Fire Banked Beneath Ash

One asks: why are they named wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate? The answer: whatever dharma is held together by skillful means, is capable of bringing forth a desirable fruit, and is settled and secure by its own nature, is named wholesome.

‘Held together by skillful means’ displays the truth of the path; ‘capable of bringing forth a desirable fruit’ displays a portion of the truths of suffering and its arising, namely, contaminated wholesomeness; ‘settled and secure by its own nature’ displays the truth of cessation. Whatever dharma is not held together by skillful means, is capable of bringing forth an undesirable fruit, and is unsettled and insecure by its own nature, is named unwholesome — this broadly displays a portion of the truths of suffering and its arising, namely, every evil dharma. Whatever dharma stands in opposition to both of these two is named indeterminate. Further, whatever dharma is capable of bringing forth a desirable fruit, a fruit of pleasant feeling, is named wholesome; whatever dharma is capable of bringing forth an undesirable fruit, a fruit of painful feeling, is named unwholesome; whatever dharma stands in opposition to both of these two is named indeterminate. Further, whatever dharma is capable of drawing forth the sprout of desirable existence, and the sprout of liberation, is named wholesome; whatever dharma is capable of drawing forth the sprout of undesirable existence is named unwholesome; whatever dharma stands in opposition to both of these two is named indeterminate. Further, whatever dharma is capable of causing rebirth in a good destiny is named wholesome; whatever dharma is capable of causing rebirth in an evil destiny is named unwholesome; whatever dharma stands in opposition to both of these two is named indeterminate. Further, whatever dharma falls within the class of return and cessation, its own nature light and rising, is named wholesome; whatever dharma falls within the class of continued wandering, its own nature sinking and heavy, is named unwholesome; whatever dharma stands in opposition to both of these two is named indeterminate. The Venerable Megha states: it is on account of four matters that a dharma is named wholesome — first, on account of its own nature; second, on account of association; third, on account of co-arising; fourth, on account of ultimate meaning.

‘On account of its own nature’ refers to what is, by its own nature, wholesome — there are those who say this is shame and moral dread; there are those who say this is the three wholesome roots. ‘On account of association’ refers to associated wholesomeness, namely, the mind and mental factors associated with those. ‘On account of co-arising’ refers to co-arisen wholesomeness, namely, the bodily and verbal karma, and the dissociated formations, that arise from those. ‘On account of ultimate meaning’ refers to ultimate wholesomeness, namely, nirvāṇa itself, since it is settled and secure, and is therefore named wholesome. The Vibhajyavādins likewise state as follows: wholesomeness by own-nature refers to wisdom; associated wholesomeness refers to consciousness; co-arisen wholesomeness refers to bodily and verbal karma; ultimate wholesomeness refers to nirvāṇa. It is on account of four matters that a dharma is named unwholesome — first, on account of its own nature; second, on account of association; third, on account of co-arising; fourth, on account of ultimate meaning. ‘On account of its own nature’ refers to what is, by its own nature, unwholesome — there are those who say this is shamelessness and lack of moral dread; there are those who say this is the three unwholesome roots. ‘On account of association’ refers to associated unwholesomeness, namely, the mind and mental factors associated with those. ‘On account of co-arising’ refers to co-arisen unwholesomeness, namely, the bodily and verbal karma, and the dissociated formations, that arise from those. ‘On account of ultimate meaning’ refers to ultimate unwholesomeness, namely, birth and death itself, since it is unsettled and insecure, and is therefore named unwholesome. The Vibhajyavādins likewise state as follows: unwholesomeness by own-nature refers to delusion; associated unwholesomeness refers to consciousness; co-arisen unwholesomeness refers to bodily and verbal karma; ultimate unwholesomeness refers to birth and death. The Venerable Pārśva states: whatever dharma is rational attention, is by its own nature associated with rational attention, and arises co-jointly from rational attention, is the outflow and disjunction-fruit of rational attention, and is therefore named wholesome; whatever dharma is irrational attention, is by its own nature associated with irrational attention, and arises co-jointly from irrational attention, is the outflow fruit of irrational attention, and is therefore named unwholesome; whatever dharma stands in opposition to both of these two is named indeterminate. Further, whatever dharma is shame and moral dread, is by its own nature associated with shame and moral dread, and arises co-jointly from shame and moral dread, is the outflow and disjunction-fruit of shame and moral dread, and is therefore named wholesome; whatever dharma is shamelessness and lack of moral dread, is by its own nature associated with shamelessness and lack of moral dread, and arises co-jointly from shamelessness and lack of moral dread, is the outflow fruit of shamelessness and lack of moral dread, and is therefore named unwholesome; whatever dharma stands in opposition to both of these two is named indeterminate. Further, whatever dharma is one of the three wholesome roots, is by its own nature associated with the three wholesome roots, and arises co-jointly from the three wholesome roots, is the outflow and disjunction-fruit of the three wholesome roots, and is therefore named wholesome; whatever dharma is one of the three unwholesome roots, is by its own nature associated with the three unwholesome roots,

