What Makes an Ordinary Being Ordinary

What is the nature of an ordinary being? And so on, at length. One asks: why is this treatise composed? The answer: it is composed in order to refute other schools and to reveal the correct meaning — that is, there are those who hold that the ten latent tendencies of the desire realm abandoned by seeing suffering are themselves the nature of an ordinary being, as the Vātsīputrīyas maintain, who say that the nature of an ordinary being is bound to the desire realm, is of a defiled nature, is abandoned by seeing, and is subsumed within the associated aggregate of formations; in order to block this position, and to reveal that the nature of an ordinary being is bound to all three realms, is abandoned by cultivation, is undefiled, and is subsumed within the dissociated aggregate of formations, or, further, there are those who hold that the nature of an ordinary being possesses no genuine substance at all, as the Dārṣṭāntikas maintain; in order to block this position, and to reveal that the nature of an ordinary being genuinely possesses its own substance, and in order to block these various mistaken positions held by different schools, and to reveal correct principle, this treatise is composed. This foundational treatise speaks of "the nature of an ordinary being"; the Prakaraṇapāda speaks instead of "the dharmas of an ordinary being."

As it states: what are the dharmas of an ordinary being? They refer to the hell-destiny, the destiny of beasts, the realm of hungry ghosts, the continent of Uttarakuru, and the heaven of no-perception — the karma and the birth belonging to these are called the dharmas of an ordinary being. One asks: why does this foundational treatise speak of the nature of an ordinary being rather than the dharmas of an ordinary being, while the Prakaraṇapāda speaks of the dharmas of an ordinary being rather than the nature of an ordinary being? The answer: this is simply because the author of each treatise intended it so.

Further, both are, in each case, a matter of surplus meaning left implicit. Further, these two treatises each speak of one and thereby illuminate the other by implication. Further, the nature of an ordinary being is the more preeminent of the two, not the dharmas of an ordinary being, and this foundational treatise, speaking with reference to what is preeminent, has already spoken of the nature of an ordinary being, and it is for this reason that the Prakaraṇapāda does not speak of it again; this treatise has not yet spoken of the dharmas of an ordinary being, and it is for this reason that the Prakaraṇapāda speaks of them — this shows that that treatise was composed after this one. There are those who say: that treatise had already spoken of the dharmas of an ordinary being, and it is for this reason that this treatise does not speak of them again; that treatise had not yet spoken of the nature of an ordinary being, and it is for this reason that this treatise speaks of it — this shows that that treatise was composed before this one. One asks: why is it named the nature of an ordinary being? The Venerable Vasumitra offers this explanation: it is able to cause sentient beings to give rise to divergent views, divergent afflictions, and to create divergent karma, undergoing divergent fruits and divergent births, and it is for this reason named the nature of an ordinary being. Further, it is able to cause sentient beings to fall into divergent realms, to proceed toward divergent destinies, and to undergo divergent births, and it is for this reason named the nature of an ordinary being. Further, it is able to cause sentient beings to place their faith in divergent teachers, to adopt divergent marks, to undergo divergent dharmas, to practice divergent conduct, and to seek divergent fruits, and it is for this reason named the nature of an ordinary being.

The Great Virtuous One states: it is able to cause sentient beings to rely upon divergent realms, destinies, and states of existence, giving rise to every kind of distorted affliction, creating and increasing the karma that draws forth future existence, revolving through birth and death without any bound or limit, and it is for this reason named the nature of an ordinary being. The masters of the Abhidharma state: it is on account of the ordinary being's own portion, and the ordinary being's own substance, that it is named the nature of an ordinary being. The Venerable Ghoṣa states as follows: it is on account of the ordinary being's own class that it is named the nature of an ordinary being. The Venerable Pārśva states: it is the basis of an ordinary being, and it obstructs the nature of nobility, and it is for this reason named the nature of an ordinary being. One asks: why is it named the dharmas of an ordinary being? The answer: it is because ordinary beings possess these dharmas that they are named the dharmas of an ordinary being, exactly as, in the world, one speaks of the king's own law, or the minister's own law. One asks: noble ones, too, possess these dharmas — why, then, is the name "dharmas of an ordinary being" established for them alone? The answer: noble ones, for the most part, do not possess these dharmas, and even should they possess a small portion, this would not be called a noble dharma, since a noble one, with respect to such a dharma, may have attained it without it being present within his own continuum, possessed without it currently manifesting before him; it is the ordinary being alone who, with respect to it, has both attained it and possesses it within his own continuum, both possessed and currently manifesting before him, and it is for this reason called the dharmas of an ordinary being. Further, an ordinary being's own possession of these dharmas causes these dharmas to take hold of their own fruit and to confer their own fruit, and it is for this reason called the dharmas of an ordinary being; a noble one, though he too may possess these dharmas, is not so, and they are therefore not called noble dharmas. Further, an ordinary being's own possession of these dharmas causes these dharmas to proceed toward a divergent destiny, a divergent realm, a divergent place, and a divergent birth, undergoing a divergent fruit, and it is for this reason called the dharmas of an ordinary being; a noble one, though he too may possess these dharmas, is not so, and they are therefore not called noble dharmas. Further, the nature of an ordinary being is itself contaminated, and these dharmas, too, are contaminated, and it is for this reason called the dharmas of an ordinary being; the nature of nobility is itself uncontaminated, and these dharmas are not uncontaminated, and it is for this reason not called noble dharmas. Further, it is because the ordinary being is covered over by these dharmas, bound by them, and deceived and confused by them, that they are called the dharmas of an ordinary being; the noble one is not so, and they are therefore not called noble dharmas. Further, every class of ordinary being accords with these dharmas and cultivates their growth, and it is for this reason called the dharmas of an ordinary being; the noble one is not so, and they are therefore not called noble dharmas. One asks: what distinction is there between the nature of an ordinary being and the dharmas of an ordinary being? The answer: the nature of an ordinary being is solely non-material; the dharmas of an ordinary being span both material and non-material. The nature of an ordinary being is solely invisible; the dharmas of an ordinary being span both visible and invisible. The nature of an ordinary being is solely non-resistant; the dharmas of an ordinary being span both resistant and non-resistant. The nature of an ordinary being is solely dissociated; the dharmas of an ordinary being span both associated and dissociated. The nature of an ordinary being possesses solely no basis, no object, and no aspect; the dharmas of an ordinary being span both possessing and lacking these. The nature of an ordinary being is solely undefiled, blameless, and lacking any ripening; the dharmas of an ordinary being span both possessing and lacking these qualities. Further, the nature of an ordinary being is solely undefined; the dharmas of an ordinary being span the wholesome, the unwholesome, and the undefined.

