shame's own object? The answer: all dharmas. There are other masters who say: this passage reveals shame's own aspect. This aspect, in relation to other things, ought to be set out in four alternatives: there is a case of shame that does not operate through shame's own aspect — namely, shame operating through some other aspect; there is a case of operating through shame's own aspect that is not shame — namely, a dharma associated with shame operating through shame's own aspect; there is a case that is both shame and operates through shame's own aspect — namely, shame operating through shame's own aspect; there is a case that is neither shame nor operates through shame's own aspect — if this class is taken broadly, one ought to say that a dharma associated with shame operates through some other aspect; if not, one ought to say that this refers to whatever remains apart from the foregoing. Just as the case of "operating" admits of these four alternatives, so too, "having already operated" and "about to operate" should be understood in just the same way. Just as shame's own aspect admits of these three sets of four alternatives, so too should every other aspect be understood. One asks: if so, then what is shame's own inherent nature? The answer: its own substance, its own particular characteristic, is precisely its own inherent nature — exactly as it is said, the inherent nature of dharmas is precisely their own particular characteristic, and their belonging to the same class is their shared characteristic. One asks: what is shame's own object? The answer: all dharmas. There are yet others who say: this passage reveals shame's own object — that is, "whatever shame there is, whatever possession of shame there is, whatever divergent shame there is, whatever modesty there is, whatever possession of modesty there is, whatever divergent modesty there is" — these are said to take the truths of suffering and origin as their object; "whatever respect there is, whatever possession of the characteristic of respect there is, whatever mastery there is, whatever possession of the characteristic of mastery there is — with respect to one who possesses such mastery, there arises a kind of awe" — these are said to take the truths of cessation and the path as their object; their own inherent nature and aspect are as explained above.

What is moral dread? The answer: whatever moral dread there is, whatever possession of moral dread there is, whatever divergent moral dread there is, whatever remorse there is, whatever possession of remorse there is, whatever divergent remorse there is, and, with respect to every wrongdoing, whatever dread there is, whatever fear there is, and whatever profound perception of a cause for dread and fear there is — this is called moral dread. This treatise's own author, being skilled in the various wordings of the meaning, expresses this through a variety of wordings, though its substance is not thereby distinct. One asks: do the various distinct terms spoken of in this passage reveal its own inherent nature, or do they reveal its aspect, or do they reveal its object? There are those who say: this reveals moral dread's own inherent nature. One asks: if so, then what is moral dread's own aspect? The answer: it is like the aspect of any wholesome mind and mental factor generally — this aspect, too, is of this same kind, since it stands in association with them. One asks: what is moral dread's own object? The answer: all dharmas. There are other masters who say: this passage reveals moral dread's own aspect. This aspect, in relation to other things, ought to be set out in four alternatives: there is a case of moral dread that does not operate through moral dread's own aspect — namely, moral dread operating through some other aspect; there is a case of operating through moral dread's own aspect that is not moral dread — namely, a dharma associated with moral dread operating through moral dread's own aspect; there is a case that is both moral dread and operates through moral dread's own aspect — namely, moral dread operating through moral dread's own aspect; there is a case that is neither moral dread nor operates through moral dread's own aspect — if this class is taken broadly, one ought to say that a dharma associated with moral dread operates through some other aspect; if not, one ought to say that this refers to whatever remains apart from the foregoing. Just as the case of "operating" admits of these four alternatives, so too, "having already operated" and "about to operate" should be understood in just the same way. Just as moral dread's own aspect admits of these three sets of four alternatives, so too should every other aspect be understood. One asks: if so, then what is moral dread's own inherent nature? The answer: its own substance, its own particular characteristic, is precisely its own inherent nature — exactly as it is said, the inherent nature of dharmas is precisely their own particular characteristic, and their belonging to the same class is their shared characteristic. One asks: what is moral dread's own object? The answer: all dharmas. There are yet others who say:

