Why the Fruit Is Called Śramaṇa

Continuing the Sentient-Being Nyāsa within the second, the Fetters Aggregate, part four. One asks: it was earlier stated that the noble path is the very nature of a śramaṇa, conditioned and undefiled, and that the cessations-through-discernment are this path's own fruit, and are for this reason called the fruit of a śramaṇa — this name may properly be established for what is realized by the power of an undefiled path. But for what is realized by the power of a worldly path, as with the fruit of once-returning or of non-returning, how can this too be named a fruit of a śramaṇa? The answer: exactly as an undefiled path becoming free of the desire realm's own defilement, whether by half or wholly, establishes the fruit's own precise boundary, so too does a noble one, becoming free of the desire realm's own defilement by a worldly path, whether by half or wholly, likewise establish the fruit of once-returning and of non-returning — and it is for this reason that both may also receive the name fruit of a śramaṇa. The Venerable Saṃghavasu says as follows: at the moment a worldly path becomes free of desire's own defilement, one also cultivates a future undefiled path, and the two fruits it attains are that path's own fruit — hence they too may properly be established under the name fruit of a śramaṇa. This ought not to be said, for what reason? Because a future path has not yet come into operation — how, then, could a fruit-name be established with reference to it? Other masters say: at the moment a worldly path becomes free of desire's own defilement, an undefiled attainment turns in constant, unbroken continuity, and the two fruits it attains are that attainment's own fruit — hence they too may properly be established under the name fruit of a śramaṇa. This too ought not to be said, for what reason? Because it is the very function of cutting off without interruption, and realizing this cutting-off, that is meant here — how, then, could a fruit-name be established with reference to that other attainment? There are yet others who say: as for one who attains the two fruits by a worldly path, at the moment the vajra-like absorption becomes presently manifest, one comprehensively realizes, in a single flavor, the cutting-off abandoned by both seeing and cultivation across the three realms — the cutting-off previously attained is this very absorption's own fruit, and is therefore called the fruit of a śramaṇa, since this absorption is the true nature of a śramaṇa. This too ought not to be said in this way, for what reason? Because, at the moment the two fruits are attained, this absorption has not yet been attained — and, once this absorption is attained, the name of those two fruits is lost. How, then, could those two be named the fruit of a śramaṇa? One should instead say: the name is established from the majority, since the majority is what is attained by the power of the noble path.

That is, at the moment the two fruits are attained by a worldly path, the cutting-off of every affliction abandoned by seeing across the three realms is, in every case, attained by the power of the noble path, and it is for this reason that they are named fruit of a śramaṇa. Although there is, in the desire realm, the cutting-off of six or nine grades of affliction abandoned by cultivation that is not attained by the noble path, still, from the majority, the name fruit of a śramaṇa may likewise properly be established, since a single undefiled attainment comprehensively gathers all that is attained.

One asks: of these four fruits of a śramaṇa thus stated, how many are nominal designations, and how many bear real meaning? The answer: two are nominal designations, namely, the fruits of once-returning and of non-returning; two bear real meaning, namely, the fruits of stream-entry and of arhatship. One asks: for what reason are the fruits of once-returning and of non-returning named nominal fruits, while

the fruits of stream-entry and of arhatship are named fruits of real meaning? The answer: every worldly path is a nominal path, and the middle two fruits are but a lesser portion of what it attains — since the greater part follows the lesser, they are named nominal fruits. Every undefiled path is a path of real meaning, and the first and last fruits are wholly attained by it,

and it is for this reason that the first and last fruits are named fruits of real meaning. Further, the middle two fruits are jointly attained by both the contaminated and the undefiled path, and are therefore named nominal fruits — nominal designation being precisely the meaning of what is jointly attained, exactly as a thing held jointly is called a nominal possession. The first and last fruits are attained solely by the power of the undefiled path, and are therefore named fruits of real meaning — real meaning being precisely the meaning of what is attained alone, exactly as a thing held alone is called a possession of real meaning. Further, the middle two fruits are realized through the worldly and the noble path provisionally making a shared declaration, and are therefore named nominal fruits — that is, these two paths, while still future, provisionally make the declaration that, sharing this one same task, vowing this one same undertaking, they shall rejoice together in this one same outcome. The first and last fruits are attained solely by the noble path, not realized through any two paths provisionally making a shared declaration, and are therefore named fruits of real meaning. Other masters say: the nominal fruits are so called because the first two fruits are realized solely by the vehicle of the disciple; the fruits of real meaning are so called because the latter two fruits are realized by every disciple, solitary-realizer, and greatly-awakened one alike —

the majority thus bearing real meaning, the minority bearing nominal designation. The compilers say: this ought not to be said, since majority and minority do not express the distinction between nominal and real meaning. Of these, the position stated first is the sound one, for what reason? Because the fruit of a śramaṇa is what is drawn forth by the very power of śramaṇahood, and only the undefiled path is śramaṇahood — one who possesses it is named a true śramaṇa, and it is for this reason that the two fruits it attains are named fruits of a śramaṇa with real meaning,

while every worldly path is not śramaṇahood, and one who possesses it is named a nominal śramaṇa, and it is for this reason that the two fruits it attains are named nominal fruits of a śramaṇa. One asks: a path is conditioned, possessing lower, middle, and upper grades arising according to the power of its cause, and so may properly be named a fruit — but a cutting-off is unconditioned, possessing no lower, middle, or upper grade, and is not born of any cause, so how can it be named a fruit? The answer: although a cutting-off does not arise, it is nevertheless what is attained through effort and realization, and for this reason it too is named a fruit. That is, as when a practitioner of yoga dwells atop a high mountain, or abides in a quiet cell, moderating his food and drink, reducing his sleep and the requisites of his body, upholding the observances of the lesser and greater seven-day vigil, standing firm atop the peak, walking with the practice-staff in hand, from this day's setting sun until the next day's rising, giving rise to superior, courageous diligence,