The nature of an ordinary being is bound to all three realms; the dharmas of an ordinary being are bound solely to the desire and form realms. The nature of an ordinary being is solely abandoned by cultivation; the dharmas of an ordinary being span both what is abandoned by seeing and by cultivation. Further, the nature of an ordinary being is the cause; the dharmas of an ordinary being are the fruit, exactly as cause and effect, and agent and object, likewise relate to one another.

Further, the nature of an ordinary being is subsumed within the dharma-realm, the dharma-sense-field, and the aggregate of formations; the dharmas of an ordinary being are subsumed within the eighteen realms, twelve sense-fields, and five aggregates. Further, the nature of an ordinary being is relinquished at the moment of the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering; the dharmas of an ordinary being are relinquished at other times — such gateways as these constitute their distinction. As the Blessed One has stated: whoever practices dharma-following through faith or through the Dharma transcends the ground of the ordinary being; before attaining the fruit of stream-entry, he is certain never to undergo death in the interim. One asks: why is it named the ground of the ordinary being? The answer: every noble one alike is named "born together"; this is different from that, and it is therefore named "born differently" — the ground that accommodates the name "ordinary being" is named the ground of the ordinary being. One asks: if that is so, then, since noble ones, too, are different from ordinary beings, ought they not also to be named ordinary beings? The answer: every noble one alike gathers together in true principle, alike sees and alike aspires, and it is for this reason named "born together"; ordinary beings are not so, and, being worthy of disdain, the name "ordinary being" is established for them — this ought not to be pressed as an objection. The Venerable Vasumitra offers this explanation: it accommodates the arising of divergent views, divergent afflictions, and the creation of divergent karma, falling into divergent realms, proceeding toward divergent destinies, and so on, undergoing birth thereby, and it is for this reason named the ground of the ordinary being. Further, it accommodates faith in divergent teachers, broadly, up through the seeking of divergent fruits, and it is for this reason named the ground of the ordinary being. The Great Virtuous One states: it is on account of being different from the true Dharma and the Vinaya, and yet undergoing birth thereby, that one is named an ordinary being — this being the very basis upon which ordinary beings arise and grow is named the ground of the ordinary being. What is the nature of an ordinary being? The answer: with respect to the noble dharmas, the noble heat, the noble view, the noble forbearance, the noble aspiration, and the noble wisdom, whatever has not yet been attained, is not presently attained, and will not come to be attained — this is called the nature of an ordinary being. One asks: is it non-attainment of the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering that constitutes the nature of an ordinary being, or is it non-attainment of every noble dharma whatsoever that constitutes the nature of an ordinary being? Suppose either — what fault follows? If it is non-attainment of the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering that constitutes the nature of an ordinary being, then, once the subsequent-knowledge of the path has already arisen, the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering is relinquished, and, at that time, this forbearance is not attained — this ought then to be the nature of an ordinary being, and one abiding in the path of cultivation or the path beyond further training ought then to be named an ordinary being as well. If it is non-attainment of every noble dharma whatsoever that constitutes the nature of an ordinary being, then every sentient being whatsoever ought to be named an ordinary being, since no noble one possesses every noble dharma — even the Buddha does not possess the noble dharmas of the two lesser vehicles, nor the learner's dharmas belonging to a vehicle other than his own, and he, too, ought then to be named an ordinary being. There are those who say: it is non-attainment of the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering that constitutes the nature of an ordinary being.

One asks: if that is so, then, once the subsequent-knowledge of the path has already arisen, the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering is relinquished, and, at that time, this forbearance is not attained — ought this not then to be the nature of an ordinary being, and one abiding in the path of cultivation or the path beyond further training ought then to be named an ordinary being as well? The answer: at the very moment the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering arises, it destroys that very non-attainment, causing it never again to arise within one's own continuum — one abiding in the path of cultivation or the path beyond further training, though he no longer possesses the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering, is nonetheless not thereby said to lack its attainment, nor is he said to possess it, exactly as, when the eye faculty first arises, it destroys the prior non-attainment, causing it never again to arise within one's own continuum — once the eye faculty has ceased, though one no longer possesses it, one is nonetheless not thereby said to lack its attainment, nor is one said to possess it; this, too, is exactly the same, and it is for this reason that no such fault as stated above follows. Further, once the subsequent-knowledge of the path has already arisen, though the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering is no longer possessed, one nonetheless possesses its equal-outflow fruit, and one is therefore not thereby named an ordinary being. There are yet others who say: it is non-attainment of every noble dharma whatsoever that constitutes the nature of an ordinary being. One asks: if that is so, then every sentient being whatsoever ought to be named an ordinary being, since no noble one possesses every noble dharma? The answer: although no noble one possesses every noble dharma in full, he is nonetheless not thereby an ordinary being, since his own non-attainment is intermixed with genuine noble attainment — that is, if the non-attainment of noble dharmas within a given continuum is not intermixed with any genuine attainment, this constitutes the nature of an ordinary being; within a noble one's own continuum, the non-attainment of noble dharmas is intermixed with genuine noble attainment,

and it is for this reason that no such fault as this constitutes the nature of an ordinary being, since attainment and non-attainment forever arise together. Further, non-attainment is, in brief, of two kinds: first, shared; second, unshared. The unshared kind constitutes the nature of an ordinary being; the shared kind does not constitute the nature of an ordinary being. Within a noble one's own continuum, the non-attainment of noble dharmas is invariably of the shared kind, and it is for this reason that no such fault as this follows.

