Three Fetters, Seven Lives

The three fetters, up through the ninety-eight latent tendencies. Having already grasped the sense of such topics and their explanation, one ought now to set them forth fully — these three fetters and the rest are all spoken of in scripture, with the sole exception of the five fetters and the ninety-eight latent tendencies. One might suppose that these latter two ought to be excluded here. Why is this so? Every Abhidharma text exists in order to explain scripture, and, since these two lists are not themselves spoken of in scripture, they ought accordingly to be excluded. It is on this basis that the Venerable Ghoṣa has stated as follows: every Abhidharma text exists in order to explain scripture — it is on the basis of this or that particular scripture that this or that particular treatise is composed; whatever scripture does not state ought, in every case, to be excluded. There are those who say: these two lists ought not to be excluded.

Why is this so? Because these two, too, are spoken of in scripture — that is, within the Ekottarika-āgama, the five fetters are spoken of among the fivefold dharmas,

and the ninety-eight latent tendencies are spoken of among the ninety-eightfold dharmas; yet, with the passage of a great span of time, both of these scriptural passages came to be lost. The master of this treatise, through the power of the knowledge of aspiration, recollected and observed them, and has here restated and explained them once more. There are those who say: although these two lists are indeed not spoken of in scripture, they ought nonetheless not to be excluded. One asks: since the five fetters are indeed not spoken of in scripture, why are they not excluded? The answer: every treatise proceeds according to its own author's own intention, and, so long as it does not contradict the true characteristics of the dharmas,

the author composes as he wishes. That is, within this discussion, the treatise speaks of pervasive fetters, non-pervasive fetters, and fetters that are both pervasive and non-pervasive — speaking of pervasive fetters, this refers to the three fetters; speaking of non-pervasive fetters, this refers to the five fetters; speaking of fetters both pervasive and non-pervasive, this refers to the nine fetters — and it is on this account that the five fetters, though not spoken of in scripture, ought nonetheless not to be excluded. One asks: since the ninety-eight latent tendencies, too, are indeed not spoken of in scripture, why are they not excluded? The answer: the Abhidharma, in explaining the seven kinds of latent tendency spoken of in scripture, has, in composing this treatise, broadly discriminated them according to their aspect, realm, and section, and it is for this reason that this treatise, too, ought not to be excluded. One asks: why does this treatise first establish its own chapter headings? The answer: it is in order to reveal the meaning of every subsequent topic — were the chapter headings not first established, there would be no basis from which meaning could ever be revealed, exactly as a painter cannot paint upon empty space. Further, it is in order to cause this treatise to endure long in the world — that is, although this treatise skillfully establishes the chapter headings of each aggregate and nyāsa, among a hundred thousand people there is scarcely even one capable of reciting and upholding it in full, how much more so were it not skillfully established at all; who, then, could possibly recite and uphold so disordered and chaotic a text, and, lacking anyone to recite and uphold it, it would swiftly vanish from the world. Further, were the chapter headings not established, the treatise would be empty, with nothing for anyone to inquire into, since a question must always have some basis from which it is raised. One asks: why does the author of this treatise establish his chapter headings on the basis of scripture? The answer: every treatise that is composed exists in order to explain scripture, and it is for this reason that the many, mutually dissimilar meanings found scattered throughout the scriptures are here gathered and explained — that which discriminates aggregates is established as the Miscellaneous Aggregates, and so on, up through that which discriminates views is established as the View Aggregate; yet each and every aggregate, in fact, contains every meaning within it. Further, it is in order to reveal that the meaning of scripture is boundless — unlike the writings of outsiders, which possess much text but little meaning, or sometimes no meaning at all, exactly as the Rāmāyaṇa, a work of twelve thousand verses, sets forth only two matters: first, that Rāvaṇa abducted Sītā; second, that Rāma brought Sītā back.

The Buddha's own scriptures are not so — both their text and their meaning are boundless and without limit; "boundless" means that their meaning is difficult to fathom, and "without limit" means that their text is difficult to exhaust — exactly as the great ocean is boundless and without limit, "boundless" meaning its depth, "without limit" meaning its breadth. Further, it is in order to reveal that scripture can withstand challenge and questioning, unlike the writings of outsiders, which cannot withstand challenge — when challenged, they only grow the more meaningless, exactly as a young monkey cannot endure being struck, and, when struck, promptly soils itself with its own filth. The Buddha's own scriptures are not so — they are able to withstand challenge and questioning, and, when challenged, they give rise all the more to pure discipline, wholesome form, and wondrous contact, exactly as the fine woven cloth produced at Vārāṇasī can withstand striking, and, when struck, brings forth all the more its own fresh, pure color and wondrous texture. Further, it is in order to reveal that scripture, when disclosed, is wondrous — there are three matters that are wondrous when concealed, yet not wondrous when disclosed: first, a foolish person; second, a woman; third, the writings of the outsiders. And there are three further matters that are wondrous when disclosed, yet not wondrous when concealed: first, a wise person; second, the sun and moon; third, the sūtras and treatises of the Buddhadharma. Further, it is in order to reveal that scripture can withstand careful reflection and analysis, unlike the writings of outsiders, which cannot withstand such reflection —