he thereby, turn upon turn, gives rise to the undefiled noble path, and, by this means, realizes the four fruits of a śramaṇa. At that time, his own guide praises and encourages him, saying: excellent, excellent! You have been able to diligently cultivate the true practice, and have now attained this fruit — exactly as a farmer who, over the sixth month, tends his furrows and ridges, weeding the autumn crop, and afterward gathers the harvested grain, storing it upon the threshing-floor, is praised and encouraged by an elder farmer, who says: excellent, excellent! You have expended great toil over these six months, and have now attained this fruit. It is for this reason that both the path and the cutting-off equally receive the name fruit. As for these four fruits of a śramaṇa thus stated — one asks: how many are fruits of dhyāna? The answer: all four are fruits of dhyāna and its retinue. One asks: how many are fruits of the formless attainments? The answer: one, namely, the fruit of arhatship. One asks: how many are fruits of the root dhyānas? The answer: two, namely, the fruits of non-returning and of arhatship. One asks: how many are fruits of the dhyāna-approaches? The answer: four — that is, the first dhyāna's own approach, but no other dhyāna's; the intermediate stage is as stated for the root dhyānas. One asks: how many are fruits of the root formless attainments? The answer: one, namely, the fruit of arhatship. One asks: how many are fruits of the formless-approaches? The answer: none. One asks: how many are fruits of the path of seeing? The answer: three, excluding the fruit of arhatship. One asks: how many are fruits of the path of cultivation? The answer: three, excluding the fruit of stream-entry. One asks: how many are fruits of patient acceptance? The answer: three, excluding the fruit of arhatship. One asks: how many are fruits of cognition? The answer: three, excluding the fruit of stream-entry.

One asks: how many are fruits of dharma-cognition? The answer: three, excluding the fruit of stream-entry. One asks: how many are fruits of subsequent cognition? The answer: one, namely, the fruit of arhatship. One asks: how many are fruits belonging to the class of dharma-cognition? The answer: three, excluding the fruit of stream-entry. One asks: how many are fruits belonging to the class of subsequent cognition? The answer: four. One asks: how many are fruits of the worldly path? The answer: two, namely, the fruit of once-returning and the fruit of non-returning. One asks: how many are fruits of the undefiled path? The answer: four.

As the scripture states: Ajātaśatru, lord of Magadha, son of Vaidehī, came to where the Buddha was, and, having arrived, bowed his head to the World-Honored One's own two feet, withdrew, and sat to one side, saying to the Buddha: is there a fruit of a śramaṇa visible here and now? The Buddha said: there is indeed. The king asked: how so?

The World-Honored One told him: I shall now question the king — answer just as you see fit. Suppose one of the king's own attendants or servants, himself without freedom, at some time beholds the king ascending a lofty tower-hall, the five kinds of music arrayed, sporting and delighting together with his own retinue — having beheld this, he thinks to himself:

I too am a person — why should it not be so for me as well? And yet the king, in a former life, cultivated abundant merit, and it is for this reason that, in this present life, he receives so superior a reward; I too, in this present life, ought to cultivate superior deeds, that I too might be admired by the multitude just as the king is admired. Having thought this, he thereupon forsakes the household dharma, shaves off his hair and beard, dons the monastic robe, receives and upholds the three refuges and pure precepts, and, with respect to the ten courses of action, is able both to abandon and to cultivate them. One of the king's other servants, beholding this from outside, at once returns and reports, fully recounting the above matter, requesting that the king recall him and drive him back to his former servitude just as before. Having heard this report, would the king act just as requested, or not?

The king said: no. Were there such a person, I would myself go to see him, revering and honoring him with offerings — exactly as he formerly served and attended upon me, so, in this present time, would I serve and attend upon him for the whole span of his life, bestowing upon him robes, food and drink, medicine, dwelling, and bedding, and every other requisite, so that he should lack for nothing. The Buddha told the king: is a matter such as this not itself a fruit of a śramaṇa visible here and now? The king said to the Buddha: it is truly as the sacred teaching says. One asks: the fruits of a śramaṇa are, in reality, only four in number — for what reason does this scripture speak further of a fifth? The answer: the true fruits of a śramaṇa are, in reality, only four; what this passage speaks of as a fruit of a śramaṇa visible here and now is merely the useful benefit accruing to renunciation as a lay devotee's own resource. One asks: since renunciation is not, in itself, the true nature of a śramaṇa, how can it be said to possess a fruit of a śramaṇa? The answer: although renunciation is not, in itself, the true nature of a śramaṇa, the world nevertheless provisionally establishes the name of śramaṇa-nature for it — and it is for this reason that, whenever the world beholds one who has renounced the household, it at once supposes: I here behold just such a śramaṇa. It is for this reason that renunciation, as a lay devotee's own resource,

likewise properly receives the provisional name fruit of a śramaṇa. This name 'visible here and now' expresses precisely what is not of real meaning. The Lion's Roar Sutra further states as follows: only within my own teaching are there four śramaṇas, namely, the first śramaṇa, up through the fourth; within the teaching of the outsiders there exists neither a true śramaṇa nor a true brāhmaṇa,