this passage reveals moral dread's own object — that is, "whatever moral dread there is, whatever possession of moral dread there is, whatever divergent moral dread there is, whatever remorse there is, whatever possession of remorse there is, whatever divergent remorse there is" — these are said to take the truths of cessation and the path as their object; "with respect to every wrongdoing, whatever dread there is, whatever fear there is, and whatever profound perception of a cause for dread and fear there is" — this is said to take the truths of suffering and origin as its object; their own inherent nature and aspect are as explained above. What distinction is there between shame and moral dread? The answer: with respect to one who possesses mastery, there arising a kind of awe, is shame; with respect to every wrongdoing, profoundly perceiving a cause for dread and fear, is moral dread — such is their distinction. One asks: why is this treatise further composed? The answer: the Abhidharma states that these two dharmas mutually stand in association with one another, their own characteristics closely resembling one another; this treatise now wishes to discriminate the distinction in the own-nature and characteristic of shame and moral dread, and it is for this reason that this treatise is composed. That is, with respect to one who possesses mastery, there arising a kind of awe, is shame; with respect to every wrongdoing, profoundly perceiving a cause for dread and fear, is moral dread. Further, possessing a degree of reverence is shame; possessing a degree of dread is moral dread — this same sequence, and every distinction that follows from it, stands in direct contrast to the distinctions already given above between shamelessness and lack of moral dread, and should be broadly stated accordingly. These two dharmas alike are bound to the three realms, and are also unbound; they are solely wholesome, and pervasively stand in association with every wholesome mind. One asks: if so, then how is what the Prajñaptiśāstra states to be reconciled? As it is stated: of the seven powers, how many are contaminated, and how many uncontaminated? The answer: two are contaminated alone — namely, shame and moral dread; the remaining five extend to both the contaminated and the uncontaminated — namely, faith and the rest. The answer: that treatise ought properly to state that all seven powers extend to both the contaminated and the uncontaminated; that it does not so state reflects a distinct underlying intent — that is, that treatise speaks of power in terms of preparatory effort and its fundamental basis: at the stage of preparatory effort, shame and moral dread predominate, and it is for this reason that they are said to be contaminated alone; at the fundamental stage, faith and the rest predominate, and it is for this reason that they are said to extend to both. Were it not so, then the noble path ought not to stand in association with shame and moral dread, and it would then follow that a noble one's own shame and moral dread ought never to predominate — and it is for this reason that shame and moral dread most certainly do extend to the uncontaminated as well. There are cases of shamelessness that resemble shame in their operation — that is, when committing evil, there is nonetheless a kind of modesty, as with the arrangements of marriage; and there are cases of shame that resemble shamelessness in their operation — that is, when doing what is wholesome, there is nonetheless no modesty, as with the act of giving. There are cases of shamelessness that resemble shamelessness in their operation — that is, when committing evil, there is no modesty, as with butchering and hunting; and there are cases of shame that resemble shame in their operation — that is, when doing what is wholesome, there is modesty, as with repenting one's own faults. There are cases of lack of moral dread that resemble moral dread in their operation — that is, when committing evil, there is nonetheless a kind of remorse, as with the arrangements of marriage; and there are cases of moral dread that resemble lack of moral dread in their operation — that is, when doing what is wholesome, there is no remorse, as with the act of giving. There are cases of lack of moral dread that resemble lack of moral dread in their operation — that is, when committing evil, there is no remorse, as with butchering and hunting; and there are cases of moral dread that resemble moral dread in their operation — that is, when doing what is wholesome, there is remorse, as with repenting one's own faults.

What is a predominant unwholesome root? What is a subtly co-arising unwholesome root? And so on, at length. One asks: why is this treatise composed? The answer: it is composed in order to fully discriminate the meaning of this sūtra passage. As the sūtra states: he still possesses a subtly co-arising unwholesome root, not yet cut off, from which there will further arise unwholesome dharmas, and it is on this account that he will retrogress — yet, having said this much, the sūtra does not discriminate its meaning fully, nor does it state what is meant by a predominant unwholesome root, or what is meant by a subtly co-arising unwholesome root. That sūtra is the fundamental basis upon which this treatise depends, and whatever it has left undiscriminated ought now to be discriminated fully, and it is for this reason that this treatise is composed. One asks: why does this passage not speak of the middling grade of unwholesome root? The answer: this is simply because the author of the treatise intended it so, and so on, at length. Further, that it ought to be stated but is not stated here should be understood as a matter of surplus meaning left implicit. Further, having already spoken of the first and the last, the middle is thereby already indicated as well — exactly as, in speaking of first and last, or superior and inferior, or entering and emerging, or the beginning of preparatory effort and its ultimate completion, this same principle should be understood to apply. Further, this passage speaks only of whatever is coarse, manifest, easily understood, easily designated, easily displayed, and easily expressed; the middling grade is not so, and it is for this reason that it is not spoken of here — that is, one of sharp faculties is exemplified by such a figure as Aṅgulimāla, and one of dull faculties is exemplified by such a figure as the serpent-servant; these are coarse, manifest, easily understood, easily designated, easily displayed, and easily expressed, whereas one of middling faculties is not so.

Further, the middling grade is already subsumed within the superior and inferior grades, and is therefore not separately mentioned — that is, when speaking of the superior grade, the middling is included within the inferior, since it is lesser than the superior;

when speaking of the inferior grade, the middling is included within the superior, since it exceeds the inferior. Further, the superior and inferior grades are rare and extraordinary in the world, and it is for this reason that they alone are mentioned; the middling grade is exceedingly common, and, not being extraordinary, is omitted and not mentioned. What is a predominant unwholesome root? The answer: it refers to whichever unwholesome roots are able to cut off wholesome roots, and are the very first to be relinquished at the time of departing from the desire realm's own defilement. One asks: are the unwholesome roots able to cut off wholesome roots precisely the same as those first relinquished at the time of departing from the desire realm's defilement, or are they distinct? Suppose either is granted — what fault would follow? If they are precisely the same, then why does the passage speak of "and"? And if they are distinct, then when are the unwholesome roots able to cut off wholesome roots themselves cut off? There are those who say: they are precisely the same. One asks: if so, then why does the passage speak of "and"? The answer: their meaning differs — that is, a predominant unwholesome root, being exceedingly keen and sharp, is able to cut off wholesome roots, and, being exceedingly coarse and heavy, is the very first to be relinquished at the time of departing from the desire realm's defilement. Further, this unwholesome root is called "predominant" for two reasons: first, because it is able to cut off and extinguish wholesome roots; second, because it is the very first to be relinquished at the time of departing from the desire realm's defilement. There are others who say: they are distinct. One asks: if so, then when are the unwholesome roots able to cut off wholesome roots themselves cut off? The answer: they are cut off at the very first moment of departing from the desire realm's defilement. One asks: how, then, are they distinct? The answer: they differ in extent — that is, those able to cut off wholesome roots are few, while those first relinquished are many, since not everything first cut off at the time of departing from desire is thereby able to cut off wholesome roots. One asks: it is wrong view alone that is able to cut off wholesome roots — why, then, does this passage speak of "unwholesome roots"? The answer: although, at the fundamental stage, it is wrong view that accomplishes the cutting-off, at the stage of preparatory effort it is the unwholesome roots that do so — and, since the function operating at the stage of preparatory effort is the more predominant one, this passage speaks of "unwholesome roots" as cutting off wholesome roots. That is, both defiling and purifying dharmas display their most predominant function at the stage of preparatory effort, not at the stage of ultimate completion — exactly as it is said: when the Bodhisattva beheld old age, sickness, and death oppressing and afflicting the world, a profound weariness and renunciation arose in him, and he first gave rise to the mind resolved upon unsurpassed, perfect, complete enlightenment; and, through the power of this mind, across three great incalculable eons, he cultivated and accumulated every manner of difficult and arduous practice without ever retrogressing — this was exceedingly difficult to accomplish, yet it was not at the moment of the knowledge of exhaustion that he cultivated the predominant wholesome roots of the future, belonging to the three realms; it is at the stage of preparatory effort that the function is most predominant. There are those who say: the very reason wrong view is able to cut off wholesome roots should be understood to lie entirely in the power of the unwholesome roots — that is, the unwholesome roots first subdue the wholesome roots, causing them gradually to weaken until they possess no further strength, and only then is wrong view able to cut them off, and it is for this reason that the passage speaks as it does. There are others who say: this passage speaks of the unwholesome root of delusion associated with wrong view as what is able to cut off wholesome roots, and does not speak of the prior stage's greed and the rest — although it is, in truth, wrong view that cuts off wholesome roots, since delusion predominates at that very moment, the passage speaks as it does, exactly as with the establishments of mindfulness and the like. There are other masters who say:

