Seers Who Fell From the Sky

One asks: does regression occur because an affliction becomes presently manifest, or does an affliction become presently manifest because one has already regressed? Whichever position is granted, what fault follows? Both alternatives carry a fault.

For what reason is this so? If regression occurs because an affliction becomes presently manifest, then how is the Prakaraṇapāda's own statement to be reconciled — as when it states that it is on account of three conditions that the desire-craving latent tendency arises: first, the desire-craving latent tendency remains uncut and not fully understood; second, a dharma conducive to the desire-craving wrapping-defilement becomes presently manifest; third, one gives improper attention to it — stated fully, at length, down through the arising of the doubt latent tendency, which should be understood likewise. And how is what the scriptures state to be reconciled — as when it states that, on account of five causes, a temporarily-liberated arhat regresses, namely, being much occupied with worldly business, down through the body being constantly afflicted with much illness. And how is what the Absorption Aggregate states to be reconciled — as when it states that it is on account of a mind neither in further training nor beyond further training that one regresses and gives rise to the possession of the dharma of further training — how, then, could such a one, being an arhat, give rise to an affliction becoming presently manifest at all? And immediately following what kind of mind does an affliction become presently manifest? But if it is regression that occurs first, and the affliction becomes presently manifest afterward, then how is what the Prajñapti-śāstra states to be reconciled — as when it states that, at a time when the mind grows distant and hardened, the three wrapping-defilements of the formless realm — namely, craving, conceit, and ignorance — become presently manifest, conceit arising most often; and, when any one of these three wrapping-defilements becomes manifest, it should be said that this shows the exhaustion of formless craving, while one abides amid the exhaustion of form-realm craving. And how is what the Vijñānakāya states to be reconciled — as when it states that a certain kind of person, on account of the formless realm's defiled mind becoming presently manifest, relinquishes the wholesome root of no-further-training and takes up, in continuous succession, the wholesome root of further training, regressing from the mind of no-further-training and abiding in the mind of further training? And how is what the Prakaraṇapāda states to be reconciled — as when it asks, what is the dharma that conforms to and accompanies regression? — answering, the unwholesome and the obscured-neutral — following what kind of mind does an affliction subsequently become presently manifest? The answer should be given this way: regression occurs because the affliction becomes presently manifest. One asks: this has already soundly reconciled the later objections — how, then, are the earlier objections to be reconciled? The answer: none of them are genuine objections at all, for what reason? The Prakaraṇapāda's statement that it is on account of three conditions that the latent tendencies arise is spoken with reference to one whose afflictions are not yet entirely cut off — that is, among those in whom an affliction becomes presently manifest, some have already entirely cut off the afflictions belonging to their own ground, while others have not yet entirely cut them off; that statement is spoken with reference to the latter, in whom an affliction becomes presently manifest while the afflictions of their own ground remain not entirely cut off. Further, among those in whom an affliction becomes presently manifest, some are regressing and some are not; that statement is spoken with reference to those not regressing, in whom an affliction becomes presently manifest. Further, among those in whom an affliction becomes presently manifest, this occurs immediately following either a defiled mind or an undefiled mind;

that statement is spoken with reference to its occurring immediately following a defiled mind. Further, among those in whom an affliction becomes presently manifest, there are cases where the conditions are complete and cases where they are not; that statement is spoken with reference to those in whom the conditions are complete — that is, sentient beings give rise to their afflictions on account of three conditions, which together constitute complete conditions: first, the power of cause; second, the power of the object; third, the power of application. The desire-craving latent tendency's remaining uncut and not fully understood speaks to the power of cause; a dharma conducive to the desire-craving wrapping-defilement becoming presently manifest speaks to the power of the object; giving improper attention to it speaks to the power of application. Further, this statement is made in order to put a stop to the underlying intent of the non-Buddhist schools' own teaching — that it is on account of three conditions that the latent tendencies arise — that is, the non-Buddhist schools teach that afflictions arise solely on account of their object: where an object is present, the affliction thereupon arises; where the object is destroyed, the affliction does not arise. In order to put a stop to this position, it is said that the arising of the wrapping-defilements is likewise caused by the uncut latent tendency of their own kind, and is likewise on account of improper attention given to the object. As for the scripture stating that, on account of five causes, a temporarily-liberated arhat regresses — this states, with respect to regression, the causes and conditions of regression, exactly as stated in that same other scripture, this being that scripture's own complete statement. As for the Absorption Aggregate's stating that it is on account of a mind neither in further training nor beyond further training that one regresses and gives rise to the possession of the dharma of further training — this speaks of the regression of one's own faculty, not of the regression of the fruit itself. Further, since a mind associated with affliction is likewise named neither-in-further-training-nor-beyond,

speaking of the fruit's own regression likewise does not contradict principle. As for how such a one, being an arhat, could give rise to an affliction becoming presently manifest — he is first an arhat, and only afterward does the affliction become presently manifest; once the affliction becomes presently manifest, he is then no longer an arhat, exactly as one who was first an ordinary person and afterward enters the noble path is, once he has entered the noble path, no longer an ordinary person; exactly as one who was first in further training and afterward gives rise to the dharma of no-further-training is, once he has given rise to the dharma of no-further-training, no longer one in further training — this case is exactly the same, and how could it contradict principle? As for immediately following what kind of mind an affliction becomes presently manifest — if one has definitively become free of the defilement of the realm of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, and it is through that ground's own wrapping-defilement becoming presently manifest that one regresses, then it is immediately following that ground's own wholesome mind that the affliction becomes presently manifest. If one has not yet definitively become free of the defilement of the realm of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, and it is through that ground's own wrapping-defilement becoming presently manifest that one regresses, then it is immediately following either that ground's own wholesome mind or its defiled mind that the affliction becomes presently manifest — and so on, down through the first absorption, which should be understood likewise. If one has definitively become free of the desire realm's own defilement, and it is through the desire realm's own wrapping-defilement that one regresses, then it is immediately following either the desire realm's own wholesome mind or its neutral, non-obscuring mind that the affliction becomes presently manifest. If one has not yet definitively become free of the desire realm's own defilement, and it is through the desire realm's own wrapping-defilement that one regresses, then it is immediately following either the desire realm's own wholesome mind, its defiled mind, or its neutral, non-obscuring mind that the affliction becomes presently manifest. Here, if one has not yet attained the presently-manifest fundamental wholesome absorption or formless attainment, one is incapable of giving rise to the form or formless realm's own wrapping-defilement becoming presently manifest, and so regresses; one is capable only of giving rise to the desire realm's own wrapping-defilement becoming presently manifest, and so regresses. If one has attained the presently-manifest fundamental wholesome absorption, but not the formless attainment, one is incapable of giving rise to the formless realm's own wrapping-defilement becoming presently manifest, and so regresses; one is capable only of giving rise to the desire and form realms' own wrapping-defilement becoming presently manifest, and so regresses. If one has attained the presently-manifest fundamental wholesome absorption and formless attainment both, one is capable of giving rise to all three realms' own wrapping-defilement becoming presently manifest, and so regresses. There are further masters who say: it is regression that occurs first, and the affliction becomes presently manifest afterward.

