Traversing the Six
Fascicle 58 turns the Single-Class-of-Conduct Nyāsa toward a new question: not which object two fetters share, but how a single fetter's own binding across the past, future, and present relates to itself and to other fetters. Every fetter is sorted into two classes — self-characteristic and shared-characteristic — each with its own rule for how certainly it binds across time, before the treatise works craving's full six-fold ledger and then compares it exhaustively against hatred, envy, stinginess, conceit, and ignorance in turn. This page carries Ru-Yi's complete translation.
Translation Method
The Chinese source is Xuánzàng's seventh-century translation of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (阿毘達磨大毘婆沙論), preserved in the Taishō canon (T1545, vol. 27) via the CBETA digital edition — public domain text, translated directly from the Chinese. The English wording throughout is Ru-Yi's own, and the reading notes are original, grounded in standard Sarvāstivāda scholarship rather than a specific named commentator's lecture transcript.
Fascicle 58 continues the Fetters Aggregate's Single-Class-of-Conduct Nyāsa (結蘊第二中一行納息), turning to a new axis entirely: not which matters two fetters share, but how a single fetter's own binding across the past, future, and present relates to itself and to other fetters. Terms established in earlier fascicles recur here and are not re-explained at each occurrence.
Classical text is set in the left-hand column below, our English in the right.
1. Two Kinds of Fetters, and the Framework of "Traversing the Six"
Fascicle 58 opens by sorting every fetter into two classes: those that delude with respect to their own characteristic — craving, hatred, conceit, envy, and stinginess — and those that delude with respect to a shared characteristic — ignorance, view, grasping, and doubt. Each class follows its own rule for how its binding holds across time: the self-characteristic fetters bind the future with certainty whenever uncut, but their past and present binding depend on whether they previously arose and remain uncut, or are currently manifest; the shared-characteristic fetters bind both past and future with certainty whenever uncut, leaving only the present indefinite. This scaffolding is named "traversing the six, the lesser seven, the greater seven, and the abridged Vibhāṣā."
若於此事有過去愛結繫。亦有未來耶。乃至廣說。此中諸結有二
種。一迷自相。二迷共相。迷自相者謂愛恚慢嫉慳結。迷共相者謂
無明見取疑結。迷自相諸結中。愛結於三界五部事能為繫。未來未
斷定繫彼三世一切事。過去不定謂於此事若前生未斷則繫。若前未
生設生已斷則不繫。現在亦不定。謂於此事若現在前則繫。不現在
前則不繫。慢結亦爾。恚結於欲界五部事能為繫。未來未斷定繫彼
三世一切事。過去不定。謂於此事若前生未斷則繫。若前未生設生
已斷則不繫。現在亦不定。謂於此事若現在前則繫。不現在前則不
繫。嫉結於欲界修所斷事能為繫。未來未斷定繫彼三世一切事。過
去不定。謂於此事若前生未斷則繫。若前未生設生已斷則不繫。現
在亦不定。謂於此事若現在前則繫。不現在前則不繫。慳結亦爾。
For a given matter that is bound by the past craving-fetter, is it likewise bound in the future? — and so on, at length. Here, all the fetters are of two kinds: first, those that delude with respect to their own characteristic; second, those that delude with respect to a shared characteristic. Those that delude with respect to their own characteristic are craving, hatred, conceit, envy, and stinginess; those that delude with respect to a shared characteristic are ignorance, view, grasping, and doubt. Among the fetters that delude with respect to their own characteristic, the craving-fetter is capable of binding the matter of the five sections across all three realms — with respect to the future, if uncut, it certainly binds every matter across all three times; with respect to the past, it is indefinite, that is, with respect to a given matter, if it previously arose there and remains uncut, it binds, while if it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, it does not bind; with respect to the present, it is likewise indefinite, that is, with respect to a given matter, if it is presently manifest there, it binds, while if it is not presently manifest, it does not bind. Conceit is exactly the same. The hatred-fetter is capable of binding the matter of the five sections within the desire realm alone — with respect to the future, if uncut, it certainly binds every matter across all three times; with respect to the past, it is indefinite, that is, with respect to a given matter, if it previously arose there and remains uncut, it binds, while if it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, it does not bind; with respect to the present, it is likewise indefinite, that is, with respect to a given matter, if it is presently manifest there, it binds, while if it is not presently manifest, it does not bind. The envy-fetter is capable of binding the matter of the desire realm's own section abandoned by cultivation alone — with respect to the future, if uncut, it certainly binds every matter across all three times; with respect to the past, it is indefinite, that is, with respect to a given matter, if it previously arose there and remains uncut, it binds, while if it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, it does not bind; with respect to the present, it is likewise indefinite, that is, with respect to a given matter, if it is presently manifest there, it binds, while if it is not presently manifest, it does not bind. Stinginess is exactly the same.
迷共相諸結。於三界五部事能為繫。過去未來未斷定繫彼三世一切
事。現在不定。謂於此事若現在前則繫。不現在前則不繫。是謂歷
六小七大七略毘婆沙。
The fetters that delude with respect to a shared characteristic are capable of binding the matter of the five sections across all three realms — with respect to both the past and the future, if uncut, they certainly bind every matter across all three times; with respect to the present, they are indefinite, that is, with respect to a given matter, if it is presently manifest there, they bind, while if it is not presently manifest, they do not bind. This is what is called traversing the six, the lesser seven, the greater seven, and the abridged Vibhāṣā.
The asymmetry built into this classification is worth pausing on: a self-characteristic fetter's relationship to its own past is genuinely uncertain in a way its relationship to the future never is, since the future is simply whatever remains uncut, while the past requires the additional fact of having actually arisen there before — a structural reminder that, in this system, "not yet cut off" and "already arisen" are two entirely separate conditions that happen to coincide in the future tense alone.
2. Craving's Own Six-Fold Ledger
The treatise works through craving's own binding across every pairing and grouping of the three times in exhaustive detail — past implies future, future does not always imply past, and a genuine four-case tetralemma emerges once two or three times are considered together — before generalizing the entire pattern first to hatred, conceit, envy, and stinginess, and then, in simplified form, to the view-fetter as a representative of the shared-characteristic class, whose past and future bind each other outright while only the present remains conditional.