this passage speaks only of the unwholesome root of delusion as what operates, since it is this alone that predominates during the actual course of operation — that is, when greed and hatred operate, they predominate only during their own actual course of operation, not throughout the whole duration of their operation, whereas wrong view predominates only during the whole duration of its operation, not merely during its actual course; delusion alone predominates at every time, and it is for this reason that this passage speaks of it in particular. It is precisely on account of these stated causes and conditions that wrong view is not established as an unwholesome root in its own right. What is a subtly co-arising unwholesome root? The answer: it refers to whichever unwholesome roots are the very last to be relinquished at the time of departing from the desire realm's defilement; it is through relinquishing them that one is said to have departed from the desire realm's defilement — that is, the very lowest grade of craving, hatred, and delusion belonging to the desire realm is called a subtly co-arising unwholesome root, and it is for this reason that, at the moment of relinquishing it, one is said to have departed from the desire realm's defilement, since it is subtle and difficult to cut off, and is therefore the very last to be departed from.

One asks: when wrong view cuts off wholesome roots, does it do so in a single grade, or does it do so across nine grades? Suppose either is granted — what fault would follow? If it does so in a single grade, then why does the foregoing state that unwholesome roots are able to cut off wholesome roots, since the word "roots," plural, indicates more than a single one? And how, further, is what is stated afterward to be reconciled — namely, "what is a subtly co-arising wholesome root? It is what is last relinquished at the time wholesome roots are cut off"? And if it does so across nine grades, then how is it to be reconciled with what was earlier stated — that what is first relinquished at the time of departing from the desire realm's defilement is called a predominant unwholesome root? How could a wrong view cut off in but a single grade accomplish a ninefold cutting-off of wholesome roots? And how could a wrong view abandoned in but a single grade be spoken of as "a ninefold abandonment" of wholesome roots? There are those who say: it does so in a single grade. One asks: if so, then why does the foregoing state that unwholesome roots are able to cut off wholesome roots? The answer: the earlier passage ought properly to have stated only that "an unwholesome root" is able to cut off wholesome roots, and ought not to have said "roots," plural; yet, in saying "roots," the intent was to reveal that the unwholesome root of delusion associated with the wrong view that cuts off wholesome roots possesses, in its future arising, many distinct moments, and it is for this reason that the passage speaks as it does. Further, at the moment of the actual cutting-off itself there is no plurality of grades, yet, at the stage of preparatory effort, there exist many distinct grades — the word "roots," used in the passage, broadly indicates both the subduing that occurs at the stage of preparatory effort and the actual cutting-off itself, both alike being called "cutting-off." One asks: how, then, is what is stated afterward to be reconciled — namely, "what is a subtly co-arising wholesome root? It is what is last relinquished at the time wholesome roots are cut off"? The answer: this is stated with reference to the cutting-off of the actual manifest function — that is, when wrong view of the very lowest grade manifests before one, it causes the wholesome roots of the very highest grade to cease from actual operation, and so on, in this way, up through: when wrong view of the middling-superior grade manifests before one, it causes the wholesome roots of the middling-inferior grade to cease from actual operation; and when wrong view of the very highest grade manifests before one, it causes the wholesome roots of the very lowest grade to cease from actual operation, and causes all nine grades to cease being actually possessed as well. Thus the first eight grades of wholesome root first attain non-manifest operation, and only afterward attain non-possession, whereas the ninth grade of wholesome root, at the very moment it attains non-manifest operation, thereby simultaneously attains non-possession, since it attains non-manifest operation only gradually, in sequence. It is on this basis that the latter statement speaks of what is last relinquished at the time wholesome roots are cut off as "a subtly co-arising wholesome root," since it attains non-possession all at one single moment; and it is on this basis that the earlier statement speaks of what is first relinquished at the time of departing from the desire realm's defilement as "a predominant unwholesome root able to cut off wholesome roots" — and it is for this reason that the earlier and the later statements are both fully reconciled. It ought rather to be said: it does so across nine grades. One asks: if so, then how is it to be reconciled with the earlier statement — that what is first relinquished at the time of departing from the desire realm's defilement is called a predominant unwholesome root, and so on, at length? The answer: there exist many kinds of "nine grades" — that is, there are nine grades of manifest operation; there are nine grades of ripened fruit; there are nine grades of antidote; and there are nine grades of the cutting-off of wholesome roots. As for the nine grades of manifest operation: there are times when the very lowest grade manifests, and so on, up through times when the very highest grade manifests — and there are those who explain this in terms of these nine grades serving mutually as cause, in that the very lowest grade serves as the cause for the very highest grade, and so on, up through the middling-superior grade serving as the cause for two grades, with the very highest grade serving as the cause only for the very highest grade itself, since an inferior grade may serve as cause for a superior one, but a superior grade cannot serve as cause for an inferior, this not being fitting; and for one who has not attained it through preparatory effort, all nine grades serve, in turn, as mutual causes for one another. As for the nine grades of ripened fruit: it is that karma of the very highest grade receives a ripened fruit of the very highest grade, and so on, down through that karma of the very lowest grade receiving a ripened fruit of the very lowest grade, exactly as the Prajñaptiśāstra states: if one commits the offense of taking life, the very highest grade of this offense results in rebirth in the uninterrupted hell, the middling-superior grade results in rebirth in the great-heat hell, and so on, down through the very lowest grade resulting in rebirth in the animal realm or the realm of hungry ghosts, and so on, at length. As for the nine grades of antidote: it is that illumination of the very lowest grade cuts off ignorance of the very highest grade, and so on, up through illumination of the very highest grade cutting off ignorance of the very lowest grade.

