The Fourfold Ledger of Possession
Fascicle 67 completes the learner- and undefiled-dharma containment ledger for non-returners and arhats, recasts the whole question of dharma-possession as a fourfold tetralemma across all four fruits, and turns to the long debate over whether one of resolve-through-faith ever sharpens his faculty to become one who has attained through vision — canvassing rival theories, the Venerable Buddhapālita's six distinguishing marks, and the detailed ledger of exactly where and how much is gained and lost at each stage of faculty-change. This page carries Ru-Yi's complete translation.
Translation Method
The Chinese source is Xuánzàng's seventh-century translation of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (阿毘達磨大毘婆沙論), preserved in the Taishō canon (T1545, vol. 27) via the CBETA digital edition — public domain text, translated directly from the Chinese. The English wording throughout is Ru-Yi's own, and the reading notes are original, grounded in standard Sarvāstivāda scholarship rather than a specific named commentator's lecture transcript.
Fascicle 67 continues the Sentient-Being Nyāsa (結蘊第二中有情納息第三之五), completing the dharma-containment ledger begun in the previous fascicle, recasting it as a systematic fourfold tetralemma, and turning to the extended technical debate over faculty-change (轉根) between the two learner lineages. Terms established in earlier fascicles recur here and are not re-explained at each occurrence.
Classical text is set in the left-hand column below, our English in the right.
1. The Non-Returner's and Arhat's Remaining Undefiled Dharmas
Opening part five of the Sentient-Being Nyāsa, the treatise completes the containment ledger begun in the previous fascicle, working through the undefiled dharmas possessed by non-returners and by arhats. Each fruit gathers within it the faculties of its own lineage, whether of resolve-through-faith or of attainment-through-vision, together with the relevant cutting-off of dharmas abandoned by seeing and cultivation, while excluding the paths of further progress aimed at a fruit not yet attained and the karmically neutral non-analytical cessations a practitioner may happen to possess.
結蘊第二中有情納息第三之五諸不還者所成就無漏法。此法不還果攝耶。答或攝或不攝。義不定故。云何攝。答有為無為不還果已得不失。有為不還果者。謂道類智等。或離欲染第九解脫道等及彼眷屬。無為不還果者。謂三界見所斷法斷。及欲界修所斷法斷。已得者。謂信勝解已得信勝解不還果攝種性諸根。見至已得見至不還果攝種性諸根。及已得三界見所斷法斷。并欲界修所斷法斷。不失者。謂信勝解不轉根作見至故。
Continuing the Sentient-Being Nyāsa within the second, the Fetters Aggregate, part five. The undefiled 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 and unconditioned fruit of non-returning, already attained and not lost. The conditioned fruit of non-returning refers to 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; the unconditioned fruit of non-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 dharmas 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 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, 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 dharmas 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
不失信勝解不還果攝種性諸根。或不退失此及欲界修所斷。法斷。
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 these, together with the cutting-off of the desire realm's own dharmas abandoned by cultivation.
云何不攝。答諸不還者所得勝進無漏根等有為法。及彼所證諸結盡。并不還者所成就非擇滅。諸不還者所得勝進無漏根等有為法者。謂離初靜慮乃至非想非非想處染。諸加行道無間道。及有學解脫道勝進道。如是無漏法。不還者雖成就。而非不還果所攝。以勝果道非果攝故。及彼所證諸結盡者。謂初靜慮乃至無所有處。各九品修所斷法斷。及非想非非想處前八品修所斷法斷。是勝果道所證斷故。如勝果道非此果攝。并不還者所成就非擇滅者。謂不還者於三界及無漏法得非擇滅。彼雖成就此非擇滅。而此非擇滅非不還果攝。所以者何。非擇滅是無記。不還果是善故。設法不還果攝。此是無漏法耶。答如是。謂有為無為不還果。俱是無漏故。諸阿羅漢所成就無漏法。此法阿羅漢果攝耶。答或攝或不攝。義不定故。云何攝。答有為無為阿羅漢果已得不失。有為阿羅漢果者。謂盡智無生智無學正見及彼眷屬。無為阿羅漢果者。謂三界見修所斷法斷。
How are they not gathered within it? The answer: the conditioned dharmas possessed by non-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 non-returners. As for the conditioned dharmas possessed by non-returners, such as the undefiled faculties of further progress: this refers to 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. Undefiled 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. As for the cutting-off of fetters thereby realized: this refers to the cutting-off of each of the nine grades of affliction abandoned by cultivation belonging to the first dhyāna, up through the sphere of nothingness, together with the cutting-off of the first eight grades of affliction abandoned by cultivation belonging to the realm of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, 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 non-returners: this refers to a non-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 non-returning, for what reason? Because non-analytical cessation is karmically neutral, while the fruit of non-returning is wholesome. Suppose a dharma is gathered within the fruit of non-returning — is it therefore an undefiled dharma? The answer: it is so, since the conditioned and unconditioned fruit of non-returning are, both alike, undefiled. The undefiled dharmas possessed by arhats — are these dharmas gathered within the fruit of arhatship? 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 arhatship, already attained and not lost. The conditioned fruit of arhatship refers to the cognition of exhaustion, the cognition of non-arising, and non-learner right view, together with its own retinue; the unconditioned fruit of arhatship refers to the cutting-off of the dharmas abandoned by both seeing and cultivation across the three realms.
已得者。謂時解脫已得時解脫阿羅漢果攝種性諸根。不時解脫已得不時解脫阿羅漢果攝種性諸根。及已得三界見修所斷法斷。不失者。謂時解脫不轉根作不時解脫故。不失時解脫阿羅漢果攝種性諸根。或不退失此及三界修所斷法斷。云何不攝。答阿羅漢所成就非擇滅。謂阿羅漢於三界及無漏法得非擇滅。彼雖成就此非擇滅。而此非擇滅非阿羅漢果攝。所以者何。非擇滅是無記。阿羅漢果是善故。設法阿羅漢果攝。此是無漏法耶。答如是。謂有為無為阿羅漢果俱是無漏故。
As for already attained: this refers to one liberated-in-season who has already attained the faculties of his own lineage gathered within the fruit of arhatship proper to one liberated-in-season, and one liberated-beyond-season who has already attained the faculties of his own lineage gathered within the fruit of arhatship proper to one liberated-beyond-season, together with having already attained the cutting-off of the dharmas abandoned by both seeing and cultivation across the three realms. As for not lost: this refers to one liberated-in-season who has not turned his faculty to become one liberated-beyond-season, and so has not lost the faculties of his own lineage gathered within the fruit of arhatship proper to one liberated-in-season, or has not regressed from these, together with the cutting-off of the dharmas abandoned by cultivation across the three realms. How are they not gathered within it? The answer: the non-analytical cessations possessed by an arhat — that is, an arhat'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 arhatship, for what reason? Because non-analytical cessation is karmically neutral, while the fruit of arhatship is wholesome. Suppose a dharma is gathered within the fruit of arhatship — is it therefore an undefiled dharma? The answer: it is so, since the conditioned and unconditioned fruit of arhatship are, both alike, undefiled.
The arhat's own ledger introduces a genuinely new distinction not needed for the three lower fruits — liberated-in-season versus liberated-beyond-season — since an arhat's lineage is sorted by a different axis than a learner's, no longer resolve-through-faith versus attainment-through-vision, but the capacity to enter cessation at will versus the need for favorable conditions; the underlying logic of the ledger itself, however, remains exactly the same as before.
2. The Fourfold Analysis Introduced: What Stream-Enterers and Once-Returners Possess
The treatise now recasts its entire containment question as a tetralemma, since possession and fruit-inclusion turn out to stand in a relation now broader, now narrower rather than simple identity. A stream-enterer possesses contaminated dharmas — wholesome, defiled, and neutral-and-unobscured — that the purely undefiled fruit cannot contain; conversely the fruit contains the case of a not-yet-attained or already-lost fruit that a given individual does not, at that moment, possess. Only the mutual overlap forms the third alternative, and only what is named in none of these three forms the residual fourth. The same fourfold pattern is then carried through for once-returners.