and arises co-jointly from the three unwholesome roots, is the outflow fruit of the three unwholesome roots, and is therefore named unwholesome; whatever dharma stands in opposition to both of these two is named indeterminate. Further, whatever dharma is one of the five faculties, faith and the rest, is by its own nature associated with the five faculties, faith and the rest, and arises co-jointly from the five faculties, faith and the rest, is the outflow and disjunction-fruit of the five faculties, faith and the rest, and is therefore named wholesome; whatever dharma is one of the five hindrances, is by its own nature associated with the five hindrances, and arises co-jointly from the five hindrances, is the outflow fruit of the five hindrances, and is therefore named unwholesome; whatever dharma stands in opposition to both of these two is named indeterminate. The Saṃgītiparyāya states: why are they named wholesome? The answer: because these are capable of drawing forth a desirable, delightful, pleasant, agreeable, and welcome fruit, they are named wholesome — this displays their outflow fruit. Further, because these are capable of bringing forth a desirable, delightful, pleasant, agreeable, and welcome ripened fruit, they are named wholesome — this displays their ripened fruit. Why are they named unwholesome? The answer: because these are capable of drawing forth an undesirable, undelightful, unpleasant, disagreeable, and unwelcome fruit, they are named unwholesome — this displays their outflow fruit. Further, because these are capable of bringing forth an undesirable, undelightful, unpleasant, disagreeable, and unwelcome ripened fruit, they are named unwholesome — this displays their ripened fruit. Whatever dharma stands in opposition to both of these two is named indeterminate. One asks: the World-Honored One definitively declares that suffering is truly suffering, that its arising is truly its arising, that its cessation is truly its cessation, and that the path is truly the path; and every dharma whatsoever, namely, the twelve sense-fields, has been displayed, spoken, established, and disclosed by the World-Honored One himself — how, then, can any dharma be established as indeterminate at all? The answer: it is not that a dharma is named indeterminate simply for not being spoken of; rather, the Buddha declares wholesome dharmas to be wholesome, and unwholesome dharmas to be unwholesome, and whatever dharma cannot be declared either wholesome or unwholesome is spoken of as indeterminate. Further, the Buddha declares that wholesome dharmas possess a desirable fruit, and that unwholesome dharmas possess an undesirable fruit; whatever dharma possesses neither of these two fruits to be so declared is spoken of as indeterminate. Further, it is on account of two matters that a wholesome dharma may be so declared — first, on account of its own nature; second, on account of its ripened fruit — and the unwholesome, likewise; the indeterminate, though it does possess an own-nature that may be declared, nonetheless possesses no ripened fruit, and is therefore named indeterminate — or, alternatively, it is simply not spoken of, and is therefore named indeterminate, exactly as, within the various scriptures, there are questions that ought to be set aside without a direct answer.

The four kinds of direct discourse have already been explained within the Miscellaneous Aggregate.

Of the three fetters, up through the ninety-eight latent tendencies, how many possess a ripened fruit, and how many possess none? One asks: for what reason is this discourse composed? The answer: it is in order to check other schools' own tenets and to make manifest the correct meaning — that is, there are those who hold that, apart from volition, there is no ripening cause, and, apart from feeling, there is no ripened fruit, as the Dārṣṭāntikas maintain; it is in order to check this very intent that this passage makes manifest that the ripening cause and the ripened fruit alike span all five aggregates. There are further those who hold that, once a ripening cause and its ripened fruit have ripened, the cause's own substance thereupon ceases to exist, as the Kāśyapīyas maintain, who state as follows: the ripening cause and its ripened fruit, prior to ripening, still retain their own substance; once the fruit has ripened, that substance thereupon ceases to exist, exactly as an external seed, prior to the sprout's arising, still retains its own substance, while, once the sprout has arisen, that substance thereupon ceases to exist; it is in order to check this very intent that this passage makes manifest that the ripening cause and its ripened fruit, even once ripened, still retain their own substance. There are yet further those who hold that

wholesome and unwholesome karma possess no ripened fruit whatsoever, as the various outsiders maintain; it is in order to refute this very tenet that this passage makes manifest that good and evil karma do possess a ripened fruit. It is in order to check these various divergent tenets, and to make manifest this treatise's own school, that this discourse is composed. Further, it is not in order to check others and display one's own tenet, but solely in order to disclose the true nature of the dharmas and thereby give rise to correct understanding, that this discourse is composed. The answer: every unwholesome dharma possesses a ripened fruit; every indeterminate dharma possesses none.

This should be analyzed at length exactly as in the earlier gateway. One asks: what is the sense of ‘possessing a ripened fruit’? Is a dharma named as possessing a ripened fruit because it co-exists with its own ripened dharma, or because it co-exists with another's ripened dharma? Suppose it were granted either way — what fault would follow? If it is named as possessing a ripened fruit because it co-exists with its own ripened dharma, then cause and fruit would have to exist simultaneously — how, then, is what the verse states to be reconciled? As it is said:

An evil deed is not requited at once,
unlike milk becoming yogurt;
rather, like fire banked beneath ash,
the fool who treads there is burned only in time.

There exists the sajjā herb: ground and placed within milk, it at once causes the milk to become yogurt. The fruit of karma is not so — it is exactly like fire banked beneath ash: a foolish person, treading carelessly upon it,