when reflected upon, they cause a sentient being's own eye of wisdom to diminish, exactly as one who gazes directly at the sun causes his own eye faculty to diminish. The Buddhadharma is not so — it can withstand careful reflection and analysis, and, when reflected upon, it causes the eye of wisdom to increase, exactly as one who gazes at the moon causes his own eye faculty to grow. One asks: why does this treatise first establish its chapter headings, and only afterward pose its questions? The answer: this follows the very method of house-building — just as one who wishes to build a house first lays the foundation, and only afterward raises the framework, so too does the master of this treatise, wishing to build the house of the Dharma, first establish the chapter headings, exactly as laying a foundation, and only afterward opens each topic, exactly as raising the framework. Further, this follows the very method of planting a tree — just as one who wishes to plant a tree first prepares the soil, and only afterward plants the seedling, so too does the master of this treatise, wishing to plant the tree of the Dharma, first establish the chapter headings, exactly as preparing the soil, and only afterward opens each topic, exactly as planting the seedling. Further, this follows the very method of stringing a garland — just as one who wishes to string a garland first threads the cord, and only afterward strings the flowers, so too does the master of this treatise, wishing to string the garland of the Dharma, first establish the chapter headings, exactly as threading the cord, and only afterward opens each topic, exactly as stringing the flowers. Further, this follows the very method of painting — just as one who wishes to paint must first prepare the outline, and only afterward fill in the colors, so too does the master of this treatise, wishing to paint the image of the Dharma, first establish the chapter headings, exactly as preparing the outline, and only afterward opens each topic, exactly as filling in the colors. Further, this follows the very method of carving —

just as one who wishes to carve must first shape the rough form, and only afterward carve the individual limbs, so too does the master of this treatise, wishing to carve the image of the Dharma, first establish the chapter headings, exactly as shaping the rough form, and only afterward opens each topic, exactly as carving the individual limbs. Further, this follows the very method of contemplative practice — just as a yoga practitioner first establishes the great elements and derivative material forms, and only afterward analyzes them by way of ultimate particles and instants, so too does the master of this treatise proceed — establishing the great elements and derivative material forms is like first establishing the chapter headings, and analyzing them by way of ultimate particles and instants is like afterward opening each topic. Further, this follows the very method of the Buddha's own teaching of the Dharma — just as the Buddha's own teaching first states a summary, and only afterward explains it in detail, as when he first states that the six elements, the six contact-bases, the eighteen mental proximate-conducts, and the four supports are together called a sentient being, and only afterward explains, in turn, what is meant by each of the six elements, up through what is meant by each of the four supports, so too does the master of this treatise proceed — first stating a summary is like first establishing the chapter headings, and afterward explaining it in detail is like afterward opening each topic. Further, it is in order to display two kinds of skill — that is, first establishing the chapter headings displays skill with respect to meaning, and afterward opening each topic displays skill with respect to text; just as skill in meaning and skill in text are thus displayed, so too should the power of meaning and the power of text, unobstructed understanding of meaning and unobstructed understanding of dharmas, and the ultimate perfection of unobstructed understanding of meaning and of dharmas, be understood in just the same way. Further, it is in order to display his own knowledge and insight as free of confusion — that is, were his own knowledge and insight confused, the treatise he composed would likewise be confused, unable properly to establish the chapter headings of each aggregate and nyāsa; since his own knowledge and insight are free of confusion, the treatise he composed is likewise free of confusion, and is able properly to establish the chapter headings of each aggregate and nyāsa — the master of this treatise, wishing to display that his own knowledge and insight are free of error, therefore first establishes his chapter headings, and only afterward opens each topic. One asks: why, in establishing its chapter headings, does this treatise begin with the three fetters, proceeding all the way through to the ninety-eight latent tendencies? The answer: this is simply because the author of the treatise intended it so — that is, the author of a treatise composes it according to his own particular intention, and, so long as this does not contradict the true characteristics of the dharmas, this ought not to be pressed as an objection. The Venerable Pārśva states: were the treatise instead to speak first of the three unwholesome roots, or to begin at some other point, and proceed onward to the ninety-eight latent tendencies, one could equally well raise this same doubt, asking why the chapter headings begin at that particular point — yet, so long as what is stated does not contradict the true characteristics of the dharmas, no fault follows whether it is stated first or last. There are yet others who say: the Abhidharma ought to be sought through its own characteristic marks, and one ought not to press the question of its own sequential order. There are also those who say: within this discussion, one may indeed explain this sequence through some minor cause and condition, yet the meaning and principle of the Abhidharma are so deep and vast that, were one to explain every such point, this would only become needlessly complex and confused, difficult to receive and uphold, and it is for this reason that no further explanation is given. There are those who say: this is meant to display the principle of gradual increase — that is, the treatise first speaks of three, then four, then five, and so on, up through finally speaking of ninety-eight. Further, it is meant to display the gradual growth of the tree of affliction — first speaking of the three fetters, and so on, up through afterward speaking of the ninety-eight latent tendencies. There are yet other masters who say: it is meant to display that the gradual cutting-off of these various afflictions corresponds to the gradual attainment of the successive fruits of the path — that is, upon cutting off the three fetters, one attains the first fruit, and it is for this reason that the three unwholesome roots are spoken of first; upon doubly cutting off the desire-realm's own contaminants, one attains the second fruit; upon exhausting them entirely, one attains the third fruit,

and it is for this reason that these are spoken of next; upon cutting off the remaining two kinds of contaminant, one attains the fourth fruit, and it is for this reason that these are spoken of last. The floods, the yokes, the graspings, the bodily ties, the hindrances, and the rest possess no such distinct correspondence to the attainment of the fruits, all alike serving merely to display the three floods once more, and it is for this reason that these are spoken of last — and it is on this account that this treatise speaks first of the three fetters, proceeding all the way through to the ninety-eight latent tendencies. There are three fetters — namely, the fetter of the view of the perishable aggregation of self, the fetter of clinging to rules and vows, and the fetter of doubt. One asks: what is the inherent nature of these three fetters? The answer: they have twenty-one factors as their inherent nature — that is, the fetter of the view of the perishable aggregation of self, abandoned by seeing suffering across the three realms, has three factors; the fetter of clinging to rules and vows, abandoned by seeing suffering and the path across the three realms, has six factors; and the fetter of doubt, abandoned by seeing suffering, origin, cessation, and the path across the three realms, has twelve factors — these twenty-one factors are the very inherent nature of the three fetters, their own particular thing, their own particular characteristic, their own substance, their own inherent nature. Their inherent nature having now been explained, the reason for their name shall now be explained. One asks: why are they named fetters? What is the meaning of "fetter"? The answer: the sense of binding is the meaning of fetter; the sense of joining with suffering is the meaning of fetter; the sense of being mixed with poison is the meaning of fetter. Here, that the sense of binding is the meaning of fetter refers to the fact that a fetter is itself a binding. How is this known to be so? As scripture states: the Venerable Mahākoṣṭhila went to where the Venerable Śāriputra was, and asked him, saying: Great Virtuous One, does the eye bind form, or does form bind the eye? — and so on, up through the mind and dharmas, the question being asked in just the same way. Śāriputra replied: the eye does not bind form, nor does form bind the eye — here, it is desire and craving that are named the very binder — and so on, up through the mind and dharmas being exactly the same. Exactly as a black ox and a white ox are bound together by one and the same yoke-strap, were one to ask whether the black binds the white, or the white binds the black, the correct answer would properly be that the black does not bind the white, nor does the white bind the black — it is here the yoke-strap between them that is named the very binder. It is on this basis that it is known that a fetter is itself a binding.