One asks: this has already soundly reconciled the earlier objections — how, then, are the later objections to be reconciled? The answer: none of them are genuine objections at all, for what reason? What the Prajñapti-śāstra and the Vijñānakāya state is spoken with reference to the stage of becoming aware, not the actual moment of regression, that is, although one has already regressed beforehand, one has not yet become aware of it;

it is only once the affliction becomes presently manifest that one becomes aware of it. It is like a person who, having previously recited all four Āgamas, becomes entangled in other affairs and thereupon forgets them, remaining unaware of this even up until the time he would otherwise recite them again; only when he later attempts to recite does he then discover the forgetting — although he forgot earlier, it is only now that he becomes aware of it. This case is exactly the same: regression occurs first, and awareness follows afterward; the statement is made with reference to the moment of awareness, and so it does not contradict principle. As for the Prakaraṇapāda's naming the unwholesome and the obscured-neutral as what conforms to and accompanies regression — this statement is made with reference to their damaging and progressively distancing one from the wholesome class: the more an affliction becomes presently manifest, the more it damages and distances one from the wholesome class, and it is on this basis that it is said to conform to and accompany regression — it does not mean that regression occurs only once the affliction becomes presently manifest, since the wholesome dharma has already regressed beforehand. As for following what kind of mind an affliction subsequently becomes presently manifest — it is following the desire realm's own neutral, non-obscuring mind that an affliction subsequently becomes presently manifest, that is, the deportment-related and craft-related minds, being weak by their own nature, unlike the ripening-produced mind. One asks: is it not the case that weakness all the more conforms to regression? The answer: only where a mind's own nature, though weak with respect to the pure class, is strong and forceful with respect to the defiled class, does one, abiding in that mind, thereupon regress, the affliction becoming presently manifest immediately upon regression. The ripening-produced mind, being weak by its own nature with respect to both the pure and the defiled class alike, is, while one abides in it, neither an advance nor a regression. There are those who say: any one of the desire realm's three neutral minds, whichever one abides in, carries the sense of regression, an affliction becoming presently manifest immediately following that mind. Yet, among these desire-realm neutral, non-obscuring minds, there are some that run contrary to the wrapping-defilements of all three realms — while abiding in such a mind, one certainly does not regress and give rise to any of the three realms' own afflictions; there are some that run contrary to the desire and form realms' own wrapping-defilements but not to the formless realm's own — while abiding in such a mind, though one does not regress and give rise to the desire and form realms' own afflictions, one may still regress and give rise to the formless realm's own affliction; there are some that run contrary to the desire realm's own wrapping-defilement but not to the form or formless realm's own — while abiding in such a mind, though one does not regress and give rise to the desire realm's own affliction, one may still regress and give rise to the form or formless realm's own affliction; there are some that run contrary to none of the three realms' own wrapping-defilements at all — while abiding in such a mind, one may regress and give rise to any of the three realms' own afflictions. The verdict: of these two explanations, the first is the sounder one, since it is only once an affliction actually becomes presently manifest that the loss of a superior merit is genuinely constituted as regression — this explanation speaks of the stage of regression. As for the disposition toward regression itself, it need not require an affliction actually becoming presently manifest, since even one abiding in the stage of no-further-training without regressing may still possess the disposition toward regression. One asks: at the moment of regression, does it occur at the mental faculty, or at the five sense-consciousness bodies? The answer should be given this way: regression occurs at the mental faculty, not at the five sense-consciousness bodies. One asks: if this is so, how is the story of King Udayana to be reconciled? Formerly there was a king named Udayana,

who brought his palace household to Water-Trace Mountain, dismissed every man, and, with women alone, had the five kinds of music performed, indulging freely in pleasure; the music was clear and subtle, the fragrance rich and pervasive, and he had the women dance unclothed before him. At that time, five hundred seers who had become free of desire, traveling by their own supernatural power, passed above that place — some saw the exquisite forms, some heard the exquisite sounds, some smelled the exquisite fragrance, and all of them lost their supernatural power, falling onto the mountain like birds with broken wings, unable to fly any longer. The king, seeing them, asked, "Who are you?" The seers answered, "We are seers." The king asked further, "Have you attained the fundamental absorption of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception?" The seers answered, "We have not attained it." The king went on to ask, "Have you, then, attained the first absorption?" The seers answered, "We had once attained it, but have now regressed from it." The king, enraged, said, "How dare men not yet free of desire gaze upon my palace women and consorts — this is utterly improper!" and thereupon drew his sharp sword and cut off the hands and feet of all five hundred seers.