there being nothing there but an empty name. It is regarding a matter such as this that, in the midst of the great assembly, the Buddha's true lion's roar was uttered, entirely without fear. It should be understood that, here, the first śramaṇa refers to those who have entered the stream; the second śramaṇa refers to those who once-return; the third śramaṇa refers to those who do not return; the fourth śramaṇa refers to the arhats. The Venerable Pārśva says: it should be understood that, here, the Buddha, following the more excellent, speaks first — the first śramaṇa refers to the arhats; the second śramaṇa refers to those who do not return; the third śramaṇa refers to those who once-return; the fourth śramaṇa refers to those who have entered the stream. The Bhadrika Sutra further states as follows: wherever the eightfold noble path is found, it should be understood that there, too, the four śramaṇas are found, namely, the first śramaṇa, up through the fourth. Here, there are those who say: those proceeding toward the four fruits, the four approaches, are named the four śramaṇas — the first śramaṇa refers to the approach to stream-entry; the second śramaṇa refers to the approach to once-returning; the third śramaṇa refers to the approach to non-returning; the fourth śramaṇa refers to the approach to arhatship. The Venerable Pārśva says: this scripture speaks of the four kinds of approach and speaks also of the four fruits — where it says 'wherever the eightfold noble path is found,' it thereby speaks of the four approaches; where it should be understood that 'there, too, the four śramaṇas are found,' it thereby speaks of the four fruits. The Cunda Sutra likewise states as follows: there are four śramaṇas, and no fifth. The four śramaṇas are: first, the śramaṇa of the superior path; second, the śramaṇa who shows the path; third, the śramaṇa who sustains the path; fourth, the śramaṇa who defiles the path. It should be understood that, here, the śramaṇa of the superior path refers to the Buddha, the World-Honored One himself, since he is capable of awakening entirely on his own — every solitary-realizer should be understood likewise. The śramaṇa who shows the path refers to the Venerable Śāriputra, since he is without equal, being the great general of the dharma, ever capable of turning the wheel of dharma in the Buddha's train — every non-learner disciple should be understood likewise. The śramaṇa who sustains the path refers to the Venerable Ānanda, who, although abiding in the stage of a learner, is equal to a non-learner in having heard much and retained what he has heard, being complete in pure precept and observance — every learner should be understood likewise. The śramaṇa who defiles the path refers to such as the monk Mahālla, who delighted in stealing the wealth of others, and the like.

One asks: as regards the śramaṇas spoken of in the above three sutras thus cited, what distinction is there between them? There are those who say: the Lion's Roar Sutra, in speaking of śramaṇas, refers to those abiding in the four fruits; the Bhadrika Sutra, in speaking of śramaṇas, refers to those proceeding along the four approaches; the Cunda Sutra, in speaking of śramaṇas, refers to those abiding in the four fruits together with those proceeding along every approach. Other masters say: the Lion's Roar Sutra, in speaking of śramaṇas, refers to those abiding in the four fruits; the Bhadrika Sutra, in speaking of śramaṇas, refers to those proceeding along the four approaches together with those abiding in the four fruits; the Cunda Sutra, in speaking of śramaṇas, refers to what comprehensively gathers every śramaṇa whatsoever. There are those who say: the Lion's Roar Sutra and the Bhadrika Sutra, in speaking of śramaṇas, refer to those abiding in the four fruits; the Cunda Sutra, in speaking of śramaṇas, refers to every śramaṇa whatsoever abiding in a fruit or proceeding along an approach. There are yet others who say: the Lion's Roar Sutra and the Bhadrika Sutra, in speaking of śramaṇas, refer to the learner and the non-learner; the Cunda Sutra, in speaking of śramaṇas, refers to the learner, the non-learner, and one who is neither learner nor non-learner. There are those who say: the Lion's Roar Sutra and the Bhadrika Sutra, in speaking of śramaṇas, refer to the noble ones; the Cunda Sutra, in speaking of śramaṇas, refers to the noble ones together with ordinary persons. There are yet others who say: the Lion's Roar Sutra and the Bhadrika Sutra, in speaking of śramaṇas, refer to those who uphold the precepts,

while the Cunda Sutra, in speaking of śramaṇas, refers to those who uphold the precepts together with those who violate them. There are yet others who say: there is, in fact, no distinction whatsoever in the meaning of śramaṇa spoken of across these three sutras. One asks: the first two sutras speak of there being four śramaṇas — is the path-defiling śramaṇa gathered within these four at all? The answer: he is indeed gathered within the four, namely, within the approach to stream-entry. Yet the approach to stream-entry has both a near and a far sense: the near sense refers to the path of seeing; the far sense refers to everything preceding this — the aids to penetration, the aids to liberation, and up through one who, with correct faith alone, has gone forth from the household. As the scripture states, there are four factors of stream-entry, namely, drawing near to good persons, hearing the true dharma, applying correct attention, and practicing in accordance with the dharma — factor and approach bearing no distinction in meaning. One asks: the Bhadrika Sutra states, wherever the eightfold noble path is found, it should be understood that there, too, the four śramaṇas are found — is the path-defiling śramaṇa gathered within this at all?

The answer: he is likewise gathered within this, since the factors of the noble path exist both in a real and in a provisional sense — the real sense refers to the eight factors such as undefiled right view; the provisional sense refers to the eight factors such as contaminated right view. The path-defiling śramaṇa is likewise capable of possessing contaminated right view, and it is for this reason that he too is gathered within the first śramaṇa. There are yet others who say: the four kinds of śramaṇa spoken of in the first two sutras are precisely the third sutra's own — the four such as the superior-path śramaṇa spoken of in that scripture are not the same as the stream-enterer and the rest, and it is for this reason that there is, in fact, no difference in what these three sutras state. One asks: how, then, is what the first sutra states to be reconciled — that only within my own teaching are there four śramaṇas, the Buddha, in the midst of the assembly, uttering his true lion's roar? How could the World-Honored One say that only within his own teaching is there one who violates and transgresses the precepts, and yet utter a lion's roar over this? The answer: this statement, too, carries no fault, for what reason? Because the path-defiling śramaṇa, although he breaks the precepts, does not thereby break his view; although he breaks the practice, he does not break his own resolve —