That the sense of joining with suffering is the meaning of fetter refers to the fact that the fetters of the desire realm cause sentient beings of the desire realm to be joined with the suffering of the desire realm, not with its happiness; the fetters of the form realm cause sentient beings of the form realm to be joined with the suffering of the form realm, not with its happiness; and the fetters of the formless realm cause sentient beings of the formless realm to be joined with the suffering of the formless realm, not with its happiness. That the sense of being mixed with poison is the meaning of fetter refers to the fact that even a superior, wondrous rebirth, and even contaminated meditative absorption — such as the immeasurables, the liberations, the stations of mastery, the totality-spheres, and the like — being intermixed with affliction, are shunned by the noble ones exactly as a dish of food mixed with poison: however delicious and fine it may be, the wise keep their distance from it. As the Blessed One has stated: upon the permanent cutting-off of the three fetters, one realizes the fruit of stream-entry, attaining the dharma of never falling back, certain to proceed toward enlightenment, bounded within, at most, seven further existences, seven births among the gods and seven among humans, passing back and forth in this wandering before reaching the very limit of suffering. One asks: the Abhidharma states that the permanent cutting-off of the eighty-eight latent tendencies is what realizes the fruit of stream-entry, and the Sūtra of the Simile of the Pool states that the cutting-off of immeasurable suffering is what realizes the fruit of stream-entry — why, then, does this passage state that the permanent cutting-off of the three fetters is what realizes the fruit of stream-entry? The answer: it should be said that this is a case of the Blessed One, for the sake of those he was converting, giving a somewhat abbreviated account. Further, the Blessed One observed the disposition and latent tendencies of the sentient beings he was converting, and taught the essentials of the Dharma accordingly — "disposition" here refers to wholesome roots,

and "latent tendencies" refers to the afflictions; observing such disposition and latent tendencies, he taught the essentials of the Dharma in brief, in order to cut off those very afflictions, what he taught being neither too little nor too much in measure — too little would be incapable of cutting off the affliction, too much would be labor spent in vain with respect to it — exactly as a skilled physician, having observed a patient's own illness and its cause, prescribes medicine accordingly, neither too little nor too much in measure, since too little would be incapable of removing the patient's own suffering, and too much would likewise be labor spent in vain. Further, the essentials of the Dharma that are taught may be brief or extensive — the brief teaching states that the permanent cutting-off of the three fetters realizes the fruit of stream-entry; the extensive teaching states the permanent cutting-off of the eighty-eight latent tendencies, and states that the cutting-off of immeasurable suffering realizes the fruit of stream-entry.

Just as with brief and extensive teaching, so too should one understand undifferentiated and differentiated teaching, general and particular teaching, teaching without variation and teaching with variation, teaching that is not comprehensive and teaching that is comprehensive, and sudden and gradual teaching. Further, it is for the sharp-facultied that the permanent cutting-off of the three fetters realizing the fruit of stream-entry is taught; it is for the dull-facultied that the permanent cutting-off of the eighty-eight latent tendencies, and the cutting-off of immeasurable suffering, realizing the fruit of stream-entry, is taught. Just as it is taught differently for the sharp-facultied and the dull-facultied, so too should teaching for those moved by the power of cause, by the power of condition, by internal power, by external power, by the power of one's own reflection, and by the power of another's teaching of the Dharma, and teaching that opens up wisdom versus teaching that presupposes it, be understood in just the same way. Further, it is in order to draw in and encourage timid sentient beings he was converting, displaying an easy path, exactly as one draws them forward by the hand — that is, the timid are fearful of undertaking too much, and, in order to draw and encourage them onward, less is spoken to them than more. Within this discussion, one ought to relate the parable of the monk Puṇyamitra, who, hearing much yet undertaking little, thereby came to practice. There was a monk named Puṇyamitra who, while the Tathāgata still dwelt in the world, went forth within the Buddhadharma. At that time, more than two hundred and fifty training-rules had already been established, and, when the code of monastic discipline was recited on the half-month night, he heard it stated that self-loving virtuous sons who delight in training in the precepts ought to train in just this way, and thereupon grew timid, thinking: who could possibly fully undertake and uphold so many training-rules as these? He went to where the Buddha was, bowed his head at his two feet, and said to the Blessed One: I am now unable to guard and uphold so many training-rules as these — I beg to withdraw and return home to resume my former worldly occupation. The Blessed One, out of compassion, gently rebuked and dismissed him, and further exhorted him, saying: excellent, excellent, Puṇyamitra — are you able to train in the three trainings? — namely, the higher training in discipline, the higher training in mind, and the higher training in wisdom. Hearing that the number was now so few, he rejoiced and leapt with joy, and said to the Buddha: I am able to train in these. Having thus trained in these three trainings, he had thereby already trained in every training-rule whatsoever. So, too, is it here: had the Blessed One instead taught that the permanent cutting-off of the eighty-eight latent tendencies, or the cutting-off of immeasurable suffering, was what realized the fruit of stream-entry, those he was converting would have grown timid in their own minds, thinking: who could possibly uproot these eighty-eight great trees of affliction?