若於此事有過去愛結繫。亦有未來耶。答如是。所以者何。前說愛
結於三界五部事能為繫。未來未斷定繫彼三世一切事故。設有未來
復有過去耶。答若前生未斷則繫。若前未生設生已斷則不繫。所以
者何。前說愛結過去不定。謂於此事若前生未斷則繫。若前未生設
生已斷則不繫故。問若時過去愛結已斷。即時未來愛結亦已斷。若
時過去愛結未斷。即時未來愛結亦未斷。今何故說若前生未斷則
繫。若前未生設生已斷則不繫耶。外國諸師作如是說。若前生未斷
則繫者。說中三品結。若前未生則不繫者。說下三品結。設生已斷
則不繫者。說上三品結。迦濕彌羅國諸論師言。若前生未斷則繫
者。說九品結。若前未生則不繫者。說後三品結。設生已斷則不繫
者。說前六品結。如過去前六品愛結已斷未來亦爾。後三品愛結雖
未斷而未生故。在未來為繫非過去。此中意說。若於此事有未來愛
結未斷。亦有前生愛結未斷。即於此事亦有過去愛結繫義。若於此
事雖有未來愛結未斷。而前於此愛結未生。雖餘處生而於此事亦名
未生。設生已斷即於此事無有過去愛結繫義。若於此事有過去愛結
繫亦有現在耶。答若現在前。所以者何。前說愛結現在亦不定。謂
於此事若現在前則繫。不現在前則不繫故。謂於此事若起愛結現在
前。則有現在愛結繫義。若於此事或起餘結現在前。或起善無覆無
記心現在前。或於餘處起愛結現在前。或無心時則無現在愛結繫
義。設有現在復有過去耶。答若前生未斷則繫。若前未生設生已斷
則不繫。此中義意如前廣說。若於此事有未來愛結繫亦有現在耶。
For a given matter that is bound by the past craving-fetter, is it likewise bound in the future? The answer: it is indeed so. For what reason is this so? It was stated above that the craving-fetter is capable of binding the matter of the five sections across all three realms, and, with respect to the future, if uncut, it certainly binds every matter across all three times. Suppose there is binding in the future — is there likewise binding in the past? The answer: if it previously arose there and remains uncut, it binds; if it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, it does not bind. For what reason is this so? It was stated above that the craving-fetter's own past is indefinite, that is, with respect to a given matter, if it previously arose there and remains uncut, it binds, while if it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, it does not bind. One asks: at whatever time the past craving-fetter has already been cut off, at that very time the future craving-fetter has likewise already been cut off; at whatever time the past craving-fetter remains uncut, at that very time the future craving-fetter likewise remains uncut — for what reason, then, does the text say that it binds if it previously arose there and remains uncut, yet does not bind if it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off? The teachers of the outer countries explain it this way: "if it previously arose there and remains uncut, it binds" refers to the middle three grades of the fetter; "if it never previously arose there, it does not bind" refers to the lower three grades; "having arisen, already cut off, it does not bind" refers to the upper three grades. The masters of Kashmir say: "if it previously arose there and remains uncut, it binds" refers to all nine grades; "if it never previously arose there, it does not bind" refers to the latter three grades; "having arisen, already cut off, it does not bind" refers to the former six grades — that is, exactly as the former six grades of the past craving-fetter, once already cut off, remain so in the future as well, so too the latter three grades of craving, though not yet cut off, being not yet arisen, exist as a binding in the future but not in the past. The intended meaning here is this: with respect to a given matter, if the future craving-fetter remains uncut, and it likewise previously arose there and remains uncut, then this matter likewise possesses the sense of being bound by the past craving-fetter; if, with respect to a given matter, the future craving-fetter remains uncut, yet it never previously arose there — even though it may have arisen elsewhere, with respect to this particular matter it is likewise named as never having arisen — or, having arisen, was already cut off, then this matter possesses no sense of being bound by the past craving-fetter at all. For a given matter that is bound by the past craving-fetter, is it likewise bound in the present? The answer: only if it is presently manifest. For what reason is this so? It was stated above that the craving-fetter's own present is likewise indefinite, that is, with respect to a given matter, if it is presently manifest there, it binds, while if it is not presently manifest, it does not bind — that is, with respect to a given matter, if craving arises and becomes presently manifest there, then this matter possesses the sense of being bound by the present craving-fetter; if, with respect to a given matter, some other fetter arises and becomes presently manifest, or a wholesome or a neutral, non-obscuring mind arises and becomes presently manifest, or craving arises and becomes presently manifest elsewhere, or there is no mind present at all, then this matter possesses no sense of being bound by the present craving-fetter. Suppose there is binding in the present — is there likewise binding in the past? The answer: if it previously arose there and remains uncut, it binds; if it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, it does not bind. The intended meaning here is exactly as stated above, at length. For a given matter that is bound by the future craving-fetter, is it likewise bound in the present?
答若現在前。此中義意亦如前說。設有現在復有未來耶。答如是。
The answer: only if it is presently manifest. The intended meaning here is likewise exactly as stated above. Suppose there is binding in the present — is there likewise binding in the future? The answer: it is indeed so.
此中義意如前已說。
The intended meaning here has already been stated above.
若於此事有過去愛結繫亦有未來現在耶答未來必繫現在。若現在
前。此中義意並如前說。設有未來現在復有過去耶。答若前生未斷
則繫。若前未生設生已斷則不繫。此中義意亦如前說。若於此事有
未來愛結繫亦有過去現在耶。答此中有四句。或有未來無過去現
在。謂於此事愛結未斷。而前未生設生已斷不現在前。此中愛結未
斷者顯有未來愛結。而前未生設生已斷者遮有過去愛結。不現在前
者。遮有現在愛結。或有未來及過去無現在。謂於此事有愛結前生
未斷不現在前。此中有愛結前生未斷者。顯有過去愛結。不現在前
者。遮有現在愛結。既有愛結前生未斷。即亦顯有未來愛結。是故
此中不別說有。或有未來及現在無過去。謂於此事有愛結現在前而
前未生設生已斷。此中有愛結現在前者顯有現在愛結。而前未生設
生已斷者。遮有過去愛結。既有愛結現在前即亦顯彼未來有故不別
說未來有義。或有未來及過去現在。謂於此事有愛結前生未斷亦現
在前。此中有愛結前生未斷者顯有過去愛結。亦現在前者顯有現在
愛結。既有過去現在愛結未來亦有不說自成。設有過去現在復有未
來耶。答如是。此中義意已如前說。若於此事有現在愛結繫亦有過
去未來耶。答未來必繫過去。若前生未斷則繫。若前未生設生已斷
則不繫。此中義意並如前說。設有過去未來復有現在耶。答若現在
前。此中義意亦如前說。如愛結歷六。應知恚慢嫉慳非遍行無明結
歷六亦爾。迷自相結義相似故雖有廣狹而得相類。若於此事有過去
見結繫亦有未來耶。答如是。設有未來復有過去耶。答如是。若於
此事有過去見結繫亦有現在耶。答若現在前。設有現在復有過去
耶。答如是。若於此事有未來見結繫亦有現在耶。答若現在前。設
有現在復有未來耶。答如是。若於此事有過去見結繫亦有未來現在
耶。答未來必繫。現在若現在前。設有未來現在復有過去耶。答如
是若於此事有未來見結繫亦有過去現在耶。答過去必繫。現在若現
在前。設有過去現在復有未來耶。答如是。若於此事有現在見結繫
亦有過去未來耶。答如是。設有過去未來復有現在耶。答若現在
前。所以者何。先作是說。迷共相諸結於三界五部事能為繫。過去
未來未斷定繫彼三世一切事。現在不定。謂於此事若現在前則繫。
For a given matter that is bound by the past craving-fetter, is it likewise bound in both the future and the present? The answer: the future certainly binds; the present, only if it is presently manifest — the intended meaning here is entirely as stated above. Suppose there is binding in both the future and the present — is there likewise binding in the past? The answer: if it previously arose there and remains uncut, it binds; if it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, it does not bind — the intended meaning here is likewise as stated above. For a given matter that is bound by the future craving-fetter, is it likewise bound in both the past and the present? The answer should be given in four clauses. There is binding in the future without binding in the past or present — that is, with respect to a given matter, craving remains uncut, yet it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, and it is not presently manifest. Here, craving remaining uncut shows there is binding by the future craving-fetter; its never having previously arisen there, or, having arisen, being already cut off, excludes binding by the past craving-fetter; its not being presently manifest excludes binding by the present craving-fetter. There is binding in both the future and the past without binding in the present — that is, with respect to a given matter, craving previously arose there and remains uncut, yet it is not presently manifest. Here, craving having previously arisen there and remaining uncut shows there is binding by the past craving-fetter; its not being presently manifest excludes binding by the present craving-fetter; and since craving has already previously arisen there and remains uncut, this itself likewise already shows there is binding by the future craving-fetter, and so this is not separately stated as a distinct case. There is binding in both the future and the present without binding in the past — that is, with respect to a given matter, craving is presently manifest there, yet it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off. Here, craving being presently manifest there shows there is binding by the present craving-fetter; its never having previously arisen there, or, having arisen, being already cut off, excludes binding by the past craving-fetter; and since craving is already presently manifest there, this itself likewise already shows there is binding by the future craving-fetter, and so the sense of future binding is not separately stated. There is binding in the future, the past, and the present together — that is, with respect to a given matter, craving previously arose there and remains uncut, and is also presently manifest there. Here, craving having previously arisen there and remaining uncut shows there is binding by the past craving-fetter; its also being presently manifest shows there is binding by the present craving-fetter; and since there is already binding by both the past and the present craving-fetter, the future is thereby shown without needing separate statement. Suppose there is binding in both the past and the present — is there likewise binding in the future? The answer: it is indeed so. The intended meaning here has already been stated above. For a given matter that is bound by the present craving-fetter, is it likewise bound in both the past and the future? The answer: the future certainly binds the present; as for the past, if it previously arose there and remains uncut, it binds, while if it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, it does not bind — the intended meaning here is entirely as stated above. Suppose there is binding in both the past and the future — is there likewise binding in the present? The answer: only if it is presently manifest — the intended meaning here is likewise as stated above. Exactly as the craving-fetter traverses the six, know that hatred, conceit, envy, stinginess, and the non-universally-pervading ignorance-fetter likewise traverse the six in just the same way — the fetters that delude with respect to their own characteristic being similar in meaning, though differing in breadth, and so falling into the very same class. For a given matter that is bound by the past view-fetter, is it likewise bound in the future? The answer: it is indeed so. Suppose there is binding in the future — is there likewise binding in the past? The answer: it is indeed so. For a given matter that is bound by the past view-fetter, is it likewise bound in the present? The answer: only if it is presently manifest. Suppose there is binding in the present — is there likewise binding in the past? The answer: it is indeed so. For a given matter that is bound by the future view-fetter, is it likewise bound in the present? The answer: only if it is presently manifest. Suppose there is binding in the present — is there likewise binding in the future? The answer: it is indeed so. For a given matter that is bound by the past view-fetter, is it likewise bound in both the future and the present? The answer: the future certainly binds; the present, only if it is presently manifest. Suppose there is binding in both the future and the present — is there likewise binding in the past? The answer: it is indeed so. For a given matter that is bound by the future view-fetter, is it likewise bound in both the past and the present? The answer: the past certainly binds; the present, only if it is presently manifest. Suppose there is binding in both the past and the present — is there likewise binding in the future? The answer: it is indeed so. For a given matter that is bound by the present view-fetter, is it likewise bound in both the past and the future? The answer: it is indeed so. Suppose there is binding in both the past and the future — is there likewise binding in the present? The answer: only if it is presently manifest. For what reason is this so? It was earlier stated that the fetters that delude with respect to a shared characteristic are capable of binding the matter of the five sections across all three realms, and, with respect to both the past and the future, if uncut, they certainly bind every matter across all three times; with respect to the present, they are indefinite, that is, with respect to a given matter, if it is presently manifest there, they bind,
A striking aside surfaces here: two competing scholastic explanations, from "the teachers of the outer countries" and from "the masters of Kashmir," for why the past tense of a fetter's binding is described awkwardly rather than simply mirroring the future — each school carving the fetter's nine grades differently to make the language work. That the text preserves both accounts without adjudicating between them is characteristic of how this whole treatise handles genuine scholastic disagreement: recording the dispute is itself part of the transmission, not a loose end to be tidied away.
