Between Death and Rebirth

Continuing the Sentient-Being Nyāsa within the second, the Fetters Aggregate, part six. One asks: for one already free of the sphere of nothingness's own defilement, at the moment one of resolve-through-faith turns his faculty to become one who has attained through vision, since he thereby relinquishes the undefiled counteractive path belonging to the three formless stages with respect to the cutting-off at those three stages, does he also relinquish that cutting-off itself? Whichever position is granted, what fault follows? Both alternatives carry a fault. For what reason is this so? If he relinquishes that cutting-off, how could he then fail to possess the afflictions of those three stages once again? And if he does not relinquish it, how could he relinquish that path while not relinquishing the cutting-off it achieved? The answer: one should say as follows — he does not relinquish that cutting-off. One asks: since he relinquishes that path, how could he not relinquish the cutting-off belonging to the three stages? The answer: the lower three formless stages each possess two counteractive paths — first, the worldly; second, the undefiled. At the moment of a learner's faculty-turning, although he relinquishes the undefiled path, he does not relinquish the worldly path,

since it is the worldly path that sustains this cutting-off — and it is for this reason that a learner's faculty-turning does not cause this cutting-off to be lost. One asks: granting that, where the worldly path has some function, faculty-turning need not relinquish the cutting-off, where the worldly path has no function at all, how could faculty-turning still fail to relinquish it? As, for instance, when one already free of one through eight grades of affliction belonging to the realm of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, being one of resolve-through-faith, turns his faculty to become one who has attained through vision — is the cutting-off of the dharmas abandoned by cultivation belonging to that same realm of neither-perception-nor-non-perception relinquished, or not relinquished? If this cutting-off is relinquished, how could he then fail to possess the afflictions of that stage once again? And if it is not relinquished, how could he relinquish the counteraction while not relinquishing the cutting-off? There are those who say: there is, in fact, no case of one who, being only partly free of the realm of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's own defilement, undertakes faculty-turning — should such a person turn his faculty, he either becomes wholly free of that defilement, or else regresses entirely. Others say: there is indeed a case of one only partly free of that realm's own defilement undertaking faculty-turning, and, although he relinquishes that path, he does not relinquish the cutting-off. The compilers say: one should say as follows — although he relinquishes the path, he also relinquishes that cutting-off, and yet he still does not come to possess the afflictions of that stage once again — exactly as when an ordinary person, already free of the sphere of nothingness's own defilement, dies and is reborn in the realm of neither-perception-nor-non-perception: with respect to the desire realm, up through the sphere of infinite consciousness, both his path and his cutting-off are, in every case, relinquished, and yet he still does not come to possess the afflictions of those stages once again — this case is exactly the same, and so this ought not to be raised as an objection. One asks: a lower stage's own affliction, not depending upon a higher body, may have its path and cutting-off relinquished without the lower stage's own affliction being possessed once again; but a higher stage's own affliction likewise depends upon a lower body, and, at the moment of a learner's faculty-turning, both the path and the cutting-off are relinquished — how, then, could the affliction already cut off fail to be possessed once again? The answer: once one only partly free of one through eight grades of the realm of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's own defilement undertakes faculty-turning, he gives rise, after becoming free of that defilement, to something resembling the uninterrupted and liberation paths of the path of seeing, which sustains this continuity and prevents it from ever regressing again — exactly as, at the stage of an ordinary person, one already free of the sphere of nothingness's own defilement who enters the state of correct determination and, having attained the fruit of non-returning, certainly never regresses so as to give rise once again to the fetters already cut off before — this case is exactly the same, and so this too ought not to be raised as an objection.

One asks: at the moment one of resolve-through-faith turns his faculty to become one who has attained through vision, how many aids to practice, how many uninterrupted paths, and how many liberation paths does he employ in order to turn his faculty?

There are those who say: he employs one aid to practice, nine uninterrupted paths, and nine liberation paths in order to turn his faculty. The compilers say: this ought not to be said, since a learner's undefiled faculty, not being long cultivated, is easily turned. One should say as follows: he employs only one aid to practice, one uninterrupted path, and one liberation path in order to turn his faculty, exactly as with the path of seeing. One asks: at the moment an arhat liberated-in-season turns his faculty to become one unshakeable,

how many aids to practice, how many uninterrupted paths, and how many liberation paths does he employ in order to turn his faculty? There are those who say: he employs one aid to practice, one uninterrupted path, and one liberation path in order to turn his faculty. The compilers say: this ought not to be said, since a non-learner's faculty, being long cultivated, is difficult to relinquish; and, further, relinquishing a weighty fruit only to attain another weighty fruit demands considerably greater effort — exactly as when a person tears down a house and builds it anew, this demands considerably greater effort than building it for the very first time. One should say as follows: he employs one aid to practice, nine uninterrupted paths, and nine liberation paths in order to turn his faculty, exactly as with the path of cultivation.

One asks: at the moment one of resolve-through-faith turns his faculty to become one who has attained through vision, is his aid to practice and the rest contaminated or undefiled? The answer: his aid to practice is, in some cases, contaminated, in others, undefiled, and what is cultivated for the future spans both the contaminated and the undefiled. His uninterrupted path is, without exception, undefiled, and what is cultivated for the future is likewise solely undefiled. His liberation path is, without exception, undefiled; as for what is cultivated for the future, there are those who say this too is solely undefiled, while others say that, at that time, both the contaminated and the undefiled are cultivated together. One asks: at the moment an arhat liberated-in-season turns his faculty to become one unshakeable, is his aid to practice and the rest contaminated or undefiled? The answer: his aid to practice is, in some cases, contaminated, in others, undefiled, and what is cultivated for the future spans both the contaminated and the undefiled. His nine uninterrupted paths and eight of his liberation paths are, without exception, undefiled, and what is cultivated for the future is likewise solely undefiled. His ninth liberation path is, without exception, undefiled; but what is cultivated for the future spans both the contaminated and the undefiled, since, at that time, he cultivates, as is fitting, every wholesome root across the three realms together.