諸法預流者成就。此法預流果攝耶。答應作四句。此成就果攝互有寬狹故。有法預流者成就非預流果攝。謂預流者所得勝進無漏根等有為法。及彼所證諸結盡。并預流者所成就非擇滅有漏法。此中有四法。前三如前說。彼所成就有漏法者總有三種。謂善染污無覆無記。善復有二。謂加行善及生得善。染污謂三界修所斷染法。無覆無記謂威儀路工巧處異熟生。如是諸法預流者成就非預流果攝。果唯無漏。此有漏故。有法預流果攝非預流者成就。謂預流果未得已失。未得者。謂信勝解未得見至預流果攝種性諸根。及見至不得信勝解預流果攝種性諸根。已失者。謂信勝解轉根作見至故。失信勝解預流果攝種性諸根。或有退失。有法預流者成就亦預流果攝。謂預流果已得不失。應知此中義如前說。有法非預流者成就亦非預流果攝。謂除前相。此中相聲即名所表。謂若法已稱已說名所表者作前三句。此中除之若法未稱未說名所表者作第四句。此復云何。謂善染污無覆無記。善有二種。謂有漏及無漏。有漏善者。謂預流者所不成就加行離染生得善。無漏善者。謂預流者所不成就下位上位一切聖道。及所未得上位擇滅。染污者。謂三界見所斷染法。及預流者已斷欲界修所斷染法。無覆無記者。謂預流者所不成就威儀路工巧處異熟生。及一切變化心等。如是諸法是第四句。諸法一來者成就此法一來果攝耶。答應作四句。此成就果攝互有寬狹故。有法一來者成就非一來果攝。謂一來者所得勝進無漏根等有為法。及彼所證諸結盡。并一來者所成就非擇滅有漏法。此中有四法。前三如前說。彼所成就有漏法者總有三種。謂善染污無覆無記。善復有二。謂加行善及生得善。染污謂欲界後三品修所斷染法。及色無色界修所斷染法。無覆無記謂威儀路工巧處異熟生。如是諸法。一來者成就。非一來果攝。果唯無漏。此有漏故。有法一來果攝非一來者成就。謂一來果未得已失。未得者。謂信勝解未得見至一來果攝種性諸根。及見至不得信勝解一來果攝種性諸根。已失者。謂信勝解轉根作見至故。失信勝解一來果攝種性諸根。或有退失。有法一來者成就亦一來果攝。謂一來果已得不失。應知此中義如前說。有法非一來者成就亦非一來果攝。謂除前相。此中相聲即名所表。謂若法已稱已說名所表者作前三句。此中除之。若法未稱未說名所表者作第四句。此復云何。謂善染污無覆無記。善有二種。謂有漏及無漏。有漏善者。謂一來者所不成就加行離染生得善。無漏善者。
Every dharma a stream-enterer possesses — is this dharma gathered within the fruit of stream-entry? The answer: this ought to be cast as a tetralemma, since what one possesses and what the fruit contains stand, to each other, in a relation now broader, now narrower. There is a dharma a stream-enterer possesses that is not gathered within the fruit of stream-entry: this refers to the conditioned dharmas possessed by stream-enterers, such as the undefiled faculties of further progress, together with the cutting-off of fetters thereby realized, together with the contaminated dharmas — the non-analytical cessations — possessed by stream-enterers. Here there are four such dharmas; the first three are as stated above. As for the contaminated dharmas he possesses, these are, in total, of three kinds: wholesome, defiled, and neutral-and-unobscured. The wholesome is, further, of two kinds: wholesome arising through effort, and wholesome arising from birth. The defiled refers to the defiled dharmas abandoned by cultivation across the three realms. The neutral-and-unobscured refers to deportment, craft, and the ripened result of past deeds. Dharmas such as these are possessed by stream-enterers yet are not gathered within the fruit of stream-entry, since the fruit is solely undefiled, while these are contaminated. There is a dharma gathered within the fruit of stream-entry that is not possessed by a stream-enterer: this refers to the fruit of stream-entry not yet attained, or already lost. As for not yet attained: this refers to one of resolve-through-faith who has not yet attained the faculties of his own lineage gathered within the fruit of stream-entry proper to one who has attained through vision, and one who has attained through vision who has not obtained the faculties of his own lineage gathered within the fruit of stream-entry proper to one of resolve-through-faith. As for already lost: this refers to one of resolve-through-faith who, by turning his faculty to become one who has attained through vision, thereby loses the faculties of his own lineage gathered within the fruit of stream-entry proper to one of resolve-through-faith, or has regressed from them. There is a dharma a stream-enterer possesses that is also gathered within the fruit of stream-entry: this refers to the fruit of stream-entry already attained and not lost — the meaning here should be understood exactly as stated above. There is a dharma neither possessed by a stream-enterer nor gathered within the fruit of stream-entry: this refers to whatever is excluded from the foregoing cases. Here, the term 'case' denotes precisely what a dharma is named and stated to be — that is, whatever dharma has already been named and stated forms one of the first three alternatives, and, once these are excluded, whatever dharma has not yet been named or stated forms the fourth alternative. And what, further, is this fourth alternative? It refers to the wholesome, the defiled, and the neutral-and-unobscured. The wholesome is of two kinds: contaminated and undefiled. The contaminated wholesome refers to the wholesome arising through effort or from birth not possessed by stream-enterers. The undefiled wholesome refers to every noble path of a lower or higher stage not possessed by stream-enterers, together with the cessation-through-discernment of a higher stage not yet attained. The defiled refers to the defiled dharmas abandoned by seeing across the three realms, together with the desire realm's own defiled dharmas abandoned by cultivation already cut off by stream-enterers. The neutral-and-unobscured refers to the deportment, craft, and ripened result of past deeds not possessed by stream-enterers, together with every transformation-mind and the like. Dharmas such as these form the fourth alternative. Every dharma a once-returner possesses — is this dharma gathered within the fruit of once-returning? The answer: this ought likewise to be cast as a tetralemma, since what one possesses and what the fruit contains stand, to each other, in a relation now broader, now narrower. There is a dharma a once-returner possesses that is not gathered within the fruit of once-returning: this refers to 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 contaminated dharmas — the non-analytical cessations — possessed by once-returners. Here there are four such dharmas; the first three are as stated above. As for the contaminated dharmas he possesses, these are, in total, of three kinds: wholesome, defiled, and neutral-and-unobscured. The wholesome is, further, of two kinds: wholesome arising through effort, and wholesome arising from birth. The defiled refers to the desire realm's own last three grades of affliction abandoned by cultivation, together with the defiled dharmas abandoned by cultivation in the form and formless realms. The neutral-and-unobscured refers to deportment, craft, and the ripened result of past deeds. Dharmas such as these are possessed by once-returners yet are not gathered within the fruit of once-returning, since the fruit is solely undefiled, while these are contaminated. There is a dharma gathered within the fruit of once-returning that is not possessed by a once-returner: this refers to the fruit of once-returning not yet attained, or already lost. As for not yet attained: this refers to one of resolve-through-faith who has not yet attained the faculties of his own lineage gathered within the fruit of once-returning proper to one who has attained through vision, and one who has attained through vision who has not obtained the faculties of his own lineage gathered within the fruit of once-returning proper to one of resolve-through-faith. As for already lost: this refers to one of resolve-through-faith who, by turning his faculty to become one who has attained through vision, thereby loses the faculties of his own lineage gathered within the fruit of once-returning proper to one of resolve-through-faith, or has regressed from them. There is a dharma a once-returner possesses that is also gathered within the fruit of once-returning: this refers to the fruit of once-returning already attained and not lost — the meaning here should be understood exactly as stated above. There is a dharma neither possessed by a once-returner nor gathered within the fruit of once-returning: this refers to whatever is excluded from the foregoing cases. Here, the term 'case' denotes precisely what a dharma is named and stated to be — that is, whatever dharma has already been named and stated forms one of the first three alternatives, and, once these are excluded, whatever dharma has not yet been named or stated forms the fourth alternative. And what, further, is this fourth alternative? It refers to the wholesome, the defiled, and the neutral-and-unobscured. The wholesome is of two kinds: contaminated and undefiled. The contaminated wholesome refers to the wholesome arising through effort or from birth not possessed by once-returners. The undefiled wholesome refers to
謂一來者所不成就下位上位一切聖道。及所未得上位擇滅。染污者。謂三界見所斷染法。及一來者已斷欲界修所斷染法。無覆無記者。謂一來者所不成就威儀路工巧處異熟生。及一切變化心等。如是諸法是第四句。諸法不還者成就。此法不還果攝耶。答應作四句。此成就果攝互有寬狹故。有法不還者成就非不還果攝。謂不還者所得勝進無漏根等有為法。及彼所證諸結盡。并不還者所成就非擇滅有漏法。此中有四法。前三如前說。彼所成就有漏法者總有三種。謂善染污無覆無記。善復有三。謂加行離染生得善。染污。謂色無色界修所斷染法。無覆無記。謂威儀路工巧處異熟生及變化心等。如是諸法。不還者成就。非不還果攝。果唯無漏。此有漏故。
every noble path of a lower or higher stage not possessed by once-returners, together with the cessation-through-discernment of a higher stage not yet attained. The defiled refers to the defiled dharmas abandoned by seeing across the three realms, together with the desire realm's own defiled dharmas abandoned by cultivation already cut off by once-returners. The neutral-and-unobscured refers to the deportment, craft, and ripened result of past deeds not possessed by once-returners, together with every transformation-mind and the like. Dharmas such as these form the fourth alternative. Every dharma a non-returner possesses — is this dharma gathered within the fruit of non-returning? The answer: this ought likewise to be cast as a tetralemma, since what one possesses and what the fruit contains stand, to each other, in a relation now broader, now narrower. There is a dharma a non-returner possesses that is not gathered within the fruit of non-returning: this refers to the conditioned dharmas possessed by non-returners, such as the undefiled faculties of further progress, together with the cutting-off of fetters thereby realized, together with the contaminated dharmas — the non-analytical cessations — possessed by non-returners. Here there are four such dharmas; the first three are as stated above. As for the contaminated dharmas he possesses, these are, in total, of three kinds: wholesome, defiled, and neutral-and-unobscured. The wholesome is, further, of three kinds: wholesome arising through effort, wholesome arising from becoming free of defilement, and wholesome arising from birth. The defiled refers to the defiled dharmas abandoned by cultivation in the form and formless realms. The neutral-and-unobscured refers to deportment, craft, the ripened result of past deeds, and the transformation-mind and the like. Dharmas such as these are possessed by non-returners yet are not gathered within the fruit of non-returning, since the fruit is solely undefiled, while these are contaminated.
The tetralemma is doing real conceptual work that a simple yes/no could not: it separates, cleanly, four genuinely different relations — possessed-but-excluded, contained-but-not-possessed, both, and neither — that a flatter question like 'is this dharma the fruit?' would collapse into a single, misleading answer.
3. The Fourfold Analysis Completed: Non-Returning and Arhatship
The same tetralemma is worked through for non-returners and arhats, with one structural variation for the arhat's own case: since arhatship admits of no further, superior fruit to seek, the excluded first alternative shrinks to only the non-analytical cessations he happens to possess, no further paths of progress remaining to exclude, while the undefiled wholesome of the residual fourth alternative simply becomes every dharma still belonging to a learner.