Who could possibly cross these eighty-eight great rivers of affliction? Who could possibly exhaust these eighty-eight great oceans of affliction? Who could possibly shatter these eighty-eight great mountains of affliction? Who could possibly cultivate the antidotes to these eighty-eight kinds of affliction? — but, because the Blessed One taught that the permanent cutting-off of the three fetters realizes the fruit of stream-entry, they, hearing that the number was so few, rejoiced and leapt with joy, and diligently cultivated the antidotes to these three fetters; and, at the very moment these three fetters were cut off, every affliction abandoned by seeing was thereby permanently cut off as well, since they share the very same antidote. Further, the Blessed One, in this passage, speaks of what is supreme — that is, among the afflictions abandoned by seeing, these three fetters are the most supreme, and it is on this account that the Venerable Ghoṣa has stated: among the afflictions abandoned by seeing, the three fetters are the most supreme, every other such affliction being subsumed under them, exactly as craving, hatred, conceit, and the rest arise dependent upon view. Further, the Blessed One, in this passage, speaks of what stands foremost — that is, these three fetters stand foremost among the afflictions abandoned by seeing, exactly as a valiant general always stands at the front of the army; it is by their very force that the afflictions abandoned by seeing grow and increase, difficult to subdue and control. Further, the Blessed One, in this passage, speaks of the supreme virtue and the supreme enemy — the supreme virtue refers to the fruit of stream-entry; the supreme enemy refers to these three fetters.

Further, the Buddha, in this passage, speaks of the near obstructions to the three concentrations — that is, the view of the perishable aggregation of self is the near obstruction to emptiness; the clinging to rules and vows is the near obstruction to wishlessness; and doubt is the near obstruction to signlessness. Further, it is because these three fetters most frequently manifest before one who is drawing near to the path of seeing — as the Miscellaneous Aggregates states, sustained by the power of forbearance and attention, view and doubt fail to manifest; even should they manifest, one may fail to become aware of them, the afflictions being so subtle and one's own discerning wisdom so weak — "view," here, refers to the view of the perishable aggregation of self and the clinging to rules and vows; "doubt" refers to doubt itself. Further, it is because these three fetters are difficult to cut off, difficult to break, and difficult to transcend that this passage speaks of them in particular. Further, it is because these three fetters are so abundant, so firmly entrenched, and carry so many faults that this passage speaks of them in particular — that is, the fetter of the view of the perishable aggregation of self is the very root of the sixty-two views, and every other view is, in turn, the root of every other affliction, and every other affliction is, in turn, the root of karma, and every karma is, in turn, the root of the ripened fruit, and it is in dependence on the ripened fruit that every wholesome, unwholesome, and undefined dharma is able to arise and grow; the fetter of clinging to rules and vows is capable of giving rise to every kind of meaningless austerity; and the fetter of doubt causes sentient beings to doubt the prior extreme, to doubt the posterior extreme, and to doubt both the prior and posterior extremes together, hesitating within themselves, wondering what this thing is, how this thing came to be, who now exists, who will come to exist, and from where such beings as these have come, and to where, upon death, they will go. Further, these three fetters, though already cut off and already fully understood, nonetheless still manifest, in a resembling way, even in the conduct of an arhat — the fetter of the view of the perishable aggregation of self is already cut off and already fully understood at the moment of the forbearance for the class-knowledge of suffering, and yet arhats still, in a resembling way, continue to speak of "my bowl," "my robe," "my fellow-resident," "my disciple," "my dwelling," and "my requisites," speaking of self where there is, in truth, no self at all. The fetter of clinging to rules and vows is already cut off and already fully understood at the moment of the forbearance for the subsequent-knowledge of the path, and yet arhats still, in a resembling way, continue such practices as washing their hands and feet, dwelling in forest retreats, keeping only the three robes, constantly begging for their food, and even fully undertaking and upholding all twelve of the ascetic virtues, supposing thereby to attain purity — it is told that the Venerable Lomāśavaṅgīśa, though himself an arhat, bathed every single day, supposing thereby to attain purity — and cases of this kind are exceedingly numerous. The fetter of doubt is already cut off and already fully understood at the moment of the forbearance for the subsequent-knowledge of the path, and yet arhats still, in a resembling way, upon seeing some upright object from a great distance, give rise to hesitation, wondering whether it is a stump or a person, whether it is male or female; and, upon seeing two roads, likewise harbor doubt, wondering whether this one or that is the correct path; and, upon seeing two bowls or robes, likewise harbor hesitation, wondering whether this one belongs to himself or to another — and every such case as this should be understood accordingly.

Further, yoga practitioners take the cutting-off of these three fetters as their own vanguard, thereby realizing, all at once, every analytical cessation of every fetter abandoned by seeing. Further, these three fetters are the lower-portion fetters, common to all three realms — desire and hatred, though themselves lower-portion fetters, are not common to all three realms; the extreme views, wrong view, the view of grasping, conceit, ignorance, and the rest, though common to all three realms, are not lower-portion fetters, and are therefore not spoken of as being cut off in this passage. Further, among the seven latent tendencies, it is those already permanently cut off by the fruit of stream-entry that are spoken of in this passage — that is, of the seven latent tendencies, the fruit of stream-entry has already permanently cut off two, namely view and doubt; and view is itself of two kinds, differing according to whether it takes its own stage as its object or another stage as its object, and, within each of these two kinds, this passage speaks of one that stands foremost. Further, among the nine fetters, it is those already permanently cut off by the fruit of stream-entry that are spoken of in this passage — that is, the fruit of stream-entry has already cut off three of the nine fetters, namely view, the view of grasping, and doubt,