One asks: at the moment one of resolve-through-faith turns his faculty to become one who has attained through vision, is his aid to practice and the rest previously attained, or not yet attained? The answer: his aid to practice is, in some cases, previously attained, in others, not yet attained; his uninterrupted and liberation paths are, in every case, solely not yet attained. One asks: at the moment an arhat liberated-in-season turns his faculty to become one unshakeable, is his aid to practice and the rest previously attained, or not yet attained? The answer: his aid to practice is, in some cases, previously attained, in others, not yet attained; his nine uninterrupted paths and nine liberation paths are, in every case, solely not yet attained.

At the moment one of resolve-through-faith turns his faculty to become one who has attained through vision, his aid to practice and uninterrupted path are gathered within the path proper to one of resolve-through-faith, while his liberation path is gathered within the path proper to one who has attained through vision. At the moment an arhat liberated-in-season turns his faculty to become one unshakeable, his aid to practice, nine uninterrupted paths, and eight of his liberation paths are gathered within the path proper to one liberated-in-season, while his ninth liberation path is gathered within the path proper to one liberated-beyond-season. At the moment one of resolve-through-faith turns his faculty to become one who has attained through vision, if he does so while abiding in a fruit, his aid to practice, uninterrupted path, and liberation path are, in every case, gathered within the fruit-path; if he does so while abiding in the path toward a superior fruit, his aid to practice and uninterrupted path are gathered within the path toward a superior fruit, while his liberation path is gathered within the fruit-path. At the moment an arhat liberated-in-season turns his faculty to become one unshakeable, his aid to practice, uninterrupted path, and liberation path are, in every case, gathered within the fruit-path, since he possesses no path toward a superior fruit. At the moment one of resolve-through-faith turns his faculty to become one who has attained through vision, if he does so while abiding in a fruit, he relinquishes a fruit-path and attains a fruit-path; if he does so while abiding in the path toward a superior fruit, he relinquishes both a fruit-path and the path toward a superior fruit, and attains only a fruit-path. At the moment an arhat liberated-in-season turns his faculty to become one unshakeable, he only relinquishes a fruit-path and attains a fruit-path, since the non-learner's stage possesses no path toward a superior fruit. An arhat is of six kinds, namely, prone to regression, capable of reflection, protective of the dharma, steadfastly abiding, capable of penetration, and unshakeable. At the moment an arhat prone to regression turns his faculty to become one capable of reflection, he relinquishes the faculty of prone-to-regression and attains the faculty of capable-of-reflection. At the moment an arhat capable of reflection turns his faculty to become one protective of the dharma, he relinquishes the faculty of capable-of-reflection and attains the faculty of protective-of-the-dharma.

At the moment an arhat protective of the dharma turns his faculty to become one steadfastly abiding, he relinquishes the faculty of protective-of-the-dharma and attains the faculty of steadfastly-abiding. At the moment an arhat steadfastly abiding turns his faculty to become one capable of penetration, he relinquishes the faculty of steadfastly-abiding and attains the faculty of capable-of-penetration. At the moment an arhat capable of penetration turns his faculty to become one unshakeable, he relinquishes the faculty of capable-of-penetration and attains the faculty of unshakeable. Each of these five stages, in every single case, employs one aid to practice, nine uninterrupted paths, and nine liberation paths in order to attain faculty-turning. At the moment his aid to practice, nine uninterrupted paths, and eight of his liberation paths arise, there is attainment without relinquishment; at the moment his ninth liberation path arises, there is both attainment and relinquishment, namely, relinquishing the faculty of prone-to-regression and the rest and attaining the faculty of capable-of-reflection and the rest. The aid to practice, uninterrupted path, and liberation path belonging to the first four stages, together with the aid to practice, uninterrupted path, and eight liberation paths belonging to the fifth stage, are, in every case, gathered within the path proper to one liberated-in-season; the ninth liberation path is gathered within the path proper to one liberated-beyond-season. Exactly as the non-learner's path possesses six kinds of nature, so too does the path of cultivation possess these same six kinds of nature, namely, the nature of a learner prone to regression, up through the nature of a learner unshakeable. One asks: at the moment one of resolve-through-faith turns his faculty to become one who has attained through vision, if he abides in the nature of prone-to-regression, does turning the faculty of prone-to-regression thereby immediately attain the faculty of the nature unshakeable, or does turning the faculty of prone-to-regression attain only the faculty of the nature capable-of-reflection, advancing by degrees until finally, at the very end, attaining the faculty of the nature unshakeable? And so on, up through: if he abides in the nature of steadfastly-abiding, does turning the faculty of the nature steadfastly-abiding thereby immediately attain the faculty of the nature unshakeable, or does turning the faculty of the nature steadfastly-abiding attain only the faculty of the nature capable-of-penetration, and only by further turning the faculty of the nature capable-of-penetration does one then attain the faculty of the nature unshakeable? There are those who say: if one abides in the nature of prone-to-regression, turning the faculty of the nature prone-to-regression thereby immediately attains the faculty of the nature unshakeable, not by advancing through degrees; and so on, up through: if one abides in the nature of steadfastly-abiding, turning the faculty of the nature steadfastly-abiding thereby immediately attains the faculty of the nature unshakeable, not by advancing through degrees. For what reason is this so? Because faculty-turning at the learner's stage differs from that at the non-learner's stage — that is, at the non-learner's stage, both relinquishing and attaining are difficult, requiring considerable effort and being accomplished only by degrees, while this is not so at the learner's stage, and it is for this reason that the turning there is accomplished all at once.

The compilers say: this ought not to be said. Whether relinquishing and attaining are difficult or easy depends solely upon the number of uninterrupted and liberation paths involved, not upon any distinction between gradual and instantaneous. One should say as follows: if one abides in the nature of prone-to-regression, turning the faculty of the nature prone-to-regression attains only the faculty of the nature capable-of-reflection,

advancing by degrees until finally reaching the unshakeable; and so on, up through: if one abides in the nature of steadfastly-abiding, turning the faculty of the nature steadfastly-abiding attains only the faculty of the nature capable-of-penetration, and only by further turning the faculty of the nature capable-of-penetration does one then attain the faculty of the nature unshakeable. Each of these five stages, in every single case, employs one aid to practice, one uninterrupted path, and one liberation path in order to attain faculty-turning. At the moment his aid to practice and uninterrupted path arise, there is attainment without relinquishment; at the moment his liberation path arises, there is both attainment and relinquishment, namely, relinquishing the faculty of the nature prone-to-regression and the rest and attaining the faculty of the nature capable-of-reflection and the rest.