Among these seers, some regressed while abiding in eye-consciousness, some while abiding in ear-consciousness, some while abiding in nose-consciousness — how, then, can it be said that regression occurs at the mental faculty alone? And how, moreover, is the story of the sage Mṛgaśṛṅga to be reconciled? Formerly there was a seer named Mṛgaśṛṅga, who regularly received the invitation of King Prasenajit at mealtimes; each time the meal-hour arrived, he would fly to the king's palace by his own supernatural power, like the king of geese. The king himself would receive and hold him, seat him upon a golden couch, burn incense, scatter flowers, bow in reverence, and offer him exquisite food and drink. Once the seer had finished eating, he would set aside the vessels, rinse and wash, pronounce a blessing upon the king, and then fly back through the air. On a later occasion, the king, owing to affairs of state, wished to travel to another place, and thought to himself: once I have gone, who will attend upon the seer as I myself do? Should the arrangements not be proper, the seer, being of an irritable nature, might curse me and cause me to lose my throne, or take my life, or bring harm to my people. He therefore asked his young daughter, "Once I have gone, can you attend upon the seer just as I myself do?" The daughter answered, "I can." The king then earnestly instructed his young daughter to make offerings to the seer according to the usual custom, and only then departed to attend to the affairs of state. When the seer arrived the next day at mealtime, flying through the air to the king's palace, the king's daughter received and held him, seating him upon the golden couch. The seer, his power of freedom from defilement now feeble and weak, upon contact with her soft, delicate touch, regressed and lost his supernatural power. Having received the offering and eaten as usual, and having rinsed, washed, and pronounced his blessing, he wished to fly back through the air, but found he could no longer fly.

He entered the king's park, wishing to practice his former method of cultivation, but, hearing the clamor of elephants, horses, and every kind of noise, though he applied his attention to the utmost, he was unable to succeed. The seer then recalled that the men and women of the city of Śrāvastī constantly thought to themselves: if the great seer were ever to walk upon the ground, we would be able to receive and honor him by touching his feet. The seer then conceived a cunning scheme, and said to the king's daughter, "Go and announce to the city that today the seer will emerge, walking upon the ground,

and let every preparation be made that is fitting." The king's daughter thereupon followed his instruction. When the people heard of this, they cleared away the rubble and filth throughout the city, swept and cleansed it, arrayed banners and streamers, burned incense, scattered flowers, and performed every kind of music, adorning the city so splendidly that it resembled a heavenly city. At that time, the seer emerged on foot, and, not far from the city, entered a grove of trees, wishing to practice his former method of cultivation; but, hearing the cries of the birds, his mind was startled into disorder, and he could not succeed. He then left that place and went to the riverside, where he heard the fish and dragons leaping in the water; his mind, already disturbed, could not cultivate there either. He thereupon climbed a mountain, and, thinking to himself, "My loss of the wholesome class is entirely on account of sentient beings — should I ever again cultivate the ascetic practices of moral discipline, may I be reborn in the form of a winged cat, such that no creature, whether moving through water, land, or air, shall ever escape me," gave rise to this malicious vow. Once this malicious vow had been made, his poisonous state of mind gradually subsided, and, after a time, he was again able to free himself from the defilement of the eight [lower] grounds, and was subsequently reborn in the realm of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, the very summit of existence, the tranquil field at the gate of the nectar of immortality, enjoying eighty thousand eons of tranquil bliss. Once his karmic lifespan there was exhausted, he was reborn once again, in this world, within a forest of suffering dharmas, taking the body of a cat-like beast with two wings, each fifty leagues in span; with this enormous body, he preyed upon sentient beings — whether moving through air, water, or land, none could escape him. Upon his death from this state, he fell into the Avīci hell, undergoing every extreme suffering, with little hope of ever emerging. Just so, this seer regressed while abiding in body-consciousness — how, then, can it be said that regression occurs at the mental faculty alone?

And how, moreover, is the story of Śakra, the Lord of the Gods, to be reconciled? Before the Buddha Śākyamuni had yet appeared in the world, there was a seer named Dvīpāyana, from whom Śakra frequently went to inquire about and receive instruction in the meaning of the Dharma. On a certain occasion, Śakra, riding in his celestial chariot, wished to go to the seer's dwelling; the asura maiden, Lady Śacī, secretly thought to herself, "Might Śakra now be abandoning me, intending to go to some other beautiful woman's place?" and thereupon mounted the chariot ahead of him, concealing her own form so that Śakra would not know she was accompanying him. As they drew near the seer's dwelling, the seer turned and caught sight of her, and thereupon said, "Why have you come here? This seer has no wish to see any women — you should return to the palace at once, and ought not remain here." Śacī made various excuses and did not wish to return to the palace; Śakra, already indignant, struck the lady with a flower-stalk, and she thereupon offered her apologies in a soft, flattering voice. The seer, hearing this, gave rise to desirous craving, and, his superior absorption thereby lost, his coiled topknot [a mark of his ascetic power] thereupon fell loose. This is precisely a case of the seer regressing while abiding in ear-consciousness — how, then, can it be said that regression occurs at the mental faculty alone? The answer: one should understand that all these cases are, properly speaking, instances of regression occurring at the mental faculty — it is simply because the eye and the other sense-consciousnesses draw forth and give rise to it that the accounts are stated this way, and there is no contradiction to principle in this. The Venerable Saṃghavasu says: what contradiction to principle would there be in regression occurring at the five sense-consciousnesses themselves? Since the five sense-consciousnesses, at the very moment of apprehending their object, likewise give rise to affliction — that is, one whose power of counteraction is extremely feeble and weak may indeed regress at the very moment the eye sees a form, and so on. The verdict: it should be said that regression occurs at the mental faculty, not at the five sense-consciousness bodies, since giving rise to an affliction requires discriminative judgment with respect to a favorable or unfavorable object. It is on this basis that it is said that, if regression occurs at the mental faculty, there are six surpassing marvels not shared by the five [sense-consciousness] bodies: first, regression; second, freedom from defilement; third, death; fourth, birth; fifth, the cutting off of wholesome roots; sixth, the continuation of wholesome roots.

