The Monks Who Loved Their Own Voices

There are fetters that exist within the desire realm, yet do not fall within the desire realm — that is, an entanglement's own entangled being, having died within the desire realm, arises within the form realm's own intermediate state; dying within the desire realm and being born within the form realm occurs both for the ordinary being and for the noble one; that intermediate-state being's own dharma, arising within the desire realm yet belonging to the form realm, ought properly to be understood in just this way — the death-state's own point of cessation and the intermediate-state's own point of manifestation occurring together, exactly as a seed's own point of cessation and a sprout's own point of manifestation occur together. From the moment of the death-state up through the intermediate state: should it be an ordinary being, one among the form realm's own thirty-one latent tendencies manifests before the mind, thereby causing the continued succession of rebirth; should it be a noble one, one among the form realm's own three latent tendencies abandoned by cultivation manifests before the mind, thereby causing the continued succession of rebirth. And likewise, while abiding within the desire realm, the form and formless realms' own fetters manifest before the mind — that is, while abiding within the desire realm, neither dying nor being reborn, the form and formless realms' own fetters manifest before the mind, this occurring both for the ordinary being and for the noble one: should it be an ordinary being, one among the form and formless realms' own sixty-two latent tendencies manifests before the mind, namely, craving, view, doubt, or conceit belonging to the higher dhyānas; should it be a noble one, one among the form and formless realms' own six latent tendencies abandoned by cultivation manifests before the mind, namely, craving or conceit belonging to the higher dhyānas — such affliction manifesting either after concentration, or concentration manifesting after such affliction. This, then, is what is meant by: there are fetters that exist within the desire realm, yet do not fall within the desire realm. ‘Existing within the desire realm’ possesses three of the four senses of existing, excepting own-body existing, since it does not currently manifest within its own realm; ‘not falling within the desire realm’ refers to the fact that it falls within the form or formless realm, this being falling by realm, not by any other kind of falling. There are fetters that fall within the desire realm and likewise exist within the desire realm — that is, an entanglement's own entangled being, having died within the desire realm, arises within the desire realm's own intermediate state or birth-state; dying within the desire realm and being born within the desire realm occurs both for the ordinary being and for the noble one — the ordinary being is unobstructed with respect to rebirth among all five destinies, while the noble one is unobstructed with respect to rebirth solely among two destinies, namely, the human and the heavenly. From the moment of the death-state up through the intermediate state: should it be an ordinary being, one among the desire realm's own thirty-six latent tendencies manifests before the mind, thereby causing the continued succession of rebirth; should it be a noble one, one among the desire realm's own four latent tendencies abandoned by cultivation manifests before the mind, thereby causing the continued succession of rebirth — and likewise from the intermediate state up through the birth-state. And likewise, while abiding within the desire realm, the desire realm's own fetters manifest before the mind — that is, while abiding within the desire realm, neither dying nor being reborn, the desire realm's own fetters manifest before the mind, this occurring both for the ordinary being and for the noble one: should it be an ordinary being, one among the desire realm's own thirty-six latent tendencies manifests before the mind; should it be a noble one, one among the desire realm's own four latent tendencies abandoned by cultivation manifests before the mind. This, then, is what is meant by: there are fetters that fall within the desire realm and likewise exist within the desire realm. ‘Falling within the desire realm’ refers to falling by realm, not by any other kind of falling; ‘likewise existing within the desire realm’ possesses all four senses of existing, since it currently manifests within its own realm. There are fetters that neither fall within the desire realm, nor likewise exist within the desire realm —

that is, an entanglement's own entangled being, having died within the form realm, arises within the form realm's own intermediate state or birth-state; dying within the form realm and being born within the form realm occurs both for the ordinary being and for the noble one — the ordinary being may be born either above or below his own level, taking many rebirths within any one place, while the noble one is born above, never below, taking but a single rebirth within any one place. From the moment of the death-state up through the intermediate state: should it be an ordinary being, one among the form realm's own thirty-one latent tendencies manifests before the mind, thereby causing the continued succession of rebirth; should it be a noble one, one among the form realm's own three latent tendencies abandoned by cultivation manifests before the mind, thereby causing the continued succession of rebirth — and likewise from the intermediate state up through the birth-state. Dying within the form realm and being born within the formless realm likewise occurs both for the ordinary being and for the noble one: from the moment of the death-state up through the birth-state, should it be an ordinary being, one among the formless realm's own thirty-one latent tendencies manifests before the mind, thereby causing the continued succession of rebirth; should it be a noble one, one among the formless realm's own three latent tendencies abandoned by cultivation manifests before the mind, thereby causing the continued succession of rebirth. Dying within the formless realm and being born within the formless realm likewise occurs both for the ordinary being and for the noble one;