Further, non-attainment is, in brief, again of two kinds: first, not yet destroyed; second, already destroyed. That not yet destroyed constitutes the nature of an ordinary being; that already destroyed does not constitute the nature of an ordinary being. Within a noble one's own continuum, the non-attainment of noble dharmas has, in every case, already been destroyed, and it is for this reason that no such fault as this follows. Further, the non-attainment of every noble dharma is, in brief, of two kinds: first, that which manifests in dependence on the continuum of an ordinary being; second, that which manifests in dependence on the continuum of a noble one — the former constitutes the nature of an ordinary being, the latter does not, and it is for this reason that no fault of a noble one being named an ordinary being follows. One asks: what distinction is there among noble dharma, noble heat, noble view, noble forbearance, noble aspiration, and noble wisdom? There are those who say: within this passage, these six expressions all jointly reveal the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering — the first is a general term, the remaining five are particular terms;

the first is abbreviated, the remaining five are elaborated; the first is undifferentiated, the remaining five are differentiated — that is, this forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering causes the seeds of the aggregates all to wither and fade, and it is therefore named noble heat; it seeks out the principle of the truths, and is therefore named noble view; it forbears and accepts the principle of the truths, and is therefore named noble forbearance; it delights in and cherishes the principle of the truths, and is therefore named noble aspiration; it discerns and settles the principle of the truths, and is therefore named noble wisdom. Further, this forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering causes the seeds of existence all to wither and fade, and it is therefore named noble heat; it seeks out the operation of formations, and is therefore named noble view; it forbears and accepts the operation of formations, and is therefore named noble forbearance; it delights in liberation, and is therefore named noble aspiration; it awakens to and comprehends the principle of the truths, and is therefore named noble wisdom. There are those who say: the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering belonging to the six stages is precisely what these six expressions reveal. There are those who say: the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering belonging to the six lineages is precisely what these six expressions reveal. There are yet others who say: within this passage, these six expressions all jointly reveal every noble dharma whatsoever — that is, the meaning of noble dharmas taken as a whole includes both a general and a particular sense —

the first is a general term, the remaining five are particular terms, the two readings given for the particular five being understood exactly as before. There are those who say: it is every noble dharma belonging to the six lineages that these six expressions reveal.

There are those who say: it is the dharmas of the learner and the non-learner belonging to the three vehicles that these six expressions reveal. There are yet other masters who say: within this passage, two kinds of noble dharma are revealed — the genuine, and the resembling. The resembling noble dharmas are precisely heat and the other three wholesome roots conducive to penetration; the genuine noble dharmas — that is, the noble dharmas proper — refer to the uncontaminated path itself: noble heat refers to the stage of heat; noble view refers to the stage of summit; noble forbearance refers to the stages of lesser and middling forbearance; noble aspiration refers to the stage of superior forbearance; and noble wisdom refers to the supreme mundane dharma. If one has not yet cultivated and attained heat and the other three stages, one should be known to be, in every respect, an ordinary being; once one has attained heat and the rest, one, too, may be named a resembling noble one, exactly as the Blessed One has stated: whoever possesses and has attained the wholesome roots of heat and the rest, I declare to be a resembling noble one. Yet the nature of an ordinary being is solely the non-attainment or the non-non-attainment of the genuine noble dharmas, not of any other kind, and it is for this reason that this position ought not to speak of heat and the rest in this connection. As for heat and the rest, ought this nature of an ordinary being to be said to be wholesome, unwholesome, or undefined? The answer: it should be said to be undefined, since it has the nature of uncovered-undefined non-attainment — every kind of non-attainment whatsoever is subsumed within the uncovered-undefined moral quality. One asks: among these four kinds of undefined — ripened, and the rest — which does this belong to? The answer: it is subsumed within none of these four; it is solely an equal-outflow of the uncovered-undefined kind. One asks: why is this not the covered-undefined kind? The answer: it is because this nature is not relinquished at the moment of becoming free from defilement. Why, then, is the nature of an ordinary being not wholesome? The answer: a wholesome dharma is attained either through applied practice or through some other condition; there exists no case of one who deliberately undertakes applied practice in order to seek to become an ordinary being — further, when one cuts off the wholesome roots, every wholesome dharma is relinquished, and one attains the state of non-possession of every wholesome dharma —

were the nature of an ordinary being itself wholesome, then one who has cut off the wholesome roots ought thereby to cease being an ordinary being; yet a mere statement of words does not thereby establish its own meaning, and it is for this reason that this treatise, through further question and answer, reveals that the nature of an ordinary being is neither wholesome nor otherwise. Here, there are those who say: "a wholesome dharma is attained either through applied practice" reveals whatever wholesome dharma is drawn forth by applied practice; "or through some other condition" reveals whatever future wholesome dharma is cultivated in this way.

Further, "a wholesome dharma is attained either through applied practice" reveals wholesomeness attained through applied practice, while "or through some other condition" reveals wholesomeness attained through freedom from defilement. Further, "a wholesome dharma is attained either through applied practice" reveals, among the wholesomeness attained through applied practice, that conducive to distinction and that conducive to penetration, while "or through some other condition" reveals, among the wholesomeness attained through applied practice, that conducive to decline and that conducive to stability. One asks: if that is so, then why does this passage not speak of innately-arisen wholesomeness? The answer: this ought indeed to be spoken of, and that it is not spoken of should be understood as a matter of surplus meaning left implicit. Further, this passage speaks only of wholesomeness difficult to attain and superior; innately-arisen wholesomeness, being easy to attain and inferior, is not spoken of here.