有法不還果攝。非不還者成就。謂不還果未得已失。未得者。謂信勝解未得見至不還果攝種性諸根。及見至不得信勝解不還果攝種性諸根。已失者。謂信勝解轉根作見至故。失信勝解不還果攝種性諸根。或有退失。有法不還者成就亦不還果攝。謂不還果已得不失。
There is a dharma gathered within the fruit of non-returning that is not possessed by a non-returner: this refers to the fruit of non-returning not yet attained, or already lost. As for not yet attained: this refers to one of resolve-through-faith who has not yet attained the faculties of his own lineage gathered within the fruit of non-returning proper to one who has attained through vision, and one who has attained through vision who has not obtained the faculties of his own lineage gathered within the fruit of non-returning proper to one of resolve-through-faith. As for already lost: this refers to one of resolve-through-faith who, by turning his faculty to become one who has attained through vision, thereby loses the faculties of his own lineage gathered within the fruit of non-returning proper to one of resolve-through-faith, or has regressed from them. There is a dharma a non-returner possesses that is also gathered within the fruit of non-returning: this refers to the fruit of non-returning already attained and not lost —
應知此中義如前說。有法非不還者成就亦非不還果攝。謂除前相。
the meaning here should be understood exactly as stated above. There is a dharma neither possessed by a non-returner nor gathered within the fruit of non-returning: this refers to whatever is excluded from the foregoing cases.
此中相聲即名所表。謂若法已稱已說名所表者作前三句。此中除之。若法未稱未說名所表者作第四句。此復云何。謂善染污無覆無記。善有二種。謂有漏及無漏。有漏善者。謂不還果所不成就加行離染生得善。無漏善者。謂不還者所不成就下位上位一切聖道。及所未得上位擇滅。染污者。謂三界見所斷染法。及欲界修所斷染法。無覆無記者。謂不還者所不成就威儀路工巧處異熟生及變化心等。如是諸法是第四句。諸法阿羅漢成就。此法阿羅漢果攝耶。答應作四句。此成就果攝互有寬狹故。有法阿羅漢成就非阿羅漢果攝。謂阿羅漢所成就非擇滅有漏法。彼所成就非擇滅者。如前廣說。彼所成就有漏法者總有二種。謂善及無覆無記。善有三種。謂加行離染生得善。無覆無記。謂威儀路工巧處異熟生及變化心等。
Here, the term 'case' denotes precisely what a dharma is named and stated to be — that is, whatever dharma has already been named and stated forms one of the first three alternatives, and, once these are excluded, whatever dharma has not yet been named or stated forms the fourth alternative. And what, further, is this fourth alternative? It refers to the wholesome, the defiled, and the neutral-and-unobscured. The wholesome is of two kinds: contaminated and undefiled. The contaminated wholesome refers to the wholesome arising through effort or from birth not possessed by the fruit of non-returning. The undefiled wholesome refers to every noble path of a lower or higher stage not possessed by non-returners, together with the cessation-through-discernment of a higher stage not yet attained. The defiled refers to the defiled dharmas abandoned by seeing across the three realms, together with the desire realm's own defiled dharmas abandoned by cultivation. The neutral-and-unobscured refers to the deportment, craft, ripened result of past deeds, and transformation-mind and the like, not possessed by non-returners. Dharmas such as these form the fourth alternative. Every dharma an arhat possesses — is this dharma gathered within the fruit of arhatship? The answer: this ought likewise to be cast as a tetralemma, since what one possesses and what the fruit contains stand, to each other, in a relation now broader, now narrower. There is a dharma an arhat possesses that is not gathered within the fruit of arhatship: this refers to the contaminated dharmas — the non-analytical cessations — possessed by an arhat, this non-analytical cessation he possesses being exactly as stated at length above. The contaminated dharmas he possesses are, in total, of two kinds: wholesome, and neutral-and-unobscured. The wholesome is of three kinds: wholesome arising through effort, wholesome arising from becoming free of defilement, and wholesome arising from birth. The neutral-and-unobscured refers to deportment, craft, the ripened result of past deeds, and the transformation-mind and the like.
如是諸法。阿羅漢成就。非阿羅漢果攝。果唯無漏。此有漏故。有法阿羅漢果攝非阿羅漢成就。謂阿羅漢果未得已失。未得者。謂時解脫未得不時解脫阿羅漢果攝種性諸根。及不時解脫不得時解脫阿羅漢果攝種性諸根。已失者。謂時解脫轉根作不時解脫故。失時解脫阿羅漢果攝種性諸根。或有退失。有法阿羅漢成就亦阿羅漢果攝。謂阿羅漢果已得不失。應知此中義如前說。有法非阿羅漢成就亦非阿羅漢果攝。謂除前相。此中相聲即名所表。謂若法已稱已說名所表者作前三句。此中除之。若法未稱未說名所表者作第四句。
Dharmas such as these are possessed by an arhat yet are not gathered within the fruit of arhatship, since the fruit is solely undefiled, while these are contaminated. There is a dharma gathered within the fruit of arhatship that is not possessed by an arhat: this refers to the fruit of arhatship not yet attained, or already lost. As for not yet attained: this refers to one liberated-in-season who has not yet attained the faculties of his own lineage gathered within the fruit of arhatship proper to one liberated-beyond-season, and one liberated-beyond-season who has not obtained the faculties of his own lineage gathered within the fruit of arhatship proper to one liberated-in-season. As for already lost: this refers to one liberated-in-season who, by turning his faculty to become one liberated-beyond-season, thereby loses the faculties of his own lineage gathered within the fruit of arhatship proper to one liberated-in-season, or has regressed from them. There is a dharma an arhat possesses that is also gathered within the fruit of arhatship: this refers to the fruit of arhatship already attained and not lost — the meaning here should be understood exactly as stated above. There is a dharma neither possessed by an arhat nor gathered within the fruit of arhatship: this refers to whatever is excluded from the foregoing cases. Here, the term 'case' denotes precisely what a dharma is named and stated to be — that is, whatever dharma has already been named and stated forms one of the first three alternatives, and, once these are excluded, whatever dharma has not yet been named or stated forms the fourth alternative.
此復云何。謂善染污無覆無記。善有二種。謂有漏及無漏。有漏善者。謂阿羅漢所不成就加行離染生得善。無漏善者。謂諸學法。染污者。謂三界見修所斷染法。無覆無記者。謂阿羅漢所不成就威儀路工巧處異熟生及變化心等。如是諸法是第四句。
And what, further, is this fourth alternative? It refers to the wholesome, the defiled, and the neutral-and-unobscured. The wholesome is of two kinds: contaminated and undefiled. The contaminated wholesome refers to the wholesome arising through effort or from birth not possessed by an arhat. The undefiled wholesome refers to every dharma still belonging to a learner. The defiled refers to the defiled dharmas abandoned by both seeing and cultivation across the three realms. The neutral-and-unobscured refers to the deportment, craft, ripened result of past deeds, and transformation-mind and the like, not possessed by an arhat. Dharmas such as these form the fourth alternative.
That the arhat's own fourth alternative collapses so cleanly into 'every learner-dharma whatsoever' is a quiet but genuine payoff of the ledger's own design: once a fruit admits no further progress, the entire apparatus built to track partial overlap between possession and containment simplifies almost to the point of triviality, confirming that the earlier fruits' own complexity tracked something real — the presence of a further path still to be walked.
4. Does One of Resolve-through-Faith Change Faculty to Become One Who Has Attained through Vision?
A genuinely difficult question opens: does a practitioner of the resolve-through-faith lineage ever sharpen his faculty into the attainment-through-vision lineage? Both a yes and a no generate scriptural difficulties — if yes, the Faculties Aggregate's own list of exceptions to "every faculty-change is a passing from one fruit to another" ought to have named it but does not; if no, the treatise's own statement that the fruit of stream-entry can be "not yet attained" or "already lost," the Cognition Aggregate's account of a stream-enterer's three concentrations, and the Identity-Body Treatise's account of an arhat who regresses, turns faculty, and regains his fruit, all become impossible to explain. The Venerable Saṃghavasu resolves this by holding that faculty-sharpening at the learner's stage is nothing but a case of attaining a new fruit under another name — a proposal the compilers reject outright.