As for the nine grades of the cutting-off of wholesome roots: it is that wrong view of the very lowest grade cuts off the wholesome root of the very highest grade, and so on, up through wrong view of the very highest grade cutting off the wholesome root of the very lowest grade. If one speaks with reference to the nine grades of the cutting-off of wholesome roots, then this wrong view is of nine grades; if one speaks with reference to the nine grades of the antidote, then this wrong view is but a single grade, since it serves as the antidote to all nine grades at once. The earlier statement, that what is first relinquished at the time of departing from the desire realm's defilement is the predominant unwholesome root, speaks with reference to the nine grades of the cutting-off of wholesome roots; the later statement, that what is last relinquished at the time wholesome roots are cut off is the subtly co-arising wholesome root, likewise speaks with reference to the nine grades of the cutting-off of wholesome roots — and it is for this reason that the earlier and the later statements are both fully reconciled. Further, cutting-off is of two kinds: first, as with what is abandoned by seeing, and it is for this reason that the nine grades of wrong view able to cut off wholesome roots are, at the time of departing from the desire realm's defilement, cut off all at once, in a single grade; second, as with what is abandoned by cultivation, and it is for this reason that the nine grades of wholesome root that are cut off are, at the time wholesome roots are cut off, cut off gradually, grade by grade. One asks: what is the meaning of "cutting off wholesome roots"?

The answer: it is not like an axe or the like severing a tree in the ordinary world, since wrong view does not actually come into contact with what is wholesome. Rather, when wrong view manifests before one within one's own continuum, it causes the acquisition through which the wholesome roots are possessed to cease, and causes the acquisition through which they are not possessed to arise, and this is called "cutting-off" — when, within one's own continuum, there exists no acquisition of the wholesome roots whatsoever, it is at that time called "the wholesome roots having already been cut off." One asks: what is the own-nature of this cutting-off of the wholesome roots? There are those who say: it takes non-faith as its own nature — that is, through faith, the wholesome roots continue; through non-faith, the wholesome roots are cut off. There are other masters who say: it takes wrong view as its own nature, since it is through wrong view that the wholesome roots are cut off. There are others who say: it takes the afflictive entanglements present at the time of cutting off wholesome roots as its own nature, since it is through their power that the wholesome roots are cut off. There are yet others who say: it takes all dharmas as its own nature, since, at the time wholesome roots are cut off, all dharmas accord with and follow this same process. The Dārṣṭāntikas say: it possesses no real inherent nature at all — that is, within that continuum, there formerly existed wholesome roots, and now they have simply ceased and been extinguished — what inherent nature could there possibly be? The example they adduce is discussed as in the chapter on the summit. The verdict: it ought to be said that the cutting-off of wholesome roots takes non-possession as its own nature, and is subsumed within the aggregate of formations dissociated from mind, of the non-obstructive indeterminate class — this is stated as belonging among the further such dharmas dissociated from mind mentioned there. One asks: in which realm, destiny, and place can wholesome roots be cut off? The answer: within the desire realm, not within the form or formless realms; within the human destiny, not within any other destiny; within the three continents, excepting the northern continent. The Venerable Ghoṣavarman states as follows: it is only in Jambudvīpa that wholesome roots can be cut off, since the people of this continent act with a keenness of intention, in both wholesome and unwholesome karma, that surpasses the other continents. One asks: if so, then how is what the Indriya Nyāsa states to be reconciled? As it is stated: at most, the people of Jambudvīpa possess nineteen faculties; at least, they possess eight faculties — and, just as with Jambudvīpa, so too with Pūrvavideha and Aparagodānīya. The answer: that passage ought properly to state that the people of the eastern and western continents possess, at most, nineteen faculties, and, at least, thirteen faculties,

and that it does not so state should be understood as an error on the part of the reciter. The verdict: that position ought not to be maintained, since everything recited is alike without variance, and since the actions performed in all three continents are alike keen and sharp — it should therefore be understood that the earlier statement accords with correct principle. One asks: what kind of person is capable of cutting off wholesome roots? The answer: it is only one of the view-type who is capable of cutting off wholesome roots, not one of the craving-type, since one of the view-type possesses a firm and resolute intention, acting with keenness in both wholesome and unwholesome karma, whereas one of the craving-type is fickle and unsteady, being keen in neither the defiled nor the pure. Among those of the view-type, both men and women alike are capable of cutting off wholesome roots. The Venerable Ghoṣavarman states as follows: only men are capable of cutting off wholesome roots, since their disposition is stronger, exactly as the Prajñaptiśāstra states: men perform karma more powerfully than women; men refine their faculties more powerfully than women; men's intentions are more powerful than women's —