Further, the nature of every ordinary being is itself innately arisen, and, were this passage to speak of innately-arisen wholesomeness here, it would then fail to differ from that, and it is for this reason that it is not spoken of. There are yet others who say: "a wholesome dharma is attained either through applied practice" reveals wholesomeness attained through applied practice, while "or through some other condition" reveals innately-arisen wholesomeness. Further, "a wholesome dharma is attained either through applied practice" reveals whatever wholesomeness is attained at a time of advancement, while "or through some other condition" reveals whatever wholesomeness is attained at a time of decline and the like. Within this discussion, four alternatives ought to be formulated: there is wholesomeness attained through applied practice but not through any other condition — such as heat, summit, forbearance, the supreme mundane dharma, the conventional knowledge on the border of direct realization belonging to the path of seeing,

the subsequent-knowledge of the path, the unshakeable liberation of mind, the knowledge of non-contention, the knowledge of aspiration, the concentration at the very outer limit, and the like. There is wholesomeness attained through some other condition but not through applied practice — such as innately-arisen wholesomeness. There is wholesomeness attained both through applied practice and through some other condition — such as the four fruits of śramaṇahood, the dhyānas, the formless attainments, the immeasurables, the liberations, the stations of mastery, the totality-spheres, and the like. There is no wholesomeness attained neither through applied practice nor through any other condition. "There exists no case of one who deliberately undertakes applied practice in order to seek to become an ordinary being" reveals that the nature of an ordinary being is not attained through applied practice, since there could never be one who was previously not an ordinary being and only later sought and attained this most base and lowly state, having been an ordinary being from beginningless time already. And the statement, "when one cuts off the wholesome roots, every wholesome dharma is relinquished," and the rest, reveals that the nature of an ordinary being is not innately-arisen wholesomeness — that is, at the very moment of cutting off the wholesome roots, it is precisely innately-arisen wholesomeness that is being properly cut off, not that which is attained through applied practice; were one who cuts off the wholesome roots not thereby an ordinary being, this would gravely contradict correct principle, since such a person is of the most extreme evil — let there be no such fault as this in what has been stated, and it is therefore decisively established that the nature of an ordinary being is not wholesome. Why, then, is the nature of an ordinary being not unwholesome? The answer: at the moment of becoming free from the desire realm's own defilements, every unwholesome dharma is relinquished, and one attains the state of non-possession of unwholesome dharmas — were the nature of an ordinary being itself unwholesome, then ordinary beings who have become free from the desire realm's own defilements ought thereby to cease being ordinary beings; and, were they no longer ordinary beings, they ought never again to be reborn in the desire realm, since a noble one who has become free from desire never again undergoes rebirth in the desire realm. And, further, were this so, the form and formless realms would then possess no ordinary beings at all, which would constitute a grave fault — and it is for this reason that the nature of an ordinary being is decisively not unwholesome, being, rather, solely of the uncovered-undefined kind. Should this nature of an ordinary being be said to be bound to the desire realm, to the form realm, or to the formless realm? The answer: it should be said to be bound, variously, to the desire realm, the form realm, or the formless realm — a mere statement of words does not thereby establish its own meaning, and it is therefore proper to reveal this meaning again through further question and answer. Why is the nature of an ordinary being not solely bound to the desire realm? The answer: at the moment of passing from the desire realm and being reborn in the formless realm, every desire-realm dharma is relinquished, and one attains the state of non-possession of desire-realm dharmas — were the nature of an ordinary being solely bound to the desire realm, then ordinary beings who pass from the desire realm and are reborn in the formless realm ought thereby to cease being ordinary beings; and, were they no longer ordinary beings, then it ought to follow that no one reborn there could ever fall back or retreat, since a noble one, once reborn in a higher realm, never falls back to undergo rebirth in a lower stage. Although one who passes from the desire realm and is reborn in the form realm likewise relinquishes desire-realm dharmas, this is not a total relinquishment, since he still possesses the desire-realm mind of supernormal transformation and the like — and it is on this account that this passage speaks only of the case of rebirth in the formless realm. Why is the nature of an ordinary being not solely bound to the form realm?

The answer: at the moment of passing from the form realm and being reborn in the formless realm, every form-realm dharma is relinquished, and one attains the state of non-possession of form-realm dharmas — were the nature of an ordinary being solely bound to the form realm, then ordinary beings who pass from the form realm and are reborn in the formless realm ought thereby to cease being ordinary beings; and, were they no longer ordinary beings, then Maudgalyāyana's own son and the like ought never again to be reborn in a lower realm, yet noble ones are not so. Although one who passes from the form realm and is reborn in the desire realm likewise relinquishes form-realm dharmas, this is not a total relinquishment, since he still possesses form-realm afflictions and the like — and it is on this account that this passage speaks only of the case of rebirth in the formless realm. Why is the nature of an ordinary being not solely bound to the formless realm? The answer: entry into the certainty of rightness first directly realizes the truth of suffering belonging to the desire realm, and only afterward directly realizes together the truth of suffering belonging to the form and formless realms; the noble path arises by first accomplishing its task with respect to the desire realm, and only afterward accomplishing its task together with respect to the form and formless realms — and it is for this reason that the nature of an ordinary being is not solely bound to the formless realm.

This same principle should hold accordingly: if one possesses the nature of an ordinary being belonging to a given stage, one must first have directly realized the truth of suffering belonging to that stage; and, further, since the arising of the noble path first serves to counteract the nature of an ordinary being, it is stated in just this way. One asks: if that is so, then the nature of an ordinary being ought to be solely bound to the desire realm? The answer: to hold it solely bound to the desire realm involves the fault already stated above, and it should therefore be said that it is bound to all three realms. Should this nature of an ordinary being be said to be abandoned by seeing, or abandoned by cultivation? The answer: it should be said to be abandoned by cultivation — a mere statement of words does not thereby establish its own meaning, and it is therefore proper to reveal this meaning again through further question and answer. Why is the nature of an ordinary being not abandoned by seeing? The answer: whatever is abandoned by seeing is invariably defiled, while the nature of an ordinary being is undefiled; every defiled dharma is gradually cut off, section by section and grade by grade, attaining non-possession accordingly, while the nature of an ordinary being, at the very moment of the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering, is relinquished all at once, cut off all at once through the force of the ninth uninterrupted path belonging to each stage — and it is for this reason that it is not defiled. Further, at the very moment the supreme mundane dharma properly ceases and the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering properly arises,

the natures of an ordinary being bound to all three realms are, at that very moment, relinquished, and one attains the state of their non-possession — it is not the case that, at that very moment, any dharma abandoned by seeing is relinquished.