does not notice at first, and is only later burned by it. An evil deed is exactly the same — though, at the time of its cause, it may bring pleasure, once its fruit ripens, the suffering of the evil destinies follows. If a dharma is named as possessing a ripened fruit because it co-exists with another's ripened dharma, then the noble path, too, would have to possess a ripened fruit, since it arises together with another's ripened dharma at one and the same time. The answer: a dharma is named as possessing a ripened fruit because it co-exists with its own ripened dharma. One asks: if so, cause and fruit would have to exist simultaneously — how, then, is what the verse states to be reconciled? The answer: co-existence is of two kinds — first, mere co-presence; second, simultaneous co-presence. Mere co-presence refers to such things as having a cause, having a fruit, having an object, and having a ripened fruit. ‘Having a cause’ and ‘having a fruit’ refer to the fact that, though a cause may have already ceased a hundred koṭis of eons before its fruit becomes manifest, and though the distance between them be great, the later is nonetheless named as having a cause, and the earlier as having a fruit. ‘Having an object’ refers to the fact that, though a person, standing in one place, might gaze upon the orb of the sun or moon and give rise to eye-consciousness, and though the distance between them be as much as forty thousand yojanas, that very eye-consciousness is nonetheless named as having an object. ‘Having a ripened fruit’ refers to the fact that, though it be a hundred koṭis of eons before the ripened fruit of a karmic deed at last arises, and though the distance between them be great, the earlier karmic cause is nonetheless named as having a ripened fruit. Simultaneous co-presence refers to such things as having investigation, having examination, having joy, and having attentiveness. ‘Having investigation’ refers to a dharma associated with investigation; ‘having examination’ refers to a dharma associated with examination; ‘having joy’ refers to a dharma associated with the joy faculty; ‘having attentiveness’ refers to a dharma associated with attention. One should understand that ‘having a ripened fruit,’ here, is spoken with reference to mere co-presence, not to simultaneous co-presence. Further, co-existence is of two kinds — first, mere co-presence; second, conjoined co-presence. Mere co-presence refers to such things as having a cause, having a fruit, having an object, and having a ripened fruit; conjoined co-presence refers to such things as having investigation, having examination, having joy, and having attentiveness. One should understand that ‘having a ripened fruit,’ here, is spoken with reference to mere co-presence, not to conjoined co-presence. Further, co-existence is of three kinds — first, proximate co-presence; second, distant co-presence; third, both proximate and distant co-presence. Proximate co-presence refers to such things as having investigation, having examination, having joy, and having attentiveness; distant co-presence refers to such things as having a cause, having a fruit, having an object, and having a ripened fruit; both proximate and distant co-presence refers to such things as having a contaminant, having a latent tendency, having a condition, and having a basis. ‘Having a contaminant’ refers to a dharma associated with a contaminant, together with a dharma taken as its object; ‘having a latent tendency,’ likewise; ‘having a condition’ refers to those dharmas near to or distant from that condition; ‘having a basis,’ likewise — ‘basis’ referring to the basis of a cause, or the basis of what one is bound to. One should understand that ‘having a ripened fruit,’ here, is spoken with reference to distant co-presence, not to either of the other two. One asks: why is it named ripening? The answer: because it ripens as something of a different kind, it is named ripening. Ripening is of two kinds — first, of the same kind; second, of a different kind. Ripening of the same kind refers to the outflow fruit, that is, the wholesome gives rise to the wholesome, the unwholesome to the unwholesome, and the indeterminate to the indeterminate; ripening of a different kind refers to the ripened fruit proper, that is, wholesome and unwholesome dharmas alike bring forth an indeterminate fruit. The remaining questions and answers should be understood exactly as explained within the Miscellaneous Aggregate.

Of the three fetters, up through the ninety-eight latent tendencies, how many are abandoned by seeing, and how many by cultivation? One asks: for what reason is this discourse composed? The answer: it is in order to check other schools' own tenets and to make manifest the correct meaning — that is, the Dārṣṭāntikas state as follows: an ordinary being is incapable of cutting off any affliction whatsoever. The Great Virtuous One states: an ordinary being possesses no capacity to cut off a latent tendency, but is capable only of suppressing an entanglement — should one state the matter this way, no harm to the principle follows. One asks: for what reason do they hold this view? The answer: it is on the strength of scripture, that is, scripture states, only what is cut off through seeing the Dharma with noble wisdom is named true cutting-off, not what any ordinary being achieves, since an ordinary being, not yet possessing noble wisdom, is as yet incapable of cutting off anything. One asks: if so, how is what scripture elsewhere states to be reconciled? As it is said: the monk Měngxǐzǐ had already cut off the desire realm's own defilement, had already cut off the form realm's own defilement, and had already cut off the defilement of the sphere of infinite space, the sphere of infinite consciousness, and the sphere of nothing-at-all, being reborn in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; and it is likewise stated that an outsider sage had already become free of the desire realm's own defilement. They answer as follows: the scripture cited speaks of what is not cut off as though cut off, and of what is not detached from as though detached from — exactly as other scriptures, too, speak of what is not cut off as though cut off, and of what is not detached from as though detached from. Which scripture speaks of what is not cut off as though cut off?

As it is said:

The fool clings to a self and to what is mine —
both are forever cut off at death;
the wise, already knowing this,
cling neither to a self nor to what is mine.

Which scripture speaks of what is not detached from as though detached from? As it is said: there are, within a certain village, young boys and girls who, playing with ash and mud, build for themselves a little house; so long as they remain unattached to this house, they tend, maintain, and guard it, but, once they become detached from it, they destroy it and abandon it. These two scriptures alike speak of what is not cut off as though cut off, and of what is not detached from as though detached from, and the meaning of the scripture cited above ought to be understood in just the same way. Ordinary beings, with respect to their own afflictions, have, in truth, never once been truly cut off from them, but are capable only of temporarily suppressing them — that is, at the time of becoming detached, they rely on the mundane path to ascend to the first dhyāna, thereby becoming free of the desire realm's own defilement, and, proceeding thus by degrees, ascend up through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, thereby becoming free of the sphere of nothing-at-all's own defilement; but, since the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception itself has nothing higher for them to ascend to, they are incapable of becoming free of it — exactly as an inchworm, climbing along a plant, grips what is above and releases what is below, and, upon reaching the very topmost point, having nothing higher left to grip, thereupon retreats back down again, exactly as a person climbing a tree should be understood to do likewise. And, exactly as a jackal or the like, trampling upon hemp or reeds, injures only the sprout and stalk, without ever removing the root itself, an ordinary being's own becoming detached should likewise be understood in just the same way — capable only of temporary suppression, never of true and lasting cutting-off. It is in order to check this very intent that this passage makes manifest that ordinary beings, too, by means of the mundane path, are indeed capable of cutting off a fetter.

There are further those who hold that a noble one certainly never cuts off an affliction by means of the mundane path, who state as follows: for what reason would a noble one ever forsake the uncontaminated path in favor of the mundane one? It is in order to check this very intent that this passage makes manifest that a noble one, too, does indeed cut off an affliction by means of the mundane path. There are yet further those who hold that