Regression is of three kinds: first, regression from what has already been attained; second, regression from what has not yet been attained; third, regression of enjoyment. Regression from what has already been attained means this: one who has previously already attained various superior merits encounters a condition and regresses from them. Regression from what has not yet been attained is as a verse states:

"I observe, throughout the world of gods and men, / regression from the noble eye of wisdom, / on account of indulgent attachment to name and form — / and so the four true truths remain unseen." The intended meaning of this verse is this: every sentient being, were he to apply diligent effort, ought to attain the various noble eyes of wisdom; but it is on account of indulgent attachment to name and form alone that he is unable to cultivate diligent, correct effort, and so fails to achieve direct realization of the four true truths — this constitutes regression from what has not yet been attained, with respect to the noble eye of wisdom. And, further, as a verse says:

"Though honored by the multitude of foolish worldlings, / this is itself a genuine decline — / falling back from the very summit, / cutting off and destroying every wholesome root." This verse is spoken by the Buddha with reference to Devadatta, meaning this: once one has given rise to the wholesome root of heat, one will, before long, give rise to the wholesome root of the summit; but should one, in the interval, become attached to eminence, fame, and gain, one thereby undergoes regression from what has not yet been attained with respect to the wholesome root of the summit, and, from this, goes on to cut off and destroy one's wholesome roots entirely. All such cases as these are named regression from what has not yet been attained. Regression of enjoyment means this: a previously attained superior merit fails to become presently manifest — as when a Buddha's own previously attained qualities of buddhahood fail to become presently manifest, a pratyekabuddha's own previously attained qualities of pratyekabuddhahood fail to become presently manifest, or a śrāvaka's own previously attained qualities of śrāvakahood fail to become presently manifest; the remaining cases should be understood likewise. One asks: of these three kinds of regression, how many does each of the Buddha, the pratyekabuddha, and the śrāvaka possess? The answer: the Buddha possesses only one kind, namely, regression of enjoyment, since his previously attained qualities may fail to become presently manifest; he possesses no regression from what has not yet been attained, since he abides in the very foremost faculty among all sentient beings; and he possesses no regression from what has already been attained, since every Buddha is, without exception, of the non-regressing class. The pratyekabuddha possesses two kinds: regression from what has not yet been attained, and regression of enjoyment. Regression from what has not yet been attained applies since he has not yet attained a Buddha's own supreme faculty; regression of enjoyment applies since his previously attained qualities may fail to become presently manifest; he possesses no regression from what has already been attained, since every pratyekabuddha is, without exception, of the non-regressing class. Within the śrāvaka vehicle, the non-temporarily-liberated possess two kinds: regression from what has not yet been attained, and regression of enjoyment. Regression from what has not yet been attained applies since he has not yet attained the faculty of a Buddha or a pratyekabuddha; regression of enjoyment applies since his previously attained qualities may fail to become presently manifest; he possesses no regression from what has already been attained, since the non-temporarily-liberated are not of the regressing class. The temporarily-liberated possess all three kinds: regression from what has already been attained applies since his previously attained qualities may be subject to regression; regression from what has not yet been attained applies since he has not yet attained the non-regressing faculty of any of the three vehicles; regression of enjoyment applies since his previously attained qualities may fail to become presently manifest. There are those who say: the Buddha possesses no regression whatsoever — he possesses no regression from what has already been attained, since every Buddha is, without exception, of the non-regressing class; he possesses no regression from what has not yet been attained, since he abides in the very foremost faculty among all sentient beings; and he possesses no regression of enjoyment either, since the Buddha, across three incalculable eons in the past, cultivated and accumulated hundreds of thousands of difficult ascetic practices, all for the sake of benefiting and bringing happiness to every sentient being — and, having achieved buddhahood, he surveys the realm of sentient beings six times, day and night, and there is none whom he fails to teach and benefit; it is for this reason that the Buddhas possess no regression of enjoyment — although a given quality may fail to become presently manifest, since this was never what he originally intended [to constantly manifest], it is not named regression. The pratyekabuddha possesses only regression of enjoyment alone, since his previously attained qualities may fail to become presently manifest; he possesses no regression from what has not yet been attained, since his faculty is already fixed within the pratyekabuddha vehicle, and he no longer seeks the Buddha's own supreme faculty; he possesses no regression from what has already been attained, since every pratyekabuddha is, without exception, of the non-regressing class. Within the śrāvaka vehicle, the non-temporarily-liberated likewise possess only regression of enjoyment alone, since his previously attained qualities may fail to become presently manifest; he possesses no regression from what has not yet been attained, since his faculty is already fixed within the śrāvaka vehicle, and he no longer seeks the vehicle of a Buddha or a pratyekabuddha; he possesses no regression from what has already been attained, since the non-temporarily-liberated are not of the regressing class. The temporarily-liberated possess two kinds: first, regression from what has already been attained,

since his previously attained qualities may be subject to regression; second, regression of enjoyment, since his previously attained qualities may fail to become presently manifest; he possesses no regression from what has not yet been attained, since his faculty as one temporarily liberated is already fixed, and he no longer seeks the superior, non-regressing faculty of any of the three vehicles. The verdict: of these two explanations, the first is the sounder one, since the Buddhas certainly do possess regression of enjoyment, and pratyekabuddhas and śrāvakas do admire and aspire toward the superior faculty — and, moreover, the temporarily-liberated can indeed transform into the non-temporarily-liberated, so how could it be said that he possesses no regression from what has not yet been attained? One asks: how is it known that the Buddha possesses regression of enjoyment? The answer: because the scripture states so, as the scripture states: the Buddha told Ānanda, "Of the four superior-mind, present-life blissful abidings that the Tathāgata has attained, I say that there is, with respect to them, a recurring regression; but as for the unmoved-mind liberation, realized and fully abided in bodily, when together in assembly with my disciples, I say that there is, with respect to it, no regression whatsoever." From this, it is known that the Buddha possesses regression of enjoyment. One asks: does this scripture speak of regression from what has already been attained, or does it speak of regression of enjoyment? Whichever position is granted, what fault follows? Both alternatives carry a fault. For what reason is this so? If this scripture speaks of regression from what has already been attained, then the four superior-mind, present-life blissful abidings, too, ought not to regress, since every Buddha is, without exception, of the non-regressing class; if this scripture speaks of regression of enjoyment, then the unmoved-mind liberation, too, ought to be subject to regression, since it does not become presently manifest at every single moment. The answer: this passage speaks of the Buddha's possessing regression of enjoyment. One asks: this has already soundly reconciled the earlier objection raised — how, then, is the later objection raised to be reconciled, namely, that the unmoved-mind liberation, too, ought to be subject to regression, since it does not become presently manifest at every single moment? The answer: the unmoved-mind liberation takes attainment itself as its own excellence — once that dharma is attained, nothing further remains to be done, and so, though it does not always become presently manifest, it is not spoken of as regression. The four superior-mind, present-life blissful abidings take actual manifestation as their own excellence, and so, where they fail to become presently manifest, this is indeed spoken of as regression. There are those who say: in this scripture, "unmoved-mind liberation" names the not-yet-arrived absorption, while "superior-mind, present-life blissful abiding" names the fundamental absorptions — the World-Honored One frequently gives rise to the presently manifest not-yet-arrived absorption, rather than the fundamental absorptions, namely, before and after meals, when about to teach the Dharma, upon concluding his teaching, and upon entering his quiet chamber after teaching; although the Buddha is capable of entering any absorption with the utmost speed, he repeatedly enters the one nearest at hand rather than any other, and so the Buddha repeatedly enters the not-yet-arrived absorption — exactly as a vigorous, courageous person, though capable of traveling swiftly to any place whatsoever, repeatedly frequents the places nearby rather than those far away — and it is for this reason that this explanation is given. There are further masters who say: in this scripture, "unmoved-mind liberation" names the matter of benefiting others, while "superior-mind, present-life blissful abiding" names the matter of benefiting oneself — the World-Honored One frequently gives rise to the presently manifest matter of benefiting others, rather than the matter of benefiting himself, and it is for this reason that this explanation is given. There are further those who say: in this scripture, "unmoved-mind liberation" names loving-kindness and compassion, while "superior-mind, present-life blissful abiding" names sympathetic joy and equanimity — the World-Honored One frequently gives rise to the presently manifest loving-kindness and compassion, rarely giving rise to sympathetic joy and equanimity, and it is for this reason that this explanation is given. There are further those who say: in this scripture, "unmoved-mind liberation" names great compassion, while "superior-mind, present-life blissful abiding" names great equanimity — the World-Honored One frequently gives rise to the presently manifest great compassion, rarely giving rise to great equanimity, and it is for this reason that this explanation is given. The Venerable Ghoṣa says as follows: in this scripture,