Were the nature of an ordinary being abandoned by seeing, then, at this very stage, this nature ought not yet to have been relinquished, and one who is still fully bound by every fetter, abiding at the moment of the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering,

ought thereby to possess the nature of an ordinary being, since every dharma abandoned by seeing is, at that stage, fully possessed — one abiding at this stage ought then to be named a noble one and also to be named an ordinary being, resulting in genuine confusion, and it is for this reason that the nature of an ordinary being is not abandoned by seeing. One asks: at that very moment, one ought properly to relinquish only the desire realm's own nature of an ordinary being, since the natures of an ordinary being belonging to the two higher realms were not previously possessed at all — how, then, can this passage speak of relinquishing all three realms' natures together? The answer: it ought properly to be said that, at that moment, one relinquishes whichever single realm's own nature of an ordinary being applies, and attains the state of its non-possession; yet the statement that one relinquishes the natures of an ordinary being belonging to all three realms is made in order to complete the number three — that is, since the natures of an ordinary being belonging to the two higher realms were not previously possessed, and one now further relinquishes the desire realm's own nature of an ordinary being, the number three is thereby completed, and it is on this account that this is stated. There are those who say: although the natures of an ordinary being belonging to the two higher realms were not previously possessed, and are now further not possessed, this, too, is spoken of as a relinquishment.

One asks: how can something not previously possessed and now further not possessed be spoken of as a relinquishment? The answer: this is because it has become further removed. There are those who say: the desire realm's own nature of an ordinary being is capable of nourishing and drawing forth the natures of an ordinary being belonging to the two higher realms, serving as their gateway and their preparatory condition — and it is for this reason that, when one relinquishes the desire realm's own nature of an ordinary being, this, too, is spoken of as a relinquishment of the others.

There are those who say: at the time one possesses the desire realm's own nature of an ordinary being, the various natures of an ordinary being belonging to the form and formless realms are thereby capable of manifesting, serving as their support and resting-place — and it is for this reason that, when one relinquishes the desire realm's own nature of an ordinary being, one thereby cuts off the very path by which they might arise, and this, too, is spoken of as a relinquishment. There are those who say: at that very moment, one attains the non-analytical cessation of the natures of an ordinary being belonging to all three realms, and it is for this reason stated in this way — at that moment, one suddenly attains, all at once, the non-analytical cessation of the natures of an ordinary being belonging to all nine stages of the three realms. It is on account of this meaning that one may ask: is there any dharma that is relinquished all at once, yet cut off across nine separate occasions? The answer: there is — namely, the nature of an ordinary being. That it is relinquished all at once refers to the moment the forbearance for the dharma-knowledge of suffering arises; that it is cut off across nine occasions refers to the fact that, in becoming free from the defilements of the desire realm, and so on, up through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception,

it is cut off, in each case, at the ninth uninterrupted path belonging to each of these stages. Is there any case in which one has already attained the analytical cessation of the nature of an ordinary being, yet has not yet attained its non-analytical cessation? The answer: four alternatives ought to be formulated. There is a case in which one has already attained the analytical cessation of the nature of an ordinary being, yet has not yet attained its non-analytical cessation — namely, ordinary beings who have already become free from the defilements of the desire realm, up through the sphere of nothingness. There is a case in which one has already attained the non-analytical cessation of the nature of an ordinary being, yet has not yet attained its analytical cessation — namely, noble ones who have not yet become free from the defilements of the desire realm. There is a case in which one has already attained both the analytical and the non-analytical cessation of the nature of an ordinary being — namely, noble ones who have already become free from the defilements of the desire realm, up through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. There is a case in which one has not yet attained either the analytical or the non-analytical cessation of the nature of an ordinary being — namely, ordinary beings who have not yet become free from the defilements of the desire realm. Is there any case of the nature of an ordinary being that is not yet cut off, yet not possessed? The answer: four alternatives ought to be formulated. There is a case of the nature of an ordinary being that is not yet cut off, yet not possessed — namely, ordinary beings born in the desire realm who have not yet become free from the defilements of the first dhyāna, whose natures of an ordinary being belonging to the eight stages above are not yet cut off, yet not possessed; having already become free from the defilements of the first dhyāna, but not yet free from those of the second dhyāna, their natures of an ordinary being belonging to the seven stages above are not yet cut off, yet not possessed — and so on, up through having already become free from the defilements of the sphere of nothingness, where the nature of an ordinary being belonging to the one stage above is not yet cut off, yet not possessed.

If one is born in the first dhyāna, and has not yet become free from the defilements of the second dhyāna, the natures of an ordinary being belonging to the seven stages above are not yet cut off, yet not possessed; having already become free from the defilements of the second dhyāna, but not yet free from those of the third dhyāna, the natures of an ordinary being belonging to the six stages above are not yet cut off, yet not possessed —