and it is on this basis that the Venerable Ghoṣa has stated: this very scripture ought properly to say that the permanent cutting-off of three fetters — view, the view of grasping, and doubt — realizes the fruit of stream-entry. Further, among the ten latent tendencies, it is those already permanently cut off by the fruit of stream-entry that are spoken of in this passage — the ten latent tendencies being the five views, doubt, craving, hatred, conceit, and delusion. The stream-enterer has already permanently cut off six of these ten latent tendencies, namely the five views and doubt. This passage speaks only of the permanent cutting-off of three fetters, not of these six, since it speaks only of what serves as the foremost, root category — that is, among these six, the view of the perishable aggregation of self is the root category, the extreme views being subordinate to it; the clinging to rules and vows is the root category, the view of grasping being subordinate to it; and doubt is the root category, wrong view being subordinate to it — having already spoken of the root category, the subordinate category should be understood to be spoken of as well, and it is for this reason that this passage speaks only of the permanent cutting-off of these three fetters. Further, this scripture briefly displays, as it were, a gateway or a stairway — that is, among the afflictions abandoned by seeing, some belong to a single section alone, some are common to two sections, and some are common to all four sections; when the view of the perishable aggregation of self is spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate whatever belongs to a single section alone; when the clinging to rules and vows is spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate whatever is common to two sections — though there exists no further, separate latent tendency genuinely common to two sections as such, the clinging to rules and vows is nonetheless named "common to two sections," or else this speaks of what is associated with and co-existent alongside it; when doubt is spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate whatever is common to all four sections.

Further, among the fetters abandoned by seeing, some pervade their own realm, and some pervade another realm — when the view of the perishable aggregation of self is spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what pervades its own realm; when the clinging to rules and vows and doubt are spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what pervades another realm. One asks: why is it that what pervades one's own realm is spoken of through only a single fetter, while what pervades another realm is spoken of through two? The answer: what pervades another realm spans both what takes a contaminated object and what takes an uncontaminated object — when the clinging to rules and vows is spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate the fetter that takes a contaminated object; when doubt is spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate the fetter that takes an uncontaminated object. Just as with pervading one's own realm and pervading another realm, so too should pervading one's own stage and pervading another stage be understood in just the same way. Further, among the fetters abandoned by seeing, some take a contaminated object, and some take an uncontaminated object — when the view of the perishable aggregation of self and the clinging to rules and vows are spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate the fetters that take a contaminated object; when doubt is spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate the fetter that takes an uncontaminated object. One asks: why does this passage speak of two fetters that take a contaminated object, yet only one that takes an uncontaminated object? The answer: among the fetters that take a contaminated object, some take an object belonging to their own realm and stage, and some take an object belonging to another realm and stage — when the view of the perishable aggregation of self is spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what takes an object belonging to its own realm and stage; when the clinging to rules and vows is spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what takes an object belonging to another realm and stage. Just as with taking a contaminated or an uncontaminated object, so too should taking an object involving contention or free of contention, a worldly or a supramundane object, an object possessing the taste of enjoyment or free of such taste, an object dependent on indulgence or dependent on renunciation, an object that falls within the realms or does not, an object that accords with the fetters or does not,

an object that accords with grasping or does not, and an object that accords with the entanglements or does not, all be understood in just the same way. Further, among the fetters abandoned by seeing, some take a conditioned object, and some take an unconditioned object — when the view of the perishable aggregation of self and the clinging to rules and vows are spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate the fetters that take a conditioned object; when doubt is spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate the fetter that takes an unconditioned object — the reason two fetters are spoken of as taking a conditioned object should be understood exactly as explained above. Just as with taking a conditioned or an unconditioned object, so too should taking an object that is permanent or impermanent, constant or inconstant, and subject to alteration or free of alteration, be understood in just the same way. Further, among the fetters abandoned by seeing, some are of the nature of view, and some are not — when the view of the perishable aggregation of self and the clinging to rules and vows are spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate the fetters of the nature of view; when doubt is spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate the fetter not of the nature of view — the reason two fetters are said to be of the nature of view should be understood exactly as explained above. Just as with being of the nature of view or not, so too should being of the nature of observing, or not, of the nature of seeking, or not, of delighting in inquiry, or not, of delighting in turning about, or not, of firm attachment, or not, and of grasping repeatedly at an object, or not, all be understood in just the same way. Further, among the fetters abandoned by seeing, some are unwholesome, and some are undefined — when the clinging to rules and vows and doubt are spoken of,

one should understand this to broadly indicate the unwholesome fetters; when the view of the perishable aggregation of self is spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate the undefined fetters — the reason two fetters are said to be unwholesome should be understood exactly as explained above. Just as with being unwholesome or undefined, so too should possessing a ripened fruit or lacking one, drawing forth two fruits or only one, being associated with shamelessness and lack of moral dread or dissociated from them, be understood in just the same way. Further, among the fetters abandoned by seeing, some operate through a joyful aspect, and some operate through a sorrowful aspect — when the view of the perishable aggregation of self and the clinging to rules and vows are spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what operates through a joyful aspect; when doubt is spoken of, one should understand this to broadly indicate what operates through a sorrowful aspect — the reason two fetters are said to operate through a joyful aspect should be understood exactly as explained above. Further, these three fetters obstruct the three pure aggregates, and it is for this reason that this passage speaks of them in particular — that is, the view of the perishable aggregation of self obstructs the pure aggregate of discipline; there are those who say it obstructs the pure aggregate of concentration. The clinging to rules and vows obstructs the pure aggregate of concentration; there are those who say it obstructs the pure aggregate of discipline. Doubt obstructs the pure aggregate of wisdom. Just as they obstruct the three pure aggregates, so too should their obstruction of the three trainings, the three cultivations, and the three purities be understood in just the same way. Further, these three fetters obstruct the eight-limbed noble path, and it is for this reason that this passage speaks of them in particular — that is, the view of the perishable aggregation of self obstructs right speech, right action, and right livelihood; there are those who say it obstructs right mindfulness and right concentration. The clinging to rules and vows obstructs right mindfulness and right concentration; there are those who say it obstructs right speech, right action, and right livelihood. Doubt obstructs right view, right intention, and right effort. Further, it is in order to bring those in doubt to a settled resolution that the permanent cutting-off of three fetters upon realizing the fruit of stream-entry is spoken of — that is, worldly doubt still clings to the notion of a self even in one who has already attained nobility, still clings to notions of good and ill fortune, and still harbors genuine hesitation — and it is for this reason that the Blessed One states that these three are permanently cut off upon realizing the fruit of stream-entry, since the fruit of stream-entry is the very first of the noble fruits.