every affliction whatsoever is cut off all at once, and that there is no such thing as gradual cutting-off, who state as follows: at the moment the diamond-like concentration manifests before the mind, every affliction is cut off all at once — it is by means of that very concentration that every affliction is cut off, and it is for this reason that it is named the diamond-like concentration, exactly as a diamond is capable of shattering iron, stone, tusk, bone, shell, jade, and gemstone alike. Though they do grant that there are four fruits of the path, they hold that the cutting-off of affliction requires the diamond-like concentration specifically. One asks: if the first three fruits are as yet incapable of cutting off affliction, what use is there in establishing them at all? They answer as follows: the first three fruits suppress the afflictions, thereby drawing forth the diamond-like concentration and causing it to manifest before the mind, at which point true and lasting cutting-off finally becomes possible, and they are therefore not without use — exactly as a farmer, gripping grass with his left hand and a sharp sickle with his right, cuts it all down at a single stroke. It is in order to check this very intent that this passage makes manifest that affliction possesses two antidotes, namely, the distinct paths of seeing and of cultivation, each of which, once manifest, is fully capable of true and lasting cutting-off in its own right. There are further those who hold that direct realization of the four noble truths occurs all at once, not gradually. It is in order to refute this very view that this passage makes manifest that direct realization of the four truths occurs gradually, not all at once, since what is abandoned by seeing, exactly like what is abandoned by cultivation, cannot possibly be cut off all at one time. Were direct realization of the four truths to occur all at once, rather than gradually, this would then contradict the noble teaching, exactly as scripture states: the elder Anāthapiṇḍika came to where the Buddha was, and said to the Buddha: World-Honored One, is direct realization of the four noble truths attained all at once, or gradually? The World-Honored One told him: exactly as one climbs a four-runged ladder gradually, not all at once. There are further those who hold that no affliction whatsoever possesses any distinction between what is abandoned by seeing and what is abandoned by cultivation.

It is in order to check this very intent that this passage makes manifest that every affliction whatsoever does indeed possess a determinate distinction between what is abandoned by seeing and what is abandoned by cultivation. It is in order to check these various divergent tenets, and to make manifest this treatise's own school, that this discourse is composed. Further, it is not in order to check others and display one's own tenet, but solely in order to disclose the true nature of the dharmas and thereby give rise to correct understanding, that this discourse is composed. The answer: among the three fetters, the fetter of the view of the perishable aggregation of self, with seeing as its forerunner, admits of two possibilities — either it is abandoned by seeing alone, or it is abandoned by both seeing and cultivation. One asks: what is the sense of ‘forerunner’? The answer: the sense of being established first, and the sense of being answered first, is the sense of ‘forerunner.’ The sense of being established first is the sense of forerunner in that the clause ‘abandoned by seeing’ is established first, and the indeterminate clause established afterward; the sense of being answered first is the sense of forerunner in that the clause ‘abandoned by seeing’ is answered first, and the indeterminate clause answered afterward. What is abandoned by seeing? Should the view of the perishable aggregation of self, bound to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, be cut off by the faith-follower or the dharma-follower through the forbearance regarding suffering that borders on direct realization, this is what is abandoned by seeing — that is, the view of the perishable aggregation of self is obtainable from the desire realm up through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; the mundane path, once arisen, is capable of cutting off the view of the perishable aggregation of self from the desire realm up through the sphere of nothing-at-all, but, with respect to the view of the perishable aggregation of self belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, this mundane path possesses no capacity to cut it off, and thereupon comes to rest, unable to progress further; only later, once the path of seeing manifests before the mind, does one finally become capable of cutting it off. Here, ‘the view of the perishable aggregation of self’ fixes its own nature; ‘bound to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception’ fixes its ground; ‘the faith-follower or the dharma-follower’ fixes the person capable of cutting it off; ‘the forbearance regarding suffering that borders on direct realization’ fixes its antidote-path; ‘cut off’ fixes what that path accomplishes. That the view of the perishable aggregation of self possesses an antidote that is unmixed, an antidote that is determinate, and an antidote that is exclusive; that it is cut off by a noble one, not an ordinary being; that it is cut off by the noble path, not the mundane one; that it is cut off by the path of seeing, not the path of cultivation; that it is cut off through forbearance, not cognition — this is what is stated here. As for the remainder: should an ordinary being cut it off, this is abandoned by cultivation; should a disciple of the World-Honored One cut it off, this is abandoned by seeing. What, then, is this remainder? It refers to the view of the perishable aggregation of self from the desire realm up through the sphere of nothing-at-all. Should an ordinary being cut this off, he does so through the path of cultivation; should a noble one cut it off, he does so through the path of seeing. An ordinary being cuts it off through the mundane path; a noble one cuts it off through the uncontaminated path. An ordinary being cuts it off through cognition; a noble one cuts it off through forbearance. An ordinary being cuts off, grade by grade, nine grades through nine separate acts of cutting; a noble one cuts off all nine grades through a single act of cutting. An ordinary being's own cutting-off recurs again and again; a noble one's cutting-off, once accomplished, never recurs. An ordinary being's own cutting-off does not involve direct contemplation of the truths; a noble one's cutting-off does involve direct contemplation of the truths. Exactly as with the fetter of the view of the perishable aggregation of self, so too with the fetter of the view of the perishable aggregation of self among the five fetters pertaining to the lower portion, and with the view of the perishable aggregation of self and the extreme view among the five views — their own nature being identical, all alike span the nine grounds, belonging solely to the one section abandoned by seeing suffering. Clinging to rules and vows, together with the fetter of doubt, with seeing as their forerunner, likewise admit of two possibilities — either abandoned by seeing alone, or abandoned by both seeing and cultivation, the sense of ‘forerunner’ being exactly as explained above. What is abandoned by seeing? Should clinging to rules and vows, or doubt, bound to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, be cut off by the faith-follower or the dharma-follower through the forbearances bordering on direct realization, this is what is abandoned by seeing — that is, clinging to rules and vows and doubt are obtainable from the desire realm up through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; the mundane path, once arisen, is capable of cutting off clinging to rules and vows and doubt from the desire realm up through the sphere of nothing-at-all, but, with respect to clinging to rules and vows and doubt belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, this mundane path possesses no capacity to cut them off, and thereupon comes to rest, unable to progress further; only later, once the path of seeing manifests before the mind, does one finally become capable of cutting them off. Here, ‘clinging to rules and vows and doubt’ fixes their own nature; ‘bound to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception’ fixes their ground; ‘the faith-follower or the dharma-follower’ fixes the person capable of cutting them off; ‘the forbearances bordering on direct realization’ fixes their antidote-path; ‘cut off’ fixes what that path accomplishes. That clinging to rules and vows and doubt possess an antidote that is unmixed, an antidote that is determinate, and an antidote that is exclusive; that they are cut off by a noble one, not an ordinary being; that they are cut off by the noble path, not the mundane one; that they are cut off by the path of seeing, not the path of cultivation; that they are cut off through forbearance, not cognition — this is what is stated here.