問信勝解為轉根作見至不。設爾何失。二俱有過。所以者何。若信勝解轉根作見至者。後根蘊中何故不說。如彼說若捨無漏根。得無漏根彼皆從果至果耶。答若從果至果。彼皆捨無漏根得無漏根。有捨無漏根得無漏根非從果至果謂現觀邊道類智現在前時。及時解脫阿羅漢練根作不動時。此本論師有何勞倦而不說。信勝解練根作見至時。若信勝解不轉根作見至者。此中所說當云何通。如此說。有法預流果攝非預流者成就。謂預流果未得已失。若信勝解不轉根作見至者。如何預流果有得已而失耶。後智蘊說復云何通。如彼說。
One asks: does one of resolve-through-faith turn his faculty to become one who has attained through vision, or not? Whichever position is granted, what fault follows? Both alternatives carry a fault. For what reason is this so? If one of resolve-through-faith does turn his faculty to become one who has attained through vision, then why does the later Faculties Aggregate not state this — as when it states that whoever relinquishes an undefiled faculty and attains an undefiled faculty does so, in every case, by passing from one fruit to another? The answer: whoever passes from one fruit to another does, in every case, relinquish an undefiled faculty and attain an undefiled faculty; but there are cases of relinquishing an undefiled faculty and attaining an undefiled faculty that are not a passing from one fruit to another — namely, at the moment the subsequent cognition regarding the path at the very margin of direct realization becomes presently manifest, and at the moment an arhat liberated-in-season sharpens his faculty to become one unshakeable. What trouble would it have cost this treatise's own original master to state, further, the case of one of resolve-through-faith sharpening his faculty to become one who has attained through vision? And if one of resolve-through-faith does not turn his faculty to become one who has attained through vision, how, then, is what is stated here to be reconciled — as when it states that there is a dharma gathered within the fruit of stream-entry that is not possessed by a stream-enterer, namely, the fruit of stream-entry not yet attained, or already lost? If one of resolve-through-faith does not turn his faculty to become one who has attained through vision, how could the fruit of stream-entry ever be a case of having been attained and then lost? And how, further, is the later Cognition Aggregate's own statement to be reconciled? As it states:
預流者於三三摩地未來皆成就過去。若已滅不失即成就現在。若現在前即成就。若信勝解不轉根作見至者。如何預流者有三摩地已滅而失。為簡彼故說有已滅而不失耶。識身論說復云何通。如彼說有過去無學心是已了非今了非當了。謂時解脫阿羅漢退阿羅漢果作信勝解。彼練根作見至已還得阿羅漢果。彼時解脫道所攝無學心。是已成就非今成就非當成就。彼於成就施設了聲。是已了者是已成就非今了者非今成就。非當了者非當成就。若信勝解不轉根作見至者。如何彼說時解脫阿羅漢退阿羅漢果作信勝解。練根作見至已還得阿羅漢果耶。答應作是說。有信勝解轉根作見至。
a stream-enterer, with respect to the three concentrations, possesses every future instance, and, of the past, possesses whichever has ceased without being lost — this constituting possession in the present; and whichever is presently manifest is likewise possessed. If one of resolve-through-faith does not turn his faculty to become one who has attained through vision, how could a stream-enterer's own concentration, once it has ceased, ever be lost — is it in order to distinguish this case that the text states there is a ceasing without being lost? And how, further, is the Identity-Body Treatise's own statement to be reconciled? As it states: there is a past non-learner mind that is 'already realized,' not 'presently realized,' not 'yet to be realized' — that is, an arhat liberated-in-season who regresses from the fruit of arhatship and becomes one of resolve-through-faith, and who, having sharpened his faculty to become one who has attained through vision, thereupon regains the fruit of arhatship — the non-learner mind belonging to that former path of liberation-in-season is 'already possessed,' not 'presently possessed,' not 'yet to be possessed'; and, with respect to the term 'realized' as applied to possession, 'already realized' means 'already possessed,' 'not presently realized' means 'not presently possessed,' and 'not yet to be realized' means 'not yet to be possessed.' If one of resolve-through-faith does not turn his faculty to become one who has attained through vision, how could that treatise state that an arhat liberated-in-season, having regressed from the fruit of arhatship and become one of resolve-through-faith, thereupon sharpens his faculty to become one who has attained through vision and regains the fruit of arhatship? The answer: one should say as follows — there is indeed a case of one of resolve-through-faith turning his faculty to become one who has attained through vision.
問若爾。善通後所設難。後根蘊中何故不說。答後根蘊中應作是說。有捨無漏根得無漏根非從果至果謂現觀邊道類智現在前時。信勝解練根作見至時。退法等練根作思法等時。及時解脫練根作不動時。而不作是說者。有別意趣。謂彼舉始舉終。影顯中故說。現觀邊道類智現在前時者。即是舉始說時解脫練根作不動時者。即是舉終。由舉始終。影顯中間。有信勝解練根作見至時。若學位中無練根義至無學位亦應如是。如學位中無救護無勢力。無學位中亦應爾。故亦顯有退法等轉根作思法等。如舉始終如是。舉初入已度加行究竟應知亦爾。尊者僧伽筏蘇說曰。信勝解練根作見至。即攝在根蘊所說中。即是從果至果攝故。謂預流者修習練根加行道已趣一來果。若得一來果即名轉根。得果與轉根時。無差別。若一來者修習練根加行道已趣不還果。若得不還果即名轉根。得果與轉根時無差別。問何故無有得預流果阿羅漢果即名練根。彼作是答。出過欲界是無始來數數舊法。無一有情於欲界染未曾離故。由此得有求轉根者倍離全離欲界染故。得二果時亦即轉根。出過有頂。非無始來數數舊法。無一有情於有頂染曾已離故。由此無有求轉根者分離全離有頂染故。得二果時亦即轉根。問如汝所說學位練根進得二果。
One asks: granting this, it soundly reconciles the objection just raised — for what reason, then, does the later Faculties Aggregate not state it? The answer: the later Faculties Aggregate ought properly to state as follows — there is a case of relinquishing an undefiled faculty and attaining an undefiled faculty that is not a passing from one fruit to another, namely, at the moment the subsequent cognition regarding the path at the very margin of direct realization becomes presently manifest, at the moment one of resolve-through-faith sharpens his faculty to become one who has attained through vision, at the moment one prone to regression and the rest sharpen their faculty to become one capable of reflection and the rest, and at the moment one liberated-in-season sharpens his faculty to become one unshakeable — yet it does not state the matter this way, and there is a further, particular intent behind this: that treatise raises only the beginning and the end, letting these throw the middle into relief by implication, and it is for this reason that it speaks as it does. 'At the moment the subsequent cognition regarding the path at the very margin of direct realization becomes presently manifest' is precisely the raising of the beginning; 'at the moment one liberated-in-season sharpens his faculty to become one unshakeable' is precisely the raising of the end. By raising the beginning and the end, the middle is thrown into relief by implication, and there is thus, by implication, the case of one of resolve-through-faith sharpening his faculty to become one who has attained through vision at that same moment. If there were no such faculty-sharpening at the learner's stage, then, arriving at the non-learner's stage, this too ought to be so; exactly as, at the learner's stage, there is no one 'beyond rescue' or 'without power,' so too ought this be at the non-learner's stage — and it is for this reason that this passage likewise implies the presence of one prone to regression and the rest turning their faculty to become one capable of reflection and the rest. Exactly as the beginning and the end are raised here, so too should first entering, having already crossed over, undertaking the practice, and its final completion, be understood likewise. The Venerable Saṃghavasu says as follows: one of resolve-through-faith sharpening his faculty to become one who has attained through vision is precisely what is already gathered within what the Faculties Aggregate states, since this is precisely a passing from one fruit to another — that is, a stream-enterer who, having cultivated the aid to practice of faculty-sharpening, is proceeding toward the fruit of once-returning, is, once he attains the fruit of once-returning, thereby named as having turned his faculty; the moment of attaining the fruit and the moment of turning the faculty carry no distinction between them. And a once-returner who, having cultivated the aid to practice of faculty-sharpening, is proceeding toward the fruit of non-returning, is, once he attains the fruit of non-returning, thereby named as having turned his faculty; the moment of attaining the fruit and the moment of turning the faculty likewise carry no distinction between them. One asks: for what reason is there no case of attaining the fruit of stream-entry or the fruit of arhatship being itself named a faculty-sharpening? He answers as follows: transcending beyond the desire realm is an old matter, repeated again and again since beginningless time — there being no sentient being who has never once, at some time, become free of the desire realm's own defilement — and it is for this reason that there exists one who seeks to turn his faculty, whether by half or wholly becoming free of the desire realm's own defilement, and, at the moment he attains one of these two fruits, this is precisely also a turning of the faculty. Transcending beyond the peak of existence is not an old matter repeated since beginningless time — there being no sentient being who has ever, even once, already become free of the peak of existence's own defilement — and it is for this reason that there exists no one who seeks to turn his faculty, whether partly or wholly becoming free of the peak of existence's own defilement, and so, at the moment he attains these two fruits, this is likewise no case of turning the faculty. One asks: as you yourself state, faculty-sharpening at the learner's stage is precisely, by way of advancing, the attaining of one of the two fruits,
即是從果至果攝故不別說者。無學位中有六種性轉退法作思法。乃至轉安住作堪達時。後根蘊中何故不說。但說時解脫練根作不動耶。彼作是答。此亦攝在根蘊說中。所以者何。轉退法作思法時不捨退法根而得思法根。乃至轉安住作堪達時不捨前四根而得堪達根。若轉堪達作不動時頓捨前五根得不動根故。彼但說時解脫練根作不動時。捨無漏根得無漏根非從果至果。不說轉退法等作思法等。評曰。彼不應作是說。所以者何。尚無有一成就二根。況有成就五品根者。又不還者修習練根加行道已雖不能得阿羅漢果。何故不能轉作見至。諸異生輩雖不得果而有轉根。何緣聖者離得果時無轉根義。離染轉根加行各別。如何離染得二果時亦即轉根。故後根蘊舉始舉終影顯中故。不說信勝解練根作見至。亦不說退法等練根作思法等。有餘師說。無信勝解轉根作見至。
and is precisely what is already gathered within being a passing from one fruit to another, and it is for this reason that this is not separately stated — but at the non-learner's stage there are the six kinds of nature turning from prone-to-regression to becoming capable-of-reflection, up through turning from steadfast to becoming worthy-of-esteem — why, then, does the later Faculties Aggregate not state this, speaking only of one liberated-in-season sharpening his faculty to become one unshakeable? He answers as follows: this too is already gathered within what the Faculties Aggregate states, for what reason? Because, at the moment of turning from prone-to-regression to becoming capable-of-reflection, one does not relinquish the faculty of prone-to-regression in order to attain the faculty of capable-of-reflection, and so on, up through the moment of turning from steadfast to becoming worthy-of-esteem, where one does not relinquish any of the preceding four faculties in order to attain the faculty of worthy-of-esteem; but, at the moment of turning from worthy-of-esteem to becoming unshakeable, one relinquishes, all at once, the preceding five faculties in order to attain the faculty of unshakeable — and it is for this reason that that treatise speaks only of one liberated-in-season sharpening his faculty to become one unshakeable as a case of relinquishing an undefiled faculty and attaining an undefiled faculty that is not a passing from one fruit to another, and does not speak of turning from prone-to-regression to becoming capable-of-reflection, and so on. The compilers say: this ought not to be said, for what reason? There is not even a single case of possessing two faculties at once, let alone possessing five grades of faculty at once. And further, once a non-returner has cultivated the aid to practice of faculty-sharpening, although he may be incapable of attaining the fruit of arhatship, for what reason should he be incapable of turning his faculty to become one who has attained through vision? Ordinary persons, though they do not attain a fruit at all, still possess faculty-turning — for what reason, then, should a noble one, at the very moment of becoming free of defilement and attaining a fruit, lack this same sense of faculty-turning? Becoming free of defilement and turning one's faculty are, moreover, each a separate undertaking — how, then, could becoming free of defilement and attaining these two fruits also, at that very same moment, constitute a turning of the faculty? It is therefore the case that the later Faculties Aggregate raises only the beginning and the end, letting these throw the middle into relief by implication, and it is for this reason that it does not speak of one of resolve-through-faith sharpening his faculty to become one who has attained through vision, nor does it speak of one prone to regression and the rest sharpening their faculty to become one capable of reflection and the rest. Other masters say: there is no case of one of resolve-through-faith turning his faculty to become one who has attained through vision.