the ordinary being may be born either above or below his own level, taking many rebirths within any one place, while the noble one is born above, never below, taking but a single rebirth within any one place. From the moment of the death-state up through the birth-state, should it be an ordinary being, one among the formless realm's own thirty-one latent tendencies manifests before the mind, thereby causing the continued succession of rebirth; should it be a noble one, one among the formless realm's own three latent tendencies abandoned by cultivation manifests before the mind, thereby causing the continued succession of rebirth. Dying within the formless realm and being born within the form realm occurs solely for the ordinary being: from the moment of the death-state up through the intermediate state, one among the form realm's own thirty-one latent tendencies manifests before the mind, thereby causing the continued succession of rebirth. And likewise, while abiding within the form realm, the form and formless realms' own fetters manifest before the mind — that is, while abiding within the form realm, neither dying nor being reborn, the form and formless realms' own fetters manifest before the mind, this occurring both for the ordinary being and for the noble one: should it be an ordinary being, one among the form and formless realms' own sixty-two latent tendencies manifests before the mind, namely, craving, view, doubt, or conceit belonging to the higher dhyānas; should it be a noble one, one among the form and formless realms' own six latent tendencies abandoned by cultivation manifests before the mind, namely, craving or conceit belonging to the higher dhyānas — such affliction manifesting either after concentration, or concentration manifesting after such affliction. And likewise, while abiding within the formless realm, the formless realm's own fetters manifest before the mind — that is, while abiding within the formless realm, neither dying nor being reborn, the formless realm's own fetters manifest before the mind, this occurring both for the ordinary being and for the noble one: should it be an ordinary being, one among the formless realm's own thirty-one latent tendencies manifests before the mind; should it be a noble one, one among the formless realm's own three latent tendencies abandoned by cultivation manifests before the mind. This, then, is what is meant by: there are fetters that neither fall within the desire realm, nor likewise exist within the desire realm. ‘Not falling within the desire realm’ refers to the fact that these fall within the form or formless realm, this being falling by realm, not by any other kind of falling; ‘not existing within the desire realm’ refers to the fact that these currently manifest within the form or formless realm, and may accordingly possess all four senses of existing, since they currently manifest within their own realm. Do fetters that fall within the form realm exist within the form realm? The answer should be given as a tetralemma —

exactly as stated at length in the root text — yet this reverses the desire realm's own four cases: the earlier first case becomes this discourse's second case, the earlier second case becomes this discourse's first case, the earlier third case becomes this discourse's fourth case, and the earlier fourth case becomes this discourse's third case; and, though this reversal is broadly accurate, there are subtle differences that call for further elaboration. That is, the earlier first case had two varieties — first, dying within the form realm and arising within the desire realm's own intermediate state; second, Māra dwelling within the Brahmā world, rebuking and resisting the Tathāgata; this discourse's second case now has three varieties — namely, these same two, together with dwelling within the form realm while the formless realm's own fetters manifest before the mind. The earlier second case had three varieties — first, dying within the desire realm and arising within the form realm's own intermediate state; second, dwelling within the desire realm while the form realm's own fetters manifest before the mind; third, dwelling within the desire realm while the formless realm's own fetters manifest before the mind; this discourse's first case now has only the first two of these. The earlier third case had two varieties — first, dying within the desire realm and arising within the desire realm's own intermediate state or birth-state; second, dwelling within the desire realm while the desire realm's own fetters manifest before the mind; this discourse's fourth case now has seven varieties — namely, these same two, together with five further ones: first, dying within the desire realm and being born within the formless realm; second, dying within the formless realm and being born within the formless realm; third, dying within the formless realm and being born within the desire realm; fourth, dwelling within the desire realm while the formless realm's own fetters manifest before the mind; fifth, dwelling within the formless realm while the formless realm's own fetters manifest before the mind. The earlier fourth case had seven varieties — first, dying within the form realm and arising within the form realm's own intermediate state or birth-state; second, dying within the form realm and being born within the formless realm; third, dying within the formless realm and being born within the formless realm; fourth, dying within the formless realm and being born within the form realm; fifth, dwelling within the form realm while the form realm's own fetters manifest before the mind; sixth, dwelling within the form realm while the formless realm's own fetters manifest before the mind; seventh, dwelling within the formless realm while the formless realm's own fetters manifest before the mind; this discourse's third case now has only two of these — namely, the earlier first and the earlier fifth. Since such differences as these do exist, this is why the matter must be elaborated at length once again; the greater or lesser number of ‘falling’ cases should be understood by analogy with what has already been given above. Do fetters that fall within the formless realm exist within the formless realm? The answer: whatever fetters exist within the formless realm indeed fall within the formless realm, since whatever currently manifests within the formless realm is certainly not a fetter of either the desire or the form realm.