Suppose someone were to ask him: is your violation of the precepts wholesome or unwholesome? He would say: unwholesome. Ought it to be done, or ought it not to be done? He would say: it ought not to be done. Does it bear a ripened result, or does it bear none? He would say: it bears a ripened result. Does it yield a desirable result, or an undesirable result? He would say: it yields an undesirable result. Is it experienced in an evil destiny, or in a good destiny? He would say: it is experienced in an evil destiny. Is it experienced by himself, or by another? He would say: it is experienced by himself. Is it the fault of his teacher, the fault of the teaching, or his own fault? He would say: it is not my teacher's fault, nor is it the teaching's fault — it is my own fault. He possesses just such contaminated right view, believing there is cause and effect, not being ignorant of cause and effect — and such right view as this the ninety-six kinds of outsider entirely lack. It is for this reason that the Buddha, in the midst of the assembly, uttered his true lion's roar — and, speaking with reference to him, this too carries no fault. As the scripture states: the Buddha told the monks: I myself truly know and see that there are three kinds of person toward whom sentient beings do much, whose kindness is difficult to repay — even were one, for the whole span of one's life, to make offering to them of the finest robes, food and drink, bedding, and medicine, and every other requisite, still this could not repay them. What are these three? First, there is a person who teaches the dharma to another, causing him to forsake the household dharma and go forth into homelessness, to shave off his hair and beard and don the monastic robe, and, with a mind of correct faith, to receive and uphold the pure precepts. Second, there is a person who teaches the dharma to another, causing him to know that every arisen dharma is a dharma subject to cessation, to become far removed from defilement, and, amid all dharmas, to give rise to the pure dharma-eye. Third, there is a person who teaches the dharma to another, causing him to exhaust every contaminant and to realize undefiled liberation of mind and of wisdom, himself, in this very life, penetrating and fully abiding in the complete knowledge that birth is exhausted, and so on. One asks: does urging another to receive the lay devotee's own moral code likewise count as one who does much, whose kindness is difficult to repay? For what reason does this scripture not speak of this? The answer: that it ought to be stated, yet is not stated, should be understood to carry a further meaning here. Further, the monastic moral code is both a cause and a fruit, and it is for this reason that the scripture singles it out — that is, this is the fruit of the lay devotee's own moral code, and the cause of the monk's own moral code. Further, urging one to renounce the household is precisely urging a person to enter the noble dharma, and it is for this reason that the scripture singles it out — that is, entering the noble dharma is, in brief, of two kinds: first, the worldly; second, the ultimate. The worldly sense refers to forsaking the household dharma and going forth into homelessness, shaving off one's hair and beard, donning the monastic robe, and, with a mind of correct faith, receiving and upholding the pure precepts. The ultimate sense refers to entering, from the supreme worldly dharma, the receptivity of dharma-cognition regarding suffering. Further, urging one to renounce the household is precisely urging a person to be freed from menial affairs, and it is for this reason that the scripture singles it out — that is, one who remains in the household is, for the most part, pressed and constrained by every kind of menial, evil affair, while those who renounce the household are freed from this. Further, urging one to renounce the household is precisely urging a person to be freed from every suffering, and it is for this reason that the scripture singles it out — that is, one who renounces the household is freed from every present affliction and suffering of the body, and, by this means, turn upon turn, is freed from every dharma of birth, old age, sickness, death, sorrow, grief, suffering, and vexation, from the dharma of birth-and-death itself. Further, urging one to renounce the household is precisely urging a person to receive present happiness in this very dharma, and, by this means, turn upon turn, to attain final, sovereign ease, and it is for this reason that the scripture singles it out. Further, urging one to renounce the household is precisely urging a person to manifest the Buddha's own appearance in the world, and it is for this reason that the scripture singles it out — the Buddha's own appearance in the world is, in brief, of two kinds: first, the worldly; second, the ultimate. The worldly sense refers to forsaking the household dharma and going forth into homelessness, shaving off one's hair and beard, donning the monastic robe, and, with a mind of correct faith, receiving and upholding the pure precepts. The ultimate sense refers to attaining true, pure awakening with respect to the four noble truths. At the very moment of first renouncing the household, one has already manifested the Buddha's own worldly appearance in the world; and, having renounced the household, turn upon turn cultivating one's practice, one further manifests the Buddha's own ultimate appearance in the world. Further, urging one to renounce the household is precisely urging a person to study the Buddha's own bodies, and it is for this reason that the scripture singles it out — the Buddha's own bodies are, in brief, of two kinds: first, the birth-body; second, the dharma-body. If one forsakes the household dharma and goes forth into homelessness, shaves off one's hair and beard, dons the monastic robe, and, with a mind of correct faith, receives and upholds the pure precepts, this should be understood as studying the Buddha's own birth-body; if one is capable, turn upon turn, of cultivating and practicing correct conduct, giving rise to true, pure awakening with respect to the four noble truths, this should be understood as studying the Buddha's own dharma-body. Further, urging one to renounce the household is precisely urging a person to study the Buddha's own conduct, and it is for this reason that the scripture singles it out — the Buddha's own conduct is, in brief, of two kinds: first, the worldly; second, the ultimate. The worldly sense refers to forsaking the household dharma and going forth into homelessness, shaving off one's hair and beard, donning the monastic robe, and, with a mind of correct faith, receiving and upholding the pure precepts. The ultimate sense refers to being capable of correctly understanding the four noble truths.