The aid to practice, uninterrupted path, and liberation path belonging to the first four stages, together with the aid to practice and uninterrupted path belonging to the fifth stage, are, in every case, gathered within the path proper to one of resolve-through-faith; the liberation path belonging to the fifth stage is gathered within the path proper to one who has attained through vision. Exactly as the stage of the path of cultivation possesses six kinds of nature, so too does the stage of the path of seeing possess these same six kinds of nature, namely, the nature of a learner prone to regression, up through the nature of a learner unshakeable. Yet at the stage of the path of seeing there is no case of faculty-turning, for what reason? Because the path of seeing is swift and sudden, giving rise to no leisure for deliberation — once it arises, it continues without interruption, and it is only upon reaching the path of cultivation that any further aid to practice can arise again. Exactly as the stage of the path of seeing possesses six kinds of nature, so too does the correspondence-conduct ground possess these same six kinds of nature, namely, the nature of correspondence-conduct prone to regression, up through the nature of correspondence-conduct unshakeable. As for this ground possessing six kinds of nature, this refers to heat, peak, patient acceptance, and the supreme worldly dharma, since these are the very aids to practice standing closest to the noble path, taking the truths as their object in an aspect resembling the noble path's own, and relying upon a body and a concentration identical to the path of seeing's own — the stages preceding these being otherwise, and therefore not establishing six kinds of nature. This correspondence-conduct ground likewise possesses a sense of faculty-turning — that is, turning the faculty of the nature prone-to-regression-at-heat gives rise to the faculty of the nature capable-of-reflection-at-heat; turning the faculty of the nature capable-of-reflection-at-heat gives rise to the faculty of the nature protective-of-the-dharma-at-heat; turning the faculty of the nature protective-of-the-dharma-at-heat gives rise to the faculty of the nature steadfastly-abiding-at-heat; turning the faculty of the nature steadfastly-abiding-at-heat gives rise to the faculty of the nature capable-of-penetration-at-heat; turning the faculty of the nature capable-of-penetration-at-heat gives rise to the faculty of the nature unshakeable-at-heat; turning the faculty of the disciple's-vehicle-nature-at-heat gives rise to the faculty of the solitary-realizer's-vehicle-nature-at-heat; and turning the faculty of the disciple's- or solitary-realizer's-vehicle-nature-at-heat gives rise to the faculty of the buddha-vehicle-nature-at-heat. Exactly as stated for the stage of heat, so too for the stage of peak. The stage of patient acceptance differs — that is, turning the faculty of the nature prone-to-regression-at-patient-acceptance gives rise to the faculty of the nature capable-of-reflection-at-patient-acceptance, and so on by degrees, up through turning the faculty of the nature capable-of-penetration-at-patient-acceptance, which gives rise to the faculty of the nature unshakeable-at-patient-acceptance; and turning the faculty of the disciple's-vehicle-nature-at-patient-acceptance gives rise to the faculty of the solitary-realizer's-vehicle-nature-at-patient-acceptance — but there is no sense in which turning the faculty of the disciple's- or solitary-realizer's-vehicle-nature-at-patient-acceptance could give rise to the faculty of the buddha-vehicle-nature-at-patient-acceptance, for what reason? Because patient acceptance is at odds with the evil destinies, and whoever attains the nature of patient acceptance thereby attains a non-analytical cessation with respect to every evil destiny — a bodhisattva, however, at times rides upon the power of his own great vow to be reborn in the evil destinies, there to benefit sentient beings, and it is for this reason that the two vehicles' own stage of patient acceptance carries no possibility of proceeding toward the buddha-vehicle. Other masters say: the disciple's own stage of heat and peak does carry the sense of proceeding toward the solitary-realizer's vehicle and toward the buddha-vehicle; the solitary-realizer's own stage of heat and peak carries no sense of proceeding toward the buddha-vehicle, for what reason? Because, exactly as the Buddha awakens spontaneously without a teacher, so too does the solitary-realizer; exactly as the Buddha, having resolved his mind, sits once in the cross-legged posture and thereby draws forth the entire mass of wholesome merit, his mental continuity, from the contemplation of impurity up through the very arising of the cognition of exhaustion and of non-arising, giving rise to no differing thought in between, so too does the solitary-realizer. The compilers say: this ought not to be said — for the rhinoceros-horn-like solitary-realizer's own stage of heat and peak may indeed carry no sense of proceeding toward the buddha-vehicle, but the group-following solitary-realizer's own stage of heat and peak, turning to proceed toward the buddha-vehicle, is in no way contrary to reason, and it is for this reason that the position stated earlier accords soundly with reason. One asks: do those who undertake faculty-turning at the correspondence-conduct ground possess an uninterrupted and a liberation path, or not? There are those who say: they do indeed — that is, at the moment of turning the faculty of the nature prone-to-regression and the rest to give rise to the nature capable-of-reflection and the rest, there exists, in each and every single case, one distinct aid to practice, nine uninterrupted paths, and nine liberation paths, since a contaminated nature, long cultivated, is difficult to relinquish and difficult to attain — exactly as with the non-learner's stage turning an undefiled faculty. Other masters say: in each and every single case there exists only one aid to practice, one uninterrupted path, and one liberation path, since the cultivation of heat and the rest, not being of long duration, is easily relinquished and easily attained — exactly as with the learner's stage turning an undefiled faculty. There are yet others who say: those who undertake faculty-turning at the correspondence-conduct ground merely give rise to an aid to practice, cultivating it again and again, wearied by the inferior and delighting in the superior, until finally turning and attaining the nature of the superior stage — there being no uninterrupted path or liberation path involved at all, since, at the moment of attaining the superior, the inferior is not thereby relinquished, unlike the case at the noble stage, where those who undertake faculty-turning never possess two grades of undefiled nature at once, and so, at the moment of attaining the superior grade, the inferior grade is certainly relinquished, and it is for this reason that an uninterrupted and a liberation path are required there. The compilers say: those who undertake faculty-turning at the correspondence-conduct ground, although they do not relinquish the inferior in attaining the superior grade's own faculty, nevertheless, at the moment of attaining the superior, the inferior grade's own nature no longer manifests in operation, and this too is properly named a relinquishing — and so, at the moment of turning the nature prone-to-regression and the rest to give rise to the nature capable-of-reflection and the rest, employing many aids to practice to draw forth one uninterrupted path and one liberation path in order to attain faculty-turning likewise carries no contradiction with reason, since the cultivation of heat and the rest, not being of long duration, renders a contaminated aid to practice difficult to accomplish — whereas, were one turning toward a different vehicle entirely, lacking any uninterrupted or liberation path, this would require a very long duration indeed before being accomplished. Though the stage of the supreme worldly dharma likewise possesses six kinds of nature, there is no faculty-turning there, since it lasts but a single thought-moment. The earlier fruit of stream-entry likewise possesses six kinds of nature, and, since faculty-turning exists there, regression exists there as well — and it is for this reason that a question and answer are raised concerning it, asking: is there a case of one who regresses from the fruit of stream-entry and yet does not thereby fail to possess the fetters abandoned by seeing? The answer: there is — namely, at the moment of regressing from a superior nature. Do all who die and are reborn in the desire realm thereby experience desire-existence? And so on, at full length. One asks: for what reason is this treatise composed? The answer: in order to put a stop to other schools and to display the correct principle. That is, there are those who say that dying and being reborn across the three realms, in every case, involves no intermediate state at all — in order to put a stop to that school, this treatise displays that the desire and form realms definitely do possess an intermediate state, while the formless realm does not. Others, further, say