One asks: is one named a stream-enterer on account of first attaining the path, or on account of first attaining the fruit? Suppose either — what fault follows? Both alternatives carry a difficulty.

If one is named a stream-enterer on account of first attaining the path, then the eighth noble one ought likewise to be named a stream-enterer — the eighth noble one referring to the faith-follower and the dharma-follower, counted from the superior fruits downward as the eighth — since these are the very first to attain the uncontaminated path. If one is named a stream-enterer on account of first attaining the fruit, then one who has doubly become free from the desire realm's own defilements, or one who has become entirely free from them, upon entering the certainty of rightness and reaching the stage of the subsequent-knowledge of the path, ought likewise to be named a stream-enterer,

since, at that very moment, he attains the very first of the four noble fruits. There are those who say: it is on account of first attaining the path that one is named a stream-enterer. One asks: then ought not the eighth noble one to be named a stream-enterer? The answer: one is named a stream-enterer only if, upon first attaining the path, one attains it fully equipped with the knowledge that takes the path itself as its object — the eighth noble one, though he has indeed first attained the path, has not yet fully attained the knowledge that takes the path as its object, and is therefore not named a stream-enterer. Further, one is named a stream-enterer only if the path first attained belongs to the category of the fruit of the path of cultivation, subsumed within the subsequent-knowledge of the path — the eighth noble one is not so. Further, one is named a stream-enterer only if the path first attained is fully equipped with three conditions: first, relinquishing the path already attained; second, attaining the path not yet attained; third, attaining the single, unified attainment of the cutting-off of the fetters — "relinquishing the path already attained" refers to relinquishing the path of seeing; "attaining the path not yet attained" refers to attaining the path of cultivation; "attaining the single, unified attainment of the cutting-off of the fetters" refers to attaining the single, unified cutting-off and attainment of the fetters abandoned by seeing across all three realms — the eighth noble one is not so. Further, one is named a stream-enterer only if the path first attained is fully equipped with five conditions: first, relinquishing the path already attained; second, attaining the path not yet attained; third, attaining the single, unified attainment of the cutting-off of the fetters; fourth, attaining all eight kinds of knowledge all at once; fifth, cultivating all sixteen aspects at one and the same time — the eighth noble one is not so. Further, one is named a stream-enterer only if the path first attained has already cut off every fetter abandoned by seeing, so that no affliction abandoned by mere forbearance with respect to what possesses no genuine substance, nor any wrongly-natured view, remains — the eighth noble one is not so. Further, one is named a stream-enterer only if the path first attained possesses a genuine mark, a genuine designation, and can be discussed together with others — the eighth noble one is not so. Further, one is named a stream-enterer only if the path first attained admits the possibility of death occurring at that very time — the eighth noble one is not so. There are yet other masters who say: it is on account of first attaining the fruit that one is named a stream-enterer. One asks: then ought not one who has doubly become free from the desire realm's own defilements, or one who has become entirely free from them, upon entering the certainty of rightness and reaching the stage of the subsequent-knowledge of the path, likewise be named a stream-enterer? The answer: one is named a stream-enterer only if the fruit first attained is attained gradually, not by way of any leap or transcendence — the other case is not so.

Further, one is named a stream-enterer only if the fruit first attained realizes the very first liberation, the very first crossing, and abides in the very first fruit — the other case is not so. Further, one is named a stream-enterer only if the fruit first attained is one not previously attained through a doubled or complete freedom from desire by way of the mundane path — the other case is not so. Further, one is named a stream-enterer only if the fruit first attained is one not previously attained through the mundane path's own cutting-off of six or nine grades of desire-realm defilement — the other case is not so. Further, one is named a stream-enterer only if the fruit first attained is the very first among the four fruits — the other case is not so. Further, one is named a stream-enterer only if the fruit first attained is the very first among the four approaches and four fruits — the other case is not so. Further, one is named a stream-enterer only if the fruit first attained is the very first among the four pairs, the eight kinds of individual — the other case is not so. Further, one is named a stream-enterer only if the fruit first attained is one for which both stage and path are fixed — that is, for the fruit of once-returning, though the stage is fixed, the path is not, since it may be attained through either the mundane or the uncontaminated path; for the fruit of non-returning, neither the stage nor the path is fixed, since it may be attained by depending on any of six stages, through either the mundane or the uncontaminated path; for the fruit of arhatship, though the path is fixed, the stage is not, since it may be attained by depending on any of nine stages — the fruit of stream-entry alone has both stage and path fixed, since it is attained only by depending on the stage of preparatory approach, through the uncontaminated path alone. There are yet others who say: it is neither on account of first attaining the path, nor on account of first attaining the fruit, that one is named a stream-enterer, but rather on account of possessing the fruit of stream-entry that one is so named — a person is named according to the dharma he possesses, exactly as one speaks of a vessel of ghee, a vessel of oil, or a vessel of medicinal water. One asks: for what meaning is one named a stream-enterer? The answer: "stream" refers to the noble path; "entering" refers to entry — one who has entered the noble path is therefore named a stream-enterer. One asks: once-returners, non-returners, and arhats have likewise entered the noble path — ought they not likewise to be named stream-enterers? The answer: with respect to this meaning, they too are not excluded, yet the fruit of stream-entry, being the very first, receives this name on that account — the remaining fruits, each possessing their own further, distinct virtues, receive their own further, distinct designations instead.