and it is therefore known that women are not capable of cutting off wholesome roots. One asks: if so, then how is what the Indriya Nyāsa states to be reconciled? As it is stated: if one possesses the female faculty, one certainly possesses eight faculties, and the same holds for the male faculty. The answer: that passage ought properly to state that if one possesses the female faculty, one certainly possesses thirteen faculties, and if one possesses the male faculty, one certainly possesses eight faculties, and that it does not so state should be understood as an error on the part of the reciter. The verdict: that position ought not to be maintained, since everything recited is alike without variance, and since the actions performed by men and women alike are keen and sharp — exactly as the brahmin woman Cañcā, with a malicious mind, slandered the Buddha in a manner surpassing that of any man. As for the Prajñaptiśāstra's statement that men are superior, this is said with reference to the majority of cases, not to every case without exception, and it is on this basis that it should be understood that the earlier statement is to be preferred. One asks: are eunuchs, hermaphrodites, and those of no determinate sex or of both sexes together capable of cutting off wholesome roots? The answer: they are not. Why is this so?

It was already stated above that it is one whose intention is firm and resolute, and who acts with keenness, who is capable of cutting off wholesome roots; eunuchs and the like are fickle and unsteady in their intention, and their actions are correspondingly weak.

Further, it is one of the view-type who is capable of cutting off wholesome roots, and such persons belong to the craving-type. Further, it is one predominantly given to hatred who is capable of cutting off wholesome roots, whereas such persons are predominantly given to craving.

One asks: which wholesome roots are cut off — only those of the desire realm, or those pervading all three realms? Suppose either is granted — what fault would follow? If only those of the desire realm are cut off, then how is what the Vijñānakāya states to be reconciled? As it is stated: if one, killing an ant's egg, feels not the slightest regret, it should be said that this person has cut off the wholesome roots of all three realms. And if the wholesome roots pervading all three realms are cut off, then how could the wholesome roots of the higher realms, not previously possessed at all, now be cut off? The answer: it ought to be said that only the wholesome roots of the desire realm are cut off. One asks: if so, then how is what the Vijñānakāya states to be reconciled? The answer: that passage ought properly to state that, if one, killing an ant's egg, feels not the slightest regret, it should be said that this person has cut off the wholesome roots subsumed within the three realms; and that it does not so state is in order to make the number "three" complete — that is, one has previously possessed the wholesome roots of the desire realm, while the wholesome roots of the higher realms are already not possessed; now, cutting off the wholesome roots of the desire realm as well, the wholesome roots of all three realms alike become unpossessed, and it is only through the stage of cutting off wholesome roots that this number "three" is thereby completed — and it is on this account that this person is spoken of as having cut off the wholesome roots of the three realms. There are those who say: the wholesome roots pervading the three realms are indeed cut off. One asks: how, then, could the wholesome roots of the higher realms, not previously possessed, now be cut off? The answer: within what is already not possessed, one becomes yet further removed from possessing it, and it is on account of this further removal that this, too, is called "cutting-off." Further, the wholesome roots of the higher realms grow and flourish in dependence on the wholesome roots of the desire realm; if the wholesome roots of the desire realm are cut off, those of the higher realms thereby wither, and it is for this reason that they, too, are said to be cut off. Further, the wholesome roots of the desire realm serve as the gateway, the preparatory basis, and the very foothold and support for the wholesome roots of the higher realms; if the wholesome roots of the desire realm are cut off, then the higher realms' wholesome roots are thereby left without any such gateway, and are likewise said to be cut off. Further, were the wholesome roots of the desire realm not cut off, the wholesome roots of the higher realms could still possibly grow and accumulate further; now that the wholesome roots of the desire realm are cut off, the wholesome roots of the higher realms have no possibility of further growth and accumulation, and it is for this reason that they, too, are said to be cut off. It is on this basis that the Venerable Ghoṣa has stated: were the wholesome roots of the desire realm not cut off, the wholesome roots of the form and formless realms could still be obtained through growth; it is on account of this cutting-off that they can no longer arise, and it is for this reason that they, too, are said to be cut off. One asks: why does this passage speak only of killing an ant's egg with a mind free of any regret, and not of some other case? The answer: an ant's egg is entirely without fault and without any use to a person, and yet one kills it without the slightest regret — how much more, then, would this hold for something that does possess fault or use? And it is thereby known that such a person has already cut off his wholesome roots, and it is for this reason that this passage speaks of this case in particular. One asks: is it the wholesome roots gained through preparatory effort that are cut off, or the wholesome roots innately obtained at birth? The answer: it ought to be said that only the wholesome roots innately obtained at birth are cut off, since the wholesome roots gained through preparatory effort have already, previously, been relinquished. There are those who say: the wholesome roots gained through preparatory effort are cut off as well. One asks: if these are already not possessed, how can they now be said to be "cut off"? The answer: within what is already not possessed, one becomes yet further removed from possessing it, and it is on account of this further removal that this, too, is called "cutting-off" — such matters as these possess many different senses, exactly as broadly explained in the discussion of the three realms above. Here, there exists a further sense not shared with the other case — namely, that the wholesome roots gained through preparatory effort take the wholesome roots innately obtained at birth as their cause and condition, their fundamental basis, and their co-arising ground, and it is for this reason that, when the latter are cut off, the former, too, are said to be cut off.