that the formless realm likewise possesses form, and therefore likewise possesses an intermediate state, exactly as the desire and form realms do — in order to put a stop to that school, this treatise displays that the formless realm, possessing no form whatsoever, therefore possesses no intermediate state either. Others, further, hold that, within the desire and form realms, one whose karma is forceful has no intermediate state at all, while one whose karma is sluggish does possess an intermediate state — in order to put a stop to that school, this treatise displays that the desire and form realms both, without exception, possess an intermediate state, and it is for this reason that this treatise is composed. As for the term 'existence' spoken of here, it bears several distinct senses.

The Conduct Nyāsa has already explained this at length. Here, the term 'existence' denotes the five aggregates belonging to a sentient being, sharing a common class of similar kind. Do all who die and are reborn in the desire realm thereby experience desire-existence? The answer: this ought to be cast as a tetralemma, since dying-and-being-reborn in the desire realm and experiencing desire-existence stand, to each other, in a relation now broader, now narrower.

There is a case of dying and being reborn in the desire realm that does not involve experiencing desire-existence: this refers to one who, dying in the desire realm, gives rise to an intermediate-state being in the form realm — this applies to both ordinary persons and noble ones alike, the form realm's own intermediate-state being arising in the desire realm. For what reason is this so? Because the dharma must be exactly so — wherever the aggregates of a death-existence cease, it is in that very same place that the aggregates of an intermediate-state existence arise, exactly as, wherever a seed ceases, it is there that a sprout arises — the dharma must be exactly so. Here, dying in the desire realm refers to a death-existence in the desire realm ceasing in the desire realm; being reborn in the desire realm refers to a form-realm intermediate-state arising in the desire realm; not experiencing desire-existence refers to experiencing form-existence, that is, experiencing the aggregates of a form-realm intermediate-state existence. There is a case of experiencing desire-existence that does not involve dying and being reborn in the desire realm: this refers to one who, dying in the form realm, gives rise to an intermediate-state being in the desire realm — this applies only to ordinary persons, the desire realm's own intermediate-state being arising in the form realm. For what reason is this so? Because the dharma must be exactly so, as stated at length above. Here, experiencing desire-existence refers to experiencing the aggregates of a desire-realm intermediate-state existence;