"unmoved-mind liberation" names the final abandonment, with full understanding, of every fetter whatsoever, while "superior-mind, present-life blissful abiding" names every kind of conditioned merit — the Buddha, constantly possessing every unconditioned merit, is said to be non-regressing with respect to it, while, with respect to every conditioned merit, there are occasions on which he does not give rise to it, and he is therefore said, with respect to it, to possess regression, since a conditioned merit's own excellence consists precisely in its actually arising and becoming manifest. The Venerable Buddhadeva says as follows: in this scripture, "unmoved-mind liberation" names the attainment that is itself the capacity to attain, while "superior-mind, present-life blissful abiding" names the attainment that is itself the object attained — the Buddha, with respect to every attained object of merit, has occasions on which it fails to become presently manifest, and he is therefore said to possess regression there; but, since the very capacity to attain is constantly, presently manifest, he is said to be non-regressing there. One asks: if the Buddha, too, possesses regression of enjoyment, then whose regression of enjoyment is the greatest — the Buddha's, the pratyekabuddha's, or the śrāvaka's? The answer: the Buddha's own regression of enjoyment is the greatest of all, exceeding that of the pratyekabuddha and the śrāvaka, since their own merits are fewer — that is, a Buddha's failure, in even a single moment, for some quality of merit to become presently manifest already constitutes regression of enjoyment, and this exceeds, across the entirety of their own respective classes of being, however great, the regression of enjoyment possessed by the two lesser vehicles put together. For what reason is this so? The Tathāgata's own merits are immeasurable, innumerable, subtle, blazing, supreme, and pure, exceeding in number the very finest particles of every world-system — every single one of these merits ought, ideally, to be presently manifest at all times, and, wherever any one of them fails to become presently manifest, this constitutes regression of enjoyment; it is for this reason that the Buddha's own regression of enjoyment is the greatest of all — exactly as, when a wheel-turning king who rules over all four continents relinquishes his own kingdom for even a single day and night, this constitutes regression of enjoyment far exceeding, across the entirety of their own respective classes, the regression of enjoyment of every lesser king who relinquishes his own kingdom put together. What has been stated up to this point concerns whether the three vehicles' own adepts beyond further training possess the three kinds of regression completely or only in part; the stages of further training and of ordinary persons should be explained accordingly, as is fitting, following this same pattern. Now, as the Absorption Aggregate states: for what reason do the higher three fruits possess regression, while the fruit of stream-entry alone does not? That passage states that the afflictions abandoned by seeing arise with respect to no genuine matter, and, once cut off, do not regress. What is meant by saying that they arise with respect to no genuine matter? It means that they operate nowhere at all. What is meant by their operating nowhere? It means that they operate with respect to a self — and, since a self is, in the ultimate sense, altogether nonexistent, these afflictions, once cut off, do not regress. The afflictions abandoned by cultivation, by contrast, arise with respect to a genuine matter, and, once cut off, are subject to regression. What is meant by saying that they arise with respect to a genuine matter? It means that they operate somewhere. What is meant by their operating somewhere? It means that they operate with respect to some small portion of a pure aspect. What is meant by "a small portion of a pure aspect"? It means that, within the visible forms and colors of hair, nails, lips, teeth, face, eyes, hands, feet, fingers, and the like, there exists some small pure aspect — though, within these same forms, there likewise exist various impure aspects. Contemplating the impure aspect, through correct attention, one first becomes free of affliction; but, through incorrect attention, contemplating the pure aspect, one gives rise to affliction and regresses. There exists no dharma whatsoever, however small, possessing a self or what belongs to a self, capable of causing the contemplation of no-self, once achieved, to regress — as the scripture states: all dharmas are without self, without a sentient being, without a life-principle, without a nurturer, without a person; within this very body, there is only emptiness, no agent, no one who acts, no one who causes action, no one who experiences, no one who causes experience — a purely empty aggregation of processes. It is for this reason that every fetter abandoned by seeing, once cut off by noble wisdom, never again regresses at all — and it is for this reason that there is no regression from the fruit of stream-entry. Further, the final abandonment of the fetters abandoned by seeing across all three realms establishes the fruit of stream-entry, and there is no regression from what has already been finally abandoned across all three realms' own fetters abandoned by seeing. Further, the final abandonment of the fetters abandoned by seeing belonging to the realm of neither-perception-nor-non-perception establishes the fruit of stream-entry,