There are fetters that fall within the formless realm, yet do not exist within the formless realm — that is, while abiding within the desire or form realm, the formless realm's own fetters manifest before the mind, that is, while abiding within either of the two lower realms, neither dying nor being reborn, the formless realm's own fetters manifest before the mind, this occurring both for the ordinary being and for the noble one: should it be an ordinary being, one among the formless realm's own thirty-one latent tendencies manifests before the mind, namely, craving, view, doubt, or conceit belonging to the higher dhyānas; should it be a noble one, one among the formless realm's own three latent tendencies abandoned by cultivation manifests before the mind, namely, craving or conceit belonging to the higher dhyānas — such affliction manifesting either after concentration, or concentration manifesting after such affliction. This, then, is what is meant by: there are fetters that fall within the formless realm, yet do not exist within the formless realm. ‘Falling within the formless realm’ refers to falling by realm, not by any other kind of falling; ‘not existing within the formless realm’ refers to the fact that it currently manifests within the desire or form realm, this possessing three of the four senses of existing, excepting own-body existing, since it does not currently manifest within its own realm. Do fetters that do not fall within the desire realm fail to exist within the desire realm? The answer should be given as a tetralemma, understood by reversing what was stated above — namely, the earlier desire-realm first case becomes this discourse's second case, the earlier second case becomes this discourse's first case, the earlier third case becomes this discourse's fourth case, and the earlier fourth case becomes this discourse's third case. Do fetters that do not fall within the form realm fail to exist within the form realm? The answer should likewise be given as a tetralemma, understood by reversing what was stated above — namely, the earlier form-realm first case becomes this discourse's second case, the earlier second case becomes this discourse's first case, the earlier third case becomes this discourse's fourth case, and the earlier fourth case becomes this discourse's third case. Do fetters that do not fall within the formless realm fail to exist within the formless realm? The answer: this is indeed so, since whatever fetter currently manifests within the formless realm is certainly not a fetter that falls within either the desire or the form realm. There are fetters that do not exist within the formless realm, yet it is not the case that they fail to fall within the formless realm — that is, while abiding within the desire or form realm, the formless realm's own fetters manifest before the mind, that is, while abiding within either of the two lower realms, neither dying nor being reborn, the formless realm's own fetters manifest before the mind, this occurring both for the ordinary being and for the noble one: should it be an ordinary being, one among the formless realm's own thirty-one latent tendencies manifests before the mind, namely, craving, view, doubt, or conceit belonging to the higher dhyānas; should it be a noble one, one among the formless realm's own three latent tendencies abandoned by cultivation currently manifests before the mind, namely, craving or conceit belonging to the higher dhyānas — such affliction manifesting either after concentration, or concentration manifesting after such affliction. This, then, is what is meant by: there are fetters that do not exist within the formless realm, yet it is not the case that they fail to fall within the formless realm.

‘Not existing within the formless realm’ refers to the fact that it currently manifests within the desire or form realm, this possessing three of the four senses of existing, excepting own-body existing, since it does not currently manifest within its own realm; ‘it is not the case that they fail to fall within the formless realm’ refers to falling by realm, not by any other kind of falling, since this very fetter does indeed fall within the formless realm. One asks: why does this passage establish such a negative clause at all? The answer: it is simply because the treatise's own author intended it so — since the root treatise's own master composes his treatise according to his own intent, without contradicting the true characteristics of the dharmas, and this ought not to be pressed as an objection. Further, it is in order to display mastery over discourse itself, since one who possesses such mastery is capable of establishing a negative clause, while one lacking such mastery is incapable even of composing a discourse based on an affirmative clause, still less of establishing a negative one. Further, it is in order to give rise to insight within his own students, since, by composing a discourse based on a negative clause, his students are thereby enabled to give rise to the insight that the nature of the dharmas may indeed be stated this way, or equally well stated that way, without contradiction. Further, a negative clause may sometimes differ from its corresponding affirmative clause — exactly as, within the later section on persons, an affirmative clause carries four, three, or two cases, while its corresponding negative clause carries five, six, or four — the present case not being so, and it is for this reason that a negative clause is established here.

One who has fully seen, a disciple of the World-Honored One, and so on, at length. 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 form's own nine grades are cut off gradually, degree by degree, as the masters of the outer regions maintain, who state as follows: exactly as every defiled mind and mental factor is cut off gradually across nine grades, form, too, ought properly to be cut off in just the same way. It is in order to check this very intent that this passage makes manifest that, while every defiled mind and mental factor is indeed cut off gradually across nine grades, contaminated, wholesome, and unobscured-indeterminate form and mind and mental factors are cut off all at once, entirely, only through the power of the ninth uninterrupted path specifically. One asks: for what reason are defiled mind and mental factors cut off gradually across nine grades, while contaminated, wholesome, and unobscured-indeterminate form and mind and mental factors require the power of the ninth uninterrupted path specifically, cut off entirely all at once? The answer: this is because brightness and ignorance are mutually opposed to one another — that is, the very lowest grade of brightness arising cuts off the very highest grade of ignorance, and so on, up through the very highest grade of brightness arising cutting off the very lowest grade of ignorance; contaminated, wholesome, and unobscured-indeterminate form is opposed to neither brightness nor ignorance, and yet serves as the very basis and support for both alike, exactly as a lamp and darkness are mutually opposed to one another, while the vessel, oil, and wick are opposed to neither, and yet are capable of serving as their basis and support alike. Further, defiled mind and mental factors are cut off by their own nature, standing in direct opposition to the path — whichever grade the path, upon manifesting, happens to counter, that very grade is thereby cut off, its own attainment lost and rendered unattained. Contaminated, wholesome, and unobscured-indeterminate form and mind and mental factors are not cut off by their own nature, and do not stand in direct opposition to the path — every defiled form has already lost its own attainment at the very stage of the preparatory path, while every contaminated wholesome and unobscured-indeterminate dharma, though for the most part already cut off, still retains some measure of attainment, until the ninth uninterrupted path belonging to a given ground precisely cuts off the defiled mind and mental factors, causing form and the rest's own remaining object-basis binding to be entirely exhausted, and it, too, is thereby said to be cut off — form and the rest being exactly like a lamp's own brightness, arising precisely to break the darkness, while incidentally also heating the vessel and burning the wick, thereby exhausting the oil. Further, it is not in order to check others and display one's own tenet, but solely in order to disclose the correct principle of the dharmas and thereby awaken the learner, that this discourse is composed. One asks: what matter does the expression ‘fully seen’ single out for exclusion, and what further matter does ‘disciple of the World-Honored One’ single out for exclusion? The answer: the expression ‘fully seen’ excludes the faith-follower and the dharma-follower; ‘disciple of the World-Honored One’ excludes the ordinary being. One asks: for what reason are the faith-follower and the dharma-follower not named ‘fully seen’? The answer: whoever, within his own mental continuum, has already fully seen the four truths, and has already cut off the four wrong views, may be named ‘fully seen’; the faith-follower and the dharma-follower have not yet fully seen the four truths, though they are certain to do so, and have not yet cut off the four wrong views, though they are certain to do so, and are therefore not named ‘fully seen.’ Further, whoever, within his own mental continuum, has already cut off the four kinds of ignorant darkness, and has already given rise to the four kinds of uncontaminated cognition, may be named ‘fully seen’; the faith-follower and the dharma-follower have not yet cut off the four kinds of ignorant darkness, though they are certain to do so, and have not yet given rise to the four kinds of uncontaminated cognition, though they are certain to do so, and are therefore not named ‘fully seen.’ Further, whoever, within his own mental continuum, has already broken through the four nets of hesitant doubt, and has already given rise to the four kinds of determinate noble wisdom, may be named ‘fully seen’; the faith-follower and the dharma-follower have not yet broken through the four nets of hesitant doubt, though they are certain to do so, and have not yet given rise to the four kinds of determinate noble wisdom, though they are certain to do so, and are therefore not named ‘fully seen.’ Further, whoever, within his own mental continuum, is free of such things as frost, hail, and other calamities — that is, affliction, unwholesome conduct, and inverted views — may be named ‘fully seen’; the faith-follower and the dharma-follower, still possessing such things, are not named ‘fully seen,’ exactly as a crop still subject to calamity is not named a complete harvest — this, too, should be understood in just the same way. Further, whoever has already subdued the island of the four truths may be named ‘fully seen’; the faith-follower and the dharma-follower, not yet having subdued the island of the four truths, are not named ‘fully seen.’ One asks: for what reason is an ordinary being not named a disciple of the World-Honored One? The answer: whoever, upon hearing the Buddha teach the three jewels and the four truths, comes to a settled and determinate faith in them, is named a disciple of the World-Honored One; an ordinary being, upon hearing the three jewels and the four truths taught,