not being in the desire realm at death refers to a form-realm death-existence ceasing in the form realm; not being reborn in the desire realm refers to a desire-realm intermediate-state arising in the form realm. There is a case of both dying and being reborn in the desire realm and experiencing desire-existence: this refers to one who, dying in the desire realm, gives rise to a desire-realm intermediate-state and then a desire-realm rebirth-existence — this applies to both ordinary persons and noble ones alike, ordinary persons being able to be reborn into any of the five destinies, while noble ones are reborn only among humans and gods. Here, at the moment of proceeding from a death-existence to an intermediate-state existence: being in the desire realm at death refers to a desire-realm death-existence ceasing in the desire realm; being reborn in the desire realm refers to a desire-realm intermediate-state arising in the desire realm; experiencing desire-existence refers to experiencing the aggregates of a desire-realm intermediate-state existence. At the moment of proceeding from an intermediate-state existence to a rebirth-existence: being in the desire realm at death refers to a desire-realm intermediate-state ceasing in the desire realm; being reborn in the desire realm refers to a desire-realm rebirth-existence arising in the desire realm; experiencing desire-existence refers to experiencing the aggregates of a desire-realm rebirth-existence. There is a case of neither dying and being reborn in the desire realm nor experiencing desire-existence: this refers to one who, dying in the form realm, is reborn in the form or formless realm, or, dying in the formless realm, is reborn in the formless or form realm. As for dying in the form realm and being reborn in the form realm, this refers to giving rise to an intermediate-state existence and then a rebirth-existence — this applies to both ordinary persons and noble ones alike. Here, at the moment of proceeding from a death-existence to an intermediate-state existence: not being in the desire realm at death refers to a form-realm death-existence ceasing in the form realm; not being reborn in the desire realm refers to a form-realm intermediate-state arising in the form realm; not experiencing desire-existence refers to experiencing form-existence, that is, experiencing the aggregates of a form-realm intermediate-state existence. At the moment of proceeding from an intermediate-state existence to a rebirth-existence: not being in the desire realm at death refers to a form-realm intermediate-state ceasing in the form realm; not being reborn in the desire realm refers to a form-realm rebirth-existence arising in the form realm; not experiencing desire-existence refers to experiencing form-existence, that is, experiencing the aggregates of a form-realm rebirth-existence. As for dying in the form realm and being reborn in the formless realm, this refers to giving rise directly to a rebirth-existence, since the formless realm possesses no intermediate state — this applies to both ordinary persons and noble ones alike. Here, not being in the desire realm at death refers to a form-realm death-existence ceasing in the form realm; not being reborn in the desire realm refers to a formless-realm rebirth-existence arising in the formless realm; not experiencing desire-existence refers to experiencing formless-existence, that is, experiencing the aggregates of a formless-realm rebirth-existence. As for dying in the formless realm and being reborn in the formless realm, this refers to giving rise directly to a rebirth-existence — this applies to both ordinary persons and noble ones alike. Here, not being in the desire realm at death refers to a formless-realm death-existence ceasing in the formless realm; not being reborn in the desire realm refers to a formless-realm rebirth-existence arising in the formless realm; not experiencing desire-existence refers to experiencing formless-existence, that is, experiencing the aggregates of a formless-realm rebirth-existence. As for dying in the formless realm and being reborn in the form realm, this refers to giving rise to an intermediate-state existence — this applies only to ordinary persons. Here, not being in the desire realm at death refers to a formless-realm death-existence ceasing in the formless realm; not being reborn in the desire realm refers to a form-realm intermediate-state arising in the form realm; not experiencing desire-existence refers to experiencing form-existence, that is, experiencing the aggregates of a form-realm intermediate-state existence. Do all who die and are reborn in the form realm thereby experience form-existence? The answer: this ought to be cast as a tetralemma, since dying-and-being-reborn in the form realm and experiencing form-existence stand, to each other, in a relation now broader, now narrower. There is a case of dying and being reborn in the form realm that does not involve experiencing form-existence: this refers to one who, dying in the form realm, gives rise to an intermediate-state being in the desire realm — this applies only to ordinary persons, the desire realm's own intermediate-state being arising in the form realm. Here, being in the form realm at death refers to a form-realm death-existence ceasing in the form realm; being reborn in the form realm refers to a desire-realm intermediate-state arising in the form realm; not experiencing form-existence refers to experiencing desire-existence, that is, experiencing the aggregates of a desire-realm intermediate-state existence. There is a case of experiencing form-existence that does not involve dying and being reborn in the form realm: this refers to one who, dying in the desire realm, gives rise to an intermediate-state being in the form realm — this applies to both ordinary persons and noble ones alike, the form realm's own intermediate-state being arising in the desire realm. Here, experiencing form-existence refers to experiencing the aggregates of a form-realm intermediate-state existence; not being in the form realm at death refers to a desire-realm death-existence ceasing in the desire realm; not being reborn in the form realm refers to a form-realm intermediate-state arising in the desire realm. There is a case of both dying and being reborn in the form realm and experiencing form-existence: this refers to one who, dying in the form realm, gives rise to a form-realm intermediate-state and then a form-realm rebirth-existence — this applies to both ordinary persons and noble ones alike, ordinary persons being reborn both above and below any given place, admitting of multiple rebirths there, while noble ones are reborn above but not below, receiving only a single rebirth at any given place.

Here, at the moment of proceeding from a death-existence to an intermediate-state existence: being in the form realm at death refers to a form-realm death-existence ceasing in the form realm; being reborn in the form realm refers to a form-realm intermediate-state arising in the form realm; experiencing form-existence refers to experiencing the aggregates of a form-realm intermediate-state existence. At the moment of proceeding from an intermediate-state existence to a rebirth-existence: being in the form realm at death refers to a form-realm intermediate-state ceasing in the form realm; being reborn in the form realm

refers to a form-realm rebirth-existence arising in the form realm; experiencing form-existence refers to experiencing the aggregates of a form-realm rebirth-existence. There is a case of neither dying and being reborn in the form realm nor experiencing form-existence: this refers to one who, dying in the desire realm, is reborn in the desire or formless realm, or, dying in the formless realm, is reborn in the formless or desire realm. As for dying in the desire realm and being reborn in the desire realm, this refers to giving rise to an intermediate-state existence and then a rebirth-existence — this applies to both ordinary persons and noble ones alike. Here, at the moment of proceeding from a death-existence to an intermediate-state existence: not being in the form realm at death refers to a desire-realm death-existence ceasing in the desire realm; not being reborn in the form realm refers to a desire-realm intermediate-state arising in the desire realm; not experiencing form-existence refers to experiencing desire-existence, that is, experiencing the aggregates of a desire-realm intermediate-state existence. At the moment of proceeding from an intermediate-state existence to a rebirth-existence: not being in the form realm at death refers to a desire-realm intermediate-state ceasing in the desire realm; not being reborn in the form realm refers to a desire-realm rebirth-existence arising in the desire realm; not experiencing form-existence refers to experiencing desire-existence, that is, experiencing the aggregates of a desire-realm rebirth-existence. As for dying in the desire realm and being reborn in the formless realm, this refers to giving rise directly to a rebirth-existence — this applies to both ordinary persons and noble ones alike. Here, not being in the form realm at death refers to a desire-realm death-existence ceasing in the desire realm; not being reborn in the form realm refers to a formless-realm rebirth-existence arising in the formless realm; not experiencing form-existence refers to experiencing formless-existence, that is, experiencing the aggregates of a formless-realm rebirth-existence. As for dying in the formless realm and being reborn in the formless realm, this refers to giving rise directly to a rebirth-existence — this applies to both ordinary persons and noble ones alike. Here, not being in the form realm at death refers to a formless-realm death-existence ceasing in the formless realm; not being reborn in the form realm refers to a formless-realm rebirth-existence arising in the formless realm; not experiencing form-existence refers to experiencing formless-existence, that is, experiencing the aggregates of a formless-realm rebirth-existence. As for dying in the formless realm and being reborn in the desire realm, this refers to giving rise to an intermediate-state existence — this applies only to ordinary persons. Here, not being in the form realm at death refers to a formless-realm death-existence ceasing in the formless realm; not being reborn in the form realm refers to a desire-realm intermediate-state arising in the desire realm; not experiencing form-existence refers to experiencing desire-existence, that is, experiencing the aggregates of a desire-realm intermediate-state existence. Do all who die and are reborn in the formless realm thereby experience formless-existence? The answer: all who die and are reborn in the formless realm do indeed experience formless-existence, since the formless realm possesses no form whatsoever, and there is no sense in which a lower or intermediate-state existence could ever arise there — and so it cannot be said that dying and being reborn there fails to involve experiencing that same existence.