3. Extending the Pattern to Grasping, Doubt, and Ignorance
Two brief but load-bearing sentences close out the six-fold traversal's own general framework: exactly as the view-fetter traverses the six, so do grasping, doubt, and the universally-pervading ignorance-fetter, since all four shared-characteristic fetters share the same underlying temporal profile despite differing in how broadly each one reaches.
不現在前則不繫故。如見結歷六。應知取疑遍行無明結歷六亦爾。
while if it is not presently manifest, they do not bind. Exactly as the view-fetter traverses the six, know that grasping, doubt, and the universally-pervading ignorance-fetter likewise traverse the six in just the same way.
迷共相結義相似故雖有廣狹而得相類。
The fetters that delude with respect to a shared characteristic being similar in meaning, though differing in breadth, thereby fall into the very same class.
These two sentences do an enormous amount of compressive work: an entire additional ledger for three more fetters is dispatched by simple analogy rather than being spelled out case by case, trusting the reader to have absorbed the view-fetter's own worked example thoroughly enough to reconstruct the rest without further guidance — the same trust in a demonstrated pattern that this whole nyāsa has been built on since its opening page.
4. Craving Against Hatred: The Full Cross-Tense Ledger
The treatise now compares craving against a second fetter entirely, tracking every combination of tense between the two: past craving against past hatred, against future hatred, against present hatred, and then against every possible pairing and tripling of hatred's own three tenses at once, each case built from the same recurring elements — whether a fetter previously arose and remains uncut, whether it is currently manifest, and whether, once cut off or never arisen, it fails to bind at all.
若於此事有過去愛結繫亦有過去恚結繫耶。答若前生未斷則繫。若
前未生設生已斷則不繫。謂於此事若有前生愛結未斷。亦有前生恚
結未斷。即於此事亦有過去恚結繫義。若於此事雖有前生愛結未斷
而前於此恚結未生雖餘處生而於此事亦名未生。設生已斷即於此事
無有過去恚結繫義。設有過去恚結繫。復有過去愛結繫耶。答若前
生未斷則繫若前未生設生已斷則不繫。謂於此事若有前生恚結未
斷。亦有前生愛結未斷。即於此事亦有過去愛結繫義。若於此事雖
有前生恚結未斷而前於此愛結未生。雖餘處生而於此事亦名未生。
For a given matter that is bound by the past craving-fetter, is it likewise bound by the past hatred-fetter? The answer: if it previously arose there and remains uncut, it binds; if it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, it does not bind — that is, with respect to a given matter, if craving previously arose there and remains uncut, and hatred likewise previously arose there and remains uncut, then this matter likewise possesses the sense of being bound by the past hatred-fetter; if, with respect to a given matter, craving previously arose there and remains uncut, yet hatred never previously arose there — even though it may have arisen elsewhere, with respect to this particular matter it is likewise named as never having arisen — or, having arisen, was already cut off, then this matter possesses no sense of being bound by the past hatred-fetter at all. Suppose there is binding by the past hatred-fetter — is there likewise binding by the past craving-fetter? The answer: if it previously arose there and remains uncut, it binds; if it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, it does not bind — that is, with respect to a given matter, if hatred previously arose there and remains uncut, and craving likewise previously arose there and remains uncut, then this matter likewise possesses the sense of being bound by the past craving-fetter; if, with respect to a given matter, hatred previously arose there and remains uncut, yet craving never previously arose there — even though it may have arisen elsewhere, with respect to this particular matter it is likewise named as never having arisen —
設生已斷即於此事無有過去愛結繫義。若於此事有過去愛結繫。亦
有未來恚結繫耶。答若未斷云何未斷。謂未離欲染必亦有未來恚結
繫義。設有未來恚結繫。復有過去愛結繫耶。答若前生未斷則繫。
or, having arisen, was already cut off, then this matter possesses no sense of being bound by the past craving-fetter at all. For a given matter that is bound by the past craving-fetter, is it likewise bound by the future hatred-fetter? The answer: only if hatred remains uncut. What is meant by "uncut"? That is, so long as one is not yet free of the desire realm's own defilement, this matter certainly also possesses the sense of being bound by the future hatred-fetter. Suppose there is binding by the future hatred-fetter — is there likewise binding by the past craving-fetter? The answer: if it previously arose there and remains uncut, it binds;
若前未生設生已斷則不繫。謂於此事若有未來恚結未斷。亦有前生
愛結未斷。即於此事亦有過去愛結繫義。若於此事雖有未來恚結未
斷而前於此愛結未生。雖餘處生而於此事亦名未生。設生已斷即於
此事無有過去愛結繫義。若於此事有過去愛結繫。亦有現在恚結繫
耶。答若現在前。謂於此事若有前生愛結未斷。亦有恚結現在前則
有現在恚結繫義。若於此事或起餘結現在前。或起善無覆無記心現
在前。或於餘處起恚結現在前。或無心時則無現在恚結繫義。設有
現在恚結繫復有過去愛結繫耶。答若前生未斷則繫。若前未生設生
已斷則不繫。謂於此事若有恚結現在前亦有愛結前生未斷。即於此
事亦有過去愛結繫義。若於此事雖有恚結現在前而前於此愛結未
生。雖餘處生而於此事亦名未生。設生已斷即於此事無有過去愛結
繫義。若於此事有過去愛結繫亦有過去現在恚結繫耶。答此中有四
句。或有過去愛結繫。無過去現在恚結繫。謂於此事有愛結前生未
斷。無恚結前生。設生已斷不現在前。此中有愛結前生未斷者。顯
有過去愛結。無恚結前生設生已斷者。遮有過去恚結。不現在前
者。遮有現在恚結。或有過去愛結繫及有過去恚結繫無現在。謂於
此事有愛結恚結前生未斷無恚結現在前。此中有愛結恚結前生未斷
者。顯有過去愛結恚結。無恚結現在前者。遮有現在恚結。或有過
去愛結繫。及有現在恚結繫無過去。謂於此事有愛結前生未斷。有
恚結現在前而前未生設生已斷。此中有愛結前生未斷者。顯有過去
愛結。有恚結現在前者。顯有現在恚結。而前未生設生已斷者。遮
有過去恚結。或有過去愛結繫。及有過去現在恚結繫。謂於此事有
愛結恚結前生未斷及有恚結現在前。此中有愛結恚結前生未斷者。
if it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, it does not bind — that is, with respect to a given matter, if hatred remains uncut in the future, and craving likewise previously arose there and remains uncut, then this matter likewise possesses the sense of being bound by the past craving-fetter; if, with respect to a given matter, hatred remains uncut in the future, yet craving never previously arose there — even though it may have arisen elsewhere, with respect to this particular matter it is likewise named as never having arisen — or, having arisen, was already cut off, then this matter possesses no sense of being bound by the past craving-fetter at all. For a given matter that is bound by the past craving-fetter, is it likewise bound by the present hatred-fetter? The answer: only if it is presently manifest — that is, with respect to a given matter, if craving previously arose there and remains uncut, and hatred is also presently manifest there, then there is the sense of being bound by the present hatred-fetter; if, with respect to a given matter, some other fetter arises and becomes presently manifest, or a wholesome or a neutral, non-obscuring mind arises and becomes presently manifest, or hatred arises and becomes presently manifest elsewhere, or there is no mind present at all, then there is no sense of being bound by the present hatred-fetter. Suppose