may or may not come to believe in them, and is therefore not named a disciple of the World-Honored One. Further, whoever serves the Buddha alone, and serves no other deity, is named a disciple of the World-Honored One;

an ordinary being either serves the Buddha or serves some other deity, and is therefore not named a disciple of the World-Honored One. Further, whoever has attained confirmed purity with respect to the three jewels is named a disciple of the World-Honored One; an ordinary being, not being so, is not named a disciple of the World-Honored One. Further, whoever's own mind, with respect to the Buddha-dharma, remains unmoving, like a doorsill, is named a disciple of the World-Honored One; an ordinary being's own mind, with respect to the Buddha-dharma, is light and flighty, like a willow catkin or a layer of blossoms, and is therefore not named a disciple of the World-Honored One. Further, whoever, having heard the true Dharma, is not corrupted by wrong hearing, is named a disciple of the World-Honored One; an ordinary being, having heard the true Dharma, may or may not be corrupted by wrong hearing, and is therefore not named a disciple of the World-Honored One. One asks: what, here, is meant by ‘one who has fully seen, a disciple of the World-Honored One’? The answer: this passage refers to the stream-enterer, the once-returner, the non-returner, and the arhat as ‘one who has fully seen, a disciple of the World-Honored One.’ Are all forms not yet cut off bound? — and so on, at length. Here, form, whenever it is named cut off, is at that very moment disjoined; whenever it is named disjoined, is at that very moment cut off — there being no such case as cutting-off followed later by disjunction, or disjunction followed later by cutting-off. Defiled mind and mental factors, by contrast, are either cut off first and disjoined later, or cut off and disjoined at one and the same moment — these being of nine grades, from the very highest down to the very lowest: the first eight grades are cut off first and disjoined later, while the very lowest grade is cut off and disjoined at the very same moment — that is, once the very highest grade has been cut off, it remains bound as an object by the remaining eight grades, and so on, until, once the first eight grades have all been cut off, they remain bound as an object solely by the very lowest grade, since, within a single ground, all nine grades mutually take one another as their object, thereby constituting binding; once the ninth grade, too, is finally cut off, all nine grades become disjoined together, since the object-binding of the first eight grades has already been exhausted, and their own associated binding, already exhausted beforehand, is thereby named disjoined, while, with respect to the ninth grade itself, both kinds of binding are exhausted together, and it thereby becomes disjoined as well. This, then, is the brief exegesis given here. Are the forms of one who has fully seen, a disciple of the World-Honored One, not yet cut off, bound? The answer: this is indeed so. Suppose form is bound — is that form not yet cut off? The answer: this is indeed so. It has already been stated above that form, whenever named cut off, is at that very moment disjoined, and whenever named disjoined, is at that very moment cut off, there being no case of cutting-off followed later by disjunction, or disjunction followed later by cutting-off, since every form whatsoever is cut off solely by the very last uninterrupted path, at which very moment it is thereby named disjoined. The stream-enterer and the once-returner have the forms of five grounds not yet cut off, yet bound. The non-returner not yet free of the first dhyāna's own defilement has the forms of four grounds not yet cut off, yet bound. One already free of the first dhyāna's own defilement, yet not yet free of the second dhyāna's own defilement, has the forms of three grounds not yet cut off, yet bound. One already free of the second dhyāna's own defilement, yet not yet free of the third dhyāna's own defilement, has the forms of two grounds not yet cut off, yet bound. One already free of the third dhyāna's own defilement, yet not yet free of the fourth dhyāna's own defilement, has the forms of a single ground not yet cut off, yet bound. Are the feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness of one who has fully seen, a disciple of the World-Honored One, not yet cut off, bound? The answer: this is indeed so — that is, the stream-enterer and the once-returner have the feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness abandoned by cultivation across all three realms not yet cut off, yet bound. The non-returner not yet free of the first dhyāna's own defilement has the feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness abandoned by cultivation across eight grounds not yet cut off, yet bound. One already free of the first dhyāna's own defilement, yet not yet free of the second dhyāna's own defilement, has these abandoned by cultivation across seven grounds not yet cut off, yet bound — and so on, up through one already free of the sphere of nothing-at-all's own defilement, who has these abandoned by cultivation across a single ground not yet cut off, yet bound.