This applies to both ordinary persons and noble ones alike, ordinary persons being reborn both above and below any given place, admitting of multiple rebirths there, while noble ones are reborn above but not below, receiving only a single rebirth at any given place. There is a case of experiencing formless-existence without dying in the formless realm, yet being reborn in the formless realm: this refers to one who, dying in the desire or form realm, is reborn in the formless realm, giving rise directly to a rebirth-existence alone — this applies to both ordinary persons and noble ones alike. Here, experiencing formless-existence refers to experiencing the aggregates of a formless-realm rebirth-existence; not being in the formless realm at death refers to a desire- or form-realm death-existence ceasing in the desire or form realm; being reborn in the formless realm refers to a formless-realm rebirth-existence arising in the formless realm.

How many kinds are there of dying and being reborn in the desire realm? The answer: four, namely, ordinary persons and noble ones in the desire realm, and ordinary persons and noble ones in the form realm. Here, both ordinary persons and noble ones in the desire realm span both an intermediate-state and a rebirth-existence, while ordinary persons and noble ones in the form realm involve only an intermediate-state existence, since a rebirth-existence never arises in the desire realm for them. As for dying in the desire realm and being reborn in the formless realm, the formless realm's own rebirth-existence does not take place at the desire realm's own place of death, and it is for this reason that there are only these four kinds, and it cannot be said there are six — a formless-realm rebirth not depending upon any place of form, and so it cannot be said to arise in the desire realm. How many kinds are there of dying and being reborn in the form realm? The answer: three, namely, ordinary persons in the desire realm, and ordinary persons and noble ones in the form realm. Here, ordinary persons in the desire realm involve only an intermediate-state existence, while ordinary persons and noble ones in the form realm span both an intermediate-state and a rebirth-existence. As for dying in the form realm and being reborn in the formless realm, the formless realm's own rebirth-existence, not depending upon form, cannot be said to arise in the form realm, and it is for this reason that there are only these three kinds, and it cannot be said there are five. How many kinds are there of dying and being reborn in the formless realm? The answer: two, namely, ordinary persons and noble ones in the formless realm, since an intermediate-state existence must depend upon a place of form to arise, and so, as for one who dies in the formless realm and is reborn in the desire or form realm, no intermediate-state ever arises in the formless realm for them, and it is for this reason that there are only these two kinds, and it cannot be said there are four. Do all who are not dying and being reborn in the desire realm thereby fail to experience desire-existence? The answer: this too ought to be cast as a tetralemma, at full length — that is, of the four alternatives given earlier for the desire realm, the first alternative there becomes the second alternative here, the second there becomes the first here, the third there becomes the fourth here, and the fourth there becomes the third here; every point of meaning here should be understood exactly as before. Do all who are not dying and being reborn in the form realm thereby fail to experience form-existence? The answer: this too ought to be cast as a tetralemma, at full length — that is, of the four alternatives given earlier for the form realm, the first alternative there becomes the second alternative here, the second there becomes the first here, the third there becomes the fourth here, and the fourth there becomes the third here; every point of meaning here should be understood exactly as before. Do all who are not dying and being reborn in the formless realm thereby fail to experience formless-existence? The answer: all who are not dying and being reborn in the formless realm do indeed fail to experience formless-existence, since whoever experiences formless-existence must, of necessity, be reborn in the formless realm. There is a case of one who fails to experience formless-existence, yet is neither failing to die in the formless realm nor failing to be reborn in the formless realm — this refers to one who, dying in the formless realm, is reborn in the desire or form realm; this applies only to ordinary persons, referring to the aggregates of a desire- or form-realm intermediate-state existence arising from a formless-realm death. Here, failing to experience formless-existence refers to experiencing desire- or form-existence instead; not failing to die in the formless realm refers to genuinely dying in the formless realm; and failing to be reborn in the formless realm refers to being reborn instead in the desire or form realm.

How many kinds are there of not dying and being reborn in the desire realm? The answer: five, namely, ordinary persons in the desire realm, and ordinary persons and noble ones in both the form and formless realms.