As for the remainder: should an ordinary being cut it off, this is abandoned by cultivation; should a disciple of the World-Honored One cut it off, this is abandoned by seeing. What, then, is this remainder? It refers to clinging to rules and vows and doubt from the desire realm up through the sphere of nothing-at-all. Should an ordinary being cut this off, he does so through the path of cultivation; should a noble one cut it off, he does so through the path of seeing. An ordinary being cuts it off through the mundane path; a noble one cuts it off through the uncontaminated path. An ordinary being cuts it off through cognition; a noble one cuts it off through forbearance. An ordinary being cuts off, grade by grade, nine grades through nine separate acts of cutting; a noble one cuts off all nine grades through a single act of cutting. An ordinary being's own cutting-off recurs again and again;

a noble one's cutting-off, once accomplished, never recurs. An ordinary being's own cutting-off does not involve direct contemplation of the truths; a noble one's cutting-off does involve direct contemplation of the truths — exactly as with the fetter of clinging to rules and vows, together with the fetter of doubt,

so too with the view-flood among the four floods and yokes, view-grasping and clinging to rules and vows among the four graspings, clinging to rules and vows and this bodily tie of dogmatic attachment to what is real among the four bodily ties, clinging to rules and vows and the fetter of doubt among the five fetters pertaining to the lower portion, wrong view, view-clinging, and clinging to rules and vows among the five views, the latent tendencies of view and doubt among the seven latent tendencies, and view-clinging and the fetter of doubt among the nine fetters — their own nature being identical, all alike span the nine grounds, belonging solely to the four sections abandoned by seeing.

The unwholesome root of greed, with cultivation as its forerunner, admits of two possibilities — either it is abandoned by cultivation alone, or it is abandoned by both cultivation and seeing. One asks: what is the sense of ‘forerunner,’ here?

The answer: the sense of being established first, and the sense of being answered first, is the sense of ‘forerunner.’ The sense of being established first is the sense of forerunner in that the clause ‘abandoned by cultivation’ is established first, and the indeterminate clause established afterward; the sense of being answered first is the sense of forerunner in that the clause ‘abandoned by cultivation’ is answered first, and the indeterminate clause answered afterward.

What is abandoned by cultivation? Should the unwholesome root of greed be cut off by a trainee who has beheld the track through their various cognitions, this is what is abandoned by cultivation — that is, the unwholesome root of greed is obtainable across all five sections, namely, from what is abandoned by seeing suffering up through what is abandoned by cultivation; the path of seeing, once arisen, is capable of cutting off the unwholesome root of greed from what is abandoned by seeing suffering up through what is abandoned by seeing the path, but, with respect to the unwholesome root of greed that is abandoned by cultivation, this path of seeing possesses no capacity to cut it off, and thereupon comes to rest, unable to progress further; only later, once the superior path of cultivation manifests before the mind, does one finally become capable of cutting it off. Here, ‘the unwholesome root of greed’ fixes its own nature; ‘a trainee who has beheld the track’ fixes the person capable of cutting it off; ‘their various cognitions’ fixes its antidote-path; ‘cut off’ fixes what that path accomplishes. That the unwholesome root of greed possesses an antidote that is unmixed, an antidote that is determinate, and an antidote that is exclusive; that it is cut off by a noble one, not an ordinary being; that it is cut off by the path of cultivation, not the path of seeing; that it is cut off through cognition, not forbearance — this is what is stated here. As for the remainder: should an ordinary being cut it off, this is abandoned by cultivation; should a disciple of the World-Honored One cut it off, this is abandoned by seeing. What, then, is this remainder?

It refers to the unwholesome root of greed belonging to the first four sections, namely, what is abandoned by seeing suffering, up through what is abandoned by seeing the path. Should an ordinary being cut this off, he does so through the path of cultivation; should a noble one cut it off, he does so through the path of seeing. An ordinary being cuts it off through the mundane path; a noble one cuts it off through the uncontaminated path. An ordinary being cuts it off through cognition; a noble one cuts it off through forbearance. An ordinary being cuts off, grade by grade, nine grades through nine separate acts of cutting; a noble one cuts off all nine grades through a single act of cutting. An ordinary being's own cutting-off recurs again and again; a noble one's cutting-off, once accomplished, never recurs. An ordinary being's own cutting-off does not involve direct contemplation of the truths; a noble one's cutting-off does involve direct contemplation of the truths. One asks: what is stated here — that the unwholesome root of greed, cut off by a trainee who has beheld the track through their cognitions, is abandoned by cultivation — makes manifest the unwholesome root of greed abandoned by cultivation within a noble one's own person; and what follows — that, should an ordinary being cut it off, this is abandoned by cultivation, while, should a disciple of the World-Honored One cut it off, this is abandoned by seeing — makes manifest the unwholesome root of greed abandoned by seeing within an ordinary being's or a noble one's own person. But there remains the unwholesome root of greed abandoned by cultivation within an ordinary being's own person specifically — why is this not spoken of here? The answer: this, too, ought properly to be spoken of, and that it is not so spoken of should be understood as a matter of surplus meaning left implicit. Further, this has already been spoken of within what was stated above — for what reason is this so? Because affliction is established by distinction of section, not by whatever afflictions happen to reside in a given person, and there are five sections, not six. A noble one, once the path of seeing manifests before the mind, cuts off what is abandoned by seeing; only later, once the path of cultivation manifests before the mind, does he cut off what is abandoned by cultivation. An ordinary being, once the path of cultivation manifests before the mind, cuts off all five sections at once, since ordinary beings are incapable of distinguishing the five sections separately, and are capable only of cutting them off altogether.