At the very moment of first renouncing the household, one is already able to follow and learn the Buddha's own worldly conduct; and, having renounced the household, diligently cultivating one's practice, one is further able to follow and learn the Buddha's own ultimate conduct. Further, urging one to renounce the household is precisely urging a person to enter the ocean of the Buddha's own dharma, and it is for this reason that the scripture singles it out — that is, if a person forsakes the household dharma and, with pure faith, renounces it, he is at once named as one who has first entered the ocean of the Buddha's own dharma; if he exhausts every contaminant and realizes final nirvāṇa, he is named as one who has ultimately entered the ocean of the Buddha's own dharma. Further, urging one to renounce the household is precisely urging a person to be resolutely set upon entering the true path of liberation, and it is for this reason that the scripture singles it out, as the scripture states: those who renounce the household definitively attain true, direct realization, knowledge, and vision with respect to the four noble truths. Further, urging one to renounce the household

is precisely urging a person to definitively attain the three kinds of moral code, namely, the code of individual liberation, the code of dhyāna, and the undefiled code, and it is for this reason that the scripture singles it out. Further, urging one to renounce the household is precisely urging a person to definitively attain the three wholesome aggregates, namely, the aggregate of moral discipline, of concentration, and of wisdom, and it is for this reason that the scripture singles it out — exactly as with the three wholesome aggregates, so too should the three trainings, the three cultivations, and the three purities be understood likewise. Further, urging one to renounce the household is precisely urging a person to definitively attain the three correct paths, namely, the path of seeing, the path of cultivation, and the path beyond further training, and it is for this reason that the scripture singles it out — exactly as with the three correct paths, so too with the three stages. Further, urging one to renounce the household is precisely urging a person to definitively attain the three undefiled faculties, namely, the faculty of 'I shall come to know,' the faculty of 'I already know,' and the faculty of one who fully knows, and it is for this reason that the scripture singles it out. Further, urging one to renounce the household is precisely urging a person to attain, as is fitting, one of the three kinds of awakening, namely, the awakening of a disciple, of a solitary-realizer, or unsurpassed awakening, and it is for this reason that the scripture singles it out.

Further, urging one to renounce the household is precisely urging a person to definitively attain the three kinds of sagehood, namely, sagehood of body, of speech, and of mind, and it is for this reason that the scripture singles it out — exactly as with the three kinds of sagehood, so too should the three kinds of tranquility and the three kinds of purity be understood likewise. Further, urging one to renounce the household is precisely urging a person to become removed, in body and mind, and it is for this reason that the scripture singles it out — that is, at the time of renouncing the household, the body at once becomes engaged in few affairs; the body being engaged in few affairs, the mind too becomes engaged in few affairs, and, by this means, one becomes removed from affliction and evil deeds. Further, urging one to renounce the household is precisely urging a person to become purified, in body and mind, of defilement, and it is for this reason that the scripture singles it out — that is, at the time of renouncing the household, the body at once becomes pure; the body being pure, the mind too becomes pure, and, body and mind both being pure, the defilement of affliction and karmic deeds is swiftly eliminated. Further, urging one to renounce the household is precisely urging a person to become excellent, in body and mind, and it is for this reason that the scripture singles it out — that is, at the time of renouncing the household, the body at once becomes excellent; the body being excellent, the mind too becomes excellent. Further, urging one to renounce the household is precisely urging a person to become dignified, in body and mind, and it is for this reason that the scripture singles it out — that is, at the time of renouncing the household, the body at once becomes dignified; the body being dignified, the mind too becomes dignified. Further, urging one to renounce the household is precisely urging a person to definitively attain final tranquility, namely, nirvāṇa itself, and it is for this reason that the scripture singles it out. Further, urging one to renounce the household is precisely urging a person to attain what is uncommon to others, and it is for this reason that the scripture singles it out — that is, at the time of renouncing the household, one's deportment, dress, and undertakings are uncommon to, and shared with, no one who remains in the household. Further, urging one to renounce the household is precisely urging a person to cast off affliction and karmic deeds, and it is for this reason that the scripture singles it out — that is, at the time of renouncing the household, one shaves off one's hair and beard, dons the monastic robe, and receives and upholds the pure precepts, and affliction and evil deeds are, turn upon turn, gradually forsaken and set at a distance, since the outward form and adornment of renunciation is no fitting vessel for them — exactly as a fragrant, pure person does not harbor foul filth. Further, urging one to renounce the household is precisely urging a person to perform inexhaustible deeds and thereby obtain inexhaustible wealth, to perform blameless deeds and thereby obtain blameless wealth, to perform harmless deeds and thereby obtain harmless wealth, to perform deeds uncommon to the outsiders and thereby obtain wealth uncommon to the outsiders, and to perform deeds uncommon to ordinary persons and thereby obtain wealth uncommon to ordinary persons, and it is for this reason that the scripture singles it out. Further, urging one to renounce the household is precisely urging a person to single-mindedly cultivate and learn the practice of the painted conch, that is, to cultivate a pure and undefiled holy conduct for the whole span of one's life — those who remain in the household are incapable of this — and it is for this reason that the scripture singles it out.

One asks: what is the meaning of the practice of the painted conch? The Venerable Vasumitra says as follows: long ago, within this continent, there were two seers, one named Śaṅkha, the other Likhita, who fully possessed the foremost rule and holy conduct, which none who remained in the household could ever equal — urging a person to renounce the household is precisely urging him toward the same. There are those who say: exactly as a design carved and painted upon a conch shell is firm and difficult to destroy, not easily obliterated by wind, sun, or any other outer condition, so too is the conduct of one who has renounced the household — those who remain in the household are incapable of cultivating conduct such as this, and, though they may uphold it for a time, it soon becomes ruined. Other masters say: exactly as a design carved and painted upon a conch shell is clean, clear, and free of every stain, so too is the conduct of one who has renounced the household — those who remain in the household are incapable of cultivating conduct such as this, and, though they uphold it to the utmost, it nevertheless remains mixed with defilement, as is presently seen: even one who remains in the household who attains the fruit of non-returning, though free of desire's own defilement, still dwells within the household, still makes use of things counted among an animal's possessions rather than things not so counted, his own undertakings not yet especially pure — how much more so one who, remaining in the household, attains only the first two fruits, no different at all from an ordinary person. One who has renounced the household, even should he break the moral precepts, still surpasses one who, remaining in lay life, upholds the precepts — and it is for this reason that the scripture singles out urging a person to renounce the household as a kindness difficult to repay. Further, urging one to renounce the household is precisely urging a person to cultivate the most honored deeds, whose resulting fruit surpasses that of Yama, the wheel-turning king, or śakra himself, and it is for this reason that the scripture singles out urging a person to renounce the household as a kindness difficult to repay; as for urging a person to receive and uphold the lay devotee's own precepts and the like, there is no such matter, and it is for this reason that the scripture does not speak of it.