One asks: this ought to number eight — for what reason does it say five? That is: dying in the form realm and being reborn in the form realm, as an ordinary person or a noble one; dying in the form realm and being reborn in the formless realm, as an ordinary person or a noble one; dying in the form realm and being reborn in the desire realm, as an ordinary person; dying in the formless realm and being reborn in the formless realm, as an ordinary person or a noble one; and dying in the formless realm and being reborn in the form realm, as an ordinary person — these being eight in number, why does it speak of only five? The answer: since these share the same kind, only five are stated. That is, dying in the form realm and being reborn in the form realm as an ordinary person, and dying in the formless realm and being reborn in the form realm as an ordinary person — these two, although distinct, share the same kind as ordinary persons in the form realm, and are therefore spoken of together as one. Dying in the form realm and being reborn in the formless realm as an ordinary person, and dying in the formless realm and being reborn in the formless realm as an ordinary person — these two, although distinct, share the same kind as ordinary persons in the formless realm, and are therefore spoken of together as one. Dying in the form realm and being reborn in the formless realm as a noble one, and dying in the formless realm and being reborn in the formless realm as a noble one — these two, although distinct, share the same kind as noble ones in the formless realm, and are therefore spoken of together as one. What remains is the ordinary person in the desire realm and the noble one in the form realm, each counted separately, bringing the total, together with the foregoing, to five. How many kinds are there of not dying and being reborn in the form realm? The answer: six, namely, ordinary persons and noble ones across all three realms. One asks: this ought to number nine — for what reason does it say six? That is: dying in the desire realm and being reborn in the desire realm, as an ordinary person or a noble one; dying in the desire realm and being reborn in the form realm, as an ordinary person or a noble one; dying in the desire realm and being reborn in the formless realm, as an ordinary person or a noble one; dying in the formless realm and being reborn in the formless realm, as an ordinary person or a noble one; and dying in the formless realm and being reborn in the desire realm, as an ordinary person — these being nine in number, why does it speak of only six? The answer: since these share the same kind, only six are stated. That is, dying in the desire realm and being reborn in the desire realm as an ordinary person, and dying in the formless realm and being reborn in the desire realm as an ordinary person — these two, although distinct, share the same kind as ordinary persons in the desire realm, and are therefore spoken of together as one. Dying in the desire realm and being reborn in the formless realm as an ordinary person, and dying in the formless realm and being reborn in the formless realm as an ordinary person — these two, although distinct, share the same kind as ordinary persons in the formless realm, and are therefore spoken of together as one. Dying in the desire realm and being reborn in the formless realm as a noble one, and dying in the formless realm and being reborn in the formless realm as a noble one — these two, although distinct, share the same kind as noble ones in the formless realm, and are therefore spoken of together as one. What remains is the noble one in the desire realm, and the ordinary person and noble one in the form realm, each counted separately, bringing the total, together with the foregoing, to six. How many kinds are there of not dying and being reborn in the formless realm? The answer: four, namely, ordinary persons and noble ones in both the desire and form realms. One asks: this ought to number seven — for what reason does it say four? That is: dying in the desire realm and being reborn in the desire realm, as an ordinary person or a noble one; dying in the desire realm and being reborn in the form realm, as an ordinary person or a noble one; dying in the form realm and being reborn in the form realm, as an ordinary person or a noble one; and dying in the form realm and being reborn in the desire realm, as an ordinary person — these being seven in number, why does it speak of only four? The answer: since these share the same kind, only four are stated. That is, dying in the desire realm and being reborn in the desire realm as an ordinary person, and dying in the form realm and being reborn in the desire realm as an ordinary person — these two, although distinct, share the same kind as ordinary persons in the desire realm, and are therefore spoken of together as one. Dying in the desire realm and being reborn in the form realm as an ordinary person, and dying in the form realm and being reborn in the form realm as an ordinary person — these two, although distinct, share the same kind as ordinary persons in the form realm, and are therefore spoken of together as one. Dying in the desire realm and being reborn in the form realm as a noble one, and dying in the form realm and being reborn in the form realm as a noble one — these two, although distinct, share the same kind as noble ones in the form realm, and are therefore spoken of together as one. What remains is the noble one in the desire realm, counted separately, bringing the total, together with the foregoing, to four. Is there a case of dying in the desire realm and not being reborn in the desire realm? And so on, at full length. What is stated here differs from what came before in that it speaks of not being reborn strictly in the sense of excluding a rebirth-existence — even should an intermediate-state arise, this too is spoken of as not being reborn. Is there a case of dying in the desire realm and not being reborn in the desire realm? The answer: there is —

namely, one who, dying in the desire realm, gives rise to an intermediate-state being in the desire or form realm, and is then reborn in the formless realm, or else attains final nirvāṇa. As for giving rise to an intermediate-state being in the desire or form realm: this refers to one who, dying in the desire realm, gives rise to an intermediate-state being in the desire or form realm — although this arises within the desire realm, since it is not a rebirth-existence, it is said that he is not reborn in the desire realm. As for being reborn in the formless realm: this refers to one who, dying in the desire realm, is reborn in a formless-realm rebirth-existence — since this does not take place in the desire realm, it is said that he is not reborn in the desire realm. As for attaining final nirvāṇa: this refers to one who, dying in the desire realm, has exhausted every contaminant and thereupon attains final nirvāṇa — being never reborn again at all, it is said that he is not reborn in the desire realm. The remaining text's own detailed explanation should be understood exactly as before.

One asks: for one who, dying in the formless realm, is reborn in the desire or form realm, at what place does that intermediate-state manifest itself as presently existing? There are those who say: it manifests at the fourth dhyāna. The compilers say: this ought not to be said, for what reason? Were the formless realm to possess any spatial location, this might be said — but the formless realm possesses no spatial location whatsoever, so for what reason would it reach all the way to the fourth dhyāna? Other masters say: if, from that same formless realm, one dies and is reborn in the formless realm, the intermediate-state manifests itself at that very same spatial location. This too ought not to be said in this way, for what reason? Were this said, how, then, could one dying in the formless realm and being reborn in the formless realm be accounted for at all? One should say as follows: as for one who, dying in the desire or form realm, is reborn in the formless realm, or, dying in the formless realm, is reborn in the formless realm — in these cases, no intermediate state manifests at all; but when one, dying in the formless realm, is reborn in the desire or form realm, that same intermediate-state manifests itself as presently existing precisely at the very place of rebirth itself.

How many kinds are there of dying in the desire realm and not being reborn in the desire realm? The answer: six, namely, ordinary persons and noble ones across all three realms, and so on, at full length. One asks: for what reason does this not mention the case of attaining final nirvāṇa? The answer: that it ought to be mentioned, yet is not mentioned, should be understood to carry a further meaning here. Further, this passage speaks of one who dies and thereafter receives a further rebirth; one who attains final nirvāṇa, having died, is never reborn at all, and it is for this reason that this case is not mentioned here. Further, this nyāsa raises its questions and answers with reference to sentient beings, to persons — one who attains final nirvāṇa relinquishes the very class of being a sentient being and falls instead into the class of mere dharmas, no longer able to be designated a person at all, and it is for this reason that this case is not mentioned here. What follows should be understood by this same principle.