One asks: once-returners, non-returners, and arhats likewise attain the dharma of never falling back — why, then, does this passage speak only of the fruit of stream-entry as attaining the dharma of never falling back? The answer: this ought indeed to be spoken of for the others as well, and that it is not so spoken of should be understood as a matter of surplus meaning left implicit. Further, each of the fruits possesses its own supreme, distinctive dharma, and its own distinctive designation — the fruit of stream-entry, its dharma of never falling back being supreme, its designation of never falling back being distinctive, is spoken of as never falling back, since it never falls into the evil destinies. The fruit of once-returning, its dharma of once returning being supreme, its designation of once returning being distinctive,

is spoken of as once returning, since it undergoes only a single further round of passing back and forth. The fruit of non-returning, its dharma of not returning being supreme, its designation of not returning being distinctive, is spoken of as not returning, since it never again returns to the desire realm. The fruit of arhatship, its dharma of no further arising being supreme, its designation of no further arising being distinctive, is spoken of as giving rise to no further existence,

since it undergoes no further rebirth — and it is on this account that the fruit of stream-entry alone is spoken of as never falling back. One asks: ordinary beings, too, may attain the dharma of never falling back — why, then, does this passage not speak of ordinary beings in this connection? 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 is because their case is not fixed — that is, among ordinary beings, some attain the dharma of never falling back, and some do not; every stream-enterer, by contrast, is fixed in attaining this dharma of never falling back, and it is for this reason that this passage speaks of them in particular.

"Fixed" refers to abiding within the assembly of the rightly-determined — every stream-enterer is fixed in destiny for final nirvāṇa, and it is for this reason spoken of as fixed, since their own causal conditions have already been transformed, exactly as an unbaked clay vessel, thrown down from the third story of a building, though it has not yet struck the ground and is not yet broken, is nonetheless bound to break, and is therefore already spoken of as broken.

"Proceeding toward enlightenment" refers to the wisdom of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising, which are together named enlightenment — the stream-enterer aspires to and forbears this enlightenment, reveres, cherishes, and delights in it, and follows and proceeds toward it; his approach to attaining it is named proceeding toward it.

"Bounded within, at most, seven further existences" refers to the fact that he undergoes only these seven states of existence, and no more. One asks: ought this not properly to be said as fourteen states of existence, or as twenty-eight states of existence? If this speaks only with reference to the actual state of birth proper, it ought properly to be said as fourteen states of existence,

since he undergoes seven such states among the gods and seven among humans. If this speaks with reference to both the actual state of birth and the intermediate state together, then it ought to be twenty-eight states of existence, since gods and humans alike each undergo fourteen states of existence — namely, seven states of actual birth and seven intermediate states. Why, then, does this passage speak only of a maximum of seven states of existence? The answer: exactly as the seven-leaf tree is spoken of simply as not exceeding seven, so too is this spoken of as a maximum of seven states of existence — that is, gods and humans, whether in their actual state of birth or their intermediate state, each undergo seven such states. As stated in a further scripture: the Buddha turned the wheel of the Dharma with respect to the four truths, in three turnings and twelve aspects — this does not mean that there are only three turnings and twelve aspects in total;

it ought properly to be said that there are twelve turnings and forty-eight aspects, since each of the four truths individually possesses three turnings and twelve aspects — yet, since no single truth exceeds three turnings and twelve aspects, this is spoken of in just this way. A further scripture likewise states that there are seven abodes of goodness, and three kinds of contemplation, by which one is swiftly able, within the noble Dharma and discipline, to exhaust every contaminant — this ought not to be taken to mean that there are only seven abodes of goodness in total; it ought properly to be said that there are thirty-five abodes of goodness, or even immeasurable abodes of goodness, since each of the five aggregates, or every other dharma, individually possesses seven such abodes of goodness — yet, since no single aggregate exceeds seven, it is spoken of in just this way. A further scripture likewise states: monks, I shall now expound two dharmas for you — namely, the eye and form, up through the mind and dharmas — this ought not to be taken to mean that there are only two such dharmas in total; it ought properly to be said that there are twelve, since each does not exceed two, and it is spoken of in just this way — this, too, is exactly the same. One asks: why does the stream-enterer undergo exactly seven states of existence in his own wandering, neither more nor less?

The Venerable Pārśva states: were it either more or fewer, this same doubt would equally arise, asking why this particular number was chosen — yet, so long as undergoing exactly seven states of existence does not contradict the true characteristics of the dharmas, this ought not to be pressed as an objection. Further, it is because the very power of his own ripening cause possesses just this much remaining force that this is so. Further, it is through the power of his own karma that he is able to undergo seven such states of existence, and it is through the power of the noble path that he is prevented from reaching an eighth — exactly as one bitten seven times by a venomous serpent is, through the force of the great elements, still able to walk seven steps, yet, through the force of the venom, is unable to reach an eighth step. Further, were he to undergo an eighth state of existence, that eighth birth ought then to possess no noble path at all, since the noble path, by its own inherent nature, does not depend upon an eighth birth within the desire realm — and, were that eighth birth to possess no noble path, then one who had already seen the truths would, in that birth, revert to not seeing them; one who had already attained the noble fruit would revert to not attaining it; one who had already entered direct realization would revert to not having entered it; and one who had already become a noble one would revert to becoming an ordinary being once more — let there be no such fault as this. It is for this reason that he undergoes only seven such states of existence. Further, were he to undergo an eighth state of existence, he would thereby transcend the very three time-periods, surpassing even the teaching and discipline of as many buddhas as the sands of the Ganges, and would then no longer be counted among the Tathāgata's own inner household of disciples — exactly as one who has passed beyond the seventh generation of kinship is no longer called a relative. Further, at the stage of superior forbearance,