One asks: is it only wrong view taking a contaminated dharma as its object that is capable of cutting off wholesome roots, or is wrong view taking an uncontaminated dharma as its object capable of this as well? There are those who say: it is only wrong view taking a contaminated dharma as its object that is capable of cutting off wholesome roots, since it possesses the power of a twofold bondage. The verdict: it ought to be said that wrong view taking an uncontaminated dharma as its object is likewise capable of cutting off wholesome roots, since, although it possesses no bondage through its object, it nonetheless grows and flourishes in strength through the power of its cause. One asks: is it only wrong view taking a conditioned dharma as its object that is capable of cutting off wholesome roots, or is wrong view taking an unconditioned dharma as its object capable of this as well? There are those who say: it is only wrong view taking a conditioned dharma as its object that is capable of cutting off wholesome roots, the reasoning being as stated above. The verdict: it ought to be said that wrong view taking an unconditioned dharma as its object is likewise capable of cutting off wholesome roots, the reasoning being as stated above. One asks: is it only wrong view taking as its object something of the same class, realm, and stage that is capable of cutting off wholesome roots, or is wrong view taking as its object something of a different class, realm, and stage capable of this as well? There are those who say: it is only wrong view taking as its object something of the same class, realm, and stage that is capable of cutting off wholesome roots, the reasoning being as stated above. The verdict: it ought to be said that wrong view taking as its object something of a different class, realm, and stage is likewise capable of cutting off wholesome roots, the reasoning being as stated above. One asks: among wrong view taking as its object something of the same class, realm, and stage, is it wrong view that denies the cause that is capable of cutting off wholesome roots, or is it wrong view that denies the fruit? There are those who say: it is only wrong view that denies the cause that is capable of cutting off wholesome roots, exactly as stated: if one, killing an ant's egg, feels not the slightest regret, it should be said that this person has cut off the wholesome roots of the three realms. There are other masters who say: it is only wrong view that denies the fruit that is capable of cutting off wholesome roots, exactly as stated: if one is fixedly convinced that there exists no wholesome or unwholesome karma, and no ripened fruit of karma at all, it should be said that this person has cut off the wholesome roots of the three realms. The verdict: it ought to be said that wrong view denying the cause and wrong view denying the fruit are both alike capable of cutting off wholesome roots — wrong view denying the cause is like the uninterrupted path, and wrong view denying the fruit is like the path of liberation; wrong view denying the cause arises together with the cessation of the acquisition through which wholesome roots are possessed, while wrong view denying the fruit arises together with the acquisition through which they are not possessed, and it is for this reason that both of these alike are capable of cutting off wholesome roots. One asks: at the moment the nine grades of wholesome root are cut off, does this occur without any interruption in the arising of the cutting mind, or does it occur through the repeated arising of that mind? There are those who say:

it occurs without interruption, exactly as with the path of seeing. There are other masters who say: it occurs through repeated arising, exactly as with the path of cultivation. The verdict: it ought to be said that this is not fixed — there are cases where, without interruption, one is able to continue cutting until all nine grades are exhausted; and there are cases where only a single grade is cut off before the mind arises again, or two, or three, up through as many as eight, and only afterward does the mind arise once more to cut off the remaining grade. One asks: for one who abides in formal restraint, at the time his wholesome roots are cut off, does he first relinquish the restraint and only afterward cut off the wholesome roots, or does he relinquish the restraint at the very moment of cutting them off? There are those who say: he first relinquishes the restraint, and only afterward cuts off the wholesome roots — that is, within his own continuum, a certain kind of wrong view first arises and relinquishes the restraint, and a certain kind of wrong view afterward arises and cuts off the wholesome roots, exactly as a fierce wind, blowing against a tree, first strips away its branches and leaves, and only afterward uproots it entirely — so too is it here. The verdict: it ought to be said that this is not fixed. Why is this so? In accordance with whichever kind of mind arises, that corresponding kind of restraint is thereby present; the moment that mind is relinquished, that restraint is correspondingly relinquished as well.