It is by speaking of what an ordinary being cuts off as abandoned by cultivation that this has already been spoken of, and it is therefore not spoken of separately. Further, it is by speaking of what a trainee who has beheld the track cuts off through cognition

that this has already been made manifest, and it is therefore not spoken of separately, since what is abandoned by cultivation within an ordinary being's own person is precisely what is cut off by a trainee who has beheld the track through cognition. Exactly as with the unwholesome root of greed, so too with the unwholesome roots of hatred and delusion; the desire-contaminant among the three contaminants; the desire-flood and desire-yoke among the four floods and yokes; the grasping of desire among the four graspings; the bodily ties of covetous desire and hatred among the four bodily ties; every hindrance excepting worry and doubt among the five hindrances; and the fetter of hatred among the five fetters,

the fetters of covetous desire and hatred among the five fetters pertaining to the lower portion, and the latent tendencies of desire-craving and hatred among the seven latent tendencies — the fetter of hatred among the nine fetters, likewise — their own nature being identical, all alike belong solely to the desire realm, spanning the five sections. Contamination in general, together with the ignorance-contaminant, with seeing as their forerunner, admit of three possibilities — either abandoned by seeing alone, or by cultivation alone, or by both seeing and cultivation. One asks: what is the sense of ‘forerunner,’ here? The answer: the sense of being established first, and the sense of being answered first, is the sense of ‘forerunner.’ The sense of being established first is the sense of forerunner in that the clause ‘abandoned by seeing’ is established first, the clause ‘abandoned by cultivation’ established next, and the indeterminate clause established last; the sense of being answered first is the sense of forerunner in that the clause ‘abandoned by seeing’ is answered first, the clause ‘abandoned by cultivation’ answered next, and the indeterminate clause answered last. What is abandoned by seeing? Should contamination in general, together with the ignorance-contaminant, bound to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, be cut off by the faith-follower or the dharma-follower through the forbearances bordering on direct realization, this is what is abandoned by seeing — that is, contamination in general is obtainable from the first dhyāna up through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, while the ignorance-contaminant is obtainable from the desire realm up through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; the mundane path, once arisen, is capable of cutting off contamination in general from the first dhyāna up through the sphere of nothing-at-all, and the ignorance-contaminant from the desire realm up through the sphere of nothing-at-all, but, with respect to contamination in general and the ignorance-contaminant belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, this mundane path possesses no capacity to cut them off, and thereupon comes to rest, unable to progress further; only later, once the path of seeing manifests before the mind, does one finally become capable of cutting off what is abandoned by seeing. Here, ‘contamination in general and the ignorance-contaminant’ fixes their own nature; ‘bound to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception’ fixes their ground; ‘the faith-follower or the dharma-follower’ fixes the person capable of cutting them off; ‘the forbearances bordering on direct realization’ fixes their antidote-path;

‘cut off’ fixes what that path accomplishes. That contamination in general and the ignorance-contaminant possess an antidote that is unmixed, an antidote that is determinate, and an antidote that is exclusive; that they are cut off by a noble one, not an ordinary being; that they are cut off by the noble path, not the mundane one; that they are cut off by the path of seeing, not the path of cultivation; that they are cut off through forbearance, not cognition — this is what is stated here. What is abandoned by cultivation? Should contamination in general, together with the ignorance-contaminant, be cut off by a trainee who has beheld the track through their various cognitions, this is what is abandoned by cultivation — that is, contamination in general and the ignorance-contaminant span five sections; once the path of seeing manifests before the mind, the first four sections are cut off, leaving contamination in general and the ignorance-contaminant that are abandoned by cultivation,

with respect to which this path of seeing possesses no capacity to cut them off, and thereupon comes to rest, unable to progress further; only later, once the superior path of cultivation manifests before the mind, does one finally become capable of cutting them off. Here, ‘contamination in general and the ignorance-contaminant’ fixes their own nature; ‘a trainee who has beheld the track’ fixes the person capable of cutting them off; ‘their various cognitions’ fixes their antidote-path; ‘cut off’ fixes what that path accomplishes. That contamination in general and the ignorance-contaminant possess an antidote that is unmixed, an antidote that is determinate, and an antidote that is exclusive; that they are cut off by a noble one, not an ordinary being; that they are cut off by the path of cultivation, not the path of seeing; that they are cut off through cognition, not forbearance — this is what is stated here. As for the remainder: should an ordinary being cut it off, this is abandoned by cultivation; should a disciple of the World-Honored One cut it off, this is abandoned by seeing. What, then, is this remainder? It refers to contamination in general from the first dhyāna up through the sphere of nothing-at-all, and the ignorance-contaminant from the desire realm up through the sphere of nothing-at-all — five sections within an ordinary being's own person, and four sections within a noble one's own person. Should an ordinary being cut this off, he does so through the path of cultivation; should a noble one cut it off, he does so through the path of seeing. An ordinary being cuts it off through the mundane path; a noble one cuts it off through the uncontaminated path. An ordinary being cuts it off through cognition; a noble one cuts it off through forbearance. An ordinary being cuts off, grade by grade, nine grades through nine separate acts of cutting; a noble one cuts off all nine grades through a single act of cutting. An ordinary being's own cutting-off recurs again and again; a noble one's cutting-off, once accomplished, never recurs.

An ordinary being's own cutting-off does not involve direct contemplation of the truths; a noble one's cutting-off does involve direct contemplation of the truths — exactly as with contamination in general and the ignorance-contaminant, so too with the existence-flood and existence-yoke among the four floods and yokes, the grasping of self-doctrine among the four graspings, the fetters of greed and conceit among the five fetters, the body of craving born of mind-contact among the six bodies of craving, and the latent tendencies of existence-craving, conceit, and ignorance among the seven latent tendencies — the fetters of craving, conceit, and ignorance among the nine fetters, likewise — their own nature being identical, all alike span the eight or nine grounds, and span the five sections. Forerunners are of three kinds — first, the exclusive forerunner; second, the ultimate forerunner; third, the initial forerunner. The exclusive forerunner is exemplified by the three fetters and the like; the ultimate forerunner is exemplified by the three unwholesome roots and the like; the initial forerunner is exemplified by contamination in general and the ignorance-contaminant and the like. Should an affliction span all three realms and be solely abandoned by seeing, it admits of two possibilities with seeing as its forerunner, exactly as with the three fetters and the like. Should an affliction belong solely to the desire realm and span the five sections, it admits of two possibilities with cultivation as its forerunner, exactly as with the three unwholesome roots and the like. Should an affliction span all three realms and likewise span the five sections, it admits of three possibilities with seeing as its forerunner, exactly as with contamination in general and the ignorance-contaminant and the like. This, then, is the brief exegesis given here.