One asks: for what reason does this scripture speak only of causing one to attain the first and last fruits as a kindness difficult to repay, and not speak of causing one to attain the middle two fruits? The answer: that it ought to be stated, yet is not stated, should be understood to carry a further meaning here. Further, this passage in fact comprehensively gathers all four fruits of a śramaṇa within it, for what reason?

Becoming far removed from defilement, and, amid all dharmas, giving rise to the pure dharma-eye — this speaks of the first three fruits, that is, one who, being fully bound, or already free of the desire realm's own first five grades of affliction, enters the state of correct determination and gives rise to the pure dharma-eye, thereby attains the fruit of stream-entry; one who, already free of the desire realm's own sixth and seventh grades of affliction, enters the state of correct determination and gives rise to the pure dharma-eye, thereby attains the fruit of once-returning; one who, already free of the desire realm's own defilement, up through the sphere of nothingness's own, enters the state of correct determination and gives rise to the pure dharma-eye, thereby attains the fruit of non-returning. Causing one to exhaust every contaminant, and to attain undefiled liberation of mind and of wisdom, is precisely causing one to attain the fruit of arhatship. It is for this reason that this scripture in fact comprehensively gathers all four fruits within it. Further, this scripture's speaking of attaining the first and last fruits is precisely its speaking, in full, of attaining all four fruits of a śramaṇa, since it thereby manifests both the beginning and the end — the beginning being the fruit of stream-entry, the end being precisely the fruit of arhatship; exactly as it manifests both beginning and end, so too should first entering, having already crossed over, undertaking the practice, and its final completion be understood likewise. Further, this scripture's speaking of attaining the first and last fruits has already, by this very statement, spoken of attaining the middle two fruits as well, since one who attains the fruit of stream-entry is certain, without any intervening interval, to attain the fruit of once-returning, and one who attains the fruit of arhatship is certain to have attained the fruit of non-returning immediately prior. Further, the first and last fruits are, without exception, attained by the power of the undefiled path alone, and it is for this reason that these alone are singled out; the middle two fruits may be attained by the power of a worldly path as well, and it is for this reason that these are not spoken of here — exactly as with what is attained by the power of the contaminated or the undefiled path, so too should what is attained by the power of the path of bondage or of liberation be understood likewise. Further, the first and last fruits are both attained by transcending the realm of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, and it is for this reason that these alone are singled out — that is, the fruit of stream-entry is attained by transcending what is abandoned by seeing in the realm of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; the fruit of arhatship is attained by transcending what is abandoned by cultivation in the realm of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. Further, this scripture briefly manifests only the very gateway of first entry, and it is for this reason that it speaks only of the first and last fruits — that is, the fruits of a śramaṇa are, in some cases, attained through the path of seeing, and, in other cases, attained through the path of cultivation; where it speaks of the fruit of stream-entry, this should be understood as speaking generally of what is attained through the path of seeing; where it speaks of the fruit of arhatship, this should be understood as speaking generally of what is attained through the path of cultivation — exactly as with what is attained through the path of seeing or of cultivation, so too should what is attained at the stage of seeing or of cultivation, and through the faculty of 'I shall come to know' or the faculty of 'I already know,' be understood likewise. Further, the fruits of a śramaṇa are, in some cases, established through the exhaustion of affliction abandoned by seeing, and, in other cases, established through the exhaustion of affliction abandoned by cultivation; where it speaks of the fruit of stream-entry, this should be understood as speaking generally of what is established through the exhaustion of affliction abandoned by seeing; where it speaks of the fruit of arhatship, this should be understood as speaking generally of what is established through the exhaustion of affliction abandoned by cultivation — exactly as with what is established through the exhaustion of affliction abandoned by seeing or by cultivation,

so too should what is established through the exhaustion of affliction bound to no basis or bound to a basis, and through the exhaustion of affliction counteracted by patient acceptance or by cognition, be understood likewise. Further, the fruits of a śramaṇa are, in some cases, established through counteracting the proliferation of views, and, in other cases, established through counteracting the proliferation of craving —

where it speaks of the fruit of stream-entry, this should be understood as speaking generally of what is established through counteracting the proliferation of views; where it speaks of the fruit of arhatship, this should be understood as speaking generally of what is established through counteracting the proliferation of craving — exactly as with what is established through counteracting these two kinds of proliferation, so too should what is established through counteracting the two extremes, the two arrows, and the two roots of contention be understood likewise. Further, the fruits of a śramaṇa are, in some cases, attained through the sudden cutting-off of affliction, and, in other cases, attained through the gradual cutting-off of affliction; where it speaks of the fruit of stream-entry, this should be understood as speaking generally of what is attained through the sudden cutting-off of affliction, which includes as well one who attains the fruit of once-returning or of non-returning by transcendence; where it speaks of the fruit of arhatship, this should be understood as speaking generally of what is attained through the gradual cutting-off of affliction,

which includes as well one who attains the fruit of once-returning or of non-returning in sequential order. It is owing to causes and conditions such as these, of every kind, that this scripture speaks only of causing another to realize the first and last fruits as a kindness difficult to repay.