One asks: at the time wholesome roots are reconnected, does this occur all at once across the nine grades, or does it occur gradually, grade by grade? There are those who say: it occurs gradually, grade by grade. There are other masters who say: if one is to die out of the hells and be reborn once more in the hells, one is able to reconnect three grades; if one is to die out of the hells and be reborn in the animal realm or the realm of hungry ghosts, one is able to reconnect six grades; if one is to die out of the hells and be reborn among humans or gods, one is able to reconnect all nine grades. The verdict: it ought to be said that all nine grades are reconnected all at once, yet manifest gradually before one — just as one recovering from illness has his sickness entirely removed at a single moment, yet his strength returns only gradually thereafter. Yet, for one who is to die out of the hells and be reborn once more in the hells, the acquisition of three grades of wholesome root is both present within his body and possessed, and also manifest before him, while the acquisition of the remaining six grades, though present, is neither possessed nor manifest before him; for one who is to die out of the hells and be reborn in the animal realm or the realm of hungry ghosts, the acquisition of six grades of wholesome root is both present within his body and possessed, and also manifest before him, while the acquisition of the remaining three grades, though present, is neither possessed nor manifest before him; for one who is to die out of the hells and be reborn among humans or gods, the acquisition of all nine grades of wholesome root is both present within his body and possessed, and also manifest before him. One asks: are wholesome roots more often cut off, or more often reconnected? The answer: however many are cut off, that same number are reconnected — that is, if the desire realm's own wholesome roots are cut off, it is the desire realm's own wholesome roots that are reconnected; if wholesome roots innately obtained at birth are cut off, it is wholesome roots innately obtained at birth that are reconnected; if all nine grades are cut off, all nine grades are reconnected. One asks: once wholesome roots have been cut off, is one still able, within this very life, to reconnect them? The answer: with reference to what the Prajñaptiśāstra states, one is, within this very life, unable to reconnect one's wholesome roots — it is decisively only at the moment of being reborn within the hells, or at the moment of dying there, that one is then able to reconnect them, exactly as that treatise states: if one, killing an ant's egg, feels not the slightest regret, it should be said that this person has cut off the wholesome roots of the three realms, and that such a person is, within this very life, unable to reconnect his wholesome roots, being decisively able to reconnect them only at the moment of being reborn within the hells, or at the moment of dying there. One asks: who is it that reconnects his wholesome roots at the moment of being reborn within the hells, and who is it that reconnects his wholesome roots at the moment of dying there? The answer: if, within the intermediate state prior to hell, one has not yet received the ripened fruit of the wrong view that cut off one's wholesome roots, one reconnects them at the moment of being reborn within the hells; if, within the intermediate state prior to hell, one has already received the ripened fruit of that wrong view, then it is only at the moment of dying within the hells, once that fruit is exhausted, that one is able to reconnect one's wholesome roots. Why is this so? Just as wrong view stands in opposition to wholesome roots, so too does its ripened fruit. Further, if wholesome roots were cut off through the power of a cause, one reconnects them only at the moment of dying within the hells; if they were cut off through the power of a condition, one is able to reconnect them at the moment of being reborn within the hells. Further, if wholesome roots were cut off through one's own power, one reconnects them only at the moment of dying; if they were cut off through another's power, one is able to reconnect them at the moment of being reborn. Further, if they were cut off through the power of one's own inherent nature, one reconnects them only at the moment of dying; if they were cut off through the power of accumulated provisions, one is able to reconnect them at the moment of being reborn. Further, if one's cutting-off occurred through the ruin of both view and precepts together, one reconnects only at the moment of dying; if one's view alone was ruined while one's precepts remained intact, one is able to reconnect at the moment of being reborn. Further, if one's cutting-off occurred through the ruin of both intention and preparatory effort together, one reconnects only at the moment of dying; if one's intention alone was ruined while one's preparatory effort remained intact, one is able to reconnect at the moment of being reborn. Further, if one's cutting-off occurred through taking the view of eternalism as one's preparatory basis, one reconnects only at the moment of dying; if it occurred through taking the view of annihilationism as one's preparatory basis, one is able to reconnect at the moment of being reborn. The Venerable Ghoṣa states as follows: for one who has cut off his wholesome roots, there are cases in which, at the moment of being reborn within the hells, the ripened fruit of an unwholesome karma manifests before him, and he then thinks: I myself formerly committed such an evil deed as this, and must now undergo this undesired fruit — and, at the moment this conviction arises, this is called reconnecting one's wholesome roots. There are also cases in which, having already been born within the hells, one directly undergoes the ripened fruit of suffering, and thinks: I myself formerly committed such an evil deed as this, and am now myself undergoing this very fruit of suffering — and, at the moment this conviction arises, this, too, is called reconnecting one's wholesome roots. Further, if one speaks with reference to correct principle, one who has cut off his wholesome roots is, in fact, able to reconnect them within this very life as well — that is, should he encounter a learned and wholesome friend, complete in precepts, eloquence, and dignified speech, capable of expounding the Dharma for him and drawing forth his own mind, telling him: with respect to the correct principle of cause and effect, you ought to give rise to faith and understanding, and not give rise to any wrongful slander — just as, toward myself, you ought to serve and revere me with a pure and sincere mind, so too ought you to do toward my other reverend fellow practitioners of the pure conduct — through this you shall obtain security throughout the long night to come —

and, hearing these words, he rejoices and receives them with faith — one should know that this is itself already a reconnecting of his wholesome roots. It is for this reason that wholesome roots admit of reconnection within this very life, and also of reconnection only after transmigrating into a new body. One asks: who reconnects within this very life, and who reconnects only after transmigrating into a new body? The answer: if one who has cut off his wholesome roots has not also committed any offense of uninterrupted retribution, he is able to reconnect them within this very life; if one who has cut off his wholesome roots has also committed an offense of uninterrupted retribution, he reconnects them only after transmigrating into a new body. Further, if wholesome roots were cut off through the power of a condition, one is able to reconnect them within this very life; if they were cut off through the power of a cause, one reconnects them only after transmigrating into a new body. Further, if one's cutting-off occurred through another's power, one is able to reconnect within this very life;

if it occurred through one's own power, one reconnects only after transmigrating into a new body. Further, if one's cutting-off occurred through the power of accumulated provisions, one is able to reconnect within this very life; if it occurred through the power of one's own inherent nature, one reconnects only after transmigrating into a new body. Further, if one's view alone was ruined while one's precepts remained intact, one is able to reconnect within this very life; if both view and precepts were ruined together, one reconnects only after transmigrating into a new body. Further, if one's intention alone was ruined while one's preparatory effort remained intact, one is able to reconnect within this very life; if both intention and preparatory effort were ruined together, one reconnects only after transmigrating into a new body. One asks: if reconnection within this very life is indeed possible, then how is what the earlier-cited Prajñaptiśāstra states to be reconciled? The answer: what that treatise states — that one is unable to reconnect within this very life — refers precisely to the case already described, namely, one who has cut off his wholesome roots and has also committed an offense of uninterrupted retribution, or one whose wholesome roots were cut off through the power of a cause, and the like. One asks: for one who reconnects his wholesome roots within this very life, does he, once his life ends, necessarily proceed to rebirth in the hells? The answer: this is not fixed — it is only one who reconnects his wholesome roots after transmigrating into a new body who is certain to be reborn within the hells. One asks: abiding in what state of mind is one able to reconnect his wholesome roots?