Saṃghavasu's proposal is elegant exactly because it dissolves the puzzle rather than answering it: if faculty-sharpening simply is fruit-attainment wearing a different name, there is no need to explain why the Faculties Aggregate omits it as a separate case — but the compilers' refutation shows this elegance is bought too cheaply, since it would require a single moment to carry five ranked faculties simultaneously, an absurdity the treatise will not tolerate merely to save a scriptural harmonization.
5. The Rival "No Faculty-Change" Theory and Its Own Scriptural Reconciliations
A rival school denies outright that resolve-through-faith ever changes faculty into attainment-through-vision, forcing an entirely different explanation for how the fruit of stream-entry can be spoken of as "not yet attained" or "already lost." Two positions are canvassed — that the fruit simply has no past or future attainment at all, or that the fruit comes in three internal grades (lower, middle, upper), so that reaching a higher grade renders the lower grades "transcended" and hence nominally "lost," even without any literal faculty-change ever having occurred.
問若爾善通根蘊所說。此中所說當云何通。如此說有預流果未得已失。若信勝解不轉根作見至者。如何預流果有得已而失耶。彼於此中有作是說。不成就過去未來得。有作是說。有成就過去未來得。
One asks: granting this, it soundly reconciles what the Faculties Aggregate states — how, then, is what is stated here to be reconciled? As it states, there is a fruit of stream-entry not yet attained, or already lost. If one of resolve-through-faith does not turn his faculty to become one who has attained through vision, how could the fruit of stream-entry ever be a case of having been attained and then lost? Regarding this, there are those who say: it does not possess a past or future attainment; there are those who say: it does possess a past or future attainment.
若作是說。不成就過去未來得者。彼說預流果得在未來名未得。在過去名已失。在現在名成就。若作是說。有成就過去未來得者。彼說預流果有三種。謂下中上。若初住下預流果時於中上預流果名未得。於下品預流果名成就。不應說已失無所已失故。若初住中預流果時於上預流果名未得。於下預流果名已失。於中預流果名成就。
If it is said that it does not possess a past or future attainment, this holds that the attainment of the fruit of stream-entry, while still future, is named not yet attained; while already past, is named already lost; while presently manifest, is named possessed. If it is said that it does possess a past or future attainment, this holds that the fruit of stream-entry is of three kinds — lower, middle, and upper. If one first abides in the lower fruit of stream-entry, then, with respect to the middle and upper fruit of stream-entry, this is named not yet attained, while, with respect to the lower grade of the fruit of stream-entry, it is named possessed — it ought not to be said to be already lost, there being nothing there yet to be lost. If one first abides in the middle fruit of stream-entry, then, with respect to the upper fruit of stream-entry, this is named not yet attained, while, with respect to the lower fruit of stream-entry, it is named already lost, and, with respect to the middle fruit of stream-entry, it is named possessed.
若初住上預流果時於中下預流果名已失。於上預流果名成就。不應說未得無所未得故。問若初住中預流果者於下未得。若初住上預流果者於中下俱未得。如何說已失耶。彼作是答。超過彼故說名已失。謂彼先時有可得義今至勝位已超過彼更不可得故名已失。由斯理趣雖信勝解無有轉根作見至者。而得說預流果有未得已失義。後智蘊說復云何通。如彼說預流者於三三摩地未來皆成就過去。若已滅不失即成就現在。若現在前即成就。若信勝解不轉根作見至者。
If one first abides in the upper fruit of stream-entry, then, with respect to the middle and lower fruit of stream-entry, this is named already lost, while, with respect to the upper fruit of stream-entry, it is named possessed — it ought not to be said to be not yet attained, there being nothing there yet not attained. One asks: if one who first abides in the middle fruit of stream-entry has, with respect to the lower grade, not yet attained it, and one who first abides in the upper fruit of stream-entry has, with respect to both the middle and lower grades, not yet attained them, how, then, can it be said to be already lost? He answers as follows: it is precisely because one has transcended beyond that grade that it is named already lost — that is, that grade was formerly a possible object of attainment, but now, having arrived at a superior stage, one has already transcended beyond it and it can no longer be attained, and it is for this reason that it is named already lost. By this same principle, although one of resolve-through-faith never turns his faculty to become one who has attained through vision, it may still properly be said that the fruit of stream-entry admits of the sense of not-yet-attained and already-lost. And how, further, is the later Cognition Aggregate's own statement to be reconciled? As it states, a stream-enterer, with respect to the three concentrations, possesses every future instance, and, of the past, possesses whichever has ceased without being lost — this constituting possession in the present; and whichever is presently manifest is likewise possessed. If one of resolve-through-faith does not turn his faculty to become one who has attained through vision,
The move to reinterpret "already lost" as "already transcended" is a genuinely resourceful piece of exegesis: it preserves the letter of the disputed scriptural language while draining it of any commitment to an actual faculty-change event, showing that the same words can serve two rival metaphysical pictures once their operative terms are quietly redefined.
6. The Compilers' Verdict, and the Venerable Buddhapālita's Six Distinguishing Marks
The "no faculty-change" theory runs aground on the Identity-Body Treatise's own account of an arhat who regresses, becomes one of resolve-through-faith, sharpens his faculty, and regains arhatship — a passage its own proponent admits he cannot reconcile at all, prompting the compilers' final verdict: faculty-sharpening at the learner's stage is real, exactly as it is at the non-learner's stage, since a learner is no more "beyond rescue" than a non-learner. The Venerable Buddhapālita then supplies six distinguishing marks unique to this kind of faculty-change — desire realm only, dhyāna-based only, undefiled-path only, dharma-cognition only, post-regression only, and fruit-abiding only — each defended by its own brief rationale.
如何預流者有三三摩地已滅而失。為簡彼故說有已滅而不失耶。彼作是答。後智蘊中應作是說。預流者於三三摩地未來皆成就過去已滅即成就。不應說不失而說不失者是誦者錯謬。識身論說復云何通。如彼說時解脫阿羅漢退阿羅漢果作信勝解。練根作見至已還得阿羅漢果彼作是答。我不能通識身論文極明了故。評曰既不能通識身論說。又前損減智蘊論文。雖通此文亦不應理。故應信受有信勝解能轉根作見至。若有學位不能轉根。無學位中亦應不轉如有學位。無救護無勢力。無學位中亦應爾。故尊者佛護作如是說。信勝解轉根作見至有六事不共。一者在欲界不在色無色界。二者依靜慮不依無色定。三者用無漏道不用世俗道。四者用法智不用類智。五者是已退非未退。六者住果非住勝果道。問彼何故在欲界非在色無色界耶。彼作是答。由說法力方能轉根。唯欲界中有說者故。問彼何故依靜慮不依無色定耶。彼作是答。學位練根要依得果地。無依無色定得學果者。故學轉根不依無色。問彼何故用無漏道不用世俗道耶。彼作是答。要猛利道方能轉根。世俗道鈍故彼不用。問彼何故唯用法智不用類智。彼作是答。要生欲界方能轉根。欲界唯得法智自在。故彼不用類智轉根。問彼何故是已退者。非未退者。彼作是答。厭患退者方求練根。要曾退已而有厭患。故未退者無轉根義。問彼何故住果非住勝果道。彼作是答。若住勝果道而練根者。
how could a stream-enterer's own three concentrations, once they have ceased, ever be lost — is it in order to distinguish this case that the text states there is a ceasing without being lost? He answers as follows: the later Cognition Aggregate ought properly to state as follows — a stream-enterer, with respect to the three concentrations, possesses every future instance, and, of the past, possesses whichever has ceased; it ought not to state 'without being lost,' and, where it does state 'without being lost,' this is the reciter's own error. And how, further, is the Identity-Body Treatise's own statement to be reconciled? As it states, an arhat liberated-in-season who regresses from the fruit of arhatship and becomes one of resolve-through-faith, and who, having sharpened his faculty to become one who has attained through vision, thereupon regains the fruit of arhatship — he answers as follows: I myself am unable to reconcile this, since the Identity-Body Treatise's own text is extremely clear on this point. The compilers say: since this position is unable to reconcile the Identity-Body Treatise's own statement, and, moreover, does damage to the earlier Cognition Aggregate's own text, though it does succeed in reconciling this present passage, it still does not accord with what is reasonable. It should therefore be accepted, with confidence, that there is indeed a case of one of resolve-through-faith being capable of turning his faculty to become one who has attained through vision — for if there were no faculty-turning at the learner's stage, then there ought to be none at the non-learner's stage either, exactly as, at the learner's stage, there is no one beyond rescue or without power, so too ought this be at the non-learner's stage. It is for this reason that the Venerable Buddhapālita says as follows: one of resolve-through-faith turning his faculty to become one who has attained through vision possesses six features not shared by anything else. First, it occurs in the desire realm, not in the form or formless realm. Second, it relies upon dhyāna, not upon a formless attainment. Third, it employs the undefiled path, not the worldly path. Fourth, it employs dharma-cognition, not subsequent cognition. Fifth, it belongs to one who has already regressed, not one who has never regressed. Sixth, it occurs while abiding in a fruit, not while abiding in the path toward a superior fruit. One asks: for what reason does it occur in the desire realm, and not in the form or formless realm? He answers as follows: it is by the power of hearing the dharma expounded that one becomes capable of turning his faculty, and it is only in the desire realm that there exist those who expound it. One asks: for what reason does it rely upon dhyāna, and not upon a formless attainment? He answers as follows: faculty-sharpening at the learner's stage must rely upon the very stage at which the fruit was attained, and there is no case of attaining a learner's fruit by relying upon a formless attainment, and it is for this reason that faculty-turning at the learner's stage does not rely upon a formless attainment. One asks: for what reason does it employ the undefiled path, and not the worldly path? He answers as follows: it is only a sharp and forceful path that is capable of turning the faculty, and, the worldly path being dull, it is not employed for this. One asks: for what reason does it employ only dharma-cognition, and not subsequent cognition? He answers as follows: it is only by being born in the desire realm that one becomes capable of turning his faculty, and, in the desire realm, one attains mastery only of dharma-cognition, and it is for this reason that subsequent cognition is not employed for faculty-turning. One asks: for what reason does it belong to one who has already regressed, and not to one who has never regressed? He answers as follows: it is only one wearied and distressed by his own regression who seeks faculty-sharpening in the first place — one must first have regressed, and thereby feel weariness and distress, and it is for this reason that one who has never regressed has no occasion for faculty-turning. One asks: for what reason does it occur while abiding in a fruit, and not while abiding in the path toward a superior fruit? He answers as follows: were one to sharpen his faculty while abiding in the path toward a superior fruit,
應練根時捨多道得少道。彼應名退不名為進。故唯住果有轉根義。
then, at the very moment of faculty-sharpening, he would relinquish the greater path and attain the lesser path, and this ought to be named a regression, not an advance — and it is for this reason that faculty-turning occurs only while abiding in a fruit,
以練根時唯得果故。
since, at the moment of faculty-sharpening, only the fruit is attained.