The learner-dharmas possessed by stream-enterers — are these dharmas gathered within the fruit of stream-entry? And so on, at full length. One asks: for what reason is this treatise composed? The answer: it was previously stated only that the fruit of a śramaṇa is unconditioned; now, wishing to state that the fruit of a śramaṇa is both conditioned and unconditioned, this treatise is composed. Here, the questions posed proceed first briefly, then at length — that is, first asking about the learner- and non-learner-dharmas possessed, next asking about the undefiled dharmas possessed, and finally asking about every dharma whatsoever possessed. The learner-dharmas possessed by stream-enterers — are these dharmas gathered within the fruit of stream-entry? The answer: in some cases they are gathered within it, in others not, the meaning being indeterminate. How are they gathered within it? The answer: the conditioned fruit of stream-entry, already attained and not lost. As for already attained: this refers to one of resolve-through-faith who has already attained the faculties of his own lineage gathered within the fruit of stream-entry proper to one of resolve-through-faith, and one who has attained through vision who has already attained the faculties of his own lineage gathered within the fruit of stream-entry proper to one who has attained through vision. As for not lost: this refers to one of resolve-through-faith who has not turned his faculty to become one who has attained through vision, and so has not lost the faculties of his own lineage gathered within the fruit of stream-entry proper to one of resolve-through-faith, or has not regressed from them. How are they not gathered within it? The answer: the conditioned dharmas possessed by stream-enterers, such as the undefiled faculties of further progress — that is, the aids to practice, the six uninterrupted paths, the five liberation paths, and the paths of further progress belonging to becoming free of the desire realm's own first six grades of affliction abandoned by cultivation. Learner-dharmas such as these, although possessed by stream-enterers, are not gathered within the fruit of stream-entry, since the path toward a superior fruit is not gathered within that fruit.

Suppose a dharma is gathered within the fruit of stream-entry — is it therefore a learner-dharma? The answer: in some cases it is a learner-dharma, in others it is neither learner nor non-learner, the meaning being indeterminate. What is the learner-dharma case? The answer: the conditioned fruit of stream-entry, namely, the subsequent cognition regarding the path and the like, together with its own retinue. What is the neither-learner-nor-non-learner case? The answer: the unconditioned fruit of stream-entry, namely, the cutting-off of the dharmas abandoned by seeing across the three realms. The learner-dharmas possessed by once-returners — are these dharmas gathered within the fruit of once-returning? The answer: in some cases they are gathered within it, in others not, the meaning being indeterminate. How are they gathered within it? The answer: the conditioned fruit of once-returning, already attained and not lost. As for already attained: this refers to one of resolve-through-faith who has already attained the faculties of his own lineage gathered within the fruit of once-returning proper to one of resolve-through-faith, and one who has attained through vision who has already attained the faculties of his own lineage gathered within the fruit of once-returning proper to one who has attained through vision. As for not lost: this refers to one of resolve-through-faith who has not turned his faculty to become one who has attained through vision, and so has not lost the faculties of his own lineage gathered within the fruit of once-returning proper to one of resolve-through-faith, or has not regressed from them. How are they not gathered within it? The answer: the conditioned dharmas possessed by once-returners, such as the undefiled faculties of further progress — that is, the aids to practice, the three uninterrupted paths, the two liberation paths, and the paths of further progress belonging to becoming free of the desire realm's own last three grades of affliction abandoned by cultivation. Learner-dharmas such as these, although possessed by once-returners, are not gathered within the fruit of once-returning,

since the path toward a superior fruit is not gathered within that fruit. Suppose a dharma is gathered within the fruit of once-returning — is it therefore a learner-dharma? The answer: in some cases it is a learner-dharma, in others it is neither learner nor non-learner, the meaning being indeterminate. What is the learner-dharma case? The answer: the conditioned fruit of once-returning, namely, the subsequent cognition regarding the path and the like, or the sixth liberation path becoming free of desire's own defilement and the like, together with its own retinue. What is the neither-learner-nor-non-learner case? The answer: the unconditioned fruit of once-returning, namely, the cutting-off of the dharmas abandoned by seeing across the three realms, together with the cutting-off of the desire realm's own first six grades abandoned by cultivation. The learner-dharmas possessed by non-returners — are these dharmas gathered within the fruit of non-returning? The answer: in some cases they are gathered within it, in others not, the meaning being indeterminate. How are they gathered within it? The answer: the conditioned fruit of non-returning, already attained and not lost. As for already attained: this refers to one of resolve-through-faith who has already attained the faculties of his own lineage gathered within the fruit of non-returning proper to one of resolve-through-faith, and one who has attained through vision who has already attained the faculties of his own lineage gathered within the fruit of non-returning proper to one who has attained through vision. As for not lost: this refers to one of resolve-through-faith who has not turned his faculty to become one who has attained through vision, and so has not lost the faculties of his own lineage gathered within the fruit of non-returning proper to one of resolve-through-faith, or has not regressed from them. How are they not gathered within it? The answer: the conditioned dharmas possessed by non-returners, such as the undefiled faculties of further progress — that is, the aids to practice, the uninterrupted paths, and the liberation and further-progress paths still belonging to a learner, belonging to becoming free of the first dhyāna's own defilement, up through the realm of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's own. Learner-dharmas such as these, although possessed by non-returners, are not gathered within the fruit of non-returning, since the path toward a superior fruit is not gathered within that fruit. Suppose a dharma is gathered within the fruit of non-returning — is it therefore a learner-dharma? The answer: in some cases it is a learner-dharma, in others it is neither learner nor non-learner, the meaning being indeterminate. What is the learner-dharma case? The answer: the conditioned fruit of non-returning, namely, the subsequent cognition regarding the path and the like, or the ninth liberation path becoming free of desire's own defilement and the like, together with its own retinue. What is the neither-learner-nor-non-learner case? The answer: the unconditioned fruit of non-returning, namely, the cutting-off of the dharmas abandoned by seeing across the three realms, together with the cutting-off of the desire realm's own dharmas abandoned by cultivation. The non-learner-dharmas possessed by arhats — are these dharmas gathered within the fruit of arhatship? The answer: it is so — that is, every aid to practice, uninterrupted path, liberation path, and path of further progress possessed by an arhat is, in every case, gathered within the fruit of arhatship, since he possesses no path toward a superior fruit, there being no superior fruit left for him to seek. Suppose a dharma is gathered within the fruit of arhatship — is it therefore a non-learner-dharma? The answer: in some cases it is a non-learner-dharma, in others it is neither learner nor non-learner, the meaning being indeterminate.