There are cases where feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness are bound, yet that feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness are not ‘not yet cut off’ — that is, the family-to-family, the once-returner, or the one-interval, having already cut off and fully comprehended the desire realm's own upper and middle grades abandoned by cultivation, has their own associated feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness bound by the remaining lower grades. Here, the family-to-family has already cut off the desire realm's own first three or four grades, and has likewise already cut off his own associated feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness; that associated feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness nonetheless remains bound, as an object, by the desire realm's own remaining six or five grades. The once-returner has already cut off the desire realm's own first six grades, and has likewise already cut off his own associated feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness; that associated feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness nonetheless remains bound, as an object, by the desire realm's own remaining three grades. The one-interval has already cut off the desire realm's own first seven or eight grades, and has likewise already cut off his own associated feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness; that associated feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness nonetheless remains bound, as an object, by the desire realm's own remaining two or one grades. This, then, is what is meant by: bound, yet not ‘not yet cut off.’ Have all forms of one who has fully seen, a disciple of the World-Honored One, once cut off, thereby become disjoined? The answer: this is indeed so. Suppose form is disjoined — has that form already been cut off? The answer: this is indeed so. It has already been stated above that form, whenever named cut off, is at that very moment disjoined, and whenever named disjoined, is at that very moment cut off, there being no case of cutting-off followed later by disjunction, or disjunction followed later by cutting-off, since every form whatsoever is cut off solely by the very last uninterrupted path, at which very moment it is thereby named disjoined. The non-returner already free of form's own defilement has the forms of five grounds already cut off and disjoined. One already free of the third dhyāna's own defilement, yet not yet free of the fourth dhyāna's own defilement, has the forms of four grounds already cut off and disjoined. One already free of the second dhyāna's own defilement, yet not yet free of the third dhyāna's own defilement, has the forms of three grounds already cut off and disjoined. One already free of the first dhyāna's own defilement, yet not yet free of the second dhyāna's own defilement, has the forms of two grounds already cut off and disjoined. One not yet free of the first dhyāna's own defilement has the forms of a single ground already cut off and disjoined. Once the feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness of one who has fully seen, a disciple of the World-Honored One, have been cut off, are that feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness thereby disjoined? The answer: whatever feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness are disjoined, that feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness have already been cut off — that is, the arhat has the feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness abandoned by seeing and by cultivation across all three realms already cut off and disjoined. The non-returner already free of the sphere of nothing-at-all's own defilement has these abandoned by seeing across all three realms, together with those abandoned by cultivation across eight grounds, already cut off and disjoined. One already free of the sphere of infinite consciousness's own defilement, yet not yet free of the sphere of nothing-at-all's own defilement, has these abandoned by seeing across all three realms, together with those abandoned by cultivation across seven grounds, already cut off and disjoined — and so on, up through one not yet free of the first dhyāna's own defilement, who has these abandoned by seeing across all three realms, together with those abandoned by cultivation across a single ground, already cut off and disjoined. The stream-enterer and the once-returner have these abandoned by seeing across all three realms already cut off and disjoined. There are cases where feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness have already been cut off, yet are not disjoined — that is, the family-to-family, the once-returner, or the one-interval, having already cut off and fully comprehended the desire realm's own upper and middle grades abandoned by cultivation, has their own associated feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness bound by the remaining lower grades. Here, the family-to-family has already cut off the desire realm's own first three or four grades, and has likewise already cut off his own associated feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness; that associated feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness nonetheless remains bound, as an object, by the desire realm's own remaining six or five grades. The once-returner has already cut off the desire realm's own first six grades, and has likewise already cut off his own associated feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness; that associated feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness nonetheless remains bound, as an object, by the desire realm's own remaining three grades. The one-interval has already cut off the desire realm's own first seven or eight grades,

and has likewise already cut off his own associated feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness; that associated feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness nonetheless remains bound, as an object, by the desire realm's own remaining two or one grades. This, then, is what is meant by: already cut off, yet not disjoined.