and there is no regression from what has already been finally abandoned belonging to the realm of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's own fetters abandoned by seeing. One asks: for what reason is there no regression from what has already been finally abandoned there? The answer: because the fetters abandoned by seeing belonging to the realm of neither-perception-nor-non-perception are difficult to cut off, difficult to break, difficult to surpass, and, once cut off, cannot ever be resumed. Further, since the fruit of stream-entry is established by the receptivity that counteracts affliction arising with respect to no genuine matter, and there is certainly no such thing as regressing from that receptivity and giving rise once again to a fetter that operates with respect to no genuine matter, it therefore does not regress. Further, since the fruit of stream-entry is attained through the power of the path of seeing, and there is certainly no such thing as one who has attained the path of seeing regressing and losing it. One asks, prompted by the treatise itself: for what reason is there certainly no such thing as one who has attained the path of seeing regressing? The answer: because the path of seeing is an extremely swift path, a path that does not allow the mind to pause, and there is no possibility of regressing and losing such a path. Further, once practitioners have entered the path of seeing, they are said to have plunged into the river of the Dharma, plunged into the great current of the Dharma, plunged into the waves of the Dharma, plunged into the whirlpool of the Dharma — they have no leisure even to give rise to a contaminated wholesome mind or a neutral, non-obscuring mind, let alone the capacity to give rise to a defiled mind and regress; it is like a person who has fallen into a torrent rushing through a mountain gorge, swept along and submerged by the waves — such a person cannot even hold onto this bank or that one, let alone climb out entirely. Further, since the path of seeing is capable of counteracting every fetter abandoned by seeing across all three realms, there is no such thing as regressing from the path that counteracts the fetters abandoned by seeing across all three realms. Further, since the path of seeing is capable of counteracting every fetter abandoned by seeing belonging to the realm of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, there is no such thing as regressing from the path that counteracts the fetters abandoned by seeing belonging to that realm. Further, since the path of seeing is capable of counteracting the very affliction operating with respect to no genuine matter that the receptivities themselves counteract, there is no such thing as regressing from that path of counteraction. Further, since the path of seeing first sees the principle of the four noble truths with utter clarity and certainty, there is no one who becomes confused or mistaken about this principle once again, and it therefore certainly does not regress. One asks: just as, upon reaching the stage of no-further-training, there is regression back to abiding in the path of cultivation, why is there no case of one who, upon reaching the stage of cultivation, regresses back to abiding in the path of seeing? The answer: within the stage of the path of cultivation, there is the possibility of an affliction becoming presently manifest; within the stage of the path of seeing, there is no such possibility at all — and it is for this reason that the two cases cannot be treated as analogous. Further, since regression is possible within the stage of the path of cultivation, one who reaches the stage of no-further-training may regress back to abiding in the path of cultivation; since there is no possibility of regression at all within the stage of the path of seeing, one who reaches the stage of the path of cultivation never regresses back to abiding in the path of seeing. One asks: when one regresses from the fruit of arhatship and comes to abide in the fruit of stream-entry, is this properly named regressing from the fruits of non-returner and once-returner as well? The answer: this, too, is properly named regressing from them, for what reason? Because one now abides below them, exactly as a person who falls from the third floor of a house down to the ground is likewise said to have fallen past the first two floors as well — this case is exactly the same. One asks: since the intermediate two fruits were never actually possessed to begin with, how can one now speak of regressing from them? The answer: not possessing them before, and now, once again, not possessing them, is likewise properly named regression. One asks: how can it be said that he did not possess them before, and now, once again, does not possess them? The answer: because he was already far from them before, and is now even farther still. Further, it is because he had previously cut off just so many afflictions that the two fruits were established for him; now, having regressed and given rise once again to just so many afflictions, he is therefore said to have regressed from them. Further, it is because he had previously cut off the objects counteracted by the two fruits, attaining them, that, now regressing and giving rise to them once again, he is said to have regressed from them. Further, it is because he had previously employed just such uninterrupted and liberation paths to cut off the afflictions and attain the two fruits, that, now regressing and giving rise once again to the afflictions he had cut off, causing those two paths to become distant, and even more distant still, he is said to have regressed from them. Further, since the fruits of non-returner and once-returner are themselves the cause of arhatship, when one regresses from the fruit, the cause, too, is properly named regression. One asks: the fruit of stream-entry is likewise the cause of arhatship — when one regresses from arhatship, ought not stream-entry, too, to regress? The answer: this fruit of stream-entry is itself the lowest of the noble stages, and, when one regresses from a higher fruit, one comes finally to abide precisely in this fruit. If one were to regress and lose the fruit of stream-entry as well, then one who had originally attained the fruit would now, once again, fail to possess it — but there is no such thing as abiding within the stage of the path of seeing without having attained it; one who had originally seen the truths would now, once again, fail to see them; one who had originally achieved direct realization would now no longer be one of direct realization; one who had originally been a noble one would now become an ordinary person once again. In order to avoid the existence of faults such as these, there is no such thing as regressing and losing the fruit of stream-entry. Further, since the fruit of stream-entry is itself the realization of the path of seeing, and it was already stated above that the path of seeing certainly admits no regression, it is for this reason that there is no such thing as regressing from the fruit of stream-entry. This statement concerns regression with respect to one's stage, not with respect to one's underlying faculty — since the fruit of stream-entry does admit of one's faculty being converted [to a sharper kind], there is likewise such a thing as regressing from the fundamental fruit of the path of a śramaṇa. If one has not yet regained it, there is no possibility of death; but if one has regressed from the corresponding approach toward that fruit, though one has not yet regained it, death may still be possible. For what reason is this so? The fundamental fruits are easily seen, easily designated — one can say, this is the fruit of stream-entry, and so on, up through, this is the fruit of arhatship — and it is for this reason that, once one has regressed from a fruit, so long as one has not yet regained it, death is certainly impossible; the approach toward a fruit, by contrast, is difficult to see, difficult to designate, and so, once one has regressed from an approach, though one has not yet regained it, death remains possible. Further, at the stage of a fundamental fruit, practitioners give rise to a supreme joy with respect to that fruit — exactly as a farmer, having tended his crops throughout the six months of the growing season, gives rise to a great joy upon gathering the harvest and storing it upon the threshing-floor; this case is exactly the same, and so, at the moment of regressing from a fruit, one gives rise to a great sorrow, and, so long as one has not yet regained it, one will never abandon one's own life; the approach toward a fruit is not like this, and so, at the moment of regressing from an approach, though one has not yet regained it, death remains possible. Further, the stage of a fundamental fruit possesses three conditions in full: first, relinquishing the path previously attained; second, attaining the path never before attained; third, realizing the single, unified attainment of the cutting-off of the fetters — and so, at the moment of regressing from a fruit, so long as one has not yet regained it, death is certainly impossible; the approach is not like this, and so, at that stage, when one regresses, though one has not yet regained it, death remains possible. Further, the stage of a fundamental fruit possesses five conditions in full: first, relinquishing the path previously attained; second, attaining the path never before attained; third, realizing the single, unified attainment of the cutting-off of the fetters; fourth, suddenly attaining all eight cognitions;