and so on, up through having already become free from the defilements of the sphere of nothingness, where the nature of an ordinary being belonging to the one stage above is not yet cut off, yet not possessed; and so, likewise, if one is born in the sphere of nothingness, the nature of an ordinary being belonging to the one stage above is not yet cut off, yet not possessed. If noble ones have not yet become free from the defilements of the desire realm, the natures of an ordinary being belonging to the nine stages are not yet cut off, yet not possessed; having already become free from the defilements of the desire realm, but not yet free from those of the first dhyāna, the natures of an ordinary being belonging to the eight stages above are not yet cut off, yet not possessed — and so on, up through having already become free from the defilements of the sphere of nothingness, but not yet free from those of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, where the nature of an ordinary being belonging to the one stage above is not yet cut off, yet not possessed. There is a case of the nature of an ordinary being that is possessed but not not-yet-cut-off — namely, ordinary beings born in the desire realm who have already become free from the defilements of the desire realm, whose desire-realm nature of an ordinary being is possessed but not not-yet-cut-off — and so on, up through being born in the sphere of nothingness and having already become free from the defilements of the sphere of nothingness, whose nature of an ordinary being belonging to the sphere of nothingness is possessed but not not-yet-cut-off. There is a case of the nature of an ordinary being that is not-yet-cut-off and also possessed — namely, ordinary beings who have not yet become free from the defilements of the desire realm, whose desire-realm nature of an ordinary being is not-yet-cut-off and also possessed — and so on, up through being born in the sphere of nothingness and not yet having become free from the defilements of the sphere of nothingness, whose nature of an ordinary being belonging to the sphere of nothingness is not-yet-cut-off and also possessed; and, if one is born in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, the nature of an ordinary being belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is not-yet-cut-off and also possessed. There is a case of the nature of an ordinary being that is neither not-yet-cut-off nor possessed — namely, ordinary beings born in the desire realm who have already become free from the defilements of the first dhyāna, but not yet free from those of the second dhyāna, whose nature of an ordinary being belonging to the first dhyāna is neither not-yet-cut-off nor possessed — and so on, up through having already become free from the defilements of the sphere of nothingness,

where the natures of an ordinary being belonging to the first dhyāna up through the sphere of nothingness are, in every case, neither not-yet-cut-off nor possessed. If one is born in the first dhyāna, but not yet free from the defilements of the second dhyāna, the desire-realm nature of an ordinary being is neither not-yet-cut-off nor possessed; having already become free from the defilements of the second dhyāna, but not yet free from those of the third dhyāna, the natures of an ordinary being belonging to the desire realm and the second dhyāna are neither not-yet-cut-off nor possessed — and so on, up through having already become free from the defilements of the sphere of nothingness, where the natures of an ordinary being belonging to the desire realm, the second dhyāna, and up through the sphere of nothingness are, in every case, neither not-yet-cut-off nor possessed; and so, likewise, up through being born in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, where the natures of an ordinary being belonging to the desire realm up through the sphere of nothingness are, in every case, neither not-yet-cut-off nor possessed. If noble ones have already become free from the defilements of the desire realm, but not yet free from those of the first dhyāna, the desire-realm nature of an ordinary being is neither not-yet-cut-off nor possessed; having already become free from the defilements of the first dhyāna, but not yet free from those of the second dhyāna, the natures of an ordinary being belonging to the desire realm and the first dhyāna are neither not-yet-cut-off nor possessed — and so on, up through having already become free from the defilements of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, where the natures of an ordinary being belonging to all nine stages of the three realms are, in every case, neither not-yet-cut-off nor possessed. Is there any case of the nature of an ordinary being that is already cut off yet still possessed? The answer: four alternatives ought to be formulated — namely, what was formerly the second case here becomes the first, what was formerly the first case here becomes the second, what was formerly the fourth case here becomes the third, and what was formerly the third case here becomes the fourth — their own characteristics should be understood exactly as previously stated. What dharma does "the nature of an ordinary being" name? The answer: the uncovered-undefined aggregate of formations dissociated from mind, bound to all three realms. One asks: why is this treatise further composed? The answer: it is composed in order to bring those in doubt to a settled resolution — that is, the earlier passage stated that non-attainment of noble dharmas is named the nature of an ordinary being, and there are those who thereby give rise to the doubt that non-attainment of noble dharmas possesses no genuine substance of its own, exactly as one who has not yet obtained wealth possesses no genuine substance of wealth — and it is in order to bring this doubt to a settled resolution, revealing that the nature of an ordinary being is a genuinely existent dharma, subsumed within the aggregate of formations, that this treatise is composed. There are those who say: the earlier passage, though it had already revealed the characteristic mark of the nature of an ordinary being, had not yet discriminated its own substance, and this treatise now wishes to state this. There are yet other masters who say: the earlier passage, though it had already revealed the substance of the nature of an ordinary being, had not yet discriminated its own characteristic mark, and this treatise now wishes to state this. There are also those who say: the earlier passage revealed the antidote to the nature of an ordinary being, and this treatise now wishes to state the substance of the nature of an ordinary being — and it is for these reasons that this treatise is composed. The wording "bound to all three realms" blocks the notion that the nature of an ordinary being is solely bound to the desire realm.

The wording "undefiled" blocks the notion that the nature of an ordinary being is a defiled dharma and abandoned by seeing. The wording "dissociated from mind" blocks the notion that the nature of an ordinary being is a mental factor. The wording "the aggregate of formations" blocks the notion that the nature of an ordinary being is not a genuinely existent dharma, since a merely provisional dharma, in principle, could never be subsumed within the aggregate of formations — this passage thereby blocks the various mistaken positions held by other schools, and reveals the genuine substance of the nature of an ordinary being. The Venerable Ghoṣa states: the nature of an ordinary being is precisely the class of homogeneous being — exactly as, among cattle, sheep, and the like, each possesses its own class of homogeneous being, which is spoken of as the very "nature" of being cattle, or of being sheep, so too, the substance of the ordinary being's own class of homogeneous being is here named the nature of an ordinary being.