One asks: should a stream-enterer cut off the desire realm's own very highest grade, he likewise cuts off his own associated feeling and the rest, and that associated feeling and the rest nonetheless remains bound, as an object, by the remaining eight grades; should he cut off the desire realm's own upper-middle grade, he likewise cuts off his own associated feeling and the rest, and that associated feeling and the rest nonetheless remains bound, as an object, by the remaining seven grades — why, then, does this passage not speak of the stream-enterer, but speaks only of the family-to-family, the once-returner, and the one-interval, with respect to bound-yet-not-uncut and cut-off-yet-not-disjoined? 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, the stream-enterer's own pattern of breaking down affliction is not fixed and determinate, and it is for this reason that this is not spoken of — that is, one still fully bound possesses no such property, while one no longer fully bound does possess it; the family-to-family and the other two, by contrast, all alike possess this very property, their own pattern being unbroken and determinate, and it is for this reason that this passage speaks of them specifically. Further, the stream-enterer,

should he cut off only the desire realm's own first or second grade, has no significance for death and rebirth, and this passage therefore does not speak of him — nor even should he cut off five grades, that is, a yogin, having already attained the first fruit, who generates great exertion in order to cut off the desire realm's own afflictions abandoned by cultivation, certainly never dies with even a single major grade left uncut, exactly as, should he cut off five grades, he certainly never dies with the sixth grade left uncut — this too having no significance for death and rebirth. The family-to-family and the other two, by contrast, do possess significance for death and rebirth, and it is for this reason that this passage speaks of them specifically. One asks: don't the feeling and the rest belonging to the eight grounds of the form and formless realms likewise possess this sense of already cut off yet not disjoined, and this sense of still bound yet not uncut?

— exactly as, should one cut off one grade, the remaining eight grades still bind it, up through, should one cut off eight grades, the ninth grade still binds it. Why, then, does this passage speak only of the desire realm, and not

of the form and formless realms? 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 passage here displays specifically one's initial entry into the effortful practice — the desire realm having already been discussed, the form and formless realms are thereby already discussed as well. Further, the gradual cutting-off of the desire realm's own afflictions abandoned by cultivation establishes many distinct kinds of persons — that is, cutting off three or four grades is named family-to-family; cutting off the sixth grade is named once-returner; cutting off the seventh or eighth grade is named one-interval; the gradual cutting-off of the higher realms' own afflictions abandoned by cultivation involves no such distinction of person, and it is for this reason that this is not spoken of. One asks: the desire realm's own lower grades abandoned by cultivation, partially cut off, resemble the one-interval's own case, likewise possessing the sense of already cut off yet not disjoined, and the sense of still bound yet not uncut — why, then, does this passage speak only of the desire realm's own upper and middle grades abandoned by cultivation being cut off, when their associated feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness likewise possess this same sense of binding by the upper and middle grades — exactly as, should one cut off the very highest of eight grades, the remaining eight still bind it; should one cut off the upper-middle seven, the remaining seven still bind it; should one cut off the third, fourth, sixth, or fifth, these too still bind it?

Why, then, does this passage speak only of binding by the lower grade? 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, briefly stated — it being intended, in this way, to sharpen the intelligent reader's own power of reasoning.

Here, family-to-family is a distinct sub-category of the stream-enterer, while one-interval is a distinct sub-category of the once-returner. Family-to-family is of two kinds, distinguished by whether one is born into two families or three families. Born into two families refers to one who has cut off the desire realm's own first four grades, retaining seeds for two more desire-realm existences. Born into three families refers to one who has cut off the desire realm's own first three grades, retaining seeds for three more desire-realm existences. One asks: why is there no such thing as a family-to-family who has cut off five grades? The answer: should one cut off the fifth grade, one necessarily cuts off the sixth as well, thereby becoming a once-returner, since the sixth grade's own nature is too feeble to independently obstruct attainment of the once-returner fruit, exactly as a single strand of silk thread is incapable of restraining an elephant. One-interval refers to one who has cut off the desire realm's own first seven or eight grades, retaining a seed for one more desire-realm existence. One asks: such a person may still have two grades of affliction remaining — why, then, is he named one-interval? The answer: it is not because a single grade of affliction remains that he is named one-interval, but rather because he possesses a single remaining seed of existence that he is so named.

There are other masters who say there is no such thing as a one-interval who has cut off eight grades — for what reason is this so? Should one cut off the eighth grade, one necessarily cuts off the ninth as well, thereby becoming a non-returner, since the ninth grade's own nature is too feeble to independently obstruct attainment of the non-returner fruit, exactly as a single strand of silk thread is incapable of restraining an elephant, exactly as there is no such thing as a family-to-family who has cut off five grades. The true position, however, holds: there is indeed such a thing as a one-interval who has cut off eight grades, and there is indeed no such thing as a family-to-family who has cut off five grades — for what reason is this so? Having cut off five grades, should one then cut off the sixth and attain the once-returner fruit, one is still born within the desire realm through one's own ground's ripening-destined karma, this karma still bearing some relation to a fruit not utterly obstructed, since the sixth grade's own nature is too feeble to independently obstruct attainment of the once-returner fruit — and it is for this reason that there is no such thing as a family-to-family who has cut off five grades. Having cut off eight grades, should one then cut off the ninth and attain the non-returner fruit, one is certainly never again born within the desire realm — one's own ground's ripening-destined karma bears no relation to a fruit whatsoever, being utterly obstructed; though the ninth grade's own nature is feeble, it is nonetheless capable of assisting in obstructing attainment of the non-returner fruit, and it is for this reason that there is indeed such a thing as a one-interval who has cut off eight grades. It is on this very account that it is said that sentient beings, at three specific junctures, have their ripening-destined karma utterly obstructed — first, at the point of transitioning from the peak into the forbearance stage; second, at the point of about to attain the non-returner fruit;