there is binding by the present hatred-fetter — is there likewise binding by the past craving-fetter? The answer: if it previously arose there and remains uncut, it binds; if it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, it does not bind — that is, with respect to a given matter, if hatred is presently manifest there, and craving also previously arose there and remains uncut, then this matter likewise possesses the sense of being bound by the past craving-fetter; if, with respect to a given matter, hatred is presently manifest there, yet craving never previously arose there — even though it may have arisen elsewhere, with respect to this particular matter it is likewise named as never having arisen — or, having arisen, was already cut off, then this matter possesses no sense of being bound by the past craving-fetter at all. For a given matter that is bound by the past craving-fetter, is it likewise bound by both the past and present hatred-fetter? The answer should be given in four clauses. There is binding by the past craving-fetter without binding by either the past or present hatred-fetter — that is, with respect to a given matter, craving previously arose there and remains uncut, yet hatred never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, and is not presently manifest. Here, craving having previously arisen there and remaining uncut shows there is binding by the past craving-fetter; hatred's never having previously arisen there, or, having arisen, being already cut off, excludes binding by the past hatred-fetter; its not being presently manifest excludes binding by the present hatred-fetter. There is binding by the past craving-fetter together with the past hatred-fetter, without the present — that is, with respect to a given matter, craving and hatred both previously arose there and remain uncut, yet hatred is not presently manifest. Here, craving and hatred both having previously arisen there and remaining uncut shows there is binding by both the past craving-fetter and the past hatred-fetter; hatred's not being presently manifest excludes binding by the present hatred-fetter. There is binding by the past craving-fetter together with the present hatred-fetter, without the past — that is, with respect to a given matter, craving previously arose there and remains uncut, and hatred is presently manifest there, yet it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off. Here, craving having previously arisen there and remaining uncut shows there is binding by the past craving-fetter; hatred being presently manifest shows there is binding by the present hatred-fetter; its never having previously arisen there, or, having arisen, being already cut off, excludes binding by the past hatred-fetter. There is binding by the past craving-fetter together with both the past and the present hatred-fetter — that is, with respect to a given matter, craving and hatred both previously arose there and remain uncut, and hatred is also presently manifest there. Here, craving and hatred both having previously arisen there and remaining uncut
顯有過去愛結恚結。有恚結現在前者。顯有現在恚結。設有過去現
在恚結繫。復有過去愛結繫耶。答若前生未斷則繫。若前未生設生
已斷則不繫。此中義意廣如前說。若於此事有過去愛結繫。亦有未
來現在恚結繫耶。答此中有三句。或有過去愛結繫無未來現在恚結
繫。謂於色無色界法有愛結前生未斷。此中有愛結前生未斷者。顯
有過去愛結。於色無色界法者。遮有未來現在恚結。彼無恚結如前
應知。或有過去愛結繫及有未來恚結繫無現在。謂於此事有愛結前
生未斷及有恚結未斷不現在前。此中有愛結前生未斷者。顯有過去
愛結。及有恚結未斷者。顯有未來恚結。未斷者必有未來繫義故。
shows there is binding by both the past craving-fetter and the past hatred-fetter; hatred being presently manifest shows there is binding by the present hatred-fetter. Suppose there is binding by both the past and the present hatred-fetter — is there likewise binding by the past craving-fetter? The answer: if it previously arose there and remains uncut, it binds; if it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, it does not bind — the intended meaning here is exactly as stated above, at length. For a given matter that is bound by the past craving-fetter, is it likewise bound by both the future and present hatred-fetter? The answer should be given in three clauses. There is binding by the past craving-fetter without binding by either the future or present hatred-fetter — that is, with respect to the form and formless realms' own dharmas, craving previously arose there and remains uncut. Here, craving having previously arisen there and remaining uncut shows there is binding by the past craving-fetter; its being with respect to the form and formless realms' own dharmas excludes binding by either the future or the present hatred-fetter, since those realms possess no hatred-fetter at all, exactly as stated before. There is binding by the past craving-fetter together with the future hatred-fetter, without the present — that is, with respect to a given matter, craving previously arose there and remains uncut, and hatred also remains uncut, yet is not presently manifest. Here, craving having previously arisen there and remaining uncut shows there is binding by the past craving-fetter; hatred remaining uncut shows there is binding by the future hatred-fetter, since whatever remains uncut certainly possesses the sense of future binding.
不現在前者。遮有現在恚結。或有過去愛結繫亦有未來現在恚結
繫。謂於此事有愛結前生未斷及有恚結現在前。此中有愛結前生未
斷者。顯有過去愛結。及有恚結現在前者。顯有現在恚結。此未來
有不說自成。以現在前者未來必有故。設有未來現在恚結繫。復有
過去愛結繫耶。答若前生未斷則繫。若前未生設生已斷則不繫。此
中義意廣如前說。
Hatred's not being presently manifest excludes binding by the present hatred-fetter. There is binding by the past craving-fetter together with both the future and the present hatred-fetter — that is, with respect to a given matter, craving previously arose there and remains uncut, and hatred is presently manifest there. Here, craving having previously arisen there and remaining uncut shows there is binding by the past craving-fetter; hatred being presently manifest shows there is binding by the present hatred-fetter; the future binding is thereby shown without needing separate statement, since whatever is presently manifest certainly possesses future binding as well. Suppose there is binding by both the future and the present hatred-fetter — is there likewise binding by the past craving-fetter? The answer: if it previously arose there and remains uncut, it binds; if it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, it does not bind — the intended meaning here is exactly as stated above, at length.
若於此事有過去愛結繫。亦有過去未來恚結繫耶。答此中有三句。
For a given matter that is bound by the past craving-fetter, is it likewise bound by both the past and future hatred-fetter? The answer should be given in three clauses.