The answer: it may be while abiding in a state of doubt, or while abiding in correct view — that is, with respect to cause and effect, at times one gives rise to doubt, thinking, perhaps this does indeed exist; or one gives rise to correct view, thinking, this does most certainly exist — at that very moment, the acquisition of wholesome roots is regained and reconnection begins; and, since a wholesome acquisition thereby arises, this is called reconnecting one's wholesome roots. One asks: who reconnects while abiding in doubt, and who reconnects while abiding in correct view? There are those who say: one who reconnects after transmigrating into a new body does so while abiding in doubt, while one who reconnects within this very life does so while abiding in correct view. The verdict: it ought to be said that this is not fixed. One asks: once wholesome roots are reconnected, are they thereby immediately able to arise and manifest? There are those who say: one who reconnects within this very life is able to give rise to their manifest operation; one who reconnects after transmigrating into a new body merely comes to possess them. The verdict: it ought to be said that this is not fixed. One asks: for one who reconnects his wholesome roots within this very life, is that same body of his, in this very life, able to enter correct and determined progress toward realization? There are those who say: it is not able to, since his continuum has been ruined by wrong view, his wholesome roots left so weak and feeble that he cannot even give rise to the aids to penetration, much less enter correct and determined progress. There are others who say: although that body of his is, in this present state, unable to enter correct and determined progress, it is nonetheless able to give rise to the aids to penetration. The verdict: it ought to be said that he is indeed able to give rise to the aids to penetration, and is moreover able to enter correct and determined progress, and can, in time, even attain the fruit of arhatship — exactly as with the brahmin Udraka and others, who, having cut off their wholesome roots, were afterward taught the Dharma by the Venerable Śāriputra, causing them to reconnect their wholesome roots and gradually attain the vision of the truth, up through its ultimate completion, exactly as broadly explained within the Vinaya. One asks: which carries the graver offense — killing one who has cut off his wholesome roots, or killing an ant's egg? The answer: with reference to what the Prajñaptiśāstra states, if the accompanying afflictive entanglement is equal in each case, the offense is correspondingly equal, since the ripened fruit received is no different; if the entanglement is unequal, the offense correspondingly varies. There are those who say: killing an ant's egg is the graver offense, not killing one who has cut off his wholesome roots, since an ant's egg still possesses its wholesome roots intact. There are others who say: killing one who has cut off his wholesome roots incurs the graver offense, since a human being belongs to a wholesome destiny, and harming him is therefore graver. The verdict: it ought to be said that, with reference to the assessment of formal culpability, killing one who has cut off his wholesome roots incurs the graver offense, since it constitutes an offense at the very margin of what formal culpability can reach;

with reference to the karmic path itself, killing an ant's egg is graver, since it still possesses every one of its wholesome dharmas intact. One asks: are all those who have cut off their wholesome roots thereby fixed within the class of the wrongly determined? There are those who say: all those who have cut off their wholesome roots do indeed belong to the class of the wrongly determined; and there are those who belong to the class of the wrongly determined yet have not cut off their wholesome roots — as with King Ajātaśatru and the like, who committed an offense of uninterrupted retribution without having cut off their wholesome roots. The verdict: it ought to be said that

this admits of four alternatives: there is one who has cut off his wholesome roots yet does not belong to the class of the wrongly determined — as with Pūraṇa and the other five heterodox teachers, who cut off their wholesome roots without committing any offense of uninterrupted retribution; there is one who belongs to the class of the wrongly determined yet has not cut off his wholesome roots — as with King Ajātaśatru and the like; there is one who has both cut off his wholesome roots and belongs to the class of the wrongly determined — as with Devadatta and the like, who both cut off their wholesome roots and committed an offense of uninterrupted retribution; and there is one who neither has cut off his wholesome roots nor belongs to the class of the wrongly determined — namely, whatever remains apart from the foregoing. One asks: in what place is the ripened fruit of the wrong view that cuts off wholesome roots received? The answer: its ripened fruit is received within the uninterrupted hell — just as an arhat's own destination is the very highest, arriving at nirvāṇa, so too does one who has cut off his wholesome roots have as his own destination the very lowest, arriving at the uninterrupted hell. Further, just as the concentration belonging to the peak of existence, being the most excellent among contaminated wholesome states, receives the ripened fruit belonging to the peak of existence, so too, the wrong view that cuts off wholesome roots, being the most excellent among evils, receives its ripened fruit within the uninterrupted hell. One asks: in what place is the fruit of an offense of uninterrupted retribution received? The answer: if one has cut off one's wholesome roots, then every offense of uninterrupted retribution, together with the further offense of schism within the saṅgha, is necessarily received within the uninterrupted hell; if one has not cut off one's wholesome roots, then the remaining four offenses of uninterrupted retribution may have their ripened fruit received either within the uninterrupted hell or within some other hell. One asks: with respect to the class of homogeneous being, is the wrong view that cuts off wholesome roots able only to bring it to completion, or is it also able to draw it forth? The answer: it is able both to draw it forth and to bring it to completion. There are those who say: it is able only to bring it to completion, and is not able to draw it forth. Why is this so? It is karma that is able to draw forth the fruit of the class of homogeneous being, and this wrong view is not itself karma. Those who hold the former position are to be preferred, since intentional karma exists in association with wrong view, and wrong view shares one and the same fruit together with it.