third, at the point of about to attain arhatship. That is, at the point of transitioning from the peak into the forbearance stage, whatever karma destined to draw a rebirth in the evil destinies is utterly obstructed, in the sense that: should you attain the forbearance stage, you are certain never again to undergo rebirth within the three evil destinies — in whose body, then, shall I ripen? — and it is thereby utterly obstructed. When a noble one is about to become free of the desire realm's own defilement, whatever karma destined to draw a rebirth within the desire realm is utterly obstructed, in the sense that: should you attain the non-returner fruit, you are certain never again to undergo rebirth within the desire realm — in whose body, then, shall I ripen? — and it is thereby utterly obstructed. When a noble one is about to become free of the peak of existence's own defilement, whatever karma of both realms destined to draw further rebirth is utterly obstructed, in the sense that: should you become an arhat, you are certain never again to undergo further rebirth —

in whose body, then, shall I ripen? — and it is thereby utterly obstructed. It is for this reason that there is no such thing as a family-to-family who has cut off five grades, yet there is such a thing as a one-interval who has cut off eight grades. Family-to-family is of two kinds — heavenly family-to-family and human family-to-family. Heavenly family-to-family refers to one who undergoes either two or three rebirths in heaven — whether within one, two, or three heavenly realms, or within one, two, or three heavenly families, receiving two or three rebirths accordingly. Human family-to-family refers to one who undergoes either two or three rebirths among humans — whether within one, two, or three continents, or within one, two, or three human families, receiving two or three rebirths accordingly. One-interval is likewise of two kinds — heavenly one-interval and human one-interval. Heavenly one-interval refers to one who undergoes solely a single further rebirth in heaven — whether in the Heaven of the Four Great Kings, the Heaven of the Thirty-Three, the Yāma Heaven, the Tuṣita Heaven, the Heaven of Delighting in Transformation, or the Heaven of Mastery over Others' Transformations, undergoing this one rebirth there. Human one-interval refers to one who undergoes solely a single further rebirth among humans — whether within Jambudvīpa, Pūrvavideha, or Aparagodānīya, undergoing this one rebirth there. Family-to-family is established through three conditions — first, through karma; second, through faculty; third, through fetter. Through karma refers to the fact that one has already performed and accumulated karma destined for two or three further desire-realm existences. Through faculty refers to the fact that one has already attained the uncontaminated faculties that serve as antidote to the desire realm's own third or fourth grade of fetter. Through fetter refers to the fact that one has already cut off the desire realm's own third or fourth grade of fetter — lacking even one of these three conditions, one is not named family-to-family. One-interval is likewise established through three conditions — first, through karma; second, through faculty; third, through fetter. Through karma refers to the fact that one has already performed and accumulated karma destined for a single further desire-realm existence. Through faculty refers to the fact that one has already attained the uncontaminated faculties that serve as antidote to the desire realm's own seventh or eighth grade of fetter. Through fetter refers to the fact that one has already cut off the desire realm's own seventh or eighth grade of fetter — lacking even one of these three conditions, one is not named one-interval.

One asks: does a noble one generate karma that draws a rebirth within the desire realm? There are those who say he does not — for what reason is this so? Since the desire realm possesses many faults and many calamities, a noble one does not generate karma that draws a rebirth there, but generates only karma that fills out the details of a rebirth already drawn there. One asks: if so, how is what scripture states to be reconciled? As scripture states: when the Buddha praised Maitreya's own future accomplishment of buddhahood, there was, within the assembly, a learner not yet free of desire who, upon hearing this, made the vow: may I first behold that supreme and wondrous event, and only then attain parinirvāṇa. The answer: that person, being blessed with abundant resources, had not yet been touched by heavy suffering, and made this vow only for the time being; were he to be touched by heavy suffering, he would immediately grow disgusted with every form of existence, and think to himself: were such a thing to occur, I would be capable of flying through the sky as swiftly as a startled bird — I, too, at this very moment, would swiftly hasten toward extinction. It is for this reason that he does not generate karma capable of drawing a rebirth within the desire realm. They hold as follows: family-to-family's own karma destined for two or three further existences is generated only in the ordinary-being stage, not in the noble stage; the cutting off of the third or fourth grade occurs either in the ordinary-being stage or the noble stage; one-interval's own karma destined for a single further existence is generated solely in the ordinary-being stage; the cutting off of the seventh or eighth grade occurs either in the ordinary-being stage or the noble stage. There are those who say a noble one does indeed generate karma that draws a rebirth within the desire realm — the resultant birth-aggregate fruit drawn by such karma being especially vigorous and blazing in its own force, surpassing and subtle, pure and unblemished, free of every fault, free of every calamity, and in accord with wholesome qualities. They hold as follows: family-to-family's own karma destined for two or three further existences is generated either in the ordinary-being stage or the noble stage; the cutting off of the third or fourth grade occurs either in the ordinary-being stage or the noble stage; one-interval's own karma destined for a single further existence is generated either in the ordinary-being stage or the noble stage; the cutting off of the seventh or eighth grade occurs either in the ordinary-being stage or the noble stage.