That the theory's own defender concedes, in so many words, that he 'cannot reconcile' the Identity-Body Treatise is a rare moment of candid defeat in this text, and the compilers treat it exactly as such — not as one difficulty among several to be explained away, but as the single data point heavy enough to overturn an entire position, restoring faculty-change and setting up Buddhapālita's positive account in its place.
7. Three Marks Upheld, Three Rejected: The Abhidharma Masters Assess Buddhapālita's Six Points
The Abhidharma masters subject Buddhapālita's six marks to independent scrutiny, accepting the first three — desire realm only, dhyāna-based only, undefiled-path only — as sound, but rejecting the latter three as resting on an indeterminate generalization: mastery of dharma-cognition versus subsequent cognition, prior regression versus never having regressed, and fruit-abiding versus abiding in the path toward a superior fruit each turn out, on inspection, to admit of both possibilities rather than only the one Buddhapālita named.
阿毘達磨諸論師言。學轉根時於彼六事。三事應理三事不可。謂彼所說學位轉根在欲界非在色無色界者此事應理。唯欲界有轉根義故。又彼所說彼依靜慮不依無色定者此亦應理。唯依靜慮得學果故。又彼所說彼用無漏道不用世俗道者此亦應理。學位練根如見道故。然彼所言彼用法智不用類智者此事不可。所以者何。義不定故。謂生欲界或有於法智得自在非類智。或有於類智得自在非法智故。又彼所言是已退者非未退者。此亦不可。所以者何。義不定故。謂或已退或復未退然怖畏退或求勝根而練根故。又彼所言彼住果非住勝果道者此亦不可。所以者何。義不定故。謂學練根或住果位或住勝果道求利根故或畏退故。問若住勝果道而轉根者捨多道得少道豈非退耶。答彼求利根不求多道故無有失。如多銅鐵貿少金銀豈名失利。
The Abhidharma masters say: of these six features regarding faculty-turning at the learner's stage, three accord with reason, and three do not. That is, as for their statement that faculty-turning at the learner's stage occurs in the desire realm, and not in the form or formless realm, this accords with reason, since it is only in the desire realm that there is a sense of faculty-turning at all. And as for their statement that it relies upon dhyāna, and not upon a formless attainment, this too accords with reason, since it is only by relying upon dhyāna that a learner's fruit is attained. And as for their statement that it employs the undefiled path, and not the worldly path, this too accords with reason, since faculty-sharpening at the learner's stage is exactly like the path of seeing in this respect. But as for their statement that it employs dharma-cognition, and not subsequent cognition, this cannot be accepted, for what reason? Because the meaning is indeterminate — that is, one born in the desire realm may, in some cases, attain mastery of dharma-cognition but not of subsequent cognition, and, in other cases, attain mastery of subsequent cognition but not of dharma-cognition. And as for their statement that it belongs to one who has already regressed, and not to one who has never regressed, this too cannot be accepted, for what reason? Because the meaning is indeterminate — that is, one may either have already regressed or not yet have regressed, and yet still, dreading regression or seeking a sharper faculty, undertake faculty-sharpening. And as for their statement that it occurs while abiding in a fruit, and not while abiding in the path toward a superior fruit, this too cannot be accepted, for what reason? Because the meaning is indeterminate — that is, a learner's faculty-sharpening may occur either while abiding in a fruit or while abiding in the path toward a superior fruit, whether seeking a sharper faculty or dreading regression. One asks: if one sharpens his faculty while abiding in the path toward a superior fruit, relinquishing the greater path to attain the lesser path, is this not itself a regression? The answer: since he seeks a sharper faculty and does not seek the greater path, there is, in fact, no fault in this at all — exactly as exchanging much copper and iron for a small amount of gold and silver could hardly be called a loss of profit.
This is a rare moment where the treatise applies real empirical pressure to a tidy sixfold scheme: three of Buddhapālita's marks survive because they reflect a genuine structural necessity, while the other three are simply generalizations from what happens to be the more common case, mistaken for what must always be the case — a distinction the Abhidharma masters are careful to draw explicitly, down to the closing image of trading cheap bulk metal for a small quantity of gold, which shows that seeking a sharper faculty while abiding in the path toward a superior fruit is no genuine regression at all.
8. Where Faculty-Change Occurs: Realm and Continent
The treatise narrows down exactly where this faculty-sharpening can occur: only among humans, never among gods, since it is humans who receive the most excellent instruction and who alone fear regression; and, against the Venerable Ghoṣavarman's claim that only Jambudvīpa's own sharp-facultied people are capable of it, the compilers rule that all three human continents qualify, Uttarakuru alone excluded for its utter lack of superior virtue.
問於欲界內何處轉根。為但人中為亦天上。答唯在人中受教勝故。
One asks: within the desire realm, where does faculty-turning occur — only among humans, or also among the gods? The answer: only among humans, since it is there that the instruction received is most excellent,
又畏退故。問人四洲內何處轉根。尊者窶沙筏摩說曰。唯贍部洲有轉根義。贍部洲人根猛利故。評曰應作是說。人三洲內皆得轉根。
and also for fear of regression. One asks: among the four continents of humankind, where does faculty-turning occur? The Venerable Ghoṣavarman says as follows: only in Jambudvīpa is there a sense of faculty-turning, since the people of Jambudvīpa possess sharp faculties. The compilers say: one should instead say that faculty-turning is attainable within all three of the human continents,
The exclusion of Uttarakuru fits a recurring pattern in this treatise's cosmology: that continent's very perfection — its freedom from want, its lack of private property, its absence of any real spiritual striving — is precisely what disqualifies its inhabitants from the kind of effortful faculty-sharpening under discussion here, a reminder that this system consistently treats frictionless comfort as an obstacle to attainment, not a shortcut toward it.
9. Gender, and the Fruit-Based Ledger of Grounds Gained and Lost
Against a view restricting faculty-change to the male body alone, the compilers affirm that both male and female practitioners are equally capable of it, since a female body can likewise give rise to superior virtue. The treatise then works out, in full numeric detail, exactly how many grounds' worth of the fruit of non-returning a practitioner relinquishes and gains when sharpening his faculty at each possible combination of the four dhyānas — establishing, as a firm principle, that one may only ascend to a higher ground when changing faculty, never descend, since descending would mean trading a greater path for a lesser one.