fifth, simultaneously cultivating all sixteen aspects [of the four truths] — and so, at the moment of regressing from a fruit, so long as one has not yet regained it, there is no possibility of death whatsoever; the approach is not like this, and so, at that stage, when one regresses, though one has not yet regained it, death remains possible. Further, the stage of a fundamental fruit is the practitioner's own supreme place of secure rest and repose,

and so, at the moment of regressing from a fruit, so long as one has not yet regained it, there is no possibility of death; the approach is not like this, and so, at that stage, when one regresses, though one has not yet regained it, death remains possible. Further, at the stage of a fundamental fruit, the cutting-off of fetters constitutes both the very task itself and the completion of that task, while the noble path there constitutes both the very exertion itself and the completion of that exertion — and so, at the moment of regressing from a fruit, so long as one has not yet regained it, there is no possibility of death; at the stage of the approach, by contrast, the cutting-off of fetters constitutes the task but not its completion, and the noble path there constitutes the exertion but not its completion — and so, when one regresses from the approach, though one has not yet regained it, death remains possible. Further, the stage of a fundamental fruit allows practitioners to cultivate the noble path extensively, and so, at the moment of regressing from a fruit, so long as one has not yet regained it, there is no possibility of death; the approach does not allow for such extensive cultivation of the noble path, and so, once one has regressed from the approach, though one has not yet regained it, death remains possible. Further, at the stage of a fundamental fruit, practitioners are able to correctly discern merit from fault — merit referring to the path and the path's own fruit, fault referring to the causes and results of birth-and-death — and so, at the moment of regressing from a fruit, so long as one has not yet regained it, there is no possibility of death; the approach is not like this, and so, at that stage, when one regresses, though one has not yet regained it, death remains possible. Further, it is only at the stage of a fundamental fruit that practitioners are able correctly to grasp the characteristics of the four noble truths; this is not yet accomplished at the stage of the approach — exactly as a person traveling along a road cannot correctly discern the directions of the four quarters, and can only correctly discern them once he sits still in a single place; the fruit and the approach toward it are exactly the same, and so, at the moment of regressing from a fruit, so long as one has not yet regained it, there is no possibility of death, while, at the moment of regressing from the approach, though one has not yet regained it, death remains possible. Further, when one regresses at the stage of a fundamental fruit, there are witnesses who know of it, and so, so long as one has not yet regained it, death is certainly impossible; when one regresses and loses the approach, there are no witnesses who know of it, and so death remains possible so long as one has not yet regained it — exactly as, when something is stolen within a village or town, there being witnesses who know of it, it can quickly be recovered, whereas, when something is stolen between two villages or towns, there being no witnesses who know of it, it is difficult to recover. Further, at the stage of a fundamental fruit, practitioners have previously undertaken extensive preparatory practice, firmly established and secure, and, on this account, when they regress, so long as they have not yet regained it, they will never abandon their own life; the approach is not like this, and so, at that stage, when one regresses, though one has not yet regained it, death remains possible. As for the fruit of stream-entry's own prior extensive preparatory practice, this refers to the fact that, in seeking beforehand the fruit of liberation, one diligently cultivates giving and pure moral discipline, the contemplation of impurity, mindfulness of the in-and-out breath, the applications of mindfulness, wisdom acquired through hearing, wisdom acquired through reflection, wisdom acquired through cultivation, and heat, summit, receptivity, and the supreme worldly dharma,

together with the fifteen moments of mind belonging to the path of seeing — this altogether is named firmly established preparation. There are those who say: everything from the very beginning up through the supreme worldly dharma is named extensive preparatory practice, while the fifteen moments of mind belonging to the path of seeing are named firmly established preparation. As for the fruit of once-returner's own prior extensive preparatory practice, this refers to exactly what has just been stated, together with the preparatory paths, six uninterrupted paths, and five liberation paths involved in becoming free of the desire realm's own defilement — this being named firmly established preparation. There are those who say: the fruit of stream-entry itself is named firmly established preparation. As for the fruit of non-returner's own prior extensive preparatory practice, this refers to exactly what has just been stated, together with the preparatory paths, three uninterrupted paths, and two liberation paths involved in becoming free of the desire realm's own defilement — this being named firmly established preparation. There are those who say: the fruit of once-returner itself is named firmly established preparation. As for the fruit of arhatship's own prior extensive preparatory practice, this refers to exactly what has just been stated, together with becoming free of the defilement from the first absorption up through the sphere of nothingness, each ground possessing its own preparatory paths, nine uninterrupted paths, and nine liberation paths, together with the preparatory paths, nine uninterrupted paths, and eight liberation paths involved in becoming free of the defilement of the realm of neither-perception-nor-non-perception — this altogether being named firmly established preparation. There are those who say: the fruit of non-returner itself is named firmly established preparation. Further, at the stage of a fundamental fruit, practitioners have cut off and brought to rest every further possibility of rebirth, and so, at the moment of regressing from a fruit, so long as one has not yet regained it, there is no possibility of death; the approach is not like this, and so, at that stage, when one regresses, though one has not yet regained it, death remains possible — that is, the fruit of stream-entry excludes seven rebirths in the desire realm, together with one rebirth in each single location of the form and formless realms, every remaining possibility of rebirth having attained analytical cessation; the fruit of once-returner excludes two rebirths in the desire realm, together with one rebirth in each single location of the form and formless realms, every remaining possibility of rebirth having attained analytical cessation; the fruit of non-returner excludes one rebirth in each single location of the form and formless realms, every remaining possibility of rebirth having attained analytical cessation; the fruit of arhatship has attained analytical cessation with respect to every possibility of rebirth whatsoever, there being no further rebirth at all. Further, at the stage of a fundamental fruit, practitioners have achieved the comprehensive cutting-off of the afflictions abandoned by both seeing and cultivation across all three realms, and so, at the moment of regressing from a fruit, so long as one has not yet regained it, one will never abandon one's own life; the approach is not like this, and so, at that stage, when one regresses, though one has not yet regained it, death remains possible — that is, the stage of stream-entry comprises the comprehensive cutting-off of the afflictions abandoned by seeing across all three realms; the stage of once-returner comprises the comprehensive cutting-off of the afflictions abandoned by seeing across all three realms, together with the six grades of affliction abandoned by cultivation within the desire realm; the stage of non-returner comprises the comprehensive cutting-off of the afflictions abandoned by seeing across all three realms, together with all nine grades of affliction abandoned by cultivation within the desire realm; the stage of arhatship comprises the comprehensive cutting-off of every affliction whatsoever, abandoned by both seeing and cultivation, across all three realms. Further, the stage of a fundamental fruit is itself the very place practitioners originally sought, and so, once one has regressed from a fruit, so long as one has not yet regained it, death is certainly impossible; the approach is not like this, and so, at that stage, when one regresses, though one has not yet regained it, death remains possible.