There are yet other masters who say: there exists a further, distinct dharma, undefiled and subsumed within the uncovered-undefined aggregate of formations dissociated from mind, exactly as the life faculty and the like, that is named the nature of an ordinary being — it is in order to block this position that the earlier passage states that the nature of an ordinary being is named the non-attainment of noble dharmas, this very non-attainment being simply the state of non-possession. One asks: for what reason is it not conceded that this is simply identical with the ordinary being's own class of homogeneous being, or that there exists a further, distinct dharma named the nature of an ordinary being, while it is instead conceded that non-possession of noble dharmas is named the nature of an ordinary being? The answer: the ordinary being's own class of homogeneous being does not directly oppose the noble dharmas, and this further, distinct dharma, whatever it might be, cannot be known — this is unlike the non-possession of noble dharmas,

which directly opposes the noble dharmas, and possesses a genuine, knowable characteristic, and is therefore rightly named the nature of an ordinary being — this principle is well established. Do dharmas associated with wrong view, [or with wrong intention]? Are those dharmas associated with wrong intention? And so on, at length. One asks: why does the nature of an ordinary being come first, and the eight wrong limbs come afterward, in this discussion? The answer: these two mutually sustain and support one another — that is, the nature of an ordinary being sustains and supports the eight wrong limbs, and these eight wrong limbs, in turn, are capable of sustaining and supporting the nature of an ordinary being. Further, the practitioner grows weary of the nature of an ordinary being and of the eight wrong limbs, and cultivates the noble path on this account, and it is for this reason that, after the nature of an ordinary being, the eight wrong limbs are further discriminated. Do dharmas associated with wrong view [or with wrong intention]? Are those dharmas associated with wrong intention? The answer: four alternatives ought to be formulated. Here, wrong view exists at every stage, yet not within every defiled mind, since it is absent from within the very group that includes the view of the perishable aggregation of self and the like; wrong intention exists within every defiled mind, yet not at every stage, since it is absent from the intermediate stage of dhyāna and above. On account of this mutual comparison, a broad four-alternative structure is formed. There is a dharma associated with wrong view but not with wrong intention — namely, the wrong intention associated with wrong view, and every other dharma not associated with wrong intention yet associated with wrong view. Here, "the wrong intention associated with wrong view" refers to the wrong view of the desire realm's own stage of preparatory approach and first dhyāna, occurring together with investigative thought — this is associated solely with wrong view, not with wrong intention, since a thing's own inherent nature is never associated with that same inherent nature, on account of three causes and conditions: first, because two instances of investigative thought never arise together at one and the same time; second, because an earlier and a later instance of investigative thought are never mutually harmonious; third, because the inherent nature of dharmas is never observed by that same inherent nature itself, since observation always depends upon another, not upon itself. And "every other dharma not associated with wrong intention yet associated with wrong view" refers to the dharmas associated with wrong view belonging to the intermediate stage of dhyāna up through the peak of existence — namely, the nine great-grounds dharmas, the nine great-affliction-grounds dharmas, torpor, and investigative thought accompanied by sustained examination. There is a dharma associated with wrong intention but not with wrong view — namely, wrong view associated with wrong intention, and every other dharma not associated with wrong view yet associated with wrong intention. Here, "wrong view associated with wrong intention" refers to the wrong view of the desire realm's own stage of preparatory approach and first dhyāna — this is associated solely with wrong intention, not with wrong view, on account of the same three causes and conditions already stated. And "every other dharma not associated with wrong view yet associated with wrong intention" refers to, within the desire realm's own stage of preparatory approach and first dhyāna, excepting the group that includes wrong view, whatever dharmas within every other defiled group are associated with wrong intention —

namely, the dharmas associated with wrong intention within the groups that include the view of the perishable aggregation of self, the extreme views, the clinging to rules and vows, the view of grasping, doubt, craving, hatred, conceit, and the unique, non-shared ignorance — the ten great-grounds dharmas and the rest should be understood accordingly, in just this same principle. There is a dharma associated with both wrong view and wrong intention — namely, excepting the wrong intention associated with wrong view, and excepting the wrong view associated with wrong intention, every remaining dharma associated with both wrong view and wrong intention — that is, the dharmas associated with both wrong view and wrong intention within the group that includes wrong view, belonging to the desire realm's own stage of preparatory approach and first dhyāna — namely, the nine great-grounds dharmas, the nine great-affliction-grounds dharmas, shamelessness, lack of moral dread, torpor, drowsiness, and investigative thought accompanied by sustained examination. There is a dharma associated with neither wrong view nor wrong intention — namely, whatever wrong intention is dissociated from wrong view, whatever wrong view is dissociated from wrong intention, and every other mind and mental factor, material form, the unconditioned, and formations dissociated from mind. Here, "whatever wrong intention is dissociated from wrong view" refers to, within the desire realm's own stage of preparatory approach and first dhyāna, excepting the group that includes wrong view, the wrong intention within every other defiled group — these are mutually dissociated from one another, since that group possesses no wrong view at all, a thing's own inherent nature never being associated with that same inherent nature. "Whatever wrong view is dissociated from wrong intention" refers to the wrong view belonging to the intermediate stage of dhyāna up through the peak of existence — these are mutually dissociated from one another, since a thing's own inherent nature is never associated with that same inherent nature, and since that stage possesses no investigative thought at all. And "every other mind and mental factor" refers to, within the intermediate stage of dhyāna up through the peak of existence, excepting the group that includes wrong view, every other defiled mind and mental factor, together with every wholesome and uncovered-undefined dharma. "Material form, the unconditioned, and formations dissociated from mind" refers to every kind of material form, the unconditioned, and formations dissociated from mind — all such dharmas as these are mutually dissociated from wrong view and wrong intention, since that group possesses no wrong view at all, since that stage possesses no investigative thought at all, since they are undefiled, and since they are not, by their very nature, dharmas capable of association at all.