除北俱盧無勝德故。問為依男身有轉根義為亦依女。有作是說。唯依男身有轉根義。男身功德勝女人故。評曰應作是說。諸轉根者亦依男身亦依女身。以依女身亦能發起勝功德故。問隨依何地先得學果後即依彼而轉根耶。有說即依彼學者轉根。亦有依餘地然勝非劣。謂初二果依未至定得果轉根不依餘地。若不還果依彼地得即依彼地而後轉根。或依餘地然勝非劣。諸不還者極少成就三地果。極多成就六地果。謂次第者離欲界染第九解脫道時。彼成就三地不還果。即未至定初靜慮及靜慮中間。若已離欲染即依此三地入正性離生者。彼道類智時亦即成就此三地不還果。若依第二靜慮入正性離生者。彼道類智時成就四地不還果。謂前三地及第二靜慮。若依第三靜慮入正性離生者。彼道類智時成就五地不還果。謂前四地及第三靜慮。若依第四靜慮入正性離生者。彼道類智時成就六地不還果。謂前五地及第四靜慮。依初三地得不還果已。即依此三地而轉根者。彼捨三地不還果。得三地不還果。即彼若依第二靜慮而轉根者。彼捨三地不還果得四地不還果。即彼若依第三靜慮而轉根者。
excluding Uttarakuru alone, since it lacks any superior virtue. One asks: does the sense of faculty-turning depend upon a male body, or also upon a female body? There are those who say: only upon a male body is there a sense of faculty-turning, since the male body's own virtue surpasses that of the female. The compilers say: one should instead say that those who turn their faculty do so depending upon either a male body or a female body, since, depending upon a female body, one is likewise capable of giving rise to superior virtue. One asks: does one, relying upon whichever stage he first attains the learner's fruit, thereafter turn his faculty relying upon that same stage? There are those who say: one turns his faculty relying upon that very same stage at which he learned; there are also those who turn their faculty relying upon a different stage, so long as it is superior, not inferior. That is, the first two fruits, attained by relying upon the not-yet-arrived stage, are turned by relying upon this stage alone, not upon any other; but the fruit of non-returning, if attained by relying upon a given stage, is thereafter turned by relying upon that very stage, or upon a different stage so long as it is superior, not inferior. Non-returners possess, at the very least, the fruit belonging to three stages, and, at the very most, the fruit belonging to six stages. That is, for one who proceeds by sequence: at the moment of the ninth liberation path becoming free of the desire realm's own defilement, he possesses the fruit of non-returning belonging to three stages, namely, the not-yet-arrived stage, the first dhyāna, and the intermediate dhyāna. If one, already free of desire's own defilement, enters the state of correct determination relying upon these same three stages, then, at the moment of the subsequent cognition regarding the path, he likewise possesses the fruit of non-returning belonging to these same three stages. If one enters the state of correct determination relying upon the second dhyāna, then, at the moment of the subsequent cognition regarding the path, he possesses the fruit of non-returning belonging to four stages, namely, the preceding three stages together with the second dhyāna. If one enters the state of correct determination relying upon the third dhyāna, then, at the moment of the subsequent cognition regarding the path, he possesses the fruit of non-returning belonging to five stages, namely, the preceding four stages together with the third dhyāna. If one enters the state of correct determination relying upon the fourth dhyāna, then, at the moment of the subsequent cognition regarding the path, he possesses the fruit of non-returning belonging to six stages, namely, the preceding five stages together with the fourth dhyāna. For one who, having attained the fruit of non-returning by relying upon the first three stages, thereupon turns his faculty relying upon these same three stages: he relinquishes the fruit of non-returning belonging to three stages, and attains the fruit of non-returning belonging to three stages. That very same person, if he turns his faculty relying upon the second dhyāna, relinquishes the fruit of non-returning belonging to three stages, and attains the fruit of non-returning belonging to four stages. That very same person, if he turns his faculty relying upon the third dhyāna,
彼捨三地不還果。得五地不還果。即彼若依第四靜慮而轉根者。彼捨三地不還果。得六地不還果。若依第二靜慮得不還果已即依第二靜慮而轉根者。彼捨四地不還果得四地不還果。即彼若依第三靜慮而轉根者。彼捨四地不還果。得五地不還果。即彼若依第四靜慮而轉根者。彼捨四地不還果。得六地不還果。若依第三靜慮得不還果已。即依第三靜慮而轉根者。彼捨五地不還果。得五地不還果。即彼若依第四靜慮而轉根者。彼捨五地不還果。得六地不還果。若依第四靜慮得不還果已。即依第四靜慮而轉根者。彼捨六地不還果。
relinquishes the fruit of non-returning belonging to three stages, and attains the fruit of non-returning belonging to five stages. That very same person, if he turns his faculty relying upon the fourth dhyāna, relinquishes the fruit of non-returning belonging to three stages, and attains the fruit of non-returning belonging to six stages. For one who, having attained the fruit of non-returning by relying upon the second dhyāna, thereupon turns his faculty relying upon the second dhyāna: he relinquishes the fruit of non-returning belonging to four stages, and attains the fruit of non-returning belonging to four stages. That very same person, if he turns his faculty relying upon the third dhyāna, relinquishes the fruit of non-returning belonging to four stages, and attains the fruit of non-returning belonging to five stages. That very same person, if he turns his faculty relying upon the fourth dhyāna, relinquishes the fruit of non-returning belonging to four stages, and attains the fruit of non-returning belonging to six stages. For one who, having attained the fruit of non-returning by relying upon the third dhyāna, thereupon turns his faculty relying upon the third dhyāna: he relinquishes the fruit of non-returning belonging to five stages, and attains the fruit of non-returning belonging to five stages. That very same person, if he turns his faculty relying upon the fourth dhyāna, relinquishes the fruit of non-returning belonging to five stages, and attains the fruit of non-returning belonging to six stages. For one who, having attained the fruit of non-returning by relying upon the fourth dhyāna, thereupon turns his faculty relying upon the fourth dhyāna: he relinquishes the fruit of non-returning belonging to six stages, and
得六地不還果。無依上地得不還果後依下地而轉根者。所以者何。
attains the fruit of non-returning belonging to six stages. There is no case of one who, having attained the fruit of non-returning by relying upon a higher stage, thereafter turns his faculty relying upon a lower stage, for what reason?
The insistence that faculty-change may only move upward in ground, never downward, is the section's real organizing constraint — a practitioner sharpening his faculty is, by definition, seeking something sharper, and a system that let him trade a six-ground fruit for a three-ground one under the same label would have emptied the very word 'advance' of meaning.
10. A Minority View Allowing Descent, and the Path-Based Ledger
Other masters propose the seemingly contrary case of a practitioner who, having attained non-returning by relying on a higher dhyāna, thereafter turns his faculty relying on a lower one — defended by insisting this is no true loss, since he seeks only a sharper faculty and not a wider path, exactly as trading a great quantity of cheap goods for a small quantity of true treasure counts as gain, not loss. The treatise then reworks the entire ledger a second time, now counting not the fruit's own grounds but the grounds of the noble path itself, tabulated separately by how many levels of affliction a given non-returner has already become free of.
勿捨多道得少道故。應名損減不名增益。或有說者。有依上地得不還果後依下地而轉根者。彼作是說。依第四靜慮得不還果已若依第三靜慮而轉根者。彼捨六地不還果。得五地不還果。即彼若依第二靜慮而轉根者。彼捨六地不還果。得四地不還果。即彼若依初靜慮等三地而轉根者。彼捨六地不還果。得三地不還果。依第三靜慮得不還果已。若依第二靜慮而轉根者。彼捨五地不還果。得四地不還果。即彼若依初靜慮等三地而轉根者。彼捨五地不還果。得三地不還果。依第二靜慮得不還果已。若依初靜慮等三地而轉根者。彼捨四地不還果。得三地不還果。此中但說與前異者。依自上地而轉根者捨得多少如前應知。問若依上地得不還果後依下地而轉根者。既捨多道得少道故。應名損減豈是增益。答彼求利根不求多道捨多得少亦無有過。如多賤貨貿少貴珍。乃名增益不名損減。依果說已若依道說諸不還者。未離初靜慮染若依初靜慮等三地而轉根者。彼捨三地聖道。得三地聖道。已離初靜慮染未離第二靜慮染。若依初靜慮等三地而轉根者。彼捨四地聖道。得三地聖道。已離第二靜慮染未離第三靜慮染。若依初靜慮等三地而轉根者。彼捨五地聖道得三地聖道。已離第三靜慮染未離第四靜慮染。若依初靜慮等三地而轉根者。彼捨六地聖道得三地聖道。已離第四靜慮染未離空無邊處染。若依初靜慮等三地而轉根者。彼捨七地聖道。得三地聖道。已離空無邊處染未離識無邊處染。若依初靜慮等三地而轉根者。彼捨八地聖道得三地聖道。已離識無邊處染。若依初靜慮等三地而轉根者。彼捨九地聖道。得三地聖道。未離第二靜慮染。若依第二靜慮而轉根者。彼捨四地聖道得四地聖道。已離第二靜慮染未離第三靜慮染。若依第二靜慮而轉根者彼捨五地聖道得四地聖道。乃至已離識無邊處染。若依第二靜慮而轉根者。彼捨九地聖道得四地聖道。
Lest he relinquish the greater path to attain the lesser path — this ought to be named a diminishment, not named an increase. Some, however, say: there is indeed a case of one who, having attained the fruit of non-returning by relying upon a higher stage, thereafter turns his faculty relying upon a lower stage. They hold as follows: for one who, having attained the fruit of non-returning by relying upon the fourth dhyāna, turns his faculty relying upon the third dhyāna, he relinquishes the fruit of non-returning belonging to six stages, and attains the fruit of non-returning belonging to five stages. That very same person, if he turns his faculty relying upon the second dhyāna, relinquishes the fruit of non-returning belonging to six stages, and attains the fruit of non-returning belonging to four stages. That very same person, if he turns his faculty relying upon any of the first three stages together, he relinquishes the fruit of non-returning belonging to six stages, and attains the fruit of non-returning belonging to three stages. For one who, having attained the fruit of non-returning by relying upon the third dhyāna, turns his faculty relying upon the second dhyāna, he relinquishes the fruit of non-returning belonging to five stages, and attains the fruit of non-returning belonging to four stages. That very same person, if he turns his faculty relying upon any of the first three stages together, he relinquishes the fruit of non-returning belonging to five stages, and attains the fruit of non-returning belonging to three stages. For one who, having attained the fruit of non-returning by relying upon the second dhyāna, turns his faculty relying upon any of the first three stages together, he relinquishes the fruit of non-returning belonging to four stages, and attains the fruit of non-returning belonging to three stages. Here, only what differs from the foregoing has been stated; the amount relinquished and attained by one who turns his faculty relying upon his own higher stage should be understood exactly as stated above. One asks: if one who, having attained the fruit of non-returning by relying upon a higher stage, thereafter turns his faculty relying upon a lower stage, thereby relinquishes the greater path to attain the lesser path, ought this not to be named a diminishment, rather than an increase? The answer: since he seeks a sharper faculty and does not seek the greater path, relinquishing the greater to attain the lesser carries, likewise, no fault at all — exactly as exchanging much cheap merchandise for a small quantity of precious treasure is properly named an increase, not a diminishment. Having spoken with reference to the fruit, one should speak, further, with reference to the path. For non-returners not yet free of the first dhyāna's own defilement, if they turn their faculty relying upon any of the first three stages together, they relinquish the noble path belonging to three stages, and attain the noble path belonging to three stages. For those already free of the first dhyāna's own defilement but not yet free of the second dhyāna's own, if they turn their faculty relying upon any of the first three stages together, they relinquish the noble path belonging to four stages, and attain the noble path belonging to three stages. For those already free of the second dhyāna's own defilement but not yet free of the third dhyāna's own, if they turn their faculty relying upon any of the first three stages together, they relinquish the noble path belonging to five stages, and attain the noble path belonging to three stages. For those already free of the third dhyāna's own defilement but not yet free of the fourth dhyāna's own, if they turn their faculty relying upon any of the first three stages together, they relinquish the noble path belonging to six stages, and attain the noble path belonging to three stages. For those already free of the fourth dhyāna's own defilement but not yet free of the sphere of infinite space's own, if they turn their faculty relying upon any of the first three stages together, they relinquish the noble path belonging to seven stages, and attain the noble path belonging to three stages. For those already free of the sphere of infinite space's own defilement but not yet free of the sphere of infinite consciousness's own, if they turn their faculty relying upon any of the first three stages together, they relinquish the noble path belonging to eight stages, and attain the noble path belonging to three stages. For those already free of the sphere of infinite consciousness's own defilement, if they turn their faculty relying upon any of the first three stages together, they relinquish the noble path belonging to nine stages, and attain the noble path belonging to three stages. For those not yet free of the second dhyāna's own defilement, if they turn their faculty relying upon the second dhyāna, they relinquish the noble path belonging to four stages, and attain the noble path belonging to four stages.