The hindrance of worry is abandoned by cultivation, since both the ordinary being and the noble one alike cut it off through cognition across all nine grades — exactly as with the hindrance of worry, so too with the fetters of envy and stinginess among the five fetters, the five fetters pertaining to the higher portion, the first five bodies of craving among the six bodies of craving — the fetters of envy and stinginess among the nine fetters, likewise — all alike being cut off through cognition across nine grades. The hindrance of doubt, should an ordinary being cut it off, is abandoned by cultivation, while, should a disciple of the World-Honored One cut it off, it is abandoned by seeing, this belonging solely to the desire realm's own first four sections. Among the ninety-eight latent tendencies, twenty-eight are abandoned by seeing, namely, the first four sections belonging to the peak of existence; ten are abandoned by cultivation, namely, the sections abandoned by cultivation across all three realms; and the remainder, should an ordinary being cut it off, is abandoned by cultivation, while, should a disciple of the World-Honored One cut it off, it is abandoned by seeing, this referring to the first four sections belonging to the eight lower grounds. One asks: if twenty-eight are abandoned by seeing, ten by cultivation, and the remainder indeterminate, why, then, does the Prakaraṇapāda state that, among the ninety-eight latent tendencies, eighty-eight are abandoned by seeing and ten by cultivation? The answer: this passage carries a definitive meaning;

that passage carries a provisional meaning. This passage carries no further, distinct intent; that passage carries a further, distinct intent. This passage carries no further, distinct cause or condition; that passage carries a further, distinct cause or condition. This passage is spoken with reference to ultimate truth; that passage is spoken with reference to conventional truth. Further, that treatise speaks with reference to one who proceeds gradually, still fully bound, not one who transcends stages, while this treatise speaks with reference to one who does not proceed gradually, no longer fully bound, one who does transcend stages. Further, that treatise speaks solely with reference to a noble one's own becoming detached, not an ordinary being's, and with reference to the function of the noble path, not the mundane one, while this treatise speaks generally with reference to both the noble one's and the ordinary being's own becoming detached, and to the function of both the noble path and the mundane one. Further, this treatise gives a determinate statement, while that treatise speaks by way of a further gateway — that is, with respect to one who, having already become free of the desire realm's own defilement up through the defilement of the sphere of nothing-at-all, then enters the state of certainty regarding freedom from birth, within his own path of seeing he likewise realizes the uncontaminated disjunction-attainment of the dharmas abandoned by seeing across the eight lower grounds, and it is on this account that it is stated that eighty-eight are abandoned by seeing and ten by cultivation. The Venerable Ghoṣa likewise states as follows:

what this treatise states is spoken with reference to a determinate principle; what the Prakaraṇapāda states, that eighty-eight are abandoned by seeing, is spoken with reference to the realization of an uncontaminated liberative attainment, or else with reference to one who attains the fruit gradually.

One asks: why are they named abandoned by seeing, and why are they named abandoned by cultivation? Seeing is never apart from cultivation, and cultivation is never apart from seeing — how, then, can these two names of abandonment be established at all? The answer: though it is true that, within the path of seeing, genuine cultivation, too, is obtainable, and, within the path of cultivation, genuine seeing, too, is obtainable,

‘seeing’ properly refers to wisdom, while ‘cultivation’ properly refers to non-negligence; ‘genuine’ carries the sense of augmentation, or else the sense of keenness — within the path of seeing, wisdom predominates and non-negligence is scant, while, within the path of cultivation, non-negligence predominates and wisdom is scant, and it is for this reason that what these two abandon carries a distinct name. Further, ‘genuine’ carries the sense of equality, or else the sense of resemblance — though the path of seeing does possess exactly as much wisdom as it does non-negligence, and the path of cultivation does possess exactly as much non-negligence as it does wisdom, nonetheless, within the path of seeing, the function of wisdom is dominant and superior, while the function of non-negligence is inferior and weak, and, within the path of cultivation, the function of non-negligence is dominant and superior, while the function of wisdom is inferior and weak, and it is for this reason that what these two abandon carries a distinct name. The Venerable Vasumitra states as follows: though every affliction is cut off through contemplating the four truths, and one cannot, strictly speaking, distinguish this as abandoned by seeing and that as abandoned by cultivation, nonetheless, whatever is cut off and cast away through the power of seeing is named abandoned by seeing, while whatever, once the path has already been attained, is habituated, cultivated, and much practiced, its own portion and class thereby gradually thinned down to the very utmost, and thereby entirely and completely cut off, is named abandoned by cultivation. There are those who say: what is abandoned by seeing may also be named abandoned by cultivation, since, within the path of seeing, genuine cultivation, too, is present; and what is abandoned by cultivation may also be named abandoned by seeing, since, within the path of cultivation, genuine seeing, too, is present — within this very sense, whatever is cut off and cast away through the power of seeing is named abandoned by seeing, while whatever, once the path has already been attained, is habituated, cultivated, and much practiced, its own portion and class thereby gradually thinned down to the very utmost, and thereby entirely and completely cut off, is named abandoned by cultivation. One asks: what is the sense of this statement? The answer: this states that the path of seeing is a keen and forceful path, capable, once it manifests before the mind for even a moment, of cutting off nine grades of affliction all at once, while the path of cultivation is a path lacking such keenness and force, requiring repeated practice over a long span of time before it is finally capable of cutting off nine grades of affliction — exactly as a sharp blade and a dull one, cutting the very same object, the sharp one severing it all at once, and the dull one severing it only by degrees; what is cut off in a single, momentary glimpse is named abandoned by seeing, while what is cut off only through repeated practice is named abandoned by cultivation. Further, whatever is cut off by the path in which seeing predominates is named abandoned by seeing; whatever is cut off by the path in which cultivation predominates is named abandoned by cultivation. Further, whatever is cut off by a path bearing the two aspects of seeing and wisdom is named abandoned by seeing; whatever is cut off by a path bearing the three aspects of seeing, cognition, and wisdom is named abandoned by cultivation. Further, whatever is cut off by a path bearing the four aspects of the eye, brightness, awareness, and wisdom is named abandoned by seeing; whatever is cut off by a path bearing the five aspects of the eye, brightness, awareness, cognition, and wisdom is named abandoned by cultivation. Further, whatever is cut off through the forbearances is named abandoned by seeing; whatever is cut off through the cognitions is named abandoned by cultivation. Further, whatever, among the nine grades, is cut off through a single grade, is named abandoned by seeing; whatever, among the nine grades, is cut off through all nine grades, is named abandoned by cultivation. Further, whatever is cut off through the faculty of coming to know what was not yet known is named abandoned by seeing; whatever is cut off through the faculty of what is already known is named abandoned by cultivation. Further, whatever is cut off exactly as a stone is split is named abandoned by seeing; whatever is cut off exactly as a severed lotus-fiber is drawn apart thread by thread is named abandoned by cultivation.