If one has become free of the desire realm's own defilement, or free of the first absorption's own defilement, and so on, up through free of the sphere of nothingness's own defilement, and only afterward enters the state of correct determination, then, should one subsequently regress, one certainly does not give rise to regression through the wrapping-defilement of any lower ground, but may only give rise to regression through the wrapping-defilement of a higher ground — for what reason is this so? Because the lower ground's own afflictions have already been damaged by both the contaminated and the uncontaminated paths of counteraction, and possess no remaining power capable of arising and causing regression. Further, once that ground's own wrapping-defilement has been cut off, the path of seeing arises and presses down upon it from above, and one is therefore incapable of giving rise to regression through the lower ground's own wrapping-defilement — exactly as a person who has already fallen from a mountain, and upon whom, after the fall, a landslide then presses down from above, cannot even stir, let alone rise up and walk. Further, once that wrapping-defilement has been cut off, the receptivities and cognitions arise, and there is no such thing as one who regresses from these receptivities and cognitions, and one is therefore incapable of giving rise to regression through the lower ground's own wrapping-defilement. Further, once that wrapping-defilement has been cut off, the cognitions regarding dharmas and their subsequent instances arise, and there is no such thing as one who entirely regresses from the cognitions regarding dharmas and their subsequent instances, and one is therefore incapable of giving rise to regression through the lower ground's own wrapping-defilement. Further, once that wrapping-defilement has been cut off, the superior receptivity and the supreme worldly dharma arise, and there is no such thing as one who regresses from the superior receptivity and the supreme worldly dharma, and one is therefore incapable of giving rise to regression through the lower ground's own wrapping-defilement. Further, when an ordinary person becomes free of the desire realm's own defilement, and so on, up through free of the sphere of nothingness's own defilement, the afflictions abandoned by seeing and by cultivation belonging to each and every ground are together bundled into a single unit and cut off in nine grades; once he subsequently enters the path of seeing and attains the noble fruit, should he then give rise to a lower ground's own affliction and regress, does he thereby come once again to possess only the fetters abandoned by cultivation there, or does he also come to possess the fetters abandoned by seeing there as well?

If he comes to possess only the fetters abandoned by cultivation there, then, since these two kinds of fetters were originally cut off by one and the same path, how could regressing from that path yield only one of the two? If he also comes to possess the fetters abandoned by seeing there, then how could one who has already attained a noble fruit come once again to possess a fetter abandoned by seeing? For this reason, no matter which ground's defilement, and to what grade, an ordinary person has become free of, once he has subsequently entered the state of correct determination and attained a noble fruit, there is certainly no such thing as his giving rise once again, through regression, to an affliction previously cut off.

One asks: at the very moment one is on the verge of attaining the fruit of arhatship, abiding in the vajra-like absorption, one still possesses the lowest grade of the fetter belonging to the realm of neither-perception-nor-non-perception —

if one then regresses from the fruit of arhatship and gives rise once again to that lowest grade of the fetter belonging to the realm of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, does one thereby also come once again to possess the vajra-like absorption? The answer: one does not come to possess the vajra-like absorption. For what reason is this so? The vajra-like absorption is attained through great exertion, preparatory effort, and sustained attention in cultivation, whereas that lowest-grade fetter is not attained through exertion, preparatory effort, and sustained attention in cultivation at all — and it is for this reason that, at the moment of regression, one comes to possess only that fetter, not this absorption. Further, the vajra-like absorption is attained at a moment of advancement, while that lowest-grade fetter is attained at a moment of regressive falling — and it is for this reason that, at the moment of regression, one comes to possess only that fetter, not this absorption. Further, when the vajra-like absorption is presently manifest, it runs contrary to that fetter's own actual manifestation, but not to its possession — and it is for this reason that, when the vajra-like absorption is presently manifest, one still possesses that fetter; when the lowest grade of the fetter belonging to the realm of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is presently manifest, by contrast, it runs contrary to both the vajra-like absorption's own actual manifestation and its possession alike — and it is for this reason that, when one regresses and gives rise once again to that grade of fetter, one certainly no longer possesses the vajra-like absorption. Further, the vajra-like absorption is itself an uninterrupted path — there is no such thing as one who, while abiding in the uninterrupted path, regresses, though there is such a thing as one who, having regressed, comes to abide in the uninterrupted path once again; there is such a thing as one who, while abiding in the liberation path, regresses, and there is likewise such a thing as one who, having regressed, comes to abide in the liberation path once again.

There are those who say: there is likewise such a thing as one who, while abiding in the path of superior progress, regresses, and there is likewise such a thing as one who, having regressed, comes to abide in the path of superior progress once again. It is for this very reason that, while abiding in the vajra-like absorption, one still possesses the lowest grade of the fetter belonging to the summit of existence; and, when one regresses and gives rise once again to the lowest grade of the fetter belonging to the summit of existence, one certainly does not come once again to possess the vajra-like absorption.