That the very same phenomenon — trading many grounds for fewer — can be honestly described as either a diminishment or an increase, depending only on whether one asks about the quantity of paths held or the quality of the single faculty sought, is the clearest statement in this entire fascicle of a principle running through the whole faculty-change discussion: raw quantity of possession and genuine spiritual advance are simply not the same measure, and this treatise refuses to let the vocabulary of 'more' and 'less' silently substitute for the vocabulary of 'better' and 'worse.'
11. The Path-Based Ledger Completed, and Four Closing Tetralemma Questions
The path-based ledger runs to completion across every possible combination of dhyāna-level attained and dhyāna-level relied upon for faculty-change, before the fascicle closes with a final flourish of four pointed tetralemma-style questions, each answered in the affirmative with a specific worked case: a noble one who trades nine grounds of path for six and still counts this as advance; a noble one free of the sphere of nothingness's own defilement who nonetheless possesses only a single ground of path; a non-returner free of that same defilement who possesses only three grounds of the undefiled fruit-path; and a body-witness who, in the very moment of faculty-change, temporarily lacks the undefiled formless attainments altogether.
未離第三靜慮染。若依第三靜慮而轉根者。彼捨五地聖道得五地聖道。已離第三靜慮染未離第四靜慮染。若依第三靜慮而轉根者。彼捨六地聖道得五地聖道。乃至已離識無邊處染。若依第三靜慮而轉根者。彼捨九地聖道得五地聖道。未離第四靜慮染。若依第四靜慮而轉根者。彼捨六地聖道得六地聖道。已離第四靜慮染未離空無邊處染。若依第四靜慮而轉根者。彼捨七地聖道得六地聖道。乃至已離識無邊處染。若依第四靜慮而轉根者。彼捨九地聖道得六地聖道。已離初靜慮等染。若依第二靜慮等而轉根者。捨得多少如理應思。無依無色而轉根者。學果不依無色定故。應作是說。若於上地已得自在而依下地學轉根等。亦得上地無漏果道。然轉根時不得無色彼定無有不還果故。此中應作頗設問答。頗有聖者捨九地聖道得六地聖道而名為進不名退耶。答有謂已離識無邊處染。信勝解依第四靜慮而轉根時。頗有聖者已離無所有處染而但成就一地聖道耶。
For those already free of the second dhyāna's own defilement but not yet free of the third dhyāna's own, if they turn their faculty relying upon the second dhyāna, they relinquish the noble path belonging to five stages, and attain the noble path belonging to four stages — and so on, up through those already free of the sphere of infinite consciousness's own defilement, who, if they turn their faculty relying upon the second dhyāna, relinquish the noble path belonging to nine stages, and attain the noble path belonging to four stages. For those not yet free of the third dhyāna's own defilement, if they turn their faculty relying upon the third dhyāna, they relinquish the noble path belonging to five stages, and attain the noble path belonging to five stages. For those already free of the third dhyāna's own defilement but not yet free of the fourth dhyāna's own, if they turn their faculty relying upon the third dhyāna, they relinquish the noble path belonging to six stages, and attain the noble path belonging to five stages — and so on, up through those already free of the sphere of infinite consciousness's own defilement, who, if they turn their faculty relying upon the third dhyāna, relinquish the noble path belonging to nine stages, and attain the noble path belonging to five stages. For those not yet free of the fourth dhyāna's own defilement, if they turn their faculty relying upon the fourth dhyāna, they relinquish the noble path belonging to six stages, and attain the noble path belonging to six stages. For those already free of the fourth dhyāna's own defilement but not yet free of the sphere of infinite space's own, if they turn their faculty relying upon the fourth dhyāna, they relinquish the noble path belonging to seven stages, and attain the noble path belonging to six stages — and so on, up through those already free of the sphere of infinite consciousness's own defilement, who, if they turn their faculty relying upon the fourth dhyāna, relinquish the noble path belonging to nine stages, and attain the noble path belonging to six stages. For those already free of the first dhyāna's own defilement and the rest, if they turn their faculty relying upon the second dhyāna and the rest, the amount relinquished and attained should be reasoned out accordingly. There is no case of turning one's faculty by relying upon a formless attainment, since a learner's fruit does not rely upon a formless attainment. One should say as follows: if one has already attained mastery over a higher stage, and, relying upon a lower stage, undertakes a learner's faculty-turning and the like, he thereby also attains the higher stage's own undefiled fruit-path; yet, at the very moment of faculty-turning, he does not attain a formless attainment, since there exists no fixed non-returner's fruit belonging to it. Here, one should raise the following tetralemma-style question and answer: is there a noble one who relinquishes the noble path belonging to nine stages and attains the noble path belonging to six stages, and is this properly named an advance, not named a regression? The answer: there is — namely, one already free of the sphere of infinite consciousness's own defilement, at the moment one of resolve-through-faith turns his faculty relying upon the fourth dhyāna. Is there a noble one already free of the sphere of nothingness's own defilement who possesses only the noble path belonging to a single stage?
答有。謂已離無所有處染。依未至定入正性離生。彼見道中十五心頃。頗有不還者已離無所有處染。唯成就三地無漏果道耶。答有。
The answer: there is — namely, one already free of the sphere of nothingness's own defilement who, relying upon the not-yet-arrived stage, enters the state of correct determination, across the fifteen thought-moments of his own path of seeing. Is there a non-returner already free of the sphere of nothingness's own defilement who possesses only the undefiled fruit-path belonging to three stages? The answer: there is —
謂已離無所有處染。信勝解於上地不得自在。依未至定或初靜慮或靜慮中間轉根作見至時。頗有身證者不成就無漏無色定耶。答有。
namely, one already free of the sphere of nothingness's own defilement, one of resolve-through-faith who has not attained mastery over a higher stage, at the moment he turns his faculty to become one who has attained through vision, relying upon the not-yet-arrived stage, the first dhyāna, or the intermediate dhyāna. Is there a body-witness who does not possess the undefiled formless attainments? The answer: there is —
謂身證信勝解轉根作見至時。
namely, a body-witness who is one of resolve-through-faith, at the moment he turns his faculty to become one who has attained through vision.
These four closing questions are not idle curiosities tacked onto the end of a long ledger — each is engineered to look, at first glance, like a contradiction of a rule the fascicle has just spent many pages establishing (more grounds should mean more attainment, non-returners should possess several grounds, a body-witness should by definition possess every formless absorption), and each is resolved by locating the exact narrow moment of transition where the general rule's own stated exception applies, which is precisely the kind of edge-case stress-testing this treatise uses throughout to confirm that its general principles are stated with genuine precision, not vague approximation.
Fascicle 67 Complete
This closes fascicle 67 of Ru-Yi's translation, drawn from the treatise's true CBETA boundary. Fascicle 67 completed the learner- and undefiled-dharma containment ledger for non-returners and arhats, recast the entire containment question as a fourfold tetralemma across all four fruits, and turned to the extended debate over whether one of resolve-through-faith ever sharpens his own faculty to become one who has attained through vision — canvassing Saṃghavasu's dissolution of the puzzle, a rival "no faculty-change" theory and its scriptural reconciliations, the compilers' final verdict, the Venerable Buddhapālita's six distinguishing marks, and the Abhidharma masters' own partial assessment of them — before closing with the detailed ledger of exactly where faculty-change occurs and how many grounds of fruit and of path are gained and lost at each dhyāna combination. Fascicle 68 continues the same nyāsa.