What is the non-learner case? The answer: the conditioned fruit of arhatship, namely, the cognition of exhaustion, the cognition of non-arising, and non-learner right view, together with its own retinue. What is the neither-learner-nor-non-learner case? The answer: the unconditioned fruit of arhatship, namely, the cutting-off of every dharma whatsoever abandoned by both seeing and cultivation across the three realms. The undefiled dharmas possessed by stream-enterers — are these dharmas gathered within the fruit of stream-entry? The answer: in some cases they are gathered within it, in others not, the meaning being indeterminate.

How are they gathered within it? The answer: the conditioned and unconditioned fruit of stream-entry, already attained and not lost. The conditioned fruit of stream-entry refers to the subsequent cognition regarding the path and the like, together with its own retinue; the unconditioned fruit of stream-entry refers to the cutting-off of the dharmas abandoned by seeing across the three realms. As for already attained: this refers to one of resolve-through-faith who has already attained the faculties of his own lineage gathered within the fruit of stream-entry proper to one of resolve-through-faith, and one who has attained through vision who has already attained the faculties of his own lineage gathered within the fruit of stream-entry proper to one who has attained through vision, together with having already attained the cutting-off of the dharmas abandoned by seeing across the three realms. As for not lost: this refers to one of resolve-through-faith who has not turned his faculty to become one who has attained through vision, and so has not lost the faculties of his own lineage gathered within the fruit of stream-entry proper to one of resolve-through-faith, or has not regressed from them. How are they not gathered within it? The answer: the conditioned dharmas possessed by stream-enterers, such as the undefiled faculties of further progress, together with the cutting-off of fetters thereby realized, and together with the non-analytical cessations possessed by stream-enterers. As for the conditioned dharmas possessed by stream-enterers, such as the undefiled faculties of further progress: this refers to the aids to practice, the six uninterrupted paths, the five liberation paths, and the paths of further progress belonging to becoming free of the desire realm's own first six grades of affliction abandoned by cultivation. Undefiled dharmas such as these, although possessed by stream-enterers, are not gathered within the fruit of stream-entry, since the path toward a superior fruit is not gathered within that fruit. As for the cutting-off of fetters thereby realized: this refers to the cutting-off of the desire realm's own first five grades of affliction abandoned by cultivation, since this is precisely what is realized and cut off by the path toward a superior fruit — exactly as the path toward a superior fruit is not gathered within this fruit, so too, by the same principle, should this be understood. As for the non-analytical cessations possessed by stream-enterers: this refers to a stream-enterer's attainment of non-analytical cessation with respect to the three realms and undefiled dharmas — although he possesses this non-analytical cessation, this non-analytical cessation is not gathered within the fruit of stream-entry, for what reason? Because non-analytical cessation is karmically neutral, while the fruit of stream-entry is wholesome. Suppose a dharma is gathered within the fruit of stream-entry — is it therefore an undefiled dharma? The answer: it is so, since the conditioned and unconditioned fruit of stream-entry are, both alike, undefiled. The undefiled dharmas possessed by once-returners — are these dharmas gathered within the fruit of once-returning? The answer: in some cases they are gathered within it, in others not, the meaning being indeterminate. How are they gathered within it? The answer: the conditioned and unconditioned fruit of once-returning, already attained and not lost. The conditioned fruit of once-returning refers to the subsequent cognition regarding the path and the like, or the sixth liberation path becoming free of desire's own defilement and the like, together with its own retinue; the unconditioned fruit of once-returning refers to the cutting-off of the dharmas abandoned by seeing across the three realms, together with the cutting-off of the desire realm's own first six grades abandoned by cultivation. As for already attained: this refers to one of resolve-through-faith who has already attained the faculties of his own lineage gathered within the fruit of once-returning proper to one of resolve-through-faith, and one who has attained through vision who has already attained the faculties of his own lineage gathered within the fruit of once-returning proper to one who has attained through vision, together with having already attained the cutting-off of the dharmas abandoned by seeing across the three realms, and the cutting-off of the desire realm's own first six grades abandoned by cultivation. As for not lost: this refers to one of resolve-through-faith who has not turned his faculty to become one who has attained through vision, and so has not lost the faculties of his own lineage gathered within the fruit of once-returning proper to one of resolve-through-faith, or has not regressed from these, together with the cutting-off of the desire realm's own first six grades abandoned by cultivation. How are they not gathered within it? The answer: the conditioned dharmas possessed by once-returners, such as the undefiled faculties of further progress, together with the cutting-off of fetters thereby realized,

together with the non-analytical cessations possessed by once-returners. As for the conditioned dharmas possessed by once-returners, such as the undefiled faculties of further progress: this refers to the aids to practice, the three uninterrupted paths, the two liberation paths, and the paths of further progress belonging to becoming free of the desire realm's own last three grades of affliction abandoned by cultivation. Undefiled dharmas such as these, although possessed by once-returners, are not gathered within the fruit of once-returning, since the path toward a superior fruit is not gathered within that fruit.

As for the cutting-off of fetters thereby realized: this refers to the cutting-off of the desire realm's own seventh and eighth grades of affliction abandoned by cultivation, since this is precisely what is realized and cut off by the path toward a superior fruit — exactly as the path toward a superior fruit is not gathered within this fruit, so too, by the same principle, should this be understood. As for the non-analytical cessations possessed by once-returners: this refers to a once-returner's attainment of non-analytical cessation with respect to the three realms and undefiled dharmas — although he possesses this non-analytical cessation, this non-analytical cessation is not gathered within the fruit of once-returning, for what reason? Because non-analytical cessation is karmically neutral, while the fruit of once-returning is wholesome. Suppose a dharma is gathered within the fruit of once-returning — is it therefore an undefiled dharma? The answer: it is so, since the conditioned and unconditioned fruit of once-returning are, both alike, undefiled.