seven births among gods and humans within the desire realm have already been eliminated, and only a single further birth remains, to be undergone within the form or formless realm — every other kind of birth has thereby already attained its own non-analytical cessation, and, once a dharma has attained non-analytical cessation, it can never again manifest before one, and it is for this reason that he undergoes only seven such states of existence. Further, he possesses, within the desire realm, seven places in which he is capable of undergoing rebirth — these seven places referring to the human realm and the six heavens of the desire realm — and, wandering back and forth among these, human and heavenly rebirths alternate with one another, and it is for this reason that he undergoes seven such states of existence. Further, it is because the force of the nine grades of affliction belonging to the desire realm differs, grade by grade, that he undergoes these seven states of existence. Further, it is because he cultivates the seven factors of enlightenment to their full completion across these seven states of existence that he undergoes only seven such states of existence. Further, it is because he cultivates the seven kinds of dependent concentration and the seven kinds of noble path to their full completion across these seven states of existence that he undergoes only seven such states of existence. Further, it is because he cultivates the antidotal path to the seven latent tendencies to its full completion across these seven states of existence that he undergoes only seven such states of existence, neither more nor less.

"Seven births among the gods and seven among humans" is spoken with reference to the fully complete stream-enterer — that is, although gods and humans are together said to undergo seven births equally, there does in fact exist variation among stream-enterers as to how these are apportioned between the heavenly and human realms — some undergo seven heavenly births and six human births, some seven human and six heavenly, some six heavenly and five human, some six human and five heavenly, some five heavenly and four human, some five human and four heavenly, some four heavenly and three human, some four human and three heavenly, some three heavenly and two human, some three human and two heavenly, some two heavenly and one human, and some two human and one heavenly — this passage speaks only of the case involving the greatest number of births, and it is for this reason that it speaks of the stream-enterer undergoing seven births among gods and seven among humans respectively. One asks: for the fully complete stream-enterer, in which realm does the seventh birth reach its completion — does he attain final nirvāṇa in his seventh birth among the gods, or in his seventh birth among humans? Here, there are those who say: if it is in this present life that one attains the fruit of stream-entry, this very life is counted among the seven states of existence — on this view, if one attains the fruit while a human, then it is in heaven that the seventh birth reaches completion and final nirvāṇa is attained; if one attains the fruit while a god, then it is among humans that the seventh birth reaches completion and final nirvāṇa is attained. There are those who say: if it is in this present life that one attains the fruit of stream-entry, this present life is not counted among the seven states of existence — on this view, if one attains the fruit while a human, it is again among humans that the seventh birth reaches completion and final nirvāṇa is attained; if one attains the fruit while a god, it is again in heaven that the seventh birth reaches completion and final nirvāṇa is attained. One should know that the first position stated here does not accord with reason, since the intermediate state of the very life in which the fruit is attained is, in every case, subsumed entirely under the category of an ordinary being — were this so, the stream-enterer ought properly to be said to undergo only twenty-seven states of existence in total, yet the Prajñaptiśāstra states that the stream-enterer undergoes twenty-eight states of existence in his own wandering before reaching the very limit of suffering, and it is for this reason that one ought not to say that the very life in which the fruit is first attained is counted among the seven states of existence. One asks: among the first six of these seven states of existence, does the noble path arise? There are those who say it does not — for, were it to arise, one ought thereby to attain final nirvāṇa within that very life. There are those who say it does arise, yet, sustained by the force of karma, one does not thereby attain final nirvāṇa. One asks: if one completes the full seven states of existence in an age when no buddha has appeared in the world, does one, while still a householder, attain arhatship? There are those who say one does not — one must first go forth and receive the further monastic robes before attaining arhatship. There are those who say that one does attain arhatship while still a householder, yet, having attained it, one must afterward necessarily go forth and receive the further monastic robes — those who hold this position say that this is simply the natural, fixed pattern by which one who has become a disciple of the Buddha comes to attain the ultimate fruit, exactly as the five hundred sages who once cultivated the path upon Mount Ṛṣigiri, originally śrāvakas born into an age without a buddha, were shown the very marks of a Buddhist disciple by a monkey, and, learning to imitate this in every respect, thereby realized the fruit of the pratyekabuddha — a non-learner never adopts the outward marks of an outsider.

"Wandering back and forth" refers to the fact that, once his heavenly lifespan is exhausted, he comes to be reborn among humans, and, once his human lifespan is exhausted, he goes to be reborn among the gods, exactly as a wealthy and eminent person tours back and forth through his own forests and gardens — "wandering" refers to the intermediate state, "back and forth" refers to the actual state of birth. "Reaching the very limit of suffering" reveals the meaning of realizing the very limit of suffering. One asks: is this very limit of suffering to be found within suffering, or outside suffering? If it is found within suffering, it ought then not properly to be a limit at all; if it is found outside suffering, then how is the analogy drawn from worldly experience to be reconciled — exactly as, with a bar of pure gold, its beginning, its middle, and its end are all, without exception, gold throughout, so too, one might suppose, ought the very limit of suffering still to be suffering. There are those who say:

the very limit of suffering is to be found within suffering — that is, it refers precisely to the very last aggregates possessed by an arhat; though these are indeed suffering, they are not themselves the cause of any further suffering, giving rise to no further suffering, and suffering thereby ceasing to continue — and it is for this reason called the very limit of suffering. There are yet other masters who say: the very limit of suffering is to be found outside suffering — that is, it refers precisely to nirvāṇa itself, which permanently transcends suffering, and is therefore called the very limit of suffering. A worldly analogy drawn from present experience need not, in every case, be forced to reconcile perfectly, since it is not itself subsumed within the three canonical baskets, and therefore need not be explained in every particular — the principle governing worldly dharmas and the principle governing noble dharmas are, after all, each their own distinct matter.