或有過去愛結繫。無過去未來恚結繫。謂於色無色界法有愛結前生
未斷。此中有愛結前生未斷者顯有過去愛結。於色無色界法者。遮
有過去未來恚結。或有過去愛結繫。及有未來恚結繫無過去。謂於
此事有愛結前生未斷。及有恚結未斷。而無恚結前生設生已斷。此
中有愛結前生未斷者。顯有過去愛結。有恚結未斷者。顯有未來恚
結。無恚結前生設生已斷者。遮有過去恚結。或有過去愛結繫。亦
有過去未來恚結繫。謂於此事有愛結恚結前生未斷。此中有愛結前
生未斷者。顯有過去愛結。有恚結前生未斷者。顯有過去恚結此未
來有不說自成。以有過去者未來必有故。設有過去未來恚結繫。復
有過去愛結繫耶。答若前生未斷則繫。若前未生設生已斷則不繫。
There is binding by the past craving-fetter without binding by either the past or future hatred-fetter — that is, with respect to the form and formless realms' own dharmas, craving previously arose there and remains uncut. Here, craving having previously arisen there and remaining uncut shows there is binding by the past craving-fetter; its being with respect to the form and formless realms' own dharmas excludes binding by either the past or future hatred-fetter. There is binding by the past craving-fetter together with the future hatred-fetter, without the past — that is, with respect to a given matter, craving previously arose there and remains uncut, and hatred also remains uncut, yet hatred never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off. Here, craving having previously arisen there and remaining uncut shows there is binding by the past craving-fetter; hatred remaining uncut shows there is binding by the future hatred-fetter; hatred's never having previously arisen there, or, having arisen, being already cut off, excludes binding by the past hatred-fetter. There is binding by the past craving-fetter together with both the past and the future hatred-fetter — that is, with respect to a given matter, craving and hatred both previously arose there and remain uncut. Here, craving having previously arisen there and remaining uncut shows there is binding by the past craving-fetter; hatred having previously arisen there and remaining uncut shows there is binding by the past hatred-fetter; the future binding is thereby shown without needing separate statement, since whatever possesses past binding certainly possesses future binding as well. Suppose there is binding by both the past and the future hatred-fetter — is there likewise binding by the past craving-fetter? The answer: if it previously arose there and remains uncut, it binds; if it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, it does not bind.
The sheer volume of near-identical cases here is the point, not an obstacle to it: by running craving against hatred through every single tense combination rather than skipping ahead once the pattern is clear, the treatise is building a template exhaustive enough that every later fetter-pair in this section can simply be checked against it rather than independently re-derived — exhaustiveness here functions as a kind of proof, not mere repetition.
5. Completing Hatred's Ledger, Then Envy and Stinginess
The cross-tense ledger for craving against hatred reaches its final, most complex case — all three tenses of hatred considered together — before the treatise turns to envy and stinginess, noting that both follow hatred's own pattern exactly, with one precise difference: because envy and stinginess are confined solely to the desire realm's own section abandoned by cultivation, rather than hatred's broader five sections, the desire realm's own dharmas abandoned by seeing behave differently in their comparison.
此中義意廣如前說。若於此事有過去愛結繫。亦有過去未來現在恚
結繫耶。答此中有五句。或有過去愛結繫。無過去未來現在恚結
繫。謂於色無色界法有愛結前生未斷。此中有愛結前生未斷者。顯
有過去愛結。於色無色界法者遮有三世恚結。或有過去愛結繫及有
未來恚結繫。無過去現在。謂於此事有愛結前生未斷。及有恚結未
斷。而前未生設生已斷不現在前。此中有愛結前生未斷者。顯有過
去愛結。有恚結未斷者。顯有未來恚結。而前未生設生已斷者。遮
有過去恚結。不現在前者遮有現在恚結。或有過去愛結繫。及有未
來現在恚結繫無過去。謂於此事有愛結前生未斷。及有恚結現在
前。而前未生設生已斷。此中有愛結前生未斷者。顯有過去愛結有
恚結現在前者。顯有現在恚結。此未來有不說自成。義如前說。而
前未生設生已斷者。遮有過去恚結。或有過去愛結繫及有過去未來
恚結繫無現在。謂於此事有愛結恚結前生未斷而無恚結現在前。此
中有愛結前生未斷者。顯有過去愛結。有恚結前生未斷者。顯有過
去恚結。此未來有不說自成。義如前說。而無恚結現在前者。遮有
現在恚結。或有過去愛結繫。亦有過去未來現在恚結繫。謂於此事
有愛結恚結前生未斷。及有恚結現在前。此中有愛結前生未斷者。
The intended meaning here is exactly as stated above, at length. For a given matter that is bound by the past craving-fetter, is it likewise bound by the past, future, and present hatred-fetter together? The answer should be given in five clauses. There is binding by the past craving-fetter without binding by the past, future, or present hatred-fetter — that is, with respect to the form and formless realms' own dharmas, craving previously arose there and remains uncut. Here, craving having previously arisen there and remaining uncut shows there is binding by the past craving-fetter; its being with respect to the form and formless realms' own dharmas excludes binding by the hatred-fetter across all three times. There is binding by the past craving-fetter together with the future hatred-fetter, without the past or present — that is, with respect to a given matter, craving previously arose there and remains uncut, and hatred also remains uncut, yet hatred never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, and is not presently manifest. Here, craving having previously arisen there and remaining uncut shows there is binding by the past craving-fetter; hatred remaining uncut shows there is binding by the future hatred-fetter; hatred's never having previously arisen there, or, having arisen, being already cut off, excludes binding by the past hatred-fetter; its not being presently manifest excludes binding by the present hatred-fetter. There is binding by the past craving-fetter together with both the future and the present hatred-fetter, without the past — that is, with respect to a given matter, craving previously arose there and remains uncut, and hatred is presently manifest there, yet it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off. Here, craving having previously arisen there and remaining uncut shows there is binding by the past craving-fetter; hatred being presently manifest shows there is binding by the present hatred-fetter; the future binding is thereby shown without needing separate statement, exactly as stated above; hatred's never having previously arisen there, or, having arisen, being already cut off, excludes binding by the past hatred-fetter. There is binding by the past craving-fetter together with both the past and the future hatred-fetter, without the present — that is, with respect to a given matter, craving and hatred both previously arose there and remain uncut, yet hatred is not presently manifest. Here, craving having previously arisen there and remaining uncut shows there is binding by the past craving-fetter; hatred having previously arisen there and remaining uncut shows there is binding by the past hatred-fetter; the future binding is thereby shown without needing separate statement, exactly as stated above; hatred's not being presently manifest excludes binding by the present hatred-fetter. There is binding by the past craving-fetter together with the past, future, and present hatred-fetter all at once — that is, with respect to a given matter, craving and hatred both previously arose there and remain uncut, and hatred is also presently manifest there. Here, craving having previously arisen there and remaining uncut
顯有過去愛結。有恚結前生未斷者。顯有過去恚結。有恚結現在前
者。顯有現在恚結。此未來有不說自成。有過去現在者必亦有未來
故。設有過去未來現在恚結繫。復有過去愛結繫耶。答若前生未斷
則繫。若前未生設生已斷則不繫。此中義意廣如前說。如對恚結對
嫉結慳結亦爾。俱唯欲界故。以愛對彼作小七句。如對恚結。說差
別者。於欲界見所斷法。及於色無色界法。有愛結前生未斷。無過
去未來現在嫉結慳結。此中有愛結前生未斷者顯二七句。中有過去
愛結於欲界見所斷法。及於色無色界法無三世嫉慳結者。遮二七
句。中有過去未來現在嫉慳結。此於欲界見所斷法與前差別。以嫉
慳二結唯修所斷故。若於此事有過去愛結繫亦有過去慢結繫耶。答
若前生未斷則繫。若前未生設生已斷則不繫。謂於此事若有前生愛
結未斷亦有前生慢結未斷。即於此事亦有過去慢結繫義。若於此事
雖有前生愛結未斷而前於此慢結未生。雖餘處生而於此事亦名未
生。設生已斷即於此事無有過去慢結繫義。設有過去慢結繫。復有
過去愛結繫耶。答若前生未斷則繫。若前未生設生已斷則不繫。謂
於此事若有前生慢結未斷。亦有前生愛結未斷。即於此事亦有過去
愛結繫義。若於此事雖有前生慢結未斷而前於此愛結未生。雖餘處
生而於此事亦名未生。設生已斷即於此事無有過去愛結繫義。若於
此事有過去愛結繫。亦有未來慢結繫耶。答如是。所以者何。前說
慢結於三界五部事能為繫。未來未斷定繫彼三世一切事故。設有未
來慢結繫復有過去愛結繫耶。答若前生未斷則繫。若前未生設生已
斷則不繫。謂於此事若有未來慢結未斷。亦有前生愛結未斷。即於
此事亦有過去愛結繫義。若於此事雖有未來慢結未斷而前於此愛結
未生。雖餘處生而於此事亦名未生。設生已斷即於此事無有過去愛
結繫義。若於此事有過去愛結繫。亦有現在慢結繫耶。答若現在
前。謂於此事若有前生愛結未斷。亦有慢結現在前則有現在慢結繫
義。若於此事或起餘結現在前。或起善無覆無記心現在前。或於餘
處起慢結現在前。或無心時則無現在慢結繫義。設有現在慢結繫。
shows there is binding by the past craving-fetter; hatred having previously arisen there and remaining uncut shows there is binding by the past hatred-fetter; hatred being presently manifest shows there is binding by the present hatred-fetter; the future binding is thereby shown without needing separate statement, since whatever possesses both past and present binding certainly possesses future binding as well. Suppose there is binding by the past, future, and present hatred-fetter all together — is there likewise binding by the past craving-fetter? The answer: if it previously arose there and remains uncut, it binds; if it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, it does not bind — the intended meaning here is exactly as stated above, at length. Exactly as with hatred, so too with envy and stinginess, since both belong solely to the desire realm — craving's own comparison against them likewise forms the lesser seven clauses, exactly as against hatred, with this difference: with respect to the desire realm's own dharmas abandoned by seeing, and with respect to the form and formless realms' own dharmas, craving previously arose there and remains uncut, yet there is no envy or stinginess across the past, future, or present. Here, craving having previously arisen there and remaining uncut shows the two sevenfold clauses in which there is past craving; the desire realm's own dharmas abandoned by