Further, whatever runs contrary to resolute courage is named abandoned by seeing; whatever runs contrary to sustained effort is named abandoned by cultivation. Further, whatever is cut off through contemplating the truths before one has yet seen the truths is named abandoned by seeing; whatever is cut off through contemplating the truths repeatedly, once one has already seen the truths, is named abandoned by cultivation. Further, whatever is cut off by a path possessing a single cause is named abandoned by seeing; whatever is cut off by a path possessing two causes is named abandoned by cultivation. Further, exactly as a mighty warrior, clad in armor, cuts down his foe, so is what is abandoned by seeing; exactly as a sickly, feeble person, driving a donkey-cart, makes his way, so is what is abandoned by cultivation. Further, whatever, at the time of its cutting-off, is cut off through cultivating solely the aspects of the very truth one is directly contemplating, is named abandoned by seeing; whatever, at the time of its cutting-off, is cut off through cultivating also the aspects of a truth one is not directly contemplating, is named abandoned by cultivation. Further, whatever is cut off by a path oriented toward a fruit not yet attained is named abandoned by seeing; whatever is cut off by a path oriented toward a fruit already attained is named abandoned by cultivation. Further, whatever is cut off by a path without gradation of degree is named abandoned by seeing; whatever is cut off by a path possessing gradation of degree is named abandoned by cultivation. Further, whatever is cut off by the path of the faith-follower or the dharma-follower is named abandoned by seeing; whatever is cut off by the path of one resolved through faith, one who has attained through view, or one who has borne witness with the body, is named abandoned by cultivation. Further, whatever is cut off by a path that arises suddenly, for the first time, is named abandoned by seeing; whatever is cut off by a path that arises repeatedly thereafter is named abandoned by cultivation. Further, whatever disjunction is subsumed within all four fruits of the path is named abandoned by seeing; whatever disjunction is subsumed within only three, or two, or a single fruit of the path is named abandoned by cultivation. Further, whatever is cut off, its object being without a real basis, is named abandoned by seeing; whatever is cut off, its object possessing a real basis, is named abandoned by cultivation. Further, whatever, once cut off, never again regresses, is named abandoned by seeing; whatever, once cut off, may or may not regress, is named abandoned by cultivation. Further, whatever, once liberated, is never again bound, is named abandoned by seeing; whatever, once liberated, may or may not be bound again, is named abandoned by cultivation. Further, whatever, once disjoined, is never again conjoined, is named abandoned by seeing; whatever, once disjoined, may or may not be conjoined again, is named abandoned by cultivation. Further, whatever, at the time of its cutting-off, has forbearance as its uninterrupted path and cognition as its liberative path, is named abandoned by seeing; whatever, at the time of its cutting-off, has cognition as its uninterrupted path and cognition as its liberative path, is named abandoned by cultivation. Further, whatever, at the time of its cutting-off, has cognition as its preparatory path, forbearance as its uninterrupted path, and cognition as its liberative path, is named abandoned by seeing; whatever, at the time of its cutting-off, has cognition as its preparatory, uninterrupted, and liberative path alike, is named abandoned by cultivation. Further, whatever dharma first obtains cessation-through-disconnection and only afterward obtains cessation-through-discernment is named abandoned by seeing; whatever dharma either first obtains cessation-through-disconnection and only afterward obtains cessation-through-discernment, or first obtains cessation-through-discernment and only afterward obtains cessation-through-disconnection, or obtains both cessations at one and the same time, is named abandoned by cultivation. Further, whatever, at the time of its cutting-off, is cut off by a path cultivated with reference to a single truth, is named abandoned by seeing; whatever, at the time of its cutting-off, is cut off by a path cultivated with reference to all four truths, is named abandoned by cultivation. Further, whatever, at the time of its cutting-off, is cut off by a path cultivated through four aspects, is named abandoned by seeing; whatever, at the time of its cutting-off, is cut off by a path cultivated through sixteen aspects, is named abandoned by cultivation. Further, whatever, at the time of its cutting-off, is cut off by a path cultivating only what resembles it, is named abandoned by seeing; whatever, at the time of its cutting-off, is cut off by a path cultivating both what resembles it and what does not, is named abandoned by cultivation. Further, whatever, at the time of its cutting-off, is cut off by a path cultivating two, or a single, meditative absorption, is named abandoned by seeing; whatever, at the time of its cutting-off, is cut off by a path cultivating all three meditative absorptions, is named abandoned by cultivation. Further, whatever, at the time of its cutting-off, involves no further arising of a fresh act of cutting-off, is named abandoned by seeing; whatever, at the time of its cutting-off, may or may not involve a further arising of a fresh act of cutting-off, is named abandoned by cultivation.