Do dharmas associated with wrong view exist that are also associated with wrong effort? And so on, at length. The answer: four alternatives ought to be formulated. Here, wrong view exists at every stage, yet not within every defiled mind; wrong effort exists at every stage and within every defiled mind alike. On account of this mutual comparison, a middling four-alternative structure is formed. There is a dharma associated with wrong view but not with wrong effort — namely, the wrong effort associated with wrong view. Here, "the wrong effort associated with wrong view" refers to indolence within the group that includes wrong view, which is associated solely with wrong view, not with wrong effort, since a thing's own inherent nature is never associated with that same inherent nature. There is a dharma associated with wrong effort but not with wrong view — namely, wrong view, and every other dharma not associated with wrong view yet associated with wrong effort. Here, "wrong view" refers to the fact that every instance of wrong view is invariably associated with wrong effort, not with wrong view itself, since that group necessarily possesses wrong effort, and since a thing's own inherent nature is never associated with that same inherent nature. And "every other dharma not associated with wrong view yet associated with wrong effort" refers to, at every stage, excepting the group that includes wrong view, whatever dharmas within every other defiled group are associated with wrong effort. There is a dharma associated with both wrong view and wrong effort — namely, excepting the wrong effort associated with wrong view, every remaining dharma associated with wrong view. Here, since wrong effort is itself so extremely numerous in substance, this passage excepts only that which is associated with wrong view, since nothing else could be mistakenly included in its place. "Every remaining dharma associated with wrong view" refers to, within the group that includes wrong view, excepting wrong effort and wrong view themselves, every other mind and mental factor associated with both — namely, the nine great-grounds dharmas, the eight great-affliction-grounds dharmas, shamelessness, lack of moral dread, torpor, drowsiness, investigative thought, and sustained examination, together with mind itself. There is a dharma associated with neither wrong view nor wrong effort — namely, whatever wrong effort is dissociated from wrong view, and every other mind and mental factor, material form, the unconditioned, and formations dissociated from mind. Here, "whatever wrong effort is dissociated from wrong view" refers to the wrong effort associated with the view of the perishable aggregation of self and the like —

these are mutually dissociated, since that group possesses no wrong view at all, a thing's own inherent nature never being associated with that same inherent nature. And "every other mind and mental factor" refers to every wholesome and uncovered-undefined mind and mental factor, not itself defiled.

"Material form, the unconditioned, and formations dissociated from mind" refers to every kind of material form, the unconditioned, and formations dissociated from mind — all such dharmas as these are mutually dissociated from wrong view and wrong effort, since they are undefiled, and since they are not, by their very nature, dharmas capable of association at all. Just as wrong view is compared against wrong effort, so too should wrong view be compared against wrong mindfulness and wrong concentration — within this discussion, one ought likewise to formulate two middling four-alternative structures, exactly as with wrong effort, since wrong mindfulness and wrong concentration alike pervade every stage and every defiled mind. Just as wrong view is compared against wrong effort, wrong mindfulness, and wrong concentration, so too should wrong intention be compared against wrong effort, wrong mindfulness, and wrong concentration — within this discussion, one ought to formulate three lesser four-alternative structures, since wrong intention does not pervade every stage, exactly as wrong view does not pervade every defiled mind. Do dharmas associated with wrong effort exist that are also associated with wrong mindfulness? The answer: four alternatives ought to be formulated. Here, these two dharmas both alike pervade every stage and every defiled mind. On account of this mutual comparison, a lesser four-alternative structure is formed. There is a dharma associated with wrong effort but not with wrong mindfulness — namely, wrong mindfulness itself, since wrong mindfulness must invariably be associated with wrong effort, wrong mindfulness never being invariably co-present with wrong mindfulness itself, a thing's own inherent nature never being associated with that same inherent nature. There is a dharma associated with wrong mindfulness but not with wrong effort — namely, wrong effort itself, since wrong effort must invariably be associated with wrong mindfulness, wrong effort never being invariably co-present with wrong effort itself, a thing's own inherent nature never being associated with that same inherent nature. There is a dharma associated with both wrong effort and wrong mindfulness — namely, whatever dharmas are associated with both wrong effort and wrong mindfulness, excepting the substance of wrong effort and wrong mindfulness themselves, taking every other defiled mind and mental factor — namely, the nine great-grounds dharmas, the eight great-affliction-grounds dharmas, the ten minor-affliction-grounds dharmas, shamelessness, lack of moral dread, craving, hatred, conceit, doubt, torpor, drowsiness, worry, fear, investigative thought, sustained examination, and mind itself — all such defiled dharmas as these are mutually associated, being forever co-present together. There is a dharma associated with neither wrong effort nor wrong mindfulness — namely, every other mind and mental factor, material form, the unconditioned, and formations dissociated from mind. Here, "every other mind and mental factor" refers to every wholesome and uncovered-undefined mind and mental factor, not itself defiled — the remainder is as stated before. Just as wrong effort is compared against wrong mindfulness, so too should wrong effort be compared against wrong concentration. Just as wrong effort is compared against wrong mindfulness and wrong concentration, so too should

wrong mindfulness be compared against wrong concentration — within this discussion, one ought to formulate two further lesser four-alternative structures, both pervading every stage and every defiled mind alike. This passage does not speak of wrong speech, wrong action, and wrong livelihood, since these are not dharmas capable of mental association at all.

One asks: of these eight wrong limbs, how many are bound to the desire realm, how many to the form realm, and how many to the formless realm? The answer: wrong view, wrong effort, wrong mindfulness, and wrong concentration span all three realms; wrong intention, wrong speech, wrong action, and wrong livelihood are bound solely to the desire and form realms — and, within the form realm, solely to the first dhyāna, since the higher stages lack them. There are those who say: the form realm, too, lacks wrong livelihood, since one there does not give rise to bodily or verbal karma for the sake of sustaining life.

The verdict: the former position stated is sound, since bodily and verbal karma drawn forth by craving is itself what is named wrong livelihood. One asks: of these eight wrong limbs,

how many are abandoned by seeing, and how many by cultivation? The answer: one is solely abandoned by seeing — namely, wrong view; three are solely abandoned by cultivation — namely, wrong speech, wrong action, and wrong livelihood; the remaining four span both what is abandoned by seeing and by cultivation. One asks: why does this section of the Miscellaneous Aggregates speak first of purified dharmas, and only afterward of defiled dharmas? The answer: it is in order to reveal that the supreme mundane dharma possesses a fruit of efficacious action — that is, the supreme mundane dharma is capable of drawing forth the path of seeing, permanently cutting off wrong view, this being its own fruit of efficacious action; the purified dharmas are precisely the supreme mundane dharma and the rest, and the defiled dharmas are precisely wrong view and the other eight limbs.