seeing, and the form and formless realms' own dharmas, possessing no envy or stinginess across the three times, excludes the two sevenfold clauses in which there is past, future, or present envy or stinginess. This differs from the comparison against hatred with respect to the desire realm's own dharmas abandoned by seeing, since the two fetters of envy and stinginess belong solely to the section abandoned by cultivation. For a given matter that is bound by the past craving-fetter, is it likewise bound by the past conceit-fetter? The answer: if it previously arose there and remains uncut, it binds; if it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, it does not bind — that is, with respect to a given matter, if craving previously arose there and remains uncut, and conceit likewise previously arose there and remains uncut, then this matter likewise possesses the sense of being bound by the past conceit-fetter; if, with respect to a given matter, craving previously arose there and remains uncut, yet conceit never previously arose there — even though it may have arisen elsewhere, with respect to this particular matter it is likewise named as never having arisen — or, having arisen, was already cut off, then this matter possesses no sense of being bound by the past conceit-fetter at all. Suppose there is binding by the past conceit-fetter — is there likewise binding by the past craving-fetter? The answer: if it previously arose there and remains uncut, it binds; if it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, it does not bind — that is, with respect to a given matter, if conceit previously arose there and remains uncut, and craving likewise previously arose there and remains uncut, then this matter likewise possesses the sense of being bound by the past craving-fetter; if, with respect to a given matter, conceit previously arose there and remains uncut, yet craving never previously arose there — even though it may have arisen elsewhere, with respect to this particular matter it is likewise named as never having arisen — or, having arisen, was already cut off, then this matter possesses no sense of being bound by the past craving-fetter at all. For a given matter that is bound by the past craving-fetter, is it likewise bound by the future conceit-fetter? The answer: it is indeed so. For what reason is this so? It was stated above that the conceit-fetter is capable of binding the matter of the five sections across all three realms, and, with respect to the future, if uncut, it certainly binds every matter across all three times. Suppose there is binding by the future conceit-fetter — is there likewise binding by the past craving-fetter? The answer: if it previously arose there and remains uncut, it binds; if it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, it does not bind — that is, with respect to a given matter, if conceit remains uncut in the future, and craving likewise previously arose there and remains uncut, then this matter likewise possesses the sense of being bound by the past craving-fetter; if, with respect to a given matter, conceit remains uncut in the future, yet craving never previously arose there — even though it may have arisen elsewhere, with respect to this particular matter it is likewise named as never having arisen — or, having arisen, was already cut off, then this matter possesses no sense of being bound by the past craving-fetter at all. For a given matter that is bound by the past craving-fetter, is it likewise bound by the present conceit-fetter? The answer: only if it is presently manifest — that is, with respect to a given matter, if craving previously arose there and remains uncut, and conceit is also presently manifest there, then there is the sense of being bound by the present conceit-fetter; if, with respect to a given matter, some other fetter arises and becomes presently manifest, or a wholesome or a neutral, non-obscuring mind arises and becomes presently manifest, or conceit arises and becomes presently manifest elsewhere, or there is no mind present at all, then there is no sense of being bound by the present conceit-fetter. Suppose there is binding by the present conceit-fetter —
Naming the single point of difference explicitly — envy and stinginess's narrower confinement to the cultivation-section alone — rather than simply asserting that "the same pattern applies" is a small methodological courtesy that recurs throughout this translation project: the treatise never lets an analogy stand unqualified when a genuine structural difference exists, even when spelling out that difference costs only a single clause.
6. Craving Against Conceit
Craving and conceit, sharing an identical reach across all three realms and five sections, run through the very same cross-tense ledger as craving and hatred — past against past, future against future, every pairing and every tripling of tenses — arriving at matching conclusions at every step, since neither fetter's own temporal behavior differs from the other's in any respect that the earlier hatred comparison had not already covered.
復有過去愛結繫耶。答若前生未斷則繫。若前未生設生已斷則不
繫。謂於此事若有慢結現在前。亦有愛結前生未斷即於此事亦有過
去愛結繫義。若於此事雖有慢結現在前而前於此愛結未生。雖餘處
生而於此事亦名未生。設生已斷即於此事無有過去愛結繫義。若於
此事有過去愛結繫。亦有過去現在慢結繫耶。答此中有四句。或有
過去愛結繫無過去現在慢結繫。謂於此事有愛結前生未斷。無慢結
前生設生已斷不現在前。此中有愛結前生未斷者。顯有過去愛結未
斷。無慢結前生設生已斷者。遮有過去慢結。不現在前者遮有現在
慢結。或有過去愛結繫。及有過去慢結繫無現在。謂於此事有愛結
慢結前生未斷。無慢結現在前。此中有愛結慢結前生未斷者。顯有
過去愛結慢結。無慢結現在前者。遮有現在慢結。或有過去愛結
繫。及有現在慢結繫無過去。謂於此事有愛結前生未斷。及有慢結
現在前而前未生設生已斷。此中有愛結前生未斷者。顯有過去愛
結。有慢結現在前者。顯有現在慢結。而前未生設生已斷者。遮有
過去慢結。或有過去愛結繫。及有過去現在慢結繫謂於此事有愛結
慢結前生未斷及有慢結現在前。此中有愛結慢結前生未斷者。顯有
過去愛結慢結。有慢結現在前者顯有現在慢結。設有過去現在慢結
繫。復有過去愛結繫耶。答若前生未斷則繫。若前未生設生已斷則
不繫。此中義意廣如前說。
is there likewise binding by the past craving-fetter? The answer: if it previously arose there and remains uncut, it binds; if it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, it does not bind — that is, with respect to a given matter, if conceit is presently manifest there, and craving also previously arose there and remains uncut, then this matter likewise possesses the sense of being bound by the past craving-fetter; if, with respect to a given matter, conceit is presently manifest there, yet craving never previously arose there — even though it may have arisen elsewhere, with respect to this particular matter it is likewise named as never having arisen — or, having arisen, was already cut off, then this matter possesses no sense of being bound by the past craving-fetter at all. For a given matter that is bound by the past craving-fetter, is it likewise bound by both the past and present conceit-fetter? The answer should be given in four clauses. There is binding by the past craving-fetter without binding by either the past or present conceit-fetter — that is, with respect to a given matter, craving previously arose there and remains uncut, yet conceit never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, and is not presently manifest. Here, craving having previously arisen there and remaining uncut shows there is binding by the past craving-fetter; conceit's never having previously arisen there, or, having arisen, being already cut off, excludes binding by the past conceit-fetter; its not being presently manifest excludes binding by the present conceit-fetter. There is binding by the past craving-fetter together with the past conceit-fetter, without the present — that is, with respect to a given matter, craving and conceit both previously arose there and remain uncut, yet conceit is not presently manifest. Here, craving and conceit both having previously arisen there and remaining uncut shows there is binding by both the past craving-fetter and the past conceit-fetter; conceit's not being presently manifest excludes binding by the present conceit-fetter. There is binding by the past craving-fetter together with the present conceit-fetter, without the past — that is, with respect to a given matter, craving previously arose there and remains uncut, and conceit is presently manifest there, yet it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off. Here, craving having previously arisen there and remaining uncut shows there is binding by the past craving-fetter; conceit being presently manifest shows there is binding by the present conceit-fetter; its never having previously arisen there, or, having arisen, being already cut off, excludes binding by the past conceit-fetter. There is binding by the past craving-fetter together with both the past and the present conceit-fetter — that is, with respect to a given matter, craving and conceit both previously arose there and remain uncut, and conceit is also presently manifest there. Here, craving and conceit both having previously arisen there and remaining uncut shows there is binding by both the past craving-fetter and the past conceit-fetter; conceit being presently manifest shows there is binding by the present conceit-fetter. Suppose there is binding by both the past and the present conceit-fetter — is there likewise binding by the past craving-fetter? The answer: if it previously arose there and remains uncut, it binds; if it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, it does not bind — the intended meaning here is exactly as stated above, at length.