Is there a case of dying in the desire realm and not being reborn in any of the three realms at all? The answer: there is — namely, one who, dying in the desire realm, gives rise to an intermediate-state being in the desire or form realm, or else attains final nirvāṇa, and so on, at full length. Here too, this treatise speaks with reference to excluding a rebirth-existence — both giving rise to an intermediate-state existence and attaining final nirvāṇa are, alike, named not being reborn. How many kinds are there of dying in the desire realm and not being reborn in any of the three realms? The answer: four, namely, ordinary persons and noble ones in the desire and form realms — that is, one who, dying in the desire realm, gives rise to an intermediate-state being in the desire or form realm. How many kinds are there of dying in the form realm and not being reborn in any of the three realms? The answer: three, namely, ordinary persons in the desire realm, and ordinary persons and noble ones in the form realm — that is, one who, dying in the form realm, gives rise to an intermediate-state being in the desire or form realm. How many kinds are there of dying in the formless realm and not being reborn in any of the three realms? The answer: two, namely, ordinary persons in the desire and form realms — that is, one who, dying in the formless realm, gives rise to an intermediate-state being in the desire or form realm; only ordinary persons are mentioned here, since a noble one is never reborn in a realm or stage lower than his own.

Is there a case of one who, not yet free of the desire realm's own defilement, dies and yet is not reborn in the desire realm? And so on, at full length. One asks: for what reason is this treatise composed? The answer: in order to put a stop to other schools and to display the correct principle. That is, there are those who say that merely suppressing affliction likewise suffices for a higher rebirth, as the Dārṣṭāntikas hold — in order to put a stop to this position, this treatise displays that merely suppressing affliction does not suffice for a higher rebirth, and that only by fully cutting off the afflictions of the lower stage does one attain a higher rebirth, and it is for this reason that this treatise is composed. The Vibhajyavādins, who deny the intermediate state outright, become thoroughly confused when faced with questions such as these — holding that one not yet free of a given stage's own defilement, upon dying, is reborn neither in that stage nor in any lower stage. Whoever accepts the intermediate state, however, becomes confused by no such questions, since these questions speak with reference to excluding a rebirth-existence alone. One asks: how can it be known that one not yet free of a lower stage's own defilement cannot be reborn in a higher stage? The answer: because a lower stage's own affliction obstructs a higher stage's own virtues, and, not yet having attained the higher stage's own fundamental virtue, one is not reborn there.

Were one to hold that merely suppressing a lower stage's own affliction already suffices for a higher rebirth, then whoever, by the power of the desire realm's own wisdom born of hearing and reflection, suppresses affliction, ought never to be reborn in any of the nine stages across the three realms at all, since the power of wisdom born of hearing and reflection is capable of suppressing the affliction of all nine stages across the three realms, preventing it from arising — and yet this is manifestly not so, since it is not the power of wisdom born of cultivation alone that suppresses affliction and prevents it from manifesting in operation; the wisdom born of hearing and reflection, discerning the dharmas by hearing and reflection and thereby suppressing affliction, never surpasses the wisdom born of cultivation in this respect.

How many kinds are there of one who, not yet free of the desire realm's own defilement, dies and is not reborn in the desire realm? The answer: two, namely, ordinary persons and noble ones in the desire realm, since one not yet free of the desire realm's own defilement is never reborn in a higher realm — there existing only ordinary persons and noble ones abiding within a desire-realm intermediate-state. How many kinds are there of one who, not yet free of the form realm's own defilement, dies and is not reborn in the desire or form realm? The answer: four, namely, ordinary persons and noble ones in the desire and form realms. One asks: this ought to number seven — for what reason does it say four?

That is: dying in the desire realm and being reborn in the desire realm, as an ordinary person or a noble one; dying in the desire realm and being reborn in the form realm, as an ordinary person or a noble one; dying in the form realm and being reborn in the form realm, as an ordinary person or a noble one; and dying in the form realm and being reborn in the desire realm, as an ordinary person — these being seven in number, why does it speak of only four? The answer: since these share the same kind, only four are stated. That is, dying in the desire realm and being reborn in the desire realm as an ordinary person, and dying in the form realm and being reborn in the desire realm as an ordinary person — these two, although distinct, share the same kind as ordinary persons in the desire realm, and are therefore spoken of together as one. Dying in the desire realm and being reborn in the form realm as an ordinary person, and dying in the form realm and being reborn in the form realm as an ordinary person — these two, although distinct, share the same kind as ordinary persons in the form realm, and are therefore spoken of together as one. Dying in the desire realm and being reborn in the form realm as a noble one, and dying in the form realm and being reborn in the form realm as a noble one — these two, although distinct, share the same kind as noble ones in the form realm, and are therefore spoken of together as one. What remains is the noble one in the desire realm, counted separately, bringing the total, together with the foregoing, to four. How many kinds are there of one who, not yet free of the formless realm's own defilement, dies and is not reborn in any of the three realms? The answer: four, namely, ordinary persons and noble ones in the desire and form realms. One asks: this ought to number nine — for what reason does it say four? That is: dying in the desire realm and being reborn in the desire realm, as an ordinary person or a noble one; dying in the desire realm and being reborn in the form realm, as an ordinary person or a noble one; dying in the form realm and being reborn in the form realm, as an ordinary person or a noble one; dying in the form realm and being reborn in the desire realm, as an ordinary person; dying in the formless realm and being reborn in the form realm, as an ordinary person; and dying in the formless realm and being reborn in the desire realm, as an ordinary person — these being nine in number, why does it speak of only four? The answer: since these share the same kind, only four are stated. That is, dying in the desire realm and being reborn in the desire realm as an ordinary person, and dying in the form or formless realm and being reborn in the desire realm as an ordinary person — these three, although distinct, share the same kind as ordinary persons in the desire realm, and are therefore spoken of together as one. Dying in the desire realm and being reborn in the form realm as an ordinary person, and dying in the form or formless realm and being reborn in the form realm as an ordinary person — these three, although distinct, share the same kind as ordinary persons in the form realm, and are therefore spoken of together as one. Dying in the desire realm and being reborn in the form realm as a noble one, and dying in the form realm and being reborn in the form realm as a noble one — these two, although distinct, share the same kind as noble ones in the form realm, and are therefore spoken of together as one. What remains is the noble one in the desire realm, counted separately, bringing the total, together with the foregoing, to four. Everything stated above concerning being reborn has, in every case, spoken with reference to the intermediate state, in the specific sense of excluding a rebirth-existence, and it is for this reason that this treatise is composed.