One asks: should a noble one who has undergone rebirth within the desire realm, be capable of being reborn within the upper two realms? Suppose either way — what fault would follow? Both positions carry a fault. Should he indeed be capable of such rebirth, how is what the Ekottarikāgama states to be reconciled — as it states, there are five kinds of persons who sow their seed here and culminate here: first, one who returns at most seven times; second, the family-to-family; third, the once-returner; fourth, the one-interval; fifth, one who attains parinirvāṇa in this very life — ‘sowing seed here’ referring to entering the certainty of freedom from birth within the desire realm; ‘culminating here’ referring to exhausting every contaminant within the desire realm.

There are five kinds of persons who sow their seed here and culminate there: first, one who attains parinirvāṇa in the intermediate state; second, one who attains it upon rebirth; third, one who attains it with effort; fourth, one who attains it without effort; fifth, one who attains it by streaming upward — ‘sowing seed here’ referring to entering the certainty of freedom from birth within the desire realm; ‘culminating there’ referring to exhausting every contaminant within the form or formless realm. Should he not be capable of such rebirth,

how is the verse of the Śakraparipṛcchā to be reconciled? As that verse states:

Three, here, know the Dharma;
two, there, make further progress —
having already made further progress,
both ascend to the Brahmapurohita Heaven.

How, then, is that scripture's second teaching to be reconciled? As it states: Great Virtuous One, I practice in accordance with principle — should there be any teaching, I shall carry it out obediently, and, right here, put an end to suffering; should there be no teaching, I have once heard of the supremely excellent Akaniṣṭha Heaven, and, after my death, shall be reborn there. The answer: a noble one who has undergone rebirth within the desire realm is never again capable of being reborn within the form or formless realm. One asks: if so, how is the verse of the Śakraparipṛcchā to be reconciled? The answer: those two, though they did ascend to the Brahmā world, this was not, strictly speaking, a matter of death and rebirth — that is, there was a certain daughter of the Śākyas named Gopikā; there were three monks who often entered her dwelling and, with a beautiful voice, taught her the Dharma; she, having heard the Dharma, gave rise to a pure faith, grew disgusted with her own female body, and vowed to become a man; upon her death, she was reborn among the Thirty-Three Heavens as Śakra's own son, handsome and superb, and the heavenly beings gave him the name Gopaka.

At that time, the three monks, out of fondness for their own voices, upon their own deaths, were reborn among the gandharvas — the gandharvas being heavenly music-spirits, who day and night forever make music for the gods. At that time, Gopaka, seeing them, recognized them, and told them: I once heard your Dharma-voice, and grew disgusted with my own female body,

and vowed to become a man; upon my death, I was reborn here in the Thirty-Three Heavens as Śakra's own son, handsome and superb — you all once cultivated the supreme, unsurpassed holy practice, yet how could you be reborn into the lowly and base gandharva realm? At that time, the three music-spirits, having heard his words, two of them fell into extreme shame, thereby became free of desire's own defilement, and, through spiritual power, ascended to the Brahmapurohita Heaven, while one remained where he was. It is for this reason that those two, though they did ascend to the Brahmā world, this was not, strictly speaking, a matter of death and rebirth. There are those who say those two, though they did indeed undergo death and rebirth, this does not contradict the principle — that is, they had formerly, as humans, cultivated only the faculties conducive to liberation; upon their death, they were reborn among the gandharvas; on account of Gopaka's own reproach, they fell into extreme shame, entered the path of seeing, became free of the desire realm's own defilement, attained the non-returner fruit, and, upon their death, were reborn within the Brahmapurohita Heaven — and it is for this reason that, though genuine death and rebirth did occur, this does not contradict the principle. One asks: how, then, is that scripture's second teaching to be reconciled? As it states: Great Virtuous One, I practice in accordance with principle, and so on, at length, exactly as stated above. The answer: Śakra did not understand the Abhidharma, and, not knowing that a noble one who has undergone rebirth within the desire realm cannot be reborn upward, spoke in this way. One asks: since he made this statement, contrary to principle, directly before the Buddha, why did the World-Honored One not rebuke or correct him? The answer: the Buddha knew that, though his statement was contrary to principle, it did not obstruct the path, and therefore did not rebuke him — knowing that, once he had entered into the very nature of the Dharma, he would come to understand this himself, and fearing to cause him shame, the Buddha did not rebuke him. There are those who say a noble one who has undergone rebirth within the desire realm may indeed also be reborn within the form or formless realm. One asks: if so, how is what the Ekottarikāgama states to be reconciled — as it states, there are five kinds of persons, and so on, at length? The answer: there are two kinds of noble ones — first, those with mixture and transference; second, those without mixture or transference. Those with mixture and transference should be understood exactly as the Śakraparipṛcchā states; those without mixture or transference should be understood exactly as the Ekottarikāgama states — by means of this very approach, both teachings are successfully reconciled. The verdict states: a noble one who has undergone rebirth within the desire realm is certainly never again reborn within the form or formless realm — for what reason is this so? A noble one who has undergone rebirth within the desire realm certainly possesses none of three things — first, regression; second, a change of faculty; third, rebirth within the form or formless realm — since the noble path, having long abided within his own mental continuum, is there extremely firm and stable, and it is feared that the higher two realms would involve prolonged suffering, resembling the desire realm in just this respect.