若於此事有過去愛結繫亦有未來現在慢結繫耶。答未來必繫現在若
現在前。此中未來必繫者。未來慢結若未斷時定繫三界五部一切事
故。現在若現在前者義如前說。設有未來現在慢結繫。復有過去愛
結繫耶。答若前生未斷則繫。若前未生設生已斷則不繫。此中義意
廣如前說。若於此事有過去愛結繫。亦有過去未來慢結繫耶。答未
來必繫過去。若前生未斷則繫。若前未生設生已斷則不繫。此中二
義並如前說。設有過去未來慢結繫。復有過去愛結繫耶。答若前生
未斷則繫。若前未生設生已斷則不繫。此中義意亦如前說。若於此
事有過去愛結繫。亦有過去未來現在慢結繫耶。答此中有四句。或
有過去愛結繫及有未來慢結繫。無過去現在。謂於此事有愛結前生
未斷。無慢結前生設生已斷不現在前。此中有愛結前生未斷者顯有
過去愛結。無慢結前生設生已斷者。遮有過去慢結。不現在前者。
For a given matter that is bound by the past craving-fetter, is it likewise bound by both the future and present conceit-fetter? The answer: the future certainly binds the present; as for the present, only if it is presently manifest. Here, "the future certainly binds" means that, if the future conceit-fetter remains uncut, it certainly binds every matter of the five sections across all three realms; "the present, only if it is presently manifest" carries the meaning stated above. Suppose there is binding by both the future and present conceit-fetter — is there likewise binding by the past craving-fetter? The answer: if it previously arose there and remains uncut, it binds; if it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, it does not bind — the intended meaning here is exactly as stated above, at length. For a given matter that is bound by the past craving-fetter, is it likewise bound by both the past and future conceit-fetter? The answer: the future certainly binds the past; as for the past, if it previously arose there and remains uncut, it binds, while if it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, it does not bind — both these senses here are entirely as stated above. Suppose there is binding by both the past and future conceit-fetter — is there likewise binding by the past craving-fetter? The answer: if it previously arose there and remains uncut, it binds; if it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, it does not bind — the intended meaning here is likewise as stated above. For a given matter that is bound by the past craving-fetter, is it likewise bound by the past, future, and present conceit-fetter together? The answer should be given in four clauses. There is binding by the past craving-fetter together with the future conceit-fetter, without the past or present — that is, with respect to a given matter, craving previously arose there and remains uncut, yet conceit never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, and is not presently manifest. Here, craving having previously arisen there and remaining uncut shows there is binding by the past craving-fetter; conceit's never having previously arisen there, or, having arisen, being already cut off, excludes binding by the past conceit-fetter; its not being presently manifest
遮有現在慢結。此未來有不說自成。彼愛結未斷此慢必有故。或有
過去愛結繫。及有過去未來慢結繫無現在。謂於此事有愛結慢結前
生未斷無慢結現在前。此中有愛結慢結前生未斷者。顯有過去愛結
慢結。無慢結現在前者。遮有現在慢結。此未來有不說自成。義如
前說。或有過去愛結繫。及有未來現在慢結繫無過去。謂於此事有
愛結前生未斷。及有慢結現在前而無前生設生已斷。此中有愛結前
生未斷者。顯有過去愛結。有慢結現在前者。顯有現在慢結。而無
前生設生已斷者。遮有過去慢結。此未來有不說自成。慢結現在前
必有未來故。或有過去愛結繫。亦有過去未來現在慢結繫。謂於此
事有愛結慢結前生未斷。及有慢結現在前。此中有愛結慢結前生未
斷者。顯有過去愛結慢結。有慢結現在前者。顯有現在慢結。此未
來有不說自成。義如前說。設有過去未來現在慢結繫。復有過去愛
結繫耶。答若前生未斷則繫。若前未生設生已斷則不繫。此中義意
廣如前說。若於此事有過去愛結繫。亦有過去無明結繫耶。答如
是。所以者何。前說迷共相諸結於三界五部事能為繫。過去未斷定
繫彼三世一切事。無明既亦是共相結故答如是。設有過去無明結繫
復有過去愛結繫耶。答若前生未斷則繫。若前未生設生已斷則不
繫。謂於此事若有前生無明結未斷。亦有前生愛結未斷。即於此事
亦有過去愛結繫義。若於此事雖有前生無明結未斷。而前於此愛結
未生。雖餘處生而於此事亦名未生。設生已斷即於此事無有過去愛
結繫義。若於此事有過去愛結繫亦有未來無明結繫耶。答如是。所
以者何。前說共相諸結於三界五部事能為繫。未來未斷定繫彼三世
一切事故。設有未來無明結繫。復有過去愛結繫耶。答若前生未斷
則繫。若前未生設生已斷則不繫。謂於此事若有未來無明結未斷。
excludes binding by the present conceit-fetter. The future binding is thereby shown without needing separate statement, since, once craving there remains uncut, this conceit certainly exists as well. There is binding by the past craving-fetter together with both the past and the future conceit-fetter, without the present — that is, with respect to a given matter, craving and conceit both previously arose there and remain uncut, yet conceit is not presently manifest. Here, craving and conceit both having previously arisen there and remaining uncut shows there is binding by both the past craving-fetter and the past conceit-fetter; conceit's not being presently manifest excludes binding by the present conceit-fetter; the future binding is thereby shown without needing separate statement, exactly as stated above. There is binding by the past craving-fetter together with both the future and the present conceit-fetter, without the past — that is, with respect to a given matter, craving previously arose there and remains uncut, and conceit is presently manifest there, yet it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off. Here, craving having previously arisen there and remaining uncut shows there is binding by the past craving-fetter; conceit being presently manifest shows there is binding by the present conceit-fetter; its never having previously arisen there, or, having arisen, being already cut off, excludes binding by the past conceit-fetter; the future binding is thereby shown without needing separate statement, since whatever conceit is presently manifest certainly possesses future binding as well. There is binding by the past craving-fetter together with the past, future, and present conceit-fetter all at once — that is, with respect to a given matter, craving and conceit both previously arose there and remain uncut, and conceit is also presently manifest there. Here, craving and conceit both having previously arisen there and remaining uncut shows there is binding by both the past craving-fetter and the past conceit-fetter; conceit being presently manifest shows there is binding by the present conceit-fetter; the future binding is thereby shown without needing separate statement, exactly as stated above. Suppose there is binding by the past, future, and present conceit-fetter all together — is there likewise binding by the past craving-fetter? The answer: if it previously arose there and remains uncut, it binds; if it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, it does not bind — the intended meaning here is exactly as stated above, at length. For a given matter that is bound by the past craving-fetter, is it likewise bound by the past ignorance-fetter? The answer: it is indeed so. For what reason is this so? It was stated above that the fetters that delude with respect to a shared characteristic are capable of binding the matter of the five sections across all three realms, and, with respect to the past, if uncut, they certainly bind every matter across all three times; and since ignorance is likewise one of the fetters that delude with respect to a shared characteristic, the answer is that it is indeed so. Suppose there is binding by the past ignorance-fetter — is there likewise binding by the past craving-fetter? The answer: if it previously arose there and remains uncut, it binds; if it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, it does not bind — that is, with respect to a given matter, if ignorance previously arose there and remains uncut, and craving likewise previously arose there and remains uncut, then this matter likewise possesses the sense of being bound by the past craving-fetter; if, with respect to a given matter, ignorance previously arose there and remains uncut, yet craving never previously arose there — even though it may have arisen elsewhere, with respect to this particular matter it is likewise named as never having arisen — or, having arisen, was already cut off, then this matter possesses no sense of being bound by the past craving-fetter at all. For a given matter that is bound by the past craving-fetter, is it likewise bound by the future ignorance-fetter? The answer: it is indeed so. For what reason is this so? It was stated above that the fetters that delude with respect to a shared characteristic are capable of binding the matter of the five sections across all three realms, and, with respect to the future, if uncut, they certainly bind every matter across all three times. Suppose there is binding by the future ignorance-fetter — is there likewise binding by the past craving-fetter? The answer: if it previously arose there and remains uncut, it binds; if it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, it does not bind — that is, with respect to a given matter, if ignorance remains uncut in the future,
That craving against conceit produces no new cases requiring separate explanation — every clause simply restates the hatred comparison's own logic with the fetter's name swapped — confirms something the fascicle has been demonstrating from its opening page: once a fetter's realm, section, and reach are fixed, its entire cross-tense behavior against any other fetter follows automatically, with no room left for a comparison to surprise the reader who has already worked through one full example.
7. Craving Against Ignorance
The fascicle closes by comparing craving against ignorance, a shared-characteristic fetter whose past and future both bind with certainty whenever uncut — producing far simpler answers throughout, since ignorance's own indefiniteness is confined to the present tense alone, and every remaining combination collapses to a straightforward "it is indeed so" rather than the elaborate three- four- or five-clause ledgers hatred and conceit required.
亦有前生愛結未斷。即於此事亦有過去愛結繫義。若於此事雖有未
來無明結未斷而前於此愛結未生。雖餘處生而於此事亦名未生。設
生已斷即於此事無有過去愛結繫義。若於此事有過去愛結繫。亦有
現在無明結繫耶。答若現在前。謂於此事若有前生愛結未斷。亦有
無明結現在前則有現在無明結繫義。若於此事或起善無覆無記心現
在前。或於餘處起無明結現在前或無心時則無現在無明結繫義。設
有現在無明結繫。復有過去愛結繫耶。答若前生未斷則繫。若前未
生設生已斷則不繫。謂於此事若有無明結現在前。亦有愛結前生未
斷。即於此事亦有過去愛結繫義。若於此事雖有無明結現在前。而
前於此愛結未生。雖餘處生而於此事亦名未生。設生已斷即於此
事。無有過去愛結繫義若於此事有過去愛結繫。亦有過去現在無明
結繫耶。答過去必繫現在若現在前。此中義意並如前說。設有過去
現在無明結繫。復有過去愛結繫耶。答若前生未斷則繫。若前未生
設生已斷則不繫。此中義意廣如前說。若於此事有過去愛結繫。亦
有未來現在無明結繫耶。答未來必繫現在若現在前。此中義意並如
前說。設有未來現在無明結繫。復有過去愛結繫耶。答若前生未斷
則繫。若前未生設生已斷則不繫。此中義意廣如前說。若於此事。
and craving likewise previously arose there and remains uncut, then this matter likewise possesses the sense of being bound by the past craving-fetter; if, with respect to a given matter, ignorance remains uncut in the future, yet craving never previously arose there — even though it may have arisen elsewhere, with respect to this particular matter it is likewise named as never having arisen — or, having arisen, was already cut off, then this matter possesses no sense of being bound by the past craving-fetter at all. For a given matter that is bound by the past craving-fetter, is it likewise bound by the present ignorance-fetter? The answer: only if it is presently manifest — that is, with respect to a given matter, if craving previously arose there and remains uncut, and ignorance is also presently manifest there, then there is the sense of being bound by the present ignorance-fetter; if, with respect to a given matter, a wholesome or a neutral, non-obscuring mind arises and becomes presently manifest, or ignorance arises and becomes presently manifest elsewhere, or there is no mind present at all, then there is no sense of being bound by the present ignorance-fetter. Suppose there is binding by the present ignorance-fetter — is there likewise binding by the past craving-fetter? The answer: if it previously arose there and remains uncut, it binds; if it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, it does not bind — that is, with respect to a given matter, if ignorance is presently manifest there, and craving also previously arose there and remains uncut, then this matter likewise possesses the sense of being bound by the past craving-fetter; if, with respect to a given matter, ignorance is presently manifest there, yet craving never previously arose there — even though it may have arisen elsewhere, with respect to this particular matter it is likewise named as never having arisen — or, having arisen, was already cut off, then this matter possesses no sense of being bound by the past craving-fetter at all. For a given matter that is bound by the past craving-fetter, is it likewise bound by both the past and present ignorance-fetter? The answer: the past certainly binds the present; as for the present, only if it is presently manifest — the intended meaning here is entirely as stated above. Suppose there is binding by both the past and present ignorance-fetter — is there likewise binding by the past craving-fetter? The answer: if it previously arose there and remains uncut, it binds; if it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, it does not bind — the intended meaning here is exactly as stated above, at length. For a given matter that is bound by the past craving-fetter, is it likewise bound by both the future and present ignorance-fetter? The answer: the future certainly binds the present; as for the present, only if it is presently manifest — the intended meaning here is entirely as stated above. Suppose there is binding by both the future and present ignorance-fetter — is there likewise binding by the past craving-fetter? The answer: if it previously arose there and remains uncut, it binds; if it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, it does not bind — the intended meaning here is exactly as stated above, at length. For a given matter,
有過去愛結繫。亦有過去未來無明結繫耶。答如是。所以者何。前
說共相諸結於三界五部事能為繫。過去未來未斷定繫彼三世一切事
故。設有過去未來無明結繫。復有過去愛結繫耶。答若前生未斷則
繫。若前未生設生已斷則不繫。此中義意廣如前說。若於此事有過
去愛結繫。亦有過去未來現在無明結繫耶。答過去未來必繫。現在
若現在前。此中義意皆如前說。設有過去未來現在無明結繫。復有
過去愛結繫耶。答若前生未斷則繫。若前未生設生已斷則不繫。此
中義意廣如前說。
that is bound by the past craving-fetter, is it likewise bound by both the past and future ignorance-fetter? The answer: it is indeed so. For what reason is this so? It was stated above that the fetters that delude with respect to a shared characteristic are capable of binding the matter of the five sections across all three realms, and, with respect to both the past and the future, if uncut, they certainly bind every matter across all three times. Suppose there is binding by both the past and future ignorance-fetter — is there likewise binding by the past craving-fetter? The answer: if it previously arose there and remains uncut, it binds; if it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, it does not bind — the intended meaning here is exactly as stated above, at length. For a given matter that is bound by the past craving-fetter, is it likewise bound by the past, future, and present ignorance-fetter together? The answer: the past and the future certainly bind; as for the present, only if it is presently manifest — the intended meaning here is entirely as stated above. Suppose there is binding by the past, future, and present ignorance-fetter all together — is there likewise binding by the past craving-fetter? The answer: if it previously arose there and remains uncut, it binds; if it never previously arose there, or, having arisen, was already cut off, it does not bind — the intended meaning here is exactly as stated above, at length.
Ending on ignorance's comparatively simple ledger, after two exhaustive comparisons against self-characteristic fetters, throws the whole chapter's underlying logic into relief: complexity in these cross-tense comparisons was never a matter of which fetter happened to be involved, but purely a function of how many of the three tenses remain genuinely indefinite for it — ignorance has only one, hatred and conceit each have three, and the length of the resulting ledger tracks that difference exactly.
Fascicle 58 Complete
This closes fascicle 58 of Ru-Yi's translation, drawn from the treatise's true CBETA boundary. Fascicle 58 opened an entirely new analytical axis within the Single-Class-of-Conduct Nyāsa — not which matters two fetters share, but how a single fetter's own binding across the past, future, and present tenses relates to itself and to other fetters — sorting every fetter into self-characteristic and shared-characteristic classes, working craving's own six-fold ledger in full, and then comparing craving exhaustively against hatred, envy, stinginess, conceit, and ignorance in turn. Fascicle 59 continues the same nyāsa.